[inthebox]

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

[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:

·

[WVHiflyer]

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.

[inthebox]

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:

[inthebox]

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 :)

[WVHiflyer]

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.

[Credendovidis]

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:

[sassyT]

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

[sassyT]

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. ;)

[sassyT]

[QUOTE]

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:

[Credendovidis]

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

·

[sassyT]

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. ;)

[Credendovidis]

... 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:

·

[sassyT]

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 ;).

[Credendovidis]

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

·

[WVHiflyer]

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.

[Credendovidis]

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

·

[WVHiflyer]

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.

[inthebox]

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

[asking]

]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