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]

You never answered my question. What relevance does it have to the fact that the majority view of Christianity is that Science is not in conflict with faith?

And there are more Christians than just Catholic or Protestant, but as usual your ignorance betrays itself. The last church I attended was Armenian Orthodox. Would you classify them as Catholic or Protestant?

[GodGunsGuts]

I’m not betting the farm, the evos are. They are the ones who say that there is such thing as functionless genetic material. And they are the ones who say that say that “functionless” genetic material should mutate faster than functioning genetic material. For my part, I don’t believe in functionless DNA, nor do I believe that random mutations provide the raw material for natural selection to magically tranform into the appearance of design, nor do I believe that natural selection is the main factor preventing genetic drift. I believe the ability for organisms to adapt and conserve its program is built right in, and that what we call natural selection, far from being a creative force, is nothing more than an organism’s inability to survive should its program malfunction.

[Cold Heat]

Evolutionary theory would expect that non-functional genetic material would mutate more rapidly than genes

Not what my understanding is.......

Dormant material would have a hard time mutating as it is dormant, unused......just sitting there doing nothing in particular.

So, it gets copied, passed on, and still does nothing.

[allmendream]

So if or when a function is found for this highly conserved sequence the evidence will do nothing to change your mind.

Nice of you to admit that your going with a “heads I win tails you lose” argument where negative evidence you count while positive evidence you ignore. Sorry, but it doesn't work that way among rational people.

How about the fact that the only reason this made news is that it bucks the OVERWHELMING trend where highly evolutionarily conserved sequences show high functionality?

What explanation do you have for this trend?

Also you never answered my other questions.

Do you think the Pope has more faith in evolution than the Bible?

Do you consider Armenian Orthodox to be Catholic or Protestant?

[GodGunsGuts]

I don’t know anything about the Armenian Orthodox church. But again, you have failed to say what church you attend now. Is your current church Protestant or Catholic? And yes, I believe that all Protestants, Catholics and Jews who accept evolution are putting more faith in the materialist musings of mere men than what the Bible clearly says about creation. And as a Protestant, while I may agree with the Pope on a great many things, I am not under his authority in any way, and I am just as free to disagree with him on the creation/evolution debate as I am to disagree with any Protestant on the same. And finally, while the Catholic Church seems to be leaning towards a symbolic interpretation of Genesis, it has as of yet to take an official position on the subject, which means Catholics are free to adopt a plain reading of Genesis and hold to Young Earth Creationism.

[GodGunsGuts]

I don’t have time to answer all your questions write now. I am busy, busy, busy. Suffice it to say that there is a huge difference between what I believe and what the Temple of Darwin believes re: highly conserved sequences. My reason for posting this article was to show that the evidence is contradicting Darwinist expectations. I for one have never believed in the silly Darwinian notion of so-called junk DNA. And thus, their findings in the above article are not paradoxical to me in the least.

[allmendream]

In other words you have no explanation for the trend whereby evolutionarily conserved sequences show functionality.

So what is your position in regards to this sequence? You pounce upon the fact that no functionality was discovered to cry “see useless DNA that is evolutionarily conserved contradicts Evolution” while simultaneously saying there IS NO useless DNA.

So is the sequence useful, which goes with your “no useless DNA” stance?

Or is the sequence useless, which goes with your “it contradicts the notion that evolutionarily conserved sequences are useful”?

Which one? You can't have it both ways.

[GodGunsGuts]

==In other words you have no explanation for the trend whereby evolutionarily conserved sequences show functionality.

Tell me Allmendream, what criteria are used to determine which genetic sequences are unconserved?

[allmendream]

Wow, you really don't know much about the subject.

Basics.

Evolutionary Conservation: a sequence of DNA that shows little change when compared between species.

Nonconserved sequences would be the ones that when comparing between species, show a larger amount of change.

The overwhelming trend is that DNA that shows high evolutionary conservation between species almost always shows high functionality.

The sequence under discussion in the paper shows high evolutionary conservation between species; but rodents without the sequence show a normal phenotype. This is newsworthy only because the overall trend is that evolutionary conservation denotes function. The researcher is still convinced he will find a function for this sequence.

So is it useful DNA, which would contradict your stance that the non-functionality of this region “falsifies” evolution?

Or is is useless DNA, which would contradict your stance that there is no such thing as useless DNA?

[js1138]

Of course the word ultraconserved makes no sense unless common descent is a fact.

[allmendream]

Absolutely. But the observation of evolutionary conservation of functional sequences is yet another supporting element to the theory of common descent.

The predictive power of the theory of evolution through natural selection of genetic variation is once again confirmed by the presence of these untraconserved sequences as well as the presence of nonconserved sequences.

The only reason they looked for a function for these sequences is that they showed evolutionary conservation and thus were assumed to be functional. This has been a highly accurate prediction in the past so it is surprising that rodents missing these sequences do not show a phenotype. But once again, it is newsworthy ONLY because it bucks the overwhelming trend where conservation means functionality, and the Scientist is still convinced that these sequences are functional and still risking his career and spending his time and research money looking for the function.

[js1138]

Paul Nelson (Author, Exploring Evolution) Wrote:
Easily the biggest challenge facing the ID community is to develop a full-fledged theory of biological design. We don’t have such a theory right now, and that’s a problem. Without a theory, it’s very hard to know where to direct your research focus. Right now, we’ve got a bag of powerful intuitions, and a handful of notions such as ‘irreducible complexity’ and ‘specified complexity’-but, as yet, no general theory of biological design.

200 years and counting, waiting for that theory.

[allmendream]

Yes, because so far they have nothing with any explanatory or predictive power.

[js1138]

Phillip Johnson (Founder, Discovery Institute) Wrote:
I also don’t think that there is really a theory of intelligent design at the present time to propose as a comparable alternative to the Darwinian theory, which is, whatever errors it might contain, a fully worked out scheme. There is no intelligent design theory that’s comparable. Working out a positive theory is the job of the scientific people that we have affiliated with the movement. Some of them are quite convinced that it’s doable, but that’s for them to prove…No product is ready for competition in the educational world.

200 years and still waiting for a theory that would enable research...

[GodGunsGuts]

PS It is my position that the vast majority of DNA sequences are useful. The so-called junk DNA is most likely DNA sequences that are needed at different times of the organism's development, to help it cope with changing environments, and as a genetic toolbox for the organism to make repairs to its decaying genome.

[allmendream]

How about THIS SPECIFIC sequence?

Is it useless and thus contradicts the evolutionary paradigm that conservation means function?

Or is it useful and thus contradicts the notion that there is such a thing as unused DNA?

If you cannot answer the question I completely understand. How could you without a theoretical framework that enables a prediction?

[GodGunsGuts]

I just wanted you to state the evolutionary assumption that similar or identical DNA sequences between species points to common origin rather than common design. From what I have read, the evidence for the latter is far stronger than the former.

[allmendream]

From what you have read? Laughable.

Care to explain it to us or source it?

Didn't think so.

There IS no Creationist explanation for this trend, that is why you cannot explain it.

So which is it? If Creation “Science” is so much superior you should have an answer at the ready.

Is this particular sequence useless, thus contradicting the paradigm that conserved sequences are functional, as the idiot blog you sourced contends?

Or do you still contend that no sequence is useless?

You cannot have it both ways. Which is it?

[GodGunsGuts]

The whole point of the article is to show that A) evolutionary theory expects there to be a lot of non-functional/junk DNA that is the result of an undirected cobbling together of the genome over millions of years and B) that said non-functional genetic material should mutate faster than functional genetic material.

Creationists and IDers predicted just the opposite, that the vast bulk of “junk DNA” would turn out to be both highly conserved and highly functional. And now they are finally being vindicated. Yet one more victory for Creation/ID scientists.

[GodGunsGuts]

Sure, when I have more time, I’d be glad to source it. I don’t know why you keep pushing me, Allmendream. Every time you do, I invariably wind up proving you wrong.