DNA Proves Existence of a Designer

[Paleophyte]

A world-famous chemist tells the truth: there’s no scientist alive today who understands macroevolution

Website lies! Chemist who admits he has no idea how evolution works says no such thing!

Although he does not regard himself as an Intelligent Design theorist, Professor Tour, along with over 700 other scientists

How many Steves do you have?

[Everena]

What he is saying is that one species turning into an entirely different species has not been proven and does not even seem possible. So he challenged any scientist with an understanding of it, to come explain to him how it could ever possibly happen at the molecular level. No one has ever been able to.

"But about seven or eight years ago I posted on my Web site that I don’t understand. And I said, “I will buy lunch for anyone that will sit with me and explain to me evolution, and I won’t argue with you until I don’t understand something – I will ask you to clarify. But you can’t wave by and say, “This enzyme does that.” You’ve got to get down in the details of where molecules are built, for me. Nobody has come forward.

[size=undefined]The Atheist Society contacted me. They said that they will buy the lunch, and they challenged the Atheist Society, “Go down to Houston and have lunch with this guy, and talk to him.” Nobody has come! Now remember, because I’m just going to ask, when I stop understanding what you’re talking about, I will ask. So I sincerely want to know. I would like to believe it. But I just can’t.
[/size]
[size=undefined]Now, I understand microevolution, I really do. We do this all the time in the lab. I understand this. But when you have speciation changes, when you have organs changing, when you have to have concerted lines of evolution, all happening in the same place and time – not just one line – concerted lines, all at the same place, all in the same environment … this is very hard to fathom."
[/size]

So, his objections are based upon personal incredulity and nothing more. You have no case.

It is his opinion as a molecular chemist that macroevolution is not plausible. That is all.

[Paleophyte]

Nope it just fine the way it is and will continue long after the Fad of ID dies

ID is no fad.  They are entering into a new phase of ID where they experiment and test their hypotheses.

"The overwhelming evidence at trial established that ID is a religious view, a mere re-labeling of creationism, and not a scientific theory."

Judge John E. Jones III, Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District (2005)

[Everena]

A world-famous chemist tells the truth: there’s no scientist alive today who understands macroevolution

Website lies! Chemist who admits he has no idea how evolution works says no such thing!

Although he does not regard himself as an Intelligent Design theorist, Professor Tour, along with over 700 other scientists

How many Steves do you have?

You're favorite theory is being disproven piece by piece and bit by bit. Live with it.

[Paleophyte]

Listening to Everena carry on about evolution is like listening to somebody who can't tell apogee from perigee explain how we couldn't possibly have gone to the Moon. From "fungi are plants" and "all animals have consciousness" to biologists are stupid if they don't classify organisms according to her ill-formed opinions and their location in the grocery store. Everena is most coherent when using the copy-N-paste function from whichever website she has wandered into today.

[The Valkyrie]

Listening to Everena carry on about evolution is like listening to somebody who can't tell apogee from perigee explain how we couldn't possibly have gone to the Moon. From "fungi are plants" and "all animals have consciousness" to biologists are stupid if they don't classify organisms according to her ill-formed opinions and their location in the grocery store. Everena is most coherent when using the copy-N-paste function from whichever website she has wandered into today.

Standard creationist ploy.

[Paleophyte]

You're favorite theory is being disproven piece by piece and bit by bit. Live with it.

Somebody overturned General Relativity while I wasn't looking?

Tell me, how many universities teach ID outside of there theology program? Biola?

[Everena]

How many Steves do you have?

How many Steve's do I have? Hmmmm.      

So what is your take on these recent findings?


And who would have thought to trawl through five million of these gene snapshots—called "DNA barcodes"—collected from 100,000 animal species by hundreds of researchers around the world and deposited in the US government-run GenBank database?
That would be Mark Stoeckle from The Rockefeller University in New York and David Thaler at the University of Basel in Switzerland, who together published findings last week sure to jostle, if not overturn, more than one settled idea about how evolution unfolds.

It is textbook biology, for example, that species with large, far-flung populations—think ants, rats, humans—will become more genetically diverse over time.

But is that true?
"The answer is no," said Stoeckle, lead author of the study, published in the journal Human Evolution.
For the planet's 7.6 billion people, 500 million house sparrows, or 100,000 sandpipers, genetic diversity "is about the same," he told AFP.

The study's most startling result, perhaps, is that nine out of 10 species on Earth today, including humans, came into being 100,000 to 200,000 years ago.
"This conclusion is very surprising, and I fought against it as hard as I could," Thaler told AFP.
That reaction is understandable: How does one explain the fact that 90 percent of animal life, genetically speaking, is roughly the same age?
Was there some catastrophic event 200,000 years ago that nearly wiped the slate clean
To understand the answer, one has to understand DNA barcoding. Animals have two kinds of DNA.
The one we are most familiar with, nuclear DNA, is passed down in most animals by male and female parents and contains the genetic blueprint for each individual.
The genome—made up of DNA—is constructed with four types of molecules arranged in pairs. In humans, there are three billion of these pairs, grouped into about 20,000 genes.
But all animals also have DNA in their mitochondria, which are the tiny structures inside each cell that convert energy from food into a form that cells can use.
Mitochondria contain 37 genes, and one of them, known as COI, is used to do DNA barcoding.
Unlike the genes in nuclear DNA, which can differ greatly from species to species, all animals have the same set of mitochondrial DNA, providing a common basis for comparison.
Mitochondrial DNA is also a lot simpler, and cheaper, to isolate.
Around 2002, Canadian molecular biologist Paul Hebert—who coined the term "DNA barcode"—figured out a way to identify species by analysing the COI gene.

"The mitochondrial sequence has proved perfect for this all-animal approach because it has just the right balance of two conflicting properties," said Thaler.

In analysing the barcodes across 100,000 species, the researchers found a telltale sign showing that almost all the animals emerged about the same time as humans.

How similar or not these "neutral" mutations are to each other is like tree rings—they reveal the approximate age of a species.


Which brings us back to our question: why did the overwhelming majority of species in existence today emerge at about the same time?


And yet—another unexpected finding from the study—species have very clear genetic boundaries, and there's nothing much in between.

"If individuals are stars, then species are galaxies," said Thaler. "They are compact clusters in the vastness of empty sequence space."


The absence of "in-between" species is something that also perplexed Darwin, he said.


From the Scientific Journal Human Evolution:

https://phe.rockefeller.edu/docs/Stoeckl...0final.pdf


News:
https://phys.org/news/2018-05-gene-surve...ution.html

https://www.news.com.au/technology/scien...50bd7bd7f0

https://evolutionnews.org/2018/06/humans...-same-age/

[Bucky Ball]

It is his opinion as a molecular chemist that macroevolution is not plausible. That is all.

Why not actually talk to an Evolutionary Biologist who works in the field ? Afraid of what you'd hear ?
Argumentum ad vericundiam fallacy.
That IS all you got, and it's not enough, Snookums.
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/libra...cat05.html

[Everena]

Listening to Everena carry on about evolution is like listening to somebody who can't tell apogee from perigee explain how we couldn't possibly have gone to the Moon. From "fungi are plants" and "all animals have consciousness" to biologists are stupid if they don't classify organisms according to her ill-formed opinions and their location in the grocery store. Everena is most coherent when using the copy-N-paste function from whichever website she has wandered into today.

Standard creationist ploy.

I did not say all animals have consciousness you liar. I did say fungi are just plants and should be classified as plants.

And you don't seem smart at all to me either. But then, no one who would willfully choose atheism does. And you have not been able to effectively argue any of my points of logic and those are totally my own. Go ahead and try and let's see how smart you are.



This entire universe and everything in it is evidence of higher intelligence. And science does not even attempt to answer any of the whys of our existence. Like, why do we exist at all? Why does anything exist at all? Why do we have conscious self-awareness? 
Science only attempts to discover and understand how an already existing and operating universe works. 

And food is evidence of God. Why do we have food for every fish, bird, insect, ... food for the approx 8.7  million different species of conscious life? Something like food being here, and being delicious and providing energy and nutrients cannot just be written off to chance or luck. And then there are medicinal plants and herbs as well. 

And it is impossible for the complex code of DNA to have just created itself from nothing with no intelligence. If you think it is possible, then explain how that kind of complexity could ever possibly come to be without a driving force of intelligence. 

Recently, scientists discovered a second language written on top of the original language that is responsible for controlling our genes. Who knows what they will discover next? 
https://www.washington.edu/news/2013/12/...etic-code/

Additonally, why would we even have a sex drive or a will to live? Just because of nothing and for no reason? How would nothingness care if our species survived? 

Also, we have discovered approx 200 billion different galaxies. Do you really think humans are the highest form of intelligence in 200 billion galaxies? How would that even make sense?

And what about all the vast materials and resources we have on this planet like: fire, electricity, metals, coal, cotton, lye, latex to make rubber, glass etc etc. That would not just all be here by sheer luck or chance either.

And, what you are doing by claiming atheism is paramount to saying that big rock in your front yard created a universe. Not possible.