- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Evolution vs intelligent design question.
Posted on 3/18/14 at 7:30 pm
Posted on 3/18/14 at 7:30 pm
Motivated by Cosmos.
My stance is that I completely agree with the theory of evolution. Over the course of millions and millions of years, random genetic mutations that by accident result in an advantage in a particular environment for the creatures that have it result in their rise while those without it are bred out.
I get it.
I also get how random mutations slowly created incredibly complex things over millions of years such as our senses and the biological infrastructure that supports them.
I get it.
What I don't get is the essence of the evolution vs intelligent design debate: DNA
The most incredibly complex thing in the Universe is DNA.
While those that believe in evolution cite it, I've not heard any explanation as to how it came to be in a vacuum. DNA is more complex than any biological entity it creates.
Like I said, I believe evolution is clear science, but the origin of DNA is what makes Intelligent design a plausible thing.
My stance is that I completely agree with the theory of evolution. Over the course of millions and millions of years, random genetic mutations that by accident result in an advantage in a particular environment for the creatures that have it result in their rise while those without it are bred out.
I get it.
I also get how random mutations slowly created incredibly complex things over millions of years such as our senses and the biological infrastructure that supports them.
I get it.
What I don't get is the essence of the evolution vs intelligent design debate: DNA
The most incredibly complex thing in the Universe is DNA.
While those that believe in evolution cite it, I've not heard any explanation as to how it came to be in a vacuum. DNA is more complex than any biological entity it creates.
Like I said, I believe evolution is clear science, but the origin of DNA is what makes Intelligent design a plausible thing.
18
Posted on 3/18/14 at 7:33 pm to Scoop
Lightning struck a pond of goop and booooom. DNA.
Not really. I do believe in a higher power creating the initial building blocks for life.
Not really. I do believe in a higher power creating the initial building blocks for life.
This post was edited on 3/18/14 at 7:34 pm
Posted on 3/18/14 at 7:37 pm to Scoop
quote:
The most incredibly complex thing in the Universe is DNA.
More complex than a Creator? A superbeing GAWD is LESS complex?
I cannot understand the argument that "life is too complex to explain...thus an even MORE complex GAWD must have done it"
Posted on 3/18/14 at 7:50 pm to Scoop
This is the advertisement that appeared under this thread. Really?!
Posted on 3/18/14 at 7:50 pm to Scoop
quote:
The most incredibly complex thing in the Universe is DNA
I always thought it was Sudoku
Posted on 3/18/14 at 7:56 pm to Scoop
quote:
While those that believe in evolution cite it, I've not heard any explanation as to how it came to be in a vacuum. DNA is more complex than any biological entity it creates.
Its hard to know. A lot of scientist believe the RNA came into existence first, and eventually formed DNA, but like biogenesis it is hard to know. It is also likely that we will ever know. we can put together DNA in a lab all we want, but it is gonna be hard to understand if that is the condition in which it happened.
Posted on 3/18/14 at 8:02 pm to Scoop
This is a very complicated subject to discuss with those without a science background is one of the problem.
Another is the fact that it is pretty much all guess work.
There is substantial evidence that preceding DNA, things were primarily RNA, both in terms of data storage and catalytic compound. Elements of this predecessor system is evident in several places.
Beyond that it is guesswork due to the fact that biochemistry and molecular genetics leave no fossils, and we are talking 4+ billion years old stuff.
We made some guesses that are pretty good about how it got started, but no evidence, and no connection between these starting points and RNA.
Another is the fact that it is pretty much all guess work.
There is substantial evidence that preceding DNA, things were primarily RNA, both in terms of data storage and catalytic compound. Elements of this predecessor system is evident in several places.
Beyond that it is guesswork due to the fact that biochemistry and molecular genetics leave no fossils, and we are talking 4+ billion years old stuff.
We made some guesses that are pretty good about how it got started, but no evidence, and no connection between these starting points and RNA.
Posted on 3/18/14 at 9:11 pm to Scoop
quote:DNA is actually a vastly advanced society. Life as we know it is nothing more than the tools they created for their own advancement
DNA is more complex than any biological entity it creates.
This post was edited on 3/18/14 at 9:13 pm
Posted on 3/18/14 at 11:49 pm to Scoop
quote:
My stance is that I completely agree with the theory of evolution.
The phrasing of this statement makes it seem like you don't understand it.
quote:
but the origin of DNA is what makes Intelligent design a plausible thing.
How so?
Posted on 3/19/14 at 6:03 am to Scoop
Man's biggest perplexity
per·plex·i·ty
p?r'pleksite/Submit
noun
1.
inability to deal with or understand something complicated or unaccountable.
is 'My God, how did he do that?'
Many a man has spent a lifetime trying to prove they can make life and it did not come from God. Psychiatrist would deem this denial in most parts of our existence but it is twisted to truth seeking when in terms of the Art of Science. The truth is not seen and right in front of us but many do not see.
per·plex·i·ty
p?r'pleksite/Submit
noun
1.
inability to deal with or understand something complicated or unaccountable.
is 'My God, how did he do that?'
Many a man has spent a lifetime trying to prove they can make life and it did not come from God. Psychiatrist would deem this denial in most parts of our existence but it is twisted to truth seeking when in terms of the Art of Science. The truth is not seen and right in front of us but many do not see.
Posted on 3/19/14 at 8:41 am to Scoop
quote:
Like I said, I believe evolution is clear science, but the origin of DNA is what makes Intelligent design a plausible thing.
My 2 cents Scoop.
There are complex chemical reactions in every single separate form of life, as they interact with other molecular manifestations. If we even touch an 'inanimate' form (depending on it substance)...we may chemically react, though the inanimate form may not (as far as our current ability to measure a reaction allows.
As such, by simply assuming that the evolutionary axiom of natural selection is based on interactions and the consequential reaction, and the REMEMBERED (manifest in the DNA mechanism) consequences/information therein gleaned, which then allows further educated choices toward the 'survival and prosperity' goal. It then seems that the DNA mechanism is the logical/Natural chemical manifestation which records those interactions. The ability to 'record'/memorize and employ specific choices is then based on PAST experiences - which supports a more learned future exploitation of interaction and survival and prosperity consequence - surely is no reach. In fact, it would be the manifestation of an INFINTISIMAL degree of interaction. And in that scenario...Murphy's Law would definitely apply.
DNA is the 'train' to Heaven. The Truth...is the ticket.
The Good Book says that "all things are possible". That ain't just whistling 'Dixie'; it's the Natural and Spiritual TRUTH.
Gotta teach art class.
Have fun.
Posted on 3/19/14 at 10:37 am to Scoop
Even with a big bang, somebody needs to kick the ball. The unmoved mover.
Posted on 3/19/14 at 11:01 am to Scoop
I saw, years ago a former atheist mathematician do a presentation on how he became a Christian.
I will see if I can find it, but basically he said the odds of DNA coming into existence on its own (i.e. without some sort of creator) were impossible even using the oldest of estimates for earth. It was really interesting because he started with a simple, single amino acid and determined the odds of it showing up, then another and so on until there was enough around for RNA or DNA and so on.
What he determined was it is statistically not possible for those things to just "happen" in the right sequence, at the right time no matter how long you have.
It drove him to seek other answers - very interesting stuff actually.
I will see if I can find it, but basically he said the odds of DNA coming into existence on its own (i.e. without some sort of creator) were impossible even using the oldest of estimates for earth. It was really interesting because he started with a simple, single amino acid and determined the odds of it showing up, then another and so on until there was enough around for RNA or DNA and so on.
What he determined was it is statistically not possible for those things to just "happen" in the right sequence, at the right time no matter how long you have.
It drove him to seek other answers - very interesting stuff actually.
Posted on 3/19/14 at 11:56 am to Scoop
The short answer is we do not know and likely never will in many lifetimes. It's the classic chicken/egg cyclic argument. All you can do is assume existence and not think about how the universe came into existence. Excluding any sort of intelligence involved with life on earth or anywhere else for that matter, it would seem that fundamental forces gravity and heat act on matter producing energy and from matter and energy produced the complexity we see over billions of years of evolution thus the foundation for the big bang theory. The irony is that while science tends to disregard intelligent design, it might well be the ultimate arrogance to assume that man here on earth is the most intelligent product of billions of years of evolution. Heck the whole thing could be a massive chemistry experiment for all we know. 
Posted on 3/20/14 at 7:43 am to Scoop
quote:So getting back to the OP.
I believe evolution is clear science, but the origin of DNA is what makes Intelligent design a plausible thing.
In addition to abiogenesis, there remain elements in late hominid evolution which are unclear, and so nonexclusive of plausible ID. I'm not a subscriber. I'm just not willing to deny proponents reasonable hearing until facts are in. But the arrogance involved by atheist evolutionists in outright rejection (and vicious attack) of any alternate possibility sans evidence really pisses me off.
Posted on 3/20/14 at 8:58 am to Scoop
No one really knows how life or the universe began. Even if you cook up life from scratch in a test tube, it wouldn't prove that that was what happened on this planet to start life (though I guess it would be the best evidence available). There may be more than one way to get it started.
Intelligent design should not be at odds with evolution at all. Excepting those who would rather believe some evil being put fossils in the ground to make us reject the words in a book slapped together in the bronze age, most people would believe in evolution if they better understood the progression of forms in the fossil record.
Really all you have to do to reconcile the two camps though is to say it's possible evolution is the intentional design of a creator being. The pope could do this in an afternoon.
Now whether or not you believe the current model of evolution does a good job of explaining what we see around us adds another layer to the onion.
Personally, I think one of the big sticking points is that the intelligent design crowd seems to have an almost knee-jerk response to the word "random." They don't like it there figuring prominently in shaping the world around us. And from what I can tell, while not abandoning the concept of random mutation as a driver of diversity, the scientific community seems to be learning that changes to regulation and expression of genes over time might be just as important as or more important than random mutation. Couple that with the finding that epigenetic regulatory changes are heritable, and you have a fairly credible framework to explain more rapid changes in populations which are better tuned to environmental inputs, which will be much more palatable to many compared to the old "random changes over eons" model.
Once gradeschool textbooks catch up with current science, we might see less energy wasted in this debate.
Intelligent design should not be at odds with evolution at all. Excepting those who would rather believe some evil being put fossils in the ground to make us reject the words in a book slapped together in the bronze age, most people would believe in evolution if they better understood the progression of forms in the fossil record.
Really all you have to do to reconcile the two camps though is to say it's possible evolution is the intentional design of a creator being. The pope could do this in an afternoon.
Now whether or not you believe the current model of evolution does a good job of explaining what we see around us adds another layer to the onion.
Personally, I think one of the big sticking points is that the intelligent design crowd seems to have an almost knee-jerk response to the word "random." They don't like it there figuring prominently in shaping the world around us. And from what I can tell, while not abandoning the concept of random mutation as a driver of diversity, the scientific community seems to be learning that changes to regulation and expression of genes over time might be just as important as or more important than random mutation. Couple that with the finding that epigenetic regulatory changes are heritable, and you have a fairly credible framework to explain more rapid changes in populations which are better tuned to environmental inputs, which will be much more palatable to many compared to the old "random changes over eons" model.
Once gradeschool textbooks catch up with current science, we might see less energy wasted in this debate.
Posted on 3/20/14 at 1:20 pm to Scoop
If you don't understand something then the answer must be:
God did it!
God did it!
Posted on 3/20/14 at 4:51 pm to Scoop
quote:
origin of DNA
Panspermia
Posted on 3/20/14 at 10:49 pm to Scoop
Evolution is an impulse initiated and controlled by an intelligent designer. DNA is just a blueprint. You don't just drop a blueprint off at a building site and come back a week later to find a building. Someone or something has to read the blueprint and build the building. Call that God or the Universe. The impulse of evolution is driven by intelligent design. If that is not a cosmic joke I don't know what is.
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News