A small question regarding DNA (Creator, homosexuals, choice, evolution)

[Jaiket]

If this topic has been broached and dealt with already I apologise, it has been niggling at me for a little while.

For those who believe that evolution as a shift in genotypic and phenotypic ratios across populations leading to moderate adaptations and other micro-evolutions can occur, but have difficulty in accepting speciation etc (or macro-evolution if you like).

Do you consider irrelevant the biochemical similarities, and most importantly comparable DNA sequences, between differing species?

My point is that evolutionary leaps don't appear quite as large when considering the small contrast in DNA required.

[Scuba Pete]

It's amazing to me how subtle God was when he invented the whole DNA/RNA/Evolution thing. Sheer brilliance!

[Jaiket]

Originally Posted by NetDoc

It's amazing to me how subtle God was when he invented the whole DNA/RNA/Evolution thing. Sheer brilliance!

That a hobby to relax when it isn't smiting homosexuals?

[Scuba Pete]

Somehow, I think God loves Homosexuals.

[Ceridwen018]

You know, Truth, it is exactly this genetic similarity between species that makes the theory of evolution so strong. If everything essentially evolved from the same thing, it would make perfect sense that they would be similar on the molecular level. Why change a good thing?

Also, there are many phenotypic similarities between species. For instance, most animals have the same or similar structure of internal organs.

[Caiman]

Originally Posted by NetDoc

It's amazing to me how subtle God was when he invented the whole DNA/RNA/Evolution thing. Sheer brilliance!

Sure. However, the logical principle of parsimony, aka Occam's Razor, demands that you actually provide evidence of this Creator's existence and a testable definition before it can be considered a viable theory to compete with common ancestry. Got one handy?

[kbc_1963]

Originally Posted by Caiman

Sure. However, the logical principle of parsimony, aka Occam's Razor, demands that you actually provide evidence of this Creator's existence and a testable definition before it can be considered a viable theory to compete with common ancestry. Got one handy?

Occam's Razor is used to keep unneeded extra's out of premise but, what if we can prove that randomness could not possibly be causal for our beginnings? if we find that non randomness was causal then would a GOD still be an unnecessary addition to a premise of beginnings?
The idea of occam's razor is perceptually used and assuming that the least needed components of the premise of lifes beginnings cannot possibly include an intelligent designer is propagated by the assumption that our beginnings could only possibly have happened by random chance.
You say that we would need to provide evidence of a creators existence to satisfy the rule but is it truley necessary to prove GOD if indeed we can prove the necessity of an intelligent designer?
There are pyramids in Egypt that were made and we have no idea who made them or how and yet the premise that they were built by an unknowable intelligent designer that is attributed to human ability is the logical choice because we say randomness could not have accomplished that feat of structure. If by chance a pyramid was found on the moon or mars and we could then rule out human intelligence would it then make the necessity of randomness the only possible answer in a premise of its existence? or would we look at it just as we do now and say an intelligent unkown designer did it because no other simplified answer is possible for thre high specific complexity involved in its design parameters.
The fact that the simplest cell has specific complexity that is greater that any city or construction made by man and works more harmoniously than man has ever been capable of should immediately force the question "how is this possible by random events?" and yet science makes the assumption that before man existed there was no intelligence therefore the only possibility is random chance has become the basis for the perception of how we apply occams razor in this case.
you mention a testable definition, in turn I ask what is the testable definiton of intelligence? and also what test has proven that high specific complexity is possible by random chance? scientist and evolutionist say just about anything is possible by random chance so we can ASSuME that we can apply it as causal for most anything but the small voice of reason asks "what proof is the assumption based on?" have you tested and empirically proven that random chance can be causal to high specific complexity?

[Scuba Pete]

However, the logical principle of parsimony, aka Occam's Razor, demands that you actually provide evidence of this Creator's existence

Well, for me this is easy. There is evidence enough in any mirror. God not only made me smart and good looking, but deucedly handsome as well. Just as I know that an automobile had a designer, I know that I have one too! That he used something as brilliant as DNA/RNA to pull it off, does little to exclude him from the initial and crucial design phase.

[painted wolf]

the anchient egyptions left behind accounts and picures of themselves making the pryamids.
The archatect who first designed the pryamid, Imhotep, was widely popular and written about. He was not only a master architect but a phenominal healer, he forinstance wrote the first medical texts and discribed the antibacterial qualities of honey. He was eventually made into a god. ( a god who came to earth as a man)
We know a lot about the pryamids.

simple cells like Prokeryotes arn't really all that complex, go back further and you have eaven less complex things like viruses, further back and you have prions.

complexity isn't nessisarily a good thing, the more complex a thing is the more likely it is to break down. In the case of a living thing that break down can be deadly.

DNA shows that all life is related to each other to different degrees. DNA also shows that life is related in the same ammounts that we would expect from evolution. (humans are closer to chimps than to mice)

once again evolution, abiogenesis and science in general say nothing about the presance or absence of god. That is decided uppon by the individual.

wa:do