http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v446/n7133/full/nature05612.html
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 ...
And what is it that you hope that chart will tell me, Allmendream?
So if it is so evident, why no time scale on the bottom of the chart, why no “anything” as to what they were measuring with things going down.
Evolution is not directional. Genetic diversity is not devolution.
Why no actual Science? Why no actual data? Why can't you even address the data we do see of novel biological innovation, such as citrate plus e.coli and nylon digesting bacteria?
No. You have nothing but charts with no data. So where did you get that again. I could use a good laugh and I remember that the author's knowledge of actual Biology would fall through the holes in a thimble.
Source for your data chart with no data and no labeled axis?
Where is the data for your chart with no data? The actual experiment should be rather easy to do. Why no label on the axis? What is being measured on the Y axis? What decreases as time goes on that would make the line go down?
The lines going up is an obvious straw man. Biologists have been correcting people for years on the notion that Evolution is somehow an “upwards” process. I guess your retarded source didn't get the memo. He is attacking a straw-man, and not very effectively.
What, again, is the source of your silly data chart with no data?
==Where is the data for your chart with no data?
Where was the data for Darwin’s chart with no data? By your logic, Darwood should have been laughed right out of science.
PS And again, what specifically do you think your chart demonstrates. You just showed me a chart with a bunch of branches and numbers. What is it that you think each one means? Be specific.
==I am a Christian.
A Christian who is afraid to even say if he still goes to church since leaving his last one.
I always try to answer your questions, Allmendream. As far as I’m concerned, the more you challenge me, the stronger my arguments become. Unlike you, if I don’t know the answer, I will tell you. And unlike you, if I’m wrong, I’ll admit it.
You claimed I was an anti-Theist for being convinced of the evidence for evolution. By that “logic” the Pope is an anti-Theist, as are the majority of Christian denominations.
So you just bounce around from church to church?
What does “up” on the Y axis mean? Be specific.
What does “down” on the Y axis mean?
Where did you get this data chart without data?
A conceptual chart is to illustrate an idea. A data chart is to plot data points on an X and Y axis. A data chart without a labeled axis, and without actual data is ridicule worthy.
Darwin's conceptual chart has been filled in with data on the similarity and divergence of DNA sequences, as the chart above shows. If you want more examples I can provide them, or you can just look in pubmed for “phylogenetic” to see what data goes into constructing such a tree.
Your data chart without data doesn't even have an axis.
So please answer my questions.
What does “up” mean?
What does “down” mean?
From what source did you derive your data chart without data?
I guess that “thousand years is but as yesterday when it is past and as a watch in the night” bit never registered as suggesting His perception of time and ours are strictly incomparable.
The millions of years are from our point of view, from within the world He created out of nothing.
==What does “up” on the Y axis mean? Be specific.
There is no X and Y axis per se. The chart is meant to communicate an idea, and that idea is that the original created kinds were created separate, distinct, and genetically rich, whereas they have been loosing their complexity/genetical richness ever since.
==A conceptual chart is to illustrate an idea. A data chart is to plot data points on an X and Y axis. A data chart without a labeled axis, and without actual data is ridicule worthy.
If so, then Darwin’s conceptual chart is also ridicule worthy.
My source for the conceptual devolution chart is the following. Read the e-book (top right), you might actually learn something:
http://www.evolution-is-degeneration.com/index.asp?PaginaID=1100
You mean you are happy as long as they don’t talk about the Bible’s creation account in such a way that contradicts your anti-Theist idol, Charlie Darwin.
Genetical? What a freekin’ idiot your source is. Genetical isn't even English, let alone Biology.
What is “genetical richness”? Do you mean genetic diversity? Because genetic diversity increases in an expanding population.
How is “genetical richness” measured?
A conceptual chart that is clearly labeled as hypothetical and that the data has currently been filled in on is not even in the same universe as a DATA chart without data to put on the X and Y axis. Nice try.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v446/n7133/full/nature05612.html
Hydatellaceae identified as a new branch near the base of the angiosperm phylogenetic tree
Although the relationship of angiosperms to other seed plants remains controversial1, great progress has been made in identifying the earliest extant splits in flowering-plant phylogeny, with the discovery that the New Caledonian shrub Amborella trichopoda, the water lilies (Nymphaeales), and the woody Austrobaileyales constitute a basal grade of lines that diverged before the main radiation in the clade2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8. By focusing attention on these ancient lines, this finding has re-written our understanding of angiosperm structural and reproductive biology, physiology, ecology and taxonomy9, 10, 11, 12. The discovery of a new basal lineage would lead to further re-evaluation of the initial angiosperm radiation, but would also be unexpected, as nearly all of the 460 flowering-plant families have been surveyed in molecular studies10. Here we show that Hydatellaceae, a small family of dwarf aquatics that were formerly interpreted as monocots, are instead a highly modified and previously unrecognized ancient lineage of angiosperms. Molecular phylogenetic analyses of multiple plastid genes and associated noncoding regions from the two genera of Hydatellaceae identify this overlooked family as the sister group of Nymphaeales. This surprising result is further corroborated by evidence from the nuclear gene phytochrome C (PHYC), and by numerous morphological characters. This indicates that water lilies are part of a larger lineage that evolved more extreme and diverse modifications for life in an aquatic habitat than previously recognized.
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.