(January 7, 2016 at 10:50 pm)Old Baby Wrote: I haven't read all 31 pages of this thread so someone else might have said this.

The "If God designed X, why is it screwed up?" argument posed to a Christian is going to be explained with the story of Adam's fall.

In the beginning, everything was perfect. Then, Adam ate the apple and suddenly we had thorns and weeds and back aches and eye problems and guys only living to be 500 instead of 1000.

Yeah, I think it's still a good argument as it shows the hypocrisy of certain approaches.

"Humans are so amazing and brilliant and wonderful, they must have been designed!"

"But they are shit. [Insert facts about human biology]"

"Yes! That's because of [insert scapegoat]."

"So if they're shit, they're not wonderful, so you defeated your own argument."

"Free will."

"What?"

"Look over there!" *runs off*

(January 6, 2016 at 10:05 pm)Simon Moon Wrote:

(January 6, 2016 at 7:43 pm)AAA Wrote: Why do you think you differ so drastically from the consensus of biologists?

They seem to have some pretty compelling (to say the least) natural explanations for biological diversity. And many of them are theists.

There is no consensus of biologists. The number of people who believe something does not make that belief correct. Revolutionary ideas are the ones that go against the "consensus" of the time.

That is true. But a near-consensus of scientists highly qualified in the relevant field on a scientific issue, coupled with a total lack of anyone being able to actually break the model, and copious evidence to back up the model, is about as good as you can get. I believe some 99% of those qualified support evolution. Those who are against it cannot support their position with counter evidence, or else it would no longer be a theory.

Evolution happening is a done deal. The Theory of Evolution can always be improved of course, to account for any new findings. But to just claim evolution doesn't happen is ridiculous.

And again, evolution being wrong does not equal "magic did it". Would you care to address that?

(January 6, 2016 at 10:14 pm)God of Mr. Hanky Wrote:

(January 6, 2016 at 6:30 pm)AAA Wrote: Molecules to man evolution is not fact. It isn't that hard to wrap your brain around, and the ID argument is not the argument that results from people not understanding the theory. If you want to believe in evolution, you have to have a natural way to increase the complexity of a living system over time. Studies show mutations to be harmful and degrade the genetic information. These mutations in our originally good genome are what cause these diseases that you are complaining about. There are cellular mechanisms (indicating design) that prevent mutations, but there is only so much it can do when the people in our society fill ourselves with mutagenic chemicals instead of the nutritious fruits and vegetables we were intended to eat. This suffering from diseases is almost entirely due to poor lifestyle or inherited mutations from ancestors with poor lifestyles. It is not the fault of the design or the designer.

Show us some factual evidence for such a claim, not the factive dumbfuck source from which that bullshit hatched!

HIDEY-HO!

Factual evidence of what? From fruit fly to crop experiments in which they allow many mutations to occur in hopes of leading to better organisms always lead to less functional organisms. Show me some factual evidence that mutation can lead to increased complexity. Evolution is a theory that requires vivid imagination to fill in the holes. It builds on presupposition after presupposition after presupposition. You have to assume the earlier world was very different than the world we know today as far as life goes. For someone who claims to be so dependent on facts, you place a lot of faith in a theory that requires a lot of speculation. When evolutionists get questions that they don't have the answer to they will say something like, well it could have been this, or it could have been that. They may be right, but they definitely stray pretty far from the evidence with their theory.

(January 6, 2016 at 10:15 pm)The Inquisition Wrote:

(January 6, 2016 at 7:43 pm)AAA Wrote: Molecules to man may be worded simply, but it isn't dishonest considering that materialists believe that molecules gradually combined to form either RNA or protein, which then increased in complexity via mutation and natural selection resulting in mankind.

Mutation does not increase complexity. Point mutations just change existing DNA leading to a decrease in function (which can be advantageous in certain environments, but it is still degrading the information). Gene duplication is the evolutionist way of explaining increasing complexity, but duplicated genes are silenced in the offspring, and because natural selection can only work on expressed phenotypes from the protein product of the gene, there is no way for a duplicated gene to eventually settle into a new function if it is not being expressed. The only point mutation that can actually add new nucleotides to the genome are insertion mutations, which are always harmful considering that they push each following codon back one nucleotide, which changes EVERY following amino acid in the protein.
Bacteria have the capability to acquire new genes from the environment or from conjugation, but the genes they acquire were already in existence and are not the result of mutation. I would suspect that this is the case with nylonase. I am skeptical of new digestive structures being produced through mutation. I could see existing structures altering, which is still well within the parameters of the variation I would expect based on how genes are regulated.

Biological information is the specific sequence of nucleotides that produce proteins capable of accomplishing a specific task. Functional sequences are rare, yet our genome's are full of them.

I am a biology major with a chem minor at my university and plan to get a PhD in molecular biology.

Really? There are no genes that a bacteria acquires that are mutated?

You're using terms like "complexity" loosely, define them before tossing them about in such a cavalier fashion.

I never said that bacterial genes don't mutate, I was saying that things like antibacterial resistance are due more to conjugation, transformation, transduction, and decreased membrane structure. Mutations are not what lead to antibacterial resistance.

I hope you aren't denying that life is complex. I would be impressed if you could find one person who knows about the structures and functions of cells that would deny that. If you must have a definition, then this is what I found on dictionary. com : the state or quality of being intricate or complicated.

I'd be interested if you could describe to us, in your own words, what evolution actually is.

(January 6, 2016 at 10:38 pm)God of Mr. Hanky Wrote:

(January 6, 2016 at 6:52 pm)Esquilax Wrote: Ohh, gosh, do I even want to do this? Okay, I hope I'm not wasting my time: "molecules to man evolution," is a simplistic, dishonest creationist ploy to strawman a complex interdependent set of topics that constitute real evolution, but I will say that common ancestry is the best possible conclusion we can reach based on the available evidence, and no amount of desperate twisting will change that.


That's called mutation, though apparently you knew this and have a terrible understanding of what mutation is, judging from what you've written here.


Firstly: what is "genetic information," and why is it relevant to biological evolution?

Secondly, not all mutations are harmful. Many are completely benign, or actively positive, and they'd have to be: humans have at least sixty mutations from the moment they're born. If you want some examples of positive mutations, assuming you're entering this discussion in good faith and actually want to learn, I would suggest looking up Nylonase, the new digestive structures that arose in Italian Wall Lizards, and tetrachromia in humans. All of them are directly beneficial mutations with no downside at all.


So, do you have, like, any education at all in biology, or are you just cribbing everything from creationist resources?

You know we aren't wasting time if we do this for the benefit of the non-troll observers.

Chances are this clown has a Ph.D. in Anti-Science, the esteemed art of destroying scientific progress in society through the muddling of known facts and the deliberate dissemination of misinformation. The effects of its practice in the US is so profoundly strong that I'm sure there must be a program for this specific field at some of the Liberal Arts colleges in this country.

As they once said proudly, having no idea what it would later mean, "Only in America!"

I am not trying to destroy scientific progress. Scientific advancements come from people who question the theories put forward using evidence. If we mock the person who critiques the scientific theory, then no one will ever critique a theory. Then science will truly come to a halt. By discouraging the discussion, you are preventing us from refining understanding and reaching a more correct conclusion. You are the one being anti-scientific.

(January 6, 2016 at 11:03 pm)God of Mr. Hanky Wrote:

(January 6, 2016 at 7:43 pm)AAA Wrote: Mutation does not increase complexity. Point mutations just change existing DNA leading to a decrease in function (which can be advantageous in certain environments, but it is still degrading the information). Gene duplication is the evolutionist way of explaining increasing complexity, but duplicated genes are silenced in the offspring, and because natural selection can only work on expressed phenotypes from the protein product of the gene, there is no way for a duplicated gene to eventually settle into a new function if it is not being expressed. The only point mutation that can actually add new nucleotides to the genome are insertion mutations, which are always harmful considering that they push each following codon back one nucleotide, which changes EVERY following amino acid in the protein.
Bacteria have the capability to acquire new genes from the environment or from conjugation, but the genes they acquire were already in existence and are not the result of mutation. I would suspect that this is the case with nylonase. I am skeptical of new digestive structures being produced through mutation. I could see existing structures altering, which is still well within the parameters of the variation I would expect based on how genes are regulated.

As one who has walked into at least one scientific field with the presumption that everything which exists owes its existence to a designing creator, why do you think your god would bother with any sort of automatic coding system at all, much less one which could only degrade and never, ever improve? Keep in mind that if said god is all-powerful and perfect then he is also tireless, therefore he really could design each individual with as much thought that went into the first. You'd better not try and chalk this up to that "curse of sin" nonsense, not if you want to play at science.

a-HIDEY-HO!!!

Why does God create a genome that can't improve? Well if He created one that was in need of improving, then you would be asking why didn't He make it better? Why bother with a coding system? because the fact that there is an intelligible system that we can observe allows us to conclude the designer's existence. If God designed each being individually, then there would be no observable coding system that demonstrates an intelligent creator. Why does the genome degrade? It has amazing capacities to maintain DNA's original structure. There are many enzymes whose purpose is to fix mistakes and mutations. It degrades when we stray from natural environmental conditions. We eat carcinogenic foods and don't exercise. Proper nutrition and physical activity increases the transcription of many enzymes and helps our cells to take care of their genome.

(January 6, 2016 at 11:38 pm)The Inquisition Wrote:

(January 6, 2016 at 10:46 pm)God of Mr. Hanky Wrote: Dafuq, I pegged you right - an anti-science major!

Now, let me guess which college. William Jessup? Oral Roberts? Bringham Young?

If he 's going to get a PhD in molecular biology while denying the fact of natural evolution, I'd be really interested in where he places the line between natural evolution that requires no deity and theistic evolution that requires a creator. Where is this dividing line? Be specific!

Your hero Michael Behe draws this line at chloroquine resistance of malaria, is this where you draw the line?

You want me to decide right now which parts of evolution occur and which do not? I don't have a completely coherent hypothesis or anything, but I would say that the genetic code is incapable of increasing in complex arrangements of nucleotides that lead to new functions. Therefore I would say that all the observable functions that are the result of proteins would have had to been programmed by an intelligent agent. This is just my thought so far. I can't be much more specific. But it is important to know that I don't have to propose a complete alternate to scientifically scrutinize an existing theory.

(January 7, 2016 at 6:01 am)robvalue Wrote: So...

Even if evolution is totally wrong, that leaves us with no explanation. Anyone vaguely scientific should know that this doesn't mean "It's magic! It was done by [insert your own pet superstition]". That is the argument from ignorance, and is obviously invalid since you can just insert anything you like. Unless you have evidence for your position, it's worthless. Attacking evolution does not have the effect some people seem to think it does; even if they present a convincing case, which they don't.

Unknown means unknown.

I have never said it was magic. There are features we can look for to detect design (people looking for extra terrestrial life recognize these features). The fact is that these features are present in cells and in the universe itself. The conclusion should then be that it was designed. Obviously, looks can be deceiving, and the appearance of design may just be an illusion. But until natural explanations can do a better job of describing their formation, I feel better from a scientific perspective of concluding design.

I think there are only two options for the complexity we see in life. Either it designed itself, or it was designed. If you can think of a third alternative, please let me know. It may seem like an oversimplification, but I think it accurately describes the two possibilities.