Evolution - the illusion of a scientific theory

[Loudmouth]

As I said that the Darwinian model for the TOE may well still be the valid basis for change. But this does put a question mark over at least how much it influence change. If HGT is a fair amount of the reason or is a bigger contributor to spreading genes between creatures then it muddies the waters.

It doesn't muddy the waters at all. Viral insertions are lineage specific and can be used to construct phylogenies. They are no different than any other random mutation.

You cant then stand firmly on darwinian evolution through natural selection and common decent being the only driving force that created new creatures from a random and chance process of mutations adding new genetics to a creature.

Yes, you can. Viral integrations are random with respect to fitness, exactly what the theory of evolution states. Those random, and lineage specific, changes are then passed through natural selection. As seen from a comparison of the genomes of humans and other apes, the lineage specific viral insertions and other integration events produce the expected nested hierarchy.

If the junk DNA has a role to play . . .

If junk DNA plays a role, then why is it accumulating mutations at a rate consistent with neutral drift?

Thus, according to the ENCODE Consortium, a biological function can be maintained indefinitely without selection, which implies that at least 80 − 10 = 70% of the genome is perfectly invulnerable to deleterious mutations, either because no mutation can ever occur in these “functional” regions, or because no mutation in these regions can ever be deleterious. This absurd conclusion was reached through various means, . . .
On the immortality of television sets: “function” in the human genome according to the evolution-free gospel of ENCODE
​

I suggest you read the rest of the abstract, at least.

What you need to explain is how junk DNA can maintain function no matter how much you change the actual DNA sequence.

then there is a whole lot more genetic ability that can be tapped into for adding new features to creatures. For all we know all the genetics of the basic features or a greater deal than we think of every creature may well already be within every creatures genetic makeup sitting there waiting to be used when needed. I am not a geneticists and this is my observation. It may be to simple but I suspect there is some truth to it.

Again, you are ignoring the basic fact that species are different from each other because the sequence of their genomes is different.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Well sorry if it came across that way but that was not my intention. I am not spamming but linking a few sites as support. I have learnt that when I post some support some people say that the site is no good or even try to say they have a connection creationist sites. So I tend to link a few to overcome this.In saying that I have only linked 3 sites and some of the sub links are from one of those 3 sites. I dont class that as spamming but a reasonable amount of support for what I was saying. But basically the sites I posted covered a couple of different ways in which scientists have found some evidence for HGT. I could understand what they were saying and I'm a layman. Though I'm not going to say I understand it completely as I'm not a geneticist. But thats why I have questioned it and are wondering what it represents. At the very least it is putting a question mark on what roles mutations play in the Darwinian theory of evolution. But you havnt given any rebuttal to any of it but instead criticized my technique. So I'm wondering why. Never the less I will single out a site in which it brings up evidence for HGT in more complex animals and you can address that one alone. Then I can go through each one so you can address them.
Jumping Genes versus Epigenetics: Driving Evolution | Jon Lieff, M.D.

You ain't figured it out yet?

If you attach links to sites to support your view, it's spamming. If they attach links (when they bother to ) it is of course merely attaching links to support their view. one would think in a scientific discussion the more links to supporting data the better, but that it doesn't fit their pseudo beliefs is why it's spamming. Because they then might have to actually read something that opposes their beliefs, and goodness, we wouldn't want to broaden their knowledge like that.

 

[keith99]

You ain't figured it out yet?

If you attach links to sites to support your view, it's spamming. If they attach links (when they bother to ) it is of course merely attaching links to support their view. one would think in a scientific discussion the more links to supporting data the better, but that it doesn't fit their pseudo beliefs is why it's spamming. Because they then might have to actually read something that opposes their beliefs, and goodness, we wouldn't want to broaden their knowledge like that.

Links as supporting data are fine, links lacking an argument are spam.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Links as supporting data are fine, links lacking an argument are spam.

Or is it just the arguments are not those you want to hear?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

It doesn't muddy the waters at all. Viral insertions are lineage specific and can be used to construct phylogenies. They are no different than any other random mutation.



Yes, you can. Viral integrations are random with respect to fitness, exactly what the theory of evolution states. Those random, and lineage specific, changes are then passed through natural selection. As seen from a comparison of the genomes of humans and other apes, the lineage specific viral insertions and other integration events produce the expected nested hierarchy.



If junk DNA plays a role, then why is it accumulating mutations at a rate consistent with neutral drift?

Thus, according to the ENCODE Consortium, a biological function can be maintained indefinitely without selection, which implies that at least 80 − 10 = 70% of the genome is perfectly invulnerable to deleterious mutations, either because no mutation can ever occur in these “functional” regions, or because no mutation in these regions can ever be deleterious. This absurd conclusion was reached through various means, . . .
On the immortality of television sets: “function” in the human genome according to the evolution-free gospel of ENCODE
​

I suggest you read the rest of the abstract, at least.

What you need to explain is how junk DNA can maintain function no matter how much you change the actual DNA sequence.



Again, you are ignoring the basic fact that species are different from each other because the sequence of their genomes is different.

Yet those viral insertions are found only in the non coding section of the genome, in what they have classified as junk DNA, so is irrelevant to the fitness of the host species. It matters not that it is passed down, since it changes the fitness of the host or offspring not one bit. Only mutations that were in the reproductive portions of the genome (egg and sperm) could ever be passed on to offspring. And only those in the coding section of the genome would ever affect viability. Since those viral insertions are not in the coding sections their contributions to fitness is null. Those that are found in coding DNA simply are used to produce proteins, nothing more.

Not to mention they are one and all foreign insertions, that they were then passed vertically means nothing. This is why we even have gene therapy that works, because virus have specific invasion routines for specific genes, there's nothing random to it. And is why specific genes can be targeting using specific viral vectors, without worry that the wrong gene will be affected. And hence the same gene across species is infected, not because it has anything to do with common descent.

And I find it highly doubtful a mutation that occurs in the parent will ever occur simultaneously in the reproductive portions of the genome, since it is pure random chance it occurred in the first place, let alone more than once.

It doesn't take your existing eye and write code. It takes existing code and programs your eye. That your eye might then mutate would never change the code to be passed down.

 

[bhsmte]

Hilarious thread.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Hilarious thread.

Agreed.

What truth are we discussing in your signature?

What people believe to be the truth such as when it was stated as fact the Milky Way was the entire universe?

What's commonly believed to be the truth is not always the truth. Sometimes non truths have been accepted as truths for 100's of years before the real truth intruded upon what they thought to be reality. Not saying they were not sincere in their belief and the accuracy of what they believed, or any deliberate deception, just that what we perceive as true is not always true.

They had observation, math and experiment which confirmed their beliefs, just as we had math we now call epicycles to confirm what others believed to be true. Yet despite the math, despite the experiments, despite the observations, what was believed to be truth turned out not to be true at all.

 

[DogmaHunter]

You ain't figured it out yet?

If you attach links to sites to support your view, it's spamming. If they attach links (when they bother to ) it is of course merely attaching links to support their view. one would think in a scientific discussion the more links to supporting data the better, but that it doesn't fit their pseudo beliefs is why it's spamming. Because they then might have to actually read something that opposes their beliefs, and goodness, we wouldn't want to broaden their knowledge like that.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

View attachment 200029

There does seem to be a spate of necro'd threads recently.

Nostalgia?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

... I find it highly doubtful a mutation that occurs in the parent will ever occur simultaneously in the reproductive portions of the genome, since it is pure random chance it occurred in the first place, let alone more than once.

It doesn't take your existing eye and write code. It takes existing code and programs your eye. That your eye might then mutate would never change the code to be passed down.

I don't quite follow your point here - mutations can occur in any cell, but the ones that are relevant to evolution are heritable mutations. Heritable mutations are mutations in the germ cells (sperm & ova) or the cells that give rise to them; they can result in phenotypic changes involving any tissue or organ, including eyes.

Can you explain what you find problematic with that?

 

[AirPo]

You ain't figured it out yet?

If you attach links to sites to support your view, it's spamming. If they attach links (when they bother to ) it is of course merely attaching links to support their view. one would think in a scientific discussion the more links to supporting data the better, but that it doesn't fit their pseudo beliefs is why it's spamming. Because they then might have to actually read something that opposes their beliefs, and goodness, we wouldn't want to broaden their knowledge like that.

You ain't figured it out yet?

If you bump threads that have been dead for three years, it's spamming.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

I don't quite follow your point here - mutations can occur in any cell, but the ones that are relevant to evolution are heritable mutations. Heritable mutations are mutations in the germ cells (sperm & ova) or the cells that give rise to them; they can result in phenotypic changes involving any tissue or organ, including eyes.

Can you explain what you find problematic with that?

Yet here we are, so apparently it isn't really dead, now is it???

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Yet here we are, so apparently it isn't really dead, now is it???

It's a reanimated corpse of a thread.

But what has that to do with your quote of my post?

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

You don't think 'culled genetic accidents' is an accurate term for random mutations + natural selection? What's wrong with it?

Is it because it takes away from the sense of mystical creative power of natural selection?

By the way, evolutionists themselves are constantly describing evolution/natural selection as a "creative force" or a similar phrase... they can't help themselves. The pantheistic mysticism inherent in evolutionary beliefs comes out naturally.

Culled genetic accidents is not inaccurate. Its just not normally used, of course. If you want to use it, go ahead. Its good to see a creationist acknowledge the prominence of both mutations and selection in the theory.