What is the I in ID?

Would you please define "kind"?How do species that reproduce asexually, or reproduce sexually but without male/female mating (male/hermaphrodite, for example), fit in?

Whatever -I realize you're saying God created everything, but the question at hand is: what is the specific mechanism He used to make DNA?And since you brought it up again: I'll ask again: How do species that reproduce asexually, or reproduce sexually but without male/female mating (male/hermaphrodite, for example), fit in? Does the "seed" refer to all of these systems? Why would Isaac have hermaphroditic seed?and: A bit off topic, but this seems a bit racist on the part of the LORD, doesn't it? Denying people worship and marriage based on genetics/race? What's the justification?

Huh?I asked: Would you please define "kind"?You: Tell me that wolves and dogs are the same kind, and that you do not believe in the creation of new kinds. Then you say that no new kinds of creatures are being created except by "natural selection, mutations, genetic drifting, etc..."(So new kinds are being created by natural selection, mutation, genetic drift... which is called "evolution").So you apparently agree with evolution and the creation of new kinds, though you still haven't given an actual definition of "kind."

Whatever - it seems I can learn about Biblical stories from you, hopefully you will learn some science from me...I wouldn't say that RNA "unzips" compressed information from DNA. In fact, although I don't like the "unzip" term, the reverse happens, in a sense. DNA information is not compressed since there is far more sequence than there is information, which is why you've probably heard of terms like "junk DNA" - extra DNA sequence that is not known to function in biological processes. Also, gene DNA sequence includes introns and exons - the introns are not "coding," that is, they do not provide the direct information for protein building. RNA is made as a copy from the DNA gene template, copying both introns and exons. Once the RNA is copied, introns are then removed, leaving only exons. The information in the mature RNA is used as a blueprint to build an amino-acid chain that is a protein (an enzyme is a type of protein). The speed of this process is quite variable, but in some cases is extremely fast.The "10 generations" idea is not uncommon in modern animal genetics. Repeated mating of offspring with "purebreeds" at each generation is known as a backcross. Each backcross generation halves the amount of the original non-pure-breed genetic material. At 10 generations, the offspring would be 99.9% pure-bred, commonly accepted by many as fully pure-bred at that point.Some Biblical questions:
Where did the Jews and non-Jews split from after Adam and Eve? If descended from the same genetic information, why was one clean and the other unclean? If descendants of Isaac only mated with each other, wasn't that inbreeding/incest?However: This still seems racist. (The only other times I've heard such phrasing is from eugenicists, Nazis, and other extreme racist groups...) It seems to contradict your earlier post that God blesses all creatures, since he does not allow someone who is 0.2% non-Jewish in the congregation!And a stylistic point: "etc..." should be used to denote that you have multiple other points to list, and should not be used to end all of your sentences. As an example: If there is "only" one example, you shouldn't include an "etc..." You also shouldn't use them unless you know of other examples to include in the list (your opponent in a debate would be justified in asking what the "etc" stands for, since by using it you are claiming other examples support your claim, but you are simply not listing them.)

Unfortunately, though I have asked you two times already, you still have not given me a definition of "kind". What is the definition of kind?Please define kind! I have no reference point for a boundary between two kinds, so I cannot begin to evalute your claims that "no new kinds of creatures are being created" or "creatures only reproduce like kind creatures". Unless you define "kind" our discussion is pointless. No examples of kinds should be in your definition - stating that cats, dogs, horses are kinds does not define kind!Also, you seem to be contradicting yourself, since you've already stated that new kinds can be created by natural selection, mutations, and genetic drift: An important question: Logically, if all of the species within a kind can come from a common ancestor, why can't two kinds come from a common ancestor? Another science lesson: Natural selection plays a huge factor in asexually reproducing species. A lack of mating does not equal a lack of mutation! Mutations during DNA replication are passed on to asexually produced "offspring" as well, and those offspring are under selective pressure. Also, nothing whatsoever in evolution theory suggests that insects would grow to the size of a house! Surely you don't think that evolution somehow implies all species are gradually getting larger? And there is a scientific explanation for insect size - insects' passive respiratory system does not allow for body size greater than what we observe (they don't have an active respiratory system (lungs), so they can't force oxygen to reach the extremities of larger body structures.)Why did you choose insects, rather than, for example, squirrels? Perhaps because there are mammals the size of houses (elephants, whales), that exist quite well in the world's ecosystem?But, to return to the topic of this thread:Why did God, the "designer" in ID, choose to make hermaphroditic and homosexual species? You repeatedly write about the perfection of the male/female system, so why don't all species use male/female mating systems?Wouldn't God (or any other designer) use the best design for all species?

Interestingly, the human spine is not fully adapted for being upright ("not hunched over"). This is why so many people, including myself, have lower back problems, since the spine has some characteristics more suited to knuckle-walking.Why would God design us this way? If he wanted us to be upright, in his image, why did he not bless us with the spinal structure to do this comfortably? (Evolution can explain this defect; I can't figure out why God give it to us, unless he also has a bad back...)Also, apes have hands/thumbs and minds for creating: in the wild they use tools, have language, and some make adornment for their bodies (vine necklaces, for example). Interestingly, isolated chimp and orang populations do these things differently, suggesting that they have culture.So did God design apes to be almost-in-his-image?

Why did God create DNA to me so easily mutable by diet? You claim that he wanted to maintain unmutated, "clean", DNA for his chosen people - so why didn't God as designer make the genetic template stable?It doesn't make sense to design an instable template, if the designer is extremely intent in keeping the information on the template unchanged. Please explain.

I said nothing about arms - I was talking about the human spine, and how it is improperly designed for our upright posture.I'll ask the question again: Why would God design our spines to guarantee back problems? Doesn't make sense to me.

Whatever - this is getting extremely frustrating. Though I have asked you half-a-dozen times, you still have NOT provided me with a definition of kind.some things you have said: If you can't define kinds, and what animals belong to them in all situations, how can I possibly discuss with you the nature of "kind"? How? It seems that when someone brings up genetic evidence you turn it down in favor of morphological or biblical evidence. The most detailed Chimp-Human comparison (just published in the 27 May 2004 Nature) shows only a 1.44% difference in chimp/human sequence - in this the genetic evidence would seem to suggest like kind (although, since you haven't defined "kind," how can you or I say that?). Also, humans have 23 chromosomes (with evidence of a fusion event), and chimps have 24 (if a fusion event occurred they would have 23) - since you are hung up on chromosome number, this seems pretty good evidence of like kind.You give a list of kinds, saying there are Then you say there are Cattle are a kind, but there are different kinds of cattle? Do you have any uniform concept of what "kind" is? You seem to be contradicting yourself here, and since you refuse to define kind, I'm beginning to believe that you don't know what "kind" means. If so, you shouldn't be using it in your arguments - discussion is made pointless! Why not: claudistic similarities suggest a common ancestor. You haven't told us how you distinguish this. You cannot just say everything is "obvious," since I don't believe it is obvious to anyone else in this thread. Especially since genetic evidence (which you seem to support from other comments) suggests common ancestors for these creatures.You haven't really made an assertion here. If I said, "Its obvious that God does not exist," it probably would not be obvious to you, you'd want an explanation. I want an explanation, in the form of the definition of the term "kind." I'm not sure that you understand cladistics. Cladistics does not take all winged creatures and say they have a single winged ancestor. Also, have you heard of "convergent evolution"? Independent populations can develop similar structures through different genetic changes. And, again, why does this show a common creator, instead of a common ancestor? Again, how does this show intelligent design? You haven't given any evidence here - it's an unsupported assertion. Evolution predicts the same thing - you appear to believe that within-kind evolution occurs, so I'll assume that you'd agree that the polar bear evolved from an ancestral bear, giving it the characteristics that allow is to spend much of its time in artic waters - blubber, webbed-feet. If evolution can produce this water specialization in a mammal, it can also produce water specialization for the whale. Also, why did God design sea mammals when he had already designed fish species? It seems like evidence against design to me.We shouldn't see transitional fossils between all species, I'm not sure why you are saying that. For example, since a single gene mutation can result in the loss of limbs, we wouldn't expect to see fossils with progressively shorter limbs between a limbed species and one that had lost its limbs.This debate is getting frustrating, since you refuse to give definitions for the terms underlying your arguments, you make unsupported assertions by saying they are "obvious", and you give examples from biology as being proof of common creator and not ancestor without giving a real, logical explanation of how you've distinguished between the two.The topic of this thread is intelligent design, and I would be interested to hear if you had actual evidence of design.As a reminder, please provide a definition of "kind."

Whatever - I guess our discussion is over, unless you decide to bring any kind of sense to the debate. I ask for a definition of "kind" a dozen times, and I get: If you think this doublespeak and the constant use of the word "obvious" somehow serves as a definition, you are sorely wrong. Perhaps visit the forum glossary to see what a definition is, since you apparently don't know, or are apparently quite rude. Also, though asked by myself and others, you haven't explained why subspecies can diverge from kinds, but kinds can't diverge from kinds. Or why your evidence supports a common creator vs. a common ancestor. I'm not even sure why I'm bringing it up again, since I only expect another doublespeak response. I have been a vegetarian for the past seven years. Hopefully you are as well, since you seem to be preaching the value of vegetarianism on this forum, and I would hate for you to be a hypocrite. Hopefully you also understand that cooked meat in general, especially beef and pork, contain high levels of DNA mutagens - and hence have been strongly linked to certain types of cancer. (Much more so than shellfish consumption.)In fact, cooked beef is one of the most potent sources of DNA mutagens common to the human diet, especially when cooked over fire (presumably a common method in OT days). Since there was never a biblical proclamation (that I know of) forbidding consumption of beef, I stand by my assertion that God's design of us with an instable genetic template goes against his intention of maintaining that stability.If you can give me any non-biblical, scientific evidence that the human spine is designed to function in greater airpressure, or that the airpressure in the atmosphere was higher due a water canopy, I'd be interested. Scientific evidence, please, no biblical references.

I'm trying to tease a bit of ID out of the diet ramblings, namely:- Whatever asserts that God was very concerned with genetic purity, (and made dietary laws concerning shellfish to prevent mutation).- I assert that red meat cooked over fire is one of the most potent sources of DNA mutagens (based on cancer genetics research).- Thus the intent of the designer to provide absolute genetic purity and stability does not match his choice of genetic template and dietary laws.Hence the designer couldn't have been very intelligent in this case.

Whatever - you are hung up on heavy metals. You need iron for heme for your red blood cells to carry oxygen - it is an essential mineral for life. Extremely high levels of iron can cause problems, but you'd essentially have to be male and eat red meat twice a day to achieve these.Mutagens in red meat has nothing to do with unpressed blood, it has to do with the searing and high temperatures of fats and flesh, producing classes of mutagens called heterocyclic amines and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. If you are eating red meat you are consuming DNA mutagens, no matter what your interpretation of the bible.I did a search for "beef AND mutagen" on PubMed and got 233 articles; a search for "shellfish AND mutagen" gave ZERO results; "shrimp AND mutagen" gave 13 results - most of which involved wild populations of shrimp being effected by environmental mutagens, and did not deal with human consumption...Rabbi David Cooper has interpreted "kosher" to mean eating ethically for your own health and health of the world around you - given all we know today, Cooper equates a kosher diet with vegetarianism...Also - quit giving me medical advice! I have had back problems since I was a kid, as did my father, so I am acutely aware of the role genetics plays here - and not the kind of designed genetics that make biological sense, but the kind that evolved by chance.I am very well hydrated; and you have bizarre ideas about vegetarianism given you espoused it in earlier replies. It is generally easier for vegetarians to maintain hydration than meat and dairy eaters (they have a lower fat and protein load, and eat more water-rich foods), though both can stay hydrated quite easily.From your posts you know next to nothing of molecular biology/physiology/anatomy, so you should be careful about dispensing medical advice based on a friend of a friend's weightlifting experience with a golfing buddy... you could screw up someone's life...I don't think I'll be "plumping up my ligaments" based on your advice.

jar - I really appreciate your thoughts here, and I'm glad you finally got them out on this thread.I think you are the first I've heard to argue simplicity as the evidence of design, rather than complexity; and you've done so in humble and tentative terms.When someone has pulled out the old bacterial flagella or complex eye argument, I've often thought to myself, "Doesn't this person realize how amazing the DNA itself is? The simplicity of replication and potential for evolution?"I think mankind is able to grasp complexity much easier than it can grasp simplicity - I think there are a select few in this world that begin to comprehend M theory (I think that's what it's being called these days...)To grasp what is beyond branes and dark matter? Well maybe it is the designer... or perhaps a true Unified Theory of Everything, which might just be the intelligence in the design.

Hey sidelined-I'm aware of the paradox, and find it quite enjoyable for some reason. Perhaps the point at which people are willing to consider a designer has to do with imagination - I don't find it hard to imagine biological and geological evolution or atomic and subatomic interactions, but at the level of branes and strings it starts to get a little more mind-blowing, as if I'm not fully comprehending all of their behavior and the implications. There are those that argue that the human eye is too complex to not have been designed - what about atomic/subatomic/string behavior? I'm sure if those same people (or anyone for that matter) could grasp the complexity in that behavior, "irreducible complexity" would take on a new meaning...For me to try to imagine what is beyond strings is an arduous task, perhaps that is when a little "magic" is allowed to seep in to my thoughts. When you can't imagine how something was created or functions, it seems to just "exist" - but where did it come from? When imagination fails, "something/one put it there" is the most immediately comprehendable option based on daily human life.For others perhaps this barrier of imagination is at a much more shallow layer of the onion - if one can't fully imagine or comprehend biological evolution, then species must just be as they are now, and if they just suddenly came about, something must have created them...Maybe individuals find design in what they can't understand or imagine? Maybe for some this comes at a level of complexity, for others simplicity (unknown complexity)?The truth is, I do believe that Nature is the pattern, and the pattern is Nature. It's just that when I try to go beyond the most basic proposed elements of the universe, I'm met with this 0.1% of my logic, kind of nagging me in the back of mind, saying, "Maybe somebody just designed it that way."It's a backdoor or easy-way-out that I'm sure some would call God...

Why? Perhaps the definition of a "god" should be "an entity who does things without a means to do so".Why would an omnipotent god be bound by material laws? is a god itself material?