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?...

[GodGunsGuts]

You keep telling yourself that, Allmendream. You are obviously desperate for a victory. And btw, I never said every sequence would be found to have function, I said “almost every” or “the vast majority” would be found to have function, allowing for the effect of sin on our decaying genomes.

My position that almost all sequences have some sort of function is a far cry from the Darwinian prediction that ultraconserved sequences between species should be critical for survival. For instance, a 2 x 4 in my houses frame has an important function, but it is not by itself critical to my house's existence. And yet a 2 x 4 would be among the things that would be ultraconserved WITHIN a house, and would likely be interpreted as ultraconserved *between* houses by those who believe that houses are created by random mutation and natural selection.

[allmendream]

You tried to generalize but finally, when repeatedly pressed for a specific answer about this specific sequence, you answered that you thought a function would be found for this sequence.

Me: Post #69 “So which is it? Is this particular sequence useless or useful?”

You: Post #71: “It will be shown to be useful”

Ain’t you ever embarrassed to be so very wrong?

[GodGunsGuts]

I have not changed my original position? I still think the sequence will almost certainly be found to be functional. But there is a huge difference between crucial and merely functional. The Darwiniacs predict that ultraconserved sequences between species are crucial to their survival. However, as a creationist, I believe an organism’s biological program determines what is conserved, whether or not a given sequence is crucial for survival.

I know it’s tough to lose the debate over and over, Allmendream. But do try to pull yourself together.

[GodGunsGuts]

I have not changed my original position. I still think the sequence will almost certainly be found to be functional. But there is a huge difference between crucial and merely functional. The Darwiniacs predict that ultraconserved sequences between species are crucial to their survival. However, as a creationist, I believe an organism’s biological program determines what is conserved, whether or not a given sequence is crucial for survival.

I know it’s tough to lose the debate over and over, Allmendream. But do try to pull yourself together.

[allmendream]

You tried to generalize but finally, when repeatedly pressed for a specific answer about this specific sequence, you answered that you thought a function would be found for this sequence.
Me: Post #69 “So which is it? Is this particular sequence useless or useful?”

You: Post #71: “It will be shown to be useful”

Now you lie about your own words?

[GodGunsGuts]

I'm seriously starting to think the worms are eating into your brain. I have stated over and over that I still think the sequence will turn out to have function. But AndrewC added a new twist to this debate. Namely, that there is a difference between merely functional and crucial. The Darwiniacs predict that ultraconserved sequences between species are CRUCIAL to survival. This prediction is being falsified by the evidence (knocking out the sequence and the organism continues its happy existence), whereas my prediction that the sequence will be found to be functional (which does not imply crucial) is not falsified in the least.

I'm done trying to explain this to you. Maybe AndrewC can find a way past your worm addled brain.

[GodGunsGuts]

And once again, are you capable of answering direct questions? 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?

[allmendream]

Now your making things up. An ultra-conserved sequence only needs to confer a selective advantage to be conserved. It needn’t be crucial (all caps or not).

If you want to break the link between conservation between species and function it is hard to do it with negative evidence, because a function may always be found for these sequences (as you admit, and as the Scientists and I predict). You, or your Creationist cohorts, need to show an important function is a sequence that is NOT conserved. That would be positive evidence breaking the linkage between conservation between species and function.

But not surprisingly there is an almost total lack of research, or even understanding of the subject, among Creation “Scientists”.

So why don't you find actual positive evidence of a function in non-conserved between species DNA and then get back to me about evolution being ‘falsified’. After all you yourself said that an essential prediction of Creationism was that ALL (or sometimes most) DNA would be functional. Should be pretty easy to show. Just make a knockout mouse (do you even know what that is? It is discussed in the paper Creationstupidity is talking about.) with a non-conserved sequence missing and describe the phenotype to determine the missing functionality.

[allmendream]

Nested hierarchies point to common descent, because unlike the ignorant article you sourced, Biologists are not just looking at the similarities between similar species; they are looking at the pattern of similarity AND differences.

According to the idea of special creation, would you assume that two species of vultures (old world and new world)would be more similar to each other than either would be to a hawk or a crane?

According to the idea of common descent either a crane or a hawk species could specialize into a vulture, so it is no surprise when one vulture is found more similar to a crane and the other is found more similar to a hawk; forming a nested hierarchy of interrelatedness.

If you don't want to take my word for it look in pubmed and see how they do phylogenetic analysis. That is twice now I've directed you to pubmed. Do your own homework.

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

[GodGunsGuts]

==An ultra-conserved sequence only needs to confer a selective advantage to be conserved. It needn’t be crucial (all caps or not).

Wrong again, Allmendream. AndrewC is right. The Temple of Darwin predicted ultraconserved sequences between species would prove to be INDESPENSABLE for “viability or reproduction”:

“These and other highly conserved sequences are thought to have persisted with little or no change because they are indispensable, performing functions vital for viability or reproduction. Scientists in the Genomics Division of the Department of Energy's Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and DOE’s Joint Genome Institute set out to test this hypothesis by engineering four different ‘knockout’ mice, each lacking one selected ultraconserved element.

If truly indispensable, mice lacking an ultraconserved element should either die or be unable to produce viable offspring. Remarkably, as the researchers report in the September, 2007 issue of PLoS Biology, the knockout mice in this study showed almost no ill effects at all.”

http://www.lbl.gov/Science-Articles/Archive/Genomics-ultraconserved.html

==So why don't you find actual positive evidence of a function in non-conserved between species DNA and then get back to me about evolution being ‘falsified’.

I will check into that. I'm sure you will turn out to be wrong about that too.

---

PS You still haven't answered my question about why you assume that only common descent (and not special creation) can produce nested hierarchies. What is it about this question that causes you to avoid answering it at all costs?

[GodGunsGuts]

==Nested hierarchies point to common descent

It’s about time you answered the question! I have to go out for dinner. I will have many more questions about nested hierarchies when I return. In the meantime, do you have any evidence that blind processes can produce nested hierarchies beyond the Temple of Darwin’s fanciful historical speculations?

[allmendream]

Nothing is “blind” about the processes that lead to nested hierarchies. It is called “selective pressure” maybe you have heard of it? Nothing “blind” about selection.

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

I'm off for a date tonight. Do your own homework.

[allmendream]

“You still haven't answered my question about why you assume that only common descent (and not special creation) can produce nested hierarchies. What is it about this question that causes you to avoid answering it at all costs?” GGG

The mechanism that creates nested hierarchies of similarity and differences is mutation and selection among species that have a common ancestor; thus genetic sequences and regulatory sequences show more conservation between species than pseudogenes or ERV sequences or short terminal repeats or other DNA shown to not have a function. The degree of divergence can be used to accurately predict when these species last shared a common ancestor.

That is the mechanism whereby evolution through natural selection of genetic variation can lead to this pattern of nested hierarchies in genomic comparisons.

So now you want ME to provide a mechanism whereby special creation would ALSO create this pattern? That is what I asked you for about a hundred posts ago when you said you didn't have time to source it; and when you did get around to providing a source, it didn't address the issue.

So what mechanism of special creation could account for it? There is no proposed mechanism that explains it other than “similar species with similar lifestyles would be designed along similar lines”; but that doesn’t address the differences, only the similarities. Moreover it is wrong. According to that thinking Old world and New world vultures should be more similar to each other than either is to a hawk or a crane; and that isn't the case.

[GodGunsGuts]

==The mechanism that creates nested hierarchies of similarity and differences is mutation and selection among species that have a common ancestor

Evidence?

==The degree of divergence can be used to accurately predict when these species last shared a common ancestor.

Evidence?

==So now you want ME to provide a mechanism whereby special creation would ALSO create this pattern? That is what I asked you for about a hundred posts ago when you said you didn't have time to source it; and when you did get around to providing a source, it didn't address the issue.

As I recall, first you asked for a Creationist explanation for DNA conservation between species. I then provided a Creationist source with an excellent explanation for DNA conservation between species. Namely, that designers routinely use the same or similar parts and materials across many different designs. The greater the similarity of design, the more the designer uses parts and materials that are the same or similar. I also asked a question and posted a link to a paper from the Journal of Creation, that claimed that, far from pointing to evolution, ultraconserved sequences between species pose MEGA PROBLEMS for evolutionary theory. Rather than dealing with the issues raised (and that you specifically asked for), you abruptly changed the subject, complaining that the Creationist sources did not deal with nested hierarchies. You may float like a butterfly, but you certainly don't sting like a bee!

Unlike the proponents of Darwin's fanciful creation myth, YEC Scientists can actually point to countless real-time examples of intelligent designers creating nested hierarchies. Let's start with a simple one, shall we?

[allmendream]

Evidence? Please read pubmed. Thousands of experiments providing evidence of what I am about to say.

A genome made up of DNA is incapable of staying exactly the same from generation to generation. Some change seems to make no difference, changes to ERV sequences, psuedogenes, repeat DNA sequences etc all seem to make no difference. Other changes are detrimental and selection eliminates these changes. Thus functional domains will exhibit less change, generation after generation, than nonfunctional domains; due to selection of genetic variation.

This theory explains the nested hierarchies of similarity AND differences.

The “similar species will be designed with similar DNA because they are similar” Creationist argument only addresses similarity, not the pattern of similarity AND difference. Moreover actual evidence of DNA similarity shows that this Creationist hypothesis fails to stand up. New World and Old World vultures, as one example, should be designed more similar to each other than either is to a hawk or crane; but that simply isn't the case.

If your Creationist source was such an “excellent explanation” perhaps you can explain it to me such that it can explain BOTH similarities and differences, and explains the “vulture exception”.

The issue of ultraconserved sequences is another confirmation of the linkage between function and conservation between species. The linkage between function and conservation has held up time after time, such that this one exception is rather noteworthy.

So once again I ask you\; Are you going to bet the farm that no function for this sequence will ever be found that will explain its conservation between species?

Are you once again trying to change your answer?

Last time you answered you said a function WOULD be found for it. (which is what the Scientist and I both believe)

Are you changing your answer?

[GodGunsGuts]

==Evidence? Please read pubmed. Thousands of experiments providing evidence of what I am about to say.

I want your best evidence. Sending me off to search for something is a bs copout.

"Did you mean this?"

"Nope."

"This?"

"Nope."

"This?"

"Nope" "Nope" "Nope"...

If you are so confident in your position, and you think you have rocksolid evidence to back up your Darwinist claims, then break out your best evidence, and let's rumble. If you are unwilling or incapable of doing this, then perhaps you should restrict your materialist musings to your Darwinian co-religionists.

==A genome made up of DNA is incapable of staying exactly the same from generation to generation.

Duh!

==Some change seems to make no difference, changes to ERV sequences, psuedogenes, repeat DNA sequences etc all seem to make no difference.

Tell me, Allmendream. Why is that the more "junk DNA" an organism tends to have, the more complex it tends to be? For instance, a Jellyfish has about the same amount of genes as humans. What sets them apart? Ever consider that it might be the so-called "Junk" DNA?

Landmark study highlights the importance of 'junk' DNA in higher organism

Here's one that is related to the Journal of Creation paper and question that I asked you (and that you are still refusing to answer):

Genetic 'Junk' Could Answer Riddle of Vertebrate Evolution

Here's my miRNA question again (related to the article above) plus link again, just in case you ever work up the nerve to actually take a stab at answering it:

(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 only sane answer is, of course, no, no, no!

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

==Are you once again trying to change your answer?

How many times do I have to repeat myself before my answer finally sinks in to your Darwin addled brain? For the fourth or fifth time, here is my answer verbatim (AGAIN!):

I have stated over and over that I still think the sequence will turn out to have function. But AndrewC added a new twist to this debate. Namely, that there is a difference between merely functional and crucial. The Darwiniacs predict that ultraconserved sequences between species are CRUCIAL to survival. This prediction is being falsified by the evidence (knocking out the sequence and the organism continues its happy existence), whereas my prediction that the sequence will be found to be functional (which does not imply crucial) is not falsified in the least.

==If your Creationist source was such an “excellent explanation” perhaps you can explain it to me such that it can explain BOTH similarities and differences, and explains the “vulture exception”

I have no idea what you are referring to with respect to your "vulture exception." Give me a link to the vulture paper you are referring to, explain to me what you think it demonstrates, and I will be glad to respond.

As for the comment about being able to explain the similarities AND the differences, are you saying it is not possible to explain the designed similarities and differences of the following nested hierarchy??? Please!

[allmendream]

A ridiculous quibble.

Either the sequence is useful and therefore its conservation between species is explained. Or it is useless and the link between function and conservation between species is broken.

“It's probably useful, but not critical.” doesn't cut it. If it is useful then its evolutionary conservation between species is explained.

[GodGunsGuts]

Running away again, I see. Have it your way. It’s funny, every time I lock horns with you, I walk away even more convinced that YEC is true. Good night.

[allmendream]

Running away? You have yet to explain how Creationism can explain the nested hierarchies of similarities and differences, or how Old and New world vultures could be less similar to each other than to hawks or cranes.

I am here every day correcting the idiotic things you post. I've gone nowhere. Your baseless accusations of me “running away” just shows how departed from reality the things you post are, and how seriously anyone can take the things you claim.

As to miRNA, it is functional and it is highly conserved. Wow. Another confirmation of the evolutionary linkage between conservation between species and function.

BMC Genomics. 2008 Oct 6;9(1):457. [Epub ahead of print] Links
CoGemiR: a comparative genomics microRNA database.Maselli V, Di Bernardo D, Banfi S.
ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: MicroRNAs are small highly conserved non-coding RNAs which play an important role in regulating gene expression by binding the 3'UTR of target mRNAs. The majority of microRNAs are localized within other transcriptional units (host genes) and are co-expressed with them

[GodGunsGuts]

LOL!

I said present your paper on the “vulture exception,” tell me what you think it demonstrates, and I’d be glad to respond to it. So far, you have produced nothing.

I asked you a specific question about miRNA, and you have refused to give me an answer, let alone back it up! (for a change).

As part of my initial response re: Creationism and nested hierarchies, I gave you a real-life example of a DESIGNED nested hierarchy and asked you if you could explain the similarities and the differences. Crickets...

I this is your idea of not running away, then you must have moved here from France d:op