It's Fun Seeing Evolution Falsified

CreationEvolutionHeadlines ^ | October 8, 2008

[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?...

[allmendream]

But it is an observation that much of the genome doesn't show conservation. That isn't up for argument GGG. It is a simple observation of fact. When we compare genomes we see a pattern of conservation with some areas of the genome being around 300 times less likely to be different than other nonconserved regions.

So why would you post an article with such a ridiculous assertion that even you disagree with?

[Ha Ha Thats Very Logical]

• "[The] Darwinian claim to explain all of evolution is a popular half-truth whose lack of explicative power is compensated for only by the religious ferocity of its rhetoric." --National Academy of Sciences member Lynn Margulis

You guys come up with all kinds of quotes like this, and every time--yes, every time--I dig a little deeper to find out what the person really thinks, I find the quote to be a complete misrepresentation of their ideas. Lynn Margulis has a theory of evolution that runs counter to some aspects of neodarwinian theory--as far as I can tell, she fully accepts common descent and natural selection, but she's not so big on the competitive, "survival of the fittest" aspect. Here's what she said about Darwin in her book Diversity of Life: "Charles Darwin's observations of finch and tortoise diversity in the Galapagos Islands provided clues to the diversity of animal species." Elsewhere she writes, "Evolution has modified undulipodia into a fantastic variety of functional structures."

Once again, you mistake disagreements among people who fully accept evolution for challenges to the theory of evolution itself, and demonstrate that you put way too much importance on whether Darwin the man got everything right.

[GodGunsGuts]

==But it is an observation that much of the genome doesn’t show conservation.

How is demonstrated?

[GodGunsGuts]

==When we compare genomes we see a pattern of conservation with some areas of the genome being around 300 times less likely to be different than other nonconserved regions.

Do you mean between species, within species, or both?

[allmendream]

WTH? You asked me for a definition and I supplied the common definition of evolutionary conservation. You get caught saying something stupid so now your changing the definition?

Sorry you don't get to do that.

Conservation means similar between species. Even if you think they never shared a common ancestor it would mean “conservation of design”.

We are talking about conservation between species as a predictive means of finding functional domains of the genome. Creationstupidity blog said “Evolution Falsified” based upon this linkage between conservation (between species) and function was broken when a ultraconserved domain, when removed from the genome, produced no detectable phenotype. You post this travesty and then admit that you think ALL DNA has a function, and a function will be found for this sequence, so no linkage between conservation (between species)and function could be broken.

You ask me for a definition of a concept you don't even understand, yet is central to the topic of discussion, and then try to redefine it.

?????????????????????????????????????

[allmendream]

When comparing between species. Please read the actual article in ScienceNews that Creationstupidity blog was talking about.

CONSERVATION = Similarity between species.

[GodGunsGuts]

And how are transposable elements accounted for with respect to the way evos understand conservation?

[GodGunsGuts]

Yes, I am changing the definition. Unless I qualify “conservation” with “the way the evos understand it,” I shall henceforward mean conservation by the biological program that defines the organism.

[allmendream]

==But it is an observation that much of the genome doesn’t show conservation.

“How is demonstrated?”GGG

You might have heard of the genome project? The data for the entire genome of several species are on file. Conservation patterns are demonstrated by comparing the genome and seeing which sections are similar (conserved between species) and which sections are divergent (nonconserved between species).

[valkyry1]

Looks like you are one of the Darwinian’s she is talking about.

[allmendream]

Way to cripple yourself when trying to speak to anyone intelligently about Science, making up your own definitions.

The Creationist position on conservation would be that it is “conservation of design” between species, rather than “conservation through evolution”.

You don't get to change the definition to ‘unchanged within the species itself’; especially as we don't have badger DNA from 100 years ago to even make a measure of what your trying to change the definition to.

The thousands of papers that discuss DNA conservation between species outweigh you trying to get out of saying something dumb by saying after the fact that your changing the definition that you already had to ask me for.

[GodGunsGuts]

Well, if you mean between species, it's worthless because what the evos take as conserved and unconserved elements between species is really just differences in design. Do you see why it is so very important to start redefining the Evos twisting of our precious science vocabulary?

[allmendream]

Its not your precious science vocabulary. You don't do science, and from this thread it is obvious you don't understand science.

Conservation between species is what we were talking about from the beginning with this Creationstupidity blog. You didn't understand it, and are now trying to redefine it.

These guys decide the definition of science vocabulary. They are the professionals who use “precious” science. Science is just something you want to tack on the end of Creationism.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/

[Grizzled Bear]

Disproved? Like on South Park when Ms. Garrison says that we are all descendant from retarded fish having carnal knowledge of a monkey?

That was pretty funny, but even he came around to realize evolution is true.

Dude. That was a cartoon. Get a grip.

[GodGunsGuts]

==The Creationist position on conservation would be that it is “conservation of design” between species, rather than “conservation through evolution”.

Nope, sorry. It still makes it sound like there is some sort of common descent involved. The Bible makes it clear that each organism was originally created according to its kind. Thus, from now on, conservation means that which is conserved/maintained by the biological program that defines the organism.

[allmendream]

DNA conservation between species.

You post a thread from a bad blog about it, you didn't understand what it was, asked for a definition, misused it, and are now trying to redefine it?

[allmendream]

You sure seem to have plenty of time.

Why no citation about a Creationist explanation for DNA conservation BETWEEN SPECIES that you supposedly read about that was so much better than the evolutionary explanation?

Come on now. You have plenty of time. All the time in the world.

[GodGunsGuts]

Wrong again, Allmendream. Conservation, at least in so far as the Temple of Darwin understands it, is an article of their evolutionary faith, and has nothing to do with empirical science. Thus, from a Creation Science perspective, it is perfectly reasonable to take this word back, divest it from any notion of common descent, and reinfuse it with a meaning that properly reflects that it is God's biological program that is doing the conserving, not Darwin's brain-dead natural selection goddess.

[allmendream]

It is the description of an observed phenomenon, not an article of faith. Please purchase a clue.

Biologists can and do compare genome sequences between species and then refer to those sequences that are similar between species as being highly conserved.

You can pretend it is otherwise if you want.

Good night and good luck with that.

God bless your heart.

[GodGunsGuts]

==Why no citation about a Creationist explanation for DNA conservation BETWEEN SPECIES that you supposedly read about that was so much better than the evolutionary explanation?

Here’s one that comes to mind:

http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/3271/