DNA preserves the integrity of its program

[Astrophile]

Yes derail it. You somehow were trying to make it about God and the Bible. Bats are one example of the some creatures that simply appear fully formed with no semi-bat or quasi-bat forerunners. There are many others. HOW they came to be (millions of years ago) can only be guessed at not known). Your preconceived GUESS is no better than any other.

You didn't respond to my post 79 about the chronology of the first appearance of bats, in the Early Eocene (about 490 million years after the beginning of the 'Cambrian explosion'), nor did you answer my question

How, then, do you interpret the sudden appearance of bats in the context of the whole fossil record?

Also, you said,

And what have we seen in all these places is that speciating only produces variety within the same class (but never one becoming another...no fish becoming reptiles and so on)

Since bats belong in the class Mammalia, you ought to be willing to accept that they evolved by speciation from other mammals, perhaps from insectivores, primates, artiodactyls, perissodactyls, carnivora, etc.

 

[pshun2404]

The differences between the human and chimps genome are responsible for the physical differences between humans and chimps. If all changes to a genome were deleterious and none were beneficial then there should either be a chimp or a human, not both. One would be riddled with disease while the other is not. In fact, if what you claim is true then there should only be one species alive today since a new species would require changes to the genome which you claim can not be beneficial and only be deleterious.



Here is the validation:

If all changes to a genome were deleterious and none were beneficial then there should either be a chimp or a human, not both. One would be riddled with disease while the other is not.

First of all I never said all changes to the genome were deleterious, so perhaps you need to direct your comment to whoever said this.

In fact, if what you claim is true then there should only be one species alive today since a new species would require changes to the genome which you claim can not be beneficial and only be deleterious.

Again you must be addressing some one else, or else you are forming assumption based conclusions, or else you cannot read the logic of what was said (and I do not think that is true).

I did say that changes to the genome help produce variety (this goes for all types of apes and humans). Some are just differences between these different creatures and nothing has been shown to have changed. So yes changes are certainly one of the factors (not all) that affect physical features (and even physiological function).

You must have gotten stuck on the part that said I do not see this as evidence for transformation which I assume your skull photos are meant to represent. However some are clearly human and others clearly ape, and then others still probably human with some apelike characteristics and vice versa (there are people today with a heavy brow ridge and others with a small or slanted skill cap, for example).

Another problem is that many of these skulls do not date in a chronological sequence (though displayed to imply this) and many are reconstructions that are added to. In some reconstructions areas are actually filed or ground away, and when two bone segments are different in texture or color even sanded or stained. This is a corruption of what we actually found though done with pure intent (no guile or tom foolery intended).

 

[pshun2404]

You didn't respond to my post 79 about the chronology of the first appearance of bats, in the Early Eocene (about 490 million years after the beginning of the 'Cambrian explosion'), nor did you answer my question

Also, you said,

Since bats belong in the class Mammalia, you ought to be willing to accept that they evolved by speciation from other mammals, perhaps from insectivores, primates, artiodactyls, perissodactyls, carnivora, etc.

You didn't respond to my post 79 about the chronology of the first appearance of bats, in the Early Eocene (about 490 million years after the beginning of the 'Cambrian explosion'), nor did you answer my question

How, then, do you interpret the sudden appearance of bats in the context of the whole fossil record?

Sorry I honestly thought I did. YOU mentioned some gibberish about instant creation in one day or creation of the universe in six days and so on not me.

ANSWER: I do not “interpret” their sudden appearance in the context of other fossils (which only constitute a teeny tiny fragment of possible creatures and appearance events) I just separate the data we actually found (not there now there) from the man made historical narrative attached to explain them in light of the preconceived notion that this transformation process IS the truth. By doing this to remain objective I do not need to find other or earlier creatures to fit the preconceived model. You see the model was already believed to be true BEFORE the data was uncovered and thus prejudices the standard interpretation in favor of that view (many creationists do the same thing making a 6000 year old earth convincing to them).

Therefore to allow the explanation to dictate the interpretation IMO is not a good method. Simply say it COULD BE THAT or MIGHT BE THAT or MANY BELIEVE THAT but all the could haves, or might haves, or we believe that, in the world does not make it true, just one possibility (with no examples to demonstrate it).

 

[tas8831]

Many means more than a few. Even out of a million scientists one or two thousand constitutes many. Many does not equal the majority by any means. New ideas always start slow and then grow. In this "many" some mutations may arise randomly but not all, and some that appear to have been used have been chosen by the cell (a form of selection which these no longer consider "random")

As for shifting attention and re-thinking formerly held opinions this is a good thing. it means people are looking at the data free of the dogmas once thought of as "established". It is as if we are discovering that the cell's are expressing a degree of self-interest in self-preservation and development and are not the mere victims of random mutation we once thought.

Then surely you can present a list of, say, 100 scientists that think "directed mutations" - and NOT those employed in experimental settings via directed mutagenesis - is the mechanism for evolution?

 

[pshun2404]

Site directed mutagenesis is a technique that is leading to a wonder filled future in genetic engineering but what I noticed is that cells select which mutations remain and which do not. The rest are written over or corrected very quickly (many, many times per day). The cells determine which is useful or beneficial and which are not. Some non-beneficial do remain in some organisms and get passed on to their offspring but mostly those that preserve or help the organism. So this is what I mean by “cell directed” as opposed to just random. The mutation originally may happen at random for any number of reasons, some environmental, but those that remain are cell selected. If the intricately interacting cellular systems find them as threat they are discarded and not passed on to the sex cells. This is a natural selection principle that those traits or mutations that have something to offer are selected is it not? As for naming 100 or so specific scientists that believe in the power of the cell to play a role in selection I cannot but I do believe in time it will be commonly accepted as true. It is like our more general self-preservation instinct only on a cellular level. And when cells do not act in this self preserving fashion they die, or mutate into something far more treacherous (like cancer).

 

[Astrophile]

ANSWER: I do not “interpret” their sudden appearance in the context of other fossils (which only constitute a teeny tiny fragment of possible creatures and appearance events) I just separate the data we actually found (not there now there) from the man made historical narrative attached to explain them in light of the preconceived notion that this transformation process IS the truth. By doing this to remain objective I do not need to find other or earlier creatures to fit the preconceived model. You see the model was already believed to be true BEFORE the data was uncovered and thus prejudices the standard interpretation in favor of that view (many creationists do the same thing making a 6000 year old earth convincing to them).

Let me try to work this out. You appear to be saying that the Earth is much more than 6000 years old, and that many kinds of animals and plants had existed and had become extinct long before the first bats appeared in the fossil record. You do not say whether you think that these other kinds of animals and plants had simply appeared without ancestors or had evolved from other kinds of living things. However, you do appear to think that the sudden appearance of bats in the fossil record implies that the first bats appeared without ancestors. Am I right about your understanding of the fossil record so far?

Therefore to allow the explanation to dictate the interpretation IMO is not a good method. Simply say it COULD BE THAT or MIGHT BE THAT or MANY BELIEVE THAT but all the could haves, or might haves, or we believe that, in the world does not make it true, just one possibility (with no examples to demonstrate it).

The problem with your argument is that the model that was believed to be true is not that the transformation process is the truth but that all living things come from a previous generation of living things by the familiar process of reproduction. To say that the transformation process is not the truth implies either that the earliest fossil bats were descended from earlier bats that were not preserved as fossils, or that these bats, against all experience, came into existence without ancestors. If you wish to maintain the second of these possibilities, you will have to provide evidence for its truth.

 

[pshun2404]

Let me try to work this out. You appear to be saying that the Earth is much more than 6000 years old, and that many kinds of animals and plants had existed and had become extinct long before the first bats appeared in the fossil record. You do not say whether you think that these other kinds of animals and plants had simply appeared without ancestors or had evolved from other kinds of living things. However, you do appear to think that the sudden appearance of bats in the fossil record implies that the first bats appeared without ancestors. Am I right about your understanding of the fossil record so far?

The problem with your argument is that the model that was believed to be true is not that the transformation process is the truth but that all living things come from a previous generation of living things by the familiar process of reproduction. To say that the transformation process is not the truth implies either that the earliest fossil bats were descended from earlier bats that were not preserved as fossils, or that these bats, against all experience, came into existence without ancestors. If you wish to maintain the second of these possibilities, you will have to provide evidence for its truth.

“Let me try to work this out. You appear to be saying that the Earth is much more than 6000 years old, and that many kinds of animals and plants had existed and had become extinct long before the first bats appeared in the fossil record.”

Without a doubt...

“You do not say whether you think that these other kinds of animals and plants had simply appeared without ancestors or had evolved from other kinds of living things. However, you do appear to think that the sudden appearance of bats in the fossil record implies that the first bats appeared without ancestors. Am I right about your understanding of the fossil record so far?”

Close! What is IS...the historical reality of many creatures is sudden appearance fully formed. Assuming they had to have come from some earlier (ultimately different) creature is fine so long as you realize it is an assumption.

Consider the difference of perspective on the same data between saltationalism and punctuated equilibrium. Both views see explosions of new species and each explains them (scientifically) in different ways. But these are still (though contrary to the standard model) “explanations” based on what they observed. Sudden appearance of Triops Canciformis for example shows NO logical ancestral possibility but we can all surmise what we believe, just not assume it IS what happened. So I am not incorrect and you correct and neither am I correct and you incorrect. I was also taught what you believe and also believed it and defended it, but it is not truth it is hypothesis based speculation (kind of like Calvinism in theology). The YEC literalist is no different than the materialist/reductionist. I am neither I remain non-dogmatic. What is IS and we each must deal with it as we surmise.



Then I said “Therefore to allow the explanation to dictate the interpretation IMO is not a good method. Simply say it COULD BE THAT or MIGHT BE THAT or MANY BELIEVE THAT but all the could haves, or might haves, or we believe that, in the world does not make it true, just one possibility (with no examples to demonstrate it).”

Your response “The problem with your argument is that the model that was believed to be true is not that the transformation process is the truth, but that all living things come from a previous generation of living things by the familiar process of reproduction.

This is not true. The model long accepted which now colors the interpretation of evidence was and IS that the transformation process IS the truth. It would be stated that over eons of time small random mutations and natural selection are the mechanics of how fish become amphibians which become reptiles which became birds and mammals and so on all the way to humans.

YES each generation we know of comes from earlier generations of the same organism via reproduction. As far back as we can trace the Y-Chromosomes of humans (inherited through the fathers) it is STILL a purely human Y-Chromosome (not quasi or semi ancient australopithecine or old world monkey). YES we all are descended from earlier forms of HUMANS. YES when we look at the actual record we see that all the modern varieties of bats came from earlier varieties of Bats all the way back to the earliest bats (but they are still bats after multi-millions of years).

Now I concede there are some creatures that an argument can be made for transformative descent but MOST, if you just look at the observable, testable, FACT, they are not there at one point and then they are there fully formed with all their interactive inter-dependent subsystems and basic anatomical features all in place (and fully functional).

So in light of that FACT (the actual, observable, testable one) we have no reason to ASSUME (though it is one plausible explanation) that in some deep past one slowly became the other. There just is just NO EVIDENCE just theorizing on a possibility.

To say that the transformation process is not the truth implies either that the earliest fossil bats were descended from earlier bats that were not preserved as fossils, or that these bats, against all experience, came into existence without ancestors. If you wish to maintain the second of these possibilities, you will have to provide evidence for its truth.”

First off since only about a sad 1% have been preserved as fossils it is undoubtedly possible we have not discovered the earliest bats that existed. And no I will not contend that those we have found did not come from earlier ancestors (only they most probably were also bats). And regarding your second Statement here why would I have to produce such evidence when in reality the first (or first group) of anything has no ancestors (the first planet formed, the first star, the first cell, shall I go on?)

You all make the claim that the one eventually became the other but have no evidence this actually happened (and then teach as the truth in schools all over, inundating generation after generation with your assumption based conclusions). The truth is they are not there then they are...deal with it!

 

[tas8831]

As for naming 100 or so specific scientists that believe in the power of the cell to play a role in selection I cannot

And yet you wrote:

"Many Biological researchers today are beginning to realize that beneficial mutations in the cell are largely not the result of random mutation (though some may be), but rather “cell directed mutations” (an insight now used in site-directed mutagenesis methods).....
Many means more than a few. Even out of a million scientists one or two thousand constitutes many. "

OK, how about 10?

 

[pshun2404]

And yet you wrote:

"Many Biological researchers today are beginning to realize that beneficial mutations in the cell are largely not the result of random mutation (though some may be), but rather “cell directed mutations” (an insight now used in site-directed mutagenesis methods).....
Many means more than a few. Even out of a million scientists one or two thousand constitutes many. "
OK, how about 10?

It is true I cannot specifically name even ten...not even one specifically (you have demolished my generalization)...yet we should all realize that the cell (other systems and enzymes involved in preservation, replication, and correction, as well as the passing on of these mutations) play a very important role in which one's remain and have an effect. The process is not an isolated system within.Do you at least agree that these processes assist in directing which ones remain and which ones do not?

Here's an article that suggest the cell's role in determining which ones stay and which ones go...

https://blogs.princeton.edu/researc...ls-undo-glitches-to-prevent-mutations-nature/

 

[tas8831]

It is true I cannot specifically name even ten...not even one specifically (you have demolished my generalization)...yet we should all realize that the cell (other systems and enzymes involved in preservation, replication, and correction, as well as the passing on of these mutations) play a very important role in which one's remain and have an effect.

I'm not sure I agree with that at all. Mutations happen, some are bad, most are neutral, some are good (most are context-dependent), and the cell, as such, merely has to deal with what they get.

The process is not an isolated system within.Do you at least agree that these processes assist in directing which ones remain and which ones do not?

Cells do have error-correcting mechanisms, but I am unaware of any bias in which mutations they correct and which they do not. Of course, we should expect to 'see' few really bad (e.g., lethal) mutations getting through, because they are, you know, really bad.

Here's an article that suggest the cell's role in determining which ones stay and which ones go...

https://blogs.princeton.edu/researc...ls-undo-glitches-to-prevent-mutations-nature/

You must have read a different article than the one you linked to. That article outlines a 'natural' problem (G quadruplexes) that interfere with DNA replication, and that there is an enzyme that clears these quadruplexes (usually) and that mutations in the gene that encodes one of these enzymes is associated with certain kinds of cancer.
I did not see anything about cells determining which mutations stay or go.

 

[tas8831]

I'm not sure I agree with that at all. Mutations happen, some are bad, most are neutral, some are good (most are context-dependent), and the cell, as such, merely has to deal with what they get.


Cells do have error-correcting mechanisms, but I am unaware of any bias in which mutations they correct and which they do not. Of course, we should expect to 'see' few really bad (e.g., lethal) mutations getting through, because they are, you know, really bad.
You must have read a different article than the one you linked to. That article outlines a 'natural' problem (G quadruplexes) that interfere with DNA replication, and that there is an enzyme that clears these quadruplexes (usually) and that mutations in the gene that encodes one of these enzymes is associated with certain kinds of cancer.
I did not see anything about cells determining which mutations stay or go.

It is so predictable - which posts creationists respond to and which ones they do not.

 

[pshun2404]

It just shows that cells are involved in the process.

 

[tas8831]

It just shows that cells are involved in the process.

You wrote:

"Here's an article that suggest the cell's role in determining which ones [mutations] stay and which ones go..."

The cell is "involved" by housing the nucleus, I guess.

But they do not 'determine' which mutations stay and which ones go.

So you either did not bother to actually read the paper; you totally misinterpreted it; or you hoped that I and others would not read it.

 

[pshun2404]

You wrote:

"Here's an article that suggest the cell's role in determining which ones [mutations] stay and which ones go..."

The cell is "involved" by housing the nucleus, I guess.

But they do not 'determine' which mutations stay and which ones go.

So you either did not bother to actually read the paper; you totally misinterpreted it; or you hoped that I and others would not read it.

No I hoped all would read it even the "creationists" and yes I read it and believe it demonstrates the involvement of many processes are required.

 

[pshun2404]

You wrote:

"Here's an article that suggest the cell's role in determining which ones [mutations] stay and which ones go..."

The cell is "involved" by housing the nucleus, I guess.

But they do not 'determine' which mutations stay and which ones go.

So you either did not bother to actually read the paper; you totally misinterpreted it; or you hoped that I and others would not read it.

But they do not 'determine' which mutations stay and which ones go.

Aside from the semantical argument over the word "determine" then what does?

 

[tas8831]

No I hoped all would read it even the "creationists" and yes I read it and believe it demonstrates the involvement of many processes are required.

Then perhaps, using the article you linked, point out which part supports your interpretation:

"...cell's role in determining which ones [mutations] stay and which ones go..."

 

[tas8831]

But they do not 'determine' which mutations stay and which ones go.

Aside from the semantical argument over the word "determine" then what does?

I do not pretend to be an expert on the mutation correction enzymes and the like, but it seems that they do not operate with 100% efficiency - same with DNA replication enzymes. Therefore, some mutations - regardless of their fitness effects - 'get through.'

If the cell's genome has experienced one such mutation in one of the genes or regulatory regions involved in producing the error-correcting enzymes, then the cell may be more likely to produce mutations and thus more may 'get through.'

I don't see how this indicates the cell playing any kind of role in determining (no matter which word you want to use) which mutations stay and which ones go. It seems pretty haphazard as far as I can tell (with the obvious bias toward certain sequences and chromosome locations and such).

Your choice of words implied, to me, that you felt that the cell actually played some kind of role - made some kind of choice, which I suppose explains your thread about atoms being conscious or whatever.

if you thinks cells are conscious and choose their mutations, or that some supernatural entity is tinkering with it all, produce the evidence. The paper you linked to ain't it, that much is obvious.

 

[pshun2404]

Then perhaps, using the article you linked, point out which part supports your interpretation:

"...cell's role in determining which ones [mutations] stay and which ones go..."

It does not address this question directly, but in regards to the process it is discussing it demonstrates other areas and chemicals are involved...so what are the ones involved in "selecting" which mutations go and which ones stay? How does THIS process work?

(don't need to see how inheritance works, I know and do not need to be schooled on different types of mutations, I already know)

 

[tas8831]

You must have gotten stuck on the part that said I do not see this as evidence for transformation which I assume your skull photos are meant to represent.

And yet reputable scientists who study such things for a living do.

Why is your opinion of greater value than their conclusions?

 

[tas8831]

It does not address this question directly, but in regards to the process it is discussing it demonstrates other areas and chemicals are involved.

Details please.

..so what are the ones involved in "selecting" which mutations go and which ones stay? How does THIS process work?

Are you serious?

There are no 'ones' involved, it is differential reproductive success - there is nothing that I am aware of in the genome or in the cell that 'selects" - this is freshman level stuff.

(don't need to see how inheritance works, I know and do not need to be schooled on different types of mutations, I already know)

Then why ask?