Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WVHiflyer

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)

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:

·

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by inthebox

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Credendovidis

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)

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by inthebox

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 :

Quote:

---

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WVHiflyer

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Credendovidis

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)

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]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

Quote:

---

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sassyT

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

·

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Credendovidis

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. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sassyT

... 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:

·

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Credendovidis

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?

Quote:

---

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

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sassyT

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WVHiflyer

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/altern...ml#post1190387

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sassyT

]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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by inthebox

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:

·

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WVHiflyer

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

---

Hear, hear, hear!!

:rolleyes:

·

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sassyT

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Capuchin

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

·

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Credendovidis

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Capuchin

... iffiness ...

---

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

;)
·

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Credendovidis

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!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Capuchin

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Credendovidis

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by inthebox

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.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Capuchin

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:

Quote:

---

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:

Quote:

---

... 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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by michealb

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by inthebox

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by inthebox

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:

·

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Credendovidis

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!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by asking

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 !

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by asking

.... 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 !

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by asking

And that's enough philosophizing for one morning!

---

But an excellent post : you earned your morning coffee !

;)

·

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Capuchin

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: