Theistic Evolution's Implications for the Character of God

[rsewell (RON SEWELL)]

@RichardG

Now, all of a sudden you can introduce a new letter or even several new letters “Invented”, as they fuse. No wonder there are cancers or other defects. It would basically mean that the cancer is already present from the moment that egg was fertilised, it just depend on when it gets manifested

Richard, what you write here is more correct than you may appreciate. While most mutations, including insertions, are neutral, some can harbor latent tragedy.

Somatic cells accumulate mutations as they divide, and they are a number of ways that insertions can happen. Infections are one such means; this is well established by real time observation both for individual somatic genomes and germ line populations.

Given that we are not so young anymore, we both are likely to possess cells which feature several insertions.

[Bill_II]

@RichardG

So in terms of DNA it would be that a specific string (combination of pairings will automatically produce a heart, or a femur, or a blood cell, and it would automatically be compatible with the original creature’s make up.

Hopefully this will help you understand a little bit better. We humans have 23 chromosomes in each cell. Each chromosome contains TWO strands of DNA. These strands are not identical. Each strand contains genes and each gene is found in a particular location. A feather is not produced by one single strand of DNA. It is the result of the expression of many genes spread over many chromosomes. So to drop in something new, like feathers, would require the addition of new genes on multiple chromosomes and would have to be done in such a way as to not break the functionality of the other genes which are needed. Since DNA has repair mechanisms those would also have to be changed to not reject the new genes. So all in all a rather complicated process which would require the guidance of a supernatural Intelligent Designer.

For your “plug and pray” analogy there are two parts to this. First the OS is built to accept new hardware/software. This is part of it’s design. Second the module comes with new software to support the hardware. This software has to know how to fit into the current OS which is why there are different versions for different OS’s.

[RichardG (Richard Gillett)]

@Bill_II

feather is not produced by one single strand of DNA. It is the result of the expression of many genes spread over many chromosomes.

You seem to have “decoded” DNA. I was not aware that this had been achieved in part let alone accurately enough to pinpoint exactly which strings are used to form feathers.

On a more curious note. If there are more than one strands involved. would that me that to get to the feather there would have to be multiple correct deviations? And if so would they occur all at once or would it mean carrying several inert strands until the last correct one is finished?

Richard

[St.Roymond]

@RichardG

And how does Nature know that there is an error?

The organism dies.

@RichardG

You do not wnat to know what i think or how I look at it.

If you’re using non-scientific definitions of words when talking about science, then he should “not want to know what [you] think”. If you’re talking science, you usethe scientific definitions – that’s how language works.

@RichardG

@St.Roymond

@RichardG

Actually decay is the basis of the Universe not development or progress,

Not in any branch of science I’ve ever studied

Lke every one else. You just say i am wrong.

Because in scientific terms you are wrong.

You’re getting sound scientific answers, but you reject them. Why are you rejecting science? And don’t claim you aren’t; rejecting sound scientific answers means rejecting science.

@Paraleptopecten

“Random” in any scientific context means “best described by a probability distribution” or “impossible to predict perfectly from finitely precise measurements of initial conditions”

Which is why efforts in many areas focus on finding whether or not something really is random.

@RichardG

So you are saying it not so much fluke as inevitable?

It is inevitable that there will be ‘deviations’; it is not inevitable that they will provide any wished-for characteristics.
And BTW, given that the Holy Spirit is “lord and giver of life”, I think that’s what we should expect – life will find a way!

@RichardG

That would make it a bit like a computer throwing out numbers to break a code

No, because breaking a code involves a target while evolution has no target except survival. It’s kind of like designing a room with three ways out and putting a monkey in to see which one he will find, only to discover that the monkey found a fourth way!

@RichardG

the Scattershot principle whereby if you fire enough pellets one will hit the target.

Except that again, the only “target” is survival/reproduction.

@RichardG

Are you claiming that there can be multiple mutations that might jpin together to form a wider deviation? The mid boggles at the probabilities invoved for that.

It happens, so the probability is 100%.

Think of tossing pebbles into a creek in the sand, without looking where you’re throwing them: eventually two pebbles will end up next to each other. The issue is that you can’t predict which ones that will be.

@RichardG

Whereby wings come complete with ancillary workings, such as muscles nerves, motion etc

Why would that happen? Why would you think that would happen?

@RichardG

There is a philosophical viewpoint that such things as the law of gravity do not need to be designed but are the consequence of existence and therefor “must be” for it to exist at all. It is the philosophical denial of the need for God.

That’s true, but that denial has nothing to do with science – science just says, “God? Can’t measure for that”.

@RichardG

I think it is an extension of the “multiverse” theorum

Multiverse doesn’t qualify as a theorem as (so far, anyway) there’s no way to test for it.

[St.Roymond]

@T_aquaticus

For humans, we are born with around 70 point mutations, and handful of indels, and on rare occasions a large recombination mutation.

This brought to mind a question I’ve argued about with others: is it possible that there is an existing mutation that would make it so those with it could live in Mars gravity just fine, i.e. no resultant health problems.
The thing is, the only way to know is to have lots of people live in Mars gravity and see what happens.

@T_aquaticus

nearly all non-lethal mutations exist somewhere in the current human population.

That is just mind-boggling.

@T_aquaticus

Do people win the lottery because it has a preset code?

Heh – since the numbers aren’t generated till the “draw”, it isn’t a matter of someone landing on the number, it’s a matter of the number landing on someone!

@RichardG

So you just trot out an assertion that has no foundation other than it must happen for ToE to work.

No – he brought out something that is observed and what is concluded from that.

@RichardG

How can Nature suddenly, for no apparent reason just Insert a new molecule from somewhere?

Chemicals, including things as mundane as coffee or flame-roasted meat, or radiation, including things as exotic as cosmic rays, or disease, especially viral.

@RichardG

If Nature can “invent” new pairings can it also invent a molecule that would not have been in the genome set before? If so then any logical restriction for what could be produced due to the heritage or diversification of the Genome goes out the window. There would be no goo reason why a Mammal could not grow a feather.

Mathematics. The odds of a mammal growing a full-blown feather are on the order of 10^{85}, greater than the number of particles in the universe.

@RichardG

It would basically mean that the cancer is already present from the moment that egg was fertilised, it just depend on when it gets manifested,

Not likely – most cancers occur as DNA fails to copy properly as people’s cells reproduce.

@RichardG

So in terms of DNA it would be that a specific string (combination of pairings will automatically produce a heart, or a femur, or a blood cell, and it would automatically be compatible with the original creature’s make up.

That’s fantasy, not science. In science, new organs don’t just sprout from nowhere.
It is because he does understand “plug and play” that he rejects it – it is not observed, it is not needed, and the odds against such a think are on the order of 10^{100}.

@RichardG

And here is where we are clearly not understanding each other, because you cannot put into words (or analogy) the concepts you are utilising.

It’s been done multiple times. The issue is that you assert that there are principles where there are none, so the only possible “put[tin] into words” is “There is no such principle” or “It doesn’t work that way”. And that boils down to the obvious fact that you do not understand the basics of ToE nor understand basic mathematics.
Some of the principles are “natural selection”, “mutation”, “nested” and “hierarchy”, “inheritance”, and “probability”.

[St.Roymond]

@Bill_II

So to drop in something new, like feathers, would require the addition of new genes on multiple chromosomes and would have to be done in such a way as to not break the functionality of the other genes which are needed.

So, one in x*10^{85} where x is the number of genes involved, I think, times whatever probability can be attributed to the other factors.

@RichardG

I was not aware that this had been achieved in part let alone accurately enough to pinpoint exactly which strings are used to form feathers.

There are a number of structures in animals for which it is known that there are multiple genes on different chromosomes because some of the genes involved have been found but they don’t explain the whole structure. It’s a matter of “We know this gene and this other gene play a part, but they don’t give us the while thing so there is at least one more gene involved”. In the case of feathers, I suspect we know some of the genes because we’ve found genes that code for some of the proteins in parts of the feathers, but know that those aren’t enough to produce complete feathers (let alone have them come out in the right places and arrangements).

@RichardG

If there are more than one strands involved. would that me that to get to the feather there would have to be multiple correct deviations?

Yes – and perhaps in the right order.

@RichardG

And if so would they occur all at once or would it mean carrying several inert strands until the last correct one is finished?

They may or may not be “inert” in the meantime. In fossils there are examples of single filaments, which is presumably how feathers began; of single filaments that divide into multiple filaments; of filaments off of which multiple smaller filaments branch, and others up to “complete” feathers. Presumably this shows how places on the integument of creatures ended up having feathers, in stages.
Whether two or more mutations have to occur at the same time isn’t possible to know, but mathematically speaking that is so improbable that the universe is hardly old enough for it to have happened – a two-at-once might possibly perhaps have happened, but beyond that it’s essentially impossible.
But the odds of a given set of mutations occurring twice in different lineages is already so unlikely that “astronomical” is an insufficient description to express the unlikelihood – maybe “cosmologically” would suffice.

[Bill_II]

@RichardG

If there are more than one strands involved. would that me that to get to the feather there would have to be multiple correct deviations?

The end result would require multiple genetic changes. Not all of which have to be mutations. Some might result from the normal changes in gene combinations that result from reproduction. Think children that resemble their parents but aren’t an exact copy.

@RichardG

And if so would they occur all at once or would it mean carrying several inert strands until the last correct one is finished?

No, earlier changes might have resulted in some other function that turned out to be useful. Some changes actually might not be useful, but if they are not too negative natural selection allows them to remain in the population.

[RichardG (Richard Gillett)]

@St.Roymond

The issue is that you assert that there are principles where there are none

Hmm…

That is a rather bold assertion. no principle involved. That would equate to random being no discernable pattern

@St.Roymond

so the only possible “put[tin] into words” is “There is no such principle” or “It doesn’t work that way”

What a wonderful rabbit hole. You cannot see it so it does not (cannot) exist.

@St.Roymond

And that boils down to the obvious fact that you do not understand the basics of ToE nor understand basic mathematics

Another bold assertion. Based on the principle that you are always right. And it is impossible for anyone to view it in another way. (Not using the principles of science)

@St.Roymond

Some of the principles are

And you quote several things that you claim to understand fullt but are unable to describe outside "examples, or scientific jargon. And you are unable to draw comparisons outside of them. Per haps .like the Trinity, there is no valid one?
And if someone sees one they must be wrong? because you cannot see it (understand it) or refuse to accept it.

Hmm.

I see.

(But not what you want me to see).

But the net result is that talking about it is a waste of both our time.

Richard

Edit.

If these processes are indeed from God and do not have principles then

God is unprincipled

[cosmicscotus]

We should be aware the biblical picture of God in Genesis who imposes suffering on Creation because of human sinfulness is not much better than the idea of a freely evolving process. Let’s face it God has created lions has not it always been the fact they are created as killers? The whole intricacies of the web of species inter-relatedness with death as a component part of life on earth has always been present one way or another.

I am a fan of Jurgen Moltmann and one of his emphasis that the death of Jesus on the Cross is Jesus suffering and dying with all of evolved nature. God in solidarity with every suffering thing. But likewise the Resurrection of Jesus is not only good news for humans. The New Heavens and Earth are symbols of a new life for all of life. In one way or another all is gathered up, all the past suffering is Redeemed and paid for and transformed.

An evolved world that is suffering also in God’s plan is something temporary to be transformed.

[paleomalacologist (David Campbell)]

The first DNA sequencing techniques were developed in the 1970’s, and became much more practical in the 1980’s with the development of DNA copying. Major technological advances now make it feasible to sequence an entire genome, if you have the funds. Figuring out exactly what any particular gene does is actually the more challenging part with modern technology.

We do have abundant evidence that vertebrate wings are modified limbs, though modified in different ways in pterosaurs, birds, and bats. Gliding “wings” add more variety to the ways in which adjustments to forearms have enabled motion in the air. The wings anatomically have bones and muscles corresponding to other vertebrate limbs, and the genetic coding also corresponds. Birds and pterosaurs also started with the advantage of an extensive, efficient respiratory system that contributed to low weight (hollow bones with air sacs in them, etc.) and to getting plenty of oxygen to power flying.

[St.Roymond]

@paleomalacologist

Figuring out exactly what any particular gene does is actually the more challenging part with modern technology.

Especially when, as has been found on occasion, a given gene does more than one thing.

[RichardG (Richard Gillett)]

@paleomalacologist

Birds and pterosaurs also started with the advantage of an extensive, efficient respiratory system that contributed to low weight (hollow bones with air sacs in them, etc.) and to getting plenty of oxygen to power flying.

Is there any evidence that pterosaurs (or their descendants) could produce feathers? Or are we looking at parallel evolution?

One of the objections to any predecessor of birds is the number of elements (complexity) needed to make u a bird. Efficient breathing is only one, although you seem to suggest that pterosaurs also had hollow bones. (I fail to see the connection or reason / benefit for a land animal though) Assuming they are honeycomb and nit just hollow.
You also need feathers (of course) then the wings themselves, (not found in that form anywhere else) and the strong enlarged sternum and ancillary muscles… Beaks appear to be a feature of birds but I cannot think why they would be?

I will always contest that feathers are a valid asset to land creatures and not a prerequisite for avian flight. The feather has too many unique propertied to be an “accident” or just a pretty accessory for display.

Richard

[Bill_II]

@RichardG

I will always contest that feathers are a valid asset to land creatures and not a prerequisite for avian flight.

They work pretty well for insulation. See penguins, a flightless bird.

[rsewell (RON SEWELL)]

@RichardG

I will always contest that feathers are a valid asset to land creatures and not a prerequisite for avian flight.

My down jacket is an asset and I’m a land creature.

[T_aquaticus]

@RichardG

So you just trot out an assertion that has no foundation other than it must happen for ToE to work.

We have the fossil evidence.

@RichardG

this diagram includes an “insertion” which would appear to be a completely new but incomplete pairing. How does that work? How can Nature suddenly, for no apparent reason just Insert a new molecule from somewhere? (And it not be a complete pair yet still work)

Many different mechanisms are known to cause insertions and deletions, but if I tried to explain them you would accuse me of showing off.

@RichardG

One minute yo are talking straight Mendelian inheritance, although a little more complex that the examples used to teach it,and the next you start claiming that the Genome can “invent” things.

I am claiming that mutations are observed to happen all of the time, and we know the mechanisms that cause them. I never said anything about inventions.

@RichardG

If Nature can “invent” new pairings can it also invent a molecule that would not have been in the genome set before? If so then any logical restriction for what could be produced due to the heritage or diversification of the Genome goes out the window. There would be no goo reason why a Mammal could not grow a feather.

I already gave you that logic.

I am saying that the effect of any given mutation in any given genome is going to depend on the interaction of the new mutation with the rest of the genome. As genomes accumulate mutations those interactions will change. At any point there could be many pathways that could occur, but not all pathways because some of those pathways require many different mutations that may not be present.

@RichardG

No wonder there are cancers or other defects. It would basically mean that the cancer is already present from the moment that egg was fertilised, it just depend on when it gets manifested, The "“Insertions” if “random” are more likely to be invasive or damaging than they are to be compatible. In terms of logic (not science) what you are claiming defies any sort of probability figure in terms of the use or viability of a DNA pairing

Cancers are understood to be caused by mutations. If a child is born with a mutation that causes cancer then chances are they won’t have children of their own and pass that mutation along, at least prior to modern medicine. This is natural selection where deleterious mutations are selected against.

Mutations continue to happen in all of your cells, so as they divide they will accumulate mutations. This can also lead to cancer. Some people have mutations in a gene family called BRCA. These genes products are responsible for fixing many of the mutations that occur, but they don’t get all of them. Mutations in these genes can result in a reduction in DNA repair which increases the number of mutations that happen with each cell division. This is thought to be the cause of women getting breast cancer at relatively young ages.

@RichardG

IOW Science can invent its own “rules” of reality to make things work.

What rules have been invented?

@RichardG

A preset code would be that a specific string = a specific feature or trait.

That’s not the case. There are many, many, many examples of different DNA sequences resulting in the same function.

@RichardG

In computers, a “plug and play” module is a piece of hardware that is automatically compatible with the base computer, an optional add on, that does not need any extra coding to work, it come with software that just fits into the original programing. eg, a printer, or a mouse, or a video card, or a sound card. They were not in the computer when purchased but can be added without any technical knowledge or assistance from the user. The computer automatically know how to use it.

I understand what a plug and play system is. What I am asking is how you think it applies to genomes.

@RichardG

So in terms of DNA it would be that a specific string (combination of pairings will automatically produce a heart, or a femur, or a blood cell, and it would automatically be compatible with the original creature’s make up. Or, if you think of a heart transplant, the new heart and the old heart have the same DNA coding.(And that is not how transplants work because you are not growing the new heart from scratch)

The closest answer is “it depends”. Some sequences are transferrable and some are not. It depends on the genetic background that you are putting the genes into.

@RichardG

The net result is that only scientists can argue scientific theories because only scientists understand what they are talking about. (Brilliant) And even someone who has learned science and understood it becomes like a computer programmer who can only work in DOS. Out of touch and therefore clueless

Non-scientists can learn about the science, too. There’s nothing stopping them.

[RichardG (Richard Gillett)]

@Bill_II

@RichardG

I will always contest that feathers are a valid asset to land creatures and not a prerequisite for avian flight.

They work pretty well for insulation. See penguins, a flightless bird

That is not the point. Regardless of any supplementary benefit or usage, in terms of “design” their primary function is to enable feathered flight. There are numerous ways to insulate, or colourise, (display)
And flightless birds are supposedly further up the evolutionary line, not at the bottom.

IOW you are claiming that the flight characteristics are just a fluke. A happenstance that enabled the whole avian realm

Richard

[Bill_II]

@RichardG

That is not the point. Regardless of any supplementary benefit or usage, in terms of “design” their primary function is to enable feathered flight.

Birds have some feathers that only function as insulation. Some that function as insulation and flight. And others that are flight only. So why would you say their “primary” function is flight? They weren’t designed for flight. They just ended up being used for flight. Bats use their skin for flight. So is the primary function of skin for flight?

[RichardG (Richard Gillett)]

@Bill_II

Birds have some feathers that

I can see that I am wasting my time here. Downy feathers have different structures to flight feathers. Bat wings are crude in comparison.

I guess if you either can’t or don’t want to see the specialisation of feathers in terms of flight, there is nothing I can say.

Then again, if humanity is basically a cosmic fluke, so would everything else be. If you cannot “see God” in such things then you never will. That’s the beauty of God: if you do not want to see Him, or see a need to identify Him, you can live quite happily oblivious or disbelieving.

Richard

[St.Roymond]

@RichardG

IOW you are claiming that the flight characteristics are just a fluke.

No, he’s saying that proto-feathers happened to do two things: they improved insulation and enhanced jumping ability; then as they developed they improved insulation more and provided gliding ability; then as they continued to develop they further improved insulation, increased gliding ability, and became able to shed water; then as they continued to develop they continued to provide insulation and to shed water while contributing to the ability to fly. At the same time the limbs that eventually became wings changed more from being front limbs to being wings; also at the same time feathers specialized for body covering, wings, tail, and mating display.
Additionally along the way there were certainly detrimental mutations we don’t know about because they didn’t get passed on.

BTW, I came up with a way to illustrate mutations and natural selection using LEGO bricks, but I’m not going to try to describe it – too wordy.

[St.Roymond]

@Bill_II

Birds have some feathers that only function as insulation. Some that function as insulation and flight. And others that are flight only.

A Fiddler on the Roof song line popped into my head: “one more going nowhere just for show”. Some feathers are just for show in some species.

@Bill_II

So why would you say their “primary” function is flight?

More feathers function as body covering than for wings, which would make body covering their primary function, for both insulation and water-shedding.