RE: Intelligent Design
January 6, 2016 at 11:38 pm
(This post was last modified: January 6, 2016 at 11:41 pm by The Inquisition.)
(January 6, 2016 at 10:46 pm)God of Mr. Hanky 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.
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?
Using the supernatural to explain events in your life is a failure of the intellect to comprehend the world around you. -The Inquisition