Posted on 10/08/2008 7:21:40 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
It’s Fun Seeing Evolution Falsified
Oct 8, 2008 — “Mysterious Snippets Of DNA Withstand Eons Of Evolution” is the strange title of an article on Science Daily. Gill Bejerano and Cory McLean from Stanford are wondering why large non-coding sections of DNA are very similar, or “ultraconserved,” from mice to man. Evolutionary theory would expect that non-functional genetic material would mutate more rapidly than genes. Yet for unknown reasons, the ultraconserved segments stay the same throughout the mammal order. Experiments have shown that mice with these sections deleted do just fine. Why would natural selection purify these regions if they are not essential for survival?...
(Excerpt) Read more at creationsafaris.com ...
I won’t be able to really mix it up for a couple more weeks, but I couldn’t pass this one up!
All the best—GGG
That was pretty funny, but even he came around to realize evolution is true.
Humor.
Sure, but I'm stll awaiting repeatable proof.
==evolution is true.
Which sect of evolution is true? Is it the Temple of Darwin sect? Is it the rapidly growing Temple of Lamarck? The Altenberg 16 Sect? Which one? Or our you just committed to evolution in general???
He posted a giggly schoolgirl’s comments under News/Activism and not Bloggers and Personal. When scientist say the don’t understand something, the barbarians hoot and pound their chests and celebrate their superstitions. Nothing new and certainly not news.
??? Call me dumb, but it seems that active genetic material would mutate more rapidly as non-functioning genes as those are dealing with active traits that would show environmental changes, generation after generation..
Let me critique this before the hardcore neo-Darwinists hit the thread:
This does not falsify evolution. It appears to falsify the assumption (shared by both many neo-Darwinists and their most hardened critics) that the now-technical meaning of ‘random’ in ‘random mutation’ is equivalent to the common-sense notion of ‘random’.
The common-sense notion of randomness applied to mutations would have transciption errors occuring with equal likelihood at all points of the genome, due to things like cosmic ray strikes and the like.
The technical meaning given to ‘random’ by evolutionary biologists does not mean or imply this (and it was stupid of them to keep the word because using it provides their critics with a propaganda coup, but I digress) it means that mutations do not occur in anticipation of environmental conditions, and that the mutations that do occur in response to environmental conditions show no bias in favor of adaptive advantage.
Personally, I think the main cause of adaptive changes in various organisms genomes is trancription of genetic code by viruses, which move ‘already field tested’ bits around. And then there’s are reverse transcriptases, but neo-Darwinists don’t like talking about that class of enzymes.
No real comfort here for those of you who think God hand-builds molecular machines. On the other hand, for those of us who think He constructed the biosphere to be the orginal supercomputer running what are now called ‘genetic algorithms’ in unwhitting homage to His handiwork, with overarching instructions to converge on an organism in His image and likeness (too bad we managed to mar that) it’s a rather nice result.
The science one.... the one that states “3rd Grade Science Book”... that one.
And they still want to call themselves ‘scientists!’
As far as I remember, you have DNA transcriptase unzipping the DNA molecule and going through and copying it. Sometimes, the thinking goes, it makes a copying error. But as the entire genome has to be unraveled in this process, I don't think it matters whether that particular part of DNA is active or not in the final product. In a sense, it is all "active" or unraveled when it is being copied. That's mitosis, anyway, and then you have the recombination that goes on in meiosis--but I seem to remember the process being similar.
That's all the way at the beginning of the process, and it happens way before the trait is even expressed in the environment.
I hope I described that right. It's been a long time since I studied this stuff! I need a thorough review. :)
This notion though of segments of DNA in stasis is very important and should be taken seriously. It's important to understand, for instance, why supposedly things like the coelecanth remained so much the same after so much time, whereas other things changed dramatically in the same period. You can argue of course that there was little if any selection pressure on the coelecanth, but shouldn't there at least be some genetic drift, especially in a small population?
Apparently some people have a very low threshold of entertainment.
Reverse transcriptase??! Now this is something I need to hear about! Do tell.
"The true function of these regions remains a mystery, but it's clear that the genome really does need and use them," said Gill Bejerano, PhD, assistant professor of developmental biology and of computer science. In fact, these so-called "ultraconserved" regions are about 300 times less likely than other regions of the genome to be lost during mammalian evolution, according to research from Bejerano and graduate student Cory McLean.
Although some of the ultraconserved regions, which were first identified by Bejerano in 2004, are involved in the regulation of the expression of neighboring genes, previous research has shown that mice missing each of four regions seem perfectly normal.
"It's very surprising that none of the four has any observable phenotype," said Bejerano. "In some ways it just doesn't make sense."
When this discovery came out several years ago, the argument given at the time was, ... "So what?" It is abundantly evident that you can't sweep problems under the rug. What is in contention here is that there is apparently no phenotype connection to the highly conserved genotype. Darwin necessitates an intimate connection between the two.
==The science one.... the one that states “3rd Grade Science Book”... that one.
Again, which sect of evolution do you belong to? The Temple of Darwin? The neo-Lamarckian sect? The Altenberg 16 sect? Or do you place your faith in Evolution no matter which sect is leading the pack???
If they would just admit that they are practicing materialist religion, everything would be fine!
Excellent point. Indeed, what they are finding out is that genes produce the basic proteins, whereas the protein folding that is so crucial to phenotype is largely carried out by epigenetic factors that operate above or outside of the genes themselves. This discovery will ultimately deliver the deathblow to the neo-Darwinian synthesis IMHO.
Thanks for the ping!
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.