I never said that the biblical account of creation is how it went down...But even if I did, the length of a day to Lord God, and the length of a day to us isn't tangible...
As I have always said, consistency is the key...I have yet to find good reliable models in the evolutionary claim that can even compare to that of humans and the upper level primates like Apes and monkeys...The wooly mammoth, is not among us today, when it is clearly the predecesor of elephants...The same goes for Sabre Tooth Tigers and Siberian Tigers...You think they voluntarily shook the spot..?
I mean, doesn't evolution seem like more of a stretch than creation..? I mean, really...A single celled organism...Spawns an incalculable amount of seperate species...??? Some become plants, while others develop hearing, eye sight, feet, legs, dicks, and spinal cords..?
Wow, at least we know that there is an accountable source that exists in the univese that can neither be seen nor felt, but the fact that it can be measured is what is important...We could very well be the creation of another, similar species from another planet, as it is also very unlikely that we are the only living species in the entire universe...
That sounds almost as absurd as Grape Ape and I being 1st cousins...
Evolution vs Creation II
-
AYHJA
- 392
- Posts: 37990
- Joined: Fri Sep 17, 2004 2:25 pm
- Location: Washington, D.C.
- Contact:
-
trashtalkr
- Sports Guru
- Posts: 7978
- Joined: Thu Nov 18, 2004 8:20 pm
- Contact:
QUOTE(Cicada)I'm sorry if I sound rude, but do you understand anything about evolution? At all? I mean seriously, could you post on how you think the ignorant scientists think evolution works? It would be very interesting.
Yes, I do know how evolution works and what I was trying to do was point out flaws in what you said. I'm too busy right now to post more, but prolly on Wednesday I'll post more on why evolution and adaptation are different and why I believe that.
I don't want you to think that I'm trying to avoid responding...
Yes, I do know how evolution works and what I was trying to do was point out flaws in what you said. I'm too busy right now to post more, but prolly on Wednesday I'll post more on why evolution and adaptation are different and why I believe that.
I don't want you to think that I'm trying to avoid responding...
"If there were no eternal consciousness in a man, if at the bottom of everything there were only a wild ferment, a power that twisting in dark passions produced everything great or inconsequential; if an unfathomable insatiable emptiness lay hid beneath everything, what would life be but despair?"
Soren Kierkegaard
Soren Kierkegaard
| BBcode: | |
| Hide post links |
-
Cicada
- Posts: 14
- Joined: Fri Dec 17, 2004 12:59 pm
QUOTE(AYHJA)You deny the lack of a psychological \"evolution\" with this statement, do you not..?
No, I believe in cultural evolution; but we are talking about biological evolution. Language evolved with humans, and although some of its evolution is biological (setting up the systems for language), language itself is memetic. Biological evolutions only pathway are genes.
QUOTE(AYHJA)LoL..WTF..?
Why can't you see the difference in the syntax they are used, but the similarity of their processes?
Adaptation refers to an organism and it's enviroment coming in harmony.
Evolution refers to THAT ORGANISM changing between generation.
So the Polar Bear adapted to it's environment by evolving insulatory fur and fat. When refering to an organism changing to adapt to it's environment, adaptation and evolution are refering to the same process, but from different perspectives (absolute and from the organism).
Your definition is:
Adaptation refers to an organism changing a little to suit it's environment.
Evolution refers to an organism changing into another organism.
If you said those definitions to an evolutionary biologists they'd have a good laugh. If you are going to argue about someones "beliefs" use the same definitions they do. Don't fuck with semantics just to shield your argument.
You seem to rather argue semantics than the scientific evidence or logic behind evolution. And you still haven't answered my question about why the small amount of genetic mutations needed for "adaptation" cannot compound into "evolution".
If we were created through "intelligent design" why does our genetic code look like a great piece of improv, it works, but it's filled with filler and errors?
No, I believe in cultural evolution; but we are talking about biological evolution. Language evolved with humans, and although some of its evolution is biological (setting up the systems for language), language itself is memetic. Biological evolutions only pathway are genes.
QUOTE(AYHJA)LoL..WTF..?
Why can't you see the difference in the syntax they are used, but the similarity of their processes?
Adaptation refers to an organism and it's enviroment coming in harmony.
Evolution refers to THAT ORGANISM changing between generation.
So the Polar Bear adapted to it's environment by evolving insulatory fur and fat. When refering to an organism changing to adapt to it's environment, adaptation and evolution are refering to the same process, but from different perspectives (absolute and from the organism).
Your definition is:
Adaptation refers to an organism changing a little to suit it's environment.
Evolution refers to an organism changing into another organism.
If you said those definitions to an evolutionary biologists they'd have a good laugh. If you are going to argue about someones "beliefs" use the same definitions they do. Don't fuck with semantics just to shield your argument.
You seem to rather argue semantics than the scientific evidence or logic behind evolution. And you still haven't answered my question about why the small amount of genetic mutations needed for "adaptation" cannot compound into "evolution".
If we were created through "intelligent design" why does our genetic code look like a great piece of improv, it works, but it's filled with filler and errors?
| BBcode: | |
| Hide post links |
-
Cicada
- Posts: 14
- Joined: Fri Dec 17, 2004 12:59 pm
QUOTE(trashtalkr) I'm too busy right now to post more, but prolly on Wednesday I'll post more on why evolution and adaptation are different and why I believe that.
No problems, I look forward to it.
No problems, I look forward to it.
| BBcode: | |
| Hide post links |
-
x3n
- Posts: 1177
- Joined: Mon Sep 20, 2004 3:22 pm
thass cool, I can wait, sure.
Dude, of course she's gonna dig it...your mom loves the cock
| BBcode: | |
| Hide post links |
-
trashtalkr
- Sports Guru
- Posts: 7978
- Joined: Thu Nov 18, 2004 8:20 pm
- Contact:
QUOTE(Cicada)If we were created through \"intelligent design\" why does our genetic code look like a great piece of improv, it works, but it's filled with filler and errors?
Aight...I'm out of town right now, so this is the only thing I can post about right now....like I said before, tomorrow I'll post about adaptation and evolution.
I wanna cover what you said, Cicada, about dna being improv and filled with filler and errors. This is bullshit and isn't true.
The amount of info DNA includes is amazing: a single cell of the human body contains as much information as the Encyclopedia Britannica-all 30 volumes- three of four times over.
Being an evolutionist, you must say that the information found in DNA is a product of natural processes at work in the chemicals that comprise living things.
It's true that DNA is composed of ordinary chemicals that react according to ordinary laws. But what makes DNA function as a message is not the chemicals themselves but rather their sequence, their pattern. THe chemicals in DNA are grouped together into molecules that act like letters in a message, and they must be in a particular order if the message is going to be intelligible. If the letters are scrambles, the result is nonsense. SO the crucial question comes down to whether the sequence of chemical "letters" arose by natural causes of whether is required an intelligent source.
Evolutionists insists that the idea of an intelligent cause has no place in science when the truth is that many branches of science already use the concept of intelligence and have devised tests for detecting the work of an intelligent agent.
In everyday life, we weigh natural vs. intelligent causes all the time without thinking much about it. If we see ripples on a sandy beach, we assume they were formed by natural causes. BUt if we see words written in the sand, we immediately recognize a different kind of order, and we see someone else involved.
Natural forces are not capable of writing a book or programming a computer disk. THe discovery of DNA provides powerful new evidence that life is the product of intelligent design.
Since DNA contains information, the case can be stated even more strongly in terms of information theory, a field of research that investigates the ways information os transmitted. THe evolutionist only has 2 possible ways to explain the origin of life- either chance or natural law. BUt information theory gives us a powerful tool for discounting both these explanations, for both chance and law lead to structures with low information content, whereas DNA has a very high information content.
A structure or message is said to have a high or low info content depending on the minimum number of instructions needed to tell you how to constuct it. A random sequence of letters has low information content b/c it requires only 2 instructions: selecta letter of the alphabet and write it down; and repeat. THe process of writing, let's say, the Night before Christmas requires high information b/c the process of writing down the poem requires a large number of instructions.
Similarly, in nature, both random patterns and regular patterns have low info content. By contrast, DNA has a very high info content. It would be impossible to produce a simple set of instructions telling a chemist how to synthesize the DNA of even the simplest bacterium. YOu would have to specify every chemical "letter", one by one and there are millions of them. So DNA has a completely different structure from the products of either chance of natural law, and information theory gives the conceptual tools to debunk any such attempts to explain the origin of life.
Many scientists today are looking for some kind of self-organizing force in matter itself to explain life's origin. Most treatments resort to analogies, pointing to spontaneous ordering in nonliving structures, such as crystals. You can find many books that try to explain life by the forming of crystals.
This analogy doesn't work and the information theory tells why. Whether they are ordinary (sugar and salt) or exquisite (rubies and diamonds), all crystals are examplews of repetitive order. The unique structure of any crystal is the result of what we might think of as the "shape" of its atoms, whcih causes them to slot into a particualr position and to layer themselves in a fixed, orderly pattern.
Another attempt to find an evolutionary answer comes from the new field of complexity theory. On their computer screens, researchers "grow" marvelous shapes that resemble ferns and forests and snowflakes. This is being touted as the answer to the spontaneous origin of order.
This new field of research isn't going to uncover a law that can account for the spontaneous origin of life. The truth is that the ferns and swirls constructed by complexity theorists on their computer screens represent the same kind of order as crystals. Crystals, like there structures, can be specified with just a few instructions, followed by "do it again."
The conclusion is that there is no known physical laws capable of creating a structure like DNA with high information content. Baed on both teh latest scientific knowledge and on ordinary experience, there is only one cause that is up to the task: an Intelligent Agent, or the Lord God. Only an Intelligent Cause could create the information contained in the DNA molecule.
Aight...I'm out of town right now, so this is the only thing I can post about right now....like I said before, tomorrow I'll post about adaptation and evolution.
I wanna cover what you said, Cicada, about dna being improv and filled with filler and errors. This is bullshit and isn't true.
The amount of info DNA includes is amazing: a single cell of the human body contains as much information as the Encyclopedia Britannica-all 30 volumes- three of four times over.
Being an evolutionist, you must say that the information found in DNA is a product of natural processes at work in the chemicals that comprise living things.
It's true that DNA is composed of ordinary chemicals that react according to ordinary laws. But what makes DNA function as a message is not the chemicals themselves but rather their sequence, their pattern. THe chemicals in DNA are grouped together into molecules that act like letters in a message, and they must be in a particular order if the message is going to be intelligible. If the letters are scrambles, the result is nonsense. SO the crucial question comes down to whether the sequence of chemical "letters" arose by natural causes of whether is required an intelligent source.
Evolutionists insists that the idea of an intelligent cause has no place in science when the truth is that many branches of science already use the concept of intelligence and have devised tests for detecting the work of an intelligent agent.
In everyday life, we weigh natural vs. intelligent causes all the time without thinking much about it. If we see ripples on a sandy beach, we assume they were formed by natural causes. BUt if we see words written in the sand, we immediately recognize a different kind of order, and we see someone else involved.
Natural forces are not capable of writing a book or programming a computer disk. THe discovery of DNA provides powerful new evidence that life is the product of intelligent design.
Since DNA contains information, the case can be stated even more strongly in terms of information theory, a field of research that investigates the ways information os transmitted. THe evolutionist only has 2 possible ways to explain the origin of life- either chance or natural law. BUt information theory gives us a powerful tool for discounting both these explanations, for both chance and law lead to structures with low information content, whereas DNA has a very high information content.
A structure or message is said to have a high or low info content depending on the minimum number of instructions needed to tell you how to constuct it. A random sequence of letters has low information content b/c it requires only 2 instructions: selecta letter of the alphabet and write it down; and repeat. THe process of writing, let's say, the Night before Christmas requires high information b/c the process of writing down the poem requires a large number of instructions.
Similarly, in nature, both random patterns and regular patterns have low info content. By contrast, DNA has a very high info content. It would be impossible to produce a simple set of instructions telling a chemist how to synthesize the DNA of even the simplest bacterium. YOu would have to specify every chemical "letter", one by one and there are millions of them. So DNA has a completely different structure from the products of either chance of natural law, and information theory gives the conceptual tools to debunk any such attempts to explain the origin of life.
Many scientists today are looking for some kind of self-organizing force in matter itself to explain life's origin. Most treatments resort to analogies, pointing to spontaneous ordering in nonliving structures, such as crystals. You can find many books that try to explain life by the forming of crystals.
This analogy doesn't work and the information theory tells why. Whether they are ordinary (sugar and salt) or exquisite (rubies and diamonds), all crystals are examplews of repetitive order. The unique structure of any crystal is the result of what we might think of as the "shape" of its atoms, whcih causes them to slot into a particualr position and to layer themselves in a fixed, orderly pattern.
Another attempt to find an evolutionary answer comes from the new field of complexity theory. On their computer screens, researchers "grow" marvelous shapes that resemble ferns and forests and snowflakes. This is being touted as the answer to the spontaneous origin of order.
This new field of research isn't going to uncover a law that can account for the spontaneous origin of life. The truth is that the ferns and swirls constructed by complexity theorists on their computer screens represent the same kind of order as crystals. Crystals, like there structures, can be specified with just a few instructions, followed by "do it again."
The conclusion is that there is no known physical laws capable of creating a structure like DNA with high information content. Baed on both teh latest scientific knowledge and on ordinary experience, there is only one cause that is up to the task: an Intelligent Agent, or the Lord God. Only an Intelligent Cause could create the information contained in the DNA molecule.
"If there were no eternal consciousness in a man, if at the bottom of everything there were only a wild ferment, a power that twisting in dark passions produced everything great or inconsequential; if an unfathomable insatiable emptiness lay hid beneath everything, what would life be but despair?"
Soren Kierkegaard
Soren Kierkegaard
| BBcode: | |
| Hide post links |
-
AYHJA
- 392
- Posts: 37990
- Joined: Fri Sep 17, 2004 2:25 pm
- Location: Washington, D.C.
- Contact:
QUOTEWhy can't you see the difference in the syntax they are used, but the similarity of their processes?
That is just it...They are SIMILAR, but they are not the SAME...You can't keep rolling them together like that...Go to www.m-w.com and hit up the defintions, if you can't find them in the WOTD thread...YES they exist in one another...But they are not co-dependent, nor does one require the other be present to take place...
You keep saying \"if this was intelligent design\" as if people go around making humans all the time...Improv..? If we could duplicate that improv, we'd live forever...It's full of error, only if you know what that error is...What a bogus claim you just made Ace...It's one thing to say that you don't believe in creation, but to say we are genetic fuck ups..? Do you know what that implies about YOUR knowledge..?
The human body is \"unintelligent design\" then..? Give me ONE good reason why your heart is beating, right now...Just one...And if you really nice with yours, stop it from beating, and then start it again...
In my experience, the only argument that an evolutionist will argue is time...Because that's the one thing you can cling to, that can't be disproven...
Meanwhile, it is MATHEMATICALLY POSSIBLE to calculate and account for what many have called God...Like it or love it, there is a stimulus kid, and it may not be God sitting in heaven, but there is indeed something...Math does not lie...
QUOTEYou seem to rather argue semantics than the scientific evidence or logic behind evolution. And you still haven't answered my question about why the small amount of genetic mutations needed for \"adaptation\" cannot compound into \"evolution\".
Bro...Is it wrong to say that I adapted to being the only black person in an all white classroom..? No....That makes sense...How much sense does it make to say I evolved to being the only black person in an all white classroom...YES, it is implied that certain changes have to take place to insure stability...But if you can't see how wrong it is to use them that way, then we are beating a dead horse...I am using the definition provided by the people who make the defintions to the words we use, I am not making them up...It seems as if you are comfortable with doing that...
So to answer your question, you don't need to mutate (assuming you mean change physically) to adapt...Evolution implies a complete and utter transformation of the physical and the mental in such a way that something is CLEARLY distinguishable from one another...As I said, a polar bear adapting to its enviroment went through several significant changes that have made it distinct from other bears...But, no matter how you sing it, it is still a bear...
Meanwhile, math is indisputable...1+1 will ALWAYS be two...The cosmological constant, exists...We may have evolved, but we had to evolve from something, that came from somewhere...Somehow, someway, energy got wind of the stimulus, and man was born...
There is no logical merit IMO, in saying that we came from a primate that spawed humans and apes, and THAT primate, came from something somewhere else...That was trillions of years in the making...C'mon now...It surely must exist somewhere else in the universe...It didn't just happen to humans...When is the last time you saw a living dinosaur..? What about a wooly mammoth..? A snake that moved upright..? Show me one known species in the universe that exists, while having been the DIRECT decendant of another that is still here, like evolutionists claim humans did...
I'll be waiting to see that model...
AYHJA
That is just it...They are SIMILAR, but they are not the SAME...You can't keep rolling them together like that...Go to www.m-w.com and hit up the defintions, if you can't find them in the WOTD thread...YES they exist in one another...But they are not co-dependent, nor does one require the other be present to take place...
You keep saying \"if this was intelligent design\" as if people go around making humans all the time...Improv..? If we could duplicate that improv, we'd live forever...It's full of error, only if you know what that error is...What a bogus claim you just made Ace...It's one thing to say that you don't believe in creation, but to say we are genetic fuck ups..? Do you know what that implies about YOUR knowledge..?
The human body is \"unintelligent design\" then..? Give me ONE good reason why your heart is beating, right now...Just one...And if you really nice with yours, stop it from beating, and then start it again...
In my experience, the only argument that an evolutionist will argue is time...Because that's the one thing you can cling to, that can't be disproven...
Meanwhile, it is MATHEMATICALLY POSSIBLE to calculate and account for what many have called God...Like it or love it, there is a stimulus kid, and it may not be God sitting in heaven, but there is indeed something...Math does not lie...
QUOTEYou seem to rather argue semantics than the scientific evidence or logic behind evolution. And you still haven't answered my question about why the small amount of genetic mutations needed for \"adaptation\" cannot compound into \"evolution\".
Bro...Is it wrong to say that I adapted to being the only black person in an all white classroom..? No....That makes sense...How much sense does it make to say I evolved to being the only black person in an all white classroom...YES, it is implied that certain changes have to take place to insure stability...But if you can't see how wrong it is to use them that way, then we are beating a dead horse...I am using the definition provided by the people who make the defintions to the words we use, I am not making them up...It seems as if you are comfortable with doing that...
So to answer your question, you don't need to mutate (assuming you mean change physically) to adapt...Evolution implies a complete and utter transformation of the physical and the mental in such a way that something is CLEARLY distinguishable from one another...As I said, a polar bear adapting to its enviroment went through several significant changes that have made it distinct from other bears...But, no matter how you sing it, it is still a bear...
Meanwhile, math is indisputable...1+1 will ALWAYS be two...The cosmological constant, exists...We may have evolved, but we had to evolve from something, that came from somewhere...Somehow, someway, energy got wind of the stimulus, and man was born...
There is no logical merit IMO, in saying that we came from a primate that spawed humans and apes, and THAT primate, came from something somewhere else...That was trillions of years in the making...C'mon now...It surely must exist somewhere else in the universe...It didn't just happen to humans...When is the last time you saw a living dinosaur..? What about a wooly mammoth..? A snake that moved upright..? Show me one known species in the universe that exists, while having been the DIRECT decendant of another that is still here, like evolutionists claim humans did...
I'll be waiting to see that model...
AYHJA
| BBcode: | |
| Hide post links |
-
Cicada
- Posts: 14
- Joined: Fri Dec 17, 2004 12:59 pm
No, if the letters are scrambled there will just be a different result. All possible codones built from the three bases results in an amino acid or a reading command. The point is, if there is a mutation in this code that is beneficial to an organism it will be passed on, if it leads to \"nonsense\" then the animal won't procreate, the buck will stop there.trashtalker wrote:The chemicals in DNA are grouped together into molecules that act like letters in a message, and they must be in a particular order if the message is going to be intelligible. If the letters are scrambles, the result is nonsense.
\"trashtalker\"}Since DNA contains information, the case can be stated even more strongly in terms of information theory, a field of research that investigates the ways information os transmitted. THe evolutionist only has 2 possible ways to explain the origin of life- either chance or natural law. BUt information theory gives us a powerful tool for discounting both these explanations, for both chance and law lead to structures with low information content, whereas DNA has a very high information content.[/quote wrote:
A 4^3 code does not contain a lot of information, DNA is pretty simple really. The complexity of the result comes from the DNA sequence as a whole, not the actual DNA. And it has been shown in the laboratory that new information can be created in a DNA sequence.
Tell that to the thousands of scientists that use DNA Sequencers and Peptide Synthesizers.trashtalker wrote:It would be impossible to produce a simple set of instructions telling a chemist how to synthesize the DNA of even the simplest bacterium.
Biological Evolution does not involve the origin of life, that's Abiogenesis. Evolution is about the process that after abiogenesis (whether it was God or some crazy chemistry). We have seen unicellular organisms become multicellular through a microscope, is that enough proof for you?trashtalker wrote:So DNA has a completely different structure from the products of either chance of natural law, and information theory gives the conceptual tools to debunk any such attempts to explain the origin of life.
A lot of our genetic code is not expressed, for instance, humans have the codones needed to make tails, but we don't because of executive genes which control expression. Also, there are a lot of errors, for instance, humans are one of the only animals which cannot produce acsorbic acid, this mutation is present in most of the great apes. This can be explained by evolution since at the time of this adaption our ancestors would have diets rich in vitamin C, but there would be a shortage of other foods; so by stopping the production of vitamin C we would free up some metabolic energy needed to power our huge brains. But from 3000 years ago, not producing vitamin C is quite a disadvantage, scurvy ain't fun.AHYJA wrote:It's full of error, only if you know what that error is...What a bogus claim you just made Ace...It's one thing to say that you don't believe in creation, but to say we are genetic fuck ups..? Do you know what that implies about YOUR knowledge..?
The fact is, if organisms were created through \"intelligent design\", the designs would be far more elegant. Why does an ostrich have things which are structurally wings but cannot fly? Why do many blind animals have non-working eyes? Why are their so many vestigial organs and DNA sequences in almost every animal?
If they were designed, blind animals would have no eyes whatsoever, why would gid give them eyes if they are not used? This can be explained with evolution, because their eyes are a result of animals that had eyes moving to an area which eyes are not needed, and then slowly losing their eyesight to free up energy for other things. If God designed blind fish to live in caves, he wouldn't have gived them eyes in the first place.
Humans are magnificant, we work excellent, but we still one big improv
What is the definition of a species? What makes a bear a bear.AHYJA wrote:As I said, a polar bear adapting to its enviroment went through several significant changes that have made it distinct from other bears...But, no matter how you sing it, it is still a bear...
No shit, that's my whole point, you can't mix abiogensis or cosmology with evolution. It's possible that God created life with distinct systems to evolve, that's why I believe.AYHJA wrote:Meanwhile, math is indisputable...1+1 will ALWAYS be two...The cosmological constant, exists...We may have evolved, but we had to evolve from something, that came from somewhere...Somehow, someway, energy got wind of the stimulus, and man was born...
You act like evolution is an afront to God, that's just plain bullshit.
But here are the facts:
* We are created from our DNA.
* Systems ensure variation (such as mutation, the fact we are made of half our mothers DNA and half our fathers, and that crossover happens during meosis).
* From this variation, we have a large pool of slightly different individuals in a population.
* Variations are selected by survival, if a mutation is beneficial, it will spill into the population; if it's negative, the animal will die; if it's neutral, it has no effect on survival.
So say a populations genetics are (GCTAGCATAGCTAGC), and from a copy and translocation mutation (GCTAGCATAGCTAGCATA) is the result, and this mutation is beneficial until the organisms code become GCTAGCATAGCTAGCATA.
You'd call that an adaptation.
What prevents such a mutation from compounding over time until a completely different species is formed?
Seriously, I'm over this. You won due to apathy. I'll go to quietly believing I'm right to let you quietly belive you're right.
| BBcode: | |
| Hide post links |
-
AYHJA
- 392
- Posts: 37990
- Joined: Fri Sep 17, 2004 2:25 pm
- Location: Washington, D.C.
- Contact:
^
If you thought that this discussion....
Was about right or wrong...
Then I'm afraid you have missed the whole point, and the whole spirit of this part of the forum...
I will rest on one thing...
QUOTEIf God designed blind fish to live in caves, he wouldn't have gived them eyes in the first place.
Is that so..? Who are you again..? The following statement is absolutely TRUE...You have absolutely NO power to create a human, or any other life for that matter...
Yet, you can fashion how it is done..? Better yet, how it's supposed to be done..? That's awesome...That must mean one thing...
Next time you and Lord God sit down to have a heart to heart about schooling the clan and I at ADN, ask him how he likes the site...
If you thought that this discussion....
Was about right or wrong...
Then I'm afraid you have missed the whole point, and the whole spirit of this part of the forum...
I will rest on one thing...
QUOTEIf God designed blind fish to live in caves, he wouldn't have gived them eyes in the first place.
Is that so..? Who are you again..? The following statement is absolutely TRUE...You have absolutely NO power to create a human, or any other life for that matter...
Yet, you can fashion how it is done..? Better yet, how it's supposed to be done..? That's awesome...That must mean one thing...
Next time you and Lord God sit down to have a heart to heart about schooling the clan and I at ADN, ask him how he likes the site...
| BBcode: | |
| Hide post links |
-
trashtalkr
- Sports Guru
- Posts: 7978
- Joined: Thu Nov 18, 2004 8:20 pm
- Contact:
QUOTE(Cicada)No, if the letters are scrambled there will just be a different result. All possible codones built from the three bases results in an amino acid or a reading command. The point is, if there is a mutation in this code that is beneficial to an organism it will be passed on, if it leads to \"nonsense\" then the animal won't procreate, the buck will stop there.
That's the whole point. If it is nonsense, then it won't continue, but humans have been around a long time which shows that our DNA isn't nonsense. You kind of proved my point.
QUOTE(trashtalkr)It would be impossible to produce a simple set of instructions telling a chemist how to synthesize the DNA of even the simplest bacterium.
QUOTE(Cicada)Tell that to the thousands of scientists that use DNA Sequencers and Peptide Synthesizers.
Then why haven't they created E. coli in the labs. They can adjust it, but not make it. If they had made it, it would be spontaneous generation which was disproved a long time ago.
QUOTE(Cicada)We have seen unicellular organisms become multicellular through a microscope, is that enough proof for you?
Where have you seen a unicellular organism become multicellular. It has never happened. If you consider birth, that's growth and not changing from unicellular to multicellular. That's like saying you've seen an E. coli baterium change spontaneously change from a one-celled organism to a multi-cellular \"super\" virus. Never has happened and never will.
QUOTE(Cicada)riously, I'm over this. You won due to apathy. I'll go to quietly believing I'm right to let you quietly belive you're right.
I know that it's hard to change someone's mind, it really is. But, we have all proved your points wrong scientifically and logically. You still haven't done that. I forget who it is, but some famous atheist recently has accepted God and says He exists b/c of DNA alone. It is way to complicated to explain by natural means.
That's the whole point. If it is nonsense, then it won't continue, but humans have been around a long time which shows that our DNA isn't nonsense. You kind of proved my point.
QUOTE(trashtalkr)It would be impossible to produce a simple set of instructions telling a chemist how to synthesize the DNA of even the simplest bacterium.
QUOTE(Cicada)Tell that to the thousands of scientists that use DNA Sequencers and Peptide Synthesizers.
Then why haven't they created E. coli in the labs. They can adjust it, but not make it. If they had made it, it would be spontaneous generation which was disproved a long time ago.
QUOTE(Cicada)We have seen unicellular organisms become multicellular through a microscope, is that enough proof for you?
Where have you seen a unicellular organism become multicellular. It has never happened. If you consider birth, that's growth and not changing from unicellular to multicellular. That's like saying you've seen an E. coli baterium change spontaneously change from a one-celled organism to a multi-cellular \"super\" virus. Never has happened and never will.
QUOTE(Cicada)riously, I'm over this. You won due to apathy. I'll go to quietly believing I'm right to let you quietly belive you're right.
I know that it's hard to change someone's mind, it really is. But, we have all proved your points wrong scientifically and logically. You still haven't done that. I forget who it is, but some famous atheist recently has accepted God and says He exists b/c of DNA alone. It is way to complicated to explain by natural means.
"If there were no eternal consciousness in a man, if at the bottom of everything there were only a wild ferment, a power that twisting in dark passions produced everything great or inconsequential; if an unfathomable insatiable emptiness lay hid beneath everything, what would life be but despair?"
Soren Kierkegaard
Soren Kierkegaard
| BBcode: | |
| Hide post links |