Problems for evolution — squid recodes its own RNA

Status
Not open for further replies.

User Name

Greatest poster ever
Banned
Random mutations and natural selection could never produce a system so reliant on intent and purpose.

What you are doing here is making a "God of the gaps" argument. Essentially, you are saying, "I don't understand how this process could have evolved naturally; therefore, God did it." If you want to believe that this phenomenon is not the result of natural processes and was supernaturally created as-is, that is up to you. However, "God did it," is not a scientific statement because science deals only with the study of natural processes.
 
Last edited:

Jose Fly

New member
Creationists have no problem with a squid being able to recode its RNA, because that is consistent with their belief that all creatures are designed.

Ok, you gotta walk me through that logic. How does "all creatures are designed" follow from "squid can recode their RNA"?
 

Jose Fly

New member
History has shown that is 100% false. If the Bible and science were equivalent as sources, then all science would come from a papyrus scroll written by an unknown author with unknown credentials from 2000 years ago.

Well, that's just wishful thinking on the part of creationists. One fact I don't think anyone with half a brain can deny is that creationism is 100% scientifically irrelevant.
 

Stripe

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
You are saying, "I don't understand how this process could have evolved naturally; therefore, God did it."

Nope.

I am saying random mutations and natural selection cannot provide a pathway to a process that relies on design and intent.

If squids had a system where they had billions of offspring that all introduced random changes to their RNA and the ones that survived, uh survived, to do the same, perhaps that would be understandable from an evolutionary point of view.
 

Dennyg1

BANNED
Banned
Although Bill Gates never took any advanced biology class, he understands biology and codes better than you.
"DNA is like a computer program but far, far more advanced than any software ever created."
Bill Gates

John Sanford has taken advanced biology and he also understands biology better than you.*
"The genome is an instruction manual...There is no informatiin system designed by man that can even begin to compare to the simplest genome in complexity"
Dr. Sanford, geneticist




If you looked at the wiring in the control box of a NASA rocket, I believe you are arrogant enough to tell the engineering dept. that it looks sloppy and redundant. You also are arrogant enough to tell God the same, even though you clearly don't understand the genome.

This is the simplified illustration of DNA that's often in junior high biology books.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...ture.svg/514px-DNA_chemical_structure.svg.png

What about that are you confused about? We know how it works. We even know how to manipulate it.
Here are goats that had spider genes inserted into their genome and now produce silk from their udder things:
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-16554357
 

Stripe

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
You do realize that is exactly the opposite of what your source on this thread says, right?

When you have something rational to contribute, let us know.

What people believe is not going to sway me; only evidence works. :thumb:
 

The Barbarian

BANNED
Banned
Although Bill Gates never took any advanced biology class, he understands biology and codes better than you.

Wouldn't seem so. He seems completely unaware that there are computer programs that are more complex than DNA.

John Sanford has taken advanced biology and he also understands biology better than you.*
"The genome is an instruction manual...There is no informatiin system designed by man that can even begin to compare to the simplest genome in complexity"

John seems to have the same misconception. The fact is, there are computer programs that are more complex than DNA code.

Barbarian continues:
At the same time, it's DNA is unnecessarily complex. Coding is sloppy and includes redundant codes, which are unnecessary. Which is what you'd expect from an evolved system.

If you looked at the wiring in the control box of a NASA rocket

I would be surprised to see a nest of wiring. Most everything is on circuit boards and in chips. People quit soldering wires for most such things, a long time ago.

I believe you are arrogant enough to tell the engineering dept. that it looks sloppy and redundant.

You still don't get it. Evolutionary processes required that sort of thing. This is why genetic algorithms are sloppy and redundant. And yet, evolutionary processes solve engineering problems that are beyond the reach of design.

You also are arrogant enough to tell God the same

He created that sloppiness and redundancy precisely because it works better than design.

Because you clearly don't understand the genome, this makes no sense to you. But it's completely understandable if you accept that it was created, not designed.

As engineers have discovered, God chose evolution over design, because it works better.
 

Dennyg1

BANNED
Banned
When you have something rational to contribute, let us know.

What people believe is not going to sway me; only evidence works. :thumb:

No evidence doesn't work. But somehow the Sumerian creation and flood story adapted by the Jews to fit monotheism is your "infallible source."
 

6days

New member
No evidence doesn't work. But somehow the Sumerian creation and flood story adapted by the Jews to fit monotheism is your "infallible source."
Jesus and other Bible authors refer to Moses writings and other scripture as the ultimate source of truth
 

Stripe

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
No evidence doesn't work. But somehow the Sumerian creation and flood story adapted by the Jews to fit monotheism is your "infallible source."

Wake us up when you're done ranting. :yawn:
 

6days

New member
What you are doing here is making a "God of the gaps" argument. Essentially, you are saying, "I don't understand how this process could have evolved naturally; therefore, God did it." If you want to believe that this phenomenon is not the result of natural processes and was supernaturally created as-is, that is up to you. However, "God did it," is not a scientific statement because science deals only with the study of natural processes.

Actually the argument is that the appearance of design leads us to the Designer. It is illogical to believe that codes can create themselves without a codemaker.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top