Genetics and Neanderthals

  • Thread starter Thread starter Faith1960
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Mudgely said:
My claim is that idea of intelligent design is not amenable to the scientific process to prove or to disprove. It is sometimes mistakenly thought of as scientific in some circles.
Click to expand...
With that criteria, Darwin’s Theory of Evolution is not amenable to the scientific process to prove or to disprove.

Intelligent Design is a Theory made from drawing conclusions by observations and Darwin’s Theory is drawn from observations. Neither Theory can be objectively reproduced in a laboratory.
 
HelenRose said:
With that criteria, Darwin’s Theory of Evolution is not amenable to the scientific process to prove or to disprove.

Intelligent Design is a Theory made from drawing conclusions by observations and Darwin’s Theory is drawn from observations. Neither Theory can be objectively reproduced in a laboratory.
Click to expand...
Incorrect, which is why it is rejected from every curriculum which its supporters try to foist it on. There is plenty written on the topic. ID has been debunked.
 
Ahimsa said:
RNA and DNA are very similar in terms of chemical composition, with just a few minor differences. E.g., both RNA and DNA have four nuclebases, with three of the nucleobases being the same. One major difference is that RNA is mostly single stranded, whereas DNA occurs in the form of two DNA strands bonded together in a double helix. So you could say that DNA is more complex, because it has a double helix structure.

http://attunedharmonics.com/img/RNA_DNA.png

RNA in viruses, though, can be in double-stranded, double helix form, just like the DNA in cells, so the idea that DNA is more “complex” isn’t satisfying.
Click to expand...
Too bad there isn’t an “over my head” icon here I could use on CAF. 🙂
 
Mudgely said:
Incorrect, which is why it is rejected from every curriculum which its supporters try to foist it on. There is plenty written on the topic. ID has been debunked.
Click to expand...
Why is my statement incorrect? Has the Theory of Evolution been objectively proven in a laboratory?
 
HelenRose said:
With that criteria, Darwin’s Theory of Evolution is not amenable to the scientific process to prove or to disprove.

Intelligent Design is a Theory made from drawing conclusions by observations and Darwin’s Theory is drawn from observations. Neither Theory can be objectively reproduced in a laboratory.
Click to expand...
Gee HelenRose it didn’t take you long to smoke this out. Empirical science is observable, repeatable and predictable. Evolution is not science. It is philosophy.

Therefore it should be taught in philosophy class.
 
HelenRose said:
With that criteria, Darwin’s Theory of Evolution is not amenable to the scientific process to prove or to disprove.
Click to expand...
I suggest that you read a book called, “On the Origin of Species”, by Charles Darwin. In chapter six of that book, he gives two different ways to disprove his theory:
If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.

If it could be proved that any part of the structure of any one species had been formed for the exclusive good of another species, it would annihilate my theory, for such could not have been produced through natural selection.
The first of those was used by Professor Behe to develop his idea of Irreducible Complexity.

There is no equivalent for ID. Darwin described things that could not evolve. ID has yet to describe things that could not have been designed.
Intelligent Design is a Theory made from drawing conclusions by observations and Darwin’s Theory is drawn from observations. Neither Theory can be objectively reproduced in a laboratory.
Click to expand...
Evolution is routinely seen in labs. Look up the Luria–Delbrück experiment for just one example.

rossum
 
What I see on this thread is three major approaches to creation - specifically the creation of life.

Darwin’s Theory of Natural Selection.
Creation by Creation
God the Father as First Mover.

Have I missed something?

I appears that none of these approaches can be objectively proven. With the discovery of DNA and RNA, the complexity of life needs to addressed by those who have embraced Darwin’s Theory. Until they can show the steps preceeding the first known live cells, they are in the same position as any other faith based belief.

My point then is that “God the Father as first mover” is a more honest approach because believers readily state that their belief is a matter of faith.

I should point out that my personal belief (faith) is “God the Father as First Mover”. Learning how God went about creation is the fascination of scientific exploration.
 
HelenRose said:
What I see on this thread is three major approaches to creation - specifically the creation of life.

Darwin’s Theory of Natural Selection.
Creation by Creation
God the Father as First Mover.

Have I missed something?

I appears that none of these approaches can be objectively proven.
Click to expand...
If you are referring to scientific methods, those methods have led scientists to conclude that the living organisms on earth share a common ancestry.

Darwin’s particular theory of how that common ancestry came about (by means of natural selection) is the dominant theory among scientists.

If you are referring to theological methods, specifically Christian, then, yes, God the Father, through God the Son, is certainly believed to be the originator of the cosmos, whether such origination involved evolutionary processes or special, direct creation.

I have no idea what “creation by creation” means.🙂
 
Ahimsa said:
If you are referring to scientific methods, those methods have led scientists to conclude that the living organisms on earth share a common ancestry.

Darwin’s particular theory of how that common ancestry came about (by means of natural selection) is the dominant theory among scientists.

If you are referring to theological methods, specifically Christian, then, yes, God the Father, through God the Son, is certainly believed to be the originator of the cosmos, whether such origination involved evolutionary processes or special, direct creation.

I have no idea what “creation by creation” means.🙂
Click to expand...
Common ancestry is falling as we speak. We now know about horizontal gene transfer. The fossil record shows more and more convergent “evolution”. There is much more than chance going on here.

The old system of classifying organisms and trying to fit them into an evolutionary timeline has failed.
 
buffalo said:
Common ancestry is falling as we speak. We now know about horizontal gene transfer.
Click to expand...
HGT is particularly prevalent among microorganisms (viruses, single-celled organisms).

But are you saying that, say, we can’t trace a lineage of ancestry among birds, fish, and arthropods?
 
Ahimsa said:
HGT is particularly prevalent among microorganisms (viruses, single-celled organisms).

But are you saying that, say, we can’t trace a lineage of ancestry among birds, fish, and arthropods?
Click to expand...
Snake DNA has been found in a cow.

Not through phylogeny alone. It is not accurate as the tree of life has fallen and is now a bush.
 
HelenRose said:
What I see on this thread is three major approaches to creation - specifically the creation of life.

Darwin’s Theory of Natural Selection.
Creation by Creation
God the Father as First Mover.

Have I missed something?
Click to expand...
Yes. Darwin’s theory is not about the origin of life, it is about the origin of species. It explains how the simple original forms of life evolved into the millions of more complex species we see today. To quote:
There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone circling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved.
  • Darwin, “On the Origin of Species”, 6th edition.
    The origin of life is a separate area of study, called Abiogenesis. We know a lot less about abiogenesis than we do about evolution.
I appears that none of these approaches can be objectively proven. With the discovery of DNA and RNA, the complexity of life needs to addressed by those who have embraced Darwin’s Theory. Until they can show the steps preceeding the first known live cells, they are in the same position as any other faith based belief.
Click to expand...
Evolutionary processes can increase complexity by both Shannon and Kolmogorov measures.

rossum
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top