Human cell and DNA clearly point to Intelligent Design

[Smidlee]

No, I'm saying that, with successive mutations, a cell may develop the capability to detect light. It doesn't "poof into existence". Then, sometimes, other cells and proteins may overgrow the light-sensitive cells. In most cases, this would be a harmful mutation, so those die. However, if one of those animals also had a mutation to make those particular cells and proteins clear, then you get the devlopment of the first primitive lens. That animal is more successful and passes its genes onto future offspring, some of which have the lenses. Eventually, these lens-eyed animals out-compete those without lenses and become the dominant species. Simple natural selection.

So there are no creatures alive today that doesn't have lens eyes?

So riddle me this: if it's so great, why didn't God give the Anomalocaris eye to all the modern animals with worse eyes? The evolutionary explanation is that Anomalocaris (and whichever ancestors kept those eyes) weren't well-enough adapted to survive into the modern world. Considering that the Earth has undergone several mass extinctions, in which all but a few orders were wiped out each time, it's not surprising that they didn't make it.

You don't need evolution to know Anomalocaris are no longer around. Just because some creatures eyes are not as sophisticated doesn't mean they are bad eyes. I doubt a worm needs eagle eyes.

I don't know what bearing this has on the discussion. My point was that the brain has to do extra processing work to turn the image projected by the eye into the image that we see, and other animals have proven that it's perfectly possible to not have a reversed image projection. If we were designed by an ominpotent designer, features like this shouldn't exist.

just how hard is it to turn the image around?
Why not just reversed wire the retina?

I could also point out the appendix, which does absolutely nothing in the human body apart from getting infected on occasion and nearly killing us. Why would God put it there?

I thought this has already been answer. The appendix acts as a safe haven for good bacteria. With a large (typo) population it's not longer needed.

I don't know about the moving your eyes part - the simple fact is that our brains don't multitask well. Simply holding something takes very little thought, but talking and driving both require large amounts of processing power, and your brain has to choose which to prioritize. Again, this doesn't have a bearing on the discussion.

From what I've read our brains are good at multitasking... a lot better than even a supercomputer. Haven't you ever seen people who lost their brain's multitasking ability and had to focus in order to do anything? Also for some reason talking someone on the phone while driving is different than talking someone in the car.

I'm aware. My point was that the probability of things poofing into existence is far lower than the probability of evolution. So if God has the power to poof, why can't He have to power to work through evolution?

The only difference between things "poofing" into existence and evolution is .......... is....... I give up.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

So there are no creatures alive today that doesn't have lens eyes?

Where did I say that? If an animal doesn't gain a competitive advantage from a mutation, then it doesn't become a dominant trait.

You don't need evolution to know Anomalocaris are no longer around. Just because some creatures eyes are not as sophisticated doesn't mean they are bad eyes. I doubt a worm needs eagle eyes.

My point exactly. So why did you post that link?

just how hard is it to turn the image around?
Why not just reversed wire the retina?

Again you miss my point. It may not be difficult, but there's zero reason to design it that way.

I thought this has already been answer. The appendix acts as a safe haven for good bacteria. With a long population it's not longer needed.

Huh, hadn't heard of this before. Thanks for the info! See what happens when you haven't taken a biology class in 8 years?

From what I've read our brains are good at multitasking... a lot better than even a supercomputer. Haven't you ever seen people who lost their brain's multitasking ability and had to focus in order to do anything? Also for some reason talking someone on the phone while driving is different than talking someone in the car.

Wikipedia and my personal experience would beg to differ. I can't effectively talk on the phone and do anything else at the same time. One or the other gets ignored. I also can't drive and hold a meaningful conversation with someone sitting next to me. Oh, sure, I can give yes/no answers and noncommittal grunts, but if I want to formulate more than a one or two word response, I have to take my attention off my driving. People can give the illusion of productive multitasking becase there are many things that can be done with minimal attention (i.e. driving on the freeway with light traffic), but if you were to try the same thing in bumper-to-bumper traffic, you'd quickly either get in an accident or discover that your conversation skills are suddenly much weaker.

The only difference between things "poofing" into existence and evolution is .......... is....... I give up.

Then you clearly don't understand evolution.

 

[Smidlee]

Wikipedia and my personal experience would beg to differ. I can't effectively talk on the phone and do anything else at the same time. One or the other gets ignored. I also can't drive and hold a meaningful conversation with someone sitting next to me. Oh, sure, I can give yes/no answers and noncommittal grunts, but if I want to formulate more than a one or two word response, I have to take my attention off my driving. People can give the illusion of productive multitasking becase there are many things that can be done with minimal attention (i.e. driving on the freeway with light traffic), but if you were to try the same thing in bumper-to-bumper traffic, you'd quickly either get in an accident or discover that your conversation skills are suddenly much weaker.

There's a difference between a person multitasking and your brain. For example it hard to listen to two people talking at the same time because your brain is design to filter stuff out. Again there are people who are handicap because their brain loses a lot of the multitasking ability. There is a lot your brain is doing you are not even aware of.

Then you clearly don't understand evolution.

No one does.
Genes seems to "poof" into existence. http://vimeo.com/17132544

 

[RocksInMyHead]

There's a difference between a person multitasking and your brain. For example it hard to listen to two people talking at the same time because your brain is design to filter stuff out. Again there are people who are handicap because their brain loses a lot of the multitasking ability. There is a lot your brain is doing you are not even aware of.

I really don't get where you're going with this. I think we both got a little side-tracked on multitasking.

No one does.
Genes seems to "poof" into existence. ORFan Genes Challenge Common Descent - Paul Nelson on Vimeo

Interesting, though it's hardly proof of design. He mostly ignores the fact that he's using small sample sizes (acknowledges it, but then his "gotcha" is still only ~500 samples), ignores the things that do match (which you wouldn't predict in ID), and brushes off the idea of multiple common ancestors. I'd also remind you of the exponential growth of the total genome bank, which shows that we haven't sequenced anywhere near the total number of genes that exist - in other words, the "orphans" may actually have parents out there that haven't been found yet. The parent genes could also be from extinct species, and so will never be discovered.

I'm not saying that he didn't make a good point - the orphan genes do appear to be a problem for common descent from a single ancestor - but biologists seem to recognize this and are testing new hypotheses to explain it. Moreover, the failure of one theory does not automatically validate the opposing theory.

 

[Smidlee]

I really don't get where you're going with this. I think we both got a little side-tracked on multitasking.


Interesting, though it's hardly proof of design. He mostly ignores the fact that he's using small sample sizes (acknowledges it, but then his "gotcha" is still only ~500 samples), ignores the things that do match (which you wouldn't predict in ID), and brushes off the idea of multiple common ancestors. I'd also remind you of the exponential growth of the total genome bank, which shows that we haven't sequenced anywhere near the total number of genes that exist - in other words, the "orphans" may actually have parents out there that haven't been found yet. The parent genes could also be from extinct species, and so will never be discovered.

I'm not saying that he didn't make a good point - the orphan genes do appear to be a problem for common descent from a single ancestor - but biologists seem to recognize this and are testing new hypotheses to explain it. Moreover, the failure of one theory does not automatically validate the opposing theory.

Of course we can only go by what we know so far. That's the thing about evolution, it is always supported by the "unknown". Since we don't know everything then evolution is assumed to be true.

You may the statement "My point was that the probability of things poofing into existence is far lower than the probability of evolution. " yet as this video points out it the evidence shows something different. Even as a creationist I thought in the last example he gave the same genes will be involved to form their shell. Why used two different genetic sequence to perform the exact same thing? If you went totally by probability I would agree it's more probable the same genes formed the same task then two total different genes.
But that's just it, life doesn't seem to care to fit any man-made theory, it is as if it has a mind of it's own.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

Of course we can only go by what we know so far. That's the thing about evolution, it is always supported by the "unknown". Since we don't know everything then evolution is assumed to be true.

Uh, no. Evolution is supported by collected evidence. It is acknowledged that there are things we don't know, but the body of evidence collected so far is overwhelmingly in favor of evolution.

You may the statement "My point was that the probability of things poofing into existence is far lower than the probability of evolution. " yet as this video points out it the evidence shows something different. Even as a creationist I thought in the last example he gave the same genes will be involved to form their shell. Why used two different genetic sequence to perform the exact same thing? If you went totally by probability I would agree it's more probable the same genes formed the same task then two total different genes.
But that's just it, life doesn't seem to care to fit any man-made theory, it is as if it has a mind of it's own.

Not a single person (apart from creationists) has claimed that orphan genes "poof" into existence. You're falling into the "God of the gaps" trap; just because we don't know where something comes from does not mean that Goddidit.

 

[Smidlee]

Uh, no. Evolution is supported by collected evidence. It is acknowledged that there are things we don't know, but the body of evidence collected so far is overwhelmingly in favor of evolution.


Not a single person (apart from creationists) has claimed that orphan genes "poof" into existence. You're falling into the "God of the gaps" trap; just because we don't know where something comes from does not mean that Goddidit.

Evolutionist are guilty in stating things just poof into existence. Just look at the "the little eyeball that could" story. You will see stuff like lens just "poof" into existence. No one has to make any claim about the ORFans as the evidence speaks for itself. The sudden appearance of creatures in the fossil record is also the norm not the exception. The so called evidence of evolution is mostly based on imagination and story telling.

I have made no claim of what God did but I have very serious doubts that "evolution did it". Since we are in the christian part of the forum are there any doubt God did it?

P.S here is another example of evolutionists story telling got it wrong.
The findings suggest that this group of insects evolved their supersensitive hearing long before bat predators came to be, the researchers say
They predicted many insects got their ears as the result of the appearance of bats.
There is no difference between evolved and poof into existence. for example the quote " Insects have poof into existence ears at least 17 times in different lineages.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

Evolutionist are guilty in stating things just poof into existence. Just look at the "the little eyeball that could" story. You will see stuff like lens just "poof" into existence.

This again? I'm not sure how anyone could get "poofing" out of the description I gave. There is more to it, of course, involving how mutations work and the like, but I don't feel that I could give you a good explanation, given that I'm not a biologist.

No one has to make any claim about the ORFans as the evidence speaks for itself. The sudden appearance of creatures in the fossil record is also the norm not the exception. The so called evidence of evolution is mostly based on imagination and story telling.

What sudden appearance of creatures in the fossil record?

I have made no claim of what God did but I have very serious doubts that "evolution did it". Since we are in the christian part of the forum are there any doubt God did it?

No. The question is "How did God do it?" - and I believe that evolution is just His mechanism.

 

[Smidlee]

This again? I'm not sure how anyone could get "poofing" out of the description I gave. There is more to it, of course, involving how mutations work and the like, but I don't feel that I could give you a good explanation, given that I'm not a biologist.

Mutation can only mutate already existing genes which is why ORFans so far is a problem.
[/quote]

 

[RocksInMyHead]

P.S here is another example of evolutionists story telling got it wrong.
The findings suggest that this group of insects evolved their supersensitive hearing long before bat predators came to be, the researchers say
They predicted many insects got their ears as the result of the appearance of bats.

This is just how science works. You make a prediction - in this case: "Bats eat insects and use high-frequency echolocation to locate them, and insects have the ability to hear those high-frequency pulses. Therefore, high-frequency insect hearing developed as an adaptation to bat predation."

Then you test, and determine whether your hypothesis is correct. In this case, it wasn't, and they admitted as much. This just means that some other evolutionary pressurecaused the development of insect hearing. Perhaps other predators in their past have hunted using high-frequency echolocation, or maybe it first developed as a method of communication. There's nothing wrong with being wrong - scientists get unexpected results all the time. The trick is that they then set out to figure out why. That's just how science works.

There is no difference between evolved and poof into existence. for example the quote " Insects have poof into existence ears at least 17 times in different lineages.

No, there is a difference. If something poofs into existence, it can't be traced. Evolution can.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

Mutation can only mutate already existing genes which is why ORFans so far is a problem.

And as I pointed out, we have yet to catalog every gene in existence. So they remain an unknown. I agree that they are a problem, but "problem" does not equate to "disproves the entire theory of evolution." Any theory that takes the place of evolution has to account for all of the evidence that supports evolution as well.

 

[Smidlee]

And as I pointed out, we have yet to catalog every gene in existence. So they remain an unknown. I agree that they are a problem, but "problem" does not equate to "disproves the entire theory of evolution." Any theory that takes the place of evolution has to account for all of the evidence that supports evolution as well.

If you appeal to the "unknown" to answer problems of evolution then it becomes impossible to ever disproves evolution. There will always be the "unknown". My theory is called the "no nonsense theory" that predicts life will never be able to fit into a man-made theory. So far my theory fits the evidence.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

If you appeal to the "unknown" to answer problems of evolution then it becomes impossible to ever disproves evolution. There will always be the "unknown". My theory is called the "no nonsense theory" that predicts life will never be able to fit into a man-made theory. So far my theory fits the evidence.

Have I ever appealed to orphan genes to solve an evolutionary problem?

And your theory is a total cop-out. "We'll never understand it, so why try?" It's fine if you believe that, but if you do, what's the point in debating me?

 

[Lepanto]

Totally. I think science is bollocks too, not just evolution.

I mean, I'm sick of physics predicting one moment that my car should be stationary in my garage and the next that it should be accelerating down the street. A theory predicting X and not(X) is ridiculous. All this talk of "different external circumstances" is just physicists' way of "buying insurance" in case they found contradictory evidences.

Dear Shernren, I thought you were a congmingren, but what you said shows the contrary. It is ridiculous and invalid to bring such example. They are totally different.

You were trying to refute by an example of cars, which is a human affair and is determined by a conscious free will. Sometimes you may park it in garage and sometimes drive it on the street -- a human makes the decision.

Macro-evolution is not, it is based on chance mutation + natural selection - no conscious free will is involved, according to TOE.

Can't you differentiate the 2 situations ?

 

[shernren]

Dear Shernren, I thought you were a congmingren, but what you said shows the contrary. It is ridiculous and invalid to bring such example. They are totally different.

You were trying to refute by an example of cars, which is a human affair and is determined by a conscious free will. Sometimes you may park it in garage and sometimes drive it on the street -- a human makes the decision.

Macro-evolution is not, it is based on chance mutation + natural selection - no conscious free will is involved, according to TOE.

Can't you differentiate the 2 situations ?

Good heavens, why is this fallacious counter-argument coming up twice in a week?

Human agency does not magically short-circuit physical causation.

Come back when you've read through this thread.

 

[Smidlee]

Dear Shernren, I thought you were a congmingren, but what you said shows the contrary. It is ridiculous and invalid to bring such example. They are totally different.

You were trying to refute by an example of cars, which is a human affair and is determined by a conscious free will. Sometimes you may park it in garage and sometimes drive it on the street -- a human makes the decision.

Macro-evolution is not, it is based on chance mutation + natural selection - no conscious free will is involved, according to TOE.

Can't you differentiate the 2 situations ?

Man create cars by the laws of physics. Man create evolution by a lot of nonsense. The difference between your car and evolution is your car has an engine that runs on gas while evolution doesn't have an engine and runs on imagination.

P.S. Still if all we got as an answer of why a car is stationary and why a car moves is simply "the laws of physics" then the answer is meaningless. But we don't say "the laws of physics" is why or how the car moves. But that's exactly the kind of answer we get from evolutionists.

 

[Anthony Puccetti]

deleted

 

[Anthony Puccetti]

deleted

 

[Anthony Puccetti]

Purely subjective. One man's order is another's chaos. How do you decide that something has a "purposeful order"?

When its arrangement and movement and movement functions for the sustaining of life,which is what happens in organisms. It is a reality,not an illusion.

By your definition, an animal like a Liger would be designed by God, but it clearly isn't. It's the unnatural product of breeding a Lion and a Tiger. Sure, it's sterile, but it is alive, right?

It is designed by God and alive by his spirit,as are all forms of life. It wouldn't exist unless it was created by God at conception.

I'm aware. My point was that the probability of things poofing into existence is far lower than the probability of evolution. So if God has the power to poof, why can't He have to power to work through evolution?

What you call poofing into existence is immediate creation by God. That is how we came into existence when we were conceived. All living creatures are created immediately by God,even those that are derived from other species. God creates individuals immediately,and species exist as individuals. He does not create species through evolution itself,because evolution is not a means of creating anything in particular. It is a process of elimination. Conception and reproduction are the natural means of creation,and the development of new traits can only happen through them.

You got sources for any of this? I've already given/linked explanations on how two supposedly "irreducibly complex" components could have evolved.

Have you analyzed the explanations to see if the proposed processes really have the necessary,corresponding power to develop the components?