What about the DNA evidence?

[Split Rock]

Only in your own mind! You have never once shown that new alleles or genes can be created, nor that mutations do anything other than cause genes to become recessive or dominate, genes that ALREADY existed. You have never shown this because it has never been observed in any experiment. Only in the minds of theorists does this happen, in the far, far past. And might as well be in a galaxy far, far away while we are at it.

I already gave the example of a specific mutation in a gene that provided resistance to glyphosate in goosegrass Thus, by definition, a new allele. One More Time: http://www.christianforums.com/t3309652/

Maybe you can stop ignoring the examples we provide that you ask for and then tell us we are not providing!

No one is arguing that beneficial genes might be selected over harmful ones. But natural selection as used in evolution requires that new genes and alleles be created where none existed before. This has never been observed, which is why scientists are careful to say variation of the species, even if they then go on to speculate how this might create new species, something never once observed as fact.

See above.

You have living examples right before your eyes you constantly ignore. House cat mates with Ocelot - showing they are ONE SPECIES. Ocelot mates with Jaguar - showing they are ONE SPECIES, and therefore house cat as well. Jaguar mates with Panther - showing they are ONE SPECIES, and house cat and Ocelot as well. Panther mates with Lion - showing they are ONE SPECIES, and house cat, Ocelot and Jaguar as well. Lion mates with Tiger - showing they are ONE SPECIES, and house cat, Ocelot, Jaguar and Panther as well. The interbreeding chain is absolute and proven to exist. They are all one species, merely variation thereof.

If they are all the same species, why can't jaguars mate with ocelots?

The same in plants. We have many varieties of rose, but they are all roses. Many varieties of wheat, but they are all wheat. Many varieties of rice, but they all are rice. Rice does not become maize, and maize does not become rice.

Yet we can hybridize some different species of plants together, like Triticale Triticale - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Here is an example of a new hybrid that evolved naturally, and is a new species since it cannot cross pollinate with its mother species. http://www.holysmoke.org/new-species.htm

In the end you have only variation of the same species, even if you call the same species different species. But I would expect nothing less from an evolutionists that believes Lions and Tigers are separate species when they interbreed and produce fertile offspring, the exact definition of species. You can't even be consistent within your own defined terms.

Lions and tigers do not interbreed in the wild and therefore constitute separate breeding pools. Therefore, according to the definition of Biological Species, they are indeed separate species.

 

[Split Rock]

I believe species can sometimes interbreed and are therefore within a kind (sometimes), I personally believe however that no animal can evolve in which he passes into another genus. There is a genus barrier. And thus macro evolution imo is only related to crossing the genus barrier. And I believe the Bible's "Kind" to be genus (approximately).

Triticale is a hybrid of wheat and rye: Triticale - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The new genus is × Triticosecale.

 

[Loudmouth]

This feels more like displaced frustration at the choice of the term "junk" at this point.

You are projecting again.

Junk is a perfect term. It is disposible DNA in that it can be thrown out without losing function. It is like the junk in your kitchen's trash can. That trash is going through biochemical reactions in your kitchen, but if you throw it out your kitchen has not lost any of its functionality. In fact, nature has already done that experiment for us. The bladderwort genome is only 3% junk and 97% functional, and it has about the same amount of functional DNA as we suspect that other species have. The bladderwort functions just fine, just as any other plant.

I have always disliked the term 'junk dna' because it makes all sorts of assumptions about the functionality of DNA that aren't necessarily true.

You keep going back to this same misunderstanding.

The heart of your problem is that you don't understand what scientists mean by junk DNA. Junk DNA is defined as DNA that is randomly mutation and appears not to be under selective pressures. That is not an assumption. That is a measurement of how sequences are diverging.

What we are doing is letting nature tell us what is most likely function and what is most likely not. Nature tells us this through selective pressures.

I also dislike the way you personally present your favorite materials (apparently supported by only 1 paper you could readily cite) as *fact* when it's only a "theory", but there's no point in making a federal case over it on this issue IMO.

If you have to be coddled in order to accept scientific research then the problem is not mine.

The ENCODE folks, as well as recent discoveries about DNA demonstrate rather conclusively IMO that there are highly subjective ways of describing a genome's function.

Are you just finding out that words in english can have more than one definition, and that there meaning can change in different contexts?

Yes, you can use different definitions of function if you want. All that is required is that you be upfront with the definition you are using. This doesn't make the definition subjective. Both the definitions of function are objective. ENCODE lays out what their definition is, and then they use objective tests to determine if DNA fits that definition. The same for those who are measuring DNA that is constrained by selection. They have objective criteria, equations, and tests that they use to determine whether DNA fits their definition of functional or not.

The real debate is which definition is useful. The vast majority of scientists I have talked to think that ENCODE's definition for functional is useless for determining if a DNA sequence will have any affect on phenotype of fitness, whereas defining function with repsect to conservation of sequence has a much better chance of finding sequence that does affect fitness and phenotype.

The ENCODE group's definition puts the functional genome number at 80 percent *functional*, which even 'feels' high to me.

The problem is that their definition isn't useful.

It's still just a *consensus* that I frankly think will change over time.

Then you started with a belief, and the data won't budge you.

There's really not that much point however in haggling over percentages or blaming you personally for the term 'junk', nor the current consensus. I'll just let it go at this point unless you have some objection.

The real question at the bottom of this whole exchange is this. How can functional DNA keep its function no matter how many mutations you add to it?

 

[Michael]

You are projecting again.

Er, no, I was talking about *my own feelings*, not yours.

Junk is a perfect term. It is disposible DNA in that it can be thrown out without losing function.

But you can't prove that. You can show *some* evidence to support it, but it's very limited evidence, and there's still a lot we *do not know* about DNA.

Even when I tried to let it go, you keep going.....

You keep going back to this same misunderstanding.

The heart of your problem is that you don't understand what scientists mean by junk DNA. Junk DNA is defined as DNA that is randomly mutation and appears not to be under selective pressures. That is not an assumption. That is a measurement of how sequences are diverging.

What "scientists" tend to believe and what you personally believe are rarely the same thing in my experience. I already admitted that part of my 'issue' relates to the choice of terms, and there's no point in blaming you for it. What else do you want?

What we are doing is letting nature tell us what is most likely function and what is most likely not. Nature tells us this through selective pressures.

But none of that explain fight/flight tendencies nor variations in human attitudes and behaviors at birth. You're really just talking about *physical form* at best case.

Then you started with a belief, and the data won't budge you.

No, I didn't. You're the one that it emotionally attached to a *specific* number, not me.

The real question at the bottom of this whole exchange is this. How can functional DNA keep its function no matter how many mutations you add to it?

You're clearly not hearing me, nor are you trying to hear me. Variations in personality are obvious right from birth. Changing those particular strands of DNA may very will have an effect on personality characteristics that may not be *obvious* at birth. You may simply not be able to easily measure the *physical changes* that occur because of that modification. Again, you're just *assuming* that something which doesn't have an clear *physical* effect is 'junk', when in fact it may very well have a powerful biochemical/psychological effect on the individual. People have different tolerances for types of foods and types of drugs. All those variations are likely to be DNA variations.

Anyway, I'm tired of arguing the point with you. As I noted earlier, *I* (not you) was ultimately displacing my frustration on the term 'junk' on to you, and I've already acknowledged that your position is the 'more popular' position. What more do you want? Egg in your beer?

 

[Loudmouth]

But you can't prove that. You can show *some* evidence to support it, but it's very limited evidence, and there's still a lot we *do not know* about DNA.

So what would prove that a stretch of DNA does not have function, in your eyes?

Even when I tried to let it go, you keep going.....

I am explaining why no one needs to run away from the term junk DNA. It is a perfectly fine description.

What "scientists" tend to believe and what you personally believe are rarely the same thing in my experience.

Projection again. sfs has said numerous times that my explanations and numbers are consistent with the scientific consensus.

But none of that explain fight/flight tendencies nor variations in human attitudes and behaviors at birth. You're really just talking about *physical form* at best case.

DNA is responsible for the deveopment of the brain which is the source for attitudes and behaviors. It is physical form throughout.

No, I didn't. You're the one that it emotionally attached to a *specific* number, not me.

I am only attached to a definition for functional. The data is what the data is. I am only reporting those numbers.

Before you even understood how those numbers were arrived at you had already decided that they had to be wrong. You are attached to a number.

You're clearly not hearing me, nor are you trying to hear me. Variations in personality are obvious right from birth. Changing those particular strands of DNA may very will have an effect on personality characteristics that may not be *obvious* at birth. You may simply not be able to easily measure the *physical changes* that occur because of that modification. Again, you're just *assuming* that something which doesn't have an clear *physical* effect is 'junk', when in fact it may very well have a powerful biochemical/psychological effect on the individual. People have different tolerances for types of foods and types of drugs. All those variations are likely to be DNA variations.

You are still not hearing me. My determination of what is and isn't functional has nothing to do with what it does physically. It has to do with sequence conservation over evolutionary histories.

Anyway, I'm tired of arguing the point with you. As I noted earlier, *I* (not you) was ultimately displacing my frustration on the term 'junk' on to you, and I've already acknowledged that your position is the 'more popular' position. What more do you want? Egg in your beer?

I thought you were also venting frustration that scientists used the term. My apologies for any misunderstandings that it may have led to.

 

[[serious]]

Triticale is a hybrid of wheat and rye: Triticale - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The new genus is × Triticosecale.

Well then we've never seen a new family emerge!

actually though, the traditional taxanomic levels don't have any unified definition (with the exception of "species") so defining kind as generally the genus level isn't really helpful. We've adapted the terms to our now more robust understanding of taxonomy by further expanding the groups into thing like sub/super groups

a more complete list of possible rankings is available on wikipedia:

Domain or Empire
Kingdom
Subkingdom
Infrakingdom
Superphylum (or Superdivision in botany)
Phylum (or Division in botany)
Subphylum (or Subdivision in botany)
Infraphylum (or Infradivision in botany)
Microphylum
Superclass
Class
Subclass
Infraclass
Parvclass
Superdivision (zoology)[10]
Division (zoology)[10]
Subdivision (zoology)[10]
Infradivision (zoology)[10]
Superlegion (zoology)
Legion (zoology)
Sublegion (zoology)
Infralegion (zoology)
Supercohort (zoology)[11]
Cohort (zoology)[11]
Subcohort (zoology)[11]
Infracohort (zoology)[11]
Gigaorder (zoology)[12]
Magnorder or Megaorder (zoology)[12]
Grandorder or Capaxorder (zoology)[12]
Mirorder or Hyperorder (zoology)[12]
Superorder
Series (for fishes)
Order
Parvorder (position in some zoological classifications)
Nanorder (zoology)
Hypoorder (zoology)
Minorder (zoology)
Suborder
Infraorder
Parvorder (usual position) or Microorder (zoology)[12]
Section (zoology)
Subsection (zoology)
Gigafamily (zoology)
Megafamily (zoology)
Grandfamily (zoology)
Hyperfamily (zoology)
Superfamily
Epifamily (zoology)
Series (for Lepidoptera)
Group (for Lepidoptera)
Family
Subfamily
Infrafamily
Supertribe
Tribe
Subtribe
Infratribe
Genus
Subgenus
Section (botany)
Subsection (botany)
Series (botany)
Subseries (botany)
Superspecies or Species-group
Species
Subspecies (or Forma Specialis for fungi, or Variety for bacteria[13])
Variety (botany) or Form/Morph (zoology)
Subvariety (botany)
Form (botany)
Subform (botany)

 

[Michael]

So what would prove that a stretch of DNA does not have function, in your eyes?

Has anybody (else) ever told you that you're not a very gracious 'winner'? I essentially conceded the point for the time being, and admitted my 'sins' for displacing my frustration with the term 'junk' onto you personally. Even still you won't just 'let it go', you seem to have some emotional need for some further vindication. What exactly would suffice your Highness?

I am explaining why no one needs to run away from the term junk DNA. It is a perfectly fine description.

To you perhaps. Not so much to me. It's *always* bugged me. It makes *assumptions* about DNA from a place of pure ignorance, much like assuming all "UFO's" must necessarily come from another planet just because we can't explain how that thing in the sky functioned.

Projection again. sfs has said numerous times that my explanations and numbers are consistent with the scientific consensus.

As I explained to sfs, it's the *way* that you phrase things that irks more more than anything else. You assert *certainty* where most 'scientists' would not.

DNA is responsible for the deveopment of the brain which is the source for attitudes and behaviors. It is physical form throughout.

Yes, but it's also a biochemical instrument throughout, and you blew off all those biochemical *functions* without so much as a second thought! How do you know that those biochemical changes in those strands of DNA won't have chemical repercussions throughout the entire organism, *including* the brain?

I am only attached to a definition for functional. The data is what the data is. I am only reporting those numbers.

You've actually reported a range of numbers that have varied anywhere from about 12 percent to about 80 percent *functional* and you've spent your time attacking the upper end number with complete disregard for any "details" like explaining chemical and food sensitivities or personality tendencies. Frankly I'm not happy calling any DNA "junk" DNA, nor am I personally happy picking out some figure out of thin air and proclaiming 'this number is truth'!

Before you even understood how those numbers were arrived at you had already decided that they had to be wrong. You are attached to a number.

No, I was annoyed at *your* attachment to a specific number.

You are still not hearing me. My determination of what is and isn't functional has nothing to do with what it does physically. It has to do with sequence conservation over evolutionary histories.

We're talking past each other because you seem to have an emotional attachment to a specific number, and therefore you have a need to attack the other paper you handed me that *disagreed* with you!

I thought you were also venting frustration that scientists used the term. My apologies for any misunderstandings that it may have led to.

I have always and still do object to that term actually, so apparently we still aren't communicating all that well.

 

[createdtoworship]

Triticale is a hybrid of wheat and rye: Triticale - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The new genus is × Triticosecale.

you are quite right, however the hybrid is sterile.

and this is always the case with every occasion I have seen of cross genus transitions.

 

[createdtoworship]

Your statement that evolution doesn't create new info is negative, but your implied claim that evolution requires new info is a positive claim. Likewise, the requirement to define your terms (information) is not excused by the term occuring in a negative statement.

I never said "evolution requires new info" is not what I said. But it would be easy to prove. I said mutations provide no information (genetic code), so how can a mutation be beneficial?

also the same questino for evolution:

if there is no new genetic code, how can evolution be beneficial?

I believe when I was in college the definition of evolution was "change in the content of the gene pool" this may still be applicable to today. If this is the case then IF it's beneficial it must be a change or added information.

 

[createdtoworship]

Wherever did you get that idea?

look up "do positive statements require burden of proof"

here is one:

http://www.qcc.cuny.edu/socialscien...ER_5_ARGUMENTS_EXPERIENCE/Burden-of-Proof.htm

Okay. The amount of information in a genome is two bits per base pair. A mutation that adds a single base pair to the genome adds two bits. Mutations that add single base pairs occur frequently. Therefore, mutations increase the amount of information in a genome. QED.[/

what is the name of this mutation, or do you have any names or tags at identifying this occurance?

as far as I can tell, yes some mutations are beneficial (not the majority), but ALL mutations will alter or take away genetic code, not add any thing.

some evolutionists confuse copying genetic information with adding information.

 

[[serious]]

Has anybody (else) ever told you that you're not a very gracious 'winner'? I essentially conceded the point for the time being

It didn't look like a concession as much as saying you were done while still trying to get in the last word. Even the parts that did kind of read like concessions were delivered in the most backhanded way possible. Example from your "concession":

I also dislike the way you personally present your favorite materials (apparently supported by only 1 paper you could readily cite) as *fact* when it's only a "theory", but there's no point in making a federal case over it on this issue IMO.

I do realize and accept that your position is the more common position at this point in time. It's still just a *consensus* that I frankly think will change over time.

That doesn't read like a concession. It reads more like: "you can only support it with one paper, and it's just a theory, but I'll concede the point only in that it's more popular right now, but rest assured it is still wrong and the consensus will change and vindicate me"

Then you go on:

What "scientists" tend to believe and what you personally believe are rarely the same thing in my experience.

At this point you seem to be recanting your "concession" that he has the more broadly accepted view, but you restate it at the end of the post:

I've already acknowledged that your position is the 'more popular' position.

You do still have a big block in the middle talking about all sorts of stuff that could totally be dependant on that junk DNA (DNA with no measurable sequence dependant selection if you would prefer). Well, I suppose it theoretically could, but we've yet to see any study show a statistically relevant correlation between those sections of the genome and drug or disease resistance, or food tolerances, or personality traits, etc. Likewise, whether or not the number of windows in your house is a prime number could have a relationship to what your favorite pizza topping is. However, I don't get to present that as an argument until something shows that there is some relationship there.

Also, you don't really get to present further arguments as you concede a point. It kind of makes it not a concession.

 

[Michael]

It didn't look like a concession as much as saying you were done while still trying to get in the last word.....

Also, you don't really get to present further arguments as you concede a point. It kind of makes it not a concession.

Valid points noted.

 

[[serious]]

I never said "evolution requires new info" is not what I said. But it would be easy to prove. I said mutations provide no information (genetic code), so how can a mutation be beneficial?

the parenthetical "(genetic code)" reads as if you are defining information as the genetic code. Since mutation can add to the genetic code (duplication/alteration), under that definition information can be added.

Further more, you seem to have an unstated assumption that information has to be added to produce a beneficial mutation. YOu would need to defend that position. The mainstream scientific position makes no such assumption.

also the same questino for evolution:

if there is no new genetic code, how can evolution be beneficial?

The loss of a gene which is deleterious in the context of the organism's current environment would be an example of a loss of genetic code as a beneficial mutation.

I believe when I was in college the definition of evolution was "change in the content of the gene pool" this may still be applicable to today. If this is the case then IF it's beneficial it must be a change or added information.

Different wording, but same concept. Evolution is the change in the frequency of alleles in a population over time.

Natural selection, one mechanism for that happening, states that alleles which cause a selective advantage are more likely to be more prevalent in the next generation.

You also have other important terms like mutation, fixation of an allele, speciation, and so on that should be understood within the context of the discussion. If you are shaky on any of them, let me know and I'll define them for you before we continue.

 

[Split Rock]

as far as I can tell, yes some mutations are beneficial (not the majority), but ALL mutations will alter or take away genetic code, not add any thing.

some evolutionists confuse copying genetic information with adding information.

What do you call it when a gene is duplicated and then the product is altered by a substitution mutation?

 

[[serious]]

Valid points noted.

Now that looks more like a concession!

I think you two started talking past each other for a while there.

 

[createdtoworship]

What do you call it when a gene is duplicated and then the product is altered by a substitution mutation?

it's a mutation but no new information. Just alteration, like you said.

 

[[serious]]

it's a mutation but no new information. Just alteration, like you said.

But it's something new while still retaining all that is old.

Example with language:

I sent the men to the gate

Duplication:
I sent the men men to the gate

Alteration:
I sent the ten men to the gate

The final sentence has more information that the first. Likewise, if one generation has 10 normal genes, and another generation has 10 normal genes AND one gene with altered function, there is something real and concrete with function that has been added. Pretending otherwise won't help.

 

[createdtoworship]

the parenthetical "(genetic code)" reads as if you are defining information as the genetic code. Since mutation can add to the genetic code (duplication/alteration), under that definition information can be added.

Further more, you seem to have an unstated assumption that information has to be added to produce a beneficial mutation. YOu would need to defend that position. The mainstream scientific position makes no such assumption

my point is that evolutionists falsly tag duplication and alteration as "adding" when it is simply duplication or alteration to the code.

.
The loss of a gene which is deleterious in the context of the organism's current environment would be an example of a loss of genetic code as a beneficial mutation.

but we don't have any examples, but yes I agree a very small amount of mutations may be beneficial, but I haven't seen one.

You also have other important terms like mutation, fixation of an allele, speciation, and so on that should be understood within the context of the discussion. If you are shaky on any of them, let me know and I'll define them for you before we continue.

thanks

 

[Subduction Zone]

my point is that evolutionists falsly tag duplication and alteration as "adding" when it is simply duplication or alteration to the code.

You might have a point if that duplication did not undergo mutation. I am fairly sure that sfs could cite you examples of genes that arose from duplication yet had a different use now that they had evolved a bit. You do realize that there is a lot of "junk DNA" in our genome that arose exactly from those processes. The junk DNA does not have a function and your claims could be right for that. Of course then you have the dilemma of "junk DNA" another problem for creationists.

but we don't have any examples, but yes I agree a very small amount of mutations may be beneficial, but I haven't seen one.

I can name two off of the top of my head. sfs could name more. Oops, three!

Nylonase, the long term Ecoli experiment, and lactose tolerance.

 

[Split Rock]

it's a mutation but no new information. Just alteration, like you said.

So then do you agree that the entire genome could theoretically have been created via "alteration" of an original short sequence? If so, then what is the point of claiming that mutation cannot add information?