.
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)

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WVHiflyer

(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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by savedsinner7

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by savedsinner7

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WVHiflyer

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WVHiflyer

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WVHiflyer

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. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sassyT

100% irrefutable conclusive evidence

---

Give 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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by michealb

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
Flatfish Evolution Revealed : Discovery News : Discovery Channel

2.)Bacteria make major evolutionary shift in the lab - life - 09 June 2008 - New Scientist
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/religi...ml#post1148388


From your link:

Quote:

---

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Credendovidis

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by michealb

1.)[2.)Bacteria make major evolutionary shift in the lab - life - 09 June 2008 - New Scientist
.

---

And the rebuttals :

Quote:

---

Literature - On the evolution of a "key innovation" in Escherichia coli

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

Quote:

---

Michael Behe's Amazon Blog: Multiple Mutations Needed for E. Coli Permalink

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sassyT

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by inthebox

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]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sassyT

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WVHiflyer

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Capuchin

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.

---

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WVHiflyer

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? ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by michealb

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]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

Quote:

---

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")

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by inthebox

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.

Quote:

---

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

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)

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

Quote:

---

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: