How does special creation/ID explain...

[Undertow]

It's a conundrum. Why did god make us with pseudogenes? They look like real genes, but the have mutations which render them useless. But why? There's no reason to make useless pseudogenes or if they do have any function at all, there's no reason to make defunct genes, which are conspicuously attributable to functional genes, perform the task. What say you? Why do we and the other primates have a pseudogene for the enzyme which synthesizes vitamin C when we actually need that enzyme or else, given a deficient diet, we get scurvy. Why are 40% of our olfactory system genes pseudgoenes?

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entre ... stractPlus

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entre ... stractPlus

[Logan]

It's a conundrum. Why did god make us with pseudogenes? They look like real genes, but the have mutations which render them useless. But why? There's no reason to make useless pseudogenes or if they do have any function at all, there's no reason to make defunct genes, which are conspicuously attributable to functional genes, perform the task. What say you? Why do we and the other primates have a pseudogene for the enzyme which synthesizes vitamin C when we actually need that enzyme or else, given a deficient diet, we get scurvy. Why are 40% of our olfactory system genes pseudgoenes?

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entre ... stractPlus

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entre ... uids=10512
677&dopt=AbstractPlus

What is the conundrum, or paradox that is presented? Why does the presence of "pseudo-genes" preclude man being a product of creation? Using existing DNA that was "already" created and found in creation, would prevent God from creating man, HOW? After all, man shares a commonality of DNA traits with all nature to include being 25% common in signature to all plant life found on earth, 75% common to even the "worm", and some say 98% common to the creature that is second to man in intelligence, the primate. Yes the primate shares some of man's capacity with the exception of the most important, that of having been designed in the image of God in a spiritual comparison. Man, has the ability to talk, make and use tools, and to create in an artistic fashion that which he observers. The primate does not.

Was not "all" life the product of natural organic substance, are we not professed to be a product of the dust of our environment? Yes man has the ability to make this conclusion, with the exception of the origins of "life actual". Which is symbolically presented "as God breathed life into his creation" with out going into the actual "methodology".

What would preclude God from using the DNA that was already present and simply build upon it, to produce the "physical" man? God has shown already that He uses matter in a recyclable manner as even our Sun is said to be the product of another energy source. Why should God have to create an entirely "new" strain of DNA, why not simply recycle that which was made previous?

All science has to offer is that which is contained in "hypothesis" and words such as, "we think", "we believe", "it must be so", "science thinks", are they not all based upon a belief that had not been observed? Such as the birth of a Star, man has never actually witnessed the birth of star despite their conclusion that the "observable" universe, which is only 4% of the entirety contains 100 BILLION galaxies with each containing over 100BILLION STARS, with a conservative estimate of 13.7 Billion years of age suggested by the accepted theory.

The math concerning star production must be considered a "drastic" issue. multiply the galaxies by the number of stars in each and divide it by the "hypothesis" of 13.7 billion years, and one gets a new star being born @ 1 every 37 minutes of the entire age of the universe. Does it not seem strange that not "ONE" STAR has actually been "OBSERVED" being created? We have only one projected birth as proof, and it does not even meet the requirements that must take place to create a star by gravitational implosion, as the nebula presented is actually to "hot" and is still "expanding" with no hope of ever observing a "collapse". Back to the subject topic.

In fact man claims that "life" is a product of inert non-living matter, but does not have a reproducible or observable experiment to this claim of theory which must be correct to accept evolution being a product of materialism or nature alone.

If life indeed comes from nothing why has Science not been able to simply take life, in any form, plant or animal, disassemble it in the lab, and using the same design, reconstruct it, and bring back that life which was destroyed by disassembly? Logan

[McCulloch]

Yes the primate shares some of man's capacity with the exception of the most important, that of having been designed in the image of God in a spiritual comparison. Man, has the ability to talk, make and use tools, and to create in an artistic fashion that which he observers. The primate does not.

Do try to get your science right before you criticize it. Primate is a word which describes an order of mammals. Primates include a wide range of animals from small lemurs to giant gorillas. Humans are primates.

All science has to offer is that which is contained in "hypothesis" and words such as, "we think", "we believe", "it must be so", "science thinks", are they not all based upon a belief that had not been observed?

There is far more to a scientific hypothesis than simply we think.

In fact man claims that "life" is a product of inert non-living matter, but does not have a reproducible or observable experiment to this claim of theory which must be correct to accept evolution being a product of materialism or nature alone.

Actually, both creationists and scientists accept that life came from non-living matter. Scientists have the honesty to admit that we still don't know how it happened. Creationists say that God did it.

[Logan]

Yes the primate shares some of man's capacity with the exception of the most important, that of having been designed in the image of God in a spiritual comparison. Man, has the ability to talk, make and use tools, and to create in an artistic fashion that which he observers. The primate does not.

Do try to get your science right before you criticize it. Primate is a word which describes an order of mammals. Primates include a wide range of animals from small lemurs to giant gorillas. Humans are primates.

All science has to offer is that which is contained in "hypothesis" and words such as, "we think", "we believe", "it must be so", "science thinks", are they not all based upon a belief that had not been observed?

There is far more to a scientific hypothesis than simply we think.

In fact man claims that "life" is a product of inert non-living matter, but does not have a reproducible or observable experiment to this claim of theory which must be correct to accept evolution being a product of materialism or nature alone.

Actually, both creationists and scientists accept that life came from non-living matter. Scientists have the honesty to admit that we still don't know how it happened. Creationists say that God did it.

Yes, and I enjoyed the empirical evidence that was offered with each retort, why is your "we believe" more of a valid "hypothesis" than that of "intelligent design", In fact the real "paradox" does not exist in the theory of "creation" at all, but in the materialistic theory of "self generation" which must defy both "logic" and physical science. First of all, just how did the mass/matter that gestated the supposed "big bang" come into existence if it were not a "product of creation"? To believe that it was naturally created created defies the law of physical science that states there is a cause and effect relationship of all mass/matter. It could not exist before it was created by some "cause", unless you believe that it is eternal, as physical science states that both time and space actually began as a product of the "Big Bang", was this not what Mr. Einstein's theory claims? For time to exist it must be measured by motion? Is it not also a fact of physical science that the universe is in a state of exhausting energy and slowing to a stop, thus suggesting and end due to entropy? Does this not prove that the universe could not possibly be "eternal", or as observed the energy would have already be exhausted. If something has an end it must have a beginning, please explain how this beginning came about without "something being created", of course empirically provide this information that is theorized.

Next please explain in empirical science, which is reproducible and observable, how the many Galaxies, Stars and Planets, came into existence as an after product of Hydrogen and Helium? How did this gaseous element morph into first solid billions of Stars, and then into solid mass. No hypothesis, please only reproducible and observable science, if you would?

Next, please present empirical evidence of the creation of biological life from the solid mass that was magically produced by Hydrogen and Helium. How did this life, if it did come into existence exist by being the only life for billions of years with no energy source to use for fuel (food), than how did this life, magically inherit the intelligence to add to its DNA signature base, without other life to draw upon? Please provide the reproducible and observable evidence that would suggest that this more than just an "hypothesis" of speculation ground in "gray matter" only.

Next, please present the evidence in an empirical nature that suggests that "marcobiological life" has an ancestral lineage before the "Cambrian explosion". Reproducible and observable evidence of how "mircobiological life" is observed in fossil remains, but the marco life which is claimed as "obvious" yet somehow hides from all detection. As I said, empirical and observable evidence please, even that which is found in the fossil record. Nor "gray matter hypothesis welcome", we have our own source for this.

Next please provide the empirical reproducible and observable evidence of "Marcoevolution" or "Abiogenesis". Empirically prove that one species has evolved into an entirely different species. Perhaps something found in nature, such as a "transitional fossil remains", or even a valid Theory that does not steal its evidence from the daily observed theory of microevolution and bigogenesis. Proceed Please

[Undertow]

It's a conundrum. Why did god make us with pseudogenes? They look like real genes, but the have mutations which render them useless. But why? There's no reason to make useless pseudogenes or if they do have any function at all, there's no reason to make defunct genes, which are conspicuously attributable to functional genes, perform the task. What say you? Why do we and the other primates have a pseudogene for the enzyme which synthesizes vitamin C when we actually need that enzyme or else, given a deficient diet, we get scurvy. Why are 40% of our olfactory system genes pseudgoenes?

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entre ... stractPlus

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entre ... uids=10512
677&dopt=AbstractPlus

(1) What is the conundrum, or paradox that is presented? Why does the presence of "pseudo-genes" preclude man being a product of creation? Using existing DNA that was "already" created and found in creation, would prevent God from creating man, HOW? After all, man shares a commonality of DNA traits with all nature to include being 25% common in signature to all plant life found on earth, 75% common to even the "worm", and (2) some say 98% common to the creature that is second to man in intelligence, the primate. Yes the primate shares some of man's capacity with the exception of the most important, that of having been designed in the image of God in a spiritual comparison. Man, has the ability to talk, make and use tools, and to create in an artistic fashion that which he observers. The primate does not.

Was not "all" life the product of natural organic substance, are we not professed to be a product of the dust of our environment? Yes man has the ability to make this conclusion, with the exception of the origins of "life actual". Which is symbolically presented "as God breathed life into his creation" with out going into the actual "methodology".

(3) What would preclude God from using the DNA that was already present and simply build upon it, to produce the "physical" man? God has shown already that He uses matter in a recyclable manner as even our Sun is said to be the product of another energy source. Why should God have to create an entirely "new" strain of DNA, why not simply recycle that which was made previous?

(4) All science has to offer is that which is contained in "hypothesis" and words such as, "we think", "we believe", "it must be so", "science thinks", are they not all based upon a belief that had not been observed?

(5) In fact man claims that "life" is a product of inert non-living matter, but does not have a reproducible or observable experiment to this claim of theory which must be correct to accept evolution being a product of materialism or nature alone.

(6) If life indeed comes from nothing why has Science not been able to simply take life, in any form, plant or animal, disassemble it in the lab, and using the same design, reconstruct it, and bring back that life which was destroyed by disassembly? Logan

Hi Logan, I'll try to respond where I can but I truncated the cosmology piece. I'm really out of my league trying to talk the birth of stars with people. Biology is much more familiar to me.

(1) The conundrum is why god would see the need to make us with functionally redundant materials. Kind of counter intuitive for a perfect being, don't you think? But sure, I suppose you could believe that god made us with pseudogenes and did so in some cases to simulate that we share common ancestry with other primates (such as with the vit C example). However, I do feel that other lines of biochemical evidence are far superior to pseudogenes in directly inferring a phylogenetic relationship.

(2) It's interesting that we appear to be far superior to any other life form known, including our nearest relatives. The trick is our intuition that we're special isn't necessarily true nor does our personal incredulity suffice as an argument against us and other primates being related phylogenetically.

(3) What would prevent god from using evolution? Not really much of an argument, don't you think? I mean, what would prevent god from having made everything 5 minutes ago and implanting memories in our heads?

To add, I'd like to think if God was fair dinkum about suggesting creationism as unequivocally true to us, that he'd make a new genetic code and new biochemistry for each species, thus making evolution impossible. What would prevent god from doing this? Do you think this would be more sensible if god would want us to reject evolution?

(4) Yes, large scale morphological evolution has not been observed, precisely why we need to hypothesize what ought to be the case if life were related by common descent and test it against the data! Note that hypotheses are really the backbone of scientific pursuit. They aren't just guesses nor are we content with merely spouting hot air in proposing them - we test them.

(5) Looks like we're getting pretty off track here but what the hey, I don't mind right now. Yes, the hypothesis is that life came from non life and there are some studies I know of that would seem to support this notion, yet at present I believe it's not as strong as evolution is. Best to focus more on the topic of evolution, hey?

By the way I disagree that abiogenesis must be true in order for evolution to be. Indeed, I doubt any evolutionary biologist would see this as accurate. Given the facts that there are extant species on earth and evolution proposes common ancestry of those species, we can test for that common ancestry independent of the ultimate origins of life by comparing certain biological features of extant life and even supporting that with extinct life as per the fossil record. Consider it akin to establishing a genealogical family tree. You can take it back so far yet we don't need to prove the chemical origins of the first human to prove the genealogical relationships through DNA evidence, etc.

(6) We're not that smart yet.

Cellular life is intricate and is tied together exquisitely with an autonomous molecular control system of checks, balances and a mechanism to reproduce itself. Reverse engineering life is simply beyond us to a large degree at present. One day, perhaps... it wasn't long ago that the common belief of vitalism -- that carbon compounds could only be synthesised in cellular life -- seemed indisputable, yet synthesis of urea, I believe, overturned that. I think it's all just the case of our current abilities and knowledge not being up to scratch on this point.

[QED]

Logan, your take on modern cosmology is seriously short of the mark. You could probably do with reading-up on some of Stephen Hawking's work. But I'll try and give you a flavour of some of it here.

First of all, just how did the mass/matter that gestated the supposed "big bang" come into existence if it were not a "product of creation"? To believe that it was naturally created created defies the law of physical science that states there is a cause and effect relationship of all mass/matter.
It could not exist before it was created by some "cause", unless you believe that it is eternal, as physical science states that both time and space actually began as a product of the "Big Bang", was this not what Mr. Einstein's theory claims? For time to exist it must be measured by motion? Is it not also a fact of physical science that the universe is in a state of exhausting energy and slowing to a stop, thus suggesting and end due to entropy? Does this not prove that the universe could not possibly be "eternal", or as observed the energy would have already be exhausted. If something has an end it must have a beginning, please explain how this beginning came about without "something being created", of course empirically provide this information that is theorized.

Of course. And to start with, we have to consider Quantum Mechanics -- the empirical testing of which is considered to be in the category of SUPERB (a Theory with a capital T). Then we can then do a simple mental exercise: follow the expansion of the universe (another SUPERB Theory welcomed by most theists) back to a point where everything is packed into a single point (imagine an inverted cone standing on its point which represents the BB event -- with time going up, and the widening of the cone in time representing the expansion of space). There awaits a particular spoiler for the theist though. Consider the concept of a point in Quantum terms. The uncertainty principle (SUPERB) dictates that no particles may be pinned-down so precisely as to form a point -- and here the cone becomes a shuttlecock (a cone with a rounded end). Here the dimension of time becomes a fourth dimension of space, and in the transition time is effectively stretched-out to infinity.

Of course this won't satisfy you at all, but you chose to lift the weapon of science and wave it for God, so I have simply shown that you had picked it up by the wrong end. The number of different cosmologies that are compatible with our empirical understanding gives us more work to do in resolving the ambiguities, and naturally the theistic interpretation is one among those. As a hypothesis though, unless an intentional creation comes with testable predictions, it will have nothing to commend itself above any other interpretation.

Next please explain in empirical science, which is reproducible and observable, how the many Galaxies, Stars and Planets, came into existence as an after product of Hydrogen and Helium? How did this gaseous element morph into first solid billions of Stars, and then into solid mass. No hypothesis, please only reproducible and observable science, if you would?

Your demand is amply met by the power generated in prototype fusion reactors all around the world. No application of Nuclear Physics Theory could be more supportive of Nucleosynthesis than a successful fusion reaction.

Next, please present empirical evidence of the creation of biological life from the solid mass that was magically produced by Hydrogen and Helium. How did this life, if it did come into existence exist by being the only life for billions of years with no energy source to use for fuel (food), than how did this life, magically inherit the intelligence to add to its DNA signature base, without other life to draw upon? Please provide the reproducible and observable evidence that would suggest that this more than just an "hypothesis" of speculation ground in "gray matter" only.

You still seem to have a problem with heavy elements. This is an unusual problem as I can't recall creationists raising controversy over Nucleosynthesis before. Despite your doubts, astronomers even see a great deal of organic material in space which is why we have the field of "Astrobiology". What you seem to have most difficulty with is the ordering of these materials into what we call life. Here mathematical modelling is able to explore the extent to which self-organization is permitted under the laws of logic prevailing in the world. Self-replicating structures do turn out to be a possibility and can be shown to arise from very simple rules. This much gets us past the "in principle" issues, what we then look for are where the "rules" come from. In real-world chemistry, the "rules" are written into the elements of the periodic table (a name that hints towards even simpler rules). Finally life is permitted by physics and breaks no known physical laws, in other words there is nothing that we can point to as clearly being magic. Craig Ventnor and many others in the Biotechnology Industry are claiming DNA to be the engine of a new indutrial revolution -- a claim that is hard to doubt if we keep an eye on the commercial applications already earning company profits.

Next, please present the evidence in an empirical nature that suggests that "marcobiological life" has an ancestral lineage before the "Cambrian explosion". Reproducible and observable evidence of how "mircobiological life" is observed in fossil remains, but the marco life which is claimed as "obvious" yet somehow hides from all detection. As I said, empirical and observable evidence please, even that which is found in the fossil record. Nor "gray matter hypothesis welcome", we have our own source for this.

Talking of welcome I must remind you once more that, being uncontestable, your "grey matter hypothesis" are worth far less than anything supported by evidence of soft-bodied animals that pre-date the Cambrian. To suggest that the so-called explosion is another "point event" is nonsense when we have so much fossil evidence of bacteria, their environments and the transformation of the atmosphere (something that generated vast deposits of iron oxide as the seas absorbed the intial release of oxygen). All these features remain for all to see and sit alongside many other "seashells at the tops of mountains" which have altered the course of much human thought in the past two centuries. The creationist interpretations are, by contrast, mostly painful contortions which mingle obvious fantasy with uncontestable bubble-concepts that cannot fail to explain everything and hence explain nothing.

Next please provide the empirical reproducible and observable evidence of "Marcoevolution" or "Abiogenesis". Empirically prove that one species has evolved into an entirely different species. Perhaps something found in nature, such as a "transitional fossil remains", or even a valid Theory that does not steal its evidence from the daily observed theory of microevolution and bigogenesis. Proceed Please

Macroevolution is bound to result from continued execution of microevoltion unless you can supply a sensible principle of limitation.