The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

robindch

JC wrote:

and, of course, His greatest personal salvation intervention, was as Jesus Christ

Ah, yes, the time that god got himself intentionally murdered by His creations so that He could pay off to Himself the debt that His other creations owed to Himself owing to a flaw in His original design.

How delightfully bizarre.

jonny72

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6896753.stm

Lies!!

robindch

MooseJam wrote:

say my child has a mutation which proves advantageous, how does this spread to the whole population, surely it can't just be by her children having the same and on to the grandchildren etc, that would take forever to spread

It depends mainly on the nature of the mutation, the strength of the selection pressure acting on the mutation, and your rate of evolution compared to the rate of the competing organism.

Take the negative selection pressure exerted by a fatal disease and a gene for resistance to it (though one could just as well take the example of a positive selection pressure like an ability to have ten times as many viable offspring as one's neighbors). Anyhow, say that your own kid is accidentally resistant to this disease -- if the disease isn't prevalent in the environment, then the gene conferring resistance is going to propagate very slowly, or maybe even not at all, over each generation -- that's a zero selection pressure. But consider the case where the disease is virulent and present, and only your kid survives amongst its peers -- in this case, the mutation will be present in 100% of the next generation. There's obviously a sliding scale that operates here regulating the percentage of the next generation that acquires the gene conferring resistance.

On the disease's side, there's a similar selection pressure, but operating in reverse -- a disease that killed all of its host population would never spread beyond the first generation of hosts to die from it, while a disease that never endangered its host would never exert a selection pressure to confer increasing resistance to it. A similar sliding scale operates here as in the host organism's defenses.

So, in the end, it's a balancing game between the ability of the disease to spread, and the ability of the host organism to survive long enough to reproduce despite the disease.

At this point, I was going to include a standard example concerning the evolution of syphilis (hundreds of years ago, it used to induce frightful facial disfigurements, but it's virtually invisible now -- go work out the reason why ) But instead, the Lord has stepped in, via the BBC (and jonny72, I see!), and given this elegant example of how it works:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6896753.stm

Does the above make sense?

Asiaprod

Interesting example of the above from today's BBC News

Butterfly shows evolution at work
Scientists say they have seen one of the fastest evolutionary changes ever observed in a species of butterfly. The tropical Blue Moon butterfly has developed a way of fighting back against parasitic bacteria.
Six years ago, males accounted for just 1% of the Blue Moon population on two islands in the South Pacific. But by last year, the butterflies had developed a gene to keep the bacteria in check and male numbers were up to about 40% of the population.
Scientists believe the comeback is due to "suppressor" genes that control the Wolbachia bacteria that is passed down from the mother and kills the male embryos before they hatch. "To my knowledge, this is the fastest evolutionary change that has ever been observed," said Sylvain Charlat, of University College London, whose study appears in the journal Science.
Rapid natural selection. Gregory Hurst, a University College researcher who worked with Mr Charlat said: "We usually think of natural selection as acting slowly, over hundreds of thousands of years. "But the example in this study happened in the blink of the eye, in terms of evolutionary time, and is a remarkable thing to get to observe."
The team first documented the massive imbalance in the sex ratio of the Blue Moon butterfly on the Samoan islands of Savaii and Upolu in 2001.
In 2006 they started a new survey after an increase in reports of male sightings at Upolo. They found that the numbers of male butterfly had either reached or were approaching those of females.
The researchers are not sure whether the gene that suppressed the parasite emerged from a mutation in the local population or whether it was introduced by migratory Southeast Asian butterflies in which the mutation existed.
But they said that the repopulation of male butterflies illustrates rapid natural selection, a process in which traits that help a species survive become more prominent in a population. "We're witnessing an evolutionary arms race between the parasite and the host. This strengthens the view that parasites can be major drivers in evolution," Mr Charlat said.

Zombrex

J C wrote:

Wicknight
They will not all die, because some of them will produce mutated children before the antibiotic kills them.

The reason that resistance builds up is BECAUSE a small minority of ALREADY RESISTANT bugs survive and build up their numbers when the non-resistant bacteria are eliminated by the A/B…….

….and NOT because some of the non-resistant bugs produce mutated children, as you suggest………they won’t do this because the antibiotic will ALREADY have killed them ALL…….

…and dead bugs DON’T reproduce!!!:D

Groan :rolleyes:

Firstly you can test to make sure that all your bugs are non-resistant. All the bugs when they go into the experiment are non-resistant. If they weren't the experiment would be pointless.

Secondly the reproduce in the dish before antibotic starts killing them

Thirdly you are an idiot

Zombrex

MooseJam wrote:

I've a question on evolution if anyone could be so good as to answer me, say my child has a mutation which proves advantageous, how does this spread to the whole population, surely it can't just be by her children having the same and on to the grandchildren etc, that would take forever to spread

Remember that population bases where evolution actually works are generally rather small.

Your mutation would take ages to spread to all 6 billion humans (hundreds of thousands of years). But it might spread through your village or area of Ireland relatively quickly (a few hundred years). Evolution slows down in large populations which a lot of migration.

Secondly evolution takes a very long time.

But you are also correct that similar mutations do appear independently of each other, leading to independent evolution that results in a similar outcomes. For example it is estimated that there are 40 different designs of the eye ball, which all arose independent of each other (each one would involve evolutionary processes working over millions of years and trillions upon trillions of mutations)

Acid_Violet

The carnivores may have been less ‘obligate’ in their dietary requirements, than they are today and they may therefore have survived on vegetative material.
Equally, a state of suspended animation, similar to Hibernation, may have prevailed amongst the creatures on board the Ark – which would have greatly reduced the husbandry workload as well as the feed requirements.

Some critical plant seeds may have been carried on board the Ark …….and the rest survived as seed or whole uprooted plants outside of the Ark. Also please bear in mind that many plant species became extinct during the Flood – which was the greatest extinction event in World History!!!!

Insects were not carried on the Ark – and they survived the Flood on pieces of driftwood, floating carcasses, etc.
In relation to your point on "rare food"... it is thought that many creatures have more specialised diets today - due to the effects of speciation and reductions in genetic diversity.

This is just a sample of your argument which is;

A. Based only on certain suppositions, such as CARNIVORES MIGHT HAVE BEEN HERBIVORES ONCE and other completely unfounded ideas.

B. And has no biblical basis either, unless I missed the chapter about how the insects survived and how Noah fed the carnivores and herbivores and dealt with their sh1t.

Sangre

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6896753.stm

Rapid evolution found in a butterfly over the space of 6 years.

PDN

Sangre wrote:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6896753.stm

Rapid evolution found in a butterfly over the space of 6 years.

That is interesting. What has the butterfly evolved into? A Frog? Or has it just turned into another species of butterfly?

interestinguser

PDN, do you actually have a point there anywhere?

JimiTime

PDN wrote:

That is interesting. What has the butterfly evolved into? A Frog?

:rolleyes: don't you know that thats not going to happen for another billion years:D

Sorry, couldn't resist. I'm outa here before my ignorance is exposed:)

robindch

PDN wrote:

What has the butterfly evolved into? A Frog? Or has it just turned into another species of butterfly?

From the first paragraph of the text of the article:

BBC wrote:

The tropical blue moon butterfly has developed a way of fighting back against parasitic bacteria.

Giblet

PDN wrote:

That is interesting. What has the butterfly evolved into? A Frog? Or has it just turned into another species of butterfly?

An evolved species of butterfly.

PDN

interestinguser wrote:

PDN, do you actually have a point there anywhere?

I asked a couple of questions, rather than making a point. The question marks (?) tend to be a bit of a clue as to when I'm doing this.

A post was made about rapid evolution so I wondered what it had evolved into. Sorry.

robindch

A post was made about rapid evolution so I wondered what it had evolved into.

Speciation is one side-effect of evolution, and a fairly infrequent one at that. It's far more common that smaller genetic changes occur which lead to the improvement of one trait or another, in this case, resistance to a parasite.

The point of the article is to show that evolution can occur quickly.

Sapien

PDN wrote:

A post was made about rapid evolution so I wondered what it had evolved into. Sorry.

When A evolves into B, B tends to be new, and so hasn't been given a name yet.

I haven't read the article linked (and hope to avoid doing so by asking the only question that interests me about it now), but has speciation occurred? If not, am I correct in assuming that the evolved butterflies will not be considered a new species?

robindch

am I correct in assuming that the evolved butterflies will not be considered a new species?

Since the mutation acts to increase the number of viable males in the butterfly population, it seems safe to assume that speciation hasn't occurred in this case and the newly resistant males are mating with previously resistant females.

Tim Robbins

Sapien wrote:

When A evolves into B, B tends to be new, and so hasn't been given a name yet.

I haven't read the article linked (and hope to avoid doing so by asking the only question that interests me about it now), but has speciation occurred? If not, am I correct in assuming that the evolved butterflies will not be considered a new species?

As far as I know there is no agreed definition for the word "species" and the word "gene".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species_problem

Tim Robbins

PDN wrote:

That is interesting. What has the butterfly evolved into? A Frog? Or has it just turned into another species of butterfly?

Is this the usual creationist macro evolution straw man?
PDN, for a man of your intelligence, I don't know whether you are joking or serious.

Giblet

No you see, It's micro evolution. It's like if you have a bag of rice, it's still just lots of small grains of rice. Where's the massive grain of rice that fills the bag?

Tim Robbins

Giblet wrote:

No you see, It's micro evolution. It's like if you have a bag of rice, it's still just lots of small grains of rice. Where's the massive grain of rice that fills the bag?

Again I don't know if someone is joking, I think I am developing Aspergers syndrome.
A few small grains of rice = micro evolution (if you wan't to call it that).
After a long period time:
A few small grains of rice is now lots of grains of rice = macro evolution.

i.e. lots of micro evolution eventually means macro evolution.

Think of it this way: You have one big bag of rice (representing one species).
You split the bag of rice up and put one half in your kitchen and one half in your bedroom (representing a species splitting up and going to two different geographical locations).
Now at this stage the rice in both bags is identical.
However, you leave them for a while. Your Sister decided to do some cooking with kitchen bag and some dirt etc. make that bag of rice slightly different.

The bag in your bedroom, gets some dust etc because your you never clean your room, now that bag is slightly different but only slightly.

Because the changes after a small amount of time are marginal both bags of rice are still relatively similar and still compatable with each other. Once could swap a bit rice from both bags and not really notice.

However, after about 50,000 years. Loads of tiny changes to both bags, providing they are kept separate, have now made both bags completely different and incompatable to each other such that people now think they are two completly different species.

Now your initial bag represents one single species. The bags splits up and are kept separate would be like a species splitting up and kept separate usually due to a geographical boundry like a mountain or a river. If they are kept separate for a sufficient long amount of time you will eventually end up with two different species that are no longer able to reproduce with each other.

Giblet

Yeah I was taking the piss. Micro and Macro are the same thing in this case, evolution. I don't know how much evolution has to happen for it to be considered macro to these guys when the obvious question is, how much micro evolution can you have until you have macro.

Tim Robbins

Giblet wrote:

Yeah I was taking the piss. Micro and Macro are the same thing in this case, evolution. I don't know how much evolution has to happen for it to be considered macro to these guys when the obvious question is, how much micro evolution can you have until you have macro.

Fair play.
Yes I think they think macro evolution means a dog can have a baby which in one iteration can be something completly different like a Lion or something and if there is n't any evidence for this, this means sudden major change can't happen in which case Darwin evolution falls flat on its face.

If you look at some of the creationist propaganda e.g. Lee Strobel you will see him shouting out where is the fossil record that shows a bat changing into a whale? It is as if they expect a whale to have babies and for them to be a Bat! And because this doesn't happen the hole theory falls apart.

2Scoops

Asiaprod wrote:

2Scoops, this is your captain speaking, cut out the sarcasm or you get a Photon Torpedo where you will feel it.

Apologies. Maybe if J C provided a disclaimer asserting that his wild speculations have no basis in Christianity, in Science or, indeed, in logic, my BS detector would not be so sensitive. As a man of (creation) science, I expect more from him.

Although, I do like how he's been putting a few of the following in his posts: "may" "probably" "perhaps"
to introduce a degree of uncertainty on his part to his bizarre claims. Progress of sorts, I guess.

5uspect

Tim Robbins wrote:

Fair play.
Yes I think they think macro evolution means a dog can have a baby which in one iteration can be something completly different like a Lion or something and if there is n't any evidence for this, this means sudden major change can't happen in which case Darwin evolution falls flat on its face.

If you look at some of the creationist propaganda e.g. Lee Strobel you will see him shouting out where is the fossil record that shows a bat changing into a whale? It is as if they expect a whale to have babies and for them to be a Bat! And because this doesn't happen the hole theory falls apart.

Its known as a saltation.
Dawkins covers it and punctuated equilibrium along with many other evolutionary misunderstandings quite well the The Blind Watchmaker.

Tim Robbins

5uspect wrote:

Its known as a saltation.
Dawkins covers it and punctuated equilibrium along with many other evolutionary misunderstandings quite well the The Blind Watchmaker.

Yes good buzzword, read it - good book.
Do you think the people who spreading this propaganda actually believe what they are saying or they have seen a business opportunity just like the faith healers that used to clean up in the States?

5uspect

Tim Robbins wrote:

Yes good buzzword, read it - good book.
Do you think the people who spreading this propaganda actually believe what they are saying or they have seen a business opportunity just like the faith healers that used to clean up in the States?

I really don't know. Its probably a mixture of the two. They can't be bothered to read the literature and simply take the "FOX news" version as all they need to know and attack that. Self delusional straw manning I guess.

J C seems to be a good example. His perseverance on this thread probably shows that he is genuine in his convictions but his remarkable self contradiction and unwillingness to listen to what the Theory of evolution actually says is shocking.

Tim Robbins

5uspect wrote:

I really don't know. Its probably a mixture of the two. They can't be bothered to read the literature and simply take the "FOX news" version as all they need to know and attack that. Self delusional straw manning I guess.

J C seems to be a good example. His perseverance on this thread probably shows that he is genuine in his convictions but his remarkable self contradiction and unwillingness to listen to what the Theory of evolution actually says is shocking.

If you look at who this propaganda is coming from it is not from any of the mainstream Christian Churches.

They are making a lot of money from selling these books, videos etc.
It would be interesting to see how much money is going into Christian values such as helping the poor and needy and how much is going into their back pockets.

I really can't believe anybody who has thought enough about evolution to write about it can say some of things these people are saying. My understanding is that the Pope accepts the validity of evolution and so do most mainstream Christian Churches. So what is going on with these people?
They remind of clever Barristers who know they are defending guilty people and are just looking for some sort argument that sounds convincing and they can sell but that they know is flawed.

Strobel goes into some detail referencing books such as "The Selfish Gene" etc.so he must have an understanding of how the theory works. He then completly straw mans it and if you didn't read up on evolution theory you wouldn't know he is doing it. It is actually very clever propaganda. It sounds like he is summarazing the best works on evolution theory so he must have read them and understand them.

He must know how the scientific method works, but when he counter argues evolution he uses the usual straw man that can only work on people that don't know how the scientific method works.

5uspect

Tim Robbins wrote:

If you look at who this propaganda is coming from it is not from any of the mainstream Christian Churches.

Well isn't the Pope cozying up to Intelligent Design? It sounds sciency enough to someone who can't be bothered to read the actual science.

Tim Robbins wrote:

Strobel goes into some detail referencing books such as "The Selfish Gene" etc.so he must have an understanding of how the theory works. He then completly straw mans it and if you didn't read up on evolution theory you wouldn't know he is doing it. It is actually very clever propaganda. It sounds like he is summarazing the best works on evolution theory so he must have read them and understand them.

Well thats just like the bit the the Origins of Species where Darwin discusses the evolution of the eye.

Charles Darwin wrote:

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.

Of course Darwin then proceeds to explain how natural selection can indeed form (or design!) an eye. Its as if they selectively read it looking for quotes to misquote.

Tim Robbins wrote:

He must know how the scientific method works, but when he counter argues evolution he uses the usual straw man that can only work on people that don't know how the scientific method works.

Sure they do, but they're either blinded by their faith or making too much money to care. I don't know which. Bonkey posted this excellent link over in AH. (I hope he doesn't mind me reposting it here).

MooseJam

robindch wrote:

It depends mainly on the nature of the mutation, the strength of the selection pressure acting on the mutation, and your rate of evolution compared to the rate of the competing organism.

but is evolution driven by single mutations, which even with the good example's given seems a long shot, or given the size of most gene pools are there simultaneously in the same species maybe hundreds or even thousands of identicle mutations just by pure chance , that I can see leading to a swift spread through the species, is either method known to be the actual one ?