Science is the study of the "things that are made". I have just shown that the "things that are made" cannot account for their own making, so any scientific theory about their origins is impossible. Theories about the things themselves, and how they are observed to behave, is another matter, one that is within the realm of science.minasoliman said:I don't disagree with you, but that's not science. If you flaunt this around as science, then there's no point in this discussion anymore.Jonathan Gress said:It depends on what counts as proof for you. I would say that, since the order of the universe cannot account for itself, because we only observe it to be decreasing rather than increasing, the only logical conclusion is that this order was created by some Being greater than the universe itself, which I call God.minasoliman said:Before I move on (because if this part isn't answered, it's futile to have a discussion with you also), I ask, can you prove God with science?Jonathan Gress said:Forgive me if I couldn't grasp the technical arguments of those abstracts you linked to, but I got the distinct impression that the researchers were comparing the genes of distinct species, ASSUMED that the species were genetically related, and then used the comparatively higher complexity of some species to argue for spontaneous increase in complexity. Take the following from the article by JB Peng:minasoliman said:Yes, the research I sent you shows a net increase in information.Jonathan Gress said:I think you have misunderstood my argument. I was not claiming there is no gene duplication. I was claiming there is no gene duplication resulting in net increase in information.minasoliman said:More proof of gene duplication:
Duplication of TRP gene that is present in large numbers in mammals, as compared to small numbers in fish:
Interspecies differences in an amphibian genus, including genetic duplication:
Gene duplication in MHC genes in mammals:
I personally take it to heart to defend science and the principles of science, which are also the principles of medicine. In the future, pharmacogenetics will play a very important role, since every patient has different genes and react differently to the same drugs. The understanding of evolutionary science is necessary for this and has lead to a lot of very important discoveries, especially with the last article from pubmed I showed you, about MHC genes and human immunity. Competent physicians are those that which understand the basic fundamental science of their profession, including evolution. It's not merely about bacteria anymore, but also the genetic differences of individuals.
Am I an atheist to you?However, I may be barking up the wrong tree here, since perhaps you are saying that your career as a medical professional REQUIRES you to subscribe to this unscientific and atheistic theory of evolution. In that case, I can only feel sorry for you that you felt you have had to make that choice. However, I know of many doctors who are able to practice without subscribing to this theory, so I think there is hope even in your situation.
Physicians who don't ascribe to reality are incompetent.
The duplication in this case is a conjecture, not an observed fact. I'm interested in observed facts.There is only one TRPV6-like gene in fish and birds in comparison to both TRPV5 and TRPV6 genes in mammals, indicating TRPV5 gene was likely generated from duplication of TRPV6 gene during the evolution of mammals to meet the needs of complex renal function.
Other articles suggested the researchers were studying the functional type of mutation and adaptation that is part of the inherent design of immune systems that I mentioned earlier. The information increases that occur do not result in the evolution of new traits in daughters, but are specific to the function of adapting the defensive mechanism to sequences of new invading organisms.
Before continuing this discussion, will you please read the articles I linked to, so that you may understand better the evidence on which I'm basing my arguments?
Obviously you are not an atheist, although earlier in this thread you have made atheistic statements, such as "Religion has no place in science". Our faith is meant to be all-encompassing, and it is contradictory to claim to devote our whole lives to Christ, but then exclude Him from consideration in our professional research.
And I would be inclined to agree in a general sense that physicians who do not acknowledge reality are more likely to be incompetent. Of course, I would say that applies to all physicians who ascribe to Darwinism, which is basically a fairy-tale for atheists, and not objective reality.
This method of reasoning towards the existence of God is supported by the words of St Paul to the Romans, chapter 1:
 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;
 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
Exactly how does this relate to our discussion?