|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: Genetic Information - 7/24/2008 12:18:20 PM
|
|
|
Method
Posts: 1162
Joined: 9/19/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: GHitch
Let's not ignore anything you claim.
First, no there are no 'well supported' explanations for every single point. What there is however is tons of more just-so stories ans speculation. I don't honestly think you grasp sufficiently any of the points on that smal list.
Like so: "Dunno how, but evolutiondidit". That's what your so called well supported explanations add up to when put under scrutiny, they do not in fact axplain anything with regards to reality.
The difference between "evolutiondidit" and "goddidit" is that evolution involves observable mechanisms. Goddidit does not.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Genetic Information - 7/24/2008 12:54:20 PM
|
|
|
drmark
Posts: 3139
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
|
Methuselah lived 969 years. Perhaps he was able to "observe" evolution?
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The time is NOW, fellow saints!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Genetic Information - 7/24/2008 1:00:17 PM
|
|
|
falcnjet
Posts: 31
Joined: 7/20/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
Oh that is pretty basic. I didn't think I would have to explain it. You mean to say you never studied Mendel's experiment with peas and never learned the difference between phenotype (physical character trait) and genotype (genetic origin of the character trait.)?
"The genotype is the genetic constitution of a cell, an organism, or an individual, that is the specific allele makeup of the individual, usually with reference to a specific character under consideration."
Okay, no problem
"A phenotype is any observable characteristic of an organism, such as its morphology, development, biochemical or physiological properties, or behavior."
Sure, understood.
See when plain english is used, even I can understand.
quote:
Can I assume that you are aware that the genes themselves vary? "Allele" is the term used for each variant of the same gene. A gene may have no variants at all (quite rare), only a few variants, or many thousands of variants. When we speak of the variability of a population, we are speaking of how many different variants we find in the genes of the population as a whole.
"An allele is one member of a pair or series of different forms of a gene."
Okay, got that too.
quote:
So, for example, a population of 2 is limited to 4 variants of a gene.
Aren't you limiting your analysis to the possible expressions of only one gene in a population? What about the huge numbers of other genes controlling all other physical characteristics? And what about the huge amount of unexpressed genetic information in this incredible stuff called DNA. Doesn't your analysis ignore that? And are gene alleles always limited to only 2? It's my understanding (believe it or not) that often chains of alleles are formed in the cell, as indicated in the definition above indicating a series of different forms of a gene.
Just a few questions from the dull and uneducated.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Genetic Information - 7/24/2008 1:21:22 PM
|
|
|
GHitch
Posts: 86
Joined: 7/6/2008
Status: offline
|
ORIGINAL: Method
quote:
Of those 60 million bases, how many are harmful mutations?
The real question is how many are mutations, period?
quote:
Are humans damaged chimps? No. Only a Darwinist could ask such a question.
quote:
How do you explain a 98% match? If humans and chimps were created separately why would they share that much identity? Darwinism says it's because one evolved out of the other. Any proof of that? No. Any known, positively identified ape ancestors? No. A designer would use what works and since all life is based on DNA. Reuse of generic code in information systems something that all system designers do these days - it wasn't always so. Design patterns are proof of this. Why should any intelligent designer not do what works?
quote:
Both humans and bananas are 100% eukaryotes, and they do share a common ancestor. Last part is very bold. So now we are not only the monkeys uncle but part of it's food chain as well. As always, tow the Darwinist party line - no evidence required. So the whole of 13 million + species - plants and animals, insects and fish.... - all sprung out of one little organism somewhere in the unveryfiable past huh? The term "blind faith" comes to mind.
quote:
Also, there are several known transitional species: Australopithecus afarensis, Homo habilis, Homo ergaster, Homo erectus, and Homo heidelbergensis to name a few. Fyi, Lucy was demoted, (by scientists) as being a human ancestor about 10 years - see Science & Vie 1998 - "Adieu Lucy" edition.
Unfortunately this dead debunked info is still floating around all over the world as though true. Wonder why.
Homo habilis met the same fate last year.
Ergaster is going down the same dark road as you would know if you did any homework.
Your info is out of date and all the pretensions to human ancestors have or are in the process of falling apart. As usual. They are all based on pure speculation with and underlying assumption of materialist Darwinism anyway.
quote:
But of course transitional fossils are just "circumstantial evidence" right? Gaps in the fossil record are evidence against the theory unless those fossils are found then the fossils mean nothing, right? You just don't listen do you - The gaps are mostly gone - the links remain missing. This isn't hard.
quote:
So how many diseases are you suffering from? Several non visible genetic defects actually. You? But your answer is mere denial of known fact with some added smoke and mirrors.
quote:
I will consider evidence. When will you start presenting it? Right now I doubt you'll ever consider evidence as you pretend. You've considered absolutely none thus far. So now we've hit the point where diatribe replaces honest answers. quote:
Your ability to quote scientists is noted, but your grasp of reality is in question. considering that you're the one in denial of reality that's a strange statement.
quote:
Why is it highly unlikely? Evidence please. Apparently you've never heard of statistical mechanics, probability, combinatorial dependencies, etc etc...
quote:
There are many known transitionals between lobe finned fish and amphibians. I have cited them before but you flatly ignore them. Wrong. replace 'known' with 'presumed' You cite supposed transitionals which you yourself claim are not provable as such and then you claim this again?!!
quote:
How can you say that they are missing when you don't even know what one looks like? mere diatribe.
quote:
What interdependence? RNA can be both genetic and enzymatic. Even now RNA makes all of the proteins in your body that then go on to make DNA. DNA cannot exist without protein and protein cannot exist without DNA.
Here's another one for ya - which comes first:
the ATP energy or
the information coding the ATP, or
the system transcribing the genes to ATP proteins, or
the ATP energy needed to replicate the coded DNA, or
the ATP needed to power the transcription to the ATP, or
the photosynthesis system needed to convert photons to ATP?
quote:
It's the same information found in a single atom. There is no coded information in a single atom. Get a grasp at the nature of information, and specifically coded information, before you try tackling that one.
quote:
This was explained by biologists before Behe was ever born. WHo mentioned Behe?
Lame response seeing that no one has explained any IC system to date through Darwinism. Oh, sorry, you think speculation = adequate evidence. It doesn't.
Your quote is clearly vast speculation and hand waving across titanic leaps of supposed mutations that no one can ever possibly demonstrate as stated over and over again. You have a lot of faith in speculation & none in hard facts.
You also have no idea of the complexity involved. You should learn something about combinatorial dependencies and search out just how much of that exists in DNA alone.
Maybe start here - http://telicthoughts.com/author/steve-petermann/ for a relation to genetic machinery.
quote:
Macroevolution has been observed numerous times. Give us one single example of a whole new body plan coming out of another completely differrent one. Obviously you don't know what macro-evo is. Adaptations within the family are not macro-evo. Maybe you should study the terms of reference first?
quote:
Change in environment. Find me an environment that has been stable for millions of years and I will show you species that haven't changed much for millions of years. So mutations only occur through environmental changes? How stable have the oceans been for the last 500 million years or so?
Gross over simplification again.
Grasp what I wrote here and in the transitionals thread. And maybe honest discussion - which is not what you're handing out by persistent denials of fact - will be possible.
_____________________________
"The notion that not only the biopolymer but the operating program of a living cell could be arrived at by chance in a primordial organic soup here on the Earth is evidently nonsense of a high order." Sir F. Hoyle
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Genetic Information - 7/24/2008 1:25:20 PM
|
|
|
Jhud
Posts: 7167
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Lake Wobegon
Status: offline
|
Let me throw a bit of wrench into the machine here.
While gluadys has presented a very traditional view of genetic variation (very Mendelian) it really doesn't comport with current genetic knowledge.
For example we can consider something like butterfly wing patterns. The patterns of the wings of a butterfly are highly important when it comes to defining a species - the patterns affect mates that are attracted, environments that the organism can live in, predator evasion, etc. You change the pattern of the wing and change the mode of living. And as we know, there is tremendous variety when it comes to such patterns.
Well such patterns are determined by a Supergene. This is a collection of genes that act in concert, much like switches in a panel, turning colors and patterns on and off, regulating them in patterns. A butterfly doesn't have to carry a gene for each pattern, but instead the potential for many patterns resides in every butterfly.
In a similar sense, gene regulation allows for tremendous variety without having to have a certain collection of alleles present in a population. This is in large part responsible for the variety of canines we see - the skeletal and morphological structures are regulated in terms of size and shape by the various expressions of certain genes. One doesn't have a 'long leg' trait per se, but rather the expression of limb length varies over time and can be directed by breeding. Dogs are understood to have a high degree of phenotypic plasticity - that is their genetics can be highly modified by small changes in regulation of expression of genes.
So an original ancestor can produce great variety beginning with a basic set of genes.
_____________________________
Jack
“I mean to live my life an obedient man, but obedient to God, subservient to the wisdom of my ancestors; never to the authority of political truths arrived at yesterday at the voting booth”
William F. Buckley Jr. 1925-2008
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Genetic Information - 7/24/2008 2:07:09 PM
|
|
|
gluadys
Posts: 1000
Joined: 4/26/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Jhud
Let me throw a bit of wrench into the machine here.
While gluadys has presented a very traditional view of genetic variation (very Mendelian) it really doesn't comport with current genetic knowledge.
For example we can consider something like butterfly wing patterns. The patterns of the wings of a butterfly are highly important when it comes to defining a species - the patterns affect mates that are attracted, environments that the organism can live in, predator evasion, etc. You change the pattern of the wing and change the mode of living. And as we know, there is tremendous variety when it comes to such patterns.
Well such patterns are determined by a Supergene. This is a collection of genes that act in concert, much like switches in a panel, turning colors and patterns on and off, regulating them in patterns. A butterfly doesn't have to carry a gene for each pattern, but instead the potential for many patterns resides in every butterfly.
In a similar sense, gene regulation allows for tremendous variety without having to have a certain collection of alleles present in a population. This is in large part responsible for the variety of canines we see - the skeletal and morphological structures are regulated in terms of size and shape by the various expressions of certain genes. One doesn't have a 'long leg' trait per se, but rather the expression of limb length varies over time and can be directed by breeding. Dogs are understood to have a high degree of phenotypic plasticity - that is their genetics can be highly modified by small changes in regulation of expression of genes.
So an original ancestor can produce great variety beginning with a basic set of genes.
No wrench. What you have said is true, but irrelevant given that we observe genes which exist in hundreds of allelic forms.
The question I am posing is not "How do you get so much variation"? But "How do you get so many observed alleles" if:
1. Genetic information cannot be increased and so must be front-loaded into the original created kind, and
2. Either the original created kind was too small to house so many alleles or became too small to do so sometime during its history.
Your information is interesting as a means of generating much variety with minimal genetic information, but I have not denied that is possible. It does not, however, explain why some genes do have hundreds of allelic forms or where they came from.
btw, I hope you note that the info you have presented also supports the thesis of Darwinian evolution as it means fewer mutations are needed to generate new patterns of variation, including ones that lead, as you suggest, to mating preferences and hence speciation.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Genetic Information - 7/24/2008 2:17:50 PM
|
|
|
Jhud
Posts: 7167
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Lake Wobegon
Status: offline
|
quote:
No wrench. What you have said is true, but irrelevant given that we observe genes which exist in hundreds of allelic forms.
The question I am posing is not "How do you get so much variation"? But "How do you get so many observed alleles" if:
1. Genetic information cannot be increased and so must be front-loaded into the original created kind, and
2. Either the original created kind was too small to house so many alleles or became too small to do so sometime during its history.
Your information is interesting as a means of generating much variety with minimal genetic information, but I have not denied that is possible. It does not, however, explain why some genes do have hundreds of allelic forms or where they came from.
btw, I hope you note that the info you have presented also supports the thesis of Darwinian evolution as it means fewer mutations are needed to generate new patterns of variation, including ones that lead, as you suggest, to mating preferences and hence speciation.
Hey, if 'Darwinian evolution' now means 'Various expressions of extant information', I am all for it.
_____________________________
Jack
“I mean to live my life an obedient man, but obedient to God, subservient to the wisdom of my ancestors; never to the authority of political truths arrived at yesterday at the voting booth”
William F. Buckley Jr. 1925-2008
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Genetic Information - 7/24/2008 3:05:46 PM
|
|
|
gluadys
Posts: 1000
Joined: 4/26/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: falcnjet
Aren't you limiting your analysis to the possible expressions of only one gene in a population?
Exactly. That is the important point that tends to be overlooked in the claim that the original kind genome can account for all the variability in all its descendants.
Almost all discussions of variation rely on looking at a set of genes instead of at the variability of each gene. Almost all discussions of variation look at how many unique combinations can be generated by mixing and matching genes independently. And that is what you are doing as well when you ask about the other genes controlling other physical characteristics.
It is trivially easy to get many different combinations of features with sets of genes that each show minimal variability. Take a few facial features and allow only two alternate expressions each. For example:
Hair--straight or curly
Forehead--high or low
Eyebrows--bushy or thin
Nose--wide or thin
Lips--full or thin
Chin--strong or weak.
Already you have 2^6 or 64 unique combinations of this set.
But this does not define genetic variability in the gene pool of the species/kind.
Genetic variability is a measure of how many versions (alleles) exist in the population for the SAME gene.
NOT how many unique combinations of different features you can get through independent assortment of many genes.
So it is really, really important to discriminate between these two concepts. Most people are much more familiar with looking at combinations of sets of traits. (Note that even Jhud's example alludes to "a basic set of genes".) There is much less awareness of how much each gene can vary.
quote:
And what about the huge amount of unexpressed genetic information in this incredible stuff called DNA. Doesn't your analysis ignore that?
No, not at all. A gene by definition is expressed DNA and it is only the alleles of functioning genes that are relevant. If unexpressed DNA comes to be expressed, it would be as a newly functioning gene and then we are back to sets of genes and the combined effects of sets of genes instead of examining the variability of a single gene.
quote:
And are gene alleles always limited to only 2?
By no means. However, each individual member of the population can only host one pair of alleles out of the whole range of allelic options.
That is why we can calculate a minimum population based on the number of alleles. If we find a gene which has a dozen alleles, we know that at 2 per individual, the population cannot be less than 6. And, as I said, this is a mathematical limit. In real populations there will be many individuals who have the same allele. Any individual who is homozygous for this gene has two copies of the same allele. And many individuals can have copies of the same alleles.
Geneticists express this in terms of the distribution of alleles in a gene pool. If we have three alleles (a, b, and c) and a population of 200, then we have 400 copies of that gene in the population as a whole. Sampling may show a typical distribution of the alleles is 60% a, (240 copies of allele a distributed among 200 individuals--obviously some are homozygous for this allele) 30% b (120 copies of allele b distributed among 200 individuals ---obviously some do not have this allele at all, though some may also be homozygous for this allele) and 10% c (40 copies of allele c distributed among 200 individuals.)
I don't know if there is any theoretical maximum number of alleles per gene. I suppose mathematically speaking it depends on how many base pairs there are in the gene. Since each base can be one of four nucleotides, a theoretical maximum would be #of base pairs ^ 4. However, I expect most such sequences would not produce a functioning gene, so the actual limit would be less.
But we do know from observation that some genes are characterized by large numbers of alleles. And given a limit of 2 per individual, this means a correspondingly large population to make a gene pool large enough for all the alleles. You cannot have 250 alleles of a single gene in a population whose gene pool consists of only 120 genomes. (60 individuals).
quote:
It's my understanding (believe it or not) that often chains of alleles are formed in the cell, as indicated in the definition above indicating a series of different forms of a gene.
A series of alleles would to my understanding be a series of duplicate genes in a different form--which takes us back to sets of genes. Each would have its own unique locus on the chromosome. If I am in error on this, I will rely on someone more genetically knowledgeable for correction.
The situation I am looking at is in reference to a particular gene at a particular locus on a particular chromosome. It is the variability of that gene, not of a series or set of genes in several places, that I am looking at.
It is that variability which I am saying is not accounted for in scenarios which rely on front-loading genetic information in the original created kind. It is that variability which demands an original population of minimum size--which is continuously maintained throughout the history of the kind OR a means to generate the new information which is the basis of new alleles.
Noah's family could house at most, 10 alleles of the hemoglobin gene. How is it that there are now more that 300 in the human population if genetic information cannot increase?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Genetic Information - 7/24/2008 3:09:40 PM
|
|
|
gluadys
Posts: 1000
Joined: 4/26/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Jhud
Hey, if 'Darwinian evolution' now means 'Various expressions of extant information', I am all for it.
One basic definition of Darwinian evolution is: a change in the proportional distribution of alleles trascending generations.
Obviously most alleles are extant information.
Of course, Darwinian evolution also includes means to generate new alleles which did not exist in former generations.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Genetic Information - 7/24/2008 3:16:05 PM
|
|
|
Jhud
Posts: 7167
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Lake Wobegon
Status: offline
|
quote:
One basic definition of Darwinian evolution is: a change in the proportional distribution of alleles trascending generations.
Obviously most alleles are extant information.
Of course, Darwinian evolution also includes means to generate new alleles which did not exist in former generations.
And how do you comport that definition with expression of certain genes in a population?
_____________________________
Jack
“I mean to live my life an obedient man, but obedient to God, subservient to the wisdom of my ancestors; never to the authority of political truths arrived at yesterday at the voting booth”
William F. Buckley Jr. 1925-2008
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Genetic Information - 7/24/2008 4:05:50 PM
|
|
|
drmark
Posts: 3139
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
Hey, if 'Darwinian evolution' now means 'Various expressions of extant information', I am all for it. Join the club, Jack! Darwinian evolution means anything even remotely connected with genetics, according to gluadys. I've given up having any rational dialogue in this setting of semantic gamesmanship.
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The time is NOW, fellow saints!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Genetic Information - 7/24/2008 5:26:43 PM
|
|
|
gluadys
Posts: 1000
Joined: 4/26/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Jhud
quote:
One basic definition of Darwinian evolution is: a change in the proportional distribution of alleles trascending generations.
Obviously most alleles are extant information.
Of course, Darwinian evolution also includes means to generate new alleles which did not exist in former generations.
And how do you comport that definition with expression of certain genes in a population?
It would depend on what is affecting the expression of the gene and whether it is inheritable. Some genes express differently in response to environmental factors.
I assume you are speaking more of the internal regulation of gene expression via Hox genes.
So we get different expressions of the same gene without generating variations in the gene itself. But what about the regulating gene (s) How is it determined which switch will be "on" and which "off".
I need to learn more about genetic regulatory mechanisms, so I can't give any definitive opinion at this time. But for the moment, it seems to me that the discovery of Hox genes and various sorts of regulators simply involves a regression in terms of the location of the relevant mutations and creation of the relevant alleles. So the mutation did not happen in the gene that is directly responsible for the production of pigment. It happened instead in a gene that regulates the expression of the pigment-producing gene.
Are we not still dealing with variations in some DNA sequence somewhere in the genome?
As Sean Carroll puts it "This regulatory DNA contains the instructions for building anatomy,, and evolutionary changes within this regulatory DNA lead to diversity of form." (Emphasis added).
Or as you explained: one doesn't have to have a "long leg" trait per se. But some difference in the regulatory instructions for building a leg will give differences in leg length. What is the source of those differences? Are these differences in regulatory DNA analogous to alleles in genes?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Genetic Information - 7/24/2008 7:21:31 PM
|
|
|
HHV5
Posts: 152
Joined: 7/20/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: drmark
quote:
Hey, if 'Darwinian evolution' now means 'Various expressions of extant information', I am all for it. Join the club, Jack! Darwinian evolution means anything even remotely connected with genetics, according to gluadys. I've given up having any rational dialogue in this setting of semantic gamesmanship.
Don't blame gluadys because your knowledge of biological sciences is limited to what you hear from the ID camp. Just because you don't understand the nuances of a concept doesn't mean it's "semantic gamesmanship".
Does the dr in your name stand for Doctor? Just curious.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Genetic Information - 7/24/2008 8:06:24 PM
|
|
|
Method
Posts: 1162
Joined: 9/19/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: GHitch
ORIGINAL: Method
quote:
Of those 60 million bases, how many are harmful mutations?
The real question is how many are mutations, period?
If the DNA is different it is a mutation, but definition. You claim that changing the DNA damages it. Well, obviously it doesn't.
quote:
quote:
Are humans damaged chimps? No. Only a Darwinist could ask such a question.
Only a creationist would avoid the obvious consequences of claiming that DNA can not change.
quote:
quote:
How do you explain a 98% match? If humans and chimps were created separately why would they share that much identity? Darwinism says it's because one evolved out of the other. Any proof of that? No.
Any evidence? Yes. For example, we share hundreds of thousands of ERV's in the same genomic position as chimps. The only lucid explanation for this is a common ancestor.
quote:
Any known, positively identified ape ancestors? No.
Humans are apes.
quote:
A designer would use what works and since all life is based on DNA. Reuse of generic code in information systems something that all system designers do these days - it wasn't always so. Design patterns are proof of this. Why should any intelligent designer not do what works?
Using different codons would work. There is simply no physical law that states that ATG must code for methionine. It is an arbitrary arrangement. A designer could easily change codon usage, especially one that is omnipotent and omniscient. The reason that humans reuse design is because we are limited in knowledge and time. An omnipotent designer would not have these limitations and so reuse of design would not be expected. For an omnipotent designer starting from scratch entails the same effort as reusing designs.
quote:
quote:
Both humans and bananas are 100% eukaryotes, and they do share a common ancestor. Last part is very bold. So now we are not only the monkeys uncle but part of it's food chain as well. As always, tow the Darwinist party line - no evidence required. So the whole of 13 million + species - plants and animals, insects and fish.... - all sprung out of one little organism somewhere in the unveryfiable past huh? The term "blind faith" comes to mind.
The evidence is shared genes. You said so yourself, we share 50% or so homology.
quote:
Fyi, Lucy was demoted, (by scientists) as being a human ancestor about 10 years - see Science & Vie 1998 - "Adieu Lucy" edition.
Lucy is not considered a direct ancestor of modern humans. I gladly agree to that. However, A. afarensis is transitional and the species does fill a morphological gap in the transition between humans and our common ancestor with apes. A. afarensis has features that you claim can not exist.
quote:
Homo habilis met the same fate last year.
That is a common misperception. H. habilis predates H. ergaster and is contemporaneous with H. ergaster. This is completely in line with an evolutionary transition where H. ergaster speciates from H. habilis and continues the hominid lineage. It is the same situation where Americans came from Europeans with Americans and Europeans being contemporaneous.
quote:
Ergaster is going down the same dark road as you would know if you did any homework.
For someone who likes to accuse others of speculation you sure like to indulge in it.
quote:
quote:
But of course transitional fossils are just "circumstantial evidence" right? Gaps in the fossil record are evidence against the theory unless those fossils are found then the fossils mean nothing, right? You just don't listen do you - The gaps are mostly gone - the links remain missing. This isn't hard.
How do you determine when those gaps have been filled? What features does a transitional fossil require?
quote:
quote:
So how many diseases are you suffering from? Several non visible genetic defects actually. You? But your answer is mere denial of known fact with some added smoke and mirrors.
What are those genetic defects? What genetic diseases do you suffer from? Every human in your family tree acquired between 125 and 175 or so mutations in each generation. By the time it gets to you you should be suffering from thousands and thousands of genetic diseases, right?
quote:
Right now I doubt you'll ever consider evidence as you pretend.
The only way to find out is to present it. When will we see it?
quote:
quote:
Why is it highly unlikely? Evidence please. Apparently you've never heard of statistical mechanics, probability, combinatorial dependencies, etc etc...
I have heard of those things, but I have yet to see you offer these probabilities with your math and the assumptions that the probabilities are based on. When will we see those?
quote:
quote:
There are many known transitionals between lobe finned fish and amphibians. I have cited them before but you flatly ignore them. Wrong. replace 'known' with 'presumed' You cite supposed transitionals which you yourself claim are not provable as such and then you claim this again?!!
If a fish with legs is not a transitional then what would a real transitional look like? Earlier you claim there are gaps, but here you claim that you will never, ever accept any fossil as filling that gap.
quote:
DNA cannot exist without protein and protein cannot exist without DNA.
False. RNA makes protein from RNA. DNA is best viewed as stable RNA.
quote:
Here's another one for ya - which comes first:
the ATP energy or
the information coding the ATP, or
The energy in ATP is due to the chemical information in ATP.
quote:
the system transcribing the genes to ATP proteins, or
the ATP energy needed to replicate the coded DNA, or
the ATP needed to power the transcription to the ATP, or
the photosynthesis system needed to convert photons to ATP?
The first to come along are ribozymes which use ATP to produce more ribozymes.
quote:
There is no coded information in a single atom.
Yes there is. The code for Carbon is 1s2 2s2 2p2 (the second number in the triad is supposed to be superscript). It codes for the electron orbitals which gives Carbon it's information, the same information found in DNA.
quote:
WHo mentioned Behe?
Who mentioned IC?
quote:
Lame response seeing that no one has explained any IC system to date through Darwinism. Oh, sorry, you think speculation = adequate evidence. It doesn't.
It is you speculating that IC poses a problem for evolution. It doesn't. Muller described how IC can come about in 1918.
quote:
Your quote is clearly vast speculation and hand waving across titanic leaps of supposed mutations that no one can ever possibly demonstrate as stated over and over again.
Each and every step is observed. Mutations cause proteins to change functions. This causes new interactions between proteins. Mutations also remove genes from the genome. That is all that is needed to produce an IC system, the production of a new interacting system from which proteins are removed until no more can be removed without losing the function.
As an analogy, modern cities give us a good example. In previous years there have been electrical blackouts. This brings cities to a screeching halt. Cities are exceedingly dependent on electricity. According to your logic all cities in the past must have had electricity, but we know that this isn't true. At one time electricity was a luxury that the city could function with or without. Overtime the city lost functions that allowed it to survive without electricity.
quote:
You have a lot of faith in speculation & none in hard facts.
I am not the one proposing that an invisible deity magically poofed things into being.
quote:
You also have no idea of the complexity involved. You should learn something about combinatorial dependencies and search out just how much of that exists in DNA alone.
Maybe start here - http://telicthoughts.com/author/steve-petermann/ for a relation to genetic machinery.
Why is this a problem?
quote:
quote:
Macroevolution has been observed numerous times. Give us one single example of a whole new body plan coming out of another completely differrent one. Obviously you don't know what macro-evo is. Adaptations within the family are not macro-evo. Maybe you should study the terms of reference first?
I already gave you a link to two pages listing speciation events, complete with references. Speciation is macroevolution. Microevolution is change within a species. Macroevolution is change at and above the level of species. This is how it is defined. Therefore, speciation is macroevolution by definition.
Species is the only objective taxonomic division in biology. All other divisions (e.g., families, orders, phyla) are human contrivances.
quote:
So mutations only occur through environmental changes?
No, mutations occur at the same rate in both changing and stable environments. The difference is that a stable environment selects for stabile morphology. When species adapt to their environment they hit a point where they can no longer increase their fitness. All of the other niches have likewise been filled with highly adapated species. When an environment changes it produces new selective pressures which select for variation that was previously selected against.
quote:
How stable have the oceans been for the last 500 million years or so?
Which parts? Intertidal zones, shallow seas, deep seas?
quote:
Grasp what I wrote here and in the transitionals thread. And maybe honest discussion - which is not what you're handing out by persistent denials of fact - will be possible.
Give me your criteria for a transitional fossil and we can discuss things honestly.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Genetic Information - 7/24/2008 8:09:24 PM
|
|
|
Method
Posts: 1162
Joined: 9/19/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Jhud
And how do you comport that definition with expression of certain genes in a population?
What type of gene expression are you referring to? If I take a group of caucasians from Seattle and move them to Jamaica I notice a huge change in their expression of melanin. Did they evolve? Of course not, evolution occurs over generations, not within a single generation. Is this the type of gene expression you are talking about?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Genetic Information - 7/24/2008 11:05:40 PM
|
|
|
drmark
Posts: 3139
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
Does the dr in your name stand for Doctor? Just curious. Does the 5 in your name stand for five? Just curious.
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The time is NOW, fellow saints!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Genetic Information - 7/24/2008 11:57:23 PM
|
|
|
HHV5
Posts: 152
Joined: 7/20/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: drmark
quote:
Does the dr in your name stand for Doctor? Just curious. Does the 5 in your name stand for five? Just curious.
No need to get sarcastic. dr can mean a variety of things.
dr could have been your initials.
maybe you're from the dominican republic.
But a 5? No, 5 just stands for five.
So do you have an MD or PhD in science?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Genetic Information - 7/25/2008 9:09:32 AM
|
|
|
drmark
Posts: 3139
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
|
Five what? 5 years, 5 toes, 5 human herpes virus? Five is a worthless abstract concept without something to count.
What is the significance of my advanced degree to the content of this discussion, HHV5? Most 5th-graders understand genetic information well enough to realize that random deleterious mutations can never lead to novel structures, pathways, organ systems, etc. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for the religious fanatics of Darwinism!
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The time is NOW, fellow saints!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Genetic Information - 7/25/2008 9:35:15 AM
|
|
|
HHV5
Posts: 152
Joined: 7/20/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: drmark
Five what? 5 years, 5 toes, 5 human herpes virus? Five is a worthless abstract concept without something to count.
What is the significance of my advanced degree to the content of this discussion, HHV5? Most 5th-graders understand genetic information well enough to realize that random deleterious mutations can never lead to novel structures, pathways, organ systems, etc. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for the religious fanatics of Darwinism!
Because they are not all deleterious. And I'm sorry the education you received to obtain your MD or PhD was a waste of time when elementary school was sufficient. (Are you a medical doctor or researcher? Both? Neither?)
The reason I asked about your advanced degree: you reduced this discussion to "semantic gamesmanship" - anyone with an advanced degree in medicine/biology would know that you can't dismiss complexity of biology and genetics as "semantic gamesmanship".
If you want an example of semantic gamesmanship, look in the other ERV thread - someone had a problem with the term "mutation".
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Genetic Information - 7/25/2008 9:54:38 AM
|
|
|
essentialsaltes
Posts: 924
Joined: 10/14/2007
From: Inglewood, CA
Status: online
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: HHV5
So do you have an MD or PhD in science?
In the past, drmark has indicated that he is a medical doctor.
_____________________________
"My object in all arguments is not to make any preconceived opinion of mine seem right, but merely to discover and establish the truth, whatever the truth may be."
-- HP Lovecraft, letter to Robert E. Howard 7/27-28/34
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Genetic Information - 7/25/2008 9:57:47 AM
|
|
|
drmark
Posts: 3139
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
Because they are not all deleterious. What proportion of random mutations are not deleterious? Would you give us an example?
quote:
And I'm sorry the education you received to obtain your MD or PhD was a waste of time when elementary school was sufficient. Elementary school education is sufficient to argue effectively against Darwinian nonsense. Advanced degree programs are never a "waste of time" when put to use for the glory of God! 1 Cor 10:31
quote:
anyone with an advanced degree in medicine/biology would know that you can't dismiss complexity of biology and genetics as "semantic gamesmanship". Anyone with a fifth grade education would also know that changing genetic information over generations is NOT evolution! I will grant you that most fifth graders could not readily define "semantic gamesmanship", although many of them practice the technique regularly.
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The time is NOW, fellow saints!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Genetic Information - 7/25/2008 10:28:31 AM
|
|
|
HHV5
Posts: 152
Joined: 7/20/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: drmark
quote:
Because they are not all deleterious. What proportion of random mutations are not deleterious? Would you give us an example?
Most ARE deleterious and/or neutral. And they get culled out.
But a few CAN be beneficial - antibiotic resistance. Sickle-cell anemia in a region prevalent with malaria. | | |
Forum Tools
Printable Version
