Understanding through Discussion

Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 86 (8984 total)
54 online now:
jar, PaulK, PurpleYouko, ringo, scoff, Stile, Tangle (7 members, 47 visitors)
Newest Member: Jerry Johnson
Post Volume: Total: 877,688 Year: 9,436/23,288 Month: 451/1,544 Week: 165/561 Day: 5/63 Hour: 0/0

Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Author Topic:   questions evolutionists can't or won't answer
Member (Idle past 29 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002

Message 29 of 141 (10409)
05-27-2002 10:12 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by John Paul
05-24-2002 2:00 PM

Originally posted by John Paul:
Here is a challenge to evolutionists: Please answer all the questions below to the best of your ability.

Could provide us with the evidence that life could originate from non-life via purely natural processes?

That it could originate from non-life has a lot of
theory and evidence to support it. There's a better living
through chemistry thread that puts much current thinking forward.

Things like self replicating ability of RNA, long chain peptide
creation around thermal vents, etc. etc. all lend credence to
the possibility of abiogenesis.

If we can figure out the conditions under which it could happen
and re-produce those conditions we can test the idea, until then
we need to keep looking.

Originally posted by John Paul:

How could that be objectively tested and falsified?

Get the right starting conditions, allow the right amount
of time and energy, and see if life pops out

If we one day do that will it disprove the existence of God ?

Originally posted by John Paul:

What are the alternatives if life could not have originated via purely natural processes?

That life originated by unnatural process ... can you think of
any other answer to that question ?

That's the only alternative that could possibly exist in this
context. Either life came about through natural processes or
it didn't ... that's kind of the whole point of the discussion
isn't it ?

Originally posted by John Paul:

Why are those alternatives un-scientific?

By definition ... science deals with the explanation of
natural phenomena ... if it ain't natural it falls outside
the remit of science.

Conversely if it can be illuminated by science ... it immediately
falls into the category of natural phenomena.

Originally posted by John Paul:

If abiogenesis and evolution are separate why does one theory begin where the other ends? (abiogenesis ends with the formation of progenotes and that is where the theory of evolution begins)

You just answered yourself ... if one theory ends, then another
begins, that makes them separate theories!!!

Abiogenesis are a theories about how the first life came into
being through natural processes.

Evolution does pick up the story ... but from the point of thee
first life existsing EVEN if that life were spoken into being
by some supernatural agency.

CAN YOU provide objective evidence for God-powered genesis ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by John Paul, posted 05-24-2002 2:00 PM John Paul has not yet responded

Member (Idle past 29 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002

Message 107 of 141 (15765)
08-20-2002 5:53 AM
Reply to: Message 97 by John Paul
08-12-2002 3:13 PM

Sorry to butt-in, but ....

Originally posted by John Paul:

1. Do you believe that mutations are heritable?
2. Do you believe that the patterns of such heritable mutations can be used to infer relatedness?

1) Is tricky. Yes mutations are heritable. Neutral, harmful and beneficial, mutations can be passed on. However in sexual reproduction they don’t always get passed on. I’m not as tall as my grandfather was, but I am taller than my parents (were). My father was color-blind, I am not, nor are my sisters and brothers, but I have a nephew that can’t see green (not the Special Agent). However his brother’s vision is OK.

It's not tricky. Mutations are heritable, you agreed.

Girls are rarely colour blind, since the gene that causes it is on
the X chromosome, and is recessive. The same location doesn't exist
in Y, so boys only need one colour-blind X to be colour blind.
(Probably a simplification I think that was how it was taught to
me in 'O' level biology)

Your sisters have a fifty-fifty chance of carrying colour blindness
so they have inhereted the trait/mutation.

Whether something IS passed on has no bearing on whether it is
heritable. They are two separate issues.

Originally posted by John Paul:

In humans this is evident- not every organism that is born gets a chance to mate and not every mating couple can conceive. No mating or conception no chance of passing on of the DNA....

Like I say, not relevent to whether something is heritable,
only to whether it is actually inherited ... so irrelevent to
the question asked.

Originally posted by John Paul:

That said, if adaptive mutations were the norm (Dr. Lee Spetner), they would become more readably fixed because they would occur population wide due to the organisms’ DNA reacting directly to environmental pressure(s). However adaptive mutations, unless applied to cleverly written evolutionary algorithm acting with an incrementally sequenced genetic algorithm, couldn’t account for the grand sweep of the theory of evolution.

What we would have to determine is what was it about the alleged shared mutations that allowed them to be fixed in the populations? IOW why were they selected for (kept in the population) over this alleged span of time (5+ millions years)?

Agreed ... the question is not how the mutations come about, but
how they are fixed in a population. Natural selection seems to
spring to mind here.

You have hit upon an interesting idea... evolution is mutation (by some mechanism) + selection (by some mechanism).

Originally posted by John Paul:

2) I don’t think that every person with sickle-cell anemia is related to the first person that got the mutation that caused that disease and was able to pass it on. (Sickle-cell anemia is caused by a point mutation in a specific locus- a substitution of a T for an A in the codon for the sixth amino acid of the beta chain in the human hemoglobin protein. That mutation changes a glutamic acid to a valine.) Is everyone with Downs syndrome related? The same goes for all genetic diseases. Do you think that every person with the same genetic disease is related to each other? That DNA gets passed on to the offspring doesn’t mean chimps and humans share a common ancestor.
As I previously stated “As for apparent similar mutations, again given that we have a restricted selection of possibilities for change to occur, it could be more of a coincidence than it is coinciding.” I would like to change that to most likely be more of a coincidence…

Down's syndrome (as I understand it) is a kind of first-generation
mutation. That is, the mutation occurs at the particular gammete
rather than being passed on. Wonder if downs syndrome individuals
produce Down's offspring? Don't know.

Isn't sickle cell anaemia restricted to certain ethnicities?
Doesn't that suggest common ancestry in recent times for the

I think the suggestion is that if the conditions exist which tend
to promote mutation, that large numbers of the population will
have affected gametes ... in that case any modern trait may be
traced back to a group/population rather than an individual (I guess).

Originally posted by John Paul:

Mutations occurring and getting passed on is just part of the problem. And a mutation getting fixed in a population is another.

Which is why 1) isn't tricky at all.

Originally posted by John Paul:

What the theory of evolution requires is for mutations to accumulate in such a way as to eventually give rise to new structures and organs (assuming of course the alleged starting population(s) didn’t have arms, legs, a spine or a brain). Is there even a way to test if that premise is feasible?

I think techniques and results coming out of genetic engineering
work may provide a means of testing such hypotheses. Look at that
crustacean leg inhibition for a start.

OK I know that's 'loss of a trait' if you look at it one way, but
isn't it the gain of a trait if it happened the other?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by John Paul, posted 08-12-2002 3:13 PM John Paul has not yet responded

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:

Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2020