Go Back   Matt-Hughes.com Official Forums > General Discussions > The Woodshed

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old 03-29-2009, 09:57 PM
Tyburn's Avatar
Tyburn Tyburn is offline
Angry @ Injustice!
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: England
Posts: 16,945
Default



I have No problem, per ce with Evolution, that is GOD driven. I just dont know whether anything Prior to the Creational Event happened within Chronological time or not.

Creation as outlined in Genesis was a bout a single event in Chronological time. It was about seven days where GOD created everything, and did so perfectly created (i.e no evolution was necc)

However, just like with the effects of the Ressurection, effects of Genesis and creation worked both ways in time. Forward, and also backwards. This is how GOD can save ancient Israelites before Christs Chronological death.

Just like you do with creating a story board, you think of a Character, and when you think of that character they are fully formed. You then go back and write a History for them.

I refer to this "going back and writing a History" as backdated time. It brings a Chronological succession of events TO the Genesis creation point, in order that the world can continue to work under the rules of science which GOD created. Call it a scientific catch up.

What I dont know...is whether that time existed...or whether it simply appeared altogether, much like creation itself...or...if infact its working backwards, at the same rate we are working forwards...in which case...Man is still a mammal...I dont know the temporal laws that govern the earth when Time moves in a backward motion.

Not that anyone cares about the above...or is interested enough to entertain the ideal that the whole process is so much more complicated then either Gensis or Charles Darwin makes out.

But I'm pleased to tell you...it is logical
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 03-29-2009, 10:08 PM
mscomc
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by NateR
Yes, I've heard about bacteria and viruses, however, those are on a level of complexity far below humans, dogs, birds, even insects. I guess I'm thinking of complex life consisting of more than a single cell. What new species of mammal, bird, reptile, fish, etc. have emerged since Darwin?

If the answer is "none" or "we don't know", then it should be said that there is no observed or recorded evidence of new species being created by Evolutionary processes among complex life forms. Looking at a crocodile and a bird and imagining what MIGHT have happened IF they shared a common ancestor is nothing more than educated guesswork and is not true, empirical science.

Did you mean something like this (this is a basic example)? http://www.reuters.com/article/scien...25076720070807

Or did you mean, from an organism that we already knew was there for sure for at least the last say 100 years (ie: a typical house cat) turn into something new? Because then I dont know, but I can look into it if you woud like.

Because, I agree that looking at WHAT MIGHT have happened is just guesswork and not empirical...but evolution takes millions of years. Darwains Ideas are only 120 years old, sooooo what about the possibility we are just in the infancy of an next evolutionary cycle, and maybe we wont see a new species until the next evolutionary cataclysm, like a: flood, a river drying up, molten eruption etc etc.



OOOOO i just want to varify once more.....Evolutionary biology is no where NEAR my actual speciality...im actually a biochemsitry specialist...I only know what I know because I had to take alot of evolutionary classes as an undergrad.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 03-29-2009, 10:20 PM
Tyburn's Avatar
Tyburn Tyburn is offline
Angry @ Injustice!
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: England
Posts: 16,945
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mscomc
OOOOO i just want to varify once more.....Evolutionary biology is no where NEAR my actual speciality...im actually a biochemsitry specialist...I only know what I know because I had to take alot of evolutionary classes as an undergrad.
I took modules in Philosophy of Religion, Philosophy of Time and Philosophy of Science....amoung others
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 03-30-2009, 02:08 AM
mscomc
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Well, moving on to the next peice of evidence....... Not to say that it would not be good to continue talking about previous entries.

2) AT THE LEVEL OF THE GENE.

Ok so, Darwain and many scientists until the 70's could not study evolution at the level of the gene. It wasnt until Frederick Sanger discovered a method to seqeuence DNA (dideoxy seqeuncing), something he won a noble prize in chemistry for

After the human genome was seqeunced about 10 years ago, it was compared to other moropholically similar species, like apes for example. The results, there is between 98% sequence homology between our DNA and an Apes DNA. In other words, it is 98% the same.

Furthermore, more evidence comes from examining enzymes. As many of you probably know, DNA polymerase is the primary enzyme involved in DNA replication (it copies our DNA strands). The polymerae of E.coli is very similar to the polymerase of a human.

.....Both require a template strand and a primer site
......Both work in the 5' -----> 3' direction
.......Both have exonuclease activity
.........Both are very large, and about 200 kila Daltons
...........Both even look similar in the active site of the enzyme

I'll talk more about the endosymbiotic theory in the next thread.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 03-30-2009, 02:14 AM
NateR's Avatar
NateR NateR is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 5,737
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mscomc
Did you mean something like this (this is a basic example)? http://www.reuters.com/article/scien...25076720070807
That's just discovering a species we didn't know existed before. That happens all the time, especially with oceanographic research.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mscomc
Or did you mean, from an organism that we already knew was there for sure for at least the last say 100 years (ie: a typical house cat) turn into something new? Because then I dont know, but I can look into it if you woud like.
That's what I was asking about. Do we know what genetically constitutes a house cat (for example) and have we been able to detect any additions of information to it's genetic code, via random mutations, that have caused it to make the jump into a new species?

From what I've studied, there has never been a recorded mutation that has actually added information to any organism's genetic code. Every observed mutation has been a loss of information and has either caused damage or death to the organism.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mscomc
Because, I agree that looking at WHAT MIGHT have happened is just guesswork and not empirical...but evolution takes millions of years. Darwains Ideas are only 120 years old, sooooo what about the possibility we are just in the infancy of an next evolutionary cycle, and maybe we wont see a new species until the next evolutionary cataclysm, like a: flood, a river drying up, molten eruption etc etc.
Think about the logic behind your statement. You're basically admitting that there is no empirical evidence of Evolution and that there most likely never will be in our lifetimes. So, if that's the case, then why are we expected to believe there is any truth to Evolution at all?

I understand that it's what all the experts in the field claim happened, but you have to remember that it was experts in ship design who claimed that the Titanic was unsinkable.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mscomc
OOOOO i just want to varify once more.....Evolutionary biology is no where NEAR my actual speciality...im actually a biochemsitry specialist...I only know what I know because I had to take alot of evolutionary classes as an undergrad.
I've been studying the flaws in Evolutionary theory for years now and my biggest problem with this theory is that it doesn't conform with the laws of nature that we can actually observe.

Primarily there is the second law of thermodynamics: entropy. Meaning that the observed universe is in a steady state of decay and that the trend is for objects to go from order to disorder. Evolution runs completely contrary to what we actually observe about the universe. Evolution claims that cells and organisms get more orderly and more complex over time. That's simply not in line with what we observe in reality.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 03-30-2009, 02:36 AM
mscomc
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Oh, I absolutely agree. Those are some good points....but in regards to your explanation to 2nd law of thermodyamics (down below)

Quote:
Primarily there is the second law of thermodynamics: entropy. Meaning that the observed universe is in a steady state of decay and that the trend is for objects to go from order to disorder. Evolution runs completely contrary to what we actually observe about the universe. Evolution claims that cells and organisms get more orderly and more complex over time. That's simply not in line with what we observe in reality.
The bolded region is not entirely accuate. The second law of thermodyamics indicates that the entropy of system will increase in a non-equlibriated system which is Isolated. An isolated thermo system is one in which matter and energy cant enter and exit the system, a really good example is a coffee thermus. The mass (the coffee) cant leave the system, and energy (work in the form of heat) can leave due to insulating container. Of course, in real life, there is no such thing as a perfect isolated system (unless you mean the universe as a whole)...but they can act for long periods of time.

Bio systems on the other hand have been classified as OPEN systems. They are able to exchange work (in the form of heat) and matter. For example, radio waves are constantly moving in and out of you..with no obvious harm, the wavelength is to large, and you constantly exachange mass when you: eat, digest....(I think you know where im going with this).



How can we explain this?

Last edited by mscomc; 03-30-2009 at 02:45 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 03-30-2009, 03:02 AM
NateR's Avatar
NateR NateR is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 5,737
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mscomc
Bio systems on the other hand have been classified as OPEN systems. They are able to exchange work (in the form of heat) and matter. For example, radio waves are constantly moving in and out of you..with no obvious harm, the wavelength is to large, and you constantly exachange mass when you: eat, digest....(I think you know where im going with this).



How can we explain this?
Radio waves are essentially radiation. Any form of radiation shooting through the body acts like tiny sledgehammers crashing through the DNA in our cells. If the damage is minor, then it can be repaired quickly. If the damage is serious, then as long as there is one undamaged strand of DNA, the cell can be repaired, otherwise it dies.

Think about DNA like a dictionary, full of information. Now take that dictionary and shoot it several times with a gun. Those bullets are going to tear through that dictionary and do severe damage to the information inside. Now, if you have another copy of that dictionary, you would be able to replace the missing information with enough time by comparing the two books.

However, expecting waves of radiation tearing through our cells to somehow add information to our DNA would be like expecting to add words to the English language by shooting a dictionary.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 03-30-2009, 03:55 AM
mscomc
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by NateR
Radio waves are essentially radiation. Any form of radiation shooting through the body acts like tiny sledgehammers crashing through the DNA in our cells. If the damage is minor, then it can be repaired quickly. If the damage is serious, then as long as there is one undamaged strand of DNA, the cell can be repaired, otherwise it dies.

Think about DNA like a dictionary, full of information. Now take that dictionary and shoot it several times with a gun. Those bullets are going to tear through that dictionary and do severe damage to the information inside. Now, if you have another copy of that dictionary, you would be able to replace the missing information with enough time by comparing the two books.

However, expecting waves of radiation tearing through our cells to somehow add information to our DNA would be like expecting to add words to the English language by shooting a dictionary.

Well, I was only reffering to my disagreement with your definition of entropy. I was not really talking about the effects of a radio wave on DNA. I was just using it as example because i thought your orginal definition of the second law was flawed. The part of the law you stated is true for ISOLATED systems, not closed or open .

BUT...adressing your new points.

I am also going to respectfully have to add some info to your analogy of DNA and Radio waves. True, radio waves are a type of energy defined by the electromagnetic spectrum, their wavelength is far lower then that of visible light so we cant see it, and it is not strong enough to disrupt the H-bonds and are stabilizing features of a DNA double helix.... GAMMA Rays (along with other ionizing radiation) on other hand can puncture 30 cm of lead and can casue major damage to the DNA structure.

Now I just want to say something, and please dont take me as arrogant, flashy or mean spritied: But I am doing my masters in bio-chemisty....I am fully aware of the repair machinery used in cell control, molecular regulation and other areas......I beleive you are mentioning that if a nucleotide base pair is damaged, the repiar machinery can use a homologous chromosome to repair the problem....Did you know this has an error rate of 1/ 10^9 nucleotides? This may sound small, but all it takes is one small mutation and that cell will now divide, and divide and divide via mitosis, the error rate is regardless of how "bad" the damage is. If there is 9 damaged nucleotide base pairs instead of one, now there is just a 0.0000001% chance of improper repair. If you want, I can really go in depth in regards to the repair machinery (maybe for another topic )

I also fully agree that you cannot add information to genome via ionizing radiation. Any change (benefical or not) comes from an impairment of a normal genomic pathway, so in a way you are loosing information.


Anways, to be quite honest I dont even realize what we are discussing anymore There are many natural ways for other organisms to obtain new genetic infromation (actually adding info to your current genetic makeup). Maybe we can talk about those next?
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 03-30-2009, 04:12 AM
Neezar's Avatar
Neezar Neezar is offline
SupaDupaMod
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: South
Posts: 6,480
Send a message via Yahoo to Neezar
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mscomc
Now I just want to say something, and please dont take me as arrogant, flashy or mean spritied: But I am doing my masters in bio-chemisty....I am fully aware of the repair machinery used in cell control, molecular regulation and other areas......I beleive you are mentioning that if a nucleotide base pair is damaged, the repiar machinery can use a homologous chromosome to repair the problem....Did you know this has an error rate of 1/ 10^9 nucleotides? This may sound small, but all it takes is one small mutation and that cell will now divide, and divide and divide via mitosis, the error rate is regardless of how "bad" the damage is. If there is 9 damaged nucleotide base pairs instead of one, now there is just a 0.0000001% chance of improper repair. If you want, I can really go in depth in regards to the repair machinery (maybe for another topic )
I'm a little confused. Are you saying that there is very little chance of an error or that it happens more often than people think?


Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 03-30-2009, 04:29 AM
NateR's Avatar
NateR NateR is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 5,737
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mscomc
There are many natural ways for other organisms to obtain new genetic infromation (actually adding info to your current genetic makeup). Maybe we can talk about those next?
Yes, I'd be interested to hear about that.
__________________
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 03:38 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.