|
3 registered members (MadJack, AndrewAMD, Quad),
540
guests, and 1
spider. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Re: Science and Creation
[Re: jcl]
#69031
05/01/06 17:58
05/01/06 17:58
|
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 202
Southern California, USA
GhostwriterDoF
Member
|
Member
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 202
Southern California, USA
|
Ah, I see the debate continues, some new material too. Voodoo even. Threats of macho macho and challenges to manhood? This does not constitute an argument and even lacks an entertaining quality.
Still waiting to see a valid argument as to why Creationism would have to reject evolution in any way shape or form. It is a mystery to me as to how it even excludes the theory.
Isn't natural selection just a small equation towards the change in evolution? It has always been my belief that the factors that lead to change in mutation or selective processes are as random and varied in nature as nature itself.
Adaptation for survival would probably be the biggest ingredient towards change in evolution. Although I would have to agree with jcl that the change is a gradual process in any case.
The rivers of time erode away the mountains of existence...
|
|
|
Re: Science and Creation
[Re: jcl]
#69032
05/01/06 20:33
05/01/06 20:33
|
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
Irish_Farmer
User
|
User
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
|
Quote:
The fitness of insularia was estimated in recent years after the decrease of industrial pollution. The trees are brighter, but probably not so bright as they were before, due to rest pollution. Therefore it is quite likely that the fitness of insularia is now higher than it was before the industrial revolution.
I'm not going to argue that. I was simply pointing out there there are much simpler explanations for why we found a melanic moth before the revolution (besides the same mutations accidentally happening over and over). I figured it was just because they either existed (in such small numbers as to make their discovery difficult) or the insularia existed, 'hiding' them. Sorry if I'm being repetative, its just that you guys like to reference okham's razor when it works for you, not against you.
Quote:
Anyway, I won't insist of the peppered moth being a proof for a beneficial mutation (at least unless I happen to find some study with some other information). So let's that be just a proof of natural selection.
That's what annoyed me so much about trying to research it. Every paper was like, "Why would anyone disagree with this, because they land on bark and it doesn't matter where," etc etc etc. There just isn't really any information about the details floating about.
Quote:
Yes, this is the essential question: which hurdles?
I'll get into this more with your monkeys example. But number one, if most mutations are detrimental, some of them are probably going to stick and start cycling through the population (albeit not as much, but if they aren't outright lethal). Secondly, you say its just a matter of time as some of the mutations build up. But mutations can't just constantly build up if they're detrimental. Some of them might stick, but those organisms are less fit. So if in rewriting an entirely new gene, it has to go through 20 different steps of uselessness or detrimentality, or outright lethality, then how can we possibly hope for it to ever reach its endpoint? If it can be said to have an endpoint.
But, I'll wait a bit to get more elaborate.
Quote:
Creationism requires some hurdles to prevent beneficial mutations, otherwise probability would dictate that they happen. So what hurdles should that be?
That's true. However, evolutionists require that organisms can wait around without too many detrimental effects while their DNA is scrambled over and over again to eventually write something new. This doesn't make sense to me. If I scramble eggs with a fork, I don't expect that if I scramble them long enough they'll become anything other than scrambled eggs. Of course, this is a bad parallel to genetics, but it illustrates my point.
Quote:
If I understand you right, you're denying that the mutation is beneficial because anti-oxidants, rather than produced in the body as through this mutation, can also be eaten.
No, what I'm saying is that since we already have the ability to consume and use anti-oxidants, the loss of HDLs is negative because now all we can take advantage of is anti-oxidants. Before we could have made use of both. That would be much more healthy.
This mutation is definately beneficial.
What I'm saying is that, its specific ability to target hot spots was already written in the protein. So its specific role wasn't really written. In fact, its anti-oxidant ability wouldn't even be considered beneficial if it weren't for this fact.
Targeting of hot spots - HDLs
Targeting of hot spots - anti-oxidants
This is where the difference in information lies. In order to acheive the anti-oxidant, the order of HDLs has to be lost. Without the prefix of those two examples (the 'targeting of hot spots') the loss of HDLs in favor of anti-oxidants would be considered hugely detrimental. This mutation via loss is only favorable because of the originally written DNA. Besides, you keep focusing on how awesome this mutation is. I won't disagree, its got some pretty good benefits to it, and its true benficiality is going to shine through in the medical field. However, nothing new was written. Order was lost to 'acheive' this ability. No matter how many times mutations like these occur, we will always remain humans.
Quote:
A modified apoA-I protein, unknown before, comes into existence
Its not really a different protein. The only change was the switched amino acid. Technically its the 'same' protein it was before, it just has a different role now. Normally this protein would be able to produce HDLs well enough, but it doesn't do that so well anymore. This protein wasn't written though, it was changed.
Quote:
It's not the loss of the HDL producing proteine that matters here.
The protein wasn't lost. It was given a new name in effect of its new function.
Quote:
Most lead to the loss of some proteines, but some, as you see, lead to the creation of something completely new.
Ok, this is where we differ. You think that because one amino acid was changed, and they gave it a new name that its a brand new protein. If I take one brick out of a wall and add a different brick, is it a different brick wall?
Notice the similarities between the two names. Its not like the protein was completely gone, just some of the data in the protein was lost. In the process it gained a new function.
Quote:
Imagine you want to write "creationism requires Voodoo.".
This example is SO toned down from reality its beyond funny. There isn't just a pool of DNA waiting to be written. You might be more accurate to say you want to rewrite the sentence
"Run over the ground."
to the sentence
"Fly through the sky."
Now, if you let monkeys randomly type at the keyboard, even if they get a letter right, it has to make sense in the overall picture. In other words ending up with the word 'Ruy' wouldn't be useful because even though its closer to 'Fly' it makes no sense. We can randomly get closer to a different sentence, but because the DNA is already ordered, it has to fit into the larger picture of the order because the creature is dependent on this pre-existing order to live.
Step 1:
"Ruy over the ground."
Animal is selected out. Return to origin.
Step 2:
"Run over the groons."
Animal is selected out. Return to origin.
This isn't exactly how mutations and DNA work, but its closer than your example.
Quote:
what else can a bacteria develop in a chemostat with a bacteriophage, other than resistence to that bacteriophage?
Its evolution, in the wrong direction. If pressure applied can only reduce the order of the genetics, then evolution has a huge hurdle to overcome, namely the constant degrading of DNA.
Quote:
What you could see, theoretically, in a lab is the evolution of a new fly or bacteria species. I don't know if this was observed so far, but I think it's entirely possible.
New species of fly wouldn't be that important. A new species of bacteria would be another thing. If we saw one bacteria become another, then creationists might have a problem. As it is, all pressures do is force bacteria to adapt within their range, or lose data to adapt.
This is a very simplistic example, but if I put pressure to select out cells with an 'A' and we have a cell with
ABCDEFG
and after applying pressure the creature becomes BCDEFG it doesn't matter. This just goes to show that organisms can survive by losing some of their DNA. Ok, let's move on to some real examples.
I'm not going to argue the nylon issue because its a lengthy, and complex problem. I will refer you to this. You can ignore it, or not. But since you like to reference talk origins, its only fair that I be able to reference this.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v17/i3/bacteria.asp
Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm gonna work on my RPG. Good day.
Oh wait, one more thing.
Quote:
Still waiting to see a valid argument as to why Creationism would have to reject evolution in any way shape or form. It is a mystery to me as to how it even excludes the theory.
Creationism doesn't request a rejection of evolution, common sense does.
Quote:
Isn't natural selection just a small equation towards the change in evolution?
Its not an equation, its a variable in the equation.
"A + B * C / D = F" isn't quite the same as saying "D".
Quote:
It has always been my belief that the factors that lead to change in mutation or selective processes are as random and varied in nature as nature itself.
Nature is random? Its so well ordered, I don't see how you have any possible claim to this.
Quote:
Adaptation for survival would probably be the biggest ingredient towards change in evolution.
Maybe, if it did anything other than reduce order.
I don't know how much longer I can keep this up.
Last edited by Irish_Farmer; 05/01/06 20:38.
"The task force finds that...the unborn child is a whole human being from the moment of fertilization, that all abortions terminate the life of a human being, and that the unborn child is a separate human patient under the care of modern medicine."
|
|
|
Re: Science and Creation
[Re: Irish_Farmer]
#69033
05/01/06 23:28
05/01/06 23:28
|
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 5,900
Bielefeld, Germany
Pappenheimer
Senior Expert
|
Senior Expert
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 5,900
Bielefeld, Germany
|
Quote:
There isn't just a pool of DNA waiting to be written. You might be more accurate to say you want to rewrite the sentence
"Run over the ground."
to the sentence
"Fly through the sky."
Now, if you let monkeys randomly type at the keyboard, even if they get a letter right, it has to make sense in the overall picture. In other words ending up with the word 'Ruy' wouldn't be useful because even though its closer to 'Fly' it makes no sense. We can randomly get closer to a different sentence, but because the DNA is already ordered, it has to fit into the larger picture of the order because the creature is dependent on this pre-existing order to live.
I don't know much about (biological) evolution, it is just an idea:
What, if the DNA isn't well put in order and full of more and less senseless rests of former mutations beside the "sense-making sentences"?
The "rests" partly could easely be re-animated per mutation, giving a new chance to collaborate with the given already working sentences!
Maybe, there is a bunch of sentences which are only not providing the current "version" of the species.
There are so many species that survived with very different "features" which are not necessary for their survival.
So, there might be a huge amount of DNA which isn't aquired for survival as well and these are available to "get sense" via variation.
-------
Your "monkey at the piano"-example has the disadvantage that it doesn't take in account that the DNA isn't completely smashed apart by a mutation, but that in relation to the amount of "letters" there are only few "letters" changed within a generation.
The "monkey at piano" might be an example for a radioactive eco-catastrophy.
|
|
|
Re: Science and Creation
[Re: Pappenheimer]
#69034
05/02/06 00:39
05/02/06 00:39
|
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 3,236
San Diego, CA
Marco_Grubert
Expert
|
Expert
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 3,236
San Diego, CA
|
Quote:
What, if the DNA isn't well put in order and full of more and less senseless rests of former mutations beside the "sense-making sentences"? The "rests" partly could easely be re-animated per mutation, giving a new chance to collaborate with the given already working sentences! Maybe, there is a bunch of sentences which are only not providing the current "version" of the species.
That is indeed the case. You can have entire regions become active/inactive by switching its marker (junk DNA) or you can have small pieces become inactive if they don't make sense in their context (as is done during the translation process). I referenced the former as evidence for common descent because we share a lot of inactive regions with other mammals.
@Irish_Farmer
Quote:
Now, if you let monkeys randomly type at the keyboard, even if they get a letter right, it has to make sense in the overall picture. In other words ending up with the word 'Ruy' wouldn't be useful because even though its closer to 'Fly' it makes no sense. We can randomly get closer to a different sentence, but because the DNA is already ordered, it has to fit into the larger picture of the order because the creature is dependent on this pre-existing order to live.
You are assuming that the whole genome must be used, that it can not be extended, and may not contain useless data. All three assumptions are invalid as far as the biology behind it is concerned: a large portion is not used, it can be extended, and useless data exists. However, I grant you that the monkey-typewriter example is too simplistic. It's best used as an example of random chance vs. random chance plus optimal selection, e.g. writing one 10-letter phrase per second it would take up to 79,000 years to randomly type "TOBEORNOTTOBE". Using selection on correct letters this is cut down to ca. 90 seconds.
Last edited by Marco_Grubert; 05/02/06 02:00.
|
|
|
Re: Science and Creation
[Re: jcl]
#69036
05/02/06 14:03
05/02/06 14:03
|
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 3,010
analysis paralysis
NITRO777
Expert
|
Expert
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 3,010
analysis paralysis
|
Quote:
What you could see, theoretically, in a lab is the evolution of a new fly or bacteria species. I don't know if this was observed so far, but I think it's entirely possible.
Well this is my point exactly, the fact is that we dont see evolution of a new species and this is because evolution is only an educated guess guided by bias.
Quote:
but I think it's entirely possible.
Its entirely possible if evolution is true, but if its not true we will never be able to observe it.
Quote:
What you could see, theoretically, in a lab is the evolution of a new fly or bacteria species
I would be interested if even new types of simple proteins were synthesized, but the only thing happening with mutations today are changes in existing proteins.
Quote:
However, "macro-mutations" leading to speciation are very well observed in nature - in the fossil record. Birds evolved from dinosaurs and mammals evolved from reptiles within some 10 million years. We have enough transient fossils to conclude that we observed most steps of both evolutions.
We certainly do have enough fossils to make a good survey of what existed: we have a sampling of 79% out of all the species represented on the earth, we have literally millions of fossils representing 250,000 species.
Quote:
Birds evolved from dinosaurs
Which dinosaurs? The theropods? Why then were they only found AFTER the archeaopteryx? Or perhaps you were not aware of this fact? Please respond on a case by case basis.
You cannot just come out with a statement that "we have plenty of fossils to prove evolution" and use a talkorigins link and call this a scientific debate. If you are truly objective, you should study the matter intently. If you dont look at thae facts closely then you really must a)admit your bias or b)admit that you have no idea if God created the world or not.
Quote:
However, "macro-mutations" leading to speciation are very well observed in nature - in the fossil record. Birds evolved from dinosaurs and mammals evolved from reptiles within some 10 million years. We have enough transient fossils to conclude that we observed most steps of both evolutions.
This is really just a new way to say "I am biased". There is nothing wrong with being biased as long as you admit it.
Essentially noone on this forum really understands the inner workings of a cell, DNA, proteins or the most intricate biochemistry. However, if you will allow yourself to understand you will realize that NOONE on earth really understands these things fully. The study of cells, microbiology is leading to new areas of excitement in nanotechnology and other fields yet it is largely an open field. So to put stock into science and scientists which claim expertise in these fields is also not a safe, sure foundation.
In the end, if your really objective you have to throw up your hands and say: "I have no idea".
Currently you have to look beyond science to find the answers to metaphysical questions. Its perhaps more relevant to ask ourselves why we have a built in mechanism which questions our origins anyway? Why cant we, like the monkeys, ignore this big question?
I admire atheists and scientists and all free thinkers which are Christian and non-Christian alike. There are too many people who are just satisfied to live life in ignorance...
|
|
|
Re: Science and Creation
[Re: NITRO777]
#69037
05/02/06 16:47
05/02/06 16:47
|
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
Irish_Farmer
User
|
User
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
|
On non-coding (junk) DNA. I found a bit of interesting information. Its comes from the crazies, but it includes references the entire way, so if you don't believe it, you don't have to. Your choice. http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/junkdna.html
"The task force finds that...the unborn child is a whole human being from the moment of fertilization, that all abortions terminate the life of a human being, and that the unborn child is a separate human patient under the care of modern medicine."
|
|
|
Re: Science and Creation
[Re: Irish_Farmer]
#69038
05/02/06 19:10
05/02/06 19:10
|
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
Irish_Farmer
User
|
User
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
|
Sorry, one more thing. About those cave fish. You said they grew eyes back very quickly, proving that eyes can be evolved relatively fast. Actually those eyes evolved without reproduction, and within a matter of days. Of course, the eyes were lost during 'evolution', which makes sense, because losing data somehow equates to gaining data. Anyway, apparently what happened was that what starts the growth of the eye was corrupted, but by adding the lens from an eyed fish of the same species on the surface, the eye grew. Proving that the data for the eye wasn't completely lost, just whatever controls the growth. These eyes didn't 'evolve' back into the picture, they were always there. But thanks to mutations (or mistakes as one might call them), the fish couldn't grow them. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2000/07/000728082041.htm
"The task force finds that...the unborn child is a whole human being from the moment of fertilization, that all abortions terminate the life of a human being, and that the unborn child is a separate human patient under the care of modern medicine."
|
|
|
Re: Science and Creation
[Re: Irish_Farmer]
#69039
05/02/06 20:44
05/02/06 20:44
|
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 5,900
Bielefeld, Germany
Pappenheimer
Senior Expert
|
Senior Expert
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 5,900
Bielefeld, Germany
|
Sorry, Irish Farmer, I didn't follow the discussion in every single detail and I don't know wether this is the main point of the discussion: Quote:
Another study showed that DNA contains large areas with unexplained patterns (4). Such patterns could not be the result of random chance as stated by Dr. H. Eugene Stanley (Boston University), "it is almost incredible that the occupant of one site on a gene would somehow influence which nucleotide shows up even 100,000 bases away."
About patterns which are so well organized that they seemed to need created by an intelligence:
Selfreferential systems produce patterns just because they are in some ways closed. Especially, when they get energy from outside, like the earth is getting from the sun. The earth is closed as far as the most of its elements don't escape to outer space.
|
|
|
Re: Science and Creation
[Re: Pappenheimer]
#69040
05/02/06 22:35
05/02/06 22:35
|
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 3,010
analysis paralysis
NITRO777
Expert
|
Expert
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 3,010
analysis paralysis
|
Quote:
Selfreferential systems produce patterns just because they are in some ways closed. Especially, when they get energy from outside, like the earth is getting from the sun. The earth is closed as far as the most of its elements don't escape to outer space.
This is an interesting thought, I dont think I have heard this one before. How do you suppose the sugars and phosphates assemebled together with the correct bases? Even within the earth's atmosphere, how did they assemble to form DNA? Randomly? Then please explain to me how you can find any pattern at all in a series of random events. It should be easily testable and therefore observable.
Pappenheimer,Pappenheimer,Pappenheimer
: Random chance can never create patterns irredgardless of its occurence in open or closed systems It is thouroughly testable, and has never been observed, the only patterns you can create from random events are probablilities for them to occur.
Of course Rosalind Franklin suceeded in crystalizing DNA in the 1950's. From these crystals she was able to bounce x-rays off onto a photographic film. Later on Watson and Crick were given the nobel prize for determining the shape and structure of DNA.
Crick went on to speculate on panspermia because he knew the probability of dna sequences being randomly assembled were impossible.
Only if you live on one of jcl's parallel universes can life be thus generated. 
|
|
|
|
