.
One of the latests ICR articles on some Artificial DNA Molecule :

Recently ... Japanese chemists have discovered how to mimic DNA ... According to the American Chemical Society, "The researchers used high-tech DNA synthesis equipment to stitch together four entirely new, artificial bases inside of the sugar-based framework of a DNA molecule. This resulted in unusually stable, double-stranded structures resembling natural DNA." .... If high-tech equipment is required simply to mimic DNA, then how much more "high tech" must the mind and power of God be for inventing it?

My comments :

It is totally irrelevant in the case of artificial DNA to refer to the ICR's claims of "Godly involvement" in design of real natural DNA.
Trillions upon trillions upon trillions upon trillions upon trillions upon trillions upon trillions upon trillions upon trillions upon trillions upon trillions upon trillions upon trillions of cells daily use natural DNA to produce new cells. Without any need for any high-tech equipment.

All that these Japanese chemist prove is that it is not easy to develop a simple DNA structure for data storage.
No wonder of course, as it took nature more than 3.500.000.000 years to perfect the DNA process to what it is today.

But to see the hand of a not-proved-to-exist-entity in this all is a conclusion that shows that these Japanese chemists are a lot smarter than the staff of the ICR !

Link to the article : World's First Artificial DNA Molecule (Well, Almost) (http://www.icr.org/article/3954/)

ICR's First Intelligent Article ? No. Not even almost. Not even near ....

Any comments?

·

Just one. DNA is far from perfect. There are those trillions, etc mistakes also. That's why there are all those helper enzymes etc that help correct mistakes. Some of which can only do it for so long before accumulated mutations are no longer held in check. Then "miraculous" things can occur like rather significant changes that natural selection can choose as a better "design."

(Did I use enough key words to show that all those errors are, of course, part of the perfect Creator's plan?) ;)

There you go again Cred. Your beliefs are getting in the way of your judgment. One day you will see, and you will believe in Jehovah and His Son, Jesus the Christ.

(Did I use enough key words to show that all those errors are, of course, part of the perfect Creator's plan?) ;)

What gave you the impression that creation is supposed to be perfect? When a cell divides, its DNA is copied, sometimes with errors. Each animal and plant has machinery that identifies and corrects most errors; if it did not, the organism would deteriorate and become extinct. If evolution happened, which evolved first, DNA or its repair mechanism? Each requires the other.

Evolution is not even science, it is a materialist philosophy, imposed on the mass of humanity under the guise of science, and is ironically being defeated today by science itself. DNA refutes evolution.

So, am I to understand that you are not some magnificent machine like the rest of us? God created the human body to function so incredibly. We might someday figure it out, or we might not. Why spend your life worrying about how to prove or disprove something and find something to put your faith in. You seem to like to put your faith in yourself and your logic. I wonder, how will that hold up through the trials of life when you are faced with things you cannot explain?

You seem to like to put your faith in yourself and your logic. I wonder, how will that hold up through the trials of life when you are faced with things you cannot explain?I don't know about Cred but it's working great for me. I have a great wife and two great kids, my parents are visiting this week to help us out, the kids love them. We have good jobs and a nice set of friends. My golf game is awesome this summer. What else could I ask for?

John dear,

Thank you for posting about this interesting topic! I will have to devote some time to reading about the Japanese research. :)

To me is is not necessary to make up a huge supernatural superstructure to explain the unexplainable-which boils down to 'where did it all come from". :)

For people looking for a worldview type of life philosophy, which in Christianity is... that human beings are born sinful and they need to accept a savior to get back in favor with their god so they can live in happiness after they die... that is their chosen *belief*, albeit very negative and cruel, and they rejoice in their life's philosophy. That is their business.

However, any claims that their scriptures are truthful in any way pertaining to the origin of the Universe is strictly NOT TRUE and has been proven such. Science has superseded all the primitive guesses based on family structure(!) about the mechanics of the Universe, the age of the Universe and so forth.

Science has not proven that God does not exist. Science has not proven that evolution is true. It is still a theory. It is not law.

The Bible is God's stated law.

Science has not proven that God does not exist. Science has not proven that evolution is true. It is still a theory. It is not law.

The Bible is God's stated law.


Science has proved evolution as true as is possible. There are very few 'laws' in science. And, as I've said before, a scientific theory is NOT the same as a layman's theory hypothesis). It is built up upon much experimentation and observation and follows hypothesis in credibility -as in 'proven' over 'guess.'

The Bible is only God's law acc'd to Judaism and Christianity.

Science has proved evolution as true as is possible. There are very few 'laws' in science. And, as I've said before, a scientific theory is NOT the same as a layman's theory hypothesis). It is built up upon much experimentation and observation and follows hypothesis in credibility -as in 'proven' over 'guess.'

The Bible is only God's law acc'd to Judaism and Christianity.

Science has proven Micro evolution. However Science has not proven the superstitious theory of macro evolution.
You can't just make claims that something is fact but fail to provide conclusive irrefutable evidence for it. You and the other Dawinists have failed to provide such evidence and yet you continue to claim it is fact.. lol :rolleyes:

Sassy - I have provided numerous links to the evidence. You do not want to accept it since you have no understanding or no acceptance of the scientific method. There is absolutely no superstition in the sci method but you apparently need to think that to bolster your own solely religiously based ideas on the history of life on Earth. Until you can stop regurgitating ICR crap, I guess I'll just have to sigh with pity when I read your posts.

Sassy - I have provided numerous links to the evidence. You do not want to accept it since you have no understanding or no acceptance of the scientific method. There is absolutely no superstition in the sci method but you apparently need to think that to bolster your own solely religiously based ideas on the history of life on Earth. Until you can stop regurgitating ICR crap, I guess I'll just have to sigh with pity when I read your posts.

WV- Yes you have provided numerous links to evidence that supports MICRO evoltuion but I am yet to see any conclusive hard evidence for MACRO evolution that would qualify it as fact.
You have proved that a wolf and a dog share a common ancestor (micro) but you have not proved that the wolf and dog also share a common ancestor with carrots, grapes, bananas mice etc.(macro)
And again Macro evolution is not science... The essence of the scientific method is measurement, observation and repeatability. Macro can not be tested, for the simple reason that we cannot repeat, study or observe it in the laboratory

Micro evolution on the other hand is science and has been observed in nature and in the laboratory. It is Darwinists like yourself who make the "inference" or "leap of faith" that micro evolution will lead to macro despite the fact that there is zero evidence for this.

Sassy - you occasionally talk a good talk but it is hot air. It shows a lack of true understanding of the scientific method. All you do is parrot definitions.

Sassy - you occasionally talk a good talk but it is hot air. It shows a lack of true understanding of the scientific method. All you do is parrot definitions.

WVH.. lol It seems you are just frustrated because you have realised that all the so called "evidence" you thought you had to qualify macro evolution as fact, has turned out to be evidence for only micro. If you are able to give me 100% irrefutable conclusive evidence that a wolf and a carrot share a common ancestor, then I will no longer refuse to acknowledge Macro evolution as fact. Until then I will just view your claim that "Macro evolution is fact" as a declairation of FAITH.
So please... I challenge you to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that Macro evolution is fact. ;)

100% irrefutable conclusive evidenceGive such evidence about anything at all, I dare you. How about that gravity exists, or that the earth orbits the sun, or that human babies come from human females. Give 100% irrefutable conclusive evidence of such things. Your refusal to do so would show that you cannot prove anything and that you refute any evidence that you do not agree with.

At this point in time to disprove evolution with all of the facts that back it up it would require one of three things.

1.) A long dead fossilized creature that has human tool marks in the fossils. As in if humans and T-Rexs lived together as the bible says surely people would have been attacked and defended themselves from T-Rexes. A fossilized human with T-Rex teeth marks would also work.

2.) Find a mechanism in a cell or species that limits the amount of change that can occur. It has been proven in a lab that new information can be added to DNA prove that there is a limit to how many times this can occur that would prevent that species from changing over time.

3.) Find a theory that fits the facts better.

At this point in time to disprove evolution with all of the facts that back it up it would require one of three things.

1.) A long dead fossilized creature that has human tool marks in the fossils. As in if humans and T-Rexs lived together as the bible says surely people would have been attacked and defended themselves from T-Rexes. A fossilized human with T-Rex teeth marks would also work.

2.) Find a mechanism in a cell or species that limits the amount of change that can occur. It has been proven in a lab that new information can be added to DNA prove that there is a limit to how many times this can occur that would prevent that species from changing over time.

3.) Find a theory that fits the facts better.

You have it twisted. The three you listed above would not disprove evolution... it would just, at best, prove creation. Not the same thing

Let me tell you what Darwinists would need to PROVE Macro evolution.

1. Fossil evidence that shows "transitional creatures" that can be distiguished from extinct lineages. So far all fossils that have been found are fully formed species and show no evidence of a intermediat ancestor.

2. Darwinists will have to prove that random mutations in DNA add "new" information to a species. Random mutation do occur that may cause a variation; for example a random mutation in Human hair may creat hair of a different color or texture however is there any evidence that a random mutation in human can create feathers or tenticles? SO to prove macro, Darwinsists would have to prove that mutations do add "new" information to a species like my example; a baby born with feathers or tenticles instead of hair.

3. Darwinsist will have to prove the existence of a promodial soup out of which an amoeba crawled out and is supposedly the mother of all living things.
Science has proved that animals such as wolfs and Dogs may have shared a common canine ancestor (micro) however darwinists will have to prove that these animals also share a common ancestor with carrots, bananas, palm trees etc.(macro)

1.)Scientists discover frogamander fossil | Science | Reuters (http://www.reuters.com/article/scienceNews/idUSN2134298920080522)
Flatfish Evolution Revealed : Discovery News : Discovery Channel (http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2008/07/10/flatfish-evolution.html)

2.)Bacteria make major evolutionary shift in the lab - life - 09 June 2008 - New Scientist (http://www.newscientist.com/channel/life/dn14094-bacteria-make-major-evolutionary-shift-in-the-lab.html)
And what about human babies born with a tail. Is that new information being added because humans don't have a tail or is that old information showing up as in we came from a creature with a tail?

3.) Doesn't number 1 prove number 3. Except for that whole amoeba part amoeba's are actually pretty complex the fist sign of life wasn't nearly that complex and there probably wasn't just one.

Michealb:


https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/religious-discussions/evolution-origin-universe-religion-236939.html#post1148388


From your link:


Neither of the key fossils rediscovered by Friedman had been examined with modern scientific tools for fear of causing damage.



So they jump to conclusions yet have not used modern scientific tools?:confused:

One of the latests ICR articles on some Artificial DNA Molecule :

Recently ... Japanese chemists have discovered how to mimic DNA ... According to the American Chemical Society, "The researchers used high-tech DNA synthesis equipment to stitch together four entirely new,artificial bases inside of the sugar-based framework of a DNA molecule. This resulted in unusually stable, double-stranded structures resembling natural DNA." .... If high-tech equipment is required simply to mimic DNA, then how much more "high tech" must the mind and power of God be for inventing it?

My comments :

It is totally irrelevant in the case of artificial DNA to refer to the ICR's claims of "Godly involvement" in design of real natural DNA.
Trillions upon trillions upon trillions upon trillions upon trillions upon trillions upon trillions upon trillions upon trillions upon trillions upon trillions upon trillions upon trillions of cells daily use natural DNA to produce new cells. Without any need for any high-tech equipment.

All that these Japanese chemist prove is that it is not easy to develop a simple DNA structure for data storage.
No wonder of course, as it took nature more than 3.500.000.000 years to perfect the DNA process to what it is today.

But to see the hand of a not-proved-to-exist-entity in this all is a conclusion that shows that these Japanese chemists are a lot smarter than the staff of the ICR !


Any comments?

·


First, I would suggest to anyone to take a college 100 level biology course and learn about DNA transcription and translation to protein.

So intelligent human beings designed an artificial DNA.
They copied the original design of a sugar backbone and made artificial base pairs.

The question is can this "artificial" DNA function as the blueprint of life?

This is analogous to saying I can make an "artificial" car, based on a "real" car, made of clay instead of metal, plastics etc...

The question is, can this "artificial" clay car function as a "real car?" The only difference being, we know how to build a functional car. It took intelligence.

At the current state of science the closest thing to "reproducible life" that humans can build from scratch are computer viruses :mad: and of course babies :D .

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cred:

I bolded nature because that is your term.

How do you define "nature" and "natural selection?"

It is my belief that nature and natural selection may very well be God's work. :D

1.)[2.)Bacteria make major evolutionary shift in the lab - life - 09 June 2008 - New Scientist (http://www.newscientist.com/channel/life/dn14094-bacteria-make-major-evolutionary-shift-in-the-lab.html)
.


And the rebuttals :




Literature - On the evolution of a "key innovation" in Escherichia coli (http://www.arn.org/blogs/index.php/literature/2008/06/10/on_the_evolution_of_a_key_innovation_in)

It is at least worth asking the question whether the E.coli bacterium had, in the past, lost the ability to metabolise citrate and what we are now seeing is a restoration of that damaged system. If this were the case, we should not be talking about "a major evolutionary innovation" but rather about the way complex systems can be impaired by mutations.

As yet, it is not known what mutations were involved. But clearly, if there were two, and if the first was needed before the second could complete the job, the experiments demonstrate how difficult it is to achieve orchestrated changes...

These mutations are not only rare, they are also useless without the pre-existence of a biochemical system that can turn the products of mutation into something beneficial



Here is another



Michael Behe's Amazon Blog: Multiple Mutations Needed for E. Coli Permalink (http://www.amazon.com/gp/blog/post/PLNK3U696N278Z93O)

Now, wild E. coli already has a number of enzymes that normally use citrate and can digest it (it’s not some exotic chemical the bacterium has never seen before). However, the wild bacterium lacks an enzyme called a “citrate permease” which can transport citrate from outside the cell through the cell’s membrane into its interior. So all the bacterium needed to do to use citrate was to find a way to get it into the cell. The rest of the machinery for its metabolism was already there.





20 years, 44000 generations later, in a tightly controlled manmade environment
And this is all they can come up with :confused:


Where is the proof :confused:

If you are able to give me 100% irrefutable conclusive evidence that a wolf and a carrot share a common ancestor, then i will no longer refuse to acknowledge Macro evolution as fact. Untill then i will just view your claim that "Macro evolution is fact" as a declairation of FAITH.
So plse... i challange you to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that Macro evolution is fact. ;)

You're showing your ICR basis again. Right of hand I can't think of a single scientific theory or even law that has "100% irrefutable, conclusive evidence." So make up your mind. Do you want that 100% or do you want "beyond a shadow of a doubt"? They are not the same thing.

I'm working on it, since you refuse to educate yourself. If this question is closed, look under Other Science for evidence. (BTW, as a science major, I was surprised to find you've never posted on any science board.)

So you can begin to work on your ICRrefutes, the following is the source I'm using first:

<http://rc12.overture.com/d/sr/?xargs=15KPjg1mNSt5auwuf0L%5FiXEbqUkwwBnJW1%2Dsprf uR7baRaggZtUfYuPa7By%5FVIWu1mnAmjyPSW%5FNFgOqz2n%5 F%2DUFBCMQFCXG%2Df9yt2QwN57b%5Fv0B4ISl%2D59lai2y8A RYDpCOzHvb4Prk%5FK5EMYtCk496N5VwB2PrKZjn5ryj7JcT9W AhxE8rgi7Z5gSvOQkidqScZcIXOMPctmPwSvONNgAwcNq16rjI GRDdHD9pjZb8wTDOm899rGbLc5Kpuaux9vNKrDiiohTamWjxA% 2E%2E>

This article directly addresses the scientific evidences in favor of common descent and macroevolution

Whatever Michael Behe has to say on evolution is suspect. He is fully and ideologically fixed to ID and every single one of his ideas has been successfully refuted by credible scientists. His true colors were proved and his ideas refuted in court in Dover, PA.


And Sassy - yes, transitional fossils that show characteristics that are intermediate to others in later lifeforms have been identified. Not just once or twice but hundreds of them (tho I admit that most are marine). You just refuse to acknowledge them.

First, I would suggest to anyone to take a college 100 level biology course and learn about DNA transcription and translation to protein.

D

That's right, I think the problem we are facing here is we are dealing with people who don't know the first thing about biology, all they are relying on is copying and pasting Darwinists propaganda from the web but they don't even have the fundamental knowledge of biology to even know that they are posting.
Having at least a College 100 level Biology class would be really helpful for these guys.

[QUOTE=WVHiflyer]You're showing your ICR basis again. Right of hand I can't think of a single scientific theory or even law that has "100% irrefutable, conclusive evidence." So make up your mind. Do you want that 100% or do you want "beyond a shadow of a doubt"? They are not the same thing.

Lol gravity is pretty irrefutable.


I'm working on it, since you refuse to educate yourself. If this question is closed, look under Other Science for evidence. (BTW, as a science major, I was surprised to find you've never posted on any science board.)

You are the one who refuses to educate yourself. You should study Biology then maybe you will actually know what you are talking about instead of just following your Darwinist propaganda.


So you can begin to work on your ICRrefutes, the following is the source I'm using first:

<http://rc12.overture.com/d/sr/?xargs=15KPjg1mNSt5auwuf0L%5FiXEbqUkwwBnJW1%2Dsprf uR7baRaggZtUfYuPa7By%5FVIWu1mnAmjyPSW%5FNFgOqz2n%5 F%2DUFBCMQFCXG%2Df9yt2QwN57b%5Fv0B4ISl%2D59lai2y8A RYDpCOzHvb4Prk%5FK5EMYtCk496N5VwB2PrKZjn5ryj7JcT9W AhxE8rgi7Z5gSvOQkidqScZcIXOMPctmPwSvONNgAwcNq16rjI GRDdHD9pjZb8wTDOm899rGbLc5Kpuaux9vNKrDiiohTamWjxA% 2E%2E>

This article directly addresses the scientific evidences in favor of common descent and macroevolution

More darwinist propaganda... I could pull it up but I can already predict what it says.

lol gravity is pretty irrefutable.

All you keep doing is spewing your Newtonist propaganda. There is no concrete evidence for the THEORY of gravity. (Yes that's right, it's ONLY A THEORY). Anyone can see that the evidence clearly points to an intelligent force pushing objects down (http://www.theonion.com/content/node/39512).

After all we have more evidence for evolution than we do gravity. I mean we don't even know why things attract each other or where this force comes from or why it's so weak. We really know nothing about it other than things fall.

Whatever Michael Behe has to say on evolution is suspect. He is fully and ideologically fixed to ID and every single one of his ideas has been sucessfully refuted by credible scientists. His true colors were proved and his ideas refuted in court in Dover, PA.


And Sassy - yes, transitional fossils that show characteristics that are intermediate to others in later lifeforms have been identified. Not just once or twice but hundreds of them (tho I admit that most are marine). You just refuse to acknowledge them.

Please provide links to these so called transitions and also explain how these forms differ from exticnt lineages.

All you keep doing is spewing your Newtonist propaganda. There is no concrete evidence for the THEORY of gravity. (Yes that's right, it's ONLY A THEORY). Anyone can see that the evidence clearly points to an intelligent ???force pushing objects down (http://www.theonion.com/content/node/39512).


The fact that Gravitation occurs is an irrefutable scientific fact that's why I am sitting on this chair. If you are referring to theories of gravitation that is something different. But let me ask you something... How can a theory be a fact? :confused:

Whatever Michael Behe has to say on evolution is suspect. He is fully and ideologically fixed to ID and every single one of his ideas has been sucessfully refuted by credible scientists. His true colors were proved and his ideas refuted in court in Dover, PA.


And Sassy - yes, transitional fossils that show characteristics that are intermediate to others in later lifeforms have been identified. Not just once or twice but hundreds of them (tho I admit that most are marine). You just refuse to acknowledge them.



Dr Behe is a renown biochemist. The science is there.

Please post your biochemical resume wvhiflyer - do you have enough basic knowledge of bichemistry, genetics or cell biology to dispute a phD in their field :confused:

Whatever happened to tolerance of other scientific viewpoints? Or does darwinistic atheology prohibit you from doing so? ;)

After all we have more evidence for evolution than we do gravity. I mean we don't even know why things attract each other or where this force comes from or why it's so weak. We really know nothing about it other than things fall.

Yes we have an insurmountable amount of evidence for MICRO evolution. I have not seen one iota of evidence that supports MACRO evolution. So please, stop making empty claims and provide the conclusive evidence.

[QUOTE=WVHiflyer]You're showing your ICR basis again. Right of hand I can't think of a single scientific theory or even law that has "100% irrefutable, conclusive evidence." So make up your mind. Do you want that 100% or do you want "beyond a shadow of a doubt"? They are not the same thing.

WVH.. You are the one who was claiming MACRO evolution is a FACT. If you claim something is a fact, you better be prepared to provide 100% irrefutable conclusive evidence. For example the sky has blue appearance on a given clear sunny day. That is a fact that anyone who is not color blind can not refute. The evidence is 100% conclusive and irrefutable and is there to be observed so thus saying the sky has blue appearance on a given sunny day is an irrefutable factual statement.
So if you claim the theory that carrots and wolves share a common ancestor, is a fact, then you need to give me 100% conclusive, concrete evidence that I can not refute.

You can refute anything if you make stuff up and Michael Behe is a fraud and admitted so in court.

On cross-examination, Professor Behe admitted that: “There are no peer reviewed articles by anyone advocating for intelligent design supported by pertinent experiments or calculations which provide detailed rigorous accounts of how intelligent design of any biological system occurred.” (22:22-23 (Behe)). Additionally, Professor Behe conceded that there are no peer-reviewed papers supporting his claims that complex molecular systems, like the bacterial flagellum, the blood-clotting cascade, and the immune system, were intelligently designed.



If you are referring to the above from Wiki


The same can be said for evolutionary biology! :eek:

Is the flagella motor, or the coagulation cascade "provable" by evolutionists in the lab? Can they reproduce the evolutionary steps it took to develop these complex molecular pathways? :confused: Then neither evolution nor ID can be proven as science by that court's decision.

To think that judges, that have no formal biochemistry or cell biology training, determine what science is, is as fatuous as allowing, say, the Roman Catholic church determine what science was during Galileo's day. :cool:

But where is your, Michaelb, reply to the E Coli "evolution?" Or did you just read the headline and not understand what it meant? :cool:

20 years, 44,000 generations, a manmade controlled experiment, and yet they cannot identify the exact mutation that occurred! The pre-requisite machinery to metabolize citrate was already in place.


How is this proof of evolution, especially at a Macro level.:confused:

Something does not necessarily have to be repeatable to be accepted as scientific proof - to claim to have see actual genera evolving is ridiculous. What it does have to be is be testable. That can happen simply by using the theory to predict what would occur. That has happened many times in evolutionary studies and the predictions were correct each time. (And my evolutionarily evolved brain is already predicting your responses... )

Why is it "ridiculous?"

If I claim to have seen a mouse turn into a cat right before my very eyes, and it cannot be successfully repeated is that science? Is that proof? Is that your evidence for evolution?

No, that's not science. That's a reason to stop taking drugs or to see a doctor. You're confusing repeatability in experiments with testability.

"...universal common descent makes many specific predictions about what should and what should not be observed in the biological world, and it has fared very well against empirically-obtained observations from the past 140+ years of intense scientific investigation. "

"Simply put, the theory of universal common descent, combined with modern biological knowledge, is used to deduce predictions. ...In fact, if universal common descent were not accurrate, it is highly probable that these predictions would fail. These empirically validated predictions present such strong evidence for common descent for precisely this reason."

"The worldwide scientific research community from over the past 140 years has discovered that no known hypothesis other than universal common descent can account scientifically for the unity, diversity, and patterns of terrestrial life. This hypothesis has been verified and corroborated so extensively that it is currently accepted as fact by the overwhelming majority of professional researchers in the biological and geological sciences. No alternate explanations compete scientifically with common descent, primarily for four main reasons: (1) so many of the predictions of common descent have been confirmed from independent areas of science, (2) no significant contradictory evidence has yet been found, (3) competing possibilities have been contradicted by enormous amounts of scientific data, and (4) many other explanations are untestable, though they may be trivially consistent with biological data."

(above quotes from "29 Evidences for Macroevolution")

If you are referring to the above from Wiki


The same can be said for evolutionary biology! :eek:

Not so evolutionary biology has been peer reviewed for over 100 years. What your missing here is that everyone wants to disprove evolution. I would love to be the scientist who disproved evolution. It's one of the most tested and well established theories of our day. To prove it wrong would make you one of the biggest stars on the planet. The problem is once you study evolution, I mean really study it to the point where you know enough about it that you are qualified to be able to prove it wrong you understand why it's not wrong. Don't feel bad though I didn't understand evolution either at first. High school does a lousy job at teaching evolution after my high school class I really thought intelligent design was a better answer it wasn't till later that when I studied beyond that high school course that I understood evolution.



But where is your, Michaelb, reply to the E Coli "evolution?" Or did you just read the headline and not understand what it meant? :cool:

20 years, 44,000 generations, a manmade controlled experiment, and yet they cannot identify the exact mutation that occurred! The pre-requisite machinery to metabolize citrate was already in place.
I'm sure that you know one of the things that defines E Coli is it's inability to use citrate. Just because some of the enzyme were there, doesn't belittle the experiment.

How is this proof of evolution, especially at a Macro level.:confused:

Perhaps you should read Lenski's paper on subject or at least read his response to Conservapedia when they claimed the same thing your claiming right now. It's actually quite funny to read the writings from someone who actually has a degree in biology answering these same questions.
Conservapedia:Lenski dialog - Conservapedia (http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:Lenski_dialog)

I repeat my original topic starter once more :

One of the latests ICR articles on some Artificial DNA Molecule :

Recently ... Japanese chemists have discovered how to mimic DNA ... According to the American Chemical Society, "The researchers used high-tech DNA synthesis equipment to stitch together four entirely new, artificial bases inside of the sugar-based framework of a DNA molecule. This resulted in unusually stable, double-stranded structures resembling natural DNA." .... If high-tech equipment is required simply to mimic DNA, then how much more "high tech" must the mind and power of God be for inventing it?

My comments :

It is totally irrelevant in the case of artificial DNA to refer to the ICR's claims of "Godly involvement" in design of real natural DNA.
Trillions upon trillions upon trillions upon trillions upon trillions upon trillions upon trillions upon trillions upon trillions upon trillions upon trillions upon trillions upon trillions of cells daily use natural DNA to produce new cells. Without any need for any high-tech equipment.

All that these Japanese chemist prove is that it is not easy to develop a simple DNA structure for data storage.
No wonder of course, as it took nature more than 3.500.000.000 years to perfect the DNA process to what it is today.

But to see the hand of a not-proved-to-exist-entity in this all is a conclusion that shows that these Japanese chemists are a lot smarter than the staff of the ICR !

Link to the article : World's First Artificial DNA Molecule (Well, Almost) (http://www.icr.org/article/3954/)

ICR's First Intelligent Article ? No. Not even almost. Not even near ....

NOTE :

Why does ICR in it's article on the problems Japanese encounter in their quest for a concentrated data storage system using DNA type coding try to connect the difficulty these Japanese experience with the religious CLAIM involving the hand of a not-proved-to-exist-entity connected to the origin of life by using a similar technique ?

Does ICR really think that the Japanese problems support any wild religious unsupported claims? HOW ?

PLEASE KEEP TO THE TOPIC ....

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

·

Michaelb:

Evolution has not been proven, so what is to prove?
The onus is on the evolutionary biologists to prove their theory.

If in evolution was a fact - why did Lenski spend 20 years and 44000 generations , all that time money and labor to prove what is suppose to be fact?

from your link



Sincerely,
Richard Lenski

P.S. Did you know that your own bowels harbor something like a billion (1,000,000,000) E. coli at this very moment? So remember to wash your hands after going to the toilet, as I hope your mother taught you. Simple calculations imply that there are something like 10^20 = 100,000,000,000,000,000,000 E. coli alive on our planet at any moment. Even if they divide just once per day, and given a typical mutation rate of 10^-9 or 10^-10 per base-pair per generation, then pretty much every possible double mutation would occur every day or so. That’s a lot of opportunity for evolution.




So given all that opportunity, there is no documentation of E.coli becoming a "new" species. :confused: :confused: :eek:

No, that's not science. That's a reason to stop taking drugs or to see a doctor. You're confusing repeatability in experiments with testability.

"...universal common descent makes many specific predictions about what should and what should not be observed in the biological world, and it has fared very well against empirically-obtained observations from the past 140+ years of intense scientific investigation. "

"Simply put, the theory of universal common descent, combined with modern biological knowledge, is used to deduce predictions. ...In fact, if universal common descent were not accurrate, it is highly probable that these predictions would fail. These empirically validated predictions present such strong evidence for common descent for precisely this reason."

"The worldwide scientific research community from over the past 140 years has discovered that no known hypothesis other than universal common descent can account scientifically for the unity, diversity, and patterns of terrestrial life. This hypothesis has been verified and corroborated so extensively that it is currently accepted as fact by the overwhelming majority of professional researchers in the biological and geological sciences. No alternate explanations compete scientifically with common descent, primarily for four main reasons: (1) so many of the predictions of common descent have been confirmed from independent areas of science, (2) no significant contradictory evidence has yet been found, (3) competing possibilities have been contradicted by enormous amounts of scientific data, and (4) many other explanations are untestable, though they may be trivially consistent with biological data."

(above quotes from "29 Evidences for Macroevolution")



Kool aid :)

Now evolution can tell you what you observe, then they fit their assumptions in there.


As to "testability" vs "repeatability" --- semantics.


If I theorize that since my car weighs 3000 ponds, has 400 hp, and a certain amount of traction at the driving wheels I can predict a certain 1/4 mile time. That is a prediction.
Hot air! :)

Now I can only confirm that I have the right data and the right conclusion and validate my theory if I can consistently prove this by repeated reproducible trials that is actually taking the car to a drag strip and actually timing the 1/4 mile several times.

Evolution has no such data - it is all retrospective.


With pharmaceuticals - it is not enough to theorize or even reproduce results in a test tube - in vitro

It has to be actual repeatable measurable results, thus in vivo trials,

Even then post use data comes to light.

This is how stringent real science is.


A good example is Avandia - known to reduce glucose levels, reduce A1c levels in diabetics. Reduced A1c levels is correlated with less diabetic complications, but in 2007, Avandia was found to have higher mortality and morbidity!

You just can't test, for real science evidence/ results needs to be repeatable.

Try out gravity - you'll keep on falling :D

I repeat my original topic starter once more", as "inthebox" seems to have reading or comprehension problems :

One of the latests ICR articles on some Artificial DNA Molecule :

Recently ... Japanese chemists have discovered how to mimic DNA ... According to the American Chemical Society, "The researchers used high-tech DNA synthesis equipment to stitch together four entirely new, artificial bases inside of the sugar-based framework of a DNA molecule. This resulted in unusually stable, double-stranded structures resembling natural DNA." .... If high-tech equipment is required simply to mimic DNA, then how much more "high tech" must the mind and power of God be for inventing it?

My comments :

It is totally irrelevant in the case of artificial DNA to refer to the ICR's claims of "Godly involvement" in design of real natural DNA.
Trillions upon trillions upon trillions upon trillions upon trillions upon trillions upon trillions upon trillions upon trillions upon trillions upon trillions upon trillions upon trillions of cells daily use natural DNA to produce new cells. Without any need for any high-tech equipment.

All that these Japanese chemist prove is that it is not easy to develop a simple DNA structure for data storage.
No wonder of course, as it took nature more than 3.500.000.000 years to perfect the DNA process to what it is today.

But to see the hand of a not-proved-to-exist-entity in this all is a conclusion that shows that these Japanese chemists are a lot smarter than the staff of the ICR !

Link to the article : World's First Artificial DNA Molecule (Well, Almost) (http://www.icr.org/article/3954/)

ICR's First Intelligent Article ? No. Not even almost. Not even near ....

NOTE :

Why does ICR in it's article on the problems Japanese encounter in their quest for a concentrated data storage system using DNA type coding try to connect the difficulty these Japanese experience with the religious CLAIM involving the hand of a not-proved-to-exist-entity connected to the origin of life by using a similar technique ?

Does ICR really think that the Japanese problems support any wild religious unsupported claims? HOW ?

PLEASE KEEP TO THE TOPIC ....

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

·

If I theorize that since my car weighs 3000 ponds, has 400 hp, and a certain amount of traction at the driving wheels I can predict a certain 1/4 mile time. That is a prediction.
Now I can only confirm that I have the right data and the right conclusion and validate my theory if I can consistently prove this by repeated reproducible trials that is actually taking the car to a drag strip and actually timing the 1/4 mile several times.

Evolution has no such data - it is all retrospective.

With pharmaceuticals - it is not enough to theorize or even reproduce results in a test tube - in vitro

it has to be actual repeatable measurable results, thus in vivo trials,

even then post use data comes to light.

This is how stringent real science is.

You still don't understand. The specs on your car say it does that time, and every time you try, it does it. You are testing things you've already seen. If characteristic A in a fossil may lead to char B you 'predict' it will do so, just as you predict your car will do that speed. When all the fossils you check then do show B, the prediction is proven valid - it's testable. Just because you don't accept the science is the same for both doesn't mean it isn't. You don't accept it because you don't accept evo. Your bias affects your reasoning.

So evolution is about predicting? Or prophesizing?


Sounds mighty religious :D


OK - what does evolution "predict" about humanity? When will we have a third arm or mutate into 4 legged tree creatures or mutate into mindreaders---
Pure fantasy. And what fossil predicts this?

You have faith in this? :confused:

I repeat my original topic starter once more", as "inthebox" seems to have reading or comprehension problems :

My comments :

It is totally irrelevant in the case of artificial DNA to refer to the ICR's claims of "Godly involvement" in design of real natural DNA.
Trillions upon trillions upon trillions upon trillions upon trillions upon trillions upon trillions upon trillions upon trillions upon trillions upon trillions upon trillions upon trillions of cells daily use natural DNA to produce new cells. Without any need for any high-tech equipment.

All that these Japanese chemist prove is that it is not easy to develop a simple DNA structure for data storage.
No wonder of course, as it took nature more than 3.500.000.000 years to perfect the DNA process to what it is today.

But to see the hand of a not-proved-to-exist-entity in this all is a conclusion that shows that these Japanese chemists are a lot smarter than the staff of the ICR !

Link to the article : World's First Artificial DNA Molecule (Well, Almost) (http://www.icr.org/article/3954/)

ICR's First Intelligent Article ? No. Not even almost. Not even near ....

NOTE :

Why does ICR in it's article on the problems Japanese encounter in their quest for a concentrated data storage system using DNA type coding try to connect the difficulty these Japanese experience with the religious CLAIM involving the hand of a not-proved-to-exist-entity connected to the origin of life by using a similar technique ?

PLEASE KEEP TO THE TOPIC ....

·


Cred


Define "nature" and "prove" that "nature" gave us the genetic code.

I love your last sentence. The structure is... "natural." :p Apparently nature did not develop commas :)

It is predicting probabilities. There's no religion involved no matter how badly you want to think so. No, I don't have 'faith' in it. I recognize the methodology and investigation. That you can't is your prob. And mine since my desire to educate overcomes my frustration in those with intentional ignorance.

Define "nature" and "prove" that "nature" gave us the genetic code.
I love your last sentence. The structure is... "natural." Apparently nature did not develop commas :)
There is no need to prove that the genetic code was provided by anything else than nature.
Only for those who insist that something else than the logical cause (nature) was the source there is a need to prove that wild claim.
Nature exists. No doubt about that. But supra-natural entities? I like to see objective supported evidence for that first...

I asked in my topic post :

Why does ICR in it's article on the problems Japanese encounter in their quest for a concentrated data storage system using DNA type coding try to connect the difficulty these Japanese experience with the religious CLAIM involving the hand of a not-proved-to-exist-entity connected to the origin of life by using a similar technique
THAT IS THE TOPIC. PLEASE KEEP TO THAT TOPIC !

Why does the ICR try to connect these two coding systems? Do they really think there that the Japanese problems in some way may support their belief in a supra-natural entity? Or does the ICR think that these problems in any way are related to their own wild religious unsupported claims? HOW and WHY ?

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

You still don't understand. The specs on your car say it does that time, and every time you try, it does it. You are testing things you've already seen. If characteristic A in a fossil may lead to char B you 'predict' it will do so, just as you predict your car will do that speed. When all the fossils you check then do show B, the prediction is proven valid - it's testable. Just because you don't accept the science is the same for both doesn't mean it isn't. You don't accept it because you don't accept evo. Your bias affects your reasoning.


Fossils have only shown evidence of MICRO evolution. All the other so called transitional froms have not been distinguished from extinct lineages. So please stop trying to falsely pass off evidence of Micro as evidence of Macro. .
Darwinism tends to do that.. and that's just shameful.. lol
Your beliefe in Darwinism is based on FAITH not evidence

I repeat my original topic starter once more", as "inthebox" seems to have reading or comprehension problems :

One of the latests ICR articles on some Artificial DNA Molecule :

Recently ... Japanese chemists have discovered how to mimic DNA ... According to the American Chemical Society, "The researchers used high-tech DNA synthesis equipment to stitch together four entirely new, artificial bases inside of the sugar-based framework of a DNA molecule. This resulted in unusually stable, double-stranded structures resembling natural DNA." .... If high-tech equipment is required simply to mimic DNA, then how much more "high tech" must the mind and power of God be for inventing it?

My comments :

It is totally irrelevant in the case of artificial DNA to refer to the ICR's claims of "Godly involvement" in design of real natural DNA.
Trillions upon trillions upon trillions upon trillions upon trillions upon trillions upon trillions upon trillions upon trillions upon trillions upon trillions upon trillions upon trillions of cells daily use natural DNA to produce new cells. Without any need for any high-tech equipment.

All that these Japanese chemist prove is that it is not easy to develop a simple DNA structure for data storage.
No wonder of course, as it took nature more than 3.500.000.000 years to perfect the DNA process to what it is today.

But to see the hand of a not-proved-to-exist-entity in this all is a conclusion that shows that these Japanese chemists are a lot smarter than the staff of the ICR !

Link to the article : World's First Artificial DNA Molecule (Well, Almost) (http://www.icr.org/article/3954/)

ICR's First Intelligent Article ? No. Not even almost. Not even near ....

NOTE :

Why does ICR in it's article on the problems Japanese encounter in their quest for a concentrated data storage system using DNA type coding try to connect the difficulty these Japanese experience with the religious CLAIM involving the hand of a not-proved-to-exist-entity connected to the origin of life by using a similar technique ?

Does ICR really think that the Japanese problems support any wild religious unsupported claims? HOW ?

PLEASE KEEP TO THE TOPIC ....

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

·

Cred. I suggest you stay out of this topic because apparently you don't know much Science/Biology. ;)

[QUOTE=WVHiflyer]Something does not necessarily have to be repeatable to be accepted as scientific proof -

Oh gees... :rolleyes: this is the level of Scientific education we are dealing with.


to claim to have see actual genera evolving is ridiculous. What it does have to be is be testable. That can happen simply by using the theory to predict what would occur. That has happened many times in evolutionary studies and the predictions were correct each time. (And my evolutionarily evolved brain is already predicting your responses... )

No Its not ridiculous... bacterium can divide every 20 minute which means if the conditions are right, one bacterium can multiply into billions of bacteria within 24 hours so because bacteria can multiply so quickly, this can be used to simulate eons of time. In just 20 minutes bacterium can have up to 2.5 million genarations.

If macroevolution were true, Scientists should be able to observe bacteria gain new genetic information. We should also be able to observe a single-cellular bacterium evolve into a multi-cellular bacterium. Why then has this never been observed to occur even in bacteria? Even after 2.5million generations of adaptive micro evolution, a bacteria has not MACRO evolved it is still a bacteria.

Bottom line is Macro evolution is a FAITH.. it has Zero scientific or fossil evidence to back it up. The only thing that holds this tattered theory together is millions of desperate people like yourself, who hold on to the notion despite lack of evidence because the alternative (creation) in unacceptable to your atheistic beliefs.

:rolleyes:

Cred. i suggest you stay out of this topic because apparently you dont know much Science/Biology.
From what I have seen from you (lying about your supposed degree in biology, coupled to your complete lack of understanding the structure of scientific support and approach) you may have done some studies on biology , but you completely fail to apply that knowledge into your argumentation!

I post where ever I like to post. And I know the rules. You apparently don't , I noticed!!

:D :D :D :D :D

·

From what I have seen from you (lying about your supposed degree in biology, coupled to your complete lack of understanding the structure of scientific support and approach) you may have done some studies on biology , but you completely fail to apply that knowledge into your argumentation!

I post where ever I like to post. And I know the rules. You apparently don't , I noticed !!!


·

Lol Cred, I will say this till you get it. (like how you ended up admitting your had BELIEFS:D ) Your Faith in the religion of Darwinism has nothing to do with science. Darwinism is based on the leap of faith that the small micro changes in Biology that occur in animals will eventually lead to large scale changes despite the fact that this has never neen observed. It is also base on the belief an ameoba that lived in a soup is supposedly the mother of all living things. There is no evidence for this Mythic Doctrine. None what so ever. If you disagree, then I challenge you to provide such evidence. ;)

... Your Faith in the religion of Darwinism has nothing to do with science...)
From you I expect nothing else than this type of rancunous rubbish, sassyT !
I know you have no real arguments...

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

·

From you I expect nothing else than this type of rancunous rubbish, sassyT !
I know you have no real arguments...


·

Lol.. rubbish heh? Why don't you prove me wrong?


SassyT : There is no evidence for this Mythic Doctrine. None what so ever. If you disagree, then i challange you to provide such evidence ;).

lol.. rubbish heh? why dont you prove me wrong?
One fool can ask more questions in a minute than twelve wise men can answer in an hour.
--Nikolai Lenin

:D :D :D :D :D

·

Credo - to get back to the OP - I think that kind of experiment bothers IRC. It shows that, even though it took high tech to do it, we mere mortals managed to perform a 'miracle.' If we can, then Nature can manage on its own and there's no need to invoke a god to get life started.

Credo - to get back to the OP - I think that kind of experiment bothers IRC. It shows that, even tho it took high tech to do it, we mere mortals managed to perform a 'miracle.' If we can, then Nature can manage on its own and there's no need to invoke a god to get life started.
That may be indeed the reason for their article!

:D

·

Sassy - you never cease to amaze me with your unscientific outlook considering you professed 'career.' While you've given hints that you actually do have a biology professor you obviously don't pay any attention - and never did when anything was discussed that someone told you, wrongly, was in 'opposition' to your Christian beliefs.

You keep demanding 'proof' yet you have no intention of even examining it with anything like a scientific or even partly open mind.

FLYER:

What "miracle" did those Japanese scientists perform?

Their methodology is public knowledge and they want the scientific community to know of what they did.


When you speak of miracles, you mean something that science cannot explain.

What great achievement is it to make an "artificial" DNA?
Did it create a living organism? NO
Can this "artificial" DNA serve as a template for genetic information? NO
Can this "artificial" DNA exist independently? NO


Really : HO HUM


You really want to read something scientifically interesting:


https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/alternative-medicine/stem-cell-treatment-86633.html#post1190387

]There is no evidence for this Mythic Doctrine. None what so ever. If you disagree, then i challange you to provide such evidence .

What kind of evidence would you accept? If you are coming at this as a scientist, as you say, you will be able to name two or three things that -- if true -- would persuade you that all organisms are related, as if in one giant family, and that species keep splitting and forming more species, which then diverge away from each other to form new genera and higher taxa, i.e. evolution, to give us the 10 million or more species that live in the world today

So, Sassy, What facts would you accept as supporting the idea of common descent? What evidence would persuade you that a rose is in any way related to a daisy?

Just Asking

What "miracle" did those Japanese scientists perform? Their methodology is public knowledge and they want the scientific community to know of what they did.
The Japanese scientists did not perform any miracles. All they did was using an artificial DNA method to store data as compact as possible.
The ICR misused that Japanese research and the problems they experienced as an argument that for natural DNA a supra-natural "god-creator" had to be in existence. A nonsensical line of argumentation, of course, and reason for this topic.

:rolleyes:

·

Sassy - you never cease to amaze me with your unscientific outlook considering you professed 'career.'
Hear, hear, hear!!

:rolleyes:

·

No Its not ridiculous.....bacterium can divide every 20 minute which means if the conditions are right, one bacterium can multiply into billions of bacteria within 24 hours so because bacteria can multiply so quickly, this can be used to simulate eons of time. In just 20 minutes bacterium can have upto 2.5 million genarations.

I'm confused here. Maybe someone can help to explain to me. If bacteria divide every 20 minutes, then how can they produce 2.5 million generations in 20 minutes? Surely they produce only one?

Maybe someone can help to explain to me.
Capuchin : careful : you are addressing a student in biology here who claimed to have a degree in biology. Do you perhaps doubt her infallibility in biological matters?

:D

·

Capuchin : careful : you are addressing a student in biology here who claimed to have a degree in biology. Do you perhaps doubt her infallibility in biological matters?
:D
·

I'm more bothered about pointing out the iffiness of what she said to everyone else, than actually getting a coherent answer to my concern. Though Asking might be able to help me out.

... iffiness ...
I had to look that up. It was new to me. It's now added to my vocabulary!

;)
·

I had to look that up. It was new to me. It's now added to my vocabulary!

;)
·

Apologies! It's slang and probably mostly British to boot!

I'm more bothered about pointing out the iffiness of what she said to everyone else, than actually getting a coherent answer to my concern. Though Asking might be able to help me out.


:) I was just thinking about that. I assumed Sassy meant 24 hours, rather than 20 minutes. In that case, wouldn't it be 2^72 = 4.7 X 10^21? Of course, that assumes unlimited resources for the bacteria and also thorough waste disposal. (I've used "iffy" most of my life, here in California... )

Iffily,
Asking

:) I was just thinking about that. I assumed Sassy meant 24 hours, rather than 20 minutes. In that case, wouldn't it be 2^72 = 4.7 X 10^21? Of course, that assumes unlimited resources for the bacteria and also thorough waste disposal. (I've used "iffy" most of my life, here in California....)

Iffily,
Asking

But that, of course, would be the number of organisms, not the number of generations. I would assume that you just get a generation every 20 minutes, so in fact it would take 95 years to get 2.5 million generations? You would only get 72 generations in 24 hours.

The Japanese scientists did not perform any miracles. All they did was using an artificial DNA method to store data as compact as possibile.
The ICR misused that Japanese research and the problems they experienced as an argument that for natural DNA a supra-natural "god-creator" had to be in existance. A nonsensical line of [argumentation, of course, and reason for this topic.

:rolleyes:

·

Did they create a model or a functional means of information storage and retrieval?

If it takes intelligent scientists to come up with just a model copying off the original, is the assumption that the complexity required to create the original , which is beyond known natural means, evidence of God?

Did they create a model or a functional means of information storage and retrieval?

If it takes intelligent scientists to come up with just a model copying off the original, is the assumption that the complexity required to create the original , which is beyond known natural means, evidence of God?

Purely an ASSumption. Esp since it obviously is not beyond natural means. (unless you need a god and don't find nature amazing in itself.)

But that, of course, would be the number of organisms, not the number of generations. I would assume that you just get a generation every 20 minutes, so in fact it would take 95 years to get 2.5 million generations? You would only get 72 generations in 24 hours.

Sassy wrote:

bacterium can divide every 20 minute which means if the conditions are right, one bacterium can multiply into billions of bacteria within 24 hours so because bacteria can multiply so quickly, this can be used to simulate eons of time. In just 20 minutes bacterium can have up to 2.5 million genarations.

Hmm. I'm going to side with Sassy on this one. :) From the way she wrote this, I think she meant that in 24 hours a single bacterium can produce up to 2.5 million progeny, even though that isn't literally what she wrote. Actually, it would be much more... if that's what she meant.

I'm not sure I agree with her argument that this simulates eons of time though. If bacteria are just doing what they do, a researcher would just be simulating ideal conditions, hardly a great way to simulate evolution, which usually happens fastest when selection is most harsh--i.e. when things are really bad--or else in very tiny, isolated populations--like 30 birds on a remote oceanic island. But that's just my initial reaction without seeing the study. I'd be interested if she has a reference for these studies, since I always like reading about microevolution studies. They're cool, too.

Brian Thomas, of ICR wrote:

... If high-tech equipment is required simply to mimic DNA, then how much more "high tech" must the mind and power of God be for inventing it?

This is an interesting argument. You could say the same about any form of biomimicry. Whenever human technologists steal an idea from the natural world.

But high-tech equipment is also used to do all kinds of things--from controlling washing machines to displaying drawings and type--and we don't then argue that the original must have been the work of God. That is, people who wash clothes by hand or draw or write in cursive are not all Gods. Unless, I've misunderstood the logic of the argument, it's nonsense.

Another problem with the 'bacteria don't evolve' criticism is what asking touched on - if there's no pressure to evolve major changes then stasis occurs. Why change if it's not needed? Besides, with so many in a bac colony, they tend to cooperate, split the work so the colony's genes survive and a new form would be eliminated.

I decided it's not worth explaining that natural selection takes the place of your intelligent designer much the same way a bowl causes water to form a bowl shape, the environment causes life to form a more complex shapes. I'm not explaining this because as with most creationist your not interested in science you just want to push your religion on the masses regardless of evidence or truth.

natural selection takes the place of . . . your intelligent designer much the . . . way a bowl causes water to form a bowl shape, the environment causes life to form a more complex shapes.


Nice.

Did they create a model or a functional means of information storage and retrieval?
The intention was to store sata as compact as possible, and as DNA/RNA is the most compact version of storage (at least it is as far as we know) , they followed a similar path, along DNA lines but not based on any natural existing DNA.


If it takes intelligent scientists to come up with just a model copying off the original, is the assumption that the complexity required to create the original , which is beyond known natural means, evidence of God?
A nonsensical argument. If you ever fly in a commercial airplane, you are flying in a human designed contraption that is based on observation of birds and bats, but did not require any godly assistance or godly participation. Implementing the METHOD of data storage along DNA lines has NOTHING to do with anything that you suggest to be "beyond known natural means, evidence of God" !

The ICR misused that same invalid argumentation in their article, reason why I used that in preparing this topic.

:rolleyes:

·

Implementing the METHOD of data storage along DNA lines has NOTHING to do with anything that you suggest to be "beyond known natural means, evidence of God" !

You've given me an idea. I made a different argument--which is that we copy things all the time and don't consider the "originals" works of God. But I also agree that the distinction between a model and "the original" object is a false one. The "model" or copy is not by definition less complex or less real than "the original." The original is older but not necessarily better or more real.

The idea that natural DNA is the "real thing" and artificial DNA is merely an inferior and defective version of the same thing is a philosophical throwback to an earlier way of thinking about the world--an essentialist one. In that view, there is an ideal human and every person in the world is a somewhat defective version of that ideal person. Same for dogs, cats, chairs and trees. There is an ideal form of everything we know.

One of Darwin's major contributions to science was to emphasize the fallacy of that kind of thinking--to show that the very foundation of life is based on there NOT being an ideal form of any living organism, that every form is tentative, every individual a prototype. There is no ideal ideal wolf or hare, no ideal spreading oak tree or swaying grass plant. No ideal human.

It's my opinion that engineers and others with training in sciences more remote from the natural world (sticks, thistles, and dead bugs) tend to have a harder time accepting non essentialist thinking and incorporating it into their thinking about biology than other scientists. Now I'm wondering if religious training also tends to work against understanding that a population of grasshoppers is just that, X number of individuals--not a set of deviations from a norm or ideal. It strikes me that essentialist thinking is at the heart of ICR's argument about this research. That's why it makes perfect sense to them and no sense to someone who understands evolution.

From their perspective, living things are a living witness to God's "perfection" -- in other words an expression of ideal forms. DNA is also an expression of perfection, so any copy of it is, by definition, less than perfect. They are imposing an essentialist template on the world that divides things into the right and the less right.

And that's enough philosophizing for one morning!

From their perspective, living things are a living witness to God's "perfection" -- in other words an expression of ideal forms.
To them that may seem like that. That is why I always emphasize that they BELIEVE that to be true, but I question IF THAT IS INDEED TRUE !


.... so any copy of it is, by definition, less than perfect.
There is no reason why a copy of anything should be less perfect than it's original.
Actually the reality that DNA copying is not perfect indicates that "god" was not involved in the "creation" of the natural DNA process. How could a perfect deity develop an imperfect copying process? Would that not make that "god" also imperfect ?

The same as a perfect deity "creating" good and bad. A perfect being can only "create" perfect things, so "bad" is out, or the deity is not perfect !


And that's enough philosophizing for one morning!
But an excellent post : you earned your morning coffee !

;)

·

I'm confused here. Maybe someone can help to explain to me. If bacteria divide every 20 minutes, then how can they produce 2.5 million generations in 20 minutes? Surely they produce only one??

And you call yourself a science expert... :rolleyes:

and you call your self a science expert... :rolleyes:

I suppose I was asking too much to hope for an explanation.

I suppose I was asking too much to hope for an explanation.

God did it, duh. Why would you need more of an explanation?

I decided it's not worth explaining that natural selection takes the place of your intelligent designer much the same way a bowl causes water to form a bowl shape, the environment causes life to form a more complex shapes. I'm not explaining this because as with most creationist your not interested in science you just want to push your religion on the masses regardless of evidence or truth.

Like wise you are not interested in observabable testable and repeatable science. You are just interested in propagating your myth (in the guise of science) about a one cell creature from a soup which you claim is the mother of all living things. You continue to claim it is fact but I have failed dismally to give even one piece of conclusive evidence... lol
If you knew anything about science you would know that natural selection cannot and has never been observed produce new genes; it selects only among preexisting characteristics. As the word “selection” implies, variations are reduced, not increased. For macro evolution to be feasible there has to have been a huge increase in genes "manufacturing" to go from amoeba to man. This increase in new genetic information has not been observed in Biology. So those who believe in the amoeba to man myth rely on faith not science.

Funny you should say I don't know anything about science since 95% of scientists agree with me. You arguing from ignorance to appeal to ignorance. If only you would apply half the standards for evidence that you require of evolution to your own religion we could stop this debate right now.

If you knew anything about science you would know that natural selection cannot and has never been observed produce new genes; it selects only among preexisting characteristics. As the word “selection” implies, variations are reduced, not increased. For macro evolution to be feasible there has to have been a huge increase in genes "manufacturing" to go from amoeba to man. This increase in new genetic information has not been observed in Biology. So those who believe in the amoeba to man myth rely on faith not science.

Welcome back, Sassy. :)

Mutation produces changes in genetic information. Selection selects for or against variants.

But it is not true that selection reduces information. Selection is, at heart, changes in the frequency of different combinations of genes. Changes in the proportions of different genes or combinations of genes from generation to generation IS selection, but selection does not necessarily reduce genetic variation. In fact, it's possible to select for increased mutation rates and therefore SELECT FOR increased information. For example, there's evidence that heat shock proteins, which are sensitive to stress, do this.

As for evidence for overall increases in information, that happens all the time when DNA multiplies. So a gene for a protein doubles or triples so that the next generation has two or three copies of the same gene. (Regulatory genes makes sure that not too much of the gene is expressed.) Then, over time, Copies 2 and 3 of the gene can mutate and eventually produce proteins that are different from the original Copy 1 and have different functions. So you can end up with three different proteins where you had one before. Happens all the time.

Same thing can even happen with whole chromosomes. Plants are famous for doubling and tripling their chromosome numbers, which is one reason potatoes have so much more DNA than we do. (What was God thinking? ;) )

This is not an obscure area of biology, but a well known phenomenon. Genetic information certainly increases through these kinds of mutations. So even if it were logical to object to evolution on the grounds that a mechanism is not yet known (which is NOT a legitimate argument), it would still be incorrect, because in this particular case, the mechanism for increasing genetic information is known.

What we know about the evolution of humans from bacteria is based on the overall pattern in the fossil record, as well as our genetic history (which we carry within us), not on mechanisms like natural selection.

I know the theater curtain went up; I don't need to know every detail of the ropes and pulleys that made that happen to know it went up. I can see it. In the same way, we can see the story of life in the fossil record and in the patterns of our own genes, which confirms the same story found in the fossil record.

NATURAL SELECTION HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH MACRO EVOLUTION

Once again darwinist try to use false "evidence"... Natural selection cannot creat genetic information. It can create change within a species and even create a big enough change that the two different creatures cannot mate anymore, but there is still no new genetic information created. Usually the changes are a result of a genetic loss of information. The science of genetics proves this. Once you choose all the genes for small size in the dog population, you cannot get any smaller. And you can mate those small dogs with each other for an eternity and you will not be able to turn them back into collies. The genetic information has been lost forever.

Evolution requires a buildup of new previously non-existent information on the DNA strand. This cannot happen with natural selection since, for the most part, it involves a loss of information and evolution needs a gain of new information.

Darwin wasn't aware of the difference then but people today realize the difference. Evolutionists have now desparately moved to the position of mutations as being the primary source of information gaining mechanism. However, they have never found a single instant where a DNA strand has ever been built up by a mutation to arrive at new previously non-existent information.

Nearly everything in this post is false. I don't know where to begin!

Really Sassy, anyone who has taken first year biology, either in high school or college, knows that mutation and selection are separate processes and that genetic mutation generates new information (both useful and not useful) while selection changes the proportions of different mutations in a group of individuals.

As for little dogs, if you interbreed a lot of unrelated small dogs--that is outbreed--you will certainly get some bigger dogs that are more wolflike--though probably not wolves, given that small dogs are purebreds--meaning inbred. If you just breed chihuahuas with chihauhaus--of course they are inbred and incapable of changing. You have bred all the variation out of them. But just because it's possible to do that doesn't mean that's normal.

In most organisms, there is ample genetic variation and selection does not reduce that. Reductions in population size and inbreeding reduce genetic variation, not selection per se. You have confused unrelated ideas.


Once again darwinist try to use false "evidence" ...Natural selection cannot creat genetic information. It can create change within a species and even create a big enough change that the two different creatures cannot mate anymore, but there is still no new genetic information created. Usually the changes are a result of a genetic loss of information. The science of genetics proves this. Once you choose all the genes for small size in the dog population, you cannot get any smaller. And you can mate those small dogs with each other for an eternity and you will not be able to turn them back into collies. The genetic information has been lost forever.

Evolution requires a buildup of new previously non-existent information on the DNA strand. This cannot happen with natural selection since, for the most part, it involves a loss of information and evolution needs a gain of new information.

Darwin wasn’t aware of the difference then but people today realize the difference. Evolutionists have now desparately moved to the position of mutations as being the primary source of information gaining mechanism. However, they have never found a single instant where a DNA strand has ever been built up by a mutation to arrive at new previously non-existent information.

[QUOTE=asking]Welcome back, Sassy. :)

Mutation produces changes in genetic information. Selection selects for or against variants.
But it is not true that selection reduces information. Selection is, at heart, changes in the frequency of different combinations of genes. Changes in the proportions of different genes or combinations of genes from generation to generation IS selection, but selection does not necessarily reduce genetic variation. In fact, it's possible to select for increased mutation rates and therefore SELECT FOR increased information. For example, there's evidence that heat shock proteins, which are sensitive to stress, do this



As for evidence for overall increases in information, that happens all the time when DNA multiplies. So a gene for a protein doubles or triples so that the next generation has two or three copies of the same gene. (Regulatory genes makes sure that not too much of the gene is expressed.) Then, over time, Copies 2 and 3 of the gene can mutate and eventually produce proteins that are different from the original Copy 1 and have different functions. So you can end up with three different proteins where you had one before. Happens all the time.
Same thing can even happen with whole chromosomes. Plants are famous for doubling and tripling their chromosome numbers, which is one reason potatoes have so much more DNA than we do. (What was God thinking? ;) )

This is not an obscure area of biology, but a well known phenomenon. Genetic information certainly increases through these kinds of mutations. So even if it were logical to object to evolution on the grounds that a mechanism is not yet known (which is NOT a legitimate argument), it would still be incorrect, because in this particular case, the mechanism for increasing genetic information is known.

Hello Asking, Thanks for welcoming me back! :)

Back to the debate... Once again you are confusing Micro with Macro evolution. When I say natural selection can not add "new" information what I mean is that it does not add information that was not already pre-existing for example take horses. People have been able to breed all sorts of varieties from wild horses–big working horses, miniature toy ponies, and so on. But limits are soon reached, because selection can only work on what is already there. You can breed for horse varieties with white coats, brown coats and so forth, but no amount of breeding selection will ever generate a green-haired horse variety–the information for green hair does not exist in the horse population.

Limits to variation also come about because each of the varieties of horse carries less information than the ‘wild’ type from which it descended. Common sense confirms that you cannot start with little Shetland ponies and try to select for Clydesdale draft horses–the information just isn’t there anymore! The greater the specialization (or "adaptation", in this case to the demands of the human breeder, who represents the "environment"), the more one can be sure that the gene pool has been extensively "thinned out" or depleted, and the less future variation is possible starting from such stock.


What we know about the evolution of humans from bacteria is based on the overall pattern in the fossil record, as well as our genetic history (which we carry within us), not on mechanisms like natural selection.

I know the theater curtain went up; I don't need to know every detail of the ropes and pulleys that made that happen to know it went up. I can see it. In the same way, we can see the story of life in the fossil record and in the patterns of our own genes, which confirms the same story found in the fossil record.

As far as mutations go there is just no evidence for even 10, let alone the millions, or rather trillions of these literally miraculous information increasing mutations that must have occurred if evolution is really true. Why don't we observe this happening in the lab when we examine real live mutations? Which makes more sense? To believe in trillions of miraculous events happened by chance or to believe in the miracle of creation by an Intelligent Designer whose fingerprints are clearly seen in the design of every living creature? There is just no scientific evidence to support Macro evolution. Not even in fossil evidence.

For macro evolution to be feasible there has to have been a huge increase in genes "manufacturing" to go from amoeba to man. This increase in new genetic information has not been observed in Biology. So those who believe in the amoeba to man myth rely on faith not science.

Yet again you show your ignorance of science in general and evolutionary science in particular. Genes produce proteins. Protiens determine expression of the genes. Genes express different proteins at different times... etc, etc, etc.

asking> One of Darwin's major contributions to science was to emphasize the fallacy of that kind of thinking--to show that the very foundation of life is based on there NOT being an ideal form of any living organism, that every form is tentative, every individual a prototype. There is no ideal ideal wolf or hare, no ideal spreading oak tree or swaying grass plant. No ideal human.

Wonderful point no one had yet brought up.

cannot[/U] happen with natural selection since, for the most part, it involves a loss of information and evolution needs a gain of new information.

And YET AGAIN you show your ignorance of evolutionary theory. Natural selection does not, 'for the most part... involve a loss of info.' It's simply different info, frequently building on what was there. Selection 'decides' whether the change works ina given environment.

"cannot start with little Shetland ponies and try to select for Clydesdale draft horses–the information just isn’t there anymore!"

So, Sassy, explain why some humans are born with tails - the ones their very distant ancestors had - if the info isn't still there?

Why is there still a species of bird with dino claws?

"cannot start with little Shetland ponies and try to select for Clydesdale draft horses–the information just isn’t there anymore!"

So, Sassy, explain why some humans are born with tails - the ones their very distant ancestors had - if the info isn't still there?

Why is there still a species of bird with dino claws?

First I have to say that I am totally clueless when it comes to science, so I cannot form an opinion here. I'm posting to ask for more info.

Having said that, I will assume (yes I know what assuming does ;)) that you all are arguing whether God created man or science created man? Right?

Is it possible to believe in both? I don't know, once again, science, not my best subject.

I know, or I guess I believe, that dinosaurs existed, I believe that cromagnum man existed, does that mean that I believe more in science then in God? Confused here people, help me out. Am I completely off topic, or am I close?

If I'm totally off topic here then I'll leave, but if not, explanation would be greatly appreciated, in laymans terms please, remember, science, my worst subject. ;)

Alty - the main argument is because there are those here who deny evolution occurred - is occurring, at least what they call 'macro evolution.' Tho they try to deny it, their unacceptance of this fundamental biological science is religiously based with the arguments from many originating with the mis-named ICR (Institute for Creation Research). Because of that it becomes dificult for many to accept that a god might have had a hand in at the but then 'stepped back' (it's the last part they apparently can't accept). I simply cannot understand why there's so much hostility to science.

Alty - the main argument is because there are those here who deny evolution occured - is occurring, at least what they call 'macro evolution.' Tho they try to deny it, their unacceptance of this fundamental biological science is religiously based with the arguments from many originating with the mis-named ICR (Institute for Creation Research). Because of that it becomes dificult for many to accept that a god might have had a hand in at the but then 'stepped back' (it's the last part they apparently can't accept). I simply cannot understand why there's so much hostility to science.

Maybe because science and religion don't mix, at least not science and Catholicism (can't speak for all religions). Many scientists were jailed by the Catholic church because they had scientific proof of evolution, and other things, that contradicted the bible. Of course this was many, many years ago, at least, that's what I've read. Boy, I'm opening a can of worms here. :eek:

For me personally, I believe in both, there's too much scientific proof (even for an unscientific person like me) to believe that only God created the world, but I'd like to, yes, like to, believe that God had a hand in it.

Be it God, or science, or both, it's a pretty great world, so cudos to whoever or whatever created it, except for mosquitos of course, whoever, or whatever came up with that idea, well, they deserve a swift kick in the butt. ;)

Hope I'm not too far off topic here. Thanks Flyer for the explanation. :)

Alty - actually Catholics accept evolution - at least John Paul II did (the new guy is more old school so it's wait and see... here I am telling a Catholic... sorry). It's mostly fundamentalists that deny the separation of science and religion in the sense that sci is not anti-relig, but a-relig. The idea for them (as I've read) is that evolutionists must be 'godless atheists' (notice the slur in the redundancy). And it's not just Christian fundies.

Way back when I thought I believed in God I had no problem accepting science in gen and evol in particular. I guess that's why I can't understand why the hostility. Fear is the best answer I can come up with...

here I am telling a Catholic... sorry).

No need to be sorry, I'm not Catholic, I'm actually not anything, at least were organized religion is concerned. I also don't believe in the bible or church. Yup, I'm a very strange believer in God. :)

Cred did find a word that actually describes my beliefs very well, I guess I'm a deist, at least the description fits. :)

Thanks for explaining Flyer, where science is concerned, I am totally lost.

Alty - I'd forgotten you said you're a believer - just not in organization <G> Deist is the right word. Puts you in good company. T Jefferson's best described that way, for one.

I'm happy to explain science to anyone who will listen (and, as seen from this thread and others, even to those who won't). Part of it is the frustrated teacher in me, part the sorry shape of sci ed in this country...

Sassy- - since you keep denying it, here's another example of transitional fossils:

"Gish was incorrect in stating that there were no transitional fossil forms, and he has been corrected on this gaffe numerous times... During their evolution, two mammalian middle ear bones (the hammer and anvil, aka malleus and incus) were derived from two reptilian jawbones. Thus there was a major evolutionary transition in which several reptilian jawbones (the quadrate, articular, and angular) were extensively reduced and modified gradually to form the modern mammalian middle ear. At the same time, the dentary bone, a part of the reptilian jaw, was expanded to form the major mammalian lower jawbone. During this change, the bones that form the hinge joint of the jaw changed identity. Importantly, the reptilian jaw joint is formed at the intersection of the quadrate and articular whereas the mammalian jaw joint is formed at the intersection of the squamosal and dentary.

How could hearing and jaw articulation be preserved during this transition? As clearly shown from the many transitional fossils that have been found, the bones that transfer sound in the reptilian and mammalian ear were in contact with each other throughout the evolution of this transition. In reptiles, the stapes contacts the quadrate, which in turn contacts the articular. In mammals, the stapes contacts the incus, which in turn contacts the malleus. Since the quadrate evolved into the incus, and the articular evolved into the malleus, these three bones were in constant contact during this impressive evolutionary change. Furthermore, a functional jaw joint was maintained by redundancy—several of the intermediate fossils have both a reptilian jaw joint (from the quadrate and articular) and a mammalian jaw joint (from the dentary and squamosal). Several late cynodonts and Morganucodon clearly have a double-jointed jaw. In this way, the reptilian-style jaw joint was freed to evolve a new specialized function in the middle ear. It is worthy of note that some modern species of snakes have a double-jointed jaw involving different bones, so such a mechanical arrangement is certainly possible and functional.

"... [S]everal important intermediate fossils have been discovered that fit between Morganucodon and the earliest mammals. These new discoveries include a complete skull of Hadrocodium wui (Luo et al. 2001) and cranial and jaw material from Repenomamus and Gobiconodon (Wang et al. 2001). These new fossil finds clarify exactly when and how the malleus, incus, and angular completely detached from the lower jaw and became solely auditory ear ossicles."

Recall that Gish stated: "There are no transitional fossil forms showing, for instance, three or two jawbones, or two ear bones" (Gish 1978, p. 80). Gish simply does not understand how gradual transitions happen (something he should understand, obviously, if he intends to criticize evolutionary theory). These fossil intermediates illustrate why Gish's statement is a gross mischaracterization of how a transitional form should look. In several of the known intermediates, the bones have overlapping functions, and one bone can be called both an ear bone and a jaw bone; these bones serve two functions. Thus, there is no reason to expect transitional forms with intermediate numbers of jaw bones or ear bones. For example, in Morganucodon, the quadrate (anvil) and the articular (hammer) serve as mammalian-style ear bones and reptilian jaw bones simultaneously. In fact, even in modern reptiles the quadrate and articular serve to transmit sound to the stapes and the inner ear (see Figure 1.4.2). The relevant transition, then, is a process where the ear bones, initially located in the lower jaw, become specialized in function by eventually detaching from the lower jaw and moving closer to the inner ear.


[from 29+ Evidence for Macroevolution] (bold emphasis added)

Alty - I'd forgotten you said you're a believer - just not in organization <G> Deist is the right word. Puts you in good company. T Jefferson's best described that way, for one.

I'm happy to explain science to anyone who will listen (and, as seen from this thread and others, even to those who won't). Part of it is the frustrated teacher in me, part the sorry shape of sci ed in this country.....

I'm afraid that explaining science to me might be quite frustrating to you. Where science is concerned I did the very least I could get away with in school.

I have to say that the science program in our school was great, or so I've heard. ;)

I've always been more geard towards English, writing, art and the like.

I am more than willing to listen, but if it's not simple I might need some help understanding. :)

I guess it might seem strange a lapsed art teacher would try so hard to educate on science, but for me it's the learning. My 'adopted nieces' are always giving me scowls because I try to correct their English. If there's one thing I'm intolerant about (I try not to be) it's people's refusal to be educated. For some I call it "intentional ignorance."

Well, you have an eager student right here. I'm willing to learn more. You have your work cut out for you though, I'm a stubborn student, just warning you. ;)

Sorry for getting off topic, thank you for the explanations, I do appreciate it. I'll check back once in a while, I do find this topic interesting. If I have questions can I post them here, or should I PM for an explanation? Cred, that's up to you, it's your thread. Let me know.

Fine with me. Others here want to learn too. But, as you said, it's Credo's thread...

Purely an ASSumption. Esp since it obviously is not beyond natural means. (unless you need a god and don't find nature amazing in itself.)


Ok then what do you call what these scientists did? Not intelligent and purposeful?

Please describe the "natural" means of how DNA and RNA originally came about.
Don't posit a theory or a model. Show me a "natural occurence" of a spontaneous formation of another means of information storage, retreival, and inheritance other than by DNA or RNA. One that did not involve intelligent human manipulation.

The intention was to store sata as compact as possible, and as DNA/RNA is the most compact version of storage (at least it is as far as we know) , they followed a similar path, along DNA lines but not based on any natural existing DNA.

They used the same sugar backbone, and just used "artificial" base pairs.

Again, was their version functional?






A nonsensical argument. If you ever fly in a commercial airplane, you are flying in a human designed contraption that is based on observation of birds and bats, but did not require any godly assistance or godly participation. Implementing the METHOD of data storage along DNA lines has NOTHING to do with anything that you suggest to be "beyond known natural means, evidence of God" !

Again, it takes intelligence. Also the method of airplane propulsion is via a designed engine, unlike the flapping wings of a bird or bat :D

Brian Thomas, of ICR wrote:


This is an interesting argument. You could say the same about any form of biomimicry. Whenever human technologists steal an idea from the natural world.


Which begs the question of exactly how did "the natural world" actually develop these.
It is all based on assumptions and models, not proven experiments.






But high-tech equipment is also used to do all kinds of things--from controlling washing machines to displaying drawings and type--and we don't then argue that the original must have been the work of God. That is, people who wash clothes by hand or draw or write in cursive are not all Gods. Unless, I've misunderstood the logic of the argument, it's nonsense.

Technology is an example of intelligent design!;) Humans using their intelligence!

Did "natural selection" evolve washing machines or paintings or skyscrapers ? :confused:

I decided it's not worth explaining that natural selection takes the place of your intelligent designer much the same way a bowl causes water to form a bowl shape, the environment causes life to form a more complex shapes. I'm not explaining this because as with most creationist your not interested in science you just want to push your religion on the masses regardless of evidence or truth.


How did the bowl originate?

Just a question, not prosetlyzing :cool:

Sassy- - since you keep denying it, here's another example of transitional fossils:

"Gish was incorrect in stating that there were no transitional fossil forms, and he has been corrected on this gaffe numerous times.... During their evolution, two mammalian middle ear bones (the hammer and anvil, aka malleus and incus) were derived from two reptilian jawbones. Thus there was a major evolutionary transition in which several reptilian jawbones (the quadrate, articular, and angular) were extensively reduced and modified gradually to form the modern mammalian middle ear. At the same time, the dentary bone, a part of the reptilian jaw, was expanded to form the major mammalian lower jawbone. During the course of this change, the bones that form the hinge joint of the jaw changed identity. Importantly, the reptilian jaw joint is formed at the intersection of the quadrate and articular whereas the mammalian jaw joint is formed at the intersection of the squamosal and dentary.

How could hearing and jaw articulation be preserved during this transition? As clearly shown from the many transitional fossils that have been found, the bones that transfer sound in the reptilian and mammalian ear were in contact with each other throughout the evolution of this transition. In reptiles, the stapes contacts the quadrate, which in turn contacts the articular. In mammals, the stapes contacts the incus, which in turn contacts the malleus. Since the quadrate evolved into the incus, and the articular evolved into the malleus, these three bones were in constant contact during this impressive evolutionary change. Furthermore, a functional jaw joint was maintained by redundancy—several of the intermediate fossils have both a reptilian jaw joint (from the quadrate and articular) and a mammalian jaw joint (from the dentary and squamosal). Several late cynodonts and Morganucodon clearly have a double-jointed jaw. In this way, the reptilian-style jaw joint was freed to evolve a new specialized function in the middle ear. It is worthy of note that some modern species of snakes have a double-jointed jaw involving different bones, so such a mechanical arrangement is certainly possible and functional.

"...[S]everal important intermediate fossils have been discovered that fit between Morganucodon and the earliest mammals. These new discoveries include a complete skull of Hadrocodium wui (Luo et al. 2001) and cranial and jaw material from Repenomamus and Gobiconodon (Wang et al. 2001). These new fossil finds clarify exactly when and how the malleus, incus, and angular completely detached from the lower jaw and became solely auditory ear ossicles."

Recall that Gish stated: "There are no transitional fossil forms showing, for instance, three or two jawbones, or two ear bones" (Gish 1978, p. 80). Gish simply does not understand how gradual transitions happen (something he should understand, obviously, if he intends to criticize evolutionary theory). These fossil intermediates illustrate why Gish's statement is a gross mischaracterization of how a transitional form should look. In several of the known intermediates, the bones have overlapping functions, and one bone can be called both an ear bone and a jaw bone; these bones serve two functions. Thus, there is no reason to expect transitional forms with intermediate numbers of jaw bones or ear bones. For example, in Morganucodon, the quadrate (anvil) and the articular (hammer) serve as mammalian-style ear bones and reptilian jaw bones simultaneously. In fact, even in modern reptiles the quadrate and articular serve to transmit sound to the stapes and the inner ear (see Figure 1.4.2). The relevant transition, then, is a process where the ear bones, initially located in the lower jaw, become specialized in function by eventually detaching from the lower jaw and moving closer to the inner ear.


[from 29+ Evidence for Macroevolution] (bold emphasis added)


Story telling at its best :D


Where is the science? The experiments reproducing, measuring, and testing methodology and results?

Homology is as much evidence of design as much as evolutionists claim it is their "proof."

GM's Toronado had front wheel drive, and so do modern Honda Accords. Is it an assumption to say that "natural selection" evolved them both and that they have "common descent?"

Maybe because science and religion don't mix

But they do mix. There are scientists, engineers, physicians etc... that believe in God and know and use science.

Religion and science are not mutually exclusive.

Please describe the "natural" means of how DNA and RNA originally came about. Don't posit a theory or a model. Show me a "natural occurence" of a spontaneous formation of another means of information storage, retreival, and inheritance other than by DNA or RNA. One that did not involve intelligent human manipulation.

Make up your mind. Do you want to hear theories about how DNA came to be? (No, I thought not). Or do you want a 2nd example? That one can't be done, that I know of. So what does that prove? If there were more 'varieties' of DNA then I'd have to concede it might not have occurred naturally. But since there's only one...

How did the bowl originate?

Just a question, not prosetlyzing :cool:

They form naturally when the center is lower than the edges.

Bowl Lake, AZ
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/30/58757953_cc9bcbcc9a.jpg

The science is there if you look instead of merely trying to find fault. Every attempt to do so has been countered by the science. Observation is a big part of it and when predictions are made on the observations and they hold true, then scientific conclusions are made.

Yes, there are many scientists who believe in God. The point is that they do not try to mix their beliefs with their science, don't make supernatural leaps. Some of them are even evolutionists and have no problem at all separating their belief in God from the science of evolution - yes, macroevolution. So science and religion do not mix and are mutually exclusive..

.

Make up your mind. Do you want to hear theories about how DNA came to be? (No, I thought not). Or do you want a 2nd example? That one can't be done, that I know of. So what does that prove? If there were more 'varieties' of DNA then I'd have to concede it might not have occured naturally. But since there's only one.....


Yes, what is the theory about how DNA came to be, how it came to be within a cell, how the ribosomes and amino acids and RNA came to be. How they all become one complex coordinated system of information storage, rereival, editing, adaptation etc...


And secondly

Why a second system did not "evolve?"

There are competing hypotheses on how life actually began. Evolution doesn't really address it. It is concerned with what happened after. But if you're serious, I'll get the info together on a couple of the ideas.

Reason for no 2nd? It was out-competed and failed.. That's not something I've read much on. I think that in order for life to occur, the amino acids have to be in a certain configuration. Whether another one would work we won't know, probably, until we find life on another planet. And even then we'd have to bring a sample home or develop some really sophisticated robots that make today's look like tinkertoys -after, of course, we managed to travel to where it is. Be nice if Mars could give the first chance to find out since it's relatively close.

I find the discussions on how life started to be fascinating. But only scientifically. I have no problem looking for a 'natural' way for it to happen and it's not beyond my inagination to consider. Basically you and I seem to have problems in this area because where I see the wonders of nature, you see the hand of God. To me, it's just 2 sides of the same coin. One side invokes the supernatural, the other merely natural.

Hypothesis, but not proof? Reproducible, experimentally proven proof?

These hypothesis include a "god" then since "god" cannot be proven either?

And those amino acids should be almost exclusively left handed.

The eye : humans vs compund - 2 different designs, not one out competing the other.

The ear : humans vs bats - 2 different techniques, not one outcompeting the other.

Hypothesis include a 'god' since 'god' can't be proven? - No. To insert a god is to invoke the supernatural. Science doesn't do that.

Eye and ear competition - different solutions for different problems.

Eye and ear competition - different solutions for different problems.And don't forget different requirements !

:)

Hypothesis include a 'god' since 'god' can't be proven? - No. To insert a god is to invoke the supernatural. Science doesn't do that.

Eye and ear competition - different solutions for different problems.


But can science define the exact "natural selection" methods at different episodes of evolution? That is similar to invoking the supernatural, isn't it?

As to knowing the natural selection factors, here is an example,
Antibacterial drug resistance. We know the seletive pressure is made by inteligent humans using natural and designed antibiotics.

Does anyone know the selective pressures at the exact time that compound eyes were selected for?

We know the seletive pressure is made by inteligent humans using natural and designed antibiotics.Cool trick, can I do it too?

God is all knowing. Not following him kills your drive in life. Even young kittens know this.

Sassy, I don’t accept your contention, at the end of your post, that the only two scientific choices are between evolutionary theory as its now understood and a God in the sky who separately created all the higher taxa, which is apparently what you are suggesting. I think if you have an alternate Scientific theory to account for all the evidence for evolution, you should present it. I’m not going to critize your current alternate hypothesis—because good manners prevents me from doing so. Plus, I’d be accused of criticizing your personal beliefs, which you have said elsewhere are unrelated to your disbelief in evolution.

So, for now, I’ll limit my discussion to showing why your assertion that natural selection always leads to a reduction in genetic information is wrong. The short answer is of course gene and chromosome doubling. There IS a reason that different organisms have different numbers of chromosomes and different amounts of DNA. And it’s not true that we have just as much as we need—some ideal amount. Otherwise, there’s no reason a potato would have so much more DNA than a human. So genes multiply and then one copy can mutate independently of the original, so that genetic information increases. When chromosomes double, you get the same result on a massive scale. It's just false to say that there's no way for genetic information to increase. It's easy.


You can breed for horse varieties with white coats, brown coats and so forth, but no amount of breeding selection will ever generate a green-haired horse variety–the information for green hair does not exist in the horse population.

Of course you cannot easily breed for green horses (that I know of). There are limits to the KIND of genetic information that's available to select from at any given time. But that's different from saying selection reduces variation. You haven’t bolstered your argument with this example.


Common sense confirms that you cannot start with little Shetland ponies and try to select for Clydesdale draft horses–the information just isn’t there anymore!

I don't know enough about horse genetics to argue this specific example, although I wonder if it’s true, but I can tell you that common sense is a poor guide for this kind of argument. It is not true that one type (species, breed, whatever) has less variation than a parent type, by definition. You are making a variation of an argument against evolution that was made in the 19th century, by an engineer. But it was not true then and it is not true now.

Decreased genetic variation happens when you take, say, 10 people (or animals) from a population of 100 million and put them on a desert island or mountain top where they can only breed with each other. So you have only taken a tiny sample of the variation that’s in the larger population AND you have imposed inbreeding, which further reduces variation.

Most reductions in genetic variation in dog and horses breeds are the result of inbreeding. They are not the result of selection, either in the wild or in domesticated animals. I gather that dog breeders often inbreed their dogs heavily because humans value “purebred,” or inbred, dogs. But you can avoid excessive inbreeding by outbreeding just occasionally.

In the wild, not only do animals and plants frequently outbreed, they may even hybridize with other species. For example, wolves and coyotes are two different species that have been separated for millions of years (as shown by genetic studies), yet in certain situations they can mate and produce healthy pups. In fact, genetic studies suggest the red wolf of the American South is a wolf-coyote hybrid that has become its own species. Hybridization increases information. (As can DNA doubling and mutation.) Plants commonly hybridize.

So your statement that selection reduces variation is not true. But after thinking about it, I realize that even though you have blamed selection for loss of information, you are probably thinking of situations like rapid speciation in oceanic islands or mountain tops, where a small population inbreeds. Again, it’s the small population size and the inbreeding that cause a loss of information compared to the large parent population on the mainland.

But that IS the situation in which rapid speciation often occurs. So let’s assume you understood that it’s inbreeding that causes information loss (not selection). In that case, you would have a valid point that information is lost in the very situations where heavy selection is most likely to produce a new species.

The initial speciation event can occur very quickly.

But what happens afterward is equally important. Let’s say the species was a lizard stranded on a mountain top. They quickly inbreed and evolved larger jaws for coping with a local grasshopper--the only food around. The grasshoppers turn out to be successful for their own reasons and the lizards spread to other mountain tops, following their prey.

Over millions of years, the longer jaws that evolved quickly from a few genes are stabilized so that minor mutations, or new genes from other populations of lizards cannot prevent the lizards from having long jaws. Along with making the expression of the long jaw trait more stable, the lizards also accumulate more genetic information. Genes double and mutate. Some old genes are lost and replaced by new ones. Occasionally, the now large (no longer inbred) population hybridizes with other species of lizards, which brings in new genes without swamping the long jaws trait—which is now a robust trait.

So, yes, if a new species arises through being isolated, inbred, and experiencing heavy selection (allopatric speciation), they can experience some initial loss of information. But they will get information back!


As far as mutations go, there is just no evidence for even 10, let alone the millions, or rather trillions of these literally miraculous information increasing mutations that must have occurred if evolution is really true.

This is a strange assertion, since literally every gene in your body represents a long series mutations. Humans have approximately 30,000 genes. Each one is the product of many mutations, some of which happened in the last ten thousand years, but most of which occurred hundreds of thousands or millions of years ago. A few of our genes evolved literally billions of years ago. Every one of us is just a bunch of random mutations that gradually accumulated to form a functional organism.

Why don't we observe this happening in the lab when we generate mutations with nasty chemicals and x rays (which is how it’s usually done)?

We can generate all kinds of mutations in the lab. But there’s no way to tell if they are “good” or “bad” unless we test drive them in a real animal in a real environment. In the wild, animals and plants make all kinds of trade offs between acquiring energy/food and being safe from predators or competing with other organisms. So a gene that makes an animal big, say, might be useful in one environment, deadly in another. You can’t test this in the lab. You need to test drive individual mutations, which is what natural selection does. You CAN observe evolutionary change in the wild and you can peg it to specific genes.

I remember a lab that knocked out a gene for a growth regulating gene in a mouse and the researchers expected the baby mice missing the gene to die before they were born. The gene was considered a very important one. But the baby mice not only did not die, they grew up to have long hair, like Persian cats. So normally, long hair is probably not adaptive in mice. But it’s easy to imagine a situation where such a mutation could be useful.

Most mutations that occur in the lab do not produce traits that the researcher can understand like that. Whether something is "good" or "bad" depends on the genetic and environmental context. A fatal gene might turn out to be nonfatal and useful if another mutation had evolved first that prevents it from being fatal and allows it to do something else. So you really can't know the value of individual mutations out of context--and the lab is totally out of context.

This is a strange assertion, since literally every gene in your body represents a long series mutations. Humans have approximately 30,000 genes. Each one is the product of many mutations, some of which happened in the last ten thousand years, but most of which occurred hundreds of thousands or millions of years ago. A few of our genes evolved literally billions of years ago. Every one of us is just a bunch of random mutations that gradually accumulated to form a functional organism.




Mutations, evolutions way of adding information? That may be helpful in some other environment?

alzheimers
Gene Mutation Predicts Alzheimer's (http://www.hno.harvard.edu/gazette/1997/03.13/GeneMutationPre.html)


breast cancer
Breast cancer - Genetics Home Reference (http://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/condition=breastcancer)


colon cancer
p53 mutations in colorectal cancer. [Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1990] - PubMed Result (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1699228)

Digeorge
eMedicine - DiGeorge Syndrome : Article by Suguru Imaeda (http://www.emedicine.com/derm/topic716.htm)

Lou Gherigs
Prevalence of SOD1 mutations in the Italian ALS population -- Chiò et al. 70 (7): 533 -- Neurology (http://www.neurology.org/cgi/content/abstract/70/7/533)


Genes and disease (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/disease/)
lists of various diseases




The 46 human chromosomes (22 pairs of autosomal chromosomes and 2 sex chromosomes) between them house almost 3 billion base pairs of DNA that contains about 30,000 - 40,000 protein-coding genes. This is a much smaller number than predicted - only twice as many as in the worm or fly model organisms. The coding regions make up less than 5% of the genome (the function of the remaining DNA is not clear) and some chromosomes have a higher density of genes than others.



Now is it clear how mutations, natural selection, and a couple billion years caused single cell to "evolve" into human beings;)



As to adding information:

PLoS Genetics: A Mutation in the Myostatin Gene Increases Muscle Mass and Enhances Racing Performance in Heterozygote Dogs (http://www.plosgenetics.org/article/info:doi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pgen.0030079)



Here we describe a new mutation in MSTN found in the whippet dog breed that results in a double-muscled phenotype known as the “bully” whippet. Individuals with this phenotype carry two copies of a two-base-pair deletion in the third exon of MSTN leading to a premature stop codon at amino acid 313.


Hmmm, the information was already there!

It's a genetic mutation that causes sickle cell also. But it's only a problem if you have 2 copies. With only 1 you have immunity to malaria - a beneficial mutation. And, as I've posted before, there are stressor genes whose function is to make sure proteins, etc are there to try and correct errors in mitochondria. Sometimes when they fail, a bunch of stored mutations are 'set free' and maybe a new char appears. Whether it is beneficial will be borne out by the environmental pressures (selection) or by whether it interferes with a vital function. Obviously, not all do.

As for genes already there... that's why, for example, some whales and snakes have vestigial hip bones. So what?

Blonds and redheads were a mutation, so there are beneficial mutations as well. :)

Just cause you can point to bad mutations really doesn't prove anything because what is bad in one case may be good in another. The mutation doesn't design it's self good or bad it just is and the environment decides whether that trait gets passed down or not.

I don't know what to say. inthebox actually believes that mutations only cause diseases and don't do anything else? He doesn't even know what a gene is? Seriously? Where is SassyT to explain this?

I don't know what to say. inthebox actually believes that mutations only cause diseases and don't do anything else? He doesn't even know what a gene is? Seriously? Where is SassyT to explain this?
And does that really surprise you?
This is what this topic is precisely about : the lack of knowledge of creationists and their organisations, and the emptiness and/or deliberate dishonesty of their argumentation.

:rolleyes:

·

It's a genetic mutation that causes sickle cell also. But it's only a problem if you have 2 copies. With only 1 you have immunity to malaria


The SCIENCE actually proves you wrong :p





Clinical malaria and sickle cell disease among mul...[Pediatrics. 2007] - PubMed Result (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17766515)

The 3 other siblings had sickle cell trait, 2 of whom had complicated malaria. Patients who have sickle cell disease and are infected with malaria are prone to hyperhemolytic crisis; therefore, this complication should be anticipated



The hemolysis was actually worse!




eMedicine - Sickle Cell Anemia : Article by Ariel Distenfeld (http://www.emedicine.com/MED/topic2126.htm)


While children with sickle cell trait Hb SA seem to have a milder form of falciparum malaria, those with homozygous Hb S have a severe form that is associated with very high mortality rate.





There is no immunity. ;)

I don't know what to say. inthebox actually believes that mutations only cause diseases and don't do anything else? He doesn't even know what a gene is? Seriously? Where is SassyT to explain this?




So this is your response to the SCIENCE, I linked?:confused:

A tactic to divert attention from the fact that genetic mutations are harmful.

If you believe that genetic mutations can be "beneficial" why does the actual science
show the contrary? People intuitively know that mutations are harmful.

That is why premenopausal women get screened before even a simple x-ray, because no one wants to pass on mutation[s.]

Maybe you are confusing X-Men fantasy type of "beneficial" mutations :p

And does that really surprise you?
This is what this topic is precisely about : the lack of knowledge of creationists and their organisations, and the emptiness and/or deliberate dishonesty of their argumentation.

:rolleyes:

·

So, when someone questions the role of mutations in evolution, and intelligently backs up it up with the objective scientific facts, this is the type of response that evolutionists give :confused:

Cred you are projecting :D

So this is your response to the SCIENCE, I linked?:confused:

I don't have any problem with the science, but you are cherry picking. What you did is like linking to a list of news articles about car accidents to show that riding in a car is always deadly. It can be, but it isn't always, obviously.


A tactic to divert attention from the fact that genetic mutations are harmful.
They can be, but since every gene in your body is the product of extensive mutation, they obviously aren't always.


If you believe that genetic mutations can be "beneficial" why does the actual science
show the contrary? People intuitively know that mutations are harmful.

"The" actual science doesn't show the contrary. Mutations can be good or bad. It's natural selection's job to let the good ones accumulate and weed out the bad ones.

Here's a good one: The gene for hemoglobin comes in several different forms, each one useful under different circumstances and each one a mutant with respect to the others. Babies start with fetal hemoglobin and later switch to adult hemoglobin since they handle oxygen differently in the womb than outside breathing air--to give one of thousands of examples of useful mutations.


That is why [reproductive] women get screened before even a simple x-ray, because no one wants to pass on mutation[s.]

They should screen men too. (They have genes too.)

So, when someone questions ... and intelligently backs up it up ....
"... someone ... intelligently ..." Are you really referring to yourself here??

:D :D :D :D :D

·

Evolution: Library: A Mutation Story (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/01/2/l_012_02.html)


A Mutation Story:
A gene known as HbS was the center of a medical and evolutionary detective story that began in the middle 1940s in Africa. Doctors noticed that patients who had sickle cell anemia, a serious hereditary blood disease, were more likely to survive malaria , a disease which kills some 1.2 million people every year. What was puzzling was why sickle cell anemia was so prevalent in some African populations.


How could a "bad" gene -- the mutation that causes the sometimes lethal sickle cell disease -- also be beneficial? On the other hand, if it didn't provide some survival advantage, why had the sickle gene persisted in such a high frequency in the populations that had it?

... Every person has two copies of the hemoglobin gene. Usually, both genes make a normal hemoglobin protein. When someone inherits two mutant copies of the hemoglobin gene, the abnormal form of the hemoglobin protein causes the red blood cells to lose oxygen and warp into a sickle shape during periods of high activity...

But it takes two copies of the mutant gene, one from each parent, to give someone the full-blown disease. Many people have just one copy, the other being normal. Those who carry the sickle cell trait do not suffer nearly as severely from the disease.


Researchers found that the sickle cell gene is especially prevalent in areas of Africa hard-hit by malaria. In some regions, as much as 40 percent of the population carries at least one HbS gene.


It turns out that, in these areas, HbS carriers have been naturally selected , because the trait confers some resistance to malaria. Their red blood cells, containing some abnormal hemoglobin, tend to sickle when they are infected by the malaria parasite. Those infected cells flow through the spleen, which culls them out because of their sickle shape -- and the parasite is eliminated along with them.


Scientists believe the sickle cell gene appeared and disappeared in the population several times, but became permanently established after a particularly vicious form of malaria jumped from animals to humans in Asia, the Middle East, and Africa.

In areas where the sickle cell gene is common, the immunity conferred has become a selective advantage. Unfortunately, it is also a disadvantage because the chances of being born with sickle cell anemia are relatively high.


... This situation is a stark example of genetic compromise, or an evolutionary "trade-off."

Flyer, I found that story truly fascinating. Thanks for sharing it. :)

Welcome, Alty. I had to counter box's partial story.

Evolution: Library: A Mutation Story (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/01/2/l_012_02.html)


A Mutation Story:
A gene known as HbS was the center of a medical and evolutionary detective story that began in the middle 1940s in Africa. Doctors noticed that patients who had sickle cell anemia, a serious hereditary blood disease, were more likely to survive malaria , a disease which kills some 1.2 million people every year. What was puzzling was why sickle cell anemia was so prevalent in some African populations.


How could a "bad" gene -- the mutation that causes the sometimes lethal sickle cell disease -- also be beneficial? On the other hand, if it didn't provide some survival advantage, why had the sickle gene persisted in such a high frequency in the populations that had it?

... Every person has two copies of the hemoglobin gene. Usually, both genes make a normal hemoglobin protein. When someone inherits two mutant copies of the hemoglobin gene, the abnormal form of the hemoglobin protein causes the red blood cells to lose oxygen and warp into a sickle shape during periods of high activity...

But it takes two copies of the mutant gene, one from each parent, to give someone the full-blown disease. Many people have just one copy, the other being normal. Those who carry the sickle cell trait do not suffer nearly as severely from the disease.


Researchers found that the sickle cell gene is especially prevalent in areas of Africa hard-hit by malaria. In some regions, as much as 40 percent of the population carries at least one HbS gene.


It turns out that, in these areas, HbS carriers have been naturally selected , because the trait confers some resistance to malaria. Their red blood cells, containing some abnormal hemoglobin, tend to sickle when they are infected by the malaria parasite. Those infected cells flow through the spleen, which culls them out because of their sickle shape -- and the parasite is eliminated along with them.


Scientists believe the sickle cell gene appeared and disappeared in the population several times, but became permanently established after a particularly vicious form of malaria jumped from animals to humans in Asia, the Middle East, and Africa.

In areas where the sickle cell gene is common, the immunity conferred has become a selective advantage. Unfortunately, it is also a disadvantage because the chances of being born with sickle cell anemia are relatively high.


... This situation is a stark example of genetic compromise, or an evolutionary "trade-off."



Your link is obviously biased toward evolution.
Even they cannot get their facts straight. Notice the bolded in your link :)




eMedicine - Sickle Cell Anemia : Article by Ariel Distenfeld (http://www.emedicine.com/MED/topic2126.htm)


While children with sickle cell trait Hb SA seem to have a milder form of falciparum malaria, those with homozygous Hb S have a severe form that is associated with very high mortality rate.




Clinical malaria and sickle cell disease among mul...[Pediatrics. 2007] - PubMed Result (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17766515)


The 3 other siblings had sickle cell trait , 2 of whom had complicated malaria. Patients who have sickle cell disease and are infected with malaria are prone to hyperhemolytic crisis;




Both my links are MEDICAL - that is practical and objective with no bias toward ID or creationism or evolution - just the straight facts.



Sickle cell trait does not confer immunity



I have cared for Sickle cell patients in crisis. There is no comfort to them, while they are in excrutiating pain, to know that there is a malaria induced selective advantage for sickle cell trait, :( and because of that, their parents have a advantage, while they got the disease.



Regardless, the fact remains that sickle cell anemia 1] does not add to genetic information 2] is a substitution mutation that causes human morbidity and mortality.

Found this it was too funny not to post in this topic.
List of scientists who became creationists after studying the evidence - RationalWiki (http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/List_of_scientists_who_became_creationists_after_s tudying_the_evidence)

Found this it was too funny not to post in this topic.
I waited and waited and waited... must be something wrong with my connection...

:D

·

Found this it was too funny not to post in this topic.
List of scientists who became creationists after studying the evidence - RationalWiki (http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/List_of_scientists_who_became_creationists_after_s tudying_the_evidence)

I like the tumbleweeds. :)

Needs more crickets. :D

Found this it was too funny not to post in this topic.
List of scientists who became creationists after studying the evidence - RationalWiki (http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/List_of_scientists_who_became_creationists_after_s tudying_the_evidence)

Needs color, the grey tumbleweeds are boring. ;):)

Now something positive about Michealb's link, please!!

1 - All names are easy to remember !

2 - No race, gender, or sex differences !

3 - Political views are evenly spread !

4 - Display speed and direction are constant !

5 -.. .

Anyone any other positives ?

:D :D :D :D :D

·

5. Number of names is impressive.
6. No religious differences among the names.

Box - I never implied sickle cell wasn't a terrible condition. But one copy of the mutated gene does confer immunity to malaria. It may not always prevent one from getting it ubt it will, at the very least, reduce the seriousness.

box - I never implied sickle cell wasn't a terrible condition. But one copy of the mutated gene does confer immunity to malaria. It may not always prevent one from getting it but it will, at the very least, reduce the seriousness.
It simply was a case of what was the least bad for you in the tropics without medicines thousands of years ago : sickle cell sickness or the much higher human morbidity and mortality caused by malaria : evolution in all it's positive and negative effects !

:)

·

From Science Daily





Survival Of The Fittest: Even Cancer Cells Follow The Laws Of Evolution (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/08/080801094300.htm)


To arrive at these conclusions, researchers analyzed about 500,000 cancer mutation records from the Catalog of Somatic Mutations in Cancer database...

"Little could Darwin have known that his 'Origin of the Species' would one day explain the 'Origin of the Tumor,'"






So while millions of their fellow humans are suffering from cancer, looking to science for treatments and cures, there are a few researchers who call themselves fellows of the “institute of advanced studies” who have nothing better to do than tell jokes about On the Origin of Tumors by Natural Selection, and the Preservation of Favored Mistakes in the Struggle for Death.:( :mad:

.... there are a few researchers who ... have nothing better to do than tell jokes ...
That says something of the researchers involved here. But is does not say anything about the topic , about why the ICR seem to think that lying and cheating is a good approach to "spread the word"...

:rolleyes:

·

Hello everyone! :)
I have been gone for quite a while and not much has changed it seems.. the Darwinist are still struggling to scientifically prove their theory.
Darwinism relies on the uproven premise that random mutations create "new" information in species which lead to the creation of a new never seen before genus. However science has never observed this fantancy. I am yet to see a random mutation where by for instance a human baby is born with feathers or fish scales(new information).
With this said The theory of Macro evolution still remains a Myth, a farce and a hoax.

Hello everyone!! :)
i have been gone for quite a while

Hi Sassy. Were you traveling? I hope you had fun!

.... the Darwinist are still struggling to scientifically prove their theory.
I did not see that struggling at all. All I saw were several theists struggling in vain to explain that their religious myths have any basis in reality...


Darwinism relies on the uproven premise that random mutations ....
Darwinism does not rely on any unproven premise at all. It is an explanation of what can be seen by everyone with an open mind. And it is backed up by loads of actual findings across many different fields of support.


With this said The theory of Macro evolution still remains a Myth, a farce and a hoax.
Not really. But based on the drift of your statement one can conclude that it is more valid to state that any of the many religious claims still remain a Myth, a farce, and a hoax.

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

·

From Science DailySo while millions of their fellow humans are suffering from cancer, looking to science for treatments and cures, there are a few researchers who call themselves fellows of the “institute of advanced studies” who have nothing better to do than tell jokes about On the Origin of Tumors by Natural Selection, and the Preservation of Favored Mistakes in the Struggle for Death.:( :mad:

Inthebox, as your quote shows, they didn't say what you just said. They just said "origin of the tumor," not the rest, which I guess you invented yourself? The evolution of cancer is cells is not a joke. It's very important that cells evolve, both inside us and in tissue culture. It's also a problem in the culture of adult stem cells in the laboratory.

Hi Sassy. Were you traveling? I hope you had fun!

Hello asking! Yes, I have been travelling.. because now I have to get back to school. Two more semesters and I will be done. Can't wait!

[QUOTE=Credendovidis]I did not see that struggling at all. All I saw were several theists struggling in vain to explain that their religious myths have any basis in reality...

Again these are your opinions and BELIEFS , which i must say, have proved to not be reflect reality in the past.


Darwinism does not rely on any unproven premise at all. It is an explanation of what can be seen by everyone with an open mind. And it is backed up by loads of actual findings across many different fields of support.

Rather than making hot air empty claims like these, kindly provide objective evidence of a random mutation that has added new information to a species. (For example a human baby born with feathers or a baby elephant born with fish scales)



Not really. But based on the drift of your statement one can conclude that it is more valid to state that any of the many religious claims still remain a Myth, a farce, and a hoax.

very original i must say...

I think the point that most evolutionist are making is that we don't have extraordinary claim and that all evidence point to evolution. If you have a different claim have it fit all of the evidence if you have a extraordinary supernatural claim point us to the evidence of something supernatural. Then we will listen to you too. Otherwise you are just fanatic. While this may be my opinion I think it fits with general reasoning which we should all use to govern our lives.

(For example a human baby born with feathers)

How about a baby human born with a tail?

Hello asking! Yes, i have been travelling.. because now i have to get back to school. two more semesters and i will be done. Can't wait!

So what's your plan after you get your degree? Are you going to get a job in biology?

How about a baby human born with a tail?

I'm guessing Sassy will argue that's a throwback--since it's technically old information that was already there that has been suppressed. So it's not "new." But of course in order to argue that, she has to concede the genes for the tail are old information that we carry within us. A lose-lose situation. :)

That's kind of why I used that argument. Of course I've already read what the creationist say about the human tail so I know what she is going to come back with. I think it still answers her challenge though.

Thats kind of why I used that argument. Of course I've already read what the creationist say about the human tail so I know what she is going to come back with. I think it still answers her challenge though.

The tail was a good idea. What is the creationist argument?

I keep thinking about my favorite example of hard-to-argue with evidence for evolution. But it's not an answer to her specific challenge--new genetic information.

To me, all new mutations are new information, so I don't really know what would satisfy in that department. Gene replication followed by separate mutations is so obvious. But I guess Sassy wants a specific trait. The problem is that you can see genetic mutations all the time but you can't know which ones will turn out to have been useful until generations pass and you can see the results. So the question is, by definition, unanswerable. It's not about whether it's right or not. But it is the nature of evolution that you can only answer that particular question retrospectively.

Anyway, in an old embryology experiment, mouse ectoderm (what later turns into skin and nerve tissue) placed on the mouth tissues of a developing chick embryo stimulated the development of actual teeth. In other words, the bird, which has not had teeth for millions of years, still carries the genes for making teeth. Those genes are just turned off. The mouse ectoderm, which normally stimulates the development of teeth in mice (and other mammals), was able to send a signal to the chick tissue to turn on those genes and make teeth--demonstrating that birds are descended from animals that made teeth--e.g. dinosaurs. How cool is that?

I thought that the experiment that produced E coli that could process citrate was a pretty compelling for mutations being able to add useful code but I'm not a biology student what do I know. :)
Bacteria make major evolutionary shift in the lab - life - 09 June 2008 - New Scientist (http://www.newscientist.com/channel/life/dn14094-bacteria-make-major-evolutionary-shift-in-the-lab.html)

The creationist argument for the tails in humans is that it's not really a tail it just looks like a tail. It's just a clump of skin since most of the time the tail doesn't have any bones in it.

Very nice! I love long-term experiments. So few scientists do them anymore.

(For anyone who doesn't want to read the article, it says that after 44,000 generations growing in the lab, one lineage of E. coli bacteria evolved the ability to break down citrate, even though the INability to break down citrate is considered one of the defining characteristics of these gut bacteria (E. coli). Not being able to metabolize citrate is a trait that separates E. coli from other species of bacteria, so by evolving that ability, they evolved a trait typical of another species.)

As for the human tail, this website says that about two- thirds of human tails are "true tails" with muscle, nerves, blood vessels, and normal skin. Rarely, they have vertebrae, too. Also, it mentions that the Barbary macaque (a monkey) has a vestigial tail with no vertebrae.

The following discussion is taken from (http://daphne.palomar.edu/ccarpenter/vestiges.htm)

http://pharyngula.org/images/teach_both_theories.gif

I don't know why we don't do this?

I don't know why we don't do this?
Creationism and ID are items that are religion based, and therefore should be or can be part of the school curriculum in the section philosophy or religion.
Evolution is science based, and therefore should be part of the school curriculum in the science of physics section.

:)

Sarcasm is stating the opposite of an intended meaning especially in order to sneeringly, slyly, jest or mock a person, situation or thing.

I think we all speak fluent sarcasm here. :)

Sure : sarcasm is all that, but an appropriate smilie helps to indicate that !

And yes, many experts on this board . Experts from all different world views !

What else should be expected when the ICR's hypocrisy is the topic's subject ?

:D

To me, all new mutations are new information, so I don't really know what would satisfy in that department. Gene replication followed by separate mutations is so obvious. But I guess Sassy wants a specific trait. The problem is that you can see genetic mutations all the time but you can't know which ones will turn out to have been useful until generations pass and you can see the results. So the question is, by definition, unanswerable. It's not about whether it's right or not. But it is the nature of evolution that you can only answer that particular question retrospectively.





So we are back to the mutation is good argument when the objective scientific evidence proves otherwise.




https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/religious-discussions/institute-creation-research-logic-242343-13.html#post1203474

So you can't know and unaswerable? So evolution relies on faith :cool:

What are the specific mutated genes that caused human speech [ compared with other primates ] ?

What mutated genes caused bipedalism? Religious belief? Alturism? Self awareness?
Artistry? Love? Charity?

I thought that the experiment that produced E coli that could process citrate was a pretty compelling for mutations being able to add useful code but I'm not a biology student what do I know. :)
Bacteria make major evolutionary shift in the lab - life - 09 June 2008 - New Scientist (http://www.newscientist.com/channel/life/dn14094-bacteria-make-major-evolutionary-shift-in-the-lab.html)

The creationist argument for the tails in humans is that it's not really a tail it just looks like a tail. It's just a clump of skin since most of the time the tail doesn't have any bones in it.


Rehashing microevolution?


https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/religious-discussions/institute-creation-research-logic-242343-3.html#post1186182

What about the topic? The invalidity of the arguments and the deliberate misleading by the ICR to oppose scientific research and findings, in it's quest to "spread the word"??

Isn't there anything beyond immoral and unethical thinking for the ICR ?
Do you approve spreading deliberate lies to "spread the word"??

:rolleyes:

·

·

So we are back to the mutation is good argument when the objective scientific evidence proves otherwise.




https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/religious-discussions/institute-creation-research-logic-242343-13.html#post1203474

So you can't know and unaswerable? So evolution relies on faith :cool:

What are the specific mutated genes that caused human speech [ compared with other primates ] ?

What mutated genes caused bipedalism? religious belief? alturism? self awareness?
artistry? love? charity?

Mutations are either both good and bad or neither depending on how you look at it. Basically, they are amoral. They are just changes. Whether they make an organism behave well or badly is in the eye of the beholder. Whether they make an organism more fit for its current environment or less fit depends on the current environment (and not future environment). So it makes no sense to say mutations are good, or bad.

Saying mutations are bad is like saying rain is always bad. But the opposite isn't true either.

As for bipedalism etc, large numbers of genes (and ALL genes are mutated) cause all those things, not single genes. There isn't ONE gene for such traits, or indeed most traits. Very few traits are single gene traits. In school students are only taught about really obvious deleterious recessives, but that doesn't mean that's all there is.

Anyway, there is endless evidence for behavioral traits like the ones you mention having a genetic basis. That DOESN'T mean that behavior is ALL genetic, I hasten to add. But it does mean that a proportion of personality and tendencies to behave in certain ways are inherited, in both humans and non human animals. That's why you can breed for gentleness in domestic animals or aggressiveness if you want something that fights or hunts. But those genes for behavior are often linked to other traits.

For example, when some researchers tried to domestic foxes being raised for their fur, they got foxes that were easier to deal with--more like dogs. BUT the foxes barked like dogs (and fox puppies), which adult foxes don't normally do AND the fox's fur was all different colors, like dogs'. So the fur was ruined by breeding for that puppy-like, eager to please trait. That's why it's much harder to find the exact set of genes for a given trait, because it's probably a whole bunch of genes, each of which does 10 different things. So in the wild, those puppylike behaviors are not "good" in an adult fox. But in the lab, they become "good," because we want them.

What about the topic? The invalidity of the arguments and the deliberate misleading by the ICR to oppose scientific research and findings, in it's quest to "spread the word" ???

Isn't there anything beyond immoral and unethical thinking for the ICR ?
Do you approve spreading deliberate lies to "spread the word" ???

:rolleyes:

·

·

I think it IS immoral to lie about science, to deliberately promulgate ignorance. But that's just my brand of morality. And I know that people have different ways of justifying these things--chief among them, lying to themselves. To a degree, everyone deceives themselves about things they don't want to deal with. For me, the question about the individual members of the ICR is, How cynical are they? I don't know that without getting to know them better as individuals.

I doubt any of these people would cop to spreading lies. They will just turn it around and accuse biologists of spreading lies, of being in a vast conspiracy of hundreds of thousands (more?) scientists, all covering up the truth. I wonder how many biologists there are in the world?

Mutations are either both good and bad or neither depending on how you look at it. Basically, they are amoral. They are just changes. Whether they make an organism behave well or badly is in the eye of the beholder. Whether they make an organism more fit for its current environment or less fit depends on the current environment (and not future environment). So it makes no sense to say mutations are good, or bad.

Saying mutations are bad is like saying rain is always bad. But the opposite isn't true either.

As for bipedalism etc, large numbers of genes (and ALL genes are mutated) cause all those things, not single genes. There isn't ONE gene for such traits, or indeed most traits. Very few traits are single gene traits. In school students are only taught about really obvious deleterious recessives, but that doesn't mean that's all there is.

Anyway, there is endless evidence for behavioral traits like the ones you mention having a genetic basis. That DOESN'T mean that behavior is ALL genetic, I hasten to add. But it does mean that a proportion of personality and tendencies to behave in certain ways are inherited, in both humans and non human animals. That's why you can breed for gentleness in domestic animals or aggressiveness if you want something that fights or hunts. But those genes for behavior are often linked to other traits.

For example, when some researchers tried to domestic foxes being raised for their fur, they got foxes that were easier to deal with--more like dogs. BUT the foxes barked like dogs (and fox puppies), which adult foxes don't normally do AND the fox's fur was all different colors, like dogs'. So the fur was ruined by breeding for that puppy-like, eager to please trait. That's why it's much harder to find the exact set of genes for a given trait, because it's probably a whole bunch of genes, each of which does 10 different things. So in the wild, those puppylike behaviors are not "good" in an adult fox. But in the lab, they become "good," because we want them.


"Mutations are amoral"

Tell that to women with the brca mutation - surely anyone with commonsense knows that that is a bad mutation. Or those with the mutated genes for digeorge's, alzheimer's, colon cancer, etc...


See the links to I've provided.

Survival Of The Fittest: Even Cancer Cells Follow The Laws Of Evolution (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/08/080801094300.htm)


500,000 cancer mutation records from the Catalog of Somatic Mutations in Cancer database


Now how about actually naming the "beneficial" mutations? Prove it.


Here is another commonsense question:

If the very first cars broke down every mile for every mile they functioned, how far do you think consumers would have demanded them. Would there be any consumer demand [ selection ] for them?

Evolutionists would have us believe that the primary means of evolving is mutations yet the objective scientific evidence demonstrates that mutations are harmful

Don't you get the science channel? They just had a show on two nights ago where they were talking about human mutants. They had on this one guy who was able to run 13 miles bare foot in his underwear in the snow in -27F degree weather. Not one did this guy live but he didn't suffer from frost bite. Sounds like a good mutation to me at least if you live in a cold weather area at least might be a bad mutation if you live in the Caribbean.

I think the point that most evolutionist are making is that we don't have extraordinary claim and that all evidence point to evolution. If you have a different claim have it fit all of the evidence if you have a extraordinary supernatural claim point us to the evidence of something supernatural. Then we will listen to you too. Otherwise you are just fanatic. While this may be my opinion I think it fits with general reasoning which we should all use to govern our lives.

Hmmm... I am yet to see evidence for Macro evolution. As far as I am concerned there is NONE. But again, you are welcome to prove me wrong. ;)

Thats kind of why I used that argument. Of course I've already read what the creationist say about the human tail so I know what she is going to come back with. I think it still answers her challenge though.

No actually it doesn't answer my challenge because that so called "tail" is not "new" information.
The Indian baby's "tail", like nearly all cases of human "tails", is not a tail. It doesn't have any bones in it neither does it have a nerve cord.
That so called tail is nothing but skin and fatty tissue, and can easily be cut off.
As biologist Dr. Gary Parker once said about these fatty tumor "tails": “So far as I know, no one claims we evolved from an animal with a fatty tumor at the end of its spine.”

So that does not constitute new information, sorry :(

Again, a Human baby born with feathers, fish scales, pigs feet, dog ears, hooves, cat claws, wiskers, four legs, something along those lines, would constitute new information. Or if you can show me a bird that hatches with scales instead of feathers or a fish that hatches with dog like fur instead of scales... etc

No actually it doesnt answer my challange because that so called "tail" is not "new" information.
The Indian baby's "tail", like nearly all cases of human "tails", is not a tail. It doesn't have any bones in it neither does it have a nerve cord.
That so called tail is nothing but skin and fatty tissue, and can easily be cut off.
As biologist Dr. Gary Parker once said about these fatty tumor "tails": “So far as I know, no one claims we evolved from an animal with a fatty tumor at the end of its spine.”

Sassy, please see what I posted on this earlier. According to the source I posted most of these tails are true tails--about 2/3rds and have nerves and blood vessels. And some even have vertebrae. The Barbary macaque's vestigial tail has no vertebrae, so there's a consistent pattern there. It makes sense that when we rarely grow tails, they wouldn't have vertebrae most of the time. I read that some tails have as many as 5 vertebrae. That's a lot (and so creepy!).

So that does not constitute new information, sorry :(

I agree it's not new information, but that's only because we are carrying genetic information for structures we no longer use. We have the genes to make tails because we are descended from animals that had tails. In any case, the embryonic tail is unquestionably homologous with the tails of other vertebrates, including reptiles and birds. Likewise, as I mentioned earlier, birds carry the genetic information to make regular teeth, even though modern birds have no teeth. There are lots of examples like these.


Again, a Human baby born with feathers, fish scales, pigs feet, dog ears, hooves, cat claws, wiskers, four legs, something along those lines, would constitute new information. Or if you can show me a bird that hatches with scales instead of feathers or a fish that hatches with dog like fur instead of scales...etc

Birds' legs do have scales on them. Check out the chicken legs at the butcher's.

[QUOTE=asking]Sassy, please see what I posted on this earlier. According to the source I posted most of these tails are true tails--about 2/3rds and have nerves and blood vessels. And some even have vertebrae. The Barbary macaque's vestigial tail has no vertebrae, so there's a consistent pattern there. It makes sense that when we rarely grow tails, they wouldn't have vertebrae most of the time. I read that some tails have as many as 5 vertebrae. That's a lot (and so creepy!).

Hi Asking please see attatched photo and tell me if that's a tail...

So that does not constitute new information, sorry :(


I agree it's not new information, but that's only because we are carrying genetic information for structures we no longer use. We have the genes to make tails because we are descended from animals that had tails. In any case, the embryonic tail is unquestionably homologous with the tails of other vertebrates, including reptiles and birds. Likewise, as I mentioned earlier, birds carry the genetic information to make regular teeth, even though modern birds have no teeth. There are lots of examples like these.

Wow wow wow, wait a minute... Did we evolve from monkeys or apes? Monkeys generally have tails and apes don't. If evolutionists believe that the "tail" is evidence that we evolved from monkey-type creatures, why do they insist that we evolved from a common ancestor with apes, which don't have tails? Which is it?
And isn't natural selection supposed to favor improvements, and not impediments? Why then would natural selection cause something as useful as a tail to wither into an encumbrance and then disappear?
I personaly think a tail would be very useful to humans. Like right now, I could use a tail sip my tea while I type.. :D





Birds' legs do have scales on them. Check out the chicken legs at the butcher's.

Asking I am talking about a bird born with fish scales instead of feathers.

If evolutionists believe that the "tail" is evidence that we evolved from monkey-type creatures, why do they insist that we evolved from a common ancestor with apes, which don't have tails? which is it?

Sassy, hun, apes evolved from animals with tails too.

Hi Asking please see attatched photo and tell me if that's a tail... [QUOTE]

Where is attachment? In any case, it wouldn't help. I think you need to be an expert and have it in front of you to tell the difference between a true tail and a pseudo tail. There ARE pseudo tails, as Creationists often point out, but not all human tails are pseudo tails. As I said, most are real enough, though decidedly weird.

[QUOTE]wow wow wow, wait a minute... Did we evolve from monkeys or apes?

Both! Great Apes (chimps, bonobos, orangutans, and gorillas) are all old world animals (Africa and Asia). They are descended from a lineage of primates that were more monkey like and had tails. The "New World" monkeys (South America) are, confusingly, a more ancient lineage than the "Old World" monkeys. So to sum up, apes are descended from ancient monkeys (not modern ones, but we'd call them monkeys if they were alive today).

And that's why both human embryos and ape embryos start with tails, too. The tail is absorbed early in development as the genes sort of remember they aren't supposed to make a tail (I'm anthropomorphizing here, so I don't mean that literally).


If evolutionists believe that the "tail" is evidence that we evolved from monkey-type creatures, why do they insist that we evolved from a common ancestor with apes, which don't have tails? Which is it?

Both. Monkeylike ancestor --> Apelike ancestor --> Hominid (A. afarensis, A. africans, Homo erectus, Homo habilis, etc) --> Homo sapiens


And isn't natural selection supposed to favor improvements, and not impediments?

Not exactly. Selection favors whatever works in the moment. At some point, tails must have become an impediment.


Why then would natural selection cause something as useful as a tail to wither into an encumbrance and then disappear?

Good question, Sassy! I don't know the answer. Probably some paleoprimatologist does though. We could look it up. At the risk of patronizing you, I want to say that this is one of the things I like about you. You ask good questions and think well.


I personaly think a tail would be very useful to humans. Like right now, I could use a tail sip my tea while I type.. :D

Me too! I think it sounds like fun. But none of the apes have them and it looks like they lost them a long time ago, 25 or 30 million years ago.

Actually, Richard Dawkins also thinks it's an interesting question too. Here's his book, The Ancestor's Tale, at Google books.

The Ancestor's Tale: A Pilgrimage to ... - Google Book Search (http://books.google.com/books?id=Tub-X6wydKgC&pg=PA122&lpg=PA122&dq=apes+tails&source=web&ots=wFLJd97Z2A&sig=rkmTOn_8THInRKxenssQqbGZEiM&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=6&ct=result)



Asking I am talking about a bird born with fish scales instead of feathers.

Yeah. But you can't argue with them having both. :) Enjoy your tea.

Perhaps it's the fault of women, we have no tails. Sexual selection can play a part in evolution as well. Which can get rid of a useful trait because for some reason the sexual selector of the species decides as a group they don't like that feature.

Perhaps its the fault of women, we have no tails. Sexual selection can play a part in evolution as well. Which can get rid of a useful trait because for some reason the sexual selector of the species decides as a group they don't like that feature.

Yeah, blame it on Eve. ;) That kind of selection more often only affects the males anyway (think peacocks' tails), not both sexes, and, anyway, the males are active participants in the process, flaunting their fancy colors and trying to out do each other with eye-catching displays. And the fighting equipment, horns and antlers, gets selected by other males more than by the females, as they fight each other for the right to monopolize females.

Michealb, I'll confess right now that this is a biological pet peeve of mine and I really ought to put it in that other thread. :) The idea that any kind of selection, sexual or otherwise, can select for maladaptive traits is just wrong, so even if you were right about our tails, there would be no "fault."

By definition, selection selects what leaves the most offspring in that generation. Period. (No planning for the future involved.) It doesn't matter whether the selective force is random fluctuations in temperature, an increase in rainfall or predators, or female preference. (Often enough it's a combination of different forces, many of them conflicting.) Bottom line, it's still selection for what works BEST in that generation. The idea that females somehow -- differently from all other selective forces -- do something *bad* is just nonsensical--although, unfortunately, it's still presented that way in many textbooks. We need to let go of this idea. It's bad biology AND one of the sillier forms of sexism, in my humble opinion. Just as we don't say that mutations are good or bad, we don't assign moral value to selective forces found in nature*.

(*I would personally argue that selecting for dogs that have major disabilities like hip dysplasia or apnea is a form of cruelty, however.)

I know I've really gotten off Cred's topic now. Sorry.

Don't you get the science channel? They just had a show on two nights ago where they were talking about human mutants. They had on this one guy who was able to run 13 miles bare foot in his underwear in the snow in -27F degree weather. Not one did this guy live but he didn't suffer from frost bite. Sounds like a good mutation to me at least if you live in a cold weather area at least might be a bad mutation if you live in the Caribbean.


I saw that too!

Amazing, how about the blind painter, or the adult human calculator or the synesthetic.

I wonder what exact genes led to this ability?

Sexual selection isn't a bad thing. It just sometimes picks things that are contrary to the long term survival of the individual creature. Which if the selection continues can cause the extinctions of the species if it get out of hand.


Amazing, how about the blind painter, or the adult human calculator or the synesthetic.
I wonder what exact genes led to this ability?

As do scientists, that was sort of the point of the show. It's not easy though to determine what a gene does in living person. As our biology knowledge gets better hopefully we will be able to turn on and off genes in living people and add new ones. For now though that is beyond our ability.

Can I use that as a pick up line ?

"I have mutant genes that allow me to turn up my body heat so I can always keep you warm, so lets procreate and evolve." :D

I suppose you could try. Not saying that it would work however if you happen to find yourself nearly naked with a member of the opposite sex in a very cold environment it very well might work in that case.

Sexual selection isn't a bad thing. It just sometimes picks things that are contrary to the long term survival of the individual creature. Which if the selection continues can cause the extinctions of the species if it get out of hand.

But that is obviously bad, the way you are describing it. Female whim selecting for traits that kill males? Sounds bad to me! (This is incorrect, but I want to make another point.)

My main point is that everything you've suggested here is true of ALL selection; it is not specific to sexual selection. It doesn't matter what the source of the selection pressure is; it can counteract other pressures that are important to survival. So, to pick an obvious example, selection for a big brain conflicts with pressure for an easy birth. It does a baby no good to kill its mother and yet to compete, it wants a bigger brain. Which wins out in any given generation depends on a whole bunch of other variables. But there's no right genetic answer to this problem. It will be different for every individual.

Or you could imagine that selection for big seeds conflicting with having lots of seeds. A population of plants could need lots of big seeds, but it can't have that because a given plant only has access to so much energy; it's limited. So any selection one way or the other is going to conflict with another need; the two pressures oppose each other.

In both cases, selection can (and will) pick things that are contrary to long-term survival of a population of individuals. But it doesn't matter what the source of the selection pressure is. The short-term cost/benefit rules are the same. Whatever "type" ends up producing the most offspring in that generation wins that round (and only that round).


As do scientists, that was sort of the point of the show. It's not easy though to determine what a gene does in living person. As our biology knowledge gets better hopefully we will be able to turn on and off genes in living people and add new ones. For now though that is beyond our ability.

We can already turn genes on and off in other mammals. The problem is that it's dangerous to do that in people (and in mice, but we don't care about that). But most traits are controlled by lots of genes, and most genes affect lots of traits, so to really influence how a person comes out, we would have to be able to control the expression of long lists of genes. I don't see that happening any time soon. To me that's probably a good thing. Most of the commonest diseases--heart disease, diabetes, many cancers-- are primarily caused by our behavior, being sedentary, eating poorly, etc. not by specific genetic defects.

Molecular biologists look at genes for answers to disease problems for the same reason drunks look for their lost car keys under the streetlight. There's more light there and it's easier to look. But that doesn't mean that's where the keys are.

Okay point taken on the sexual selection my way is funnier but your right.

Okay point taken on the sexual selection my way is funnier but your right.

I told you it was a pet peeve. I've been thinking about this off and on for 20 years...
You are very kind to even acknowledge my rant. :)

Your way is funnier.

Creationism and ID are items that are religion based, and therefore should be or can be part of the school curriculum in the section philosophy or religion.
Evolution is science based, and therefore should be part of the school curriculum in the science of physics section.

:)

Evolution is a theory that many believers in the unproven theory have accepted as fact by FAITH. So it has become a belief system that is not based on any scientific facts.

I thought that the experiment that produced E coli that could process citrate was a pretty compelling for mutations being able to add useful code but I'm not a biology student what do I know. :)
Bacteria make major evolutionary shift in the lab - life - 09 June 2008 - New Scientist (http://www.newscientist.com/channel/life/dn14094-bacteria-make-major-evolutionary-shift-in-the-lab.html)

The creationist argument for the tails in humans is that it's not really a tail it just looks like a tail. It's just a clump of skin since most of the time the tail doesn't have any bones in it.


But these so called human tails are not only found at the bottom of the spine or anywhere near the coccyx. They have been found to grow on other parts of the body. So is this so called human tail (see pic) also a remnant of some animal we decended from? Lol evolution is such a fantacy :D

Hello again, Cred:

There are some people who believed that their lord and savior was hiding behind an approaching comet, so they got rid of their earthly bodies (killed their selves), so they could float up to meet him. There was a BUNCH of 'em too.

There are others that think the world will be destroyed and they'll float up into the sky cause they're good and everybody else is bad.

Yup! The religious disease has infected lots of people. There ain't no cure for it, either. Too bad - another lost soul. Oh well.

excon

[

Good question, Sassy! I don't know the answer. Probably some paleoprimatologist does though. We could look it up. At the risk of patronizing you, I want to say that this is one of the things I like about you. You ask good questions and think well.


The Evolutionist's last famous last words. :rolleyes:

The Evolutionist's last famous last words.
At least those who base their views on science and OSE have the greatness to ADMIT that there are things we just do not know, even things we will never know.
But that is for them no reason to believe in invisible deities with extreme interests in every human being's sexual habits.

:D :D :D :D :D :D

But these so called human tails are not only found at the bottom of the spine or anywhere near the coccyx. They have been found to grow on other parts of the body. So is this so called human tail (see pic) also a remnant of some animal we decended from?? lol evolution is such a fantacy :D

The pictures you posted are of an unfortunate child with some kind of yucky birth defect that is not a tail. Lots of things are not tails. My arm is not a tail. But that has no influence on the vestigial organs that ARE tails. Humans do occasionally have vestigial tails.

The Evolutionist's last famous last words. :rolleyes:

Not my last words. :)

I was just trying to be nice.

I consider myself a biologist, by the way. Calling people "evolutionists" is about like calling Christians "Christianists." Or Republicans "Palinists." I'll call you what you want to be called if you call me what I want to be called. "Evolutionary biologist" is good. Biologist is good. Evolutionist sounds weird to me. It's a relatively recent coinage of the last 10 years or so mostly used by Creationists, which I assume IS an acceptable term?

At least those who base their views on science and OSE have the greatness to ADMIT that there are things we just do not know, even things we will never know.
But that is for them no reason to believe in invisible deities with extreme interests in every human being's sexual habits.

I actually like all the things we don't know. Where would be the pleasure in exploring if we knew what was around every corner? Complete understanding wouldn't be any fun. Religion gives the illusion of understanding the world without either the process of learning or the delight of discovery.

I do like the religious appreciation for "God's creations," in which God's works are viewed as miracles to be appreciated. But then, I think, it's rude to stop there and not try to understand the intricacies of these "creations." Such anti intellectualism is not confined to religion. I remember going hiking with some hippies in the 60s and they told me not to tell the names of any plants, animals, or rocks. No science. They said it would ruin their experience of nature to know anything about it. Waaaa?? I was just a kid and tried this idea on for a while, to see if I thought there was any truth in it. I quickly rejected it!

I actually like all the things we don't know. Where would be the pleasure in exploring if we knew what was around every corner? Complete understanding wouldn't be any fun. Religion gives the illusion of understanding the world without either the process of learning or the delight of discovery. Hello asking:

"The delight of discovery". Couldn't have said it any plainer than that. Can you imagine where we'd be without that? I could. I'll bet they'd call it the Dark Ages.

excon

.
One of the latests ICR articles on some Artificial DNA Molecule :

Recently ... Japanese chemists have discovered how to mimic DNA ... According to the American Chemical Society, "The researchers used high-tech DNA synthesis equipment to stitch together four entirely new, artificial bases inside of the sugar-based framework of a DNA molecule. This resulted in unusually stable, double-stranded structures resembling natural DNA." .... If high-tech equipment is required simply to mimic DNA, then how much more "high tech" must the mind and power of God be for inventing it?

My comments :

It is totally irrelevant in the case of artificial DNA to refer to the ICR's claims of "Godly involvement" in design of real natural DNA.
Trillions upon trillions upon trillions upon trillions upon trillions upon trillions upon trillions upon trillions upon trillions upon trillions upon trillions upon trillions upon trillions of cells daily use natural DNA to produce new cells. Without any need for any high-tech equipment.

All that these Japanese chemist prove is that it is not easy to develop a simple DNA structure for data storage.
No wonder of course, as it took nature more than 3.500.000.000 years to perfect the DNA process to what it is today.

But to see the hand of a not-proved-to-exist-entity in this all is a conclusion that shows that these Japanese chemists are a lot smarter than the staff of the ICR !

Link to the article : World's First Artificial DNA Molecule (Well, Almost) (http://www.icr.org/article/3954/)

ICR's First Intelligent Article ? No. Not even almost. Not even near ....

Any comments?

·

Actually, the ICR logic is sound.

If it takes so much intelligence to mimic dna, how much more intelligence to not only created dna, but the living organisms which would use it?

Your logic seems to be:

Although we have no evidence of dna occurring from lifeless unintelligent matter and the only evidence we have is that intelligent people using many sophisticated tools finally created something which mimics dna. Yet you believe that dna could happen by unintelligent processies.


Now, since logic is a requirement for science. You've thrown out that requirement and are making an unscientific speculative statement of belief against the OE. And then you expect us to accept your belief.

Sincerely,

De Maria

I was at the beach last week and I noticed that the waves had grouped shells by size in different locations. It would take intelligence to duplicate it but it was created by the random action of the waves.

Oh a better example if small pebbles were to break of a cliff and fall to the ground. It would take intelligence to put the same type of rocks in the same positions. Does that mean god had put the pebbles in the complex pattern on the ground when they fell?

No of course not. Recreating random events can be just as difficult as recreating designed objects. So your argument that if it takes intelligences to recreate it, it must have take intelligences to create is flawed.

prove that dna was randomly created !

here is more food for thought as to the complexity of life


Do 68 Molecules Hold The Key To Understanding Disease? (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/09/080903213325.htm)

I was at the beach last week and I noticed that the waves had grouped shells by size in different locations. It would take intelligence to duplicate it but it was created by the random action of the waves.

Scientific experiments are reproducible. Can you reproduce that event? If not, then you can't conclude that it was order. All you can say is that YOU perceived order in a place where you didn't expect to see it.

In addition, random events are influenced by laws of nature. Heavier objects go deeper into watery environments than lighter objects which go higher. Therefore, the order is produced by the order in nature (the laws) not by the randomness of the waves but by the order of the Law which requires matter to behave in a certain manner consistent with its attributes.


Oh a better example if small pebbles were to break of a cliff and fall to the ground. It would take intelligence to put the same type of rocks in the same positions. Does that mean god had put the pebbles in the complex pattern on the ground when they fell?

This is non sequitur logic.

First, the random position of the pebbles is called by you "a pattern". But that is only true after the fact. The random event which stuck them there was following no pattern. They just fell there. Now you ascribe a pattern to them.

Do you see the same pattern duplicated at random anywhere else? Of course not. But an intelligent being can reproduce what he sees in those random pebbles. Esentially using them as a pattern to follow.

In other words, random events caused random results to which you, an intelligent being, now ascribe a pattern.


No of course not. Recreating random events can be just as difficult as recreating designed objects.

All you have to do is wait for the same pattern to be produced by random unintelligent events. Which will succeed first, the intelligent being using them as a pattern or the random, unintelligent movement of air and water?


So your argument that if it takes intelligences to recreate it, it must have take intelligences to create is flawed.

You've misrepresented my argument. Perhaps you've missed the other threads in which this subject has been discussed.

I said it takes intelligence to create intelligent results.

Do you agree that dna is a language which carries messages throughout an organism?

If so, then I ask you, if you see the words "give me a donut" etched in the sand, do you assume that the movement of the waves wrote it there? Or do you assume that this was done by a human being?

Obviously since you are only aware of human beings who are capable of writing these type of messages, you will assume a human being.

Now, dna messages are far more complex than "give me a donut". Even the simplest organisms have messages which rival the power of a super computer.

But you assume that the dna message was created by random unintelligent events?

That is simply speculating against the evidence.

Sincerely,

De Maria

I haven't seen "give me a donut" but I have seen a picture of Jesus in the random wood grain of a bathroom door and picture is worth a thousand words right so. I have seen complex patterns in randomness that duplicates something that has already existed. So do you like that example better?

Complex random chemical reaction follow the same law of order as the pebbles and it's these complex chemical reactions that created life.

Again - prove it

As Cred would say where is your OSE?

I haven't seen "give me a donut" but I have seen a picture of Jesus in the random wood grain of a bathroom door and picture is worth a thousand words right so. I have seen complex patterns in randomness that duplicates something that has already existed. So do you like that example better?

Complex random chemical reaction follow the same law of order as the pebbles and it's these complex chemical reactions that created life.


I was going to make the same argument, so happy to see MichaelB has saved me the trouble. Nice.

De Maria's argument that pebbles are not ordered but DNA is is exactly wrong. The DNA is not ordered. The difference is that it's self reproducing and because many other different non-ordered arrangements of DNA have not survived, we are left with the many (many) that have happened to survive.

It's as if 100 pebbles fell to the beach in a random pattern, and then the tide came in and out and washed away all the pebbles below the high tide mark, leaving dozens of pebbles above a sharp line of demarcation. We would come back and see a line of pebbles, so neat. That's how selection works too. But it doesn't mean God made the line of pebbles -- or a particular sequence of DNA.

But in order for the first fuctional reproducing cell to come about that exact DNA sequence has to come about in the first place.

Then how did mrna, ribosomes, amino acids coordinate with these "pebbles."


Are you waiting for a chimp to come up with Shakespeare? :D


Here is more scientific things to ask yourself


Do 68 Molecules Hold The Key To Understanding Disease? (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/09/080903213325.htm)

Not only do you have to get nucleic acids, but lipids and glycans as well as proteins.


Are you waiting for a tornado to build a house? :D

Are you waiting for a chimp to come up with Shakespeare?

Enough chimps and enough typewriters, why not? Especially when the works that don't fit get taken out with the tide so to speak.

It's as if 100 pebbles fell to the beach in a random pattern, and then the tide came in and out and washed away all the pebbles below the high tide mark, leaving dozens of pebbles above a sharp line of demarcation. We would come back and see a line of pebbles, so neat. That's how selection works too. But it doesn't mean God made the line of pebbles -- or a particular sequence of DNA.
Excellent parable!!

:)

I haven't seen "give me a donut" but I have seen a picture of Jesus in the random wood grain of a bathroom door and picture is worth a thousand words right so. I have seen complex patterns in randomness that duplicates something that has already existed. So do you like that example better?

Wow? You saw a picture of Jesus made by the wood grain? That is pretty good.

Now, do you consider it a miracle? Or do you think this type of picture will be regularly duplicated by unthinking, inanimate wood grain throughout the world?


Complex random chemical reaction follow the same law of order as the pebbles and it's these complex chemical reactions that created life.

Just because you say so?

But again, that is speaking against the evidence. The pebbles did not create complex patterns. You attributed the pattern to the existing pebbles. Otherwise you would be able to see the same pattern reproduced over and over. But you won't.

Only humans can assign patterns and copy patterns in this world.

Sincerely,

De Maria

I was going to make the same argument, so happy to see MichaelB has saved me the trouble. Nice.

De Maria's argument that pebbles are not ordered but DNA is is exactly wrong. The DNA is not ordered.

It isn't? Well, lets go back to our wiki:

Deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) is a nucleic acid that contains the genetic instructions used in the development and functioning of all known living organisms and some viruses.

DNA - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA)

How do you get instructions without order?


The difference is that it's self reproducing

Just like that? Its self reproducing? Is it magic? Or how does an inanimate unintelligent matter decide to "self reproduce"?


and because many other different non-ordered arrangements of DNA have not survived, we are left with the many (many) that have happened to survive.

Ooooh! By accident. Have you calculated the possibility that something like that could happen by accident?

It is absolutely zero.


It's as if 100 pebbles fell to the beach in a random pattern, and then the tide came in and out and washed away all the pebbles below the high tide mark, leaving dozens of pebbles above a sharp line of demarcation. We would come back and see a line of pebbles, so neat. That's how selection works too. But it doesn't mean God made the line of pebbles -- or a particular sequence of DNA.

Why sure it does. God gave the laws of physics that affect what happens to the pebbles in the wave motion.

But again, you are comparing apples to oranges. When you find an instructional message such as the ones issued by the dna, on the beach, made by the eons and eons of wave action on the sand, then you'll have proof that the actions of inanimate unintelligent matter can produce intelligent instructions.

Lol!! WAIT!! Oh, sorry, I jumped the gun. Then you'll need to provide evidence that unintelligent inanimate matter can respond to that so called intelligent message. :)

Sincerely,

De Maria

De maria perhaps you should study complex chemical reactions in the presence of a catalyst and get back to us.

The other thing that needs to be considered is that the laboratory of the universe is huge. Life the right conditions for life only had to appear once for us to be having this conversation. No matter what the odds against if it is possible it happens in the laboratory of the universe because of the number of chances you have for it to occur. Think about it 125 billion of galaxies each with about 100 billion of stars over 13 billion years. So
125,000,000,000
x100,000,000,000
125,000,000,000,000,000,000,000
x13,000,000,000
1,625,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000
For give my math if I missed some zeros or added some but you get the idea.
That's assuming there is only one chance a year that life would form. I realize that this isn't a perfect number but it's to give you a scale of just how many monkeys on typewriters we are talking about. The point is that life didn't have to be here. It could have a risen anywhere in the universe and we could still be having this conversation. I know what your going to to say that if life is accident of nature it has no meaning. I disagree with the conclusion but I know your line of thinking. The meaning of life though is not a question that can or should be answered in a science class that is where religion or philosophy belong.

The pictures you posted are of an unfortunate child with some kind of yucky birth defect that is not a tail. Lots of things are not tails. My arm is not a tail. But that has no influence on the vestigial organs that ARE tails. Humans do occasionally have vestigial tails.

Asking that was a picture of what scientist have called a "Human tail". I got the picture off Nature Publishing Group : science journals, jobs, and information (http://www.nature.com) which is promitent science website that publishes new biological and scientific discovery. Check it out


Those pieces of flesh that darwinists claim are remnence of a tail can grow anywhere.
Spinal Cord - Figure 1 for article: The /`human tail/' causing tethered cervical cord (http://www.nature.com/sc/journal/v45/n8/fig_tab/3101988f1.html)
So that argument is invalid.

Not my last words. :)

I was just trying to be nice.

I consider myself a biologist, by the way. Calling people "evolutionists" is about like calling Christians "Christianists." Or Republicans "Palinists." I'll call you what you want to be called if you call me what I want to be called. "Evolutionary biologist" is good. Biologist is good. Evolutionist sounds weird to me. It's a relatively recent coinage of the last 10 years or so mostly used by Creationists, which I assume IS an acceptable term?

I don't really want to split hairs on the terms but to me Macroevolution has nothing to do with science or biology so I am not going to use evolutionism synomously with biology. A better term is "Darwinists". So there are biologists like yourself who believe in Darwinism. Darwinists is just a term I use for all believers in Dawanism aka Theory of Evolution.
:)

[QUOTE=michealb]I was at the beach last week and I noticed that the waves had grouped shells by size in different locations. It would take intelligence to duplicate it but it was created by the random action of the waves.

Again these are your beliefs which are consistent with Dawinism.

The other thing that needs to be considered is that the laboratory of the universe is huge. Life the right conditions for life only had to appear once for us to be having this conversation. No matter what the odds against if it is possible it happens in the laboratory of the universe because of the number of chances you have for it to occur. Think about it 125 billion of galaxies each with about 100 billion of stars over 13 billion years. So
125,000,000,000
x100,000,000,000
125,000,000,000,000,000,000,000
x13,000,000,000
1,625,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000
For give my math if I missed some zeros or added some but you get the idea.
Thats assuming there is only one chance a year that life would form. I realize that this isn't a perfect number but it's to give you a scale of just how many monkeys on typewriters we are talking about. The point is that life didn't have to be here. It could have a risen anywhere in the universe and we could still be having this conversation. I know what your going to to say that if life is accident of nature it has no meaning. I disagree with the conclusion but I know your line of thinking. The meaning of life though is not a question that can or should be answered in a science class that is where religion or philosophy belong.

Again all this whole argument is not based on facts. For one thing you can not even prove that the earth/universe has been around for billions of years. So your whole arguments is already flawed because it is based upon one unproven assuption over another. What I like to call a "hot air" argument. :)

Sassy,

The only people who don't agree that the universe has been around for billions of years are people who actively deny knowledge those people are beyond my help.

I can only lead you to the water, I can't force you to drink.

The other thing that needs to be considered is that the laboratory of the universe is huge. Life the right conditions for life only had to appear once for us to be having this conversation. No matter what the odds against if it is possible it happens in the laboratory of the universe because of the number of chances you have for it to occur. Think about it 125 billion of galaxies each with about 100 billion of stars over 13 billion years. So
125,000,000,000
x100,000,000,000
125,000,000,000,000,000,000,000
x13,000,000,000
1,625,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000
For give my math if I missed some zeros or added some but you get the idea.
That's assuming there is only one chance a year that life would form. I realize that this isn't a perfect number but it's to give you a scale of just how many monkeys on typewriters we are talking about. The point is that life didn't have to be here. It could have a risen anywhere in the universe and we could still be having this conversation. I know what your going to to say that if life is accident of nature it has no meaning. I disagree with the conclusion but I know your line of thinking. The meaning of life though is not a question that can or should be answered in a science class that is where religion or philosophy belong.


your largest figure is what 10 to the 33 power x [4 x 10 to 9th ], 4 billion years, x [ 10 to the 3rd power - say 1000 day years to keep the math easy ]

=

10 to the 50th power at largest.

compare that to 10 to the 3000th power

and you will realize the mathematical impossibility of chance. :eek:








Many Debunking Articles On The Theory Of Evolution by Ecclesia.org + Article "The Theory of Evolution" | Love for Life (http://www.loveforlife.com.au/node/5017)

18. The genetic information contained in each cell of the human body is roughly equivalent to a library of 4000 volumes. For chance mutations and natural selection to produce this amount of information, assuming that matter and life `somehow` got started, is analogous to continuing the following procedure until 4000 volumes have been produced:

(a) Start with a meaningful phrase.

(b) Retype the phrase but make some errors and insert some additional letters.

(c) Examine the new phrase to see if it is meaningful.

(d) If it is, replace the original phrase with it.

(e) If it is not, return to step (b).

To accumulate 4000 volumes that are meaningful, this procedure would have to produce the equivalent of far more than 10^3000 (10 to the 3000th power) animal offspring.To begin to understand how large 10^3000 is, realize that the entire universe has `only` about 10^80 atoms in it.

your largest figure is what 10 to the 33 power x [4 x 10 to 9th ], 4 billion years, x [ 10 to the 3rd power - say 1000 day years to keep the math easy ]

=

10 to the 50th power at largest.

compare that to 10 to the 3000th power

and you will realize the mathematical impossibility of chance. :eek:

Do a little thought experiment. Take 25 packs of cards. Make each pack different, maybe a different theme or design or whatever, so that each card is unique. Now shuffle them all together. Yes this would be tiring but not altogether impossible. Keep shuffling until you're satisfied that it is as random as possible. Throw cards around and mix them all up good. Make it so that you have had no intelligent input into the order of the cards. Shuffle them without looking at the fronts of the cards, if that helps you.

Now, deal each card out one by one in a long row. What do you think the chances of dealing those cards in that exact order are?

It's somewhere near 1 in 10 to the 3500th power and you just did it first time! Bravo!

What's your explanation of this, if it could not have happened by chance?

work backwards. Because no one knows what really happened.

first:

write down a sequence of 25 x 52 = 1300 cards

second : have a second person, with no knowledge of the sequence you wrote down, :) play 1300 card pick up and see how long it takes to come up with the same sequence you wrote down. They have a 1 in 10 to the 3500th power chance of getting it exactly correct.

Remember the human genome has about 3 billion base pairs.

Thanks for reinforcing the mathematical impossibility of humanity existing due to chance :D ;)

I agree a human cell randomly forming might be mathematically impossible but that's not what we are talking about. We are talking about the mathematical possibility that the simplest form of a self replicating chemical compound can form. Which may have only originally worked in the presence of a catalyst. That's a completely different than what your talking about.

The other thing you need to remember is that more than one version of order of cards might work as well. Which dramatically lowers your odds. 1 in a 1,000,000 chance suddenly becomes 2 in a 1,000,000 or 1 in 500,000.

The point is none of us know what the odds are that this would happen we can only speculate. It might be that life springs up everywhere there is a liquid median or it could be so rare that life only a rises once every 100 billion year in the entire universe. We just haven't explored enough.

work backwards. because no one knows what really happened.

first:

write down a sequence of 25 x 52 = 1300 cards

second : have a second person, with no knowledge of the sequence you wrote down, :) play 1300 card pick up and see how long it takes to come up with the same exact sequence you wrote down. they have a 1 in 10 to the 3500th power chance of getting it exactly correct.

Remember the human genome has about 3 billion base pairs.

Thanks for reinforcing the mathematical impossibility of humanity existing due to chance :D ;)

But the universe wasn't working backwards. It wasn't working with an end in mind.

Another way to phrase what you're saying: If you took a (big) bag of 1,000,000 different marbles and picked one out at random, the probability of the marble that you picked is so small that it's statistically impossible. So you're saying that when you pick a marble out, the probability is that you won't have picked a marble out?

If this isn't what you're saying, then please try to explain?

But the universe wasn't working backwards. It wasn't working with an end in mind.


So there is purpose in the universe? What end does the universe have in mind? :confused:

Since the mathematical odds are 10^3000, we diverge onto philosophizing? :confused:


Remember, a genetic code cannot stand alone, it needs to be in a cell, and there are dozens of other components required in trascription and translation of a genetic code, so take that 10 ^ 3000 and add another couple of orders to it. :eek:


You can have 10 ^ 9 years and 10 ^ 9 galaxies and 10 ^ 9 solar systems and it is still only 10 ^ 27 !

As to the marble or the decks of cards - those are simple. ;)

Do you see a automobile and think - there are billions of years and bilions of days and billions of other planets and think that that automobile came to be simply by chance or some universal end? No, any one knows that an automobile was designed by intelligence.
:rolleyes:


Which may have only originally worked in the presence of a catalyst


And what exactly was the catalyst? Another unproven hypothesis. ;)

So there is purpose in the universe? What end does the universe have in mind? :confused:
Why does it have to have a purpose why can't it just be. The universe as far as we know is an object with no mind at all. So it has no end in mind because it has no mind it just does what it does without purpose. What happens happens. When a stone falls it doesn't fall with purpose but it does fall.



Since the mathematical odds are 10^3000, we diverge onto philosophizing? :confused:
You stated this as the chance a human cell would develop spontainiously, no one has said a human cell was the first cell. What we are talking about is much much simpler more like a nanobe. What are the chances that most of the water molicules in the ocean formed with exactly 2 hydrogen and 1 oxygen? When taken alone with out knowing the chemistry involved you could make up some pretty astonomical odds.


Remember, a genetic code cannot stand alone, it needs to be in a cell
Do you have proof of that what about nucleotides, polynucleotides or RNA?


And what exactly was the catalyst? Another unproven hypothesis. ;)
Probably montmorillonite, I agree however that this is a hypothesis. However montmorillonite has shown the ability to form complex chemical chains such as RNA. If it is at all possible that life could have formed out of a natural cause doesn't that rule out the supernatural. Just like we don't think that lighting is thrown by Zeus anymore because we have a natural probable solution.

quoting Cap on purpose in the universe.

As to the genetic code: nucleotides make up the "N" in Deoy["R"]iboNuleic "A"cid .

Bio 101 - read about DNA transcription [ copied ] and translation [ into polypeptides ].
This takes place in a cell.

Viruses [ dna or rna ] need to take over another's cell machinery to reproduce itself - they cannot do it themselves.


Smallest Genome of Living Creature Discovered | LiveScience (http://www.livescience.com/animals/061012_smallest_genome.html)

160,000 base pairs - compare that to the odds for Capuchin's 1300 cards - [ "1 in 10 to the 3500th power"] - try that for 160,000 - still mathematically impossible to come by random purposeless chance :rolleyes: ;) :eek:

Your missing the point life is chemistry just because the first replicating molecules aren't life doesn't mean they aren't the beginning of life.

You complain that we discount the supernatural but you are discounting the natural solution before we even have a working theory. Wouldn't it make sense to at least be open to the idea that there is a natural solution to this problem since so far every solution that we have found an answer to has had a natural solution.

Inthebox, I said there wasn't an end that the universe had in mind, please re-read.

Inthebox, i said there wasn't an end that the universe had in mind, please re-read.
Neither is there any purpose for the universe to exist. It exists. Period.

;)

That is interesting: a purposeles universe with inhabitants that want and search for purpose in their lives. :confused: :rolleyes: ;)


And no one can address the mathematical impossibility of us even existing. :confused: :eek:

That is interesting: a purposeles universe with inhabitants that want and search for purpose in their lives. :confused: :rolleyes: ;)
Evolution explains why we want and search for purpose. Beings that feel they exist for a reason and that living is important are more likely to survive. Just because you want there to be a purpose for something doesn't make it so.



And no one can adress the mathematical impossibility of us even exisiting. :confused: :eek:

We did you just didn't listen or didn't understand. I don't know which.

Look at it another way though the odds don't matter. Even if the odds are 10^99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 999999999999. You can still get the correct answer the first time but if you really want to play the odds game I trump your odds with infinite parallel universes and with the universes ability to randomly generate particles I can say it is completely possible that we all popped into existence last Tuesday with memories intact and the odds can not prove me wrong because I have an infinite number of rolls.

However if you want to come back to something closer to reality, your basic premise is wrong because you want an entire cell to pop into existence. It probably didn't happen that way. More than likely it started with simple chemical compounds that with the absence of life that utilises these compounds were able to get more complex until it became life.

That is interesting: a purposeles universe with inhabitants that want and search for purpose in their lives. :confused: :rolleyes: ;)Hello in:

Religious people search for "purpose". They're caught up in their own self importance, I guess. The rest of us know our "purpose", from an evolutionary perspective, is to do nothing other than procreate.

excon

That is interesting: a purposeles universe with inhabitants that want and search for purpose in their lives. :confused: :rolleyes: ;)

Yep.. That's a consequence of our intelligence, of our evolutionary past, and I personally wouldn't trade it in.


And no one can adress the mathematical impossibility of us even exisiting. :confused: :eek:

But we're here - so the mathematical impossibility is obviously mathematically possible. (and yes, we have addressed it several times - I personally have given you at least 2 or 3 examples of how impossible things happen, and how your logic of saying something is statistically impossible is false - but you seem to ignore them or refuse to understand them)

The rest of us know our "purpose", from an evolutionary perspective, is to do nothing other than procreate.
We even make a hobby out of it!!

:D :D :D :D :D :D

.

Evolution explains why we want and search for purpose. Beings that feel they exist for a reason and that living is important are more likely to survive. Just because you want there to be a purpose for something doesn't make it so.



We did you just didn't listen or didn't understand. I don't know which.

Look at it another way though the odds don't matter. Even if the odds are 10^99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 999999999999. You can still get the correct answer the first time but if you really want to play the odds game I trump your odds with infinite parallel universes and with the universes ability to randomly generate particles I can say it is completely possible that we all popped into existence last Tuesday with memories intact and the odds can not prove me wrong because I have an infinite number of rolls.

However if you want to come back to something closer to reality, your basic premise is wrong because you want an entire cell to pop into existence. It probably didn't happen that way. More than likely it started with simple chemical compounds that with the absence of life that utilises these compounds were able to get more complex until it became life.



How does evolution explain a search or desire for purpose?

Are we the only species that feel or act this way?

Do insects have a "purpose" or intelligence - they have been around much longer and their biomass is much greater than ours?

Are there true evolutionists / Darwininst out there ready to proclaim that there life is meaningless and purposeless? Come out and proclaim it!

As to the origins of life - there is no scientific explanation.

And to get a more complex organism from "simple chemical compounds" - explain that.

Link me to a scientific experiment that they can take "simple chemicals" and, without using intelligence or a design, show me a sponge or yeast or amoeba developing?

As to odds...

It is easy for the powerball winner say I got the one in 10 to the 8th [ only ]
But for all the others that have tried for years and have never won, it is impossible.

It is circular to say we are the proof of zero odds - unless you rely on the divine.


Science and the demand for evidence says - reproduce the results.

Try winning the lottery 10 times in a row :D:eek::rolleyes:;):p

Are there true evolutionists / Darwininst out there ready to proclaim that there life is meaningless and purposeless? Come out and proclaim it!Hello in:

I don't know who you been talking to, but there IS purpose in my life - absolute and clear cut PURPOSE.

That purpose is to procreate.

If you want to attach meaning to it, go ahead. THAT'S what religions try to do. Personally, I don't think my existence MEANS anything.

excon

If that is true - how about people who have abortions, or are homosexuals or are infertile, or post menopausal females that have not procreated?

They have no "evolutionary" purpose?

If that is true - how about people who have abortions, or are homosexuals or are infertile, or post menopausal females that have not procreated?

They have no "evolutionary" purpose?Hello again, in:

Oh, the purpose is still the same. You're even emphasising it, actually. The idea behind the "purpose", is survival of the fittest. If homosexuals aren't fit, they'll go extinct. If abortionists aren't fit, they too, will go extinct.

Of all the species, WE are the only ones endowed with choice. Some of us choose to deny our purpose. Others of us just go on screwing and loving every minute of it.

excon

How does evolution explain a search or desire for purpose?

Evolution explains it by saying at one point in our history the desire for purpose was useful perhaps by saying I have a purpose I need to live.


Are we the only species that feel or act this way?

I don't think so, almost all species have the desire to live.


Do insects have a "purpose" or intelligence - they have been around much longer and their biomass is much greater than ours?

They don't have our intellect but they fill their particular spot in the eco system very well in way they are more successful than we are as far as evolution is concerned.


Are there true evolutionists / Darwininst out there ready to proclaim that there life is meaningless and purposeless? Come out and proclaim it!

Meaning and purpose are merely points of view. I might think the life of one gnat is meaningless purposeless. However if you are the gnat, you might beg to differ. Let philosophy worry about meaning, let science worry about science.



As to the origins of life - there is no scientific explanation.

There is no definitife scientific explanation. We have tons of explanations for it; we just haven't narrowed it down to which one actually happened. It's symantics but there is a difference.


And to get a more complex organism from "simple chemical compounds" - explain that.
Sure. DNA can be broken down into RNA. RNA can be broken down into polynucleotides. Polynucleotides break down into nucleotides. Nucleotides break down in to nitrogenous base, a sugar, and a phosphate group.


Link me to a scientific experiment that they can take "simple chemicals" and, without using intelligence or a design, show me a sponge or yeast or amoeba developing?

Again just because we don't know something doesn't mean god did it. It also took millions of years for life to develop on earth. Meaning we don't have the time to or the laboratory the size of a planet to put simple compounds in and let them stew.


As to odds...

It is easy for the powerball winner say I got the one in 10 to the 8th [ only ]
But for all the others that have tried for years and have never won, it is impossible.
It is circular to say we are the proof of zero odds - unless you rely on the divine.
Science and the demand for evidence says - reproduce the results.
Try winning the lottery 10 times in a row :D:eek::rolleyes:;):p

So circular logic is okay as long as your using it got it.
I don't agree with your premise though. Since we have no proof of god doing it. We have to infer that there is a natural solution, just as every problem has had since the dawn of mankind. Every answer we have ever found not one has been god did it. So given that I can say the fact that we are here is proof the odds are not impossible, unlikely sure but not impossible.
Also science is the demand for evidence, but we can look at a crater and say a metor hit the earth without reproducing the results. We don't do thinks like say the only way we could make this crater is with nuclear weapons so this crater must have been formed by aliens with nuclear weapons.

If that is true - how about people who have abortions, or are homosexuals or are infertile, or post menopausal females that have not procreated?

They have no "evolutionary" purpose?

You have a narrow understanding of evolutionary purpose. Drones in a bee hive don't reproduce yet they allow the queen to reproduce more. Which gives them evolutionary purpose. You have to understand that for much of our evolutionary history we lived in small groups, things that have no purpose now might have been useful then.

Abortions,
Could have purpose because they would allow the person to raise better children later or again if they don't have a purpose they would go extinct. That's the way evolution works its random so random things happen so bad some good the bad ones die out the good ones procreate.

Homosexuals,
Could have purpose because often the second brother is the homosexual if the second brother being gay allows the first brother to produce more ofspring maybe because he isn't fighting his brother for mating rights or the brother helps to raise those children to adulthood so they can reproduce more he might be of assistance or again if they don't have a purpose they would go extinct. That's the way evolution works its random so random things happen so bad some good the bad ones die out the good ones procreate.

infertile or post menopausal females that have not procreated
Could have purpose because perhaps it requires more adults than two to raise a human child. If infertile people take some of the stain off parents raising children it might be beneficial to have a portion of you species infertile or again if they don't have a purpose they would go extinct. That's the way evolution works its random so random things happen so bad some good the bad ones die out the good ones procreate.

If that is true - how about people who have abortions, or are homosexuals or are infertile, or post menopausal females that have not procreated?

They have no "evolutionary" purpose?

One biological "purpose" of an abortion is to allow the parent to invest more resources in preexisting children or to save resources for future children, to reproduce when times are better. Animals do exactly this kind of thing all the time. They don't have as many offspring as they possibly can. Instead, they have as many offspring as they can successfully raise to maturity. If times are harsh, they put off reproduction until a better time. They even engage in infanticide at times. I'm not promoting that. I'm just saying that there IS a biological imperative to limit reproduction.

This is more obvious in parents that invest a lot into the offspring. In animals where the fathers don't do anything but donate sperm, they tend to try to maximize the number of offspring and also their size. (Fathers that help raise the offspring are less likely to do this.) This results in the father giving genes to the offspring that make the baby take lots of calories from the mother and get very large, and the mother, in turn, passing on genes that minimize these effects, so she can has the resources to raise other offspring and live long enough to raise the one she's carrying, instead of dying...

All of this is well documented in the field of "parental investment."
Parental investment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parental_investment)

I like to go back to the original topic question :

One of the latests ICR articles on some Artificial DNA Molecule :

Recently... Japanese chemists have discovered how to mimic DNA... According to the American Chemical Society, "The researchers used high-tech DNA synthesis equipment to stitch together four entirely new, artificial bases inside of the sugar-based framework of a DNA molecule. This resulted in unusually stable, double-stranded structures resembling natural DNA."... If high-tech equipment is required simply to mimic DNA, then how much more "high tech" must the mind and power of God be for inventing it?

My comments :

It is totally irrelevant in the case of artificial DNA to refer to the ICR's claims of "Godly involvement" in design of real natural DNA.
Trillions upon trillions upon trillions upon trillions upon trillions upon trillions upon trillions upon trillions upon trillions upon trillions upon trillions upon trillions upon trillions of cells daily use natural DNA to produce new cells. Without any need for any high-tech equipment.

All that these Japanese chemist prove is that it is not easy to develop a simple DNA structure for data storage.
No wonder of course, as it took nature more than 3.500.000.000 years to perfect the DNA process to what it is today.

But to see the hand of a not-proved-to-exist-entity in this all is a conclusion that shows that these Japanese chemists are a lot smarter than the staff of the ICR !

ICR's First Intelligent Article ? No. Not even almost. Not even near ....

Any (more) comments?

:rolleyes:

.

Sure. DNA can be broken down into RNA. RNA can be broken down into polynucleotides. Polynucleotides break down into nucleotides. Nucleotides break down in to nitrogenous base, a sugar, and a phosphate group.



Also science is the demand for evidence, but we can look at a crater and say a metor hit the earth without reproducing the results. We don't do thinks like say the only way we could make this crater is with nuclear weapons so this crater must have been formed by aliens with nuclear weapons.


D in DNA is deoxy - ribonucleic acid. R in RNA is ribonucleic acid.

Explain how DNA with a 2 H bonds at the 2nd carbon gets "broken down" into RNA with 1 H bond and 1 OH [ hydoxyl] bond at the 2nd carbon?

You went from complex to simple. Take sugars, phosphates and nucleic acids - mix in a test tube and see if you can come up with a functioning genetic code = at least 160,000 base pairs - good luck :)

There is evidence of multiple meteor impacts on the earth - that is reproducible observable events. The same cannot be said for the origin of life, or evolution.

One biological "purpose" of an abortion is to allow the parent to invest more resources in preexisting children or to save resources for future children, to reproduce when times are better. Animals do exactly this kind of thing all the time. They don't have as many offspring as they possibly can. Instead, they have as many offspring as they can successfully raise to maturity. If times are harsh, they put off reproduction until a better time. They even engage in infanticide at times. I'm not promoting that. I'm just saying that there IS a biological imperative to limit reproduction.

This is more obvious in parents that invest a lot into the offspring. In animals where the fathers don't do anything but donate sperm, they tend to try to maximize the number of offspring and also their size. (Fathers that help raise the offspring are less likely to do this.) This results in the father giving genes to the offspring that make the baby take lots of calories from the mother and get very large, and the mother, in turn, passing on genes that minimize these effects, so she can has the resources to raise other offspring and live long enough to raise the one she's carrying, instead of dying...

All of this is well documented in the field of "parental investment."
Parental investment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parental_investment)

So the only evolutionary imperiative is to survive, yet humans, being no different than animals except in their ability to kill, uses abortion to survive? Or because it not convenient to have a child?

Evidence is to the contrary among humans:




White Europeans: An endangered species? (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1979180/posts)

Europeans are not becoming less fertile as a consequence of war, or famine, or disease, but rather as a consequence of their Western, consumerist lifestyles. Some, such as social critic Mark Steyn, have suggested that European civilization is in the middle of committing voluntary demographic suicide, and it’s not hard to see why: A civilization that is producing a tiny succeeding generation and shows no signs of attempting to remedy the problem is violating fundamental Darwinist principles of gene propagation



Western Europe is also very secular.

The irony is that the highest birth rates and population growth is among the poorest nations or among Muslim nations.

List of countries by population growth rate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_population_growth_rate)

Western Europe is also very secular.
Yes, great living here ! :) Even our financial systems seem to hold up much, much better...


The irony is that the highest birth rates and population growth is among the poorest nations or among Muslim nations.
You know that the highest teen pregnancies in the Western World are in the US BY FAR??
May be the irony in that is that that seems to be caused by religion and it's influence in the USA...

:rolleyes::rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

.

Or maybe it is just biology:

Is it more natural to have a child at 18 or into your thirties?

Early 20s is the healthiest time for a woman to have a baby. That is, the babies are the healthiest. Teens tend to have a lot of spontaneous (natural) abortions compared to women in their 20s. So no, the teen years aren't the best time to have a baby.

And of course, teen relationships also tend not to last, so teen who have kids are more likely to end up as single mothers, whether they get married or not. And single mothers are usually much poorer than married ones, which means fewer resources for the kids.

But I am just responding to the last post, so off topic again... :)