A Bogey Moment: The Human Chromosome Count

_{Cornelius Hunter

August 24, 2009

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

In the 1954 movie The Caine Mutiny, Humphrey Bogart plays the compulsive-paranoid Captain Queeg who is relieved of duty when unable to deal with a dangerous storm at sea. Upon return to port two officers face a court-martial for mutiny. The trial goes badly for them and they appear to be destined for prison until the final testimony of Captain Queeg where his underlying paranoia is suddenly revealed. In the courtroom sideways looks and wide eyes reveal a collective revelation: “Ohh, noooowwww I understand.”

Read more

Comments

Dave Whisker,,,I mean this as nice as possible,,,,You are an absolute idiot if you think random "non-designed" processes compensated the information,,,,on top of that you are severely biased to a dogmatic point of atheism if you do not find the equilibrium anomalous as I do,,,,For you ignore a sensitized test, a gave rough reference to, just so to maintain your dubious claim to equilibrium is shoddy science in its most pristine form,,,especially since you claim to be so wise in these matters!!!bornagain77_{August 26, 2009
August
08
Aug
26
26
2009
04:07 AM
4
04
07
AM
PDT}

Cabal asks: "Did your research take you to things like LGT, lateral gene transfer? Or the experiment where mice in perfect health was born even after a good chunk of the genome had been removed? Gene duplication? Why do we have DNA that is not in use in our genome?" Yes, first, ""Did your research take you to things like LGT, lateral gene transfer?" The malaria parasite, due to its comparatively enormous population size, has in 1 year more mutation/duplication/selection events than all mammal lineages have had in the entire +100 million years they have been in the fossil record. Moreover, since single cell organisms and viruses replicate, and mutate/duplicate, far more quickly than multi-cellular life-forms can, scientists can do experiments on single celled organisms and viruses to see what we can actually expect to happen over millions of years for mammals with far smaller population sizes. Malaria and AIDS are among the largest real world tests that can be performed to see if evolutionary presumptions are true. "Indeed, the work on malaria and AIDS demonstrates that after all possible unintelligent processes in the cell--both ones we've discovered so far and ones we haven't--at best extremely limited benefit, since no such process was able to do much of anything. It's critical to notice that no artificial limitations were placed on the kinds of mutations or processes the microorganisms could undergo in nature. Nothing--neither point mutation, deletion, insertion, gene duplication, transposition, genome duplication, self-organization nor any other process yet undiscovered--was of much use." Michael Behe, The Edge of Evolution, pg. 162 Swine Flu, Viruses, and the Edge of Evolution http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/05/swine_flu_viruses_and_the_edge.html Then you ask,,, "Or the experiment where mice in perfect health was born even after a good chunk of the genome had been removed?" I actually got into a debate with DaveScot on this one since he wanted to use it for a very radical front loading scenario: Dave: That such a mechanism exists seems evident in the result of a knockout experiment where 1.5 million base pairs of DNA highly conserved between mouse and man was deleted from the mouse and the resultant GM mice were indistinguishable in any metric from unmodified mice. Me: Very suggestive I admit,,yet,,, I could remove major portions of a car and still have a car that performed in its basic functions, but I contend that it would suffer in other areas that may not be noticeable to the test the scientists used to determine robustness! I even dug down to the paper and found that the scientists who did the knockout experiment readily admitted that it was premature to suppose the "knockout mice" are as robust as the untampered mice... In fact i suggested "stressed reproductive test" so as to differentiate the anomalous "equal fitness" finding....i.e. Why do evolutionists never find equilibrium anomalous? https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/eugene-koonin-ncbi-on-biologys-big-bangs/#comment-141225 Then you asks: "Gene duplication?" Excerpt: The fitness cost of carrying both plasmids increased dramatically as antibiotic levels were raised, and either the wild-type plasmid was lost or the cells did not grow. This study highlights the importance of the cost of duplicate genes and the quantitative nature of the tradeoff in the evolution of gene duplication through functional divergence. https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/edge-of-evolution-review-in-science-magazine/#comment-124213 Sanford Genetic Entropy Polyploidy - (Duplication Fallacies) http://livinglove.files.wordpress.com/2007/08/appendix4-pg3.pdf http://livinglove.files.wordpress.com/2007/08/appendix4-pg2.pdf Then Cabal presupposes non-functionality (Junk) in the genome,,,, "Why do we have DNA that is not in use in our genome?" Cabal do you really want me to reveal how many times evolutionists have been burnt on the presupposition of "junk, useless, or vestigial"???bornagain77_{August 26, 2009
August
08
Aug
26
26
2009
04:01 AM
4
04
01
AM
PDT}

Cabal, Did your research take you to things like LGT, lateral gene transfer? Or the experiment where mice in perfect health was born even after a good chunk of the genome had been removed? Gene duplication? Why do we have DNA that is not in use in our genome? bornagain fails to note he was told about work by Estes and Lynch which showed that populations of C elegans which had been given enormous genetic loads of detrimental mutations still managed to recover fitness quickly, most likely due to compensatory mutations. This of course, directly contradicts the thesis of Sanford's Gebnetic Entropy hypothesis.Dave Wisker_{August 26, 2009
August
08
Aug
26
26
2009
03:43 AM
3
03
43
AM
PDT}

#21 bornagain That the experiments were done in vitro does not matter since they answer very abstract questions about the relationship between fold/function space and sequence space for proteins. the sauer experiment gives a lower limit for the distance of two different folds in sequence space: one amino acid similarly, the szostak-experiment gives a lower limit of sequence diversity you need to find a protein with a specific function. it should be also noted that they found at least four different and independent sequence families capable of the same function and for each family they found multiple members. Thus, in their 10exp12 sequences it was not hard to find a solution. That they found only one binding activity is simply due to the fact that they only looked for atp binders and nothing else in this one experiment. Experimental results with similar pools of RNA sequences indicate that you normally have multiple functions in the same pool. Furthermore, a pool with 10exp12 random protein sequence variants of an 80 amino acid protein is less than one microgramm of material.rna_{August 26, 2009
August
08
Aug
26
26
2009
12:55 AM
12
12
55
AM
PDT}

Cabal you can take this to the bank,,,Genetic Entropy is the true foundational rule for all of biology. After much research, I find the principle of Genetic Entropy to be the true principle for biological adaptations which directly contradicts unguided Darwinian evolution.
Did your research take you to things like LGT, lateral gene transfer? Or the experiment where mice in perfect health was born even after a good chunk of the genome had been removed? Gene duplication? Why do we have DNA that is not in use in our genome?
the evidence for the detrimental nature of mutations in humans is overwhelming for doctors have already cited over 3500 mutational disorders
So what? Who says otherwise? The fact of detrimental mutations is not evidence against advantageous mutations. As far as I understand ToE I even believe a bad mutation like sickle cell anemia may sometimes be an advantage. Who knows, maybe further mutation might improve it?Cabal_{August 25, 2009
August
08
Aug
25
25
2009
11:48 PM
11
11
48
PM
PDT}

SingBlueSilver Thank you for your posts. You wrote (#30):
The hypothesis is that we are related to chimps. We have one less chromosome. Therefore, they predicted we should have a fused chromosome. A successful prediction is the hallmark of a good scientific theory.
I think you have a valid point here, and I would personally agree the discovery of a fused chromosome is prima facie evidence of a shared common ancestry between humans and chimps. The same goes for your vitamin C argument. However, saying that we're related to chimps is not saying much. After all, it was you who insisted in #14 above:
I'm NOT talking about the mechanism of evolution.
Thus by your own admission, the discovery of evidence that humans and chimps share a common ancestry does NOT tell us whether an undirected process gave rise to the human line or not. Recent evidence cited by Dr. Hunter in an earlier post at https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/more-chimp-human-genome-problems/ invites the question of whether the startling genetic differences between humans and other primates in the so-called "Human Accelerated Regions" (HARs) of the genome might have been engineered by some Designer. You may object that the mechanism of the Designer's engineering process is not specified; but the same objection would apply to the bare hypothesis that humans and chimps are related.vjtorley_{August 25, 2009
August
08
Aug
25
25
2009
09:26 PM
9
09
26
PM
PDT}

CORRECT FIRST LINE TO,,,, “If you think that that one supposed validated prediction,,,,, Out of curiosity, why do you use multiple commas in a row?Learned Hand_{August 25, 2009
August
08
Aug
25
25
2009
08:49 PM
8
08
49
PM
PDT}

SingBlueSilver (32):
Nothing would have been conclusive.
There are many failed predictions of evolution which are remedied by adding more complexity to the theory, and I think this would have been another such case. But I agree with you that it wouldn't have been conclusive in the sense that the science would not have backed up the theory adjustments very well, so the explanation would remain open to revision. This is precisely the case for many of evolution's patches. Be that as it may, the more important point, which you seem to agree with, is that evolution would not have been damaged in the eyes of its adherents. They would have continued to tout that it is a fact. I suspect this simply because that is the track record. So given that the theory would have been modified (albeit perhaps inconclusively), but otherwise undamaged, you can see that this evidence (ie, the fusion event that we do infer) is not particularly strong. Unfortunately, there is a history of evolutionists touting successful predictions as falsifiers of the overarching theory, had they turned out wrong. Whereas, OTH, those predictions that are falsified, and they are many and significant, never do any harm. The theory is merely modified to accommodate.Cornelius Hunter_{August 25, 2009
August
08
Aug
25
25
2009
08:32 PM
8
08
32
PM
PDT}

CORRECT FIRST LINE TO,,,, "If you think that that one supposed validated prediction,,,,,bornagain77_{August 25, 2009
August
08
Aug
25
25
2009
08:17 PM
8
08
17
PM
PDT}

SingBlue,,, If you think that that one supposed failed prediction, (it is not even a true prediction when taken in true total context of what is actually being weighed), would have been a thorn in the side to the great "can do no wrong" myth of evolution you severely deluded! Indeed none of these following major failures in evolutionary predictive power seem to have had the slightest ripple in evolution's stranglehold of rational science: Materialism/Evolution predicted much of the DNA code was junk. Theism predicted we are fearfully and wonderfully made - ENCODE research into the DNA has revealed a "biological jungle deeper, denser, and more difficult to penetrate than anyone imagined.". - Materialism/Evolution predicted a extremely beneficial and flexible mutation rate for DNA which was ultimately responsible for all the diversity and complexity of life we see on earth. Theism predicted only God created life on earth - The mutation rate to DNA is overwhelmingly detrimental. Detrimental to such a point that it is seriously questioned whether there are any truly beneficial mutations whatsoever. (M. Behe; JC Sanford) - Materialism/Evolution predicted a very simple first life form which accidentally came from "a warm little pond". Theism predicted God created life - The simplest life ever found on Earth is far more complex than any machine man has made through concerted effort. (Michael Denton PhD) - Materialism/Evolution predicted it took a very long time for life to develop on earth. Theism predicted life to appear abruptly on earth after water appeared on earth (Genesis 1:10-11) - We find evidence for complex photo-synthetic life in the oldest sedimentary rocks ever found on earth - Materialism/Evolution predicted the gradual unfolding of life to be self-evident in the fossil record. Theism predicted complex and diverse life to appear abruptly in the seas in God's fifth day of creation. - The Cambrian Explosion shows a sudden appearance of many different and completely unique fossils within a very short "geologic resolution time" in the Cambrian seas. - Materialism/Evolution predicted there should be numerous transitional fossils found in the fossil record, Theism predicted sudden appearance and rapid diversity within different kinds found in the fossil record - Fossils are consistently characterized by sudden appearance of a group/kind in the fossil record, then rapid diversity within the group/kind, and then long term stability and even deterioration of variety within the overall group/kind, and within the specific species of the kind, over long periods of time. Of the few dozen or so fossils claimed as transitional, not one is uncontested as a true example of transition between major animal forms out of millions of collected fossils. - Materialism/Evolution predicted animal speciation should happen on a somewhat constant basis on earth. Theism predicted man was the last species created on earth - Man himself is the last generally accepted major fossil form to have suddenly appeared in the fossil record. - The point is Sing you are deceiving yourself if you think your one example of non-impressive predictive power for evolution would of done anything to the pagan religion of evolution if it would have been found to not be so,,,,ASK YOURSELF SING,,,AND TRY TO BE HONEST,,,WHY DID NONE OF THE OTHER PREDICTIONS MATTER?bornagain77_{August 25, 2009
August
08
Aug
25
25
2009
08:05 PM
8
08
05
PM
PDT}

What if it hadn’t been found? Do you think evolution would have been dropped, or do you think it merely would have been modified to accommodate the new finding?
It would have been a major thorn. They would have kept looking for what happened to the missing chromosome. Nothing would have been conclusive.SingBlueSilver_{August 25, 2009
August
08
Aug
25
25
2009
07:43 PM
7
07
43
PM
PDT}

SingBlueSilver (30):
They knew to look for a fused chromosome because, according to the hypothesis of common descent, we were short one.
What if it hadn't been found? Do you think evolution would have been dropped, or do you think it merely would have been modified to accommodate the new finding? (Given long time periods, chromosomal restructing can occur, blah, blah, etc...).Cornelius Hunter_{August 25, 2009
August
08
Aug
25
25
2009
06:58 PM
6
06
58
PM
PDT}

bornagain77, My argument has nothing to do with whether a fusion caused or could cause morphological change. Nothing to do with genome size, or whether such and such does or does not code for anything, or information increase or decrease, or apple pie recipes, or Paris. I again repeat: They knew to look for a fused chromosome because, according to the hypothesis of common descent, we were short one.SingBlueSilver_{August 25, 2009
August
08
Aug
25
25
2009
06:10 PM
6
06
10
PM
PDT}

DATCG: Ah, thanks for catching that mistake!Cornelius Hunter_{August 25, 2009
August
08
Aug
25
25
2009
05:06 PM
5
05
06
PM
PDT}

Sing, the prediction has everything to do with c-value enigma! Materialism/Evolution predicted "information" (as well as everything else "spiritual") was an emergent property of some material basis. Thus if evolution were true and could be correlated to some fundamental law of nature which could be rigorously codified to math somehow, then the functional information in a genome should naturally follow some logical progression of material size to informational complexity,,,but yet this is not the case at all and is to be counted as a severely missed prediction of evolution/materialism!!,,,In fact we find genome sizes all over the map,,,, in fact when evolution was attempted to be brought into a law of math, with the modern neo-Darwinian synthesis that was developed by Haldane, Fisher and Wright,,,it was severely humiliated by the interwoven complexity findings of ENCODE. This is because evolution was forced, by the rigorously established proof of Mendelian genetics, to no longer view the whole organism as to what natural selection works upon, but to view the whole organism as a multiple independent collection of genes which can be selected or discarded as natural selection sees fit. Thus the “complex interwoven network” finding of ENCODE was absolutely devastating for the population genetics scenario of evolution (modern neo-Darwinian synthesis) developed by Haldane, Fisher and Wright since evolution no longer had unfettered access to the genes which carry the traits natural selection is suppose to select for in order to make evolution plausible...Of course all the devastating evidence is completely ignored by evolutionists.... And to top it all off sing "information' is now shown to be a completely independent entity with dominion over matter and energy. Converting Quantum Bits: Physicists Transfer Information Between Matter and Light Excerpt: A team of physicists at the Georgia Institute of Technology has taken a significant step toward the development of quantum communications systems by successfully transferring quantum information from two different groups of atoms onto a single photon. http://gtresearchnews.gatech.edu/newsrelease/quantumtrans.htm How Teleportation Will Work - Excerpt: In 1993, the idea of teleportation moved out of the realm of science fiction and into the world of theoretical possibility. It was then that physicist Charles Bennett and a team of researchers at IBM confirmed that quantum teleportation was possible, but only if the original object being teleported was destroyed. --- As predicted, the original photon no longer existed once the replica was made. http://in.geocities.com/info_aruni/tele.htm Scientific Evidence For God Creating The Universe - 2008 - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JQhO906v0VM Explaining Information Transfer in Quantum Teleportation: Armond Duwell †‡ University of Pittsburgh Excerpt: In contrast to a classical bit, the description of a qubit requires an infinite amount of information. The amount of information is infinite because two real numbers are required in the expansion of the state vector of a two state quantum system (Jozsa 1997, 1) --- Concept 2. is used by Bennett, et al. Recall that they infer that since an infinite amount of information is required to specify a qubit, an infinite amount of information must be transferred to teleport. http://www.cas.umt.edu/phil/faculty/duwell/DuwellPSA2K.pdfbornagain77_{August 25, 2009
August
08
Aug
25
25
2009
04:35 PM
4
04
35
PM
PDT}

bornagain77, Your argument about the C-value enigma makes no sense. Genome size was assumed to correlate with genes. Then they found out that much of the genome is non-coding. So what? Then you said, for the five thousand, two hundred, and thirty seventh time that "fusion doesn't produce morphological changes." So what? My argument has nothing to do with whether a fusion caused or could cause morphological change. Nothing to do with genome size, or whether such and such does or does not code for anything, or information increase or decrease, or apple pie recipes, or Paris. I again repeat: They knew to look for a fused chromosome because, according to the hypothesis of common descent, we were short one.SingBlueSilver_{August 25, 2009
August
08
Aug
25
25
2009
03:48 PM
3
03
48
PM
PDT}

Sing, The evolutionary prediction of "supposed" fusion is only successful if you ignore the primary failed prediction of the c-value enigma that evolution predicted and missed, as well as the concern genetic entropy has for the event IF it truly occurred,,, If you want to claim this as victory for evolution you are severely misguided as to how to practice rigorous science. Moreover the event truly does not have anything to do with evolution since you have no morphological change from fusion events to back you up, and since it can be explained much more satisfactorily within the genetic entropy framework which, need I remind, is based on foundational principles of science,,,, whereas I can find no foundation for evolution,,,.... that you would continue to claim this has something to do with evolution clearly shows your dogmatic bias,,, to the point of continually, and maybe even willingly, being deceptive when shown your fallacy of reasoning.bornagain77_{August 25, 2009
August
08
Aug
25
25
2009
02:38 PM
2
02
38
PM
PDT}

bornagain77, More Ignoracio Elenchi. I'm glad this fallacy has a term! Because you just can't stop doing it! You flirted with the argument at the end, but then said "What about all the failed predictions of evolution?" My argument is NOT about successful predictions vs failed predictions. I'm not arguing the entire freaking case for human evolution, so stop trying to suck me into it. My argument was in response to the original post which said that "such a fusion event has nothing to do with evolution" which is utterly false. Address that argument, or don't. Your choice.SingBlueSilver_{August 25, 2009
August
08
Aug
25
25
2009
02:21 PM
2
02
21
PM
PDT}

You know singblue,,,you keep harping that this was a successful prediction of evolution,,,though you seem to admit this is far from proving common descent,,,,but be honest with yourself singblue,,,,in all integrity of the overall picture, this was actually a failed prediction of evolution due to this following "natural" prediction for evolution: C-value enigma Excerpt: it was soon found that C-values (genome sizes) vary enormously among species and that this bears no relationship to the presumed number of genes (as reflected by the complexity of the organism). For example, the cells of some salamanders may contain 40 times more DNA than those of humans. Given that C-values were assumed to be constant because DNA is the stuff of genes, and yet bore no relationship to presumed gene number, this was understandably considered paradoxical; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C-value_enigma Now be honest singblue, why should evolution be allowed to miss all the major predictions that naturally fall to it, of which there are numerous failed instances, and then when a supposed, and very dubious, fusion event is discovered you claim a stunning victory for evolutionary predictive power. Indeed why should you adamantly claim this as a clean and clear unbiased prediction for evolution, especially considering genetic entropy has all rights to first try at explanation from what we know to be true from the first principles of science (LCI: Second Law) That you would be so forgiving of the many gross failed predictions of evolution and then be such a cheerleader for such a trivial dubious prediction, reveals that you have an extreme philosophical bias towards evolution. If you were truly concerned with the truth should you not seek something vastly more substantial to make your claims with? Why should you be satisfied with what I have clearly shown to be so flimsy?bornagain77_{August 25, 2009
August
08
Aug
25
25
2009
01:08 PM
1
01
08
PM
PDT}

Sing, What you basically got is an orginizational problem with the whole Chromosome 2 scenario: DNA Packaging: Nucleosomes and Chromatin each of us has enough DNA to go from here to the Sun and back more than 300 times, or around Earth's equator 2.5 million times! How is this possible? http://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/DNA-Packaging-Nucleosomes-and-Chromatin-310 DNA Wrapping - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AF2wwMReTf8 DNA Double Helix - Information - Transcription - Dean Kenyon - video http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1035347611954150174 Basically you requiring me to suspend my disbelief that organizational information was required to make such a dramatic shift in 100% poly-constrained/poly-functional information so as in order to believe random processes were totally responsible for the shift,,,As well you want me to make up a belief for morphological change from apes to humans (through totally random processes) though all fusion events we have evidence of show no major morphological change,,, Need I remind you of the suddeness and the stability of the fossil record, as well as the gaps that exist? "Fossil evidence of human evolutionary history is fragmentary and open to various interpretations. Fossil evidence of chimpanzee evolution is absent altogether". Evolutionist Henry Gee, Nature 2001 http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v412/n6843/full/412131a0.html "The australopithecine (Lucy) skull is in fact so overwhelmingly simian as opposed to human that the contrary proposition could be equated to an assertion that black is white." Lord Solly Zuckerman - Chief scientific advisor to British government and leading zoologist A 2004 book by leading evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr stated that "The earliest fossils of Homo, Homo rudolfensis and Homo erectus, are separated from Australopithecus (Lucy) by a large, unbridged gap. How can we explain this seeming saltation? Not having any fossils that can serve as missing links, we have to fall back on the time-honored method of historical science, the construction of a historical narrative.” Misrepresentations of the Evidence for Human Evolutionary Origins: http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/04/texas_hold_em_part_ii_calling_1.html#more Evolution of the Genus Homo - Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences - Tattersall, Schwartz, May 2009 Excerpt: "Definition of the genus Homo is almost as fraught as the definition of Homo sapiens. We look at the evidence for “early Homo,” finding little morphological basis for extending our genus to any of the 2.5–1.6-myr-old fossil forms assigned to “early Homo” or Homo habilis/rudolfensis." http://arjournals.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev.earth.031208.100202 This following site has a graph which was made by an evolutionist. The graph can be enlarged by clicking on the image. The graph, though made by an evolutionist with an extreme bias for "shoehorning", shows just how stable each of the hominid species is over the long periods of time they are found in the fossil record, as well as each hominid's "abrupt appearance" in the fossil record. Man is, of course, the last hominid species to "abruptly appear" in the graph. As well the graph shows the only actual transition ever witnessed by anyone, between any of the stable hominid lineages on the graph, is in the imaginations of the evolutionists who draw the connecting lines between the stable hominid lineages on such graphs. I guess drawing connecting lines on graphs represents hard physical evidence for them. Perhaps they can forgive me for being less than impressed with their imaginary "lines of evidence" for human evolution. Hominid Fossil Graph http://www.handprint.com/LS/ANC/evol.gif Man is indeed as unique, as different from all other animals, as had been traditionally claimed by theologians and philosophers. Evolutionist Ernst Mayr http://www.y-origins.com/index.php?p=home_more4 “Something extraordinary, if totally fortuitous, happened with the birth of our species….Homo sapiens is as distinctive an entity as exists on the face of the Earth, and should be dignified as such instead of being adulterated with every reasonably large-brained hominid fossil that happened to come along.” Anthropologist Ian Tattersall (curator at the American Museum of Natural History) If you want to make evolutionist Henry Gee mad at you remind him that he once wrote this following "true" statement: “To take a line of fossils and claim that they represent a lineage is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested, but an assertion that carries the same validity as a bedtime story, amusing, perhaps even instructive, but not scientific.” Evolutionist - Henry Gee, editor of Nature, on the feasibility of reconstructing phylogenetic trees from fossils So please tell me why should I take your word that man evolved from apes based on the chromosome 2 evidence? Just because you have faith that it was so? Excuse me but I already have a faith and I don't need yours especially when you have absolutely no solid evidence but onloy wishful speculation.bornagain77_{August 25, 2009
August
08
Aug
25
25
2009
12:17 PM
12
12
17
PM
PDT}

bornagain77, The issue at hand is not: "fusion causes morphological changes" but "fusion was predicted by common descent, and thus, common descent is a successful scientific theory." Unless you address that specific argument, I will ignore your future prognostications about Wookies on Kashyyyk.SingBlueSilver_{August 25, 2009
August
08
Aug
25
25
2009
09:43 AM
9
09
43
AM
PDT}

rna, Experiment was done in vitro--- on top of that to only one binding site on top of that 1 in 10^12 which I addressed “Estimates for the density of functional proteins in sequence space range anywhere from 1 in 10^12 to 1 in 10^77. No matter how you slice it, proteins are rare. Useful ones are even more rare.” http://www.nature.com/nbt/journal/v24/n3/full/nbt0306-328.htmlbornagain77_{August 25, 2009
August
08
Aug
25
25
2009
09:32 AM
9
09
32
AM
PDT}

SingBlue, You are maintaining the similarity is proof of common ancestry, yet the proteins produced by the genes are very dissimilar (+80%),,,as well when we draw back from the biased methodology, used by materialists, of only counting protein coding genes as proof of similarity (as is more than warranted due the virtual 100% functionality found by ENCODE) the similarity falls to below 70%.(Richard Buggs) On top of all this you are miles away from proving the supposed fusion was a random event as required by non-teleological evolution,,,, To top all that off Dave has listed references of mice and goats which fused chromosomes and had demonstrated no gross morphological change to the fusion (This scenario screams designed repositioning of functional information),,,Why should we presuppose that the supposed fusion occurred in a ape ancestor when we have no evidence of gross morphological change from the fusion events we witness? As well the loss of information suffered by the supposed fusion event is "going backwards" as to how much functional complexity present is concerned i.e. why not presuppose a created human ancestor that has suffered genetic entropy? ,,,thus you have not even come near falsifying the main principle of Genetic Entropy....To top all this off all the evidence we have for human evolution confirms this "loss of information" we should primarily presuppose! Ancient DNA and the origin of modern humans: John H. Relethford Excerpt: Adcock et al. (7) clearly demonstrate the actual extinction of an ancient mtDNA lineage belonging to an anatomically modern human, because this lineage is not found in living Australians. Although the fossil evidence provides evidence of the continuity of modern humans over the past 60,000 years,,,, http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=33358 "We found an enormous amount of diversity within and between the African populations, and we found much less diversity in non-African populations," Tishkoff told attendees today (Jan. 22) at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science in Anaheim. "Only a small subset of the diversity in Africa is found in Europe and the Middle East, and an even narrower set is found in American Indians." Tishkoff; Andrew Clark, Penn State; Kenneth Kidd, Yale University; Giovanni Destro-Bisol, University "La Sapienza," Rome, and Himla Soodyall and Trefor Jenkins, WITS University, South Africa, looked at three locations on DNA samples from 13 to 18 populations in Africa and 30 to 45 populations in the remainder of the world.- High genomic deleterious mutation rates in hominids Excerpt: Furthermore, the level of selective constraint in hominid protein-coding sequences is atypically (unusually) low. A large number of slightly deleterious mutations may therefore have become fixed in hominid lineages. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v397/n6717/abs/397344a0.html Professional evolutionary biologists are hard-pressed to cite even one clear-cut example of evolution through a beneficial mutation to the DNA of humans which would violate the principle of genetic entropy. Although a materialist may try to claim the lactase persistence mutation as a lonely example of a "truly" beneficial mutation in humans, lactase persistence is actually a loss of a instruction in the genome to turn the lactase enzyme off, so the mutation clearly does not violate Genetic Entropy. Yet at the same time, the evidence for the detrimental nature of mutations in humans is overwhelming for doctors have already cited over 3500 mutational disorders (Dr. Gary Parker). "Mutations" by Dr. Gary Parker Excerpt: human beings are now subject to over 3500 mutational disorders. http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/cfol/ch2-mutations.asp and again why do you address the glaring dissimilarity while only quoting similarity gained through biased methodology? Chimpanzee? 10-10-2008 - Dr Richard Buggs - research geneticist at the University of Florida ...Therefore the total similarity of the genomes could be below 70%. http://www.refdag.nl/artikel/1366432/Chimpanzee.html More Chimp-Human Genome Problems - Cornelius Hunter Excerpt: Even more interesting, at these locations the chimp's genome is quite similar to other primates--it is the human that differs from the rest, not the chimp. (human accelerated regions (HARs). http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2009/08/more-chimp-human-genome-problems.html Thus SingBlue once again you are miles away from establishing your case conclusively,,,But you jump up and down screaming it is so does nothing if you fail to address the elephant in the living room,,, in other words YOU GOT BIG TIME PROBLEMS.bornagain77_{August 25, 2009
August
08
Aug
25
25
2009
09:28 AM
9
09
28
AM
PDT}

#16, bornagain 77 - isolation of different functional protein folds in sequence space: Sauer, R.T. (MIT): nature structural biology, dec. 2000, pg. 1129-1132 An evolutionary bridge to a new protein fold. abstract: Arc repressor bearing the N11L substitution (Arc-N11L) is an evolutionary intermediate between the wild type protein, in which the region surrounding position 11 forms a beta-sheet, and a double mutant 'switch Arc', in which this region is helical. Here, Arc-N11L is shown to be able to adopt either the wild type or mutant conformations. Exchange between these structures occurs on the millisecond time scale in a dynamic equilibrium in which the relative populations of each fold depend on temperature, solvent conditions and ligand binding. The N11L mutation serves as an evolutionary bridge from the beta-sheet to the helical fold because in the mutant, Leu is an integral part of the hydrophobic core of the new structure but can also occupy a surface position in the wild type structure. Conversely, the polar Asn 11 side chain serves as a negative design element in wild type Arc because it cannot be incorporated into the core of the mutant fold. - finding functional proteins in random sequences Szostak, JW Nature (2001) 410:715-718 Functional proteins from a random-sequence library. Abstract: Functional primordial proteins presumably originated from random sequences, but it is not known how frequently functional, or even folded, proteins occur in collections of random sequences. Here we have used in vitro selection of messenger RNA displayed proteins, in which each protein is covalently linked through its carboxy terminus to the 3' end of its encoding mRNA, to sample a large number of distinct random sequences. Starting from a library of 6 x 10exp12 proteins each containing 80 contiguous random amino acids, we selected functional proteins by enriching for those that bind to ATP. This selection yielded four new ATP-binding proteins that appear to be unrelated to each other or to anything found in the current databases of biological proteins. The frequency of occurrence of functional proteins in random-sequence libraries appears to be similar to that observed for equivalent RNA libraries.rna_{August 25, 2009
August
08
Aug
25
25
2009
08:49 AM
8
08
49
AM
PDT}

bornagain77, Aha! Found it! Ignoratio elenchi "...the informal fallacy of presenting an argument that may in itself be valid, but does not address the issue in question."SingBlueSilver_{August 25, 2009
August
08
Aug
25
25
2009
08:33 AM
8
08
33
AM
PDT}

Joseph,
Common ancestry is an ad hoc explanation as no one knows whether or not the tarnsformations required are even possible.
Tu Quoque Fallacy. Instead of addressing my criticism of your explanation, you just resort to "well, you do it too!" Thus, getting out of the argument.
A fusion event isn’t predicted by evolution, never mind non-telic processes.
Yes, it is. It's predicted because we have one less chromosome than apes, when we are supposed to be related to apes. An obvious problem for common descent. They knew to look for it because of evolution.
What you don’t have is a way to test your premise. All you have is a declaration.
It isn't a premise or even a declaration. It's a piece of data from the real world. We have one less chromosome than apes. We are supposed to be related to apes. A problem. A prediction. Prediction verified. Now, what is the problem, exactly? bornagain77,
"Long reams of copy and pasted text about functional proteins, but never addressing the argument at hand."
There's gotta be a name for this fallacy you keep engaging in. Let me see if I can find it...SingBlueSilver_{August 25, 2009
August
08
Aug
25
25
2009
08:28 AM
8
08
28
AM
PDT}

SingBlue you state: "I believe you are engaging in what us “evolutionists” refer to as the Gish Gallop" Do you evolutionists take a advanced class in "Gish Gallop"? that would explain why you guys are so good with obfuscation and so terrible with foundational science! Let's put the evidence a little more clearly--- The similarity you are trying to establish your case with, as referenced previously, completely breaks down when proteins are transcribed from the supposed similar sequences of genes. why do you not address this glaring deficit? Let me give you a little taste of what you would have in trying to reconcile genetic similarity with the protein dissimilarity we actually find. ---What makes matters much worse for the materialist is that he will try to assert proteins of one structure can easily mutate into other proteins, of a completely different structure, by pure chance. Yet once again the empirical evidence we now have brutally betrays the materialist. Individual proteins have been experimentally shown to quickly lose their structural integrity with random point mutations. What are the odds of any "functional protein domain" in a cell mutating into any other functional protein domain, of very questionable value, by pure chance? Estimating the prevalence of protein sequences adopting functional enzyme folds: Doug Axe: Excerpt: Starting with a weakly functional sequence carrying this signature, clusters of ten side-chains within the fold are replaced randomly, within the boundaries of the signature, and tested for function. The prevalence of low-level function in four such experiments indicates that roughly one in 10^64 signature-consistent sequences forms a working domain. Combined with the estimated prevalence of plausible hydropathic patterns (for any fold) and of relevant folds for particular functions, this implies the overall prevalence of sequences performing a specific function by any domain-sized fold may be as low as 1 in 10^77, adding to the body of evidence that functional folds require highly extraordinary sequences. (of note: the universe only has 10^80 sub-atomic particles) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15321723 Axe Diagram for finding a functional protein domain out of all sequence space: The y-axis can be seen as representing enzyme activity, and the x-axis represents all possible amino acid sequences. Enzymes sit at the peak of their fitness landscapes (Point A). There are extremely high levels of complex and specified information in proteins--informational sequences which point to intelligent design. http://www.evolutionnews.org/axediagram.jpg Experimental Support for Regarding Functional Classes of Proteins to be Highly Isolated from Each Other: "From actual experimental results it can easily be calculated that the odds of finding a folded protein (by random point mutations to an existing protein) are about 1 in 10 to the 65 power (Sauer, MIT). To put this fantastic number in perspective imagine that someone hid a grain of sand, marked with a tiny 'X', somewhere in the Sahara Desert. After wandering blindfolded for several years in the desert you reach down, pick up a grain of sand, take off your blindfold, and find it has a tiny 'X'. Suspicious, you give the grain of sand to someone to hide again, again you wander blindfolded into the desert, bend down, and the grain you pick up again has an 'X'. A third time you repeat this action and a third time you find the marked grain. The odds of finding that marked grain of sand in the Sahara Desert three times in a row are about the same as finding one new functional protein structure (from chance transmutation of an existing functional protein structure). Rather than accept the result as a lucky coincidence, most people would be certain that the game had been fixed.” Michael J. Behe, The Weekly Standard, June 7, 1999 http://www.arn.org/docs/behe/mb_smu1992.htm Fancy footwork in the sequence space shuffle - 2006 "Estimates for the density of functional proteins in sequence space range anywhere from 1 in 10^12 to 1 in 10^77. No matter how you slice it, proteins are rare. Useful ones are even more rare." http://www.nature.com/nbt/journal/v24/n3/full/nbt0306-328.html Measuring the functional sequence complexity of proteins - 2007: Kirk K Durston, David KY Chiu, David L Abel, Jack T Trevors In this paper, we provide a method to measure functional sequence complexity (in proteins). Conclusion: This method successfully distinguishes between order, randomness, and biological function (for proteins). http://www.tbiomed.com/content/4/1/47/ Does God Exist? Argument From Design - Kirk Durston - Detecting Design In Proteins - video Part 1 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jnBT2VD4B-8 Part 2 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IGgh6lbBAnU "A problem with the evolution of proteins having new shapes is that proteins are highly constrained, and producing a functional protein from a functional protein having a significantly different shape would typically require many mutations of the gene producing the protein. All the proteins produced during this transition would not be functional, that is, they would not be beneficial to the organism, or possibly they would still have their original function but not confer any advantage to the organism. It turns out that this scenario has severe mathematical problems that call the theory of evolution into question. Unless these problems can be overcome, the theory of evolution is in trouble." Problems in Protein Evolution: http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/blocked.html “Mutations are rare phenomena, and a simultaneous change of even two amino acid residues in one protein is totally unlikely. One could think, for instance, that by constantly changing amino acids one by one, it will eventually be possible to change the entire sequence substantially… These minor changes, however, are bound to eventually result in a situation in which the enzyme has ceased to perform its previous function but has not yet begun its ‘new duties’. It is at this point it will be destroyed - along with the organism carrying it.” Maxim D. Frank-Kamenetski, Unraveling DNA, 1997, p. 72. (Professor at Brown U. Center for Advanced Biotechnology and Biomedical Engineering) In fact proteins are found to be "self-correcting" to any "random disturbance" of their shape: Proteins with cruise control: - 2008: Excerpt: A mathematical analysis of the experiments showed that the proteins themselves acted to correct any imbalance imposed on them through artificial mutations and restored the chain to working order. As well, the Ribosome, which makes Proteins, is also found to be severely intolerant to any "random mutations". The Ribosome: Perfectionist Protein-maker Trashes Errors Excerpt: The enzyme machine that translates a cell's DNA code into the proteins of life is nothing if not an editorial perfectionist...the ribosome exerts far tighter quality control than anyone ever suspected over its precious protein products... To their further surprise, the ribosome lets go of error-laden proteins 10,000 times faster than it would normally release error-free proteins, a rate of destruction that Green says is "shocking" and reveals just how much of a stickler the ribosome is about high-fidelity protein synthesis. Even if evolution somehow managed to overcome the impossible hurdles for generating novel proteins by totally natural means, evolution would still face the monumental hurdles of generating complimentary protein/protein binding sites, in which the novel proteins would actually interact with each other in order to accomplish the specific tasks needed in a cell (it is estimated that there are least 10,000 different types of protein-protein binding sites in a "simple" cell: Behe; Edge Of Evolution). What does the recent hard evidence say about novel protein-protein binding site generation? "The likelihood of developing two binding sites in a protein complex would be the square of of the probability of developing one: a double CCC (chloroquine complexity cluster), 10^20 times 10^20, which is 10^40. There have likely been fewer than 10^40 cells in the entire world in the past 4 billion years, so the odds are against a single event of this variety (just 2 binding sites being generated by accident) in the history of life. It is biologically unreasonable." Michael J. Behe PhD. (from page 146 of his book "Edge of Evolution") Thus SingBlue address how the genes remained similar yet the proteins were drastically changed (indeed many unique proteins are found in humans). Please address to purely random processes and you shall have made your case for evolution and have shown that you are not blowing Gish Gallop.bornagain77_{August 25, 2009
August
08
Aug
25
25
2009
07:07 AM
7
07
07
AM
PDT}

SingBlueSilver, Common ancestry is an ad hoc explanation as no one knows whether or not the tarnsformations required are even possible. A fusion event isn't predicted by evolution, never mind non-telic processes. What you don't have is a way to test your premise. All you have is a declaration.Joseph_{August 25, 2009
August
08
Aug
25
25
2009
06:54 AM
6
06
54
AM
PDT}

Bornagain77,
Do you have any actual empirical evidence that a fusion event has ever led to anything other than genetic diseases?
I believe you are engaging in what us "evolutionists" refer to as the Gish Gallop. Spew out so much tangential information that we don't have time to address it all. Could be seen as the Chewbacca Defense as well. A lot of hand waving. "Look over here! Look over here!" I'm NOT talking about whether a fusion event leads to genetic diseases or not. I'm NOT talking about the mechanism of evolution. I'm NOT talking information increase, decrease, apple pie recipes, or Paris. The hypothesis is that we are related to chimps. We have one less chromosome. Therefore, they predicted we should have a fused chromosome. A successful prediction is the hallmark of a good scientific theory. Joseph,
Do you have any idea on what would have to take place to get the fusion on both chromosomes? Also did you realize there isn’t any scientific data which demonstrates the transformations required are even possible?
Same goes for you.
BTW evidence for common ancestry is not evidence for a mechanism.
What I'm talking about IS evidence for common ancestry. I'm not talking about the mechanism otherwise I would have stated evidence for a mechanism. Molecular fingerprints that connect us with chimps in a non-trivial manner is all I'm talking about.
For example- Chromosome fusion is a design feature to maintain reproductive isolation between the two populations.
Sure. But it's an ad hoc explanation. A fusion would not have been predicted by design theory. You would not have said "Hypothesis: life was designed directly by a designer. Prediction: therefore we should find a fused chromosome in humans." In fact, I'm pretty sure creationists used to use the differing number of chromosomes to prove that we AREN'T related to chimps. You can always just say "Well, the designer made it like that" but it isn't falsifiable if you say that.
There is also the possiblity it just looks like a fusion.
When all chromosomes are capped by teleomeres with a centromere in the middle, and our chromosome #2 is capped by telomeres, followed by two centromeres farther in, and two telomeres in the middle? Sure, I guesss.... you could... just say "nope." If that floats your boat.SingBlueSilver_{August 25, 2009
August
08
Aug
25
25
2009
06:47 AM
6
06
47
AM
PDT}

Dave,,, I read through some of your papers and found very little to substantiate your claims for evolution: typical examples of what you cite: "Observations of the natural population over a 7-year period and breeding experiments with captive animas(animals) indicate that heterozygous individuals suffer no detectable reduction in fitness." "The results suggest the involvement of chromosomes 6 and 15 in the fusion demonstrated by G-banding in prometaphase cells. The Brazilian sample of animals carrying structural rearrangements did not present any reduction in fertility, suggesting the existence of prezygotic selection against unbalanced gametes" ---- Yet this is suppose to be conclusive proof of evolution in your eyes? Give me a break! The glaring deficit in the fossil record, and consistent evidence for genetic entropy in bacteria demand far more rigorous results to overcome you deficit of empirical evidence at those base levels of proof! #1,,, How do you know for a fact the rearrangement was a purely random process as required to substantiate your primary claim for non-teleological evolution? i.e. How do you know the complex information in the genome did not "oversee" what readily appears to be a precise adjustment of massive amounts of poly-functional information in the genome? i.e. The burden is on you to prove it was random! #2,,,Where is the gross morphological change that was suppose to accompany the event if the event was truly a random event and truly proof of increased functional complexity? #3,,,By which rigorous methodology did you establish the fitness was "equal" to the parent species? i.e. Should you not find "equal fitness" to be anomalous if evolution were true? Should you not "stress test" to more rigorously establish if genetic entropy has indeed been violated? This is just a quick glance at your work,,,a work I am sure you put much pride in,,,but alas what have you really done but supply a "just so story" which has failed to even address the true question at hand!bornagain77_{August 25, 2009
August
08
Aug
25
25
2009
06:34 AM
6
06
34
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply