Can't Believe in Human Evolution From Chimps

Originally posted by AMANNAMEDQUEST
DNA functions as the carrier of the informational instructions (much like letters in writing) for specifying the building of all the structures in living things, as well as the functions they carry out. Although the parts of DNA and proteins bond together using perfectly normal chemical laws and forces, there are no known laws or properties of chemistry or physics which could probably (without intelligent intervention) initially dictate, determine or produce the sequential order of the nucleotides which build functional DNA / RNA, nor produce the sequential order of the amino acids to build a functional class of proteins ---in fact, it is the capacity of the building blocks of DNA and protein to occur in virtually any conceivable order, which makes them useful for building DNA and protein. --In short: There is nothing known in the physics or chemistry of matter which could initially produce the FCS information in DNA, RNA or proteins.

And the evidence that this cannot occur naturally is where ???

Originally posted by DarkSide

Originally posted by AMANNAMEDQUEST
DNA functions as the carrier of the informational instructions (much like letters in writing) for specifying the building of all the structures in living things, as well as the functions they carry out. Although the parts of DNA and proteins bond together using perfectly normal chemical laws and forces, there are no known laws or properties of chemistry or physics which could probably (without intelligent intervention) initially dictate, determine or produce the sequential order of the nucleotides which build functional DNA / RNA, nor produce the sequential order of the amino acids to build a functional class of proteins ---in fact, it is the capacity of the building blocks of DNA and protein to occur in virtually any conceivable order, which makes them useful for building DNA and protein. --In short: There is nothing known in the physics or chemistry of matter which could initially produce the FCS information in DNA, RNA or proteins.

And the evidence that this cannot occur naturally is where ???

Better yet, show me evidence where this occurs naturally. Id like an actual debate, not a shoot down of everything I'm trying to say.

I for one believe in evolution. On the subject of Creationism vs. Naturalism, I find myself on the fence. However, this is a forum for debate, and I will take both sides to make sure all the stones are turned over. I for one have an open mind. So the one liners here will not cut it. Now lets debate shall we?

Originally posted by AMANNAMEDQUEST
Better yet, show me evidence where this occurs naturally. Id like an actual debate, not a shoot down of everything I'm trying to say.

That's not necessary. The burden of proof lies on the side of the one making the argument. You keep insisting that intelligence is necessary for this to happen, when there's no evidence supporting it.

Simply put, we see evolution happening all around us, all the time. It's our own ego that makes us think that here is something more to it. "I'm awesome, I can't be a fluke, someone must've put me here"

If we get rid of ego, and focus on the evidence, we'll see that there is a perfectly natural, not necessarily intelligent process by which we developed.

Attempts to account for the origin of biological information by natural biochemical means have utterly failed. The odds of achieving even a small 100 amino acid protein are less than 1 in 10 125. Events of that small a probability just don't happen. Not only that, but researchers now realize that natural forces are incapable of achieving the formation of bio-information by any process. Show me an example or evidence where DNA occurred naturally.


1. The objection that DNA is not a code (it is, by universal definition)

2. The objection that information is not real (it is, because it produces real effects)

3. The objection that information has no objective meaning (it does, because the real organization it produces is objective and demonstrable)

4. The objection that random processes can create information (they can't)

5. The objection that codes do occur naturally (they don't)

6. The objection that the nature of the Designer cannot be determined (in very broad terms, it can)

Originally posted by AMANNAMEDQUEST
Not only that, but researchers now realize that natural forces are incapable of achieving the formation of bio-information by any process. Show me an example or evidence where DNA occurred naturally.

Again, you miss the point. just because something is rare, doesn't mean it doesn't happen. It's a big universe, and the conditions can be right somewhere. And don't count out natural forces. You seem to think that because we haven't observed it, that it can't happen naturally. Not only that, but it's an even larger leap to assume that because we can't explain it, it is the work of God. (And yes intelligent design needs an intelligent designer)

1. The objection that DNA is not a code (it is, by universal definition)

Sure, one formed naturally over millions of generations.

2. The objection that information is not real (it is, because it produces real effects)

Not sure what you mean by this one. Please explain.

3. The objection that information has no objective meaning (it does, because the real organization it produces is objective and demonstrable)

Again, is this supposed to be evidence of a larger intelligence? Please explain.

4. The objection that random processes can create information (they can't)

Why not? The formation of a pulsar is a random process. They emit radio waves that can seem to be "designed" or controlled, but are in fact simply emissions based on their rotation. On-off-on-off-on-off. Just like binary code. This is "intelligent information", if you interpret it in a certain (wrong) way.

5. The objection that codes do occur naturally (they don't)

See above.

6. The objection that the nature of the Designer cannot be determined (in very broad terms, it can)

notice the capital D in designer.

No one has shown conclusively that there is any intelligence in the design, so how can anyone begin to understand the nature of the designer, outside of a philosophical means that is.

If you want to believe that there is a "God" or "Designer" that's fine, but you can't show it scientifically.

Raso you are not using scientific method to answer quest. Just the old 'million of years to develop' argument. Quest was right, the formation of nucleotides is a miniscule event compared to the evolution of DNA as a code.

And, Raso, how did DNA code for the enzymes that it needed to replicate unless the enzymes existed before?

In other words, the egg or chicken hypothesis. Which came first because DNA may not be able to accurately replicate without a DNA polymerase -type enzyme. If it cannot replicate accurately, there is no stable code and no evolution.

Originally posted by Heronumber0
Raso you are not using scientific method to answer quest....

Well, I have something to confess....

I'm not a geneticist. And, I haven't studied the evolution of DNA in depth, but then again, I'll assume you haven't either.

As for scientific method..Please explain to me how assuming that there was intelligence in the process is scientific method? From what I can see, ID simply points to unexplained items in evolutionary theory, then inputs creation as the only other option.

Not much for scientific method.

Originally posted by Rasobasi420
Not much for scientific method.

Bingo.

ID has like no evidence to support it. The only reason it stills exists is because, poor us, don't know everything. As long as we lack some knowledge about any subject, ID will slip in.

Quick, off the top of your head...

What's the square root of Pi????

Times up!!

Must be Jesus!

Sorry Raso, let me explain in more simple terms:

DNA is found in the nucleus of cells. It has a code for proteins to be made. The code has to be accurate to a great degree otherwise mutation would occur. In fact it codes for around 20 amino acids which are the building blocks of proteins. When a cell divides, it copies the DNA inside the nucleus so that one copy goes to each cell.

Each cell has to have identical copies of DNA. The DNA is copied by a series of enzymes but the main enzyme is DNA polymerase which speeds up the replication. If the DNA polymerase makes mistakes, it can lead to mutations. However mutations can be dangerous to an individual and lead to cancers in some cases.

Bladder carcinoma is caused by a mutation in a single letter of the DNA code, as an example.

All I said was, which came first? The enzyme coded for by the DNA or the DNA?

If the DNA evolved first, it would not replicate unless it had the enzyme. If the DNA polymerase came first, there would be no Natural Selection for it because it would not have a function.

This is an open question to any Molecular Biologist. Please use analogies- I would love to hear them.

So Heron, since it's an unanswered question, and if you don't get an answer, what is the conclusion? By that I mean, if there is no answer, does that mean that an intelligence must have been behind it, even though there's no evidence for that either?

But Raso, I am on your evolutionist ground. All I am asking is that did the chicken come first or the egg? All I can say is that the Universe seemed to be waiting for humans to appreciate its beauty and that consciousness and language are amazingly improbable events to happen to just one species. I can only atttribute amazingly improbable events to be guided by an invisible Hand. This needs a Kierkegaardian 'Leap of Faith.' Sometimes we have to abandon scientific reasoning for inductive reasoning. My heart tells me one thing and your heart tells you another. It does not stop us from reasoning and understanding each other better.

Originally posted by Heronumber0


Each cell has to have identical copies of DNA. The DNA is copied by a series of enzymes but the main enzyme is DNA polymerase which speeds up the replication. If the DNA polymerase makes mistakes, it can lead to mutations. However mutations can be dangerous to an individual and lead to cancers in some cases.

Bladder carcinoma is caused by a mutation in a single letter of the DNA code, as an example.

And that part is fine, and pretty simple to understand (even for a dumb-bell like me), but you say yourself, it occurs in some, not all cases. In some cases the mutation is a lateral change, causing no problems, but serving as no benefit. In some cases the change is a positive one, leading to a productive, evolutionary change.

Originally posted by Heronumber0
All I said was, which came first? The enzyme coded for by the DNA or the DNA?

If the DNA evolved first, it would not replicate unless it had the enzyme. If the DNA polymerase came first, there would be no Natural Selection for it because it would not have a function.

As for the DNA polymerase, it's an enzyme, not something living unto itself, so it's "evolution" is not necessary. It's simply a protein strand, which is found very often in nature without life. It simply acts as a catalyst for the evolution, and change of the DNA. Which means, that the enzyme could have existed in and of itself without DNA's involvement. But, when it encountered a strand of DNA for the first time it initiated the replication of said DNA.

But, as I said before, I'm no geneticist, so I could be mistaken. I do know that I'd rather find out for sure though, than to assume it was Jesus, or Allah, or Yaweh, or Zeus mating with a bull.

But Raso, the point is that all proteins have to be coded for by DNA. It cannot exist by itself without function because the cell machinery would not make a functionless protein. These are evolutionist arguments.

Originally posted by Heronumber0
But Raso, the point is that all proteins have to be coded for by DNA.

That's one way, but proteins can also be coded through chemical syntheses, which doesn't involve genetic coding at all. Which means, it could have been a fluke.

[edit on 9-5-2007 by Rasobasi420]

That's one way, but proteins can also be coded through chemical syntheses, which doesn't involve genetic coding at all. Which means, it could have been a fluke.

I'm afraid I do not know of a replicable chemically synthetic process which can make proteins which then are functionless. This defies the Law of Natural Selection. Even enzymes need some form of selection otherwise they would not hang about.

In fact, if I had written educated guesses I would have been burned at the stake by atheists for my ID views. (Just kidding)

Well, reading this page, there seem to be a lot of theories on the subject

en.wikipedia.org...

And with this many reasonable possibilities, I don't see how intelligent creation needs to be an option, other than for one's own philosophical ego.

Originally posted by Heronumber0
But Raso, the point is that all proteins have to be coded for by DNA.

Actually, they don't. Protein can also be waste byproducts from digestion.

It cannot exist by itself without function because the cell machinery would not make a functionless protein.

If there's errors in the DNA instructions, they certainly can and do crank out harmful proteins.