DNA - God's amazing programming; proof for his existence

Originally posted by SwissGambit
It is so much more interesting to read someone who has actually attempted to penetrate the mysteries of how DNA works.

http://discovermagazine.com/2009/mar/19-dna-agrees-with-all-the-other-science-darwin-was-right/article_view?b_start:int=0&-C=

You saw the fruit fly as a window into evolution and development. How did you make the connection?
It was not an obvious call, because the expectation was that fruit flies didn’t have anything to do with the development of furry creatures. But in 1983 I found a laboratory where I could do the work, with Matt Scott at the University of Colorado at Boulder. Just as we were getting started, it became clear from our research and others’ that these body-building genes were not restricted to fruit flies; they were shared throughout the animal kingdom. It was a real jolt. All of a sudden we could do deep experiments at the most fundamental level to understand how form actually evolved.

Before the experiment what kind of animal did they have?
A fruit fly.

After the experiment what kind of animal did they have?
A fruit fly.

Should we just take their word for it that a fruit fly, with enough time, could be modified to be a mouse ?

Maybe there is a limitation to this modification phenomenon.

Does the inability to arrange an experiment of species transformation over long time make that part of the theory non-falsifiable ?

If it is not falsifiable is that macro evolution part of the theory "science" ? I heard many objections to Intelligent Design, that it is not falsifiable and therefore is not Science.

Originally posted by jaywill
[quote] You saw the fruit fly as a window into evolution and development. How did you make the connection?
It was not an obvious call, because the expectation was that fruit flies didn’t have anything to do with the development of furry creatures. But in 1983 I found a laboratory where I could do the work, with Matt Scott at the University of Colorado at B ...[text shortened]... any objections to Intelligent Design, that it is not falsifiable and therefore is not Science.

Should we just take their word for it that a fruit fly, with enough time, could be modified to be a mouse ?

that is not what evolution says would happen and that is not what they claim

Before the experiment what kind of animal did they have?
A fruit fly.

After the experiment what kind of animal did they have?
A fruit fly.

your point is irrelevant to the fact that experiments can show how evolution can and does work.
No species change is required for the experiments to reveal how the genetics works.

Does the inability to arrange an experiment of species transformation over long time make that part of the theory non-falsifiable ?

NO.
Firstly, haven't you heard of “indirect observation” nor understand the concept of indirect proof or indirect disproof?
Secondly, evolution make various predictions that CAN be shown to be false ( such as the prediction of imperfect design using the non-standard of the meaning of the word “design” here because that design is mindlessly made with no intelligence or intent ) if the theory is false thus evolution IS clearly falsifiable.

If it is not falsifiable is that macro evolution part of the theory "science" ?

No, not if it was not falsifiable.
But it is falsifiable therefore it is part of science.

Humy,

that is not what evolution says would happen and that is not what they claim

Maybe not a mouse per se, but a new species. Do not bother denying it.
Or then you would not agree with the article's summary of this aspect of Evolution Theory. Better study up on Evolution and don't try to weasel word me.

The article said -

Darwin said no, species are changeable, and the introduction of new species is a completely natural process that follows natural laws just the way physics does. A fundamental aspect of human existence has been to ask how we got here. Evolution is the big answer to that big question. Obviously there are alternative answers that have prevailed for a very long time, but evolution has replaced a supernatural explanation of human origins with a naturalistic one.

Originally posted by humy

Should we just take their word for it that a fruit fly, with enough time, could be modified to be a mouse ?

that is not what evolution says would happen and that is not what they claim

[quote] Before the experiment what kind of animal did they have?
A fruit fly.

After the experiment what kind of animal did they have?
A fruit fly. ...[text shortened]... ]
No, not if it was not falsifiable.
But it is falsifiable therefore it is part of science.

You do not understand the theory of Evolution if you think it does not say one kind of living thing can turn into another kind given enough time. If there is such a theory that "design is mindlessly made with no intelligence or intent" then that theory has already been proven false by the information language code in the DNA.

Originally posted by jaywill
[quote] You saw the fruit fly as a window into evolution and development. How did you make the connection?
It was not an obvious call, because the expectation was that fruit flies didn’t have anything to do with the development of furry creatures. But in 1983 I found a laboratory where I could do the work, with Matt Scott at the University of Colorado at B ...[text shortened]... any objections to Intelligent Design, that it is not falsifiable and therefore is not Science.

You take an extremely difficult process to understand and because we don't at this time have 100% of the answers and probably never will, that gives you a window to deny the whole thing.

This just like people 100 years ago scoffing at the Wright brothers for thinking they can fly when just a few years later we are riding passenger jets at 500 miles an hour to South Africa.

Before you reject the entire evolution thing, why don't you just say lets wait for further details and in the meantime I doubt it works like they said?

Instead of being like RJ, where his YEC bias refuses to let him wake up and at least SMELL the coffee, he can't even CONSIDER the idea evolution might be correct.

Originally posted by RJHinds
You do not understand the theory of Evolution if you think it does not say one kind of living thing can turn into another kind given enough time. If there is such a theory that "design is mindlessly made with no intelligence or intent" then that theory has already been proven false by the information language code in the DNA.

If there is such a theory that "design is mindlessly made with no intelligence or intent" then that theory has already been proven false by the information language code in the DNA.

No, nothing about DNA proves it false and it has been proven true because it makes predictions that are shown to be true ( plus the mountain of other evidence ) .

You do not understand the theory of Evolution if you think it does not say one kind of living thing can turn into another kind given enough time

that is NOT what I said evolution could not credibly do.
What I said that evolution could NOT do was: “a fruit fly, with enough time, could be modified to be a mouse” ( jaywill's comment )
i.e. it could not credibly change one CURRENTLY existing species into another CURRENTLY existing species that has already evolved into existence.

Originally posted by humy

If there is such a theory that "design is mindlessly made with no intelligence or intent" then that theory has already been proven false by the information language code in the DNA.

No, nothing about DNA proves it false and it has been proven true because it makes predictions that are shown to be true ( plus the mountain of other evidence ) . ...[text shortened]... ting species into another CURRENTLY existing species that has already evolved into existence.

I haven't even seen a mole hill of evidence. Where is this mountain located? By the way, that species you are tooting your horn about is still a fruit fly like jaywill said. HalleluYah !!! Praise the Lord!

Originally posted by RJHinds
I haven't even seen a mole hill of evidence. Where is this mountain located? By the way, that species you are tooting your horn about is still a fruit fly like jaywill said. HalleluYah !!! Praise the Lord!

Where is this mountain located?

we have already shown you it only for you to deny it.

By the way, that species you are tooting your horn about is still a fruit fly like jaywill said

what? You think evolution says it should have changed into a new species by now?

Originally posted by humy

Where is this mountain located?

we have already shown you it only for you to deny it.

By the way, that species you are tooting your horn about is still a fruit fly like jaywill said

what? You think evolution says it should have changed into a new species by now?

Fruit flies are supposed to generate real fast and they have been working on the fruit fly for years, which should also cut down the time since it is no longer just random. So what gives? They are still fruit flies even with all their mutations.

Originally posted by humy

Where is this mountain located?

we have already shown you it only for you to deny it.

By the way, that species you are tooting your horn about is still a fruit fly like jaywill said

what? You think evolution says it should have changed into a new species by now?

two choices.
1. Keep the argument direct and do not over elaborate your answers. That leaves RJHinds and Jaywill cheerfully batting your posts back over and over again.
2. Provide a more full and complete explanation of their blindingly obvious error. They will
a) tell you that is atheist propoganda
b) tell you you are bigoted
c) tell you lots of stuff that has nothing to do with your post
d) tell you they forget what you wrote a page earlier (and presumably can't read it now because... they are busy perhaps repeating their stuff on thread after thread where they hope they are not challenged. If they stuck to fewer threads then time would be less of a problem and if they are going to persist for so long maybe they would do better to take the time to learn something on the way. )
e) transfer their pointless and circular ramblings to another thread and hope you don't follow. They have so many threads going it is crazy and not one of them has a prospect of making progress while they persist in their approach.

Then we have their links to external sites, such as a 49 minute video about DNA which I took the trouble of watching and responding to this week. When I point out that the arguments are not only open to debate, but in reality based on deliberate and direct lies, then Jaywill persumably decides I am being offensive and RJHinds just ignores it. But if their video contains a statement by a professed scientist which is demonstrably a total misrepresentation of the science which they claim to describe, and if I am able to point this out to them, then I do not agree that I am being offensive to them as posters. It is the video that I am calling a hoax and a lie, and is up to them, if they can, to defend their source or admit it is unsafe. I know I would be very upset if I relied on a source that was clearly a hoax. Instead, they just refer to them again and again, ignoring the refutations offered. And if they continue to link us to something that has been shown to them to be a hoax and a lie, then they are being wilfully dishonest and taking part in the lie.

They have infinite time to repeat their assertions. They have no time to deal rationally with any meaningful debate. They are incapable of holding a new thought in their minds long enough to give it the courtesy of a considered reply. And to be frank, I am not convinced they have the education to actually understand what is being said to them which is sad, but tiresome.

I suppose I could just copy and paste my answers to these mad arguments from an earlier thread. Just to have it on record that they are wrong in this thread same as the last one and the one before that.

Originally posted by sonhouse
You take an extremely difficult process to understand and because we don't at this time have 100% of the answers and probably never will, that gives you a window to deny the whole thing.

This just like people 100 years ago scoffing at the Wright brothers for thinking they can fly when just a few years later we are riding passenger jets at 500 miles an h ...[text shortened]... up and at least SMELL the coffee, he can't even CONSIDER the idea evolution might be correct.

You take an extremely difficult process to understand and because we don't at this time have 100% of the answers and probably never will, that gives you a window to deny the whole thing.

I am not for that. I am for the scientifc way of refinement. You get closer and closer and refine the hypothesis. Or you notice that you get farther and farther away and discard it.

Maybe there is something to the modification of species on a limited level. Refine the ideas to test what are those limits, if possible.

This just like people 100 years ago scoffing at the Wright brothers for thinking they can fly when just a few years later we are riding passenger jets at 500 miles an hour to South Africa.

There was not total scoffing. Lots of people thought about the idea and tried it.

Now today when you look at the ideas of the day, you will notice many, many, MANY designs of flying machines which apparently did not work too well. Today those pictures can even look a little bit comical.

So many designs for flying machines were conceived. Fortunately, the Wright brothers through painful trial and error hit on the right idea.

Now, how about Evolution ? Do you think it will escape a similar situation ? Books will lay out different ideas people had in what will be the past. Future generations will see a dizzying array of ideas. Some of these will appear comical.

So, I am for refinement. What seems right? What seems off ?
Anything wrong with that ?

My niece needs a piano lesson.
Gotta go.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Fruit flies are supposed to generate real fast and they have been working on the fruit fly for years, which should also cut down the time since it is no longer just random. So what gives? They are still fruit flies even with all their mutations.

Even with the very rapid reproductive rate of fruit flies and the fast artificial selective breeding of fruit flies with, hypothetically, a specific goal of changing them to a new species, it would still take at least a few thousand years to achieve this by careful selective breading alone.

However, although this hasn't happen yet, it would be just a matter of time before genetic engineering will become so advanced that it would be possible for geneticists to make totally new species within, say, one month, from planning it to making it.

Originally posted by jaywill
[quote] You saw the fruit fly as a window into evolution and development. How did you make the connection?
It was not an obvious call, because the expectation was that fruit flies didn’t have anything to do with the development of furry creatures. But in 1983 I found a laboratory where I could do the work, with Matt Scott at the University of Colorado at B any objections to Intelligent Design, that it is not falsifiable and therefore is not Science.

Where does this say that a fruit fly could be modified to become a mouse? Nowhere. What it does say is that both share common genes, and indeed that is good evidence for common ancestry. We know many Americans are descended from Europeans, even though they are clearly becoming a very different species to judge by this forum, but nobody asks us to build an American in a laboratory to prove the point. We use different evidence and it is pretty convincing too. We can even confirm our work with genetic evidence which was not possible at the time when we first accepted the embarrassing proposal that many Americans have European ancestors.

For a start, fruit flies are not the ancestors of mice ( I could be wrong! Check it out). If you want to reproduce that evolutionary path, from which both fruit flies and mice emerge, then you would have to go back to the commmon ancestor and work from there. You would have to take that common ancestor and achieve a sequence of modifications by which one branch of evolution leads to a mouse and one to a fruit fly. This is vastly more difficult than anything humanly achievable. The point being that none of this was designed the first time around and asking someone to design a new species is a very tall order indeed. How would you propose to work through migrations of species into and out of the sea for example? How would you deal with intermediate species that cannot survive in the modern environment? How would you keep any intermediate individual alive and obtain its DNA to construct the next one in the long long line? You are mad to even suggest this approach. Where it is worth attempting is with micro-organisms and guess what - it is being done. The evidence of evolutionary change in micro-organisms is the best you will get and the best you need to destroy your argument totally. Thank heavens for that or your flu vaccine would be useless within a year.

Alternatively, you could track back the ancestry of each species to establish where they have common ancestors, and demonstrate for example that the genetic evidence supports the evolutionary theory, which of course came a century before the discovery of the gene so that is a remarkable thing. You can take the anatomy of each species and identify the common structures. You can study the environment and identify at least some of the relevant evolutionary pressures. It all comes together coherently - mountains and mountains of hard, factual evidence available for scrutiny around the world by countless scientists and institutions.

That is the evidence, clear and reproduced many times and entirely physical and factual and you REFUSE TO ACCEPT IT because you don't want to and for no other reason. You are given refrences that are esily available and decline to open them. Try Dawkins "The Ancestors Tale" for a comprehensive ancestry of humanity.

ID or Creation Science is two things: Creationism plus Science. They take some Science that is well established. They produce none of their own. Then they add a piece of false reasoning to produce a Creationist spin. I have shown this with some examples on other threads. Others have shown it more systematically. ID is a hoax and you are propogating a hoax.

Originally posted by finnegan
Where does this say that a fruit fly could be modified to become a mouse? Nowhere. What it does say is that both share common genes, and indeed that is good evidence for common ancestry. We know many Americans are descended from Europeans, even though they are clearly becoming a very different species to judge by this forum, but nobody asks us to build an A ...[text shortened]... reads. Others have shown it more systematically. ID is a hoax and you are propogating a hoax.

We Americans are just as much humans as Europeans are, thank you.

Originally posted by RJHinds
We Americans are just as much humans as Europeans are, thank you.

Boy did you destroy his argument. Awesome. NOT.