Posted on 11/01/2009 4:02:49 PM PST by GodGunsGuts
Life is not a naturalistic phenomenon with unlimited evolutionary potential as Darwin proposed. It is intelligently designed, ruled by immutable laws, and survives only because it has a built-in
facilitated variation mechanism for continually adapting to internal and external challenges and changes. The essential components are: functional molecular architecture and machinery, modular switching cascades that control the machinery and a signal network that coordinates everything. All three are required for survival, so they must have been present from the beginning—a conclusion that demands intelligent design. Life’s built-in ability to adapt and diversify looks like Darwinian evolution, but it is not. Darwin’s theory of speciation via natural selection of natural variation is correct in principle, but it cannot be extrapolated to universal ancestry. What we see instead is different kinds of organisms having been designed for different kinds of lifestyles, with enormous potential for diversification built-in at the beginning, but with time this potential for diversification has become depleted by selection and degraded by mutations so that we are now rapidly heading towards extinction. Intelligent design and rapid decay point to recent Creation and Fall, as the Bible tells us...
(Excerpt) Read more at creation.com ...
Ping!
how dare you post logical arguments for creation and inteligent design..
let’s wait for the freep ‘experts’ (atheist, et al) to get the real story.
that’s pretty broad-brushed
I thought life was based upon the interaction of living beings that interact, that are composed of atoms and molecules that interact, that are composed of atoms that interact, that are composed of nuclear particles that interact, that are composed of sub-atomic particles that interact, etc, etc,.....mmmmm. Further, some of the laws of interaction have been shown to be, within man’s capability, discoverable.
IMHO, misguided as it may be, that is what the creator did create. Stories about an ‘intelligent designer’ monkeying with the ‘laws of nature’ are just habble-babble.
“The essential components are: functional molecular architecture and machinery, modular switching cascades that control the machinery and a signal network that coordinates everything. All three are required for survival, so they must have been present from the beginning”
parts 2 and 3......habble-babble.
Life’s irreducible structure—Part 1: autopoiesis
Life’s irreducible structure—Part 2: naturalistic objections
Astonishing DNA complexity demolishes neo-Darwinism
No! No! No! Everything is chaos and chance! Evolution controls all life, except where it doesn’t and it just is...sort of...like...ummm...chaos...except there’s order, even to evolution...but that doesn’t prove...anything...
For some background, see #5...expecially the first two links.
PS This paper is based on cutting-edge research, and if you read for understanding, I think you will find the the new biology present insurmountable problems for neo-Darwinian evoltuion.
For some background, see #5...expecially the first two links.
PS This paper is based on cutting-edge research, and if you read for understanding, I think you will find the the new biology present insurmountable problems for neo-Darwinian evoltuion.
You fortot necessity! :o)
Excuse me; I must have missed the part where the author presented any empirical evidence to support a 6 day creation, or a 6,000 year old earth.
Now we’re talking!!!
This is so beautiful and I can actually understand it....well I knew it all along....but couldn’t quite put it into words.
thank you, thank you, thank you.
My pleasure :o)
“New Analyses Of Dinosaur Growth May Wipe Out One-third Of Species
ScienceDaily (Oct. 31, 2009) — Paleontologists from the University of California, Berkeley, and the Museum of the Rockies have wiped out two species of dome-headed dinosaur, one of them named three years ago — with great fanfare — after Hogwarts, the school attended by Harry Potter.”
Hmmmm....Spiney the Elder and Spineless the Younger are really the same species? Oopsasaurous Hubris?
You lost me on this one...was it perhaps intended for a different thread?
I thought it was interesting and at least......well I just liked it! But I’ll keep it for recycling.
"But memory is just like binary code printed on a circuit board so there is no consciousness and we really don't understand, I mean really understand, what we are communicating because it's just instinct and instinct just is, it wasn't designed or anything.
(Semi-verbatim, brief conversation with a drunk, stoned and unattractive female Philosophy major.)
Exactly the opposite of the way things actually are.
Why am I not surprised?
.
You first out the door, by all means.
As I've said before, polyploidy negates your dark, ignorant, and incorrect theory of life.
Beep!
This is like the second or third time you have brought up polyploidy, so I would imagine you think it somehow salvages neo-Darwinism. If this is indeed the case, I welcome your explanation of the same. You could start by demonstrating how polyploidy supposedly “negates” the OP.
==Exactly the opposite of the way things actually are.
Could you please be specific. Thank you.
[typical evo with hands over ears yelling] LA LA LA I CAN’T HEAR YOU LA LA LA I CAN’T HEAR YOU LA LA LA I CAN’T HEAR YOU...
You forgot to ping me.
I thought God created life?
“Exactly the opposite of the way things actually are.”
Well, that seems clear enough. Which word would you like me to define?
If you actually read the articles you post, and frankly I would be amazed if you did, as it would require speed if not comprehension, then you might realize that this individual is arguing that life is evolving from complexity to simplicity.
Perhaps he has been influenced by “The Curious Case of Benjamin Button”, but the real world doesn’t work that way.
As has been offered to you, polyploidy is an instance in which primarily plant species double their chromosomes, affording themselves a kind of hybrid vigor. That would be extremely difficult to operate in reverse.
Something similar happens among animal species, when germline or gamete cell division allows some lines to have longer than normal chromosomal links. It also means that others get short shrift, but they usually die off quickly from lacking the necessary instructions and procedures.
It is the ones with extra material that become interesting, as they have a few more pages to work with for experimental purposes. It is through such a mechanism that I suggest certain simians gained additional retinal pigments which provided three-color vision, and for birds to have four-color vision.
Most mammals are limited to two pigments of light sensitivity. How you, or your predecessors, view the world can change the way you live in it, and color vision is a prime example of that.
Color vision allowed primates to find and select fruits in season, and gave them an advantage in an arboreal environment.
Of course, you’ve heard this before. My point is that it was the perhaps accidental doubling of a particular stretch of chromosomal information, passed down to offspring without harm for generations, and then subtly modified through serendipitous mutation, that allowed multiple pigment vision to thrive.
Your author has it twisted round an entirely different way, presuming that the majority of mammals had a more complete set of instructions that has somehow become corrupted in a way that benefits us because we end up with more information in our genome.
Forgive me for pointing it out, but that makes absolutely no sense.
Surely you must “see” that?
It makes sense to them because if it didn't, they would have no cult to belong to.
That all sounds well and good, but you have yet to provide a single empirical example of any of your mechanisms leading to macroevolution. Why don’t you pick one or more of them, and demonstrate how it/they effected a step-by-step macroevolutionary transformation. Or is that too much too ask from the evolution is a fact crowd?
There has been some excellent research performed at the University of Osaka in which they demonstrate that an arbitrary sequence can evolve towards acquiring functional role when fused with other pre-existing protein modules. At the risk of being characterized an atheist (which I am not), a heretic (which I am not), a worshiper at the Temple of Darwin (which I do not), or a jack booted evo (which I am not), I would recommend that the study be read: http://www.detectingdesign.com/PDF%20Files/Hayashi%20-%20phage%20evolution%20experiment.pdf
see post #29
Get over yourself, dude. If you have something to say, just say it.
You are much too old to refer to anyone as "dude" without looking as contrived as Harrison Ford's earring. In the meantime I will continue to contribute fact, logic, and a Catholic Intelligent Design perspective to the discussion.
PS If polyploidy is a major driver of evolution, and is so common among plants, then how come plants have remained largely unchanged after supposedly 58 million years?:
http://creationsafaris.com/crev200910.htm#20091030a
Catholic Ingelligent Design....now we’re getting somewhere! How does one identify intelligent causes in Catholic Intelligent Design?
Fine. Let us just stop there, then. I told you that your author had things backward, and you seem to have accepted it. It's good to see that you may have some learning potential after all.
"... but you have yet to provide a single empirical example of any of your mechanisms leading to macroevolution."
But you see, I do not need to do that. That would be a waste of my time as well as yours, and we both know it. You will not accept even the clear evidence of your own senses, so why would you accept anything I or anyone else would assert?
You must come to an understanding of the world on your own. We can offer guidance, but if you insist on walking around with blinkered eyes, how could we bring your attention to the truth?
Good night :o)
What do you mean by "largely unchanged"? One notable recent example is wheat. The University of Houston's College of Engineering has done extensive research into evolution of wheat. They have found that up to 10,000 years ago (circa 8000 BC) the ancestor of wheat more closely resembled a wild grass than the heavy grain-bearing plant we eat today. Then a mutation occurred in which this plant was crossed with another grass. The result was a fertile hybrid called emmer with edible seeds that blew in the wind and sowed themselves.
Then a second genetic mutation occurred sometime between 8000 and 6000 B.C. This mutation yielded something very close to our modern wheat, with its much plumper grain.
Same with corn.
Duuuuuuuddddde!
There are literally thousands of examples but that would require some to remove the scales from their eyes to see them......
Send an insulting e-mail, it worked so well here, “On the Myths about Charles Darwin”, right?
How about you show the empirical evidence in this article that supports a 6 day creation, and a 6,000 year old earth?
This is another case of GGG moving the goal posts. Had you provided a detailed step-by-step process flow he would have rejected it because it didn't include balanced chemical equations (that he wouldn't understand). You don't answer to him anyway. There are plenty of us on these threads who are interested in what you have to say. We might even disagree from time to time without being too disagreeable.
You really don't want to get into it on the news / activism thread without the Religion Mod to protect you. I might have to reveal what a vile, rude little "potty reference" you really are.
Thank you. I only bring to the threads what a lifetime of learning and observation have taught me.
Accordingly, for the requisite proof that GGG claims he wants, I am aware that nothing will suffice. I must content myself with pointing out his fallacies that fly in the face of common sense, and hope that at some point he will develop the intellectual honesty to admit it.
The world is a wonderful, unlimited diaspora of radiating creation. The spark of life that was initiated so long ago continues to dazzle and grow.
It seems petty somehow to try to muzzle that force for a narrow, bigoted purpose of corralling public opinion into a channel controlled by a few.
We can all independently marvel at the wonder of continuing creation without getting or requiring the approval of someone who only wants to tell us exactly where to sit so that he can have order as he passes around the collection plate.
If you can imagine a world in which the likes of C-Y-C, GGG, and ES have positions of real authority and influence you can appreciate what turned Charles Darwin against organized religion.
The sad thing is that the likes of C-Y-C, GGG, and ES failed to recognize that they equated themselves with God when they proclaimed that their rejections was a rejection of God.
Thanks for the ping!
I was led to this page by using Google, and your phrase, "step-by-step example of macroevolution", so it should by rights have information that we both would find interesting or fascinating by various degrees.
Note that the researchers consider the facts and evidence thoroughly, dispassionately, and without regard to the direction in which those facts seem to lead. What more could one ask in a search for truth?
Here is a passage of relevance to our discussion. I have bolded the portion which relates to my above description of chromosomes becoming longer. :
"... the common descent hypothesis would have been falsified if the universal phylogenetic trees determined from the independent molecular and morphological evidence did not match with statistical significance. Furthermore, we are now in a position to begin construction of phylogenetic trees based on other independent lines of data, such as chromosomal organization. In a very general sense, chromosome number and length and the chromosomal position of genes are all causally independent of both morphology and of sequence identity. Phylogenies constructed from these data should recapitulate the standard phylogenetic tree as well ..."Curiously, you may have had great confidence in the likelihood of my failing to find bolstering information for my hypothesis, but I found it surprisingly easy to do.
Perhaps you would be better advised to seek such information yourself before posting comments from individuals obviously no better qualified to comment on these matters than am I, and ones much more likely to be mistaken for having a biased viewpoint to begin with.
I don't think the author cares which one chooses.
In principle, we are still on Day Seven. Depends on how you 'read' the Bible. It mentions he rested. There is no day Eight.
When I pointed out wherein one of your self identified myths about Darwin was, in fact, wrong and I provided evidence of same, the only thing you could do is compare it to digging through trash and have your off-color comments pulled by the Mods. This on the “religion” forum mind.
Since the proper thing to do would have been to apologize to all you chose to send an insulting e-mail saying that somehow I was attempting to “stifle” discussion.
If being told you're wrong offends you, you're going to be offended often. Like now: I don't need any protection as I can and do defend myself quite well and don't need to hide behind e-mails.
Your comments are revealing of you not me.
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.