Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
I just thought it was funny he got indignant when I quoted his own statement. You guys will flame anything you hear from a creationist, even if it originally came from you. The backpedaling is funny to.
No less then 60 de novo (brand new) brain related genes with no known molecular mechanism to produce them. Selection can explain the survival of the fittest but the arrival of the fittest requires a cause:
The de novo origin of a new protein-coding gene from non-coding DNA is considered to be a very rare occurrence in genomes. Here we identify 60 new protein-coding genes that originated de novo on the human lineage since divergence from the chimpanzee. The functionality of these genes is supported by both transcriptional and proteomic evidence. RNA– seq data indicate that these genes have their highest expression levels in the cerebral cortex and testes, which might suggest that these genes contribute to phenotypic traits that are unique to humans, such as improved cognitive ability. Our results are inconsistent with the traditional view that the de novo origin of new genes is very rare, thus there should be greater appreciation of the importance of the de novo origination of genes…(De Novo Origin of Human Protein-Coding Genes PLoS 2011)
Whatever you think happened one thing is for sure, random mutations are the worst explanation possible. They cannot produce de novo genes and invariably disrupt functional genes. You can forget about gradual accumulation of, 'slow and gradual accumulation of numerous, slight, yet profitable, variations' (Darwin). That would require virtually no cost and extreme benefit with the molecular cause fabricated from vain imagination and suspended by pure faith.
The reason they are not questioned isn't the weight of the evidence, indicating chimpanzee-human common ancestry, but the animosity toward anything remotely theistic being suggested as a cause:
Idols of the Theater are those which are due to sophistry and false learning. These idols are built up in the field of theology, philosophy, and science, and because they are defended by learned groups are accepted without question by the masses. When false philosophies have been cultivated and have attained a wide sphere of dominion in the world of the intellect they are no longer questioned. False superstructures are raised on false foundations, and in the end systems barren of merit parade their grandeur on the stage of the world. (Novum Organum)This grand theatrical production has been performing for over a century now, it's history littered with fabrication.
Have a nice day
Mark
He didn't ask for an argument, he demanded a citation, it was his statement.
Do you have any idea how rare de novo genes are, especially when it comes to brain related genes? Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, not their own facts.
It's clear that if they arose it was from a presently unknown mechanism. Now there are de novo genes known to have occurred, the arctic cod antifreeze gene for example. It's a pattern of simple repeats that coevolved no less then four times, so it does happen. You wont find anything like that in such highly conserved brain related genes. There are molecular mechanisms for DNA repair, virtually none for rewriting DNA. In brain related genes, changes like this result in disease and disorder. A de novo brain related gene is inconceivable, but must be assumed, idols of the theater of the mind, nothing more.
He didn't ask for an argument, he demanded a citation, it was his statement.
No point in clarity, he demanded a citation for his own statement, demand it from him.
Because there won't be any, his original statement and failure is going to get buried in posts like this. Way to hold one another accountable, for obvious errors in logic.No point in clarity, indeed.
Apparently.
That's nice. So what? That humans are closely related to our fellow apes has been known since the time of Linnaeus. There really wasn't any reason scientifically to not classify humans as apes. As I noted in an earlier post, we have all the characteristics that all other apes share.
That's not my point and I did get his argument, vague and rambling as it was. But when I actually quoted what he said in passing he demanded a citation, I had literally cut and pasted the statement to my response. It's always flame on with you guys, I sometimes enjoy when the flame thrower blows up in your face.
So this is what you have here, no surprise it's indecipherable. You mention ERVs, thought to have been the result of highly dangerous germline viral invasions and responsible for 8% of the human genome. The GULO gene that is really just a broken protein coding gene that is supposed to produce vitamin C, easily dismissed as a gene breaking at a mutational hot spot. Then there's that fusion thing, all you really have is a TAG sequence and you don't have any time even for that. Big on rhetoric, short on substance, gotta hand it to you, you are if nothing else, consistent.That's nice. So what? That humans are closely related to our fellow apes has been known since the time of Linnaeus. There really wasn't any reason scientifically to not classify humans as apes. As I noted in an earlier post, we have all the characteristics that all other apes share.
Asinine verbiage (ancestor of the gaps) aside, this is a really poor attempt at revisionist history and just bad science. Observations are not limited to in real time and before our eyes. We know that humans and chimpanzees have a common ancestor because of the numerous lines of evidence supporting it's existence. That includes the fossil record, genetic similarity, shared ERVs, molecular vestiges like GULOp, the chromosome 2 fusion, etc.
Quote mining what, it's been nothing but a casual exchange, not quote intensive. Your going to have to dig a little deeper in your bag of fallacious rhetoric to find a slogan that applies.
