Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   SIN
Karl
Inactive Member


Message 91 of 114 (39921)
05-13-2003 9:04 AM
Reply to: Message 90 by compmage
05-13-2003 8:31 AM


Re: Sin
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by compmage, posted 05-13-2003 8:31 AM compmage has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by compmage, posted 05-13-2003 10:48 AM Karl has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 92 of 114 (39933)
05-13-2003 9:58 AM
Reply to: Message 77 by God's Child
05-12-2003 4:09 PM


Re: Sin
quote:
The goal of most religeons isn't a financial and economic utopia therefore your opinion may be that it isn't sucessful if you don't know their goals.
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."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by God's Child, posted 05-12-2003 4:09 PM God's Child has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 105 by God's Child, posted 05-13-2003 7:22 PM nator has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 93 of 114 (39937)
05-13-2003 10:07 AM
Reply to: Message 78 by God's Child
05-12-2003 4:24 PM


Re: Sin
quote:
I agree that things become better adapted through breeding
...or not-better adapted, as in the example of hip dysplasia.
quote:
and natural selection
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:
but things are becoming worse through radiation,
Cite to the professional literature, please. Evidece for this assertion is required.
quote:
which would be less notcible in bacteria.
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:
So even though things adapt through breeding the defects from radiation would still be passed down by genes and eventually multiplied.
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by God's Child, posted 05-12-2003 4:24 PM God's Child has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 95 by NosyNed, posted 05-13-2003 10:56 AM nator has not replied
 Message 96 by Quetzal, posted 05-13-2003 11:37 AM nator has replied
 Message 100 by God's Child, posted 05-13-2003 6:34 PM nator has not replied

  
compmage
Member (Idle past 5153 days)
Posts: 601
From: South Africa
Joined: 08-04-2005


Message 94 of 114 (39943)
05-13-2003 10:48 AM
Reply to: Message 91 by Karl
05-13-2003 9:04 AM


Re: Sin
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by Karl, posted 05-13-2003 9:04 AM Karl has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 95 of 114 (39944)
05-13-2003 10:56 AM
Reply to: Message 93 by nator
05-13-2003 10:07 AM


Mutational Meltdown
There are situations where a the genome can suffer from mutations in a way something like God's Child is arguing.
quote:
Our early projects were simulations of a process known as "mutational meltdown." In small populations, new deleterious mutations can become fixed, reducing the overall fitness of the population. Initially these fixed mutations have a small effect, but eventually the buildup reaches a critical point after which the fitness drops catastrophically. Once this "meltdown" point has been reached extinction is ensured. Our simulations, carried out on a MasPar parallel processor, showed that this effect occurs in sexually reproducing species as well as asexual species.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by nator, posted 05-13-2003 10:07 AM nator has not replied

  
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5872 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 96 of 114 (39947)
05-13-2003 11:37 AM
Reply to: Message 93 by nator
05-13-2003 10:07 AM


Re: Sin
Hi Schraf:
To add a bit to what NoseyNed posted,
Schraf writes:
Why would defects, which by definition make an organism LESS able to survive and thrive, become MORE common in a population?
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).
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:
We have attempted to quantify the frequency and effects of slightly deleterious mutations (SDMs), those that have selective effects close to the reciprocal of the effective population size of a species, by comparing the level of selective constraint in protein-coding genes of related species that have different present-day effective population sizes. In our two comparisons, the species with the smaller effective population size showed lower constraint, implying that SDMs had become fixed. The fixation of SDMs was supported by the observation of a higher fraction of radical to conservative amino acid substitutions in species with smaller effective population sizes. The fraction of strongly deleterious mutations (which rarely become fixed) is >70% in most species. Only ~10% or fewer of mutations seem to behave as SDMs, but SDMs could comprise a substantial fraction of mutations in protein-coding genes that have a chance of becoming fixed between species.
Davies EK, Peters AD, Keightley PD, 1999, "High Frequency of Cryptic Deleterious Mutations in Caenorhabditis elegans", Science 285:1748-51
quote:
Deleterious mutations with very small phenotypic effects could be important for several evolutionary phenomena, but the extent of their contribution has been unknown. Fitness effects of induced mutations in lines of Caenorhabditis elegans were measured using a system for which the number of deleterious point mutations in the DNA can be estimated. In fitness assays, only about 4 percent of the deleterious mutations fixed in each line were detectable. The remaining 96 percent, though cryptic, are significant for mutation load and, potentially, for the evolution of sex.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by nator, posted 05-13-2003 10:07 AM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 111 by nator, posted 05-13-2003 11:04 PM Quetzal has replied

  
AdminPamboli
Inactive Member


Message 97 of 114 (39949)
05-13-2003 11:50 AM
Reply to: Message 90 by compmage
05-13-2003 8:31 AM


Re: Sin
quote:
The aside comment is now being discussed more than the challenges to the water canopy.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by compmage, posted 05-13-2003 8:31 AM compmage has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 98 by NosyNed, posted 05-13-2003 11:58 AM AdminPamboli has not replied
 Message 99 by Mammuthus, posted 05-13-2003 12:02 PM AdminPamboli has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 98 of 114 (39951)
05-13-2003 11:58 AM
Reply to: Message 97 by AdminPamboli
05-13-2003 11:50 AM


Re: Sin
But losing interest in sin and walking around naked could be considered to be a deleterious mutation, couldn't it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by AdminPamboli, posted 05-13-2003 11:50 AM AdminPamboli has not replied

  
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 6475 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 99 of 114 (39952)
05-13-2003 12:02 PM
Reply to: Message 97 by AdminPamboli
05-13-2003 11:50 AM


Re: Sin
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by AdminPamboli, posted 05-13-2003 11:50 AM AdminPamboli has not replied

  
God's Child
Inactive Member


Message 100 of 114 (39984)
05-13-2003 6:34 PM
Reply to: Message 93 by nator
05-13-2003 10:07 AM


Re: Sin
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by nator, posted 05-13-2003 10:07 AM nator has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 101 by God's Child, posted 05-13-2003 6:55 PM God's Child has not replied
 Message 102 by crashfrog, posted 05-13-2003 6:56 PM God's Child has replied

  
God's Child
Inactive Member


Message 101 of 114 (39988)
05-13-2003 6:55 PM
Reply to: Message 100 by God's Child
05-13-2003 6:34 PM


Re: Sin
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by God's Child, posted 05-13-2003 6:34 PM God's Child has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by crashfrog, posted 05-13-2003 7:04 PM God's Child has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 102 of 114 (39989)
05-13-2003 6:56 PM
Reply to: Message 100 by God's Child
05-13-2003 6:34 PM


Re: Sin
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by God's Child, posted 05-13-2003 6:34 PM God's Child has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 107 by God's Child, posted 05-13-2003 7:39 PM crashfrog has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 103 of 114 (39990)
05-13-2003 7:04 PM
Reply to: Message 101 by God's Child
05-13-2003 6:55 PM


Re: Sin
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by God's Child, posted 05-13-2003 6:55 PM God's Child has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 104 by God's Child, posted 05-13-2003 7:17 PM crashfrog has replied

  
God's Child
Inactive Member


Message 104 of 114 (39992)
05-13-2003 7:17 PM
Reply to: Message 103 by crashfrog
05-13-2003 7:04 PM


Re: Sin
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by crashfrog, posted 05-13-2003 7:04 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 106 by crashfrog, posted 05-13-2003 7:25 PM God's Child has replied

  
God's Child
Inactive Member


Message 105 of 114 (39994)
05-13-2003 7:22 PM
Reply to: Message 92 by nator
05-13-2003 9:58 AM


Re: Sin
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by nator, posted 05-13-2003 9:58 AM nator has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 114 by Rrhain, posted 05-14-2003 8:05 PM God's Child has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024