VehementiDominus
Active Member
Why should the line be drawn there?
Quoting the Bible means nothing. Just as the Qu'ran doesn't make Allah any more real.
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.
-
CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
A Challenge for Anti-evolutionists
- Thread starter David Evarts
- Start date
Why should the line be drawn there?
Quoting the Bible means nothing. Just as the Qu'ran doesn't make Allah any more real.
- Jun 18, 2006
- 3,856,435
- 52,722
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
Those nails [indirectly] saved us from brimstone -- the choice is yours.
Upvote
0
- Jun 18, 2006
- 3,856,435
- 52,722
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
Upvote
0
- Jun 18, 2006
- 3,856,435
- 52,722
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
Upvote
0
- Jun 18, 2006
- 3,856,435
- 52,722
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
Upvote
0
VehementiDominus
Active Member
Correct, but you still haven't answered the question: Why should the line be drawn there?
YouTube - ‪Infected Mushroom - converting vegetarians FULL video‬‏
Here's some more music if you want to continue trying to dance around the question without answering it.
Upvote
0
- Jun 18, 2006
- 3,856,435
- 52,722
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
Upvote
0
VehementiDominus
Active Member
As many as it takes to get an actual answer.
"Why should the line be drawn there?"
"Why should I believe the Bible?"
Upvote
0
- Jun 18, 2006
- 3,856,435
- 52,722
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
Upvote
0
VehementiDominus
Active Member
It's a possibility but I don't see how that's relevant.
Are you going to answer them or not?
Because if not, then I'd make an educated guess and say it was because you can't.
In which case, answer this, instead; why do YOU believe the Bible?
And don't give me the whole "Because it's inspired by God." nonsense, because the only reason you belive that is because you believe the Bible.
Upvote
0
- Jun 18, 2006
- 3,856,435
- 52,722
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
I did -- using your style of responding.
And you know what's funny?
You don't seem to like it --
Why wouldn't I believe It?
As Simon Peter put it:
John 6:68 Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life.
Upvote
0
VehementiDominus
Active Member
I did -- using your style of responding.
And you know what's funny?
You don't seem to like it --
No, you haven't.
That's like saying why shouldn't I believe in Star Wars?
As the rolling intro put it:
A long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away...
It's self contained - you HAVE to believe the Bible to believe that, just as you HAVE to believe Star Wars to believe it happened a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away.
Why shouldn't you believe it? For the same reasons that I don't believe it. There's no evidence to back it up.
You can say "Evidence can take a hike.", but the only reason you say that is because you believe the Bible.
What made you believe the Bible in the first place?
Upvote
0
seriously how many years of the same grass-processed-by-perissodactyl is going to be enough?
Upvote
0
Just a quick note for Greg 1234. Here you are on my turf (Molecular Biology) and are citing sources. Kudos to you! I'm familiar with McClintocks' work and with many of the papers showing non-adaptive, non-selected mutations and it's ramifications for (among other things) anti-biotic resistance. I'll take some time soon to fully consider and fully respond to your post as soon as I can. I like science. 
However, Babs McClintock and the authors of these you cite papers are already entering the scientific pantheon, so you'll have to start with them (or elsewhere) and do new work to win any prizes. The theory of evolution has already been modified to account for such. Also, the existance of non-adaptive and/or non-selected mutations does not (as Darwin may have feared) call into question the theory of evolution and in fact makes it stronger. We have known for a good while now of other non-adaptive forces effecting the rate of mutation and the appearance of beneficial mutations. Many slow the rate of change, such as genetic drift and sexual selection. Others, such as McClintocks transposons, speed the rate. Darwin could not have known how right he was. It's the mark of truth, when a theory can both explain subsequent discoveries and expand to fill them.
However, Babs McClintock and the authors of these you cite papers are already entering the scientific pantheon, so you'll have to start with them (or elsewhere) and do new work to win any prizes. The theory of evolution has already been modified to account for such. Also, the existance of non-adaptive and/or non-selected mutations does not (as Darwin may have feared) call into question the theory of evolution and in fact makes it stronger. We have known for a good while now of other non-adaptive forces effecting the rate of mutation and the appearance of beneficial mutations. Many slow the rate of change, such as genetic drift and sexual selection. Others, such as McClintocks transposons, speed the rate. Darwin could not have known how right he was. It's the mark of truth, when a theory can both explain subsequent discoveries and expand to fill them.
Upvote
0
Greg1234
In the beginning was El
I'm not here for your prizes
Where? Chance and necessity as the primary source of adaptation is still being touted. Had this already been relinquished, I would have moved on to the next portion a long time ago.
You would have to define evolution here. Also, you would need to state how intelligent mechanisms governing adaptation strengthens the case for random mutation. Or how its limited nature as a response to the environment strengthens microbe to man phenomena.
They govern the mutation. You need to clarify what you mean by affect the rate of mutation. A blast of radiation affects the rate of mutation but is not what is being referenced here.
We are concerned with how the change arises here, not a force acting on it subsequently.
You would need to clarify what you mean by speed the rate. You seem to be saying that it increases the rate at which random mutations occur which is not what is done. For the record, cellular mechanisms work to reduce spontaneous mutations.
01/07/30 - ICBP 2000
The conventional view is that genetic change comes from stochastic, accidental sources: radiation, chemical, or oxidative damage, chemical instabilities in the DNA, or from inevitable errors in the replication process. However, the fact is that DNA proofreading and repair systems are remarkably effective at removing these non-biological sources of mutation. For example, consider that the E. coli cell replicates its 4.6 megabase genome every 40 minutes. That is a replication frequency of almost 2 kHz. Yet, due to the action of error-recognition and correction systems in the replication machine and in the cell to catch mistakes in already-replicated DNA, the error rate is reduced below one mistake in every 1010 base-pairs duplicated, and a similar low value is observed in mammalian cells (32). That is less than one base change in every 2000 cells, certainly well below the mutation frequencies I have measured in E. coli of about four mutations per every 100 to 1000 cells.
If by speeding up the rate of mutation you mean the adaptive mutation surfaces and fixes in less time then clarify.
Upvote
0
Bummer. I would love to see some new (especially testable) hypothesis generated and share the acclaim.
And, the first challenge is to generate a new hypothesis that can modify or challenge the theory of evolution. You are repeating some preivously done work that fits with the theory of evolution and does seem to modify our understanding of the process. If it were your work, it would be a strong contender for the modify part, which is why geneticists and biologists today revere Barbara McClintock. Good job. You appear to beleive that agents of genetic change, other than classical mutation, somehow challenge the theory of evolution. You'll have to explain your reasoning (and/or support) for this idea further.David - Mutation by substitution is no longer seen as the sole source of genetic variation on which selection can act or as the sole factor in the rate at which new variation can appear. It may not even be the primary source of new variation. In general the mechanisms that have been established function randomly, although often with complex control mechanisms. Those of us who share a beleif in a God who is and has been involved in the process and who generally works in subtle ways, see appearant randomness as opportunities for God to work quietly as Christian theology predicts. A deist god would have created the process once, as anti-evolutionists claim. An absence of God could explain a non-remarkable purely random process. But, an appearantly and usually random process in which individual amino acid substitutions and other appearantly random mechanisms of change occur allows for the Christian God who is (usually subtly) and constantly involved. Recombination may be the largest source of new genotypes that selection can act on and does not require mutation. In fact eukaryotic cells have developed an amazing array of helper DNA types, whose sole job is to assist in recombination. Transposons (Jumping Genes, first described in corn by Barbara McClintock) act as a form of mutation that increase the rate at which massive (and due to their movement of complete genes more likely to be beneficial) change in genetics occur. They too are helped by dedicated DNA level mechanisms to occur. Transposons are generally thought to be responsible for the very fast levels of speciation in corn. The paper you cite, which I am very much looking forward to looking into, suggest further mechanisms of change. Wether or not they are assisted by complex molecular machinery or are a simpler mechanism makes little difference to the theory of evolution. Or, put in spiritual terms, God works in mysterious ways. I tend to think that the remarkable number of times in which the same stretch of (sometimes mechanistically very complex) DNA is used for different purpouses in wildly different organisms is evidence not only of descent from a common ancestor, but also of Gods conservation of useful DNA manuscripts for later modification and use.
David- You might note that I gave the commonly accepted definition (Futuyma, etc.) for evolution in the first challenge "descent with
modification from common ancestors. Your information though interesting doesn't challenge that. Darwins contribution, put very simply is that genetic variation arises in a population and that envioronment causes speciation by acting on (selection) the available phenotypes that have arisen. It sounds like "intelligent" may be too strong a word for the mechanisms you are describing, perhaps you could use complex. Why would I need to stregthen the case for random mutation? Variation happens from a number of sources, all of which appear random. It can be selected for and against in an ongoing process. I'm curious as to what flavor of anti-evolutionist you are, knowing that might allow me to understand your arguement better. Are you claiming that there has not been enough time for more complex organisms, such as humans to be crafted from less complex ones such as microbes? Are you arguing that design must be shown or is shown? That's a tough arguement to make. As the arguements for irreducible complexity have failed, perhaps you are arguing that all of the mechanisms must be at every level simple and appearantly random mechanisms are disallowed. Do you argue the same for weather? Do you think all meetings of molecules should be non-random? Or, just the biochemical ones? You definetly should try explaining how your information or arguements modify or challenge evolution. I'm curious.
David- My miststatement. I blame attempting to be quick here. Some of the mechanisms are in and of themselves a from of genetic change, or in the case of transposons are analgous to a mutation. Some, such as the complex machinery that repairs many mutations do govern the mutation. Some that I mixed in here, such as genetic drift are trends that limit or effect the rate of the spread of new variants into a population of organisms, which must be accounted for when attempting to determine the speed of population change and potential speciation.
David -Many slow the rate of change, such as genetic drift and sexual selection.
David- Why? New genetic variants arise routinely. In many organisms we can predict the rate at which they will arise, including the rate at which will they arise in germ lines, which can be passed to the next generation. If you are looking for a limiting factor on evolution, wouldn't you lok at the levels at which they appear in phenotypes and populations, which is where selection can work.
David -Yep, a transposon creates more frequent appearances of variation. By the way the proceedings you reference here are interesting. Are you suggesting that DNA repair mechanisms prevent variation from occuring? Or are you suggesting that variations occur so slowly that evolution must occur more slowly? It's great to have an anti-evolutionist go beyond the "God just made it to look old, because he wants to trick us" or "It was Noahs' flood" or "evolution cause Hitler" or "God just did it and science sucks" form of arguements, which is why I am answering, but please try to present an actual arguement against evolution or better present an alternative and preferably testable hypothesis, if you'd like to make a point.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Similar threads
