Do you believe in Darwins theory of evlution or do you believe in the bibcal cre

[shernajwine]

In response to animikokala:
Molecular Evolution by Wen Hsiung Li,4  says "There is now ample evidence that gene duplication is the most important mechanism for generating new genes and new biochemical processes that have facilitated the evolution of complex organisms from primitive ones." Assuming this is true and that even Darwinists admit there must be at least something like 512 steps to create a new function, we would expect to find many gene duplicates that are genetic intermediates - close to the size of an average gene (>300 codons), without a "stop" codon in the coding part, and with a properly located and at least minimally effective promoter and TFIIB binding regions.

 There is also likely the need for the intermediate to have a sequence-specific region nearby to trigger Deoxyribonucleic acid: promoter region for transcription. A secondary mechanism for the source of genetic raw material for the evolution of complexity, namely the co-opting of one of the two alleles of a polymorphic gene and slowly modifying one of them, has a similar expectation, in that we should expect to find many alleles in our genome that have different shapes and functions, with both having a positive selection coefficient in the same gene. These things should be able to be verified now that the physical genome mapping of humans is basically complete. So far, no evolutionist has provided any genetic evidence of the plethora of intermediates that would be necessary to affirm their mechanism of producing complexity.
http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/specifiedcomplexity.html

I am not a scientist however I see some certain things in your statement that seem to indicate a clever way to infer created information where there isn't any.

Insertion and deletions are the additions or losses of nucleotide pairs in a gene (lengthening or shortening)
Insertion of information that was already there, deletion of information that was already there.

Replication and duplication of DNA strands in not creating any new information, and mutating the duplication is simply that, mutating what was already there to begin with. The mutations can be extremely numerous given the vast amount of various breeds of animal groups. With over 150 breeds of dogs, they are all still dogs. I am not saying that evolution is completely defunct of any factual information in this area but you are taking something that is already vastly complex with which natural selection has to work with, to try and prove how evolution created the complexity in the first place. That is my issue.

[Falconer02]

Wow!  I missed a lot of posts.  Yesterday I was looking up information on a college, and today I was actually at the college scoping them out to finish my (Biology) degree.

Oh hey! Welcome back! I'm glad we have someone here who knows every intricate detail of what they're talking about on a biological level. Please be on more!

Individuals who believe in ID can say they believe the intelligence to be a specified god/whatever. But as a theory, it isn't saying anything about god/gods, it's purpose is not to prove the designers identity, only to prove that CSI requires intelligence.

Well for something that really wants to be included into science, ID's whole history is taking an extremely anti-scientific approach. Science uses failures to become narrower and make things more specific to get closer to whatever root they're shooting for. ID has always become broader when faced with newfound evidence about the world (such as keeping the designer anonymous after the whole creationist movement crumbled). Again, there's nothing testable with ID, so it can just sit aside and sound scientific, but it's always just relying on the divine fallacy. Until something supernatural presents itself, that's why science tends to ignore ID altogether.

Only from a standpoint of methodological naturalism.

Which is what science uses due to reliability. If I can be cheap for a moment and quote a bookmark I saved a while back-

The point is not that supernaturalism is logically impossible; rather, the point is that, from both an epistemological and a methodological standpoint, supernaturalism has not proved its mettle, whereas methodological naturalism has done so consistently and convincingly. Supernaturalism has not provided the epistemology or the methodology needed to support its metaphysics, whereas naturalism has, although the invitation to supernaturalism to do likewise is a standing one, as Schafersman indicates: "except for humans, philosophical naturalists understand nature to be fundamentally mindless and purposeless.... Of course, this doesn't eliminate the possibility of supernatural mind and purpose in nature; the only requirement would be the demonstration of its existence and mechanism, which is up to the supernaturalist to provide. We are still waiting

In contrasting the Western religions with science, the most important criterion of distinction is that the supernatural or spiritual realm is unknowable in response to human attempts to gain knowledge of it in the same manner that humans gain knowledge of the natural realm (by experience).... Given this fiat by the theistic believers, science simply ignores the supernatural as being outside the scope of scientific inquiry. Scientists in effect are saying: "You religious believers set up your postulates as truths, and we take you at your word. By definition, you render your beliefs unassailable and unavailable." This attitude is not one of surrender, but simply an expression of the logical impossibility of proving the existence of something about which nothing can possibly be known through scientific investigation
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/barbara_forrest/naturalism.html

I can sympathize with your sentiments

*sniff* ...Thank you...

[shernajwine]

I really like what you quoted, it is at least honest in it's approach to the supernatural vs natural in the scientific arena. But again, ID isn't postulating anything supernatural, if there is evidence of design (and obviously there is) it's unscientific to disregard that possiblity because the scientific method cannot test a hypothesis on the the identity of the designer.

ID is limited, I'm in no way denying that. If you take out the idea of a designer then you have a wide range of theories out there that will and are trying to come up with a solution to find answers to the existence of life issues. I also am in  no way saying that those endeavors should cease just because life appears to be designed. But if it is intelligence, and it's being ignored based on the problem of identifying a designer, that is a dogmatic hypocrital philosphy IMO.

What I AM saying is that;limited tho ID is in going beyond the task of proving it's postulate,by claiming a designer......, it is falsifiable, it is testable, it is observable and it makes predictions in what the scope of the theory entails.

I know I am not going to convince you that it is science, but I do feel, in my limited understanding of biology and technical scientific jargon that I weed myself through in order to comprehend both sides of the issue, I have comprhensively made my case for why I believe the way I believe. And so have you!   That's the purpose of debate.

I will admit tho that animi will have me beat in technical arguments because I am definately not a scientist. All I can do is read other scientific research, and hope I know what they hell they are talking about  

Add in: Are you feeling better today??

[animikokala]

In response to animikokala:
Molecular Evolution by Wen Hsiung Li,4  says "There is now ample evidence that gene duplication is the most important mechanism for generating new genes and new biochemical processes that have facilitated the evolution of complex organisms from primitive ones." Assuming this is true and that even Darwinists admit there must be at least something like 512 steps to create a new function, we would expect to find many gene duplicates that are genetic intermediates - close to the size of an average gene (>300 codons), without a "stop" codon in the coding part, and with a properly located and at least minimally effective promoter and TFIIB binding regions.

 There is also likely the need for the intermediate to have a sequence-specific region nearby to trigger Deoxyribonucleic acid: promoter region for transcription. A secondary mechanism for the source of genetic raw material for the evolution of complexity, namely the co-opting of one of the two alleles of a polymorphic gene and slowly modifying one of them, has a similar expectation, in that we should expect to find many alleles in our genome that have different shapes and functions, with both having a positive selection coefficient in the same gene. These things should be able to be verified now that the physical genome mapping of humans is basically complete. So far, no evolutionist has provided any genetic evidence of the plethora of intermediates that would be necessary to affirm their mechanism of producing complexity.
http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/specifiedcomplexity.html

I am not a scientist however I see some certain things in your statement that seem to indicate a clever way to infer created information where there isn't any.

Insertion and deletions are the additions or losses of nucleotide pairs in a gene (lengthening or shortening)
Insertion of information that was already there, deletion of information that was already there.

Replication and duplication of DNA strands in not creating any new information, and mutating the duplication is simply that, mutating what was already there to begin with. The mutations can be extremely numerous given the vast amount of various breeds of animal groups. With over 150 breeds of dogs, they are all still dogs. I am not saying that evolution is completely defunct of any factual information in this area but you are taking something that is already vastly complex with which natural selection has to work with, to try and prove how evolution created the complexity in the first place. That is my issue.

I understand your issue.  So I have to add that evolutionary theory also takes that into account; since all organisms share their most common ancestry with an unknown single-celled organism:   this organism had few genes, and over countless generations (replications) mutations would build and build, lengthening the DNA strand.  Without a "God Factor", this would have to happen by trial and error; the mutations that were neutral or beneficial allowed the organism to live and replicate those mutations, while harmful mutations would lead to the death of the organism.  We cannot know 100% how this all began, but we can read the genome and work backwards.  A theory does not have to be 100% certain, it just has to be that 100% of the theory has been tested and not disproved (over and over)


And as for ID:  I'm not saying that a God (or Gods/Goddesses) did not have a hand in shaping the world as it is today.  It's just that, from a scientific point of view, ID cannot qualify as a scientific theory.  The issue at hand is not the identy of the designer; the issue is the fact that you cannot prove or disprove the existence of the designer (or the intelligence).  Since you cannot test the existence of the designer, the entire idea cannot qualify as a scientific theory (a portion remains untestable), because the entire idea relies on the existence of the designer.  If one day were to come that the existence of the designer can be scientifically proven, then there would be no reason to hold ID from being a valid explanation of life.  Until that point, Evolutionary Theory is ahead for having all parts of the theory compatible with the requirements to be considered scientific.  That doesn't mean ET (lol) is 100% right, it just means it's the best scientific explanation we have so far that still completely fulfills all requirements for science.

Let me know if I missed something; I get distracted easily and am prone to going off on tangents.

[shernajwine]

Thanks for your thoughtful response animi. I do understand where you're coming from, and I see the issue that others have with ID theory. However, there are theories that are considered legitimate science that have not been proven yet. Such as the multi verse, which is really just speculation at this point since physical laws dictate our ability to go outside our own universe is practically nill. Scientists search for answers and sometimes in finding one truth, they uncover another issue with a roadblock due to limited technology and human knowledge. This is what science does, so in searching for the truth of intelligent design, the research is an honest scientific attempt at finding an answer just like anything in the evolution arena. It's just that if the theory ends up with enough evidence to hold weight (and I think it does but obviously some would call me biased  ) they hit a road block in being able to identify the designer. Similar to "hey, we know the universe came from a "big bang" so now we know it began to exist, what caused it?"
It's a road block, it's untestable, and only speculation can abound until we figure out how too look past our own universe.

Also, the idea that we all have evolved from a common ancestor and that all life began as a single celled organism is not solid enough to be asserted as fact. As a matter of fact abiogenesis has MANY problems within in it's scope of ideas as to how life began. So when talking about this aspect of evolution, it's only an idea that is "still in the lab". Unsatisfactory results and too many unanswered questions still abound. It sounds good, (to those who want to believe it lol) but it's not fact.

Another interesting aspect to throw in the mixture is that SETI has been completely unsuccessful and that is profound to me. That is of course just a personal view on it, but in regards to the miracle life is, and the idea that it was not a random purposeless process makes sense when you find that in a universe so vast and with all our technology to look billions of miles into it, no other intelligent life can be found. More philosophical, but relevant in a way.

Again thanks for your input, I appreciate it   

 

[marieelissa]

I believe in Evolution.

[sweetslr1]

I agree that god could have.

[nouveau12]

I personally believe in creation by a supreme God. I dont believe man evolved from the sea what do you think? also do you believe in reincarnation?

I believe in God I don't believe in Evolution but I do respect the beliefs of others

I believe in God and evolution how do you explain how certain animals have changed over the years.  Didn't God say be fruitful and multiply.  That's where evolution came into the picture.

[animikokala]

Thanks for your thoughtful response animi. I do understand where you're coming from, and I see the issue that others have with ID theory. However, there are theories that are considered legitimate science that have not been proven yet. Such as the multi verse, which is really just speculation at this point since physical laws dictate our ability to go outside our own universe is practically nill. Scientists search for answers and sometimes in finding one truth, they uncover another issue with a roadblock due to limited technology and human knowledge. This is what science does, so in searching for the truth of intelligent design, the research is an honest scientific attempt at finding an answer just like anything in the evolution arena. It's just that if the theory ends up with enough evidence to hold weight (and I think it does but obviously some would call me biased  ) they hit a road block in being able to identify the designer. Similar to "hey, we know the universe came from a "big bang" so now we know it began to exist, what caused it?"
It's a road block, it's untestable, and only speculation can abound until we figure out how too look past our own universe.

Also, the idea that we all have evolved from a common ancestor and that all life began as a single celled organism is not solid enough to be asserted as fact. As a matter of fact abiogenesis has MANY problems within in it's scope of ideas as to how life began. So when talking about this aspect of evolution, it's only an idea that is "still in the lab". Unsatisfactory results and too many unanswered questions still abound. It sounds good, (to those who want to believe it lol) but it's not fact.

Another interesting aspect to throw in the mixture is that SETI has been completely unsuccessful and that is profound to me. That is of course just a personal view on it, but in regards to the miracle life is, and the idea that it was not a random purposeless process makes sense when you find that in a universe so vast and with all our technology to look billions of miles into it, no other intelligent life can be found. More philosophical, but relevant in a way.

Again thanks for your input, I appreciate it   
 

I will be honest with you.  I've managed to happily live my life without having to take a single physics or astronomy class (although that will change; OH requires physics in their biology degrees  ).  Physics and Astronomy are the two sciences where I have the most trouble accepting all of their Theories.  My realm is the realm of observable, testable life sciences.  I don't care much for the abstract math-based theories of Physics and (often) Astronomy.  They rely too much on speculation at times, since so much of their realms are difficult to test.

And I agree that abiogenesis has its problems, mostly due to not knowing what the exact composition of early Earth was, but it has been proven that abiogenisis can occur, and thus it remains a valid option.  Of course, I am open to the suggestion (as I had stated in my very first post in this thread) that it's entirely possible the a Creator kicked life off and let it run from there, but it can't go further than a possibility to me without the science backing it up.  I'm afraid that I am very much a creature of logic; perhaps I'm lacking in creativity. 

And on the topic of physics and astronomy:  don't you find physicists and astronomers a bit....creepy.....sometimes?  They want to create black holes and rip up space and time, destroying us all in the process, or they want to make contact with aliens who will go all Independence Day on us....biologists just want to clone extinct animals and evil sheep.   

[shernajwine]

And on the topic of physics and astronomy:  don't you find physicists and astronomers a bit....creepy.....sometimes?  They want to create black holes and rip up space and time, destroying us all in the process, or they want to make contact with aliens who will go all Independence Day on us....biologists just want to clone extinct animals and evil sheep.

LOL I think the idea of tampering with DNA to create animal human hybrids is way more creepy. YIKES! 

[Robspad]

I believe in some of each. Seems the likeliest in the overall scenerio. Keep hearing my dog make monkey sounds someitmes. lol

[angelhome]

I personally believe in creation by a supreme God. I dont believe man evolved from the sea what do you think? also do you believe in reincarnation?

I suppose one has to know the LORD to be able to have that kind of faith to believe in Creation, but I think it would take
more than faith to believe in the big bang theory that it just all happened without a supreme power - I am not sure I could
even buy into that kind of 'faith'.... yes there is One GOD, One Creator and I feel sorry for those who do not believe.
I Plan to walk on streets of gold one day where there is no sickness, sadness, sorrow, pain or death and all is perfect...
that sure sounds better to me than a fiery pit!

[Dbaxley234]

I think that when it comes to the Universe - it formed on its own from gravitational pulls. Living creatures on Earth itself however, are much more interesting. There is scientific evidence of evolution. Species, viruses and bacteria are constantly evolving even today. But human beings are different. I think to some degrees we've evolved since the first human beings, but I don't believe the whole theory of us evolving from primates. Because it just doesn't make sense - if we evolved from primates (aka monkeys) then why are there still primates around? Why have they not evolved. I believe someone stepped in during the evolution of earth and either sped up our evolution or created us from themselves and primates through DNA splicing. It would make sense. According to the Sumerian Tablets of Creation, that's what the Annunaki did. So, knowing what we have done for years splicing plant DNA & have the capability to create life through cloning or any other method - is that really so far fetched?

[Falconer02]

Because it just doesn't make sense - if we evolved from primates (aka monkeys) then why are there still primates around?

Well there's a lot here I don't think you get. We didn't evolve from monkeys. We evolved from earlier primates and we share a common ancestor with monkeys, apes, chimps etc. That common ancestor was not what we call a present-day monkey. That original group had some split-offs and some slowly evolved into us and others evolved into apes, chimps, etc.

I believe someone stepped in during the evolution of earth and either sped up our evolution or created us from themselves and primates through DNA splicing. It would make sense.

According to the Sumerian Tablets of Creation, that's what the Annunaki did. So, knowing what we have done for years splicing plant DNA & have the capability to create life through cloning or any other method - is that really so far fetched?

That is interesting-- never heard that tie-in before. Though it's easy to speculate, the ultimate problem is proof.

[Dbaxley234]

Falconer02 - You're right - there isn't any proof. But its not that far-fetched given our current ability to do some of the same things.

And what i meant is that - yes i understand us and primates came from a common ancestor - but if we evolved into such a higher life form - why didn't they evolve the same way??