Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Creation & Evolution
Why is it that every time genetic "information" is brought up to argue in favor of design...
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="pshun2404" data-source="post: 71618414" data-attributes="member: 301030"><p>I did not smear any excerpt Darwin's newest bulldog...in fact I honored McClintock and Shapiro for questioning the status quo..and it had nothing to do with "ID theorists" which I know they reject, it had to do with information in the DNA...discoveries that are contrary to the "hypothesis" that claims the DNA sequences (not even denying the Sequence Hypothesis) accumulated via random mutation over eons of time. There are many other factors involved and some of these instructions and sequences are the result of informational input from other motivational factors IN the cell and FROM the environment (epigenetic influences for example) which possibly effect the DNA sequences and how and why some express and others do not.</p><p></p><p>I asked and you gave us the "thought to be" and I am merely pointing out that does not equal IS...as far as information science is concerned random mutations are real but IMO in no wise produce greater and greater purposeful complexities that could cause lower order beings to become higher order beings.</p><p></p><p>One case example was indicated in post 13 where Tabitha M Powledge of the National Institute of Health said ;</p><p></p><p>“<em><u>Scientists have known for a long time that the program does NOT generate branches randomly</u>...Since there is a standard design for the human lung, that design MUST BE in our DNA instruction manual</em>.”</p><p></p><p>There is purpose and intent in the biochemical code. A purpose and intent already present as early as the Embryonic stage. There is noting random about this in fact randomicity would cause all sorts of freakish distortions or defects or diseases and not a functional human lung.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="pshun2404, post: 71618414, member: 301030"] I did not smear any excerpt Darwin's newest bulldog...in fact I honored McClintock and Shapiro for questioning the status quo..and it had nothing to do with "ID theorists" which I know they reject, it had to do with information in the DNA...discoveries that are contrary to the "hypothesis" that claims the DNA sequences (not even denying the Sequence Hypothesis) accumulated via random mutation over eons of time. There are many other factors involved and some of these instructions and sequences are the result of informational input from other motivational factors IN the cell and FROM the environment (epigenetic influences for example) which possibly effect the DNA sequences and how and why some express and others do not. I asked and you gave us the "thought to be" and I am merely pointing out that does not equal IS...as far as information science is concerned random mutations are real but IMO in no wise produce greater and greater purposeful complexities that could cause lower order beings to become higher order beings. One case example was indicated in post 13 where Tabitha M Powledge of the National Institute of Health said ; “[I][U]Scientists have known for a long time that the program does NOT generate branches randomly[/U]...Since there is a standard design for the human lung, that design MUST BE in our DNA instruction manual[/I].” There is purpose and intent in the biochemical code. A purpose and intent already present as early as the Embryonic stage. There is noting random about this in fact randomicity would cause all sorts of freakish distortions or defects or diseases and not a functional human lung. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Creation & Evolution
Why is it that every time genetic "information" is brought up to argue in favor of design...
Top
Bottom