|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 4886 days) Posts: 310 From: Broomfield Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: RNA editing and Convergence, powerful evidence for design | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Fred Williams Member (Idle past 4886 days) Posts: 310 From: Broomfield Joined: |
Recently Mammuthus cited the following interesting article:
quote: I haven’t had the opportunity to track down the full article, but it appears that much can be gleaned from the abstract. Several provide strong arguments for design: 1) The article properly describes ‘RNA editing’ as a programmed alteration (emphasis mine). We have discussed this quite a bit, and I would like to hear evolutionists explain how such a program (or code) can evolve through small, incremental steps. 2) The authors note that particular RNA editing systems display a narrow phylogenetic distribution, which argues that such systems are derived within specific eukaryotic lineages, rather than representing traits that ultimately trace to a common ancestor of eukaryotes, or even further back in evolution. (emphasis mine). In other words, they can’t find a common ancestry thread so they have to rely on the independent evolution of these complex RNA editing systems! (how many seperate, independent paths of evolution of RNA editing the authors believe occurred cannot be gleaned from the abstract) This is called convergence, something that is prevalent in nature and by its very definition is anti-evolutionary! (the word convergence is used to describe traits that cannot be attributed to common decent). Convergence is yet another signature God has left in his creation to thwart attempts to explain things via naturalistic processes.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Fred Williams Member (Idle past 4886 days) Posts: 310 From: Broomfield Joined: |
quote: Easy. Produce one example of a program (code) arising via a naturalistic process, and the claim would immediately be falsified. Just find one counter-example. Now, I would ask that you provide a testable hypothesis of RNA editing being a program that arose naturalistically. How could that be falsified?
quote: Is convergence anti-common decent or not. Yes or no.
quote: Following multiple similar paths through random copy mistakes and blind selection? You sure have a lot of faith.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Fred Williams Member (Idle past 4886 days) Posts: 310 From: Broomfield Joined: |
quote: You have not made a case for this, nor does Mammuthus seem to agree with you since he is defending it as convergence. Mammuthus? In a previous thread where RNA editing first came up I asked Mammuthus if this was convergence and he didn't reply (I don't think it was intentional, he just missed it). This was one of the primary reasons I started this thread, to get to the bottom of this. Now Mammuthus is defending it as convergence, and you are saying it isn't. I only have the abstract to go by since obtaining the full article will not be convenient for me. I am more than willing to drop the claim of convergence if it can be shown from the article that it is not convergence. So far you are the only one interpreting the abstract as non-convergence, and your reasons are, so far, not even remotely convincing.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Fred Williams Member (Idle past 4886 days) Posts: 310 From: Broomfield Joined: |
Unfortunately I only have time for one post today (I have a self-imposed rule that I will not post from home, let alone even look at a discussion board — so far so good).
Peter, Paul, and Mary, er, I mean Mammuthus all appear to be saying that convergence is not used as an explanation of traits that cannot be attributed to common decent. Here’s what my College Biology books says: There is a wild card in this game of making evolutionary connections by evaluating similarity: Not all likeness is inherited from a common ancestor. Species from different evolutionary branches may come to resemble one another if they have similar ecological roles and natural selection has shaped analogous adaptations. This is called convergent evolution, and similarity due to convergence is termed analogy, not homology - Campbell, Reece, Mitchell, Biology 5th Edition, 1999 (emphasis in original) I ask again, is convergence antithetical to common decent? If you answer no, how do you explain this in light of Campbell’s statement above? Would you at least agree it disrupts evolutionist efforts to construct phylogenies?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Fred Williams Member (Idle past 4886 days) Posts: 310 From: Broomfield Joined: |
quote: I also impose the no weekend rule, unless I’m at work! (which these days is very seldom)
quote: Since people are fond of citing logical fallacies on this board, in this case this is the fallacy of the exceptions prove the rule (can’t remember the technical, literature geek name). Horizontal gene transfer doesn’t even touch the tip of the iceberg of the myriad of examples of convergence in nature.
quote: I’m glad you at least acknowledge that convergence disrupts scientist’s ability to construct phylogenies. Evolution certainly never predicted that nature would be chalked full of them, the theory sure would have been better off without them (seems to be a common theme of the theory, things always point against it! ). The excuse you give however smells like a circular argument to me. But I’ll have to wait and see.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Fred Williams Member (Idle past 4886 days) Posts: 310 From: Broomfield Joined: |
Rei, right now I don't have time for your elephant-hurling red herring. Sorry. See http://www.trueorigins.org/whales.asp
FYI, I heard the same definitive claim made regarding Mesonychid by Massimo Pigliucci in a debate with Remine. Too bad Pigliucci was unawares that Mesonychid had been thrown out of the whale line a couple years earlier...
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024