Intelligent Design

[lucaspa]

First of all I was using the term transcription error in a list of mutations, your cohort insisted that transcription errors were not mutations:

Phenotypic mutations (errors occurring during protein synthesis) are orders of magnitude more frequent than genetic mutations. Consequently, the sequences of individual protein molecules transcribed and translated from the same gene can differ. Potential role of phenotypic mutations in the evolution of protein expression and stability
​

In contrast, errors that occur during RNA transcription are considered transient, because the life span of mRNAs and their encoded proteins is thought to be too short to have heritable consequences. Transcriptional Infidelity Promotes Heritable Phenotypic Change in a Bistable Gene Network
​

That's all that really amounted to and of course it turned into the error mining ad hominem attack that evolutionists are obsessed with. I simply insisted that transcript errors are mutations because they are, actually including them in a list of mutations. I suppose it's a nice diversion to keep harping on a semantical issue since it's a lot easier then actually discussing substantive issues, like.....I don't know....intelligent design.

Mark, it would have helped if you had read, and perhaps quoted, the end of the abstract for that first paragraph:
"Thus, although phenotypic mutations are not individually subjected to inheritance and natural selection, as are genetic mutations, they collectively exert a direct and immediate effect on protein fitness. They may therefore play a role in shaping protein traits such as expression levels, stability, and tolerance to genetic mutations. "

When discussing evolution vs ID, don't you think that part is important? Errors in translation of proteins can't be passed down from generation to generation, which is why they are not listed as "mutations" when discussing evolution.

In the paper, the authors did use a genetic mutation: "To test the effects of such mutations, we established a bacterial system in which an antibiotic resistance gene (TEM-1 β-lactamase) was transcribed by either a high-fidelity RNA polymerase or its error-prone mutant. "

The "error-prone" RNA polymerase was a genetic mutant. The TEM-1 beta-lactamase proteins produced by the error-prone mutant are not all going to be the same.

What the authors found was that, in some circumstances, having a genetic mutation in RNA polymerase promoted the survival of individuals that had TEM-1 beta lactamase variations that were more stable. IOW, it selected individuals with mutations in the beta-lactamase gene such that even the proteins produced by erroneous transcription had activity.

I don't see any support here for ID. In fact, I see further refutation of ID and support for evolution, since it shows natural selection in action.

 

[shernren]

Subscribing

 

[mark kennedy]

I had forgotten this thread and I have been really busy lately, but the truth is that's a serious question. These discussions run in cycles and I'm really not into this right now but I'll be revisiting the thread when I'm able.

I don't see any support here for ID. In fact, I see further refutation of ID and support for evolution, since it shows natural selection in action.

One brief statement, they are not mutually exclusive, never were and never will be.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[mark kennedy]

I had forgotten this thread and I have been really busy lately, but the truth is that's a serious question. These discussions run in cycles and I'm really not into this right now but I'll be revisiting the thread when I'm able.

I don't see any support here for ID. In fact, I see further refutation of ID and support for evolution, since it shows natural selection in action.

One brief statement, they are not mutually exclusive, never were and never will be.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[Tomm]

Intelligent Design in the sense that "something" designed us? Maybe. I doubt such evidence would really come from biology though. It would need to be historical or archaeological. Alien ruins on another planet that show experiments creating humanity, that kind of thing.

Intelligent Design as in the psuedoscientific guise that creationism tries to hide behind in order to further its anti-scientific agenda? It's not even science, so why bother? At best it is philosophy.

What do you mean by anti-scientific agenda ?
Have you been brainwashed by lies, like flat earth myth, etc. ?
I reckon macro-evolution is really pseudo-science.

 

[Papias]

tom wrote:

I reckon macro-evolution is really pseudo-science.

Tom, I see you are Catholic, like Dark_Lite and I. Are you aware that our Holy Father, the Pope, considers the evolution of humans from apes and earlier microbes, to be "virtually certain"?

In the report from his commission (which he led himself), it has, in section #63:

While there is little consensus among scientists about how the origin of this first microscopic life is to be explained, there is general agreement among them that the first organism dwelt on this planet about 3.5-4 billion years ago. Since it has been demonstrated that all living organisms on earth are genetically related, it is virtually certain that all living organisms have descended from this first organism. Converging evidence from many studies in the physical and biological sciences furnishes mounting support for some theory of evolution to account for the development and diversification of life on earth, while controversy continues over the pace and mechanisms of evolution. While the story of human origins is complex and subject to revision, physical anthropology and molecular biology combine to make a convincing case for the origin of the human species in Africa about 150,000 years ago in a humanoid population of common genetic lineage. However it is to be explained, the decisive factor in human origins was a continually increasing brain size, culminating in that of homo sapiens.
​

You can download the whole report here: Cardinal Ratzinger and International Theological Commission on Creation and Evolution

I highly recommend reading this whole report, which clearly lays out a strong Catholic defense of theistic evolution.

In Christ-

Papias

 

[DamonWV]

I remember when Ben stein was interviewing Richard Dawkins, Didnt Richard concede that , it wasnt God that put us on here, but some for of intelligence from some other civilization.. Wouldnt this need to be taken a step farther as in , where did that group of intelligent beings come from ?