DogmaHunter
Code Monkey
No. Quite the opposite.
Science progresses by accomodating for new evidence.
While (fundamentalist) religion makes a sport out of standing still by ignoring or flat out denying new evidence.
Upvote
0
The Fossil Record Proves Speciation, Not Evolution of Lifeforms Observed
- Thread starter Heissonear
- Start date
Science progresses by accomodating for new evidence.
While (fundamentalist) religion makes a sport out of standing still by ignoring or flat out denying new evidence.
Quarantine is not the entire treatment. Now, how about you answer the question honestly and completely? And don't forget to explain how that treatment is still used today.
Alternatively you could admit you made an untrue claim. But I won't hold my breath waiting for any honesty from you
Upvote
0
- Jun 18, 2006
- 3,851,123
- 51,509
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
If you're talking about Leviticus 14, maybe you'd better read it again.
Here's the beginning:
Leviticus 14:1 And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,
Leviticus 14:2 This shall be the law of the leper in the day of his cleansing: He shall be brought unto the priest:
Leviticus 14:3 And the priest shall go forth out of the camp; and the priest shall look, and, behold, if the plague of leprosy be healed in the leper;
Note that he is already cleansed of his leprosy.
It is a public ceremony for him to re-enter the camp.
Otherwise everyone would still shun him.
Upvote
0
Declaring somebody as "unclean" was a lot more than quarantine. It was social exclusion and preclusion from involvement in many things. There was also the possibility of being "cut off from God".
So how is that playing out today?
Upvote
0
- Jun 18, 2006
- 3,851,123
- 51,509
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
Like not being allowed to swim in the pool if you have diarrhea?
Upvote
0
You obviously have no real understanding. That's quite sad for somebody who seems to have studied their bible a lot.
Upvote
0
I just checked and it was pretty much covered in the last post you responded to so eloquently. May I request that you don't respond to posts you either haven't read or don't understand?
Upvote
0
- Jun 4, 2013
- 10,132
- 996
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Widowed
- Politics
- US-Others
Please point out how this tells us to shun lepers or mistreat them?
Leviticus 14:1 And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,
Leviticus 14:2 This shall be the law of the leper in the day of his cleansing: He shall be brought unto the priest:
Leviticus 14:3 And the priest shall go forth out of the camp; and the priest shall look, and, behold, if the plague of leprosy be healed in the leper;
In accord with...
Matthew 8:4 And Jesus said to him, "See that you tell no one; but go, show yourself to the priest and present the offering that Moses commanded, as a testimony to them."
But wait, there's more.....
2 Kings 5:1 Now Naaman, captain of the army of the king of Aram, was a great man with his master, and highly respected, because by him the LORD had given victory to Aram. The man was also a valiant warrior, but he was a leper.
Now lets look at how others treated them.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leprosy
British India enacted the Leprosy Act of 1898 which institutionalized those affected and segregated them by gender to prevent reproduction. The Act was difficult to enforce but was repealed in 1983 only after MDT therapy had become widely available. In 1983, the National Leprosy Elimination Programme, previously the National Leprosy Control Programme, changed its methods from surveillance to the treatment of people with leprosy. India still accounts for over half of the global disease burden
You brought it up, now back up your assertions with Bible versus, or perhaps you should admit you were wrong.
But we wont hold out breath.......
Upvote
0
PsychoSarah
Chaotic Neutral
XD so do I not have 8 great grandparents? Did they not have two parents each? Congratulations on recognizing that we are all inbred as heck, though. It's basically a matter of time before any population that started out relatively unrelated has a generation where people unintentionally have no choice but to have kids with people that share blood relatives with them.
-_- recombination doesn't produce new alleles, just new distributions of existing ones. The traits would be expressed previously along the lineage.
Wars can cause traits that were once uncommon or new to become far more common within a population. I mean, if a population starts out with 500 green spotted beetles and 1 red spotted beetle, and after fighting each other 25 green spotted beetles and the 1 red spotted beetle remain, you can see how the red spotted allele is more likely to become more prevalent than it once was.
-_- the doubling thing is how we know we are all related, even without genetics. Obviously, I couldn't possibly have that many different ancestors when the human population was much smaller than that. That is, many of those ancestors from that far back are repeats; they are my ancestor through multiple lineages. They count as more than one. After all, a person wouldn't have 4 grandparents if their parents were siblings. The doubling only happens without inbreeding. But even with excessive inbreeding beyond what falls within human history, surely you haven't missed the point that an ancestor of mine from 200,000 years ago would have had multiple avenues by which to pass down genes to massive numbers of modern people (most likely, all of them).
Not even that, as explained by the inevitability of inbreeding.
Modern humans? If I recall correctly, 200,000 years, which makes it funny if you brought up that number unintentionally. Also, that population isolation is far more recent than that, at about 60,000 years ago. Hence why there are some genes with regional distinctions, but nothing extensive enough for there to be multiple subspecies of modern humans, and the genetic isolation was rather imperfect (on account of travelers, slavers, etc.).
-_- depends on how prolific my family is and if any mass deaths occur. Just because humans currently number in the billions doesn't mean that our population couldn't be reduced severely again. Just ask the Passenger Pigeon, the most abundant bird in North America... oh wait, you can't, because it is extinct despite having such high numbers just a few centuries ago. Took less than 150 years to decimate a population of at least 3 billion down to nothing.
Nope, because we cannot predict the future of human populations. Wouldn't take billions of years though, because as you have noticed, it would take a population of over 200 billion people for everyone to not share an ancestor from today 200,000 years in the future.
So yeah, even with large populations, a few thousand years is usually all it takes for everyone within a breeding group to end up with a benign allele if it is extremely beneficial to survival and reproduction.
Nah, doesn't need to be reduced that much (and there is no historical evidence to suggest that our ancestors were ever reduced to so few). I mean, think of it this way, the only way for me not to be related to every modern human going back 200,000 years would be if there were over 200 billion people on the planet back then, which is a ridiculous number.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Where did I mention this passage? I'll make the same request to you I made to AV - please do not respond to posts you either haven't read or do not understand.
I obviously know your holy text a lot better than you
Leviticus 13 is where you find rules on how to treat lepers. They are declared unclean. I'll leave it to you to read your bible and find out how being declared unclean would alter your life. When you've done that, please come back and let us all know how that is playing out these days. After all, it was your initial claim of biblical truth that started this whole discussion.
Upvote
0
- Jun 4, 2013
- 10,132
- 996
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Widowed
- Politics
- US-Others
Where did I mention this passage? I'll make the same request to you I made to AV - please do not respond to posts you either haven't read or do not understand.
I obviously know your holy text a lot better than you
Leviticus 13 is where you find rules on how to treat lepers. They are declared unclean. I'll leave it to you to read your bible and find out how being declared unclean would alter your life. When you've done that, please come back and let us all know how that is playing out these days. After all, it was your initial claim of biblical truth that started this whole discussion.
The state of being unclean is not a permanent thing to the ancient Hebrews. They were capable of becoming clean again. Such is why they sacrificed and prayed, because to them it was a temporary state. They had simply lost favor with god and now sought to get it back.
Hence if the leper followed the prescribed ritual, he would be declared clean and allowed back from quarantine.
You mistake what the Bible says, and peoples human reactions that do not follow the Bible as being the same thing. They had a history for thousands of years of not following the word, it's what caused them to wonder in the desert for 40 years, it is what kept Moses out of the promised land.
That would be like me trying to support the pope that started the inquisition and claim he was Christian. He might say he was a follower of Christ, but his actions disavow his claims. What the people did, and what the Bible said, is more often than not two different things.
Upvote
0
So much wrongness in one post. I see:
1. Misunderstanding of the bible
2. Misunderstanding of the influence of religion on society
3. Misunderstanding of history
4. No True Scotsman
Do you go out of your way to be so wrong or are you genuinely that ignorant?
Upvote
0
stevevw
inquisitive
Niche construction does have some conscious effort when a creature makes changes to its situation and environment to help it adapt better ie building nests, burrows, dams, changing soil composition etc. Under what is known as constructive development an organism can shape its own developmental path by altering internal and external states. Refer to link further down for more details.
The point some of the traits that a creature gains are already beneficial through developmental processes and therefore direct the course of evolution so natural selection has little or no role to play.
Constructive development refers to the ability of an organism to shape its own developmental trajectory by constantly responding to, and altering, internal and external states [34,71,102–105].
The point here is that all the basic body plans of just about all phylum appeared in the Cambrian period so it appears to have been around from a very early stage as far as eukaryotes. So these advantageous body plans appeared relatively sudden without any evidence of transition or experimentation of other body shapes. It seems all the other weird variation stems from this. Early life only appears weird because it is different but there are similar weird creatures around today. That weirdness may be just a result of the vast amount of plasticity living things have which can sometimes be not associated with gene change.
How do we know that our biological systems are able to induce a needed change by switching on the gene or mutating a specific change stimulated by the conditions of the environment?
Natural selection can be minimized if the change is the result of the development process which produces a strong and well-suited variation and selection can then cement that change in place later. In that way, the change is not the result of random mutations that are unlikely to produce the right required DNA changes and unlikely to be fixed in a population.
In addition, recent research reveals that vertical and horizontal social transmission is widespread in both vertebrates and invertebrates, and can both initiate population divergence and trigger speciation [66]. Under this broader notion of heredity, inheritance can occur from germ cell to germ cell, from soma to germ cell, from soma to soma, and from soma to soma via the external environment [63], which may provide opportunities for some acquired characteristics to be inherited.
The pathways of inheritance that derive from a parental phenotype (‘parental effects’) have a number of evolutionary consequences similar to those of plasticity, cultural inheritance and niche construction [67]. For example, non-genetic inheritance can bias the expression and retention of environmentally induced phenotypes, thereby influencing the rate and direction of evolution [68].
Constructive development refers to the ability of an organism to shape its own developmental trajectory by constantly responding to, and altering, internal and external states [34,71,102–105]. Constructive development goes beyond the quantitative-genetic concept of gene-environment interaction by attending to the mechanisms of development and emphasizing how gene (expression) and environment are interdependent.
As a consequence, the developing organism cannot be reduced to separable components, one of which (e.g. the genome) exerts exclusive control over the other (e.g. the phenotype). Rather, causation also flows back from ‘higher’ (i.e. more complex) levels of organismal organization to the genes (e.g. tissue-specific regulation of gene expression) (figure 1).
the developmental system responds flexibly to internal and external inputs, most obviously through condition-dependent gene expression, but also through physical properties of cells and tissues and ‘exploratory behaviour’ among microtubular, neural, muscular and vascular systems. For example, there is no predetermined map for the distribution of blood vessels in the body; rather, the vascular system expands to regions with insufficient oxygen supply. Such exploratory processes, commonplace throughout development, are powerful agents of phenotype construction, as they enable highly diverse functional responses that need not have been pre-screened by earlier selection [28,34,106,107].
http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/282/1813/20151019
Last edited:
Upvote
0
stevevw
inquisitive
I am not sure which paper you are referring to as I have linked several. Certainly, the papers on the EES state that natural selection is minimized and even bypassed. When you consider that these processes can produce well suited and integrated change which is already selectively good and does not need to be selected and that creatures can control their own adaptive destiny by changing their environment rather than being changed to fit their environment it is just a logical conclusion that natural selection plays little or no role.
organisms modify environmental states in non-random ways, thereby imposing a systematic bias on the selection pressures they generate
the complementarity of organisms and their environments can be enhanced through niche construction (modifying environments to suit organisms), not just through natural selection [73].
Advances at the interface of ecology, behaviour and culture have shown that populations of organisms are not merely passively exposed to natural selection but are actively involved in the formation of those environments that constitute the selective conditions for later populations.
When an organism modifies their environment in non-random ways they are controlling their own adaptive destiny and therefore biasing Natural selection. In other words, instead of natural selection dictating what is selected the selecting is already being done by the organism and therefore bypassing selections role and directing the course of evolution.
However, for a second group of evolutionary researchers, the interpretation given in the preceding section underestimates the evolutionary implications of these phenomena (table 2). From this standpoint, too much causal significance is afforded to genes and selection, and not enough to the developmental processes that create novel variants, contribute to heredity, generate adaptive fit, and thereby direct the course of evolution.
The EES is thus characterized by the central role of the organism in the evolutionary process, and by the view that the direction of evolution does not depend on selection alone and need not start with mutation.
The most striking and contentious difference from the original MS concerns the relative significance of natural selection versus generative variation in evolution, one of the oldest controversies in evolutionary biology (e.g. [116,117]). In the EES, developmental processes, operating through developmental bias, inclusive inheritance and niche construction, share responsibility for the direction and rate of evolution, the origin of character variation and organism–environment complementarity.
http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/282/1813/20151019
It is interesting that they say the controversy about natural selections role is an old one. It seems that this has been something that is debated often and for some time. Could this be becuase there is no definite and clear evidence for natural selection being so dominant. Why would the controversy persist.
In addition, natural selection may be ‘bypassed’ by environmental induction, causing potentially adaptive developmental variation in many individuals of a population at once and long before natural selection may become effective.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5566817/
Please refer to above and the previous post which show there are a number of processes that can produce well suited and integrated variation. There is support for creatures being influenced by environmental pressures and conditions which can produce phenotypic change which can also be without a change in genes initially. Also, who said that a creature’s genome has not got all the genetic info needed to produce the changes required to adapt to their environments. We are only getting to know the full extent of DNA and many said that most of it was junk and now we are finding there is more function than thought.
The paper states that any 1 nucleotide can be fixed but a new function that requires 2 or more specific mutations is highly unlikely and will take beyond the time that is required for the gradual evolution of apes to humans. The more sequence strings required the longer the time to the point where if more than 4 or 5 from memory are needed this goes beyond the age of the earth and if 8 or more are needed this is beyond the age of the universe.
I am not sure where you got your figures from but according to this site there are commonly around 27,000 base pairs for humans and can be up to 2 million. But I don’t think the authors have said that the average human base pairs are 50,000 but rather 50,000 nucleotides long which would just about work out right i.e. from the paper
Since a typical human gene is roughly 50,000 nucleotides long
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4573302/#CR15
If you look at some of today’s papers you will find that they often use papers as old if not older so the age of a paper is not necessarily a problem if the info is relevant and upheld. I used Behe’s paper because it is supported by other papers that are more up to date and by non-religious people. Not that this should be a problem. This is a case of disallowing a paper based on the association which is a logical fallacy.
Behe’s paper was challenged by Durrett and Schmidt who are not connected to any religion in 2009 and though they disagreed with some aspects they came to the same conclusion and supported his basic that for producing specific multi mutations to create a specific new biological function is a massive time problem (100 million years). This is also supported by several other mainstream findings including the paper I posted with Behe’s one.
Durrett and Schmidt reply to Michael Behe.
Consistent with recent experimental observations for Drosophila, we find that a few million years is sufficient, but for humans with a much smaller effective population size, this type of change would take >100 million years.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4573302/#CR15
Virtually all of the papers subsequent to the work of Behe and Snoke have confirmed that waiting times can be prohibitive – depending upon the exact circumstances. Some of the subsequent papers have been critical [15–17, 25]. Yet even those papers show that establishing just two specific co-dependent mutations within a hominin population of 10,000 can require waiting times that exceed 100 million years (see discussion). So there is little debate that waiting time can be a serious problem, and can be a limiting factor in macroevolution.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4573302/#CR15
So, there are a number of papers which support that it would take far to long for multi mutations to evolve apes to humans. Considering only 6 million years is given for apes to humans even a small functional change would take too long (100 million years). But generally, for all complex life the time problem is also a big problem regardless of population size and for 5 or more sequence strings it would take longer than the earth has been in existence. This supports the idea that much of the genetic info did not need to be randomly mutated into existence and that it was already there to be tapped into.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Speedwell
Well-Known Member
- May 11, 2016
- 23,928
- 17,625
- 81
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Other Religion
- Marital Status
- Married
Do you really think this is breaking news or a challenge to the theory of evolution?
The selection is being done by the environment--whether the environment is modified by the creature or not--is natural selection. Even when the environment doing the selection is other traits or systems of the creature itself it is natural selection.
Upvote
0
PsychoSarah
Chaotic Neutral
1. Please stop with the pink text, it hurts to read it.
2. Google search "average human gene length" and note that most of the sources that give an answer give one less than 20 thousand base pairs (20 kb). Also note that some places count the genes with excessively long introns and others don't, while others go by the mean rather than the average.
3. Your source for the average human gene being 50,000 base pairs long cites Behe and is also published in Theoretical Biology and Medical Modelling journal, which we have established is not reliable with its peer review. Just because a journal gives itself a professional sounding name doesn't mean that journal is good.
4. Long genes don't utilize their full length. For example, the gene that produces dystrophin in humans is about 2.3 million base pairs long, but the mRNA derived from that gene is only 14 thousand base pairs long. Large portions of genes are unused fluff unless the gene is very short, such as the less than 100 base pair ones used to make tRNA.
Upvote
0
stevevw
inquisitive
But how is it natural selection when the creature makes the best change to suit their circumstances? They have selected the change. It is like saying humans can choose to reduce pollution and save the planet or continue to pollute. The choice/selection is up to humans to survive. If anything it is artificial selection. You are underestimating the ability of people to know what is best and for creatures to be in tune with their environments and understand what needs to be done to fit in.
Likewise, if there are development processes that produce well suited and integrated outcomes then there is no need for selection because the change is already the best. It may be that the organisms biological system is in tune with their environment and the changes produced are the correct ones that help them adapt because there is some connection that responds with the right phenotypic changes needed.
The big difference in evolution is that natural selection is said to drive evolution. In these cases, it is not and the other processes are the cause and driving force for evolution. Many people give natural selection far too much credit for being the cause of everything when it is not. If it is how you say then why would these papers being saying natural selections role needs to be revised, reduced and even bypassed.
I agree that in the end, it is natural selection that will determine what lives and dies even if a choice is already selected as it needs to align with a natural best outcome. But that is not the driving force for evolution it is just a logical conclusion because there is always a best and worst situation. Natural selection has no more creative ability than maths does.
Because selection is blind it may be that something natural selection regards as beneficial may seem good for that moment/situation but is bad in others and the overall scheme of things. As opposed to the developmental and self-organising changes of the EES which are more the result of creatures being in tune with their environments and producing the best changes because their bodies and instincts know.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Speedwell
Well-Known Member
- May 11, 2016
- 23,928
- 17,625
- 81
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Other Religion
- Marital Status
- Married
Interesting, isn't it? Some of it might even turn out to be true. Scientists have been aware for a long time that there are more feedback mechanisms at work in evolution than just variation/selection. Even that is more complex than Darwin ever supposed. For example, it turns out that the standard deviation of random variation is variable and reacts to stress. During long periods of stable selection criteria the standard deviation shrinks, presumably because throwing out a large range of outlier phenotypes is expensive to the species and unnecessary under those conditions. When the environment begins to change and those outliers become essential to the species' survival the standard deviation of the random distribution of variation grows larger again. No, there is undoubtedly much more to learn about evolution, perhaps more than the EES people even dream of. But in the end, it is the environment--natural selection--which is the test of every variation, no matter how it was produced.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
stevevw
inquisitive
Sorry, would you prefer blue or green lol? I highlight any references as it is easier to spot from any personal comments. But I will refrain from doing so in future.
I am beginning to see a pattern here. First, you are discrediting Behe and then trying to undermine an entire journal because it agrees with some findings of Behe. But like I said the paper refers to other papers in other journals as well that support the findings.
The Theoretical Biology and Medical Modelling Journal is part of Bio Med Central which is part of one of the worlds top publishers of scientific journals, Springer Nature. So it is not some minor journal and is subject to peer review by independent researchers and scrutinized for validity and significance. There are 1000s of other papers that are well accepted by this journal.
Nevertheless as the paper says the findings are referenced and backed by other mainstream papers that say there is a big problem in the time factor for multiple mutations. So you may want to undermine these papers as well that come from other journals such as GENETICS, Protein Science and Molecular Biology and Evolution Journals. ie just hit the links it references.[15–17, 25]
Virtually all of the papers subsequent to the work of Behe and Snoke have confirmed that waiting times can be prohibitive – depending upon the exact circumstances. Some of the subsequent papers have been critical [15–17, 25]. Yet even those papers show that establishing just two specific co-dependent mutations within a hominin population of 10,000 can require waiting times that exceed 100 million years (see discussion). So there is little debate that waiting time can be a serious problem, and can be a limiting factor in macroevolution.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4573302/#CR15
But that's not the point. Your criticism of the paper is based on a wrong reading of what the paper is saying. The paper is not referring to base pairs but nucleotides, when he mentions 50 thousand in number ie "Since a typical human gene, is roughly 50,000 nucleotides long".
That would work out just about right if the average base pairs are 20 to 27 thousand per average gene. But according to several sites, there are around 23 to 27K base pairs in an average human gene which would work out correct as well.
Human genes are commonly around 27,000 base pairs long, and some are up to 2 million base pairs.
http://www.genomenewsnetwork.org/resources/whats_a_genome/Chp1_4_2.shtml
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Similar threads
