Beliefs on Origin of Life

[David1701]

On 6/21/2021 at 6:59 PM, watchinginawe said:

Not necessarily. Adaptation is observed evolution and that seems part of God's design. Adaptation is also an improvement over the existing form given a particular environment.

Adaptation, within a created kind, is not what the evolutionists mean by "evolution".  Yes, it does consist of small changes, but they need not even be very gradual (e.g. variations in beak size and shape, in finches, on the Galapagos islands) and they certainly do not lead to any increase in genetic information.

Edited June 25, 2021 by David1701

[one.opinion]

16 hours ago, David1701 said:

they certainly do not lead to any increase in genetic information.

At the DNA level, how would you argue that gene duplication does not increase genetic information? A gene obviously contains genetic information, so a duplication of the gene would increase genetic information. Also, how would you argue the the development of protein-coding genes from non-coding sequences not increase genetic information?

https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=de+novo+gene.formation&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart#d=gs_qabs&u=%23p%3DCO9bjac61MkJ

 

[David1701]

10 hours ago, one.opinion said:

At the DNA level, how would you argue that gene duplication does not increase genetic information? A gene obviously contains genetic information, so a duplication of the gene would increase genetic information.

 

Gene duplication does not add any new genetic information.

Quote

 

Also, how would you argue the the development of protein-coding genes from non-coding sequences not increase genetic information?

https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=de+novo+gene.formation&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart#d=gs_qabs&u=%23p%3DCO9bjac61MkJ

 

Turning on a previously dormant function?

[one.opinion]

4 hours ago, David1701 said:

Gene duplication does not add any new genetic information.

First, isn’t the argument you made. Second, duplication with divergence in one of the copies does add new genetic information.

4 hours ago, David1701 said:

Turning on a previously dormant function?

Turning a sequence that doesn’t code for a transcript and/or protein into a sequence that does code for a transcript and/or protein.

[David1701]

9 hours ago, one.opinion said:

First, isn’t the argument you made. Second, duplication with divergence in one of the copies does add new genetic information.

 

By "additional information", I meant information that had not been present previously, rather than increasing the quantity of existing information.

You have used a neutral word "divergence", which does not say what kind of divergence. 

Mutation of one of the copies merely causes corruption or loss of existing information (almost always neutrally or harmfully, with respect to its effect on the creature, and, even when there is a beneficial change, it is only in specific circumstances - in normal circumstances, the change would be harmful); it does not produce new information.

Quote

Turning a sequence that doesn’t code for a transcript and/or protein into a sequence that does code for a transcript and/or protein.

That could still be a dormant feature that gets turned on when there are specific circumstances, by altering existing information.

[one.opinion]

3 hours ago, David1701 said:

You have used a neutral word "divergence", which does not say what kind of divergence. 

Initially, DNA sequence divergence through accumulated mutations, but that will eventually lead to amino acid divergence, and potentially functional divergence.

3 hours ago, David1701 said:

Mutation of one of the copies merely causes corruption or loss of existing information (almost always neutrally or harmfully, with respect to its effect on the creature, and, even when there is a beneficial change, it is only in specific circumstances - in normal circumstances, the change would be harmful); it does not produce new information.

You first state that mutations are almost always neutral or harmful, which is accurate, but then claim that mutations do not produce new information. By using "almost always", this rightly opens the door for mutations that are beneficial.

So if a duplicated gene underwent a beneficial mutation that would allow a similar, but slightly different function in the resulting gene product, that would be "new information".

3 hours ago, David1701 said:

That could still be a dormant feature that gets turned on when there are specific circumstances, by altering existing information.

Even if an existing feature is dormant, it would not currently be used to carry out a specific activity. If mutation led to the dormant function to become active, that would be an increase in information, unless there is a very convoluted idea of what genetic information is. This might be a good idea to explain exactly what you mean by "information".

[AandW_Rootbeer]

On 6/19/2021 at 9:01 AM, one.opinion said:

As for the second part, I tend to believe something along the lines of Michael Behe, that God's initial creation events set all creation into motion. Behe's analogy is a perfect billiards shot that pockets all balls from a single cue ball strike.

It would appear to me that you believe Science through Evolution explains God's Creation.   But the example of "Behe's analogy is a perfect billiards shot that pockets all balls from a single cue ball strike," doesn't seem to align perfectly knowing that Evolution is largely based upon natural selection, chance and accident.   In fact, that would be more of a double minded analogy than anything else.

[David1701]

18 hours ago, one.opinion said:

Initially, DNA sequence divergence through accumulated mutations, but that will eventually lead to amino acid divergence, and potentially functional divergence.

You first state that mutations are almost always neutral or harmful, which is accurate, but then claim that mutations do not produce new information. By using "almost always", this rightly opens the door for mutations that are beneficial.

Yes; but, the mutations that are beneficial are only beneficial in unusual circumstances.  One example would be bacteria that have a mutation that makes chemical transport across the cell wall much less efficient.  In normal circumstances, this would put them at a huge disadvantage; but, in a hospital, where they use antibiotics that depend upon chemical transport into the cell, the normally damaging mutation is a practical benefit.  Another example would be fish in a cave, without light.  Those fish that have a mutation that causes them to lack eyes would normally be at a great disadvantage, but, in a completely dark cave, eyes are merely a useless, but very easily injured, part of the body; so, what would normally be a disastrous mutation is, in these specific, unusual circumstances only, a beneficial mutation.

Notice also that these mutations are due to loss of genetic information.

Quote

So if a duplicated gene underwent a beneficial mutation that would allow a similar, but slightly different function in the resulting gene product, that would be "new information".

Only if that function were not part of the underlying (but previously not activated) genetic code.  This would need to be demonstrated, not assumed.

Quote

Even if an existing feature is dormant, it would not currently be used to carry out a specific activity. If mutation led to the dormant function to become active, that would be an increase in information, unless there is a very convoluted idea of what genetic information is. This might be a good idea to explain exactly what you mean by "information".

It's well known that functions can be turned on and off, within the genetic code, depending upon circumstances.  This is not new information.  It is use of existing information.

[one.opinion]

7 hours ago, AandW_Rootbeer said:

Evolution is largely based upon natural selection, chance and accident. 

This is not necessarily true. Some may argue this, but I argue that God holds His creation in His hands and it has unfolded exactly how He planned. I agree that natural selection plays a large role, but when the Creator is omnipotent and omniscient, chance and accident do not play a role.

[one.opinion]

9 minutes ago, David1701 said:

Notice also that these mutations are due to loss of genetic information.

Sure, your examples involve loss of function, but that is not true of all beneficial mutations. When a mutation provides benefit in a particular environment, it does not counter the concept of evolution, but highlights it. Evolution allows organisms to adapt to new environments. Using these as examples against evolution does not make sense.

 

15 minutes ago, David1701 said:

Only if that function were not part of the underlying (but previously not activated) genetic code.

Clearly, such a scenario would be exactly that.

18 minutes ago, David1701 said:

This would need to be demonstrated, not assumed.

Agreed, there is assumption involved. However, based on duplications that are observed and mutations that are observed, it is reasonable a reasonable assumption, provided sufficient time.

 

20 minutes ago, David1701 said:

It's well known that functions can be turned on and off, within the genetic code, depending upon circumstances.

This clearly goes beyond regulation of gene expression. What I am talking about is mutation leading to expression of RNA and possibly protein from a previously non-coding sequence.