Genetics and evolution

[blackumbrella]

A system that is currently investigating a theory that is based largely on the faith that time and chance mutation can create complex scenarios that would allow natural selection to take effect.

that's right. 'currently investigating' is my favorite part, and something creationists would certainly benefit from.

Generally, when speaking about DNA, language is an analogy that is commonly used.

didactically, yes, but not to imply that bc language issues from a speaker, dna must be likewise issue from some kind of intelligence.

You say: in dna, the physical characteristics of the 'letters' are what determine the processes that follow


Genetics 101 says: The order, or sequence, of these bases determines the information available for building and maintaining an organism, similar to the way in which letters of the alphabet appear in a certain order to form words and sentences.

i also said:

the synthesis of proteins that follow from its arrangement of nucleotides: all are understood in terms of physical processes. written language is a symbolic description of spoken language, both od which are arbitrary systems of convention.

what part of that quote do you find disagreeable and why? the statement's true and i feel pretty succinct as well. are you saying the genetics 101 quote is at odds with either of my quotes? it's not.

I don’t think it was implied that DNA understood the message, being that it isn’t a living being, therefore not capable of understanding. It is simply the code that transmits the message. This brings us directly to the question in point. Where did the code come from? Did a code as complex as DNA arise over a whole bunch of time because of a bunch of chance mutations?

i addressed all that in my last post. of course it's not implied dna understands itself or anything else for that matter. it's implied that dna is like language in constituting a 'message' and hence must also have a 'message sender.' and as i said, the author mischaracterizes 'information' and overextends the dna/lang analogy.

 

[blackumbrella]

There are so many selections that seem to make more sense and certainly be an advantage to survival. So many keep coming to mind… like at what point did was it not a good thing to be 15 feet tall and extremely strong. At some point we had to stop growing in this direction. When and why was there a day where the weak, short, hairless ape was better fit for survival in the ape community? It would seem the taller, stronger, warmer type would have continued on…

I guess if we were made by design it would be easier to understand why we are how we are.

would it? if you could come up with so many improvements off the top of your head, what does that say for the intelligence of the designer?

 

[BeccaBama]

would it? if you could come up with so many improvements off the top of your head, what does that say for the intelligence of the designer?

Good answer. However his point wasn't that we could use improvments and you know that. Nice dodge, as Bamabake would say.

 

[BeccaBama]

Will get to the rest in a minute, read the following and thought of your post KillVols.

"People often try to imagine evolution as elements evolving into chemicals, chemicals evolving into proteins, proteins evolving into organisms, and organisms evolving into people. If you think of the final product as a "generic person," evolution sounds as if it could be possible. But, when you think of the final product as men and women, evolution is not as "simple" as it first sounds.

Picture this: an asexual organism "says" to another "wouldn't it be nice if we could divide up some chores, with one of us birthing children while the other watches football, a game which is sure to evolve in time? How about this: I'll evolve a penis and some testicles and you evolve a vagina and uterus, and we can use that to make children. It may take millions of years for all this to happen, and I'm not sure how we'll reproduce in the mean time, but I think it's an idea whose time has come. Who knows, we may even be able to pull this evolution off in a way that we can even enjoy the reproductive process. I think many of our descendants will really like this football thing when it's invented. I can feel it in my genes."

lol!

 

[bamabake]

that's right. 'currently investigating' is my favorite part, and something creationists would certainly benefit from.


didactically, yes, but not to imply that bc language issues from a speaker, dna must be likewise issue from some kind of intelligence.



i also said:
what part of that quote do you find disagreeable and why? the statement's true and i feel pretty succinct as well. are you saying the genetics 101 quote is at odds with either of my quotes? it's not.



i addressed all that in my last post. of course it's not implied dna understands itself or anything else for that matter. it's implied that dna is like language in constituting a 'message' and hence must also have a 'message sender.' and as i said, the author mischaracterizes 'information' and overextends the dna/lang analogy.

didactically, yes, but not to imply that bc language issues from a speaker, dna must be likewise issue from some kind of intelligence.


huh?


BTW if there was nothing, then the goo then (for some unknown reason) there was something that arose out of that, why are we not all plants, or all animals. If all is improving along the way what advantage in there in being a stupid sheep that can be eaten by a mountain lion. How can all of this just happen? How does a plant with no brain evolve? How would it know too?
Using the KV nubs, if it took 50 million years to go from nubs (which popped up for some survival reason) to wings by the time the wings fully evolved the need to have them would surly have changed if the species even lasted the 100,000 climate changes and other natural occurances.

This is all nonesense. How can otherwise smart people be so blind to the obvious. Take all of the evidence that has been provided here, and it just scratches the surface of the information out there today, throw it out and it still makes no sense at all.

 

[KillVols]

I'm sure you have heard of Antony Flew? Let me ask you, do you think that you know more about this debate than he does?

Newspost:
NEW YORK — A British philosophy professor who has been a leading champion of atheism for more than a half-century has changed his mind. He now believes in God — more or less — based on scientific evidence and says so on a video released yesterday.
At 81, after decades of insisting that belief is a mistake, Antony Flew has concluded that some sort of intelligence or first cause must have created the universe. A super-intelligence is the only good explanation for the origin of life and the complexity of nature, Mr. Flew said in a telephone interview from England.
Over the years, Mr. Flew has proclaimed the lack of evidence for God while teaching at Oxford, Aberdeen, Keele, and Reading universities in Britain, in visits to numerous U.S. and Canadian campuses and in books, articles, lectures and debates.
Yet biologists' investigation of DNA "has shown, by the almost unbelievable complexity of the arrangements which are needed to produce [life], that intelligence must have been involved," Mr. Flew says in the new video "Has Science Discovered God?"
"It has become inordinately difficult even to begin to think about constructing a naturalistic theory of the evolution of that first reproducing organism," he wrote.
"My whole life has been guided by the principle of Plato's Socrates: Follow the evidence, wherever it leads."
Mr. Flew told the Associated Press that his current ideas have some similarity with American "intelligent design" theorists, who see evidence for a guiding force in the construction of the universe.


Interesting huh?

More interesting quotes,

``If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.'' --Charles Darwin The Origin of Species (1859)

``To Darwin, the cell was a `black box' -- its inner working were utterly mysterious to him. Now, the black box has been opened up and we know how it works. Applying Darwin's test to the ultra-complex world of molecular machinery and cellular systems that have been discovered over the past 40 years, we can say that Darwin's theory has `absolutely broken down''.' --Michael Behe, biochemist, Darwin's Black Box (1996)


Here's one of my favorates,

``The current scenario of the origin of life is about as likely as the assemblage of a 747 by a tornado whirling through a junkyard.'' Sir Fred Hoyle, The Intelligent Universe (1983% of that first reproducing organism," he wrote.[/B]
"My whole life has been guided by the principle of Plato's Socrates: Follow the evidence, wherever it leads."
Mr. Flew told the Associated Press that his current ideas have some similarity with American "intelligent design" theorists, who see evidence for a guiding force in the construction of the universe.


Interesting huh?

More interesting quotes,

``If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.'' --Charles Darwin The Origin of Species (1859)

``To Darwin, the cell was a `black box' -- its inner working were utterly mysterious to him. Now, the black box has been opened up and we know how it works. Applying Darwin's test to the ultra-complex world of molecular machinery and cellular systems that have been discovered over the past 40 years, we can say that Darwin's theory has `absolutely broken down''.' --Michael Behe, biochemist, Darwin's Black Box (1996)


Here's one of my favorates,

``The current scenario of the origin of life is about as likely as the assemblage of a 747 by a tornado whirling through a junkyard.'' Sir Fred Hoyle, The Intelligent Universe (1983% of that first reproducing organism," he wrote.[/B]
"My whole life has been guided by the principle of Plato's Socrates: Follow the evidence, wherever it leads."
Mr. Flew told the Associated Press that his current ideas have some similarity with American "intelligent design" theorists, who see evidence for a guiding force in the construction of the universe.


Interesting huh?

More interesting quotes,

``If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.'' --Charles Darwin The Origin of Species (1859)

``To Darwin, the cell was a `black box' -- its inner working were utterly mysterious to him. Now, the black box has been opened up and we know how it works. Applying Darwin's test to the ultra-complex world of molecular machinery and cellular systems that have been discovered over the past 40 years, we can say that Darwin's theory has `absolutely broken down''.' --Michael Behe, biochemist, Darwin's Black Box (1996)


Here's one of my favorates,

``The current scenario of the origin of life is about as likely as the assemblage of a 747 by a tornado whirling through a junkyard.'' Sir Fred Hoyle, The Intelligent Universe (19825 of that first reproducing organism," he wrote.[/B]
"My whole life has been guided by the principle of Plato's Socrates: Follow the evidence, wherever it leads."
Mr. Flew told the Associated Press that his current ideas have some similarity with American "intelligent design" theorists, who see evidence for a guiding force in the construction of the universe.


Interesting huh?

More interesting quotes,

``If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.'' --Charles Darwin The Origin of Species (1859)

``To Darwin, the cell was a `black box' -- its inner working were utterly mysterious to him. Now, the black box has been opened up and we know how it works. Applying Darwin's test to the ultra-complex world of molecular machinery and cellular systems that have been discovered over the past 40 years, we can say that Darwin's theory has `absolutely broken down''.' --Michael Behe, biochemist, Darwin's Black Box (1996)


Here's one of my favorates,

``The current scenario of the origin of life is about as likely as the assemblage of a 747 by a tornado whirling through a junkyard.'' Sir Fred Hoyle, The Intelligent Universe (1983)

WOW... think time and chance could do that?

This one goes back to early points made,

``Evolution is unproved and unprovable. We believe it only because the only alternative is special creation and that is unthinkable.'' Sir Arthur Keith, a famous British evolutionist

 

[KillVols]

I wonder what the odds are when COB comes back that he reads any of the posts before responding blindly to a small fragment somewhere in the last two or three.

Probably as the same as the odds below.

"The cell needs all it's basic parts with their various functions, for survival, therefore, if the cell had evolved, it would have meant that billions of parts would have had to come into existence at the same time, in the same place, and then simultaneously come together in a precise order."

KillVols

 

[blackumbrella]

I'm sure you have heard of Antony Flew? Let me ask you, do you think that you know more about this debate than he does?

that's a door you don't want to open. as we've seen, as the level of education increases (eg scientists, eg philosophers) so does belief in evolution--you won't win the name dropping contest.

 

[blackumbrella]

didactically, yes, but not to imply that bc language issues from a speaker, dna must be likewise issue from some kind of intelligence.


huh?


BTW if there was nothing, then the goo then (for some unknown reason) there was something that arose out of that, why are we not all plants, or all animals. If all is improving along the way what advantage in there in being a stupid sheep that can be eaten by a mountain lion. How can all of this just happen? How does a plant with no brain evolve? How would it know too?
Using the KV nubs, if it took 50 million years to go from nubs (which popped up for some survival reason) to wings by the time the wings fully evolved the need to have them would surly have changed if the species even lasted the 100,000 climate changes and other natural occurances.

This is all nonesense. How can otherwise smart people be so blind to the obvious. Take all of the evidence that has been provided here, and it just scratches the surface of the information out there today, throw it out and it still makes no sense at all.

as best i recall, wings are the prime example of stephen jay gould's idea of exaptation--structures serving one purpose having side effects that turn out to be beneficial in their own right, and eventually the secondary benefit outweighs the primary benefit. wings' surface area makes them great at dissipating heat--you can see how this is certainly not irreducible complexity; larger wings would be selected for until they became so big lack of mobility became a liability--so critters grow wings, dissipating more and more heat, but then shazam!! there's this side effect that the wings also provide lift.

 

[bamabake]

that's a door you don't want to open. as we've seen, as the level of education increases (eg scientists, eg philosophers) so does belief in evolution--you won't win the name dropping contest.

First of all you missed the point. KV didnt quote creationist he quoted people that have devoted their lives to the subject, believed as you do now but followed the evidence with intellectual honesty. They were forced by the evidence to change their positions. You on the other hand, as witnessed by your lack of response or understanding of what was just posted, will believe as you do even if God Himself showed up in your room and explained it to you.

 

[bamabake]

as best i recall, wings are the prime example of stephen jay gould's idea of exaptation--structures serving one purpose having side effects that turn out to be beneficial in their own right, and eventually the secondary benefit outweighs the primary benefit. wings' surface area makes them great at dissipating heat--you can see how this is certainly not irreducible complexity; larger wings would be selected for until they became so big lack of mobility became a liability--so critters grow wings, dissipating more and more heat, but then shazam!! there's this side effect that the wings also provide lift.

That is so weak. You didnt even deal with the substance of the post. How would the benefit be realized if it took so dang long. How would the species survive while the smallest of changes took place. Especially in light of the fact that, in your theory here, there was some really important reason for the brainless, comprehensionless, stupid animal to change in the first place.

What advantage is there in being a slug. How come they are not 40 feet tall with 5 arms and legs keeping us from stepping on them?

 

[bamabake]

as best i recall, wings are the prime example of stephen jay gould's idea of exaptation--structures serving one purpose having side effects that turn out to be beneficial in their own right, and eventually the secondary benefit outweighs the primary benefit. wings' surface area makes them great at dissipating heat--you can see how this is certainly not irreducible complexity; larger wings would be selected for until they became so big lack of mobility became a liability--so critters grow wings, dissipating more and more heat, but then shazam!! there's this side effect that the wings also provide lift.

How does the critter know what it needs to change? There would be thousands of options available to it, right?

 

[blackumbrella]

First of all you missed the point. KV didnt quote creationist he quoted people that have devoted their lives to the subject,

so you admit creationists have devoted less energy and thought to the subject than evolutionists.

 

[blackumbrella]

That is so weak. You didnt even deal with the substance of the post.

'substance' huh? well. . .

How would the benefit be realized if it took so dang long.
How would the species survive while the smallest of changes took place.

exactly as i said, bc the larger wings dissipated more heat(making it EASIER to survive), a selective advantage ultimately leading to the exaptational benefit of lift.

Especially in light of the fact that, in your theory here, there was some really important reason for the brainless, comprehensionless, stupid animal to change in the first place.

again, it doesn't take a brain; it's not a conscious process

What advantage is there in being a slug. How come they are not 40 feet tall with 5 arms and legs keeping us from stepping on them?

well for one, physics would demand that they'd need a skeleton of some sort. more theoretically, why are we not immune to tiny, insignificant things like viruses and bacteria? why are we not 40 feet tall? why don't we have eyes in the backs of our heads etc? any of those inquiries would be a good starting point for investigating evolution or creationism. the difference is: to any of these questions, evolution has answers containing scientific evidence and logical inferences, while creationism has the answer 'that's how god made it.'

 

[blackumbrella]

How does the critter know what it needs to change? There would be thousands of options available to it, right?

How does a plant with no brain evolve? How would it know too?

IT'S NOT A COCNSCIOUS DECISION. THEREFORE IT DOESN'T EVEN REQUIRE A BRAIN.
bake, you still don't understand the basic premises of natural selection. how can you read these threads and continue to fail to understand what's being said? have beccabama explain it to you. s/he seems nice enough to do so, not to mention all your pandering.

 

[CrimsonNan]

No one is going to change anyone's mind on this subject. So y'all keep on buttin heads over it. I'm taking a permanent vacation.

 

[bamabake]

IT'S NOT A COCNSCIOUS DECISION. THEREFORE IT DOESN'T EVEN REQUIRE A BRAIN.
bake, you still don't understand the basic premises of natural selection. how can you read these threads and continue to fail to understand what's being said? have beccabama explain it to you. s/he seems nice enough to do so, not to mention all your pandering.

If it isnt a cognitive descision then how, is all I am asking you. how how how
I am not debating natural selection per se I am asking how. Your implyed answer of " it just does" or whatever isnt very scientific.

 

[KillVols]

CrimsonNan is right, it is getting kind of tiresome. Let me just say that any objective, rational thinker reading this thread will clearly see the the dying religion of evolution is being fought with a completely closed mind. Anyone that really has an interest can go out and do all the research in the world and see our side is far more compelling. As technology continues it's rapid advance, evolution will wither on the vine. I'm sure that it will die hard, as did flat earthers and the folks that thought the earth was the center of the universe.


It's hard to get over the fact that people follow a theory from a guy that thought the single cell was a simply blob of plasma.

Whether you are using common sense or you're a scientific person, you will quickly see that the burden of proof lies with the failing theory.
Everyday more and more data comes out that shows evolution is very unlikely.

It's a great time to be alive!

God Bless!

KillVols

 

[BeccaBama]

They can’t really explain how, because extensive amounts of time and chance mutation can’t be reproduced in a lab. “How” for them is time and chance mutation. Followed by natural selection which also supports Creationism.

A system that is currently investigating a theory that is based largely on the faith that time and chance mutation can create complex scenarios that would allow natural selection to take effect.

that's right. 'currently investigating' is my favorite part, and something creationists would certainly benefit from.

I didn’t figure that “largely based on faith in time and chance mutation” would be your favorite part. In fact creationists are doing plenty of investigating. We have to in order to debunk the notion that evolution is the only reasonable explanation for the way life could have developed on this planet.

the synthesis of proteins that follow from its arrangement of nucleotides: all are understood in terms of physical processes. written language is a symbolic description of spoken language, both od which are arbitrary systems of convention.

But not how they got into the correct order and sequence to begin with in order to synthesize the proteins after the nucleotides are arranged. This is where the code would come in.

i can understand seeing dna as genetic information, but intentionality, meaning, don't follow from it

But doesn’t genetic information give messages about how the characteristics of the person, for example, are determined? This person will have blue eyes and blond hair, is that not a message conveyed through the physical appearance of a person? The message would begin with DNA, be transmitted through many complex series of physical processes, and be received as the physiite part, and something creationists would certainly benefit from.[/QUOTE]

I didn’t figure that “largely based on faith in time and chance mutation” would be your favorite part. In fact creationists are doing plenty of investigating. We have to in order to debunk the notion that evolution is the only reasonable explanation for the way life could have developed on this planet.

the synthesis of proteins that follow from its arrangement of nucleotides: all are understood in terms of physical processes. written language is a symbolic description of spoken language, both od which are arbitrary systems of convention.

But not how they got into the correct order and sequence to begin with in order to synthesize the proteins after the nucleotides are arranged. This is where the code would come in.

i can understand seeing dna as genetic information, but intentionality, meaning, don't follow from it

But doesn’t genetic information give messages about how the characteristics of the person, for example, are determined? This person will have blue eyes and blond hair, is that not a message conveyed through the physical appearance of a person? The message would begin with DNA, be transmitted through many complex series of physical processes, and be received as the physical appearance of the person.

Wouldn’t that be information? A message from a source, transmitted and received?

Isaiah 29:14 says “Human wisdom is foolish, even the most brilliant people lack understanding”

Romans 1:21-22 says “And they began to think up foolish ideas of what God was like. The result was that their minds became dark and confused. Claiming to be wise, they became utter fools instead.”

I think this may give some insight as to bamabake’s question on how otherwise intelligent people could be blinded by the apparent evidence for evolution. Evidence that involves interpretation and could also be evidence for or at least explained by Creationism.

I think my point has been made, evolutionists require faith to believe in evolution just as Creationists require faith to believe in Creationism. Evolutionists claim that Creationists shouldn’t be taken seriously because it's merely a matter of faith in God and the Bible, but I think it has been shown that evolutionists must also have faith when it comes to evolution, faith in time and chance mutation.

Over and out.

Give all the Glory to God!

 

[blackumbrella]

the dying religion of evolution is being fought with a completely closed mind.

you realize, don't you, that the wording of this sentence is saying creationists, those who 'fight' evolution, have closed minds? i agree.

I'm sure that it will die hard, as did flat earthers and the folks that thought the earth was the center of the universe

why was it again that the heliocentric model took so long to be accepted? oh yeah, it met with fierce dogmatic opposition. sounds familiar.

It's hard to get over the fact that people follow a theory from a guy that thought the single cell was a simply blob of plasma.

well, most creationists worship a savior who thought the earth was flat.