Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Biological Taxonomy - Kinds vs. Species (Linnaean taxonomy)

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Originally posted by George Affleck View Post
    Your paradigm states that development and increase is improvement. But this is a construct of your own - your "happy place".
    Nope, it's a reflection of biological reality. The senescence and dying part only comes after the organism is mature. Biology uses energy from the sun to create and make things more complex.

    I note nobody has addressed the hydra that is actually immortal.
    “We do not believe in God because we need to explain this or that feature of the world. That is what science is for. We believe in God because we see something deeper in the world, something that transcends the scientific explanations.” - Karl Giberson Ph.D.



    - The science and faith of theistic evolution explained.

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by Alate_One View Post
      Nope, it's a reflection of biological reality.
      Nope, the reality is that life produces death.
      Religion is man's attempt to make himself acceptable to God. Christianity is God making man acceptable to Himself.

      It is true that Trump does not fit modern Republican principles, but that is because modern Republican principles have strayed far from conservatism. genuineoriginal

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by Alate_One View Post
        I note nobody has addressed the hydra that is actually immortal.
        Why does it surprise you that God has left this clue for evolutionary biologists? He is not willing that any should perish and will witness to them, if necessary, by providing them a sample of how eternal life is biologically possible.
        Religion is man's attempt to make himself acceptable to God. Christianity is God making man acceptable to Himself.

        It is true that Trump does not fit modern Republican principles, but that is because modern Republican principles have strayed far from conservatism. genuineoriginal

        Comment


        • #49
          Originally posted by George Affleck View Post
          Why does it surprise you that God has left this clue for evolutionary biologists? He is not willing that any should perish and will witness to them, if necessary, by providing them a sample of how eternal life is biologically possible.
          The fact that a hydra may be immortal is a "clue for evolutionary biologists" but the other "clues" of evolution, deep time, etc are either not clues or left by someone else?

          Comment


          • #50
            We know why Alate does not want to respond.
            Where is the evidence for a global flood?
            E≈mc2
            "the best maths don't need no stinkin' numbers"

            "The waters under the 'expanse' were under the crust."
            -Bob B.

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by Alate_One View Post
              It's still developing and increasing in size, not dying.
              Hopefully that kitten is not dying right away
              But, aren't the telomeres getting shorter?
              Without Genesis, absolutely nothing makes sense in all of Scripture.

              Comment


              • #52
                Originally posted by Alate_One View Post
                Nope, it's a reflection of biological reality. The senescence and dying part only comes after the organism is mature. Biology uses energy from the sun to create and make things more complex.
                Rev. 6:14
                I note nobody has addressed the hydra that is actually immortal.
                The dying part comes because we live in a fallen world where death exists.'Biology' uses genetic information which God programmed into the organism. Certainly the sun provides energy, but even it is dying, albeit not for a 'few' more years. (Not till God rolls up our universe like a scroll)
                Without Genesis, absolutely nothing makes sense in all of Scripture.

                Comment


                • #53
                  Originally posted by Alate_One View Post
                  How would a generic "cat kind" have the ability to have enough genetic information to both produce a housecat and a lion, tiger, cheetah etc.?

                  You'd need information for social structure, but also the ability to move very fast, for spots of different sizes, to both purr and roar at the same time (no cat today can do this).

                  In other words you're appealing to magic/miracles and evolutionary processes that are impossible in the amount of time since the flood.
                  Every genome in existence contains a vast number of "deactivated" genes. That is, the genes to do something or change the animal somehow exist, but are kind of switched to "off." Early genetic researchers posited that some 95% of our genome was "junk DNA" which did nothing. They were sort of correct. 95% of the genes we have are not active, but they hold the possibility of being switched on.

                  So even if you look at the genome for your tabby, she has genes in there to become huge, roar, and devastate small Argentinian villages. They just aren't "on."

                  Miracles not required.

                  Jarrod

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    That makes me wonder how those unexpressed sequences managed to stay functional and intact, despite the absence of selective pressures against the accumulation of deleterious mutations. And not only would those sequences have to have remained completely intact and functional while being simultaneously unexpressed after the flood, they would also have to have remained so before the flood. Not only that, but Noah would have somehow had to have been able to figure out which of the cat populations around at his time had all the necessary unexpressed sequences, and which ones didn't.

                    Plus, all this took place during a time when creationists also argue that genomes were "degrading" and "genetic information" was declining.
                    "The way to deal with superstition is not to be polite to it, but to tackle it with all arms, and so rout it, cripple it, and make it forever infamous and ridiculous." --H.L. Mencken

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Originally posted by Jose Fly View Post
                      That makes me wonder how those unexpressed sequences managed to stay functional and intact, despite the absence of selective pressures against the accumulation of deleterious mutations. And not only would those sequences have to have remained completely intact and functional while being simultaneously unexpressed after the flood...


                      You are so close.
                      Where is the evidence for a global flood?
                      E≈mc2
                      "the best maths don't need no stinkin' numbers"

                      "The waters under the 'expanse' were under the crust."
                      -Bob B.

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Originally posted by Jose Fly View Post
                        That makes me wonder how those unexpressed sequences managed to stay functional and intact, despite the absence of selective pressures against the accumulation of deleterious mutations. And not only would those sequences have to have remained completely intact and functional while being simultaneously unexpressed after the flood, they would also have to have remained so before the flood. Not only that, but Noah would have somehow had to have been able to figure out which of the cat populations around at his time had all the necessary unexpressed sequences, and which ones didn't.
                        They aren't functional. That's kind of the point.

                        "Intact" is an interesting question. It typically takes multiple such inactive genes working together to produce something viable. The odds of those things activating or inactivating at the same time via random mutation decrease precipitously as the number of interdependent genes increases.

                        Originally posted by Jose Fly View Post
                        Plus, all this took place during a time when creationists also argue that genomes were "degrading" and "genetic information" was declining.
                        I don't claim any of those things. I was just attempting to answer the question.

                        Jarrod

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Originally posted by Wick Stick View Post
                          They aren't functional. That's kind of the point.
                          Exactly. That raises the obvious question of how non-functional sequences managed to escape mutation.

                          "Intact" is an interesting question. It typically takes multiple such inactive genes working together to produce something viable. The odds of those things activating or inactivating at the same time via random mutation decrease precipitously as the number of interdependent genes increases.
                          Yes, it is a highly unlikely scenario, isn't it?

                          I don't claim any of those things. I was just attempting to answer the question.
                          Ok, thanks.
                          "The way to deal with superstition is not to be polite to it, but to tackle it with all arms, and so rout it, cripple it, and make it forever infamous and ridiculous." --H.L. Mencken

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Originally posted by Jose Fly View Post
                            Exactly. That raises the obvious question of how non-functional sequences managed to escape mutation.
                            Yes. Please tell us how non-expressed genes escaped mutation over millions of years.



                            I can tell you how they did it since the flood: They didn't.
                            Where is the evidence for a global flood?
                            E≈mc2
                            "the best maths don't need no stinkin' numbers"

                            "The waters under the 'expanse' were under the crust."
                            -Bob B.

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Originally posted by Stripe View Post
                              I can tell you how they did it since the flood: They didn't.
                              Why didn't those genes experience mutations after the flood?
                              "The way to deal with superstition is not to be polite to it, but to tackle it with all arms, and so rout it, cripple it, and make it forever infamous and ridiculous." --H.L. Mencken

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Originally posted by Wick Stick View Post
                                Every genome in existence contains a vast number of "deactivated" genes. That is, the genes to do something or change the animal somehow exist, but are kind of switched to "off." Early genetic researchers posited that some 95% of our genome was "junk DNA" which did nothing. They were sort of correct. 95% of the genes we have are not active, but they hold the possibility of being switched on. So even if you look at the genome for your tabby, she has genes in there to become huge, roar, and devastate small Argentinian villages. They just aren't "on."
                                But those inactive "genes" you speak of are mostly transposons or viral genes, depending on the organism in question. There isn't an extra lion genome sitting inside of housecats.

                                We know this because the genomes of housecats and of tigers have been sequenced.

                                The tiger genome and comparative analysis with lion and snow leopard genomes. Nature Communications 4, Article number: 2433


                                The tiger genome sequence shows 95.6% similarity to the domestic cat (Supplementary Table S11) from which it diverged approximately 10.8 million years ago (MYA)15; human and gorilla have 94.8% similarity and diverged around 8.8 MYA (from TimeTree).



                                So if tigers and housecats can share a common ancestor, why can't humans and gorillas?
                                “We do not believe in God because we need to explain this or that feature of the world. That is what science is for. We believe in God because we see something deeper in the world, something that transcends the scientific explanations.” - Karl Giberson Ph.D.



                                - The science and faith of theistic evolution explained.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X