In the human/ rabbit scenario did a human develop? NO.

Did human stem cells develop? YES.

The derived ntES cells are human based on
karyotype,
isogenicity,
in situ hybridization,
PCR
and immunocytochemistry with probes that distinguish between the various species.

The point of the experiment was not to create a live birth of a human, and Dr Wells (the source of your contention) did not require live birth in his claim which you quoted.

Rabbit egg + human DNA,
combined in a particular way
= human stem cells,
the contradiction of Wells,
and the limerick of Nakashima!

What was required was quite a bit of intervention to get the results.

That is absolutely correct. Intervention that did not include reintroducing rabbit nuclear DNA. Intervention that did not include introducing human cytoplasm.

For DNA to do anything it requires pre-existing proteins and enzymes- things that DNA could not provide-

This is the big deal with all OoL scenarios. DNA doesn’t do anything by itself.

Well, it is a good thing we are not changing the subject from development to OOL! In the development discussion that we have been having, DNA does direct the formation of the egg cytoplasm. Remember that point about microtubules you chose not to make once you looked up tubulin genes? If you have evidence of a protein or enzyme in the cytoplasm that didn’t get there under the guidance of the mother’s DNA, pleae bring your evidence forward.

“Species diverge from common ancestors through changes in their DNA.”

http://www.sciencedirect.com/s.....rticle.pdf

In the human/ rabbit scenario did a human develop? NO.

What was required was quite a bit of intervention to get the results.

IOW you have proven your dishonesty beyond any reasonable doubt.

The egg develops according to two sets of DNA – the mother’s DNA the guided the construction of the egg ctyoplasm (including the mother’s mtDNA), and the DNA in the egg itself.

You have a reference for that?

You know scientific data?

Ya see you still do not understand.

So I will say it again and if you still don’t understand it is clear it is useless trying to discuss anything with you:

For DNA to do anything it requires pre-existing proteins and enzymes- things that DNA could not provide-

This is the big deal with all OoL scenarios. DNA doesn’t do anything by itself.

You cite Dr Wells:

“Design of Life” page 50:

To be sure, genes do play a role in development.

Nice of him to notice.

But to say that they control or determine development is a vast overstatement.

Srsly?

There is now considerable evidence that genes alone do not control development.

So they do control development, just not alone. The vastness of the overstatement is shrinking fast.

For example, when an egg’s genes are removed and replaced with genes from another type of animal, development follows the pattern of the original egg until the embryo dies from lack of the right proteins.

Directly contradicted by the human/rabbit iSCNT experiment I cited earlier. Note Dr Wells does not expect live birth, but accepts that species determination can be done on embryonic cells.

(The rare exceptions to this rule involve animals that could normally mate and produce hybrids).

Not the case with humans and rabbits, even though their body plans are freakin’ virtually the same thing, except for the cute little fuzzy tail.

But before you address any of that you don’t seem to understand that DNA requires many pre-existing proteins and enzymes before it can do anything.

You keep ignoring that point every time I post it.

These pre-existing enzymes and proteins could not have come from the DNA because the DNA needs them to do anything.

What part of that don’t you understand?

I think I understand it pretty well, thank you. You can go back in this thread to when Aristotle revealed to me how to understand the Dentonian vocabulary of ‘influence’ and ‘determine’, and you’ll see that Aristotle included the mother’s DNA. Proteins and enzymes needed for development were constructed according to the guidance of the mother’s DNA and left in the cytoplasm.

Now that is a real ad hominem.

No, that is a criticism of your rhetorical approach (in this instance), not at all of you. Please do not take personal offense.

The problem is evolutionists absolutely require all the devo information to be in the DNA.

I don’t think this is accurate. It would be more accurate to say that the developmental information that is heritable is captured in the sequence of DNA bases or in some other physical/chemical structure of the DNA molecule. Non-heritable developmental information can be found elsewhere, including the environment (for example, sex determination in some reptiles).

The egg develops according to two sets of DNA – the mother’s DNA the guided the construction of the egg ctyoplasm (including the mother’s mtDNA), and the DNA in the egg itself.

Dr Wells says differently? Then he can back up his words with research, published reasearch.

Now that is a real ad hominem. I am appealing to human ignorance and attempting to avoid the issue of scientific progress. So the unfolding of an embryo is no longer a mystery. I appreciate your insight on this. Haven’t the time to keep up with all your findings. I guess the information I read about extracellular proteins affecting development was garbage.

Thank you for the update.