Fine tuning in the universe and now biology how interesting

Yes, you have countless times given erroneous, fallacious "reasons" rooted in lack of knowledge and wrong-headed misconceptions about how you think genomics and molecular genetics work.  Scientists, like myself, don't take your words seriously because there is nothing serious to take.  Your words show a lack of understanding about biology.   Worse still, you show no interest in disciplining yourself to actually learn anything about modern biology, but are content to joust made-up strawmen and windmill caricatures of "evolution" that aren't based in reality.  You dance around with generalities while still failing to answer the specific questions I have challenged you with.  You continue to attack misconceptions about "evolution" despite my attempts to correct your misunderstandings, and insist that I, an expert on the subject, am the one who's wrong (Talk about hubris!  The height of it!).  I mean at least have the self-respect and discipline to learn what modern biologists actually say on the subject so you have an accurate understanding of what it is that you're actually rejecting.  But as you've shown no interest before, I suspect you'll show no interest now.  So, I'll leave to you to continue attacking the made-up "evolutionary" monsters of your imagination.  Carry on.

Perhaps even sillier is ignoring, or denying, the existence of substantial evidence that supports the model of an extremely old Universe & Earth?

So well established is the science of dating (both the Universe & the Earth) that the only credible explanation for our planet being merely thousands of years old would have to be that the Almighty set out to deliberately deceive us. Does that seem likely?

If our dirt is made by decaying plant matter, what would young dirt look like?

How could the earth possibly have been made without the appearance of age? Not to be overly silly, but were all the puppies roaming around with their eyes closed looking for nipples that weren’t there? Did Adam and Eve have to wait for the seedling trees to grow before they could eat? How could any of this have been created without the appearance of age?

"Dirt" is not made by decaying plant matter, but by weathering and erosion of rocks.  Plants existed long before humans ever did.  The geologic and paleontological records document a changing earth and changes in life's diversity over time.  They do not evidence instantaneous creation of all life around the same time.  Progressive creationism is the only creationist position that can potentially account for the paleontological and geological records.

My problem is someone telling me they know what something is just by looking at it, and proclaiming this shows evolutionary change over time, without being able to tell me why design couldn't produce the same thing. I'm more interested in the process, can the code make these over-arching changes while maintaining life? If the beginning point was there way back then, can we get to the variety of life we see today? I'm not at all interested in a declaration of faith in a theory where things have to be assumed in the distant past! I think it is nonsense to suggest some small alterations we can see in cellular life today; means wholesale changes could occur with living viability given just the limited time available. I have brought to the conversation a biologist discussing abiogenesis. The science he spoke about was never really addressed, only the fact he had a bias as if everyone who discusses these topics also doesn't bring their own bias. You can dismiss me out of hand, no worries. 

@TruthMuse

No one proclaims evolutionary change "just by looking at it."  You trivialize mountains of scientific research and show you are uninformed if that's what you think the case for evolution rests on.

Have no idea what you're talking about with regard to "biologist discussing abiogenesis" you "brought to conversation."  You must be thinking of someone else, because I've consistently discussed the problems with abiogenesis even just this past week on another thread that you've also been following and commenting on.

Yes, I know you're more interested in "process," but you still can't just conflate the "what" of evolution with the "how" of evolution like you continue to do.  They are two separate things.  As I've repeatedly said, even if your design argument is correct, then it only challenges the "how" of evolution, but it still does nothing to challenge the evidence that evolution has still occurred.  So, once again, all your arguments about "process" only challenge the "process" of evolution, and if your arguments are correct, then it simply means that evolution occurred by the hand of an intelligent designer.  That's (one of the reasons) why your design argument remains unconvincing.  Challenging the "process" of evolution does nothing to challenge the evidence for evolution itself.  It just means the proposed "process" was wrong.  In fact, even if we had no mechanism for evolution at all that still would not invalidate evolution.

So the fact you're more interested in "process" is all well and good but it still accomplishes nothing if your goal is to repudiate evolution. 

@TruthMuse  If you want to prove your case, then you need to show how billions of separate, independent creation events explains all the anatomical, physiological, structural, biochemical, developmental, and genetic similarities that exist between living organisms better than common ancestry does.

When we study mitochondria and chloroplasts in plant and animal cells and see that they are comparable in size to bacteria and that they divide like bacteria do and contain their own DNA separate from the cell nucleus and that this DNA contains bacterial DNA sequences and that this DNA is replicated by replication machinery only found in bacteria and that the gene sequences in this DNA and even the genetic code has unique features only found in bacteria, and when all this information is so specific that we can identify the specific type of bacteria that has these same characteristics, THEN YOU CAN HARDLY BLAME SOMEONE for thinking that the mitochondria and chloroplasts in plant and animal cells must have come from bacteria.  It is a completely rational and logical conclusion to draw. 

It doesn't matter "how" or by what "process" this occurred (for argument sake we could say an intelligent designer made it happen), or even if we had absolutely no idea how it could have happened at all.  It still would do nothing to change the force of this logical inference. 

When we see such similarities, we don't think, "Wow, isn't it amazing how these mitochondria and chloroplasts in plant and animal cells were separately created by an intelligent designer to make it look like they came from bacteria when they didn't?  What a great and hilarious prank for an intelligent designer to trick us with!"

Your error suggests that there is a clear way to distinguish between what was molded from evolution from what was designed by intelligence by appearance and possibly some pattern recognition. You may as well say this is pretty, and that is not, now, prove it by science.

I'm telling you that the processes as declared can do what we see today through evolutionary means without an agency, or one is required! What we see surrounding us are precise functionary systems; we see these from the grandeur of the universe's fine-tuning to the makeup of living cells and the incredible complexity we find in life, such as our own. I think people who want to suggest this is purely a material naturalist universe with nothing transcending it that has caused all of this to be put together must have blinders to ignore what is all around. So yes, I think it is completely unreasonable to think a mindless process could do all that we see without a goal in mind. Error checking is only done when there is something that has to be maintained. There is error checking in life.

If you want to suggest that evolution was the mechanism by which everything was designed by agency, that is a different discussion. Once it is determined design was required, long processes are no longer required. Evolution fast or slow as a guided process would be the creator's choice. We could not tell what speed was needed to do what was done, simply by looking at things. Any more than we could tell how fast a car was moving an hour ago by what speed it was moving now.

@TruthMuse  So you're just going to continue ranting about "mechanisms" and "mindless processes," and ignore everything I just said?  Are you incapable of understanding that all your points about "how" are irrelevant to the "what"?  Are you incapable of making that distinction?

"Your Honor, the 98% identical match of these two DNA sequences shows that these two individuals are closely related"

You: "No, it doesn't your Honor.  We don't know the "how" of it.  How could the 2% differences in DNA occur?  By what process or mechanism?  A mindless process couldn't accomplish that."

"The "how" it came to be is irrelevant.  It still does not change the fact that their DNA is 98% identical and 2% different, regardless of how that came to be, and this fact constitutes evidence that they are related, regardless of process or mechanism."

You: "No, your Honor, it could just be pattern recognition. You might as well try to prove something is pretty.  It could be that an intelligent agency independently created the two individuals with such striking similarities so that it only *seems* like they're related, when in reality it's just an illusion." 

Yeah, OK, don't ever try to defend your "case" in a courtroom or you'll be laughed out it (like the ID-ers in the Dover case were!)

***Let me help you address some of my points more directly: NO, given all the evidence, it is NOT unreasonable to think that chloroplasts and mitochondria in plant and animal cells came from bacteria.  There is no reason to think otherwise.

If the processes cannot possibly do what is suggested it can, what does it matter what your so-called evidence looks like? Two DNA sequences that are closely related, two limbs that look alike, again by design or evolutionary processes? You assume much! If the unguided natural alterations cannot get you there in the time allotted, that isn't a minor point! If unguided natural processes cannot explain the processes beginning, those are not minor points. Are they producing the results because they were designed too, or could undirected by an agency natural selection manipulate code to do the same things, in different ways, to different body types? You have a lot of faith, blind faith, that what you are looking at is the result of the mechanisms you proclaim can start without help and be maintain through eons, constantly improving functional complexity. Not denying close relations, why are there close relations, unguided processes, or directed ones overcoming all of the design issues at hand? You assume and proclaim; the issues become more difficult now with each new piece of understanding we see in the complexity of life, not less so.

Very, very well said Truthmuse. Not to keep harping on a point, but to me your comments point back to the fact that the only reason to reject the very existence of a Creator is because you want to, not because evidence compels you to. 

@TruthMuse  So, it's true.  You *are* incapable of making basic distinctions like the difference between "what" and "how."  I've taken the time to watch your videos and read your articles in their entirety like the one for this OP, which I spoke favorably of for its use of the peer-review process.  You, however, have obviously not studied any of the information I've provided you.  Had you done so, you would have obtained answers for all the questions you keep yammering on about, and you would also stop putting words into my mouth.  You really don't read closely what people have to say:

(1) With respect to origins: I've repeatedly pointed out the problems with abiogenesis and the origin of sophisticated genetic mechanisms that enable organisms to self-modify their genomes and evolve.  So why are saying I "proclaim" these mechanisms "can start without help" when I've said no such thing, but have repeatedly stated that science has no clue?  Even just last week I said YECs/ID-ers have a valid point here.  Geesh, apparently you're also incapable of realizing when people agree with you on a point, too!  Wow, that's saying something.  I gotta tell you, you make it really difficult to agree with you, and now at this point to even want to agree with you, so perhaps you should rethink your approach.

 *Today, we have mountains of evidence for both the "what" and "how" of evolution, but you still need to distinguish between the two, because they address fundamentally different questions.

(2) With respect to the "how," I'm not sure why I bother repeating myself, because again, you obviously don't listen or read the material I give you.  Had you done so but still maintained your position, then you would have at least updated your arguments and become more nuanced.  Instead, your repetitive rants merely demonstrate your continued ignorance of modern biology: Was there enough time to make these genetic alterations?  Yes, more than enough time, actually.  Can random, "unguided" natural processes cause evolution?  Evolutionary mechanisms are not as "random" or "unguided" as you think--you continue to demonstrate your ignorance by such questions.  Can evolutionary mechanisms alter genetic information without compromising "vital function"?  Yes, they can and they do.  Can mutations create new, functional information?  Yes, they can and they do.  Even ID-ers recognize this like in the creation article pyritedragon posted.  Can evolutionary mechanisms alter genetic information to create new genes and new proteins with new functions, and major changes in morphology and body plans?  Yes, absolutely, they can and they do.  Do we have evidence for macroevolution (speciation) and that evolutionary mechanisms can create new species?  Absolutely!  Without question!   We have mountains of evidence, including real-time observations.  Even ID-ers like Behe and Meyer recognize this.

*We are NOT ignorant of the "how," but that is still a separate question from the "what."

(3) With respect to the "what," you can't just simply write-off all the staggering similarities that exist.  And not just similarities, but evidence from genomics that not only allows us to compare genetic similarities, but allows us to trace changes in genomes and construct family-tree relationships.  The SAME TYPE OF REASONING is used with the New Testament to identify different textual traditions, construct family-tree relationships between manuscripts, and track changes in manuscripts over time in order to establish the most accurate, original text of the New Testament.  If you question the soundness of such reasoning, then you also undermine the entire basis for establishing confidence in the New Testament text.   But even so, questioning is not enough: As I said, YOU must show how billions of independent, separate creation events better explains the observational evidence than common ancestry, and quite simply you have failed to do so.  

*Listen TruthMuse, it's a free country, so you have the right to believe anyway you want.  If you want to reject all the evidence for evolution, then good for you.  If you want to think that it's all the result an intelligent designer who created everything in six days, then that's your perogative.

*What you cannot do, however, is fault someone else for thinking otherwise.  You are welcome to believe that an intelligent designer separately created chloroplasts and mitochondria in plant and animal cells to give the illusion that they came from bacteria when they didn't.  But you can't fault the rest of us for concluding on the basis of extensive evidence that mitochondria and chloroplasts came from bacteria (and, yes, we also have extensive evidence with regard to the "how" this occurred).  If you have a problem with that, then your question is better directed to the intelligent designer and why the intelligent designer created such a strong, deceptive illusion to give the false appearance that they came from bacteria if they didn't.

I suppose the Creator tricked you by giving you the illusion that a rooster can make the sun come up? When He’s told you the truth and you jump to other conclusions, He hasn’t “tricked you”.

@Kjvav  I'm sorry kjvav, but that's just idiotic and shows you obviously haven't read my post #149.  While you're at it, please show me where in the Bible we're told the "truth" about bacteria or chloroplasts and mitochondria. Plus TruthMuse has made it quite clear that we don't even need the Bible and can arrive at "truth" on "the merits" by applying logic and reasoning (I'm still waiting for the latter to be demonstrated by TM).

   I certainly  did read your post #149.  My comment is aimed at your repeated complaint that “If Creation is true the Creator tricked me”. A ridiculous example is often the best one to prove a point, hence the rooster, and it is not idiotic. You look at things and jump to conclusions... your conclusions are not the Creator’s fault. I know you don’t accept this next point, but it doesn’t really need your acceptance to be true... that is, if you reject what is told to you in the Scriptures and jump to other conclusions, the fault is your’s, not God’s. I know you will reply that this is no place to try to convince someone with Scripture. TruthMuse is proving that you cannot convince someone with logic either if they don’t want to be convinced.

@Kjvav   Like I said, then show me where in the Bible we're told the "truth" about bacteria and chloroplasts and mitochondria.  

crickets 

   You’ve been told the truth that God in the beginning created the heavens and the earth. You’ve been told the truth that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that the things which are seen were not made of things which do appear (Heb.11:3), you’ve been told that the invisible things of God are clearly seen and able to be understood because of the things that are made and that because of that you are without excuse (Rom1:19 & 20). That’s just a short list. If you reject what Scripture says and argue on and on (in your own heart, I’m not talking about arguing with me or TruthMuse or any person) about your assumptions about cells and common traits and whatever, well, that’s your  right, have at it. But don’t be surprised if some of us smirk when you complain that God “tricked” you.