2
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 135:
Line 135: + + + + + + + + + +
Talk:Young Earth Creationism (view source)
Revision as of 04:30, December 16, 2011
, 04:30, December 16, 2011→races: -- gain of information mutations
: Whether or not the origin of life is evolution depends on your [[definition of evolution]].
: Whether or not the origin of life is evolution depends on your [[definition of evolution]].
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:16, 17 September 2008 (EDT)
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:16, 17 September 2008 (EDT)
::While I agree with most of Rayment's arguments, his argument (well, to be fair, I can't blame him for it) that genetic information cannot be created gives me some concerns.
::Firstly, we can safely assume that any segment of gene can be duplicated, yes? (this includes pieces of genes)
::Next, could we assume (as it seems we already have) that any gene can undergo a point mutation?
::Now, if one's worldview allows for the possibility of these, it means that:
:::- a gene which codes for some multi-domain protein could duplicate domains, which could lead to a gain of function
::::Note -- many multiple domain proteins (the IG superfamily, actin-binding proteins, the list goes on) show evidence of having been formed this way (God may have created each domain, then strung them together, but it is also possible that domain were genetically copied)
:::- Many proteins which have similar functions also have similar forms and strikingly similar first-order structures (their amino acid sequences are often very similar), which means they may have been copied then modified to their own ends (once more possibly by God, but possibly by mutations)
:::- once either a copy of a gene or a copy of a domain is made, it is free to be point-mutated almost without restraint -- any one of these point mutations could create a new useful protein, with a new function.
::Using the cake analogy, this is paralleled by a copy of the recipe being made, then a change made to either the copy or the original. If the cake recipe calls for adding a layer of chocolate followed by, say, almonds, a mutation could lead to two layers of chocolate and almonds being added. Or three, or four.
::Teleologically, this does not add information -- however, I just realised that one cannot compare a gene to a cake recipe any more than one can compare the construction of a house to the fetal development of a human being. They go about by entirely different processes. If once were to take the analogy of the cake recipe and apply it to the Darwinian belief of life, the proteins would not be recipes, they would be the individual words. The Teleological criteria of addition of information would apply to a system similar to the English language. If I were to say "add three cups of grodzbly extract" instead of "add three cups of vanilla extract" it would not teleologically add information; whereas a point mutation in a strain of bacteria which allows an ABC transporter to remove one more toxin from the cell would confer a useful adaptation -- it might not confer information, but darwinism does not work by information using a teleological goal-seeking standard. Teleology is simply the wrong method to use to demolish something which rejects teleology. Any suggestions as to what you could use to attack genetics? What I know is that the recipe analogy isn't it.
==mention other creation theories==
==mention other creation theories==