What about the DNA evidence?

[[serious]]

Is Google scholar a app or something you have to download. Believe me i have spent time researching bats. Maybe not your site but there are other sites. There are also other features like its echo locate that is also interesting in regards to evolution and how it could have developed.

Platypi are not an enigma. They are a monotreme. One of the last extant monotremes.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

1. The default position should not be "it was magic"
2. You brought up a challenge as a hypothetical utility of half a structure. wings have utility across a large range of sizes. While we don't know how flying squirrels will continue to evolve (evolution is not prescriptive), one could certainly see how such structures could continue to expand into a wing capable of powered flight. Any such webbing would make the creature more maneuverable in the air as they jump or fall. Larger structures allow gliding, even larger structures allow true flight. The difference between the flaps of skin and fur bats have and the flaps of skin and fur flying squirrels have is one of degree. Nothing more.

So you speculate and call it scientific fact?

 

[sfs]

But once again, actual mutational research disproves your theory of natural selection, since in no case has the creation of new genes ever been observed.

Incorrect. New genes are seen to arise by duplication all the time.

Mutations are:

1. Harmful,
2. Neutral,
3. or simply delete what already existed or make it repressive.

Incorrect. Beneficial mutations include mutations that add functional elements; even Michael Behe, guru of intelligent design, acknowledges that.

In all tests the mutated specimen did no better in the wild than the wild types, and almost always fared worse.

Of course introducing new mutations into a stable population will almost always make things worse; most species are already well adapted to their niche. It's also perfectly clear, however, from the genetic evidence that new mutations can and do improve the fitness of organisms. Just in humans, the rapid spread of lactose tolerance in some populations is a clear example of natural selection favoring a beneficial allele, one example of many.

As for your claimed CCR5 what do the tests actually show?

Who said anything about CCR5?

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1275522/pdf/pbio.0030378.pdf

"We also looked at the derived allele frequency (DAF) distribution, which can detect the genetic hitchhiking of variation linked to an allele under positive selection, and found no evidence for selection. All of these tests have limited power, with genotyping data ascertained to favor common shared SNPs and using the chimpanzee sequence for comparison. Therefore, while the results provide no evidence for selection, it can not be ruled out; this
could be further explored with sequencing of a large number of chromosomes"

The results showed no evidence for selection at at that one gene in the genome -- in contrast to other places in the genome, where the same tests show clear evidence for selection.

So we find no evidence at all for selection, but of course we can't rule it out because that would disprove your natural selection theory.

No, you extremely silly person, we(*) couldn't rule out natural selection because it's extremely difficult to prove that nothing at all happened. With more data we would have been able to detect smaller traces of natural selection, or set a more stringent limit on much there had been; we still would not have been able to say it hadn't happened at all.

(*) And I do mean we.

The most reasonable explanation being that we do know as a fact that mutations can go recessive or delete genetic material, but never create it,

Complete nonsense. Why are you just making up stuff and pretending it's true? We see mutations create new genetic material all the time in the lab. This the real world: gritting your teeth and wishing really hard for something to be true doesn't work. In the real world, beneficial mutations happen, including beneficial mutations that add new genetic material. Natural selection happens constantly, and species are always in flux.

 

[[serious]]

So you speculate and call it scientific fact?

What on earth are you talking about?

 

[46AND2]

If it is not random, then there is something directing it, and it is funny how only you think it is not a random process.

There is nothing non-random about it.

Are you implying that animals know that in 1 million years the environment is going to be different and so they need to start mutating their genes to get ready for this climate change? Are you implying that the climate change of the earth is a non-random directed event? Are you implying that a disease that occurs and wipes out their preferred food supply causing them to adapt to a new food source was a directed event?
Please, tell me one thing non-random about the climate of the earth, food supply, isolation by geological events, asteroid impacts, volcanic eruptions, etc, etc, etc?

Funny how you think he's the only one who thinks evolution is not random. The events that drive adaptation are random, but evolution is forced through natural selection, the opposite of random. If the proliferation of a species was random, without regard to selection pressures, things wouldn't evolve, because traits which benefit the species would not gain dominance in the population.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Funny how you think he's the only one who thinks evolution is not random. The events that drive adaptation are random, but evolution is forced through natural selection, the opposite of random. If the proliferation of a species was random, without regard to selection pressures, things wouldn't evolve, because traits which benefit the species would not gain dominance in the population.

Natural selection is a random process, since whether or not a supposed mutation occurs in the first place is a random event. Therefore without this random event, there is no selection.

Before you can even talk about natural selection, you first must prove that alleles and genes can actually come into being that never existed before. Since this has never once been observed in biology or genetics, I don't see that you have any basis at all to claim that it is even possible, let alone reality.

We do know from science that mutations are harmful, neutral or cause recessives, but never once has new alleles or genetic material ever been observed.

Would you like to discuss the claimed CCR5 alleles that evolutionary geneticists admit have never been observed for natural selection?

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1275522/pdf/pbio.0030378.pdf

"We also looked at the derived allele frequency (DAF) distribution, which can detect the genetic hitchhiking of variation linked to an allele under positive selection, and found no evidence for selection. All of these tests have limited power, with genotyping data ascertained to favor common shared SNPs and using the chimpanzee sequence for comparison. Therefore, while the results provide no evidence for selection, it can not be ruled out; this could be further explored with sequencing of a large number of chromosomes."

It's the same claim we have always heard. Transitory species exist, even though the fossil record doesn't show it, we just can't rule them out because it is incomplete. Now genetics shows no evidence for selection, but we can't rule it out, because there are lots of more genes. It isn't the other genes that control the CCR5, but the specific ones they tested and found absolutely no evidence to back your claims.

But we will still have faith that someday, in a galaxy far, far away we will find them, cause they sure ain't been found here and never will be.

You are not practicing science, but religion. Relying on things never seen or observed, just as you claim of me, you just cloak yours under the term science, while I am honest enough to call my beliefs religious. I use science to back my religion, knowing the difference between the two. You simply call your religion science, and expect people to accept it on faith that it is so.

The European and Asian groups did not develop CCR5, the African and other groups lost it when it went recessive. This is confirmed by all mutation experiments where only genes that already exist go recessive, become dominate, are neutral, or kill the host. NEVER has a new alleles or gene been observed to enter the gene sequence. And never has selection been observed, even down to the genetic level.

And then you want me to believe, if I accept the position of evolution, that "If the proliferation of a species was random, without regard to selection pressures, things wouldn't evolve, because traits which benefit the species would not gain dominance in the population."

Which is complete and utter nonsense. If a meat eater gained a trait that also allowed it to eat nuts, berries, etc, it would have a distinct advantage over those limited to a meat only diet. They could therefore roam further and live in climates not accessible to strictly meat only diets, even if no natural event occurred to affect the others supply of meat. They would therefore eventually dominate. And no natural selection process need occur, just randomness of the genetic code.

But this is mere speculation, since never has a mutation been shown to create anything new in alleles or genes, merely cause recessives or dominant genes and alleles that already existed.

So talk of natural selection is at this point Fairie Dust and wishful thinking.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Justa, why do you keep repeating obvious fallacies?

Just because part of evolution is random that does not mean evolution is random. A drunk walking down a hill will still get to the bottom of the hill, even if he follows a random path.

And we have given links and "proof" of positive mutations. How about the long term E. coli experiment where the E. coli evolved the ability to digest citrate:

Escherichia coli long-term evolution experiment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

How about the natural evolution of Nylonase:

Nylon-eating bacteria - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

How about the positive mutation that you probably have? You never answered the question whether you could drink milk or not. Perhaps I touched a nerve. Alright, how about the positive mutation that I have? I can drink milk.

I am sure an expert could name countless others.

We know how new information can be formed by mutation. We know that there are positive mutations.

What part don't you understand?

 

[Subduction Zone]

And Justa, why did you link an article that you did not understand and pretend that you made some sort of point with it?

 

[sfs]

The European and Asian groups did not develop CCR5, the African and other groups lost it when it went recessive. This is confirmed by all mutation experiments where only genes that already exist go recessive, become dominate, are neutral, or kill the host. NEVER has a new alleles or gene been observed to enter the gene sequence. And never has selection been observed, even down to the genetic level.

Some of this is gibberish, and the rest is false. You really should stop repeating falsehoods about things you don't understand. It's not productive or godly or even polite.

 

[sfs]

Would you like to discuss the claimed CCR5 alleles that evolutionary geneticists admit have never been observed for natural selection?

I'd like to discuss them, but you aren't discussing them. How about you respond to my previous post?

 

[stevevw]

Whats going on here. I wasn't told about this. It seems scientists have discovered that the so called junk DNA we have isn't junk after all. They had told us for years that we were closely matched to apes in our DNA in fact 98% similar. To do this they determined that only 2% of our of the DNA of humans and apes is significant because this 2% of human DNA is the only portion that actually encodes for proteins, and is the only part of our DNA that is active.

They have said that the encoding DNA of apes and humans are almost identical and this is what they have used to show that we evolved from apes.

But it seems late last year as part of the ENCODE project scientist discovered that at least 80% of our DNA is functional and not junk as they called it. The ENCODE program involves over 400 geneticists from around the world and they have published 30 research paper that show that junk DNA is not junk. They discovered that it is active and contains the DNA necessary for embryonic development and the blueprint and tools necessary to make a baby.

So does that now mean we are not so matched to apes now. It seems they didn't include the other 98% of our genes because they classed it as junk. But now it has been shown to play an important part in regulating gene production. So if the apes are so different in their DNA then does that bring into question that we have evolved from ape.

Junk DNA — Not So Useless After All | TIME.com
An integrated encyclopedia of DNA elements in the human genome : Nature : Nature Publishing Group

 

[createdtoworship]

Whats going on here. I wasn't told about this. It seems scientists have discovered that the so called junk DNA we have isn't junk after all. They had told us for years that we were closely matched to apes in our DNA in fact 98% similar. To do this they determined that only 2% of our of the DNA of humans and apes is significant because this 2% of human DNA is the only portion that actually encodes for proteins, and is the only part of our DNA that is active.

The encoding DNA of apes and humans are almost “identical” and this is what they have used to show that we evolved from apes.

But it seems late last year scientist discovered that at least 80% is functional and not junk as they called it. They discovered that it if functional and active and contains the DNA necessary for embryonic development and the blueprint and tools necessary to make a baby.


So does that now mean we are not so matched to apes now. It seems they didn't include the other 98% of our genes because they classed it as junk. But now it has been shown to play an important part in regulating gene production. So if the apes are so different in their DNA then does that bring into question that we have evolved from ape.

Junk DNA — Not So Useless After All | TIME.com
An integrated encyclopedia of DNA elements in the human genome : Nature : Nature Publishing Group

here is more here:

Evolution News & Views: Junk DNA Archives

one of my fav websites.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Whats going on here. I wasn't told about this. It seems scientists have discovered that the so called junk DNA we have isn't junk after all. They had told us for years that we were closely matched to apes in our DNA in fact 98% similar. To do this they determined that only 2% of our of the DNA of humans and apes is significant because this 2% of human DNA is the only portion that actually encodes for proteins, and is the only part of our DNA that is active.

They have said that the encoding DNA of apes and humans are almost identical and this is what they have used to show that we evolved from apes.

But it seems late last year as part of the ENCODE project scientist discovered that at least 80% of our DNA is functional and not junk as they called it. The ENCODE program involves over 400 geneticists from around the world and they have published 30 research paper that show that junk DNA is not junk. They discovered that it is active and contains the DNA necessary for embryonic development and the blueprint and tools necessary to make a baby.

So does that now mean we are not so matched to apes now. It seems they didn't include the other 98% of our genes because they classed it as junk. But now it has been shown to play an important part in regulating gene production. So if the apes are so different in their DNA then does that bring into question that we have evolved from ape.

Junk DNA — Not So Useless After All | TIME.com
An integrated encyclopedia of DNA elements in the human genome : Nature : Nature Publishing Group

Yes, but you and I already know their propensity for jumping to conclusions with mere fragments of data. That is how Nanotyrannus came to be an evolutionary link, because they found two incomplete specimens. Of course they had no problems deducing an entire evolutionary tree for Nanotyrannus from mere fragments and convincing the public that they knew what they were talking about. Of course 155 years later we find it is just a baby. Same with Torosaurus, except we find out it is the adult of Triceratops.

Don't expect much to come of it, of that 80% they still don't understand but <1% and of the 20% they have actively studied understand < 2%. So with about a 3% knowledge of the genome they once again as always jump to conclusions.

It is like looking at a jigsaw puzzle where you have placed three pieces and trying to deduce what the entire picture shows. One persons interpretation is as good as any others at this point. Basically all useless.

ENCODE: the rough guide to the human genome : Not Exactly Rocket Science

So they studied 1.5% of the genome and thought they knew it all, then realized that 80% had encoding functions as well. The rest?

"And what&#8217;s in the remaining 20 percent? Possibly not junk either, according to Ewan Birney, the project&#8217;s Lead Analysis Coordinator and self-described &#8220;cat-herder-in-chief&#8221;. He explains that ENCODE only (!) looked at 147 types of cells, and the human body has a few thousand. A given part of the genome might control a gene in one cell type, but not others. If every cell is included, functions may emerge for the phantom proportion. &#8220;It&#8217;s likely that 80 percent will go to 100 percent,&#8221; says Birney. &#8220;We don&#8217;t really have any large chunks of redundant DNA. This metaphor of junk isn&#8217;t that useful.&#8221;

So again, that 96% evolutionists claim supports our relation to apes is based on less than 1.5% of the genome. Jumping to conclusions once again with mere fragments. And we know how that always ends up years down the line.

 

[sfs]

Whats going on here. I wasn't told about this. It seems scientists have discovered that the so called junk DNA we have isn't junk after all. They had told us for years that we were closely matched to apes in our DNA in fact 98% similar. To do this they determined that only 2% of our of the DNA of humans and apes is significant because this 2% of human DNA is the only portion that actually encodes for proteins, and is the only part of our DNA that is active.

They have said that the encoding DNA of apes and humans are almost identical and this is what they have used to show that we evolved from apes.

But it seems late last year as part of the ENCODE project scientist discovered that at least 80% of our DNA is functional and not junk as they called it. The ENCODE program involves over 400 geneticists from around the world and they have published 30 research paper that show that junk DNA is not junk. They discovered that it is active and contains the DNA necessary for embryonic development and the blueprint and tools necessary to make a baby.

So does that now mean we are not so matched to apes now. It seems they didn't include the other 98% of our genes because they classed it as junk. But now it has been shown to play an important part in regulating gene production. So if the apes are so different in their DNA then does that bring into question that we have evolved from ape.

Junk DNA — Not So Useless After All | TIME.com
An integrated encyclopedia of DNA elements in the human genome : Nature : Nature Publishing Group

No, pretty much all of this is wrong. First, the similarity between human and chimpanzee DNA was based on the entire genome, not on protein-coding genes. Protein-coding genes, in fact, are even more similar than that.

Second, no one ever thought that all noncoding DNA was junk. It's been known for many decades that some of the genome encodes RNAs and some of it is regulatory. Since the mouse genome was sequenced(2002), we've known that only a minority of functional DNA is protein-coding.

Third, the ENCODE project did not show that 80% of the genome has a function; they showed that 80% is biochemically active. The best estimate of the fraction of the genome that was functional at the time of the mouse genome paper was at least 6%. As a result of the ENCODE project, the best estimate is 9-15%. (The very first guess about the functional fraction, back when the term "junk DNA" was invented, was 20%.)

 

[sfs]

"And what’s in the remaining 20 percent? Possibly not junk either, according to Ewan Birney, the project’s Lead Analysis Coordinator and self-described “cat-herder-in-chief”. He explains that ENCODE only (!) looked at 147 types of cells, and the human body has a few thousand. A given part of the genome might control a gene in one cell type, but not others. If every cell is included, functions may emerge for the phantom proportion. “It’s likely that 80 percent will go to 100 percent,” says Birney. “We don’t really have any large chunks of redundant DNA. This metaphor of junk isn’t that useful.”

Why didn't you continue quoting from the same blog?

Update 07/09 23:00 Indeed, to many scientists, these are the questions that matter, and ones that ENCODE has dodged through a liberal definition of “functional”. That, say the critics, critically weakens its claims of having found a genome rife with activity. Most of the ENCODE’s “functional elements” are little more than sequences being transcribed to RNA, with little heed to their physiological or evolutionary importance. These include repetitive remains of genetic parasites that have copied themselves ad infinitum, the corpses of dead and once-useful genes, and more.

To include all such sequences within the bracket of “functional” sets a very low bar. Michael Eisen from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute said that ENCODE’s definition as a “meaningless measure of functional significance” and Leonid Kruglyak from Princeton University noted that it’s “barely more interesting” than saying that a sequence gets copied (which all of them are). To put it more simply: our genomic city’s got lots of new players in it, but they may largely be bums.

 

[[serious]]

Setting aside any debate about the percentage of functional DNA, of what relevance is it to the matter at hand? How does a high (or low) percentage of DNA with function support creation or intelligent design?

 

[stevevw]

Setting aside any debate about the percentage of functional DNA, of what relevance is it to the matter at hand? How does a high (or low) percentage of DNA with function support creation or intelligent design?

Wasn't trying to establish that. More so that the discovery may be the beginning of realizing there is more function to the so called junk DNA than they thought. It just seemed a waste to have such a large amount sitting there not doing much and it seemed such a big statement for scientist to make that 98% was just junk. Why would they say that and then dismiss it out of hand.

In the end if it proves that the junk has more function and does contribute to the process then doesn't that make it even more complicated for life to have evolved. Wont that mean there maybe even more checks and balances and that the junk DNA is vital to the process to ensure mistakes aren't made. Doesn't that give us more uniqueness and show we may not have evolved from apes as there are more differences than thought. Perhaps to many differences for it to have happened by a random process than relies on errors and part chance.

I Know that some in the evolutionary world are not happy and are shooting down ENCODES findings and maybe the findings will be proved wrong. But it seems to have created some debate and we will have to wait and see what happens. It just seems as time goes by and as they discover more it is bringing up some surprising results that are causing some controversy.

 

[46AND2]

...

Which is complete and utter nonsense. If a meat eater gained a trait that also allowed it to eat nuts, berries, etc, it would have a distinct advantage over those limited to a meat only diet. They could therefore roam further and live in climates not accessible to strictly meat only diets, even if no natural event occurred to affect the others supply of meat. They would therefore eventually dominate. And no natural selection process need occur, just randomness of the genetic code.

...

You just negated your entire argument with this one paragraph. If a meat eater gained an advantage AND evolution was random, the advantaged meat eater wouldn't survive any better than the disadvantaged, BECAUSE THEY WOULD DIE RANDOMLY.

If one population of a species survives better because of an advantage, like you just described, THAT IS NATURAL SELECTION. You go on and on about how natural selection has never been observed, then give an example of natural selection, completely oblivious to the fact that that's what you are describing.

 

[sfs]

Wasn't trying to establish that. More so that the discovery may be the beginning of realizing there is more function to the so called junk DNA than they thought. It just seemed a waste to have such a large amount sitting there not doing much and it seemed such a big statement for scientist to make that 98% was just junk. Why would they say that and then dismiss it out of hand.

We didn't dismiss it out of hand. First, no one ever said 98% of the genome was junk. Second, there were good reasons for thinking that much of the genome had no function. Those reasons haven't changed, which is why most geneticists and most evolutionary biologists remain convinced that most of the genome is nonfunctional.

In the end if it proves that the junk has more function and does contribute to the process then doesn't that make it even more complicated for life to have evolved.

Not really, no.

Wont that mean there maybe even more checks and balances and that the junk DNA is vital to the process to ensure mistakes aren't made. Doesn't that give us more uniqueness and show we may not have evolved from apes as there are more differences than thought.

No. Apes have largely the same noncoding DNA as we do.

I Know that some in the evolutionary world are not happy and are shooting down ENCODES findings and maybe the findings will be proved wrong.

Mostly were not shooting down ENCODE's findings; we're shooting down their press releases, which suggested much more than their actual papers did. The ENCODE papers never suggested that 80% of the genome did anything remotely useful; all they did was show that 80% was biochemically active. In their press releases they kind of hinted that this meant that 80% was important, but they'd never come out and say that in their papers, since it's patently ridiculous.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Why didn't you continue quoting from the same blog?

Ahh yes, so lets throw ENCODE out of the books since we can't trust it? So all the results are not trustworthy, including the results you use to prove evolution, since that too is included in the results and is questioned by some authorities. I have no problem throwing it all out. do you?

Oh, but that part you rely on is certainty, lol.