DNA actively fights against environmental mutations through several iterations of correction. DNA is fighting hard to be corrupted by unwanted attacks.I don’t think anyone is saying its being done “on its own”, but rather that random mutations are happening to already existing species. I don’t see a coherent argument against the possibility of increases in complexity. Quite the contrary, there are many ways for genes to mutate that increase the informational content of DNA and that can lead to novel functionality.
Bacteria could already digest it. It was an issue of the presence of oxygen or not. I call this ability micro-evolution, aka adaptation.Richard Lenski created this experiment, where a bacteria suddenly developed a novel enzyme, after having had a duplication of a particular gene. He exposed E. Coli bacteria to a new medium of citrini, which they could digest, but only very poorly. Then after 31500 generations, one descendant strain suddenly developed the ability to digest it.
That isn’t being disputed. But it developed a new version of the enzyme which could digest citrine in an oxygene less environment more than seven times better than the one it already had. This produced a novel strain.Bacteria could already digest it. It was an issue of the presence of oxygen or not. I call this ability micro-evolution, aka adaptation.
It happens all the time. Not sure in this case or whether it is a case of pure adaptation from within.You’re claiming that the E. Coli in Richard Lenski’s experiment had a gene transferred to them from another foreign bacteria?
This is not the case. DNA accrues cruft over successive generations. As I’ve outlined gene duplication often occurs, which leaves you with one gene that’s conserved and variants which aren’t. Chromosomes can also undergo similar mutations.DNA actively fights against environmental mutations through several iterations of correction. DNA is fighting hard to be corrupted by unwanted attacks.
Perhaps because we tend to live in rather artificial conditions, alienated from what would be a natural setting that we may think that bacrteria were meant to live in a petri dish, animals in zoos, fish in aquariums. Those conditions are not those in which they thrive as they were meant to at the beginning.Place any bacteria in a petrii dish cultured with its favorite food and it grows exponential until it starts coming up against various limits impeding its growth. (usually lack of nurishment)
You mean by ourselves, correct? The Galapagos is the perfect example of natural selection in action. Were it not for the time effort and money of dedicated individuals, species would be dying off at an even higher rate. Creation takes effort, commitment and especially caring.If a species is introduced
It’s the way I see things possessing a certain amount of knowledge on the subject and using my God-given capacity to reason.So nothing you’ve said so far really amounts to a proper answer.
I think I read something about him some fifty years ago, in a reference no doubt since I’ve never come across his actual works.I think you’re reacting to an animosity there is in the Church against the writings of Malthus.
There’s enough for people’s needs, but not their wants.there are limited resources. That’s a matter of natural fact.
Life sacrifices itself to life to be sure. That there exist, however, ecosystems that are balanced and harmonious for very long periods of time, there is also no doubt. Everything is in flux and in part driven by built-in adaptive mechanisms. This would be in addition to the diversity seen in the sheer beauty of creation.Animals are not living in a hippy utopia of sharing food with eachother, and tending to one another.
I’m pretty sure it sounds weird, but i think it’s the universe at its ontological foundations, from which all time and space, as they now appear, transformed since the fall of the angels, followed by our own. In Christ, through us who are the universe, represented in what is close to the smallest of creatures within its grand totality, journey towards the New Jerusalem, the cosmos fulfilled. No point responding since I already know how people tend to interpret this.I’m agnostic as to the extent of the Garden of Eden, or even whether it was entirely an allegory for what actually took place. If it was a physical place, I believe its size and extent would have to be very small indeed. Probably no larger than a small city.
Through pre-existing cellular mechanisms.gene duplication often occurs
Dr. Richard Lenski has the samples. It would be trivial for anyone to document that there had been a contamination of a foreign species. A simple test to be made.It happens all the time. Not sure in this case or whether it is a case of pure adaptation from within.
Exactly. That’s how its proceeding. Variation of already existing features, giving rise to novel features.Through pre-existing cellular mechanisms.
Yes, it most certainly is. Perhaps you are not aware.This is not the case.
Which is true, but not relevant. Evolution depends on variation, and gene duplication is one of the mechanism behind that variation.Through pre-existing cellular mechanisms.
That doesn’t quite reflect the situation. There are many stretches of non-coding DNA which are important, that much is true. And that has never been controversial. Some are regulatory mechanisms, others help with the particular folding of DNA.That’s what they said about Human Junk DNA. It is now found to be functional and important. That statement was regarded as one of the biggest mistakes in biology in recent years.
If you’re referring to the fact that DNA has error correction mechanism. That’s true, but that doesn’t prevent mutations from occuring, or gene duplication or anything else I’ve talked about.Yes, it most certainly is. Perhaps you are not aware.
Considering the nature of bacteria, or indeed any species, what you’re saying to amounts to little more than special pleading, unless you can demonstrate that the behaviour of these plants will change in different circumstances.Perhaps because we tend to live in rather artificial conditions, alienated from what would be a natural setting that we may think that bacrteria were meant to live in a petri dish, animals in zoos, fish in aquariums. Those conditions are not those in which they thrive as they were meant to at the beginning.
Not necessarily, as you point out, Galapagos Islands which is one of many examples where a biogeographical distribution can be explained in terms of an invasive species. There have been cases where climate change in the past has forced species to migrate.You mean by ourselves, correct?
I don’t think his works are important here. I merely called it the Malthusian principle in reference to Darwin’s use of the term. Really its just the natural fact of limited resources and competition for those.I think I read something about him some fifty years ago, in a reference no doubt since I’ve never come across his actual works.
I’m not discussing humans. Though even then it would be wrong. The Earth does not have an infinite amount of resources and can’t support and exponentially growing population forever. At some point we’d be shoulder to shoulder even if we’re still quite a bit away from that.There’s enough for people’s needs, but not their wants.
I’ll stick to the scriptures and to what I can learn from science. Trying to make sense of both.I’m pretty sure it sounds weird, but i think it’s the universe at its ontological foundations, from which all time and space, as they now appear, transformed since the fall of the angels, followed by our own. In Christ, through us who are the universe, represented in what is close to the smallest of creatures within its grand totality, journey towards the New Jerusalem, the cosmos fulfilled. No point responding since I already know how people tend to interpret this.
…sense?Intelligent Design is the only thing that makes.