Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
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.
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.
Don't be ridiculous. My reply assumed that very obvious fact.
No, it doesn't. You really should learn about natural selection. It's what prevents damaging mutations from accumulating in genomes.
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.)
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?
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.
I'm fairly certain I've spent more time simulating the effects of mutation than you have.To explain the logic, try this analogy:
Suppose a group of men said that they could produce a modern automobile entirely from the natural resources found in Norway. They have manpower, factories, energy, steel, etc. They believe that the "Norway natural" can happen.
But I would contradict that idea and say that they would have to use some imported products to complete the task, because I'm quite sure rubber trees won't ever grow in Norway, and I know rubber is an essential component of many car parts. Relying on knowledge about limitations--what can't be done--is just as valid as knowledge of what can be done.
This is why it is imperative to study simulations of what mutations can and cannot accomplish and to pay attention to Lenski's results and all other similar experimental data. Those who fail to do this and instead concoct ad hoc just-so stories in a retrospective way are not advancing science, unless you call it science fiction.
Based on my knowledge, I believe that abiogenesis by purely natural means is impossible and that "transitions" between significantly different genomes is also impossible. It took a lot of research, thought and number-crunching, but that is my conclusion.
A good book to read on the subject is "Your Inner Fish," by Neil Shubin.
FYI: There is a documentary on Netflix that shares this book's title. I'm not sure if it's the "video version" of the book or not, but it's in my queue and I plan to watch it soon. Perhaps tonight.
How do you define "inspired" Ha ha just joking.
Maybe I should have said Scripture that is the true words of God, breathed and dictated by God to be penned by the men that wrote it.
FYI: There is a documentary on Netflix that shares this book's title. I'm not sure if it's the "video version" of the book or not, but it's in my queue and I plan to watch it soon. Perhaps tonight.
It is basically an adaptation [hah!] of the book, with Shubin as host. I thought the show was fantastic, and better than the new Cosmos (though that might be because I know less about biology than physics and astronomy, and Inner Fish taught me more new interesting things).
And does your "research" that you keep talking about support this hypothesis?An important point is being missed regarding "kinds". Traditionally, many Christians in past years, particularly those you might describe as ultra-Calvinists, have believed that everything we see around us today was created by God. I don't believe that. I believe that many years of reproductive shuffling of the genetic decks of cards, plus some effects of mutations, has changed things substantially. IOW, Genesis "kinds", such as a dog group, allows for the idea that over the years many different varieties of dogs had the same ancestor, whose genome contained all the information to produce the varieties.
There is quite a lot of meaningless junk in most genomes... introns, transposons, highly repeated sequences, pseudogenes, etc. Also, what makes you think that a dog genome is substantially different from a cat genome? They are more similar than they are different. Finally, while we are dealing with an undirected process, it is also one which makes use of selection, which you are ignoring. Computer programs that mimic natural selection are now being used to create working designs ... designs which engineers would never have come up with. The process works.The research I spoke of when I started this thread is very applicable here. Mutations of existing genes have a high likelihood of creating premature stop codons and thus, tons of meaningless junk to clutter up cells. Undirected processes simply cannot create a meaningful cadre of new and uniquely useful genes which could turn one genome--say of a dog--into a substantially different one--say of a cat. Responsible evolutionists should take the cell biochemistry seriously and conduct step-by-step simulations, as I have done, accounting for molecular resources necessarily used during the steps.
You can come up with a number, but so what? How many protocells were doing this over how long a period of time? Do you know? Did the first nucleotides need to be 100 codons long?Here's a fairly simple example: during any kind of random assemblage of sequences of nucleotides (something that MUST be accounted for during presumed abiogenesis), how many molecules would be used up, on average, in the search to produce genes that are only 100 codons long (with a stop codon only at the last position)? Venture a guess or do some practical research using the random DNA sequence generator site (google it).
And do they indeed have a "cadre of unique genes" as you hypothesis? What does all your research tell us?There are many kinds of hummingbirds. Also, many kinds of finches exist. Do I, as a believer in creation, have to believe that all of them descended from a single pair of birds that contained all possible bird genes? Not necessarily. The two categories differ substantially in patterns of flight, suggesting the need for a separate cadre of unique genes.
Go ahead and give us an example of a sequence found in an organism that mutation and natural selection cannot create. You keep talking about your "research" but I haven't seen any research offered to support your assertions here. All I see is speculation and arguments from personal incredulity.If you take off your evolutionary spectacles (presuppositions and biased conclusions), genomic comparisons might lead to the correct answer here. The key is to remember what mutations and natural selection CANNOT do. When you find "transitions" that defy these demonstrable limitations, then Venter or someone like him was required to generate it. That's the conclusion I arrive at from this research.
Computers that mimic natural selection? Unlikely.And does your "research" that you keep talking about support this hypothesis?
There is quite a lot of meaningless junk in most genomes... introns, transposons, highly repeated sequences, pseudogenes, etc. Also, what makes you think that a dog genome is substantially different from a cat genome? They are more similar than they are different. Finally, while we are dealing with an undirected process, it is also one which makes use of selection, which you are ignoring. Computer programs that mimic natural selection are now being used to create working designs ... designs which engineers would never have come up with. The process works.
You can come up with a number, but so what? How many protocells were doing this over how long a period of time? Do you know? Did the first nucleotides need to be 100 codons long?
It is basically an adaptation [hah!] of the book, with Shubin as host. I thought the show was fantastic, and better than the new Cosmos (though that might be because I know less about biology than physics and astronomy, and Inner Fish taught me more new interesting things).
You seem to be sure of quite a few things that aren't so. I was responding directly to this statement of yours: "This is why it is imperative to study simulations of what mutations can and cannot accomplish and to pay attention to Lenski's results and all other similar experimental data. Those who fail to do this and instead concoct ad hoc just-so stories in a retrospective way are not advancing science, unless you call it science fiction."SFS posted: "I'm fairly certain I've spent more time simulating the effects of mutation than you have."
If I had posted that comment, I'm sure you would have reminded me it represents one of the classic errors of logic.
I already answered that challenge: the mechanism you're modeling has nothing to do with the actual processes thought to produce new genes. Why would it matter whether my results match yours, when your results have nothing to do with real evolutionary biology?Why don't you back up your "appeal to authority" by answering the simple challenge I posted regarding an original gene of only 100 codons with no stop in the middle... I would love to see if your math matches up with mine.
WisdomSpy;66729101 Remember that science is man’s tool with which he tries to understand nature. Likewise said:but wouldn't a
a walk in the forrest with a pair of binoculars be way more fruitful and truthful for most ? these so called theories , it because scientism have their heads so far up their own theories and they know nothing about nature .. only their theories of nature. and has no connection at all with nature .
Just l like the guy or gal who is in love with being in love.. it has nothing to do with all those that they used.. and used them. but we know for sure it has nothing to do with Love. you can't even have a conversation with them .
and I won't say yes , but I will follow this thread and why I wrote this response is just to subscribe.. because I don't have time , I have a real farm and real animals and real green house to take care of , but I have been breeding/ raising, selling , animals , plants, fish and fowl , you just about name it and pure bred and cross breeds of these to create the qualities I want. and did it since I was very young. meaning 40 + years and been a Christian that same time.
what scientism is describing from all their theories isn't happening RIL
You read the paper I linked to on the origin of new genes?SFS: "[I...the actual processes thought to produce new genes][/i]
The word actual also represents a sleight-of-hand since it implies that you have seen this happen. Lenski didn't see it. Do you know something he doesn't? Where do the new start and stop codons, with new and uniquely functional information in between, arise from? Please share with me some credible modelling of this process, rather than some glib statements of belief.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?