I'm excited by the first results of the ENCODE project

[Fascinated With God]

If it's functional, why doesn't most of it cause disease when it mutates?

If it performs a function correctly why would it be designed to change?

It is not "designed" to change, it just does. There are an avareage of 40 mutations per generation, but most of them take place in the 80% of the genome that is unused, so they have no effect.

Also, at a certain point embryos develop gills that later turn into lungs. I'm out of time, I find a reference for this the next time I post.

 

[SkyWriting]

It is not "designed" to change, it just does. There are an avereage of 40 mutations per generation, but most of them take place in the 80% of the genome that is unused, so they have no effect. Also, at a certain point embryos develop gills that later turn into lungs. I'm out of time, I find a reference for this the next time I post.

No, that's how few mutations slip past the repair process.
DNA Repair - Molecular Biology of the Cell - NCBI Bookshelf

The embryo series has been debunked years ago.

 

[Fascinated With God]

No, that's how few mutations slip past the repair process.

How does that change anything of relevance to this debate?

DNA Repair - Molecular Biology of the Cell - NCBI Bookshelf

What am I suppose to be looking for in this article?

 

[Fascinated With God]

The embryo series has been debunked years ago.

Wikipedia doesn't seem to have caught up with the times. This is from the top of the entry on pharyngeal pouches:

In the development of vertebrate animals, pharyngeal or branchial pouches form on the endodermal side between the branchial arches, and pharyngeal grooves (or clefts) form the lateral ectodermal surface of the neck region to separate the arches.
The pouches line up with the clefts,[1] and these thin segments become gills in fish.
​

How many times are you going to be proven flat out wrong before you start to consider the possibility that maybe there is a problem with your purely emotive arguments? When will the light of reason dawn on you so that you stop trying to twist the evidence, since at face value they clearly don't support your irrational theories.

 

[SkyWriting]

Wikipedia doesn't seem to have caught up with the times. <Snip>

That is true. Wiki has no authority though sometimes it's reasonably accurate.

But you're just reading it wrong. Fish and humans develop differently.
The skin folds only look like gills. They develop into glands not related to the respiratory system.

"The pictures of the earliest embryonic stages are now considered inaccurate."Ernst Haeckel - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Assyrian]

That is true. Wiki has no authority though sometimes it's reasonably accurate.

But you're just reading it wrong. Fish and humans develop differently.
The skin folds only look like gills. They develop into glands not related to the respiratory system.

If amphibians and lung fish are going to have both gills and lugs, they need separate organs for the different methods of respiration.You would not expect the lungs to develop from gills. However lungs and swim bladder develop from sacks in the oesophagus. Interestingly, the pharyngeal pouches (gill slits) in fish and mammals are formed by the same genes, but take their different development paths after that.

"The pictures of the earliest embryonic stages are now considered inaccurate."Ernst Haeckel - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Haeckel's drawings and his version of embryological evolution, the recapitulation theory have been thoroughly debunked, the mainstream understanding of embryological evolution hasn't.

 

[SkyWriting]

Interestingly, the pharyngeal pouches (gill slits) in fish and mammals are formed by the same genes, but take their different development paths after that.

I see I was wrong. The lungs are involved with the pharyngeal pouches. The details confirm no connection with gills.
If humans developed gills there would need to be a new pharyngeal pouch that doesn't currently exist.[/URL]

"Here, the mammalian embryo produces four pairs of pharyngeal pouches (Figure 15.27). Between these pouches are the pharyngeal arches. The first pair of pharyngeal pouches becomes the auditory cavities of the middle ear and the associated eustachian tubes. The second pair of pouches gives rise to the walls of the tonsils. The thymus is derived from the third pair of pharyngeal pouches; it will direct the differentiation of T lymphocytes during later stages of development. One pair of parathyroid glands is also derived from the third pair of pharyngeal pouches, and the other pair is derived from the fourth. In addition to these paired pouches, a small, central diverticulum is formed between the second pharyngeal pouches on the floor of the pharynx. This pocket of endoderm and mesenchyme will bud off from the pharynx and migrate down the neck to become the thyroid gland. The respiratory diverticulum sprouts from the pharyngeal floor, between the fourth pair of pharyngeal pouches, to form the lungs, as we will see below."

Haeckel's drawings and his version of embryological evolution, the recapitulation theory have been thoroughly debunked, the mainstream understanding of embryological evolution hasn't.

I agree with you that "Embryological Evolution" has been discredited and concede
that most are unaware that it only exists as a Youtube myth.
https://www.google.com/search?q=%22embryological+evolution%22&rlz=1C1CHMO_enUS497US497&oq=%22embryological+evolution%22&sugexp=chrome,mod=9&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8#q=%22embryological+evolution%22&hl=en&safe=off&tbo=d&rlz=1C1CHMO_enUS497US497&ei=RfALUdqSG-fp0gGB1ICgDg&start=0&sa=N&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_cp.r_qf.&bvm=bv.41867550,d.dmQ&fp=10c21c28c454948f&biw=1280&bih=662

 

[Assyrian]

I see I was wrong. The lungs are involved with the pharyngeal pouches. The details confirm no connection with gills.
If humans developed gills there would need to be a new pharyngeal pouch that doesn't currently exist.[/url]

"Here, the mammalian embryo produces four pairs of pharyngeal pouches (Figure 15.27). Between these pouches are the pharyngeal arches. The first pair of pharyngeal pouches becomes the auditory cavities of the middle ear and the associated eustachian tubes. The second pair of pouches gives rise to the walls of the tonsils. The thymus is derived from the third pair of pharyngeal pouches; it will direct the differentiation of T lymphocytes during later stages of development. One pair of parathyroid glands is also derived from the third pair of pharyngeal pouches, and the other pair is derived from the fourth. In addition to these paired pouches, a small, central diverticulum is formed between the second pharyngeal pouches on the floor of the pharynx. This pocket of endoderm and mesenchyme will bud off from the pharynx and migrate down the neck to become the thyroid gland. The respiratory diverticulum sprouts from the pharyngeal floor, between the fourth pair of pharyngeal pouches, to form the lungs, as we will see below."




I agree with you that "Embryological Evolution" has been discredited and concede
that most are unaware that it only exists as a Youtube myth.
https://www.google.com/search?q="em...50,d.dmQ&fp=10c21c28c454948f&biw=1280&bih=662

It is only Haeckel's version the Recapitulation theory that has been discredited. The only myth is the one which keeps cropping up on Creationist websites, conflating the debunking of Haeckel with genuine embryology and equally genuine embryological evidence for evolution.

 

[Fascinated With God]

"The pictures of the earliest embryonic stages are now considered inaccurate."Ernst Haeckel - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I noticed the same thing about Annihilationists and Universalists, they also have to reach back 100 years or more in time to find an author to cite who has anything to say about their point of view, one way or the other.

 

[Fascinated With God]

Interestingly, the pharyngeal pouches (gill slits) in fish and mammals are formed by the same genes, but take their different development paths after that.

I think this was the most important statement in his post, and you completely side stepped it, SW. It makes all of your evidence about what those pouches end up being in humans, a completely moot argument.

 

[ChetSinger]

I picked up a magazine in the supermarket today called "100 New Scientific Discoveries", published by Time.

One of the articles is on ENCODE, and titled "Junk DNA - Not So Useless After All". If you see the magazine in the checkout line and are interested, the article begins on page 50.

It's an easy and fun read. Apparently the number of gene-regulating switches in our DNA has already been discovered to be in the millions. Millions. Our God is truly a wondrous engineer.

 

[SkyWriting]

I think this was the most important statement in his post, and you completely side stepped it, SW. It makes all of your evidence about what those pouches end up being in humans, a completely moot argument.

I'm pretty sure I asked him for the source on that claim. But the link I did provide shows how structural the process is.

Its true that DNA is used to construct both fetuses. Just as an air wrench will work on car or airplanes.

 

[SkyWriting]

I noticed the same thing about Annihilationists and Universalists, they also have to reach back 100 years or more in time to find an author to cite who has anything to say about their point of view, one way or the other.

Interesting. I've never heard of such groups.

 

[SkyWriting]

It is only Haeckel's version the Recapitulation theory that has been discredited. The only myth is the one which keeps cropping up on Creationist websites,

I try to avoid those websites.
If you have any blood pressure issues, you should follow my example.

conflating the debunking of Haeckel with genuine embryology and equally genuine embryological evidence for evolution.

As I said, there is no such field of study.
Then I provided you the perfect search one could use
to refute my claim, the exact phrase not in quotes.

This is an "AND" search returning the two words used
together in any order. The websites returned are ranked
according to an "authority raking system" Google has developed.
The more links to a particular page, the higher it ranks.
Plus those "from" pages need some authority as well.

By looking at the URL's on the search results, one can gauge the
level of authority of the sites using the given terms.

If you start to see "Cheesey" websites on the first page of your
search results that have little effort used in their construction,
then less than 10 authority sites like colleges or technical publishers
have used those terms.

If this type of page shows up, then you are on the bottom of the barrel:

"Recapitulation theory is totally discarded now a days and its modified version that &#8216;embroys of the higher organisms recapitulate the embryonic history of their ancestors&#8217; seems to be more viable."

 

[Assyrian]

I try to avoid those websites.
If you have any blood pressure issues, you should follow my example.

Wise advice indeed, yet you seem to have picked up their dodgy argument about embryonic development.

As I said, there is no such field of study.

How can you say there is no such field of study then show how you can google it?

Then I provided you the perfect search one could use
to refute my claim, the exact phrase not in quotes.

This is an "AND" search returning the two words used
together in any order. The websites returned are ranked
according to an "authority raking system" Google has developed.
The more links to a particular page, the higher it ranks.
Plus those "from" pages need some authority as well.

By looking at the URL's on the search results, one can gauge the
level of authority of the sites using the given terms.

If you start to see "Cheesey" websites on the first page of your
search results that have little effort used in their construction,
then less than 10 authority sites like colleges or technical publishers
have used those terms.

If this type of page shows up, then you are on the bottom of the barrel:

"Recapitulation theory is totally discarded now a days and its modified version that &#8216;embroys of the higher organisms recapitulate the embryonic history of their ancestors&#8217; seems to be more viable."

You can't just rely on the appearance of a web page to filter out the dodgy sites. In areas where there is a lot of popular pseudo science, you will often get plenty cross links to other pseudo scientific sites and online discussions making them appear high up in google searches. If there is money in the pseudo sciences or there are organised groups promoting it, as there is in medical quackery, climate change denial or creationism, you will often get very professional web design. The webpage you link to shows another problem. It is from the site PreserveArticles.com which:

is an online article publishing site that helps you to submit your knowledge so that it may be preserved for eternity. All the articles you read in this site are contributed by users like you, with a single vision to liberate knowledge.
​

Anybody could upload articles to the website and they will be displayed on a professional looking webpage. With the article you quote, the person who uploaded that article is a medical doctor, Nirmala Agarwal, from a fertility clinic in India. She may be a good doctor and very good on human embryology, but she isn't necessarily that good on the history of embryology, embryological evolution or comparative embryological genetics.

Modern embryology isn't a modified form of Haeckel's recapitulation theory, it is much closer to Darwin's understanding which predated Haeckel. Darwins argument was that if organisms evolved from a common ancestor through a series of slight variations, with each variation taking effect at its own specific stage of developmen, as an embryo develops, the number of variations you can see accumulates, while the early embro will show very few of the changes. So species that are very different late in their development look very similar as embryos, looking like the embryo of their common ancestor. We now know these changes are caused by genes, and that these genes switch on and off at different stages of development.

I'm pretty sure I asked him for the source on that claim.

Don't think you did, but here is a good place to start:

http://pigeonchess.com/2012/05/31/gill-slits-by-any-other-name/
At the genetic level there are two significant families of genes (Hox & Dlx) which control the development of the pharyngeal region of all vertebrates.

A nested set of Hox genes control the development of the pharyngeal structures head to tail (anterior to posterior) from just after the first pharyngeal arch (Hunt et al. 1991) (Prince et al. 1998) (Kuratani 2004). And likewise a nested set of Dlx gene are expressed in the development of the pharyngeal structures in the front to back (ventral/dorsal) direction (Schilling 2003) (MacDonald et al., 2010).
​

The creationist argument is that these aren't 'gill slits', it is just a superficial resemblance between the folds in fish embryos and the folds in mammal embryos, but we see here these don't just look similar, they are the same structure at this stage of development, formed by the same genetic code.

But the link I did provide shows how structural the process is.
Its true that DNA is used to construct both fetuses. Just as an air wrench will work on car or airplanes.

It is not just a single general tool being used to build very different structures, it is specific series of tools forming the a specific series of structures in the same order in same place.

 

[Daniel Gregg]

90% of what evolutionists claim is dark matter, dark energy...etc...you can't see it, taste it, hear it, or detect it may any means....lies are institutional...the snowball effect.

I'm referring to the "ENCODE Project Consortium", the largest attempt ever to map the human genome.

For years I've been beaten about by atheists who pointed to our genome and claimed that because 90% of it was leftover evolutionary junk, we clearly weren't designed. After all, what's junk isn't designed, right?

But now it looks like at least 80% of it is active. Here's the abstract from one of the papers released last fall:



Here's a link to the article itself: An integrated encyclopedia of DNA elements in the human genome

This was completely unexpected by atheists I converse with, and I think is great testimony of God's design.

 

[SkyWriting]

Wise advice indeed, yet you seem to have picked up their dodgy argument about embryonic development.

I'd love to study up on ""Embryological Evolution", but again, there is no such field of study with that title or any other title. It's imaginary.

How can you say there is no such field of study then show how you can google it?

I'll respond nicely. "Huh??"

Oh wait. You mean why did I google it? To show from the results that the field of study doesn't exist.
And you countered with Mr. Pidgin Chest. To which I respond, "That's not real science." Even if he looks like a fun guy.

You can't just rely on the appearance of a web page to filter out the dodgy sites.

Yes, one can. Sure, it takes practice. But with experience you can learn What a professional HTML programmer can do, and what is a page template. Let me find you two pages to compare. Lets use your word "Embryological".

Here is Wiki. It's pretty basic, but we know it has an entire staff working on page design as professionals. It looks like an Encyclopedia Britannica page to me. (Actually way classier than the Britannica page.)

Here is a page 2 result. As you can see, the professionalism has dropped off fast. This template page could be from any desktop publishing program. It has little advertising though, so some money is being spent.

In areas where there is a lot of popular pseudo science, you will often get plenty cross links to other pseudo scientific sites and online discussions making them appear high up in google searches. If there is money in the pseudo sciences or there are organised groups promoting it, as there is in medical quackery, climate change denial or creationism, you will often get very professional web design. The webpage you link to shows another problem. It is from the site PreserveArticles.com which:

is an online article publishing site that helps you to submit your knowledge so that it may be preserved for eternity. All the articles you read in this site are contributed by users like you, with a single vision to liberate knowledge.
​

Anybody could upload articles to the website and they will be displayed on a professional looking webpage. With the article you quote, the person who uploaded that article is a medical doctor, Nirmala Agarwal, from a fertility clinic in India. She may be a good doctor and very good on human embryology, but she isn't necessarily that good on the history of embryology, embryological evolution or comparative embryological genetics.

See? Your getting good at spotting junk sites. "PreserveArticles" suggests it is just some general purpose free article site that usually is paid for with ads.

Modern embryology isn't a modified form of Haeckel's recapitulation theory, it is much closer to Darwin's understanding which predated Haeckel. Darwins argument was that if organisms evolved from a common ancestor through a series of slight variations, with each variation taking effect at its own specific stage of developmen, as an embryo develops, the number of variations you can see accumulates, while the early embro will show very few of the changes. So species that are very different late in their development look very similar as embryos, looking like the embryo of their common ancestor. We now know these changes are caused by genes, and that these genes switch on and off at different stages of development.

If DNA changes while an individual is alive, then it's evolving. But that's another argument.

Don't think you did, but here is a good place to start:

http://pigeonchess.com/2012/05/31/gill-slits-by-any-other-name/
​

And now you've lost all my attention. Don't get me wrong, I still have friends as unique as Mr. Pigeon Chess. But I don't use them as examples of peer reviewed knowledge. I enjoy their company at Medieval Jousting though. This guy is not an unbiased scientist, but I see the type source whom you respect.

​

 

[SkyWriting]

90% of what evolutionists claim is dark matter, dark energy...etc...you can't see it, taste it, hear it, or detect it may any means....lies are institutional...the snowball effect.

No, they usually work off the idea of natural selection and come up with
some testable ideas. You are referring to the annoying 1% of the knowledge base that attempts to explain that all life came from one original source....or accident.

Most of evolution is just basic natural selection. It works for dog breeders, even if they are Creationists like us.

 

[Assyrian]

I'd love to study up on ""Embryological Evolution", but again, there is no such field of study with that title or any other title. It's imaginary.

What has that got to do with my point about you picking up creationist ideas even though you avoid creationist websites (after all these bogus arguments are repeated often enough here on cf.). When I said 'embryological evolution' it was a description of the area not the title you seem to think with your capitalised "Embryological Evolution". The field of study is Embryology. Yet even though you didn't find the title "Embryological Evolution" on the first page, the hits include a textbook on developmental biology, and article in The American Journal of Botany and a New York University page on Darwin's use of embryos as evidence for evolution.

I'll respond nicely. "Huh??"

Oh wait. You mean why did I google it? To show from the results that the field of study doesn't exist.

Instead of a hit and miss search with ordinary Google that throws up so many creationist sites, you would have been better off searching Google Scholar for embryological evolution.
Embryological evolution - Google Scholar
Which comes up with 51,700 hits on the subject in peer reviewed papers.

Or you could include quotations marks in the search to look for the exact phrase "'embryological evolution'"
"Embryological evolution" - Google Scholar
Only 109 hits but it shows biologists use and understand the phrase.

And you countered with Mr. Pidgin Chest. To which I respond, "That's not real science." Even if he looks like a fun guy.

If you are mocking Troy Britain on the Pigeon Chess website, that wasn't in response to your Google search for Embryological Evolution, it was in response to you saying:

I'm pretty sure I asked him for the source on that claim.
​

Sadly, when I did provide you with a source that gives a good introduction to the evidence, you could only respond by name calling.

Yes, one can. Sure, it takes practice. But with experience you can learn What a professional HTML programmer can do, and what is a page template. Let me find you two pages to compare. Lets use your word "Embryological".

Here is Wiki. It's pretty basic, but we know it has an entire staff working on page design as professionals. It looks like an Encyclopedia Britannica page to me. (Actually way classier than the Britannica page.)

Here is a page 2 result. As you can see, the professionalism has dropped off fast. This template page could be from any desktop publishing program. It has little advertising though, so some money is being spent.

See? Your getting good at spotting junk sites. "PreserveArticles" suggests it is just some general purpose free article site that usually is paid for with ads.

You missed my point. It isn't that design standards won't show up some 'Cheesy' websites, it can. That is why I said you can't just rely on it. But do you not think well funded loopy organisations can employ professional web designers? There is no use giving comparing examples of good design on a reputable site with bad design on a dodgy site, if you don't deal with the fact with the fact that some dodgy sites manage to look quite professional.

If DNA changes while an individual is alive, then it's evolving. But that's another argument.

I would prefer if you deal with the point I made.

And now you've lost all my attention. Don't get me wrong, I still have friends as unique as Mr. Pigeon Chess. But I don't use them as examples of peer reviewed knowledge. I enjoy their company at Medieval Jousting though. This guy is not an unbiased scientist, but I see the type source whom you respect.

Did you even attempt to read the passage I quoted? Or did you just look for an excuse to ignore evidence you asked for? Here it is again, I'll show you some of the important stuff you missed that have nothing to do with Troy's weight or love of medieval combat:

http://pigeonchess.com/2012/05/31/gill-slits-by-any-other-name/
At the genetic level there are two significant families of genes (Hox & Dlx) which control the development of the pharyngeal region of all vertebrates.

A nested set of Hox genes control the development of the pharyngeal structures head to tail (anterior to posterior) from just after the first pharyngeal arch (Hunt et al. 1991) (Prince et al. 1998) (Kuratani 2004). And likewise a nested set of Dlx gene are expressed in the development of the pharyngeal structures in the front to back (ventral/dorsal) direction (Schilling 2003) (MacDonald et al., 2010).
​

See the bits I highlighted in blue? These are references to actual peer reviewed journals like Development, the Journal of Anatomy, Heredity and the Journal of Applied Ichthyology. You will find detailed references at the bottom of the webpage. If you followed the link in the Kuratani reference you would find the pdf of the Journal of Anatomy paper that has the illustration I posted.

 

[SkyWriting]

What has that got to do with my point about you picking up creationist ideas even though you avoid creationist websites (after all these bogus arguments are repeated often enough here on cf.)

I'm not concerned with where you imagine I get my ideas from, nor do I care
who's posts you read, how often they express their views, or if they are valid.
When I do, I'll post on those threads. Point addressed.

... Yet even though you didn't find the title "Embryological Evolution" on the first page, the hits include a textbook on developmental biology, and article in The American Journal of Botany and a New York University page on Darwin's use of embryos as evidence for evolution.

Fetuses don't mate, reproduce, or are a separate species, so your idea fails many tests.

...you would have been better off searching Google Scholar ...Which comes up with 51,700 hits on the subject in peer reviewed papers.

I wasn't aware of it. Thanks for the new tool.

Or you could include quotations marks in the search to look for the exact phrase "'embryological evolution'"
"Embryological evolution" - Google Scholar
Only 109 hits but it shows biologists use and understand the phrase.

That means, as I said, its not a field of study or even a worthy paring of the two words.

"biological evolution" = About 1,080,000 results (0.37 seconds)
"nucleotide-binding protein" = About 28,200 results
"novel guanine nucleotide binding protein coupled" = About 58 results

109 hits is closer to 100 monkeys banging on typewriters than a valid concept.

If you are mocking Troy Britain on the Pigeon Chess website, that wasn't in response to your Google search for Embryological Evolution, it was in response to you saying:

I'm pretty sure I asked him for the source on that claim.
​

Sadly, when I did provide you with a source that gives a good introduction to the evidence, you could only respond by name calling.

Mr. Pigeon chess is not an unbiased source of information nor an
unbiased compiler of valid information. He has an agenda and his
website is clear that he "does battle" against those who oppose
his religion (evolution).

You missed my point. It isn't that design standards won't show up some 'Cheesy' websites, it can. That is why I said you can't just rely on it. But do you not think well funded loopy organisations can employ professional web designers? There is no use giving comparing examples of good design on a reputable site with bad design on a dodgy site, if you don't deal with the fact with the fact that some dodgy sites manage to look quite professional.

If you can't spot biased opinions on a web page, there's not
much I can say. If Mr.Pigeon Chess wasn't a red flag for you
then I can't help you.

Did you even attempt to read the passage I quoted? Or did you just look for an excuse to ignore evidence you asked for?

Absolutely not! I always evaluate my sources first
to save time. I've taken a number of college classes in
information & library science.

You're suggesting that you examine all Creationist ideas and
claims on their websites with an open mind? Or do you
evaluate the source....I'm wondering.
(Not wondering.)