RNA editing and Convergence, powerful evidence for design

You're just latching onto the word "programmed". Did you read the context? They're using "programmed" in the meaning of "preset" - i.e., it follows a specific set of rules. So? That's the same as saying that platinum does a "programmed" modification of petroleum. I'm sure that the author would be quite upset with you abusing their choice of language this way.PaulK already did my answer for #2 - it's quite obvious to any evolutionist that this is to be *expected*. Only the descendants of an organism which gain a mutation inherit its abilities.In short, this article appears to be about a rather peculiar approach some branches of organisms took towards increasing the number of proteins they can make - which in some cases may prove to be a selective advantage. There's nothing, from what is in this article, inherently difficult about RNA gaining this ability - it would have been mentioned if there was, and I can't picture why there would be. If a molecule can catalyze reactions other molecules given proper conditions, why can't it cause itself to react given proper conditions?------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

Fred, lets stop and look at this logically. Let's look at a specific case - the descent of modern whales from Pakicetus (and earlier). First off, I think I'll just add in the fact that the exact properties of the fossils that were later found were predicted precisely ever since it was suspected that conylarths were the ancestors (they share paraxonic toes, the structure of the ear bones, etc) You can read about and see diagrams of the fossils at The Origin of Whales and the Power of Independent Evidence; you don't have to believe the interpretation of the data, but you should be aware of the data, and do your best to fit it into your own world view instead of discarding it.Pakicetus was clearly an intermediary land/water stage, in a steady progression from Sinonyx dating from just before it, and ambulocetus, rodhocetus and dorudon dating progressively after it (wow! What a coincidence, right? Especially since they don't tell the lab what they're having dated!). It probably lived somewhat similar to an otter (if you have to question why they accept that, you didn't read the description of the fossil and the sediments it was in). There are clear advantages to in-between stages of terrestrial and aquatic mammals, as otters and seals show - namely, you can get away from predators on both fronts. Just as seals are more water-reliant than otters, there's no clear dividing line between the two. If land food sources become less common and aquatic sources more common, water adaptations become more valuable - but they still have the ability to sneak off to the land. Eventually, they're adapted enough need merely the ability to escape to the shallows. As they get larger and able to dive deeper, they can handle more the open ocean.And yet, what does this make the organisms like? What do the fossils show a steady progression towards? Why, it makes them more resemble fish and sharks! They get bulkier skulls for stereo hearing underwater, eardrums that can be pressurized better, less protruding limbs, more flexible backbones, limbs shaped more like fins, etc. And yet, there's a progression along this line towards this! Why, they're converging!Yes! Relevant traits to the survival of an organism in a given niche converge towards what is most useful in that niche. This is obvious! But, not every trait of an organism is relevant to its survival. Minor crests, attachment points for limbs (and internal vestigal limbs), fenestra, minor crests and ridges, plates in the skull, etc, are mostly irrelevant to the enviroment. And, wouldn't ya know it - but they get carried over! In short, animals converge on the traits that they should converge on, and retain the traits that they should retain - exactly as evolution predicts. Of course, in creation, there is no reason for this at all.For example, why did God create whales with places to attach legs (and in fact, as embroys, have them develop body hair, limb buds, olfactory lobes, a normal land mammal snout position, etc - just like chicken embryos have teeth, human embroys have tails, etc - and in all of these cases, there have been atavisms where the trait reemerges). Why would God create whales with traits like these? In evolution, it is *expected* that this will happen. It's like blind cave animals, where no light penetrates, but the animals have skinned-over eye sockets; etc.In short, this is *exactly* what would be predicted by evolution, but *not* what would be expected from God. Of course, unless you believe in the "Prankster God" theory. ------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

Wow, it's truly rare to see an article with such ingenuity. Lets take this gem:In a more extensive analysis published three years later, Frederick Szalay suggested that both hapalodectines (which was then considered a mesonychid subfamily) and archaeocetes probably "derived from either early or middle Paleocene mesonychids, species more primitive than known mesonychines" [emphasis mine].[5] In other words, Szalay concluded that both Dissacus and Ankalagon, the only middle Paleocene mesonychids known at that time, were too derived (evolutionarily advanced) to be in the archaeocete lineage.[6] He saw them as "sister groups" of the archaeocetes, not as actual ancestors. 1) Virtually *everything* evolutionarily is going to be a sister species (or sister subspecies, or sister genus, etc). The odds of finding the *direct* ancestor of anything that died more than a few thousand years ago are almost zilch.2) Notice how he mentioned "which was then considered a mesonychid subfamily??? How could he publish this without feeling shame? Hapalodectines had just been discovered and were still under attempt to be classified; there were very few fossils. It never was suggested that they specifically were ancestral to whales.3) *Szalay Himself* places mesonychid condylarths as a close sister species to modern whales ("Origin and evolution of function of the mesonychid condylarth feeding mechanism". Evolution 1969; 23: 703-20). How disingenous can you get?4) Hey, guess what? Pakicetus *IS* an earlier mesonychid. Exactly What This Quote Was Suggesting Whoda guessed? And guess what, it fits the transition perfectly! Pakicetus is 50mya, the archaeocetes range from 49mya to 34mya.You know, it's funny how creationists often try and portray it as if there's some big confusion in the scientific community as to how these events occurred. It's the most ridiculous thing - in the field, there is virtually *no* disagreement. Quotes like this are arguments over minor details of the lineages of fossils; it's sad to see someone do such a sickening job trying to make something out of it. Szalay has written continuously about the evolution of whales - do you think *he* has even the slightest doubt in his mind of the progression? Scientists constantly try to poke holes in lines of progression - and are generally shot down. And yet nowadays these focus on, for the most part, the tinest of steps - claiming that something should be in a different genus, or that two fossils aren't of the same species. Instead of looking at out of context quotes, I recommend you actually read the papers that are being discussed - if you did, you'd catch on fast to this fact.Let's continue onwards..Since publication of the Szalay article, three more genera of middle Paleocene mesonychids have been identified in Asia (Dissacusium, Hukoutherium, Yangtanglestes), but none is known from anything more than fragmentary crania.Um... hello!!! Pakicetus!!! Are you deliberately trying to mislead your readers, or are just completely ignorant? Here's a pic: http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/mammal/cetacea/pakicetus.jpg - is *THAT* a fragmentary cranium??? Also found in Pakistan were similar relatives in slightly later strata, such as Rodhocetus. Want to see what it looks like by late Eocene? http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/mammal/cetacea/zygorhiza.jpg .Do I need to go earlier, say, Sinonyx? [quote]To acknowledge, as Robert Carroll did recently, that "[i]t is not possible to identify a sequence of mesonychids leading directly to whales,[/quote]Hmm, Robert Carroll, and his book which concludes with lines like "Evolutionary forces that can be studied in modern populations are sufficiently powerful to account for the amount and rate of morphological change throughout the entire course of vertebrate history." and "Transitions between environments governed by major differences in physical constraints do not necessarily require special evolutionary processes."? The book is often used as a *TEXT BOOK* for paleontologists. More out-of-context disingenuity for ya I wish I had a copy of the book on hand, because that quote ends in a comma!!!. I want to know what he said after that for which they felt the need to cut him off mid sentence. Regardless, the whale transitional record includes all relevant genuses en route, and quite a few species in each, in a nice progression.The reason evolutionists are confident that mesonychids gave rise to archaeocetes, despite the inability to identify any species in the actual lineage, is that known mesonychids and archaeocetes have some similarities. These similarities, however, are not sufficient to make the case for ancestry, especially in light of the vast differences.My challenge to the author. Name *ONE* "vast difference". The fossils have almost identical tooth structure - the only difference is that they become more triangular and serrated. They're some of the few fossil animals which ever had paraxonic feet. The structure of the ear of Pakicetus is exactly halfway between modern artiodactyls and whales. The skulls all take a smooth progression - and all skull ridges and features follow. Don't just listen to me: LOOK AT PICTURES. They're online. And, I'm sure it's just a coincidence to you, but *every one was found in the exact sediments they should have been found in*. There are *no* modern whales in eocene sediments. There are *no* eocene proto-whales in modern sediments. Radiometric dating corresponds to this. Why are proto-whales found only with other kinds of eocene fossils? Why are modern whales found only with modern fossils? *In Every Last Case*. Why? Animals of all kinds of sizes, shapes, niches, etc - all perfectly sorted. Why?Then, they cite Van Valen talking about how many of the features of Protocetus's skull aren't seen in other fossils. That Is Because Van Valen Wrote In The 1960s. The author knows *damn well* that most of the fossils were found in the 1990s. This is a hideous mockery of respectability here.I can't address the next quote, because I can't tell what skull Colbert is talking about (they filled in the word "archaeocete" - gee, thanks). And take a 5 word clip from someone else's sentence - trying to imply something that is *THE EXACT OPPOSITE* of what the scientific community excepts. Search for papers on whales written by archeologists. I challenge you to find a single one - including one written by these authors - that disagrees with A) the skulls being in a perfect progression, and B) the teeth being a perfect progression. It's simply not true. I've ran into several dozen papers on whales on the net, and kept track of all of the new findings. And I can't point to a single archaeologist who has any doubt at all to either of these points.

quote:

---

One need only compare the reconstructed skull of the late Paleocene Sinonyx jiashanensis to that of an early archaeocete to appreciate these remarks.

---

Yes. One does:http://www.talkorigins.org/features/whales/pakicetus.gif
http://www.talkorigins.org/features/whales/sinonyx.gifCompare each tooth individually. For example, upper-straight point meets lower minor-lobe. Upper double-point meets lower double point. Etc. The only significant difference is in tooth *sizes*, which are something that is incredibly easy to change. Note the elongated muzzle, the large jugular foramen, short basicranium. Look at the pattern of the skull plates. Note that the only significant difference between the two things is *size*. Counts and even shapes are exactly the same.I need to get headed home, so I'll stop here.Before I go, I direct you to:http://diglib1.amnh.org/novitates/i0003-0082-344-01-0001.pdfIt's a study on the DNA of living descendants of these animals. And - Guess. What. It. Matches. Up. With.!!!!