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 ...
LOL...Given your inability to answer the question, one has to wonder whether YOU read and understand Enlish! I specifically asked why YOU ARE ASSUMING that Intelligent Design cannot produce nested hierarchies apart from common descent (i.e. SPECIAL CREATION). Care to answer the question???
I see you are once again choosing to run away when you are on the losing end of the debate. I can’t remember if this marks the fourth or fifth time you have turned-tail and ran. I’m starting to lose count. LOL
When they knock out these sequences, what are they knocking them out for all stages of development?
You have great difficulty with the English language. I am not disputing function. I am disputing the criticality implied by Darwinian evolution.
That didn’t quite come out right, here goes again:
When they knock out these sequences, are they knocking them out for all stages of development?
What AndrewC said!!!
Im still here. You are the loser gleefully says Evolution is falsified by this finding, then disagree with the finding.
Actually, I was arguing a different point altogether. AndrewC, however, has refocused the debate on the question posed by the article. Specifically, he has asked you why “ultraconserved” sequences between species can be knocked with no apparent phenotypic effect, when, according to the ToE, they should be critical to the organism’s survival. We are still awaiting your response.
PS I’m still waiting for you to answer my question as to why YOU ARE ASSUMING that Intelligent Design cannot produce nested hierarchies apart from common descent (i.e. SPECIAL CREATION).
Also, I’m still waiting for to respond to the paper from Journal of Creation that claims that “ultraconserved sequences” between species “pose megaproblems for evolutionary theory.” Specifically (from the paper):
Could random mutations plus natural selection have generated
at least 51 new large precursor miRNAs from which miRNAs are spliced out, each now playing a role in controlling networks of genes, in about 6 million years?
The answer is, of course, no!
http://creationontheweb.com/images/pdfs/tj/j21_2/j21_2_8-9.pdf
So your back to assuming that no function will ever be found for this sequence?
Boy you sure don't stay consistent. But I guess it is easy to change your mind when there isn't much there to change.
You still don't understand the subject or the viewpoint that you of Incompetent Design that you attempt to hang your hat upon. I.D. ASSUMES common ancestry so there is little to no ‘daylight’ between I.D. and assumptions of common descent. The only thing different between I.D. and Evolution is that I.D. thinks “the designer” had to help speciation from a common ancestor.
Michael Behe claims to accept the common descent of all life:
“I believe the evidence strongly supports common descent.”
He repeated this statement in a later publication
“. . . since I dispute the mechanism of natural selection, not common descent.”
That is three times now I have had to tell you this. Will it sink in this time or will I find myself repeating it to you?
While I still believe the sequence will be shown have function, this particular sequence obviously isn't crucial. This flies in the face of Darwinian expectations.
==Boy you sure don't stay consistent.
Actually, I haven't changed my position at all. I still maintain that the sequence is conserved by the organism itself (giving the appearance that it is conserved across species) because it is functional. But what AndrewC has brilliantly pointed out is that evolutionary theory would expect “ultraconserved” sequences to be crucial to survival, and yet many ultraconserved sequences shared between species can be knocked out without any apparent effect on the organism whatsoever.
==But I guess it is easy to change your mind when there isn't much there to change.
This coming from a guy who believes blind material forces have produced organisms that give the “appearance” of super sophisticated design. LOL!
So now your back to betting the farm that no function for this sequence will ever be found? Just how stupid will you look when a sequence for it is found?
Creationist refer to intelligent design all the time without referring to the formal ID movement. And besides, I specifically followed my use of the phrase with “i.e. Special Creation.” I think it might be time for you to have your brain housing group examined...it doesn't seem to be functioning very well.
==Michael Behe claims to accept the common descent of all life
What does that have to do with anything?...I am a Young Earth Creationist!
Let me rephrase the original question in a way that even you can understand: Why are you assuming that nested hierarchies point to common descent, and not special creation??? You have never explained this. Are we just supposed to take your word for it?
Your question DIRECTLY raised the question of I.D..
Please get it it straight in your confused thinking that I.D. supports common descent, they just argue over the mechanism of speciation from common ancestry (suggesting ‘the designer’ had to lend a helping hand to his incompetent design).
==You have changed your position.
I have not changed my original position in the slightest. It is possible that the sequence is functional and conserved by the organism’s biological program without it being crucial for survival. But as AndrewC points out, from a Darwiniac perspective, “ultraconserved” sequences between species should be *crucial* to survival, and yet in many cases when we knock them out, it has no observable effect on the organism. This flatly contradicts Darwinist expectations, whereas it doesn’t contradict Creationist expectations in the slightest.
Is the God of the Bible an INTELLIGENT DESIGNER?
Creationists refer to God as an INTELLIGENT DESIGNER all the time. Just because some new ID movement comes along, doesn’t mean they get to coopt our vocabulary. Same goes for the Temple of Darwin. We have been around longer than all of you put together, so we call the shots d:op
If you refer to ‘intelligent design’ I might think your just taking the view that the universe was designed by an intelligent agent, a view I share.
When you refer to ‘Intelligent Design’ you are referring to a movement promulgated by the Discovery Institute.
Leave off the caps or use the Creationist words they used to use before they thought they would fool people with I.D.. Those words are “special creation”.
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.