Let's compare real science to "scientific creationism".

[LiveFreeOrDie]

Originally posted by npetreley
What are you finding so difficult about the concepts I've been expressing?

What are you finding so difficult to understand about the responses you have been receiving?

1. You refuse to acknowledge the fact that the Bible clearly says that creation was cursed as a result of the fall. So it is entirely possible that, assuming this pseudogene is in any way deficient and not intended for a beneficial purpose, this could be one of the affects of the fall.

You refuse to acknowledge the fact that there isn't one iota of empirical evidence to support the Bible's claim that a global flood and "fall" actually occurred. Ascribing pseudogenes to unsubstantiated events like "the fall" is clearly unscientific.

2. You won't even acknowledge the possibility that there may be a point to the pseudogene. You're only guessing, you haven't done ANY experiments to see if any of your guesses are worth the CO2 you produce making them, and then you have the gall to assume that your guess is good enough to draw conclusions about evolution or a designer.

You won't even acknowledge that it makes no difference if there is a point to the pseudogene. It looks just like a broken copy of the vitamin C gene but it doesn't make vitamin C. You offer no information about the nature or methods of the designer, and then you have the gall to assume that the broken vitamin C gene is evidence of his or her work.

3. So there's a stop codon. Whoopie. What happened to your evolutionist imagination? Surely if you were motivated to do so, you could come up with dozens of fairy tales to explain how a stop codon that produces what you currently THINK is a non-functional protein could actually turn out to be a purposeful design detail. I can think of a few right off the top of my head, but I won't bother sharing since that would lower me to the same level as evolutionists, which is way out of the bounds of science.

So you can think of a few fairy tale functions. Whoopie. Surely if you were motivated to do so you could think of a lab experiment to test your fairy tale theory. I can think of a few right off the top of my head, but I won't bother sharing since that would let all the hot air out of your bluster balloon.

4. It's energetically wasteful? Sez you! It is only energetically wasteful IF ALL OF YOUR ASSUMPTIONS ARE TRUE. And you haven't done ANYTHING to prove that they are. You simply assume they are. Fix it. Change it. Experiment. Prove it. Stop pretending to be a scientist and actually do some real scientific work to find out if anything you think has any merit.

I find it extremely ironic that you don't hold creationists to the same standards. When was the last time creationists ever tested their assumptions. Global Flood? We can just assume it happened 'cause the Bible says so. "The Fall"? We can just assume it happened 'cause the Bible says so.

Stop pretending to be objective and look at yourself in the mirror.

 

[Morat]

  I think in Nick's magical, happy world, STOP codon's don't actually stop anything.

   Seriously, isn't that what he's arguing? That a stop codon doesn't really stop transciption?

alex:

Cursed monkeys and guinea pigs... Yes, logically i deduce that we must be related to some apes. Rufus, this doesn't make sense. Please bridge this gap for us lesser-minded.

  "Or those of us who haven't read the whole thread". The reason we get scurvy (which is a vitamin C deficiency) is because the gene for doing so is broken in Humans, monkeys, and guinea pigs, whereas every other mammal has a working copy of that gene, in the same place. You get scurvy when you don't eat enough foods rich in Vitamin C.

   It is broken identically in humans and monkeys, and in a completely seperate way in guinea pigs.

   Such pseudogenes (like retroviral insertions) are quite compelling evidence of common descent because when you chart which species have which, you find the same pattern you get when you compare Cytochrome C or examine the fossil record. You see the nested heirchy of common descent.

 

 

[alexgb00]

So it's broken in both humans and guinea pigs, but broken in a completely different way? What does that matter? But i think Nick is right about this -- we don't see the pseudogene's function, but doesn't mean it has none. Maybe it will be apparent in a few years.

You say "The reason we get scurvy is because the gene for doing so is broken in Humans." Am i understanding you, are you saying that there is a gene meant for getting scurvy, but it's not working? Please rephrase so i can understand you.

God bless you, Morat.
Alex

 

[Morat]

  It'd help if you read the thread. There is a gene, in humans, that in all other mammals, makes Vitamin C. It doesn't in humans and monkeys because the gene is broken in a very specific manner, a manner identical in monkeys and humans.

  It also doesn't in guinea pigs, but the gene is broken in a much different manner. Since we can't make Vitamin C, we have to get Vitamin C from our diet. If we don't get enough, we get scurvy. THUS, if our gene for vitamin C worked, we couldn't get scurvy.

  We know it doesn't have fuction because there is a STOP codon at the beginning. STOP codons stop transcription. To use a programming analogy, the Vitamin C gene is "commented out". It is a chunk of DNA code that isn't used. It's skipped over.

   Would you like to learn about STOP codons? I can find a basic source, if you want. Stop codons end protein synsthesis until a Start codon. Anything between a stop and a start is ignored. It isn't used to make proteins. It's commented out code.

   They've evidence for common descent because you find pseudogenes replicated in the patterns of common descent.

 

[alexgb00]

OK, i understand that, Morat. But is this supposed to disprove the idea that God created us?

You're a programmer, and you compare programming to genetics. I think that's a fine analogy. But how do you suppose genes came into existence? Would you believe that C++ came into existence by a blank text document changing and rearranging every few minutes? This doesn't make sense, and it isn't fair to call people who don't believe this (us Creationists) less scientific.

Is there an explanation why evolution supposedly brought about all genes, but left this one gene useless? Please share with us.

Thanks, Morat.

 

[Morat]

OK, i understand that, Morat. But is this supposed to disprove the idea that God created us?

  No. Pseudogenes are considered evidence of common descent. Common descent, like all science, says nothing about God.

You're a programmer, and you compare programming to genetics. I think that's a fine analogy. But how do you suppose genes came into existence? Would you believe that C++ came into existence by a blank text document changing and rearranging every few minutes?

  Nope. I'm quite familiar with the history of all programming languages. However, I have used genetic algorithms in programming, which would be a more valid analogy (as in GA's replicate the concepts used in evolution, instead of being vaguely analogous).

  However, should you add in two changes (a source of randomness akin to mutation) and a filter (natural selection), you could develop a programming language. It'd be very odd, and jury-rigged, and thus full of things no programmer would ever add.

   Much like life.

 This doesn't make sense, and it isn't fair to call people who don't believe this (us Creationists) less scientific.

  It's a good thing biologists don't make those claims. It's hardly my fault, much less biologies, that your strawman of evolution doesn't make sense to you.

  Perhaps if you studied the real theory, available freely from universities and college textbooks around the world, you'd have a better grasp.

Is there an explanation why evolution supposedly brought about all genes, but left this one gene useless? Please share with us.

   Because it's broken? And because breaking it didn't kill us. We have a diet rich in Vitamin C. Until we started expanding away from places with such rich food sources, and started traveling the ocean.

   Evolution isn't forward looking. It's entirely focused on the here and now (or there and then, so to speak).

 

[LewisWildermuth]

No Alex, that is a common misconception, Evolution is not about who is resposible for it or why anything happens, just how.

God said he created man. And this I believe. Evolution seems to be how God did it. Evolution does not deny the glory of God. Although I can see how it might hurt the pride of man, but God often dislikes the pride of man anyway so no big loss.

 

[alexgb00]

Lewis, how does Creation hurt man's pride? I think it's the other way around -- God is the Creator, and we are the "createes." We need to know that He can do all things, not us.

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by alexgb00
You say "The reason we get scurvy is because the gene for doing so is broken in Humans." Am i understanding you, are you saying that there is a gene meant for getting scurvy, but it's not working? Please rephrase so i can understand you.

ROFL! I think I have one of those scurvy genes, but it's not working.

[sarcasm]

Clearly this particular "broken gene" is evidence of a harmful mutation, since the human race all got scurvy and went extinct.

[/sarcasm]

 

[Didaskomenos]

Originally posted by alexgb00
Lewis, how does Creation hurt man's pride? I think it's the other way around -- God is the Creator, and we are the "createes." We need to know that He can do all things, not us.

Certainly, but why does evolution suggest to you that we have more to do with our being here than creationism does? Besides, Lewis was saying that it's evolution that hurts our pride.

 

[LewisWildermuth]

Originally posted by alexgb00
Lewis, how does Creation hurt man's pride? I think it's the other way around -- God is the Creator, and we are the "createes." We need to know that He can do all things, not us.

I've long ago learned to accept it and now don't see why it was such a problem, but many of the evolution denying creationists I know have had a problem with being related to the other animals on this planet.

I have heard it many times "Your uncle may have been a monkey, but I'm decended from Adam" It's like they have a disgust for all other life in this world even though God created it too.

Would God love us any less if he chose evolution as the method to create us? I don't think so. And so far all the evidence we find in nature points strongly toward evolution and since nature or God's creation provides proof of Gods glory I'm not about to say that the natural processes of creation are ugly.

 

[chickenman]

1. You refuse to acknowledge the fact that the Bible clearly says that creation was cursed as a result of the fall. So it is entirely possible that, assuming this pseudogene is in any way deficient and not intended for a beneficial purpose, this could be one of the affects of the fall.

he cursed the primates and the guinea pig, but he left the other mammals a working copy. In the urate oxidase pseudogene, he also did a rather thourough job with the cursing, because there are redundant stop codons, he only needed to include one to break the gene.

2. You won't even acknowledge the possibility that there may be a point to the pseudogene. You're only guessing, you haven't done ANY experiments to see if any of your guesses are worth the CO2 you produce making them, and then you have the gall to assume that your guess is good enough to draw conclusions about evolution or a designer.

the reason I don't think this is acceptable is because it clearly looks a lot like another gene which DID once have a function. It's like looking at a broken rusty old car at the dump with no wheels and assuming that it must have some purpose other than vehicular transport because it doesn't function as a car anymore.

3. So there's a stop codon. Whoopie. What happened to your evolutionist imagination? Surely if you were motivated to do so, you could come up with dozens of fairy tales to explain how a stop codon that produces what you currently THINK is a non-functional protein could actually turn out to be a purposeful design detail. I can think of a few right off the top of my head, but I won't bother sharing since that would lower me to the same level as evolutionists, which is way out of the bounds of science.

Nonsense mediated mRNA decay. Read it.
http://144.92.19.47/hypothesis.htm

4. It's energetically wasteful? Sez you! It is only energetically wasteful IF ALL OF YOUR ASSUMPTIONS ARE TRUE. And you haven't done ANYTHING to prove that they are. You simply assume they are. Fix it. Change it. Experiment. Prove it. Stop pretending to be a scientist and actually do some real scientific work to find out if anything you think has any merit.

If its translated up to the stop codon then it wastes at least 1 Triphosphate (a basic energy molecule which all cells use for energy) for each base that's transcribed. That doesn't take into account the energy required to perform the process of transcription.

As for telling me to go out and do experiments to prove all this? All these processes have been established already via experimentation. To suggest that scientists do this kind of thing for every gene, pseudogene, to see if the basic processes work the same in each case is ridiculous. Scientists have more productive things to do than to justify evolution to creationists.

 

[alexgb00]

originally posted by CM:
The reason I don't think this is acceptable is because it clearly looks a lot like another gene which DID once have a function. It's like looking at a broken rusty old car at the dump with no wheels and assuming that it must have some purpose other than vehicular transport because it doesn't function as a car anymore.

No, you have that turned around. Saying that the pseudogene is evidence that God doesn't exist is like looking at a wrecked car and saying its bad condition shows that it never had a manufacturer.

I don't think God ever put anything deficient or "broken" into us. What we witness today didn't take place before the fall, and maybe even before the flood. After the flood, (if you read Genesis 5 and 10) the average lifetime decreased quickly. This shows that perhaps, there was something different in the surroundings (atmospheric content, vegetation, temperature). Perhaps this is where inbreeding started, and evolution first took place -- some genes got messed up. And today we blame God for this.

Maybe not. I'm just speculating.

 

[RufusAtticus]

Alex,

How does the Fall also explain that the exact same pseudogene with the same breakage also occurs in Old World and New World Monkeys and Apes?

 

[alexgb00]

It's hard to believe statements like this without any reference, but i'll give you the benefit of doubt.

I can't explain this. But there were only a pair of each unclean animal on the ark -- there could've been some gene-twisting in both humans, apes and monkeys when they had offspring.

And i thought humans were related to apes, not monkeys. If this is true and the pseudogene is the same in all three, then how do we know we're not from monkeys? By the way, Rufus, i've never heard of a monkey or ape getting scurvy in nature. They eat enough fruit. It's we who don't follow good eating habits.

OK, that's all i have to say. God bless!

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by alexgb00
And i thought humans were related to apes, not monkeys.

Actually, we're related to bananas, which I read somewhere shares about about half our DNA. I guess that's where the expression "banana republic" comes from.

 

[LewisWildermuth]

Originally posted by alexgb00
It's hard to believe statements like this without any reference, but i'll give you the benefit of doubt.

I can't explain this. But there were only a pair of each unclean animal on the ark -- there could've been some gene-twisting in both humans, apes and monkeys when they had offspring.

And i thought humans were related to apes, not monkeys. If this is true and the pseudogene is the same in all three, then how do we know we're not from monkeys? By the way, Rufus, i've never heard of a monkey or ape getting scurvy in nature. They eat enough fruit. It's we who don't follow good eating habits.

OK, that's all i have to say. God bless!

They don't get scurvy because their diet is high in vitiman C naturaly because of the areas that they live in. Humans never got scurvy until we pushed out of habitats with things full of vitamin c, since we can bring things in that have vit. c we can live there, but not being able or even knowing to do this keeps monkeys and apes limited in their habitats. There is little selective force to correct this mutation since monkeys and apes are forest dewllers and vit c is plentiful in the plants they eat, that's why evolution never fixed that error, it wasn't detrimental to survival in the short term. But now we are stuck with that legast and have to rely on supliments ans imported fruits.

And yes genecticaly monkeys are related to us too, just not as closely as the great apes. In the fosil record monkeys seem to have appeared after the world recovered from the k/t event that killed the dinosaurs, and for a long time it was just monkeys in the fosil record, then the great apes started showing up and withing the last 1my or so hominids.

 

[alexgb00]

Originally posted by npetreley
Actually, we're related to bananas, which I read somewhere shares about about half our DNA. I guess that's where the expression "banana republic" comes from.

  Man, Nick! That made me laugh out loud. You've got a good sense of humor.

I'll be back with a funny joke of my own. I just got to remember something.

God bless you, man!

 

[alexgb00]

Originally posted by LewisWildermuth
They don't get scurvy because their diet is high in vitiman C naturaly because of the areas that they live in. Humans never got scurvy until we pushed out of habitats with things full of vitamin c, since we can bring things in that have vit. c we can live there, but not being able or even knowing to do this keeps monkeys and apes limited in their habitats. There is little selective force to correct this mutation since monkeys and apes are forest dewllers and vit c is plentiful in the plants they eat, that's why evolution never fixed that error, it wasn't detrimental to survival in the short term. But now we are stuck with that legast and have to rely on supliments ans imported fruits.

Yeah, that's right. By the way, some other diseases are caused by lack of vitamins, like rickets. Some people even believe that cancer is caused by a simple lack of vitamin B17.

In the fosil record monkeys seem to have appeared after the world recovered from the k/t event that killed the dinosaurs, and for a long time it was just monkeys in the fosil record, then the great apes started showing up and withing the last 1my or so hominids.

What's the "k/t" event, again? I seem to be kind of backward.

I believe that God created humans and all plants and animals, Lewis -- apes, monkeys... I don't think people came from animals, but all the races are from Noah and his sons (i suppose one of his sons was oriental, one was white, one was black, and nobody can know what Noah was). But that's just sharing what i think.

It's nice talking to you, man.

 

[Annabel Lee]

This may have been posted before but here is a link to a Creation Evidence Museum in Texas.....opinions?
http://www.creationevidence.org/

From the Introduction:
"Among museums this entity makes a unique contribution, demonstrating that man and dinosaur lived contemporaneously"