At least they are consistent with the creation itself.
What about the creation itself? Do you take that literally?
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
If I'm understand you correctly, Christian theistic evolutionists believe it does. Christian beliefs aren't monolithic in this area.
I'm content to treat the text rather literally. If I'm wrong I don't think God will be upset with me about it.
For the rest of us, no.
Most assuredly, yes.
"Through extensive validation, we identified 49 and 35 germline de novo mutations (DNMs) in two trio offspring, as well as 1,586 non-germline DNMs arising either somatically or in the cell lines from which the DNA was derived."
http://www.nature.com/ng/journal/v43/n7/full/ng.862.html
Everyone is born with a genome that has never existed before. If that isn't new information, then evolution doesn't have to produce information as you describe it in order to produce the biodiversity we see today.
EDIT: Never mind, Loudmouth in post #202 did a great job of explaining how you have misunderstood the science.
What he said was not connected to information theory.
Seriously? New information has to be beneficial?We are not really supporting the idea of disease and decay and mistakes as new information are we?
We are not really supporting the idea of disease and decay and mistakes as new information are we?
You're (both) just stringing unrelated ideas together.
A new mutation occurring in a somatic cell can result in cancer.
Since you ask, I've found myself intrigued by the cosmologies of Drs. John Hartnett and Russell Humphreys. You'd probably consider them literalists. Each has investigated ways, using GR, to marry an old universe with a young earth.At least they are consistent with the creation itself.
What about the creation itself? Do you take that literally?
I was just pointing out that you were quotemining and dishonestly misrepresenting the views of the writers.
I doubt you even read the article to find the views of the writers. Can you elaborate how that was quote mining and dishonest?
It's in your sig. Just pointing out the error. ID copied from Paley, but failed to see that Paley expected nature to follow God's thoughts, including all natural processes.
Failing to show that geneticists saw non-coding DNA as being functionless, you repeated your assertion. When will we see your supporting data?
Barbarian explaining why transitional forms to the "gear" exist:
The basic idea is repetitive "teeth" in which two parts of the exoskeleton interdigitate and move against each other. So, this is a pretty good example of exaption, a feature evolved for one purpose, that's recruited for another.
There's simpler examples of this for locomotion as well; the furca of springtails has teeth that interdigitate and then release to allow jumping. So the argument boils down to "I just don't think it could evolve, even though there are simpler examples."
It's called "mutation and natural selection."
Developmental gene regulatory network architecture across 500 million years of echinoderm evolution
Evolutionary change in morphological features must depend on architectural reorganization of developmental gene regulatory networks (GRNs), just as true conservation of morphological features must imply retention of ancestral developmental GRN features. Key elements of the provisional GRN for embryonic endomesoderm development in the sea urchin are here compared with those operating in embryos of a distantly related echinoderm, a starfish. These animals diverged from their common ancestor 520-480 million years ago. Their endomesodermal fate maps are similar, except that sea urchins generate a skeletogenic cell lineage that produces a prominent skeleton lacking entirely in starfish larvae. A relevant set of regulatory genes was isolated from the starfish Asterina miniata, their expression patterns determined, and effects on the other genes of perturbing the expression of each were demonstrated. A three-gene feedback loop that is a fundamental feature of the sea urchin GRN for endoderm specification is found in almost identical form in the starfish: a detailed element of GRN architecture has been retained since the Cambrian Period in both echinoderm lineages. The significance of this retention is highlighted by the observation of numerous specific differences in the GRN connections as well. A regulatory gene used to drive skeletogenesis in the sea urchin is used entirely differently in the starfish, where it responds to endomesodermal inputs that do not affect it in the sea urchin embryo. Evolutionary changes in the GRNs since divergence are limited sharply to certain cis-regulatory elements, whereas others have persisted unaltered.
Surprise.
Yes, you quoted one sentence that made it seem like the writers held a certain view that they do not hold. That is what a quotemine is.
The following sentence shows they do not hold the view you attributed to them. That's the dishonest part. Leaving out information that clarifies certain statements. I will give you the benefit of the doubt though and assume you either a) didn't read the whole article or b) you found that quotemine from a creationist website and just copypastaed it.
Yes, I'm unfazed. What do you suppose a formal demonstration the universal common ancestry hypothesis would consist of?
What evidence did ID proponents use to predict the functionality? How could their claim have been falsified at the time of the claim? Or was it just a guess?
And what rabbit hole? You mean the one that scientists used, the one that led to a more complete understanding of DNA?
Amazing. It's an open access paper from biology direct. If you read the article you'd know it was a rebuttal to a letter Theobald wrote to Nature. Theobald's claim similar sequences equate to a formal demonstration of common ancestry. Koonin showed "alignments of statistically similar but phylogenetically unrelated sequences successfully mimic the purported effect of common origin". In other words, the writers do indeed have the view I attributed to them.
How is that different than any other molecule?
Same semantics and syntactic information as found here:
2H2 + O2 -----> 2H2O
I keep hearing these terms thrown around, but I have yet to see specified complexity ever measured for anything in biology.
As it turns out, evolution increases information as defined by Shannon.
Nucleic Acids Res. 2000 Jul 15; 28(14): 2794–2799.
Evolution of biological information
Thomas D. Schneider:
Abstract
How do genetic systems gain information by evolutionary processes? Answering this question precisely requires a robust, quantitative measure of information. Fortunately, 50 years ago Claude Shannon defined information as a decrease in the uncertainty of a receiver. For molecular systems, uncertainty is closely related to entropy and hence has clear connections to the Second Law of Thermodynamics. These aspects of information theory have allowed the development of a straightforward and practical method of measuring information in genetic control systems. Here this method is used to observe information gain in the binding sites for an artificial ‘protein’ in a computer simulation of evolution. The simulation begins with zero information and, as in naturally occurring genetic systems, the information measured in the fully evolved binding sites is close to that needed to locate the sites in the genome. The transition is rapid, demonstrating that information gain can occur by punctuated equilibrium.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC102656/
Just as it should take 150 million Powerball lottery drawings to get just one winner since the odds of winning are 1 in 150 million.
Behe is drawing the bulls eye around the bullet hole. He ignores the trillions of dual functional mutations that didn't fix. He is trying to calculate the odds of something happening after it already happened, which is nonsense.
I do. Why don't you? Why do you ignore all of the scientists that state quite clearly that life evolved?
A basic switch in assumptions can make a huge difference in making sense of the universe. You base you're beliefs about the world on the assumption that evolution is true, even though recent evidence suggests evolution is not true. .
Do you honestly think the views of the authors are accurately represented by using your quote without the sentence that follows it?
Of course I do. You can't possible think they are "in favor" of a formal demonstration of the common ancestry of life?
I didn't represent them as creationists if that's what your getting at, as far as I know Koonin is an atheist judging by his book about probabilities and the multiverse. It's a post-Darwin world (and yes, those words appear in that article), they've moved past trying to shoehorn a formal demonstration of the common ancestry of life.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?