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 ...
What was I supposed to read in there that contradicts Evolutionary theory or supports your notion that these nested hierarchies could be due to anything other than common ancestry?
From... A 21st Century View of evolution
Evolution is the history of organisms that have succeeded in adapting to changing circumstances. Over evolutionary time, this means altering the genome (the long-term information storage organelle of all living cells) to provide the functional information needed to survive and reproduce in new conditions. Those organisms that have the most flexible computational capabilities, in particular those that have the best means of altering information stored in the genome, will have an advantage. Thus, it makes sense for organisms to possess crisis-responsive natural genetic engineering functions, and we should not be surprised to find them ubiquitous in contemporary organisms, all of whom are evolutionary winners. Indeed, it is now difficult to imagine how organisms that depend upon gradual accumulation of stochastic mutations could persist in the evolutionary rat race.
The last half century has taught us an astonishing amount about how living organisms function at the molecular level, in particular about how they execute cellular computations through molecular interactions and about the systemic, modular, computation-ready organization of the genome. We have come to realize some of the basic design features that govern genome structure. Combining this knowledge with our understanding of how natural genetic engineering operates, it is possible to formulate the outlines of a new 21st Century vision of evolutionary engineering that postulates a more regular principle-based process of change than the gradual random walk of 19th and 20th Century theories. Such a new vision is not all-encompassing because it cannot provide detailed accounts for major events currently beyond the reach of science, such as the origin of cellular life or the mechanisms of endosymbiotic events underlying the emergence of distinct superkingdoms and kingdoms of life (51, 52). Nonetheless, a 21st Century view of evolution can help us understand how new taxonomic groups have emerged bearing novel complex adaptations.
And no, a bacteria cell doesn't always die, although your ignorance of a bacteria life cycle is duly noted.
still no clear transitional fossils which would be scattered throughout the fossil record...FACT. Even Darwin would admitt that his statement that if the fossil evidence was not their, the theory would fall apart, has come true. Only the very gullible and over educated folks still believe macro evolution.
Because all things die. What is so hard about that? And I never stated equal, I stated computation. Various functions fail within the cell, that is part of life.
You specious comment on my ignorance of bacterial life cycle is truly ignored. All living things die unless you assert that my grandmother is alive because I am alive.
I know the basic history, Allmendream. But beyond that, I know very little about them. Perhaps I don't hear much about them because their denomination is so tiny. For instance, in the U.S., the Catholic and Protestant Church have around 60 million members each. Indeed, the Mormons have over 5 million members. Even the Marxist UCC, a denomination I had never heard of until Rev. Wright burst onto the political scene, has a couple million members in the United States. But as of 1998, the Armenian Orthodox Church only had .41 million members in the US. And if you are any indication, their numbers have shrunk since then. So please forgive me if your former church did not have a big enough signature to appear on my radar screen.
==I am a non denominational Christian and will attend any Church that I feel works with the Holy Spirit.
So what church do you have one foot out the door of now???
==Armenian Orthodox are a non Catholic church that predates the Protestant reformation...Your abject ignorance of history and the history of Christianity is duly noted.
I know the basic history, Allmendream. But beyond that, I know very little about them. Perhaps I don’t hear much about them because their denomination is so tiny. For instance, in the U.S., the Catholic and Protestant Church have around 60 million members each. Indeed, the Mormons have over 5 million members. Even the Marxist UCC, a denomination I had never heard of until Rev. Wright burst onto the political scene, has a couple million members in the United States. But as of 1998, the Armenian Orthodox Church only had .41 million members in the US. And if you are any indication, their numbers have shrunk since then. So please forgive me if your former church did not have a big enough signature to appear on my radar screen.
==I am a non denominational Christian and will attend any Church that I feel works with the Holy Spirit.
So what church do you have one foot out the door of now???
Did your grandma split into two grandmas that are genetically equivalent and still live today?
So why do some cells have greater “computational” ability than others? Why when subjected to stress do the majority die, but only a select few with a particular genetic variation survive?
It isn't computational, it is molecular.
Besides mischaracterizing Shapiro's conclusion(you still haven't read the article), where do I address common ancestry?
J. Shapiro---Natural selection following genome reorganization eliminates the misfits whose new genetic structures are non-functional. In this sense, natural selection plays an essentially negative role, as postulated by many early thinkers about evolution (e.g. 53). Once organisms with functional new genomes appear, however, natural selection may play a positive role in fine-tuning novel genetic systems by the kind of micro-evolutionary processes currently studied in the laboratory.
Shapiro thinks that the computing cell is the genesis of change with natural selection playing a minor role. Darwinian theory has natural selection as the crown jewel.
Are you part of the temperance movement with the Salvation Army?
I knew of them as a Christian organization but not as a Church. The Church you go to on Sunday has “Salvation Army” on the front?
By your definition she did, when she produced an egg.(and yes I know that an egg contains half the genome, but that is just a big mutation that survives)
So why do some cells have greater “computational” ability than others? Why when subjected to stress do the majority die, but only a select few with a particular genetic variation survive?
Who says, by requirement, that one cell has greater computational capability than another? A Commodore 64 can do anything that a Pentium 4 can do except a heck of a lot slower.
I answered your death question.
How could I mischaracterize his conclusions? I included them in my post. He is all about evolution and common ancestry and natural selection. Your passage says natural selection can serve both a positive and negative role. The negative role is in elimination of variation (duh) and the positive role is in “fine tuning” novel genetic systems.
NOVEL GENETIC SYSTEMS? Wow. Shapiro goes through the various mechanisms whereby novel genetic systems can EVOLVE.
Sure doesn’t sound like a denial of evolution or common ancestry to me.
Neither does it have anything to do with the formation of nested hierarchies of commonality and divergence when looking at the genomes of various interrelated species. Have you abandoned that tact entirely, because your source doesn't address the issue, let alone from a Creationist standpoint.
Put up or shut up on my mention of nested hierarchies, etc. I mentioned criticality and ultra-conservation. You continue to allege things I have not stated and further, you do mischaracterize Shapiro. He thinks that natural selection is peripheral to the process of adaptation.
==If you knew the basic history you would know that they are neither Catholic or Protestant. Eastern Orthodox is not nearly as small as Armenian Orthodox, and they too are neither Catholic or Protestant.
So now you expect me to connect your (former) obscure sect of Armenian apostalics to the larger Eastern Orthodox Church? Please!
==I knew of them as a Christian organization but not as a Church. The Church you go to on Sunday has “Salvation Army” on the front?
Talk about not knowing Church History!
http://www.superpages.com/yellowpages/C-Salvation+Army+Churches/
==So why do some cells have greater “computational” ability than others?
Why are some people smarter, or faster, or stronger, or more artistic, etc, etc, than others Allmendream?
Common ancestry has an answer for all of that.
Shapiro is all about Evolution and Common descent. His conclusions say so.
And a bacteria cell doesn't die when it reproduces. Your “computational cell” doesn't explain why the majority of cells subjected to a stress would die and only a minority with a particular genetic variation would survive. Neither does it explain why a bacterial cell under stress would increase its mutation rate as part of its “program”.
Speaking of put up or shut up, Allmendream still hasn’t commented on whether equivalent positions in different lineages of the following nested hierarchy should be attributed to convergent evolution or common design:
(If link doesn’t work, copy and past it into browser)
http://members.fortunecity.com/mikaelxii/Germany/sfga02.gif
You have yet to explain a Creationist position that would account for it.
Dolls and organizational charts don't cut it.
A BIOLOGICAL explanation please.
You have an uncanny ability to avoid uncomfortable questions, Allmendream. Would you agree that the German Army Corps organization chart is a nested hierarchy?
What the heck are you talking about? This was my computing cell answer and the comment to which it was addressed.
| What explanation do you have for the presence of conserved, ultraconserved, and nonconserved regions in the genome? A computing cell. |
Your red herring will be ignored. I answered the death question. Change is computed as Shapiro demonstrates.
It is a hierarchy of command, not one based upon biological similarity and divergence.
It is YOU who is avoiding the question with dolls and organization charts.
What BIOLOGICAL MECHANISM could explain both the similarities and divergence of closely related living species? So far all you have come up with pertaining to Biology is the incorrect tautology that “similar species will be designed along similar lines because they do similar things in a similar environment”; which only addresses similarity, not divergence, and doesn't even attempt to explain why New World and Old World vultures do not have DNA that is similar to each other.
So who is avoiding the question about a Biological mechanism by playing with dolls and org charts? You are GGG.
Please answer the question.
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.
