Natural selection v Intelligent design

[ecco]

ecco said: ↑

These are not my examples at all. These are the two examples of irreducible complexity introduced and researched by ID proponent and expert, Michael Behe. They are Behe's claim to fame.​

His claims have been shown to be wrong over and over. If you have a problem with these examples, take it up with Behe.​

I am not necessarily making an argument for irreducible complexity.

Then why post...

Michael Behe Hasn't Been Refuted on the Flagellum
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/03/michael_behe_hasnt_been_refute044801.html​

...followed by 379 words defending Behe and irreducible complexity and stating:

But if they were to prove that evolution can evolve the complete organism then they would need to show examples for every stage which could be 100s or 1000s of stages in some cases.​

You try to use the same arguments as the "missing links" arguments for fossils. If scientists cannot show 1000 steps, in detail, step by step, then science is wrong. That is nonsensical.

I do make arguments in my own words. I just post links from the evidence and experts that will back that up so that it can validate what my words are saying. A persons words alone mean nothing with qualification.

Simulating evolution by gene duplication of protein features that require multiple amino acid residues.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15340163
The frailty of adaptive hypotheses for the origins of organismal complexity
http://www.pnas.org/content/104/suppl_1/8597.abstract
The Limits of Complex Adaptation: An Analysis Based on a Simple Model of Structured Bacterial Populations
http://bio-complexity.org/ojs/index.php/main/article/view/BIO-C.2010.4
Diminishing returns epistasis among beneficial mutations decelerates adaptation.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21636771

When you post a link to support your argument, quote those portions that you believe support your argument. Do you expect me to search through a half dozen links to find your supporting arguments? Or do you think that I will be so impressed that you have posted so many links that I will just agree with you?

Behe is only one scientists who speaks about how the complexity of life cannot be explained by adaptive processes of evolution through mutations and natural selection. The evidence points to other driving forces for change that are non adaptive. these non adaptive process mainly use the pre existing genetic material of life through living things co existing and sharing genetic material. This makes more sense in light of things like complexity of life being around very early in the history of life and the sudden appearance of complex designed such as in the Cambrian explosion. Many complex body plans having suddenly appeared without any trace of where they came from.

"Many complex body plans having suddenly appeared without any trace of where they came from."

Such as?

Evolutionists make assumptions. Because they havnt got testable evidence to verify what they propose there has to be assumptions involved. Sometimes a claim is made from a bone fragment or as mentioned some similarities with two different creatures. It may be that a fossil found out of place is determined as a new species because well it cant be out of place. Sometimes the fossils date the layers and the layers date the fossils.

Why is that a problem? The beauty of science is that as new information becomes available theories are modified. The discovery and understanding of DNA changed many ideas about the details of how evolution works. It did not refute evolution. It enhanced it.

Many times variations with the same species is made into new species without any evidence.

Without any evidence that you and other creationists/IDers will to accept. You use the GodOfTheGaps philosophy: If science cannot explain every detail then science is wrong and GodDidIt is right. You use this concept only when the science in question disagrees with your interpretation of scripture. The bible says nothing about gravity, so you are OK with it. Even though science has yet to determine what gravity really is.

There are many assumptions made be evolution because much of it cannot be empirically verified because they are making observations based on interpretations of looking back into the past.

By looking into the past from the standpoint of geology, science has determined that The Great Flood never took place.
By looking into the past from the standpoint of historical evidence, science has determined that The Great Flood never took place.
What's wrong with looking into and interpreting the past?

Behe is only one scientists who speaks about how the complexity of life cannot be explained by adaptive processes of evolution through mutations and natural selection. The evidence points to other driving forces for change that are non adaptive. these non adaptive process mainly use the pre existing genetic material of life through living things co existing and sharing genetic material. This makes more sense in light of things like complexity of life being around very early in the history of life and the sudden appearance of complex designed such as in the Cambrian explosion.

Your point?

Many complex body plans having suddenly appeared without any trace of where they came from.

GodOfTheGaps = GodDidIt, again.

 

[pshun2404]

What does their work on DNA repair have to do with a theory that early life used RNA to reproduce?

It doesn't! If early life USED RNA to reproduce this means LIFE precedes RNA, but what the work does show is that DNA could not have existed first and remained for any substantial length of time (and as I pointed out, without the other systems and enzymes in place...most of which are coded for by the very DNA...then the DNA would not be functional).

Secondly if RNA were self replicating, in nature not in vitro via intelligent design, outside of a living system, where did the first functional DNA come from? If it IS self replicating (again in nature outside of a living system) it replicates itself not something totally new and different from itself.

This is just simple logical thinking KC...every study I have read on the self replication process is intra-cellular only or else in a few sparse cases (like Venter's experiment) by intelligent design.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Behe's claim for the bacterial flagellum was that it is irreducibly complex. This has been falsified by demonstrating that the components of the bacterial flagellum are functional in other roles (which also clarified the major stages in the evolution of the flagellum).

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

If early life USED RNA to reproduce this means LIFE precedes RNA, but what the work does show is that DNA could not have existed first and remained for any substantial length of time (and as I pointed out, without the other systems and enzymes in place...most of which are coded for by the very DNA...then the DNA would not be functional).

When talking about 'life' in the prebiotic RNA stage, they're really just talking about simple replicators that wouldn't satisfy the full criteria for cellular life as we know it today; at this stage, 'life' is the simple replicator.

Obviously, enzymes coded for by DNA would come after the first DNA replicators; as catalysts, they increase the efficiency of reactions; the clear inference is that early replicators were far less efficient than their later progeny - just as you'd expect. They may well have used alternate reaction paths that were slightly more efficient than the uncatalysed later developments that succeeded them (i.e. the appearance of a simple enzyme might make an alternate pathway more efficient, leading to it becoming the dominant pathway).

Here's an article about the origin and evolution of DNA and DNA replication macheneries.

 

[Loudmouth]

It doesn't! If early life USED RNA to reproduce this means LIFE precedes RNA,

No, it doesn't. It means RNA precedes life.

Secondly if RNA were self replicating, in nature not in vitro via intelligent design, outside of a living system, where did the first functional DNA come from?

The same place it comes from now, RNA and the proteins that RNA makes.

If it IS self replicating (again in nature outside of a living system) it replicates itself not something totally new and different from itself.

RNA viruses make a DNA copy of themselves, in case you were unaware.

This is just simple logical thinking KC...every study I have read on the self replication process is intra-cellular only or else in a few sparse cases (like Venter's experiment) by intelligent design.

Randomly assembled RNA molecules have ligase function, as one example. These experiments did not happen inside of cells.

"Seven families of RNA ligases, previously isolated from random RNA sequences, fall into three classes on the basis of secondary structure and regiospecificity of ligation."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7618102

 

[pshun2404]

I'm not arguing with anyone - just correcting a potentially misleading point made in your post. Here's an article explaining why DNA is so structurally stable.

By all means post a link to the article describing the supposed fragility of DNA, so readers of the thread can judge for themselves.

Frum…of all the opposition here I respect your responses the most. I find them honest and to the point and usually you are more apt to allowing for alternative possibilities when things are not proven but speculated upon.

So let’s look at what your link article ACTUALLY says. Right off the bat it says “Under the conditions found IN CELLS, DNA adopts a double helix structure.”

So a) we are talking about DNA only within living systems (how did it get there, how did it develop?) then b) it suggests it ADOPTS A DOUBLE HELIX STRUCTURE (from what). Really? Did it have any other choice? Is there any other form of DNA that we have ever even got a hint of that could possibly exist as functional DNA?

Or else this language says it was something less and became a Double Helix (again, adopts this form…from what?).

It then insists THIS stability (which must be how different scientists look at it) is essential (and of course we already KNOW the structure “plays an important role in the way DNA is copied).”

The second paragraph discusses how “the formation of a double helix will happen spontaneously only if they result in a net increase in entropy (mainly by the release of heat)”. Again, do you really believe this? Do you know this or just swallow it whole?

It assumes the double helix (while there being NO such thing as single helix or single strand yet functional DNA) “spontaneously” forms by this process. Then it reinforces the notion by saying “The double helix is stable because its formation leads to an increase in entropy.” Yet entropy in a closed system usually increases disorder not order. In most other studies you will read that with in vivo temperatures exceeding 25 C (77 F) proteins begin to unfold. So we must assume the pre-DNA cellular temperature must be lower than this and then give off heat as the DNA forms “spontaneously”…but spontaneously from what…shorter protein chains??? Free floating RNA? But these protein chains require already extant DNA to be formed. (now someone will jump in and rant about how I do not understand this basic chemistry…blah, blah, blah…but I do)

In paragraph 4 it states what sounds like the obvious “DNA in cells is almost always found in double-stranded form, where two polymers strands are linked together to form a single molecule” BUT is it ever found in any other way IN CELLS?

Even http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v280/n5721/abs/280420a0.html titled to make one think so if read carefully reveals otherwise…the very rare case of when these are found it is a result (effect) and are not causative of any such thing.

So where do they get the notion (written as if it is a known fact) that due to the pH (salt concentration) and temperature conditions “formation of a double helix (which they have not demonstrated)results in a net increase in entropy. This is why the resulting structure (the result of what) is more stable than the two strands would be if they remained separate.” REMAINED SEPARATE clearly implies AN ASSUMPTION that they were once two separated strands that joined ( a process for which we have never found one indicator). We have never found ANY cells with separated strands that come together and form a double helix. Yet the repeat this unknown as if it is a known. Why? They repeat the unfounded “belief: as if it is an established fact KNOWING all the time it is not. Why?

So I agree that double strand DNA molecules would be MORE STABLE than single strand DNA molecules (and obviously the former being functional to code for proteins and the latter useless) but where do we see this assumed process?

 

[Loudmouth]

Frum…of all the opposition here I respect your responses the most. I find them honest and to the point and usually you are more apt to allowing for alternative possibilities when things are not proven but speculated upon.

So let’s look at what your link article ACTUALLY says. Right off the bat it says “Under the conditions found IN CELLS, DNA adopts a double helix structure.”

So a) we are talking about DNA only within living systems (how did it get there, how did it develop?) then b) it suggests it ADOPTS A DOUBLE HELIX STRUCTURE (from what). Really? Did it have any other choice? Is there any other form of DNA that we have ever even got a hint of that could possibly exist as functional DNA?

Watching creationists talk about DNA is like watching a dog play with an iPhone.

There is so much wrong it is hard to know where to start.

If someone said that water is found inside of cells, would you come to the conclusion that the only place in the universe where water can be found is inside of a living cell? If not, why do you make the same fallacious argument for DNA?

You could have done a Google search and found this article, for crying out loud:
https://www.quora.com/Why-is-the-DNA-structure-a-double-helix

Has all the answers right there. I sometimes wonder if creationists are allergic to Google.

To someone who has worked extensively with DNA, your posts do hold some humor. It gives me the giggles to think that people really believe the double helix is magical, that it can't form outside of the cell. When you are someone who looks at agarose gels and finds supercoiled plasmid DNA produced from inside-out PCR of an expression plasmid, you find such things hilarious.

Perhaps an analogy would help. Imagine if someone claimed that they had disproven the whole of Christianity. In their subsequent argument they make the most obvious mistakes, such as saying that there are 3 Gospels and that Romans was written by the Apostle Ralph. Could you keep yourself from laughing?

The second paragraph discusses how “the formation of a double helix will happen spontaneously only if they result in a net increase in entropy (mainly by the release of heat)”. Again, do you really believe this? Do you know this or just swallow it whole?

Hahahaha.

 

[pshun2404]

When talking about 'life' in the prebiotic RNA stage, they're really just talking about simple replicators that wouldn't satisfy the full criteria for cellular life as we know it today; at this stage, 'life' is the simple replicator.

Obviously, enzymes coded for by DNA would come after the first DNA replicators; as catalysts, they increase the efficiency of reactions; the clear inference is that early replicators were far less efficient than their later progeny - just as you'd expect. They may well have used alternate reaction paths that were slightly more efficient than the uncatalysed later developments that succeeded them (i.e. the appearance of a simple enzyme might make an alternate pathway more efficient, leading to it becoming the dominant pathway).

Here's an article about the origin and evolution of DNA and DNA replication macheneries.

Wow Frum I really like this one because it proposes the possibilities (though the author's emphasize their perspective as more likely the correct one) and discusses them. This is why I like your responses....they do not dogmatically assume a truth but include alternate possibilities (that other legitimate scientists actually consider). The language like we can imagine that and possinly independently invented allow for the possibility they may have it wrong but are still working on it. Ahhh! The simple honesty is most refreshing.

When they said "If viruses recruited their DNA replication mechanisms from the cells, as proposed in the “escaped theory” for viral origin, this means either that viruses originated from early DNA cells that have not yet reached the stage of the symmetric mode of replication, or that this mode has been modified in many viruses to produce simpler systems. The latter possibility cannot be excluded, since there is some plasticity in the evolution of DNA replication mechanisms, and this evolution is not necessarily unidirectional (fig. 4). For example, the replication of bacterial chromosome during conjugation can be changed from the symmetric theta mode to the asymmetric rolling-circle mode upon the integration of a conjugative plasmid" however I think they are not seeing the possibility held by the "escape theorists", or as I have fought for as a possibility that viruses are super microscopic bits of disintegrated life forms (following death) that even the materials for the replication mechanisms could be part of this process. Secondly I think they assume that cells existed at one time without DNA (which has not been shown yet) and that viral genetic material somehow replicates on their own outside of being hooked into a living host.

But aside from this I think it was a really valuable education on their thoughts on these differng views that I am glad I got to receive thanks to you.

 

[pshun2404]

If someone said that water is found inside of cells, would you come to the conclusion that the only place in the universe where water can be found is inside of a living cell? If not, why do you make the same fallacious argument for DNA?

No! But if the ONLY place we found water was inside of cells, then I would say it is right to question its origin elsewhere....can't you see how these analogies you give do not follow logically? I make no such fallacious argument for DNA. Can you show me where we have found functional DNA by itself somewhere outside of living systems? No! Then why should I believe it is there? Not fallacious, logical...

Why shouldn't an intelligent person be allowed to question a premise that has never been demonstrated to be true? Since there obviously IS water outside of living cells why would anybody form such an erroneous conclusion of the kind you are saying that I came to (which I did not)

 

[Loudmouth]

If someone said that water is found inside of cells, would you come to the conclusion that the only place in the universe where water can be found is inside of a living cell? If not, why do you make the same fallacious argument for DNA?

No! But if the ONLY place we found water was inside of cells, then I would say it is right to question its origin elsewhere....can't you see how these analogies you give do not follow logically? I make no such fallacious argument for DNA.

You used a quote saying that DNA forms a double helix in cells to argue that the only place DNA can form a double helix is inside the cell. That is both fallacious and seriously wrong. DNA naturally forms a double helix as long as the pH and salt concentrations are within a certain range.

Can you show me where we have found functional DNA by itself somewhere outside of living systems?

Yes. I have dealt with that very thing after doing PCR, plasmid preps, ligations, and so forth. Molecular biologists deal with functional DNA outside of cells all of the time.

Why shouldn't an intelligent person be allowed to question a premise that has never been demonstrated to be true? Since there obviously IS water outside of living cells why would anybody form such an erroneous conclusion of the kind you are saying that I came to (which I did not)

There is obviously DNA that forms double helices outside of cells, so why would you pretend otherwise?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

...So I agree that double strand DNA molecules would be MORE STABLE than single strand DNA molecules (and obviously the former being functional to code for proteins and the latter useless) but where do we see this assumed process?

Not quite sure what your point was with all the blather prior to that, but no parts of the cell, the human body, or the Earth itself are closed thermodynamic systems, so your complaint about entropy is misplaced, and you've also got this last (quoted) part reversed - it's a single strand of DNA that is transcribed to produce RNA protein templates. The DNA helix is unwound at the gene site and the two strands are separated for one to be transcribed. Maybe this also gives a clue as to what other form DNA takes in cells...

As far as DNA stability above freezing goes, a recent discovery supplied large quantities of sequence-able human DNA after 4,500 years in Ethiopian Africa (confirming the migration of Eurasian humans back to Ethiopia in antiquity).

 

[stevevw]

ecco said: ↑

These are not my examples at all. These are the two examples of irreducible complexity introduced and researched by ID proponent and expert, Michael Behe. They are Behe's claim to fame.​

His claims have been shown to be wrong over and over. If you have a problem with these examples, take it up with Behe.​

Those claims about irreducible complexity being wrong have also been refuted on many occasions. When you go into the detail about how flagellum for example operates you find that certain things have to be there for it to work. The same with the eye. Just because someone finds another creature or organism with components of the same thing doesn't mean that it shows that the particular feature evolved in stages into what it is today. Design also includes different stages of the same thing which are suitable for that particular purpose. Its a logical element of design because you use the same basic idea over and over but with adjustments for different purposes.​

Then why post...

Michael Behe Hasn't Been Refuted on the Flagellum
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/03/michael_behe_hasnt_been_refute044801.html​

...followed by 379 words defending Behe and irreducible complexity and stating:

But if they were to prove that evolution can evolve the complete organism then they would need to show examples for every stage which could be 100s or 1000s of stages in some cases.​

​

Because I am not basing the argument on irreducible complexity alone. When you include how evolution claims that creatures evolved through gradual changes using random mutations and natural selection you put into context what what they are trying to claim and see there is a major lack of evidence. Does a complex feature, structure evolve in a few stages like the type of examples that evolution shows no it doesn't. But thats all evolution can come up with. If it happens then they should be able to show 100s or 1000s of examples in the fossil records and in real life. But just because you show a few examples where there are similarities between creatures or features doesn't mean one morphed from the other by mutations.

You try to use the same arguments as the "missing links" arguments for fossils. If scientists cannot show 1000 steps, in detail, step by step, then science is wrong. That is nonsensical.

But that is what they are claiming. They show the steps in a few examples for the eye for example and then use those few examples as evidence that the eye evolved from a less complex organism. But a few examples dont make a theory. Those few examples can also be design as stated earlier. You would think if it were true you could at least cite dozens of examples. But what we also see is evidence that actually contradicts what evolution says which they are quite about. Often there are features that show it impossible for those creatures or organisms to have evolved from one to another.

When you post a link to support your argument, quote those portions that you believe support your argument. Do you expect me to search through a half dozen links to find your supporting arguments? Or do you think that I will be so impressed that you have posted so many links that I will just agree with you?

Ok I will try, but often you have to go into a lot of detail for it to be in context. That is where it is better for someone to read it themselves. But when I link an article or paper I normally talk about what the paper has said in my own words. Like that evidence shows that it is highly unlikely that mutations can produce new function that is viable and fit in proteins. I have often stated the claims evolution make about producing new info, complexity and fitter creatures has no support and then link that evidence.

Such as?

Well the Cambrian explosion for one. All the main body plans appeared without a trace of where they came from. DNA, the brain, the eye, these have not been explained in how they evolved. Sure evolution cites a few example of how some of the stages may have came about. But that goes nowhere near to actually explaining how they evolved in detail and how mutations and natural selection.could do that. One example is the eye. They say that a cup shape could have been the next stage after the eye spot was formed. They dont explain how the eye spot got there let alone validate that. They dont explain how the cup got there let alone validate that. Its just a nice explanation as to how it might have happened without any evidence and a lot of assumption. But science doesn't work that way.

Why is that a problem? The beauty of science is that as new information becomes available theories are modified. The discovery and understanding of DNA changed many ideas about the details of how evolution works. It did not refute evolution. It enhanced it.

This is more than that. the assumption have become beliefs as part of the theory. They believe the assumptions to be true because they already believe the theory top be true. So anything that is hard to verify falls down on the side of fitting into the supporting evidence rather than being left questionable and unverified. Its easy to build a theory with supporting evidence that way.

Without any evidence that you and other creationists/IDers will to accept. You use the GodOfTheGaps philosophy: If science cannot explain every detail then science is wrong and GodDidIt is right. You use this concept only when the science in question disagrees with your interpretation of scripture. The bible says nothing about gravity, so you are OK with it. Even though science has yet to determine what gravity really is.

No you will see that I rarely use God as the answer. I am merely questioning the assumed and general consensus made by evolution based on what I have read and researched. There are many scientists who are mainstream that also do the same. I have linked those supports as well.

By looking into the past from the standpoint of geology, science has determined that The Great Flood never took place.
By looking into the past from the standpoint of historical evidence, science has determined that The Great Flood never took place.
What's wrong with looking into and interpreting the past?

I'm not saying that we cant determine some things that are more major and maybe obvious. The flood is not as straight forward as that. First you are looking at it from one belief that the flood was world wide and that is what the writers of the bible meant. They could have thought the world was their own little piece of earth back then. 2nd the amount of times I have heard that there was a large flood in particular areas of the earth in the past, taken together the evidence will almost have a world wide flood according to scientific evidence. But this is different to say looking at small isolated cases of fossils fragments and what they represent. Or trying to put the flesh on how creatures lived back then. What I am saying and perhaps like religion does is that when we dont know evolution assumes on the side of supporting the theory. Its like a detective assuming that there was a particular killer because he doesn't like the bloke.

Your point?

My point is that Behe is talking about how evolution is not able to account for evolving the complexity and variety of life alone. It is a small part of a larger multi faceted process for which most change stems from non adaptive processes. That the evidence points to genetic code for life was there from the start even for complex creatures. It had to be because they were just as complex as any we see today but just different. There isn't a trend from simple to complex and mutations dont add info and make fitter and better functional things they do the opposite.

GodOfTheGaps = GodDidIt, again.

No like I said I rarely use God or God alone as the answer. I am basing everything on the evidence that comes from the science.

 

[ecco]

ecco:

GodOfTheGaps = GodDidIt, again.​

Those claims about irreducible complexity being wrong have also been refuted on many occasions. ...<snip>​

No like I said I rarely use God or God alone as the answer. I am basing everything on the evidence that comes from the science.

That may be true. You "rarely use God or God alone as the answer." But the basic reason you disbelieve some mainstream science, is your religious beliefs. The only difference between you and any other religious person is where you draw the line between allegory and literal interpretation in your reading of scripture.

You, like many other religious people believe it is not enough to just point to the bible, so you try to use mis-science to support your views.

If you think about this carefully, you will see that you have no problem accepting mainstream science in many areas. It is only when there is a conflict between science and your religious beliefs, that you question and denigrate science.

Do you make an argument about shape of the earth. Some people on these boards do. Their line between literal interpretation and allegory is just in a slightly different place than yours. There is a website,biologos, run by christians. They completely believe in a very old earth and evolution (micro&macro). They believe god set it all in motion. There line is in a different place than your line.

If the people who put together the books of the bible had not included the older jewish writings, christians would not even be arguing about this at all.

 

[stevevw]

ecco:

GodOfTheGaps = GodDidIt, again.​

That may be true. You "rarely use God or God alone as the answer." But the basic reason you disbelieve some mainstream science, is your religious beliefs. The only difference between you and any other religious person is where you draw the line between allegory and literal interpretation in your reading of scripture.

Well I'm not really concerned about the bible and its interpretation of life and nature. I dont think it is meant to be a science book and have a scientific explanation of things. So that would be fruitless. Anyone who tries to use it that way will not succeed. We all have beliefs one way or the other so some of our judgments and interpretations will be influenced by this. The point is that a lot of the evidence can be interpreted more than one way. What is common decent for one can be common design for another. What may be a transitional feature to one can be natural variation within a species to someone else. So a lot of the evidence is non falsifiable because its based on observation. Observation is subject to pre existing beliefs. So we have to qualify the evidence as much as possible.

Certainly a lot of what evolution uses as support is not scientifically testable so it is up for debate. When you get down to the nitty gritty of whether evolution is the main driving force for change it isn't supported by the evidence as I have posted before. The problem is there is a limited amount of evolution such as the changes in beak sizes in Darwin's finches. We have verified this in tests with bacteria which shows they can vary and make changes using existing genetics. But evolution theory takes those small changes and makes big claim out of them that the same process can make dinos into birds and apes into humans. We haven't verified this in tests and therefore its an assumption.

You, like many other religious people believe it is not enough to just point to the bible, so you try to use mis-science to support your views.

No the science is quite clear. I think it is evolution that uses a misrepresentation. They use micro evolution to show the ability to change we all know is possible and then say that this can also make big changes like turn dinos into birds or a land animal into a aquatic one such a Pakicetus. We can do tests and see micro evolution at work. But when it comes to macro evolution we cant. So this has to be based on an assumption and observational evidence which is not science.

If you think about this carefully, you will see that you have no problem accepting mainstream science in many areas. It is only when there is a conflict between science and your religious beliefs, that you question and denigrate science.

Have you ever considered that maybe it works both ways. But I use to believe in evolution but it just didn't sit right with what was out there in reality. To think that self creating process based on mutations that are mainly an error in what is already uses and good can create a vast variety of fitter and more complex creatures out of virtually nothing and simpler things is unbelievable. Like I say I look at the evidence and its pointing to non adaptive processes for creating things. All creatures have more genetics ability within them and around them to tap into what is needed to make changes. Adaptive methods for change based on random mutations sifting through thousands of slightly negative or neutral ones to find a possible beneficial one here and there cannot create what we see. There isn't enough time and capability. That is not based on my religious belief that is based on the evidence in nature.

Do you make an argument about shape of the earth. Some people on these boards do. Their line between literal interpretation and allegory is just in a slightly different place than yours. There is a website,biologos, run by christians. They completely believe in a very old earth and evolution (micro&macro). They believe god set it all in motion. There line is in a different place than your line.

I can say I am not sure what the ultimate truth is. But what they say makes some sense. At least they can say that a lot of the genetic material for life was created and there to begin with. That makes sense because the evidence seems to be pointing to that. Complexity has been there from the beginning. The evidence doesn't support simple to complex evolution. The evidence doesn't support a tree like structure of life where everything can be traced back to an original common ancestor. There are many trunks like a forest of life where they branch out and create life. This suits creation in that more than one creature originates and evolution couldn't have evolved multiple origins for life. Its hard enough believing that one was created from non life let alone many.

If the people who put together the books of the bible had not included the older Jewish writings, Christians would not even be arguing about this at all.

The book had to include older Jewish writings because that is what they used when Christ was around. Christ Himself used them and so do his followers. He was the fulfillment of the old testament.

 

[KCfromNC]

It doesn't!

Then why did you bring it up?

 

[pshun2404]

You used a quote saying that DNA forms a double helix in cells to argue that the only place DNA can form a double helix is inside the cell. That is both fallacious and seriously wrong. DNA naturally forms a double helix as long as the pH and salt concentrations are within a certain range.

First if you read my post you will see that I presented the quote as claim believed and I did NOT support the premise.

Secondly you say “That is both fallacious and seriously wrong. DNA naturally forms a double helix as long as the pH and salt concentrations are within a certain range.” So alleging it actually FORMS, tell us WHERE this happens and show us an example, if NOT in the cell which requires its existence in order to be?

Can you show us a cell where non-DNA FORMS into DNA? Or where (somewhere) where we have seen non-DNA FORM INTO DNA not in a living system? Please give an actual (not theoretical) example…

Yes. I have dealt with that very thing after doing PCR, plasmid preps, ligations, and so forth. Molecular biologists deal with functional DNA outside of cells all of the time.

Oh dear there is that logic block again….these examples are using already extant DNA extracted…I did this work for over a decade…isolating DNA, splicing it, and more…this does NOT demonstrate the issue I have repeatedly addressed or asked for (not even close)

There is obviously DNA that forms double helices outside of cells, so why would you pretend otherwise?

Where in NATURE outside of a living system? Show us! Would someone please at least help LM get the issue? Even if you disagree and also believe it is plausible….

 

[pshun2404]

it's a single strand of DNA that is transcribed to produce RNA protein templates. The DNA helix is unwound at the gene site and the two strands are separated for one to be transcribed. Maybe this also gives a clue as to what other form DNA takes in cells...

Yeah Frum I get this....please note what you have said here "DNA helix is UNWOUND"... thus DNA is already there as a double helix and is already functional (and has to be) in order for this to happen. I know you realize this does not address the initial formation of DNA but the single strand question...Thanks

 

[pshun2404]

Then why did you bring it up?

I didn't...you did...my "It doesn't" was a response to your claim...are you confused? Maybe you should go back and re-read the conversation...

 

[KCfromNC]

I didn't...you did...my "It doesn't" was a response to your claim

Nope, it was a response to a question of how your reply had anything to do with what I wrote. You agreed the answer was that it didn't. Guess it, like this post, it just trying to distract the conversation away from the facts.