Creationism and life in general

[rossum]

This still does not explain reactions to relatively modern diseases like HIV/AIDS.

There are two responses here. First, the general response. Mutations are random. They may protect against things that do not currently exist in the environment. The Luria–Delbrück experiment shows this clearly.

Secondly, a more specific response. There are some similarities between the ways HIV and smallpox attack cells. Hence, populations with an inherited resistance to smallpox tend to have a better level of resistance to HIV.

Some people appear to be resistant.

Some people indeed are resistant to a greater or lesser degree.

This does not fit a pattern

Exactly. That is the meaning of “random” in “random mutations”. They do not fit a pattern, but are random. In the absence of HIV, any HIV-resistant mutations are neutral or deleterious, and would have no advantage. With the presence of HIV in the environment, those mutations will have an advantage and hence tend to spread by natural selection.

rossum

 

[rossum]

Nothing but adaptation and bones with lots of stories…
some biologists feel pretty safe to say that life come out of dead matter by chance and during billions of years: you can’t repeat this in a lab experiment

You are confusing abiogenesis and evolution. They are different things, and it is an error to confuse them. Bones and adaptation only came after the origin of life, not before it.

rossum

 

[Linusthe2nd]

When you can show me a horse sprouting feathered wings I’ll pay serious attention. Until then its is all tinkling brass, much ado about nothing.

Linus2nd

 

[edwest2]

Nothing but adaptation and bones with lots of stories…
some biologists feel pretty safe to say that life come out of dead matter by chance and during billions of years: you can’t repeat this in a lab experiment

Exactly true.

Peace,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

When you can show me a horse sprouting feathered wings I’ll pay serious attention. Until then its is all tinkling brass, much ado about nothing.

Linus2nd

The point is, there are different ways to look at what we know. The rest is less than convincing.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Aloysium]

Nothing but adaptation and bones with lots of stories…
some biologists feel pretty safe to say that life come out of dead matter by chance and during billions of years: you can’t repeat this in a lab experiment

It is interesting that we have not been able to create life.
Definitely we know how to chop it up into pieces of matter. The entire human genome has been mapped.
We have the brains to construct machines that are very complex, like the ones we are using to communicate with here.
It is supposed to have taken billions of years of chance atomic and molecular interactions to finally produce the environment and the building blocks to create life on this planet.
We can’t do it in a lab? We cannot do it when we know precisely what chemicals need to come together and under what conditions?
Genetically modified viruses, plants, animals, and I suppose people next, I think that’s probably the best we can do, and that is very bad.

Following this line of thought I am reminded of a quote by C. S. Lewis: Education without values, as useful as it is, seems rather to make man a more clever devil.

 

[rossum]

When you can show me a horse sprouting feathered wings I’ll pay serious attention.

If you could find a horse with feathered wings, then that would be very strong evidence that evolution was incorrect and that design was correct. We already have pegasi, which are designed, not evolved, and so a living pegasus would be very strong evidence that evolution was incorrect and that design was correct.

Your lack of knowledge of evolution is letting you down here. I suggest that you learn more so as to avoid such errors in future.

rossum

 

[Al_Moritz]

If you could find a horse with feathered wings, then that would be very strong evidence that evolution was incorrect and that design was correct. We already have pegasi, which are designed, not evolved, and so a living pegasus would be very strong evidence that evolution was incorrect and that design was correct.

Your lack of knowledge of evolution is letting you down here. I suggest that you learn more so as to avoid such errors in future.

rossum

Well said.

 

[rossum]

It is interesting that we have not been able to create life.

Creationists also have not been able to create life. Does that mean that creationists are wrong?

It is supposed to have taken billions of years of chance atomic and molecular interactions to finally produce the environment and the building blocks to create life on this planet.
We can’t do it in a lab?

Our lab is a lot smaller than an entire planet. We haven’t been running the experiment for a billion years yet.

Scientists have not been able to make a star in a lab yet either. That does not mean that we know nothing about star formation.

rossum

 

[Linusthe2nd]

If you could find a horse with feathered wings, then that would be very strong evidence that evolution was incorrect and that design was correct. We already have pegasi, which are designed, not evolved, and so a living pegasus would be very strong evidence that evolution was incorrect and that design was correct.

Your lack of knowledge of evolution is letting you down here. I suggest that you learn more so as to avoid such errors in future.

rossum

In most sciences an exception to the general run of cases causes the rule to be modified so the exception can be accomodated ( Relativity accomodated Newton’s Laws), but in the " science " of evolution the exception makes the rule . No thanks, not interested in evolution in the least - too many ideologues in that endeavor.

Linus2nd

 

[Bahman]

Creation is infinite so everything is possible.

 

[edwest2]

In most sciences an exception to the general run of cases causes the rule to be modified so the exception can be accomodated ( Relativity accomodated Newton’s Laws), but in the " science " of evolution the exception makes the rule . No thanks, not interested in evolution in the least - too many ideologues in that endeavor.

Linus2nd

It is obvious that the information presented is purely materialist only, by the self-imposed rules of science. For Catholics, Divine revelation is missing. Lacking this essential information means that the data can only be presented in one way.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Ion]

What I really do not like about evolution is the package, presented as “fact”; also when you show that creation is perfectly possible then you are asked “but how those persons come into being?” which is another thing; I think we should try to discuss about creation in a different way; anyway evolutionists do not even dream of creating life with the level of their knowledge (eventual genetic modifications). Somehow to take it out of the “event view” and show it into “meaning” view. To explain that eternal life is possible and that the sin is the enemy.

 

[rossum]

What I really do not like about evolution is the package, presented as “fact”

Evolution is both fact and theory. Please see my post #946 in this thread for a longer explanation.

anyway evolutionists do not even dream of creating life with the level of their knowledge

Of course not. Evolution is the study of what happened after the first life originated. The study of the origin of life is abiogenesis, and is a different subject. It is an error to confuse the two.

To explain that eternal life is possible and that the sin is the enemy.

I am Buddhist, so to me eternal life is not possible, and if it did exist it would also be eternal suffering. There is no sin in Buddhism, the nearest equivalent being unwise actions. If there is an “enemy” then it is the triple enemy of greed, hatred and delusion. You should not expect non-Christians to accept the insertion of specifically Christian elements into religiously neutral science.

rossum

 

[Bahman]

Evolution is both fact and theory. Please see my post #946 in this thread for a longer explanation.

It is a theory with outcome so called life/lives if and only if the universe is infinite, otherwise the outcome is possible depending on size of universe. There are several random events that play very important roles in history to allow that human appears as dominant species on earth.

 

[rossum]

It is a theory with outcome so called life/lives if and only if the universe is infinite, otherwise the outcome is possible depending on size of universe. There are several random events that play very important roles in history to allow that human appears as dominant species on earth.

It does not require an infinite universe. Indeed if the universe were infinite backwards in time then there would be no life at all possible due to entropy. It does require either a sufficiently long (but not too long) time for life as we see it to develop, or alternatively a Loki/Trickster god to leave misleading evidence for us to find.

For the purposes of science we discount the possibility of involvement by Loki/Trickster.

rossum

 

[Bahman]

It does not require an infinite universe. Indeed if the universe were infinite backwards in time then there would be no life at all possible due to entropy. It does require either a sufficiently long (but not too long) time for life as we see it to develop, or alternatively a Loki/Trickster god to leave misleading evidence for us to find.

For the purposes of science we discount the possibility of involvement by Loki/Trickster.

rossum

Entropy is an extensive property so there is no problem having infinite universe infinite entropy.

 

[rossum]

Entropy is an extensive property so there is no problem having infinite universe infinite entropy.

With infinite entropy you will find problems getting energy to flow from one place to another. Since life requires energy flows that would present a great problem for evolution.

rossum

 

[Ion]

Yes and no. It is both a theory and a fact. Consider gravity. We have gravity-as-fact: things fall down. We also have gravity-as-theory: things fall down because …

Gravity is both fact and theory. The facts exist, the theory explains them. Theories are never proven, since they can change: Newton’s theory of gravity was disproven and replaced by Einstein’s theory of General Relativity. During all those changes to the theory, the facts of gravity did not change.

Evolution is a fact. Every time an insect evolves immunity to an insecticide we can see the fact of evolution. The theory of evolution explains the mechanisms by which evolution happens.

Evolution is a proven fact. Evolution is explained by a theory and, like all scientific theories, the theory is not and never can be proven.

rossum

It is not a fact, only some atheists believers BELIEVE that some facts are related and support the theory. Nothing was scientifically proven. Unfortunately atheists scientists try to “push it their way” and for example for decades archaeologists simply dumped artifacts because were “useless”; dating didn’t match the theories thus the artifacts were contaminated, and because you cant date them better throw them away to save space and time…How does this help science? Hopefully looks like a new trend is there, starting with some american scientists, who didn’t want to throw away years of work; and there is no unlimited quantity of artifacts…
The same with the “beloved” Bohr atom model; gives the perfect illusion of a all-material existence because after all everything are things, may they change into energy. This is indoctrination and later on they have to tell the young, that after all you cant understand the quantum science. Science?
The only science that didn’t suffered atheistic abuse yet is Math.
Last thing I learned about the genetics is that more than 98% of the genetic code is unknown and looks to be useless … I wouldn’t wonder if potentially all the creatures are there.

Now tell me how can I prove to myself evolution the same way i can prove gravity: to prove that gravity exists I simply suspend something and see what happens…

 

[rossum]

Last thing I learned about the genetics is that more than 98% of the genetic code is unknown and looks to be useless

You have been misinformed. For viruses and bacteria close to 100% of their genome in known to code for proteins or to regulate the transcription of proteins. For the human genome the figures are different. About 5% codes directly for proteins. A further 10% is involved in regulatory functions – you don’t grow eyes on your toes. The regulatory functions do things like shutting off the eye-growing genes in your toes. 10% is conserved, so it probably has a function but we don’t yet know what the function is. 50% is known to be junk; it can be deleted from the genome with no effects on the organism. The remaining 25% is still being studied.

Other organisms will tend to lie between those two extremes, with some exceptions. There is an onion, Allium cepa, whose genome is about six times the size of the human genome.

Now tell me how can I prove to myself evolution the same way i can prove gravity: to prove that gravity exists I simply suspend something and see what happens…

To prove evolution, take some penicillin if you have a bacterial disease. Does the penicillin kill the bacteria? Probably not, because the bacteria have evolved immunity to penicillin. Does DDT kill your local mosquitoes? Have they evolved immunity to DDT yet?

rossum