Top Mud Sites Forum - View Single Post

shadowfyr · 05-20-2005, 10:57 PM

Right.... And why exactly is it necessary or reasonable to assume that life on earth didn't 'evolve', without guidence? Because if the supposed guides did, then why not here? Or if they where, then you keep regressing back to some point where either a) life was not yet possible or b) God did it. ID asks several false questions, but gives no suggestions about how one goes about testing if some outside force guided things. It simply insists that it 'must' have been guided. The problem is that the premise itself is false. There is no evidence of good design in genetics, but plenty of basic chemical factors that dictate that DNA can **only** work using the proteins we see. Not the combinations we see, but flat out 'only' those. Any carbon based form would have to use the same proteins. This doesn't mean some non-carbon based ones couldn't exist, just that the laws of physical and chemical reactions make anything other than what is found in our cells simply won't work, being too unstable, corrosive, etc. This hardly requires someone to have 'designed' it. The genes themselves, while they are quite complex, contain numerous errors, things where some transitional species by shear fluke passed on a trait which didn't benefit it and later got patched by something else. Mice a a good example. The segment that is 'supposed' to code for the G type protein, instead codes for the A type. The RNA literally has to derail from the 'normal' pattern, jump to a different point, then chemically modify the A type to become G, in order to fix the mistake. No guided evolution should produce such a mistake. The fact is, the only people who support ID are people that have virtually no comprehension of evolutionary biology. Their arguments for ID and against evolution are no more reasonable than a chemist talking about gravitational acceleration in space. They may have degrees, and a few barely passed the classes to 'technically' have some skill in some subject like molecular biology, but they don't know what they are talking about.

Again.. If **our** evolution was guided, all ID theorists need to do is provide a means to test that theory and evidence to support it. They have none, so science rejects it in favor of something for which real evidence does exist. Where is the supposed proof of this guidence? And why if it isn't about religion was is religious institutions like the Discover Institute that came up with it and whose pseudo-science and complete lack of accurate facts is used to defend it?

All that is required for scientists to take it seriously is proof, but all ID has provided is false accusations of close mindedness, false assertions about the existing theory and a lot of babble about 'gaps' in the theory, which exist in **all** sciences.

05-20-2005, 10:57 PM	#65
shadowfyr Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 310	Right.... And why exactly is it necessary or reasonable to assume that life on earth didn't 'evolve', without guidence? Because if the supposed guides did, then why not here? Or if they where, then you keep regressing back to some point where either a) life was not yet possible or b) God did it. ID asks several false questions, but gives no suggestions about how one goes about testing if some outside force guided things. It simply insists that it 'must' have been guided. The problem is that the premise itself is false. There is no evidence of good design in genetics, but plenty of basic chemical factors that dictate that DNA can only work using the proteins we see. Not the combinations we see, but flat out 'only' those. Any carbon based form would have to use the same proteins. This doesn't mean some non-carbon based ones couldn't exist, just that the laws of physical and chemical reactions make anything other than what is found in our cells simply won't work, being too unstable, corrosive, etc. This hardly requires someone to have 'designed' it. The genes themselves, while they are quite complex, contain numerous errors, things where some transitional species by shear fluke passed on a trait which didn't benefit it and later got patched by something else. Mice a a good example. The segment that is 'supposed' to code for the G type protein, instead codes for the A type. The RNA literally has to derail from the 'normal' pattern, jump to a different point, then chemically modify the A type to become G, in order to fix the mistake. No guided evolution should produce such a mistake. The fact is, the only people who support ID are people that have virtually no comprehension of evolutionary biology. Their arguments for ID and against evolution are no more reasonable than a chemist talking about gravitational acceleration in space. They may have degrees, and a few barely passed the classes to 'technically' have some skill in some subject like molecular biology, but they don't know what they are talking about. Again.. If our evolution was guided, all ID theorists need to do is provide a means to test that theory and evidence to support it. They have none, so science rejects it in favor of something for which real evidence does exist. Where is the supposed proof of this guidence? And why if it isn't about religion was is religious institutions like the Discover Institute that came up with it and whose pseudo-science and complete lack of accurate facts is used to defend it? All that is required for scientists to take it seriously is proof, but all ID has provided is false accusations of close mindedness, false assertions about the existing theory and a lot of babble about 'gaps' in the theory, which exist in all sciences.