random never has meant an even distribution of numbers. In fact most, if not all, real random number generators (not the pseudo random generators used by computer when they need something to looks random) use a physical phenomena (often nuclear decay) that will produce numbers on a bell curve. This of course means that some numbers are more likely to appear than other and this is often normalized to make a more practical range but the original physical phenomenon that created the random number was on a bell curve.
Random simply means that we canāt predict the value that will be produced and in that sense whether it is true randomness or guided by god hand make little difference from an observer perspective, both are unpredictable.
Just out of curiosity (if you happen to know)ā¦ if we were to track mutation frequency by amino acid substitutions, rather than in what was happening in the underlying genetic code, would we similarly seeā¦
some amino acid substitutions happening with greater frequency that others, and if so,
would the more deleterious amino acid substitutions happen less frequently than those that are more damaging?
Appreciated. If by chance you stumble onto any leads, I would be especially curiousā¦ especially as I imagine it relevant as regards @T_aquaticusās original question (regarding the question of randomness with respect to fitness).
Since (and please correct me if I am wrong), natural selection only acts on the expression of protein coding genes (and Related mutations) as expressed in the proteins?
For instance, natural selection, acting based on relative fitness, could not distinguish between whether the lysine in the active site of a functioning protein was coded by AAA or AAG, if I recall properly? I.e., Natural selection (which is the measure of fitness) from āits perspectiveā (so to speak), would not even identify this as a mutation, so long as the amino acid remained the same?
Natural selection can act on gene promoters and RNA genes (e.g. microRNA). The timing and levels of gene expression can be just as important as the amino acid sequence.
Bacteria do have preferences for certain codons because of the abundance of certain transfer RNAās (if memory serves). However, I donāt think there is any codon preference in eukaryotes. What you are describing is non-synonymous and synonymous mutations. If two codons code for the same amino acid then they are synonyms. Some non-synonymous mutations are going to be deleterious and will be removed through natural selection which results in a lower ratio of non-synonymous to synonymous mutations (represented by Ka/Ks) within coding regions compared to non-coding regions.
oh really??? So when we dropped bombs on Nagasaki and Hiroshima, God was there deciding which children would die screaming from cancer and which would not because the judgmental SOB wants to make sure we know what will happen to all to bad little girls and boys. A God such as this can have my middle finger. But I donāt think this is the God of the Bible.
I believe in Godās involvement, free will, AND chance ā all three. But that would be a God who embraces love and freedom rather than power and control.
The individual genomes of humans is hardly relevant to the plan of atonement for all of humanity.
What I pointed out is that if in a Young Earth scenario, where God specifically constructs the genomes for millions of species ā¦ it is certainly not going to be inappropriate to suggest that God is just as specific in the evolutionary steps plants and animals have experienced on Earth.
Once we arrive at the rise of true humans ā¦ then we have all the issues that face all religions that are monotheistic.
Point 1: Creationists think God made humans de novo, and they are eligible for salvation.
Point 2: Would this include the genome of Adam and Eve? Of course it would.
Point 3: Gorillas and Chimps have genomes similar to humans, yes? But are they eligible for salvation? Most would say no.
Point 4: If God used Evolution to shape the genome of Earthās plants and animalsā¦ then obviously we need to have the same END POINT genomes as we would have had through the miraculous creation of Adam and Eve.
Why would God spend LESS time on the genome of humans in an evolutionary scenario than in a miraculous scenario?
Caveat: I have not eliminated the soul. And unless you think evolved Humans donāt have free will ā¦ nothing has changed with humanityās volition either.
So only golems are eligible for salvation? Those who grow from a single cell, learning and making their own choices are not?
Would this include all the lies telling us that we evolved from common ancestors? I thought the great deceiver was the devil. But this puts even him to shame.
Most would say that gorillas and chimps donāt need salvation.
God created life. Life is a self-organizing process by which organisms participate in their own creation. Watchmakers and intelligent designers donāt make thing which are alive ā only machines. Putting God in such a role is not Biblical. It is farmers, shepherd, teachers, and parents which create living things and this is the role which the Bible has for God.
The result is NOT independent of the means. By your logic we would have no forensic science. Most of the genetic code 90% doesnāt do anything at all for your so called āend point.ā Most of it is a fingerprint telling how it came about and if it serves any purpose at all, it is for the future evolution of the species.
Why would God add all this stuff to the genome which serves no purpose except to tell us lies about where we came from?
I would. I do not believe in the Greek, Plato, Gnostic soul. I believe in the spiritual body taught by the apostle Paul in 1 Cor 15.
I think the precise opposite that human beings only have free will BECAUSE we evolved. Machines, which is all that you will get from watchmakers and intelligent designers, do not have free will. So yeah something has changed with humanityās volition.
Yes. The result is NOT independent of the means. If you create something by design, engineering, and manufacturing then the result is a machine. If you make something by the process of necromancy, inserting a magical life into inanimate material, then the result is the thing known in fantasy literature as a golem. Living organisms do not come into being by such means, but rather by a process of growth, learning, development, making choices, and evolution. If something does not come into being by growth, learning, development, making choices, and evolution then it is not a living organism.
This is opposed to the delusion of magical thinking which makes no logical rational connection between cause and effect. It is like in a magic show between the āabra-cadabraā and the rabbit coming out of the hat. There is no connection between the two. The word is but a distraction from what is really going on. Omnipotence doesnāt mean God can do whatever we say by whatever means we care to dictate, and when we are talking of something rationally incoherent then saying God can do so or cannot do so are both an entirely meaningless use of words
I am not intentionally trying to irritate you. My intention is only to veto terminology which results in incoherence.
I donāt think that is even coherent. Butā¦ go ahead try stating your āopposite propositionā and see if it sounds coherent to anyone even yourself. See how many seconds it takes to think up an example which makes the proposition nonsensical.
Some of what people call metaphysics or theology certainly can indeed be so, but that is the criterion by which I dismiss such metaphysics or theology as being without any value whatsoever. And NO this is not a requirement which reduces metaphysics or theology to science. Science also requires objective evidenceā¦ written procedures which anyone can perform to get the same result no matter what they want or believe.
If you believe in Godās ability to perform miracles, then it is perfectly consistent that he can create someone exactly identical to a human born (āold schoolā creation) in a population of evolved humans.
There is absolutely no way to distinguish the two.
Wrong. I am the counterexample. I believe in Godās ability to perform miracles, but it is not consistent to create someone as you describe. Miracles are demonstrably not simply doing whatever you say in whatever way you dictate. God has never done any such thing. God does things as He knows they can and should be done.
I also believe in a surgeonās ability to perform miracles, and an engineerās ability to perform miracles. But they do those miracles because they know how not because they are a dreamer making incoherent nonsense happen in their dream. Altering a dream is no miracle at all ā anybody can do that. The God I believe in is a worker of real miracles not a dreamer.
You make a lot of rules for how people interpret their Christianityā¦ and you donāt do it based on logicā¦ I would say your conclusions are based on Mitchell-Aesthetics !
@T_aquaticus
It seems fairly straight forward to me.
Variation/Mutation is random, or not related to fitness.
Natural Selection is NOT random, and is directly related to biological fitness.
Variation and Natural Selection work together to provide the change and continuity needed for evolution.
End of story.
Adding a note One cannot say that mu8tations are random in respect to fitness AND maturations are biased agains5t being deleterious. They are random or they are selective. They cannot be both.
