Unwarranted conclusions in Evolution Theory

Mister PamboliWith respect, your evoltuionary bias has blinded you from an appreciation of the actual issues of the origin of novelty.The fact that you can't understand that the initial origin of a an enzyme that, for example, glcosylates a protein, is an incredibly harder ask than switching that gene off and letting it drift away to a random sequence over time proves my point.A single base change will switch of a gene. To get a new enzyme from random is a far harder ask which is defineitely qualitatively different. You have the background to know this but you have become blind to the difference.To you an entire new biochemical pathway is dime a dozen so why get excited about a new enzyme. Evoltuion is so systematic it just happens all the time. New genes, new organs.Ha! That is your mistake. You assumed what you thought you were proving.It is the bread and butter of evoltuion which has very little evidence.You have fallen into the trap of thinking of genes as just lists of letters. They are very, very special lists of letters. There is more to it than just coming up with a unique list of 'letters'. Genomic sequences are special sequences. Glycosolation or peptidase activity or hydroxylation is achieved because the protein actually folds, is stable and presents side-chains in precise 3D arrnagements to get catalysis.Utter, utter, complete folly.[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 09-20-2002]

^ Whenever I get a typo lesson from you guys I know I'm on the right track. Some of us have day jobs.Fair enough though.Have you seen how sometimes I spell creation as cretan? [This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 09-20-2002]

^ MPAfter millions of lab experiments, let alone simulations, we know that switching off a gene is much easier. Just compare two species (ie in the same genus) of Bacillus. Hundreds of gene losses relative to each other (as well as horizontal transfer gains). Do the mainstream scientists claim the non-transferred genes were gained or lost? Lost of course! They know how hard it is to get new genes. All those artifical evolution experiments do not end up with new genes - they end up with genes with a few SNPs either switching of a gene or enhancing pre-existing binding.If there was no qualitative difference between loss and gain of new protein families then any molecular biologist would be able to generate novel orders of life in backyard DNA experiments. You are arguing against commonly known mainstream concepts.[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 09-20-2002]

^ When somehting happens everday in bacterial lab experiments with billions of organisms and the other thing never happens then that is quantification.Most people don't have a problem with loose terms like 'easy' and 'hard' when the differneces are factor of, say hundreds or thousands. The differneces here are probably in the factors of trillions (10^12) or more.Eg, to get a peptide (a chain of say 10 amino-acids) to bind somewhere one needs to try billions of random sequnces until activity is struck. An active enzyme (typically 100 amino-acids) would require trillions of attempts. Compare 'trillions' (attempts to get new enzyme) to 'ten' (attempts to switch off a gene). That is hard vs easy. Then you need more enzymes so that you get a pathway!I agree with your point about goal direction. But that does not detract from the fact that genomic sequences are very special.[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 09-20-2002]

AnnePerhaps you aren't aware I'm a creationist? For me all of the genes were created in distinct genomes. These have diversified since and transferred etc. I will not argue that paralogs could have evolved but I will argue that distinct gene families are very consistent with the creation of kinds and are a mystery for evolution.Somewhere along the line quantitative turns into qualitative. Factors of trillions differnt in probabilty would be a pretty good way to distinguish.If you don't like that then on the other hand you have to ask yourself what good a new protein by itself will do. Proteins exist in pathways containing anywhere from three or four to dozens of proteins. Getting a new pathway is undeniably qualitatively different than switching a gene off.Evolution has simply assumed that the hard ask is possible. That is fine - there is no law of physics that says it isn't - but I think that requires incredible faith. Ever heard of glycosolation or the CTA cycle?[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 09-20-2002]

AnneWhether we're talking lab evoltuion in irradiated organisms or viral drug resistance or phage display combinatorial chemistry we have learnt that new genes is a hard ask. Only one in 10,000 sequences fold let alone funciton.But regardless of that protein families are distinct. We don't find two protein families with essentially the same fold and sequence with one family having one catalytic site for, eg, phophorylation and the other with a site for glycosolation. It is not somehting we systematically, or even at all, see. When an enzyme sequence is shared, so is the catalytic function.

AnneThe point is that you're belief in the origin of new genes is exactly that - a belief.[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 09-30-2002]

AnneI'm not playing any word games - your post I responded to does not even contain the word 'belief' anyway.All I was saying is that you can believe that new genes turned up due to random processes and you can even believe that future evidence of this will be found but at this point it is belief.I believe that God created the genes and they have since drfited and diverged. You believe they all turned up naturally. Belief either way.Natural selection is fact.
Viral drug resistence is fact.
Natural origin for hemoglobin? That's a belief.[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 09-30-2002]

AnneI think we agree about 'belief'.My evidence that the genes were created is that they undeniably fall into distinct families. If protein families evolved from each other to speed up evolution (since only one in 10,000 random sequences fold) then one would have expected tell-tale signs of protein family relationships. These categorically do not exist. So we have two options - gene families were created or they evolved from random DNA. The evidence is consistent with both. In that sense the evidence points to creation or evolution. But detailed studies by creaitonist PhDed molecular biologists on evolution from random DNA suggest that this process would be far too slow.PS - and what is your evidence that the first members of gene families arrived naturally?[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 09-30-2002]

We don't need that many new ideas about C vs E Joe.It is actually very simple.Geology has been misinterpreted as gradual rather than flood.
Microevoluiton has been unjustifiably extrapolated to macroevoltuion.We have put forward the science many times. Here's a snapshot of what we present and how you et al react:Geo eg:
US: The geo-col has evidence that much of the continents have been simulataneously covered
YOU et al: But not all of them simulataneously
US: But marine sediments in the highlands would be the first to be eroded. It is possible that there was a gobal covering.
YOU et al: There is no evidence for a global covering.
US: But you admit that it is possible there was a global covering?
YOU et al: There is no evidence that there was a global covering.
US: Loop back again to unanswered question
YOU et al: You're looping back
US: You didn't answer our questionBio eg:
US: Organisms and genes occur in distinct families as if they had been created
YOU et al: But there are obvious homologies that allow us to form an evoltuonary tree
US: But that tree is a similarity tree it doesn't prove evoluiton
YOU et al: Yes it does
US: It doesn't because the real issue is where the novel anatomical, biochemical and genetic features came from - the features that distinguish groups, not the feautres in common
YOU et al: They arrived through mutations
US: But the gene families are distinct
YOU et al: We can't trace their origin due to drift
US: But you admit that the distinct gene families could also have been created and diversified via microevolution and hybridization?
YOU et al: The genes evolved via mutations
US: Loop back to previous question
YOU et al: You're looping again
US: You didn't answer our question againWe butcher no true science. We butcher your extrapolations and your interpretations. In the above characatures of our discussions we use genuine scientific arguement to show that the data points to and is consistent with the Bible. But I make no claim the data proves anything.[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 09-30-2002]

AnneI've have my own copy of Genome that I've read.But that is not how this BBS works. If you want to prove something you summarize it. You don't just quote book titles. If you do that you'll find you wont get responses from people around here.There are no peer reviewed papers showing systematic links between distinct protein families. This is a fact.

AnneI do not deny that you have many additional reasons you don't beleive in flood geology or creation but that characature is an accurate one with regards to effort made to see where we are coming from.Not once has anyone said:"Yes, the earth could have had a shallow global marine covering that has eroded at high ground" or "Yes, genomic proteins do fall into distinct families that is suggestive of creation".although I have admiited many times that some evidence is suggestive of macroevolution.You all prefer to paint the false picture that we are sticking our heads in the sand. All we are doing is taking a fresh look at the data with an alternative set of hypotheses.

TCA paper on this would be a 'non-result' and anti-evoltuionary so it is unlikely to exist. Of course non-results are almost as important as results but they get published far less frequently.The evidence that what I am saying is true is the systematic lack of papers illustrating evolution between protein families.Having said that I'll try and track something down.One of the best ways to prove to yourself that what I am saying has merit is to look at papers on the genome of Mycoplasma Genitalium. It has around 250 or so genes that fit into about 80 (?) fold families. There is no paper anywhere explaining how these 80 families could have evolved from each other.