Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 88 (8852 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 08-15-2018 2:30 PM
189 online now:
Aussie, caffeine, frako, jar, NoNukes, PaulK, ringo, Tanypteryx (8 members, 181 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: rldawnca
Post Volume:
Total: 836,926 Year: 11,749/29,783 Month: 771/1,642 Week: 185/460 Day: 24/62 Hour: 1/6


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
2
Author Topic:   What is design ?
mark24
Member (Idle past 3053 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 16 of 24 (14923)
08-06-2002 7:45 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by monkenstick
08-06-2002 10:15 AM


Monkenstick,

Nice posts, if you don't mind, I'd like to save this one in a word doc, & plagiarise you at a later date .

Out of interest, whats the ref?

Cheers,

Mark

------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by monkenstick, posted 08-06-2002 10:15 AM monkenstick has not yet responded

    
monkenstick
Inactive Member


Message 17 of 24 (14924)
08-06-2002 8:50 PM


the ref?

I just searched for the sequences on genbank and used The BLAST programs and the translate tool at expasy
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/ (GENBANK and BLAST)

http://www.expasy.ch/tools/dna.html (TRANSLATE)


  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 18 of 24 (14926)
08-06-2002 9:08 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by monkenstick
08-06-2002 10:15 AM


OK Mokenstick, this is very good evidence of common descent!

Why (for the uninitiated)? Creationists argue (quite rightly IMO) that homology is evidence for a common creator as much as for common descent. However when this homology persists for degraded genes (non-functional pseudogenes) then, in isolation, this evidence would clearly favour common descent.

The creationist alternatives are:

1. These genes are not really pseudogenes - they have some function even though they are relaed to another gene.
2. Horizontal transfer of pseudogenes (ie it is known that DNA sequences can be passed between organisms and become part of the inherited genome)
3. Some natural agent preferentially changed the DNA bases at the same positions.
4. A supernatural agent preferentially changed the DNA bases at the same positions.

I probably favour option #4. When man disobeyed, Genesis describes a curse that caused man to become mortal, frustrated his work and brought pain durin childbirth. As with everything God has done I believe this curse is manifest at spiritual, mental and physical levels. That is the sort of God he is. And of course this new found mortality would have genomic repercusions. Scripture says that He 'submitted the world to futility' in expectation that this cross-like process would bring a 'new man' through Christ. So whether it was Satan, God or a natural agent I am unsure but I link it to the curse.

PS - you're a very good bioinformatician Monkenstick but your first post was a shocker!

[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 08-06-2002]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by monkenstick, posted 08-06-2002 10:15 AM monkenstick has not yet responded

  
monkenstick
Inactive Member


Message 19 of 24 (14929)
08-06-2002 10:37 PM


Why I don't like any of those explanations;

1) The homology the human pseudogene has with mus musculus' working copy of urate oxidase really does point to this being a pseudogene.

"Score = 942 bits (490), Expect = 0.0
Identities = 775/915 (84%), Gaps = 3/915 (0%)
Strand = Plus / Plus"

2) "Horizontal transfer of pseudogenes (ie it is known that DNA sequences can be passed between organisms and become part of the inherited genome)"

Horizontal transfer of a pseudogene to chimpanzees and humans which is present as a working copy in their common ancestors and in most other mammals? Seems like a remarkable coincidence.

3)"Some natural agent preferentially changed the DNA bases at the same positions." seems like clutching at straws to me

4)"A supernatural agent preferentially changed the DNA bases at the same positions." I can't disprove a supernatural explanation, but I don't see that we need one when common descent explains the evidence so elegantly. Plus, the question remains as to why a supernatural agent changed the DNA bases in question in both chimpanzees and humans


Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by Tranquility Base, posted 08-06-2002 11:47 PM monkenstick has not yet responded

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 20 of 24 (14930)
08-06-2002 11:47 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by monkenstick
08-06-2002 10:37 PM


^ When man was cursed so was the Earth and everything. It's in Genesis.

PS - Most of that seqwunce similarity in point #1 comes from the fact that it is a pseudogene of a real gene! We put that down to a common designer as you know.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by monkenstick, posted 08-06-2002 10:37 PM monkenstick has not yet responded

  
monkenstick
Inactive Member


Message 21 of 24 (14932)
08-07-2002 12:16 AM


I realise that, but were chimpanzees cursed as well? Psuedogenes in humans can be explained by the fall, can almost identical pseudogenes in chimpanzees and humans be explained by the fall? I haven't checked other primates, but I suspect some others also have homologous urate oxidase pseudogenes
Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by Tranquility Base, posted 08-07-2002 12:38 AM monkenstick has not yet responded

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 22 of 24 (14934)
08-07-2002 12:38 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by monkenstick
08-07-2002 12:16 AM


^ Scripture suggests that animals were cursed with man. In the flood at the very least this is clear. Scriptually we are give dominion and we effect each other, our planet and our biosphere. Creationism actually does support the the non-extreme aims of the environmental movement.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by monkenstick, posted 08-07-2002 12:16 AM monkenstick has not yet responded

  
Peter
Member (Idle past 1781 days)
Posts: 2160
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 23 of 24 (15289)
08-12-2002 10:25 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by Tranquility Base
08-05-2002 9:37 PM


So are you saying that the 'premature' stop codons were
added by mutation after the gene was designed an implemented
in man and in chimps ?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Tranquility Base, posted 08-05-2002 9:37 PM Tranquility Base has not yet responded

    
Peter
Member (Idle past 1781 days)
Posts: 2160
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 24 of 24 (15355)
08-13-2002 7:09 AM


The DNA sequences presented currently indicate that the
current sequence of DNA was either::

1) Very poorly designed with lots of mistakes (God didn't
invent the waterfall model yet or something )

2) The sequence as it stands was not designed.

If (a) God introduced the errors as his Curse for mankind, does that
mean that repairing the mistakes would make us all immortal?

Or (b) is it more likely that necessary functional proteins would be
unavailable?

If (a) is true then we can't have irreducibly complex chemical
pathways, since jigging them doesn't get rid of function.

If {b} is true, God didn't do it.

If the changes occurred through mutation after the inception
of the design then there can be no argument against beneficial
mutations.


    
Prev1
2
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2018