Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Surprises in sea anemone genome (More Vindication for Intelligent Design/Creation Science)
The Scientist ^ | July 5, 2007 | Melissa Lee Phillips

Posted on 07/06/2007 11:20:54 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-190 next last
To: dmz
My how that song has evolved since it was originally released 36 years ago.

I'm certain that the song was "Intelligently Designed"

51 posted on 07/06/2007 12:39:31 PM PDT by be4everfree (We're on a mission from God)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

GGG, I think it’s fair to assume you are versed in Intelligent Design, yes? Would you mind answering a question that’s been nagging me?

What, exactly, are the practical goals of Intelligent Design?


52 posted on 07/06/2007 12:42:32 PM PDT by Shryke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

So then you accept common ancestry for animals generally?


53 posted on 07/06/2007 12:44:45 PM PDT by Stultis (I don't worry about the war turning into "Vietnam" in Iraq; I worry about it doing so in Congress.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Hunble

From “Predictions of Intelligent Design”

Information infusion and/or Front-loading

Informational structures beyond the inherent abilities of blind natural forces and random chance will be found.

(One of the only ways to gain greater understanding of the abilities of chance and forces is to study them and test their limits. This prediction is one of the many reasons that research into contingency and forces, including natural selection and random mutation, is absolutely and indispensably necessary in the design paradigm.)

Forms containing large amounts of novel information will appear in the fossil record suddenly and without similar precursors.

http://www.researchintelligentdesign.org/wiki/Predictions_of_Intelligent_Design#Information_infusion_and.2For_Front-loading


54 posted on 07/06/2007 12:45:44 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
No, the article proves that darwinist expectations are wrong again. ID scientists predict frontloading, whereas the Church of Darwin predicts evolution from the simple to the complex.

Not true.

55 posted on 07/06/2007 12:47:25 PM PDT by NittanyLion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Texas Federalist
the idea of random selection

That's a new one.

56 posted on 07/06/2007 12:48:38 PM PDT by RightWhale (It's Brecht's donkey, not mine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Stultis

Me? Personally?


57 posted on 07/06/2007 12:49:15 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
But he wasn’t comparing Darwin’s house to historical landmarks, he was comparing it to religious shrines.

Hardly an original comparison; such comparisons are made every day about the places I mentioned. Not only are such comparisons made, they are afar more apt. Washington is full of Grecian temples housing statues of culture heroes. A US President declared Gettysburg to be consecrated and hallowed ground. Traditional cult activity takes place at Graceland -- processions, offerings made to the dead, the sale of mementos, etc.

Why, then, is Darwin's house alone among these examples a literal religious shrine?

(Aside: I'm glad you noticed he was only comparing it to religious shrines. Think back to middle school English: What do you call a comparison of two unlike things?)

58 posted on 07/06/2007 12:49:24 PM PDT by Caesar Soze
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Shryke

==What, exactly, are the practical goals of Intelligent Design?

It would totally change the way we think about biology, origins, disease, etc.


59 posted on 07/06/2007 12:50:46 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
It would totally change the way we think about . . .

We already think a thousand ways about these things, including ID. Nothing will change.

60 posted on 07/06/2007 12:53:31 PM PDT by RightWhale (It's Brecht's donkey, not mine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

Geology is all wrong too - diamonds are really the tears of Jesus.


61 posted on 07/06/2007 12:53:49 PM PDT by PC99
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Shryke
I am simply trying to keep a baby Chameleon alive, but he is limited by his natural abilities. After paying $350 for this little baby, I will do anything possible to help him adapt to his new environment.

Many very smart Freepers keep telling me that my Intelligence can alter his DNA, and insure that he will adapt and survive.

HOW CAN I USE MY INTELLIGENCE TO ALTER HIS DNA?

Many Freepers tell me that the concept of evolution is false, and that his talents to eat were only obtained because some intelligence was able to tailor his abilities.

So, are Freepers lying to me and my Chameleon only has his inherited DNA abilities, or can I do something to alter his DNA to make him adapt better?

62 posted on 07/06/2007 12:55:29 PM PDT by Hunble (Islam is God's punishment!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: Caesar Soze

==Why, then, is Darwin’s house alone among these examples a literal religious shrine?

These statements are being made by hardcore materialists who have let their gaurd down (I thought the Dawkins’ quote was even better in terms of unmasking their religious devotion to their natural selection god). I wouldn’t have such a problem with it if the Darwinists allowed their so-called theory to be tested in the free market of scientific ideas. But as it stands now, the Church of Darwin is relying on the force of government to control the ideology of science. Indeed, I find this to be one of the most important aspects of the current war between ID/CS and the Church of Darwin.


63 posted on 07/06/2007 12:58:27 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
HOW CAN I USE MY INTELLIGENCE TO ALTER HIS DNA?
64 posted on 07/06/2007 1:01:47 PM PDT by Hunble (Islam is God's punishment!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
It would totally change the way we think about biology, origins, disease, etc.

What does that mean? Everything we are currently doing is wrong? Please be more specific.

65 posted on 07/06/2007 1:03:28 PM PDT by Shryke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

There is a basically wrong assumption here, and reflects the bias of the investigator. Highly evolved does not necessarily mean highly complex. Sometimes simplification is the improvement over the previous highly complex organization.

Improved almost always beats out the primitive.


66 posted on 07/06/2007 1:03:59 PM PDT by alloysteel (Choose carefully the hill you would die upon. For if you win, the view is magnificent.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hunble

I do not think that “Intelligent Design” means what you think it means.


67 posted on 07/06/2007 1:04:01 PM PDT by ClearCase_guy (Progressives like to keep doing the things that didn't work in the past.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: Hunble

==HOW CAN I USE MY INTELLIGENCE TO ALTER HIS DNA?

Whose DNA?


68 posted on 07/06/2007 1:07:08 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman

Darwin on progress:

“After long reflection, I cannot avoid the conviction that no innate tendency to progressive development exists”

Charles Darwin, December 4 1872.
Letter to the American paleontologist Alpheus Hyatt.


69 posted on 07/06/2007 1:08:23 PM PDT by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: RightWhale
That's a new one.

I am referring to Darwin's idea that beneficial genetic mutations to a species are completely random, rather than an act of God.

70 posted on 07/06/2007 1:09:36 PM PDT by Texas Federalist (Fred!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: PC99
Geology is all wrong too - diamonds are really the tears of Jesus.

Thunder is the angels bowling.

71 posted on 07/06/2007 1:10:33 PM PDT by Texas Federalist (Fred!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: alloysteel
Are you saying that Darwinian natural selection is untestable/can be adapted to prove anything??? What in your opinion would definitively falsify Darwinian evolution?
72 posted on 07/06/2007 1:11:00 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
But most of what IDers discover re: molecular biology will vindicated both ID and Creation Science.

This (the present article) doesn't. This only makes sense as an argument for "front loading" if you first accept that animals ARE all related by common descent, which contradicts "Creation Science". If you reject common descent then this only shows that the "designer" reused code in some particular pattern. But a priori the designer might have reused code in any particular pattern, or multiple patterns, or no particular pattern.

73 posted on 07/06/2007 1:15:30 PM PDT by Stultis (I don't worry about the war turning into "Vietnam" in Iraq; I worry about it doing so in Congress.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
But I’m sure the Church of Darwin will simply amend their “theory” in order to fit the facts, just like the geocentrists were forced to invent epicycles to give life support to the dying embers of geocentrism.

And what would you have them do. Ignore the facts when they contradict the theory? This is the scientific process at work. Theories are constantly tested and when evidence supports a new theory then that is accepted.

How do you test intelligent design anyway?

74 posted on 07/06/2007 1:16:07 PM PDT by Non-Sequitur (Save Fredericksburg. Support CVBT.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
Whose DNA?

Did you read my most recent posts? I was asking our smartest Freepers on how to apply the concept of Intelligent Design to best help my baby Chameleon alive in his new environment.

I learned from Wicca over 35 years ago, how I can cure a critter from an illness and keep it alive. Yes, I strongly believe (and know) that intelligence can be used to help a critter that is sick.

I WAS CURIOUS, IF YOU KNEW HOW TO DO THAT ALSO?

As I have said many time, I remain neutral on this issue, but demand that everyone keep their facts honest.

75 posted on 07/06/2007 1:19:32 PM PDT by Hunble (Islam is God's punishment!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: ClearCase_guy
Question: How does life start off complex?

If you study language, it works the same way, started off very complex yet uniform, the devolves.

Homeric Greek - Very complex
Koinie Greek - Less complex
Modern Greek - dumbed down, all prepositions

This is the same for all languages, save one, Hebrew.
76 posted on 07/06/2007 1:19:39 PM PDT by Scythian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
What in your opinion would definitively falsify Darwinian evolution?

Finding fossils sorted in the strata according to density rather than in a pattern that supports descent with modification. That would be good evidence against evolution.

77 posted on 07/06/2007 1:22:17 PM PDT by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
So then you accept common ancestry for animals generally?

Me? Personally?

Yeah. I get the impression you're a special creationist type, i.e. one who thinks that most "kinds" of living things were separately created, but you keep posting these articles, like the present one, that only provide evidence of anything on the premise that common descent is true.

So I just wondered. Maybe I read you wrong and you do believe in common descent.

78 posted on 07/06/2007 1:22:57 PM PDT by Stultis (I don't worry about the war turning into "Vietnam" in Iraq; I worry about it doing so in Congress.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: Stultis

I don’t want to put words in their mouth, but I imagine that creationists would contend that the created kinds were frontloaded (complete with the capacity for variation) at the time of their creation.


79 posted on 07/06/2007 1:23:09 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

Biologist also believe that the earliest living things (however they arose) had the capacity for variation.


80 posted on 07/06/2007 1:25:28 PM PDT by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
For me, if the concept of ID can be proved, then it will validate everything I learned from WICCA and how magic actually works.

I WANT the theory of "Intelligent Design" to be true!

81 posted on 07/06/2007 1:28:43 PM PDT by Hunble (Islam is God's punishment!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: Stultis

You are right. I am a creationist. Not necessarily a YEC, but I don’t rule that out either (but either way, I’m most definitely a Young Creation Creationist). I have long been leaning towards the notion that God created the “kinds” and the rest is just variation within frontloaded genetic/epigenetic parameters.


82 posted on 07/06/2007 1:29:37 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: Shryke

“What, exactly, are the practical goals of Intelligent Design?”

To glorify the Creator. God.


83 posted on 07/06/2007 1:30:40 PM PDT by scottdeus12 (Jesus is real, whether you believe in Him or not.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
I imagine that creationists would contend that the created kinds were frontloaded (complete with the capacity for variation) at the time of their creation

Yes. Many do. But in the context, for instance, of proposing that a "horse kind" was "frontloaded" to produce, say, horses, zebras, asses and donkeys; or a "cat kind" to produce tabbies, leopards and lions.

By the logic of the present article, however, if you want to use it the way you are using it, you have to accept a single "animal kind" which produced everything from anemones to lizards to apes to humans. Do you?

84 posted on 07/06/2007 1:32:08 PM PDT by Stultis (I don't worry about the war turning into "Vietnam" in Iraq; I worry about it doing so in Congress.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

Well, what it suggests is that 600 million-year-old organisms were similar in complexity to more “advanced” organisms that are current than they are to 3 billion-year-old organisms. Not sure why anyone would be surprised by that.

But what IS interesting (even if I can’t see how it is relevant to an ID discussion) is that vertebrates have removed far fewer introns than annelids and arthropods. I wouldn’t read too much into it, however: Such organisms (the little guys) have far fewer mitotic divisions (enlarging a given organism) per meiotic division (enabling sexual reproduction) than vertebrates. I could easily imagine how it gives them more opportunity to clean up the excesses, and maybe provides more evolutionary pressure to do so.


85 posted on 07/06/2007 1:35:12 PM PDT by dangus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Stultis
I imagine that creationists would contend that the created kinds were frontloaded (complete with the capacity for variation) at the time of their creation

And by logical conclusion, every flaw in the original design, was intended?

86 posted on 07/06/2007 1:37:27 PM PDT by Hunble (Islam is God's punishment!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: js1138
==Biologist also believe that the earliest living things (however they arose) had the capacity for variation.

There’s a big difference between “variation” and tracing all living things back to a single common ancestor.

87 posted on 07/06/2007 1:39:19 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
It's actually kind of sad to see that this very interesting breakthrough is immediately used to score points in the ID vs. evolution vs. creationism debate. I would love to see what kind of phylogeny could be created by such genetic comparisons, and how such a genetic phylogeny would differ from previous phylogenies speculated at from anatomical and paleontological relationships.

Incidentally, I'm quite sure that it will "prove" meany anatomical/paleontological phylogenies very "wrong"... but only in the same sense that early explorer's maps were very, very "wrong."


88 posted on 07/06/2007 1:41:22 PM PDT by dangus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Stultis

==By the logic of the present article, however, if you want to use it the way you are using it, you have to accept a single “animal kind” which produced everything from anemones to lizards to apes to humans. Do you?

No, I do not. The article was written by evolutionists. Their interpretation is their own. I am only interested in the data, which is much more in keeping with the notion that the created kinds were frontloaded.


89 posted on 07/06/2007 1:42:07 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
There’s a big difference between “variation”..

So, you now accept the concept of variation? That every critter, over time, will develope variations?

90 posted on 07/06/2007 1:42:12 PM PDT by Hunble (Islam is God's punishment!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: FrPR
Fruit flies, nematodes... With friends like that, who needs anenomes?

Shooting is too good for some people...

91 posted on 07/06/2007 1:44:02 PM PDT by null and void (A large gov't agency is more expensive than a smaller agency with the same mission, yet does less)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Hunble

Yes, but I think the evidence points to said capacity for variation being limited by the frontloader.


92 posted on 07/06/2007 1:44:50 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: dangus

That just proves the earth is really flat.


93 posted on 07/06/2007 1:45:17 PM PDT by mgstarr (KZ-6090 Smith W.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: Hunble
And by logical conclusion, every flaw in the original design, was intended?

Those aren't flaws, they are design features < /microsoft>

94 posted on 07/06/2007 1:49:08 PM PDT by null and void (A large gov't agency is more expensive than a smaller agency with the same mission, yet does less)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: dangus

==It’s actually kind of sad to see that this very interesting breakthrough is immediately used to score points in the ID vs. evolution vs. creationism debate.

But you have no problem with “breakthroughs” that claim to support Darwinian evolution?


95 posted on 07/06/2007 1:50:21 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

>> this is completely contrary to what Charles Darwin himself expected; viz., that such complex regulatory functions developed in so short a period of time. <<

Uh, no. This all happened in the last fifth of organismal development. Nearly all changes among animals are primarily structural, and involve very minimal changes in cell chemistry. What the earliest multicellular organism represented was, essentially, a complete unit of metabolic functioning.

It’s like building with Legos. While I can construct legos into many different form, a Lego is a Lego is a Lego.\

The challenge that this creates for evolutionary theory is that it reminds evolutionists that they have accomplished almost nothing when they describe how, for instance, legos (cells) arranged into fish evolve into legos (cells) arranged into dinosaurs or legos (cells) arranged into monkeys. The tricky part is how legos (cells) appeared in the first place.

And that’s what the sciences of paleontology and anatomy have previously been nearly entirely useless in doing.


96 posted on 07/06/2007 1:51:51 PM PDT by dangus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: dangus
The challenge that this creates for evolutionary theory is that it reminds evolutionists that they have accomplished almost nothing when they describe how, for instance, legos (cells) arranged into fish evolve into legos (cells) arranged into dinosaurs or legos (cells) arranged into monkeys. The tricky part is how legos (cells) appeared in the first place.

Once again, a very smart Freeper has demonstrated that magic is real and that my teachings from Wicca were true.

Yes, even humans were given a small protion of God's abilities, and if properly directed, that power can influence the life of another critter.

As I have said many time, I WANT the concept of "Intelligent Design" to be proven as a fact,

However, that will never happen until people stop spouting ignorance and begin to provide factual information to support the concept.

97 posted on 07/06/2007 2:01:00 PM PDT by Hunble (Islam is God's punishment!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

To: scottdeus12
To glorify the Creator. God.

I said practical goals. Not spiritual. Unfortunately, GGG has not responded.

98 posted on 07/06/2007 2:04:24 PM PDT by Shryke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: Shryke

I responded in post #59


99 posted on 07/06/2007 2:08:59 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

Did you see my follow up request?


100 posted on 07/06/2007 2:19:25 PM PDT by Shryke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-190 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson