|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: A Study of Intelligent Design Debate | |||||||||||||||||||||||
John Paul Inactive Member |
quote: John Paul:Well SLP, thanks for the explanation. So we have found "A gene that makes human blood clot also is found in bloodless fruit flies and helps venomous cone snails produce an experimental drug against epilepsy." Interesting, but there is more than just the clotting of blood that is at issue here. It's the blood clotting cascade. What good is a blood clotting gene if it goes unchecked? That brings us to:How did that gene originate? What makes it do different things in different organisms? Could be that system architecture talked about by JA Shapiro in Mike Gene's article: ID Friendly Evolution I don't see how this affects Behe's position at all. ------------------John Paul
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
joz Inactive Member |
quote: Sounds like a poorly researched hypothesis to me....
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
John Paul Inactive Member |
quote:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally posted by mark24: Like the labwork that PROVES Behes irreducible complexity could not be arrived at by evolution? Sounds like a hypothesis to me. Mark --------------------------------------------------------------------------------joz: Sounds like a poorly researched hypothesis to me.... John Paul:Actually the hypothesis was well researched and anyone with at least a double-digit IQ would know there is no way to prove a negative. The onus lay with the people spewing such a thing is possible. Duh
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
John Paul Inactive Member |
quote:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally posted by mark24: Like the labwork that PROVES Behes irreducible complexity could not be arrived at by evolution? Sounds like a hypothesis to me. Mark --------------------------------------------------------------------------------joz: Sounds like a poorly researched hypothesis to me.... John Paul:Actually the hypothesis was well researched and anyone with at least a double-digit IQ would know there is no way to prove a negative. The onus lay with the people spewing such a thing is possible. Duh ------------------John Paul
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
lbhandli Inactive Member |
quote: So why did Behe attempt to do that? Your argument is strange given that is exactly Behe's position. Of course, you don't seem to grasp that Behe also argues that common descent is accurate. This sort of mental gymnastics is generally referred to mental laziness.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
derwood Member (Idle past 1903 days) Posts: 1457 Joined: |
I find it entertaining that certain creationists require everything to be spelled out for them in simplistic talk, lest they claim irrelevance.
It is a shame that these individuals lack the ability to see the writing on the wall, and opt for dogma protection at all costs. I think any rational, non-psychotic person could see the issues involved in the bio.com link I provided.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
toff Inactive Member |
[/B][/QUOTE]
Anyway, for me, you'll never be able to prove there is no ID, as it is something I already know. Just like you can't tell me 1 + 1 doesn't = 2.[/B][/QUOTE] No, it's not something you know. It's merely something you believe. Do you understand the difference? All you have said - all you CAN say - is that everything appears intelligently designed to you. Which, sorry to tell you, is not evidence for intelligent design - it's only evidence of the fact that you think everything appears intelligently designed. Sorry.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
toff Inactive Member |
quote: Sorry, you made an obvious error above - you used the word 'rational'. By definition, creationists are not rational.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
KingPenguin Member (Idle past 7910 days) Posts: 286 From: Freeland, Mi USA Joined: |
quote: that link you provided really does make you wonder and confirms god's existence even more in my eyes. there is no chance that all life would be as similar as it without a designer and no randomality can produce so many similar answers while not producing a wild one, which there would be millions of if evolution actually does occur. thanks JP. ------------------"Overspecialize and you breed in weakness" -"Major" Motoko Kusanagi
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
KingPenguin Member (Idle past 7910 days) Posts: 286 From: Freeland, Mi USA Joined: |
without ID humans would be so drastically different that we wouldnt even be able to mate after the 20000 years weve supposedly existed. wed have different races like dwarves, elves, etc. since there is no way humans could have migrated then, through my understanding and according to evolution we would have evolved in the similar way of monkeys and apes and orangatangs. we would have to be that different. unless someone has a very very very good explanation, not some link to some long boring experiment i cant understand yet :-)
------------------"Overspecialize and you breed in weakness" -"Major" Motoko Kusanagi
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
gene90 Member (Idle past 3850 days) Posts: 1610 Joined: |
[QUOTE][b]Afterall if every piece of DNA coded for a protein, what would be left to tell those proteins what to do and where to do it?[[/QUOTE]
[/b] Proteins are told neither what to do nor where to do it. They are large, (for a molecule) dumb surfaces upon which chemical reactions occur. Telling a protein what to do is like telling the catalytic converter in your car what to do. What they "do" is determined by the laws of chemistry, and one protein's function is set apart from the other proteins on the basis of the 1 level (the composition of the protein) and that protein's conformation, that is its shape as determined by various things like hydrogen bonds throughout the molecule and the local temperature inside the cell. A protein "does" something because its substrate (the molecule it manipulates) bumps into its active site and the component atoms and bonds of the substrate are stretched or rearranged in the collision. Aside from that, the thing just drifts. A protein, after being synthesized cannot be "told" what to do, it can simply be deactivated by having its active site blocked by another molecule or packaged by the Golgi apparatus. But most "control" over proteins come from switching genes on and off in the nucleus and so varying the concentration of those proteins. These "orders" don't originate from the nucleus, they are results of environmental conditions and interactions other proteins. There is some speculation that introns ("junk DNA") might play a role in protein folding (the manner in which proteins acquire their conformations) but they aren't "command centers" and to say that they control proteins is simply not accurate.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Cobra_snake Inactive Member |
quote: Wow, thanks for summing it up! I am not even going to question your opinion on this matter, since it is apparent to me that your IQ is somewhere in the 2000's. Otherwise you wouldn't be smart enough to know all of the creation scientists, what they believe, what their arguments are, and what their scientific credentials are. I feel myself at a disadvantage when debating with an absolute genius like you!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
joz Inactive Member |
quote: Not quite Hom. sap. hasn`t been around long enough to diversify (at least not into new species)...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5222 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
quote: Unfortunately, those long boring experiments are exactly what provide evidence for evolution. If you can't understand them yet, perhaps you should hold judgement on your Dwarves & Elves. We do have different races, & pygmies & caucasians look at least as different as dwarves & elves, I think you'll find. There is morpholological, immunological sera reaction, gene sequence, protein amino acid sequence, Pseudogene loci commonality, retroviral insertion loci commonality, non-coding interspersed elements commonality, providing evidence of common descent of primates. Such evidences, used singly, all produce remarkably similar phylogenies (evolutionary trees), when compared to each other. Why would that be? Can you give an answer that explains all of these evidences away, in a manner that doesn't imply common descent? It's going to take a lot more than the baseless assertion that it would be "different without ID", to make science look up from it's collectice bunsen burners & test tubes. Mark ps FYI, the plural of Dwarf, is Dwarfs, not Dwarves (according to Tolkien), for some wierd reason! ------------------Occam's razor is not for shaving with.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
KingPenguin Member (Idle past 7910 days) Posts: 286 From: Freeland, Mi USA Joined: |
quote: but long enough to become human? ------------------"Overspecialize and you breed in weakness" -"Major" Motoko Kusanagi
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024