I
Isambard
Guest
Eh? Life requires chemical processes to maintain itself, or do you not breathe oxygen? Im also curious about your definition of what constitutes life.
- Status
C
cpayne
Guest
Now I’m curious about this statement. Because they are animated, living things are described as possessing an *anima *or living principle of some type, which Christians call a soul. This may be a faith statement or not; I don’t know. But what do scientists call that which converts a chemical or physical process into a unified, growing, mobile, food-ingesting thing? I know the term “soul” would be unpopular. So what is it? What is the name for the principle of life which makes something a “living” thing?
(And whatever the name is, is its existence a matter of faith or of empirical science?)
H
hecd2
Guest
If indeed Roger is a religious teacher whose main purpose in being here is to seek guidance for delivering his classes, rather than to promote the views of Robert Sungenis, then I offer him a full apology.
Alec
evolutionpages.com
C
cpayne
Guest
See questions in post 302. Thanks in advance.
R
Rogerteder
Guest
I assure you I am. As God is my judge. Apology accepted brother.
H
hecd2
Guest
I am afraid that you are in a very deep hole. I reacted to your so-called “correction” of Phil where you said that mutations do not occur at the level of DNA. That is such an elementary and fundamental mistake, that it is difficult to know what else to say, other than that you need to learn a little basic biology before you take it on yourself to correct someone who, although modest about his own ability, has a far better grasp of the science than you do. Try reading Ridley’s ‘Evolution’ or Futuyama’s ‘Evolutionary Biology’. The definition of a mutation in biology is a change between the parent and the daughter nucleotide sequence of DNA. That is the definition of mutation. This is not a matter for debate, but a matter of the accepted definition of the term. On this extremely elementary level, you understanding is egregiously wrong. If you don’t understand that, then what hope is there that you can make sense when it comes to more complex issues.
Oh dear, what a muddled understanding you have. Do you know what synonymous or silent mutations are, why they do not affect the phenotype, but why they are, nevertheless mutations?
Not violent, but I am openly contemptuous of those who pretend to expertise in a subject that they clearly do not begin to understand. That is the normal modus operandi of Young Earth Creationists, but it is sad (and unusual) to see it in those who profess to accept main stream biology.
If that is true, then I am very sorry for your students. But you will excuse me if I do not accept your claim to be a teacher of university level biology.
Alec
evolutionpages.com
H
hecd2
Guest
On the internet, it is always tricky to deal with someone who knows nothing whatsoever about a subject, but who pretends to know about it. In normal academic debate, one can assume expertise from all participants, and that is what one gets - the debate then is entirely about the interpretation of evidence on a common understanding of fundamental principles.That’s because Alec, and ‘similar’ always have a multifaceted attack on those who question them or the theory. Whilst arguing the subject, they also attack and challenge the intellect of their oppositions.
After awhile, the ‘observer’ cannot tell which is more important; the subject in discussion, or the character of the opposer.
On the internet, on forums etc, that level of expertise is not assured. In those circumstances, it is perfectly valid, and to the point, and not an ad hominem, to point out the lack of knowledge of one’s opponent, as that is material to deciding what is the truth, assuming, of course that that lack of knowledge is clearly manifest (as it was in this particular case).
Alec
evolutionpages.com
H
hecd2
Guest
In that case, I am very sorry to have misjudged you. I was misled by your insistent promotion of Sungenis’s views on science.
I think you should heed what several here have advised you - do not rely on Robert Sungenis for your science.
Alec
H
hecd2
Guest
Kook: “someone regarded as eccentric or crazy and standing out from a group”
Thank you. I couldn’t hope for a better reference than this. Ad hominem from you is worth quite a lot.
It would, of course, be too much to hope that you might explain the basis for your opinion in rational terms.
Alec
evolutionpages.com/Writing.htm
H
hecd2
Guest
Excellent - since I wrote all the “good stuff” then you can assume I understand it. If you have a specific issue with anything on my website, an issue that you can support with sound science, then I would be happy to correct it as I have done in the past, in response to credible arguments from other scientists. See this article for example:
evolutionpages.com/Jaekelocarpus%20oklahomensis.htm
Otherwise, I suggest you stop the innuendo.
Alec
evolutionpages.com/nucleosome.htm
N
Namesake
Guest
I do not excuse you at all.
N
Namesake
Guest
Oh come now! Mutations at the level of DNA aren’t all that important because they so infrequently result in phenotypic changes, as you well know. DNA mutations are essentially insignificant. It’s all about alleles and you know that!
A
anthony022071
Guest
I was referring to life as a substance,not just the creaturely state of being alive.
Life is spirit,which is extrinsic to the natural world,and super-natural. Not everything on earth is alive,and everything which is alive is mortal. This proves that life is not intrinsic to the natural world. The natural world does not have life as a property of it’s own,as it does with energetic particles. Spirit causes the physical elements of an organism to process and function as a living entity in the first place. When a person is deprived of oxygen,he will only die at the moment when his spirit is withdrawn. A newly dead corpse still has oxygen in it,and it still has all the other physical elements that it had when alive. What is gone is the invisible element that caused the physical elements to function together.
A
anthony022071
Guest
Which statement are you referring to? All of them?
R
rossum
Guest
Most mutations are neutral, true. However that does not make them unimportant. Each human has on average over 100 mutations - that is in excess of 600,000,000,000 mutations over the whole human population. Even if only 1% of those mutations have any effect that is 6,000,000 mutations with some sort of effect in just the human poplation.
And how did those alleles originate? An allele was once a mutation if you trace it back far enough.
rossum
H
hecd2
Guest
Just so, although, to be pedantic, it would be more precisely correct to say, instead of an allele being once a mutation, that a new allele is created when a mutation in the germ-line DNA is inherited by the offspring and becomes fixed in the population. All alleles are originally created by mutations in DNA, which is the point you were making, right? Namesake seems to think that genes and alleles exist independently of DNA, which is only one of several elementary howlers that he has made.
Alec
evolutionpages.com
N
Namesake
Guest
Alleles can form through mechanisms other than DNA mutation. Genes do not exist independently from DNA but DNA is less important in evolution than genes and not many people believe that DNA is anything like a fundamental unit of evolution. That is in no way a howler unless you are blinded by molecular notions.
M
mich2
Guest
Hello Rogerteder:
I have read some of your posts and sympathize with your dilemma and agree with many of what you wrote… unfortunatly for you, I am not a scientist of any kind
. However, I am not a Creationist, “capitalized C”…I do not like those “titles” due to the vagueness of the term. I am of course a creationist (small c) in that I believe that Life was created by God.I would suggest that first, you introduce the biblical Creation stories, since you are dealing with Catholic religion. Then, I would put forward the existance of the different opinions that are being proposed today (remember, this is not a science class). I would then introduce the position of the Catholic Church by showing them accepted Church documents (mostly written by popes).
Certainly, you will be barraged with questions about Adam and Eve. You need not to have direct answers but to mention only that if the Church can support a scientific doctrine which may seem to be contradictory to scriptures, it must be because the Scriptures are to be read in a different light than what we are reading with.
My “personal” attempt, would be to show what may seem to be be a discrepancy between the first story where man (humans ) were created on the 6th Day and the Story of Adam who is said to have been created before every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew.
Andre
T
The_Barbarian
Guest
Tell us how.
Would you mind telling us how you think DNA works, and how mutations occur?
N
Namesake
Guest
- Status