Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
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.
[serious];64671911 said: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.
Incorrect. New genes are seen to arise by duplication all the time.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. Beneficial mutations include mutations that add functional elements; even Michael Behe, guru of intelligent design, acknowledges that.Mutations are:
1. Harmful,
2. Neutral,
3. or simply delete what already existed or make it repressive.
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.In all tests the mutated specimen did no better in the wild than the wild types, and almost always fared worse.
Who said anything about CCR5?As for your claimed CCR5 what do the tests actually show?
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.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"
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.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.
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.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,
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.
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.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.
I'd like to discuss them, but you aren't discussing them. How about you respond to my previous post?Would you like to discuss the claimed CCR5 alleles that evolutionary geneticists admit have never been observed for natural selection?
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 â Not So Useless After All | TIME.com
An integrated encyclopedia of DNA elements in the human genome : Nature : Nature Publishing Group
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.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 â Not So Useless After All | TIME.com
An integrated encyclopedia of DNA elements in the human genome : Nature : Nature Publishing Group
"And whats in the remaining 20 percent? Possibly not junk either, according to Ewan Birney, the projects 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. Its likely that 80 percent will go to 100 percent, says Birney. We dont really have any large chunks of redundant DNA. This metaphor of junk isnt that useful.
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 ENCODEs 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 ENCODEs definition as a meaningless measure of functional significance and Leonid Kruglyak from Princeton University noted that its barely more interesting than saying that a sequence gets copied (which all of them are). To put it more simply: our genomic citys got lots of new players in it, but they may largely be bums.
[serious];64677498 said: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?
...
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.
...
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.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.
Not really, no.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.
No. Apes have largely the same noncoding DNA as we do.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.
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.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.
Why didn't you continue quoting from the same blog?
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?