₦airaland Forum

UyiIredia:
The arguments from consciousness and complex specified information. If you explain why you find comparative anatomy and biochemistry convincing I'll explain my position.

In anatomy, there are vestigial structures which would be pointless if the organisms were intelligently designed. Then there's the fact of homologous structures in embryonic and adult organisms.

In biochemistry, we have the fact that certain protein structures are remarkably conserved across life forms.

Now, please explain your position.

UyiIredia:
You agree there's a deist God ! Aren't you an atheist ?

I said you can open another thread where I agree that there is a deist God but that still doesn't lead to your Christian God.

AllNaijaBlogger:
So you sound like a doctor/scientist.

Now can you explain how the body would survive one minute without DNA? How is that possible? A simple change in DNA can lead to morbid results in a persons body, how much then the absence?

How long do you think it takes for aberrations in DNA to manifest in adults?

I can help you think this through but I won't teach you biochemistry on a public forum for free.

AllNaijaBlogger:
www.nairaland.com/attachments/2148751_youcanlie_jpeg5d968924a5542a09f868bfd0af70a517

Another ignorant joker.

UyiIredia:
Just to keep things in perspective the purpose of this thread was to argue for God as generally understood (by theists and deists), the Creator of the universe. I think one must first get atheists to accepting there's a God before arguing for why it has to be the God of a religion. As it is, getting a deist out of an atheist is as difficult as turning lead into gold, or as Jesus said, getting a camel through a needle's eye.

Rubbish. If you like, you can open another thread where I agree that there is a deist God but that still doesn't lead to your Christian God.

UyiIredia:
What evidence do you find the most convincing about evolution ?

They're all linked and I find them all pretty convincing. I'll go with evidence from comparative anatomy and comparative biochemistry.

What evidence of intelligent design creationism do you find most convincing?

UyiIredia:
This is a poor answer. The requirement is natural processes excluding life that could effect the same kind of biochemicals life has. If natural processes lack that ability they couldn't have effected life.

Why should I exclude life when it is a natural process? The precursors are already available.

UyiIredia:
Neurons get turned on and off when they are or aren't firing electrical impulses. Artificial hearts don't need to contract actual muscles, they are similar in that they contract. Does an artificial muscle have to be invented before you see their similarity ?

If you ignore nanotech and genetic engineering you are being unreasonable. DNA computers, artificial chromosomes, buckyballs, artificial skin etc get as close to elements of living things as it is.

An off neuron is a dead neuron. A neuron that isn't firing isn't "off", it hasn't acquired enough action potential to fire. They need to contract muscles. They need to be biological for the analogy to even start getting close to working. And you're being unreasonable in comparing nanotechnology to biological organisms in order to arrive at the claim that biological organisms that evolved over millions of years are also designed in a similar way.

UyiIredia:
This is silly. Just as you don't have to accept creation because abiogenesis is unevidenced, I don't have to propose another theory to show that evolution is wrong.

This is stupid. You have to explain the world better than evolution does if you want your argument to even be considered. How exactly can you show that a scientific theory is incorrect without having a better theory that does more than that theory does? Note that I said incorrect not incomplete.

UyiIredia:
It doesn't have to happen everywhere else. One other planet would be good for starters, after all humans don't all live in one place. It's amazing that you still hold unto an unevidenced belief while holding a position that lays claim to 'reason and logic'.

Do you really have any suggestion of just how big the universe is because that would let you know of just how ridiculous your talk about "one other planet would be good" actually is. It's amazing that you hold on to myths and superstition and think that they better explain the world than actual reason and logic.

UyiIredia:
If different species are living organisms then hearts, brains, pumps and computers are functional systems (comprised of various parts achieving a given purpose).

Must man design an artificial lifeform before you accept the similarities ? Not to mention that designing such is not impossible and would be a powerful argument for design. I think your 'philosophical reasons' term is a smokescreen, but then again, what are these philosophical reasons ?

You still don't see the flaw of your argument. Again man designing such entities can only lead to the conclusion that humans were created by other humans or human like entities not a magically unknown being.

Reasons like the universe not being designed, life evolved and continues to evolve, Gods aren't needed for moral reasoning and many others.

UyiIredia:
This is a very poor answer. The proteins are made of those isomers so saying humans use L-isomers because their proteins only use the L-isomers is circular logic.

That isn't "circular logic", that is the actual answer. I'm presenting you with factual information. What exactly is the point you're trying to make? How does the fact that humans use L-isomers mean that God did it? Why didn't God make humans use both L-isomers and D-isomers?

KingEbukasBlog:
God created man As a debater , you should know your opponent

I wanted you to say it specifically. Now, how did God create humans? Did he mould them with his hands? Or did he just produce them with his omnipotence? Or what?

UyiIredia:
Those structures you describe merely make up L-isomers. Again, what natural process makes organisms use only L-isomers ?

No, the structures I described use molecules of that specific chirality. Again, what exactly is the point you're trying to make?

KingEbukasBlog:
So what was "the state of things"

Please answer my question.

KingEbukasBlog:
So , why did they evolve that way ?

Natural selection.

KingEbukasBlog:
Man is created in God's image . Our abilities to think , reason , decide , moral behaviour , communicate etc are all a reflection of His abilities - as seen in the bible .

Your God is immoral, for him to think, reason and decide then he would have to be bound by time. His communication skills are very questionable. How can you say a God who thinks slavery and commanding genocide are good moral ideas? How can think without time? How exactly does he communicate with you?

KingEbukasBlog:
You answered the question

Are you accepting my answer as being correct?

KingEbukasBlog:
so something came out from nothing ?

Please answer my question.

KingEbukasBlog:
I'm not an evolutionist

Okay.

KingEbukasBlog:
The giant leatherback sea turtle is a only living species in the genus Dermochelys and family Dermochelyidae , assuming it died 400 million years ago , there would be claims that our present turtles evolved from it .

Huh? That doesn't explain the fossils we currently have and thus doesn't answer my question. So, how would you explain fossils?

KingEbukasBlog:
Monkeys come from the same family as man , if man has an ancestral line -homoerectus etc- why shouldn't monkeys ? Can you provide details of monkey's ancestral line or evolutionary phases .

So you want a list of names? Well I'm not sure they've been named but you can follow this link for more information if you're that interested.

KingEbukasBlog:
God did it Am a christian .. remember

How did he do it? What you've said is no better than saying fairies did it.

KingEbukasBlog:
Ive already answered that question

No you didn't. You can post a link to that answer in your response or just quote yourself below.

KingEbukasBlog:
What standards do you think should be attained before one acquire an advanced knowledge of God

Whatever standards that are necessary. After all, you're the one proposing knowledge of this fictional entity.

UyiIredia:
Yes a human been is not literally a DNA molecule. But it can be said to be humans are QUITE literally their DNA.

Look stop trying to rescue a failed assertion. If a human cannot literally be a DNA molecule, how can humans quite literally be their DNA?

UyiIredia:
Nothing.

That is because they are literally the same. That is why I've said over and over again that you are not literally your DNA.

UyiIredia:
No, the DNA dictates the terms on which the environment affects an organism.
The DNA is the basis on which an organism is built and that determines how it responds to environmental factors.

The environment determines how the DNA will manifest itself. The environment is the basis on which an organism's DNA responds.

UyiIredia:
You're mistaken. Excessive radiation doesn't completely erase an organisms DNA, in fact, it doesn't affect it much, the article I post below explains that.

http://biotech.law.lsu.edu/research/reports/ACHRE/intro_9_5.html

Besides, some organisms like waterbears survive in excess radiation.

I didn't say it would completely erase an organisms DNA, I said it is one line of evidence that can help us know what would happen if all our DNA suddenly disappeared. Waterbears aren't humans are they?

davidylan:
that's virtually impossible. Ion pumps and the cell membrane are proteins that are constantly in flux - how do they work for hours if your DNA vanished? The ion pumps require ATP to function... if you have no DNA, your mitochondria cant function... if mitochondria cant function, you have no ATP... so i ask, outside of passive channels which require no ATP, how does an ion PUMP work? Liposomes are an example of vesicles with bilayer cell membranes - they have no DNA or other cellular organelles to speak off and would be the most relevant example of a cell without DNA. You should note that a liposome has ZERO function other than as a vehicle for drug delivery.

Perhaps you should do a bit more thinking and less wasteful, immature blustering. You've been caught lying and basically have to use bravado to cover.

Ion pumps don't need DNA to function. They need DNA to be formed. Seriously it looks like I'll have to teach you basic biochemistry for you to see the errors you're making. You're in way beyond your depth. Just read through this [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Na%2B/K%2B-ATPase]Wikipedia[/url] summary because I can't teach you basic biochemistry on a public forum. At least not without enough money as compensation. You're basically too ignorant on this topic to continue this part of the conversation.

Mature red blood cells don't contain DNA and they work for months. This is why I say you're just too ignorant to continue here.

davidylan:
they are not... how many times do we have to go through this musical chairs you keep playing?

Well, why don't you consult the texts or search online for evidence of evolution. I'm sure you'll see fossils somewhere in there. Merely asserting they're not doesn't make them stop being evidence of evolution.

UyiIredia:
This is yet another example of your wilful ignorance. If natural processes can't effect proteins or L-isomers only then they're incapable of making life.

Life is a natural process and that makes proteins. Secondly, the precursors are readily available. I still don't see the point you're trying to make.

UyiIredia:
Neurons get turned on and off like transistors. Artificial hearts also contract. Nanotech and genetic engineering feats are more similar to living systems in scale and manner of operation. It shouldn't be ignored.

No neurons don't get turned on and off. Do pumps work by contracting muscles? Again, your talk about nanotech is still no better than your talk about pumps and computers.

UyiIredia:
I don't need to present a better theory to show evolution is crap. The theory must be analyzed on its own merit not on the merit of another theory.

Actually you need to because you should be able to explain what the theory of evolution does and more.

UyiIredia:
You just asserted a different environment could have organized life. You made no arguments supporting that assertion. If natural processes didn't cause life on many other planets with different environments, then there's a reason to doubt such happened on early earth, moreso given the fact that extreme heat and radiation would have killed of any life that presumably evolved.

It is a fact that life arose in a different environment. How about the fact that there was a time when the earth was to hot to support life? Why exactly should the fact that life arose on earth by natural processes mean that it must also happen everywhere else? This makes no more sense than saying since there are humans living on one part of earth's surface, they must live everywhere. How about the fact that the earth cooled and still changed further.

UyiIredia:
Again evading the point. If you have no evidence for how life could arise naturally then you have no basis to assert it did. There's nothing wrong with an argument by analogy, in fact evolutionists use it when they point to similarities in DIFFERENT species to assert a common ancestry. I argue that similarities in human inventions and living systems are a basis to infer creation since human inventions were made via their intellect.

Haven't you been reading what I said? Again there are philosophical reasons not to accept your assertions. As I've said in the past, I don't know exactly how it arose but that isn't enough reason for me to say your God did it.
Everything is wrong with it the way you're using it. The different species are still living organisms. What you're referring to as similarities actually aren't that similar. Saying humans invent things therefore God invented other things is missing too many steps to be valid.

davidylan:
We are playing musical chairs at this point and you're doing the classical answering a question based on the answer. I asked the key question which you pretended to ignore... what was the evolutionary driver to use only the L-isomers but not the D-isomers? If humans evolved, it means they obviously evolved the mechanism to produce both isomers at one point but gradually lost the ability to do so - the problem is that there is zero evidence that this ever occurred at any time... another problem is that we have not been able to get even the most rudimentary single-celled organisms to both produce and use D-isomers... why?

Those are critical questions - just hopping around and trying to question credibility when you find yourself in a bind is a complete waste of time. I get paid to be a scientist, you read off google... big difference.

Why should the fact that humans evolved mean that they have to use both isomers? Really just because you're ignorant about basic biology and try to cover it up by throwing about stupid questions that undergraduate biochemistry students won't doesn't make you smart. What you're calling a critical question just serves as evidence of your lies about your expertise.

davidylan:
and those other animals arose from where? I assume that you can no longer understand the term "origin"?

You did not answer my question. How would you say man arose?

davidylan:
Because the question is a silly cop-out. The problem is not that fossils exist but that CERTAIN KEY TYPES OF FOSSILS do not. Fossils are very well explainable - we have fossilized forms of fully evolved organisms from billions of years ago... but if evolution were true, then we should also be able to find fossilized forms of pre-humans for example in the fossilized record. Where are they?

Fossilization is a rare process and we have found lots of human fossils. Again, go to museums to see the ones that have been dug up. As usual, Wikipedia has a paragraph in its long article on human evolution. See here.

davidylan:
I asked because it is virtually impossible for a cell to exist without its DNA. This is a silly argument and your intransigence and unwillingness to accept that when it comes to biology, you only have google to go off of is the problem. if you remove DNA from a cell... it just ceases to exist period... we did that routinely in the lab and there is verifiable evidence.

There are cells that function for months without DNA so please just stop with your foolish ignorance of biology. You must be a proper fool to say that removing DNA from a cell makes it stop existing. I'm very sure you did nothing of the sort in the lab. This is why I have to conclude that you're lying about your lab experience.

davidylan:
Besides, how does DNA just suddenly disappear? That is virtually unheard off and you will win a nobel prize for medicine if you can figure out how to engineer a DNA-less cell. You have billions of cells at any time in your body - including stem cells - how can you suddenly lose all your DNA? Absurd. Even viruses, hydra, amoeba... all have DNA... that's how stupi.d you sound at this point.

You are are one of the most stupid and idiotic people I've ever met online and I've met quite a few idiots. Why don't you go back and read what I actually wrote? I told you it was a hypothetical and I answered based on that assumption. Did you not see my references to magic and instantaneous DNA disappearance? Or did you read all this and say wow thehomer is talking about what he did in his secret lab to impress the foolish davidylan. Just go to sleep you daft slowpoke.

davidylan:
They are not there so please spare us the false sarcasm. If they are in the ground, how do you know? Why have we found billions of fossils of fully evolved organisms from billions of years ago but always have to scramble for excuses when it comes to transitional forms?

Because we've been digging them up for centuries now. Have you been living in a cave? You do realize that there are transitional forms. Simply go to a museum and ask to see them if you find it too hard to locate them in their displays.

davidylan:
You have basically danced around the fact that you made a baseless claim... how can you survive without DNA? That is virtually impossible as DNA is the very basis for existence at all... i mean how does the cell work without the necessary machinery since DNA does not exist? tRNA basically has to be transcribed from DNA... so how exactly do you form amino acids/peptide chains necessary for life without DNA?

Have you ever even seen a cell without DNA? Is that possible? How is it possible that an entire human can get rid of their DNA and still survive? The amount of head scratching idiocy here is amazing.

Are you this stupid, are you drunk or are you merely pretending to be this dense? I said you would die but it won't be instantaneous. It won't be as rapid as if you've been decapitated you stupid buffoon. The brain doesn't multiply rapidly. Neither do the heart and lungs. The cellular machinery like the ion pumps and cell membrane would still work for a while if all your DNA magically disappeared instantaneously.

Seriously just where and for how long did you study biology? Or did those chemicals permanently damage your brain?

KingEbukasBlog:
Because something cant come from nothing

Who says nothing was ever the state of things?

KingEbukasBlog:
So what is the reason ?

They evolved that way.

KingEbukasBlog:
This is rhetorical , obviously

Well mine is an actual question. Please answer.

KingEbukasBlog:
So why arent these conditions present in other planets ?

Please answer my question.

KingEbukasBlog:
Again , what is this reason

They evolved that way.

KingEbukasBlog:
Again, another obvious rhetorical question

I want an actual answer. Please answer.

KingEbukasBlog:
"Supernatural intervention "

So the fairies dancing round toadstools did it?

KingEbukasBlog:
Fossils are no evidence of evolution . Again , can you list the evidence of ancestry of monkeys ? Cos you didnt answer my question

Fossils are one line of evidence for evolution. I just gave you multiple lines of evidence. How would you say man evolved? And how would you explain fossils? Besides, what is the point of this question.

KingEbukasBlog:
So what is that reason ?

They evolved that way. I notice that you didn't answer my question.

KingEbukasBlog:
God created the sun billions of years ago . Apparently , you have no basic knowledge of God

Why did God create plants before the sun? Do you have advanced knowledge of God?

davidylan:
A very simple and logical point that biologists have never been able to figure out - how is it that the human cell is virtually only capable of making the L-amino acid but not the D-forms even though small amounts of the simplest D-forms are made in nature? What was the evolutionary driver for this specificity?

What does the tertiary and quaternary structures of polypeptide chains to do with the question? I'm as confused as anyone else as it seems you're responding to the question with a totally different response that doesnt make sense.

These sorts of questions are what make me question your multiple assertions of having some knowledge of biology. Humans only use certain isomers because the proteins they produce only use those isomers. Those proteins have certain active areas that are exposed and the exposure depends on how those proteins fold. The isomers that aren't used cannot physically fit into the proteins to get in contact with the active areas in order to react.

Again I have to ask. What is the point of this question? How does this mean your God had anything to do with anything?

davidylan:
Not really... outside of evolution, there is no other serious speculation on the origin of species. So how does one thing make the most sense when its the only idea available?

Because that is how science works. Don't forget it used to be the case that people thought God did it all or that species sprung up from the ground. The fact that modern science is so convincing isn't a bug, it is a feature and I mean this seriously.

davidylan:
Secondly, for all the noise about evolution, how does it explain the very origin of man?

Man arose from other animals. How would you say man arose?

davidylan:
I'm not sure how fossils explain evolution... infact they do disprove evolution considering you still cant find transitory forms.

I'll tell you. Fossils show that there were different species living in earlier times and that current species weren't present in those times. The fossils are some samples of the "transitional forms" we've found. How would you explain fossils? You didn't answer that question.

davidylan:
I'm still waiting for your response on how you can survive without your dna for a few hours before death. Never heard of such in my life...

I know you haven't since you're waiting for it to be written in a book. Yet you moan about people searching through Wikipedia while asking people to think for themselves. I thought you knew something about DNA and biology. How long do you think someone would survive if their DNA suddenly disappeared?

davidylan:
Its a valid question... if i asked you why you think otherwise, you would not be able to say. You're basically relying on appealing to authority here...

The question really is this - if macro evolution is true, where are the transition species?

In the ground and in museums.
If you understand one of the basic premises of the theory of evolution, you'll realize that the question flawed.

davidylan:
huh? In what book did you read that?

Don't need a book when you understand how DNA is supposed to work and realize that death won't be instantaneous. There are many other things that can kill you faster than magically losing your DNA instantaneously. I hope you know that it is a hypothetical question.

timonski:
@thehomer, kay17, kingebukasblog..
Una come here dey debate for oga davidylan back abi?

davidylan knows where I'm at.

UyiIredia:
This doesn't answer the question. We already know L-isomers are of a given shape. The problem is what is responsible for making such proteins in the body only L-isomers despite the presence of both isomers naturally.

The tertiary and quaternary structures of the amino-acid chains. What exactly is the point you're trying to make?

UyiIredia:
davidylan said QUITE literally. You missed that part. While your DNA can't do everything you do, it is a fact that everything you can do is because of your DNA.

That is not how you use the word "literally". Look it up. A human being cannot literally be a DNA molecule.

UyiIredia:
The president can be a different person, Buhari can't.

What is it that the Nigerian president can do right now that General Buhari cannot do?

UyiIredia:
The DNA is the basis on which these factors affect a person. This is why different people respond differently to the same environment.

Well the environment is the basis on which the DNA acts that way.

UyiIredia:
What's the evidence for this ?

Severe exposure to radiation. Even with the burns, the victims don't die immediately.

UyiIredia:
And the body uses only one type. Neither is there any natural process that explains how that type was selected for.

So what?

UyiIredia:
This doesn't address my point. The body synthesizes proteins, we know of no natural process that does such.

The body does not fuse hydrogen and we know of natural processes that do this. What is your point?

UyiIredia:
The evolutionary explanation for how brains and hearts came to be is poor. Hearts and brains have similar functions to pumps and computers and work on the same principles I earlier stated. You also ignored my point on nanotech and genetic engineering feats which are more similar to living systems in their scale and manner of operating. Again, so far as it is a given that intelligence is crucial to designing the sort of systems see in life the inference to design is justified.

The evolutionary explanation makes the most sense. You say they work on the same principles. Well computers work by switching transistors. Is that how the brain works? The heart pumps blood by contraction of myocytes. Is that how pumps work? I ignored that talk about nanotech because it is no better than your talk about pumps and computers. Well the theory of evolution reveals that intelligence isn't needed so your inference is unjustified.

UyiIredia:
It doesn't. The theory of evolution is highly flawed at best and total crap at worst.

Well go ahead and present a better testable theory.

UyiIredia:
Heat, chemicals and radiation also degrade the body. Special pleading for a different environment doesn't help your case, such environments would still face the problems of synthesis and organization I stated. In fact, the absence of life in other planets and moons with different environments supports this point.

How did I commit the fallacy of special pleading? You spoke about degradation and I pointed out the problem with that. Absence of life on inhospitable planets supports what point?

UyiIredia:
This doesn't remove the fact that you hold a position totally devoid of evidence by your own admission. As for the evidence for design, that's what you failed to sispute earlier.

I already said there are philosophical reasons for not accepting your assertion. Actually your current position still lacks evidence. You've merely made the usual bad argument from analogy.

KingEbukasBlog:
Mine is more veridical then

Ebuka's beliefs

1. God - exists outside time thus has always existed

How do you know this? And what is your evidence for this claim?

KingEbukasBlog:
2. God, a highly intelligent being , is the creator of all things - gives life a purpose of existence

How do you know this?

KingEbukasBlog:
thehomer's beliefs

1. Something came out from nothing and for no reason begot life
2. No purpose of life , things happen naturally for no reason

Let me scrutinize the folly of your beliefs with these questions

a. Why does man have a complex brain and not other animals

The same reason why elephants have trunks and not other animals. Why would you say man has a more complex brain?

KingEbukasBlog:
b . Why does earth support life and not same for other planets

Because the conditions on earth are suitable for life. Why would you say the earth supports life?

KingEbukasBlog:
c. Why is there so much disparity in the qualities in man when compared to other animals as regards to these :
Social ,Moral , spiritual and habitual behaviour

The same reason why there are disparities in qualities in elephants when compared to other animals with regards to size, trunk and tusks. And what is your explanation for the disparity?

KingEbukasBlog:
d. How on earth can life spring up from inorganic matter

I don't know how it happened. How would you say it happened?

KingEbukasBlog:
e. If man evolved from the ancestors of apes- homoerectus , hompsapien ; can you list the evidence of ancestry of monkeys (in the same family as man )

Humans are apes. The evidence lies in multiple fields including biogeography, biochemistry, comparative anatomy and genetics. How would you say man evolved? And how would you explain fossils?

KingEbukasBlog:
f. Why didnt other animals evolve to be highly intelligent as man , since man evolved from the lowest possible level of intelligence

The same reason why other animals didn't evolve to use trunks as well as elephants can. Why didn't other animals evolve to use trunks as well as elephants can?

KingEbukasBlog:
e. Look at plants , trees - so nature felt there is a need to feed the animals or was it some mistake too ?

et cetera

Look at the sun. I guess nature felt there was a need to feed plants. Why did God create plants before the sun?

That's rubbish and unacceptable. Why should pilgrimages be state funded? Why should religion determine the cost of what you buy?