Topic: Creation or Evolution - articles and discussion

[Verbl Kint]

Richard Leakey: Evolution Debate Soon Will Be History

"According to noted paleoanthropologist Richard Leakey, sometime in the next 15 to 30 years scientific discoveries about evolution will have accelerated to the point that 'even the skeptics can accept it.' 'If you don't like the word evolution, I don't care what you call it, but life has changed. You can lay out all the fossils that have been collected and establish lineages that even a fool could work up. So the question is why, how does this happen? It's not covered by Genesis. There's no explanation for this change going back 500 million years in any book I've read from the lips of any God.' Leakey began his work searching for fossils in the mid-1960s and his team unearthed a nearly complete 1.6-million-year-old skeleton in 1984 that became known as 'Turkana Boy,' the first known early human with long legs, short arms and a tall stature. At 67, Leakey conducts research with his wife, Meave, and daughter, Louise, and the family claims to have unearthed 'much of the existing fossil evidence for human evolution.' Leakey, an atheist, insists he has no animosity toward religion." - from a slashdot.org post

[Quitacet]

hmmm...

napansin niyo ba na sa mga experiment na yan hindi ipinapakita ang evolution diyan... evolution as what others says take time (hmmm billion of times) and natures do it.....

samantalang sa mga experiement na yan... there is an intervention of scientist... they manipulated DNA... someone who have intelligence alter the DNA para gawin ang isang bagay sa kung ano gusto niya lumabas... and take note hindi nangyari yang experiement na yan ng billion of years...

honestly speaking... can evolution be repeated in a laboratory room?

I guess what scientists are trying to prove is that a mutation of a single dna can change a bodypart of an animal making him more adaptive to a certain environment, like having a longer beak for a bird can make it capitalize on a food source that is unavailable before the mutation making it more healthy and providing a greater chance of mating and passing on the trait to its offspring.


it's more of an adaptation really if you consider only one or two characteristics but over a long period of time, if these changes happen to various aspects of characteristics of a species, then it can render a species completely changed.

[alistair]

honestly speaking... can evolution be repeated in a laboratory room?

Honestly speaking—do you know how to read or are you just trolling on purpose?

"Twenty years ago, evolutionary biologist Richard Lenski of Michigan State University in East Lansing, US, took a single Escherichia coli bacterium and used its descendants to found 12 laboratory populations.

The 12 have been growing ever since, gradually accumulating mutations and evolving for more than 44,000 generations, while Lenski watches what happens."

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14094-bacteria-make-major-evolutionary-shift-in-the-lab.html

"Since the experiment's inception, Lenski and his colleagues have reported a wide array of genetic changes; some evolutionary adaptations have occurred in all 12 populations, while others have only appeared in one or a few populations. One particularly striking adaption was the evolution of a strain of E. coli that was able to grow on citric acid in the growth media."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_long-term_evolution_experiment

Note that the scientist in this case did not alter the DNA himself—he merely observed and recorded.

And yes, it can be 'replayed':

"Examination of samples of the population frozen at earlier time points led to the discovery that a citrate-using variant had evolved in the population at some point between generations 31,000 and 31,500. They used a number of genetic markers unique to this population to exclude the possibility that the citrate-using E. coli were contaminants. They also found that the ability to use citrate could spontaneously re-evolve in populations of genetically pure clones isolated from earlier time points in the population's history. Such re-evolution of citrate utilization was never observed in clones isolated from before generation 20,000."

If you think that an entirely new species (with > 1% different DNA and/or unable to reproduce with the original specie) can 'sprout out' overnight—well, I guess that's to be expected if you think homo sapiens and other animals can suddenly come into existence out of thin air in a day.

[sardaukar]

South Korea surrenders to creationist demands
Publishers set to remove examples of evolution from high-school textbooks.

http://www.nature.com/news/south-korea-surrenders-to-creationist-demands-1.10773

Excerpt:

Antipathy to evolution
In a 2009 survey conducted for the South Korean documentary The Era of God and Darwin, almost one-third of the respondents didn’t believe in evolution. Of those, 41% said that there was insufficient scientific evidence to support it; 39% said that it contradicted their religious beliefs; and 17% did not understand the theory. The numbers approach those in the United States, where a survey by the research firm Gallup has shown that around 40% of Americans do not believe that humans evolved from less advanced forms of life.

“The ministry just sent the petition out to the publishing companies and let them judge.”
The roots of the South Korean antipathy to evolution are unclear, although Jeon suggests that they are partly “due to strong Christianity in the country”. About half of South Korea’s citizens practice a religion, mostly split between Christianity and Buddhism.

However, a survey of trainee teachers in the country concluded that religious belief was not a strong determinant of their acceptance of evolution3. It also found that 40% of biology teachers agreed with the statement that “much of the scientific community doubts if evolution occurs”; and half disagreed that “modern humans are the product of evolutionary processes”.

[Quitacet]

South Korea surrenders to creationist demands
Publishers set to remove examples of evolution from high-school textbooks.

http://www.nature.com/news/south-korea-surrenders-to-creationist-demands-1.10773

Excerpt:

Antipathy to evolution
In a 2009 survey conducted for the South Korean documentary The Era of God and Darwin, almost one-third of the respondents didn’t believe in evolution. Of those, 41% said that there was insufficient scientific evidence to support it; 39% said that it contradicted their religious beliefs; and 17% did not understand the theory. The numbers approach those in the United States, where a survey by the research firm Gallup has shown that around 40% of Americans do not believe that humans evolved from less advanced forms of life.

“The ministry just sent the petition out to the publishing companies and let them judge.”
The roots of the South Korean antipathy to evolution are unclear, although Jeon suggests that they are partly “due to strong Christianity in the country”. About half of South Korea’s citizens practice a religion, mostly split between Christianity and Buddhism.

However, a survey of trainee teachers in the country concluded that religious belief was not a strong determinant of their acceptance of evolution3. It also found that 40% of biology teachers agreed with the statement that “much of the scientific community doubts if evolution occurs”; and half disagreed that “modern humans are the product of evolutionary processes”.

So what will they do now, teach high school students that animals popped out of thin air? and snakes talk in the beginning?

[barrister]

Christians are a minority in South Korea.  The majority have no religion.  Out of those who do belong to a religious group, most are Buddhists.  Buddhists don't care about the creation-evolution debate because they think it's useless to their religion's goals.

If there's a strong creationist lobby group there now, it's likely that funds from American Conservative Christian groups are behind it.  

[Tempter]

Just watch Ancient Aliens and you'll all get the best of both worlds... 

[tigkal]

Or read Genesis Revisited by Sitchin. My friend read it and said that for two weeks he questioned his faith. He said the book is not for those with weak faith. Best read with an open mind.

[Verbl Kint]

Christians are a minority in South Korea.  The majority have no religion.  Out of those who do belong to a religious group, most are Buddhists.  Buddhists don't care about the creation-evolution debate because they think it's useless to their religion's goals.

If there's a strong creationist lobby group there now, it's likely that funds from American Conservative Christian groups are behind it.  

Evangelical Christian Churches (particularly those who practice prosperity theology) are huge in So. Korea.  So huge that they can very well fund their own lobbying.  Check out Sun Myung Moon, who is, for all intents and purposes, a veritable multi-billionaire.

[barrister]

You can still trace money from the Moonies to US money.

The Moonies are creationists with billions of dollars and a large portfolio of global business interests, but Sun Myung Moon is not South Korea based.  Moon is South Korean, but he's been living in the US since 1971.    

Millions of members are in the US.  International membership is believed to be around 5 to 7 million, but only a small percentage of that is composed of South Korean residents (no stats are available as to how many Moonies there are in South Korea).  

Moon is one of the biggest contributors to the American right.  He's spent billions on the right-wing newspaper Washington Times and has provided millions to American right-wing causes.  

In the 1980s, Rep. Jim Leach (R-Iowa) released a study which alleged that the College Republican National Committee "solicited and received" money from Moon's Unification Church in 1981.  Leach said the Unification Church has "infiltrated the New Right and the party it [the New Right] wants to control, the Republican Party, and infiltrated the media as well."

In the 1990's, Moon helped bail out Rev. Jerry Falwell's evangelist Liberty University with $3.5 million.  Falwell criticized Moon in the 1970s, saying, "Reverend Sun Myung Moon is like the plague: he exploits boys and girls, and he should be exported."  By the 1980s, Falwell was already praising Moon, giving the latter further credibility with the American conservative right.  Falwell continued to support him even after Moon was convicted and jailed for tax fraud in the US, alleging that the conviction was a case of religious persecution.

[sharkey360]

A fool wants to ban evolution from schools.

Kansas School Board Candidate Wants to Ban Evolution From Schools

A candidate for a position on the Kansas State Board of Education is seeking the complete removal of the Theory of Evolution from public schools.

Jack Wu, a native of California who moved to Topeka after joining the infamous Westboro Baptist Church, is running against 4th District incumbent Carolyn Wims-Campbell, who was elected in 2008.

"The current public educational system in Kansas and the United States is preparing its students to be liars, crooks, thieves, murderers, and perverts," said Wu in an entry on his campaign site.

"My mission, in running for the Kansas State Board of Education, is to throw out the crap that teachers are feeding their students and replace it with healthy good for the soul knowledge from the holy scriptures."

While Wu hopes to have the Theory of Evolution completely removed from the public curriculum, many major creationist organizations do not share that position.

Mark Looy, co-founder and chief communications officer for Answers in Genesis and the Kentucky-based Creation Museum, told The Christian Post that eliminating evolution from the curriculum should not be pursued.

"Answers in Genesis opposes efforts to remove evolution teaching from schools. It is a major worldview that affects so much of society, and thus it needs to be studied," said Looy.

"However, students, using their critical thinking skills, should be able to study evolution warts and all. AiG welcomes challenges to 'molecules-to-man' evolution, which sadly is a belief system that is taught as fact in most public school science classrooms."

Looy explained that Answers in Genesis believes a better way to deal with the teaching of the Theory of Evolution in public schools is not to outright ban it but rather counter it through "grassroots" efforts.

"To counter evolutionary indoctrination in schools, we believe it would be more effective to see a grassroots approach of impacting churches and communities," said Looy.

Lawrence Ford, director of communications for the Institute for Creation Research, told CP that his organization does not support efforts like Wu's to ban the teaching of evolution or mandate the teaching of creation science.

"The institute for Creation Research does not advocate teaching biblical creation in public schools. Teachers who don't believe the Bible shouldn't be forced to teach something they don't believe," said Ford.

"On the other hand, students should be encouraged to develop and apply critical thinking skills to any scientific theory presented to them in the classroom."

For the past several years, Kansas has been the epicenter of much controversy over how evolution and creation are taught or referenced. In August 1999, the board voted 6 to 4 in favor of science standards that eliminated most references to evolution. In February 2001, this vote was overturned in a 7 to 3 vote taken by a largely new group of board members.

In November 2005, science standards more critical of evolution theory were supported by the board, which included giving time to Intelligent Design, a modern counter to evolution.

Westboro Baptist Church, which earned a nationwide reputation for its protests of funerals, is not affiliated with any Baptist denomination.

http://www.christianpost.com/news/kansas-school-board-candidate-wants-to-ban-evolution-from-schools-77273/

[sharkey360]

Jack Wu

According to AP, Wu also advocates a literal interpretation of the Bible and believes the world is 6,000 years old. The US Geological Survey puts the number at closer to 4.5 billion.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/26/westboro-jack-wu_n_1628006.html

[sharkey360]

From an FB page

[tigkal]

It is because they just cant accept that we came from apes and yet made in the likeness of God. They just cant  reconcile. Better to believe in the woman from rib thing..

[barrister]

[sharkey360]

You heard of the Australopithecus sediba?

Human ancestor ate bark like a chimp



Bits of food stuck between the teeth of a two-million-year-old South African hominid show that, unlike almost all other known human ancestors, it ate tree bark and other hard foods.

Australopithecus sediba's diet was dramatically different to that of its African cousins, which tended to eat grasses and sedges.

A sediba's diet was analyzed using a technique that involved zapping fossilized teeth with a laser to free carbon from their enamel. This allowed the scientists to pinpoint the types of plants that were consumed and the environments in which the hominids lived.

The carbon signals from the teeth are split into two groups: C3 plants like trees, shrubs and bushes, and C4 plants such as the grasses and sedges consumed by many other early hominids.

And the teeth from the two A sediba individuals analyzed in the study delivered carbon isotope values outside the range of all 81 previously tested hominids. "The lack of any C4 evidence, and the evidence for the consumption of hard objects, are what make the inferred diet of these individuals compelling," said Sandberg.

"It is an important finding, because diet is one of the fundamental aspects of an animal, one that drives its behavior and ecological niche," says CU-Boulder doctoral student Paul Sandberg.
"As environments change over time because of shifting climates, animals are generally forced to either move or to adapt to their new surroundings."

The bark may represent a seasonal element to A sediba's diet. Bark and woody tissues haven't previously been found to be a dietary component of any other ancient African hominids, but are eaten by many primates and contain both protein and soluble sugars. The diet of A sediba may have been similar to that of today's African savanna chimpanzees, says Sandberg.

A sediba, first discovered in 2008, appears to have characteristics of both primitive and modern hominids, including a human-like ankle, short fingers and a long thumb - and a relatively complex brain. It's still unclear exactly where they fit in the hominid family tree.

http://www.tgdaily.com/general-sciences-features/64347-human-ancestor-ate-bark-like-a-chimp

[barrister]

Human ancestor ate bark like a chimp

A more accurate title would be, "Chimp ate bark like a chimp."  Not very glamorous, but more accurate.


Australopithecus Sediba: The Missing Link Between Apes and Humans?
by Rich Deem

... Even though the brain size was smaller than the average Australopithecine, study authors concluded that the "results are consistent with gradual neural reorganization of the orbitofrontal region in the transition from Australopithecus to Homo." Amazing!

http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/australopithecus_sediba_missing_link.html

[docelmo]

The greatest evidence that Creation is more "plausible" than Evolution was the discovery of the DNA. The DNA is a very complex set of codes or instructions contained in a single molecule. These codes are specific information that will eventually form the cells of the organism as it matures. Information cannot come spontaneously and will not be understood without a common language. Language connotes intelligence, which means that there was a "mind" that made all these things around us.

I don't know who said this about the probability of life out of chance:
 "It's like a tornado coming down in a junkyard and producing a jumbo jet".

[Tempter]

The greatest evidence that Creation is more "plausible" than Evolution was the discovery of the DNA. The DNA is a very complex set of codes or instructions contained in a single molecule. These codes are specific information that will eventually form the cells of the organism as it matures. Information cannot come spontaneously and will not be understood without a common language. Language connotes intelligence, which means that there was a "mind" that made all these things around us.

I don't know who said this about the probability of life out of chance:
 "It's like a tornado coming down in a junkyard and producing a jumbo jet".

Then who do you think created the creator??? 

[alistair]

The greatest evidence that Creation is more "plausible" than Evolution was the discovery of the DNA.

Funny. I would've thought that DNA was one of the greatest arguments against spontaneous Creation because it provides a mechanism to explain how species can mutate or adapt, and eventually, evolve to survive.

Information cannot come spontaneously and will not be understood without a common language.

I agree with the understanding part. But information—well, that's a tricky thing.

Weather phenomena is highly complex and chaotic. Somewhere behind all that is some fundamental set of interactions that govern whether it will rain tomorrow in Colombo or whether a tornado will hit Wichita.

Is there "information" in weather? Well, we (meaning, an intelligent observer) can extract information from the multitude of data about the weather.

But to say that there's information somehow encoded in there to begin with implies that someone put it there to begin with. That the weather has a purpose. Of course, the mystics would say that the machinations of the Universe itself has a purpose—but we digress.

Language connotes intelligence, which means that there was a "mind" that made all these things around us.

So many people can 'speak' but demonstrate little intelligence.

Sarcasm aside, "Language" is nothing more than symbols strung together to express something. Parrots can be taught language. Computers can be taught how to "speak". The intelligence behind such "language" is dubious.

And finally, I fail to see how language implies Intelligent Design. You could just as well say, "Pasta is a non-natural food and requires significant technique and technology to make, means that the Flying Spaghetti Monster exists and imprinted Pasta with his essence so that Man will eventually discover them and through them, proof that the FSM exists."

I don't know who said this about the probability of life out of chance:
 "It's like a tornado coming down in a junkyard and producing a jumbo jet".

Several things which reveal your own confusion.

1. Evolution is not abiogenesis.

2. Evolution per se doesn't talk about the origin of Life.

3. There is no selection pressure for a jumbo jet coming together at random from junkyard parts during a tornado.

4. Evolution is not random.

tl;dr: Sure, DNA is complex (and we haven't even fully figured out how all traits are passed down from one generation to the next, all we know is that DNA plays a part, but some now say RNA could also be involved).

But to point to a complex, naturally occurring phenomena and say, "That's proof of Intelligent Design" is just jumping to conclusions.

Just because "Only God could design something like DNA" does not imply "DNA exists, therefore it was created by God."

If you believe that, then I have another non-sequitur for you. "If a Perfect Being designed DNA, then beings would be perfect (no mutations, no abnormal and infertile offspring). But since animals born with mutations happen all the time, then DNA wasn't intelligently designed at all."

[docelmo]

Then who do you think created the creator??? 

Perhaps its very hard for us to grasp or accept  the concept of a "Creator" that is eternal, because the concept flies in the face of a seemingly contradicting theories of the origins of life. But we know that the universe is old but not infinitely old and therefore had a beginning. At some point in the distant past time and space started. Where would the source of  information.code or instruction come from to create all things....I would say came from a "Mind of a Creator" who has existed before time and space. So by definition the Creator was not created...

[docelmo]

Funny. I would've thought that DNA was one of the greatest arguments against spontaneous Creation because it provides a mechanism to explain how species can mutate or adapt, and eventually, evolve to survive.
I agree with the understanding part. But information—well, that's a tricky thing.

"Spontaneous Creation" is a contradiction in terms, The DNA code is specific and complex, repeatable and self correcting. The instruction transmitted is not spontaneous neither is it random. Before any organism is formed from a singled celled organism the instructions were already in place. Mutations and adaptations are the organisms response to its environment.

I would liken the DNA code to a Program being made by a computer programmer. His program must be specific, complex, and correctable.......a "spontaneous code" has no place in a programmers code.

[docelmo]

There is a big difference between  the weather and the cells of an organism. One is a non-living natural phenomenon, while the other is a biochemically active complex substance capable of replication. One contains water vapour, electrical charges and various chemicals interacting in a random process producing rain, typhoon etc,  while the other  a complex form of amino acid that contains the so-called “information” which is specific and complex, repeatable and capable of correction and producing a living organism……Big Difference.

I was referring to the “information” or code or message whatever you want to call it that is found in the DNA, the instruction must have come from something or someone in the past. This information must then by “understood” and processed along the chain by using a “common language” also imbedded in it.

Language is meaningless without us attaching meaning to a set of letters that are formed.

When I am given a chest xray, urinalysis, scan etc……I would interpret the result based on the “common language” I acquired in my training, I could then diagnose and treat my patient properly. The training is not static but continuous which leads to a better understanding of the pathophysiology, pharmacodynamics and other processes governing illness and its treatment. Without the common language each doctor would have his or her own interpretation! That would be chaotic and unacceptable.

Instructions without common language is like typing on a keyboard blindfolded, you may form from time to time simple words like “dog, cat, pig” which has an attached meaning assigned to it by us, but you can never in a million, trillion, billion years form coherent phrases, let alone sentences or instructions doing the same thing.

By observing what is naturally occurring all around both macroscopically and microscopically, systems in organisms follows certain principles for survival; they are specific yet complex, self-regenerating or correcting and dynamic, all these attributes implies the existence or evidence of a Mind that initiated all these principles…

Talking Parrots and Computers…..are for lack a better term…artificial intelligence. Language is meaningless without understanding its meaning or instruction. The DNA has in it a common language for which to build all cells in the organism…that is being used and understood as one organism becomes more complex and mature.

Just like the weather analogy, the “pasta” example is another one that does not stick. Though it was “created” by the baker, it does not contain a DNA that contains a code to replicate itself and to eventually create the flying spaghetti monster…apples and oranges

If Evolution is not Abiogenesis, not about the origin of life and not random…..what is it then, a deliberate, pre-ordained adaption of species?

The DNA contains the genes for which the genetic information for the development of an organism is contained, while the RNA uses the information to start the process of development of the organism( pre-med days knowledge pa yata yan hahaha baka bago na ngayon). Although there indeed rna viruses! Regardless, both dna and rna must contain the genetic code……who or what put it there in the first place?

This thing is a complex yet specific system that can replicate and self-correct itself by using an instruction imbedded in it. The existence of the DNA ( in which you said “Only God can create something like a DNA”)  does preclude the existence of God or Creator. On the contrary, the extreme complexity, specificity and precision of this system would lead  one to come to  a more plausible conclusion that it is a product of a concept, a design a blueprint…..a Mind.

Trying to prove the existence of God, Creator or Intelligent Design(er), is like trying to prove the Existence of the “Mind”. You cannot see, touch, feel, smell, taste it (prerequisites that a thing exists) and yet it exist. Our conversations/discussions here proves it exist. And I do find the arguments here very intelligent indeed. The evidence that we are the product of a concept or design of a mind way beyond our capacity to comprehend is right before our very eyes every time we look in the mirror!

The Creator is perfect yes! We were created in the “image and likeness” only of the Creator, therefore not perfect. Physically we are bounded by space and time, and therefore will degenerate and breakdown in its lifetime. As in all systems found around us, both living and non-living….

We do not exist in a vacuum where there is no external influence…..we are constantly exposed to such things as technology, chemicals, food processing, pesticides, pollution, food dyes, preservatives, contamination, radiation, hormones and antibiotic enhanced items, what is in the water
improper eating habits(hahaha I am guilty of this) Both man and animals are subjected to various environmental influences that mutations and abnormal growth are bound to occur in time.


 

[alistair]

The DNA code is specific and complex, repeatable and self correcting.

Yes, and none of those are irrefutable proof that is was created or designed.

Mutations and adaptations are the organisms response to its environment.

Funny how you talk of Intelligent Design and Evolution in the same breath.

I would liken the DNA code to a Program being made by a computer programmer. His program must be specific, complex, and correctable.......a "spontaneous code" has no place in a programmers code.

And you're seeing naturally occurring complexity and calling them evidence of Creation/Intelligent Design.

Like I said, a "leap of faith", just like the Anthropic Principle and the Clockwork Universe 'theory'.

[alistair]

There is a big difference between  the weather and the cells of an organism

And you missed the point.

The point is, yes, complexity (such as Life) abounds in the Universe. But Intelligent Design or Creation isn't the only explanation for all this complexity.

Ever hear of Emergence or "emergent complexity"?

See a snowflake up close? So complex. It must've been designed that way, yes?

Snowflake (and other crystal) formations exhibit fractal-like structures. You know how fractals look? They can look incredibly complex.

But they are not designed, in the conventional sense. Rather, some of them emerge or are generated from the simplest equations.

I was referring to the “information” or code or message

See, I think this is the fallacy you've fallen into.

The very term "information" or "message" implies a recipient.

This information must then by “understood” and processed along the chain by using a “common language” also imbedded in it.

Yes. And the only recipient of whatever information encoded in DNA are the chemicals and proteins involved in molecular biology.

Although we don't fully understand it yet, DNA is just DNA. You seem to believe that DNA somehow represents an encoded message from some higher Being.

Complexity is complexity. DNA (and Life as a whole) is complex. The Universe is complex. None of these things imply that they were designed or created.

Language is meaningless without us attaching meaning to a set of letters that are formed.

See, by your logic:

Language is complex. Somebody (was it Webster?) must've sat down one day and decided to design the English Language and its hundreds of thousands of words and idioms.

I mean—it's certainly not possible that language evolved out of the everyday use of sounds and symbols by millions of people over hundreds of generations and thousands of years. Is it?

By observing what is naturally occurring all around both macroscopically and microscopically, systems in organisms follows certain principles for survival; they are specific yet complex, self-regenerating or correcting and dynamic, all these attributes implies the existence or evidence of a Mind that initiated all these principles…

I disagree. See above.

Frankly, you're better off pointing to complexity that we don't have any explanation for, like the transcendental numbers such as pi or or e, or the distribution of prime numbers.

Those so complex we don't know if they ever end or repeat, or what hidden patterns they hold.

Do you think the existence of pi implies a Higher Being created it as such?

If Evolution is not Abiogenesis, not about the origin of life and not random…..what is it then, a deliberate, pre-ordained adaption of species?

How about you read more about it first, then come back to this thread?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-definition.html

Regardless, both dna and rna must contain the genetic code……who or what put it there in the first place?

I believe it could be aliens.

The Creator is perfect yes!

God for you!

Now, tell me again, if a Perfect Being designed DNA—don't you think He would've designed it so that every organism is a perfect copy of the previous one?

Why did God allow mutations to exist? Hmm—maybe so that the eventual accumulation of beneficial mutations over millions of years would allow increasing complexity of Life, eventually, until some species achieved sentience and Science and start to question His existence?

Sounds about right.

[docelmo]

And you missed the point.

The point is, yes, complexity (such as Life) abounds in the Universe. But Intelligent Design or Creation isn't the only explanation for all this complexity.

Ever hear of Emergence or "emergent complexity"?

See a snowflake up close? So complex. It must've been designed that way, yes?

Snowflake (and other crystal) formations exhibit fractal-like structures. You know how fractals look? They can look incredibly complex.

But they are not designed, in the conventional sense. Rather, some of them emerge or are generated from the simplest equations.

“I believe it’s you who missed the point, I said the DNA is incredibly complex and specific, which by definition means that the information imbedded in the DNA has specific “instructions” that is carried by the RNA and eventually forming complex cells and organisms.

In what sense is the weather complex? Does it contain the building blocks to create “another” object? Does it self-assemble to form a complex object?

Same with snowflakes, granted it has a complex structure, but can it self-replicate or converge with other snowflakes to form say a snowman?

Or sands on the beach aggregating to form a sand castle.

Can all these “complex objects” form a more complex structure without the so-called proper “instructions” coded in the DNA!

I don’t think so…

Emergent Complexity is this now a Law that would explain that simple objects would assemble themselves to form complex structures….if not. Then it is by faith that you believe that this process exists!

[docelmo]

And you're seeing naturally occurring complexity and calling them evidence of Creation/Intelligent Design.

Like I said, a "leap of faith", just like the Anthropic Principle and the Clockwork Universe 'theory'.

How did this so called "naturally occurring complexity of life came into  existence in the first place....by chance, dumb luck? Or do they all follow certain principles common to all systems, that of having a purpose for its creation...


In the same breath your belief in Evolution as the "natural progression of the specie" is a Leap of Faith! With so little evidence for the theory to form a more plausible intelligent conclusion...

[docelmo]

Yes, and none of those are irrefutable proof that is was created or designed.
Funny how you talk of Intelligent Design and Evolution in the same breath.

Ah so something as complex as the DNA  emerged spontaneously in the distant past, just like you  emerged from your mother's womb "spontaneously".

ID propositions that the universe and living organisms are explained by an Intelligent cause. It does not exclude the possibility of mutations and adaptation. Mutations do occur in the dna due to various intrinsic and extrinsic factors, adaptation occur due to the needs of a specific organism...both does not invalidate Intelligent Design.

[docelmo]

Intelligent Design or Evolution?

[alistair]

Emergent Complexity is this now a Law that would explain that simple objects would assemble themselves to form complex structures….if not. Then it is by faith that you believe that this process exists!

Not faith. Observation. Just look at swarming behavior, Conway's Game of Life, fractals, etc.

Highly complex patterns can arise from the simplest initial conditions. No faith needed for the Mandelbrot Set.

How did this so called "naturally occurring complexity of life came into  existence in the first place....by chance, dumb luck?

I don't know. Just as I don't know how come pi and e are transcendental numbers with no end and no discernable pattern.

You say, "Higher Being." I say, we're living in a computer simulation.

Or do they all follow certain principles common to all systems, that of having a purpose for its creation...

See, this is where you let your Faith lead your 'science'. Having a purpose? Does a snowflake have a 'purpose' (other than to look beautiful for an instant, then melt?)?

You've already decided things have a purpose, and from there, are working backwards looking for complexity that you can't explain, then you go, "Well, it has a purpose and it's complex therefore it must've been created/designed by some Higher Being."

In the same breath your belief in Evolution as the "natural progression of the specie" is a Leap of Faith! With so little evidence for the theory to form a more plausible intelligent conclusion...

Nope. observation and Scientific/Mathematical induction.

Organisms die, or reproduce. Organisms don't reproduce perfectly—that is, mutations and normal heredity introduce different traits (including new body parts and/or bigger bodies) among different offspring.

Natural selection means organisms with traits more favorable for their environment will survive longer, and reproduce more than those unfit.

Over time, this means that ever more complex life forms emerge out of earlier, simpler life forms. Except for this last statement, everything so far is observable, falsifiable, reproducible fact which can explained (to a great extent) by biology, etc.

Ah so something as complex as the DNA  emerged spontaneously in the distant past, just like you  emerged from your mother's womb "spontaneously".

Everyone knows babies don't come from the womb "spontaneously"—unlike that rib that turned into Eve. We have a perfectly ordinary, scientific/biological explanation for that.

ID propositions that the universe and living organisms are explained by an Intelligent cause.

And that is entirely a matter of faith and belief for the simple reason that it cannot be verified or falsified.

If you believe in Invisible Pink Unicorns—you're entitled to that belief.

Now, if you say that Invisible Pink Unicorns created or designed the Universe, um, for whatever reason then you're entitled to that belief.

But if you say that, "Look, the Universe/Life is complex, therefore it must've been created by the Invisible Pink Unicorns"—see how that doesn't follow?

Higher Being -> Complex structures, sure.

Complex structures -> Higher Being, no. p -> q doesn't mean q -> p. Basic logic.

By contrast, ~q -> ~p, or not Complex -> not Higher Being. Again, basic logic.

So, how come we have simple structures? Why isn't everything complex? Were these simpler structures 'designed' by lesser Higher Beings (maybe the angels)?

Why do we have RNA (which some say is the precursor to DNA) and viruses, prions and simpler lifeforms? Were these all designed? For what purpose? Couldn't we have just had *poof* homo sapiens, highly complex, intelligent, self-aware, 23 chromosomes?

Or, how come complexity can arise from simple initial conditions? Why can't simple be simple only, and shouldn't all complex things have been created/designed?

Answer my other earlier question: How come no Higher Being is required to explain the whole of Human Language? Did some super smart person create Latin, Greek, Mandarin, Sinhalese, etc. then teach them to different tribes spread over the Earth?

Ok, if not Man, then a Higher Being. If you believe in the Bible, then I suppose you'd say "Yeah, God have one language to Man in the beginning, then after Babel, gave different languages to different nations."

Uhuh. Interesting worldview. Do you have any archeological records that bear it out? The oldest written language we have evidence for is Sumerian, around 2700 BC. What language did Adam & Eve speak, and how come we have no evidence for it?

It does not exclude the possibility of mutations and adaptation. Mutations do occur in the dna due to various intrinsic and extrinsic factors, adaptation occur due to the needs of a specific organism...both does not invalidate Intelligent Design.

And DNA complexity doesn't necessitate or imply it.

DNA is complex, I agree. But we both know DNA begets DNA. We have a perfectly cromulent, non-magical explanation for how DNA propagates, and for how it changes—just as we have ordinary (Mathematical & scientific) explanations for the complexity of fractals, snowflakes, the weather.

Which brings me to my conclusion: if you say believe everything has a purpose—then what purpose does ID have?

So far, things (meaning, the Universe) seem to have come along just fine without the need for Intelligent Design.

Put it another way—with or without Intelligent Design, DNA exists, DNA works, and to a certain extent we even know how it works. Stars form, go supernova or singularity, worlds collide, and so on.

The Clockwork Universe seems to humming along just fine without the Watchmaker.

Before all these Scientific discoveries, there wasn't even such a thing called Intelligent Design. Is the only purpose of ID to give Creationists a chance to remain relevant?