Jump to content


Something Fishy About The Global Flood


  • Please log in to reply
162 replies to this topic

#41 Guest_McStone_*

Guest_McStone_*
  • Guests

Posted 22 February 2010 - 02:34 AM

Or maybe you just don't know what it codes for?
Scientists are constantly finding purposes for junk DNA.


Ive said before, discoveries of purposes in "Junk DNA" with refinement in technique is unlikely to change the fact that most genomes are made from non-coding, non-regulatory sequences. Repeat after repeat after repeat. The most "streamlined" genomes, in terms of junk:code, are those of viruses.

You still did not explain "higher up"


I mean literally higher up in the geological record - "closer to the surface". As we look at the fossil record we dont find:

mammals below the reptiles
tetrapods below the fish
etc etc

sediment has been built on that supporting it below just as genomes have.

This statement is not true or incorrectly stated. If specie A has the DNA of specie B and A is below B, then B does have the DNA of a specie below but A has the DNA of a specie above. This eliminates your statement with only your statement as evidence.


First Larrywj2, its species; its always species because species are plural classifications for a collection of individuals. There are always more than one individual for a species, (unless they really are on death's door, at which point the species is an extinct species walking anyway. It confuses things in the literature if specie and species are thrown about without a standardised meaning).

In your example, Species A will have some relatedness to Species B; relatively minor differences will exist at short geological distances; big ones will exist in big geological distances. However, Species B will have new things added to the genome; perhaps things taken away. These things Species A will not share. The genome has changed upwards through time. Time moves one direction. Alas, if the genome only got bigger with time i think you would appreciate what im saying more readily. You would be able to see the increase in genome size, combined with a higher position in the fossil record. But it isnt that easy. Genome experience all sorts of changes through evolution.

We see species have a higher position in the fossil record, based on the degree of progressive change (or homology) in the genome.

Explain why.

#42 Lucy The Ape

Lucy The Ape

    Newcomer

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 8 posts
  • Age: 45
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Outback Australia

Posted 22 February 2010 - 03:59 AM

Hello McStone,

Ive said before, discoveries of purposes in "Junk DNA" with refinement in technique is unlikely to change the fact that most genomes are made from non-coding, non-regulatory sequences. Repeat after repeat after repeat. The most "streamlined" genomes, in terms of junk:code, are those of viruses.


No such thing as junk DNA. That term has run its course.

I mean literally higher up in the geological record - "closer to the surface". As we look at the fossil record we dont find:

mammals below the reptiles
tetrapods below the fish
etc etc


We don't find mammals below reptiles today
or fish below tetrapods
etc, etc..

Species higher up in the fossil record have GOT the DNA of specific species below them. Never the other way around. Why?


We have about 3.0*10^9 base pairs the Fritillaria assyrica has 130.0*10^9. Also a chimp has 10% more dna than we do. How can we have their DNA?

And what are the TOE's predictions on dna size?

We see species have a higher position in the fossil record, based on the degree of progressive change (or homology) in the genome.
Explain why.

Well maybe the homologies have something to do with how fast an organism can flee from rising water.

#43 Guest_Tezza_*

Guest_Tezza_*
  • Guests

Posted 22 February 2010 - 05:44 AM

No such thing as junk DNA. That term has run its course.


I would suggest you listen to scientists who actually work in these areas and not creationists who basically don't have a clue what they are talking about.

The onion test
"The onion test is a simple reality check for anyone who thinks they have come up with a universal function for non-coding DNA. Whatever your proposed function, ask yourself this question: Can I explain why an onion needs about five times more non-coding DNA for this function than a human?"


http://www.genomicro...about-junk-dna/
"creationist authors (borrowing, of course, from the work of molecular biologists, as they do no such research themselves) simply equivocate the various types of non-coding DNA, and mistakenly suggest that functions discovered for a few examples of some types of non-coding sequences indicate functions for all (see Max 2002 for a cogent rebuttal to these creationist confusions)."

http://www.genomicro...-one-more-time/
"You can tell someone who knows very little about the science or history of “junk DNA” when they make one or more of the following claims: 1) All scientists have always thought it was all totally irrelevant to the organism. 2) New evidence is suggesting that it is all functional. 3) “Darwinism” led to the assumption that non-coding DNA is non-functional. The opposite is true in each case."

http://www.genomicro...-one-more-time/

http://www.genomicro...-some-function/

Junk DNA and Junk Arguments

As in every other area of science, everything creationists write is almost entirely incorrect, if not deliberately misleading. Since genomics is so clearly devastating to their anti-evolutionary dogma this is probably the area of science about which they have to lie the most.

#44 dwillis

dwillis

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 14 posts
  • Age: 33
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Salem, VA.

Posted 22 February 2010 - 09:44 AM

Junk DNA and Junk Arguments

As in every other area of science, everything creationists write is almost entirely incorrect, if not deliberately misleading. Since genomics is so clearly devastating to their anti-evolutionary dogma this is probably the area of science about which they have to lie the most.

View Post


So, you link a youtube video from an darwin cult atheist? Talk about dogma. His religion is driving his science.

#45 scott

scott

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,749 posts
  • Age: 21
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • mississippi

Posted 22 February 2010 - 10:49 AM

I would suggest you listen to scientists who actually work in these areas and not creationists who basically don't have a clue what they are talking about.

The onion test
"The onion test is a simple reality check for anyone who thinks they have come up with a universal function for non-coding DNA. Whatever your proposed function, ask yourself this question: Can I explain why an onion needs about five times more non-coding DNA for this function than a human?"
http://www.genomicro...about-junk-dna/
"creationist authors (borrowing, of course, from the work of molecular biologists, as they do no such research themselves) simply equivocate the various types of non-coding DNA, and mistakenly suggest that functions discovered for a few examples of some types of non-coding sequences indicate functions for all (see Max 2002 for a cogent rebuttal to these creationist confusions)."

http://www.genomicro...-one-more-time/
"You can tell someone who knows very little about the science or history of “junk DNA” when they make one or more of the following claims: 1) All scientists have always thought it was all totally irrelevant to the organism. 2) New evidence is suggesting that it is all functional. 3) “Darwinism” led to the assumption that non-coding DNA is non-functional. The opposite is true in each case."

http://www.genomicro...-one-more-time/

http://www.genomicro...-some-function/

Junk DNA and Junk Arguments

As in every other area of science, everything creationists write is almost entirely incorrect, if not deliberately misleading. Since genomics is so clearly devastating to their anti-evolutionary dogma this is probably the area of science about which they have to lie the most.

View Post


Actually Tezza, Junk DNA doesn't exist. Evolutionist are quick to call anything they don't understand as junk. Just because we do not have the advancements in our knowledge, and technology to fully understand what that part of the DNA is, does not mean it's junk. Of course Scientist are finding more that Junk DNA isn't junk anyways, so your argument that Junk DNA exist, really has fallen flat on its face already.

Calling a part of DNA junk, is like calling the entire motor of a car junk... simply because you don't know how it works... therefore it must automatically mean it's vestigal, and serves no purpose... further could be from the truth, and you know it.

#46 Cata

Cata

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 326 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 16
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Bellevue, Washington

Posted 22 February 2010 - 03:56 PM

Tezza, are you saying that Answers in Genesis has no idea what they are talking about?
Seriously, please READ what we have instead of showing serious symptoms of evo-babbling.

2) Asks you to quote from the proper scientific literature (i.e only pro-evolution literature). This brings a solid 90% probability you have a genuine evo-babbler on your hands!



#47 Lucy The Ape

Lucy The Ape

    Newcomer

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 8 posts
  • Age: 45
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Outback Australia

Posted 23 February 2010 - 08:04 AM

I would suggest you listen to scientists who actually work in these areas and not creationists who basically don't have a clue what they are talking about.

Didn't you mean listen to a scientist.
T.Ryan Gregory is a die hard evolutionist.
Does T.Ryan Gregory have a evolutionary theory on the size of a genome?

This is what he himself says

How much is functional?  I don’t know, but I can say that since there very beginning — in the first detailed discussion of “junk DNA” ever published — the proposed figure was higher than the current data suggest:


And then he goes on to quote Comings from 1972.

Here's what the wiki says in 2010:

In evolutionary biology and molecular biology, junk DNA is a provisional label for the portions of the DNA sequence of a chromosome or a genome for which no function has been identified.

The term was introduced in 1972 by Susumu Ohno[1], but is somewhat outdated (as of 2008), being used mainly in popular science and in a colloquial way in scientific publications. If DNA does not seem to have a function now it may have had a function in the past or may be discovered to have a function in future.[2] The term 'dark matter' is increasingly being adopted to refer to this apparently functionless DNA.

It has the same meaning as "vestigial organs" had 30 years ago.

Dark Matter + Dark Energy + Junk DNA = Voodoo science.

It seems to me evolutionismists are going through the grieving stages at the loss of their god. First it was denial, now its anger, next is bargaining, then depression and finally acceptance. There are ways to make the transition easier, lots of self help sites out there. Just a note on the bargaining bit, it's bargaining with yourself, 'cause we don't bargain.

It seems all the evolutionary biologists are spending most of their time trying to put down the creation model. It's a wonder they have any time in the lab at all!

As in every other area of science, everything creationists write is almost entirely incorrect, if not deliberately misleading. Since genomics is so clearly devastating to their anti-evolutionary dogma this is probably the area of science about which they have to lie the most.


Straw man. No-one I know has ANY problem with real science. Evolution has been like a cancer to science, religion and philosophy, and driven by its heresy into many aspects of unobservable non-demonstrable atheistic materialistic world view sciences. The whole theory is unraveling before your very eyes.

#48 Guest_Darkness45_*

Guest_Darkness45_*
  • Guests

Posted 23 February 2010 - 08:52 AM

It seems all the evolutionary biologists are spending most of their time trying to put down the creation model. It's a wonder they have any time in the lab at all!


Quite the contrary Lucy, for decades scientists have just ignored creationism as it is practically non-existent in the scientific community (around 95% of scientists accept evolution and over 99% of biologists accept evolution). The entire evolution-creation debate has practically been among laymen. Real scientists for the most part are too busy doing research to get involved.

Evolution has been like a cancer to science, religion and philosophy, and driven by its heresy into many aspects of unobservable non-demonstrable atheistic materialistic world view sciences. The whole theory is unraveling before your very eyes.

View Post


That's quite a tirade. Can you provide any support for your above claims?

#49 Guest_McStone_*

Guest_McStone_*
  • Guests

Posted 23 February 2010 - 01:29 PM

No such thing as junk DNA. That term has run its course.


Lucy the ape. Care to have a look yourself?

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/gene/

It will take you a good while. But its all there. Most of the genome doesnt do anything. Most of the genome is junk. When we say "junk" we mean it doesnt do anything, not that it somehow lesser in quality.

We don't find mammals below reptiles today
or fish below tetrapods
etc, etc..


We are not talking about today. We are talking about the fossil record. Species diversity in the past few millions years has been greatest in the whole of the earth's history. If you go back far enough in the fossil record, you will find mammals are never below reptiles, reptiles are never below tetrapods, tetrapods never below fish. We dont find the total melee of fossils we would expect with a flood.


We have about 3.0*10^9 base pairs the Fritillaria assyrica has 130.0*10^9. Also a chimp has 10% more dna than we do. How can we have their DNA?

And what are the TOE's predictions on dna size?


Because, as ive said, there is more to DNA then just coding sequences. Either the chimp has gained DNA, or we have lost DNA, since the last common ancester. Its probably a bit of both. In terms of coding genes, we are near enough identical. The rest is irrelevant.

TOE predicts nothing about DNA size (shouldnt "quantity" be more accurate?). That said, the more DNA you have, the harder it is to copy without error. Thats why viruses - which depend on other cells to copy their DNA for them - have small, tightly packed genomes, with minimal junk. In bearing efficiently constructed genomes, they can more efficiently replicate.


Well maybe the homologies have something to do with how fast an organism can flee from rising water.


Oh dear. Is that for real? I would understand if you meant it as a joke... i might even crack a smile.

If your serious on the other hand... wow. I shouldnt even have to point out the glaring inconsistencies which make that hypothesis a lame duck. Im not going to.
Your fellow YECs can do it. So far, the've gone with the general hypothesis

"the flood deposited based on different niches and location"

which tells me you either havent considered your position enough, or that, like most things in YEC, there isnt actually a consensus, and you've just plucked the first, vaguely scientifically inspired idea thats come into your head (because quicker species would get away from the flood water quicker, right? momentum of mass and all that milarky! Of course!!!)

Suffice to say, if you honestly believe that the fossil record is best explained by whether or not the organism in question could flee better, then biology - indeed physics - clearly has no relevence for you at all. We live in a world where, if you drag a deep sea fish to the surface, its guts explode, because of the enormous pressure changes. Things dont just "move"- things cant just move- because the bible says so, or even because it implies so.

You are positing, essentially, that all extant species (or rather those not "herded" by noah) were better swimmers then those now buried (never mind the kind of rock they are buried in. Thats not even important).

You actually should be congratulated. For the first time, i think this forum has finally found a position so ignorant of any sort of evidence - and yet so intractably large - that its actually impossible to discuss without hours and hours of thought-out research, because thats what is needed to convince you otherwise. Im going to point out just one pretty major contradiction to your hypothesis:


If you are right, plants should be right at the bottom...


(Come to mention it, we shouldnt even have plants taday. Or did Noah take two of every magnolia, two of every rose, two of every grass...... )


Somebody address the issue with a mature argument.

Why is the fossil record stratified, and why is the genome stratified in exactly the same way?

#50 Guest_Tezza_*

Guest_Tezza_*
  • Guests

Posted 23 February 2010 - 05:34 PM

With regard to these 'flood sorting' ideas, what about plants? Below a certain level there are no flowering plants, only non-flowering plants, so did they outrun flowering plants? Are they smarter?

Also, their pollen (which is easily dispersed from its source and found almost everywhere today, even in oceans and the arctic, etc) is also only found late in the fossil record. Pollen embedded in amber has the same distribution in the fossil record as free pollen.

Perhaps flowering plants are smarter and faster than some animals?

#51 wombatty

wombatty

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 174 posts
  • Location:Warsaw, Indiana
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Warsaw, Indiana

Posted 24 February 2010 - 05:16 AM

And Chimp DNA is only 99% similar to Human DNA...

View Post

If only it were so. Courtesy of Creation-Evolution Headlines

The Chimp-Human 1% Difference: A Useful Lie 06/29/2007

Jon Cohen made a remarkable admission in Science this week.1  The popular notion that humans and chimpanzees are genetically 99% similar is a myth, and should be discarded.  Since 1975, textbooks, the media and museums have emphasized this close similarity; but now, Cohen quoted a number of scientists who say the number cannot possibly be that small and probably cannot be quantified.  Since the statistic has outlived its usefulness, it should be discarded.
    The original claim by Allan Wilson in 1975 came from studies of base substitutions when genes were compared side by side.  Other comparisons, however, yield very different results.  Human and chimp genomes differ markedly in:

- Chunks of missing DNA
- Extra genes
- Number of chromosomes and chromosome structure
- Altered connections in gene networks
- Indels (insertions and deletions)
- Gene copy number
- Coexpressed genes

In this last measure, for instance, a 17.4% difference was found in genes expressed in the cerebral cortex.  Cohen recalled the December 2006 paper from PLoS One where Matthew Hahn found a “whopping 6.4%” difference in gene copy numbers, leading him to say, “gene duplication and loss may have played a greater role than nucleotide substitution in the evolution of uniquely human phenotypes and certainly a greater role than has been widely appreciated.” (see 12/20/2006 entry).
    But even that number is misleading.  Different measures produce such different results, it is probably impossible to come up with a single percent difference that wouldn’t misrepresent the picture.  Scientists are not sure how to prioritize the measures to study, because “it remains a daunting task to link genotype to phenotype.”  Sorting out the differences that matter is “really difficult,” said one geneticist.  A stretch of DNA that appears meaningless may actually be vital for gene regulation.
    What’s most remarkable about this confession is how certain evolutionary biologists are evaluating the claim in hindsight.  In the 1970s, it was considered a “heretical” view that our genomes could be that similar, but Cohen comments, “Subsequent studies bore their conclusion out, and today we take as a given that the two species are genetically 99% the same.”  But “Truth be told,” he begins in the next sentence, the inaccuracy of the statistic was known from the start:

But truth be told, Wilson and King also noted that the 1% difference wasn’t the whole story.  They predicted that there must be profound differences outside genes—they focused on gene regulation—to account for the anatomical and behavioral disparities between our knuckle-dragging cousins and us.  Several recent studies have proven them perspicacious again, raising the question of whether the 1% truism should be retired.
    “For many, many years, the 1% difference served us well because it was underappreciated how similar we were,” says Pascal Gagneux, a zoologist at UC San Diego.  “Now it’s totally clear that it’s more a hindrance for understanding than a help
.”


At the end of the article, Cohen quoted Svante Paabo, who said something even more revealing. After admitting he didn’t think there was any way to calculate a single number, he said, “In the end, it’s a political and social and cultural thing about how we see our differences.”
_______________________________________________________________________________

1. Jon Cohen, News Focus on Evolutionary Biology, “Relative Differences: The Myth of 1%,” Science, 29 June 2007: Vol. 316. no. 5833, p. 1836, DOI: 10.1126/science.316.5833.1836.

This is a very disturbing article. We have basically caught the Darwinists in a bald lie that has hoodwinked the world for over 30 years. Gagneux says, “For many, many years, the 1% difference served us well” – stop right there! Who is “us”? Was it the millions of school children and laymen who were lied to? Was it the majority of people who believe God created mankind, suffering under an onslaught of lies told in the name of science?
No! “Us” refers to the members of the Darwin Party, the dogmatists who shamelessly lied to advance their agenda. They had a strategy to portray humans and chimpanzees as similar as possible, in order to make their myth of common descent seem more plausible. Now, 32 years later, they have come clean, without any remorse, only because the usefulness of that lie has run out, and needs to be replaced by new lies. They had a political, social and cultural agenda that, in many cases, worked for 32 years. “Truth be told,” he said. Too late. These guys wouldn’t know Truth if it bit them on the lips. Truth that evolves, or that is an emergent property of material particles, is not the Truth...



#52 Guest_Tezza_*

Guest_Tezza_*
  • Guests

Posted 24 February 2010 - 05:58 AM

Sigh, back to Todd Wood.

He lays out the various human chimp genome comparisons on page 4. The differences listed are;
1.2-1.69%
1.24%
1.13%
0.87%
1.44%
0.6%
1.23%

He goes on to discuss the studies.

Page 5:

The rough draft sequence supports the initial findings of high similarity (Chimpanzee Sequencing and Analysis Consortium 2005). Due to the fragmentary nature of the sequence, researchers were only able to align about 2.4 Gb of high quality DNA sequence (about 80% of the human genome). They found that nucleotide mismatches over the whole alignment totaled ~35 million and averaged 1.23%.

To verify this similarity, I downloaded protein sequences of the predicted chimpanzee and human protein-coding genes from Ensembl (http://www.ensembl.org) and compared them. Using each human protein as a query sequence, I identified the most similar sequence in the chimpanzee dataset using the program SSEARCH (Pearson 1991). This kind of comparison will yield errors, since not all predicted proteins will be real genes, and therefore they may not have corresponding predicted genes from both species. Nevertheless, I found that 75% of the human predicted protein sequences matched a predicted chimpanzee sequence at >97.25% identity, and more than half were >99% identical (Figure 1). My analysis confirms the similarity reported by the Chimpanzee Sequencing and Analysis Consortium (2005).


Page 6

In detecting species-specific genomic differences between humans and chimps, it is necessary to identify differences that are polymorphic in one or both species, since polymorphisms cannot by definition be fixed, or species-specific, differences. For example, the frequency of single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) in humans and chimpanzees suggests that the fixed differences between the two genomes may be as low as 1.06% (Chimpanzee Sequencing and Analysis Consortium 2005). The remaining differences in the published sequences are variants within one species or the other.


Page 9 -

PREVIOUS CREATIONIST RESPONSES
Since the Bible clearly teaches the special creation of human beings (Gen. 1:26-27; 2:7, 21-22), what does the similarity of humans and chimpanzees mean for creationists? Creationists have responded to these studies in a variety of ways. A very popular argument is that similarity does not necessarily indicate common ancestry but could also imply common design (e.g. Batten 1996; Thompson and Harrub 2005; DeWitt 2005). While this is true, the mere fact of similarity is only a small part of the evolutionary argument. Far more important than the mere occurrence of similarity is the kind of similarity observed. Similarity is not random. Rather, it forms a detectable pattern with some groups of species more similar than others. As an example consider a 200,000 nucleotide region from human chromosome 1 (Figure 2). When compared to the chimpanzee, the two species differ by as little as 1-2%, but when compared to the mouse, the differences are much greater. Comparison to chicken reveals even greater differences. This is exactly the expected pattern of similarity that would result if humans and chimpanzees shared a recent common ancestor and mice and chickens were more distantly related. The question is not how similarity arose but why this particular pattern of similarity arose. To say that God could have created the pattern is merely ad hoc. The specific similarity we observe between humans and chimpanzees is not therefore evidence merely of their common ancestry but of their close relationship

Evolutionary biologists also appeal to specific similarities that would be predicted by evolutionary descent. Max’s (1986) argument for shared errors in the human and chimpanzee genomes would be an example of a specific similarity expected if evolution were true. This argument could be significantly amplified from recent findings of genomic studies. For example, Gilad et al. (2003) surveyed 50 olfactory receptor genes in humans and apes. They found that the open reading frame of 33 of the human genes were interrupted by nonsense codons or deletions, rendering them pseudogenes. Sixteen of these human pseudogenes were also pseudogenes in chimpanzee, and they all shared the exact same substitution or deletion as the human sequence. Eleven of the human pseudogenes were shared by chimpanzee, gorilla, and human and had the exact same substitution or deletion. While common design could be a reasonable first step to explain similarity of functional genes, it is difficult to explain why pseudogenes with the exact same substitutions or deletions would be shared between species that did not share a common ancestor.


More recently, creationists have begun to argue that the similarity between chimpanzees and humans is less – sometimes much less – than claimed by evolutionary biologists (DeWitt 2003, 2005; Criswell 2005; Thompson and Harrub 2005). These arguments are inspired in part by a study by Britten (2002) that concluded that the overall similarity of human and chimpanzee genomes is ~95%. Britten arrived at this greater dissimilarity by including in his calculations not only nucleotide mismatches but also alignment gaps. Creationists also tend to emphasize other important differences between the human and chimpanzee genomes, including the differing chromosome numbers (DeWitt 2003, 2005) and the differences in gene expression in the humans and chimpanzees (Rana 2001).
Differences are certainly important, and there are many differences between the human and chimpanzee genomes, as detailed above. However, emphasizing these differences does not resolve the problem of similarity. Even if the chimpanzee genome were more than 5% or 10% different from the human genome, the differences are still vastly outnumbered by the similarities (at least 9 to 1). The major pattern that requires explanation is the surprising degree of genomic similarity, as King and Wilson (1975) noted thirty years ago. Listing differences between the genomes does not alter the overall pattern. If anything, the differences are more striking because of the overwhelming similarity.


All such studies indicate that the nucleotide mismatches are ~1.2-1.4% and the gaps constitute ~3-4%, making a total difference ~5%.


The weight of the evidence still favors a >90% identity between the human and chimpanzee genomes.




AN ALTERNATIVE CREATIONIST RESPONSE

Having found most popular arguments about the human/chimpanzee genome similarity insufficent, I find myself in the unenviable position of devising my own explanation. Since I have none, I will attempt instead to develop some principles that could guide research into this problem.


appealing to the will of the Creator does not explain the particular pattern of similarity that we observe, except in an ad hoc fashion. Creation biology needs an explanation of the pattern of similarities, not merely an ad hoc appeal to a common designer


Later in the paper he even suggests that similarities are so high that he considers humans and chimps could have been created with identical genomes. Then he discusses how this affects the field of baraminology.

The similarity between the human and chimpanzee genomes reinforces these earlier findings, but especially when we consider the molecular diversity of other baramins. For example, Robinson and Cavanaugh (1998b) concluded that all extant felids belong to the same baramin and presumably descended from a single pair of cats on the Ark, but Slattery and O’Brien (1998) found distances >5% among felid Zfy genes and >3% among felid Zfx genes. Certainly if felid sequences can vary by that amount, what is to preclude the conclusion that the much lower differences observed between human and chimpanzees genomes indicates their cobaraminic status?


In other words, the problem is that there is much more genetic diversity within accepted baramins, here felids, than exists between humans and chimps. If you split humans and chimps into separate created kinds, then using consistent criteria one would have to split felids, canines, etc etc, and soon you’ve overfilled Noah’s Ark. If, on the other hand you want to keep those baramins together, then there is no logical way to split humans and chimps into separate groups.

The guy is a YEC, so you can't accuse him of 'evolutionary bias'.

We also have to remember that although the chimp genome is closest to ours, it is essentially the same story with gorillas, just with slightly increased differences, then orangutans, and on down the phylogenetic tree.

So do you have anything to add that Wood hasn't already considered and refuted or not?

#53 Lucy The Ape

Lucy The Ape

    Newcomer

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 8 posts
  • Age: 45
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Outback Australia

Posted 24 February 2010 - 06:24 AM

Hi McStone. Thankyou for your thoughtful reply.

Lucy the ape. Care to have a look yourself?

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/gene/


Thanks also for your helpful link. I went there and did a search for 'junk' but the browser just beeped.

Because, as ive said, there is more to DNA then just coding sequences. Either the chimp has gained DNA, or we have lost DNA, since the last common ancester. Its probably a bit of both. In terms of coding genes, we are near enough identical. The rest is irrelevant.


Funny thing about the TOE. It can accommodate any amount of conceptualization; even if they are contradictory. You see the TOE has the benefit of transcending the bounds of mathematical expression. A necessary condition for a dodgy theory.

"Probably"; Probably this probably that, very scientific.

TOE predicts nothing about DNA size (shouldnt "quantity" be more accurate?).


Nothing? That's not really helpful for your case, is it?

That said, the more DNA you have, the harder it is to copy without error.


I will have to disagree with your statement McStone, error correcting code plays a significant role in how well code is copied. Yes error correcting code in code, brilliant little things them cells.

You actually should be congratulated. For the first time, i think this forum has finally found a position so ignorant of any sort of evidence - and yet so intractably large -  that its actually impossible to discuss without hours and hours of thought-out research, because thats what is needed to convince you otherwise.


You of course mean interpretation of evidence. To convince me that man evolved from a rock will take more than hours of thought out research, it would take nothing less than a miracle.

Im going to point out just one pretty major contradiction to your hypothesis:


If you are right, plants should be right at the bottom...


(Come to mention it, we shouldnt even have plants taday. Or did Noah take two of every magnolia, two of every rose, two of every grass...... )
Somebody address the issue with a mature argument.


Maybe I should have made my point a bit more explicitly. Fish live in the water, which is below sea level (for ocean fish) amphibians live near the water, just above the ocean level, generally. The big animals could only survive in swamps, near rivers, which are a direct path to the oceans. Animals that are quadrupeds live inland and on hillsides and above, well above sea level. Humans, well humans live on boats, on ice, on hills and even in space. If everything was buried in a few months, where would you expect to find the more mobile organisms?

Seeds float.

I won't respond to the rest of your post. You're not making much sense. You're just tossing ad hominem remarks which doesn't convince me at all that your confident in your own beliefs.

#54 wombatty

wombatty

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 174 posts
  • Location:Warsaw, Indiana
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Warsaw, Indiana

Posted 24 February 2010 - 06:54 AM

I would suggest you listen to scientists who actually work in these areas and not creationists who basically don't have a clue what they are talking about.

[...]

"You can tell someone who knows very little about the science or history of “junk DNA” when they make one or more of the following claims: 1) All scientists have always thought it was all totally irrelevant to the organism. 2) New evidence is suggesting that it is all functional. 3) “Darwinism” led to the assumption that non-coding DNA is non-functional. The opposite is true in each case."

View Post

This is precious. Consider the case of Dr Malcolm Simons. Australia's ABC Television (hardly a bastion of creationism) ran a story on him in 2003 entitled Genius of Junk (DNA). Here are some excerpts:

From July 6 - 11 the world’s leading geneticists gather in Melbourne for the 50th anniversary of Watson and Crick’s discovery of the structure of DNA. Right in the midst of this event, Genetic Congress 2003, Catalyst reveals the extraordinary mistake made by the vast majority of the genetics community - the failure to recognise the vital importance of so-called Junk DNA.

Dr Malcolm Simons is an internationally recognised immunologist. A New Zealand born Australian, he has spent 30 years of his life hunting for new and better ways to diagnose disease.

[...]

Genius of Junk is the story of how Malcolm Simons turned Junk into gold, enflaming one of the greatest controversies of our time - the control and ownership of our genetic material.

It is a story of triumph and tragedy. The triumph of a man flying in the face of conventional scientific thought, facing ridicule for his ideas and living to see those ideas vindicated. The tragedy of seeing his dreams come to fruition as he faces death. For he himself has cancer, Multiple Myeloma. A fatal and incurable cancer, formed in the very Junk DNA he spent 16 years exploring.

This is also a story of genius and character. Malcolm Simons had the genius to realise that the non-coding part of our DNA wasn’t in fact the junk DNA that many scientists had labelled it, but vital to the processes of life. And he has a character that fits the cliché of the eccentric scientist - brilliant at his work but hopeless with everyday life.

[...]

Fifty years after Crick and Watson’s historic discovery of DNA, the scientific community has come a long way towards unravelling the mysteries of the key to life. The Human Genome Project has mapped our entire genetic code; we are genetically modifying plants and animals, finding genetic cures for diseases. There is no doubt that our investigation of what was called the coding region of DNA has revolutionized science and the world. But the coding part of DNA makes up less than 5% of our entire genome. Because the rest of our DNA didn’t seem to have any known function it was dubbed non-coding, or Junk DNA.

Malcolm Simons couldn’t believe that evolution would be so wasteful. In 1987, despite having no formal training in genetics, he had a moment of remarkable insight that convinced him that Junk DNA was serving a vital function; it provided markers that indicated susceptibility to disease. At a Workshop in the United States, he saw patterns emerge from the non-coding DNA. He realised that whatever was going on in non-coding DNA was not random. Malcolm Simons, "There was order in the 95%. If there was order there was likely to be function. Maybe this was a way to also contribute to understanding the function of genes and therefore their malfunction in disease and in so doing help diagnosis - make earlier diagnosis - help save lives." When he posed his radical theory that this junk might actually have a critical role in diagnosis, his peers announced, "Malcolm, you're off your friggin' head."

Undeterred, Malcolm set out to prove that this was no junk. The majority of geneticists were focused on coding DNA, the non-coding region was left field and probably irrelevant - but for Malcolm it became the main game. Fortunately one man believed in his genius - entrepreneur Mervyn Jacobson. In a real-life Odd Couple pairing (Mervyn is as organised and efficient as Malcolm is eccentric and chaotic) they formed Genetic Technologies in 1989. They believed that this non-coding DNA could prove valuable in diagnosing disease, perhaps in developing therapies, even cures.

Here is an interchange from the program:

Prof John Mattick: The primary output of the genome is to create protein. Proteins of course are the primary components of our system. They form the structural components of our hair and skin, our oxygen carrying molecules in our blood, the hormones – enzymes that digest our food and our energy metabolism. So they’re critically important

Narration: The “coding regions” became the major focus of genetic research… Even though they account for less than 5% of our entire DNA. All the rest - the other 95% - was assumed to be genetic gibberish with no known function. So they called it ‘non-coding’ or 'Junk' DNA.

Dr Mervyn Jacobson: The word junk was applied and it stuck and people who came along thereafter saw that it was junk and took that as a message that there was no point looking in that area. So it became almost a convenience that instead of looking at 100% of a DNA you only need to worry about looking at 5%. But even that was daunting.

Prof John Mattick: What people should’ve done was take stock at that point. Instead they simply swept the observation under the intellectual carpet.

Narration: For decades this thinking dominated mainstream genetics. But Malcolm Simons couldn’t believe that evolution would be so wasteful. He believed that non-coding DNA must serve some sort of function.

Dr Malcolm Simons: Under Darwinistic notions you would think that junk would drop off under the theory of natural selection just like species drop off if they hit ecological niches which is incompatible with survival. If they can adapt to those niches, then those that can survive and those that can’t die. There’s the notion. If you apply that to the DNA sequence, then the coding region genes which survived have a function and by the way the non coding sequences have survived as well. So the proposition would have to be that if they’re there, they’ve got a function.

The origin of the term is less important than has been the idea's impact on actual scientific research. It's not for nothing that, as the program notes,

A leading figure in world genetics, Prof. John Mattick, recently claimed that, "the failure to recognise the implications of the non-coding DNA will go down as the biggest mistake in the history of molecular biology".

There is a transcript of the program at the link. Incidentally, one of the reason why evolutionists clung to the notion of non-functional (junk) DNA was because it made Kimura's theory of 'Neutral Theory of Evolution' somewhat plausible. Since all of that 'junk' was ostensibly non-functioning, it was free to mutate and 'find' a function - all free from the otherwise winnowing influence of selection pressure. Problem is, as more and more of this 'non-functioning' DNA is found to have critical functions (e.g. regulation of other parts of the genome and its expression), there is increasingly less 'breathing room' for such speculation. T. Ryan Gregory, in your link above alludes to this when he writes:

The term “junk DNA” was not coined on the basis of not knowing what it does. It was not a cop-out or a surrender. Susumu Ohno coined the term in 1972 in reference to a specific mechanism of non-coding DNA formation that he thought accounted for the discrepancies in genome size among species: gene duplication and pseudogenization. That is, a gene is duplicated and one of the copies becomes degraded by mutation to the point of being non-functional with regard to protein coding. (Sometimes the second copy takes on a new function through “neofunctionalization”, or the two copies may split the original function through “subfunctionalization”). “Junk” meant “something that was functional (a gene) but now isn’t (a pseudogene)”.

Regardless of what evolutionists speculate that such genetic material used to do, the fact that they theorize that most of it is currently non-functioning, left-overs is the crucial point. In other words, it is said to be junk today, regardless of what it was yesterday. Thus, to the extent that it does have critical function today, evolutionists are, and have been, dead wrong. In any case the notion of non-fucntioning genes on the scale evolutionists proposed are premised explicitly on the theory of evolution; without it, the whole rationale behind 'Junk DNA' 'goes poof'.

So, how much of that non-functioning 'junk' is actually functional? Quite a bit, as it turns out. The ENCODE project has revealed that there is much more than evolutionists ever predicted or dreamed of (those poor evolutionists are always 'surprised' by such findings). Alex Williams summarizes:

Their findings include the following inferences:

- About 93% of the genome is transcribed (not 3%, as expected). Further study with more wide-ranging methods may raise this figure to 100%. Because much energy and coordination is required for transcription this means that probably the whole genome is used by the cell and there is no such thing as ‘junk DNA’.

- Exons are not gene-specific but are modules that can be joined to many different RNA transcripts. One exon (i.e. one part of one gene) can be used in combination with up to 33 different genes located on 14 different chromosomes. This means that one exon can specify one part shared in common by many different proteins.

- There is no ‘beads on a string’ linear arrangement of genes, but rather an interleaved structure of overlapping segments, with typically 5, 7, 9 or more transcripts coming from the one ‘gene’.

- Not just one strand, but both strands (sense and anti-sense) of the DNA are fully transcribed.

- Transcription proceeds not just one way but both backwards and forwards.

- Transcription factors can be tens or hundreds of thousands of base-pairs away from the gene that they control, even on different chromosomes.

- There is not just one START site, but many, in each particular gene region.

- There is not just one transcription triggering (switching) system for each region, but many.

The authors conclude:

An interleaved genomic organization poses important mechanistic challenges for the cell. One involves the [use of] the same DNA molecules for multiple functions. The overlap of functionally important sequence motifs must be resolved in time and space for this organization to work properly. Another challenge is the need to compartmentalize RNA or mask RNAs that could potentially form long double-stranded regions, to prevent RNA-RNA interactions that could prompt apoptosis [programmed cell death].’


This concern for the safety of so many RNA molecules being produced in such a small space is well-founded. RNA is a long single-strand molecule not unlike a long piece of sticky-tape—it will stick to any nearby surface, including itself! Unless properly coordinated, it will all scrunch up into a sticky mess.

These results are so astonishing, so shocking, that it is going to take an awful lot more work to untangle what is really going on in cells. And the molecular taxonomists, who have been drawing up evolutionary histories (‘phylogenies’) for everything, are going to have to undo all their years of ‘junk DNA’-based historical reconstructions and wait for the full implications to emerge before they try again. One of the supposedly ‘knock-down’ arguments that humans have a common ancestor with chimpanzees is shared ‘non-functional’ DNA coding. That argument just got thrown out the window.

In a follow up article, Williams relates more of ENCODE's findings:

Here are a few more exciting details from the ENCODE (Encyclopedia of DNA Elements) pilot project report.2 As a help in understanding this, DNA is a very stable molecule ideal for storing information. In contrast, RNA is a very active (and unstable) molecule and does lots of work in our cells. To use the stored information on our DNA, our cells copy the information onto RNA transcripts that then do the work as instructed by that information.

- Traditional ‘beads-on-a-string’ type genes do form the basis of the protein-producing code, even though much greater complexity has now been uncovered. Genes found in the ENCODE project differ only about 2% from the existing catalogue of known protein-coding genes.

- We reported previously that the transcripts overlap the gene regions, but the overlaps are huge compared to the size of the genes. On average, the transcripts are 10 to 50 times the size of the gene region, overlapping on both sides. And as many as 20% of transcripts range up to more than 100 times the size of the gene region. This would be like photocopying a page in a book and having to get information from 10, 50 or even 100 other pages in order to use the information on that page.

- The untranslated regions (now called UTRs, rather than ‘junk’) are far more important than the translated regions (the genes), as measured by the number of DNA bases appearing in RNA transcripts. Genic regions are transcribed on average in five different overlapping and interleaved ways, while UTRs are transcribed on average in seven different overlapping and interleaved ways. Since there are about 33 times as many bases in UTRs than in genic regions, that makes the ‘junk’ about 50 times more active than the genes.

- Transcription activity can best be predicted by just one factor, the way that the DNA is packaged into chromosomes. The DNA is coiled around protein globules called histones, then coiled again into a rope-like structure, then super-coiled in two stages around scaffold proteins to produce the thick chromosomes that we see under the microscope. This suggests that DNA information normally exists in a form similar to a closed book—all the coiling prevents the coded information from coming into contact with the translation machinery. When the cell wants some information it opens a particular page, ‘photocopies’ the information, then closes the book again. Recent other work3 shows that this is physically accomplished as follows:

- The chromosomes in each cell are stored in the membrane-bound nucleus. The nuclear membrane has about 2000 pores in it, through which molecules can be passed in and out. The required chromosome is brought near to one of these nuclear pores.

- The section of DNA to be transcribed is placed in front of the pore.

- The supercoil is unwound to expose the transcription region.

- The histone coils are twisted so as to expose the required copying site.

- The double-helix of the DNA is unzipped to expose the coded information.

- The DNA is grasped into a loop by the enzymes that do the copying, and this loop is copied onto an RNA transcript. The transcript is then checked for accuracy (and is degraded and recycled if it is faulty). The RNA transcript is then specially tagged for export, and is exported through the pore and carried to wherever it is needed in the cell.

- The ‘book’ of DNA information is then closed by a reversal of the coiling process and movement of the chromosome away from the nuclear pore region.

- The most surprising result, according to the ENCODE authors, is that 95% of the functional transcripts (genic and UTR transcripts with at least one known function) show no sign of selection pressure (i.e. they are not noticeably conserved and are mutating at the average rate). This contradicts Charles Darwin’s theory that natural selection is the major cause of our evolution. It also creates an interesting paradox: cell architecture, machinery and metabolic cycles are all highly conserved (e.g. the human insulin gene has been put into bacteria to produce human insulin on an industrial scale), while most of the chromosomal information is freely mutating. How could this state of affairs be maintained for the supposed 3.8 billion years since bacteria first evolved? A better answer might be that life is only thousands, not billions of years old. It also looks like cells, not genes, are in control of life—the direct opposite of what neo-Darwinists have long assumed.

And just to be clear, the ENCODE project employs 'scientists who actually work in these areas' and who are no doubt staunch evolutionists.

Here are several good reports on recent scientific findings concerning 'Junk DNA' from Creation-Evolution Headlines:

- "Genomic Junk” Is Cell’s Air-Traffic Control

- More Functional Non-Coding DNA Found

- Genome Complexity Unveiled: No Junk, Only Function

- Time to Junk the Term “Junk DNA” (near bottom of page)

- Treasure Found in DNA Junkyard (scroll down a bit)

As in every other area of science, everything creationists write is almost entirely incorrect, if not deliberately misleading. Since genomics is so clearly devastating to their anti-evolutionary dogma this is probably the area of science about which they have to lie the most.

View Post

:lol: Now that's funny. ;)

Let's play a game, shall we? Which of these things 'doesn't belong'?:

1) A multiplicity of thematically unified yet functionally diverse intricately-coded, information-dense, functionally specific, aperiodic genomes (a uni-versity of genomes, so to speak);

2) A personal, conscious, deliberate, highly intelligent & powerful Creator;

3) A random-chance process combined with rigid, low-information content laws arising out of primeval chaos.

#55 Guest_McStone_*

Guest_McStone_*
  • Guests

Posted 24 February 2010 - 11:21 AM

Thanks also for your helpful link. I went there and did a search for 'junk' but the browser just beeped.


Thats because "Junk" is a colloquialism, unlikely to be used as a label on an actual genome. What are used as labels are genes and other functional sequences. Most of the genome, you will find, doesnt do anything, and, as you can see, that isnt some "evolutionist" ploy.


Funny thing about the TOE. It can accommodate any amount of conceptualization; even if they are contradictory. You see the TOE has the benefit of transcending the bounds of mathematical expression. A necessary condition for a dodgy theory.

"Probably"; Probably this probably that, very scientific.


The fact that evolution can even be conceptualised already puts it streets ahead of

"one day, god, who didnt have much to do, decided - out of the entire universe - to create his chosen life form on earth, and base all his activities in a small area of the middle east"

or

"the entirety of humankind is descended from two individuals"

or even

"Noah took two of every animal"

I repeat: the number of nucleotides in a genome does not necessarily have any correlation to an organism's clade or to any evolutionary relationship. What matters is the similarity and differences in genes and other functional sequences, because, as you know:

genes + environment -> proteins -> phenotype


It isnt

non-coding junk + environment ->proteins -> phenotype


Also, "probably" is a perfectly reasonable word to use. Im not going to pretend i know everything. Who knows the precise number of neucleotides between humans and chimps? I dont. Through evolution its probably been a bit of loss and gain in both species. It might come as shock to you, but "knowing" or even "predicting" the total number of nucleotides serves absolutely no purpose in determining - or understanding - the simple observations of evolution.

Nothing? That's not really helpful for your case, is it?


Im sure what your getting at. If you understood evolution as, well, evolutionary biologists do, you would understand, as ive said, that raw quantities of DNA in themselves dont do anything. An individual species might, for example, have a propensity for the copying of terminal repeats in its genome, due to some abnormality in replication or repair mechanisms. It doesnt change where that species has come from, or where its going to (unless such changes impact gene sequences of course). Genomes are dynamic things. You might have more nucleotides in your genome than I. (In fact, you will, because you are female). We are still both "human", because those differences are not enough to cause us to be genetically isolated. See what im getting at? If, by chance, you and I had a child, that child would also be human, though it might have a few more, or a few less nucleotides, then either of us. Its when those differences effect genes (or their genetic master-switches) that evolution might occur with selection.

I will have to disagree with your statement McStone, error correcting code plays a significant role in how well code is copied. Yes error correcting code in code, brilliant little things them cells.


Yes, the more nucleotides in a genome, the more targets there are for things going right, and for things going wrong. Its no co-incidence, that, on the whole, organisms with larger genomes have greater ability to repair DNA.

You of course mean interpretation of evidence. To convince me that man evolved from a rock will take more than hours of thought out research, it would take nothing less than a miracle.


Lucy. Lucy. To convince ME that man evolved from a rock would take hours of thought out research too. Man didnt evolve from a rock Lucy. Man evolved from another species of ape. There is quite a big difference.

Maybe I should have made my point a bit more explicitly. Fish live in the water, which is below sea level (for ocean fish) amphibians live near the water, just above the ocean level, generally. The big animals could only survive in swamps, near rivers, which are a direct path to the oceans. Animals that are quadrupeds live inland and on hillsides and above, well above sea level. Humans, well humans live on boats, on ice, on hills and even in space. If everything was buried in a few months, where would you expect to find the more mobile organisms?

Seeds float.

I won't respond to the rest of your post. You're not making much sense. You're just tossing ad hominem remarks which doesn't convince me at all that your confident in your own beliefs.


Lucy, you still havent got it. Your just digging a bigger hole for yourself.

The fossil record is stratified.

Below a certain level we dont find fish,
Below a certain level, we dont find tetrapods,
Below a certain level, we dont find reptiles,
Below a certain level, we dont find mammals,

Similarly, the genome is also stratified:

In fish genomes we dont find certain characteristic tetrapod genes
In reptile genomes, we dont find certain characteristic mammals genes
In primate genomes, we dont find certain characteristic human genes.

They are mirror images of each other. Your "expanded" hypothesis is riddled with even more tenuous assumptions.

#56 bobabelever

bobabelever

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 392 posts
  • Age: 43
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Arizona

Posted 24 February 2010 - 01:11 PM

Seeds float.

View Post

That was priceless; absolutely love it ;)

Talk about thought and research; sometimes the answer is sooooo simple. But isn't that what it's all about, doesn't God warn us not to get too full of ourselves!

Keep up the good work Lucy The Ape, I'm really enjoying your approach :lol:

#57 Scanman

Scanman

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 641 posts
  • Age: 49
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • West Virginia

Posted 24 February 2010 - 04:26 PM

If only it were so.


Dr Kathleen Pollards work still shows a 1% difference...the researcher in your article is misinformed.

Kathleen Pollard website
Scientific American article

Peace

#58 Javabean

Javabean

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 950 posts
  • Location:Harrisburg Pa
  • Age: 33
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Harrisburg

Posted 24 February 2010 - 05:34 PM

Seeds float.

View Post



Except when they are saturated they sink. Which unless I'm mistaken they would be by a flood.

#59 scott

scott

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,749 posts
  • Age: 21
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • mississippi

Posted 24 February 2010 - 07:29 PM

Thats because "Junk" is a colloquialism, unlikely to be used as a label on an actual genome. What are used as labels are genes and other functional sequences. Most of the genome, you will find, doesnt do anything, and, as you can see, that isnt some "evolutionist" ploy.
The fact that evolution can even be conceptualised already puts it streets ahead of

"one day, god, who didnt have much to do, decided - out of the entire universe - to create his chosen life form on earth, and base all his activities in a small area of the middle east"

or

"the entirety of humankind is descended from two individuals"

or even

"Noah took two of every animal"

I repeat: the number of nucleotides in a genome does not necessarily have any correlation to an organism's clade or to any evolutionary relationship. What matters is the similarity and differences in genes and other functional sequences, because, as you know:

genes + environment -> proteins -> phenotype


It isnt

non-coding junk + environment ->proteins -> phenotype 
Also, "probably" is a perfectly reasonable word to use. Im not going to pretend i know everything. Who knows the precise number of neucleotides between humans and chimps? I dont. Through evolution its probably been a bit of loss and gain in both species. It might come as shock to you, but "knowing" or even "predicting" the total number of nucleotides serves absolutely no purpose in determining - or understanding - the simple observations of evolution.
Im sure what your getting at. If you understood evolution as, well, evolutionary biologists do, you would understand, as ive said, that raw quantities of DNA in themselves dont do anything. An individual species might, for example, have a propensity for the copying of terminal repeats in its genome, due to some abnormality in replication or repair mechanisms. It doesnt change where that species has come from, or where its going to (unless such changes impact gene sequences of course). Genomes are dynamic things. You might have more nucleotides in your genome than I. (In fact, you will, because you are female). We are still both "human", because those differences are not enough to cause us to be genetically isolated. See what im getting at? If, by chance, you and I had a child, that child would also be human, though it might have a few more, or a few less nucleotides, then either of us. Its when those differences effect genes (or their genetic master-switches) that evolution might occur with selection.
Yes, the more nucleotides in a genome, the more targets there are for things going right, and for things going wrong. Its no co-incidence, that, on the whole, organisms with larger genomes have greater ability to repair DNA.
Lucy. Lucy. To convince ME that man evolved from a rock would take hours of thought out research too. Man didnt evolve from a rock Lucy. Man evolved from another species of ape. There is quite a big difference.
Lucy, you still havent got it. Your just digging a bigger hole for yourself.

The fossil record is stratified.

Below a certain level we dont find fish,
Below a certain level, we dont find tetrapods,
Below a certain level, we dont find reptiles,
Below a certain level, we dont find mammals,

Similarly, the genome is also stratified:

In fish genomes we dont find certain characteristic tetrapod genes
In reptile genomes, we dont find certain characteristic mammals genes
In primate genomes, we dont find certain characteristic human genes.

They are mirror images of each other. Your "expanded" hypothesis is riddled with even more tenuous assumptions.

View Post


Mcstone, Junk DNA isn't junk, just because Scientist, nor you know what it is, most certainly does not mean it's junk. That's extremely childish thought processing right there when you lable something junk just because your biased, and obviously don't know what it is.

Also, you fail to understand that Fossils are not ordered in the way you propose, and they never have been.

Show a real picture of this supposed ordering that you speak of ( which I know you won't find anywhere on this planet). Now, that would prove your point. Now the picture must contain Mammals, reptiles, plants, and all manner of organisms shown in evolutionary order... which isn't possible nor does it exist that way... but sure since you make the claim, present the facts.

By no means am I asking you to present extremely fake but nicely drawn textbook diagrams of this supposed ordering... you must provide a real picture.

#60 Lucy The Ape

Lucy The Ape

    Newcomer

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 8 posts
  • Age: 45
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Outback Australia

Posted 25 February 2010 - 02:31 AM

Hi again McStone. I really appreciate your eagerness to debate this issue.

Thats because "Junk" is a colloquialism, unlikely to be used as a label on an actual genome. What are used as labels are genes and other functional sequences. Most of the genome, you will find, doesnt do anything, and, as you can see, that isnt some "evolutionist" ploy.


Please refer to Wombatty's excellent post #54 in this thread.

What matters is the similarity and differences in genes and other functional sequences, because, as you know:

genes + environment -> proteins -> phenotype


It isnt

non-coding junk + environment ->proteins -> phenotype 


"As I know"?. I don't subscribe to your false assertion; your premise fails. There are plenty of dead genes within the environment that produce no proteins.

Lucy. Lucy. To convince ME that man evolved from a rock would take hours of thought out research too. Man didnt evolve from a rock Lucy. Man evolved from another species of ape. There is quite a big difference.


Forgive my ignorance McStone, I haven't done much research on this topic. Can you please give me a reference to a paper or site that has evidence of an ape giving birth to a human. Is that something that happens in the lab...or in the fertile minds of God deniers?

And also, if you can establish this with reasonable certainty, it should be a simple straightforward process to show that some other, less evolved animal gave birth to an ape and so on down the line. Where did the minerals and chemicals come from to produce the first animal? A rock?

Lucy, you still havent got it. Your just digging a bigger hole for yourself.

The fossil record is stratified.

Below a certain level we dont find fish,
Below a certain level, we dont find tetrapods,
Below a certain level, we dont find reptiles,
Below a certain level, we dont find mammals,


As I said, what you see in the sediment is what we "observe" today.
Things buried deeper in the sediment are things that live lower down in the earth today. Things that are buried higher in the sediment are things that we see living higher up on the earth today. It's not that difficult to understand, is it?

Similarly, the genome is also stratified:
In fish genomes we dont find certain characteristic tetrapod genes
In reptile genomes, we dont find certain characteristic mammals genes
In primate genomes, we dont find certain characteristic human genes.

They are mirror images of each other. Your "expanded" hypothesis is riddled with even more tenuous assumptions.


I don't know where you're coming from here McStone. Is 'Pride and Prejudice' a mirror image of 'A tale of two Cities'? They both contain all the same symbols, a lot of the same words and many of the same sentences.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users