davidH

Oolon franky I find some of your comments rather tiring.

I'd rather you didn't slag me off, thanks.

I noticed an interesting point you made;

What do you mean by modern science? If by it you mean evolution then you are wrong - it's the other way around. The vast majority of Christians don't believe in evolution (that explains how life began).
I don't know where you got that idea from, but I have yet to be in a Church that teaches evolution infact most have put themselves against it.

Have you done a survey of churches to see if this is the case? I think you'll find it the other way around.

Right I know that, but you still have to be able to provide very strong evidience that life could evolve from nothing before you can even begin to accept evolution.
Because isn't that the foundation that the whole concept of evolution rests on? If life couldn't arise from nothing then there can be no evolution because there is no life to evolve.

"Is the abundant fossil evidence consistent with YEC? No way. Is it consistent with evolution? Yes. Every time a fossil is discovered, the same question is asked. And the answer has been "it supports evolution" for over 100 years. "

Now about the fossil record, I think there is pretty strong evidience that that ties in with the Bible.
In order for fossils to form the creature had to be buried very quickly inorder to prevent decompostion. Fossils are also found near river beds and areas where there was water as it enabled them to be buried quickly.
This ties in with the Flood in Noah's time, as the sediment would be extremely likely to cover the creatures that had drowned.
The fossil record does tie in - its just the dating that doesn't.

Today I was reading on the dating techniques that are used.
Radioactive carbon dating is no good after 40,000 years so they use quatz that hasn't seen light for ages and has electrons out of orbit and things like that. There's also a biological time clock.

I am particulary interested in the radioactive carbon dating. I realise that it relies on a number of assumptions, could any of you outline what these are? I haven't the passage infront of me at the minute.

However I still assert that because mutations are the product of blind chance there are odds involved - as some of you have said.
True also that natural selection does remove the weaker organisms.
Now there's something else that I would like to clear up here,

Apart from duplication are there any mutations that can cause a lot of bases to be added or changed (in the same area). ie. that one mutation would cause a pile of changes in the base order?
Or is there just one change of a single base per mutation?

Thanks.
Have to head on here.

Ps. I still hold to the fact that a computer simulation of any form of evolution can't be valid - I doubt it would be accepted as proof for any theory by the scientific community.
Basically because of the reasons I mentioned before - the programmers have control over the process of evolution because they have set rules and instructions that the program has to follow. That is artifical and doesn't prove evolution.


I actually failed to grasp completely what you were saying.
What is meant by chromosomal rearrangement? Mutations and all?
And yet I think you also have to take into consideration that you may be on chromosomal rearrangement 139 when the chromosome rearrangement 100 changes again so ruining everything.
So there would actually be a far far bigger time.
-Maybe I just didn't understand it completely.

Asha'man

Carbon-14 dating is only usefull for relatively recent dates, and only for land-based organic lifeforms. Trees (wood) are probably the best example. For long term dates, you have to use Radiometric dating on rocks. These methods use other isotopes than Carbon-14, isotopes that decay at a slower rate and are therefore good for longer timespans.

Check out these article on TalkOrigins:

<a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dating.html" target="_blank">Radiometric Dating and the Geological Time Scale</a>
<a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/isochron-dating.html" target="_blank">Isochron Dating</a>

<a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html" target="_blank">The Age of the Earth</a>

faded_Glory

Northern Ireland? You sound more like some hillbilly from the Deep South! Surely you must know that the Catholic Church accepts evolution, and that most mainstream Protestant churches in Europe do likewise? I myself did part of my Geology studies at the Free University of Amsterdam, a bulwark of Reformed Calvinism. Guess what? Evolution was taught as a totally acceptable scientific theory.

Hm. You think there is pretty strong evidence. May I ask you what you actually know about the fossil record? Have you studied Paleontology? Geology? Stratigraphy? Have you ever collected fossils yourself in the field? Read any books about the subject? Ever gone to the Natural History museum?
Sorry to burst your bubble, David, but the fossil record has been studied for over two hundred years by thousands of professionals. Have they concluded that a global flood is responsible for their origin? Nope. The global flood hypothesis was definitively discarded in the early 19th century as being totally incompatible with the observations. You are simply several centuries out of date with your opinions. Sorry to sound blunt, but that is the reality.
Radiocarbon dating is not used in geology but rather in archaeology since it is only useful for the last 40,000 years or so, a geological eyeblink. You are confused with radiometric dating, a much broader field that includes C14 dating as just one out of many techniques. Try <a href="http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Wiens.html" target="_blank">this link</a> for a good introduction to this topic by a Christian scientist. And please, don’t rubbish it straightaway just because it doesn’t agree with your opinions – rather, try to understand that you are again expressing naïve doubt about a very well established field of science that has withstood the test of time (more than 50 years of successful application).
Computer programs can without any problem be designed to provide random input into a simulation model. The response of the model to such random input can be generated stochastically, i.e. dependant on probabilities. In effect, as soon as the program is run, control is no longer with the programmers but with the complex interactions of stochastical variables. Makes perfect sense, is used daily in many fields of research. Doesn’t ‘prove’ anything, but can give very clear indications on what is possible and what is more or less likely. For your information, this is how people forecast the weather, climate variations, behaviour of oil fields in production, traffic patterns, battlefields, and much, much more. Random mutations and natural selection can be modelled and has been shown to be a creative process, resulting in organised structures that resemble intelligent design but are not so.
You appear to be an intelligent fellow. You should try to use your curiosity and brains to learn and advance in the world. Scepticism is to be applauded, but when applied in the wrong place and time looks foolish and is self-defeating. Just a few wise words from an (not yet that) old fart

fG

Peez

LOL!!!


Peez

Writer@Large

No, this definetly requires a <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" /> .

Time for me to contribute .

davidH, this has been explained several times, but you still don't want to let it go. Allow me to put it in simple terms that perhaps even you can understand.

"Abiogenesis" (a·bi·o·gen·e·sis) is the study of the development of living organisms from nonliving matter, i.e. the origins of life. When we want to debate where life came from, we call it "abiogenesis."

"Evolution" (ev·o·lu·tion) is the study of changes to already living organisms through genetic mutation and nonrandom selection. When we discuss the diversificatin and development of modern, pre-existing species from ancestor, pre-existing species, we call it "evolution."

I hope this helps. I'll go back to reading; Oolon, you're fascinating to read, as always.

--W@L

theyeti

Yes, there are types of mutation other than duplication that can alter numerous base pairs. I don't have time to go into detail right now, but briefly here are a few.

Inversion: A segment of DNA gets picked up, turned around, and reinserted.

Triplet insertion/deletion: This is like any other insertion/deletion, except for three nucleotides (or a factor thereof) are being added/removed instead of one or two. This means that there will be no drastic frameshifts if it's within a coding region; instead, an amino acid will be added or removed. This frequently occurs during recombination.

Transposition/retrotransposition: Some pieces of DNA have the ability to make copies of themselves throughout the genome, either directly or indirectly. Sometimes they carry extra bits of DNA with them when they do. They can also occasionally rearrange things so that genes are regulated differently. Viruses (whom these things are probably related to) can do this too to a certain extent.

Exon-shuffling: Functional parts of one gene get mixed and matched with those from another gene, generally during recombination. This can generate totally new functional proteins.

The important thing about mutation is not so much that it's sticking new stuff in there, but that it's rearranging what's already there in such a way as to change functionality.

theyeti

P.S. If you're going to discuss Noah's flood, the age of the Earth, the fossil record, etc., you should start a new thread.

Oolon Colluphid

Well I guess it must be past your bedtime. Personally, I find your stout refusal to follow links, and constant repeating of the same objections after they’ve been explained to you, rather tiresome.

I was perfectly serious. You said: “And does the fact that the earth is really old actually mean that life had to start all those millions of years ago? When infact I would say that the age of the earth has no implications on the age of life.” QED. You seriously need to learn some geology and physics. Schools are regarded as venues for learning, though I provided links on these matters too.

Please supply some evidence of this. My UK Catholic school didn’t mention it, and I know that the pope has stated in favour of evolution. It doesn’t much matter anyway if I’m wrong on this, I was just letting you know what I understood to be (and still think is) the situation.

Remind me what it is you claim to know then...? For all it matters to evolution, the first replicators could have been formed by natural processes, created by god, engineered by aliens or sneezed out of the nose of the <a href="http://users.milliways.mg-net.de/BSAFH/guide/hg-2-01.html" target="_blank">Great Green Arkleseizure</a>.

Evolution. Is. What. You. Get. Once. You’ve. Got. Simple. Replicators.

That we have several viable natural hypotheses about where these came from is totally, utterly and completely IRRELEVANT to evolution. <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" /> <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" />

<a href="http://www.resa.net/nasa/origins_life.htm" target="_blank">NASA’s Origins of Life site</a>

<a href="http://www.accessexcellence.org/WN/SUA03/RNA_origins_life.html" target="_blank">RNA and the Origins of Life</a>

<a href="http://www.gla.ac.uk/projects/originoflife/html/2001/menu.htm" target="_blank">Origins of Life (University of Glasgow)</a>

<a href="http://www.origins.rpi.edu/chem.html#rna" target="_blank">Formation of the RNA World</a>

<a href="http://www.syslab.ceu.hu/corliss/Nature.html" target="_blank">The Emergence of Living Systems
in Archaean Submarine Hot Springs</a>

<a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed&cmd=Display&dopt=pubmed_pubme d&from_uid=11539076" target="_blank">Here’s 130 PubMed articles</a>

And these two are interesting too:

<a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=115394 67&dopt=Abstract" target="_blank">Hydrogen cyanide polymerization</a>

<a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=115413 37&dopt=Abstract" target="_blank">Hydrogen cyanide polymers</a>

Not that I’m expecting for one moment that you’ll actually follow any of these...

Here: have your god as creator of the very first replicating molecules. There you go. You’re welcome.

Since evolution DOES NOT rest on the origins of life (wanna define life, while we’re at it?), and since that seems to be the sticking point, I assume you are now free to accept evolution...?

At this point in your post a <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=58&t=000197" target="_blank">new thread on fossils, floods, the age of the earth etc</a> is called for...

TTFN, Oolon

[ February 06, 2002: Message edited by: Oolon Colluphid ]</p>

pangloss

And those making that argument would have the weight of evidence on their side.

Most competent sources, in fact, have no argument wiht the majority of mutations being neutral.

davidH

ah yes, so you were watching me as I posted and looked at this topic...
My stout refusal to follow links.... For your information I have followed most of the links you have provided. Some I haven't because you provide so many and I couldn't possibly make the time to read them all.

As for the same objections - I find none of your answers complete and convincing. I merely point out things I don't understand and go through this topic questioning everything. If I just accepted what you say to be true, what does that make me? According to you because I have just believed I would be no better than those who believe in the Bible.
So you see, I have to question everything I am told if I am to ever find the truth about evolution.
Maybe u should read up the first couple of pages to see that I am being taught. Not just here to cause trouble and waste everyone's time.

Then why do most people here say that evolution rules out a need for a God?
It clearly doesn't if there is a big question mark over the origins of life.
If you look back a few pages u will see a person who made this assertion.

I am a Christian. I am not a catholic.
To me it makes no difference what so ever if the Pope believes in evolution, to me that seems a gross contradiction anyway. What do you think?
If there was no world wide flood, if God didn't create the world in 6 days....
You must understand that catholics aren't following the word of God as they should. I could elaborate on this but now is not the time.
Ok, you understand it to be the situation, but you can't state it as a fact, I too have no data on this, therefore it must be left out and not considered until someone who has valid data. I speak on my own experience, and I have yet to come across a church that teaches evolution.

As the post above me states - is there any evidience for most mutations being neutral? I have not come across this in any of my reading, but if there is evidience then I would like to see it.

Again, I still find the odds enormous - even after some of the links and posts I have read.
In my reading the environmental factor has no effect on mutations except to increase the mutation rate. Correct?

Also, most mutations would have to be neutral for evolution to "work". Because surely if the majority of mutations were harmful, then every organism would have had (in all likelyhood) a harmful mutation and have been removed by natural selection. What's to say that a good mutation occurs(extremely rare)and yet doesn't occur in the sex cells? The long wait for a good mutation begins again.

In all likelyhood is there a chance that a good mutation could occur that could be passed to the offspring?

(all mutations that I have seen in humans have lead to deformaties in the children that were born
- that nuclear power plant explosion in Russia.
Surely with radiation spread by wind etc there must have been a benefical mutation that occurred in a human, or animal and yet we see no evidience of that - only of deformities.

Note; Oolon - have scientists failed to create life - even from the basic proteins that they already have?

Oolon Colluphid

<img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" /> <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" /> <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" /> <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" /> <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" /> <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" /> <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" /> <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" />

Proper reply tomorrow.