DNA & Math

[SkyWriting]

Evidently you are a Determinist. So...?

Do you believe that a randomizing element in a natural process (like the random variation in evolution) would constitute a barrier to divine providence?

Do you believe God incapable of creating a natural process with a random element?

There are no randomizing elements in a natural process.
You may not understand why something happens or can
predict it, but that is due to your lack of knowledge.

And Yes, quantum fluctuations are random because the
rules that govern them are unknown and possibly
unknowable. But that's due, again, to our ignorance.

 

[SkyWriting]

You can then simulate DNA mutations in a computer.

Computers will use Pi to simulate random sequences. But Pi doesn't change.

 

[Speedwell]

There are no randomizing elements in a natural process.
You may not understand why something happens or can
predict it, but that is due to your lack of knowledge.

And Yes, quantum fluctuations are random because the
rules that govern them are unknown and possibly
unknowable. But that's due, again, to our ignorance.

Evidently it's important to you or you wouldn't be so insistent about it.

Why?

I'm not aware that the possibility of inherently unpredictable quantum events poses any kind of problem for Christianity.

 

[SkyWriting]

Evidently it's important to you or you wouldn't be so insistent about it.

Why?

I'm not aware that the possibility of inherently unpredictable quantum events poses any kind of problem for Christianity.

Right. The topic is biology.
There is no such thing as random.

 

[Speedwell]

Right. The topic is biology.
There is no such thing as random.

Right. But you still haven't said why it is so important to you that there isn't such a thing as random.

 

[SkyWriting]

Right. But you still haven't said why it is so important to you that there isn't such a thing as random.

Reality is a good basis for understanding nature.
Even Evo worshipers will tell you DNA changes
are not random.

 

[Speedwell]

Reality is a good basis for understanding nature.

?

Even Evo worshipers will tell you DNA changes
are not random.

Really? Can you quote one?

 

[SkyWriting]

?


Really? Can you quote one?

Changes In DNA Are NOT Random

Evolution is Not Random

Nevertheless, evolution is not fundamentally a random process.

Predictable Evolution Trumps Randomness of Mutations

Evolution Is Deterministic, Not Random, Biologists Conclude

 

[pat34lee]

Assuming this is correct, so what? Even if you legitimately disprove evolutionary theory, that still doesn't prove creationism.

It doesn't have to. It leaves evolutionists high and dry
with no religion left to hold on to.

 

[Armoured]

It doesn't have to. It leaves evolutionists high and dry
with no religion left to hold on to.

Again, so what?

Let's say, for argument's sake, evolution is completely and unarguably disproven.

That in no way makes Biblical Creationism any more likely to be true.

 

[Armoured]

Changes In DNA Are NOT Random

Evolution is Not Random

Nevertheless, evolution is not fundamentally a random process.

Predictable Evolution Trumps Randomness of Mutations

Evolution Is Deterministic, Not Random, Biologists Conclude

No one who understands the theory of evolution has ever claimed it is random. There is a deterministic mechanism, it's called "natural selection".

 

[pat34lee]

Again, so what?

Let's say, for argument's sake, evolution is completely and unarguably disproven.

That in no way makes Biblical Creationism any more likely to be true.

Sometimes slaying the dragon is enough in itself.

 

[pat34lee]

No one who understands the theory of evolution has ever claimed it is random. There is a deterministic mechanism, it's called "natural selection".

Natural selection actually selects against mutation or other
changes. Remember, only changes to the gametes gets
passed on, not changes to the parents' DNA. Any such
apparent changes are already in the DNA, so they are
adaptations, not evolution.

 

[Speedwell]

Natural selection actually selects against mutation or other
changes.

It selects for variations which improve fitness.

Remember, only changes to the gametes gets
passed on, not changes to the parents' DNA.

Along with changes which occur during recombination.

Any such
apparent changes are already in the DNA, so they are
adaptations, not evolution.

Why not? If variations occur they are subject to selection. That's evolution.

 

[pat34lee]

It selects for variations which improve fitness. Along with changes which occur during recombination.Why not? If variations occur they are subject to selection. That's evolution.

How can natural selection select that which is
only in the gametes, and doesn't otherwise
affect the parent? It's sneaking Lamarckism
back into evolution without acknowledging it.

 

[Speedwell]

How can natural selection select that which is
only in the gametes, and doesn't otherwise
affect the parent? It's sneaking Lamarckism
back into evolution without acknowledging it.

It selects from the offspring of those gametes.

 

[Armoured]

Natural selection actually selects against mutation or other
changes. Remember, only changes to the gametes gets
passed on, not changes to the parents' DNA. Any such
apparent changes are already in the DNA, so they are
adaptations, not evolution.

No, that's not how it works at all. The exact opposite, actually.

 

[Armoured]

How can natural selection select that which is
only in the gametes, and doesn't otherwise
affect the parent? It's sneaking Lamarckism
back into evolution without acknowledging it.

Because the mutation that gives rise to a new phenotype is in the genotype as well.

 

[Radagast]

Now in the world of computer programming, it has long been understood that basically a genetic algorithms do not work in the way they are supposed to.

Says who?

 

[Armoured]

Says who?

Creationists