How can a mutation a gene that is never transcribed be harmful in the least?
If you have a collection of 1,000 cookbooks with 990 of them boxed up and in storage, while you use the other ten, how can me changing a line in one of the recipes in the 990 books in storage affect your cooking? It just can't.
The poster "pacertom" since this forum began (and before!). I changed my name here to "Slick Pinkham" in honor of the imaginary player That Bobby "Slick" Leonard picked late in the 1971 ABA draft (true story!)
about 98% of our DNA codes for nothing
thus it is difficult to presume what negative effects a mutation in any part of that 98% could have, unless the odd case of a mutation creating a new binding pocket for something like a heavy metal or other environmental toxin that could prevent your DNA from being properly packaged. Of course a mutation could just as well more greatly disfavor such an interaction also.
If you mutate in the 2% that does code for proteins that are made at some point in your life, you may also not change the protein transcribed if a redundant codon is still read or you have a benign insertion or deletion, so 2% being harmful is a big overestimate, most likely. Supporting this is that diagnostic tests for the presence of certain proteins in your blood aim to detect often dozens of naturally mutated forms, all of which are functional in different individuals.
Last edited by Slick Pinkham; 05-06-2013 at 06:41 PM.
It's not. He's 100% wrong.
You change a DNA sequence in an intron sequence, nothing happens. It doesn't matter because it DOES NOT GET TRANSCRIBED. So no, there's no harm. It happens all the freaking time. Just saying.
Don't ask Marvin Harrison what he did during the bye week. "Batman never told where the Bat Cave is," he explained.
I really don't know how to respond to this. I can't really take anything you say seriously.
ID is just one of the dumbest things I've heard. It's not science, and while science doesn't explain everything, it sure as hell makes a lot more sense. You know, logic.
Don't ask Marvin Harrison what he did during the bye week. "Batman never told where the Bat Cave is," he explained.
"Using this flawless logic, the only conclusion we can reach is that either both ideas are science, or neither idea is science. There is no middle-ground."
I'm saying that is an obvious misinterpretation of the dynamic relationship he cites:
Thus, if one isn't testable, then neither is the other. You can't test for one without testing for the other; it's logically impossible. Any test that will strengthen one will weaken the other.
Any test that strengthens the idea that biology is design free will weaken the idea that biology is designed.
Any test that strengthens the idea that biology is designed will weaken the idea that biology is design-free.
Any test that validates that biology is design-free will falsify biology being designed.
Any test that validates that biology is designed will falsify biology being design-free.
OK. But then he concludes that both must be science or neither....when in fact what it (obviously) shows is that they are mutually exclusive. As if to say "Any test that proves 4+4=8 tends to disprove that 4+4=5, and vice versa, so they both are right or they both are wrong."
[~]) ... Cheers! Go Pacers!
So are you suggesting that the only answer is because they share a common ancestor? There isn't a single reason other, than a common ancestor that is possible?
Where is the fossil record of our tail progressively getting shorter? Or are we to believe that our tails just one day up and fell off?
If you believe in ID, the answer could just very well be that's how that animal was designed. What evidence is there that the whale flippers look like human hands because we share a common ancestor, other than reaching that conclusion by just looking at the structures?
Last edited by Since86; 05-06-2013 at 07:21 PM.
I find it quite self serving to suggest that we share common ancestors, because we share similar physical traits. If similar physical traits suggest common ancestory, then why don't dissimilar traits suggest that we don't?
Here's my problem with the whole intelligent design movement: 90% of those articles you linked and that evolution news blog are focused on discrediting and exposing the incompleteness of evolution theory. Where is the argument for ID? It is claimed to be a scientific theory, but where is the evidence? Disproving one theory does not prove the other.
Notice I said ID movement, not the theory. I'm ok with the theory, but the people behind it and the 'movement' are going about it totally in the wrong way. This includes your posts in this thread, you keep promising to give us more substance, but all you've done is try to discredit evolution theory.
This is one of the few things I read in your links that actually argued for ID:
This is the most basic premise of ID, but it is a logical fallacy: Affirming the ConsequentIs Intelligent Design a Scientific Theory?
Yes. The scientific method is commonly described as a fourstep process involving observations, hypothesis, experiments, and conclusion. ID begins with the observation that intelligent agents produce complex and specified information (CSI). Design theorists hypothesize that if a natural object was designed, it will contain high levels of CSI. Scientists then perform experimental tests upon natural objects to determine if they contain complex and specified information. One easily testable form of CSI is irreducible complexity, which can be discovered by experimentally reverse-engineering biological structures to see if they require all of their parts to function. When ID researchers find irreducible complexity in biology, they conclude that such structures were designed.
1. If P, then Q.
3. Therefore, P.1. If a natural object is designed (by an intelligent agent), then it will contain complex and specified information.If I have the flu, then I have a sore throat.
I have a sore throat.
Therefore, I have the flu.
2. Life is complex and specified
3. Therefore life was produced by an intelligent agent.
It's a fallacy. Just because intelligent agents have the ability to produce complex and specified information does not lead to the conclusion that all complex and specified information was produced by intelligent agents.
Both the notion that the Earth globe-shape and that the Earth is flat are science, it's just the former is a directly-observed fact, while the latter has been falsified.
I don’t believe the theory of Evolution.
When listening to Evolutionary scientists speak, or when reading their descriptions of how Evolution works, if you really pay attention you soon realize their theory of how life begin is mostly hypotheses, not real science.
Charles Darwin himself said, “I am quite conscious that my speculations run quite beyond the bounds of true science. *Letter to Asa Gray, June 18, 1857.
It’s been over 150 years since Darwin published his book, The Origin of the Species, (Nov. 1859), and even though it’s taught in classrooms it’s still the unproven theory it started out as. The fact is Evolution as Darwin imagined it is dead. However other scientists are still championing the theory.
The problem they have is each new idea of how Evolution works soon gets shot down by other scientists as unworkable for one scientific reason or another. It’s like they are moving their own goal posts. They have come up with so many ideas and discarded them that some Scientists are now giving credence to life coming from outer-space.
The most popular theory however still seems to be that life arose from a primordial soup. Richard Dawkins in his book The Selfish Gene, speculated that in the beginning, Earth had an atmosphere composed of carbon dioxide, methane, ammonia and water. Through energy supplied by sunlight, and perhaps by lightning and exploding volcanoes, these simple compounds were broken apart and then they re-formed into amino acids. A variety of amino acids gradually accumulated in the sea and combined into protein like compounds. Ultimately, he says, the ocean became an “organic soup,” but still lifeless.
[Amino acids are molecules made out of hydrogen, oxygen, carbon, and nitrogen atoms . Proteins are large complex molecules composed of one or more long chains of amino acids. Proteins play many critical roles in the body. They do most of the work in cells and are required for the structure, function, and regulation of the body’s tissues and organs. In the case of Evolution though there’s no body .]
Then, according to Dawkins’ description, “a particularly remarkable molecule was formed by accident”—a molecule that had the ability to reproduce itself. Though admitting that such an accident was exceedingly improbable, he maintains that it must nevertheless have happened. Similar molecules clustered together, and then, again by an exceedingly improbable accident, they wrapped a protective barrier of other protein molecules around themselves as a membrane. Thus, it is claimed, the first living cell generated itself.
[q] What suddenly makes it a living cell though? It seems to me that all that would be there are the parts of a cell, something akin to the Frankenstein monster. Like the monster in the movie it would still need to be energized. The law of biogenesis, which is real science, and is attributed to Louis Pasteur, says that “living things only come from other living things.” Thus this cell would need energy right from the start for it to be alive, otherwise it would be like a car engine with a dead battery.
There are many more problems with Evolution. Dawkins grosses over how this primeval soup would form. Again, he says. “Through energy supplied by sunlight, and perhaps by lightning and exploding volcanoes simple compounds were broken apart and then they re-formed into amino acids and gradually accumulated in the sea.”
One problem with this way of forming amino acids is the same energy that would split the simple compounds in the atmosphere would even more quickly decompose any complex amino acids that formed.
This is shown by the famous experiment conducted by Stanley Miller in 1953. Miller passed an electric spark through an “atmosphere” of hydrogen, methane, ammonia and water vapor. This produced some of the many amino acids that exist and that are the building blocks of proteins. However, he got just 4 of the 20 amino acids needed for life to exist. In his experiment of passing an electric spark through an “atmosphere,” Miller saved the four amino acids he got only because he removed them from the area of the spark. Had he left them there, the spark would have decomposed them.
For arguments sake however let’s bypass those problems and go on with Dawkins story and say the amino acids somehow reached the ocean, what then?
Dawkins speculates that after reaching the water another exceedingly improbable accident occurred. Similar molecules clustered together and then wrapped a protective barrier of other protein molecules around themselves as a membrane.
[q] Since an ocean is rather big what would cause them to cluster together? And then instead of clustering together and forming a bigger cluster like they had been doing, why did they suddenly wrap another group of molecules around themselves for protection. What caused that? And how did they do it? It’s just a simple cell and it doesn’t have a genetic code to tell it what to do.
Another question is how would they stay alive long enough to cluster together and then wrap a protective membrane around themselves? I ask this question because other scientists say this soup would never form.
Evolutionist Francis Hitching says in his book, The Neck of the Giraffe, p65, says, Beneath the surface of the water there would not be enough energy to activate further chemical reactions: water in any case inhibits the growth of more complex molecules. (So how would Proteins form?) So once amino acids are in the water , they must get out of it if they are to form larger molecules and evolve toward becoming proteins useful for the formation of life. But once they get out of the water, they are in the destructive ultraviolet light again! “In other words,” Hitching says, “the theoretical chances of getting through even this first and relatively easy stage [getting amino acids] in the evolution of life are forbidding.”
Other scientists say much the same thing. Chemist Richard Dickerson explains: “It is therefore hard to see how polymerization [linking together smaller molecules to form bigger ones] could have proceeded in the aqueous environment of the primitive ocean, since the presence of water favors depolymerization [breaking up big molecules into simpler ones] rather than polymerization.” Scientific American, “Chemical Evolution and the Origin of Life,” by Richard E. Dickerson, September 1978, p 75.
Biochemist George Wald agrees with this view, stating: “Spontaneous dissolution is much more probable, and hence proceeds much more rapidly, than spontaneous synthesis.” This means there would be no accumulation of organic soup! Wald believes this to be “the most stubborn problem that confronts us [evolutionists].” Scientific American, “The Origin of Life,” by George Wald, August 1954, pp. 49, 50.
However lets say the amino acids somehow stay alive when the reach the ocean. There’s another problem with how they would form the necessary molecules needed for life.
At present, science says there are over 500 amino acids which come in fairly equal amounts in right handed and left handed shapes. However only 20 specific amino acids are used by living things. And get this, all 20 amino acids needed for life are left handed.
This seems to me to be evidence of a creator. However, if you rule out a creator, the obvious question is, how is it that only the 20 left handed amino acids that are needed for producing life would be united in the soup? Physicist J.D. Bernal acknowledges, “We may never be able to explain it.” The Origin of Life, by John D. Bernal, 1967, p 144.
To demonstrate the problem think of a bath tub full of different types of beans. The beans are going to represent amino acids. Now what you have to do is blindfold yourself and then pick out 20 different type of beans. For example, a red bean, then a navy bean, then a pinto bean, then mister Bean . . . whoops where did he come from? Anyway you get the point, you need to pick 20 different beans. In the world of amino acids however not only do you have to pick 20 specific amino acids, they all have to be left handed.
What are the odds of that happening by chance?
Now add those odds to the chance of everything else happening to produce life and the odds become truly impossible.
You don’t think so? Even Evolutionary scientists think the odds impossible. George Wald, Harvard University biochemist and Nobel Laureate, 1954, said, "One has only to contemplate the magnitude of this task to concede that the spontaneous generation of a living organism is impossible. Yet here we are -- as a result, I believe, of spontaneous generation."
Why do scientists persist in believing the theory of Evolution when they think it's impossible? Because the creation account found in the Bible is the only other explanation of how life got here. For varies reasons the Bible account is not acceptable to some people even though the creation account fits the facts whereas the theory of Evolution never has.
Why are the odds so bad? We are talking about a time period of billions of years. Thats a long time for whatever primordial soup to interact with lots of different things. How can it be ruled out that the other Amino acids were brought from outer-space? Things hit the earth all the time from outer-space. I think those chances over the course of time we are talking about here make it pretty good odds.
The Bible's version has no facts. It doesn't even had a shred of logic to it. There are literally no details in Genesis that are remotely provable as fact. A book many thousands of years old that tells a story that is many thousands of years older than that. That is what you are referring too as the other possible explanation. Great piece of literature to live your life by? Sure....Explanation on how the world came to be? No.
You can't get champagne from a garden hose.
Soft tissue (tails, skin, cartilage) is not typically found in the fossil record. I am not sure which pre-human ancestor was the first to totally lack a tail or if that is known, or not. One might imagine that a tail can confer an advantage to a tree-dwelling animal as a means of balancing, but would confer a strong disadvantage to a land-dweller as an appendage easily grasped by predators. Thus some offspring had tail-producing genes not expressed and were somewhat more successful going froward. Hence they carried the genes to have a functional tail but they lay dormant. As they do today, for you and me.Where is the fossil record of our tail progressively getting shorter?
If by one day you mean gradually over several million years, I suppose so, though I suspect that the tail was de-selected before homo sapiens arrived on the scene.Or are we to believe that our tails just one day up and fell off?
That is of course the unprovable fall-back answer. "A designer made it to look that way, to test us"If you believe in ID, the answer could just very well be that's how that animal was designed.
where we are talking about photons from far-away galaxies reaching our eyes today after a trek of billions of years
"well, the designer made those galaxies, and made the light, and the light didn't ever come from those galaxies, but the creator made the photons in space made them streaming toward us making them appear as if they come from those galaxies, to our ability to figure out his greatness"
or talking about the age of moon rocks
"well, the designer made the rocks appear billions of years old to us, only thousands of years ago when he made them, because of course he can do that and he is testing our faith"
Those to me seem like fanciful faith-based (or in GRH's case, apparently, paranormal-based) hand-waving explanations of things that are more simply, accurately, and logically explained by science. The light coming from the galaxy 10 billion light years away left there 10 billion years ago, and the moon's crust was formed from portions of the earth's crust about 4.5 billion years ago, and by current models one explanation is that it was shed off after some type of impact event"
I have no problems with people having faith in a creator. I do not feel that evolution leaves no room for a God. I just have a hard time when people apply the God-reason for things that are quite well-explained without it, and especially if they have the gall to call those God-reasons a science and insist that they teach their God-reasons to kids as being fundamental principles of science.
Last edited by Slick Pinkham; 05-07-2013 at 09:40 AM.
So because it was predicted, it means that it's true?
And that's not true that it's a 1-to-1 correspondence, because the wrist bones aren't even close to being the same. We have like eight bones in our wrists, it looks like there is one single one for a whale's "wrist." Take a look at your fingers, count the number of joints. Which one of your fingers have five joints? None? Okay so the phalanges don't match up either.
Last edited by Slick Pinkham; 05-07-2013 at 09:53 AM.
Your two diagrams don't even match up, to start off with. And it still doesn't address the extra bones/joints in the phalanges. You said it was a 1-to-1 correspondence, so maybe the fact that it's not 1-to-1 should be addressed, no?
EDIT: And again, if similar bone structures suggest common ancestory, then how does dissimilar structures not suggest the opposite? Our hands and a whales flipper look similar, so we share common ancestory, while the other 99% of us look nothing alike but yet we're related just because of our hands? That's a pretty big stretch without any other evidence to go along with it, whether it was predicted or not.
Last edited by Since86; 05-07-2013 at 10:06 AM.
I was off in the "every single bone has an 1-1 correspondence", as it seems some longer bones divided into smaller ones, perhaps with a flexibility benefit, at least for the particular whale shown (there are many species of whales).
The overall morphology of the bone structure is consistent with a common ancestry, and is IMO fairly obvious in a picture, but the larger body of evidence is the fossil record, which has has several animals that represent a transition between mainly land-dwelling creatures like Pakicetus and our modern whales, with gradual changes in morphology and lifestyle towards a fully marine animal. They lose their hind legs, they gain front flippers, and they grow longer spines and tails that show various paddles and flukes. All of these changes show up gradually on the 50 million year timescale of evolution from carnivorous artiodactyl to marine cetacean.
Sometimes whales are taken that have tiny hind legs! They serve no function and are often developmentally stunted, and unevenly grown so that there is just one leg or one is longer than the other. They do nothing but drag along at the whale’s rear end; most whales of the same species do better without them. Why do they even HAVE hind legs at any point in their lives? What does that say about the “design” of whales versus the idea that whales are descended from terrestrial mammals? Why would a Designer allow legs to develop in utero only to be reabsorbed long before birth, and then sometimes the reabsorption process isn't complete and they carry around these useless appendages?
If whales were designed from the ground up for marine life, why give their embryos useless hind leg buds at any point? Or maybe that's what they had to work with, and made the most of it in order to adapt.
Seems kind of similar to the occasional surgery that a delivery room doctor must perform to remove a vestigal tail, generally manifesting itself as a cartilagenous bump protruding from the tailbone of the newborn homo sapien.
Last edited by Slick Pinkham; 05-07-2013 at 10:26 AM.
Going back to the human tail, you said the fossil records don't show soft tissue, well tails have bones in them. Where is the fossil record showing our tail shortening up?
If evolution is about tiny steps turning into big steps, shouldn't we have the fossil records of the tiny steps instead of seeing the vast differences with similiarities and then connecting them together?
Last edited by Since86; 05-07-2013 at 10:49 AM.
I just don’t understand why creationists prefer to deny just how amazing the history of life is, all of the amazing adaptations that are far more interesting than just throwing up your hands and saying "it's all a trick!" because they "know" a designer really just poofed things into existence whenever it was needed, micro-managing all of the details.
Nobody can logically look at the warm-blooded air-breathing whale as it suckles its young and say it has any close connection to any fish. The fact that it's an ancient cousin of the giraffe, that it's a mammal that made the most of what it had on hand to adapt to the water over 50 million years, is truly amazing and inspiring.
Chimps don't. Gorillas don't. The great apes have tail bones similar to those of humans.
We and they have the tail bones to support a tail structure. Maybe those bones even elongate in their/our distantly-related tail-bearers? A common tree-dwelling ancestor of great apes an man may have at some point had a tail. It would make sense, as I believe the genes to control tail development in species such as lemurs have been identified and compared with moderately homologous genetically inactive DNA sequences in man.
So in order to acknowledge how amazing the history of life is, you have to believe in the evolutionary theory? Hardly.
Who has said anything about micro-managing? I've already admitted that I believe in micro evolution as a natural occurance, so why would I think that the design of God was micro-managed and that we came down looking exactly like we did today, or that any animal looks the exact same?
I also don't understand the acceptance of microevolution paired with the rejection of macroevolution. A plus a huge abundance of time equals B. Is it just because you can see microevolution on time scales of weeks, days, or even hours (as in the microbial world)?
I hate to keep coming back to the time element, but it is a unifying variable that seems to be the source of so much misconception. An ape didn't one day turn into a man, a tail didn't one day "fall off", and a hoofed land mammal didn't one day turn into a whale. Each can be understood in the context of multi-million year processes, but yes I guess each is a bewildering "act of magic" when shoe-horned into a tiny time frame dictated by some ancient decree of a council of men.
To me the theory that all species were created at once to be what they are today (never mind that all land species that ever lived would not fit on any existing Earth land mass, let alone on any boat) is one of micromanagemant on the part of that creator. It denies the amazing tapestry of the trees of life and poses much of science as a sideshow "test of faith" that a creator (apparently) demands must be summarily ignored.
I have probably said enough, and saying any more at all in this thread seems unproductive. I hope, as a practicing scientist, to at least shed a little light onto the idea/reality that science has nothing to do with any organized scheme serving to deny God, or some other evil pursuit. Science requires an open mind. Faith and science can coexist despite whatever wars are declared by close-minded folks claiming to be on either side.
Last edited by Slick Pinkham; 05-07-2013 at 11:47 AM.
WHERE has that been said? I just posed a question that should have suggested something different.
"Who has said anything about micro-managing? I've already admitted that I believe in micro evolution as a natural occurance, so why would I think that the design of God was micro-managed and that we came down looking exactly like we did today, or that any animal looks the exact same?"
I think more than half of my posts in this thread have been addressing straw men arguments.