Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
ID: "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.
Features meaning laws governing the universe. It's not referring to humans using the laws of nature.... So yes you are incorrect. Humans didnt design the laws of the universe.
But ... but ... your only support for that definition is to find quotes that contain the words "intelligent" and "design".
Therefore, all you have been able to show us is that "intelligent design" is nothing more than the juxtaposition of the words "intelligent" and "design".
Meanwhile, the source of the concept of "intelligent design" is a book in which "intelligent design" and related words was substituted for "creationism" and related words. The subterfuge was so blatant even the court system could see it.
Let me stop this hare brained nonsense right here. Number 1) there has been countless disagreements even among evolutionists as to the proper and legitimate explanation of evolution for decades, and many alterations to the theories, with the most commonly accepted version still not agreed to among evolutionists. Creation, and Intelligent Design are NO DIFFERENT, in that respect when compared to ToE. Frankly, I do not know of a subject matter of any type, be it religious or scientific which is universally agreed to by all. So it's a complete fraud to tell someone else what they believe, and then tell them they are wrong. So STOP IT!!
Either engage in legitimate debate, or take your antics to the Seseme Street forum where such childish behavior belongs.
They will be found eventually. Where is your faith?
Oh, just wait a few pages ... one of these guys are already searching the "how to answer creationist questions" websites ... and they will be appearing anytime now with examples. Phony as a $3 examples mind you ... but they are coming. Faith has nothing to do with that prediction!
Ah, I see we have a graduate degree from the university of wikipedia, aye?
Again, you expose the fact that you don't understand even your own position, so it's no wonder you flounder when trying to challenge mine. One of the "clues" in that link is in parens (Theoretical_model)
Let's start you on a path of critical thinking, if you are up for it?
Question #1 - what do you get when you duplicate something?
Answer:(hopefully) a .... wait for it .... DUPLICATE!!!
Question #2- Genes contain what?
Answer: INFORMATION
QUESTION #3 - if you make a duplicate of your resume to pass around to more than one person, is there any ADDITIONAL information created in those copies? Did your resume get enhanced with better education, job experience, or greater qualifications?
Answer: No. No additional information is added to your resume, and no additional information is added to the genome by making a duplicate of what is already there. If that gene duplicated is the one that tells your eyes to be blue ... how will that facilitate this transformation called evolution? It won't.
Question #4 - Are there any examples of a genetic mutation adding inew information to the human genome?
Answer:No ... not one single example has ever been found. All genetic mutations we know about in human beings have either been silent, or negative-disease causing.
Answers mean nothing when you don't even understand what the question is asking. This is why nonsensical answers make sense to some people. But the above questions were very simple ... so as to facilitate understanding. And the answers were too.
This is just fundamental critical thinking ... genetics are a complicated thing, which is why the "genetic experts" have only figured out a small percentage of what the human genome and it's complex code actually does. More than 90% of it remains a mystery to them ... and what remains a mystery to those who possess critical thinking skills, is how these so-called "scientists" can label this massive majority of the code "junk DNA" simply because they can't figure out what it does.
This is like a guy who calls himself an auto expert, but only knows about tires, calling the rest of the car ... engine, transmission, suspension, all junk.
"A team led by scientists at The Scripps Research Institute has shown that an extra copy of a brain-development gene, which appeared in our ancestors' genomes about 2.4 million years ago, allowed maturing neurons to migrate farther and develop more connections."
Since the thesis you are basing your argument upon is false, your argument fails.
But ... but ... your only support for that definition is to find quotes that contain the words "intelligent" and "design".
Therefore, all you have been able to show us is that "intelligent design" is nothing more than the juxtaposition of the words "intelligent" and "design".
Meanwhile, the source of the concept of "intelligent design" is a book in which "intelligent design" and related words was substituted for "creationism" and related words. The subterfuge was so blatant even the court system could see it.
One need only look at the extremely complex internal functioning of a living cell which literally operates like a microscopic metropolitan city, while also observing it's DNA which is both the data storage device and data providing the blueprint and step by step instructions for building that microscopic city, to recognize the genius .. not just intelligent design inherent at face value. And it really only requires a modicum of basic intelligence on the part of the observer to reach this most obvious conclusion.
Just as Mt Rushmore distinguishes itself from that of a natural rock formation, providing it's own evidence, at face value (pun intended), the infinitely more complex living cell and DNA does the same thing ... showing the casual observer possessing a shot glass amount of common sense, that such sophisitication could never have resulted from random mixing of inert elements.
Anyone who doesn't immediately reach this most basic rational assessment is either mentally defective, or under some form of influence that overrides basic common sense, much like a person hypnotized, and waddling around on stage flapping their arms, and making clucking sounds, because the hypnotist convinced them they were a chicken.
Now, as I slowly count down from 10 to 1, you will begin to wake up, and when we reach the count of one, you can stop flapping those arms .... you have no idea how ridiculous you look doing that!
"A team led by scientists at The Scripps Research Institute has shown that an extra copy of a brain-development gene, which appeared in our ancestors' genomes about 2.4 million years ago, allowed maturing neurons to migrate farther and develop more connections."
Since the thesis you are basing your argument upon is false, your argument fails.
As I predicted, it wouldn't be long before a phoney as a $3 bill answer would be offered.
First ... even if this were true (true=provable as opposed to conjecture), it doesn't satisfy the question at all ... supporting my earlier suggestion that you don't even understand what the question is asking, so you are easily satified with nonsensical answers like that. The question was NOT show a mutation that might have some positive effect, but show a genetic mutation that added new information to the genome. And you haven't done that AT ALL .. and the reason I asked that is because I already knew the answer was you couldn't, because no one has.
Now, that really ends the point ... but as an additional lesson in critical thinkimg ...
1) there is no need for such a duplicate gene to facilitate neuron growth. The actual act of thinking and learning facilitates that outcome.
2) there is that confirmation bias again which uses an unproven assumption (that we actually evolved from earlier primates) coupled with pure speculation about a duplicate gene providing the assistance for the grôwth of neurons which neurons do not need.
There is way more I could question about this speculative claim ... but it is not necessary. Your use of this speculation was none responsive to the question asked.
As I predicted, it wouldn't be long before a phoney as a $3 bill answer would be offered.
First ... even if this were true (true=provable as opposed to conjecture), it doesn't satisfy the question at all ... supporting my earlier suggestion that you don't even understand what the question is asking, so you are easily satified with nonsensical answers like that. The question was NOT show a mutation that might have some positive effect, but show a genetic mutation that added new information to the genome. And you haven't done that AT ALL .. and the reason I asked that is because I already knew the answer was you couldn't, because no one has.
Now, that really ends the point ... but as an additional lesson in critical thinkimg ...
1) there is no need for such a duplicate gene to facilitate neuron growth. The actual act of thinking and learning facilitates that outcome.
2) there is that confirmation bias again which uses an unproven assumption (that we actually evolved from earlier primates) coupled with pure speculation about a duplicate gene providing the assistance for the grôwth of neurons which neurons do not need.
There is way more I could question about this speculative claim ... but it is not necessary. Your use of this speculation was none responsive to the question asked.
So the best you can do is to say. "I don't believe it."
You asked for an example of a mutation that added information to the human genome.
I provided such an example. The gene is not "speculative." It and the gene it arose from have been identified and the specific function of each of the genes is known.
How does "thinking and learning" facilitate neuron growth in an embryo? Just FYI, you have to grow the brain first, then think and learn with it.
The fact that GMOs exist is enough. ToE claims species themselves have evolved naturally over time. GMOs falsify the ToE vs. Creationism paradigm. GMOs fit neither.
Oh good grief. This is just ridiculous.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
