Larry Moran: Vitamin C Pseudogene is Powerful Evidence

_{Cornelius Hunter

May 27, 2011

Intelligent Design}

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

In his on-going criticism of Jonathan Wells’ new book, The Myth of Junk DNA, evolutionist Larry Moran now asserts that the much discussed vitamin C pseudogene is powerful evidence for evolution and common descent: Read more

Comments

Mung, If you use a copyig machineto replicate (copy) a document, did the original self-replicate or did a copier relicate it? The point being is an art forger replicates the painting- the painting does not self-replicate.Joseph_{June 5, 2011
June
06
Jun
5
05
2011
06:39 AM
6
06
39
AM
PDT}

Altering the rate from 0 to > 0 is altering the rate.
So you agree that DNA is an inhibitor and not a catalyst?Mung_{June 4, 2011
June
06
Jun
4
04
2011
07:56 PM
7
07
56
PM
PDT}

DNA is a molecule that has the property of splitting and then reacting with available bases in the local environment in a manner that results in two (near-)identical molecules where before there was only one.
Wow. Where to start. So if I take some DNA out of a cell, it will split, all of it's own accord? So now I have two strands of DNA, and they with both just auto-magically match up with whatever they can find to form two nearly identical (to the original) molecules?
I would call that self-replication, but I am happy to call it something else. The property itself is what is important here.
If only DNA had that property, but alas.Mung_{June 4, 2011
June
06
Jun
4
04
2011
07:49 PM
7
07
49
PM
PDT}

LoL! What do you think the “self” in self-replication means?
No need to mock, Joseph. If I am an art forger, and I manage to re-produce a Rembrandt and pass it off as an original, the original Rembrandt has most certainly self-replicated.Mung_{June 4, 2011
June
06
Jun
4
04
2011
07:36 PM
7
07
36
PM
PDT}

But it is certainly a molecule DNA is a macro-molecule.
and it certainly self-replicates
It certainly does not.Mung_{June 4, 2011
June
06
Jun
4
04
2011
07:33 PM
7
07
33
PM
PDT}

There is a huge difference between a template and a catalyst. And a template does not alter the rate.Joseph_{June 4, 2011
June
06
Jun
4
04
2011
04:03 PM
4
04
03
PM
PDT}

Altering the rate from 0 to >0 is altering the rate. But don't let's quibble, because it doesn't affect my point. I'm happy to substitute "template" for "catalyst">Elizabeth Liddle_{June 4, 2011
June
06
Jun
4
04
2011
09:38 AM
9
09
38
AM
PDT}

EL
Nonetheless, a template fulfills your definition of a catalyst – it facilitates a reaction, but is unchanged at the end of the process.
Sorry Lizzie, not even close. NOT "facilitates a reaction"- alters the rate of a chemical reaction. shrug, sighJoseph_{June 4, 2011
June
06
Jun
4
04
2011
08:10 AM
8
08
10
AM
PDT}

EL:
Yes, I know, that, Joseph, and DNA is unchanged at the end of the chain of reactions by which the RNA complement of the DNA strand is created.
TEMPLATE, DNA is the template, not the catalyst. There is a difference- hence the two different words. Self-Sustained Replication of an RNA Enzyme by Tracey A. Lincoln and Gerald F. Joyce Notice how one RNA strand was the TEMPLATE and another CATALYZED one bond.Joseph_{June 4, 2011
June
06
Jun
4
04
2011
08:08 AM
8
08
08
AM
PDT}

Yes, I know, that, Joseph, and DNA is unchanged at the end of the chain of reactions by which the RNA complement of the DNA strand is created. Without the DNA strand the reaction cannot take place (rate=0); with it it can (rate>0), yet it remains unchanged at the end of the reaction. And so it fulfils your definition of a catalyst. However, I would agree that it is an atypical catalyst, and is not normally described as an enzyme. A better (and more common) description of it is as a template. Nonetheless, a template fulfills your definition of a catalyst - it facilitates a reaction, but is unchanged at the end of the process.Elizabeth Liddle_{June 4, 2011
June
06
Jun
4
04
2011
07:04 AM
7
07
04
AM
PDT}

EL:
But DNA is itself a catalyst – it facilitates chemical reactions.
Lizzie- A catalyst is a substance which alters the rate of a chemical reaction but is chemically unchanged at the end of the reaction. A deoxyRIBOZYME can do this but not just plain ole DNA.Joseph_{June 4, 2011
June
06
Jun
4
04
2011
05:42 AM
5
05
42
AM
PDT}

Joseph: I completely agree that DNA requires catalysts to split. But DNA is itself a catalyst - it facilitates chemical reactions. I'm not sure what you want as a reference - this should be clear from any biology text book. Perhaps we are not using the term in the same way?Elizabeth Liddle_{June 4, 2011
June
06
Jun
4
04
2011
04:20 AM
4
04
20
AM
PDT}

Interesting point, kairosfocus, and well taken, although I would, myself, say that whether you regard DNA as "inert" simply depends on your frame of reference (cf geocentricity versus heliocentricity versus a galaxy model). But I actually agree that regarding DNA as inert - as a database, if you like, is a useful way of looking at it. And indeed, if "self-replication" implies that a think self-replicates in all contexts, then I willingly concede that DNA doesn't self-replicate. What it does have, however, is the property of embodying a 2 complete specifications of itself as well as the chemical capacity, when split into those two halves, of recombining with available materials to make two editions whereas before there was one. I am reluctant to call that "inert" in any absolute sense, though - when split into single helices the molecule is far from inert - it's very reactive. But even when in double form, it's still not inert, in a chemical sense, i.e. the sense that inert gases are, because it can be split, given the presence of certain catalysts. I think you would be interested (and probably enjoy) this lecture: http://videolectures.net/eccs07_noble_psb/ I've recommended Denis Noble's book before, but the content of it is here. I think it should be required listening for all biologists! I think he's bang on, but some of his positions may surprise you (including the statement that DNA can be regarded as "inert" :)) Cheers Lizzie HoweverElizabeth Liddle_{June 4, 2011
June
06
Jun
4
04
2011
04:18 AM
4
04
18
AM
PDT}

Folks: The metabolising, vNSR self-replicating unit is the WHOLE living cell, not part of it. DNA is essentially inert apart from the other nanomachines in the cell that act on its stored info. Indeed, without them, it would fairly rapidly corrupt itself. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{June 3, 2011
June
06
Jun
3
03
2011
05:46 AM
5
05
46
AM
PDT}

Lizzie:
However, remember that in the first context, the DNA itself catalyses the very compounds that result in the cell,
Citation please.Joseph_{June 3, 2011
June
06
Jun
3
03
2011
05:19 AM
5
05
19
AM
PDT}

Lizzie:
DNA is a molecule that has the property of splitting and then reacting with available bases in the local environment in a manner that results in two (near-)identical molecules where before there was only one.
That's wrong. DNA does not have such a property. In order to split DNA requires enzymes. IOW without a hosy of oter molecule DNA wouldn't do anything by itSELF.Joseph_{June 3, 2011
June
06
Jun
3
03
2011
05:18 AM
5
05
18
AM
PDT}

Joseph: I think the "self" in "self-replication" means that one thing transforms into two replicas of the original (perhaps "auto-replicate" would be a better word). It may only do so in certain contexts, but that doesn't make it not a self- (or auto-)replicator. Nothing can self-replicate unless, for example, it has the materials to hand with which to fabricate the replica. In the case of DNA, the context can be a cell, or a test-tube in which a biological catalyst has been deliberately added. However, remember that in the first context, the DNA itself catalyses the very compounds that result in the cell, and so the thing is a chain reaction, and in the second, again, after the chain reaction has begun, the DNA itself catalyses further splitting and reforming. But lest we get into a war of words about this, the important point, I think, we would agree on: DNA is a molecule that has the property of splitting and then reacting with available bases in the local environment in a manner that results in two (near-)identical molecules where before there was only one. I would call that self-replication, but I am happy to call it something else. The property itself is what is important here. Cheers LizzieElizabeth Liddle_{June 3, 2011
June
06
Jun
3
03
2011
05:08 AM
5
05
08
AM
PDT}

Lizzie:
I didn’t say that DNA self-replicates “on its own”.
LoL! What do you think the "self" in self-replication means?
But it is certainly a molecule, and it certainly self-replicates,
No, it doesn't. You do not know what you are talking about. Self-replication means it replicates by itself- so you need to buy a vowel and then come back when you have a clue.Joseph_{June 3, 2011
June
06
Jun
3
03
2011
04:19 AM
4
04
19
AM
PDT}

Joseph: I didn't say that DNA self-replicates "on its own". Many chemical reactions are contingent certain conditions, e.g. a catalyst, or even heat. But it is certainly a molecule, and it certainly self-replicates, and that's because its double helix structure means that under certain conditions it will separate into two single helices, each of which then binds to available bases to form two new doubles, identical to the first,give or take the odd glitch. It can even be done in the lab, which is why DNA "amplification" is a routine technique. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polymerase_chain_reaction And it's a chain reaction - i.e. once started, its own continuation.Elizabeth Liddle_{June 3, 2011
June
06
Jun
3
03
2011
01:09 AM
1
01
09
AM
PDT}

Correction: in the above, please replace "specification" in paragraph one with "arbitrary chemical sequence which gives rise to the illusion of exquisitely organized complexity via processes which we're very close to understanding, sort of." I'll try to be more careful with loaded and intentionally misleading vocabulary in the future.material.infantacy_{June 2, 2011
June
06
Jun
2
02
2011
07:15 PM
7
07
15
PM
PDT}

Yes but the specifications for producing the organelles which perform replication are themselves encoded in DNA, so hence it self-replicates. If you're going to ask me how that happened, it should be noted that self-replication introduces a significant survival advantage, and there's been a lot of advances made in the area of OOL. This is all very reasonable unless you're a creationist.material.infantacy_{June 2, 2011
June
06
Jun
2
02
2011
07:06 PM
7
07
06
PM
PDT}

No, there isn't any evidence that DNA is a self-replicating molecule. DNA replicates as part of cellular repliction, but DNA on its own does nothing.Joseph_{June 2, 2011
June
06
Jun
2
02
2011
06:16 PM
6
06
16
PM
PDT}

There’s no evidence that DNA is a self-replicating molecule.
There isn't?Elizabeth Liddle_{June 2, 2011
June
06
Jun
2
02
2011
04:29 PM
4
04
29
PM
PDT}

I think the evidence shows that self-replicating molecules, like DNA, are capable of absorbing information from the environment and keeping a record of which variations are able to exploit that environment.
There's no evidence that DNA is a self-replicating molecule.Mung_{June 1, 2011
June
06
Jun
1
01
2011
06:15 PM
6
06
15
PM
PDT}

BA77: I think we're starting to go in circles; we both keep saying the same things to each other. I think the evidence shows that self-replicating molecules, like DNA, are capable of absorbing information from the environment and keeping a record of which variations are able to exploit that environment. I think I'll just leave it there. Except to pass on a joke: What's the worst part about being a Materialist? Not being able to say "I told you so!" after you die. :-) Anyway, I hope you have a good Memorial Day (I'm assuming you live in the USA) with your friends and family.ellazimm_{May 29, 2011
May
05
May
29
29
2011
11:40 PM
11
11
40
PM
PDT}

BA77 Your last post is excellent. One of the best posts I've seen from you, and I've seen a lot. It's a keeper. However, next time you find an opportunity to post this response, could you please provide more links to your sources if they are available online (like you normally do)? Thanks way in advance. :)CannuckianYankee_{May 29, 2011
May
05
May
29
29
2011
08:20 AM
8
08
20
AM
PDT}

and now the last line you stated ellazimm,,, 'It’s all of them!’ You are right ellazimm, it is all of the evidences taken together that points overwhelmingly to a conclusion, but it is not the conclusion that you would prefer to be true,,, the materialistic and Theistic philosophy make, and have made, several natural contradictory predictions about what evidence we will find. These predictions, and the evidence we have found, can be tested against one another within the scientific method. Steps of the Scientific Method http://www.sciencebuddies.org/science-fair-projects/project_scientific_method.shtml For a quick overview, here are a few: 1.Materialism predicted an eternal universe, Theism predicted a created universe. - Big Bang points to a creation event. - 2. Materialism predicted time had an infinite past, Theism predicted time had a creation. - Time was created in the Big Bang. - 3. Materialism predicted space has always existed, Theism predicted space had a creation (Psalm 89:12) - Space was created in the Big Bang. - 4. Materialism predicted that material has always existed, Theism predicted 'material' was created. - 'Material' was created in the Big Bang. 5. Materialism predicted at the base of physical reality would be a solid indestructible material particle which rigidly obeyed the rules of time and space, Theism predicted the basis of this reality was created by a infinitely powerful and transcendent Being who is not limited by time and space - Quantum mechanics reveals a wave/particle duality for the basis of our reality which blatantly defies our concepts of time and space. - 6. Materialism predicted the rate at which time passed was constant everywhere in the universe, Theism predicted God is eternal and is outside of time - Special Relativity has shown that time, as we understand it, is relative and comes to a complete stop at the speed of light. (Psalm 90:4 - 2 Timothy 1:9)- 7. Materialism predicted the universe did not have life in mind and life was ultimately an accident of time and chance. Theism predicted this universe was purposely created by God with man in mind - Every transcendent universal constant scientists can measure is exquisitely fine-tuned for carbon-based life to exist in this universe. - 8. Materialism predicted complex life in this universe should be fairly common. Theism predicted the earth is extremely unique in this universe - Statistical analysis of the hundreds of required parameters which enable complex life to be possible on earth gives strong indication the earth is extremely unique in this universe. - 9. Materialism 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.". - 10. Materialism 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) - 11. Materialism 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) - 12. Materialism 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 - 13. Materialism 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. - 14. Materialism 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. - 15. Materialism 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. - As you can see when we remove the artificial imposition of the materialistic philosophy, from the scientific method, and look carefully at the predictions of both the materialistic philosophy and the Theistic philosophy, side by side, we find the scientific method is very good at pointing us in the direction of Theism as the true explanation. - In fact it is even very good at pointing us to Christianity: General Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, Entropy & the Shroud Of Turin - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/5070355bornagain77_{May 29, 2011
May
05
May
29
29
2011
07:33 AM
7
07
33
AM
PDT}

ellazimm, you state the following as lines of evidence; 'it’s not just fossils or morphology or the geographic distribution of species or the genetic evidence. It’s all of them!' First,,, ,,,it’s not just fossils,,, yet,,, Here is a page of quotes by leading paleontologists on the true state of the fossil record: https://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=15dxL40Ff6kI2o6hs8SAbfNiGj1hEOE1QHhf1hQmT2Yg ,,,or morphology,,, yet,,, 'The differences between the creatures that suddenly appear in the Cambrian are enormous. In fact these differences are so large many of these animals are one of a kind. Nothing like them existed before and nothing like them has ever appeared again.” Dr. Raymond G. Bohlin, University of Illinois (B.S., zoology), North Texas State University (M.S., population genetics), University of Texas at Dallas (M.S., Ph.D., molecular biology). Origin of Phyla - The Fossil Evidence - Timeline Graph http://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=0AYmaSrBPNEmGZGM4ejY3d3pfMzNobjlobjNncQ&hl=en The unscientific hegemony of uniformitarianism - David Tyler - May 2011 Excerpt: Evolution has been implicitly viewed as a uniformitarian process where the rates may vary but the underlying processes, including the types of variation, are essentially invariant through time. Recent studies demonstrate that this uniformitarian assumption is false, suggesting that the types of variation may vary through time. http://www.arn.org/blogs/index.php/literature/2011/05/16/the_unscientific_hegemony_of_uniformitar Here is a graph showing a partial list of morphologically distinct 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 Punctuated Equilibrium and Patterns from the Fossil Record - Casey Luskin Excerpt: “The Cambrian Explosion is by no means the only “explosion” in the fossil record. One evolutionist concedes that for the origin of fishes, “this is one count in the creationists’ charge that can only evoke in unison from paleontologists a plea of nolo contendere [no contest].” Plant biologists have called the origin of plants an “explosion,” saying, “the … radiation of land (plant) biotas is the terrestrial equivalent of the much-debated Cambrian ‘explosion’ of marine faunas.” Vertebrate paleontologists believe there was a mammal explosion because of the few transitional forms between major mammal groups: “There are all sorts of gaps: absence of gradationally intermediate ‘transitional’ forms between species, but also between larger groups — between, say, families of carnivores, or the orders of mammals.” Another study, “Evolutionary Explosions and the Phylogenetic Fuse,” found a bird (as well as a mammal) “Early Tertiary ‘explosion’” because many bird and mammal groups appear in a short time period lacking immediately recognizable ancestral forms. Finally, others have called the origin of our own genus Homo, “a genetic revolution” where “no australopithecine (ape) species is obviously transitional” leading one commentator to call it, like others called the Cambrian Explosion, a “big bang theory” of human evolution." ,,,or the geographic distribution of species,,, yet,,, This following article reveals how evolutionists avoid falsification from the biogeographical data of finding numerous and highly similar species in widely separated locations: More Biogeographical Conundrums for Neo-Darwinism - March 2010 http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/03/sea_monkeys_are_the_tip_of_the.html Amazing Insects Defy Evolution – October 2010 Excerpt: India spent tens of millions of years as an island before colliding with Asia. Yet the fossil record contains no evidence that unique species evolved on the subcontinent during this time, http://www.creationsafaris.com/crev201010.htm#20101026a ,,,or the genetic evidence.,,, yet,,, The Biological Big Bang model for the major transitions in evolution - Eugene V Koonin - Background: "Major transitions in biological evolution show the same pattern of sudden emergence of diverse forms at a new level of complexity. The relationships between major groups within an emergent new class of biological entities are hard to decipher and do not seem to fit the tree pattern that, following Darwin's original proposal, remains the dominant description of biological evolution. The cases in point include the origin of complex RNA molecules and protein folds; major groups of viruses; archaea and bacteria, and the principal lineages within each of these prokaryotic domains; eukaryotic supergroups; and animal phyla. In each of these pivotal nexuses in life's history, the principal "types" seem to appear rapidly and fully equipped with the signature features of the respective new level of biological organization. No intermediate "grades" or intermediate forms between different types are detectable; Since evolutionists continually misrepresent the true state of the evidence for molecular sequences, here are several more comments and articles, by leading experts, on the incongruence of molecular sequences to Darwin's theory: https://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=1S5wXsukzkauD5YQLkQYuIMGL25I4fJrOUzJhONvBXe4 ,,,Thus ellazimm, since you are found severely wanting on all fronts of evidence, perhaps you can address the main issue at hand, Perhaps you can scientifically prove that purely material processes are able to generate ANY functional information whatsoever?? At least then ellazimm, if you honestly addressed this MOST important question, I would not view you as intellectually dishonest in this question of origins!!! 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 ====== Michael Behe on Falsifying Intelligent Design - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N8jXXJN4o_Abornagain77_{May 29, 2011
May
05
May
29
29
2011
07:27 AM
7
07
27
AM
PDT}

BA77: "i.e. your argument boils down to, God would not have done it that way therefore neo-Darwinism must be true. As solid proof that this ‘religion driving science’ criticism is correct, it has recently come to light, in peer review, that the strongest arguments for neo-Darwinism, in Darwin’s “Origin Of Species”, are Theological, not scientific, in their basis;" I'm not making an argument right now at all. I did ask the question of what the ID explanation for the varying genome sizes is but I was told off for that. It still is true that genome sizes and the number of chromosomes is not well understood by biologists and that is what I was saying. It's an interesting area of research. No matter what arguments Darwin used (I've not read The Origin of Species actually) my own view of the modern evolutionary synthesis comes from reading fairly current discussions. Lizzie: "and ellazimm clearly knows much more about this than I do" . . . . HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHHAHAHAHAHAHA :-) I'm very good at copying and pasting, that I will own up to. I'd also like to reiterate my statements made on other threads that it's not just fossils or morphology or the geographic distribution of species or the genetic evidence. It's all of them! All pointing in the same direction, all necessary results of common descent with modification. We don't know every twist and turn but every day a new piece of the puzzle falls into place. And I agree that most people in this controversy are being honest and speaking from the heart. BA77: Just because we do not chose to address all your links does not mean we have not now or in the past considered the arguments presented therein. The Rhizome issue you bring up, for example, is very interesting and I remember discussing it briefly elsewhere. And, if I remember correctly, one of the researchers suggested that while there may be several roots to the tree/bush/shrub of life it does not point to intelligent design. Just that things were messy when life was getting started and there was lots of genetic shuffling and swapping.ellazimm_{May 29, 2011
May
05
May
29
29
2011
06:21 AM
6
06
21
AM
PDT}

Furthermore Elizabeth, the materialistic foundation that neo-Darwinism is based on, is shown not to be a complete description of molecular biology! https://uncommondescent.com/culture/are-the-wheels-coming-off-harvard%E2%80%99s-multi-million-endowment-to-find-the-origin-of-life/#comment-381932 ,,, Thus it is shown scientifically, not theologically (as Darwinism does), that neo-Darwinism CANNOT be a complete description of life on earth!!!!bornagain77_{May 29, 2011
May
05
May
29
29
2011
05:49 AM
5
05
49
AM
PDT}

1 2 3 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply