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]

A paper on it? Are you claiming I am misrepresenting the situation regarding vultures? Old world vultures and New world vultures are not closely related in their DNA. According to your Creationism claim that “similar species will have similar DNA”, why is one closer to a hawk and the other closer to a crane?

An answer about miRNA. You asked if I think such a system could have evolved, no? Yes. Of course I think such a system could have evolved.

Moreover, when looking at miRNA between species we find that those sequences are highly conserved, just like other DNA that is functional. The overwhelming pattern is that functional DNA shows conservation between species and once again miRNA is no exception.

Your dolls may show some deep inner point about design to you, but it doesn't explain the biological phenomenon of nested hierarchies of similarity AND differences in DNA and the mathematical precision with which phylogenetic details can be seen, neither does it explain how similar species such as New World and Old World vultures would be more similar to hawks and cranes than they are to each other.

So how does Creationism explain why two vulture species wouldn't be similar in their DNA, but more similar to the local birds they likely descended from (hawks and cranes)?

[allmendream]

Here is a phylogentic analysis of vultures. They show by DNA comparison that Old world and New world vultures are not closely related and are (they assume) a product of convergent evolution; i.e. different species that adopt a similar lifetyle or environment, producing similar adaptations.

So common descent and convergent evolution is the Biological explanation. What is the Creationist explanation for this?

[allmendream]

Phylogeny of eagles, Old World vultures, and other Accipitridae based on nuclear and mitochondrial DNA Heather R.L. Lerner, and David P. Mindell Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Michigan Museum of Zoology, 1109 Geddes Ave., Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1079, USA Received 16 November 2004; revised 31 March 2005. Available online 31 May 2005. Abstract We assessed phylogenetic relationships for birds of prey in the family Accipitridae using molecular sequence from two mitochondrial genes (1047 bases ND2 and 1041 bases cyt-b) and one nuclear intron (1074 bases β-fibrinogen intron 7). We sampled representatives of all 14 Accipitridae subfamilies, focusing on four subfamilies of eagles (booted eagles, sea eagles, harpy eagles, and snake eagles) and two subfamilies of Old World vultures (Gypaetinae and Aegypiinae) with nearly all known species represented. Multiple well-supported relationships among accipitrids identified with DNA differ from those traditionally recognized based on morphology or life history traits. Monophyly of sea eagles (Haliaeetinae) and booted eagles (Aquilinae) was supported; however, harpy eagles (Harpiinae), snake eagles (Circaetinae), and Old World vultures were found to be non-monophyletic. The Gymnogene (Polyboroides typus) and the Crane Hawk (Geranospiza caerulescens) were not found to be close relatives, presenting an example of convergent evolution for specialized limb morphology enabling predation on cavity nesting species. Investigation of named subspecies within Hieraaetus fasciatus and H. morphnoides revealed significant genetic differentiation or non-monophyly supporting recognition of H. spilogaster and H. weiskei as distinctive species. Keywords: Accipitridae; Avian systematics; Phylogenetics; Molecular evolution; Cytochrome-b; ND2; β-Fibrinogen intron 7

[GodGunsGuts]

==An answer about miRNA. You asked if I think
such a system could have evolved, no? Yes. Of course
I think such a system could have evolved.

Nice try. Let me be more specific so as to prevent
your usual dodge: Do you think the 51 miRNAs that have
been found to be unique to humans, each one of which
regulates a network of hundreds of mRNA, could have
evolved in about *six million years*?

==Your dolls may show some deep inner point about design
to you

Couldn't see the connection, huh? The point is nested
hierarchies are produced by intelligent designers all
the time. Let's move to a nested hierarchy that is much
more complex. Tell me, Allmendream, how many job
descriptions in the following nested hierarchies do you
suppose are homologous, and yet do not share the
same "lineage"? When two job descriptions are
homologous, but come from different lineages, should we
assume convergent evolution, or should we assume
intelligent design?

(continues below chart)

==So how does Creationism explain why two vulture species
wouldn't be similar in their DNA, but more similar to the
local birds they likely descended from (hawks and cranes)?

A Creation Scientist would explain it the same way as you
or I would explain homologous job descriptions above. The
notion that random mutations could generate the raw
material for natural selection to fashion into a complex
organism such as a vulture is so astronomically unlikely
that it is the equivalent of invoking a miracle. But when
the Evos determine that a different species of vulture
came from a different lineage, and thus invoke convergent
evolution, that is the equivalent of invoking miracles
upon miracles. Indeed, it would appear that the Temple of
Darwin is prepared to believe just about anything just so
long as it keeps HIS divine foot out of the door! Of
course, your new and old world vultures do not present the
slightest difficulty for Biblical Creationists.

[editor-surveyor]

"Of course, your new and old world vultures do not present the slightest difficulty for Biblical Creationists."

Absolutely right.

Recognizing that nothing has 'evolved' anyway, why shouldn't there be many species that serve similar purposes? At one time, there were likely many more that have become extinct at this point. We even have an example in the making: the California Condor.

[GodGunsGuts]

I once new a guy who was a very cynical Evo geneticist at UCI. I can't remember all the details of what follows, but I do remember that he came up with some genetic reason why there was no way to save the California Condor. So he went out and had a bumper sticker made that read “$10,000 to the person who bags the last condor.” Very un-PC! Needless to say, it really pissed off alot of his colleagues (who were, of course, fellow Evos). But he stuck to his guns, and if memory serves, he got so sick of the PCness that reigned in the halls of science at UCI, he had a bunch more bumper stickers made and started handing them out all over campus.

[valkyry1]

it would appear that the Temple of Darwin is prepared to believe just about anything just so long as it keeps HIS divine foot out of the door

Bump 

 

[GodGunsGuts]

I find this discussion fascinating. I have heard “nested hierarchies” thrown about as supposed “powerful” evidence for common descent. But to be honest, I had really never thought about the issue all that much. But once Allmendream got me to thinking about it, I realized that humans create nested hierarchies all the time, which means nested hierarchies are a natural byproduct of intelligent design. And when you consider we are made in HIS image...let's just say I had one of those WOW! moments in which the Evos nested hierarchy argument crumbled right before my eyes.

[GodGunsGuts]

Here’s a link if the chart isn’t displaying—GGG

[GodGunsGuts]

Ooops...it might help if I actually supply the link!

http://members.fortunecity.com/mikaelxii/Germany/sfga02.gif

[AndrewC]

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

Your opinion does not appear to be supported by the facts. The simplest of which is the surpising nature of the ultra-conservation of the sequences.

You admit that DNA is compelled by chemistry and the environment to change. Without repair, DNA will deteriorate rapidly although not so rapidly as RNA. This mere fact is used as the driver for evolution. What natural selection is required to do is to drive this change to some "conclusion"(benefit, trait, behavior, etc.) Okay, then what is the reason for the compelling change to halt almost completely among these ultra-conserved regions? Because we are speaking of the evolutionary mechanism, then the reason must fit into its requirements. Well, change is a rule, so the non-change is not explained by the mutation (variability) aspect of Darwinian evolution. That leaves natural selection. So what aspect of natural selection would so strictly limit the changes? Well, criticality comes to mind.

[AndrewC]

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

Your opinion does not appear to be supported by the facts. The simplest of which is the surpising nature of the ultra-conservation of the sequences.

You admit that DNA is compelled by chemistry and the environment to change. Without repair, DNA will deteriorate rapidly although not so rapidly as RNA. This mere fact is used as the driver for evolution. What natural selection is required to do is to drive this change to some "conclusion"(benefit, trait, behavior, etc.) Okay, then what is the reason for the compelling change to halt almost completely among these ultra-conserved regions? Because we are speaking of the evolutionary mechanism, then the reason must fit into its requirements. Well, change is a rule, so the non-change is not explained by the mutation (variability) aspect of Darwinian evolution. That leaves natural selection. So what aspect of natural selection would so strictly limit the changes? Well, criticality comes to mind.

[allmendream]

The problem with your stupid dolls is that the data from one doesn't fit into the other no matter how hard you would try.

Yes, I think miRNA (not unique to humans, do you still not understand what “highly conserved between species” means, should I explain it to you again?) could and did evolve over several million years.

Your “explanation” about vultures is lacking something. Oh yes, an actual explanation for why two vultures wouldn't’ be more similar to each other than they are to other birds. Your entire Creationist argument is that “similar species should have similar DNA because they were designed to do similar things in a similar environment”; Vultures and many other examples show how idiotically simplistic and WRONG that stance is; once again your little dolls of data don't fit into a coherent whole.

Maybe you should just go back to playing with dolls. Science is obviously too difficult for you.

[allmendream]

Not at all. The exact sequence may be critical to a rather minor function, thus the exact sequence is conserved between species, but the function itself need not be critical, it just needs to confer a survival advantage.

[AndrewC]

The exact sequence may be critical to a rather minor function, thus the exact sequence is conserved between species, but the function itself need not be critical, it just needs to confer a survival advantage.

You don't understand mutation.

[allmendream]

I have had graduate level courses on mutation and mutation repair. I understand mutation quite well.

You obviously don't understand selection.

[AndrewC]

I have had graduate level courses on mutation and mutation repair. I understand mutation quite well.

You have to stay awake and pay attention to gain understanding. You evidently haven't.

Genetic variation in mRNA coding sequences of highly conserved genes

The present study represents an effort to obtain a more rounded picture of human genetic diversity by examining variation in the transcribed sequences of highly conserved genes in a panel of 36 individuals of various ethnic origins. We report the characterization of SNPs in genes involved in essential pathways, for which homozygous null-alleles are expected to be lethal to the cell. Of these genes, 19 of 22 are in the apparent minimal gene set required for cellular life (7, 14). Since the genes analyzed are supposed to be under highly selective pressure, we expect that this set of genes will give us a lower bound on nucleotide variation. This should allow us to define the lowest level of sequence variation in the human genome.

That illustrates the tying of high selective pressure and conservation. Lower bound means less change. You'll also notice the characterization as to criticality of 19 out of 22 of those highly conserved genes.

[allmendream]

Yes, 19 of those 22 regions that were highly conserved were also critical; that means the other three were highly conserved and highly functional, but not critical.

Once again the linkage between functionality and conservation between species is supported. Your point is that because 19 of those 22 highly conserved regions were critical for development that all highly conserved regions must be critical?

Seems three of those 22 were functional but not critical to cellular life. Doesn't that give you pause in your assertion that all highly conserved sequences will be critical?

Maybe your opinion doesn't change in light of evidence, but that isn't the Scientific approach to evidence.

[E=MC2]

That Creationists and IDers have long predicted that the Temple of Darwin would be proven wrong with respect to their idiotic claim that the majority of the genome is “junk-DNA”?

I don't understand? IDers believe in common descent.

[AndrewC]

Seems three of those 22 were functional but not critical to cellular life.

You forget that these genes were with respect to humans not just cellular life. Those particular genes were within the minimum to even have a living cell. And of course, we are speaking of ultra conserved regions which are even more unchanged than the highly conserved regions, which by their nature have the capability of silent mutations.

But this is all besides the point. The nature of Darwinian evolution requires selective pressure to cull the mutations. So by definition, the ultraconserved regions should be under high selection. Their complete removal with no effect belies that.