Intelligent Design; Does Modern Genetic Research Mean Darwin's THEORY of Evolution Belongs In The..

Brotherman
So in other words this is more of a procedure then a naturally occurring phenomenon? If done unassisted I wonder if this will help or hurt the injured?

Yes, it is a typical procedure used to correct scoliosis. Surgeons will remove the excess bone and implant foam scaffolding which allows the bone to regrow to close to its normal shape and curvature. Without out the implant the bones are often misaligned and brittle. Another aspect to keep in mind is that they do not remove the entire rib, only the portion that is affecting the person's posture and appearance so often times a section is removed, this is what enables the bone to grow along the scaffold, it is not growing from 'scratch' from a totally removed rib bone.

reply to post by AugustusMasonicus


I understand this, what I was driving at for clarity is, I guess most simply put, this problem does not correct itself without intervention procedure and without this surgery the rib as is would more then likely hurt the person versus operated on, right??

Brotherman
I understand this, what I was driving at for clarity is, I guess most simply put, this problem does not correct itself without intervention procedure and without this surgery the rib as is would more then likely hurt the person versus operated on, right??

I am not a surgeon but I had a family member get this corrective surgery. Scoliosis does not 'correct itself' and in some cases requires a medical procedure to alleviate, it is more of a appearance factor than one of discomfort. I think if you did not get the surgery you would not be 'hurt' physically but you would have a noticeable lump or lumps where the ribs were affected most.

reply to post by AugustusMasonicus


Ok, got it, thanks for the clarity

reply to post by Brotherman


Hi brotherman.

I appreciate you doing all this research. It is important to look at both sides.

I have read a lot of stuff from the institute of creation research and i know of this brian thomas guy and i have to say that they are all a very special kind of special. They claim every new scientific discovery is proof of god. You will get no facts from these quacks. They are the westboro church of science. They fake and twist everything. Read some more of their stuff. It is pretty evident what their slant on everything is. Most of these folks are taught at christian schools their whole life. You couldnt convince them of real science if you set them on fire with it. These are the guys who put on the creation museum, which is a hoot. And i wont say all of them are young earth creationists, but i have heard many an argument from their camp about it.

As far as them finding any soft tissue fossils? Idk. Osteocytes are like the scaffolding for blood vessels. sometimes they look like you can get some usable dna from them but there is nothing there. Im not sure about the chemistry of organic pigments and how long it takes to break down but if we take brians own words on it.

To assert, as the authors did, that these molecular feather remnants survived for 150 million years stretches credulity and even logic way past the breaking point.

Its this way with just about everything they say. Im surprised he doesnt start talking in tongues by the end of the article.

If you want to know more about osteocytes along with a fascinating talk by a guy who not only understands dna and genetics but also spends a considerable amount of time digging up fossils try. On youtube

Jack horner, building a dinosaur from a chicken.

This is about a 15 min long speech at a TED convention.


Here is brian thomas' bio.

www.icr.org...

reply to post by Woodcarver


I will most certainly check him out, I came across his name a few times already. Thanks for the opinion as well I do not like much sifting through bias leanings but so far this is all I am getting mostly from other camps not to say that the evolution camp doesn't have it as well, there's is just a bit harder to understand lol.



Its linked for others now as well!

reply to post by edmc^2


I'm curious... Why is it so repugnant that God would create man from evolution, but ok to dig up a hand full of dirt and make him?

The bottom line is intelligent design is just that no matter the tool used, would you not agree. Personally I see a level of elegance in creating something that takes 4 billion years to make than some thing more like a cheap parlor trick in having something appear out of basically thin air.

Once again you can quote scriptures, but none of it talks of "how:" man was created, so why do you debate the how?

reply to post by Brotherman


The truth is in the technical language of each specific science. This is the massive problem trying to convince people who just cant understand why science is right. Most people dont know what an osteocyte is. People dont speak the language. Their eyes gloss over and they want it in laymans terms. But laymans terms dont explain what they need to understand. So then your really just handing them a strawman to attack.

Everybody wants to make their own claims of what science "says" so they can use the argument that they have been saving up for when the time is right. Or worse repeat something that Joel olsteen, william lane craig, friggin kirk cameran, or that other guy with the bannana, said.

tsingtao

yeah, random and then, ta daaaaa!!
btw, what ARE His universal laws?

have you seen the 2014 dolphin iphone?

Ya give or take 70 million years and ta da!

I don't know...would you not say that if there was intelligent design that the natural laws of our universe are his creation? If I'm wrong so be it, but please explain why...

Can we communicate with dolphins now? Their math capabilities must exceed ours BTW...

Woodcarver
reply to post by Brotherman

 

The truth is in the technical language of each specific science. This is the massive problem trying to convince people who just cant understand why science is right. Most people dont know what an osteocyte is. People dont speak the language. Their eyes gloss over and they want it in laymans terms. But laymans terms dont explain what they need to understand. So then your really just handing them a strawman to attack.

Everybody wants to make their own claims of what science "says" so they can use the argument that they have been saving up for when the time is right. Or worse repeat something that Joel olsteen, william lane craig, friggin kirk cameran, or that other guy with the bannana, said.

Your not referring to "Bananas in Pajamas" are you I know exactly what you mean, I made a lengthy post about this same phenomenon in another thread on the lines of this thread earlier today. Not everyone is a scientist. It is frustrating trying to sift through it and ask questions to people that can explain it better but it is worth it, trust me I know. The two biggest factors I came across thus far is in the genes and cosmological in regards to ID vs Darwin, I still see no reason why a creator cannot exist however this is where I am gaining the most compelling evidence as most of the good science discount it completely to study the processes of biological life, I am beginning to see where they are coming from and I think this is probably where the biggest confusions are taking place as well.

reply to post by Brotherman

Haha no i actually was refering to ray comfort.

There is actually a much better vid of jack horner going into better detail of the atavisms and how they stop them. He is speaking at a ted convention. The one you posted i think is an earlier lecture on the same speech.

I would post it myself but i have no idea how.

reply to post by Revolution9


Wow! You made me post again here on ATS after two years of just lurking...Lol. I watched the whole video, I was skeptical in the beginning but when they asked Richard Dawkins this question to which he was totally dumbfounded... my jaw just dropped:

"Can you give an example of a genetic mutation or evolutionary process that seem to increase the information in the genome?"


From what I understood, in the law of inheritance, we can only inherit that which already exist. So if we truly evolved from a single cell organism, how do we explain the gigantic amount of information in our DNA now? They will say because of mutation, them we will ask the question: Do we have an example of a genetic mutation or evolutionary process that seem to increase the information in the genome?

Wow! Thanks for sharing this video!

reply to post by boniknik


There are lots of things that can add to your genome. Every time you get a virus, your genome changes a little. When you have kids, they acquire code from both parents. So there is huge variation of what you might acquire. All mutations are altering your lineages dna.

This is actually a silly question because your genome is always changing. Your dna will be different from when you were a small child. Otherwise your body would always look like that of a child.

reply to post by Woodcarver


Yes I've actually watched them both and another on a spider killing a bee just cause it looked cool

This one won't link Jack Horner




In the other thread been discussing the method of this genetically, kind of. Very interesting material it is super relative as I have been reading (trying to read and grasp) the technical processes of this. Thank you for the tip!

reply to post by Xtrozero


So as not to derail this thread further and offend the OP - it's best that I create my own thread dealing EXCLUSIVELY with Creation.

Not ID, not YEC or Creationism but strict Creation - meaning The Creator of the universe and life.

Woodcarver
reply to post by boniknik

 

There are lots of things that can add to your genome. Every time you get a virus, your genome changes a little. When you have kids, they acquire code from both parents. So there is huge variation of what you might acquire. All mutations are altering your lineages dna.

This is actually a silly question because your genome is always changing. Your dna will be different from when you were a small child. Otherwise your body would always look like that of a child.

I agree that every time you get a virus your genome CHANGES a little. I also agree about variations and mutations that ALTER the lineages of DNA, and true enough our genome is always CHANGING but I believe that's not what the question was all about otherwise my jaw would have not dropped nor Richard Dawkins be dumbfounded by the question.

The question was "Can you give an example of a genetic mutation or evolutionary process that seem to INCREASE the information in the genome?"

Better yet, on the second video posted, Can we actually give an example of a fossil or any evidence of a "transitional" specie? As far as I know that missing link hasn't been found.

Woodcarver
reply to post by Brotherman

 

The truth is in the technical language of each specific science. This is the massive problem trying to convince people who just cant understand why science is right. Most people dont know what an osteocyte is. People dont speak the language. Their eyes gloss over and they want it in laymans terms. But laymans terms dont explain what they need to understand. So then your really just handing them a strawman to attack.

Well, maybe that's the problem God has. He may have been willing to go into depth but at some point said..."You know what, just tell them man was made from clay or dirt or something. He is to stupid to explain the whole thing to."

Xtrozero
reply to post by edmc^2

 

I'm curious... Why is it so repugnant that God would create man from evolution, but ok to dig up a hand full of dirt and make him?

Once again you can quote scriptures, but none of it talks of "how:" man was created, so why do you debate the how?

Its not so much a repugnancy as it is the presents of interdictions in the processes and the presents of things that go beyond the ability of evolution.....or just about anything....to understand.

For one the creation of Adam is mentioned as being a separate event from the creation of animals. As well a super quality was added to man as it is said life was "breathed into him" giving man the super spiritual and intellectual capacity to have a higher relationship with his creator than the animals have, speech being one of those markers.

Mans relationship with animals was said to be much different than it is now. At some point man was given charge of the animals to the point that man was given authority to name them even. The relationship was peaceful. There was however and interdictory event where man lost this standing and animals became fearful or no longer recognized respect for man in most cases. Some even came to see man as just another source of meat to eat.

Evolution cannot answer these things whatever it can determine to be some relationship genetically between man and animals or animals and animals. Creational history however addresses these higher problems which not even evolutional science can deal with being a nuts and bolts sort of examination.

reply to post by Logarock


So your reasoning is that you dont understand how evolution works and because science disagrees with the bible.

That is all you got?

reply to post by edmc^2


Sure thing. I'll see you over there.