• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a friendly 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. Christian Forum Rules
    There have been a variety of rule changes in the recent months, so please review the Terms and Christian Forum Rules. If you have questions about a particular rule, please start a thread in Contact Us.

Intelligent Design

Discussion in 'Creation & Theistic Evolution' started by mark kennedy, Aug 5, 2010.

  1. Yes

  2. No

  3. Possibly (explain)

  4. It's a stupid question (really explain)

Multiple votes are allowed.
Results are only viewable after voting.
  1. lucaspa

    lucaspa Legend

    +370
    Methodist
    Private
    Mark, it would have helped if you had read, and perhaps quoted, the end of the abstract for that first paragraph:
    "Thus, although phenotypic mutations are not individually subjected to inheritance and natural selection, as are genetic mutations, they collectively exert a direct and immediate effect on protein fitness. They may therefore play a role in shaping protein traits such as expression levels, stability, and tolerance to genetic mutations. "

    When discussing evolution vs ID, don't you think that part is important? Errors in translation of proteins can't be passed down from generation to generation, which is why they are not listed as "mutations" when discussing evolution.

    In the paper, the authors did use a genetic mutation: "To test the effects of such mutations, we established a bacterial system in which an antibiotic resistance gene (TEM-1 β-lactamase) was transcribed by either a high-fidelity RNA polymerase or its error-prone mutant. "

    The "error-prone" RNA polymerase was a genetic mutant. The TEM-1 beta-lactamase proteins produced by the error-prone mutant are not all going to be the same.

    What the authors found was that, in some circumstances, having a genetic mutation in RNA polymerase promoted the survival of individuals that had TEM-1 beta lactamase variations that were more stable. IOW, it selected individuals with mutations in the beta-lactamase gene such that even the proteins produced by erroneous transcription had activity.

    I don't see any support here for ID. In fact, I see further refutation of ID and support for evolution, since it shows natural selection in action.
     
  2. shernren

    shernren you are not reading this.

    +505
    Protestant
    In Relationship
    [​IMG]
     
  3. mark kennedy

    mark kennedy Natura non facit saltum

    +754
    Calvinist
    Single
    US-Democrat
    I had forgotten this thread and I have been really busy lately, but the truth is that's a serious question. These discussions run in cycles and I'm really not into this right now but I'll be revisiting the thread when I'm able.

    One brief statement, they are not mutually exclusive, never were and never will be.

    Grace and peace,
    Mark
     
  4. mark kennedy

    mark kennedy Natura non facit saltum

    +754
    Calvinist
    Single
    US-Democrat
    I had forgotten this thread and I have been really busy lately, but the truth is that's a serious question. These discussions run in cycles and I'm really not into this right now but I'll be revisiting the thread when I'm able.

    One brief statement, they are not mutually exclusive, never were and never will be.

    Grace and peace,
    Mark
     
  5. Martin Tom

    Martin Tom Australian Christian Supporter

    998
    +203
    Catholic
    Private
    What do you mean by anti-scientific agenda ?
    Have you been brainwashed by lies, like flat earth myth, etc. ?
    I reckon macro-evolution is really pseudo-science.
     
  6. Papias

    Papias Listening to TW4

    +758
    Catholic
    Married
    tom wrote:

    Tom, I see you are Catholic, like Dark_Lite and I. Are you aware that our Holy Father, the Pope, considers the evolution of humans from apes and earlier microbes, to be "virtually certain"?

    In the report from his commission (which he led himself), it has, in section #63:

    While there is little consensus among scientists about how the origin of this first microscopic life is to be explained, there is general agreement among them that the first organism dwelt on this planet about 3.5-4 billion years ago. Since it has been demonstrated that all living organisms on earth are genetically related, it is virtually certain that all living organisms have descended from this first organism. Converging evidence from many studies in the physical and biological sciences furnishes mounting support for some theory of evolution to account for the development and diversification of life on earth, while controversy continues over the pace and mechanisms of evolution. While the story of human origins is complex and subject to revision, physical anthropology and molecular biology combine to make a convincing case for the origin of the human species in Africa about 150,000 years ago in a humanoid population of common genetic lineage. However it is to be explained, the decisive factor in human origins was a continually increasing brain size, culminating in that of homo sapiens.
    You can download the whole report here: Cardinal Ratzinger and International Theological Commission on Creation and Evolution

    I highly recommend reading this whole report, which clearly lays out a strong Catholic defense of theistic evolution.

    In Christ-

    Papias
     
  7. DamonWV

    DamonWV Junior Member

    58
    +0
    Non-Denom
    Single
    US-Republican
    I remember when Ben stein was interviewing Richard Dawkins, Didnt Richard concede that , it wasnt God that put us on here, but some for of intelligence from some other civilization.. Wouldnt this need to be taken a step farther as in , where did that group of intelligent beings come from ?