- 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 7:41 pm to Cosmo
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 BlackHelicopterPilot
quote:
I cannot understand the argument that "life is too complex to explain...thus an even MORE complex GAWD must have done it"
Read.
DNA had to be a precursor for life.
Where did DNA come from?
It is more complex than the life it creates.
This post was edited on 3/18/14 at 7:51 pm
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 7:52 pm to Scoop
quote:
Read.
quote:
Where did DNA come from?
It is more complex than the life it creates.
But, NOT more complex that the Creator?
Again...how can you use "it is too complex" as your argument and then use it to prop up the idea of a MORE complex system (being)?
I have ZERO problem with anyone having faith. But, this argument collapses upon itself. It is just poor logic.
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 7:57 pm to BlackHelicopterPilot
Believing in the darwinistic veiw of evolution or intelligent design requires a certain element of faith as neither can be proven nor disproven
Posted on 3/18/14 at 7:58 pm to BlackHelicopterPilot
quote:
BlackHelicopterPilot
I don't think he is arguing it has to be made by a creator, unless I'm understanding him wrong.
Looks to me he is just trying to understand how te evolutionary side of it explains where DNA came from.
Posted on 3/18/14 at 7:59 pm to GoCrazyAuburn
Posted on 3/18/14 at 8:02 pm to GoCrazyAuburn
quote:
I don't think he is arguing it has to be made by a creator, unless I'm understanding him wrong.
Looks to me he is just trying to understand how te evolutionary side of it explains where DNA came from.
OP
quote:
the origin of DNA is what makes Intelligent design a plausible thing.
I am arguing THIS idea...that the complexity makes the Creator plausible.
I am NOT arguing with anyone who "Believes". I am arguing this one specific point
This post was edited on 3/18/14 at 8:03 pm
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 8:03 pm to BlackHelicopterPilot
Labeled the spontaneous emergence of life "a miracle" .....I agree
Posted on 3/18/14 at 8:05 pm to Scoop
quote:
It is more complex than the life it creates.
What does this even mean?
Posted on 3/18/14 at 8:06 pm to Volvagia
quote:
What does this even mean?
I chose to narrow my focus....but, I, too, thought that was cute
Posted on 3/18/14 at 8:14 pm to Volvagia
quote:Exactly.
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.
In theory you start off with free floating nucleotides in the "primordial soup".
A few phosphodiester bonds linking a chain with hydrogen bonds forming up a correspondent chain, and voilà.
It's never been duplicated in the lab, but it does not seem impossible given expansive time and environment.
Posted on 3/18/14 at 8:18 pm to BlackHelicopterPilot
quote:
I cannot understand the argument that "life is too complex to explain...thus an even MORE complex GAWD must have done it"
Some will never get it
Posted on 3/18/14 at 8:22 pm to mattloc
Evolution has proven itself time and again
Are we really running around this tree again?
Are we really running around this tree again?
Page 1 of 13
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News