One for Creationists

I do not often 'lift' ideas for threads for TV shows but I recently saw a program on Discovery Science called "Dinosaurs: Return to Life" in which they discuss a Jurassic Park type possibility where they found soft tissue from a T-Rex. (This has been discussed already here)

This is all incredibly fascinating in itself but the thing that got my attention however is that they found that Bird DNA and Dino DNA are very similar and by modifying the DNA by turning on or off the right genes at the right stages of embryonic development, the could make a chickens tail grow longer, and even grow teeth. From this they theorised that it might be possible to 'recreate' an actual Dinosaur.

Technologies used in genetics show that "ancient traits that once belonged to dinosaurs" are being found in birds, including the ability to grow teeth, multi-vertebrated tails, scales and hands, according to the film.

"So all you have to do is find the genetic switches that fuse the vertebrae together, and fuse the hand to make a wing. It's even simpler than real genetic engineering."

Now this is where the Creationists might have a problem.

The above theory suggests that certain genes have been turned off or on over time resulting in the birds we have today which in essence is evolution….right?

“DINOSAURS: RETURN TO LIFE”

reply to post by VIKINGANT


Nope. Like any good engineer God reuses his successful designs. If I told you that I had a self replicating device whose functions were determined by a long encoded sequence, I'll bet your first assumption would be that the device was designed by a master engineer. Instead the evolutionists assume that the self replicated devices known as life, all happened by accident.

reply to post by SevenThunders


I personally subscribe to theistic evolution so techincally speaking life is in fact a self replicating device designed by a master engineer.

But this is basically directed to the hardened creationists who totally reject the enitre concept of evolution.

reply to post by VIKINGANT


I believe in natural selection but not in evolution per se. Natural selection is just another brilliantly engineered subsystem, within the whole reproductive machinery of life. I don't think natural selection by itself can explain the creative diversity of life, things like how multi-celled organisms appeared or how things like nervous systems and circulatory systems arose etc.

Like any good engineer God reuses his successful designs.

So... you don't believe your god is infallible?

Being an engineer, we re-use old designs, because we know if we try to re-engineer the whole thing... we're going to seriously screw up ALLOT of it.

We re-use designs because we know mistakes are going to be made, and quite frankly... everyone, even robotics engineers, are idiots at times.

So... your god is an idiot? Has to re-use designs because he thinks he's too incompetent to ensure he gets it right the second time?

I'm having trouble with that one. I was under the impression your god was supposed to be infallible.



Anywhoo, the religious are going to come in here with all the excuses they can create... yes, this is direct evidence of evolution. But we knew that back when we started messing with DNA in the first place.

Evolution is a fact. The theory is HOW it works... not IF.

Originally posted by SevenThunders
reply to post by VIKINGANT

 

Nope. Like any good engineer God reuses his successful designs.

So if I follow your logic, if God reuses his successful designs, that means that he has also unsuccessful designs as well.

And since, I assumed that you think that God is almighty and perfect, how could he comes up with unsuccessful designs?

All that to say, that the Creationist logic is a fraud, it is religion, not science.

Thankyou PopeyeFAFL, it's a relief to see others are thinking along rational lines as well.

So... that's two of us now who have riddled that with holes, any Creationists care to retort?

Originally posted by SevenThunders
reply to post by VIKINGANT

 

Instead the evolutionists assume that the self replicated devices known as life, all happened by accident.

Thats right it happened by accident I suggest you look into the Miller-Urey experiment.Methane (CH4), ammonia (NH3), hydrogen (H2), and water (H2O) were all present at the early stages of earth lightning struck around these elements and molecules and formed basic organic compounds neccesary for life.Under the right conditions DNA and RNA could be formed

[edit on 31-5-2008 by evolutionz]

[edit on 31-5-2008 by evolutionz]

reply to post by evolutionz


Thats right. It was thanks to those series of tests that we now know it's not just possible that life exists on planets other than earth... but it's a certainty. The only questions that remain are, where are they? And how long have they had to live in relation to our existence (ie, what level of intelligence can we assume they may have reached)?


I can't believe there are still people out there who think evolution is still up for discussion... how archaic are their textbooks? 1600's?

Evolution is proven. The reason it's still called a theory is because we haven't figured out the mathematical rules it follows to get to the end result. When we can predict mathematically, the next evolutionary movement of a cell with 100% certainty, then it stops being a theory.

As I keep repeating, but people just don't know how to read (probably why they don't understand evolution) Evolution is a fact... the theory is in HOW it works.
There is no question of IF.

[edit on 31-5-2008 by johnsky]