E
- Status
T
tjm190
Guest
Everything is shaped by natural forces, if that’s what you mean.
T
tjm190
Guest
Rational explanation- More genetic information allows for more beneficial features. As such, organisms that increase the size of their genomes are more likely to succeed.
M
M0nkey
Guest
Do they have blood? It would follow that without blood blood clotting is irrelevant.
Well, that’s your faith. So far your reasoning does not support that.
Really? Can you go back and actually read my post? Can you read between the lines? Here, let me tell you in black and white: it’s called sarcasm.
Those seem to be his *personal *views. He basically says he finds “no reason not to believe in common descent” but he goes on to show how incremental step-by-step Darwinian evolution is improbable for ICs. Regardless, that is irrelevant to our discussion.
Again with the story telling? Have you any idea how complex eukaryotic cells are? If you think my reasoning is faulty you have to reasonably show how.
Ha! Your level of not being able to carry out a rational discussion is showing. Vitriolic nonsense doesn’t help you here.
I believe Behe stated it was highly unlikely which is why the need for ID. Do you spend time actually reading his stuff? I think it’s pretty good as he has a good grasp of the evidence without all the speculative nonsense.
Actually, Professor Behe’s name shows up on the dissent from Darwin list. If you look around a bit you should be able to find that information. And yes, deleterious mutations will disappear and do you know why? Because it is a duplication that is ultimately guided by the genome.
Now you’ve just shot yourself in the foot there while showing an incomplete understanding of how engineering and car design works. Tell me, the modern car, did it come from a gradual step-by-step improvement of a hand cranked car? Cars have come a long way since the nascent days of car building! The technology has improved because we have renovated designs and better raw materials. A gradual step-by-step improvement of a hand cranked car is no where near at the level of the car I own today. Think of the many improvements that have been added notwithstanding what the first car had: plastics, metal alloys, fuel injection, automatic transmission, suspension, computers, etc., the list goes on and on. All of these were not necessarily improvements but spontaneous new features that the cranked car could have only dreamed of.
@tjm190: I recommend to go back and watch buffalo’s video that he posted. It shows the evidence for intelligent design and the best part is: the arguments actually make sense and you don’t have to put your faith in ‘science’.
M
M0nkey
Guest
There is no such thing as “beneficial” in neo-Darwinism. You only assume that because you can plainly see your *design *is at a higher level than other organisms which would be correct.
E
edwest2
Guest
No. “Natural forces” have no intelligence and no purpose. Just like the title of the book by Cardinal Schoenborn, Chance or Purpose?
Peace,
Ed
R
rossum
Guest
It is very relevant. You seem to be saying “The blood clotting system is IC therefore it cannot evolve.” Professor Behe contradicts that be saying that IC systems can evolve. Behe disagrees with other scientists on the speed at which IC systems can evolve. Lenski has evolved an IC system in bacteria in 20 years - I referred you to his citrate experiments.
Yes, eukaryotic cells are complex. That does not mean they did not evolve. Evolution is perfectly capable of building complex things. It has been remarked that in general an evolved system is more complex than an equivalent designed system because evolution does not start with a blank sheet of paper, whereas a designer does.
Your reasoning is wrong because we know that IC systems can evolve. We have seen them evolve. I referred you to a mutation-by-mutation detailed description of an IC system evolving. If reality says that the sun rises in the east and your logic says that the sun rises in the north then I know that your logic is wrong. We know that IC systems can evolve because we have observed it happening many times. Since your logic says that IC systems cannot evolve I know that your logic is faulty somewhere.
On Behe’s own figures it would take 20,000 years. Lenski actually did it in 20 years. Hence I can see that Behe’s figures are too pessimistic - he was out by a factor of 1,000.
We know that IC systems can evolve. We can see working blood clotting systems in hagfish etc. We can see routes from the hagfish system to our system. We can compare gene sequences to show us where the original genes were duplicated. We can compare gene sequences to show us where the genes were modified.
You have nothing. Where are your laboratory experiments showing the designer at work? Where is one gene that your designer has produced in the lab?
We have enough evidence to show the evolution of the blood clotting system beyond reasonable doubt. You have nothing except unreasonable doubt.
Where is your equivalent to this detailed comparison of blood clotting gene amino acid sequences from humans (TPA-HU, F12-HU), puffer fish (FU-191, FU-126, FU1677) and sea squirt(CI-833):
Science has the data, your designer has nothing.
rossum
T
tjm190
Guest
So a creature can survive without blood, let alone blood clotting. What is the primary factor that determines whether or not a creature can survive without blood/blood clotting? I’d wager it’s size- and we know some creatures are too small to require clotting, and some are too big to do without it. Creatures would be continually benefiting from increasing in size, but that benefit would start to wane as they began to hit an artificial barrier caused by the lack of a clotting system. When one came about, evolution again favored an increase in size.
T
tjm190
Guest
So you would reject the supposition that natural forces can form stars?
T
tjm190
Guest
I assume beneficial to mean helpful with respect to continued survival.
B
buffalo
Guest
If an organism is designed to survive it has an interest in preserving that ability. Therefore they adapt to their environment and protect against mutations. There are genetic barriers they do not transcend. In other words they remain the kind they were when they began.
T
tjm190
Guest
Unrelated much? And again, you can impose the human concept of design onto life all you want, that doesn’t make it so.
M
M0nkey
Guest
You seem to be taking his research out of context to backup your beliefs. Behe has been heavily involved in determining ID not Darwinian evolution. He could have used the word evolution but not in the context of Darwin’s evolution (mindless natural processes). Again, the research is there you just have to read it at some point with an open mind.
You underestimate design. Do you know how complex your computer is? What you have is a product of engineering and design not evolution.
There is nothing real about a computer program that says Darwinian evolution can occur. Science is about the real world with real observations using the scientific method. And by the way, does the simulation include a fitness function? Is that function a product of design or mindless natural processes? Because logic would dictate the former.
*My *designer gave you mind body and soul. How about your god of chance and evolution?
No you don’t. You have stories and tons and tons of faith more faith than I do in fact it’s astounding really. Evolutionary pathways using a Darwinian model are a product of human imagination and it has to be as Darwin was not aware of the intricacies of Lilliputian systems. This does not follow as an indicator for evidence. If you put Darwin on trial, Darwin’s case would loose. There is clear evidence of design however. What is really exciting is that we can replicate that same design in our own work and follow that same logic used by the Mind that is the Creator. There is currently undergoing research to make from scratch an artificial genome. If you follow the logic using the scientific method this will show that the genome is a product of design not mindless natural processes. I don’t have the links with me right now but buffalo showed it on video. So, very exciting stuff!
Where do you think those sequences came from? Code sequences imply a Coder. To think that it came from a mindless process is to have faith that at some point you’ll hit the jackpot. This has been shown to take longer than the estimated age of the universe. Think of it this way, I don’t know how familiar you are with computer code, a sequence of amino acids is tantamount to computer language. If you take a bunch of computer code and randomly rearrange it together would you ever hope to get a working program? (hint: there is a right or wrong here - not like it says on your sig)
One could only assume that but the logic does not support it. To put it simply, complexity and size means more vulnerability or more stuff that can go wrong. Clearly if natural selection is the only guiding principle it would opt for simplicity as it improves your chance for survival and proliferation.
@all: this will be my last post as I have a lovely pregnant wife and a job to attend to. She already warned me of spending too much time “hacking away” so I must comply as I don’t want to deal with the hormones. I might poke around here and there next weekend God willing and rejoin our discussion.
E
edwest2
Guest
There is a fundamental difference between living things and non-living things.
Peace,
Ed
B
buffalo
Guest
T
tjm190
Guest
Stars are self sustaining are they not? More so than life?
B
buffalo
Guest
Stars won’t burn out?
M
M0nkey
Guest
T
tjm190
Guest
Life doesn’t end?
Z
Zundrah
Guest
“God” has a goal. Physical matter does not, that my friend is impossible. Imformation is already there in genetics but new imformation gathers through time and no it does not come out of thin air (obviously
) it mutates according to environmental contitions (it was already there) and… of course it mutates in order to keep up with other creatures abilities - but that will require to much explanation.- Status