Intelligent Reasoning

Promoting, advancing and defending Intelligent Design via data, logic and Intelligent Reasoning and exposing the alleged theory of evolution as the nonsense it is. I also educate evotards about ID and the alleged theory of evolution one tard at a time and sometimes in groups

Sunday, June 04, 2006

Genetics: Why evolutionism fails

What makes a fly a fly? In his book (English title) “Why is a Fly not a Horse?”, the prominent Italian geneticist Giuseppe Sermonti, tells us the following :

Chapter VI “Why is a Fly not a horse?” (same as the book’s title)

”The scientist enjoys a privilege denied the theologian. To any question, even one central to his theories, he may reply “I’m sorry but I do not know.” This is the only honest answer to the question posed by the title of this chapter. We are fully aware of what makes a flower red rather than white, what it is that prevents a dwarf from growing taller, or what goes wrong in a paraplegic or a thalassemic. But the mystery of species eludes us, and we have made no progress beyond what we already have long known, namely, that a kitty is born because its mother was a she-cat that mated with a tom, and that a fly emerges as a fly larva from a fly egg.”

IOW it is a bit premature to say that one populatuion can "evolve" into another before we know what makes an organism what it is. For without that knowledge there is no way to test or verify the premise.

“It is true that genes influence every aspect of development, but influencing something is not the same as determining it.”
Michael John Denton

We do know the information for the coding of genes which then code for the assembly of proteins & enzymes, resides in the genome, i.e. the organisms’ DNA. We also know there are HOX genes, and clusters of those (HOX clusters), which control the development of body parts during the organisms’ developmental (embryonic) stage. We also know that many of the HOX genes are common throughout the animal kingdom. We also know that the HOX genes only control (for any specific part) the development of, as in does it develop or not, a body part and not what type of part it is, its shape nor the function. IOW a mouse “eyeless” gene transferred to a fly missing that gene, would give the fly back its fly-eyes.

IOW HOX genes are genetic switches and routers. And that is another thing to consider- communication at the molecular level as well as communication throughout the organism. Mutations in HOX genes can cause the loss of body parts. It can also cause body parts to show up where they aren’t supposed to. But in all cases that have been observed, the survivors are always deformed versions of the original, with no chance of reproductive success nor any indication the deformity would lead to the evolution of a new and viable body plan.

OK so if HOX genes are genetic switches, that can cause body parts to not develop or to develop on a different body segment, what about the information for the body part itself? And just how would unintelligent, blind/ undirected processes account for the use of genetic switches never mind their origin?

We know that organisms with disparate DNA can & do have similar morphological features (marsupials and their placental copies). We know that very disparate organisms with disparate DNA can have very similar organs (eyes of the octopus and the human eyes). We also know that organisms with the same DNA can take on very disparate forms (caterpillars & butterflies). Where does the information reside and how did it get there?

A scientist was talking with a farmer. They agreed that if the scientist could tell the farmer the number of sheep in his flock the scientist could take a sheep. The scientist glanced over the flock and shouted 53! “That’s right,” said the farmer. “That science of yours is pretty amazing. Take yer pick.”
The scientist bends over and scoops up an animal.
“You must be a molecular biologist.” Said the farmer.
“Why yes, I am. How did you know?” inquired the scientist.
“That’s not important” replied the farmer..” Just put down the dog.”

Any objective person can see evolutionism is nothing more than a faith. A faith based on a philosophy.


  • At 3:44 PM, Blogger Joe Mc'Lynch said…

    Hmm, I still dont understand intellegent design. Something doesn't have to have a creater just because it's too complicated, right?
    Just wondering :-)

  • At 6:37 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    JOe Mc:
    Hmm, I still dont understand intellegent design.

    What have you read about ID?

    Joe Mc:
    Something doesn't have to have a creater just because it's too complicated, right?

    Complexity is just part of it.

    Read these

  • At 3:47 PM, Blogger Steve said…

    Why don't you define complexity for us Joe?

  • At 9:15 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Why don't you define complexity for us Joe?

    It has been defined by those in a better position to do so.

    And as I said complexity is just part of it. IOW ID is NOT just based on complexity.

    But anyway I take it you don't see anything wrong with the OP. Thanks.

  • At 1:51 PM, Blogger Steve said…

    So I take it the answer is: You can't define complexity.

    Isn't it about time for you to tell me how little I know about IDC?


  • At 5:20 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    I take it Steve can't follow a thread and actually STAY ON TOPIC.

    He also fails to understand that "complexity" is only PART of the design inference, just as I stated in my response to Joe Mc'Lynch.

    And now it appears he can't even use a dictionary.

    Seeing that "IDC" only exists in the minds of the mentally retarded, I do not know what Steve "knows" about it. However it is obvious he knows very little, if anything, about ID.

  • At 9:24 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    IOW it is a bit premature to say that one populatuion can "evolve" into another before we know what makes an organism what it is.

    Isn't it even more premature, from a scientific perspective, to start infering design by a designer that exists outside of the natural universe as we know it?

    Not at all. All we need is knowledge of what intelligent agencies are capable of coupled with the knowledge of what nature, acting alone, is capable of. And we have that.

    For without that knowledge there is no way to test or verify the premise.

    So without the knowledge of how one organism can evolve into another it is not possible to infer evolution because there is no way to test or verify the premise?

    You have a major reading comprehension problem. “How” is not the question.

    You do that all too often, I say one thing and you twist it into something else. If we were debating on stage I would walk over and give you a big dope slap.

    But, you are happy to infer design even though there is no way to test or verify that premise either? Interesting double standard.

    Ummm, we can test for design, ID, by the concepts of IC and CSI.

    Of course, if this was really about science, you would have to accept that both could be inferred at this time as there is insufficient data to conclusively prove either, and from a scientific perspective there is significantly more data to infer evolution at this time than design.

    I would be happy if both were taught in schools.

    Infact, the only evidence that exists for the inference of design is the probabilities game which is fundamentally flawed, and a lack of understanding about our natural environment and the life that exists within it, which leads to extraordinary claims by people like yourself that there must be some designer that exists outside of our universe that has created the universe and us.

    That is false. We infer design via our knowledge of what intelligent agencies are capable of coupled with the knowledge of what nature, acting alone, is capable of. And AGAIN, even the anti-ID scenario requires something outside of this universe.

    Our current knowledge and understanding of life could infer many things....all of which are as plausible as a supernatural designer....

    a) Organic life started naturally on this planet and we have evolved as per evolutionary theory

    Science tells us only life begets life. Therefore that premise goes against science.

    b) Organic life started naturally on another planet in another solar system, and arrived here by asteroid and subsequently evolved as per evolutionary theory.


    c) Organic life was created by an advanced cilivisation within the known universe who placed it here on this planet to evolve as per evolutionary theory

    ID- But what was that advanced civilization made out of- if not organic matter?

    d) Humans were created by an advanced civilisation within our universe, who also created the other living organisms on the planet to provide an ongoing energy source for humans to survive. These other organisms were designed to evolve on the planet in order to ensure they were aligned to the planet's climate and environments to provide an ongoing, sustainable energy source without the need for interference from the advanced civilization


    e) An advanced civilisation created all life on earth as we see it now, and planted the fossils etc to make it look like we have evolved on the planet


    f) A designer from a parallel universe accessed our universe and created life on this planet


    g) A designer from outside of our universe created this universe and everything within it, including life on earth.


    Only someone who is looking to align science with the biblical text would insist on the inference of (g) at the exclusion of all others.

    That is false. And only an imbecile would think so. Ya see I don't care about the Bible and I don't own one...

    Game over Richard.


Post a Comment

<< Home