[_ Old Earth _] How well do you actually know The Theory of Evolution?

[rthom7]

I'm thinking that a basic text in bact. and one in genetics would be invaluable to you. You ask detailed questions, and that leads me to think you know more about it than you do.

I'll back off on the next post (I'm a little busy tonight) and see if I can't make it clearer.

Brother Barbarian, the reason I ask we show each other the exact evidence on our posts, is to make it absolutely clear what we are discussing, and what we are presenting....here say and talk can be taken any way you like...like beating around the bush....if you have words about the evidence, let me see the evidence your talking about from the words of the papers you present as evidence, then let me see your comments...so I follow your reasoning and your authority.... otherwise if you don't do this, I am merely blindly in faith accepting what you say....

When I speak about the Bible, I present the Bible verse first and then comment with my human words...that way you read authority and my humble opinion...

People making a religion without an authority is mere hear say, and shaky ground.... I hope preachers don't do this...we all talk too much off the top of our heads...we also need to show the WORD from which our testimonies come...

So far you have not really presented any evidence from peer review papers (WORDS ) to back up anything you have said...so your comments have no power...I respect your comments, but they have no power because they lack authority....

I hope you see my point of view.... The Bible says, judge things by the Word and the Testimony...OK I respect your witness (testimony) about evolution, but also please show me the WORDS that back up your testimony....peer review papers that really add weight to your words....

Isa 8:20 To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.


Shalom

 

[KevinK]

I have a b.s. in Biology. I don't claim to be the world's greatest authority on the theory of evolution, especially since it was so long ago and I don't work in a life science field any more, but at least I can cop to having better-than-average knowledge.

 

[rthom7]

I have a b.s. in Biology. I don't claim to be the world's greatest authority on the theory of evolution, especially since it was so long ago and I don't work in a life science field any more, but at least I can cop to having better-than-average knowledge.

I smiled at your degree Kevin, it's interesting when you ask kindly for people to show their evidence, well let's say I am still waiting....there would be nothing wrong with the theory of evolution if it was in fact a science, but when I ask for the evidence of their theory all I get from such scientists is religious just so stories and no real hard evidence for their belief and faith in their theory...

Now imagine the faith an Atheist has to believe in if he's a true Atheist... (1) All matter came from nothing and by nothing (2) Living cells came from chemicals (3) Information just happens to come from chemistry all by itself ( a ridiculous idea - no evidence for this ) (4) Laws just happen to be ordered and logical (stolen idea from Creationists) (5) Life has no moral purpose or reason

At least Creationism says (1) God made all things, life, matter, natural laws, time and even space....so (2) life has a moral purpose and a glory to living.
Simpler theories of faith usually turn out to be the better ones. Shalom

Thanks for your interest and comments Kevin. God bless.

 

[Barbarian]

People making a religion without an authority is mere hear say, and shaky ground.... I hope preachers don't do this...we all talk too much off the top of our heads...we also need to show the WORD from which our testimonies come...

This is one reason Christian are not entirely happy with YE creationism. Too much personal interpretation.

So far you have not really presented any evidence from peer review papers (WORDS ) to back up anything you have said...so your comments have no power...I respect your comments, but they have no power because they lack authority....

I'm sorry the peer-reviewed articles I gave you were too heavy on technical terms and jargon. There is no royal road to biology. I'm trying to find a simplified article, but I'm not having a lot of luck with that. I think, if you want the details, you're going to have to learn the terminology. But I'll keep looking.

C

 

[Barbarian]

I have a b.s. in Biology. I don't claim to be the world's greatest authority on the theory of evolution, especially since it was so long ago and I don't work in a life science field any more, but at least I can cop to having better-than-average knowledge.

Some fields, people think they just automatically understand. Biology is one of those. So even if they have no idea what you had to learn to get a degree in biology, they assume it can't be that much. Without that preparation, it's really hard to talk about living systems. I know people who have put in the time to do it, absent a degree, but they are pretty bright people, and not adverse to hard work.

 

[KevinK]

I've had people without the specific education try to explain to me- incorrectly, no less- how a basic tenet of natural selection works. When I hear the word "maimed", especially, I know it's time to tune out.

 

[rthom7]

This is one reason Christian are not entirely happy with YE creationism. Too much personal interpretation.



I'm sorry the peer-reviewed articles I gave you were too heavy on technical terms and jargon. There is no royal road to biology. I'm trying to find a simplified article, but I'm not having a lot of luck with that. I think, if you want the details, you're going to have to learn the terminology. But I'll keep looking.

C

Your a good sport Barbarian, I would use the link for the Hall paper you gave me a an example of how I would read it so you can make comments, but as I said Hall says so very little, and He cites over a dozen other papers He has published making following his theory of research very difficult....so Let's get you to start again...Do you have any paper where it's research is more or less on the same paper, and not cited over on a dozen other papers? I would like a paper that demonstrates evolution speciation or macroevolution ? That broad topic should be easy enough for you.... The reasoned I questioned you with Hall, and your comments is because He says very little in his paper, around 4 pages max, and not much actually explaining anything....

You are right I can learn terminology, but I am a science teacher who used to teach students, so my brain automatically unravels jargon and makes application to simpler words and pictures. In fact I 'hate' using jargon...if people in my teaching role said 'RDO' in my head I would say 'rostered day off' I do not like people throwing around fancy words making themselves somebody important...Keep is Simple is my motto of thinking.... So I appreciate your patience in this matter and look forward to a science paper....I too am trying to find such a paper myself, because I am interested in what evidence is their in this other theory of faith. Shalom

 

[Barbarian]

Your a good sport Barbarian, I would use the link for the Hall paper you gave me a an example of how I would read it so you can make comments, but as I said Hall says so very little, and He cites over a dozen other papers He has published making following his theory of research very difficult....so Let's get you to start again...Do you have any paper where it's research is more or less on the same paper, and not cited over on a dozen other papers?

Reading papers can be tiring, especially if you don't have a lot of familiarity with the field. Molecular biology wears me out, but it's accessible if you put in the time to run down all the terminology.

I would like a paper that demonstrates evolution speciation or macroevolution ?

Speciation is a form of macroevolution. "Microevolution" is evolutionary change within a species. "Macroevolution" is the evolution of new taxa. First one documented would be the evolution of O. gigas from O. lamarckania by de Vries in 1905. The new species was completely reproductively isolated from the parent species due to a polyploidy event.
http://www.preservearticles.com/2012042131027/short-notes-on-the-mutation-theory-of-de-vries.html

Such sudden and clear-cut speciation events are not that uncommon in plants, but rare in mammals. I know of one, a South American rodent. Mostly, it's far more gradual. This is a continuing problem for creationists, because there should be very clear distinctions between species, but mostly we see speciation as a gradual process with increasing reproductive isolation over time. Darwin discussed this issue in his book, noting that it is impossible to come up with a comprehensive and precise definition of the term.

Here's a more common example:
Drosophila miranda; a New Species
Theodosius Dobzhansky
http://www.esp.org/foundations/genetics/classical/holdings/Genetics/Genetics-1935-20-4-377.pdf

That broad topic should be easy enough for you.... The reasoned I questioned you with Hall, and your comments is because He says very little in his paper, around 4 pages max, and not much actually explaining anything....

You are right I can learn terminology, but I am a science teacher who used to teach students, so my brain automatically unravels jargon and makes application to simpler words and pictures. In fact I 'hate' using jargon...if people in my teaching role said 'RDO' in my head I would say 'rostered day off' I do not like people throwing around fancy words making themselves somebody important...

Keep in mind, technical jargon is used in the literature, because it simplifies things for those who tend to read it. Papers would be much larger and less readable for those in the field if jargon wasn't used. I don't see an easy way out. Molecular biology and genetics have changed a great deal since I got my last degree, and so I struggle a bit with evo-devo because that didn't exist when I last took genetics courses. I sympathize; my response was to learn what I needed, so I could read the primary literature. If you don't, you get someone else's interpretation of the findings.

Keep is Simple is my motto of thinking.... So I appreciate your patience in this matter and look forward to a science paper....I too am trying to find such a paper myself, because I am interested in what evidence is their in this other theory of faith.

So far, I've found that it's all based on evidence. Faith doesn't get by peer review, it seems.

 

[rthom7]

Reading papers can be tiring, especially if you don't have a lot of familiarity with the field. Molecular biology wears me out, but it's accessible if you put in the time to run down all the terminology.



Speciation is a form of macroevolution. "Microevolution" is evolutionary change within a species. "Macroevolution" is the evolution of new taxa. First one documented would be the evolution of O. gigas from O. lamarckania by de Vries in 1905. The new species was completely reproductively isolated from the parent species due to a polyploidy event.
http://www.preservearticles.com/2012042131027/short-notes-on-the-mutation-theory-of-de-vries.html

Such sudden and clear-cut speciation events are not that uncommon in plants, but rare in mammals. I know of one, a South American rodent. Mostly, it's far more gradual. This is a continuing problem for creationists, because there should be very clear distinctions between species, but mostly we see speciation as a gradual process with increasing reproductive isolation over time. Darwin discussed this issue in his book, noting that it is impossible to come up with a comprehensive and precise definition of the term.

Here's a more common example:
Drosophila miranda; a New Species
Theodosius Dobzhansky
http://www.esp.org/foundations/genetics/classical/holdings/Genetics/Genetics-1935-20-4-377.pdf





Keep in mind, technical jargon is used in the literature, because it simplifies things for those who tend to read it. Papers would be much larger and less readable for those in the field if jargon wasn't used. I don't see an easy way out. Molecular biology and genetics have changed a great deal since I got my last degree, and so I struggle a bit with evo-devo because that didn't exist when I last took genetics courses. I sympathize; my response was to learn what I needed, so I could read the primary literature. If you don't, you get someone else's interpretation of the findings.



So far, I've found that it's all based on evidence. Faith doesn't get by peer review, it seems.

You supplied some really good links to paper supporting microevolution Barbarian.... are you suggesting one cannot find evidence for speciation or macroevolution ?

Short notes on the mutation theory of de vries
http://www.preservearticles.com/2012042131027/short-notes-on-the-mutation-theory-of-de-vries.html
Hugo de Vries (1840 - 1935) was a Dutch Botanist and he grows some evening primrose and notices from the species his sows that some plants looked really different....OK so....the granny smith apple is new cultivar arising from some mutation obviously and now we have a new variety...but the evening primrose is still an evening primrose....I really don't think playing around with existing DNA sequence complex information and making some changes with mutations or other means is really a good example of speciation or macroevolution, it's just an example of microevolution....

Your other example is also the same concept.....

DROSOPHILA MIRANDA, A NEW SPECIES
TH. DOBZHANSKY
Califmlzia Institute oj Techmlogy, Pasadena, California
Received January 30, 1935

Quote "
The species of Drosophila to be described in the present paper has certain

properties that make it particularly interesting from the point of

view of genetics. This species, to be designated Drosophila miranda
Dobzhansky, is related to, and can be crossed with, a species previously

known and rather extensively used for genetic purposes, namely Drosophila
pseudoobscura Frolowa. The two species are so similar in appearance

that most taxonomists would hesitate to separate them on the basis of the

morphological differences alone.

I read somewhat into this paper Barbarian, and do not find a new species of fruit fly an example of speciation...perhaps we need to define our terms.

Do you have any other papers with better examples? Maybe some explaining the evolution of bacteria flagella too please?

Shalom

 

[john darling]

It is my understanding that there is no purpose or meaning in non-theistic evolution. Everything started through random chance and everything after that initial start happened through random chance until we got the first single celled life through random chance and then all the various mutations on up the scale through random chance. All the mutations were random. No guidance. No purpose. No meaning.

In other words, a creature living in a cold climate develops a mutation for thicker skin or thicker hair etc. This mutation was not a reaction to the cold climate, but rather a random mutation which just happened to be beneficial for the creature, therefor the creature lived longer, passed its genes on to it's offspring and became the dominate species. It was "selected" to live.

The animal next to it developed a gene for thinner skin or less body hair which just happened to be non-beneficial to it because of it's environment. It was "selected" to die.

Some are selected to live while others are selected to die, in which case using the word "selection" becomes pointless. It becomes and issue where the only reason you use the word is because you want it to mean something more than what it actually does in the context. In other words, using a word like "selection" implies that you want there to be some kind of reasoning behind the mutations. You just don't want it to be God.

You could say some are "chosen" to live and some are "chosen" to die. Even though the words "selected" and "chosen" mean the same thing, non-theistic evolutionists would almost certainly object to the word "chosen", probably because the guidance it implies is a little too strong. They want just enough implication for their theory to have meaning, but not so much meaning that people become confused over whether the selection is guided or not.

But the truth is that with non-theistic evolution there is only pure, random, dumb luck depending on what kind of mutation occurs and where it occurs. The mutations happen without reason. The environment in which the mutations happen is random. The selection in "natural selection" is an illusion.

The reason non-theistic evolutionists employ words which imply purpose, while still claiming there is no purpose is because as humans they understand, deep down, that life doesn't make sense without purpose or meaning.

I believe this is a form of double mindedness. They want the purpose and meaning in life, because such desire is built in to them, but they don't want the creator with his rules and standards and obligations etc.

 

[rthom7]

It is my understanding that there is no purpose or meaning in non-theistic evolution. Everything started through random chance and everything after that initial start happened through random chance until we got the first single celled life through random chance and then all the various mutations on up the scale through random chance. All the mutations were random. No guidance. No purpose. No meaning.

In other words, a creature living in a cold climate develops a mutation for thicker skin or thicker hair etc. This mutation was not a reaction to the cold climate, but rather a random mutation which just happened to be beneficial for the creature, therefor the creature lived longer, passed its genes on to it's offspring and became the dominate species. It was "selected" to live.

The animal next to it developed a gene for thinner skin or less body hair which just happened to be non-beneficial to it because of it's environment. It was "selected" to die.

Some are selected to live while others are selected to die, in which case using the word "selection" becomes pointless. It becomes and issue where the only reason you use the word is because you want it to mean something more than what it actually does in the context. In other words, using a word like "selection" implies that you want there to be some kind of reasoning behind the mutations. You just don't want it to be God.

You could say some are "chosen" to live and some are "chosen" to die. Even though the words "selected" and "chosen" mean the same thing, non-theistic evolutionists would almost certainly object to the word "chosen", probably because the guidance it implies is a little too strong. They want just enough implication for their theory to have meaning, but not so much meaning that people become confused over whether the selection is guided or not.

But the truth is that with non-theistic evolution there is only pure, random, dumb luck depending on what kind of mutation occurs and where it occurs. The mutations happen without reason. The environment in which the mutations happen is random. The selection in "natural selection" is an illusion.

The reason non-theistic evolutionists employ words which imply purpose, while still claiming there is no purpose is because as humans they understand, deep down, that life doesn't make sense without purpose or meaning.

I believe this is a form of double mindedness. They want the purpose and meaning in life, because such desire is built in to them, but they don't want the creator with his rules and standards and obligations etc.

Good reply John, but just to clarify, I will present the theories as I see them, and let you respond, if you want to.

Evolution and Creationism are opposite theories and must remain so, because both have Intelligent Designers and both have different purposes.
Science does not believe in ID of any kind and so wants nature alone unguided to make DNA sequence design in its code, but this is an impossibility. Then there are those who mix evolution and creationism together with this so called theistic- evolution. This also is wrong.

When GOD made life in Creation week, there was no death, no weeds and not even the laws of thermodynamics even... everything would have remained ordered forever....

When MAN sinned, other natural laws od decay, change and mutations happened because on that very day we began to dying die, as the Bible said we would....our DNA became influenced by chaos and so we run down under the result of thermodynamics as well as mutations.

Since the author believes in Creationism as the Bible defines it, there are some parameters not told in Science about who these Intelligent Designers might be:-

Ge 3:17 "And [God] said: ...cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life; 18 Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee;"

As a result of sinning, major changes happened to the way plants (and animals) behave. We also know there was a change from Adam as prince of earth, to Satan as prince of earth. Notice these texts:

Mt 13:27 "..Sir, didst not thou sow good seed in thy field? from whence then hath it tares? 28 He said unto them, An enemy hath done this."

Isa 59:4 "...they conceive mischief, and 'born' iniquity."

The greatest enemy of planet earth is Satan. Why plants and animals change, is because Satan deliberately changed the genome of many species with His own Intelligent Designing. ( Perhaps God also allowed the laws of thermodynamics and entropy to also impact the entire universe, after mankind's sinning.) There is a Hebrew word for genetic propensities "aven" Strong's 205. (see partial studies of aven) It is the author's belief that Satan has tampered with and changed God's genome engineering His own Evolution Design. It is also highly probable that ancient humans before the flood also did reverse engineering on organism and engineered many changes to the genome of species.

With Intelligent Design as originally engineered by God, we would expect to see such designs as functional, well designed and very good.
Thus it is not going to easy to unravel evidence for Evolution Design and Intelligent Design, because both have aspects of Intelligent Beings making changes to the programming of life. However there would be differences, observable and testable that one can apply to unravel the differences between both systems of design.

Why do we think GOD destroyed Man in a flood, part from other reason the main physical reason is because they were doing Genetic engineering on a wild scale.

So if believers mix evolution and God together they are mixing Satan with salvation, making things a mess.

Our bodies every second make mistakes in our DNA yet God engineered over dozen of protein editorial enzymes that repair the errors constantly so indeed we are fearfully and wonderfully made.

Thanks for the comment John, much appreciated ...I would suggest though we not use theistic-evolution, it is a contradiction in terms. Organisms were designed to change and adapt was proposed by a Creationist long before Darwin stole this Creation idea for His Origin of Species. If Creationism was properly presented in his time,, sadly dark age humanism distorted Bible thinking...most people did not read Scripture back then...things have not changed much with reading Scripture have they ? Shalom

 

[john darling]

Science does not believe in ID of any kind

It's my understanding that "science" is a term we've given to understanding natural laws and all such things relating to learning about the world around us, how it works, why it works the way it does etc. I don't see any reason why things God created should "not believe in" the things God created.

I think the problem is when people claim that their understanding of the way the world works (science) equates to an explanation which excludes God. It's really quite the irony that the more some people come to understand just how complex and amazingly intricate creation is, the more they believe such complexity disproves an intelligent creator. Like, "we understand how gravity works or how comets orbit the sun, therefore there is no God". It's so weird.

Then there are those who mix evolution and creationism together with this so called theistic- evolution. This also is wrong.

I'm still undecided on that, though I'm fairly open to going either way.

When GOD made life in Creation week, there was no death, no weeds and not even the laws of thermodynamics even... everything would have remained ordered forever....

How do you know there were no laws of thermodynamics at the point when God "rested from his labors"? I had the idea that all of the universe was created at that point, which would include those particular laws, right?

When MAN sinned, other natural laws od decay, change and mutations happened because on that very day we began to dying die, as the Bible said we would....our DNA became influenced by chaos and so we run down under the result of thermodynamics as well as mutations.

As a result of sin, God created entropy at that moment? Is it scriptural that nothing dyed or decayed in any way before Adam sinned? I'm pretty sure there's something in the creation story about Adam and Eve being in charge of tending to the garden of Eden. I had the impression that "tending" had something to do with weeding or pruning or whatever else is involved in tending a garden.

The greatest enemy of planet earth is Satan.

Meh, I dunno. I still tend to think it's humans who refuse to listen to God who are the greatest enemies of planet earth. After all, it was man who brought entropy to the world, right? I doubt Satan cares about cutting down rain forests and polluting rivers, except in how he can use those things to turn people away from God (i.e. tempting them through exploiting these resources for greed).

Why plants and animals change, is because Satan deliberately changed the genome of many species with His own Intelligent Designing.

Hmm, that's an interesting theory. It would make for a good explanation as to why we have mosquitoes.

Why do we think GOD destroyed Man in a flood, part from other reason the main physical reason is because they were doing Genetic engineering on a wild scale.

I dunno about that. Maybe. But Jesus gave a different explanation...
LK 17:26 And as it was in the days of Noe, so shall it be also in the days of the Son of man.

LK 17:27 They did eat, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark, and the flood came, and destroyed them all.

No genetic engineering. Just average, ordinary, mundane activities. I think the point is that people became so wrapped up in the cares of this world that they stopped caring about what God wanted. In the list of destroyable offenses, not caring about what the creator of the universe wants is pretty high up there.

So if believers mix evolution and God together they are mixing Satan with salvation, making things a mess.

Assuming your theory about Satan being a geneticist is correct, that still doesn't exclude God from working through long term mutations.

I would suggest though we not use theistic-evolution, it is a contradiction in terms.

Well, I'm not really "using" it so much as discussing it and I'm not convinced that it's a contradiction of terms. I think probably the reason I can't make up my mind between the two options is because to me it really doesn't matter how he did it, but only that I know he did, somehow. I can appreciate the good points on both sides. I suppose it can't really be both at the same time, though, and since both sides have some pretty good arguments there must be a way it all fits together into a consistent whole.

Shalom to you too!

 

[Barbarian]

You supplied some really good links to paper supporting microevolution Barbarian

Macroevolution. Remember, macroevolution is the evolution of new taxa. Specieation, for example, as in the case of D. miranda.

Short notes on the mutation theory of de vries
http://www.preservearticles.com/2012042131027/short-notes-on-the-mutation-theory-of-de-vries.html
Hugo de Vries (1840 - 1935) was a Dutch Botanist and he grows some evening primrose and notices from the species his sows that some plants looked really different....OK so....the granny smith apple is new cultivar arising from some mutation obviously and now we have a new variety..

Same species of apple. But O. gigas is a new species, totally reproductively isolated from the parent species.

.but the evening primrose is still an evening primrose...

Sort of like saying that a human is still a hominin. Beside the point. Speciation is an acknowledged fact; even many creationists admit it.

I really don't think playing around with existing DNA sequence complex information and making some changes with mutations or other means is really a good example of speciation or macroevolution

In fact, these are just two examples of observed macroevolution. Even "Answers in Genesis" and the Institute for Creation Research now admit the fact of speciation. They just retreated to "macroevolution is evolution that takes too long for a human to observe."

DROSOPHILA MIRANDA, A NEW SPECIES
TH. DOBZHANSKY
Califmlzia Institute oj Techmlogy, Pasadena, California
Received January 30, 1935

[quoteI read s]omewhat into this paper Barbarian, and do not find a new species of fruit fly an example of speciation...perhaps we need to define our terms.[/quote]

By definition, speciation is the evolution of a new species.

 

[rthom7]

Macroevolution. Remember, macroevolution is the evolution of new taxa. Specieation, for example, as in the case of D. miranda.



Same species of apple. But O. gigas is a new species, totally reproductively isolated from the parent species.



Sort of like saying that a human is still a hominin. Beside the point. Speciation is an acknowledged fact; even many creationists admit it.



In fact, these are just two examples of observed macroevolution. Even "Answers in Genesis" and the Institute for Creation Research now admit the fact of speciation. They just retreated to "macroevolution is evolution that takes too long for a human to observe."

DROSOPHILA MIRANDA, A NEW SPECIES
TH. DOBZHANSKY
Califmlzia Institute oj Techmlogy, Pasadena, California
Received January 30, 1935

[quoteI read s]omewhat into this paper Barbarian, and do not find a new species of fruit fly an example of speciation...perhaps we need to define our terms.

By definition, speciation is the evolution of a new species.[/QUOTE]

You raise some interesting concepts here Barbarian, and defining our terms is probably one of them...

View attachment 5930

Take for example fruit flies...let's suppose when GOD created the fruit fly they had the ability to cope with new environs and new changes to it both in the world and inside in it's own body at the chemical level, so it can survive.... this ability for change is part of Creationism, it allows each kind to build and make new species of fruit flies at its needs to do...Suppose there were 10 DNA sequenced genome switches for just changing the wing structures for change...how many species could that make?
Ten factorial...over a billion new species, if required...how many species are there in the fruit fly kind known on the earth? Just a few dozen or so....therefore one could predict countless dozens of new species already exist in the fruit fly genome, we have not seen them because they are not forced to change in that way....

But you can't get fruit flies to built things fruit flies aren't supposed to build...such as feathered wings, or fish scales or even switching on DNA sequenced code that could begin the process towards feathers....that would be a good test....are the DNA code for feathers already inside fruit fly genes ? And if so, could they be switched on ?

Showing that a species can make new species is not really adding new DNA code, though I do get your point the DNA code is different....but its not radically different...

Perhaps the best way to answer such questions is do we understand how genes are made ? is it code or random chemistry? When you look that flagella motor protein must touch other proteins in 4 places in 3D, and single Amino Acid in one DNA mistake causes the motor protein not to work...is telling me the code is specific, and purposeful, and come from a Designer....

How does a fruit fly naturally select for DNA code that has no phenotype expression as yet ? Such uphill coding for more code would not work... I have yet to find any paper explaining how code comes about for making fruit flies begin to develop feathers for example. Something totally radically different to what it already has.

One could test flies developing code like a primitive DNA for feathers, such as a code AATGACCT and see if this fragment can be inherited....and see how long it takes for the DNA fragment or feathers such as AATGACCTTG, that would be a good test. If flies could inherit small changes like that...one could measure how long that took in generations and how long to make the whole DNA changes required....

I have not seen any of this kind of work yet....

Shalom

 

[rthom7]

It's my understanding that "science" is a term we've given to understanding natural laws and all such things relating to learning about the world around us, how it works, why it works the way it does etc. I don't see any reason why things God created should "not believe in" the things God created.

I think the problem is when people claim that their understanding of the way the world works (science) equates to an explanation which excludes God. It's really quite the irony that the more some people come to understand just how complex and amazingly intricate creation is, the more they believe such complexity disproves an intelligent creator. Like, "we understand how gravity works or how comets orbit the sun, therefore there is no God". It's so weird.



I'm still undecided on that, though I'm fairly open to going either way.



How do you know there were no laws of thermodynamics at the point when God "rested from his labors"? I had the idea that all of the universe was created at that point, which would include those particular laws, right?



As a result of sin, God created entropy at that moment? Is it scriptural that nothing dyed or decayed in any way before Adam sinned? I'm pretty sure there's something in the creation story about Adam and Eve being in charge of tending to the garden of Eden. I had the impression that "tending" had something to do with weeding or pruning or whatever else is involved in tending a garden.



Meh, I dunno. I still tend to think it's humans who refuse to listen to God who are the greatest enemies of planet earth. After all, it was man who brought entropy to the world, right? I doubt Satan cares about cutting down rain forests and polluting rivers, except in how he can use those things to turn people away from God (i.e. tempting them through exploiting these resources for greed).



Hmm, that's an interesting theory. It would make for a good explanation as to why we have mosquitoes.



I dunno about that. Maybe. But Jesus gave a different explanation...
LK 17:26 And as it was in the days of Noe, so shall it be also in the days of the Son of man.

LK 17:27 They did eat, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark, and the flood came, and destroyed them all.

No genetic engineering. Just average, ordinary, mundane activities. I think the point is that people became so wrapped up in the cares of this world that they stopped caring about what God wanted. In the list of destroyable offenses, not caring about what the creator of the universe wants is pretty high up there.



Assuming your theory about Satan being a geneticist is correct, that still doesn't exclude God from working through long term mutations.



Well, I'm not really "using" it so much as discussing it and I'm not convinced that it's a contradiction of terms. I think probably the reason I can't make up my mind between the two options is because to me it really doesn't matter how he did it, but only that I know he did, somehow. I can appreciate the good points on both sides. I suppose it can't really be both at the same time, though, and since both sides have some pretty good arguments there must be a way it all fits together into a consistent whole.

Shalom to you too!

I enjoyed what you wrote John, well written...I can understand some interest in theistic-evolution, but I am not versed in the theory by any means, so I have no idea what theories are out there....I suppose one could say God created life from chaos and disorder and ordered in in our universe to continue forever ( hence my reason for thermodynamics switched off) . We assume natural laws exist, whereas I assume they are a created act of GOD and can be switched on or off as He desires....consider this verse....

Isa 45:7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.

The problem with materialism that hijack aspects of Creationism, such as natural laws... but when Adam sinned God switched off his ordered natural laws and switched on disordered natural laws...
Hence some disorder in life is controlled by God....

One could say God left things to "evolve" after Adam sinned....but the word "Evolve" is a manmade word and not defined very well at all... So again I do not like to use the word "Evolve" at all.

If this verse says God engineers function and dysfunction (bara means more to engineer things rather than create,God also forms, Mankind can bara too, so I prefer 'engineer) and (ra does not mean 'evil' God is not evil, but He does allow man to reap what He sows, so we live in a world of good/bad or order/chaos or function/dysfunction, our choice how much power we receive from God.

I see cells simply trying to survive a decaying dying changing world. If you study Jeff Benner http://www.ancient-hebrew.org/ things considered "wicked" have wandered from their correct path...is a good definition for non moral organisms such as bacteria, they survive as best they can considering the world they live in. Science loves to label things, Greek idea. Hebrew is more about living and less about details.

Meh, I dunno. I still tend to think it's humans who refuse to listen to God who are the greatest enemies of planet earth.

I agree

It's really quite the irony that the more some people come to understand just how complex and amazingly intricate creation is, the more they believe such complexity disproves an intelligent creator.

Well said

http://creation.com/review-altenberg-16 Websites like this do a great job making it easier for us to believe in God...

Shalom

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
By definition, speciation is the evolution of a new species.

You raise some interesting concepts here Barbarian, and defining our terms is probably one of them...

If you want to talk biology, you have to use the words as they are used in biology.

Take for example fruit flies...let's suppose when GOD created the fruit fly they had the ability to cope with new environs and new changes to it both in the world and inside in it's own body at the chemical level, so it can survive....

Happened long before fruit flies. The genetic code is very accurate, but it does have a capacity for a few errors every time a new organism is produced. These errors provide the means of adaptation to new environments.

this ability for change is part of Creationism, it allows each kind to build and make new species of fruit flies at its needs to do...

After scientists found this capacity for variation and natural selection, some creationists then added it to their doctrines.

Suppose there were 10 DNA sequenced genome switches for just changing the wing structures for change...how many species could that make?

Probably none. For example, the flies have a switch that turns off the formation of the second pair of wings. If you turn that switch the second pair are turned back on, and the flies, now with four wings as their ancestors were, cannot survive. They need those haltares that were formed from the vestigial wings. The speciation we have seen in fruit flies so far, was due to mutation and natural selection, not recombination.

But you can't get fruit flies to built things fruit flies aren't supposed to build...such as feathered wings, or fish scales or even switching on DNA sequenced code that could begin the process towards feathers....

If creationists were right, we could. The "designer" could just use feathers where useful. But of course, common descent does not permit that kind of thing. The most devastating evidence against special creation is that for all the many transitional forms we have, none of them have such out-of-place apomorphic characters. This, along with the inability to precisely define "species", is the most vexing problem for creationists.

That would be a good test....are the DNA code for feathers already inside fruit fly genes ? And if so, could they be switched on ?

If so, evolutionary theory would be in big trouble. But you won't see such things.

Showing that a species can make new species is not really adding new DNA code

It's the most common mode. You and I each have a good number of alleles with new DNA code, not present in our parents.

though I do get your point the DNA code is different....but its not radically different...

Not much. There are variations in the way the code works in different domains, but rather large changes can occur without the code being radically different.

Perhaps the best way to answer such questions is do we understand how genes are made ?

A common mode is gene dupication, followed by mutation. We see a lot of new genes that way.

is it code or random chemistry?

Luria and Delbruck got a Nobel for showing that mutations are random with regard to fitness. A new environment won't induce an adaptive mutation. They show up randomly, and the useful ones tend to be retained in the population.

When you look that flagella motor protein must touch other proteins in 4 places in 3D, and single Amino Acid in one DNA mistake causes the motor protein not to work

Normally, that doesn't happen. There are a lot of amino acids in these proteins, and usually, one mutation doesn't noticably affect the activity of the protein.

Studies of extragenic suppression of dominant missense mutations ofmotA (64) and motB (65, 66) suggest that MotA and MotB interact with FliG (a component at the cytoplasmic face of the MS-ring; see Figure 1) as well as with each other. Mutations near the putative peptidoglycan-binding region of MotB appear to misalign the stator and the rotor (66). Comparison of residues conserved in different bacterial species and site-directed mutagenesis have identified charged groups in the cytoplasmic domain of MotA that interact with other charged groups (primarily of opposite sign) in the C-terminal domain of FliG (67, 68, 69). Similar studies have implicated a particular aspartate residue of MotB (Asp32), located at the cytoplasmic end of the membrane channel, as a proton acceptor (70). Two proline residues in MotA (Pro173 and Pro222), also located at the cytoplasmic end of this channel, have been shown to be important for function (67, 71).
http://www.annualreviews.org/eprint...nurev.biochem.72.121801.161737?pagewanted=all

So conserved and variable sites on different parts of the flagellum show that variation in the code happens and often has no effect.

How does a fruit fly naturally select for DNA code that has no phenotype expression as yet ?

As you see, that doesn't have to happen for evolutionary change. The system is evolved to take advantage of random changes.

Such uphill coding for more code would not work... I have yet to find any paper explaining how code comes about for making fruit flies begin to develop feathers for example.

Mutations aren't magic. XMen are fun in movies, but it doesn't happen that way. Feathers (in the sense of homologous structures) would be devastating to evolutionary theory, if found in arthropods. But there are analogous structures to feathers.

These serve the same function, but are genetcally very different. Analogous organs are often found in diverse lines, but homologies are not. That is one of the most serious problems with creationism.

Something totally radically different to what it already has.

Evolution never does anything completely novel. It's always a modification of something already there.

One could test flies developing code like a primitive DNA for feathers, such as a code AATGACCT and see if this fragment can be inherited....

Most cases, it works.

Rabbit with firefly gene.

 

[rthom7]

Barbarian an interesting reply....

These serve the same function, but are genetcally very different. Analogous organs are often found in diverse lines, but homologies are not. That is one of the most serious problems with creationism.

Can you explain these words in more details please? Does this insect ant looking creature exist in Mother Nature ? Show me the link to the authority.

Berg H, 2003. THE ROTARY MOTOR OF BACTERIAL FLAGELLA
http://www.annualreviews.org/eprint/cDJrS190m62mDRwHrlp9/full/10.1146/annurev.biochem.72.121801.161737?pagewanted=all

Your cited paper is good. It is perhaps the easiest paper to read you have posted so far.... It is also not a paper for evolutionists, and is possibly better aligned for creationists...

View attachment 5940

I have listened to Howard before on UTube video, He is a boring talker, and seems steeped in details, so I am very surprised in his paper, showing clear English in simple words and a lack of evolutionary terms.... " Biologist Howard Berg at Harvard refers to flagella as “the most efficient machine in the universe.”

Anyway his paper mentions "evolution" only once...in passing....

Thus, the flagellar motor is the output organelle of a remarkable sensory system, the components of which have been honed to perfection by billions of years of evolution. (in his introduction - maybe to keep face with peers...?)

His paper is purely a discussion of the reverse engineering he has done to unravelling the complexity of bacteria flagella.

Studies of extragenic suppression of dominant missense mutations of motA (64) and motB (65, 66) suggest that MotA and MotB interact with FliG (a component at the cytoplasmic face of the MS-ring; see Figure 1) as well as with each other. Mutations near the putative peptidoglycan-binding region of MotB appear to misalign the stator and the rotor (66).

Barbarian, this paper does not support mutations changing bacteria evolution at all....I am surprised at you....do you read the papers you cite ? Howard is discussing the reverse engineering done to genes at specific sites and the only way science tests function is to deliberately make specific mutations to stop function and see way happens.

Here the cite 66 explains

Some of the suppressing mutations themselves confer distinctive phenotypes in motB(+) cells. We propose a model in which mutations affecting residues in or near the putative peptidoglucan-binding region of MotB misalign the stator relative to the rotor. We suggest that most of the suppressors restore motility by introducing compensatory realignments in MotA or FliG.

So it's a cite to reverse engineering....not natural evolution,.... your evidence is completely wrong...

Have a read Barbarian at an article against Howard Berg, idea of evolution here
https://answersingenesis.org/evidence-for-creation/from-fins-through-fantasy-to-wings/
From Fins Through Fantasy to Wings
by Dr. Mark Blais on 2007

Harvard researcher Howard Berg is quoted: “The basic idea of evolution is so elegant, so beautiful, and so simple.” He continues, “The idea is simply that you fiddle around and you change something, and then you ask, ‘Does it improve my survival or not?’ And if it doesn’t then those individuals die and the idea goes away. And if it does, then those individuals succeed, and you keep fiddling around, improving. It’s an enormously powerful technique.”

So Howard is an evolutionist ....well his paper isn't.... rest of Blais not worth reading...
Do you have a paper explaining this Howard idea Barbarian?

Shalom

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
These serve the same function, but are genetcally very different. Analogous organs are often found in diverse lines, but homologies are not. That is one of the most serious problems with creationism.

Can you explain these words in more details please?

Sure. Analogous organs reflect that natural selection often comes up with the same solution, but using entirely different structures. So the Mymaridae have the analogue of feathers, but they are not from the same organs, or genetically or biochemically alike. Functional similarity, not homology.

Does this insect ant looking creature exist in Mother Nature ? Show me the link to the authority.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairyfly

Your cited paper is good. It is perhaps the easiest paper to read you have posted so far.... It is also not a paper for evolutionists, and is possibly better aligned for creationists...

Not if they know the difference between conserved and variable portions of proteins. The data show that natural selection is responsible for those differences


Berg explains:
Thus, the flagellar motor is the output organelle of a remarkable sensory system, the components of which have been honed to perfection by billions of years of evolution.

(in his introduction - maybe to keep face with peers...?

Barbarian, this paper does not support mutations changing bacteria evolution at all....I am surprised at you....do you read the papers you cite ?

Differences between conserved and variable regions are impossible to explain without evolution.


Harvard researcher Howard Berg is quoted: “The basic idea of evolution is so elegant, so beautiful, and so simple.” He continues, “The idea is simply that you fiddle around and you change something, and then you ask, ‘Does it improve my survival or not?’ And if it doesn’t then those individuals die and the idea goes away. And if it does, then those individuals succeed, and you keep fiddling around, improving. It’s an enormously powerful technique.”

So Howard is an evolutionist ....well his paper isn't....

As you see, it is.

 

[rthom7]

Barbarian this reply of yours requires further details...

(1) I can't find any science paper showing the fairyfly feather like antennae are primitive feather like features...the only way to do this is show the genes are the same...ie list the entire sequence of ACGT in the genes and show how much it is different....from birds and the fairyfly...

(2) Secondly now we have a really good paper written in simple easy English by an evolutionist called Howard Berg, show me sentences in his paper where he speaks of evolution of the bacteria flagella as you claim...I have read his paper and cannot find anything...He only did reverse engineering work....nothing in his paper shows anything about evolution...either your making false claims, or the evidence is as I have said, it's not there....

(I look forward to seeing those sentences and your comments about those sentences ) (I could be wrong in my reading of his paper of course)

Shalom

 

[Barbarian]

(1) I can't find any science paper showing the fairyfly feather like antennae are primitive feather like features...

Those are wings. They are homologous (from the same genes) as other insect wings. But they are like feathers, being analogous (similar structure but not similar genes) to avian feathers.

the only way to do this is show the genes are the same...

No. If that were true, they'd be holomogous to bird feathers. One of the most devastating problems for creationism, is the distribution of homologous and analogous traits.

(2) Secondly now we have a really good paper written in simple easy English by an evolutionist called Howard Berg, show me sentences in his paper where he speaks of evolution of the bacteria flagella as you claim...

I showed that he provided evidence for the evolution of bacterial flagella (as you learned, there are different kinds with different levels of complexity) by showing there are conserved and variant segments of genes for the flagellum. So there is considerable genetic variety in some parts and almost none in others. This is exactly what you'd expect from an evolved system.