Is the undeniable DNA evidence of Design, the Silver Bullet to the worn out Evolutionary Theory?

Answer 1

DNA evidence supports evolution in every respect... what are you talking about?

The theory of evolution is one of the longest-standing theories in science. It has been analysed, tested, scrutinsed and challenged in every possible manner, both scientific and theological and the essential core of evolution has remained intact. The only changes that have occurred have been refinements to incorporate new knowledge and facts, such as the mutation rate of DNA, genetics and inheritance, all of which entirely support the premise of evolution by natural selection and entirely refute the fantasy of so-called "intelligent" design which has been shown time after time to be neither intelligent nor design.

Answer 2

yes you have hit the nail on the head. it is figured that for a mutatution to survive and reproduce is 10 to the 80th power.just a little while ago there were scientist discussed junk DNA and they said it was needed because it separted important parts of the DNA strain.


Life in a Bottle
Anyone old enough in 1953 to understand the
import of the news remembers how shocking, and to many,
exhilarating, it was. Scientists Stanley Miller and Harold
Urey had succeeded in creating “the building blocks” of
life in a flask. Mimicking what were believed to be the
natural conditions of the early Earth’s atmosphere, and then
sending an electric spark through it, Miller and Urey had
formed simple amino acids. As amino acids are the “building
blocks” of life, it was thought just a matter of time
before scientists could themselves create living organisms.
At the time, it appeared a dramatic confirmation of
evolutionary theory. Life wasn’t a “miracle.” No outside
agency or divine intelligence was necessary. Put the right
gasses together, add electricity, and life is bound to happen.
It’s a common event. Carl Sagan could thus confidently
predict on PBS that the planets orbiting those “billlllions
and billlllions” of stars out there must be just teeming with
life.
There were problems, however. Scientists were
never able to get beyond the simplest amino acids in their
simulated primordial environment, and the creation of proteins
began to seem not a small step or couple of steps, but
a great, perhaps impassable, divide.
The telling blow to the Miller-Urey experiment,
however, came in the 1970’s, when scientists began to conclude
that the Earth’s early atmosphere was nothing like the
mixture of gasses used by Miller and Urey. Instead of being
what scientists call a “reducing,” or hydrogen-rich environment,
the Earth’s early atmosphere probably consisted of
gasses released by volcanoes. Today there is a near consensus
among geochemists on this point. But put those volcanic
gasses in the Miller-Urey apparatus, and the experiment
doesn’t work – in other words, no “building blocks” of life.
What do textbooks do with this inconvenient fact?
By and large, they ignore it and continue to use the Miller-
Urey experiment to convince students that scientists have
demonstrated an important first step in the origin of life.
This includes the above-mentioned Molecular Biology of
the Cell, co-authored by the National Academy of Sciences
president, Bruce Alberts. Most textbooks also go on to tell
students that origin-of-life researchers have found a wealth
of other evidence to explain how life originated spontaneously
– but they don’t tell students that the researchers themselves
now acknowledge that the explanation still eludes
them.

Answer 3

I agree with Ree Ree and others ... details please?

Otherwise you just make statements without foundation ... which neither proves nor disproves anything.

As a great example, from rap1361 (just before he copy-pastes a long article from the Discovery Institute ... *without crediting them* ... and thus implying that he wrote it himself):

>"it is figured that for a mutatution to survive and reproduce is 10 to the 80th power."

Only a creationist would think that prefacing a statement with "it is figured" makes it sound more true. "It is figured" ... by *WHOM*? A respected scientist ... or some hack on a web site? How about a source, or a link, so we can evaluate this statement? How is this computed? What are the assumptions?

Is it really too much to ask?

{edit}

rap1361, thanks for addressing my points. I understand that it's possible to forget to mention a source ... but this is one reason it's a better idea to *link* the source rather than a huge copy-paste.

But, I'm sorry, when you make a statement like "it is figured that for a mutatution to survive and reproduce is 10 to the 80th power." that's a rather precise claim and you've given no way to evaluate it. It doesn't help that this is a well-known creationist (Hugh Ross) in a personal conversation with you quoting a biologist you cannot remember. I would dispute such an astronomical number, but I can't even see what assumptions he started with.

Answer 4

1) No

2) Evidence of design is, in all cases, wishful thinking

3) Evolution theory is not "worn out" although it's supporters probably are considering the amount of crap they have to take from people like you.

4) You do realise that DNA is a very bad method of storing information don't you? An intelligent designer would provide a method of storing information that isn't prone to copying errors and duplication among other things. Comparing it to a computer file system is fine if you compare it to a paper card reader that chews up the cards from time to time.

Answer 5

Yes, because DNA molecules are basically information systems. They are like programs in a computer. Information cannot come by random chance, by matter, mutations or energy, only from a greater source of information. What is that greater source of information? See Genesis 1:1

Answer 6

DNA, on the contrary, is evidence of evolution, and the lack of any design. Amoni acids and basic viruses have been created in the laboratory in situations that mimic the "promordial" soup.

Answer 7

Is the millenia of genecide the Silver Bullet to the "Love Thy Neighbor" theory?

Answer 8

What "undeniable evidence of design?"

Answer 9

bwaaaahahahaha. All our junk DNA is conclusive proof of evolution you dolt.

Answer 10

Details, please. I have yet to read in any major established medical journal that there is evidence of "holy DNA".