Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 80 (8898 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-25-2019 6:02 PM
24 online now:
edge, Meddle, PaulK, Tangle, vimesey (5 members, 19 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 848,642 Year: 3,679/19,786 Month: 674/1,087 Week: 43/221 Day: 14/29 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
...
45
6
78
...
11Next
Author Topic:   The origin of new genes
AdminNWR
Inactive Member


Message 76 of 164 (358674)
10-24-2006 11:41 PM
Reply to: Message 75 by grod
10-24-2006 11:08 PM


Welcome to evcforum.

Here is the link of the "Genesis and the Origin of Races" by Ken Ham. May it also change your life.

When I check that link, it says "Listen for free by subscribing to our weekly email!".

No thank you. That won't do.

If you want to participate in the debates at EvCforum, then you will need to present your own arguments. We don't debate web pages or mp3 recordings.

You can include links as references to support your arguments. But if a link requires that people sign up to be spammed with a weekly sermon, then don't be surprised if very few actually sign up.


To comment on moderation procedures or respond to admin messages:
  • Discussion of moderation procedures
  • Comments on promotions of Proposed New Topics
  • Thread Reopen Requests
  • Great Debate proposals

  • This message is a reply to:
     Message 75 by grod, posted 10-24-2006 11:08 PM grod has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 77 by grod, posted 10-24-2006 11:44 PM AdminNWR has responded

      
    grod
    Inactive Member


    Message 77 of 164 (358675)
    10-24-2006 11:44 PM
    Reply to: Message 76 by AdminNWR
    10-24-2006 11:41 PM


    ok yep thats fine, but can I put that link if its an actual mp3? the actual mp3 link??

    thanks,


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 76 by AdminNWR, posted 10-24-2006 11:41 PM AdminNWR has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 78 by AdminNWR, posted 10-25-2006 12:22 AM grod has responded

      
    AdminNWR
    Inactive Member


    Message 78 of 164 (358680)
    10-25-2006 12:22 AM
    Reply to: Message 77 by grod
    10-24-2006 11:44 PM


    ok yep thats fine, but can I put that link if its an actual mp3?

    A link is fine. Lots of people put links in their posts. But you need to make your own argument, and provide the link as supporting material. We want to debate you. If Ken Ham signs up as a member, well debate him, too. But we won't debate Ken Ham by proxy.

    If is also fine if you study Ken Ham's argument, and then argue the same sort of thing, based on your understanding of that argument. We are not insisting that you come up with completely original arguments

    Note that I mention Ken Ham, based on your earlier link. But we would say the same about anyone. We debate with our members. We don't debate web pages.


    To comment on moderation procedures or respond to admin messages:
  • Discussion of moderation procedures
  • Comments on promotions of Proposed New Topics
  • Thread Reopen Requests
  • Great Debate proposals

  • This message is a reply to:
     Message 77 by grod, posted 10-24-2006 11:44 PM grod has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 79 by grod, posted 10-25-2006 2:46 AM AdminNWR has not yet responded

      
    grod
    Inactive Member


    Message 79 of 164 (358691)
    10-25-2006 2:46 AM
    Reply to: Message 78 by AdminNWR
    10-25-2006 12:22 AM


    No you don't understand, I don't want a debate. I'm just supplying this I guess reference linkhere This is the actual MP3 file.

    Ok I understand that you debate members, however I'm giving you freewill to actualy listen and see what is assumed. I can tell you that there is definately no argument, merely a sound file for an individual to hear. It's not that difficult, also it is not some theory, so there should not be any any exclusion of this final link.

    Finally reiterating that the file is a sermon and that Ken is not someone I am in contact with. It is like saying I know Darwin, complete nonsense. This is not a view, however evidence from the book of Genesis itself. You may wish to debate that.

    Edited by grod, : No reason given.


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 78 by AdminNWR, posted 10-25-2006 12:22 AM AdminNWR has not yet responded

      
    NosyNed
    Member
    Posts: 8839
    From: Canada
    Joined: 04-04-2003
    Member Rating: 2.7


    Message 80 of 164 (358791)
    10-25-2006 2:03 PM
    Reply to: Message 75 by grod
    10-24-2006 11:08 PM


    Grod the antichrist??
    I've listened to the first few minutes of your first Ken Ham talk.

    If one believed him then he's the worst thing a Christian could hear. He states right up front that if the Bible is wrong about the age of the earth etc. then it is worthless (in so many words). He seems then to have his own interpretation of the Bible on the topic of the earth's age (and I suspect other science subjects) that is OBVIOUSLY WRONG when one looks at the world around us.

    It seems you are a Christian. Do you really want that sort of dangerous (to Christian belief) nonsense listened to?

    OOOPSS THIS IS ALSO OBVIOUSLY OFF TOPIC. Sorry grod, please answer in a new topic somewhere.

    Edited by NosyNed, : added topic problem


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 75 by grod, posted 10-24-2006 11:08 PM grod has not yet responded

      
    grod
    Inactive Member


    Message 81 of 164 (359218)
    10-27-2006 3:58 AM


    Can you perhaps make more clear what you are trying to say? You have me confused by mixing various parts of what you are saying. If I do understand you correctly, I believe his arguments are quite persuading. You look at the aborigenes or native americans etc, they have a defined history about how the world was made, however they are so similar, obviously linking the main creation to the bible.

    I suggest for all readers of this forum to listen to the mp3 and in fact review what is being said, the book of Genesis is used to disprove all other theories, it makes complete sense.

    Cheers,


      
    bernd
    Member (Idle past 2060 days)
    Posts: 95
    From: Munich,Germany
    Joined: 07-10-2005


    Message 82 of 164 (359296)
    10-27-2006 10:41 AM
    Reply to: Message 71 by Philip
    10-21-2006 6:28 PM


    Re: Fallacious Misnomers of Benefical Mutation?
    Hello Philip,

    on a general note, this thread is not about "beneficial mutations" but about the origin of new genes - a detail which may have escaped your attention. So please address the evidence presented in the article that RNASE1B is the result of a duplication of RNASE1A and that RNASE1B evolved quickly to produce a enzyme necessary for digesting bacterial RNA.

    -Bernd


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 71 by Philip, posted 10-21-2006 6:28 PM Philip has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 86 by Philip, posted 10-27-2006 6:56 PM bernd has responded

      
    Dr Adequate
    Member
    Posts: 16086
    Joined: 07-20-2006
    Member Rating: 10.0


    Message 83 of 164 (359334)
    10-27-2006 1:55 PM
    Reply to: Message 74 by Philip
    10-24-2006 6:16 PM


    Re: Fallacious Misnomers of Benefical Mutation?
    Ouch! "the changing of the structure" vs. "a rare change". Your contrary lexicon and biology dafinitions seem ridiculous. So which definition are you supporting anyway, as validating the origin of new genes.

    If a dictionary says that an osprey is a bird, and a biology textbook says that it is a rare bird, are they "contrary"?

    No, they are entirely consistent.

    Is that the best you can do?

    Listen carefully. You do not get to redefine the English language. "Mutation" is a term of art in biology. It means what biologists say it means. If you wish to talk about something other than mutations, you must find another word for that thing.

    Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 74 by Philip, posted 10-24-2006 6:16 PM Philip has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 84 by Philip, posted 10-27-2006 5:21 PM Dr Adequate has responded

      
    Philip
    Member (Idle past 2802 days)
    Posts: 656
    From: Albertville, AL, USA
    Joined: 03-10-2002


    Message 84 of 164 (359361)
    10-27-2006 5:21 PM
    Reply to: Message 83 by Dr Adequate
    10-27-2006 1:55 PM


    Re: Fallacious Misnomers of Benefical Mutation?
    Hello Dr,

    If I write the books I can redefine "beneficial mutation"; why do you trust *authority* anyway?

    What about the paradigms of 'no absolutes', 'legal disclaimers', etc. that implicitly advise you to question authority. *Brand new alleles* are NO DIFFERENT.

    I suffered 4 belaborous science degrees; as a podiatrist, MSBS, EET, and Psych, with minors in art, philos, education, etc., a lot of CS programming experience (www.toesr.us) and am 49 years old. With my broad (albeit biased) *science-expertise* I (peradventure) just invented/defined a (hypothetical) *brand new concept*:

    'Gene-Pool-Software-Programs' (GPSPs)

    ... to attempt to denounce the radical concept of *brand-new-alleles*

    I've demonstrated (to myself at least) that GPSPs invalidate *beneficial mutation* as either (1) Misnomer for natural adaptation or (2) 'Hopeful monster' mutations.

    At any rate, I'd be interested in your thoughts on GPSPs as it relates (if at all) to 'brand new allelic functions'


    DISCLAIMER: No representation is made that the quality of scientific and metaphysical statements written is greater than the quality of those statements written by anyone else.
    This message is a reply to:
     Message 83 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-27-2006 1:55 PM Dr Adequate has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 85 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-27-2006 6:24 PM Philip has responded
     Message 91 by RAZD, posted 10-30-2006 7:56 AM Philip has responded

      
    Dr Adequate
    Member
    Posts: 16086
    Joined: 07-20-2006
    Member Rating: 10.0


    Message 85 of 164 (359370)
    10-27-2006 6:24 PM
    Reply to: Message 84 by Philip
    10-27-2006 5:21 PM


    Re: Fallacious Misnomers of Benefical Mutation?
    If I write the books I can redefine "beneficial mutation";

    No you can't.

    why do you trust *authority* anyway?

    The meaning of words has to be determined somehow, or watermelons floridly delectate the runcible iguana.

    At any rate, I'd be interested in your thoughts on GPSPs

    As you claim to have just invented the concept, but have not said what it is, I can hardly venture an opinion on it.


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 84 by Philip, posted 10-27-2006 5:21 PM Philip has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 87 by Philip, posted 10-27-2006 7:01 PM Dr Adequate has responded

      
    Philip
    Member (Idle past 2802 days)
    Posts: 656
    From: Albertville, AL, USA
    Joined: 03-10-2002


    Message 86 of 164 (359377)
    10-27-2006 6:56 PM
    Reply to: Message 82 by bernd
    10-27-2006 10:41 AM


    Re: NOT About "Advantaged Mutants"
    bernd writes:

    ... not about "beneficial mutations" but about the origin of new genes


    Bernd: What’s the difference? Evos use one to infer the other and call them the same (e.g., macro vs micro mutant-evolution)

    In fact they seem EXACTLY THE SAME when viewed from a gene-pool-software-program (GPSP) level: At least the 2 are exceedingly and equally improbable at the GPSP level.

    Sorry to drift somewhat from the analytic intent of your interesting and venerable thread. (For a while I stupidly perceived you to be a troll ... please accept my apologies)

    Also, I dissected one abstract of yours already. I’m in full accord that the 8 comprehensive *mutant* evo-processes you recapitulated are viable and delusive mechanisms of “fast adaption”. To wit:
    • Exon shuffling
    • Gene duplication
    • Retroposition
    • Mobile elements
    • Lateral gene transfer
    • Gene fusion/fision
    • De novo origination
    • Combined Mechanism

    The view I’m *purporting* is that no natural software program (GPSP) is able to create brand new allelic functions, let alone brand new genes” at the GPSP level. The ‘gottcha’ fallacy remains ‘benefical-mutation' vs. ‘novel gene’. Our sin is to separate their definitions (now) and then (later) equate their definitions under the ToE.

    The sin, bernd: is to discriminate 'beneficial mutations' vs. 'novel genes' at the GPSP level. Is this is what you're requiring me to do?

    Bernd: “Novel gene formation” is a fallacious concept some Evo unscrupulously *invented*. I seriously propose you concede your benefical-mutation thread as (1) misnomer and/or (2) impossible at the GPSP level.


    DISCLAIMER: No representation is made that the quality of scientific and metaphysical statements written is greater than the quality of those statements written by anyone else.
    This message is a reply to:
     Message 82 by bernd, posted 10-27-2006 10:41 AM bernd has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 89 by bernd, posted 10-28-2006 5:03 PM Philip has not yet responded
     Message 90 by bernd, posted 10-29-2006 12:02 PM Philip has responded

      
    Philip
    Member (Idle past 2802 days)
    Posts: 656
    From: Albertville, AL, USA
    Joined: 03-10-2002


    Message 87 of 164 (359380)
    10-27-2006 7:01 PM
    Reply to: Message 85 by Dr Adequate
    10-27-2006 6:24 PM


    Re: Mutants vs Novel Genes
    Dr Adequate,

    Please get back on topic.

    We're debating mutant new genes and the credibility of *new genes* at the gene pool level, not dafinitions.


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 85 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-27-2006 6:24 PM Dr Adequate has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 88 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-27-2006 7:08 PM Philip has responded

      
    Dr Adequate
    Member
    Posts: 16086
    Joined: 07-20-2006
    Member Rating: 10.0


    Message 88 of 164 (359381)
    10-27-2006 7:08 PM
    Reply to: Message 87 by Philip
    10-27-2006 7:01 PM


    Re: Mutants vs Novel Genes
    Dr Adequate,

    Please get back on topic.

    We're debating mutant new genes and the credibility of *new genes* at the gene pool level, not dafinitions.

    Well, I hate to correct you, but you were in fact discussing definitions.

    Beneficial (advantageous) mutations don't ever occur (unless one unscrupulously perverts the defintion of mutation into mere "change"...

    Your contrary lexicon and biology dafinitions seem ridiculous.

    Why not support YOUR own dafinition

    If I write the books I can redefine "beneficial mutation";

    Remember?

    If you will not admit that "mutation" means a change in the genome, then we cannot discuss biology with you any further, for want of a common language.

    Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 87 by Philip, posted 10-27-2006 7:01 PM Philip has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 93 by Philip, posted 10-30-2006 11:52 AM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

      
    bernd
    Member (Idle past 2060 days)
    Posts: 95
    From: Munich,Germany
    Joined: 07-10-2005


    Message 89 of 164 (359531)
    10-28-2006 5:03 PM
    Reply to: Message 86 by Philip
    10-27-2006 6:56 PM


    Re: NOT About "Advantaged Mutants"
    Hello Philip,

    The difference between discussing “beneficial mutations” and discussing the origin of new genes is one of scope. The term mutation – at least in the scientific literature - means change in genetic material and covers the whole range between point mutations and change of the chromosomal structure. This thread should be restricted to the processes which give rise to new genes.

    You asked me what I require you to do? I have to quote my last post:


    So please address the evidence presented in the article that RNASE1B is the result of a duplication of RNASE1A and that RNASE1B evolved quickly to produce a enzyme necessary for digesting bacterial RNA.

    -Bernd


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 86 by Philip, posted 10-27-2006 6:56 PM Philip has not yet responded

      
    bernd
    Member (Idle past 2060 days)
    Posts: 95
    From: Munich,Germany
    Joined: 07-10-2005


    Message 90 of 164 (359651)
    10-29-2006 12:02 PM
    Reply to: Message 86 by Philip
    10-27-2006 6:56 PM


    Re: NOT About "Advantaged Mutants"
    Hello Philip,

    You seem to base your idea that it is not possible to create “brand new allelic functions, let alone brand new genes” on an analogy between the mammalian gene pool and the “Gene- Pool-Software-Program (GPSP)”, a “brand new concept” just invented by you. When I understand you correctly your idea is that gene pools are somehow comparable to C programs running under Windows. At least to me – having some experience with software development - this line of thought appears a bit far fetched.

    So I would ask you to present your concept in a different thread, for example by explaining how the following structures and mechanism would be interpreted in the context of the GPSP:


    • Gene pool
    • Genome
    • Chromosome
    • Gene
    • Promoter
    • Enhancer
    • Intron
    • Exon
    • Pseudogene
    • Satellite DNA
    • LINE
    • SINE
    • LTR element
    • Transcription
    • Translation
    • Alternative splicing
    • Replication
    • Homologous Recombination
    • Transpositional Recombination


    Please note that’s not an exhaustive list, only the minimum what should be covered. The next step then would be to have another look at the mechanism we are discussing in this thread.

    -Bernd

    Edited by bernd, : update of the list


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 86 by Philip, posted 10-27-2006 6:56 PM Philip has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 96 by Philip, posted 10-30-2006 2:39 PM bernd has not yet responded

      
    Prev1
    ...
    45
    6
    78
    ...
    11Next
    Newer Topic | Older Topic
    Jump to:


    Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

    ™ Version 4.0 Beta
    Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019