wylie
Level 3 Rank
Posts: 129
|
Post by wylie on Oct 20, 2008 1:09:30 GMT
Actually, I don't like to argue, but I have to say that I believe that DNA is some of the strongest evidence that random evolution is an inadequate explanation for biological information. Just think of the MASSIVE amounts of information contained in a single cell. There is more information in the DNA of a single cell of a Mammal than in the ENTIRE encyclopedia Brittanica. To put forward and support a theory that suggests that such a massive amount of information could have arisen through random chance would seem to me to require more faith than to believe in a Creator. Science knows of only one mechanism that can generate such vast amounts of information (very specific design information for proteins at that). That mechanism is the action of intelligence.
It has been said here that DNA and the similarities in DNA between living things is evidence that random evolution is correct. I respectfully disagree. First, there are many DNA similarities that do not follow the previously posited evolutionary pathways. However, on top of that, why would it be a surprise to suggest that a Creator would use the same basic design features for more than one creature? The similarities in DNA could easily be explained as arising from a common design philosophy. Different models of the Ford Mustang car from different years share similar design features but we cannot suppose that Mustang car designs were the product of random evolution. A designer was clearly involved.
Is it possible that so many people resist the possibility of a Creator being involved with living things because they fear the implications of that theory? It is challenging to suppose that a Creator created us. It might imply an obligation to respond. A random process does not hold the same implications. We are free to ignore the implications of it and do what we want. Is it possible that people support random evolution because they want to do what they want instead of being bound by an "archaic" set of rules??
I hope that I have not been too confrontational but you can see that I feel deeply about this. If you want a more authoritative version of these arguments, please read Michael Behe's, "Darwin's Black Box". An interesting book with many detractors, but it is well written and thought provoking.
Please keep searching for the Truth. You may find it.
Ian
|
|
|
|
Post by dopeydog on Oct 22, 2008 16:58:43 GMT
Living beings expend energy to create biological substance..flesh etc.
But a living being is not a closed system. It is just part of the planet earth which continuously receives energy from the sun. Put a living being in a closed container and it will die and decompose. The evolution of species from one to others doesn't change that. From a thermodynamic view, man probably needs less energy than some underground fungi that extend for miles and weigh tons.
|
|
|
|
Post by Acolyte on Oct 22, 2008 19:48:21 GMT
Interestingly, there were some experiments placing humans inside a Faraday cage - the experiments they were trying for had trouble being completed because the subjects kept breaking down in tears. When quetioned they would say they were fine but their bodies seemed to experiience grief & other depression symptoms. I think it was back in the 60's & there was a Dr Hunt involved.
|
|
|
|
Post by Maui on Oct 23, 2008 18:29:09 GMT
Wylie said>>>
There is more information in the DNA of a single cell of a Mammal than in the ENTIRE encyclopedia Brittanica.
DNA is not like some book you can read. We can construct the sequence, but that is only a small dimension of the magic of life. DNA has evolved naturally, and is very messy, kinky, and full of irrelevant sequences.
"In Mexico, there is no creationist movement and the teaching of evolution is encouraged." (NATURE 453, p.719)
|
|
wylie
Level 3 Rank
Posts: 129
|
Post by wylie on Oct 23, 2008 23:36:04 GMT
Again, not to be too confrontational, but it is certainly true that there is a LOT of information in DNA. How else could the protein system find the "blueprints" for making new copies of proteins. The essential fact is that it is INFORMATION (and lots of it) and it is very specific information. To say that it has "evolved" is a loaded supposition. No experiment was ever shown the formation of the mass amounts of information involved. Try to get a bacterium to "Evolve" into another type of bacterium with new information that is useful to the bacterium. Mutations are almost always destructive. Creating new information is strictly (and experimentally verified) a province of intelligence.
Now try to do a calculation of the amount of information in DNA and calculate the mutation rate to cause positive information (as opposed to copying errors) formation from mutation. It does not work. The basic purported mechanism of Darwinian evolution has been experimentally falsified (e.g. 20-30 years of fruit fly mutations by irradiation has shown that mutations cause disastrous consequences for the organism, not positive (useful) changes).
Try reading Michael Behe's book on "Darwin's Black Box". He gives a MUCH better argument than I can.
May your searching find answers for you,
Ian
|
|
|
|
Post by Acolyte on Oct 24, 2008 11:12:10 GMT
Wylie DNA's a bigger problem than you might think. With better than 95% of DNA supposedly 'junk' some people have looked more closely at it. What they find is the supposed junk DNA obeys Zipf's Law, by which the number of times a word appears has a direct proportion to how common or popular it is in the language.
ALL human languages map to a straight line when Zipf's Law is applied. ALL! So does 'junk' DNA.
There's a nother crypto or language test 'junk' fits as well but I can't recall it & it's time for me to go for now, so I will look for it later.
|
|
|
|
Post by socold on Nov 4, 2008 1:48:55 GMT
What about the shared retroviral insertions found in the same places in chimpanzee and homo sapien DNA? They strongly imply original viral insertion into a common ancestor which has since been inherited by both species.
|
|
|
|
Post by Acolyte on Nov 4, 2008 11:49:47 GMT
What about the shared retroviral insertions found in the same places in chimpanzee and homo sapien DNA? They strongly imply original viral insertion into a common ancestor which has since been inherited by both species. To whom are you adressing the question? The way it is phrased sounds like a rebuttal of something said but it isn't clear as to what - a link for reference would be of assistance also... |
|
|
|
Post by donmartin on Nov 14, 2008 18:06:47 GMT
Just an aside, but for those wishing an enjoyable read and a pleasant passage through philosophy and thought of a gentler time, one could do much worse than read The Origin Of Species.
Darwin delimits his theory and conclusions, and graciously gives credit to many others who preceded him and laid the foundation for his work.
An example of his generous and collaborative nature is found in his assistance given in the dissemination of the work of Alfred Russel Wallace. From current literature, I was given the impression they were in great competition. They were not, and in fact, assisted one another.
I believe it possible that so many who vociferously oppose, criticize, or condemn the work of Darwin, have indeed not read his publications.
And I further believe that Darwin would agreeably engage in any discussion of any inconsistency his theory may provide in relation to the laws of thermodynamics, particularly, the second law.
Perhaps Darwin's seminal thesis was correct: that God did not create the earth precisely at 9:00 A.M. on October 23, 4004 B.C. and that all living creatures had been immutably produced during the following six days - as his fellow churchmen believed. To uphold this early fantasy in the present may very well reveal irrational thought. In this I agree.
I was trying to create a thread for evolutionary analysis in light of current knowledge achieved both a priori and a prioritori.
.
|
|
|
|
Post by kiwistonewall on Nov 24, 2008 10:42:05 GMT
This thread has been dead for some six weeks, but get your free book on "Is the World running down" - great read, www.entrewave.com/freebooks/docs/220a_47e.htm(I have the hard copy, and the author has made the download free) I'm not a six day creationist like the author, but I share some of his free-market ideas, And why is Kiwistonewall an Internet Troll - sorry, not answered here! ;D |
|
