Please Explain

Morat · Aug 2, 2002

  As best I can tell, it's disabled (the same set of three mutations, in fact) in all primates (us too). I don't think we have a working copy at all.

   From a quick scan, it seems to have been jury-rigged to perform a variety of things. I may be wrong, as this is well outside my field.

npetreley · Aug 2, 2002

Originally posted by Morat
From a quick scan, it seems to have been jury-rigged to perform a variety of things. I may be wrong, as this is well outside my field.

Yeah, but you know enough about it to conclude that there's no other explanation except common ancestry.

ROFL!!! I gotta do some real work and stop playin' with the kiddies....

Morat · Aug 2, 2002

  Ah! The patented Nick bait and switch. Well, I assume it's bait and switch. Let's give Nick the benefit of the intellectual doubt, and assume he can remember the topic.

   The pseudogene that codes for Urate Oxidase in mammals is broken in the primate line, as it is with humans. It's broken in exactly the same way, in fact.

  So, both humans and primates have an identical set of useless genes broken in an identical way for a protein neither needs nor uses (or even can make).

   That is the evidence for common descent.

   Whether I know, off hand, what urate oxidase does in other mammal's isn't relevent, is it?

Do you agree or disagree that a stop codon stops DNA transcription? If you disagree, what evidence to you have that <I>basic genetics</I> is wrong?

Jerry Smith · Aug 2, 2002

Yeah, but you know enough about it to conclude that there's no other explanation except common ancestry.

ROFL!!! I gotta do some real work and stop playin' with the kiddies....

Burt and Fred work at competing companies. I suspect that one of them is stealing the other's code.

My hypothesis predicts that Burt's code will be very similar to Fred's code.

Testing my hypothesis, it turns out that both have extremely similar code.

But they are writing programs to do the same thing! Maybe they are using similar design principles!

Ok, let's find out. Here is some code that has been commented out. It is exactly the same in Burts and Fred's code!!

This can only be explained by one of them stealing from the other.

I don't know (or care) what that code would do if it were not commented out.

Yet, I know it is commented out - the common design principle explanation fails.

[edited to remove vitriolic comment]

LiveFreeOrDie · Aug 2, 2002

Originally posted by npetreley
I explained the observed similarities. Common designer.

You explained nothing! How can two words answer all of my original questions? Is there something you know about the design process that answers them? If so, please tell us what it is and how you know it. Just so you didn't forget, this is what I would like to understand:

Why is there any non-functional DNA at all?
Why do humans and chimps share an (almost) identical sequence of non-functional DNA?
Why didn't the allaged designer simply leave this non-functional DNA out?
Was the designer of limited ability?
Is this some side effect of the design process?
If so, does it give us some insight as to what that process was?
Can we expect new designs based on the chimp/human plan to appear in the future?
If so, when? If not, why not?

So what if you don't like the explanation? If you like, I can make up a fairy story (like evolution) which would obviously make you happier. But why would I want to do that? Because my explanation raises more questions? So what? If the truth raises more questions than it answers, I still prefer the truth.

Your "explanation" explains nothing. What I'd really like is a made up fairy story consistent with the evidence that I can test. If your fairy story passes the tests, then I'd consider it a much better explanation than your "common designer" non-explanation.

Perhaps you'd rather have a neat and tidy lie. Fine. Each to his own, I guess.

If it actually explains things and is consistent with the evidence, then maybe it's not a lie, eh?

You obviously have no clue as to whom we can thank for much of what we know about the world -- people who believed "G~d did it." They didn't throw up their hands because they found it fascinating to learn what G~d did and how G~d did it.

And they weren't bothered if the "how" happened to conflict with something the Bible told them, like the Earth being flat or pi being equal to 3 or disease being caused by demons.

As do I.

Except when what you learn conflicts with your narrow theology.

Apparently you feel as if there's no point in learning anything about the world unless you can take G~d out of the picture.

No, I feel there's no point in learning anything about the world if you're afraid of what you might learn.

I didn't dodge it at all. It is easily explained by a common designer. You don't agree. You think there are problems with that explanation because -- in spite of the fact that you know practicall nothing about the function of the billions of nucleotides invovled and refuse to acknowledge the possible affects of the fall -- you think you know enough to say that G~d would not have done things certain ways. Fine. But although you have the right to disagree, it's simply a lie to say I did not answer the challenge.

Maybe a common designer does explain it, Nick, but you're going to have to give us more than your two-word version of your theory in order to tell. Until you do that, you will have avoided answering the challenge.

npetreley · Aug 2, 2002

This is actually all the explanation you'll ever need...

Homologous DNA, no function. Whats the explanation. If you fail to provide a good explanation I will declare my challenge "unmet"

Last edited by chickenman on 1st August 2002 at 10:10 PM

...in other words, chickenman wants evolution or nothing at all. So I'll give you guys the latter.

Funny, that's exactly what I wanted in my challenge -- real evidence of evolution, or nothing at all. And I got nothing at all from you evolutionists.

Jerry Smith · Aug 2, 2002

...in other words, chickenman wants evolution or nothing at all.

Seems to me that chickenman and everyone else here has only asked for an explanation. The only explanation you have given doesn't even attempt to explain the data. Why do you just assume that a real explanation won't be good enough? Just because you can't think of a good one?

Annabel Lee · Aug 2, 2002

Nevermind

npetreley · Aug 2, 2002

Originally posted by Jerry Smith

Seems to me that chickenman and everyone else here has only asked for an explanation.

Yes, at first, that's what he asked for.

Originally posted by Jerry Smith

The only explanation you have given doesn't even attempt to explain the data.

Of course it does. You just don't agree, and you base your disagreement on data about which scientists (let alone you) know very little.

Originally posted by Jerry Smith

Why do you just assume that a real explanation won't be good enough?

Because chickenman added the part about "and if I don't like your explanation, then I won't consider it an answer to my challenge." He gave himself retroactive power of veto over anything he doesn't like. That's fine, but it renders the challenge meaningless.

In sharp contrast, in my challenge, I spelled out exactly what I was looking for, and reassured everyone that, as long as they met the simple conditions of being comparable to the reptile-to-mammal series, etc., it wouldn't matter whether I liked the submissions or not. I specifically noted that people are free to judge for themselves if the fossils really are transitional.

Jerry Smith · Aug 2, 2002

Originally posted by npetreley

Yes, at first, that's what he asked for.

And what everyone else is asking for. 

Of course it does.

An adjective and a noun strung together don't really explain much of anything. LFOD had some questions which, if answered, might provide an explanation...

You just don't agree, and you base your disagreement on data about which scientists (let alone you) know very little.

I base my disagreement on the fact that your explanation fails to explain. Why are both of these people who were born at the same time from the same mama so similar in their DNA sequences?

"Common Designer"

What's the explanation? Similar structure for similar function?

So what about the part of their DNA that has no known function and has a big "on/off" switch in the middle turned "off"?

Since the evidence is that there is no function for the gene, and if it were, it would likely be sequence-independent since it does not code for a protein and isn't involved in regulatory function (as it is turned "off")... there is no similar function and the explanation fails..

Because chickenman added the part about "and if I don't like your explanation, then I won't consider it an answer to my challenge." He gave himself retroactive power of veto over anything he doesn't like. That's fine, but it renders the challenge meaningless.

What he likes and what is a good explanation are two separate things. A good explanation actually explains the data. I don't think that is too much to ask.. 

In sharp contrast, in my challenge, I spelled out exactly what I was looking for, and reassured everyone that, as long as they met the simple conditions of being comparable to the reptile-to-mammal series, etc., it wouldn't matter whether I liked the submissions or not. I specifically noted that people are free to judge for themselves if the fossils really are transitional. [/B]

And people are just as free to judge for themselves if your explanation (should you produce one) has any merit.

 

LewisWildermuth · Aug 2, 2002

Here, I'll try to answer this challenge for all the creationists...

Well you see, God did it all in six literal days so it was a bit of a rush job.

The computer program God was using to encript the DNA was working okay at first, but as time went on the copy and paste function started to mess up. Since God only has six days he didn't bother fixing any of the mistakes caused by the malfunctioning computer.

I will jump through all these hoops because I'd rather admit that God is lazy and/or stupid rather than entertain the thought that some of the Bible may be stories ment to reviel spiritual truths rather than a science/history book.

chickenman · Aug 2, 2002

Okay nick, let me explain the basic genetics of my example

This is the translation of the entirety of the human code:

Met A H Y H N N Y K K N D E V E F V R T G Y G K E Met V K V L H I Q Stop D G K Y H S I K E V A T S V Q L T L S S K K D Y L H G D N S D I I P T D T I K N T V H V L A K F K E I K S I E A F G V N I C E H F L S S F N H V I R A Q V Y Met E E I P W K H L G K N G V K H V H A F I H T P T G T H F C E V E Q L R S G P Q V I H S G I K D L K V L K T T Q S G F E G F I K D Q F T T L P E V K D Stop C F A T Q V Y C K W R Y H Q C R D V D F K A T W D T I R D L V Met E K S A G P Y D K G E Y L T S V Q K T L C D I Q V L S L S R V P A I E D Met E I S L P N I H Y F N I D Met S K Met G L I N K E E V L L P L D N P Y G K I T G T V K R K L S S R L Stop

This is what the actual translation will look like

Met A H Y H N N Y K K N D E V E F V R T G Y G K E Met V K V L H I Q Stop

thats a polypeptide which is only 32 amino acids long (does anybody know what the smallest functional polypeptide sequence is?)

32 amino acids only, out of a gene which originally contained 305 amino acids.

Furthermore, what is the function of the of the other 819 nucleotides, which don't in effect, code for anything.

You might think its unreasonable to assume that this sequence has no function. If you knew anything about genetics you'd realise that this assumption is the only reasonable one.
We know that genes in other organisms similar to this one code for a functional protein, called urate oxidase, which is involved in purine metabolism. We know primates no longer have this function. We have found a pseudogene which prematurely terminate translation after only 32 amino acids.

The stop codons preclude it from being a functional urate oxidase gene. So , if common design is correct, it must have another function. The question is, if it does have another function, why is the sequence nearly identical to functional urate oxidase? Would you have us believe that when god creates a new function he breaks genes in precise places to give it a new function? Why wouldn't god simply code a new sequence for a new function? Is he lazy?

The fact is, chimpanzees and humans have this same pseudogene, which is identical at 905 of its 915 nucleotides.

You have two options.

1) its the result of the fall, originally god created humans and chimps with urate oxidase gene, and then genes mutated separately in two different organisms to produce the same crippling mutations. (if you choose this option, don't ever expect us to listen to the "improbability of abiogenesis" argument, because the probability of these same mutations arising independantly in two different primate species is astronomical)

2) God originally created urate oxidase in other mammals. Then he needed some new function (one which apparently doesn't need 816 nucleotides to even be translated) So instead of writing new code for this new function, he took the urate oxidase gene, broke it in several places by introducing premature stop codons (two of which are redundant), and this gave the sequence some new function.

Until you demonstrate this function, my default position (and that of anybody who understands the basics of genetics), is that this is a broken gene, which once had a function, but which is now functionless. It arose in a common ancestor of chimpanzees and humans, and was passed on to those species via common descent.

Common design is an untenable position unless you can show the function in the shared pseudogenes. You can claim all you want that it has an "undiscovered" function. Just don't complain when I tell you that any transitional fossil you request to see photos of is merely "undiscovered". And please don't ever use the word imagination in a derogatory way again, because imagination is the only thing that will give this sequence function.

Morat · Aug 3, 2002

  A special "computer" analogy, just for Nick. Analysis of God's programming skills when it comes to life allows only two conclusions:

1) God used genetic algorithms.

   A notion you reject. Which leads to the other one.

2) God was a mediocare programmer. He constantly reused code, but not the best code he could have reused. Preferring instead to modify the code for a panda's wrist to grow a crude thumb, instead of merely using the code developed for humans that turned on of the fingers into a thumb. He left in huge blocks of commented out code in his final product, habitually use jump statements, and most certainly didn't use the optimizing compiler.

  If I turned in code that looked like DNA does (in terms of useless code, jury-rigged code, and hasty and suboptimal design) I'd be forced to do it over, if I wasn't fired.

  The only thing you can say is the code works. Mostly.

 

chickenman · Aug 4, 2002

don't you have a reply npeterly?

Please Explain

Untitled One

pumpkin sailor

Untitled One

Fish out of water

Science Officer

pumpkin sailor

Fish out of water

Beware the Thought Police

pumpkin sailor

Fish out of water

Senior Veteran

evil unamerican

Untitled One

evil unamerican

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency