Octopus Edits its own Genetic Code to Adapt to Cold Water

It is the difference between *what* and *why*. Bare bone physical descriptions of *what* we see vs philosophical/metaphysical explanations for *why*. Both have their place. Both are important. I think the point here is simply that it's possible (and preferable) to do the former without mixing in the latter. We can describe the *what* of DNA replication and genetic changes without adding metaphysical presuppositions (whether metaphysical naturalism or supernaturalism), and it is more objective to do so.

If what you are suggesting is we must defer to what we think isn't true and use language that reflects that because others disagree, if all you are trying to do is, "to be fair" I disagree. I don't want to use language to mean other than what I think is true, and if someone must use design terminologies to describe what is seen, while at the same time, claiming mindlessness is the chief root cause, it is, in my opinion, a contradiction.

Truth is very exclusive, something is or isn't, we must use exclusive language that goes to the root cause of what we believe is the driving force behind all of life's processes, if it is mindlessness, find a way mindlessness can program various specialized ways actions are coded, and use those terms. Otherwise, you are playing down reality in favor of being fair, which has nothing to do with truth.

A piano with only one key?

Not everything is a battle over metaphysical truth. I posted a factual science news article simply because I found it interesting. No other reason. I don't see how you get "you're compromising reality/truth" from that. Fact: The octopus has the ability to edit it's own RNA. That's amazing, and interesting (and not said "to be fair" but because it's a fact).

You realize don't you there is truth, there are no categories of truth, those are nothing but opinions. If something is a true reflection of reality, it is true, that will not change if it comes from the sciences, religion, or anything else. I didn't argue that the octopus could not alter anything.

"You realize don't you there is truth" - certainly, in statements that can be made relating to matters of fact! And it's now a matter of recorded fact that the octopus has the ability to edit it's own RNA.

But exactly what it is that you're claiming as 'fact' isn't nearly so clear.

Who is arguing with that fact?

Well, I think that's the point---the fact the octopus edits its own RNA--that's what this OP is about. You seem to be arguing about something else. I'm not saying that what you raise isn't important. It is, it's an important topic of discussion. But this OP isn't about that. If you like, we could revisit one of the older threads, or start afresh a new one to debate ID arguments for design. That might be interesting. I don't think anyone has ever posted a formal statement of that argument (sure, it's been discussed loads of times peripherally and in general, but I don't think anyone has ever posted an in depth, *formal* statement of the argument for design. That could be interesting to discuss).

Code does not change, conditions may cause something to react differently in different conditions, while differently in another. An alternation of code would have to be part of the coding to begin with, making that one of the most incredible features in genetics. Information is the gate keeper for all executables in life, nothing is haphazard,

It is an empirical fact that code changes. And in ways that were not 'coded' for in the beginning. In fact, most changes in genomes are caused by foreign DNA (jumping genes, transposable elements) that were not part of the original genome, but acquired later via bacterial and viral transmission.

Here's an interesting article on the recent discovery of 30,000 viral elements in the genomes of microbes.

"Code does not change, conditions may cause something to react differently in different conditions, while differently in another"

@tbwp10, I think this crystalises the problem with T_M? He takes a dogmatic position on a number of issues and this is one - 'Code does not change' but it does when it comes to genetic code, you know it, I know it and all Biologists and Geneticists know it.

I don't know how you get through to people who have such a fixed and rigid loyalty to their own ideology.

I have cause to think the way I do, you have someone who someday may find something that proves your point of view. There is a difference.

"Code does not change" - I was incorrect to describe this as a dogmatic statement because it isn't, it's demonstrably false instead and that's very different.

What you claim is simply false and there's no 'cause' whatsoever for holding a false belief. Please do more research and reading and satisfy yourself that it is the case that genetic code can and does change.

Am I correct in saying that those reasons include a combination of ID-type arguments plus your belief that Genesis 1 requires that evolution be rejected?

You would be correct in assuming every measure that points to truth about that and every other topic should all reflect the same outcome if they are correctly identifying a true point in reality. A true statement is not true in any fragmented sense.

So what that a yes, or a no?

I take it all into account, why would that be anything other than a yes?

Sometimes you give long explanations that make it unclear

Some times your questions leave a lot of wiggle room so that a simple answer can be taken the wrong way. Example: Do you believe in common sense gun control? You may say yes, it is the smart thing to say; however, unless you define what common sense gun control is, everyone with opposing views thinks they are all in agreement when they are not!

It wasn't meant to be a hard question, nor was there wiggle room (your reasons are either a combination of ID arguments & your view of Genesis or they're not), and you answered yes that they are, so you could have led with that instead of burying the lead 😉 No biggie, I was just curious and you answered my question, so thank you.