What about the DNA evidence?

[sfs]

Because they have only studied <2% of it because they once believed only the protein making sites were important.

We've studied far more than 2% of the genome, and we didn't believe that only protein-coding loci were important. We compared nearly the entire chimpanzee genome with the entire human genome, for example. Pretty much everything you say about genetics is a flat-out falsehood. It would be nice if I were still surprised at the contempt many Christians have for the truth, but I'm not anymore. You really should be ashamed of yourself.

So with a less than 2% understanding of the genome, we know this as fact? Are you certain you want to stand by that claim?

I'll stand by that claim, yes.

 

[createdtoworship]

I say that because everything I know of in the genome could have arisen via mutation.

evidence?

this should be interesting

 

[[serious]]

evidence?

this should be interesting

Evidence that I don't know of an example of a DNA sequence that can't have been produced by mutation? Are you suggesting I I vent mind reading? Take a lie detector test?

This would be an example of a time when the burden of proof would be on you. I know of no genetic sequence in existance which cannot have been produced by mutation. If you do know of one, please let me know which one. Otherwise, under your definition of information, information has yet to be discovered in the genome.

 

[46AND2]

Because they have only studied <2% of it because they once believed only the protein making sites were important. So with a less than 2% understanding of the genome, we know this as fact? Are you certain you want to stand by that claim?

Sandwalk: How Much of Our Genome Is Sequenced?

You base most of this on the frivolous assumption that because bacteria need less, ours must be useless, but a bacteria is not as complicated as a human being, so it stands to reason it need less encoding genes.

As has been pointed out, there are MUCH less complex organisms which have MUCH bigger genomes.

 

[stevevw]

Because they have only studied <2% of it because they once believed only the protein making sites were important. So with a less than 2% understanding of the genome, we know this as fact? Are you certain you want to stand by that claim?

Sandwalk: How Much of Our Genome Is Sequenced?

You base most of this on the frivolous assumption that because bacteria need less, ours must be useless, but a bacteria is not as complicated as a human being, so it stands to reason it need less encoding genes.

What about this latest discovery of a double meaning they have found in the genetic code.
Scientists discover double meaning in genetic code | UW Today

 

[[serious]]

What about this latest discovery of a double meaning they have found in the genetic code.
Scientists discover double meaning in genetic code | UW Today

kind of already beaten to death. Then beaten some more. Let's not muck up another thread with it. At a minimum, they are VASTLY overstating the nature of their find. After all, the idea that something could code for a protein AND have regulatory function is intro to genetics stuff.

 

[stevevw]

kind of already beaten to death. Then beaten some more. Let's not muck up another thread with it. At a minimum, they are VASTLY overstating the nature of their find. After all, the idea that something could code for a protein AND have regulatory function is intro to genetics stuff.

Ok Just wondering as the date on it was 12/12/13 and thought might be recent. I dont think i want to know anyway. I was just seeing if it related to your conversation with JTS as i could have just seen how it panned out with you both. I dont really understand it enough to comment anyway and i think ive had enough of genetics at the moment.

 

[[serious]]

Ok Just wondering as the date on it was 12/12/13 and thought might be recent. I dont think i want to know anyway. I was just seeing if it related to your conversation with JTS as i could have just seen how it panned out with you both. I dont really understand it enough to comment anyway and i think ive had enough of genetics at the moment.

It is recent, we had a big long discussion on it though. Their announcement is worded hyperbolically probably as pop science rag bait.

EDIT: John Stamatoyannopoulos seems to have a history of grandiose announcements that draw criticism from his colleagues as overreach. he's the same guy who tried to redefine "functional" as "biochemically active" to claim that 80% of the genome is functional. My understanding from what I read is the underlying research is sound, but he greatly outpaces the research when writing his press releases. I'd like to find the original papers to see if he's submitting such claims for peer review or just doing so for the layman audience. I'm thinking such claims would cause problems with clearing review if presented this way in the actual paper.

 

[stevevw]

It is recent, we had a big long discussion on it though. Their announcement is worded hyperbolically probably as pop science rag bait.

EDIT: John Stamatoyannopoulos seems to have a history of grandiose announcements that draw criticism from his colleagues as overreach. he's the same guy who tried to redefine "functional" as "biochemically active" to claim that 80% of the genome is functional. My understanding from what I read is the underlying research is sound, but he greatly outpaces the research when writing his press releases. I'd like to find the original papers to see if he's submitting such claims for peer review or just doing so for the layman audience. I'm thinking such claims would cause problems with clearing review if presented this way in the actual paper.

I thought the head scientist Ewan Birney was the one saying there was 80% function.

 

[createdtoworship]

Evidence that I don't know of an example of a DNA sequence that can't have been produced by mutation? Are you suggesting I I vent mind reading? Take a lie detector test?

This would be an example of a time when the burden of proof would be on you. I know of no genetic sequence in existance which cannot have been produced by mutation. If you do know of one, please let me know which one. Otherwise, under your definition of information, information has yet to be discovered in the genome.

actually mine is the negative statement that I don't believe that all genetic material could be caused by mutation. You are the one making the positive claims that it can. So you have reversed the burden of proof, in trying to reverse the burden of proof.

 

[[serious]]

I thought the head scientist Ewan Birney was the one saying there was 80% function.

They both work on the ENCODE project.

 

[[serious]]

actually mine is the negative statement that I don't believe that all genetic material could be caused by mutation. You are the one making the positive claims that it can. So you have reversed the burden of proof, in trying to reverse the burden of proof.

Your position is that there is an example of genetic material that cannot be created by mutation. That is a positive statement. My statement was that I do NOT know of such a sequence.

"I don't believe..." is not sufficient to qualify as a negative statement. When you said that under your definition information could not be added to the genome, had I felt it necessary to argue the point, I could not simply reverse it by saying "I don't believe that all mutations are information neutral or information destroying".

Another way to look at it is by determining which position is falsifiable. If my position is that there is no known example of a dna sequence that can't arise via mutation, then any example of such a sequence would disprove that statement. If you position is that such a sequence does exist, it is impossible for me to sequentially rule out such a possibility for every genetic sequence in existence.

 

[createdtoworship]

Your position is that there is an example of genetic material that cannot be created by mutation. That is a positive statement. My statement was that I do NOT know of such a sequence.

"I don't believe..." is not sufficient to qualify as a negative statement. When you said that under your definition information could not be added to the genome, had I felt it necessary to argue the point, I could not simply reverse it by saying "I don't believe that all mutations are information neutral or information destroying".

Another way to look at it is by determining which position is falsifiable. If my position is that there is no known example of a dna sequence that can't arise via mutation, then any example of such a sequence would disprove that statement. If you position is that such a sequence does exist, it is impossible for me to sequentially rule out such a possibility for every genetic sequence in existence.

only thing: I never said those words, I keep my positive statements to a minimum. But I am pretty sure I can find your positive statements. But I could be wrong, where did I say that? Post # please.

 

[[serious]]

only thing: I never said those words, I keep my positive statements to a minimum. But I am pretty sure I can find your positive statements. But I could be wrong, where did I say that? Post # please.

Sure:

I don't believe that all genetic material could be caused by mutation.

I agree that you don't believe it, but what you believe is irrelevant to the discussion. You can rephrase it if you want.

Right now it just looks like you are trying to weasel out of defending your position. I still know of no genetic sequence which mutation is incapable of producing, and no such sequence has been identified by you in this thread. If you wish to argue that such a sequence exists, it is your responsibility to identify it.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Sure:



I agree that you don't believe it, but what you believe is irrelevant to the discussion. You can rephrase it if you want.

Right now it just looks like you are trying to weasel out of defending your position. I still know of no genetic sequence which mutation is incapable of producing, and no such sequence has been identified by you in this thread. If you wish to argue that such a sequence exists, it is your responsibility to identify it.

I have yet to see a single post where ANY new genetic material is caused by mutation.

We do however have 50+ years of genetic mutation research showing new genes and alleles are never produced. Mutations simply cause what already exists in the genome to go recessive, or become dominant.

http://www.weloennig.de/Loennig-Long-Version-of-Law-of-Recurrent-Variation.pdf

Basically all but given up on in animal husbandry and only in the rare case ever used in plant husbandry. These are the geneticists that work with the genome every day to create new varieties of plants and animals, yet to a man they admit no new genes or alleles have ever been observed. Only in the hypothetical and theoretical sciences is it thought to be possible. We are not dealing with the hypothetical or theoretical, but with direct observation.

 

[sfs]

I have yet to see a single post where ANY new genetic material is caused by mutation.

Well, yeah, but that's only because you keep your eyes closed when you read posts.

We do however have 50+ years of genetic mutation research showing new genes and alleles are never produced. Mutations simply cause what already exists in the genome to go recessive, or become dominant.

Still false, as always. Falsehoods don't become true just by repeating them. Here's one of the many, many studies in which new alleles are seen, caused by mutations: Variation in genome-wide mutation rates within and between human families.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Well, yeah, but that's only because you keep your eyes closed when you read posts.


Still false, as always. Falsehoods don't become true just by repeating them. Here's one of the many, many studies in which new alleles are seen, caused by mutations: Variation in genome-wide mutation rates within and between human families.

The title should of told you you had no case before you started. Variation in genome-wide mutation rates... Nothing new was created, merely what already existed varied in the way it was put together, combinations of what already existed in the male or female parents.

We are not arguing about variations, we know they exists, take a look at the cat species, of this there is no doubt. We are arguing the creation of a genome not through variation of recessive or dominant genes, or the combination of genes from both parents, or combinations of how the genes fit together, but brand new genes.

It occurs by copy number variation, that is fewer were copied than normal or more were copied than normal.

Copy-number variation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"For example, the chromosome that normally has sections in order as A-B-C-D might instead have sections A-B-C-C-D (a duplication of "C") or A-B-D (a deletion of "C")...

CNVs can be caused by structural rearrangements of the genome such as deletions, duplications, inversions, and translocations."

Nothing new was created, just one or more sections of the DNA were copied incorrectly.

Strong Association of De Novo Copy Number Mutations with Autism

That you try to imply simple copying mistakes are creation of new genes is a personal problem you need to resolve. That sections of the DNA are deleted or copied more than they should be is not creation of new genes, that is why it involves "copying" of existing DNA sections, not creation of new ones.

New alleles is not mentioned in either paper, or any paper, except as a hypothesis of something never observed. We are not arguing variations do not occur, by natural causes, or by mutation. But an incorrect copying does not a new gene make, since what was copied already existed, even if the new copy did not exist before. hence the variation in appearance in the feline species, the human species, the mouse species, every species. But they always remain the same as they always were, felines, humans, mice, or whatever.

Just as is clear in the fossil record. From the first T-rex fossil to the last, they are all the same with simple minor variation in size or appearance changes. The species is not in flux, but in stasis. This is why Gould initiated (punk-eek), because he could not dismiss the stasis of fossils from the first to the last, so attempted to bypass the evidence observed. Just as evolutionists are now attempting to bypass the evidence observed, variation of what already existed.

 

[createdtoworship]

Sure:



I agree that you don't believe it, but what you believe is irrelevant to the discussion. You can rephrase it if you want.

Right now it just looks like you are trying to weasel out of defending your position. I still know of no genetic sequence which mutation is incapable of producing, and no such sequence has been identified by you in this thread. If you wish to argue that such a sequence exists, it is your responsibility to identify it.

you said:

Your position is that there is an example of genetic material that cannot be created by mutation. That is a positive statement.

then the quote you give below doesn't match your own words.

I don't believe that all genetic material could be caused by mutation.

secondly, when I say "I don't believe" that qualifies it as a negative statement because I am countering your belief in alleged subject matter.

 

[sfs]

The title should of told you you had no case before you started. Variation in genome-wide mutation rates... Nothing new was created, merely what already existed varied in the way it was put together, combinations of what already existed in the male or female parents.

Reading is not your strong suit. The title is "Variation in genome-wide mutation rates". That's variation between individuals in the number of new alleles that were generated when they had kids.

Really, do you have any idea how ridiculous it is to be lecturing a geneticist on genetics? Nothing you write about science has any connection to reality. Why would you expect anyone to take what you say about religion seriously when you can't get the most basic facts about the physical world right?

 

[[serious]]

I have yet to see a single post where ANY new genetic material is caused by mutation.

I know I've brought up 3 myself: alternate forms of hemoglobin, red sensitive cones of the eye, and nylonase. I am using the definition of genetic material I posted earlier at Gradyll's request.