Posted on 07/24/2009 8:24:50 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
Perhaps you could explain, in a scientific fashion, how genetic disorders like sickle cell anemia, albinism, cretinism etc. can exist. Obviously, the cells are defective genetically, yet the individual continues to exist (the basic principles were developed by no less than a priest some years ago, so they must be unassailable). :-)
Your point is clearly false. How do you rationalize putting it in front of folks? I know the answer, salvation. Your motives are pure, but the flawed method takes away from the purpose. Have you ever thought of taking a more logical path for the redeeming the unsaved? As I said, your goal is wonderful, but you just make yourself look silly with these tortuously false arguments. I am trying to be kind, but statements like yours make it difficult to maintain christian compassion (but I'm still working on this).
That’s not necessarily true. May I suggest you read Lamarck’s Signature. There may very well be a soma to germline feedback loop that utilizes transposable elements such as ERVs to complete the loop.
“Cells are irreducibly complex”
Thank God you don’t teach science. But please, please continue to post here.
All life is irreducibly complex, not just blood clotting cascades, etc. Read the links in reply #1, and then tell me Cottshop is wrong!:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2299702/posts#1
It is depressing and wrong. You're doing more damage to religion than science.
Mutations have been studied extensively and inducing mutations in experimental populations was one of geneticists first tricks to deciphering what was going on with DNA.
So why have we NEVER seen a population of bacteria going extinct through natural, or even induced, mutations?
They reproduce so fast that if one is proposing eventual human extinction from accumulated mutations, then the vast majority of bacterial populations should already be extinct, rather than becoming better suited to their environment (as has been observed time and time again).
So which side is wrong, the Creationists who say we are headed for error catastrophe and extinction, or the Evos who say the same???
Science offers a more optimistic worldview than you.
Sorry, I couldn't handle going any further than trying to deal with his tortuously flawed logic in search of support for his premise. At some point, the reader has to call it quits in indulging flaky science (this includes other pseudo-intellectual foolishness like global warming practitioners, as well as “creation scientists”). Sorry to lump those two together as I am a great advocate of the final goal of the creationists, but their preference for results before research are mutually consistent with the Enviros, and intolerable for folks seeking simple things like truth in both the physical and supernatural worlds).
I just wish the CS’s wouldn't embarrass the evangelical movement with their shenanigans. They make watching their efforts, like attending a pie fight. The effort can't be taken seriously, and they damage their cause more than they have the ability to understand. It's like street theater, the method is not to be taken seriously. I just wish it was otherwise.
Good one. This statement alone, shows there is yet a small chance of reconciliation.
And the answer to the question is, both. Again, those who put results before research are always the charlatans. If you presuppose that the only possible result is “error catastrophe and extinction”, then there is no need for inquiry. Without good unbiased research FIRST (before the result), it is not science and both sides are guilty to a greater or lesser degree, ie. Enviros and “creation scientists”. Both pre-assume the final result, and therein is their flaw.
They reproduce so fast that if one is proposing eventual human extinction from accumulated mutations, then the vast majority of bacterial populations should already be extinct,
That's an excellent question, and it seems like it should apply to other animals as well. Cats, for example, reach reproductive age at least five times quicker than humans. Shouldn't cats be extinct by now, or at least wouldn't they all be sickly mutants?
Have you ever thought about the fact that bacteria have tiny genomes and vastly higher numbers of offspring? I can’t remember where I read it, and I could be wrong, but if memory serves, something like 97% of bacterial perfectly replicate because of the tiny size of their genomes. Humans, on the other hand, have genomes that are something like 100 times bigger, and thus build up several copy errors in every individual.
You have yet to demonstrate why either one is wrong. I’m all ears.
If 97% is correct, and I have no reason to dispute it, it would be far more effective than the human reproductive level of success. As I recall, the chance of a fertilized human egg actually making it full term is under 20% (my memory is faulty at times so this is only an approximation as, I suspect, was the original paper).
In any event, one hopes those 80% folks get put back on the shelf and used again as they haven’t even had their wrapper removed yet. ;-)
And since homo sapiens is already a couple hundred thousand years old, creationists have now proven that we don’t exist.
Are you? Ok, I'll play.
The reason they are both wrong, is that they presuppose that the only outcome possible is “ error catastrophe and extinction”. Let's take them one at a time.
Is there a probability of any result other than “error”? Of course there is. That's called “truth”, and I would submit there's been plenty of it around even before man showed up (not that man cares about the before part, most men don't really care about much of anything before they become personally aware, but truth is one of those things that surpasses our own personal belief structure which I think you would probaby agree. Certainly, some men have spent the better part of their lives pursuing truth in one form or another (religious enlightenment for some, scientific enlightenment for others, at some point on the horizon they tend to merge). Thus truth is not only a probability, but a goal to be reached over falling short in error. That goal is possible you know, though many “Gloomy Gus” types deny it. Sad for them, but they're underachievers anyway.
A logical counterpart to catastrophe is....victory. Is it achievable? It is, in both the spiritual and corporeal arena. It is always a struggle to achieve, and only temporarily stable at that, but it is what the admirable humans are all about (let's hope our side keeps winning). The same thing goes on with good and evil. Both are achievable, but the tide goes in and out and I doubt that folks believe high and low tide don't exist, just like there's no single temperature for the earth. The Earth doesn't have a thermostat you can set and expect the temp to be the same 24/7. It goes back and forth just like the ebb and flow of good and evil. Neither is mutually exclusive. They exist in tandem. The existence of one does not preclude the other (Satan needs a job too). Nice to know if you're an advocate of free will. Good and evil, victory and catastrophe, kind of the same concept. But one over the other consistently? Nope. To claim otherwise is just absolutist drivel (my apologies if you disagree).
Extinction? Well, yes, it happens all the time. But to deny adaptation and progressive evolution is a bit presumptuous just like the predetermist beliefs of the Warmers. I agree that there's extinction, as it's pretty clear that it's part of God's plan, but so is (brace yourself) EVOLUTION. I'm not talking simple corporeal evolution (which seems to drive the Creationists absolutely bananas), but spiritual evolution as well. After all, if spiritual evolution/advancement is desirable and attainable (Reformation, redemption etc.), then accepting the probability of simple physical evolution/advancement is a walk in the park. One far overshadows the other (guess which one). I've always felt that the obsession with simple physical evolution, over spiritual evolution, leaves many fundamentalists rather missing the point. Which is more important? Spirtuality or corporealism? I suspect you already know the answer to that question.
Physical extinction is no big deal. It happens all the time. Something else will come along to fill the nitch eventually. It's not really good or bad. It's just the way it is, but to deny the evolutionary capacity of life (as part of God's plan) rather denies what we see around us every day. In my opinion, it is ungrateful for some of us to deny what our Creator has provided to us on this planet, but there are plenty that deny God's gifts. Sad. Evolution, and extinction are all part of God's plan and to deny one at the expense of the other is to deny God. You may put me out in left field, but it's not just your field. As you've guessed, I'm not an evolution denier (nor do I believe it denies God), as it's existence is all too obvious. YMMV obviously.
Back to you.
Even GGG’s favorite recourse Creation Ministries International advises against using this type of argument:
“Persisting in using discredited arguments simply rebounds—it’s the truth that sets us free (John 8:32), not error, and Christ is ‘the truth’ (John 14:6)!
http://creation.com/arguments-we-think-creationists-should-not-use
Continuing to trot out the same old refuted argument does not help your cause, or enhanced your creditability
· Professor Behe’s claim for irreducible complexity has been refuted in peer-reviewed research papers and has been rejected by the scientific community at large.”
· “ID proponents primarily argue for design through negative arguments against evolution, as illustrated by Professor Behe’s argument that “irreducibly complex” systems cannot be produced through Darwinian, or any natural, mechanisms. However, … arguments against evolution are not arguments for design. Expert testimony revealed that just because scientists cannot explain today how biological systems evolved does not mean that they cannot, and will not, be able to explain them tomorrow. As Dr. Padian aptly noted, “absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.”… Irreducible complexity is a negative argument against evolution, not proof of design, a point conceded by defense expert Professor Minnich.”
· “Professor Behe’s concept of irreducible complexity depends on ignoring ways in which evolution is known to occur. Although Professor Behe is adamant in his definition of irreducible complexity when he says a precursor “missing a part is by definition nonfunctional,” what he obviously means is that it will not function in the same way the system functions when all the parts are present. For example in the case of the bacterial flagellum, removal of a part may prevent it from acting as a rotary motor. However, Professor Behe excludes, by definition, the possibility that a precursor to the bacterial flagellum functioned not as a rotary motor, but in some other way, for example as a secretory system.
· “Professor Behe has applied the concept of irreducible complexity to only a few select systems: (1) the bacterial flagellum; (2) the blood-clotting cascade; and (3) the immune system. Contrary to Professor Behe’s assertions with respect to these few biochemical systems among the myriad existing in nature, however, Dr. Miller presented evidence, based upon peer-reviewed studies, that they are not in fact irreducibly complex.”
Now it is time for you to respond with some type of straw man, misdirection, out right avoidance, or the favorite tatic of riducle. However it would be a refeshing change if you could actually provide some evidence to show that any of those statements are in fact incorrect.
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.