Design and the Brain

[MrBoo]

So, your rejection of evolution is based on your faith, rather than any unknown details about horse evolution. Why don't you tell us precisely how your god created the modern horse and all the intermediates found in the fossil record.

I never stated that creation was science, you see I am actually willing to admit when my belief system cannot account for something. I don't need to understand it all, I am quite willing to progress through my life without the pretense of knowing everything. I am satisfied just learning.

By the way, have you dug up the evidence I asked for that proves population geneticists lied about what a gene pool is? Being a member of the "science community" as you are, I am sure you would never make baseless accusations about the integrity of other scientists.

Why would I show you any sources since you can't do what I asked? I asked you to show me why my idea of nucleotide shielding should be wrong and you refused, so now you expect me to do something for you? I asked for anyone to show me some evidence of what occurs on the molecular level for evolution and noone did yet now you want more information. I spent lots of time yesterday explaining the simplest thing to one of your evo cronies and in the end he still didn't get it, I posted a reference for Pete Harcoff and he immediately made a personal attack against him. Basically Im tired of giving to you people in this thread and receiving nothing in return.

 

[MrBoo]

I was merely pointing out that HUP (which is capitalized, by the way) says that precision is impossible. Practically applied it only has real significance at the 'quantum level' but it does give the general maxim that absolute precision in measurements is not possible.

Actually precision is not impossible at all in the quantum model, accuracy is. Although if you knew anything about science you would know the difference between precision and accuracy. We cannot predict where an atom is with any amount of accuracy, but we can create precise mathematical models, the orbitals, which shows us reliable probabilities about where a given electron might be.

I don't even know what the rest of your post means

Based upon probability distribution maps we can determine the electron configurations of elements which in turn give us dead certainty when predicting how elements will behave in compounds. No such equivalence exists in macro-evolutionary theory, there is no way to predict what direction evolution will travel, and there is no way to even observe it, if there were I am sure someone would have showed me even an approximation of what occurs on the molecular level.

I guess asking for any stage of horse evolution was too hard. How about someone shows me how histones evolved, that seems like a pretty easy one, at least compared to a stage of horse evolution.

Again, it would really help if you could follow the general rules of sentence structure. You have about 3 or 4 phrases in there that could be made into complete sentences, but you smash it all together into one string of words and commas.

Trust me, if I wanted to create a flawless essay I could, and would gladly pit it against yours or anyone here if there was a way to do that. Regardless, picking on my spelling and grammar is completely irrelevant and shows that you don't really have anything tangible to say about my posts. Its pathetic really.

But as for your last point, I can most certainly predict what a hairdresser and a plumber can do. You are a very silly person.

I am silly. Yes, very silly. You have no idea. I think it is in your best interest to stay away from me.

 

[mark kennedy]

I asked for anyone to show me some evidence of what occurs on the molecular level for evolution and noone did yet now you want more information.

That is a subject that interests me greatly. I would be interested in the specifics of what you are looking for.

I spent lots of time yesterday explaining the simplest thing to one of your evo cronies and in the end he still didn't get it, I posted a reference for Pete Harcoff and he immediately made a personal attack against him. Basically Im tired of giving to you people in this thread and receiving nothing in return.

That is their standard tactic, Pete may get it but they don't like to admit anything. The consensus is that if you question evolution you must be a fool. The first thing off the bat is a personal attack (ad hominem argument) then they will make a big deal of a minor point to derail the thread.

Creationism is really just an intellectual curiosity, nothing more. They demonize it and I'm not entirely sure why. Ultimately I think they want traditional Christian theism to go away, they are not the first and won't be the last.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

I posted a reference for Pete Harcoff and he immediately made a personal attack against him.

Please show me this personal attack. All I said was I'm skeptical of born again creationists that publish material for the lay public and circumvent peer review. I fail to see how that is a personal attack.

FWIW, I did actually look up his book. However, it's not available at either my university nor through the city library.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

The first thing off the bat is a personal attack (ad hominem argument) then they will make a big deal of a minor point to derail the thread.

Mark, the reason people made a big deal out of your errors is that you act as an authority on genetics (even in the face of real biologists), then made some very basic mistakes. So people called you on it. The fact that you refuse to acknowledge or even deny you made those mistakes in the first place... well, you're not doing yourself any favors.

Creationism is really just an intellectual curiosity, nothing more. They demonize it and I'm not entirely sure why.

Because many creationists don't view it as an "intellectual curiosity". They view it as real science. And thus, they continue to attempt to influence public policy (i.e. science education) based on their religion either by marginalizing or eliminating the teaching of evolutionary biology, adding the teaching of pseudoscience, or even changing the very definitions of science (i.e. Kansas).

I was even shocked to learned that my own province has in some ways bowed to the pressure of religious believers in marginalizing the teaching of evolutionary biology in schools. (Of course, in Canada it seems we go out of our ways to not offend people no matter how silly it may be.)

This is one of the reasons I have spent the last couple years focused on applications of evolutionary biology. I was really surprised to see that evolutionary biology including common descent itself has real-world application that is being applied in contemporary industries like pharmaceuticals and agriculture. To me this is a pretty significant thing. Yet, when I attempt to raise the issue to creationists, they generally ignore it or outright deny it. How people can deny this boggles my mind. It's real-world stuff we're talking about!

I can't speak for everyone else, but if creationists would stop trying to influence public policy then I wouldn't care nearly as much about the whole issue. After all, there are plenty of beliefs and practices of individuals that I think are completely off the rocker, but don't bother arguing with them.

 

[mark kennedy]

Mark, the reason people made a big deal out of your errors is that you act as an authority on genetics (even in the face of real biologists), then made some very basic mistakes. So people called you on it. The fact that you refuse to acknowledge or even deny you made those mistakes in the first place... well, you're not doing yourself any favors.

Fishface made glaring errors and no one calls him on it. This isn't the first time this has happened, in fact, it's the standard approach you all use. I was once 'called' on over a supposed error where I was supposed to have said a transcript error is a mutation. Technically, an uncorrected transcript error is a mutation but the entire group got on the bandwagon for 5 pages. When I substantiated my statement they simply abandoned the thread.

LM made obvious errors in our debate and I called him on it repeatedly. Not one of these hypercritical evolutionists bothered to correct him. All you have to do to be considered right around here is to attack creationists.

Because many creationists don't view it as an "intellectual curiosity". They view it as real science. And thus, they continue to attempt to influence public policy (i.e. science education) based on their religion either by marginalizing or eliminating the teaching of evolutionary biology, adding the teaching of pseudoscience, or even changing the very definitions of science (i.e. Kansas).

There was no dramatic change to the definition and they certainly were not interested in promoting religion. The is this paranoid fear of Christianity in modern academics and science that I find repulsive. No one has a problem with molecular biology or Mendelian genetics. It is the a priori assumption of universal ancestry that you want to make synonymous with evolution and science.

I was even shocked to learned that my own province has in some ways bowed to the pressure of religious believers in marginalizing the teaching of evolutionary biology in schools. (Of course, in Canada it seems we go out of our ways to not offend people no matter how silly it may be.)

Properly taught biology could focus on how living systems work without the slightest mention of origins. At a time when genetics is growing by leaps and bounds this is all you can find to talk about. It's sad really, you could expunge Darwin and nothing would change except that you wouldn't be brainwashing people into a secular antitheistic worldview.

This is one of the reasons I have spent the last couple years focused on applications of evolutionary biology. I was really surprised to see that evolutionary biology including common descent itself has real-world application that is being applied in contemporary industries like pharmaceuticals and agriculture. To me this is a pretty significant thing. Yet, when I attempt to raise the issue to creationists, they generally ignore it or outright deny it. How people can deny this boggles my mind. It's real-world stuff we're talking about!

I have no clue what you are talking about, religion should have nothing to do with this. I rarely quote scripture or even mention God in these discussions. Maybe you don't care about the historicity of scripture but I do and I get sick and tired of seeing my faith ridiculed shamelessly by professional scientists and educator. People who, by the way, are getting paid from our tax dollars. They have no right, it needs to stop.

I can't speak for everyone else, but if creationists would stop trying to influence public policy then I wouldn't care nearly as much about the whole issue. After all, there are plenty of beliefs and practices of individuals that I think are completely off the rocker, but don't bother arguing with them.

Baloney! I have never advocated teaching creationism or ID in the public schools and that is irrelevant. The issues I have raised have never been answered and for the most part not even addressed.

Let me ask you think Pete, what would you have the public schools teach? That the evolution of man from apes is a proven fact? It is not and I have done extensive research on the subject. I have learned a lot about biology and nothing in the life sciences offends my belief system in the slightest. It is evolutionists with an agenda to expunge traditional theology.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Fishface made glaring errors and no one calls him on it. This isn't the first time this has happened, in fact, it's the standard approach you all use. I was once 'called' on over a supposed error where I was supposed to have said a transcript error is a mutation. Technically, an uncorrected transcript error is a mutation but the entire group got on the bandwagon for 5 pages. When I substantiated my statement they simply abandoned the thread.

LM made obvious errors in our debate and I called him on it repeatedly. Not one of these hypercritical evolutionists bothered to correct him. All you have to do to be considered right around here is to attack creationists.

I can't speak for all of the mistakes they might have made, but FWIW I have corrected "evolutionists" here in the past (including LM recently).

This still doesn't excuse your own self not admitting rather obvious errors. I mean, you flat out denied claiming that you equated subsitutions with frameshifts when it was there in black and white and only a handful of posts prior!

Properly taught biology could focus on how living systems work without the slightest mention of origins. At a time when genetics is growing by leaps and bounds this is all you can find to talk about. It's sad really, you could expunge Darwin and nothing would change except that you wouldn't be brainwashing people into a secular antitheistic worldview.

You're flat out wrong on this mark. You seem to be equating facets of evolutionary theory you don't like with atheism. But that's not the case at all. Your real beef seems to be with atheism. Why you insist on dragging evolutionary science into it is beyond me. It's a fight you can't possibly win because you're fighting it for all the wrong reasons.

I have no clue what you are talking about

I'm talking about applied evolution. Particularly applied evolution in modern genomics fields. If you have any interest in contemporary biology, it would do you good to read up on it. IMHO, it's the single biggest reason evolutionary biology ain't going away.

religion should have nothing to do with this. I rarely quote scripture or even mention God in these discussions. Maybe you don't care about the historicity of scripture but I do and I get sick and tired of seeing my faith ridiculed shamelessly by professional scientists and educator. People who, by the way, are getting paid from our tax dollars. They have no right, it needs to stop.

Now I'm not sure what you are talking about. What do you mean by "faith ridiculed shamelessly by professional scientists and educator"? What does this have to do with teaching or using evolutionary biology? Especially since there are plenty of scientists and educators that profess both the Christian faith and accept modern science (i.e. Ken Miller, Francis Collins).

Baloney! I have never advocated teaching creationism or ID in the public schools and that is irrelevant. The issues I have raised have never been answered and for the most part not even addressed.

Not you but others. And the issues you have raised have been answered: "we don't know yet". You just don't like the answer and you seem to equate not knowing something with falsifying something.

Let me ask you think Pete, what would you have the public schools teach? That the evolution of man from apes is a proven fact? It is not and I have done extensive research on the subject.

You're using loaded language here. What I would teach is that common descent (including for humans) is supported by various lines of evidence and that it is applied in various applications of modern biology. I would also stress that nothing is ever "proven" in science, that conclusions are provisional, and that there is certainly a lot more to learn.

I have learned a lot about biology and nothing in the life sciences offends my belief system in the slightest. It is evolutionists with an agenda to expunge traditional theology.

You're fighting the wrong battle, mark. Evolution, including common descent, is a science (an applied science at that) and is not going away just because you don't like the idea that humans share ancestry with other species.

 

[Split Rock]

I never stated that creation was science, you see I am actually willing to admit when my belief system cannot account for something. I don't need to understand it all, I am quite willing to progress through my life without the pretense of knowing everything. I am satisfied just learning.

We don't claim to know everything about biology. I would love to know how your faith, which relies on substituting "god did it" for "we don't know all the details yet," helps you to learn about the world around you.

Why would I show you any sources since you can't do what I asked? I asked you to show me why my idea of nucleotide shielding should be wrong and you refused, so now you expect me to do something for you?

As I already told you.. you proposed this idea about nucleotide shielding, so you need to provide some evidence for it. Frankly I don't think you are really intersted in any of the answers you claim you want. Why would you need them considering you already know God did it?

I asked for anyone to show me some evidence of what occurs on the molecular level for evolution and noone did yet now you want more information.

What do you mean none did? I explained all the types of mutation that are involved in evolution, including several you either didn't know about or were ignoring. If you want a detailed summary of all the genetic steps in horse evolution, we cannot give it to you. In fact, the horse genome has not even been sequenced yet.

We know from the fossil evidence and anatomy of modern horses what happened. In the lineage that led to modern horses, its ancestors got larger, faster, most of its toes were lost or became vestigial, and it went from browsing to grazing. This coincided with the rise of grass prairies which provides us with a plausable selective pressure to drive the direction of evolution in the modern horse line.

I'm sure you won't be satisfied with that explanation, however, because it goes against your religious beliefs. So tell me honestly. If I could provide you with a point by point description of every gentic step in the evolution of the modern horse, would you accept evolution then? I think not.

I spent lots of time yesterday explaining the simplest thing to one of your evo cronies and in the end he still didn't get it, I posted a reference for Pete Harcoff and he immediately made a personal attack against him. Basically Im tired of giving to you people in this thread and receiving nothing in return.

What have you given us? Some terminology you either made up, or changed to your own specifications, a book written by a questionable source, unsubstantiated accusations against geneticists you don't even know, rhetoric about evolution being a religion, and in general some very un-Christian like behavior. I am not impressed.

 

[mark kennedy]

I can't speak for all of the mistakes they might have made, but FWIW I have corrected "evolutionists" here in the past (including LM recently).

This still doesn't excuse your own self not admitting rather obvious errors. I mean, you [flat out denied claiming that you equated subsitutions with frameshifts when it was there in black and white and only a handful of posts prior!

I was not equating substitutions with frameshifts, the idea never occurred to me. I know the difference between a single base substitution and a frameshift mutation. What I brought up with the 18 substitutions in the HAR1f gene.

In frame shift mutations, since a base is either added or removed from a codon, the effect is to shift the codons as read during translation by one position which radically alters the meaning of the mRNA in terms of how it is translated.. Notice in our example the frame shift mutation changes all the amino acids after the first one because codons are in groups of three non overlapping RNA bases. Mutations

Your not correcting an error, your derailing the thread.

You're flat out wrong on this mark. You seem to be equating facets of evolutionary theory you don't like with atheism. But that's not the case at all.

No I'm not, evolution has become essentially atheistic in it's orientation and focus. Anything remotely theistic is ridiculed mindlessly.

Evolution, Religion and Free Will

Your real beef seems to be with atheism. Why you insist on dragging evolutionary science is beyond me. It's a fight you can't possibly win because you're fighting it for all the wrong reasons.

There you go again, you want to equate evolution with science. The scientific definition of science is not universal common descent from a common ancestor and you know it.

I'm talking about applied evolution. Particularly applied evolution in modern genomics fields. If you have any interest in contemporary biology, it would do you good to read up on it. IMHO, it's the single biggest reason evolutionary biology ain't going away.

Did you know that I consider YEC to be a radical evolutionary theory? Why would I ever be opposed to evolution, it's the only way of making sense of a literal Genesis 1.

Now I'm not sure what you are talking about. What do you mean by "faith ridiculed shamelessly by professional scientists and educator"? What does this have to do with teaching or using evolutionary biology? Especially since there are plenty of scientists and educators that profess both the Christian faith and accept modern science (i.e. Ken Miller, Francis Collins).

Very few and what they actually believe is had to figure. Francis Collins is a brilliant guy with a strong evangelical faith but he should be more concerned with the censoring of religion then he is.

Not you but others. And the issues you have raised have been answered: "we don't know yet". You just don't like the answer and you seem to equate not knowing something with falsifying something.

No directly observed or demonstrated molecular mechanism, no proof. It's as simple as that so you can eat your cake and have it to. On the one hand it can't be proven but must be assumed.

You're using loaded language here. What I would teach is that common descent (including for humans) is supported by various lines of evidence and that it is applied in various applications of modern biology. I would also stress that nothing is ever "proven" in science, that conclusions are provisional, and that there is certainly a lot more to learn.

Then there is plenty of room for honest skepticism.

You're fighting the wrong battle, mark. Evolution, including common descent, is a science (an applied science at that) and is not going away just because you don't like the idea that humans share ancestry with other species.

I didn't pick this fight, the evolutionists came after me. I was more interested in the New Testament but strangely these secular academic types simply don't have the slightest interest. Creationism on the other hand generates tons of interest.

I posted a response on a secular board about creationism. I said that I didn't favor teaching creationism in the public schools despite the fact that I am a creationist. My feeling is that it would just become an object of ridicule and these biology teachers no absolutely nothing about the theology involved. The attacks were unrelenting, what fascinated me was the intensity.

I took a World Civ class and mentioned in my first essay that the Protestant Reformation laid the ground work for the Scientific Revolution, I got an F. When I had to retake the class I wrote the same essay almost word for word and I got an A. The only difference was I omitted the few lines about the Protestant Reformation.

I took a philosophy of religion class, it was pure undiluted secular humanism. Atheists are not trying to educate, the are trying to indoctrinate. Don't take my word for it, the next time you are in a College Library see if they have a copy of their philosophy of religion course. I guarantee you it was written by atheists who simply put their philosophy in religious terms.

 

[Patashu]

Is evolution as a science more atheistic then, say, electromagnetism? Should electromagnetism acknowledge the hand God played in making electrons negative and protons positive, or is it evolution specifically you wish to do this?

Oh, and that other line...yes, there's room for honest skepticism, but only in parts where science is still murky on the issue. Stuff like gravity and relativity are proven beyond any reasonable doubt (note this is different from proven); unless extraordinary evidence comes out it is bad practice to be skeptical to the point of denying gravity/relativity. Be skeptical to encourage advancement and knowledge, but don't be skeptical just for the sake of it in regions of science where we already know the answer. Sound like good advice?

 

[Pete Harcoff]

I was not equating substitutions with frameshifts, the idea never occurred to me.

Mark, when Fishface said "Substitutions do not produce frameshifts" you responded with "yes they do". Why do you continue to deny this? It's in this very thread!

No I'm not, evolution has become essentially atheistic in it's orientation and focus. Anything remotely theistic is ridiculed mindlessly.

So wait, because there are scientists who don't believe in god, therefore evolution is athiestic? Your logic makes no sense and you seem to have great difficulty separating philosophy from science.

There you go again, you want to equate evolution with science. The scientific definition of science is not universal common descent from a common ancestor and you know it.

I can't make sense of your second statement, but evolutionary biology including common descent is not only a science, but an applied science. You can pretend otherwise, but that doesn't change reality.

No directly observed or demonstrated molecular mechanism, no proof. It's as simple as that so you can eat your cake and have it to. On the one hand it can't be proven but must be assumed.

Mark, lemme try this analogy:

I recently took to a trip to New Zealand. Along the way, I documented this trip with copious amounts of photography.

If someone was to look at those series of photos, they could likely deduce the various locations in NZ I visited and probably in what order. They might not know how I traveled between those various locations, but they would know I visited them.

It's the same thing with human/chimp ancestry. Wee have a pretty good idea that it must have happened based on the evidence available (i.e. genetic comparisons, fossils), even if we don't specifically know how it happened.

Make sense?

Then there is plenty of room for honest skepticism.

Right. But I don't know where science is being taught as dogmatically as you suggest it is. In fact, my experience in University science classes is that professors more than not use skeptical language in discussing whatever it is they are talking about.

I didn't pick this fight, the evolutionists came after me. I was more interested in the New Testament but strangely these secular academic types simply don't have the slightest interest. Creationism on the other hand generates tons of interest.

<snip>

And what does any of this have to do with evolutionary biology as a science? It still sounds to me like your main problem is with people (specifically atheists) and not evolutionary biology as a science at all.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Stuff like gravity and relativity are proven beyond any reasonable doubt (note this is different from proven); unless extraordinary evidence comes out it is bad practice to be skeptical to the point of denying gravity/relativity.

Actually, there is considerable debate over theories of gravity as is evidenced by the fact that new theories keep popping up and a theory of quantum gravity has yet to be worked out.

However, this highlights another facet of scientific theories: theories are provisional. That is to say, they apply in certain circumstance and understand certain conditions. So Newton's theory of gravity might be fundamentally wrong, but it's useful in the right context.

 

[FishFace]

Fishface made glaring errors and no one calls him on it.

Which mistake?

This isn't the first time this has happened, in fact, it's the standard approach you all use. I was once 'called' on over a supposed error where I was supposed to have said a transcript error is a mutation. Technically, an uncorrected transcript error is a mutation but the entire group got on the bandwagon for 5 pages. When I substantiated my statement they simply abandoned the thread.

I notice you've not responded to me (or Split Rock) where I (and he) pointed out the mistakes (and contradictions) in your posts. There were four of them.

1. You claimed substitution mutations can cause frameshifts
2. You claimed that a codon is the same as an amino acid
3. You mixed up the term "essential amino acids" with the 22 amino acids of life
4. You asserted that there would have been frameshift mutation(s) in an RNA gene.

You've not responded to this - and you have the audacity to, in the same thread, rail at people for abandoning topics! This is the height of hypocrisy!
Come on, mark, admit your mistakes - they're there for all to see, in this very thread!

 

[mark kennedy]

Which mistake?

This is a fundamental mistake that marks a deep flaw in you thinking. Eating protein and working your brain can never account for the evolution of the human brain from that of apes. It's not only wrong, it's absurd.

No, your brain exhibits some similarities to muscle. You can grow more muscle tissue by exercise and you can alter your brain by practice. If what gamespotter said is true, then we could also have increased its size by eating more protein.

I showed you guys a very interesting difference in a regulatory gene. In 400 million years it allowed only 2 substitutions then suddenly there were 18. I tried to show you what had to change and you buried the substantive discussion.

I notice you've not responded to me (or Split Rock) where I (and he) pointed out the mistakes (and contradictions) in your posts. There were four of them.

You claimed substitution mutations can cause frameshifts

I know the difference between a substitution and a frameshift mutation. This is a frameshift:

This is a single base substitution:

So what?

You claimed that a codon is the same as an amino acid

You don't know what a triplet codon is do you?

You mixed up the term "essential amino acids" with the 22 amino acids of life
You asserted that there would have been frameshift mutation(s) in an RNA gene.

There is a reason certain genes are highly conserved, it's because they give rise to deleterious affects.

Lahn and his team argue that this selective process impacted a significant fraction of genes in the human genome. They estimate there may have been thousands of mutations in thousands of genes that contributed to the evolution of the human brain. This &#8220;staggering&#8221; number of mutations suggests the human lineage was driven by intense selection process. (Human cognitive abilities resulted from intense evolutionary selection, says Lahn)​

You've not responded to this - and you have the audacity to, in the same thread, rail at people for abandoning topics! This is the height of hypocrisy!

I'm not the one dragging this conversation off topic, now you are resorting to a flame.

Come on, mark, admit your mistakes - they're there for all to see, in this very thread!

You keep trying to make a point of substitutions don't cause frameshifts. What you don't seem to realize is I don't care, it has nothing to do with the subject of Design and the Brain. Clearly vital organs in general and genes involved in neural functions in particular do not respond well to mutations. Show me a single beneficial effect from a mutation in a brain related gene.

The thing is, I can show you a list of disease and disorder as long as your arm.

Pick a chromosome, any chromosome:

Human Genome Landmarks Poster: Chromosome Viewer

Here are some of the things you will find:

Alzeheimers, Epilepsy, Hunting-like Degeneratetive Disorder and brain tumors. You don't understand how many differences there are on a genetic basis between humans and apes.

 

[FishFace]

This is a fundamental mistake that marks a deep flaw in you thinking. Eating protein and working your brain can never account for the evolution of the human brain from that of apes. It's not only wrong, it's absurd.

Did you not read the studies? A change in diet is believed to have allowed the evolution of the brain. I never said that eating protein causes a change in the genes involved in brain development, as you seem to think.
For your mistakes, I can find quotations proving you made them. You can't find where I said that eating protein causes genetic change - because I never suggested that.

I showed you guys a very interesting difference in a regulatory gene. In 400 million years it allowed only 2 substitutions then suddenly there were 18. I tried to show you what had to change and you buried the substantive discussion.

I think there were actually some insertions in there, because one hairpin of the RNA molecule grows, doesn't it. Perhaps this is where you got confused.

I know the difference between a substitution and a frameshift mutation. This is a frameshift:

So you admit that when I said, "substitutions don't cause frameshifts" and you responded with "yes they do" you were wrong?

You don't know what a triplet codon is do you?

A triplet codon is a sequence of bases which code for a particular amino acid.
The triplet codon is not identical with the amino acid.

Will you admit at least that a triplet codon is not an amino acid, even if you won't admit that you made the mistake?

You've missed the mistake you made about essential amino acids.
That's three mistakes you're still denying.

There is a reason certain genes are highly conserved, it's because they give rise to deleterious affects.

Lahn and his team argue that this selective process impacted a significant fraction of genes in the human genome. They estimate there may have been thousands of mutations in thousands of genes that contributed to the evolution of the human brain. This “staggering” number of mutations suggests the human lineage was driven by intense selection process. (Human cognitive abilities resulted from intense evolutionary selection, says Lahn)​

Irrelevant. Your point was that the changes to the hARf1 gene could not have happened because at some point a frameshift would have drastically altered the meaning of the gene. This is wrong, because the mRNA is never translated.
This is the fourth mistake you are refusing to admit to, and this is fundamental to your argument.

I'm not the one dragging this conversation off topic, now you are resorting to a flame.

This is still on-topic, mark, because you act like an authority on the subject yet make basic mistakes and refuse to admit it. One of your mistakes is fundamental to your argument, others are merely irritatingly ironic.

You keep trying to make a point of substitutions don't cause frameshifts. What you don't seem to realize is I don't care, it has nothing to do with the subject of Design and the Brain. Clearly vital organs in general and genes involved in neural functions in particular do not respond well to mutations.

What do you mean, "clearly?" What studies are you citing? None.
What may be clear, but which you have not established, is that some genes involved in neural functions are more unlikely to receive beneficial mutations. But that's irrelevant, because you never established that that would be impossible.
The change in mutation rate is accounted for by the change in diet which allowed mutations which gave us bigger brains to be beneficial.

Show me a single beneficial effect from a mutation in a brain related gene.

Why? I'm not a neural geneticist. Are you asserting that there are no possible mutations which would produce a better brain? Well, that's just an argument from ignorance.

The thing is, I can show you a list of disease and disorder as long as your arm.

Pick a chromosome, any chromosome:

Human Genome Landmarks Poster: Chromosome Viewer

Here are some of the things you will find:

Alzeheimers, Epilepsy, Hunting-like Degeneratetive Disorder and brain tumors. You don't understand how many differences there are on a genetic basis between humans and apes.

And what have you established? That there are deleterious mutations to the brain. Have you established that there are no beneficial ones, or further, that there were none? No.

Stop claiming you have, and admit your mistakes, please.

 

[MrBoo]

Stop claiming you have, and admit your mistakes, please.

Where do you think the amino acids used to synthesize proteins come from? Can you even name the nine essential amino acids?

You haven't yet admitted that you were wrong about your number of 9 essential amino acids,(there are 8) perhaps you can start a session of admission by telling us about your own mistakes. Or are you trying to say that you don't make them? If so then I would never want to rely on your data, ever. Because human error is a huge part of scientific calculation. How many times have you done percent error calculations? If no, why not? If you can't admit you make mistakes then you are a liar, its as simple as that.

So right here, in this thread, fishface has a decision to make. Either admit that he makes mistakes(like the one I have caught just now) just like all people, and all scientists, or continue to run his hypocritical crusade against MK for no reason other than he wants to derail MK's point and personally defame him.

Also a triplet codon codes for an amino acid, you can use the terms interchangeable depending upon what context you in. I can refer to a specific triplet as an amino acid because I know that is what it will create. Even though the actual mRNA is not itself the amino acid I think that that is beside the point, and really looks more like an evil attempt to stray from the point rather than anything else.

The absurdity of capitalizing on such a point is reminicent of the French defenders discussing the airspeed velocity of an African swallow in Monty Python's sketch, it is not only beside the point, but it is tremendously rude and insanely irrelevant, it would be hilarious if it were a joke, but the fact that you seem to take yourself seriously, and that you mean to represent the open-minded nature of science delegates it to more of a tragic farce of contemporary internet evolutionists.

Here is the skit:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rzcLQRXW6B0
Here is a more accurate estimation of the number of essential amino acids, there are 8.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amino_acid
http://www.vaughns-1-pagers.com/food/amino-acids-summary.htm
http://www.csmngt.com/amino_acids.htm

Of course the number of essential amino acids is going to differ among primates also, these are just the numbers for humans.

So I guess fishface will make his admission now,or will he try to explain it away, or just ignore it? Either way I think its a good idea for everyone in this thread to start looking at the possibility of thier own mistakes a little closer, especially since tomorro is Monday, and your boss will likely be pointing them(your mistakes) out to you tomorro morning.

Have a great night, Im going to watch the New England Patriots kick some serious butt.

 

[TeddyKGB]

Forget the essential amino acids business. Some sources say nine, some eight; some are essential in childhood only.

The substitution/frameshift thing, though, is a different matter. Kennedy has a history of understanding science only superficially, of using proper scientific terminology but getting the underlying concepts totally wrong. This is just another example.

 

[Patashu]

Actually, there is considerable debate over theories of gravity as is evidenced by the fact that new theories keep popping up and a theory of quantum gravity has yet to be worked out.

However, this highlights another facet of scientific theories: theories are provisional. That is to say, they apply in certain circumstance and understand certain conditions. So Newton's theory of gravity might be fundamentally wrong, but it's useful in the right context.

Sorry; I meant the existence of gravity isn't open for debate, not the exact mechanism by how it works.

 

[mark kennedy]

Mark, when Fishface said "Substitutions do not produce frameshifts" you responded with "yes they do". Why do you continue to deny this? It's in this very thread!

That's quoting me out of context. I was taking about this gene with 18 substitutions, or at least that is what the ape gene would have needed.

The developmental and evolutionary mechanisms behind the emergence of human-specific brain features remain largely unknown. However, the recent ability to compare our genome to that of our closest relative, the chimpanzee, provides new avenues to link genetic and phenotypic changes in the evolution of the human brain. We devised a ranking of regions in the human genome that show significant evolutionary acceleration. Here we report that the most dramatic of these ‘human accelerated regions’, HAR1, is part of a novel RNA gene (HAR1F) that is expressed specifically in Cajal– Retzius neurons in the developing human neocortex from 7 to 19 gestational weeks, a crucial period for cortical neuron specification and migration. HAR1F is co-expressed with reelin, a product of Cajal–Retzius neurons that is of fundamental importance in specifying the six-layer structure of the human cortex. HAR1 and the other human accelerated regions provide new candidates in the search for uniquely human biology.(An RNA gene expressed during cortical development evolved rapidly in humans. Nature 443, September 2006)​

You think I like coming on here to be talked to like a fool? I'm looking for something, I'm looking for molecular mechanisms that facilitate adaptations. I'm particularly interested in transposable elements but getting back to the main point.

I was talking about 18 substitutions in a gene that allowed only two since the Cambrian explosion. This is addition to hundreds if not thousands of mutations in hundreds if not thousands of genes. When I was saying substitutions I was not characterizing the nature of the mutations that would have had to occur. I was saying that mutations in the gene would have severely deleterious effects.

So wait, because there are scientists who don't believe in god, therefore evolution is athiestic? Your logic makes no sense and you seem to have great difficulty separating philosophy from science.

The synthesis of Darwinism and Mendelian genetics is philosophy. Science is not by definition atheistic but they will tell you it's explanations without reference to the supernatural. That is simply not true.

I can't make sense of your second statement, but evolutionary biology including common descent is not only a science, but an applied science. You can pretend otherwise, but that doesn't change reality.

Remove the a priori assumption of the single common ancestor and biology would not change. At times you might find common ancestors, sometimes not.

Mark, lemme try this analogy:

I recently took to a trip to New Zealand. Along the way, I documented this trip with copious amounts of photography.

If someone was to look at those series of photos, they could likely deduce the various locations in NZ I visited and probably in what order. They might not know how I traveled between those various locations, but they would know I visited them.

It's the same thing with human/chimp ancestry. Wee have a pretty good idea that it must have happened based on the evidence available (i.e. genetic comparisons, fossils), even if we don't specifically know how it happened.

Make sense?

I recently returned from the trip to New Mexico, I took no photographs. I have no difficulty whatsoever demonstrating that I did indeed make the trip, where I went and what I did. That's because it was a well documented military training course.

The common ancestor of chimpanzees and humans does not exist in the fossil record. The fossils dated over 2 mya are apes, period. With the rise of Homo erectus our supposed ancestors are completely human. As far as genetics the divergence has grown from less then 1% to at least 5%. All tolled we are looking at something like 140 million base pairs in 5 million years. That is an average of 360 base pairs permanently fixed, per generation, for 5 million years. Worldwide humans number in the billions and still only diverge by less then 1% of our DNA. We are the only African primate that has not speciated.

Right. But I don't know where science is being taught as dogmatically as you suggest it is. In fact, my experience in University science classes is that professors more than not use skeptical language in discussing whatever it is they are talking about.

I took a biology class and there was no mention of evolution at all. Mostly he had handouts that more then anything else taught you the language of biology. I wanted to major in Liberal Arts but when I started realizing the depth of the academic animosity toward Christianity and the Bible I considered looking into something else. I'm going to take either a Genetics of Molecular Biology class.

And what does any of this have to do with evolutionary biology as a science? It still sounds to me like your main problem is with people (specifically atheists) and not evolutionary biology as a science at all.

Specifically I am opposed to the metaphysics of Darwinism. I don't have a problem one with evolutionary biology, in fact, without it a literal Genesis 1 makes no sense.

Think about it a second, how many creatures do you think Noah could have had on that Ark? How many of their descendants exist today and how many time are they adapted and evolved.

I'm not opposed to evolutionary biology, nothing could be further from the truth. I certainly and not pursuing some agenda to replace it with religious doctrine. I'm trying to find molecular mechanisms that facilitate adaptive evolution. I know they exist but it might take me a while to track them down.

 

[Naraoia]

Yes they do but I don't expect you to know what a reading frame is anyhow.

No, they copulating don't. Substitution = put a different base in place of the original one. Substitution =/= indel.

Just a very mean question: do you know what a reading frame or a frameshift is?

Then you should know that diet does not change the genetic code affecting the human brain.

Have any of us ever said it does?

Do you know the difference between something causing mutations and something allowing mutations that appear independently of it to be fixed?

I'm getting extremely tired of debating someone who doesn't even (?want to) comprehend what others are saying. And I wasn't even here for the weekend.