2 edits
@vivify saidMaybe.
Also a point showing an evolved function that clearly wasn't designed by a creator, right?
Why does life want to survive?
Why don't the bacteria just go hungry and die?
Why don't all "living" things simply let themselves go without food and DIE ?
If there is no purpose, no goal, why do they "want" out of thin air to survive ?
@sonship saidThat has nothing to do with the ability to survive on something an organism previously couldn't live on.
Maybe.
Why does life want to survive?
Why don't the bacteria just go hungry and die?
Why don't all "living" things simply let themselves go without food and DIE ?
If there is no purpose, no goal, why do they "want" out of thin air to survive ?
Before those bacteria evolved, you would've said they can't live on plastic because they weren't designed to. The fact they now can disproves that ID is an explanation for how life develops instead of evolution.
2 edits
@vivify saidSurviving is part and partial of their characteristic AS the out come of the evolutionary process happened.
That has nothing to do with the ability to survive on something an organism previously couldn't live on.
Before those bacteria evolved, you would've said they can't live on plastic because they weren't designed to. The fact they now can disproves that ID is an explanation for how life develops instead of evolution.
What I would have said? I don't know.
I have seen dogs ride on surf boards.
I have seen cats open doors at the door knob.
I have seen poodles trained to walk on their hind legs and other K9s to sniff out
drugs.
Animals ( or viruses) doing new things they never did previously?
I'd like to think on it for awhile.
Let me ask you this in the mean time. Is there anything beneficial to any other species or organism that the oceans be filled with plastic waste? Would plastic waste filling the ocean's have any positive effect on any organisms?
1 edit
@sonship saidWe're not talking about mere behaviors, this is about fundamental physical changes, such as the ability to digest artificial unnatural substances. That's a function that was clearly not designed.
Surviving is part and partial of their characteristic AS the out come of the evolutionary process happened.
Let's look at another example:
https://www.businessinsider.com/[WORD TOO LONG]
The clepto slug has algae genes in it's DNA. Without looking at the link, why do you think this is? Think about it before continuing, and please tell me what you think the reason is.
The answer:
This algae is able to incorporate algae genes into it's DNA. The slug is able to then pass those traits on to its offspring.
This is yet another example of an animal that gained fundamental traits like DNA that were NOT designed. It's conceivable that a believer in intelligent design, without knowing this fact, may have tried to use this slug as proof against evolution and evidence for ID; maybe there's a video on YouTube with an IDist mocking evolution, like "How can a slug share DNA with algae?? Oh, did they evolve from plants now?? LOLOLZ!!"
Organisms like this slug or that bacteria are proof of evolution being better explanations for life than ID.
2 edits
@vivify
I think to believe wholesale what you are saying there requires me to believe
Everything regarding what DNA does is accidental. The clarity you express about that I don't share yet. "Clearly this trait is not designed".
i think maybe a better rebuttal would be to have an ID exponent explain something like . "Why Cancer?" Or "Why tumors?".
The clepto slug has algae genes in it's DNA. Without looking at the link, why do you think this is? Think about it before continuing, and please tell me what you think the reason is.
The answer:
This algae is able to incorporate algae genes into it's DNA. The slug is able to then pass those traits on to its offspring.
This kind of reminds me of carnivorous plants or carnivorous plants with a unusual symbiotic relationship with another organism. Some carnivorous plants have no effect on some insects or organisms yet the two have some mutually beneficial symbiotic relationship.
2 edits
@sonship saidNo; the point is to demolish this flawed idea that you have that traits can't evolve through an unguided process. Clearly they do.
@vivify
I think to believe wholesale what you are saying there requires me to believe
Everything regarding what DNA does is accidental.
The clarity you express about that I don't share yet. "Clearly this trait is not designed".
And yet, that trait is *clearly* not designed. The slug couldn't have been "created" with algae DNA, as evidenced by the fact it gains that DNA by feeding. The algae genes in that slug's DNA is yet another example of something that had nothing to do with a life form being "designed" that way.
2 edits
@sonship
I need some time to look at your evidence. [my bolding]
How the slug manages to maintain these photosynthesizing organelles for so long has been the topic of intensive study and a good deal of controversy. "This paper confirms that one of several algal genes needed to repair damage to chloroplasts, and keep them functioning, is present on the slug chromosome," Pierce says. "The gene is incorporated into the slug chromosome and transmitted to the next generation of slugs." While the next generation must take up chloroplasts anew from algae, the genes to maintain the chloroplasts are already present in the slug genome, Pierce says.
"There is no way on earth that genes from an alga should work inside an animal cell," Pierce says. "And yet here, they do. They allow the animal to rely on sunshine for its nutrition. So if something happens to their food source, they have a way of not starving to death until they find more algae to eat. "
This biological adaptation is also a mechanism of rapid evolution, Pierce says. "When a successful transfer of genes between species occurs, evolution can basically happen from one generation to the next," he notes, rather than over an evolutionary timescale of thousands of years.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/02/150203155925.htm
@sonship saidThank you for posting this. You just provided evidence of punctuated equilibrium.
This biological adaptation is also a mechanism of rapid evolution, Pierce says. "When a successful transfer of genes between species occurs, evolution can basically happen from one generation to the next," he notes, rather than over an evolutionary timescale of thousands of years.
@vivify saidHmmmmm.
I don't think you get what I'm asking you.
Your faith requires that you doubt evolution, correct? Or are you actually open to the possibility that your faith is actually wrong? I'm open to the fact that evolution could be wrong, depending on what evidence is presented. Are you just as open the possibility that the Bible is wrong?
Please answer that question directly.
I have the opposite problem.
What if both are true? (Evolution and God.)
1 edit
@vivify
National Academy of Science said "Intelligent Design . . . [is] not science because [it's] not testable by the methods of science."
So if you say this example falsifies Intelligent Design, then you agree that the complaint that ID is not falsifiable and therefore not science, is incorrect?
@suzianne saidNo reason why they couldn’t be but of course no reason why the should be. Evolution is only really a problem for those that adhere to a literal interpretation of any given holy book or God model. If you can separate the core themes and messages from the rigid plot lines of the scriptures then this perpetual and embarrassing retreat by God or Gods could come to an end. It’s kind of ironic that it’s some of Gods worshippers that constantly paint God into a corner rather than science.
Hmmmmm.
I have the opposite problem.
What if both are true? (Evolution and God.)
2 edits
No reason why they couldn’t be but of course no reason why the should be. Evolution is only really a problem for those that adhere to a literal interpretation of any given holy book or God model.
Could you define a bit more "a literal interpretation of a holy book?" I mean does that mean a holy book which has no parables, no allegorical language, no symbolism, no poetry ?
I hear of a "Big Bang" beginning of the universe from many science corners.
I am taking this too literally when I assume there was a noise, a BANG!?
I thought you have to have air to hear any bangs.
If you can separate the core themes and messages from the rigid plot lines of the scriptures then this perpetual and embarrassing retreat by God or Gods could come to an end. It’s kind of ironic that it’s some of Gods worshippers that constantly paint God into a corner rather than science.
How do I know your "core themes" merely means the stuff you want to accept as not giving you any problems?
Your comment here:
What intelligent designer would worry about people eating shell fish or allocate a whole day just for worshiping itself.
Your scoff seemed to want to portray the "core theme and message" of the Bible is that God is:
not too smart, fidgety and narcissistic.
When is this ton of bricks of supposed embarrassment suppose to hit me for believing in God and that He has communicated with us?