Posted on 08/19/2010 1:19:28 PM PDT by TheConservativeCitizen
Documentary educational television would have us believe that the single greatest scientific achievement of the past millennium was Darwin’s theory of evolution. Many religious fundamentalists have serious issues with this assertion. Many legitimate scientists with both secular and religious perspectives do as well. Darwin himself recognized serious shortcomings with evolution. A new sort of “scientist,” the evolutionary biologist, has come on the scene. These folks are specifically dedicated to supporting and proving a theory. Previously science did not work that way. Scientists used to look for evidence of disproof, only accepting theories that prove unassailable.
On the other side we have unscientific religious fundamentalists. These folks are willing to describe their search for proof of their scriptures as basic science. They study scripture and seek evidence to support what it says.
Both sides’ methods are troublingly reminiscent of case law: by carefully selecting your precedents or evidence one can prove anything. Mathematicians and philosophers long ago concluded that “proving” a general hypotheses about the real world is a logical impossibility. That is, no one can find every possible exception to any assertion about the real world.
(Excerpt) Read more at constitutionclub.org ...
What she describes is the adaptability that exists and always has within that virus she’s examining. It has nothing to do with “evolution”, ie, one life form changing into another, more highly advanced organism containing more DNA information than its ancestor.
Science suffers in Muslim culture, but not due to a belief in Creation.
It suffers specifically because it is apostasy to “chain Allah” and expect the rules to be unchanging.
Expecting predictability of outcomes of experiments is “chaining Allah”. So you can see why this would effectively preclude any scientific advancement.
Well nothing in science is “proven”, and it is a well accepted theory because it EXPLAINS and PREDICTS facts (while creationism is useless towards explaining and predicting).
What mechanism stops “micro” evolution from becoming “macro” evolution?
The rate of mutation we see is more than sufficient to explain a 2% genetic and 6% genomic difference between humans and chimps over some six million years.
Obviously you think there WAS no six million years to be had, but is that your only defense, not enough time?
What mechanism would stop a 2% genetic and 6% genomic change from accumulating within a species over six million years?
Where is there ANY evidence for this “devolution” you speak of? Can you point to a single species, in the wild or in the lab, that went extinct due to accumulation of detrimental mutations? Is this what killed the dinosaurs?
Is the dog a “de-evolved” wolf? They certainly seem to be at no loss as far as the abilities they were selected for. They sure do not seem “de-evolved” to me.
You're being kind, there. It would be a hard thing to do to come up with an example of a "beneficial" mutation. Besides, mutations get "repaired", ie, nullified, in most cases.
bump
Now explain to me why, under your ideas of what is and isn't a beneficial mutation, why a bacteria would have a mechanism to INCREASE its mutation rate during stress?
Why would a bacterial population WITH this mechanism to increase its mutation rate during stress survive better than a bacterial population WITHOUT this mechanism?
By all means, impress me with the explanatory and predictive power of creationism ............... .................................................................... ................................................................ ...............
To quote Sean Connery “I'm waiting to be impressed.”
You’re confusing “mutation” with adaptation, probably on purpose, in order to justify your assumptions.
Unless you’re going to assert that there is an increase in DNA information due to “heat stress”...
The question is, was the information and ability to adapt already there? Or did an external source cause the mutation?
I know this argument is fruitless, because you assume what you’re trying to prove, but I’m not one to be ingracious.
Global warming is a special case. It has been latched onto by various political powers early on and promoted beyond its merits. Long ago it was already hard to get research grants unless it was sure a scientist was going to support AGW because the governments and NGOs had already seen the power they could have in advancing AGW.
Natural Selection was formed in a hostile environment, where in a highly religious age claims of heresy and blasphemy abounded. It's proponents risked ridicule and shame, and even legal repercussions. Yet it survived on the merits, eventually becoming the dominant scientific theory in the field.
Intelligent Design is trying to pull a Global Warming. The proponents have plans to leverage political bodies, the courts and apologetics to try to force the belief to prominence, starting with the faithful who would believe it only because of their religious beliefs, regardless of scientific merit. They do not intend for ID to become dominant on its merits, and they do not even promote it for scientific reasons.
Center for Scientific Creation - In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood
I've read this before. The author should be embarrassed.
The heat resistant bacteria you develop through selective pressures and heat stress is different from the original bacteria in its DNA and the resulting proteins the DNA codes for that are more heat stable. Difference in DNA = mutation.
What mechanism are you suggesting allows the bacteria to “adapt” to become more heat stable? How do the proteins in the heat resistant bacteria become more stable at high temperature?
In reality, the “information” on how to make those proteins, as contained in DNA, changed. This is mutation.
Why would a bacteria under stress have a mechanism that INCREASES its mutation rate?
The theory of evolution through natural selection of genetic variation provides an answer.
Creationism, as usual, provides nothing of any use.
As usual, you arrive at your conclusions by assuming what you’re trying to prove.
good day
I am not assuming that these DNA differences are what result in a different protein that is more heat resistant. That is known.
I am not assuming that bacteria have a mechanism to increase their mutation rate during stress. That is known.
I AM assuming that you do not have any explanation for any of the above and that is why you are attempting to get out of displaying the supposed brilliant explanatory powers of creationism. BECAUSE THERE IS NO BRILLIANT EXPLANATORY POWERS OF CREATIONISM!
You have no answer for why a bacteria under stress would have a mechanism for increasing its mutation rate.
If flies in the face of everything you think you know about mutations.
So you cannot deal with it!
Good day!
Experiments enhanced the validity of General Relativity, but it has not been confirmed or "proven." Just as Relativity showed the limits of Netwonian physics, so has quantum theory shown the limits of Relativity. Knowledge continually changes.
Fruit flies. Two genetic lines were interbred until they can no longer cross-breed, which is, by definition, "macro-evolution". But the mere fact that you make that argument shows your prejudices, because science makes no distinction between "micro" and "macro" evolution. That meme was sheer invention by the literal creationists.
All well and good except that those mutated fruit flies could not re-produce and they were still fruit flies. Also since this was done in a lab where intelligent design was super-imposed this would in fact invalidate the very idea that it is a natural process proving macro-evolution.
Macro-evolution means they would have to evolve into some new kind of organism. Never mind that the odds of any organism re-wiring the genetic code to re-produce something other than what they are is mathematically impossible. Even a measly 2-6% is a highly insurmountable number of ‘beneficial’ mutations for any organism to undergo - right AMD?
The pure-bred dogs contains DNA that is less viable than the wolf. Also it has been generally accepted that over 80% of all the different species to inhabit the earth are now extinct.
What mechanism is going to stop a 2% genetic change from accumulating in a population?
A human is perfectly viable, and the DNA it uses makes perfectly functioning proteins.
A chimpanzee is perfectly viable, and the DNA it uses is 98% the same as ours, and it makes perfectly functioning proteins.
Where along that 2% change do you see any insurmountable differences? Where does a perfectly viable human DNA sequence changing to a perfectly viable chimpanzee DNA sequence lead to a DNA sequence that doesn't work?
Are you suggesting that if the DNA is only 1% different it will not make a functioning protein, that it needs to be 2% different to work? And thus there is a “gap” that needs to be surmounted? Illogical and based upon absolutely nothing, but at least it is an actual testable claim, rare among creationists.
So.... what is this barrier you imagine that needs to be surmounted?
No, a dog and a wolf are both equally viable = able to live.
Moreover a dog is better adapted through selection of genetic traits towards its specific function.
Run a wolf in a greyhound race. Who wins?
Run a wolf in a dogsled race against huskies. Who wins?
Try to get a wolf to herd sheep as well as a herder. Who wins?
Try to get your wolf to dig a varmit out of a tunnel as well as a dachshund. Who wins?
Yes, the vast majority of all species that ever existed are now extinct. You think that they went extinct through mutation, but we did not? What protected us and every other species extant upon this Earth from this same ‘great plague of mutation caused extinction’ you propose?
This should be amusing!
Which is exactly the point. The individual lines could interbreed quite happily. The fact that not even sterile offspring of attempted crossbreeds occurred proved that those two lines of fruit flies are less closely related than (for instance) tigers and lions, or horses and jackasses. The fact that they still looked like fruit flies is irrelevant to the scientific point proved.
"Also since this was done in a lab where intelligent design was super-imposed this would in fact invalidate the very idea that it is a natural process proving macro-evolution."
Yes, but the mechanisms were the same as the ones that act in nature, so it was an ideal laboratory proof of "macro" evolution.
GW - yes it is a special case - a microcosm of how culture, peer-review and consensus can all be used to perpetrate a fraud on the public. Evolution has just been around a lot longer and spent less time under the ‘microscope’ of critical thinking.
NS - from a hostile environment? Wasn’t it a catholic monk who determined the science of natural selection and gene transfer. Hardly a hostile environment.
ID - while I do not agree w/ the wedge strategy I do see that everything in the universe shows intelligent design.
Scientific study is the application of logic or of trying to uncover the rules that govern the structure(s). Life and creation are way too intricate and inter-twined to be attributed to chance. Since ID is not the hot topic it once was I can only conclude you have an ulterior motive for bringing it up now.
Mendel's working out genetics didn't run contrary to Creation. It only explained differences, as creationists would say today, "within kind."
I do see that everything in the universe shows intelligent design. ... Life and creation are way too intricate and inter-twined to be attributed to chance.
Those are both highly subjective opinions.
Since ID is not the hot topic it once was I can only conclude you have an ulterior motive for bringing it up now.
ID was just another attempt to put a scientific veneer on creationism. Most creation proponents had realized that putting the word "Science" after "Creation" wasn't getting many to buy that these religious beliefs were science.
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.