Posted on 03/29/2008 6:54:19 PM PDT by wastedpotential
Of all the factors that led to Mike Huckabee's demise in the 2008 presidential sweepstakes (insufficient funds, lack of foreign policy experience), there's one that has been largely overlooked: Huckabee's disbelief in the theory of evolution as it is generally understood – without the involvement of the Creator.
Perhaps you're thinking: What's evolution got to do with being president? Very little, as Huckabee was quick to remind reporters on the campaign trail. But from the moment the former Baptist minister revealed his beliefs on evolutionary biology, political commentators and scientists lambasted him. Some even suggested those beliefs should disqualify him from high office.
We believe most Americans
(Excerpt) Read more at worldnetdaily.com ...
No, what I am saying is essentially that the cell and DNA are just chemistry as much as a computer is just chemistry. Organization is what is not chemistry.
One example of why you are wrong:
117 clades of euagarics
http://www.biology.duke.edu/fungi/mycolab/publications/117clades.html
As homework, learn what parsimony bootstrap analysis mean in this context.
You are straying from the original question, which is whether mutations can modify the output in non-lethal ways.
The observed case in microbes is that non-fatal mutations are common.
And you are apparently not reading what I write. I stated most mutations are not lethal. I also stated on this thread that I do not believe mutations are random(since I believe that RMNS is inadequate). IOW, mutations are allowed to stand and in fact are caused "intentionally" by the computing cell. You should know by now that I believe along the lines of Dr Shapiro.
So the cells of a wolf intentionally compute the alleles needed to produce teacup poodles?
Nope that computation was done by humans.
I confess, I'm really not sure what to say to someone who doesn't wonder about questions like these. Especially in a science-oriented discussion.
You don’t question why a Natural process would result in different wing bones
Sure I do. And science gives me an answer: bird wings evolved from the arms of one group of animals, and bat wings evolved via a mutation in the paws of another group of animals. Both groups found flying a useful success strategy. Convergent evolution. Makes perfect sense.
So humans actually caused the mutations (new alleles) that make teacup poodles from wolves?
As much as they use wood to make furniture. Will that answer end your stump the dummy routine?
I’m just wondering if you actually have anything to say. Apparently not.
I’m not asking trivial questions. You are making an assertion about how variation occurs. It’s a question that has implications that could be explored by research.
In fact it has been explored for over a hundred years, and no one has observed a pattern in which mutation anticipates need in any statistical manner.
[[ And science gives me an answer: bird wings evolved from the arms of one group of animals, and bat wings evolved via a mutation in the paws of another group of animals.]]
Science does no such thing- they ask you to have faith and they provide you no evidnece to support their imaginary scenarios. At best, all they can show you is MICROEvolving physical structures- that’s it- yet you have no problem taking hte leap of faith and beleiving that a biolgically impossible hypothesis links all species together?
[[Convergent evolution. Makes perfect sense.]]
“Makes perfect sense”? And a specifically and fully formed and designed species which shows scientific evidence for MICROEvolution doesn’t make sense? Why must God have NOT used variety in creation?
[[I confess, I’m really not sure what to say to someone who doesn’t wonder about questions like these.]]
If you can hsow a valid reason to wonder abotu somethign, I’ll wonder, but your qquestions go nowhere really. The diesigns work, they function, and al lthe species you listed have thrived for 1000’s of years just fine. Since Macroevolution is biologically impossible, it isn’t rleevent to speculate on why there is variety except to pursue the relationship of hte variety to the species and the environment- the greater speculation would be how those varieties are constructed in light of IC- but for those bent on discounting ID, the evidences will of course be simply ignored, and the impossible scenarios will be embraced.
[[ bird wings evolved from the arms of one group of animals,]]
They did? Got any evidence showing that?
[[and bat wings evolved via a mutation in the paws of another group of animals.]]
Really? Hmmm- last I checked there is no evidence for that either- just wild speculations about past events.
that’s all you’ve got as you ‘proof’? The bootstrap assumes Macroevolution is fact- not only that, it makes many seriously huge assumptions about events they have no knoweldge of in the past- as well the evidences differ greatly from what is inferred in biology and in the fossil records.
“Wong et al explain how researchers can fall into the trap by trusting algorithms that cannot bear the weight of inference placed on them:
A common theme in comparative genomics studies is a flow diagram, or chart, tracing the various steps and algorithms used during the analysis of a large number of genes. Flow charts can be quite sophisticated, with steps such as identifying orthologous gene sets, aligning the genes, and performing different statistical analyses on the resulting alignments. The key point, and a great practical difficulty in comparative genomics studies, is that the analyses must be repeated many times. The procedure, then, is largely automated, with scripting languages such as Perl or Python cobbling together individual programs that perform each step. In addition, many of the individual steps involve procedures originally developed in the evolutionary biology literature, to perform phylogeny estimation or to identify individual amino acid residues under the influence of positive selection. Statistical methods that until recently would have been applied to a single alignment, carefully constructed, are now applied to a large number of alignments, many of which may be of uncertain quality and cause the underlying assumptions of the methods to fail.”
http://creationsafaris.com/crev200801.htm
“The Hopeless Task of Building Evolutionary Trees
“Were you ever told in biology class that generating a phylogenetic tree from the raw data was mathematically impossible, and that no future civilization would ever overcome this barrier? Probably not, yet textbooks are replete with neat, authoritative-looking phylogenetic trees. So how do they determine them? By heuristic methods, which by translation, means guesswork, inference, trial-and-error, hunches and hope.
http://creationsafaris.com/crev0702.htm#darwin148
“What the geneticists infer from DNA analysis often disagrees strongly with what the biologists infer from comparative anatomy, and both differ strongly from the fossil record.” http://creationsafaris.com/crev1102.htm
I see nothign but more asumptions about past events which can’t be reproduced and studied.
I don't know exactly what you mean by anticipation in terms of cellular activity, but I do know that Dr. James Shapiro explains some non-stocastic mutations here.
A 21st Century View of evolution
The conventional view is that genetic change comes from stochastic, accidental sources: radiation, chemical, or oxidative damage, chemical instabilities in the DNA, or from inevitable errors in the replication process. However, the fact is that DNA proofreading and repair systems are remarkably effective at removing these non-biological sources of mutation. For example, consider that the E. coli cell replicates its 4.6 megabase genome every 40 minutes. That is a replication frequency of almost 2 kHz. Yet, due to the action of error-recognition and correction systems in the replication machine and in the cell to catch mistakes in already-replicated DNA, the error rate is reduced below one mistake in every 1010 base-pairs duplicated, and a similar low value is observed in mammalian cells (32). That is less than one base change in every 2000 cells, certainly well below the mutation frequencies I have measured in E. coli of about four mutations per every 100 to 1000 cells.
In addition to proofreading systems, cells have a wide variety of repair systems to prevent or correct DNA damage from agents that include superoxides, alkylating chemicals and irradiation (33). Some of these repair systems encode mutator DNA polymerases which are clearly the source of DNA damage-induced mutations and also appear to be the source of so-called "spontaneous" mutations that appear in the absence of an obvious source of DNA damage (34). Results illustrating the effectiveness of cellular systems for genome repair and the essential role of enzymes in mutagenesis emphasize the importance of McClintock?s revolutionary discovery of internal systems generating genome, particularly when an organism has been challenged by a stress affecting genome function (Fig. 4; 5).
McClintock recognized that genetic change is a cellular process, subject to regulation, and is not dependent on stochastic accidents. The idea of internally-generated, biologically regulated mutation has profound impacts for thinking about the process of evolution. Darwin himself acknowledged this point in later editions of Origin of Species, where he wrote about natural "sports" or "...variations which seem to us in our ignorance to arise spontaneously. It appears that I formerly underrated the frequency and value of these latter forms of variation, as leading to permanent modifications of structure independently of natural selection." (6th edition, Chapter XV, p. 395).
And your questions were trivial.
and besides- all you’re showing me is that MICROEvoltuion is possible- you’ve shown all one KIND and MICROEvolutionary variations within that KIND- big deal- MICROEvolution has never been disputed and certainly doesn’t lead to fungi advancing beyond their own KIND for which there certain;y is now evidence. I asked for biological links between disimilar KINDS- not for examples of MICROEvolution within their own KINDS-
Yes, they can show me "microevolving" structures, each of which displays a different feature required to make an arm into a bird's wing. The result is what you would call "macroevolution." No faith required, since I don't start with a conviction that such a process is impossible.
Why must God have NOT used variety in creation?
I never said he couldn't. What I said was that I found that answer personally unsatisfying because it didn't really explain anything. You don't seem to find the questions interesting, so it makes sense that you're happy with that answer.
They did? Got any evidence showing that?
I don't expect you to be swayed by it, but in case you or anyone else are interested in (some of) the evidence:
How Did Rats Grow Wings and Became Bats?
Particularly interesting from the latter: "They found that during early development, both bat and mouse forelimb digits grew at about the same rate relative to their overall gestation periods of 120 and 20 days, respectively. However, roughly halfway through gestation, the bat's third, fourth, and fifth forelimb digits suddenly started to grow much faster.... This observation has lead scientists to consider that the sudden growth may be due to a gene that coded a certain protein (called Bmp2) responsible for bone growth. They have found that the expression of this gene was indeed 30% higher in the developing forelimbs of bats than it was in mice. This indicated that what probably prompted the appearance of bats from mouse-like rodents was a mutation in the gene regulating the Bmp2 gene." Thus showing that mutations need not always be harmful and that small mutations can have large effects.
"I said I wasn’t going to get into obfuscatory arguments.
If you choose to consider any sequence of base pairs in any arrangement as the same “data”, you may do so.
Considering the DNA based relationship trees used in modern phylogenetics, and ignoring the value judgements (”broken” copy mechanism) the answers to your questions are clearly in the res ipsa loquitur category.
Since doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result does not meet my definition of reasonable behavior, I will not respond to more questions. On occasion I will provide information. Since the scientist expulsion/exodus there are too few lurkers to post for and I have not got Coyoteman’s patience.
Courtesy ping to Coyoteman."
Masciarelli
I’m curious about “their non-random operations.” Does ‘non-random’ suggest that the very instructions for all possible morphological changes are front loaded or pre-programmed into living things, needing only a given catalyst to get things going?
James Shapiro
No. Non-random means that they operate under certain conditions (e.g. after genome damage or viral infection) and that these systems make characteristic kinds of changes. When a retrovirus-like element inserts in a new genomic location, it carries with it a defined set of regulatory signals that can affect the reading of nearby DNA sequences in very particular ways. This is an example of non-randomness. In addition, some changes (such as those in the immune system) can be targeted to specific locations by the presence of particular signals in the DNA or by activation of transcription. These phenomena show us that cells are capable of altering their genomes in non-random but not rigidly specified or pre-determined ways.
http://www.iscid.org/james-shapiro-chat.php
[[I don’t expect you to be swayed by it, but in case you or anyone else are interested in (some of) the evidence:]]
—[[Unenlagia - 90 MYA
The scapula evolved into a different shape. This allowed this ostrich-size animal to have greater up and down mobility in its arms. It now appears that other dromaeosaurids were able to move their arms this way too.]]—
It ‘evolved’? Really? Where is htis evidence available showing hte evolution of the scapula? I suppose we’re just to take hteir word for it that the scapula ‘evolved’ despite hteir being absolutely zero evidence of it?
—[[Eoalulavis - 125-130 MYA
In this primitive bird, the thumb has developed into an important structure to support the alula, a tuft of feathers that provide flight controls: the ability to run and bank while flying.]]—
Really? Hmmm- got hte eivdnece for the thumb ‘evolving’? No? Again- we’re just supposed to take hteir word for it, be impressed by their fancy ‘charts’ showing completed species, and beleive these species were ‘related’ somehow (despite yet more completely missing evidnece to support htis) and take hteir word for it?
I find it funny that you fully accept wild scenarios that are completely lackign in fossil evidence, yet you find a Fully designed fully functioning species implausible.
—[[Modern Birds - 65 MYA to present
They have small, lightweight bones, large wing surfaces and short tails. Large sternums (breast bones) allow for large flight muscles. These permit them to be excellent flyers]]—
And here we jump from the ‘primitive’ (yet uniquely created, fully formed bird) all the way up to modern (uniquely created, fully formed) birds, with absolutely zero evidence showing hte ‘thumb’ either devolving or evolving- Got some pretty serious gaps there Ha Ha.
[[No faith required, since I don’t start with a conviction that such a process is impossible]
No ‘faith required’ eh? a few Homological similarities can’t be used as an argument
“Homology in Biology
A Problem for Naturalistic Science
Diverse organisms possess homologous features. Homology may or may not be due to inheritance from a common ancestor, but it is definitely not due to similarity of genes or similarity of developmental pathways. In 1971, Gavin de Beer wrote: “What mechanism can it be that results in the production of homologous organs, the same ‘patterns’, in spite of their not being controlled by the same genes? I asked this question in 1938, and it has not been answered.” (de Beer, 1971, p.16 [emphasis added]) Twenty-five years later, the question still has not been answered.”
http://www.trueorigin.org/homology.asp
“Without an empirically demonstrated naturalistic mechanism to account for homology, design remains a possibility which can only be excluded on the basis of questionable philosophical assumptions.”
“This is why Stephen Gould remarked that homology supports common design as well as it does common ancestry.”
A Critique of ‘’29 Evidences for Macroevolution’’ - Part 3
“One cannot take a known pattern of life, claim that pattern as a prediction of evolution, and then use the fact the pattern fits the prediction as evidence for the truth of evolution. To be of evidentiary value, the predictions must derive from the hypothesis itself, not be read back into the hypothesis from present knowledge.”
http://www.trueorigin.org/theobald1d.asp
[[When a retrovirus-like element inserts in a new genomic location, it carries with it a defined set of regulatory signals that can affect the reading of nearby DNA sequences in very particular ways. This is an example of non-randomness.]]
How is that ‘non random’? It was a random insertion- The fact that a species can cope and compensate due to instructiosn already present that allow such cpoing after invasion in no way means the insertion wasn’t random
[[These phenomena show us that cells are capable of altering their genomes in non-random but not rigidly specified or pre-determined ways.]]
Oh really? And htey’ve determiend that they aren’t predetermined how? they’ve determined that isntructions don’t have parameters that include the ability to adjust to foriegn invaders how? And, “Cells cells are capable of altering their genomes”? If this were true, it indicates a thinking p[rocess- and as well indicates design. Cells have their genomes altered, they don’t somehow consciously make a descision to alter hteir genome on their own.
Masciarelli
is correct- the info IS frontloaded and awaiting catylysts to kickstart the designed features or changes that fall fully within species specific parameters.
I have posted to others previously that I will not participate in obfuscatory arguments.
I will, when I feel like it, post references to information. What you do with it is not my problem.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.