DNA: The Tiny Code That's Toppling Evolution

Good News Magazine ^ | May 2005 | Mario Seiglie

[raygun]

Bingo.

[DouglasKC]

You see, you'll be told you're guilty of making the strawman appeal to incredulity. Just because its mind-bogglingly complex or so improbable means it can't be that way by chance.
Biological organisms are much different though. Despite the greater the improbability of any arbitrary biological process, the fact that it actually exists means the possibility of it being is 100%. In fact with the natural order of things, the way they are is just the most likely way for them to be.

I understand what you're saying, and yes, the possiblity of it being is of course 100%, but the probablity of it coming into being through chance non-existent everywere except in the imaginings of evolutionary theory. Would a valid scientific experiment be to take chemicals and create life? Take the very simplest life form (whatever that may be). Determine its exact chemical composition. Then try to replicate it through various methods. Will you ever get a living thing? I think that's the crux of the matter. Life only comes from life.

[skr]

For most people, a computer is magic and was created by an "intelligent designer". But it still follows the physical laws of the environment it is placed in. Why should life be any different -- even if it is designed?

Certainly physical laws are used in the making of a computer. Is it your premise that God wouldn't use His own laws to create the universe?

[raygun]

Bingo.

[Fester Chugabrew]

The truth is that we are as much in the dark about the origins and continuance of life now as we have ever been.

A proposition is made. The proposition is heard. Neither of these can take place without intelligence or design. Have you ever seen intelligence or design without someone behind them?

The universe, without even speaking, per se, is constantly making propositions to the sense of every living thing, but especially to the reason and senses of that creature capable of creating such insignificant objects as an Apple G5, which of itself cannot compare to its creator's own mind.

No apologies here for arguing from the standpoint of incredulity. There is no logical or moral reason to count mathematical probabilities or improbabilities as either unfactual or insignificant.

One can deny intelligent design as an agent in the creation and preservation of the universe, but it takes an animosity; a penchant for all things material; a type of reason no more worthy of acceptation than the next myth. I hardly see why such things should merit the current mediocrities forced upon classroom education.

[concerned about politics]

LOL. My daughter wants to know why, if man "evolved" from apes, do we still have apes? Shouldn't they be "man" by now?

[sigSEGV]

Is it your premise that God wouldn't use His own laws to create the universe?

No, quite the opposite. Some on this thread seem to think the universe and life in its current form could only exist in defiance of physical laws. It would seem silly to create a bunch of laws just to break them.

[plain talk]

yep I pinged him.

[raygun]

That's why I believe that evolution shouldn't be taught in elementary or high school.

Do they teach dumbed down calculus in high school? How about dumbed-down physics? Do they teach dumbed down English? What about dumbed down arithmetic or mathematics? Do they teach dumbed down biology? Oh, wait, that's called evolution. Sorry, my bad. Nevermind.

[GSHastings]

CLANK

There it goes again.

Scientific study into the nature of life is not getting you closer and closer to validating evolution.

It has long since revealed that evolution as a viable explanation, is utterly impossible.

Every new and amazing discovery biology, physics, cosmology, astronomy, points to very, very, high degree of complexity and precision which taxes our abiltity to even comprehend it.

Science isn't taking you closer to validation of evolution. Science isn't getting you step by step along the path to understanding of how evolution works.

Science is taking you step by step along the path to showing you that evolution could not possibly be the explanation.

But STILL you refuse to let go of it.

People in Darwins time can be excused for believing in evolution. They didn't have the benefit of the knowledge we have now.

[raygun]

No. The usefulness of words and letters is in constructing sentances that are arranged according in a syntax whereby ideas can be communicated. If I want a glass of water, I can communicate that in one of a myriad ways (including binary), but the idea remains the same. Its not like there's an idea being conveyed in DNA. And besides, if you change the letters, words and syntax of DNA you get a different message entirely or just pure gibberish. Totally unlike any language known to man.

[concerned about politics]

Over the last fifteen years the tide of scientific opinion has been turning against the evolutionists. The complexity and apparent design of life has defied a purely naturalistic explanation and the problem of how life started remains unanswered by the scientific community. In addition to the huge practical and theoretical difficulties associated with evolution, the physical evidence presented by DNA code and the fossil record has not supported the theory. The available evidence seems to be pointing to the separateness of different species.

As the case for all life evolving from simple cell structures is looking less and less convincing, alternative explanations are needed. Science rests heavily on the principle of cause and effect. To account for the diversity of life on Earth, an adequate cause is required. Many in the scientific world are beginning to seriously consider the case for intelligent design. We may even live to see the day they debunk themselves.

[raygun]

Now how strong can your position be if in order to prop it up you have to LIE and take a dead man's quotes out of context?

Do Creationist / IDers have any shame?

Don't even go there. I might have to mention Ernst Haeckel's fraud that is still perpetuated as fact in textbooks today.

[raygun]

Bingo.

[DouglasKC]

The improbably complex arising from the totally random, individually unique, information carrier. Snowflake shapes contain information, a history of the conditions of their formation. That information can be "read" by by humans -- i.e. abstracted. Order from randomness. Information recording without an IS (Intelligent Snowman.) How is it possible???

Because ice crystals were designed by God to form in a certain way based on temperaturate, moisture content, particulate matter, etc.

Ice crystals were designed NOT to occur in other ways. For examples, if the temperature is 120 degrees than ice crystals will never occur.

There's nothing random about it. If we had the eyes to see we could follow the snowflake back way earlier than its physical origin. We could follow it right to the mind of God.

[Fester Chugabrew]

. . . no one has yet demonstrated how any complex biochemical systems have "happened to develop" in the incremental stepwise manner that classical Darwinism requires.

Please standby. FR hosts a veritable wealth of evolutionists who are able and willing to demonstrate the absurdity, ignorance, and downright falsehood of such a claim. No only so, but any alternative means we are headed straight for a theocracy. It's time to put a lid on this whole ID thing once and for all. The last thing we need is to think for ourselves.

[raygun]

An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that, in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle. But this should not be taken to imply that there are good reasons to believe that it could not have started on the earth by a perfectly reasonable sequence of fairly ordinary chemical reactions. The plain fact is that the time available was too long, the many microenvironments on the earth's surface too diverse, the various chemical possibilities too numerous and our own knowledge and imagination too feeble to allow us to be able to unravel exactly how it might or might not have happened such a long time ago, especially as we have no experimental evidence from that era to check our ideas against.

Please read, and understand, the following:

the·o·ry (the¯'?-re¯, thîr'e¯)
n., pl. -ries.

1. A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.

2. The branch of a science or art consisting of its explanatory statements, accepted principles, and methods of analysis, as opposed to practice: a fine musician who had never studied theory.

3. A set of theorems that constitute a systematic view of a branch of mathematics.

4. Abstract reasoning; speculation: a decision based on experience rather than theory.

5. A belief or principle that guides action or assists comprehension or judgment: staked out the house on the theory that criminals usually return to the scene of the crime.

6. An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.

[Late Latin theo¯ria, from Greek theo¯ria¯, from theo¯ros, spectator : probably thea¯, a viewing + -oros, seeing (from hora¯n, to see).]

http://www.answers.com/topic/theory

faith (fa¯th)
n.

1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.

2.Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See synonyms at belief, trust.

3. Loyalty to a person or thing; allegiance: keeping faith with one's supporters.

4. often Faith Christianity. The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will.

5. The body of dogma of a religion: the Muslim faith. 6. A set of principles or beliefs.

http://www.answers.com/topic/faith

I don't think he understands the difference. And neither do you.

[Maurice Tift]

Creationism is bunk. Neanderthal stuff... this &^$% should be on an Art Bell site.

Neanderthal! I can't believe he said that! That's real offensive!