Well, me, but kudos. There are a few on TOL who won't agree of course. I'm sure you've met them here as well. :up:
Yeah, takes all kinds, um?
Off the top of my head, that Africans are a lesser inferior species. Descent of Man p. 201
That wasn't one of his points. Turns out, his four points remain as well-documented as ever. Darwin differed from his fellows mainly in arguing that Africans, after a few generations in England, would be as capable intellectually as Englishmen. And of course, in asserting that all humans deserved liberty and the right to their own labor.
Could use a bit of elaboration here, if you've the time. Thanks.
SDAs, who invented YE creationism have, in my experience, been less angry and dismissive of Christians who don't believe their version of Genesis, than are many non-SDA creationists.
(Darwin)was a bit of an enigma considering he'd studied theology first. He does mention God, but his grasp of how God could have done things wasn't very clear in his mind. He didn't, by that matter, use his Bible as a roadmap and seemed to think some of the Bible wasn't inspired.
He changed over a lifetime. When he was formulating his theory, he mentions how his Anglican orthodoxy was a source of amusement for the officers of the
Beagle. Late in life, he said he was leaning toward agnosticism. So it matters what time in his life he wrote things.
And I've already demonstrated how a mutation in a population produces new information. If you missed it, I can do the numbers for you.
O.K. Shannon showed information in a message is related to the uncertainty of the next bit coming in a message. So for a population genome, that means for any particular gene, the information is found by Summing the product of the frequency of each allele(version of a gene) by the log of the frequency of that allele, and multiplying it by -1.
So, for a gene with two alleles, each 0.5 frequency, the information would be -(0.5 X log(0.5) + 0.5 X log(0.5)) or about 0.301. The more alleles, the greater the uncertainty of the genome of the next individual, and therefore, the greater the information in the genome itself.
0.1% It is very small. From what I understand (your input appreciated) the DNA strand doesn't lose information per say, but rather shows dominant and lesser traits.
There are dominant alleles, where only one has to be present to be expressed in the phenotype, and recessive alleles, where two have to be present to be expressed. Brown eyes are dominant, and blue are recessive, so a person with blue eyes has two alleles for blue. A person with brown eyes might have either one or two alleles for brown. It's not quite that simple, but that's how it works. There is also mixed dominance. Best example I know of is a white horse with two alleles for a "cream gene", and a reddish horse with two alleles for reddish, will produce only palominos. Hence, palominos can't "breed true." They are heterozygotes, with two different alleles for color.
IOW, as I grasp, the genes are all carried, just differences in what becomes a trait. It is why, again as I understand, my eyes are brown, my wife's are green, and my daughter's are blue: No 'new' traits, simply another already there, becoming dominant.
New alleles only happen by mutation. This is fairly common; all of us have dozens of mutations not found in either of our parents. Most of them don't do anything measurable.
"New" here not meaning never being seen in the gene pool. This is where language needs to be very certain and careful.
It means an allele not previously present in the gene pool. This could happen by immigration of a new individual with that allele, or by mutation. It's a major issue, since most speciations happen in small populations, with less diversity than normal.
From what I'm reading, when someone says, for example that the sun changes my dna skin tones, it isn't really that it is new information, but rather a way my skin already acts.
Yes. It's not a genetic change. The sun's rays merely induce melanocytes to move melanin from the center of the cell, to a wider distribution,thus darkening skin.
Thus 'change' is (for me) a poor descriptor because it is merely a difference in the SAME DNA code. It is difficult to describe, but I think, essentially, these poor descriptors are always the problem. We just are not communicating effectively/creating misunderstood concepts such that another rightly 'should' question what we are saying. In essence, I've always tried to answer questions but it does often put me on a fence for not being as definitive as I think science education needs to be. It needs a better described conveyance.
Yes, and biologists often assume a good understanding of high school biology on the part of laymen. Which is not a good assumption.
Would you agree that a majority of evolution/creation discussion on TOL is largely over term disagreement?
A great deal of it is.
Well, tree is different and it comes back to 'kinds.' If by kinds, we see God separating or recreating, then we can make some connections, but we have to be careful when doing so. The next line of scripture is that God formed man from the dust and breathed into him. Literal breath of God? Something of, but not from human lungs or a physical necessity. It is beyond the ability of science to grasp.
Yes. Our bodies are formed naturally, like other living things, but an immortal soul is given directly by God, which is beyond anything science can analyze.
Well, you have to deal with Romans 8:20 in order to say that. What does it mean?
Romans 8:18 I consider that our present sufferings are not worth comparing with the glory that will be revealed in us. 19 For the creation waits in eager expectation for the children of God to be revealed. 20 For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope 21 that[h] the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the freedom and glory of the children of God.
Clearly, relates to humans, not other creatures, who are not cursed by Adam's sin.
Rather, I think animals are subject to the curse as are plants etc. How? I'm not sure, just seeing Romans 8:20 saying all of creation groans. If you look at Genesis 3, man's curse was fallow ground, weeds, thorns, etc.
What other creature must till the soil to live? Weeds are of no concern to them.
If the wolf will one day lay down with the lamb, something, it would seem, must necessarily be out of order. Carnivores may have 1) been more of omnivores and 2) may have only eaten deceased creatures. Wild speculation? Yes, I'm left only guessing. Science observation 'could' shed light, perhaps. :think:
Cats can't live without meat. They just can't get essential amino acids without it.
What Exactly is an 'Obligate Carnivore?'
https://feline-nutrition.org/answers/answers-what-exactly-is-an-obligate-carnivore
