• Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

New Genetic Information

UTEOTW

New Member
"While I don't have time to get into this now (just about to leave on vacation)..."

It will be here when you get back.

"...I would ask what assumptions have been made here.

For example, have all the genes been taken into consideration, or just the ones which code for proteins? Since it has been discovered that DNA formerly thought to be junk actually performs functions such as gene activation, this is important.
"

I would encourage you to examine the evidence for yourself. If you can find specific mistakes, please point them out. More than likely, we can see where you are going. You will dispute the interpretation of the data. This is where the fun comes in. If you wish to challenge the assumption and the interpretations, then you will need to provide those better YE interpretations that never seem to materialize.

But there are a number of things which you will need to take into consideration as you formulate your alternative explanations. One of the first things mentioned is how most genes can be categorized into one of a small number of families based on similar sequences. This is an area where two things become important. One is that theoretical studies have shown that there are generally a very large number of potential proteins will be suited for a potential function. Second, while survival of the fittest is the catch phrase, often it is really survival of the barely adequate. Genes that are very similar perform different functions dispite the fact that there is very likely other proteins that could form each function much better. An alternate explanation would need to explain why an intelligently designed organism would use suboptimally designed sequences that are similar to one another rather that properly designing each individual gene for its intended purpose. On a related note, one reference I dug up yesterday but that I did not use (perhaps I'll look it up again later) notes that there are only a very small percentage of the possible protein folding arrangements actually used out of those which are possible. It would seem that an intelligently design organism would use everything available rather than using only a small subset. OTOH, it would be expected based on what we know of evolutionary mechanisms for folding patterns and gene sequences to be highly conserved towards that which has worked before.

Another aspect you would have to contend with is the evidence for actual duplication. For instance, at least one reference traced a whole series of duplication of the same gene by showing how particular segments in both introns and exons were repeated. In another case, a retroposon was inserted and over tens of millions of years it mutated until it became useful with lineage branches along the way providing means of determining when certain changes to the gene occurred. YOu would need to explain the presence of this particular pattern in the genome.

As far as your last part, I think that if you read through you will see that both coding and non-coding regions have been used to trace what happened. I'll agree that there have been discoveries in recent years that some parts that were formerly thought of as "junk" have been found to have regulatory purposes if you will acknowledge that much of it really is junk. I have told you several times in the past of methods that can be used to test whether a particular segment actually serves a purpose. Those which are useful will show a diverent pattern of mutation compared to those which are not useful, mainly in the distribution of mutations between the first, second and third positions of each codon. In material that is not useful, the mutations will be equally spread and in those that are useful, the mutations will be much more predominant in the third position. There should also be different rates of muation in selectively conserved sequences and mere junk.

"Also, the paper noted that some of the genes already contained nitralese genes - how do we know this information isn't ALREADY present?"

You say "the." Did you read them all? I cannot even find that term when searching my posts on this thread. Could you link to the post that you mean?

"Next, there is a lot of mention of plasmid DNA rather than nuclear DNA. How do we know these aren't designed to dynamicly adapt under pressure and then disable when the plasmids are de-activated in the abcense of pressure (such as in the case of the nylon eating bacteria)."

I am not sure what you are reading but I cannot find any mention of plasmid DNA on either page of this thread. Could you link to the post which you are talking about. I can find discusion of specific chromosomes, however.

But I still do not know why that even matters. DNA that serves a purpose serves a purpose whether it is nuclear or in plasmids. Adaptation is still adaptation. It is confusing why you should try and separate the two. In any case, the evidence for why it is believed that these genes evolved is presented. You are free to present a theory which better explains all aspects of the observations.

You might also want to explain your nylon bug assertion a bit better. If I remember correctly, it was a frameshift and several point mutations that led to the ability to digest nylon. I am not sure how that fits into whay you are saying.

Finally, you seem to be willing to accept the idea that plasmid DNA is adaptable, why not the whole genetic code? I personally think, and have posted this in the past, that the arrangement of the three letter codons and the differences that arise from changes to each position seems to indicate that the genetic code itself is optimized to adapt.

"Seems pretty unsubstantial to me."

Then you should have no trouble coming up with a better theory. But you did not seem to think the information challenege a few months ago would be very dificult, either, until you actually tried it. You declared victory without ever explaining why any of the examples were not examples of new "information."
 

UTEOTW

New Member
While looking through some of the latest publications, I came across another relevent paper.

This paper examines the role of duplication and subsequent mutation in the rise of eukaryotes. The entire article, not just an abstract, is online here.

http://nar.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/33/14/4626

Gene duplication is a crucial mechanism of evolutionary innovation. A substantial fraction of eukaryotic genomes consists of paralogous gene families. We assess the extent of ancestral paralogy, which dates back to the last common ancestor of all eukaryotes, and examine the origins of the ancestral paralogs and their potential roles in the emergence of the eukaryotic cell complexity. A parsimonious reconstruction of ancestral gene repertoires shows that 4137 orthologous gene sets in the last eukaryotic common ancestor (LECA) map back to 2150 orthologous sets in the hypothetical first eukaryotic common ancestor (FECA) [paralogy quotient (PQ) of 1.92]. Analogous reconstructions show significantly lower levels of paralogy in prokaryotes, 1.19 for archaea and 1.25 for bacteria. The only functional class of eukaryotic proteins with a significant excess of paralogous clusters over the mean includes molecular chaperones and proteins with related functions. Almost all genes in this category underwent multiple duplications during early eukaryotic evolution. In structural terms, the most prominent sets of paralogs are superstructure-forming proteins with repetitive domains, such as WD-40 and TPR. In addition to the true ancestral paralogs which evolved via duplication at the onset of eukaryotic evolution, numerous pseudoparalogs were detected, i.e. homologous genes that apparently were acquired by early eukaryotes via different routes, including horizontal gene transfer (HGT) from diverse bacteria. The results of this study demonstrate a major increase in the level of gene paralogy as a hallmark of the early evolution of eukaryotes.
Makarova KS, Wolf YI, Mekhedov SL, Mirkin BG, Koonin EV, Ancestral paralogs and pseudoparalogs and their role in the emergence of the eukaryotic cell, Nucleic Acids Res. 2005 Aug 16;33(14):4626-38.
 

UTEOTW

New Member
It is amazing how YEers make certain claims but then dissappear when asked to substantiate those claims. I hope to expose a few in this thread. No one really seems to want to take up the challenge. Gup, to his credit, did attempt one post. But he really did not address anything and it does not seem that he even read the thread as he was busy "refuting" things that were not even mentioned.

I see two main claims being exposed here. The first is the claim that there is no "new information" created through evolution. (With information conveniently never being defined.) This claim can only be made if you ignore the published scientific material. I continue to give examples. And to underscore the point, once a got some examples down, I have just been going to pubmed and searching with a few key words to see what has been published in the very recent past. There are new examples every week. YEers must ignore these ongoing discoveries to make their claims.

The second claim to be exposed is the one where they claim that YE is a better explanation for the data. When you really dig into the science and start looking at the details, they never have answers. They do have a few stories and vague ideas for some of the most general topics, but you never hear back when you dive into the details of these subjects or when you dive into subjects for which there are no AIG or ICR crib sheets. All I have to do is go straight to the science and I can get an overwheling amount of data. No need for crib sheets, though they can be useful for the common errors or YE. But you will not see a YEer come in here nad offer a better explaination for the data presented no matter how many times they claim to have it.

And getting back to the action, I have another example where the evolution of genes for making light sensing molecules are traced. The information is interesting and it is also relevant as it shows the role of gene duplications and subsequent mutation in the evolution of these genes.

Photoreceptors allow living organisms to optimize perception of light in the natural environment and thus to gain information about their external world. In this review, we describe blue and red light photoreceptors in bacteria, plants, and animals in relation to their evolution. Analyses performed in different organisms have revealed wonderful examples of structural modifications of the light-sensing proteins themselves, as well as diversification of the signal transduction pathways they use in relation with their evolutionary history and function. In different organisms, the same photoreceptor may have a very conserved role (convergent evolution of function) or may modulate different responses (acquisition of new function). Multiple photoreceptors of the same family in the same organism indicate gene duplication events during evolution, with a consequent enhanced sensitivity to variations in ambient light. Conversely, two different photoreceptors may be involved in the control of the same physiological response. Genomic analysis in marine diatoms, combined with phylogenetic studies, has also revealed the presence of blue and red light photoreceptors in the marine environment. This discovery has intriguing implications for the understanding of light perception and its evolution in photosynthetic organisms. In addition, the characterization of these photoreceptors likely will add to our understanding of photoreceptor diversity as an adaptation to different habitats.
Falciatore A, Bowler C, The evolution and function of blue and red light photoreceptors, Curr Top Dev Biol. 2005;68:317-50.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=16125004&query_hl=2
 

UTEOTW

New Member
I would like to keep hammering home the evidence available to suggest that duplication is an important process in the evolution of organisms providing increased genetic material which can be used to mutate into new genes.

This paper, to be published tomorrow, shows how analysis of the genomes of several vertebrates shows that there were two distinct duplications of the entire vertebrate genome that aided their evolution. This is similar to the posst above ( http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/66/104/2.html#000021 ) which demostrates the use of duplication in the rise of eukaryotes.

The hypothesis that the relatively large and complex vertebrate genome was created by two ancient, whole genome duplications has been hotly debated, but remains unresolved. We reconstructed the evolutionary relationships of all gene families from the complete gene sets of a tunicate, fish, mouse, and human, and then determined when each gene duplicated relative to the evolutionary tree of the organisms. We confirmed the results of earlier studies that there remains little signal of these events in numbers of duplicated genes, gene tree topology, or the number of genes per multigene family. However, when we plotted the genomic map positions of only the subset of paralogous genes that were duplicated prior to the fish-tetrapod split, their global physical organization provides unmistakable evidence of two distinct genome duplication events early in vertebrate evolution indicated by clear patterns of four-way paralogous regions covering a large part of the human genome. Our results highlight the potential for these large-scale genomic events to have driven the evolutionary success of the vertebrate lineage.
Dehal P, Boore JL, Two Rounds of Whole Genome Duplication in the Ancestral Vertebrate, PLoS Biol. 2005 Sep 6;3(10):e314.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=16128622&query_hl=2
 

UTEOTW

New Member
I will be unable to post for the next few days. I'll be back.

I thought I would update tghis thread before I go with another of the new papers that just made it to the top of my searches this week. I am hoping that one of the YEers who claim that the data can beeter be explained in their paradigm will come by and tell us why the pattern of a diverse set of genetics looks just like what you would expect if evolution were true and if new genes and metobolic pathways and novel features were largely the result of selection factors on duplication and mutation mechanisms acting upon the genome. I also hope Gup will be back from his vacation soon and pick up where he left off before leaving.

In any case, here is a study that traces how the family of genes involved in Insulin-Relaxin evolved. It shows how the best explanation is a combination of duplication of parts of the genome and the entire genome, at different points in time, and subsequent mutation of these duplicates.

The aims of the study were to outline the sequence of events that gave rise to the vertebrate insulin-relaxin gene family and the chromosomal regions in which they reside. We analyzed the gene content surrounding the human insulin/relaxin genes with respect to what family they belonged to and if the duplication history of investigated families parallels the evolution of the insulin-relaxin family members. Markov Clustering and phylogenetic analysis were used to determine family identity. More than 15% of the genes belonged to families that have paralogs in the regions, defining two sets of quadruplicate paralogy-regions. Thereby, the localization of insulin/relaxin genes in human is in accordance with that regions on human chromosomes 1, 11, 12, 19q (insulin/IGFs) and 1, 6p/15q, 9/5, 19p (INSLs/relaxins) were formed during two genome duplications. We compared the human genome with that of Ciona intestinalis, a species that split from the vertebrate lineage before the two suggested genome duplications. Two insulin-like orthologs were discovered in addition to the already described Ci-insulin gene. Conserved synteny between the Ciona regions hosting the insulin-like genes and the two sets of human paralogons implies their common origin. Linkage of the two human paralogons, as seen in human chromosome 1, as well as the two regions hosting the Ciona insulin-like genes, suggests that a segmental duplication gave rise to the entire region prior to the genome doublings. Thus, preserved gene content provides support that genome duplication(s) in addition to segmental and single gene duplications shaped the genomes of extant vertebrates.
Olinski RP, Lundin LG, Hallbook F, Conserved Synteny Between the Ciona Genome and Human Paralogons Identifies Large Duplication Events in the Molecular Evolution of the Insulin-Relaxin Gene Family, Mol Biol Evol. 2005 Aug 31.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=16135778&query_hl=1
 

UTEOTW

New Member
This abstract provides yet another example of evolution in action.

Again, the assertion is that most genetic novelty is produced by strings of duplication events and other mutational events. The result is that the genome fits into families or similar sequence but different function. There are even strong indications of how the process takes place in the pattern of repeated introns, division of genes into exons and the location and sequence of pseudogenes.

So here is another example of finding another gene family that has developed from a gene in a closely related gene family. There is enough detail to trace the phylogenetic relationships between the different genes.

This, once again, demonstrates that YE assertions about there being no ways to create "new information" are false. There not only are theoretical pathways, but these pathways have been shown operating in the present and the genomes reveal their effects in the past.

Adenosine deaminase (ADA) is a well-characterized enzyme involved in the depletion of adenosine levels. A group of proteins with similarity to ADA, the adenosine deaminase-related growth factors (ADGF; known as CECR1 in vertebrates), has been described recently in various organisms. We have determined the phylogenetic relationships of various gene products with significant amino acid similarity to ADA using parsimony and Bayesian methods, and discovered a novel paralogue, termed ADA-like (ADAL). The ADGF proteins share a novel amino acid motif, "MPKG," within which the proline and lysine residues are also conserved in the ADAL and ADA subfamilies. The significance of this new domain is unknown, but it is located just upstream of two ADA catalytic residues, of which all eight are conserved among the ADGF and ADAL proteins. This conservation suggests that ADGF and ADAL may share the same catalytic function as ADA, which has been proven for some ADGF members. These analyses also revealed that some genes previously thought to be classic ADAs are instead ADAL or ADGFs. We here define the ADGF, ADAL, ADA, adenine deaminase (ADE), and AMP deaminase (AMPD) groups as subfamilies of the adenyl-deaminase family. The availability of genomic data for the members of this family allowed us to reconstruct the intron evolution within the phylogeny and strengthen the introns-late hypothesis of the synthetic introns theory. This study shows that ADA activity is clearly more complex than once thought, perhaps involving a delicately balanced pattern of temporal and spatial expression of a number of paralogous proteins.
Maier SA, Galellis JR, McDermid HE, Phylogenetic Analysis Reveals a Novel Protein Family Closely Related to Adenosine Deaminase, J Mol Evol. 2005 Oct 20.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=16245011&query_hl=1
 

UTEOTW

New Member
Silence speaks louder than words.

The claim has been made that there is no mechanisms for generating novel genetic sequences, or "new information" as it is often called, through evolutionary means. THis thread has shown that such means do exists and that the observations from creation show them to be in used and the the genomes have evidence of them being the method by which the genome was built up. And we still do not have a YE challenge to the actual data.

One method that we have already discussed for providing new genes is alternative splicing. In this mechanism, exons are combined if various ways to produce new and different genes from the same sequence of DNA. This particular case looks at several different variants that provide various roles by alternative splicing.

Activating transcription factor (ATF) 3 plays a role in determining cell fate and generates a variety of alternatively spliced isoforms in stress response. We have previously reported that a splice variant ATF3Zip2, which lacks leucine zipper region, is induced in response to various stress stimuli. However, its biological function has not been elucidated. Using cells treated with TNF-a and actinomycin D or cells over-expressing ATF3Zip2, we show here that ATF3Zip2 sensitizes cells to apoptotic cell death in response to TNF-a, at least in part through suppressing nuclear factor (NF)-kB-dependent transcription of anti-apoptotic genes such as cIAP2 and XIAP. ATF3Zip2 interacts with a p65 (RelA)-cofactor complex containing CBP/p300 and HDAC1 at NF-kB sites of the proximal promoter region of cIAP2 gene in vivo, and down-regulates the recruitment of CBP/p300. Our study reveals that ATF3Zip2 counteracts anti-apoptotic activity of NF-kB, at least in part, by displacing positive co-factor CBP/p300, and provides an insight into the mechanism by which ATF3 regulates cell fate through alternative splicing in stress response.
Bayin H, Tamamori-Adachi M, Yang L, Tamura K, Morioka M, Fukuda M, Tanaka Y, Kitajima S., A splice variant of stress response gene ATF3 counteracts NF-kB-dependent anti-apoptosis through inhibiting recruitment of CBP/p300 co-activator, J Biol Chem. 2005 Nov 16.

http://www.jbc.org/cgi/reprint/M508471200v1

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=16291753&query_hl=1
 

BobRyan

Well-Known Member
Originally posted by UTEOTW:
You claim it is some how racist to claim that all humans share a common ancestor.
#1. ALL humans DO share a common ancestor - his name is Noah - and ultimately his name is Adam.

ALL land animals DO share common ancestors - For clean animals it is the set of Clean animals (by 7's) on the ark and for unclean animals it is the set of unclean animals (by 2's) on the ark.

Creationists INSIST that all life today can trace itself back to that set of common ancestors for the various "kinds".

#2. Because we start the lineages with "those base nodes" - Creationism predicts a bushy result with data showing mutation and variation splayed out from each of the ancestral nodes.

So as we look in the fossile record - Creationism expects us to find "change over time" as mutations splay out from the base nodes.


#3. Because we start with a trulyl "creative" and "Genius" Creator who presevers many of the land-animal "kinds" in the ark and because sin INTRODUCES extinction, exterminiation, carnage - Creationism expects a larger amount of base nodes, strains at the start with fewer "kinds" surviving in the carnage that follows - down to the present day.

#4. Because ALL animals are formed from the dust of this earth and because ALL are formed by the same Creator -- Creationism expects to find similarities in the makeup of the "living machinery" God uses to produce each of the pattern archtypes.

#5. Because The Creator is the one "building" the living systems - Creationism expects to find that those systems are "resilient" and capable of adapting to their environment (with bounds of the kind) and able to self-repair over time.

#6. Because of the sin principle noted in Romans 8 and 2Cor 5:1-2 - that is breaking down nature iteelf - Creationism expects to find increasing decay and instability in the living biosphere over time.

In Christ,

Bob
 

BobRyan

Well-Known Member
As with the bogus and debunked evolutionary tales (horse series, piltdown man. Archaeoraptor ) so are all the failed claims of evolutionism following the sme pattern. All these evolutionary-tales have one thing in common. "The Grey fog of new story telling" kept each of them "alive" for a while until "real science" could catch up to the "Story telling" of the psdeudoinece we call "Evolutionism".

In other words - evolutionism flourishes in the early hours of wild speculation first proposed - only to be choked to death when real science once again exposes the perfidity of the pseudoscience practitioners of evolutionism.

HENCE the quote - we have "FEWER examples of evolutionary transitions TODAY than we supposedly had in Darwin's day"

In Christ,

Bob
 

BobRyan

Well-Known Member
As for the "blind faith" of the evolutionist --

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />
So what is the truth about Archaeopteryx? Perhaps the late Colin Patterson, while serving as senior paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History, summed it up best when he stated that Archaeopteryx has simply become a patsy for wishful thinking. Is Archaeopteryx the ancestor of all birds? Perhaps yes, perhaps no: there is no way of answering the question.
It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another, and to find reasons why the stages should be favored by natural selection. But such stories are not a part of science, for there is no way of putting them to the test (as quoted in Sunderland, 1988, p. 102).
Looking for a recent example of the pseudoscience of evolutionism employing “Stories easy enough to make up” that are “not science” when it comes to lizard-to-bird stories? http://www.trueorigin.org/ng_ap01.asp
In the link above the question is asked
In what other area of science do we encounter such embarrassing forgeries as Haeckel’s “human gill slits,” England’s Piltdown Man, or China’s Archaeoraptor? It seems that all too often someone is prepared to make an outlandish claim—and back it up with what turns out to be “faked” evidence.
The pseudoscience authored by the “father of lies” has built into the core of its being “lies and deceit” masked as sincere atheist speculation to service their need for a non-god solution to origins!

The clear lesson of history is that the myths and fables of evolutionism only survive in the gray fog of uncertainty and speculation where science is not yet able to validate, certify, confirm, test, reproduce, measure facts and separate them from the bogus fiction of that “bad religion” we know as evolutionism.

But once the data is actually collected and the “full light of day is shining” the result is to erode more and more of the vast territory of speculation staked out by evolutionism’s priesthood.

David M. Raup, in Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin 50 (1979), p. 29.

"Well, we are now about 120 years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn’t changed much. The record of evolution is still surprisingly jerky and, ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin’s time.

"By this I mean that some of the classic cases of Darwinian change in the fossil record, such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information. What appeared to be a nice, simple progression when relatively few data were available now appears to be much more complex and much less gradualistic. So Darwin’s problem [with the fossil record] has not been alleviated." in the last 120 years and we still have a record which does show change but one which can hardly be look upon as the most reasonable consequence of natural selection.

—*David M. Raup, in Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin 50 (1979), p. 29.
In an article published several years ago in Paleobiology, Stephen Jay Gould of Harvard, and Niles Eldredge of the American Museum of Natural History, wrote concerning Archaeopteryx:
Smooth intermediates between Baupläne [the German word meaning basic morphological designs or different types of creatures—BH/BT] are almost impossible to construct, even in thought experiments. There is certainly no evidence for them in the fossil record (curious mosaics like Archaeopteryx do not count)” [Gould and Eldredge, 1977, 3:147, parenthetical comment in orig.].
Notice in the above quote - that what Colin Patterson calls “Stories easy enough to make up – but they are not science” is euphemistically called “thought experiments” by Gould and Eldredge!

"How [feathers] arose initially, presumably from reptiles scales, defies analysis... It seems, from the complex construction of feathers, that their evolution from reptilian scales would have required an immense period of time and involved a series of intermediate structures. So far, the fossil record does not bear out that supposition. (Barbara J. Stahl, Vertebrate History: Problems in Evolution, Dover, 1985, pp. 349-350.)"
</font>[/QUOTE]
 

UTEOTW

New Member
YOU must "be" very DESPERATE to "obfuscate" the ISSUE here SINCe "none" of your QUOTES has "anything to do" with the "subject" of THE thread.

THE "subject" is mechanisms used BY evolution TO GENERATE new genes "and" evidence from the GENOMES OF ORGANISMS "that show" these "mechanisms" to have been used BY EVOLUTION.

I MUST "assume" that you have "no quotes" to provide on EXON SHUFFLING or GENE DUPLICATION and are "instead" trying to "distract" FROM the REAL evidence with "your" our OF context quotes.

It DOES NOT work.
 

UTEOTW

New Member
Your Patterson quote is completely out of context. Patterson himself said regarding the quote that while it is "is accurate as far as it goes" that "the continuation of the passage shows clearly that your interpretation (at the end of your letter) is correct, and the creationists' is false." That alterante interpreation is that we cannot be 100% sure whether any given fossil is the direct ancestor of any other creature that we know of or whether it is a closely related side branch.

You might want to examine that Raup quote a little more closely. He is discussing how Darwin expected change to be gradual as we have discovered detailed series, such as the horse, we have found that they are not so gradual and linear but are instead jerky. The horse series was not discarded, it was changed as the details were filled in.

You have made the same mistake with Gould and Eldredge. They are again pointing out how evolutionary processes are not gradual. They are not saying Archy is not a transitional, they are saying that it fits in better with the idea of jerky evolution as opposed to smooth and gradual.

Your feather quote is simply too outdated to be useful. We have since discovered featheres in various transitional stages on dinosaurs and have figured out the genetic signaling pathways that lead to feathers.
 

BobRyan

Well-Known Member
Shuffling the existing population does not create new genes.

The population of lab rats never gains the gene for wings. Shuffle all day long please.

The population of dogs never gain duck bills or grow wings or spin a web or attempt geometry or make a bow and arrow.

The population of worms never obtain a human eye. Shuffle all day long please.

"Obviously".

My point was that in real cases as the quotes show - there is no "Actual" demonstration that one thing changed into another. And THIS was shown USING evolutionist (atheist evolutionist of course) confessions on various "inconvenient facts".

Facts you "need" to obfuscate, misdirect and gloss over. (As usual).

In Christ,

Bob
 

jcrawford

New Member
Well, shuffle my genes. With enough genetic engineering I ought to be able to sprout bird feathers on my shoulders and arms and fly with the dino-birds too even though such mythical absurdities may be equated with Greek myths like those of Daedalus and Icarus.
http://thanasis.com/icarus.htm
 

UTEOTW

New Member
"Shuffling the existing population does not create new genes."

No it does not.

But exon shuffling does.

"The population of lab rats never gains the gene for wings."

Red herring.

Why would you expect this?

"The population of dogs never gain duck bills or grow wings or spin a web or attempt geometry or make a bow and arrow."

Another red herring.

Why would you expect this?

"The population of worms never obtain a human eye."

Yet another red herring.

Why would you expect this?

"Facts you "need" to obfuscate, misdirect and gloss over."

The information presented on this thread examples of the means evolution uses to create novel genetic material and novel functions. It also shows evidence that the genome as a whole has been built up by such mechanisms.

That you must propose a string of red herrings instead of dealing with the actual evidence of the thread show who actually is doing the obfuscating.

"My point was that in real cases as the quotes show - there is no "Actual" demonstration that one thing changed into another. And THIS was shown USING evolutionist (atheist evolutionist of course) confessions on various "inconvenient facts"."

[YAWN]

Is this a reference to your dishonest, lying, misrepresenting, mischaracterized and false quotes? Call me when you have quotes whose meaning does not change when put in context.
 

UTEOTW

New Member
"Well, shuffle my genes. With enough genetic engineering I ought to be able to sprout bird feathers on my shoulders and arms and fly with the dino-birds too even though such mythical absurdities may be equated with Greek myths like those of Daedalus and Icarus."

How many red herrings can we get on one thread?

Y'all must be real desparate to obfuscate from the OP. It is a good sign that you have nothing factual to say about the issues of the OP.
 

jcrawford

New Member
Originally posted by UTEOTW:
"Well, shuffle my genes. With enough genetic engineering I ought to be able to sprout bird feathers on my shoulders and arms and fly with the dino-birds too even though such mythical absurdities may be equated with Greek myths like those of Daedalus and Icarus."

How many red herrings can we get on one thread?

Y'all must be real desparate to obfuscate from the OP. It is a good sign that you have nothing factual to say about the issues of the OP.
The OP is obfuscating in the first place.

What do you think we are? Neo-Darwinist race theorists or racial geneticists?
 

BobRyan

Well-Known Member
"The population of lab rats never gains the gene for wings."

UTEOTW --Red herring.
That should be your signature line.

The point remains. NEW genes for new structure is what is "claimed" in the myths of darwinian evolutionism - but never "Seen" to occur nature.

In fact "after 120 years we have FEWER examples of true transitions than we had to start with". The CLAIMS for the "NEW" Genetic information principle did not pan out with "more discovery" in the fossil record. RATHER even the bogus set that you had to "start with" began to unravel!

52 cards - shuffle them all day long. You will never get a 53rd card.

Obviously.

In Christ,

Bob
 

BobRyan

Well-Known Member
Originally posted by UTEOTW:
BACKGROUND:
RESULTS:
We examined the genetic neighborhood of the different subfamily genes and discovered conserved gene clusters or operons associated with specific nitrilase clades. The inferred evolutionary transitions that separate nitrilases which belong to different gene clusters correlated with changes in their enzymatic properties. ...
Hmm the " Inferred evolutionary transitions" -- how "telling".

From UTEOTW's first link

Three approaches were used to investigate the phylogeny and evolution of clathrin genes. First, extensive phylogenetic trees were constructed and gene divergence times were calculated. Genes flanking the clathrin genes were then analyzed to identify the likely mechanism by which each gene family duplicated. Finally, calculations were made to assess the likelihood of individual amino acids contributing to the development of different functions within the CHC and LC gene families.
Hmmm "assess the likelihood" that something happened.

"Climbing mount Improbably" anyone?

And finally from UTEOTW's second link --

In particular, we infer the evolutionary history of the regulatory program governing ribosomal modules. We show how a cis-element emerged concurrently in dozens of promoters of ribosomal protein genes, followed by the loss of a more ancient cis-element. We suggest that this formation of an intermediate redundant regulatory program allows conserved transcriptional modules to gradually switch from one regulatory mechanism to another while maintaining their functionality.
Hmmm - we "inferr" we "suggest"...

These are amazing "thought experiments" as Gould calls them -- "Stories easy enough to tell but they are not science" as Colin Patterson says regarding piles of "inferring" piled on top of moutains of "suggesting" and then spinning it all out to the public "as IF it was fact".

That is precisely how we got the discredited horse series! (Same song, different verse for the Darwinian Evolutionists!)

In Christ,

Bob
 
Top