Don't believe in "Intelligent design"? Let me ask you some questions.

You are implying the existence of a law that states that everything is finite. This law does not exist. Where did you hear that it does?

Primarily Darwinian evolution, with a little Lemarckism thrown in.

 

What is with the title? So far I have read nothing to do with intelligent design. It seems the OP is just asking questions that might not be answerable or have someone slip and then argue for intelligent design. So far it's just question after question.

I'd like to read some arguments for intelligent design rather than a Q&A.

 

It isnt a law but give me an example of something that is infinite besides something that has to do with electronics. Tell me something that has no start and/or no end.

By this I meen do you believe that things slowly just changed? There are different "classes" of evolution. Since the mainstream evolution was proven wrong, scientists started talking about mutations within a being.

The main point of the thread is to ask shredder some questions and other people can answer also =p

I will start throwing out my ideas soon.

 

It cannot be empirically demonstrated that something is infinite - for at what point can one stop measuring and proclaim to have measured infinity?

An example of something that might be infinite in nature could be the universe - or existence itself.

I wasn't aware that the mainstream account of evolution had been proven wrong. Can you elaborate?

 

^^ Awesome statement is awesome.

As for something that has no start and no end, quite possibly our universe. I can't tell you anything definite - as you can't assert either - because we have yet to discover conclusive evidence (if there is any). I consider speculating better than just saying "It was all done by a mystical being with unlimited powers!" - I find that quite ridiculous.

 

Hate to copy paste... but here..

In Darwin's time, structural homology was very strong evidence for macroevolution. How could vastly different species have such similar characteristics unless they were all related by a common ancestor? If they all had a common ancestor, then clearly macroevolution would have to have occurred in order to turn this common ancestor into these vastly different species, right?

That sounded like a great argument in Darwin's time because scientists back then had no idea how traits were passed on from generation to generation. With the advent of Mendelian genetics, however, scientists finally began to understand how this happens. As scientists began to understand genetics and DNA better, they developed technology to actually determine the sequence of nucleotide bases in an organism's DNA. This spelled the end of structural homology as evidence of macroevolution.

 

What? Sequencing nucleotides provides evidence for a common ancestor, not against one. Also, as an extension to your copy-paste:

"You see, if structural homology was the result of common ancestry, it should show up in the genetic codes of the organisms that possess similar structures. For example, if you have a picture of the forearms of a bat, bird, man, and porpoise; they look very similar. If they look so similar because they all inherited their forearms from a common ancestor, then the parts of their DNA that contain the information regarding the forearms should be similar. After all, traits are passed from parent to offspring through DNA. If each one of these creatures inherited its forearm structure from a common ancestor, then the portions on DNA which contain information about the forearm would all have come from that same common ancestor. As a result, those portions on the DNA should be similar from organism to organism. Is this the case? Is structural homology the result of similar DNA sequences? No, it is not."

Actually, this is entirely incorrect. The DNA that corresponds to arms, legs, eyes and brains is extremely similar. As a matter of fact, most organisms share very similar genetic codes.

In any case, providing evidence against one of the evidences for macroevolution is entirely different from proving the whole thing to be false!

Where did you find this article?

 

You were the one who added to it... you tell me =p


I want you to read this.




Of all the scientific data that provide evidence against evolution, perhaps the most important come from the field of molecular biology, which studies the properties and structures of the molecules important to biology. Think back to what you learned in the three previous modules. Aside from DNA, what is the most important type of molecule in the chemistry of life? The protein! As a result, a large amount of the research effort in molecular biology centers on understanding proteins.

Early on, molecular biologists noticed something rather amazing. There are certain proteins that are common to many species. Most animals, for example, have the protein hemoglobin. This protein transports oxygen through the bloodstream to the cells. In addition, most organisms have the protein cytochrome (sye' tuh krohm) C, which takes part in cellular metabolism. Interestingly enough, these proteins are not identical from species to species. In other words, the cytochrome C that you find in a bacterium is a bit different from the cytochrome C that you find in a human.

How do these proteins vary from species to species? Well, what determines the structure and function of a protein? In Module #5, you learned that the sequence of amino acids within a protein determines its structure and function. Thus, if you were to examine the amino acids in the cytochrome C of different species, you would find slightly different sequences. For example, Table 9.1 lists the amino acid sequences on the same portion of cytochrome C for several different types of organisms.

​

Now remember what we are looking at in this table. Each three-letter abbreviation represents a specific amino acid. Thus, “Gly” stands for the amino acid glycine, “Leu” stands for the amino acid leucine, and so on. Don't worry about the NH2. That's an amine functional group that really has no bearing on our discussion. Also, notice that some of the three-letter abbreviations are red. Red amino acids indicate that they are different from the amino acid expected if you use the horse sequence as the standard. Thus, compared to the horse sequence, the kangaroo sequence has one amino acid that is different. However, the yeast sequence has four amino acids different from the horse sequence.

What do we see in studying Table 9.1? Well, first notice that all of these sequences are very similar. That's not at all surprising, because the protein is the same in each case: cytochrome C. It performs the same basic function in each organism, but in order to be able to work with the specific chemistry of each organism, it is slightly different in each specific case. That's where the differences in the sequences come from. The cytochrome C section shown here, for example, is nearly identical between the horse and the kangaroo. The only difference is the second amino acid, which is leucine (Leu) in the horse and isoleucine (Ile) in the kangaroo. Because of this one difference, the cytochrome C of a horse will not work in a kangaroo or vice-versa.

What does all of this tell us? Well, think about how proteins are made. They are made in the cells according to the instructions of DNA. Thus, by looking at the amino acid sequences in a protein that is common among many species, you are actually looking at the differences between specific parts of those organisms' genetic code: the part that determines the makeup of that protein. If macroevolution is true, then that portion of the genetic code should reflect how “closely related” the two species are. If two species are closely related, the DNA sequences that code for a common protein should be very similar. If they are only distantly related, however, the DNA sequences that code for that same protein should have more significant differences between them. Looking at the differences between the amino acid sequences of a common protein, then, is a way to determine just how many differences exist between corresponding sections of the DNA of the organisms in question.

For example, the portion of the amino acid sequence for cytochrome C shown in the table is 11 amino acids long. Of those amino acids, there is only one difference between the horse and the kangaroo. We can therefore calculate the percentage difference between the cytochrome C amino acid sequence in a horse and the cytochrome C amino acid sequence in a kangaroo.


Comparing the amino acid sequences in cytochrome C for the yeast and the horse, however, there are four differences. Thus, the percent difference is


These two comparisons, then, tell us that the portion of a horse's genetic code that determines the makeup of this part of cytochrome C protein is much closer to the kangaroo's than it is to a yeast's. From a macroevolutionary point of view, this would tell us that the horse is more closely related to the kangaroo than to the yeast. In other words, in some macroevolutionary scheme in which one life form evolves into another, the kangaroo would be closer to the horse than would be the yeast.

That makes sense, doesn't it? After all, a yeast is considered, by macroevolutionists, to be a rather “simple” life form, whereas kangaroos and horses are rather complex. As a result, it makes sense that a horse is more closely related to a kangaroo than a yeast. Even though comparing this portion of cytochrome C in the horse, kangaroo, and yeast makes sense in terms of macroevolution, as you look across the data that is out there, you find that it causes serious problems for macroevolution.

Consider, for example, the bacterium Rhodospirillum (roh doh spuh ril' um) rubrum (roob' rum). When its cytochrome C amino acid sequence is compared to vastly different organisms, nothing makes sense in terms of the macroevolutionary hypothesis. Table 9.2 shows the percentage difference between the amino acid sequence in a Rhodospirillum rubrum's cytochrome C and the amino acid sequence of other organisms' cytochrome C.

http://img74.imageshack.us/img74/8775/t09002cm8.jpg
​

Now remember what macroevolution says. It says that “complex” life forms evolved from “simple” ones. Well, the “simplest” life form on the planet is a bacterium. Of the organisms listed in the table, the yeast (a single-celled fungus) is probably the next “simplest” life form. Increasing in complexity then come the silkworm moth, followed by the tuna, followed by the pigeon, followed by the horse. Thus, macroevolution would assume that the bacterium is most closely related to the yeast, then to the silkworm moth, etc., etc., all the way up to the horse. As a result, then, the yeast's cytochrome C should be most similar to that of the bacterium, the silkworm moth's cytochrome C should be the next most similar, and so on. According to the data, however, each organism in the table is essentially as closely related to the bacterium as any other organism on the table! If anything, the bacterium is more closely related to the most complex organisms, not the least complex ones!

In other words, the data presented in Table 9.2 show none of the evolutionary relationships that should exist if macroevolution really occurred. Instead, these data seem to indicate that the bacterium is just as different from the horse as it is from the yeast! As you look at more and more data like this, you will find that this is the pattern of the vast majority of the data. Regardless of the protein studied, the amino acid sequences seem to indicate that each individual type of organism is just as different from one type of organism as it is from another. Just to make it clear that the data is really overwhelming on this point, we present a few more tables like Table 9.2.

http://img74.imageshack.us/img74/3438/t09003hm3.jpg ​

Now think about what these data tell us. We are comparing the cytochrome C's of a mammal (horse), a bird (pigeon), a reptile (turtle), a fish (carp), and an eel (lamprey). According to macroevolution, eels would have come first, later fishes would have evolved, followed by amphibians, followed by reptiles, followed by birds, and finally followed by horses. Thus, the eel should be most similar to the fish, then the reptile, and then the bird, and it should have the least in common with the horse. Instead, the data tell us that the cytochrome C in the lamprey eel is most like the carp, but then next most like the horse, and has essentially the same differences between the turtle and the pigeon!

If you look at the data presented in Tables 9.2 and 9.3, it is clear that you can establish no macroevolutionary trends. This is the case with the vast majority of the data collected from molecular biology. If you map the amino acid sequences of virtually any protein and compare the differences between organisms that have that protein, you will generally find no macroevolutionary trends. Instead, each kind of organism seems to be equally or nearly equally different from every other kind of organism. As is the case with all of science, there are exceptions to this general rule, but those exceptions are quite rare.

Even though the exceptions are rare, some macroevolutionists actually highlight those exceptions as evidence for evolution. You see, if you pick and choose your data very carefully, you can find examples of molecular biological data that seem to indicate a macroevolutionary trend. For example, look at Table 9.4.

http://img162.imageshack.us/img162/2465/t09004dp3.jpg ​

Now this table does seem to indicate a macroevolutionary trend, doesn't it? After all, as you go down the table, you are getting to “simpler” and “simpler” life forms. As the life forms get “simpler,” their cytochrome C sequences seem to get more and more different from that of a human, don't they?

The problem with this table is that in order to construct it, you must ignore 99% of the data from molecular biology and choose only the 1% of the data that agrees with the hypothesis of macroevolution. This is clearly not responsible science. In science, we must look at all of the data, and the data from amino acid sequencing provide strong evidence against macroevolution.

 

You were the one who added to it... you tell me =p


I want you to read this.




Of all the scientific data that provide evidence against evolution, perhaps the most important come from the field of molecular biology, which studies the properties and structures of the molecules important to biology. Think back to what you learned in the three previous modules. Aside from DNA, what is the most important type of molecule in the chemistry of life? The protein! As a result, a large amount of the research effort in molecular biology centers on understanding proteins.

Early on, molecular biologists noticed something rather amazing. There are certain proteins that are common to many species. Most animals, for example, have the protein hemoglobin. This protein transports oxygen through the bloodstream to the cells. In addition, most organisms have the protein cytochrome (sye' tuh krohm) C, which takes part in cellular metabolism. Interestingly enough, these proteins are not identical from species to species. In other words, the cytochrome C that you find in a bacterium is a bit different from the cytochrome C that you find in a human.

How do these proteins vary from species to species? Well, what determines the structure and function of a protein? In Module #5, you learned that the sequence of amino acids within a protein determines its structure and function. Thus, if you were to examine the amino acids in the cytochrome C of different species, you would find slightly different sequences. For example, Table 9.1 lists the amino acid sequences on the same portion of cytochrome C for several different types of organisms.

​

Now remember what we are looking at in this table. Each three-letter abbreviation represents a specific amino acid. Thus, “Gly” stands for the amino acid glycine, “Leu” stands for the amino acid leucine, and so on. Don't worry about the NH2. That's an amine functional group that really has no bearing on our discussion. Also, notice that some of the three-letter abbreviations are red. Red amino acids indicate that they are different from the amino acid expected if you use the horse sequence as the standard. Thus, compared to the horse sequence, the kangaroo sequence has one amino acid that is different. However, the yeast sequence has four amino acids different from the horse sequence.

What do we see in studying Table 9.1? Well, first notice that all of these sequences are very similar. That's not at all surprising, because the protein is the same in each case: cytochrome C. It performs the same basic function in each organism, but in order to be able to work with the specific chemistry of each organism, it is slightly different in each specific case. That's where the differences in the sequences come from. The cytochrome C section shown here, for example, is nearly identical between the horse and the kangaroo. The only difference is the second amino acid, which is leucine (Leu) in the horse and isoleucine (Ile) in the kangaroo. Because of this one difference, the cytochrome C of a horse will not work in a kangaroo or vice-versa.

What does all of this tell us? Well, think about how proteins are made. They are made in the cells according to the instructions of DNA. Thus, by looking at the amino acid sequences in a protein that is common among many species, you are actually looking at the differences between specific parts of those organisms' genetic code: the part that determines the makeup of that protein. If macroevolution is true, then that portion of the genetic code should reflect how “closely related” the two species are. If two species are closely related, the DNA sequences that code for a common protein should be very similar. If they are only distantly related, however, the DNA sequences that code for that same protein should have more significant differences between them. Looking at the differences between the amino acid sequences of a common protein, then, is a way to determine just how many differences exist between corresponding sections of the DNA of the organisms in question.

For example, the portion of the amino acid sequence for cytochrome C shown in the table is 11 amino acids long. Of those amino acids, there is only one difference between the horse and the kangaroo. We can therefore calculate the percentage difference between the cytochrome C amino acid sequence in a horse and the cytochrome C amino acid sequence in a kangaroo.


Comparing the amino acid sequences in cytochrome C for the yeast and the horse, however, there are four differences. Thus, the percent difference is


These two comparisons, then, tell us that the portion of a horse's genetic code that determines the makeup of this part of cytochrome C protein is much closer to the kangaroo's than it is to a yeast's. From a macroevolutionary point of view, this would tell us that the horse is more closely related to the kangaroo than to the yeast. In other words, in some macroevolutionary scheme in which one life form evolves into another, the kangaroo would be closer to the horse than would be the yeast.

That makes sense, doesn't it? After all, a yeast is considered, by macroevolutionists, to be a rather “simple” life form, whereas kangaroos and horses are rather complex. As a result, it makes sense that a horse is more closely related to a kangaroo than a yeast. Even though comparing this portion of cytochrome C in the horse, kangaroo, and yeast makes sense in terms of macroevolution, as you look across the data that is out there, you find that it causes serious problems for macroevolution.

Consider, for example, the bacterium Rhodospirillum (roh doh spuh ril' um) rubrum (roob' rum). When its cytochrome C amino acid sequence is compared to vastly different organisms, nothing makes sense in terms of the macroevolutionary hypothesis. Table 9.2 shows the percentage difference between the amino acid sequence in a Rhodospirillum rubrum's cytochrome C and the amino acid sequence of other organisms' cytochrome C.

​

Now remember what macroevolution says. It says that “complex” life forms evolved from “simple” ones. Well, the “simplest” life form on the planet is a bacterium. Of the organisms listed in the table, the yeast (a single-celled fungus) is probably the next “simplest” life form. Increasing in complexity then come the silkworm moth, followed by the tuna, followed by the pigeon, followed by the horse. Thus, macroevolution would assume that the bacterium is most closely related to the yeast, then to the silkworm moth, etc., etc., all the way up to the horse. As a result, then, the yeast's cytochrome C should be most similar to that of the bacterium, the silkworm moth's cytochrome C should be the next most similar, and so on. According to the data, however, each organism in the table is essentially as closely related to the bacterium as any other organism on the table! If anything, the bacterium is more closely related to the most complex organisms, not the least complex ones!

In other words, the data presented in Table 9.2 show none of the evolutionary relationships that should exist if macroevolution really occurred. Instead, these data seem to indicate that the bacterium is just as different from the horse as it is from the yeast! As you look at more and more data like this, you will find that this is the pattern of the vast majority of the data. Regardless of the protein studied, the amino acid sequences seem to indicate that each individual type of organism is just as different from one type of organism as it is from another. Just to make it clear that the data is really overwhelming on this point, we present a few more tables like Table 9.2.

​

Now think about what these data tell us. We are comparing the cytochrome C's of a mammal (horse), a bird (pigeon), a reptile (turtle), a fish (carp), and an eel (lamprey). According to macroevolution, eels would have come first, later fishes would have evolved, followed by amphibians, followed by reptiles, followed by birds, and finally followed by horses. Thus, the eel should be most similar to the fish, then the reptile, and then the bird, and it should have the least in common with the horse. Instead, the data tell us that the cytochrome C in the lamprey eel is most like the carp, but then next most like the horse, and has essentially the same differences between the turtle and the pigeon!

If you look at the data presented in Tables 9.2 and 9.3, it is clear that you can establish no macroevolutionary trends. This is the case with the vast majority of the data collected from molecular biology. If you map the amino acid sequences of virtually any protein and compare the differences between organisms that have that protein, you will generally find no macroevolutionary trends. Instead, each kind of organism seems to be equally or nearly equally different from every other kind of organism. As is the case with all of science, there are exceptions to this general rule, but those exceptions are quite rare.

Even though the exceptions are rare, some macroevolutionists actually highlight those exceptions as evidence for evolution. You see, if you pick and choose your data very carefully, you can find examples of molecular biological data that seem to indicate a macroevolutionary trend. For example, look at Table 9.4.

​

Now this table does seem to indicate a macroevolutionary trend, doesn't it? After all, as you go down the table, you are getting to “simpler” and “simpler” life forms. As the life forms get “simpler,” their cytochrome C sequences seem to get more and more different from that of a human, don't they?

The problem with this table is that in order to construct it, you must ignore 99% of the data from molecular biology and choose only the 1% of the data that agrees with the hypothesis of macroevolution. This is clearly not responsible science. In science, we must look at all of the data, and the data from amino acid sequencing provide strong evidence against macroevolution.

 

Differences do not always grow at a steady rate the further the species diverge. Sometimes, by pure chance, they will be similar, and sometimes they will be farther apart than expected.

Also, the author of this article (where did you get it, by the way?) assumes that animals similar to each other in complexity must necessarily be genetically related. Unfortunately for his argument, yeast is a fungus. Bacteria is part of the animal kingdom. They are in two entirely different kingdoms!

You'd think that this sort of thing wouldn't need to be pointed out, but apparently it does.

hashslinger, listen to the scientists:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bV4_lVTVa6k&feature=PlayList&p=1B48CF9F4945A090&index=0&playnext=1

You don't have to watch all of them, or any of them. That is for your own research.

Stop going to these religious fundamentalists/disgraced ex-professors/self-proclaimed experts, and look at the body of evidence.

 

That video didnt say anything... gave no proof, gave no faults, gave no insite.

Watch this video. It is about a stone hard aithiest who really dug deep.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZMvaSAwL7_k

 

That video was one in a series of 23. They cover a multitude of questions, from "Is Creationism Science?" to "Is Evolution a Theory?".

I've read the book already.

Let's not turn this into a video contest. Might you have any direct evidence in support of your beliefs?

 

I am not a scientist and I do not have I vast knowledge of things. I really hope to dig deep and find some real answers.

I want to do this without any resources.

Have you looked at the evidence? Have you looked at the evidence without any resources?

What did you think of the case for christ? Do you ever have doubts of aithism?

 

Well, make sure you dig into what the actual mainstream scientists say.

Yes, I have. Occasionally, I will come across something that I am unable to explain, so I do a bit of research into both sides, and invariably find a naturalist explanation.

The Case for Christ relies upon secondhand testimonial evidence - something that I generally do not accept in any area of my life.

I used to have the occasional doubt, but now I am secure in my non-belief.

 

What if the book of revelation started playing out and prophecys started comming true. You knew this was the end of time. Everyone who was a christian suddenly dissappeard off the face of the earth.

Would you change your life?

 

If it started to literally come true, yes. As it currently stands, however, the book is incredibly vague and very easy to fit over any time period at all.

 

I have yet to read it but I am planing on doing it soon. I am guuna hit the spam forum the go to bed. Goodnight.

 

I believe in Revelation too, but there are a lot of people out there who believe the end times will result in the whole world having to deal with it, even Christians. The Jehovah religion believes in this and I think I'm beginning to believe in it too. I hope God takes us so we don't have to suffer, but it might not be true.

 

The whole "The universe had to come from somewhere" argument is ridiculous. You can't make an exception for a religion. "The universe had to come from somewhere" but "God didn't". That is a very illogical argument. If I was arguing that the universe had to come from somewhere I could because there is enough scientific evidence to theorize that, but please don't try and argue for a creator without having sufficient evidence.

 

Here's the way I see it, christians themselves have the idea of something eternal, everlasting, no stop or start. That of course being God. Now many people claim that there is nothing that is eternal on earth either however anyone who has taken math in high school knows that numbers go into eternity, and they have no start or stop if you look at a number line. To me it makes the most sense to simply say that the earth has been around forever and that the only reason its taken so many years for people to develop is because they had a low predator status while they were underdeveloped. Then after a long long time certain other predators were dieing out, like the dinosaurs and other prehistoric creatures. This allowed for early, early development of human dominance. Of course this took a long time to finally take full effect to where now we are the only supreme creatures on the earth thanks to technology but I also believe that technology had an exponential growth patter, and so did human development. Where as to now it takes months to come up with new gadgets and devices, it took millennia, perhaps even millions or billions of years just to come up with things that seem so completely oblivious to us now such as using a large rock to smash a smaller weaker rock. It would seem to me like it should have taken a hell of a lot longer to come up with simple things from scratch then coming up with very complex designs by using other extremely complex tools. Of course that may also only explain part of what was going on, perhaps there were countless other civilizations that ended up getting much more advanced than we are but their entire society was destroyed in the same way we will most likely end up being destroyed by something beyond our control. Of course all of this is pure speculation and I have little or no evidence to back up any of my claims but honestly many of the things people come up with are just off the top of their head and the only reason they are accepted is because they sound logical. Irregardless as to whether or not the Bible is correct, you would have to be saying that just because your book has remained intact for the longest period of time that yours is truth. There's always claims that I have heard in my religion class that there are no fallacies in the Bible, nor contradictions, and that this is the exact same text we've seen in the oldest manuscripts, unchanged except that it is written in our language, but there are many many things that were mistranslated and lost over time. Not too important of details were lost but I would think that your God would be willing to back up those claims by making it truth if he was real.