Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)
Options
Comments
-
The genetic information is stored in specific complex sequences of nucleotides within DNA ...Firstly there is no such thing as genetic 'information' unless your definition of 'information' is a sequence of nucleotides.
... this is a scientifically verified fact, which I thought Evolutionists also accept!!
... mutations always result in a loss of information ... occasionally such a loss results in benefit ... but it is an evolutionary and information 'cul de sac' ... for example, if an insects loses the functional information for wings, this could be an advantage on a wind-swept island by preventing the insect from being blown out to sea and drowned, while flying about ... and it thus can confer an advantage, that is naturaly selected.Mutations can sometimes allow an organism to exert a phenotype that is beneficial to it's survival in it's current environment. Over thousands and millions of generations it is certainly not improbable that the gene pool will converge towards those beneficial mutations. You seem to accept that sometimes mutations can be beneficial through your use of the word 'generally'?
However, it is still a loss of information, that going in the opposite direction to what is required to 'evolve' from pondkind to insectkind.0 -
Yes. It clearly states that rather than appearing suddenly 600 million years ago, complex life had been evolving up to that point for a very long time.
So in essence the idea of the 'Cambrian explosion' where complex life suddenly appeared (an event often cited by theists as God's intervention) was wrong.
Can we also point out that the "Cambrian explosion" took several million years? Slowest explosion in history?0 -
The genetic information is stored in specific complex sequence of nucleotides within DNA ...
... this is a scientifically verified fact, which I thought Evolutionists also accept!!
... mutations always result in a loss of information ... occasionally such a loss results in benefit ... but it is an evolutionary and information 'cul de sac' ... for example, if an insects loses the functional information for wings, this could be an advantage on a wind-swept island by preventing the insect from being blown out to sea and drowned, while flying about ... and it thus can confer an advantage, that is naturaly selected.
However, it is still a loss of information, that going in the opposite direction to what is required to 'evolve' from pondkind to insectkind.
There is no 'loss', it is simply a change in the sequence of nucleotides. This change could benefit a species chances of reproduction or hurt it given a particular environment.
On what basis do you determine if a mutation is a 'loss' or a 'gain' of information?0 -
... a loss of functionality, irrespecive of benefit.There is no 'loss', it is simply a change in the sequence of nucleotides. This change could benefit a species chances of reproduction or hurt it given a particular environment.
On what basis do you determine if a mutation is a 'loss' or a 'gain' of information?0 -
We are still expected to believe that life 'evolved' to the suposed 'multi-cell stage' 2.1 billon years ago ... and then remained totally static for over one thousand five hundred milion years before suddenly 'exploding' (over a few milion years) i.e. in an 'instant of evolutionist time' ... into nearly every known phylum, about 600 million years ago!!!The Mad Hatter wrote: »Can we also point out that the "Cambrian explosion" took several million years? Slowest explosion in history?
Sounds like special pleading to me ... or punctuated Evolution gone mad!!!!0 -
Advertisement
-
This assumes that there are functional intermediates to be selected from ... when functional biomolecules are observed to be isolated 'islands' of functional combinations in an ocean of non-functional combinatorial space. There are no 'yellow brick roads' linking different functional biomolecules via intermediate functional biomolecules. Any changes to critical sequences are observed to degrade/eliminate their functionality. It is equivalent to claiming that we can 'evolve' "METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL" into 'EVOLUTION IS A WEASEL WORD' by changing one letter at a time, while retaining the functionality of the intermediaries. The construction of any 'Roman Arch' / 'scaffolding' between these two sentences would rapidly degrade into non-functionality, from which it would never emerge, because non-intelligently directed processes would have no way of ever 'navigating' out of the non-functional 'quagmire' of intemediates that would result using undirected processes like mutagnesis ... because every non-functional combination would be just as non-functional as any other one.Each advantageous step would be selected, i.e. held for future generations. The next step would be derived from this reference.
The first problem with your analogy is that you would need an agreed intelligently designed language to signal the information 'higher' and 'lower' and an intelligently designed means of reacting to this information. You would also need to choose a pre-dermined number for me to 'aim at'. None of these conditions apply to non-intelligently directed systems like Materialsitic Evolution.To use an analogy: If I gave you one hundred chances to guess a number between 1 and 1000000000, your chances would be very slim. But if, after each guess, I told you the number was higher or lower than that guess, then you would find it very quickly.0 -
We are still expected to believe that life 'evolved' to the suposed 'multi-cell stage' 2.1 billon years ago ... and then remined totally static for over one thousand five hundred milion years before suddenly 'exploding' (over a few milion years) i.e. in an 'instant of evolutionist time' into nearly every known phylum, about 600 million years ago!!!
Sounds like special pleading to me.
This is not what evolutionary biologists say.... a loss of functionality, irrespecive of benefit.
I presented a paper demonstrating how natural selection of random mutations can increase biological information. You have ignored it. Why?
Here is the message again
And again, not that, although the computer program is intelligently designed, the procedure only selects from random mutations. The equivalent to theistic evolution, in otherwords.0 -
... what are they saying about it?This is not what evolutionary biologists say.
... and I have pointed out (over the last two pages) how NS of random mutations cannot increase functional information (due to the overwhelming amount of non-functional combinations/mutations) within the combinatorial space of all biomolecules. I also pointed out the fatal logical difficulties with the 'Roman Arch' and it's 'scaffolding' concept in a Materialistic Evolution context.I presented a paper demonstrating how natural selection of random mutations can increase biological information. You have ignored it. Why?
Here is the message again
And again, not that, although the computer program is intelligently designed, the procedure only selects from random mutations. The equivalent to theistic evolution, in otherwords.
The whole thing is a nonesense ... because a spontaneous increase in functional information is both theoretically and practically impossible ... it is a 'fairytale' for Materialists!!!
BTW, have you become a Theistic Evolutionist?0 -
This assumes that there are functional intermediates to be selected from
Yes... when functional biomolecules are observed to be isolated 'islands' of functional combinations in an ocean of non-functional combinatorial space. The are no 'yellow brick roads' linking different functional biomolecules with intermediate functional biomolecules. Any changes to critical sequences are observed to degrade/eliminate their functionality. It is equivalent to claiming that we can 'evolve' "METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL" into 'EVOLUTION IS A WEASEL WORD' changing one letter at a time, while retaining functionality. The construction of any 'Roman Arch' / 'scaffolding' between these two sentences would rapidly degrade into non-funcionality from which it would never emerge, because non-intelligently directed processes would have no way of ever 'navigating' out of the non-functional 'quagmire' of intemediates ... because every non-functional combination would be just as non-functional as any other one.
They are not islands, as the only criteria of a sequence being selected is it must confer and advantage in reproduction. In otherwords, as long as self-replication is possible, no molecule configuration is an island. For example:
http://www.pnas.org/content/99/20/12733.full
A self-replicating ligase ribozymeThe first problem with your analogy is that you would need an agreed intelligently designed language to signal the information 'higher' and 'lower' and the intelligently designed means of reacting to this information. You would also need to choose a pre-dermined number for me to 'aim at'. None of these conditions apply to non-intelligently directed systems like Materialsitic Evolution.
The intelligently designed language of higher and lower can be substituted with natural selection. This also covers the means of reacting to the info (as things that are better at surviving will survive better). The predetermined number can be substituted by some effective survival strategy defined, again, by natural selection.0 -
... what are they saying about it?
They are saying multicellular life did not suddenly appear at the cambrian explosion.... and I have pointed out (over the last two pages) how NS of random mutations cannot increase functional information (due to the overwhelming amount of non-functional combinations/mutations) within the combinatorial space of all biomolecules.
The thing is a nonesense ... and a spontaneous increase in functional information is both theoretically and practically impossible ... it is a 'fairytale' for Materialists!!!
To Soul Winner or any other creationist following this: Note that J C has, again, ignored the paper refuting his assertion that NS cannot increase biological information.
http://nar.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/28/14/2794
Evolution of Biological information.
Note that, although the computer program is intelligently designed, the procedure only selects from random mutations. The equivalent to theistic evolution, in otherwords.
So J C, if you still assert that NS cannot increase biological information, how would you respond to the key point of this paper. Namely:
"R_sequence approaches and remains around R_frequency (Fig. 2b), supporting the hypothesis that the information content at binding sites will evolve to be close to the information needed to locate those binding sites in the genome, as observed in natural systems (4,6)."0 -
Advertisement
-
BTW, have you become a Theistic Evolutionist?Morbert wrote:And while I don't believe the laws of physics are intelligently designed, it is a proposition I am happy to accept for the purposes of this thread, as it will allow me to focus on demonstrating how selection pressures emerging from the laws of nature, applied to random mutations, can produce functional design.
This implies that you are not reading my posts.0 -
the combinatorial space is so vast that there are no practical possibility of finding any functional intermediates ... and, even if by some miracle, non-intelligently directed processes stumbled upon a functional sequence, the chance of if being in the right place, at the right time, would also be effectively ZERO!!!Yes.
... they are functional islands in an ocean of non-functional combinatorial space.They are not islands, as the only criteria of a sequence being selected is it must confer and advantage in reproduction. In otherwords, as long as self-replication is possible, no molecule configuration is an island. For example:
http://www.pnas.org/content/99/20/12733.full
A self-replicating ligase ribozyme
... and citing an example of a large input of intelligence to design and produce a self-replicating ligase ribozyme ... isn't much proof of the non-intelligent design of biomolecules!!
... but NS has no means of telling whether something should be 'higher' or 'lower' when the functionality of all 'higher' or 'lower' intermediates are all equally non-functional ... and only the actual 'number' (or functional combination) is functional in the time and space required.The intelligently designed language of higher and lower can be substituted with natural selection. This also covers the means of reacting to the info (as things that are better at surviving will survive better). The predetermined number can be substituted by some effective survival strategy defined, again, by natural selection.
To use your analogy, all that NS can keep saying is 'no' to each incorrect guess ... and thus mutation has to keep guessing, without any direction as to how close it is to success ... or not!!!
Another point to be borne in mind, is that each time NS answers 'NO' ... this likely means the death or serious debilitation of the organism ... thereby resulting in unsustainable waste. You end up with organisms that are 99.9999999% perfect dying because just one functional biomoelcule is being mutated to provide, an as yet, unknown biomolecule ... that is never likely to be functional.
The whole Materialistic Evolution thing is a nonesense, at every possible level.0 -
I never said they weren't sayng this ... I was pointing out that they say that multi-cellular life exploded into almost every known phylum at the Cambrian explosion ... having lain 'dormant' and unchanged for 1,500 million years!!!They are saying multicellular life did not suddenly appear at the cambrian explosion.
... and I am saying that this blows the 'gradualism' of Darwinism completely out of the water!!!
Please note I have already dealt with this issue in my second point here:-To Soul Winner or any other creationist following this: Note that J C has, again, ignored the paper refuting his assertion that NS cannot increase biological information.
http://nar.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/28/14/2794
Evolution of Biological information.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=67847148&postcount=232890 -
the combinatorial space is so vast that there are no practical possibility of finding any functional intermediates ... and, even if by some miracle, non-intelligently directed processes stumbled upon a functional sequence, the chance of if being in the right place, at the right time, would also be effectively ZERO!!
This is blatantly untrue, and I am curious as to why you believe this. It certainly isn't supported by scientific research.... they are functional islands in an ocean of non-functional combinatorial space.
... and citing an example of a large input of intelligence to design and produce a self-replicating ligase ribozyme ... isn't much proof of the non-intelligent design of biomolecules!!
Any intelligent input only serves to "study the role of a template in binding and positioning complementary substrates for covalent bond formation (1–5). These have included simple self-replicating systems of the form A + B → T, where A and B are substrates that bind to a complementary template, T, and become joined to form a product molecule that is identical to the template
<snip>
Competition for utilization of these components might provide the basis for Darwinian evolution, while the threshold for achieving self-replication would be greatly lowered compared with that required for residue-by-residue copying of a long polymer."
In otherwords, the paper shows that it is insufficient to consider functional polymers as 'islands' when discussing abiogenesis.... but NS has no means of telling whether something should be 'higher' or 'lower' when functionality of all 'higher' or 'lower' intermediates are all equally non-functional ... and only the actual 'number' (or functional combination) is functional in the time and space required.
To use your analogy, all that NS can keep saying is 'no' to each incorrect guess ... and thus mutation has to keep guessing, without any direction as to how close it is to success ... or not!!!
Again, the functionality of intermediates is what allows NS to explore the space. You have repeatedly asserted there are no functional intermediates, but you have not provided evidence. Furthermore, I have now presented two papers discussing the topic of gradual increase in functionality.Another point to be borne in mind, is that each time NS answers 'NO' ... this likely means the death or serious debilitation of the organism ... thereby resulting in unsustainable waste. You end up with organisms that are 99.9999999% perfect dying because just one biomoelcule is being mutated to provide, an as yet, unknown biomolecule.
The whole Materialistic Evolution thing is a nonesense, at every possible level.
99.9999999% "perfect" organisms would slowly replace 99.9999998% prefect organisms as the selected mutations propagate the population, and these organisms would be eventually replaced by 99.99999991% perfect organisms.0 -
I am reading your posts ... and the following one implies that the paper you cited provides proof for Theistic Evolution.J C wrote:BTW, have you become a Theistic Evolutionist?
Morbert
This implies that you are not reading my posts.
So I think that it is reasonable to ask you if you have followed the logic of your own post ... and become a Theistic Evolutionist!!!Originally Posted by Morbert
I presented a paper demonstrating how natural selection of random mutations can increase biological information. You have ignored it. Why?
Here is the message again
And again, not that, although the computer program is intelligently designed, the procedure only selects from random mutations. The equivalent to theistic evolution, in otherwords0 -
I never said they weren't sayng this ... I was pointing out that they say that multi-cellular life exploded into almost every known phylum at the Cambrian explosion ... having lain 'dormant' and unchanged for 1,500 million years!!!
... and I am saying that this blows the 'gradualism' of Darwinism completely out of the water!!!
They are not saying this. I told you that already. So please provide reference for your claim that evolutionary biologists are saying life was totally static 1,500 million years. Punctuated equilibrium does involve a certain level of stability, but this is not the same as evolution being totally static.Please note I have already dealt with this issue in my second point here:-
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=67847148&postcount=23289
You have not dealt with the issue. If you do not deal with the issue, then I will be content to post this paper demonstrating the gradual increase in biological information via natural selection whenever you assert that biological information cannot gradually increase via natural selection.I am reading your posts ... and the following one implies that the paper you cited provides proof for Theistic Evolution.
So I think that it is reasonable to ask you if you have followed the logic of your own post ... and become a Theistic Evolutionist!!
It does not provide proof for Theistic evolution. But if it will help you to address the paper, feel free to interpret it as proof for theistic evolution. I have simply chosen to ignore the issue of the intelligence involved in writing the code so that we can focus on the increase in biological information via natural selection.0 -
... how do you reconcile these conclusions with the observation that even small changes to critical sequences results in a complete loss of functionality or its severe debilitation?Again, the functionality of intermediates is what allows NS to explore the space. You have repeatedly asserted there are no functional intermediates, but you have not provided evidence. Furthermore, I have now presented two papers discussing the topic of gradual increase in functionality.
... somebody with just one enzyme missing from their sight cascade would be 99.99999% perfect ... but totally blind ...99.9999999% "perfect" organisms would slowly replace 99.9999998% prefect organisms as the selected mutations propagate the population, and these organisms would be eventually replaced by 99.99999991% perfect organisms.
... and somebody with a SINGLE misplaced ‘letter’ on the gene known as Lamin A or LMNA will cause Hutchinson-Gilford Progeria Syndrome (HGPS). The substitution of ONE Thiamine with ONE Cytosine in ONE gene out of 3 BILLION base pairs causes this terrible premature ageing syndrome – where unfortunate sufferers only live to an average age of 13 years old.
....and many other fatal conditions are similarly triggered by miniscule changes to gene sequences.
... so somebody can be 99.99999% perfect and still die from the other 0.000001% mutation.
... and therefore the intermediate 'yellow brick road' between functional combinations of biomolecules only exists in the minds of Evolutionists.0 -
... whether it was 'static' or 'totally static' is moot ... the fact is that it is now being claimed that multicellular life existed 2.1 billion years ago ... but it apparently took 1.5 billion years to make any more substantial 'progress' ... and then suddenly (in Evolutionary terms) it burst into nearly all of the known phyla about 600 milion years ago.They are not saying this. I told you that already. So please provide reference for your claim that evolutionary biologists are saying life was totally static 1,500 million years. Punctuated equilibrium does involve a certain level of stability, but this is not the same as evolution being totally static.
Sounds like Punctuated Evolution gone crazy to me!!!
Like all computer models, it makes certain assumptions about the real world that it is modelling. I have pointed out certain weknesses in the assumptions underlying the model and these have significant implications for the validity of any conclusions based on the model ... no more and no less.You have not dealt with the issue. If you do not deal with the issue, then I will be content to post this paper demonstrating the gradual increase in biological information via natural selection whenever you assert that biological information cannot gradually increase via natural selection.
It does not provide proof for Theistic evolution. But if it will help you to address the paper, feel free to interpret it as proof for theistic evolution. I have simply chosen to ignore the issue of the intelligence involved in writing the code so that we can focus on the increase in biological information via natural selection.0 -
... how do you reconcile these conclusions with the observation that even small changes to critical sequences results in a complete loss of functionality or its severe debilitation?
It is true that, as a molecular replication strategy becomes more sophisticated, it is harder to make gradual changes. They 'become' islands. Hence, the inherent mechanisms of DNA have been largely unchanged for much of natural history. But remember that early replicators would have been crude by comparison. And what they lacked in fidelity, they gained in flexibility to change and evolve. As the paper said, the 'threshold' would have been much lower in the past.
This is why evolution today occors primarily at the genetic level, and not at the more primitive molecular 'language' level.... somebody with just one enzyme missing from their sight cascade would be 99.99999% perfect ... but totally blind ...
... and somebody with a SINGLE misplaced ‘letter’ on the gene known as Lamin A or LMNA will cause Hutchinson-Gilford Progeria Syndrome (HGPS). The substitution of ONE Thiamine with ONE Cytosine in ONE gene out of 3 BILLION base pairs causes this terrible premature ageing syndrome – where unfortunate sufferers only live to an average age of 13 years old.
....and many other fatal conditions are similarly triggered by miniscule changes to gene sequences.
... so somebody can be 99.99999% perfect and still die from the other 0.000001% mutation.
... and therefore the intermediate 'yellow brick road' between functional combinations of biomolecules only exists in the minds of Evolutionists.
A person who is blind would not be 99.99999% perfect. Any slight change that would result in blindness would make the eye much much less perfect. But slight changes that, instead, made the eye 0.000001% better would be selected. Are you caliming there are no such slight changes?0 -
... whether it was 'static' or 'totally static' is moot ... the fact is that it is now being claimed that multicellular life existed 2.1 billion years ago ... but it apparently took 1.5 billion years to make any more substantial 'progress' ... and then suddenly (in Evolutionary terms) it burst into nearly all of the known phyla about 600 milion years ago.
Sounds like Punctuated Evolution gone crazy to me!!!
I don't think you're getting the point so I'll rephrase: How do you know that no other substantial progress was made before the cambrian explosion. How do you know, for example, that more fossils will not be found?Like all computer models, it makes certain assumptions about the real world that it is modelling. I have pointed out certain weknesses in the assumptions underlying the model and these have significant implications for the validity of any conclusions based on the model ... no more and no less.
What are the offending assumptions employed by the model?0 -
Advertisement
-
If you took off your 'Evolutionist Glasses' for a minute, you would see that the Creationist Model fits the above evidence far better than the Evolutionist Model.It is true that, as a molecular replication strategy becomes more sophisticated, it is harder to make gradual changes. They 'become' islands. Hence, the inherent mechanisms of DNA have been largely unchanged for much of natural history. But remember that early replicators would have been crude by comparison. And what they lacked in fidelity, they gained in flexibility to change and evolve. As the paper said, the 'threshold' would have been much lower in the past.
This is why evolution today occors primarily at the genetic level, and not at the more primitive molecular 'language' level.
The reason we cannot scientifically envision the 'evolution' of pondkind to mankind is precisely because, as you have said "as a molecular replication strategy becomes more sophisticated, it is harder to make gradual changes. They 'become' islands. Hence, the inherent mechanisms of DNA have been largely unchanged for much of natural history."
... and 'evolution at the genetic level' today is a completely different process (with a completely different potential) and it is simply NS acting on the pre-existing genetic diversity infused at Creation.
Their genetic information might be 99.999999% perfect ... but they would still, unfortunately be blind due to an infinitesimally small mutation to their genetic information ... that has a dramatic effect on the functionality of their sight ... just like randomly changing one or two characters in a computer programme code can have dramatic effect on the performance of the programme.A person who is blind would not be 99.99999% perfect. Any slight change that would result in blindness would make the eye much much less perfect. But slight changes that, instead, made the eye 0.000001% better would be selected. Are you caliming there are no such slight changes?
There are no mutational changes that make the eye 0.000001% better ... they either have no effect (due to redundancy) or they have significant negative effects due to the application of degraded information.
Genetic information, like all other functional information, is tightly specified (otherwise it wouldn't be functional information) and therefore changes do not improve it ... they rapidly degrade it.0 -
... I don't know whether more fossils will be found (or whether the existing ones will be re-dated) ... but the Cambrian 'explosion' will not cease to be a feature of Evoluitionary Theory ... unless they can come up with a story that explains away the fossilisation of multiple phyla on the floors of the oceans in 'lower' rock layers during Noah's Flood ... with an Evolutionary 'spin' that doesn't involve a sudden explosion in the diversity of life (from an Evolutionist perspective).I don't think you're getting the point so I'll rephrase: How do you know that no other substantial progress was made before the cambrian explosion. How do you know, for example, that more fossils will not be found?
Spreading out the 'problem' over 1.5 billion years ... seems like a good start (from an Evolutionist perspective)!!!
For example, the assumption that because 'Roman Arches' are needed for Evolution to occur, that 'Roman Arches' arise spontaneously within biomolecular systems.What are the offending assumptions employed by the model?0 -
If you took off your 'Evolutionist Glasses' off for a minute, you would see that the Creationist Model fits the above evidence far better than the Evolutionist Model.
The reason we cannot scientifically envision the 'evolution' of pondkind to mankind is precisely because, as you have said "as a molecular replication strategy becomes more sophisticated, it is harder to make gradual changes. They 'become' islands. Hence, the inherent mechanisms of DNA have been largely unchanged for much of natural history."
... and 'evolution at the genetic level' today is a completely different process (with a completely different potential) and it is simply NS acting on the pre-existing genetic diversity infused at Creation.
Well there needs to be a distinction between a mutation altering the core structure of dna, and a mutation altering some higher-level phenotype. Creationists not only claim that the designs are clamped and 'unevolvable' at the core language level, but also at the phenotype level.
Evolutionary biologists, in otherwords, aren't claiming that the G A T C language of DNA is changing (as all of life uses that language). They are claiming that what the language is saying is evolving. The papers I have presented show that DNA itself, in the past, would have arisen from something much simpler and much less efficient. It is only when DNA arose that life was stranded on the 'island' of DNA.Their genetic information might be 99.999999% perfect ... but they would still, unfortunately be blind due to an infinitessimaly small mutation to their genetic information.
There are no mutational changes that make the eye 0.000001% better ... they either have no effect (due to redundancy) or they have significant negative effects due to the application of degraded information.
Genetic information, like all other functional information, is tightly specified (otherwise it wouldn't be functional information) and therefore changes do not improve it ... they rapidly degrade it.
I assumed your percentages were referring to the perfection of the phenotype. A 0.000001% change in the genotype can result in a 100% change in the phenotype, sure (e.g. Hutchinson-Gilford Progeria Syndrome). In fact, the mathematics behind Darwinism holds that, the larger the change in the phenotype, the more likely the mutation is to be harmful. But a 0.000001% change in the genotype can also (and much more rarely) result in a 0.0000001% improvement in the phenotype. And since NS would cull all the former examples, you get gradual improvement in the phenotype over billions of years.0 -
... an increase in functional information can only be generated by intelligence ... the who/what/when/where are open scientific (and theological) debate ... but the Intelligent Design of life is a scientifically and mathematically established fact ... with the same certainty as the existence of Gravity.Well there needs to be a distinction between a mutation altering the core structure of dna, and a mutation altering some higher-level phenotype. Creationists not only claim that the designs are clamped and 'unevolvable' at the core language level, but also at the phenotype level.
Evolutionary biologists, in otherwords, aren't claiming that the G A T C language of DNA is changing (as all of life uses that language). They are claiming that what the language is saying is evolving. The papers I have presented show that DNA itself, in the past, would have arisen from something much simpler and much less efficient. It is only when DNA arose that life was stranded on the 'island' of DNA.
The deleterious effects of mutagenesis vastly outnumber the beneficial ones ... and even the very rare beneficial effects are due to a loss of functional information ...I assumed your percentages were referring to the perfection of the phenotype. A 0.000001% change in the genotype can result in a 100% change in the phenotype, sure (e.g. Hutchinson-Gilford Progeria Syndrome). In fact, the mathematics behind Darwinism holds that, the larger the change in the phenotype, the more likely the mutation is to be harmful. But a 0.000001% change in the genotype can also (and much more rarely) result in a 0.0000001% improvement in the phenotype. And since NS would cull all the former examples, you get gradual improvement in the phenotype over billions of years.
... and that is why Evolutionists are personally just as wary of Mutagenic agents as the rest of us!!!
... and that is also why Mutagenesis cannot account for the vast quantities high quality functional tightly specified complex information present in all life.0 -
... a loss of functionality, irrespecive of benefit.
Huh? So you just say that every mutation is a 'loss of functionality' even if the mutation results in, let's say, ability to fly. That makes no sense.
The only way you could possibly make sense of that if you blindly assume that every creature was created with perfect genetic sequences. That's a circular argument JC!0 -
Lantus said:
Seemingly by Divine fiat: God said and they appeared. As with the rest of His creative work in the 6 Days. Though He formed man from the earth/soil, but still an immediate act of God.how were these heavens and earth created, what were they made of?
Hebrews 11:3 By faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that the things which are seen were not made of things which are visible.
Correct, it doesn't say. What God wanted us to know was that He made, say, land animals and man in Day 6. Did all the animals appear at once, or did He begin with Aardvark and end with Zebra? He doesn't say, so it's not important. The important bit was man being created last, the pinnacle of His work.what was the exact order of creation of the various elements, did it just slowly come into focus over the course of one day like some picture you can't see then can see and go 'ohhh thats what it is?' or were some elements made first and some later? the writer doesn't seem to elaborate.
1. The most natural suggestion is a rotating Earth in relation to a fixed light source. No doubt some twilight would be involved.how was the light seperated from the darkness? was it a murky grey with 50 light and 50 dark? was it a mix of air and vacuum? what did he use to seperate it? some sort of tool perhaps? what was the chemical composition and atomic structure?
2. Light is not a matter of air or vacuum.
3. He doesn't say what the light was, other than it was not the Sun for the first few days.
The human writer knew a lot less science than we do, no doubt. But the One who told him what to write knows all science perfectly.the writer seems to have no knowledge of these scientific principles,
The human author would I'm sure have been as fascinated as we would by the science of it all.or no interest,
I doubt God was worried we could emulate Him, since knowing how would not mean having the power to do so.or god just was just really stingy with the facts and worried people would make loads of planets and universes if he told them the secret?
God would always have had a language, since He is a person who communicates. What He chose to call the diurnal cycle would have been conveyed to the persons He made on Day 6.he called the light "day"? does that mean he created language on the day before day 1 (day zero perhaps?)
So? Why should God tell us these details? Is pandering to curiosity a fundamental human right? He tells us whatever is best for us.so yes it is vague given the critical importance of the event.
Exactly, if we are speaking about how the universe came into being. If God had not told us, we would not have known, other than He made it. But He has told us, so we are without excuse.there are no facts unless you rely on faith to just accept it without any evidence.
No, not just that - the core importance concerns the sort of God involved. The Bible message is that He is absolutely truthful, that His word is inerrant, true in all it asserts. Genesis 1-3 asserts God made it all in 6 days, in a specific order. To deny the specifics means one cannot defend a belief in the general, if God is indeed true.HOWEVER, I believe that all of that is irrelevant. The core importance is that christians believe they were created by god,
He conveyed it perfectly clearly. It is those who wish to deny what he so concisely said that are being dishonest.thats what the writer was trying to convey in as little text as possible to avoid these kinds of future arguments.
I fully agree. Whatever science discovers cannot contradict what God has already revealed. The trouble comes when science makes mistakes and passes them of as confirmed fact.they should accept it and not worry too much about what science discovers.
One can often disprove mistaken faith. But since God is true, not a billion to the nth power of years would prove any different.You cannot disprove faith and I dont think we will be able to disprove god in the next 40,000 or more years if at all.
Many atheists want to because it frees them from feeling answerable to Him.why would we even want to?
It is about God and His will for us. That includes the command to live holy lives and love our fellow-man.i still stand by my op that the bible is about people first and foremost and their interaction, it's about the core idea's of love for one another and knowledge and understanding.
Science uses whatever information it can get. If an unknown layman tells them he has found a cheap means to convert water into fuel, they will investigate his experiment. But when God tells us something, man has a built-in prejudice against it. If man can come up with a credible alternative, he will jump at it - even if it is not that credible.using the bible as a basis for science makes about as much sense as using the laws of thermodynamics to better understand compassion.
They are responding to those who deny the truth of the Bible. They are showing that science has not disproved what God has said. If the accusation was not made, there would be no need to refute it.I think if jesus were here today he'd be really sad at all the time being spent by so called christians in trying to prove scientifically the first few pages of genesis.
The truth of God was under attack in Eden, so to it is today. God has called His people to defend the gospel, and a big part of that is defending the truth of the Bible.It would be fairly dissheartening to see after 2000 years thats what was occupying the minds of millions of his followers. believeing is one thing, but understanding is quite another.
That's a reasonable conclusion from a non-Christian. The Bible for them is just another book, having true and false information. But the Christian cannot say that. If the Bible is in error, the foundation of their faith is removed. The Bible is where they hear of God and His will for us.religous texts like the bible will always be under pressure because they will never change or be updated in a world that is driven by change. Theres a wealth of good information in the bible but they really need to take the good stuff and move forward.
_________________________________________________________________
Hebrews 4:12 For the word of God is living and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the division of soul and spirit, and of joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. 13 And there is no creature hidden from His sight, but all things are naked and open to the eyes of Him to whom we must give account.0 -
... and the hint that this is not actually true, is in the inconsitency of the details ... in this case, we are expected to believe that life 'evolved' to the suposed 'multi-cell stage' 2.1 billon years ago ... and then remined totally static for over one thousand five hundred milion years before suddenly 'exploding' into nearly every known phylum in an 'instant of evolutionist time' about 600 million years ago!!!
As has been stated before life gradually evolved up to that point. The discovery of multicelular organisms 2.1 billion years ago (which were less evolved than those seen in the Cambrian) shows that evolution did not 'explode' into action 600 million years ago, but that it was continuously evolving up to that point.
But go ahead, keep deliberately misinterpretating what I and others are saying if you want. See how much respect you get.0 -
The deleterious effects of mutagenesis vastly outnumber the beneficial ones
Well, firstly that's not true. But even if it were, beneficial effects do happen, and if you got one benefit for every thousand drawbacks, those that got the beneficial mutation would still be more likely to breed, spreading the benefit and evolving.0 -
1,554 pages on the Bible and creationism....this is why I warn my kids on the dangers of the internet.
Give me a shout when you hit page no. 5,000 ....I'll take a look to see what progress you have made.0 -
Advertisement
-
:
Correct, it doesn't say. What God wanted us to know was that He made, say, land animals and man in Day 6. Did all the animals appear at once, or did He begin with Aardvark and end with Zebra? He doesn't say, so it's not important. The important bit was man being created last, the pinnacle of His work.
The human writer knew a lot less science than we do, no doubt. But the One who told him what to write knows all science perfectly.
He tells us whatever is best for us.
Exactly, if we are speaking about how the universe came into being. If God had not told us, we would not have known, other than He made it. But He has told us, so we are without excuse.
No, not just that - the core importance concerns the sort of God involved. The Bible message is that He is absolutely truthful, that His word is inerrant, true in all it asserts. Genesis 1-3 asserts God made it all in 6 days, in a specific order. To deny the specifics means one cannot defend a belief in the general, if God is indeed true.
He conveyed it perfectly clearly. It is those who wish to deny what he so concisely said that are being dishonest.
The truth of God was under attack in Eden, so to it is today. God has called His people to defend the gospel, and a big part of that is defending the truth of the Bible.
That's a reasonable conclusion from a non-Christian. The Bible for them is just another book, having true and false information. But the Christian cannot say that. If the Bible is in error, the foundation of their faith is removed. The Bible is where they hear of God and His will for us.
All modern theological scolarship points to the Bible (both Old and New Testaments) as being a large collection of various scripts by a large number of writers (over many, many centuries) and many subsequent copyists, editors and collators (many of whom added in their own 'take' on the story years after the original authors had died).
How can anyone possibly quote verbatim, and have unquestioning trust in the written words (over many centuries) of these varying men, as being the actual words of a supernatural being?
The Bible is not a book but a vast collection of unrelated, 'corrected' and many-times 'edited' documents. All pagination, paragraphing, chapter numbering, line numbering, punctuation, etc is added to the original documents by later scribes. The original scripts (or the extant copies, to be exact) had no paragraphs, separated lines or punctuation - just a continuous stream of letters. Most of the 'books' and epistles and gospels had the purported original 'authors' names added much later
If you listen to the lectures of Prof Dale Martin (B.S, Abilene Christian University; M.Div., Princeton Theological Seminary; Ph.D., Yale University)
and Professor Christine Hayes, both of Yale University (Religious Studies Dept) here at Academic Earth: http://academicearth.org/subjects/religious-studies ,
you will never again quote directly from what today is called "The Bible" as though it is the 'Word of God' (you would feel foolish doing so).
I accept the knowledge of these Professors as being superior to mine (and most likely yours) on the subject of the large numbers of humans who wrote these documents we call the Bible. They believe (on the basis of very compelling new evidence) that these 'scriptures' are the sole works of very human men with many and various motives for their writings, and that most, is not all, of the words of the original authors have been 'corrected' and added to by those who 'copied' them many times over, over many centuries in varying languages, under varying pressures, with varying standards of knowledge and education (mostly very low).
I implore you, Wolfsbane (and JC and other believers who quote from these documents) to suspend your habit of Biblical quoting and listen to the lectures of these Yale Professors, and only then resume your quoting from these texts if you truly believe that all, or some, of these various writings are the exact words of a supernational being.
Otherwise, I bow to your superior knowledge to mine on the details of chemistry and biology and will continue to enjoy the discussion on Evolution Vs Creationism or ID - but, please, stick to the science and not the quotations from dubious bronze-age writers.
Yours in Respect
Atmo0
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement