Original Research--join In

[WisdomSpy]

SFS stated: “if you're trying to understand the natural world -- trying to do biology, in other words -- then yes, you do indeed need to explain the patterns in genetic similarity.”

"As ever more multicellular genomes are sequenced, ever more incongruous bits of DNA are turning up. Last year, for example, a team at the University of Texas at Arlington found a peculiar chunk of DNA in the genomes of eight animals – the mouse, rat, bushbaby, little brown bat, tenrec, opossum, anole lizard and African clawed frog – but not in 25 others, including humans, elephants, chickens and fish. This patchy distribution suggests that the sequence must have entered each genome independently by horizontal transfer… [Michael] Rose goes even further. “The tree of life is being politely buried, we all know that,” he says. “What’s less accepted is that our whole fundamental view of biology needs to change.” Biology is vastly more complex than we thought, he says, and facing up to this complexity will be as scary as the conceptual upheavals physicists had to take on board in the early 20th century. Syvanen recently compared 2000 genes that are common to humans, frogs, sea squirts, sea urchins, fruit flies and nematodes. In theory, he should have been able to use the gene sequences to construct an evolutionary tree showing the relationships between the six animals. He failed. The problem was that different genes told contradictory evolutionary stories. ‘Roughly 50 per cent of its genes have [suggest] one evolutionary history and 50 per cent another,’ Syvanen says. “We’ve just annihilated the tree of life. It’s not a tree any more, it’s a different topology entirely”

Source: godandscience.org/evolution/science_human_origins.html

 

[Loudmouth]

SFS stated: “if you're trying to understand the natural world -- trying to do biology, in other words -- then yes, you do indeed need to explain the patterns in genetic similarity.”

"As ever more multicellular genomes are sequenced, ever more incongruous bits of DNA are turning up. Last year, for example, a team at the University of Texas at Arlington found a peculiar chunk of DNA in the genomes of eight animals – the mouse, rat, bushbaby, little brown bat, tenrec, opossum, anole lizard and African clawed frog – but not in 25 others, including humans, elephants, chickens and fish. This patchy distribution suggests that the sequence must have entered each genome independently by horizontal transfer… [Michael] Rose goes even further. “The tree of life is being politely buried, we all know that,” he says. “What’s less accepted is that our whole fundamental view of biology needs to change.” Biology is vastly more complex than we thought, he says, and facing up to this complexity will be as scary as the conceptual upheavals physicists had to take on board in the early 20th century. Syvanen recently compared 2000 genes that are common to humans, frogs, sea squirts, sea urchins, fruit flies and nematodes. In theory, he should have been able to use the gene sequences to construct an evolutionary tree showing the relationships between the six animals. He failed. The problem was that different genes told contradictory evolutionary stories. ‘Roughly 50 per cent of its genes have [suggest] one evolutionary history and 50 per cent another,’ Syvanen says. “We’ve just annihilated the tree of life. It’s not a tree any more, it’s a different topology entirely”

Source: godandscience.org/evolution/science_human_origins.html

Why don't you link to the real scientific papers and the real data? We have all had our fill of creationist misrepresentations and quote mines.

 

[Loudmouth]

I have provided you with multiple links showing that an army is a nested hierarchy.

I have given you multiple examples of clear violations of that nested hierarchy in the military.

More importantly, human designs do not fall into a nested hierarchy. Cars, computers, paintings, buildings, and televisions do not fall into a nested hierarchy.

I needn't explain why why whales and humans are equidistant from birds with reference to sequence anymore than I need explain why Philadelphia is equidistant between New York and Washington DC. It's not relevant to anything.

Why do science-deniers think they do not need to explain the evidence?

 

[JacksBratt]

What you ignore is the massive fluctuation of the Earth's path that causes it to move in a circle about the Sun. If the Sun were not there, the Earth would fly off in a straight line, not a curved path. The Sun is moving the Earth.

Not only that, but it was clear to Cardinal Bellarmine that the Earth moving about the Sun went against the widely held interpretation of the Bible that said the Earth did not move. Only after Heliocentrism became all but undeniable did the interpretation change. It was the science that changed the biblical interpretation.

A majority of christians think the same should be done with Genesis. A minority of creationists continue to hold on to an interpretation of Genesis that is as wrong as a Geocentrist Bible.

Which are you going to be?

What you ignore is the rest of my post.

I don't follow the masses. I follow the truth. Remember, the narrow road leads to truth and salvation not the broad well trodded path.

Truth,,,,,, not a democracy

 

[WisdomSpy]

Loudmouth and sfs,

I find it almost comical that you both avoid doing the math or seriously engaging with a step-by-step analysis, instead challenging me to provide creationist explanations for data (or datum) which evolutionists have offered “logical” constructs. I prefer not to engage in a battle between two opposing retrospective story-telling methods because the only thing it might “prove” is who the better story-teller might be. I can’t connect that directly to a conclusion about fact or truth. Instead, I have engaged in real research involving known entities and valid mathematical analyses.

 

[sfs]

SFS stated: “if you're trying to understand the natural world -- trying to do biology, in other words -- then yes, you do indeed need to explain the patterns in genetic similarity.”

"As ever more multicellular genomes are sequenced, ever more incongruous bits of DNA are turning up. Last year, for example, a team at the University of Texas at Arlington found a peculiar chunk of DNA in the genomes of eight animals – the mouse, rat, bushbaby, little brown bat, tenrec, opossum, anole lizard and African clawed frog – but not in 25 others, including humans, elephants, chickens and fish. This patchy distribution suggests that the sequence must have entered each genome independently by horizontal transfer… [Michael] Rose goes even further. “The tree of life is being politely buried, we all know that,” he says. “What’s less accepted is that our whole fundamental view of biology needs to change.” Biology is vastly more complex than we thought, he says, and facing up to this complexity will be as scary as the conceptual upheavals physicists had to take on board in the early 20th century. Syvanen recently compared 2000 genes that are common to humans, frogs, sea squirts, sea urchins, fruit flies and nematodes. In theory, he should have been able to use the gene sequences to construct an evolutionary tree showing the relationships between the six animals. He failed. The problem was that different genes told contradictory evolutionary stories. ‘Roughly 50 per cent of its genes have [suggest] one evolutionary history and 50 per cent another,’ Syvanen says. “We’ve just annihilated the tree of life. It’s not a tree any more, it’s a different topology entirely”

Source: godandscience.org/evolution/science_human_origins.html

Your quoted material does not appear on the page you give as its source. The main paper in question must be this one. It's a fine example of scientists explaining patterns of genetic similarity -- precisely what Zosimus wasn't interested in doing. Was that your point?

 

[JacksBratt]

Originally Posted by EternalDragon

Again, the bible does not state that the earth does not move.
​

Experts say otherwise.

"Second, I say that, as you know, the Council of Trent forbids the interpretation of the Scriptures in a way contrary to the common agreement of the holy Fathers. Now if your Reverence will read, not merely the Fathers, but modern commentators on Genesis, the Psalms, Ecclesiastes, and Joshua, you will discover that all agree in interpreting them literally as teaching that the Sun is in the heavens and revolves round the Earth with immense speed and that the Earth is very distant from the heavens, at the centre of the universe, and motionless. Consider, then in your prudence, whether the Church can support that the Scriptures should be interpreted in a manner contrary to that of the holy Fathers and of all modern commentators, both Latin and Greek…."--Cardinal Bellarmine, 1615

Do you by chance have a book, chapter and verse that states that the earth doesn't move?

Or are you going to continue refering to some "Council of Trent" which we are to be so fearful of?

I am only fearfull of God and contradiction of His word. Not some group of men that "forbid" me to contradict their interpritation.

 

[WisdomSpy]

It is also ironic how evolutionists offer complete fiction as if it is “evidence”, in order to avoid an honest appraisal of known science. I quote again from the Tiessen et. al. article:

“Two theories have been postulated to explain the relation between protein origin and size distribution: the starter-set and the random-origin hypotheses. The starter- set hypothesis assumes that proteins originated from
a small set of starter sequences (functional domains) with lengths of 4 aa, 15 aa or 50 aa which were expanded by gene duplication and modification”

1. So, the story telling really begins; “In the beginning, there were functional domains.” Really? Has any one demonstrated this happening outside of cellular environments? When 4, 15, or 50 amino acid sequences arrived on the scene, are you supposing that randomness was not involved? That’s ludicrous. If 50 would combine “naturally”, then what would keep 49, 53 or 108 from also combining and using up resources (amino acid moieties). Also, you must be familiar with the Miller-Urey experiment and the fact that the vast majority of product was toxic junk.

The most incredible leap of logic is to assume that 4, 15, or 50aa chains magically became “genes” that could then be duplicated and modified. Duplicated by what mechanism? How would that mythical mechanism know what would later be determined to be “functional” or not? What would prevent it from duplicating every sequence of any length? How many molecules do you suppose that would use up uselessly?

2. So, do the math on this: assuming that continuations of Miller-Urey type experiments could produce enough amino acids to fund the search for the mythical “starter sets”, do you suppose that they would need to be of the same optical isomer? All evidence suggests yes. Now, how many failed chemical combinations of aa’s would naturally accompany any single success at building a string of 50 with only one isomer?

3. No current empirical evidence shows that genes are composed of amino acids (instead, they are made up of nucleic acids). Isn’t it an incredible stretch to assume that they could have ever functioned as such? At what point do you admit that your story-telling is just wishful story-telling?

4. This is usually where evolutionists propose “co-evolution” of functional proteins AND nucleotide sequences. Has anyone ever shown evidence that nucleotides form spontaneously? I am aware that several of the simpler bases appear to occur naturally. Where do the more complex ones come from, and then how do they spontaneously combine with ribose sugar moieties and phosphate groups? And then, if that happened, how many molecules, on average, would get uselessly used up trying to fund the search for a chain of 50 that were all of the same optical isomer? The answer is astronomical—1.1 x 10 to the 15th (just for that one step alone). Now, go back to my challenges regarding gene lengths without stop codons. You must account for how many failed trials would occur and how many molecules that would use up. The same kind of calculations must be responsibly applied to any kind of presumed mutational event that risks frame-shifting.

 

[Loudmouth]

It is also ironic how evolutionists offer complete fiction as if it is “evidence”, in order to avoid an honest appraisal of known science.

What are you offering?

 

[Loudmouth]

Originally Posted by EternalDragon

Again, the bible does not state that the earth does not move.
​

Do you by chance have a book, chapter and verse that states that the earth doesn't move?

Or are you going to continue refering to some "Council of Trent" which we are to be so fearful of?

I am only fearfull of God and contradiction of His word. Not some group of men that "forbid" me to contradict their interpritation.

It isn't just the Council of Trent. It was all modern biblical commentators. Did you read the quote or not?

" Now if your Reverence will read, not merely the Fathers, but modern commentators on Genesis, the Psalms, Ecclesiastes, and Joshua, . . . Consider, then in your prudence, whether the Church can support that the Scriptures should be interpreted in a manner contrary to that of the holy Fathers and of all modern commentators, both Latin and Greek…."--Cardinal Bellarmine, 1615

Cardinal Bellarmine was also fearful of God and contradicting God's word. That is why he put Galileo on trial, because Heliocentrism contradicted God's word.

What I find interesting is that creationists refuse to learn from this lesson.

 

[Loudmouth]

Loudmouth and sfs,

I find it almost comical that you both avoid doing the math or seriously engaging with a step-by-step analysis, instead challenging me to provide creationist explanations for data (or datum) which evolutionists have offered “logical” constructs.

What math are you talking about?

You are the one making claims about math. So why don't you show us the math?

I already debunked your previous claims about probability. You claimed that it was highly improbable to get a 300 base pair open reading frame (ORF) from random sequence with a ratio of ORF's to non-coding DNA that is similar to genomes from living species. I did just that IN ONE TRY. I have already shown that your claims about probabilities are just personal biases that you have no evidence for.

You are the one making claims about mathematical models. Until you present those mathematical models, there is nothing to discuss.

I prefer not to engage in a battle between two opposing retrospective story-telling methods because the only thing it might “prove” is who the better story-teller might be. I can’t connect that directly to a conclusion about fact or truth. Instead, I have engaged in real research involving known entities and valid mathematical analyses.

You haven't shown us one mathematical analysis. Where are they?

 

[Loudmouth]

1. So, the story telling really begins; “In the beginning, there were functional domains.” Really? Has any one demonstrated this happening outside of cellular environments?

Yes. I gave you papers that demonstrated just that. I showed you how functional RNA enzymes emerged from random sequences outside of the cell. You ignored it.

 

[bhsmte]

Loudmouth and sfs,

I find it almost comical that you both avoid doing the math or seriously engaging with a step-by-step analysis, instead challenging me to provide creationist explanations for data (or datum) which evolutionists have offered “logical” constructs. I prefer not to engage in a battle between two opposing retrospective story-telling methods because the only thing it might “prove” is who the better story-teller might be. I can’t connect that directly to a conclusion about fact or truth. Instead, I have engaged in real research involving known entities and valid mathematical analyses.

Show us you're mathematical analysis and please explain what it means, in detail.

 

[justlookinla]

If you are going to use military hierarchy, then you need to sort out the synapomorphies, the shared features at each node. What you will find is that some Army units share more with some Navy units than they do other Army units. The distribution of features in that hierarchy are not nested.

More importantly, human designs do not fall into a nested hierarchy, including organisms that have been designed by humans. You can't produce a single reason why a designer would be required to create genomes that fall into the same nested hierarchy as that of morphology. You can't tell us why whales and humans are equidistant from birds with reference to sequence. Why would a designer need to create birds, whales, and humans such that the distance between the bird and whale genomes is the same distance as between birds and humans?

Design explains nothing about the distribution and relatedness of organisms.

You'd need to ask the designer these questions. And are you suggesting that birds do not always produce birds? And....can you point to a machine as complex as the human body which was randomly created from randomly created parts?

Nested hierarchy isn't important, it's meaningless in determining who/what created all life we observe today. It's worthless in ascertaining the creative impetus. Nested hierarchy is nothing but a smokescreen of worthless arguments.

 

[WisdomSpy]

sfs posted: "It's a fine example of scientists explaining patterns of genetic similarity"

Really? What were they "explaining" except how further story-telling is covering for prior story-telling? Read the actual article:

“Horizontal transfer (HT) is central to the evolution of prokaryotic species. Selfish and mobile genetic elements, such as phages, plasmids, and transposons, are the primary vehicles for HT among prokaryotes. In multicellular eukaryotes, the prevalence and evolutionary significance of HT remain unclear.”

“Remains unclear” is an important phrase to dissect. Is there anything clear whatsoever about such mechanisms occurring in eukaryotes? Has anyone seen it happen? So… as usual, it’s about time to separate fact from fiction, evidence from wishful story-telling. Why is it always so mixed together in the articles written by evolutionists? I ran across a most amazing answer. It was amazing because of its ring of truth, but it was more amazing because it was posted by an evolutionist!

“We write all the time here on [Mermaids Tail Blog] about over-stated claims about genetic causation and how easy it is to concoct adaptive Just-So stories. The Darwinian method is so powerful that it lures scientists to excess, to uncritical acceptance of scenarios and claims that go beyond what really is scientifically legitimate--in some sense, just as Adam Sedgwick accused Darwin of doing: assuming a theory which no facts could erode. That's ideology, not science. Scientists may indulge in such story-invention more, if anything, than Darwin himself did, so strong has a simplistic selectionist belief become in many quarters, either because a notion of Darwinian theory has been bought uncritically, or because as in many public arenas, education in biology has been a kind of Darwinian indoctrination.” -- ecodevoevo.blogspot.com/2012/02/triumph-of-darwinian-method- continued_02.html

 

[sfs]

Loudmouth and sfs,

I find it almost comical that you both avoid doing the math or seriously engaging with a step-by-step analysis, instead challenging me to provide creationist explanations for data (or datum) which evolutionists have offered “logical” constructs. I prefer not to engage in a battle between two opposing retrospective story-telling methods because the only thing it might “prove” is who the better story-teller might be. I can’t connect that directly to a conclusion about fact or truth. Instead, I have engaged in real research involving known entities and valid mathematical analyses.

I find your refusal to answer questions equally comical. Have you read the paper I linked to about the origin of genes? If so, we can discuss the evidence for different sources of genes. If not, why not? Try engaging with real science rather than playing with toy models.

Also, you refuse to say what happens to a mutation that truncates a crucial protein. Is it passed on or not? Why can't you answer this question?

 

[Loudmouth]

You'd need to ask the designer these questions.

I am asking the people who keep claiming that the evidence points to a common designer. If they can't show why design would result in the observations we make, then they can't claim that the observations are evidence for a common designer. It is that simple.

Why would common design look exactly like evolution when it doesn't have to? Why would a designer put so much unneeded effort into making genomes looke like they evolved from a common ancestor? Why not use the exact same cytochrome C sequence for all mammals instead of making a whole bunch of synonymous mutations that create the same phylogeny as that formed from morphology? Why make unnecessary changes to make it look like evolution?

And are you suggesting that birds do not always produce birds?

Of course birds always produce birds. That is exactly what evolution predicts we should see. Do you understand how cladistics works? I don't think you do.

If we use the oft cited "tree of life" analogy, do you think a new species breaks off of the branch it sprouted from, moves down the tree, and then attaches itself to the trunk? No, that is NOT how it works, and yet that is how you are describing evolution. At one time, "birds" were made up of just a single population of organisms, much like chihuahuas or goldfish. What happened over time is that the descendants of that original population were very successful, and what they produced was more and more species. However, they remained birds because their ancestors were birds. They also remained amniotes just as both birds and humans remain amniotes, and just as our common ancestor shared with birds was an amniote.

And....can you point to a machine as complex as the human body which was randomly created from randomly created parts?

Evolution is not random creation.

Nested hierarchy isn't important, it's meaningless in determining who/what created all life we observe today.

Now you just want the inconvenient evidence to go away. That's not how science works.

 

[WisdomSpy]

Loudmouth posted: "I already debunked your previous claims about probability. You claimed that it was highly improbable to get a 300 base pair open reading frame (ORF) from random sequence with a ratio of ORF's to non-coding DNA that is similar to genomes from living species. I did just that IN ONE TRY. I have already shown that your claims about probabilities are just personal biases that you have no evidence for."

I realize how easy it would be to download a sequence from a gene databank and claim that it was randomly generated. Even if you actually did use a randomly-generated sequence, one trial is an anecdote only--I'm sure you realize that. I asked you several times to try that same thing multiple times and average the results. This is what I did, not only for random sequences but for simulated mutations upon existing genes... (mutations which disturb frame reading).

How many molecules, ON AVERAGE, would be used up during the random chemical search for a gene of 300 codons without a stop in the middle? Codons are not base pairs, of course. Let's not be comparing apples to oranges.

 

[bhsmte]

Now you just want the inconvenient evidence to go away. That's not how science works.

[/QUOTE]

Not how science works, that is how the fundy mind works.

 

[Loudmouth]

“Horizontal transfer (HT) is central to the evolution of prokaryotic species.

Are humans prokaryotes?

I think we all agree that HGT plays a crucial role in the evolution of single celled life. However, what does that have to do with the evolution of complex eukaryotes?

Is there anything clear whatsoever about such mechanisms occurring in eukaryotes? Has anyone seen it happen?

HGT in eukaryotes is very limited and easily detectable, as demonstrated by the papers you have been alluding to. The overwhelming signal in the genomes of complex eukaryotes is vertical inheritance and common ancestry.

“We write all the time here on [Mermaids Tail Blog] about over-stated claims about genetic causation and how easy it is to concoct adaptive Just-So stories. The Darwinian method is so powerful that it lures scientists to excess, to uncritical acceptance of scenarios and claims that go beyond what really is scientifically legitimate--in some sense, just as Adam Sedgwick accused Darwin of doing: assuming a theory which no facts could erode. That's ideology, not science. Scientists may indulge in such story-invention more, if anything, than Darwin himself did, so strong has a simplistic selectionist belief become in many quarters, either because a notion of Darwinian theory has been bought uncritically, or because as in many public arenas, education in biology has been a kind of Darwinian indoctrination.” -- ecodevoevo.blogspot.com/2012/02/triumph-of-darwinian-method- continued_02.html

More quotations in the place of real science? Not a good way to go.