How DNA killed Evolution

Originally posted by rigel4
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?

This is not a theological debate thread, but a "how did life start" thread. If you want to talk about Christian doctrine which, the rapture, has nothing to do with creation then you can start that thread. I doubt you will. Just so you know, I am not your "typical" bible thumping pew potato who regurgitates what my pastor says. I have studied the bible for nearly 30 years in it's original languages using tools. I tend to make a lot of Christians mad because much of what they are taught are silly traditions of man.

They are happy in their insulated ignorant worlds spreading disinformation, controlling others, and feeling morally superior all while not realizing their bible doesn't even say what their pastor teaches. Hell most Christians think Eve ate an apple.

Originally posted by boymonkey74
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.

edit on 13-8-2013 by boymonkey74 because: (no reason given)

Yeh, this moron doesn't even get that he no longer has a mouse trap



He also does not get that HE CHANGED the mousetrap which required intelligence to do that. Typical smoke and mirrors.



Behe has responded to this "debunking".

Mousetrap rebuttals have popped up in a variety of situations including national television, but most recently (June 2000) was at a conference I attended at Concordia University in Wisconsin where Kenneth Miller, professor of biology at Brown University, spent several minutes during his presentation attacking the mousetrap. In doing so he used images of mousetraps that were drawn by Professor John McDonald of the University of Delaware and can be seen on his web site[2] (reproduced below with permission). In defense of the mousetrap I will make a number of points, including: (1) McDonald’s reduced-component traps are not single-step intermediates in the building of the mousetrap I showed; (2) intelligence was intimately involved in constructing the series of traps[3]; if intelligence is necessary to make something as simple as a mousetrap, we have strong reason to think it is necessary to make the much more complicated machinery of the cell.

Conceptual Precursors vs. Physical Precursors

On his web site Professor McDonald was careful to make a critical distinction. He clearly stated “the reduced-complexity mousetraps . . . are intended to point out the logical flaw in the intelligent design argument; they’re not intended as an analogy of how evolution works.” Nonetheless Kenneth Miller discussed McDonald’s examples in a way that would lead an audience to think that they were indeed relevant to Darwinian evolution. Only at the end of the presentation did he briefly mention the disanalogy. I believe such tactics are disingenuous at best, like tagging a brief warning onto the end of a cigarette commercial containing attractive images. The purpose of the images is to get you to buy the cigarettes, despite the warning. The purpose of citing McDonald’s drawings is to get people to buy Darwinian evolution, despite the brief disclaimer.

The logical point Professor McDonald wished to make was that there are mousetraps that can work with fewer parts than the trap I pictured in my book. Let me say that I agree completely; in fact, I said so in my book (see below). For example, one can dig a steep hole in the ground for mice to fall into and starve to death. Arguably that has zero parts. One can catch mice with a glue trap, which has only one part. One can prop up a box with a stick, hoping a mouse will bump the stick and the box will fall on top of it. That has two parts. And so forth. There is no end to possible variation in mousetrap design. But, as I tried to emphasize in my book, the point that is relevant to Darwinian evolution is not whether one can make variant structures, but whether those structures lead, step-by-excruciatingly-tedious-Darwinian-step, to the structure I showed. I wrote[3]:

To feel the full force of the conclusion that a system is irreducibly complex and therefore has no functional precursors we need to distinguish between a physical precursor and a conceptual precursor. The trap described above is not the only system that can immobilize a mouse. On other occasions my family has used a glue trap. In theory at least, one can use a box propped open with a stick that could be tripped. Or one can simply shoot the mouse with a BB gun. However, these are not physical precursors to the standard mousetrap since they cannot be transformed, step-by-Darwinian-step, into a trap with a base, hammer, spring, catch, and holding bar.

Since I agree with Professor McDonald that there could be mousetraps with fewer parts, the only relevant question is whether the mousetraps he drew are physical precursors, or merely conceptual precursors. Can they “be transformed, step-by-Darwinian-step” into the trap I pictured (essentially the same structure as the fifth trap shown below), as some people have been led to believe? No, they can’t.

SOURCE

Originally posted by DeadSeraph
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.

I have not read it yet. I am in the middle of several projects including my own book.

Ah, the idea of where did the universe get it's start. The scientists love to talk about it expanding like a balloon and they show little heads full of much an image like this:



Ok, it's a nice idea but......

reply to post by UnifiedSerenity


Oh yeah, that honored and awarded scientific paper: "Guy inflating a balloon"...
I bet the actual science is a little more complex...

Don't get me wrong, no scientist nor me would say our current cosmological model is perfect or complete, but for us, science-sheeple, not knowing stuff is the awesome part.

Originally posted by drakus
reply to post by UnifiedSerenity

 

Oh yeah, that honored and awarded scientific paper: "Guy inflating a balloon"...
I bet the actual science is a little more complex...

Don't get me wrong, no scientist nor me would say our current cosmological model is perfect or complete, but for us, science-sheeple, not knowing stuff is the awesome part.

LOL, I liked it! I hope you did not miss my point. Science is supposed to be the discovery of truth and facts and not worry where they lead us. There are many problems with the theory of evolution and yet they act like there are none. Now, they are proposing aliens did it! Yes, it must be aliens! Anything but God.

Fyi, science is an ongoing process. By very definition science corrects itself continously. They might not know precisely everything about everything but they're working at it. Unlike theology which is the exact opposite. Theology stops people from asking questions and gives an answer "a cosmic turtle with the universe on it's back willed it to be so, so stop questioning us." is what they do.

The problem with debating evolution is it means different things to different people. Some take it to mean the total and complete debunking of a creator, while others see it as a form of life progression without a clear starting point. And still, others see it as a complete sham. Either way, it is one of the most interesting things to debate.

Personally, I take the stance that seems the most logical to me, supported by real science and fact.

It is clear that 'evolution' happens. But to what degree? I have never seen conclusive evidence of one species transforming in to another, never. Sure, I have seen evolutionary changes within a species but to date I have seen zero proof of species transformation, the kind necessary for evolution with regards to goop ---> life to have happened. Does this mean it has not happened? No, but without proof can anyone really be sure? 100%??

DNA is another clear indicator of creation over evolution. Even the way DNA always spirals in the same direction lends credibility towards intelligent design. Now does this mean 100% proof of intelligent design? No, but DNA sure does support it. And the more we learn about it, the more it becomes clear it simply can not possibly be spontaneous.

In a nut shell one has to believe in evolution on some levels of change, but to totally discount the possibility of intelligent design after taking everything in to account is embracing ignorance. You don't want to believe in God, a creator? I get that, so be it, but good science is looking at the evidence and trying to understand that, not taking a theory and then trying to fold in the "evidence".

If you are simply dead set on evolution with no possibility of a God/Creator then you are a fool. If you are dead set on thinking a Creator/God created everything without the possibility of evolution then you are equally ignorant. Their is evidence of BOTH to varying degrees that can not be denied.

At the end of the day, anyone who tells you that evolution is a proven theory and is complete in fact/proof is lying and/or misinformed. Anyone who negates evolution based on some ancient writings is equally in denial. The gaping holes in both theories are equally present despite what some wordsmiths would have you believe. In fact, I would think that most rational people who actually take the time to research this from both perspectives can only come to one conclusion, and that is the premise for a creator is getting harder and harder to deny the more we learn, not the other way around.

I just think the logical, rational person would keep an open mind and understand there is no clear winner in this debate, based on the evidence, yet...

reply to post by UnifiedSerenity


Heh, the aliens meme never get's old, BUT:

1) As you very well know, yes, i'm sure you're aware, what science says is that extraterrestrial life is not an impossibility. Therefore extraterrestrial meddling on earth is not an impossibility. But without any evidence, we can't say if it's likely or not.
2) An "alien" is a lifeform, like us, just "not from'roun'here".
3) By that definition WE are aliens to everyone outside earth.
4) In reality we are ALL native to this universe, so there's no point in forming a galactic KKK...

Originally posted by drakus

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?

There has always been less landmass than water on earth when fish were around, where is the pressing need to leave the water? If all life started in the oceans, there is more food supply in the oceans. Why leave a high food supply source for a lower food supply environment?
Today when lakes and inland seas dry up over centuries, the fish all just die off, they don't begin any evolutionary stages to morph into another species that is more adaptive to the environment. Find some real evidence instead of all this guess work. Evolution is supposed to be blind so don't come back with oh it takes thousands of years yadda yadda, the fish should start evolving, even a miniscule body chemistry change towards the amphibian, something. Show me the evolution. Evolution cannot produce evidence, it requires faith.

Originally posted by drakus
reply to post by UnifiedSerenity

 

Heh, the aliens meme never get's old, BUT:

1) As you very well know, yes, i'm sure you're aware, what science says is that extraterrestrial life is not an impossibility. Therefore extraterrestrial meddling on earth is not an impossibility. But without any evidence, we can't say if it's likely or not.
2) An "alien" is a lifeform, like us, just "not from'roun'here".
3) By that definition WE are aliens to everyone outside earth.
4) In reality we are ALL native to this universe, so there's no point in forming a galactic KKK...

You are correct, but that is just as plausible as an inter dimensional being who created it all we commonly called God. I just find it humorous that a vastly superior intelligence that comes from a far far away galaxy somehow is more believable as having traveled here millions of years ago (Wow how advanced are they now?) to create life and give DNA it's code. Oh wait... they just transplanted it from their special planet which then brings us back around to how life was created.

reply to post by UnifiedSerenity

Now, they are proposing aliens did it! Yes, it must be aliens! Anything but God.

so, what I hear you saying is that if the answer is anything but "god", you will not be satisfied?

I thought prerequisite to discussion in this thread is lack of agenda...

Originally posted by UnifiedSerenity

Originally posted by drakus
reply to post by UnifiedSerenity

 

Heh, the aliens meme never get's old, BUT:

1) As you very well know, yes, i'm sure you're aware, what science says is that extraterrestrial life is not an impossibility. Therefore extraterrestrial meddling on earth is not an impossibility. But without any evidence, we can't say if it's likely or not.
2) An "alien" is a lifeform, like us, just "not from'roun'here".
3) By that definition WE are aliens to everyone outside earth.
4) In reality we are ALL native to this universe, so there's no point in forming a galactic KKK...

You are correct, but that is just as plausible as an inter dimensional being who created it all we commonly called God. I just find it humorous that a vastly superior intelligence that comes from a far far away galaxy somehow is more believable as having traveled here millions of years ago (Wow how advanced are they now?) to create life and give DNA it's code. Oh wait... they just transplanted it from their special planet which then brings us back around to how life was created.

Why?
We DO know that intelligent conscious lifeforms that use technology to shape the world around them can exist (us), why is that unbelievable?

And in any case, all I'm saying is that it is not impossible, how hard is it to understand?
There are MANY possibilities other than that to explain how we came to be.
Why focus on this one?

Originally posted by tgidkp
reply to post by UnifiedSerenity

 

Now, they are proposing aliens did it! Yes, it must be aliens! Anything but God.

so, what I hear you saying is that if the answer is anything but "god", you will not be satisfied?

I thought prerequisite to discussion in this thread is lack of agenda...

You can't see that they will jump to aliens from Andromeda or Sirius is just as big a leap to God? Really? Amazing lack of honesty here by evolutionists.

Very well, let's take aliens out of the equation.
Let's pretend for a moment that we do not have factual evidence of INTELLIGENT BEINGS LIVING IN THIS GALAXY.
What about all the other proposed explanations?

and more important, way more important:
What explanation DO YOU think is more likely about our origins as living chunks of matter?

I think science needs to prove spontaneous production of DNA

As soon as you prove the spontaneous appearance of an omnipotent yet invisible god.

I never buy into the irreducible complexity arguments because they said the same thing about our eyes, yet we can see a that there's a whole range of eyes from very simple light sensing organs to highly complex color vision.

reply to post by UnifiedSerenity


Great call the guy a moron for showing how it really works...
Look If you had even bothered to watch ID on trial you would have seen that it went through the courts and science won and evolution won, not ID or creationism..science and evolution did.
All the evidence was put forward to a judge and he decided it on the evidence, If you want to just call people names because they have blown your OP out of the water fair enough...
Why do you need to start a fight or war with every thread you make? evolutionists are not starting the war because we have science to back up our claims..you have nothing.
Go ahead and cry again to the mods eh? appears to me you love playing the victim.

I am still amazed at the amount of work the creationist go through to try to "prove" that their ancient mistranslated book is "scientific" The need to understand a topic before you misquote it would seem to be only responsible. DNA is the mechanism for evolution.It works due to the interactions of random events both in the DNA of individuals and the environment. Those individuals who have variations in the DNA may have a minor advantage to survive and reproduce. These minor changes over millions of years causes the species to adapt to the changes in the environment. There is significant geological record of this but you would have to read more than one book to find it.
I do understand the need for creationist to fight the natural laws. If everything worked through natural laws and the random events that the universe runs on then they wouldn't feel so special. It is a clear cut case of arrogance. " I am made in god image. my book says so. But if god had set up natural laws and I was just a part of that I wouldn't be special"
So, here is the real problem, science shows that god,or kinder nature set up natural laws (like the theory of gravity) so that the universe wouldn't need to be micromanaged (as the creationist believe) . If a god did set up a system where he had to be the janitor to keep it running every day and be the servant of his creations then he would need to read up more on how to design a more intelligently universe, and would definitely not be very impressive.
I also find the idea that just because the systems used in living organisms are too complicated for some people to grasp must prove the existence of a god to only be the proof of a belief in self impressed ignorance.
Consider that we understand these system because we have studied the biochemistry of living cells. This is where modern science is at. Unlike the creationist, science will tell you we do not have all the answers yet; science is a process and not an end. However, science is constantly learning and advancing whereas the creationist is stagnantly stuck in an eon before electricity and an understanding that there are other planets or even molecules. The writers of the religious text even disregarded the scientific knowledge of their own time; so, I do not see how it could be relevant to scientific principals that those writers couldn't have even know about.

reply to post by Magister1


Have you ever heard of paragraph breaks? I'd like to read what you said, but why bother if it all runs together. Please space the paragraphs.