23 Dec 05
Originally posted by corp1131The majority of the polls would trump this one poll, from 2001.
Please provide evidence that the majority of people dismiss evolutionary theory. It took me less than 30 seconds to find a National Geographic arcticle sourcing a Gallup poll which stated that 45% of Americans belive that evolution played no role in shaping humans (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/10/1018_041018_science_religion.html). Unless ...[text shortened]... ution at >80% in the UK and >95% in Japan, but I shall see if this is even remotely trustworthy)
23 Dec 05
1 edit
Originally posted by scottishinnzJust one tiny problem, To produce DNA, it requires over 75 different types of proteins. Yet DNA is essential for creating proteins." Proteins are required to make DNA, and DNA is required to make proteins. Both extremely complicated systems are necessary at the same time and must be fully functioning in order to create the other.
A bacteria cannot 'adapt' to an antibiotic. OMG have you no idea? It can't 'get used to it'. Many antibiotics act by destabilising the cell wall or distrupting biochemical pathways - these organisms have to change to survive. In some cases they change their biochem to break down the antibiotics, something they were unable to do before. [i]They ...[text shortened]... al biologist I already know. It evolved from short sections of (the most likely precursor) RNA.
In order for DNA to evolve and be useful it requires the DNA (complex information), several proteins and the RNA for this program to have a chance to work. However, neither DNA, RNA or Protein would evolve by natural selection because they require the existence of the other systems. Evolution is hopelessly inadequate for producing DNA,
You would learn this stuff in ID classes which you guys are so vigersly fighting
Edit: Now why is this all in Italics?
23 Dec 05
Originally posted by flyUnityStop your attempt at being condescending towards me.
Just one tiny problem, To produce DNA, it requires over 75 different types of proteins. Yet DNA is essential for creating proteins." Proteins are required to make DNA, and DNA is required to make proteins. Both extremely complicated systems are necessary at the same time and must be fully functioning in order to create the other.
In order for DNA to evo ...[text shortened]... f in ID classes which you guys are so vigersly fighting
Edit: Now why is this all in Italics?
Let's examine that statement of yours. Over 75 different protein are required to reproduce DNA nowadays . Again, this is not true. DNA can be replicated using only 1 protein in a PCR machine. Furthermore, if the temperature cycles are right, it doesn't even need that. And that's with the complicated situation we have in higher organisms we have nowadays. Back when the world was young and there was more energy in the environment, and the proto-organsims were simpler, things would have been significantly different.
23 Dec 05
3 edits
Originally posted by flyUnityWhat is wrong with the following argument:
Just one tiny problem, To produce DNA, it requires over 75 different types of proteins. Yet DNA is essential for creating proteins." Proteins are required to make DNA, and DNA is required to make proteins. Both extremely complicated systems are necessary at the same time and must be fully functioning in order to create the other.
Every light bulb is manufactured in a factory lit by light bulbs.
Every factory that makes light bulbs requires light bulbs to operate.
Since the factory and the bulb each rely on the other's existence, neither the factory nor the light bulb could have arisen before the other, and neither can exist without the other.
Therefore, the only explanation for the existence of both is that they were both created fully formed simultaneously.
23 Dec 05
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesThe factory runs, regardless of light bulbs.
What is wrong with the following argument:
Every light bulb is manufactured in a factory lit by light bulbs.
Every factory that makes light bulbs requires light bulbs to operate.
Since the factory and the bulb each rely on the other's existence, neither the factory nor the light bulb could have arisen before the other, and neither can exist ...[text shortened]... fore, the only eplanation for the existence of both is that they were both created fully formed.
Brilliant argument. Spoken like one who has experienced many, many debates.
23 Dec 05
9 edits
In Intelligent Design theory, is the designer allowed to use physically observable mechanisms to implement his designs? Or must realizations of his designs appear as if by magic, with no possibility of examining how the designer caused them to come into being?
For example, apply Intelligent Design theory to a fully-built house. Are the existence of the house plans, the hammers, the tradesmen, the paint, etc., consistent with what ID has to say about the fully-built house? Or must they be ignored if one accepts ID's conclusion that the house was designed?
The obvious point is, couldn't evolution be the mechanism used by the designer of current life forms to bring them into existence? If so, ID isn't an alternative explanation to evolution, is it?
23 Dec 05
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesUsing your argument, if you could find a factory that would not function at any scale smaller than its present status, and if its present functions are required for its existence, than you would have an irreducibly complex system. From whence does this come?
In Intelligent Design theory, is the designer allowed to use physically observable mechanisms to implement his designs? Or must realizations of his designs appear as if by magic, with no possibility of examining how the designer caused them to come into being?
For example, apply Intelligent Design theory to a fully-built house. Are the existence ...[text shortened]... to bring them into existence? If so, ID isn't an alternative explanation to evolution, is it?
23 Dec 05
Originally posted by FreakyKBHWhat does Intelligent Design have to say about a fully-built house?
Using your argument, if you could find a factory that would not function at any scale smaller than its present status, and if its present functions are required for its existence, than you would have an irreducibly complex system. From whence does this come?
