Biology

[Anoetos]

I am currently taking a course in cellular biology and I am struck by the amazing complexity of eukaryotic organisms, especially the "division of labor" and function of organelles in the cell. It is really remarkable.

Without going into a lot of detail, it has reaffirmed my belief in a Creator.

I once heard someone say that the very very tiny things are matters for chemists, things smaller than that are for physicists to worry about and then the very very large things are where physicists get involved again. Everything in between is biology.

Its a simplification of course, but some physics is necessary to understand chemistry and some chemistry is necessary to understand biology (biochemistry is its own field after all). So everything hangs upon what comes before it in an amazing cascade of wonderful complexity and beauty.

I understand that atheistic naturalism does not really insist on chance, I am not even saying that all this cannot be the product of random happenstance. I am saying it seems and is seeming more and more to me that the very complexity of organic life itself, top to bottom, must necessarily have tumbled under the weight of its own "entropy" without the guiding hand of Providence to order and maintain it.

And I am grateful for this.

[Bagger_Vance]

Okay? Doesn't that exclude you from this forum?

Chance+Time can equal the appearance of providence, but then again Make-Up+Time can equal the appearance of beauty. Doesn't make it so.

[zorathruster]

There is a concept often overlooked when advanced cell functionality is observed. Synergy. There are effects that are a direct result of the synergistic effects of multiple actors. In the case of the Mitochondria and the cell the effect changed the whole functionality of the original cell and allowed energy to be more concentrated with in specific organelles with in the cell. The often cited and misunderstood flagellum is another added function which taken as a developed component adds vast complexity and is best understood as a merger of indendent components which create a vastly more capable whole once merged.

[SirYapAlot]

• Edited by a Moderator •

Moderated By: sc_q_jayce

This forum is not for theists. Goodbye!

***If you wish to take issue with this notice DO NOT do so in this thread.***
Contact the forum moderator or an administrator in Private Message or email instead. If you feel you must publically complain or whine, please take it to the Psychotherapy Room unless told otherwise.

[sc_q_jayce]

Moderated By: sc_q_jayce

Thread has been moved to General Theistics.

***If you wish to take issue with this notice DO NOT do so in this thread.***
Contact the forum moderator or an administrator in Private Message or email instead. If you feel you must publically complain or whine, please take it to the Psychotherapy Room unless told otherwise.

[shunyadragon]

I am currently taking a course in cellular biology and I am struck by the amazing complexity of eukaryotic organisms, especially the "division of labor" and function of organelles in the cell. It is really remarkable.

Without going into a lot of detail, it has reaffirmed my belief in a Creator.

I once heard someone say that the very very tiny things are matters for chemists, things smaller than that are for physicists to worry about and then the very very large things are where physicists get involved again. Everything in between is biology.

Its a simplification of course, but some physics is necessary to understand chemistry and some chemistry is necessary to understand biology (biochemistry is its own field after all). So everything hangs upon what comes before it in an amazing cascade of wonderful complexity and beauty.

I understand that atheistic naturalism does not really insist on chance, I am not even saying that all this cannot be the product of random happenstance. I am saying it seems and is seeming more and more to me that the very complexity of organic life itself, top to bottom, must necessarily have tumbled under the weight of its own "entropy" without the guiding hand of Providence to order and maintain it.

And I am grateful for this.

Classic problem of not understanding evolution and science by many traditional theists. Chance and/or randomness plays absolutely no determining role in evolution. In fact it has never been observed to occur in evolution. Randomness has only been observed in quantum Mechanics and related phenomena.

Well, ah . . . you sure are intimating that it cannot occur naturally, nonetheless scientists disagree with you here. Scientists fully realize that evolution cannot come about by random happenstance.

The entropy problem is not an issue here, on the scale of our solar system the sun and the internal heat of the earth provide far more energy than necessary required for the evolution of life on earth.

As for the 'complexity eukaryotic organisms, especially the "division of labor" and function of organelles.' science has no problems providing an explanation as to how this comes about by natural evolutionary processes.

[lee_merrill]

As for the 'complexity eukaryotic organisms, especially the "division of labor" and function of organelles.' science has no problems providing an explanation as to how this comes about by natural evolutionary processes.

Alas, but they do, Behe's Edge of Evolution is a sound principle. It seems I missed the thread on this here, by someone named Shuny, even, but glad to revive the discussion, alas, most of it seems to be ad hominems.

Blessings,
Lee

P.S. Just for fun...

Reasons to Believe

RNA polymerase II has remarkable machine-like character. RNA polymerase II subunits form a channel that houses the chain-like DNA template. “Jaws” help grip the DNA template holding it in place during RNA synthesis. The newly formed RNA chain locks into place a hinge clamp as it exits the RNA polymerase II channel. A funnel-like pore delivers the small subunit molecules to the RNA polymerase II channel. Then the small subunit molecules in the channel are added to the growing end of the RNA chain.

© source where applicable

[SirYapAlot]

I am currently taking a course in cellular biology and I am struck by the amazing complexity of eukaryotic organisms, especially the "division of labor" and function of organelles in the cell. It is really remarkable.

Without going into a lot of detail, it has reaffirmed my belief in a Creator.

I once heard someone say that the very very tiny things are matters for chemists, things smaller than that are for physicists to worry about and then the very very large things are where physicists get involved again. Everything in between is biology.

Its a simplification of course, but some physics is necessary to understand chemistry and some chemistry is necessary to understand biology (biochemistry is its own field after all). So everything hangs upon what comes before it in an amazing cascade of wonderful complexity and beauty.

I understand that atheistic naturalism does not really insist on chance, I am not even saying that all this cannot be the product of random happenstance. I am saying it seems and is seeming more and more to me that the very complexity of organic life itself, top to bottom, must necessarily have tumbled under the weight of its own "entropy" without the guiding hand of Providence to order and maintain it.

And I am grateful for this.

ENCODE is on the threshold of completely dismantling Darwinian evolution and most evolutionists don't realize it.

Biologist James Shapiro has an article on the relatively new discoveries science is finding. Much of Shapiros information is based from Barbara McClintock's work with maize and genome reorganization.

It appears the "evolution" being observed is not at all random but directed by an adaptive code.

http://www.bostonreview.net/BR22.1/shapiro.html

The Boston Globe had an article on ENCODES findings. the results

DNA unraveled A 'scientific revolution' is taking place, as researchers explore the genomic jungle By Colin Nickerson, Globe Staff

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/hea...dna_unraveled/

As Francis Collins put it

"I think we're all pretty awed by what we're seeing," Collins said. "It amounts to a scientific revolution."

I personally believe this is why Collins (a theist) has stepped down (was forced out) as head of ENCODE. the quotes coming from ENCODE were too "anti Darwinian"

And the Altenberg 16 believe its about time to reject the Darwinian model of evolution

http://www.amazon.com/Altenberg-16-E.../dp/1556439245

ENCODE will completely dismantle Darwinian evolution within 20 years, without the help of creationists. This will be fun to watch

[shunyadragon]

ENCODE is on the threshold of completely dismantling Darwinian evolution and most evolutionists don't realize it.

Biologist James Shapiro has an article on the relatively new discoveries science is finding. Much of Shapiros information is based from Barbara McClintock's work with maize and genome reorganization.

It appears the "evolution" being observed is not at all random but directed by an adaptive code.

http://www.bostonreview.net/BR22.1/shapiro.html

The Boston Globe had an article on ENCODES findings. the results

DNA unraveled A 'scientific revolution' is taking place, as researchers explore the genomic jungle By Colin Nickerson, Globe Staff

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/hea...dna_unraveled/

As Francis Collins put it

"I think we're all pretty awed by what we're seeing," Collins said. "It amounts to a scientific revolution."

I personally believe this is why Collins (a theist) has stepped down (was forced out) as head of ENCODE. the quotes coming from ENCODE were too "anti Darwinian"

And the Altenberg 16 believe its about time to reject the Darwinian model of evolution

http://www.amazon.com/Altenberg-16-E.../dp/1556439245

ENCODE will completely dismantle Darwinian evolution within 20 years, without the help of creationists. This will be fun to watch

Do not hold your breath. Nothing here supports the wishful thinking of Intelligent Design.

[SirYapAlot]

Do not hold your breath. Nothing here supports the wishful thinking of Intelligent Design.

There are only two ways life could have originated in the universe/earth. either through abiogenesis or intelligent design. if one is proven invalid, the other wins by default.

“Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth.” Sir Arthur Conan Doyle

DNA will prove Darwinian evolution invalid by the presences of static codes that are not effected by mutations. static codes are the death nails in Darwinian evolution. This evidence is already in by 200-400 MYA Sequences that are identical in unrelated species.

EVERY DNA sequence (code) must be subject to change VIA evolutions information generator (copying errors) or the theory falls apart . the theory stands or falls at the molecular level of writing coded information via copying errors and deletions (NS).

The vast majority of even educated evolutionists have no idea what is needed to prove the the theory valid. The theory needs to show the process of copying errors and selection producing 12 overlapping coded languages (including epigenetics) that produces highly complex biological machines with multiple layers of errors correction mechanisms.

A task randomness and deletions can not complete

[lao tzu]

ENCODE will completely dismantle Darwinian evolution within 20 years, without the help of creationists. This will be fun to watch

Where have I heard something like that before?

In point of fact, no such progress is being made as anyone who has watched this area for the last 40 years can testify. The claim is false as history and present-day events show, yet that doesn't stop anyone wanting to sell books from making that claim. Now for the claims in chronological order.

It's quite a list that follows.

Every once in a while, the cheer rings out from the creationists that they've finally go evolution on the run, apparently taking some dim-witted pride from the idea that the corpse of their own origins theory will soon have company. Their fellow creationists join the chorus. The scientists, when they can spare a moment, take a look at the latest "great creationist hope," shrug, chuckle a bit, and get back to work.

In the meantime, creationism continues to die out in its last suitable environment as more and more theists find ways to accommodate evolution into their theology.

As ever, Jesse

[SirYapAlot]

In point of fact, no such progress is being made as anyone who has watched this area for the last 40 years can testify.

The obvious problem with this is, this is not 40 year old information. its brand new information coming from ENCODE. The information coming from them undermines Darwinian presuppositions

We now have evidence some codes in DNA are 100% static and not subject to change via random copying errors. you do realize without a mechanism that can change these static codes. there is no natural way to get them written. But don't let the facts get in the way of a popular theory

Evolutionists must show the codes being written by the mechanisms of copying errors and selection of the "luckiest" copying errors. this is not even close to being observed.

This is why ALL evolutionists start the theory AFTER all the (12 overlapping) codes have been written and the error correction mechanisms already in place. What a convenient place to start a theory that requires specific complex information to be written naturally. You do realize that cheating in the theory and every I.D. proponent knows this

ALL theists know you can not start a naturalistic theory AFTER the digital coded language has already been written. You must show the process of the codes being written, not being executed after the fact

[lao tzu]

The obvious problem with this is, this is not 40 year old information. its brand new information coming from ENCODE. The information coming from them undermines Darwinian presuppositions

The first problem you have is that you're not respecting the quotes. Those are Glenn Morton's words you're handing off to me. The key is to look for the indents following the links.

The second problem you have is that you're blasting wise on the implications of something you understand as poorly as you understand evolution itself.

The third problem you have is that you expect anyone to take you seriously when you're posting behind a handle like "YapAlot."

I'm sure there's more damage hiding behind you, stacked up in layers, but that'll do for now.

As ever, Jesse

[SirYapAlot]

The first problem you have is that you're not respecting the quotes. Those are Glenn Morton's words you're handing off to me. The key is to look for the indents following the links.

The second problem you have is that you're blasting wise on the implications of something you understand as poorly as you understand evolution itself.

The third problem you have is that you expect anyone to take you seriously when you're posting behind a handle like "YapAlot."

I'm sure there's more damage hiding behind you, stacked up in layers, but that'll do for now.

As ever, Jesse

First- Many Christians have been deceived by YEC as Morton was, so they attempt to reconcile the data by incorporating evolution. When the only way for a Christian to reconcile the data is through OEC. Solomon spoke of the pre-adamic races in Ecc

Second- I'm "blasting wise" because I know what is needed to prove Darwinian evolution (not to mention atheisms foundation, abiogenesis). Most atheists have no idea what is needed to prove the theory. ALL evolutionary scientists know the minor changes witnessed (finch beaks, lizard heads etc..), and used as evidence to prove the theory, is nothing more than the selection of information already on file. The Lederberg experiments proved this. The problem is the average evolutionist does not study the matter and has no idea the "evolution" being observed is done VIA the selection process of slight variation already written and selected for as the environment calls for it

I bet you are still hoodwinked into believing the selection of information already on file (an adaptation mechanism) proves Darwinian evolution. when in fact it does nothing of the sort. Writing the information through random copying errors and deletions proves the theory, not the selection process after its already written

http://www.genome.gov/25521554

"According to ENCODE researchers, this lack of evolutionary constraint may indicate that many species' genomes contain a pool of functional elements, including RNA transcripts, that provide no specific benefits in terms of survival or reproduction. As this pool turns over during evolutionary time, researchers speculate it may serve as a "warehouse for natural selection" by acting as a source of functional elements unique to each species and of elements that perform the similar functions among species despite having sequences that appear dissimilar."

Third- My handle SIrYapAlot is one of over twenty I have on paltalk and is the handle I was using when DeeDee Warren challenged me to a debate on theologyweb. So I used Yap on theologyweb so the paltalk heads on theologyweb knew who was who.

Also if the best you have to offer if AD HOMS on my user name. don't waste your time. Your presuppositions are all false

Atheism as well as Darwinian evolution is phenomenally easy to dismantle from the bottom up when examined in the light of logic and reason

And the The Altenberg 16 will partake in this Darwinian dismantling.

http://www.amazon.com/Altenberg-16-E.../dp/1556439245

One day intelligent men will wonder how men who claimed intelligence could believe the theory of random copying errors and deletions could produce highly complex regulatory codes. The answer is....

Because they are mostly all liberals controlled by feelings instead of data

[RBerman]

Solomon spoke of the pre-adamic races in Ecc

He did? Where?