Teaching of creationism in US public school science classes has dropped over past 12 years

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

The question is how would a random mutation result in a functioning protein before you have any creatures in that phyla? You can't have a phyla without different proteins doing certain tasks. It is an essential step in getting a new phyla. It may be that two different species of bird cannot mate, yet they still have all the same proteins. That doesn't answer the question.

Different proteins do different tasks in every living thing, and many small variations in proteins can do the same tasks, and you don't necessarily need different proteins for a different body plan.

You can't have a new phyla without new proteins.

Why not?

Still, to get a new phyla you would need thousands of these proteins all at once.

Why?

The odds of a random mutation making a functional protein is 1 out of 1 with 40 zeros after it.

Citation?

[Note: the singular of phyla is phylum]

 

[AV1611VET]

About 1/2 of Christians in the U.S. believe evolution is how God made life on Earth unfold.

If I could ask those Christians just one question, it would be this:

What is God's name?

 

[Halbhh]

If I could ask those Christians just one question, it would be this:

What is God's name?

I expect many or most could answer that if you want to start a thread in one of the Christian believers' areas.

 

[VirOptimus]

-

You didnt dare to stand by your post?

 

[sesquiterpene]

Yes, true, but also the mechanism of random mutations cannot be how because there are way too many mutations that have to take place all at the same time to get a viable species.

How many mutations have to take place all at the same time to get a viable species?

 

[Paulos23]

staff edit.

The Discovery Institute has zero credibility with me since the wedge document and then the Dover trial. Having them in my home city has made it easy for me to watch them and they have not improved at all. They jumped the gun before they even got enough papers and scientists on their side.

Sorry, your source is a known organization that lies for Christ to try to get people to convert and trying to get God in the science classroom.

I am done with this. I don't care if you don't believe me, but you are just pushing propaganda to me from an organization that hasn't changed since it came to my attention back in 1998.

 

[sesquiterpene]

The odds of a random mutation getting a functional protein are so absurdly low that it seems impossible.

One type of mutation is gene duplication. Can you tell me how to calculate the odds of one forming a functional protein? It would seem to me to be pretty high.

 

[ZNP]

Different proteins do different tasks in every living thing, and many small variations in proteins can do the same tasks, and you don't necessarily need different proteins for a different body plan.

Why not?

Why?

Citation?

[Note: the singular of phyla is phylum]

See post #75

 

[ZNP]

If you can show me how the 'astronomically high' odds are calculated (a reference is fine), I may be able to shed some light.


I gave some suggestions in #20.

See post #75

 

[ZNP]

One type of mutation is gene duplication. Can you tell me how to calculate the odds of one forming a functional protein? It would seem to me to be pretty high.

See post #75

 

[sesquiterpene]

See post #75

All post 75 has is a link to a creationist website. Where on that website does it answer the following question:
One type of mutation is gene duplication. Can you tell me how to calculate the odds of one forming a functional protein?

 

[AV1611VET]

I expect many or most could answer that if you want to start a thread in one of the Christian believers' areas.

Actually I changed my mind.

Instead, I would ask them to quote Genesis 1:1.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

See post #75

I'm not going to read every article on the Discovery Institute web site. Please be more specific. If you can't give specific references or argue or explain your claims in your own words, just say so. It's no big deal.

 

[Halbhh]

Actually I changed my mind.

Instead, I would ask them to quote Genesis 1:1.

Now that I like!

"In the Beginning, God created the heavens and the Earth...."

Let's continue, if we can, by just memory alone:

"Now, the Earth was without form, and void
And darkness was upon the face of the deep
And the Spirit of God hovered above the waters"

This might be a blend of more than one translation, as I've read in every major translation and more than once each.

Ok, now checking, I see I'm more close to the ESV than the NIV, and that's good, as the ESV is more word for word accurate even than the excellent NIV.

----------
This is also something discovered in mainstream science with hard evidence in 2017 -- that Earth was early on a Water World!

Early Earth was covered in a global ocean and had no mountains

But I don't think very much hard easy evidence will come to to confirm every last thing in a way that would preclude the need for faith!

-----------

 

[Strathos]

Sure, but we're talking about what is strictly in the domain of "science" as applied to the classroom. I would not assert "I don't know all the causal factors, and my not knowing things is a scientific theory".

I suppose, I'm close to this question because in my work life, I'm a Software Engineer. And one of the first things you learn is that while we colloquially refer to, say, "random numbers" in software, there is in fact -no such thing- as a random number, only pseudorandom. However you attempt to generate a "random" number, it is always algorithmically tied to something that has its own deterministic causal chain, say, the current number of milliseconds since the computer was last booted. There is always a specific causal chain and deterministic calculations involved in any "random enough" number you generate. This is why, you cannot assume that any "random" number you use in, say, an encryption algorithm is necessarily secure. If someone can determine the state of the random number "seed" (e.g. milliseconds since boot), and the pseudorandom algorithm you used, they can break your encryption. A -truly- random number is fiction. It suggests something acausal--an outcome determined by nothing.

But... hmm... "God-knows mutations with natural selection". Has a nice ring to it.

And if someone was able to analyze the exact speed and angle at which you threw the coin, and account for things like the wind, aerodynamics and weight distribution, magnetism, gravity, the object on which it would land, etc. with perfect accuracy, they could predict what side the coin would land on every time. But it's not realistically possible for a human to know all of this information, therefore it is considered 'random'.

 

[Halbhh]

And if someone was able to analyze the exact speed and angle at which you threw the coin, and account for things like the wind, aerodynamics and weight distribution, magnetism, gravity, the object on which it would land, etc. with perfect accuracy, they could predict what side the coin would land on every time. But it's not realistically possible for a human to know all of this information, therefore it is considered 'random'.

Ah, that's a fun physics question, and we might guess right off there can also be the uncommon instances where the coin could land on it's edge and perhaps bounce and then balance on it's edge, as you might guess, or....even rarer starting conditions where the outcome would sometimes be unpredictable even with our best measurement!

Because of quantum uncertainty, there are some instances of just-so starting conditions where the landing of the coin where the quantum uncertainty in measurement of initial starting conditions would prevent you from being able to be sure of a certain outcome due to the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle which prevents precise measurement of every aspect of position and velocity to perfect exactness.

And that's not all. It may be even more fraught with uncertainty than we'd guess even with that, in the view of a more speculative possibility in QM of some true randomness which might affect a near-the-edge-between-2-outcomes situations.

 

[FreeinChrist]

ADVISOR HAT

This thread had a clean up of some problem posts and responses to those posts.

Remember the flaming and off topic rules.​