Are we they not men?
[hooray for the 80s].....:)
Posted on 02/20/2005 2:45:33 PM PST by DannyTN
First it should be noted that the authors that you are refering to are secular Harvard Biologists and not the Creationist writers who summarized and excerpted the data for Creation Evolution Headlines.
Also, it's not as simple as A & B, they were comparing 7 fully mapped Genomes.
I followed the links but didn't get to the article. It wanted me to subscribe for a fee.
But I didn't really follow your logic. Given that the ancestor X had the intron, I don't see why B's retention would depend on A's retention at all. It seems to me that they would indeed be independent.
I assume they are determining what X had by looking at the introns across the 7 fully maped genomes. It would be logical to assume that if an intron is found in multiple organisms that it was inherited. Otherwise the means of acquiring the intron must be determined. Simple mutation would be ruled out since introns are strings of code involving up to 500 pairs.
To try again: given A and B have a common ancestor, and A has a feature F but B does not, we have two possibilities:
(1) acquisition by A and not by B
(2) retention by A and loss by B
If acquisition is largely random, then the probability that A acquires F is independent of what happens to B. But the converse is not true: the very fact that A has retained a feature says that it is, in some sense, 'sticky", ie likely to be retained. That's why we still have tail bones. In general, unless there is a survival penalty associated with a feature, it won't be lost.
So if A has indeed retained a feature, it is very probable that B will have retained it also. When, in violation of this expectation, we find that B lacks the feature, the correct deduction is that the "retention" hypothesis now seems less likely, and hence the acquisition hypothesis more likely.
But the above is not how the paper reasons, which is why I think it's wrong.
"Mutations are headed the wrong direction. They are weakening the gene pool."
Then by your theory, God has doomed us to devolve into chimps. That's a new one.
Actually, you've made another significant point AGAINST intelligent design. If entropy can't be avoided, then DEVOLUTION is what the creationists believe in.
As for me, I think the USEFUL information content of the geneome is not necessarily related to the number of genes. So, evolution isn't ruled out, nor is the concept of God.
X passed the intron (F) to A, and B lost the intron (F). A didn't aquire it as a new mutation. B devolved.
I'm not sure how long most introns are, but I'm given to understand they can range up to 500 DNA pairs. If they have been acquired, it must be from a similar source, such as a viral transmission.
It just seems on the face of it that inheritance is a lot more likely than acquisition of the exact same intron.
Oh, and about the human tailbone. That's another one of the evolutionist's myths. Try going to the bathroom without one. Rather than a vestigal organ without purpose, the human tailbone serves as a very important anchor for certain muscles that provide pelvic support.
Hey, misquoting and taking science out of context (if not outright lying about what is said) is what creationists DO. I've checked a number of their scribblings back to primary sources, and IN EVERY CASE, they have gotten major facts wrong--due to either 1) mis-understanding what the science says, and in some cases even 2) mis-understanding what the Bible says.
"Creation science" writing is to science writing as the "Brady Institute" is to "gun rights". Same tactics to the letter.
He won't let it go that far. But clearly the consequences of sin, show up.
Yes Devolution is exactly what Creationists believe in. Where have you been? Have you not been listening? The consequences of sin have resulted in death and disease. That includes genetic disease which is accelerated by drugs and alchohol. It's a consequence of our fallen nature.
There are now over 600 genetic diseases that get passed down through inheritance.
I don't know that anyone has actually done a study, but I bet if they did, they could demonstrate that the percentage of genetic disease is increasing in the human population.
And promoting frauds like piltdown man, nebraska man, java man, faked embryonic drawings, faked horse evolution series, faked human evolution series, faked neanderthal fossils, faked chinese fossils, archaeoraptor fraud, vestigal organs....FRAUD is what evolutionists do.
And there's no shortage of evolutionists taking Creationist's out of context and misrepresenting their work either.
We can both play the accusation game, or we can discuss the merits of the article.
You've accused these authors of taking information out of context. Now either prove it or admit that you were lying when you made the accusation against them
Are we they not men?
[hooray for the 80s].....:)
Standard creationist blatting. And exactly how many of those "frauds" were corrected by "creationists" as opposed to OTHER SCIENTISTS?? Answer: Creationists = 0%, Scientists = 100%.
Yahsee, TRUTH is what SCIENCE does, despite the fact that some few scientists either make mistakes or commit outright fraud. But that is what you creationist nutcases fail to understand---it isn't just evolution you have to debut---you ultimately have to discard the entire structure of multiple fields of science in order to get things warped sufficiently to support "biblical creationism".
"We can both play the accusation game, or we can discuss the merits of the article."
What merits?? You mean the few adulterated snippets you posted?? I think not.
"You've accused these authors of taking information out of context. Now either prove it or admit that you were lying when you made the accusation against them"
No, dude, I have accused the CREATIONISTS who cut and pasted portions of the article onto a nutcase website of having taken the information out of context. Since the only REAL information available is an abstract, who can tell how out of context the information is. Certainly that abstract doesn't support the conclusions in your "article". But "I have faith" that the information "is" taken out of context, because that is the consistent practice of creationists. I "do" note in passing that even the snippets of the article posted don't support the biblical creationist viewpoint ("push back the origin of very introndense genome structures over a billion years to the plant-animal split"). Kind of hard to have a billion years of history when the earth is only 6000 years old.
So basically you had no foundation to accuse them on.
Exactly like Mr. Warthogs. I stooped to his level so he could see how ridiculous he was being. Sometimes it works. It didn't this time.
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.