I Love Jesus and I Accept Evolution

[Stripe]

Is "lactase persistence" the genetic mutation or is "lactose intolerance" the genetic mutation?

Yeah, I heard this somewhere before, but can't recall the source. Basically the idea is that people were designed to grow out of milk, but because they started drinking it too much, they adapted to be lactose tolerant.

Notice how the change is always environment dependent. :think:

 

[Right Divider]

Is't it funny how they keep bringing up trivial mutations and then claiming to extrapolate that into a change from a single-celled creature to a man? :juggle:

 

[Yorzhik]

Evolution is a well supported scientific idea attested by a wide variety of scientific data

Evolution might be well supported by scientific data. I wouldn't know because nobody knows. That's because what "evolution" means is so vague that there is no use talking about it.

If you want to talk about scientific data, then you'll have to talk about common descent. Or maybe the supposed mechanism of common descent which is random mutation plus natural selection.

Or, you could tell us the definition of "evolution" that is more than "change over time". Because "change over time" means nothing because both sides of the argument agree to it. YEC even believe that allele frequency of a population will change over time. Why do you continue to use that useless definition?

I know why. It's because you cannot discuss the evidence because the evidence for common descent is thin. I didn't say there is not evidence for common descent, because there is some. It's just not very strong. It consists of homology and radiometric dating.

Evolution is supported by four major types of evidence:

Fossils

DNA evidence

Biogeography

Anatomy and Development (Evo-devo)


So here's a piece of evidence here:

A Gray whale skeleton. For those that reject evolution, why do whales have fingers in their flippers?

Dorudon skeleton. Why do fossil whales have hind legs?

Note that the title of this post is also the title of a book I have enjoyed:

I Love Jesus & I Accept Evolution: Paperback – March 4, 2009
by Denis O. Lamoureux

Does your book focus on homology too?

I hope it doesn't try to focus on DNA, Biogeography, or evo-devo, because those are huge losers for common descent. The only way to call those evidences for common descent is to ignore all contra evidence.

Also of interest: Nothing in Biology makes sense except in the Light of Evolution.

Also of interest: Dobzhansky: 40 Years Later Nothing Makes Sense

And one more thing. You never answered the question of what percentage, a rough range is fine, of how much of human DNA is useful. Now that you've had some time, certainly a biology teacher can give us an answer to that question. My guess is that you will either not answer, or you will weasel the discussion about what "useful" means. In the spirit of the latter, give us word you prefer and define what you mean by it if you like.

 

[Idolater]

The seven days are numerologically significant. St. Augustine too thought the idea of seven days wasn't actually literal but a useful way of organizing the concepts of creation. The fact that the number and story were used again doesn't mean it has to be a literal, play by play story.

Again this is modern culture failing to grasp what an ancient document meant to people of the time.

OK but now you've moved the goalposts a bit. You've introduced some evidence to suggest speculation that Exodus 20:11 is as literal and unambiguous that it on its face appears to be. The text itself certainly doesn't grant any metaphorical interpretation, so the idea that it is metaphorical in some way (where metaphorical means the direct opposite of literal) comes from outside of the text itself.

fyi, I consider science to be a branch of the general human endeavor of determining whether any proposition is fact or fiction. Other branches are the criminal justice system, logic, and math. And this is how I know that science is incapable of establishing the proposition that the universe is billions of years old, but science is capable of establishing the proposition that the universe appears to be billions of years old.

 

[Gary K]

Yeah, I heard this somewhere before, but can't recall the source. Basically the idea is that people were designed to grow out of milk, but because they started drinking it too much, they adapted to be lactose tolerant.

Notice how the change is always environment dependent. :think:

Part of this specific problem, and many other digestive issues is due to the modern diet of foods being basically dead. All processed foods, baked foods, cooked foods, frozen foods, etc... have no living enzymes in them as temps over 120-150 degrees kill the enzymes in the food. This leads to all kinds of health issues. If we ate mainly raw foods, not eliminating all cooked foods, we would find that many of the health issues modern man suffers from would go away for consuming a broad base of enzymes in our food helps the body produce the digestive enzymes we need.

Raw milk has naturally occurring lactase in it. But the government has mandated that out of existence due to requiring milk products to be pasteurized. The temps associated with pasteurization kill the enzymes in milk. As human beings drank raw milk for thousands of years with few problems and lactose intolerance was unknown, we see the cause of lactose intolerance: government legislation.

The same goes for gluten intolerance. The enzymes necessary to properly digest gluten are no longer found in the modern diet, and gluten intolerance is something that was unknown 40-50 years ago. Our diet has changed that much due to government mandated regulation of food processing that kills enzymes in our foods that gluten intolerance has become fairly common. Just eating the right foods will eliminate gluten intolerance. Just the regular eating of foods with bromalain and other enzymes that digest protein, for gluten is a protein, stop the symptom of gluten intolerance.

Alate's arguments are pointless. These symptoms are caused by our modern diet and government regulations concerning the processing of foods.

 

[Right Divider]

https://celiac.org/about-celiac-disease/what-is-celiac-disease/

 

[way 2 go]

That's like asserting the Bible is fake because someone came up with a bad interpretation of Revelation . . .

no

The problem with the soft tissue issue (teehee) is that it comes from only one lab. The science actually comes from a Christian lab manager, who doesn't doubt evolution btw. I'm skeptical of anything in science that hasn't been repeated by other labs. And so far the "soft tissue" hasn't really. But it could be true. Doesn't disprove evolution either way though.

one lab ? where have you been ?

link to extensive research and publications in peer-reviewed scientific journals

https://kgov.com/dinosaur-soft-tissue-original-biological-material#research

After two decades of extensive research and publications in peer-reviewed scientific journals, soft tissue deniers seem to be the rule rather than the exception among atheists and evolutionists. (Further, as of June 2019, the existence of dinosaur soft tissue, likely the greatest paleontology discovery ever, remains unknown to the vast majority of the public as anyone can extrapolate by asking a couple dozen people.

 

[Alate_One]

no

Why because you said so? I guess you're retracting your "fake" assertion then?

After two decades of extensive research and publications in peer-reviewed scientific journals, soft tissue deniers seem to be the rule rather than the exception among atheists and evolutionists.

I'll note your reference to KGOV has links that are conspicuously marked "non Schwitzer lab". Someone is aware of the very issue I raised. I'll grant you there's been more work on it than I have looked at in the past few years. However most of the papers are of protein residue, mostly keratin, of which I have been quite well aware. I have been telling students about feathered dinosaurs that were so well preserved scientists could determine feather coloration from them.

Of course most people still don't know there are feathered dinosaurs so . . .

You ignored my second point though. Even if there is some "soft tissue" remaining, it really has no impact on evolutionary theory. So . . . :idunno:

If you really think that fossils preserving some biological material more than previously anticipated is some kind of death knell for an old earth and evolution, you really have no idea how much clear and convincing evidence there is for evolution. Science doesn't work that way.

 

[Alate_One]

Is't it funny how they keep bringing up trivial mutations and then claiming to extrapolate that into a change from a single-celled creature to a man? :juggle:

Eh no. He asserted there were no beneficial mutations. I gave him some examples.

There are, as you have implied, a huge number of steps from a single celled creature to complex life on earth. I can certainly walk you through them, many of them still have modern parallels. But I'm sure you're not actually interested in that.

 

[Alate_One]

OK but now you've moved the goalposts a bit. You've introduced some evidence to suggest speculation that Exodus 20:11 is as literal and unambiguous that it on its face appears to be. The text itself certainly doesn't grant any metaphorical interpretation, so the idea that it is metaphorical in some way (where metaphorical means the direct opposite of literal) comes from outside of the text itself.

I'm saying that Exodus may have taken a metaphorical text and used it as the basis for the literal.

Again, numbers like seven are symbolic of perfection and point to God. If you look you'll see them all over scripture. Sevens and multiples of seven. Indeed the week may have been to remind people of the creation story, the point of which is more to tell people, God made the earth and it has a purpose and is good. Unlike the peoples around the ancient Israelites who thought the world was run by angry deities and the earth was made by accident.

fyi, I consider science to be a branch of the general human endeavor of determining whether any proposition is fact or fiction. Other branches are the criminal justice system, logic, and math. And this is how I know that science is incapable of establishing the proposition that the universe is billions of years old, but science is capable of establishing the proposition that the universe appears to be billions of years old.

If you take the appearance of age argument, the world could have been created two seconds ago and we'd never know it. It's kind of a pointless argument in my opinion. It offers no useful predictions that technologies can be built on, so why bother with such an idea?

 

[JudgeRightly]

If you take the appearance of age argument, the world could have been created two seconds ago and we'd never know it. It's kind of a pointless argument in my opinion. It offers no useful predictions that technologies can be built on, so why bother with such an idea?

There are two things I want to comment on here:

1) Whenever anti-creationists (whatever form they take) bring up evolution, they almost always end up talking philosophy and avoid talking about science like it's the plague.

2) Whenever people bring up topics like the above, it's important to establish a baseline for discussion.

As per #2, [MENTION=9169]Alate_One[/MENTION], I have a question for you.

Do you know that you exist?

 

[Alate_One]

Is "lactase persistence" the genetic mutation or is "lactose intolerance" the genetic mutation?

Lactase persistence is the mutation. Virtually all mammals turn off their lactase genes as adults as there is no need for them anymore.

The real answer is that neither is a real genetic mutation, but lactose intolerance is the result of other factors shutting off the lactase gene.

Which is the normal behavior for regulation of the lactase gene.

Your quote just explained the mechanism of action for lactase persistence. It doesn't change the sequence of the lactase gene itself, which you would have already known had you watched my video.

Epigenetic changes via methylation are a common process of gene regulation in most higher organisms. Most beneficial mutations are these kinds of subtle changes to regulation rather than mutations in the coding sequence for genes.

 

[Alate_One]

There are two things I want to comment on here:

1) Whenever anti-creationists (whatever form they take) bring up evolution, they almost always end up talking philosophy and avoid talking about science like it's the plague.

I'm a scientist, I'd rather talk science. I've been offering all kinds of different scientific data for discussion, virtually no one wants to actually talk about the evidence. They want to talk about their own ideas about pretty much anything else.

2) Whenever people bring up topics like the above, it's important to establish some common ground.

As per #2, [MENTION=9169]Alate_One[/MENTION], I have a question for you.

Do you know that you exist?

Having never taken a formal philosophy class. I believe I do.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Having never taken a formal philosophy class. I believe I do.

Good to know.

Next:

Do you know that truth exists?

 

[Alate_One]

Yeah, I heard this somewhere before, but can't recall the source. Basically the idea is that people were designed to grow out of milk, but because they started drinking it too much, they adapted to be lactose tolerant.

Notice how the change is always environment dependent. :think:

More like people were probably in a famine and were forced to drink milk to survive. Some of them had the ability to continue to drink milk and not get sick. They survived and that genetic mutation took over in the population, well in northern Europe and parts of Africa where people developed the cultural practice of milk drinking. Might have even just been that women that could drink milk and not get sick had healthier babies over a few hundred years. Whatever it was the selection was very strong in some areas.

Just trying to drink milk over and over if you're lactose intolerant doesn't work.

 

[Alate_One]

Good to know.

Next:

Do you know that truth exists?

I think it does, but it is hard for humans to figure out what that is no matter what way of knowing you're dealing with. But science is pretty good at getting close when dealing with the function of the natural world.

 

[JudgeRightly]

I think it does, but it is hard for humans to figure out what that is no matter what way of knowing you're dealing with. But science is pretty good at getting close when dealing with the function of the natural world.

Does truth exist?

 

[Alate_One]

Does truth exist?

Reading is teh hard?

I think it does. There is truth to be found.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Reading is teh hard?

I reworded my question for a reason.

I think it does. There is truth to be found.

Is it true that you exist?

 

[Alate_One]

Is it true that you exist?

*Is now glad I didn't take philosophy*

I suppose we could all be simulations within the mind of God but I guess that's a form of existing too so . . . yeah either way. ^_^