Greg1234
In the beginning was El
You were given the evidence for intelligent design. The level of integrated complexity. Refute it. Whether or not you like it is irrelevant here.How would you determine that it is intelligently designed? Would you compare it to something that wasn't?
Saying complexity is useless doesn't make it any less complex.You're not getting my point. People who intelligently design computer systems to not add redundant, useless complexity. Humans have redundant, useless complexity.
From - A Critique of ''29 Evidences for Macroevolution'' - Part 2 -Explain why we as humans have the Vitamin C and Uric acid metabolism genes, but they are mutated and don't work? Who intelligently designed that? Because of this, we are at risk for developing scurvy.
Consider Dr. Theobald’s primary example, the L-gulano-g-lactone oxidase gene, which is one of the genes required for the synthesis of vitamin C. Assuming this is a bona fide pseudogene in humans, meaning a nonfunctional version of a gene that was functional at some point in the human lineage, it says nothing about the origin of the ancestor that possessed the functioning gene. That ancestor could have been independently created or could have descended from a creature that had been independently created. So this entire line of argument cannot do what Dr. Theobald needs it to do.
As with other vestigial structures, it is difficult to identify bona fide vestigial genes. We simply do not know enough to be able to declare definitively that any given series of nucleotides has absolutely no function. As molecular biologist Pierre Jerlstrom recently noted:
As with other vestigial structures, it is difficult to identify bona fide vestigial genes. We simply do not know enough to be able to declare definitively that any given series of nucleotides has absolutely no function. As molecular biologist Pierre Jerlstrom recently noted:
Pseudogenes are often referred to in the scientific literature as nonfunctional DNA, and are regarded as junk. But more scientists are now conceding that this is far from true for many pseudogenes. Failure to observe pseudogenes coding for a product under experimental conditions is no proof that they never do so inside an organism. It is also impossible to rule out protein expression based solely on sequence information, as DNA messages can be altered by, e.g., editing the transcribed RNA, skipping parts of the sequence, etc. Moreover, the inability to code for a protein useful to an organism hardly exhausts other possible functions pseudogenes may have. (Jerlstrom, 15.)
The possibility of an undiscovered function has become even greater with the recent sequencing of the human genome. Though humans may have as many as 300,000 proteins, it turns out that they have only about 30,000 genes.[SIZE=-1][[/SIZE][SIZE=-1]17][/SIZE] Thus, the genome is even more complex than previously believed. As J. Craig Venter of Celera Genomics explained in the press conference announcing the sequencing of the human genome:[O]ur understanding of the human genome has changed in the most fundamental ways. The small number of genes—some 30,000—supports the notion that we are not hard wired. We now know the notion that one gene leads to one protein, and perhaps one disease, is false.
One gene leads to many different protein products that can change dramatically once they are produced. We know that some of the regions that are not genes may be some of the keys to the complexity that we see in ourselves. We now know that the environment acting on our biological steps may be as important in making us what we are as our genetic code. (Bethell, 52.)
And this doesn't change the fact that adaptation which is limited cannot produce a human in the first place.One gene leads to many different protein products that can change dramatically once they are produced. We know that some of the regions that are not genes may be some of the keys to the complexity that we see in ourselves. We now know that the environment acting on our biological steps may be as important in making us what we are as our genetic code. (Bethell, 52.)
The integrated complexity of the current state of efficiency determines that human cannot be assembled through purely naturalistic unintelligent processes. A Corolla could have been as efficient as Leaf. Just because I don't like the Corolla doesn't mean it can be assembled through purely naturalistic unintelligent processes.Not "simple"..."efficient".
Already givenYou have no evidence of limits.
Cars can't effectively get rid of rust. Still intelligently designed. The design of the human system determines that it is far too complex to be assembled through purely naturalistic unintelligent processes.Our bodies are really only good at getting us through the reproductive years. After that, cholesterol kills us because we don't have an effective way of getting rid of it. Poor design.
Upvote
0