Summations Only

You think a lot of things. The trouble you have is providing evidence for what you think.The first problem you need to solve is why we see greater conservation of sequence between species for functional DNA as compared to junk DNA.

The only mendacious propaganda is the claim that if common ancestry is not used in a practical manner in the field of medicine that common ancestry can't be true. As you have already shown, creationism can't explain the nested hierarchy. Evolution can. Evolution is currently the only explanation we have for the observed pattern of shared derived characteristics, including DNA sequences. Even you couldn't explain how creationism could produce this pattern of similarity.Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

Ah, the ever unreliable Talk Origins. I wouldn't worry about anything from that discredited atheist web site.t4t

Especially not the references ...

quote:

---

(Branca 2002; Eisen and Wu 2002; Searls 2003). (Bull and Wichman 2001). (Vogel 1998). (Cummings and Relman 2002). (Gaschen et al. 2002). (Bull and Wichman 2001; Relman 1999). (Benner 2001).

​

References:

1. Arnold, Frances H. 2001. Combinatorial and computational challenges for biocatalyst design. Nature 409: 253-257.
2. Barbrook, Adrian C., Christopher J. Howe, Norman Blake, and Peter Robinson, 1998. The phylogeny of The Canterbury Tales. Nature 394: 839.
3. Benner, Steven A. 2001. Natural progression. Nature 409: 459.
4. Branca, Malorye. 2002. Sorting the microbes from the trees. Bio-IT Bulletin, Apr. 07. http://www.bio-itworld.com/news/040702_report186.html
5. Bull, J. J. and H. A. Wichman. 2001. Applied evolution. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 32: 183-217.
6. Cherry, J. R., and A. L. Fidantsef. 2003. Directed evolution of industrial enzymes: an update. Current Opinion in Biotechnology 14: 438-443.
7. Conover, D. O. and S. B. Munch. 2002. Sustaining fisheries yields over evolutionary time scales. Science 297: 94-96. See also pp. 31-32.
8. Cummings, C. A. and D. A. Relman. 2002. Microbial forensics-- "cross-examining pathogens". Science 296: 1976-1979.
9. Dunn, M., A. Terrill, G. Reesink, R. A. Foley and S. C. Levinson. 2005. Structural phylogenetics and the reconstruction of ancient language history. Science 309: 2072-2075. See also: Gray, Russell. 2005. Pushing the time barrier in the quest for language roots. Science 309: 2007-2008.
10. Eisen, J. and M. Wu. 2002. Phylogenetic analysis and gene functional predictions: Phylogenomics in action. Theoretical Population Biology 61: 481-487.
11. Futuyma, D. J. 1995. The uses of evolutionary biology. Science 267: 41-42.
12. Galvani, Alison P. 2003. Epidemiology meets evolutionary ecology. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 18(3): 132-139.
13. Gaschen, B. et al.. 2002. Diversity considerations in HIV-1 vaccine selection. Science 296: 2354-2360.
14. Howe, Christopher J. et al. 2001. Manuscript evolution. Trends in Genetics 17: 147-152.
15. Marczyk, Adam. 2004. Genetic algorithms and evolutionary computation. Genetic Algorithms and Evolutionary Computation
16. Nesse, Randolph M. and George C. Williams. 1994. Why We Get Sick. New York: Times Books.
17. Relman, David A. 1999. The search for unrecognized pathogens. Science 284: 1308-1310.
18. Searls, D., 2003. Pharmacophylogenomics: Genes, evolution and drug targets. Nature Reviews Drug Discovery 2: 613-623. Nature - Not Found
19. Sutherland, William J., 2002. Science, sex and the kakapo. Nature 419: 265-266.
20. Taylor, Sean V., Peter Kast, and Donald Hilvert. 2001. Investigating and engineering enzymes by genetic selection. Angewandte Chemie International Edition 40: 3310-3335.
21. Vogel, Gretchen. 1998. HIV strain analysis debuts in murder trial. Science 282: 851-852.

---

After all they are just scientists, what do they know. Much better to ignore and insult from a strong stand on ignorance. Your cognitive dissonance is showing.Enjoy

Discredited by creationists? That's kinda like saying the FBI was discredited by Dillinger.

Talkorigins is chock full of evidence disproving your fantasy so you go with the ad hominem fallacy. Obviously that's all you got.

Talk Origins = Talk Atheist Theology = Talk Satanic Fairy TaleEdited by Dredge, : No reason given.

Your cognitive dissonance is showing.

quote:

---

... In practice, people reduce the magnitude of their cognitive dissonance in four ways:

​

1. Change the behavior or the cognition ("I'll eat no more of this doughnut.")
2. Justify the behavior or the cognition, by changing the conflicting cognition ("I'm allowed to cheat my diet every once in a while.")
3. Justify the behavior or the cognition by adding new cognitions ("I'll spend thirty extra minutes at the gymnasium to work off the doughnut.")
4. Ignore or deny information that conflicts with existing beliefs ("This doughnut is not a high-sugar food.")

---

Creationists are typically very good at the latter way.One of the additional methods is to discredit the source of dissonant information so you feel justified in ignoring it. Unfortunately pretending you have discredited it only fools yourself and your co-deluded willingly ignorant cohorts.Don't bother to check the references, that would be too much like work. To say nothing about actually challenging your beliefs ...EnjoyEdited by RAZD, : .

The exon/intron divergence can be satisfactorily explained as the result of the relative overabundance of synonymous sites involved in CpG dinucleotides:Neutral Substitutions Occur at a Faster Rate in Exons Than in Noncoding DNA in Primate Genomes

For discussion's sake, if there was a creator, why is it that you think life could not be created in this hierarchical phylogenetic structure?Edited by aristotle, : No reason given.

A common ancestry does not disprove creation, nor does it prove evolution.If there were a transitional species for each and every genetic advancement, that would be proof of evolution.
That's not the case. The species don't progress little bit by little bit, but remain constant over long periods, and are abruptly replaced.Here's a challenge, pick any modern species.Now go and find at least one individual transitional organism for each beneficial mutation that changed said species into it's current form.That would prove evolution beyond a doubt, over 100 years later, we're still waiting to be shown the missing links.Edited by aristotle, : No reason given.Edited by aristotle, : No reason given.

There's no reason.In fact that is precisely what the vast majority of Christians believe happened. The Catholic church says this explicitly. They accept evolution to the point of H. Sapiens, then inject a 'soul, - whatever that is.Alternatively, if you're suggesting that your god created all things in a heirarchy and also embedded ancient descendents within it in fossil forms in one moment of creation (including frigging the geological record), then there is no way of showing that you're wrong - except to ask why he'd do such a thing. (You'd probably be asked to provide the biblical evidence to support that claim too.)

Hello Aristotle, and welcome to the fray Nope. Curiously your choosing this icon demonstrates ignorance of how science works. You have a lot to learn, it appears, and this is a good place to learn it ... if you are willing to learn. The essential difference between religion and science is a willingness to learn and change beliefs through evidence. As I have said many times, the closest fit to "kinds" as the term is used by creationists is clades. They form a nested structure where all descendants come from the parent clade population by breeding within their populations. Evolution occurs in those populations in response to ecological challenges leading to gradual changes in each population, isolation leads to different changes and thus to speciation. Some do, some don't. You are talking about punctuated equilibrium. Not all evolution occurs through that mechanism. Every individual is a transitional, however the fossil record in often incomplete. We do have some examples though, such as Pelycodus:

quote:

---

A Smooth Fossil Transition: Pelycodus, a primate

​

​

Pelycodus was a tree-dwelling primate that looked much like a modern lemur. The skull shown is probably 7.5 centimeters long.

​

​

The dashed lines show the overall trend. The species at the bottom is Pelycodus ralstoni, but at the top we find two species, Notharctus nunienus and Notharctus venticolus. The two species later became even more distinct, and the descendants of nunienus are now labeled as genus Smilodectes instead of genus Notharctus.

​

As you look from bottom to top, you will see that each group has some overlap with what came before. There are no major breaks or sudden jumps. And the form of the creatures was changing steadily.

---

That's a lot of transitional populations. Even more can be seen with foraminifera. How much change are you expecting to see? This is an important question because a lot of creationists seem to have false expectations.Is a black mouse different enough from a tan mouse to make it a new species? What we usually see from creationists is the use of the term "kind" to be a vaguely defined clade system of hierarchical phylogenetic structure, and the issue is not clades and hierarchies of nested clades, but how far back in time that system runs. For the creationist it has to stop at a time of creation with a distinct number of original "created kinds" all appearing suddenly at the same time. The fossil record does not show this -- what it does show the nested clades not stopping until you get back in time to the first life forms 3.5 billion years ago, single celled life forms.Enjoy Edited by RAZD, : .

Wow you assume very much!I do not know whether or not there was a creator, I was merely asking why, if one did exist, it could not create life forms in this hierarchical way.And planting fossils? Seriously? Don't try pigeonhole me as some idiot bible basher, I'm not claiming god buried the fossils to trick us! The fossils could just be older creations.And why must it be in one moment of creation?Why wouldn't it create something, observe, modify, etc. Over long periods of time, why do you assume the creation must all be in 'one moment'.Regards, aristotle

Thanks for the reply RAZD I have studied evolution a long time, learned a lot about it, and it is very much like a religion in that it is unprovable by definition. We can only assume that the organisms who survived where the most evolved, we can never prove this.Anyone who says different is immediately labeled 'ignorant' (see above), reminds me a lot of religion. Yes you lot seem to have trouble with definitions, as I recall, Darwin could not even precisely define the word 'species'. Again, you can only retrospectively assume that to be the truth. This has never been known to happen, a mutation has never added information to the genome, it's not that easy. 'Punctuated Equilibrium' is a ludicrous theory invented by evolutionists to try explain away the trend of saltation in the fossil record. Don't try using it on me, won't work.One of the predictions for the theory is that the evidence (transitional species) will not be found, so the evidence is that their is no evidence! It's truly ludicrous. According to evolution by natural selection, saltations are impossible, an organism must evolve one genetic variation at a time.Therefore, I expect to see one organism for each genetic variation that lead to the organism's current form.If there is not an organism linking each and every genetic advancement to it's predecessor, how can we be sure saltations did not take place?Regards, aristotle