DNA & Math

Speedwell said:

Evidently you are a Determinist. So...?

Do you believe that a randomizing element in a natural process (like the random variation in evolution) would constitute a barrier to divine providence?

Do you believe God incapable of creating a natural process with a random element?

Click to expand...

There are no randomizing elements in a natural process.
You may not understand why something happens or can
predict it, but that is due to your lack of knowledge.

And Yes, quantum fluctuations are random because the
rules that govern them are unknown and possibly
unknowable. But that's due, again, to our ignorance.

Razare said:

You can then simulate DNA mutations in a computer.

Click to expand...

Computers will use Pi to simulate random sequences. But Pi doesn't change.

SkyWriting said:

There are no randomizing elements in a natural process.
You may not understand why something happens or can
predict it, but that is due to your lack of knowledge.

And Yes, quantum fluctuations are random because the
rules that govern them are unknown and possibly
unknowable. But that's due, again, to our ignorance.

Click to expand...

Evidently it's important to you or you wouldn't be so insistent about it.

Why?

I'm not aware that the possibility of inherently unpredictable quantum events poses any kind of problem for Christianity.

Speedwell said:

Evidently it's important to you or you wouldn't be so insistent about it.

Why?

I'm not aware that the possibility of inherently unpredictable quantum events poses any kind of problem for Christianity.

Click to expand...

Right. The topic is biology.
There is no such thing as random.

SkyWriting said:

Right. The topic is biology.
There is no such thing as random.

Click to expand...

Right. But you still haven't said why it is so important to you that there isn't such a thing as random.

Speedwell said:

Right. But you still haven't said why it is so important to you that there isn't such a thing as random.

Click to expand...

Reality is a good basis for understanding nature.
Even Evo worshipers will tell you DNA changes
are not random.

SkyWriting said:

Reality is a good basis for understanding nature.

Click to expand...

?

Even Evo worshipers will tell you DNA changes
are not random.

Click to expand...

Really? Can you quote one?

Speedwell said:

?


Really? Can you quote one?

Click to expand...

Changes In DNA Are NOT Random

Evolution is Not Random

Nevertheless, evolution is not fundamentally a random process.

Predictable Evolution Trumps Randomness of Mutations

Evolution Is Deterministic, Not Random, Biologists Conclude

Armoured said:

Assuming this is correct, so what? Even if you legitimately disprove evolutionary theory, that still doesn't prove creationism.

Click to expand...

It doesn't have to. It leaves evolutionists high and dry
with no religion left to hold on to.

pat34lee said:

It doesn't have to. It leaves evolutionists high and dry
with no religion left to hold on to.

Click to expand...

Again, so what?

Let's say, for argument's sake, evolution is completely and unarguably disproven.

That in no way makes Biblical Creationism any more likely to be true.

SkyWriting said:

Changes In DNA Are NOT Random

Evolution is Not Random

Nevertheless, evolution is not fundamentally a random process.

Predictable Evolution Trumps Randomness of Mutations

Evolution Is Deterministic, Not Random, Biologists Conclude

Click to expand...

No one who understands the theory of evolution has ever claimed it is random. There is a deterministic mechanism, it's called "natural selection".

Armoured said:

Again, so what?

Let's say, for argument's sake, evolution is completely and unarguably disproven.

That in no way makes Biblical Creationism any more likely to be true.

Click to expand...

Sometimes slaying the dragon is enough in itself.

Armoured said:

No one who understands the theory of evolution has ever claimed it is random. There is a deterministic mechanism, it's called "natural selection".

Click to expand...

Natural selection actually selects against mutation or other
changes. Remember, only changes to the gametes gets
passed on, not changes to the parents' DNA. Any such
apparent changes are already in the DNA, so they are
adaptations, not evolution.

pat34lee said:

Natural selection actually selects against mutation or other
changes.

Click to expand...

It selects for variations which improve fitness.

Remember, only changes to the gametes gets
passed on, not changes to the parents' DNA.

Click to expand...

Along with changes which occur during recombination.

Any such
apparent changes are already in the DNA, so they are
adaptations, not evolution.

Click to expand...

Why not? If variations occur they are subject to selection. That's evolution.

Speedwell said:

It selects for variations which improve fitness. Along with changes which occur during recombination.Why not? If variations occur they are subject to selection. That's evolution.

Click to expand...

How can natural selection select that which is
only in the gametes, and doesn't otherwise
affect the parent? It's sneaking Lamarckism
back into evolution without acknowledging it.

pat34lee said:

How can natural selection select that which is
only in the gametes, and doesn't otherwise
affect the parent? It's sneaking Lamarckism
back into evolution without acknowledging it.

Click to expand...

It selects from the offspring of those gametes.

pat34lee said:

Natural selection actually selects against mutation or other
changes. Remember, only changes to the gametes gets
passed on, not changes to the parents' DNA. Any such
apparent changes are already in the DNA, so they are
adaptations, not evolution.

Click to expand...

No, that's not how it works at all. The exact opposite, actually.

pat34lee said:

How can natural selection select that which is
only in the gametes, and doesn't otherwise
affect the parent? It's sneaking Lamarckism
back into evolution without acknowledging it.

Click to expand...

Because the mutation that gives rise to a new phenotype is in the genotype as well.

Razare said:

Now in the world of computer programming, it has long been understood that basically a genetic algorithms do not work in the way they are supposed to.

Click to expand...

Says who?

Radagast said:

Says who?

Click to expand...

Creationists