The relevant players leave the building when the conversation descends into endless bickering about one word. I think this conversation is about finished its descent into arguing about arguing (as always happens).
So why not start a fresh topic, drawing on the most interesting bits of this conversation?
Quite so - but his motive in targeting the old lady is known to him, not to us.
Maybe opening a new thread to talk about genetics is the way forward then. I can even move posts over if they want.
[quote=“Shanecolburn525, post:44, topic:4353”]
My point is that deleterious mutations arise more frequently (substantially more frequently) than adaptive ones. [/quote]
Shane,
The whole process is a race of surviving configurations of genetic information … with the ADAPTIVE configurations being defined as those with more offspring and/or more fertile offspring.
Are you trying to define Evolution as impossible, because there are more deleterious mutations than adaptive ones? Humans and all the other creations that are still ALIVE … are mostly alive because our predecessors did better than the predecessors of others.
This isn’t really disputable, right?
George
Oh yes they do! You can be a carrier for a genetic disease/disorder yet not have the disease yourself. The sickle cell gene is a good example. If you inherit the sickle cell gene from one parent and a normal gene from the other parent you will be healthy (because the trait is recessive). But if you inherit the sickle cell gene from both parents you will have sickle cell anemia, which can be deadly.
Actually, having the sickle cell gene from just one parent can be an advantage in areas with lots of malaria! It’s called heterozygous advantage.
Here’s a very good, short video from HHMI that explains the genetics: Malaria and Sickle Cell Malaria. It also does a nice job of briefly explaining how science works.
[quote=“Shanecolburn525, post:44, topic:4353”]
If rare deleterious mutations can persist in large populations…fine. That’s certainly not a fact in defense of your position.[/quote]
Common deleterious mutations persist in large populations too. I don’t think that you understand my position.
I don’t see why.
[quote]What would that say for the less common type (adaptive mutations?).
[/quote]That the ratio of dominant to recessive is much higher for adaptive mutant alleles than it is for deleterious ones, as the latter tend to be hypomorphic or null.
So, new mutations are more likely to deprecate or completely eliminate function; those tend to be recessive. The less common, adaptive mutations are much more likely to be dominant. There are, of course, many exceptions, but the trend is clear.
I do not concede (or frankly even understand) your position relative to my argument. But the entire discussion of rare mutations being disproportionately deleterious and dominate ones being adaptive is moot. Do you acknowledge that cancers and developmental deformities (along with other diseases) occur in a significant proportion of human being? And, that they have genetic links (i.e., are often brought about directly or indirectly through mutation)? I don’t see how you can avoid the obvious. As Polkinghorne has cast it, “it is the nature of cells that they will mutate, sometimes causing cancer.” Thus, as I began, the mechanism causes great harm and suffering, and yet this is God’s way of creating. His way of creating was to drive the vast majority of things to extinction, so that one of the extant millions of species would seek communion with Him? Incidentally, is He finished creating, or are we replaceable in His chosen process?
[quote=“Shanecolburn525, post:52, topic:4353”]
I do not concede (or frankly even understand) your position relative to my argument.[/quote]
That’s interesting. If you don’t understand, what possible basis could you have for refusing to concede anything?
What does “dominate ones” mean? If it’s moot, why did you start the discussion?
You’re amazing.
Back at #26, I asked you to clarify: “I presume that you are limiting yourself to the germ line and ignoring somatic mutation?”
Since you didn’t answer, why are you bringing up somatic mutation (cancer) now?
That’s just hogwash, Shane. Cancer is defined as a genetic disease. It isn’t “often brought about directly or indirectly through mutation,” Cancer is simply ALWAYS CAUSED BY MUTATIONS. Nongenetic factors are sometimes there, but always minor. Most, but not all, of those mutations are somatic, which is why I asked the question you didn’t answer.
I don’t see that you are in any position to know what is obvious and what is not if you think that cancer merely has “genetic links,” instead of being directly caused by somatic mutations.
One word? Which word would that be?
I’m sorry, but that’s not true. Cancer genesis is fairly well known. In general, it involves the break down of “checkpoints” in the cell cycle, which are regulated by gene-protein interactions networks. You inherit genetic predisposition via particular point mutations at fertilization. You accumulate the others, as a consequence of a diversity of environmental phenomena. I’ve let you ride for a while, but you should know that I’m a little further up the biology food chain than you suspect. It happens that you’re not talking to an untrained pedestrian. But, if’ you’re going to (in typical form for you) equivocate over a typo (“dominate” instead of “dominant”) I think we’re done. I thank every one for their time.
[quote=“Shanecolburn525, post:55, topic:4353”]
I’m sorry, but that’s not true.[/quote]
What exactly is not true?
Yes, but that breakdown is a consequence of new, somatic mutations. Cancer is a genetic disease.
You seem confused. There’s no evidence to suggest that the mutations occur at fertilization, and plenty of predisposing (aka germline) mutations are not point mutations, but deletions. Those predisposing ones are never sufficient; additional somatic mutations have to occur.
[quote]You accumulate the others, as a consequence of a diversity of environmental phenomena.
[/quote]You certainly do accumulate the others, but as a general rule, not as a consequence of the environment; reality is far more complex than that. That’s the case for only a few major cancers, including esophageal and colon cancer in some cultures (diet), melanoma (uv), mouth and throat carcinoma (chewing tobacco) and lung cancer (smoking). For the majority of the others, the baseline mutation rate does the job, and it doesn’t need any bump from the environment. You can isolate yourself from all environmental factors that increase mutation rates and you’re still highly likely to eventually die of cancer.
I still don’t understand what you’re trying to say if you fix the typo.
Brad, I’m pretty certain that all four of us are in complete agreement on the definition of “deleterious.” We’re disagreeing with Shane’s claim about selection, that “…the classic Darwinian view of selection winnowing out bad mutations and keeping the good ones simply doesn’t match reality.” It certainly works in the case of cancer (if “bad” is determined from the perspective of the cell but not the organism), and it certainly does in the case of the population.
It would help greatly if Shane would answer George’s question, “Are you trying to define Evolution as impossible, because there are more deleterious mutations than adaptive ones?”
ABSOLUTELY CORRECT.
Romans 9 makes it clear that this is God’s right.
Excerpts from Romans 9 -
Rom 9:13
As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.
[TRANSLATION: God does not love everyone.]
Rom 9:14
What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid.
[TRANSLATION: You are forbidden from criticizing God for not loving everyone.]
Rom 9:15
For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.
[TRANSLATION: He tells Moses that he doesn’t love everyone.]
Rom 9:16
So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.
[TRANSLATION: It is not up to man’s efforts, but God’s grace that some our loved.]
Rom 9:17
For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth.
[TRANSLATION: God arranges that some people are doomed to show God’s power.]
Rom 9:18
Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.
[TRANSLATION: God will destroy some humans who cannot resist him.]
Rom 9:19
Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?
[TRANSLATION: Since no one resists God’s will, why does God blame us?]
Rom 9:20
Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?
[TRANSLATION: Just because it is logical to “reply” against God … you don’t have the right to.]
Rom 9:21
Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?
[TRANSLATION A Potter makes what he needs with clay.]
Rom 9:22
What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:
[TRANSLATION God is like a potter.]
From the viewpoint of Theodicy . . . God is the author of human suffering. And you don’t have the right to complain.
God created humans to breathe air. If we drown we die, because we cannot breathe air. Can we blame God for that too?
@Shanecolburn525
Parsing and Meaning. ἐμίσησα Verb, aor act indic, 1 s - μισέω. μισεω hate, despise, be indifferent to. [Strongs 3404]
you clearly believe to be God like you and waste his energy in the process of hate. Just shows the mental incapacity of translators with regards to logic. God would not hate as it would be denial of himself, thus logically incoherent. It looks we reach the limitations of language talking “wrath” as it is equally incoherent considering that God in order to have wrath would have to be denied control of a situation.
Similar the penalty for our material ,thus by definition time bound existence is it’s termination. There is nothing wrong with that as you can only hope you learned something whilst material that will benefit the system.
" what does the evolutionary creationist say to a mother who’s baby was born deformed and died in her arms? "
When God created the universe he knew that we all will need to die a material death, some of us much earlier than others. But what you will be rewarded with for the rest of your earthly life will be the knowledge that you allowed this life to exist and to bring it as far as you could. After all, that is what he created life for. Being all knowing he knew pretty well that some will turn selfish and terminate such life on their terms and kill it as not to bear the responsibility to support it, and truely I say to you those who do so will struggle to find the way.
Now if you consider that truth of causality and accept that all effects are known to the ultimate cause he will well know who will die were and when as this knowledge is bound into the ultimate cause. There is no way anything could be different as it is causally predetermined.
Now you may ask where that leaves free will? Dow we have it? God gave is the ability to practice free will, as the worst that anyone can do that uses his free will against his will is to kill others. To a materialist that is difficult to swallow as it means that free will would cause his termination- which it will indeed. It is the limitation of the atheist/ materialist that if he wants “my will be done” instead of “thy will be done” as only the truth can remain in existence and if your will is not in line with what is true you selfdelete.
To God our physical death is not a problem, do you not come back to him free of the constraints of space and time? So where would the harm be in physical death? Suffering death is only a problem to those who do not live in God or Jesus
This topic was automatically closed 6 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.
“Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.” -Colossians 4:6
This is a place for gracious dialogue about science and faith. Please read our FAQ/Guidelines before posting.