|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,914 Year: 4,171/9,624 Month: 1,042/974 Week: 1/368 Day: 1/11 Hour: 0/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member Posts: 3945 From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior) Joined: Member Rating: 10.0 |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: To the creationists - the tough question | |||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5225 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
quote: They aren't mutually exclusive. Only if you subscribe to a fundamentalist christian (probably any faith) ideal do they oppose. 6 day genesis, flood etc. If there was an intelligent designer that created the universe, & created life with the ability to evolve so he/she/it could just leave it to its own devices, would that be any less true/likely than any faith in the world today? Most people who don't particularly subcribe to any religion, nor are they active atheists, believe something like this. "there must be something", kind of argument. ------------------Occam's razor is not for shaving with.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5225 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
quote: That wasn't the question. I could just as easily ask, give me evidence there is no God that created God. ------------------Occam's razor is not for shaving with. [This message has been edited by mark24, 01-01-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5225 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
quote: The question was "What sort of evidence would you find convincing enough to sway you into believing that organic evolution was and is real?" ------------------Occam's razor is not for shaving with.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5225 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
quote: He asked "What sort of evidence would you find convincing enough to sway you into believing that organic evolution was and is real?" You have merely asked me/him to disprove something that you yourself don't know to exist. I therefore ask, without reference to God, prove evolution never happened. A bit shitty, don't you think? ------------------Occam's razor is not for shaving with.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5225 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
Fair enough, Moose?
------------------Occam's razor is not for shaving with.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5225 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
Define new information.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5225 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
quote: So now define new information by telling me what it IS & not what it isn't. I've heard a LOT about what new information isn't. Mark ------------------Occam's razor is not for shaving with.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5225 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
quote: Good grief, define new information or don't. It would go like this..... "New information is defined as........" If you can't do this, then stop posting on a thread that asked for a definition of new information. Mark ------------------Occam's razor is not for shaving with. [This message has been edited by mark24, 02-08-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5225 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
quote: In addition to Joz, message 54
http://www.nmsr.org/nylon.htm "My favorite example of a mutation producing new information involves a Japanese bacterium that suffered a frame shift mutation that just happened to allow it to metabolize nylon waste. The new enzymes are very inefficient (having only 2% of the efficiency of the regular enzymes), but do afford the bacteria a whole new ecological niche. They don't work at all on the bacterium's original food - carbohydrates. And this type of mutation has even happened more than once!" So, by, both Warrens & TC definitions, new information exists, as derived by genetic mutation. Mark ------------------Occam's razor is not for shaving with.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5225 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
Plasmids are the form that the bacterial DNA strand, & the nucleotide sequences, genes, reside on, as opposed to chromosomes in eukaryotes.
The mutation was a nucleotide insertion, not deletion ( my mistake, but both cause frameshifting), & a frameshift, that resulted in a new, functional protein ( In actual fact this amounts to the same amount of amino acids, given it takes a codon of 3 nuleotides to code an amino acid, the extra on tagged on at the end is wasted, amino acid wise). It could just as easily be a deletion, (This would result in one LESS amino acids in the sequence) it matters not. A mutation caused an increase in functionality. Read the link again, the new amino acid sequence can be DEMONSTRATED from the original sequence, the new amino acid sequence & old sequence are defined by that ONE nucleotide difference. "Now, let's get back to Biology, and the case of the bacterium which has evolved the capability of ingesting nylon waste. This case is most interesting. Nylon didn't exist before 1937, and neither did this organism. Detailed examination of the DNA sequences of the original bacterium and of the nylon-ingesting version show identical versions in the gene for a key metabolic enzyme, with only one difference in over 400 nucleotides. However, this single microevolutionary addition of a single thymine ('T') nucleotide caused the new bacterium's enzyme to be composed of a completely novel sequence of amino acids, via the mechanism of frame shifting. The new enzyme is 50 times less efficient than its precursor, as would be expected for a new structure which has not had time to be polished by natural selection. However, this inefficiency would certainly not be expected in the work of an intelligent designer. The genetic mutation that produced this particular irreducibly-complex enzyme probably occurred countless times in the past, and probably was always lethal, until the environment changed, and nylon was introduced." I repeat. "Detailed examination of the DNA sequences of the original bacterium and of the nylon-ingesting version show identical versions in the gene for a key metabolic enzyme, with only one difference in over 400 nucleotides". That is to say, an allele has ONE nucleotide difference, compared to the wild type, & has a completely different function. That more than one species has the ability is mentioned in the link. Again, for prokaryotic bacterial plasmids, read eukaryotic chromosomes. Mark ------------------Occam's razor is not for shaving with. [This message has been edited by mark24, 02-08-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5225 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
quote: Inelegant, but basically sound, apart from the "freak" part.
quote: What on earth has evolutionary theory got to with moral reasoning? If you think homosexuals are immoral, or giving babies congenital diseases is actually OK, because someone allegedly ate an apple 6,000 years ago, then you really need to take a long hard look at the bibles so called "morality". Because to me it just looks like spiteful, nasty, vindictiveness. I find it hard to believe that Lucifer is worse than God. As I have shown in the "Always a laugh" thread, message 20, there was plenty of evidence that pointed to evolution, BEFORE Charles Darwin came along. So why do you persist with this "sounds like a nice story" crap? Does the bible have any evidence to support its divine nature? Or evidence to support the divine actions that allegedly took place? No. Does the bible provide us with any evidence that compares to the COLOSSAL amount of data now available, that supports the ToE? No. To mutter that the theory of evolution is a story, is a triumph of hope over expectation, & frankly, uttering it in the face of such evidence, just makes you look silly & unreasonable. Mark ------------------Occam's razor is not for shaving with. [This message has been edited by mark24, 02-10-2002] [This message has been edited by mark24, 02-10-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5225 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
quote: Are you seriously telling me you have rejected the ToE without making yourself familiar with the evidence? Mark ------------------Occam's razor is not for shaving with.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024