The design argument

Originally posted by C Hess
Well, I guess whatever you believe is true to you. Interesting world you must live in.

No more or less than the one you live in.

Originally posted by C Hess
In biology, a mutation is altered DNA, and there are many different ways through which this can happen (not just through a replicative deviation). To call it a mistake might be a bit too simplistic, given that some of these mutations turns out to be beneficial.

According to Occam's Razor, the simplest explanation is most likely to be the correct one. Even the mutations that some claim are benficial are a result of mistakes made in DNA replication, so in totality these type mutations are not really beneficial. 😏

Originally posted by KellyJay
No more or less than the one you live in.

I know you think I'm a stubborn "believer" of whatever I want to believe, but I've been forced to change my mind many times, and am willing to keep doing so. It just so happens that I've obviously given this much more thought and study than you have. But hey, if you believe otherwise, it's gotta be true.

Originally posted by RJHinds
According to Occam's Razor, the simplest explanation is most likely to be the correct one. Even the mutations that some claim are benficial are a result of mistakes made in DNA replication, so in totality these type mutations are not really beneficial. 😏

That doesn't even make any sense. No, not all mutations are caused by replication errors, but even if they were, as I've already explained... you know what, just read my earlier posts on good, bad and neutral mutations. Better yet, buy a good book on the subject.

Originally posted by twhitehead
So by what process do you think different DNA sequences arose that led to different eye colors?

It is the heredity process during reproduction that determines the different varieties. The following example discusses the inheritance of either wet or dry ear wax, but the process of inheritance of different eye color is similar.

Heredity: Crash Course Biology #9

YouTube

Originally posted by RJHinds
It is the heredity process during reproduction that determines the different varieties.

Yes, I know how inheritance works, but that is not what I asked.

Either the necessary genes for different eye color have always existed, or at some point, one of the genes for a new eye color arose in the human population. Is it your claim that Adam had blue eyes and Eve had brown eyes? Then who was it who first had green eyes and where did they get those genes if not from a mutation?

Originally posted by twhitehead
Yes, I know how inheritance works, but that is not what I asked.

Either the necessary genes for different eye color have always existed, or at some point, one of the genes for a new eye color arose in the human population. Is it your claim that Adam had blue eyes and Eve had brown eyes? Then who was it who first had green eyes and where did they get those genes if not from a mutation?

http://learn.genetics.utah.edu/content/inheritance/patterns/

Eye color is influenced mainly by two genes, with smaller contributions from several others. People with light eyes tend to carry recessive alleles of the major genes; people with dark eyes tend to carry dominant alleles. In Scandinavia, most people have light eyes—the recessive alleles of these genes are much more common here than the dominant ones.

Dominant alleles are not better than recessive alleles

Mode of inheritance has nothing to do with whether an allele benefits an individual or not. Take rock pocket mice, where fur color is controlled mainly by a single gene. The gene codes for a protein that makes dark pigment. Some rock pocket mice have dark fur, and some have light fur. The dark-fur allele is dominant, and the light-fur allele is recessive.

When mice live in a habitat filled with dark rocks, dark fur is “better” because it makes the mice less visible to predators. But when mice live in a habitat filled with light rocks and sand, light fur is “better.” It’s the environment that matters, not whether the allele is dominant or recessive.

Obviously God gave them the required genes from the beginning. They did not have to acquire them.

Definition: An allele is an alternative form of a gene (one member of a pair) that is located at a specific position on a specific chromosome. These DNA codings determine distinct traits that can be passed on from parents to offspring. The process by which alleles are transmitted was discovered by Gregor Mendel and formulated in what is known as Mendel's law of segregation.

Examples: The gene for seed shape in pea plants exists in two forms, one form or allele for round seed shape (R) and the other for wrinkled seed shape (r).

Organisms have two alleles for each trait. When the alleles of a pair are heterozygous, one is dominant and the other is recessive. The dominant allele is expressed and the recessive allele is masked. Using the previous example, round seed shape (R) is dominant and wrinkled seed shape (r) is recessive. Round: (RR) or (Rr), Wrinkled: (rr).

http://biology.about.com/od/geneticsglossary/g/alleles.htm

Definition: Heterozygous refers to having two different alleles for a single trait.

http://biology.about.com/od/geneticsglossary/g/heterozygous.htm

Originally posted by stellspalfie
[b]"people even here how claim there is no evidence against evolution?"


id be one of them. behe submitted his paper it was publlished. once it was published he claimed that it was evidence of i.d. (the paper itself doesnt metion i.d. or god or evolution). its a purely scientific paper.

so obviously a disagreement ensues. he says it is eviden ...[text shortened]... cess didnt care if it was evidence or not for i.d. all the process cared about was the science.[/b]

He will not get any more papers published in that journal, because they now know he believes in Intelligent Design, which evolutionists associate with creation. 😏

Originally posted by C Hess
That doesn't even make any sense. No, not all mutations are caused by replication errors, but even if they were, as I've already explained... you know what, just read my earlier posts on good, bad and neutral mutations. Better yet, buy a good book on the subject.

Okay, maybe you could call it damaged DNA instead if you wish. 😏

Originally posted by RJHinds
Obviously God gave them the required genes from the beginning. They did not have to acquire them.

That is not possible as there are more than four variations in the genes (the maximum number of variations Adam and Eve could carry at once).

Originally posted by C Hess
I know you think I'm a stubborn "believer" of whatever I want to believe, but I've been forced to change my mind many times, and am willing to keep doing so. It just so happens that I've obviously given this much more thought and study than you have. But hey, if you believe otherwise, it's gotta be true.

You obviously given this more thought than me, exactly how do you know
that? That another statement of faith based upon nothing other than what
you want or think is true?

Originally posted by KellyJay
You obviously given this more thought than me,

Never a truer word has been spoken.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Okay, maybe you could call it damaged DNA instead if you wish. 😏

No, I'll call it mutated DNA, if you don't mind.

Originally posted by KellyJay
You obviously given this more thought than me, exactly how do you know
that? That another statement of faith based upon nothing other than what
you want or think is true?

It's obvious from your replies that I'm more learned on the topic of evolution, and it seems to me that in order to confidently reject a theory as established as this one (with over 150 years of peer-review scrutiny and tons of refinements made to it), you'd have to first understand it. Well, you apparently don't think so, but I do.

I can only repeat what proper knob and others have pointed out to you, that in one of the most competitive of human endevours, involving some of the most brilliant scientific minds, for over 150 years no one has succeeded in proving evolutionary theory wrong, or find a theory that compares, and yet you think this is just a matter of people being flawed and believing what they want to believe.

At this point I honestly don't know wether to laugh or feel embarrassed for you.

Originally posted by twhitehead
That is not possible as there are more than four variations in the genes (the maximum number of variations Adam and Eve could carry at once).

But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible.

{Matthew 19:26 KJV)