Problems for evolution — squid recodes its own RNA

[The Barbarian]

Stipe writes:

We have a squid that uses its genetic information to recode its genetic information to suit an environment; completely undermining the theory of evolution.

Well, that's a testable belief. Start with the four basic points of Darwinian theory and show us which one is contradicted by the kind of evolution shown in squids.

Or if you're trying to undermine the Modern Synthesis of genetics and Darwinism, show us the basic points of Mendel, Morgan or Dobzhansky, that are contradicted by the kind of evolution shown in squid.

(don't hold your breath, folks)

 

[noguru]

Nope. I issued a specific, scientific challenge. Let's see if you can get on topic. :up:

What is the topic, your confusion of mRNA and DNA in squids?

:rotfl:

 

[lucaspa]

When in reality it is not that presupposition, because I believe even most YECs accept that "natural processes occur, and we can understand them".

They have to in order to remain Christians. God created. What did God create: the natural universe. What happens in the natural universe? Natural processes. And yes, we can observe them. If we couldn't, then that would mean we were not in the natural universe that God created.

In reality it his the YEC additional assumption that "Genesis should be interpreted literally", which is result of complete and total blind faith, that is added to their set of presuppositions for the foundation of science which leads to their non acceptance or evolution through common ancestry.

I submit it's a bit more complicated than that. The primary presumption is that we can know God only from scripture. If our only source of contact with God is scripture, then it follows that scripture must be "inerrant". If scripture has errors, then we don't have an accurate view of God. This led to the statements in the Westminster Confession of Faith of the ultimate authority of scripture:
"VIII. The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old), and the New Testament in Greek (which, at the time of the writing of it, was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God, and, by His singular care and providence, kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical;[17] so as, in all controversies of religion, the Church is finally to appeal unto them."
http://www.reformed.org/documents/w...tml?body=/documents/wcf_with_proofs/ch_I.html

From this we get the argument of "inerrancy": http://www.biblestudytools.com/clas...the-original-inerrancy-of-the-scriptures.html

And from this "authentical" the Westminster Confession goes on to state YEC: http://www.reformed.org/documents/w...ml?body=/documents/wcf_with_proofs/ch_IV.html

Thus, a particular method of creation was made a fundamental faith in the Reformed Tradition.

Today this has morphed into its own, heretical religion where inerrancy and literal interpretation has become an object of worship:
http://www.newreformation.org/heresy3.htm

As another strand of the complicated picture, natural selection took away the last "proof" of God: the Argument from Design. If you look carefully, Stripe and all the other creationist posters are trying to reinstate that Argument.

 

[noguru]

They have to in order to remain Christians. God created. What did God create: the natural universe. What happens in the natural universe? Natural processes. And yes, we can observe them. If we couldn't, then that would mean we were not in the natural universe that God created.



I submit it's a bit more complicated than that. The primary presumption is that we can know God only from scripture. If our only source of contact with God is scripture, then it follows that scripture must be "inerrant". If scripture has errors, then we don't have an accurate view of God. This led to the statements in the Westminster Confession of Faith of the ultimate authority of scripture:
"VIII. The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old), and the New Testament in Greek (which, at the time of the writing of it, was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God, and, by His singular care and providence, kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical;[17] so as, in all controversies of religion, the Church is finally to appeal unto them."
http://www.reformed.org/documents/w...tml?body=/documents/wcf_with_proofs/ch_I.html

From this we get the argument of "inerrancy": http://www.biblestudytools.com/clas...the-original-inerrancy-of-the-scriptures.html

And from this "authentical" the Westminster Confession goes on to state YEC: http://www.reformed.org/documents/w...ml?body=/documents/wcf_with_proofs/ch_IV.html

Thus, a particular method of creation was made a fundamental faith in the Reformed Tradition.

Today this has morphed into its own, heretical religion where inerrancy and literal interpretation has become an object of worship:
http://www.newreformation.org/heresy3.htm

As another strand of the complicated picture, natural selection took away the last "proof" of God: the Argument from Design. If you look carefully, Stripe and all the other creationist posters are trying to reinstate that Argument.

I agree 100% (though I think you should include genetic variation with natural selection), as I was simplifying matters for an audience not as versed in the history of this as you (KISS). I do appreciate the detail you offered and the accompanied elucidation. And I have long realized that blind commitment to cultural traditions is a major factor in this.

 

[User Name]

Today this has morphed into its own, heretical religion where inerrancy and literal interpretation has become an object of worship:
http://www.newreformation.org/heresy3.htm

Just a fyi, the article is no longer available at that link, but you can still access the article from archive.org: http://web.archive.org/web/20090423030032/http://www.newreformation.org/heresy3.htm

 

[lucaspa]

Or if you're trying to undermine the Modern Synthesis of genetics and Darwinism, show us the basic points of Mendel, Morgan or Dobzhansky, that are contradicted by the kind of evolution shown in squid.

(don't hold your breath, folks)

No, don't hold your breath, especially since the authors of the study don't think evolution is contradicted!

However! Evolution and the Modern Synthesis are not necessarily the same thing. The Modern Synthesis is a particular method of evolution.

What we have seen from the scientists writing the articles are challenges to the Modern Synthesis (or what they think it is). NOT challenges to evolution. Stripe and the other creationists are trying to make a challenge to the Modern Synthesis = a challenge to evolution overall.

As you know, the Modern Synthesis primarily synthesized Mendelian inheritance with Darwin's evolution by natural selection. natural selection, quite frankly, would not work with the theory of inheritance in Darwin's time: blended characteristics.

Mendelian inheritance provided the inheritance basis for natural selection.

However, over the intervening 70 years, it has been found that genetics is not as simple as Mendel dictated or Dobzhansky used. I personally think the Modern Synthesis is flexible enough to incorporate punctuated equilibrium, evo-devo, epigenetics, and now mRNA editing within the theory. However, some scientists think the Modern Synthesis is much more limited and straight-jacketed. If that is the case, then the Modern Synthesis will be modified, or replaced, by another theory of evolution that does incorporate the newer findings. I'm OK with that.

Of course, creationists can't settle for that. Which is why they want a challenge to the Modern Synthesis to = a challenge to evolution. And why they resort to distortion/false witness.

 

[noguru]

Lucaspa, I also see the significant historical events of Bishop Ussher's published chronology prior to 1642 and the Westminster Confession. Which was based on a meeting called by English Parliament in 1643. Though I am guessing it took a couple of years to solidify and publish their determination. I strongly suspect that the YEC commitment in the Westminster Confession leaned heavily upon Ussher's chronology. Which was one of the most comprehensive (if not the most comprehensive) research programs of its time regarding natural history. Of course when this was overthrown in science, it is not likely that they would adjust the Westminster Confession to accommodate the new findings in science. This seems to be where science and "fundamental" Christianity started their schism.

 

[Stripe]

The poster said it was Biblical.

Which contradicts what I said, how?

Actually, this is not "evidence", but rather what you think is absence of evidence.

Direct experimentation, in fact. Adaptation can be shown to occur regularly and repeatedly. Evolution, by definition, defies any attempt at testing.

Please define "evolutionary advancement". BTW, "random" simply means "in relation to the needs of the individual or the population". In a climate growing warmer, just as many deer will be born with longer fur as shorter fur. But the shorter fur is advantageous.

Evolutionists hate clearly defined terms.

What has been shown is that new, beneficial traits have arisen by mutation and selection and that this has led to new species.

Only when terms are so malleable as to be useless.

"Species," "beneficial," "mutation": None of those things hold any one meaning for long enough to be useful in a rational discussion.

And what does this have to do with my request to define terms a creationist used?

Evolutionists hate dictionaries.

First, the squid is NOT "recode its genetic information" in that it is not changing its DNA.

No, it's recoding its genetic material by making different proteins.

Now you see where the gradual evolution comes into play.

Nope. The challenge is for you to explain how the system of genetic recoding arose through evolution, not to assume evolution did it and talk about something else.

No, there are not.

So there are no DNA sequences in dogs that are not also in mussels? I call nonsense.

It doesn't work that way.

Sure, it does. God knows how to design organisms and knows that similar solutions will arise in similar creatures and functions.

No, don't hold your breath, especially since the authors of the study don't think evolution is contradicted.

There goes the No. 1 argument of the evolutionist again: What people believe is not evidence, no matter who they are.

Stipe writes:Well, that's a testable belief. Start with the four basic points of Darwinian theory and show us which one is contradicted by the kind of evolution shown in squids.Or if you're trying to undermine the Modern Synthesis of genetics and Darwinism, show us the basic points of Mendel, Morgan or Dobzhansky, that are contradicted by the kind of evolution shown in squid.(don't hold your breath, folks)

When you've conceded that your "billions of years" does not jive with the Bible's "six days," you might be able to join a rational discussion.

 

[Kdall]

Nope. I issued a specific, scientific challenge. Let's see if you can get on topic. :up:

You are hilarious. Truly

 

[Stripe]

You are hilarious. Truly

And you're a spambot. :spam:

 

[The Barbarian]

What we have seen from the scientists writing the articles are challenges to the Modern Synthesis (or what they think it is). NOT challenges to evolution. Stripe and the other creationists are trying to make a challenge to the Modern Synthesis = a challenge to evolution overall.

As you know, the Modern Synthesis primarily synthesized Mendelian inheritance with Darwin's evolution by natural selection. natural selection, quite frankly, would not work with the theory of inheritance in Darwin's time: blended characteristics.

Mendelian inheritance provided the inheritance basis for natural selection.

However, over the intervening 70 years, it has been found that genetics is not as simple as Mendel dictated or Dobzhansky used. I personally think the Modern Synthesis is flexible enough to incorporate punctuated equilibrium, evo-devo, epigenetics, and now mRNA editing within the theory. However, some scientists think the Modern Synthesis is much more limited and straight-jacketed. If that is the case, then the Modern Synthesis will be modified, or replaced, by another theory of evolution that does incorporate the newer findings. I'm OK with that.

Yes. Evolution is the phenomenon, and evolutionary theory is the way scientists explain it. And it's been modified from time to time as evidence demands. And likely will be again.

This must seem like cheating to creationsts, who start with a conclusion and have to shave the truth to fit.

Science works with the facts, and fits the conclusion to that. So we have a huge advantage.

 

[noguru]

Yes. Evolution is the phenomenon, and evolutionary theory is the way scientists explain it. And it's been modified from time to time as evidence demands. And likely will be again.

This must seem like cheating to creationsts, who start with a conclusion and have to shave the truth to fit.

Science works with the facts, and fits the conclusion to that. So we have a huge advantage.

Exactly. The way I see/say it is:

If you stick to the methodology of investigating reality with an open mind for the conclusion, then you do not have to lie to save your conclusion. But if your highest priority is to the conclusion, then you will have to employ deceit (both with yourself and others, if the conclusion is erroneous) in your methodology to consistently support that conclusion.

And as you can see the latter methodology leads to a grand masterpiece of deception, in regard to one self and in what is reported to others. But with Stripe and other YECs, they are already convinced that their conclusion is 100% accurate. So they cannot even see their own deceit.

 

[NathanM]

:mock: kdhall :loser:

Researchers at Tel Aviv University were not planning on shaking a pillar of Darwinism when they found something interesting: an animal that can recode its own protein library "on the fly" to adapt to its surroundings... The question that should immediately come to mind is this: Is RNA editing an unguided process, or does it exhibit signs of functional purpose? After all, some human diseases are known to result from abnormal RNA editing. But if the edits were random, how could an animal survive at all..? Finding that RNA editing in squid was the rule, not the exception, led [researchers] to suspect a purpose behind it... "It was astonishing to find that 60 percent of the squid RNA transcripts were edited," said Dr. Eisenberg... Finding RNA editing at such a large extent raises lots of questions. For one thing, it casts another strong blow at ... the idea that DNA is the master control of the cell.

— source.​

"For one thing, it casts another strong blow at the "Central Dogma" of genetics (the idea that DNA is the master control of the cell). The Central Dogma has been running on hard times for years now. "



It would appear that the wizards at the "Discovery Institute" [sic] have yet to bother to try to learn the basic tenets of molecular biology.

That is NOT what the central dogma is.

 

[NathanM]

Stripe likes to play fast and loose with word definitions if it seems to immediately help his argument.

In another thread he is using the same strategy and asking those who accept evolution to suspend their assumption in a basic tenet of the foundation of science. That tenet being "natural processes occur, and we can understand them". He is trying to claim that it is that presupposition which stops those who accept evolution from accepting the YEC model of origins. When in reality it is not that presupposition, because I believe even most YECs accept that "natural processes occur, and we can understand them". In reality it is the YEC additional assumption that "Genesis should be interpreted literally", which is the result of complete and total blind faith, that is added to their set of presuppositions for the foundation of science which leads to their non acceptance of evolution through common ancestry.

Desperation and the Dunning-Kruger effect in action. The blind faith of the creationists blinds them to seeing their errors when they rant about science.

 

[NathanM]

Did you have something rational to contribute, or are you just here to be a troll? :troll:

I wondered that same thing when I read the first post in this thread.:think:

 

[NathanM]

Adaptation is a 'piller' of Biblical creation also.
We know who programmed the code allowing adaptation.

HOW do you know this?

Please explain.

Evidence supports... "In the beginning, God created..."

No, it really doesn't.

 

[NathanM]

Nope. That's the demands of your evolutionism.

What is "evolutionism"?

When you're prepared to drop the assumption of your religion and address the challenge, let us know. :up:

Ironic.

When you're prepared to drop the assumption of your religion and address the challenge, let us know.



What ARE the assumptions of evolution?

Do you even know?

Or are you just going to call me names again, like a TROOO manly Christian man?

 

[Stripe]

What is "evolutionism"?

:chuckle:

When you're prepared to drop the assumption of your religion and address the challenge, let us know.

What challenge? :idunno:

What ARE the assumptions of evolution?

It's your theory; you tell us. :up:

 

[The Barbarian]

What ARE the assumptions of evolution?

Do you even know?

Stipe has no idea. I once asked him for just the basic points of Darwinism, and he couldn't handle that. And he could look it up with a bit of searching.

He's vincibly ignorant. He doesn't want to learn about it, for fear of it making sense.

 

[Stripe]

Stipe has no idea. I once asked him for just the basic points of Darwinism, and he couldn't handle that. And he could look it up with a bit of searching. He's vincibly ignorant. He doesn't want to learn about it, for fear of it making sense.

Meanwhile, you pretend that "six days" is compatible with your "billions of years," eliminating you from rational debate.