Skip to comments.
Darwinism and the Deterioration
of the Genome
True.Origin ^
| 8/7/06
| Jerry Bergman, Ph.D.
Posted on 08/07/2006 10:54:34 AM PDT by Michael_Michaelangelo
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 101-115 next last
Comment #2 Removed by Moderator
To: Michael_Michaelangelo
Hey, good job on ignoring additional information added by replication errors, retro virii and other mechanisms.
3
posted on
08/07/2006 10:59:31 AM PDT
by
orionblamblam
(I'm interested in science and preventing its corruption, so here I am.)
To: Michael_Michaelangelo
>>Instead, mutations will produce degradation of the information in the genome.<<
Wow, this guy with PhD in biology has proved that evolution is impossible. Thats really amazing.
Columbia Pacific University, where he got his PhD must really be proud. Its not often that a mail order degree school produces such and amazing discovery.
4
posted on
08/07/2006 11:01:07 AM PDT
by
gondramB
(Never appeal to an enemy's better nature, he might not have one. Self interest yields more leverage)
To: Michael_Michaelangelo
I hear rustling ... the winged monkeys of evo freepers are on the way!
5
posted on
08/07/2006 11:01:12 AM PDT
by
silverleaf
(Fasten your seat belts- it's going to be a BUMPY ride.)
To: Michael_Michaelangelo
Krusty Krab Pizza Placeholder
6
posted on
08/07/2006 11:01:55 AM PDT
by
RFC_Gal
(It's not just a boulder; It's a rock! A ro-o-ock. The pioneers used to ride these babies for miles!)
To: Michael_Michaelangelo; ninenot; sittnick; steve50; Hegemony Cricket; Willie Green; Wolfie; ...
I tend to think that God allowed the evolution to take place, but that evolution is driven by much more intricate and intelligent mechanism than crude rolling of the dice.
7
posted on
08/07/2006 11:02:00 AM PDT
by
A. Pole
(Saint Augustine: "The truth speaks from the bottom of the heart without the noise of words")
To: A. Pole
Must We Have a Separation of Church and Science?
Listen to this story...
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5617850
Talk of the Nation, August 4, 2006 · Can a world class scientist also be a devout Christian? Some big names in science say "absolutely." But balancing a scientific career with religious beliefs does involve some challenges.
Guests
Francis Collins, author The Language of God; director, National Human Genome Research Institute (National Institutes of Health)
Owen Gingerich, author, God's Universe (forthcoming from Harvard University Press); senior astronomer emeritus, Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory; research professor emeritus (astronomy and history of science) Harvard University
8
posted on
08/07/2006 11:03:41 AM PDT
by
Matchett-PI
( Ignorance is correctable with education, but stupid is forever.)
To: A. Pole
That's how I feel but got blasted by people here all the same.
I'm glad I homeschool!
9
posted on
08/07/2006 11:03:51 AM PDT
by
netmilsmom
(To attack one section of Christianity in this day and age, is to waste time.)
To: wbmstr24
'(let's make him out to be a religious wacko with no credentials..." Let's let him publish his thesis in a scientific journal where others can make a good study of it. Sure, he can publish at an internet creationist site, but no one of scientific import will take it seriesly.
To: Michael_Michaelangelo
My last post may have been too harsh - if he's really a Professor at Medical University of Ohio then he must have some qualifications.
11
posted on
08/07/2006 11:07:34 AM PDT
by
gondramB
(Never appeal to an enemy's better nature, he might not have one. Self interest yields more leverage)
To: wbmstr24
Genes get shuffled around and duplicated. DNA Methylation is a real phenomenon that requires no mutation at all to effectuate a change in gene expression.
I think most everybody already knew that mutations are generally not beneficial ~ presumably some are, but they are very rare.
Then, there's another possibility ~ that you get some of your genes (speaking of species now) from exogenous sources ~ e.g. viruses.
The oceans are full of them ~ millions have been identified, but there may be billions or trillions of different genes already produced that can survive and reproduce in bacteria or algae, and they're just floating around out there waiting for some mechanism to transport them right into your genome.
It has been proposed by highly experienced DNA researchers that we simply construct ourselves an "artificial life form" and start plugging these wild genes into it to see what they do.
This, of course, reduces "evolution" to an afterthought that may or may not have some sort of effect on critters, but which is, in any case, not terribly necessary for there to be genetic change in a species.
It also addresses the "parallel evolution" question quite directly ~ rather than arguing that somehow "natural selection" (at best a "force", and at worst a "supernatural being") drives critters to adapt with similar solutions, all we have to do is find the "gene" in the vast viral reservoir in the surface of the ocean and plug it in.
In the long run it's all probably much more like changing sparkplugs in a car than relationships with invisible forces.
12
posted on
08/07/2006 11:12:21 AM PDT
by
muawiyah
(-/sarcasm)
To: gondramB
"then he must have some qualifications." Nah, just unevolved neanderthal.
13
posted on
08/07/2006 11:18:28 AM PDT
by
GSlob
To: Matchett-PI
But balancing a scientific career with religious beliefs does involve some challenges. Balancing a scientific career with the atheism requires much harder challenge as science itself is based on the Christian worldview.
The Origin of Science
...as Whitehead pointed out, it is no coincidence that science sprang, not from Ionian metaphysics, not from the Brahmin-Buddhist-Taoist East, not from the Egyptian-Mayan astrological South, but from the heart of the Christian West, that although Galileo fell out with the Church, he would hardly have taken so much trouble studying Jupiter and dropping objects from towers if the reality and value and order of things had not first been conferred by belief in the Incarnation. (Walker Percy, Lost in the Cosmos)
To the popular mind, science is completely inimical to religion: science embraces facts and evidence while religion professes blind faith. Like many simplistic popular notions, this view is mistaken. Modern science is not only compatible with Christianity, it in fact finds its origins in Christianity. This is not to say that the Bible is a science textbook that contains raw scientific truths, as some evangelical Christians would have us believe. The Christian faith contains deeper truths-- truths with philosophical consequences that make conceivable the mind's exploration of nature: man's place in God's creation, who God is and how he freely created a cosmos.
In large part, the modern mind thinks little of these notions in much the same way that the last thing on a fish's mind is the water it breathes. It is difficult for those raised in a scientific world to appreciate the plight of the ancient mind trapped within an eternal and arbitrary world. It is difficult for those raised in a post-Christian world to appreciate the radical novelty and liberation Christian ideas presented to the ancient mind.
(
The Origin of Science)
14
posted on
08/07/2006 11:19:23 AM PDT
by
A. Pole
(Saint Augustine: "The truth speaks from the bottom of the heart without the noise of words")
To: A. Pole
>>Balancing a scientific career with the atheism requires much harder challenge as science itself is based on the Christian worldview.<<
I'm pretty sure that Aristotle was not a Christian.
15
posted on
08/07/2006 11:25:21 AM PDT
by
gondramB
(Never appeal to an enemy's better nature, he might not have one. Self interest yields more leverage)
To: wbmstr24
Does any serious person actually not see that Dawkins' "Methinks it is like a weasel" example undermines his own thesis? I've never seen a written defense addressing the kinds of problems raised here.
16
posted on
08/07/2006 11:30:01 AM PDT
by
Rippin
Comment #17 Removed by Moderator
Comment #18 Removed by Moderator
To: gondramB
I'm pretty sure that Aristotle was not a Christian. First he was not a scientist, he was a philosopher. The science as we know it was develo[ed in the Middle Ages by the Roman Catholic Church, yes using some ideas of Aristotle modified by scholasticism.
Second the philosophy of Aristotle was theocentric itself with God being the First Mover.
19
posted on
08/07/2006 11:36:03 AM PDT
by
A. Pole
(Saint Augustine: "The truth speaks from the bottom of the heart without the noise of words")
Comment #20 Removed by Moderator
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 101-115 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson