Posted on 10/11/2002 9:02:01 PM PDT by gore3000
Leland Hartwell (born 1939), Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, USA, is awarded for his discoveries of a specific class of genes that control the cell cycle. One of these genes called "start" was found to have a central role in controlling the first step of each cell cycle. Hartwell also introduced the concept "checkpoint", a valuable aid to understanding the cell cycle.
As the above shows, a gene, to function properly, requires other DNA to control it, tell it to function, tell it how much protein to produce and when to start and stop. Now a gene without this additional DNA would not operate period. Therefore to have even a simple new function, you require (as I have been saying all along) more than one mutation. Indeed it requires quite a few mutations working together for it to work. This makes evolution utterly impossible and proves intelligent design.
The evidence against abiogenesis is right in the article and you cannot disprove it. To call the solid evidence presented there as a belief is to demean the strength of the evidence. If Andrew considers that evidence insurmountable, it only shows him to be a rational person unlike the atheists who, while not being able to refute it, insist that abiogenesis is possible without any evidence for it or even a rational explanation of how it could have happened.
Uhmmm, guess now you claim that evolution is not a fact? That evolution is not science? After all if science can prove nothing then evolution must be total nonsense and a belief not a fact.
It is interesting that when given solid scientific evidence against their theory the evolutionists always withdraw into skepticism and 'nothing is true' mode. Some scientists you folk are!
Wrong, idiot. The dots aren't subject to revision, the context is.
The fact that you find it necessary to insult me because you put your foot in your mouth and admitted that the bones do not prove anything since they are always subject to revision shows the truth of my statement above. Therefore paleontology is no proof of evolution as I have detailed in other posts.
Boy, you really are stupid. How anybody outside of a mental institution could read my posts and glean those ideas is truly incredible!
Oh, and objecting to my characterization of you is really funny, Mr. Slime, Mr everybody's-a-liar, Mr evo-Taliban, Mr doesn't-understand-a-"proof".
Then evolution is not a fact, it is nonsense. Seems I must have given pretty strong and pretty irrefutable scientific evidence for both you and Junior to cower behind this skeptical nonsense.
As to the "Beak of the Finch", yes there are some reviews that gloss over the important evidence. Nevertheless the proof that the different 'species' of finches do mate, do reproduce, and their progeny are even more viable than the non-mixed 'species'. In addition, the book also shows that the beaks lengthened and shortened and lenghthened again in the short period of a dozen years. This back and forth shows that the changes were not due to mutation but to genetic information inherent in the species. In other words, as I said, the species adapted, they did not mutate as evolution requires.
Don't even bring up Newton. He's a charlatan, a fiend,
Insulting Newton because he disagrees with your theory and gave strong proof in the little story in the article against it. How low can you guys go! The man was one of the greatest scientists that ever lived, a genius mathematician and decent man. Guess that is a good reason for you to attack him eh?
Balrog, you careless fool! With that dreadful lapse--an anonymous post on a small website--you have singlehandedly destroyed the foundations and findings of 150 years of research. The Atheist Council for Evolutionary Science is going to revoke your membership for this!
[snif] How could you...?
Phooey! All of his "facts" about motion and gravity have been proven wrong. I also hear he picked his nose.
[snif] How could you...?
Oh, noooooooooooooooo! I'll be drummed out of the Council! Quick, let's engage in a flame war and get the thread pulled! Hurry, somebody ping the moderator!
Oh, wait, we already did that! BWAAAAHAHAHA, that was laugh out loud funny. Maybe I should wait until the tylenol-3 wears off before I respond to Pope goreMMM again.
Only if you ignore these factors:
There is a lot of DNA, sometimes called "junk" DNA. Although that name overstates the case, it is not generally expressed (read as a protein). Mutations there (and pre-existing oddities) will not generally express themselves, but such coding can do so if the right "start reading DNA code here" sequence is added.
For a given base pair, it is not always a case of, virtually everyone has, say, a "G" here, and any of the other 3 letters is a mutation. A given percent of people will have some other base pair, and as long as people don't have offspring with their siblings, that's rarely a problem even for "hamrful" mutations.
In the same way that a very short piece of computer code can call up a big subroutine and perform a complex function, a single base-pair mutation can cause a big difference in an organism's structure. While the fruit fly example where an extra pair of legs or wings pops up with a single mutation is not a useful feature, that doesn't mean that no such mutation could be helpful, given how many will occur.
Viruses can transfer larger pieces of DNA to radically different parts of ones chromosomes, and even between species. Large expressed sequences are not apt to be helpful, but some will.
So you realized it's there. That's progress. Now all you have to do is understand its plain meaning.
...realizes the utter complexity of DNA and not only compares it to a computer program, but thinks even that such a metaphor is way too reductionist to give it justice. As he admits, it is far too complex for us to understand it now or for many decades to come.
Fine.
Such complexity cannot arise by chance.
This is entirely undemonstrated.
Programs, even the simpler ones we use in our computers, do not arise by chance. More importantly, they cannot be modified by chance either which is what evolution requires.
No it isn't. Go look up the meaning of "metaphor." As even you were able to figure out, Baltimore says the metaphor is "too reductionist." Your interpretation is not only too reductionist, you don't even seem to understand it's a metaphor.
Here's the whole article which shows the interpretation that this is the work of evolution is totally wrong. Such a complex, decision making system, was clearly intelligently designed.
Tell it to Baltimore. He's the one whose article -- the one you've reproduced -- assumes evolution.
G3K: As the above shows, a gene, to function properly, requires other DNA to control it, tell it to function, tell it how much protein to produce and when to start and stop. Now a gene without this additional DNA would not operate period. Therefore to have even a simple new function, you require (as I have been saying all along) more than one mutation. Indeed it requires quite a few mutations working together for it to work. This makes evolution utterly impossible and proves intelligent design.
And as I have been saying all along, you're postings are rubbish. Again, I post Hartwell's own words describing his current work:
My laboratory is beginning a new research program aimed at studying how molecular circuits support evolution. Evolution acts through selection of preexisting genetic variation in populations.If he'd "disproved" evolution, as you keep insisting, why is he bothering to study "how molecular circuits support evolution"? These are the man's own words! If you are right, he's either a liar or an incompetent. Which is it?
Gee ... don't these awful attacks on Newton sound remarkably like other attacks on these threads? The attacks directed at Darwin, I mean. (Did you know that Newton went mad? Twice, in fact. Go look it up).
Evolution is a theory supported by facts.
You haven't presented anything except for a few ancient, out-of-context quotes; some name-calling; and arguments from astonishment. None of this adds up to "solid scientific evidence." BTW, did you not notice that the two sources you referenced earlier actually assume evolution occurs and that nothing in what they wrote countered that assumption?
Regardless, that question has yet to be answered. And apparently you still don't know beans about astronomy. ;^)
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.