|
1 registered members (AndrewAMD),
959
guests, and 8
spiders. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Re: for doubters of God's existance
[Re: Irish_Farmer]
#66636
04/13/06 19:36
04/13/06 19:36
|
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 8,973
Bay Area
Doug
Senior Expert
|
Senior Expert
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 8,973
Bay Area
|
Quote:
That doesn't mean that healing doesn't come from God, it simply means it definately does not come from man's desires.
I'm not going to come down on pro or anti God here, I just wanted to point out that “man's desire” to become healthy does have a measurable effect. Patients who “fight for life” have a greater chance of living then those who just give up or put it all in the hands of a “higher power” (fate, God, FSM, whatever).
If you believe in God, that's great. But I don't think you can just sit back and put everything into His hands. Maybe free will is an illusion, but those that choice to set their own fate tend to do better in life.
(steps off soapbox  ).
|
|
|
Re: for doubters of God's existance
[Re: Doug]
#66637
04/13/06 19:56
04/13/06 19:56
|
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 3,236
San Diego, CA
Marco_Grubert
Expert
|
Expert
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 3,236
San Diego, CA
|
Quote:
Maybe free will is an illusion, but those that choice to set their own fate tend to do better in life.
If free will was an illusion then the rest of your sentence becomes meaningless 
|
|
|
Re: for doubters of God's existance
[Re: Doug]
#66638
04/13/06 20:03
04/13/06 20:03
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
"But I don't think you can just sit back and put everything into His hands"
"...faith without works is dead," (James 2:26)
No one is telling beleivers to switch on cruise control. To believers, if God wanted you to pray and forget, then there would be no such thing as physical reality, where pain, suffering, tiredness would exist. You need these as a sacrifice.
|
|
|
Re: for doubters of God's existance
#66639
04/13/06 20:04
04/13/06 20:04
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
(fate, God, FSM, whatever).
Finite State Machines?
|
|
|
Re: for doubters of God's existance
[Re: Marco_Grubert]
#66641
04/13/06 22:58
04/13/06 22:58
|
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
Irish_Farmer
User
|
User
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
|
Quote:
In order to decide whether it's selection or mutation, you need to analyze the modified parts of the DNA.
That's why that site is kind of a sham. They just see results and assume its evolution without studying what's happening on the genetic level. At least creationists will break it down on a genetic level (of course they only do this because they believe it disproves evolution, but more information is better than none even if you believe in evolution).
Quote:
Once you find the mechanisms for both low-temperature tolerance and high-temperature tolerance you know whether it's mutation or just selection.
That's my point about most of these supposed progressive mutations. If you can't show a creature mutating to evolve into an environment that it would NEVER have survived in in the first place, then isn't all of this conjecture rather moot? (Even if you can, its just a start). All of the examples on the site can easily be explained by simple variations already programmed in the original genetic material of the organism which natural selection just widdled down, if you will. To say that a creature can adapt to changing environments is to agree with creationists. To say that that e coli will ever become anything except e coli no matter how long you give it, is just conjecture and these 'good' mutations don't bring scientists any closer to an answer. I'll do another one below, they start getting much easier.
In my experience in learning from these 'good mutations' is that its usually much simpler than that. But since the author of that site seems to think the results speak for themselves, we'll never really know. Which sucks. I have enough faith that I'm right that I wouldn't hesitate to reveal the results (even if it contradicts what I believe, because I believe that some future knowledge might reveal something that changes it to evidence for my view, and I know in the overall picture this example can't disprove my entire hypothesis). He has enough faith in what he believes that he doesn't care to analyze or reveal the results. He's just ready to believe whatever it is that concurs with what he has to say, even if that means not actually discovering the depth of what's going on. Figures.
Quote:
I'm not going to come down on pro or anti God here, I just wanted to point out that “man's desire” to become healthy does have a measurable effect. Patients who “fight for life” have a greater chance of living then those who just give up or put it all in the hands of a “higher power” (fate, God, FSM, whatever).
I'm talking about outside the physical realm. For instance, one cure for depression may be to exercise. This causes a chemical change and can balance people out in certain cases more than just sitting there. I wouldn't actually call it a total cure. Anyway, this has nothing to do with prayer. If I don't do anything to change myself (like say not letting doctors operate on me) and just pray, that means I'm putting my will over the will of God. Or if I sit on my ass and wollow in self pity and the only thing I do is pray, why should God care? He gave us the natural ability (or even unnatural in the form of pills) to help ourselves. If we aren't willing to try, why should he?
I might as well tell God that he owes me a cure just because I asked for it. I just happen to disagree with that thinking, so when someone tells someone to stop taking medication, there should be a better reason than faith (because in essence I see this as different than just a simple matter of faith). I have faith that I can do all I can as a human, including asking through prayer, and allowing doctors to help me, to see me through serious injury. I have faith that God CAN heal me, but I don't believe its always in my best interest to be healed. But I also believe that when bad things happen that I don't like, they're not always bad and I know its not up to me to make that distinction. That's different than saying I can control God with prayer.
In my opinion, of course. I just realized, that we might be slightly off key from each other on exactly what's being discussed. I might be reading more into the original post than I should.
Last edited by Irish_Farmer; 04/13/06 23:04.
"The task force finds that...the unborn child is a whole human being from the moment of fertilization, that all abortions terminate the life of a human being, and that the unborn child is a separate human patient under the care of modern medicine."
|
|
|
Re: for doubters of God's existance
[Re: Irish_Farmer]
#66642
04/14/06 13:05
04/14/06 13:05
|
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 27,986
Frankfurt
jcl
Chief Engineer
|
Chief Engineer
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 27,986
Frankfurt
|
Quote:
All of the examples on the site can easily be explained by simple variations already programmed in the original genetic material of the organism which natural selection just widdled down, if you will. To say that a creature can adapt to changing environments is to agree with creationists. To say that that e coli will ever become anything except e coli no matter how long you give it, is just conjecture
Certainly not easily. When trying to explain away all observable evolution evidence with simple selection, you are forced to assume that species already have all those features already hidden in their DNA - loss of eyes, color change, whatever.
For what purpose would a bacteria need resistence against penicillin hidden in its genes? Bacteria were never confronted with penicillin until the 20th century. For what purpose would E.coli need a mechanism to survive 32° or 42° temperatures? They are normally never confronted with such temperatures in their environment.
Sure, you could assume that a benevolent creator would have foreseen that man will invent penicillin and would have given bacteria a potential resistance against it. But that's hardly a scientific explanation.
Attempts to explain such observations with just natural selection require assuming a very complex DNA with all sorts of hidden properties and features to be switched on when necessary. This looks like a very unlikely explanation to me - much more unlikely than the nucleotide change required for a good mutation. And how about virae that we _know_ to be able to develop into a completely different species by adopting foreign DNA parts into their own DNA? And how about all the evidence that mutation definitely exists? What mechanism should prevent good mutations?
You're of course free to ignore all evolution evidence or declare it "worthless". But withouth backing this with halfway likely alternative explanations, you're out of the field of science and deep in the field of faith.
|
|
|
Re: for doubters of God's existance *DELETED*
[Re: jcl]
#66643
04/14/06 18:58
04/14/06 18:58
|
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
Irish_Farmer
User
|
User
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
|
(Post accidentally overwritten - sorry for that. I'm afraid some is lost, but the essential statements can be found in the quotes in my answer. - jcl)
Last edited by jcl; 04/15/06 15:36.
|
|
|
Re: for doubters of God's existance
[Re: Irish_Farmer]
#66644
04/15/06 09:14
04/15/06 09:14
|
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 27,986
Frankfurt
jcl
Chief Engineer
|
Chief Engineer
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 27,986
Frankfurt
|
Quote:
Color change is along the same lines. They don't have the new color preprogrammed into them either. When flies lose pigment, its because the data that they derive their coloration from gets corrupted in much the same way as their eyes so they lose pigment.
The peppered moths actually gained pigment and did not lose it. And we do not know yet what exactly happens in their DNA - you seem to know more than all the scientists. Can you then explain what you mean with "corrupted" as opposed to "modified"?
Quote:
This is one example where it was a mutation (of preexisting DNA) actually. The bacteria Staphylococcus aureus already has an enzyme that can break down penecillin even if it isn't resistant. In this case, it became immune because a few mutants lost the ability to control the amount of enzyme produced. It was already in their data to limit this enzyme but that data either became corrupted or disappeared through mutation. However, it did not gain the ability out of nowhere. So this enzyme is over produced (at least more than normal), thus allowing it to survive a dose of penicillin.
This is only half true. Staphylococcus aureus originally did not produce that enzyme. It aquired the genes from another species, Staphylococcus sciuri. But the original form of these genes don't cause penicillin resistance either. In Staphylococcus aureus the aquired genes mutated into a new penicillin resistant form that didn't exist before. Only that mutated form then produced the enzyme in sufficient quantities.
Quote:
Mutation is the achilles heal of evolution. No one debates that it exists, but the problem is this question, "How useful is it for evolution?" Experimentation has showed that its only useful in damaging the order of DNA or at best being genetically neutral. You can write an equation to prove me wrong, but instead of using math I can show that 100% of the time it does not cause evolution of any kind.
Don't you see the obvious logical flaw in this statement?
Large scale mutations can't happen in a lab. In experiments you'll always get only small mutations unless you wait several thousand years. The conclusion that "mutation is only useful in damaging the order of DNA" is just wrong. A mutation is the less frequent the more nucleotides it affects. This is the reason why the development of an eye needs hundred thousands of years, while a mutation causing the loss of an eye happens within decades.
The more complex a mutation is, the more time it needs to happen - this is simple math. It has nothing to do with any fundamental difference between a "good" and a "bad" mutation that you seem to assume. The laws of probability don't care about whether a mutation is good or bad.
Well, we could go on and on with this. I see that you've firmly made up your mind that mutations are generally bad and 'good' mutations won't happen. And I'm afraid no one will be able drag you into a lab and show you beneficial mutations in action.
|
|
|
Re: for doubters of God's existance
[Re: jcl]
#66645
04/15/06 17:42
04/15/06 17:42
|
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
Irish_Farmer
User
|
User
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
|
Quote:
The peppered moths actually gained pigment and did not lose it. And we do not know yet what exactly happens in their DNA - you seem to know more than all the scientists. Can you then explain what you mean with "corrupted" as opposed to "modified"?
I've already addressed this in the other thread, but I must ask, if the melanic data already existed, without knowing EXACTLY what's happening on the genetic level to cause the entire thing to become melanic instead of just part of it, we can still conclude that the melanic data wasn't written from scratch via mutation. More than likely, if a mutation was involved (which it need not be since its also likely that this moth existed in the first place as probably no more than 1% of the population) whatever genetic 'device' controls the pattern of melanism could have gotten shut off, or what have you. That's still not evolution.
However, based on the genetic evidence, its more likely that the original form was melanic and that the lighter variation is what was mutated since on the allele, dark is dominant. Mutations are generally not dominant.
Fact of the matter is that we'll probably never know for sure, because we can't go back in time and try and get a proper study of the population ratios (which would prove right off the bat whether it was a mutation or not in the first place). All I'm proposing is that this be filed under inconclusive. At best.
What I mean by corrupted is that it might get rewritten in such a way that it no longer has use. Let's say the gene that controls wing growth gets rewritten, the wings no longer grow. Its corrupted compared to its original purpose to have no more purpose.
Quote:
This is only half true. Staphylococcus aureus originally did not produce that enzyme. It aquired the genes from another species, Staphylococcus sciuri. But the original form of these genes don't cause penicillin resistance either. In Staphylococcus aureus the aquired genes mutated into a new penicillin resistant form that didn't exist before. Only that mutated form then produced the enzyme in sufficient quantities.
You basically restated everything I said. Except you added the irrelevant step of aureus getting it from sciuri. The mutation on said gene was the loss of control of the enzyme production. In the wild, this type of mutation would cause the bacteria to be less fit, because its wasting resources on uncontrolled production of this enzyme. In the case of penecillin being introduced however, it is more fit because this enzyme is produced in large enough quantities to prevent penicillin treatment. This mutation didn't write the ability for the cell to produce the enzyme, it unwrote the ability to control production. So, please, explain to me how this is evolution.
Quote:
Large scale mutations can't happen in a lab. In experiments you'll always get only small mutations unless you wait several thousand years.
And these mutations usually cause some loss of the overall order of the original genetics or at best simply have no effect, as also demonstrated in the example above. Tell me how piling thousands of these onto any species will eventually cause any organism to become some other organism over billions of years. I see what you're saying, we can't see the actual transition, but we can see the device that supposedly causes it to happen, and that device always reduces order or usefulness or has no effect (sometimes it rarely will be beneficial, but that's irrelevant), it doesn't write anything from scratch. Said writing from scratch is a requisite of evolution.
Quote:
This is the reason why the development of an eye needs hundred thousands of years, while a mutation causing the loss of an eye happens within decades.
Well, one of these is observable, the other one lies solely within the imagination of enlightened individuals. I think I'll stick with what we know can actually happen.
Quote:
It has nothing to do with any fundamental difference between a "good" and a "bad" mutation that you seem to assume.
I shouldn't refer to them as good or bad, that was a bad choice of words to convey what I was trying to say. There are good and bad mutations that we have observed. It would be more accurate to call mutations either progressive or regressive. One is 'upwards' the other is 'downwards' respectively, whether or not they end up being good or bad is irrelevant to evolution. Evolution requires that mutations eventually lead upwards and write data that never existed in the first place. I've since shown you how all the examples where scientists have assumed this has happened have turned out to be false, and are actually regressive, usually leading to a loss of fitness in the wild. Thus the idea of a progressive mutation is a fantastic idea, but an imaginary one nonetheless.
Quote:
I see that you've firmly made up your mind that mutations are generally bad and 'good' mutations won't happen.
Like I said, they aren't all bad. Its just whenever scientists claim something new is happening that never happens before, they're ignoring the obvious conclusion that this something new comes at a loss, or already existed to begin with. For instance, the bacteria producing this anti-penicillin enzyme in such large quantities was definately new, but they already were able to produce it, and they lost the ability to control it. That's a good mutation considering they would otherwise be wiped out by penicillin, but its genetically regressive, thus negating its purpose to evolution. It would be progressive to show that they never could produce the enzyme in the first place, and some random mutation gave them the ability to produce this enzyme, even in trace amounts. However, we know that they didn't gain this from nowhere, they just got it from another species. I'm still not convinced.
Quote:
And I'm afraid no one will be able drag you into a lab and show you beneficial mutations in action.
They probably won't have to. I'll hopefully be spending a lot of time in my future doing a great number of experiments myself. But who knows what the future holds.
Last edited by Irish_Farmer; 04/15/06 17:44.
"The task force finds that...the unborn child is a whole human being from the moment of fertilization, that all abortions terminate the life of a human being, and that the unborn child is a separate human patient under the care of modern medicine."
|
|
|
|
