How do you explain design without a designer?

Originally posted by dj2becker
The mutation responsible for sickle cell anemia has been put forward as an example of Evolution. The problems with this are obvious, as the sickle cell mutation, like the many other described hemoglobin mutations, clearly impairs the function of the otherwise marvelously well-designed hemoglobin molecule. It can in no way be regarded as an improvement in o ...[text shortened]... ation that increased the efficiency of a genetically coded human protein has been found.

Actually, sickle-cell anemia helps to protect against malaria. This is
why it is a valuable trait in malaria-stricken places. When you have
only one sickle-cell allele, you don't have anemia (because half of
your cells are normal) but you have increased resistance to the disease.

If it were always a bad thing, it would die out or be very, very rare,
yet it is not in these areas.

It is an example of how, in some circumstances, a mutation could be
both good and bad.

Nemesio

Originally posted by AThousandYoung

For example, a lot of fossils that look awfully like dinosaurs or some other reptile evolving into birds have been found. No, not everything has been found; but no matter how many fossils are found, there will always be "gaps". To avoid gaps, we'd have to have the skeleton of every organism that ever existed.

Putting a dinosaur skeleton together is not easy. It is often like putting together a very difficult jigsaw puzzle with many of the pieces missing or damaged. The skeletons are usually very incomplete. Many dinosaur fossils are discovered badly damaged. Bones are often found crushed or bent by the great weight of the dirt and rock above. Sometimes parts from different creatures are mixed together. This just adds to the confusion.

Unfortunately, some scientists have not been careful enough in their descriptions of dinosaurs. They have told grand stories of how dinosaurs looked and behaved. All of these descriptions are based on guesswork -- the imaginations of people who have never seen a living dinosaur.

Some scientists have made complete pictures of dinosaurs based on just a single bone or tooth or leg. Such pictures are based on many guesses and very little facts. The scientists' ideas often turn out to be wrong when more facts are discovered.

Originally posted by Darfius
You ever watch Benny Hinn? He likes to "throw the Holy Spirit" at people. And most of the time they all fall over. Now it's very clear Hinn is a false prophet because he's made many predictions that just didn't come true and he treats the Lord Jesus like a commodity rather than a Savior. Now are all these people having psychotic breakdowns simultane ...[text shortened]... lse prophets can sway people from the truth of Jesus Christ. Same with the apparitions of Mary.

And he would say that you have rejected the Holy Spirit which reveals you are not really a believer.

So silly, you fundie xtians.

Originally posted by Nemesio
Actually, sickle-cell anemia helps to protect against malaria. This is
why it is a valuable trait in malaria-stricken places. When you have
only one sickle-cell allele, you don't have anemia (because half of
your cells are normal) but you have increased resistance to the disease.

If it were always a bad thing, it would die out or be very, very rare, ...[text shortened]... is an example of how, in some circumstances, a mutation could be
both good and bad.

Nemesio

Nobody doubts random genetic changes in organisms do occasionally occur, but they often have no noticeable effect. Often mutations are harmful. It is only in rare instances that mutations can be beneficial.

First, I want to point out that cells, by their very nature, tend to discourage mutations. Cells are equipped with built-in checking and correcting mechanisms whose purposes are to minimize copying errors and prevent mistakes from being made. If mutations really were the creative source which powers evolution, then cells should have evolved a mechanism that promotes mutation—not the preventative mechanism that we actually find in living cells.

Even though sickle cell anemia can be a beneficial mutation in some cases, it isn’t a creative mutation. The sickle cell hemoglobin molecule is an example of a mutation where the ability to carry oxygen is partially lost. The cell is broken, not enhanced.

Inefficient forms of existing things aren’t what the theory of evolution requires. For the theory of evolution to be true, there must be mutations that create entirely new things from scratch. The theory of evolution needs an example of a mutation that creates the ability to carry oxygen (from the air to parts of the body not exposed to air) in an organism that did not previously have that capability.

If, as evolutionists believe, every characteristic of every living thing were formed by creative mutations, there ought to be abundant examples of these mutations because it would have had to have happened so often. There are no such examples.

Originally posted by dj2becker
The mutation responsible for sickle cell anemia has been put forward as an example of Evolution. The problems with this are obvious, as the sickle cell mutation, like the many other described hemoglobin mutations, clearly impairs the function of the otherwise marvelously well-designed hemoglobin molecule. It can in no way be regarded as an improvement in o ...[text shortened]... ation that increased the efficiency of a genetically coded human protein has been found.

I think you are making the mistake of thinking improvements are somehow absolute. They are not. They depend on the environment of the organism.

In an environment with both oxygen and malaria, the sickle cell gene in combination with the normal gene is a superior combination than either one alone. Therefore, in that environment, both are found by natural selection.

Yes, in an environment without malaria, the presence of the sickle cell gene is always a bad thing. This is a different environment, so what is an 'improvement' is different.

Yes, many mutations do cause disease. They also provide genetic variability so that when some new threat comes along, one of these random mutations generally helps the species survive in that newly dangerous environment. Some mutations do not cause disease, but they still provide genetic variation in the gene pool.

It's well known that populations with little variation in their gene pool are in danger of extinction. It's also known that populations with little variation in their gene pool will develop genetic variation over time if they do survive. How can this clearly beneficial effect happen without mutation?

not one mutation that increased the efficiency of a genetically coded human protein has been found

Please be more specific. What would be the signs that a protein was more efficient?

Originally posted by dj2becker
Putting a dinosaur skeleton together is not easy. It is often like putting together a very difficult jigsaw puzzle with many of the pieces missing or damaged. The skeletons are usually very incomplete. Many dinosaur fossils are discovered badly damaged. Bones are often found crushed or bent by the great weight of the dirt and rock above. Sometimes parts fr ...[text shortened]... tle facts. The scientists' ideas often turn out to be wrong when more facts are discovered.

So it seems you feel the fossils that are found in the ground are not being analyzed in a rigorous enough fashion. You feel bias is creeping in in this process. Am I correct?

Originally posted by dj2becker
Putting a dinosaur skeleton together is not easy. It is often like putting together a very difficult jigsaw puzzle with many of the pieces missing or damaged. The skeletons are usually very incomplete. Many dinosaur fossils are discovered ...[text shortened]... eas often turn out to be wrong when more facts are discovered.

I'd like you to take a look at the images on this site:

http://www.dinoeggs.com/fossils/casts/archaeopteryx/data.html

At what point do you think bias or lack of rigor was involved with these fossils? Especially the first one. It seems to be quite complete to me - an animal halfway between reptile and bird. Do you think it's a fake?

Originally posted by dj2becker
Nobody doubts random genetic changes in organisms do occasionally occur, but they often have no noticeable effect. Often mutations are harmful. It is only in rare instances that mutations can be beneficial.

First, I want to point out t ...[text shortened]... ave had to have happened so often. There are no such examples.

Cells which promote too much mutation cannot hold on to beneficial genes once they do occur. According the the TOE, early life probably did not have the elaborate anti-mutation safeguards, and they probably did mutate very quickly. Once enough beneficial mutations for the environment appeared, the cells that had these mutations would begin to lose them faster than they would gain them via mutation. At this point, the mechanisms that lessened the rate of mutation which you pointed out would have had to evolve.

Now, mutations are very rare, but they still occur, which is an excellent balance for the current highly evolved organisms.

Originally posted by dj2becker
Nobody doubts random genetic changes in organisms do occasionally occur, but they often have no noticeable effect. Often mutations are harmful. It is only in rare instances that mutations can be beneficial.

First, I want to point out t ...[text shortened]... ave had to have happened so often. There are no such examples.

Can you clearly define what a "creative" mutation would be? I don't think this is a scientific term.

Inefficient forms of existing things aren’t what the theory of evolution requires. For the theory of evolution to be true, there must be mutations that create entirely new things from scratch

I don't think you understand the TOE. The TOE claims that genes which help an organism survive and reproduce in a particular environment will increase in frequency in the gene pool. Genetic variation is required so that when an organism faces new circumstances there will be a lot of genes available. If a few of these genes work better in this new environment than others, they will increase in frequency.

The genes that coded for proteins that allowed oxygen based metabolism arise spontaneously, but slowly, and they would tend to not do well in an anaerobic environment.

Here's a rough blueprint for an experiment that should produce the kinds of genes you want to see produced:

An anaerobic bacteria like E. coli would be cultured from a single colony under anaerobic conditions with mutagens. Once this culture began to thrive, another single culture would be made from this one on another petri dish...this would be repeated several times to make sure all bacteria on the final experimental dishes were genetically identical, having asexually reproduced from the same ancestor with no mutagens present.

Then, a number of petri dishes would be used for the experiment. Each would have identical agar composition (in fact, all agar used from the beginning would be the same). Some would be grown under the exact same circumstances as the previous generations - no mutagens, no oxygen. Some would be exposed to various mutagens - some chemical, some UV, etc.

Then, oxygen would be added to the environments of all the different petri dishes. The dishes would be allowed to incubate for a while so that the best genes in each population would tend to dominate.

Then, colonies from all the different petri dishes would be placed on the same petri dish. The dish would incubate so that again the best genes for the environment would dominate.

Then the genome of all the bacteria would be sequenced and we'd see which of the original bacteria was able to outcompete the others in the oxygen containing environment.

According to the TOE, given enough repetitions of this experiment using enough populations and given enough time, a bacterium that would consistently outcompete the control group in these circumstances would evolve. According to your creationist/skeptical perspective, this would never, ever happen.

Now, of course one could always say that "not enough time has passed...not enough populations were used...we didn't use the right mutagens...we didn't add oxygen in the right concentrations..." So even if the experiment didn't produce aerobic bacteria, it wouldn't be conclusive. I don't myself feel qualified to give a good prediction about how much time or how many petri dishes or any of the other details would be needed to expect such aerobic bacteria to evolve. It's important to realize the TOE suggests immense numbers of bacteria, tremendous amounts of time, etc. Those scientists that are knowledgeable about the TOE should make predictions about what specific conditions would be necessary, and if the experiment didn't work, this would be evidence against the TOE.

This would be a rough basis for how such experiments could be run. This is why the TOE is a scientific theory. Now let's talk about creationism. What kind of experiments could you run? Nothing. "God did it that way because he wanted to." Umm...ok... You call that science?

I call it just making stuff up.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
I think you are making the mistake of thinking improvements are somehow absolute. They are not. They depend on the environment of the organism.

In an environment with both oxygen and malaria, the sickle cell gene in combination with the normal gene is a superior combination than either one alone. Therefore, in that environment, both are found by ...[text shortened]... ound

Please be more specific. What would be the signs that a protein was more efficient?[/b]

Even though sickle cell anemia can be a beneficial mutation in some cases, it isn’t a creative mutation. The sickle cell hemoglobin molecule is an example of a mutation where the ability to carry oxygen is partially lost. The cell is broken, not enhanced.

Inefficient forms of existing things aren’t what the theory of evolution requires. For the theory of evolution to be true, there must be mutations that create entirely new things from scratch. The theory of evolution needs an example of a mutation that creates the ability to carry oxygen (from the air to parts of the body not exposed to air) in an organism that did not previously have that capability.

If, as evolutionists believe, every characteristic of every living thing were formed by creative mutations, there ought to be abundant examples of these mutations because it would have had to have happened so often. There are no such examples.

Bacteria can resist anti-bacterial medicine the same way people with sickle cell anemia resist malaria. Since bacteria multiply very quickly, thousands upon thousands of generations arise in a very short order of time. Beta-lactameses is part of the arsenal some bacteria have to fight penicillin (which they had even before penicillin was discovered). In some bacteria, such as Streptococcus pneumoniae, b-lactameses has never been identified and is capable of penicillin resistance because of a mutation in their penicillin-binding proteins. This causes interference and penicillin resistance results. The enzymes Isoniazid and DNA gyrase found in some bacteria similarly resist antibiotics as a result of mutation interference as well. These mutations achieve their benefit with just a one- or sometimes a two-point mutation, and the result of a mutation that interfered or broke a previously established function or interaction.

"Conventional explanations that randomly generated advantageous changes in complex characters accumulate one locus at a time are unconvincing on both functional and probabilistic grounds, because there is too much interconnectivity and too many degrees of mutational freedom."

The real issue isn’t whether a mutation is beneficial or not. The real issue is whether a mutation is creative. That is, does the mutation create a new feature or system that never existed before? A mutation can certainly cause the eyes of a fish not to develop. If that fish lives in deep water, or in a cave, where there is no light, the loss of the eye isn’t harmful. The scales that grow where the eye would be normally, might be less prone to infection or injury, so that mutation might be beneficial. The eyeless fish may even be able to survive better, but the mutation didn’t create any new genetic information.

Evolution requires random mutation that creates entirely new, useful features. Mutations don’t provide a method by which a jellyfish can evolve eyes and a backbone to become a fish.

Take for example a brocken car window. How difficult would it be to build a new window from scratch? Even if you had all the raw materials, making a glass window would be difficult. You need training and special equipment.

Without any training at all, a child can break the window. Even a completely mindless natural process (such as a hurricane) could break a car window. No special tools are required.

The fact that something can be broken by accident does not prove that something can be created by accident. This is the error evolutionists make. They show examples of things that have lost capability because they have been broken by accident, and incorrectly conclude that new capability can be created by accident.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
So it seems you feel the fossils that are found in the ground are not being analyzed in a rigorous enough fashion. You feel bias is creeping in in this process. Am I correct?

Dinosaur fossils are not found with labels or photographs attached showing what the animals looked like. That is why no pictures of dinosaurs on any site are exactly right. Every dinosaur painting is sure to contain at least some wrong information. No Twentieth Century artist ever saw the living, breathing animals--complete with skin, flesh, and color.

For instance, imagine never having seen or heard of a poodle or a peacock. One day you find the jumbled bones of it buried in the ground. You try to put the bones together to form a skeleton. And then you try to draw a picture of what the animal looked like when alive. But bones cannot tell the whole story.
Peg-style Board Game

Even if you are a very good artist, it would be a miracle if you drew a true picture of a poodle or a peacock just from the bones and your imagination.

If scientists could climb into a time machine and travel to the past, they could get much better information. Only then would they know the true appearance of dinosaurs or what they ate and how they really behaved. Scientists might be very surprised what they would learn

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
I'd like you to take a look at the images on this site:

http://www.dinoeggs.com/fossils/casts/archaeopteryx/data.html

At what point do you think bias or lack of rigor was involved with these fossils? Especially the first one. It seems to be quite complete to me - an animal halfway between reptile and bird. Do you think it's a fake?

I have a question for you. Do you believe that dinosaurs lived millions of years ago and have since become extinct?

Originally posted by dj2becker
The mutation responsible for sickle cell anemia has been put forward as an example of Evolution. The problems with this are obvious, as the sickle cell mutation, like the many other described hemoglobin mutations, clearly impairs the func ...[text shortened]... iency of a genetically coded human protein has been found.

This entire post was plagiarized from

http://www.sloppynoodle.com/integen.html

Originally posted by dj2becker
Putting a dinosaur skeleton together is not easy. It is often like putting together a very difficult jigsaw puzzle with many of the pieces missing or damaged. The skeletons are usually very incomplete. Many dinosaur fossils are discovered badly damaged. Bones are often found crushed or bent by the great weight of the dirt and rock above. Sometimes parts fr ...[text shortened]... tle facts. The scientists' ideas often turn out to be wrong when more facts are discovered.

This post was plagiarized from

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/ednks001.html