RE: When Atheists Can't Think Episode 1: No Evidence for God?
December 23, 2015 at 8:04 pm
(This post was last modified: December 23, 2015 at 8:16 pm by AAA.)
(December 23, 2015 at 7:42 pm)God of Mr. Hanky Wrote:(December 23, 2015 at 4:45 pm)AAA Wrote: Facts do apply. How about we just pick one fact and look at it. All organisms have some ability to organize their DNA. They have proteins that twist and tighten the DNA, which allows very long strands to fit into the cell neatly. This is necessary because long strands of DNA can impair cell functions if they get in the way. The ability to store DNA efficiently would only evolve if the DNA was getting too long for the cell to function. Unfortunately the only way to gain the ability to store DNA is to gain many proteins. These would all require hundreds of additional nucleotides to the genome. Adding new nucleotides would make the problem worse. This would get selected against immediately. You cannot evolve it, because it would make the problem worse unless it appeared in fully functional form. It fits perfectly with the the design theory.Nothing to see here other than an unintelligent and overcomplicated presumption. You really shouldn't have to work so hard to disprove what would make good sense if you understood it in favor of your own, which makes far less good sense...oh, wait!
You haven't even formulated an argument, you just go along with mainstream science, (which I DO understand), without ever questioning the serious flaws that it has. Name calling doesn't make your position more likely
(December 23, 2015 at 8:02 pm)Beccs Wrote:(December 23, 2015 at 7:53 pm)AAA Wrote:
Why is it vestigial until proven to have a function? It does have a function. I don't think that is really being debated by anyone but us. Yeah, we are getting to the point where we can alter the genomes of organisms, but they can only do so using what already exists as templates.
How do the flaws fit perfectly?
Why are we going round in circles on this discussion?
I've already given my answer above and think it's rather clear.
The flaws don't fit perfectly. If you think they do, ask all those who have nearly choked to death on various foods.
No you were the one saying the flaws fit perfectly in the evolutionary models.
Your scientific approach: all new structures have no function until we can PROVE what it is. They must be vestigial if we don't know what they do. Evolution of the gaps.
My approach: if it exists it probably has a function.
As for the throat problem, let me ask you a question. What evolved first, the esophagus/trachea settup that you hate so much, or the epiglottis, which covers the trachea during swallowing? If you ever didn't have the epiglottis, you would choke and die every time you swallowed. If you had an epiglottis with no lung/trachea settup, then you would be wasting resources by producing tissues and you would be selected against. Not to mention the fact that you could not breathe or eat.
