What I have noticed about these debates...

quote:

---

Some creatinists are scientifically complete crackpots (I wont comment on their spiritual state).

---

...and yet, many of these "crackpots" are still accepted in the Creationist community as legitimate scientists. Why is that?Don't you think that the fact that any "crackpot scientist" is given a voice, and even applauded, by the Creation "science" movement as long as he seems to be consistent with the Bible is the reason for the ridicule from mainstream scientific bodies?

Mammuthus I do see these as different. Gravity can be tested across huge ranges of scale. Evolution can not. You cannot prove how any actual organ arrived, or any subsystem for that matter. All of the lab and field experiments on evolution show are allelic and gene loss effects. After milions of generations of flies and bacteria noeone has shown new subsystems arriving. We agree with all of the evolution you can show. All yo are left with is anatomies and genomes which you think evovled from each other. We only disagree on the part you haven't yet proved. Are we just stubborn or are we right? I believe the latter. I am not arguing simply against abiogenesis. I am arguing about all the gene families that arose since the first prokaryote. The gene families that arose to make the first eukaryote . . . vertebrate . . . mammal . . . primate. It's not all abiogenesis. Any evolution that requires non-allelic or non-gene loss modifications I will disagrewe with you on becasue there is no evidence for that. I thouroughly agree that is partially creationist expectation but there are hints of it that I think are better than your hints of non-allelic macroevolution.[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 12-09-2002]

SchrafI don't consider any of the AIG, ICR or CRS creationists as crackpots. In the past I have had some disagreements with them on issues but there are very few areas I disagree with them on currently.Those I would label scientific crackpots are the creation groupies that uncritically accept everything they read forever and think that evolutionists are idiots. Some of them have been mislead, others should know better. Most of them do it for the right reason (their faith) but some are seeking to 'prove' creation becasue of a lack of faith I suspect. I really can't think of anyone I would put in that category. No one is perfect but I could not put anyone from AIG,ICR or CRS in that category. On the contrary, I am very impressed with these career creationists.[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 12-09-2002]

Hi TBI do see these as different. Gravity can be tested across huge ranges of scale. Evolution can not.M: That statement is patently false TB.TB: You cannot prove how any actual organ arrived, or any subsystem for that matter.M: Hate to remind you again but you do not prove in science. You can find supporting evidence but all science is tentative...even structural biology TB:
All of the lab and field experiments on evolution show are allelic and gene loss effects.M: That is funny, I have even posted references that demonstrate gain of function mutations and duplications followed by mutation (as has SLPx)..perhaps you forgot?TB:
After milions of generations of flies and bacteria noeone has shown new subsystems arriving.M: Except for the entire Hox gene cascade, or hemoglobin in bacteria etc etc?TB:
We agree with all of the evolution you can show. All yo are left with is anatomies and genomes which you think evovled from each other. We only disagree on the part you haven't yet proved. Are we just stubborn or are we right? I believe the latter.M: Then you cannot accept the theory of gravity TB. Or can you show how it works in all detail?TB:
I am not arguing simply against abiogenesis. I am arguing about all the gene families that arose since the first prokaryote. The gene families that arose to make the first eukaryote . . . vertebrate . . . mammal . . . primate. It's not all abiogenesis. Any evolution that requires non-allelic or non-gene loss modifications I will disagrewe with you on becasue there is no evidence for that.M: I have posted evidence on many occassions. In our "kinds" debate I found references for every single case you mentioned was unknown. In every case it turned out someone was researching it and had evidence for evolution of the system.TB:
I thouroughly agree that is partially creationist expectation but there are hints of it that I think are better than your hints of non-allelic macroevolution.M: However, you never provide said evidence except to say you merely believe it is so. My whole point is that I doubt you do this when exploring a structural biology question. If you were looking at the PrPc to PrPsc transition, I doubt you would just say you believe that it folds in such and such a way...you would start with the observation that the protein conformation is different between the two, develope a hypothesis, test it, and continue to experiment based on your results, continuing to refine and develope your hypothesis. Not just saying "oh well, some mythical being I believe in makes me believe it is due to some unobserved hypermutation event so I don't need to bother doing the science." I just don't get that you do this with evolutionary biology given your background.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
Schraf

​

I don't consider any of the AIG, ICR or CRS creationists as crackpots. In the past I have had some disagreements with them on issues but there are very few areas I disagree with them on currently.

​

Those I would label scientific crackpots are the creation groupies that uncritically accept everything they read forever and think that evolutionists are idiots. Some of them have been mislead, others should know better. Most of them do it for the right reason (their faith) but some are seeking to 'prove' creation becasue of a lack of faith I suspect.

​

Don't you think that the fact that any "crackpot scientist" is given a voice, and even applauded, by the Creation "science" movement as long as he seems to be consistent with the Bible is the reason for the ridicule from mainstream scientific bodies?

​

I really can't think of anyone I would put in that category. No one is perfect but I could not put anyone from AIG,ICR or CRS in that category. On the contrary, I am very impressed with these career creationists.

​

[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 12-09-2002]

---

Duane Gish, one of the leading ICR frontmen, is a crackpot.He is one of the worst perpetuators of disinformation the Creationist movement has ever produced.He has been called out over and over and over again about his factual errors, and he very rarely corrects his mistakes. When he has, it has in some cases taken decades for him to do so.Some examples of his drivel:Scientific Creationism and ErrorHe claimed that humans are more closely related to bullfrogs than to chimpanzees. When challenged to provide evidence for this claim, Gish stonewalled and danced around for years.He continued to use the bombadier beetle falsehood in his talks long after he was shown to be incorrect.Telnet Communications - High Speed Internet & Home Phone SolutionsThe following is an excerpt from an expose on Gish which relates his refusal to correct his mistakes:"Lucy is a standard component of Gish's debates. He has been repeating the same story about her since at least 1981. Gish's motive is to show that Lucy was not a transitional form between humans and apes, but just an ape that could not walk upright. After discussing Lucy briefly, he cites scientist Lord Solly Zuckerman, who Gish claims did a thorough and careful 15-year study of the Australopithecines with the conclusion that these creatures did not walk upright (see Debates-Doolittle 1981, Park 1982, Thwaites 1988, Parrish 1991; see also Gish 1982). Gish clearly implies that Zuckerman examined the Lucy skeleton itself. However, Gish has repeatedly been told in many debates over the years that this is false (see Debates-Brace 1982, Miller 1982, Saladin 1988, Thwaites 1988). Zuckerman never saw Lucy, and his conclusion on Australopithecines was made at least three years before Lucy was even discovered (Zuckerman 1970). Furthermore, Zuckerman didn't work with any of the original Australopithecine fossils. His conclusions were based on a cast of one half of the pelvis of a single specimen.In 1982, at a high school in Lion's Head, Ontario, Gish debated Chris McGowan, a zoologist from the University of Toronto. A member of the audience, Jay Ingram, (former host of the national Canadian radio program Quirks and Quarks), heard Gish's Lucy story, which clearly implied that Zuckerman had studied Lucy herself and concluded that she, along with other Australopithecines, did not walk upright. Knowing this was not true, Ingram asked Gish in the question and answer period why he had misled the audience. A show of hands indicated that about 90% of the audience had assumed from what Gish had said that Zuckerman had studied Lucy. Gish became very upset, lost his temper, and railed that he wasn't responsible for people misinterpreting his remarks (Ingram 1992).Gish has never bothered to change his misleading story; in fact, he went on to increase its inaccuracy. In a 1991 debate with biologist Fred Parrish, Gish stated outright that Zuckerman had examined the Lucy skeleton itself: "For 15 years...[Zuckerman] studied fossils of Lucy and fossils of 1-2 million years younger than Lucy [sic]" (see Debates-Parrish 1991)"The following describes Gish's refusal to correct his errors concerning the ancestors of Triceratops:"In Gish's book, Dinosaurs: Those Terrible Lizards (1991 and earlier editions), he claims that Triceratops, a late Cretaceous horned dinosaur, appeared in the fossil record without a trace of any ancestor. Frederick Edwords, in a 1982 debate (see Debates-Edwords) confronted Gish with contrary evidence to his assertion. Gish replied that Triceratops' supposed ancestors are found in the same strata as Triceratops, so they couldn't be part of an evolutionary sequence (Edwords 1982b). This is incorrect, since the ancestors Edwords mentioned are actually found in geologic strata spanning 10-45 million years before Triceratops (Edwords 1982b). On March 20, two months later, Kenneth Miller had a chance to reprove Gish during a Tampa, Florida debate at Jefferson High School. Miller described and showed several transitional forms of dinosaurs leading up to Triceratops, including Monoclonius with its two incipient horns. When Gish objected that the animals occurred too close together in time for one to be ancestral to another, Miller countered by pointing out that they had at least 15 million years to evolve. He then handed Gish some textbook material on Monoclonius that confirmed this, advising him to study it before his next debate (Edwords 1982a). Nevertheless, only 11 days later, in a debate with Michael Alan Park (see Debates-Park 1982), Gish repeated his assertion that Triceratops appears "suddenly in the fossil record, with no transitional forms."To this day, in spite of additional oral and written rebuttals by scientists over the years, Gish continues to claim during debates and lectures that Triceratops has no transitional ancestors and that proposed ancestors do not occur early enough in the fossil record. (Debates: Shermer, 1995; also see Gish, 1994). This falsehood is also repeated in several subsequent books (1985, 1990a, 1995)."It goes on and on and on like this.

Gish's job is to rally the faithful by citing supposed boneheaded views in biology, paleontology and geology to audiences consisting primarily of evangelicals. At this he is very successful. His goal is not the advancement of science but of religion, so naturally he doesn't care about the accuracy of the science. When he finds an argument effective with evangelical audiences, no matter how fallacious, he will repeat it as often as he can. He knows that only at very few whistle stops will there be anyone knowledgable and articulate enough (these aren't synonyms, by the way) to successfully contradict him. I bet he "wins" 80-90% of his "debates".Probably I should have been using the past tense with Gish - I don't think he's active anymore, at least not as a travling debater. But he had a long and successful career with ICR, and as frustrating as he was because of his cavalier treatment of scientific facts, you have to admire him for how effective and successful he was at what he did.--Percy

SchrafI'll admitt that that evidence is suggestive that Gish ignored facts. I'd like to hear his side of it. Has he commented on this accusation? Have you looked for it?Many of your so called 'got yas' turn out to be very hollow. You accuse us of misusing extracts from Riley, Ethridge, Patterson and Gould. I have tracked down the original material in many of these instances in our library and I still agree with the creationist use of this material in almost every case.[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 12-10-2002]

Mammuthus Demonstrate a non-allelic example of macroevolution.If you think that evoltuion has reached the same state as the X-ray structure of hemoglobin you are seriously deluded Mammuthus. In any normal sense of the word the structure of hemoglobin is undoubtedly a fact. The status of macroevolution is not comparable since all the data is compatible with creation + diversification via allelic evolution. Duplication and mutaiton is allelic. Te results are differnetiated by an allelic difference. The proteins have the same fold and biochemical function. Show me the origin of a novel gene family and a novel subsystem. But this is simply reuse of existing gene families. God could have done the reuse. Why is it automatically natural for you? That is only your assumption. When you mutate a hox gene and get extra body segments or legs don't you realise that not a sinlge new gene family has been evolved? Regardless of how gravity works it is an epirical fact except in the most convoluted sense fo the word. You have not proven evolution. You have simply shown that life is made from reused pieces and at each level of complexity, brand new pieces. In additon you have shown that a given genome can be fine-tuned fro an envornment. We love this stuff as much as you do but it doesn't prove macroevolution. I think your seriously overating your rebuttals Mammuthus. All you ever found was that some of the components in a new sytem are reused. that is equally compatible with God or evolution. We are talking about the origin of life. God is one possibility. I'm sorry you can't see the difference between the historical origin of life and the origin of a conformational change.[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 12-10-2002]

TB:
Demonstrate a non-allelic example of macroevolution.M: You will have to be more specific...syncytin is one example, the RAG2 gene evolution is another. I will deal with your Hox gene fallacy below.TBL:
If you think that evoltuion has reached the same state as the X-ray structure of hemoglobin you are seriously deluded Mammuthus. In any normal sense of the word the structure of hemoglobin is undoubtedly a fact. The status of macroevolution is not comparable since all the data is compatible with creation + diversification via allelic evolution.M: Please "prove" the structure of hemoglobin. And for each step, please demonstrate how the X-ray analysis in any less indirect in its measurements than what a population geneticist does or a genomics researcher does.M: That is funny, I have even posted references that demonstrate gain of function mutations and duplications followed by mutation (as has SLPx)..perhaps you forgot?[/qs]Duplication and mutaiton is allelic. Te results are differnetiated by an allelic difference. The proteins have the same fold and biochemical function. Show me the origin of a novel gene family and a novel subsystem.M: Duplications are NOT always allelic. The hox clusters do not just duplicate the same functions. Amphioxus has one cluster and cannot develop the body plan of say Drosophila. Flies can because of the novel functions of the newly duplicated Hox genes. Homoglobin exists for a completley different purpose in bacteria..that is a novel subsystem or whatever you are calling it when you see what hemoglobin does in multicellular organisms. This has been demonstrated to you over and over by myslef and SLPx yet you persist in claiming we have not covered this topic.TB:
But this is simply reuse of existing gene families. God could have done the reuse. Why is it automatically natural for you? That is only your assumption. When you mutate a hox gene and get extra body segments or legs don't you realise that not a sinlge new gene family has been evolved?M: Hmm then God sure was constrained to making the duplications etc all tracable by identity by descent i.e. phylogenetics as opposed to the poof bang it is there hypothesis. So it is not only my assumption. For most duplications etc. I can find the original i.e. retrotransposon induced mutation trace back to specific classes of HERVS etc. Not de novo poof bang. And lots of new gene families have been evolved...in fact all of them.
TB:
Regardless of how gravity works it is an epirical fact except in the most convoluted sense fo the word. You have not proven evolution. You have simply shown that life is made from reused pieces and at each level of complexity, brand new pieces. In additon you have shown that a given genome can be fine-tuned fro an envornment. We love this stuff as much as you do but it doesn't prove macroevolution.M: "regardless of how gravity works it is an empirical fact" is your agrument for gravity???? Nobody has "proved" any science. There is a theory of gravity and a theory of evolution. More independent disciplines support the theory of evolution than the theory of gravity! And that life re-uses old pieces as you put it works against macroevolution how? It works against creation as you would expect the creator to poof bang the new piece into existenct perfectly rather than generating suboptimal parts from duplicated or co-opted functions of an older system that then need to be fine tuned by natural selection.TB:
I think your seriously overating your rebuttals Mammuthus. All you ever found was that some of the components in a new sytem are reused. that is equally compatible with God or evolution.M: No, I have posted evidence in direct conflict with your creation myth scenarios at which point you have usually dropped the thread or claimed you still believe in a 6000 year ago hyperspeciation creation anyway.M: However, you never provide said evidence except to say you merely believe it is so. My whole point is that I doubt you do this when exploring a structural biology question. If you were looking at the PrPc to PrPsc transition, I doubt you would just say you believe that it folds in such and such a way...you would start with the observation that the protein conformation is different between the two, develope a hypothesis, test it, and continue to experiment based on your results, continuing to refine and develope your hypothesis. Not just saying "oh well, some mythical being I believe in makes me believe it is due to some unobserved hypermutation event so I don't need to bother doing the science." I just don't get that you do this with evolutionary biology given your background. [/qs]TB:
We are talking about the origin of life. God is one possibility. I'm sorry you can't see the difference between the historical origin of life and the origin of a conformational change.M: My example flew over your head TB. I was pointing out the logic that you use regarding creation using a protein conformation change example. I was not equating prion pathogenesis with the origin of life. But more importantly, you ignored my first sentence.."However, you never provide said evidence except to say you merely believe it is so." If your "belief" is a possibility I will ask you to present the following:1) testable hypothesis
2) supporting data
3) predictions of this hypothesis
4) is the hypothesis falsifiable.This is the challenge to creationists that has never been met. Give it a shot.cheers,
M

Mammuthus Care to give a one line sumamry of these examples? Regardless of what crystal form is found, the eelctron density yields the same backbone fold for hemoglobin and it is differnt to that found for any other protein. NMR, a completely independent method finds eactly the same 3D structre from non-crystalized samples in solution.What pop-genetisists do is very good science. But it is all allelic as you know. A genomics researcher does very good work too (I am one) but all it proves is that comparing any two genomes one finds reused genes and brand new taxa-specific genes. You can interperet that as macroevoltuion but the data is completely consistent with the creaiton of genomes followed by allelic plasticity and gene losses and duplicaitons. But you have simply assumed that these organisms have evolved! I don't believe those Hox genes evolved from each other. You have not shown that! We have no probelm with horizontal transfer. But that does not mena that is how most funcitonal genes ended up in each organism. I'm sure you are aware that there are theories and theories. But all of your evidences are for allelic evolution. 99% of the human genome has appeared 'poof' from nowhere along your suppossed evolutionary tree. Simple bacteria only have about 100 gene families. The evidence very well supports the idea that funcitonal sub-networks of genes are conserved together. There is a logical reason for the reuse becasue they are parts of subsystems. What evidence can any of us provide but the genomes and today's processes? Together these support the idea of kinds that vary within allelic limits. Your idea that all of the gene families arose is the fairy tale Mammuthus. Our idea arises naturally, yours needs the shoe-horn.We do plenty of 1-4, you just view the data with blinkers I'm afraid.

TB:
Demonstrate a non-allelic example of macroevolution.
M: You will have to be more specific...syncytin is one example, the RAG2 gene evolution is another. I will deal with your Hox gene fallacy below.[/qs]Care to give a one line sumamry of these examples?M: I'll do better, and will post more of the 100's of references I found on this subjecti.e.
Nucleic Acids Res 2002 Dec 1;30(23):5229-43 Related Articles, LinksDetection of novel members, structure-function analysis and evolutionary classification of the 2H phosphoesterase superfamily.Mazumder R, Iyer LM, Vasudevan S, Aravind L.National Center for Biotechnology Information, National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD 20894, USA.2',3' Cyclic nucleotide phosphodiesterases are enzymes that catalyze at least two distinct steps in the splicing of tRNA introns in eukaryotes. Recently, the biochemistry and structure of these enzymes, from yeast and the plant Arabidopsis thaliana, have been extensively studied. They were found to share a common active site, characterized by two conserved histidines, with the bacterial tRNA-ligating enzyme LigT and the vertebrate myelin-associated 2',3' phosphodiesterases. Using sensitive sequence profile analysis methods, we show that these enzymes define a large superfamily of predicted phosphoesterases with two conserved histidines (hence 2H phosphoesterase superfamily). We identify several new families of 2H phosphoesterases and present a complete evolutionary classification of this superfamily. We also carry out a structure- function analysis of these proteins and present evidence for diverse interactions for different families, within this superfamily, with RNA substrates and protein partners. In particular, we show that eukaryotes contain two ancient families of these proteins that might be involved in RNA processing, transcriptional co-activation and post-transcriptional gene silencing. Another eukaryotic family restricted to vertebrates and insects is combined with UBA and SH3 domains suggesting a role in signal transduction. We detect these phosphoesterase modules in polyproteins of certain retroviruses, rotaviruses and coronaviruses, where they could function in capping and processing of viral RNAs. Furthermore, we present evidence for multiple families of 2H phosphoesterases in bacteria, which might be involved in the processing of small molecules with the 2',3' cyclic phosphoester linkages. The evolutionary analysis suggests that the 2H domain emerged through a duplication of a simple structural unit containing a single catalytic histidine prior to the last common ancestor of all life forms. Initially, this domain appears to have been involved in RNA processing and it appears to have been recruited to perform various other functions in later stages of evolution.Here is anotherMol Biol Evol 2002 Dec;19(12):2118-30 Related Articles, LinksKRAB Zinc Finger Proteins: An Analysis of the Molecular Mechanisms Governing Their Increase in Numbers and Complexity During Evolution.Looman C, Abrink M, Mark C, Hellman L.The Department of Cell and Molecular Biology, Uppsala University. The Biomedical Center, Department of Veterinary Medical Chemistry, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences. Medical Products Agency, Uppsala.Kruppel-related zinc finger proteins, with 564 members in the human genome, probably constitute the largest individual family of transcription factors in mammals. Approximately 30% of these proteins carry a potent repressor domain called the Kruppel associated box (KRAB). Depending on the structure of the KRAB domain, these proteins have been further divided into three subfamilies (A + B, A + b, and A only). In addition, some KRAB zinc finger proteins contain another conserved motif called SCAN. To study their molecular evolution, an extensive comparative analysis of a large panel of KRAB zinc finger genes was performed. The results show that both the KRAB A + b and the KRAB A subfamilies have their origin in a single member or a few closely related members of the KRAB A + B family. The KRAB A + B family is also the most prevalent among the KRAB zinc finger genes. Furthermore, we show that internal duplications of individual zinc finger motifs or blocks of several zinc finger motifs have occurred quite frequently within this gene family. However, zinc finger motifs are also frequently lost from the open reading frame, either by functional inactivation by point mutations or by the introduction of a stop codon. The introduction of a stop codon causes the exclusion of part of the zinc finger region from the coding region and the formation of graveyards of degenerate zinc finger motifs in the 3'-untranslated region of these genes. Earlier reports have shown that duplications of zinc finger genes commonly occur throughout evolution. We show that there is a relatively low degree of sequence conservation of the zinc finger motifs after these duplications. In many cases this may cause altered binding specificities of the transcription factors encoded by these genes. The repetitive nature of the zinc finger region and the structural flexibility within the zinc finger motif make these proteins highly adaptable. These factors may have been of major importance for their massive expansion in both number and complexity during metazoan evolution.Sycytin is a HERV-W envelope gene that causes syncitotrophoblast fusion critical in the formation of the placenta. It only does this in Old World Monkeys and the great apes as other primates do not contain this class of HERV. They also require syncitiotrophoblast fusion but it is carried out by an unrelated gene.For a description of RAG2 evolution..hereSchatz DG.
Transposition mediated by RAG1 and RAG2 and the evolution of the adaptive immune system.
Immunol Res. 1999;19(2-3):169-82. Review.Care to provide evidence that these are all wrong and that they just poofed banged into existence?TB:
Regardless of what crystal form is found, the eelctron density yields the same backbone fold for hemoglobin and it is differnt to that found for any other protein. NMR, a completely independent method finds eactly the same 3D structre from non-crystalized samples in solution.M: Funny, works that way for every life form ever studied to....molecular evidence, in many cases coroborating fossil evidence, biochemical evidence, behavioral all supporting evolution over poof bang individual independent creation of all organisms.TB:
What pop-genetisists do is very good science. But it is all allelic as you know. A genomics researcher does very good work too (I am one) but all it proves is that comparing any two genomes one finds reused genes and brand new taxa-specific genes. You can interperet that as macroevoltuion but the data is completely consistent with the creaiton of genomes followed by allelic plasticity and gene losses and duplicaitons.M: Pop gen and genomic demonstrates identity by descent..even your re-use mantra pre-supposes identity by descent. Thus, amphioxus and humans have hox genes due to a common ancestor i.e. we did not all just poof bang into existence. To show that would require that genes in different organisms were completely unrelated to each other i.e. not inherited traits.TB:
But you have simply assumed that these organisms have evolved! I don't believe those Hox genes evolved from each other. You have not shown that!M: Funny then that there are so many different species with hox genes and that hox genes (particularly in the promoters) vary and that the timing and level of expression varies among taxa....here is some lit on the topic:Larhammar D, Lundin LG, Hallbook F.
The Human Hox-bearing Chromosome Regions Did Arise by Block or Chromosome (or Even Genome) Duplications.
Genome Res. 2002 Dec;12(12):1910-20.Hinchliffe JR.
Developmental basis of limb evolution.
Int J Dev Biol. 2002;46(7):835-45.Mazet F, Shimeld SM.
The evolution of chordate neural segmentation.
Dev Biol. 2002 Nov 15;251(2):258-70.TB:
We have no probelm with horizontal transfer. But that does not mena that is how most funcitonal genes ended up in each organism.M: Um..how does this address my point? In any case, horizontal transfer is a very common event and is a rapid way of diseminating novel genetic information among distantly related taxa for example:Kondo N, Nikoh N, Ijichi N, Shimada M, Fukatsu T.
Genome fragment of Wolbachia endosymbiont transferred to X chromosome of host insect.
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2002 Oct 29;99(22):14280-5.TB:
I'm sure you are aware that there are theories and theories.M: No, enlighten me.TB:
But all of your evidences are for allelic evolution. 99% of the human genome has appeared 'poof' from nowhere along your suppossed evolutionary tree. Simple bacteria only have about 100 gene families. The evidence very well supports the idea that funcitonal sub-networks of genes are conserved together. There is a logical reason for the reuse becasue they are parts of subsystems.M: Could you tabulate the 99% that has arisen poof out of nowhere please? Most is repetitive DNA where we know full well what the origins are i.e. LINEs, SINEs, HERVs, solo LTRs etc.TB:
What evidence can any of us provide but the genomes and today's processes? Together these support the idea of kinds that vary within allelic limits.M: Ignoring all the fossil evidence..or fossil DNA evidence for that matter, how does anything support allelic variation within a non-defined "kind"?TB:
Your idea that all of the gene families arose is the fairy tale Mammuthus. Our idea arises naturally, yours needs the shoe-horn.M: I will take my data supported "fairy tale" any day over a myth that is in direct contradiction to the physical evidence and science.TB:
We do plenty of 1-4, you just view the data with blinkers I'm afraid.M: Then kindly provide 1-4.
What is the testable hypothesis of creation? Just that would suffice TB. Which god created everything? Vishnu? Who created the creator? Lots of questions, no data, no testable hypothesis. And I am not wearing blinders. Again please supply:1) testable hypothesis
2) supporting data
3) predictions of this hypothesis
4) is the hypothesis falsifiable.Don't just wave it away as I am blind. You did not even attempt 1-4. That puts you arguemnt in the same camp as those who just claim everything they believe is self evident rather than actually supporting their assertions. I am asking you to do better.cheers,
M

Here is a new sequenced genome (tunicate) which does not suggest poof bang either. This paper should interest you. Read the commentary also by Pinisi in the same issue.Research ArticleThe Draft Genome of Ciona intestinalis: Insights into Chordate and Vertebrate OriginsParamvir Dehal, Yutaka Satou, Robert K. Campbell, Jarrod Chapman, Bernard Degnan, Anthony De Tomaso, Brad Davidson, Anna Di Gregorio, Maarten Gelpke, David M. Goodstein, Naoe Harafuji, Kenneth E. M. Hastings, Isaac Ho, Kohji Hotta, Wayne Huang, Takeshi Kawashima, Patrick Lemaire, Diego Martinez, Ian A. Meinertzhagen, Simona Necula, Masaru Nonaka, Nik Putnam, Sam Rash, Hidetoshi Saiga, Masanobu Satake, Astrid Terry, Lixy Yamada, Hong-Gang Wang, Satoko Awazu, Kaoru Azumi, Jeffrey Boore, Margherita Branno, Stephen Chin-bow, Rosaria DeSantis, Sharon Doyle, Pilar Francino, David N. Keys, Shinobu Haga, Hiroko Hayashi, Kyosuke Hino, Kaoru S. Imai, Kazuo Inaba, Shungo Kano, Kenji Kobayashi, Mari Kobayashi, Byung-In Lee, Kazuhiro W. Makabe, Chitra Manohar, Giorgio Matassi, Monica Medina, Yasuaki Mochizuki, Steve Mount, Tomomi Morishita, Sachiko Miura, Akie Nakayama, Satoko Nishizaka, Hisayo Nomoto, Fumiko Ohta, Kazuko Oishi, Isidore Rigoutsos, Masako Sano, Akane Sasaki, Yasunori Sasakura, Eiichi Shoguchi, Tadasu Shin-i, Antoinetta Spagnuolo, Didier Stainier, Miho M. Suzuki, Olivier Tassy, Naohito Takatori, Miki Tokuoka, Kasumi Yagi, Fumiko Yoshizaki, Shuichi Wada, Cindy Zhang, P. Douglas Hyatt, Frank Larimer, Chris Detter, Norman Doggett, Tijana Glavina, Trevor Hawkins, Paul Richardson, Susan Lucas, Yuji Kohara, Michael Levine, Nori Satoh, and Daniel S. Rokhsar
Science Dec 13 2002: 2157-2167.

MammuthusOK, let's look at these one at a time (I'm about to decorate our tree so I've only got a couple of minutes):Your Mazumder et al example: These proteins form a 'super family'. As such they share the same fold and the same chemical funciton. It wouldn't even surprise me for these proteins to have drifted away from a common anscestor if indeed (i) sufficent time had occurred or (ii) these organisms were related by evolution.But you have simply assumed both (i) and (ii), not shown them. So your evidence is neither non-allelic (these could be heavily mutated alleles!) and only proves evolution if you already believe it.The data is perfectly compatible with separate creation. The distant 'profile similarity' (let me know if you want me to explain that bioinforamtics to you), even from an evolutionary point of view, could be physico-chemical (ie convergent or separately created) rather than divergent evolution. Two proteins with the same fold can have totoally different sequences but the same 'profile' and catalytic residues without being related by evolution. Go look up the definition of a superfamily to prove it to yourself.Mammuthus, unless I have missed something, this ref has zero relevance to proving that evolution is capable of generating gene types that are non-allelically related. It would help the discussion if you at least explained what you think its relevance is rather than simply pasting abstacts.[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 12-14-2002]

TB:
OK, let's look at these one at a time (I'm about to decorate our tree so I've only got a couple of minutes):M: Take your time...the threads are moving slowly these days.TB:
These proteins form a 'super family'. As such they share the same fold and the same chemical funciton. It wouldn't even surprise me for these proteins to have drifted away from a common anscestor if indeed (i) sufficent time had occurred or (ii) these organisms were related by evolution.M: That is a strange thing to say since immediately below you deny it.TB:
But you have simply assumed both (i) and (ii), not shown them. So your evidence is neither non-allelic (these could be heavily mutated alleles!) and only proves evolution if you already believe it.M: Not so. And this is why "proving" in science is not a valid concept. The data from this paper show an extremely well conserved functional domain that is part of a superfamily of proteins indicating that the family evolved from a common ancestor. The KRAB superfamily is the same concept. If you deny identity by descent you cannot believe in the concept of a protein superfamily. To be a "family" means that they have to show similarity by common ancestry.TB:
The data is perfectly compatible with separate creation.M: Then there should be no reason for KRAB memebers to show ANY sequence similarity. You could get the function multiple ways so why are KRAB proteins in one species more similar to KRAB proteins in the related species than in very distant relatives? Does not sound like INDEPENDENT creation.TB:
The distant 'profile similarity' (let me know if you want me to explain that bioinforamtics to you), even from an evolutionary point of view, could be physico-chemical (ie convergent or separately created) rather than divergent evolution.M: What a bunch of nonesense TB...so you god follows the rules of chemistry but then ditches the observable rules of transmission genetics? Your independent creation schtick is hardly parsimonious..it requires ignoring a huge amount of data to believe in.TB:
Two proteins with the same fold can have totoally different sequences but the same 'profile' and catalytic residues without being related by evolution. Go look up the definition of a superfamily to prove it to yourself.M: However, that is not what I posted..and neither are the KRAB family, HOX, HERVs etc.TB:
Mammuthus, unless I have missed something, this ref has zero relevance to proving that evolution is capable of generating gene types that are non-allelically related. It would help the discussion if you at least explained what you think its relevance is rather than simply pasting abstacts.M: I will point out TB, that you almost never post a single reference that supports you claim that I could read. I don't mean creationist literature. I mean, post a section of a genetics, genomics, zoological, or paleontological article or book that you think is a good example of creation and we can discuss it. As to my posting abstracts, I posted references that I felt dealt with the subject at hand. If you don't understand them or some part of them let me know. I thought the KRAB article and the tunicate genome sequencing article are pretty self explanatory.The phophodiesterase article was just to show that evolution works by exon shuffling, duplication, deletion, di-tri-tetra nucleotide expansion etc etc to generate novelty. Horizontal transfer is another mechanism. Syncytin was originally an envelope protein for a retrovirus...now it initiates syncytiotrophoblast fusion for Old World Monkey and Great Ape placental development. It is all consistent with the fact that in sexually reproducing animals you inherit you genes from your parents who inherited theirs from their parents all the way back to the common ancestor of all living things. Not a poof bang creation event at each step.Have fun decorating the tree. I myself will not be doing that this year as I will be travelling for a month leaving Xmas eve (and for all the lucky creationists, I will be offline cheers,
M

I think the answer hinges on free will. God loves us so much that he even gives us the free will to reject him and remain apart from him for eternity. He takes our decisions seriously, as we must. It does not seem to me to be a question of God's ego (or why would he submit himself to the most humiliating forms of torture and death by people he had first allowed to spit upon him, simply for our sake?).