Creationism, Evolution, and Orthodoxy

[TheJackel]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v8nYTJf62sE&feature=related

So the painting doesn't need a painter just because the paints themselves are chemicals? Uhh sorry but for there to actually be a painting the artist must put into motion the paints to create the artwork. That's a horrible rebuttal to the likes of Kirk Cameron.

Uhh did you even watch that video? Your response here tells me that you are entirely clueless as to what they said..And considering Kirk Cameran's argument,  GOD exists but since GOD exists that GOD couldn't Exist without a GOD! Oh wait..They don't want to apply that circular logic to themselves.. However this has to do with the painting can't replicate itself or paint itself because it can't. It's chemical properties as is can not replicate itself.  It's not the same when dealing with self-replicating molecules such as RNA. BTW Energy itself is self-oscillating. AKA no deity required.. Do try harder..

 

[Ortho_cat]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v8nYTJf62sE&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3OwSARYTK7w&feature=related
http://exploringorigins.org/

these are good too for simplicity of explanation.

fyi, we're supposed to give a brief description of the links we post (i.e. naked links aren't allowed)

 

[Opus118]

I didn't understand your statement about erroneous assumptions.

Erroneous assumptions have to do with people specifying a time frame limits on evolution. :/

And yes, they are looking for RNA precursors, or first replicators when it comes to abiogenisis. (something simpler.) Hard to do though.. Especially since we are in an already well established ecological system, and one that has changes so drastically since Early Earth's days when life didn't yet exist on Earth. It's not as easy to solve such a thing by reverse investigation.. And 150 years has brought us to the point of synthetic life. And no, abiogenesis hasn't been completely solved yet, there are a lot of areas in that to which require a lot more research to do. The links on abiogenesis where to give you some insight into the field. There is a lot to learn yet, but I doubt it will take another 150 years in the field to figure it out. And I don't have 6 + years here to provide you with a "Dearth" amount of data on abiogenesis. That is something you would have to go into the field for. I more specifically deal with evolution, information theory, and how chaotic systems lead to complex. Those are the things I am currently in school for

Anyways this is a pretty good basic video when dealing with the basics of RNA and Abiogenesis:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XhWds7djuWo

I posted some information here dealing with deep sea vents and volcanic amino acids, and amino acids dealing with water and oil. But keep in mind that in abiogenesis, the exact sequence of events are unknown to which lead to life..(but this doesn't mean we don't know of possible sequence of events).. We only need to prove it can happen.

Hi Jackel,
Again, sorry for not being knowledgeable enough to quote specific passages of what you wrote.Your reply is reasoned. In regard to what I do not know, you only need to cover the last five years of research in the field (that is when I stopped perusing the Springer journal "Origins of Life and Evolution of Biospheres". I did read "Generation of Long RNA Chains in Water", http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19801553, in pre-publication form because I personally know the principal investigator (see the Yarus article cited above for its significance), so you needn't cover that. {yes it is a joke, I really do not need to be informed about the field since I am interested in it} 

I did quickly look at your link, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XhWds7djuWo, but as a scientist you would naturally first think of what is wrong with it. You tend to present your self as a non critical thinker in this thread (I do not read your other posts since the style of writing reminds me of purposeful obscurity in the writings of Michel Foucault (and other structuralists: it is ponderous for no purpose). This is what I saw/thought as I watched the youtube video. There was a nice cartoon of replicating RNA (well done by the way). My thoughts were how does a dsRNA melt so that it can be replicated again. The Tm (melting temperature) of dsRNA is much higher than dsDNA (in water, no salts, up to 110 degC depending on the GC content. Early on this is not a problem because of the fidelity of replication is low, but it becomes a problem later on. How does one melt dsRNA without an ATPase motor driven helicase? Could one screen for a SELEX-derived ribozyme capable of doing this without some simple strand displacement mechanism (based on complementarity which would not be universally relevant)?  I have some ideas on this based on a sequential selective screen prior to amplification. I guess my main point is that if you are going to be a successful scientist, you first thoughts have to start with what is wrong with what is being presented to you, what are the possible experiments that might resolve the problem(s), what is likely best approach in terms of success, current personnel, time frame, cost, and  how to convince funding agencies that it is important.

Hopefully your idealistic frame of mind (and there is nothing wrong with that at this stage) will mature as you proceed into a career in science.

I was wrong in thinking the Yarus article was from the Cold Spring Harbor Symposium on Evolution, it is from a yet to be published Cold Spring Harbor book titled RNA Worlds. Here is a short quote from Gerald Joyce (a preeminent researcher in the field) from the same book (The Origins of the RNA World; http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20739415) which more closely reflects the spirit of the thoughts I was trying to impart:

Another Chicken-and-Egg Paradox

The previous discussion has tried mightily to present the most optimistic view possible for the emergence of an RNA replicase ribozyme from a soup of random-sequence polynucleotides. It must be admitted, however, that this model does not appear to be very plausible. The discussion has focused on a straw man: The myth of a small RNA molecule that arises de novo and can replicate efficiently and with high fidelity under plausible prebiotic conditions. Not only is such a notion unrealistic in light of current understanding of prebiotic chemistry (Joyce 2002), but it should strain the credulity of even an optimist’s view of RNA’s catalytic potential. If you doubt this, ask yourself whether you believe that a replicase ribozyme would arise in a solution containing nucleoside 5'-diphosphates and
polynucleotide phosphorylase! If one accepts the notion of an RNA World, one is faced with the dilemma of how such a genetic system came into existence. To say that the RNA World hypothesis “solves the paradox of the chicken-and-the-egg” is correct if one means that RNA can function both as a genetic molecule and as a catalyst that promotes its own replication. RNA catalyzed RNA replication provides a chemical basis for Darwinian evolution  based on natural selection. Darwinian evolution is a powerful way to search among vast numbers of potential solutions for those that best address a
particular problem. Selection based on inefficient RNA replication, for example, could be used to search among a population of RNA molecules for those individuals that promote improved RNA replication. But here one encounters another chicken-and-egg paradox: Without evolution it appears unlikely that a self-replicating ribozyme could arise, but without some form of self-replication there is no way to conduct an evolutionary search for the first, primitive self-replicating ribozyme.


I am pretty sure, however, any principal investigator would love to have a postdoc that can make cogent arguments against anything they have written (I certainly would).

Best of luck.

 

[Achronos]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v8nYTJf62sE&feature=related

So the painting doesn't need a painter just because the paints themselves are chemicals? Uhh sorry but for there to actually be a painting the artist must put into motion the paints to create the artwork. That's a horrible rebuttal to the likes of Kirk Cameron.

Uhh did you even watch that video? Your response here tells me that you are entirely clueless as to what they said..And considering Kirk Cameran's argument,  GOD exists but since GOD exists that GOD couldn't Exist without a GOD! Oh wait..They don't want to apply that circular logic to themselves.. However this has to do with the painting can't replicate itself or paint itself because it can't. It's chemical properties as is can not replicate itself.  It's not the same when dealing with self-replicating molecules such as RNA. BTW Energy itself is self-oscillating. AKA no deity required.. Do try harder..

I really don't care about Kirk Cameron's argument, but as soon as the guy in the video gave that awful rebuttal I couldn't watch it anymore. It was a joke. And you completely missed what I said about the paints making the painting...

 

[Jonathan Gress]

the Fathers are crystal clear that Adam had no parents, that He came directly from the hands of God, and that Eve came directly from Adam.

Too bad that biochemistry and genetics kills that entire assumption. Probably why the Fathers are completely ignorant of evolution, or why you have creationists that continuously make fools of themselves. :/

Biochemistry and genetics don't tell you how life was first created, including human life, that's for sure. That is a matter for revelation (and note that even in Scripture most details remain obscure). But they do tell you life was created, and didn't evolve spontaneously out of inanimate matter. This is because we do not observe the genetic code gaining in complexity and information through random mutation, but rather we only see the re-assortment or loss of information and complexity already present. This, of course, is entirely consistent with the Generalized Second Law of Thermodynamics, which states that the information conveyed by an information-communicating system will end more distorted and less complete over time, if left to itself. Evolutionary theory, on the other hand, is not consistent with this fundamental law of physics. See the excellent treatment by Timothy Wallace on thermodynamics, and Lee Spetner on the kinds of mutation and selection actually observed, versus the kinds required by Darwinian theory to explain the origin of all species.

http://www.trueorigin.org/steiger.asp (Wallace)

http://www.trueorigin.org/spetner1.asp (Spetner, in correspondence with evolutionist Edward Max)

 

[Dimitrios-Georgios]

the Fathers are crystal clear that Adam had no parents, that He came directly from the hands of God, and that Eve came directly from Adam.

Too bad that biochemistry and genetics kills that entire assumption. Probably why the Fathers are completely ignorant of evolution, or why you have creationists that continuously make fools of themselves. :/

Biochemistry and genetics don't tell you how life was first created, including human life, that's for sure. That is a matter for revelation (and note that even in Scripture most details remain obscure). But they do tell you life was created, and didn't evolve spontaneously out of inanimate matter. This is because we do not observe the genetic code gaining in complexity and information through random mutation, but rather we only see the re-assortment or loss of information and complexity already present. This, of course, is entirely consistent with the Generalized Second Law of Thermodynamics, which states that the information conveyed by an information-communicating system will end more distorted and less complete over time, if left to itself. Evolutionary theory, on the other hand, is not consistent with this fundamental law of physics. See the excellent treatment by Timothy Wallace on thermodynamics, and Lee Spetner on the kinds of mutation and selection actually observed, versus the kinds required by Darwinian theory to explain the origin of all species.

http://www.trueorigin.org/steiger.asp (Wallace)

http://www.trueorigin.org/spetner1.asp (Spetner, in correspondence with evolutionist Edward Max)

Nobody said that Evolution is flawless. Like every other scientific principle, it may become obsolete one day or replaced by something else, like everything in the science world can, like gravity for example. But until then, do you have a better SCIENTIFIC theory, that is based on observable facts to replace evolution with?

 

[jckstraw72]

the Fathers are crystal clear that Adam had no parents, that He came directly from the hands of God, and that Eve came directly from Adam.

Too bad that biochemistry and genetics kills that entire assumption. Probably why the Fathers are completely ignorant of evolution, or why you have creationists that continuously make fools of themselves. :/

Biochemistry and genetics don't tell you how life was first created, including human life, that's for sure. That is a matter for revelation (and note that even in Scripture most details remain obscure). But they do tell you life was created, and didn't evolve spontaneously out of inanimate matter. This is because we do not observe the genetic code gaining in complexity and information through random mutation, but rather we only see the re-assortment or loss of information and complexity already present. This, of course, is entirely consistent with the Generalized Second Law of Thermodynamics, which states that the information conveyed by an information-communicating system will end more distorted and less complete over time, if left to itself. Evolutionary theory, on the other hand, is not consistent with this fundamental law of physics. See the excellent treatment by Timothy Wallace on thermodynamics, and Lee Spetner on the kinds of mutation and selection actually observed, versus the kinds required by Darwinian theory to explain the origin of all species.

http://www.trueorigin.org/steiger.asp (Wallace)

http://www.trueorigin.org/spetner1.asp (Spetner, in correspondence with evolutionist Edward Max)

Nobody said that Evolution is flawless. Like every other scientific principle, it may become obsolete one day or replaced by something else, like everything in the science world can, like gravity for example. But until then, do you have a better SCIENTIFIC theory, that is based on observable facts to replace evolution with?

just curious -- if evolution isnt flawless, and it may become obsolete, why are Creationists so derided and disdained? why must i replace it with a scientific theory rather than revelation about origins? revelation is not open to becoming obsolete ...

 

[jckstraw72]

whoops

 

[jckstraw72]

double whoops

 

[minasoliman]

just curious -- if evolution isnt flawless, and it may become obsolete, why are Creationists so derided and disdained? why must i replace it with a scientific theory rather than revelation about origins? revelation is not open to becoming obsolete ...

There's many reasons for this, but one big reason is that creationism doesn't follow the scientific method.  The only way creationism wishes to uphold its teachings is by disproving evolution.  Disproving something has been the cornerstone of science, but it tries to disprove something in order to actually understand if it is the truth or not.  Science cannot "prove" anything.

So for years, it has indeed disproved creationism very effectively, but unable to disprove evolution.  Evolution has withstood the test of time and research.  So the methods that we use allow evolution to be falsifiable.  But creationists never believe their beliefs are falsifiable.  Therefore, it's incompatible with science to begin with.

 

[minasoliman]

the Fathers are crystal clear that Adam had no parents, that He came directly from the hands of God, and that Eve came directly from Adam.

Too bad that biochemistry and genetics kills that entire assumption. Probably why the Fathers are completely ignorant of evolution, or why you have creationists that continuously make fools of themselves. :/

Biochemistry and genetics don't tell you how life was first created, including human life, that's for sure. That is a matter for revelation (and note that even in Scripture most details remain obscure). But they do tell you life was created, and didn't evolve spontaneously out of inanimate matter. This is because we do not observe the genetic code gaining in complexity and information through random mutation, but rather we only see the re-assortment or loss of information and complexity already present. This, of course, is entirely consistent with the Generalized Second Law of Thermodynamics, which states that the information conveyed by an information-communicating system will end more distorted and less complete over time, if left to itself. Evolutionary theory, on the other hand, is not consistent with this fundamental law of physics. See the excellent treatment by Timothy Wallace on thermodynamics, and Lee Spetner on the kinds of mutation and selection actually observed, versus the kinds required by Darwinian theory to explain the origin of all species.

http://www.trueorigin.org/steiger.asp (Wallace)

http://www.trueorigin.org/spetner1.asp (Spetner, in correspondence with evolutionist Edward Max)

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/thermo.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html#thermo

We receive energy from the sun.  So the earth is an open system in terms of energy, and thus it's possible for life to evolve and grow.

If you have to argue the second law of thermodynamics disproves evolution, it also disproves that you are actually born, grow, reproduce, etc.  But since we don't live in an closed system in terms of energy, we then are able to add more energy into the system to avoid entropy.  We will always break down naturally unless we add something into us to keep us together, and if there's surplus, to build more of us.  If you have no food, you will die.  All living things will die.  (biological translation of the second law).  To avoid death at the moment, we need energy, in the form of nutrients, but we still live in a body that is prone to death, just as we live in a nature prone to entropy.

All one needs to do is research, to show that gene duplication, mutations, etc. all don't lead to what we have, but in fact, the research has been done, and it showed that there exists gene duplications and gradual mutations of these duplications do sometimes lead to very different products in living systems.  So we know for a fact, duplications and mutations of these duplications occur in nature.  Humanity is mutated all the time.  Most of the mutations in the human genome occur in "silent" DNA, which makes sense because most of our DNA is "silent."

 

[jckstraw72]

just curious -- if evolution isnt flawless, and it may become obsolete, why are Creationists so derided and disdained? why must i replace it with a scientific theory rather than revelation about origins? revelation is not open to becoming obsolete ...

There's many reasons for this, but one big reason is that creationism doesn't follow the scientific method.  The only way creationism wishes to uphold its teachings is by disproving evolution.  Disproving something has been the cornerstone of science, but it tries to disprove something in order to actually understand if it is the truth or not.  Science cannot "prove" anything.

So for years, it has indeed disproved creationism very effectively, but unable to disprove evolution.  Evolution has withstood the test of time and research.  So the methods that we use allow evolution to be falsifiable.  But creationists never believe their beliefs are falsifiable.  Therefore, it's incompatible with science to begin with.

im talking about Creationism in terms of the Patristic teaching. i could care less about Creationism science. i fail to see why i need a scientific theory to explain origins ... since when is God subjected to science?

 

[Jonathan Gress]

the Fathers are crystal clear that Adam had no parents, that He came directly from the hands of God, and that Eve came directly from Adam.

Too bad that biochemistry and genetics kills that entire assumption. Probably why the Fathers are completely ignorant of evolution, or why you have creationists that continuously make fools of themselves. :/

Biochemistry and genetics don't tell you how life was first created, including human life, that's for sure. That is a matter for revelation (and note that even in Scripture most details remain obscure). But they do tell you life was created, and didn't evolve spontaneously out of inanimate matter. This is because we do not observe the genetic code gaining in complexity and information through random mutation, but rather we only see the re-assortment or loss of information and complexity already present. This, of course, is entirely consistent with the Generalized Second Law of Thermodynamics, which states that the information conveyed by an information-communicating system will end more distorted and less complete over time, if left to itself. Evolutionary theory, on the other hand, is not consistent with this fundamental law of physics. See the excellent treatment by Timothy Wallace on thermodynamics, and Lee Spetner on the kinds of mutation and selection actually observed, versus the kinds required by Darwinian theory to explain the origin of all species.

http://www.trueorigin.org/steiger.asp (Wallace)

http://www.trueorigin.org/spetner1.asp (Spetner, in correspondence with evolutionist Edward Max)

Nobody said that Evolution is flawless. Like every other scientific principle, it may become obsolete one day or replaced by something else, like everything in the science world can, like gravity for example. But until then, do you have a better SCIENTIFIC theory, that is based on observable facts to replace evolution with?

I do not propose any alternative scientific theory to explain the origin of species. Creationism is simply the acknowledgment that science cannot reveal to us the mechanism by which the present order in the Universe was created. Evolutionism would suffice as a theory, provided we could observe natural systems spontaneously increase in organization and informational complexity. We do not observe such increase, however, but only gradual decrease in complexity and organization. Therefore, evolutionary theory contradicts the known laws of physics, as well as the Word of God.

We don't HAVE to have a theory for everything. On the contrary, we have to be prepared to acknowledge the limits of what we can discover about the universe and its origins.

 

[jckstraw72]

the Fathers are crystal clear that Adam had no parents, that He came directly from the hands of God, and that Eve came directly from Adam.

Too bad that biochemistry and genetics kills that entire assumption. Probably why the Fathers are completely ignorant of evolution, or why you have creationists that continuously make fools of themselves. :/

Biochemistry and genetics don't tell you how life was first created, including human life, that's for sure. That is a matter for revelation (and note that even in Scripture most details remain obscure). But they do tell you life was created, and didn't evolve spontaneously out of inanimate matter. This is because we do not observe the genetic code gaining in complexity and information through random mutation, but rather we only see the re-assortment or loss of information and complexity already present. This, of course, is entirely consistent with the Generalized Second Law of Thermodynamics, which states that the information conveyed by an information-communicating system will end more distorted and less complete over time, if left to itself. Evolutionary theory, on the other hand, is not consistent with this fundamental law of physics. See the excellent treatment by Timothy Wallace on thermodynamics, and Lee Spetner on the kinds of mutation and selection actually observed, versus the kinds required by Darwinian theory to explain the origin of all species.

http://www.trueorigin.org/steiger.asp (Wallace)

http://www.trueorigin.org/spetner1.asp (Spetner, in correspondence with evolutionist Edward Max)

Nobody said that Evolution is flawless. Like every other scientific principle, it may become obsolete one day or replaced by something else, like everything in the science world can, like gravity for example. But until then, do you have a better SCIENTIFIC theory, that is based on observable facts to replace evolution with?

I do not propose any alternative scientific theory to explain the origin of species. Creationism is simply the acknowledgment that science cannot reveal to us the mechanism by which the present order in the Universe was created. Evolutionism would suffice as a theory, provided we could observe natural systems spontaneously increase in organization and informational complexity. We do not observe such increase, however, but only gradual decrease in complexity and organization. Therefore, evolutionary theory contradicts the known laws of physics, as well as the Word of God.

We don't HAVE to have a theory for everything. On the contrary, we have to be prepared to acknowledge the limits of what we can discover about the universe and its origins.

booyah! great post!

 

[Jonathan Gress]

the Fathers are crystal clear that Adam had no parents, that He came directly from the hands of God, and that Eve came directly from Adam.

Too bad that biochemistry and genetics kills that entire assumption. Probably why the Fathers are completely ignorant of evolution, or why you have creationists that continuously make fools of themselves. :/

Biochemistry and genetics don't tell you how life was first created, including human life, that's for sure. That is a matter for revelation (and note that even in Scripture most details remain obscure). But they do tell you life was created, and didn't evolve spontaneously out of inanimate matter. This is because we do not observe the genetic code gaining in complexity and information through random mutation, but rather we only see the re-assortment or loss of information and complexity already present. This, of course, is entirely consistent with the Generalized Second Law of Thermodynamics, which states that the information conveyed by an information-communicating system will end more distorted and less complete over time, if left to itself. Evolutionary theory, on the other hand, is not consistent with this fundamental law of physics. See the excellent treatment by Timothy Wallace on thermodynamics, and Lee Spetner on the kinds of mutation and selection actually observed, versus the kinds required by Darwinian theory to explain the origin of all species.

http://www.trueorigin.org/steiger.asp (Wallace)

http://www.trueorigin.org/spetner1.asp (Spetner, in correspondence with evolutionist Edward Max)

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/thermo.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html#thermo

We receive energy from the sun.  So the earth is an open system in terms of energy, and thus it's possible for life to evolve and grow.

If you have to argue the second law of thermodynamics disproves evolution, it also disproves that you are actually born, grow, reproduce, etc.  But since we don't live in an closed system in terms of energy, we then are able to add more energy into the system to avoid entropy.  We will always break down naturally unless we add something into us to keep us together, and if there's surplus, to build more of us.  If you have no food, you will die.  All living things will die.  (biological translation of the second law).  To avoid death at the moment, we need energy, in the form of nutrients, but we still live in a body that is prone to death, just as we live in a nature prone to entropy.

All one needs to do is research, to show that gene duplication, mutations, etc. all don't lead to what we have, but in fact, the research has been done, and it showed that there exists gene duplications and gradual mutations of these duplications do sometimes lead to very different products in living systems.  So we know for a fact, duplications and mutations of these duplications occur in nature.  Humanity is mutated all the time.  Most of the mutations in the human genome occur in "silent" DNA, which makes sense because most of our DNA is "silent."

Actually, an open system is not sufficient for spontaneous increase in organizational complexity. You also need a program to direct the increase in complexity, and a mechanism for storing and converting the incoming energy:

“...there are no known violations of the second law of thermodynamics.  Ordinarily the second law is stated for isolated [closed] systems, but the second law applies equally well to open systems ... there is somehow associated with the field of far-from equilibrium phenomena the notion that the second law of thermodynamics fails for such systems.  It is important to make sure that this error does not perpetuate itself.”
[Dr. John Ross, Harvard scientist (evolutionist), Chemical and Engineering News, vol. 58, July 7, 1980, p. 40]

Living organisms already have the energy conversion mechanisms in place, so they can take advantage of the sun's energy to grow and reproduce. Non-living things do not have such a mechanism, and therefore we do not observe them growing and reproducing.

Gene duplication and mutations occur, but none of them result in the addition of new information to the biocosm (the sum of all genetic information in the world). Observed changes involve either re-arrangement of the genetic information already present, or else the loss of such information. This includes the "evolution" of antibiotic resistance in bacteria, which takes place either by lateral transfer of genes (re-arrangement), or else some kind of degradation of the genes that happens to be beneficial in that environment, such as loss of some structural feature that the antibiotic must attach to in order to work. In other words, change does occur, but not the kind of change needed for Darwinian theory to work.

 

[Ortho_cat]

i fail to see why i need a scientific theory to explain origins ...

Well, you probably don't, for the moment. At least until you need to benefit from it (antibiotics anyone?)

 

[minasoliman]

just curious -- if evolution isnt flawless, and it may become obsolete, why are Creationists so derided and disdained? why must i replace it with a scientific theory rather than revelation about origins? revelation is not open to becoming obsolete ...

There's many reasons for this, but one big reason is that creationism doesn't follow the scientific method.  The only way creationism wishes to uphold its teachings is by disproving evolution.  Disproving something has been the cornerstone of science, but it tries to disprove something in order to actually understand if it is the truth or not.  Science cannot "prove" anything.

So for years, it has indeed disproved creationism very effectively, but unable to disprove evolution.  Evolution has withstood the test of time and research.  So the methods that we use allow evolution to be falsifiable.  But creationists never believe their beliefs are falsifiable.  Therefore, it's incompatible with science to begin with.

im talking about Creationism in terms of the Patristic teaching. i could care less about Creationism science. i fail to see why i need a scientific theory to explain origins ... since when is God subjected to science?

Religion has no place in science.  I'm talking about science here.  We've already addressed patristics, and we'll agree to disagree, but if you have something scientific to add, then by all means, I'd be most edified.

 

[minasoliman]

Actually, an open system is not sufficient for spontaneous increase in organizational complexity. You also need a program to direct the increase in complexity, and a mechanism for storing and converting the incoming energy:

“...there are no known violations of the second law of thermodynamics.  Ordinarily the second law is stated for isolated [closed] systems, but the second law applies equally well to open systems ... there is somehow associated with the field of far-from equilibrium phenomena the notion that the second law of thermodynamics fails for such systems.  It is important to make sure that this error does not perpetuate itself.”
[Dr. John Ross, Harvard scientist (evolutionist), Chemical and Engineering News, vol. 58, July 7, 1980, p. 40]

Living organisms already have the energy conversion mechanisms in place, so they can take advantage of the sun's energy to grow and reproduce. Non-living things do not have such a mechanism, and therefore we do not observe them growing and reproducing.

Gene duplication and mutations occur, but none of them result in the addition of new information to the biocosm (the sum of all genetic information in the world). Observed changes involve either re-arrangement of the genetic information already present, or else the loss of such information. This includes the "evolution" of antibiotic resistance in bacteria, which takes place either by lateral transfer of genes (re-arrangement), or else some kind of degradation of the genes that happens to be beneficial in that environment, such as loss of some structural feature that the antibiotic must attach to in order to work. In other words, change does occur, but not the kind of change needed for Darwinian theory to work.

Why do you continually argue against abiogenesis?  You haven't disproved evolution at all here.  But just to entertain the idea I bolded from you, non-living things do change over time.  Rocks change (albeit very slowly).  They do however change very quickly if the environment around it is unforgiving.  When chemicals work together in harmony, things start to change and happen, and change and chemistry is the central idea of life.  If you take biochemistry, you understand that the basis of our life throughout all our body is all simply and basic chemistry.

And yes, it has been observed that duplication and mutations have occurred to lead to the information we have now.

http://www.evolutionfaq.com/faq/how-does-evolution-cause-increases-genetic-information-required-go-single-celled-life-complex-an

John Ross isn't wrong.  Nothing escapes entropy, overall.  But because sunlight is thrown at us (or any other things thrown at us), we avoid entropy.

Forget about evolution right now.  How does growth, life, and reproduction occur without violating the second law of thermodynamics?

 

[Iconodule]

just curious -- if evolution isnt flawless, and it may become obsolete, why are Creationists so derided and disdained? why must i replace it with a scientific theory rather than revelation about origins? revelation is not open to becoming obsolete ...

There's many reasons for this, but one big reason is that creationism doesn't follow the scientific method.  The only way creationism wishes to uphold its teachings is by disproving evolution.  Disproving something has been the cornerstone of science, but it tries to disprove something in order to actually understand if it is the truth or not.  Science cannot "prove" anything.

So for years, it has indeed disproved creationism very effectively, but unable to disprove evolution.  Evolution has withstood the test of time and research.  So the methods that we use allow evolution to be falsifiable.  But creationists never believe their beliefs are falsifiable.  Therefore, it's incompatible with science to begin with.

im talking about Creationism in terms of the Patristic teaching. i could care less about Creationism science. i fail to see why i need a scientific theory to explain origins ... since when is God subjected to science?

Religion has no place in science.

Dualism has no place in Orthodoxy.

 

[jckstraw72]

i fail to see why i need a scientific theory to explain origins ...

Well, you probably don't, for the moment. At least until you need to benefit from it (antibiotics anyone?)

why would i need to scientifically understand origins from billions of years ago in order to fight sicknesses today? observations about today's world and the recent past would do just fine. a scientist who rejects the idea that his grandfather is ape-like could still do work with antiobiotics, it really wouldnt hinder him in the least.

 

[jckstraw72]

just curious -- if evolution isnt flawless, and it may become obsolete, why are Creationists so derided and disdained? why must i replace it with a scientific theory rather than revelation about origins? revelation is not open to becoming obsolete ...

There's many reasons for this, but one big reason is that creationism doesn't follow the scientific method.  The only way creationism wishes to uphold its teachings is by disproving evolution.  Disproving something has been the cornerstone of science, but it tries to disprove something in order to actually understand if it is the truth or not.  Science cannot "prove" anything.

So for years, it has indeed disproved creationism very effectively, but unable to disprove evolution.  Evolution has withstood the test of time and research.  So the methods that we use allow evolution to be falsifiable.  But creationists never believe their beliefs are falsifiable.  Therefore, it's incompatible with science to begin with.

im talking about Creationism in terms of the Patristic teaching. i could care less about Creationism science. i fail to see why i need a scientific theory to explain origins ... since when is God subjected to science?

Religion has no place in science.  I'm talking about science here.  We've already addressed patristics, and we'll agree to disagree, but if you have something scientific to add, then by all means, I'd be most edified.

well if you have any Fathers to add, please do so so we can have real edification. ive never found the double-helix to inspire me to have love and humility.

 

[Ortho_cat]

i fail to see why i need a scientific theory to explain origins ...

Well, you probably don't, for the moment. At least until you need to benefit from it (antibiotics anyone?)

why would i need to scientifically understand origins from billions of years ago in order to fight sicknesses today? observations about today's world and the recent past would do just fine. a scientist who rejects the idea that his grandfather is ape-like could still do work with antiobiotics, it really wouldnt hinder him in the least.

So you acknowledge that some creatures follow the laws of nature, but some (humans) do not?

 

[minasoliman]

just curious -- if evolution isnt flawless, and it may become obsolete, why are Creationists so derided and disdained? why must i replace it with a scientific theory rather than revelation about origins? revelation is not open to becoming obsolete ...

There's many reasons for this, but one big reason is that creationism doesn't follow the scientific method.  The only way creationism wishes to uphold its teachings is by disproving evolution.  Disproving something has been the cornerstone of science, but it tries to disprove something in order to actually understand if it is the truth or not.  Science cannot "prove" anything.

So for years, it has indeed disproved creationism very effectively, but unable to disprove evolution.  Evolution has withstood the test of time and research.  So the methods that we use allow evolution to be falsifiable.  But creationists never believe their beliefs are falsifiable.  Therefore, it's incompatible with science to begin with.

im talking about Creationism in terms of the Patristic teaching. i could care less about Creationism science. i fail to see why i need a scientific theory to explain origins ... since when is God subjected to science?

Religion has no place in science.

Dualism has no place in Orthodoxy.

It's not dualism.  It's truth.  I can't use science to understand spirituality.  Are you saying that science can prove God?

 

[Ortho_cat]

just curious -- if evolution isnt flawless, and it may become obsolete, why are Creationists so derided and disdained? why must i replace it with a scientific theory rather than revelation about origins? revelation is not open to becoming obsolete ...

There's many reasons for this, but one big reason is that creationism doesn't follow the scientific method.  The only way creationism wishes to uphold its teachings is by disproving evolution.  Disproving something has been the cornerstone of science, but it tries to disprove something in order to actually understand if it is the truth or not.  Science cannot "prove" anything.

So for years, it has indeed disproved creationism very effectively, but unable to disprove evolution.  Evolution has withstood the test of time and research.  So the methods that we use allow evolution to be falsifiable.  But creationists never believe their beliefs are falsifiable.  Therefore, it's incompatible with science to begin with.

im talking about Creationism in terms of the Patristic teaching. i could care less about Creationism science. i fail to see why i need a scientific theory to explain origins ... since when is God subjected to science?

Religion has no place in science.  I'm talking about science here.  We've already addressed patristics, and we'll agree to disagree, but if you have something scientific to add, then by all means, I'd be most edified.

well if you have any Fathers to add, please do so so we can have real edification. ive never found the double-helix to inspire me to have love and humility.

Nor should it. But it's discovery may help you to be able to practice these virtues longer by extending your life (or of those whom you love).

 

[minasoliman]

ive never found the double-helix to inspire me to have love and humility.

Thank you for that.  This will remind me how futile (and stupid) your replies are.

 

[Jonathan Gress]

Actually, an open system is not sufficient for spontaneous increase in organizational complexity. You also need a program to direct the increase in complexity, and a mechanism for storing and converting the incoming energy:

“...there are no known violations of the second law of thermodynamics.  Ordinarily the second law is stated for isolated [closed] systems, but the second law applies equally well to open systems ... there is somehow associated with the field of far-from equilibrium phenomena the notion that the second law of thermodynamics fails for such systems.  It is important to make sure that this error does not perpetuate itself.”
[Dr. John Ross, Harvard scientist (evolutionist), Chemical and Engineering News, vol. 58, July 7, 1980, p. 40]

Living organisms already have the energy conversion mechanisms in place, so they can take advantage of the sun's energy to grow and reproduce. Non-living things do not have such a mechanism, and therefore we do not observe them growing and reproducing.

Gene duplication and mutations occur, but none of them result in the addition of new information to the biocosm (the sum of all genetic information in the world). Observed changes involve either re-arrangement of the genetic information already present, or else the loss of such information. This includes the "evolution" of antibiotic resistance in bacteria, which takes place either by lateral transfer of genes (re-arrangement), or else some kind of degradation of the genes that happens to be beneficial in that environment, such as loss of some structural feature that the antibiotic must attach to in order to work. In other words, change does occur, but not the kind of change needed for Darwinian theory to work.

Why do you continually argue against abiogenesis?  You haven't disproved evolution at all here.  But just to entertain the idea I bolded from you, non-living things do change over time.  Rocks change (albeit very slowly).  They do however change very quickly if the environment around it is unforgiving.  When chemicals work together in harmony, things start to change and happen, and change and chemistry is the central idea of life.  If you take biochemistry, you understand that the basis of our life throughout all our body is all simply and basic chemistry.

And yes, it has been observed that duplication and mutations have occurred to lead to the information we have now.

http://www.evolutionfaq.com/faq/how-does-evolution-cause-increases-genetic-information-required-go-single-celled-life-complex-an

There are two interconnected reasons I am arguing against abiogenesis and Darwinian "macroevolution": firstly, Orthodox Christianity and Darwinism are dogmatically incompatible, meaning either one or the other may be true, but not both at the same time; secondly, Darwinian theory is not scientifically justified based on the observed laws of physics, which demonstrate an inexorable trend from order to disorder, and organized complexity to disorganized simplicity. Rather, it is justified on the basis of the extra-scientific, philosophical tenet of naturalism, which holds that everything MUST have a materialistic explanation, which is at least in principle discoverable by science. These observations of the current laws of nature entail that organized complexity is primordial, not accidental, and hence that we cannot account for the origins of this primitive order based on our current observations of natural processes. Thus, both science and revelation point to Creation, not evolution.

But the question you ask is not directly relevant to our discussion. I may as well ask you why you are so eager to defend abiogenesis and Darwinian evolution. Surely it can't be justified by the need to defend your faith, since there is nothing there that requires belief in evolution, but rather much that opposes it.

No one is arguing there is no change. That would be absurd. But Darwinism requires not just any sort of change. It requires change from simplicity to complexity, aided by purely natural forces, without the intervention of an extraneous intelligence. I submit that this theory is simply not justified by the observed laws of nature and contradicts the teaching of the Church.

The genetic changes resulting from duplication and point mutation result in no net gain in information in the biocosm, as I already explained. All observed point mutations involve either a degradation of the genetic code, or a back-mutation whereby the chemical degradation is reversed under the right conditions. But no mutation has been observed whereby completely new informational complexity is added to the gene. So, it is true that where a gene duplicates, and one copy undergoes a degrading mutation while the other does not, you could express that as a local increase in information: there are two genes with two different expressions in the place of one gene with one expression. But the entire store of genetic information in the biocosm has not been increased by this degradation: proto-gene A with x information has been replaced by copy B with x information and copy C with (x - y) information.

The order of the universe either maintains itself, according to the principles of its inherent design (and, as we Orthodox believe, established by the Will of God), or else it gradually decays into disorder. This is the law of corruption, as revealed to us both by scientific observation and the Word of God.

For more information on the net degradation of the genome, consult the following article:

http://www.trueorigin.org/mutations01.asp

Here is the abstract of the article:

An evaluation of DNA/RNA mutations indicates that they cannot provide significant new levels of information.  Instead, mutations will produce degradation of the information in the genome.  This is the opposite of the predictions of the neoDarwinian origins model.  Such genome degradation is counteracted by natural selection that helps maintain the status quo.  Degradation results for many reasons, two of which are reviewed here.  1) there is a tendency for mutations to produce a highly disproportionate number of certain nucleotide bases such as thymine and 2) many mutations occur in only a relatively few places within the gene called “hot spots,” and rarely occur in others, known as “cold spots.” An intensive review of the literature fails to reveal a single clear example of a beneficial information-gaining mutation.  Conversely, thousands of deleterious mutations exist, supporting the hypothesis that very few mutations are beneficial.  These findings support the creation origins model.

 

[Tzimis]

We don't HAVE to have a theory for everything. On the contrary, we have to be prepared to acknowledge the limits of what we can discover about the universe and its origins.

 Creationism is also a theory of a sort. It's nothing more than a fundamental way which gives meaning to the language used in scripture. While no christian would doubt that they are created. The term creationist seems to engulf creation into a fundamentalist account of how we were created. I believe the means of how one is created can be interpreted much differently. The language in scripture itself isn't that precise to allow for a set standard as Creationist would have us believe. The language used is opened to interpretation on many levels. An example of this is seen by our own churches focus on the eight day. That eight day is a literal day and yet it's meaning is based on a future event between the seventh and whenever the eighth occurs. When it happens it will be on a day that god deems as the eight. The day of perfection. So the church technically doesn't see creation as over yet. We are between seven and eight as it stands and the day of perfection isn't here yet. The Church doesn't take such a hard line approach and I always hate it when I see the word "creation" as having a set interpenetration based on fundamental principals. The church clearly never meant to use it that way.

 

[minasoliman]

More proof of gene duplication:

Duplication of TRP gene that is present in large numbers in mammals, as compared to small numbers in fish:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21290300

Interspecies differences in an amphibian genus, including genetic duplication:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21277325

Gene duplication in MHC genes in mammals:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21264816

I personally take it to heart to defend science and the principles of science, which are also the principles of medicine.  In the future, pharmacogenetics will play a very important role, since every patient has different genes and react differently to the same drugs.  The understanding of evolutionary science is necessary for this and has lead to a lot of very important discoveries, especially with the last article from pubmed I showed you, about MHC genes and human immunity.  Competent physicians are those that which understand the basic fundamental science of their profession, including evolution.  It's not merely about bacteria anymore, but also the genetic differences of individuals.

 

[Iconodule]

just curious -- if evolution isnt flawless, and it may become obsolete, why are Creationists so derided and disdained? why must i replace it with a scientific theory rather than revelation about origins? revelation is not open to becoming obsolete ...

There's many reasons for this, but one big reason is that creationism doesn't follow the scientific method.  The only way creationism wishes to uphold its teachings is by disproving evolution.  Disproving something has been the cornerstone of science, but it tries to disprove something in order to actually understand if it is the truth or not.  Science cannot "prove" anything.

So for years, it has indeed disproved creationism very effectively, but unable to disprove evolution.  Evolution has withstood the test of time and research.  So the methods that we use allow evolution to be falsifiable.  But creationists never believe their beliefs are falsifiable.  Therefore, it's incompatible with science to begin with.

im talking about Creationism in terms of the Patristic teaching. i could care less about Creationism science. i fail to see why i need a scientific theory to explain origins ... since when is God subjected to science?

Religion has no place in science.

Dualism has no place in Orthodoxy.

It's not dualism.  It's truth.  I can't use science to understand spirituality.  Are you saying that science can prove God?

The contemplation of nature has always been regarded in the Church as an indirect contemplation of God. Such contemplation is, of course, guided by scripture and other revelation. Perhaps that doesn't count as "science" to you but it's the only science that really matters in Orthodoxy.

 

[Jonathan Gress]

More proof of gene duplication:

Duplication of TRP gene that is present in large numbers in mammals, as compared to small numbers in fish:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21290300

Interspecies differences in an amphibian genus, including genetic duplication:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21277325

Gene duplication in MHC genes in mammals:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21264816

I personally take it to heart to defend science and the principles of science, which are also the principles of medicine.  In the future, pharmacogenetics will play a very important role, since every patient has different genes and react differently to the same drugs.  The understanding of evolutionary science is necessary for this and has lead to a lot of very important discoveries, especially with the last article from pubmed I showed you, about MHC genes and human immunity.  Competent physicians are those that which understand the basic fundamental science of their profession, including evolution.  It's not merely about bacteria anymore, but also the genetic differences of individuals.

I think you have misunderstood my argument. I was not claiming there is no gene duplication. I was claiming there is no gene duplication resulting in net increase in information.

I am also defending science and the principles of science, which is why I oppose the unscientific theory of the evolution of all species. The mechanisms of mutation and evolution that we observe are simply not consistent with the kinds of mutations and evolutionary pathways required by Darwinism. Take the mechanism of mutation and selection employed by our bodies' immune systems to fight infection: amazingly, the lymphocytes are designed to allow a highly restricted kind of hypermutation, so that the cells can adapt quickly to fight the invading organisms. But this hypermutation, involving a far higher rate of mutation than needed for Darwinian macroevolution (and in fact it would probably be too high, given the even higher rate of deleterious mutations predicted), is permitted only at one location on the genome, reflecting the very specific function of this kind of mutation in our immune system.

For more details, consult the Spetner article I linked to above, and scroll down to "Mutations in the Immune System". I expect in fact that you are already familiar with much of this, being a student of medicine, but perhaps you haven't yet realized the implications of these facts for evolutionism.

So mutation and selection are important in medical science, and you can call that evolution if you want, but it is obviously quite a different thing from the evolution talked about by evolutionary biologists. Observed mutation and selection is clearly part of a larger design inherent in organisms to adapt to new environments, but it does not allow for any spontaneous improvement in the overall design.

However, I may be barking up the wrong tree here, since perhaps you are saying that your career as a medical professional REQUIRES you to subscribe to this unscientific and atheistic theory of evolution. In that case, I can only feel sorry for you that you felt you have had to make that choice. However, I know of many doctors who are able to practice without subscribing to this theory, so I think there is hope even in your situation.

 

[minasoliman]

More proof of gene duplication:

Duplication of TRP gene that is present in large numbers in mammals, as compared to small numbers in fish:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21290300

Interspecies differences in an amphibian genus, including genetic duplication:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21277325

Gene duplication in MHC genes in mammals:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21264816

I personally take it to heart to defend science and the principles of science, which are also the principles of medicine.  In the future, pharmacogenetics will play a very important role, since every patient has different genes and react differently to the same drugs.  The understanding of evolutionary science is necessary for this and has lead to a lot of very important discoveries, especially with the last article from pubmed I showed you, about MHC genes and human immunity.  Competent physicians are those that which understand the basic fundamental science of their profession, including evolution.  It's not merely about bacteria anymore, but also the genetic differences of individuals.

I think you have misunderstood my argument. I was not claiming there is no gene duplication. I was claiming there is no gene duplication resulting in net increase in information.

Yes, the research I sent you shows a net increase in information.

However, I may be barking up the wrong tree here, since perhaps you are saying that your career as a medical professional REQUIRES you to subscribe to this unscientific and atheistic theory of evolution. In that case, I can only feel sorry for you that you felt you have had to make that choice. However, I know of many doctors who are able to practice without subscribing to this theory, so I think there is hope even in your situation.

Am I an atheist to you?

Physicians who don't ascribe to reality are incompetent.

 

[Jonathan Gress]

More proof of gene duplication:

Duplication of TRP gene that is present in large numbers in mammals, as compared to small numbers in fish:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21290300

Interspecies differences in an amphibian genus, including genetic duplication:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21277325

Gene duplication in MHC genes in mammals:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21264816

I personally take it to heart to defend science and the principles of science, which are also the principles of medicine.  In the future, pharmacogenetics will play a very important role, since every patient has different genes and react differently to the same drugs.  The understanding of evolutionary science is necessary for this and has lead to a lot of very important discoveries, especially with the last article from pubmed I showed you, about MHC genes and human immunity.  Competent physicians are those that which understand the basic fundamental science of their profession, including evolution.  It's not merely about bacteria anymore, but also the genetic differences of individuals.

I think you have misunderstood my argument. I was not claiming there is no gene duplication. I was claiming there is no gene duplication resulting in net increase in information.

Yes, the research I sent you shows a net increase in information.

However, I may be barking up the wrong tree here, since perhaps you are saying that your career as a medical professional REQUIRES you to subscribe to this unscientific and atheistic theory of evolution. In that case, I can only feel sorry for you that you felt you have had to make that choice. However, I know of many doctors who are able to practice without subscribing to this theory, so I think there is hope even in your situation.

Am I an atheist to you?

Physicians who don't ascribe to reality are incompetent.

Forgive me if I couldn't grasp the technical arguments of those abstracts you linked to, but I got the distinct impression that the researchers were comparing the genes of distinct species, ASSUMED that the species were genetically related, and then used the comparatively higher complexity of some species to argue for spontaneous increase in complexity. Take the following from the article by JB Peng:

There is only one TRPV6-like gene in fish and birds in comparison to both TRPV5 and TRPV6 genes in mammals, indicating TRPV5 gene was likely generated from duplication of TRPV6 gene during the evolution of mammals to meet the needs of complex renal function.

The duplication in this case is a conjecture, not an observed fact. I'm interested in observed facts.

Other articles suggested the researchers were studying the functional type of mutation and adaptation that is part of the inherent design of immune systems that I mentioned earlier. The information increases that occur do not result in the evolution of new traits in daughters, but are specific to the function of adapting the defensive mechanism to sequences of new invading organisms.

Before continuing this discussion, will you please read the articles I linked to, so that you may understand better the evidence on which I'm basing my arguments?

Obviously you are not an atheist, although earlier in this thread you have made atheistic statements, such as "Religion has no place in science". Our faith is meant to be all-encompassing, and it is contradictory to claim to devote our whole lives to Christ, but then exclude Him from consideration in our professional research.

And I would be inclined to agree in a general sense that physicians who do not acknowledge reality are more likely to be incompetent. Of course, I would say that applies to all physicians who ascribe to Darwinism, which is basically a fairy-tale for atheists, and not objective reality.

 

[Ortho_cat]

And I would be inclined to agree in a general sense that physicians who do not acknowledge reality are more likely to be incompetent. Of course, I would say that applies to all physicians who ascribe to Darwinism, which is basically a fairy-tale for atheists, and not objective reality.

 

[jckstraw72]

ive never found the double-helix to inspire me to have love and humility.

Thank you for that.  This will remind me how futile (and stupid) your replies are.

God bless you too.

 

[jckstraw72]

just curious -- if evolution isnt flawless, and it may become obsolete, why are Creationists so derided and disdained? why must i replace it with a scientific theory rather than revelation about origins? revelation is not open to becoming obsolete ...

There's many reasons for this, but one big reason is that creationism doesn't follow the scientific method.  The only way creationism wishes to uphold its teachings is by disproving evolution.  Disproving something has been the cornerstone of science, but it tries to disprove something in order to actually understand if it is the truth or not.  Science cannot "prove" anything.

So for years, it has indeed disproved creationism very effectively, but unable to disprove evolution.  Evolution has withstood the test of time and research.  So the methods that we use allow evolution to be falsifiable.  But creationists never believe their beliefs are falsifiable.  Therefore, it's incompatible with science to begin with.

im talking about Creationism in terms of the Patristic teaching. i could care less about Creationism science. i fail to see why i need a scientific theory to explain origins ... since when is God subjected to science?

Religion has no place in science.

Dualism has no place in Orthodoxy.

It's not dualism.  It's truth.  I can't use science to understand spirituality.  Are you saying that science can prove God?

The contemplation of nature has always been regarded in the Church as an indirect contemplation of God. Such contemplation is, of course, guided by scripture and other revelation. Perhaps that doesn't count as "science" to you but it's the only science that really matters in Orthodoxy.

yes, the attitude on this thread makes St. Maximus and his predecessors useless.

 

[minasoliman]

More proof of gene duplication:

Duplication of TRP gene that is present in large numbers in mammals, as compared to small numbers in fish:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21290300

Interspecies differences in an amphibian genus, including genetic duplication:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21277325

Gene duplication in MHC genes in mammals:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21264816

I personally take it to heart to defend science and the principles of science, which are also the principles of medicine.  In the future, pharmacogenetics will play a very important role, since every patient has different genes and react differently to the same drugs.  The understanding of evolutionary science is necessary for this and has lead to a lot of very important discoveries, especially with the last article from pubmed I showed you, about MHC genes and human immunity.  Competent physicians are those that which understand the basic fundamental science of their profession, including evolution.  It's not merely about bacteria anymore, but also the genetic differences of individuals.

I think you have misunderstood my argument. I was not claiming there is no gene duplication. I was claiming there is no gene duplication resulting in net increase in information.

Yes, the research I sent you shows a net increase in information.

However, I may be barking up the wrong tree here, since perhaps you are saying that your career as a medical professional REQUIRES you to subscribe to this unscientific and atheistic theory of evolution. In that case, I can only feel sorry for you that you felt you have had to make that choice. However, I know of many doctors who are able to practice without subscribing to this theory, so I think there is hope even in your situation.

Am I an atheist to you?

Physicians who don't ascribe to reality are incompetent.

Forgive me if I couldn't grasp the technical arguments of those abstracts you linked to, but I got the distinct impression that the researchers were comparing the genes of distinct species, ASSUMED that the species were genetically related, and then used the comparatively higher complexity of some species to argue for spontaneous increase in complexity. Take the following from the article by JB Peng:

There is only one TRPV6-like gene in fish and birds in comparison to both TRPV5 and TRPV6 genes in mammals, indicating TRPV5 gene was likely generated from duplication of TRPV6 gene during the evolution of mammals to meet the needs of complex renal function.

The duplication in this case is a conjecture, not an observed fact. I'm interested in observed facts.

Other articles suggested the researchers were studying the functional type of mutation and adaptation that is part of the inherent design of immune systems that I mentioned earlier. The information increases that occur do not result in the evolution of new traits in daughters, but are specific to the function of adapting the defensive mechanism to sequences of new invading organisms.

Before continuing this discussion, will you please read the articles I linked to, so that you may understand better the evidence on which I'm basing my arguments?

Obviously you are not an atheist, although earlier in this thread you have made atheistic statements, such as "Religion has no place in science". Our faith is meant to be all-encompassing, and it is contradictory to claim to devote our whole lives to Christ, but then exclude Him from consideration in our professional research.

And I would be inclined to agree in a general sense that physicians who do not acknowledge reality are more likely to be incompetent. Of course, I would say that applies to all physicians who ascribe to Darwinism, which is basically a fairy-tale for atheists, and not objective reality.

Before I move on (because if this part isn't answered, it's futile to have a discussion with you also), I ask, can you prove God with science?

 

[minasoliman]

just curious -- if evolution isnt flawless, and it may become obsolete, why are Creationists so derided and disdained? why must i replace it with a scientific theory rather than revelation about origins? revelation is not open to becoming obsolete ...

There's many reasons for this, but one big reason is that creationism doesn't follow the scientific method.  The only way creationism wishes to uphold its teachings is by disproving evolution.  Disproving something has been the cornerstone of science, but it tries to disprove something in order to actually understand if it is the truth or not.  Science cannot "prove" anything.

So for years, it has indeed disproved creationism very effectively, but unable to disprove evolution.  Evolution has withstood the test of time and research.  So the methods that we use allow evolution to be falsifiable.  But creationists never believe their beliefs are falsifiable.  Therefore, it's incompatible with science to begin with.

im talking about Creationism in terms of the Patristic teaching. i could care less about Creationism science. i fail to see why i need a scientific theory to explain origins ... since when is God subjected to science?

Religion has no place in science.

Dualism has no place in Orthodoxy.

It's not dualism.  It's truth.  I can't use science to understand spirituality.  Are you saying that science can prove God?

The contemplation of nature has always been regarded in the Church as an indirect contemplation of God. Such contemplation is, of course, guided by scripture and other revelation. Perhaps that doesn't count as "science" to you but it's the only science that really matters in Orthodoxy.

Yes, that's fine.  I'm perfectly fine with that.  I see evolution as a proof to the greatness of God, but not a proof of being God.  Since God cannot be tested by scientific means, but by means of true and honest faith and love, then the phrase "religion has no place in science" is a valid one.

One can misconstrue your arguments of pantheism.  It's time we're not careless with our words and call it like we see it.

 

[Jonathan Gress]

More proof of gene duplication:

Duplication of TRP gene that is present in large numbers in mammals, as compared to small numbers in fish:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21290300

Interspecies differences in an amphibian genus, including genetic duplication:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21277325

Gene duplication in MHC genes in mammals:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21264816

I personally take it to heart to defend science and the principles of science, which are also the principles of medicine.  In the future, pharmacogenetics will play a very important role, since every patient has different genes and react differently to the same drugs.  The understanding of evolutionary science is necessary for this and has lead to a lot of very important discoveries, especially with the last article from pubmed I showed you, about MHC genes and human immunity.  Competent physicians are those that which understand the basic fundamental science of their profession, including evolution.  It's not merely about bacteria anymore, but also the genetic differences of individuals.

I think you have misunderstood my argument. I was not claiming there is no gene duplication. I was claiming there is no gene duplication resulting in net increase in information.

Yes, the research I sent you shows a net increase in information.

However, I may be barking up the wrong tree here, since perhaps you are saying that your career as a medical professional REQUIRES you to subscribe to this unscientific and atheistic theory of evolution. In that case, I can only feel sorry for you that you felt you have had to make that choice. However, I know of many doctors who are able to practice without subscribing to this theory, so I think there is hope even in your situation.

Am I an atheist to you?

Physicians who don't ascribe to reality are incompetent.

Forgive me if I couldn't grasp the technical arguments of those abstracts you linked to, but I got the distinct impression that the researchers were comparing the genes of distinct species, ASSUMED that the species were genetically related, and then used the comparatively higher complexity of some species to argue for spontaneous increase in complexity. Take the following from the article by JB Peng:

There is only one TRPV6-like gene in fish and birds in comparison to both TRPV5 and TRPV6 genes in mammals, indicating TRPV5 gene was likely generated from duplication of TRPV6 gene during the evolution of mammals to meet the needs of complex renal function.

The duplication in this case is a conjecture, not an observed fact. I'm interested in observed facts.

Other articles suggested the researchers were studying the functional type of mutation and adaptation that is part of the inherent design of immune systems that I mentioned earlier. The information increases that occur do not result in the evolution of new traits in daughters, but are specific to the function of adapting the defensive mechanism to sequences of new invading organisms.

Before continuing this discussion, will you please read the articles I linked to, so that you may understand better the evidence on which I'm basing my arguments?

Obviously you are not an atheist, although earlier in this thread you have made atheistic statements, such as "Religion has no place in science". Our faith is meant to be all-encompassing, and it is contradictory to claim to devote our whole lives to Christ, but then exclude Him from consideration in our professional research.

And I would be inclined to agree in a general sense that physicians who do not acknowledge reality are more likely to be incompetent. Of course, I would say that applies to all physicians who ascribe to Darwinism, which is basically a fairy-tale for atheists, and not objective reality.

Before I move on (because if this part isn't answered, it's futile to have a discussion with you also), I ask, can you prove God with science?

It depends on what counts as proof for you. I would say that, since the order of the universe cannot account for itself, because we only observe it to be decreasing rather than increasing, the only logical conclusion is that this order was created by some Being greater than the universe itself, which I call God.

This method of reasoning towards the existence of God is supported by the words of St Paul to the Romans, chapter 1:

[18] For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;
[19] Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
[20] For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

 

[Jonathan Gress]

And I would be inclined to agree in a general sense that physicians who do not acknowledge reality are more likely to be incompetent. Of course, I would say that applies to all physicians who ascribe to Darwinism, which is basically a fairy-tale for atheists, and not objective reality.

Yes, really.

 

[minasoliman]

More proof of gene duplication:

Duplication of TRP gene that is present in large numbers in mammals, as compared to small numbers in fish:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21290300

Interspecies differences in an amphibian genus, including genetic duplication:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21277325

Gene duplication in MHC genes in mammals:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21264816

I personally take it to heart to defend science and the principles of science, which are also the principles of medicine.  In the future, pharmacogenetics will play a very important role, since every patient has different genes and react differently to the same drugs.  The understanding of evolutionary science is necessary for this and has lead to a lot of very important discoveries, especially with the last article from pubmed I showed you, about MHC genes and human immunity.  Competent physicians are those that which understand the basic fundamental science of their profession, including evolution.  It's not merely about bacteria anymore, but also the genetic differences of individuals.

I think you have misunderstood my argument. I was not claiming there is no gene duplication. I was claiming there is no gene duplication resulting in net increase in information.

Yes, the research I sent you shows a net increase in information.

However, I may be barking up the wrong tree here, since perhaps you are saying that your career as a medical professional REQUIRES you to subscribe to this unscientific and atheistic theory of evolution. In that case, I can only feel sorry for you that you felt you have had to make that choice. However, I know of many doctors who are able to practice without subscribing to this theory, so I think there is hope even in your situation.

Am I an atheist to you?

Physicians who don't ascribe to reality are incompetent.

Forgive me if I couldn't grasp the technical arguments of those abstracts you linked to, but I got the distinct impression that the researchers were comparing the genes of distinct species, ASSUMED that the species were genetically related, and then used the comparatively higher complexity of some species to argue for spontaneous increase in complexity. Take the following from the article by JB Peng:

There is only one TRPV6-like gene in fish and birds in comparison to both TRPV5 and TRPV6 genes in mammals, indicating TRPV5 gene was likely generated from duplication of TRPV6 gene during the evolution of mammals to meet the needs of complex renal function.

The duplication in this case is a conjecture, not an observed fact. I'm interested in observed facts.

Other articles suggested the researchers were studying the functional type of mutation and adaptation that is part of the inherent design of immune systems that I mentioned earlier. The information increases that occur do not result in the evolution of new traits in daughters, but are specific to the function of adapting the defensive mechanism to sequences of new invading organisms.

Before continuing this discussion, will you please read the articles I linked to, so that you may understand better the evidence on which I'm basing my arguments?

Obviously you are not an atheist, although earlier in this thread you have made atheistic statements, such as "Religion has no place in science". Our faith is meant to be all-encompassing, and it is contradictory to claim to devote our whole lives to Christ, but then exclude Him from consideration in our professional research.

And I would be inclined to agree in a general sense that physicians who do not acknowledge reality are more likely to be incompetent. Of course, I would say that applies to all physicians who ascribe to Darwinism, which is basically a fairy-tale for atheists, and not objective reality.

Before I move on (because if this part isn't answered, it's futile to have a discussion with you also), I ask, can you prove God with science?

It depends on what counts as proof for you. I would say that, since the order of the universe cannot account for itself, because we only observe it to be decreasing rather than increasing, the only logical conclusion is that this order was created by some Being greater than the universe itself, which I call God.

This method of reasoning towards the existence of God is supported by the words of St Paul to the Romans, chapter 1:

[18] For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;
[19] Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
[20] For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

I don't disagree with you, but that's not science.  If you flaunt this around as science, then there's no point in this discussion anymore.