Venus Mousetrap
Posts: 201
Joined: Aug. 2007
|
| Quote (charlie wagner @ Aug. 22 2008,17:37) | | Quote | | What is the difference between 'religious creationism' and 'magic man done it creationism'? |
What is the difference between darwinism and "magic man done it evolution?"
lets see what Professor Doolittle has to say on this subject:
http://www-biology.ucsd.edu/faculty/doolittle.html
"Tissue factor appears..."
"Prothrombin appears..."
"A Thrombin receptor is fashioned..."
"Fibrinogen is born..."
"Antithrombin III appears..."
"Plasminogen is generated..."
Antiplasmin arises..."
"A thrombin-activatable protein is unleashed..."
"Plasminogen activator springs forth..."
"Stuart factor appears..."
Wow!!! All that springing and leaping!!! With all due respect to
Professor Doolittle, he attributes these leaps and springs to gene
duplication and by undirected, random duplication and recombination of
gene pieces. The first problem is, however, that if a gene is
duplicated, it would not immediately have these new, necessary
properties, it would produce a protein with the old properties! How did
these new, duplicated genes acquire these new properties? |
I know it's an esoteric process you may not have heard of, but it's called evolution.
If a gene is duplicated, the organism still has the functionality of the old gene, as you point out, which means that a mutation in that section is now no longer as dangerous to the organism. This is one reason why irreducible complexity is a load of bollocks; this gene duplication process is a safety net which gives the genome more material to play with - and not only that, but material which ALREADY is in a useful shape, and which could easily be bent to other shapes.
And guess what? Because this isn't some undefined, wishy-washy bullshit like 'intelligence only comes from intelligence', we can actually test it with simulations, maybe even by looking at real genes.
And guess what? When we look at DNA, we often find sequences which look EXACTLY LIKE they were duplicated in this way.
And then you come along and wonder why we can't accept the obvious truth that stuff looks designed. Hello? We can has evidence for our position. Try some.
| Quote |
If we relegate
the new functions to shuffling of gene pieces or beneficial mutations,
how many worthless, unusable proteins would have to be tried before the
correct one was "found"?
|
English plz?
| Quote |
Professor Doolittle also does not answer the
crucial questions of how much factor is formed, where is it formed and
how fast is it formed. Any changes in the exact location, quantity and
timing of the appearance of these factors would produce inappropriate
clots, that would harm the organism. All of the factors have to be
introduced at the same time, in the correct proportions and in the
correct location for the whole system to work. |
You know this how? I don't believe you. Show me why this is true.
| Quote | In short, Professor Doolittle's explanation doesn't hold...blood :-)
How is this different from magic?
|
Because one is testable, and one involves pixies.
| Quote |
|
|
[B][/B] 
