Some questions about evolution (genetics etc) and possible implications for creationism

[ImmortalFlame]

Have you started trying to rearrange the parts of a unicycle in order to make it into a jet? How's that going for you?

Are you going to engage with my arguments, or continue being obtuse because you fear them?

 

[Wildswanderer]

This is another goalpost shift. We were talking about how evolution works, and now your argument is about how something can't come from nothing.

Evolution can't work unless there's a beginning mechanism to kick start it. There's no selection without something to select.

 

[Wildswanderer]

I am still waiting for you to define "kind" with specifics. Could you kindly do that?

I'm not well-wisher. You are confusing who is posting.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Are you going to engage with my arguments, or continue being obtuse because you fear them?

Lol, project much? You said we could make a jet from a unicycle, I'm just encouraging you to accept the challenge.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Evolution can't work unless there's a beginning mechanism to kick start it. There's no selection without something to select.

Which is a very silly argument to make.

If we were debating whether or not gravity was a valid theory, would it be reasonable for me to argue that it is not valid because gravitational theory doesn't explain the origin of mass, and you need mass for gravity to act upon it?

It is not difficult to see why such an argument is just a diversionary tactic.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I'm not well-wisher. You are confusing who is posting.

My mistake - I'll edit the post.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Lol, project much? You said we could make a jet from a unicycle, I'm just encouraging you to accept the challenge.

Are you just going to play games?

 

[Yerda]

There are many conditions that must be met if mutation is to bring about macro-evolution.
(change from one basic kind of life to another)

What are these conditions?

The gist of the OP is that the differences in all the kinds of life are dictated by the genome. If the genome can be changed then you would think that the kinds of life can be also. The difference between human and chimpanzee physiology is controlled by the genome. If God started picking genes to mutate in a population of humans is there anything stopping him from arriving at something very like a chimp (and certainly not a human)? Or the reverse?

"I was once brought in by the Dean of the Department, many years ago, and he was a chemist. He was kind of concerned about some things. I said, “Let me ask you something. You’re a chemist. Do you understand this? How do you get DNA without a cell membrane? And how do you get a cell membrane without a DNA? And how does all this come together from this piece of jelly?” We have no idea, we have no idea. I said, “Isn’t it interesting that you, the Dean of science, and I, the chemistry professor, can talk about this quietly in your office, but we can’t go out there and talk about this?”

(Professor James M. Tour... one of the ten most cited chemists in the world. )

The picture of how life can emerge from non-life is still not clear. The first textbook with a section on abiogenesis I ever looked at said basically we haven't the foggiest idea really. Not really the subject of this thread, but there are many others that discuss the emergence of life on RF if you search.

Biology uses a shallow criteria to catalog species; the superficial shell. But the operating system of the brain is also connected to the DNA. That would involve consciousness and instinct. Consciousness leads the shallow body when any species interacts with the environment The brain may have a role in sculpturing the body to the shallow shell criteria of biology. Humans go to the gym and breeders choose which dog they will breed; final shell.

In the bible and creation the new human operating system had free will and choice, which was different from instinct. The dating coincides with the formation of civilization which will require a new operating system ; spiritual instead of material shell change.

Biology does what it does. It's fair to say that if we found two animals and wanted to know if they were different species we'd asked a biologist, yes?

The point isn't really about the criteria biology applies. At some stage the difference between the product of a lineage (descendent) and the starting point (ancestor) are going to be so large that no-one would argue that they are separate species (or types if you prefer).

Now, I understand that you think such a large difference can't arise but that's the challenge of the OP. If the difference between two animal bodies is controlled by the difference in genome then continually altering the genome will cause large differences in the bodies at some point. If this is wrong (it's definitely oversimplifying because I'm not an expert) then I'm inviting arguments as to why.

In any case, have a good one.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Which is a very silly argument to make.

If we were debating whether or not gravity was a valid theory, would it be reasonable for me to argue that it is not valid because gravitational theory doesn't explain the origin of mass, and you need mass for gravity to act upon it?

It is not difficult to see why such an argument is just a diversionary tactic.

Only it's not. We are talking about the beginning of life. Evolution explains nothing about where we came from. It also is illogical to believe an amoeba can transition into a dinosaur no matter how many forms are in between. It can't happen without an outside force adding information. Why believe it was gradual at all? That doesn't compute.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Are you just going to play games?

Are you just afraid to try?

 

[Wildswanderer]

Now, I understand that you think such a large difference can't arise but that's the challenge of the OP. If the difference between two animal bodies is controlled by the difference in genome then continually altering the genome will cause large differences in the bodies at some point. If this is wrong (it's definitely oversimplifying because I'm not an expert) then I'm inviting arguments as to why.

Because you don't have enough of the correct information already in the genetic code for a fish to develop into a bird.
You would need to design a completely different code.
That's why you can get from a wolf to a Weiner dog but not from a canine to a giraffe.

 

[Yerda]

Because you don't have enough of the correct information already in the genetic code for a fish to develop into a bird.
You would need to design a completely different code.
That's why you can get from a wolf to a Weiner dog but not from a canine to a giraffe.

We don't need to get from fish to birds to show that macro-evolution is possible. We just need to get from fish to non-fish or bird to non-bird.

Ok. So pick a specific gene that birds have that fish don't. First mutant could be a duplicate of an already existing gene in the fish creating a redundancy. The redundant gene can then be altered a single nucleotide at a time if necessary til we arrive at the same gene that the bird has. Is there any reason that you know of that would prevent this from happening?

 

[SkepticThinker]

There are many conditions that must be met if mutation is to bring about macro-evolution.
(change from one basic kind of life to another)
A small change in the DNA can not last unless all these conditions are met at once, so any mutations can only have the effect of minor adaptation.
"I was once brought in by the Dean of the Department, many years ago, and he was a chemist. He was kind of concerned about some things. I said, “Let me ask you something. You’re a chemist. Do you understand this? How do you get DNA without a cell membrane? And how do you get a cell membrane without a DNA? And how does all this come together from this piece of jelly?” We have no idea, we have no idea. I said, “Isn’t it interesting that you, the Dean of science, and I, the chemistry professor, can talk about this quietly in your office, but we can’t go out there and talk about this?”

(Professor James M. Tour... one of the ten most cited chemists in the world. )

Why are you quoting a chemist talking about abiogenesis?

 

[SkepticThinker]

Only it's not. We are talking about the beginning of life. Evolution explains nothing about where we came from. It also is illogical to believe an amoeba can transition into a dinosaur no matter how many forms are in between. It can't happen without an outside force adding information. Why believe it was gradual at all? That doesn't compute.

Evolution isn't about the beginning of life. It's about how life operates once it's already here.

The beginning of life is referred to as abiogenesis, and it's a separate field of study.

If you want to assert that some outside forcing is acting to create a bunch of "kinds" or whatever, then you'd need to demonstrate that instead of just asserting it.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Only it's not. We are talking about the beginning of life.

No, we are not. We are talking about evolution, which is the process of how life changes over time. You don't need to know how life started in order to observe and understand how it changes.

Evolution explains nothing about where we came from.

Because it is not supposed to. This is like faulting the theory of relativity because it doesn't help you bake a cake.

It also is illogical to believe an amoeba can transition into a dinosaur no matter how many forms are in between.

Every single living thing that reproduces does so from single cells. Why is this hard to believe? It takes a human embryo only a few months.

It can't happen without an outside force adding information. Why believe it was gradual at all? That doesn't compute.

Because it's what the evidence suggests. And there's nobody saying you can't also believe that there is an outside force influencing it. You can believe that if you want - I don't see how that need be inconsistent with evolutionary theory. It just isn't something that we can demonstrate or examine scientifically.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Are you just afraid to try?

You're suggesting that the only reason I don't purchase a unicycle and slowly transform it over time into a 747 is because I'm afraid to try?

I can't help but feel like you are wandering further and further from the actual point.

 

[Wildswanderer]

We don't need to get from fish to birds to show that macro-evolution is possible

Um, ok, do then how does everything evolve from a single celled organism? You obviously have to get from fish to birds. More than that, you have to get from germs to elephants.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Every single living thing that reproduces does so from single cells. Why is this hard to believe? It takes a human embryo only a few months.

Lol, a human has a host. It doesn't just grab extra material from nowhere to create itself.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Evolution isn't about the beginning of life. It's about how life operates once it's already here.

Only that doesn't work either. It's only mechanism is blind chance.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Only that doesn't work either. It's only mechanism is blind chance.

Believe whatever you want about it.

But it isn't evolution. It's abiogenesis.