Changes in gene expression as an explanation for new functions

[Tinker Grey]

Narrowly avoided as in "almost couldn't help yourself"?

 

[sfs]

Narrowly avoided as in "almost couldn't help yourself"?

No comment.

(Actually, Francis is one of the good guys. Besides, I wouldn't want to jeopardize our funding.)

 

[Tinker Grey]

I appreciate Francis Collins. But I was rather disappointed with The Language of God in that having disavowed god-of-the-gaps WRT biology, he turned around and invoked god-of-the-gaps for cosmology.

 

[sfs]

I appreciate Francis Collins. But I was rather disappointed with The Language of God in that having disavowed god-of-the-gaps WRT biology, he turned around and invoked god-of-the-gaps for cosmology.

I felt the same about his treatment of morality. Not that I think there is a compelling scientific explanation for the human moral sense yet, but it is not at all clear that there could not be one. I don't see it as a strong support to pin faith to.

 

[juvenissun]

I felt the same about his treatment of morality. Not that I think there is a compelling scientific explanation for the human moral sense yet, but it is not at all clear that there could not be one. I don't see it as a strong support to pin faith to.

If you said so, then God "may not exist". Is that correct? Does that describe where you faith is?

 

[Tinker Grey]

I felt the same about his treatment of morality. Not that I think there is a compelling scientific explanation for the human moral sense yet, but it is not at all clear that there could not be one. I don't see it as a strong support to pin faith to.

Agreed. Having just finished Dennett's Breaking the Spell just prior to reading Collins, I thought his invocation of Moral Law was unimpressive. But, OTOH, he wasn't intending the full treatment that Dennett gave these concepts. Nevertheless, it was weak.

 

[Tinker Grey]

If you said so, then God "may not exist". Is that correct? Does that describe where you faith is?

I don't know how you get that from what sfs said. That one may find certain arguments in favor of some concept weak does not in any way imply that one disagrees with that concept.

IOW, a good Christian need not think that every argument in favor of God is a good argument. It is a disservice to your faith to automatically agree with every argument that superficially supports your claim.

 

[Assyrian]

If you said so, then God "may not exist". Is that correct? Does that describe where you faith is?

That is a very strange statement Juv, could it be that this tells us more about where your faith is? God exists because he is the I AM, the source of all being. His existence does not depend on our sense of morality not being evolved.

It strikes me that if science came up with an unassailable biological explanation for morality it is not sfs's faith that would be rocked, but would yours? Is your faith in any way founded on there not being a biological explanation for morality rather than being founded on God himself. Personally I see no problem with God using the evolutionary development of the human race to create a species who can understand love, sacrifice, justice, right and wrong. It is still making us in his image no matter how he made us.

 

[Xaero]

Hi Aggie,

you see, it's not good to take examples from popular magazines, when you don't have access to the original study, some IDist will always nag on it

I read some of the stuff from the other forum weeks ago (only the first 5 pages). So far i understand your opponent points out that mutations on gene regulation just change the expression of existing protein-coding genes and this means no new (beneficial) function arised.
I think it is just some sort of avoidance tactic, there are enough examples of beneficial mutations (coding and regulation), just read this thread:
Examples of beneficial mutations?
you can just read the last two pages 6 and 7, it's interesting stuff.
Also read what random_guy said on the last page: gene duplication is a major force bringing raw material which can mutate and bring new functions (like nylon bacteria: gene duplication + frameshift).

PS.: I will not go to the other forum, i'm too lazy for writing so much learn from here and bring the arguments to them or bring the opponents in this forum - i will not subscribe to another forum

 

[Aggie]

I read some of the stuff from the other forum weeks ago (only the first 5 pages). So far i understand your opponent points out that mutations on gene regulation just change the expression of existing protein-coding genes and this means no new (beneficial) function arised.
I think it is just some sort of avoidance tactic, there are enough examples of beneficial mutations (coding and regulation), just read this thread:
Examples of beneficial mutations?
you can just read the last two pages 6 and 7, it's interesting stuff.
Also read what random_guy said on the last page: gene duplication is a major force bringing raw material which can mutate and bring new functions (like nylon bacteria: gene duplication + frameshift).

His point involves a little more than this. I think he’s acknowledged that there are beneficial coding mutations; what he doesn’t believe is that it’s possible for a new ability to evolve that requires multiple coding mutations, and which could not exist without all of those mutations working together. The standard he set for me was a new function that was the result of five coding mutations which are interdependent in this manner.

It’s not really important anymore, though, since I think I eventually refuted his point about this pretty well in another thread. Right now what he and I are debating is whether James Watson is a racist (I think the media was wrong to accuse him of this), and whether Watson’s opinion about differences between races indicates anything about the theory of evolution.