Science Overturns Evolution's Best Argument

Institue for Creation Research ^ | 1/9/10 | rae4palin

[rae4palin]

Transposons are a class of “mobile genetic elements” that operate within the DNA of living organisms. For years, macroevolutionary proponents have claimed that their presence undoubtedly supports Darwinian evolution. But a recent investigation showed that transposons have been wrongly interpreted, changing macroevolution’s best argument into its worst nightmare—an almost complete lack of genetic material for it to “tweak” into newly selectable features.

[EmilyGeiger]

bookmark

[MindBender26]

ON,NTSA

[Chode]

a little genetic-warming been going on???

[DManA]

instead was part of a well-designed, originally created cellular process.

How can you say our genome is perfect? It was fatally (literally) in the Fall. If it was perfect we’d still be immortal.

[DManA]

Fatally flawed that is.

[Louis Foxwell]

Genetic warming indeed. The best argument against theories of increased complexity comes from physics. Entropy, the dumbing down of complexity, is the norm in physics. Random activity does not produce complexity, it does the reverse, generates simplicity.
As a complex structure matures it devolves into its derivatives. That is the most basic law of nature.

[tacticalogic]

Curse those Darwinists for jumping to conclusions and claiming anything is “settled”!

[allmendream]

Perhaps then you can explain to me why industries looking to optimize protein enzymes for the catylization of chemical reactions use a method of random generated variation and selection to derive novel enzymes of beneficial properties.

Randomly generated variation and selection can produce beneficial outcomes.

Prov 16:33 The dice are cast into the lap, but every result is from the Lord.

[reasonisfaith]

It would appear the novelty derived does not represent increased complexity, but merely a new and more beneficial combination of complexity on the same level.

[Chode]

thank you...

[Ira_Louvin]

Mr Thomas overlooked this part of the paper

Finally, a genome-wide screen identifies 23,000 candidate regulatory regions derived from retrotransposons, in addition to more than 2,000 examples of bidirectional transcription. We conclude that retrotransposon transcription has a key influence upon the transcriptional output of the mammalian genome.

It apperas that Mr Thomas belives that the Holy Bible is inerrant with the exclusion of Exdous 20:16

Could someone Please explain why we find no trilobites above the Permian strata, and why we find no dinosaurs above the cretaceous strata, or no mammals in the Cambrian strata?”

[reasonisfaith]

“We conclude that retrotransposon transcription has a key influence upon the transcriptional output of the mammalian genome.”

Did you read it carefully?

This sentence from the abstract means that so called “junk dna” has purpose (which is consistent with the creationist view), rather than being an accidental accumulation left over from viral genome—as the evolutionists have faithfully believed.

[Fichori]

Interesting, thanks for posting.

[allmendream]

Yet beneficial novelty derived from selection of genetic variation, which you admit is observed, is both necessary and sufficient for forms of life to evolve into other forms of life, not any increase in the ill defined concept of “complexity”.

[Ha Ha Thats Very Logical]

This sentence from the abstract means that so called “junk dna” has purpose (which is consistent with the creationist view), rather than being an accidental accumulation left over from viral genome—as the evolutionists have faithfully believed.

False dichotomy. The fact that "junk" dna now has a use doesn't mean it wasn't left over from a virus, any more than using an old shoe as a hammer means the "purpose" of the shoe was to drive nails. Scientists have always known the term meant "junk" as in something you hang onto because it might prove useful one day rather than "junk" as in something without any possible function.

[reasonisfaith]

From a standpoint of logic, it could go either way—although probability favors the idea that the creator of the universe put the retrotransposons there for a purpose far more than it favors the idea that junk viral dna became useful by accident.

Anyway, you miss the point. The point was that the other poster implied Thomas had “overlooked” that sentence and was somehow lying, when in fact he had clearly emphasized it because it added consistency to his argument.

[Ha Ha Thats Very Logical]

Anyway, you miss the point. The point was that the other poster implied Thomas had “overlooked” that sentence and was somehow lying, when in fact he had clearly emphasized it because it added consistency to his argument.

I wasn't concerned with the other poster's point. I was merely pointing out the error in your (and Brian's) argument.

And I don't know how you measure the probability of the action of a creator. In any case, you're still setting up a false dichotomy--that the creator put them for a purpose versus they became useful. Obviously, both can be true. And I don't know where "by accident" came from--if I use my shoe to drive a nail, the choice of a shoe over my hat is not an accident.

[reasonisfaith]

Accident is the groundwork of evolutionary logic.

[aNYCguy]

The best argument against theories of increased complexity comes from physics. [Nonsense snipped]

Invoking the word "entropy" without having any understanding of thermodynamics seems to be the creationists' favorite way of embarrassing themselves.

If you really want to make an argument against the common ancestry of all life on Earth, and do it by using the concept of "increased complexity," you'll have to begin by defining complexity. Until then, you don't even have an argument.

But here's a free physics lesson for you: The Second Law of Thermodynamics only states that the entropy in an isolated system tends to increase with time. And I guarantee you that the Earth is not an isolated system. Read a physics book.