Re: Propping up the theory of Evolution



So we have a common ancestor, and so now billions of generations
later, here we are. In one person, we will say, by some fluke of
nature they develop an improvement to the genome, through natural
selection after a strand of DNA is hit by a cosmic ray.
Now then they develop a very good horn on the top of their head and
doctors don't remove it, and if that person person has offspring it
will develop that horn because it ends up creating a dominant gene for
this marvelous horn and it looks nice. So then how does that person
now become the common ancestor so that 2 million years from now
everyone will have that horn?

Sex. You have probably heard of it.


Yes I see horny people, but no people with horns.
Although, there are probably some deformed horned people out there.

And yes, scientists have modified crops, but haven't they just spliced
DNA and used existing DNA? Has anyone created any new code? Or are
they merely using function calls, like a toolset?
Is anyone, or is nature, writing any new functions?

I don't think we see very much variety in design, although we see lots
of variation within design parameters.

Just because people speak of intelligent design, does not mean they
are talking about instantaneous spontaneous creation.

There are people who talk about intelligent design in the same way
people attribute it to nature. That you need to write code to get
something to work.

The difference being nature has no mind, and so how could it see
anything, at all, beyond, what molecular processes see, which is
positive charge, negative charge, covalent bonding, simple opportunism
such as a heavy hydrogen atom can fit into a hydrogen slot, simple
molecules can come together to create complex molecules, how do you
get from that, to an eye that works and has 30 centers in the brain
related to sight?
One piece at a time? One accident at a time? One random chance at a
time? If there are a billion ways to do something wrong and one way to
do something right, then it makes sense that the enzymes want to
replicate DNA exactly with as little variation as possible, which
reduces dramatically, you r chances of variety from which to choose
from.

So then, you have to wait for a mistake to get through the safeguards,
then you have to hope, that it will lead to some useful function, like
flagellar motility, when all the requisite pieces come together. Never
knowing what that useful function might be.
And so then you would expect lots of these little proto functions
around that might end up as being useful, which are not presently
killing the person.
Yet, again what we see, is that if you have a genetic defect, chances
are you will not survive without constant care.
So the system is not tolerant of half baked ideas, it needs full on
fully functional ideas, that work together with the entire system, and
don't cause a bug somewhere else in the code. Or else the person will
die. So to me that doesn't leave room for lots of trial and error when
all the data we have regarding genetic abnormalities, is that they are
detrimental to the organism.
Yet somehow, in one fell swoop, we went from ape to man?





.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Simple ID questions, one more time
    ... There is nothing about trying to detect design that is ... unscientific in its nature. ... advised to use the term "intelligent design" as it would associate ... there is no way to search DNA in an analogous way to the way SETI ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Non-God ID origin of Life?
    ... How do you know that proteins are the result of ND-nature? ... that non-deliberate robotic machines make them. ... form complex DNA and that assertion is completely wrong. ... nature - just like the SETI-type radio signals are not produce by non- ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Chez Wat: "If DNA is created, so is life"
    ... find me the test tube in nature that does what you say humans are ... you seem to be saying that, since humans can make lightening in the ... No. Non-deliberate nature can produce certain types of DNA and ... intelligent design - that's how. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Seanpit, ID and complexity
    ... same basis as the SETI research he himself is doing. ... radiosignals vs. DNA). ... Shostak isn't searching for design. ... Don't you think that nature is capable or producing ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Do try and keep up on this one. Mkay?
    ... of a zebra that come about because of the laws of nature. ... is usually a pattern that carries information for a purpose or to ... Since it is a pattern which carries information, DNA is a ... hard to come to the conclusion that "In the beginning, God created". ...
    (talk.origins)