Original research into intelligent design and/or creationism

[sonofdad]

OK, I'll bite. How does DNA prove macro evolution?

It doesn't prove it. Nothing will ever prove evolution.
This is science, math, the best we can do is draw logical conclusions from the available evidence.

We see DNA.
We see that every living thing that we know is made up of strings of DNA.
We see that the characteristics of an organism are determined by its DNA.
We see that there are vast similarities in the genetic code of different species that look or behave in similar ways. (for instance, a dog and a wolf or a human and a chimp)
We see that there are less similarities in the genetic code of different species that look and behave very differently (for instance, a koala and a sunflower)
(and remember, species are only classifications made up by people)

Sure, from these facts alone we could draw many different conclusions and vastly different theories. If DNA determines characteristics of organisms, then similar organisms will have similar DNA, regardless of how they came to be.

However, if we supplement this evidence with another little fact:
We see that DNA is not immutable at all, we see that it is constantly changing with every single generation. There is no apparent limit to how much the DNA of a population can change.

This leads us to the conclusion that species can change and become vastly different species given time. (we can even observe that to some extent)
If we apply uniformitarianism as well, we can theorize that species have been changing in similar ways in the past, all the way back to the first species of organisms.
Since there is so much similarity between all living things on earth, they are basically all made up of the same parts and all share some genetic code with other species, we can theorize that all originate from a single ancestral lineage, rather than multiple ones.

One of few things that could refute this would be if a mechanism that puts some kind of an upper limit on changes in DNA was demonstrated.

 

[Skwim]

A little creation I came up with.

​

 

[fantome profane]

Such work may produce hybrid types of the same plant, but within the limits set by the Creator. What is produced is variety within kinds, not new kinds. Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig, a plant geneticist reports that despite decades of experiments, efforts to create new plants have failed. After examining the evidence, Lönnig concluded: “Mutations cannot transform an original species [of plant or animal] into an entirely new one. This conclusion agrees with all the experiences and results of mutation research of the 20th century taken together as well as with the laws of probability.”

How did the creator set these limits? Where are these limits? And what is the mechanism that imposes the limit?

That might be a good subject to do research in. If you can think of anyway to do that research.

 

[mycorrhiza]

Attacking scientists like Lonnig is not an answer. What you mislabel as macro evolution is simply variety within kinds, not new plants, as Dr. Lonnigs forty years of scientific research has confirmed.

"Kind" isn't a scientific concept. It's not a taxonomic rank, but species is. Macroevolution is evolution at or above species level, and therefore speciation is macroevolution. We have observed speciation, and therefore we have solid evidence of macroevolution.

If you want to use the word "kind" in this debate, then you will have to define what it means and where you put it in the taxonomic system.

 

[Ouroboros]

It doesn't prove it. Nothing will ever prove evolution.

I disagree.

Shared tansposons and ERVs show shared ancesrtry between species, i.e. shared line of hereditary DNA in different species. This can only happen through macroevolution.

Edit
And shared mutated synonymous codos too.

 

[Alceste]

It doesn't prove it. Nothing will ever prove evolution.
This is science, math, the best we can do is draw logical conclusions from the available evidence.

We see DNA.
We see that every living thing that we know is made up of strings of DNA.
We see that the characteristics of an organism are determined by its DNA.
We see that there are vast similarities in the genetic code of different species that look or behave in similar ways. (for instance, a dog and a wolf or a human and a chimp)
We see that there are less similarities in the genetic code of different species that look and behave very differently (for instance, a koala and a sunflower)
(and remember, species are only classifications made up by people)

Sure, from these facts alone we could draw many different conclusions and vastly different theories. If DNA determines characteristics of organisms, then similar organisms will have similar DNA, regardless of how they came to be.

However, if we supplement this evidence with another little fact:
We see that DNA is not immutable at all, we see that it is constantly changing with every single generation. There is no apparent limit to how much the DNA of a population can change.

This leads us to the conclusion that species can change and become vastly different species given time. (we can even observe that to some extent)
If we apply uniformitarianism as well, we can theorize that species have been changing in similar ways in the past, all the way back to the first species of organisms.
Since there is so much similarity between all living things on earth, they are basically all made up of the same parts and all share some genetic code with other species, we can theorize that all originate from a single ancestral lineage, rather than multiple ones.

One of few things that could refute this would be if a mechanism that puts some kind of an upper limit on changes in DNA was demonstrated.

Prefect, except that I would have said "conclude" in place of "theorize".

 

[rusra02]

I disagree.

Shared tansposons and ERVs show shared ancesrtry between species, i.e. shared line of hereditary DNA in different species. This can only happen through macroevolution.

Edit
And shared mutated synonymous codos too.

Similarities in DNA can and did happen when the same Person created the vast variety of living things on earth. A common practice amongst computer programmers is to reuse code in various applications that perform quit different functions. Surely, the Creator of all life could do likewise. So your statement that this could only happen through macro evolution is simply not valid, IMO.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

Similarities in DNA can and did happen when the same Person created the vast variety of living things on earth. A common practice amongst computer programmers is to reuse code in various applications that perform quit different functions. Surely, the Creator of all life could do likewise. So your statement that this could only happen through macro evolution is simply not valid, IMO.

That's not true. If you go be genesis the creation of man and animal is very different. Animals are spoken into creation while man is made from dirt and life breathe into them. If you go by any other creation story, mans creation is always different from that of other animals. This alone wild indicate that the material we are made from should and would not match that of other animals....

 

[rusra02]

Seems as if ridicule is often used by evolutionists as a substitute for real evidence for their theory.

 

[Sunstone]

Similarities in DNA can and did happen when the same Person created the vast variety of living things on earth. A common practice amongst computer programmers is to reuse code in various applications that perform quit different functions. Surely, the Creator of all life could do likewise. So your statement that this could only happen through macro evolution is simply not valid, IMO.

The problem is your statement that implied explanation for similarities in DNA -- that a creator could do the same as computer programmers -- is non-falsifiable, while his statement that similarities in DNA indicate evolution is falsifiable. Therefore, your statement cannot be tested to determine its truth value, while his can. Or to put it differently, his is scientific, yours is not.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

Seems as if ridicule is often used by evolutionists as a substitute for real evidence for their theory.

What ridicule?

 

[rusra02]

That's not true. If you go be genesis the creation of man and animal is very different. Animals are spoken into creation while man is made from dirt and life breathe into them. If you go by any other creation story, mans creation is always different from that of other animals. This alone wild indicate that the material we are made from should and would not match that of other animals....

There is nothing in the Bible to indicate God used different means to create the first human then he did to create the animals. Psalm 139:16 speaks of God wring down all our parts in a "book". "And in your book all its parts were down in writing." I think that is a remarkably accurate statement about the human genome. How large is this book? "It is about three billion “letters,” or nucleotides (bases), long. If it were transcribed onto paper, the book would fill 200 volumes the size of a 1,000-page telephone book, according to the Human Genome Project." (Quote from g11/11 pp4-6)

 

[rusra02]

What ridicule?

The post by Skwim.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

There is nothing in the Bible to indicate God used different means to create the first human then he did to create the animals. Psalm 139:16 speaks of God wring down all our parts in a "book". "And in your book all its parts were down in writing." I think that is a remarkably accurate statement about the human genome. How large is this book? "It is about three billion “letters,” or nucleotides (bases), long. If it were transcribed onto paper, the book would fill 200 volumes the size of a 1,000-page telephone book, according to the Human Genome Project." (Quote from g11/11 pp4-6)

I'm sorry?

I'm assuming the first human beings you mention are Adam and Eve?

Genesis chapter 1 and chapter 2 either go together or not. Chapter 1 indicates that all life was made through the word and shows no gap in the creation. Chapter 2 tells the creation of Adam from dust and how he was placed. Now for those two to work it would mean one group of mankind was made, then God made Adam personally. And as such Adam would not have been the sole father of humanity. Furthermore the creation of eve is explained as taking a rib from Adam to form her. So if you agree that Adam was the first human his creation was then very different from that of animals who were spoken into being.

 

[rusra02]

The problem is your statement that implied explanation for similarities in DNA -- that a creator could do the same as computer programmers -- is non-falsifiable, while his statement that similarities in DNA indicate evolution is falsifiable. Therefore, your statement cannot be tested to determine its truth value, while his can. Or to put it differently, his is scientific, yours is not.

I am more concerned with the evidence than with meeting some arbitrary definition of what is scientific or not. And the evidence shows there are limits between families of living things that cannot be successfully transgressed. In plain language, plants and animals reproduce "according to their kinds." (Genesis 1:21) as plant geneticist Lonnig stated: "“properly defined species have real boundaries that cannot be abolished or transgressed by accidental mutations.” Lönnig further state: “Mutations cannot transform an original species into an entirely new one. This conclusion agrees with all the experiences and results of mutation research of the 20th century taken together as well as with the laws of probability.” That, IMO, is science.

 

[rusra02]

I'm sorry?

I'm assuming the first human beings you mention are Adam and Eve?

Genesis chapter 1 and chapter 2 either go together or not. Chapter 1 indicates that all life was made through the word and shows no gap in the creation. Chapter 2 tells the creation of Adam from dust and how he was placed. Now for those two to work it would mean one group of mankind was made, then God made Adam personally. And as such Adam would not have been the sole father of humanity. Furthermore the creation of eve is explained as taking a rib from Adam to form her. So if you agree that Adam was the first human his creation was then very different from that of animals who were spoken into being.

The idea that Genesis chapters 1 and 2 describe separate creations has no support in the Bible. Chapters 2 simply describes in further detail how God created life, and man's early history.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

The idea that Genesis chapters 1 and 2 describe separate creations has no support in the Bible. Chapters 2 simply describes in further detail how God created life, and man's early history.

It had support outside of the bible. But ignoring that. It does describes mans creation and animal and plant/creation and they are different. Animals and plants are spoken to be created by the earth. Man is made personally. I can see some support for evolution in there, as the mechanism for the creation of plant and animal life isn't shown, but mans particular creation is.

 

[Curious George]

If you could do research into intelligent design (or creationism) what would you do?

Hypothetically imagine you had unlimited time and resources to do your research. You could do this in the lab or in the field. You could travel to any place on earth (or space if that helps). You could have a staff of researchers of any number.

So what would you do? What would you like to research? What methodology would you use? What kind of results would you expect to find?

Sky is the limit. I look forward to hearing some interesting ideas.

I would further research DNA and try to build viruses from scratch that first insert RNA into protobionts.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I am more concerned with the evidence than with meeting some arbitrary definition of what is scientific or not. And the evidence shows there are limits between families of living things that cannot be successfully transgressed. In plain language, plants and animals reproduce "according to their kinds." (Genesis 1:21) as plant geneticist Lonnig stated: "“properly defined species have real boundaries that cannot be abolished or transgressed by accidental mutations.” Lönnig further state: “Mutations cannot transform an original species into an entirely new one. This conclusion agrees with all the experiences and results of mutation research of the 20th century taken together as well as with the laws of probability.” That, IMO, is science.

'Arbitrary'? Okay. That's one way to put it, I suppose.

1) 'Kinds' is not plain language. It is vague. Define kinds please?
2) 'This conclusion agrees with all the experiences and results of mutation research of the 20th century taken together as well as with the laws of probability.'
Even assuming that's accurate, we're in the 21st century now...
New Thoughts On Evolution: Novel Method Of Creating New Species Observed In Laboratory Yeast

 

[Sunstone]

I am more concerned with the evidence than with meeting some arbitrary definition of what is scientific or not. And the evidence shows there are limits between families of living things that cannot be successfully transgressed. In plain language, plants and animals reproduce "according to their kinds." (Genesis 1:21) as plant geneticist Lonnig stated: "“properly defined species have real boundaries that cannot be abolished or transgressed by accidental mutations.” Lönnig further state: “Mutations cannot transform an original species into an entirely new one. This conclusion agrees with all the experiences and results of mutation research of the 20th century taken together as well as with the laws of probability.” That, IMO, is science.

Drivel.