It is being found that the major differences between chimps and humans are not in the individual SNPs but rather in genetic switches. How did these preexisting switches come to be and if evolution is right how were they retained? Evolution has no satisfactory explanation to date.
Common design on the other hand predicts such switches.
Yes gene fusion is common and always (as far as I know) leads to reproductive problems as in the Robersonian fusion
Common design does not predict switches that are different even though they do the exact same thing.It is being found that the major differences between chimps and humans are not in the individual SNP’s but rather in genetic switches. How did these preexisting switches come to be and if evolution is right how were they retained? Evolution has no satisfactory explanation to date. Common design on the other hand predicts such switches.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/evolution/dna-human-evolution.html
I don't know if you've noticed, but he's also taken on particle physics and cosmology in the formal debate forum.Zaius123 really is like a ping pong ball being batted around a table, he makes some unsupported illogical comment, gets completely destroyed, and blithely moves on to the next hitting station.
Good stuff, excellent atheist witness. Keep up the good work Z.
Please present your calculations.Highly conserved gene switches in organisms will not hold their context over millions of years. The fast breeding fruit fly yields no insight to the slower reproducing hominid. Grounds for comparison between a slow breeding organism and a rapid breeding organism may not illustrate the connotation of conservation. Highly conserved genes are nothing short of miracles if you buy into evolution.
Highly conserved gene switches in organisms will not hold their context over millions of years.
The fast breeding fruit fly yields no insight to the slower reproducing hominid.
Grounds for comparison between a slow breeding organism and a rapid breeding organism may not illustrate the connotation of conservation.
Highly conserved genes are nothing short of miracles if you buy into evolution.
In real life it is simply a consequence of a designer depending on the paradigm of the observer.
Zaius123 really is like a ping pong ball being batted around a table, he makes some unsupported illogical comment, gets completely destroyed, and blithely moves on to the next hitting station.
Weasel word alert! What's the "context" of a gene switch? What do you mean by "holding their context"? Why shouldn't they "hold their context"?Highly conserved gene switches in organisms will not hold their context over millions of years.
That may be true in some ways, but can you give me a reason why enhancer evolution should work in a qualitatively different way (i.e. not simply faster) in fruit flies?The fast breeding fruit fly yields no insight to the slower reproducing hominid.
He's just trying to live up to the expectations that a typical YEC has towards an evolutionist...I don't know if you've noticed, but he's also taken on particle physics and cosmology in the formal debate forum.
Don't forget FaithThe Bible is always the measure of the truth… Mr. Dave
Don't forget Faith
Matthew 21:21 Answering the Jesus said to them "verily I am saying to ye, if ever ye may be having faith and no ye may be doubting,
not only the of the fig-tree ye shall be doing, but even-ever to this, the Mountain, ye may saying 'be being lifted up! and be being cast! into the Sea' it shall be becoming" [Galatian 4:24,25/Hebrew 12:18/Revelation 8:8]
Reve 8:8 And the second Messenger trumpets and as-like a mountain, great to fire burning, was cast into the Sea and became the third of the Sea blood
[Matthew 21:21/Galatian 4:24, 25/Hebrew 12:18]
Who said anything about 20-something million years? And the fruit fly example shows changes over 20 million years? My question did they diverge at all? Still fruit fly’s right?
Design says just that the differences did not come about by small changes over long periods of time (as in a hominid).
I'm not sure I understand exactly what you are asking here...Why should enhancer evolution work at all?
The abstract of that paper is already a big helping of misrepresenting the field, seasoned with unsupported claims out of personal incredulity. Doesn't seem to get much better, from the looks I've had at the main text...Did you even read the link?
Cserháti 2007 said:Because of their widespread distribution, conserved non-coding sequences have important implications for the
creation/evolution debate. Such sequences are indeed highly conserved, which means they resist mutational
change.
Cserháti 2007 said:Thus, they are design elements in the genetic makeup of organisms that may help to differentiate
between taxa. Moreover, many evolutionists now believe regulatory sequences are the central motor for molecular
evolution, and that evolution of these regulatory regions is what mainly alters protein expression.
Cserháti 2007 said:But this does
not explain molecule-to-man evolution, which requires a continuous supply of new genetic information.
Cserháti 2007 said:It does
however provide an explanation for the origin of variability within the created kinds in the biblical creation
model. In this model, the information content of genes is conserved, while certain regulatory changes bring
about changes in gene expression.
Cserháti 2007 said:That is, the
more a pair of genes have diverged from each other, the
larger the differences in TFBS content and expression
patterns. However, a detailed study by Zhang et al. of
202 pairs of yeast genes showed there was only a weak
correlation between TFBS content and expression, and
showed that the 10 most highly co-expressed gene pairs
do not have even half of their TFBSs in common. They
believe other factors, such as motif-motif interactions*,
trans factors, and chromatin structures might be responsible
for differences in expression.
57
They obviously did, or there wouldn't be a paper about it. You do know what "divergence" means, right?Who said anything about 20-something million years? And the fruit fly example shows changes over 20 million years? My question did they diverge at all? Still fruit flys right?
me said:In any case, that was not the point of my example. Recall that you said that genetic switches only make sense with design. In return, I asked you how design explains the differences between certain genetic switches.
If you were a designer with a thimble of sense, why would you change a perfectly functional design to something that produces the exact same result?you said:Design says just that the differences did not come about by small changes over long periods of time (as in a hominid). How do I explain different sub routines as a programmer? I designed them that way.
That question above.What was your point about your example?
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?