Well, at least it makes a refreshing break from 1 Corinthians 1:27 as a "reason" to shut your mind to the clear evidence, just because you think it will contradict what you think you already know.
Upvote
0
-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
-
CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
If Evolution were true...
- Thread starter Tiberius
- Start date
- Status
Well, at least it makes a refreshing break from 1 Corinthians 1:27 as a "reason" to shut your mind to the clear evidence, just because you think it will contradict what you think you already know.
Nathan Poe
Well-Known Member
Upvote
0
A
Awesome_Frog
Guest
Everything is technically an accident, but that's not really the point. Humans are no more of an accident then a cup of water forming a puddle in a certain shape when its tipped over.
Humans are special, because we fulfill a nitch that no other species fills. As humans, we are very well adapted with high levels of adaptability and creativity.
Evolution dosen't reduce life to a relativistic philosophy, its just an observed model of how living organisms adapt and change, and have changed.
Evolution is just a model, not a philosophy such as Nihilism.
Upvote
0
Inan3
Veteran Saint
- Jul 22, 2007
- 3,376
- 88
- Gender
- Female
- Faith
- Word of Faith
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
Well...if evolution doesn't have to take thousands or millions of years I suppose then that everything could have been created after their own kind about 6-10 thousand years ago and evolved into what we have today and the only COMMON descent would be God.
Upvote
0
There's just one or two things wrong with that, but I am sure you are aware of that.
Upvote
0
Upvote
0
Upvote
0
Greg1234
In the beginning was El
You would be amazed by how conserved adaptation is. For example, in the evolution of a receptor,
Nature publishes paper on the edge of evolution, Part 2 | Uncommon Descent - The Weblog of Michael Behe
Using clever synthetic and analytical techniques, Bridgham et al (2009) show that the more recent hormone receptor protein that they synthesized, a GR-like protein, can’t easily revert to the ancestral structure and activity of an MR-like protein because its structure has been adjusted by selection to its present evolutionary task, and multiple amino acid changes would be needed to switch it back. That is a very general, extremely important point that deserves much more emphasis. In all cases — not just this one — natural selection is expected to hone a protein to suit its current activity, not to suit some future, alternate function. And that is a very strong reason why we should not expect a protein performing one function in a cell to easily be able to evolve another, different function by Darwinian means. In fact, the great work of Bridgham et al (2009) shows that it may not be do-able for Darwinian processes even to produce a protein performing a function very similar to that of a homologous protein.
Before reading their paper even I would have happily conceded for the sake of argument that random mutation plus selection could convert an MR-like protein to a GR-like protein and back again, as many times as necessary. Now, thanks to the work of Bridgham et al (2009), even such apparently minor switches in structure and function are shown to be quite problematic. It seems Darwinian processes can’t manage to do even as much as I had thought.
Before reading their paper even I would have happily conceded for the sake of argument that random mutation plus selection could convert an MR-like protein to a GR-like protein and back again, as many times as necessary. Now, thanks to the work of Bridgham et al (2009), even such apparently minor switches in structure and function are shown to be quite problematic. It seems Darwinian processes can’t manage to do even as much as I had thought.
Comparatively, people may have previously conceded that the intelligent mechanism for adaptation (rivaling Darwin's random variation) would be acting through enzyme moderation but not anti-biotic resistance. From research, it can be shown that even the latter is under the influence of that intelligent mechanism. If there was anything you would have granted random mutation it would have been anti-biotic resistance through the high mutation rate of microbes, but it fails. Though adaptation has risen as the fountain of intellectual fulfillment in materialism, it may turn out to be one of the most compelling cases for design. This one might just be the one to flip the earth on its axis- stay tuned.
Upvote
0
Inan3
Veteran Saint
- Jul 22, 2007
- 3,376
- 88
- Gender
- Female
- Faith
- Word of Faith
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
I don't think "I" will... but the irony is that one of YOU guys should use them to prove your point ... kinda smells of a little hypocrisy don't you think?? Well, even if you don't... I do.
Upvote
0
Upvote
0
Your quoting Behe? Really? The man who admitted under oath that ID is not science. That in order to be considered science the very definition of science would have to be changed? And that the new definition would also elevate astrology to a science?
At least, though, Behe did stick it out at the Dover trial. The rest of the Discovery Institute members withdrew their names as expert witnesses, leaving the defense with no case. Judge Jones had no choice but to find for the plaintiffs
Upvote
0
Nathan Poe
Well-Known Member
Everything? Or could it be that while everything evolves, they do so at different rates?
Everything could have created 6-10 thousand years ago... out of strawberry custard by a giant superintelligent English Sheepdog named "Bosko." Why not worship that?
Upvote
0
- Status
Similar threads
