• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.
  3. Please note there is a new rule regarding the posting of videos. It reads, "Post a summary of the videos you post . An exception can be made for music videos.". Unless you are simply sharing music, please post a summary, or the gist, of the video you wish to share.
  4. There have been some changes in the Life Stages section involving the following forums: Roaring 20s, Terrific Thirties, Fabulous Forties, and Golden Eagles. They are changed to Gen Z, Millennials, Gen X, and Golden Eagles will have a slight change.
  5. CF Staff, Angels and Ambassadors; ask that you join us in praying for the world in this difficult time, asking our Holy Father to stop the spread of the virus, and for healing of all affected.
  6. We are no longer allowing posts or threads that deny the existence of Covid-19. Members have lost loved ones to this virus and are grieving. As a Christian site, we do not need to add to the pain of the loss by allowing posts that deny the existence of the virus that killed their loved one. Future post denying the Covid-19 existence, calling it a hoax, will be addressed via the warning system.

DNA preserves the integrity of its program

Discussion in 'Creation & Evolution' started by pshun2404, Aug 15, 2017.

  1. SkyWriting

    SkyWriting The Librarian Supporter

    +7,126
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Married
    US-Others
    Nothing is random.
     
  2. SkyWriting

    SkyWriting The Librarian Supporter

    +7,126
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Married
    US-Others
    The reason for the idea that life came from space is
    that most calculations fall far longer than the time
    allotted for them.
    Origin Of Life: The Panspermia Theory
     
  3. SkyWriting

    SkyWriting The Librarian Supporter

    +7,126
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Married
    US-Others
    There is no such thing as random anything (outside of quantum physics).
     
  4. Loudmouth

    Loudmouth Contributor

    +5,953
    Agnostic
    The Lederberg plate replica experiment and the Luria-Delbruck fluctuation experiment demonstrate that mutations are random with respect to fitness.

    http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.174.1674&rep=rep1&type=pdf

    Luria–Delbrück experiment - Wikipedia

    There is no meaningful connection between the mutations an organism needs in a specific environment and the mutations that actually occur. The chances of getting a mutation that confers antibiotic resistance is the same whether the antibiotic is present or not.
     
  5. Loudmouth

    Loudmouth Contributor

    +5,953
    Agnostic
    Since mutations are quantum events, they would qualify.
     
  6. pshun2404

    pshun2404 Newbie

    +549
    Non-Denom
    Married
    Carl Woese has written about what he views as “the challenge of biology in the coming century.” He said, in A New Biology...

    Molecular biology's success over the last century has come solely from looking at certain ones of the problems biology poses (the gene and the nature of the cell) and looking at them from a purely reductionist point of view. It has produced an astounding harvest. The other problems, evolution and the nature of biological form, molecular biology chose to ignore, either failing outright to recognize them or dismissing them as inconsequential, as historical accidents, fundamentally inexplicable and irrelevant to our understanding of biology. Now, this should be cause for pause.” (A New Biology for a New Century)

    Many Biological researchers today are beginning to realize that beneficial mutations in the cell are largely not the result of random mutation (though some may be), but rather “cell directed mutations” (an insight now used in site-directed mutagenesis methods).

    Physiology and the revolution in Evolutionary Biology
     
  7. pshun2404

    pshun2404 Newbie

    +549
    Non-Denom
    Married
    I liked the second more general article but as for the first if I (or any other) were to use this type of article in support of a contrary view, we would be ridiculed because the references used to support the view were all from the 40s and 50s (we would be slammed with the "way to old" default myth) but I still got good information from this article and appreciated the earlier work so thanks...

    I guess what sticks out is how (for extreme Darwinians and YECs) when it supports their view we are supposed to allow it, but if it questions it must be discredited (acceptance by convenience)...it is a kind of confirmation bias that clouds objectivity.
     
  8. PsychoSarah

    PsychoSarah Chaotic Neutral

    +2,555
    Atheist
    In Relationship
    -_- everyone has some confirmation bias; being aware of one's own biases is the first step to limiting how much said biases influence perspective. For example, I have an extreme bias in FAVOR of evidence of any afterlife, due to my extreme fear of death resulting in the cessation of existence. So, I have to fight that constantly to keep it from clouding my judgement.

    As for evolution... I sincerely don't have any emotional attachment to it. It could be disproven tomorrow, and my reaction would just be interest. I do, however, have an extreme aversion to positions founded upon misunderstandings. I don't even make an effort to control that bias, because I view it as a beneficial one to have. I, nor anyone else, should treat a position founded on misinformation as equal to one founded in understanding concepts and disagreeing or agree with them.
     
  9. sfs

    sfs Senior Member

    +6,422
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Married
    Which is why so much attention has shifted within biology to the study of systems, networks and development.
    If by "many biological researchers" he means "one or two"(*), then yeah. Otherwise, no.

    (*) A slight exaggeration, but not much of one.
     
  10. tas8831

    tas8831 Well-Known Member

    +3,575
    United States
    Atheist
    Married

    Exactly.
     
  11. pshun2404

    pshun2404 Newbie

    +549
    Non-Denom
    Married
    Many means more than a few. Even out of a million scientists one or two thousand constitutes many. Many does not equal the majority by any means. New ideas always start slow and then grow. In this "many" some mutations may arise randomly but not all, and some that appear to have been used have been chosen by the cell (a form of selection which these no longer consider "random")

    As for shifting attention and re-thinking formerly held opinions this is a good thing. it means people are looking at the data free of the dogmas once thought of as "established". It is as if we are discovering that the cell's are expressing a degree of self-interest in self-preservation and development and are not the mere victims of random mutation we once thought.
     
    Last edited: Sep 18, 2017
  12. tas8831

    tas8831 Well-Known Member

    +3,575
    United States
    Atheist
    Married
    We also have the undemonstrated pat tale about them all being created by a deity out of nothing, and this deity later slaughtering all but a pair (or depending on which biblical authority you read, up to 7 pairs for the 'clean' kinds), and from that pair, getting some 1000 species in less than 4500 years with nobody noticing the tremendous numbers of new bat sub-kinds popping up every year or so.

    There is no evidence that this story is true. Yet there are those on this very forum that believe this.

    If one is not a YEC, but an OEC, the problem still exists, but the timeline is more favorable. What is the mechanism of post-flood diversification according to your supernatural beliefs?

    If you believe this thread is the wrong place to lay out your fact-filled train of evidence for creation and post-creation, non-evolution based diversification, byu all means, I will start a new thread just for you to lay out your evidence.
     
  13. tas8831

    tas8831 Well-Known Member

    +3,575
    United States
    Atheist
    Married

    Then surely you can present a list of, say, 100 scientists that think "directed mutations" - and NOT those employed in experimental settings via directed mutagenesis - is the mechanism for evolution?
     
  14. pshun2404

    pshun2404 Newbie

    +549
    Non-Denom
    Married
    Oh I agree totally except with the notion that "the undemonstrated pat tale about them all being created by a deity out of nothing" is what is said in the Bible. Despite this being an attempt to derail what we are discussing, the matter and energies to be used to "give form to" or "make" (yatzar as opposed to bara) were already in place...some of this was already formed (yatzar) into planets and stars which tells us the He had already put the physical and chemical laws in place to govern "formation" and more...

    Creation and formation are two phases of the same phenomena. In humans where this takes place more slowly and separately, we conceive a table (in our mind) and then acquire the materials and and form them and finally assemble it and viola...when God creates (bara) humankind He creates them male and female, but when He forms (yatzar) them He forms the male first then the female (in the story and it is not science because how many of the hearers could have grasped all the intricate details and stages) and He uses the elements of the earth (which they could only understand as dust or dirt) to make their forms.

    Now let us return to the OP. Does DNA preserve the integrity of its program? And if so, does this support or negate the story attached that says one earlier creature becomes the other over time?
     
  15. Loudmouth

    Loudmouth Contributor

    +5,953
    Agnostic
    Creationists do more than question. They claim that the theory of evolution is false, yet they fail to bring evidence forward that actually falsifies the theory.

    The evidence does support the theory of evolution which is why we accept the theory. The only confirmation bias exists with those who ignore all of this evidence and instead side with evidence-free screeds that speak against the theory.
     
  16. Loudmouth

    Loudmouth Contributor

    +5,953
    Agnostic
    They are still random mutations with respect to fitness. Throwing "cell directed" in front of it is just a semantic game.
     
  17. tas8831

    tas8831 Well-Known Member

    +3,575
    United States
    Atheist
    Married
    So?

    Why should evidence-free ancient tales get a pass?

    Derail it? YOU brought up bats!

    It tries, but changes accumulate. Surely you have read the big genome papers which outlined the extent of the duplications and transpositions and such that have shaped our genome?

    Supports it.

    But I should have known that despite that fact that you wrote:



    "Bats are an excellent example. There are none at a certain point and then they are there (the actual observable data we have)...now I know the undemonstrated pat story of how they evolved from tiny shrew-like creatures that fell out of or jumped out of trees for 1000s of generations eventually evolving wings but there is no evidence to such that s true."​


    and I responded:



    "We also have the undemonstrated pat tale about them all being created by a deity out of nothing, and this deity later slaughtering all but a pair (or depending on which biblical authority you read, up to 7 pairs for the 'clean' kinds), and from that pair, getting some 1000 species in less than 4500 years with nobody noticing the tremendous numbers of new bat sub-kinds popping up every year or so...What is the mechanism of post-flood diversification according to your supernatural beliefs?"​


    That you would find a way to avoid having to actually address it.
     
  18. tas8831

    tas8831 Well-Known Member

    +3,575
    United States
    Atheist
    Married
    Hello?
     
  19. pshun2404

    pshun2404 Newbie

    +549
    Non-Denom
    Married
    First of all “Why should evidence-free ancient tales get a pass?” Ancient assessments must be teamed up with understandings capable at the time but I agree 100% they should not simply get a pass.



    Derail it? YOU brought up bats!

    Yes derail it. You somehow were trying to make it about God and the Bible. Bats are one example of the some creatures that simply appear fully formed with no semi-bat or quasi-bat forerunners. There are many others. HOW they came to be (millions of years ago) can only be guessed at not known). Your preconceived GUESS is no better than any other.



    It tries, but changes accumulate. Surely you have read the big genome papers which outlined the extent of the duplications and transpositions and such that have shaped our genome?

    Yes indeed some do accumulate and this adds to variation in the organisms and to disease.



    And if so, does this support or negate the story attached that says one earlier creature becomes the other over time?

    Supports it.

    That is your opinion which I respect, but no such transformations have been validated after 150 years of research so I will agree to disagree.
     
  20. Loudmouth

    Loudmouth Contributor

    +5,953
    Agnostic
    The differences between the human and chimps genome are responsible for the physical differences between humans and chimps. If all changes to a genome were deleterious and none were beneficial then there should either be a chimp or a human, not both. One would be riddled with disease while the other is not. In fact, if what you claim is true then there should only be one species alive today since a new species would require changes to the genome which you claim can not be beneficial and only be deleterious.

    Here is the validation:

    [​IMG]
     
Loading...