Irreducible Complexity

[miggidy]

Evidence for intelligent design?
See for yourself, this is a picture of the bacterial flagellum motor.
Notice how it looks a lot like nanotechnology?
In fact, many nanotech engineers have studied the structure of the flagellar motor as a model for their creations.

The bacterial flagellum is an example of what Michael Behe describes as an irreducibly complex system. In his book, Darwin's Black Box, he explains that such irreducibly complex systems could not have arisen by a gradual step-by-step Darwinian process.

"Because the bacterial flagellum is necessarily composed of at least three parts -- a paddle,a rotor, and a motor -- it is irreducibly complex. Gradual evolution of the flagellum, like the cilium, therefore faces mammoth hurdles." (p. 72)

Behe summarizes the structure of the bacterial flagellum in these terms:

"Some bacteria boast a marvelous swimming device, the flagellum, which has no counterpart in more complex cells. In 1973 it was discovered that some bacteria swim by rotating their flagella. So the bacterial flagellum acts as a rotary propellor -- in contrast to the cilium, which acts more like an oar.

The structure of a flagellum is quite different from that of a cilium. The flagellum is a long, hairlike filament embedded in the cell membrane. The external filament consists of a single type of protein, called "flagellin." The flagellin filament is the paddle surface that contacts the the liquid during swimming. At the end of the flagellin filament near the surface of the cell, there is a bulge in the thickness of the flagellum. It is here that the filament attaches to the rotor drive. The attachment material is comprised of something called "hook protein." The filament of a bacterial flagellum, unlike a cilium, contains no motor protein; if it is broken off, the filament just floats stiffly in the water. Therefore the motor that rotates the filament-propellor must be located somewhere else. Experiments have demonstrated that it is located at the base of the flagellum, where electron microscopy shows several ring structures occur. The rotary nature of the flagellum has clear, unavoidable consequences ..." (pp. 70-72)

The consequences Behe refers to are inferred by the nature of its irreducibly complex components, the discovery of which undermines a Darwinian explanation of origins. Behe concludes:

"In summary, as biochemists have begun to examine apparently simple structures like cilia and flagella, they have discovered staggering complexity, with dozens or even hundreds of precisely tailored parts. It is very likely that many of the parts we have not considered here are required for any cilium to function in a cell. As the number of required parts increases, the difficulty of gradually putting the system together skyrockets, and the likelihood of indirect scenarios plummets. Darwin looks more and more forlorn. New research on the roles of the auxiliary proteins cannot simplify the irreducibly complex system The intransigence of the problem cannot be alleviated; it will only get worse. Darwinian theory has given no explanation for the cilium or flagellum. The overwhelming complexity of the swimming systems push us to think it may never give an explanation." (p. 73)

Behe concludes that such irreducibly complex systems were ultimately the result of intelligent design.

(It should be pointed out that Behe has no objections to the concept of universal common ancestry. His objections to evolution are limited to the rejection of the neo-Darwinian mechanism as a sufficient explanation for the origin of all biological systems.)

Read more at:
http://id-www.ucsb.edu/fscf/library/origins/graphics-captions/Flagellum.html

 

[miggidy]

Of course, evolutionists have developed apologetics in response.
They have countered this with a theory called “co-option”….
But it’s got more holes than Swiss cheese….
Intelligent design is everywhere, and irreducible complexity is it’s scientific proof.
Bacterial flagellum is one of many examples of irreducible complexity....

The proof is in the pudding some would say.
Whether you believe it was YHWH, Allah, Krishna, E.T., or the Wizzard of OZ;
something created life....

 

[2-0-Sixx]

Miggidy, you are really stretching it by saying this is proof of intelligent design. Many scientists have already refuted this claim and offered solid explanations. I’m not going to copy & paste a bunch scientific evidence supporting evolution (I’m not a biologist and a lot of this shit is over all of our heads) but I will offer a couple links for those who are interested.

http://www.idthink.net/biot/flag1/

http://www.health.adelaide.edu.au/Pharm/Musgrave/essays/flagella.htm#conclusions

Here is probably the most detailed evolutionary model for the bacterial flagellum you’ll ever come across. http://www.talkdesign.org/faqs/flagellum.html

 

[miggidy]

I know, the thought of intelligent design boggles the minds of many.
But oh well....

I am aware of the arguments against this.
But they are all fringe.... Very fringe and none offer no real explanation.
On the contrary, they open up more questions instead of sealing one.

For one thing the fact that the human genome consists of over three million bits.
And each bit can have up to four combinations.
Yet the age of our planet is not enough time necessary for the natural creation of the genome....

 

[2-0-Sixx]

I know, the thought of intelligent design boggles the minds of many.
But oh well....

And it boggles the mind to many that there was no design, but oh well. Pointless.

I am aware of the arguments against this.
But they are all fringe.... Very fringe and none offer no real explanation.
On the contrary, they open up more questions instead of sealing one.

Really? How so? Did you read this link, Here is probably the most detailed evolutionary model for the bacterial flagellum you’ll ever come across. http://www.talkdesign.org/faqs/flagellum.html

Please tell me, after reading this link, what quesitons arise?

For one thing the fact that the human genome consists of over three million bits.
And each bit can have up to four combinations.
Yet the age of our planet is not enough time necessary for the natural creation of the genome....

lol, what?!?

Jeez, when DNA was finally proven as fact, the scientific community thought of it as solid proof to evolution, but here are, years later, and somehow people still ignore this.

 

[miggidy]

I really hope the agnostics and religious people of these boards are reading this.
This played a significant role in how I lost faith in atheism.

Thing is, most people are very ignorant when it comes to our origins.
And the science behind it....
Most take evolution as fact because it's taught in our schools.
If they only knew just how much faith plays it's role in the natural creation theory....

The links you provided and the one you pointed out in your previous post 2-0 ,
speaks on the cooption theory.
A theory that is pretty much dead in its tracks. Why?
What these cats do not understand is that every piece of the flagellar motor needs to be added in specific order.
Not randomness like the cooption and evolution theories suggest.
Picture building a house, you cannot lay the roof down without having installed the walls and columns first. And before the walls, you need the foundation. You cannot just sit there for millions, if not billions of years watching the elements and random chance build the house for you, in proper order.

Now, I never really spoke against this stuff in the past.
But I realized that I spent too much time here tryin to provide proof of a higher power not realizing that debating was not the solution. Believing in a greater force has nothing to do with knowledge....
Atheists (and I'm not speaking of you, I speak of the general public) always mock and poke fun of the spiritual people because of their faith.
They call the myths, fairy tales.
They (atheists) play on the ignorance of people. Man only if spiritual people looked into the theories that atheist/theists and other cats believe in;
they would be shocked at how much faith their theories demand.
SciFi shit....

Yes I am saying that biochemical evolution is an extremely fringe theory.
It may work for living organisms but it doesn't work for our origins.

Here’s the logic behind most evolutionists;
they have collectively ruled out design altogether.
What does this mean?
Imagine a 1,000,000 year old stone with hieroglyphic carvings.
Instead of looking at the obvious signs of design on the stone,
they will come up with a theory consisting of tens of hundreds, if not thousands of possibilities which may have created the hieroglyphics. Possibilities such as, wind, water, age, random chance, etc .
Get the picture? It’s the same with their argument against our design....

Natural selection acts on random variations among chemicals to produce the first life.
Natural selection cannot function before the existence of the first living cell.
It can only act upon organisms capable of replicating themselves.
Cells, which are equipped with DNA that pass on their genetic changes to future generations.
Without DNA, there is no self replication. But without self replication, there is no natural selection. There for you cannot use self replication in order to explain the origin of DNA without assuming the existence of life itself.

I stand behind this statement to the fullest.
Until someone proves it otherwise, no one can make fun of my faith....

You mention DNA, that it's proof of evolution.
DNA shows design....
If people only understood how DNA functions.
DNA just doesn't show up naturally. And you and every other evolutionist knows that.
You know that only life can produce DNA....
Am I wrong?

Any other person in here of atheist faith?

 

[miggidy]

This isn't an attack on your beliefs or anyone elses for that matter.

I am simply asking a few questions that other spiritual peeps haven't brought to your attention.
Be thankful, these questions will help you in the long run.
Whether you stick to your guns or you move on. At least you have the experience....

 

[2-0-Sixx]

Just to clarify; I have absolutely NO faith in atheism. In fact, I have absolutely NO FAITH in anything. That’s the difference between my atheism and your previous atheism. Faith is a meaningless term as far as I am concerned. Faith is a belief in spite of reason. Logic, reason, science, methodology, etc. construct my views and nothing more.

1. Atheism, once again, is NOT a belief; it is a LACK of belief. It’s that simple.

2. Atheism ≠ Evolution (millions of theists believe in Evolution).

I also want to point out; once again, that evolution has nothing to do with a higher power or god. It is simply an observation of changes that occur over time. You can easily say that there is a designer who created the first forms of life, and simply allows things to evolve on their own after that. To dismiss evolution is foolish, especially since we can observe it and study it.

In regards to your original post, I would like to quote this site: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB200_1.html

Behe, Michael J., 1996. Darwin's Black Box, New York: The Free Press, pp. 59-73.
Response:
1. This is an example of argument from incredulity, because irreducible complexity can evolve naturally. Many of the proteins in the bacterial flagellum or eukaryotic cilium are similar to each other or to proteins for other functions. Their origins can easily be explained by a series of gene duplication events followed by modification and/or cooption, proceeding gradually through intermediate systems different from and simpler than the final flagellum.

One plausible path for the evolution of flagella goes through the following basic stages (keep in mind that this is a summary, and that each major cooption event would be followed by long periods of gradual optimization of function):
a. A passive, nonspecific pore evolved into a more specific passive pore by addition of gating protein(s). Passive transport was converted to active transport by addition of an ATPase that coupled ATP hydrolysis to improved export capability. This complex formed a primitive type III export system.
b. The type III export system is converted to a type III secretion system (T3SS) by addition of outer membrane pore proteins (secretin and secretin chaperone) from the type II secretion system. These eventually form the P- and L-rings, respectively, of modern flagella. The modern type III secretory system forms a structure strikingly similar to the rod and ring structure of the flagellum [Hueck 1998; Blocker et al. 2003].
c. The T3SS secreted several proteins, one of which was an adhesin (a protein that sticks the cell to other cells or to a substrate). Polymerization of this adhesin forms a primitive pilus, an extension which gives the cell improved adhesive capability. After the evolution of the T3SS pilus, the pilus diversifies for various more specialized tasks by duplication and subfunctionalization of the pilus proteins (pilins).
d. An ion pump complex with another function in the cell fortuitously becomes associated with the base of the secretion system structure, converting the pilus into a primitive proto-flagellum. The initial function of the protoflagellum is improved dispersal. Homologs of the motor proteins, MotA and MotB, are known to function in diverse prokaryotes independently of the flagellum.
e. The binding of a signal transduction protein to the base of the secretion system regulates the speed of rotation depending on the metabolic health of the cell. This imposes a drift towards favorable regions and away from nutrient-poor regions, such as those found in overcrowded habitats. This is the beginning of chemotactic motility.
f. Numerous improvements follow the origin of the crudely functioning flagellum. Notably, many of the different axial proteins (rod, hook, linkers, filament, caps) originate by duplication and subfunctionalization of pilins or the primitive flagellar axial structure. These proteins end up forming the axial protein family.

The eukaryotic cilium (also called the eukaryotic flagellum or undulipodium) is fundamentally different from the bacterial flagellum. It probably originated as an outgrowth of the mitotic spindle in a primitive eukaryote (both structures make use of sliding microtubules and dyneins). Cavalier-Smith [1987; 2002] has discussed the origin of these systems on several occasions.
2. The bacterial flagellum is not even irreducible. Some bacterial flagella function without the L- and P-rings. In experiments with various bacteria, some components (e.g. FliH, FliD (cap), and the muramidase domain of FlgJ) have been found helpful but not absolutely essential [Matzke 2003]. One third of the 497 amino acids of flagellin have been cut out without harming its function [Kuwajima 1988]. Furthermore, many bacteria have additional proteins that are required for their own flagella but which are not required in the "standard," well-studied flagellum found in E. coli. Different bacteria have different numbers of flagellar proteins (in Helicobacter pylori, for example, only 33 proteins are necessary to produce a working flagellum), so Behe's favorite example of irreducibility seems actually to exhibit quite a bit of variability in terms of numbers of required parts [Ussery 1999].

Eukaryotic cilia are made by more than 200 distinct proteins, but even here irreducibility is illusive. Behe (1996) implied, and Denton (1986, 108) claimed explicitly, that the common "9+2" tubulin structure of cilia could not be substantially simplified. Yet functional 3+0 cilia, lacking many microtubules as well as some of the dynein linkers, are known to exist [Miller 2003, 2004].
3. Eubacterial flagella, archebacterial flagella, and cilia use entirely different designs for the same function. That is to be expected if they evolved separately, but it makes no sense if they were the work of the same designer.

Thing is, most people are very ignorant when it comes to our origins.

Yes, and you are apparently ignorant of dozens and dozens of other origin hypotheses.

Atheists (and I'm not speaking of you, I speak of the general public) always mock and poke fun of the spiritual people because of their faith.

Which is exactly what you're doing by contending 'faith' in evolution is misplaced, hypocrite.

They (atheists) play on the ignorance of people.

Some do and others attempt to educate them.

They (theists) play on the ignorance of the people by keeping them ignorant. Personified by none other than yourself and Behe.

Yes I am saying that biochemical evolution is an extremely fringe theory.
It may work for living organisms but it doesn't work for our origins.

We are not living organisms?!?!?!

Here’s the logic behind most evolutionists;
they have collectively ruled out design altogether.

Sorry, incorrect. Many, MANY evolutionists believe in a higher power or designer.

The links you provided and the one you pointed out in your previous post 2-0 ,
speaks on the cooption theory.
A theory that is pretty much dead in its tracks. Why?
What these cats do not understand is that every piece of the flagellar motor needs to be added in specific order.
Not randomness like the cooption and evolution theories suggest.

Evolution is not simply randomness. It is a long process of what works, what doesn’t etc. There are specific reasons why things evolve to what they are; we can see and speak not because it randomly occurred, it is because it benefits us- it’s about survival. Not dissing you mig, but I seriously think you are ignorant on subject of Evolution. I cannot stress how important this book is, The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins. I suggest you and everyone else who is interested in Evolution read this book.

Natural selection acts on random variations among chemicals to produce the first life.
Natural selection cannot function before the existence of the first living cell.
It can only act upon organisms capable of replicating themselves.
Cells, which are equipped with DNA that pass on their genetic changes to future generations.
Without DNA, there is no self replication. But without self replication, there is no natural selection. There for you cannot use self replication in order to explain the origin of DNA without assuming the existence of life itself.

Every single chemical, element etc. that is found in our world, including all living organisms can be found in stardust. Everything necessary for the creation of life, all the essential ingredients are found in stardust- the formation of our solar system, our star, our planets etc. Chemical reactions occur etc., thus life begins.

 

[2-0-Sixx]

What does this mean?
Imagine a 1,000,000 year old stone with hieroglyphic carvings.
Instead of looking at the obvious signs of design on the stone,
they will come up with a theory consisting of tens of hundreds, if not thousands of possibilities which may have created the hieroglyphics. Possibilities such as, wind, water, age, random chance, etc .

This is ridiculous. It’s completely obvious that hieroglyphics are methods of communication, its there purpose.

What purpose does the creation of humankind serve if we were intelligently designed?

Without DNA, there is no self replication.

Without evolution, every human, as well as any other living organism, would be genetically identical.

There for you cannot use self replication in order to explain the origin of DNA without assuming the existence of life itself.

I stand behind this statement to the fullest.

As do I, comrade.

You mention DNA, that it's proof of evolution.

Actually the change in genetic frequency is proof of evolution.

DNA shows design....

Poor design, at best. But then you've, to paraphrase yourself... "collectively ruled out abiogenesis altogether."

If people only understood how DNA functions.

DNA just doesn't show up naturally.

You've just "collectively ruled out abiogenesis altogether."

 

[2-0-Sixx]

This isn't an attack on your beliefs or anyone elses for that matter.

I am simply asking a few questions that other spiritual peeps haven't brought to your attention.
Be thankful, these questions will help you in the long run.
Whether you stick to your guns or you move on. At least you have the experience....

No doubt, I always welcome your views and I enjoy choppin it up with you, comrade.

 

[HERESY]

HAVE SCIENTIST BEEN ABLE TO CREATE "LIFE"? WHAT I MEAN BY THIS IS HAVE THEY TAPPED INTO SOMETHING BESIDES DNA? YES THEY CAN SPLICE DNA, BLEND IT, CHOP IT, MAKE CLONES ETC ETC ETC. CAN THEY "CREATE" DNA OR DO THEY HAVE THE TOOLS TO DO IT? AN EXAMPLE OF THIS WOULD BE THE ABILITY TO SIMPLY CREATE A NEW GENE OUT OF VARIOUS SOURCES....WAIT FORGET IT I'M RAMBLING I GOTTA GO.


2-0-6 I'LL ANSWER YOUR OTHER THREAD TOMMOROW.


:HGK:

 

[Jake]

i am fascinated by this conversation yet not educated enough on the subject matter to comment...soaking up this information form the sources that were provided,combined with my own beliefs,being someone of no faith as well...so i will try to comment soon

 

[miggidy]

Just to clarify; I have absolutely NO faith in atheism. In fact, I have absolutely NO FAITH in anything. That’s the difference between my atheism and your previous atheism. Faith is a meaningless term as far as I am concerned. Faith is a belief in spite of reason. Logic, reason, science, methodology, etc. construct my views and nothing more.
1. Atheism, once again, is NOT a belief; it is a LACK of belief. It’s that simple.

2. Atheism ≠ Evolution (millions of theists believe in Evolution).

I also want to point out; once again, that evolution has nothing to do with a higher power or god. It is simply an observation of changes that occur over time. You can easily say that there is a designer who created the first forms of life, and simply allows things to evolve on their own after that. To dismiss evolution is foolish, especially since we can observe it and study it

I'm not dismissing evolution at all. I dismiss is it as a theory for the origins of life. Let me ask you this, since evolution cannot account for the creation of life itself;
what do you put your faith in? Creation by design, or creation by random chance?
No answer is different than the other, both require faith.

Now do you understand?

In regards to your original post, I would like to quote this site: <http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB200_1.html>

Great, another link attempting to explain the same thing. This one goes a bit beyond the others by pointing out certain flagella that already has some of the parts in the flagellar motor.
And guess what? They use the cooption theory to explain how all three parts became one in the bacterium flagella. Doesn't this "theory" require "faith" in believing or assuming this is how the flagellar motor came to be?

Yes, and you are apparently ignorant of dozens and dozens of other origin hypotheses.

Ok that is an ignorant use of the word "igonorance". I am not ignorant because I am aware of other origin hypotheses. I just don't believe them, that's the difference.

Which is exactly what you're doing by contending 'faith' in evolution is misplaced, hypocrite.

LOL You say that because you do not understand my point here.
The idea that life sprouted out by random chance requires faith.
That is what everyone forgets.

Some do and others attempt to educate them.

They (theists) play on the ignorance of the people by keeping them ignorant. Personified by none other than yourself and Behe.

LOL, all I am doing is presenting another hypothesis to life. It is those who chose to ignore the other side of the field who are at fault. Like I said earlier, I am only presenting info for those who aren't aware of these arguments. Those who have been lead to "believe" natural creation is fact.
I presented some info, you presented some of yours.

I'll let the people decide what they want to "believe" in....

We are not living organisms?!?!?!

LOL that was too vague. Biochemical evolution can explain chemical evolution in already existing organisms but it cannot explain the orgins of the first life. As I said earlier, natural selection only happens with life.

Sorry, incorrect. Many, MANY evolutionists believe in a higher power or designer.

Yes, hence the word "most" in my previous post.

Evolution is not simply randomness. It is a long process of what works, what doesn’t etc. There are specific reasons why things evolve to what they are; we can see and speak not because it randomly occurred, it is because it benefits us- it’s about survival. Not dissing you mig, but I seriously think you are ignorant on subject of Evolution.

You say the above. But then you say this?

"Every single chemical, element etc. that is found in our world, including all living organisms can be found in stardust. Everything necessary for the creation of life, all the essential ingredients are found in stardust- the formation of our solar system, our star, our planets etc."

How do you suppose these chemicals and elements sprouted life?

By the way, it's all good.
Words are just words, which come out of a mere man's lungs.

Chemical reactions occur etc., thus life begins.

Now you know that is not true. When was the last time this was proven?

****

This is ridiculous. It’s completely obvious that hieroglyphics are methods of communication, its there purpose.

What purpose does the creation of humankind serve if we were intelligently designed?

But does the fact that heiroglyphics are created by man interfere with your ego?

As for what purpose does the creation of life serve if we were designed, well you're going to have to figure that out on your own. Much like trying to find our purpose if we were created by nature....

Poor design, at best. But then you've, to paraphrase yourself... "collectively ruled out abiogenesis altogether."

Think about it for a minute. If evolution is the nature of life itself, isn't it feasable to believe that there was a starting point for our genes? A perfect starting point perhaps? The fact that our genes may seem poorly designed at this point doesn't really rule out the chance that maybe they once had a clean start.

Just to clear things up, I never said evolution was fake. The idea that it can explain life's origin is....

@ Heresy,
Allow me to answer your question.
No.

Peace ya'll....

 

[2-0-Sixx]

I'm not dismissing evolution at all. I dismiss is it as a theory for the origins of life.

Again; evolution was never intended as a theory for the origins of life. It is simply an observation of changes that occur over time. It shows us how A became Z; it never states how A arrived in the first place.

Let me ask you this, since evolution cannot account for the creation of life itself;
what do you put your faith in?

Faith is to defy and abandon the judgment of one's mind. Faith conflicts with reason. It cannot give you knowledge; it can only delude you into believing that you know more than you really do. Faith is intellectually dishonest, and it should be rejected by every person of integrity. In other words; I have faith in nothing.

Creation by design, or creation by random chance? No answer is different than the other, both require faith.

No, there is evidence for one of the above and that evidence does not come from the bible.

Now do you understand?

Do you?

Great, another link attempting to explain the same thing. This one goes a bit beyond the others by pointing out certain flagella that already has some of the parts in the flagellar motor.
And guess what? They use the cooption theory to explain how all three parts became one in the bacterium flagella. Doesn't this "theory" require "faith" in believing or assuming this is how the flagellar motor came to be?

Man, did you even read the link? lol, this “theory” does not require “faith” because there are scientific studies/evidence that back this “theory” up, UNLIKE the THEORY of creationism.

Again, please refer to the definition of Scientific Theory.

Speaking of theories, I think one of the hardest principles to get across to people is exactly what is scientific theory, I mean a lot of people have theories based on actual data so it can be hard for some people to grasp. I think CREATIONISM or INTELIGENT DESIGN can and should be used as a tool to explain to people what exactly is a SCIENTIFIC theory vs. just a theory.
Creation/ID = theory.
Evolution = Scientific Theory.
Creation/ID ≠ Scientific Theory.

Originally Posted by 2-0-Sixx

Yes, and you are apparently ignorant of dozens and dozens of other origin hypotheses.

Ok that is an ignorant use of the word "igonorance". I am not ignorant because I am aware of other origin hypotheses. I just don't believe them, that's the difference.

No, it is not an ignorant use of the word. You either simply lack the true definition of the term or you are confused.

To say you are NOT ignorant of dozens and dozens of other origin hypotheses is absurd. Do you know of ALL of them? The ones you do know; do you know about them in full detail? How many can you name? See my point?

Ignorance simply means you lack knowledge on a certain subject. It is not an insult. I am definitely ignorant on all the “theories” or “hypotheses” of origin and anyone who says they’re not is a fool. There are tons of them.

LOL You say that because you do not understand my point here.
The idea that life sprouted out by random chance requires faith.
That is what everyone forgets.

Ahh, man. Why can’t you comprehend that I do not have faith in anything? I’ve explained to you what faith means. I’ve explained that scientists, atheists, etc. use logic and reason to gather knowledge, not faith. No new knowledge can be gained by faith. We reject things without evidence. There is no evidence for creationism at the time being; therefore it is not an accepted in the majority of the scientific community.

Yes, hence the word "most" in my previous post.

If you said most, I missed it.


Originally Posted by 2-0-Sixx

Evolution is not simply randomness. It is a long process of what works, what doesn’t etc. There are specific reasons why things evolve to what they are; we can see and speak not because it randomly occurred, it is because it benefits us- it’s about survival. Not dissing you mig, but I seriously think you are ignorant on subject of Evolution.

You say the above. But then you say this?

"Every single chemical, element etc. that is found in our world, including all living organisms can be found in stardust. Everything necessary for the creation of life, all the essential ingredients are found in stardust- the formation of our solar system, our star, our planets etc."

Yes, I said both of those things. What is wrong with these statements? I think it may be difficult for you to distinguish the evolution of stars, solar system, and formation of planets etc. with evolution of life here on earth.

By the way, it's all good.
Words are just words, which come out of a mere man's lungs.

Fasho.

Now you know that is not true. When was the last time this was proven?

****

It’s pretty difficult to create a formation of a solar system and wait around for billions of years for certain events to happen.

But does the fact that heiroglyphics are created by man interfere with your ego?

lol, what??!?

As for what purpose does the creation of life serve if we were designed, well you're going to have to figure that out on your own. Much like trying to find our purpose if we were created by nature....

I didn’t know you played dodge ball mig.

Think about it for a minute. If evolution is the nature of life itself, isn't it feasable to believe that there was a starting point for our genes? A perfect starting point perhaps? The fact that our genes may seem poorly designed at this point doesn't really rule out the chance that maybe they once had a clean start.

..

I think it’s a neat idea and it’s fun to think about but I have seen absolutely no evidence that supports this claim.

Just to clear things up, I never said evolution was fake. The idea that it can explain life's origin is..

Again, I don’t recall it ever intending to explain life’s origin.

 

[m.w.merlino]

Miggidy -- you suffer from "self-centered existence realization syndrome" // meaning: The information you provided from this one scientist is going to pissed on and laughed at 150 years from now. Your life span isn't the last generation that will walk the earth. Go back in time far enough (when people were hung for thinking the sun wasnt the center of the universe) and im sure people would argue that the bright glowing orb god of warmth is proof of theism and intelligent design. It doesnt mean anything, these are just ideas being kicked around that no one can prove.

 

[HERESY]

@206 I answered your questions a couple of days ago. My apologies for being so late. I have to respond to white devil (the arafat thread) and the antichrist thread that sixxness made. Do you have an answer to my question in this thread? Mig answered and he said no. I want to know your perspective.



:hgk:


ps I do understand where both sides (mig and 206) are coming from.

 

[2-0-Sixx]

HAVE SCIENTIST BEEN ABLE TO CREATE "LIFE"? WHAT I MEAN BY THIS IS HAVE THEY TAPPED INTO SOMETHING BESIDES DNA? YES THEY CAN SPLICE DNA, BLEND IT, CHOP IT, MAKE CLONES ETC ETC ETC. CAN THEY "CREATE" DNA OR DO THEY HAVE THE TOOLS TO DO IT? AN EXAMPLE OF THIS WOULD BE THE ABILITY TO SIMPLY CREATE A NEW GENE OUT OF VARIOUS SOURCES....WAIT FORGET IT I'M RAMBLING I GOTTA GO.


2-0-6 I'LL ANSWER YOUR OTHER THREAD TOMMOROW.


:HGK:

Well, scientists have conducted scientific experiments which demonstrate how life is created. They were able, and still are able, to create the building blocks of life.

I’m sure you are aware that in the 50’s some scientists had a theory that inorganic molecules would spontaneously form organic molecules (simple sugars and amino acids) under the right conditions. Their experiment was simple; they created a model which they felt strongly resembled the atmosphere and conditions of early earth- a gas mixture based on predictions of the early atmosphere then heated this gas and gave it an electrical charge (like lightning), what occurred after was the formation of organic compounds, thus this experiment proved their theory.

This theory has be conducted thousands of times since, of course many revisions have been made, different conditions added etc. and it is still the scientific theory that is used today.

If we had the time to allow these “building blocks of life” to grow, then yes, scientists could create life. It is my understanding that with serious manipulation, nanotechnology etc,, scientists today have the technology to influence these organic molecules in such ways that life is created. If not today, for certain we will be able to tomorrow.

Remember, evolution is based on scientific method. There are tests that can determine whether or not the theory is correct as it stands, and these tests can be made. Thousands of such tests have been made, and the current theories have passed them all. Also, scientists are willing to alter the theories as soon as new evidence is discovered. This allows the theories to become more and more accurate as research progresses.

The problem with Miggidy’s position is that there is NO evidence based on scientific method that can defend creationism. The only defense is that certain things “are too complex” therefore must have a creator. That’s not scientific, that is simply an opinion.