EvC Forum: a poison for anti-evolution ID theorists

Email This Thread

Newer Topic | Older Topic

Author

Topic: a poison for anti-evolution ID theorists

crashfrog

Member (Idle past 1496 days)

Posts: 19762

From: Silver Spring, MD

Joined: 03-20-2003

Normal Thread Display

Message 6 of 95 (57094)
09-23-2003 2:00 AM

Reply to: Message 5 by Gemster
09-23-2003 1:47 AM

what I'd like to know is, was the total information in the genetic code increased and not just altered.

There's no information in genetic codes. The code doesn't code for information. It codes for proteins. So your question is kind of meaningless, isn't it?

This message is a reply to:
	Message 5 by Gemster, posted 09-23-2003 1:47 AM		Gemster has not replied

crashfrog

Member (Idle past 1496 days)

Posts: 19762

From: Silver Spring, MD

Joined: 03-20-2003

Normal Thread Display

Message 10 of 95 (57153)
09-23-2003 7:08 AM

Reply to: Message 8 by Gemster
09-23-2003 4:58 AM

Okay so a crazy bunch of proteins can make an eye without
any information?

Yes, because eyes are made of protein, not information. Simple chemistry assembles them.

Does water need "information" to become a snowflake?

This message is a reply to:
	Message 8 by Gemster, posted 09-23-2003 4:58 AM		Gemster has not replied

crashfrog

Member (Idle past 1496 days)

Posts: 19762

From: Silver Spring, MD

Joined: 03-20-2003

Normal Thread Display

Message 18 of 95 (57649)
09-24-2003 11:54 PM

Reply to: Message 17 by Gemster
09-24-2003 10:38 PM

I don't understand the point of your quote. Try it as simple logic (I know you're fuzzy on the logic, but we'll try it anyway.)

Is it your argument that:

1)Scientists have yet to understand all that there is to know about life;
therefore
2)The Bible is the literal Word of God?

I don't see how one follows from the other. Maybe you can help me out?

This message is a reply to:
	Message 17 by Gemster, posted 09-24-2003 10:38 PM		Gemster has not replied

crashfrog

Member (Idle past 1496 days)

Posts: 19762

From: Silver Spring, MD

Joined: 03-20-2003

Normal Thread Display

Message 21 of 95 (57659)
09-25-2003 12:22 AM

Reply to: Message 20 by Gemster
09-25-2003 12:19 AM

what my origins quote meant was that if life is so simple then why can't anyone manufacture any?

Maybe because life isn't simple, but rather, so complex that intelligent design isn't up to the challenge?

After all, you have to admit this doesn't look good for ID. If intelligent design is the source of life, the first time, then the second time around it should be even easier. Our consistent failure to create life through intelligent design is pretty much a clear indication to me that life isn't the result of intelligent design.

This message is a reply to:
	Message 20 by Gemster, posted 09-25-2003 12:19 AM		Gemster has not replied

crashfrog

Member (Idle past 1496 days)

Posts: 19762

From: Silver Spring, MD

Joined: 03-20-2003

Normal Thread Display

Message 25 of 95 (57741)
09-25-2003 10:03 AM

Reply to: Message 23 by Gemster
09-25-2003 2:34 AM

So we can't do with intelligence what nature can do by accident, even if we invoke nature to help us. Sorry my friend, not a good theory.

Maybe then you could explain why engineers are using evolution to design circuit boards and jet airplanes that are superior to the versions created by intelligence? Some of the circuit boards are so complex that we don't entirely understand how they work.

I'd say my theory is looking better all the time.

This message is a reply to:
	Message 23 by Gemster, posted 09-25-2003 2:34 AM		Gemster has not replied

crashfrog

Member (Idle past 1496 days)

Posts: 19762

From: Silver Spring, MD

Joined: 03-20-2003

Normal Thread Display

Message 92 of 95 (61273)
10-16-2003 8:17 PM

Reply to: Message 81 by Warren
10-16-2003 12:29 PM

Can you falsify the claim that the flagellum evolved by adopting parts with different functions? You keep dancing all around my question without touching it. How come?

Maybe you didn't read very closely - he did that here:

quote:
falsification: Here are a couple, no protein or gene for the flagellum in unrelated species, even closely related species, bear any homology at all. The genes for the flagellum are not passed on from one generation to the next i.e. not heritable.

The last in particular would be a very potent falsification of the theory, as it would mean the flagellum wouldn't have been able to evolve at all.

This message is a reply to:
	Message 81 by Warren, posted 10-16-2003 12:29 PM		Warren has not replied

Date format: mm-dd-yyyy

Timezone: ET (US)

Newer Topic | Older Topic

Do Nothing Button

1 online now:	PaulK
Newest Member:	ChatGPT
Post Volume:	Total: 916,905 Year: 4,162/9,624 Month: 1,033/974 Week: 360/286 Day: 3/13 Hour: 1/0