Yes, he is asking about that mechanism. What is it? Magic?

Read my second paragraph. I think we call it gene splicing.

Yes, he is asking about that mechanism. What is it? Magic?

Read my second paragraph. I think we call it gene splicing.

On 21 Oct 2005 16:41:03 -0700, "Budikka666" <budikka1@netscape.net>
wrote:

Lee Bowman wrote:

How about this. It's been established that the genetic codes
determine what biologic lifeform a particular DNA/RNA came from.

What does that mean, exactly? The genetic code *is* the DNA. RNA
plays the role of transcriptor from the DNA to the protein the DNA
specifies.

Unimportant to the point being made.

if you could alter some of the coding of an ovum's DNA in such a way
as to cause the mitotic process to produce a different biologic entity
than it would have produced otherwise?

You would need to alter the sperm's DNA as well, in a like manner,
otherwise you're asking for trouble.

Good point. What are the chances of a random mutation and selection
occurring in both the male and the female (by natural means).

..... but that the structure changes with speciation, right?

The structure remains essentially the same. The component bases of the
structure change. But if DNA was designed, how come there's so much
junk in it?

Some of the 'junk' DNA may have a function we don't know about. Some
may not. Redundant is a better term, and it may be a result of the
replication process. It doesn't hurt anything, although some
sequences seem to point to cancer susceptibility. Finally, just
because something is designed, and made to replicate itself on its
own, doesn't mean it has to be perfect. (I'll come back to that
later).

Speciation can occur quite rapidly. Evolution from start to now took a
long time.

I've read of Steven J. Gould's theory of punctualed equillibrium, and
am skeptical that major changes can occur on their own quickly.

It's
been postulated to help explain the lack of transitional forms found.

Well what if cosmic 'scientists' (or
a single creator) 'tweaked' the DNA/RNA of an ovum to produce a
slightly altered species. After observation and contemplation, that
change could be rescinded and another one tried. On and on ....

What if they didn't? Where is the evidence that this happened? And if
it's necessary to have intelligent designers interfering in the case of
planet Earth, who was it who made the necessary adjustments to the DNA
of the designers themselves? And who adjusted the adjusters DNA, et
cetera ad infinitum.

You're assuming the designers were biologic lifeforms.

All your argument consists of is the tired old argument from first
cause which has been discredited.

Bio workshop earth. Similar to things we do, huh?

Humans have never, yet, created a universe, which is what the
creationists toss into the mix whenever they raise this issue.

Creationists are straw men here. I don't accept the Genesis account,
as I've stated.

When we build a
car, we alter the die that stamps something out maybe. That will
change the shape or function of the end product. Actually, today we
plug data into a computer to alter something a machine produces for
us. It's gotton almost completely automatic these days. Cars (and
toasters) almost hatch!

You cannot compare human artifacts with living things like that. The
only reason we know that a car, a computer, an airplane, is designed by
an intelligence is that we know that a car, a computer, an airplane, is
designed by an intelligence.

It's a crude analogy, but I've got nothing better to compare ID to.

We cannot say the same of the universe.
What would a universe look like it it were the result of undirected
nature as opposed to one that was designed?

Chaos, IMO.

Study the shape of a pretty woman's face. Look at each detail
carefully, and see if you can see any design features that would not
have resulted from natural selection of random mutations. The gently
sloping nose, the flared nostrels, the protruding forehead and
eyelashes (protection of the eyes), the hair on the head with its
neatly pattered growth outline, (more protection, and a wick for
evaporation to cool the brain).

You fell through the floor right there. What you described is not a
design. To use your own flawed example, when humans designed something
to keep astronauts cool, they designed a body-hugging set of water
pipes that carried the heat away to a heat exchanger in a back pack.
I've never seen that in the natural world. Now if they'd designed a
spacesuit with masses of wet hair on the helmet, you might have been
onto something....

The sweat and evaporation process works. I never said there wern't
any other ways to do it.

The argument that a particular design could
be done differently (or even better) doesn't preclude it having been
designed.

How about the protruding chin to
offer protection for the teeth?

Where's your support for this assertion? Many organisms do not have a
protruding chin: what protects their teeth? Would an intelligent
designer design teeth so badly that he's then forced to create a chin
for the sole purpose of protecting them? Why design such fragile teeth
in the first place, prone to breakage and appallingly prone to cavities
from acid produced by the bacteria that this intelligent designer
somehow failed to account for? When humans design teeth for a cog
wheel, do they make them out of calcium phosphate, or do they make them
out of steel or titanium? Why aren't *our* teeth made from stainless
steel? Again, your "argument" falls flat on its face.

I'd be interested in knowing how a biologic lifeform could spawn
stainless steel teeth.

By the way, the teeth have a hard outer shell

of calcium and a softer inner core (called dentin). They aren't
perfect and don't last forever, nor were they designed to.

The shape of the ears to reflect some
of the ambient soundwaves into the ear.

Why not make us telepathic and clairvoyant to obviate the need for
hearing instead of setting up a ridiculous set of used jawbones to
transmit sound. Is *this* something an intelligent designer would do?
I don't see many used jawbones in Bose speakers. Or is this something
a god is incapable of doing?

The tongue has a multitude of
functions (12, actually).

If the designer had made us photsynthesize, we wouldn't need one, and
no one would ever starve to death.

It he/they had made us more trusting and kinder there wouldn't be
wars. Why should we assume that the body should have been made
perfect, or at least more durable?

How about the teeth. All 32, in neat
little rows, the front ones chisel shaped for cutting, the corner ones
spiked (for tearing), the side/rear ones shaped for .... you get the
point.

No, you don't. The teeth are so badly "designed" that they need to be
replaced in childhood, and once they're gone after that, they're gone
for good. They're fragile and easily corroded, and the late-arriving
wisdom teeth often cause problems because they were "designed" for a
larger jaw. This is supposed to be intelligent design? Horses and
sharks do better.

The term intelligent is relative. We call ourselves intelligent, yet
we smoke, abuse children, make war, make mistakes. The designers of
life down here aren't necessarily perfect, nor would make they
necessarily make us perfect.

There is no doubt but that all life was designed,

Only if you're a complete moron, there's no doubt.

And of course you have all the answers.

Answers that have been fed to
us by religionists of another sort;

those who are determined to prove
what was postulated years ago,

seems logical from an atheist point of
view, and will ultimately prove false.