Original Research--join In

WisdomSpy · Dec 7, 2014

Just so we are clear on definitions, let me give an example:
Craig Venter "created" what he called "the first artificial cell" by stringing together DNA of one million molecules and inserting it into a cell which he had previously evacuated most or all of the native DNA. (google it) Now, suppose this cell undergoes numerous mutations during future years. Then, suppose a new researcher discovers this cell and inspects its DNA. Could he come to a correct conclusion about the origin of this cell? What would you say is the true origin of the cell?

justlookinla · Dec 7, 2014

WisdomSpy said:
Just so we are clear on definitions, let me give an example:
Craig Venter "created" what he called "the first artificial cell" by stringing together DNA of one million molecules and inserting it into a cell which he had previously evacuated most or all of the native DNA. (google it) Now, suppose this cell undergoes numerous mutations during future years. Then, suppose a new researcher discovers this cell and inspects its DNA. Could he come to a correct conclusion about the origin of this cell?

Depends on what changes the mutations make the the DNA. I googled the information on Venter's experiment and this came up.....

"The single-celled organism has four "watermarks" written into its DNA to identify it as synthetic and help trace its descendants back to their creator, should they go astray.

"We were ecstatic when the cells booted up with all the watermarks in place," Dr Venter told the Guardian. "It's a living species now, part of our planet's inventory of life."

Dr Venter's team developed a new code based on the four letters of the genetic code, G, T, C and A, that allowed them to draw on the whole alphabet, numbers and punctuation marks to write the watermarks. Anyone who cracks the code is invited to email an address written into the DNA."

Craig Venter creates synthetic life form | Science | The Guardian

If future mutations 'write out' the the "watermarks", then the source of the DNA probably could not be determined.

What would you say is the true origin of the cell?

Craig Venter, the intelligent designer. And of course his team also...probably couldn't have done it alone.

USincognito · Dec 7, 2014

justlookinla said:
And the source of gravity and conservation of angular momentum? Eventually we'll get to uncaused first cause.

Turtles all the way down.

WisdomSpy · Dec 7, 2014

Justlookinla: (in response to the question: What would you say is the true origin of the cell?)
Craig Venter, the intelligent designer. And of course his team also...probably couldn't have done it alone.

Yes. You are perhaps beginning to see the problem. It's actually a misnomer to say that Venter created artificial life because he did not create the multiple proteins and enzymes within the manipulated cell, all of which are crucial to "reading" his artificially-created DNA string, and housing it safely. Further; if a researcher in the future did not recognize the "watermarks" or know the proper code to read them, wouldn't he then naturally fall back on his chosen presuppositions about life's origins? If he be an evolutionist, he would likely make a partially (at least) errant conclusion that this cell arose completely by evolution. If, on the other hand, a creationist was viewing the future evidence, he might conclude that God had created the original cell type long ago and natural processes such as mutations and natural selection (AKA "evolution") had altered it subsequent to that. But there is something else which could be logically concluded, based upon the evidence contained in the DNA and a basic knowledge of the genetic code--that is what my research was all about.

sfs · Dec 7, 2014

Why don't you just go ahead and describe your research?

bhsmte · Dec 7, 2014

WisdomSpy said:
I have read a lot of opinions regarding the supposed veracity of evolution, usually without the term being defined. This failure to clarify meaning only leads to further misunderstandings. Remember that science is mans tool with which he tries to understand nature. Likewise, theology is mans tool with which he tries to make sense out of spiritual realities. Specifically, biblical theology is a tool to more fully comprehend the meaning of the Bible. It is important to realize that science and theology are both opinion-based endeavors.

Lets be clear: various constructions of creationism are essentially opinions based upon evidence from scripture and nature. Granted, various evidences are given different weights based upon prepositional biases or worldviews. Yet, to imagine that evolutionism does not exercise bias and presupposition and weighting of evidence, is simply not honest. It is also not honest to say that creationists dont do any real research.

I am going to post a challenge to any and all honest souls who would like to participate in some real research. I actually did some original research within the past year which any of you could replicate or add to. Since the advent of the internet, you really do not need to be a trained biologist with various degrees, such as I, to do this research. I wont even tell you my conclusionsyou can come to your own when you do the research for yourself. It involves genes and simulating the expected results of various mutations on them. I discovered an amazing phenomenon that has direct and profound impact on the theory of evolution, specifically related to origins.

I dont want to waste my time, so if 5 people or more would simply respond by agreeing to follow this through, I will walk you through the steps, which are not really hard to do. If you understand the basic concepts of DNA, the genetic code, mutations, and how DNA is read in order to turn its code into proteins/enzymes, then you should be able to keep up. All of these basic things can be gleaned from wiki and other easily-found web sources. If you are with me, just respond yes.

The vast majority of people who do not understand or accept evolution, do so because they fear the theory threatening a specific faith belief.

Some will never be ready and others, eventually are on their own time and place.

justlookinla · Dec 7, 2014

bhsmte said:
The vast majority of people who do not understand or accept evolution, do so because they fear the theory threatening a specific faith belief.

No, there's no fear involved, simply a rejection of a particular evolutionary view of atheistic Darwinist creationism. Many have examined the faith-based claims of that creationist view and found them lacking.

Some will never be ready and others, eventually are on their own time and place.

And some, after examining the atheistic Darwinist creationist view will reject it on their own time and place.

WisdomSpy · Dec 8, 2014

The "engine of evolution" is said to be mutation and natural selection. A huge amount of confidence has been placed by evolutionists in the ability of this engine to accomplish virtually anything... like putting wings on dinosaurs! If this were true, this engine would have to be able and competent to create genes (and lots of them). Evolutionists often assume that once one gene or group of genes came into existence (never mind that they can't explain how), it/they could simply be duplicated and mutated in order to get other ones. What my research shows is that this idea is patently false. When I downloaded numerous gene sequences from various databanks and simulated a mutation near each one's beginning, something astonishing occurred related simply to their length. Almost every type of mutation that might result in a significantly new gene sequence has a high probability of destroying the previously-effective frame reading. When that happens, gene length gets shorter virtually every time--and a lot shorter. Genes that are hundreds of nucleotides long become only 20 or 30 long after mutation. Now, if mutation were really the engine of biological diversity, it would have to begin in the genes. If it were the real engine of gene creation, then nature should be full of very short genes, on average. In fact, just the opposite is true--the average human gene is around 27 thousand molecules in length. The Dystrophin gene is around 80 thousand. How in the world could mutations have created these, when mutations usually shorten things, not lengthen them?
You can replicate my research easily--google "gene databank" and pick your favorite one, or just the first 100-200 molecules in sequence. Copy and past this into your Word program, then begin to insert a space between each three letters, right after the start codon (ATG), so you can easily recognize when one of the three stop codons shows up (TAA, TGA or TAG). In the native gene, it only shows up at the end (hundreds or thousands of molecules along). Now, add a point-mutation right after the start codon, in the un-separated sequence--place an X there in that sequence. Now, separate the new sequence as before and look for the stop codons--magically, they appear all over the place at frequent intervals (about once every 21-23 codons, according to my studies). The same thing occurs whenever you add two X's (or subtract one from the original). These types of mutations disturb the "frame reading" of functional genes and create junk, not higher and better genes or creatures. Go to Wiki's site on frame shift mutations and see how many diseases are now know to be the result. And then ask yourself if natural selection is doing anything to improve these things in the population. Now, take this easily-verifiable knowledge of the effects of mutation and ask yourself if the "engine of evolution" is anything but a pipe-dream in the mind of people who ignore the cell biochemistry. This information represents, to me, the most powerful refutation of evolution, aside from small, mostly deleterious changes. Dino's could never sprout wings on their own because mutations are powerless to create the vast number of lengthy genes needed. BTW--recent evidence shows that there are 1500 genes which are different between chimps and humans. Is it rational to assume that this could have been produced by the "engine of evolution"? It's about time evolutionists studied their cell biology and chemistry and applied some real knowledge instead of wishful thinking.

sfs · Dec 8, 2014

WisdomSpy said:
The "engine of evolution" is said to be mutation and natural selection. A huge amount of confidence has been placed by evolutionists in the ability of this engine to accomplish virtually anything... like putting wings on dinosaurs! If this were true, this engine would have to be able and competent to create genes (and lots of them). Evolutionists often assume that once one gene or group of genes came into existence (never mind that they can't explain how), it/they could simply be duplicated and mutated in order to get other ones. What my research shows is that this idea is patently false. When I downloaded numerous gene sequences from various databanks and simulated a mutation near each one's beginning, something astonishing occurred related simply to their length. Almost every type of mutation that might result in a significantly new gene sequence has a high probability of destroying the previously-effective frame reading. When that happens, gene length gets shorter virtually every time--and a lot shorter. Genes that are hundreds of nucleotides long become only 20 or 30 long after mutation. Now, if mutation were really the engine of biological diversity, it would have to begin in the genes. If it were the real engine of gene creation, then nature should be full of very short genes, on average. In fact, just the opposite is true--the average human gene is around 27 thousand molecules in length. The Dystrophin gene is around 80 thousand. How in the world could mutations have created these, when mutations usually shorten things, not lengthen them?
You can replicate my research easily--google "gene databank" and pick your favorite one, or just the first 100-200 molecules in sequence. Copy and past this into your Word program, then begin to insert a space between each three letters, right after the start codon (ATG), so you can easily recognize when one of the three stop codons shows up (TAA, TGA or TAG). In the native gene, it only shows up at the end (hundreds or thousands of molecules along). Now, add a point-mutation right after the start codon, in the un-separated sequence--place an X there in that sequence. Now, separate the new sequence as before and look for the stop codons--magically, they appear all over the place at frequent intervals (about once every 21-23 codons, according to my studies). The same thing occurs whenever you add two X's (or subtract one from the original). These types of mutations disturb the "frame reading" of functional genes and create junk, not higher and better genes or creatures. Go to Wiki's site on frame shift mutations and see how many diseases are now know to be the result. And then ask yourself if natural selection is doing anything to improve these things in the population. Now, take this easily-verifiable knowledge of the effects of mutation and ask yourself if the "engine of evolution" is anything but a pipe-dream in the mind of people who ignore the cell biochemistry. This information represents, to me, the most powerful refutation of evolution, aside from small, mostly deleterious changes. Dino's could never sprout wings on their own because mutations are powerless to create the vast number of lengthy genes needed. BTW--recent evidence shows that there are 1500 genes which are different between chimps and humans. Is it rational to assume that this could have been produced by the "engine of evolution"? It's about time evolutionists studied their cell biology and chemistry and applied some real knowledge instead of wishful thinking.

Sorry, but your result is neither new nor surprising. Frame-shift mutations are very well known to cause premature stop codons; google "indel" and "premature stop" and you'll find 475,000 hits. Since they tend to be quite disruptive, such mutations are usually weeded out by natural selection. They also represent a small fraction of mutations in coding sequence: most mutations are single-base substitutions, not insertions or deletions.

If you compare genes between humans and chimpanzees, you'll find that on average (median), each gene has five single-base differences between the two species; of these, 2 change a single amino acid and 3 leave the amino acids alone. Only 5% of genes, or about 1000 genes, have an insertion or deletion distinguishing the two species. Of these, something like 98% do not cause frame shifts, since they insert or delete a multiple of three bases. And yet there are 35 million genetic differences between humans and chimps.

The kind of small insertions and deletions you're talking about is not a major mechanism for increasing the size of genes. Mutation of an existing stop codon can make genes longer, but larger scale mutations are (I think) more of a factor. These include rearrangements that combine parts of two existing genes, and the insertion of reverse-transcribed messenger RNA near an existing gene. Quite a lot is known about the birth of new genes, although there is much still to learn. You could start with this review to learn about the current state of knowledge.

Honestly, did you think that this sort of issue wouldn't have occurred to geneticists and evolutionary biologists, who spend most of their waking lives thinking about genes?

bhsmte · Dec 8, 2014

sfs said:
Sorry, but your result is neither new nor surprising. Frame-shift mutations are very well known to cause premature stop codons; google "indel" and "premature stop" and you're find 475,000 hits. Since they tend to be quite disruptive, such mutations are usually weeded out by natural selection. They also represent a small fraction of mutations in coding sequence: most mutations are single-base substitutions, not insertions or deletions.

If you compare genes between humans and chimpanzees, you'll find that on average (median), each gene has five single-base differences between the two species that; of these, 2 change a single amino acid and 3 leave the amino acids alone. Only 5% of genes, or about 1000 genes, have an insertion or deletion distinguishing the two species. Of these, something like 98% do not cause frame shifts, since they insert or delete a multiple of three bases. And yet there are 35 million genetic differences between humans and chimps.

The kind of small insertions and deletions you're talking about are not a major mechanism for increasing the size of genes. Mutation of an existing stop codon can make genes longer, but larger scale mutations are (I think) more of a factor. These include rearrangements that combine parts of two existing genes, and the insertion of reverse-transcribed messenger RNA near an existing gene. Quite a lot is known about the birth of new genes, although there is much still to learn. You could start with this review to learn about the current state of knowledge.

Honestly, did you think that this sort of issue wouldn't have occurred to geneticists and evolutionary biologists, who spend most of their waking lives thinking about genes?

Your last point, is always what immediately comes to mind when I see threads like this. It is as if, someone looking stuff up on the internet, is going to discover something thousands of scientists have missed.

WisdomSpy · Dec 8, 2014

SFS said; "Since they tend to be quite disruptive, such mutations [frame shift] are usually weeded out by natural selection."

Well, that is the typical boiler-plate response I've seen before. The problem with it is that natural selection operates on populations of living organisms, creatures, NOT on populations of genes. Natural selection is powerless to act within cells--it operates on the principle of survival of fitter ORGANISMS, not the genes within organisms.

Certainly, the recognition of premature stop codons and frame shift mutations has been know about by many. The problem is that they have not thought it through in a mechanistic nuts-and-bolts fashion, applying the knowledge to supposed origins of life or origins of major living groups of creatures.

A point you also apparently neglected to consider is that ANY mutation of larger size that inserts anywhere in a previously function gene has a 2/3 chance of disturbing the frame reading and thus creating junk. Multiply that by just a few genes and the resultant genome quickly starts to become overwhelmed with junk.

The cool thing about this research is that anyone can make it unique by choosing your own gene or set of genes and seeing what happens, without the need for high power computer programs. You can literally prove to yourself what the so-called "engine of evolution" really does. Then, you can begin thinking about the origins of genes and of life.

You might be aware of the results of the ENCODE project--indicating that very little "junk DNA" is actually present in genomes (contrary to previous thoughts). Considering the results of frame shifts, how do you suppose that genomes got so "cleaned up"? Natural selection doesn't work at the gene level--genes don't compete for sustenance and survival and they don't die individually while leaving other individual genes to take their place. There is no mechanism within cells to determine whether a particular gene will add or subtract from the cell or organism's eventual survival. There is no INTERNAL selection pressure to clean up genomes. Selection pressure is applied only to the complete cell or organism--it lives or dies, in competition with other cells or organisms, based upon the sum total of its genome.

Furthermore, way too much faith is put in the supposed competition between cells and organisms. For example; what kind of competition exists or could ever have existed within the plant kingdom so as to produce the myriad of species we see today?

sfs · Dec 8, 2014

WisdomSpy said:
SFS said; "Since they tend to be quite disruptive, such mutations [frame shift] are usually weeded out by natural selection."

Well, that is the typical boiler-plate response I've seen before. The problem with it is that natural selection operates on populations of living organisms, creatures, NOT on populations of genes. Natural selection is powerless to act within cells--it operates on the principle of survival of fitter ORGANISMS, not the genes within organisms.

This response reveals a serious misunderstanding, I'm afraid. Damaging mutations, a category that includes many frame-shift mutations, are bad precisely because they hurt the organism. If you were born with a frame-shift in an important gene, you'll have problems: you'll be weaker, sicker, slower, dumber or less attractive than others of your species, or just plain dead. Any of which will mean you'll be less likely to pass on your mutation to offspring, which in turn makes it more likely that the mutation will vanish.

If you're going to criticize Darwinian evolution, you really have to grasp its central concept, and so far you clearly don't.

Certainly, the recognition of premature stop codons and frame shift mutations has been know about by many. The problem is that they have not thought it through in a mechanistic nuts-and-bolts fashion, applying the knowledge to supposed origins of life or origins of major living groups of creatures.

Premature stop codons have nothing to do with the origin of life (which likely did not involve DNA at all), and nothing you've written has had anything to do with the origins of major living groups of creatures. I don't see what this comment is doing in this discussion.

A point you also apparently neglected to consider is that ANY mutation of larger size that inserts anywhere in a previously function gene has a 2/3 chance of disturbing the frame reading and thus creating junk.

Don't be ridiculous. My reply assumed that very obvious fact.

Multiply that by just a few genes and the resultant genome quickly starts to become overwhelmed with junk.

No, it doesn't. You really should learn about natural selection. It's what prevents damaging mutations from accumulating in genomes.

You might be aware of the results of the ENCODE project--indicating that very little "junk DNA" is actually present in genomes (contrary to previous thoughts).

I'm also aware that the ENCODE project showed that most of the genome was biochemically active, not that its sequence made any difference to the organism. Or rather, only one of the ENCODE papers attempted to estimate how much of the genome actually mattered, this one by Manolis Kellis's group; that paper concludes that ~10% of the genome has real function, in the sense meant by most people. (I've discussed this issue with members of the ENCODE consortium at length, by the way.)

Considering the results of frame shifts, how do you suppose that genomes got so "cleaned up"? Natural selection doesn't work at the gene level--genes don't compete for sustenance and survival and they don't die individually while leaving other individual genes to take their place. There is no mechanism within cells to determine whether a particular gene will add or subtract from the cell or organism's eventual survival. There is no INTERNAL selection pressure to clean up genomes. Selection pressure is applied only to the complete cell or organism--it lives or dies, in competition with other cells or organisms, based upon the sum total of its genome.

Keep going -- you're almost there. What do you think happens to the bad mutations when the organisms carrying them die? Are they magically transported to other organisms, or do they die too?

Furthermore, way too much faith is put in the supposed competition between cells and organisms. For example; what kind of competition exists or could ever have existed within the plant kingdom so as to produce the myriad of species we see today?

Competition for light, for space, for nutrients, for water. Competition to resist insects and other animals trying to eat them. Competition anyone can observe in any forest.

Again, you really need to learn something about biology.

WisdomSpy · Dec 10, 2014

Sassy Evolutionists

I have debated numerous evolutionists about various aspects of the theory. Invariably, they end up resorting to very sassy responses. Why is that? I think it is because they are confusing two important concepts. The word SCIENCE rightly means knowledge—things that can be seen, touched, perhaps smelled and listened to. Something else often happens in association with the practice of science, which I call science-associated-speculation (SAS). And evolutionists are full of SAS. They confuse or conflate it with actual science. And if you point this out to them, they get pretty sassy.
So, there is an enormous amount of speculation about how the myriads of very long genes could have originated in the millions of different creatures, over whatever length of time you might suppose. Genes could have been accidentally duplicated and then spliced into other genes, creating something entirely new. The question which should always be asked in these cases is where the pure unadulterated science ends and the SAS begins. Can the speculative mechanism actually be observed and repeated? Have we witnessed such a thing occurring in the laboratory? Can you show me genomic data from before and after, which rules out other mechanisms, such as Craig Venter’s alterations of the DNA?
The honest answer to most probing questions like these is; nope. Duplicate copies of many genes have certainly been seen in various plants and animals. Do you think that they might have a designed purpose? That possibility is never considered by naturalists. It violates their presuppositions. Therefore, the only speculation they allow is that it is always accidental and must represent part of the engine of evolution. Have they witnessed this engine actually creating an entirely new, unique and useful gene? Perhaps Richard Lenski’s experiments involving over 35,000 generations of E. coli showed us this mechanism in action. Nope and nope. In his results, not even one new set of start and stop codons were generated, with something novel in between. That fact alone should cause evolutionists to bridle their sassiness.
For too long evolutionists have confused or conflated associations or similarities with causation. In all likelihood, Craig Venter’s million-long DNA creation which he inserted into several native cells contains sections which appear very similar to native sequences. Is anyone going to tell Venter that he didn’t really create anything—that everything within those altered cells is actually a product of evolution only? Plenty of plausible speculation could be offered as to how evolution might have done it. The problem is that the speculation would be wrong, as speculation often is. Hence, we see the need to always keep our minds keen and vigilant to separate pure science from the adulterations which frequently accompany it.
It's also helpful to avoid pedantic condescending ad hominem and instead engage with the substance of the contended issue at hand. SFS's beliefs about how natural selection works are just that -- beliefs. Natural selection is doing nothing to clear the faulty genomes of muscular dystrophies and many cancers, etc., either inside their cells or in the population of human beings. Most of these individuals reproduce before they die. The fact is that evolutionists have no valid explanation for abiogenesis, nor the origins of multitudes of genes and epigenetic elements which far exceed the measly tinkering which mutations offer. I am not aware of any comprehensive application of evolution theory which honestly lays out a multiple step-by-step set of transitions from one life-form to another, say a bacteria to a paramecium or any such pair, accounting for where the huge amount of new genes, many of them very lengthy, came from. Hint: Craig Venter knows how to do it. Who's to say there aren't minds outside of our galaxy which far surpass Venter's intelligence. Venter showed us that intelligent design works. What's inhibiting you from believing in a greater intelligence? This proposition accounts for the evidence in all areas--abiogenesis and major life forms. Certainly many mutations did some tinkering along the way and natural selection worked a little here and there.

I'm curious, SFS and others--have you read the little book; Signature of Controversy or the 600-pager; Signature in the Cell?

PsychoSarah · Dec 10, 2014

Sir, would you kindly space up that text wall? My ADHD brain can't read that much text without some space

Split Rock · Dec 11, 2014

WisdomSpy said:
So, there is an enormous amount of speculation about how the myriads of very long genes could have originated in the millions of different creatures, over whatever length of time you might suppose. Genes could have been accidentally duplicated and then spliced into other genes, creating something entirely new. The question which should always be asked in these cases is where the pure unadulterated science ends and the SAS begins. Can the speculative mechanism actually be observed and repeated? Have we witnessed such a thing occurring in the laboratory? Can you show me genomic data from before and after, which rules out other mechanisms, such as Craig Venters alterations of the DNA?

The evolution of anti-freeze glycoproteins in Antarctic toothfish is a good example. These evolved from a gene encoding a pancreatic trypsinogen, which normally has nothing to do with preventing an organism from freezing:
No ice in their veins
Origin of antifreeze protein genes: A cool tale in molecular?evolution

WisdomSpy said:
The honest answer to most probing questions like these is; nope. Duplicate copies of many genes have certainly been seen in various plants and animals. Do you think that they might have a designed purpose? That possibility is never considered by naturalists. It violates their presuppositions. Therefore, the only speculation they allow is that it is always accidental and must represent part of the engine of evolution.

The one assumption we make in science is that natural phenomena are explainable by natural means. In other words, we ignore the supernatural. We assume that if we drop a ball, a god or spirit isn't going to grab it and slow its fall. This is called methodological naturalism. We make this assumption so that we can test the predictions of our hypotheses and theories. Otherwise, all you have is endless speculation, like we see among creationists here... with no means of determining which hypothesis is correct, or closer to reality.

WisdomSpy said:
Have they witnessed this engine actually creating an entirely new, unique and useful gene? Perhaps Richard Lenskis experiments involving over 35,000 generations of E. coli showed us this mechanism in action. Nope and nope. In his results, not even one new set of start and stop codons were generated, with something novel in between. That fact alone should cause evolutionists to bridle their sassiness.

According to current theory, genes don't evolve out of non-coding regions alone. Therefore we should not expect that Lenski's experiments would have resulted in a brand new gene with no antecedent in any other functional elements.

WisdomSpy said:
For too long evolutionists have confused or conflated associations or similarities with causation. In all likelihood, Craig Venters million-long DNA creation which he inserted into several native cells contains sections which appear very similar to native sequences. Is anyone going to tell Venter that he didnt really create anythingthat everything within those altered cells is actually a product of evolution only? Plenty of plausible speculation could be offered as to how evolution might have done it. The problem is that the speculation would be wrong, as speculation often is. Hence, we see the need to always keep our minds keen and vigilant to separate pure science from the adulterations which frequently accompany it.

Sure, any molecular geneticist can create a sequence and put it into a genome and it could look like something that evolved, if you did it so it looked similar to a natural sequence. So what? If that occurred in any species on this planet, then you will have to show that this is the case. If we are the result of such tinkering, for example, you will have to provide evidence that this is the case. Otherwise, all you have is the speculation you decry and what amounts to a violation of methodological naturalism.

WisdomSpy said:
It's also helpful to avoid pedantic condescending ad hominem and instead engage with the substance of the contended issue at hand. SFS's beliefs about how natural selection works are just that -- beliefs. Natural selection is doing nothing to clear the faulty genomes of muscular dystrophies and many cancers, etc., either inside their cells or in the population of human beings. Most of these individuals reproduce before they die. The fact is that evolutionists have no valid explanation for abiogenesis, nor the origins of multitudes of genes and epigenetic elements which far exceed the measly tinkering which mutations offer.

There are a number of factors which cause genetic disorders and cancers to persist (at relatively low levels). First, there is a low level of genetic mutation or non-disjunction that will always ensure there are some genetic disorders in the population. If a genetic disorder does not prevent an individual from reproducing, then it will in fact be passed on. There are even some cases in which a genetic disorder is actually selected for, as is in the case of sickle-cell in malaria prone regions.

Most cancers are caused by environmental factors, not genetic ones. Those that have a genetic component, can certainly be passed on if the cancer allows the individual to reproduce. In most of these cases, however, a particular genetic variant will only increase the risk of cancer, not ensure it.

WisdomSpy said:
I am not aware of any comprehensive application of evolution theory which honestly lays out a multiple step-by-step set of transitions from one life-form to another, say a bacteria to a paramecium or any such pair, accounting for where the huge amount of new genes, many of them very lengthy, came from. Hint: Craig Venter knows how to do it.

That is a very tall order and we cannot currently to this. That does not mean it will not be possible in the future, however. Why are you requiring such a high standard for evolutionary biologists, but not for intelligent design advocates?

WisdomSpy said:
Who's to say there aren't minds outside of our galaxy which far surpass Venter's intelligence.

Who is to say indeed? Show us these alien intelligent agents or the evidence of their actions and we will be happy to consider it as something more than a speculative alternative.

WisdomSpy said:
Venter showed us that intelligent design works. What's inhibiting you from believing in a greater intelligence? This proposition accounts for the evidence in all areas--abiogenesis and major life forms. Certainly many mutations did some tinkering along the way and natural selection worked a little here and there.

Of course intelligent design works.. we've been using it for thousands of years. Now provide the positive evidence that is was a factor in human or some other species' current existence. Otherwise you are the one speculating.

WisdomSpy · Dec 14, 2014

Some really excellent dialogue here! Distinguishing methodological from ontological naturalism is important and needs to be done more... for example; when discussing presumed events of the remote past.

How many assumptions are you making when you say that one gene used for pancreatic purposes "evolved" into another gene used for anti-freeze purposes? Did you see it happen? Can you demonstrate genomic evidence from before and after, like Lenski can? And if not, then why are you jumping to conclusions regarding origins? Why are you equating associations and similarities with causation? Venter's creation looks similar to many other things but we cannot make assumptions about similar origins.

Split Rock said: "...so that we can test the predictions of our hypotheses and theories."

Are you really testing it... or simply defending something you are committed to? When comparing observed data to predictions based upon evo theory, at what point of non-correlation are you willing to consider it falsified? If it fails to explain the data 40% of the time, would that achieve a passing grade in anyone's class? 50%? Show some courage and decide on a realistic number and then let's review some actual data.

My research is driving at the point that a logical mechanism must be shown for meaningful new molecular sequence generation under methodologically natural conditions. Base substitution mutations cannot account for this and virtually all other types of mutations run a high chance of creating premature stop codons. Do the math.

Walk through a mechanistic biochemical simulation of what it would take to go from point A to point B (i.e. E. coli to a paramecium, or E. coli to a flagellated bacterium), and do an honest accounting of molecular resource usage. Don't assume that chemistry will get lucky and "win the lottery" each time with a one-in-a-million result.

Producing a flagellum requires numerous genes to produce it but more importantly, it requires specific epigenetic controls which dictate timing, sequence of assembly, rate of production, etc. Realistically, this may involve 20-30 elements of complex inter-related genomic information to accomplish. And most of those elements are lengthy sequences without stop signals truncating them. Imagine a step-by-step naturalistic method of generating all that and then do the math on the molecular precursors needed to fund the search for the correct solution, and add up the amount of junk which would naturally be generated along the way.

People smarter than I have done this already and although they believe in the evolutionary paradigm they have made the following statements:

"There are no detailed Darwinian accounts for the evolution of any fundamental biochemical or cellular systems, only a variety of wishful speculations" –James Shapiro.

“ In my opinion, there is no basis in known chemistry for the belief that long sequences of reactions can organize spontaneously—and every reason to believe they cannot.” --Leslie Orgel

I prefaced these comments by saying that they "believe" in the evolutionary paradigm. The word belief becomes more and more important as one looks carefully at cellular biochemistry and demonstrable evidence rather than wild speculation.

SkyWriting · Dec 14, 2014

Linuxgal said:
Science tells us the world formed about 4.5 billion years ago...

"Science" can make predictions about an experiment or observation you will make tomorrow.

Science does not "predict" the past nor can it recreate past events
unless
such events are fully documented and can be repeated to the satisfaction
of antagonistic researchers.

For example....a guy publishes a paper on cold fusion and co-workers are so excited that 20 or so sign their names on the paper.

Then

Antagonistic researchers followed the documented process and failed to get the same results.

This is true science.
The 20 names added to the paper by co-workers IS NOT true science.
When reading science papers it is important to distinguish between the former and the latter.
Opinions about the past are the latter.

EternalDragon · Dec 14, 2014

Split Rock said:
The evolution of anti-freeze glycoproteins in Antarctic toothfish is a good example. These evolved from a gene encoding a pancreatic trypsinogen, which normally has nothing to do with preventing an organism from freezing:
No ice in their veins
Origin of antifreeze protein genes: A cool tale in molecular?evolution

Whether these did come about through natural selection or were
created that way, it is in no way an example of Darwinian evolution.
The fish is still a fish. All you have is a variety of different fish. Exactly
how natural selection is supposed to work, and does work.

SkyWriting · Dec 14, 2014

EternalDragon said:
Whether these did come about through natural selection or were created that way, it is in no way an example of Darwinian evolution.
The fish is still a fish. All you have is a variety of different fish. Exactly
how natural selection is supposed to work, and does work.

It is an excellent example of the Natural Selection story.
But it's not a scientifically supported story until a hostile
researcher recreates the event and get the same results.

Science can only create fictional stories about long past events.

lasthero · Dec 14, 2014

EternalDragon said:
Whether these did come about through natural selection or were
created that way, it is in no way an example of Darwinian evolution.
The fish is still a fish. All you have is a variety of different fish. Exactly
how natural selection is supposed to work, and does work.

Is 'fish' a kind?

Original Research--join In

Newbie

Regular Member

a post by Alan Smithee

Newbie

Senior Member

Newbie

Regular Member

Newbie

Senior Member

Newbie

Newbie

Senior Member

Newbie

Chaotic Neutral

Conflation of Blathers

Newbie

The Librarian

Counselor

The Librarian

Newbie

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency