@MArco_Grubert
Quote:

Irish_Farmer has been explaining this as the result of downward evolution. I think that's the only answer that won't get you into theological hot water.

Well, if you consider that DNA we have today is a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy of DNA, it is really amazing that we can live to sit here and talk about evolution at all! Which speaks to the incredible design of DNA replication processes, yet gives us no clue to how these processes allegedly evolved.

The existance of extra junk DNA is probably just the result of extra copying from generation to generation.

One hypothesis theorizes that much of the extra DNA exists to increase the physical bulk of the nucleus.

However the prevailing view in molecular biology is that the extra sequences are somewhat parasitic-that over the generations a collection of sequences have accumulated in the cell, exploiting the cells resources and machinery and for its own reproduction needs without providing any benefit to the cell in return.

This situation seems to undermine natural selection in that if these sequences are indeed useless, why wouldnt they have been selected out? The law of conservation in evolution weeds out useless machinations. This is easily observable in bee colonies where workers are executed when their usefulness has ended. It is a very efficient natural system seen all throughout nature.

The other amazement is that the essential DNA replication is still a very precise system. Species have elements called transposable elements which have the ability to "jump" from one location to another in the DNA and even to insert additional copies of themselves in different locations.

standard introductory molecular biology textbook

Quote:

Phemox a dichotomy exists(whether anyone likes to admit it or not).
The disproof of evolution necessitates the proof of creation. If evolution is disproven then creation must be valid.


Unless you add lots of qualifiers as to what type of evolution and what type of creation you talk about this statement is false.

I dont know where your having a hard time understanding this. Evolution means change over time, creation means appearence instantly. They both use time as a factor, however in creation the time factor is zero.

There are no qualifiers to add, instead take all the qualifiers away. Evolution of anything means change over time. An object or group of objects appear at a certain place in space. It has appeared there from either one or two methods:

1)It came from somewhere else over time(evolution)
2)It appeared there instantly(creation)

A baseball can find itself over the plate by 1)being propelled through physical(newtonian or relative) forces or 2)it suddenly appeared there.

The origin of the appearence of any matter can be described by either one or the other. Therefore a dichotomy does exist.

Quote:

Quote:

if an object is complex, has a purpose and has no plausible physical cause, it implies design.


You mean like god (complex, purpose and no plausible physical cause) ?


Quote



Perhaps your right if your referring to a different type of God then the one I am referring to. This goes back to the root definitions of God. The definition of the God I worship is not as a complex created object, but rather a complex creator.

Once again, the universe is an effect which demands a cause. That cause itself cannot possibly be composed of the effect. Therefore the observable "object" we are speaking of (the universe), cannot contain the information to bootstrap itself. If you cant understand that then Im afraid I cant help you.