Natural selection v Intelligent design

[pshun2404]

There are billions of combinations of DNA that produce tomatos, fish, and monkeys. You don't need a specific genome to produce any species within those groups.

LM stop being absurd, your playing a semantics game of no consequence....we KNOW every individuals genome is unique and that that is why each individual is unique within their group, but nonetheless,at the same time, YES YOU DO!
You need a tomato genome...and all varieties of tomato genomes ONLY produce tomatoes never papaya. You a fish genome...all varieties of fish genomes produce ONLY fish, and so on...

A chimp genome ONLY produces chimps never spider monkeys or gorillas...they can only produce other chimps unless engineered by an outside intelligent force!

 

[pshun2404]

But but but it was finely tuned to still work if 40% of the fine tuning fails!
Your argument just proves fine tuning even more!
Isn't God's design so grand?

*takes another swig of diesel*

Incredibly amazing...every individual's finger prints are unique (even identical twins) but every individual has fingerprints...amazing!!!! Variations even up to the alleged 40% still do not fail...because sharks STILL only reproduce other sharks and humans only other humans...and the variations are seemingly endless...

 

[Loudmouth]

LM stop being absurd, your playing a semantics game of no consequence....we KNOW every individuals genome is unique and that that is why each individual is unique within their group, but nonetheless,at the same time, YES YOU DO!
You need a tomato genome...

No, you don't. Each new tomato has a genome that has never existed before.

and all varieties of tomato genomes ONLY produce tomatoes never papaya. You a fish genome...all varieties of fish genomes produce ONLY fish, and so on...

The common ancestor of chimps and humans was a primate, and we are both still varieties of primates.

The common ancestor of bears and humans was a mammal, and we are both still varieties of mammals.

The common ancestor of fish and humans was a vertebrate, and we are both still varieties of vertebrates.

Where is the problem again?

 

[Loudmouth]

Variations even up to the alleged 40% still do not fail...because sharks STILL only reproduce other sharks and humans only other humans...and the variations are seemingly endless...

The common ancestor of chimps and humans was a primate, and we are both still varieties of primates.

The common ancestor of bears and humans was a mammal, and we are both still varieties of mammals.

The common ancestor of fish and humans was a vertebrate, and we are both still varieties of vertebrates.

Where is the problem again?

 

[Foxhole87]

LM stop being absurd, your playing a semantics game of no consequence....we KNOW every individuals genome is unique and that that is why each individual is unique within their group, but nonetheless,at the same time, YES YOU DO!
You need a tomato genome...and all varieties of tomato genomes ONLY produce tomatoes never papaya. You a fish genome...all varieties of fish genomes produce ONLY fish, and so on...

A chimp genome ONLY produces chimps never spider monkeys or gorillas...they can only produce other chimps unless engineered by an outside intelligent force!

This seems to suggest that a chimp did produce an engineered gorilla.
Or it would seem to suggest that we should expect to never, ever find a descendant of an animal in the same strata as the animal.

 

[Foxhole87]

Incredibly amazing...every individual's finger prints are unique (even identical twins) but every individual has fingerprints...amazing!!!! Variations even up to the alleged 40% still do not fail...because sharks STILL only reproduce other sharks and humans only other humans...and the variations are seemingly endless...

I don't think you understood my jab.

 

[stevevw]

How can there be a specific set when different creatures have different sequences and they all are still functional creatures?

There is a specific set for each living thing. Are you saying that any living creature can have any old combination of amino acids that sequence into a code to make their individual components. Its the same for a set of machines or a bunch of cakes in a cake shop. They all have some similar ingredients but each has a specific set of ingredients that makes them turn out like they do. You couldn't just throw in a bunch of chemicals or baking ingredients into a pot and give it a mix then bake it hoping it would turn out correct. You have to measure each ingredient and combine them properly so that it gets the proper end result. This is similar to how each and every single life is made. None can be random mixtures of the individual nucleotides that make up our DNA.

In fact it is far more complicated then a cake mixture. There are multi levels of coded information that need to be just right and proteins are 3D shapes which need to be exactly right for them to function properly. So even though there are different codes that go into making up some of the different combinations of proteins that create different living things they all have to be exactly right to make functional viable living things. Thats despite there being the possibility according to evolution that random mutations could pop up any number of random combinations for a protein to form that may be non functional.

I just showed you that yeast cytochrome c differs from human cytochrome c by 40%, and they are both still functional.

You keep saying that. I am not a biologist to know the detailed workings of this. But even though it differs wouldn't it still need to have the same specific makeup. JUst as there is variation within the same features of living things can there be variation within some proteins.

 

[stevevw]

How can there be an exact sequence when there are 6 billion different ones, and those are just the ones we know of.

What are you meaning by 6billion sequences. Are you meaning 6 billion base pairs in a human cell. There are four bases in DNA, and their sequence spells out the information DNA carries. So these Base pairs can be like letters in language that write out the instructions to build humans. If there are spelling mistakes it can have a harmful effect. Though there are mechanisms to repair any damage the sequences or coded language has to be precise to make functional and fit living things. This will apply to all living things though the genetic language for each will be different according to the living creature that is made. But all living things will have a similar basic blueprint for life. Between humans the difference may be only 0.01%.

 

[SkyWriting]

So you admit the existence of dinosaurs, you're actually wrong about about them all being cold blooded. Bones have been found that indicate they have been both warm and cold blooded. Saying there's very little fossilized skin and then going onto make claims about sweat glands, is contradictory.

Still one more nail in coffin for creation. Dinosaurs ruled the Earth for millions of years and it was ideal for them, a lot longer than it will be ideal for us. Or are you going to tell us they perished by missing the Ark. Along with the other five billion species that have lived on Earth. As Noah only had space for 8 million.

This is a perfect example of scientists always pidgeon-holing their findings into
whatever framework they happen to have built up...until they imagine a new one.

 

[SkyWriting]

Did you really mean to say dolphins are fish?

It depends on the context. Anyone outside of modern circles of classification would say so.

 

[SkyWriting]

Still one more nail in coffin for creation. Dinosaurs ruled the Earth for millions of years and it was ideal for them, a lot longer than it will be ideal for us. Or are you going to tell us they perished by missing the Ark. Along with the other five billion species that have lived on Earth. As Noah only had space for 8 million.

History is strictly a matter of Faith in the person telling the story.

 

[Larniavc]

It depends on the context. Anyone outside of modern circles of classification would say so.

So Steve is outside of modern circles?

Who knew?

 

[SkyWriting]

So Steve is outside of modern circles?
Who knew?

It depends on the context of the statement.

 

[Larniavc]

It depends on the context of the statement.

In what context is a whale a fish?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

More on Carson's understanding of science:
Ben Carson: Big Bang A Fairy Tale, Theory Of Evolution Encouraged By The Devil | Buzzfeed

 

[Larniavc]

More on Carson's understanding of science:
Ben Carson: Big Bang A Fairy Tale, Theory Of Evolution Encouraged By The Devil | Buzzfeed

I like the way he uses the term “highfalutin scientists”.

Guy was a medical doctor. Lol.

 

[stevevw]

More on Carson's understanding of science:
Ben Carson: Big Bang A Fairy Tale, Theory Of Evolution Encouraged By The Devil | Buzzfeed

What Carson is saying is nothing out of the ordinary for what any person who believes in creation or God may say. In fact his views on the Big bang are not controversial. Many ask the same question how can order come from chaos. Especially when you consider the fine tuning of the universe for life and the cosmological constant which has to be so precise that it defies chance for the creation of the universe. His view on how scientists say that there may have been many explosions to get the just right one for our universe today is the same as what scientists are claiming with a multiverse which is one of their far fetched theories to explain the fine tuning argument. Many mainstream scientists are in debate about how the universe started as well so I dont see any problem in Carson questioning the big bang theory.
Problems with the Big Bang Theory
It violates the first law of thermodynamics,
Some critics say that the formation of stars and galaxies violates the law of entropy, which suggests systems of change become less organized over time. But if you view the early universe as completely homogeneous and isotropic, then the current universe shows signs of obeying the law of entropy.
The steady-state model of the universe suggests the universe always had and will always have the same density. The theory reconciles the apparent evidence that the universe is expanding by suggesting that the universe generates matter at a rate proportionate to the universe's rate of expansion.
http://science.howstuffworks.com/dictionary/astronomy-terms/big-bang-theory7.htm

 

[Archaeopteryx]

What Carson is saying is nothing out of the ordinary for what any person who believes in creation or God may say. In fact his views on the Big bang are not controversial.

They are controversial for those who actually have some understanding of what the Big Bang entails. It's not an "explosion" in the conventional sense of the word.

Many ask the same question how can order come from chaos. Especially when you consider the fine tuning of the universe for life and the cosmological constant which has to be so precise that it defies chance for the creation of the universe. His view on how scientists say that there may have been many explosions to get the just right one for our universe today is the same as what scientists are claiming with a multiverse which is one of their far fetched theories to explain the fine tuning argument. Many mainstream scientists are in debate about how the universe started as well so I dont see any problem in Carson questioning the big bang theory.

I take it your understanding of the Big Bang is the same as Carson's?

 

[stevevw]

They are controversial for those who actually have some understanding of what the Big Bang entails. It's not an "explosion" in the conventional sense of the word.

I take it your understanding of the Big Bang is the same as Carson's?

My understanding of the universe is like many in that we dont really know. There are a lot of ideas out there but none are really proven. There are conflicts even with the most popular theories and the maths doesn't add up to say that these theories are validated. IE there isn't enough mass in the universe to hold itself up so dark energy has been hypothesized. This hasn't been verified and is still a big unanswered question which is related to how the universe started.

Another problem with the big bang theory is the problem of a flat universe and the cosmological fine tuning. Scientists have said that the universe is flat from the evidence that the background radiation emits. But to get a flat universe it would take a very fine tuned beginning with the big bang.

Flatness problem
Such problems arise from the observation that some of the initial conditions of the universe appear to be fine-tuned to very 'special' values, and that a small deviation from these values would have had massive effects on the nature of the universe at the current time.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flatness_problem

All Carson is saying is what many have said that this is all speculation. He is asking the question how can order come from chaos.


I understand its not an explosion and more of an expansion. But that doesn't matter so much when it comes to the beginning of things being random and chaotic. It wasn't the result of a guided process that was going to place things in their order so that it produced certain fine tunings that go beyond chance happenings. I tend to lean towards there being one universe and it is fine tuned for life. I think all this speculating about parallel worlds is mainly to explain away that fine tuning and design we see in our universe.

Thats why scientists propose a multiverse where there are many parallel universes like bubbles that expand from each other. In this scenario it makes the chances of creating a just right universe for life like ours not so special. If there are many universes all having slightly different physics then chances are one of them would be like ours. Thats why I guess its a bit far fetched and controversial. Because its even debated among mainstream scientists. I think mainstream scientists are stumped by the fine tuning question and that the maths doesn't add up when taking relativity into consideration.

To say its not contested and is a consensus is a little misleading because its all speculation and nothing is proven. There are many hypothesis out there for how the universe started. The multiverse or parallel worlds theory is probably the best and most common one that scientists support nowadays. String theory is the latest theory that is derived from this. So the big bang or inflation theory is only part of how scientists think our universe started.

The Case for Parallel Universes
Another key aspect of the new worldview derives from string theory, which is at present our best candidate for the fundamental theory of nature. String theory admits an immense number of solutions describing bubble universes with diverse physical properties. The quantities we call constants of nature, such as the masses of elementary particles, Newton’s gravitational constant, and so on, take different values in different bubble types. Now combine this with the theory of inflation. Each bubble type has a certain probability to form in the inflating space. So inevitably, an unlimited number of bubbles of all possible types will be formed in the course of eternal inflation.

This picture of the universe, or multiverse, as it is called, explains the long-standing mystery of why the constants of nature appear to be fine-tuned for the emergence of life. The reason is that intelligent observers exist only in those rare bubbles in which, by pure chance, the constants happen to be just right for life to evolve. The rest of the multiverse remains barren, but no one is there to complain about that.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/multiverse-the-case-for-parallel-universe/

 

[Loudmouth]

There is a specific set for each living thing. Are you saying that any living creature can have any old combination of amino acids that sequence into a code to make their individual components.

I am saying that there are billions of combinations that do work, and those are just the ones we know of so far. Therefore, it isn't specific. If it was specific, then every organism within a species would have the same exact genome.

Its the same for a set of machines or a bunch of cakes in a cake shop. They all have some similar ingredients but each has a specific set of ingredients that makes them turn out like they do. You couldn't just throw in a bunch of chemicals or baking ingredients into a pot and give it a mix then bake it hoping it would turn out correct. You have to measure each ingredient and combine them properly so that it gets the proper end result. This is similar to how each and every single life is made. None can be random mixtures of the individual nucleotides that make up our DNA.

There is also not a specific way to make a chocolate cake. There is no specificity.

In fact it is far more complicated then a cake mixture. There are multi levels of coded information that need to be just right and proteins are 3D shapes which need to be exactly right for them to function properly.

I already refuted this claim. They don't have to be just right as shown by the fact that the sequences differ within a species and between species.

You keep saying that. I am not a biologist to know the detailed workings of this. But even though it differs wouldn't it still need to have the same specific makeup. JUst as there is variation within the same features of living things can there be variation within some proteins.

They don't have the same specific makeup. That's what I have been telling you all along.