Evidence for God from Science

The only single part of your post I don't quite get is when you stated that particles to people evolution is a part of the ID crowd's stances. I don't quite get how that would fit in with Intelligent Design, aside from when God made man out of the dust of the ground. (which isn't exactly evolution)Maytan
Newbie Member

i think you miss understood. Particles to people is most certainly not part of the ID crowd. What I was saying is that the evidence of NS and mutation are neutral. We (creationists/ ID) have the same evidence. The evidence isn't exclusive to evolution, as seems to be hinted by your friend. Even though I doubt he would say such, the implication is still hinted at by his conclusions. Mutation and NS are part of the ID and creationist models as well.

jlay wrote:

The only single part of your post I don't quite get is when you stated that particles to people evolution is a part of the ID crowd's stances. I don't quite get how that would fit in with Intelligent Design, aside from when God made man out of the dust of the ground. (which isn't exactly evolution)Maytan
Newbie Member

i think you miss understood. Particles to people is most certainly not part of the ID crowd. What I was saying is that the evidence of NS and mutation are neutral. We (creationists/ ID) have the same evidence. The evidence isn't exclusive to evolution, as seems to be hinted by your friend. Even though I doubt he would say such, the implication is still hinted at by his conclusions. Mutation and NS are part of the ID and creationist models as well.

Ah, right, I did indeed misunderstand. Thank you for clarifying. ;)

For the first point, it is true that mutations occur rather frequently in the genetic world. But, if each gene is a "recipe" for a protein, and one nucleotide is changed or replaced, the structure and function of the protein is changed, and the original function is lost. Even if you can make a new protein miraculously that does something at all besides swimming around in the cytoplasm, it isn't likely that that will be beneficial. The chances of a new protein being made that actually does something good are slim, but the real big issue is that each protein has a very important role, and cells and systems are designed to rely on these, not to wait for new proteins to come up. I mean, if a bacterium is like a computer from the 50's, the computers are only designed to accept the instructions by the methods of the time.... They don't have pre-existing CD drives waiting for CDs to randomly spring up from a small change in a processor. New, functioning proteins won't do anything if they don't have a function to perform, and that narrows the chances even more. In the end, even if one creature out of millions develops a new protein that performs a function necessary to the new life form, chances are that it will either die or the children won't pass it on because it's recessive, or that they will just end up losing more working codon information.

Although I'm sure that Zoegirl would be far better at this than I am, as I really am not very well learned in this field.

But, if each gene is a "recipe" for a protein, and one nucleotide is changed or replaced, the structure and function of the protein is changed,

yes and no....in some cases one nucleotide changes, such as that found in sickle cell anemia, will immediately change the function....others are silent, since there is much redundancy in the code. A codon such as CCC will encode for the amino acid proline and yet there are 3 other codons: CCA, CCG, CCU that will also code for proline. [/quote]

and the original function is lost.

yes and no, in some cases the mutation simply can affect a part of the protein that is not directly for the function, for example, the superstructure surrounding the active site of an enzyme which wouldn't directly affect the function.

Ah, I see, that makes sense.

Dr. Steven Meyer can explain much better then me, I’m not in to since. Here is his web-site.

http://www.stephencmeyer.org/news/2009/ ... _cell.html