Lungfishes vs Creationism

Polymath257 said:

Which only goes to show that sort of faith is intellectually dishonest.

There are many scientists who are theists. The man who was going to be my astrophysics PhD advisor was one. But he still had an open mind and wanted to understand the universe, even if that meant he had to wait until he died to ask God about the discrepancies.

Click to expand...

What kind of faith does not require it?

Brian2 said:

I found an article which says that there is evidence that it might not be as random as has been thought.
Genetic Mutations In Our Bodies Might Be Less Random Than We Thought, Scientists Say

Click to expand...

The claim that evolution is "random" is usually a creationist strawman. That findings in that article were not all that surprising.

And popular magazines are often a bad source. Take this obvious error for example:

"These are mutations, and while they’re normally bad, it’s also how new traits get added in to a population."

This is incorrect. Most mutations are benign. They are neither good nor bad since they occur in areas of non-coding DNA. The linked article only covers one type of mutation. As has been pointed out already. It is probably correct about the change in "hot spots". That does not mean that other mutations are not occurring elsewhere.

Polymath257 said:

Which only goes to show that sort of faith is intellectually dishonest.

There are many scientists who are theists. The man who was going to be my astrophysics PhD advisor was one. But he still had an open mind and wanted to understand the universe, even if that meant he had to wait until he died to ask God about the discrepancies.

Click to expand...

And in biology there is the example of Dr. Ken Miller. The author of what at one time was the most popular biology text used by colleges. He also testified at the Dover trial. As a Catholic he had no problem with evolution. And if one wants to see more there is a website dedicated to Christian scientists that do not deny reality. They follow the scientific method and still believe in God. They simply see science as a tool to see how God did it:

BioLogos - God's Word. God's World.

Scrolling down on that page I saw this quote:

Love your neighbor. Wear a mask!

The Hammer said:

"Living fossil" genome sequence reveals clues to evolution of life on land

"With the genome fully sequenced, the researchers were able to confirm that the lungfish is the closest living fish relative of all tetrapods, the absolutely gigantic group of land animals containing everything with the familiar body structure of four limbs coming off a central trunk. That means reptiles, birds, and mammals, including humans.

In fact, we’re more similar than you might think. The genes that control embryonic development of the lungfish’s lungs are the same ones as in humans, which show that the evolution in both species can be traced to the same origin. The development of the bones in their fins is also controlled by the same genes as those of our hands."

Click to expand...

With respect, none of this proves evolution in any way, shape or form.

All it proves is the similarities inherent in the DNA code, which is not itself indicative of evolution, either.

It's similar to when people say that chimps and humans are definitely related/ancestors because they share x-millions of base pairs of DNA, completely forgetting (or ignoring, purposely) that the "x-millions" of base pairs is only a 2% similarity, and that the 98% of base pairs remaining are dissimilar.

DNA is a code. Codes don't appear through random chance.

Jacques de Molay said:

With respect, none of this proves evolution in any way, shape or form.

All it proves is the similarities inherent in the DNA code, which is not itself indicative of evolution, either.

It's similar to when people say that chimps and humans are definitely related/ancestors because they share x-millions of base pairs of DNA, completely forgetting (or ignoring, purposely) that the "x-millions" of base pairs is only a 2% similarity, and that the 98% of base pairs remaining are dissimilar.

DNA is a code. Codes don't appear through random chance.

Click to expand...

Mmk

Edit: With all due respect (this always seems to be said condescendingly doesn't it), We have sequenced the entire chimp and human genome. They are 98.6% similar, period, nothing about 2% base pairs, sounds like misrepresented science.

And evolution doesn't preclude Gods or Religion.

Subduction Zone said:

The claim that evolution is "random" is usually a creationist strawman. That findings in that article were not all that surprising.

And popular magazines are often a bad source. Take this obvious error for example:

"These are mutations, and while they’re normally bad, it’s also how new traits get added in to a population."

This is incorrect. Most mutations are benign. They are neither good nor bad since they occur in areas of non-coding DNA. The linked article only covers one type of mutation. As has been pointed out already. It is probably correct about the change in "hot spots". That does not mean that other mutations are not occurring elsewhere.

Click to expand...

You do realize that "evolution" is either random, or it is directed...Right?

If the latter, who is directing it? You can't have it both ways, regardless of weather or not a mutation is "benign."

The claim that evolution is not "random" is usually an evolutionist strawman that arose once the idea of random mutation leading to speciation was completely torpedoed.

Jacques de Molay said:

You do realize that "evolution" is either random, or it is directed...Right?

Click to expand...

Wrong.

If the latter, who is directing it? You can't have it both ways, regardless of weather or not a mutation is "benign."

Click to expand...

The environment is the filter that determines what survives to breed and what does not. No 'who' is required.

The claim that evolution is not "random" is usually an evolutionist strawman that arose once the idea of random mutation leading to speciation was completely torpedoed.

Click to expand...

The mutations are random, but natural selection is not.

Jacques de Molay said:

With respect, none of this proves evolution in any way, shape or form.

All it proves is the similarities inherent in the DNA code, which is not itself indicative of evolution, either.

Click to expand...

It is indicative of relatedness. Just like we can use it to determine who you are related to.

And that is information relevant to how species change over time. In other words, evolution.

It's similar to when people say that chimps and humans are definitely related/ancestors because they share x-millions of base pairs of DNA, completely forgetting (or ignoring, purposely) that the "x-millions" of base pairs is only a 2% similarity, and that the 98% of base pairs remaining are dissimilar.

Click to expand...

You realize that this is exactly backwards, right? Chimps and humans share over 98% of their DNA code.

DNA is a code. Codes don't appear through random chance.

Click to expand...

No, but they do appear through natural selection.

Jacques de Molay said:

With respect, none of this proves evolution in any way, shape or form.

All it proves is the similarities inherent in the DNA code, which is not itself indicative of evolution, either.

It's similar to when people say that chimps and humans are definitely related/ancestors because they share x-millions of base pairs of DNA, completely forgetting (or ignoring, purposely) that the "x-millions" of base pairs is only a 2% similarity, and that the 98% of base pairs remaining are dissimilar.

DNA is a code. Codes don't appear through random chance.

Click to expand...

Right and evolution does not work by random chance.

Nor do you understand that nothing in the sciences "proven". That is a term that tells everyone that you do not understand what you are talking about. All of that is evidence for evolution and if of course indicative of it too no matter how much you want to deny reality.

Jacques de Molay said:

You do realize that "evolution" is either random, or it is directed...Right?

If the latter, who is directing it? You can't have it both ways, regardless of weather or not a mutation is "benign."

The claim that evolution is not "random" is usually an evolutionist strawman that arose once the idea of random mutation leading to speciation was completely torpedoed.

Click to expand...

Wrong, that is a false dichotomy. Of course the problem is that you are using terms that you are not defining properly. In fact you use multiple definitions for the same terms. As you have been using the term "random" evolution is not random.

Lastly you do not know enough to tell whether someone is using a strawman or not. Would you like to start at the very beginning? Once you learn the basics of science it is clear that there are literally mountains of evidence for evolution and no scientific evidence for creationism at all.

I doubt if you will take me up on my offer. Creationists as a rule do not want to know. They only look for excuses to believe.

Polymath257 said:

You realize that this is exactly backwards, right? Chimps and humans share over 98% of their DNA code.

Click to expand...

There are two parts of the genome. Coding and noncoding DNA. Of course creationists cannot explain noncoding DNA but it is what is expected from evolution. Of our genome roughly 98% is noncoding. That can evolve more rapidly since it is generally without consequence when those areas change. As a result we will not have the same matchup that we do with chimps in noncoding areas. But that does not mean that all of it About 8% of our genome consists of endogenous retroviruses for example. Those are luckily going to be almost all noncoding. Those parts do match up with the chimps and again creationists have no explanation for endogenous retroviruses either.
Endogenous retrovirus - Wikipedia).

He appears to be conflating coding and noncoding DNA and he comes up with an unjustifiable figure as a result.

The Hammer said:

Mmk

Edit: With all due respect (this always seems to be said condescendingly doesn't it), We have sequenced the entire chimp and human genome. They are 98.6% similar, period, nothing about 2% base pairs, sounds like misrepresented science.

And evolution doesn't preclude Gods or Religion.

Click to expand...

Well said my friend. Interesting I recently was enjoying the symbolism in what is described as the Norse creation myth. To me it poetically describes the forces of two opposite powerful and chaotic forces of nature meeting in the great void. Fire and Ice (energy and matter). And in this great empty space (so Taoist) were these inhospitable forces meat there starts to develop order and a place where life and our planet start. Ymir even though this giant still represents chaos there is still a new orderliness that develops and fed by the nurturing developing world with milk (so mammalian like). And out of this the gods and goddesses form who represent order of the word come and form our home - the Earth.

Evolution is the same process of energy and matter combining to create order out of Chaos. To look at these stories as absolute and exactly how it all began as so many of the Abrahamic pathways is to completely miss their meaning. It has been also inappropriately used to see humans as separate from nature, Thankfully the Norse reminds us that Thor's mother was Jord and I find that beautifully symbolic.

Ok a bit of topic but as I agree, Evolution is completely compatible and just as important as the myths with my religion as with so many on the forum with different faiths and open minds. It certainly reminds us that we are all related on this planet so thank you Hertha for your wisdom.

Brian2 said:

Could a pre lungfish with as big or bigger genome, have evolved into the lungfish and land creatures without any chance, just from what it already had?
On the same theme, would it be possible in the right circumstances for a lungfish to evolve into land creatures without any chance involved, just a different environment? Or would it's evolution history have ended at lungfish. Or is that sort of thing just not known?
I'm sort of trying to get my head around evolution more than I have.

Click to expand...

I'm afraid your question doesn't make much sense in context of evolution.

Particularly the part about the "big or bigger genome" and "just from what it already had".

The whole point of evolution is that it changes the existing DNA (by changing, adding or removing things) and that those changes result in phenotype changes which accumulate and eventually lead to speciation.

And there is always a chance component involved...

Jacques de Molay said:

All it proves is the similarities inherent in the DNA code, which is not itself indicative of evolution, either.

Click to expand...

The pattern of similarities / matches, is indicative of evolution. Because evolution can only result in one specific pattern - and it is exactly that pattern which is also the very last one would expect from an "artificial design" process. And that pattern is known as the "nested hierarchy".

This pattern isn't only found in DNA either. It's also found in comparative anatomy. It also matches the fossil record as well as the geographic distribution of species (both extant as well as fossils).

This is 100% in line with the testable expectations of evolution and 0 % in line with the testable expectations of creationism.

It's similar to when people say that chimps and humans are definitely related/ancestors because they share x-millions of base pairs of DNA, completely forgetting (or ignoring, purposely) that the "x-millions" of base pairs is only a 2% similarity, and that the 98% of base pairs remaining are dissimilar.

Click to expand...

Again: you completely ignore the pattern of these similarities.
It's the actual pattern that matters.

DNA is a code. Codes don't appear through random chance.

Click to expand...

DNA is a molecule. Molecules form spontanously all the time quite happily. It's called chemistry.

Jacques de Molay said:

You do realize that "evolution" is either random, or it is directed...Right?

Click to expand...

Evolution is directed by the environment.

If the latter, who is directing it?

Click to expand...

Not "who". Rather "what". And the answer is: the environment.

The claim that evolution is not "random" is usually an evolutionist strawman that arose once the idea of random mutation leading to speciation was completely torpedoed.

Click to expand...

Not torpedoed at all.
Mutation is random with respect to fitness.
What follows is non-random selection where the fittest get to live and breed another generation.

Audie said:

What kind of faith does not require it?

Click to expand...

Well, Advaita Hinduism for one.

TagliatelliMonster said:

Evolution is directed by the environment.




Not "who". Rather "what". And the answer is: the environment.



Not torpedoed at all.
Mutation is random with respect to fitness.
What follows is non-random selection where the fittest get to live and breed another generation.

Click to expand...

Neat answer. Sorry, but it explains nothing.

The "environment" is not sentient being. The word "directed" implies a conscious control, as in:

control the operations of; manage or govern.
"an economic elite directed the nation's affairs"

So, in essence, you are asserting that the non-sentient entity known as "the environment" is responsible for DIRECTING evolution?

If it is "directing," then it is controlled...Ergo, you have posited a conscience (a creator, in other words).

If a creator is removed from the equation, the evolution MUST be a random event.

You can't have it both ways. That's not logical.

TagliatelliMonster said:

Mutation is random with respect to fitness.
What follows is non-random selection where the fittest get to live and breed another generation.

Click to expand...

You already posited that evolution is NOT random. You claim that's a "creationist strawman."

Now you conveniently assert that mutation IS random "with respect to fitness".

How cool!

So...To sum up your position...Evolution is NOT random...Unless it supports the view of evolutionists...Then, if need be (as in survival of the fittest), it is random. Until it's not...

The Hammer said:

Mmk

Edit: With all due respect (this always seems to be said condescendingly doesn't it), We have sequenced the entire chimp and human genome. They are 98.6% similar, period, nothing about 2% base pairs, sounds like misrepresented science.

And evolution doesn't preclude Gods or Religion.

Click to expand...

The similarities do NOT prove evolution. Point of fact - and with all due respect - they disprove it.

Jacques de Molay said:

Neat answer. Sorry, but it explains nothing.

The "environment" is not sentient being. The word "directed" implies a conscious control, as in:

control the operations of; manage or govern.
"an economic elite directed the nation's affairs"

So, in essence, you are asserting that the non-sentient entity known as "the environment" is responsible for DIRECTING evolution?

Click to expand...

Yes, exactly. it is neither random NOR directed by a sentient being. The selection is automatic and due to the environment.

If it is "directing," then it is controlled...Ergo, you have posited a conscience (a creator, in other words).

Click to expand...

YOU are the one that made the false dichotomy between 'random' and 'directed'. Evolution is NOT random because of the influence of the environment. In that sense it is 'directed'. More precisely, it is directed towards survivability. Those organisms that survive are the ones that breed to give the next generation. No intelligence is required in this process.

If a creator is removed from the equation, the evolution MUST be a random event.

You can't have it both ways. That's not logical.

Click to expand...

WRONG. There are many things in the universe that are neither random nor directed by a conscious being. In fact, the vast majority of events are neither. For example, a star forms because of the way gravity works on the gas and dust in the original nebula. That requires no intelligent agent, but it is certainly NOT a random process.