Posts: 11260
Threads: 61
Joined: January 5, 2013
Reputation:
123
RE: A simple challenge for atheists
January 15, 2015 at 12:29 pm
(January 15, 2015 at 12:17 pm)Alex K Wrote: Ok, ok. But calling mutations themselves (and by that we mean individual mutations by default) anything other than blind is extremely misleading, don't you think.
I'm by no means an expert on genetics, but I would still say, based on my laymen's understanding, that "blind" overstresses the case quite a bit. After all, mutations are physical processes and are thus constrained by physical laws; no matter the actual nature of the changes, they're still using the same sets of chemicals, within the framework of an existing genetic structure. So you're never going to get a mutation set that would require, say, a fifty percent change to the overall genetic structure; all mutations need to be viable within the context of the organism they're happening to, which isn't the sort of infinite vista of possibilities that creationists want to characterize it as.
"YOU take the hard look in the mirror. You are everything that is wrong with this world. The only thing important to you, is you." - ronedee
Want to see more of my writing? Check out my (safe for work!) site, Unprotected Sects!
Posts: 441
Threads: 12
Joined: March 1, 2013
Reputation:
10
RE: A simple challenge for atheists
January 15, 2015 at 1:56 pm
(January 15, 2015 at 12:29 pm)Esquilax Wrote: (January 15, 2015 at 12:17 pm)Alex K Wrote: Ok, ok. But calling mutations themselves (and by that we mean individual mutations by default) anything other than blind is extremely misleading, don't you think.
I'm by no means an expert on genetics, but I would still say, based on my laymen's understanding, that "blind" overstresses the case quite a bit. After all, mutations are physical processes and are thus constrained by physical laws; no matter the actual nature of the changes, they're still using the same sets of chemicals, within the framework of an existing genetic structure. So you're never going to get a mutation set that would require, say, a fifty percent change to the overall genetic structure; all mutations need to be viable within the context of the organism they're happening to, which isn't the sort of infinite vista of possibilities that creationists want to characterize it as.
That's part of the answer. This article says it better than I can:
Why Evolution Isn't Chance
Posts: 67207
Threads: 140
Joined: June 28, 2011
Reputation:
162
RE: A simple challenge for atheists
January 15, 2015 at 4:48 pm
(This post was last modified: January 15, 2015 at 4:48 pm by The Grand Nudger.)
Good luck having a conversation about evolution with a person who thinks the choices are either "god" or "chance". In their mind, it's magic either way.
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
Posts: 18510
Threads: 129
Joined: January 19, 2014
Reputation:
91
RE: A simple challenge for atheists
January 15, 2015 at 5:00 pm
(This post was last modified: January 15, 2015 at 5:04 pm by Alex K.)
(January 15, 2015 at 12:29 pm)Esquilax Wrote: (January 15, 2015 at 12:17 pm)Alex K Wrote: Ok, ok. But calling mutations themselves (and by that we mean individual mutations by default) anything other than blind is extremely misleading, don't you think.
I'm by no means an expert on genetics, but I would still say, based on my laymen's understanding, that "blind" overstresses the case quite a bit. After all, mutations are physical processes and are thus constrained by physical laws; no matter the actual nature of the changes, they're still using the same sets of chemicals, within the framework of an existing genetic structure. So you're never going to get a mutation set that would require, say, a fifty percent change to the overall genetic structure; all mutations need to be viable within the context of the organism they're happening to, which isn't the sort of infinite vista of possibilities that creationists want to characterize it as. Me neither of course, unless a real biologist stumbles in we're just passionate laypeople.
To me the literal meaning of "mutations are blind" is that mutations do not "see" anything, i.e. what their own consequences are or even their goals would be, and that they therefore occur independenly of any of that. Chemically impossible mutations are obviously excluded -do we really need to mention that separately?-, and mutations which lead to a broken organism indeed occur, but are not carried on via procreation, which is a form of natural selection. Many mutations at once are statistically unlikely, has imho also nothing to do with blindness.
Well ok, if we assume extremely biased readers, who will read "blind" as "violating the laws of genetics" in order to discredit it, additional clarification is required - but calling muations not blind because there are chemical constraints and natural selection, muddies the language in my opinion. It would be to me like calling a crapshoot "not blind" just because you can't roll a 7 with one die and some throws lose.
I also wouldn't call several modifications of the genome at different places "one mutation" (because you mention a mutation not being able to change 50% of the genome), but I'm not sure.
The fool hath said in his heart, There is a God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.
Psalm 14, KJV revised edition
Posts: 8731
Threads: 425
Joined: October 7, 2014
Reputation:
37
RE: A simple challenge for atheists
January 15, 2015 at 6:24 pm
(January 9, 2015 at 7:33 pm)bob96 Wrote: Imagine an alternate universe which contains a single hydrogen atom. (Lets not include dark matter or other forces in the discussion for the purpose of simplicity.) You could replace the atom with a proton, a neutron, a sub-atomic particle, or a string. The point is, it's real. It can be measured.
Now where did this hydrogen atom come from?
Was it just always there?
Did it spontaneously appear, ie. magically?
Did someone create it?
How did it come into being?
First off 1 hydrogen atom wouldn't create anything so... i mean its pointless to ask that question.
Atheism is a non-prophet organization join today.
Code: <iframe width="100%" height="450" scrolling="no" frameborder="no" src="https://w.soundcloud.com/player/?url=https%3A//api.soundcloud.com/tracks/255506953&auto_play=false&hide_related=false&show_comments=true&show_user=true&show_reposts=false&visual=true"></iframe>
Posts: 441
Threads: 12
Joined: March 1, 2013
Reputation:
10
RE: A simple challenge for atheists
January 15, 2015 at 6:25 pm
(January 15, 2015 at 6:24 pm)dyresand Wrote: (January 9, 2015 at 7:33 pm)bob96 Wrote: Imagine an alternate universe which contains a single hydrogen atom. (Lets not include dark matter or other forces in the discussion for the purpose of simplicity.) You could replace the atom with a proton, a neutron, a sub-atomic particle, or a string. The point is, it's real. It can be measured.
Now where did this hydrogen atom come from?
Was it just always there?
Did it spontaneously appear, ie. magically?
Did someone create it?
How did it come into being?
First off 1 hydrogen atom wouldn't create anything so... i mean its pointless to ask that question.
OK, then - make it a teapot.
Posts: 8731
Threads: 425
Joined: October 7, 2014
Reputation:
37
RE: A simple challenge for atheists
January 15, 2015 at 6:42 pm
(January 15, 2015 at 6:25 pm)Davka Wrote: (January 15, 2015 at 6:24 pm)dyresand Wrote: First off 1 hydrogen atom wouldn't create anything so... i mean its pointless to ask that question.
OK, then - make it a teapot.
Well one would need some type a sentient beings to make it first.
Atheism is a non-prophet organization join today.
Code: <iframe width="100%" height="450" scrolling="no" frameborder="no" src="https://w.soundcloud.com/player/?url=https%3A//api.soundcloud.com/tracks/255506953&auto_play=false&hide_related=false&show_comments=true&show_user=true&show_reposts=false&visual=true"></iframe>
Posts: 441
Threads: 12
Joined: March 1, 2013
Reputation:
10
RE: A simple challenge for atheists
January 16, 2015 at 12:10 am
(January 15, 2015 at 6:42 pm)dyresand Wrote: (January 15, 2015 at 6:25 pm)Davka Wrote: OK, then - make it a teapot.
Well one would need some type a sentient beings to make it first.
No, this is a self-generating teapot. An uncaused teapot. The teapot at the end of the Universe. So long and thanks for all the tea.
Posts: 8731
Threads: 425
Joined: October 7, 2014
Reputation:
37
RE: A simple challenge for atheists
January 16, 2015 at 12:11 am
(This post was last modified: January 16, 2015 at 12:19 am by dyresand.)
(January 16, 2015 at 12:10 am)Davka Wrote: (January 15, 2015 at 6:42 pm)dyresand Wrote: Well one would need some type a sentient beings to make it first.
No, this is a self-generating teapot. An uncaused teapot. The teapot at the end of the Universe. So long and thanks for all the tea.
empty teapot i can deal with.
Atheism is a non-prophet organization join today.
Code: <iframe width="100%" height="450" scrolling="no" frameborder="no" src="https://w.soundcloud.com/player/?url=https%3A//api.soundcloud.com/tracks/255506953&auto_play=false&hide_related=false&show_comments=true&show_user=true&show_reposts=false&visual=true"></iframe>
Posts: 183
Threads: 7
Joined: January 13, 2015
Reputation:
11
RE: A simple challenge for atheists
January 16, 2015 at 12:24 am
No one knows, or if they do, they haven't chosen to share that info with me.
People used to chalk the weather up to gods, simply because they didn't understand.
We shouldn't make the same mistake with how our universe came to be.
Gone
|
