DNA Proves Existence of a Designer

[Rahn127]

Ev - Look up Ring Species. Prime example of Evolution

[Angrboda]

Everena: It did not magically pop into existence with all that we have here, itself. "Things" without intelligence do not do that. It never has happened, never will happen.

Were you there?

There's no need...we already have citations from real scientists™ in the thread..which you could address at any point, if you so chose.  You have decided, instead, to memory hole that.  

Everena:If they are real scientists, then they will tell you the exact same thing.

And the true Scotsmen just keep on coming.

[Gwaithmir]

What makes it no longer part of that species is that it cannot mate with the same species it was born to. Now if an animal were ever born anywhere on planet earth that could not mate with the species it was born to, I would also then be convinced. Evolution is an ongoing process, so we should be seeing this happen is some species on earth if it's really true. But not so far.....

Wrong!

Speciation of numerous plants, both angiosperms and ferns (such as hemp nettle, primrose, radish and cabbage, and various fern species) has been seen via hybridization and polyploidization since the early 20th century. Several speciation events in plants have been observed that did not involve hybridization or polyploidization (such as maize and S. malheurensis).

Some of the most studied organisms in all of genetics are the Drosophila species, which are commonly known as fruitflies. Many Drosophila speciation events have been extensively documented since the seventies. Speciation in Drosophila has occurred by spatial separation, by habitat specialization in the same location, by change in courtship behavior, by disruptive natural selection, and by bottlenecking populations (founder-flush experiments), among other mechanisms.

Several speciation events have also been seen in laboratory populations of houseflies, gall former flies, apple maggot flies, flour beetles, Nereis acuminata (a worm), mosquitoes, and various other insects. Green algae and bacteria have been classified as speciated due to change from unicellularity to multicellularity and due to morphological changes from short rods to long rods, all the result of selection pressures.

Speciation has also been observed in mammals. Six instances of speciation in house mice on Madeira within the past 500 years have been the consequence of only geographic isolation, genetic drift, and chromosomal fusions. A single chromosomal fusion is the sole major genomic difference between humans and chimps, and some of these Madeiran mice have survived nine fusions in the past 500 years (Britton-Davidian . 2000).

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/...peciations

[Foxaèr]

Everena: I refuse to accept that this is an unfair, unjust universe, that is true.  People with their own free will have chosen to intentionally hurt others knowing it was wrong. History is loaded with horrible behavior of humans. I determined my beliefs by considering that the concept of karma exists in every religion, and by observing my environment.
All around us people are doing kind and wonderful things. All around us people are joyous and celebrating. All around us people are doing horrifying, terrible things. All around us people are suffering and in pain.

Also, the Catholic priests and nuns and monks take a vow of celibacy after claiming to hear a "calling" And they preach against masturbation etc.
And we spay and neuter pets and put animals in cages. Just sayin'- And most importantly, it's the only thing that would make this a fair and just universe.

---

They are speculating the whole thing. That doesn't seem to bother you.

---

I am entitled to my own opinion. I am putting you on ignore for becoming angry at me for simply me expressing my own opinion. You should do the same thing to me, if someone having a different opinion than you do bothers you so much.

---

The field of Evolutionary Biology is only like 290 people, with most of them working under someone else. It's like a small company and none of them are trying to disprove evolution. They are all trying to make strides in genetics or newer theores. Evolution is considered settled science. They decided they were right and I'm still not saying that they are wrong. I'm saying only that there is one part of their proven theory that is not proven. One species turning into an entirely different species has only flimsy evidence and huge amounts of conjecture and speculation, I am not convinced. Maybe one day they will convince me. Don't let my personal skepticism bother you. I also think all religions are man made. I am a skeptic of everything pretty much. But I do know God exists beyond and all doubt and someday you will too.

---

 You have to experience these things yourself to really know how real and convincing it is. It took so so so much to convince me beyond any doubt. I could not believe I was even getting all this proof of God. I never thought I would because I always believed in God anyway. Now I no longer fear death and it is so freeing.

 One of the things we experienced together was this huge powerful good energy in the room, like nothing I have ever felt before or since. And he said, "Oh my God, what is that?" And I said " I don't know. It feels like God is right here with us" We were totally sober and it was mind blowing. And then we had another more personal experience togther that so overwhelming and spiritual, and amazing too. And in addtion to that I have had numerous unexplainable signs of God to the point that there is doubt left at all. There is no valid explanation or way to just write these things off. You don't know me, but i am skeptical of everything. 

 I strongly believe that everyone has these kinds of experiences, but just at different points in life.

---

Everena: There is no evidence to the contrary. None exists anywhere. There is ZERO evidence anywhere that disproves God, and if you think there is, you have been misinformed and need an education. I have a doctors appt to get to because I am ill right now. I'll be back on later to respond more. Hope you all are having an awesome day!    
  

---

I'm really not stating anything as fact other than that I know God exists and we do have eternal life. And I would not say that if I even had any doubt left what so ever. Aside from that, I have stated the logic that is used by people to determine there really is a God, since we can't see God. And then I have stated my own personal beliefs about karma and reincarnation and why I think so. 

As far as evol goes, it is really just my opinion. You can be convinced by it all you like. You shouldn't care that me and billions of other people aren't as convinced as you are.

---

Just because I live in a woo woo state, does not mean I am woo woo. The concept of Karma exists in every religion!

---

Except you dishonest troll, we were talking about GENETICS, now weren't were. 
The truth of a subject is in NO way dependent on the number in the field ... how many were doing "relativity" ? LMAO
It's hardly a small field. Post a reference NOW for how you got your 290 number. 



What a stupid idiot.

Everena: Genetics is not one species turning into an entirely different species. It's genetics. And I guessed at the number. There are actually 324 according to this article and some of those are probably dead now.   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:E...biologists

---

Everena: What makes it no longer part of that species is that it cannot mate with the same species it was born to. Now if an animal were ever born anywhere on planet earth that could not mate with the species it was born to, I would also then be convinced. Evolution is an ongoing process, so we should be seeing this happen is some species on earth if it's really true. But not so far..... And it was my understanding that other scientists had proven there was no ring series  https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com...g-species/

[Angrboda]

That's not a definition so much as it is an assertion of a paradigm case.  A variant of Ed Meese's comment about pornography that he "knows it" when he sees it.  In general it tells us nothing about what specification is, and as it is in effect trying to illuminate the general by reference to the specific, it can never in itself provide a working definition of what it means for information to be specified.  Citing paradigm cases offers us no clue as to how we should reason about non-paradigm cases on the basis of paradigm cases.  In particular, DNA is so unlike a Shakespearean sonnet that such a statement is as close to useless as you can possibly be.  And in particular, you don't actually have evidence that Shakespearean sonnets themselves are specified as it is possible that the sonnets were produced by an entirely random procedure.  Which of course was Dembski's first line of attack wherein he attempted to equate improbability with design.  Given the unfitness of probability as a criterion for design, he came up with the notion of specificity which he has never clearly defined, nor produced an actual application of its definition.  That you sit here with the chutzpah to suggest that you can show the meaning of specification in sufficient detail and rigor that it could be applied blindly without foreknowledge of the conclusion is nothing more than the sheerest folly of an incompetent and ignorant man.

The heart of the question is "characterized" in what way?  You haven't given us a specific definition of the specific way in which you are claiming sonnets and DNA are characterized.  That would require giving the characteristics which imply design, and those which do not.  You have not done so.

They are like a sonnet in that specific instructions are found in DNA to encode for proteins.  The information is functional.

Saying that they are specific as a way of defining what specific means is pointless. Define function without reference to teleology or else you're just reasoning in a circle. Function is an artifact of interpretation, it is not a self-standing characteristic of its own. I have a rock which functions as a doorstop. Nothing specific about it. Until you can explain how my rock functioning as a doorstop is different from DNA functioning to bring about lungs and wings and hearts and brains, then all you've got is a placeholder. For what it's worth, google tells me that function is defined as, "an activity or purpose natural to or intended for a person or thing." That behaving in the way chemicals do is natural to DNA does not distinguish it from the wind which does what it does because chemicals in the form of gases naturally do what they do. Using that as a definition is vacuous, as all things do the activities natural to them for they can do no other. Thus it does not serve as an acceptable demarcation. And talk about what something's purpose or someone's intention for something would be is not a property of the thing itself and so cannot serve as a characteristic distinguishing specified from non-specified things, as my rock-cum-doorstop readily shows. What definition of function did you think you were appealing to here?

[Everena]

You have to experience these things yourself to really know how real and convincing it is.

Having lived with psychotic delusions the bulk of my life, I'm quite familiar with how things can seem real and convincing, yet all the same be poorly and inadequately justified.  For an example from a different subject, people who live through NDEs report their experiences as being so clear and compelling, that some even say that they are more real to them than their ordinary experience.  Yet its known that starving the brain of oxygen and injecting someone with ketamine can also produce experiences that are more real than their ordinary experiences, which some even believe in spite of knowing the cause.  The phenomenological appearance of something is a poor indicator of its likely reflection of truth.  Do you not agree?  If so, what exactly are you resting your certainty upon aside from this?

You cannot possibly understand what someone else has experienced, nor can you decide why or how they experienced it. The signs I've gotten don't have any feasible explanation or I would not be so convinced. All life is made up of are our experiences and I am just so glad I know for sure now. (So ecstatically happy to have my own personal proof, I just can't even explain)  But,I don't expect you or anyone else to just take my word for it. I didn't take anyone else's word for it. I had to have these experiences myself to be fully convinced. And when you have real spiritual experiences (esp the shared/mutual ones) and you add it to tons of unexplainable signs, you then really do know it's true. And some day you really will, no matter how much you don't believe it now.

[Foxaèr]

You cannot possibly understand what someone else has experienced, nor can you decide why or how they experienced it.

It's called psychology/psychiatry, genius.

[Everena]

Denial of what? It is not proof on one species turning into an entirely different species. There is no observable evidence of it. You believe it on faith.

Wrong! I've given you the scientific study and citation. It  is irrefutable proof of speciation. You are ignorant and in denial. Grow up!

It could be adaption. And the ring series was proven to not exist... by others in evol bio    https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com...g-species/

---

Ok, give me a link that shows that one species turning into an entirely different species is used everyday (or even ever) in practice and I will then believe you.

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution
Part 1:
The Unique Universal Phylogenetic Tree
Copyright © 1999-2013 by Douglas Theobald, Ph.D

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/...ermediates

Everena: 29? Wow! Where are the billions of misssing ones?

[Foxaèr]

It could be adaption. And the ring series was proven to not exist... by others in evol bio    https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com...g-species/

Because wordpress is such a credible source.

[The Grand Nudger]

The contention that observed speciation could be "just adaptation" is vacuous.  Your beliefs are demonstrably false..but only because you insist upon them being as much.  QED, and good job there.

You could fix this. Why you're wedded to a notion that disproves your beliefs is a mystery that only you can solve.