Posted on 07/24/2008 11:28:05 AM PDT by Soliton
"It has long been believed that the main force of natural selection on protein-coding genes is the need to maintain a working protein," says Drummond, a Bauer Fellow in Harvard's FAS Center for Systems Biology. "Our work suggests that another force may be equally important: the need to avoid misfolded proteins resulting from errors in translation."
(Excerpt) Read more at sciencedaily.com ...
Its amazing that this happens by chance....or by “natural” occurrence.
Tantamount to a tornado that goes through a trailer park and creates a Boeing 747 in the process....
"Contrary to what was believed, our work shows that even in the human genome, codons are positioned to minimize errors," says Wilke, assistant professor of integrative biology at Texas. "Just like a mistake on your taxes is more costly than a mistake on your grocery list -- so you concentrate more on your taxes -- cells seem to concentrate on preventing mistakes that might result in costly misfolded proteins."
I think they are going overboard trying to portray their thinking as 'new.' Whether evolutionist or creationist, it makes sense that scarce resources devoted to protein quality control would be focused on the more critical products. That's just good manufacturing logic. You can have 0 defects at an exorbitant cost in inspection efforts, or you can achieve some acceptable level of defects for a much lower cost.
Even if God or some other force had created a gene with massive inspection capability, the associated metabolic costs would drive natural selection in the direction of a reduced level of inspection/quality control activity.
“That’s just good manufacturing logic. You can have 0 defects at an exorbitant cost in inspection efforts, or you can achieve some acceptable level of defects for a much lower cost.’
You hit the nail on the head. Question is; how does a protein *know* that?
You are a learned one! Very rare on FR these days.
You are exactly correct that regardless of whether it was a naturalistic designer or evolution, the results would look the same. However, God with a capital "G", is supposedly omniscient and omnipotent. The existence of the quality control mechanism and it being necessary to prevent mistakes is probative God was not involved.
“The existence of the quality control mechanism and it being necessary to prevent mistakes is probative God was not involved. “
So are you asserting that this happens by chance?
Maybe, maybe not. Tell me how mistakes in "design" suggest the involvement of an infallible god. Surely God does not make mistakes?
By definition, a Design requires a Designer.
What mistakes in design are you referring to?
“If there is a designer, its a fool.”
Well, thanks for clearing that up.
Maybe, maybe not. Tell me how mistakes in "design" suggest the involvement of an infallible god. Surely God does not make mistakes?
. . . . .
One of the most foundational tenets in Christianity is that the fallen state of creation is the direct result of the Fall of Man.
In Christian doctrine, God created a flawless universe but man's free-will introduction of sin did more than generate the sinful nature passed along among people through the generations. It also shattered the rest of the created universe. Everything was affected -- physically, spiritually, etc.
When a Christian says that God created people in God's own image, he doesn't mean that people remained in the same state in which they came into being -- whatever process God used to bring them into being. Human nature changed due to the Fall of Man. People still retain strong echoes of the excellent attributes God originally placed in them -- the creative urge, etc. -- and those can be beautiful, but those attributes are cracked, flawed and relatively dysfunctional compared to their original state.
Similarly, much of the beauty and functionality of God's design is still evident in all other living things and even in all the unliving things which make up the creation. But all that also is corrupted and does not work as it should.
In the Christian weltanschauung, the same process that that led to "original sin" in people also led to entropy and the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
You may recall that the Bible, when speaking about the full restoration of humankind in the future also includes a "doing away with" the old creation and its replacement by a "new heaven and new earth" which is not fractured by sin.
The Fall of Man involved all of creation, not just humanity, and the Restoration of Man will involve all of creation, not just humanity.
This is extremely basic Christianity.
So, through a Christian understanding, God did not make design flaws. Humans did. It is not the flaws that suggest the involvement of God, it is the extraordinary remaining aspects of the original design in humanity and the rest of the universe, including the existence of the laws that organize energy and matter, that do.
Of course, Christianity is premised on more than just that. (Indeed, Christianity and Judaism were never really just about explaining how the world came into being.) In fact, the Bible says that there are three different revelations that speak about God to people -- and the revelation of creation is merely the first and is available to all people.
Follow-up questions, such as "Why did God permit this?" or "Why did God plan it so that human beings could screw things up?" are teleological questions outside the purview of naturalistic science.
I placed design in quotes for that reason, bu assuming their is a designer, it can't be the "Designer" (capital "D") you are hoping for as He is infallible. See that the whole article is about addressing mistakes.
“I have never heard or read or been taught in my extensive Bible training that the fall of man created imperfections in all of God’s creation. It sounds like an after the fact CYA.”
From the book of Genesis: (3:14) (I’m assuming you’ve heard of it in your “extensive” Bible training???)
So the LORD God said to the serpent, “Because you have done this,
“Cursed are you above all the livestock
and all the wild animals!
You will crawl on your belly
and you will eat dust
all the days of your life.
15 And I will put enmity
between you and the woman,
and between your offspring [a] and hers;
he will crush [b] your head,
and you will strike his heel.”
16 To the woman he said,
“I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing;
with pain you will give birth to children.
Your desire will be for your husband,
and he will rule over you.”
17 To Adam he said, “Because you listened to your wife and ate from the tree about which I commanded you, ‘You must not eat of it,’
“Cursed is the ground because of you;
through painful toil you will eat of it
all the days of your life.
18 It will produce thorns and thistles for you,
and you will eat the plants of the field.
19 By the sweat of your brow
you will eat your food
until you return to the ground,
since from it you were taken;
for dust you are
and to dust you will return.”
“I placed design in quotes for that reason, bu assuming their is a designer, it can’t be the “Designer” (capital “D”) you are hoping for as He is infallible. See that the whole article is about addressing mistakes.”
see my post #14
God cursed the Earth as a result of Man’s sin.
I have never heard or read or been taught in my extensive Bible training that the fall of man created imperfections in all of God's creation. It sounds like an after the fact CYA.
. . . . .
Yes, it's pretty standard fare. Below is an excerpt from the Wikipedia entry regarding the "Fall of Man":
"In Christianity, Fall of Man can refer to the wider theological inferences for all humankind as a consequence of Eve and Adam's original sin. Examples include the teachings of Paul, Romans 5:12-19 and 1 Cor. 15:21-22. Some Christians believe the Fall CORRUPTED THE ENTIRE NATURAL WORLD, including human nature, causing people to be born into original sin, a state from which they cannot attain eternal life without the gracious intervention of God. Protestants hold that Jesus' death was a "ransom" by which man was made forever free from the sin acquired at the Fall, and other denominations believe that this act made it possible for man to be free without necessarily ensuring it."
Obviously, I used capital letters above for emphasis. As you can see, EVERYTHING was corrupted, INCLUDING human nature.
Another example that briefly comes to mind from a noted commentary writer:
"Yet another commentator on Romans 1–8, James Dunn, wrote:
The point Paul is presumably making, through somewhat obscure language, is that God followed the logic of his purposed subjecting of creation to man by subjecting it yet further in consequence of man’s fall, so that it might serve as an appropriate context for fallen man; a futile world to engage the futile mind of man. By describing creation's subjection as ‘unwilling’ Paul maintains the personification of the previous verse. There is an out-of-sortedness, a disjointedness about the created order which makes it a suitable habitation for man at odds with his creator."
The Bible itself says that "the ‘whole creation’ is said to be groaning in pain, because it was ‘subjected to futility.’"
Ground floor doctrine. Nothing new here. Including the doctrines about a new heaven and new earth because the old ones will pass away. (The old ones have to pass away because they were corrupted by the Fall.)
Please show Biblical source for this. God cursed man, not earth.
There is nowhere in the Creation story where God claims to corrupt the genetics of animals. Even if you were to try and extrapolate from it that it does, like a liberal judge finding a right to privacy in the Constitution, this comes later:
Genesis 8:21 The LORD smelled the soothing aroma. He said to himself, "I will never again curse the ground because of humans, even though from birth their hearts are set on nothing but evil."
God did not place a curse on the animals, he saved them all in the flood just like the rightous men and women in Noah's family. He even lifts his curse on the ground in response to Noah burning a few steaks. (Would God have accepted a sacrifice of spoiled meat?)
Don’t interrupt with science when I am arguing Biblical meaning! :0)
There is another way.
You sir are my hero. You should join DarwinCentral.com Coyoteman is a moderator there (I think)
"God did not place a curse on the animals, he saved them all in the flood just like the rightous men and women in Noah's family."
1. First, Noah and his family were not righteous in and of themselves. They were only righteous due to their faith in God. Just like Job. Just like any "righteous" person. It wasn't because they weren't sinners. In fact, we see sinfulness in them after the flood. All the other people were left behind because they were without that saving faith.
2. No, no, no. God did NOT save ALL the animals. I'm not sure where you got that bit of information. Go read the text again. God didn't save all the animals. As with humans, he saved a mere remnant. Of course, animals don't have saving faith; they clearly were saved to serve the needs of humanity and the world after the flood. So I wouldn't give the animals too much credit for being paragons of integrity.
2. As for your other comment, you answered yourself:
Genesis 8:21 The LORD smelled the soothing aroma. He said to himself, "I will never again curse the ground because of humans, even though from birth their hearts are set on nothing but evil."
He said he won't curse the ground (the Earth) AGAIN because of humans. Which means, of course, that he indeed MUST HAVE CURSED IT BEFORE because of humans.
Go check out the meaning of the specific Hebrew word used there for "ground."
(Remember the old commercial: "Now can I have another Nutter Butter Peanut Butter Sandwich when I haven't had ANY yet?") You can't have an "again" unless it follows a first instance.
The Earth includes the subset we know as the biosphere. As our wonderful, but sometimes limited friend Wikipedia says:
"The biosphere is the part of the Earth, including air, land, surface rocks, and water, within which life occurs, and which biotic processes in turn alter or transform. From the broadest biophysiological point of view, the biosphere is the global ecological system integrating all living beings and their relationships, including their interaction with the elements of the lithosphere, hydrosphere, and atmosphere."
That would include the animals. In other words, the creation. So God had cursed the creation because of humans.
I meant all kinds of animals
He said he won't curse the ground (the Earth) AGAIN because of humans. Which means, of course, that he indeed MUST HAVE CURSED IT BEFORE because of humans.
"The Hebrew word adamah (Strong's # H127) is not most commonly translated "ground." In fact, the most common translation is "land." Therefore, the most likely meaning of the verse is to refer to a geographic area and not to the "ground" in general, which might be thought to refer to all the ground on the earth. This will become significant as we examine the entire context of the garden of Eden." Yes, but the ground/ land isn't animals or biosphere and He says he won't do it again. This refers explicitly in the passage to killing everything.
Nowhere are the animals that survived the flood cursed and those that were died. There is no creation story basis for claiming that genetic mistakes in animals are a curse from God. Further, if God DID intend a curse of genetic mistakes, then why did he build an imperfect mechanism for fixing those mistakes?
No, it is either an intelligence from outer space or evolution that made these mistakes.
Please show Biblical source for this. God cursed man, not earth.”
You must not have read my previous reply. Again, here it is in Genesis:
17 To Adam he said, “Because you listened to your wife and ate from the tree about which I commanded you, ‘You must not eat of it,’
“Cursed is the ground because of you;
through painful toil you will eat of it
all the days of your life.
18 It will produce thorns and thistles for you,
and you will eat the plants of the field.
That is the ground, not the planet.
“That is the ground, not the planet.”
Right. Somehow I knew you would spin your response.
It’s fundamental Christian doctrine that the results of man’s disobedience to God was catastrophic on many levels...
I answered your specific question with a specific quote right out of Genesis.
The fallen world we live in is a direct result of man’s sin. All these “mistakes” you refer to in this thread are a result of it...not because God is imperfect. He isn’t.
If you don’t stand on Christian Doctrine, fine. If you think Macro Evolution is real, fine.
Stop spinning The Gospel to suit your arguements....it completely ruins your credibility.
It’s not spin. I looked up and posted the Hebrew definition earlier. If anything it refers simply to the garden of Eden becoming normal, not special.
So God created the mistakes and then created the mechanism described in the article to correct those mistakes? Or did Satan create the mistakes and God create the mechanism? Or did God Create the mistakes and Satan create the Mechanism?
A perfect designer would simply remove the organic mistake. He wouldn't create a biological mechanism for correcting it after it happened.
“The Hebrew word adamah (Strong’s # H127) is not most commonly translated “ground.” In fact, the most common translation is “land.” Therefore, the most likely meaning of the verse is to refer to a geographic area and not to the “ground” in general, which might be thought to refer to all the ground on the earth. This will become significant as we examine the entire context of the garden of Eden.” Yes, but the ground/ land isn’t animals or biosphere and He says he won’t do it again. This refers explicitly in the passage to killing everything.
There is the definition you posted, followed by your “most likely” meaning. It’s a best guess on your part.
“So God created the mistakes....”
No he didn’t. It’s because of Man’s sin...(Genesis) we’ve been over and over this. The land (everywhere) is STILL cursed (there are STILL weeds and we STILL have to toil in it) - not only just in Eden - as you have suggested.
“A perfect designer would simply remove the organic mistake. He wouldn’t create a biological mechanism for correcting it after it happened.”
Moot point. How would you know what a Perfect Designer would or would not do? Who or what is your Perfect Designer scenario based on?
The measure of the best design is its simplicity in achieving its functionality
How about a design that self optimizes through selective pressure on genetic variation?
Seems a self correcting design is better than a static one, especially in a constantly changing environment.
We need to avoid the word design. I know what you mean, but some do not.
I think the universe was designed such that stars would form. I think God is forming the stars coalescing in nebulas across the galaxy as we speak, and HE is doing it with gravity and nuclear fusion. Thus when the Bible says God created our Sun it is not to say he had to snap his fingers and voila - there was a star.
I think that when God called for the Oceans and Land to bring forth life that he needn't have been any more involved directly in the minutiae as when HE makes stars form. Which is not to say that God didn't create life, God created ALL, and designed it all such that stars planets and life would come into being.
Evolution is also a “design”. Male peacocks have been “designed” by the mate selection expectations of female peacocks, as well as the molecular necessity to bring it all off in style. Humans have been “designed” by the selective pressures of sunburn and vitamin D deficiency to have light skin in northern climates and dark skin in equatorial climates. They were “designed” to become that way based upon the conditions of the system, thus “optimizing” themselves to changing circumstances.
That humans are a living system capable of these sorts of modifications to changing circumstance due to natural selection of genetic variation is true whether you believe they all descended from a tribe out of Africa or all from the sons and daughters of Adam and Eve and subsequently Noah and his wife or whatever combination thereof.
I see no contradiction in your belief system.
I think I am on pretty solid ground as a Christian and a Scientist, as most Christian denominations have absolutely no problems with Science and the Scientific method, the age of the universe, probable human origins, etc.
I don’t understand the overwhelming need for people to prove what can only be arrived at through faith. How can you argue faith? Why would anyone want to?
It is the cut-n-pasters that haunt my sleep. They don’t listen to what you are saying. They are on a crusade. You post an interesting piece of peer reviewed science and they respond with, “EVOLUTION VIOLATES THE SECOND LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS”.
You can’t refute it because they don’t know what the second law of thermodynamics actually means. They cut and pasted it, so it must be true. After all, Reverend Billbob of the Tabernacle of Eternal Truth must know what he’s talking about!
“MACRO EVOLUTION CANNOT BE OBSERVED!”. Never mind that the fossil record is a testament to macroevolution and you provide examples of ring species forming two species from one. Rev. Billybob has something else up his choir robe sleve. Cut-n-paste.
“THE SALAMANDER IS STILL A SALAMANDER!”
I calm myself by turning to scripture. I find Matthew 7:6 informative on this. ON FR it is easier to run out of pearls than it is to exhaust the swine.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.