Posted on 03/16/2009 8:18:46 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
How much new genetic information could a Darwinian mechanism create, and by how much does this process exceed that?
(I'm surprised at the implication that a Darwinian mechanism can create new genetic information in the first place. I thought the answer to the first question was supposed to be "none.")
You have a Design to look for that you don't have to specifically describe, so of COURSE you can point to something.....anything found....and say "A-HA!!! There it is." It's really really complex, so it MUST be the Design.
Flagellar motor???? It's part of the DESIGN!!!Sodium potassium pumps....the Design!!!
Whatever you may dream that is.....it ain't science.
It's akin to GW theorists going to the point of absurdity such that everything they can point at is proof positive of global warming. Warmer...GW. Colder....GW. More storms...GW. Less storms...GW. More snow....GW. Less snow...GW. Thousands of things found already that are all "GW." ....because they start with the conclusion that GW is true and the ONLY POSSIBLE truth and then they try to fit all evidence to fit the conclusion. (and don't bother saying that's what Darwinists do).
EVERYTHING points to an undescribed Design because you WANT to see a Design without ever having to actually understand anything going on. Too complicated to understand....welll....that's the Design.
This HAS to be sarcasm.
Every evo-nut's dream.
No mutated DNA has ever produced a positive result; it is ultimately the path to death, even if the organism should live for a short time. It has never produced a new species.
==Once again you have no answer other than a cut and paste from ignorant sources.
That’s not a cut and paste. I merely posted a link to a paper written by creation scientists who present evidence that the so-called GULO pseudogene is not evidence of common descent. Did you read it?
==There is no reason for all primates to have the same disabling mutation of the GULO gene other than the same mutation in a common ancestor.
You are assuming common descent. There is no reason for creation scientists to assume this. Furthermore, you are interpreting ERVs as evidence of ancient exogenous infections, which is another unwarrented Evo assumption. It is much more likely that ERVs were incorporated into the genome at the time of creation, and were designed to pick up the elements necessary to leave the genome and facilitate horizontal gene transfer. If this is indeed the case, then from a creation “modular design” perspective, the closer the body plan and functional needs are, the more we should expect to see “conserved” ERV sequences between the same. However, as mentioned before, creation also explains the functionality of the unconserved regions, which makes the design argument far more powerful than neo-Darwinian evolution.
And whether we are talking about pseudogenes or ERVs, both are increasingly thought of as functional precisely because the entire genome is rapidly being discovered to be functional. Just as Creation and ID scientists have been predicting for years.
You have to be Forrest Dump.
No, its not sarcasm, are you really that blind? In a world where the species count has stadily declined, it should be fairly easy for even you to see.
Do you have a referece to when this prediction was first made?
Laughable.
Were we not just discussing antibiotic resistance?
How about the mutations in the “pristine” genes for skin pigmentation that a black person would have, allowing light skinned people to absorb enough vitamin D in high latitudes?
How about mutations in the proximal region to the lactase gene that allows people to continue drinking milk into adulthood? Not an advantage?
Speciation events have been observed in both the lab and in the wild.
Wow are you ever wrong! Impressive to be that wrong! You must work at it!
I am assuming common descent BASED UPON DATA. It is the best explanation for the data.
Your ‘common features means common DNA’ leads you to such ignorant assertions as that chimps and humans being more similar in DNA than either is to a gorilla being a “logical impossibility”.
Functionality of unconserved regions? Source please.
So far Creationists have not broken the linkage between evolutionary conservation of sequences and the functionality of those sequences. Nor do they have an explanation for this linkage. No, they just insist that it is all useful.
What use is the GULO pseudogene? It certainly doesn't prevent them from getting Scurvy from a lack of dietary vitamin C. A GULO gene would seem far more useful than the broken remnant of a GULO gene.
The myth of 'mutated' antibiotic resistance has been debunked so many times, it must multiply like field mice!
Antibiotic resistance has always been in the genetic base of the affected bacteria, and only temporarily alters the demographics of a 'local' population. Should the use of the antibiotic be discontinued, the demographics will normalize over time.
This was well demonstrated by the the dissappearance of resistance to sulfa drugs over the last 40 years.
So now there is no sulfa drug resistance extant within living bacterial populations?
So much for that resistance always being in the “genetic base” of the bacteria.
It seems that if a bacteria wanted to get resistance to sulfa drugs that were reintroduced it would have to MUTATE its DNA. No?
Do you think that, given the disappearance of resistance to sulfa drugs over the past 40 years, that new resistant strains would not develop as soon as the sulfa drugs were reintroduced?
How would these new resistant strains develop this new resistance other than through mutation of its DNA?
Oh, but DNA is there to PREVENT evolution! I keep forgetting! LOL!!!
So what is the explanation for the "disadvantage" to be the normal condition for all of the mammalian class?
From wikipedia:(I got lazy)
The normal mammalian condition is for the young of a species to experience reduced lactase production at the end of the weaning period
Hahah, man good luck trying to get real answers to those questions. I went around and around with him trying to get a precise definition of ‘information’ and some actual calculations based on it, but all I got for my efforts was a mouthful of mushy gibberish.
I had kinda hoped the fact I eventually caught him in a blatant contradiction would result in some humility on this issue, but...
It took domestication of milk giving animals before a mutation of this proximal region to the lactase gene would be an advantage; and apparently it arose at least twice independently, once among Northern Europeans, and again among cattle herding Africans (they have different mutations).
Is your reading comprehension really that low?
Or are you just that ignorant of history?
Or both?
"Do you think that, given the disappearance of resistance to sulfa drugs over the past 40 years, that new resistant strains would not develop as soon as the sulfa drugs were reintroduced?"
I see that you do not understand the concept of demographics. Some are resistant because the resistance is "on" in their genes, while others are not resistant because resistance is "off." The distribution of "on" and "off" sub populations can flow either way, depending on the use or disuse of the toxin, but the species retains the capacity for both conditions.
But I expect someone who doesn't know what they are talking about to keep changing their story.
So when you treat an infection with antibiotics that kill 99.99% of the population; why didn't those bacteria turn “on” their antibiotic resistance?
The truth of the matter is that antibiotic resistance is associated with different alleles or the presence of absence of these resistance genes on a plasmid.
The ones that die, die because they lack the proper plasmid or genetic allele. Among the surviving population you find the “correct” plasmid or allele, and it passes on to 100% of the next generation.
So you are saying that lactase is of no use?
You certainly did, if God didn't make it then something else did, and I assume you have a theory about what that is. I suppose you could prescribe to the steady state theory, but that seems a little dated.
The Big Bang theory everyone loves, offers no explanation of where the original matter, that became the Big Bang, came from.
Most adult mammals will never get an opportunity to drink milk, so no, a lactase gene would be of no use.
To a nursing mammal it is of primary importance.
To a human with cattle it is a distinct advantage to have this mutation.
So much for the ‘no advantage to any change in DNA’ idiocy.
B.S. They are called mammals for a reason. Milk is readily available where there are mammals. A nursing mammal is merely a mammal that drinks milk. As long as a female is capable of giving birth lactose can be used. So don't beg the question. Does lactase have a use? And I did not abridge what your conclusion was.
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.