Genetics and evolution
- Thread starter KillVols
- Start date
Quote by NYBamaFan:
This unity of composition and function is a powerful argument in favor of the common descent of the most diverse organisms.
Again, it depends on the way you interpret the data whether or not the “unity of composition and function is a powerful argument in favor of the common descent.†If you have a humanist, naturalist point of view, that would make sense since you couldn’t possibly accept that God could have created. However, from a biblical point of view, the unity of composition and function simply shows that God used a common “blue-print†or “art form†to create life resulting in common biochemistry and structures in many different creatures. Same facts, different interpretations.
Quoted by NYBamaFan:
"An interesting additional line of evidence supporting evolution involves sequences of DNA known as "pseudogenes." Pseudogenes are remnants of genes that no longer function but continue to be carried along in DNA as excess baggage. Pseudogenes also change through time, as they are passed on from ancestors to descendants, and they offer an especially useful way of reconstructing evolutionary relationships.
With functioning genes, one possible explanation for the relative similarity between genes from different organisms is that their ways of life are similar--for example, the genes from a horse and a zebra could be more similar because of their similar habitats and behaviors than the genes from a horse and a tiger. But this possible explanation does not work for pseudogenes, since they perform no function. Rather, the degree of similarity between pseudogenes must simply reflect their evolutionary relatedness. The more remote the last common ancestor of two organisms, the more dissimilar their pseudogenes will be."
I'm certainly no expert on pseudogenes, but I did mangae to find the following information. Thank you for bringing up a topic that actually attempts to explain increased complexity in organisms.
Quote:
Pseudogenes are often referred to in the scientific literature as non-functional DNA, and are regarded as junk. But more scientists are now conceding that this is far from true for many pseudogenes. Failure to observe pseudogenes coding for a product under experimental conditions is no proof that they never do so inside an organism. The inability to code for a protein useful to an organism hardly exhausts other possible functions.
As the function of more pseudogenes is being uncovered by testable and repeatable science, it is evident that these genetic elements, which are copiously spread in the genomes of different organisms, have been created with purpose. The recent finding of insertion hotspots also clarifies how pseudogenes may have appeared to evolutionists as shared mistakes and now invalidates their use in phylogenetic studies.
It would be wise for evolutionists to review the list of supposed vestigal (non-functioning) organs in humans that have now been shown to have a function (the appendix, the tonsils, the pineal gland and the thymus to name a few) before claiming the non-functionality of pseudogenes.
This unity of composition and function is a powerful argument in favor of the common descent of the most diverse organisms.
Again, it depends on the way you interpret the data whether or not the “unity of composition and function is a powerful argument in favor of the common descent.†If you have a humanist, naturalist point of view, that would make sense since you couldn’t possibly accept that God could have created. However, from a biblical point of view, the unity of composition and function simply shows that God used a common “blue-print†or “art form†to create life resulting in common biochemistry and structures in many different creatures. Same facts, different interpretations.
Quoted by NYBamaFan:
"An interesting additional line of evidence supporting evolution involves sequences of DNA known as "pseudogenes." Pseudogenes are remnants of genes that no longer function but continue to be carried along in DNA as excess baggage. Pseudogenes also change through time, as they are passed on from ancestors to descendants, and they offer an especially useful way of reconstructing evolutionary relationships.
With functioning genes, one possible explanation for the relative similarity between genes from different organisms is that their ways of life are similar--for example, the genes from a horse and a zebra could be more similar because of their similar habitats and behaviors than the genes from a horse and a tiger. But this possible explanation does not work for pseudogenes, since they perform no function. Rather, the degree of similarity between pseudogenes must simply reflect their evolutionary relatedness. The more remote the last common ancestor of two organisms, the more dissimilar their pseudogenes will be."
I'm certainly no expert on pseudogenes, but I did mangae to find the following information. Thank you for bringing up a topic that actually attempts to explain increased complexity in organisms.
Quote:
Pseudogenes are often referred to in the scientific literature as non-functional DNA, and are regarded as junk. But more scientists are now conceding that this is far from true for many pseudogenes. Failure to observe pseudogenes coding for a product under experimental conditions is no proof that they never do so inside an organism. The inability to code for a protein useful to an organism hardly exhausts other possible functions.
As the function of more pseudogenes is being uncovered by testable and repeatable science, it is evident that these genetic elements, which are copiously spread in the genomes of different organisms, have been created with purpose. The recent finding of insertion hotspots also clarifies how pseudogenes may have appeared to evolutionists as shared mistakes and now invalidates their use in phylogenetic studies.
It would be wise for evolutionists to review the list of supposed vestigal (non-functioning) organs in humans that have now been shown to have a function (the appendix, the tonsils, the pineal gland and the thymus to name a few) before claiming the non-functionality of pseudogenes.
Last edited:
KillVols said:
Let me do your research for you again
http://www.answersingenesis.org/
KillVols said:
No, I'm trying to clarify the discussion, as COBama appears to be trying to do.
KillVols said:
Define genetic information.
Last edited:
KillVols said:
I believe the moth and finch stuff is related to speciation, which is related to Dawin's theory of natural selection. Again, you're lumping everything together.
BeccaBama said:
I said ID disputes natural selection, I believe.
BeccaBama said:
One can certainly look at it that way.
BeccaBama said:
Mutations being one of the explanations origin of life folks use to theorize about simple to complex.
BeccaBama said:
Natural selection never attempted to explain evolution from a simple form to a complex form.
Break here to avoid board problem.
this board problem is a pain
Irreducible complexity seems to me a point B to point A way of explaining what appears to be easier explained from point A to point B (the statistics become staggering).
This is what Darwin said, in context
"To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of Spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree. When it was first said that the sun stood still and the world turned round, the common sense of mankind declared the doctrine false; but the old saying of Vox populi, vox Dei ["the voice of the people = the voice of God "], as every philosopher knows, cannot be trusted in science. Reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist, each grade being useful to its possessor, as is certain the case; if further, the eye ever varies and the variations be inherited, as is likewise certainly the case; and if such variations should be useful to any animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, should not be considered as subversive of the theory."
The random mutation part is where the math gets sticky.
break again :frown:
BeccaBama said:
Irreducible complexity seems to me a point B to point A way of explaining what appears to be easier explained from point A to point B (the statistics become staggering).
BeccaBama said:
This is what Darwin said, in context
"To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of Spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree. When it was first said that the sun stood still and the world turned round, the common sense of mankind declared the doctrine false; but the old saying of Vox populi, vox Dei ["the voice of the people = the voice of God "], as every philosopher knows, cannot be trusted in science. Reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist, each grade being useful to its possessor, as is certain the case; if further, the eye ever varies and the variations be inherited, as is likewise certainly the case; and if such variations should be useful to any animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, should not be considered as subversive of the theory."
NYBamaFan said:
The random mutation part is where the math gets sticky.
break again :frown:
BeccaBama said:
Have you got a link to this "general theory of evolution"? I'm not familiar with it.
The General Theory of Evolution was defined by G.A. Kerkut in his book ‘Implications of Evolution.’ Unfortunately I can’t find a link to his book, however, we can use the link COBamaFan so kindly provided us with:
http://www.nap.edu/html/creationism/evidence.html
It doesn’t use the term General Theory of Evolution, but it does explain evolution’s general concept which is amazingly similar to Kerkut’s definition (the theory that all the living forms in the world have arisen from a single source which itself came from an inorganic (non-living) form.)
COBama says: Drawing any conclusions about how life began from evolution is an incorrect interpretation of the theory.
These are the first two sentences on the web site he linked us to:
A long path leads from the origins of primitive "life," which existed at least 3.5 billion years ago, to the profusion and diversity of life that exists today. This path is best understood as a product of evolution.
First of all, why is “life†in quotations in the first sentence. Could it be that they were actually referring to primitive non-life or inorganic forms? Secondly, did they say “origins†(beginning) of primitive “life� What about this path that connects the origins of primitive life to the profusion and diversity of life that exists today? Did they call that a product (result) of evolution? It sounds like they are connecting origins of primitive “life†to evolution.
Texas Bama: Natural selection never attempted to explain evolution from a simple form to a complex form.
I copied this from the quote you posted of Darwin’s quote regarding the eye.
“Reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist, each grade being useful to its possessor, as is certain the case; if further, the eye ever varies and the variations be inherited, as is likewise certainly the case; and if such variations should be useful to any animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, should not be considered as subversive of the theory."
Quote:
Originally Posted by BeccaBama
No, ID disputes the modern concept of evolution, not natural selection.
TexasBama: I said ID disputes natural selection, I believe.
Right, you said ID disputes natural selection, I say it does not dispute natural selection, it disputes the modern concept of evolution.
http://www.nap.edu/html/creationism/evidence.html
It doesn’t use the term General Theory of Evolution, but it does explain evolution’s general concept which is amazingly similar to Kerkut’s definition (the theory that all the living forms in the world have arisen from a single source which itself came from an inorganic (non-living) form.)
COBama says: Drawing any conclusions about how life began from evolution is an incorrect interpretation of the theory.
These are the first two sentences on the web site he linked us to:
A long path leads from the origins of primitive "life," which existed at least 3.5 billion years ago, to the profusion and diversity of life that exists today. This path is best understood as a product of evolution.
First of all, why is “life†in quotations in the first sentence. Could it be that they were actually referring to primitive non-life or inorganic forms? Secondly, did they say “origins†(beginning) of primitive “life� What about this path that connects the origins of primitive life to the profusion and diversity of life that exists today? Did they call that a product (result) of evolution? It sounds like they are connecting origins of primitive “life†to evolution.
Texas Bama: Natural selection never attempted to explain evolution from a simple form to a complex form.
I copied this from the quote you posted of Darwin’s quote regarding the eye.
“Reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist, each grade being useful to its possessor, as is certain the case; if further, the eye ever varies and the variations be inherited, as is likewise certainly the case; and if such variations should be useful to any animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, should not be considered as subversive of the theory."
Quote:
Originally Posted by BeccaBama
No, ID disputes the modern concept of evolution, not natural selection.
TexasBama: I said ID disputes natural selection, I believe.
Right, you said ID disputes natural selection, I say it does not dispute natural selection, it disputes the modern concept of evolution.
Last edited:
You can't take a simple organism and make it more complex without information being added to the genetic code. Think about what would have to happen to create everything we see from nothing... Certainly more than time and chance. It's also mathematically impossible.. which is a whole other issue.
Nice website... one of my favorites, however I have studied the subject for years.. gone to seminars and have a library of books on all sides of the subject. Any reasonable thinker that looks at all of the information out there and still follows the evolution as their bible in spite of the data are closed minded... and aren't being truthful with themselves.
Becca wrote,
Dr Scott Todd, an immunologist at Kansas State University: “Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such an hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic.â€Â
"Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door."
Sounds almost like a religon... I wonder if the opposite side are so close minded or are they seeking the truth no matter what it may be.
Nice website... one of my favorites, however I have studied the subject for years.. gone to seminars and have a library of books on all sides of the subject. Any reasonable thinker that looks at all of the information out there and still follows the evolution as their bible in spite of the data are closed minded... and aren't being truthful with themselves.
Becca wrote,
Dr Scott Todd, an immunologist at Kansas State University: “Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such an hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic.â€Â
"Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door."
Sounds almost like a religon... I wonder if the opposite side are so close minded or are they seeking the truth no matter what it may be.
KillVols said:
Any reasonable thinker that looks at all of the information out there and still follows the evolution as their bible in spite of the data are closed minded... and aren't being truthful with themselves.
..or simply hasnt taken the time to look at the overwhelming evidence at all. One place to start might be to go to the BEGINNING of this very thread.
BeccaBama said:
Then there is not an According To Hoyle scientific theory called "The General Theory of Evolution"
KillVols said:
Still waiting for that definition of information, BTW
bamabake said:
Not evidence. Not overwhelming.
I’m starting to understand why creationists refuse to accept the facts. You (creationist) cannot objectively process the data … it must be viewed through the lens of creationism. I like to work the other way: first interpret the data and then set my belief system accordingly. Thus, my belief system will change (or be refined) when new data becomes available (as it should) and, more importantly, new data can be objectively examined.
KillVols:
If people are altering their views based on new data (as you suggest), then you must disagree, to some extent, with BeccaBama’s assertion that your belief system determines how you interpret data. Correct?
Your claim about new ‘information’ is convincing only when you intentionally leaving the word ‘information’ vague. What exactly do you mean? We have observed the following:
1) Increased genetic variety in a population (Lenski 1995; Lenski et al. 1996).
2) Increased genetic material (Brown et al. 1998; Lynch and Conery 2000; Ohta 2003; Hughes and Friedman 2003; Alves et al. 2001)
3) Novel genetic material (Knox et al. 1996; Park et al. 1996)
4) Novel genetically-regulated abilities (Prijambada et al. 1995)
Of course, you’ll claim these aren’t examples of new ‘information’, but, if that’s true, then ‘information’ as you’ve defined it has no consequence whatsoever on the theory of evolution.
BeccaBama:
I’m not ignoring anything. I simply stated that evolution does not say anything about how life began. Attempting to push the theory to include such an idea is incorrect (if it will make you feel better, then you can add an ‘in my opinion’ to the end of that sentence).
No, BeccaBama, most scientists do interpret data objectively. I know I do. I know all of my colleagues do. Our integrity is based on it. Without it, our conclusions are suspect. Those scientists were expressing their OPINIONS, not speaking for the entire science community (certainly not me or anyone I know anyhow).
You can not respond all you want, but it doesn’t change the fact that your assertion that you interpret data based on your belief system (instead of the other way around) seriously undermines the conclusions you’ve reached. We cannot trust your ability to objectively view data or facts. It forces us to ignore your statements. It’s that plain and simple.
I was unaware of those statistics. Thank you for sharing them. I thought they were particularly interesting. My example, however, is very much applicable because you didn’t report whether the 7% of the people who said they believed in God also believe in evolution. If you’re correct, then many of those 7% must be concluding that evolution is bunk. However, the probably of this is remote. More likely, based on their membership in the NAS, all 7% believe in God and evolution. How can this be, based on your reasoning?
Finally, the article clearly says ‘life’ BeccaBama. Your attempt to find some meaning in the quotation marks is silly (not, however, inconsistent with your other beliefs … so you’re at least consistent).
KillVols:
If people are altering their views based on new data (as you suggest), then you must disagree, to some extent, with BeccaBama’s assertion that your belief system determines how you interpret data. Correct?
Your claim about new ‘information’ is convincing only when you intentionally leaving the word ‘information’ vague. What exactly do you mean? We have observed the following:
1) Increased genetic variety in a population (Lenski 1995; Lenski et al. 1996).
2) Increased genetic material (Brown et al. 1998; Lynch and Conery 2000; Ohta 2003; Hughes and Friedman 2003; Alves et al. 2001)
3) Novel genetic material (Knox et al. 1996; Park et al. 1996)
4) Novel genetically-regulated abilities (Prijambada et al. 1995)
Of course, you’ll claim these aren’t examples of new ‘information’, but, if that’s true, then ‘information’ as you’ve defined it has no consequence whatsoever on the theory of evolution.
BeccaBama:
I’m not ignoring anything. I simply stated that evolution does not say anything about how life began. Attempting to push the theory to include such an idea is incorrect (if it will make you feel better, then you can add an ‘in my opinion’ to the end of that sentence).
No, BeccaBama, most scientists do interpret data objectively. I know I do. I know all of my colleagues do. Our integrity is based on it. Without it, our conclusions are suspect. Those scientists were expressing their OPINIONS, not speaking for the entire science community (certainly not me or anyone I know anyhow).
You can not respond all you want, but it doesn’t change the fact that your assertion that you interpret data based on your belief system (instead of the other way around) seriously undermines the conclusions you’ve reached. We cannot trust your ability to objectively view data or facts. It forces us to ignore your statements. It’s that plain and simple.
I was unaware of those statistics. Thank you for sharing them. I thought they were particularly interesting. My example, however, is very much applicable because you didn’t report whether the 7% of the people who said they believed in God also believe in evolution. If you’re correct, then many of those 7% must be concluding that evolution is bunk. However, the probably of this is remote. More likely, based on their membership in the NAS, all 7% believe in God and evolution. How can this be, based on your reasoning?
Finally, the article clearly says ‘life’ BeccaBama. Your attempt to find some meaning in the quotation marks is silly (not, however, inconsistent with your other beliefs … so you’re at least consistent).
Last edited:
I believe that God created everything. I also believe in evolution as a mechanism created by God to achieve His ends. I see no argument between the two. A Christian can believe both in Creationism (ID) and Evolution as long as that person is not tied to the literal 6 days, as it is writen in the Bible.COBamaFan said:
God does not tell us how He created man. The Bible says that He did it in days. The question is in the interpretation. Did God actually say that He did this all in 6 days, or was this the interpretation of the writer, unable to understand the concepts of the vast time required? Perhaps God said that it took Him 6 days, then He rested, for some other purpose, known only to Him?
As for ignoring the fact that a person's perspective slants his observations, well, that is just silly. Belief systems definitely create a different perspective. Those perspectives definitely slant our view of the world. They would, as an obvious follow-on, slant our view of evidense that might contadict or enforce our belief system. This is a matter of fact, not opinion...
COBamaFan said:
If it is so silly, why were the quotation marks used at all? To me, it seems silly that they would insert quotation marks where they are not needed if they intended to use the term life in the normal sense, as it was used in the second sentence, where they did not use quotation marks. This would be another example of you looking at the information given and interpreting it in a way that supports your preconceived notion that evolution has nothing to do with how life began.
Here’s just a little blurb on why quotation marks are generally used with a single word when it is not a direct quotation:
Use quotation marks to indicate words used ironically, with reservations, or in some unusual way.
http://owl.english.purdue.edu/handouts/grammar/g_quote.html
Okay, so let’s expand the discussion to include evolution as a concept, not merely limiting it to Darwin’s theory. That way we won’t limit ourselves to a discussion just on natural selection (which I don’t contest as a means for variation and minor speciation within a family). The concept of evolution after all, was around long before Darwin. After clearing up the misconception that the quotations didn’t mean anything, do you deny that the concept of evolution shows a connection to the origin of life? You do concede that the concept of evolution encompasses many theories and hypotheses, don't you? What about chemical evolution? Would that fall under the concept of evolution?
You may find this site interesting.
http://www.grisda.org/origins/03009.htm
The following is an excerpt from the paper located on this site which was written by an Associate Professor of Biochemistry and a Senior, in the Department of Chemistry. The title of the paper is “Chemical Evolutionâ€Â
The chemical investigations that have developed from efforts to support the ideas set forth in Darwin's The Origin of Species (1) have given rise to a biochemical hypothesis which attempts to explain the origin of life as an evolutionary progression from simple prebiotic molecules to the complex and integrate biomolecules of today's living organisms. Whether these organisms are as complex as man or as simple as an amoeba, the biochemical evolutionist assumes that both ultimately arose by the transformation of simple molecules into an exceedingly intricate living system.
Such efforts are based on the assumption that life emerged spontaneously on the surface of the primitive earth after normal chemical processes had brought carbon-containing molecules to a stage of complexity that would make a living organism possible.
These excerpts not only point to the connection between Darwin’s theory and the origins of life, but also to the fact that biochemical evolutionists make assumptions based on their biases.
I’m sure that you would love to just ignore my statements. That would certainly make things a lot easier for you.
Last edited:
BeccaBama said:
These excerpts not only point to the connection between Darwin’s theory and the origins of life, but also to the fact that biochemical evolutionists make assumptions based on their biases.
CBF you must deal with these points SPECIFICALLY. You are getting roughed up here. Becca apparently has left the points already made that you either didnt read or refuse to address. Now we hop to chemical evolution. Try and stay on topic. I know you can do it.
cheers
While reading this thread with interest, it becomes apparent that, while I am a fan of healthy debate, the sides in this discussion are firmly entrenched. I don't think anyone has successfully convinced anyone else of anything. I have discussions like this with my wife often. Sorry for a tangent topic, but the thought occured to me that back in Jesus' day, those who considered themselves intellectually superior seemed to have the hardest time embracing his teachings. It appears that this is still true.
drsmithofga said:
Well stated.
I wil add though that if one is in the pursuit of excellence. All that matters is being right. If you can be shown, intellectually and factually that you are wrong, you should change positions. I have done that before although it is rare. The death penalty is an example where I changed a lifelong position and that doesnt have the science that is backing up creationism. It was just a change of opinion.
New Posts
-
-
Lemm Provides Walk-Off Homer in No. 24 Alabama’s 5-4 Win over Vanderbilt
- Latest: BhamToTexas
-
-
-
Trending content
Latest threads
-
ESPN: Western Michigan, Toledo, Miami aim to be MACtion ...- Started by TideFans Reporter
- Replies: 0
-
No. 24 Alabama Friday Matchup with Vanderbilt Moved to 12:30 p.m. CT First Pitch- Started by Diamond Tide
- Replies: 0
-
Lemm Provides Walk-Off Homer in No. 24 Alabama’s 5-4 Win over Vanderbilt
- Started by Diamond Tide
- Replies: 2
-
ESPN: Reports: Big 12 reaches 5-year private equity deal...
- Started by TideFans Reporter
- Replies: 0
-
ESPN: How Diego Pavia helped Vanderbilt land the five-star QB who could replace him
- Started by TideFans Reporter
- Replies: 0
-
ESPN: Reid's early NFL mock draft for next year: Which 2...
- Started by TideFans Reporter
- Replies: 0