Here is your creator!
How do you know for sure it wasn't Him?
Posted on 01/08/2008 7:28:22 PM PST by GodGunsGuts
It is now clear that genetics won’t be able to answer all of our questions about human development and disease. These basic biological processes rely heavily on epigenetics – the ability to ‘fine-tune’ the expression of specific genes.
This regulation of gene expression is essential for defining cellular identity and the dysregulation of these processes results in a variety of human diseases. Therefore, understanding these mechanisms will not only enhance our basic knowledge but will also lead to the improved detection, therapy and prognoses of several human diseases.
...
The histone code hypothesis predicts that the post-translational modifications of histones, alone or in combination, function to direct specific and distinct DNA-templated programs.
(Excerpt) Read more at histonecode.com ...
Just like the universe popping out of nowhere, for no reason, expanding faster than the speed of light to fill all known space in a trillion-trillionth of a second, organizing itself into complex structures, and establishing it’s own laws?
How silly of me.
Of course we should then expect incredibly complex genetic code to assemble itself.
Why not?
“So where’d the code come from if nobody wrote it?”
First, it’s not ‘code’ the way you and I understand a human-created code to be. If you think so, you’re anthropomorphizing it.
Second, there’s an entire branch of chemistry/physics which demonstrates the capability you questioned -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-organization
Some of the links on that page are worth following, such as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence
“==How could I forget. Using unwilling human subjects for human experimentation makes my blood boil.”
When it does boil, make sure you’re at a high altitude. The low air pressure means that your blood will at least boil at a lower temperature.
;)
LOL, as soon as I read your response, I thought “I’ll be some yahoo will try to make the “self-organisation” argument, and sure enough, in the very next post, GITP did just that. Sure. Like convection currents prove that stereospecific self-organisation happened. Next, please.
“LOL, as soon as I read your response, I thought “I’ll be some yahoo will try to make the “self-organisation” argument, and sure enough, in the very next post, GITP did just that. Sure. Like convection currents prove that stereospecific self-organisation happened. Next, please.”
When I posted it, I thought, well, some hayseed yay-hoo will dismiss it out of hand with a ridiculous comment, but maybe someone else with the capability to, will actually learn something from the exchange.
There are a lot of examples beyond convection currents - you didn’t disappoint me by picking that one though. I expected as much.
Actually, the more we know, the less we have to learn.
Would help ID, though...
Your inability to understand something is neither proof nor implication that something else does.
OK. Enlighten me. How does something as complex as DNA assemble itself?
The mental gymnastics and contortions one has to go through to deny the stunningly obvious is truly breathtaking.
Don’t the evos claim that faith is believing in something that is impossible in defiance of all the evidence. This would certainly qualify. What great faith the evos have.
The reason I picked that one is because it so easily demonstrates the ridiculousness of the whole premise. As far as dismissing self-organisation out of hand - not so. I dismiss it because it is unconvincing, science-wise. It is an example of “science by wishful thinking”. Somebody thinks self-organisation will surmount the grave problems with purely naturalistic origins, therefore that MUST be the answer to our scientific conundrum.
Actually, that really is true. Self-organisation is a good example of this. It is basically in the idea stage - what little evidence for it is so broad and open to interpretation that it would be foolish to base a claim to problem solving off of it - yet this is exactly what evos do. Grasping at straw, because the straw is painted grey and makes them think it is iron.
” I dismiss it because it is unconvincing, science-wise. “
Except in the lab and in nature, at various levels - from the molecular to the system.
LOL!
There is all kinds of precedent for order and complexity being a result of intelligence and design.
Somehow, somewhere, this concept came about that order and complexity could exist without intelligence behind it. Even randomness is not evidence of lack of intelligence or design because randomness can also have its source in intelligence, like be programmed into things like computer systems.
Perhaps some evo somewhere could offer a convincing explanation of how this mindset came into being; that is, that order and complexity can exist without intelligence behind it, and that randomness is evidence of naturalistic (read: non-intelligent/random) causes.
When all else fails, post cartoons. If that’s the best evos can do, it’s no wonder people don’t buy into their theories.
“When all else fails, post cartoons. If that’s the best evos can do, it’s no wonder people don’t buy into their theories.”
I posted a link to some articles about science.
You didn’t understand, respond to, or likely even read them.
How about a rebuttal to what I posted previously?
I posted the cartoon because it represents what you folks think the earth was like, but with a silly twist.
Can you tell my why human and dinosaur bones aren’t found co-mingled?
I don't know metmom, I was, frankly, confounded by GITP's astonishingly cogent and well-reasoned arguments in posts #54 and #55. I'm thinking that I might have to give evolutionism a second look....
/sarc, of course
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.