What if?

[JohnR7]

I am just wondering. If Evos want to believe in evolutioin, why would they have a problem to believe that all of the information was contained in the DNA from the very beginning of the world? Why does their theory have to depend on copy errors or mutations in the DNA along the way?

 

[notto]

Define information.
Read a book on genes.
Mutations happen.
Biologists like to deal with reality instead of avoiding it.

 

[Edx]

I am just wondering. If Evos want to believe in evolutioin,

I dont "want" to believe in evolution, I dont even "believe" in evolution. I accept it because it fits the evidence and makes sence.

why would they have a problem to believe that all of the information was contained in the DNA from the very beginning of the world?

Well that sounds nice, but if we are to remain objective and scientific that isnt correct.

Why does their theory have to depend on copy errors or mutations in the DNA along the way?

... Oh, you dont like that? Well sorry John, but scientists arent trying to find a "nice" theory just for you. And btw, thats a very negative way of viewing it.

Ed

 

[Big Rob]

this thread proves beyond all doubt that John only cares about finding a theory that makes him feel warm and fuzzy inside.

 

[Hydra009]

Why does their theory have to depend on copy errors or mutations in the DNA along the way?

Why does gravity depend on physical attration between atoms?

Because that's what happens.

 

[mark kennedy]

I am just wondering. If Evos want to believe in evolutioin, why would they have a problem to believe that all of the information was contained in the DNA from the very beginning of the world? Why does their theory have to depend on copy errors or mutations in the DNA along the way?

Because without changes in the DNA over time the emergance of novel genes and morphological innovation is impossible. Genetics has identified the process by which traits are inherited, its called recombination through meiosis and it cannot account for fundamental changes in the genes. In fact the genes are one of the most unchanging aspects of reproduction, they would have to be fundamentally changed on a macro scale. That's why John, they don't have anything else.

 

[notto]

Because without changes in the DNA over time the emergance of novel genes and morphological innovation is impossible. Genetics has identified the process by which traits are inherited, its called recombination through meiosis and it cannot account for fundamental changes in the genes. In fact the genes are one of the most unchanging aspects of reproduction, they would have to be fundamentally changed on a macro scale. That's why John, they don't have anything else.

So Mark, do you think that all 'information' has been in the DNA all along?

 

[Asimis]

I am just wondering. If Evos want to believe in evolutioin, why would they have a problem to believe that all of the information was contained in the DNA from the very beginning of the world? Why does their theory have to depend on copy errors or mutations in the DNA along the way?

Reality is what it is independent of what we think about it John, I would have loved to have been created in a number of different ways, but alas something already happened and I am stuck with it.

 

[Big Rob]

I wish i had wings but i don"t therefore evolution is wrong

On a side note if the grammar of my posts make me seem retarded its because my keyboard has gone bezerk (but only on this site) completely disabling proper capitilization and punctuation

 

[madarab]

John, scientists of any kind (including evolutionary biologists) have no real problem accepting any premise that is called for by the evidence. For whatever reason, you seem to be stuck on two for which there is no reason, given the evidence at hand, to add to evolutionary thought. They might make you happy, they might help you somehow in future arguments, but they do not appear to have any real usefulness or validity.

 

[JohnR7]

Biologists like to deal with reality instead of avoiding it.

The reality is that there is a lot more that we do not know about DNA compared to what we do know. What they use to call "Junk" DNA is only now beginning to be understood.

 

[JohnR7]

this thread proves beyond all doubt that John only cares about finding a theory that makes him feel warm and fuzzy inside.

The topic of the conversation is not "John". The topic of the conversation is DNA. If you do not know anything about DNA so that you have nothing to contribute then just sit back, relax and let someone that knows something about DNA answer the question.

 

[notto]

The reality is that there is a lot more that we do not know about DNA compared to what we do know. What they use to call "Junk" DNA is only now beginning to be understood.

The term "Junk DNA" doesn't mean what you think it does John.

 

[JohnR7]

... Oh, you dont like that? Well sorry John, but scientists arent trying to find a "nice" theory just for you. And btw, thats a very negative way of viewing it.

Why is that a negative way of viewing it. After all, according to modern science if you do not have errors then ultimately you do not have evolution.

Christians are fully aware that we live in a fallen world. We can accept that mutations, mistakes and errors are a part of that fallen condition. But what we can not accept is that God would use copy and recombination errors as the primary driving force behind the creation process and the origin of species.

 

[Dennis Moore]

The topic of the conversation is DNA. If you do not know anything about DNA so that you have nothing to contribute then just sit back, relax and let someone that knows something about DNA answer the question.

If that's the case, why are you still posting?

 

[JohnR7]

If that's the case, why are you still posting?

Because I am the one asking questions here. I appreciate if people want to contribute and be a part of what is going on here. If they want to give stupid answers, then go ahead and give stupid answers to the questions. But what you can not do, because it is against the rules, is to attack the other posters.

I tend to draw a lot of personal attacks because I am aggressive in attacking the theory of evolution. Some people are not equiped to be able to defend their thoery so instead they turn it into a personal attack. Usually we can resolve the issue by simply pointing out to them that they are breaking the rules. But sometimes they persist and we have to get an adminstrater involved.

 

[AirPo]

Christians are fully aware that we live in a fallen world. We can accept that mutations, mistakes and errors are a part of that fallen condition. But what we can not accept is that God would use copy and recombination errors as the primary driving force behind the creation process and the origin of species.

I think it is quite arrogant to assume to speak for all christians. It is even more arrogant to assume that one knows what god would or would not do.

 

[Deamiter]

Why is that a negative way of viewing it. After all, according to modern science if you do not have errors then ultimately you do not have evolution.

Christians are fully aware that we live in a fallen world. We can accept that mutations, mistakes and errors are a part of that fallen condition. But what we can not accept is that God would use copy and recombination errors as the primary driving force behind the creation process and the origin of species.

"We" are perfectly capable of accepting that God created the world the way he created the world. Some people like to think God did it the way they think makes the most sense. Scientists (Christian and otherwise) don't presume to know how God works, so they study rather than assert.

I'm not certain why you continue to claim that evolution is made up to support a worldview. Evolution was created by Christians within a creationist worldview (though scientific with an open mind as noted above) and it's accepted throughout the scientific community because it is supported by evidence, not because it supports atheism!

Mutations are not "errors." They are simply changes produced by God's universe. If there were no mutations (which I believe God created, and fully intends) then there we would all be exactly the same -- and the world would be a very different place. Mutations are not a cursed product of the 'fall' but a blessing that allows God's creatures to persist despite changing environments! I find evolution to be one of God's masterpieces... but it's all a matter of perspective.

 

[JohnR7]

you are completely unwilling to listen to those who try to correct you.

They do not try to "correct" me. They simply say your arguement is "flawed" but they do nothing to show or prove that it is flawed. Well, two can play at that game, their claim is flawed and so therefore my arguement is valid.

Now, do you guys want to have a discussion about the topic, or do you want to play word games?

 

[JohnR7]

I find evolution to be one of God's masterpieces... but it's all a matter of perspective.

Ok, then how do you explain that even if the selection process is not blind, the selections themselves are said to be produced though a blind and random process.