Happy Atheist Forum

I have a Creationist work colleague who asserts that the evidence evolutionists use to support evolution, equally supports Creation.

To be precise, when I quote homology and the relation of gene sequences throughout the taxonomy of organisms as evidence that evolution has occurred, his reponse is just that "DNA are the building blocks of life, they're what God used to create everything." His reasoning is that the overall gene pool is just like a big box of lego that God raked through to build things - no wonder we see similarity in the genetic makeup of organisms.

How do I respond to this? What's the real evidence that supports evolution as opposed to Creation?

Quote"DNA are the building blocks of life, they're what God used to create everything." His reasoning is that the overall gene pool is just like a big box of lego that God raked through to build things - no wonder we see similarity in the genetic makeup of organisms.

This is an unsupported statement with zero evidence to back up the assertion.  If your friend had any proof whatsoever that a creator god did in fact exist and did use DNA as legos or whatever, then his argument might warrant some consideration, but saying god uses DNA to make stuff is like saying god made gravity so girl's skirts wouldn't float up at dances or that there is a unicorn ever present on the dark side of a moon far far away.  You can say whatever you want about anything you want, but scientifically your statements hold little merit unless you have evidence supporting your point.  Ask your friend for his evidence.  If he says the Bible, explain that the Bible is not an excepted basis for information within the scientific community because it is an unverifiable source of information.  I don't think these kinds of assertions deserve any scientific defense because the initial premise put forth by your friend is scientifically fundamentally flawed.

Creationism is very odd in that it never provides real evidence, only pointing to flaws in Evolutionary theory. Like saying Gravity does not exist because we do not know what gravity is.

Quote from: "Wanstronian"I have a Creationist work colleague who asserts that the evidence evolutionists use to support evolution, equally supports Creation.

To be precise, when I quote homology and the relation of gene sequences throughout the taxonomy of organisms as evidence that evolution has occurred, his reponse is just that "DNA are the building blocks of life, they're what God used to create everything." His reasoning is that the overall gene pool is just like a big box of lego that God raked through to build things - no wonder we see similarity in the genetic makeup of organisms.

How do I respond to this? What's the real evidence that supports evolution as opposed to Creation?

You could tell them that DNA isn't made from moulded plastic

The devil can cite Scripture for his purpose.

Also, science fail.

Quote from: "pinkocommie"

Quote"DNA are the building blocks of life, they're what God used to create everything." His reasoning is that the overall gene pool is just like a big box of lego that God raked through to build things - no wonder we see similarity in the genetic makeup of organisms.

This is an unsupported statement with zero evidence to back up the assertion.  If your friend had any proof whatsoever that a creator god did in fact exist and did use DNA as legos or whatever, then his argument might warrant some consideration, but saying god uses DNA to make stuff is like saying god made gravity so girl's skirts wouldn't float up at dances or that there is a unicorn ever present on the dark side of a moon far far away.  You can say whatever you want about anything you want, but scientifically your statements hold little merit unless you have evidence supporting your point.  Ask your friend for his evidence.  If he says the Bible, explain that the Bible is not an excepted basis for information within the scientific community because it is an unverifiable source of information.  I don't think these kinds of assertions deserve any scientific defense because the initial premise put forth by your friend is scientifically fundamentally flawed.

His point is that it's the same evidence. What I'm asking is how can we SHOW that the building block theory is wrong? Evolutionists say that homology shows evolution, Creationists say that it shows building blocks. It's the same evidence in both cases.

So what's the evidence that Evolution is the right interpretation and Creation is the wrong one? It's no good saying, "your interpretation of homology is wrong and mine is right" unless we can show that statement to be true. If you like, ignore the presence/absence of God - how does the evidence show that we evolved and were not created or design by someone/something?

Quote from: "Dagda"Creationism is very odd in that it never provides real evidence, only pointing to flaws in Evolutionary theory. Like saying Gravity does not exist because we do not know what gravity is.

I have to disagree in this case until someone can answer my question - the 'evidence' for Creation in this case is the exact same evidence we use for Evolution. I need to be able to argue effectively that his interpretation is wrong, and show why.

Quote from: "curiosityandthecat"The devil can cite Scripture for his purpose.

Also, science fail.

Well, that's helpful, thanks.

Well, tell your friend that its a good hypothesis.  Then ask them to prove their hypothesis.

This is where there is a failure of your friend's grasp of the scientific method.  Your friend seems to be trying to assert that evidence supporting evolution (which just explains the diversity of life, not the origins) does indeed support the origins of life.  

Evolution by natural selection doesn't go into what started the first celled organism.  It does try to explain why, over time, one species of organism may branch into more species of organisms.

DNA are the building blocks of life, but I do not believe knowledge of DNA has much to do with what started life.

I'm sure Squid will give you a much more detailed and well sourced solution to your problems as soon as he pops in.

Quote from: "Wanstronian"

Quote from: "pinkocommie"

Quote"DNA are the building blocks of life, they're what God used to create everything." His reasoning is that the overall gene pool is just like a big box of lego that God raked through to build things - no wonder we see similarity in the genetic makeup of organisms.

This is an unsupported statement with zero evidence to back up the assertion.  If your friend had any proof whatsoever that a creator god did in fact exist and did use DNA as legos or whatever, then his argument might warrant some consideration, but saying god uses DNA to make stuff is like saying god made gravity so girl's skirts wouldn't float up at dances or that there is a unicorn ever present on the dark side of a moon far far away.  You can say whatever you want about anything you want, but scientifically your statements hold little merit unless you have evidence supporting your point.  Ask your friend for his evidence.  If he says the Bible, explain that the Bible is not an excepted basis for information within the scientific community because it is an unverifiable source of information.  I don't think these kinds of assertions deserve any scientific defense because the initial premise put forth by your friend is scientifically fundamentally flawed.

His point is that it's the same evidence. What I'm asking is how can we SHOW that the building block theory is wrong? Evolutionists say that homology shows evolution, Creationists say that it shows building blocks. It's the same evidence in both cases.

So what's the evidence that Evolution is the right interpretation and Creation is the wrong one? It's no good saying, "your interpretation of homology is wrong and mine is right" unless we can show that statement to be true. If you like, ignore the presence/absence of God - how does the evidence show that we evolved and were not created or design by someone/something?

My original reply was eaten, so this is my best effort at re-creating it:

My point is that your friend accepts the scientific method to a point because he accepts that DNA exists.  We only know about DNA because of the development of the scientific method - a means of understanding the physical world through tested and verified data.  If a conclusion does not adhere to the constraints of the scientific method, it's not considered to be science.  So your friend agrees with science and it's methods up to a point, and then takes a left turn into some untested, unverified conclusion about god and rejects what science has concluded about the information.  If you friend rejects any part of any theory which has thus proven to be scientifically sound, then he has to reject anything that science has to offer because it's all bound by the constraints of the scientific method.

It makes about as much sense to accept science to a point and then claim science is wrong and it's god as it does accepting gravity as a scientific concept but rejecting all scientific explanations of gravity in favor of a giant hamster generating gravity in the middle of the earth with a big wheel.

Quote from: "Wanstronian"Well, that's helpful, thanks.

It is, actually.

First, RNA almost certainly (though there's no way to scientifically prove this, just infer it) came before DNA, so that's a flaw right there. Second, even RNA is composed of smaller building blocks, single nucleotides containing a ribose sugar. The claim that DNA is the building block of life is like saying furniture is the building block of an Ikea store.

Your friend is in a Creationism mindset from the onset, making any sort of logical discourse impossible without a mind-bending amount of mental gymnastics. Twisting current knowledge to prove previous theories is called Postdiction and we see it constantly. Tell your friend to audit an evolutionary biology course at the local university and read up on cognitive dissonance.

It's fruitless, but you can try to explain to him that the concept of higher powers, Gods, the supernatural, etc., are leftovers from times when people needed them to make sense of the natural world. We no longer need God to explain 99% of what goes on in nature. This is where, for him, cognitive dissonance comes in. This is not to say that we need God to explain that last 1%; we're just still wrapping our heads around it. (For example, what exactly happens when you pass the event horizon of a black hole?   )

Quote from: "pinkocommie"My original reply was eaten, so this is my best effort at re-creating it:

My point is that your friend accepts the scientific method to a point because he accepts that DNA exists.  We only know about DNA because of the development of the scientific method - a means of understanding the physical world through tested and verified data.  If a conclusion does not adhere to the constraints of the scientific method, it's not considered to be science.  So your friend agrees with science and it's methods up to a point, and then takes a left turn into some untested, unverified conclusion about god and rejects what science has concluded about the information.  If you friend rejects any part of any theory which has thus proven to be scientifically sound, then he has to reject anything that science has to offer because it's all bound by the constraints of the scientific method.

It makes about as much sense to accept science to a point and then claim science is wrong and it's god as it does accepting gravity as a scientific concept but rejecting all scientific explanations of gravity in favor of a giant hamster generating gravity in the middle of the earth with a big wheel.

I guess the problem is not that the evidence supports Creation, so much as it allows room for doubt over Evolution. If my colleague was a YEC, at least I could point to Plate Tectonics as a reason why the evidence supports Evolution but not Creation. But then, YECs are leaning against an open door anyway when it comes to their assertions!

So I guess the strongest rebuttal for Creation is that it presupposes a God for which no evidence exists. It's only if God exists that the evidence could feasibly support Creation. Evidence of Creation is contingent on evidence of God.

Regarding your last paragraph, surely you've heard of IF? http://www.theonion.com/content/node/39512

Quote from: "curiosityandthecat"

Quote from: "Wanstronian"Well, that's helpful, thanks.

It is, actually.

First, RNA almost certainly (though there's no way to scientifically prove this, just infer it) came before DNA, so that's a flaw right there. Second, even RNA is composed of smaller building blocks, single nucleotides containing a ribose sugar. The claim that DNA is the building block of life is like saying furniture is the building block of an Ikea store.

Your friend is in a Creationism mindset from the onset, making any sort of logical discourse impossible without a mind-bending amount of mental gymnastics. Twisting current knowledge to prove previous theories is called Postdiction and we see it constantly. Tell your friend to audit an evolutionary biology course at the local university and read up on cognitive dissonance.

It's fruitless, but you can try to explain to him that the concept of higher powers, Gods, the supernatural, etc., are leftovers from times when people needed them to make sense of the natural world. We no longer need God to explain 99% of what goes on in nature. This is where, for him, cognitive dissonance comes in. This is not to say that we need God to explain that last 1%; we're just still wrapping our heads around it. (For example, what exactly happens when you pass the event horizon of a black hole?   )

Some excellent points (what on earth was going on in your first post - I thought you were a nutter!) - I think the Postdiction thing is key to his (and most theists') contentions, although I wasn't aware of the word until now. Thanks - you've educated me!

I don't why but I'm getting a strong Poe vibe from you. I could be wrong but I am after all a sceptic. Perhaps it's your lack of understanding of basic evolutionary theroy which you want us to provide the proof for. IDK like I said I'm sceptical of all new posters, nothing personal just a long sad experience of dealing with actual poes has made me jaded.

Just checking but you do realise The Onion is a satirical newspaper right?

Quote from: "Wanstronian"I guess the problem is not that the evidence supports Creation, so much as it allows room for doubt over Evolution. If my colleague was a YEC, at least I could point to Plate Tectonics as a reason why the evidence supports Evolution but not Creation. But then, YECs are leaning against an open door anyway when it comes to their assertions!

So I guess the strongest rebuttal for Creation is that it presupposes a God for which no evidence exists. It's only if God exists that the evidence could feasibly support Creation. Evidence of Creation is contingent on evidence of God.

Regarding your last paragraph, surely you've heard of IF? http://www.theonion.com/content/node/39512

I haven't read that before, thank you - hilarious.

I think the less the person understands evolution, the more room for doubt.  I'm not trying to insinuate that you co-worker is an idiot, I just want to point out that the evolutionary process is something people go to school for years and years to learn about and often even they only focus on a specialized aspect of evolution.  It's a truly awesome process and while it can be simplified, with reduction comes less and less details and that's when misunderstandings occur.  And too many misunderstandings leads us to people like Ray Comfort saying the banana is proof of god because it fits so well in our hand.  

Quote from: "Wanstronian"(what on earth was going on in your first post - I thought you were a nutter!)

Lurk more.

Quote from: "Tanker"I don't why but I'm getting a strong Poe vibe from you. I could be wrong but I am after all a sceptic. Perhaps it's your lack of understanding of basic evolutionary theroy which you want us to provide the proof for.

Such as? What am I missing? What part of evolutionary theory proves my colleague wrong? Other than it's "evolutionary" theory? I think I'm fairly well aware of the theory, but just because the evidence supports the theory, that doesn't mean it disproves a different hypothesis. Hence my question.

QuoteIDK like I said I'm sceptical of all new posters, nothing personal just a long sad experience of dealing with actual poes has made me jaded.

Not taken personally. I don't even know what a Poe is - a reference to Edgar?

QuoteJust checking but you do realise The Onion is a satirical newspaper right?

Of course. Maybe I should have put one of those annoying smilies in to show that!

Quote from: "pinkocommie"I haven't read that before, thank you - hilarious.

I think the less the person understands evolution, the more room for doubt.  I'm not trying to insinuate that you co-worker is an idiot, I just want to point out that the evolutionary process is something people go to school for years and years to learn about and often even they only focus on a specialized aspect of evolution.  It's a truly awesome process and while it can be simplified, with reduction comes less and less details and that's when misunderstandings occur.  And too many misunderstandings leads us to people like Ray Comfort saying the banana is proof of god because it fits so well in our hand.  

I think you're right about understanding and doubt. He's not an idiot - he at least has the good grace to admit his faith is just that - faith... unlike a lot of theists I debate with who somehow think they have evidence of God's existence. Then when challenged to produce, they trot out some paraphrased version of contingency, quote the bible(!!) or even fall back on thinly veiled incredulity. It gets very frustrating!

He is, however in my view, irrational in his beliefs. I bate him gently, but the 'building blocks' thing has me stumped. I can't think of anything - plate tectonics, homology, fossil records and so on, that disproves it as a hypothesis. I've just started reading Dawkins' latest and maybe he'll get to it, but I haven't got far through the book yet.

Quote from: "Wanstronian"I can't think of anything - plate tectonics, homology, fossil records and so on, that disproves it as a hypothesis.

And you're not going to. I hypothesize that there's a planet made entirely of sharp cheddar. Can't prove that wrong, either. Not all hypotheses are created equal.

Genetic comparison supports what is found in the fossil record and jives with other biochemical markers for evolutionary relationships like cytochrome c.  For instance (with cyt c), here's a nifty table:

(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi86.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fk86%2Fsolidsquid%2Fcytc.jpg&hash=537a40a3b325457b8698acd9a1fe52d0c7b8be0b)

I also refer to this and a bunch of other stuff that you may find useful especially a comparison of evolution and creationism as theories.  It's actually a blog post I'm making in response to an article published in my hometown newspaper.  Take a look and you should be able to find some information to help:

http://www.happyatheistforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=4390

If you would or could take the time to show or prove evolution from the first known organism to here, your friend would say "God did it."  That would make God an Evolutionist I think.

Quote from: "Wanstronian"I guess the problem is not that the evidence supports Creation, so much as it allows room for doubt over Evolution. If my colleague was a YEC, at least I could point to Plate Tectonics as a reason why the evidence supports Evolution but not Creation. But then, YECs are leaning against an open door anyway when it comes to their assertions!

So I guess the strongest rebuttal for Creation is that it presupposes a God for which no evidence exists. It's only if God exists that the evidence could feasibly support Creation. Evidence of Creation is contingent on evidence of God.

Regarding your last paragraph, surely you've heard of IF? http://www.theonion.com/content/node/39512

DNA is evidence for evolution because evolution would have you believe that the organisms we see around us today, are descended from organisms before, and they pass on information through genes from generation to generation, if this process were imperfect we would see change in the gene makeup over long periods of gene passing. Since we now posit that animals have common ancestors, each one a more central branch on the tree, each one earlier in time and more replications away, we would expect the genes of animals who have recent common ancestors to be more similar, than a pair of animals whose ancestor was a long long time ago. Compare, you and you're half brother share a dad, a common ancestor, you have very, very similar genomes, you and chimp in the zoo have an ancestor much further removed (as indicated by the fossil record), so we would expect your genome to differ far more than when compared to your half brother, and hey presto it does. We could go on, and show that while you still share a lot of genes with lemurs, you are yet more different from them, than you are from chimps, as predicted by the distance between you and your latest common ancestor. This is the essence of science, you make a hypothesis, you ask what that would imply, the you go and look at if the implications indeed match with reality.

Our Evolution hypothesis, predicts greater genetic differences based on how far your common ancestor was, this is a trend we see in the world around us, and so we know evolution is an acceptable explanation for this phenomenon.

If we try this with god, we don't have quite such a neat experience. Okay, if god made things, he would make them all from the same building blocks (Who says? Why would he? How do we even know he exists?), therefore, the animals around us should all be made from the same building blocks (Well, they mostly are, but there are differences). We should then turn around and asks ourselves what we have really taught ourselves though. God makes things out of blocks, so they are made from blocks. This just does not stack up, it is not predictive, the premise relies on an unverifiable assertion, it is almost tautologous, "things are this way, because this is the way things are", it tells us nothing of this god, but merely stuffs him into the picture, with no attempt at explanation. Any theory relying on magic pixies doing it is never going to be experimentally testable, as you can never make the pixies conform to your experiment, and they are thus, outside the realm of science, and have no weight on the balance of evidence.

"And the Lord God formed man out of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul."

dust not blocks... magic dust, not to be confused with magic smoke.

Quote from: "G-Roll""And the Lord God formed man out of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul."

dust not blocks... magic dust, not to be confused with magic smoke.

Clearly God made blocks out of the dust - what's not to understand....!?  

Actually, my colleague does believe in micro-evolution (can't really deny that one), but not in macro-evolution. He seems unable (or unwilling) to grasp that they're the same thing, differentiated only by the amount of time involved. I think PZ Myers put it well in a recent lecture - "it's like allowing that a man can walk across a city, but not that he can walk across a county" (paraphrased).

Reminds me of a consistent bleat over on CAF: "You breed dogs, you get dogs" - as if you should be expecting narwhals or something.

I recommend reading up on Perry Marshall, he will show you how there is intelligent design in a way that can't be doubted (except for the zealous, that's how clear it is). The evidence is overwhelming but you just have to get out of the narrow minded atheist mindset. There are other works too, information is everywhere, google is your friend.

Quote from: "FredMore"I recommend reading up on Perry Marshall, he will show you how there is intelligent design in a way that can't be doubted (except for the zealous, that's how clear it is). The evidence is overwhelming but you just have to get out of the narrow minded atheist mindset. There are other works too, information is everywhere, google is your friend.

Link or book title? I'd like to read this 'overwhelming' evidence for ID!

In my experience, it's the zealous, not the skeptical, who will take conjecture and read it as conclusive evidence.

(Most) atheists aren't narrow-minded, they're skeptical. It's an important distinction. A skeptic will absorb the evidence and decide whether he finds it convincing. A narrow-minded individual won't even read the argument.

Quote from: "FredMore"I recommend reading up on Perry Marshall, he will show you how there is intelligent design in a way that can't be doubted (except for the zealous, that's how clear it is). The evidence is overwhelming but you just have to get out of the narrow minded atheist mindset. There are other works too, information is everywhere, google is your friend.

(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages45.fotki.com%2Fv1431%2Fphotos%2F8%2F892548%2F6145789%2F53490496-vi.jpg&hash=ffd7b41f4446a3df4e03f71fda3314c071430c14)

Gene theory and evolution are more useful for describing and interpreting physical phenomena than they are for proving or disproving the existence of a creator entity.  To enter into such a discussion is wrong-headed at the outset, if getting at the truth is the goal.

Every "scientific subject" is evidence for creation claim I've ever come across has been driven by people looking for creation in science.  Problem being, science doesn't work that way.  When you approach a study with a desired outcome in mind, the integrity of the research suffers.  Much like Behe and his hypothesis on 'irreducible complexity', Creationist hypotheses tend to bounce around the Creationist community and gain a zealous momentum from people who are just happy to have something science-y that seems to back up their belief.  Unfortunately, once these hypotheses are brought to the scientific community, they are consistently proven to be junk science in one way or another.  However, given that the Creationist community has already accepted these hypotheses as theories since god fearing men in lab coats told them that was the case, the whole 'scientific conspiracy' crap is perpetuated.  The sad thing is, it's the general lack of understanding about how science actually works that aids in keeping these people believing that DNA is god's cliff notes or whatever.  Science involves integrity because it's very easy to produce junk science in order to tell people what they want to hear.  Creationist science trades integrity for the desire to prove something, and so it's essentially worthless.

Quote from: "curiosityandthecat"

Quote from: "FredMore"I recommend reading up on Perry Marshall, he will show you how there is intelligent design in a way that can't be doubted (except for the zealous, that's how clear it is). The evidence is overwhelming but you just have to get out of the narrow minded atheist mindset. There are other works too, information is everywhere, google is your friend.

(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages45.fotki.com%2Fv1431%2Fphotos%2F8%2F892548%2F6145789%2F53490496-vi.jpg&hash=ffd7b41f4446a3df4e03f71fda3314c071430c14)

 

Although I don't think it's strong enough evidence, when people talk about dna and patterns and consistencies in the universe as proof that something out there created it all, I doesn't exactly sound like nonsense to me and I can see why people believe it. I guess it's a question of, is that enough to prove there's a god? Maybe there is a God and we just don't see it, maybe it's true and we are a little too left brained, or maybe it's all just how the universe works and that's that. But if there is a God and if all these patterns are his way of operating, then hats off to him. It's quite clever. Talking of left and right brains, is there a thread on this?

I haven't seen a thread on that topic, why don't you start one?  :eek:

Quote from: "Wanstronian"

Quote from: "curiosityandthecat"

Quote from: "Wanstronian"Well, that's helpful, thanks.

It is, actually.

First, RNA almost certainly (though there's no way to scientifically prove this, just infer it) came before DNA, so that's a flaw right there. Second, even RNA is composed of smaller building blocks, single nucleotides containing a ribose sugar. The claim that DNA is the building block of life is like saying furniture is the building block of an Ikea store.

Your friend is in a Creationism mindset from the onset, making any sort of logical discourse impossible without a mind-bending amount of mental gymnastics. Twisting current knowledge to prove previous theories is called Postdiction and we see it constantly. Tell your friend to audit an evolutionary biology course at the local university and read up on cognitive dissonance.

It's fruitless, but you can try to explain to him that the concept of higher powers, Gods, the supernatural, etc., are leftovers from times when people needed them to make sense of the natural world. We no longer need God to explain 99% of what goes on in nature. This is where, for him, cognitive dissonance comes in. This is not to say that we need God to explain that last 1%; we're just still wrapping our heads around it. (For example, what exactly happens when you pass the event horizon of a black hole?  :D

Quote from: "karadan"What you talking about?? He is a nutter!  

(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages50.fotki.com%2Fv1557%2Fphotos%2F8%2F892548%2F6116196%2F1239843027593-vi.gif&hash=90e2182618f2e6c079256b44b7dd057a824392c9)

mm..what about RNA viruses? what about organisms (I think some tetrahymena do not utilise the exact same amino acids) where the genetic code does not apply per se?
So in his mind God might be similar to a polymerase utilising DNA for protein synthesis..

On a side note, I have another question which doesn't relate to this, but during my studies and my life in general I have never met a creationist in flesh.. It would be rather interesting to meet one and study their boiling point..

Quote from: "Achaios"It would be rather interesting to meet one and study their boiling point..

They get mad pretty easily, in my experience at least - no matter how much evidence you cite or how meticulous you are with your arguments you will always end up  

Ask him why our DNA is scattered with the wreckage of virus DNA. I, virus: Why you're only half human (http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20527451.200-i-virus-why-youre-only-half-human.html)

Quote from: "New Scientist"WHEN, in 2001, the human genome was sequenced for the first time, we were confronted by several surprises. One was the sheer lack of genes: where we had anticipated perhaps 100,000 there were actually as few as 20,000. A bigger surprise came from analysis of the genetic sequences, which revealed that these genes made up a mere 1.5 per cent of the genome. This is dwarfed by DNA deriving from viruses, which amounts to roughly 9 per cent.

On top of that, huge chunks of the genome are made up of mysterious virus-like entities called retrotransposons, pieces of selfish DNA that appear to serve no function other than to make copies of themselves. These account for no less than 34 per cent of our genome.

All in all, the virus-like components of the human genome amount to almost half of our DNA. This would once have been dismissed as mere ...

Also

Why is our gene to manufacture vitamin C switched off, leading to Scurvy?
Why does our DNA make a fish on route to making a human? Why does yeast have more DNA (is thus more genetically complex) than us?

Ask your collegue to explain vestigial organs and junk DNA (why do marine mammals sometimes appear with legs or why do chickens sometimes appear with teeth?) with his 'DNA is god's building blocks' hypothesis. Why would animals carry and sometimes manifest genes that were active in a somewhat distant and physically different ancestor? Did god keep getting his creations wrong and was too lazy to perfect their genomes, ours included?

Ask him to also explain the genetic markers which help define ancestry through time. Why would they correlate with everything else in evolutionary theory supported by anatomy, homologous structures, biochemistry, behavioural psychology etc.

Quote from: "Wanstronian"I have a Creationist work colleague who asserts that the evidence evolutionists use to support evolution, equally supports Creation.

To be precise, when I quote homology and the relation of gene sequences throughout the taxonomy of organisms as evidence that evolution has occurred, his reponse is just that "DNA are the building blocks of life, they're what God used to create everything." His reasoning is that the overall gene pool is just like a big box of lego that God raked through to build things - no wonder we see similarity in the genetic makeup of organisms.

How do I respond to this? What's the real evidence that supports evolution as opposed to Creation?

I get what you're saying: god might build many differently shaped buildings, but he uses bricks in all of them.  And, to be honest, there's nothing that says, specifically, that he could NOT have done so.

But the parsimony suggests that theists wishing to show this have a longer row to hoe than do materialists.

Ask him why he considers god a more parsimonious explanation.

[youtube:2vm4ho96]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9V_2r2n4b5c[/youtube:2vm4ho96]

Quote from: "Wanstronian"I have a Creationist work colleague who asserts that the evidence evolutionists use to support evolution, equally supports Creation.

To be precise, when I quote homology and the relation of gene sequences throughout the taxonomy of organisms as evidence that evolution has occurred, his reponse is just that "DNA are the building blocks of life, they're what God used to create everything." His reasoning is that the overall gene pool is just like a big box of lego that God raked through to build things - no wonder we see similarity in the genetic makeup of organisms.

How do I respond to this? What's the real evidence that supports evolution as opposed to Creation?

With Occam's Razor.

As far as evidence for evolution, check out Talkorigins. (http://www.talkorigins.org/)  The evidence for evolution is overwhelming.  The evidence for Special Creation is noticeably absent.

You friend is correct that god could work this way.  He would still need to show that 1) god exists, and 2) that he actually did this.

Quote from: "curiosityandthecat"(For example, what exactly happens when you pass the event horizon of a black hole?   )

Uh... Death?

Although I think upon the crossing itself, everything would feel rather normal

Quote from: "Asmodean"

Quote from: "curiosityandthecat"(For example, what exactly happens when you pass the event horizon of a black hole?   )

Uh... Death?

Although I think upon the crossing itself, everything would feel rather normal

Well, there's a point at which the gravity pulling on one side of your body is many times stronger than the gravity pulling on the other side... to the point that you get ripped apart.
I don't think that such an experience would feel normal at all.

Quote from: "Heretical Rants"I don't think that such an experience would feel normal at all.

How do YOU know what is normal for Asmodean?  I mean, maybe he gets ripped in half all the time.

Quote from: "Heretical Rants"

Quote from: "Asmodean"

Quote from: "curiosityandthecat"(For example, what exactly happens when you pass the event horizon of a black hole?   )

Uh... Death?

Although I think upon the crossing itself, everything would feel rather normal

Well, there's a point at which the gravity pulling on one side of your body is many times stronger than the gravity pulling on the other side... to the point that you get ripped apart.
I don't think that such an experience would feel normal at all.

You are also accelerating at an incredible speed even before the EH, so the passing itself MAY, in fact, be quite uneventful. However, by then you only have like nanoseconds to live...

Quote from: "Asmodean"You are also accelerating at an incredible speed even before the EH, so the passing itself MAY, in fact, be quite uneventful. However, by then you only have like nanoseconds to live...

Yeah but inside such extreme gravitational forces, those nanoseconds could feel like milliseconds.

Quote from: "Davin"

Quote from: "Asmodean"You are also accelerating at an incredible speed even before the EH, so the passing itself MAY, in fact, be quite uneventful. However, by then you only have like nanoseconds to live...

Yeah but inside such extreme gravitational forces, those nanoseconds could feel like milliseconds.

Indeed. All I'm saying is that since you are not resisting that gravity too much and just following where it pulls you, you won't be ripped to pieces too quickly. Now no-one has ever passed even in the same neighbourhood as a black hole, but theoretically, passing through its EH is quite possible while "intact"

Quote from: "Heretical Rants"

Quote from: "Asmodean"

Quote from: "curiosityandthecat"(For example, what exactly happens when you pass the event horizon of a black hole?   )

Uh... Death?

Although I think upon the crossing itself, everything would feel rather normal

Well, there's a point at which the gravity pulling on one side of your body is many times stronger than the gravity pulling on the other side... to the point that you get ripped apart.
I don't think that such an experience would feel normal at all.

Would you get ripped apart or simple 'stretched' from an external perspective while remaining intact in your own space/time frame?

Dr. Francis Collins, director of the Human Genome Project (that mapped the human DNA structure) said that one can "think of DNA as an instructional script, a software program, sitting in the nucleus of the cell."

Perry Marshall, an information specialist, comments on the implications of this.
"There has never existed a computer program that wasn't designed...[whether it is] a code, or a program, or a message given through a language, there is always an intelligent mind behind it."

Just as former atheist Dr. Antony Flew questioned, it is legitimate to ask oneself regarding this three billion letter code instructing the cell...who wrote this script? Who placed this working code, inside the cell?

It's like walking along the beach and you see in the sand, "Mike loves Michelle." You know the waves rolling up on the beach didn't form that--a person wrote that. It is a precise message. It is clear communication. In the same way, the DNA structure is a complex, three-billion-lettered script, informing and directing the cell's process.

Quote from: "angelosergipe"Dr. Francis Collins, director of the Human Genome Project (that mapped the human DNA structure) said that one can "think of DNA as an instructional script, a software program, sitting in the nucleus of the cell."

Perry Marshall, an information specialist, comments on the implications of this.
"There has never existed a computer program that wasn't designed...[whether it is] a code, or a program, or a message given through a language, there is always an intelligent mind behind it."

Just as former atheist Dr. Antony Flew questioned, it is legitimate to ask oneself regarding this three billion letter code instructing the cell...who wrote this script? Who placed this working code, inside the cell?

It's like walking along the beach and you see in the sand, "Mike loves Michelle." You know the waves rolling up on the beach didn't form that--a person wrote that. It is a precise message. It is clear communication. In the same way, the DNA structure is a complex, three-billion-lettered script, informing and directing the cell's process.

Welcome back...you've been gone almost exactly a year.

Your quotes would make more sense as pro-creation if scientists thought that dna always existed in complex form; but it is a product of evolution just like all other living things.  It's like walking along a long beach where a bunch of scrabble letters have washed ashore and as you progress down the beach you notice that some of them happen to spell out words and in some cases full sentences (and this would still be an over-simplification of the process since evolution isn't totally random).

Quote from: "Whitney"Your quotes would make more sense as pro-creation if scientists thought that dna always existed in complex form; but it is a product of evolution just like all other living things.

that is a baseless assertion. Pure wishful thinking without evidence.

http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/dna-atheists/ (http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/dna-atheists/)

1) DNA is not merely a molecule with a pattern; it is a code, a language, and an information storage mechanism.
2) All codes are created by a conscious mind; there is no natural process known to science that creates coded information.
3) Therefore DNA was designed by a mind.

If you can provide an empirical example of a code or language that
occurs naturally, you’ve toppled my proof. All you need is one

Tell you what...when you make a claim that has basis I'll try to walk you through how scientists think DNA could have evolved.

Btw, did next week being Easter remind you that you hadn't preached at the atheists lately?   Oh, and your proof is not a proof...it's a baseless claim disguised in proof format; your conclusion is only as good as your premises.

Quote from: "angelosergipe"2) All codes are created by a conscious mind; there is no natural process known to science that creates coded information.

Would it have been so hard for the Bible to say, "and then God created a code that maketh up all living things"? Instead it only mentions clay and ribs.  

Quote from: "Whitney"Tell you what...when you make a claim that has basis I'll try to walk you through how scientists think DNA could have evolved.

Yes, please, go ahead, and explain it.

Quoteyour conclusion is only as good as your premises.

You should know better. DNA IS literally a code.

http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/dna-a ... /dna-code/ (http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/dna-atheists/dna-code/)

Information theory terms and ideas applied to DNA are not metaphorical, but in fact quite literal in every way. In other words, the information theory argument for design is not based on analogy at all. It is direct application of mathematics to DNA, which by definition is a code.

Francis  Crick received the Nobel prize for discovering DNA. The following is from the first paragraph of Francis Crick's Nobel lecture on October 11, 1962. Note his use of the word "code" and "information,"

"Part of the work covered by the Nobel citation, that on the structure and replication of DNA, has been described by Wilkins in his Nobel Lecture this year... I shall discuss here the present state of a related problem in information transfer in living material - that of the genetic CODE - which has long interested me, and on which my colleagues and I, among many others, have recently been doing some experimental work..."

Richard Dawkins at his book The Blind Watchmaker:

"Every single one of more than a trillion cells in the body contains about a thousand times as much precisely-coded digital information as my entire computer.

http://nobelprize.org/educational/medic ... n/dna.html (http://nobelprize.org/educational/medicine/dna/a/replication/dna.html)

DNA contains a coded representation of all the proteins in the cell. Other molecules such as sugars and fats are synthesised by proteins (enzymes) so their structures are indirectly coded by DNA. DNA also contains all the information required to make the correct amount of protein at the correct time, thus controlling all biological processes from those of day to day life such as metabolic activity to those of embryogenesis and fetal development. The human genome contains 3x109 base pairs of DNA divided into 23 chromosomes which if linked together would form a thread of 1 meter with a diameter of 2 nm. This DNA codes for about 105 different proteins. In fact only about 2-4 % of the total coding capacity in the human DNA is used for coding of different genes, the rest of it probably has other more structural and organizational functions.

http://nobelprize.org/educational/medic ... e/how.html (http://nobelprize.org/educational/medicine/gene-code/how.html)

Every living organism contains within itself the information it needs to build a new organism. This information, you could think of it as a blueprint of life, is stored in the organism's genome.

When an organism needs to use the data stored in the genome, e.g. to build components of a new cell, a copy of the required DNA part is made.

The alphabet in the RNA molecule contains 4 letters, i.e. A, U, C, G as previously mentioned. To construct a word in the RNA language, three of these letters are grouped together. This three-letter word are often referred to as a triplet or a codon. An example of such a codon is ACG. The letters don't have to be of different kinds, so UUU is also a valid codon. These codons are placed after each other in the RNA molecule, to construct a message, a RNA sequence. This message will later be read by the protein producing machinery in the body.

Every organism has an almost identical system that is able to read the RNA, interpret the different codons and construct a protein with various combinations of the amino acids mentioned previously.

Quote from: "Sophus"

Quote from: "angelosergipe"2) All codes are created by a conscious mind; there is no natural process known to science that creates coded information.

Would it have been so hard for the Bible to say, "and then God created a code that maketh up all living things"? Instead it only mentions clay and ribs.  

Do you think one hundred years ago it would have made sense to talk to people about DNA ?

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/ ... ific-Proof (http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/528.257034-From-Dust-to-Man-A-Scientific-Proof)

What are the scientific proof that man's body came from the dust of the ground, as the Bible says? The human body is made up of materials and minerals found on the surface of the ground, and not from the core of the earth. Oxygen, being the most abundant element on the earth's crust or on the ground, makes up 65 percent of the human body, and carbon, also abundant on the top soil of the ground, is 18 percent, and hydrogen is 10 percent. The 59 elements found in the human body are all found on the earths crust. This is amazing because what the Bible says perfectly match the scientific composition of a human body.

Quote from: "angelosergipe"

Quote from: "Sophus"

Quote from: "angelosergipe"2) All codes are created by a conscious mind; there is no natural process known to science that creates coded information.

Would it have been so hard for the Bible to say, "and then God created a code that maketh up all living things"? Instead it only mentions clay and ribs.  

Do you think one hundred years ago it would have made sense to talk to people about DNA ?

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/ ... ific-Proof (http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/528.257034-From-Dust-to-Man-A-Scientific-Proof)

What are the scientific proof that man's body came from the dust of the ground, as the Bible says? The human body is made up of materials and minerals found on the surface of the ground, and not from the core of the earth. Oxygen, being the most abundant element on the earth's crust or on the ground, makes up 65 percent of the human body, and carbon, also abundant on the top soil of the ground, is 18 percent, and hydrogen is 10 percent. The 59 elements found in the human body are all found on the earths crust. This is amazing because what the Bible says perfectly match the scientific composition of a human body.

http://www.livescience.com/3505-chemistry-life-human-body.html
Oxygen, carbon, hydrogen, and nitrogen are 95% of the body.  All these other elements you mentioned are trace amounts.  This includes a very small percentage of iron (which is found in the core of the Earth).  Oxygen or sulfur and nickel are also found in both the body and the Earth's core.
http://www.soest.hawaii.edu/GG/ASK/earths_core.html

Science does not talk about a man's body coming from the dust of the ground or the core of the Earth.  All lifeforms are made of elements that exist in the Earth.  If we weren't, then part of us would be extra-terrestrial.  Just think of what would happen if iron was not found on Earth.  Our bodies are only made of about .006% iron.  This iron is critical for the process of transporting oxygen in the blood http://www.chemistry.wustl.edu/~courses/genchem/Tutorials/Ferritin/IronBody.htm.  If there was no iron to be found on Earth, we would not have a replenishing source for our bodies.  Each time we reproduced, we would pass some of it along to our offspring, diluting it.  Each generation would dilute it more, until it was practically non-existent.  Either the human race would die or adapt (evolution).  These elements in the human body are also found many other places in the universe, as evidenced by astronomy http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/science/mysteries_l2/composition.html, Mars rover experiments http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4011275/ns/technology_and_science-space/, and even meteorite content http://meteorites.wustl.edu/metcomp/index.htm.

The Bible could have said that God created us from air, water, clay, etc.  Any of these could have led you to conclude that the Bible must be true about God creating man.  According to astronomy, God might have created us out of massive clouds of gas and matter in a nebula.

There is no evidence for intelligent design, or any gods for that matter, and some theists realize this.  Some theists understand that their belief in gods are wholly a matter of faith, not proof.

Quote from: "angelosergipe"

Quote from: "Whitney"Tell you what...when you make a claim that has basis I'll try to walk you through how scientists think DNA could have evolved.

Yes, please, go ahead, and explain it.

I'm waiting for you to make a claim that has any basis outside of failed philosophical claims...until you demonstrate that you are able to actually think about it (and not regurgitate stuff other people have written or told you) there is no sense in me taking the time to try to explain something that you could have looked up on your own.  If you want to read on your own The Blind Watchmaker gives a pretty good yet brief walk through how abiogenesis could result in DNA.  It's still a hypothesis but that's a lot better than claiming all codes have codemakers.

Quote from: "Whitney"

Quote from: "angelosergipe"

Quote from: "Whitney"Tell you what...when you make a claim that has basis I'll try to walk you through how scientists think DNA could have evolved.

Yes, please, go ahead, and explain it.

I'm waiting for you to make a claim that has any basis outside of failed philosophical claims...until you demonstrate that you are able to actually think about it (and not regurgitate stuff other people have written or told you) there is no sense in me taking the time to try to explain something that you could have looked up on your own.  If you want to read on your own The Blind Watchmaker gives a pretty good yet brief walk through how abiogenesis could result in DNA.  It's still a hypothesis but that's a lot better than claiming all codes have codemakers.

Abiogenesis is a failed hypotheses. There is no way life could have evolved by natural means. you insist in a argument which has no rational base at all. in the contrary, its just based on wishful thinking. i do not want God to exist, therefore every evidence against my pressuposition has to be ignored. That is the only possible modus operandi of a thinking atheist. His will is more determining, than his reason.

http://elshamah.heavenforum.org/t60-abi ... e-on-earth (http://elshamah.heavenforum.org/t60-abiogenesis-a-reasonable-answer-to-explain-how-live-arise-on-earth)

After all, what selective advantage would be gained for non-thinking atoms and molecules to form a living thing? They really gain nothing from this process so why would a mindless non-directed Nature select to bring life into existence? Natural selection really isn't a valid force at this point in time since there really is no conceivable advantage for mindless molecules to interact as parts of a living thing verses parts of an amorphous rock or a collection of sludge. Even if a lot of fully formed proteins and strings of fully formed DNA molecules were to come together at the same time, what are the odds that all the hundreds and thousands of uniquely specified proteins needed to decode both the DNA and mRNA, (not to mention the needed ATP molecules and the host of other unlisted "parts"), would all simultaneously fuse together in such a highly functional way? Not only has this phenomenon never been reproduced by any scientist in any laboratory on earth, but a reasonable mechanism by which such a phenomenon might even occur has never been proposed - outside of intelligent design that is.

Quote from: "Boring link cited by angelosergipe"After all, what selective advantage would be gained for non-thinking atoms and molecules to form a living thing? They really gain nothing from this process so why would a mindless non-directed Nature select to bring life into existence?

These questions are asked as if physics is sentient, making them loaded questions which are intellectually dishonest. Fix the questions and you'll get better answers.

Quote from: "Boring link cited by angelosergipe"Natural selection really isn't a valid force at this point in time since there really is no conceivable advantage for mindless molecules to interact as parts of a living thing verses parts of an amorphous rock or a collection of sludge.

I agree that natural selection is not valid for abiogenesis, natural selection's scope is after life has already started. It helps to understand the concepts before attempting to refute them. And it's more intellectually honest to gain an understanding of the concepts and the evidence supporting them before deciding whether to accept or deny them.

Quote from: "Boring link cited by angelosergipe"Even if a lot of fully formed proteins and strings of fully formed DNA molecules were to come together at the same time, what are the odds that all the hundreds and thousands of uniquely specified proteins needed to decode both the DNA and mRNA, (not to mention the needed ATP molecules and the host of other unlisted "parts"), would all simultaneously fuse together in such a highly functional way?

Can't stress enough the importance of understanding the concepts before stating that they don't make sense.

Quote from: "Boring link cited by angelosergipe"Not only has this phenomenon never been reproduced by any scientist in any laboratory on earth, but a reasonable mechanism by which such a phenomenon might even occur has never been proposed - outside of intelligent design that is.

Neither has the phenomenon of a sun been produced by any scientist in any laboratory... I mean outside of the Spiderman movie.

Quote from: "angelosergipe"

Quote from: "Sophus"

Quote from: "angelosergipe"2) All codes are created by a conscious mind; there is no natural process known to science that creates coded information.

Would it have been so hard for the Bible to say, "and then God created a code that maketh up all living things"? Instead it only mentions clay and ribs.  ;)

Quote from: "Sophus"Sure. What's so hard about saying he created a language to make us instead of saying he used dust and ribs to make us? Because, you see, now you have the problem of his explanation not making sense to us living in this age. Why would he choose to accommodate the earlier age of people over us, especially considering there are a lot more people on earth now?  

The bible is not a scientific book..... so there is no reason to go into details how he made life.

Quote from: "angelosergipe"The bible is not a scientific book..... so there is no reason to go into details how he made life.

But it would be better if it didn't go in the wrong direction:
Plants came before light.
All things were just created instead of millions of years of evolution.
It took five days to make this tiny, little, spec of a planet... but just part of a day to make the trillions of stars in millions of galaxies including all the other planets in the universe.
Man came from clay and breath from gods nostril.
Woman came from the rib of Adam.
Etc...

It's more than just that it's not scientific, it's that it's completely wrong. In the very least an unscientific answer of the sky is not firmament. In no way shape or form is the sky firm, that description is going in the opposite direction of reality. (It says the sky is firm/solid in Hebrew as well, I've heard the improper translation BS enough times by now).

Quote from: "angelosergipe"Dr. Francis Collins, director of the Human Genome Project (that mapped the human DNA structure) said that one can "think of DNA as an instructional script, a software program, sitting in the nucleus of the cell."

Perry Marshall, an information specialist, comments on the implications of this.
"There has never existed a computer program that wasn't designed...[whether it is] a code, or a program, or a message given through a language, there is always an intelligent mind behind it."

Just as former atheist Dr. Antony Flew questioned, it is legitimate to ask oneself regarding this three billion letter code instructing the cell...who wrote this script? Who placed this working code, inside the cell?

It's like walking along the beach and you see in the sand, "Mike loves Michelle." You know the waves rolling up on the beach didn't form that--a person wrote that. It is a precise message. It is clear communication. In the same way, the DNA structure is a complex, three-billion-lettered script, informing and directing the cell's process.

This is a copy and paste job from one of many places on the internet where this was previously published. You have used it without citing the reference. Plagiarism and copypasta are a good way to get a forum warning.

This is one. Do not use other people's written work without citing the reference or crediting them. Do not claim that this is your own now, either, because it isn't.

Quote from: "angelosergipe"

Quote from: "Sophus"Sure. What's so hard about saying he created a language to make us instead of saying he used dust and ribs to make us? Because, you see, now you have the problem of his explanation not making sense to us living in this age. Why would he choose to accommodate the earlier age of people over us, especially considering there are a lot more people on earth now?  

The bible is not a scientific book..... so there is no reason to go into details how he made life.

How is replacing the word "dust" with "language" or "code" more detailed?

Also, I think it's worth mentioning Collins is an atheist.

angelosergripe has been added to the restricted group.  I have a feeling he'll be banned soon too since I doubt he will be able to post here in a friendly manner and will ignore the area rules and just start preaching.

I think people take the "code" analogy a bit too far when conceptualizing DNA.  You don't hear anyone rambling on about vesicles being the UPS trucks of cellular physiology.

Quote from: curiosityandthecat on January 20, 2010, 04:01:37 PM
The devil can cite Scripture for his purpose.

Also, science fail.

Brilliant!  ;D