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]

Similarity and divergence is another way of saying the same thing.

Do you not understand that similarity of DNA denotes that it is conserved between species?

Do you not understand that divergence of DNA denotes that it is not conserved between species?

So you think a bacteria cell “dies” when it reproduces?

OK then. Why, when a population of cells is subjected to a stress to the majority of cells DIE WITHOUT REPRODUCING while a small subset with a particular genetic feature live long enough to reproduce?

‘All living things die’ doesn't address the differential reproductive success.

What was ‘not computing’ in the majority of the cells that died?

[RobRoy]

>>Disproved?<<

It doesn’t disprove it. What it does it make it less plausible. It raises the proof bar.

The eyeball and other samples of irreduceable complexity (as obstacles to the TOE) were blown out of the water by the discovery of DNA. It is a true bonefide computer program, replicated in every cell of every living creature. and It cannot be created or duplicated by the most intelligent creatures on the planet.

But it happened accidentally, nyuk, nyuk...

[AndrewC]

Similarity and divergence is another way of saying the same thing.

??? So "yes" and "no" is another way of saying the same thing?

So you think a bacteria cell “dies” when it reproduces?

I think that all living things die. Dolly was a clone. Twins are clones.

It fairly obvious that I understand the relationship of DNA and conservation or non-conservation. And I understand the reliance of Darwinian evolution to conservation and criticality.

As I stated, all things die. Things under stress may live or die depending on the amount of stress and the ability of the thing to adapt to the stress. This entirely depends on the circumstances present. Some people survived the collapse of the twin towers. Some didn't. All had brains.

[allmendream]

Similarity and divergence is another way of saying “conserved” and “nonconserved” between species. But that was obvious from my post.

Your explanation about “computational cells” is lacking something. Oh yes, an actual explanation for the phenomena that you suggest it explains.

Analogy isn't explanation. It is analogy.

And the ability of the cell to adapt to stress is dependent upon the presence of a genetic variation not present in the majority of the cells that died (without reproducing). It was the minority with the genetic variation that survived (to reproduce) into the subsequent generation of bacteria.

So accepting your notion that a bacteria cell dies when it reproduces; care to answer the question?

[AndrewC]

Your explanation about “computational cells” is lacking something. Oh yes, an actual explanation for the phenomena that you suggest it explains.

You didn't read Shapiro.

And the ability of the cell to adapt to stress is dependent upon the presence of a genetic variation not present in the majority of the cells that died (without reproducing).

A computed variation as Shapiro demonstrates.

Answered.

[allmendream]

I did read Shapiro, he didn't address the actual issue. But he obviously believes in an evolutionary time scale and common descent and the evolution of novel biological features.

Your answers are lacking any actual explanation. Maybe you don't really understand the question OR Shapiro. It seems obvious if you think you are providing is any sort of answer.

[AndrewC]

I did read Shapiro, he didn't address the actual issue. But he obviously believes in an evolutionary time scale and common descent and the evolution of novel biological features.

The heck he didn't. He doesn't use terms like "natural genetic engineering" and "cellular computation" as throw away terms.

The explanations are there in Shapiro's article. I'm not going to excerpt the whole paper because you fail to see the answer.

[allmendream]

Shapiro doesn't address common descent except to agree with it.

Shapiro doesn't address the similarity and divergence between species in what you provided. He addresses the many mechanisms of Biological evolution, but not how conserved sequences would stay conserved between species except by his acceptance of natural selection.

Just excerpt the section where he explains what I have been asking you to explain.

What mechanism besides common descent (which Shapiro agrees with) can explain the nested hierarchies of similarity and divergence in genomic DNA between species?

[AndrewC]

Shapiro doesn't address common descent except to agree with it.

So what? The question was, "What explanation do you have for the presence of conserved, ultraconserved, and nonconserved regions in the genome?"

I used Shapiro because you ridiculed the computing cell answer. He does not address your question since his paper was not written to answer your question. Nonetheless a computing cell requires a program, data areas, scratch pad areas, copied areas, etc. and I tied that requirement to the memory of a computer. Shapiro does connect the cell and computers in his paper here, The genome is the long-term storage medium for each species (much like a computer hard disk) and consists of the total information content of the DNA molecules in the cells of that species. . Which I have already cited.

[allmendream]

So what biological explanation, other than common descent (which Shapiro recognizes and agrees with) can explain these nested hierarchies of similarity and divergence.

Now you admitted that your source doesn't answer the question.

So answer it.

What biological mechanism explains the divergence and similarity observed when comparing species other than common descent?

[allmendream]

So first you say you refuse to excerpt the relevant passage from your Shapiro source.

Now you admit that there IS no relevant passage from your Shapiro source.

Please attempt to keep your story straight from one post to the next.

Like nailing jello to the wall.

[AndrewC]

Now you admitted that your source doesn't answer the question.

So answer it.

I most certainly did answer your question. The answer was a computing cell. I said my source was to answer your derisive comment. Now you demand an answer to a question I have no desire to answer for you. I have answered the question concerning the different areas within the genome.

[allmendream]

Answered it with a big fat nothing.

‘Your answer in the source. I refuse to excerpt the answer that is in the source. The answer is not in the source. I already answered your question.’

You amuse me.

[AndrewC]

So first you say you refuse to excerpt the relevant passage from your Shapiro source.

Bull, I said I would not excerpt the whole paper to satisfy your lack of reading skills. The fact that I had already cited Shapiro's reference to computer memories and cellular DNA is certain evidence of your lack of reading skills.

I stated that Shapiro does not directly address the degree of conservation but does address the fact that the cell does compute and that the DNA is the "computer memory" for the cell. Anyone with vision can go back and see that I used Shapiro to answer your belittling comments on the computing cell. And they can also see that you attempt to attribute things to me that I did not write.

Kindly improve your reading skills. You continue to attribute things to me that I did not say.

[AndrewC]

‘Your answer in the source. I refuse to excerpt the answer that is in the source. The answer is not in the source. I already answered your question.’

You amuse me.

No, my answer is "the computing cell".

Get a life.

[allmendream]

Still a big fat zero.

What about “the computing cell” would act to conserve sequences between species that are functional and act to make divergent sequences that are nonfunctional? What about “the computing cell” would form these nested hierarchies of similarity and divergence of particular sequences between species?

[AndrewC]

What about “the computing cell” would act to conserve sequences between species that are functional and act to make divergent sequences that are nonfunctional?

The conservation comes about from the self correcting portions of the code. The divergence comes about from the portions of the code that react to stress. You didn't read the Shapiro article.

And "nonfunctional" is your term.

[allmendream]

Self correcting? You mean like mutation repair? What differentiates the segments to the cell, such that the cell “knows” to correct those segments but “allow” other segments to change? Shapiro doesn't address this.

Moreover, why would these changes in segments “allowed” to change be only slightly different between humans and chimps, more different between humans and other primates, and almost completely different between humans and other mammals; wow, exactly as if they shared a common ancestor at increasing times in the past.

I did read the Shapiro article. He accepts common descent and an “evolutionary” time frame.

Maybe YOU need to read the Shapiro article. You obviously don't know what he is saying.

[AndrewC]

Self correcting? You mean like mutation repair? What differentiates the segments to the cell, such that the cell “knows” to correct those segments but “allow” other segments to change? Shapiro doesn't address this.

What do you mean he doesn't address this. He most certainly does. What you are asking is for science to completely know the answer to something from the get go. It is known that the cell repairs the DNA. It is also known that mutation rates go up when the cell is stressed. What the heck does this except the cell?

If you read Shapiro you certainly don't understand it. You keep missing his points. Cellular computations certainly implies "computing cell". "Natural genetic engineering" certainly implies more than just accident.

For your love of nested heirarchies here is one.

                                  0
                       /                   \
                      1                     2
                /           \           /        \
               3            5          4          6
             /   \       /    \      /    \      /   \
            7     9     11    13    8     10    12   14
            / \  / \   /  \  /  \  /  \  /  \  /  \  /  \
          15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30

[allmendream]

Yes, the cell has a stress response. Part of this stress response is to increase its mutation rate. Why would a bacteria want to increase its mutation rate in response to stress?

Still no explanation other than common descent for these nested hierarchies. Shapiro won't help you with that, he accepts common descent.