User Tag List

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 40

Thread: Evolution Inhibits Science Progress

  1. #1
    Science Lover
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    South Bend, IN
    Posts
    1,968
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    1482

    Evolution Inhibits Science Progress

    Marshall, Fletcher, and Davies, “Hyperactive antifreeze protein in a fish,” Nature 429, 153 (13 May 2004); doi:10.1038/429153a.

    Creationist commentary:
    Another wonderful discovery, all the more interesting for the last line: “The evolutionary relationship between our 5a-like antifreeze protein and type I AFP, which also contains short tracts of alanine, remains to be solved.”
    Here is an example of “junk DNA” proving to be functionally important. Based on Darwinian assumptions, scientists had dismissed the gene as a degenerating relic of a gene duplication event sometime in the fish’s prehistory. Such a mindset is proving to be a hindrance to the advance of science (see 05/10/2004 headline).
    Random changes are destructive to any carefully crafted piece of work, such as a computer program, a novel or the genome of a lifeform.
    Matt 23:24Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel.

  2. #2
    Merely Christian Nineveh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    Another Hoosier Mom
    Posts
    4,274
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 7 Times in 7 Posts

    Blog Entries
    7
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    260
    I was just reading an article about "junk DNA" last night. All that time, effort, and money wasted to finally reach square 1 (it's there for a reason). How far might they be assuming it had a purpose to begin with?
    Help for Universalists

    "...the Reformation broke with Rome but not Greece..." - Bob Enyart BR X

    ~*Bible*~*Support TOL!*~*Dictionary*~*Google*~

  3. #3
    Over 1500 post club
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Connecticut
    Posts
    1,792
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 5 Times in 5 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    1546
    Looks to me like science is now addressing the issue so what is your problem? Oh, I see, further investigation is a hinderance. Now I get it.
    "Against stupidity, the gods themselves fight in vain", G. Smiley

    "Send money, guns and lawyers..." W. Zevon

    "If it is possible for something to happen, that is evidence that it did happen." Stripe on TOL

    "There but for fortune...", P. Ochs

  4. #4
    BANNED BY MOD
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    From the eastern seaboard west to the Great Lakes, USA, Mexico, Canada and Carribean Islands.
    Posts
    94
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    0
    Jukia posted:

    Looks to me like science is now addressing the issue so what is your problem? Oh, I see, further investigation is a hinderance. Now I get it.

    Dimo:

    Yes Jukia. Bob and the authors of this see anything that does not support their view as a hindrance to science.

  5. #5
    Old Timer Stratnerd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    NE Pennsylvania
    Posts
    430
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    220
    Here is an example of “junk DNA” proving to be functionally important.
    So it was a bunch of creationists that discovered the function? Probably not. So if it was evolutionary biologists that discovered the function how did their evolutionary presuppositions come into play here? Creationist logic is lacking... again.
    Battling TOL creationist jerks-for-Jesus since 1998

    I'd rather be (e^-lamba*lambda^x)/x! -ing!

    Everything might be wrong! -Richard Feynman

    My God I love Star Trek TNG

  6. #6
    BANNED BY MOD
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    From the eastern seaboard west to the Great Lakes, USA, Mexico, Canada and Carribean Islands.
    Posts
    94
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    0
    What Bob is missing is that the term "junk" DNA is a simplification. In some cases no function has been found. In others the function is not apparent at first. In others the functionality is regressive. In others cases the functionality is only a potential for the future.

    At any rate if one truly understands the nature of genetics they also understand that using the term "junk" is an oversimplification.

  7. #7
    Science Lover
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    South Bend, IN
    Posts
    1,968
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    1482
    Originally posted by Stratnerd

    So it was a bunch of creationists that discovered the function? Probably not. So if it was evolutionary biologists that discovered the function how did their evolutionary presuppositions come into play here? Creationist logic is lacking... again.
    Since you asked nicely I will answer.

    Evolutionists have been saying for years that non-coding (for proteins) DNA is "junk", leftovers that have accumulated from random mutations during millions of years of evolution from a primitive protocell.

    Creationists on the other hand have been saying for years that the so-called "junk" DNA undoubtedly has a function that simply has not been discovered as yet, and that it would be a good idea to stop calling it "junk" and get to work finding out what its function is.

    Most evolutionists have ignored this advice, but fortunately a few less dogmatic individuals have not, and lo and behold, functions are now rapidly being discovered as the "logjam" in thinking has been weakened.

    Of course, the same thing happened in the case of antibiotic resistence which originally had been thought to have been due to random mutation, but which is now known to be anything but random.

    Let us hope less dogmatic young researchers take these lessons to heart and stop following the siren song of "random mutations", and so get to work in earnest finding out how the marvellous features of lifeforms really operate.
    Random changes are destructive to any carefully crafted piece of work, such as a computer program, a novel or the genome of a lifeform.
    Matt 23:24Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel.

  8. #8
    Old Timer Stratnerd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    NE Pennsylvania
    Posts
    430
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    220
    I asked "So it was a bunch of creationists that discovered the function?"

    I'll take it from your answer that you meant to that creationist had nothing to do with the discovery. Do you have evidence otherwise? You made it sound as if the researchers heard the call of creationists - do you have any evidence of this?

    Or do you think that the evidence itself (e.g., the constancy of sequences amongst taxa) begged the question? And as good scientists would do, they tried to answer?

    Instead of making accusations please provide some shred of evidence.
    Battling TOL creationist jerks-for-Jesus since 1998

    I'd rather be (e^-lamba*lambda^x)/x! -ing!

    Everything might be wrong! -Richard Feynman

    My God I love Star Trek TNG

  9. #9
    Rookie YawgmothsAvatar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    No longer at TOL
    Posts
    14
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    186
    You know what hinders science even more? Religion.

    Take Galileo. He thought that the Earth revolved around the Sun. The Church disagreed and threatened to kill him.

    If literal intrepretists of the Bible had gotten their way, then we would still think the universe was centered on Earth.

  10. #10
    Friendly Neighborhood Admin Turbo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    5,316
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 13 Times in 13 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    1035
    Originally posted by YawgmothsAvatar

    You know what hinders science even more? Religion.

    Take Galileo. He thought that the Earth revolved around the Sun. The Church disagreed and threatened to kill him.
    Galileo was a Bible-believing Christian.

    If literal intrepretists of the Bible had gotten their way, then we would still think the universe was centered on Earth.
    The Bible doesn't state that any more than your weatherman does.

  11. #11
    Rookie YawgmothsAvatar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    No longer at TOL
    Posts
    14
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    186
    Originally posted by Turbo

    Galileo was a Bible-believing Christian.


    The Bible doesn't state that any more than your weatherman does.
    He may have said he was, but when you are being threatened with torture and execution, you will say anything.

    Josh 10:13
    And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed,

    Psalms 93:1
    The LORD reigneth, he is clothed with majesty; the LORD is clothed with strength, wherewith he hath girded himself: the world also is stablished, that it cannot be moved.

    Ecclesiastes 1:5
    The sun also ariseth, and the sun goeth down, and hasteth to his place where he arose.

    I'll call my weatherman just to check.

  12. #12
    BANNED BY MOD
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    From the eastern seaboard west to the Great Lakes, USA, Mexico, Canada and Carribean Islands.
    Posts
    94
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    0
    Bob B posted:

    Evolutionists have been saying for years that non-coding (for proteins) DNA is "junk", leftovers that have accumulated from random mutations during millions of years of evolution from a primitive protocell.

    Dimo:

    That is not entirely correct. It is not "junk". That is an oversimplification. DNA effects enzyme production. Slight modifications to DNA can create large changes in these enzymes. Large modifications in DNA may produce little or no enzyme changes. The overall effect of all this is much too intricate and complex to explain here. However, the concept of "junk" DNA is a word that the laymen has grasped onto, because some genotype changes lead to little or no changes in the phenotype. This communication problem is created by the knowledge gap between genetics experts and the laymen. And YECs like yourself like to hold this out and say "Look evolutionists have been wrong all along".

    Bob B posted:

    Creationists on the other hand have been saying for years that the so-called "junk" DNA undoubtedly has a function that simply has not been discovered as yet, and that it would be a good idea to stop calling it "junk" and get to work finding out what its function is.

    Dimo:

    Is that so? Which creationists have said this?

    Bob B posted:

    Most evolutionists have ignored this advice, but fortunately a few less dogmatic individuals have not, and lo and behold, functions are now rapidly being discovered as the "logjam" in thinking has been weakened.

    Dimo:

    I would like to see some evidence for this claim. Like a testimony from those who freed up the "logjam", that this freedom of thinking is because of the YEC influence on science.

    Bob B posted:

    Of course, the same thing happened in the case of antibiotic resistence which originally had been thought to have been due to random mutation, but which is now known to be anything but random.

    Dimo:

    In this case it turns out that this is due to a type of Lamarckian mechanism. Newer research is showing evidence that Lamarkian concepts make a great deal of sense when it comes to simpler organisms, or organs and organelles found in more complex organisms.

    Do you have evidence that this is actually due to pressures placed on research by YECs?

    Bob B posted:

    Let us hope less dogmatic young researchers take these lessons to heart and stop following the siren song of "random mutations", and so get to work in earnest finding out how the marvellous features of lifeforms really operate.

    Dimo:

    And they will have a much greater chance of this if they steer clear of the YEC mentality; "That some questions in the material sciences just cannot be answered , because they are the result of the supernatural."

  13. #13
    Over 500 post club Free-Agent Smith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    578
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    0
    Originally posted by Turbo

    Galileo was a Bible-believing Christian.
    I do believe it was the Pope who threatened Galileo

  14. #14
    Rookie YawgmothsAvatar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    No longer at TOL
    Posts
    14
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    186
    Originally posted by Agent Smith

    I do believe it was the Pope who threatened Galileo
    Alexander VII, I believe. He ended up house arresting Galileo even after he renounced heliocentricity.

  15. #15
    Old Timer Stratnerd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    NE Pennsylvania
    Posts
    430
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    220
    > was just reading an article about "junk DNA" last night.

    it was because of evolutionary we thought there was a function!
    Battling TOL creationist jerks-for-Jesus since 1998

    I'd rather be (e^-lamba*lambda^x)/x! -ing!

    Everything might be wrong! -Richard Feynman

    My God I love Star Trek TNG

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
About us
Since 1997 TheologyOnline (TOL) has been one of the most popular theology forums on the internet. On TOL we encourage spirited conversation about religion, politics, and just about everything else.

follow us