Is it intelligent to design evolvable species?

I don't think that ninety-odd percent of all life on earth really have gone extinct. Could you please site your source for that?This message has been edited by Christian, 10-16-2005 06:44 PM

Ok, I think I got it. Thanks

Well, I've done a bit of research on this (the figure I've heard before is the 99.9999999...% one) and it seems like the method for arriving at that figure has nothing to do with finding actual fossils of animals which are non-existant today. Rather it's based on the rate at which things go extinct today multiplied by the supposed age of the earth (which I believe to be incorrect).

Not at all. I personally believe macro-evolution to be false, and that the adaptability programmed within us (micro-evolution) is evidence of intelligent design. Still that is beside the point. Even if a designer were only required for the first self-replicator, the complexity in anything that can self-replicate is enormous.

The self-replication is not evolution. It's self-replication (reproduction). I was saying that in order for the self-replicator (I think it would be a cell, but perhaps there's something less than a cell that could self-replicate) to come into being in the first place, a designer is required. I don't think I'm contradicting myself.ps-thank you, it's nice to be here.

I didn't think that the actual individuals adapted. What is programed is the possibility for variation. If a bird is born with a slightly different beak than it's peers, thus better able to eat the food available, that's not a mutation, it was programmed in the genes and then natural selection takes over. It works for small differences between animals, not for large ones. You never see a frog, for instance, born with hair, or feathers. Really? Could you give me a few more details about how this is done?

I don't believe that all life came from one self-replicating unit. I'm only saying that if it DID, then a creator would still be required for the self-replicating unit. If it did, the changes into the various species would also be miraculous, my point, however, was that the self-replicating unit is itself a work of increadible ingenuity. When time allows I will do my best to substantiate my belief that the world is not billions of years old (if that is what you were referring to) For the time being, I think two threads is enough for me, so if we can just agree that the 99.999999% extinction is a theory based on the theory that the earth is old, rather than a fact based on actual fossils of extinct species (I think that's what you were talking about, correct me if I'm wrong) that will suffice. Then I guess that one will have to wait. Please be patient with me as my time is extremely limited and I can't always respond to everything. Also I am new here and learning to navigate the forums. It seems to me that someone said self-replicators have been easily synthesized, and I find that hard to believe but I think they posted a thread that dealt with it and I only skimmed it and didn't thoroughly understand it yet. The reason I find this hard to believe is because according to von Neumann, in order for any machine to self-replicate, it must also be able to self-diagnose and self-repair, so this would be a very complex machine that people are not capable of making.There's also the question of the environment which would allow amino acids to come together. Oxygen would've destroyed the amino acids. But if there were no oxygen, there would be no ozone to shield the earth and the sun's rays would've destroyed life.Then there's the problem of handedness. Let me quote Walt Brown here. From what I've heard, there isn't a lot of respect on this site for Mr. Brown, but he seems to make a pretty good case here: Handedness: Left and Right
Genetic material, DNA and RNA, is composed of nucleotides. In living things, nucleotides are always “right-handed.” (They are called “right-handed” because a beam of polarized light passing through them rotates like a right-handed screw.) Nucleotides rarely form outside life, but when they do, half are left-handed, and half are right-handed. If the first nucleotides formed by natural processes, they would have “mixed-handedness” and therefore could not evolve life’s genetic material. In fact, “mixed” genetic material cannot even copy itself.a

​

Each type of amino acid, when found in nonliving material or when synthesized in the laboratory, comes in two chemically equivalent forms. Half are right-handed, and half are left-handed”mirror images of each other. However, amino acids in life, including plants, animals, bacteria, molds, and even viruses, are essentially all left-handed.b No known natural process can isolate either the left-handed or right-handed variety. The mathematical probability that chance processes could produce merely one tiny protein molecule with only left-handed amino acids is virtually zero.c

​

A similar observation can be made for a special class of organic compounds called “sugars.” In living systems, sugars are all right-handed. Based on our present understanding, natural processes produce equal proportions of left-handed and right-handed sugars. Because sugars in living things are right-handed, random natural processes apparently did not produce life.P.S. my kids think you're cute

http://www.chemsoc.org/chembytes/ezine/2002/gross1_aug02.htm
However, one should not be tempted to transfer these findings to the still largely mysterious field of the origin and pre-cellular evolution of life. Biological molecules do not actually replicate themselves, but rather replicate each other. Furthermore, most researchers see RNA as a more promising candidate for the principal role in the early molecular stages of evolution. Thus, self-replicating peptides may have little to teach us about the roots of the tree of life, but they do add some interesting new branches to the tree of chemistry Well, the example you gave me wasn't things that self-replicate. Although I still don't quite understand the process, according to the part I quoted, they replicated each other, not themselves.

What is programmed is not adaptability within the individual, but rather, the possability for variation in the offspring. For example, if two people have brown hair and brown eyes, they can have a child with blonde hair and blue eyes because of recessive genes which are programmed into their genetic makeup. The individual doesn't change, but the offspring can vary, allowing for some degree of natural selection. Darwin says that evolution happens on the basis of beneficial mutations. I disagree. I think that the variation we see is already allowable in our genetic makeup. Mutations can cause change, but they're more often harmful then beneficial.

Maybe you could give me some example of these observations.

This is only a partial reply since I really should have gotten off the computer already. Not purposely avoiding anything. Just there's a lot to think about and digest. On evilbible they were always accusing me of avioding things I didn't have answers for. That couldn't be further from the truth. There are just so many things to respond to and each one takes time and thought, and I have a family. You're age of the earth thread is interesting, but just reading the first post will take awhile. You have to give me time. I'm not afraid of tackling anything. And I'll readily admit that I probably don't have good answers for everything. "The Scientific Alternative to Neo-Darwinian Evolutionary Theory" by A.E. Wilder-Smith It most certainly would. Could you give me examples of this?

Yes I did realize that and that's how the book presents it.

Sorry Wounded King, I don't have time to get into this discussion with you at this time. I probably will, eventually, because I really liked his book, but not now.