Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community
graph

A statistical comparison of two human genomes

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

In a previous post I provided a statistical test to compare chimpanzee and human genomes. As you can read there, the post generated a very interesting discussion among the readers, and it seemed to me that the general feeling at the end was that my statistical method for performing genome-wide comparisons might have some merit, after all.

One reader suggested applying an identical test in order to compare two human genomes. That sounded like a very good idea to me, so I downloaded another human genome dataset from NCBI and performed a test.

For the benefit of readers, I’ll briefly recapitulate the simple comparison algorithm used in my previous test. 10,000 different sequences, each composed of 30 consecutive DNA bases (possible values: A, T, G and C) were randomly selected from chromosome N of genome A. A search for a matching pattern was then performed on the corresponding chromosome N of genome B. A pattern match was deemed to occur only when all 30 base pairs coincided perfectly – in other words, the head-to-head comparison between these DNA sub-strings was not relaxed, as occurs in many other tests in evolutionary comparative genomics. The total number of pattern matches found for that particular chromosome was then recorded. All chromosomes were tested in a similar fashion. Readers can view the latest results in the table and chart below, and compare them with the earlier results for the chimpanzee vs. human comparison.

As expected, the number of pattern matches was always significantly greater when comparing two humans than when comparing a chimpanzee with a human. As the chart above clearly shows, the number of matches in human vs. human comparisons was quite stable, ranging from 9507 to 9705 (chromosome Y is the sole exception, with 8989). However, the same did not hold for chimpanzee vs. human comparisons, where the values were much more scattered.

Finally, the average number of pattern matches per chromosome, shown at the bottom of the table, was very different in the two cases: 9616 for human vs. human comparisons, but only 6173 for chimp vs. human comparisons. The average number of patterns without a match for human vs. human comparisons was (10000 – 9616) = 384, or in percentage terms, 384/10000 = 3.84%. The average number of patterns without a match in human vs. chimp comparisons was (10000 – 6173) = 3827, or in percentage terms, 3827/10000 = 38.27%, which is almost ten times greater.

So the bottom-line question is: if, as many evolutionists say, chimpanzee and human genomes are 99% identical, how “identical” are two human genomes?

Comments
BA77: I agree, the fossil record is far from complete. Which is why it's considered only one thread in the rope supporting common descent with modification. Several biologists have even said that descent could be established without any fossils whatsoever. And, who knows, new fossils are being found every day. But you know all the arguments. So I'll stop now.ellazimm
May 25, 2011
May
05
May
25
25
2011
08:04 AM
8
08
04
AM
PDT
BA77: I'm not using an argument at all! I'm asking a question! And I didn't think I was arguing theodicy. And you already know all the standard defences of my position, me repeating them doesn't really forward the discussion. I'm just asking: what is the design take on the different genome sizes? How is that arguing against the design inference? Or delving into theocratic issues? Just looking over the other info . . . has anyone in baraminology created a kinds grouping list?ellazimm
May 25, 2011
May
05
May
25
25
2011
07:50 AM
7
07
50
AM
PDT
ellazimm per 66, you refuse to defend your position, yet have the audacity to use the 'bad design argument'??? Sorry I ain't going to play your game!!~ Basically what you are telling me is, "well yeah, I can't produce any evidence for material processes generating functional information, but none-the-less, despite having no foundation in science, I reserve the right to argue theodicy for neo-Darwinism.bornagain77
May 25, 2011
May
05
May
25
25
2011
07:06 AM
7
07
06
AM
PDT
ellazimm you state; 'It would be interesting to see a full layout of all the kinds; is there such a table/graphic?' Sure, go to almost any comprehensive fossil graph, remove all the dotted lines that indicate 'hypothesized' evolutionary transitions, for which they have no evidence, and there you have you graph. notes: Here are some VERY coarse outlines of the fossil record: Origin of Phyla - The Fossil Evidence - Timeline Graph http://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=0AYmaSrBPNEmGZGM4ejY3d3pfMzNobjlobjNncQ&hl=en Here is a graph showing a partial list of fossil groups showing their sudden appearance in the fossil record- (without the artificially imposed dotted lines) - Timeline Illustration: http://www.earthhistory.org.uk/wp-content/majorgroups.jpg The Truth About Evolution - Transitional Fossils Excerpt: Major adaptive radiations provide a formidable challenge to biological evolution.,,, Major adaptive radiations of groups of vertebrates are: a) Placoderms in the early Devonian. Because they were heavily armored, jawed fish, intermediates and ancestral forms should have fossilized but none are found. No placoderms exist today. b) Chondrichtyes during the Devonian. They are the cartilaginous fish such as sharks and rays. Intermediates and ancestors are unknown. c) Agnatha Fish in the Silurian. These were jawless fish with bony skeletons. Intermediates and ancestors should have fossilized but none are found. Most types became extinct but hagfish and lampreys are living jawless fish. d)Tetrapods in the early Carboniferous. These were many, diverse forms of four-legged amphibians that are believed to have evolved from fish. But no fossilized links to fish have been found and specific interrelationships of the numerous lineages is unknown. e) Amniotes in the late Carboniferous. Amniotes are characterized by their complex reproductive system and include reptiles, birds and mammals. They are believed to have evolved from amphibians but their ancestry has not been determined from the fossil record. f) Archosaurs in the late Permian. They were reptiles with diverse sizes and shapes that became extinct in the Triassic. Some as long as six meters have been found. g ) Dinosaurs in the late Triassic. Dinosaurs include the largest terrestrial animals that have ever lived. Their diversity in size and shape was spectacular. Their ancestry is unknown and specific interrelationships of the numerous types is unknown. h) Teleosts in the late Cretaceous. These are bony fish approximately 20,000 living species in 35 orders and 409 families. Interrelationships of the higher groups are unknown. i) Therian mammals in the late Cretaceous and early Tertiary. These are placental and marsupial mammals. When they first appear in the fossil record, they are very diverse and interrelationships are unknown. j) Birds in the late Cretaceous and early Tertiary. There are estimates of 8900 living species in 166 families and about 27 orders. Fossil evidence is lacking for establishing the interrelationships of the orders of birds. http://tellall.org/fossils.htm "The history of most fossil species includes two features inconsistent with gradualism:. Statis. Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear…. Sudden Appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and 'fully formed'. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils." Stephen Jay Gould, - Evolution's Erratic Pace - 1977 "Many species remain virtually unchanged for millions of years, then suddenly disappear to be replaced by a quite different, but related, form. Moreover, most major groups of animals appear abruptly in the fossil record, fully formed, and with no fossils yet discovered that form a transition from their parent group." (C.P. Hickman, L.S. Roberts, and F.M. Hickman, Integrated Principles of Zoology, p. 866 (1988, 8th ed.). http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/10/biologoss_fossil_record_page_c039831.html The Fossil Record - The Evolutionary Myth Of +99% Extinct Species - Dr. Arthur Jones - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4028115/ "Why, if species have descended from other species by fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms? Why is not all nature in confusion, instead of the species being, as we see them, well defined? But, as by this theory innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth? But in the intermediate region, having intermediate conditions of life, why do we not now find closely-linking intermediate varieties?" Charles Darwin - Origin Of Speciesbornagain77
May 25, 2011
May
05
May
25
25
2011
07:00 AM
7
07
00
AM
PDT
BA77: I don't understand how the proposed failings of mechanical processes to create major morphological body features affect the appropriateness of asking how design theory explains the incredible variety of genome sizes. I am not saying it's bad design. I'm asking you what you think! If you're waiting for me to capitulate I'm sorry but I'm not here to defend or reject common descent with modification (and gene stealing?). As I've said before. I'm hear to learn how design theory 'works' and how it accounts for some of the data.ellazimm
May 25, 2011
May
05
May
25
25
2011
06:49 AM
6
06
49
AM
PDT
ellazimm, you ask; 'From a design point of view what reasons would there be to have such huge disparities in the number of base pairs?' There are a number of reasons for why it could be that way, but we are not at that point yet of 'speculation' for you must first answer this question conclusively to have a case to build on. Is or is not design present in the genome? If not then please present your scientific evidence that purely material processes can generate any functional information whatsoever! notes: The Law of Physicodynamic Insufficiency - Dr David L. Abel - November 2010 Excerpt: “If decision-node programming selections are made randomly or by law rather than with purposeful intent, no non-trivial (sophisticated) function will spontaneously arise.”,,, After ten years of continual republication of the null hypothesis with appeals for falsification, no falsification has been provided. The time has come to extend this null hypothesis into a formal scientific prediction: “No non trivial algorithmic/computational utility will ever arise from chance and/or necessity alone.” http://www.scitopics.com/The_Law_of_Physicodynamic_Insufficiency.html ellazimm; Dr. Craig exposed Ayala, in this following video, for trying to use the style of argumentation you are trying to use now: Refuting The "Bad Design" Vs. Intelligent Design Argument - William Lane Craig - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4109211/ This recent peer reviewed article exposed the fact that Darwin's book, Origin of Species, is actually, first and foremost, a Theological book trying to establish a scientific fact; Charles Darwin, Theologian: Major New Article on Darwin's Use of Theology in the Origin of Species - May 2011 Excerpt: Dilley argues, Darwin employed theology in a positive fashion, as support for his own position. "In the Origin," Dilley writes, "Darwin used a specific theological view of God's relationship to natural laws in order to argue for evolution and against special creation." The Origin supplies abundant evidence of theology in action; as Dilley observes: I have argued that, in the first edition of the Origin, Darwin drew upon at least the following positiva theological claims in his case for descent with modification (and against special creation): 1. Human begins are not justfied in believing that God creates in ways analogous to the intellectual powers of the human mind. 2. A God who is free to create as He wishes would create new biological limbs de novo rather than from a common pattern. 3. A respectable deity would create biological structures in accord with a human conception of the 'simplest mode' to accomplish the functions of these structures. 4. God would only create the minimum structure required for a given part's function. 5. God does not provide false empirical information about the origins of organisms. 6. God impressed the laws of nature on matter. 7. God directly created the first 'primordial' life. 8. God did not perform miracles within organic history subsequent to the creation of the first life. 9. A 'distant' God is not morally culpable for natural pain and suffering. 10. The God of special creation, who allegedly performed miracles in organic history, is not plausible given the presence of natural pain and suffering. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/05/charles_darwin_theologian_majo046391.html further notes: Science Owes Nothing To Darwinian Evolution - Jonathan Wells - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4028096 "Certainly, my own research with antibiotics during World War II received no guidance from insights provided by Darwinian evolution. Nor did Alexander Fleming's discovery of bacterial inhibition by penicillin. I recently asked more than 70 eminent researchers if they would have done their work differently if they had thought Darwin's theory was wrong. The responses were all the same: No. Philip S. Skell - Professor at Pennsylvania State University. http://www.discovery.org/a/2816 Podcasts and Article of Dr. Skell http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/11/giving_thanks_for_dr_philip_sk040981.htmlbornagain77
May 25, 2011
May
05
May
25
25
2011
06:39 AM
6
06
39
AM
PDT
BA77: From the review of The Edge of Evolution you linked to: "And then it gets really confusing. Behe says that science has revealed a fine tuning ‘well beyond laws, past details, into the very fabric of life’ (p. 230). ‘But the assumption that design unavoidably requires “interference” rests mostly on a lack of imagination. There’s no reason that the extended fine-tuning view I am presenting here necessarily requires active meddling with nature any more than the fine-tuning of theistic evolution does. One can think the universe is finely tuned to any degree and still conceive that “the universe originated by a single creative act” and underwent “its natural development by laws implanted in it.” One simply has to envision that the agent who caused the universe was able to specify from the start not only laws but much more.’" And later: "Behe also seems confused about common descent, which he repeatedly asserts that he accepts. He accepts the evolutionists’ argument that shared supposed DNA errors demonstrate common descent (that humans and chimps had a common ancestor, for example). But the argument depends on the assumption that so-called ‘pseudogenes’ are functionless. Behe himself inadvertently provides the evidence against the idea, in discussing the prevalence of mutations (p. 68). If we assume the evolutionary scenario of millions years since our split from a common ancestor with chimps, if the ‘pseudogene’ were functionless, unconstrained by natural selection, then it should have mutated almost beyond recognition. But it hasn’t—the close similarity is claimed as evidence of common ancestry! So, using the evolutionists’ own assumptions, it is not ‘useless’ and the evolutionary argument disintegrates and the similarity becomes evidence for common design, not common ancestry." But . . . if no further 'active meddling. took place then how did all the 'kinds' arise later? Am I just missing something? It would be interesting to see a full layout of all the kinds; is there such a table/graphic?ellazimm
May 25, 2011
May
05
May
25
25
2011
06:36 AM
6
06
36
AM
PDT
Joseph, This site may interest you: Do Human and Chimpanzee DNA Indicate an Evolutionary Relationship? by Bert Thompson, Ph.D. Brad Harrub, Ph.D. REAL GENOMIC DIFFERENCES One of the downfalls of previous molecular genetic studies has been the limit at which chimpanzees and humans could be compared accurately. Scientists often would use only 30 or 40 known proteins or nucleic acid sequences, and then from those extrapolate their results for the entire genome. Today, however, we have the majority of the human genome sequences, practically all of which have been released and made public. This allows scientists to compare every single nucleotide base pair between humans and primates—something that was not possible prior to the human genome project. In January 2002, a study was published in which scientists had constructed and analyzed a first-generation human chimpanzee comparative genomic map. This study compared the alignments of 77,461 chimpanzee bacterial artificial chromosome (BAC) end sequences to human genomic sequences. Fujiyama and colleagues “detected candidate positions, including two clusters on human chromosome 21, that suggest large, nonrandom regions of differences between the two genomes” (2002, 295:131). In other words, the comparison revealed some “large” differences between the genomes of chimps and humans. Amazingly, the authors found that only 48.6% of the whole human genome matched chimpanzee nucleotide sequences. [Only 4.8% of the human Y chromosome could be matched to chimpanzee sequences.] This study compared the alignments of 77,461 chimpanzee sequences to human genomic sequences obtained from public databases. Of these, 36,940 end sequences were unable to be mapped to the human genome (295:131). Almost 15,000 of those sequences that did not match human sequences were speculated to “correspond to unsequenced human regions or are from chimpanzee regions that have diverged substantially from humans or did not match for other unknown reasons” (295:132). While the authors noted that the quality and usefulness of the map should “increasingly improve as the finishing of the human genome sequence proceeds” (295:134), the data already support what creationists have said for years—the 98-99% figure representing DNA similarity is grossly misleading, as revealed in a study carried out by Roy Britten of the California Institute of Technology (see Britten, 2002). http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=9&article=1038bornagain77
May 25, 2011
May
05
May
25
25
2011
06:18 AM
6
06
18
AM
PDT
BA77: Thanks for the link regarding baraminology; I'll have a look. I didn't think I was trying to prove a point about the sizes of different genomes, I was just asking a question. From a design point of view what reasons would there be to have such huge disparities in the number of base pairs? I tossed in a couple of possibilities. If that's an inappropriate question then tell me why. I certainly do not think I can do a better job.ellazimm
May 25, 2011
May
05
May
25
25
2011
06:06 AM
6
06
06
AM
PDT
Has anyone ever done a complete side by side comparison of a human and chimp genome? And if not does anyone know what they are waiting for? Or do they not care what the real % difference is?Joseph
May 25, 2011
May
05
May
25
25
2011
04:41 AM
4
04
41
AM
PDT
Ellazimm you state; 'Does a lungfish really have several orders of magnitude more information in its genome? Is the code structured that much differently, less efficiently?' So??? Do you want to argue theology or science? At the base of your argument you are presupposing that you can design a organism better than God! i.e. God would not have done that way, therefore materialistic neo-Darwinism must be true! How very humble of you. NOT! ellazimm once again I remind you that you are using your theology to try to prove your scientific presupposition, instead of using science to try to prove your theological presupposition!!! This is completely backwards! You are completely blind to the fact that you cannot even show me one functional protein that was arrived at by purely materialistic processes!!! Nor can you using all you intelligence, or unguided materialistic processes in particular, even come close to generating the unmatched levels of programming we find in genomes!! Thus, Why don't you address your science on its merits instead of using theologically based arguments to try to prove your point? Like I said, do you want to argue science or Theology??? as to your second question: Can you give me a comprehensive definition of kind? A review of The Edge of Evolution: The Search for the Limits of Darwinism by Michael J. Behe Excerpt: So Michael Behe comes to the grand conclusion to his survey: ‘Somewhere between the level of vertebrate species and class lies the organismal edge of Darwinian evolution’ (p. 201). A diagram illustrates this (p. 218), which he reproduces on the page facing the title page of the book (figure 2). Interestingly, the creationist study of baraminology (defining the limits of the original created kinds, or baramins, of Genesis 1) has arrived at conclusions consistent with Behe’s proposition, using a different approach based on hybridization criteria, where possible, combined with morphology, etc.4 In fact, in 1976 creationist biologist Frank Marsh proposed that the created kinds (baramins) were often at the level of genus or family, although sometimes at the level of order.5 http://creation.com/review-michael-behe-edge-of-evolutionbornagain77
May 25, 2011
May
05
May
25
25
2011
03:57 AM
3
03
57
AM
PDT
Eric: Well, I'll let you speculate on sub-optimal design! I'm done with guessing about the ability or goals of the designer(s). :-) As far as an overarching structure is concerned I would think that is worth looking at. What I cannot figure out is why the size of the genome should vary so greatly. For instance pieris japonica's genome has 150 billion base pairs where as the human genome has 3.2 billion. The disparity is fascinating. Or what about tetraodon nigroviridis (type of puffer fish) which has a genome of only 385 million base pairs whereas protopterus aethiopicus (marbled lungfish) has 130 billion base pairs? Does a lungfish really have several orders of magnitude more information in its genome? Is the code structured that much differently, less efficiently? Fascinating. BA77: Can you give me a comprehensive definition of kind? One of your references brought that up and I must admit I've never really gotten my head around it. Which taxonomic category is it equivalent too? Have you got a list of kinds?ellazimm
May 24, 2011
May
05
May
24
24
2011
10:50 PM
10
10
50
PM
PDT
ellazimm: "Biologists, engineers, computer programmers . . . they all make things good enough. Ask Gil. I bet he’s never written a chunk of code that he thought was optimal, the best it could be. I’d bet that every single deliverable he’s made he wishes he had more time to polish." Precisely. Which is why the suboptimal (or sometimes called "poor design") argument against ID is invalid. Yet even with Gil's suboptimal program, there is an overarching structure, something that makes it hang together, some fundamental amount of information content and functionality that, in our experience, only comes from planned, purposeful activity. One can, of course, imagine that such integrated, functional complexity can arise through a long series of accidents, but it is a pretty tough row to hoe, from a logical standpoint. I'm talking about an overarching principle here, not disputing a particular instance of base-pair mutations, insertions, deletions, or even species-species relatedness.Eric Anderson
May 24, 2011
May
05
May
24
24
2011
04:20 PM
4
04
20
PM
PDT
DrREC you state: 'the non-aligned portion of the Chimp genome, which is due to ambiguous alignments of repetitive bits and is way down from the 25% in the first draft!' Only if you take neo-Darwinian presupposition as true!!!. Remember you are the one who said I can look at the sequences myself. And when the sequences are looked at with 'non-Darwinian' glasses, your whole argument falls apart!!! But how did I know that any interpretation except a neo-Darwinian interpretation would not be accepted by you!!! then; Bacteria: 'incipient speciation' yet; in·cip·i·ent/in?sip??nt/Adjective 1. In an initial stage; beginning to happen or develop: and,, from what I can tell all the adaptations of the bacteria were well within 'Genetic Entropy', Moreover Lenski's name was on the paper, and his subsequent work on e-coli, which exceeds this 'dated 1999' paper, that you cited, reveals quite a lot actually, A lot that undermines neo-Darwinism; These following articles refute Richard E. Lenski's 'supposed evolution' of the citrate ability for the E-Coli bacteria after 20,000 generations of the E-Coli from his 'Long Term Evolution Experiment' (LTEE) which has been going on since 1988: Multiple Mutations Needed for E. Coli - Michael Behe Excerpt: As Lenski put it, “The only known barrier to aerobic growth on citrate is its inability to transport citrate under oxic conditions.” (1) Other workers (cited by Lenski) in the past several decades have also identified mutant E. coli that could use citrate as a food source. In one instance the mutation wasn’t tracked down. (2) In another instance a protein coded by a gene called citT, which normally transports citrate in the absence of oxygen, was overexpressed. (3) The overexpressed protein allowed E. coli to grow on citrate in the presence of oxygen. It seems likely that Lenski’s mutant will turn out to be either this gene or another of the bacterium’s citrate-using genes, tweaked a bit to allow it to transport citrate in the presence of oxygen. (He hasn’t yet tracked down the mutation.),,, If Lenski’s results are about the best we've seen evolution do, then there's no reason to believe evolution could produce many of the complex biological features we see in the cell. http://behe.uncommondescent.com/2008/06/multiple-mutations-needed-for-e-coli/ Michael Behe's Quarterly Review of Biology Paper Critiques Richard Lenski's E. Coli Evolution Experiments - December 2010 Excerpt: After reviewing the results of Lenski's research, Behe concludes that the observed adaptive mutations all entail either loss or modification--but not gain--of Functional Coding ElemenTs (FCTs) http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/12/michael_behes_quarterly_review041221.html Lenski's e-coli - Analysis of Genetic Entropy Excerpt: Mutants of E. coli obtained after 20,000 generations at 37°C were less “fit” than the wild-type strain when cultivated at either 20°C or 42°C. Other E. coli mutants obtained after 20,000 generations in medium where glucose was their sole catabolite tended to lose the ability to catabolize other carbohydrates. Such a reduction can be beneficially selected only as long as the organism remains in that constant environment. Ultimately, the genetic effect of these mutations is a loss of a function useful for one type of environment as a trade-off for adaptation to a different environment. http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/aid/v4/n1/beneficial-mutations-in-bacteria Lenski's work actually did do something useful in that it proved that 'convergent evolution' is impossible because it showed that evolution is 'historically contingent'. This following video and article make this point clear: Lenski's Citrate E-Coli - Disproof of Convergent Evolution - Fazale Rana - video (the disproof of convergence starts at the 2:45 minute mark of the video) http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4564682 The Long Term Evolution Experiment - Analysis Excerpt: The experiment just goes to show that even with historical contingency and extreme selection pressure, the probability of random mutations causing even a tiny evolutionary improvement in digestion is, in the words of the researchers who did the experiment, “extremely low.” Therefore, it can’t be the explanation for the origin and varieity of all the forms of life on Earth. http://www.scienceagainstevolution.org/v12i11f.htm The loss of 'convergent evolution', as a argument for molecular sequence similarity, is a major blow to neo-Darwinian story telling: Implications of Genetic Convergent Evolution for Common Descent - Casey Luskin - Sept. 2010 Excerpt: When building evolutionary trees, evolutionists assume that functional genetic similarity is the result of inheritance from a common ancestor. Except for when it isn't. And when the data doesn't fit their assumptions, evolutionists explain it away as the result of "convergence." Using this methodology, one can explain virtually any dataset. Is there a way to falsify common descent, even in the face of convergent genetic similarity? If convergent genetic evolution is common, how does one know if their tree is based upon homologous sequences or convergent ones? Critics like me see the logic underlying evolutionary trees to be methodologically inconsistent, unpersuasive, and ultimately arbitrary. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/09/implications_of_genetic_conver037841.html You then cite a yeast paper with that 'incipient' 'beginning to' word in it again,,,!!! Then you dig way back to 1992 for this; 'Evidence for rapid speciation following a founder event in the laboratory' So what??? Rapid SUB-speciation is actually a argument against neo-Darwinism: ,,,Evidence for rapid radiations of a sub-species from a parent species can be found here: Biological Variation - Cornelius Hunter Excerpt: One hint that biology would not cooperate with Darwin’s theory came from the many examples of rapidly adapting populations. What evolutionists thought would require thousands or millions of years has been observed in laboratories and in the field, in an evolutionary blink of an eye. http://www.darwinspredictions.com/#_5.2_Biological_variation These following studies and video, on Cichlid fishes, are evidence of the 'limited and rapid variation from a parent kind' predicted by the Genetic Entropy model: African cichlid fish: a model system in adaptive radiation research: "The African cichlid fish radiations are the most diverse extant animal radiations and provide a unique system to test predictions of speciation and adaptive radiation theory(of evolution).----surprising implication of the study?---- the propensity to radiate was significantly higher in lineages whose precursors emerged from more ancient adaptive radiations than in other lineages" HMMM, parent species always radiate more rapidly than sub-species???? Which theory predicts that as a starting presupposition DrREC??? Multiple Genes Permit Closely Related Fish Species To Mix And Match Their Color Vision - Oct. 2005 Excerpt: In the new work, the researchers performed physiological and molecular genetic analyses of color vision in cichlid fish from Lake Malawi and demonstrated that differences in color vision between closely related species arise from individual species’ using different subsets of distinct visual pigments. Cichlid Fish - Evolution or Variation Within Kind? - Dr. Arthur Jones - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4036852 Materialists may have trouble explaining such evidence for 'robust and rapidly adapting genomes' from ancient parent lineages, but Genetic Entropy holds ancient parent lineages will always have a more robust genome than their sub-species. etc.. etc.. etc.. “Whatever we may try to do within a given species, we soon reach limits which we cannot break through. A wall exists on every side of each species. That wall is the DNA coding, which permits wide variety within it (within the gene pool, or the genotype of a species)-but no exit through that wall. Darwin’s gradualism is bounded by internal constraints, beyond which selection is useless.” R. Milner, Encyclopedia of Evolution (1990) Poly-Functional Complexity equals Poly-Constrained Complexity https://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=0AYmaSrBPNEmGZGM4ejY3d3pfMjdoZmd2emZncQbornagain77
May 24, 2011
May
05
May
24
24
2011
04:04 PM
4
04
04
PM
PDT
Dr, My comment was quite obviously an adjunct to yours, and was intended to neither challenge nor misrepresent your position in any way. I only wished to highlight the triviality of suggesting that material things operate materially. The world is full of objects that act purely in the material realm, but cannot be accounted for by purely material causes - unless you simply assume materialism from the outset. A red plastic ball is a perfect example. cheers...Upright BiPed
May 24, 2011
May
05
May
24
24
2011
03:49 PM
3
03
49
PM
PDT
Bornagain77-really, you've got to slow down. You're posting things we've already discussed-like the non-aligned portion of the Chimp genome, which is due to ambiguous alignments of repetitive bits and is way down from the 25% in the first draft! I really don't want to go in circles on these, but I couldn't help myself on this one: "Just because you, and a horde of triple PHDs." I don't personally know anyone with more than one Ph.D. "Like I said, if you want to impress me, change one bacterium into another species of bacterium, or if that is to hard for you, and your horde of triple PhDs, " Bacteria: Mutation, recombination, and incipient speciation of bacteria in the laboratory http://www.pnas.org/content/96/13/7348.full.pdf Yeast: Incipient speciation by divergent adaptation and antagonistic epistasis in yeast http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v447/n7144/full/nature05856.html Worms: Weinberg, J. R., V. R. Starczak and P. Jora. 1992. Evidence for rapid speciation following a founder event in the laboratory. Evolution. 46:1214-1220. Flies (among many papers).... Schluter, D. and L. M. Nagel. 1995. Parallel speciation by natural selection. American Naturalist. 146:292-301. Plants-created a whole genus-Raphanobrassica Karpechenko, G.D., Polyploid hybrids of Raphanus sativus L. X Brassica oleracea L. Zeitschrift für induktive Abstammungs- und Vererbungslehre 48, 1–85 (1928)DrREC
May 24, 2011
May
05
May
24
24
2011
03:25 PM
3
03
25
PM
PDT
Upright-let me clarify my statement regarding BA77's post: "How does the protein machine at the end of the preceding video (Chaperone) know exactly how to fold each unique protein into its proper, and unique, structure??? That machine, by itself, clearly displays ‘foresight and planning" I replied: "Chaperones tend to have high affinity for the extended and hydrophobic bits of an unfolded protein, and less affinity for the compact, folded bit. No foresight and imagination-just physical properties of protein folding." The no foresight and imagination refers to the current functioning of a chaperone-which is mechanistic. No computer attached, no brain. I made no comment on the origin of the chaperone machinery-and there is a world of difference between materialist functioning (and machine) and materialist origins. I don't particularly think it is possible or scientific to demonstrate chaperones lack telic origins. I might refer back to Cornelius Hunter's discussions on de novo genes-that even if a strictly material pathway for the evolution of some protein is found, it does not rule out that that process was not influenced by a non-material force. We thus return to sentiments echoed here (which sound like theistic evolution to me): https://uncommondescent.com/design-inference/an-encouraging-moment-at-biologos/DrREC
May 24, 2011
May
05
May
24
24
2011
03:08 PM
3
03
08
PM
PDT
Hi Ellazimm, I am not asking you to change your mind either. The conversations that take place here are for the gallery who wish to view the discussion on their own terms. The purpose of my comment above was merely to point out that appealling to the fact that material objects act materially is well - silly, quite frankly. No ID arguments suggests otherwise.Upright BiPed
May 24, 2011
May
05
May
24
24
2011
02:42 PM
2
02
42
PM
PDT
BA77: I know YOU accept the interpretations made in lots of your links; I consider you to be a sincere, caring, empathetic individual. But it doesn't mean that the views of Drs Dembski, Behe, Meyrs, Wells, etc are accepted or even correct. At the very least you need to consider all the evidence including that which you find dismissive of your paradigm. I'm here to do that very thing, to find out what you see as support for your views. And, I have to say, reading through the Lynn Margulis interview you referenced was a real eye-openier for me. I've thought about it all day. And she said that some of your criticisms of the consensus view of evolution are correct! I just ask that you show a modicum of respect for views different from your own. Which is what I'm trying to de.ellazimm
May 24, 2011
May
05
May
24
24
2011
01:52 PM
1
01
52
PM
PDT
Sorry, i'm writing way more than I really want to. I hate being boring.ellazimm
May 24, 2011
May
05
May
24
24
2011
01:42 PM
1
01
42
PM
PDT
Upright: I never thought I would be able to make any kind of argument you haven't heard before. I do not expect to change anyone's mind. Which is fine. If i wanted to change your mind I'd pick a different approach. I really am just trying to understand how you see and interpret the evidence. Really. I shouldn't really even spend time defending my view but I don't like to turn down a request. So no, I haven't got much to add to the statements you've heard before. Sorry. BA77: You know the arguments for rejecting design as a possible explanation and I'm not here to defend those arguments. I am here to find out why you think design IS a valid assumption. And you've been giving me lots of good info for that. You say: "Another problem you have ellazimm for your imaginary ‘virtually error free novel protein making machine’ is that the information/knowledge that the protein making machine would have to have access to, for determining which proper protein to use for any specific situation, approaches infinity;" Well, I don't think there is a virtual error free novel protein making machine. I think the history of evolution is littered with mistakes and errors. It's a messy and wasteful process. Most species that ever lived are now extinct. Good for our petroleum reserves but non-sensical from a design point of view IN MY OPINION. Francis Collins is being frank and honest: there's a lot we don't know. But the general trend seems very clear. I agree the protein folding problem is complex. Very complex. Maybe even NP-complete. But remember the definition of NP-complete. A decision problem L is NP-complete if it is in the set of NP problems so that any given solution to the decision problem can be verified in polynomial time, and also in the set of NP-hard problems so that any NP problem can be converted into L by a transformation of the inputs in polynomial time. That doesn't mean that there isn't an 'optimal' solution. Or that brute force methods won't work. And evolution is, in my view, a brute force method, sort of. I say sort of because biological systems that are at all viable are given their time in the sun even if they're NOT optimal. I don't understand the discussion of NP-complete here. It may be true that finding protein folding is analogous to the travelling salesman problem but even the travelling salesman problem can be solved with brute force. And,it's seldom, in a biological system, that only the optimal solution is viable. In fact, this is part of the point of evolution: if it plays it stays. Even if it's NOT the best or greatest. It reminds me of kairofocus's discussion of having to search the whole solution space. Why? If something comes up that's okay it does its best to survive. Only mathematicians search for the optimal solution. Biologists, engineers, computer programmers . . . they all make things good enough. Ask Gil. I bet he's never written a chunk of code that he thought was optimal, the best it could be. I'd bet that every single deliverable he's made he wishes he had more time to polish. Speaking of which . . . (sorry for putting it here) I was thinking about the DNA like computer code paradigm. Most computer code follows general formats common to lots of code: there's an introduction usually composed of variable declerations and function and procedure definitions. Then there's the body of the algorithm. I'm not saying DNA should follow THAT outline but if it's designed then wouldn't it be fair to look for some kind of common format? I think so. But then we'd have to look at why so many different species' genomes have widely different number of base pairs and genes and chromosomes. But what do you think?ellazimm
May 24, 2011
May
05
May
24
24
2011
01:41 PM
1
01
41
PM
PDT
DrREC, back to this peculiar statement of your; 'Both genomes are sequenced. You can do the BLAST searches yourself.' So?? My whole point is that you cannot extrapolate genetic similarity to conclusive scientific proof that neo-Darwinian evolution produced the changes!! To maintain scientific legitimacy, you must actually demonstrate that purely material, neo-Darwinian, processes can accomplish all that you ascribe to them. Just because you, and a horde of triple PHDs., believe it to be possible, does not impress me in the least!!! Like I said, if you want to impress me, change one bacterium into another species of bacterium, or if that is to hard for you, and your horde of triple PhDs, perhaps you can pass this simple fitness test; Is Antibiotic Resistance evidence for evolution? - 'The Fitness Test' - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/3995248 Something tells me that even this extremely simple test is too much for you, and your horde, and that you will simply ignore this crucial test that you must pass to stay scientifically legitimate, simply because it does not fit your 'religion' of neo-Darwinian evolution: Response from Ralph Seelke to David Hillis Regarding Testimony on Bacterial Evolution Before Texas State Board of Education, January 21, 2009 Excerpt: He has done excellent work showing the capabilities of evolution when it can take one step at a time. I have used a different approach to show the difficulties that evolution encounters when it must take two steps at a time. So while similar, our work has important differences, and Dr. Bull’s research has not contradicted or refuted my own. http://www.discovery.org/a/9951 Michael Behe's Quarterly Review of Biology Paper Critiques Richard Lenski's E. Coli Evolution Experiments - December 2010 Excerpt: After reviewing the results of Lenski's research, Behe concludes that the observed adaptive mutations all entail either loss or modification--but not gain--of Functional Coding ElemenTs (FCTs) http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/12/michael_behes_quarterly_review041221.html Testing Evolution in the Lab With Biologic Institute's Ann Gauger - podcast with link to peer-reviewed paper Excerpt: Dr. Gauger experimentally tested two-step adaptive paths that should have been within easy reach for bacterial populations. Listen in and learn what Dr. Gauger was surprised to find as she discusses the implications of these experiments for Darwinian evolution. Dr. Gauger's paper, "Reductive Evolution Can Prevent Populations from Taking Simple Adaptive Paths to High Fitness,". http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/entry/2010-05-10T15_24_13-07_00 ,,,,But as to this statement of yours once again; 'Both genomes are sequenced. You can do the BLAST searches yourself.' Well DrREC, just what kind of consistency do we find if different people look at the sequences???: 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.idnet.com.au/files/pdf/Chimpanzee.pdf A simple statistical test for the alleged “99% genetic identity” between humans and chimps - September 2010 Excerpt: The results obtained are statistically valid. The same test was previously run on a sampling of 1,000 random 30-base patterns and the percentages obtained were almost identical with those obtained in the final test, with 10,000 random 30-base patterns. When human and chimp genomes are compared, the X chromosome is the one showing the highest degree of 30BPM similarity (72.37%), while the Y chromosome shows the lowest degree of 30BPM similarity (30.29%). On average the overall 30BPM similarity, when all chromosomes are taken into consideration, is approximately 62%. https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/a-simple-statistical-test-for-the-alleged-99-genetic-identity-between-humans-and-chimps/ Do Human and Chimpanzee DNA Indicate an Evolutionary Relationship? Excerpt: the authors found that only 48.6% of the whole human genome matched chimpanzee nucleotide sequences. [Only 4.8% of the human Y chromosome could be matched to chimpanzee sequences.] http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2070 DNA Comparisons between Humans and Chimps - Fazale Rana Excerpt: It is interesting that when evolutionary biologists discuss genetic comparisons between human and chimpanzee genomes, the fact that, again, as much as 25 percent of the two genomes won’t align receives no mention. Instead, the focus is only on the portions of the genome that display a high-degree of similarity. This distorted emphasis makes the case for the evolutionary connection between humans and chimps seem more compelling than it may actually be. http://www.reasons.org/dna-comparisons-between-humans-and-chimps-response-venema-critique-rtb-human-origins-model-part-2 But of course this will matter not one iota to you DrREC because??? because??? well because by-golly fudging genetic similarity is the only thing you got that can make it seem to the unsuspecting public that you got evidence for neo-Darwinian evolution!!!bornagain77
May 24, 2011
May
05
May
24
24
2011
01:14 PM
1
01
14
PM
PDT
Upright: Thank you, I am trying to be civil and respectful but still ask questions. I'm just finishing up with my family for the evening and I'm going to do my best to get back to you and your comment and BA77. I'm sorry I've not got more time or expertise though. I'd much rather hand over things to someone else!! ~part of the loyal oppositionellazimm
May 24, 2011
May
05
May
24
24
2011
01:07 PM
1
01
07
PM
PDT
By the way Ellaziim, I am glad you've stuck around. I have enjoyed reading your exchanges with KF and others. As opponents go, you're starting to grow on me. :) CheersUpright BiPed
May 24, 2011
May
05
May
24
24
2011
12:22 PM
12
12
22
PM
PDT
Hello again, Ellazimm I have no need to misrepresent evolution. However, when someone explains away magnitudes of organization by appeal to the notion that it all works together just fine - then I react. The comment above has been made so many times it is beyond count. We are material organisms living in a material universe - of course its going to work together. That does not mean that everything in action in the universe can be reduced to material causes. To get to that partiocular conclusion, one must begin by making an assumption that the conclusion is true, then steadfastly refusing to test it.Upright BiPed
May 24, 2011
May
05
May
24
24
2011
12:20 PM
12
12
20
PM
PDT
Ellazimm you state; 'I don’t understand. If the mechanism was built up based on a trial-and-error system of saving what works and throwing away what doesn’t work how is that teleological?' So you believe that blind neo-Darwinian processes have built a 'novel protein making machine' that automatically knows where all the functional proteins are in sequence space??? Two problems I can think of right off the bat; One problem is this: "There are no detailed Darwinian accounts for the evolution of any fundamental biochemical or cellular system only a variety of wishful speculations. It is remarkable that Darwinism is accepted as a satisfactory explanation of such a vast subject." James Shapiro - Molecular Biologist The following expert doesn't even hide his very unscientific preconceived philosophical bias against intelligent design,,, ‘We should reject, as a matter of principle, the substitution of intelligent design for the dialogue of chance and necessity,,, Yet at the same time the same expert readily admits that neo-Darwinism has ZERO evidence for the chance and necessity of material processes producing any cellular system whatsoever,,, ,,,we must concede that there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations.’ Franklin M. Harold,* 2001. The way of the cell: molecules, organisms and the order of life, Oxford University Press, New York, p. 205. *Professor Emeritus of Biochemistry, Colorado State University, USA Michael Behe - No Scientific Literature For Evolution of Any Irreducibly Complex Molecular Machines http://www.metacafe.com/watch/5302950/ “The response I have received from repeating Behe's claim about the evolutionary literature, which simply brings out the point being made implicitly by many others, such as Chris Dutton and so on, is that I obviously have not read the right books. There are, I am sure, evolutionists who have described how the transitions in question could have occurred.” And he continues, “When I ask in which books I can find these discussions, however, I either get no answer or else some titles that, upon examination, do not, in fact, contain the promised accounts. That such accounts exist seems to be something that is widely known, but I have yet to encounter anyone who knows where they exist.” David Ray Griffin - retired professor of philosophy of religion and theology Another problem you have ellazimm for your imaginary 'virtually error free novel protein making machine' is that the information/knowledge that the protein making machine would have to have access to, for determining which proper protein to use for any specific situation, approaches infinity; Francis Collins on Making Life Excerpt: 'We are so woefully ignorant about how biology really works. We still don't understand how a particular DNA sequence—when we just stare at it—codes for a protein that has a particular function. We can't even figure out how that protein would fold—into what kind of three-dimensional shape. And I would defy anybody who is going to tell me that they could, from first principles, predict not only the shape of the protein but also what it does.' - Francis Collins - Former Director of the Human Genome Project In the year 2000 IBM announced the development of a new super-computer, called Blue Gene, which was 500 times faster than any supercomputer built up until that time. It took 4-5 years to build. Blue Gene stands about six feet high, and occupies a floor space of 40 feet by 40 feet. It cost $100 million to build. It was built specifically to better enable computer simulations of molecular biology. The computer performs one quadrillion (one million billion) computations per second. Despite its speed, it was estimated to take one entire year for it to analyze the mechanism by which JUST ONE “simple” protein will fold onto itself from its one-dimensional starting point to its final three-dimensional shape. "Blue Gene's final product, due in four or five years, will be able to "fold" a protein made of 300 amino acids, but that job will take an entire year of full-time computing." Paul Horn, senior vice president of IBM research, September 21, 2000 http://www.news.com/2100-1001-233954.html Networking a few hundred thousand computers together has reduced the time to a few weeks for simulating the folding of a single protein molecule: A Few Hundred Thousand Computers vs. A Single Protein Molecule - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4018233 As well, despite some very optimistic claims, it seems future 'quantum computers' will not fair much better in finding functional proteins in sequence space than even a idealized 'material' supercomputer of today can do: The Limits of Quantum Computers – March 2008 Excerpt: "Quantum computers would be exceptionally fast at a few specific tasks, but it appears that for most problems they would outclass today’s computers only modestly. This realization may lead to a new fundamental physical principle" http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=the-limits-of-quantum-computers The Limits of Quantum Computers - Scott Aaronson - 2007 Excerpt: In the popular imagination, quantum computers would be almost magical devices, able to “solve impossible problems in an instant” by trying exponentially many solutions in parallel. In this talk, I’ll describe four results in quantum computing theory that directly challenge this view.,,, Second I’ll show that in the “black box” or “oracle” model that we know how to analyze, quantum computers could not solve NP-complete problems in polynomial time, even with the help of nonuniform “quantum advice states”,,, http://www.springerlink.com/content/0662222330115207/ Here is Scott Aaronson's blog in which refutes recent claims that P=NP (Of note: if P were found to equal NP, then a million dollar prize would be awarded to the mathematician who provided the proof that NP problems could be solved in polynomial time): Shtetl-Optimized Excerpt: Quantum computers are not known to be able to solve NP-complete problems in polynomial time. http://scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=456 Protein folding is found to be a 'intractable NP-complete problem' by several different methods. Thus protein folding will not be able to take advantage of any advances in speed that quantum computation may offer to any other problems of computation that may be solved in polynomial time: Combinatorial Algorithms for Protein Folding in Lattice Models: A Survey of Mathematical Results – 2009 Excerpt: Protein Folding: Computational Complexity 4.1 NP-completeness: from 10^300 to 2 Amino Acid Types 4.2 NP-completeness: Protein Folding in Ad-Hoc Models 4.3 NP-completeness: Protein Folding in the HP-Model http://www.cs.brown.edu/~sorin/pdfs/pfoldingsurvey.pdf etc.. etc... etc...bornagain77
May 24, 2011
May
05
May
24
24
2011
11:43 AM
11
11
43
AM
PDT
Upright: No one said they just happened to be floating by at just the right time!! I know you get frustrated that people misrepresent ID. Please don't misrepresent evolution. It gets us no where.ellazimm
May 24, 2011
May
05
May
24
24
2011
11:24 AM
11
11
24
AM
PDT
BA77: "The protein machine clearly demonstrates ‘teleology’ in its design. Teleological Design which requires the foresight of a designer to choose the correct path out of a nearly infinite number of incorrect paths;" I don't understand. If the mechanism was built up based on a trial-and-error system of saving what works and throwing away what doesn't work how is that teleological? Back later, just getting dinner ready.ellazimm
May 24, 2011
May
05
May
24
24
2011
11:21 AM
11
11
21
AM
PDT
Hmmm ellazimm, you state: 'But I was more interested to note that purely mechanical processes seems to be adequate to the task of creating new human proteins.' FALSE!!! This is 'just so' asserted but is not demonstrated! Or do you think someone has/will observe design in action? When you wrote your post you watched 'design in action', in that you exceeded what is possible for the material processes of the universe over the entire history of the universe for the generation of functional information. Or do you want to claim you are not Intelligently Designing your posts???? Myself, that (your post) is another clear evidence that there is a 'supernatural' component to you that 'transcends' this material universe. 'I explain it based on the work quoted in the study. That the plasticity is sufficient for the creation of new proteins.' FALSE!!! This is 'just so' asserted but is not demonstrated! you then state in regards to Chaperone: 'Is that the sort of answer you wanted? The protein machine does no thinking, has no foresight.' The protein machine clearly demonstrates 'teleology' in its design. Teleological Design which requires the foresight of a designer to choose the correct path out of a nearly infinite number of incorrect paths; DrREC, as to your claim of brand new genes being created by purely material processes; De Novo Genes: Criticism From Nick Matzke Excerpt: At best it appears that evolution will be left with the usual "new proteins arise from the cutting, copying and pasting of pre existing proteins, with a few mutations thrown in here or there." But that hardly makes a de novo gene, such as T-urf13, evidence that evolution creates new proteins. http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2009/12/de-novo-genes-criticism-from-nick.html So DrREC, does appealing to the unmatched levels of epigenetic information, in the genome, 'calculating' a 'new' protein/gene product in response to environmental stress constitute proof for that purely material processes of neo-Darwinism created the new gene and/or protein??? If you do accept this pathetic level of 'proof' it is clear that your religion of Darwinism is driving your science, But it was never about the science in the first place was it??? Darwin’s Predictions - Cornelius Hunter - Religion drives science and it matters http://www.darwinspredictions.com/ Failed Predictions of Evolutionists - Cornelius Hunter - audio http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/player/web/2009-11-09T15_20_49-08_00 Science Owes Nothing To Darwinian Evolution - Jonathan Wells - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4028096 You know what is crazy DrREC is that you act like you got any foundation at all to stand on in science. Whereas you, in reality, have nothing but circular rhetoric to deceive yourself with!! If you want to impress me, and rise above the contempt I have for your 'snake oil' salesman type of science. I suggest you change a bacteria into another species of bacteria by neo-Darwinian processes!!! Selection and Speciation: Why Darwinism Is False - Jonathan Wells: Excerpt: there are observed instances of secondary speciation — which is not what Darwinism needs — but no observed instances of primary speciation, not even in bacteria. British bacteriologist Alan H. Linton looked for confirmed reports of primary speciation and concluded in 2001: “None exists in the literature claiming that one species has been shown to evolve into another.” http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/05/selection_and_speciation_why_d.html The Paradox of the "Ancient" (250 Million Year Old) Bacterium Which Contains "Modern" Protein-Coding Genes: “Almost without exception, bacteria isolated from ancient material have proven to closely resemble modern bacteria at both morphological and molecular levels.” Heather Maughan*, C. William Birky Jr., Wayne L. Nicholson, William D. Rosenzweig§ and Russell H. Vreeland http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/19/9/1637 Static evolution: is pond scum the same now as billions of years ago? Excerpt: But what intrigues (paleo-biologist) J. William Schopf most is lack of change. Schopf was struck 30 years ago by the apparent similarities between some 1-billion-year-old fossils of blue-green bacteria and their modern microbial microbial. "They surprisingly looked exactly like modern species," Schopf recalls. Now, after comparing data from throughout the world, Schopf and others have concluded that modern pond scum differs little from the ancient blue-greens. "This similarity in morphology is widespread among fossils of [varying] times," says Schopf. As evidence, he cites the 3,000 such fossils found; http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Static+evolution%3A+is+pond+scum+the+same+now+as+billions+of+years+ago%3F-a014909330 Or better yet DrREC, if you want to actually 'prove' that neo-Darwinism actually has a proper place at the table of modern science, then simply falsify Alain Aspects falsification of local realism (materialism) so that you may be able to explain the quantum entanglement found in DNA and proteins by materialistic (neo-Darwinian) means!!! Until then, everything you do is mere 'rationalization' parading as science!! 2 Peter 1:16 'For we have not followed cunningly devised fables,'bornagain77
May 24, 2011
May
05
May
24
24
2011
10:31 AM
10
10
31
AM
PDT
"No foresight and imagination-just physical properties of protein folding." Amazing that all those specific integrated parts just happen to be floating by at the right time. I think we could easily say that the stunning availability of bio-componentry is the most astonishing facet of Life, no? How supremely lucky for us all.Upright BiPed
May 24, 2011
May
05
May
24
24
2011
09:49 AM
9
09
49
AM
PDT
1 2 3 4 5

Leave a Reply