• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

  • CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.

unintelligent design.

Have you ever looked into the specificity of the atom? or even a proton?

I'm not sure what you mean by "specificity" (sounds like ID jargon). Atoms and their constituent nucleons & electrons didn't evolve by genetic evolution, so I can't be sure I would understand your question even if "specificity" was defined...
 
Upvote 0
Originally posted by Jerry Smith


I'm not sure what you mean by "specificity" (sounds like ID jargon). Atoms and their constituent nucleons & electrons didn't evolve by genetic evolution, so I can't be sure I would understand your question even if "specificity" was defined...

I think he's probably referring to that argument about how precise everything is for carbon based lifeforms to appear. i.e. change the strong nuclear force a bit and everything screws it. Not hard to refute.
 
Upvote 0
Originally posted by Morat
  Not impossible. But in general, one would expect God to be a better engineer.

Precisely. So why would G~d set in motion a process you call evolution knowing that it would produce such a mess? So theistic evolution makes no sense at all in that regard.

On the other hand, the Bible clearly tells how things didn't USED to be such a mess, and explains why things are such a mess now.
 
Upvote 0
Originally posted by Jerry Smith

No, he must have something else in mind. Something that explains why we share the broken gene with chimpanzees, but not with other mammals.

And I'll bet you are as confident of your understanding of that gene as you were about the function of the appendix. At least this explains why you participate on boards -- your mouth is too full most of the time to talk.
 
Upvote 0

chickenman

evil unamerican
May 8, 2002
1,376
7
43
Visit site
✟24,874.00
the fall is the escape clause for intelligent design

anything which poses big problems for intelligent design is attributed to the fall, except, it still doesn't explain why both chimpanzees and humans have a GLO gene broken in the same place, why they both have ALU and LINE repeats in the same place or why they are 98.6 homologous at the genome level, most of which has no function
 
Upvote 0
Originally posted by npetreley
On the other hand, the Bible clearly tells how things didn't USED to be such a mess, and explains why things are such a mess now.

Yes, but it appears to be a fairy tale. There is no evidence that "things didn't USED to be such a mess." All the evidence shows that the living world has pretty much been a "mess" from the beginning.
 
Upvote 0

WinAce

Just an old legend...
Jun 23, 2002
1,077
47
40
In perpetual bliss, so long as I'm with Jess.
Visit site
✟24,306.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Originally posted by npetreley


And I'll bet you are as confident of your understanding of that gene as you were about the function of the appendix. At least this explains why you participate on boards -- your mouth is too full most of the time to talk.

Function of the appendix? I must have missed something. A very morphologically similar organ called the caecum aids in digestion in other animals like rabbits, --intestine with digestive function. Can't get any more logical than that.

Now let's look at the appendix. Does it have any digestive function? Whoops.

Does it have any demonstrated use? Not really; like all other human intestinal tissue, it's lined with GALT cells which are used by the immune system. However, some rare individuals are born without one and no worse off, and removing it has no demonstrated ill effects.

There was a study that correlated it with increased intestinal infections, but it remains unclear whether people without an appendix are more prone to infection or whether people prone to infection are more likely to lose their appendix.

In other words, correlation without causation--this can be cleared up with more studies but I'm currently unaware of any.

So, the appendix is useless as a digestive organ and quite possibly useless as anything else. Yet it's an extra piece of intestine, right there, which has a proven, specific, unambiguous use in other mammals.

In other words, it's about as good an example of a vestigial organ as you can find. The Manatee's toenails, as well as snake pelvic bones and the vomeronasal organ in humans and apes, which is either present, present and broken or wired incorrectly, still beat the crap out of it, though. :p
 
Upvote 0
Originally posted by LiveFreeOrDie

Yes, but it appears to be a fairy tale. There is no evidence that "things didn't USED to be such a mess." All the evidence shows that the living world has pretty much been a "mess" from the beginning.

ROFL!! As if you'd even know what to look for.
 
Upvote 0
Upvote 0
Originally posted by npetreley  

And I'll bet you are as confident of your understanding of that gene as you were about the function of the appendix.

Well, I may have made a mistake on the appendix, but this paper is pretty good support for the vitamin-c synthesis claim that I have perpetuated:

Random nucleotide substitutions in primate nonfunctional gene for L-gulono-gamma-lactone oxidase, the missing enzyme in L-ascorbic acid biosynthesis., Ohta Y, Nishikimi M.

At least this explains why you participate on boards -- your mouth is too full most of the time to talk.

Thank you for the random insult. I'll tell you one thing, though. My mouth is not too full of teeth to talk. And when I do put my foot in my mouth, I don't draw back a trilobite. Not 16% of one either...
 
Upvote 0
Function of the appendix? I must have missed something. A very morphologically similar organ called the caecum aids in digestion in other animals like rabbits, --intestine with digestive function. Can't get any more logical than that.

I withdrew the claim I made about the appendix being vestigial despite its apparent "function", not because I discovered that it had this "function", but because no one has found a true vermiform appendix (that I could locate) which has a function different from or greater than our own. I don't know enough about it to know whether the cecum in other animals is homologous to the appendix. I do know that if mine comes out, it is going in my tackle box.
 
Upvote 0
Homology in non-functional DNA. Design doesn't directly explain this, but some advocates claim that homology in non-functional DNA is due to "similar design for similar" function - and that the function is yet to be discovered.

Consider: If the entirety of the genome is funcitonal (including the parts currently not recognized as such), then that means that many organisms are vastly more complex than humans in undetectable ways, because many have much more genetic material (more chromosomes, more genes/ more nucleotide sequences). If large portions of the genome that are currently identified as non-functional are indeed non-functional this mystery disappears.

How then, could a person responsibly claim similar DNA for similar function where it concerns ostensibly non-functional DNA without feeling compelled to find out what some bacteria have going on that's so important they need twice the amount of DNA as humans?
 
Upvote 0