Booboocruise's Dissolvable Best Evidence

Gen 8:5 'And the waters decreased continually until the tenth
month: in the tenth [month], on the first [day] of the
month, were the tops of the mountains seen.'As far as I can see the Bible says nothing about valleys
lowering and mountains rising. It says the waters went away.As far as there being sufficient waters ... could you show or
link to the calculations used to obtain this figure?Geological evidence seems to suggest that the sea levels have
consistently (and during some periods rapidly) risen
over the last 18000 years or so ... not receded. Submerged
coastlines tend to confirm such.As far as I am aware (astronomers correct me if wrong) the relative
positions of the stars to the earth have been changing quite
happily for millenia (billenia I suppos ) and explainable without
a catastrophic axis shift. I admit I could be wrong on that
one, but ...A possible explanation for deeply frozen plants in antartica is
that they grew there when they could, were frozen/buried then frozen,
and climate changes continued toward freezey conditions ... doesn't
that sound reasonable and simple enough?

Spin a top. Don't strike it with anything. Notice how it precesses, like a top, or like the Earth or Mars, without having been struck at all. The results of the Earth's precession have been traced back several million years in ocean sediments at a variety of places around the world. Look up "Milankovich cycles."/end off-topic diversion

What is it about my OP that you seem incapable of addressing? Again, I find that I'm required to repost my original point that you failed to address:

quote:

---

4. molecular biology: Why can we often correlate relationships between organisms based on molecular biology with relationships based on morphology?

---

Somehow I don't see this response of yours as being very much of a direct refutation (or even a direct discussion) of what I posted: First, you drag in some nonsense about brick buildings, which not being living systems seems pretty silly - however, lpetrich has already addressed the fallacy here, so I'll let it past.Second, you drag in some derived terrestrial vascular plant like a fern and claim that "evolution says it's one of the first plant forms to evolve" and bring up chromosome number in (I assume) a modern fern as though that had some bearing on paleobotany or molecular biology. Needless to say, you provided strictly ZERO references for either of these claims. However, to forstall you wasting any more time on this line of argument, the actual development of terrestrial plants goes something like this: autotrophic photosynthetic prokaryotes (cyanobacteria) --> charophytes --> bryophytes (first terrestrial plants) --> sporophytes (vascular plants, like Cooksonia) --> lycophytes, sphenophytes (horsetails), and pteridophytes (ferns) (Qui 1999). There is currently some argument as to which one represents the earliest, although the current front runner is Marchantia polymorpha, a liverwort.Now would you care to try your hand at actually addressing the molecular biology part, or are you going to continue to drag in not only irrelevant but erroneous, unsupported assertions?Reference:Qui YL, Palmer JD, 1999, Phylogeny of early land plants: insights from genes and genomes, Trends in Plant Science 4:26—30.

In adittion to Q's post showing that this is an irelevant point anyway. Plants are capable of polyploidy. This is the ability of having several copies of the same genome. This comes about by having a gamete fertalized more than once. This does have some impact on the ability to reproduce, and sometimes can change their expressed trait. For instance the nice big stawberries that you like to eat so much, have 6 sets of chromosomes. Somehow, the result of these copies are (at least for strawberries) are a bigger fruit.For this plant to be evaluated any further you have to be slightly more specific than 'fern.'------------------
"Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind." - Albert Einstein

^bump^Message #30, Booboo?

First of all, wj, if you want a decent, logical debate you'll have to be patient--I have better things to do than parade around on the internet all do, so don't expect me to just spit out a reply immediately for you, because I know that it is wrong to just parade around on forums (although I regretably have done a little when I first applied for membership here).
Anyway, I realize what you're doing. By stumping me or showing me that I'm incompetent you think you can make yourself look good on this forum. As I have said before, (and for the LAST TIME) you need to cut the childish CRAP> Just how old do you want me to believe you are when you can't even hold a debate with me without personal attacks, which are neither appreciated nor called for.
As for the pseudogenes:
I have done a little reading on pseudogenes, and it turns out that the evolutionists? argument that the pseudogene-argument is a sorry 'excuse' to claim evolution is a fact. Here is a sum-up of Ashby Camp, courtesy of trueorigin.org (not talkorigin)"
1. "If universal common ancestry is true, then the same pseudogene will exist in the same chromosomal location in two or more species.
2. The same pseudogene exists in the same chromosomal location in two or more species.
Since this is the concept of 'shared errors' applied to pseudogenes, much of the preceding response is applicable. It is not a prediction of the hypothesis of universal common ancestry or the more specific hypothesis of Neo-Darwinism that the same pseudogene will exist in the same chromosomal location in two or more species. Evolution does not even predict the existence of pseudogenes, much less that they will be found at the same location in two or more species. After all, pseudogenes were not discovered until recently, the first published report being in 1977. (Gibson, 92.) Evolutionary theory managed just fine without them for more than a century. Thus, pseudogenes are not confirmation of an evolutionary prediction but observations that are given an evolutionary explanation.
Moreover, pseudogenes are inadequate in principle to support Dr. Theobald?s claim of universal common ancestry, because they are not shared by all groups of organisms. To repeat the quote from Dr. Max, 'Another limitation [of this argument] is that there are no examples of 'shared errors' that link mammals to other branches of the genealogic tree of life on earth. . . . Therefore, the evolutionary relationships between distant branches on the evolutionary genealogic tree must rest on other evidence besides 'shared errors.'
The claim here is that common ancestry is the only viable explanation for "finding the same pseudogene in the same chromosomal location in two species." But classic duplicated pseudogenes "are usually found within clusters of similar, functional sequences on the same chromosome." (Gibson, 93.) That is, they are found close to the genes of which they are believed to be duplicates. So if the same gene (or a member of the gene family) were duplicated independently in separate species, it would not be surprising to find it at the same chromosomal location.
Dr. Theobald apparently considers it too unlikely that the same gene (or a member of the gene family) would be duplicated in separate species because he believes that 'gene duplication is a rare and random event.' According to Dr. Max, however, the presumed duplication of blocks of sequences has been observed frequently in the DNA of a variety of species. Indeed, gene duplication is the most popular explanation for the formation of the new genes believed necessary to fuel evolution, so evolutionary theory is committed to the frequency of the process.
Again, it is an unprovable theological assertion that God would not place the same nonfunctional sequences at the same locus in separate species. He may have a purpose for doing so that is beyond our present understanding. The objection that placing nonfunctional sequences at the same locus in separate species would make God guilty of deception is ill founded. God cannot be charged fairly with deception when we choose to draw conclusions from data that contradict what he has revealed in Scripture (see Gibson?s comments from the preceding section).
But even if one assumes that God would not place the same nonfunctional sequences in different species, it is by no means certain that pseudogenes are nonfunctional. Even the staunchest critics of creation theory recognize that "it is impossible to prove absence of function for any region of DNA." The recent indication from the Human Genome Project that the way genes work is "far more complicated than the mechanism long taught" only increases the possibility that pseudogenes are functioning in some way we do not appreciate.
Back in 1994 Gibson reported that 'some pseudogenes are believed to function as sources of information producing genetic diversity [citations omitted], possibly involving a process similar to gene conversion. It is thought that partial pseudogene sequences are copied into functional genes, producing variants of the functional sequence.' (Gibson, 102.) He also noted that 'some pseudogenes have been implicated in gene regulation' [citations omitted]. (Gibson, 103.) Just last year, Petrov and Hartl wrote, 'The problem is that generally one does not know whether a pseudogene has any noncoding phenotypic effect and whether the effect is deleterious or advantageous.? (Petrov and Hartl, 222.)
Moreover, the ?failure to observe pseudogenes coding for a product under experimental conditions is no proof that they never do so inside an organism.'" (2001 Ashby L. Camp)

Welcome back booboocruise.You'll be aware from a number of the posts on this site that we are rather used to people raising issues then never returning to address them. It's great to see you have not turned out like that - though to be fair you had your moments when you tempted us to think it might happen.Perhaps when you have outstanding issues you could post a quick one liner to the effect that you have to do some studying on this and you'll get back with a reply in due course? TrueCreation used to do this quite effectively.As for your current reply - enjoy the fireworks!

Booboo, do you want me to copy the reply which Theobold has given to Camp's "argument" which you have copied?But let us concentrate on GLO pseudogenes. Where is your explanation for the observation that humans, chimpanzees, macaque and orangutans all have non-functional GLO genes and that they share an identical cripling mutation in their respective GLO pseudogenes?

quote:

---

By stumping me or showing me that I'm incompetent you think you can make yourself look good on this forum.

---

While I do understand that you are addressing someone else I think that your assumption is in error. Namely that WJ is trying to make himself look good to others in this regard. I remember his input into this very area of discussion when PB was pushing some seriously flawed arguements concerning the ascorbic acid pathway and the real and imagined flaws within it (Peter had some very erroneous ideas concerning ascorbate chemistry and metabolism).Now, as to Camp and his statements. First off I can state that Camp understands very little about the metabolic pathways that he is discussing, and less about how the elucidation of these pathways relates to evolutionary theory. Here is one example (I will asume that your statements are a recap of Camps statements)

quote:

---

Evolution does not even predict the existence of pseudogenes, much less that they will be found at the same location in two or more species. After all, pseudogenes were not discovered until recently, the first published report being in 1977.

---

It was predicted under the Neo-Darwinian that species which appeared to be closely related would be similar genetically. And so far it has born out, with some noteable exceptions discovered recently based on wide ranging gene exchange. You appear to be mixing very old NS (pre-Mendel), with old NDS (pre-molecular biology) with modern NDS (post molecular bioplogy). Science works in part be the advent of new tools, followed by new predictions followed by confirmation or lack thereof.

quote:

---

Moreover, pseudogenes are inadequate in principle to support Dr. Theobald?s claim of universal common ancestry

---

I am not sure that anyone has claimed that a knowledgable person has said that a pseudogene will be in all organisms as your statement implies. Based on mutations that is almost statistically impossible, do you have a citation for that statement? Pseudogenes can, on the other hand, indicate relationship between more closely related (ie shorter time span since splitting) species. As is the case for pseudogenes, GLO and primates.

quote:

---

So if the same gene (or a member of the gene family) were duplicated independently in separate species, it would not be surprising to find it at the same chromosomal location.

---

Partially correct here. For SOME gene families that rate of duplication seems high, either due to the coding sequence or other physical aspects of the chromosome. That said it is relatively rare and therefor statistically unlikely for genes that do not fall within these catagories. And GLO is not one of these duplicated groups of genes so your arguement is irrelevant here.

quote:

---

Even the staunchest critics of creation theory recognize that "it is impossible to prove absence of function for any region of DNA."

---

and

quote:

---

Moreover, the ?failure to observe pseudogenes coding for a product under experimental conditions is no proof that they never do so inside an organism.

---

OK, but how does that cause a problem with the arguement that the same genetic change (disruption of the ascorbic acid biosynthetic pathway) causing the same phenotypic problem (scurvy in a poor diet) is not best explained by common descent?------------------
"Chance favors the prepared mind." L. Pasteur
Taz

All in all, the GLO pseudogenes are neither good evidence for evolution OR creation. You see, just because the GLO genes are not working in primates like they are in other mammals, that would easily be explained by the notion that God made us this way so that we would rely on other areas of creation for certain vitamins (Genesis 1:29).
Hasn't it ever occured to you that your argument using GLO pseudogenes, no matter how scientifically-true, would not prove ANY aspect of evolution. The lug-nuts of a chevy will fit on a pontiac, but that just proves they have a common creator.Truly, I DO agree that the GLO-gene argument is scientifically-based, the similarity does not demonstrate that we share a common ancestor with apes--we simply share a defective gene. Also note that, in the fall of man, in Genesis chapter 3, The LORD God commanded that man was to rely on the land and to eat bread. Genesis 1:29 says that man are to eat herbs, fruit, and seeds. You see, the GLO pseudogene argument is just as easily explained by the creation story as it is by evolution thinking.
I'm sorry, but if wj is going to place evidence to support evolution in this forum, it should not be easily explained by creationism as recorded in the Bible. That is because the fact that man and primates are to rely on sources of food for many vitamins, and the Bible says that man are commanded by God to eat fruit and seeds!
Sorry, try again.

booboocruise writes:

quote:

---

All in all, the GLO pseudogenes are neither good evidence for evolution OR creation. You see, just because the GLO genes are not working in primates like they are in other mammals, that would easily be explained by the notion that God made us this way so that we would rely on other areas of creation for certain vitamins (Genesis 1:29).

---

Um, if god wanted primates to be required to consume fruit in order to obtain vitamin C, then why provide primates with a broken GLO gene?Why not simply put nothing there?And if god wanted some animals to be required to consume fruit in order to obtain vitamin C, then why provide different broken GLO genes such as those in guinea pigs compared to those in primates?Why not use the same broken gene?Thus, the GLO pseudogenes are actually strong evidence against creation and for evolution: An "intelligent designer" wouldn't include a gene that doesn't get used. An "intelligent designer" wouldn't use different pieces to achieve the same effect...especially when that effect is to do nothing.

quote:

---

Truly, I DO agree that the GLO-gene argument is scientifically-based, the similarity does not demonstrate that we share a common ancestor with apes

---

Yes, it does...and it is precisely because the single point-mutation that causes the GLO gene to be broken in primates is identical in all the primates but not in guinea pigs.Why would god use different broken parts?

quote:

---

we simply share a defective gene.

---

Why would an "intelligent designer" give an organism a defective gene?And why would all the primates get one defect while the guinea pigs get a different defect?

quote:

---

Also note that, in the fall of man, in Genesis chapter 3, The LORD God commanded that man was to rely on the land and to eat bread. Genesis 1:29 says that man are to eat herbs, fruit, and seeds. You see, the GLO pseudogene argument is just as easily explained by the creation story as it is by evolution thinking.

---

Irrelevant. The question is not why humans need to eat fruit to obtain vitamin C.The question is why primates have a broken GLO gene at all. If this "intelligent designer" didn't want humans to synthesize vitamin C, why give them a broken gene that would allow synthesis of ascorbate? Wouldn't an "intelligent designer" simply leave that gene out?And why would guinea pigs have a different broken gene? Since all the primates share the same defect, why would this "intelligent designer" break the gene in a different way and then stick it in the guinea pig?

quote:

---

I'm sorry, but if wj is going to place evidence to support evolution in this forum, it should not be easily explained by creationism as recorded in the Bible.

---

Correct. And wj's evidence is not explained at all by the Bible. In fact, the evidence directly contradicts the claim that the Bible could possibly be accurate.Why would an "intelligent designer" give an organism a broken gene rather than simply removing the gene completely?Sorry.Try again.------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

Another inconvenient fact for the creationist "explanation" of the distribution of GLO pseudogenes in mammals: the prosimian primates have functional GLO genes. So, why do prosimians have functional GLO genes whilst the remaining primates do not?And you seem to have overlooked the fact that the GLO pseudogene shared by humans, chimpanzees, macaques and orangutans has the SAME crippling mutation. Do you simply put your trust in the god of co-incidences?

quote:

---

Hasn't it ever occured to you that your argument using GLO pseudogenes, no matter how scientifically-true, would not prove ANY aspect of evolution.

---

Of course it has, when I start looking at the data I, unlike most creationists, try to entertain the possibility that the data could prove either for or against my starting thesis or even do neither. Unfortunately for your position understand the data. The existence of a single gene remenant does not PROVE anything; but the existence of that rememnant coupled with all of the other data, both molecular and fossil, puts the GLO gene in context of supporting evolution.As to your alternate explaination,

quote:

---

Also note that, in the fall of man, in Genesis chapter 3, The LORD God commanded that man was to rely on the land and to eat bread. Genesis 1:29 says that man are to eat herbs, fruit, and seeds. You see, the GLO pseudogene argument is just as easily explained by the creation story as it is by evolution thinking.

---

it falls apart in the light of examination. The guinea pig also lacks a functional GLO gene through a different mutation. Here is more info on a comparison of the primate GLO and the guinea pig GLO, the data supports evolution far more than your creation story. guinea pig oneandguinea pig 2.Finally, as a little side note of interest; the lack of a GLO gene may have helped to contribute to the relatively rapid evolution of primates due to insufficient oxide quenching as described here,Primate Mutation. This may help tp explain the unusually high rate of mutational fixation in humans.And BooBoo, next time you should try to learn more about a topic before the snarky "Sorry try again". I would also suggest that you pick another series of genes or pathways because I spent several years in the field of nutritional biochemistry and will trounce you every time in this area.

Of course, the GLO is not the only broken gene within us.As I recall it, our olfactory ('smelling') genes are mostly pseudogenes, and primates suffer the same curse (or blessing?). Let me take alook at the scientific literature...

A paper detailing a pseudogene with a required function has just been published, or is soon to be published, in Nature. Mice with a heterozygous null allele for the Makorin1 p1 pseudogene have severe developmental defects. The non coding Makorin1 pseudogene mRNA appears to play a role in stabilising the coding mRNA of the Makorin1 gene.Hirotsune S, Yoshida N, Chen A, Garrett L, Sugiyama F, Takahashi S, Yagami K, Wynshaw-Boris A,Yoshiki A.
An expressed pseudogene regulates the messenger-RNA stability of its homologous coding gene.
Nature. 2003 May 1;423(6935):91-6.