Why " evolution vs creationism"

[Bear Wild]

I am talking about mechanisms like natural genetic engineering,.... when there is selective preassure of some sort, organisms can rearrange their DNA, and produce say new proteins, to overcome that selective preassure.

These mechanisms have been observed, new proteins (and functional genetic material) appear by these me mechanisms, and at least "micro evolution" has been observed to have happened by these mechanisms.

My claim is that this mechanisms where responsable for most of the complexity and diversity of life. While random mutations are responsable for a minor part.

Note that these me mechanisms are not random, (as in random mutations) organisms are predetermined to react in certain ways given certain information that they receive from the environment.

@Subduction Zone
See this is how some answers to a question.

You are misunderstanding or how genetics works. From microbiological systems which are more simple to test and reproduce fast enough for greater data collection, we know that the environment can influence the activation of different genes but that is not the same as completely rearranging their dna or rna. They may produce different proteins but the genetic code is not changing only responding to the environmental stimulus.
There are the effects of methylation of cysteine which increases conservation of the DNA thus the lack of this methylation increases the rates of expression of the DNA referred to as epigenetics. There are transposons that can cut and paste genetic material but is not under a directed control. There are plasmids seen especially in bacterial that transfer new genetic material. Group I and II introns are a product from self-splicing in the host transcripts, and they act as ribosomes that can invade tRNA, rRNA, and protein coding genes in bacteria. There are also viral genetic introductions that affect the genetic code. Histones affect the genetic code and there is also crossing over during meiosis.
James Shapiro has been arguing these points and has some very good research however when he states the this is some intelligent design he has gone beyond the realm of science into things he wants to believe. There is no evidence for a specific direction but rather the influence of natural selection thus not intelligent design. These new aspects of increasing variation in the genetic code beyond just random mutations has been selected by natural selection. It is only in humans wishes that the desire come up with a reason to incorporate intelligent design is present without the evidence to support it.
So where is the intelligent designer located? In atoms so that all living and non living things has some aspect of intelligence, which is an interesting idea and certainly supports animism (which is an belief I have great respect for}. Is the intelligence in the electrons or the space between matter. The location for the intelligence is the problem. Of course one could believe in the Force as seen in the movies Star Wars. And this is an aspect seen in some views of the pantheist view point.
Yes genetic variation is not only due to random mutations and there are amazing ways the genetic code can be altered but it is still driven by natural selection and not by an intelligence outside of the intelligence of plants and animals.

 

[ecco]

What natural mechanisms? I ask because I too believe that evolution is driven mainly by natural mechanisms. But I don't think we are talking about the same thing.

I am talking about mechanisms like natural genetic engineering .... when there is selective preassure of some sort, organisms can rearrange their DNA, and produce say new proteins, to overcome that selective preassure.

That's an interesting choice of words. The problem is that "natural" and "engineering" do not go together. Engineering is something that requires a thought process. Do you believe DNA "thinks"?

 

[leroy]

That's an interesting choice of words. The problem is that "natural" and "engineering" do not go together. Engineering is something that requires a thought process. Do you believe DNA "thinks"?

Well I didn't invented the term "natural genetic engineering" the term is widelly available in books research articles etc.



DNA doesnt "think" .... DNA is simply predisposed to react/change under given circumstances.

 

[leroy]

Yes genetic variation is not only due to random mutations and there are amazing ways the genetic code can be altered but it is still driven by natural selection and not by an intelligence outside of the intelligence of plants and animals.

Ok we agree on the that NS has....
So my claim is that these non random mechanisms, are largelly responsible for building complex organs and systems, while random mutations played a minor role.

Do you agree or disagree with my view?

 

[Audie]

Well I didn't invented the term "natural genetic engineering" the term is widelly available in books research articles etc.



DNA doesnt "think" .... DNA is simply predisposed to react/change under given circumstances.

James Shapiro and a gaggle of ID people who think he
disproved ToE are the only ones who use the term.

His views are not accepted by other geneticists.

 

[Subduction Zone]

James Shapiro and a gaggle of ID people who think he
disproved ToE are the only ones who use the term.

His views are not accepted by other geneticists.

I think that we are seeing a new definition of "widely".

 

[Bear Wild]

Ok we agree on the that NS has....
So my claim is that these non random mechanisms, are largelly responsible for building complex organs and systems, while random mutations played a minor role.

Do you agree or disagree with my view?

Yes there are pure random events and more complex rearrangements, additions and deletions that can be influenced but the environment. Both play a role and there is not intelligent designer guiding the changes. That we can agree on.

 

[leroy]

Yes there are pure random events and more complex rearrangements, additions and deletions that can be influenced but the environment. Both play a role and there is not intelligent designer guiding the changes. That we can agree on.

I say that random mutations play a minor role. Do we still agree?

 

[leroy]

James Shapiro and a gaggle of ID people who think he
disproved ToE are the only ones who use the term.

His views are not accepted by other geneticists.

I have no idea on what are Shapiro's personal views, but the facts that he reports in his papers are widelly accepted .

But you are free to make a case against Shapiro. Why is he wrong?

 

[Audie]

I have no idea on what are Shapiro's personal views, but the facts that he reports in his papers are widelly accepted .

But you are free to make a case against Shapiro. Why is he wrong?

I am no genrticist, but then, you are not either.
We feel your use of "widely" is a bit broad.

Astrology is also widely accepted.

Perhaps the real q here, for your privste
cogitation, is why you, or creationists as a
whole, are so inclined to gravitate to the
far fringes of science, so attracted to
researchers whose ideas get the least respect
from their peers.

And whose claims not-so-coincidentally coincide
with their religious views.

 

[tas8831]

Why is it called "evolution vs creationism"? This implies that creationists dont believe in passing on of traits, adaptation, a finches beak changing its shape across several generations depending on environment. But creationists DO accept these things. Wouldnt a better title be " creationism vs the belief that new traits/ things materialize out of nowhere"?

Why is that strawman nonsense a better choice?

 

[tas8831]

Why are so many anti-science creationists drive-by spammer/trolls?

 

[tas8831]

I am not aware of any creationists who deny speciation.

The difference is that evolutionists believe that changes are limitless, while creationists believe that there are limits.

Please present the evidence that there are limits, and also define what is meant here by "limits."

 

[tas8831]

Not to mention that creationists do provide examples of what they claim are “absolute barriers” that prevent any “bigger” change, Irreducibly complexity, genetic entropy, statistical improbabilities Haldane's dilemma etc. would be examples of such barriers.

Please do expand on these. Especially Haldane's dilemma. I am curious as to whether or not the creationist/ID position is the same as it was in the 1990s. In my experience, these listed issues are mere rhetorical arguments, devoid of any real evidence.

 

[leroy]

I am no genrticist, but then, you are not either.
We feel your use of "widely" is a bit broad.

Astrology is also widely accepted.

Perhaps the real q here, for your privste
cogitation, is why you, or creationists as a
whole, are so inclined to gravitate to the
far fringes of science, so attracted to
researchers whose ideas get the least respect
from their peers.

And whose claims not-so-coincidentally coincide
with their religious views.

I am not in the “far fridges” of science, I mentioned Shapiro as an example, but the trend in the last 20+ years in the field is that scientists are constantly discovering non random genetic changes that contribute to the adaptation and diversity of species.

To this point, scientists don’t deny that both “random” and “non random mutations” play a role, the only controversy is on how relevant is the role for each type of mutation.



My faith is irrelevant, I would still believe in the resurrection of Christ regardless if my view on evolution is correct or wrong.

 

[leroy]

Please do expand on these. Especially Haldane's dilemma. I am curious as to whether or not the creationist/ID position is the same as it was in the 1990s. In my experience, these listed issues are mere rhetorical arguments, devoid of any real evidence.

As far as I concerned, the ball is on your side, heldines dilemma has not been solved. At most evolutionists have exposed some ungranted assertions made in the argument, but to my knowledge no evolutionary scientists has been able to example how could humans and chimps evolved from a common ancestor in just 5M years, considering the slow rate of mutations, the slow rate of reproduction in primates and the differences between these two organism.

 

[metis]

...but to my knowledge no evolutionary scientists has been able to example how could humans and chimps evolved from a common ancestor in just 5M years, considering the slow rate of mutations, the slow rate of reproduction in primates and the differences between these two organism.

According to the geneticists I've read, that's really not a problem, especially since the genome testing is showing a more likely 6-7 million year b.p. split, and the fairly recent Chad find seems to also indicate this being a likelihood as well because of so many shared characteristics.

 

[leroy]

Please present the evidence that there are limits, and also define what is meant here by "limits."

Well for example, Haldines dilemma is an example of a limitation for evolution by random mutatiosn and natural selection.

Given the slow reproductive rate, the rarity of beneficial mutations and the time required for a mutation to become fixed, 5 million years is not enough time to evolve a modern chimp and a modern human from a common ancestor.

A small summery of heldines dilema

Imagine a population of 100,000 apes, the putative progenitors of humans. Suppose that a male and a female both received a mutation so beneficial that they out-survived everyone else; all the rest of the population died out—all 99,998 of them. And then the surviving pair had enough offspring to replenish the population in one generation. And this repeated every generation (every 20 years) for 10 million years, more than the supposed time since the last common ancestor of humans and apes. That would mean that 500,000 beneficial mutations could be added to the population (i.e., 10,000,000/20). Even with this completely unrealistic scenario, which maximizes evolutionary progress, only about 0.02% of the human genome could be generated. Considering that the difference between the DNA of a human and a chimp, our supposed closest living relative, is greater than 5%,Greater than 98% Chimp/human DNA similarity? Not any more. Journal of Creation 17(1):8–10, 2003." style="box-sizing: inherit; background-color: transparent; color: rgb(34, 139, 246); border-bottom: none; margin-bottom: 4px; cursor: pointer;">2evolution has an obvious problem in explaining the origin of the genetic information in a creature such as a human.....


read more
Haldane's dilemma has not been solved - creation.com

This is an example of many other limits that evolution by random mutations seem to have.

The good news is that the objection is perfectly falsifiable, just provide a realistic scenario that would produce a human and a chimp from a common ancestor, considering all the genetic differences that we have.

If we have 3B base pairs and we are suppose to share 95% of our genome with chimps, then there are 150,000,000 based pairs that evolved independently on each species.

 

[tas8831]

As far as I concerned, the ball is on your side, heldines dilemma has not been solved. At most evolutionists have exposed some ungranted assertions made in the argument, but to my knowledge no evolutionary scientists has been able to example how could humans and chimps evolved from a common ancestor in just 5M years, considering the slow rate of mutations, the slow rate of reproduction in primates and the differences between these two organism.

If Haldane's model was inapplicable, then why is there a dilemma at all?

Since the creationists claim "Haldane's dilemma" is a show-stopper, do they not need to show it to be the case? I read ReMine's book. I know that he, as all creationists do in their books, engaged in some rather selective quoting and a lot of sleight-of-hand and a bunch of unwarranted extrapolations.

I especially like how he asserts a massive conspiracy to 'keep the truth' from the public (he insists he is not a conspiracy nut, but what else shall we call what he describes?).

One of the more egregious acts of selective quoting comes from his discussion on GC Williams - he says he spent some time with him and he presents some quotes that seem damning. Yet, Williams actually not only thinks that "Haldane's dilemma" is non-existent, he published some papers indicating this. So how did ReMine not mention any of that? Well, he only quoted him regarding his position if Haldane's model were true. Just like how so many spin Dawkin's on aliens and ID...

 

[tas8831]

Well for example, Haldines dilemma is an example of a limitation for evolution by random mutatiosn and natural selection.

Yes, I am well versed in it.

Given the slow reproductive rate, the rarity of beneficial mutations and the time required for a mutation to become fixed, 5 million years is not enough time to evolve a modern chimp and a modern human from a common ancestor.

Explain.

A small summery of heldines dilema

I will insert come comments into this creation dot com essay.

[insert]Imagine a population of 100,000 apes, the putative progenitors of humans. Suppose that a male and a female both received a mutation so beneficial that they out-survived everyone else

A misrepresentation right out of the box - why would they both have to have it?

; all the rest of the population died out—all 99,998 of them.

If this scenario had merit, the selection coefficient would be off the charts!

And then the surviving pair had enough offspring to replenish the population in one generation. And this repeated every generation (every 20 years) for 10 million years, more than the supposed time since the last common ancestor of humans and apes. That would mean that 500,000 beneficial mutations could be added to the population (i.e., 10,000,000/20). Even with this completely unrealistic scenario, which maximizes evolutionary progress, only about 0.02% of the human genome could be generated.

So? Why would the whole genome need to be generated? These people are lying to you, Leroy - they rely on the fact that their main targets (folks like you) have no understanding of genetics and will just accept what they say.

Considering that the difference between the DNA of a human and a chimp, our supposed closest living relative, is greater than 5%,Greater than 98% Chimp/human DNA similarity? Not any more. Journal of Creation 17(1):8–10, 2003." style="box-sizing: inherit; background-color: transparent; color: rgb(34, 139, 246); border-bottom: none; margin-bottom: 4px; cursor: pointer;">2evolution has an obvious problem in explaining the origin of the genetic information in a creature such as a human.....[/insert]

Apples and oranges and plums and nonsense...

Interestingly, I just did a search and came across an essay by a young creationist I had first encountered on another forum about 15 years ago - he is now a scientist working in genetics. His essay (not, interestingly, a peer-reviewed paper), though, shows how strong his creationist brainwashing was - he writes about Haldane's dilemma, cites electrical engineer creationist ReMine, and comes to the same basic conclusion, premised on the same basic emotional position (though his numbers vary somewhat from ReMine's) - similar to what you just wrote - that the number of fixed beneficial mutations allowed via his calculations just, darn it, don;t seem like enough.

Missing in this guy's essay is the same thing that was missing in ReMine's book which is missing in the creation dot com essay - an explanation as to WHY the 'allowed' amount of beneficial mutations are not 'enough.'

ReMine came up with 1667, this guy (not going to give his name) came up with about double that, but they both imply that it is just not enough.

One of the main reasons that they think this way is based, IMO, in their anthropocentrism and their lack of understanding of the effects of mutation on phenotype.

Why, how could ONLY 1667 (or around 3000) beneficial mutations separate us, God's own creations, from mere dirty apes?

When we couple that basic position with other creationist writings about ridiculously large number of 'trait changes' "required for X*', we can see how ignorance gives these creationists some confidence.

*Once was in a discussion with a computer scientist creationist who runs like 4 websites about creationism declare that he believed that more than 1 million mutations would have been required to produce just the skeletal and muscular structures needed to get bipedality from a quadrupedal ape. I asked for 100 such structures that needed their own specific mutations, and I never heard from him again.