For my part you are always welcome Fletch. Two things. One? You DO know where I’m going. That’s good. Two. Let’s see how astute a student of Kamui’s you really are. Tell me why not my God in particular.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
On the Definition of “Predicate”
Take offense at rhymes in my Alexandrian couplets?
I squeeze them out like Labrador puplets.
I eschew the philosophers’ heaviest yoke–
But just one thing I know: Trib cannot take a joke.
Spondees and anapests are almost in the right places, too.
I tell you nay my witty friend this yoke none can eschew
Thou runnest high, thou runnest low. it ruleth over you.
Though heliotrope or gamete. Though chromosome or gene
Though forty six or forty eight, though two be from thirteen
Though anapest and spondee be yay rightly placed by thee
They languish all in silence sans epistemology
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
I tell you nay my witty friend this yoke none can eschew
Thou runnest high, thou runnest low. it ruleth over you.
Though heliotrope or gamete. Though chromosome or gene
Though forty six or forty eight, though two be from thirteen
Though anapest and spondee be yea rightly placed by thee
They languish yet in silence sans epistemology[/quote]
Four stars!
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]anonym wrote:
While I would rather wait for push to chime in to clarify that statement, I have other things I need to do tonight so I figure I’ll get the ball rolling as is.
CLIFFNOTES: it happens. We can observe it. We can test it.
We know that information can be added to the genome; this is a fact. And, we not only know that it DOES occur, we know various mechanisms behind WHY it occurs; e.g., as a result of unequal crossing over during meiosis I (“crossing over” refers to a point during cell division in which each pair of chromosomes swaps - or, crosses - genetic information with its counterpart to form a recombinant chromosome as a means of ensuring genetic diversity in offspring). When crossing over is unequal, the results can vary wildly - anything from a portion of a single gene to several genes can be found. In the event that introns (noncoding segments that nonetheless provide crucial functions) are transferred alongside the exons (coding regions), we now have a chromosome with extra material capable of expression. If not, there is still new information (albeit defective, noncoding, whatever) on the recombinant chromosome that presents a potential for further alteration down the line.
Another example would be in the case of transposable genetic elements, such as retrotransposons (which are copied to mRNA to cDNA and then inserted back into the genome) and DNA transposons (in which DNA segments are enzymatically jostled about without an RNA intermediate). The latter does not add anything “new” to the individual (it is simply a rearrangement), though that rearrangement can be passed on as “extra” information. The former, however, IS new information since the original sequence is copied and reinserted.
There are obviously other examples, the more obvious being cases of entire chromosome duplication (Down, Klinefelter’s, Edwards syndromes), but I think we get the picture.
So, we know that it occurs… but can we see/test/observe it? Yes, we can. If we chemically arrest cells during a particular stage in their division (colchicine or colcemid during metaphase is a textbook example, but I’m not a geneticist so I don’t know the latest-and-greatest), we can actually take the chromosomes, pair them together, stain them and lay them out for analysis. This is called karyotyping (and I’m sure if you Google an image of it you will recognize it even if the word itself in unfamiliar). Actually nowadays, our technology is so advanced we can use DNA probes specific for certain sequences to bind and fluoresce for us so we can see what’s going on (fluorescence in-situ hybridization technology, or FISH).
So, yeah. And I just wanna nip one particular objection in the bud straightaway: while many of these examples DO result in pathological states, this is not a universal rule. Not all mutations are bad. Please Google it or something before trying to argue otherwise.[/quote]
Ano, question.
Did you just describe experiments that were intelligently designed and manipulated in a laboratory or did you observe these events happening randomly in the wild?[/quote]
No push, meiosis isn’t a forced mechanism. Yes, it does happen in the wild.
The part about staining them for observation is to examine what is happening.
So you choose to critically question(which is a good thing, IMO) what is unobservable with the scientific theory of evolution but not the entire unobservability of what creationism posits(which is a bad thing, IMO)?
There’s strong evidence for evolution. Where’s the evidence that it was the Christian God and not some other God(s)? How do you address that?
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Matt and Ano, how do you explain the huge lack of missing links?[/quote]
Answer my question first, and I’ll get to yours.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
There’s strong evidence for evolution. Where’s the evidence that it was the Christian God and not some other God(s)? How do you address that?[/quote]
The account given by the God of the Bible, whom Christians embrace, seems to fit with the observable evidence quite well in many areas.[/quote]
So you’ve looked into what the other religions say with as much detail as you’ve gone into the biblical account that you believe in?
[quote]MattyG35 wrote:There’s strong evidence for evolution. Where’s the evidence that it was the Christian God and not some other God(s)? How do you address that?[/quote]GREAT POINT MATTY!! And one I’ve pounded traditional evidentialist apologetics with forever. I’m not interested in defending the possible existence of any god in general, while defending the actual existence of none in particular.
I am a champion of He who in the beginning commanded light and matter to exist from nothing. The Lord God of Israel. The ancient of days. He who is, was and is to come. Whose dominion is from everlasting to everlasting. Who has eternally existed as one God in a divine triunity of “persons”. Neither dividing the substance nor confounding those persons. He who descended from His Father to be born of a virgin woman and feed at the breast of His own creation. Live in obedience to His own law. Die as a sacrifice according to that law as if He hadn’t and having no sin of His own, being raised in defeat of death itself. That’s the God I love and serve. My job is to proclaim Him. Only He can save. That part is His problem.
This is not against Push I assure you (and him). The epistemology thread got very far into how I do this. Kamui REALLY got it. The problem of the one and the many and the utter lack of contingency for this God are keys. Yes, oh ye scientists. Until this is settled literally nothing you say has any significance whatsoever.
Tiribulus, that still doesn’t answer the question why it’s the Christian God and not some other God(s). Just because other religions have other God(s) doesn’t make them any less valid than the one you prefer. Writing them off because the bible says so isn’t valid either, b/c that works both ways.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
There’s strong evidence for evolution. Where’s the evidence that it was the Christian God and not some other God(s)? How do you address that?[/quote]
The account given by the God of the Bible, whom Christians embrace, seems to fit with the observable evidence quite well in many areas.[/quote]
So you’ve looked into what the other religions say with as much detail as you’ve gone into the biblical account that you believe in?
[/quote]
Have you looked into what creationism teaches with as much detail as you’ve gone into the evolutionism/uniformitarianism account that you believe in?[/quote]
Yes, I have. I don’t consider the bible a valid source of truth or a source for evidence that has modern day scientific applications.
I know some may say that my heart wasn’t it or some other excuse, I do take pride in the bible that I have with my name written in gold on it that I received upon completion of bible study(via an RC chaplain) that I did during a certain time in my adult life. I would never throw that book away despite my feelings about Christianity.