Albion

DD, are we getting off topic?

lpetrich

zyden:
<strong>Scigirl,
My point is that there is no evidence of new gene generation. What can you point to that accounts for new, higher complex genes?
</strong>[/QUOTE]

Ever heard of gene duplication? Polyploidy? Lateral gene transfer? Endosymbiosis?

[ November 01, 2002: Message edited by: lpetrich ]</p>

Vanderzyden

Lpetrich (and scigirl),

I am not asking about replication, or modification, but new gene generation. Please tell me about actual, uncontrovesial evidence which outlines a mechanism for the establishment of completely new genes.


John

Albion

That's going to take this thread right off topic. We're getting back into the same old same old round of "evolution doesn't work! yah!" that's been the subject of half a dozen threads already.

If you want a dialogue with lpetrich and scigirl about formation of new genes, maybe you should start a new thread. But it might be polite to read that Lodish book first.

In the meantime, DD isn't going to be happy if this thread is pulled off course, so perhaps we could be considerate and keep it where it was.

Edited to say that you can always look up "new gene formation" or similar word strings on Google too.

[ November 01, 2002: Message edited by: Albion ]</p>

Vanderzyden

We eagerly await your return, DD. It's getting boring in here, according to Albion.

John

RufusAtticus

How many papers did you have to read to come to that conclusion?

scigirl

John,

I did not want to disrupt this thread, so I started a new one

<a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=58&t=001639" target="_blank">here</a>. Hope you like genetics!

scigirl

Doubting Didymus

Pardon me for my short absence, but as an australian, my weekends are my own.

Also as an australian, I have no problems with posting from work, which, as an australian, involves the design and implementation of sheds of all things.

But enough about me, and back to the matter at hand. I see that you are still having problems with the suggestion that 'darwinist' does not always equal 'atheist'. Anyway, here goes.

You are suggesting here that natural selection does not even exist. Surely the question is what it is capable of? In my example of the tiger, whether you call it 'evolution' or not, natural selection has occured.

A small, random mutation causes a small improvement in a single individual. That individual is now slightly better at reproducing, and its mutation is then spread through the population. That is what natural selection means, and thus it is not controversial that it does in fact, occur. The only debate is over how much natural selection is capable of. You want to say that natural selection is bordered in by certain boundaries, and evolutionists of all stripes (that is, whether theistic or not), would suggest that natural selection is capable of a great deal more.

You do not back this up. Are chemical cycles 'processes' by your definition? Is nuclear fusion a process? Processes occur all the time by natural interactions, and are capable of a great deal. Of course, from a theistic perspective, god is the initiator of all of these processes, and also the initiator of the evolutionary process. What's the problem?

And so, the theistic evolutionist may well agree. God has set up, specified and established the natural processes that result in the origin, diversification and progression of life. As for the parameters, god may well have set some, but who are we to guess what they might be?

First, is there any particular reason that you use the word 'she' when describing theistic evolutionists? Just interested, thats all.

Secondly, it is plainly incorrect to say that the darwinist denys the existance of a designer. You are still equating darwinist with atheist, yet geotheo is right here talking to you, and he is both a darwinist and a theist. Quad Erat Demonstrandum.

Your argumant here consists of:
1. 'Darwinists' do not believe in god.
2. 'theists' do believe in god.
Therefore, one cannot be both a darwinist and a theist, in accordance with the normal rules of logic.

Unfortunately, whether you think it is justifiable or not, there are many darwinists who believe strongly in god, so your first premise is simply wrong.

Untrue. Just ask Geotheo. Perhaps your argument is that the darwinist should believe this?

Imagine a lion-like creature, fur a flat yellow. Is it really that hard to imagine a small mutation causing a lion to develop with a single band of fur with extra melanin, considering that the genes for this different color are already working on lion manes? It is a tiny change, and easily accomplished by mutation, yet it is also giving the new lion a small survival advantage, and the single stripe becomes common in the population. Furture generations may contain an individual with two stripes, and again, the survival advantage makes the trait common in the population.

The development of new genes is well established, and I see that others have offered to take that topic elsewhwere, but I must ask; on what grounds did you make the assertion in the first place?

I don't see the connection between doing things right and doing things instantly.

Consider: If humans are created in the image of god, then it should be easy to imagine that god is as much a sculptor as he is an architect. Certainly, god must take a great deal of pleasure from the finished creation, but why would it conflict with the attributes of his being to take an equal amount of love and pleasure from the act of creation itself.

You are proposing a false dichotomy between the attributes of god and his choosing to create in a manner that is not instant. A sculptor may plan and sketch his work before he starts, but it is not in the planning, but in the act of creation itself that true beauty, artistic originality and asthetic and emotional value mingle themselves with the creation. To blink the sculpture into existance directly from the artists notes would rob the creation of much of the value it would otherwise have had. You might call the unintended additions that come from the process of sculpting 'accidents', but a better term might be 'beneficial mutations'.

What do you think does make a new species? Given that single species quite often divide into two non-interbreeding species, what do you propose is the explanation?

Firstly, I would like you to explain what jacals and whatnot have to do with it?

I am not describing extinction of variants at all. I am describing bringing entirely new variants into being. (That is, populations that are clearly different, but have not speciated). Certainly, all dogs are dogs, but it is also true that all dogs are descended from an ancestor that closely resembled a grey wolf.

That ten thousand years ago, all 'dogs' looked like grey wolves is not controversial, even among the majority of young earth creationists. Remember that dogs have been one species for nearly 100 000 years, but it is only since the intervention of humans that they have started diverging into the british bulldog, the chihuaha, and the annoying little maltese terrier.

By selecting those dogs with the most desirable traits, humans have brought pekingese from grey wolf-like dogs. Thus I say that we have co-opted the natural phenomenon of mutation to bring such changes as suit us to a populations genome.

How much of this are you in agreement with? For example, do you deny that humans have brought any breeds into existance? Do you deny that dogs are much different today than they were 10 000 years ago? Or can you accept these particular facts?

I eagerly await your response to the lower parts of my last post.


Posted by albion:
Thats right. Keep on the straight and narrow path that I dictate, or feel the wrath of my right hand!

Seriously, though, I don't want to give the impression that this thread is 'mine'. Everyone else is more than welcome to participate.

Albion

Hehe - we all live in dear of teh DD right hand!

Seriously, though - I was afraid that this was just degenerating into another of the
"let's slag off evolution" threads that we have quite a few of already. And it's an interesting topic, so I was hoping it could stay on track. Plus it struck me as sort of bad manners to hijack a thread in the absence of the person who'd started it for a specific purpose. Perhaps GeoTheo might carry on contributing; there aren't many theistic evolutionists around here. Or maybe whoever got Denis Lamoureux to join that other discussion could point him to this one. He's used to debating Phillip Johnson; I don't think John's attempts at diversion would get very far with him.

Jack the Bodiless

I fear this thread is doomed.

The problem, as I see it, is that if you ignore all of the evidence, and also believe that the Bible is true, it's hard to justify theistic evolution. The potential theistic-evolutionists needs to have a basic understanding of the way things are in the real world "out there": a world in which EVIDENCE overwhelmingly supports such basic facts as common descent, and Genesis is known to be false.

I see no indication that Vanderzyden is ready to face reality yet, even on this thread:
Vanderzyden, is there really much point in trying to pursue a discussion with you on this issue, if you will simply deny the existence of the relevant evidence?

Do you see why this is like arguing round-Earthism with a flat-Earther who won't open an atlas?