|
Author
|
Topic: Supernatural information supplier
|
mike the wiz
Member Posts: 4755 From: u.k Joined: 05-24-2003
|
|
Message 1 of 208 (160092)
11-16-2004 12:22 PM
|
|
|
Could the age old dilemma of mutation be solved via a supernatural agency? " An error in replication or other alteration of the nucleotide base sequence creating a change in the sequence of base pairs on a DNA molecule " I was thinking that, apparently - there are derogatory mutations, and apparently - new traits are counted for by explanation of mutation mechanism. But there have been complaints by creationists, that mutation isn't a good enough explanation for evolution to happen. It is quite possible, that mutations themselves - aren't enough to answer for distinct and diverse morphological change. However - are accumulations of mutations a sufficient explanation? The creos have said that no new information can ever be added - and even scientists admitt this. But isn't mutation a change - rather than an addage? Nevertheless - I was thinking that God can add information - as we Theists obviously believe that God was the first to put the information in there. Your thoughts please.
|
AdminNosy
Administrator Posts: 4754 From: Vancouver, BC, Canada Joined: 11-11-2003
|
|
|
Message 2 of 208 (160146)
11-16-2004 3:24 PM
|
|
|
Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.
|
NosyNed
Member Posts: 9003 From: Canada Joined: 04-04-2003
|
Adding information
The creos have said that no new information can ever be added - and even scientists admitt this. But isn't mutation a change - rather than an addage? Mike, new information can be added by mutation and frequently is. This part of your suggestion is wrong.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 1 by mike the wiz, posted 11-16-2004 12:22 PM | | mike the wiz has not replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 22 by dshortt, posted 11-17-2004 11:29 AM | | NosyNed has replied |
|
pink sasquatch
Member (Idle past 6045 days) Posts: 1567 Joined: 06-10-2004
|
gene duplication
The creos have said that no new information can ever be added - and even scientists admitt this. I'm not sure which scientists you are referring to... One form of mutation is duplication, in which DNA sequence is duplicated - in some cases duplicating an entire gene or multiple genes. At this point many argue that nothing new has been created, instead there are just two identical (redundant) copies of a duplicated gene. However, subsequent mutation acts on the two copies of the genes independently, and so they change, diverging from each other over time. This divergence can produce two genes with different functions from what was originally a single gene. In this way, genetic "information" is added... Hopefully that makes sense; does it help answer your question?
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 1 by mike the wiz, posted 11-16-2004 12:22 PM | | mike the wiz has not replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 23 by dshortt, posted 11-17-2004 11:34 AM | | pink sasquatch has not replied |
|
Loudmouth
Inactive Member
|
quote:
Could the age old dilemma of mutation be solved via a supernatural agency?
Scientifically, no. Not unless the supernatural becomes testable through science.
quote:
It is quite possible, that mutations themselves - aren't enough to answer for distinct and diverse morphological change. However - are accumulations of mutations a sufficient explanation?
Of course it's possible that mutations may not be the ultimate answer, that is why evolution is a theory. However, mutations have been shown to be a sufficient explanation. Even during the last 50 years, beneficial mutations have been observed that affect physiology and morphology. These are very incremental changes, but it allows us to investigate the randomness of mutation and the capabilities of mutations to cause change. Extrapolating, mutations can cause major changes in morphology. Even better, changes in DNA sequence follow changes in morphology as in the case of the genes that control the development of the lower jaw and middle ear bones of different taxonomic groups. In the fossil record, the 2 lower jaw bones in reptiles become middle ear bones in mammals. The following article demonstrates that Bapx1 is responsible for the development of the middle ear and middle ear bones in mice while the same gene is responsible for constructing the lower jaw joint in fish.
Development. 2004 Mar;131(6):1235-45. Epub 2004 Feb 18. Related Articles, Links Bapx1 regulates patterning in the middle ear: altered regulatory role in the transition from the proximal jaw during vertebrate evolution. Tucker AS, Watson RP, Lettice LA, Yamada G, Hill RE. Department of Craniofacial Development and Orthodontics, Kings College London, Floor 28, Guy's Tower, Guy's Hospital, London SE1 9RT, UK. The middle ear apparatus is composed of three endochondrial ossicles (the stapes, incus and malleus) and two membranous bones, the tympanic ring and the gonium, which act as structural components to anchor the ossicles to the skull. Except for the stapes, these skeletal elements are unique to mammals and are derived from the first and second branchial arches. We show that, in combination with goosecoid (Gsc), the Bapx1 gene defines the structural components of the murine middle ear. During embryogenesis, Bapx1 is expressed in a discrete domain within the mandibular component of the first branchial arch and later in the primordia of middle ear-associated bones, the gonium and tympanic ring. Consistent with the expression pattern of Bapx1, mouse embryos deficient for Bapx1 lack a gonium and display hypoplasia of the anterior end of the tympanic ring. At E10.5, expression of Bapx1 partially overlaps that of Gsc and although Gsc is required for development of the entire tympanic ring, the role of Bapx1 is restricted to the specification of the gonium and the anterior tympanic ring. Thus, simple overlapping expression of these two genes appears to account for the patterning of the elements that compose the structural components of the middle ear and suggests that they act in concert. In addition, Bapx1 is expressed both within and surrounding the incus and the malleus. Examination of the malleus shows that the width, but not the length, of this ossicle is decreased in the mutant mice. In non-mammalian jawed vertebrates, the bones homologous to the mammalian middle ear ossicles compose the proximal jaw bones that form the jaw articulation (primary jaw joint). In fish, Bapx1 is responsible for the formation of the joint between the quadrate and articular (homologues of the malleus and incus, respectively) enabling an evolutionary comparison of the role of a regulatory gene in the transition of the proximal jawbones to middle ear ossicles. Contrary to expectations, murine Bapx1 does not affect the articulation of the malleus and incus. We show that this change in role of Bapx1 following the transition to the mammalian ossicle configuration is not due to a change in expression pattern but results from an inability to regulate Gdf5 and Gdf6, two genes predicted to be essential in joint formation. As you would expect, Bapx1 in fish and mammals differ significantly. The only process we have observed that changes nucleotide sequences is mutations. Therefore, it is very possible that cumulative mutations over millions of years changed the morphology of both the lower jaw and the middle ear.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 1 by mike the wiz, posted 11-16-2004 12:22 PM | | mike the wiz has not replied |
|
mikehager
Member (Idle past 6489 days) Posts: 534 Joined: 09-02-2004
|
Invocation of the supernatural.
Mutation can certainly be explained by invocation of the supernatural. Anything can. The explanation "god did it" is quite capable of covering any possible circumstance, if one accepts it for any circumstance. Personally, the above is one small reason I don't accept "god did it" for anything. It can explain all and it allows people who accept it even once to turn off their brains if they want. This is not to say that all creationists do.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 1 by mike the wiz, posted 11-16-2004 12:22 PM | | mike the wiz has not replied |
|
PaulK
Member Posts: 17825 Joined: 01-10-2003 Member Rating: 2.2
|
quote:
The creos have said that no new information can ever be added - and even scientists admitt this
It is true that the creos say this but it is not the case that scientists agree in any sense that would be useful to creationists. Typically when a creationist says that "new information" cannot be added they are bluffing. They literally do not understand what they are saying. I have asked often enough for them to explain and had no real answer to know this for a fact. I have seen two versions which actually try to make an argument. Werner Gitt attempts to redefine information theory to go beyond the syntactic level up to the semantic. But as I have discussed elsewhere on this forum he does so at the cost of implying that the genome contains no "Gitt-information" at all. His argument is irrelevant until it can be shown that the genome does contain "Gitt information" - which entails showing that it was intentionally designed. Lee Spetner attempts to apply actual information theory, but he only uses a partial measure of information by his own criteria - and uses different measures with no clear explanation of why. With no consistent measure or explanation of why he uses the measures he does or even why he chose the examples he did it is hard to avoid the conclusion that his measures are chosen to give the desired result.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 1 by mike the wiz, posted 11-16-2004 12:22 PM | | mike the wiz has not replied |
|
Philip
Member (Idle past 4745 days) Posts: 656 From: Albertville, AL, USA Joined: 03-10-2002
|
NS vs Mutation
Beneficial Mutation indeed must really be either supernatural and/or practically impossible; most evos seem to willfully confuse NS with true mutation to fit their unregulated evo-bias (e.g., "mutation hot spots", and other APRIORI fallacies). Mike, there are many doctors that entertain your thought, but ... The god-of-the-gaps fallacy offends serious Evangelical Creos and Evos both. This seems to me to make many Supernatural Evo theories and OEC theories to become a serious blundering of science and the Bible. "Supernatural information supplier" repeating itself AD-NAUSEUM seems to me to fall under this fallacy. (I may be wrong) There are better, and certainly less dissonant, OEC, YEC, GAP, and/or EX-NIHILO theories (on these and other forums) that support the concept that "no new information can ever be added".
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 1 by mike the wiz, posted 11-16-2004 12:22 PM | | mike the wiz has replied |
|
pink sasquatch
Member (Idle past 6045 days) Posts: 1567 Joined: 06-10-2004
|
|
|
Message 9 of 208 (160181)
11-16-2004 4:41 PM
|
Reply to: Message 8 by Philip
11-16-2004 4:20 PM
|
|
Re: NS vs Mutation
most evos seem to willfully confuse NS with true mutation to fit their unregulated evo-bias Name one. Seriously - it should be easy to do since "most" do it. Natural selection is NOT a form of mutation, so there is no way to confuse it with "true mutation". Mutation occurs. The result can be neutral, bad, or good, depending on the mutation and the environment. Natural selection is the step that weeds out the bad and keeps the good, to put it simply. Natural selection is a process that comes after mutation.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 8 by Philip, posted 11-16-2004 4:20 PM | | Philip has not replied |
|
mike the wiz
Member Posts: 4755 From: u.k Joined: 05-24-2003
|
|
|
Message 10 of 208 (160206)
11-16-2004 5:48 PM
|
Reply to: Message 8 by Philip
11-16-2004 4:20 PM
|
|
Re: NS vs Mutation
No evos confuse mutation with natural selection. NS acts on random mutation.
Beneficial Mutation indeed must really be either supernatural and/or practically impossible Loudmouth's post explained that accumulation of mutations would do the job. I'm not saying mutation is impossible for the second mechanism, I'm thinking that very big explosive changes could have God's fingers on them. The ToE itself - will be enough for someone who doesn't believe in an intelligent designer. I do. So, I don't "fill gaps" when my position is Theist. Naturally I think God is behind things, I don't use him as an excuse. *Sheesh*. Thanks Pink and L, I suppose we are ourselves "different" from our parents. I was thinking that no "new information" would be needed, just "changed" information. Ho hum. This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 11-16-2004 05:52 PM
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 8 by Philip, posted 11-16-2004 4:20 PM | | Philip has not replied |
|
pink sasquatch
Member (Idle past 6045 days) Posts: 1567 Joined: 06-10-2004
|
Re: NS vs Mutation
I'm not saying mutation is impossible for the second mechanism, I'm thinking that very big explosive changes could have God's fingers on them. Hey Mike, This statement isn't too far off from JAD's Prescribed Evolution Hypothesis. JAD's view is that "naturally" occurring mutation can account for some variance, but that major genetic (chromosome-level) changes were "supernaturally" preprogrammed into DNA to permit major species-level changes.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 10 by mike the wiz, posted 11-16-2004 5:48 PM | | mike the wiz has not replied |
|
jar
Member (Idle past 416 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
Re: NS vs Mutation
I'm not saying mutation is impossible for the second mechanism, I'm thinking that very big explosive changes could have God's fingers on them. I have a problem with that. Let me see if I can explain. If you take the position that some changes are not simply the result of mutation and Natural Selection, that GOD stepped in and influenced certain changes, I find that it makes GOD out to be simplistic, incompetent and capricious. For example, why dinosaurs? Why have a whole group of critters that exist, exist successfully for hundreds of millions of years, and then dissappear in a blink of an eye? Why wait billions of years to bring about man? Why, if man is the objective, make man's design so piss poor?
The ToE itself - will be enough for someone who doesn't believe in an intelligent designer. I do. So, I don't "fill gaps" when my position is Theist. I'm not sure how you can support that position logically. Do you believe man is designed? If so, by GOD? If that is your position, how can you rationalize the really poor design?
Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
mike the wiz
Member Posts: 4755 From: u.k Joined: 05-24-2003
|
|
|
Message 13 of 208 (160264)
11-16-2004 9:18 PM
|
Reply to: Message 12 by jar
11-16-2004 8:51 PM
|
|
Re: NS vs Mutation
Jar, I think you mis-understand what I mean by this. If God intended us, as I obviously believe, then if he used evolution to form us from the dust; His intentions of major change, could be found in this way. Essentially, he could effect critter change by intervening when necessary. When you think about it, this second mutation mechanism, is an addage of evolution "by means of natural selection". But if science cannot find anything else - and it turns out mutation is insufficient, then that's exactly what one would expect to find if God had his finger on it - that is, unexplainable un-evidenced yet true circumstances.
I'm not sure how you can support that position logically. Do you believe man is designed? If so, by GOD? If that is your position, how can you rationalize the really poor design? First of all - I don't believe we are a poor design, and I advise you not bother with giving me the jive - I've heard it all before from Shraff. I believe - man is designed, yes, but that evolution is a possible way God "formed" us - or it looks like the way he did it. If God is omniscient, he would see the outcome of all random and natural processes, in effect - his design - through certain events, would snowball into his intended conclusion.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 12 by jar, posted 11-16-2004 8:51 PM | | jar has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 14 by jar, posted 11-16-2004 9:36 PM | | mike the wiz has not replied |
|
jar
Member (Idle past 416 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
If you don't mind, let's explore that.
If God intended us, as I obviously believe, then if he used evolution to form us from the dust; His intentions of major change, could be found in this way. Why do you think GOD intended us? If that were true, why spend all the time developing dinosaurs? If we assume that what is seen in the evidence of evolution, almost every species that has ever lived lived before man, and most became extinct before man. Why is all that life less important than mankind?
First of all - I don't believe we are a poor design, and I advise you not bother with giving me the jive - But the poor design is not an opinion, it is evidence. If you look at ALL living things, they are really poorly built. Not just man, all living things.
Aslan is not a Tame Lion
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 13 by mike the wiz, posted 11-16-2004 9:18 PM | | mike the wiz has not replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 15 by nator, posted 11-17-2004 12:51 AM | | jar has replied |
|
nator
Member (Idle past 2192 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: 12-09-2001
|
|
|
Message 15 of 208 (160307)
11-17-2004 12:51 AM
|
Reply to: Message 14 by jar
11-16-2004 9:36 PM
|
|
Re: If you don't mind, let's explore that.
quote:
If you look at ALL living things, they are really poorly built. Not just man, all living things.
I dunno, Jar. Sharks are pretty well designed.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 14 by jar, posted 11-16-2004 9:36 PM | | jar has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 16 by jar, posted 11-17-2004 12:58 AM | | nator has replied |
|
™ Version 4.2