DNA, Where did the code come from?

The Scientific Dissent from Darwin." It goes like this ...

Quote:

We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.

Exactly. Stupid-ass cars can't even reproduce. The "machinery" of a toad is about a million times more complex and more finely organized that the most complicated car.

If I throw 1,000 pieces of dirt in the air the way they land is a million more times complex than a car, so what's your point?

Larry Moran: Only an IDiot would claim that supporters of this statement are also creationists.

Is Moran calling you an IDiot, ya think, Farmer?

Frank Rosenzweig, an evolutionary geneticist at the University of Montana, studies how life evolves “complex traits,” factors that influence everything from lifespan to biodiversity.

“Over my career, I’ve been interested in what are the genetic bases of adaptation and how do complex communities evolve from single clones,” Rosenzweig said. “Related to these questions are others such as how do the genetic ‘starting point’ and ecological setting influence the tempo and trajectory of evolutionary change.”

Rosenzweig’s new research will focus on four areas where a complex system has arisen from simpler elements: metabolism, the eukaryotic cell, mutualism (co-operating species) and multicellularity. He will also look into a fifth area — mutations and gene interactions — that critically determines how quickly such complex systems can arise ...Rosenzweig plans to have eight different teams focusing on questions of evolution and changes from simple to more complex life. To integrate his teams’ experimental results into a broader framework he recruited theoreticians in the areas of population genetics and statistical physics.

This new line of inquiry has already led to one major publication entitled, “Starvation-associated genome restructuring can lead to reproductive isolation in yeast,” which was published in PLoS One in 2013. The first project led to an unexpected finding: stress may increase the frequency with which genome sequences are rearranged. Stress introduces new chromosomal variants into the species’ population that could prove beneficial under challenging circumstances.

Indeed, a major theme that runs through all of these investigations is that by studying evolutionary processes in the laboratory using simple unicellular species, we can expect to uncover rules that govern the tempo and trajectory of evolution in any population of self-replicating entities whose structure and function are programmed by information molecules.

...one of biology’s biggest mysteries: how life transformed from simple single-celled organisms to the menagerie of complex life known as eukaryotes—a category that includes everything from yeast to azaleas to elephants.

“Next to the origins of life, there’s probably no bigger mystery in the history of life,” said John Archibald, an evolutionary biologist at Dalhousie University in Nova Scotia.

The jump from single cells to complex creatures is so puzzling because it represents an enormous evolutionary gulf. “How do you make a eukaryote, that’s a big question,” said Schleper, a microbiologist at the University of Vienna in Austria. “It’s a huge transition.”

... no detectable intermediates between ancient, single-celled life and early eukaryotes exist, making it nearly impossible to reconstruct the order of evolutionary events. Enter Loki, which some scientists have dubbed a microbial missing link....The discovery of Loki opens a sort of middle ground between the two groups....

The Loki discovery comes with one major caveat: So far, no one has ever seen one. Scientists can’t yet grow them in the lab. All they can do is isolate their DNA and try to infer what it does. “We have to be clear, we don’t know what it looks like,” Archibald said. “Their biology is being pieced together from genomic data.”

At some point, an archaeon or a primitive eukaryote engulfed a bacterium, developing a symbiotic relationship. Against all odds, the two organisms became irreversibly intertwined. The resident bacterium became more and more dependent on its host cell, surrendering the vast majority of its genes, some of which ended up in the nucleus. The result was a singular development in the history of evolution that birthed the mitochondrion.

* Reproduction
* Variation
* Selection

"Real evidence" of what, exactly? If I found a rubber tree in Costa Rica what would that tell me about the tire on a '53 Studebaker at the junkyard?

Many atheist scientists, including me, would agree with the statement.

Only an IDiot would claim that supporters of this statement are also creationists.

Are you some kinda FUNDY, or something, eh, Farmer? Nobody here, not Meyers or the other scientists in that vid, is talking about God except YOU. You always bring up God. Are you obsessed with religion?

"Only an IDiot would claim that supporters of this statement are also creationists."

Quote:

"Only an IDiot would claim that supporters of this statement are also creationists."

I agree...

He argues with too much passion....

Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion -- a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today.

Evolution now has its mystical visionary, its Saint John of the Cross. Harvard entomologist and sociobiologist Edward O. Wilson tells us that we now have an "alternative mythology" to defeat traditional religion. "Its narrative form is the epic: the evolution of the universe from the big bang of fifteen billion years ago through the origin of the elements and celestial bodies to the beginnings of life on earth."

There is no need to make a religion of evolution. On its own merits, evolution as science is just that -- good, tough, forward-looking science, which should be taught as a matter of course to all children, regardless of creed. But, let us be tolerant. If people want to make a religion of evolution, that is their business.

One mark of a religious fundy is that he will always insist that his religion, and/or his particular denomination within a religion, is the only correct one, eh?

It's a common trait and story among the passionately anti ID.