"Life and its building blocks are way too complicated to have evolved." [moved]

[DogmaHunter]

Really???? Prove it.

It has already been explained to you.
Mutation rates is a well known concept in biology / genetics.

 

[DogmaHunter]

If you talk to Frances Collins the leading expert on the subject, Frances will tell you that "DNA is the Language of God".

He will also tell you "Universal common descent by natural processes is scientifically non‐negotiable. The theory of neo‐Darwinian evolution cannot rationally be doubted by any educated person. "

 

[DogmaHunter]

Collins said, “angry atheists are out there using science as a club to to hit believers over the head.”
Even Hovind agrees with micro evolution.
The problem is they use bait and switch to claim micro evidence for macro evolution.

Are you now claiming that Collins agrees with "micro evolution", but not with "macro evolution"?

Are you claiming that Collins even makes a distinction between both in terms of the driving process behind them?

 

[DogmaHunter]

I read the book, do you want to talk about his book? Collins says: "It is the height of science hubus to claim that science can be used to discount the great monotheistic religions of the world".

Nobody here is denying that Collins is a theist. You need to stop with these derails and actually address the fact that Collins firmly stands behind the theory of evolution as presented in mainstream science.

Read my signature. I have pointed this out to you I-don't-know-how-many times. Each and every time, you avoid it like the plague. You prefer misrepresenting him every time.

I have a feeling that even if we would get Collins himself to post here and school you all on evolutionary biology, you'ld STILL try to argue with Collins himself and try to tell him what he actually believes.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Yes, atheistic model.

The pope, is an atheist?

Where is the hand of God in the ToE?
It's not there.

That doesn't make something atheistic.
Where is the hand of god in E = mc²?
Where is it in gravity?
Where is it in the formation of snow flake?
Where is it in earthquakes caused by tension releases in plate tectonics?

And make sure to read the whole topic, because the complexity of living nature is simply not explained by dead unconscious processes.

Processes aren't either alive or dead. What a weird thing to say.
And ignoring all the evidence, won't make it go away.

So either you totally underestimate or deny the complexity and interdependency within living nature as a whole and within the average living cell in particular,
or you have been blinded by popular so called science.
Maybe both.

No. We just aren't impressed by arguments from ignorance and/or incredulity, which is literally what "IT'S TOO COMPLEX!!!!" is all about.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Evolution hinges on the mutation theory

In your own words, what exactly is "mutation theory"?

 

[DogmaHunter]

DNA repairs itself and is self correcting. This is the reason why there are no copy errors in the Bible

LOL!

 

[SteveB28]

Collins said, “angry atheists are out there using science as a club to to hit believers over the head.”
Even Hovind agrees with micro evolution.
The problem is they use bait and switch to claim micro evidence for macro evolution.

Yes, because I can see the second hand moving on my clock, but I can't see the hour hand moving..........so it mustn't be...!

Minutes are possible.......but hours.....? Don't be ridiculous.....!

 

[loveofourlord]

DNA repairs itself and is self correcting. This is the reason why there are no copy errors in the Bible. Because of the mathematical precision of the Word of God the errors are detected and they can be corrected.

*laughs* Uhhhh yeah......because cancer doesn't exist, or the 40+ mutations you have from your parents due to errors in the copying of your DNA, or chromosone 2 fusion among other things, nope not a single error in DNA.

 

[joshua 1 9]

*laughs* Uhhhh yeah......because cancer doesn't exist, or the 40+ mutations you have from your parents due to errors in the copying of your DNA, or chromosone 2 fusion among other things, nope not a single error in DNA.

Neutral mutations are changes in DNA sequence that are neither beneficial nor detrimental. The point you have to prove is that all of life is based on something they call a beneficial mutation. If you can provide evidence for that then step forward and get your nobel prize. Because as it stands science does not seem to be able to differentiate between variation and mutation.

 

[joshua 1 9]

In your own words, what exactly is "mutation theory"?

The desperation theory that all of life is a result of so called beneficial mutation because they have no other known mechanism to work with.

 

[Jimmy D]

The desperation theory that all of life is a result of so called beneficial mutation because they have no other known mechanism to work with.

"Over time mutations in DNA can cause novel features, as we noted earlier, like feathers from scales or eyes from light sensitive pigment. These mutations in the DNA subtly favor certain features, although they appear to develop randomly. The process, however, is not a random process, nor should it be described a purposeless...................

........................... In the event that the process, over many generations, finds a way to do this with the right mutation, that mutation will confer a great advantage on the offspring who inherit it."

link

It seems not everyone agrees.

 

[Jimmy D]

"Infact, each of us has about one hundred mutations that arose for the first time in us. Each of these mutations represents a tiny experiment.

Sometimes mutations are beneficial. They might make the organism more attractive to the opposite sex, making it easier to find mates and reproduce - or they might lay eggs that are less fragile or better camouflaged."

link

I think you ne to re-read your Francis Collins literature Joshua.

 

[DogmaHunter]

The desperation theory that all of life is a result of so called beneficial mutation because they have no other known mechanism to work with.

Is this the same "desperation theory" that your hero Francis Collins, says is scientifically non-negotiable and which can't be rationally doubted by any educated person?

 

[doubtingmerle]

Post 3 was a little bit more than "nothing".
Now, I was going to go a bit deeper, but I tried to keep it as simple as possible. For example we could go deeper by asking, how does the microtubule know where point "A" is and where point "B" is? What tells it to construct and then deconstruct after the motor protein walks over it? Do you realize just how complicated the code to construct the signaling for that to occur must be?
Then I'm asked to believe that it came about via a process of mutations, random chance and natural selection?

And we are being asked to believe that billions of copies of motor proteins sprang up out of nothing to form the first zebra? And billions of similar copies sprang up out of nothing to form the first tiger? And so on for every animal? And we are to believe that all this happened on the same week about 6000 years ago, even though there is abundant evidence most creatures were around millions of years before that? Can you see how nothing in your view makes any sense from a scientific point of view?

How do you know that it would be impossible for the god of the universe to evolve such proteins, but possible for him to create it from scratch billions of times complete with a fossil record that clearly shows it didn't happen that way? How can you even pretend that springing up out of nothing is more scientific than evolution?

I'm not an expert in cellular biology. But I have furnished a link to a professor who explains the genetic evidence that these motor proteins evolved from simpler molecules. And I provided a link to a peer reviewed article that explains it. Have you even read it? If you are not going to read the links providing the explanation, and then complain that we have not given the evidence, what are we supposed to do? Tie our shoes all day?

You ask how the motor protein knows what to do. I don't know the details, but I think YEC's and evolutionists agree that the motor protein performs its duties based on cellular interactions as directed by the DNA. Your argument that you don't know how it knows where to go applies to both your view and our view. If you want to understand cellular biology, take a course in cellular biology. But don't come here and complain that, since you don't understand how cells work, therefore magic.

 

[doubtingmerle]

The point you have to prove is that all of life is based on something they call a beneficial mutation. If you can provide evidence for that then step forward and get your nobel prize.

Oh, thank you, thank you. I never had a nobel prize before.

Here is the evidence you requested-- http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/ .

Where do I go to claim my prize?

 

[loveofourlord]

Neutral mutations are changes in DNA sequence that are neither beneficial nor detrimental. The point you have to prove is that all of life is based on something they call a beneficial mutation. If you can provide evidence for that then step forward and get your nobel prize. Because as it stands science does not seem to be able to differentiate between variation and mutation.

Neutral mutations though CAN add up to beneficial mutations, thats part of the information, small mutations over time do add up, look at snake venom, which comes from a modified saliva gland and parts of it are from genes used elsewhere but were co-opted into venom and such. Most mutations will be netural, since majority of devestating ones will fail to even be born.

 

[joshua 1 9]

Oh, thank you, thank you. I never had a nobel prize before.

Here is the evidence you requested-- http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/ .

Where do I go to claim my prize?

I am not disputing common descent, we are talking about the mutation theory. Try to stay on the topic. I mean I understand that they use mutations as markers to prove common descent. I am disputing that mutations has anything to do with evolution as a cause, not a marker. Look at the studies on flies. All the mutations you would ever want. Yet you start of with a fly and you end up with a fly. Unless you really want to consider a fly with a leg growing out of his head a new species.

 

[doubtingmerle]

I am not disputing common descent, we are talking about the mutation theory. Try to stay on the topic. I mean I understand that they use mutations as markers to prove common descent. I am disputing that mutations has anything to do with evolution as a cause, not a marker. Look at the studies on flies. All the mutations you would ever want. Yet you start of with a fly and you end up with a fly. Unless you really want to consider a fly with a leg growing out of his head a new species.

Are you aware what scientists say when they talk about common descent from a common ancestor? They mean that all living things evolved from the same initial microbe. And that, by definition, means that creatures will be evolving into different species. They are not talking about only evolution within a species.

And mutations with natural selection is the primary driver of that speciation.

If you will read the link I posted, it is about mutations leading to new species, not about simply evolution within a species.

So you have your evidence. May I have my Nobel Prize you promised, please?

 

[-57]

DNA repairs itself and is self correcting. This is the reason why there are no copy errors in the Bible. Because of the mathematical precision of the Word of God the errors are detected and they can be corrected.

I don't disagree...I think the "self correcting" process in some instances were damaged due to harmful mutations caused by the fall.