|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: SIN | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Karl Inactive Member |
You're right of course.
[/tangent] I thought even AiG didn't talk about the vapour canopy any more, on account of it not even passing the laugh test?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2170 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: Where did I say that the only goals of a given community were financial or economic? (Were you thrown by my use of the word "net"?) ------------------"Evolution is a 'theory', just like gravity. If you don't like it, go jump off a bridge."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2170 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: ...or not-better adapted, as in the example of hip dysplasia.
quote: OK, so you now agree that natural selection can produce organisms which are better adapted for their environment? Excellent! You agee that evolution occurs.
quote: Cite to the professional literature, please. Evidece for this assertion is required.
quote: Why would it be less noticeable in bacteria? If anything, because bacteria reproduce so extraordinarily rapidly and we can boserve tens of thousands of generations for a single experiment, we can directly observe the effects of radiation upon mutation rates and expression of those mutated genes.
quote: Why would defects, which by definition make an organism LESS able to survive and thrive, become MORE common in a population? If the effects are bad, then the organisms without the bad effects would tend to make more offspring, so it would be the mutations which conferred some BENEFIT which would tend to proliferate, right?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
compmage Member (Idle past 5153 days) Posts: 601 From: South Africa Joined: |
Karl writes: I thought even AiG didn't talk about the vapour canopy any more, on account of it not even passing the laugh test? Sometimes I wonder if any of these (or those on the P.R.A.T.T.) list will ever be completely abandoned. ------------------He hoped and prayed that there wasn't an afterlife. Then he realized there was a contradiction involved here and merely hoped that there wasn't an afterlife. - Douglas Adams, The Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 8996 From: Canada Joined: |
There are situations where a the genome can suffer from mutations in a way something like God's Child is arguing.
quote:from Error Page It may be that someone is confused about the actual significance of this. God's Child may now think this has proved his point. What s/he needs to note is the "small populations" requirement. What GC is doing is attacking the possibility of Noah's ark being successful. GC, I think you should note the ramifications of what you are arguing.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Quetzal Member (Idle past 5872 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
Hi Schraf:
To add a bit to what NoseyNed posted,
Schraf writes:
It's actually not that uncommon. You see it in just about every population - mostly mildly deleterious mutations. Just look at how many people are running around near-sighted. In nature, a deleterious mutation can become fixed in a population through quite a few different methods, the most common being drift in small populations (as well as bottlenecks, founder effect, etc). In extreme cases, this can lead to mutational meltdown (sort of like Muller's Ratchet at the population level).
Why would defects, which by definition make an organism LESS able to survive and thrive, become MORE common in a population? Here's a couple of articles you might find interesting: Eyre-Walker A, Keightley PD, Smith NGC, Gaffney D, 2002 "Quantifying the Slightly Deleterious Mutation Model of Molecular Evolution" Mol. Biol. Evol. 19(12):2142—2149 quote: Davies EK, Peters AD, Keightley PD, 1999, "High Frequency of Cryptic Deleterious Mutations in Caenorhabditis elegans", Science 285:1748-51
quote:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminPamboli Inactive Member |
quote:Which is being discussed more than the original topic. I think it's a sad reflection on the bio-geeks in this forum that even when the topic covers sin and walking about naked, we still end up discussing deletrious mutations.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 8996 From: Canada Joined: |
But losing interest in sin and walking around naked could be considered to be a deleterious mutation, couldn't it?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Mammuthus Member (Idle past 6475 days) Posts: 3085 From: Munich, Germany Joined: |
Which is being discussed more than the original topic.
I think it's a sad reflection on the bio-geeks in this forum that even when the topic covers sin and walking about naked, we still end up discussing deletrious mutations. M: Aha! I think I have found the connection...if you ever per chance go to the English Garden in Munich in the summer, there are often the FKK (Frei Korpor Kultur = nudists) enthusiasts running around. Most will be disappointed to learn that the vast majority of the participants are well past their physical prime septagenarian men...the ocular damage they do to those who unwittingly enter the English Garden on their way for a stein of bier in the Biergarten and happen see them could be construed as a sin...and though I have yet to do the experiment (and am frankly reluctant)...I suspect being exposed to them for a prolonged period of time could cause deleterious mutations.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
God's Child Inactive Member |
Yes I do believe in evolution in the "kind" as the Bible calls it. My not so scientific definition of "kind" is that any two animals in a "kind" can breed or that a "kind" has a common ancestor (which obviously can't be traced). I have yet to see present evidence of an entirely different species emerging.
I don't have much resource to professional literature but for example when we saw a high amount of radiation in Hiroshima cancer rates went up (correct me if I'm wrong). I do believe that sun radiation also causes forms of cancer. If something becomes hereditary then the victim's offspring would have it too. Eventually through the years those offspring will intermarry and you've got a larger amount of people with the defect and since it's possible to get a hereditary defect (correct me if I'm wrong), or and STD from external forces they're multiplying. Also these things do not prohibit people from having several children before it gets to them so having a defect wouldn't stop them from being common, or more common, in the populous. Sure they may not survive as well but they can multiply before they die. For instance my dad could've died from a hereditary tumor (thankfully he didn't) but he still had 4 kids who could have it and pass it on. Now there are 7 people who could have it just from him, not to mention my ancestors who might've had it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
God's Child Inactive Member |
Well I guess others have pretty much proven the results of entropy. Thanks by the way. Now that everyone hopefully believes in entropy this explains how the universe could have been a perfect system before "sin", which is what brought this topic up. Even something that works perfect can have the free will to be messed up as we see it now.
As for the Genesis 3 issue I'll probably have a thorough response tomorrow. Also here's something about the canopy
The Collapse of the Canopy Model
| Answers in Genesis
If you've got questions don't ask me because I probably won't know. I'm just giving it to you for your curiosity; I don't know enough about it to defend it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1467 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
My not so scientific definition of "kind" is that any two animals in a "kind" can breed or that a "kind" has a common ancestor (which obviously can't be traced). I have yet to see present evidence of an entirely different species emerging. So, evidence of populations of animals that were able to interbreed in the past but are no longer able to do so would be evidence that new kinds can arise? You would accept that as new species?
I do believe that sun radiation also causes forms of cancer. If something becomes hereditary then the victim's offspring would have it too. Granted. However - explain to me how a mutation in a somatic (body) cell could be passed on to one's offspring? Only the copy of your genetics that exists in your germ cells (reproductive cells like sperm or egg cells) can be passed on. If the mutation doesn't occur there it's not inheritable. Mutation from radiation rarely has a heritable effect. As for cancer; well, if you live long enough and nothing else kills you, you'll probably get cancer. Is that a sign that the human race is getting worse? I don't think so - it would seem to me that cancer is just a very natural way for certain cellular mechanisms to break. It's really a design flaw inherent in multicellular life.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1467 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Well I guess others have pretty much proven the results of entropy. Thanks by the way. Now that everyone hopefully believes in entropy this explains how the universe could have been a perfect system before "sin", which is what brought this topic up. Life isn't possible without entropy. Entropy isn't a trend away from perfection; it's a trend away from the separation of states (disorder). What that means is that (in an example someone gave before) a fully-built house has greater entropy than when the lumbar and nails are stacked in piles on the lawn. Chemical reactions can't occur if the separation of chemicals can never be overcome. If the universe were without entropy no reaction could ever occur. Not even nuclear ones - the sun couldn't shine. If your definition of entropy means "things get worse" you're quite mistaken. Entropy is required for anything at all to happen. A universe without entropy would be a cold, lifeless one.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
God's Child Inactive Member |
I guess I'm mistaken then. What I meant by entropy is actually "things tend to get worse" and from my Biblical standpoint it is a curse as a result of sin ,which I will cover in my response to the Genesis 3 issue. Also when I said "entropy" it could mean more specifically results from radiation, wrong judgement, off balances, and such.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
God's Child Inactive Member |
Forgot to respond to this one. I guess I got you confused with Rrhain who said his goals were a "mad dash for money" so his utopia would be financially economically perfect.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024