unintelligent design.

LouisBooth · Jul 29, 2002

"But in general, one would expect God to be a better engineer."

LOL, according to who? I personally think he did a great job.

Jerry Smith · Jul 29, 2002

LOL, according to who? I personally think he did a great job.

At least He was smart enough to use genetic algorithms.

LouisBooth · Jul 29, 2002

"At least He was smart enough to use genetic algorithms. "

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

Jerry Smith · Jul 29, 2002

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...

blader · Jul 29, 2002

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.

npetreley · Jul 30, 2002

Originally posted by Morat

Nick, honey bunny, you are aware that broken and turned off genes are somewhat easy to spot, right?

Does this mean we're going steady?

npetreley · Jul 30, 2002

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.

npetreley · Jul 30, 2002

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.

chickenman · Jul 30, 2002

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

npetreley · Jul 30, 2002

Originally posted by chickenman
the fall is the escape clause for intelligent design

I know. And what proves it is the fact that ID advocates had that part inserted into the Bible only just this year.

LiveFreeOrDie · Jul 30, 2002

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.

WinAce · Jul 30, 2002

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.

npetreley · Jul 30, 2002

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.

Morat · Jul 30, 2002

  Obviously you do, Nick, since you made the claim. So, tell us, what did it used to be like? What should we look for?

  Share the evidence, boyo.

 

npetreley · Jul 30, 2002

Originally posted by Morat
Share the evidence, boyo.

http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible

Jerry Smith · Jul 30, 2002

Better yet:
personal and subjective interpretation of the meaning of
http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible

That's why I believe it, and why I must convince others that evolution is wrong. No matter what. I am very stuck on my personal and subjective interpretation of
http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible

Morat · Jul 30, 2002

  Wow, it's a Bible. I'm..shocked, truly shocked.

  But before I can use this as evidence, I need evidence that the Bible is something different than the holy writings of all the other religions.

  We don't play favorites here, Nicky.

 

Jerry Smith · Jul 30, 2002

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...

Jerry Smith · Jul 31, 2002

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.

Jerry Smith · Jul 31, 2002

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?

unintelligent design.

Well-Known Member

Fish out of water

Well-Known Member

Fish out of water

Evilutionist

pumpkin sailor

pumpkin sailor

pumpkin sailor

evil unamerican

pumpkin sailor

Science Officer

Just an old legend...

pumpkin sailor

Untitled One

pumpkin sailor

Fish out of water

Untitled One

Fish out of water

Fish out of water

Fish out of water

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency