DNA Proves Existence of a Designer

[T0 Th3 M4X]

Anyway, I never asked for an education on evolution.  I'm very aware of what it is considered. 

From what follows, you are clearly misinformed... so that's why I tried to educate you on such a general way... I have such bad memory!

I don't think that CDF's claim goes against scientific consensus.

The part of it being obviously created does go against scientific consensus, you know?

  Also, saying something "evolved" is a rather generic way to state something. 

It is indeed generic. But it doesn't make it any less true (to the best of science's ability).

IMO, it's more important to ask "how", because evolution as a process is limited to how we can refer to it as a "theory" since much of it isn't and is contrary to what is known as science. 

Care to substantiate this claim that evolution "is contrary to what is known as science."?

The processes claimed are often detrimental to organisms, and there are always problems with making jumps in information for organisms.  For example, saying it happened through mutations would go against what is known scientifically, because we know the likely result of a mutation is disadvantageous. 

Here's your problem.
Yes, there are disadvantageous mutations. But there are slight mutations (most we wouldn't even call them mutations, more like variations in the population) that are just slightly advantageous. Like being a bit taller, or having a neck that's a bit longer, just 1cm can be enough. And what happens when the trait is propagated through most of the population?

Have you ever seen the movie Idiocracy?
It represents what happens when people with a low IQ breed much more than those with a high IQ, leading to a population dominated by low IQ people. There was a genetic change in the population, based on an initial variation within the population.

Make such variations exist concurrently, produce differing advantages in different habitats, and spread out through hundreds of millennia, thousands of generations, and you can glimpse how species can differentiate. No need for those harmful mutations.
But, yes, there are also fortuitous mutations that confer exceptional breeding and survival abilities and which easily spread to a population in not so many generations.
The Modern Synthesis (that I linked to the wiki article on a few posts ago) details on several mechanisms that have been proposed to explain all the diversity that is observed in the timescales that appear in the fossil record.

Thinks like cancer occur because of cell mutation.  Additionally, when mutations add a new feature, it often isn't functional and will often get the organism killed.  Like having a fly grow a third wing.  It loses its efficiency in flying, and is more likely than not to die from its dysfunction or get picked off by a predator due to its inability to escape.

Isn't it amazing that no evolutionary biologist ever proposes such a thing as a viable mechanism?
They always harp on about "gradual change".

  Throw in that "positive" mutations would also need to develop in the reproductive system of male and female in most species, and simultaneously so that they can reproduce, because if not those new traits won't be passed down to offspring.  Even when we do see "evolution" happen, it's mostly speciation, and the genetic information is just being passed on, but not increased. 

I wonder, what is this thing you are calling "speciation"?

Also, a mutation that presents itself in the organism, the so-called phenotype, is included in that organism's DNA structure and, as such, will pass on if that organism reproduces. It will definitely pass on if the reproduction is asexual. If it's sexual reproduction, then there is a chance that the new trait will be regressive and not present itself on the offspring... like blue eyes in humans.

Sometimes this works, and sometimes this causes offspring to be sterile.   Like when you cross a horse and a donkey.  You end up with a mule, which most end up being infertile due to the differing chromosomal makeup between the horse and the donkey that birthed it.

Hybridization, while a potential mechanism for evolution, seems to mostly produce those sterile offspring you mention. That is why it's not a major avenue for evolutionary processes.

  So I can accept the bits and pieces of "evolution" that are true and observable, but the rest of it is nonsense.

So tell me what you see when you are faced with the fossil record. That's observable, although it requires a few more fields of science than just biology... some radiological background, which requires some physics and Quantum mechanics... oh... weren't you the one who also refuses to accept quantum mechanics?
You see why I pointed you to the super broad Nature journal? You have a serious problem with your background information.

So back to CDF, as I've stated I'm not siding with him or anyone else.  If someone has something, they can show it.  Let facts speak for themselves.

The fact seems to be that you are missing large chunks of information that would allow you to make more informed assessments. I'm sorry, but it is getting clear that you do need to learn quite a few things.

---

Honestly, I'm lost too at this point.  I think it was about 50 pages and 4 days ago.

hehe... thought so!
Let's start over with what I mentioned above.

Misinformed?  Nope sorry. Most mutations are disadvantageous.  To suggest that there were strings of advantageous mutations over millions/billions of years that led to an increase of complexity in information, primarily in the reproductive system is asinine.  Usually mutations are viewed as malignant or benign.  Your claim of neck lengths changing from mutations isn't even in the ballpark of being realistic.  If you go and make a baby, the you and the woman you have a child with are going to be the determining factor of the child's genetics.  There may be variations based on things like nutrition.  For example, muscle growth and bone development.  That is what we observe in the natural world.  In other words, if a baby looks like the mail man, and someone doesn't work for the post office, they're probably not the daddy.   But feel free to demonstrate "slight mutations" causing a positive genetic change that makes an organism more functional.  That, of course, means proving the genetic information before, that the original trait/function wasn't there in the male or female, and suddenly appeared in the offspring making its form advantageous to that of both parents.  If you even start with a single cell, we'll call it "A", it's only going to split into more As. Unless something is added, it will be a continuous chain of the same.  If you want A with B as a new function, it needs to get B somehow to be AB, of course without turning an A into a B and managing to kill itself.

Additionally, even "consensus" doesn't mean fact.  Back in the day, the consensus was that the earth was flat in orientation.  Was the consensus correct?  Either something is or isn't, and if something can't be observed in any way, shape, or form, then no reason to assume it is.

Actually there were scientists that proposed change that wasn't gradual, but I think it kinda faded out over time. I believe it was referred to as "punctuated equilibrium."  Of course that was also modified like pretty much all evolutionary claims.

Haven't watched the movie idiocracy.  IQ also isn't static and only partially involves genetics.  I could test my IQ, wait a week and do some study, and get a higher (or lower) score the following week.  It would have little or nothing to do with my genetics, but willing to try and raise my score.   It's nothing more than assessment based on a bell curve.  If you are within one standard deviation you are normal. Originally it was set at 100, so you wanted to be between 85-115.  Even over time that baseline has improved, so IQ tests are being developed differently.  Has nothing to do with evolution, but rather improving critical thinking skills.  I worked with the mentally retarded population for awhile, as it was also used for assessing function.  If you fall below two standard deviations, you end up with that classification.  Even then, I would swear some of my clients were "smart as a whip", because what they did know they applied well to get what they needed.

(Typing intermission - Dog was sitting behind me in chair, started to heave, so pushed his head over the side so he would miss me.  Now have to clean the floor

No problem with background information.  What I do have a problem with is trying to apply newly established information to add credibility to something that was already debunked.  Then you get someone saying "AH HA, see I was right all along."  To me that is idiotic.  If a statement/hypothesis was wrong, then decorating it with something else doesn't suddenly make it right.  Also, radiological information doesn't support evolution for multiple reasons.  First, it attempts to date formation of matter, not actual matter.  Assuming the conservation of mass has always been relevant, then all matter would be the same age.  However, when something is newly formed from that same pre-existing matter, we try to further assess when it was formed.  But the fact that is was newly formed into something else highlights the overall error is trying to use it to support evolution.  That same matter can be altered and repurposed, and if it can be now, then it could have been in the past.  As far as your question about me "accepting quantum mechanics" I'll say what I usually say.  I don't usually accept or decline things that are generic or broadly defined.  If I say "yep" then I subject myself to everything that might be wrong associated with it.  If I say "nope" then I get refuted on the basis on those things that are correct.  That's why I look at individual points, so I can assess them individually and decide my position.

As far as the bit about the blue eyes, did you mean "recessive."  If not, maybe clarify because I don't deal with genetics every day.  But if you did mean "recessive", then that's still preexisting genetic information.  Same as things like red hair.  You're still more likely to end up with brown hair or brown eyes because they are dominant, but that doesn't mean you will.

Lastly, what "large chunks" of info do you think I'm missing?  My statements are never meant to be exhaustive.  If they were, you would be reading books.  But you might find that tormenting, so this is about as much as you'll ever get.

---

EDIT: Nope. Quote thingy is still borked. Bugger

 1) "You both are making claims."

Okay. What are my claims? What are CDF47's claims?

 2) "Like I said, I'm not taking sides."

 You are, however, supporting CDF47 claims and not supporting any claims made by others.

3) " Just looking at what you are both saying and trying to make rhyme or reason as to the point of either."


 That's nice. I hope I'm being clear and concise.

 4)  "I don't favor him over you,  if that's what you're suggesting.  I favor what is understood.  If you provide it, then no reason to disagree."

 You didn't understand my thrown in vernacular but that's okay. I was complimenting you for supporting CDF47.

A) When someone says "Nothing can falsify it", then to me there are three reasonable approaches to it.


- You disagree and you falsify it if you feel you can
- You agree
- You disregard and ignore

 This shows you might have  a lack of understanding as to what 'Falsifying' means. I provided examples of falsification for evolution previously. I am simply asking CDF47 to offer something of the same, if possible, for his position.

B) If you just keep arguing about it, you'll just fuel it all the more.  As an onlooker, that's what I'm seeing.  Telling him he is wrong, but you keep nipping at it.

 Again, I am not telling CDF47 that he is wrong. I am asking him why he is right.

C) As a whole, it's not a theory anyway.  Just nuts calling it a theory to try to mask the holes in it.  Same as calling the "Big Bang" a theory, when they never found what they were looking for.  If it was a valid "theory" we wouldn't have multiple versions, and people arguing about whose current version is correct.  Now when you start to branch off those ideas, some of it is valid, because some of it is observed.

 I ask again for you to expand/elaborate on what you think 'Evolution' is.

1. As I stated about 5 or so posts ago.  I don't even remember at this point.  Much has gotten lost over the course of a few days, and I'm not about to dig through 50 pages to remind myself.

2. I didn't support his overall claim.  In fact, I know I stated that I don't say I support "I.D." as a concept, but I do adhere to the idea of creation.  I.D. includes a lot of conjecture from multiple perspectives, that may or may not be accurate depending on who is telling it.  So anything outside of what the Bible says, I don't go out of my way to tie my name into it.  Maybe it's true, maybe it isn't.  I wasn't there.

3. Sometimes you sound brilliant.  Sometimes you remind me of a goldfish floating upside-down in a bowl.  I prefer the former, but I take what I can get. (The goldfish was a bit of an exaggeration)

4. I don't not support either of you.  I hope you are both well, and if I had my way, you two would be the two brightest human beings in the universe.  But things are what they are and we all have to make due with what's in front of us.  As far as your duel with CDF47, you both seem to be trying to refute the other, but the responses are so open-ended that it's hard to make heads or tails of what either of you are doing.  That's why when you said something about 150 years, I questioned you on it.  Because the claim is so broad that you can't logically refute someone's claim with it.  It would require one to assume you had all this knowledge and were an authority.  Maybe you do?  Who knows.  But I tend not to blindly believe people because they "said so."  I want to know how they came to their conclusion so I can come to that same conclusion similarly.  Just let facts speak for themselves.  If it makes perfect sense, I can't argue with it and would have no intention of doing so. Therefore, I would agree.