Chinese Researchers Demolish Evolutionary Pseudo-Science

_{Cornelius Hunter

January 4, 2014

Intelligent Design}

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

In recent decades the genomes of several species have been mapped out and evolutionists are using these genome data to refine their theory. They are also making some high claims. The genome data sets, say evolutionists, are adding striking new confirmations for their theory. One piece of evidence evolutionists point to is the high similarity between the human and chimpanzee genomes. The two genomes are about 95% the same and evolutionists say this shows how easily the human could have evolved from a chimp-human common ancestor. Evolution professor Dennis Venema explains: Read more

Comments

A word of advise Roy, it doesn't reflect well on you when you use Wikipedia as your primary source for evidence, as even Wikipedia itself admits: Wikipedia:Academic use Excerpt: Wikipedia is not considered a credible source. Wikipedia is increasingly used by people in the academic community, from freshman students to professors, as an easily accessible tertiary source for information about anything and everything. However, citation of Wikipedia in research papers may be considered unacceptable, because Wikipedia is not considered a credible or authoritative source.[1][2] This is especially true considering anyone can edit the information given at any time. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Academic_use Especially concerning matters on evolution and ID: Wikipedia's Tyranny of the Unemployed - David Klinghoffer - June 24, 2012 Excerpt: PLoS One has a highly technical study out of editing patterns on Wikipedia. This is of special interest to us because Wikipedia's articles on anything to do with intelligent design are replete with errors and lies, which the online encyclopedia's volunteer editors are vigilant about maintaining against all efforts to set the record straight. You simply can never outlast these folks. They have nothing better to do with their time and will always erase your attempted correction and reinstate the bogus claim, with lightning speed over and over again. ,,, on Wikipedia, "fact" is established by the party with the free time that's required to wear down everyone else and exhaust them into submission. The search for truth (on wikipedia) yields to a tyranny of the unemployed. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/06/wikipedias_tyra061281.htmlbornagain77_{January 10, 2014
January
01
Jan
10
10
2014
04:52 PM
4
04
52
PM
PDT}

Roy, contrary to the fact that you feel slighted, I do think the distinction of less than 60 years and 9 days is fairly substantial. (funny how evolutionists get all literary when they are exposed as to having no evidence),, Regardless of your hurt feelings, the fact of the matter is that nylonase is NOT a new protein as you had claimed but is a minor variation to an existing protein that falls well within the bounds of Behe's Edge of Evolution. Moreover, the adaptation is 'biochemically degenerative' to the enzyme it altered: Nylon Degradation – 2008 Excerpt: At the phenotypic level, the appearance of nylon degrading bacteria would seem to involve “evolution” of new enzymes and transport systems. However, further molecular analysis of the bacterial transformation reveals mutations resulting in degeneration of pre-existing systems. The most studied of the nylon degrading bacteria is Arthrobacter sp. K172 (formerly Flavobacterium sp.70). This bacterium employs three enzymes for nylon degradation, EI (NylA), EII (NylB), and EIII (NylC), which are found on the plasmid, pOAD2.71, 72 EI and EIII (also NylC in Agromyces sp.) have been initially characterized.73, 72 They apparently hydrolyze the cyclic forms of some nylons, which provides a linear substrate for EII. However, no detailed analysis of the mutational changes of EI or EIII has yet been performed. The mutational changes of EII (6-aminohexanoatedimer hydrolase) have been characterized in detail. This analysis suggests that point mutations in a carboxyesterase gene lead to amino acid substitutions in the enzyme’s catalytic cleft. This altered the enzyme’s substrate specificity sufficiently that it could also hydrolyze linear nylon oligomers.74, 75 Yet, the EII enzyme still possesses the esterase function of the parent esterase. Thus, the mutational alteration results in a reduction of the parent enzyme’s specificity (Figure 4). This enables it to hydrolyze a wider range of oligomers that include nylon oligomers.76 Nonetheless, reduced specificity of a pre-existing enzyme is biochemically degenerative to the enzyme,77, 78 even if it provides a presumed phenotypic benefit. The “beneficial” phenotype of nylon degradation requires the a priori existence of the enzyme and its specificity. Its degeneration is not a mechanism that accounts for the origin of either the enzyme or its specificity.,,, http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/aid/v4/n1/beneficial-mutations-in-bacteriabornagain77_{January 10, 2014
January
01
Jan
10
10
2014
04:25 PM
4
04
25
PM
PDT}

From bornagain77:
In fact the ability to digest nylon was shown to be a repeatable adaption within 9 days for bacterial populations that are stressed/starved of other nutrients (not 60 years as you had claimed).
But I didn't claim that. Here is what I wrote:
Since the new protein nylonase evolved in less than 60 years, ...
Nothing there about bacterial populations that are "stressed/starved of other nutrients". Nothing about repeatability either. Nor was I talking about the general ability to digest nylon, but about a specific method of doing so. I think it's clear that I was talking about the historical evolution of nylonase in the wild, which we have little data on the timescale of other than that it happened between the first production of nylon and the discovery of consumption by Flavobacterium circa 1975. Bornagain77 has conflated that with laboratory experiments involving very different circumstances (and if his twice-removed reference is to the experiments mentioned here, then also a different species and a different nylon-digestion route as well). But the most egregious misrepresentation bornagain77 has made is to discard the "less than" from "less than 60 years", without which distortion his mistargeted 'correction' would be an obvious concoction. That he is willing to misrepresent what has been said so blatantly, when the reality can be discovered simply by moving the scroll-bar, suggests either staggering incompetence or a total disregard for the truth. Or both. RoyRoy_{January 10, 2014
January
01
Jan
10
10
2014
03:21 PM
3
03
21
PM
PDT}

wd400, Sorry, but it's not looking good for you. Check this out: https://uncommondescent.com/junk-dna/another-pseudogene-shows-function/ -QQuerius_{January 9, 2014
January
01
Jan
9
09
2014
04:01 PM
4
04
01
PM
PDT}

The paper is there for anyone who wishes to read it. That you this wrong is so obvious to anyone who understands it I really don't see any need to continue this.wd400_{January 9, 2014
January
01
Jan
9
09
2014
07:46 AM
7
07
46
AM
PDT}

Did you actually read what I wrote? You're not getting it.
“We used to call these sequences junk DNA, just because we didn’t know what they did. Now we now it’s almost all funcational so we call it non-coding DNA”.
YES! Well, almost---your second sentence is garbled. Ohno called it junk for a reason. He supposed/assumed/speculated that most DNA was "junk" because he and other researchers didn't know what it was for. Changes to this DNA didn't seem to have any effect. Thus, it must be "junk"! Dr. Ohno then speculated on some possibilities why non-functional "junk" DNA might actually be beneficial, and that 94% of human DNA was the Evolutionary Junkyard of previously functional genes, in other words [drum roll] "fossil genes." And Dr. Ohno was wrong. He would have been better off had he assumed that the DNA in question had an unknown function, that it was likely not junk. In other words, the ID paradigm. -QQuerius_{January 8, 2014
January
01
Jan
8
08
2014
11:03 PM
11
11
03
PM
PDT}

I was actually trying to saying that Ohno was not making a supposition...., quoting you in 41. It's good to see you have changed your mind since then and seen that Ohno was making a positive argument for the preponderance of junk DNA and not simply arguing from ignorance. The silly narraive, that most UDers have swalled whole, goes something like "We used to call these sequences junk DNA, just because we didn't know what they did. Now we now it's almost all funcational so we call it non-coding DNA". That's wrong, both because Ohno made a positive argument for junk DNA (as you now agree) and because genomic evidence shows us most of the genome is junk.wd400_{January 8, 2014
January
01
Jan
8
08
2014
05:24 PM
5
05
24
PM
PDT}

wd400,
But Ohno was making a “supposition” in attemp to explain what non-coding DNA was.
No, he wasn't. Read his paper again. He provided several very good reasons for *non-functional* DNA, not non-coding DNA.
THis silly narrative of “we used to call it junk because we didn’t know what it did” is flat out wrong, and people that talk about junk DNA ought to know that.
Including Dr. Ohno? Again, he called it "JUNK" in his paper. wd400, I'm trying to be generous and understand your point about Dr. Ohno, but your assertions make no sense to me in light of a plain reading of his paper. -QQuerius_{January 8, 2014
January
01
Jan
8
08
2014
05:05 PM
5
05
05
PM
PDT}

PPS: That means, the only expressed variations that will be rewarded will be those that are immediately incrementally advantageous. And if you wish to resort to hidden (near-neutral?) chance variations in pseudo-genes or the like, they have to be coupled by happenstance to successful variations that are expressed AND so fast as they accumulate changes, so the scope of the configuration space they have to traverse successfully exponentiates, as in multiply by 4 for every additional base, here searching by chance to hit an island of function. Where 250 bases is a solar system threshold generous upper limit, i.e. 1/3 of an average protein or thereabouts. With the problem of isolated protein fold domains and singletons staring you in the face.kairosfocus_{January 7, 2014
January
01
Jan
7
07
2014
10:40 PM
10
10
40
PM
PDT}

AVS: When may we expect a submission on the pro-darwinism essay challenge? KF PS: Even ignoring the random components in elimination of the less fit or less lucky through differential reproductive success, mechanical necessity is blind, non-foresighted. As in Dawkins' Blind Watchmaker.kairosfocus_{January 7, 2014
January
01
Jan
7
07
2014
10:35 PM
10
10
35
PM
PDT}

Ohno thought most of the genome was junk, and that prediction is supported by genomic data (again, if you disagree let me know the argument that gets form "transcribed" to "functional"). But Ohno was making a "supposition" in attemp to explain what non-coding DNA was. The extent of non-coding DNA in the genome wasn't a emprically known fact in Ohno's time. THis silly narrative of "we used to call it junk because we didn't know what it did" is flat out wrong, and people that talk about junk DNA ought to know that.wd400_{January 7, 2014
January
01
Jan
7
07
2014
07:16 PM
7
07
16
PM
PDT}

wd400 @ 57
Note, he is not saying because sequences are non-coding fossils of other genes that must be junk.
Huh? Dr. Ohno had some pretty good proposals based precisely on his perception that the overwhelming preponderance of human DNA was "junk" and why this might actually be important! IIRC, he estimated it at 94% at the time. He thought it was "junk", called it "junk", and hypothesized the *requirement* for a preponderance of "junk." The title of his paper was a statement, not a question! However, it's become obvious to most people that Dr. Ohno's observations and hypotheses were "wrong", and not that "he wasn't entirely right." -QQuerius_{January 7, 2014
January
01
Jan
7
07
2014
05:58 PM
5
05
58
PM
PDT}

Natural selection doesn't guide anything- that is the reality of it, AVS. Natural selection is blind and mindless. It lacks foresight- how can it guide anything? Where is your evidence?Joe_{January 7, 2014
January
01
Jan
7
07
2014
02:39 PM
2
02
39
PM
PDT}

Natural selection guiding evolution is a hallmark of the theory. If you can't get that through your head, Joe, then you should probably see yourself out of here before making this site look even more ridiculous.AVS_{January 7, 2014
January
01
Jan
7
07
2014
02:25 PM
2
02
25
PM
PDT}

Fine, if that's how you want to define "blind" then be my guest. Yes there is no definite end result, but there is direction in evolution that is provided by nature. Species adapt to their environments, they change to fill ecological niches, etc. "loss of the less “fit” and/or less lucky is also blind" I disagree with that statement, it sounds completely ridiculous to me in fact. I guess that is because we have different definitions of blind. You see evolution as a blind man lost in a mall, I see evolution as a blind man with a white cane and a seeing-eye dog. That is the simplest way I can explain it.AVS_{January 7, 2014
January
01
Jan
7
07
2014
02:22 PM
2
02
22
PM
PDT}

I’m saying that evolution has both random, or blind/mindless/unguided processes as Joe here likes to call them...
You mean as Dawkins and other learned and leading evolutionists call them. That's the rub- I quoted the leading evos and AVS got all in a tizzy...Joe_{January 7, 2014
January
01
Jan
7
07
2014
02:17 PM
2
02
17
PM
PDT}

AVS:
I’m saying that evolution has both random, or blind/mindless/unguided processes as Joe here likes to call them, as well as having non-random processes.
What are these alleged non-random processes? Natural selection is blind and mindless- it doesn't guide anything. It is a result of three processes one of which is allegedly totally random, with the other 2 having random components. So exactly what is it that you think that I don't understand?Joe_{January 7, 2014
January
01
Jan
7
07
2014
02:15 PM
2
02
15
PM
PDT}

AVS: Perhaps it needs to be stressed that "blind" here means non-foresighted, not controlled by a purpose or an intellect. chance variations are blind, and differential reproductive success of varieties leading to loss of the less "fit" and/or less lucky is also blind. Mechanical necessity, FYI, is in the sense involved, also blind. (And, if you want to claim that differential reproductive success is not reflective of random variable components, that would still obtain. But in fact, such DRS is in significant part, chance-linked.) And, note from the title of Dawkins' book, The Blind Watchmaker, the sense just used comes from Darwinists. All of this, however, is on side tracks. The uniformity principle as underscored by Lyell, and as can be traced inter alia to Newton, emphasises that a proffered explanatory cause for the unobserved far past must be shown to be operating today and to be capable of relevant effects substantially similar to credible traces from the past. Otherwise, we would indeed be indulging unbridled speculation. A material effect and trace is functionally specific, complex organisation and associated information, and especially digitally coded functionally specific information, FSCO/I and dFSCI for short. These are abundant across the world of life, and lie at the core of cellular function. This, we can take it is a clear trace from the far past of origins. It is also quite clear that neither blind chance nor mechanical necessity nor both in concert, have been observed creating such FSCO/I and especially dFSCI. This is backed up easily by a needle in haystack analysis that shows that FSCO/I beyond 500 - 1,000 bits is well beyond the plausible blind search capacity of our solar system or the observed cosmos across 10^17 s. On grounds quite similar to those that show why the 2nd law of thermodynamics holds in statistical form. But we do have a knows source of such, one easily seen from even examples in this thread: foresighted, purposeful design. With billions of observed cases all around, and direct experience as to how this can be, through intelligence in action. On the uniformity principle, we have every good reason to infer that he best causal explanation of the similar phenomenon in life forms is also design, starting from the origin of cell based life. But I suppose standing by canons of proper inductive reasoning makes us into crackpots worth only contempt, name-calling and dismissal. (As you have just indulged in in threads here at UD today.) Well, I await your response to the UD pro-darwin essay challenge, as one who has forgotten more biology than we will ever learn. It should be quite easily done, after all it is all fact Fact FACT more certain than gravity. KFkairosfocus_{January 7, 2014
January
01
Jan
7
07
2014
02:07 PM
2
02
07
PM
PDT}

I'm saying that evolution has both random, or blind/mindless/unguided processes as Joe here likes to call them, as well as having non-random processes. You need both parts,and it's the second part that you and your friends here like to ignore apparently. Maybe you can explain to Joe why he's so clueless.AVS_{January 7, 2014
January
01
Jan
7
07
2014
01:20 PM
1
01
20
PM
PDT}

Thanks, Joe, for putting that pompous, bloviating troll (AVS) in its place.Mapou_{January 7, 2014
January
01
Jan
7
07
2014
01:19 PM
1
01
19
PM
PDT}

AVS, are you saying that Joe is wrong to characterize Darwinian evolution as “blind,” “mindless,” or “unguided”? Or are you saying that the quotes Joe used do not, in context, support the proposition that Darwinian evolution is “blind,” “mindless,” or “unguided”? Or are you saying something completely different? I am truly trying to understand your side in your exchange here with Joe, but I don't see you actually saying anything other than to sneer at Joe. Throw me a bone here. Tell me in words adopted to the meanest understanding what exactly you point is.Barry Arrington_{January 7, 2014
January
01
Jan
7
07
2014
01:16 PM
1
01
16
PM
PDT}

You do realize that your need to validate yourself in your posts make you seem quite desperate, right? I'm sitting here laughing at your attempts to talk science and you're running around with your hair on fire. Relax, everyone knows you are the sharpest marshmallow here.AVS_{January 7, 2014
January
01
Jan
7
07
2014
01:06 PM
1
01
06
PM
PDT}

The fact that AVS can't supports its claim that I quoted out of context and mined quotes pretty much demonstrates the extent of AVS' "knowledge"...Joe_{January 7, 2014
January
01
Jan
7
07
2014
01:01 PM
1
01
01
PM
PDT}

Another evidence-free rant. THe fact that you didn't understand that evolution was unguided proves your ignorance. The fact that you were ignorant of Dawkins and Mayr also proves your ignorance. All we have is your word that you know something. Strange you have never demonstrated any knowledge on any topic.Joe_{January 7, 2014
January
01
Jan
7
07
2014
01:00 PM
1
01
00
PM
PDT}

Yes completely. The person who has forgotten more biology than you will ever know is the ignorant coward here. You are totally right. Man, I wish I was as smart as you, pasting the same bullshit quote for years and years. Nice.AVS_{January 7, 2014
January
01
Jan
7
07
2014
12:58 PM
12
12
58
PM
PDT}

AVS has falsely accused me of taking quotes out of context and mined quotes. AVS is nothing but a typical evoTARD loser.Joe_{January 7, 2014
January
01
Jan
7
07
2014
12:57 PM
12
12
57
PM
PDT}

LoL!@ AVS- I have posted that quote for years. Ya see, unlike you, I know what natural selection is. And that textbook quote supports the claim that it is blind and mindless. Also Ernst Mayr was one of the architects of the modern synthesis. So what he has to say about it holds more weight than anyone else- or were you also ignorant of that? But anyway you never did support your claim that I took the quotes out of context- IOW you are an ignorant coward.Joe_{January 7, 2014
January
01
Jan
7
07
2014
12:55 PM
12
12
55
PM
PDT}

VERY GOOD See now we are learning Joe! I'm so proud of you. Notice how the definition does not use the words "blind" "mindless" or "unguided." Before you start learning about science you need to learn the difference between mined quotes from your friends on here and actual information that is in context. The context is very important for many phrases, especially the ones your friends like to throw around...after they've taken them out of context of course.AVS_{January 7, 2014
January
01
Jan
7
07
2014
12:52 PM
12
12
52
PM
PDT}

So AVS gets his ignorance exposed and sez that I don't know what I am talking about. TypicalJoe_{January 7, 2014
January
01
Jan
7
07
2014
12:51 PM
12
12
51
PM
PDT}

AVS:
SO you mash two quotes up from two unrelated people and repeat them completely out of context?
How are the quotes out of context? And obviously you have no idea what you are talking aboutJoe_{January 7, 2014
January
01
Jan
7
07
2014
12:49 PM
12
12
49
PM
PDT}

1 2 3 4 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply