[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 !

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?

·

[WVHiflyer]

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?) ;)

[Galveston1]

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.

[sassyT]

(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.

[savedsinner7]

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?

[NeedKarma]

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?

[Choux]

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.

[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.

[WVHiflyer]

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.

[sassyT]

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:

[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.

[sassyT]

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.

[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.

[sassyT]

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. ;)

[NeedKarma]

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.

[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.

[sassyT]

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)

[michealb]

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.

[inthebox]

Michealb:


https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/religi...ml#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:

[inthebox]

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