God and natural selection

[Paul of Eugene]

Originally posted by Scott J:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Bats without hollow flight bones - how come birds get them and bats don't?

Because birds and bats didn't descend from the same kind perhaps.
</font>[/QUOTE]WOW! Scott, I didn't know you had it in you! All bats came from a common ancestor and all birds came from a common ancestor! Glory be, you'll be a full fledged evolutionist soon after all!

 

[Paul of Eugene]

Originally posted by Helen:
Small differences in proteins yield enormous differences in the organism. It is not something you can slide out of that easily, Paul, especially when you are claiming evidence from the vitamin c mutation...

Sometimes they do, sometimes they don't. Everybody knows that we use insulin harvested from pigs and cows to treat humans with diabetes. The altered protein, which would have been counted as different in the study you mentioned, works the same way in our bodies.

 

[Paul of Eugene]

Originally posted by Scott J:
[QB] On second thought Petrel, please establish that "reality" as you now perceive it is the absolute rule for all of natural history... then we'll talk about how plausible evolution is.

Spectroscopic and other astronomical observations reveal that the same chemical and nuclear reactions we know of that occur on earth today occurred millions and billions of years ago in distant galaxies.

You really should read more science. You've been missing out on these things.

 

[RayMarshall19]

Originally posted by RayMarshall19:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Paul of Eugene:

Examples of the intermediate stages of the eye are available in living creatures today - all stages! </font>[/QUOTE]Dear Paul,

Could you please share with us some examples and explain how each "stage" evolved from the previous one? [/QB][/QUOTE]

I'm still waiting for your evidence.

 

[Paul of Eugene]

Here's another site with a discussion of the eye evolution:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/change/grand/index.html

There is discussion there about how eyes evolved and a few examples. Do you want more examples of various eye stages in current organisms? How many examples would be sufficient for you?

Due to the lack of fossilization of eyes, I cannot give you a fossil history of eye evolution. However, we can safely dispose of the old canard that eyes CANNOT evolve, and that is all I set out to do.

 

[UTEOTW]

Ute said:

"This case is of particular problem for YEers because we see a useless insert spread throughout the primates and as various lineages split off, we can trace its change to something useful."

Scott replied:

" Or far more likely, you can trace its origin to somethng useful."

No, you may need to rearead the post.

http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/10/6004/8.html#000105

We start out with a transposon. These are little bits of DNA that have sequences that are easily copied and pasted in the genome. Further more, it is a particular sequence called an Alu that is unique to primates. More and this in a second.

Such insertions are utterly useless. But, such is the sequence of an Alu unit that it can mutate until part of it shows the genetic marker for the sequence to be an exon at which time it can be incorporated into genes. So it definately went from useless to useful.

So, you are still stuck with a sequence where you can trace its insertion and mutation into something useful by looking at lineages that split off during the process. Or, I guess in your world, God decided to put these useless sequences into various "kinds" in different ways but in one "kind" He made a useful version. And He also put the nonuseful versions in with a pattern consistent with evolution for kicks.

But back to these Alu sequences. Just why do you think that they are unique to primates?

Common descent gives an easy answer. In the last common ancestor of primates there was a mutation that gave rise to the sequence. Or something along those lines.

But since they are useless, why do you think that an intelligent designer would scatter such bits through the genomes of just primates?

Now let's not be too harsh, because we have seen the one purpose they can fulfill. While not useful on their own, they can easily mutate into a form which gives rise to new and sometimes useful genetic sequences giving primates a way to make new genes. But we know that this is not the reason you will choose. Why? Because it would be an admission that there is at least one way to make new and useful genes thus destroying one of the benchmark claims of YEism.

So what is the answer?

 

[UTEOTW]

" No Paul. We have evidence successfully explained by evolution. There is a very, very significant difference. A plausible explanation may or may not be true. For something to be evidence in favor of one particular concept, it must lead to that conclusion and only that conclusion... or a very reasonable approximation thereof."

Nope.

There can often be competing explanations but one that fills the bill better than others. It is not necessary for there to be only one answer just a best answer.

" Nope. You simply have to have an alternate, plausible explanation. If you accept naturalism then you lose that perspective. If you accept supernaturalism as your premise for approaching science (the study of natural phenomenon) then you gain a whole new spectrum."

So, tell us how to spot the difference between something caused by natural forces and one caused by supernatural forces?

In your world, we don't really know if gravity exists or if angels just push things around.

You are falling into the God of the Gaps here. That is a very dangerous place to put your faith as gaps have a habit of being filled in. And your answer supposes that God would make the universe to look much different than it really is. Sure God put have poofed in all those Alu sequences in primates, but why?

" I have read accounts of this "record". It is extraordinarily poor. Animals have been force fitted into the gaps for nothing other than sheer convenience. The actual fossils supporting this particular tale are not convincing. The major part of the series is necessary conjecture."

Pure unsupported assertion.

Common descent is the only answer that makes sense when those vestigal whales bones are fitted in with all of the other evidence. There is a very nice fossil record for the whales also. In fact, I seem to remember you once coming to the amazing conclusion that perhaps all whales are one "kind" that was originally a land dwelling animal! It must not have been too "poor" a recor when you viewed it then.

" Because birds and bats didn't descend from the same kind perhaps."

Now you are beginnig to understand the concept of common descent I believe.

 

[Scott J]

Such insertions are utterly useless.

That isn't true.

 

[Scott J]

But, such is the sequence of an Alu unit that it can mutate until part of it shows the genetic marker for the sequence to be an exon at which time it can be incorporated into genes. So it definately went from useless to useful.

That isn't true either. If its end is useful then you cannot say that it was useless to begin with. That is a self-contradicting statement.

Further, these were inherited right? So what we have is a flexible, mobile part of genetics that assist in the regulation of demonstrated traits. Quality control mechanisms do not in any operational area of science result from any series of random combinations of natural forces.

 

[Scott J]

So, you are still stuck with a sequence where you can trace its insertion and mutation into something useful by looking at lineages that split off during the process.

No. You are not. You are stuck with a sequence that exists... and may exist for a number of likely or unlikely reasons that are not limited to the ones you need to affirm evolution.

Or, I guess in your world, God decided to put these useless sequences into various "kinds" in different ways but in one "kind" He made a useful version.

Do you realize how pompous, condescending, and arrogant that sounds while simultaneously being closed minded?

You assume that these things are useless then count them as evidence for evolution because they have been retained or used for some "useful" purpose... then you attempt to act as if I am some kind of moron for not agreeing with you.

Your presuppositions virtually demand this kind of hand waving response... but is it becoming of any honest person much less a Christian?

I have consistently said that evolution is plausible. Very often its proposed mechanisms are unlikely in the absurd... but they could some how occur. Rather than extending the same courtesy and actually discussing my ideas, you mock, scoff, and arbitrarily dismiss my proposals. Why? My guess is that you have so absorbed yourself into the faith of evolution that any proposal that doesn't assume naturalism and evolution as truth from the start is anathema to you.

That's sad for an obviously intelligent and sincere person.

And He also put the nonuseful versions in with a pattern consistent with evolution for kicks.

That is a metaphysical straw man of your creation... another one of those "God wouldn't have done it that way" premises. YOU are not in a position to tell God what He could have done nor demand that He reveal to you why He did something.

You know God didn't directly author sin... moral evil. Yet only the open theism heresy says that He didn't know about it and account for it from before creation. The same is true for what you folks consider "natural evil".

The Bible says that God created everything and called it very good (Gen 1:31). If you consider no other statement in scripture about creation in light of the argument you used against me above, you must consider that one.

Your argue that these supposed inefficiencies or non-optimum designs demonstrate that God didn't do it. However if that is true, they make evolution a complete contradiction of any interpretation of Genesis 1:31- allegorical, epic, or literal. God either said that or He didn't. He either completed creation or He didn't.

According to you God used evolution to create the universe and evolution has not "finished"... then how in the world could God have stepped back away from this long ago inherited vitamin C deficiency and say "that is very good" following your reasoning? How could God claim to have finished the work described in Genesis 1 if the process He designed to do it is still at work?

He couldn't. That makes either Genesis 1:31 contradictory to your evolutionary ideas and natural evil before the fall.

[ January 27, 2006, 04:17 PM: Message edited by: Scott J ]

 

[UTEOTW]

"BTW, UTE thanks. Before you argued that I had no proof for my claim of highly variable, pristine original kinds... your hemoglobin discussion provides a very promising potential proof."

It does? Could you please explore that possibility for us?

The problem for you will be to incorporate ALL of the aspects into your hypothesis.

You have a big problem right from the beginning. All of the data points to these being multiple copies of the same gene. The genes and pseudogenes are broken into exons at the same locations and the introns or "junk" between the exons are also the same. So I am not sure how several copies of the same thing lead you to your conclusion.

So you have a problem from the start of why we have the division of genes and pseudogenes.

Then we get into the comparisons with other species.

The biggest aspect is the shared divisions into the split betweeen alpha and beta globins. If you arrange the animals into their evolutionary nest heirarchies, you find that every single animal that evolved from the split between the fish that led to todays lampreys and hagfish on one side and all other fish, mammals, amphibians, birds and reptiles on the other hand share the same pattern. Hagfish, lampreys and other such fish have only one set. All the others have both alpha and beta globins.

Why the neat split? If they were intellintly created as is, how do we get that distribution? Lampreys not good enough to get the same genes that other fish got? Why not?

 

[UTEOTW]

I said "Such insertions are utterly useless."

Scott replied : " That isn't true."

Then please, please tell us the usefulness of an Alu sequence. What do they do?

" That isn't true either. If its end is useful then you cannot say that it was useless to begin with. That is a self-contradicting statement."

That is your explanation, I gather?

Let's see. So when presented evidence that a sequence that does nothing of use can mutate until it does something of use can fir right into your paradigm?

I guess this means that you no longer claim that mutation cannot create "new information" that confers a new advantage on the organism and gives it a new gene that it no longer had?

Good, then you are slowly coming around to the correct side in the debate.

Of course I have claimed all along that such mutations are possible. And here we have a good example of a mechanism where a previously useless sequence can be copied around randomly and which can subsequently MUTATE until the sequence becomes something useful and which can then be incorporated into the workins of the organism.

And I should point out that the sequence was not useful until AFTER it mutated. That you are willing to accept this in your world shows how far towards an evolutionary paradigm you are sliding.

"Further, these were inherited right? So what we have is a flexible, mobile part of genetics that assist in the regulation of demonstrated traits. Quality control mechanisms do not in any operational area of science result from any series of random combinations of natural forces."

But it does not regulate anything at all. It just is copied about.

It only becomes useful AFTER mutation subsequent to the insertion mutation. It is not regulating anything. It mutates into a new trait.

And I noticed that you did not attempt to give an answer as to why this particular sequence is distributed in its various forms in different lineages or the wider question of why primates only have these Alu sequences.

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by UTEOTW:
" No Paul. We have evidence successfully explained by evolution. There is a very, very significant difference. A plausible explanation may or may not be true. For something to be evidence in favor of one particular concept, it must lead to that conclusion and only that conclusion... or a very reasonable approximation thereof."

Nope.

There can often be competing explanations but one that fills the bill better than others. It is not necessary for there to be only one answer just a best answer.

If you really and truly believed that then you would be ecstatic about the possibilities of ID.

Design provides a much better explanation for coded information than does random events.

BTW, both biblically and experientially speaking, supernaturalism "fills the bill" for explaining reality far better than naturalism.

So, tell us how to spot the difference between something caused by natural forces and one caused by supernatural forces?

Biblically speaking or otherwise?

Biblically speaking, you pick up God's Word, read what He takes credit for, and interpret the data consistent with what He said... since He is supposedly the authority Christians accept above all others.

Otherwise... is what ID attempts to do... Forensics and many areas of operational science work to differentiate between the natural and the extra-natural.

So ultimately your question is rhetorical both from a Christian and scientific perspective. You do what is already being done.

In your world, we don't really know if gravity exists or if angels just push things around.

Thank you once again for very arrogantly deciding what I think and what it means.

FTR, God didn't say that angels push things around. He did say that He created the world and everything in it in 6 days... then called it "very good".

You are falling into the God of the Gaps here. That is a very dangerous place to put your faith as gaps have a habit of being filled in.

God fills all gaps. His will bridges all gaps. That does not mean I won't look for and accept reasonable explanations... nor does it mean that I will assume naturalism because you count supernaturalism as "God in the gaps".

And your answer supposes that God would make the universe to look much different than it really is.

Or not. I am proposing an explanation that accounts for a number of facts while remaining true to God's accounting of how creation happened. That's all. Very similar to evolutionists who propose explanations for various things while remaining true to the premise of naturalism.

Even if you don't agree, it kind of surprises me that a Christian doesn't show more respect to the effort of one attempting to explain things with a premise that the Bible is true than to one who is attempting to explain things according to a premise that conflicts with the description of God's character given in scripture.

Sure God put have poofed in all those Alu sequences in primates, but why?

Why were you borned to the parents you were born to? Why were you born at the time you were born? Why were you exposed to the gospel while others are not?

Your question is premised on fallacy and, frankly, vanity. You assume that either He wouldn't have done it as it appears or that if He didn't do it, it would not have occurred in a way other than those consistent with evolutionary thinking. You have no problem accepting improbable explanations that are consistent with evolution but balk at what you perceive as improbable explanations consistent with creationism.

And perhaps worst of all, you suppose that God owes you an explanation that you can put in a test tube or discover or imagine. He doesn't. There is no sin in pursuing answers... unless that pursuit puts us in a position to question the veracity of the Creator Himself.

In fact, I seem to remember you once coming to the amazing conclusion that perhaps all whales are one "kind" that was originally a land dwelling animal! It must not have been too "poor" a recor when you viewed it then.

You remember incorrectly. I didn't come to that conclusion... I came to the conclusion that my proposition that all animals descended from original kinds with a very rich, robust genome could accommodate whales being descended from land animals.

BTW, I have read the accounts and much of the fossil record for whale evolution is "speculation in the gaps"... or "hope of the future discovery in the gaps"... and not real bones. Further, there is still considerable argument about whether the supposed earlier forms are in the lineage at all. They are there out of necessity for evolution... not because they indisputably belong there.

Amazingly, you accept as complete and convincing fossil records made up of much more imagination and plaster than actual fossils but scoff at suggestions that are very much based in observed science.

" Because birds and bats didn't descend from the same kind perhaps."

Now you are beginnig to understand the concept of common descent I believe.

I have understood it for awhile... I think. Common descent can lead from a superior cat to a lesser cat.

It can lead from a genetically complex and highly adaptable bird to a simpler, less flexible species.

Bats of course aren't birds... they are rodents... like flying squirrels, raccoons, and perhaps others of their KIND that have flaps under their forearms. If they all descended from the same kind and gene pool then we have a perfectly good explanation for where they came from and how they came to be what they are.

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by UTEOTW:
I said "Such insertions are utterly useless."

Scott replied : " That isn't true."

Then please, please tell us the usefulness of an Alu sequence. What do they do?

Didn't you basically just do it?

But in case you missed your own point:

http://jcs.biologists.org/cgi/content/abstract/107/4/903

http://www.jbc.org/cgi/content/full/276/39/36383

Even worse for you, natural selection would not allow the preservation of over 1 million sequences in the human genome if they were in fact useless. In fact, about 10% of the human genome mass is made up of them...

Useless is not a term that accurately defines them. And in spite of the presupposition that shared insertion sites infer shared ancestory since inheritance is how we currently see them transmitted now, we don't know what caused the insertions in the first place nor where they came from.

IOW's, even evolutionists have to come up with an origin for the things at the start... and speculate a behavior that is not exactly like what we see now. And since these occur heavily in primates, they must be some late addition to the genetic fabric... which puts you in the same boat with me... on the other end.

"That isn't true either. If its end is useful then you cannot say that it was useless to begin with. That is a self-contradicting statement.[/i]"

That is your explanation, I gather?

No... that is simple, elementary logic. If something has the ability to be useful it is not accurate to call it useless just because its usefulness is potential rather than active.

Let's see. So when presented evidence that a sequence that does nothing of use can mutate until it does something of use can fir right into your paradigm?

Mutate as in change... an ability that is inherited from the parent as acknowledged and even trumpeted by you.... Yes, that fits right in. Sorry to disappoint you.

I guess this means that you no longer claim that mutation cannot create "new information" that confers a new advantage on the organism and gives it a new gene that it no longer had?

There is no evidence that this creates information by "mutation" independent of the genome from which the animal was descended. IOW's, you cannot say it is novel until you take the animals ancestor from 4000 years ago, sample its DNA and watch descendents for the next 4000 years to randomly express the trait.

Yes this information may be useful for adaptation and survival. No, it is not leading inexorably to new systems and ascension of new more complex species.

Good, then you are slowly coming around to the correct side in the debate.

Nope. I am already there.

And I should point out that the sequence was not useful until AFTER it mutated. That you are willing to accept this in your world shows how far towards an evolutionary paradigm you are sliding.

Of course that presumes that it was random and not designed... of course if it works in response to stimuli using inherited code and characters then it doesn't quite constitute that grand proof you've been claiming.

It only becomes useful AFTER mutation subsequent to the insertion mutation. It is not regulating anything. It mutates into a new trait.

That is a conclusion not proven by the evidence. You do not know that it is a new trait at all. You do not know that it isn't a recessive trait or even a routine expression in response to the right stimuli.

And I noticed that you did not attempt to give an answer as to why this particular sequence is distributed in its various forms in different lineages or the wider question of why primates only have these Alu sequences.

Because apes and possibly but not definitely monkeys descended from the same kind. They are also the most similar to us.

And again, we don't know the exact nature of the genome 4000 years ago but I suspect that it was simultaneously more open and more robust. As the Alu does appear to have adaptive value, species with elevated adaptive abilities would very likely accommodate the insertion and retention evidence you cite.

BTW, what little we have found of supposed ancient dna in very simple creatures helps me and hurts you. If I am not mistaken the discovery that rocked genetic biologists a bit was in bacteria. Supposed ancient bacteria were actually more complex than the species that supposedly evolved "up" from them.

Now that is exactly what my paradigm would expect... but the opposite of what evolution's paradigm predicted.

 

[Paul of Eugene]

If you really and truly believed that then you would be ecstatic about the possibilities of ID.

I highly reccomend adopting ID as philosophy or theology it just isn't science.

Design provides a much better explanation for coded information than does random events.

Well, random events plus natural selection plus eons of time to work in also provides a much better explanation than random events.

BTW, both biblically and experientially speaking, supernaturalism "fills the bill" for explaining reality far better than naturalism.

BTW, supernaturalism is utterly barren scientifically because supernaturalism can just say anything that happened happened due to a supernatural intervention. So don't look for science to embrace it.

Biblically speaking, you pick up God's Word, read what He takes credit for, and interpret the data consistent with what He said... since He is supposedly the authority Christians accept above all others.

But he didn't just give us the Bible. He also gave us the record in the rocks and the record in the skies above.

FTR, God didn't say that angels push things around. He did say that He created the world and everything in it in 6 days... then called it "very good".

And what he meant by that is revealed in the record of the rocks and skies.

I am proposing an explanation that accounts for a number of facts while remaining true to God's accounting of how creation happened. That's all. Very similar to evolutionists who propose explanations for various things while remaining true to the premise of naturalism.

Except that there are innumerable details you fail to account for such as the shared vitamin c deficiency among primates included yourself.

Even if you don't agree, it kind of surprises me that a Christian doesn't show more respect to the effort of one attempting to explain things with a premise that the Bible is true than to one who is attempting to explain things according to a premise that conflicts with the description of God's character given in scripture.

Don't confuse denying your interepretation of the Bible with denying the Bible.

You have no problem accepting improbable explanations that are consistent with evolution but balk at what you perceive as improbable explanations consistent with creationism.

You have not demonstrated improbability for evolutionary processes.

He doesn't. There is no sin in pursuing answers... unless that pursuit puts us in a position to question the veracity of the Creator Himself.

Please do not confuse objecting to your interepretation of the Bible with questioning the veracity of the creator himself.

I came to the conclusion that my proposition that all animals descended from original kinds with a very rich, robust genome could accommodate whales being descended from land animals.

LOL! And where did the flukes on whales come from in that scenario? A richly robust unexpressed part of the genome of a land animal?

ly, you accept as complete and convincing fossil records made up of much more imagination and plaster than actual fossils but scoff at suggestions that are very much based in observed science.

The fossils are real. When the skeletons are incomplete today, they really were complete once.

Bats of course aren't birds... they are rodents... like flying squirrels, raccoons, and perhaps others of their KIND that have flaps under their forearms. If they all descended from the same kind and gene pool then we have a perfectly good explanation for where they came from and how they came to be what they are.

Are you now saying that bats came from original non-flying animals and yet evolution remains false?

 

[Petrel]

Originally posted by Scott J:
Bats of course aren't birds... they are rodents... like flying squirrels, raccoons, and perhaps others of their KIND that have flaps under their forearms.

Umm . . . no, they aren't. And I hope you didn't mean that raccoons are rodents!

 

[UTEOTW]

" No. You are not. You are stuck with a sequence that exists... and may exist for a number of likely or unlikely reasons that are not limited to the ones you need to affirm evolution."

Not even a good dodge. You did not even attempt to tell us why that pattern is there.

" Do you realize how pompous, condescending, and arrogant that sounds while simultaneously being closed minded?"

Right back at you.

Your problem seems to be that I wish to rely on a natural explanation when one exists. So when I assert that God would not purposefully rig the universe to look like He did one thing when He in fact did another you call it "pompous, condescending, ... arrogant [and] closed minded"

But it is just as much those things for you to continuously assert that He would do such a thing.

But I have one big advantage over you. When I look at the world, I am inclined to accept it for what it is. If there is a compelling natural explanation for what I see then I feel free to accept that I can see the means that God used to accomplish His will.

But you keep asserting that we should instead say that these can be explained by the supernatural. The logical extension of your statement leads one to say that you can never know what is caused by natural processes and what is caused by the supernatural.

In other words, in your world, one is NEVER able to believe his lying eyes. You cannot know.

I accept that the sun will come up tomorrow because the earth will continue to spin naturally on its axis under the laws of God's universe. In your world, we don't know if our physics to describe the earth's spin is right or not. In my world, if the sun were not to come up tomorrow I would KNOW that it was because of a direct intervention on God's part. In your world, we don't know if God actually is forced to intervene every single moment to keep the earth rotating.

You have no way to tease apart the natural from the supernatural.

"You assume that these things are useless then count them as evidence for evolution because they have been retained or used for some "useful" purpose... then you attempt to act as if I am some kind of moron for not agreeing with you."

Nope. We just look at the pattern in God's universe and follow the evidence.

" That is a metaphysical straw man of your creation... another one of those "God wouldn't have done it that way" premises. YOU are not in a position to tell God what He could have done nor demand that He reveal to you why He did something."

Once again...

Pot...Kettle..Black...

I assert that God would not try and fool us. You assert that He would. It seems that we both have our ideas.

I do believe, however, that my ideas are closer to what we know about the God of the Bible. Perhaps you are referring to a different god. Our God is not the author of confusion. I find it unlikely that He would try and fool us with false data.

"Your argue that these supposed inefficiencies or non-optimum designs demonstrate that God didn't do it. However if that is true, they make evolution a complete contradiction of any interpretation of Genesis 1:31- allegorical, epic, or literal. God either said that or He didn't. He either completed creation or He didn't. "

Not at all. There are two issues here.

The first issue is this. YErs and IDers often assert that the complexity of life and the pureposefull arrangement of parts indicates intelligent design. Now if these things are designed in a suboptimal way, then you are saying that our perfect God is not a very good designer. That just seems strange.

The second is this. Evolution has given us the world that God intended. Therefore it is "good." You choose, instead, to make baseless value judgements on what God would consider "good." Do you know how pompous, condescending, and arrogant that sounds?

 

[UTEOTW]

" If you really and truly believed that then you would be ecstatic about the possibilities of ID."

No. ID posits an easy answer for everything. "Goddidit" I prefer something a little more grounded. When I see a ball fall to the ground, I prefer to think that it fell due to the laws of the universe that God created than to think that He intervened to make it fall.

You are in a God of the Gaps. That is a dangerous place to be as gaps continue to be filled in. I prefer to think that the universe operates according to God's perfect laws. Just as it appears to do. It may turn out that some Gaps cannot be filled. That is a fine tim to turn to ID. But current proponents do so unnecissarily and often in places where such explanations are not needed.

"Design provides a much better explanation for coded information than does random events."

Except that the genome shows evidence of having been produced by such "random events" and that we have observed many processes that generate such such new codes.

"Thank you once again for very arrogantly deciding what I think and what it means."

Not really. When we see things that have a nice natural explanation, you keep insisting that we should also consider the supernatural. But you give us no idea on how to tell the difference.

Especially true on the biological world where the overwhelming evidence points to natural processes. Yet you still insist that God might have supernaturally put those genetic bits in there, for example. We have no way to tell the difference. But you think we should accept your assertion that God would intervene but make it look like He did not. How pompous, condescending, and arrogant.

" I came to the conclusion that my proposition that all animals descended from original kinds with a very rich, robust genome could accommodate whales being descended from land animals."

You say "PO-tay-to" I say "PO-ta-ta."

You saw enough evidence that it seemed reasonable to you that whales might have evolved from land animals.

Now let's see. How long from the flood until Jonah for those whales to have gone from land dwelling to sea dwelling and to have diversified into so many differnt kinds of whale?

In your world, the ancients should have recorded huge changes in "kinds" in every generation to get what you assert.

"Common descent can lead from a superior cat to a lesser cat. "

You know of superior cats? Which ones?

 

[UTEOTW]

" Didn't you basically just do it?

But in case you missed your own point:

http://jcs.biologists.org/cgi/content/abstract/107/4/903

http://www.jbc.org/cgi/content/full/276/39/36383 "

Thank you for demonstrating my point by giving examples of where simple Alu sequences have evolved into something useful.

You still do not seem to be grasping my point. We can see, in both of our examples, where this common and simple sequences can change through mutation inoto something useful. That blows the assertion that such changes cannot take place out of the water completely.

"Even worse for you, natural selection would not allow the preservation of over 1 million sequences in the human genome if they were in fact useless. In fact, about 10% of the human genome mass is made up of them... "

Just what do you think the mutation rate is? Transposons are really good at copying themselves around. Mostly to no effect at all. That is why there are so many of them. Are you asserting that extreme numbers of copies of the same sequence are somehow advantageous? How? The numbers of them have nothing to do with whether they are useful or not, contrary to your implied assertion. There is no neat process for snipping out the inserts if they do not serve a purpose. They will just slowly accumulate mutations. And as we have noth shown, some of those mutations will lead to useful genes.

"And in spite of the presupposition that shared insertion sites infer shared ancestory since inheritance is how we currently see them transmitted now, we don't know what caused the insertions in the first place nor where they came from. "

Common descent offers a good idea of where they came from. In your world, only, does it remain mysterious.

" No... that is simple, elementary logic. If something has the ability to be useful it is not accurate to call it useless just because its usefulness is potential rather than active."

Funny. It is useful only in a few cases out of many and only after mutation. Yet we are told that mutation cannot produce new, useful genetic material.

" Mutate as in change... an ability that is inherited from the parent as acknowledged and even trumpeted by you.... Yes, that fits right in. Sorry to disappoint you."

You do realize that mutate means change which means that it was not inherited just as it was.

No, random mutation produced new and useful genetic material in stark contrast tot he assertions of your kind.

" There is no evidence that this creates information by "mutation" independent of the genome from which the animal was descended. IOW's, you cannot say it is novel until you take the animals ancestor from 4000 years ago, sample its DNA and watch descendents for the next 4000 years to randomly express the trait."

It is independent because the mutation changes what was there in the ancestor. It IS new.

" Of course that presumes that it was random and not designed... of course if it works in response to stimuli using inherited code and characters then it doesn't quite constitute that grand proof you've been claiming."

So you are now asserting that the genome appears designed to mutate in a way that leads to new and useful genetic sequences. I believe I have said the same thing.

You continue to come around.

" That is a conclusion not proven by the evidence. You do not know that it is a new trait at all. You do not know that it isn't a recessive trait or even a routine expression in response to the right stimuli."

So certain stimli lead to specific mutations in response? I'd like to know your evidence for that, but it again sounds like you continue to distance yourself from other YEers by even suggesting that mutation can give new advantages.

Furthermore, I think if you go back to the original citation you will see that the authors tel you what the new sequence was used for. So it is a new trait.

"Because apes and possibly but not definitely monkeys descended from the same kind. They are also the most similar to us."

Huh?

They are most like us so we should both be littered with useless inserts of the same kind?

"As the Alu does appear to have adaptive value, species with elevated adaptive abilities would very likely accommodate the insertion and retention evidence you cite."

You may find yourself at odds with other YEers if you continue to accept that mutations can lead to adaptation. But it goes erfectly with what I have always asserted.

"BTW, what little we have found of supposed ancient dna in very simple creatures helps me and hurts you. If I am not mistaken the discovery that rocked genetic biologists a bit was in bacteria. Supposed ancient bacteria were actually more complex than the species that supposedly evolved "up" from them."

Citation?

What ancient bacteria?

How did we get a sample of their DNA?

What are these bacteria supposed to be ancestral to?

 

[UTEOTW]

"Consider that the exposure to the first radioactive material at the time of the Flood might easily have caused the same genetic damage in the few humans as in the few primates who survived."

Still enjoying that tea? Got any evidence to suport your assertion that radioactivity can cause the same damage across many different lineages in a huge number of cases?

"Now, about those primates and humans -- what excuse for evolution do you have for that 80% difference in proteins?"

The way the the differences are counted. The sequence difference in coding DNA is around 99% or greater. Your way of counting says that they are different based on as little as a single nucleotide substitution. There is nothing to be explained.

So why you are asking for questions to be answered, what about those hotspots?

http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/10/6004/7.html#000102

What about those beneficial mutations?

http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/10/6004/7.html#000103

"Small differences in proteins yield enormous differences in the organism."

And small difference can cause very little change.

A single substitution in the third position of a codon, if it even leads to a new protien, will cause an amino acid extremely similar to the previous amino acid to be substituted. Because the old and new amino acid will both be likely to be similar in their hydrophobic characteristics, when the protein folds, it should fold very much the same as it did before.