This is the kind of headline I’d expect to see from the Onion. If only it were so…
Comments
I should have said, '...like QM and lots of stuff'.Axel
May 8, 2013
May
05
May
8
08
2013
03:28 PM
3
03
28
PM
PDT
'Your only so called evidence for ID is that science cant yet explain how structures arose over the course of evolution.'
What you utterly fail grasp, Joealtle, is that your promissory note, is unencashable, by definition. The parts would all have to evolve and the final click into place at precisely the same time. That doesn't even occur during the 'birth' of a creature, while its step-by-step evolution, we normally call, 'development'.
Even God couldn't do that. Evolution implies development, which requires time and incremental growth. Did the rest of the flagellum just slowly develop and wait around in inchoate form until the last part clicked into place? That might have occurred, but only in a multiverse of infinite possibilities. Beyond implausible. Logically (and within a realistic scenario), it would have been impossible, due to the stark, functional interdependency of each part for the functioning of the whole.
Mind you, your Covenanters of the Double Helix would simply dismiss such an objection on the grounds that, like a square circle and 'lots of stuff in QM', it's just COUNTER-INTUITIVE!
God could make anything however complex and thoroughly interdependent all the parts, instantaneously, but evolution couldn't by definition. Take each word, 'irreducibly', and 'complex', and try to imagine the significance when they are put together in that sequence.
As for Richie's being the world's greatest thinker, I'm not saying anything.....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sgq4Zre4JR4Axel
May 8, 2013
May
05
May
8
08
2013
03:19 PM
3
03
19
PM
PDT
Richard Dawkins is the world's greatest thinker. My first thought on seeing this: "Boy, I bet Stephen Hawking is pissed off!"Barb
May 4, 2013
May
05
May
4
04
2013
02:53 PM
2
02
53
PM
PDT
CharlieD among the many bizarre things you have said today trying to protect your beloved neo-Darwinism from scrutiny, I found this one statement of yours truly bizarre:
Just make sure you remember to look both ways next time you cross the street, god isn’t going to stop a dump truck from flattening you no matter how hard you bang out your refutations of evolution.
And why do you think someone who believes in God, particularly Christians, should think that God will protect us if he steps in front of a dump truck or protect us even if we practice science rightly? Especially seeing that even Christ, Whom lived a perfectly righteous life, was not spared from suffering!
Hebrews 5:8
Son though he was, he learned obedience from what he suffered,,,
I can assure you CharlieD that God allows many things to happen in my life that I would just a soon not happen. But whatever happens whether I personally like it or not, God is still God and I certainly am not!
Music:
Steven Curtis Chapman - God is God (Original Version) -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qz94NQ5HRyk
Natalie Grant - Held
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8GDUBd2eWFw
This is of related interest.
The Contradiction of the Cross
“On the cross, our false dependencies are revealed. On the cross, our illusions are killed off. On the cross, our small self dies so that the true self, the God-given self, can emerge. On the cross, we give up the fantasy that we are in control, and the death of this fantasy is central to acceptance. The cross is, above all, a place of powerlessness. Here is the final proof that our own feeble powers can no more alter life’s trajectory than a magnet can pull down the moon. Here is the death of the ego, of the self that insists on being in charge, the self that continually tries to impose its own idea of order and righteousness on the world.
The cross is a place of contradiction. For the powerlessness of the cross, if fully embraced, takes us to a place of power. This is the great mystery at the heart of the Christian faith, from Jesus to Martin Luther King Jr., the mystery of the power of powerlessness. As long as I am preoccupied with the marshaling of my own feeble powers, there will be no way for God’s power to flow through me. As long as I am getting in my own way, I cannot live in the power of God’s way.”
– Parker Palmer, The Promise of Paradox, Pg 46-47
What Happened to the 12 Apostles of Jesus – How Did Jesus’ Disciples Die?
http://biblenest.com/?p=192
Experiencing Jesus Christ – Francis Chan – video
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4928919bornagain77
April 29, 2013
April
04
Apr
29
29
2013
06:33 PM
6
06
33
PM
PDT
CharlieD, that was weak. Real weak.
And didn't even make sense.Upright BiPed
April 29, 2013
April
04
Apr
29
29
2013
04:57 PM
4
04
57
PM
PDT
correction: The primary piece of evidence, AT DOVER, trying to establish chimp human ancestry from SNP evidence was just overturned:bornagain77
April 29, 2013
April
04
Apr
29
29
2013
04:55 PM
4
04
55
PM
PDT
CharlieD you tap-dancing machine, :) ,, you may appreciate this. The primary piece of evidence trying to establish chimp human ancestry from SNP evidence was just overturned:
Dover Revisited: With Beta-Globin Pseudogene Now Found to Be Functional, an Icon of the "Junk DNA" Argument Bites the Dust
Casey Luskin April 23, 2013
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/04/an_icon_of_the_071421.htmlbornagain77
April 29, 2013
April
04
Apr
29
29
2013
04:54 PM
4
04
54
PM
PDT
CharlieD you dogmatically claim:
Chimp and human DNA is still over 95% identical when looking at SNPs.
The figure you arrive at depends heavily on what starting assumptions you make.
Guy Walks Into a Bar and Thinks He's a Chimpanzee: The Unbearable Lightness of Chimp-Human Genome Similarity
Excerpt: One can seriously call into question the statement that human and chimp genomes are 99% identical. For one thing, it has been noted in the literature that the exact degree of identity between the two genomes is as yet unknown (Cohen, J., 2007. Relative differences: The myth of 1% Science 316: 1836.). ,,, In short, the figure of identity that one wants to use is dependent on various methodological factors.
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/05/guy_walks_into_a_bar_and_think.html
But alas for you and your preferred atheistic worldview, even the extreme bias of neo-Darwinists could not withstand the onslaught of evidence that has been uncovered:
Human brain evolution: From gene discovery to phenotype discovery - Todd M. Preuss - February 2012
Excerpt: It is now clear that the genetic differences between humans and chimpanzees are far more extensive than previously thought; their genomes are not 98% or 99% identical.,,,
http://www.pnas.org/content/109/suppl.1/10709.full.pdf
Dawkins Self proclaimed Best Evidence for Darwinian Evolution (FOXP2 gene) Refuted - video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IfFZ8lCn5uU
A False Trichotomy
Excerpt: The common chimp (Pan troglodytes) and human Y chromosomes are “horrendously different from each other”, says David Page,,, “It looks like there’s been a dramatic renovation or reinvention of the Y chromosome in the chimpanzee and human lineages.”
https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/a-false-trichotomy/
And yet the Y chromosome is shown to not be evolving:
CHROMOSOME STUDY STUNS EVOLUTIONISTS
Excerpt: To their great surprise, Dorit and his associates found no nucleotide differences at all in the non-recombinant part of the Y chromosomes of the 38 men. This non-variation suggests no evolution has occurred in male ancestry.
http://www.reasons.org/interpreting-genesis/adam-and-eve/chromosome-study-stuns-evolutionists
moreover if one looks for differences, instead of just similarities as Darwinists do, differences you will find:,,
Human Gene Count Tumbles Again - 2008
Excerpt: Scientists on the hunt for typical genes — that is, the ones that encode proteins — have traditionally set their sights on so-called open reading frames, which are long stretches of 300 or more nucleotides, or “letters” of DNA, bookended by genetic start and stop signals.,,,, The researchers considered genes to be valid if and only if similar sequences could be found in other mammals – namely, mouse and dog. Applying this technique to nearly 22,000 genes in the Ensembl gene catalog, the analysis revealed 1,177 “orphan” DNA sequences.,,, the researchers compared the orphan sequences to the DNA of two primate cousins, chimpanzees and macaques. After careful genomic comparisons, the orphan genes were found to be true to their name — they were absent from both primate genomes.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080113161406.htm
From Jerry Coyne, More Table-Pounding, Hand-Waving - May 2012
Excerpt: "More than 6 percent of genes found in humans simply aren't found in any form in chimpanzees. There are over fourteen hundred novel genes expressed in humans but not in chimps."
Jerry Coyne - ardent and 'angry' neo-Darwinist - professor at the University of Chicago in the department of ecology and evolution for twenty years. He specializes in evolutionary genetics.
An integrated encyclopedia of DNA elements in the human genome - Sept. 6, 2012
Excerpt: Analysis,,, yielded 57 confidently identified unique peptide sequences in intergenic regions relative to GENCODE annotation. Taken together with evidence of pervasive genome transcription, these data indicate that additional protein-coding genes remain to be found.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v489/n7414/full/nature11247.html
Moreover ORFans are just as important as 'old' genes:
Age doesn't matter: New genes are as essential as ancient ones - December 2010
Excerpt: "A new gene is as essential as any other gene; the importance of a gene is independent of its age," said Manyuan Long, PhD, Professor of Ecology & Evolution and senior author of the paper. "New genes are no longer just vinegar, they are now equally likely to be butter and bread. We were shocked."
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/12/101216142523.htm
New Genes, New Brain - October 2011
Excerpt: “This is one of the first studies to look at the role of completely novel genes” in primate brain development,,, A bevy of genes known to be active during human fetal and infant development first appeared at the same time that the prefrontal cortex,,, Finally, 54 of the 280 genes found to be unique to humans were also highly expressed in the developing prefrontal cortex,,,, “We were very shocked that there were that many new genes that were upregulated in this part of the brain,” said Long, who added that he was also taken aback by synchronicity of the origin of the genes and the development of novel brain structures.,,, (From the PLoS article, author’s summary: We found these genes are scattered across the whole genome, demonstrating that they are generated by many independent events,,, Our data reveal that evolutionary change in the development of the human brain happened at the protein level by gene origination,,)
http://the-scientist.com/2011/10/19/new-genes-new-brain/
And as Dr. Nelson pointed out in the ontological depth video I referenced, finding essential ORFans so early in development is severely problematic for atheists.
I would also like to reiterate that evolutionists cannot account for the origination of even one unique gene or protein, much less the over one thousand completely unique ORFan genes found, thus far, deeply imbedded within the organization of the approx. 20,000 genes of the human genome:
Could Chance Arrange the Code for (Just) One Gene?
"our minds cannot grasp such an extremely small probability as that involved in the accidental arranging of even one gene (10^-236)."
i.e. Not a good day to be a neo-Darwinist! ,,, as if there was ever a good day! :)bornagain77
April 29, 2013
April
04
Apr
29
29
2013
04:40 PM
4
04
40
PM
PDT
CharlieD you dogmatically claim:
Chimp and human DNA is still over 95% identical when looking at SNPs.
The figure you arrive at depends heavily on what starting assumptions you make.
Guy Walks Into a Bar and Thinks He's a Chimpanzee: The Unbearable Lightness of Chimp-Human Genome Similarity
Excerpt: One can seriously call into question the statement that human and chimp genomes are 99% identical. For one thing, it has been noted in the literature that the exact degree of identity between the two genomes is as yet unknown (Cohen, J., 2007. Relative differences: The myth of 1% Science 316: 1836.). ,,, In short, the figure of identity that one wants to use is dependent on various methodological factors.
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/05/guy_walks_into_a_bar_and_think.html
But alas for you and your preferred atheistic worldview, even the extreme bias of neo-Darwinists could not withstand the onslaught of evidence that has been uncovered:
Human brain evolution: From gene discovery to phenotype discovery - Todd M. Preuss - February 2012
Excerpt: It is now clear that the genetic differences between humans and chimpanzees are far more extensive than previously thought; their genomes are not 98% or 99% identical.,,,
http://www.pnas.org/content/109/suppl.1/10709.full.pdf
Dawkins Self proclaimed Best Evidence for Darwinian Evolution (FOXP2 gene) Refuted - video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IfFZ8lCn5uU
A False Trichotomy
Excerpt: The common chimp (Pan troglodytes) and human Y chromosomes are “horrendously different from each other”, says David Page,,, “It looks like there’s been a dramatic renovation or reinvention of the Y chromosome in the chimpanzee and human lineages.”
https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/a-false-trichotomy/
And yet the Y chromosome is shown to not be evolving:
CHROMOSOME STUDY STUNS EVOLUTIONISTS
Excerpt: To their great surprise, Dorit and his associates found no nucleotide differences at all in the non-recombinant part of the Y chromosomes of the 38 men. This non-variation suggests no evolution has occurred in male ancestry.
http://www.reasons.org/interpreting-genesis/adam-and-eve/chromosome-study-stuns-evolutionists
moreover if one looks for differences, instead of just similarities as Darwinists do, differences you will find:,,
Human Gene Count Tumbles Again - 2008
Excerpt: Scientists on the hunt for typical genes — that is, the ones that encode proteins — have traditionally set their sights on so-called open reading frames, which are long stretches of 300 or more nucleotides, or “letters” of DNA, bookended by genetic start and stop signals.,,,, The researchers considered genes to be valid if and only if similar sequences could be found in other mammals – namely, mouse and dog. Applying this technique to nearly 22,000 genes in the Ensembl gene catalog, the analysis revealed 1,177 “orphan” DNA sequences.,,, the researchers compared the orphan sequences to the DNA of two primate cousins, chimpanzees and macaques. After careful genomic comparisons, the orphan genes were found to be true to their name — they were absent from both primate genomes.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080113161406.htm
From Jerry Coyne, More Table-Pounding, Hand-Waving - May 2012
Excerpt: "More than 6 percent of genes found in humans simply aren't found in any form in chimpanzees. There are over fourteen hundred novel genes expressed in humans but not in chimps."
Jerry Coyne - ardent and 'angry' neo-Darwinist - professor at the University of Chicago in the department of ecology and evolution for twenty years. He specializes in evolutionary genetics.
An integrated encyclopedia of DNA elements in the human genome - Sept. 6, 2012
Excerpt: Analysis,,, yielded 57 confidently identified unique peptide sequences in intergenic regions relative to GENCODE annotation. Taken together with evidence of pervasive genome transcription, these data indicate that additional protein-coding genes remain to be found.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v489/n7414/full/nature11247.html
Moreover ORFans are just as important as 'old' genes:
Age doesn't matter: New genes are as essential as ancient ones - December 2010
Excerpt: "A new gene is as essential as any other gene; the importance of a gene is independent of its age," said Manyuan Long, PhD, Professor of Ecology & Evolution and senior author of the paper. "New genes are no longer just vinegar, they are now equally likely to be butter and bread. We were shocked."
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/12/101216142523.htm
New Genes, New Brain - October 2011
Excerpt: “This is one of the first studies to look at the role of completely novel genes” in primate brain development,,, A bevy of genes known to be active during human fetal and infant development first appeared at the same time that the prefrontal cortex,,, Finally, 54 of the 280 genes found to be unique to humans were also highly expressed in the developing prefrontal cortex,,,, “We were very shocked that there were that many new genes that were upregulated in this part of the brain,” said Long, who added that he was also taken aback by synchronicity of the origin of the genes and the development of novel brain structures.,,, (From the PLoS article, author’s summary: We found these genes are scattered across the whole genome, demonstrating that they are generated by many independent events,,, Our data reveal that evolutionary change in the development of the human brain happened at the protein level by gene origination,,)
http://the-scientist.com/2011/10/19/new-genes-new-brain/
And as Dr. Nelson pointed out in the ontological depth video I referenced, finding essential ORFans so early in development is severely problematic for atheists.
I would also like to reiterate that evolutionists cannot account for the origination of even one unique gene or protein, much less the over one thousand completely unique ORFan genes found, thus far, deeply imbedded within the organization of the approx. 20,000 genes of the human genome:
Could Chance Arrange the Code for (Just) One Gene?
"our minds cannot grasp such an extremely small probability as that involved in the accidental arranging of even one gene (10^-236)."
http://www.creationsafaris.com/epoi_c10.htm
i.e. Not a good day to be a neo-Darwinist! ,,, as if there was ever a good day! :)bornagain77
April 29, 2013
April
04
Apr
29
29
2013
04:39 PM
4
04
39
PM
PDT
"Wow we can’t explain something therefore it must have been designed by a higher power…now that’s the kind of thinking that got us religion in the first place."
Wow, since we only allow one particular category of causal phenomena to inform our understanding of reality, we must insist that anything and everything is the result this same category of causes, regardless of the status of the evidence. There are no logical problems with that point of view! :PChance Ratcliff
April 29, 2013
April
04
Apr
29
29
2013
04:05 PM
4
04
05
PM
PDT
Wow we can't explain something therefore it must have been designed by a higher power...now that's the kind of thinking that got us religion in the first place.
Chimp and human DNA is still over 95% identical when looking at SNPs.
Keep making your over-generalizations of biology that you know little about, you'll win their hearts and minds eventually...or not.
Just make sure you remember to look both ways next time you cross the street, god isn't going to stop a dump truck from flattening you no matter how hard you bang out your refutations of evolution.
Take careCharlieD
April 29, 2013
April
04
Apr
29
29
2013
03:52 PM
3
03
52
PM
PDT
"The RNA world is proposed as a mechanism to get from A to B. B is not equal to A."
Exactly. And not only does RNA world need to explain the form of the apparatus of self-replicating organisms (DNA->RNA->proteins and requisite metabolism required for information transfer), it needs to be able to explain the information content in DNA as well. A self replicator needs not just the hardware, but also the specification present in the software -- the sequence of coded information which specifies both proteins and regulatory products. It's quite precious watching the hand actually wave when one tries to make the theoretical leap from a ribozyme reaction to the DNA, RNA, and protein complexes required for the simplest extant life.Chance Ratcliff
April 29, 2013
April
04
Apr
29
29
2013
03:33 PM
3
03
33
PM
PDT
UB: you must accept that at some point the RNA would have to produce something other than itself
Charlie: Why, must I accept this? Why does RNA have to produce something other than itself?
The RNA world is proposed as a mechanism to get from A to B. B is not equal to A.
Was this intended to be a serious question?Upright BiPed
April 29, 2013
April
04
Apr
29
29
2013
02:48 PM
2
02
48
PM
PDT
CharlieD you also state:
mutation can alter things such as expression and phenotype.
Slight problem for you here CharlieD:
Darwin or Design? - Paul Nelson at Saddleback Church - Nov. 2012 - ontogenetic depth (excellent update) - video
Text from one of the Saddleback slides:
1. Animal body plans are built in each generation by a stepwise process, from the fertilized egg to the many cells of the adult. The earliest stages in this process determine what follows.
2. Thus, to change -- that is, to evolve -- any body plan, mutations expressed early in development must occur, be viable, and be stably transmitted to offspring.
3. But such early-acting mutations of global effect are those least likely to be tolerated by the embryo.
Losses of structures are the only exception to this otherwise universal generalization about animal development and evolution. Many species will tolerate phenotypic losses if their local (environmental) circumstances are favorable. Hence island or cave fauna often lose (for instance) wings or eyes.
http://www.saddleback.com/mc/m/7ece8/
Moreover, the alternative splicing code is found to be very different between even chimps and humans,,
Evolution by Splicing – Comparing gene transcripts from different species reveals surprising splicing diversity. – Ruth Williams – December 20, 2012
Excerpt: A major question in vertebrate evolutionary biology is “how do physical and behavioral differences arise if we have a very similar set of genes to that of the mouse, chicken, or frog?”,,,
A commonly discussed mechanism was variable levels of gene expression, but both Blencowe and Chris Burge,,, found that gene expression is relatively conserved among species.
On the other hand, the papers show that most alternative splicing events differ widely between even closely related species. “The alternative splicing patterns are very different even between humans and chimpanzees,” said Blencowe.,,,
http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view%2FarticleNo%2F33782%2Ftitle%2FEvolution-by-Splicing%2F
Yet changes in any regulatory code, such as the alternative splicing code or the genetic code, is known to be instantly catastrophic:
Venter vs. Dawkins on the Tree of Life - and Another Dawkins Whopper - March 2011
Excerpt:,,, But first, let's look at the reason Dawkins gives for why the code must be universal:
"The reason is interesting. Any mutation in the genetic code itself (as opposed to mutations in the genes that it encodes) would have an instantly catastrophic effect, not just in one place but throughout the whole organism. If any word in the 64-word dictionary changed its meaning, so that it came to specify a different amino acid, just about every protein in the body would instantaneously change, probably in many places along its length. Unlike an ordinary mutation...this would spell disaster." (2009, p. 409-10)
OK. Keep Dawkins' claim of universality in mind, along with his argument for why the code must be universal, and then go here (linked site listing 23 variants of the genetic code).
Simple counting question: does "one or two" equal 23? That's the number of known variant genetic codes compiled by the National Center for Biotechnology Information. By any measure, Dawkins is off by an order of magnitude, times a factor of two.
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/03/venter_vs_dawkins_on_the_tree_044681.html
i.e. Trying to change a code from the 'bottom up' in a piecemeal fashion is impossible. A code must be implemented 'top down' all at the same time. It's a take it of leave it deal.
As well it is good to remember how hard the alternative splicing code was to break:
Breakthrough: Second Genetic Code Revealed - May 2010
Excerpt: The paper is a triumph of information science that sounds reminiscent of the days of the World War II codebreakers. Their methods included algebra, geometry, probability theory, vector calculus, information theory, code optimization, and other advanced methods. One thing they had no need of was evolutionary theory,,,
http://crev.info/content/breakthrough_second_genetic_code_revealed
Moreover, the genetic similarity for chimps and humans is found, now that more data is coming in, to be nowhere near the 99% mark that Darwinists had originally misled people to believe:
Comprehensive Analysis of Chimpanzee and Human Chromosomes Reveals Average DNA Similarity of 70% – by Jeffrey P. Tomkins – February 20, 2013
Excerpt: For the chimp autosomes, the amount of optimally aligned DNA sequence provided similarities between 66 and 76%, depending on the chromosome. In general, the smaller and more gene-dense the chromosomes, the higher the DNA similarity—although there were several notable exceptions defying this trend. Only 69% of the chimpanzee X chromosome was similar to human and only 43% of the Y chromosome. Genome-wide, only 70% of the chimpanzee DNA was similar to human under the most optimal sequence-slice conditions. While, chimpanzees and humans share many localized protein-coding regions of high similarity, the overall extreme discontinuity between the two genomes defies evolutionary timescales and dogmatic presuppositions about a common ancestor.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/arj/v6/n1/human-chimp-chromosome
Yet though the differences to be explained are far greater than the 99% genetic similarity figure neo-Darwinists originally misled people to believe, it is now known that the variation neo-Darwinian processes can account for a far more constrained than what neo-Darwinists would prefer people to believe:
More from Ann Gauger on why humans didn’t happen the way Darwin said - July 2012
Excerpt: Each of these new features probably required multiple mutations. Getting a feature that requires six neutral mutations is the limit of what bacteria can produce. For primates (e.g., monkeys, apes and humans) the limit is much more severe. Because of much smaller effective population sizes (an estimated ten thousand for humans instead of a billion for bacteria) and longer generation times (fifteen to twenty years per generation for humans vs. a thousand generations per year for bacteria), it would take a very long time for even a single beneficial mutation to appear and become fixed in a human population.
You don’t have to take my word for it. In 2007, Durrett and Schmidt estimated in the journal Genetics that for a single mutation to occur in a nucleotide-binding site and be fixed in a primate lineage would require a waiting time of six million years. The same authors later estimated it would take 216 million years for the binding site to acquire two mutations, if the first mutation was neutral in its effect.
Facing Facts
But six million years is the entire time allotted for the transition from our last common ancestor with chimps to us according to the standard evolutionary timescale. Two hundred and sixteen million years takes us back to the Triassic, when the very first mammals appeared. One or two mutations simply aren’t sufficient to produce the necessary changes— sixteen anatomical features—in the time available. At most, a new binding site might affect the regulation of one or two genes.
https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/more-from-ann-gauger-on-why-humans-didnt-happen-the-way-darwin-said/
Verse and Music:
Psalm 139:13
For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother's womb.
Remind Me Who I Am Share - Jason Gray
http://myktis.com/songs/remind-me-who-i-am/
bornagain77
April 29, 2013
April
04
Apr
29
29
2013
01:32 PM
1
01
32
PM
PDT
CharlieD,,
"You Can't Handle the Truth"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UXoNE14U_zM
you proclaim:
Nope, youre putting words in my mouth again. I did not claim that sexual reproduction creates new genes,,,
That's the whole problem, nobody knows where these ORFan genes, found in every new species sequenced, are coming from:
Widespread ORFan Genes Challenge Common Descent – Paul Nelson – video with references
http://www.vimeo.com/17135166
Estimating the size of the bacterial pan-genome - Pascal Lapierre and J. Peter Gogarten - 2008
Excerpt: We have found greater than 139 000 rare (ORFan) gene families scattered throughout the bacterial genomes included in this study. The finding that the fitted exponential function approaches a plateau indicates an open pan-genome (i.e. the bacterial protein universe is of infinite size); a finding supported through extrapolation using a Kezdy-Swinbourne plot (Figure S3). This does not exclude the possibility that, with many more sampled genomes, the number of novel genes per additional genome might ultimately decline; however, our analyses and those presented in Ref. [11] do not provide any indication for such a decline and confirm earlier observations that many new protein families with few members remain to be discovered.
http://www.paulyu.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/Estimating-the-size-of-the-bacterial-pan-genome.pdf
The Dictionary of Life | Origins with Dr. Paul A. Nelson - video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=zJaetK9gvCo#t=760s
The essential genome of a bacterium - 2011
Figure (C): Venn diagram of overlap between Caulobacter and E. coli ORFs (outer circles) as well as their subsets of essential ORFs (inner circles). Less than 38% of essential Caulobacter ORFs are conserved and essential in E. coli. Only essential Caulobacter ORFs present in the STING database were considered, leading to a small disparity in the total number of essential Caulobacter ORFs.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3202797/pdf/msb201158.pdf
Orphan Genes (And the peer reviewed 'non-answer' from Darwinists) - video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Zz6vio_LhY
Genes from nowhere: Orphans with a surprising story - 16 January 2013 - Helen Pilcher
Excerpt: When biologists began sequencing genomes they discovered up to a third of genes in each species seemed to have no parents or family of any kind. Nevertheless, some of these "orphan genes" are high achievers (are just as essential as 'old' genes),,,
But where do they come from? With no obvious ancestry, it was as if these genes appeared out of nowhere, but that couldn't be true. Everyone assumed that as we learned more, we would discover what had happened to their families. But we haven't-quite the opposite, in fact.,,,
The upshot is that the chances of random mutations turning a bit of junk DNA into a new gene seem infinitesmally small. As the French biologist Francois Jacob wrote 35 years ago, "the probability that a functional protein would appear de novo by random association of amino acids is practically zero".,,,
Orphan genes have since been found in every genome sequenced to date, from mosquito to man, roundworm to rat, and their numbers are still growing.
http://ccsb.dfci.harvard.edu/web/export/sites/default/ccsb/publications/papers/2013/All_alone_-_Helen_Pilcher_New_Scientist_Jan_2013.pdf
bornagain77
April 29, 2013
April
04
Apr
29
29
2013
01:27 PM
1
01
27
PM
PDT
Nope, youre putting words in my mouth again. I did not claim that sexual reproduction creates new genes, I stated that sexual reproduction creates new combinations of genes. Crossing over in meiosis mixes parental alleles into different combinations and mutation can alter things such as expression and phenotype. Do have any thoughts of your own on the topic or are you going to continue to copy and paste?CharlieD
April 29, 2013
April
04
Apr
29
29
2013
11:39 AM
11
11
39
AM
PDT
CharlieD you proclaim:
What one scientist argues is the primary function of sex is, is irrelevant. The fact is that sexual reproduction provides another mechanism of variation. End of story.
Now Now CharlieD my little wannabe monkey from Cell block C,,
George Michael - Monkey
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CHb2XYeXcJI
,,,Let's not close the book on this epic story until we dot all our i's and cross all our t's. For instance, exactly what type of variations are being provided? You claim new genes arise by sexual recombination, I certainly know of no studies supporting your claim,,,
Could Chance Arrange the Code for (Just) One Gene?
"our minds cannot grasp such an extremely small probability as that involved in the accidental arranging of even one gene (10^-236)."
http://www.creationsafaris.com/epoi_c10.htm
,,but I do know this type of variation arises in humans,,,
“Our Missing Genes” - The Scientist - February 18, 2012
Excerpt: On average, a person will have about 20 genes that are completely “lost”—meaning that both alleles have inactivating mutations.
https://uncommondescent.com/genetics/at-least-1-percent-of-human-genes-can-be-shut-down-without-causing-serious-disease/
Human Genome in Meltdown - January 11, 2013
Excerpt: According to a study published Jan. 10 in Nature by geneticists from 4 universities including Harvard, “Analysis of 6,515 exomes reveals the recent origin of most human protein-coding variants.”,,,:
"We estimate that approximately 73% of all protein-coding SNVs [single-nucleotide variants] and approximately 86% of SNVs predicted to be deleterious arose in the past 5,000 -10,000 years. The average age of deleterious SNVs varied significantly across molecular pathways, and disease genes contained a significantly higher proportion of recently arisen deleterious SNVs than other genes.",,,
As for advantageous mutations, they provided NO examples,,,
http://crev.info/2013/01/human-genome-in-meltdown/
Human Mutation Clock Half Off - October 20, 2012
Excerpt: New studies have shown about 36 mutations between generations in Icelandic families. The rates seem to be converging on “1.2 × 10?8 mutations per generation at any given nucleotide site,” or “1 in 2.4 billion mutations per site per year,” which is less than half the previous estimate.
http://crev.info/2012/10/human-mutation-clock-half-off/
the evidence for the detrimental nature of mutations in humans is overwhelming for scientists have already cited over 100,000 mutational disorders.
Inside the Human Genome: A Case for Non-Intelligent Design - Pg. 57 By John C. Avise
Excerpt: "Another compilation of gene lesions responsible for inherited diseases is the web-based Human Gene Mutation Database (HGMD). Recent versions of HGMD describe more than 75,000 different disease causing mutations identified to date in Homo-sapiens."
I went to the mutation database website cited by John Avise and found:
HGMD®: Now celebrating our 100,000 mutation milestone!
http://www.hgmd.org/
Of note: the word celebrating has now been removed from the preceding site, and the detrimental mutation count is up over 125,000
Now CharlieD my little wannabe monkey from cell block C, do you see the problem here? If not perhaps Dr. John Sanford, inventor of the 'gene gun' can help you see that the type of variation we got is not the type of variation we need for Darwinism to be true!
Genetic Entropy and The Mystery Of the Genome - Dr. John Sanford - video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GwCu4rh7kUk
bornagain77
April 29, 2013
April
04
Apr
29
29
2013
11:28 AM
11
11
28
AM
PDT
"you must accept that at some point the RNA would have to produce something other than itself"
Why, must I accept this? Why does RNA have to produce something other than itself?CharlieD
April 29, 2013
April
04
Apr
29
29
2013
10:56 AM
10
10
56
AM
PDT
Hi Charlie,
this was the point of the argument: that RNA can function as both the medium of info storage and also the cause of the biological effect, no translation needed.
Yes, and I responded. If you propose that biological organization originated with an unknown RNA script that reproduced itself, and you also understand the material conditions by which biological organization is produced today, then you must accept that at some point the RNA would have to produce something other than itself via the constraints of physical law. And to accomplish this task, it will simultaneously require a medium to contain form, as well as a translation apparatus to establish what that form will be (which is not reducible to physical law).
Again, pushing the issue into the darkness of an unknown RNA does not alter the reality of the system to be explained.Upright BiPed
April 29, 2013
April
04
Apr
29
29
2013
10:43 AM
10
10
43
AM
PDT
What one scientist argues is the primary function of sex is, is irrelevant. The fact is that sexual reproduction provides another mechanism of variation. End of story.CharlieD
April 29, 2013
April
04
Apr
29
29
2013
10:00 AM
10
10
00
AM
PDT
as to:
'Either way, sexual reproduction adds another layer of variation by allowing different combinations of genes to be present in offspring.'
"Now youre just making things up."
",,,the primary function of sex is not about promoting diversity. Rather, it’s about keeping the genome context — an organism’s complete collection of genes arranged by chromosome composition and topology — as unchanged as possible, thereby maintaining a species’ identity. This surprising analysis has been published as a cover article in a recent issue of the journal Evolution.,,,"bornagain77
April 29, 2013
April
04
Apr
29
29
2013
09:40 AM
9
09
40
AM
PDT
"you object to the fact that bacteria are very uncooperative to your preferred atheistic/materialistic worldview"
Now youre just making things up. I said bacteria undergo evolution by different mechanisms, I did not say that bacteria do not follow the ideas of evolution.
Either way, sexual reproduction adds another layer of variation by allowing different combinations of genes to be present in offspring.CharlieD
April 29, 2013
April
04
Apr
29
29
2013
09:24 AM
9
09
24
AM
PDT
CharlieD you object to the fact that bacteria are very uncooperative to your preferred atheistic/materialistic worldview by stating:
Bacteria reproduce (asexually) and therefore undergo evolution by very different mechanisms in comparison to humans.
And right you are my wannabe monkey CharlieD. But alas, the problem becomes worse with sexual reproduction:
Sex Is Not About Promoting Genetic Variation, Researchers Argue - (July 7, 2011)
Excerpt: Biology textbooks maintain that the main function of sex is to promote genetic diversity. But Henry Heng, Ph.D., associate professor in WSU's Center for Molecular Medicine and Genetics, says that's not the case.,,,
,,,the primary function of sex is not about promoting diversity. Rather, it's about keeping the genome context -- an organism's complete collection of genes arranged by chromosome composition and topology -- as unchanged as possible, thereby maintaining a species' identity. This surprising analysis has been published as a cover article in a recent issue of the journal Evolution.,,,
For nearly 130 years, traditional perceptions hold that asexual reproduction generates clone-like offspring and sexual reproduction leads to more diverse offspring. "In reality, however, the relationship is quite the opposite," said Heng.,,,
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/07/110707161037.htm
Ian Juby's sex video - (Can sexual reproduction plausibly evolve?) - video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ab1VWQEnnwM
bornagain77
April 29, 2013
April
04
Apr
29
29
2013
08:58 AM
8
08
58
AM
PDT
"Evolution, by very definition of the Darwinian and modern theory, is unguided."
No, mutation is unguided, selection of mutation and gene flow is carried out by the environment the population lives in, both abiotic and biotic. These factors account for the "interaction and purposeful direction" you speak of. Please do not twist the definitions of words to your liking, although it may not be obvious to the scientifically illiterate that you cater to on here, it most certainly is obvious to those with some background in biology.CharlieD
April 29, 2013
April
04
Apr
29
29
2013
08:55 AM
8
08
55
AM
PDT
50,000 generations in bacteria, which is equivalent to somewhere around 1,000,000 years of human evolution? This comparison is outright ridiculous. Bacteria reproduce and therefore undergo evolution by very different mechanisms in comparison to humans. Also, I saw something about plants that reminded me of an instance of macroevolution being observed in plants.
"because the medium cannot produce the effect without the translation apparatus, and the translation apparatus cannot specify the effect without the input of form." And this was the point of the argument: that RNA can function as both the medium of info storage and also the cause of the biological effect, no translation needed.CharlieD
April 29, 2013
April
04
Apr
29
29
2013
08:45 AM
8
08
45
AM
PDT
Im not talking about “unguided” evolution. Evolution is guided by what is beneficial to the organism under specific circumstances, whether that is at the molecular level or at the species morphology level.
CharlieD, it is good to see your clarification. However, it is not helpful to use terminology in a way that is opposite to what virtually everyone else in the debate on both sides uses. Evolution, by very definition of the Darwinian and modern theory, is unguided. Guidance implies some kind of intelligent forethought, interaction, purposeful direction. Materialistic evolution is most definitely unguided. That is the whole point of the "designer substitute" theory -- no intelligent input, forethought, planning, guidance is necessary.Eric Anderson
April 29, 2013
April
04
Apr
29
29
2013
08:19 AM
8
08
19
AM
PDT
Hello CharlieD,
It appears that you asked three questions with the first addressed to me.
I saw that Mr. Biped, and I also noticed that your argument was based on the idea that “Without one arrangement the other is useless.” How on earth can you be so sure of that? Who’s to say there are not simpler molecules of tRna synthases or simpler systems than what we have supposedly evolved to have.
Just as before, when the question arose about this being an issue of RNA vs protein, this is not an issue about complex molecules versus simple molecules. This is about the necessary structure of a system that uses recorded information to produce a functional effect. You ask how I can be sure that a medium without a translation apparatus is useless, and vice versa. I can be sure because the medium cannot produce the effect without the translation apparatus, and the translation apparatus cannot specify the effect without the input of form. Specifically, DNA cannot produce polypeptides, and the ribosome cannot provide the ordering of amino acids.
You ask: who is to say that there weren’t simpler systems? No one can say that, but this is not strictly about the simplicity of the system. It’s about what must be accomplished by the system. Every instance of information transfer found in nature has the twin roles of a) the input of form, and b) the production of an effect. What connects those two roles is the local establishment of a systematic rule, which is not reducible to inexorable physical law or the medium driving the effect. Or, to put it into different vernacular, the observed proximate cause of the functional effect is the input of form, not the constraints of physical law alone. And if the effect cannot be derived from physical law, then the system must have a capacity (independent of the strict constraints of physical law) to facilitate the input of form and bring that effect into being.
Somewhere on the Savannah right now there is a large herbivore who carelessly misplaces a hoof on top of an ant mound. This is a temporal event within a stochastic environment, and it forces the ant to have a capacity to respond to it. But the inexorable laws of gravity, magnetism, and thermodynamics do not dictate a point in time that an ant should go on the attack. That event is the product of information instead (i.e. it is context specific). And the organism that responds to it must have the capacity to introduce information into a system that operates under physical law. That is why there are two roles. The twin roles are necessary in order to facilitate the input of form into a physical system, where it can constrain the output of that system in a way which is subject to physical law, but not determined by it.
On that note, you will notice that the code within genetic translation is established in physical (temporal and spatial) isolation from both the medium and its product. The structure of the system allows the local input of form into the production of an effect which is not determined by physical law, but is determined by the context of the system producing it - just as it is in any other form of recorded information transfer, and just as logical analysis would predict it to be.Upright BiPed
April 29, 2013
April
04
Apr
29
29
2013
08:18 AM
8
08
18
AM
PDT
As well CharlieD you may be interested in these findings which come from empirical research:
Modern Synthesis Of Neo-Darwinism Is False - Denis Nobel - video
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/10395212/
Professor Denis Noble is President of the International Union of Physiological Sciences.bornagain77
April 29, 2013
April
04
Apr
29
29
2013
08:10 AM
8
08
10
AM
PDT
CharlieD you gripe:
"so it is no surprise their data contradicts what actually happens in biology."
Well CharlieD let's take us a gander at 'what actually happens in biology':
i.e. Where's the substantiating evidence for neo-Darwinism?
Many of these researchers also raise the question (among others), why — even after inducing literally billions of induced mutations and (further) chromosome rearrangements — all the important mutation breeding programs have come to an end in the Western World instead of eliciting a revolution in plant breeding, either by successive rounds of selective “micromutations” (cumulative selection in the sense of the modern synthesis), or by “larger mutations” … and why the law of recurrent variation is endlessly corroborated by the almost infinite repetition of the spectra of mutant phenotypes in each and any new extensive mutagenesis experiment (as predicted) instead of regularly producing a range of new systematic species…
(Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig, “Mutagenesis in Physalis pubescens L. ssp. floridana: Some Further Research on Dollo’s Law and the Law of Recurrent Variation,” Floriculture and Ornamental Biotechnology Vol. 4 (Special Issue 1): 1-21 (December 2010).)
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/12/peer-reviewed_research_paper_o042191.html
Testing Evolution in the Lab With Biologic Institute's Ann Gauger - podcast with link to peer-reviewed paper
Excerpt: Dr. Gauger experimentally tested two-step adaptive paths that should have been within easy reach for bacterial populations. Listen in and learn what Dr. Gauger was surprised to find as she discusses the implications of these experiments for Darwinian evolution. Dr. Gauger's paper, "Reductive Evolution Can Prevent Populations from Taking Simple Adaptive Paths to High Fitness,".
http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/entry/2010-05-10T15_24_13-07_00
Four decades worth of lab work is surveyed here, and no evidence for neo-Darwinian evolution surfaces:
“The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution”: Break or blunt any functional coded element whose loss would yield a net fitness gain – Michael Behe – December 2010
Excerpt: In its most recent issue The Quarterly Review of Biology has published a review by myself of laboratory evolution experiments of microbes going back four decades.,,, The gist of the paper is that so far the overwhelming number of adaptive (that is, helpful) mutations seen in laboratory evolution experiments are either loss or modification of function. Of course we had already known that the great majority of mutations that have a visible effect on an organism are deleterious. Now, surprisingly, it seems that even the great majority of helpful mutations degrade the genome to a greater or lesser extent.,,, I dub it “The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution”: Break or blunt any functional coded element whose loss would yield a net fitness gain.
http://behe.uncommondescent.com/2010/12/the-first-rule-of-adaptive-evolution/
How about the oft cited example for neo-Darwinism of antibiotic resistance?
List Of Degraded Molecular Abilities Of Antibiotic Resistant Bacteria:
Excerpt: Resistance to antibiotics and other antimicrobials is often claimed to be a clear demonstration of “evolution in a Petri dish.” ,,, all known examples of antibiotic resistance via mutation are inconsistent with the genetic requirements of evolution. These mutations result in the loss of pre-existing cellular systems/activities, such as porins and other transport systems, regulatory systems, enzyme activity, and protein binding.
http://www.trueorigin.org/bacteria01.asp
That doesn't seem to be helping! How about we look really, really, close at very sensitive growth rates and see if we can catch almighty evolution in action???
Unexpectedly small effects of mutations in bacteria bring new perspectives – November 2010
Excerpt: Most mutations in the genes of the Salmonella bacterium have a surprisingly small negative impact on bacterial fitness. And this is the case regardless whether they lead to changes in the bacterial proteins or not.,,, using extremely sensitive growth measurements, doctoral candidate Peter Lind showed that most mutations reduced the rate of growth of bacteria by only 0.500 percent. No mutations completely disabled the function of the proteins, and very few had no impact at all. Even more surprising was the fact that mutations that do not change the protein sequence had negative effects similar to those of mutations that led to substitution of amino acids. A possible explanation is that most mutations may have their negative effect by altering mRNA structure, not proteins, as is commonly assumed.
http://www.physorg.com/news/2010-11-unexpectedly-small-effects-mutations-bacteria.html
Shoot that doesn't seem to be helping either! Perhaps we just got to give the almighty power of neo-Darwinism ‘room to breathe’? How about we ‘open the floodgates’ to the almighty power of Darwinian Evolution and look at Lenski’s Long Term Evolution Experiment and see what we can find after 50,000 generations, which is equivalent to somewhere around 1,000,000 years of human evolution???
Richard Lenski’s Long-Term Evolution Experiments with E. coli and the Origin of New Biological Information – September 2011
Excerpt: The results of future work aside, so far, during the course of the longest, most open-ended, and most extensive laboratory investigation of bacterial evolution, a number of adaptive mutations have been identified that endow the bacterial strain with greater fitness compared to that of the ancestral strain in the particular growth medium. The goal of Lenski’s research was not to analyze adaptive mutations in terms of gain or loss of function, as is the focus here, but rather to address other longstanding evolutionary questions. Nonetheless, all of the mutations identified to date can readily be classified as either modification-of-function or loss-of-FCT.
(Michael J. Behe, “Experimental Evolution, Loss-of-Function Mutations and ‘The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution’,” Quarterly Review of Biology, Vol. 85(4) (December, 2010).)
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/09/richard_lenskis_long_term_evol051051.html
Now that just can’t be right!! Man we should really start to be seeing some neo-Darwinian fireworks by 50,000 generations!?! Hey I know what we can do! How about we see what happened when the ‘top five’ mutations from Lenski’s experiment were combined??? Surely now the Darwinian magic will start flowing!!!
Mutations : when benefits level off – June 2011 – (Lenski’s e-coli after 50,000 generations)
Excerpt: After having identified the first five beneficial mutations combined successively and spontaneously in the bacterial population, the scientists generated, from the ancestral bacterial strain, 32 mutant strains exhibiting all of the possible combinations of each of these five mutations. They then noted that the benefit linked to the simultaneous presence of five mutations was less than the sum of the individual benefits conferred by each mutation individually.
http://www2.cnrs.fr/en/1867.htm?theme1=7
Now something is going terribly wrong here!!! Tell you what, let’s just forget trying to observe evolution in the lab, I mean it really is kind of cramped in the lab you know, and now let’s REALLY open the floodgates and let’s see what the almighty power of neo-Darwinian evolution can do with the ENTIRE WORLD at its disposal??? Surely now almighty neo-Darwinian evolution will flex its awesomely powerful muscles and forever make those IDiots, who believe in Intelligent Design, cower in terror!!!
A review of The Edge of Evolution: The Search for the Limits of Darwinism
- The numbers of Plasmodium and HIV in the last 50 years greatly exceeds the total number of mammals since their supposed evolutionary origin (several hundred million years ago), yet little has been achieved by evolution. This suggests that mammals could have “invented” little in their time frame. Behe: ‘Our experience with HIV gives good reason to think that Darwinism doesn’t do much—even with billions of years and all the cells in that world at its disposal’ (p. 155).
http://creation.com/review-michael-behe-edge-of-evolution
"The immediate, most important implication is that complexes with more than two different binding sites-ones that require three or more proteins-are beyond the edge of evolution, past what is biologically reasonable to expect Darwinian evolution to have accomplished in all of life in all of the billion-year history of the world. The reasoning is straightforward. The odds of getting two independent things right are the multiple of the odds of getting each right by itself. So, other things being equal, the likelihood of developing two binding sites in a protein complex would be the square of the probability for getting one: a double CCC, 10^20 times 10^20, which is 10^40. There have likely been fewer than 10^40 cells in the world in the last 4 billion years, so the odds are against a single event of this variety in the history of life. It is biologically unreasonable."
- Michael Behe - The Edge of Evolution - page 146
Michael Behe, The Edge of Evolution, pg. 162 Swine Flu, Viruses, and the Edge of Evolution
“Indeed, the work on malaria and AIDS demonstrates that after all possible unintelligent processes in the cell–both ones we’ve discovered so far and ones we haven’t–at best extremely limited benefit, since no such process was able to do much of anything. It’s critical to notice that no artificial limitations were placed on the kinds of mutations or processes the microorganisms could undergo in nature. Nothing–neither point mutation, deletion, insertion, gene duplication, transposition, genome duplication, self-organization nor any other process yet undiscovered–was of much use.”
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/05/swine_flu_viruses_and_the_edge020071.html
Now, there is something terribly wrong here! After looking high and low and everywhere in between, we can’t seem to find the almighty power of neo-Darwinism anywhere!! Shoot we can’t even find ANY power of neo-Darwinism whatsoever!!! It is as if the whole neo-Darwinian theory, relentlessly sold to the general public as it was the gospel truth, is nothing but a big fat lie!!!bornagain77
April 29, 2013
April
04
Apr
29
29
2013
08:08 AM
8
08
08
AM
PDT
Ah yes, "However the
general patterns which Mendel reveals are surprisingly
consistent—as long as the input data which is used is even remotely realistic biologically." The article then proceeds to say that in their study they increased the frequency of beneficial mutations 10,000-fold and made all mutations co-dominant. These are huge deviations from what actually occurs biologically, so it is no surprise their data contradicts what actually happens in biology. I also found it interesting that the values used for many of the inputs are not given, only the results are given, making reproduction of the study impossible. Why am I not surprised this was funded by ICR and the False Memory Syndrome Foundation (a worthless group of child molesters)CharlieD
