Originally posted by FeceMan
Sorry, I'm still not getting it. And not on purpose.God could easily let evolution to its own devices--like He has done with man. It doesn't mean that He's not in control.
Are you asking if I think that God is either separate from the universe or a part of it?
You are way too liberal for me to talk to you about this... 😂
Originally posted by Alliance
Thats the catching point. God can be at the start, but not at the middle. If god is constantly editing things, natural laws are constantly being destroyed.
Originally posted by FeceMan
I don't think that's necessarily true. Is it "editing the natural law" to give a genetic code a "poke" so that it changes in a certain manner?
That's an interesting and possible conclusion, but something still bothers me about it...
If God helps us evolve, and actually alters our genetics over time so that we can better adapt, then who is actually changing the world and environment ?
Is God changing the world too ? If he helps us adapt, we have to adapt to environmental changes obviously...so whose incharge of the environmental changes ? God ?
What's the point ? Why change anything ?
Originally posted by Lord Urizen
What's the point ? Why change anything ?
Originally posted by FeceMan
Because, as creationists will argue, there is too low of a probability for a beneficial mutation to occur naturally. Not only this, but DNA must first mutate via duplication and then a helpful mutation must happen to that portion (in some cases).
But why ? Why is the change even needed ? Are the changes of Nature independent of God according to your beleif ? If God controls nature, then why would he need to change it and the people ?
Originally posted by Lord Urizen
But why ? Why is the change even needed ? Are the changes of Nature independent of God according to your beleif ? If God controls nature, then why would he need to change it and the people ?
Originally posted by Alliance
Evolution is much deeper than simple mutation.
God editing is not a real valid conclusion. You would expect to see jumps in evolution...the old saltatation theories...and you would expect to see human biology make sense.
Originally posted by FeceMan
In designing all the safeguards of DNA replication, we are quite protected from mutation (unlike lower lifeforms).Of course. But one of its core tenants is that helpful mutations play a role in creating new DNA and thus new organisms.
That depends on the size of the "edits."
Mutations do not create new DNA, it creates new genotypes.
Keep in mind evolution does not occour on the individual level. An individual cannot evolve. Populations evolve.
I don't have a list of the most important mechanisms of evolution, but changing environment plays, imo, a much bigger role. Evolution is more selecting variations (sometimes ones that were previously insignificant) that are already there rather than creating new one.
Originally posted by FeceMan
That depends on the size of the "edits."
If we can't distinguish editing from natural processes, then it makes not difference and god is a superfulous addition to the theory that neither contributes nor clarifies.
Originally posted by Alliance
Mutations do not create new DNA, it creates new genotypes.Keep in mind evolution does not occour on the individual level. An individual cannot evolve. Populations evolve.
I don't have a list of the most important mechanisms of evolution, but changing environment plays, imo, a much bigger role. Evolution is more selecting variations (sometimes ones that were previously insignificant) that are already there rather than creating new one.
If we can't distinguish editing from natural processes, then it makes not difference and god is a superfulous addition to the theory that neither contributes nor clarifies.
Originally posted by FeceMan
What I meant was, when DNA is duplicated--a mutation--extra DNA arises. If this gets mutated, then it's "new" DNA.
No, no, no. There are many types of mutations, and they do not necessarily result in the "creation" (repitition) of extra DNA. DNA duplicates normally all the time. This is a natural process and can result in mutation, but is not evidence of a mutation itself.
Originally posted by FeceMan
What if God makes a lot of "edits" over a long period of time? Manipulating genetics and environmental factors would be a key part of this...it doesn't seem particularly "superfluous" to me.
It also implies that god always edits DNA, meaning that every mutation/alteration of DNA is god's hand, even when there are scientifically proven mechanisms. There are many more ramifications of this...none of which I particularly find compelling, depsite my religous beliefs.
Originally posted by Alliance
There are many types of mutations, and they do not necessarily result in the "creation" (repitition) of extra DNA.
It also implies that god always edits DNA, meaning that every mutation/alteration of DNA is god's hand, even when there are scientifically proven mechanisms.
Originally posted by FeceMan
Yeah, I know that. But there is a specific type of mutation that DNA undergoes called duplication that results in an extra copy of DNA on a chromosome.
Yes, but thats not the only one, not the most common type, and not the only one that relates to evolution.
Originally posted by FeceMan
No, it implies that God gives mutation a nudge when a particularly unlikely event is to happen. I believe the standard IDT number is when a mutation has less than a 1x10^150 chance of occurring or something.
And as I've said, mutation is not the mechanism of evolution, it is ONE mechanism of the creation of variation that evolution can act upon.
I'd I don't know where that number is or actually what it is referring too, but mutations are very common and often inert.
Originally posted by Alliance
And as I've said, mutation is not the mechanism of evolution, it is ONE mechanism of the creation of variation that evolution can act upon.
I'd I don't know where that number is or actually what it is referring too, but mutations are very common and often inert.
That has to be one of the cruelest diseases ever.
Also...
Specified complexityThe intelligent design concept of "specified complexity" was developed by mathematician, philosopher, and theologian William Dembski. Dembski states that when something exhibits specified complexity (i.e., is both complex and specified, simultaneously), one can infer that it was produced by an intelligent cause (i.e., that it was designed) rather than being the result of natural processes. He provides the following examples: "A single letter of the alphabet is specified without being complex. A long sentence of random letters is complex without being specified. A Shakespearean sonnet is both complex and specified."[39] He states that details of living things can be similarly characterized, especially the "patterns" of molecular sequences in functional biological molecules such as DNA.
Dembski defines complex specified information as anything with a less than 1 in 10^150 chance of occurring by (natural) chance.
William Dembski is an IDer and is neither a prolific publisher or a credible one. ID is not science, nor is his proposal. That alone makes it irrelevant to evolution.
Further analysis reveals its flaws. There is no rationale for including a creator, its HIS arbitrary OPINION. I have no idea what he could possible base his mathematical calculations on. Unfortunralty, this is jsut a semi rehash of irriducible complexity, which has been explained.
It still doesn't address where the # on mutation comes from, beyond trying to make Dembski's opinion valid.
I encourage you to take a look at Stephen Wolfram's Theory of cellular automata, popularly published in the mammoth book A New Kind of Science. He addresses how SEEMINGLY complex patterns ,for example the veins of a leaf or the shape of a seashell, can be created using absurdly simple, even pictographical mathematical laws.
Originally posted by Alliance
William Dembski is an IDer and is neither a prolific publisher or a credible one. ID is not science, nor is his proposal. That alone makes it irrelevant to evolution.Further analysis reveals its flaws. There is no rationale for including a creator, its HIS arbitrary OPINION. I have no idea what he could possible base his mathematical calculations on. Unfortunralty, this is jsut a semi rehash of irriducible complexity, which has been explained.
I encourage you to take a look at Stephen Wolfram's Theory of cellular automata, popularly published in the mammoth book A New Kind of Science. He addresses how SEEMINGLY complex patterns ,for example the veins of a leaf or the shape of a seashell, can be created using absurdly simple, even pictographical mathematical laws.
Originally posted by FeceMan
Not making an argument, just telling you what I've read. The numbers are probably based on the relative rate of mutations and how mutations are believed to have coincided to create complex structures.
As I've said...mutations are not necessarily the cause of the development of organs and the like.
Originally posted by FeceMan
Oh, I know about that. Fractals and whatnot. We looked at that in eighth grade, actually...which, ironically enough, is more of an argument for design, I think, than any amount of number-crunchery.
how so?