Religion, Science, Scepticism, Philosophy and things metaphysical

[trainspotter]

Platelet formation is one instance. Protein absorption is another. DYOR

 

[Sir Osisofliver]

And what new function?
What is the example?


And
No I'm not arguing for slow or fast changes.
Just an increase in information.

That was an example of Saltation using Moths. There's a picture showing the moths which the authors claim exhibit rapid genetic alterations resulting in a new species.

As you can see from the picture they are significantly different in colour, size and genetic characteristics.

I'm curious...if an increase in information is demonstrated to you.... what would this mean to you?

Cheers
Sir O

 

[pavilion103]

Duplication... sigh....


This is from a creation website. It deals with this.

You'd have to show that these are sensible conclusions based on the rate of duplication necessary.

It's like people saying well if there was a one in a billion trillion chance of the earth randomly being like it is today then there is a chance. Thus we can believe in that conclusion. It's absolutely absurd.

It's sad that the in the quest to eliminate God, these sort of outlandish, ridiculous, unlogical thoughts are actually even discussed publicly by supposedly intelligent people

Gene duplication is often cited as a mechanism for evolutionary progress and as a means of generating ‘new’ information. Here, a gene is duplicated (through several possible means), turned off via mutation, mutated over time, turned on again through a different mutation, and, voilà!, a new function has arisen.

Invariably, the people who use this as an argument never tell us the rate of duplication necessary, nor how many duplicated but silenced genes we would expect to see in a given genome, nor the needed rate of turning on and off, nor the likelihood of a new function arising in the silenced gene, nor how this new function will be integrated into the already complex genome of the organism, nor the rate at which the silenced ‘junk’ DNA would be expected to be lost at random (genetic drift) or through natural selection. These numbers are not friendly to evolutionary theory, and mathematical studies that have attempted to study the issue have run into a wall of improbability, even when attempting to model simple changes. This is akin to the mathematical difficulties Michael Behe discusses in his book, The Edge of Evolution. In fact, gene deletions and loss-of-function mutations for useful genes are surprisingly common.Why would anyone expect a deactivated gene to stick around for a million years or more while an unlikely new function develops?

But the situation with gene duplication is even more complicated than this. The effect of a gene often depends on gene copy number. If an organism appears with extra copies of a certain gene, it may not be able to control the expression of that gene and an imbalance will occur in its physiology, decreasing its fitness (e.g. trisomy causes abnormalities such as Down syndrome because of such gene dosage effects). Since copy number is a type of information, and since copy number variations are known to occur (even among people), this is an example of a mutation that changes information. Notice I did not say ‘adds’ information, but ‘changes’. Word duplication is usually frowned upon as being unnecessary (ask any English teacher). Likewise, gene duplication is usually, though not always, bad. In the cases where it can occur without damaging the organism, one needs to ask if this is really an addition of information. Even better than that, is this the type of addition required by evolution? No, it is not.

Several creationists have written on this subject, including Lightner, Liu and Moran. Even if an example of a new function arising through gene duplication is discovered, the function of the new must necessarily be related to the function of the old, such as a new but similar catalysis end product of an enzyme. There is no reason to expect otherwise. New functions arising through duplication are not impossible, but they are vanishingly unlikely, and they become more unlikely with each degree of change required for the development of each new function.

 

[pavilion103]

That was an example of Saltation using Moths. There's a picture showing the moths which the authors claim exhibit rapid genetic alterations resulting in a new species.

As you can see from the picture they are significantly different in colour, size and genetic characteristics.

I'm curious...if an increase in information is demonstrated to you.... what would this mean to you?

Cheers
Sir O

In addition one key would be further evidence to suggest that a change of kind can occur. Not just a moth to a moth. But this is a slightly different topic.

This can lead back down the path of transitory fossils, which are non existent etc.

I'm not sure I want to go back there. We touched on that recently and no conclusive evidence was provided.

- - - Updated - - -

I think I might leave it here for a while again guys.

I've provided my side.
I've heard yours.
Maybe we can revisit this but I'm not sure that it won't be a circular argument again.

Just so we can see.
I haven't avoided anyone.
I've listened.
I've responded.

We will pick this up another time.
Thanks guys.

 

[Value Collector]

Christianity is part of our history and there is absolutely NO reason it shouldn't be discussed in schools as part of a RE program.

A Christian might say that, but a Muslim would disagree. Just put your self in their shoes, would you want your kids instructed Islamic teaching, probably not. Also which brand of Christianity would you teach, would it be Morman or Jehovah witness, oh probably your brand right

Why not just leave religion to church and sunday school or faith schools.

but it's still an undeniable part of our history so should always have a place in our education system.

They cover the various religions as part of high school history already, that where it belongs.

Since we have become a multicultural society, other religions could get a brief mention so that if children want to investigate them further that's up to them

.

A brief mention, why not equal time.

Our government should FIRMLY resist the atheist's desire to keep the children of today ignorant of our Christian history

I don't want ignorant children, I want educated children. I will be teaching my kids the history of all the main religions.

Teaching kids one religion as fact is keeping them ignorant, especially if your not exposing them to the real science of the universe.

- - - Updated - - -

Bottom line is you need a "gain-of-function"

.

Gain of function is achieved through duplication and mutation.

 

[Value Collector]

Duplication... sigh....

Did you watch the video I linked

This is from a creation website.

That's your first problem, your guessing the incorrect opinions of sudeo science over real science.

It's like people saying well if there was a one in a billion trillion chance of the earth randomly being like it is today then there is a chance. Thus we can believe in that conclusion. It's absolutely absurd.

Do you not understand probabilities?

It is usually creationists that throw around probabilities of an earth like planet existing to try and make it sound like its unlikely earth would have formed as it is without a creator.

This is usually counter by some one saying "well if your correct and its a one in a billion chance, then there should be billions of earth out there because the universe is huge, In fact there are billions of earth like planets in our galaxy and billions of galaxies that probably hold billions of trillions of other earth like planets.

the odds are highly in our favour. the universe is so huge that extremely unlikely events are happening continually

It's sad that the in the quest to eliminate God, these sort of outlandish, ridiculous, unlogical thoughts are actually even discussed publicly by supposedly intelligent people

No one is questing to eliminate god, there is just no evidence that suggests he should be included in the models.

 

[Value Collector]

I think I might leave it here for a while again guys.

.

He always seems to leave as soon as he is presented with evidence.

 

[Value Collector]

In addition one key would be further evidence to suggest that a change of kind can occur. Not just a moth to a moth. But this is a slightly different topic.


.

Oh, the old no change in "Kinds" argument.

the creationists that use this argument fail when they say they are happy to accept Lions and tigers had a common ancestor because they are both still cats, there was no change in "Kinds"

But when you point out that there is no difference between that and humans sharing a common ancestor with chimpanzees, because we are both still apes we haven't changed "Kinds" they have to back flip.

you can push it back further and say apes and monkeys have common ancestors, and because the are still all primates the haven't changed "kinds"

the term "Kinds" is really meaningless unless they can define what they mean.

 

[Chris45]

A Christian might say that, but a Muslim would disagree. Just put your self in their shoes, would you want your kids instructed Islamic teaching, probably not.

We are not a Muslim based society and I certainly don't want us to become one. If Muslims don't want to hear about our religion they can either opt out, or send their kids to a Muslim school, or move to a Muslim country.

Also which brand of Christianity would you teach, would it be Morman or Jehovah witness, oh probably your brand right

You're going to kill off even more of your brain cells if you keep doing that.

I think the CRE program has worked through those details.

Why not just leave religion to church and sunday school or faith schools.

Because children from 100% atheist environments get no information (apart from intolerance and hate) about religion.

A brief mention, why not equal time.

Because we're predominantly a Christian country. If they want more information about the other religions they can go elsewhere.

I don't want ignorant children, I want educated children. I will be teaching my kids the history of all the main religions.

Teaching kids one religion as fact is keeping them ignorant, especially if your not exposing them to the real science of the universe.

I also want educated children and not children kept ignorant of important aspects of our culture because of the demands of religion haters.

They will learn about science in their science classes and be able to make informed decisions, but only if they hear both sides of the debate.

We're going around in circles again.

 

[Value Collector]

We are not a Muslim based society and I certainly don't want us to become one. If Muslims don't want to hear about our religion they can either opt out, or send their kids to a Muslim school, or move to a Muslim country.

We are not a Christian based society either, we have freedom of religion, so preaching one over the other is not right

Because children from 100% atheist environments get no information (apart from intolerance and hate) about religion.

So teach a history class about the history of the religions, which they already do in high schools.

Because we're predominantly a Christian country. If they want more information about the other religions they can go elsewhere.

Lol, your a douche. Some areas are very much muslim dominated with hindu and buddists mixed in.

I also want educated children and not children kept ignorant of important aspects of our culture because of the demands of religion haters.

They will learn about science in their science classes and be able to make informed decisions, but only if they hear both sides of the debate.

well send your kids to a faith school, public school has no place for religion.

 

[spooly74]

So in other words you have zero examples.

What mechanism prevents duplication errors that add more genetic code?

However, first creation, then evolution makes sense to me, but the atheists aren't comfortable with the first part.

What form of life was first created before evolution took over?

 

[Tink]

Have we already forgotten -

Science does not exist to prove or disprove the existence of God

 

[Sir Osisofliver]

In addition one key would be further evidence to suggest that a change of kind can occur. Not just a moth to a moth. But this is a slightly different topic.

This can lead back down the path of transitory fossils, which are non existent etc.

I'm not sure I want to go back there. We touched on that recently and no conclusive evidence was provided.

- - - Updated - - -

I think I might leave it here for a while again guys.

I've provided my side.
I've heard yours.
Maybe we can revisit this but I'm not sure that it won't be a circular argument again.

Just so we can see.
I haven't avoided anyone.
I've listened.
I've responded.

We will pick this up another time.
Thanks guys.

Thanks Pav for responding to me. I know it can be difficult to respond with a clear head when there what appears to be multiple people banging away at the same argument.

I have to say though I am a little disappointed that you decided to stop there. Happy to take this to PM's if that makes you feel more comfortable.

Hope you return to the conversation because it's a little hard to see exactly what kind of things you are looking for...but that doesn't interest me as much as the question you didn't engage with..... What changes for you if someone presents you with something that refutes your position?

Cheers

Sir o

 

[Trentb]

Give me one example. In 1-2 sentences.
It cannot be a mutation or duplication.

Insertion mutation

http://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/dna-is-constantly-changing-through-the-process-6524898





Here's a thought experiment for you. Please criticize it.

The following bacteria genome is 816 394 base pairs.

http://nar.oxfordjournals.org/content/24/22/4420.full

The oldest fossils on earth are approximately 3.4 billion years old.

Make three assumptions:

1. Your god is infallible so at least one life form that he made has lasted since he placed life on earth 3.4 billion years go. That life form is 3.4 billion years old.

2. This life form is the bacteria above or any bacteria with a similar genome size.

3. This bacteria was placed on earth with a genome 400 000 base pairs in length.

Calculate the frequency of insertion mutations for it to reach it's current genome size over it's life span.

Answer:

To grow to it's current size with insertion mutations would require only 1 insertion mutation every 8500 years without deletions.

Point of this exercise: Try to think about what can happen when something can accumulate over a large time scale. Try to imagine insertion mutations as analogous to interest rates. Except the time frame for this 'biological interest rate' is over BILLIONS of years.

Now do you see how something very very small (1 base pair insertion) can become something very very large when it can grow over an incredible time span?

 

[burglar]

Why would a creator, create freaks?
Why create hybrids, sterile or otherwise?



And vestigial organs, what are they used for?

Were parasites created before man, and if so, how did
they survive?

And if God is just, why do some parasites enter through a boy's eye enter his brain and eventually kill him?

A raspberry has only 8 percent as much genetic material as you or I. That’s expected; raspberries aren’t too smart or complex. But an onion isn’t very complex either, and it has more than 12 times as much DNA as a Harvard professor.
What’s more, amoebas oozing along in shallow ponds boast a genome 200 times as large as those of Albert Einstein or Stephen Hawking.

Read more:
http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/2000/02.10/onion.html

I don't require your answers, the questions are entirely rhetorical.
I only pose them out of shear boredom. ho hum :

 

[cynic]

I know my religion (unlike yours which is false) is the only true religion and is therefore the only religion that is allowed to be taught in a factual context to children - so there!!

Your religion is false, but since I'm feeling generous, I'll allow you to teach a token amount provided it is framed in a mythical context - aren't I good! Unlike you ya douche bag bigot!

No don't you dare infer hypocrisy when comparing my behaviour to the church! Your analogy doesn't count because unlike me I know other churches are wrong! Again I remind you that I know I am right! Unlike you ya heathen douche bag bigot!

Don't you dare answer any of my questions with anything other than complicity with my infallible religion! Again I remind you that I know I'm right! Unlike you ya sacrilegious heathen douche bag bigot!

Do these sentiments sound familiar? They seem to permeate this thread and are evident on more than one side of the debate!

Let's be honest with ourselves! This is just another crusade for supreme dominion over the holy realm of intellect!

P.S. See what I mean?! Science advocates are just like religious folk!

 

[cynic]

Have we already forgotten -

Science does not exist to prove or disprove the existence of God

+1
Unfortunately, as we both know, some individuals have arrogantly abused the art of science in the vain hope of expunging their personal insecurity.

Of course, if one were to equate God with Truth (Christianity and other religions have done this!) then science can be recognised as a quest for knowledge of Truth/God.

 

[cynic]

I think all we should ‘teach’ our children is how to think independently. Then expose them to as much variety as possible and they will learn and learn far more than we can ever ‘teach’ them.

Amen to that!

Welcome to the fold Brother Craft.

We are both honoured and humbled to have a true thinker join our ranks.

 

[spooly74]

Why would a creator, create freaks?
Why create hybrids, sterile or otherwise?

Why would it create so many other galaxies?

If life on other planets is a problem for some theists, why would it create countless billions of other havens where life can happen?

We wouldn't even need a galaxy, just a single Sun and a planet.
Why make it so unnecessarily complicated?

 

[Chris45]

We are not a Christian based society either, we have freedom of religion, so preaching one over the other is not right

well send your kids to a faith school, public school has no place for religion.

I disagree with you!

A troll is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people, by posting inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a forum, chat room, or blog), either accidentally or with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.

You sound very much like a troll.