Denial of evolution IV

Discussion in 'Biology & Genetics' started by Hercules Rockefeller, Oct 27, 2009.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. matthew809 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    480
    In the restrictive view of an evolutionist, I can understand how one may see no value in understanding the seemingly unimportant connection between origins and post-origins. But for someone like me, who believes that the DNA-based life of this earth was created by a super-intelligence and was programmed with inherent limited flexibility, updatability, and adaptability... can you understand why I think that connection should be established?

    Understanding that life was created by a super-intelligence is key to understanding how life evolves and seems to evolve.
     
    Last edited: Aug 20, 2011
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Billy T Use Sugar Cane Alcohol car Fuel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,198
    You are welcome to your beliefs, but I like mine, which is equally well supported by the evidence:

    I.e. I believe:

    Understanding that life was created by a magnetic fields is key to understanding how life evolves and seems to evolve.

    Reason I prefer my POV is that I can prove magnetic fields exist and have from the Big Bang forward in time.
    Also one can show magnetic fields do control some forms of life, even today - homing pigeons, etc.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 20, 2011
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    Messages:
    37,047
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. ahwilliams Registered Member

    Messages:
    11
    Sorry, I did not mean to imply that HE did anything. The question is directed toward someone (based on the title of this thread) who would claim to know that God did in fact create life on earth and exactly how he did it.

    I am just curious why someone would presume to know how and why god created life and also why such a god would leave all that bizarre and anti-creationist evidence of evolution lying around.

    It seems to me that if you did believe that god created life on earth, it would not need to conflict with evolution. The fact is that it doesn’t need to conflict at all, it only conflicts with a very literal interpretation of a very old and often mistranslated book.
     
  8. matthew809 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    480
    The problem with fossils is that they don't show DNA, nor do they tell us whether or not the animal ever even had offspring. Therefore any information concerning lineage inferred from fossil evidence is useless.

    Similar design of different species could be evidence of a common ancestor, or it could be evidence of a common designer.

    Also, assuming connected lineage, many differences between related fossils may be evident of evolution(gaining DNA code), de-evolution(losing DNA code), or micro evolution(a re-expression of already existing DNA). But since fossils don't show DNA, nor do we even understand the language of DNA, how could we know whether or not evolution took place?
     
  9. spidergoat Liddle' Dick Tater Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    53,966
    You don't even understand what evolution is, matthew809. Do you make up your own definitions?
     
  10. matthew809 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    480
    I know exactly what evolution is supposed to be.

    My alleged misuse of words should not have detracted from my point...

    Did my words confuse you?
     
  11. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,227
    Apparently not.

    No. Your ignorance of what evolution is, and your own specious definition makes it so that you don't have a point.

    Not really. But your ignorance does.

    Please link to a reliable source that states evolution is a "gaining of DNA code".
    (This wouldn't be yet another of your lies would it?)
     
  12. spidergoat Liddle' Dick Tater Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    53,966
    Your misuse of words belies your basic fallacies. Fossil evidence is far from useless even if it's only about morphology. In fact we don't even need DNA to show that evolution is true.
     
  13. Arioch Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,274
    @spidergoat --

    We sure don't, but it is a nice bit of icing on the cake isn't it?
     
  14. matthew809 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    480
    Please give an example of how you could prove evolution true without DNA evidence.
     
  15. matthew809 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    480
    Any change to a species would be reflected in it's DNA. If a cat was born with a horn coming out it's forehead, there would be DNA for this. Therefore, it can be said that this DNA was gained.

    Isn't that common sense?
     
  16. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,656
    Some do indeed show DNA. Several neanderthal fossils have had their DNA sequenced, and there are a lot of similarities between it and homo sapiens sapiens DNA.

    Several pregnant fossils (mother plus fetus) have indeed been discovered. So we have proof that the animals represented by fossils do in fact reproduce.

    The DNA and morphological evidence does indeed point to a common ancestor. Nothing about it points to a common designer. Indeed, if the Genesis story is correct, and (for example) humans were designed independently of cattle, then an intelligent designer is strongly contraindicated - we share several of the same genetic "leftovers" (remnants of previous stages of evolution) that would not be present in a purpose-designed organism.

    We do understand the language of DNA. We can point to codon X and tell you what it does. We can point to a set of oncogenes and say "turn these off and you will get cancer." We can point to which chromosome causes Down Syndrome. We definitely have a lot more to learn, but we know quite a bit.

    And as explained earlier, we can indeed see what DNA those fossils had.
     
  17. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,227
    Not even close.
    All that would mean was that the already-existing DNA became "active".

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    One more time:
    Please link to a reliable source that states evolution is a "gaining of DNA code".
     
  18. spidergoat Liddle' Dick Tater Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    53,966
    You can use a comparative study of modern species and their geographical distribution. You don't even need fossils.
     
  19. spidergoat Liddle' Dick Tater Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    53,966
    It's common nonsense. DNA isn't like an architectural blueprint that shows every structure.

    I'm sure RichW9090 would love to answer this, but give it up already, you are embarrassing yourself.
     
  20. Arioch Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,274
    @matthew --

    Or it could be that already present but non-coding DNA(the so-called "junk" DNA) reactivated, or that a chemical imbalance in the uterine environment caused DNA which normally codes for a different part of the body(say, the claws) to activate in the head. Or it could be that someone glued it on.

    All of these are definite possibilities and none of them involve "gaining" any DNA. So your definition is bunk.
     
  21. spidergoat Liddle' Dick Tater Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    53,966
    Yes, but you wouldn't understand it.
     
  22. matthew809 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    480
    Exactly. This is what I meant by micro-evolution. This is consistent with both evolution and ID.

    That's an error in DNA replication. No new DNA code was gained, but the existing code was shuffled. That's not proof of evolution. It's merely proof that DNA replication is not perfect.

    Actually, the examples you gave are no good.
     
  23. matthew809 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    480
    I agree, it's nothing like that at all.

    It's more like a computer language written out in detailed code.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page