Spirituality
16 Aug 10
28 Aug 10
Originally posted by Proper KnobMy beliefs have God creating life and procreating after that using DNA.
I undersatnd you believe this process requires a designer, but how does this designer do it?
Does he/she have a lab? Once this animal has been made does he/she then teleport this animal onto Earth?
How does it happen?
He didn't need a lab to come up with the proper design.
Kelly
28 Aug 10
Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton"“…Even finding design flaws is a huge undertaking…”
“…You are telling me that with billions of dollars on the line, and some of the best
and brightest devoting their lives to making it flawless, it would be you not
them that will see some design flaw after the product goes to market?...”
No, that is not what I said. Exactly where did I say that in that post? You have failed to answer my questions.
That depends on how obvious the flaw is.
What if the flaw is a extremely stupid glaringly obvious design flaw?
Would recognising such a stupid obvious flaw be a “huge undertaking” or would it only require common sense? We have throughout these forums given you numerous examples of just such obvious flaws ( both actual and in nature and hypothetical such as inside a CPU ) that takes very little intelligence to recognise and some could even be recognised by a halfwit layperson -Your reasoning is debunked."
We are discussing design flaws in CPU, you are telling me that you or even a
halfwit layperson can find a design flaw within CPU. This means that everyone
whose job it is to see to it that there are none to find missed it, and you or this
halfwit layperson would understand it for what it is after the parts go to market.
I'm still telling you no not you, or a halfwit layperson would know if you have
stumbled upon a CPU design flaw, you may see issues, but do those issues mean
there is a flaw in design? You have to know the root cause of the issue, you have
to know what the design was suppose to do, you have to know if in the design it
is behaving as it should, and you don't have the ability to do that without a lot of
time, money, and effort.
Kelly
28 Aug 10
2 edits
Originally posted by KellyJay“...I'm still telling you no not you, or a halfwit layperson would know if you have
"“…Even finding design flaws is a huge undertaking…”
That depends on how obvious the flaw is.
What if the flaw is a extremely stupid glaringly obvious design flaw?
Would recognising such a stupid obvious flaw be a “huge undertaking” or would it only require common sense? We have throughout these forums given you numerous examples of just such obviou and you don't have the ability to do that without a lot of
time, money, and effort.
Kelly
stumbled upon a CPU design flaw ...”
-even if it is a really stupid obvious design flaw that couldn't be anything else but a flaw?
“....you may see issues, but do those issues mean
there is a flaw in design? ...”
So you are saying that if I identify a design flaw then that identification is just an “issue” and because an “issue” doesn't equate to “design flaw” then that design flaw is also not a design flaw!
that is the same as saying you can have both P and NOT P;
using that logic, if I identify P then that identification is just an “issue” and an issue is not an identification -so “therefore” I have BOTH made an identification P AND NOT made an identification P -so we have both P and not P.
“...You have to know the root cause of the issue, you have
to know what the design was suppose to do ...”
-so yet again you claim that we need complete knowledge -after admitting we don't in another forum.
28 Aug 10
1 edit
Originally posted by KellyJayreminder of what you said:
You mind reading, because that was not what I said?
Kelly
“..As a creationist I can point you to scripture to show you what I believe, that does
not mean that is the only way it could happen, but it is the one I think most likely. ..”
now the first part of that says:
“..As a creationist I can point you to SCRIPTURE to show you what I BELIEVE,...” (my emphases)
isn’t a belief in the scriptures a religious reason for believing what you do?
-and isn't the reason why you reject evolution is because your interpretation of those scriptures is in conflict with evolution?
-if not, why mention the scriptures at all in this discussion? -they should be irrelevant to your reasoning on this.
28 Aug 10
1 edit
Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton"So you admit you dismiss the theory of evolution because of your religions beliefs?"
reminder of what you said:
“..As a creationist I can point you to scripture to show you what I believe, that does
not mean that is the only way it could happen, but it is the one I think most likely. ..”
now the first part of that says:
“..As a creationist I can point you to SCRIPTURE to show you what I BELIEVE,...” (my emphases)
isn’t the scriptures at all in this discussion? -they should be irrelevant to your reasoning on this.
I was responding to this when I said that, you are bringing up quotes to when
I was talking to someone else about something different, what are you trying
to do here, this is boarder line....near a lie to prove a point of yours.
I acknowledge evolutionary change, I have ALWAYS acknowedged that so I do
believe evolution to be true; however, the amount of change and the starting
points I have issues with. You taking things out of context is dishonest, if this is
the level you want to go to twist things to prove your point, I don't think I'm
going to respond to you any more. I've already had you do something like this
before, it is a pattern with you it seems.
Kelly
28 Aug 10
Originally posted by FabianFnasI really hate to be the party pooper here but:
Now you surprise me, Kelly, you actually believe in evolution now? Bravo!
Galve has come to this understanding too. KellyJay followed.
Creationism is dying, evolution stands firm!
Kelly basically has been saying that things DO evolve -but NOT into new species.
So I assume he accepts the fact that species can evolve over a period of time to develop small changes (because this doesn’t contradict his religious beliefs) but NEVER a big enough change to become a different species (because this DOES contradict his religious beliefs).
28 Aug 10
1 edit
Originally posted by KellyJay“...I acknowledge evolutionary change, I have ALWAYS acknowledged that so I do
"So you admit you dismiss the theory of evolution because of your religions beliefs?"
I was responding to this when I said that, you are bringing up quotes to when
I was talking to someone else about something different, what are you trying
to do here, this is boarder line....near a lie to prove a point of yours.
I acknowledge evolutionary change, I e already had you do something like this
before, it is a pattern with you it seems.
Kelly
believe evolution to be true; however, the AMOUNT of change and the STARTING
points I have issues with....” (my emphases)
I assume the reason why you say “ STARTING points” is that you have faith that “God” created each species -that’s your religious belief.
But what do you think is limiting the “ AMOUNT of change”?
You agree that a small amount of evolutionary change can occur over a relatively short time period.
-so what do you think would be stopping a large amount of evolutionary change from occurring over a relatively long time period ? -I mean, what is stopping the changes in a series of short periods of time (which makes up a long period of time) from being cumulative and thus there being no fundamental limit to the amount of change?
28 Aug 10
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonWhat Kelly say or not say is up to Kelly to decide. I'll wait for Kellys answer.
I really hate to be the party pooper here but:
Kelly basically has been saying that things DO evolve -but NOT into new species.
So I assume he accepts the fact that species can evolve over a period of time to develop small changes (because this doesn’t contradict his religious beliefs) but NEVER a big enough change to become a different species (because this DOES contradict his religious beliefs).
29 Aug 10
1 edit
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonThe things I believe about the changes are if you screw up a system it can start
“...I acknowledge evolutionary change, I have ALWAYS acknowledged that so I do
believe evolution to be true; however, the AMOUNT of change and the STARTING
points I have issues with....” (my emphases)
I assume the reason why you say “ STARTING points” is that you have faith that “God” created each species -that’s your religious belief.
But w ...[text shortened]... f time) from being cumulative and thus there being no fundamental limit to the amount of change?
to break down. If you have several systems working together and start allowing
some amount of changes in all or some of those systems, things will break down
they will not work as they should, timing will be off, stops and starts will not
start or stop correctly. How far you can change or alter a living system basically
will be where you start changing it. If you allow any change, any where, than you
have to worry about the stress each system must handle in order to continue to
function. You cannot have walls within a heart getting thinner, blood getting
thicker, blood no longer clotting, eyes moving to back of the head, things are
where they are supposed to be function as they should. So small changes within
living groups will be the norm, but going from say a worm to a bird not so much.
Kelly
29 Aug 10
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonThank you.
I really hate to be the party pooper here but:
Kelly basically has been saying that things DO evolve -but NOT into new species.
So I assume he accepts the fact that species can evolve over a period of time to develop small changes (because this doesn’t contradict his religious beliefs) but NEVER a big enough change to become a different species (because this DOES contradict his religious beliefs).
Kelly
29 Aug 10
KellyJay, it sounds like you're puzzled about how a single gene mutation could possibly cause an organism that couldn't sense light previously to suddenly gain this trait. One of the aspects of biology that I find most beautiful, and one that is often the most surprising to those who don't have extensive backgrounds in the biological sciences, is how single mutations to genes actually can confer large changes to phenotype. I'll try to provide a very basic example of a single mutation that allows a bacteria to sense light and induce an immediate evolutionary advantage over its parent bacteria. This isn't necessarily how I think "the eye" evolved, but it should illustrate how light sensing could evolve. If you need something clarified, feel free to ask.
Background: A protein in bacteria exists in a signalling pathway that has nothing to do with sensing light. It binds tightly to a particular trans form of a vitamin and senses its presence, inducing a downstream chemoctactic response (movement in response to the presence or absence of specific chemicals) when there are low levels of the vitamin so that the cell knows to move to areas with higher levels of the vitamin. The bacteria lives in a puddle and this pathway allows the bacteria to travel around the puddle seeking out areas with a higher concentration of the vitamin and other nutrients.
Mutation: A single nucleotide mutation to one base pair of DNA randomly occurs within the gene that codes for the protein during replication. The mutation introduces a new amino acid that causes a slight conformational change in the protein's binding pocket for the vitamin such that it now binds tighter to the trans form of the vitamin than the cis form.
Physics: The vitamin absorbs a photon and undergoes cis-trans isomerization. The relative population of cis and trans isomers is dependent on the intensity of light. At low light levels there will be more cis isomer and at high levels of light there will be more trans isomer.
Trait gained: The bacteria, with a single mutation, has gained the ability to sense the presence of the trans form, and as an indirect consequence, the level of light at a particular depth. The bacteria hijacked the vitamin sensing pathway and chemotactic response used to sense the presence of the vitamin such that it now senses only the trans isomer. Further mutations enhance the efficiency of the binding and improve the bacteria's ability to sense light and depth.
Evolutionary advantage: The bacteria lives in a puddle with a nutrient gradient where more nutrients exists closer to the surface. The bacteria now has the ability to sense light and travel towards the surface of the puddle, gaining a competitive advantage over its parent bacteria which has no way of sensing the direction of the puddle's surface.
29 Aug 10
6 edits
Originally posted by KellyJay“….If you have several systems working together and start allowing
The things I believe about the changes are if you screw up a system it can start
to break down. If you have several systems working together and start allowing
some amount of changes in all or some of those systems, things will break down
they will not work as they should, timing will be off, stops and starts will not
start or stop correctly. How far yo ...[text shortened]... within
living groups will be the norm, but going from say a worm to a bird not so much.
Kelly
some amount of changes in all or some of those systems, things will break down
they will not work as they should,…”
You are obviously referring here to changes only caused by disadvantageous mutations.
Obviously, that is not what I was talking about!
I was obviously talking about advantageous mutations because, generally, only they are selected by natural selection –while disadvantageous mutations are continually weeded out of the gene pool by natural selection.
Thus evolution works by a series of advantageous ( and NOT disadvantageous ) mutations occurring one after the other and each one being selected for by natural selection before the next advantageous ( and NOT disadvantageous ) mutation. Along the way, there would be plenty of disadvantageous mutations but they would be totally irrelevant here because they would be continually weeded out and out of existence before they have a chance to completely fill the gene pool.
“…things will break down
they will not work as they should, timing will be off, stops and starts will not
start or stop correctly…”
-yes –IF the mutations are disadvantageous. What if the mutations are advantageous?
-surely you wouldn’t deny that it is possible for there to be an advantageous mutation that does NOT cause something to not work properly? -Right?
29 Aug 10
Originally posted by KellyJayYet you seem to be comfortable with quite extreme changes such as the vast difference between the various breeds of dogs, or the differences between breeds of other domesticated animals.
How far you can change or alter a living system basically
will be where you start changing it. If you allow any change, any where, than you
have to worry about the stress each system must handle in order to continue to
function. You cannot have walls within a heart getting thinner, blood getting
thicker, blood no longer clotting, eyes moving to back of ...[text shortened]... within
living groups will be the norm, but going from say a worm to a bird not so much.
Kelly