You hold advanced degrees in genetics then? I mean, since you seem pretty confident you have the expertise to examine and evaluate the complexities of DNA, that is.

(March 21, 2016 at 5:48 pm)AJW333 Wrote: I don't know if you saw my wristwatch analogy ...

An inanimate wristwatch has nothing in common with living DNA. Wrong ballpark, false analogy, does not work!

(March 21, 2016 at 12:36 pm)Esquilax Wrote: Except that the eye didn't pop out of nowhere, fully formed, in a single step, nor did it evolve each individual part of a modern eye like building a model kit of a single designed end result, as though coming together to form a modern eye. Rather, isolated and simple mutations coalesced into its current form:

So we are agreed that the development of the eye is dependent upon mutations of the DNA. When we look at the complexities of such mutations and the chances that they would end up producing thousands of precise proteins, the numbers are just too outlandish to be taken seriously. Bear in mind that the body makes over 100,000 different proteins, each of which requires complex code to produce it. Even if the mutations required to create these DNA sequences are slow and gradual, it doesn't change the odds against ending up with a usable protein.

(March 21, 2016 at 12:36 pm)Esquilax Wrote: . It actually started out as just a light sensitive patch of cells on the "skin" of an organism: Here, you can check it out, if you want. Not that you will, since it disagrees with what you want to be true, but still...  

Read it already   but feel free to put up references and I will read them.

(March 21, 2016 at 12:36 pm)Esquilax Wrote: So, not only is your whole conception of the situation so comically misrepresentative that it's laughable, but you also mention useless mutations, as though the fact that they're useless would preclude them from happening at all, which is yet another area that I wish you'd bothered to look up before you opened your mouth: useless mutations persist in populations all the time simply because they aren't fatal to the organisms enough to be selected out. It's why humans have wisdom teeth still.

Yes I understand this, but you are missing the point. Lets say it takes hundreds of specialized proteins to construct the anterior chamber of the eye. What good is this if you don't have the fluid to fill it? Your model says "it doesn't matter, the chamber can sit there for a few million years until the DNA mutates enough to produce the 676 proteins required to make the aqueous humor." And so it goes on and on until all of the necessary parts of the eye have finally formed. Again, I would say that the odds of this happening are impossibly low.

(March 21, 2016 at 12:36 pm)Esquilax Wrote: So, just to be clear: you're... ignoring my response to your Hemoglobin claim, which is equally applicable to your claims about the eye, and just pretending that it never happened? You're going to persist with this, despite having already been debunked almost as soon as you made the claim?

I missed this post but I have gone back and read it now. I don't think you debunked it. If Hemoglobin was derived from an earlier, simpler compound, you would still have to change the DNA coding to change the amino acid sequences and this would require mutations of the DNA code.  

(March 21, 2016 at 12:36 pm)Esquilax Wrote:

Quote:So what is the statistical probability that random mutations of the DNA would end up coding for the 676 proteins found in the aqueous humor?

Why do you still insist that this is the process exclusively described by evolution, despite being corrected on this at least three times by now, just by me alone? Are you ignoring my responses, or just haven't you read them? Are you lying, or ignorant?

Hopefully neither. Natural selection still relies on changes to the genetic code via mutations;

"Natural selection is the differential survival and reproduction of individuals due to differences in phenotype.[1] It is a key mechanism of evolution, the change in heritable traits of a population over time.[2] The term "natural selection" was popularised by Charles Darwin who compared it with artificial selection, now usually referred to as selective breeding.

Variation exists within all populations of organisms. This occurs partly because random mutations arise in the genome of an individual organism, and these mutations can be passed to offspring. Throughout the individuals’ lives, their genomes interact with their environments to cause variations in traits. (The environment of a genome includes the molecular biology in the cell, other cells, other individuals, populations, species, as well as the abiotic environment.) Individuals with certain variants of the trait may survive and reproduce more than individuals with other, less successful, variants. Therefore, the population evolves." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection  Emphasis mine.

(March 21, 2016 at 12:36 pm)Esquilax Wrote: And now that we've reached the end of yet another comprehensive refutation that you'll no doubt ignore, I'll ask my favorite question that you seem desperate to avoid: do you have any positive evidence for your god?

Sure. The evidence of design.

(March 21, 2016 at 12:36 pm)Esquilax Wrote: In fact, do you even know what positive evidence is? Because I asked you for some regarding design, and when you finally deigned to respond your "evidence" was "this is so unlikely under evolution," which is, to those paying attention at home, negative evidence.

I didn't say that evidence of design was because evolution was unlikely, I said that it was mathematically impossible. So if we see incredibly complex, integrated systems that could not have evolved, there is only one other alternative - there is design, and if there is design then there must be a designer.

(March 21, 2016 at 9:52 pm)AJW333 Wrote:

(March 21, 2016 at 12:36 pm)Esquilax Wrote: Except that the eye didn't pop out of nowhere, fully formed, in a single step, nor did it evolve each individual part of a modern eye like building a model kit of a single designed end result, as though coming together to form a modern eye. Rather, isolated and simple mutations coalesced into its current form:

So we are agreed that the development of the eye is dependent upon mutations of the DNA. When we look at the complexities of such mutations and the chances that they would end up producing thousands of precise proteins, the numbers are just too outlandish to be taken seriously. Bear in mind that the body makes over 100,000 different proteins, each of which requires complex code to produce it. Even if the mutations required to create these DNA sequences are slow and gradual, it doesn't change the odds against ending up with a usable protein.

(March 21, 2016 at 12:36 pm)Esquilax Wrote: . It actually started out as just a light sensitive patch of cells on the "skin" of an organism: Here, you can check it out, if you want. Not that you will, since it disagrees with what you want to be true, but still...  

Read it already   but feel free to put up references and I will read them.

(March 21, 2016 at 12:36 pm)Esquilax Wrote: So, not only is your whole conception of the situation so comically misrepresentative that it's laughable, but you also mention useless mutations, as though the fact that they're useless would preclude them from happening at all, which is yet another area that I wish you'd bothered to look up before you opened your mouth: useless mutations persist in populations all the time simply because they aren't fatal to the organisms enough to be selected out. It's why humans have wisdom teeth still.

Yes I understand this, but you are missing the point. Lets say it takes hundreds of specialized proteins to construct the anterior chamber of the eye. What good is this if you don't have the fluid to fill it? Your model says "it doesn't matter, the chamber can sit there for a few million years until the DNA mutates enough to produce the 676 proteins required to make the aqueous humor." And so it goes on and on until all of the necessary parts of the eye have finally formed. Again, I would say that the odds of this happening are impossibly low.

(March 21, 2016 at 12:36 pm)Esquilax Wrote: So, just to be clear: you're... ignoring my response to your Hemoglobin claim, which is equally applicable to your claims about the eye, and just pretending that it never happened? You're going to persist with this, despite having already been debunked almost as soon as you made the claim?

I missed this post but I have gone back and read it now. I don't think you debunked it. If Hemoglobin was derived from an earlier, simpler compound, you would still have to change the DNA coding to change the amino acid sequences and this would require mutations of the DNA code.  

(March 21, 2016 at 12:36 pm)Esquilax Wrote: Why do you still insist that this is the process exclusively described by evolution, despite being corrected on this at least three times by now, just by me alone? Are you ignoring my responses, or just haven't you read them? Are you lying, or ignorant?

Hopefully neither. Natural selection still relies on changes to the genetic code via mutations;

"Natural selection is the differential survival and reproduction of individuals due to differences in phenotype.[1] It is a key mechanism of evolution, the change in heritable traits of a population over time.[2] The term "natural selection" was popularised by Charles Darwin who compared it with artificial selection, now usually referred to as selective breeding.

Variation exists within all populations of organisms. This occurs partly because random mutations arise in the genome of an individual organism, and these mutations can be passed to offspring. Throughout the individuals’ lives, their genomes interact with their environments to cause variations in traits. (The environment of a genome includes the molecular biology in the cell, other cells, other individuals, populations, species, as well as the abiotic environment.) Individuals with certain variants of the trait may survive and reproduce more than individuals with other, less successful, variants. Therefore, the population evolves." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection  Emphasis mine.

(March 21, 2016 at 12:36 pm)Esquilax Wrote: And now that we've reached the end of yet another comprehensive refutation that you'll no doubt ignore, I'll ask my favorite question that you seem desperate to avoid: do you have any positive evidence for your god?

Sure. The evidence of design.

(March 21, 2016 at 12:36 pm)Esquilax Wrote: In fact, do you even know what positive evidence is? Because I asked you for some regarding design, and when you finally deigned to respond your "evidence" was "this is so unlikely under evolution," which is, to those paying attention at home, negative evidence.

I didn't say that evidence of design was because evolution was unlikely, I said that it was mathematically impossible. So if we see incredibly complex, integrated systems that could not have evolved, there is only one other alternative - there is design, and if there is design then there must be a designer.

So...define your designer.

And the answer god is not a proper response to that request.

(March 21, 2016 at 9:57 pm)Kitan Wrote: And the answer god is not a proper response to that request.

Yes, exactly. I want specifics.

(March 21, 2016 at 9:58 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote:

(March 21, 2016 at 9:57 pm)Kitan Wrote: And the answer god is not a proper response to that request.

Yes, exactly.  I want specifics.

Almighty God!

ha!

Silly girl, one adjective does not change reality.

(March 21, 2016 at 10:01 pm)Kitan Wrote: Silly girl, one adjective does not change reality.

I know, I was anticipating a potential "answer".

(March 21, 2016 at 10:13 pm)The Valkyrie Wrote:

(March 21, 2016 at 10:01 pm)Kitan Wrote: Silly girl, one adjective does not change reality.

I know, I was anticipating a potential "answer".

Lol, you know, it was that designer who designed every living thing, and then manufactured the illusion of evolution! Ya know...to throw us off. ? Duuuuh! [emoji12]