Posted on 08/13/2008 9:44:45 AM PDT by Sopater
Do you think that a population derived from a single organism will all be genetically identical? How could they maintain absolute genetic fidelity when DNA polymerase is prone to errors?
As long as you are engaged in mind reading why don't you tell me what you think my “assumptions” are an attempt to justify?
I don't believe this to be true and require supporting data if you wish to stand on this argument. And even if so, it does not point to the ADDITION of information (required to extrapolate your observations to "molecules to man"), just a variation on EXISTING information.
Do you think that a population derived from a single organism will all be genetically identical?
No, given that a single human pair has the EXISTING genetic information to produce 10^2017 genetically non-identical offspring, this means that there is a huge pre-existing potential for adaptation to natural selection pressures.
What assumptions do you have?
No Creator, therefore the observed behaviors must be due to natural/material causes. I see X behavior, it's due to material cause Y, therefore, no need for a Creator or design.
And, this justifies an individual need for there not to be a Creator.
Of course, you could just answer the question.
So you admit that it is IMPOSSIBLE for a genetically identical population to derive from a single organism.
Was nylonase a variation of existing information? Seems that it was NEW useful information (how to break down nylon)derived from OLD less useful information (how to break down an ester).
Why do you assume that variation of existing data cannot produce new data?
We might be arguing the same thing... hmmm... humorous.
I have no problem with variations of old information providing new useful functions. This supports the viewpoint that organisms were created with the innate ability to adapt. But these changes in no way support the extrapolation that single cell organisms (wherever they came from!) can ADD information to the point that eventually you get a human.
I DO support the idea that God created living systems capable of adaptation, we see that all the time. I mean, where did that stupid looking poodle come from, and whose idea was that?
I’d request clarification of your “population derived from a single organism”. You don’t mean a SINGLE organism... right? It takes two to “tango” - sexual reproduction is required for genetic variances to propagate...
You really didn't say that, did you? You are presenting yourself as qualified to judge and condemn the work of tens of thousands of biologists, working of a couple of centuries, and you think single celled organisms don't mutate and evolve?
Even worse, you seem not to have considered lateral gene transfer. bacteria sex, if you please.
Well, I certainly wasn’t referring to some bacterial sex organ penetrating another bacteria’s sex organ... “sexual reproduction” in its basic definition is the exchange and recombining of genetic material.
You’ll do your damndest to try to disqualify anyone with a dissenting viewpoint, won’t you?
That’s OK, I’ll take that as a compliment, in my worldview. I’m in good company. Acts 4.
That's exactly what is common among single celled organisms.
But excannge of genetic material is not necessary for evolution to occur. The best experiments demonstrating evolution start with a single, isolated cell.
I'll do my best to correct factual errors when I see them.
You can plate a single organism and watch it divide itself into two then four then sixteen, etc, etc. By the time you have a few hundred thousand organisms all from the same originator you will see quite a bit of genetic variation within the population; even though they started out as the exact same organism with the exact same genome.
Even in the case of sexually reproducing organisms you would have to believe that Adam and Eve contained within themselves all the genetic variability of the entire human race in order to deny that this variability came about due to imperfect replication. In other words one would have to assume that Adam and Eve were simultaneously blue brown green and hazel eyed, lactose tolerant and lactose intolerant, had epithelial folds on their eyes and did not have them, had kinky hair and straight hair, had dark skin and light skin, etc etc.
Seeings as how within two individuals there are only four possible allelic differences at any loci (Adam has trait A and B at that loci and Eve has trait C and D), and far more than four alleles at many loci have been described among human populations; it is simply impossible that the entirety of variability in the human genome could be contained within two human individuals.
re: Adam and Eve. I believe we have a topic for civil discussion here.
Yes, I do believe that Adam and Eve had all the genetic information necessary to produce every variation we see today - remember the 1 with the 2017 zeros behind it - the number of possible genetically non-identical possible offspring. The number of hydrogen atoms in the universe is estimated on the order of 10^80th, just for comparison.
I’ve seen pictures of twins of “medium brown” people - one child white and blond, the other brown skinned/brown haired.
I also believe that the harmful variations, the harmful replication errors, mutations, even death itself, are a consequence of the Fall.
If you don’t want to assert Man’s wisdom (”reason”) over God’s literal Word, then there was no death, disease, mutation, or predation (all green plants were for all to eat) before the Fall. This precludes “theistic evolution”.
Irrelevant. The only inputs that are relevant are the facts. 'Experiences' are not facts of the argument.
You can wish that away as much as you like. It doesn't make any difference that people's actions are based one what they experience in the past, regardless of stimuli given in the present.
Or can you devise an experiment where people's past experience can have absolutely no impact on the decisions they make in the present, based on given stimuli?
Different alleles could arise due to mutation. This is a change in information, but not an addition.
Now, back to the source of information - are you a “I know what You said, God, but this is what You meant” kinda guy? IE, wiser than God’s Word? Or is it that you don’t believe God actually was the source of the Word? Or you’re just willing to compromise this one section, the basis of everything else?
Just wondering. You seem to be adamantly arguing that the Word is Wrong.
Here, argue with this guy:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v17/i3/genetics.asp
Yeah, you just keep on believing that was the reason.
"“explain how you know that the ability to adapt ‘evolved’”
"I don’t “know” anything anything about how it came about (although there are some interesting hypothesis about auto-catalytic RNA), but I know that it was Gods plan that the Oceans bring forth life."
That's correct. You don't know. You assume, as does 'science'. Science *assumes* that the ability to adapt 'evolved' and proceeds from that 'a priori' assumption.
And it does not logically follow that life emerged from the oceans because God caused them to bring forth life. After all, if you are going to invoke God, land plants were created first and flying birds at the same time as the sea creatures.
Clearly you want to pick and choose what you believe God did based on what man says.
"I can also observe that living systems can and do adapt to changing circumstances and the evidence suggests they do it by means of natural selection of genetic variation."
Yes, but you can't say whether life acquired that ability by evolution or whether God created all life with that ability except by invoking man's opinion because you believe what man says about evolution.
"Adaptation by means of selection is an inescapable conclusion of the scientific evidence."
Which could equally mean that life was created with that ability from the domain to the sub-species level and there would be no disagreement with observation. It is your opinion that causes you to reject what God says and believe what man says.
"As is the fact that the Earth circles the Sun by means of gravitational attraction. You accept neither."
And I used to accept both until I started looking for the scientific evidence to support them and found none.
Why do you continue to avoid answering the question? Don't understand it, can't, afraid, have no idee?
Which is exactly why my point from the beginning was, "Unless you identify which biological systems you believe spontaneously generated themselves, you are committing the fallacy of exclusion."
I even addressed this specifically TO YOU when I said, "It all depends on what you define as a 'first life form' and what biological systems that alleged life form would have that were spontaneously generated without evolution. If any selection is involved in the appearance of this first 'life form', then evolution was involved and the fallacy of exclusion applies." That was posed TO YOU way back in post 658.
Clearly that is true.
The problem lies in where you assume this ability came from. Did it 'evolve' or was life created with this ability? You assume that it 'evolved' when it is just as likely that life was created with this ability that naturalists now distort into 'evolution'.
It is only the assumption of the philosophy of naturalism that supports the assumption that the ability to adapt 'evolved'. You now realize that was Darwin's huge assumption and blunder, don't you?
It's pretty simple. They use the word of men as their worldview-filter and not the word of God.
Unfortunately, the words of men have a nasty habit of being wrong all the time. Yet they would rather believe in men because men will tell them what they want to hear.
Or, they fear the opinions of men more than the opinion of God.
As could you.
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.