ID as a Cultural Phenomenon (Humans)

by David Turell , Sunday, September 27, 2009, 19:38 (5534 days ago) @ xeno6696


> An ameba has a DNA molecule longer than ours, more bases and only a few genes. Fit that into Darwin.
> 
> 
> As for the Amoeba claim, natural selection is only supposed to operate if there's a need. The genome can grow as big as it wants, its only going to kill a creature if it develops something 'bad.' This falls into that category of "neutral" mutations we were discussing sometime before. You've got good, neutral, and bad.-Matt; You missed the point I was making, perhaps due to my poor composition of thoughts. First, you know the key point that when the first living cellular forms appeared, DNA was there; pleuropneumonia and mycoplasma organisms have much smaller DNA than amoeba, but the issue I was making concerns the primary fact. Without DNA there isn't life. How does a complex code to run life appear immediately as life appears. It doesn't fit Darwin. This is an issue of natural selection and the 'need' to have a controlling and guiding code. This could not have occurred by neutral mutations. There had to be very active succession of good mutations to cause this. Next point, key point, even simple organisms, representing early life on the tree, have large complex DNA molecules, to run their very complex biochemistry. This is why the idea of an RNA World was so appealing, to jump start the process of life, a life that requires a DNA in charge. But an RNA World is also a jump start. That is why it is so important that you read Shapiro. He is the best skeptical Darwinist you will find.