|
GHitch -> RE: Genetic Information (7/23/2008 12:44:17 PM)
|
It is important to remember that even a 2% difference (no one knows the exact % at this time) means at least 60 million base pair differences. It is also important to remember that because DNA is a linear array of four bases — A,G,C, T — only 4 possibilities exist at any specific point in a DNA sequence. The tells us that two random sequences from species that have no ancestry in common will match at about one in every 4 sites. Thus even two unrelated DNA sequences will be 25% identical, not 0% identical.
A human and any earthly DNA-based life form must be at least 25% identical. Would it be correct, then, to state that a flower is "25% human"? No, that's outlandishly ridiculous! We supposedly share 50% likeness with bananas.
Method: quote:
"You state that changes in DNA result in damage, so the only conclusion I can come to is that we are damaged chimps, right? " Only if you, a priori, adopt Darwinian views. And since there is not yet a single valid ape ancestor of humans known, that view is suspicious at best.
quote:
"This is why it is silly to claim that mutations damages DNA. Obviously it doesn't always do that. " The majority of mutations are either deleterious or neurtral. All you have to do is search one of the online mutation data bases to see that virtually every known disease and deformity is rooted in a mutation. Mutations are bugs in the code.
And considering that beneficial mutations are incredibly rare while deleterious ones are not, it raises the question of just how any beneficial mutation could possibly survive the onslaught of all the bad ones. (see Hoyle quote below)
Evolution of any entirely new species crossing form (ex. fish to reptile) by rm + ns is thus highly unlikely from the start - based on the facts.
quote:
"I am convinced it is this almost trivial simplicity that explains why the Darwinian theory is so widely accepted, why it has penetrated through the educational system so completely. As one student text puts it, `The theory is a two-step process. First variation must exist in a population. Second, the fittest members of the population have a selective advantage and are more likely to transmit their genes to the next generation.' But what if individuals with a good gene A carry a bad gene B. having the larger value of |s|. Does the bad gene not carry the good one down to disaster? What of the situation that bad mutations must enormously exceed good ones in number? ... The essential problem for the Darwinian theory in its twentieth century form is how to cope with this continuing flood of adverse mutations, a far cry indeed from the trite problem of only the single mutation in (1.1). Supposing a favourable mutation to occur among the avalanche of unfavourable ones, how is the favourable mutation to advance against the downward pressure of the others?" (Hoyle, F., "Mathematics of Evolution," [1987], Acorn Enterprises: Memphis TN, 1999, pp.8-9)
...
A primitive replicating system could not have copied itself with anything like the fidelity of present-day systems .... With only poor copying fidelity, a primitive system could carry little genetic information without L [mutation rate] becoming unbearably large, and how a primitive system could then improve its fidelity and also evolve into a sexual system with crossover beggars the imagination. (Hoyle "Mathematics of Evolution," 1987, Acorn Enterprises: Memphis TN, 1999, p.20)
So, Darwinism fails miserably in many areas:
- billions of missing transitionals
- inabilty to cope with DNA/Protein inter-dependance
- no explanation for the origin of bio information
- no explanation for the origin of sexuality
- no explanation for the origin of coded information systems in all life forms
- no explanation for irreducibly complex structures (just-so stories à la Ken Miller don't count)
- no adequate explanation of biological explosions (Cambrian, Avalon etc.)
- no verifiable pathways from simple to extremely complex inter-dependant systems
- no empirical evidence for macro-evo from micro - it's all extrapolation that is now suspected to go against the 'genetic grain' of inherent limitations
- no explanation for why perfectly adapted forms would evolve in the first place while others remain the same for millions of years
....
all this after 150 years of trying.
So : quote:
"Although a biologist, I must confess that I do not understand how life came about. Of course, it depends on the definition of life. To me, autoreplication of a macromolecule does not yet represent life. Even a viral particle is not a life organism, it only can participate in life processes when it succeeds in becoming part of a living host cell. Therefore, I consider that life only starts at the level of a functional cell. The most primitive cells may require at least several hundred different specific biological macromolecules. How such already quite complex structures may have come together, remains a mystery to me. The possibility of the existence of a Creator, of God, represents to me a satisfactory solution to this problem." (Arber, Werner [Professor of Microbiology at the University of Basel, Switzerland, shared Nobel Prize for Physiology/Medicine in 1978], "The Existence of a Creator Represents a Satisfactory Solution," in Margenau H. & Varghese R.A., eds., "Cosmos, Bios, Theos: Scientists Reflect on Science, God, and the Origins of the Universe Life, and Homo Sapiens," [1992], Open Court: La Salle IL, 1993, Second Printing, pp.142-143) seems quite appropriate as a comment.
|
|
|
|