by cantleave 271 Replies latest members adult
I wanted to understand a few more things, so I just read this... and to me the whole thing is so complex that I just can't possibly believe it came about without an intelligent designer. It's like asking me to believe my laptop and all it's software came about without a designer and a maker.
http://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/translation-dna-to-mrna-to-protein-393
PSac - Don't sulk!
Cantleave started this thread to put together a collection of pieces of evidence for the common ancestry of all life.
In future when people lazily throw around lines like "there is no evidence for evolution" or they think that humans are an exception we can link here and the hard work is already done. I'm sure it will continue to grow as a repository of evidence.
Hopefully it is clearing up some misconceptions and motivating some to read further. Of course your questions are welcome but copy-pasting articles that don't address the point doesn't help the discussion.
That some mutations are being found to be NOT as random as others is a fact and all I wanted to point out.
On the contrary. It is the location of mutations that are not entirely random. This in no way changes the fact that they are " random and purposeless ".
Remember our genome is made up of around 3 billions bases. It contains only 4 letters A,C,G & T and these are read off in groups of 3 called codons.
Each codon codes for one of 20 amino acids. Some amino acids are coded for by more than one codon.
When a mutation occurs and a letter is deleted for example it can have a huge effect on the next section of the gene.
For example consider the SWS opsin gene that codes for the cells that detect blue light.
We know that dolphins descended from a common ancestor of cows.
In cows the code reads...
TTT CTT CTG TTC AAG AAC ATC TCC TTG
Each of these codons codes for an amino acid which combine to make the protein.
In dolphins four of these letters have been deleted by random mutations so it reads...
TTT *TT CTG TTC AAG AAC AT* *** TTG
These are then read of as...
TTT TTC TGT TCA AGA ACA TTT G..
Which is a completely different set of amino acids which leaves the gene nonfunctional and the dolphin with no colour vision.
Later I will post about other more fortuitous mutations that resulted in improved mutations in humans and our primate cousins.
I hope this illustrates what we mean when we say that mutations are 100% random. The fact that there are some areas of the genome that are more likely to suffer mutations than other sections does not change this fact.
Feel free to ask lots of questions Psac.
Cofty, do you think it would alter things if this universe was just a simulation like the matrix?
to me the whole thing is so complex that I just can't possibly believe... - tornapart
This is an example of the Paley's watch argument so beloved of the Creation Book. It is precisely the argument that Darwin addressed 150 years ago in "Origin of Species".
Its an example of "argument form ignorance". Please don't be offended I don't mean ignorant in a pejorative sense. What you are saying in effect is that because you can't imagine a naturalistic way that DNA could code for protein then it couldn't happen.
Imagine for example somebody who had never seen a stone arch. When they first see one and realise that it would fall down if just one stone was missing they might conclude that it could not be built by anybody apart from a supernatural being. They cannot conceive of such a thing as a temporary scaffold so they jump to supernatural answers.
Sir Isaac Newton made a similar mistake. He made discoveries that still hold good today but there was one thing that stumped him. He could not understand how all the planets revolve around the sun on the same plane. Rather than humbly acknowledge that he did not have enough information to solve the problem he asserted that god put them all in the same plane so they would be orderly or some such nonsense. We still refer to Newton's laws but not to that particular piece of silliness
The way that DNA is used to produce proteins is understood in great detail. The fact that it seems too complex to us personally should motivate us to learn more.
Cofty, do you think it would alter things if this universe was just a simulation like the matrix? - ucantnome
Eh?
I was refering to the physicist Silas Beane and an article in the New Scientist magazine.
I'm not familiar with it.
Well, a stone arch may not have been built by God but somebody built it.
I appreciate what you are trying to say Cofty and I'm still going to learn more about DNA but so far all it has done is made me believe in an intelligent designer even more. I thought I would read some other things about evolution too even if only for the reason of trying to be less 'ignorant'. I'm not offended by it either because you're right anyway and I realise I only understand it from a 'creationist' point of view. To be able to come to a genuine belief I have to read both sides.
I think though as regards Newton, he has to be cut a bit of slack because everyone believed in God back then... it was way before Darwin was even a twinkle in his dad's eye..
so far all it has done is made me believe in an intelligent designer even more
That's OK. Evolution does not negate belief in god.
It does prove conclusively that humans were not a special creation and that there was no perfection, no Adam and Eve and no "fall".
If you can hold a faith that is consistent with the facts then so be it.
Honey bees use vectored calculus to communicate food source.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=4NtegAOQpSs
This thread has shaken me up big time.I am not an apologist I am seeking honest answers. How does evolution explain animal instinct? How does it evolve? Where on the DNA strand is the information? It's good to be able to explain the evolutionary mechanics of protein making how about something intangible like all the massive information the honebee is BORN WITH.They don't go to school to learn calculus. Honest sincere question I am desperate for the truth.
