Creationist Friendly Q&A

To the three who responded, thank you. I have some more questions: If an organism previously had no dna coding for ANY type of sight or light sensitivity, how could this have emerged? And even if an organism developed eyespots, how is it that millions of entire living cells take over the job of a single organelle? I have heard that genetic mutation can only change information, not add it. It this true?PS-> I do know quite a bit about evolution and biology, so if your answers require you to use technical and in-depth answers, feel free.

How is it unfriendly to you? Someone who cares about another (not that we have that relationship) would not leave them subject to a lie.You have been lied to. If you doubt that, pick anyone of a number of things that you have been given as truth and it can be discussed. That might be a fair use of this thread.I'm sure some will not be lies; there will be misunderstandings on your part and your sources and simple errors. If we do a few we will find lies.

Living cells involve some very complex chemistry, and chemistry is often sensitive to light. If you have a protein which somehow reacts faster or slower under light, this is likely to have consequences; and sometimes those consequences may be selected.Take a simple example (which applies to single celled organisms). Some bacteria appear to "swim" towards the light, which is helpful for finding food or energy. The way they move is interesting; they have little hairs (flagella) which move in one of two ways. One way causes the cell to "tumble" randomly. The other causes the cell to move off in a straight line. The direction of movement after the tumble phase is apparently quite random; but the length of time before another tumble is reduced when the light is strong.The net effect is that bacteria in the dark tend to move away from the starting point more rapidly, and if they happen to end up near a light source, they tend to remain moving around that area.There is scope here for some simple selection on the switch time between movement modes. If a variant of a protein tends to react to light in such a way as to have shorter durations of straight line movement in the dark, that bacterium will reproduce less successfully. But variants with longer straight line movement in the dark will get amplified by selection.You can't stop chemistry from being sensitive to light. When it makes a difference to fitness, you get selection for an apparent "purposeful" reaction to light.As for multiple cells; it is the same thing on a larger scale. A multicellular organism is a colony of cells, all of which have the same genotype. When genes get expressed or activated vary with the whole organisms; and so cells end up having very different roles. And again, sensitivity to light of reactions can be subject to selection.There is some suggestion (I think? is there a biologists in the house) that the eye spots arise mainly from light sensitivity in nerve cells. Imagine a never cells that reacts in way that varies with the light levels. (You can't stop this happening; light makes a difference to chemistry.) When the effects have a beneficial consequence, they get selected. No. Mutations tend to add information. This is more often detrimental than useful; but selection tends to amplify the effect of adaptive changes. So mutation tends to add information, and selection tends to amplify information that is adaptive.Here are two simple example of an unambiguous addition of information.First: some mutations can duplicate whole stretches of dna; such mutations can give two copies of a gene. Then another mutation can alter one of the copies. Where you previously had one gene, you now have two, and they are very slightly different from each other. This is an increase in information any way you cut it.Second. A mutation alters a gene sequence slightly. Then another mutation restores it back to the previous form (back mutation). If you have some objective measure of information that can distinguish information levels of gene sequences; then one of these mutations has increased information.Cheers -- Sylas

quote:

---

And here you see the problem spelled out, and it has been so many times by those who would call themselves 'enlightened', who by virtue of a little education think themselves qualified to judge who occupies the dark hole and who is fed silly things.

---

Since this was originally posted as a response to me so I thought I would respond. I also started this whole experiment, so I'll try and explain my thoughts.It is my personal belief that most people who are against evolution know very little about the theory. At times those who accept evolution tend to be a little short with those who don't understand the theory. Resurrected Hector's response is how many feel when presented with ignorance of the theory of evolution. Many of us have ignorance of many fields. I am very ignorant of the field of physics and am corrected by experts on a regular basis on this forum. Ignorance shouldn't be something to be proud of, but it shouldn't be something to be ashamed of either. I just wanted a place where those who may feel intimidated can learn from people who are well versed on that particular topic. I see this thread as being a resource for information that can start debates elsewhere.In my opening post I also suggested that a sister thread could be created as well, a place where non-christians can ask simple questions about creationism or christian theology. I see this as an act of stepping down from a high horse, not getting on one. I'm sorry if you see this thread as patronizing or condescending, it wasn't my intention. If you look through the questions asked so far you will find little to no rhetoric and plain spoken explanations for certain phenomena. In fact, I am quite proud of fellow posters who have given well reasoned and understandable posts. I didn't really think this thread would take off, but I am glad it has.

I appreciate your thoughts.I'm glad you feel your idea is a success.A simple question about theology would be?A question to you.....in the Old Testament, there was a prophet named Daniel, who in one instance experienced the need for immediate aid, and while he was still asking for help, an angel appeared to grant it.
What kind of science did the angel use to affect his purpose?This message has been edited by PecosGeorge, 03-07-2005 20:03 AM

---

Pascal's Wager......nice try.

In Sleeping Beauty, what kind of science or magic was used to put Sleeping Beauty and an entire kingdom of people into stasis like that?

I don't know, but if you can explain it will go a long way towards lending credibility to the idea that an angel actually came down to a man named Daniel. For now, it's just a fairy tale that you inexplicably seem to literally believe.Science is being discussed here, not your opinions.

The exact same kind that angel used for Daniel.

We are being friendly here!The only problem with that question is it belongs in the "Evo Friendly Q&A" topic in faith and belief. Not here in the science thread.

Assuming for the purpose of argument that the incident actually occurred (about which people could have a nice long argument), the one and only and obvious answer is ...We don't know.Unless other evidence comes to light, we'll probably never know.Is there necessarily a scientific explanation for such an incident? Not necessarily, but the evidence we have to date suggests that there is, even if the scientific explanation is "it didn't happen". But we don't have enough evidence to make a consensus determination. Individuals will, of course, have their individual opinions and assessments of probability.

quote:

---

Is there necessarily a scientific explanation for such an incident

---

Some friends who know more about such things than I do, and have a rapt listener in me, think the angel knew how to bend space.

---

Pascal's Wager......nice try.

quote:

---

Some friends who know more about such things than I do, and have a rapt listener in me, think the angel knew how to bend space.

---

That is an interesting speculation, but for it to become anything more than speculation, there needs to be a lot more positive evidence to support it before it would become generally accepted within the scientific community.Some big bits of evidence needed:1) Evidence that angels exist in general.1a) If we determine that angels exist, we need to determine what their properties are. A demonstration of an angel "bending space" would be great.2) Evidence that this particular angel existed.3) Evidence that David existed.etc.The point is, one can insert any kind of speculative "explanation" into why a certain fantastic event may have happened. I could say that it wasn't an angel that helped David, but an alien, or a demon in disguise, or a Shinto god, or whatever, and these would all be consistent with the story.What needs to be provided to make a scientific case is evidence.

quote:

---

A simple question about theology would be?

---

I don't want these answered here, but I was thinking of the following questions:1. When Joshua asked for a longer day, why did he aske God to stop the sun? Shouldn't he have asked God to make the Earth stop spinning?2. Why is the Nativity story different in each of the Gospels?3. Why was the gnostic movement quelled early in the development of the christian religion?Like I said, I don't want those answered here. I am just giving you an idea of the type of questions that might be appropriate for a theology/christian thread.

quote:

---

A question to you.....in the Old Testament, there was a prophet named Daniel, who in one instance experienced the need for immediate aid, and while he was still asking for help, an angel appeared to grant it.
What kind of science did the angel use to affect his purpose?

---

Theology ain't my thing. Science is. I would be happy to answer your science questions but I will leave the theology questions to others.

Can I spin this off to start the Atheist Frendly Q&A?

Yes, the thread begs to move