Questions about evolution and origins

[tafan2]

NS and RM???

ETA: ok, ns is natural selection, RM?

 

[buffalo]

NS and RM???

ETA: ok, ns is natural selection, RM?

random mutations.

 

[buffalo]

Something of a complete fail here, I’m afraid. There doesn’t seem much traction in posting someone’s opinion that you thought might reflect well on your own (and having it shown that it doesn’t anyway) if you now say it doesn’t really apply.

I’d quit now. Stop digging for heaven’s sake. The hole is too deep already.

So you think. I have explained it several times. You are so caught up in gotcha games you have closed your mind to real dialogue.

 

[Bradskii]

Bradskii:

Something of a complete fail here, I’m afraid. There doesn’t seem much traction in posting someone’s opinion that you thought might reflect well on your own (and having it shown that it doesn’t anyway) if you now say it doesn’t really apply.

I’d quit now. Stop digging for heaven’s sake. The hole is too deep already.

So you think. I have explained it several times. You are so caught up in gotcha games you have closed your mind to real dialogue.

Here’s the dialogue:

Monod: I am surprised that a Christian would defend the idea (natural selection) that this is the process which God, more or less, set up in order to have evolution.

Bradskii: Are you now denying natural selection occurs?

Buffalo: No

I don’t need to set up gotchas. You do such a great job yourself. All I do is prompt for an answer and let you do the rest.

 

[edwest211]

There’s a lot that’s still not known or predicted.

Abstract​

The 21st century is witnessing an explosive surge in our understanding of pseudoenzyme-driven regulatory mechanisms in biology. Pseudoenzymes are proteins that have sequence homology with enzyme families but that are proven or predicted to lack enzyme activity due to mutations in otherwise conserved catalytic amino acids. The best-studied pseudoenzymes are pseudokinases, although examples from other families are emerging at a rapid rate as experimental approaches catch up with an avalanche of freely available informatics data. Kingdom-wide analysis in prokaryotes, archaea and eukaryotes reveals that between 5 and 10% of proteins that make up enzyme families are pseudoenzymes, with notable expansions and contractions seemingly associated with specific signaling niches. Pseudoenzymes can allosterically activate canonical enzymes, act as scaffolds to control assembly of signaling complexes and their localization, serve as molecular switches, or regulate signaling networks through substrate or enzyme sequestration. Molecular analysis of pseudoenzymes is rapidly advancing knowledge of how they perform noncatalytic functions and is enabling the discovery of unexpected, and previously unappreciated, functions of their intensively studied enzyme counterparts. Notably, upon further examination, some pseudoenzymes have previously unknown enzymatic activities that could not have been predicted a priori. Pseudoenzymes can be targeted and manipulated by small molecules and therefore represent new therapeutic targets (or anti-targets, where intervention should be avoided) in various diseases. In this review, which brings together broad bioinformatics and cell signaling approaches in the field, we highlight a selection of findings relevant to a contemporary understanding of pseudoenzyme-based biology.

Source: Science Signaling

 

[Mishakel]

There is a difference between wisdom and intelligence. Luckily God creates some with both. If you’re someone that believes in evolution eventually you have to take it back to the beginning of life. Please listen to Dr. James Tour give a great lecture and strengthen your faith.

 

[Pattylt]

So are they acting as feedback mechanisms within enzymatic activity? It wouldn’t surprise me as so many systems do. Basically they are finding that pseudoenzymes help to control and regulate enzymatic systems. This is interesting work as anytime you can find a natural modifier you can discover ways to fix enzymatic problems.

Can you please link?

 

[edwest211]

Here is the link: https://stke.sciencemag.org/content/12/594/eaat9797

 

[Pattylt]

Ugh, when I knew I would retire I let my AAAS subscription go. I tried my old log in and the possible passwords I would have used…nothing! Well, thank you for the link. In a year it will become public.

 

[rossum]

Fact is, those finches still stubbornly remain – finches.

So, you have no problem with humans evolving from earlier mammals because they still stubbornly remain – mammals.

You do realise that there are over 200 species of finch (Fringillidae) don’t you?

Yes, I do know that the Galapagos ‘finches’ are Thraupidae – thirteen more species there.

 

[EndTimes]

Mammals? That ‘fact’ does not Prove - call it - evolution… .
Finches? No genus has ever been observed ‘evolving’ into a different genus…
Mutation was not the active parameter with regard to any variations of finch beaks…
Do you know How a mutation arises? And what it is in terms of RNA/DNA?

 

[rossum]

Mammals? That ‘fact’ does not Prove - call it - evolution… .

Humans are mammals, and we evolved from earlier mammals, such as Homo heidelbergensis.

You would do well to realise that the word “prove” is not often used in science – it is more for mathematics. No scientific theory is ever ‘proved’ since it can potentially be replaced by a better theory. Just as Newton’s theory of gravity was replaced by Einstein’s theory.

In science it is ‘evidence’, not ‘proof’, which is used. The family tree of the mammals is evidence for evolution.

Finches? No genus has ever been observed ‘evolving’ into a different genus…

Scare quotes do not an argument make. The fossil and genetic evidence, as observed, tell us you are wrong here.

Mutation was not the active parameter with regard to any variations of finch beaks…

Mutation is the initial cause of variation in a population. Where is your scientific evidence that it is not?

Do you know How a mutation arises? And what it is in terms of RNA/DNA?

Mutations have many causes: cosmic radiation, radioactive elements, mutagenic chemicals, transcription errors and others. In terms of DNA/RNA a mutation is where the final result of the process does not reflect the original. Parts may be added, changed or removed.

 

[EndTimes]

My tongue-in-cheek Irony re: Evidences vs “Proof” was missed… Oh well

““A) Humans are mammals,
B) we evolved from earlier mammals, such as Homo heidelbergensis.””

So you claim… B does not follow A…
RECALL: The Question Still under Discussion is - Did Man Evolve from prior creatures?
To posit: Evolution is Real because Evolution is Real - Is Circular ..

Paleontological Arguments sit upon false argumentation of Similarity.
An Ape’s skeleton resembles Man’s: Ergo, Man Descended from Apes?.. Nope!

I’ve been clear in the differences between 2 notions: Natural Selection & Mutation
Natural Selection was clearly the reason for the variances of the Finch Beaks in Galapagos
Natural Selection results in (potentially temporary) loss in Genetic Info.
Do you know the basic Climate Reasons behind the Beak of The Finch?

MUTATION.
RNA transcribes the Genetic Code of DNA… When for whyever reason the Resultant DNA contains RNA errors - such as a mistaken Amino Acid within a Gene, THAT is a Mutation

 

[rossum]

““A) Humans are mammals,
B) we evolved from earlier mammals, such as Homo heidelbergensis.””

So you claim… B does not follow A…

The definition of a biological clade, such as “mammal” is based on descent from common ancestors. The supporting evidence is found in DNA, fossils and observation of living organisms.

RECALL: The Question Still under Discussion is - Did Man Evolve from prior creatures?
To posit: Evolution is Real because Evolution is Real - Is Circular . .

Yes, Homo sapiens did evolve from earlier ancestors.

Evolution is real because the evidence supports evolution. Where is your evidence of any God (or goddess) creating a new species? Science has evidence of the evolution of new species. Where is your matching evidence for your hypothesis?

In science the evidence wins.

 

[edwest211]

All I’m seeing is ideology.

 

[John10]

If evolution is true (which I think there is strong evidence for) and species evolve in populations, how do we fit original sin?

Even if evolution is true, that does not mean original sin did not happen, since it is a spiritual wound we will never be able to scientifically prove it has been defined by the Catholic Church as true.

From the Catechism:
419 “We therefore hold, with the Council of Trent, that original sin is transmitted with human nature, “by propagation, not by imitation” and that it is. . . ‘proper to each’” (Paul VI, CPG § 16)

Everything appears to be random in nature. Space, Meteors, natural selection, even humans. If this is true, this means souls would be nonexistent. How can I look at this randomness differently?

Quite the opposite, scientist are increasingly discovering just how fine-tuned everything in nature is.
Some examples of just how precise the initial conditions of the universe need to be:

1. strong nuclear force constant
   if larger : no hydrogen would form; atomic nuclei for most life-essential elements would be unstable; thus, no life chemistry
   if smaller : no elements heavier than hydrogen would form: again, no life chemistry
2. weak nuclear force constant
   if larger : too much hydrogen would convert to helium in big bang; hence, stars would convert too much matter into heavy elements making life chemistry impossible
   if smaller : too little helium would be produced from big bang; hence, stars would convert too little matter into heavy elements making life chemistry impossible
3. gravitational force constant
   if larger : stars would be too hot and would burn too rapidly and too unevenly for life chemistry
   if smaller : stars would be too cool to ignite nuclear fusion; thus, many of the elements needed for life chemistry would never form

All of the above are only a small sample from many other fundamental variables in the universe.

Waste. Dinosaurs? Giant extinct sea animals? Why would God create waste that seems to not serve a purpose?

Dinosaurs can also remind us that God judged the rebellion in Noah’s day by destroying the wicked world with water, resulting in the death of millions of creatures. The Bible teaches us that He will again judge the world, but next time by fire: “But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the Earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up”.

How can I look at human consciousness as intentional?

I think you have misunderstood evolution theory, it only aims to explain biological development not immaterial matter (such as human consciousness, or intention). We can prove intention because we all understand and know we do evil things with full knowledge and deliberately.

God Bless

 

[EndTimes]

""The definition of a biological clade, such as “mammal” is based on descent from common ancestors. “”

Once again . Circular… Presumes ‘common descent’ …

“The supporting evidence is found in DNA, fossils and observation of living organisms.”

So Easy to Say… So Hard to definitely Show… Please Show us actual science…

“Yes, Homo sapiens did evolve from earlier ancestors.”

So Easy to present a thought - claiming it’s true sans any actual science argument…

"“Evolution is real because the evidence supports evolution."”

So Easy to Say, So Meaningless w/o Supportive Science-Level; Argument

““Where is your evidence of any God (or goddess) creating a new species?””

Ironic how Darwinists oft-introduce God into science Discussions.

““In science the evidence wins””.

The religion of Scientism believes we’re in a God/Religion vs Science Reality…

The Catholic Pontifical Academy of Sciences puts that False notion to rest.

THAT SAID… OK… Again, Please to actually Show Us some evidence…

 

[rossum]

Once again . Circular… Presumes ‘common descent’ …

It is a definition. All definitions are circular, just look at any dictionary:

big = large

large = big

Please Show us actual science…

Certainly: Tauber and Tauber (1977) Sympatric Speciation Based on Allelic Changes at Three Loci: Evidence from Natural Populations in Two Habitats.

So Easy to present a thought - claiming it’s true sans any actual science argument…

You do know some humans contain Neanderthal DNA, and some contain Denisovan DNA. That means the three species were so closely related that they could interbreed, like lions and tigers. The ability to interbreed is strongly indicative of descent from a recent common ancestor. Horses and donkeys are a bit further separated from their common ancestor so mules are sterile.

Ironic how Darwinists oft-introduce God into science Discussions.

I am not Darwinist, I am Buddhist. Your deflection does not conceal the fact that you have no evidence to show and are trying to dodge that fact.

You asked for evidence, and I provided some above. I asked for evidence and you provided nothing but a dodge.

The religion of Scientism believes we’re in a God/Religion vs Science Reality…

As I said, I am Buddhist. There is no problem with evolution in Buddhist theology. The problem appears to be some forms of the Abrahamic religions which take a metaphorical passage in a late Bronze Age scripture entirely too seriously.

 

[Bradskii]

May I just ask how it is you can dismiss a scientific theory so blithely whilst knowing next to nothing about it? It would be like me dismissing a theory on planetary formation without knowing anything about cosmology.

Surely it is incumbent on you to do even some cursory investigation as to what the theory entails and to run an eye of some of the galactically large amount of evidence that even a brief Google search woukd bring up. Just typing in ‘evolution’ woukd bring up enough information on the subject to keep you occupied for many weeks.

So if you haven’t even bothered to look for yourself, then how do you have the nerve to demand from anyone ‘evidence’? This is not some new theory that someone has just proposed that might need a few prompts to obtain some information about it. This is quite possibly the most widely accepted theory since the scientific method was introduced.

If you have any arguments against it then you are going to have to do a LOT of research covering dozens of sciences spread over scores of decades produced by hundreds of thousands of scientists (many who are Christians or belong to other faiths) who dedicate their lives to their work.

A flippant ‘show me some evidence’ simply reveals to all that you haven’t even made the most basic of attempts to understand what you are trying to discuss.

 

[Techno2000]

The mousetrap was always designed to be a mousetrap.

The point is, the mousetrap needs all its parts right from the start, at the same time to work, it can’t wait millions of years for each part to evolve.