Science Talk
Science Talk
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Forums
Science Forums
Biology
Math
Astronomy
Physics
Technology
Chemistry
Social Sciences
History
Psychology
Philosophy
Sociology
Linguistics
Religious Studies
Economics
Man Woman Ethno
Ask an Expert
World Records
Society Issues
Education
People
Alternative Science
Why There's No Design #153 - Out on a Limb

 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Science Talk Forum Index -> Creationism
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Budikka666
Guest





PostPosted: Tue Aug 21, 2007 11:09 am    Post subject: Why There's No Design #153 - Out on a Limb Reply with quote

National Geographic (curiously at nationalgeographic.com, rather
than .org or .gov) reports that sharks have genes for creating fingers
and toes:
http://tinyurl.com/29mzob
"Researchers identified genetic activity in spotted catsharks embryos
that signal the creation of digits. The discovery pushes back the
date of the evolutionary "fin to limb" advance by some 135 million
years."

So contrary to creationist claims that there is no way genes could
arise or develop to enable fish to grow limbs and exit the water,
these genes already existed for other purposes, requiring nothing more
than modification to develop an organism's body for that first big
step.

Evolutionists have no problem with this, of course, because they first
look at the evidence and see where it points before developing their
theories.

It's a finger in the eye for creation-ID-ists, however. Now they're
stuck with explaining why a perfect designer, who created organisms in
situ, perfectly designed for their environment, would lard them up
with genes (dare I say junk DNA?!) they should never need.

There are those, like Michael Behe, who seem to be claiming that the
designer front-loaded genomes with all the material they would need to
evolve, but not only is this wasteful, it's also contrary to the
evidence.

To begin with, unused genetic material deteriorates rather rapidly.
How is a single-celled organism loaded with genes for terrestrial (as
opposed to aquatic) use supposed to keep them intact when they are not
used at all for several billion years?

How did the designer know there would even *be* land two billion years
on? Was that also in the design?

Secondly, all that extra genetic material places a huge demand on the
energy requirements for a single-celled organism. The organisms that
best survived and reproduced would be the ones with the "lightest"
genome. The extra genes would have disappeared rapidly before they
could ever benefit the first terrestrial organisms.

Until and unless the design proponents can come up with the science
behind this, then there is no design. Only evolution.

Budikka
Back to top
  Ads
Advertising
Sponsor


Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Science Talk Forum Index -> Creationism All times are GMT
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

Australian Debt Consolidation Experts
medical insurance
Wedding Website
ESCORTFORUM: recensioni di escort e girl
Swingers in Europe
Computer Hardware Talk
personal secured loans
Make Your Own Website
Cheap phone calls to India
Cleaning Service
Mold
UK Swingers Genuine Contacts Site
floor machines
Eureka Vacuum Bags


Board Security

192 Attacks blocked

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group