Have a few minutes to respond so I will go point by point as usual.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
I had a great sea-side break - how's the 'travelling'?
1. Taxonomic ambiguity
Interesting about insectivores.
Go to medline and look up Stanhope MJ and you will find lots of papers on this subject.
1.5 Simple organisms
Reghardsless of losses, evolutionary genomics researchers definitely propose that genomes have got more complex over time. The anti-progression idea (was it ever more than just PC gone mad?) has died over the last 20 years.
Not true. Please name the evolutionary genomics researchers and their published papers where they claim that all genomes must become more complex over time. Many genomes show reduced complexity such as fugu.
I only used hemoglobin as an example. Mammals have far more protein types overall than bacteria! Of course I can't prove that was the case in the past. But each protein family can be placed at a definite location on the standard evoltuionary tree of life! I really don't understand your resistance to standard concepts that transcend the C vs E debate.
I was debating your use of the term complexity. I am not saying that we have less genes than bacteria. However, we don't have evidence that we have more genes than several other mammals that you would perhaps define as less complex.
The ultimate origin of each gene type is NOT abiogenesis by any definition I have ever seen. I completely disagree with your statement that it is.
How can the ultimate origin not be abiogenesis??? Your creation event that you believe in is an ultimate origin to. You claim beyond that, that at some unspecified time each gene family came poof bang into existence for which you have no evidence nor a testable hypothesis. I can easily look at Hox genes for precursors, duplications, horizontal transfer or even design experiments to see if any of those mechanisms are possible to support claims I make (note: I am not working on this but others are). That is one of the reasons why evolution and genetics are science and creationism is not.
If you believe in macroevoltuion of life on earth then you believe that new protein families with distinct biochemical functions have been evolving non-stop throughout the last 500 million years.
Yup....and they are still going like the energizer bunny
2) Mutations and macroevolution.
OK - if you define the origin of new genes as abiogenesis then it is! So now I see what we are arguing. We agree! I agree with all of the evoltuion that is not abiogenesis (by your definition). That is the point - I agree with all of the plasticity of the genome you believe in except that I believe each gene family was created by God.
No, see above why we don't agree. I am saying the first self reproducing organism origin and the contents of that organism are the subject of abiogenesis. Not that every gene we see suddenly appeared by some mythological being.
I am fully aware of biotech artificial evoltuion and combibnatorial chemistry - I just sent of a combi-chem manuscript for review. The point is that there is still a big difference between mutating a gene and coming up with a totally new protein fold!
Please elaborate TB. I saw a lecture by a guy who was able to make small fragments of DNA with unbelievably strong binding properties for just about any substrate using selective chemistry over successive rounds. This is not just mutating a gene or creating a new protein fold.
3) New protein families
"There is not evidence that the families are new or for there origins?" There is little evidence that the families evolved from each other.
Except that every protein family shows homology to either another gene in another related organism i.e. phylogenetics or part of the protein does. Or you have to say for example, that each Hox paralog had to be created de novo from amphioxus through vertebrates and your god was too stupid to make a new gene for each function and just by chance made it phylogenetically informative.
4) Evolution & proof?
Neither Newton or Einstein make any attmept to state how gravity works. Their theories can simply be thought of as empiricism if you like. But you can't deny that within the scope of the theory (generaing forces from mass distributions) they work perfectly (Newton for v << c). So both Newton and Einsten are proved as far as I am concerned.
That is cute but irrelevant. There is more supporting evidence for evolution than for the theory of gravity so your standards of proof are wildly variable.
5) Creation evidence
(i) "There is no evidence for irreducibilty and complexity is not defined." Every biochemical pathway has IC components that need prior funcitons to explain their presence.
List the components and the evidence that mandates that they are irreducibly complex. So far the only answer that I have ever seen provided for IC is that the proponent cannot imagine how it could have happened and therefore defines it as IC.
(ii) "Unlikelihood is not evidence". If we are talking about God vs nature then the unlikeliness of nature doinfg it is evidence of God.
That is sad that you study science and hold this view. This is the antithesis of science TB. Even if there were no supporting evidence for evolution, this would not be evidence of god. I could substitute Barney the ugly purple dinosaur in your sentence and it would make as much sense.
(iii) "How does your problem with abiogenesis have any bearing on evolution?" I have shown you that the same problems that plague abiogenesis plauges macroevoltuion. New gene families aising non-stop. Abiogenesis itself is just much harder again.
You have NOT shown me how exon shuffling, horizontal transfer, and the processes of microevolution over large time scales do not account for what we see in the genome.
Physical evidence of creation?
The organisms or their genomes.
LOL! This can be reduced to "it is because it is". This is not logical TB. I could be equally illogical and state that the existence of organisms and their genomes is evience against creation..nja nja...it does not work.
6) Horizontal transfer?
I have no problem with horizontal transfer. What I am trying to point out is that evoltuioonists skirt around the original origin of each protein family! And it is not abiogenesis except for wghatever the simplest creature was.
Um. Could you please define what abiogenesis means to you. We are still talking past each other.
8) Restricting God?
Of course God gets 'restricted' by what he has left behind. If he exists and he created life as it is then that is how he did it! The pioint is that I am not eliminating he possibility that God created us as you do. You are the one restricing him. You are saying he couldn't create semi-monophyletically.
I say I do not believe in a god(s) and there is no evidence for it. So I am not restricting it. You do by saying it has to work in a specific way and is therefore not omnipotent...and actually a pretty crappy engineer.
That is a very strange position and would put you in conflict with a large number creationists.
So you are willing to limit your god and concede that he is a truly lousy engineer?
Now I say:
What conflict? What's wrong with semi-mono-phletics if designed well?
How is semi-monophyletic design in any way a testable scientific hypothesis?