Jump to content
Islamic Forum
andalusi

Non-religious Evidence That God Exists

Recommended Posts

Olaf question for you is

 

Tell us how did Kinesin molecular robots evolved in the cells, how did they learned to walk, how did they know how to haul cargo to destinations, how did bypass system (like in GPS) evolved in those little robots? how do they know that they need to help eachother to haul the cargo if it is to heavy for one robot bring it to the destination?

 

If these little robots dont give you connotation to inteligent design then continue to believe in evolution you dont deserve better  :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PropellerAds

There's little point arguing scientific matters with you Andalusi, because you cut and paste your information from unreliable sources e.g. Christian apologetic sites. The scientist that make some of the claims that you quote are already committed to a religion, and therefore like you, are trying to make science fit into a pre-existing belief.  That's not how science works.  Secondly, they are often not experts in the field under scrutiny.  That's a bit like a geologist making profound observations about biology on the basis of having read a few biology books.  That's not the same as having a lifetime, in depth commitment to a particular scientific discipline.  Secondly, their work and observation and conclusions have often not been published, peer reviewed or taken seriously by a vast majority of experts in that particular field.  Lastly, and importantly, even if we can't fully explain certain scientific phenomena, that does not mean that there must be a creator god in the sky.  The most you could conclude is: 'we don't know'!  But there's at least good evidence that leads us to certain explanations.  The evidence for the existence of gods is precisely zero.  God's are not falsifiable, which is a very good reason for rejecting their existence.  

 

Stay out of science and mathematics, Andalusi, because you do yourself no credit.  Just stick to arguing theology.

 

All the best.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's little point arguing scientific matters with you Andalusi, because you cut and paste your information from unreliable sources e.g. Christian apologetic sites. The scientist that make some of the claims that you quote are already committed to a religion, and therefore like you, are trying to make science fit into a pre-existing belief.  That's not how science works.  Secondly, they are often not experts in the field under scrutiny.  That's a bit like a geologist making profound observations about biology on the basis of having read a few biology books.  That's not the same as having a lifetime, in depth commitment to a particular scientific discipline.  Secondly, their work and observation and conclusions have often not been published, peer reviewed or taken seriously by a vast majority of experts in that particular field.  Lastly, and importantly, even if we can't fully explain certain scientific phenomena, that does not mean that there must be a creator god in the sky.  The most you could conclude is: 'we don't know'!  But there's at least good evidence that leads us to certain explanations.  The evidence for the existence of gods is precisely zero.  God's are not falsifiable, which is a very good reason for rejecting their existence.  

 

Stay out of science and mathematics, Andalusi, because you do yourself no credit.  Just stick to arguing theology.

 

All the best.

 

if something is true does not matter where it comes from i have absolutely no problem copy material from christian apologetic site if they speak the true

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Toothed gears in jumping insects

 

 

 

1239791_476819032424939_278016434_n.png
just like in mechanics
zupcanik-1.jpg

 

 

Living creatures have the most amazing machinery, which should be obvious evidence of a Designer. Darwin on the other hand believed that all the machines were built by a blind process of tiny changes and natural selection picking the advantageous ones, over eons of time. However, this would be problematic for machines that would not function unless many parts were organized. That’s because a partly-formed machine would not work, so natural selection would not pick such an irreducibly complexmachine.

Indeed, decades ago, evolutionists claimed that magnets and wheels could not be found in nature, precisely because they would not work unless fully formed. Yet we have found many such machines in living creatures.1

 

Plant hopper gears

The plant hopper Issus coleoptratus is found in European gardens, and can hop from leaf to leaf. The distances involved are much longer than the insect’s body length. The baby insects, called nymphs, take off in only 2 milliseconds. Unless the jumping legs push off at almost exactly the same time, their jumps would be lopsided, and they would spin out of control. Indeed, the legs start within 30 microseconds of each other. Nerve impulses are too slow to achieve such synchrony.

Instead, to solve the problem, the insects achieve synchrony with another example of irreducible complexity: intermeshing cog gears. These comprise tiny teeth about 30 micrometers high covering a curved strip about 400 micrometers long.2

However, these gears are lost in the adult. The likely reason is again a case of irreducible complexity: if a single tooth is broken, the whole mechanism is ruined. But with nymphs, this problem is not so serious, because it can molt, and the new exoskeleton will have the intact gears. Conversely, the adults are stuck with their exoskeleton. But they are large enough and rigid enough so that friction will achieve what the gears did.

One report states, “Gears are ubiquitous in the man-made world, found in items ranging from wristwatches to car engines, but it seems that nature invented them first.”3 ‘Nature’, or rather the One who created nature, has also invented a screw joint in weevil legs.4 And the journal Nature says

“The discoverers, Zoologists Malcolm Burrows and Gregory Sutton at the University of Cambridge, UK, say that this seems to be the first example in nature of rotary motion with toothed gears.”

This seems to be right. All the same, a tiny germ has an amazing system with seven flagellum motors and 24 interlocking gears driving a single filament, so it can swim 10 times faster.5 These nanogears don’t seem to be toothed, though.

Designed or evolved?

One report pointed out some of the remarkable design features:

However, Dr Sutton made the usual fact-free homage to evolution, “These gears are not designed; they are evolved—representing high speed and precision machinery evolved for synchronisation in the animal world.”

 

“The gears in the Issus hind-leg bear remarkable engineering resemblance to those found on every bicycle and inside every car gear-box. Each gear tooth has a rounded corner at the point it connects to the gear strip; a feature identical to human-made gears such as bike gears—essentially a shock-absorbing mechanism6 to stop teeth from shearing off.”7

However the problem is how they evolved by a Darwinian step-by-step method, since no such mechanism is suggested. And gear parameters such as the gear ratio, the module and many others need to be carefully picked before the gears are installed in any application. Incorrect or half-formed gears would not help the organism, and could potentially give it a disadvantage. Yet evolution has no reasoning or planning ability. It is a purposeless process, and would thus be unable to ‘design’ such a system.

Indeed, Sutton previously said, “We usually think of gears as something that we see in human designed machinery, but we’ve found that that is only because we didn’t look hard enough.” This suggests that evolutionary dogma held up progress in discovering such machinery. Rather, progress might have been much faster if we had realized that there is a Master Engineer behind nature

References and notes

 

  1. Sarfati, J., By Design: Evidence for Nature’s Intelligent Designer—the God of the Bible, CBP, 2008; see also the many articles at creation.com/designReturn to text.
  2. Burrows, M. and Sutton, G. Interacting gears synchronize propulsive leg movements in a jumping insect, Science 341:1254–1256, 13 September 2013 | doi: 10.1126/science.1240284. Return to text.
  3. Lewis, T., Creature with Interlocking Gears on Legs Discovered, livescience.com, 12 September 2013. Return to text.
  4. Beetles beat us to the screw and nut, New Scientist 211(2820):17, 9 July 2011; Brilliant engineering: the weevil ‘hip’-and-leg jointCreation 34(2):9, 2012, creation.com/focus-342#weevil. Return to text.
  5. Juanfang Ruan and 8 others, Architecture of a flagellar apparatus in the fast-swimming magnetotactic bacterium MO-1, PNAS 26 November 2012 | doi:10.1073/pnas.1215274109; Sarfati, J., Germ with seven motors in one! creation.com/7motors1, 15 January 2013. Return to text.
  6. Actually, the rounding reduces the stress concentration that makes a sharp corner vulnerable. Return to text.
  7. Functioning ‘Mechanical Gears’ seen in nature for first time, sciencedaily.com, 12 September 2013. Return to text.
Edited by andalusi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Andalusi

 

One serious problem you will have with the idea of ‘irreducible complexity’ is that it plays no part in evolutionary theory.  It’s an irrational idea that is not supported by the evidence and theory.

 

I’ve never studied this insect but a system, such as the gears you have mentioned, could have formed from a system that connected the parts with flexible membranes which are common in nature already.  That system would work but would be less efficient than gears which could then have formed as an improvement to a fully working system.  The membranes, once they were no longer needed, could then have evolved away leaving an ‘irreducibly complex system’ that could easily be produced by evolutionary means.

 

As you can see the idea of ‘irreducible complexity’ is flawed as it ignores what evolutionary theory says.  You can’t disprove a theory by pointing out features that the theory can easily explain often with living and fossil examples.  That’s just silly.  We’ve seen this same flaw in your earlier arguments about the flagella motors which could, and probably were, evolved from other pre-existing systems that were fully functional and were simplified after they were first created into the current ‘irreducibly complex’ system we see today.  Irreducible complexity fails because evolutionary theory explains in detail how nature can create such systems.  It’s a logically flawed idea before you even get into looking at specific examples.

 

Russell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Andalusi

 

One serious problem you will have with the idea of ‘irreducible complexity’ is that it plays no part in evolutionary theory.  It’s an irrational idea that is not supported by the evidence and theory.

 

I’ve never studied this insect but a system, such as the gears you have mentioned, could have formed from a system that connected the parts with flexible membranes which are common in nature already.  That system would work but would be less efficient than gears which could then have formed as an improvement to a fully working system.  The membranes, once they were no longer needed, could then have evolved away leaving an ‘irreducibly complex system’ that could easily be produced by evolutionary means.

 

As you can see the idea of ‘irreducible complexity’ is flawed as it ignores what evolutionary theory says.  You can’t disprove a theory by pointing out features that the theory can easily explain often with living and fossil examples.  That’s just silly.  We’ve seen this same flaw in your earlier arguments about the flagella motors which could, and probably were, evolved from other pre-existing systems that were fully functional and were simplified after they were first created into the current ‘irreducibly complex’ system we see today.  Irreducible complexity fails because evolutionary theory explains in detail how nature can create such systems.  It’s a logically flawed idea before you even get into looking at specific examples.

 

Russell

 

 

One serious problem you will have with the idea of ‘irreducible complexity’ is that it plays no part in evolutionary theory.  It’s an irrational idea that is not supported by the evidence and theory.

 

i will explain why your idea is irrational, why should it be supported by evolution if God creates these stuff, and even if evolution occured then it would mean that God evolved these stuff.

 

 

 

As you can see the idea of ‘irreducible complexity’ is flawed as it ignores what evolutionary theory says.  You can’t disprove a theory by pointing out features that the theory can easily explain often with living and fossil examples.  That’s just silly.  We’ve seen this same flaw in your earlier arguments about the flagella motors which could, and probably were, evolved from other pre-existing systems that were fully functional and were simplified after they were first created into the current ‘irreducibly complex’ system we see today.  Irreducible complexity fails because evolutionary theory explains in detail how nature can create such systems.  It’s a logically flawed idea before you even get into looking at specific examples.

 

 

let see what world expert on the flagellar motor says about your claim

How do evolutionists explain away such exquisite design?

Scientific American tried to explain this amazing miniature motor by evolution, by claiming that the parts were ‘co-opted’ from other functions:

‘The sophisticated components of this flagellum all have precedents elsewhere in nature …

‘In fact, the entire flagellum assembly is extremely similar to an organelle that Yersinia pestis, the bubonic plague bacterium, uses to inject toxins into cells. …

‘The key is that the flagellum’s component structures … can serve multiple functions that would have helped favor their evolution.’1

Scientific American’s argument is like claiming that if the components of an electric motor already exist in an electrical shop, they could assemble by themselves into a working motor. However, the right organization is just as important as the right components.

Dr Scott Minnich of the University of Idaho, a world expert on the flagellar motor, disagrees with Scientific American. He says that his belief that this motor has been intelligently designed has given him many research insights. Minnich points out that the very process of assembly in the right sequence requires other regulatory machines.2 He also points out that only about 10 of the 40 components can possibly be explained by co-option, but the other 30 are brand new.

Finally, Dr Minnich’s research shows that the flagellum won’t form above 37°C; instead, some secretory organelles form from the same set of genes. But this secretory apparatus, as well as the plague bacterium’s drilling apparatus, are a degeneration from the flagellum.Minnich says that although it is more complex, the motor came first, so it couldn’t have been derived from them.3

References
  1. Rennie, J., 15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense, Scientific American287(1):78–85, July 2002; refutation after Sarfati, J.Refuting Evolution 2, pp. 167–170, Master Books, Arkansas, USA; Answers in Genesis, Brisbane, Australia, 2002. Return to text.
  2. Unlocking the Mystery of Life, DVD, Illustra Media, 2002. Return to text.
  3. See Minnich, S <www.idurc.org/yale-minnich.html>, 25 August 2003. Return to text.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Andalusi

 

There are a few points here that need to be made before we look at the data.  Dr Minnich is a member of the Discovery Institute a fundamentalist Christian organization.  All members of that organization must sign a statement to the effect that the bible is first and all other data must come second.  In other words if the science disagrees with the bible the science is wrong!  No true scientist would ever sign such a statement but Dr Minnich did.

 

Now initially there were only a few homologs of the proteins in the flagella motor known so his statement was in line with the standard scientific view but we’ve done a lot of research since then and all but two of the flagella motor proteins now have known homologs so Dr Minnich is simply wrong on that point.  Not a good start for someone who claims to be an expert in this field.

 

So so far Scientific American is correct and Dr Minnich is wrong.  Next the article apparently explained that the flagella motor assembly was very similar to the Yersinia Pestis, this too is a true statement as has been pointed out by a great many experts in this field so if Dr Minnich disagrees he is, again, wrong.

 

Are you sure you want to hold this guy up as an ‘expert’ here?

 

Sorry the tornado in a junk yard argument failed 150 years ago when Darwin pointed out how heredity worked.  For a motor to evolve you need to have the precursors necessary to create it or you need to be able to create them in the biological system you are examining and you need heredity to exist.  Obviously both of those pre-requisites are true in this case

 

Dr Minnich is correct that the order of assembly is important and is indeed another area that the genes of these organisms must take care of but such ordering is common in nature, gene’s regularly order the assembly of components to create such structures from the micro to the macro features of our bodies as we grow so that’s no mystery.

 

The 37 Degree observation doesn’t say much, if these organisms lived in temperatures above 37 degrees then they would have to have evolved some other mechanism to produce motors but they don’t.  Our bodes don’t work well outside a narrow temperature range, many systems in our bodies simply fail in these conditions, but that’s not exactly a problem for us because these temperatures are normal for our bodies so these sub components are evolved to exist within quite narrow temperature ranges.  Likewise the motor which is produced in conditions below 37 degrees which is the normal temperature range for these organisms.

 

The jury is still out on which was first and which was second, are the secretory organelles modified flagella motors or are the motors modified secretory organelles.  Given the greater complexity of the motor chances are it evolved from the secretory organelles or maybe both evolved from some earlier organelle that no longer exists.  It’s true that a complex machine can be simplified by evolution to some other function but that ignores the process that created the complex machine in the first place.  That is one of the most difficult things about studying these organisms; they don’t fossilize so we don’t have a history to work with just their current state in this and other similar organisms extant today.

 

Dr Minnich is a member of the 1% club, 99% of well credentialed researchers disagrees with his findings on this, maybe he’s right but, historically, chances are he’s wrong and the majority are right.  Chances are the motor evolved by reorganising the majority of proteins in the motor and evolving the two novel new one’s currently in this organelle.  That’s certainly where the evidence points.

 

One word of advice here Andalusi, you have to avoid falling for the 1%er’s, on the whole in science the truth lies with the majority, not always mind you but on the whole.  It’s especially true when the 1% is a member of a strict religious view of the world, a view that demands that his science is secondary to a very old book by unknown authors written before we knew what an organelle or even DNA were and how they worked.

 

Russell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Andalusi

 

There are a few points here that need to be made before we look at the data.  Dr Minnich is a member of the Discovery Institute a fundamentalist Christian organization.  All members of that organization must sign a statement to the effect that the bible is first and all other data must come second.  In other words if the science disagrees with the bible the science is wrong!  No true scientist would ever sign such a statement but Dr Minnich did.

 

Now initially there were only a few homologs of the proteins in the flagella motor known so his statement was in line with the standard scientific view but we’ve done a lot of research since then and all but two of the flagella motor proteins now have known homologs so Dr Minnich is simply wrong on that point.  Not a good start for someone who claims to be an expert in this field.

 

So so far Scientific American is correct and Dr Minnich is wrong.  Next the article apparently explained that the flagella motor assembly was very similar to the Yersinia Pestis, this too is a true statement as has been pointed out by a great many experts in this field so if Dr Minnich disagrees he is, again, wrong.

 

Are you sure you want to hold this guy up as an ‘expert’ here?

 

Sorry the tornado in a junk yard argument failed 150 years ago when Darwin pointed out how heredity worked.  For a motor to evolve you need to have the precursors necessary to create it or you need to be able to create them in the biological system you are examining and you need heredity to exist.  Obviously both of those pre-requisites are true in this case

 

Dr Minnich is correct that the order of assembly is important and is indeed another area that the genes of these organisms must take care of but such ordering is common in nature, gene’s regularly order the assembly of components to create such structures from the micro to the macro features of our bodies as we grow so that’s no mystery.

 

The 37 Degree observation doesn’t say much, if these organisms lived in temperatures above 37 degrees then they would have to have evolved some other mechanism to produce motors but they don’t.  Our bodes don’t work well outside a narrow temperature range, many systems in our bodies simply fail in these conditions, but that’s not exactly a problem for us because these temperatures are normal for our bodies so these sub components are evolved to exist within quite narrow temperature ranges.  Likewise the motor which is produced in conditions below 37 degrees which is the normal temperature range for these organisms.

 

The jury is still out on which was first and which was second, are the secretory organelles modified flagella motors or are the motors modified secretory organelles.  Given the greater complexity of the motor chances are it evolved from the secretory organelles or maybe both evolved from some earlier organelle that no longer exists.  It’s true that a complex machine can be simplified by evolution to some other function but that ignores the process that created the complex machine in the first place.  That is one of the most difficult things about studying these organisms; they don’t fossilize so we don’t have a history to work with just their current state in this and other similar organisms extant today.

 

Dr Minnich is a member of the 1% club, 99% of well credentialed researchers disagrees with his findings on this, maybe he’s right but, historically, chances are he’s wrong and the majority are right.  Chances are the motor evolved by reorganising the majority of proteins in the motor and evolving the two novel new one’s currently in this organelle.  That’s certainly where the evidence points.

 

One word of advice here Andalusi, you have to avoid falling for the 1%er’s, on the whole in science the truth lies with the majority, not always mind you but on the whole.  It’s especially true when the 1% is a member of a strict religious view of the world, a view that demands that his science is secondary to a very old book by unknown authors written before we knew what an organelle or even DNA were and how they worked.

 

Russell

 

 

just one question for you

 

how can you believe that amazing structure like robots inside cells wich walks on two legs, motors, and machines are just random creation by nature, wihtout any inteligence behind it, how logical is that, that is totally illogical.

 

even if all components existed before these motors how could non-intelectual nature assmble them and made it like functional motor

 

you atheists are illogical if you disconnect engener from factory and it s product

 

God--->nature--->product

 

when you claim evolution did all this, you actually say, Nature/factory created its products without eneineers and workers, that is why your view is illogical.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Andalusi

 

It’s a very old argument, the 747 formed by a tornado in a junk yard is an example, the gee wiz I can’t image that happening so it must be impossible argument.  That’s called the fallacy of personal incredulity.  You may not be able to see how these things can happen but that’s about all you can actually state about it.  Others can see how it can happen.  What does their ability to see through the processes going on here say about your abilities in this area Andalusi?  More to the point what does your inability to understand these things say about you and your arguments on this website?

 

Reproduction is the key here, any ‘system’ that works will be reproduced or rather the organism that carries it will likely produce offspring that will also carry that ‘system’.  Minor changes to that system, small changes in the DNA that produces it, will be judged by natural selection and either increase or decrease in numbers in the next generations.  That’s how evolution works.  Gears on insects exoskeletons for example can be explained by this mechanism.  As I said chances are the two components were probably linked by a membrane first with the hard skeleton components not connected so the joint would still work but not as efficiently as the modern system.  Touching would transfer a little more energy and so make the system more efficient followed by roughening of the matching surfaces then interlocking scalloping and finally the fully interlocking gears.  Not leaping from one to the other rather each miniscule improvement being added one at a time refining the system to that which we see today.  That gradation is the key.  There must exist a continuous series of gradual changes from one stage to the next, each useful to the organism carrying it, for evolution to be able to follow that path.

 

So you understand, I hope, that organisms reproduce, next you have the challenge of really big numbers.  This seems to be a stumbling point for you as you usually just declare anything more than a million to one as impossible and stop at that but that’s not how science works, science digs deeper so that we can understand how things really work here.  The flagella motor is indeed improbable but there are similar structures on flagella that function in other roles.  How many changes are needed to transform one of them into something that functions as a motor?  Not something as refined as the motor we see today but something that will work even a little bit?  Do you think that’s trillions to one odds?  How many bacteria are there on this plant?  There are millions I each drop of water.  How many drops of water are there on earth?  Bacteria reproduce daily or more often at times.  How many days have they had to evolve on this planet?  4.7 billion years is around 17 trillion days.  Multiply that by the number of bacteria on this planet and you start to see how long the odds can be for something to be reasonably likely to evolve by chance alone.  But wait there’s more, now add in the fact that bacteria reproduce and that means that each change is built on the best of the current organisms which significantly shorten the odds.  If you had jigsaw puzzle with around 45 pieces and you assembled them purely at random, how many attempts do you think it would take you to correctly assemble it?  Now remember that evolution is not random, it takes each of the correct bits and keeps them and changes the wrong bits.  It’s an iterative process and that’s the key here.  It’s an iterative process that’s had literally billions of trillions of trillions of experiments to create these things.

 

Now do you start to understand how evolution explains these things?

 

You argue, irrationally, that we disconnect the engineer from the factory when we claim that evolution could do these things.  This shows that you don’t understand what evolutionary theory says because that’s not it at all.  Darwin explained away this fallacy over 150 years ago.  There’s no good excuse for such ignorance today.  The engineer you claim we forget is Mutation and Natural Selection working together and the ‘factory’ is reproduction.  Evolutionary theory includes and explains all of this.  Before you can argue against evolutionary theory you probably should read a few books on what it says, find out how the theory actually works so you won’t continue to make such monumental mistakes in your arguments.

 

Russell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Andalusi

 

It’s a very old argument, the 747 formed by a tornado in a junk yard is an example, the gee wiz I can’t image that happening so it must be impossible argument.  That’s called the fallacy of personal incredulity.  You may not be able to see how these things can happen but that’s about all you can actually state about it.  Others can see how it can happen.  What does their ability to see through the processes going on here say about your abilities in this area Andalusi?  More to the point what does your inability to understand these things say about you and your arguments on this website?

 

Reproduction is the key here, any ‘system’ that works will be reproduced or rather the organism that carries it will likely produce offspring that will also carry that ‘system’.  Minor changes to that system, small changes in the DNA that produces it, will be judged by natural selection and either increase or decrease in numbers in the next generations.  That’s how evolution works.  Gears on insects exoskeletons for example can be explained by this mechanism.  As I said chances are the two components were probably linked by a membrane first with the hard skeleton components not connected so the joint would still work but not as efficiently as the modern system.  Touching would transfer a little more energy and so make the system more efficient followed by roughening of the matching surfaces then interlocking scalloping and finally the fully interlocking gears.  Not leaping from one to the other rather each miniscule improvement being added one at a time refining the system to that which we see today.  That gradation is the key.  There must exist a continuous series of gradual changes from one stage to the next, each useful to the organism carrying it, for evolution to be able to follow that path.

 

So you understand, I hope, that organisms reproduce, next you have the challenge of really big numbers.  This seems to be a stumbling point for you as you usually just declare anything more than a million to one as impossible and stop at that but that’s not how science works, science digs deeper so that we can understand how things really work here.  The flagella motor is indeed improbable but there are similar structures on flagella that function in other roles.  How many changes are needed to transform one of them into something that functions as a motor?  Not something as refined as the motor we see today but something that will work even a little bit?  Do you think that’s trillions to one odds?  How many bacteria are there on this plant?  There are millions I each drop of water.  How many drops of water are there on earth?  Bacteria reproduce daily or more often at times.  How many days have they had to evolve on this planet?  4.7 billion years is around 17 trillion days.  Multiply that by the number of bacteria on this planet and you start to see how long the odds can be for something to be reasonably likely to evolve by chance alone.  But wait there’s more, now add in the fact that bacteria reproduce and that means that each change is built on the best of the current organisms which significantly shorten the odds.  If you had jigsaw puzzle with around 45 pieces and you assembled them purely at random, how many attempts do you think it would take you to correctly assemble it?  Now remember that evolution is not random, it takes each of the correct bits and keeps them and changes the wrong bits.  It’s an iterative process and that’s the key here.  It’s an iterative process that’s had literally billions of trillions of trillions of experiments to create these things.

 

Now do you start to understand how evolution explains these things?

 

You argue, irrationally, that we disconnect the engineer from the factory when we claim that evolution could do these things.  This shows that you don’t understand what evolutionary theory says because that’s not it at all.  Darwin explained away this fallacy over 150 years ago.  There’s no good excuse for such ignorance today.  The engineer you claim we forget is Mutation and Natural Selection working together and the ‘factory’ is reproduction.  Evolutionary theory includes and explains all of this.  Before you can argue against evolutionary theory you probably should read a few books on what it says, find out how the theory actually works so you won’t continue to make such monumental mistakes in your arguments.

 

Russell

 

so far i have not seen logical answer wich i could accept how these motors, robots and machines were evolved 

 

especially how can a walking robots in our cells, wich has two legs two arms, hauling cargo to different desitination, equiped with GPS re-route like system to avoid obsticles on their path to destinations. And they can help eachother to haul the cargo if it is too heavy for one of them.

 

 

who taught robots to walk in the cell on two legs?

 

when we look into the cells we see amazing factory with machines and robots, ATp synthese power plant of the cells, wich produce energy for these robots

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Andalusi

 

I think I’ve explained before the logical fallacy of argument from personal incredulity.  It’s when you say “it can’t be real because I can’t believe it”.  Neither you nor I are clever enough to evaluate all of the evidence here so neither of us can make such a claim.  Many scientists spend their whole careers explaining how these things evolve over time as we watch, I’ve documented to you earlier an example from an experiment of a bacterial colony which evolved the ability to subsist on a new food source that they used to be completely unable to use while they were observed.  Do you remember that?  In other words we’ve watched evolution in action inventing new and novel attributes.  There’s no mystery there.

 

You say you have not seen a logical answer “which you could accept” but the best scientific minds on this planet have no problem understanding evolution and how it works, I have no problems understanding it, that you do have a problem with this doesn’t say anything about the theory just about your abilities and understanding here doesn’t it.

 

You ask how can a walking ‘robot’ with legs and arms and the ability to cooperate evolve but I could ask how can a human evolve, we have arms and legs and the ability to cooperate.  Our evolution is well documented in the fossil record but the contents of cells don’t fossilize so the history of these machines is not open to our exploration at this stage.  We can do no more than speculate on plausible scenarios for their evolution and explore the DNA that currently builds them but that’s it.  If you find something you can’t explain in science the correct answer is never to say “god must have done it” the correct answer is to try to work out the answers if that answer is god then fine but so far, in every mystery we have ever solved, every single one, god was never the answer.  Carl Popper pointed out that we can’t therefore claim that he never will be but the odds are stacked against that idea.

 

You also mentioned the motors but you don’t seem to have taken in what I’ve said on that question, I’ve pointed out that only three of the proteins involved are unique to the motors and I’ve explained in some detail just how many random mutation experiments nature had to put that system together and that it could have evolved by refining a far larger and chunkier precursor system but you don’t seem to have absorbed any of that.  Do you actually have any arguments against the evidence and details I’ve provided or do you just write it off because “you can’t personally believe it”.  If that is the basis of your arguments here then we might as well stop, with that attitude you can build a world view that includes a flat earth populated by pixies if that was your desire.

 

Then you go on to ask a very telling question “who taught robots to walk in the cell on two legs?”  The reason that’s such a telling question is that it shows the underlying bias in your position.  Evolutionary theory says that no one had to teach these robots how to behave that way, they are driven to do so by the DNA that creates and controls them, DNA which is generated and refined by mutation and natural selection.  That doesn’t rule out that someone could have taught them but it does show that such teaching is unnecessary.  You ignore that possibility, the most plausible possibility in this situation I’d have to suggest and so seriously undermine your credibility here.

 

You mention ATP synthase etc but that’s an extension to the same question.  If evolution can explain the fine tuning of any system it can explain the fine tuning of them all even if you can’t understand it and don’t want it to be true.

 

Russell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Andalusi

 

I think I’ve explained before the logical fallacy of argument from personal incredulity.  It’s when you say “it can’t be real because I can’t believe it”.  Neither you nor I are clever enough to evaluate all of the evidence here so neither of us can make such a claim.  Many scientists spend their whole careers explaining how these things evolve over time as we watch, I’ve documented to you earlier an example from an experiment of a bacterial colony which evolved the ability to subsist on a new food source that they used to be completely unable to use while they were observed.  Do you remember that?  In other words we’ve watched evolution in action inventing new and novel attributes.  There’s no mystery there.

 

You say you have not seen a logical answer “which you could accept” but the best scientific minds on this planet have no problem understanding evolution and how it works, I have no problems understanding it, that you do have a problem with this doesn’t say anything about the theory just about your abilities and understanding here doesn’t it.

 

You ask how can a walking ‘robot’ with legs and arms and the ability to cooperate evolve but I could ask how can a human evolve, we have arms and legs and the ability to cooperate.  Our evolution is well documented in the fossil record but the contents of cells don’t fossilize so the history of these machines is not open to our exploration at this stage.  We can do no more than speculate on plausible scenarios for their evolution and explore the DNA that currently builds them but that’s it.  If you find something you can’t explain in science the correct answer is never to say “god must have done it” the correct answer is to try to work out the answers if that answer is god then fine but so far, in every mystery we have ever solved, every single one, god was never the answer.  Carl Popper pointed out that we can’t therefore claim that he never will be but the odds are stacked against that idea.

 

You also mentioned the motors but you don’t seem to have taken in what I’ve said on that question, I’ve pointed out that only three of the proteins involved are unique to the motors and I’ve explained in some detail just how many random mutation experiments nature had to put that system together and that it could have evolved by refining a far larger and chunkier precursor system but you don’t seem to have absorbed any of that.  Do you actually have any arguments against the evidence and details I’ve provided or do you just write it off because “you can’t personally believe it”.  If that is the basis of your arguments here then we might as well stop, with that attitude you can build a world view that includes a flat earth populated by pixies if that was your desire.

 

Then you go on to ask a very telling question “who taught robots to walk in the cell on two legs?”  The reason that’s such a telling question is that it shows the underlying bias in your position.  Evolutionary theory says that no one had to teach these robots how to behave that way, they are driven to do so by the DNA that creates and controls them, DNA which is generated and refined by mutation and natural selection.  That doesn’t rule out that someone could have taught them but it does show that such teaching is unnecessary.  You ignore that possibility, the most plausible possibility in this situation I’d have to suggest and so seriously undermine your credibility here.

 

You mention ATP synthase etc but that’s an extension to the same question.  If evolution can explain the fine tuning of any system it can explain the fine tuning of them all even if you can’t understand it and don’t want it to be true.

 

Russell

 

you can believe what you want but that is not logical to me beacuse i just cant understand and accept that

 

"random events create smart and meaningful structures wich perform tasks" that is just illogical 

 

cal it whatever you want, God of gaps, like you atheist use to say, but my logic tells me than random events cant produce smart and meaningful structures wich perform tasks, i just cant accept it beacuse i dont see that as logical, if something is not logical automatically i reject it, does not matter what is said or who says it. 

Edited by andalusi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Andalusi

 

“you can believe what you want but that is not logical to me beacuse i just cant understand and accept that”

 

You have just perfectly restated the very definition of the fallacy of argument from personal incredulity.  I can’t personally understand how quarks behave in a plasma but that does not mean they don’t behave exactly as scientists explain them to behave and for me to doubt that just because I can’t understand it is a logical fallacy.  Likewise your position is logically untenable.  It doesn’t matter what you can’t accept, understand or believe the truth is still out there and scientists uncover it piece by piece.

 

"random events create smart and meaningful structures wich perform tasks" that is just illogical

 

But is it?  I’ve explained before the experiments in which random numbers plus mutations were fed into programmable logic arrays with the aim of programming them to achieve a specific outcome.  The programs that were formed took only around 32 cells to function, the best a human designer could come up with took close to a thousand.  The computer worked by simply throwing random numbers at the chips and testing the results then taking the best of those products and modifying them randomly over and over again just as nature does with genetic code.  The algorithms used were evolutionary in nature, they were modelled on the mathematical underpinnings of our modern synthesis of evolutionary theory.  At the end they had a fully functional circuit that was far more efficient than the best a human designer could come up with.  Now it gets more intriguing for when humans reverse engineered the code they couldn’t understand how it worked.  Some of the necessary components weren’t even connected into the circuit but if you turned them off the system failed.  The algorithm found features of those chips that we humans didn’t even know existed.  Random numbers and mutation alone wrote that program while we watched but did not understand.  How is that different from these genetically created structures that you struggle to understand here?

 

“cal it whatever you want, God of gaps, like you atheist use to say, but my logic tells me than random events cant produce smart and meaningful structures wich perform tasks, i just cant accept it beacuse i dont see that as logical, if something is not logical automatically i reject it, does not matter what is said or who says it. “

 

Yes I understand that you can’t accept that even when we’ve seen the formation of such meaningful structures in experiments over 40 or more years.  Science is like that, it challenges people to step beyond their comfort zones and really get into what is actually possible rather than just what they’d like to be possible.  Can you do that Andalusi?  Or are you too stuck in your religious restrictions to see the world as it really is?

 

Russell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Andalusi

 

 

Yes I understand that you can’t accept that even when we’ve seen the formation of such meaningful structures in experiments over 40 or more years.  Science is like that, it challenges people to step beyond their comfort zones and really get into what is actually possible rather than just what they’d like to be possible.  Can you do that Andalusi?  Or are you too stuck in your religious restrictions to see the world as it really is?

 

Russell

 

 

i accept everything wich is logical

 

but "random events wich create smart and meaningful structures wich perform tasks that is just illogical"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

HI Andalusi

 

Have you ever studied quantum entanglement?  Have you ever studied the results of the two slit experiment?  Are these results ‘logical’?  The mistake you are making is in attaching your intuition, which is driven by your life experience, to your judgments of logical.  Logical can’t be done this way.  Science provides mathematical and experimental proofs of things that our everyday experience says are totally illogical yet the proofs are there.  How does your logic deal with that?  When a scientist says that the particle in that experiment ‘experienced’ all of the experimental setup while only traveling through one part of it how do you deal with that.

 

Richard Feynman once said “Do not keep saying to yourself, if you can possibly avoid it, "But how can it be like that?" because you will get "down the drain", into a blind alley from which nobody has yet escaped. Nobody knows how it can be like that.”

 

He made many similar statements but the gist of it is this, we know this is how physics works at this level, we can prove it by maths and by repeatable experiment but no one knows how it can be like that, our logic says it just can't be like that even though we know scientifically that it is.  Same goes for many things in science.  If the best you’ve got is “I don’t believe it because to me it doesn’t seem logical” then you’ve got nothing, the proofs stand on their merits and your argument fails as just one more fallacy of argument from personal incredulity.  Is that the best you’ve got Andalusi?

 

In the end your standard of logic when judging scientific discoveries can never be everyday common sense because that has such a limited basis, it comes from short time frames, medium size frames of reference etc.  What does common sense have to say about time dilation, quantum entanglement or deep time etc.  If that’s the best you’ve got you are ill-equipped to judge any of these questions.  It's like arguing long odds probabilities in deep time when you've failed maths!

 

Russell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

HI Andalusi

 

Have you ever studied ?  Have you ever studied the results of the two slit experiment?  Are these results ‘logical’?  The mistake you are making is in attaching your intuition, which is driven by your life experience, to your judgments of logical.  Logical can’t be done this way.  Science provides mathematical and experimental proofs of things that our everyday experience says are totally illogical yet the proofs are there.  How does your logic deal with that?  When a scientist says that the particle in that experiment ‘experienced’ all of the experimental setup while only traveling through one part of it how do you deal with that.

 

Richard Feynman once said “Do not keep saying to yourself, if you can possibly avoid it, "But how can it be like that?" because you will get "down the drain", into a blind alley from which nobody has yet escaped. Nobody knows how it can be like that.”

 

He made many similar statements but the gist of it is this, we know this is how physics works at this level, we can prove it by maths and by repeatable experiment but no one knows how it can be like that, our logic says it just can't be like that even though we know scientifically that it is.  Same goes for many things in science.  If the best you’ve got is “I don’t believe it because to me it doesn’t seem logical” then you’ve got nothing, the proofs stand on their merits and your argument fails as just one more fallacy of argument from personal incredulity.  Is that the best you’ve got Andalusi?

 

In the end your standard of logic when judging scientific discoveries can never be everyday common sense because that has such a limited basis, it comes from short time frames, medium size frames of reference etc.  What does common sense have to say about time dilation, quantum entanglement or deep time etc.  If that’s the best you’ve got you are ill-equipped to judge any of these questions.  It's like arguing long odds probabilities in deep time when you've failed maths!

 

Russell

 

i judge according of my understanding, when i see proof , clear and solid proof i believe in that does not matter what it is.

Edited by andalusi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Andalusi

 

So in short you write of the findings of science, well tested, reproducible and mathematically modelled findings from science, because you can’t understand them.  Actually I think what you have trouble understanding would primarily be those things that disagree with you religious preconceptions wouldn’t you agree?  Can you actually think of anything from science that you have trouble accepting that does not contradict your religious beliefs?

 

As I pointed out before that particular fallacy is called the fallacy of argument from personal incredulity.  There are many things in science that I don’t understand but I’d never write them off because just because I don’t personally understand them.  I’ve found, over and over again, that if I put in the effort to educate myself to the point where I do understand the evidence and theories that the science adds up.  In fact I’ve never found a case where the well accepted scientific theories didn’t add up once I educated myself to the point where I can understand it.  Maybe you should try that.  Find something in science that you don’t currently accept, something that contradicts your deeply held beliefs and get yourself educated.  You may well be surprized by the results.

 

Russell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Andalusi

 

So in short you write of the findings of science, well tested, reproducible and mathematically modelled findings from science, because you can’t understand them.  Actually I think what you have trouble understanding would primarily be those things that disagree with you religious preconceptions wouldn’t you agree?  Can you actually think of anything from science that you have trouble accepting that does not contradict your religious beliefs?

 

As I pointed out before that particular fallacy is called the fallacy of argument from personal incredulity.  There are many things in science that I don’t understand but I’d never write them off because just because I don’t personally understand them.  I’ve found, over and over again, that if I put in the effort to educate myself to the point where I do understand the evidence and theories that the science adds up.  In fact I’ve never found a case where the well accepted scientific theories didn’t add up once I educated myself to the point where I can understand it.  Maybe you should try that.  Find something in science that you don’t currently accept, something that contradicts your deeply held beliefs and get yourself educated.  You may well be surprized by the results.

 

Russell

 

i base my belief on what i know and understand, i cant go outside my understand 

 

if i did not understand Islam i would not beleive in it, or if i understood how evolution could create motors, machines, robots in cells maybe i would believe in evolution. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Andalusi

 

That’s exactly it, you don’t believe in evolution because you have never studied it sufficiently to understand it, plenty of people have studied it to that level and they do understand it and so accept it but you don’t.  Do you believe you are incapable of understanding it; that even if you put in the effort to study it that you could never grasp it?  It’s a fascinating field of study, well worth the effort and there is plenty of material online so it’s easy to get into.  If you wish to do so I’d be happy to point you to some good resources to get you started.

 

I don’t accept Islam because of what I DO understand about it.  It’s not a lack of understanding that produces my disbelief.  I accept evolution for the same reason, I accept it because I understand it and I’ve examined a great deal of evidence for it.  I would never discount an idea I did not understand.

 

Russell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Andalusi

 

That’s exactly it, you don’t believe in evolution because you have never studied it sufficiently to understand it, plenty of people have studied it to that level and they do understand it and so accept it but you don’t.  Do you believe you are incapable of understanding it; that even if you put in the effort to study it that you could never grasp it?  It’s a fascinating field of study, well worth the effort and there is plenty of material online so it’s easy to get into.  If you wish to do so I’d be happy to point you to some good resources to get you started.

 

I don’t accept Islam because of what I DO understand about it.  It’s not a lack of understanding that produces my disbelief.  I accept evolution for the same reason, I accept it because I understand it and I’ve examined a great deal of evidence for it.  I would never discount an idea I did not understand.

 

Russell

 

i have studied evolution more than enough, and it does not convince me expect natural selection, wich is logical (survival of the fittest) but other stuff are not logical without and Evolver(God)

 

That evolution shall be logical for me, you need to attach and inteligent evolver to it, without God/Evolver it is like factory and products without inteligent engeneers

 

this is logical

 

for me

 

God-->evolution/nature-->product

Engeneer-->factory--->product

 

while your belief is like this

 

Evolution-->product

Factory-->product

 

No God no engeneers, can this be logical, to rely upon random events and that those random events create complex smart structures

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Andalusi

 

Do you remember some time ago I described some experiments in simulated evolution using programmable logic array chips?  In these experiments a computer, running an evolutionary algorithm, in other words a random number generator and a test function, programmed logic array chips to perform a function. At each round the best performing results were taken and modified at random and tested again.  The result, after thousands of rounds, were circuits that were far more compact and efficient than the best a human designer could come up with; circuits that the humans running the experiment couldn’t understand even after they saw them work and reverse engineered the code.  The code produced used features of those chips that the humans involved didn’t and couldn’t know existed.  Who was the designer in these experiments?  Did god get into the computer, even though we could watch every iteration of the random number generators, and fiddle the results?  We know that this was not necessary because we could watch every step in that process but you stated that there must be a designer for evolution to work.  How do you reconcile that claim with the results of this experiment, an experiment that has been repeated time and again since?

 

Does god get personally involved in our experiments?  Is that really what you believe in?

 

Remember when you say “logical for me” you are committing the fallacy of personal incredulity, you can’t write off a theory just because you don’t believe it, understand it or like it.  You have to find a valid issue with it.  Can you?  Apart from the fact that you don’t like and can’t believe it can you see any flaws in the evolutionary model here?

 

I like your suggestion, “it is like factory and products without inteligent engeneers” because that is exactly what we watched happen in those logic array experiments, created products which did not have any engineers.  Did you know that the same method was used to find a method of writing to SD card and USB memory chips that would allow them to last for thousands of write cycles?  Machines doing evolutionary experiments on these circuits came up with a method for doing so that humans couldn’t.  We see products without intelligent engineers all the time you are just unaware of it.

 

You ask “this is logical” and of course, since we’ve watched it happen time and again it is logical yes.  You don’t have to like it or even understand it but it’s real regardless and if you wish to study it the information is all out there to be had.  I can even point you in the right direction to find something to study if you are actually interested in understanding this stuff.

 

One quick insight into evolutionary theory that you seem to be missing, evolution is a ratcheting system, it takes many many experiments to produce each improvement but as soon as a single, simple, improvement appears it will produce more offspring and so the genetic code that produced it will become more common in future generations, generations that will continue to try random experiments until another layer of improvement comes along.  That goes on for trillions of trillions of organisms over billions of years on this plant.  Winning the lottery is unlikely, I’ve been playing it occasionally all my life and have never won anything but if all of the organisms alive today bought a ticket right now there would be trillions of winners tomorrow.  Long odds sure but a huge number of entries too.  I know you don’t like large numbers and long odds but they are part of life in this world.

 

Russell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Andalusi

 

Do you remember some time ago I described some experiments in simulated evolution using programmable logic array chips?  In these experiments a computer, running an evolutionary algorithm, in other words a random number generator and a test function, programmed logic array chips to perform a function. At each round the best performing results were taken and modified at random and tested again.  The result, after thousands of rounds, were circuits that were far more compact and efficient than the best a human designer could come up with; circuits that the humans running the experiment couldn’t understand even after they saw them work and reverse engineered the code.  The code produced used features of those chips that the humans involved didn’t and couldn’t know existed.  Who was the designer in these experiments?  Did god get into the computer, even though we could watch every iteration of the random number generators, and fiddle the results?  We know that this was not necessary because we could watch every step in that process but you stated that there must be a designer for evolution to work.  How do you reconcile that claim with the results of this experiment, an experiment that has been repeated time and again since?

 

Does god get personally involved in our experiments?  Is that really what you believe in?

 

Remember when you say “logical for me” you are committing the fallacy of personal incredulity, you can’t write off a theory just because you don’t believe it, understand it or like it.  You have to find a valid issue with it.  Can you?  Apart from the fact that you don’t like and can’t believe it can you see any flaws in the evolutionary model here?

 

I like your suggestion, “it is like factory and products without inteligent engeneers” because that is exactly what we watched happen in those logic array experiments, created products which did not have any engineers.  Did you know that the same method was used to find a method of writing to SD card and USB memory chips that would allow them to last for thousands of write cycles?  Machines doing evolutionary experiments on these circuits came up with a method for doing so that humans couldn’t.  We see products without intelligent engineers all the time you are just unaware of it.

 

You ask “this is logical” and of course, since we’ve watched it happen time and again it is logical yes.  You don’t have to like it or even understand it but it’s real regardless and if you wish to study it the information is all out there to be had.  I can even point you in the right direction to find something to study if you are actually interested in understanding this stuff.

 

One quick insight into evolutionary theory that you seem to be missing, evolution is a ratcheting system, it takes many many experiments to produce each improvement but as soon as a single, simple, improvement appears it will produce more offspring and so the genetic code that produced it will become more common in future generations, generations that will continue to try random experiments until another layer of improvement comes along.  That goes on for trillions of trillions of organisms over billions of years on this plant.  Winning the lottery is unlikely, I’ve been playing it occasionally all my life and have never won anything but if all of the organisms alive today bought a ticket right now there would be trillions of winners tomorrow.  Long odds sure but a huge number of entries too.  I know you don’t like large numbers and long odds but they are part of life in this world.

 

Russell

 

of course, just to believe that random events create complex smart structures is a terrible issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Andalusi

 

Yes I can see that it is a sticking point for you but it’s not a sticking point for anyone who actually understands evolution or anyone who has witnessed the power of this idea in action in those programmable logic array experiments for example.  The only source of design information there was a random number generator and yet it designed a program far more efficient than the best a human programmer could do and it did so using features of the chips involved that we don’t and can’t know yet the program it came up with works.  This method is also clearly seen in action in those bacterial experiments I mentioned earlier where a number of colonies of bacteria were created from just one progenitor so there was no diversity at their inception yet they evolved into many forms while we watched and tracked their genetics even evolving a method of subsisting on a food source that was unusable by their progenitor.  Randomness and selection works, we know that, but you need to read more closely and in more detail to understand that.  Do you have what it takes to really understand the power of evolutionary theory?

 

Russell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Andalusi

 

Yes I can see that it is a sticking point for you but it’s not a sticking point for anyone who actually understands evolution or anyone who has witnessed the power of this idea in action in those programmable logic array experiments for example.  The only source of design information there was a random number generator and yet it designed a program far more efficient than the best a human programmer could do and it did so using features of the chips involved that we don’t and can’t know yet the program it came up with works.  This method is also clearly seen in action in those bacterial experiments I mentioned earlier where a number of colonies of bacteria were created from just one progenitor so there was no diversity at their inception yet they evolved into many forms while we watched and tracked their genetics even evolving a method of subsisting on a food source that was unusable by their progenitor.  Randomness and selection works, we know that, but you need to read more closely and in more detail to understand that.  Do you have what it takes to really understand the power of evolutionary theory?

 

Russell

 

my belief is that God programmed bacteria to adopt tob different situations, like switch on/off, when that specific situation occur, it swithes on.

 

and you think it evolves, no, it is only programmed to adopt to another enviroment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Andalusi

 

I understand that you believe that god ‘programmed them’ to adapt to different situations as you say like switches turning on and off but we know that’s not true.  Imagine a book, a long complex book of instructions, that is basically what the RNA in these bacteria represents.  Now you could have instructions in the book that say use this bit in this situation but ignore it in this other situation.  Conditional instructions much like a computer program that’s basically what you are suggesting.  That is not just possible but it’s real, it happens all the time in organisms.  It’s how our one DNA line can produce heart cells, and blood cells and brain cells etc all with exactly the same DNA code.  It’s a well understood and often observed phenomenon but that’s not what’s happening with those Bacteria.

 

In the bacteria you have to understand that the chapter which explains how to digest fructose isn’t there.  It’s not just turned off, we know what it says because we’ve sequenced its RNA since it arose so we can search for it and in the original RNA pattern it’s not there.  The progenitor of those colonies could not digest fructose so if that was all the food they had to use they would simply die.  Now after thousands and thousands of generations we see a new chapter in that book.  One that didn’t exist before.  We’ve watched it appear piece by piece by tiny changes to existing RNA until the new chapter which allows these bacteria to digest fructose is there and working and now, for the first time, one of the 8 colonies who began from a single bacteria, can digest, can live on Fructose while the others are still incapable of it and will still die out if that is all they have to ‘eat’.

 

The critical things about this are that the original colonies all started from just one individual bacterium.  Bacteria are not sexual; they reproduce by simply duplicating their one loop of RNA then splitting into two.  Unlike humans, which are diploid, in other words we carry two strands of DNA one from each parent, they don’t have two strands of RNA.  For bacteria there is literally no variability within a single individual.  Bacterial RNA is also very tight, any RNA that is not necessary to the organisms’ survival is pruned out because it costs energy to reproduce it so, unlike our DNA, it does not contain large segment of ‘junk’ code.  Their code is virtually all functional and contains exactly one copy of each gene.

 

So all of those colonies started from just one individual which contained no variations on the RNA code it possessed yet over thousands of generations that code has changed, has adapted to a new environment, has written a new chapter, has evolved while we watched one step at a time to the many varieties we see today.  Do you really believe that god spends so much time in biology labs to do that one small step at a time while we watch his every move? Why? Why only one of the 8 colonies?  This makes no sense!  The evolutionary view makes sense but your view just doesn’t when faced with this evidence.

 

So what do you think, does your god really spend that much time in biology labs trying to fool scientists into believing that evolution is true?  Is that trickster really your god?  The evidence doesn’t allow for an alternative here, new chapters appear piece by piece while we watch, no switches involved, they just appear slowly just as evolutionary theory describes.

 

Russell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


×