Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
The Origin of Specious Nonsense. Twelve years on. Still going. Answer soon.
Options
Comments
-
I never said he was a Creationist ... I said he was an amazing man of insight and brilliance ... who defined the mathematics ... that eventually led to the modern ID movement within science.PopePalpatine wrote: »J C, if Crick were alive today, and you told him that he's a creationist, he'd either laugh in your face or sue you for libel.0 -
Where are those mathematical papers on "CFSI"? The first two pages on Google for "cfsi mathematics" are about finances in Cleveland and on a "child-friendly school initiative", and nothing from the usual dribbling creationist sites.0
-
Just goes to show that I can admire a person's scientific achievements ... even if that person is mistaken about my Faith.
Prof. Francis Crick (1916–2004) Co-discoverer of the structure of DNA, Nobel laureate 1962, Professor at the Salk Institute
"To produce this miracle of molecular construction all the cell need do is to string together the amino acids (which make up the polypeptide chain) in the correct order. This is a complicated biochemical process, a molecular assembly line, using instructions in the form of a nucleic acid tape (the so-called messenger RNA) which will be described in outline in Chapter 5. Here we need only ask, how many possible proteins are there? If a particular amino acid sequence was selected by chance, how rare of an event would that be?
This is an easy exercise in combinatorials. Suppose the chain is about two hundred amino acids long; this is, if anything, rather less than the average length of proteins of all types. Since we have just twenty possibilities at each place, the number of possibilities is twenty multiplied by itself some two hundred times. This is conveniently written 20^200 and is approximately equal to 10^260, that is a one followed by 260 zeros!
This number is quite beyond our everyday comprehension. For comparison, consider the number of fundamental particles (atoms, speaking loosely) in the entire visible universe, not just in our own galaxy with its 10^11 stars, but in all the billions of galaxies, out to the limits of observable space. This number, which is estimated to be 10^80, is quite paltry by comparison to 10^260. Moreover, we have only considered a polypeptide chain of a rather modest length. Had we considered longer ones as well, the figure would have been even more immense." Life Itself (1981) p. 51-52.
He does not say he is an ID proponent he simply makes clear he is puzzled by how life originated. All scientists are unsure about how life originated, this does not make them ID proponents. Show me where in that quote he says he believes in ID and I do not want to be told that there is no other explanation, that is not what Prof. Crick was saying; he was saying we do not yet understand what happened. That is part of what is called science; puzzlement and investigation leading to new discoveries rather than depending on a 50/50 mix of fairy tale and barbarian history.0 -
Your enthusiasm for information on CFSI is only exceeded by your contempt for the concept.PopePalpatine wrote: »Where are those mathematical papers on "CFSI"? The first two pages on Google for "cfsi mathematics" are about finances in Cleveland and on a "child-friendly school initiative", and nothing from the usual dribbling creationist sites.
Why do you think that the most important information is on the public internet? ... do you not know that such information is never published.0 -
However you 'cut it' the maths are damning for Spontaneous Evolution ... and well beyond the Universal Probability Bound.He does not say he is an ID proponent he simply makes clear he is puzzled by how life originated. All scientists are unsure about how life originated, this does not make them ID proponents. Show me where in that quote he says he believes in ID and I do not want to be told that there is no other explanation, that is not what Prof. Crick was saying; he was saying we do not yet understand what happened. That is part of what is called science; puzzlement and investigation leading to new discoveries rather than depending on a 50/50 mix of fairy tale and barbarian history.0 -
Advertisement
-
Your enthusiasm for information on CFSI is only exceeded by your contempt for the concept.
Why do you think that the most important information is on the public internet? ... do you not know that such information is never published.
Then where do you get it, do the aliens beam it into your head when you are not wearing your tinfoil hat?0 -
0
-
-
Oh, I googled the "Universal Probability Bound" and it seems that William A Dembski invented it.
What a surprise!0 -
The current orthodox view of how evolution happens is on its last legs. It assumes that it can all be explained in purely materialistic and deterministic terms, where the evolutionary process can be essentially reduced to physics.
This mechanistic view of reality hasn't been able to explain evolution because it never can.
It must take a lot of faith to keep believing in something which is clearly a delusion. In the coming decades neo-Darwinism will increasingly be regarded in the same way as alchemy and astrology are today.0 -
Advertisement
-
Is anyone actually trying to argue that a 200 amino acid long chain was mutated into existence in one go?
JC seems to be arguing against something that I don't think anyone believes.
MrP0 -
Is anyone actually trying to argue that a 200 amino acid long chain was mutated into existence in one go?
JC seems to be arguing against something that I don't think anyone believes.
MrP
Has been pointed out to him ad nauseum. But he prefers to play with scarecrows it seems :PIf you can read this, you're too close!
0 -
What kids are taught in a schools in the UK controlled by religious fundamentalists:
http://www.theguardian.com/science/blog/2014/sep/25/pseudoscience-creationist-schools-uk-accelerated-christian-education-ace0 -
Clutching at straws ... to try an defend the indefensible ... the idea that blind chance and a selecting process could produce anything ...
Whoah, whoah, whoah.
A few pages back I described a computer algorithm for sorting a list that operated on precisely that basis - random mutation and selection of the "fittest" results - and you did one of your several-week disappearing acts. In case you've conveniently edited it from your memory, here it is again:
Start with a list of numbers in random order. Swap two of them at random. If the swap results in a list that's closer to an ordered list, keep the new list; otherwise revert to the old list. Repeat for as long as necessary to arrive at a fully-sorted list.
Now, as I've already pointed out, it's far from a sophisticated algorithm - it's about as inefficient as it could usefully be. But it demonstrates that it's possible to create incremental improvements through random mutations, which you've claimed is impossible.
In other words, one of your hypotheses has been demonstrated to be false.
Now, you've claimed - repeatedly - that you're a scientist. If that's true (and I share others' doubts on the subject), you'll accept that when a premise on which you've built a scientific hypothesis has been shown to be false, you must discard the hypothesis.
But you won't, because your "science" is nothing of the kind; it's religion in a labcoat.0 -
Haven't calculated the sort's order -- is it even classified? -- but I'll bet it's more efficient than a bubble-sort, especially for large datasets.oscarBravo wrote: »Now, as I've already pointed out, it's far from a sophisticated algorithm - it's about as inefficient as it could usefully be.0 -
Such a system can only be produced by the appliance of intelligence (at the point where you select for the list that is closer to an ordered list). Please remember that what we observe in living organisms is the equivalent of completely ordered lists all over the place ... and even one or two 'disorders' in a critical list will completely destroy it's functionality ... thereby destroying the ability of NS to make selections that work towards functionality.oscarBravo wrote: »Whoah, whoah, whoah.
A few pages back I described a computer algorithm for sorting a list that operated on precisely that basis - random mutation and selection of the "fittest" results - and you did one of your several-week disappearing acts. In case you've conveniently edited it from your memory, here it is again:
Start with a list of numbers in random order. Swap two of them at random. If the swap results in a list that's closer to an ordered list, keep the new list; otherwise revert to the old list. Repeat for as long as necessary to arrive at a fully-sorted list.
In a 100 aa critical sequence if 98 aa are in the 'correct' sequence for a particular functionality, this biomolecule will be just as non-functional as a situation where none of the aa's are in the correct sequence for functionality.
Its akin to the fact that a car engine will be just as non-functional whether a tiny wire is cut or the entire engine has been dis-assembled ... and if a non-intelligent agency were to try and restore functionality by making random changes, it would find it just as impossible to get either vehicle started.0 -
Such a system can only be produced by the appliance of intelligence (at the point where you select for the list that is closer to an ordered list). Please remember that what we observe in living organisms is the equivalent of completely ordered lists all over the place ... and even one or two 'disorders' in a critical list will completely destroy it's functionality ... thereby destroying the ability of NS to make selections that work towards functionality.
In a 100 aa critical sequence if 98 aa are in the 'correct' sequence for a particular functionality, this biomolecule will be just as non-functional as a situation where none of the aa's are in the correct sequence for functionality.
Its akin to the fact that a car engine will be just as non-functional whether a tiny wire is cut or the entire engine has been dis-assembled ... and if a non-intelligent agency were to try and restore functionality by making random changes, it would find it just as impossible to get either vehicle started.
The application of intelligence can be easily be replaced by the application of which version reproduces better.
But back to a previous question; you said on CFSI
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=92356836&postcount=1685
"Why do you think that the most important information is on the public internet? ... do you not know that such information is never published. "
I asked where do you get that information then? Any answers?0 -
It can't actually.The application of intelligence can be easily be replaced by the application of which version reproduces better.
Please remember that what we observe in living organisms is the equivalent of completely ordered lists all over the place ... and even one or two 'disorders' in a critical list will completely destroy it's functionality (and ability to reproduce at all) ... thereby destroying the ability of NS to make selections that work towards functionality.
In a 100 aa critical sequence if 98 aa are in the 'correct' sequence for a particular functionality, this biomolecule will be just as non-functional as a situation where none of the aa's are in the correct sequence for functionality ... so nature cannot gradually work up to produce functional novel biomolecules.
That would be an ecumenical question!!!:):DBut back to a previous question; you said on CFSI
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=92356836&postcount=1685
"Why do you think that the most important information is on the public internet? ... do you not know that such information is never published. "
I asked where do you get that information then? Any answers?0 -
It can't actually.
Please remember that what we observe in living organisms is the equivalent of completely ordered lists all over the place ... and even one or two 'disorders' in a critical list will completely destroy it's functionality (and ability to reproduce at all) ... thereby destroying the ability of NS to make selections that work towards functionality.
In a 100 aa critical sequence if 98 aa are in the 'correct' sequence for a particular functionality, this biomolecule will be just as non-functional as a situation where none of the aa's are in the correct sequence for functionality.
That would be an ecumenical question!!!:):D
The first is simply nonsense, we have so much redundant code in our DNA it is clear that 'completely ordered lists' as a description of it is crazy. As for your 'answer' to the second question, it simply demonstrates that you are lying yet again. If you have the information then allow us to see it, if not then keep listening to the voices in your head.0 -
The so-called junk (supposedly redundant) DNA has turned out to be functional after all ... so 'redundant' DNA doesn't exist ... and the 'completely ordered lists' as a description of it is quite apt.The first is simply nonsense, we have so much redundant code in our DNA it is clear that 'completely ordered lists' as a description of it is crazy. As for your 'answer' to the second question, it simply demonstrates that you are lying yet again. If you have the information then allow us to see it, if not then keep listening to the voices in your head.
Quote Time Magazine:-
"... the Human Genome Project finally determined the entire sequence of our DNA in 2001, researchers found that the 3 billion base pairs that comprised our mere 21,000 genes made up a paltry 2% of the entire genome. The rest, geneticists acknowledged with unconcealed embarrassment, was an apparent biological wasteland.
But it turns out they were wrong. In an impressive series of more than 30 papers published in several journals, including Nature, Genome Research, Genome Biology, Science and Cell, scientists now report that these vast stretches of seeming “junk” DNA are actually the seat of crucial gene-controlling activity ... "
http://healthland.time.com/2012/09/06/junk-dna-not-so-useless-after-all/0 -
Advertisement
-
The so-called junk (supposedly redundant) DNA has turned out to be functional after all ... so 'redundant' DNA doesn't exist ... and the 'completely ordered lists' as a description of it is quite apt.
Quote Time Magazine:-
"... the Human Genome Project finally determined the entire sequence of our DNA in 2001, researchers found that the 3 billion base pairs that comprised our mere 21,000 genes made up a paltry 2% of the entire genome. The rest, geneticists acknowledged with unconcealed embarrassment, was an apparent biological wasteland.
But it turns out they were wrong. In an impressive series of more than 30 papers published in several journals, including Nature, Genome Research, Genome Biology, Science and Cell, scientists now report that these vast stretches of seeming “junk” DNA are actually the seat of crucial gene-controlling activity ... "
http://healthland.time.com/2012/09/06/junk-dna-not-so-useless-after-all/
'ENCODE has revealed that some 80% of the human genome is biochemically active.'
Only 20% redundant? Very intelligently designed. Just like this...
0 -
It started off at 98% redundant ... now it's 20% ... I predict it will eventually be close to 0%. The measure of 'junk DNA' isn't a measure of redundant DNA ... it's a measure of the lack of knowledge of the functionality of DNA. We have seen this before with hundreds of so called 'vestigial organs' ... that were supposedly 'leftovers' from 'evolutionary progress'. With further research they have all been found to have functionality ... once again 'vestigial organs' have been found to have been a result of lack of scientific knowledge ... and wishful thinking on the part of Evolutionists.'ENCODE has revealed that some 80% of the human genome is biochemically active.'
Only 20% redundant? Very intelligently designed...
The laryngeal nerve is stated in the video to be an evolutionary enigma ... and it is indeed an 'inconvenient truth' for evolution ... because evolution is claimed to work by selecting the 'fittest' i.e. most efficient mechanisms - and it is supposed to have perfected the thousands of them observed in living organisms.Very intelligently designed. Just like this...
The laryngeal nerve is no problem for Intelligent Design ... as such 'luxuries' can be intelligently designed and are the signature of God placed there to provide evidence of the invalidity of evolution ... just like a luxurious embellishment on a car is the signature of it's designer ... placed there to provide evidence of its designer.
... and Prof Dawkins 'digs an even deeper hole' for Evolution by drawing attention to one of it's fatal flaws ... and one of the logical proofs for the Intelligent Design of life ...
Quote: "A designer has foresight. Evolution can't go back to the drawing board. Evolution has no foresight".
... living organisms are replete with thousands of systems that require both foresight and oversight in order for them to be constructed and integrated in the ways that we find them to be.0 -
Nope, no intelligence required. All that's needed is a mechanism to determine which outcome is "better". In the case of determining which list is closer to being sorted, it could be a linear regression; in the case of mutating genes, it will come down to which organism is more likely to survive to reproduce.Such a system can only be produced by the appliance of intelligence (at the point where you select for the list that is closer to an ordered list).
None of which changes the fact that you've argued that random changes can't produce an increase in information quality, which I've demonstrated to be untrue. Again, if one of your premises is disproven, you have to reject your hypothesis, unless you're trying to fit the hypothesis to a foregone conclusion, in which case you're not a scientist.
That's an argument that every organism that currently exists is perfect and can't possibly be improved. Is that seriously what you're arguing?Please remember that what we observe in living organisms is the equivalent of completely ordered lists all over the place ...
"I can't explain it, therefore goddidit."The laryngeal nerve is no problem for Intelligent Design ... as such 'luxuries' can be intelligently designed and are the signature of God placed there to provide evidence of the invalidity of evolution ... just like a luxurious embellishment on a car is the signature of it's designer ... placed there to provide evidence of its designer.
Once again, the difference between the scientist and the theist: a scientist who doesn't know how something happens says "I don't know". The theist says "I know - it was God".
Except in this case the scientist does know, and can rationally explain; which makes the theist look all the more foolish when he wheels out the goddidit childishness.0 -
I think JC's explanation is perfectly reasonable.oscarBravo wrote: »Except in this case the scientist does know, and can rationally explain; which makes the theist look all the more foolish when he wheels out the goddidit childishness.
If I were all powerful creator type you could pop things into existence with the wiggle of my nose and some magic, I too would leave a signature.
But I wouldn't do anything obvious like actually perform miracles in situations where no alternate explanations could account for them, or even giant signs with my name craved into the sky.
Oh no, I would magic me up a yellow and brown savanna animal with a really long neck, then give it a odd, inefficient nerve arrangement that looks like it was the product of evolution.0 -
The only problem with that idea is that all living systems are observed to be irreducibly complex e.g. if there is a 100 aa critical sequence then the biomolecule will be just as non-funcional with 98 aa's in the correct sequence as one with none in the correct sequence ... so natural selection is powerless to select any 'improvement' towards the 100 aa sequence that might arise.oscarBravo wrote: »Nope, no intelligence required. All that's needed is a mechanism to determine which outcome is "better".
As Prof Dawkins has admitted NS/Evolution simply lacks the foresight to be able to do this.
... but an organism with a 99% 'correct' sequence for a particular useful trait is at no advantage when compared with one with a 0% 'correct' sequence as both sequences are equally non-functional for the trait, until the critical sequence is in place and fully integrated with all other systems necessary to produce the trait.oscarBravo wrote: »In the case of determining which list is closer to being sorted, it could be a linear regression; in the case of mutating genes, it will come down to which organism is more likely to survive to reproduce.
I'm sorry, I missed that ... could you please provide a link ... or repeat the info.oscarBravo wrote: »None of which changes the fact that you've argued that random changes can't produce an increase in information quality, which I've demonstrated to be untrue.
I'm observing what I see in life ... and it's matching the ID hypothesis ... and disproving the spontaneous evolution hypothesis.oscarBravo wrote: »Again, if one of your premises is disproven, you have to reject your hypothesis, unless you're trying to fit the hypothesis to a foregone conclusion, in which case you're not a scientist.
It's not that an organism can't be improved ... many new abilities and systems could obviously be added ... the issue is how these could be added. You guys say that new abilities and systems could arise spontaneously through a process of selecting genetic mistakes ... but mutagenesis is observed to be degrading of specificity and therefore functionality ... and this means that any selecting mechanism will be presented with various levels of degraded specificity/functionality to choose from ... and no increases in specific functional biomolecules.oscarBravo wrote: »That's an argument that every organism that currently exists is perfect and can't possibly be improved. Is that seriously what you're arguing?
No ... the scientific reason for the ID hypothesis is that only an intelligence of effectively infinite capacity could produce the levels of complex functional specificity observed in life.oscarBravo wrote: »"I can't explain it, therefore goddidit."
... and therein lies the problem for evolution ...oscarBravo wrote: »Once again, the difference between the scientist and the theist: a scientist who doesn't know how something happens says "I don't know". The theist says "I know - it was God".
... the people of faith (in evolution) don't know how life could have spontaneously evolved ...
... but the ID scientists know that the living processes and systems that we observe in living organisms could only have arisen with inordinate inputs of intelligent design.
The evolutionists may think they know how evolution could have occurred ... but when their explanations are examined they fall apart, even under modest scrutiny.oscarBravo wrote: »Except in this case the scientist does know, and can rationally explain; which makes the theist look all the more foolish when he wheels out the goddidit childishness.0 -
Again, your argument is that any random mutation of a DNA sequence must, inevitably, result in a less functional copy of the original. In fact, you seem to be arguing that DNA is so precariously balanced that any mutation of a gene sequence will render the copy completely non-functional.The only problem with that idea is that all living systems are observed to be irreducibly complex e.g. if there is a 100 aa critical sequence then the biomolecule will be just as non-funcional with 98 aa's in the correct sequence as one with none in the correct sequence ... so natural selection is powerless to select any 'improvement' towards the 100 aa sequence that might arise.
Given that mutation of DNA is something that happens pretty much all the time, doesn't this require that every generation of every species should become less and less functional over time?
Ergo my point above: if mutation can only damage organisms, and if the slightest mutation renders an organism completely broken, how has life on earth survived the constant mutation that we know happens?... but an organism with a 99% 'correct' sequence for a particular useful trait is at no advantage when compared with one with a 0% 'correct' sequence as both sequences are equally non-functional for the trait, until the critical sequence is in place and fully integrated with all other systems necessary to produce the trait.
Let's say we have a list of numbers. Let's further say we measure the "information quality" of that list of numbers by how close it is to being sorted in ascending order. For example:I'm sorry, I missed that ... could you please provide a link ... or repeat the info.
[1, 2, 4, 3, 5, 6]
Let's further suppose that we randomly swap two of those numbers, and measure the information quality again:
[1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6]
In this case, it's clear that the random swap has increased the information quality - something you have claimed is utterly impossible. Which isn't true, so a core premise of your argument has been disproved.
This is just a restatement of the "random changes can't possibly be beneficial" argument, which I've disproved. Repeatedly.It's not that an organism can't be improved ... many new abilities and systems could obviously be added ... the issue is how these could be added. You guys say that new abilities and systems could arise spontaneously through a process of selecting genetic mistakes ... but mutagenesis is observed to be degrading of specificity and therefore functionality ...
And this is peer-reviewed science you're citing? Or just more makey-uppey words by creationists in an attempt to sound scientificky?...and this means that any selecting mechanism will be presented with various levels of degraded specificity/functionality to choose from ... and no increases in specific functional biomolecules.
That's not a scientific reason. That's an argument from incredulity, which is a logical fallacy.No ... the scientific reason for the ID hypothesis is that only an intelligence of effectively infinite capacity could produce the levels of complex functional specificity observed in life.
Here's a free clue: when your "scientific" theories depend on logical fallacies as their axioms, that's a bad start.
If the lens through which they are scrutinised is "does this fit my pre-conceived ideas from which nothing could possibly dissuade me?", then I'd imagine they do.The evolutionists may think they know how evolution could have occurred ... but when their explanations are examined they fall apart, even under modest scrutiny.
I'll remind you of the answers given by Bill Nye and Ken Ham to the simple question: "what could change your mind?" Those answers were, respectively: "evidence" and "nothing".
Only one of those replies is consistent with science.0 -
In a critical sequence even one mutation will render it non-functional. However, there are in-built auto-correction mechanism and back-up redundancy in many systems ... which are themselves further products of Intelligent Design.oscarBravo wrote: »Again, your argument is that any random mutation of a DNA sequence must, inevitably, result in a less functional copy of the original. In fact, you seem to be arguing that DNA is so precariously balanced that any mutation of a gene sequence will render the copy completely non-functional.
There are auto-correction mechanisms to keep this degradation at bay ... but there is no doubt that our genomes are degeneratingoscarBravo wrote: »Given that mutation of DNA is something that happens pretty much all the time, doesn't this require that every generation of every species should become less and less functional over time? Ergo my point above: if mutation can only damage organisms, and if the slightest mutation renders an organism completely broken, how has life on earth survived the constant mutation that we know happens?
This paper says it is due to evolution ... but it seems clear to me that a better interpretation of the evidence would be that the once-perfect genes, at creation, are now in continuous decline.
http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pbio.0030042
The quality of the information has increased, in your example ... but we have applied intelligence to determining this.oscarBravo wrote: »Let's say we have a list of numbers. Let's further say we measure the "information quality" of that list of numbers by how close it is to being sorted in ascending order. For example:
[1, 2, 4, 3, 5, 6]
Let's further suppose that we randomly swap two of those numbers, and measure the information quality again:
[1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6]
In this case, it's clear that the random swap has increased the information quality - something you have claimed is utterly impossible. Which isn't true, so a core premise of your argument has been disproved.
In living systems, if this was a biomolecule sequence, it would contain hundreds of points on it's sequence (and not just 6) ... and it would only become functional when all, or nearly all, of the amino acids were in sequence ...
... and there would be no functionality, and therefore no selection advantage conferred by all other sequences, even those quite near to the functional sequence.
That is why new functional sequences cannot be produced by any kind of gradual selection system.
Random changes can be beneficial ... but they are not sustainably so. The next change is much more likely to be adverse ... and neither change will affect the total non-functionality of both intermediate sequences.oscarBravo wrote: »This is just a restatement of the "random changes can't possibly be beneficial" argument, which I've disproved. Repeatedly.
Much of it is peer-reviewed by conventionally qualified ID proponents and Creation Scientists ... and it's available here to you guys to attempt to show were any error of logic or fact may lie.oscarBravo wrote: »And this is peer-reviewed science you're citing? Or just more makey-uppey words by creationists in an attempt to sound scientificky? That's not a scientific reason. That's an argument from incredulity, which is a logical fallacy.
... and yet ye guys reject all evidence and logic put before ye ... for the intelligent design of life.oscarBravo wrote: »Here's a free clue: when your "scientific" theories depend on logical fallacies as their axioms, that's a bad start. If the lens through which they are scrutinised is "does this fit my pre-conceived ideas from which nothing could possibly dissuade me?", then I'd imagine they do.
I'll remind you of the answers given by Bill Nye and Ken Ham to the simple question: "what could change your mind?" Those answers were, respectively: "evidence" and "nothing".
Only one of those replies is consistent with science.
Whatever about Ken Ham ... I'm certainly open to new evidence ... and indeed I was an Evolutionist for many years, so the transition back to believing in Evolutionist would be relatively easy for me ... if the evidence warranted me doing so.0 -
It started off at 98% redundant ... now it's 20% ... I predict it will eventually be close to 0%. The measure of 'junk DNA' isn't a measure of redundant DNA ... it's a measure of the lack of knowledge of the functionality of DNA. We have seen this before with hundreds of so called 'vestigial organs' ... that were supposedly 'leftovers' from 'evolutionary progress'. With further research they have all been found to have functionality ... once again 'vestigial organs' have been found to have been a result of lack of scientific knowledge ... and wishful thinking on the part of Evolutionists.
The laryngeal nerve is stated in the video to be an evolutionary enigma ... and it is indeed an 'inconvenient truth' for evolution ... because evolution is claimed to work by selecting the 'fittest' i.e. most efficient mechanisms - and it is supposed to have perfected the thousands of them observed in living organisms.
The laryngeal nerve is no problem for Intelligent Design ... as such 'luxuries' can be intelligently designed and are the signature of God placed there to provide evidence of the invalidity of evolution ... just like a luxurious embellishment on a car is the signature of it's designer ... placed there to provide evidence of its designer.
... and Prof Dawkins 'digs an even deeper hole' for Evolution by drawing attention to one of it's fatal flaws ... and one of the logical proofs for the Intelligent Design of life ...
Quote: "A designer has foresight. Evolution can't go back to the drawing board. Evolution has no foresight".
... living organisms are replete with thousands of systems that require both foresight and oversight in order for them to be constructed and integrated in the ways that we find them to be.
It is stated by the narrator to be an evolutionary enigma which Prof Dawkins is keen to resolve. He does. Wonderful, simple explanation from 2:37 on.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=cO1a1Ek-HD0#t=157
There is nothing ever found in any organism that cannot be explained by tiny incremental changes over millions of years.0 -
It started off at 98% redundant ... now it's 20% ... I predict it will eventually be close to 0%. The measure of 'junk DNA' isn't a measure of redundant DNA ... it's a measure of the lack of knowledge of the functionality of DNA. We have seen this before with hundreds of so called 'vestigial organs' ... that were supposedly 'leftovers' from 'evolutionary progress'. With further research they have all been found to have functionality ... once again 'vestigial organs' have been found to have been a result of lack of scientific knowledge ... and wishful thinking on the part of Evolutionists.
The laryngeal nerve is stated in the video to be an evolutionary enigma ... and it is indeed an 'inconvenient truth' for evolution ... because evolution is claimed to work by selecting the 'fittest' i.e. most efficient mechanisms - and it is supposed to have perfected the thousands of them observed in living organisms.
The laryngeal nerve is no problem for Intelligent Design ... as such 'luxuries' can be intelligently designed and are the signature of God placed there to provide evidence of the invalidity of evolution ... just like a luxurious embellishment on a car is the signature of it's designer ... placed there to provide evidence of its designer.
... and Prof Dawkins 'digs an even deeper hole' for Evolution by drawing attention to one of it's fatal flaws ... and one of the logical proofs for the Intelligent Design of life ...
Quote: "A designer has foresight. Evolution can't go back to the drawing board. Evolution has no foresight".
... living organisms are replete with thousands of systems that require both foresight and oversight in order for them to be constructed and integrated in the ways that we find them to be.
Explain the appendix in humans.0 -
Advertisement
-
... and all the explanations fall apart, once the details are examined.It is stated by the narrator to be an evolutionary enigma which Prof Dawkins is keen to resolve. He does. Wonderful, simple explanation from 2:37 on.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=cO1a1Ek-HD0#t=157
There is nothing ever found in any organism that cannot be explained by tiny incremental changes over millions of years.
The Human Appendix has at least five functions ... Embryological, Physiological, Microbiological (Bacteriological), Biochemical and Immunological.Explain the appendix in humans.
... and you can read all about them here:-
https://answersingenesis.org/human-body/vestigial-organs/the-human-vermiform-appendix/0
Advertisement