• 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.

Nota Bene

Discussion in 'Creationism' started by paul becke, Feb 7, 2019.

  1. paul becke

    paul becke Regular Member Supporter

    +791
    Catholic
    UK-Labour
    Last edited: Feb 7, 2019
    We teamed up with Faith Counseling. Can they help you today?
  2. RC Tent

    RC Tent Member

    218
    +20
    United Kingdom
    Christian
    Married
    I very much doubt this will change anything.

    Any scientist actually dissenting from the consensus will just be ostracised from the mainstream, and 1000 is not that many. They also seem to be just expressing opinions, there is no research being reported here.
     
  3. The Barbarian

    The Barbarian Crabby Old White Guy

    +6,116
    United States
    Catholic
    Married
    US-Libertarian
    Most scientists think that the Modern Synthesis (evolutionary theory today) is better than classic Darwinian theory. And that's been known since the rediscovery of genetics. The Modern Synthesis is Darwinian theory plus genetics and other new findings.

    Although Darwin's four points remain as true as ever, there's been a lot of new things in modern evolutionary theory. So it's not controversial; hardly anyone sees evolution precisely as Darwin did. We've learned a lot of things since then.

    However, these "scientists" (not all of them have degrees in science) are something quite different. The first five pages of the list had 212 scientists. Seventy-three of them had no degree in biology or a related field. Some of them didn't have doctorates. So about 1/3 of them had no expertise in biology or any related field.

    Some of the fields were "Alternative Medicine" "Engineering", "Materials Science", "Physics tutor" and the like.

    I suppose the others were added to puff up the small number of real biologists.
     
  4. The Barbarian

    The Barbarian Crabby Old White Guy

    +6,116
    United States
    Catholic
    Married
    US-Libertarian
    It's quite old. Some scientists were put on the list without their permission, but I believe the people compiling the list have since corrected that.

    Michael Behe is still a tenured professor at his university and still publishes in real journals, so it seems not.

    No, but I suppose that's not what it's for. Biologists have a similar list under "Project Steve." The requirements are a bit more stringent. You must have a doctorate in biology or a related field, and your first name must be "Steven" or derived from it, like "Stephanie."

    They have (Barbarian checks)...1438 Steves. Last time I checked, about 0.3 percent of the Darwin Doubter list were Steves with doctorates in biology or a related field.
     
  5. mark kennedy

    mark kennedy Natura non facit saltum Supporter

    +7,255
    Calvinist
    Single
    US-Democrat
    It's not that unusual for Darwinism to have it's dissenting views, it always has, probably always will. Creation is something taken on faith, even as the gospel is a matter of conviction. As an object of empirical investigation creation doesn't really fall within the purview of inductive science. However, the Darwinian tree of life model is riddled with holes that you could drive a truck through, natural selection has never been more the a clutch phrase with little in the way of demonstrable or directly observed proof.
     
  6. The Barbarian

    The Barbarian Crabby Old White Guy

    +6,116
    United States
    Catholic
    Married
    US-Libertarian
    Natural selection is routinely observed.

    The most famous is industrial melanism in moths. Peppered moths were originally light-colored with black specks. They tended to rest on tree trunks and limbs which were covered in lichens. (which were also light, with speckles) The few dark moths didn't last long, because birds could see them easily.

    Then, as the industrial revolution took hold, soot from factories covered the lichens. And before long, most moths were dark, with light speckles.

    Then, as factories began to clean up, the soot no longer covered the trees, and again, most moths were light-colored, with few dark ones.
     
  7. SkyWriting

    SkyWriting The Librarian Supporter

    +6,511
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Married
    US-Others
    I dated a chemical engineer, and she explained that nothing is random. So that part of evolutionary theory is daft.
     
  8. The Barbarian

    The Barbarian Crabby Old White Guy

    +6,116
    United States
    Catholic
    Married
    US-Libertarian
    Quantum indeterminacy
    Quantum indeterminacy - Wikipedia

    Nope. It's merely that your girlfriend thought that engineers are physicists. Everything seems simple when one doesn't understand it.
     
  9. Resha Caner

    Resha Caner Expert Fool

    +1,351
    Lutheran
    Married
    There is no way to prove true randomness, but it is often assumed when no cause is known. It doesn't really matter whether or not it exists, but it fits nicely with certain philosophical musings of mine to think it does.

    Then of course, there are some misunderstandings about what people mean when they talk about randomness. In some cases it is not claimed that an event is truly random, but rather that it is uncorrelated with a particular cause. For example, in evolution the organism resulting from a particular DNA sequence is not correlated to the cause of the mutations that (hypothetically) produced that sequence. Therefore, biologists will refer to "random mutations". They're not claiming the mutations have no cause, but rather that those causes do not determine how a DNA sequence functions.
     
  10. The Barbarian

    The Barbarian Crabby Old White Guy

    +6,116
    United States
    Catholic
    Married
    US-Libertarian
    The big deal for biology is that specific mutations don't come along in response to need. They just show up, and sometimes, they happen to be useful.

    In prokaryotes, (bacteria archaea) there are evolved mechanisms to increase mutation rates in response to stress, which are adaptive. If the organism is not well-adapted to the environment, mutations are more likely to be useful. Some people report that some mutations in prokaryotes are more likely to be advantageous, but that's still controversial.
     
  11. prodromos

    prodromos Senior Veteran Supporter

    +6,654
    Australia
    Eastern Orthodox
    Married
    The fact is that the moths were always dark or light. This example only demonstrates the potential to lose the variation that already existed in the species. This is not bringing about a new creature since the dark variation of the moth always existed.
     
  12. The Barbarian

    The Barbarian Crabby Old White Guy

    +6,116
    United States
    Catholic
    Married
    US-Libertarian
    That is evolution. Remember what evolution is. "change in allele frequency in a population over time." More to the point, i was citing that microevolutionary change as a case of natural selection. I was pointing out that contrary to what creationists originally claimed, natural selection is a fact.

    (sound of goal posts being frantically repositioned)

    Much of time, natural selection does not bring about a new creature. Most of the time, it's microevolution (variation within a population). There are many known cases of macroevolution (speciation), however.
     
  13. mark kennedy

    mark kennedy Natura non facit saltum Supporter

    +7,255
    Calvinist
    Single
    US-Democrat
    Well we have known for some time the process of meiosis and mitosis produce a fair amount of random variation. Mutations are just what the word implies, a damaged DNA aequence. Adaptive evolution has other means of developing population alleles over time.
     
  14. prodromos

    prodromos Senior Veteran Supporter

    +6,654
    Australia
    Eastern Orthodox
    Married
    In the case of the moths, there was no mutation since both genes are always present in the population. The dark moths and light moths are two variations in the same species. No new species of moth results from natural selection but instead you have a potential loss of biodiversity.
    Evolution is claimed to explain the increase in biological complexity, the creation of new "information" that didn't exist before. The example you gave describes the opposite, where there is actually a loss of "information".
    Sure, whatever.
    That is the claim I hear.
     
  15. The Barbarian

    The Barbarian Crabby Old White Guy

    +6,116
    United States
    Catholic
    Married
    US-Libertarian
    Bararian, asked about example of natural selection:
    That is evolution. Remember what evolution is. "change in allele frequency in a population over time."

    It's a common creationist misunderstanding. Natural selection, particularly when the environment changes, can act on existing alleles. Remember, fitness only counts in terms of the environment.

    And that illustrates another creationist misconception; natural selection can work within a species; it doesn't always effect new species.

    Remember, natural selection can work within a species to make it more fit.

    Nope. As England began to pass environmental laws and clean up industries, the soot decreased and the trees again were light. Can you guess what natural selection has done? Yep. The white allele is now more common.

    And that illustrates the most damaging creationist misunderstanding. They often conflate evolution (change in allele frequency in a population) with natural selection (an agency of evolution) with specation (a consequence of evolution). And evolution doesn't have to produce an increase in complexity. Often, it simplifies things. Mammals, for example, have simpler lower jaws, vertebrae, and shoulder joints than their reptilian ancestors.

    Every new mutation in a population increases information. That was Claude Shannon's great discovery. The same principle that explains how to make the internet work, and to send effective low-powered radio signals across billions of kilometers of space, explains how new information appears in populations. Would you like to see a simple example?

    [quoteThe example you gave describes the opposite, where there is actually a loss of "information".[/quote]

    Which is another creationist misconception. A lot of people think creationists are dishonest. In my experience, they are just confused.

    Much of time, natural selection does not bring about a new creature. Most of the time, it's microevolution (variation within a population). There are many known cases of macroevolution (speciation), however.

    Even most creationists now admit the evolution of new species. They can hardly do otherwise, since it's directly observed to happen. Most of the larger organizations (eg. ICR and AIG) now admit that new genera and even new families can appear.
     
  16. The Barbarian

    The Barbarian Crabby Old White Guy

    +6,116
    United States
    Catholic
    Married
    US-Libertarian
    An example of a "damaged DNA sequence":

    High Alt Med Biol. 2011 Summer;12(2):157-67
    Hypoxia: adapting to high altitude by mutating EPAS-1, the gene encoding HIF-2α.
    van Patot MC1, Gassmann M.
    Abstract
    Living at high altitude is demanding and thus drives adaptational mechanisms. The Tibetan population has had a longer evolutionary period to adapt to high altitude than other mountain populations such as Andeans. As a result, some Tibetans living at high altitudes do not show markedly elevated red blood cell production as compared to South American high altitude natives such as Quechuas or Aymaras, thereby avoiding high blood viscosity creating cardiovascular risk. Unexpectedly, the responsible mutation(s) reducing red blood cell production do not involve either the gene encoding the blood hormone erythropoietin (Epo), or the corresponding regulatory sequences flanking the Epo gene. Similarly, functional mutations in the hypoxia-inducible transcription factor 1α (HIF-1α) gene that represents the oxygen-dependent subunit of the HIF-1 heterodimer, the latter being the main regulator of over 100 hypoxia-inducible genes, have not been described so far. It was not until very recently that three independent groups showed that the gene encoding HIF-2α, EPAS-1 (Wenger et al. 1997), represents a key gene mutated in Tibetan populations adapted to living at high altitudes (Beall et al. 2010 , Yi et al. 2010 , Simonson et al. 2010). Hypoxia-inducible transcription factors were first identified by the description of HIF-1 (Semenza et al. 1991 , 1992), which was subsequently found to enhance transcription of multiple genes that encode proteins necessary for rescuing from hypoxic exposure, including erythropoietic, angiogenic and glycolytic proteins.

    Sounds interesting. Example, with link?
     
Loading...