Support for my wacky viewpoint

[laptoppop]

Interesting article:
http://www.scienceblog.com/cms/node/13465/print

If I'm reading it right, this may give some support to my viewpoint that variations within limits are one thing, and beyond certain limits are quite another thing entirely. I also wondering if Behe's new book, which I hope to get for Father's day will support this as well.

My viewpoint (on which I'm willing to be shown wrong) is that there is a range of variation which is easy to have. One dog breed breeding with another breed and producing a whole new breed. But -- always a new dog, not a new cat.

It seems like post flood, there would have been huge variations show up from the limited # of critters carried on the Ark. But if they are allowed variations within each kind, then its a lot easier to understand and accept.

 

[busterdog]

Pop,

Help me out. I am trying to understand your proposal.

Of interest:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19214813/

Human instruction book not so simple

Researchers believe even useless-looking DNA may carry information

Darryl Leja / NHGRI / Nature
The first results from the Encyclopedia of DNA Elements, or ENCODE, are touted on the cover of the journal Nature.

​

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19215537/By Maggie Fox
Updated: 8:32 p.m. ET June 13, 2007

WASHINGTON - An in-depth examination of the human DNA map has turned basic biology concepts upside-down and may even rewrite the book on evolution and some causes of disease, researchers said Wednesday.
They found there was far more to genetics than the genes themselves and determined there was no such thing as "junk DNA" but that some of the most useless-looking stretches of DNA may carry important information.
Thirty-five teams of researchers from 80 different organizations in 11 countries teamed up to share notes on just 1 percent of the human genome.
Story continues below ↓advertisementad_dap('250','300','&PG=NBCSAT&AP=1089'); <script> </script>


Their findings, the start of the Encyclopedia of DNA Elements or ENCODE Project, were published in the journals Nature and Genome Research.
"This is a landmark in our understanding of human biology," said Dr. Francis Collins, head of the National Human Genome Research Institute, which funded much of the work.
When the human genome was published in 2003, some scientists voiced surprise that human beings had only about 30,000 genes. Rice, for instance, has 50,000. The new study confirms what many genetics experts had suspected — the genes are important, but so is the other DNA, the biological code for every living thing.

 

[Crusadar]

I also wondering if Behe's new book, which I hope to get for Father's day will support this as well.

I too am looking forward to his work – though divisive as it may be.

My viewpoint (on which I'm willing to be shown wrong) is that there is a range of variation which is easy to have. One dog breed breeding with another breed and producing a whole new breed. But -- always a new dog, not a new cat.

The variation is there but evolution does depend heavily on the ridiculously large amounts of time that makes it seem almost possible – no matter how small that window of hope may be. What creationists can be sure about is that the genetic coding that would be required to transform one species into another – no matter how much time is allowed is entirely orchestrated by genetics. Apparently there are no known mechanism that is solely dedicated to the task of generating new codes which will change other than as the result of an imperfect genetic copying system.

There have been many laboratory experiments done in the hope of providing the means by which species diversify – one such experiment was and is continuing to be performed on the fruitfly due to its high reproductive rate. The hope was that new species of fruitflies would be produced since certain characteristics could be preserved and propagated – all done without intelligent intervention of course. Despite the millions of induced mutations and eight decades later – it is not surprising that there are no new species of flies, let alone another variety of insect animal other than fruitflies.

Perhaps the following quote is quite appropriate: "God was very careful in Genesis to state that each of the animals were created `after his kind.' After 80 years and millions of generations, God was proven right: A fruit fly will always be a fruit fly. “Evolutionists Still Looking for a Good Accident.” Battle Cry, Jul-Aug, 1990.

 

[busterdog]

I too am looking forward to his work – though divisive as it may be.



The variation is there but evolution does depend heavily on the ridiculously large amounts of time that makes it seem almost possible – no matter how small that window of hope may be. What creationists can be sure about is that the genetic coding that would be required to transform one species into another – no matter how much time is allowed is entirely orchestrated by genetics. Apparently there are no known mechanism that is solely dedicated to the task of generating new codes which will change other than as the result of an imperfect genetic copying system.

There have been many laboratory experiments done in the hope of providing the means by which species diversify – one such experiment was and is continuing to be performed on the fruitfly due to its high reproductive rate. The hope was that new species of fruitflies would be produced since certain characteristics could be preserved and propagated – all done without intelligent intervention of course. Despite the millions of induced mutations and eight decades later – it is not surprising that there are no new species of flies, let alone another variety of insect animal other than fruitflies.

Perhaps the following quote is quite appropriate: "God was very careful in Genesis to state that each of the animals were created `after his kind.' After 80 years and millions of generations, God was proven right: A fruit fly will always be a fruit fly. “Evolutionists Still Looking for a Good Accident.” Battle Cry, Jul-Aug, 1990.

Though I am a creationist, I have to ask for a little more explanation.

There are examples of flowing plants at least that have been shown to mutate in to distinct organisms unable to reproduce with those of the type that preceded them. I am careful not to call them new species, since that is the question. Mutations that alter the mechanical aspects of reproduction is one change that might produce different varieties of plant that might "reproduce" in the laboratory, but which lack compatible mechanisms in the field -- perhaps like chihuahua's and mastiffs.

Yet, there are examples claimed to be or that at least seem to be speciation.

What of that?

 

[laptoppop]

Though I am a creationist, I have to ask for a little more explanation.

There are examples of flowing plants at least that have been shown to mutate in to distinct organisms unable to reproduce with those of the type that preceded them. I am careful not to call them new species, since that is the question. Mutations that alter the mechanical aspects of reproduction is one change that might produce different varieties of plant that might "reproduce" in the laboratory, but which lack compatible mechanisms in the field -- perhaps like chihuahua's and mastiffs.

Yet, there are examples claimed to be or that at least seem to be speciation.

What of that?

Lots of things to be careful about.
1) species is not equal to kind
2) kind is not specifically identified in the Scriptures. For most folks its more of a common sense thing - Dog, Cat, etc.
3) Leviticus 19:19 - some folks take this to mean mixing kinds - which would mean that even kinds are not necessarily a unmixable barrier
4) In general, we try to have some kind of "test" and ability to reproduce with the original seems like a good test -- but it is a reasoned one, not one from Scripture

So we can see speciation -- its knowing exactly where the limits are that becomes a bit of a puzzle. However, I believe Behe's new book, DNA repair mechanisms, and the support of the findings regarding junk DNA all point to there being boundaries -- boundaries I would say are placed there by God.

 

[mark kennedy]

I didn't have any luck with the link but I wanted to toss into this one. Genetic variation comes from recombination of unaltered genes a lot of the time. There are other mechanisms like prions that are known to turn certain genes on and off. Some genes can be altered but it should be understood that there is a big difference between an adaptation and a random mutation.

As a matter of fact I have an article on an Arctic Fish that would seem to have developed a brand new gene built by unknown genetic mechanisms from scratch. I talked on line with a geneticist about it who said he didn't have a problem with it because it consisted of simple repeats. I really have a point here, just bear with me. There are adaptive traits that are facilitated by molecular mechanisms we are only beginning to understand. The whole problem with evolution is that a change in a gene is considered a mutation just because a gene is altered. This is moving science in the wrongest possible direction.

This is what I honestly think, there are transposable elements and other that are highly conserved. Some of the more dramatic adaptations can be accounted for by some molecular synthesis that can rearrange and overhaul certain parts of certain genes. However, most of the wide variety the we see in all it's vast array most likely resulted from the recombination of unaltered genes in rich gene pools. Environment also triggers an unknown number of molecular mechanisms that can produce dramatic adaptive traits.

I am still plodding along trying to learn more about these mechanisms but science has decided to lump adaptations in with random mutations. The culprit is Darwinism and despite it's popularity it is distorting the true nature of the inheritance of adaptive traits.

By the way, the MSN article got something wrong, there are not 30,000 genes, there are less the 20,000. I'm looking forward to reading the Nature article when I get back to civilization though, they get the details right in the actual articles.

Your not so wacky laptoppop, there are limits to how much one species can transform into an altogether different kind. It has been a constant source of amazement for me, most of the variation results from recombinations, not mutations.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[busterdog]

This is moving science in the wrongest possible direction.

Not to mention the English language!

 

[busterdog]

It has been a constant source of amazement for me, most of the variation results from recombinations, not mutations.

Recombination is more like design, than mutation would be. Sounds pretty intelligent. Oh wait, design that's intelligent!

The mechanisms are apparently not well understood. Recombination sounds like something the DNA is intended to do, yet recombination to create a new species? That certainly is of no benefit to the species, necessarily. So what moderates recombination to make it function as intended and so that you don't create the wrong kind of creature?

Very interesting.

 

[mark kennedy]

Recombination is more like design, than mutation would be. Sounds pretty intelligent. Oh wait, design that's intelligent!

The mechanisms are apparently not well understood. Recombination sounds like something the DNA is intended to do, yet recombination to create a new species? That certainly is of no benefit to the species, necessarily. So what moderates recombination to make it function as intended and so that you don't create the wrong kind of creature?

Very interesting.

Recombination isn't moderated exactly, it's regulated. The cross over of genes seems to be random but there are discernible patterns that make that an impossibility. If you remember the part in the article where there were over 4,000 transcript starts outside the coding region. A transcript is when the DNA double helix is unzipped enzymes and become the single stand RNA sections. The RNA is in turn transcribed into proteins in the ribosome. About 1-2% of the DNA actually has protein coding genes but another 3-4% are what they call functional. There transcript starts my be a part of the functional geneome.

At any rate, I can't wait to read the article.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[busterdog]

Recombination isn't moderated exactly, it's regulated. The cross over of genes seems to be random but there are discernible patterns that make that an impossibility. If you remember the part in the article where there were over 4,000 transcript starts outside the coding region. A transcript is when the DNA double helix is unzipped enzymes and become the single stand RNA sections. The RNA is in turn transcribed into proteins in the ribosome. About 1-2% of the DNA actually has protein coding genes but another 3-4% are what they call functional. There transcript starts my be a part of the functional geneome.

At any rate, I can't wait to read the article.

Grace and peace,
Mark

Well, let's think about the idea of moderation and design for a momentl. IF science were to really develop that idea with evidence, a couple of things would happen. First, distancing oneself from randomness, scientifically, would have to impact the realistic possibilities for abiogenesis. Second, the TE movement might have bit more zip in the T part of TE. Frankly, I just don't get why they are so opposed to ID, which to me sounds so very much like what they are saying.

 

[busterdog]

Lots of things to be careful about.
1) species is not equal to kind
2) kind is not specifically identified in the Scriptures. For most folks its more of a common sense thing - Dog, Cat, etc.
3) Leviticus 19:19 - some folks take this to mean mixing kinds - which would mean that even kinds are not necessarily a unmixable barrier
4) In general, we try to have some kind of "test" and ability to reproduce with the original seems like a good test -- but it is a reasoned one, not one from Scripture

So we can see speciation -- its knowing exactly where the limits are that becomes a bit of a puzzle. However, I believe Behe's new book, DNA repair mechanisms, and the support of the findings regarding junk DNA all point to there being boundaries -- boundaries I would say are placed there by God.

With Mark's distinction between mutation and recomination, and "regulation" of the process, I think I understand your OP a little better. Seems like you are on the same page?

Doesn't sound so whacky.