Creation or Evolution

  • Thread starter Thread starter Brian_Millar
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Given Rossums example of a spider and its web. Genes determine the physical structures of the spinner, silk, etc. But each species, once it gets its hands on the silk, has a different ‘behavior’ and spins a different pattern web.
Click to expand...
The spinners, silk, etc. are all genetically determined. The behavior is the consequence of the organism’s characteristics and the environment.
What genes determine the pattern of the web the spider spins.
Click to expand...
All of them contribute to it. The genes that affect growth and size, for example, affect the size of the web and where it will be placed.

If one thinks that single genes determine all of such behaviors, one is probably homozygous for the gullibility gene.
 
The_Barbarian said:
The spinners, silk, etc. are all genetically determined. The behavior is the consequence of the organism’s characteristics and the environment.

All of them contribute to it. The genes that affect growth and size, for example, affect the size of the web and where it will be placed.

If one thinks that single genes determine all of such behaviors, one is probably homozygous for the gullibility gene.
Click to expand...
I presume you’re guessing, as rossum - said, no genetic sequence has been mapped for web-spinning spiders, yet. So presumably nobody knows, yet. But thats fine, I have the gullibility gene in abundance but I don’t know if it will be working today - evolution and all that.
 
Thing said:
OK.
You don’t know.🙂
Click to expand...
Not quite:We don’t know yet, but we are working on it.
But do you mean there are genes which produce an abstract concept like sympathy or empathy. Does the concept, of sympathy, for example, evolve or does the gene evolve to produce that particular concept.
Click to expand...
Does a spider have sympathy? For ourselves, it is probably a mixture of nature (genes) and nurture (environment) with both having a role. We do not have a definite answer yet.

rossum
 
The_Barbarian said:
As chairman of the International Theological Commission, studying faith and science, Cardinal Ratzinger had the benefit of some of the world’s great scientists considering the nature of evolution and the Church.

He has learned a great deal about it, and although he is not a trained biologist, he does have considerable understanding of the process.
Click to expand...
 
40.png
smkw:
Has anyone in this “discussion,” which has now become way too difficult to follow, ever read “The Origin of the Species” by Darwin?

Decided, as a result of this “argument” that I need to do so.

Also, has anyone looked at the “science” the Creationists have put forth. Lots of it is not “science”, but rather apologetics, in my mind, but there are some interesting facts out there. Dinosaur fossils found with soft tissue. Rational for how the sediments and fossils could have been laid down by the flood…

I think it’s good to keep an open mind.
 
smkw said:
Has anyone in this “discussion,” which has now become way too difficult to follow, ever read “The Origin of the Species” by Darwin?
Click to expand...
I have read about half of it.
Also, has anyone looked at the “science” the Creationists have put forth. Lots of it is not “science”, but rather apologetics, in my mind, but there are some interesting facts out there. Dinosaur fossils found with soft tissue. Rational for how the sediments and fossils could have been laid down by the flood…
Click to expand...
Yes I have, especially on the geology side of the argument. Actually, none of it is science.

Peace

Tim
 
smkw said:
Has anyone in this “discussion,” which has now become way too difficult to follow, ever read “The Origin of the Species” by Darwin?
Click to expand...
Yes. Worth a look by anyone with an interest in this subject. Available online: On the Origin of Species.
Also, has anyone looked at the “science” the Creationists have put forth. Lots of it is not “science”, but rather apologetics,
Click to expand...
Agreed.
in my mind, but there are some interesting facts out there. Dinosaur fossils found with soft tissue. Rational for how the sediments and fossils could have been laid down by the flood…
Click to expand...
The problem for creationists is that they have very little positive evidence for their position, especially young earthers. Merely showing that evolution does not answer all questions is not enough. You cannot prove that something is blue by pointing out that it is not red. It might be green. The default position for science is “We do not know”; creationism needs positive evidence to move science away from that position.
I think it’s good to keep an open mind.
Click to expand...
But not so open that your brains fall out. 🙂

rossum
 
hecd2 said:
40.png
edwest2:
I in no way want to defend Intelligent Design as it is defined here, namely a totally unChristian power struggle against the Right and Left. What ID does say is that the information required to build a cell does not come from thin air. Information theory is valid for studying biological systems. But such things cannot be discussed in any depth here due to the knee-jerk reactions of political combatants who do not want to give the ‘other side’ any ammunition.
Click to expand...
You think that you’re competent to discuss the application of information theory to biological systems - in depth?

Let’s start with something very elementary: how would you measure the information content of the genome of an organism?
Click to expand...
So, I see Ed was just bluffing when he claimed that he wanted to discuss. in depth, the application of information theory to biological systems. Seems like he is unable to get off the starting blocks.

Alec
evolutionpages.com
 
40.png
smkw:
Tim-
I thought the same about the “non science” of the Creationists, but just came across some real science from a guy who has been studying the Mt. St. Helens eruption and doing some comparative dating,etc. and has also done some real research in the Grand Canyon.
So, there are some “real” scientists among the group.
 
I presume you’re guessing, as rossum - said, no genetic sequence has been mapped for web-spinning spiders, yet.
Click to expand...
I’m pointing out to you that there is no “web shape” gene; lots of different genes contribute to the behavior that makes webs, but genomes don’t work like they were designed.
So presumably nobody knows, yet. But thats fine, I have the gullibility gene in abundance but I don’t know if it will be working today - evolution and all that.
Click to expand...
It’s not like Pokemon. Individuals don’t evolve.
 
I thought the same about the “non science” of the Creationists, but just came across some real science from a guy who has been studying the Mt. St. Helens eruption
Click to expand...
I recall seeing some “real science” from a creationist who was studying recent dacite at Mt. St. Helens. He was shocked to find that the recently-hardened lava dated millions of years old.

Apparently, he wasn’t smart enough to eliminate the xenocrysts in his sample. Xenocrysts are bits of unmelted rock that were carried in the lava, and are, of course, much older than the lava flow. He was warned by the lab about this, but told them to do the analysis anyway.

And he got the result he wanted. That’s not what is ordinarily meant by “real science.” (Details on request)
 
How do you know there is no web-shape gene?
Click to expand...
Because web shape is determined by a great number of factors, including temperature, size of the spider, the sort of silk produced, and so on.

No single gene determines all those things. Some are not even determined by genes at all.
 
So, I see Ed was just bluffing when he claimed that he wanted to discuss. in depth, the application of information theory to biological systems. Seems like he is unable to get off the starting blocks.
Click to expand...
It appears he can’t even locate the track.
 
smkw said:
Tim-
I thought the same about the “non science” of the Creationists, but just came across some real science from a guy who has been studying the Mt. St. Helens eruption and doing some comparative dating,etc. and has also done some real research in the Grand Canyon.
So, there are some “real” scientists among the group.
Click to expand...
Let me ask you an honest question. How much geology have you studied?

Steve Austin is the geologist you refer to. He is counting on you having little or no understanding of what he is doing. That is why you will never see his studies published in a legitimate journal of geology.

He purposely used methods known to not work for young samples and, in at least several instances, intentionally collected samples that he knew would yield old ages because they *are *old.

Peace

Tim
 
The_Barbarian said:
Apparently, he wasn’t smart enough to eliminate the xenocrysts in his sample. Xenocrysts are bits of unmelted rock that were carried in the lava, and are, of course, much older than the lava flow. He was warned by the lab about this, but told them to do the analysis anyway.
Click to expand...
Of course he knows what xenocrysts are. That is why he chose them. If he didn’t know what they are, he could be excused as being ignorant of basic geology. But he isn’t ignorant of basic geology. He knew what he was doing all along.

Peace

Tim
 
Well, I think so. But there are such things as stupid PhDs. I’m giving him the benefit of a doubt.
 
The_Barbarian said:
Because web shape is determined by a great number of factors, including temperature, size of the spider, the sort of silk produced, and so on.

No single gene determines all those things. Some are not even determined by genes at all.
Click to expand...
Nonsense. Pure fiction.

Hi. I’m a spider. A pre-silk producing spider. I don’t know how to find food. Oh, wait. Look! I can produce silk now! What do I do with it? Does it work like a fishing line? Meanwhile, I’m getting pretty hungry and I can’t wait around for thousands or millions of years to figure out how to use it. I’ve got to eat now!

Peace,
Ed
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top