Please Explain

[Jerry Smith]

We know enough to know that stop codon stops the transcription of the gene before the protein it codes for is produced. We aren't (as you point out) omnicient, but that is plenty of knowledge to safely conclude that this gene no longer functions. The burden of proof now shifts to the person who claims that there is some "hidden" function for this gene - to show that it does indeed have that function and that its function requires this particular sequence and no other. Else the claim "common designer" does not explain the homology between this gene in humans and chimps. It really is that simple, no matter how loud you shout, or how hard you wave your hands.

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by LewisWildermuth

Well in a way we are, that is what the genome project was all about, first we map the dns, then figure out what does what, then we can start getting rid of stuff like cancer and genetic diseases.

Cool. I have no problem with the genome project. And I hope that someday people can apply what we learn to curing diseases. I will ALSO pray for healing for people. I don't quite understand why you think there can't be any overlap.

And I truly look forward to the day (if it ever comes) when we fully understand the purpose of each and every nucleotide, amino acid, and any other potentially relevant undiscovered particle, atom and molecule involved. Right now, however, all we have is a fraction of the potentially relevant information and a HUGE dose of imagination, speculation and interpretation.

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by Jerry Smith
We know enough to know that stop codon stops the transcription of the gene before the protein it codes for is produced. We aren't (as you point out) omnicient, but that is plenty of knowledge to safely conclude that this gene no longer functions. The burden of proof now shifts to the person who claims that there is some "hidden" function for this gene - to show that it does indeed have that function and that its function requires this particular sequence and no other. Else the claim "common designer" does not explain the homology between this gene in humans and chimps. It really is that simple, no matter how loud you shout, or how hard you wave your hands.

You guys are the ones waving your hands. You admit that you don't know if it has a function - you simply assume it doesn't. And assuming for a moment that it DOESN'T have a function, you are also arrogantly assuming that this is a flaw, and that we would somehow have been better off if it did have a function, which means you are waving your hands pretending to know of every possible consequence of all the possible alternatives. And then you call that evidence of anything? Evidence of delusions of grandeur, maybe.

 

[Joe V.]

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.

Nick, are you being intentionally close-minded for argument's sake here? You do know why we disagree with your explanation, right? Because it offers NO predictive powers whatsoever. Zero. None. Evolution does, that's why it's preferred.

So, let's take your "fall" argument into consideration. What sort of predictions does the fall provide us? How do we determine if a "bad thing" is a result of the fall or not - or is everything bad the result of the fall?

- Joe

 

[Morat]

  Nick, you silly little boy. Do you know what a stop codon does? People have explained it to you, I know.

   You have two choices: You can argue that it's not really a stop codon, or that stop codon's don't actually stop DNA transcription.

   Pick one, and be prepared to support it.

 

 

[Jerry Smith]

Originally posted by npetreley


You guys are the ones waving your hands. You admit that you don't know if it has a function - you simply assume it doesn't. And assuming for a moment that it DOESN'T have a function, you are also arrogantly assuming that this is a flaw, and that we would somehow have been better off if it did have a function, which means you are waving your hands pretending to know of every possible consequence of all the possible alternatives. And then you call that evidence of anything? Evidence of delusions of grandeur, maybe.

We have good evidence that it is non-funcitonal. It has a stop codon right smack dab in the middle of it. Kind of like an uninitialized pointer right smack dab in the middle of a main() function.

I don't know or care whether it is a "flaw." I suspect it isn't. Who cares. Our theory predicts it. Your hypothesis fails to explain it.

No one pretneds to know of every consequence of every alternative a fertile imagination can dream up. Who cares? We have evidence. The evidence supports exactly one available theory. Sorry. Maybe some of our other evidence will succumb to your hypothesis.

 

 

[Stormy]

Would being able to cure a genetic disease be going against the will of God?

Heavens NO!!

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by Morat
Pick one, and be prepared to support it.

You're the one who is saying it is significant evidence of evolution. So the burden is upon you to explain why there is only one interpretation for this stop codon being there, and that you fully understand the positive and negative consequences of all the alternatives. Otherwise your conclusion is 100%, unadulterated speculation.

If you want to start a thread on stop codons, be my guest.

But the challenge of this thread was to present another explanation, and I did. Common designer. Take it or leave it, but it's an answer to the challenge.

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by Jerry Smith

Your hypothesis fails to explain it.

It explains it perfectly. It just doesn't explain it to YOUR satisfaction. Big surprise.

 

[Morat]

You're the one who is saying it is significant evidence of evolution. So the burden is upon you to explain why there is only one interpretation for this stop codon being there, and that you fully understand the positive and negative consequences of all the alternatives. Otherwise your conclusion is 100%, unadulterated speculation.

If you want to start a thread on stop codons, be my guest.

   Good lord, Nick. Are you truly this stupid, or do you not bother to read anyone's posts?

   I said nothing about why the codon was there. That's your little strawman. Keep it to yourself.

   I said, quite clearly, that a stop codon stops DNA transcription.

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

 

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by Joe V.

Nick, are you being intentionally close-minded for argument's sake here? You do know why we disagree with your explanation, right? Because it offers NO predictive powers whatsoever. Zero. None. Evolution does, that's why it's preferred.

ROFL!!!! First of all, the Bible's description of creation, the early longevity of man, etc., does have predictive powers, and I demonstrated that elsewhere. You guys love to poke fun at that, but the fact is that some people DO get a third set of teeth when they get very old. That's more current and repeatble evidence than there is for evolution!

Second, so what if it didn't have any predictive power? What does that have to do with anything? If the truth is that the world was created by a cosmic muffin, then what point is there in conjuring up an alternative explanation just because the alternative has predictive power? Do you simply enjoy engaging in fanciful speculation and lies because the mental exercise of predicting things is fun? Does it matter at all to you whether or not your conclusions are actually true?

Originally posted by Joe V.

So, let's take your "fall" argument into consideration. What sort of predictions does the fall provide us? How do we determine if a "bad thing" is a result of the fall or not - or is everything bad the result of the fall?

- Joe

It predicts things like people being ignorant, arrogant, prideful, and blind enough to manufacture things like the theory of evolution. And I'd say that prediction has been fulfilled.

 

[Jerry Smith]

So the burden is upon you to explain why there is only one interpretation for this stop codon being there, and that you fully understand the positive and negative consequences of all the alternatives.

Sorry. Science isn't in the business of proving universal negatives. I can dream up alternative explanations for the data that is evidence for the Atomic Theory of matter, but until I can show they have merit, the advocates of the atomic theory have no burden of proving that any conceivable alternative explanation is wrong.

Science has evidence. The stop codon is strong evidence of the non-coding nature of this gene. Our theory predicts homologous DNA between related organisms (these genes are homologous between Chimp and Human). Our theory predicts the same whether the genes are funcitonal or not. The design hypothesis does not even explain this homology, unless you can prove there is a function for this non-coding DNA that depends on the sequence of nucleotides...

Once again, sorry. Maybe some other bit of evidence can be accomodated by your hypothesis. Not this one. Better to take your mind off of it.

 

[Joe V.]

Second, so what if it didn't have any predictive power?

Don't be so pompous. You're not even a scientist, you should know the answer to that one.

It predicts things like people being ignorant, arrogant, prideful, and blind enough to manufacture things like the theory of evolution. And I'd say that prediction has been fulfilled.

You just love to stoke the fires, don't you?

- Joe

 

[Stormy]

Probably a dumb question... But is there anyway to predict what that altered Dna would have done if not stopped?

It is OK if you laugh

 

[Jerry Smith]

Well, you can usually find functional homologues for pseudogenes in another organism. This will usually tell you what they were code for, and sometimes tell you what that protein does during development.

 

[Stormy]

So then do we already have an idea what it was that was stopped?

I tried to look it up on the internet but came up empty.

 

[Morat]

  Generally. That's how we ID'd the Vitamin C code. It codes for Vitamin C in most mammals.

 

 

[Stormy]

So don't keep me in suspense any longer!

What is it that you are debating?

What would it have been if not stopped?

Are humans and apes the only ones with it?

Do you even care or would you rather just debate what you do not know?

Give me some links if you are able.

Please

 

[Jerry Smith]

This particular sequence we are looking at is a disabled copy of urate oxidase - the best I can tell is that it plays a role in metabolism. That being the case, one would guess that humans also have a working copy of it as well & that this one is just an "extra copy" that got disabled somewhere along the way. Louis Booth has some background in biochemistry, so he may have a better idea of the exact role that urate oxidase plays in metabolism.

Some rough background info can be found in this link, but it is a description of a special finding about soy-bean urate oxidase, not a general ed piece about the molecule in general.
http://www.biochem.missouri.edu/ptipton_urate.html

 

[Stormy]

Thanks