Please Define Evolutionary Creationism? I am finding the Biologos website articles defining it a bit vague. Im left with more questions than answers

[T_aquaticus]

@RichardG

So, you are saying that whenever there is a pair of duplicates the bond between them is (tends to be) weaker/

The bond between any two bases on the same strand is the same, no matter what the sequence is. Each nucleotide is attached to the next by a phosphate group (the P surrounded by Os).

In this case, the bases from the two strands of DNA are stuck together by complementary binding (As to Ts, Cs to Gs). If there is a section of DNA that is the same in two different parts of the genome then those sequences can stick together, either on the same strand or at different parts on two strands. The best picture I can find for getting this concept across is an RNA stem loop (U instead of T) which isn’t DNA per se, but the same mechanisms apply.

Complementary bases bind to one another on the same strand. Repeats that have lots of AT are susceptible to this type of structure because As and Ts want to stick to one another.

@RichardG

Could that be seen as “deliberate” or “Designed” (along with any underlining law, of course) IOW I wonder if there could be a natural reason for such a weakness that would compensate for a Godly one?
After all ToE is basically trying to make the progression without outside (godly) help.

There are many natural processes that produce repetitive DNA that is prone to homologous recombination. One classic case is retroviral DNA that inserts into the host DNA. It has the same sequence at either end that likes to stick together:

This can result in most of the retroviral DNA being excised from the host genome.

As for God, I think we are stuck at the contrast between proximate causes (science) and ultimate causes (philosophy/theology). As Romanes put it:

To avoid misapprehension, however, I may here add that while Mr. Darwin’s theory is thus in plain and direct contradiction to the theory of design, or system of teleology, as presented by the school of writers which I have named, I hold that Mr. Darwin’s theory has no point of logical contact with the theory of design in the larger sense, that behind all secondary causes of a physical kind, there is a primary cause of a mental kind. Therefore throughout this essay I refer to design in the sense understood by the narrower forms of teleology, or as an immediate cause of the observed phenomena. Whether or not there is an ultimate cause of a psychical kind pervading all nature, a causa causarum which is the final raison d’être of the cosmos, this is another question which, as I have said, I take to present no point of logical contact with Mr. Darwin’s theory, or, I may add, with any of the methods and results of natural science.
–George Romanes, “The Scientific Evidences of Organic Evolution”, 1882
The Project Gutenberg eBook of The Scientific Evidences of Organic Evolution, by George J. Romanes, M.A., LL.D., F.R.S.

@RichardG

After all ToE is basically trying to make the progression without outside (godly) help.

The issue is with the scientific method itself. There is simply no scientific way to test for God, one way or the other. Science can only investigate mechanisms it can manipulate and measure.

[mitchellmckain (Scientist and Christian)]

I have been looking into the difference between modern reptiles and dinosaurs. Yes they had a common origin in the amphibian labyrinthodonts. But the dinosaurs had an adaptation which let them stand upright on two legs (a hole in their hip socket). It helps to explain why birds evolved from them because they were no longer using those front legs for running. Those dinosaurs which walked on four legs (like triceratops and brontosaurs) have the same bone structure telling us they evolved creatures which did walk on two legs (i.e. early dinosaurs).

It is much like @T_aquaticus example of cetaceans evolving from those with four limbs. Sometimes evolution goes bit backwards (cetaceans from land mammals back to the sea and these dinosaurs on 4 feet from those on 2 feet).

It seems to me that the key to being able to reject evolution is to not look at things in the world too closely.

P.S. I suggest an interesting google search: “changing the definition of dinosaurs.” Science often changes the definitions of the words it uses to enable communication which is easier, more clear, and more precise.

[Andy7 (Andy)]

@Bill_II

@RichardG

Is there a DNA link that is weaker and usually the site of deviation?

Just Google “types of genetic mutations” and the AI will give you a list of 9 different types of mutations.

As a programmer, I don’t know what you mean by “weak code”. It requires stronger code to prevent duplication, but this doesn’t really apply to DNA. DNA is not code.

Yes, as a software engineer I cannot make sense out of that “analogy”. One good way of preventing duplication of software is to use strong encryption.

[St.Roymond]

@T_aquaticus

If that’s the one I’m remembering, the cartographer was part of a crew that sailed partway up the Sea of Cortez but turned around when weather got bad and got blown north, then later they found San Francisco Bay and without investigating decided it was the north end of a long channel.
It looks like a lot of guesswork, too – there’s nowhere near that many islands along the California coast!

[mitchellmckain (Scientist and Christian)]

Yeah… for me this:

@Bill_II

DNA is not code.

is a bit like saying the sun is not a star. If your reaction is to say this latter is just false, I would point out that for the vast majority of history it makes perfect sense, and the Bible saying God created both the sun and the stars was not redundant at all for them. Now we like to emphasize how the sun is really the same as other stars, but there is of course an important difference for everyone living on the earth. So my point is that statements like these require an explanation of what ways in which they are not the same because they have abundant similarities.

Both computer code and DNA are repositories of information as part of a kind of machinery that translates them into various actions. But one difference is that while one is a product of design the other is a product of the learning process we call evolution. This difference has many consequence and is therefore quite an important distinction. This may prompt the suggestion that we might simulate this difference of DNA with software code (i.e. actually generating software code by an evolutionary algorithm). Apparently it has been tried – though a useful application of the idea may be harder than it sounds. OH found a discussion of this here.

[RichardG (Richard Gillett)]

@mitchellmckain

@RichardG

Or are you claiming that birds are the only descendent of dinosaurs?

Rather well known fact.

As i pointed out, not it isn’t. It never has been. In fact originally it was thought that all higher life descended from them.

Besides, as I also pointed out, Evolution does not allow for any deviation to be animal or typr specific. Random means tha And my point was that if sucj restriction exist they imply intelligence in the system.

So therefroe. You appear to be just another nay sayer.
(And i wuld have thought you were better than that)

@mitchellmckain

@RichardG

So stop preaching or lecturing at me and discuss!

Want to reserve all the preaching to the professionals, eh?

Preaching does not mean dogatsm or even teaching in the sense of I am right and you need to know it,

(Again you should knw this)

In conclusion, Jjoin in by all means but keep out of personal conflicts.

@T_aquaticus

@RichardG

After all ToE is basically trying to make the progression without outside (godly) help.

The issue is with the scientific method itself. There is simply no scientific way to test for God, one way or the other. Science can only investigate mechanisms it can manipulate and measure.

I was not asking that, I was askin gif science had an explantaition other than God.

Richard

PS, you were really wasting your time because that detail goes over my head A cynic might even accuse you of showing off

[Roy]

@RichardG

@mitchellmckain

@RichardG

Or are you claiming that birds are the only descendent of dinosaurs?

Rather well known fact.

As i pointed out, not it isn’t. It never has been.

Again, what other descendants of dinosaurs are there?

If there aren’t any living descendants of dinosaurs other than birds, then birds are the only descendants of dinosaurs.

While its possible that the might be some non-avian descendent of the dinosaurs hidden away in a remote location that’s not been fully explored, it has become increasingly unlikely over the last few decades. We are still finding new species of animal, though many of those are by noticing that what was previously considered a single species is actually multiple similar ones - something that wouldn’t work for non-avian dinosaur descendants, since there’s nothing similar that they could be mistaken for.

Nor have their been any non-avian dinosaur fossils found after the K/T boundary.

Those “old reptiles” you referred to are presumably either crocodilians/monitors, neither of which have the characteristics of dinosaurs - based on their skeletal characteristics it has been decided that they were not from the dinosaur lineage - or lineages such as pterosaurs/plesiosaurs/nothosaurs/synapsids/ichthyosaurs, none of which are considered to be offshoots from dinosaurs, and all of which are extinct anyway.

So unless/until you can name a non-avian living descendant of dinosaurs, the only sensible position to take is to accept that they have all gone extinct. And while this may be overturned by e.g. the future discovery of a tiny dinosaur living atop a South American tepui, a la ‘The Lost World’ or ‘Up’, that’s no reason to reject it as current kowledge.

@RichardG

In fact originally it was thought that all higher life descended from them.

I don’t think so. I’d be extremely surprised if anyone, anywhere has suggested that all mammals (including humans) were descended from dinosaurs, let alone all ‘higher life’ (whatever you mean by that), not least because dinosaurs were known about before evolutionary descent was ever conceived, and it was already known that they did not group with mammals taxonomically.

So unless you can provide a citation, I’m going to say that is factually incorrect, and you’ve either misremembered or misunderstood something.

@RichardG

So therefroe. You appear to be just another nay sayer.
(And i wuld have thought you were better than that)

Pointing out your mistakes is not naysaying.

[Andy7 (Andy)]

Yes, I have seen a few interesting applications of evolutionary algorithms. However, computer scientists are very much concerned with efficiency in designing algorithms, and if a problem is well understood, the most efficient algorithm will be one that takes advantage of the structure of the problem. Evolutionary algorithms are seldom efficient, in the sense of computing a solution with minimal time and other resources.

[mitchellmckain (Scientist and Christian)]

I wasn’t actually talking about evolutionary algorithms. Those are actually quite useful whether efficient or not (I frankly think it is the essence of the new AI algorithms). Code generation by genetic algorithms is a different thing and applications have not been easy at all. Though your comments are even more applicable to code generated by genetic algorithms. Efficiency is not a great descriptor for the evolutionary process especially in regards to the time it takes. It is even doubtful that efficiency is a good descriptor for the result.

[St.Roymond]

@Roy

Like when you say fledgling birds need to be taught migration routes.

Interestingly there are some species where the young do need to be taught – they don’t have to be taught to migrate, but they have to learn the landmarks and resting places.

@RichardG

Birds hae feather. So does the Pegasus (in theory) so, no it did not, because it failed to understand what i was saying.

Some accidental Gaelic there!

You seriously expect a scientist to address the difference between a bird and a Pegasus? I can address it without needing science: birds are real, a Pegasus is fantasy.

@RichardG

Only birds have feathers. That is a fact. So…

Why should a dinosaur have them?

Why not? There is no way to predict what evolution will produce, so why shouldn’t they evolve in dinosaurs?

But the question is also meaningless because it involves a tautology: birds are partly defined as creatures with feathers.

@RichardG

And if they could, why was this trait only passed to birds and not to any other line that come from dinosaurs?

Because only some dinosaurs evolved feathers. Why would all dinosaurs have all the same traits? If they had all the same traits, they’d all be just one species, which they obviously weren’t.

@RichardG

Or are you claiming that birds are the only descendent of dinosaurs?

Why would all dinosaurs evolve into just one kind of creature?

@RichardG

The fact that feather either do not, or cannot be grown by any other type of creature indicates that there is some sort of underlying parameter or “law” that dictates this.

Yes – it’s called inheritance. You can’t inherit what your ancestors never had, and what they didn’t hand on.

@RichardG

There is no scientific reason for that Law or parameter.to exist.

There is no scientific reason the universe exists – so?
But the parameter you’re talking about flows right from quantum mechanics, where everything is up to chance. Indeed, to mix theology and science, a great way to describe the universe would be to call it a sea of chance guided by God’s hand. That chance should be found in how biology functions should not be surprising.

@RichardG

What I say is. How do you understand it?

Well you clearly have not even identified it!

I just did. Your “parameter” is right there at the foundation of the ToE,which any high school sophomore would know.

@T_aquaticus

It’s just like any historical process. Why is there a Grand Canyon in the middle of the US, but no Grand Canyon in the UK? It’s just a happenstance of history. It’s how history played out.

And it goes back to chance: chance that the currents in the planet’s core flowed the way they did, chance that one continent rode up over another, chance that the climate was right to erode a canyon while uplift continued . . . all sorts of randomness along the way.