Natural selection v Intelligent design

[stevevw]

we know what alot of junk DNA does, thats how we know they ARE junk DNA, AKA broken genes for things our ancestors needed but we don't, a good chunk of our DNA is devoted to smells that only our ancestors and deep ancestors needed. Why is it we carry genes that not even other apes use but further back mammals or reptiles use?

Why do humans contain the gene that would make it impossible for us to speak, but gives the great apes their jaw strength?

I am no expert on genetics but from what I understand and have read junk DNA plays a vital role in working with coding DNA to make living features, systems and structures. Evolution likes to say that most of our DNA is junk or left over remnants from the past but it seems a lot of it is active and useful now. Maybe the junk DNA is what all living creatures have and it is something that is used to create the different creatures according to their individual requirements. A vast pool of genetic info that can turn on and off particular switches for particular applications in our genomes. Or it is associated connections that are needed that support our coding DNA for one reason or another. What may seem excessive and unnecessary is just part of being a living thing.

Afterall this complex and amazing code for life is so tiny and delivered into package in which a teaspoon full would be more info that all our greatest computer programs. So the amount of genetic info in our DNA doesn't really matter. What scientists see as leftover remnants or evidence for the evolution of our genes maybe just what has always been there. The only connection are that we all have a similar blueprint so we all will have bits of each others code that isn't being used according to what is needed or the particular features that are needed for each environment. There is a certain level of flexibility included in our DNA that allows us to vary with changing conditions.

The evidence seems to point towards living things having similar complexity from the beginning. The vast code for life was there from the very early stages of life on earth. The inconsistencies in the tree of life for molecular relations shows that there is more to how each animal gets its features than from evolution. Distant and unrelated animals have large sections of the same genes and some closely related animals according to evolution cannot be connected according to the similar features that the taxonomy predicted.

 

[loveofourlord]

I am no expert on genetics but from what I understand and have read junk DNA plays a vital role in working with coding DNA to make living features, systems and structures. Evolution likes to say that most of our DNA is junk or left over remnants from the past but it seems a lot of it is active and useful now. Maybe the junk DNA is what all living creatures have and it is something that is used to create the different creatures according to their individual requirements. A vast pool of genetic info that can turn on and off particular switches for particular applications in our genomes. Or it is associated connections that are needed that support our coding DNA for one reason or another. What may seem excessive and unnecessary is just part of being a living thing.

Afterall this complex and amazing code for life is so tiny and delivered into package in which a teaspoon full would be more info that all our greatest computer programs. So the amount of genetic info in our DNA doesn't really matter. What scientists see as leftover remnants or evidence for the evolution of our genes maybe just what has always been there. The only connection are that we all have a similar blueprint so we all will have bits of each others code that isn't being used according to what is needed or the particular features that are needed for each environment. There is a certain level of flexibility included in our DNA that allows us to vary with changing conditions.

The evidence seems to point towards living things having similar complexity from the beginning. The vast code for life was there from the very early stages of life on earth. The inconsistencies in the tree of life for molecular relations shows that there is more to how each animal gets its features than from evolution. Distant and unrelated animals have large sections of the same genes and some closely related animals according to evolution cannot be connected according to the similar features that the taxonomy predicted.

yes some is, but there is still alot that plays no role, and we know this, because we know the roles the dna plays in other species.

This is a false anology, it's like saying, because a ford truck and a ford car have simular blueprints and parts, we should expect to find all the unused parts of a ford truck welded somewhere in the ford car. This is what we see in nature. take the dolphin, they can't smell using the genes we use, yet they still have the genes to smell in air.

The gene I mentioned, we know what it does, it's a gene that gives jaw strength to one of the main muscles apes use, it gives them incredible power, but A) limits brain size by compressing the skull, and B) would prevent speach as it limits movement of the jaw like we have. There is no reason for humans to carry this gene unless we had ancestors such as the great apes.

we know what many of the genes like I said do, and we know they do nothing because they are broken, they are inactive.

Is some part of the junk DNA found to have a use yes, but again most of it doesn't have a use, and we know what it used to do. This is a example of creationists either outright lying, or conflating the information. Have to ask yourself if the things you guys think are so obvious, why is it that so few scientists that work in the field actually accept your guys claims? Is it perhaps that you guys are wrong and don't have a clue what your talking about?

 

[paulm50]

I would have thought the evidence was pointing the other way around. If a natural process can somehow create living things out of the rocks and earth and chemicals that make up the universe then surely we would have evidence of other life forms somewhere. They have found other planets in a similar position to earth one only 1500 light years away. We know that bacteria can live in the most hostile environments that are poisonous to humans. So the excuse that elsewhere in the universe is unsuitable doesn't apply for living things like bacteria let alone the many other possible strange lifeforms that could have evolved somewhere out there.
In fact the universe should be teaming with evidence of life in on form or another.

We are at the very beginning of exploring the Solar System. give us time. However, I disagree with your conclusion. I the Universe was created by a god, why create a billions dead planets that seem to have no purpose and trillions of Asteroids with the only purpose of crashing into each other and planets? If that's planning, I would hate to see the unplanned one.

Remember according to evolution the earth wasn't so special to begin with and had to become suitable for animal and plant life. But for a long time there was single celled life that could live almost anywhere. But in all the test we have done we have found nothing, not a single bit of evidence for living things. You would think there would be other human like life in an unlimited universe if nature can fluke one planet it can do it again and again.

Why would there be life on other planets if it was an evolutionary 1-1,000,000,000 shot?

Thats what we are led to believe with evolution itself. It somehow managed to evolve the same pathways for complex organisms and features on many occasions which they happen to call convergent evolution. The complex structures for plant and animal life had to somehow happen on different occasions. So why not have this convergent evolution of some sort happening everywhere.Even if the conditions are not exactly the same as earth we should be getting some sort of life if evolution can create itself from chemical.

Why? we definitely would if it was created by a god, or he created a billion parts that are junk to make one that works.

But if life was designed then we would only expect to see the special and finely tuned conditions in our ting part of the unlimited universe. We would only expect to find any form of life on our planet. We have sent signals into outta space and have never heard a single reply and the same would go for any other life trying to contact us. Thats because there is nothing out there. Life on our planet was specially created by God and there is more purpose to life than some chemicals creating life in a cold universe that doesn't care.

Why?

If it's planned, why plan 99.999999% junk and only 0.000001% useful?

You're presenting a great argument for evolution by making the creator theory farcical. Any entity clever enough to create the Universe is clever enough to create lots of planets with life, once one is done, it's a case of rinse and repeat.

Evolution is a 1-1,000,000,000 shot and we are the 1 in 1,000,000,000.

 

[stevevw]

yes some is, but there is still alot that plays no role, and we know this, because we know the roles the dna plays in other species.

This is a false anology, it's like saying, because a ford truck and a ford car have simular blueprints and parts, we should expect to find all the unused parts of a ford truck welded somewhere in the ford car. This is what we see in nature. take the dolphin, they can't smell using the genes we use, yet they still have the genes to smell in air.

I would think unlike the ford car and truck example protein sequences are not so rigid. Maybe more like mixing ingredients than assembling hardware. So when it comes to smell the same basic ingredients are used except there are different mixes and maybe a few additions in places. Being that we are basically talking about amino acids I would imagine there can being varying mixes which when combined will build certain structures. Slight variations can make changes to the same basic function. Thats why there can be large sections of a genome that are similar in even distant animals for a similar function yet they still have parts that are different for that particular animal.

The gene I mentioned, we know what it does, it's a gene that gives jaw strength to one of the main muscles apes use, it gives them incredible power, but A) limits brain size by compressing the skull, and B) would prevent speech as it limits movement of the jaw like we have. There is no reason for humans to carry this gene unless we had ancestors such as the great apes.

Possibly I dont know and would have to do some research. It could be that the particular sequence for this part of the body being the jaw area is similar but with certain parts switched on in humans and not apes. Apes wont need speech because they dont live that way. Its unlike the car example because proteins are sequences and are not like hard ware such as car parts which are rigid. They can have different mixes with different combinations of the same basic ingredients which can give slightly different outcomes which may switch on or off certain genes or components of genes. But it is basically the same blueprint to start with.

Besides speech is way more than just a particular gene. It is connected to the nervous system and brain where a certain part of the brain works to formulate speech. Speech is associated with concepts and thinking so its more than just wind coming through a voice box. So there are several parts to speech and each part has to be in place to formulate the type of language we speak. Animals can make different noises as well but they havnt got the brain power to do so.

we know what many of the genes like I said do, and we know they do nothing because they are broken, they are inactive.

Is some part of the junk DNA found to have a use yes, but again most of it doesn't have a use, and we know what it used to do. This is a example of creationists either outright lying, or conflating the information. Have to ask yourself if the things you guys think are so obvious, why is it that so few scientists that work in the field actually accept your guys claims? Is it perhaps that you guys are wrong and don't have a clue what your talking about?

As far as I understand we dont know much about the 98% that has been called junk DNA. One scientists said it is like opening up a control cupboard packed with wires going everywhere. They have only been able to work out one small corner of where those wires go and still have most of it to work out. But they are finding that there is more function in this junk DNA than they thought. It has an important role in working with the encoding DNA for making animals systems, features and structures. There is a complex overlapping and interweaving of the non coding DNA with the coding DNA and it is all connected in ways they dont understand yet. It helps regulate the DNA that codes for proteins. Scientists say, about 80% of the DNA sequence can be assigned some sort of biochemical function.

There has been an ongoing debate about how much of this junk DNA is functional. Evolutionists use to say that most of the DNA was junk and a left over scrap yard of our evolutionary past. It seems that they wanted our makeups to be simple and disorganized so it would suit the theory of evolution by showing the hap hazard way that evolution mutated living things into existence. But now it seems that we are finding a lot more function and complexity. There is a deeper level or design with systems with systems of codes that speak a language rather than chance evolution.

The more they have mapped living creatures genomes the more it is showing that the tree of life that evolution has built is being contradicted. Distant animals are being closely linked through their DNA and closely related creatures are being disconnected. If evolution were true and as you say with your example of the apes and humans we would see this throughout the genetic codes of all creatures. But we dont and for every time you can cite a genetic connection between animals that are suppose to be related through their similar looks and anatomy they can find others that dont match. They have large sections of the same genes but are totally unrelated and look different. Or they look very similar but have different genes.
Charles Darwin's tree of life is 'wrong and misleading', claim scientists
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/sci...is-wrong-and-misleading-claim-scientists.html
http://www.theguardian.com/science/2012/sep/05/genes-genome-junk-dna-encode

 

[stevevw]

We are at the very beginning of exploring the Solar System. give us time. However, I disagree with your conclusion. I the Universe was created by a god, why create a billions dead planets that seem to have no purpose and trillions of Asteroids with the only purpose of crashing into each other and planets? If that's planning, I would hate to see the unplanned one.

The thing is God didn't create a static universe. He created the laws as well. So the universe is a living thing and subject to those laws. Its not a totally random as though it would fly apart and become chaotic. But there is still some randomness within the overall scheme of things. Organized chaos you could say. The beauty of life is that the entire universe was needed so that life could exist. If our planet is in the perfect spot for life then it happened in the universe we have which is exactly what was needed to have life. But what that tells me is that we as living things are as great and if not greater to God than all the universe.

Why would there be life on other planets if it was an evolutionary 1-1,000,000,000 shot?Why? we definitely would if it was created by a god, or he created a billion parts that are junk to make one that works.
Why?

If God created the ingredients and laws of of life and existence then we have got exactly what was intended and there was no chance involved. It came along at the right time and in the right place. The right place was created and it didn't depend on chance and a process that makes the odds impossible. Thats because it is all designed and designed for a purpose so that we can have a relationship with God.

But evolution claims that with time the impossible can happen and life can come from non life. Existence can come from non existence. So if this is the case then its not impossible and with time it can happen more than once. In fact as far as I understand they say that life has evolved many times on earth. Convergent evolution allows the creation of complex abilities to happen independently over and over again. So it almost gives evolution a designed ability. So if this is a quality of evolution then why not with everything. If they want us to believe it can happen once why not twice or many times over.

If it's planned, why plan 99.999999% junk and only 0.000001% useful?

The 99.999999% which is not junk makes the 0.000001% possible. Thats how special we are. But what you see as junk I see as beauty and creation. If all the stars were not born the way they are and never came into being or were to big or too small then our universe would be different and we would be here the way we are. That goes for everything in our universe including all the laws that hold our universe in place. Scientists call the space in between all the matter in our universe dark matter. They have come up with a strange energy they call dark energy that works with gravity to hold everything in balance. If this is out by the tiniest of margins than everything will fly apart of crash into each other. Our entire universe is finely tuned for life in 100s of ways. So its all important and all needed.

You're presenting a great argument for evolution by making the creator theory farcical. Any entity clever enough to create the Universe is clever enough to create lots of planets with life, once one is done, it's a case of rinse and repeat

But God only did this once and the bible tells us that Jesus died once ad for all. He hasn't gone to many other planets to die again and again. It is evolution who claim that life can come from non life. So if anything evolution should be able to produce life somewhere else in an endless universe over billions of years.

Evolution is a 1-1,000,000,000 shot and we are the 1 in 1,000,000,000.

The odds are probably even greater than that. But evolution says it still happened. But when you consider that they claim chemicals came together to produce even an alien life form like bacteria which can live in hostile environments then creating this form of life should come pretty easy for evolution. Considering that our universe should be full of chemicals surely there are other places where everything came together to make some form of life. Even on Mars where its not to distant there should be some alien forms of life.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Why be so bent on evidence scientifically attained and then believe in abiogenesis? All that science has continually proved is biogenesis...why suddenly not trust the evidence you all so adamantly demand?

I don't really follow your point here, but the evidence points to there being a time at which the simplest replicating bundles of chemicals appeared (proto-life by modern standards) and prior to which these replicators were absent, but their constituent chemicals were present either directly or as precursor molecules.

Given that we know that in suitable environments such organic molecules can interact, polymerize, and self-organize into more complex structures (bi-lipid menbranes, micelles, liposomes, etc), and that the evidence also suggests there were energetically suitable environments for this kind of interaction and self-assembly at that time, and that these environments were rich in the same kind of organic molecules, the simplest and most plausible scientific hypothesis is that the earliest replicators were a result of interactions between and self-organization of the organic molecules present in these environments.

A lot of research has demonstrated that all the component molecules and structures of the earliest cells can be generated in plausible simulations of these early environments (the best candidates currently are the volcanic sea vents called 'smokers'). We don't yet have a complete model of how these components could have come together to produce the first cell, but there are plenty of competing hypotheses, and the research is encouraging - no show-stoppers have yet been encountered that would suggest we need to look elsewhere (e.g. a panspermia hypothesis).

Panspermia hypotheses are not entirely implausible, as we know that microbial life can survive for some time in space, and could, in principle, survive atmospheric entry and impact inside a meteorite. However, ultimately we'd still like to have a plausible account of how such organisms originated.

If (or when) we do find a plausible model for the generation of early life, it won't prove that life originated on Earth that way - there may be many ways it could happen, or it may not have happened on Earth at all - and as Popper showed, science is more about falsification than proof - but it will give us a better idea of where to look for relevant evidence in what is currently a very wide field of study. In a way, the research is an attempt to falsify claims that exotic hypotheses are necessary to explain our observations.

 

[paulm50]

The thing is God didn't create a static universe. He created the laws as well. So the universe is a living thing and subject to those laws. Its not a totally random as though it would fly apart and become chaotic. But there is still some randomness within the overall scheme of things. Organized chaos you could say. The beauty of life is that the entire universe was needed so that life could exist. If our planet is in the perfect spot for life then it happened in the universe we have which is exactly what was needed to have life. But what that tells me is that we as living things are as great and if not greater to God than all the universe.

Prove it.

If God created the ingredients and laws of of life and existence then we have got exactly what was intended and there was no chance involved. It came along at the right time and in the right place. The right place was created and it didn't depend on chance and a process that makes the odds impossible. Thats because it is all designed and designed for a purpose so that we can have a relationship with God.

Prove it.

But evolution claims that with time the impossible can happen and life can come from non life. Existence can come from non existence. So if this is the case then its not impossible and with time it can happen more than once. In fact as far as I understand they say that life has evolved many times on earth. Convergent evolution allows the creation of complex abilities to happen independently over and over again. So it almost gives evolution a designed ability. So if this is a quality of evolution then why not with everything. If they want us to believe it can happen once why not twice or many times over.

Prove it.

The 99.999999% which is not junk makes the 0.000001% possible. Thats how special we are. But what you see as junk I see as beauty and creation. If all the stars were not born the way they are and never came into being or were to big or too small then our universe would be different and we would be here the way we are. That goes for everything in our universe including all the laws that hold our universe in place. Scientists call the space in between all the matter in our universe dark matter. They have come up with a strange energy they call dark energy that works with gravity to hold everything in balance. If this is out by the tiniest of margins than everything will fly apart of crash into each other. Our entire universe is finely tuned for life in 100s of ways. So its all important and all needed.

Prove it.

But God only did this once and the bible tells us that Jesus died once ad for all. He hasn't gone to many other planets to die again and again. It is evolution who claim that life can come from non life. So if anything evolution should be able to produce life somewhere else in an endless universe over billions of years.

Prove it.

The odds are probably even greater than that. But evolution says it still happened. But when you consider that they claim chemicals came together to produce even an alien life form like bacteria which can live in hostile environments then creating this form of life should come pretty easy for evolution. Considering that our universe should be full of chemicals surely there are other places where everything came together to make some form of life. Even on Mars where its not to distant there should be some alien forms of life.

Prove it.

Steve, I see a lot of claims. What I don't see is proof. you're posting what you think, believe or the bible says. Actually the bible says very little about it. And what it does say is wrong. I read report on the claim we drop the tree of life theory. The truth is they think we should drop it, because it's too simple and science has moved on.

What it hasn't moved onto is the creationists theory. Because that was dropped once Darwin's theory was proven, it's not been disproven in favour of a god, it's just not complex enough and given what Darwin had to work with. That's no surprise.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

...But evolution claims that with time the impossible can happen and life can come from non life. Existence can come from non existence.

No, the theory of evolution is concerned with the progression of living creatures, it has nothing to say about how they came about.

There are plenty of hypotheses about how life originated from non-living materials, but these about abiogenesis, not evolution.

In fact as far as I understand they say that life has evolved many times on earth.

It's possible that life got started (abiogenesis) many times, but there's no evidence for it. We don't expect to find evidence for it either, as the most successful form would rapidly out-compete others, and there are no fossils of the earliest forms.

Scientists call the space in between all the matter in our universe dark matter.

No. Dark matter is thought to be matter in space, most probably in the form of weakly interacting massive particles (WIMPs).

They have come up with a strange energy they call dark energy that works with gravity to hold everything in balance.

No. Dark energy is the label for what is causing the expansion of the universe to accelerate, the opposite to holding everything in balance.

If you're going to quote science in your polemic, please check you're getting it approximately right, otherwise you're attacking a straw man, which is pointless.

 

[stevevw]

Prove it.Prove it.Prove it.Prove it.Prove it.Prove it.

[/quote]Steve, I see a lot of claims. What I don't see is proof. you're posting what you think, believe or the bible says. Actually the bible says very little about it. And what it does say is wrong. I read report on the claim we drop the tree of life theory. The truth is they think we should drop it, because it's too simple and science has moved on.

What it hasn't moved onto is the creationists theory. Because that was dropped once Darwin's theory was proven, it's not been disproven in favour of a god, it's just not complex enough and given what Darwin had to work with. That's no surprise.[/QUOTE]
I cant prove God with the type of evidence that science would want me to anyway. If God is beyond our reality and is a supernatural agent then how can we ever see that directly. But then you couldn't disprove there isn't a God either. Nor can scientists directly prove that there are multiverses or hologram worlds like they suggest. Nor can they prove that life came from non life directly or that evolution is true as it has never been observed or proven by test in a lab.

All scientists can do is appeal to the indirect evidence. They can come up with ideas that fit the maths or evidence they see. But you could fit more than one idea via this method. There is indirect evidence for God or a design in nature. Test have been done to show that life has design about it and is too complex to have been formed by a naturalistic process. The finely tuned universe is another example of evidence for design.

Now you can try to explain these things away and that is what a world view will try to do. They want an explanation that takes God out of the picture. Its not just about truth but its also about belief. If an atheists doesn't believe in God in the first place then they are going to be motivated to find all the possible reasons why God couldn't have done it. Just as much as some believers are motivated to say God did it. Here are just a few examples of the indirect evidence for design in life and existence. If there is deign then there has to be a designer.
Evidence Of Design In Bird Feathers And Avian Respiration
http://www.witpress.com/elibrary/dne-volumes/4/2/399
PEER-REVIEWED INTELLIGENT DESIGN RESEARCH AND SCIENTIFIC PAPERS PUBLISHED IN SCIENCE JOURNALS
https://dennisdjones.wordpress.com/...iewed-research-published-in-science-journals/
Does Quantum Physics Prove God's Existence?
http://physics.about.com/od/physicsmyths/f/QuantumGod.htm
When science and philosophy collide in a 'fine-tuned' universe
http://phys.org/news/2014-04-science-philosophy-collide-fine-tuned-universe.html
Calculating The Odds That Life Could Begin By Chance
http://www.science20.com/stars_planets_life/calculating_odds_life_could_begin_chance
The Tiny Code That's Toppling Evolution
http://www.ucg.org/the-good-news/dna-the-tiny-code-thats-toppling-evolution

 

[paulm50]

I cant prove God with the type of evidence that science would want me to anyway. If God is beyond our reality and is a supernatural agent then how can we ever see that directly. But then you couldn't disprove there isn't a God either. Nor can scientists directly prove that there are multiverses or hologram worlds like they suggest. Nor can they prove that life came from non life directly or that evolution is true as it has never been observed or proven by test in a lab.

So why be a Christian, quote from a bible that as you claim is has to be made up?

Maybe Scientology would be better for you, or start your own religion.

There is indirect evidence for God or a design in nature. Test have been done to show that life has design about it and is too complex to have been formed by a naturalistic process. The finely tuned universe is another example of evidence for design.

Because no design would end up with a planet that kept exploding, killing people, flooding, hurricanes droughts, icing up, melting, overheating and constantly killing large swathes of life on Earth. Plus getting hit by Asteroids and a Universe full of planets with no use. Not even beauty because most of it can't be seen. And you think that was done by design, by a god?

Still further proof you should leave mainstream religion and form your own one. Because what ever god you have in your mind, it's not the Christian one.

 

[loveofourlord]

I would think unlike the ford car and truck example protein sequences are not so rigid. Maybe more like mixing ingredients than assembling hardware. So when it comes to smell the same basic ingredients are used except there are different mixes and maybe a few additions in places. Being that we are basically talking about amino acids I would imagine there can being varying mixes which when combined will build certain structures. Slight variations can make changes to the same basic function. Thats why there can be large sections of a genome that are similar in even distant animals for a similar function yet they still have parts that are different for that particular animal.

Possibly I dont know and would have to do some research. It could be that the particular sequence for this part of the body being the jaw area is similar but with certain parts switched on in humans and not apes. Apes wont need speech because they dont live that way. Its unlike the car example because proteins are sequences and are not like hard ware such as car parts which are rigid. They can have different mixes with different combinations of the same basic ingredients which can give slightly different outcomes which may switch on or off certain genes or components of genes. But it is basically the same blueprint to start with.

Besides speech is way more than just a particular gene. It is connected to the nervous system and brain where a certain part of the brain works to formulate speech. Speech is associated with concepts and thinking so its more than just wind coming through a voice box. So there are several parts to speech and each part has to be in place to formulate the type of language we speak. Animals can make different noises as well but they havnt got the brain power to do so.



As far as I understand we dont know much about the 98% that has been called junk DNA. One scientists said it is like opening up a control cupboard packed with wires going everywhere. They have only been able to work out one small corner of where those wires go and still have most of it to work out. But they are finding that there is more function in this junk DNA than they thought. It has an important role in working with the encoding DNA for making animals systems, features and structures. There is a complex overlapping and interweaving of the non coding DNA with the coding DNA and it is all connected in ways they dont understand yet. It helps regulate the DNA that codes for proteins. Scientists say, about 80% of the DNA sequence can be assigned some sort of biochemical function.

There has been an ongoing debate about how much of this junk DNA is functional. Evolutionists use to say that most of the DNA was junk and a left over scrap yard of our evolutionary past. It seems that they wanted our makeups to be simple and disorganized so it would suit the theory of evolution by showing the hap hazard way that evolution mutated living things into existence. But now it seems that we are finding a lot more function and complexity. There is a deeper level or design with systems with systems of codes that speak a language rather than chance evolution.

The more they have mapped living creatures genomes the more it is showing that the tree of life that evolution has built is being contradicted. Distant animals are being closely linked through their DNA and closely related creatures are being disconnected. If evolution were true and as you say with your example of the apes and humans we would see this throughout the genetic codes of all creatures. But we dont and for every time you can cite a genetic connection between animals that are suppose to be related through their similar looks and anatomy they can find others that dont match. They have large sections of the same genes but are totally unrelated and look different. Or they look very similar but have different genes.
Charles Darwin's tree of life is 'wrong and misleading', claim scientists
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/sci...is-wrong-and-misleading-claim-scientists.html
http://www.theguardian.com/science/2012/sep/05/genes-genome-junk-dna-encode

On the speech part, I'm not saying this is what creates speach, I'm saying it's what allows for speach. It's about how much movement the jaw allows for. The muscle if I understand right, goes over the top of the skull so the protein strengthens this muscle causing it to be stronger as it allows for more force, but like two elastic bands over the head and jaw, a stronger one doesn't allow for as much speach, and if was usd on a infant human, would limit how much the skull would expand and limit it's growth.

again yes some parts of what junk DNA does we know does some encoding, but your overblowing how much of the DNA actually has a function.

This isn't a case of, "Oh maybe this gene has some use still." it's that it has no use, because it can't encode, we know what makes things encode, but when big chunk of a old dna has repeating code that is gibberish we know it's useless. We know this because we can tell from the genes and such we do reconize.

And give some examples of genes that are different so radically that they couldn't be from evolution. Is this stuff like X animal supposedly closer to us has a gene that is 90% simular, while a animal supposed further away has one closer ignoring that both animals evolve after they split from us?

first link is talking about BACTERIA and other unicellular animals, there is no tree at that level because they swap their DNA in ways that higher animals don't, but once you leave the unicellular level you still get the tree unless you know some way for humans to swap their DNA and genes with birds.

 

[pshun2404]

Paulm50 said "Your definition of life is too small. There were chemicals and from chemicals and water we can now produce life."

This is not true at all!

 

[stevevw]

So why be a Christian, quote from a bible that as you claim is has to be made up?

Maybe Scientology would be better for you, or start your own religion.

Because no design would end up with a planet that kept exploding, killing people, flooding, hurricanes droughts, icing up, melting, overheating and constantly killing large swathes of life on Earth. Plus getting hit by Asteroids and a Universe full of planets with no use. Not even beauty because most of it can't be seen. And you think that was done by design, by a god?

Still further proof you should leave mainstream religion and form your own one. Because what ever god you have in your mind, it's not the Christian one.

I never said Belief in God is made up. I said it cannot be proven by a scientific method. The only requirement to be saved is by faith. Faith is belief with strong conviction; firm belief in something for which there may be no tangible proof; complete trust in or devotion to. Faith is the opposite of doubt. The bible describes faith as Hebrews 11:1 "Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see." So there is a conviction within a person as though they have the evidence for God in front of them.

To me there is no other God but the one revealed through Jesus. I am not going to start my own religion because I dont trust myself or anyone else to start one. It is only through Jesus that we can know the truth and that is above all people and religions. You may see it as one religion is like the rest because you have no faith in the first place. So see things from a worldly perspective that faith in God is unreal and all religions are the same and a weakness in humans.

God created a perfect existence in the beginning but humans brought sin into the world. So from that time everything is subject to sin and death. Everything is deteriorating. Sin brought death and our bodies will decay. But our spirits will live on. Many dont believe in the spiritual aspect of life. There is a spiritual battle going on and this is the part of humans that can be so cruel and intentionally destructive. When you see the great evil that one person can do to another you see that there is more to us than just survival of the fittest and people evolving to get along with each other because its a better way to be.

We have a capability within us that goes beyond all that. This is our sinful natures. But we can save our souls and overcome the power of sin by believing and accepting Jesus. He dies for our sins and then rose again to defeat death. So they no longer have the power over us. Thats why we have to be born again of the spirit. WE become a new person and are no longer controlled by the flesh which seeks selfish and carnal desires of this world. So this world and everything in it is slowly decaying. This is not Gods doing but something we choose. But there will come a time when this world will end with sin and death.

 

[stevevw]

On the speech part, I'm not saying this is what creates speach, I'm saying it's what allows for speach. It's about how much movement the jaw allows for. The muscle if I understand right, goes over the top of the skull so the protein strengthens this muscle causing it to be stronger as it allows for more force, but like two elastic bands over the head and jaw, a stronger one doesn't allow for as much speach, and if was usd on a infant human, would limit how much the skull would expand and limit it's growth.

I'm not sure but animals can make noises of sort sort or another. If its just the physical structures that make speech then animals can make a noise with their mouths. Its not speech but its still a noise of some sort. A parrot can mimic human words and they are probably less advanced than an ape. So I would have thought an ape was able to speak more than a bird. I think it is more to do with the brain than anything else. A parrot can speak but it doesn't know what it is saying. The brain gives us concepts and the thought processes that tell us what the meanings are.

again yes some parts of what junk DNA does we know does some encoding, but your overblowing how much of the DNA actually has a function.

All I know is scientists are saying there is a lot more function in our so called junk DNA than they thought. Evolution has been saying its junk. Scientists who believe in ID have been saying that there should be a lot more function in our genomes because God would have made it with all that use stuff.

This isn't a case of, "Oh maybe this gene has some use still." it's that it has no use, because it can't encode, we know what makes things encode, but when big chunk of a old dna has repeating code that is gibberish we know it's useless. We know this because we can tell from the genes and such we do reconize.

That was the problem I think. They though because it didn't encode that it was useless. But it seems even though it doesn't encode it still is associated with the encoding DNA and works in conjunction with it to regulate it in one way or another. Its probably way more complicated than that but it is linked and they have seen this now that they are sequencing the genome.

And give some examples of genes that are different so radically that they couldn't be from evolution. Is this stuff like X animal supposedly closer to us has a gene that is 90% simular, while a animal supposed further away has one closer ignoring that both animals evolve after they split from us?

I thought the idea was if the animal is closer on the evolutionary tree of life than it should be closer in its molecular structure as well. But it seems they are finding a lot of incongruent genes with animals close on the tree of life and similarities with animals on more distant branches. So something else is going on that is allowing animals to get their genes. Maybe its HGT or maybe the relationships that evolution has made are not correct. But it seems the more they sequence the genomes of animals the more conflicts they are finding.

first link is talking about BACTERIA and other unicellular animals, there is no tree at that level because they swap their DNA in ways that higher animals don't, but once you leave the unicellular level you still get the tree unless you know some way for humans to swap their DNA and genes with birds.

They have also found a great deal of HGT for complex animals as well. I think viruses can pass genetic material from one animal to another as well.
Humans Have Genes Not Passed Down From Our Ancestors?
http://www.natureworldnews.com/arti...-genes-not-passed-down-from-our-ancestors.htm
Horizontal gene transfer between bacteria and animals
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3068243/

 

[paulm50]

I never said Belief in God is made up. I said it cannot be proven by a scientific method. The only requirement to be saved is by faith. Faith is belief with strong conviction; firm belief in something for which there may be no tangible proof; complete trust in or devotion to. Faith is the opposite of doubt. The bible describes faith as Hebrews 11:1 "Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see." So there is a conviction within a person as though they have the evidence for God in front of them.

Your faith is in something that has been disproven by science and proof you can see with your own eyes.

Even the bible has huge gaps in it, plus parts that are illogical. You just fill those gaps in with imagination to make the bible story seem plausible. Adam & Eve, started in Africa 500,000 years, with Cain and Abel they were Hunter Gatherers, they married women of their tribe. And 100,000s of years later the descendents walked out of Africa. They didn't live to be 100, average life span than was short, and so it goes on, Noah, Moses, and the rest are stories.

All you can do is fill in 100s of gaps with answers that don't fit.

And in front of you are millions of pages of evidence that can be caked up by science.

And you reply "The only requirement to be saved is by faith." Faith in what Men have used for 1,000s of years to control, commit evil and gain riches for themselves.

Down to "Your god commands this town is ours and we should kill everything inside it"

That's not the type of faith I want anything to do with.

 

[loveofourlord]

I'm not sure but animals can make noises of sort sort or another. If its just the physical structures that make speech then animals can make a noise with their mouths. Its not speech but its still a noise of some sort. A parrot can mimic human words and they are probably less advanced than an ape. So I would have thought an ape was able to speak more than a bird. I think it is more to do with the brain than anything else. A parrot can speak but it doesn't know what it is saying. The brain gives us concepts and the thought processes that tell us what the meanings are.

All I know is scientists are saying there is a lot more function in our so called junk DNA than they thought. Evolution has been saying its junk. Scientists who believe in ID have been saying that there should be a lot more function in our genomes because God would have made it with all that use stuff.

That was the problem I think. They though because it didn't encode that it was useless. But it seems even though it doesn't encode it still is associated with the encoding DNA and works in conjunction with it to regulate it in one way or another. Its probably way more complicated than that but it is linked and they have seen this now that they are sequencing the genome.

I thought the idea was if the animal is closer on the evolutionary tree of life than it should be closer in its molecular structure as well. But it seems they are finding a lot of incongruent genes with animals close on the tree of life and similarities with animals on more distant branches. So something else is going on that is allowing animals to get their genes. Maybe its HGT or maybe the relationships that evolution has made are not correct. But it seems the more they sequence the genomes of animals the more conflicts they are finding.
They have also found a great deal of HGT for complex animals as well. I think viruses can pass genetic material from one animal to another as well.
Humans Have Genes Not Passed Down From Our Ancestors?
http://www.natureworldnews.com/arti...-genes-not-passed-down-from-our-ancestors.htm
Horizontal gene transfer between bacteria and animals
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3068243/

yes in theory if they are closer to each other on the tree. but lets take frogs and fish I think this was the original example but couldn't find it when I tried looking a while ago.

Fish Y may be 20% different from humans in a gene, while frog X could be 50% different from humans in genes, technically the human might be more closly related to the frog. The thing is the fish has been evolving since the split with humans for hundreds of millions of years, so there may have been some selective pressure that caused that gene to remain stable, while the frog has a pressure that causes it to radically change.

Look at humans, there are some genes between us and apes that are simular, and yet others that radically have changed for one reason or another.

Something like I said often forgotten is that when we split off from a branch on a tree, that tree doesn't stop evolving, it still is moving along it's own branch changing as it goes.

And thats interesting if HGT is true, though that doesn't change evolutions tree, we know that happens with bacteria, why not very rarly with higher life, the trouble is the bacteria/virus and such has to effect the exact sperm cell wich is why it's so rare, but we've known about ERV's wich a viruses leaving DNA in us for years.

 

[pshun2404]

We are at the very beginning of exploring the Solar System. give us time. However, I disagree with your conclusion. I the Universe was created by a god, why create a billions dead planets that seem to have no purpose and trillions of Asteroids with the only purpose of crashing into each other and planets? If that's planning, I would hate to see the unplanned one.
Why would there be life on other planets if it was an evolutionary 1-1,000,000,000 shot?Why? we definitely would if it was created by a god, or he created a billion parts that are junk to make one that works.
Why?

If it's planned, why plan 99.999999% junk and only 0.000001% useful?

You're presenting a great argument for evolution by making the creator theory farcical. Any entity clever enough to create the Universe is clever enough to create lots of planets with life, once one is done, it's a case of rinse and repeat.

Evolution is a 1-1,000,000,000 shot and we are the 1 in 1,000,000,000.

Well even though in reality the odds are expotentially greater would explain one...and no DNA is junk...

 

[paulm50]

Animals communicate, Humans communicate the best. And sometimes the least. LOL

 

[paulm50]

Another nail in the creationist coffin.

Comet yields 'rich array' of organics.

The ultra religious may claim god sent a comet, or it isn't proven, or whatever. What's becoming clearer is how life is in the Universe, how the claim of life from non life is obsolete. And a step closer to finding why there's only a tiny % of planets with some form of real life.

 

[stevevw]

Your faith is in something that has been disproven by science and proof you can see with your own eyes.{/quote] Science cannot disprove God no more than it can prove Him. If anything there is evidence of design in nature. If there is design then there needs to be a designer.

Even the bible has huge gaps in it, plus parts that are illogical. You just fill those gaps in with imagination to make the bible story seem plausible. Adam & Eve, started in Africa 500,000 years, with Cain and Abel they were Hunter Gatherers, they married women of their tribe. And 100,000s of years later the descendents walked out of Africa. They didn't live to be 100, average life span than was short, and so it goes on, Noah, Moses, and the rest are stories

the stories of humans coming out of Africa are not proven. There is still debate about where humans started and where they came from. There are different views with some saying that humans evolved two or three lines that may have mated and others saying it may have been one or two lines. But I believe it was just one line and what they are finding is the splits from that where people were isolated. Some evidence points to humans originating around the middle east so that falls in line with the bible.

Either way the bible gives historical accounts of human history pretty early on in the beginning of civilized cultures. It is a source of the greatest writings of our history and one that is used for archeology and learning about our past. Much of the bible has been verified with archeological digs so its not all myth like some say. We have to understand the divine meanings of how people spoke and what they meant. But the times they wrote them in are real.

All you can do is fill in 100s of gaps with answers that don't fit

I think evolution has enough of its own gaps it needs to worry about let alone any in the bible.

And in front of you are millions of pages of evidence that can be caked up by science.

And you reply "The only requirement to be saved is by faith." Faith in what Men have used for 1,000s of years to control, commit evil and gain riches for themselves

Down to "Your god commands this town is ours and we should kill everything inside it"

That's not the type of faith I want anything to do with.

God gave us a brain and our senses. So we need to use those as well. But we also need to acknowledge when science and the material world cannot give us all the answers. people are looking for something beyond what they have and see in this world. The proof of this is how many are suffering with mental illness like depression and ending their lives because they feel that this world is not worth it anymore. In a modern time where we have more stuff than ever that is suppose to make our lives better and happier people are even more unhappy.

So something isn't working. Yet other people find this peace and serenity in things beyond this world. You can look at the bad things that happen with religion but religion is a human institution just like politics or anything that has rules or controls. But spirituality is a real aspect of human existence and we have to acknowledge its role in our lives. It can give us the answers of solutions to things we cant find in science or this world. There is evidence coming out all of the time which is showing us that there is something to existence beyond what we see. Quantum physics shows us this and we have known this for a long time but called it other things. So by denying the spiritual aspect of life we are denying an important dimension of being human that can help us.