[_ Old Earth _] evolution

[Barbarian]

Dead matter does not possess the innate information necessary to produce the array of organized information packed structural and functional variation of the simplest life forms

Unless you think dirt is alive, it does. God says the earth brought forth living things.

Dead matter is not autocatalytic (it does not start doing things on its own, it MUST BE acted upon)

At one time, biochemists agreed with you. Then one key biological molecule after another turned out to be producible by inorganic matter. Looks like God was right, after all.

The principle of causality states that you can't get more in the effect than you had in the cause.

Since God created the universe, that's a moot point.

Dead matter never organizes itself under its own power.

You think God sent angels to dig out river valley drainage systems? C'mon. Self-organization is inherent in all things in this universe. It's just a condition of the way things are. Read this:
http://www.mems.duke.edu/bejan-constructal-theory

Dead matter does not produce living things

I suppose it's time to remind you again, that the origin of life is not part of evolution. Evolutionary theory assumes living things exist, and describes how they change. If God just poofed living things into existence by magic, it would still be O.K. with evolutionary theory.

Information does not create itself…

But nature produces information spontaneously. Would you like to learn how?

and blind chance has zero information.

Actually, that's backwards. Write down the first 50 terms of the Fibonacci sequence. Now write down 50 random numbers. The 50 random numbers have more information. Would you like me to show you why?

Information theorists are more and more moving toward intelligence in design

That pretty much crashed and burned when "intelligent design" advocates admitted their real purpose was to establish God in society, and when none of their ideas actually worked.

Get a book on information theory and read. Nothing about designers.

 

[Rollo Tamasi]

Barbarian obseves:
Depends on what happens to the environment. Fitness only counts in terms of the environmental conditions. So if things get dry, we expect to see changes favoring survival in dry conditions.

A rather large body hit the Earth in what is now the Gulf of Mexico, and threw up a huge cloud of debris that blocked the sun for a number of years. Likely a huge area directly scorched by the hit, and the rest of the world in a long season with cold and no plant growth to speak of. Pretty much all land animals more massive than a few kilograms, died out.

There were some large mammals, but they fared no better than the large reptiles. There were some dinosaurs and birds with relatively larger brains than mammals of the time. Birds, being small, made it. Big reptiles mostly didn't.

Natural selection. In a world with sudden loss of habitat, small creatures tend to survive more easily. And that's what happened.



If you'd like to have me show you the evidence for these, I'd be pleased to do that. Hubbard was just a different variety of creationist; he initially endorsed evolution, until he learned that it ruled out some of his religious teachings. Sound familiar?

The change is already happening.
It started 2000 years ago.
God came to earth as a man and died for our sins so that we could become righteous in the eyes of God.
We are not there yet.
We won't achieve it until we die.
Then God will finish it, giving us perfection in his eyes, making us into "little gods" so to speak.
This is the evolution of man when you keep your eyes upon God.
Your type of evolution occurs when you keep your eyes upon the world.

 

[brother Paul]

Unless you think dirt is alive, it does. God says the earth brought forth living things.

No, God in the context of creating commanded this, thus God did it. The earth had no power of its own (innately) to do so.

Then one key biological molecule after another turned out to be producible by inorganic matter.

The inorganic matter did not produce them. It has no power to do so. And you say one after another but that has not been observed or demonstrated in nature (good science fiction though)

You think God sent angels to dig out river valley drainage systems? C'mon. Self-organization is inherent in all things in this universe. It's just a condition of the way things are.

Destructive cutting by erosions and plate shifts etc., are hardly “self organization” ….You say “self organization” is inherent in all “things” in the Universe….NOT!

For example, Richard E. Isaac, in The Pleasures of Probability (Springer. pp. 48–50, 1995) calculates the probability of a being using a 50 key typewriter, typing totally randomly, has 1 chance in 15,000,000,000 of typing a hoped for 6 letter word. So many probabilities have been calculated regarding simple outcomes relative to this point that one can with confidence say there is a zero probability that just all the specific information and organization in one human being is possible in a 20 billion year old Universe. Astronomers and mathematicians, Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe, though not creationists, reject the abiogenesis concept of evolution based on just these sorts of numbers. Hoyle has opted for more of an Intelligent Design scheme but does not conclude this God the Bible describes IS that intelligence. Wickranasinghe from his own field points to the obvious flaw in that the farthest star we can detect is about 60,000,000 light years away and we here can detect its light. Thus if the theory used to explain the rise of life in a Universe 20 billion years old (and in fact most claim only 16 billion) is true then these stars should not exist (in fact cannot, yet they do). Dr. Robert Wilensky, of UC Berkeley Professor emeritus of Computer Science has said, “"We’ve heard that a million monkeys at a million keyboards could produce the complete works of Shakespeare; now, thanks to the Internet, we know that is not true."

But nature produces information spontaneously. Would you like to learn how?

No because I said “Information does not produce itself” (which is true)….can you show me this?

Actually, that's backwards. Write down the first 50 terms of the Fibonacci sequence. Now write down 50 random numbers. The 50 random numbers have more information. Would you like me to show you why?

No its not! So yes I would love to hear your explanation…please entertain my hungry brain…

That pretty much crashed and burned when "intelligent design" advocates admitted their real purpose was to establish God in society, and when none of their ideas actually worked. Get a book on information theory and read. Nothing about designers.

Ahh yes, the twist! I said Information theorists not what you would accept as a “good” book on information theory. ID does indeed point to a God(s) higher intelligent force or whatever one wants to call the intelligence but as for “none of their ideas actually worked” that is a misnomer and only an opinion. Irreducible complexity for example cannot be denied (though it is repeatedly by EBs). The arguments against it are fallacious and purely a matter of interpretation. For example you cannot have a living cell without a nucleus (just pull it out and see if it still functions). Anybody who denies this logic is an idiot or a liar, or else they are purposely not demonstrating intellectual integrity in their conclusion in order to emphasize an indefensible position. You can’t remove mRNA or the ribosomes and still have functional human cell life (so obviously not possible that no rational person claiming to be scientifically oriented should fight against this reality…which if you do it will really make me sad for you)

 

[Barbarian]

The change is already happening.
It started 2000 years ago.

You're confusing bodies and souls. We are biologically, pretty much the same as we were 2000 years ago, with a few significant differences. Spiritually, many of us are completely different.

Two different changes, in two different things. It's O.K. to accept His creation of our physical bodies; it's completely consistent with the changes brought about by His death and resurrection.

 

[Rollo Tamasi]

I'm start

You're confusing bodies and souls. We are biologically, pretty much the same as we were 2000 years ago, with a few significant differences. Spiritually, many of us are completely different.

Two different changes, in two different things. It's O.K. to accept His creation of our physical bodies; it's completely consistent with the changes brought about by His death and resurrection.

I'm starting to think you're such a sweet guy.

 

[turnorburn]

Barbarian observes:
This is a problem for some creationists, but not for a Christian who accepts God's word.
Some extreme forms of YE creationism might be so. Mostly not. Many YE creationists love God and seek to serve Him.



It seems he's talking about he most extreme of creationists, such as Muslims and the guys at "Answers in Genesis." Not all creationists are like that. Most aren't, I think.



“Science is a way of getting close to creation, to really getting intimate with creation, and it’s a way of getting intimate with the Creator,” he claimed. “It’s an act of worship.”

For those of us who believe, learning about His creation is an act of worship. And most Christians do reject a literal interpretation of Genesis. Even in this country, where Seventh-Day Adventism started, they aren't a majority. However, the Bible does say that truth is manifest in His creation:
Romans 1:20 For the invisible things of him, from the creation of the world, are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made; his eternal power also, and divinity: so that they are inexcusable.

So God says he's right about that. I know that for a fact. If I can't get out into His creation, I get pretty edgy after a while. So, I think small, get out my macro lens and see what He's got for me in my back yard.

If you can't see His power and divinity in that, I truly hope He will open your eyes soon. The creation is an awesome demonstration of His wisdom and power, as St. Paul says.



Listen to Paul. He understands what you don't.



If you had read and accepted God's word, I wouldn't have to be explaining this to you.

Shouldn't this thread should be moved to Christianity and other religions, this statement is nothing more than humanistic atheism .

"The papal astronomer further explained that he rejects the literal interpretation of Genesis and instead finds truth through “science.”

Exactly what an atheist would say.

tob

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
Unless you think dirt is alive, it does. God says the earth brought forth living things.

No,

Yes. As the Bible says, God created the earth to bring forth life, as He willed.

God did it.

Of course. You just don't approve of the way He did it.

Barbarian observes:
Then one key biological molecule after another turned out to be producible by inorganic matter.

The inorganic matter did not produce them.

God says that it did. Good enough for me.

And you say one after another but that has not been observed or demonstrated in nature

Lipids, amino acids, peptides (short protein molecules) phospholipids, etc. Would you like me to get a list for you?

Babarian asks:
You think God sent angels to dig out river valley drainage systems? C'mon. Self-organization is inherent in all things in this universe. It's just a condition of the way things are.

Destructive cutting by erosions and plate shifts etc., are hardly “self organization”

RIver systems tend to develop in a way that optimizes drainage and transfer of water. The digging of channels to effect that drainage is precisely what "Intelligent Design" advocates call "design." It's built into nature. The basic rules by which things work in this world lead to such optimized structures.

.You say “self organization” is inherent in all “things” in the Universe….NOT!

It's a fact. Moreover, it's apparently the same rules for all sorts of flow processes. God was very spare and elegant in His creation.

For example, Richard E. Isaac, in The Pleasures of Probability (Springer. pp. 48–50, 1995) calculates the probability of a being using a 50 key typewriter, typing totally randomly, has 1 chance in 15,000,000,000 of typing a hoped for 6 letter word.

He's calculated something, but it doesn't apply to self-organization, which is not a random process.

Astronomers and mathematicians, Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe, though not creationists, reject the abiogenesis concept of evolution based on just these sorts of numbers.

Ah, Hoyle's Folly. Let's test his idea. Take a deck of cards and shuffle them well. Then deal out the cards one at a time, noting the order. The probability of your hand is 1/52! or about 1.2397999308571485923950341988946e-68 or about:
0.000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000012 And yet every time you do it, you get an equally improbable result.

So Hoyle has proven that poker hands are impossible. Does that suggest one reason why his idea is such a woofer?

Barbarian offers:
But nature produces information spontaneously. Would you like to learn how?

No

O.K. Let's take that river drainage system.

The emergence and evolution of river basins of all sizes illustrate the natural phenomenon summarized by the constructal law. In time, existing patterns (black channels on white areas with seepage) are replaced by patterns that flow more easily. (a) Artificial river basin evolution generated under steady uniform rain on a 15 × 9 m area in a laboratory at Colorado State University (Parker 1977). The time runs from left to right. (b) Numerical simulation of seepage in a porous medium with spatially uniform erosion properties (Bejan 2000). The dislodged grains create channels with greater permeability, shown in black. (c) Seemingly random dendritic channels generated by seepage in a porous medium with spatially random erosion properties (Bejan 2000). Here, the geological properties of the flow domain are random, unknown and unpredictable. The randomness and diversity of natural river basins is due to this. The principle (the tendency) that generates the evolving flow configurations is deterministic, and not random. (b,c) The number of dislodged grains (n) is (i) 200, (ii) 400, (iii) 600 and (iv) 800.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2871904/bin/rstb20090302-g2.gif

because I said “Information does not produce itself” (which is true)….can you show me this?

As you see, it's a property of rivers that they self-organize.

Barbarian, earlier:
Actually, that's backwards. Write down the first 50 terms of the Fibonacci sequence. Now write down 50 random numbers. The 50 random numbers have more information. Would you like me to show you why?

No its not!

Yes it is. The measure of information in a system is how many bytes it takes to describe the system. The description for the first 50 terms of the Fibonacci sequence can be written quite compactly by summation notation. But you have to write out every one of the 50 random numbers. So more information.

Information is essentially the uncertainty in a message. Claude Shannon showed how this works. You might want to do a bit of reading on Shannon information. His equation, among other things, shows how we can sent low-powered radio signals across many millions of kilometers of space, with no loss in data.

Barbarian observes:
That pretty much crashed and burned when "intelligent design" advocates admitted their real purpose was to establish God in society, and when none of their ideas actually worked. Get a book on information theory and read. Nothing about designers.

Ahh yes, the twist! I said Information theorists not what you would accept as a “good” book on information theory.

No one in information handling uses the ID concept. It doesn't work. They use Shannons, precisely because it does work. If the IDer concept worked, scientists and engineers would use it no matter who disapproved. And since it doesn't work, they won't use it regardless of who believes in it.

ID does indeed point to a God(s) higher intelligent force or whatever one wants to call the intelligence but as for “none of their ideas actually worked” that is a misnomer and only an opinion.

Feel free to show us some sort of breakthrough that happened as a result of ID. So far, nothing at all. It doesn't work.

Irreducible complexity for example cannot be denied

It's observed to evolve. Hard to deny it. But of course, it doesn't do what IDers want it to do.

For example you cannot have a living cell without a nucleus (just pull it out and see if it still functions).

That's what a prokaryote is. Living cell, no nucleus.
A prokaryote is a single-celled organism that lacks a membrane-bound nucleus (karyon), mitochondria, or any other membrane-bound organelles.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prokaryote

Anybody who denies this logic is an idiot or a liar, or else they are purposely not demonstrating intellectual integrity in their conclusion in order to emphasize an indefensible position.

It's just a fact. No point in denying it.[/quote]

 

[Barbarian]

Rollo writes:

I'm starting to think you're such a sweet guy.

As barbarians go, I'm a great guy.

 

[Barbarian]

An image is an image. It does not mean it must be material. Scripture says he is spirit and an image of spirit i guess is non material like emotions. You cannot touch love or hate yet it exists.

So there is no conflict at all between those verses and what Jesus said about God. Well done. Angels also have no bodies, being spirits, but God can provide them one if necessary to interact with men.

 

[brother Paul]

Then one key biological molecule after another turned out to be producible by inorganic matter.

The inorganic matter did not produce them.

God says that it did. Good enough for me.

He used them to create the form that the breath of life vitalized and made alive. God is life, not matter.

And you say one after another but that has not been observed or demonstrated in nature
Lipids, amino acids, peptides (short protein molecules) phospholipids, etc. Would you like me to get a list for you?

All these are building blocks only.

Destructive cutting by erosions and plate shifts etc., are hardly “self organization”

RIver systems tend to develop in a way that optimizes drainage and transfer of water. The digging of channels to effect that drainage is precisely what "Intelligent Design" advocates call "design." It's built into nature. The basic rules by which things work in this world lead to such optimized structures.

Water seeking its own level IS a law and “things” follow these laws. Laws are followed but do not create. Laws are information and information does not spontaneously become. It does not create itself.

for example, Richard E. Isaac, in The Pleasures of Probability (Springer. pp. 48–50, 1995) calculates the probability of a being using a 50 key typewriter, typing totally randomly, has 1 chance in 15,000,000,000 of typing a hoped for 6 letter word.

He's calculated something, but it doesn't apply to self-organization, which is not a random process.

Good thing I did not say that eh? Just indicates information does not arise on its own by random processes (which I never said you believe…

All your final examples refer to information you derive FROM what has already occurred. The laws governing the actions of water under these conditions of environment are strict, and will be followed, but depending on the landscape, the conditions of the terrain, and so on, the water will flow to its lowest source along differing paths of least resistance. It’s simple physics. Nothing is creating information here, it is following it to its inevitable result.

Show me where rivers become carefully constructed swimming pools without following established laws. The water does not create the physical laws, the physical laws cause the water to behave in just such that way.

D does indeed point to a God(s) higher intelligent force or whatever one wants to call the intelligence but as for “none of their ideas actually worked” that is a misnomer and only an opinion.

Feel free to show us some sort of breakthrough that happened as a result of ID. So far, nothing at all. It doesn't work.

You already asked and I did! Now go into a lab and remove the ribosomes from a human cell and tell me what happens to the cell….or remove the cell wall from a plant cell and see if is still can function….I can give many more such OBVIOUS examples. It is irrational illogical bias that refuses to see irreducible complexity as a fact governing living systems.

The funny thing is it does really refute evolution (which I do not think was its purpose even tho you FEEL attacked or threatened by it)…but it does speak to design, and design is greater than random patterns as I am sure you would agree. ZkjnviuyhAJBAUH1286DWQUIHG is a far cry different than “Four score and seven years ago our fathers…”….just the rarest occurrence of short chain amino acids (which are molecules) bonding (as most chemicals will do following laws already in place and applicable to all) is far different from the functional DNA in a cell encoded to produce the 1,000s of specific proteins (which include the enzymes that motivate) to do exactly what is needed to maintain life’s required irreducible complexity.

For example you cannot have a living cell without a nucleus (just pull it out and see if it still functions).

That's what a prokaryote is. Living cell, no nucleus.

Obviously I was referring to cells that have a nucleus when I made this specific reference (and I sense you really knew that)….for prokaryotes try removing the ribosomes (though they do feature what we call a nucleoid (a different type of non-contained nucleus). In fact there is a good point. Ribosomes function as a type nano machine for protein synthesis. Some see them as merely a type of workbench and that’s fine also. They are given specific amino acids and translate specific genetic instructions for the formation of specific proteins. We have designed certain anti-biotics that interfere with the translation process. All these functions are following instructions that did not design themselves

The tRNA that picks up these specific amino acids, inserts them into their proper place according to the specific mRNA message making the exact protein required. And this same tRNA does this over and over bringing different “specific” amino acids that will coincide with the new orders of mRNA instruction (I realize this is a simplified explanation but it is given here given for the general reader - I know you know).

 

[turnorburn]

So there is no conflict at all between those verses and what Jesus said about God. Well done. Angels also have no bodies, being spirits, but God can provide them one if necessary to interact with men.

How can you say that when you come from the same camp that says this?

""The papal astronomer further explained that he rejects the literal interpretation of Genesis and instead finds truth through “science.”

tob

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
So there is no conflict at all between those verses and what Jesus said about God. Well done. Angels also have no bodies, being spirits, but God can provide them one if necessary to interact with men.

How can you say that when you come from the same camp that says this?

Sorry, he's on his own. But I notice instead of a quote, we have someone's claim about what he says. So I'm guessing there's a good reason we don't get an accurate quote from that source.

 

[turnorburn]

Barbarian observes:
So there is no conflict at all between those verses and what Jesus said about God. Well done. Angels also have no bodies, being spirits, but God can provide them one if necessary to interact with men.



Sorry, he's on his own. But I notice instead of a quote, we have someone's claim about what he says. So I'm guessing there's a good reason we don't get an accurate quote from that source.

Its been posted with links.. so then you don't go along with his statement, do you reject the literal interpretation of Genesis and find truth in science instead?

tob

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
Then one key biological molecule after another turned out to be producible by inorganic matter.

The inorganic matter did not produce them.

God says that it did. Good enough for me.

He used them to create the form that the breath of life vitalized and made alive.

Of course He used nature to create living things. What do you suppose He made nature for?

And you say one after another but that has not been observed or demonstrated in nature

Barbarian observes:
Lipids, amino acids, peptides (short protein molecules) phospholipids, etc. Would you like me to get a list for you?

(Sound of goal posts being frantically repositioned)

All these are building blocks only.

Destructive cutting by erosions and plate shifts etc., are hardly “self organization”

Barbarian observes:
RIver systems tend to develop in a way that optimizes drainage and transfer of water. The digging of channels to effect that drainage is precisely what "Intelligent Design" advocates call "design." It's built into nature. The basic rules by which things work in this world lead to such optimized structures.

Water seeking its own level IS a law and “things” follow these laws. Laws are followed but do not create.

It's way more complicated than "seeking it's own level", which is not accurate, anyway. But something creates these elaborate and highly ordered drainage systems. God does, but He uses nature to do it.

Laws are information and information does not spontaneously become.

From where does all that information in a river drainage system come?

for example, Richard E. Isaac, in The Pleasures of Probability (Springer. pp. 48–50, 1995) calculates the probability of a being using a 50 key typewriter, typing totally randomly, has 1 chance in 15,000,000,000 of typing a hoped for 6 letter word.

Barbarian chuckles:
He's calculated something, but it doesn't apply to self-organization, which is not a random process.

All your final examples refer to information you derive FROM what has already occurred.

Yeah, that's how nature generates information. Thought you knew.

The laws governing the actions of water under these conditions of environment are strict, and will be followed, but depending on the landscape, the conditions of the terrain, and so on, the water will flow to its lowest source along differing paths of least resistance. It’s simple physics. Nothing is creating information here, it is following it to its inevitable result.

The information came from somewhere. Either God does it by a few simple rules in nature, or He uses supernatural means to do it. Which do you think it is?

Show me where rivers become carefully constructed swimming pools without following established laws.

The water does not create the physical laws, the physical laws cause the water to behave in just such that way.

Yep. As you learned, nature was created so as to produce information. That's how it works.

ID does indeed point to a God(s) higher intelligent force or whatever one wants to call the intelligence but as for “none of their ideas actually worked” that is a misnomer and only an opinion.

Barbarian suggests:
Feel free to show us some sort of breakthrough that happened as a result of ID. So far, nothing at all. It doesn't work.

You already asked and I did!

Not so far. Lots of nonspecific claims, but nothing produced. Hint: a paper in the literature would be a good start.

Now go into a lab and remove the ribosomes from a human cell and tell me what happens to the cell….

So ID is limited to "discovering" what science has already found? Not surprising.

or remove the cell wall from a plant cell and see if is still can function…

They do. Look up "protoplast." They are useful in a variety of research studies.

I can give many more such OBVIOUS examples.

I can't help thinking that if you were more familiar with biology, this discussion would be more useful to you.

It is irrational illogical bias that refuses to see irreducible complexity as a fact governing living systems.

It often evolves, so I'm wondering who you think supposes it doesn't exist.

The funny thing is it does really refute evolution

Hard to see how that happens, given that it has been observed to evolve.

(which I do not think was its purpose even tho you FEEL attacked or threatened by it)

Projection going on here? Would you like to see how irreducible complexity has evolved?

For example you cannot have a living cell without a nucleus (just pull it out and see if it still functions).

Barbarian observes:
That's what a prokaryote is. Living cell, no nucleus.

Obviously I was referring to cells that have a nucleus when I made this specific reference (and I sense you really knew that)

So your argument is that you can't have a cell with a nucleus that doesn't have a nucleus? I guess that's reasonable. But there are eukaryotic cells without nucleii. Red blood cells in many animals, for example. And they function just fine that way.

But it's time again to remind you that evolution is not about the origin of life. It assumes living things, and describes how they change.

 

[brother Paul]

Yes but only as part of a living organism....red blood cells on my gauze die quickly.....again this factor (being within a living system is in itself a level of irreducible complexity). Take our my red blood cells and I die....

 

[Barbarian]

Obviously I was referring to cells that have a nucleus when I made this specific reference (and I sense you really knew that)

So your argument is that you can't have a cell with a nucleus that doesn't have a nucleus? I guess that's reasonable. But there are eukaryotic cells without nucleii. Red blood cells in many animals, for example. And they function just fine that way.

Yes but only as part of a living organism....red blood cells on my gauze die quickly

As you would at the South Pole. Taking living things out of their environment does that.

 

[brother Paul]

I am glad you mentioned Phospholipids. I believe Phospholipids implicate design very specifically.

First off, in cells, they represent a level of irreducible complexity in that they can only be arranged as they are in the cell membrane (opposite if what we would imagine) or else the cell would fall apart and the ectoplasm would be washed out into the greater fluidic atmosphere the cell dwells in. But what really interests me (and I understand the chemical explanation, but that is an afterthought brought on by a need to explain its presence in just this way). The hydrophilic and hydrophobic positioning in the cellular bilayer must only be in these positions (relative to each other) for the bilayer to be effectual. The hydrophilic must always line up pointing outward on the exterior and inward in the interior leaving the two hydrophobic areas of the molecules always facing each other (never bonding yet not separating). If one looks at the arrangement one cannot help to think, “Why don’t they just act independently and possibly even shed from uniting in just this way?” It is a fair question and as I said there are a few different speculations as to why this does not happen. But to ME all these explanations are a response to the phenomenon as opposed to a truth. The reality is that this specific arrangement, as opposed to any other possible arrangements that could have occurred (but did not in all the millions of cells in just one body), are critical to the cells ability to function.

A design essential to structure and critical to proper function that variance would be destructive to IMO negates evolution by random coincidence (not that that is what you defend). It indicates design even in the language describing the function of these membranes that can be described as the membranes primary purpose. Terms describing its function like: compartmentalization (where it separates organelles and cells from any and all “other”); scaffolding (giving the cell and organelles their shape); a barrier/gatekeeper function (which is selectively semi-permeable); monitors outside signals (specific protein receptors on outside which elicit response from without also serve to signal to other proteins inside); and finally, energy transduction (forms a transference grid for energy crossing the membrane). All of this precision of structure and functional purpose and that for only one cell in one body….wow!

You asked, The information came from somewhere. Either God does it by a few simple rules in nature, or He uses supernatural means to do it. Which do you think it is?

Both!

Lots of nonspecific claims, but nothing produced. Hint: a paper in the literature would be a good start.

There are some very specific claims but as for papers “in the literature” you are referring to “papers” allowed to be published only in journals that agree with their own premises that immediately “selectively exclude” any that remotely imply the writer/researcher is indicating ID. Well no of course you will not find many making it through such a prejudiced criterion.

So ID is limited to "discovering" what science has already found?

Nah! More like questions things many scientists (not science itself) have concluded from their way of interpreting data to fit the theory which does not allow other perspectives

Look up "protoplast." They are useful in a variety of research studies.

Created by the imposition of an outside intelligent force….

I can't help thinking that if you were more familiar with biology, this discussion would be more useful to you.

No!!!! The problem is that you cannot accept that someone can be familiar with biology but not indoctrinated to just accept the consensus. Questioning the status quo is the basis of good science (without it we would never have made progress). Finally, one day, when enough questions are asked, more and more people look and finally some see different possibilities and then the theoretical transforms (hopefully and in many case to line up more correctly to the data). I used the Clovis People theory but the same thing happened to Newtonian mechanics with Relativity….and now look where Quantum physics is taking us. One day they may prove what many suspect that there are actually other realms simultaneous with our own and possibly even other realm beings (possibly formerly called angelic realms). Even terms like protoplast originally meaning first humans is changed over time to fit or seemingly support the preconceived conclusions of that periods pedagogues and there alleged “established facts” which also are changed over time (Ahh! Evolution at its best).

 

[Doulos Iesou]

Okay. let's assume dinosaurs came first.
If you were looking at evolution in the time of dinosaurs, what would you expect to happen next?
A bigger dinosaur?
A stronger dinosaur?
A smarter dinosaur?

Dinosaurs in populations that are more suited to their particular environments.

What actually happened?
Somehow, dinosaurs disappeared and were replaced by a small creature with a very intelligent brain.
According to evolution, how did that happen?

Well it happened due to a major extinction event 65 million years ago, but mammals arose from it as you said due in part to our intelligence and adaptability. We have a higher mortality rate as mammals due to the advantage of placentas. Also, mammals have distinct advantages as it regards climate and our ability to a degree to self regulate our internal temperature.

Dinosaurs didn't completely go away, birds in fact trace their ancestry back to the dinosaurs.

You also seem to be operating under a false premise that evolution = bigger, smarter and stronger creatures. It merely leads to animals better suited to that environment, as those better suited are more likely to reproduce. This effect over populations of animals leads to evolution via natural selection.

 

[Doulos Iesou]

WOW!
That's better science fiction than L. Ron Hubbard.

There is plenty of evidence for what he is saying, no need to assert without any real refutation of his statements that it is science fiction.

The comet he is referring to has plenty of evidence giving credence to an event scientists anticipated happening about 65 million years ago. This can be seen from space and has been demonstrated, it is on the northern part of the Yucatan Peninsula in Mexico, it is called the Chixulub Crater.

 

[Doulos Iesou]

The change is already happening.
It started 2000 years ago.
God came to earth as a man and died for our sins so that we could become righteous in the eyes of God.
We are not there yet.
We won't achieve it until we die.
Then God will finish it, giving us perfection in his eyes, making us into "little gods" so to speak.
This is the evolution of man when you keep your eyes upon God.
Your type of evolution occurs when you keep your eyes upon the world.

So you think making observations about the physical world is useless? Evolution is what we see when we look at the history of life on our planet, wishful thinking and ignoring the evidence is one means of rejecting it. The fact of the matter is that it is not incompatible with Christianity at all, it is incompatible with certain interpretations favored by the modern fundamentalist movement sure. However, the description you offered with us coming to be like Christ has nothing to do with evolution as it takes place on a genetic level.

This whole "God's evolution vs the World's evolution," is not actually a thing.