"If ENCODE is right then Evolution is wrong"

[sfs]

DNA falsified evolution because of its complexity.

Did not. See how easy it is to make unbacked assertions?

Dinosaur DNA falsified evolution because no living matter can last millions of years.

There is no surviving dinosaur DNA.

ENCODE and the destruction of junk DNA falsified evolution.

ENCODE didn't destroy junk DNA -- which was never a prediction of evolution in the first place.

The fact that genes from the oldest know bacteria is EXACTLY the same
as modern DNA, and can be exchanged 1:1 falsified evolution.

Which genes are exactly the same? (Hint: there aren't any.) What are the oldest known bacteria? How would this falsify evolution anyway.

The fact that all animals and plants are not evolving, but are headed
very rapidly toward genetic failure and extinction falsified evolution.

The fact that we can observe animals and plants evolving, and that there is not the slightest evidence they're heading for genetic failure, means that your facts are again wrong.

To some up, evolution is falsified by a bunch of "facts" that aren't true, some of which wouldn't falsify evolution even if they were true.

 

[sfs]

Here's a simple challenge. Predict the transition to transversion rate (those are two different kinds of change to DNA) when comparing the genomes of chimpanzee and bonobo, based on ID. I can make that prediction based on common descent. What's the ID prediction?

 

[Non sequitur]

it's may not be testable but it's more logical. but it's good to know that we both ignore the second option.

"Not testable" and "but it's more logical" in the same sentence is not, well, logical. Let me swap out definitions for those words:

it may not be something that can be determined by the means by which the presence, quality, or genuineness but it's more reasoned in accordance with the principles of logic

You see the problem?

the problem with this is that we can push back the creature appearance. so if for instance we will find a tetrapod before a missing link between a fish and a tetrapod (its means instad of 1-2-3 we will find 1-3-2) we can just claim that tetrapods evolved earlier than we thought. so basically this argument cant be test or falsified evolution.

Falsified doesn't mean it exclusively takes down an idea; it's like links in chain mail. If we found that, it would create a problem that would need to be addressed.

 

[xianghua]

By why would you conclude that the gene has "an important meaning"? What is your basis for that conclusion?

it's easy. if this gene can change more then other genes, then it's mean that it no so important. otherwise it need to be conserve.[/QUOTE]

And what about other sequences that are not identical? If identical sequences are important, does this mean non-identical sequences aren't important?

yep. they should be less important.

 

[pitabread]

it's easy. if this gene can change more then other genes, then it's mean that it no so important. otherwise it need to be conserve.

Based on what though? Why would you consider identical sequences to be important? And how does any of that tie into the so-called "id model".

Furthermore, there are obvious genetic differences between species, so why could a designer not create important genes in different species that would happen to be different? How would you distinguish functionally important differences versus functionally important similarities?

yep. they should be less important.

Again, why? And how does this tie into ID?

So far you haven't explained anything. In fact, you don't appear to have an "id model" to begin with.

 

[keith99]

Non favorable mutation =/= fatal mutation.

The OP seems to miss this very basic point, one big enough to drive a convoy through.

 

[xianghua]

"Not testable" and "but it's more logical" in the same sentence is not, well, logical. Let me swap out definitions for those words:

it may not be something that can be determined by the means by which the presence, quality, or genuineness but it's more reasoned in accordance with the principles of logic
You see the problem?

no. english isnt my native so im not sure i get it. but lets move on...

Falsified doesn't mean it exclusively takes down an idea; it's like links in chain mail. If we found that, it would create a problem that would need to be addressed.

is so we cant falsified evolution. therefore it isnt a scientific theory.

 

[xianghua]

Based on what though? Why would you consider identical sequences to be important? And how does any of that tie into the so-called "id model".

Furthermore, there are obvious genetic differences between species, so why could a designer not create important genes in different species that would happen to be different? How would you distinguish functionally important differences versus functionally important similarities?

by the genetic level that is more accurate. and by the way; even according to evolution some similar creatures may be more different in the genetic level (a lob fin fish for instance). so your question is also apply to evolution.

 

[pitabread]

by the genetic level that is more accurate.

What? This sentence makes no sense.

and by the way; even according to evolution some similar creatures may be more different in the genetic level (a lob fin fish for instance). so your question is also apply to evolution.

We're not talking about evolution. I'm talking about the so-called "id model". I'm trying to get you to explain how it would work for genomic comparisons and so far you haven't explained anything.

At this point I can only conclude that you don't have an "id model" to begin with.

 

[Non sequitur]

no. english isnt my native so im not sure i get it. but lets move on...

is so we cant falsified evolution. therefore it isnt a scientific theory.

You don't appear to understand what 'falsified' and 'scientific theory' mean, or entail, through possibly no fault of your own.

It appears we are at a crossroad.

Good luck.

 

[xianghua]

What? This sentence makes no sense.



We're not talking about evolution. I'm talking about the so-called "id model". I'm trying to get you to explain how it would work for genomic comparisons and so far you haven't explained anything.

At this point I can only conclude that you don't have an "id model" to begin with.

again: if we see a gene that is conserve between a cat, a human and a chimp- we can conclude that this gene have an important function. do you agree?

 

[Jimmy D]

again: if we see a gene that is conserve between a cat, a human and a chimp- we can conclude that this gene have an important function. do you agree?

I think it's time you explained this ID model to us, it seems no one has any idea what it is apart from you.

 

[pitabread]

again: if we see a gene that is conserve between a cat, a human and a chimp- we can conclude that this gene have an important function. do you agree?

Nope. You need to explain why this would be the case under the "id model". First, what makes a gene "conserved" if a designer independently created them? Conservation of genetic code only makes sense if we're talking about evolution, but we're not, we're talking about design.

Why would a designer only create identical important genes? Could they not create unimportant genes or other regions of the genome that happen to be identical?

You need to back up your assertion with explanations. You haven't provided any explanations yet.

 

[xianghua]

Nope. You need to explain why this would be the case under the "id model". First, what makes a gene "conserved" if a designer independently created them? Conservation of genetic code only makes sense if we're talking about evolution, but we're not, we're talking about design.

why? if this gene is connserve then it's means that any base change may be important. not so in a different genes among species.

 

[pitabread]

why? if this gene is connserve then it's means that any base change may be important. not so in a different genes among species.

You're just arguing this from an evolutionary point of view. You still haven't explained how this ties into your supposed "id model" and relates to a designer.

At this point it's pretty obvious you don't have an ID model. You've had a couple weeks now to explain how comparative genomics would work under such a model and have thus far failed to do so.

There is no point continuing to go in circles when it's obvious you have nothing of an substance to offer.

My prior points stand: evolutionary biology is applied to comparative genomics to solve real problems and gain knowledge. ID has nothing to offer in this regard.

 

[xianghua]

You're just arguing this from an evolutionary point of view.

not at all. lets say that all creatures designed at once. so lets say we test the genomes of a fish, a cat and human. lets say that we found one gene that is idientical in all the 3. it's simple to conclude that this gene is very important. even if those creatures were not evolved from a commondescent. is my point is clear now?

 

[pitabread]

not at all. lets say that all creatures designed at once. so lets say we test the genomes of a fish, a cat and human. lets say that we found one gene that is idientical in all the 3. it's simple to conclude that this gene is very important. even if those creatures were not evolved from a commondescent. is my point is clear now?

No, because you still haven't tied this back to how this relates to a designer. All you are doing is evoking a quasi-evolutionary view of looking a genomes and conserved sequences.

The other big problem is that conserved sequences from an evolutionary point-of-view need not be strictly identical. In fact, a lot of important sequences shared between species are not necessarily 100% the same. And especially so when one factors in different types of mutations that can occur in genomes including synonymous and non-synonymous substitutions.

For example, if we take your scenario of a fish, cat and human, because of the relative divergence time between each species, it's possible to have a conserved sequence between say, fish and humans, but that shows more diversity between those species than non-conserved sequences between humans and cats. Again, this would be due to the fact that there is far greater evolutionary 'distance' between fish and humans than cats and humans.

This is especially the case when dealing with closely related species like primates where the amount of evolutionary divergence is small and therefore makes it more difficult to distinguish conserved and non-conserved regions based strictly on pairwise comparisons. Hence, the use of phylogenetic data and multi-species comparisons to better distinguish those sequences.

At any rate, you still haven't explained why identical sequences would be "important" under the 'id model'. You continue to repeat yourself without actually explaining anything.

The only point I'm getting from your posts is that you don't have an 'id model'.

 

[xianghua]

For example, if we take your scenario of a fish, cat and human, because of the relative divergence time between each species, it's possible to have a conserved sequence between say, fish and humans, but that shows more diversity between those species than non-conserved sequences between humans and cats. Again, this would be due to the fact that there is far greater evolutionary 'distance' between fish and humans than cats and humans.

not realy. the har1 sequence for instance is very different between a chimp and human but very similar between chimp and a chicken. so it's not true.

At any rate, you still haven't explained why identical sequences would be "important" under the 'id model'.

because if those genes cant be change very much then it's means that their sequence is very important. again: very simple.

 

[pitabread]

not realy. the har1 sequence for instance is very different between a chimp and human but very similar between chimp and a chicken. so it's not true.

Re-read my post. I think you may have misinterpreted it. After all, I wasn't suggesting every single region of the genome would follow the pattern. In fact, we would expect relative levels of divergence that are a result of evolutionary pressures (human brain evolution being a prime example).

The point is that overlaying phylogenetic data allows researchers to apply a relative "neutral" amount of expected genetic change relative to time of divergence and then compare regions that show less or greater divergence. But that amount of expected neutral divergence is dependent on time when the populations split which is precisely what a phylogenetic tree is supposed to illustrate.

because if those genes cant be change very much then it's means that their sequence is very important. again: very simple.

You're just repeating yourself without explaining anything. There is no point in you continuing to reply if all you are going to do is just repeat the same thing over and over. You're not tying any of this to a designer and thus have failed to demonstrate any sort of "id model" whatsoever.

I think we're done here.

 

[pat34lee]

I gotta say, this arguing without the need for evidence is much easier than the alternative.

Also typical of evolutionists and atheists.