Evolution/Creation on Trial
- Thread starter Not_By_Chance
- Start date
- Status
![[serious]](/data/avatars/m/160/160873.jpg?1431539545){kind=avatar}
That the problem evolutionist doesn't have a mechanism to explain nested hierarchy as Micheal Denton pointed out many years ago. There is no reason for a whale evolution to stay a mammal through all that transformation.
and the fact the result always fit the nested hierachy is not true which is why evolution has to continue to use co-evolution when something does fit.
Also now they know there is a code within code within a code give more understanding of all those small changes they once though was complete neutral or junk DNA.
Upvote
0
- May 11, 2015
- 17,420
- 3,592
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
The question is: what is the best, most healthy food for us to eat and how can evolutionary theory be used to help us to determine this. For example does evolutionary theory support Campbell's whole food plant based diet? Are modern foods causing disease because evolution requires time to adapt to changes in the food we eat?
We know that light from the sun is converted into life. Plants are evolving to be more nutritious. We depend on those plants. We can not evolve without them and they depend upon us also. Even people like Pollan claim plants control us more than we control them.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
- May 11, 2015
- 17,420
- 3,592
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
Yet now they claim that Neanderthal split and then mated with modern humans. How does this play out for your nested hierarchy?
Last edited:
Upvote
0
The Cadet
SO COOL
- Apr 29, 2010
- 6,290
- 4,743
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- In Relationship
- Politics
- US-Democrat
Good question. Let me ask the experts: http://www.askabiologist.org.uk/answers/viewtopic.php?pid=29150#p29150
@stevevw was it you who brought up the example of the egg and sperm that could not have evolved?
Upvote
0
Richard Sternberg give a good idea just the great amount of engineering required for a land animal turn into a whale.
http://video.search.yahoo.com/video/play;_ylt=A2KLqIAV2pZVyW0APtr7w8QF;_ylu=X3oDMTEybWdxbzVyBHNlYwNzcgRzbGsDdmlkBHZ0aWQDVklEUUJDSwRncG9zAzE-?p=Whale+Evolution+Richard+Sternberg&vid=213c2c81f49b79a391ec6f70ceb2858d&turl=http://ts2.mm.bing.net/th?id=WN.QkMXfoXt%2fEM1U5ealMBzjw&pid=15.1&h=225&w=300&c=7&rs=1&rurl=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KbAzZEu13_w&tit=Whale+Evolution+and+Population+Genetics&c=0&h=225&w=300&l=600&sigr=11b5jc927&sigt=1175us2k8&sigi=12mqs6ufp&age=1350908287&fr2=p:s,v:v&fr=tightropetb&tt=b
Of course they assume all those creatures were mammals but all they got is their bones to go by.
Upvote
0
- May 11, 2015
- 17,420
- 3,592
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
The Dover trial maybe a good place to start.
Upvote
0
The Cadet
SO COOL
- Apr 29, 2010
- 6,290
- 4,743
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- In Relationship
- Politics
- US-Democrat
Can't access that video in my country. Is it the one where a creation "scientist" says something phenomenally wrong?
Actually, I can't find the video anywhere! Not only that, but I'm having significant trouble finding anywhere else making the claim. It sure ain't in the peer-reviewed literature, and given Sternberg's propensity to completely bungle basic mathematics and refuse to correct himself, I'd be mighty careful citing any mathematical calculations involved. And just going from what you describe in it, it seems to be going totally backwards - taking an extant animal, and calculating the odds that it could have arisen, when in fact, in order for it to be extant, it had to take some path, not necessarily this path (you ignore the numerator completely and focus entirely on the denominator).
Upvote
0
bhsmte
Newbie
Humans evolved to be able to consume all sorts of foods. Hunter gatherers ate a lot of meat and some wild plants and were also in fantastic physical condition, because they had to outlast the game they were seeking, to be able to kill it. One of the reasons humans have evolved to be such good distance runners (much better than animals), as we can sweat and cool the body, while animals with fur, tend to overheat and need to stop and this is when they would be prey for the hunters.
The human body needs certain nutrients to be healthy, found in vitamins, minerals, proteins, fats and carbohydrates. There is no "magical" diet that has been shown to be superior and this is likely because, we have evolved to digest different food sources.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
- May 11, 2015
- 17,420
- 3,592
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
They do not promote a magic diet so much as a diet low in calories and high in nutrition. They want you to eat whole food in its natural condition. Not processed in anyway.
Neanderthal did not need clothing. Modern man moved out of their eco system in Africa up into Neanderthals domain. Over time modern man prospered and Neanderthal went extinct. They find sowing needles so at this time man was learning how to make clothing to survive in a colder climate.
Neanderthal did not need clothing. Modern man moved out of their eco system in Africa up into Neanderthals domain. Over time modern man prospered and Neanderthal went extinct. They find sowing needles so at this time man was learning how to make clothing to survive in a colder climate.
Upvote
0
stevevw
inquisitive
I cant see how a naturalistic process cant have design and cant have all the prerequisites for design that point to it needing a designer to exist. Saying that nature is its own designer or that what it does isn't really design doesn't make sense. This goes back to the assumption made by atheistic views that existence and life came about on its own without any intelligence involved.
But when it comes to the crunch no one can explain how this can happen. Scientists have to step outside the way they explain everything else through cause and effect to even begin to formulate an explanation. So they end up turning to extra dimensional ideas to explain what they cant in our reality. Its just the same as what they say about Christians appealing to a God or ID being unreal and without evidence.
Evolution state that how things came about in the first place is irrelevant to the evolution process. Yet it really is at the heart of the process. The same lack of explaining with how life can come from non life is the same lack of explaining how more complex life can come from simpler life. Both cant explain how and where that life came from.
It all sounds good until we get to the heart of the matter. Being able to explain the step by step mechanisms involved in evolution becomes harder to do than the theory makes out. When tests are done which is the ultimate criteria for verifying a theory it breaks down and fails to prove itself. What ends up actually happening is an idea or theory becomes good enough as the explanation even if it hasn't been verified.The more you mention it the more it is believed and eventually becomes the explanation.
They say that our DNA is like a genetic code or language. The letters have to make sense and read in a way that is in order and any letter in its wrong place will cause a problem. If we read a sentence we immediately know it is language and written by someone with intelligence. The letters are in the right place and it is in order and makes sense to use. Yet if some letters were in the wrong place we would know that something is wrong. Its as simple as that and evolutionists like to throw spanners in the works and try to white wash it with technical speak. The more they can throw in there with reasons how there is more to it the more it will confuse the issue and create a doubt.
Evolution has always tried to make out evolution is simple and life is made up of simple processes. This has been seen with things like how a nature makes dumb mistakes with vestigial organs, how most of our DNA is junk or how nothing is really nothing ect. The more they can create this impression the better it is for them to show that life can create itself and its not such as big deal. But the more we have looked into things the harder it is becoming for them to explain things.
This is because we are finding more complexity, deeper meanings, earlier complexity in so called simple organisms. We are seeing how life is linked and there are chains of connections and systems within systems and that its all finely tuned to work in specific ways. All of which is showing how life is working together and intertwined and couldn't be self created by some blind and chance process that creates life in a bit by bit fashion.
One example is the Cambrian explosion. Evolution has always tried to make out that life before this was very simple and even life within the Cambrian period was simple and showed the steps for evolution. But now we are finding that life was just as complex as it is now. They are finding very complex traits in creatures that are very much the same as what we have today. They were just different but they were now simpler. There are many investigations that are showing how life is complex and how it is designed.
One prediction ID proponents have been saying for a long time is that the so called junk in our DNA is not junk. ID believers say it would be extremely unlikely that an organism would expend so much energy and resources preserving so much junk. As time has gone be we are seeing more and more function with our non coding sections of DNA and evolutionists continuing to deny that there is much use for this part of our DNA.
MicroRNAs and metazoan macroevolution: insights into canalization, complexity, and the Cambrian explosion.
Thus, elucidating the materialistic basis of the Cambrian explosion has become more elusive, not less, the more we know about the event itself, and cannot be explained away by coupling extinction of intermediates with long stretches of geologic time, despite the contrary claims of some modern neo-Darwinists. (Kevin J. Peterson, Michael R. Dietrich and Mark A. McPeek,
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19472371
I acknowledge the picture of the LHC. Its a very complex piece of designed machinery made by humans.
I think its important to distinguish the difference between a designer/agent and the evidence for the actions of a designer. We can use some criteria for what a designer may use or how a designer may do things and look for examples of how design works in nature. For example,
Predictions of Design (Hypothesis):
(1) Natural structures will be found that contain many parts arranged in intricate patterns that perform a specific function (e.g. complex and specified information).
(2) Forms containing large amounts of novel information will appear in the fossil record suddenly and without similar precursors.
(3) Convergence will occur routinely. That is, genes and other functional parts will be re-used in different and unrelated organisms.
(4) Much so-called "junk DNA" will turn out to perform valuable functions.
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/03/a_closer_look_at_one_scientist045311.html
Evolutionists like to make out there is no design in life and look for ways to show how its disorganized because the more it shows patterns, order, systems, codes, languages and even systems and codes within codes the more it shows design. So evolutionists are constantly battling to deny any organization in life. If evolution was a naturalistic process then we should see a lot of disorder as things are scales up. There should b3e a lot of mistakes, chaos, poor designs, mistakes ect because that is the idea of evolution that is a hit and miss process.
It is not so much about the individual creature such as a beaver or bee or human. Its the makeup of those creatures that is what life is about. The shapes and features are the outside appearances. Whats inside is what made them. This is about genetic codes and biology that is fairly similar in all. But evolution takes the ability of that and says nature created this in the first place and because it has done this it can continue to create life and make it better and more complex. But this has not been practically proven in test. When it comes to the crunch the evidence isn't there. All evolutionists are doing is taking what was already there and riding on the back of this great ability of ID and then giving nature the credit.
The mechanisms for creating life are to complex and the evidence shows that it has all been there from an early stage in development because all life needs and uses the same code. It didn't start with nothing and then create a tiny bit and then a bit more and so on each time finding another level of complexity that wasn't there in the first place. Thats story telling and unreal and not proven. As I said as time goes by we are seeing how complex life is and how inter dependent it all is and how it needed to be that way from the beginning.
The near universality of the code means it was present in evolution’s purported universal common ancestor. It would be too unlikely (even for evolutionists) for the identical unique code to have evolved independently in the different evolutionary branches, so it must have been present from the very beginning. In other words, evolutionists must explain the universality of the code as arising from a common ancestor, not from the repeated evolution of the code.
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/03/a_closer_look_at_one_scientist045311.html
It doesn't matter to begin with about establishing any particular designer. The first step is to acknowledge that there is design in life and existence and that there needed to be an outside source for that design to come from. It couldn't come from within and be self creating. Just as life cannot come from non life a more complex life cannot come from something simple.
It seems that because evolutionists can break life down into tiny little bits and make out its so simple to explain each step creating itself somehow gives it a magical ability to pull things out of nowhere. If its not there its not there to draw upon. That is why the debate centers around any tests showing that any function or ability that is claimed to be created is from existing info and ability that is being tapped into. Life isn't static so the blue itself has the mechanisms in it to give a creature a certain amount of flexibility. But that has limits and isn't self creating.
You keep coming back to wanting proof of a designer. Lets first establish that life is designed and then we can talk about a designer. I mean the designer may even be some alien race who is experimenting with making creatures on our planet. In fact even scientists say that life may have piggy backed its way here on a meteorite because they find it hard to explain how life began on earth. But that just shows how they also acknowledge that there is a lot of creativity in life which signifies design or that it is impossible for a naturalistic explanation.
Theistic evolutionists will agree with evolution but even they acknowledge that there had to be a designer that planted all the ingredients and instructions in the first place to start it all off and continue its journey.
All I can say if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck then chances are its a duck. As Dawkins has said life gives the appearance of design and thats something he cant deny. But then evolutionists will take that and try to rationalize that its not really design just like they do with nothing not really being nothing. In the end it comes down to illogical explanations to try and dig their way out of the obvious. Anyway here are some examples of design I have found.
Extreme functional sensitivity to conservative amino acid changes on enzyme exteriors1
Contrary to the prevalent view, then, enzyme function places severe constraints on residue identities at positions showing evolutionary variability, and at exterior non-active-site positions, in particular. Homologues sharing less than about two-thirds sequence identity should probably be viewed as distinct designs with their own sets of optimizing features.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022283600939974
This is a very simplified version of a complex argument, but anyone can grasp the basic gist of it through the following syllogism:
1) DNA is not simply a molecule with a pattern; it's a code, a language and information storage mechanism.
2) There is no natural process known to us by science that creates coded information, so through inference we come to the conclusion that all codes that we know of are created by a mind.
3) Therefore DNA was designed by a mind.
http://www.everystudent.com/wires/Godreal.html
Scientists discover double meaning in genetic code
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/12/131212142151.htm
At an absolute minimum, the inconceivable self-formation of DNA and the inability to explain the incredible information contained in DNA represent fatal defects in the concept of mutation and natural selection to account for the origin of life and the origin of DNA.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3246854/
DNA codes and information: formal structures and relational causes.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18465197
The Types: A Persistent Structuralist Challenge to Darwinian Pan-Selectionism
http://bio-complexity.org/ojs/index.php/main/article/view/BIO-C.2013.3
Last edited:
Upvote
0
The Cadet
SO COOL
- Apr 29, 2010
- 6,290
- 4,743
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- In Relationship
- Politics
- US-Democrat
It's an analogy to explain the illusion of design - nature appears "designed" because descent with modification combined with natural selection will automatically lead to creatures well-optimized for their surroundings.
No, "how did life originate" and "how does existing life diversify" are fundamentally different questions that, while tangentially related, can be addressed almost completely independently of one another.
I'm getting a little tired of making the same arguments to two different people in two different threads, but what is the mass of Pluto? Do you know what Pluto's mass is? Have you measured it? No? Well then, how can you know that Newtonian mechanics applies to Pluto? How do you know that Pluto doesn't have the mass of a cinderblock, and that it's not held in orbit by some supernatural cause? How could you possibly verify that Newtonian mechanics is applicable?
Does that question sound stupid to you? It should. It is. In science, we use inference to help extrapolate from what we know to find out more. The main purpose of science, in pragmatic terms, is model-building. We build useful, predictive, explanatory models of the universe, which we can then apply beyond their original scope. How do we know that Pluto roughly follows Newtonian mechanics? Because every other macro object in the universe that we have measured thus far roughly follows Newtonian mechanics! We can use it as an accurate predictive model and a useful tool. The same goes for evolution. Do we know exactly how every microorganelle, every gene, every thing evolved? No. We don't have to, because evolution is a useful explanatory and predictive model that seems to apply to pretty much everything we have ever examined. Using evolution to explain the development of, say, the bacterial flagellum is entirely reasonable, and we don't have to somehow prove that every single complex biological system evolved, just like we do not have to prove that Newtonian mechanics is independently valid for every single object we want to use an F=m*A calculation on!
Have you ever wondered why scientists stopped using this analogy? It's because creationists consistently seized on it and dishonestly misrepresented what was being said, or used BS analogies like that one. I'm sorry, I'm not going to go over this crap again. If you're interested in understanding why this is wrong, ask any biologist or linguist.
Tell you what, you cite each of the relevant claims in this paragraph, and I won't ignore it! Same goes for every other completely baseless claim you make in this post.
Nobody ever believed that non-coding DNA was as a whole useless. This is a lie. Whoever told you this is lying to you.
http://www.genomicron.evolverzone.com/2008/02/junk-dna-quotes-of-interest-series/
The idea of "junk" DNA doesn't even make sense from a Darwinian perspective!
Interesting paper. I have no idea what it has to do with anything we've talking about, or what point you're trying to make with this, because the authors are definitely not making the claim that materialism cannot account for the diversity seen in the Cambrian, or the claim that biological mechanisms cannot account for it. There is some non-trivial debate within the evolutionary community of the role of various mechanisms in the early eras of life - hence the digs from people like these authors or Koonin at "neo-darwinists". Keep in mind that "neo-darwinism" is already some 50 years old and significantly behind the curve in some regards, and many are claiming that a new synthesis is required.
Did you read this paper? Did you understand this paper? Inquiring minds wish to know.
We already know that (1) can occur with or without a designer (see also: the human eye). We know that (2) can and does occur with or without a designer (punctuated equilibrium). We know that (3), to the extent which it is not question-begging, can occur with or without a designer. And we've known that (4) can happen with or without a designer.
The modern evolutionary synthesis predicts all of these without the need of appealing to some extra entity; methinks this designer hypothesis is in need of a shave. None of this is useful or convincing. Is there anything that points specifically to an intelligent designer, and which does not also point to an alternative hypothesis? This hypothesis points to a whole lot of things which happen in nature. Okay. How do we know they weren't caused by nature? Why do we need to invoke an intelligent designer? None of these predictions provide any positive evidence for this designer whatsoever. Like, the prediction that all of life would fall into a nested hierarchy? That's a prediction specific for evolution. Descent with modification is the only known mechanism that will consistently produce parsimonious nested hierarchies. If it weren't, it would be a fairly useless prediction for evolution, unless there was some way to rule out the other mechanism.
Additionally, there's the problem that "a designer did it", depending on how you define the designer (and given that many of these guys think the designer is omnipotent), here's a list of things you could the design hypothesis could equally accommodate if they were true:
- No natural structures being in any way complex or multifaceted
- Forms gradually shifting throughout the fossil record
- No gene ever being used in the same place twice
- Junk DNA just being there as the designer's own personal joke
Please establish a mechanism to objectively determine whether or not something is designed.
http://www.pnas.org/content/109/5/1595.full
I'm pretty sure this isn't the first time I've shown you this. Or how about the evolution of the human eye? How about the evolution of the nervous system? How about countless prescient examples that you would know about if you spent any time actually researching the theory you are trying to take a crap on? I'm sorry, I'm getting tired of this. Very little of what you say has any merit or content to it, and I'm not sure how I should respond to half-baked platitudes that are demonstrably wrong. Like... this:
What are you even talking about?! I mean, honestly, I have no idea what this is even referring to.
You're wrong. I'm sorry, you're just wrong. I keep on throwing up examples (I found like a dozen in ten minutes in that one post that you still haven't addressed) and you keep ignoring them! Or pretending they don't matter for some reason. I'm sick of refuting the same point again and again and again. Please acknowledge that I have demonstrated to you that new functions and abilities can come about through gene duplication and mutation, or show how my demonstration fails. You can start with platypus venom.
Congratulations: you fail. I'm sorry, but "it looks like design" is not an valid objective criteria. Indeed, when it has been applied in the past, it has been consistently wrong. Whether something "looks like" design to any given individual tells us nothing about its actual design. My father could make a landscape for you that looked like humans had never tread there; conversely, we know that erosion effect create splits in rocks that are constantly and consistently mistaken for design. Indeed, given that we know how the human eye evolved, and we know that Paley saw "design" there, we can say quite firmly that this criteria is prone to false positives (and it only gets worse when you consider the natural human predisposition to attribute agency to random events and to see patterns where there are none). You need something actually objective. Some actual criteria.
How did you establish that this was designed? In fact, same question for literally everything else on the list. And then for a Fiat Bravo, for good measure. And then that same methodology applied to naturalistic systems which we know seem designed but are not, just to ensure we aren't running the risk of false positives. Given that the field of intelligent design has had over a decade to find this methodology, and that this methodology is foundationally necessary to their endeavor, it should be pretty easy for you to find. Unless they haven't made it yet. Because they can't. Because it's a load of bollocks.
Premise two is, depending on how you want to look at it, either demonstrably wrong (because of DNA) or begging the question (because this argument is being used to prove that DNA is created by a mind).
Kuhn's article is well-known. It was published in a medical journal (rather than, say, an evo-devo journal, or a general biology journal, or anything more relevant), and it shows. It's complete garbage from top to bottom, makes countless downright false claims, and completely mangles the research. Not only was a refutation published in the same issue (which you can find by clicking the link near the top), but a more thorough one was published in a later edition: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3310512/
Published in a low-impact (IF < 1) open-access journal, cited exactly once. I bring this up to point out the continued and persistent failure of intelligent design proponents to actually move the science forward. This is something of a pattern in pieces you cite - none of them actually go anywhere. They get published, and either nobody reads them, or nobody thinks they're worth building on. As for the content, it's more philosophy than science, based on absolutely no empirical data. No wonder nobody thought it was worth anything.
Stop citing bio-complexity.org. It just makes you look like you don't know how to tell the difference between a legitimate scientific source and a garbage dump.
Upvote
0
James Is Back
CF's Official Locksmith
- Aug 21, 2014
- 17,883
- 1,344
- 51
- Faith
- Protestant
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Libertarian
Mod Hat On
Thread moved from Physical & Life Sciences to Creation & Evolution.
Mod Hat Off
Thread moved from Physical & Life Sciences to Creation & Evolution.
Mod Hat Off
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
The Cadet
SO COOL
- Apr 29, 2010
- 6,290
- 4,743
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- In Relationship
- Politics
- US-Democrat
Oh look I found some more.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?cmd=Link&LinkName=pubmed_pubmed&from_uid=11682312
- Long, M., Betran, E., Thornton, K. and Wang, W. (2003). "The origin of new genes: glimpses from the young and old." Nature Reviews Genetics. 4(11): 865-875.
- Adami et al., 2000. (see below)
- Alves MJ, Coelho MM, Collares-Pereira MJ, 2001. Evolution in action through hybridisation and polyploidy in an Iberian freshwater fish: a genetic review. Genetica 111(1-3): 375-385. [2]
- Brown CJ, Todd KM, Rosenzweig RF, 1998. Multiple duplications of yeast hexose transport genes in response to selection in a glucose-limited environment. Mol. Biol. Evol. 15(8): 931-942. [3]
- Decadt, Y. JG, 2000. On the origin and impact of information in evolution paper available on the internet.
- Hughes AL, Friedman R, 2003. Parallel evolution by gene duplication in the genomes of two unicellular fungi. Genome Res. 13(6A): 1259-1264.
- Knox JR, Moews PC and Frere J-M, 1996. Molecular evolution of bacterial beta-lactam resistance. Chemistry & Biology 3: 937-947.
- Lang, D. et al, 2000. Structural evidence for evolution of the beta/alpha barrel scaffold by gene duplication and fusion. Science 289: 1546-1550. See also Miles, E.W. & Davies, D.R., 2000. On the ancestry of barrels. Science 289: 1490.
- Lenski, R.E., 1995. in Population Genetics of Bacteria, Society for General Microbiology, Symposium 52, eds. Baumberg, S., Young, J.P.W., Saunders, S.R. & Wellington, E.M.H., Cambridge University Press, UK., pp. 193-215.
- Lenski, R., Rose, M.R., Simpson, E.C. & Tadler, S.C., 1991. American Naturalist 138: 1315-1341.
- Long M. (2001). "Evolution of novel genes." Curr Opin Genet Dev. 11(6):673-80.
- Long, M., Betran, E., Thornton, K. and Wang, W. (2003). "The origin of new genes: glimpses from the young and old." Nature Reviews Genetics. 4(11): 865-875.
- Lynch M and Conery JS, 2000. The evolutionary fate and consequences of duplicate genes. Science 290: 1151-1155. See also Pennisi, E., 2000. Twinned genes live life in the fast lane. Science 290: 1065-1066.
- Nurminsky DI, Nurminskaya MV, De Aguiar D, Hartl DL. (1998). "Selective sweep of a newly evolved sperm-specific gene in Drosophila." Nature. 396(6711):572-5.
- Ohta T., 2003. Evolution by gene duplication revisited: differentiation of regulatory elements versus proteins. Genetica 118(2-3): 209-216.
- Park IS, Lin CH, and Walsh CT, 1996. Gain of D-alanyl-D-lactate or D-lactyl-D-alanine synthetase activities in three active-site mutants of the Escherichia coli D-alanyl-D-alanine ligase B. Biochemistry 35: 10464-10471.
- Prijambada ID et al., 1995. Emergence of nylon oligomer degradation enzymes in Pseudomonas aeruginosa PAO through experimental evolution. Applied and Environmental Microbiology 61(5): 2020-2022.
- Schneider, T.D., 2000. Evolution of biological information. Nucleic Acids Res 28(14): 2794-2799. [4]
- Zhang J, Zhang YP, Rosenberg HF, 2002. Adaptive evolution of a duplicated pancreatic ribonuclease gene in a leaf-eating monkey. Nature Genetics 30(4):411-415. See also: Univ. of Michigan, 2002, How gene duplication helps in adapting to changing environments. [5]
- Whitman CP. (2002). "The 4-oxalocrotonate tautomerase family of enzymes: how nature makes new enzymes using a beta-alpha-beta structural motif." Arch Biochem Biophys. 402(1):1-13.PubMed DOI
- Bos DH. (2005). "Natural selection during functional divergence to LMP7 and proteasome subunit X (PSMB5) following gene duplication." J Mol Evol. 60(2):221-8. PubMed
- Ballicora MA, Dubay JR, Devillers CH, Preiss J. (2005). "Resurrecting the ancestral enzymatic role of a modulatory subunit." J Biol Chem. 280(11):10189-95. PubMed
- Todd AE, Orengo CA, Thornton JM. (2002)."Sequence and structural differences between enzyme and nonenzyme homologs." Structure (Camb). 10(10):1435-51. PubMed
- Todd AE, Orengo CA, Thornton JM. (2002). "Plasticity of enzyme active sites." Trends Biochem Sci. 27(8):419-26. PubMed
- Bartlett GJ, Borkakoti N, Thornton JM. (2003). "Catalysing new reactions during evolution: economy of residues and mechanism." J Mol Biol. 331(4):829-60. PubMed
- James LC, Tawfik DS. (2001). "Catalytic and binding poly-reactivities shared by two unrelated proteins: The potential role of promiscuity in enzyme evolution." Protein Sci. 10(12):2600-7. PubMed
- Todd AE, Orengo CA, Thornton JM. (2001). "Evolution of function in protein superfamilies, from a structural perspective." J Mol Biol. 307(4):1113-43. PubMed
- Raes, J., Van de Peer, Y. (2002). "Gene duplication, the evolution of novel gene functions, and detecting functional divergence of duplicates in silico." Appl Bioinformatics. 2(2):91-101. PubMed
- Van de Peer, Y., Taylor, J. S., Braasch, I., Meyer, A. "The ghost of selection past: rates of evolution and functional divergence of anciently duplicated genes." J Mol Evol. 53(4-5):436-446.
- Carginale, V., Trinchella, F., Capasso, C., Scudiero, R., Riggio, M., Parisi, E. (2004). "Adaptive evolution and functional divergence of pepsin gene family." Gene. 333:81-90. PubMed
- Adami, C., Ofria, C. & Collier, T.C., 2000. Evolution of biological complexity. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science USA 97(9): 4463-4468. [6]
- Hillis DM, Bull JJ, White ME, Badgett MR, Molineux IJ. 1992. Experimental phylogenetics: generation of a known phylogeny. Science 255: 589-92.
- Dean, Anthony (1998). The Molecular Anatomy of an Ancient Adaptive Event. American Scientist, 86(1), p. 26.
- Ranz JM, Ponce AR, Hartl DL, Nurminsky D., 2003. Origin and evolution of a new gene expressed in the Drosophila sperm axoneme. Genetica. Jul;118(2-3):233-44.
- A double issue of Genetica (abstract of the preface) on the evolution of novel genes (July 2003).
- Kuper, J., Doenges, C. & Wilmanns, M. (2005). "Two-fold repeated (beta alpha)4 half-barrels may provide a molecular tool for dual substrate specificity." EMBO reports, 6(2), 134–139. DOI+
Meyer makes his case that evolution can’t produce new genes in complete neglect of the relevant scientific literature documenting the origin of new genes.
[...]The second problem is that Meyer cites absolutely none of the literature documenting the origin of new genes. For example, Meyer missed the recent paper in Current Opinion in Genetics and Development with the unambiguous title, “Evolution of novel genes.” The paper and 183 related papers can be found here. Many other references can be found linked from here.
It is worth listing a few in-text to make crystal-clear the kinds of references that Meyer missed:
[...]The second problem is that Meyer cites absolutely none of the literature documenting the origin of new genes. For example, Meyer missed the recent paper in Current Opinion in Genetics and Development with the unambiguous title, “Evolution of novel genes.” The paper and 183 related papers can be found here. Many other references can be found linked from here.
It is worth listing a few in-text to make crystal-clear the kinds of references that Meyer missed:
Copley, S. D. (2000). “Evolution of a metabolic pathway for degradation of a toxic xenobiotic: the patchwork approach.” Trends Biochem Sci 25(6): 261-265. PubMed
Harding, M. M., Anderberg, P. I. and Haymet, A. D. (2003). “‘Antifreeze’ glycoproteins from polar fish.” Eur J Biochem 270(7): 1381-1392. PubMed
Johnson, G. R., Jain, R. K. and Spain, J. C. (2002). “Origins of the 2,4-dinitrotoluene pathway.” J Bacteriol 184(15): 4219-4232. PubMed
Long, M., Betran, E., Thornton, K. and Wang, W. (2003). “The origin of new genes: glimpses from the young and old.” Nat Rev Genet 4(11): 865-875. PubMed
Nurminsky, D., Aguiar, D. D., Bustamante, C. D. and Hartl, D. L. (2001). “Chromosomal effects of rapid gene evolution in Drosophila melanogaster.” Science 291(5501): 128-130. PubMed
Patthy, L. (2003). “Modular assembly of genes and the evolution of new functions.” Genetica 118(2-3): 217-231. PubMed
Prijambada I. D., Negoro S., Yomo T., Urabe I. (1995). “Emergence of nylon oligomer degradation enzymes in Pseudomonas aeruginosa PAO through experimental evolution.” Appl Environ Microbiol. 61(5):2020-2. PubMed
Ranz, J. M., Ponce, A. R., Hartl, D. L. and Nurminsky, D. (2003). “Origin and evolution of a new gene expressed in the Drosophila sperm axoneme.” Genetica 118(2-3): 233-244. PubMed
Seffernick, J. L. and Wackett, L. P. (2001). “Rapid evolution of bacterial catabolic enzymes: a case study with atrazine chlorohydrolase.” Biochemistry 40(43): 12747-12753. PubMed
Harding, M. M., Anderberg, P. I. and Haymet, A. D. (2003). “‘Antifreeze’ glycoproteins from polar fish.” Eur J Biochem 270(7): 1381-1392. PubMed
Johnson, G. R., Jain, R. K. and Spain, J. C. (2002). “Origins of the 2,4-dinitrotoluene pathway.” J Bacteriol 184(15): 4219-4232. PubMed
Long, M., Betran, E., Thornton, K. and Wang, W. (2003). “The origin of new genes: glimpses from the young and old.” Nat Rev Genet 4(11): 865-875. PubMed
Nurminsky, D., Aguiar, D. D., Bustamante, C. D. and Hartl, D. L. (2001). “Chromosomal effects of rapid gene evolution in Drosophila melanogaster.” Science 291(5501): 128-130. PubMed
Patthy, L. (2003). “Modular assembly of genes and the evolution of new functions.” Genetica 118(2-3): 217-231. PubMed
Prijambada I. D., Negoro S., Yomo T., Urabe I. (1995). “Emergence of nylon oligomer degradation enzymes in Pseudomonas aeruginosa PAO through experimental evolution.” Appl Environ Microbiol. 61(5):2020-2. PubMed
Ranz, J. M., Ponce, A. R., Hartl, D. L. and Nurminsky, D. (2003). “Origin and evolution of a new gene expressed in the Drosophila sperm axoneme.” Genetica 118(2-3): 233-244. PubMed
Seffernick, J. L. and Wackett, L. P. (2001). “Rapid evolution of bacterial catabolic enzymes: a case study with atrazine chlorohydrolase.” Biochemistry 40(43): 12747-12753. PubMed
Seriously, you're wrong. You're either wrong or what you're saying is trivially non-problematic for evolution. (If you want to say that "yeah, well, everything that exists came about through modification and duplication of the existing material!", congratulations, you just described descent with modification!) These are not new mistakes, these are not issues which are impossible to find. I found most of these by just going to Evowiki. That's not that difficult, is it?
Upvote
0
stevevw
inquisitive
No worries give me a few years to go through this and learn it all and I will get back to you.
In the mean time I was thinking about the example of the eye and how evolution says that its not a problem to evolve. They use the example of simple eyes as with a film of gel or skin that can be light sensitive as an early eye. Dawkins uses a spot light through a simple lend and onto a wall as an example. But upon investigation I discovered that this is a misleading example. All this would do is act like a window for light. Without any nerve connection and connections to a brain to tell the eye that it is seeing light it is useless.
This is a good example of how evolution uses ideas that are misleading and misrepresented. They conveniently dont fill in the details of what else is needed. So that little window of light would need to evolve several other things at the same time for it to even be aware of light such as connections to the brain. The amount of beneficial mutations needed at the same time and in conjunction with each other to do this is great and unlikely to happen by chance. Evolution doesn't know it not only needs a light window but also all the other things that will make it something other than a slab of clear meat such as neurons.
So not only did this amazing feat have to happen once with thousands of mutations all directed towards making an eye. But it had to happen many times to other unrelated creatures evolving in some cases exact same eyes. What a coincidence. Oh thats right its convergent evolution and just happened to fluke the exact same process. Even down to the same genetics in some cases. Any chance that there was some common design or pre determined steps involved. Yeah and why didn't we evolve eyes in the back of our head. It would have been a great survival advantage.
Squid and Humans Evolved the Same Eye
http://www.iflscience.com/plants-and-animals/squid-and-humans-evolved-same-eye
This is also apparent in your previous example of the brewers yeast that is used to create cell clusters from a single cell. The particular yeast is know to create cell clusters in the first place. The methods used to establish selection of those clusters is also misleading and has not been cross checked for other reasons why the clusters separate which can also be because of the testing methods. This is what evolutionists do. They make unsubstantiated claims based on part of a test and leave out important aspects which would cause different results or break down the tests altogether.
They then take what they think is a success of a tiny part of what would be needed to evolved multi celled organisms of which there are many more complex and impossible steps and claim a victory that they have proved evolution. All this has done is created a controlled result which has been manipulated to get an end result that they wanted.
Conclusion
Scientists from the University of Minnesota want us to believe that multicellularity, which took billions of years to appear on earth, can evolve in a few days under simple laboratory selection. Instead of using modern techniques of genetic sequencing and gene array expression analysis, these scientists merely observed clumps of Saccharomyces cerevisiae to conclude that they had "differentiated" into "adult" and "juvenile" populations. They pretended to measure "apoptosis" through staining with DHR, which actually tests for the presence of reactive oxygen species.
It is much more likely that sheering forces present during the shaking of the cultures was responsible for cell death near the middle of colonies as the branches were bent back and forth. Such a scenario would have resulted in cell death and eventual release of portions of the colony. These alternative explanations are easily testable and would likely invalidate the interpretation of the data offered by the scientists who published the study.
http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/multicellular_evolution.html
Now look what we've done. We have evolved this forum into another completely different one.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
stevevw
inquisitive
What’s that got to do with design not being something that is the same as design by humans. It has all the same qualities such as with systems, codes and letters and language. Natural selection cannot account for this as its only criteria is survival of the fittest. That doesn’t factor in things like coded patterns that will keep in sequence for large amounts of information. It will have many misaligned sequences and show many different unrelated patterns. Evolutions wants to pretend it’s not design and make explanations that will discredit any hint of intelligence. Their aim is to give naturalistic reasons even if that means denying the obvious.
Big difference, we have verified Newtonian laws through test. But we haven’t done this for evolution in the sense that creatures can evolve into totally new ones. Most people including creationists and ID supporters agree that evolution works for allowing creatures to adapt to their environments with certain limits. This is the deceptive problem that evolutionists use. They use something true for something that is not true or verified. So it can all look ad sound good up to a point. It’s the bait and switch ploy. We have to be on our game and call out what evolutionists try to get away with.
It all sounds good until we get to the heart of the matter. Being able to explain the step by step mechanisms involved in the evolution of complex new abilities that were not there in the first place (denovo evolution) becomes harder to do than the theory makes out. When tests are done which is the ultimate criteria for verifying a theory it breaks down and fails to prove itself. The tests that people cite are just showing a manipulation of existing genetics. They are either deleting a part of existing genes or switching on something that is already there. It’s a recombination of existing genetics and not adding any new ability.
If the genes for a wing and all its connecting functions are not there in an animal’s genetics in the first place then nothing can create those genes out of the existing material. Evolution uses what happens with existing genetics making new ability (micro evolution) and saying this applies to the macro scale. So its takes something that really happens and then gives it powers beyond what has been proven. What ends up actually happening is an idea or theory becomes good enough as the explanation even if it hasn't been verified.
They haven’t stopped using this language at all. They can’t help but not use this language because everything about it is design. It’s like the design you have when you not having design. I can’t believe the denial that some try to get away with. If they are falling into the habit and actions of using this language in the first place then that’s because that is exactly what they are seeing. (They give themselves away). But so they can avoid giving the game away they keep the false idea of their theory going by using part truths mixed with lies. That’s why when you stop and look at things more closely the cracks begin to appear.
If you don’t know about these things then this shows you are ignoring them and this only supports how evolutionists think. They will see what they want to see. I have cited the relevant links but you keep dismissing them.
Well you can tell by the language that was being used. They may not have said that it was totally useless. But they certainly were trying to minimize any use it had. The more complex and useful the DNA is the harder it is for them to explain how it all happened naturally.
For many evolutionists the finding that junk DNA is not junk is inconsistent with an evolutionary worldview. 98 percent of human DNA has been affectionately called “junk” because it did not code for proteins. It was assumed to be an evolutionary wasteland of sequences that were discarded as humans climbed the “tree of life” from a single-celled organism.
Here are some of the statements made by scientists.
The earth is strewn with fossil remains of extinct species, is it a wonder that our genome too is filled with the remains of extinct genes?8
– Susumu Ohno (coined the term junk DNA).
In summary, then, there is a large amount of evidence which suggests, but does not prove, that much DNA in higher organisms is little better than junk.9
– Leslie Orgel and Francis Crick (co-discoverer of the structure of DNA).
Mammalian genomes are littered with such AREs [type of junk DNA], with roughly 45 percent of the human genomes made up of such genetic flotsam and jetsam [types of debris in the ocean].10
– Francis Collins (Director of the National Institute of Health and director of the human genome sequencing project)
Leaving pseudogenes aside, it is a remarkable fact that the greater part (95 per cent in the case of humans) of the genome might as well not be there, for all the difference it makes.11
– Richard Dawkins (evolutionary biologist)
I will answer the rest soon in a separate post as this one is getting to long.
Thanks Steve.
Upvote
0
stevevw
inquisitive
The authors admit that there is a lack of a materialistic basis for the Cambrian explosion. As the article states:
Thus, elucidating the materialistic basis of the Cambrian explosion has become more elusive, not less, the more we know about the event itself, and cannot be explained away by coupling extinction of intermediates with long stretches of geologic time, despite the contrary claims of some modern neo-Darwinists.
(Kevin J. Peterson, Michael R. Dietrich and Mark A. McPeek, "MicroRNAs and metazoan macroevolution: insights into canalization, complexity, and the Cambrian explosion," BioEssays, Vol. 31 (7):736 - 747 (2009).)
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/06/bioessays_article_admits_mater021931.html
Yes I agree that a new synthesis is needed. Many of the older ideas are outdated and are now questionable with the new evidences that have come about. For example a paper with Nature.com tells us that evolution needs a rethink.
The story that SET (Standard evolutionary theory) tells is simple: new variation arises through random genetic mutation; inheritance occurs through DNA; and natural selection is the sole cause of adaptation, the process by which organisms become well-suited to their environments. In this view, the complexity of biological development — the changes that occur as an organism grows and ages — are of secondary, even minor, importance.
In our view, this ‘gene-centric’ focus fails to capture the full gamut of processes that direct evolution. Missing pieces include how physical development influences the generation of variation (developmental bias); how the environment directly shapes organisms’ traits (plasticity); how organisms modify environments (niche construction); and how organisms transmit more than genes across generations (extra-genetic inheritance). For SET, these phenomena are just outcomes of evolution. For the EES (extended evolutionary theory), they are also causes.
http://www.nature.com/news/does-evolutionary-theory-need-a-rethink-1.16080
To the best of my ability. As I said I am not a geneticist but I can do some referencing. I couldn't get access to all of the paper but I did get some commentaries which I have included above. Though the authors are suggesting solutions to how the Cambrian explosion may have happened such as through MicroRNAs refining and adding variety to creatures. They are still alluding that there seems to be no materialistic explanation for how such complex variety could appear suddenly without any traces.
I will continue this later and finish the rest as I think the next part will take some research and thought and my head is already hurting. I am also doing a course and it is getting more involved so I am having to dedicate my time between both.
Steve.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
They try their best not to use it but they continue to run into intelligent design like a blind man running into a tree thinking that is part of "hiding go seek".
Here in this video the woman slipped and said intelligent is needed and tried to correct herself. Someone tried to help her out by saying "careful selecting" which is exactly what intelligence does. A rose of a different name is still a rose.
Upvote
0
- Status
Similar threads
