Posted on 09/11/2008 9:55:10 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
Sept 10, 2008 — Astrobiologist David Deamer believes that life can spontaneously emerge without design, but he thinks lay people are too uneducated to understand how this is possible, so he gives them the watered-down version of Darwin’s natural selection instead, which he knows is inadequate to explain the complexity of life. That’s what he seemed to be telling reporter Susan Mazur in an interview for the Scoop (New Zealand). Is the lay public really too dense for the deeper knowledge of how evolution works?...
(Excerpt) Read more at creationsafaris.com ...
“Your link declares that the animals were already in the Garden of Eden in Genesis 2. However, it ignores the Biblical passage that states that Adam was alone. Can’t get around that, I guess.”I think I know what your talking about.
Because you don't understand that the genome doesn't drive the organism, but the organism drives the genome.
http://www.nature.com/ng/journal/v33/n3s/full/ng1089.html
Why didn’t God realize that Adam needed a woman when he instead presented all the animals for Adam to try on as a help-meet?
Epigenetic changes is a ‘more or less’ or ‘on or off’ change.
Genetic changes change the actual protein being produced.
As I said before, every single protein in a chimp could be mutated into a fully functioning protein that is identical to a human protein.
So what again is the “barrier” to a 2% genetic change or 6% genomic change over a few million years of divergent ancestry if the DNA itself is mutable, and either permutation works fine for keeping the organism alive?
“Why didn’t God realize that Adam needed a woman when he instead presented all the animals for Adam to try on as a help-meet?”Uh, your distorting scripture.
How?
How?
LOL!
Hey, you think your smart.
You figure out how your distorting scripture.
It should make for good entertainment.
Hehe...
Some of us understand that the speed of light isn’t instantaneous. You may think that the speed of light is instantaneous, but the evidence is against you : )
You have to understand where coldwater was going with that.
Since, in one passage, the English translation was inadequate, he’d prefer to throw the whole bible out, or at least require that it not be published in English (like the Chicoms do),
instead of the more practical approach of “interpreting scripture with other scripture” and going to the original language text only when there’s a need to.
It’s about not being faced with an absolute moral truth that he knows he (and we know we) cannot live up to yet will be judged against.
Absolutely wrong. You didn't understand the article, did you? You do realize that the human proteome is 3x the size of the genome, don't you.
"As I said before, every single protein in a chimp could be mutated into a fully functioning protein that is identical to a human protein."
You are confusing proteins w/ genes. They are not the same thing, which is what the article was pointing out.
"So what again is the “barrier” to a 2% genetic change or 6% genomic change over a few million years of divergent ancestry if the DNA itself is mutable, and either permutation works fine for keeping the organism alive?"
DNA mutation is constrained. It is not random. You will never get a human from a chimp.
“Some of us understand that the speed of light isn’t instantaneous. You may think that the speed of light is instantaneous, but the evidence is against you : )”The speed of light (299,792,458 meters / second) isn't the issue.
Then what good do you suppose it is to accomplish?
“DNA mutation is constrained. It is not random. You will never get a human from a chimp. ” [excerpt]I'm starting to wonder about that.
Now you are saying the issue is MrJessies confusion over what a species is? LOL
Do you agree with MrJesse’s definition of kind? Or do you agree with MrJesse that everything is exactly where it appears to be, irregardless of the speed of light?
And what do you think determines the proteome if not the genome? You cannot make a protein without a gene to code for it.
Every GENE in a chimp could be mutated so that it forms a fully functioning protein that is identical to a human protein.
You have not yet said how you think DNA mutation is “constrained” nor do I hold out much hope of hearing a mechanism. SEEING AS IN HUNDREDS OF POSTS YOU STILL FAIL TO POINT OUT WHAT MECHANISM YOU THINK PULLS THE SUN AROUND A MOTIONLESS EARTH!
I'll quit wasting my time with you, even though you finally did see the truth of the matter that a bacteria increases its mutation rate in response to stress in order to better survive that stress. Baby steps. Baby steps.
“Or do you agree with MrJesse that everything is exactly where it appears to be, irregardless of the speed of light?” [excerpt]He never said that.[1]
“I don't know what alternate reality you're living in, I'm guessing superglue.” [2]
Where is your plain, clear statement of scripture? Just saying there is one doesn't make it so.
Scientists are supposed to be objective. That kind of denial of the plain and obvious truth is not. Anyone so biased that they let it interfere with their interpretation of plain and clearly stated material, has demonstrated a lack of objectivity that would call into question his judgment on any other matter, science included.
You are repeating yourself, so I will repeat myself. Where is your plain and obvious prophecy?
I find it amusing that some of the evos here are DEMANDING an absolutely literal reading of all Scripture and then when it’s given, as in fulfilled prophecy, they deny that it says what it says or that it’s even there.
Do you believe the Bible to be the literal word of God?
Equating reading of Scripture to sending someone to the Galapagos Islands is absurd. Perhaps you could compare it to having some one read Darwin’s works, instead. That would be a better analogy. Again, it’s an indication of lack of coherent, rational thought.
I think that you purposely misunderstood the analogy : ) Science doesn't rely on appeals to authority, if you disagree with science all you have to do is falsify the results or observations. If you disagree with Darwins observations go to the Galapagos Islands and prove him wrong. It would be easy, just take DNA samples and if the finches aren't related, Darwin is wrong. Easy : )
It’s along the lines of someone who claims to be a libertarian and yet thinks that what is needed is more accountability.
So you don't think that being accountable for your actions is the basis of a free society? A free society can only exist with honorable people. How about a quote from Reagan, ""We must reject the idea that every time a law's broken, society is guilty rather than the lawbreaker. It is time to restore the American precept that each individual is accountable for his actions."
If we subject identical bacteria colonies plated from the same original cell to UV cross linking radiation, why after several generations are they all different and not the same? Wouldn't the mutagen be non-random for each independent colony, thus every change would be identical in each plate?
Do you think God's power stops at the Casino door? Do you really think that “random” somehow means “not under God's control”?
Fichori why don’t you point out specifically what I said that you disagree with? This arguing through a proxy is pointless.
Since you cannot specify how I altered scripture, one must conclude that I did not alter scripture. Thanks.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.