RE: So your an Athiest
December 5, 2015 at 2:15 pm
(This post was last modified: December 5, 2015 at 2:17 pm by TheRocketSurgeon.)
(December 5, 2015 at 1:28 pm)AAA Wrote:(December 5, 2015 at 1:14 pm)Quantum Wrote: No, I don't think I have that elite knowledge. Also, if I thougj you can never attain it I would not recommend that you keep studying it. Odd that you would think that, are you really studying biology? But I know some elite biologists who really know their stuff, and they don't think that evolution does a poor job of explaining new genetic information.
I agree that a lot of scientists believe evolution does a fine job. But there ARE scientists who know their stuff who also disagree with it. I do understand it. The point you seem to be making is that because I have a different interpretation of the evidence than many scientists, I am wrong. Also biologists tend to give the answer that new genetic information arises from mutation, but mutations occur so infrequently within a cell, and they lead to a decrease in function or no change at all.
If you know of a better explanation to add genetic information please share it so that I can maybe get on board with the theory of evolution.
I've mainly been avoiding this conversation because I'm trying to get a new business off the ground and I don't have time for a lot of online "play time", but I have to jump in at this point. AAA, you sound like you've done a bit of reading, but you're dead wrong about how a lot of how cellular biology works.
1) New genetic information arises from mutations, yes, but there are several forms of mutation which can occur. These include but not limited to: point mutations (changing of one base pair to another), frame-shift mutations (changing where the cellular "reader" starts reading the sequence for the genes that follow in that segment), transpositions (a piece that gets "clipped out" and moved elsewhere in the genome, often interrupting or changing other genes nearby and how those genes express), recombinations (shifting of DNA fragments during the process of making gametes and recombining them), and most importantly duplication mutations (where a whole gene gets copied into twins of itself, where a subsequent mutation of the duplicate does not change the function of the original, allowing for "new" genes to evolve from the copy).
2) While many mutations do something bad to the organism, most mutations are totally neutral, as they occur in places that don't code for proteins or serve any other major function in the cell. Others are beneficial, however rare this event may be is irrelevant. Every human born has an average of ten (10) unique mutations; most of them do nothing, but sometimes we have either problems or benefits as a result. None of this requires intelligence or design. They are simply by-products of the way DNA codes and replicates.
If you're going to challenge evolutionary biology, fine. But at least do so from a basis of actual knowledge, not straw-man building.
Edit to Add: I am a retired biologist, as well, and my fiancee is currently working as a genetics lab tech with her biochem degree... so you're barking up the wrong tree if you want to convince us, without peer-reviewed information, of these wild assertions you're making about cellular chemistry.
A Christian told me: if you were saved you cant lose your salvation. you're sealed with the Holy Ghost
I replied: Can I refuse? Because I find the entire concept of vicarious blood sacrifice atonement to be morally abhorrent, the concept of holding flawed creatures permanently accountable for social misbehaviors and thought crimes to be morally abhorrent, and the concept of calling something "free" when it comes with the strings of subjugation and obedience perhaps the most morally abhorrent of all... and that's without even going into the history of justifying genocide, slavery, rape, misogyny, religious intolerance, and suppression of free speech which has been attributed by your own scriptures to your deity. I want a refund. I would burn happily rather than serve the monster you profess to love.
I replied: Can I refuse? Because I find the entire concept of vicarious blood sacrifice atonement to be morally abhorrent, the concept of holding flawed creatures permanently accountable for social misbehaviors and thought crimes to be morally abhorrent, and the concept of calling something "free" when it comes with the strings of subjugation and obedience perhaps the most morally abhorrent of all... and that's without even going into the history of justifying genocide, slavery, rape, misogyny, religious intolerance, and suppression of free speech which has been attributed by your own scriptures to your deity. I want a refund. I would burn happily rather than serve the monster you profess to love.