Zero Mass wrote
If evolution is a fact wouldn’t that make the theory a law (like the Law of Gravity, the Law of Thermodynamics, the Law of Electromagnetism, etc.)?
But if the theory is not a fact, how is evolution a fact outside of its own theory? I hope you can understand the confession from that statement. Please explain (And take your time if necessary).
DefSkeptic wrote
As you have stated the genetic theory of natural selection is a theory that which depends on the mutations of genes. Mutations, the random error in the copying process, have been acknowledged to be more harmful than helpful, resulting in diseases and death, according to the Encyclopedia Britannica. It states, “If the sequence [meaning the DNA code] is changed, at random, the ‘meaning’ rarely will be improved and often will be hampered and destroyed.”(‘Evolution’, Encyclopedia Britannica Online).
A university biology textbook has stated the odds for a mutation to improve the genetic code are so low that “a random change is not likely to improve the genome any more than firing a gunshot blindly through the hood of a car is likely to improve engine performance.” (‘Biology’, 4th Edition, Neil A. Campbell, University of California)
My question - has there ever been an experiment, or observation, showing an improvement in the genetic code by adding new information in order to build a new physical feature due to a mutation?
Cris wrote
Cris wrote
It is the code written in the DNA that indicates an intelligent source.
http://www.leaderu.com/science/thaxton_dna.html
MacM wrote
Consequent Atheist wrote
But even the conclusion of the article to find the answer of the beginning of life through an RNA World is full of problems, although he ends it with a statement of ‘faith’ that future chemists and biologists may find the answer.
“Living things are distinguished by their specified complexity… Roughly speaking the information content of a structure is the minimum number needed to specify the structure.” (‘The origin of Life’, Leslie Orgel, p. 189-190, 1973)
The more complex the structure is, the more instructions needed to specify it. The instructions get their information transferred from a design code, which is complex, specific, and precise. That implies intelligent design from an intelligent source.
Your opinion is noted and respected. My only question to you, Zero Mass, is to clarify the statement above, i.e., “although the theory is not fact, evolution is a fact.”They are not, what I wrote was my opinion.
The theory of evolution IS however scientific, although the theory is not fact, evolution is a fact.
Creation science is niether theory nor fact, it is part of a belief.
If evolution is a fact wouldn’t that make the theory a law (like the Law of Gravity, the Law of Thermodynamics, the Law of Electromagnetism, etc.)?
But if the theory is not a fact, how is evolution a fact outside of its own theory? I hope you can understand the confession from that statement. Please explain (And take your time if necessary).
DefSkeptic wrote
Thank you for your response, DefSkeptic, and I hope you don’t mind if I continue to ask some more questions.Natural Selection, which amounts to the nonrandom survival of randomly varying hereditary characteristics.
Evolution under the influence of natural selection leads to adaptive improvement.
The modern genetic theory of natural selection can be summarized as follows. The genes of a population of sexually interbreeding animals or plants constitute a gene pool. The genes compete in the gene pool in something like the same way as the early replicating molecules competed in the primeval soup. In practice genes in the gene pool spend their time either sitting in individual bodies which they helped to build, or travelling from body to body via sperm or egg in the process of sexual reproduction. Sexual reproduction keeps the genes shuffled, and it is in this sense that the long-term habitat of a gene is the gene pool. Any given gene originates in the gene pool as a result of a mutation, a random error in the gene-copying process. Once a new mutation has been formed, it can spread through the gene pool by means of sexual mixing. Mutation is the ultimate origin of genetic variation. Sexual reproduction, and genetic recombination due to crossing over see to it that genetic variation is rapidly distributed and recombined in the gene pool.
As you have stated the genetic theory of natural selection is a theory that which depends on the mutations of genes. Mutations, the random error in the copying process, have been acknowledged to be more harmful than helpful, resulting in diseases and death, according to the Encyclopedia Britannica. It states, “If the sequence [meaning the DNA code] is changed, at random, the ‘meaning’ rarely will be improved and often will be hampered and destroyed.”(‘Evolution’, Encyclopedia Britannica Online).
A university biology textbook has stated the odds for a mutation to improve the genetic code are so low that “a random change is not likely to improve the genome any more than firing a gunshot blindly through the hood of a car is likely to improve engine performance.” (‘Biology’, 4th Edition, Neil A. Campbell, University of California)
My question - has there ever been an experiment, or observation, showing an improvement in the genetic code by adding new information in order to build a new physical feature due to a mutation?
Cris wrote
Thank you for your response, Cris, but I am having a little problem understanding your statement. I hope you can clarify it. How is the message “THESE BLOCKS WERE NOT PUT HERE ON PURPOSE” in a kindergarten classroom floor an example of evolution? Please explain.This is still not evidence of intelligent design. Your example demonstrates the process of evolution once again.
Cris wrote
Wouldn’t this also be an example of intelligent design? The evolutionary process of today’s computers is not independent of the guiding hand from an intelligent source, i.e., man, to perform today’s functions. The code written into every microprocessor would not understand the random bits and bytes sent to it unless it came in a precise sequence that it understood as a command in order to respond to. If it recognizes the command, then it performs a precise function to complete the command. Without the code written into the microprocessor, the computer can do nothing.Evolutionary processes are independent of such attributes although intelligence can contribute to an evolutionary process. For example computers have been evolving since the 1940s. The rapid rate of computer evolutionary change is primarily due to the intelligence of man. But man has not designed the computer; man has only assisted in the evolutionary changes.
It is the code written in the DNA that indicates an intelligent source.
http://www.leaderu.com/science/thaxton_dna.html
MacM wrote
It is the interpretation of the scientific findings that is in question and differentiates between the conclusions derived from evolutionists and creationists. Somewhere in between them is the answer, in my opinion. Wouldn’t it be logical to remain open-minded and question all things, even evolution?By what logic do you deny evolution as not being part of your Gods design or plan?
Consequent Atheist wrote
Thank you, too, for your response, Consequent Atheist. However a better article explaining the RNA World experiments would have been http://205.180.85.40/w/pc.cgi?mid=19126&sid=10700DNA shows every indication of being the natural consequnce of natural processes. See, for example: "RNA-World". Once again, your God-of-the-Gaps finds itself ruling an ever-shrinking domaign.
But even the conclusion of the article to find the answer of the beginning of life through an RNA World is full of problems, although he ends it with a statement of ‘faith’ that future chemists and biologists may find the answer.
“Living things are distinguished by their specified complexity… Roughly speaking the information content of a structure is the minimum number needed to specify the structure.” (‘The origin of Life’, Leslie Orgel, p. 189-190, 1973)
The more complex the structure is, the more instructions needed to specify it. The instructions get their information transferred from a design code, which is complex, specific, and precise. That implies intelligent design from an intelligent source.
Last edited: