Posted on 02/15/2003 4:18:25 PM PST by PatrickHenry
Are you trying to prove yourself incapable to hold a conversation? Because unless I misunderstand you, you have succeeded admirably. Mercury's orbit deviates in a way not allowed by Newton's theory of gravity. This observation proved Newton wrong.
The argument from information theory is not based on simply finding flaws with evolution, but on demonstrating that evolution is inconsistent with information theory.
Perhaps you are misapplying information theory. Please define "information."
It is also possible to prove a theory incorrect by contraindicating experimental evidence. In fact, it is generally accepted that this is a requirement of any theory: falsifiability. This is one of the major valid criticisms of evolution. You cannot prove a theory without supporting experimental evidence. It is not sufficient to simply observe.
Every single fossil is a potential falsification of evolution. I covered this in my last post. I provided a specific observation that would falsify evolution. You even quoted me in your response. Then you forge right ahead with this "evolution is not falsifiable" nonsense. Why is that? While you're at it, what observation would falsify the Intelligent Design hypothesis?
Really? It took me 37 seconds to find it. Next time, try whining as your SECOND step.
They then do some sort of statistical analysis (presumably along the lines of determining how fast the presumed duplicated gene evolved into a useful form - but who knows?) which the synopsis doesn't specify but the claim is made that the analysis is evidence of positive selection.
And you accuse ME of not reading the article carefully? Based on your performance so far I have grave reservations about your ability to understand the analysis methodology even if you did have access to it. But let's look at the actual passages from the original thread. I have emphasized the relevant portions. Pay attention, this is likely new information to you:
Then further down, this point is reiterated:
Now what were you babbling about, again?
Repeatedly invited to make a case of your own, you have declined. Makes it look pretty empty when you simply substitute "evolution" for "creation" to turn my earlier statement around:
There is no evolution science. There is no abiogenesis science. There is no content. You can't beat something with nothing.I've got all the science there is. You've got "That's all conjectural!"
BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHA!
Allow me to note that you have yet to make a point here.
So what exactly is ID trying to discover, and what lines of research would you suggest to achieve these discoveries? What kind of experiments would you like to see done?
I will repost a short analogy that will let you know what our position is.
(Two men become stranded on a remote island. As they explore the island they come upon a sandcastle with towers, buttresses and a drawbridge. The design of the castle is amazingly intricate.
One man comments, "It is amazing what time and the ocean can create. The small rocks and seashells on the shore must have got caught in eddies and swirled around and chiseled out that castle. There were a few palm leaves floating by to scribed out the little lines that look like bricks. We are alone and there is no need to consider anything else."
The other man looked at him incredulously and said, "No, that castle was engineered by another intelligent being, we are not alone.")
If you consider a spider, it has oil glands in its legs that enable it to navigate its sticky web. The web is sticky which enables other bugs to become trapped in the web. It becomes a stretch to think that a spider developed oil glands for another purpose first, and then it developed stickiness to its web. Or vice versa.
There are so many of these types of these "fine-tuned developments" that when one considers the mathematical probabilities of all of the biological "just so happens" it becomes absurd.
In short, we believe the evidence already gathered absolutely points to a Creator. As in the above analogy, the atheist strains to take the available possibilities to support his position.
But the intricacy of the design makes the atheists efforts countless. Therefore we are completely confident that any discoveries, by whoever feels compelled to do the research, can only further convince people that there is a God. Only the truly stubborn have and will continue to strive and stretch the evidence to explain away the Creator.
Thank you for your interest. Hope this helps. I am also curious what you think might refute this.
Written in response to you whining about not having access to the original paper. I found the original paper in 37 seconds. I provided you with a link.
Written in response to your twice-posted misinterpretation of the mention of statistical analysis to determine whether selection or neutral drift influenced modification of a duplicate gene in the leaf-eating monkey article. I included the actual passages and a link for verification.
Also posted in response to your complaints and mischaracterization about the aforementioned statistical analysis.
In the meantime, you seem to have skipped over the substance. To wit:
Why did you quote and then ignore a method to falsify the theory of evolution?
Define information.
What observation would falsify the Intelligent Design hypothesis?
What is the relationship between genes and the proteins they encode?
Support your statement to the effect that scientific theories do not attempt to rule out specific observations.
In short, we believe the evidence already gathered absolutely points to a Creator. As in the above analogy, the atheist strains to take the available possibilities to support his position.
The trend is most definitely against you. Over the past few thousand years, the "evidence already gathered" started out being very sparse, and it left all kinds of unexplained phenomena -- disease, fertility, lightning, the tides, the motion of the planets, etc. As time goes by, and as curious people seek to understand nature, something funny happens. One by one, the ancient mysteries have yielded to rational investigation. The process isn't complete, and there are still unsolved problems, which may in due course yield to rational investigation.
But the intricacy of the design makes the atheists efforts countless. Therefore we are completely confident that any discoveries, by whoever feels compelled to do the research, can only further convince people that there is a God.
A few problems here. First, you assume that all curious people are athiests. As has been pointed out quite often, many scientists are Christians. Second, the "intricacy of the design" is not an insurmountable problem. Consider the staggering problems already solved -- the process that powers the sun, the distance to the stars, the motions of the planets, the composition of matter, etc. Admit it, those were difficult problems. There is absolutely no reason for you to declare that the problems which stump you today will be unsolvable for all time. Finally, if some problems turn out to be very difficult indeed, that still doesn't prove your case.
Only the truly stubborn have and will continue to strive and stretch the evidence to explain away the Creator.
You mean, only the curious will continue to try to understand nature. It has always been thus. Perhaps it's God's will.
I see you have been instructed to do some homework this might help
Exactly right. Many of us believe in God, as a matter of faith, and also believe that the weight of the scientific evidence supports evolution. Many (no, not all, but a lot of the anti-evolution people who post on these threads) seem to reject evolution less because of the scientific evidence than because they are afraid that it undermines faith in God. Such people are, IMHO, misguided (as are, IMHO, those who trumpet evolution as a way to reject God).
Do you suppose that this could be in significant part, a result of observing the predominant attitudes and purposes of the most vocal evolutionists?
Darwin was quite unaware of the sophisticated coding that is embedded in DNA. He was also unaware of the magnificance of the living cell, as our modern technology enables us to know.
Not to belabor the point:
Recent research into the structure and workings of genes and DNA has revealed incredible evidence of God's wonderful design. Dr. Jerry Bergman, professor of science at Northwest College, Archibold (Ohio) We have excerpted portions of his report for this article.
Cell Replication
The details of cell replication are too complex to be described in detail here. A simplified outline is given below to illustrate the incredible process involved:
1. Replication involves the synthesis of an exact copy of the cell's DNA.
2. An initiator protein must locate the correct place in the strand to begin copying.
3. The initiator protein guides an "unzipper" protein (helicase) to separate the strand, forming a fork area. This unwinding process involves speeds estimated at approximately 8000 rpm, all done without tangling the DNA strand!
4. The DNA duplex kinks back on itself as it unwinds. To relieve the twisting pressure, an "untwister" enzyme (topo-isomerase) systematically cuts and repairs the coil.
5. Working only on flat, untwisted sections of the DNA, enzymes go to work copying the strand. (Two complete DNA pairs are synthesized, each containing one old and one new strand.)
6. A stitcher repair protein (DNA ligases) connects nucleotides together into one continuous strand.
Read and Write
The process described above is only a small part of the story. While the unwinding and rewinding of the DNA takes place, an equally sophisticated process of reading the DNA code and "writing" new strands occurs. The process involves the production and use of messenger RNA. Again, a simplified process description:
1. Messenger RNA is made from DNA by an enzyme (RNA polymerase).
2. A small section of DNA unzips, revealing the actual message (called the sense strand) and the template (the anti-sense strand).
3. A copy is made of the gene of interest only, producing a relatively short RNA segment.
4. The knots and kinks in the DNA provide crucial topological stop-and-go signals for the enzymes.
5. After messenger RNA is made, the DNA duplex is zipped back up.
Adding to the complexity and sophistication of design, the genetic code is read in blocks of three bases (out of the four possible bases mentioned earlier) that are non-overlapping.
Moreover, the triplicate code used is "degenerate," meaning that multiple combinations can often code for the same amino acid-this provides a built-in error correction mechanism. (One can't help but contrast the sophistication involved with the far simpler read/write processes used in modern computers.)
A Common Software House
All living things use DNA and RNA to build life from four simple bases. The process described above is common to all creatures from simple bacteria all the way to humans.
Evolutionists point to this as evidence for their theory but the new discoveries of the complexity of the process, and the fact that bacterial ribosomes are so similar to those in humans, is strong evidence against evolution. The complexities of cell replication must have been present at the beginning of life.
A simple explanation for the similarities of the basic building blocks can be found if one realizes that all life originates from a single "software house." He is awesome indeed!
Click here for the entire article: Link
There is nothing to prove, only things to be discovered!
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.