You cannot see the forest for the trees

[PeterDona]

This is an old danish proverb.

What I mean is, that since I am learning from this debate that the evolutionist view is supported by looking at DNA sequence homologies and more DNA sequence homologies

But I believe that it was proven long ago, in the original Jacob and Monod 1961 article actually, that genetics is in the sequence
DNA -> RNA -> protein
gene -> phenotype
Or to say it like that, that is the paradigm of modern molecular biology.

If it is postulated that 2 pieces of DNA evolved from common ancestor, one should ask the harder question: would that provide a functional protein all the way? And what function, and what would be the effect of that function - supportive or lethal.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

This is an old danish proverb.

What I mean is, that since I am learning from this debate that the evolutionist view is supported by looking at DNA sequence homologies and more DNA sequence homologies

But I believe that it was proven long ago, in the original Jacob and Monod 1961 article actually, that genetics is in the sequence
DNA -> RNA -> protein
gene -> phenotype
Or to say it like that, that is the paradigm of modern molecular biology.

If it is postulated that 2 pieces of DNA evolved from common ancestor, one should ask the harder question: would that provide a functional protein all the way? And what function, and what would be the effect of that function - supportive or lethal.

The problem is that experiments that produce proteins, within a month break down into useless non-biological matter in which nothing else can be produced. Every other experiment that produces part of what life needs is not compatible with any of the other processes. The science clearly shows the incorrectness of the belief that life arose from non-living matter by random chance.

As for DNA you can't have it until you also have RNA and proteins. Yet you can't get RNA without DNA and proteins. And you can't get the proteins life requires without having DNA and RNA. All three must be in place simultaneously with the capacity to function seamlessly together. Any random error during this time means non-continuation along the process of life. DNA requires RNA which requires proteins which require DNA and RNA which require...... in a never ending loop that can only be accomplished when all three are simultaneously present at the exact same time - with the ability to function in harmony to produce copies of themselves. No random trial and error is possible - one error stops the process where it is. Take away one - you take away all three.

 

[PeterDona]

Yes, certainly you are right, that evolutionism is a miraculous faith when we talk about how evolutionists believe that the first life was created. A first cell should at one shocking instant contain functional DNA, functional RNA, and functional proteins, plus cell walls and all the other functional microstructures of the cell. We cannot argue, that one this point evolutionism is extremely superstitious.

But I am trying to make the point, that even when we look at, what supposedly followed after the creation of the first life, we try to identify the supposed steps by looking at DNA sequences. And then claiming that somehow these differences in DNA sequences are created by a process of mutations. Really? No-one ever observed that process of changes in DNA sequences, and can really evaluate that process. This is where evolution theory should be strong, but even at this point, that should be the strongest point, there is a good amount of assumptions, that might almost be labelled as circular reasoning.

I am trying to give some input on how to evaluate that process, asking the hard question: how realistic really is this supposed process? Humm, maybe we still do not know enough about protein folding and function to evaluate?

I am asking the hard question: do not just look at DNA sequence similarity, but also ask what is the effect of the differences in DNA sequence, when we go and look at protein function. Are those differences good or bad? Constructive or destructive?

A computer simulation of those proteins should be possible by now, at least the software is there and the computational power, example:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19361980
So even based on a computer simulation, you should be able to evaluate suggested evolutionary processes.

 

[Gene2memE]

I think you're overlooking the earlier, simpler possibilities, such as proto-celluar lipids, self-replicating macromolecules, peptide nucleic acid and acellular 'life' as precursors to both RNA and DNA.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Yes, certainly you are right, that evolutionism is a miraculous faith when we talk about how evolutionists believe that the first life was created. A first cell should at one shocking instant contain functional DNA, functional RNA, and functional proteins, plus cell walls and all the other functional microstructures of the cell. We cannot argue, that one this point evolutionism is extremely superstitious.

But I am trying to make the point, that even when we look at, what supposedly followed after the creation of the first life, we try to identify the supposed steps by looking at DNA sequences. And then claiming that somehow these differences in DNA sequences are created by a process of mutations. Really? No-one ever observed that process of changes in DNA sequences, and can really evaluate that process. This is where evolution theory should be strong, but even at this point, that should be the strongest point, there is a good amount of assumptions, that might almost be labelled as circular reasoning.

It isn't strong there because that is not how we observe life to propagate. We observe breed mating with breed producing new breeds (variation) within the species. By the recombination of genes and new dominant and recessive traits. Asian mates with African and produces an Afro-Asian. There was no evolution by mutation involved, nor were there any missing links missing between the Asian or African and the Afro-Asian. This is what they refuse to accept, even if it is the only thing we have ever observed. Anything else is pure speculation.

I am trying to give some input on how to evaluate that process, asking the hard question: how realistic really is this supposed process? Humm, maybe we still do not know enough about protein folding and function to evaluate?

I am asking the hard question: do not just look at DNA sequence similarity, but also ask what is the effect of the differences in DNA sequence, when we go and look at protein function. Are those differences good or bad? Constructive or destructive?

A computer simulation of those proteins should be possible by now, at least the software is there and the computational power, example:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19361980
So even based on a computer simulation, you should be able to evaluate suggested evolutionary processes.

But the data they input is based upon nothing observed, which is why the simulations fail. It is based upon pure speculation.

For example it is the same with their models of the heliopause. They based those models upon their beliefs of how galaxies and stars form, but the empirical data falsified every single one of them, but they still rely on those same models for the formation of galaxies and stars that led to all these falsified models.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heliosphere#Heliopause
""The IBEX results are truly remarkable! What we are seeing in these maps does not match with any of the previous theoretical models of this region."

What the IBEX data showed was all of their models of how galaxies and stars form are also incorrect - because it led them to theorize incorrect models closer to home. It is the same with evolution. Until they correct their basic assumptions, they will never have a model that fits reality.

I think you're overlooking the earlier, simpler possibilities, such as proto-celluar lipids, self-replicating macromolecules, peptide nucleic acid and acellular 'life' as precursors to both RNA and DNA.

Well then - show me in the lab where you can create one in an environment that is compatible with any of the other environments that create the others? The problem is the same - no matter which aspect you try to shift it to in an attempt to avoid the problems associated with the other. None of those can be produced in environments that allow the production of any of the others. Lipids cease to exist in environments where macromolecules can exist, etc, etc. And acellular life is protozoa which contain DNA, they are simple one cell organisms, and we have discussed the problems with DNA existing by itself.

 

[Not_By_Chance]

The problem is that experiments that produce proteins, within a month break down into useless non-biological matter in which nothing else can be produced. Every other experiment that produces part of what life needs is not compatible with any of the other processes. The science clearly shows the incorrectness of the belief that life arose from non-living matter by random chance.

As for DNA you can't have it until you also have RNA and proteins. Yet you can't get RNA without DNA and proteins. And you can't get the proteins life requires without having DNA and RNA. All three must be in place simultaneously with the capacity to function seamlessly together. Any random error during this time means non-continuation along the process of life. DNA requires RNA which requires proteins which require DNA and RNA which require...... in a never ending loop that can only be accomplished when all three are simultaneously present at the exact same time - with the ability to function in harmony to produce copies of themselves. No random trial and error is possible - one error stops the process where it is. Take away one - you take away all three.

Not to mention major problems like chirality. As one professor of biology, (who used to teach evolution) quipped, "What is death anyway, but the triumph of chemistry over biology," adding, "I now recognise [evolution] as the greatest lie I ever told."

 

[Not_By_Chance]

I am asking the hard question: do not just look at DNA sequence similarity, but also ask what is the effect of the differences in DNA sequence, when we go and look at protein function. Are those differences good or bad? Constructive or destructive?

Haven't they already proven beyond reasonable doubt that mutations don't produce any lasting benefits to a species by all the experiments with fruit flies, or is that a different things altogether?

I think you are right to question the whole fanciful idealogy of evolution. Look at it this way; apart from the lack of any proof that it's a real process, it would, if true, mean that God had used a very cruel and wasteful way of developing life on this planet and for what purpose, when clearly the one who has created the entire universe, including time itself, could easily have done it the way He described to us by His Divine revelation in our Holy Scriptures. Given the choice between man's fallible ideas and God's perfect truth, I know in whom I put my trust.

 

[Not_By_Chance]

For example it is the same with their models of the heliopause. They based those models upon their beliefs of how galaxies and stars form, but the empirical data falsified every single one of them, but they still rely on those same models for the formation of galaxies and stars that led to all these falsified models.

I think the whole notion that the universe sprang into existence all on its own out of nothing takes a lot more faith than beleiving that God created it as revealed to us in Genesis. The same goes for the creation of life from non-living chemicals. If you are interested, there are two fantastic DVDs by Spike Psarris at www.creationastronomy.com. The next one in the series, dealing specifically with problems with the so-called Big Bang is due out any time soon (I believe Spike is starting to make plans for a speaking tour to support the release of Volume III, starting sometime in the Autumn). I can't wait to order my copy when it becomes available.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

I think the whole notion that the universe sprang into existence all on its own out of nothing takes a lot more faith than beleiving that God created it as revealed to us in Genesis. The same goes for the creation of life from non-living chemicals. If you are interested, there are two fantastic DVDs by Spike Psarris at www.creationastronomy.com. The next one in the series, dealing specifically with problems with the so-called Big Bang is due out any time soon (I believe Spike is starting to make plans for a speaking tour to support the release of Volume III, starting sometime in the Autumn). I can't wait to order my copy when it becomes available.

Well the Big Bang was started by a priest for one thing. Not that it matters - attempting to explain HOW God created the universe is a useless pursuit when God is left out of the equation. Most of the problem is their incorrect belief in what redshift really is. That led them down the wrong path 100 years ago - a path they still follow even when all their models failed.

Like with Darwin's Finches. They claimed they had undergone speciation due to reproductive isolation - so labeled them all as separate species. Then when they finally do study them - both observation and DNA showed they had been interbreeding since they arrived on the islands - no isolation between them. But they still follow the wrong path. Still try to double-talk around the issue and refuse to admit they made mistakes in classification. That in reality they are all just merely different breeds of the same species. And this is with living creatures we can observe - let alone fossils of creatures never once observed in real life. The same thing happened with the Coelacanth. A good story was created - but then they were found to be alive and the reality contradicted their story at every point. Now they never mention them. What was a prime example of transition became in reality a falsification of their belief system - so is ignored.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Haven't they already proven beyond reasonable doubt that mutations don't produce any lasting benefits to a species by all the experiments with fruit flies, or is that a different things altogether?

I think you are right to question the whole fanciful idealogy of evolution. Look at it this way; apart from the lack of any proof that it's a real process, it would, if true, mean that God had used a very cruel and wasteful way of developing life on this planet and for what purpose, when clearly the one who has created the entire universe, including time itself, could easily have done it the way He described to us by His Divine revelation in our Holy Scriptures. Given the choice between man's fallible ideas and God's perfect truth, I know in whom I put my trust.

They have already proven all mutation is incapable of creating the variation we see.

http://www.weloennig.de/Loennig-Long-Version-of-Law-of-Recurrent-Variation.pdf

Not that it matters - actual truth is not what they seek. They seek only the confirmation of their beliefs - and anything opposed to that belief is ignored.

 

[Not_By_Chance]

They have already proven all mutation is incapable of creating the variation we see.

A bit technical for a non-scientist like me to follow, but the conclusion seems pretty damning, particularly this part, "In accord with the law of recurrent variation, mutants in every species thoroughly examined (from pea to man) − whether naturally occurring, experimentally induced, or accidentally brought about − happen in a large, but nevertheless limited spectrum of phenotypes with either losses of functions or neutral deviations. Yet, in the absence of the generation of new genes and novel gene reaction chains with entirely new functions, mutations cannot transform an original species into an entirely new one. [Emphasis added]

This conclusion agrees with all the experiences and results of mutation research of the 20th century taken together as well as with the laws of probability. Thus, the law of recurrent variation implies that genetically properly defined species have real boundaries that cannot be abolished or transgressed by accidental mutations.
In contrast to the authors quoted in the introduction, yet in accord with the group of researchers referred to under REPERCUSSIONS above, the origin of the world of living organisms must be explained on a basis different from that
given by the synthetic theory of evolution"

What was it that Robert Jastrow said? Oh yes, "“At this moment it seems as though science will never be able to raise the curtain on the mystery of creation. For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.” It sort of echoes what was said in the Bible many centuries ago doesn't it (you know the part about ever learning but never able to come to a knowledge of the truth)?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

A bit technical for a non-scientist like me to follow, but the conclusion seems pretty damning, particularly this part, "In accord with the law of recurrent variation, mutants in every species thoroughly examined (from pea to man) − whether naturally occurring, experimentally induced, or accidentally brought about − happen in a large, but nevertheless limited spectrum of phenotypes with either losses of functions or neutral deviations. Yet, in the absence of the generation of new genes and novel gene reaction chains with entirely new functions, mutations cannot transform an original species into an entirely new one. [Emphasis added]

This conclusion agrees with all the experiences and results of mutation research of the 20th century taken together as well as with the laws of probability. Thus, the law of recurrent variation implies that genetically properly defined species have real boundaries that cannot be abolished or transgressed by accidental mutations.
In contrast to the authors quoted in the introduction, yet in accord with the group of researchers referred to under REPERCUSSIONS above, the origin of the world of living organisms must be explained on a basis different from that
given by the synthetic theory of evolution"

What was it that Robert Jastrow said? Oh yes, "“At this moment it seems as though science will never be able to raise the curtain on the mystery of creation. For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.” It sort of echoes what was said in the Bible many centuries ago doesn't it (you know the part about ever learning but never able to come to a knowledge of the truth)?

Because they willfully ignore that it is breed mating with breed within a species that brings variation - and that mutation does nothing at all or damage to the species. That those breeds remain exactly as they were - with only the new breed exhibiting these changes.

Triceratops remains Triceratops - from the oldest found to the youngest fossil found. Asian remains Asian and African remains African - until they mate and an Afro-Asian comes into the record suddenly - with no transitional forms between them. They ignore all of nature to preach their false doctrines.

 

[AnotherAtheist]

Because they willfully ignore that it is breed mating with breed within a species that brings variation - and that mutation does nothing at all or damage to the species. That those breeds remain exactly as they were - with only the new breed exhibiting these changes.

Triceratops remains Triceratops - from the oldest found to the youngest fossil found. Asian remains Asian and African remains African - until they mate and an Afro-Asian comes into the record suddenly - with no transitional forms between them. They ignore all of nature to preach their false doctrines.

There are well known examples of beneficial mutations. See e.g. http://www.cell.com/current-biology...m/retrieve/pii/S0960982202008965?showall=true

So, saying that 'mutation does nothing at all or damage to the species' is demonstrably wrong.

The fossil record is improving all the time, and there are many intermediate fossils. E.g. Tiktaalik is intermediate between fish and amphibians.

You say that 'it is breed mating with breed within a species that brings variation'. Yes, conspecific breeding does cause variation. But, naturally occurring hybridisation between species can also lead to variation. See e.g. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/mec.12415/full

 

[Justatruthseeker]

There are well known examples of beneficial mutations. See e.g. http://www.cell.com/current-biology/abstract/S0960-9822(02)00896-5?_returnURL=http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0960982202008965?showall=true

So, saying that 'mutation does nothing at all or damage to the species' is demonstrably wrong.

The fossil record is improving all the time, and there are many intermediate fossils. E.g. Tiktaalik is intermediate between fish and amphibians.

You say that 'it is breed mating with breed within a species that brings variation'. Yes, conspecific breeding does cause variation. But, naturally occurring hybridisation between species can also lead to variation. See e.g. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/mec.12415/full

In whose opinion?

The same ones that can't get babies and adults of the same species classified correctly?


The same ones refusing to rewrite the books and take half of those misidentified fossils out of the lineage?

http://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/oct/17/skull-homo-erectus-human-evolution

The same ones that assured as it was all true with Coelacanth, and are still spouting the same errors that led to that mistake of colossal proportions?

You still haven't got past the observation that breed mates with breed and produces new breeds (variation) within the species without any evolution by mutation and no transitional fossils needed.

That you think they actually have anything right is a mistake of colossal proportions twice over. Now we got people wanting to argue dogs could be called separate species and violating their own scientific definitions because they won't just admit the truth.

People refusing to admit their mistakes calling Darwin's Finches separate species. So when they do finally get around to studying them they are interbreeding and producing fertile offspring and have been since they arrived on the islands. None of the claimed conditions required for speciation to occur ever met. Right in front of their eyes they are producing fertile offspring - and egos prevent them from admitting to their mistake in classification. Instead furthering - no - worse - knowingly telling a falsehood, and daring to apply the term science to it.

And it is the opinion of these people you want me to trust?