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]

Doesn't deal with the pattern of nested hierarchies or the linkage between conservation between species and function and nonconservation between species and lack of function. Like you it doesn't show any actual understanding of the subject. No wonder after reading it you still needed to ask for a definition of conservation between species.

[Ha Ha Thats Very Logical]

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

I point out that you posted something misleading, and the best you can do is make some lame crack? Tell me: do you even care that what you ported over here was deceitful? Seriously, does it not bother you at all that your source, whatever it was, mined a quote to make it appear that the person held a position they don't hold?

[valkyry1]

You are the one who is misleading with non-sequitor quote mining, and my description of you stands.

Here is her quote again "[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

[GodGunsGuts]

==Doesn't deal with the pattern of nested hierarchies

Are you saying a pattern of nested hierarchies precludes intelligent design?

==Doesn't deal with the...linkage between conservation between species and function and nonconservation between species and lack of function.

Please provide the evidence that establishes the predominance of this linkage, and please cite your sources.

==No wonder after reading it you still needed to ask for a definition of conservation between species.

I will grant that I have a lot to learn about science. But I am confident that by the time I get done looking into this matter (nested hierarchies and conservation/non-conservation between species), I will find that the science favors Creation/ID, not Darwin's brain-dead creation myth...and thus you will be shown to be wrong once again.

[AndrewC]

So is it useful DNA, which would contradict your stance that the non-functionality of this region “falsifies” evolution?

Wait a second, don't mischaracterize who defined what. There is an implied correlation between the degree of conservation and the criticality of the assumed or "real" function of the genetic item being considered. The fact that the highly conserved sequences can be removed(thus actually rendering the conservation to zero) without apparent harm to the organism is absolutely counter to the assumed reason for sequences being highly conserved. That consequence is known as a contradiction.

[GodGunsGuts]

Good point. Although, I would have to see what happens when that so-called highly conserved sequence is knocked out at many different stages of development, and under a variety of stressful conditions, before I would concede that it is not functional.

I am of the opinion that almost all genetic sequences are functional, and that they are not conserved between species (as the Darwinists would have us believe), but rather are conserved by the biological programs that define, maintain, and control the body plan of each organism.

[Ha Ha Thats Very Logical]

You are the one who is misleading with non-sequitor quote mining, and my description of you stands.

Yeah right. So tell us: what point were you trying to make by posting that collection of quotes?

[tongass kid]

If folks on this site were up to date on the topic of genetics they would know that mutations are non random. This is a problem that science has quitely confronted this past year. Perhaps we will see some form of PE applied to the non random mutation problem.

[GodGunsGuts]

Are you referring to epigenetics?

[tongass kid]

Nope, epigenetic is not the process. Mutations actually occur in clusters which is problematic for for the current theory.. The reason I mentioned PE is because PE is an old answer to the problem of non random findings in the fossil record. It is becoming more obvious that the none random fossil record is attributed to the non random mutation observations. The greater the non random issues occur in the fossil record and mutation the more of a challenge to the hallmark of randomness to the current theory. The only answer will be that evolution occurs in a non random fashion and this will not be your father's definition.

[allmendream]

Yes, but both the Scientist who discovered these sequences and I assume that a function will be found for these sequences. And when pressed GGG admits that he too thinks that this DNA (and all DNA sequences) will be found to have function. The final chapter has not yet been written on the functionality of these sequences, it is still being researched.

[allmendream]

I am saying that the pattern of nested hierarchies is evidence of common ancestry. It doesn't preclude Incompetent Design because I.D. includes common ancestry. In fact the number one proponent of Incompetent Design also believes that the pattern is evidence of common ancestry, he just thinks the speciation from common ancestry needed a little help along the way, because the initial design was so incompetent.

All the answers are in the pubmed link I provided. I suggest you do your own homework. Use the search term “phylogenetic”.

[AndrewC]

Yes, but both the Scientist who discovered these sequences and I assume that a function will be found for these sequences. And when pressed GGG admits that he too thinks that this DNA (and all DNA sequences) will be found to have function. The final chapter has not yet been written on the functionality of these sequences, it is still being researched.

I don't think that anyone is arguing about whether or not a function for the genetic material will be found. What is at question is the Darwinian necessity for the correlation between function criticality and conservation. Darwinian evolution is driven by "blind" change(mutation). If that "blind" change is not necessary, then natural selection has no(or little) purpose in the evolution(change) of an organism(because the change is not blind and has "aim" without the razor of natural selection --- see Dr James Shapiro)

[allmendream]

You don't understand the article at the top of this thread? How about the ScienceNews article the Creationstupidity blog is about?

It is all about arguing that the linkage between conservation between species and function being broken by no phenotype being discovered in rodents with these ultraconserved sequences removed.

So that IS what the argument is about. It has nothing to do with “blind chance”. I suggest you check your bias at the door and actually read the ScienceNews article.

You just might learn something.

And you will discover that the functionality of this sequence IS what the argument is about.

[AndrewC]

You don't understand the article at the top of this thread?

And you don't understand English. Your argument about having no function is specious. I addressed that. GGG does not claim a lack of function. The "argument" is about Darwinian evolution. That view of evolution requires that natural selection drives the process of differentiating organisms into "species". One of the principles is the culling by means of natural selection. That requires a function which involves a difference in reproductive rates which often involves survival. This culling also requires something to cull. That involves a non-directed source of variability known as mutation. So there is your "blind chance" requirement.

So, if as you say, the argument is about the functionality of this sequence(actually there are many), what is its function?

All I am saying is that, whatever the function, it is supposed to be critical due to the high degree of conservation. It does not appear to be critical. Why is it not?

[GodGunsGuts]

==I am saying that the pattern of nested hierarchies is evidence of common ancestry.

Do you have any evidence outside of neo-Darwininian conjectures? And why are you assuming that nested hierarchies cannot result from Intelligent Designs that are not connected by common ancestry?

[allmendream]

Are you going to bet the farm that no function will ever be found for this sequence?

The central claim of the article is that so far no function has been found for this sequence and thus the linkage between conservation between species and function is broken; so how could the argument about no function be specious?

It is, despite your ignorance, the central topic of discussion.

[allmendream]

Do you read and understand English?

I repeat....

I.D. thinks these nested hierarchies are evidence of common descent. I.D. doesn't reject common descent it just thinks “the designer” needed to add a helping hand to accomplish speciation from a common ancestor.

And the nested hierarchies are once again ESTABLISHED FACT. There is no conjecture that goes into it, it is a direct comparison of genomic sequences that forms these nested hierarchies of similarity and divergence.

The conjecture is that these nested hierarchies are a result of common descent and this is believed by almost all Biologists involved in research on the subject and the main proponent of Incompetent Design (I.D.) as well.

[GodGunsGuts]

==Doesn’t deal with the...conservation between species and function and nonconservation between species and lack of function.

How about this science paper published in the Journal of Creation (fascinating!):

“Ultraconserved sequences pose megaproblems for evolutionary theory”

http://creationontheweb.com/images/pdfs/tj/j21_2/j21_2_8-9.pdf

[allmendream]

They cannot even go a single paragraph without constructing strawmen and denying the clear evidence. Good luck with that, nothing of value will ever come of it. Meanwhile actual Biologists are in the middle of a Renaissance of discovery and application.

I think this thread is dead. Nobody so far has been stupid enough to agree with Creationsafari, even you have admitted they are wrong about this sequence falsifying evolution because no function, so far, has been found for it.