How DNA killed Evolution

I have another thread going that is about how many "scientists" created fake fossils to prove evolution. You can read that thread HERE. In that thread, people are desperate to talk about how life happened. Since that was not the purpose of that thread, I have decided to open the flood gates of discussion about how life began.

You can have a free for all here of science and religion regarding how life began. I only ask that personal insults and what is someone's agenda not be used on this thread. I would like an honest open discussion and not emotional hyperbole which would make this become a poo flinging contest which will not allow for discussion.

We are all adults, and I ask for your reasons of how life began. In the end, most of us who disagree will have to politely agree to disagree.

I believe in intelligent design because of how life works on the cellular level. I believe in species adaptation within the environment, but not species evolution to new species. I base this on the DNA issues. I am going to share these videos. If you don't watch them, then we cannot talk from a common point of reference.

This image is amazingly complex and it ties into the idea of irreducible complexity. It looks very much designed, and if taken with the videos below should give us reason to believe that life did not develop by chance or chance plus attraction, but by design.











I really enjoy this presentation on the origin of life:

Just to point out that the Flagellum "Irreducible Complexity" has been de bunked.



Oh and in a court of law in the USA in the Kitzmiller trial.

Sorry for my statements on your other thread Serenity. But it is hard to discuss evolution without talking about the beginning of life to give examples of my position. I saw how quickly the creation bashers jumped on your subject and I had a knee jerk reaction. I will watch these videos and respond later tonight. Keep up the good threads!

reply to post by boymonkey74


I think science needs to prove spontaneous production of DNA and life from lifeless raw material without using DNA of their own and without guiding the process.. If they could do that Evolution would look so much more likely.

As it stands Cell Theory is completely unrealistic:

1) All living organisms are composed of one or more cells.
2) The cell is the basic unit of structure, function, and organization in all organisms.
3) All cells come from preexisting, living cells

All cells come from other cells but were do those come from?

reply to post by UnifiedSerenity


So , we have been manufacturing fossils and planting them for centuries ... for what ? .... to pretend there is no magic man in the sky ? ... c'mon .

Originally posted by AthiestJesus
reply to post by UnifiedSerenity

 

So , we have been manufacturing fossils and planting them for centuries ... for what ? .... to pretend there is no magic man in the sky ? ... c'mon .

No, in order to take Darwin's observation of adaptation which he then proferred common ancestry which he thought would be found in the fossil record. It was not found and in order to offer proof, liars fabricated proof. I am not going to re-post the information on on the hoaxes. Read that thread.

reply to post by boymonkey74


Wow... So this guy says the bacteria has 50 parts. He starts off with 40. Takes away 30, to leave him with 10 parts. And then thinks that saying that 10 of the 50 parts are used in other ways in biology or are functional, debunks the initial statement. Why didnt he go through all 50 parts?

To the OP, if not evolution then what? Try to look at things from this perspective. Atoms exist. They have properties. Lots of atoms exist, and interact. After much interaction or time as some people call it, what you see around you is what has been the result. What is another way to see things, what do you think is potentially more true then that?

The only proof I need is that evolutionists believe everything we see and everything we are, including every detail on the above diagram, came from an explosion of nothing, by accident and that matter (which did not exist before or if it did can't be explained where it came from) drifted until it joined together spinning until a planet was formed around a sun (where did the sun come from?) and then heated and cooled and hello a microbe (where did that come from?) in a pond divided and hey presto .... here we are!!!!

And they call us stupid?

reply to post by MadMax7


Yea, not to mention the moon orbiting the earth...you cant explain that

reply to post by UnifiedSerenity


I don't think the Rapture is real.. Do you?
You have to answer honestly and if you do believe the Rapture
to be real.. then how can you present any logical
argument for creationism?

Originally posted by MadMax7
The only proof I need is that evolutionists believe everything we see and everything we are, including every detail on the above diagram, came from an explosion of nothing, by accident and that matter (which did not exist before or if it did can't be explained where it came from) drifted until it joined together spinning until a planet was formed around a sun (where did the sun come from?) and then heated and cooled and hello a microbe (where did that come from?) in a pond divided and hey presto .... here we are!!!!

And they call us stupid?

Your level of understanding TRULY scares me! Please
let there not be many of you... Oh right.. yes there are millions of you, who think like this..
We... as a species therfore are right royaly screwed..

MISCONCEPTION: Evolution is a theory about the origin of life.

CORRECTION: Evolutionary theory does encompass ideas and evidence regarding life's origins (e.g., whether or not it happened near a deep-sea vent, which organic molecules came first, etc.), but this is not the central focus of evolutionary theory. Most of evolutionary biology deals with how life changed after its origin. Regardless of how life started, afterwards it branched and diversified, and most studies of evolution are focused on those processes.


MISCONCEPTION: Evolutionary theory implies that life evolved (and continues to evolve) randomly, or by chance.

CORRECTION: Chance and randomness do factor into evolution and the history of life in many different ways; however, some important mechanisms of evolution are non-random and these make the overall process non-random. For example, consider the process of natural selection, which results in adaptations — features of organisms that appear to suit the environment in which the organisms live (e.g., the fit between a flower and its pollinator, the coordinated response of the immune system to pathogens, and the ability of bats to echolocate). Such amazing adaptations clearly did not come about "by chance." They evolved via a combination of random and non-random processes. The process of mutation, which generates genetic variation, is random, but selection is non-random. Selection favored variants that were better able to survive and reproduce (e.g., to be pollinated, to fend off pathogens, or to navigate in the dark). Over many generations of random mutation and non-random selection, complex adaptations evolved. To say that evolution happens "by chance" ignores half of the picture. To learn more about the process of natural selection, visit our article on this topic. To learn more about random mutation, visit our article on DNA and mutations.

evolution.berkeley.edu...

You don't even understand what you're *saying* about evolutionists.

reply to post by UnifiedSerenity


i study molecular biology in university and i have to let you know that that diagram is not very complex at all, it is a simple version to let us imagine it as something like the electric motor...in fact it is far more complex, but from this complexity we can see the detail of how it was formed by comparing the protein data/ genetic data to other proteins in the cell and other cells/ other organisms. we can see that these kinds of amazing things are the product of changes in things that were already there...you can actually see the mutations.

reply to post by ImaFungi


do you know what irreducibly complex even means?

reply to post by rigel4


Ummm are you going to explain why they are wrong. Or are you just here to disrespect other peoples point of view. If you have a higher understanding then please elaborate. I am here to learn new things.

reply to post by UnifiedSerenity


I'm not sure if you've read "Darwin's Black Box: The biochemical challenge to evolution", but if not I highly recommend it. It was my first exposure to the concepts of irreducible complexity and is a really fascinating read. I'm not a scientist by any measure, but the book makes some very compelling arguments for intelligent design.

Disclaimer: I'm not a Physicist, nor a Biologist. I'm only expressing my limited understanding of those sciences.

Originally posted by MadMax7
everything we see and everything we are, including every detail on the above diagram, came from an explosion of nothing

As I understand the current state of the "Big Bang" theory, THIS universe came from "everything", a particle of infinite mass.

The "Big Bang" does not pretend to explain the origin of everything, that's more in the realm of philosophy. They just deal with THIS universe.

Originally posted by MadMax7
and that matter (which did not exist before or if it did can't be explained where it came from) drifted until it joined together spinning until a planet was formed around a sun (where did the sun come from?)

Actually there are several steps to what you are trying to describe. At first there was only the most basic elements (Hidrogen, Helium and Lithium). Those elements formed the first generation of stars, which by processes you can read about, created the heavier elements. And then went BAM! In a very spectacular and, I might add, American way

I'm not sure if our home star is a 2nd or 3rd Generation star, but the idea is the same, from the ashes of previous stars our solar system was formed.

Originally posted by MadMax7
and then heated and cooled

t'was already quite hot to begin with. But again, it is a little more complex than that.

Originally posted by MadMax7
and hello a microbe (where did that come from?) in a pond divided and hey presto .... here we are!!!!

That part is what we are trying to understand right now. We do have several ideas: some propose that carbon-based life (us), it's the natural progression of certain, known and observable, pre-organic chemical processes (abiogenesis). Others propose that life on THIS planet is a continuation from a galaxy-wide organic cycle. (panspermia). Which clearly is compatible with pre-terrestrial abiogenesis.
Both are extremely cool.

Originally posted by MadMax7
And they call us stupid?

I don't know who "they" is. I'd call you uninformed, I don't know enough about you to say more.

Originally posted by MadMax7

Laughter is good. We agree on that.


About your premise: Evolutionary Biologists probably *do* agree with current cosmological understanding.

More species are extinct than are found alive today.
Where are the super protozoa...they would have had the longest time to perfect itself through natural selection.
Appendages changing to environment are adaptations of a species, where are the Species to Species jumps in evolution?
Why would a fish need to become a frog to survive? And wouldn't the hundreds of thousands of years possibly millions that pass by, change the environment for the original need for a fish to become a frog? Did the fish possess time travel capabilities to predict the environment a million years ahead to know it will need to change to an amphibian to match the future environment?
Why would an amphibian need to change to a bird to fly around and eat the other amphibians who didn't somehow change to birds in the very same environment?

Originally posted by TinfoilTP
More species are extinct than are found alive today.
Where are the super protozoa...they would have had the longest time to perfect itself through natural selection.
Appendages changing to environment are adaptations of a species, where are the Species to Species jumps in evolution?
Why would a fish need to become a frog to survive? And wouldn't the hundreds of thousands of years possibly millions that pass by, change the environment for the original need for a fish to become a frog? Did the fish possess time travel capabilities to predict the environment a million years ahead to know it will need to change to an amphibian to match the future environment?
Why would an amphibian need to change to a bird to fly around and eat the other amphibians who didn't somehow change to birds in the very same environment?

It's the other way around, I think.
The only reason "a fish became a frog" (sigh) it precisely because of the changes in the environment.
Did the earth knew when to "shake" in order to have an Everest today? Or did all the "shakes" that happened eventually formed the Everest?