Hilbert's Hotel

Diskussionsforum zur Unendlichkeit: Theismus, Atheismus, Primzahlen, Unsterblichkeit, das Universum...
Discussing Infinity: theism and atheism, prime numbers, immortality, cosmology, philosophy...

Gamestudio Links
Zorro Links
Newest Posts
Blobsculptor tools and objects download here
by NeoDumont. 03/28/24 03:01
Issue with Multi-Core WFO Training
by aliswee. 03/24/24 20:20
Why Zorro supports up to 72 cores?
by Edgar_Herrera. 03/23/24 21:41
Zorro Trader GPT
by TipmyPip. 03/06/24 09:27
VSCode instead of SED
by 3run. 03/01/24 19:06
AUM Magazine
Latest Screens
The Bible Game
A psychological thriller game
SHADOW (2014)
DEAD TASTE
Who's Online Now
5 registered members (Quad, AndrewAMD, Imhotep, TipmyPip, Edgar_Herrera), 809 guests, and 4 spiders.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Newest Members
sakolin, rajesh7827, juergen_wue, NITRO_FOREVER, jack0roses
19043 Registered Users
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Rating: 5
Page 32 of 54 1 2 30 31 32 33 34 53 54
Re: evolution vs creation [Re: Irish_Farmer] #69081
05/09/06 03:01
05/09/06 03:01
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 3,010
analysis paralysis
NITRO777 Offline
Expert
NITRO777  Offline
Expert

Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 3,010
analysis paralysis
Quote:

I don't know what's this "human purpose" is about, please ignore it.
What I know is that the quote does explain quite well in short words what this self-referential system is about. Hope, that you can understand it, even if you didn't know much about that before.


Ya I couldnt quite understand the "human purpose" theme that the author was trying to develop, however the chaos theory is a very interesting subject matter for me. This kind of reminds me of some other theories like game theory in that they both seem to have strong scientific and mathematical support yet they are used to help understand complex systems which govern extremely complex systems. I think I understand where you were going with this also. The actual self-referential aspect of fractals is also very interesting to me, and I have ordered a book on the subject. CHAOS If you notice that this book only costs $1 (used) and some change and it is highly praised as an introduction to chaos theory. Perhaps if you order it and read it as well we can have some common ground in the explanation of the unbelievable complexity of the systems we observe.
In the meantime I think it would be interesting to make some fractals, and I have found that so far the math is understandable for making at least a mandelbrot set. Unfortunately I dont have anymore time tonight to post anything else so I'll have to write more tomorro.

Re: evolution vs creation [Re: PHeMoX] #69082
05/09/06 14:31
05/09/06 14:31
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 3,010
analysis paralysis
NITRO777 Offline
Expert
NITRO777  Offline
Expert

Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 3,010
analysis paralysis
@Phemox
Quote:

Okey, I remember, but why didn't God put a hold to that downward evolution too then, or why did it happen at all? I guess Irish_Farmer will answer that it was because of Adam and Eve's little sin. To me it seems that if this is true, God won't forgive very easily at all, infact isn't it just plain devilish to not forgive Adam and Eve this one mistake, but instead curse them with whatever evil there is now? (death, 'downward evolution', etc.) Again, this still makes little to no sense to me. It's like killing a 3-year old child because it dropped some of his food, which is an inevitable event off course. Besides, what did I (we) do wrong, I (we) never ate that apple.
According to what the bible says, I guess God did make us imperfect, and that's why Adam and Eve couldn't resist the temptation. Perfect beings would have obeyed. Well if God wanted us to have a free will and be imperfect, then he shouldn't be so surprised things went a bit different. Well so much for the claims that God díd create perfect life to start with.




It really comes from a misunderstanding of the Biblical God. God has a set of parameters which He Himself has imposed upon Himself. In order for His integrity to remain intact, He would never be able to violate these parameters. So in a sense, God Himself lives under the subjection to a set of rules. It seems hard to imagine or conceive of God being subject to rules, but it is Biblically proven through statements such as "It is impossible for God to lie"

Everything we observe about God in the Bible revolves around His unshakeable Words. In other words, He never goes back on a promise. The characteristic is so integral to His nature that it literally defines God in a way.

So how does this apply to the Genesis situation and the fall of man? Well after the fall of Adam, it was not as if God did not want to forgive Adam and Eve, as you have suggested. It was not that He didnt want to, but God was literally unable to. He was (and is) limited to the parameters in which He set into action. Insomuch that God had already declared death on Adam and Eve if they ate of the forbidden tree, there was absolutely no way He could go back on His Word, because if He had gone back on His Word, everything that He was(and is) would be destroyed. God is as powerful as His Word. If He ever broke His Word, both He Himself, and everything which is held together with His Word would disintegrate.

However, even given this situation, God immmediately sought reconciliation with Adam and Eve. Even in the Garden of Eden, as He was preparing to drive Adam and Eve out, He instituted a method for their eventual salvation. He also set up the sacrificial system immediately.

But what is hell, and what is eternal destruction? Essentially it is the seperation from the presence of God. And most people that reject the Biblical God dont mind that idea in itself, because they dont think they would like to be near the presence of the Biblical God. Thats all? No big deal. However it is important to note that we are all living in the presence of God right now. We have no idea of the horrors which would accompany the vacuum of His attentions. The hellfire itself would be largely secondary to the absence of God.

Now the punishment itself would not occur if we were not made in God's image. This is another area where people seem to misunderstand the eternal punishment. God did not devise a way to eternally punish people and call it "hell". The fact that hell is an eternal area of incarceration is because of the eternal nature of our souls. Our souls are created like Gods' so therefore they cannot just stop, they must keep going on and on. So God did not decide He wanted to hurt everyone who disagreed with Him by making them suffer for ever and ever. We were ALREADY going to live forever and ever before Adam sinned.

So the issue parallels the familiar riddle: "Can God create a rock so heavy that He cannot lift it?"

Well yes He can, He already did. The rock is man, it is us. God cannot do anything about us. The reason why is that He has created limits for Himself, and He has created us without limits. There is absolutely nothing God can do about the human willpower. We alone have the power to decide.

So He cannot lift the rock, but He can build walls around the rock which the rock cannot penetrate, and He can forget the rock ever existed.

Now, why do we have to pay a price which Adam and Eve are responsible for? Because they are our parents and we incur the debt of our parents. However, as I have attempted to point out. We dont have to pay the price at all, we dont have to go to hell, God already instituted a means of restitution. This restitution is possible only through the very blood of God,via the crucifixtion of Jesus Christ.

OK, so enough of theology. However, remember if you are going to ask philosophical questions, then you are going to get philosophical answers And what I gave you, I assure you, was a very very brief summary, and a short run over a very complicated series of doctrines. These questions you have asked have been asked repeatedly for thousands of years, and they fill our documents for centuries. So , if there was ever a "FAQ of the Universe" you have just stated one of them

However, most people ask such questions for rhetorical reasons, and dont really expect answers beyond their already pre-conceived notions. As if the questions themselves were the evidence to the contrary. However, I think you'll find, if you do the proper research, that there are much lengthier explanations than mine. A whole body of research exists into why the Biblical God did what He did, and why God is doing what He does. It is called Biblical theology, it has been researched by many credited professionals with large scholarly abilities throughout almost two thousand years of recorded history.

Usually I see these sorts of questions and just skip over them as rhetoric, but I know you are halfway sincere, so I decided to elaborate a little.

Anyway, back to evolution....

Re: evolution vs creation [Re: Marco_Grubert] #69083
05/09/06 15:31
05/09/06 15:31
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 3,010
analysis paralysis
NITRO777 Offline
Expert
NITRO777  Offline
Expert

Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 3,010
analysis paralysis
@MArco_Grubert
Quote:

Irish_Farmer has been explaining this as the result of downward evolution. I think that's the only answer that won't get you into theological hot water.


Well, if you consider that DNA we have today is a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy of DNA, it is really amazing that we can live to sit here and talk about evolution at all! Which speaks to the incredible design of DNA replication processes, yet gives us no clue to how these processes allegedly evolved.

The existance of extra junk DNA is probably just the result of extra copying from generation to generation.

One hypothesis theorizes that much of the extra DNA exists to increase the physical bulk of the nucleus.

However the prevailing view in molecular biology is that the extra sequences are somewhat parasitic-that over the generations a collection of sequences have accumulated in the cell, exploiting the cells resources and machinery and for its own reproduction needs without providing any benefit to the cell in return.

This situation seems to undermine natural selection in that if these sequences are indeed useless, why wouldnt they have been selected out? The law of conservation in evolution weeds out useless machinations. This is easily observable in bee colonies where workers are executed when their usefulness has ended. It is a very efficient natural system seen all throughout nature.

The other amazement is that the essential DNA replication is still a very precise system. Species have elements called transposable elements which have the ability to "jump" from one location to another in the DNA and even to insert additional copies of themselves in different locations.

standard introductory molecular biology textbook

Quote:

Phemox a dichotomy exists(whether anyone likes to admit it or not).
The disproof of evolution necessitates the proof of creation. If evolution is disproven then creation must be valid.


Unless you add lots of qualifiers as to what type of evolution and what type of creation you talk about this statement is false.


I dont know where your having a hard time understanding this. Evolution means change over time, creation means appearence instantly. They both use time as a factor, however in creation the time factor is zero.

There are no qualifiers to add, instead take all the qualifiers away. Evolution of anything means change over time. An object or group of objects appear at a certain place in space. It has appeared there from either one or two methods:

1)It came from somewhere else over time(evolution)
2)It appeared there instantly(creation)

A baseball can find itself over the plate by 1)being propelled through physical(newtonian or relative) forces or 2)it suddenly appeared there.

The origin of the appearence of any matter can be described by either one or the other. Therefore a dichotomy does exist.

Quote:

Quote:

if an object is complex, has a purpose and has no plausible physical cause, it implies design.


You mean like god (complex, purpose and no plausible physical cause) ?


Quote




Perhaps your right if your referring to a different type of God then the one I am referring to. This goes back to the root definitions of God. The definition of the God I worship is not as a complex created object, but rather a complex creator.

Once again, the universe is an effect which demands a cause. That cause itself cannot possibly be composed of the effect. Therefore the observable "object" we are speaking of (the universe), cannot contain the information to bootstrap itself. If you cant understand that then Im afraid I cant help you.

Re: evolution vs creation #69084
05/09/06 16:04
05/09/06 16:04
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 3,010
analysis paralysis
NITRO777 Offline
Expert
NITRO777  Offline
Expert

Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 3,010
analysis paralysis
@Irish_Farmer
Quote:

That's BS. Evolutionists (not scientists, so technically you may be right) guarantee we were evolved, they guarantee the universe is an accident, they guarantee life is an accident. There's a whole lot of guaranteeing going on.


If I had a dollar for every time I heard "evolution is a fact"...

Oh wait..evolution is a fact AND a theory!! web page

Re: evolution vs creation [Re: NITRO777] #69085
05/10/06 05:25
05/10/06 05:25
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
Irish_Farmer Offline
User
Irish_Farmer  Offline
User

Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
Quote:

The existance of extra junk DNA is probably just the result of extra copying from generation to generation.

One hypothesis theorizes that much of the extra DNA exists to increase the physical bulk of the nucleus.

However the prevailing view in molecular biology is that the extra sequences are somewhat parasitic-that over the generations a collection of sequences have accumulated in the cell, exploiting the cells resources and machinery and for its own reproduction needs without providing any benefit to the cell in return.




While all of these might be true, its also true that much of non-coding dna is responsible for safe dna replication (I may be mixing up the terms, but I'm sure you get the point). Some of it, appears to be junk (you can't prove non-coding dna has no purpose, you can only prove we don't know the purpose).

The problem is in a lazy designer. Well, if chimps and humans already have similar DNA, it stands to reason that much of their 'true' junk dna will be generated to be similar (even with a creator).

JCL is gonna be a bit overwhelmed when he gets back!


"The task force finds that...the unborn child is a whole human being from the moment of fertilization, that all abortions terminate the life of a human being, and that the unborn child is a separate human patient under the care of modern medicine."
Re: evolution vs creation [Re: Irish_Farmer] #69086
05/10/06 12:52
05/10/06 12:52
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 8,177
Netherlands
PHeMoX Offline
Senior Expert
PHeMoX  Offline
Senior Expert

Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 8,177
Netherlands
No, junk dna doesn't make sure dna replication is safe, that's not it's purpose. There are markers in the dna that will make sure it get's replicated correctly, but that's not the junk dna. I don't think the real purpose of the junk dna is known, but it does seem to indicate that it once could have been usefull dna and now just doesn't has a real purpose anymore. But with the right mutations, it can get usefull again, but yes I'm not sure if this was witnessed yet inside a laboratory.

Quote:

The problem is in a lazy designer. Well, if chimps and humans already have similar DNA, it stands to reason that much of their 'true' junk dna will be generated to be similar (even with a creator).




This argument seems to almost(?) contradict your 'degeneration' or 'downfall evolution' theory a bit don't you think? You seem to say that this human junk dna must be kinda the same as chimps, well if that's the case, why do you skip the possibility of a more direct relation between both species? (Sorry if I misunderstood something here.) If something is 98% the same (junk dna included), then don't you think it's enough similar to conclude both things are related?
Personally I wouldn't be very surprised if the junk dna is not really the same, that junk dna should be parts becomming inactive after a certain evolutionary step. Maybe the junk dna will be the same, when both species been through the same stage of evolution, but it would only prove their direct relation. You said it yourself, that you doubt certain evolutionary changes can happen more than 1 time.

I'm also quite sure the junk dna between different species of humans or monkeys is different too. Why exactly would you expect it to be similar?

Quote:

That's BS. Evolutionists (not scientists, so technically you may be right) guarantee we were evolved, they guarantee the universe is an accident, they guarantee life is an accident. There's a whole lot of guaranteeing going on.




I'm not sure which evolutionists claim to be able to guarantee that stuff, but I would definately not claim to be perfectly right. Like I said, scientists don't give guarantees, any scientist doing that nevertheless, is a bad scientist not being open enough for a different model. A theory, when not 100000% proven (which almost can't be), can not give guarantees.
I know some evolutionists probably kinda sunk into that swamp of believing only their own 'scientific' words, but you've got similar stuff going on at the religious side, I don't take those serious (for clarity; both evolutionists like that, or those extreme religious people denying any other possibility)..

Quote:

It really comes from a misunderstanding of the Biblical God. God has a set of parameters which He Himself has imposed upon Himself. In order for His integrity to remain intact, He would never be able to violate these parameters. So in a sense, God Himself lives under the subjection to a set of rules. It seems hard to imagine or conceive of God being subject to rules, but it is Biblically proven through statements such as "It is impossible for God to lie"




Thanks for this explanation. But God get's parameters just to be able to evade my kind of questions, again I doubt the biblical content. I'm not saying God can't be limited, he is a God afterall, so he could very well be anything you like.
My problem is still the source off such claims. Old news or not, I don't think a lot of these arguments against the biblical god have be succesfully defended at all, but that's not really this thread's topic. On the other hand, God is a very central thing when it comes to your creation theory, so ...

Quote:

This situation seems to undermine natural selection in that if these sequences are indeed useless, why wouldnt they have been selected out? The law of conservation in evolution weeds out useless machinations. This is easily observable in bee colonies where workers are executed when their usefulness has ended. It is a very efficient natural system seen all throughout nature.




They are selected out, there's just still traces/parts left off dna that once had a function. Dna information doesn't simply dissappear when it becomes defect. Genetic information that's neutral or positive, will stay, I think this junk dna is quite neutral.

Cheers

Last edited by PHeMoX; 05/10/06 13:14.

PHeMoX, Innervision Software (c) 1995-2008

For more info visit: Innervision Software
Re: evolution vs creation [Re: PHeMoX] #69087
05/11/06 00:10
05/11/06 00:10
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
Irish_Farmer Offline
User
Irish_Farmer  Offline
User

Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
Quote:

No, junk dna doesn't make sure dna replication is safe, that's not it's purpose.




Ok, let me elaborate. It makes transcription (I think that was the term I was looking for) possible in part, and even slows it down so that it doesn't happen too fast. Mutations of junk DNA can cause cancer, which doesn't prove that they have a purpose, but does prove that we do need it intact.

Furthermore, it gives a reference frame for the correct copying of DNA. It has its purposes. Just, forget your theory for a second, and quit ignoring scientific discoveries just because they contradict your assumptions. Evolution can still be true, even if junk DNA has a purpose.

Of course, this doesn't account for all of junk DNA, but we also don't know everything there is to know about genetics yet.

Quote:

but it does seem to indicate that it once could have been usefull dna and now just doesn't has a real purpose anymore.




Maybe, but there's no proof of this.

Quote:

The problem is in a lazy designer. Well, if chimps and humans already have similar DNA, it stands to reason that much of their 'true' junk dna will be generated to be similar (even with a creator).


This argument seems to almost(?) contradict your 'degeneration' or 'downfall evolution' theory a bit don't you think? You seem to say that this human junk dna must be kinda the same as chimps,




I think it must be the same as chimps because our coding dna must be about the same as chimps (actually I may be wrong about this because our proteins if I remember correctly are very different from chimp proteins). But this is just speculation on my part, because I don't know what 'causes' junk dna to appear. My theory predicts that in the future we will have found a purpose for pretty much all of the non-coding DNA, or will at least have a consistent explanation for its existence besides evolution. That's what I'm waiting for. Everything up until that time is speculation, which is ok, but not exactly proof of one theory or another.

Quote:

well if that's the case, why do you skip the possibility of a more direct relation between both species?




Believe me, I would assume that this was evidence of an ancestor if I thought it was possible that we were the descendants of a primitive man-like creature. Even if for some reason I was convinced evolution happened, I wouldn't abandon my belief in God. So this isn't a conflict of interest for me. I might have to come up with all sorts of ways to make the two ideas compatible, but it wouldn't really offend my sensibility.

Quote:

then don't you think it's enough similar to conclude both things are related?




The problem for me is that this isn't very conclusive evidence. With our still-limited knowledge of genetics, we can make all sorts of speculations. But I'm more worried about the impossibility of evolution.

Quote:

You said it yourself, that you doubt certain evolutionary changes can happen more than 1 time.




Actually I doubt that any evolutionary steps can even happen the first time.

Quote:

I'm also quite sure the junk dna between different species of humans or monkeys is different too. Why exactly would you expect it to be similar?




Maybe what I said was misleading. I was just saying that if this junk dna truly was junk, then it might be expected to be similar regardless of evolution. The only problem for my theory is that junk DNA exists in the first place. Of course, scientists are slowly alleviating that problem with further discovery.

Quote:

I'm not sure which evolutionists claim to be able to guarantee that stuff, but I would definately not claim to be perfectly right. Like I said, scientists don't give guarantees, any scientist doing that nevertheless, is a bad scientist not being open enough for a different model.




Good. Then you agree that the majority of evolution should be thrown out of school textbooks. Since the way its taught, where I went to school anyway, is that evolution is THE way things happened, and all other speculation on origins must fit within the model of evolution.

Quote:

I know some evolutionists probably kinda sunk into that swamp of believing only their own 'scientific' words, but you've got similar stuff going on at the religious side




The difference of course being that scientists are supposed to be objective and not get caught up in their faith. Evolution, I'm sorry to say, is faith-based. There are things in nature that may 'suggest' evolution, but the fact is that its still based on faith (assumptions, presuppositions, whatever you want to call it). Even if you believe evolution you CANNOT deny this fact. Unless you have of course bred a dog to become something other than a dog? As compelling as the fossil record might be, it pales in comparison to the complete lack of modern evidence of evolution.

All creationists want is for evolutionists to finally admit that there is little to no SOLID evidence for evolution, and that teaching it in school as fact is beyond being unethical.





I keep hearing this theory that if we lose evolution we lose all of science. Taking speculation out of science simply leaves you with the basic observable facts. This is what science is all about. If we stop speculating as to how bones were evolved, don't they still exist? Can't we still study and understand them? Evolution has done nothing to advance science, and instead has been used to mislead and confuse our youth. Teaching incorrect assumptions about anatomy as fact (whale legs, coccyx, appendix) has actually proved to be detrimental in understanding science.

Evolution is the only theory I know of that doesn't actually predict anything about observable science, but simply predicts its own speculative evidence. In fact, its the only theory that is allowed to exist despite that the things it might predict about observable biology aren't there (mutations not doing what they are predicted to do, etc).

While the more extreme side of me sees the need for evolution to go altogether, I'll be happy if all of the lies are taken out of textbooks. Why evolutionists are so offended by this idea is beyond me. Of course, that even the most intelligent of evolutionists still believe in the myth of vestigial organs goes a long way in possibly explaining this phenomenon.

Quote:

They are selected out, there's just still traces/parts left off dna that once had a function. Dna information doesn't simply dissappear when it becomes defect. Genetic information that's neutral or positive, will stay, I think this junk dna is quite neutral.




Maybe he just meant the fact that its so consistent. Why would it be relatively universal among the entire species if it provides no benefit? Of course, I could be mistaken.

Last edited by Irish_Farmer; 05/11/06 00:14.

"The task force finds that...the unborn child is a whole human being from the moment of fertilization, that all abortions terminate the life of a human being, and that the unborn child is a separate human patient under the care of modern medicine."
Re: evolution vs creation [Re: Irish_Farmer] #69088
05/11/06 11:52
05/11/06 11:52
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 8,177
Netherlands
PHeMoX Offline
Senior Expert
PHeMoX  Offline
Senior Expert

Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 8,177
Netherlands
Junk dna's pure existence indicate that even after like 75 million (for example in mice) of evolution, that data didn't get lost, so it must be vital. So yes I might be wrong about wether or not it has a purpose indeed, but it's not giving a frame or making dna translation safe because it slows it down. There are marker parts for that, 'start' and 'stop' codons. And maybe some unknown other markers.

Quote:

We know this because ever since rodents, humans, chickens and fish shared an ancestor - about 400 million years ago - these sequences have resisted change. This strongly suggests that any alteration would have damaged the animals' ability to survive.

"These initial findings tell us quite a lot of the genome was doing something important other than coding for proteins," Professor Haussler said.

He thinks the most likely scenario is that they control the activity of indispensable genes and embryo development.

Nearly a quarter of the sequences overlap with genes and may help slice RNA - the chemical cousin of DNA involved in protein production - into different forms, Professor Haussler believes.

The conserved elements that do not actually overlap with genes tend to cluster next to genes that play a role in embryonic development.

"The fact that the conserved elements are hanging around the most important development genes, suggests they have some role in regulating the process of development and differentiation," said Professor Haussler.

Rethinking "junk" DNA

The next step is to pin down a conclusive function for these chunks of genetic material.

One method could be to produce genetically engineered mice that have bits of the sequences "knocked out". By comparing their development with that of normal mice, scientists might be able to work out the DNA's purpose.




You've meant this? This doesn't conflict with evolution at all, it's rather supportive imho.

Cheers


PHeMoX, Innervision Software (c) 1995-2008

For more info visit: Innervision Software
Re: evolution vs creation [Re: PHeMoX] #69089
05/11/06 23:27
05/11/06 23:27
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
Irish_Farmer Offline
User
Irish_Farmer  Offline
User

Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
Quote:

You've meant this? This doesn't conflict with evolution at all, it's rather supportive imho.




It might not be a problem for evolution, I can see that much. I don't really know that much about non-coding DNA. But I don't think it supports it. This would just add even more complexity to the problem of why DNA would evolve in the first place.

At best it doesn't conflict with either theory.

Quote:

"These initial findings tell us quite a lot of the genome was doing something important other than coding for proteins," Professor Haussler said.




Duh. This is the opposite of what evolution predicted, and along the lines of the prediction of my theory: creation. Obviously since evolution is bunk and my theory isn't, it was only a matter of time until we had enough evidence to come to this conclusion. This doesn't explain why it exists in the first place, but does explain that it isn't evolutionary leftovers. Which is what I've been saying all along, and what my theory said from the beginning. Eat it!

Quote:

Nearly a quarter of the sequences overlap with genes and may help slice RNA




Wait, you mean it does what I say it does? Like you've been saying it doesn't do? I say, "It aids transcription." You say, "No it doesn't." And then you give a quote that says it does. Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm.

So what I see here is that this non-coding DNA is essential, in its present form, to the creature in its present form (most likely). I don't see how this suggests evolution. It suggests a creator for this 'junk' DNA as much as it suggests anything else. And since evolution isn't possible, you have a bigger hurdle to overcome than I do.

Thanks for looking that quote up for me, though. It'll save me some trouble.


"The task force finds that...the unborn child is a whole human being from the moment of fertilization, that all abortions terminate the life of a human being, and that the unborn child is a separate human patient under the care of modern medicine."
Re: evolution vs creation [Re: Irish_Farmer] #69090
05/11/06 23:50
05/11/06 23:50
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 11,321
Virginia, USA
Dan Silverman Offline
Senior Expert
Dan Silverman  Offline
Senior Expert

Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 11,321
Virginia, USA
I cannot argue any of this from any real level of science. Therefore, I would simply like to ask a few questions. I am not asking these questions to prove or disprove anything. I simply would like to know how evolution theory handles these types of observations. As most of you can guess, I am also a "creationist". In any case, here are a few questions/observations.

First, a note on evolution:

Evolution must not only account for the vast variety of species on planet Earth, but must also account for the animals behaviors. For example, many animals have defensive and offensive capabilities. If evolution is true, then these abilities must also have evolved as it is certain that the original protein did not have these abilities (i.e. camoflage, mimicing other animals, etc). The basic question I have is how does evolution account for these "acquired" behaviors that many animals display. Below is an example.

Last night I was watching some short video clips of sea animals with my son, Joshua. He has wanted to be a deep sea marine biologist since he was five (don't ask me where he came up with this idea because I really don't know, though I think it is great!) and now he is eleven. As a result of his curriousity I am learning more and more about sea life. In any case, we were watching some facinating clips on the internet about a creature called a Mimic Octopus. What a facinating creature. Not only does it have the ability, like other similar creatures have, to change its color to some degree and to become either smooth or rough in texture to blend in with its surroundings, but it also mimics other sea creatures to keep from getting eaten. In one instance we watched as it took on the shape of a flat fish similar to a flounder. It was amazing to watch it position its tentacles as it swam and to litterally transform in front of my eyes into what looked like another sea animal. Then we saw photos of this animal mimicing other sea animals like a sea snake, a rock fish, a star fish and others. How does evolution account for this type of behavior in an animal?

At one point in time Joshua also like to watch birds. As we would read about birds we saw that specific birds always build the same kind of nest. I think just about everyone knows this. If you see a Robin's nest then you know that a Robin built it. Each type of bird builds its own type of nest and, although "mommy" and "daddy" never teach their young how to build this type of nest, the next generation heads off and builds exactly the same kind of nest. How does evolution account for this behavior among birds?

Back to the sea ... this time the deep sea. As man began to explore the deepest regions of the sea he found an abundance of life where he thought no life could exist. This was especially true around the vents that released boiling hot (actually hotter!) steam from active volcanoes. One such lifeform is a giant tube worm. For some time these worms were a bit of a mystery. Here is something about them that I pulled from a web site:

Quote:

On the bottom of the ocean around deep-sea hydrothermal vents, there is a profusion of life that thrives on the hydrogen sulfide (H2S) gas released from the vents. Some of the most impressive of the creatures that live here are the giant tube worms, which can grow up to eight feet long. These tube worms grow in large clusters around the vents and live inside hard, shell-like protective tubes that attach to the rocks. They live in a symbiotic relationship with a bacteria that may hold clues as to how life on earth began billions of years ago. These worms lack mouths, anuses, intestines and stomachs, and scientists were at a loss to explain how these tube worms were getting nutrients to survive and grow. It turns out their insides are lined with bacteria that oxidize the H2S, turning it into usable nutrients for the worms. The bacteria, in turn, benefit from the relationship because the worms deliver blood containing hemoglobin which helps the bacteria to break down the sulfides.




How does evolution explain the existance of symbiotic relationships like this exampled in the deep sea giant tube worm? If the tube worm did not have the bacteria it would die. If the bacteria did not have the tube worm then it would die. This indicates that both the bacteria and the giant tube worm would have had to have developed this dependency simultaneously in order to have evolved to this form of dependency as we see it today. And this is not the only symbiotic relationship on the planet. There are many others.

Well, that should do it for now. Please keep in mind that I am not trying to prove or disprove anything. I am simply asking how evolution answers these questions. Often times the argument between evolution and creation will center on the origin of species, but both ideas need to go further and explain even the common behaviors that specific species have as well as symbiotic relationships and a lot of other things that simply make life possible and help a species to survive.


Professional 2D, 3D and Real-Time 3D Content Creation:
HyperGraph Studios
Page 32 of 54 1 2 30 31 32 33 34 53 54

Moderated by  jcl, Lukas, old_bill, Spirit 

Kompaktes W�rterbuch des UnendlichenCompact Dictionary of the Infinite


Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.1