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.
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 ?
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).
__________________ Ask me about my "obvious and unpleasant agenda of hatred."
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 ?
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.
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.
What I meant was, when DNA is duplicated--a mutation--extra DNA arises. If this gets mutated, then it's "new" DNA.
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.
__________________ Ask me about my "obvious and unpleasant agenda of hatred."
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.
Its scientifically superfulous.
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.
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.
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.
__________________ Ask me about my "obvious and unpleasant agenda of hatred."
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.
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.
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.
__________________ Ask me about my "obvious and unpleasant agenda of hatred."
KMC Community Forums
Mar 27th, 2007 07:11 PM
.
