B
buffalo
Guest
When it starts moving outside of its designed adaptive range. We now now the organisms hover about their means,
Why you should think that the Natural-Evolution of species is true
- Status
B
buffalo
Guest
Organisms are now being understood to have adaptive boundaries.
E
Elf01
Guest
How do you know what that range is?
B
buffalo
Guest
That was the issue. Now we are understanding the huge gaps that evolution has to cross. This is what we are learning now. How far adaptation can go.
What is becoming certain is the huge gaps cannot be crossed.
B
Bradskii
Guest
‘Designed Adaptive Range’.Bradskii:
When it starts moving outside of its designed adaptive range. We now now the organisms hover about their means,
And do you need to tell us who designed it?
And here’s a doozy: If I were to give you an example of an organism, how do you tell how close it is to its DAR? That is, how much can it change before…well, it can’t change any more. I need to tell my bro’ how far he can walk to my place before I have to pick him up.
Seriously though. You just made that up, didn’t you. You might be the first person to use that term as I can’t find reference to it anywhere. Well, at least you didn’t do the ol’ cut ‘n’ paste this time. Now you’re making stuff up!
This is endlessly entertaining.
B
buffalo
Guest
It is. I hope others enjoy it as much as you do.
Perhaps the newly coined phrase will make it into the literature. Since you vetted it, give me credit when it goes mainstream. Remember, you heard it first here. 
We know that organisms persist in reproducing after themselves. Living fossils are an example of surviving all those random mutations and natural selection.
Last edited:
R
rossum
Guest
It would be interesting to know how the information encoding these boundaries in stored within the organism. Presumably not DNA, because then the boundaries could be changed by evolution.
Have the boundaries set within, say, the cholera bacterium been examined and decoded? That would allow the design of an anti-cholera vaccine that lies outside those boundaries and so the bacterium could never evolve to counter it.
Such work would certainly be worthy of a Nobel prize.
Alternatively you have been reading some creationist website that has misunderstood a part of science.
Do you have a reference to the original paper(s) so we can see?
rossum
B
buffalo
Guest
From my “creationist” source.
The clouds of spaghetti that keep DNA data safe
The clouds of spaghetti that keep DNA data safeCells can avoid “data breaches” when letting signaling proteins into their nuclei thanks to a quirky biophysical mechanism involving a blur of spaghetti-like proteins, researchers from the Rockefeller University and the Albert Einstein College of Medicine have shown. Their study appears in the March 23 issue of the Journal of Biological Chemistry.
In every human cell, all of the body’s blueprints and instructions are stored in the form of DNA inside the nucleus. Molecules that need to travel in and out of the nucleus – to turn genes on or off or retrieve information – do so through passageways called nuclear pore complexes (NPCs). Traffic through these NPCs must be tightly controlled in order to prevent DNA hijacking by viruses or faulty functioning as in cancer.
"How on Earth do you have the kind of specificity that we see in protein-protein interactions like antibodies, and yet have the kind of speed that we see with water off a Teflon pan?"
"I can’t think of any analogy in normal life that does what this does," Rout said. "You’ve got this blur of (amino acids) coming on and off (the transport factor) with extraordinary speed."
Loading…
phys.org
Last edited:
M
Metis1
Guest
I’ve looked at this through numerous theology books over the years since I taught theology, both Christian (including Catholic) and Jewish. Even within Christian circles there are variable interpretations, so instead of making a slam, maybe do some studying and then maybe come back and we can have an adult conversation. Until then, I’d rather have such conversations with others here. As for your other posts on his, they simply walk around the central issue so there’s no reason for me even to respond to them.
Last edited:
B
buffalo
Guest
Does original sin exist?
R
rossum
Guest
OK, so you do not understand when the majority of mutations happen. They happen during the formation of the egg and sperm cells in the gonads. That is a natural process, and nothing to do with what you are talking about.
Even then, a few nasties do get through the defences. Everyone can get infected with a virus – ever had a cold? That virus found a way to penetrate the defences.
Whatever creationist website told you that was blowing irrelevant smoke. Yes, the nuclear DNA has various barriers round it. No, those barriers are not 100% effective. If they were, then micro-evolution, which you accept, could not happen.
Whatever mechanism you come up with for your alleged barriers has to allow micro-evolution. This piece of true, but irrelevant, biology is not what you are looking for.
rossum
Last edited:
B
buffalo
Guest
I have shown how DNA is protected. In prior posts I have referenced papers that show DNA to be encrypted, and how its fights any mutations through several iterations. This acts as sort of a parity bit known well in the IT field.
I accept that adaptation abilities are designed in and no barriers need to be crossed.
We see what happens when attempts are made to “mutate” organisms beyond their limits, they get extra sets of non-functional wings among other things and die.
Last edited:
B
buffalo
Guest
Another one of my many “lying creationist” sources, don’t ya know.
One would think that by a simple search of my posts would put this to bed already.
Last edited:
O
o_mlly
Guest
The “when” I would guess is at the time of replication. But does science know the total number of possible permutations in any single mating event between, let’s say, two chimpanzees?
B
Bradskii
Guest
You didn’t reply to the question. How do we know where an organism is in relation to…whatever you said was an inbuilt design feature?Bradskii:
It is. I hope others enjoy it as much as you do.
We know that organisms persist in reproducing after themselves. Living fossils are an example of surviving all those random mutations and natural selection.
And to answer that question you’re going to need to make up an explantion to back up a term you made up to describe something that doesn’t exist.
This should be good.
M
Metis1
Guest
Again, you simply are walking around the question as to why would God punish people, animals, and even plants because previous ancestors sinned? How does that make one semblance of sense? To blame it on “the Fall” taken as literal history simply doesn’t make even one iota of sense.
Again, within ancient Semitic circles, they would pretty much know what’s being said with the concept of “sin” and what we call
riginal sin": namely what we call “the meaning behind the words”. These people were largely subjective, not objective, in their writings, so when one uses literalistic interpretations they simply are “missing the boat”. The fact that they were largely subjective is clearly obvious if one stands back from the “trees” and looks at the “woods”. For examples, do the Jewish scriptures treat other religions equally or fairly? Clearly not. Do the Christian scriptures present the Jewish view as to why most observant Jews believe that Jesus isn’t the Messiah? Clearly not.In theology, it’s always important to put things in context, including the cultural milieu and considering what the author appears to be really trying to say. It’s also highly important for a Christian in scriptural studies to know quite a bit at least about Jewish culture, traditions, and their scriptures. Here’s where many Christians fail. Jesus and the apostles worked from a Jewish paradigm but were quite liberal in their interpretations, especially when concerning the 613 Commandments as found in Torah and also the basis and implications of the Abrahamic Covenant.
In both traditional and modern Judaism, it is generally well understood about the use of numerous forms of symbolism: metaphors, allegories, parables, etc. Also, these are supplemented by the “Oral Law” and “oral traditions” that are extensively recorded in the Mishnah Talmud. These tell us how the early Jews interpreted what was written in Torah and the Tanakh because all too often there are verses that are fuzzy in terms of what they are saying, and in some cases certain things are not even explained at all except through the “Oral Law”, such as the process for kosher slaughter. Also, about 1/3 of the birds that are treif (not kosher) are not identifiable today beause Hebrew has evolved, but some are clarified at least somewhat in the Talmud.
Anyhow, I’m leaving on a business trip of sorts tomorrow and will be unavailable for about two weeks, so take care.
B
Bradskii
Guest
One presumes you mean ‘the number of possible mutations’.rossum:
The “when” I would guess is at the time of replication. But does science know the total number of possible permutations in any single mating event between, let’s say, two chimpanzees?
I guess you could read this and pick the bones out of it: Direct estimation of de novo mutation rates in a chimpanzee parent-offspring trio by ultra-deep whole genome sequencing | Scientific Reports
’ According to the record, the ages of the father and mother were estimated to be 24 years when their offspring was born. Therefore, we speculated that the germline de novo single nucleotide variants occur with a frequency of 0.62 × 10−9 per site per year, which is slightly higher than the pedigree-based rate for humans and chimpanzees.’
The long answer is above my pay grade. But the short answer is: Yes, science does know.
M
Metis1
Guest
On a different note, mutations are commonplace and they tend to feed the “gene pool” by creating more variability. Most are either detrimental or have no affect but some are positive. Some that may be detrimental today may become positive if the environment were to change, such as what appears to have happened with sickle-cell anemia. In that process, some are “sacrificed” but help to keep others alive. This is understandable through the ToE but is hardly understandable with the concept that God chose this to happen so as to save some by eliminating others.
So, to put this in perspective, I certainly am not saying nor imply God doesn’t exist, instead I think the paradigm put forth by Father Hosinski, whom I mentioned in a previous post, makes more sense because it doesn’t posit God making miscarriages, birth defects, etc., or by God punishing children, directly or indirectly, for what their parents supposedly did. IOW, a literal translation of “the Fall” makes God anything but a loving God.
So, to put this in perspective, I certainly am not saying nor imply God doesn’t exist, instead I think the paradigm put forth by Father Hosinski, whom I mentioned in a previous post, makes more sense because it doesn’t posit God making miscarriages, birth defects, etc., or by God punishing children, directly or indirectly, for what their parents supposedly did. IOW, a literal translation of “the Fall” makes God anything but a loving God.
E
edwest211
Guest
You would think 
- Status