Post Reply
Page 18 of 22  •  Prev 1 ... 16 17 18 19 20 ... 22 Next
Switch to Forum Live View ORIGIN OF LIFE - Question #2 - How Did the DNA Code Originate?
3 years ago  ::  Apr 21, 2012 - 8:04AM #171
rsielin
Posts: 4,522

This is the tree of life, a natural nested hierarchy. Find a crossed branch or a violation of the natural nested hierarchy and you have refuted ToE.


All the genome sequencing data is in the public domain if you'd like to try to prove otherwise. Have at it, LiveDog. Show us your science competence and research prowess.


BTW, they don't teach nested hierarchy in engineering or design school, they teach the opposite. But go to any university biology department and you will get your ears full of it. LOL 



If this piques your interest; a larger view here: evogeneao.com/images/Evo_large.gif


To explore any of the extensive peer reviewed work on this, go here: tolweb.org/tree/

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Apr 21, 2012 - 10:25AM #172
Midutch
Posts: 4,288

Apr 20, 2012 -- 10:20PM, LiveDog wrote:

I once watched a computer program run, that produced fractal images - an instance of nested hierarchies. Does that mean the computer AND the program are products of purely natural processes? A designer can and does employ nested hierarchies.


No they don't. Not even human ones. You obviously don't know what a nested hierarchy is.


Nested hierarchy DISproves "intelligent design".


TYPICAL design is a clean sheet where some elements of the design are taken from earlier predecessor models but NEW features from a wide range of sources and even from COMPETING MODELS, that the predecessor did NOT have, are incorporated.


.


That is why when a few cars started having radios/cd players/computers designed and built into them, all of a sudden ALL cars started having radios/cd players/computers designed and built into them, Even more astonishingly, this design was incorporated beyond automotive hierarchical boundaries into motorcycles, boats, air planes, trains, space ships, etc. as well.


In an evolutionary process, ONLY the cars that are descended from the cars that "evolved" radios/cd players/computers would have them (let alone motorcycles, boats, air planes, trains, space ships, etc.). This is what is meant by NESTED HIERARCHY.


.


That is why when one TV manufacturer designed and built color TV's, all of a sudden ALL TV manufacturers designed and built color TVs.


In an evolutionary process, ONLY the TVs that are descended from the TV that "evolved" color would have them. This is what is meant by NESTED HIERARCHY.


.


That is why when one car manufacturer designed and built in cup holders, all of a sudden ALL manufacturers designed and built in cup holders.


In an evolutionary process ONLY the cars that are descended from the car that "evolved" cup holders would have them. This is what is meant by NESTED HIERARCHY.


.


.


.


If biology were truly "designed" then ALL organisms COULD incorporate NEW features from a wide range of sources and even from COMPETING MODELS to make them more competitive.


If biology were truly "designed" then it would be EXPECTED that some reptiles and mammals would have feathered wings since the DESIGN is so efficient and the DESIGNER(S) can copy the feathered wing DESIGN from competing "models" to make "their" "model" more competitive.


If biology were truly "designed" then it would be EXPECTED that LOTS of organisms would have opposable thumbs with extraordinarily fine motor skills since the DESIGNER(S) can copy that feature into LOTS of "models" to make "their" "model" more competitive.


If biology were truly "designed" then it would be EXPECTED that LOTS of organisms would have large brains capable of self-aware cognizant thought since the DESIGNER(S) can copy that feature into LOTS of "models" to make those "models" more competitive.


This is obviously NOT the case and is a strong argument AGAINST a "designer". I'm surprised [not] that "intelligent design" advocates keep ignoring it.

"creationism" ... 2000+ years worth of ABYSMAL FAILURE ... and proud of it.
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Apr 21, 2012 - 2:43PM #173
iamachildofhis
Posts: 10,675

Apr 21, 2012 -- 8:04AM, rsielin wrote:



d_p_m: This is the tree of life, a natural nested hierarchy. Find a crossed branch or a violation of the natural nested hierarchy and you have refuted ToE.


All the genome sequencing data is in the public domain if you'd like to try to prove otherwise. Have at it, LiveDog. Show us your science competence and research prowess.


BTW, they don't teach nested hierarchy in engineering or design school, they teach the opposite. But go to any university biology department and you will get your ears full of it. LOL 



If this piques your interest; a larger view here: evogeneao.com/images/Evo_large.gif


To explore any of the extensive peer reviewed work on this, go here: tolweb.org/tree



iama:  I went to your last, above, linked-to website, and right away read the following:


"The rooting of the Tree of Life, and the relationships of the major lineages, are controversial. The monophyly of Archaea is uncertain, and recent evidence for ancient lateral transfers of genes indicates that a highly complex model is needed to adequately represent the phylogenetic relationships among the major lineages of Life."


iama: Therefore, your great confidence in your boasting about " a natural nested hierarchy" is shot to pieces!


It is the Great Intelligent Designer of ALL THINGS Who is CAPABLE, certainly, of CREATING a 100% inclusion of all possible designs evidenced in life-forms from the microscopic through to the macroscopic.  Such "great power" is what "The Godhead" is capable of CREATING!


What ACTUALLY does exist, by the way, are MANY, MANY trees, each of which began at the time of their individual creations as KINDS of life-forms, which have, since, reproduced exhibiting great variation within their offspring-pool.  You have the wolf-offspring-pool-tree, the elephant / mammoth-offspring-pool-tree, the cat-offspring-pool-tree, the frog-offspring-pool-tree,  the aurochs-offspring-pool-tree, etc. 


There is NO EVIDENCE OF REPRODUCTIVE RELATIONSHIP as the "tree of life" has been illustrated!


.

The wonder of Christmas is that the God Who dwelt among us, now, can dwell within us. - Roy Lessin
.
"Father, forgive them for they know not what they do."
.
Justice is receiving what you deserve.
Mercy is NOT receiving what you deserve.
Grace is receiving what you DO NOT deserve.
.
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Apr 21, 2012 - 3:13PM #174
Ken
Posts: 33,859

Apr 21, 2012 -- 2:43PM, iamachildofhis wrote:

There is NO EVIDENCE OF REPRODUCTIVE RELATIONSHIP as the "tree of life" has been illustrated!



But you don't really know anything about it, do you?

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Apr 21, 2012 - 3:29PM #175
iamachildofhis
Posts: 10,675

Apr 21, 2012 -- 10:25AM, Midutch wrote:



LiveDog: I once watched a computer program run, that produced fractal images - an instance of nested hierarchies. Does that mean the computer AND the program are products of purely natural processes? A designer can and does employ nested hierarchies.


No they don't. Not even human ones. You obviously don't know what a nested hierarchy is.


Midutch: Nested hierarchy DISproves "intelligent design".



iama:  To the contrary, the vast completeness of the created life-forms elevates the INTELLIGENT DESIGNER!  One "great power and Godhead" is to be praised and worshiped as one realizes the Intelligence and power which was required "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth," and "all that in them is."  Each individual life-form KIND was a member of a grand coverage of all possible life-form entities, from the microscopic to the macroscopic life-forms.  Get your mind around the vastness of the feat which is in evidence, 6,000 years hence!  Each of those original life-form KINDS / individual tree-root-KINDS, which has become "trees of an original, individual life-form KIND." Frogs have reproduced evidencing, currently, a great variation-frog-tree. Aurochs have reproduced, evidencing, currently, a great variation-auroch-tree.  Elephant / mastadons have reproduced, evidencing, currently (via fossil and living), a great variation-elephant / mastadon-tree, etc.  Every originally created life-form KIND is NOT reproductively related to any other created life-form KIND, and each KIND may be represented by its own individual KIND-variation-tree.


Midutch: TYPICAL design is a clean sheet where some elements of the design are taken from earlier predecessor models but NEW features from a wide range of sources and even from COMPETING MODELS, that the predecessor did NOT have, are incorporated.



iama: What you are missing is the fact that there was ONE HIGHLY INTELLIGENT AND POWERFUL DESIGNER!  He is the Designer Who began with the "clean sheet" in eternity, and designed the complete life-form entities.  His "clean sheet" became filled with all of the KIND possibilities for life-forms, and sequentially spoke them into this The Creation-existence "In the beginning God..."


Again, what the evolution-speculation is GLARINGLY MISSING, is evidence for the claim of reproductive relationship of all life-forms!  That evidence is NON-EXISTENT!


Midutch: That is why when a few cars started having radios/cd players/computers designed and built into them, all of a sudden ALL cars started having radios/cd players/computers designed and built into them, Even more astonishingly, this design was incorporated beyond automotive hierarchical boundaries into motorcycles, boats, air planes, trains, space ships, etc. as well.


In an evolutionary process, ONLY the cars that are descended from the cars that "evolved" radios/cd players/computers would have them (let alone motorcycles, boats, air planes, trains, space ships, etc.). This is what is meant by NESTED HIERARCHY.



iama:  Again, there is absolutely NO SCIENTIFICALLY GATHERED EVIDENCE which specifically OBSERVED the speculated claim that the "biblically, reproductively, isolated KINDs of life-forms" are related as per the evolution speculation.  OBSERVATION is required, and observational-evidence is always missing.  Dawkins stated that it has NEVER BEEN OBSERVED!


Midutch: That is why when one TV manufacturer designed and built color TV's, all of a sudden ALL TV manufacturers designed and built color TVs.


In an evolutionary process, ONLY the TVs that are descended from the TV that "evolved" color would have them. This is what is meant by NESTED HIERARCHY.



iama:  Again, it is always a DESIGNER who includes the design element into the product / life-form!



Midutch: That is why when one car manufacturer designed and built in cup holders, all of a sudden ALL manufacturers designed and built in cup holders.


In an evolutionary process ONLY the cars that are descended from the car that "evolved" cup holders would have them. This is what is meant by NESTED HIERARCHY.



iama:  Our Creator-God, The Intelligent Designer, chose, to design each and every individual life-form KIND according to HIS PLAN AND PURPOSE!


Midutch: If biology were truly "designed" then ALL organisms COULD incorporate NEW features from a wide range of sources and even from COMPETING MODELS to make them more competitive.



iama:  All life-forms ARE DESIGNED such that they were given reproductive variation capabilities, but always within their individually, conserved DNA-KIND information-codes.


Midutch: If biology were truly "designed" then it would be EXPECTED that some reptiles and mammals would have feathered wings since the DESIGN is so efficient and the DESIGNER(S) can copy the feathered wing DESIGN from competing "models" to make "their" "model" more competitive.



iama:  Each and every individually created KIND of life-form was created, specifically, such that it would have a specific purpose for its existence.  Some life-forms live only in water and are fitted for that environment-habitat.  Some life-forms were fitted such that they are capable of moving from place to place via the space above the Earth's surface.  Larger life-forms were given various locomotion capabilities of climbing, moving through tree branches, walking, etc. Some life-forms were designed to meet human and animal food requirements.  There were, "In the beginning" along with humans, feathered reptiles, as the fossil evidence of life-forms destroyed by The Flood, evidence.


Midutch: If biology were truly "designed" then it would be EXPECTED that LOTS of organisms would have opposable thumbs with extraordinarily fine motor skills since the DESIGNER(S) can copy that feature into LOTS of "models" to make "their" "model" more competitive.



iama:  All life-forms are designed as they were intended to exist / function.  If they needed a specific type of thumb, they received that specific type of thumb. 


Midutch: If biology were truly "designed" then it would be EXPECTED that LOTS of organisms would have large brains capable of self-aware cognizant thought since the DESIGNER(S) can copy that feature into LOTS of "models" to make those "models" more competitive.



iama: Our Intelligent Designer only created Human Beings capable of personal relationship with Himself, having Intellect, Emotion, and Volition capabilities - "in His image."


Midutch: This is obviously NOT the case and is a strong argument AGAINST a "designer". I'm surprised [not] that "intelligent design" advocates keep ignoring it.



iama:  We, human beings, exist in The Creation which was designed, "In the beginning..." for a specific purpose.  Each and every created life-form entity has its / his / her given roll to play / fill during its / his / her life-time.


You will have a different understanding if you are willing to allow The Intelligent Designer to have the "clean sheet" in His eternity where He planned The Creation, including all of the KINDs of life-forms.  Human beings were His final design entity, and the reason for The Creation.  Our Creator-God planned to incarnate / become a human being, so He designed human beings in such a way that the incarnation was possible - "in OUR (Godhead) likeness."


.

The wonder of Christmas is that the God Who dwelt among us, now, can dwell within us. - Roy Lessin
.
"Father, forgive them for they know not what they do."
.
Justice is receiving what you deserve.
Mercy is NOT receiving what you deserve.
Grace is receiving what you DO NOT deserve.
.
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Apr 21, 2012 - 3:55PM #176
rsielin
Posts: 4,522

Apr 21, 2012 -- 2:43PM, iamachildofhis wrote:

iama:  I went to your last, above, linked-to website, and right away read the following:


"The rooting of the Tree of Life, and the relationships of the major lineages, are controversial.


Of course there's academic controversy.  That's how professional science is done. However, there's absolutely no controversy with the fact that creation science is thoroughly refuted and discredited. There's no solace for you in any of this devastating empirical evidence against creationism.


The monophyly of Archaea is uncertain, and recent evidence for ancient lateral transfers of genes indicates that a highly complex model is needed to adequately represent the phylogenetic relationships among the major lineages of Life."


No ones says this science is not complex. At the level of single celled life, gene transfer is not sexual and the tracing of lineages does become complex. however, complexity has never been a problem for science, especially since the advent of genome sequencing technology. To be sure, the data continues to accumulate that clearly corroborates and confirms common ancestry and its strict naturally nested hierarchical pattern - the very antithesis of design. 


iama: Therefore, your great confidence in your boasting about " a natural nested hierarchy" is shot to pieces!


You only can wish.


The same challenge is open for you as for LiveDog. The genome sequencing data is in the public domain.  You or any of your so called creation scientist friends can demonstrate their science competence and research prowess by finding any empirical evidence for a clear crossed branch or any violation of the strict nested hierarchy.


I will first suggest you all remove your creation science distortion glasses before you start if you want to not be laughed at again.

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Apr 21, 2012 - 6:01PM #177
Ken
Posts: 33,859

Apr 21, 2012 -- 3:29PM, iamachildofhis wrote:

You will have a different understanding if you are willing to allow The Intelligent Designer to have the "clean sheet" in His eternity where He planned The Creation, including all of the KINDs of life-forms.  Human beings were His final design entity, and the reason for The Creation.  Our Creator-God planned to incarnate / become a human being, so He designed human beings in such a way that the incarnation was possible - "in OUR (Godhead) likeness."



You mean God has buttocks and armpit hair and ear wax and all that stuff? Seriously?

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Apr 21, 2012 - 6:26PM #178
amcolph
Posts: 17,692

Seriously.  Evolution has no predetermined outcome.  If you ran evolution over from the beginning you might get sentient beings again, but they would not necessarily look anything like Jesus. Wink

This post contains no advertisements or solicitations.
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Apr 21, 2012 - 6:50PM #179
Ken
Posts: 33,859

Apr 21, 2012 -- 3:55PM, rsielin wrote:


Apr 21, 2012 -- 2:43PM, iamachildofhis wrote:

Therefore, your great confidence in your boasting about " a natural nested hierarchy" is shot to pieces!


You only can wish.


The same challenge is open for you as for LiveDog. The genome sequencing data is in the public domain.  You or any of your so called creation scientist friends can demonstrate their science competence and research prowess by finding any empirical evidence for a clear crossed branch or any violation of the strict nested hierarchy.


I will first suggest you all remove your creation science distortion glasses before you start if you want to not be laughed at again.



Iama doesn't know what "genome sequencing" or "nested hierarchy" mean, and you won't succeed in teaching her.

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Apr 21, 2012 - 7:15PM #180
McAtheist
Posts: 8,259

iam: Get your mind around the vastness of the feat which is in evidence, 6,000 years hence!  Each of those original life-form KINDS / individual tree-root-KINDS, which has become "trees of an original, individual life-form KIND."


Nope.


YECism still fails to explain how 2 ark "kind" individuals, inheriting at most 2 alleles each of any given gene, can produce descendents that have hundreds of alleles some genes. YECism fails.


Nor has the YEC team been able to produce evidence of any biological mechanism that would create so many new variations in the limited time since the flood. YECism fails.


Nor does the YEC "model" explain why monkeys and apes, which are not the same "kind" lie closer to each other in nested hierarchies than monkeys and squirrels.  YECism fails.


Nor does the YEC model explain why whales and hippos, which are not the same "kind" and which were not even created on the same day, lie closer to each other in the same hierarchies than whales and sharks or hippos and monkeys.  YECism fails.


Nor does the YEC "model" have the slightest reasonable explanation for why humans, who were created completely separately from all the animals, are closer to chimps and orangutangs in these nested hierarchies than monkeys are.  YECism fails.


So, to summarize a response to your post, consisted of nothing but preaching a completely unsubstantiated layman's opinion:  yawn --- wake me up if YECism ever gets a single piece of actual scientific data to back any of this crap up.

Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 18 of 22  •  Prev 1 ... 16 17 18 19 20 ... 22 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook