Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Biological classification vs 'Kind'
BobTHJ
Member (Idle past 4998 days)
Posts: 119
Joined: 06-02-2010


Message 277 of 385 (564794)
06-12-2010 5:21 PM
Reply to: Message 229 by Percy
06-08-2010 8:44 PM


Re: Mutations and Information
quote:
The number of alleles was 3, which can be represented in log23 = 1.585 bits, and then it increased to 4, which is log24 = 2 bits, and that's an increase in information of .415 bits.
Yes, you are correct. My knowledge of genetics has grown considerably since starting this discussion - so I need to withdraw my earlier statement regarding evolution adding information to the genome.
It is clear that new alleles can be created via point mutation other mechanisms rather easily. This fits the baranome hypothesis - baranomes are designed to do exactly that - diversify the kind, partially through the creation of new alleles.
The traditional evolutionary model though is still riddled with problems. In order for the creation of a new novel gene there must first be a duplication of an existing gene (recent research has shown this to occur at much lower rates than originally predicted) - then than gene must undergo a number of non-synonymous mutations (of which very few are beneficial) to code a new novel protein. That protein must then provide some fitness benefit to the organism to encourage positive selection. Even if all this comes together this process must occur simultaneously in 50+ genes to form a new novel mechansim for a complex organism.
Yes, I understand there are other ways of obtaining new genes (frameshifts, activaiton of pseudogenes, etc.) but the above is the traditional best evolutionary model for the development of new features. Even given timeframes of millions of years it is highly improbable that even a few such new genes would be developed this way.
The evolutionary model also fails to explain the rapid variation and adaptation that has been observed in scientific experiments - such as the ability of bacteria to rapidly evolve and synthesize new nutrients. Baranomes explain this rather well - the VIGEs are there specifically to cause this rapid adaptation - but if it can happen so rapidly - then why are millions of years required to develop new traits?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 229 by Percy, posted 06-08-2010 8:44 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 280 by Percy, posted 06-12-2010 6:15 PM BobTHJ has replied

  
BobTHJ
Member (Idle past 4998 days)
Posts: 119
Joined: 06-02-2010


Message 282 of 385 (564828)
06-13-2010 3:15 AM
Reply to: Message 236 by Percy
06-08-2010 11:36 PM


quote:
Well, that's wonderful that you've seen convincing evidence of a YEC model (how many models are there, by the way?). Care to share any of this evidence with us, especially for kinds or baraminology?
The first thing that comes to mind is neanderthal. YEC scientists predicted through baraminology that neanderthal was not a human ancestor, nor a separate offshot of the primate clade, but a extinct species of the human holobaramin. This prediction was found to be correct when recent testing of the neanderthal genome showed evidence of interbreeding with humans.
quote:
Okay, this is the second time you've talked about testing hypotheses, which is great, we agree about this, but now I'm really confused. So earlier when you said that theories don't need to be falsifiable, that was I guess a joke, right?
Just because a hypothesis can't be tested doesn't make it an invalid hypothesis. Of course, it doesn't make it particularly useful either. Thus it is wise to attempt and find falsification tests for your hypotheses.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 236 by Percy, posted 06-08-2010 11:36 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 290 by Percy, posted 06-13-2010 6:19 AM BobTHJ has replied

  
BobTHJ
Member (Idle past 4998 days)
Posts: 119
Joined: 06-02-2010


Message 283 of 385 (564830)
06-13-2010 3:25 AM
Reply to: Message 242 by Dr Jack
06-09-2010 12:29 PM


quote:
This is off topic here, but I'd like to discuss it in another thread if you'd care to propose the topic?
Certainly - I set up a topic here

This message is a reply to:
 Message 242 by Dr Jack, posted 06-09-2010 12:29 PM Dr Jack has not replied

  
BobTHJ
Member (Idle past 4998 days)
Posts: 119
Joined: 06-02-2010


Message 284 of 385 (564831)
06-13-2010 3:30 AM
Reply to: Message 243 by Dr Adequate
06-09-2010 12:30 PM


quote:
Well, you usually do. The question of why you do so is up to your conscience. But of course you do.
If you lose your spectacles, then you pursue your search for them as though the idea that God sent a flotilla of angels to bear them up to heaven was completely ridiculous and could be ignored. You keep on searching for your spectacles as though there was a naturalistic explanation, and as though the explanation involving God and his angels could just be ignored.
When you understand why you behave in this way, then you will also understand why biologists ignore the "goddit by magic" hypothesis.
You make a point - and yes, if there is a clear naturalistic explanation then I sometimes don't consider a supernatural one (though I'm not convinced that I shouldn't). However, this is because of a firm belief that the natural (the physical laws that govern our universe) were set into place by the supernatural. I think we're off topic here though - theological debate should probably be saved for a different topic.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 243 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-09-2010 12:30 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
BobTHJ
Member (Idle past 4998 days)
Posts: 119
Joined: 06-02-2010


Message 285 of 385 (564832)
06-13-2010 3:38 AM
Reply to: Message 244 by Peepul
06-09-2010 12:32 PM


quote:
Have a look at some of the work of Szostak and Paegel - they have gone beyond Miller / Urey.
Szostak Lab: Home#
Darwinian Evolution On A Chip by Brian M. Paegel and Gerald F. Joyce, Public Library of Science Biology, 6(4): e85 (April 2008)
Thanks - I looked over both of these resources, but I don't have time at the moment to go into either in depth, nor am I certain I would fully understand (at least not without taking a fair amount of time to do so). Would you be so kind as to summarize this research for me? What are the implications?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 244 by Peepul, posted 06-09-2010 12:32 PM Peepul has not replied

  
BobTHJ
Member (Idle past 4998 days)
Posts: 119
Joined: 06-02-2010


Message 286 of 385 (564833)
06-13-2010 3:48 AM
Reply to: Message 245 by Taq
06-09-2010 1:56 PM


quote:
And you are right. Scientists are biased. They are biased towards concepts that are evidenced and testable. How is that a bad thing? Also, how do you explain the fact that about 30% of biologists who accept evolution are also theists, not atheists. Are you saying that tens of thousands of christians are involved in a conspiracy to quash any scientific work related to a supernatural designer?
Since you asked the question I'll clarify this once more - and then I need to move on or risk being buried by having to explain myself so many times:
My religion dictates certain beliefs. YEC is not one of those. I could be a theistic evolutionist and still be a Christian (and was one prior to giving the subject any serious examination).
I have chosen the YEC model as my preferred model for two reasons:
1) It seems to best fit the Biblical text
2) It seems to best fit the scientific evidence I have reviewed

This message is a reply to:
 Message 245 by Taq, posted 06-09-2010 1:56 PM Taq has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 287 by cavediver, posted 06-13-2010 3:57 AM BobTHJ has not replied

  
BobTHJ
Member (Idle past 4998 days)
Posts: 119
Joined: 06-02-2010


Message 288 of 385 (564835)
06-13-2010 3:57 AM
Reply to: Message 247 by Dr Jack
06-09-2010 2:57 PM


Since you may not have caught my previous explanations I'll respond to these again - but going forward I'm just going to have to skip responses to these type of posts - nothing against you personally, I just don't have time to repeatedly clarify my positions.
quote:
While Creationist lie-sites like to portray Evolution as an atheist conspiracy, in fact most of the scientists who initially formulated the theory, and before that the many other scientists who abandoned special creation as an explanation, were not not atheists. They were just scientists who follow the evidence.
Yes - I understand there are many non-atheist darwinists. When I use the term "atheistic scientists" or "atheistic darwinists" I am referencing a subset of scientists or darwinists respectively - those who are atheists. I have not and will not assume all persons of those respective classes are atheists.
quote:
Supernatural explanations have a 100% track record of failure. Naturalistic (not atheistic, naturalistic) science has done a rather better job of explaining and understanding the world around us.
Supernatural explanations have a 100% track record of failure simply because only naturalistic phenomena have been scientifically understood thus-far. Science is able to easily answer natural phenomena - but this does not mean that supernatural phenomena do not exist. It is quite possible that a subset of unexplained phenomena are supernatural - and our present naturalistic scientific methods would not be able to detect this. Those phenomena would then (under a naturalistic system) remain permanently unexplained.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 247 by Dr Jack, posted 06-09-2010 2:57 PM Dr Jack has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 289 by Dr Jack, posted 06-13-2010 4:08 AM BobTHJ has replied
 Message 291 by Percy, posted 06-13-2010 6:28 AM BobTHJ has replied

  
BobTHJ
Member (Idle past 4998 days)
Posts: 119
Joined: 06-02-2010


Message 297 of 385 (565066)
06-14-2010 2:57 PM
Reply to: Message 254 by Granny Magda
06-09-2010 8:08 PM


Re: Life Looks Evolved, Baraminology Looks Useless
quote:
Evolution is the central principle behind almost all modern biology. Do you really think that biologists are so stupid and incompetent that they have based an entire century of work around something that doesn't even look true?
The overwhelming majority of biologists agree that life looks evolved. The overwhelming majority of geologists agree that the Earth looks old. I think it is reasonable to conclude from this that life does indeed look evolved and that the Earth looks old
There was a majority of nazis in Germany during WWII (or at least those non-conforming were silent to the issue) - does this mean we should have supported nazism were we to live there in that time? This isn't a scientific argument - of course we should not go along with a belief simply because that belief is held by a majority.
I do not see evidence that overwhelmingly makes the earth look old or evolution look true. If I did I would be a theistic evolutionist (as I've stated several times already). I do see that darwinian evolution looks good from a distance - and I correspondingly understand why many people (particularly prior to the last few decades) have been swayed to believe in darwinian evolution - but under close examination it doesn't seem to hold up.
quote:
I'm sorry to say that you are mistaken here. There are some YECs who do engage in this kind of argument; it's called Omphalism. Ever heard the argument that God created starlight "in transit", with the appearance of having travelled for millions of years? That's a form of omphalism. I agree with you that suggesting a deceitful God is not desirable, but I really don't see what other option you have.
I stand corrected. I'll revise: Most mainstream creationists do not subscribe to Omphalism - though it may have been more prevalent in the past. YECs have several hypotheses for the distant starlight problem that do not involve Omphalism - but a discussion of those hypotheses are beyond the scope of this thread.
quote:
A number of dinosaur species have been identified as feathered. One example is Sinornithosaurus.
Wow....it looks like to me they found exactly what they set out to find. Consider the assumptions that were made:
* The imprints on the fossil are feathers (I'm not seeing it - but I don't look at fossils all day either)
* The carbon-structures found in the impressions look like melanosomes under a microscope so they must be melanosomes
* the impressions may contain melanosomes - bird feathers also contain melanosomes - so they must be feathers (nevermind that many other organisms contain melanosomes).
I'm sure their bias for wanting to find feathered dinosaurs didn't play into this at all - nope, not at all (sarcasm implied in case it wasn't apparent).
As for the other so-called feathered dinosaurs? The evidence seems to be equally scant. I think Dr. Wile has just cause for his statement.
Who knows though - maybe their wild assumptions are correct. Maybe there are feathered dinosaurs. I can live with that - it doesn't harm my scientific worldview.
quote:
I'm not going to read your link. I'm not going to argue bare links. Please make your arguments in your own words, or how am I to know that you truly understand what you are linking to?
The link was not bare - but posted as supporting evidence for the position I stated. Though of course - you are free to disagree - and to read whatever you would like.
quote:
Suffice to say that your claim about the ToE being "stretched" is a fantasy. Every single time a new species is found, it fits into the nested hierarchy of evolution. Every single new fossil fits into that pattern. Every new genome described provides an opportunity to falsify evolution; it never happens. Instead, the ToE has seen its most important predictions verified. Darwin predicted a hereditary mechanism that allowed for descent with modification. If evolution were not true, there would be no reason for such a mechanism to exist. The discovery of genetics was an enormous vindication of Darwin's theory.
False. Most every new organism discovered fits well into an ontology for classifying organisms according to similarities. Not surprisingly, most genetic evidence also fits because organisms with similar morphological features often share similar genetic features. Darwinists just make the jump from there that the nice ontological model implies a common ancestry of all organisms - a claim for which there isn't much evidence.
quote:
So you get your evidence from the Bible? Very scientific.
No no no. Let's get something straight: I'm not here to argue "The Bible tells me its true - so all of you are wrong!" I do believe the Bible to be 100% accurate - but I won't use that belief as the basis of my arguments here. I came here to debate scientific evidence - not theology.
I was stating that the YEC model (and its hypotheses) are based upon an interpretation of the Bible. It certainly isn't the only interpretation, but theologically it seems to be the most sound (vs. old-earth creationist models or theistic evolution). Just because the model is originated from the Bible doesn't mean it can't be scientifically examined. You wouldn't suggest that the ToE is unscientific simply because it originated from Darwin would you?
quote:
Still, let's try to apply this to our example. You were asked why God didn't create feathered mammals. What Biblical evidence can you cite to explain God's reasons? What is it about God's character, as revealed by scripture, that explains why no feathered mammals exist?
There is none. There are of course many topics that the Bible does not address in detail. Specifically when it comes to baraminology there are only a few relevant verses from which conclusions can be drawn - but there are some.
quote:
And no matter how many times you say it, it will remain nonsense.
Evolution is not wedded to naturalistic abiogenesis. Any number of modes of origin could be compatible with evolution.
God could have created life... which subsequently evolved and diversified.
Aliens could have seeded life upon the ancient Earth... which subsequently evolved and diversified.
Life could have arisen through unguided naturalistic chemical processes... which subsequently evolved and diversified.
The fact that many Christian theistic evolutionists believe that God used supernatural means to create the very first life - which subsequently evolved and diversified - supports this.
I've answered this multiple times. Feel free to read through my other posts on this thread for an explanation - I don't have time to retype it all again here.
quote:
Can you think of a mechanism that could do that? In a flood?
The short answer is: Yes. The long answer is off-topic.
quote:
Well if you want to consider it this a flaw, I suppose I agree insofar as it goes. However, given that the track record of scientific achievement since methodological naturalism became the norm, it is a flaw I am willing to suffer quite gladly. It seems a small price to pay for things like vaccines, sanitation, antibiotics...
Flawed reasoning. There is no causation between naturalism and scientific advance.
quote:
I agree, but unfortunately for you, the human and chimp genomes are extremely similar. Our DNA is far more similar to a bonobo than any other animal, so why isn't it in the same baramin? Your only answer is to defer to the alleged authority of the Bible, which rather marks this as an exercise in religious apologetics rather than open scientific enquiry
Nope - you are still making the assumption that genetic similarity implies common ancestry. The dismal track record of supposed transitional "human ancestor" fossils over the years doesn't help you here. If the consensus among other posters is that an examination of those fossils is on-topic then I'd be happy to discuss them in more depth.
quote:
No? Then why does this baramin enthusiast group moles together with (of all things!) marsupial moles, but still insist that dormice are different enough to mice that they deserve a baramin of their own? If moles and marsupial moles are of the same kind, why not humans and apes?
Unless you can show me some objective means of identifying the limits of a baramin, I am forced to conclude that the term is worthless.
I've never heard of the site you referenced - but suffice it to say there will probably be some disagreement and minority viewpoints among creationists when classifying creatures into kinds. This is irrelevant to your argument against the validity of baraminology.
quote:
Unless you can show me some objective means of identifying the limits of a baramin, I am forced to conclude that the term is worthless.
Conclude whatever you would like - Baraminology is worthless to those who have no reason to assume the supernatural. I've gone into this in detail previously.
For those of us who do subscribe to Baraminology - it is important to identify the limits of a baramin. There is work currently being done by multiple creation scientists to do exactly that. Baraminology (the modern variant anyway which incorporates factors such as genetics) is a relatively new field of study, and creation scientists don't have the same numbers or backing to support the advancement of their research, so it naturally moves at a slower pace.
Thank you for the comprehensive reply.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 254 by Granny Magda, posted 06-09-2010 8:08 PM Granny Magda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 299 by Taq, posted 06-14-2010 4:21 PM BobTHJ has replied
 Message 307 by Granny Magda, posted 06-15-2010 12:52 PM BobTHJ has replied

  
BobTHJ
Member (Idle past 4998 days)
Posts: 119
Joined: 06-02-2010


Message 300 of 385 (565085)
06-14-2010 5:27 PM
Reply to: Message 256 by Otto Tellick
06-10-2010 3:52 AM


Re: Getting down to details
quote:
Is Mr. Thomas of the ICR actually incapable of understanding an article in Science, or is he being deliberately dishonest? It's beyond all shadow of doubt that he has made a mistake here, and attributes to Sarmiento an assertion that is diametrically opposite to what the scientist actually said. It's risky business to guess at someone's true intent, but I am inclined to think that Mr. Thomas's stupidity is not so extreme as to qualify this as an "honest" mistake.
Mr. Thomas is not being inept or dishonest here. He doesn't mention Sarmiento's conclusions because it is already clear what those conclusions are. Thomas was drawing attention to the contreversy: evolutionists can't decide where Ardi fits. No one doubted that they believed Ardi to not be some sort of a primate ancestor - darwinists wouldn't draw any conclusion that wouldn't fit their dogma. If anything (probably in an effort to simplify the issue for non-scientific readers) he chose poor wording for the title of the article.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 256 by Otto Tellick, posted 06-10-2010 3:52 AM Otto Tellick has not replied

  
BobTHJ
Member (Idle past 4998 days)
Posts: 119
Joined: 06-02-2010


Message 301 of 385 (565104)
06-14-2010 6:43 PM
Reply to: Message 260 by Coyote
06-11-2010 6:08 PM


Re: Insults?
quote:
Check the scientific findings in areas of the world where there is no strong biblical tradition. Any of those scientists come up with a young earth idea? Or is it pretty much limited to biblical literalists? (Rhetorical question.)
Yes you already know the answer. This is simply proof that there is more than one way semi-coherent way to interpret the evidence. Two questions to ask yourself about a set of beliefs:
1) Is it (to a high degree) internally consistent?
2) Does it (to a high degree) match what it observed around us?
I can answer both those questions with a resounding "Yes" for YEC. I suspect you would answer them "Yes" as well for darwinian evolution.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 260 by Coyote, posted 06-11-2010 6:08 PM Coyote has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 311 by Taq, posted 06-15-2010 5:00 PM BobTHJ has replied

  
BobTHJ
Member (Idle past 4998 days)
Posts: 119
Joined: 06-02-2010


(1)
Message 302 of 385 (565113)
06-14-2010 7:05 PM
Reply to: Message 261 by Coragyps
06-11-2010 6:10 PM


quote:
When was the last time you used your vomeronasal organ, Bob? I'll bet it's been a while.
(snip)
Can you suggest a creationist scenario where this makes even a particle of sense?
Easily. In the creationist model the baranomes have decayed over time (via mutation and information lost via natural selection due to speciation). It is not at all unlikely that one or more parts of the human body are no longer functional due to loss of information. I'll even go so far as to predict that more presently functioning organs will become non-functioning in the future. Creation is doomed to a bitter end (well, without supernatural intervention anyway).
Thanks for bringing this up though - because this highlights one of the uglier sides of darwinian evolution: The host of vestigial organs that Darwin predicted simply aren't there. The already small list grows smaller every time we learn the function of another organ. Appendix is out. Spleen is out. No problem though - we'll just replace that hypothesis with Junk DNA! Oh wait....so much for that one too.
Interestingly - the insistence upon vestigial organs and junk DNA to support darwinian evolution has actually hindered the advancement of science. When entire organs and sections of the genome are written off as evolutionary remnants there ceases to be a concerted attempt to find their function.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 261 by Coragyps, posted 06-11-2010 6:10 PM Coragyps has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 305 by Wounded King, posted 06-15-2010 4:27 AM BobTHJ has replied
 Message 308 by Coragyps, posted 06-15-2010 1:10 PM BobTHJ has replied

  
BobTHJ
Member (Idle past 4998 days)
Posts: 119
Joined: 06-02-2010


Message 303 of 385 (565114)
06-14-2010 7:13 PM
Reply to: Message 262 by Taq
06-11-2010 6:28 PM


quote:
The fact of the matter is that ERV's can be pulled out of genomes and made into viable retroviruses
This would seem to add evidence for the baranome/VIGE hypothesis. Which came first? The chicken or the egg? The ERV or the retrovirus?
quote:
I have a good test for retroviral function.
I'm not going to reply to this here. I am looking deeper into this topic to investigate the level that ERVs fall into the evolutionary nested heirarchy - and if Dr. Borger's baranome hypothesis can provide a suitable explanation. When I do respond (which I intend to) it will likely be in this thread.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 262 by Taq, posted 06-11-2010 6:28 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 309 by Taq, posted 06-15-2010 4:09 PM BobTHJ has replied

  
BobTHJ
Member (Idle past 4998 days)
Posts: 119
Joined: 06-02-2010


(1)
Message 304 of 385 (565140)
06-15-2010 12:09 AM
Reply to: Message 264 by Otto Tellick
06-11-2010 10:33 PM


quote:
Yup, there's overlap, for sure. But that's not the only problem with those lists (which, like so many of the references you've been providing, are all too familiar and easily debunked).
Here's a very informative video regarding lists of scientists who support creationism (or dispute evolution or believe in a young earth or think vaccination causes autism or deny global warming or firmly recommend homeopathic remedies or ...)
You discredit one list by posting a video debunking a different list? Seems there is a disconnect somewhere. Anyway, I didn't post the lists so you could go over them with a fine-toothed comb (though feel free to if you wish). I posted them to demonstrate that there are SOME scientists who subscribe to YEC. Yes, I understand darwinist dogma doesn't allow the words "creation" and "science" to go together - and you are free to live in your deluded world if you wish.
quote:
That last question brings to mind those Christian revival meetings -- I've been to a few, in the distant past -- where attendants are invited, implored, all but coerced to stand up, step to the front, declare their sins, accept Jesus, start speaking in tongues, grovel on the floor or whatever. Bob, did you ever go to meetings like that? Have you ever gone to the front? This sort of thing doesn't really happen at science meetings, but what if... right here, now, at EvC, Bob. Science is trying to reach you. Trying to save you. Science wants you to find the truth, wants you to accept the truth that will set you free. Free yourself now, Bob! Renounce your YEC sins! Come on up front! Prove to yourself, for yourself, that you can do this!
OK, sorry, that was a cheap shot. No offense intended.
I've seen the light! I'm ready to give my mind over to Darwin! I no longer wish to question assumptions that are made by the scientific majority! Lobotomize me and set me free!
No, seriously - that part of your post was funny. I LOLed.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 264 by Otto Tellick, posted 06-11-2010 10:33 PM Otto Tellick has not replied

  
BobTHJ
Member (Idle past 4998 days)
Posts: 119
Joined: 06-02-2010


Message 310 of 385 (565239)
06-15-2010 4:49 PM
Reply to: Message 275 by Percy
06-12-2010 5:10 PM


Re: a deeper understanding
quote:
What is the evidence that there is any such thing as VIGEs?
Where in the genome are these "partially or fully disabled" VIGEs
I stated this twice - please read my posts. Borger coined the term VIGE's to refer collectively to insertion sequences, ERVs, transposons, and other mobile genetic elements. There has been some recent evidence showing that at least some of these mobile elements are not selfish and random (as originally believed) but instead have very specific function to activate and deactivate dormant genes (pseudogenes). These functions have been observed when the cell goes into a starvation state - the mobile elements begin to shift causing the activation of previously dormant genes. In bacteria domant genes were activated allowing the synthesis of new sugars available in the artificial lab environment. I'll locate and link the appropriate studies if you'd like.
Borger's hypothesis is that the mobile genetic elements we see today are what's left of VIGE's. Many seem to have been damaged by 6k+ years of mutation and so don't function as originally intended.
quote:
What is the evidence for "rapid adaptation and speciation" 4500 years ago (in other words, since the flood)? What is the evidence that they operated by "activating and deactivating various genes."
There is circumstantial evidence - the ability of organisms to rapidly adapt and evolve - far faster than darwinian evolution would predict. The current level of diversity in life we witness today matches with the 4500 year timeframe since the flood - assuming base kinds were transported on the ark.
As to activating and deactivating genes, Borger quotes this in Part 4 of the Baranome hypothesis:
As cryptic genes are not expressed to make any positive contribution to the fitness of the organism, it is expected that they would eventually be lost due to the accumulation of inactivating mutations. Cryptic genes would thus be expected to be rare in natural populations. This, however, is not the case. Over 90% of natural isolates of E. coli carry cryptic genes for the utilization of beta-glucoside sugars. These cryptic operons can all be activated by IS [insertion-sequence] elements, and when so activated allow E. coli to utilize beta-glucoside sugars as sole carbon and energy sources
The quote is taken from Hall, B.G., Transposable elements as activators of cryptic genes in E. coli, Genetica 107:181—187, 1999. He also provides several other examples demonstrating mobile genetic elements acting with purposeful altruistic intent.
quote:
How many human/guidea pigs genes were identical "at creation?" You know what it means if too many of their genes were identical, don't you?
Not what you'd think. The bulk of genetic function seems to be in the regulatory portions. It is quite possible that similar organisms all shared very similar genes with the functional differences being in how and when those genes were expressed.
quote:
But the important question concerns evidence. Do you have any evidence that human and guinea pig GULO genes were identical at any time in the past?
No, I don't have any evidence - I was postulating. Do you have evidence?
quote:
You've just added to the amazing thigns VIGEs can do. Not only can they "cause rapid adaptation and speciation by activating and deactivating various genes," but they can also make actual changes to genes. What is the evidence that anything like this has ever happened?
See above.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 275 by Percy, posted 06-12-2010 5:10 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 312 by Taq, posted 06-15-2010 5:06 PM BobTHJ has replied
 Message 350 by Percy, posted 06-17-2010 7:51 AM BobTHJ has not replied

  
BobTHJ
Member (Idle past 4998 days)
Posts: 119
Joined: 06-02-2010


Message 313 of 385 (565244)
06-15-2010 5:07 PM
Reply to: Message 276 by Modulous
06-12-2010 5:16 PM


Re: a deeper understanding
quote:
It could be, of course, mutational hotspots and common ancestry....
Other options you haven't considered are
3) Some other as yet unknown commonality.
4) common ancestry, and it is the rat's gene that has evolved.
5) something else.
Yes, it could be common ancestry - I don't think Woodmorappe's article is to disprove common ancestry so much as it is to demonstrate design as a reasonable explanation.
quote:
Indeed - we still haven't got a reasonable deep understanding of the big picture patterns we see. We agree on the smaller patterns indicate common ancestry (whether the ancestor is either the FIRST EVER (created kind) or not) - but you are just telling us what we knew: Common ancestry gives us explanations.
Fair enough. I don't have an answer at this point.
quote:
We have been discussing this hunt for the causes behind such circumstantial spiritual experiences over at Religious Experiences - Evidence of God(s)?. I've detailed my experiences - I'd be interested in hearing yours. But be warned, we're being flagrantly atheist in that thread
Yes, I saw that thread - and I'm not sure I want to get into the thick of it, but thanks for the offer. As I've mentioned before my spiritual evidence of God's existence is circumstantial - and while adequate to convince myself - I highly doubt any circumstantial evidence would be taken seriously on these forums. Plus - it's not my job to convince all of you of God's existence - He can do that just fine Himself.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 276 by Modulous, posted 06-12-2010 5:16 PM Modulous has seen this message but not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024