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?...

[AndrewC]

Why would a bacteria want to increase its mutation rate in response to stress?

Because the program tells it to do so.

Play with the nested hierarchy that I provided for you.

[allmendream]

But why would the program of stress response want to increase the mutation rate except in an attempt to generate novel biological adaptations to adapt to the stress?

[AndrewC]

But why would the program of stress response want to increase the mutation rate except in an attempt to generate novel biological adaptations to adapt to the stress?

Gee whadda ya think? That description is certainly not Darwinian evolution.

[allmendream]

Sure it is.

Natural selection acts upon genetic variation. An increased mutation rate in a bacteria under stress generates genetic variation.

[AndrewC]

An increased mutation rate in a bacteria under stress generates genetic variation.

But that mutation rate is directed at specific areas at specific rates. That is not Darwinian. You missed this in Shapiro's article.

Darwin himself acknowledged this point in later editions of Origin of Species, where he wrote about natural "sports" or "...variations which seem to us in our ignorance to arise spontaneously. It appears that I formerly underrated the frequency and value of these latter forms of variation, as leading to permanent modifications of structure independently of natural selection." (6th edition, Chapter XV, p. 395).

[allmendream]

Error prone DNA polymerase has an INHERENT and INTRINSIC rate of error. A bacteria under stress upregulates error prone DNA polymerase and down regulates DNA repair enzymes. This causes the mutation rate to go up over the entire genome.

[AndrewC]

This causes the mutation rate to go up over the entire genome.

So where do the ultra-conserved regions come from?

[allmendream]

Selection. Come on. You didn't know that?

Here is Shapiro again, talking about yet another point of evidence for common descent.

“For example, a number of mammalian orders (primates, rodents, artiodactyls, etc.) share LINE and some less abundant SINE elements, but the most abundant SINEs in each order's genome are limited to that order (40). Thus, a primate cell can be distinguished from a rodent cell simply by examining the SINEs, and genetic changes involving these taxonomically-limited SINEs are unique to the group which possesses them.”

[AndrewC]

Selection. Come on. You didn't know that?

That has been the whole discussion. What is there to select?

[allmendream]

Genetic variation is selected for or against. In ultraconserved sequences, obviously, any variation is selected against.

And why ping GGG to every post? You think you need the help? Well it is obvious that you do. I guess in the land of the blind the one eyed man is king! ;)

[GodGunsGuts]

==An organizational chart isn't the same thing as the comparison between genomes that accounts for both similarity and divergence.

Yes, and no. It certainly demonstrates that designers deliberately create extremely complex nested hierarchies that contain predictable similarities and differences. If you weren't such a sloven follower of the Darwin cult, you would immediately admit these facts into evidence.

You have already admitted that the notion that nested hierarchies are the product of common descent is pure (read: religiously motivated) conjecture on the part of the Evos. It's only the best explanation if you ASSUME God had nothing to do with creation.

However, given all of the multitudinous real-life examples of complex nested hiararchies designed by the very creatures the Bible assures us God made in His own image, then it should come as no surprise that our Creator also created according to a nested hierarchy--the main difference being that instead of a branching tree, He created an orchard of life, with each branching tree representing the descent of creatures who cannot reproduce outside of their deliberately created kinds. And this, btw, is precisely what we see in the fossil record.

As I said to you long ago, the generalized pattern of life suggests devolution, not evolution.

THIS:

NOT THIS:

[allmendream]

Your chart with no data points again?

What a laugh.

Sorry, no actual data went into that chart. It was designed to fool Creationists without any knowledge of Science. I guess it worked.

[GodGunsGuts]

He doesn’t need my help any more than I need his help. We are both learning from each other, and we are both sharpening our own arguments and thinking by dismantling the clever anti-Theist arguments you spew forth in the name of “science.”

[allmendream]

I am a Christian. I am in no way anti-Theistic. Any more than the Pope who also is convinced by the weight of evidence for evolution through natural selection of genetic variation.

Go back to your charts with no data GGG. Obviously you prefer your data charts content free of any interfering data.

Why are there no “Creation Scientists” actually studying devolution and showing how an experimental population devolves into lifelessness instead of adapting to new challenges?

Oh yeah, because there is no evidence that anything has ever devolved into lifelessness. Instead bacterial populations develop novel ways of digesting citrate, as in the case of citrate plus e.coli.

Where does that fit into your data chart without data?

[AndrewC]

In ultraconserved sequences, obviously, any variation is selected against.

Why?

And GGG is pinged because you insist on mentioning hierarchies.

[GodGunsGuts]

==Sorry, no actual data went into that chart. It was designed to fool Creationists without any knowledge of Science. I guess it worked.

LOL! If you think generalized conceptual charts should contain data points, then maybe you should have a talk with old Charlie. The only chart he included in his entire Origins book is the one that follows. Did you know that Darwin's chart is purely hypothetical, and doesn't contain or represent any actual data at all? I guess it was designed to fool already compromised Christians who didn't know anything about science into joining Darwin's rebellion against God.

[USMC 4-ever]

I dont know about you, but my God created things right the first time around. He didn’t need “millions of years” to perfect something he created.

[allmendream]

That is a data chart without data. Its concept is erroneous, if it even denotes a concept.

What is up on the chart? What is used to measure what would make the line go up?

What is down on the chart? What makes something go down?

How does the data chart without data or even an axis labeled deal with evolutionary novelty like nylon digesting bacteria, citrate plus bacteria, the rise of mammals, the extinction of dinosaurs, anything?

Why not actually do the experiment and collect the data?

Biologists have collected the data that Charles Darwin postulated in his tree of interrelatedness, using techniques and information (DNA) that Darwin was not even aware of. And that data forms nested hierarchies of similarity and divergence. Once again Darwin's theory was shown to accurately predict and explain the data.

When is some intrepid “Creation Scientist” going to collect the data to populate your retarded data chart without data or labeled axis?

Care to source where you got that particular piece of drivel?

[allmendream]

[GodGunsGuts]

Again, you don’t know what you’re talking about. There are a plethora of scientific papers that point to gene loss as a major factor in what the Evos mistakenly assume is evolution, and it is estimated that we are losing thousands of species per year. Both of these support devolution, not evolution.