Why you should think that the Natural-Evolution of species is true

  • Thread starter Thread starter IWantGod
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
buffalo said:
That would be called design. And microevolution shows design.
Click to expand...
OK, but from a scientific standpoint, terms like “design” are not usually invoked. Proteins are designed to fold up the way they do, biochemists do talk like that, but scientists do not mean that in the sense of requiring the intervention of a literal Designer. They mean the secondary and tertiary and quaternary forms are inherent in the primary sequence of the amino acids: the folding isn’t random.
 
Last edited:
PetraG said:
They mean the secondary and tertiary and quaternary forms are inherent in the primary sequence of the amino acids: the folding isn’t random.
Click to expand...
The information that drives this folding has to be considered. Protein folding is a challenge to evolution.
 
buffalo said:
40.png
Bradskii:
Has he purposely deceived 97% of the scientists who know enough about the subject to make a decision? I think not.
Click to expand...
It comes down to science by consensus?
Click to expand...
If there is evidence to support 97% of scientists as to whether a theory is the best we have, then yes, there is a general agreement. A consensus.

But as far as the ID is concerned, we shouldn’t be considering science in the first instance. This isn’t really, and never has been a debate about science.
 
Anyone else think it’s weird that the founder of intelligent design is a lawyer and not a biologist? That gives you an idea of about the motivations of this idea.
 
Atreju said:
Anyone else think it’s weird that the founder of intelligent design is a lawyer and not a biologist? That gives you an idea of about the motivations of this idea.
Click to expand...
Yeah, yeah, I know. Only scientists can do science. Bye Bye Bill Nye!

Seeds are planted by all kinds of people. The idea of intelligent design has been around for centuries. Motivations do not really matter. The findings do. Truth is not the exclusive domain of evo biologists.
 
Bradskii said:
But as far as the ID is concerned, we shouldn’t be considering science in the first instance. This isn’t really, and never has been a debate about science.
Click to expand...
Repeat this often enough and I might start believing it. You might convince yourself, too.
 
Last edited:
buffalo said:
40.png
Bradskii:
But as far as the ID is concerned, we shouldn’t be considering science in the first instance. This isn’t really, and never has been a debate about science.
Click to expand...
Repeat this often enough and I might start believing it.
Click to expand...
Why wouldn’t you believe it. The founder of ID said it. Don’t you believe him?

Yes or no.
 
Last edited:
Bradskii said:
Why wouldn’t you believe it. The founder of ID said it. Don’t you believe him?

Yes or no.
Click to expand...
Did you read his entire interview?

In any case, the genie is out of the bottle. It is now about the science supporting ID that you have to deal with and why talkorigins is your go to site. You have taken a militant stance against it.
 
buffalo said:
40.png
Bradskii:
Why wouldn’t you believe it. The founder of ID said it. Don’t you believe him?

Yes or no.
Click to expand...
In any case, the genie is out of the bottle. It is now about the science supporting ID that you have to deal with and why talkorigins is your go to site. You have taken a militant stance against it.
Click to expand...
My go-to site is the web page for the DI. And the very founder of DI says that it’s not about the science. He is adamant that it isn’t really about science and never has been a debate about science.

Do you believe him?
 
Last edited:
Bradskii said:
My go-to site is the web page for the DI. And the very founder of DI says that it’s not about the science. He is adamant that this isn’t really, and never has been a debate about science.

Do you believe him?
Click to expand...
link it…
 
buffalo said:
40.png
Bradskii:
My go-to site is the web page for the DI. And the very founder of DI says that it’s not about the science. He is adamant that this isn’t really, and never has been a debate about science.

Do you believe him?
Click to expand...
link it…
Click to expand...
Gee. You really don’t believe it. Quite astonishing. Just paste the quote into your favourite browser…
 
Generally Braskii, as the person making the assertion that something was said, it’s up to you to provide evidence if requested. You can’t just claim something was said and tell the other person that they have to prove it for themselves.

If it was said, and it’s as easy to find as you say it is, then as the person making the claim you need to do the search and link to it.
 
Last edited:
Following the standard model, those whose folds helped advanced, those whose didn’t died out.

To be clear, I believe God guided evolution, but I wanted to point out that what you’re claiming isn’t technically impossible.
 
Last edited:
buffalo said:
There are billions ways a protein can fold. How did evolution just hit the right one? The search space is huge.

The Case Against a Darwinian Origin of Protein Folds​

http://bio-complexity.org/ojs/index.php/main/article/view/BIO-C.2010.1
Click to expand...
Well, it would be the other way around: not only evolution is made possible but life itself is possible because amino acids chains fold in a certain way and in a certain time frame. If they didn’t, no life, nobody to worry themselves about it. Just pffft.

Honestly, you’re expecting a secular person to believe in God simply because life is possible at all. Well, that’s not an irrational belief, in my opinion, but on the other hand it isn’t technically miraculous that proteins fold in the way they do because they do fold according to the laws God put into the world to give order to the natural world. If you know about intermolecular attractions, it all makes sense, so an atheist would say, “well, isn’t that cool that reality is like that.” They don’t need to imagine that things “could have” been any different than they are.
 
Last edited:
ProdglArchitect said:
Following the standard model, those whose folds helped advanced, those whose didn’t died out.
Click to expand...
The very first one had to be functional. The odds are way to high.

Mathematical Basis for Probability Calculations Used in (the film) Origin Excerpt: Putting the probabilities together means adding the exponents. The probability of getting a properly folded chain of one-handed amino acids, joined by peptide bonds, is one chance in 10^74+45+45, or one in 10^164 (Meyer, p. 212). This means that, on average, you would need to construct 10^164 chains of amino acids 150 units long to expect to find one that is useful.

 
From the standpoint of scientism, statistically impossible isn’t actually impossible. They’ll put forward that given the immensity of the universe, it was bound to happen somewhere, it just happened to happen here. They may also resort to the multiverse theory and say that this was just one of the universes where it happened.

The point is, people who don’t want to see God won’t, no matter how blindingly-obvious the Truth may be. There’s always some way to rationalize away the complexity of life and necessity of a designer.
 
Last edited:
ProdglArchitect said:
From the standpoint of scientism, statistically impossible isn’t actually impossible. They’ll put forward that given the immensity of the universe, it was bound to happen somewhere, it just happened to happen here. They may also resort to the multiverse theory and say that this was just one of the universes where it happened.

The point is, people who don’t want to see God won’t, no matter how blindingly-obvious the Truth may be. There’s always some way to rationalize away the complexity of life and necessity of a designer.
Click to expand...
The above was just for a one functional protein. Now it gets worse for the folding.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top