A Question for Creationists

[frogman2x]

Our deity is pure energy (God-energy), and scientists agree energy has no cause.

Everything has a cause.

 

[frogman2x]

Yes, there is. It's the branch of biology concerned with the study of evolution. I happen to have a degree in it.

That's probably right. I was thinking about when I was in college. Way back hen it was 101,201 etc

Let's get the language right here. Mutations are changes in DNA sequence. Mutations cause changes in the organism.

The do not. They alter a trait that the kid would have gotten without the mutation.

Here's another example that involves a bigger innovation: one of the changes that allowed mammals to have long pregnancies with a placenta that makes close contact between mother and baby. It's a change in the HoxA11 gene that causes HoxA11 protein to interact with another protein in a new way. HoxA11 in itself turns genes off, but together with the other protein, it's able to turn them on. Notably, one of the genes it affects is the one for prolactin hormone, which is one of the reasons a mother's body doesn't just destroy its own offspring.

Irrelevant. Longer pregancys is not a mechanism for evolution.

(Such a complex phenomenon as a pregnancy must have involved many more mutations, of course; this is just one example.)

Irrelevant. Longer pregancys is not a mechanims for evolution.

I'm... not sure I understand the question? These are new genes forming out of scratch. They are one of the ways new variation is generated. Evolution works from variation.

The are not new genes forming from scrathch. They are old genes altering traits.

Do you mean specific traits that these genes are conferring?[/QUOTE]

Yes. The offspring cannot receive a trait for which one of both parents did not have a gene for. That is biology 101.

I just gave you two papers that evidence the origin of brand new genes. If that isn't a way to acquire new traits then nothing is.

The problem is the papers did not say HOW it happened biologically.

Also, see mzungu's answer. Sickle cell trait is a pretty big deal where malaria is common. It gives you malaria resistance, which people without the mutation don't have. BTW, said mutation is literally the simplest possible kind of mutation - just one single DNA base changed to another.

Did sickle cell ever cause a homo sapian to evolve into something that was not homo sapian?

A "species" is a collection of genetically related individuals with a really, really fuzzy border. It can't be easily and sharply defined; all definitions are rough approximations only suitable for some purposes. The biological species definition (ability to produce fertile offspring) works if you're studying the diversity of animals and how it came about.

Is that not what evolution is all about; the diversity of animals AND PLANTS, and how they came about. You will have to admit to show that all life forms PLANTS AND ANIMALS originating from some blob in the primordial ooze,
really canpt be done biologically.

Morphospecies (things that look like X) work if you're into fossils. An ecological definition is good if you want to understand how ecosystems work.

Let's stick to biology right now.

Nature is too complicated to shoehorn, unfortunately.

Not for me. God did it takes all of he cimplications out of nature for me.

(You might be surprised to hear that I don't actually need a species definition for my work and for most of my miscellaneous interests. What matters to me is not how you divide up life into chunks but what happens to genomes over time, how different creatures are related, how you get from A to B in evolution.)

To be accurate you do need a correct definiiotn of what a species is. I do agree how an A can become a B is the problem for evolutinists.

 

[lasthero]

The do not. They alter a trait that the kid would have gotten without the mutation.

No, they don't. A mutation is what he said it is - a change in organism's DNA. And even if they were what you said, how is 'altering a trait' not a change?

Yes. The offspring cannot receive a trait for which one of both parents did not have a gene for.

If that were true, we wouldn't need to update the flu vaccine every year, because the flu virus would never grow immunity - the first vaccine we ever made would work every time.

You will have to admit to show that all life forms PLANTS AND ANIMALS originating from some blob in the primordial ooze

No one ever said anything about plants and animals just springing forth from a blob.

God did it takes all of he cimplications out of nature for me.

Yeah, I suppose it does. In the same way, assuming a stork brings parents their children is a lot less complicated than learning how the reproductive system works.

 

[OllieFranz]

The do not. They alter a trait that the kid would have gotten without the mutation.

"Alter" means "change."

Irrelevant. Longer pregancys is not a mechanism for evolution.

But they are a resultof alteration = change = evolution.

They are not new genesforming from scratch. They are old genes altering traits.

You are arguing this with a biologist who has actually sequenced the genes and can tell you exactly what happened to the gene during the mutatation? Mzungu is not just repeating empty philosophy here.

If the mutation occurs in the middle of the gene, a new allele of the old gene is formed. That is what you have inelegantly described. But if the mutation involves a Start or Stop codon, then the old gene is destroyed and/or a brand new, totally different gene is produced, which may or may not affect the same traits set as the old one (but more likely not, since it is random).

Yes. The offspring cannot receive a trait for which one of both parents did not have a gene for. That is biology 101.

Biology 101 ignores mutations entirely when speaking of reproduction. The vast majority of mutations occur in body cells, and cannot be passed on to offspring. But enough occur in seminal cells (which produce the sperm or eggs) or in the fertilized egg before it divides that the alteration is heritable. That is Biology 102.

The problem is the papers did not say HOW it happened biologically.

Yes, they do. They do not say "why in a philosophical sense (that's not Science's job), but they do say HOW, and in great detail.

Did sickle cell ever cause a homo sapian to evolve into something that was not homo sapian?

Two points. First, mutation is not, in itself, evolution. It provides a variety of traits on which Selection can be made. It is selection, especially natural selection, that drives evolution. Second, selection does not produce offspring that are genetically incopatible within the immediate herd.

Evolution is meaningless on the individual offspring level. It only occurs on the population level, and then only after many generations, and, usually, the isolation of one or more sub-populations.

Let's stick to biology right now.

That was biology. Biology is more than just genetics.

Not for me. God did it takes all of he cimplications out of nature for me.

I have Aspergers, and so I can well appreciate the need to have everything locked up in nice, neatly organized and clearly labeled boxes. Unfortunately, nature does not work that way. God likes Nature to be wild-- He has designed her to overflow our petty labels and neat boxes. It is His way of reminding us that that there are things in this universe that are greater than our minds and our understanding. It is not a coincidence that God chose wild, untamed, uncontrollable natural phenomena (whirlwind, fire) when He wanted Job and Moses to listen to His words.

To be accurate you do need a correct definiiotn of what a species is. I do agree how an A can become a B is the problem for evolutinists.

Having several overlapping definitions of species is necessary because Nature cannot be locked into the neat little boxes that we want to squeeze her into. Still, for sexually reproducing organisms, the compatably interbreeding definition gives us a strong starting point. And a comfortable one. That is why early Creationists used to use it as their definition of "kind" as well. Too bad that their interpretation of the phrases in which the word appears in the Bible requires that there be no "slipperiness" inherent in the meaning of "kind," and so they cannot accept a definition with fuzzy edges. Too bad, because Nature is nothing but fuzzy edges.

 

[florida2]

Not for me. God did it takes all of he cimplications out of nature for me.

So you'd prefer to be ignorant rather than try to figure out how the universe works? Trust me - it really IS complicated!

 

[biggles53]

If, as scientists asserts, energy has no cause and God is pure energy (God-energy), then God has no cause.

It's the logical conclusion.

Hahahaha......what a joke....! You have the hide to call that " logical"...!?

Premise 1: Energy has no cause. Where is your evidence for this claim....?
Premise 2: God is pure energy. Where is your evidence for this claim.....?

You don't even get on first base.........your conclusion is then worthless....

 

[Archaeopteryx]

The reality that evos accept by faith alone whatever the the latest guess is.

You are projecting. I don't think evolutionary theory is good because I have faith.

 

[mzungu]

Okay, let's skip omnipotence andd start with your EMPIRICAL evidence. That goes back to myu first question---where did all of the matter in the universe originate.

That's an easy one; all matter came from energy.

So now we must use some simple logic. Do you know what logic is?

You are asking a Greek what logic is? We invented the word.

It is impossible for matter to create itself out of nothing. Therefore there must have been a cause. Now I will bring the Bible into it. I vote for God to have been the cause. Who do you vote for?

You can vote all you want. Let me give you a hint; "something" and "nothing" are not meaningful concepts in QM. Matter does not create itself. Matter comes from energy and vice versa. I have seen you argue with our resident evolutionary biologist; now that coming from one who has no science education only furthers my belief that you are extremely arrogant.

I have more EMPIRICAL evidence in the first chapter of Genesis than you do for all that the TOE praeaches.

You have just dug your own hole by proving you do not know what Empirical evidence means.

Now sit down before you hurt yourself

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Everything has a cause.

Well, not everything. Apparently God doesn't have a cause.

 

[AV1611VET]

If, as scientists asserts, energy has no cause and God is pure energy (God-energy), then God has no cause.

Premise 1: Energy has no cause.

Do you know what Arab Phone is?

 

[mzungu]

Many scientists and evolutionists agree that reality is not limited to the physical.

Hogwash!

In other words, many scientists and evolutionists agree that science is myopic.

Even more hogwash. Must you keep making things up to suit your claims? Why are you continuously bearing false witness? Don't you respect your religion that forbids bearing false witness?

Talk about hypocrisy!!!

 

[biggles53]

Do you know what Arab Phone is?

Oh sigh......

That the syllogism is embedded within a conditional statement does NOT impede the critical examination of the syllogism in isolation.........(hmmm...not bad biggles...it's been about 40years since you were taught that...)

In other words, what is stated between "if" and "then" still needs to stand, otherwise the conditions under which it is put are irrelevant...

Like most of your pronouncements......

 

[AV1611VET]

Oh sigh......

That the syllogism is embedded within a conditional statement does NOT impede the critical examination of the syllogism in isolation.........(hmmm...not bad biggles...it's been about 40years since you were taught that...)

In other words, what is stated between "if" and "then" still needs to stand, otherwise the conditions under which it is put are irrelevant...

Like most of your pronouncements......

Mamma Miata!

Is it me, or does anyone else see fancy-talk for: "IF" doesn't count?

 

[mzungu]

That's probably right. I was thinking about when I was in college. Way back hen it was 101,201 etc

The do not. They alter a trait that the kid would have gotten without the mutation.

Irrelevant. Longer pregancys is not a mechanism for evolution.

Irrelevant. Longer pregancys is not a mechanims for evolution.

Do you mean specific traits that these genes are conferring?

Yes. The offspring cannot receive a trait for which one of both parents did not have a gene for. That is biology 101.

The problem is the papers did not say HOW it happened biologically.

Did sickle cell ever cause a homo sapian to evolve into something that was not homo sapian?


Is that not what evolution is all about; the diversity of animals AND PLANTS, and how they came about. You will have to admit to show that all life forms PLANTS AND ANIMALS originating from some blob in the primordial ooze,
really canpt be done biologically.

Let's stick to biology right now.

Not for me. God did it takes all of he cimplications out of nature for me.

To be accurate you do need a correct definiiotn of what a species is. I do agree how an A can become a B is the problem for evolutinists.

Of all the arrogance! You have no science education and yet you dismiss the words of our resident evolutionist biologist while pretending to know biology. What manner of mischief is this

“Beware the man of a single book.”
― St. Thomas Aquinas

“Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science.”
― Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man

 

[AV1611VET]

Yes. The offspring cannot receive a trait for which one of both parents did not have a gene for. That is biology 101.

Two serious questions:

1. Are genes and DNA the same thing?
2. Do they still differentiate between recessive genes and dominant genes?

 

[biggles53]

Mamma Miata!

Is it me, or does anyone else see fancy-talk for: "IF" doesn't count?

Gollee Cletus...............thay's usin' them thar big words agin....!

 

[mzungu]

Two serious questions:

1. Are genes and DNA the same thing?
2. Do they still differentiate between recessive genes and dominant genes?

Seek and ye shall find. Enjoy : Understanding Genetics

 

[mzungu]

Mamma Miata!

Is it me, or does anyone else see fancy-talk for: "IF" doesn't count?

I think it is just you AV. Elementary grammar rules, what not, eh?

 

[mzungu]

Two serious questions:

AV please correct yout post that shows me saying "Yes. The offspring cannot receive a trait for which one of both parents did not have a gene for. That is biology 101."

I did not say that in fact I argued that that statement is wrong to begin with.

Thanks

 

[AV1611VET]

AV please correct yout post that shows me saying "Yes. The offspring cannot receive a trait for which one of both parents did not have a gene for. That is biology 101."

I did not say that in fact I argued that that statement is wrong to begin with.

Thanks

Corrected!

-- My most humble apologies!