- May 15, 2020
- 1,332
- 385
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Private
What is your background? At some point I hope one of the resident biologists responds.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Interesting questions. Based on what little I know of the subject, I would think the answer to both questions would be no. They would have to be very similar to known critters. We're still a long way from figuring out everything that goes into DNA.
What is your background? At some point I hope one of the resident biologists responds.
Why would we respond to a philosophical question? We're biologists, not philosophers. We're waiting for an actual biological question.
Speak for yourself.Why would we respond to a philosophical question? We're biologists, not philosophers. We're waiting for an actual biological question.
I tried to be clear that I wasn't speaking to a complete lack of evidence, but let me try to elaborate further.
Theory AAA is currently the only explaination for the formation of 111 objects. Not all of these objects are identical. Objects 111a, 111b, 111c, etc. have been observed. There is evidence for the formation of 111a, 111b, and 111c per the mechanisms of theory AAA. A new object is observed (111d), but there is not yet any evidence of its formation.
Is theory AAA sufficient explanation for 111d without that evidence?
Not necessarily. To take the example of star formation, most stars probably form by the collapse and fragmentation of the cores of relatively dense interstellar clouds. However, it has been proposed that the most massive O-type stars and blue stragglers in star cluster form by the mergers of binary stars, so that the theory of interstellar cloud collapse would not necessarily apply to these stars without evidence.
PostulateI wouldn't call any idea a "scientific theory" that is without evidence. Hypothesis, maybe.
I have 9 questions about evolution. I understand they have the potential for heated conversation, but I’m hoping to fill some gaps in my knowledge. I will do my best to remain civil. As we proceed, some questions may become moot, or the conversation may prompt new questions. However, at the moment I have 9.
Just to be clear, I’m using the following as a definition of evolution: A change in allele frequency of a population from one generation to the next.
Given that is the definition, it is obvious evolution happens, so the questions are not aimed at whether or not it happens, but at how biologists characterize, analyze, and predict the objects and phenomena that make up evolution.
Question #1: If there is only one scientific theory explaining a phenomenon, is that theory a sufficient explanation for an occurrence of the phenomenon even without evidence?
This is a philosophical question. I am aware of the evidential claims for evolution, so I don’t need them repeated. I’m just looking for an answer to the philosophical question.
[edit]: Questions 2/3 are posted here.
Though the first question was philosophical, the remaining 8 are specific to evolution. Sorry if that disappoints anyone.
I'm tagging everyone who replied to the first question. If you don't want me to do that for the remainder of the questions, just let me know: @Tinker Grey @durangodawood @Yttrium @Estrid @Frank Robert @essentialsaltes @FrumiousBandersnatch
Question #2: Given a DNA sequence, is there currently a means (based on the DNA alone) for determining if that sequence will produce a viable organism and what the morphology of that organism will be?
Question #3: Given the morphology of an organism, is there currently a means (based on morphology alone) for determining its DNA?
I doubt it. It is possible to determine specific sequences that are non-viable, and specific sequences that influence morphology, but DNA is not a blueprint, it is more like a recipe. An organism doesn't develop in a void - environmental conditions during development are important.Question #2: Given a DNA sequence, is there currently a means (based on the DNA alone) for determining if that sequence will produce a viable organism and what the morphology of that organism will be?
Question #3:
No. Again, there are some features that will correlate to specific sequences, but unless you already know the correlations between DNA and morphology for that species, it would be highly speculative. Knowing the DNA and morphology correlations of similar species would allow you to make informed guesses at some of it.Given the morphology of an organism, is there currently a means (based on morphology alone) for determining its DNA?
What is your background? At some point I hope one of the resident biologists responds.
Hello JB
I've been following the conversation with some interest. I've noticed that a few posters have responded to you with a somewhat guarded tone and I thought you might be interested in understanding why this is so.
I've been around CF for close on ten years. In that time I've seen a variety of Creationist approaches to the Creation/Evolution debate.
One common tactic is to pose as a reasonable and rational Christian who's a little confused about Evolution. Having established his credentials as a Good Guy he then proceeds to ask disingenuous questions which contain (in his view) hidden 'Gotcha' hooks aimed at tripping up the Evolutionists and 'proving' Creationism. Typically it becomes very obvious that said Creationist doesn't understand Evolution and what he thought was a mind blowing truth is actually some PRATT which has been around the block many times. It usually ends with the Creationist storming off in a fit of pique when it's pointed out that they are woefully under equipped for the discussion.
Why am I telling you this?
I'm sure you're not one of these 'Good Guys' but your approach creates the impression that you may be. The result is that you will be regarded with some suspicion. For instance, we have no idea of the overall point of your questions and none of your three questions so far are about evolution. Q1 is about the nature of a theory, while Qs 2 & 3 are about links between DNA and morphology.
Why not be upfront instead? Put your cards on the table and make it clear you are genuinely interested in a discussion?
What's the point of your nine questions?
OB
We know of several genes that appear to be essential to life. If they aren't part of the sequence, then it wouldn't be a viable organism. But experiments are ongoing to test whether it's actually the case that all of these genes are essential.
No. Morphology is affected by the environment, food and epigenetics (chemicals that affect which genes are 'switched on' in an organism), not just an organism's DNA. Also, not all genes (more accurately, the proteins those genes are a template for) affect morphology and genes are only part of a DNA sequence, a lot of it is 'non-coding'. So, not all DNA is used to make the proteins that affect morphology and, therefore, it would be impossible to determine a DNA sequence from morphology.
I doubt it. It is possible to determine specific sequences that are non-viable, and specific sequences that influence morphology, but DNA is not a blueprint, it is more like a recipe. An organism doesn't develop in a void - environmental conditions during development are important.
No. Again, there are some features that will correlate to specific sequences, but unless you already know the correlations between DNA and morphology for that species, it would be highly speculative. Knowing the DNA and morphology correlations of similar species would allow you to make informed guesses at some of it.
There is a saying, you have to know most of the answer before you can ask a good question.
Hello JB
I've been following the conversation with some interest. I've noticed that a few posters have responded to you with a somewhat guarded tone and I thought you might be interested in understanding why this is so.
I've been around CF for close on ten years. In that time I've seen a variety of Creationist approaches to the Creation/Evolution debate.
One common tactic is to pose as a reasonable and rational Christian who's a little confused about Evolution. Having established his credentials as a Good Guy he then proceeds to ask disingenuous questions which contain (in his view) hidden 'Gotcha' hooks aimed at tripping up the Evolutionists and 'proving' Creationism. Typically it becomes very obvious that said Creationist doesn't understand Evolution and what he thought was a mind blowing truth is actually some PRATT which has been around the block many times. It usually ends with the Creationist storming off in a fit of pique when it's pointed out that they are woefully under equipped for the discussion.
Why am I telling you this?
I'm sure you're not one of these 'Good Guys' but your approach creates the impression that you may be. The result is that you will be regarded with some suspicion. For instance, we have no idea of the overall point of your questions and none of your three questions so far are about evolution. Q1 is about the nature of a theory, while Qs 2 & 3 are about links between DNA and morphology.
Why not be upfront instead? Put your cards on the table and make it clear you are genuinely interested in a discussion?
What's the point of your nine questions?
OB
That's an interesting saying. If it's true those of use seeking new knowledge are doomed, though I've never been afraid of bootstrapping and having people call me stupid in the process. The results I get satisfy me more than the barbs of the detractors.
I think of it more in terms of serendipity. Even people with experience need to guess or get lucky from time to time, but their experience is still valuable because they can identify a good result when it happens. Managers in my line of work are always coming up with clever schemes where the uninitiated will supposedly be more successful than an experienced engineer such as myself. Brainstorming teams where we were forced to try the ideas of people with no experience. Big data projects where engineers were not supposed to give input. All kinds of wonderful schemes. It's not worked so far, though they continue to grasp for those lower costs.
I'm all for having inexperienced people on my team because I enjoy helping them learn. But having them lead. Yeah, that's a stupid idea.
Question #2: Given a DNA sequence, is there currently a means (based on the DNA alone) for determining if that sequence will produce a viable organism and what the morphology of that organism will be?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?