Evolution of the Organelle Assembly Line

ferengi said:
How did evo create DNA? How did evo create the information stored in the DNA to create the protein? How did evo create the digital code that is used to encode the information stored in DNA?
Click to expand...
We can answer that just as well as creationists: Nature did it!

If you want more details, tell us how God did it first.
 
Bob Carabbio said:
Translation: We don't really KNOW, but in desperation to Get RID of "creationism" ( and God Himself in the process), we're trying to sell a "theory" as though it is a FACT.
Click to expand...
You are twisting the whole point of the thread. CrowCross made the claim that the organelle assembly line could not have evolved. I proved that wrong.

That is it.

I have not said we know. I have not said it is fact. I have just shown that it is possible, and hence CrowCross is wrong.

We know. Rejected.
Click to expand...
If you find battling straw man helps re-affirm your religious beliefs, then you go for it. But do expect me to point it out for what it is.
 
rossum said:
The evidence you see in biased creationist sources shows that. The scientific evidence supports evolution.

If your God could not create a universe where evolution would happen, then your God is not omnipotent.
Click to expand...
The evidence you see in biased evolutionist sources is not accurate. Our understanding of DNA support intelligent design. Darwinian evolution should now be considered a religion.
 
dingoling. said:
The evidence you see in biased evolutionist sources is not accurate.
Click to expand...
In what way? How inaccurate is it? How are you even measuring accuracy of evidence?

Evolution is accepted by over 99% of biologists. Are you saying that they are ALL biased? Most of them are likely to be theists, many of them Christians. Why are they biased, do you think?

Our understanding of DNA support intelligent design.
Click to expand...
Sure. ID covers every eventuality. Whatever we observe, we can just say "God did it" and leave it at that. So, yes, in a sense, our understanding of DNA supports ID.

But it also supports evolution. However, evolution does make falsifiable predictions, such as no hybrid species, like centaurs or mermaids, that would break the nested hierarchy. Evolution also explains, where ID does not. For instance, evolution tells us why vertebrate have one eye structure and cephalopods have another; ID just says "God did it".

Darwinian evolution should now be considered a religion.
Click to expand...
Is that because you think Darwinian evolution is wrong? Or bad? Or cannot be justified by the evidence?

What religion are you, by the way?
 
dingoling. said:
The evidence you see in biased evolutionist sources is not accurate.
Click to expand...
You are mistaken. Scientists like to find errors in other scientists' research. Science is as accurate as it is possible to be.

dingoling. said:
Our understanding of DNA support intelligent design.
Click to expand...
Scientific evidence supports evolution. Are you genetically identical to your parents? No you are not. That is part of evolution; new genetic variation. Do you need food and water? That is the other part of evolution: resource constraint. If you have variation and resource constraint then you will have evolution.

dingoling. said:
Darwinian evolution should now be considered a religion.
Click to expand...
I find it fascinating that when a religious person wants to criticise part of science, they say, "It is not science, but religion." You are telling us that you consider science to be superior to religion by saying that. A strange attitude for a religious person.
 
The Pixie said:
In what way? How inaccurate is it? How are you even measuring accuracy of evidence?

Evolution is accepted by over 99% of biologists. Are you saying that they are ALL biased? Most of them are likely to be theists, many of them Christians. Why are they biased, do you think?


Sure. ID covers every eventuality. Whatever we observe, we can just say "God did it" and leave it at that. So, yes, in a sense, our understanding of DNA supports ID.

But it also supports evolution. However, evolution does make falsifiable predictions, such as no hybrid species, like centaurs or mermaids, that would break the nested hierarchy. Evolution also explains, where ID does not. For instance, evolution tells us why vertebrate have one eye structure and cephalopods have another; ID just says "God did it".


Is that because you think Darwinian evolution is wrong? Or bad? Or cannot be justified by the evidence?
Click to expand...

Here is a link that you may like on the issue.

The Pixie said:
What religion are you, by the way?
Click to expand...
What makes you think that I am a religious person?
 
dingoling. said:
Here is a link that you may like on the issue.
Click to expand...
Rather than waste an hour of my time, does that video include the effects of natural selection in its mathematical calculations? I ask because far too many ID/creationist mathematical analyses of evolution omit natural selection, only including random mutation.

Any mathematics that omits natural selection is not relevant to evolution because evolution does include natural selection.

dingoling. said:
What makes you think that I am a religious person?
Click to expand...
The fact that 99% of opposition to evolution is religiously motivated.
 
rossum said:
Rather than waste an hour of my time, does that video include the effects of natural selection in its mathematical calculations? I ask because far too many ID/creationist mathematical analyses of evolution omit natural selection, only including random mutation.

Any mathematics that omits natural selection is not relevant to evolution because evolution does include natural selection.


The fact that 99% of opposition to evolution is religiously motivated.
Click to expand...
99%? What did you get that figure?
 
rossum said:
Rather than waste an hour of my time, does that video include the effects of natural selection in its mathematical calculations? I ask because far too many ID/creationist mathematical analyses of evolution omit natural selection, only including random mutation.

Any mathematics that omits natural selection is not relevant to evolution because evolution does include natural selection.


The fact that 99% of opposition to evolution is religiously motivated.
Click to expand...
They include natural selection.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top