A Reccommendation To Fellow Young Earth Creationists

[Melethiel]

Please remember that non-Creationists may not debate in this forum.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Everything and anything support evolution because it the only option allowed. Anyone who doubt TOE are claimed to be anti-science. Evolutionist claims even the complex flagella is evidence of TOE.

Um... how is it not?

 

[busterdog]

Indeed, what Flemming found does NOT necesarily support the ToE... however, the FACT that, here we are, 50 years later, and the original anti-biotics discovered by Fleming are almost useless against many forms of bacteria that they WERE once effective against, DOES support the theory of evolution

Bet you can't prove that mutation is the cause, as opposed to the deletion of genes. I will bet there is no proof that the advantageous characteristics are not alraedy coded in the organism's DNA.

But you may want to take it to OT.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Bet you can't prove that mutation is the cause, as opposed to the deletion of genes. I will bet there is no proof that the advantageous characteristics are not alraedy coded in the organism's DNA.

But you may want to take it to OT.

well if my refutation of your silly point weren't just going to be deleted, then sure... since deletion of genes IS a form of mutation, and yes, actually, you CAN prove that the newly observed charecteristics weren't already coded in the organisms DNA.

But I'm assuming you don't care to examine the evidence subjectively, so why bother?

 

[busterdog]

well if my refutation of your silly point weren't just going to be deleted, then sure... since deletion of genes IS a form of mutation, and yes, actually, you CAN prove that the newly observed charecteristics weren't already coded in the organisms DNA.

But I'm assuming you don't care to examine the evidence subjectively, so why bother?

Why bother.

That way you won't have to pretend that I don't understand, which is much easier and much less threatening to evolution than dialogue.

No, my use of terms is not precise. But you know what I mean. You just don't like that I understand.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Why bother.

That way you won't have to pretend that I don't understand, which is much easier and much less threatening to evolution than dialogue.

No, my use of terms is not precise. But you know what I mean. You just don't like that I understand.

I'm happy to discuss it with you all you like. Shall we go somewhere where any point I make won't be deleted?

 

[busterdog]

I'm happy to discuss it with you all you like. Shall we go somewhere where any point I make won't be deleted?

That's fine. I will PM Mark Kennedy, since he is the one who has studied the most in terms of genetics.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

That's fine. I will PM Mark Kennedy, since he is the one who has studied the most in terms of genetics.

great. Please make sure you come along too, you might learn something.

 

[mark kennedy]

I'm not sure what is at issue here, yea immune systems evolve, there is no real question about that.

 

[FallingWaters]

I refuse to use the word "evolve" to describe anything.
Nothing evolves.

 

[Tinker Grey]

Do you believe that things change?

If so, then you believe that things evolve.

 

[mark kennedy]

I refuse to use the word "evolve" to describe anything.
Nothing evolves.

I don't like the word 'mutation', it makes it sound like the best thing that can happen to a genome is for it to be mutilated. The genetic code really doesn't change much, things adapt by other means. I think there should be a distinction made between random and facilitated changes. Check this guy out, this is an arctic fish with a brand new gene:

Evolution of antifreeze glycoprotein gene from a trypsinogen gene in Antarctic notothenioid fish

The Thr-Ala-Ala coding element was duplicated

The thing is, without the protein these fish would have frozen solid. I am convinced that there are molecular mechanisms that facilitate adaptations like this. There is a sense in which this is evolution but in a far larger sense it is an adaptation. One thing it cannot possibly be is a mutation.

Here is where I'm at with this:

Comparative genomics can have practical applications—for example, in groups of species where there are great differences in genome size. The maize genome is roughly 12 times larger than the rice genome, but the two are very similar in terms of gene order. The difference in size is due to vastly increased numbers of transposable elements in the maize genome, which inflate intergenic distances and, to a lesser extent, intron sizes. Molecular evolution meets the genomics revolution. Nature Genetics (2003) ​

The key word there is transposable elements, I think they work like moving parts in a machine. That's what I think but I'm still trying to sort it out. What makes it tough is the evolutionists are on some kind of a disinformation campaign. The distort and conflate every aspect of these issues, primarily because they don't like our religion. That's ok with me, I don't like theirs right back.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[busterdog]

I don't like the word 'mutation', it makes it sound like the best thing that can happen to a genome is for it to be mutilated. The genetic code really doesn't change much, things adapt by other means. I think there should be a distinction made between random and facilitated changes. Check this guy out, this is an arctic fish with a brand new gene:

Evolution of antifreeze glycoprotein gene from a trypsinogen gene in Antarctic notothenioid fish

The Thr-Ala-Ala coding element was duplicated

The thing is, without the protein these fish would have frozen solid. I am convinced that there are molecular mechanisms that facilitate adaptations like this. There is a sense in which this is evolution but in a far larger sense it is an adaptation. One thing it cannot possibly be is a mutation.

Here is where I'm at with this:

Comparative genomics can have practical applications—for example, in groups of species where there are great differences in genome size. The maize genome is roughly 12 times larger than the rice genome, but the two are very similar in terms of gene order. The difference in size is due to vastly increased numbers of transposable elements in the maize genome, which inflate intergenic distances and, to a lesser extent, intron sizes. Molecular evolution meets the genomics revolution. Nature Genetics (2003) ​

The key word there is transposable elements, I think they work like moving parts in a machine. That's what I think but I'm still trying to sort it out. What makes it tough is the evolutionists are on some kind of a disinformation campaign. The distort and conflate every aspect of these issues, primarily because they don't like our religion. That's ok with me, I don't like theirs right back.

Grace and peace,
Mark

Going back to the OP, if you don't know how something starts, how do you know how it works? And if knowing how something works is your raison d'etre, well, hello?

Interesting point that these changes happen. Of course, that doesn't explain how it happens. It would certainly would help evolutionists to find that flesh alone can will itself to mutate, but as they say, rotsa ruck.

 

[mark kennedy]

Going back to the OP, if you don't know how something starts, how do you know how it works? And if knowing how something works is your raison d'etre, well, hello?

The arctic fish gene that codes for the antifreeze protein is a simple repeat. Most of these things turn out not to be new information at all. They also make a big deal about how it's all random when they just don't know what causes it to transpose.

Interesting point about how these changes happen. Of course, that doesn't explain how it happens. It would certainly would help evolutionists to find that flesh alone can will itself to mutate, but as they say, rotsa ruck.

Right now we are still living in the age of genomics made possible by the blending of molecular biology (the physics of living systems) and genetics (how the genes work). The next stage in my estimation will be a quest for identifying causal relationships of the molecular mechanisms.

It's slow going because they want to promote their antithesitic religion along side the genuine article of science. You have to be careful not to let them lead you down dead ends. For one thing creationism is not opposed to TOE, for another thing living systems evolve by design. It is simply absurd to think and antifreeze protein was the result of random mutations. There has to be some kind of a molecular mechanism that caused the adaptation.

 

[FallingWaters]

The arctic fish gene that codes for the antifreeze protein is a simple repeat. Most of these things turn out not to be new information at all. They also make a big deal about how it's all random when they just don't know what causes it to transpose. ...

I call that Natural Selection which is using information that God put there, not "evolution" which requires information that is not already there.

 

[mark kennedy]

I call that Natural Selection which is using information that God put there, not "evolution" which requires information that is not already there.

There has to be a distinction between variation and mutation. Improved fitness and adaptations are common in nature, sometimes all it takes is a change of location. Even Darwin understood that:

The term 'variety' is almost equally difficult to define; but here community of descent is almost universally implied, though it can rarely be proved. We have also what are called monstrosities; but they graduate into varieties. By a monstrosity I presume is meant some considerable deviation of structure in one part, either injurious to or not useful to the species, and not generally propagated. Some authors use the term 'variation' in a technical sense, as implying a modification directly due to the physical conditions of life; and 'variations' in this sense are supposed not to be inherited: but who can say that the dwarfed condition of shells in the brackish waters of the Baltic, or dwarfed plants on Alpine summits, or the thicker fur of an animal from far northwards, would not in some cases be inherited for at least some few generations? and in this case I presume that the form would be called a variety. (Darwin on the Origin of Species)​

 

[FallingWaters]

There has to be a distinction between variation and mutation. Improved fitness and adaptations are common in nature, sometimes all it takes is a change of location. Even Darwin understood that:

The term 'variety' is almost equally difficult to define; but here community of descent is almost universally implied, though it can rarely be proved. We have also what are called monstrosities; but they graduate into varieties. By a monstrosity I presume is meant some considerable deviation of structure in one part, either injurious to or not useful to the species, and not generally propagated. Some authors use the term 'variation' in a technical sense, as implying a modification directly due to the physical conditions of life; and 'variations' in this sense are supposed not to be inherited: but who can say that the dwarfed condition of shells in the brackish waters of the Baltic, or dwarfed plants on Alpine summits, or the thicker fur of an animal from far northwards, would not in some cases be inherited for at least some few generations? and in this case I presume that the form would be called a variety. (Darwin on the Origin of Species)​

I have been taught that a variation is a variation of information already available in the DNA.
A mutation is when something goes wrong. It's a loss of healthy information.

 

[gluadys]

There has to be a distinction between variation and mutation.

There is. Variation is a difference in character trait--in morphology, physiology, behaviour, etc. Mutation is a change in DNA sequence or chromosome re-arrangement.

Variations may be a consequence of differing environmental conditions influencing the expression of a gene. They may be expressions of different forms (alleles) of a gene.

Mutations are a source of differences in genes.

 

[gluadys]

I have been taught that a variation is a variation of information already available in the DNA.

The first part of this teaching is pretty much on. It is the second part that is problematical. A mutation is just a change in a DNA sequence. The change may be a loss of information, or an addition of information or a re-arrangement of information, or the substitution of one bit of information for another with no net loss or gain.

It may have very little effect of any kind. It can be very problematic (mark kennedy has a great list of all the problems caused by getting the wrong genetic information). And rarely, it can be a positive change.

Basically what you have been taught is not so much wrong as incomplete. It does not include all the ways DNA can change, nor all the possible consequences.

 

[mark kennedy]

I have been taught that a variation is a variation of information already available in the DNA.
A mutation is when something goes wrong. It's a loss of healthy information.

That's true but when the genes recombine and cross over (remember you get one set from each parent) variation results. It was thought to be random and some of it might be but some traits are linked to different things. The rule of thumb is that The further apart the genes are on a chromosome, the more they will recombine. There are also Transposable Elements but I'm not entirely sure how much of a role the play in adaptations, I know immune systems rely on variation in order to adapt to new challenges.

A mutation is a failure of DNA repair mechanisms.

In the living cell, DNA undergoes frequent chemical change, especially when it is being replicated (in S phase of the eukaryotic cell cycle). Most of these changes are quickly repaired. Those that are not result in a mutation. Thus, mutation is a failure of DNA repair.​

This is a picture of the S phase of the cell cycle where the DNA is replicated.

Anything not repaired is a mutation, the theory is that random mutations produce beneficial effects. There are rare instances where this would appear to be the case but should not be confused with a real adaptation, certainly not on an evolutionary scale.