Who Is Your Creator message forum

 

Who Is Your Creator message forum
This Forum is Locked
Author
Comment
View Entire Thread
Readers can read for themselves ...

I completely concur with your comment,
"readers can review what has been presented and decide for themselves."

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

I find it humorous that you can be presented with data that is exactly what you've asked for, then claim that you still haven't been presented with any valid data. Telling, to say the least. Well, readers can review what has been presented and decide for themselves.

Readers can see...

... how you drop threads, change the subject or move the goalposts.

Your nonresponses to the evidence are there in the debates over the whale sequence, the common ancestory of humans and chimps, the transitional nature of Australopithecus afarensis, etc.

Re: Please explain and be specific

Wow, Brian.

I certainly did not mean to offend you, but I am not sure how much simpler I can make my explaination.

Let's say that all of your major assumptions are true. Everything is already in place and working.

Then a random amino acid floating around gets stuck in the cell membrane. Wow, suddenly the cell has developed pressure sensitivity!! Great!! That cell, bacteria or whatever, can sense pressure changes and knows when to run away and not get eaten. Natural selection at it's finest.

Now, please explain your hypothesis of the mechanism by which an externally caused feature, meaning not caused by a genetic mutation, gets passed on to the offspring. Do you think the offspring would have this random amino acid embedded in the cell wall even though it is not encoded in the DNA?

Where did I say anything about it having to happend quickly, (ie. In one lifetime as you put it.)?

I have confused germ line mutation with somatic mutation. You are confusing external cause with mutation. Your scenario is not a mutation of any kind. That was my point.

If you bother to read some of my other posts, you might realize that my knowledge of genetics is far greater than you think.


As for your last comment, you might try looking into a little.

A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism: http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org/

Re: Re: Please explain and be specific

Joe,
Here is the fundamental point you are missing: I never implied that "an externally caused feature, meaning not caused by a genetic mutation, gets passed on to the offspring". EVERYONE understands that if it's not encoded in your (germ cell) DNA it's not going to get passed on. That's not a point that I thought I needed to make explicitly, because it's so obvious.

Again, and I'm going to make this short (for more detail, please reread my post from 8/8/07, 1:50 a.m.), I have suggested that our sense of hearing evolved from some simpler pressure sensing device. Mutations over time led to DNA that coded for an increased sensitivity in this device, such that even the extremely subtle pressure changes that are sound can be detected.

Finally, "A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism"? Are you kidding? Joe, I'm going to make 2 gentle suggestions here. And you can file these under "how to think like a scientist":
1. Consider whether a control experiment has been performed, and it it hasn't, then carefully question the validity of the results.
2. Do your own research before you suggest that someone "might try looking into [it] a little".

Here is the Wikipedia entry for "Dissent": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Scientific_Dissent_From_Darwinism. I don't mean to suggest that Wikipedia is the end all be all of scientific knowledge, but many people at least start with a glance there to see what it has to say, then go from there. I strongly suggest that readers read the entry themselves, however here are a couple of representative quotes:
1. "The document itself has been the subject of controversy and extensive criticism from a variety of sources."
2. "the list of signatories contains only a miniscule fraction of scientists in the relevant fields and representing an insignificant fraction of the total scientific population."
3. "The Discovery Institute has continued to collect signatures, reporting 300 in 2004[11], over 400 in 2005[12], over 600 in 2006[13], and 700 in 2007....in October 2005, an unfunded grass roots counter petition, A Scientific Support For Darwinism, was organized and gathered 7733 signatures from scientists in four days."

A Dissent From Darwinism is a joke, Joe, and it's used to try to manipulate masses of people who aren't scientists and have no background in the theory of evolution.

Re: Re: Re: Please explain and be specific

Your original scenario says:

"It could have been something as simple as a short chain of amino acids embedded in a cell membrane which, when pushed on (by a small vibrating bone, for example), created a hole in the membrane that allowed ions to flow in, starting the signaling cascade. Short chains of amino acids were certainly around very early on, and any lipophyllic sequences would embed in a cell membrane."


What does your last statement have to do with the likelyhood that the DNA would encoded such changes as to embed an amino acid sequence in the cell membrane?

Now if you had said, 'a genetic mutation created lipophyllic sequences that would then embed in a cell membrane', then we would not have had all these replies back and forth.

I apologize for not understanding what you meant to say, as oppose to what you actually wrote.


Now we can move on the the odds that such a scenario might happen. :)

Re: Please explain and be specific

Oh, this is just bull****. More fundie garbage.

Response to 'Silvermute' posting

Thank you, Andrew, for your articulate discourse.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

Oh, this is just bull****. More fundie garbage.

Simple answers to the questions you asked

whoisyourcreator: In your post "Please explain and be specific", you asked a number of questions. You added a few more as the thread went on. However, I think some of the responses were just too long. Here are links with answers to each of your questions:

"1. Please explain how ONE chance mutation would lay the genetic foundation for the ability to sense pressure."
A: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB101_1.html

"2. Please explain how THE SECOND mutation miraculously found and built on the first to further evolve to possess that abilty (not funcational yet)." and "4. Please explain why the first to the subsequent mutations necessary to allow for a fully operational 'sense' would be preserved by natural selection."
#2 and #4 both ask the same two questions, which need to be answered seperately. First, you're wondering how a bunch of successive mutations could have created a feature:
A: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB940_1.html
But also, since you said "not funcational yet"[sic], you clearly think that a biological feature can only have one purpose, and while it's being evolved it must be useless and "preserved" until it is complete and can fulfill that purpose. For more on that fallacy, see:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB340.html

"3. Please explain what 'drives' a mutation to create a complex genetic sequence that incrementally and progressively changes with each mutation without having any game plan."
A: Natural selection, genetic drift, gene flow.

"Why don't evolutionists start 'predicting' some of the things that might support evolution. It might help you everytime science comes up with something that blows a hole in their theory."
Arneson already handled this one, but here's another:
A: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA210.html

"Only changes in the germline (cells passed on to the next generation) are relevant to evolution, but molecular change in germ cells have been found to harm overall genetic fitness, not improve it."
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB101.html

Finally, since a lot of time has been given to the evolution of the ear, please refer to this:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB302.html

Since this is so 'simple,' why don't you take us through a couple mutations?

Since you seem to understand the evolution of 'hearing,' why don’t you explain in detail the most likely scenario of:
1. The first 3 random mutations of ONE mechanically gated hair cell
2. The first 3 random mutations of the ‘wiring’ for the electrical signals that need to transmit to the brain
3. The first 3 random mutations of the receptors that receive and react to the signals
4. The first 3 mutations needed to connect everything together while you're at it? Unless, everything gets linked together, nothing by itself will produce pressure sensitivity, which is about as basic as you can get in the evolution of hearing.

These links might help you with the mechanics of it all:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hair_cell
http://scienceweek.com/2005/sw050318-4.htm
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/bv.fcgi?rid=bnchm.box.3378

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

whoisyourcreator: In your post "Please explain and be specific", you asked a number of questions. You added a few more as the thread went on. However, I think some of the responses were just too long. Here are links with answers to each of your questions:

"1. Please explain how ONE chance mutation would lay the genetic foundation for the ability to sense pressure."
A: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB101_1.html

"2. Please explain how THE SECOND mutation miraculously found and built on the first to further evolve to possess that abilty (not funcational yet)." and "4. Please explain why the first to the subsequent mutations necessary to allow for a fully operational 'sense' would be preserved by natural selection."
#2 and #4 both ask the same two questions, which need to be answered seperately. First, you're wondering how a bunch of successive mutations could have created a feature:
A: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB940_1.html
But also, since you said "not funcational yet"[sic], you clearly think that a biological feature can only have one purpose, and while it's being evolved it must be useless and "preserved" until it is complete and can fulfill that purpose. For more on that fallacy, see:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB340.html

"3. Please explain what 'drives' a mutation to create a complex genetic sequence that incrementally and progressively changes with each mutation without having any game plan."
A: Natural selection, genetic drift, gene flow.

"Why don't evolutionists start 'predicting' some of the things that might support evolution. It might help you everytime science comes up with something that blows a hole in their theory."
Arneson already handled this one, but here's another:
A: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA210.html

"Only changes in the germline (cells passed on to the next generation) are relevant to evolution, but molecular change in germ cells have been found to harm overall genetic fitness, not improve it."
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB101.html

Finally, since a lot of time has been given to the evolution of the ear, please refer to this:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB302.html

Re: Since this is so 'simple,' why don't you take us through a couple mutations?

Random mutations from what? All of these would have come from something else.

There's an interesting case of a considerable amount of reuse of one particular ion channel, TRPA1, which is involved in hearing (http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=503849) and expressed in hair cells.

It is also used in other sensory-type situations (http://www.genecards.org/cgi-bin/carddisp.pl?gene=TRPA1) - distinguishing strong smells like cinnamon and mustard, as well as participating in the feeling and detection of cold (http://www.molecularpain.com/content/1/1/16)

There is a considerable amount of reuse of genes, proteins and substances. A number of medications are not to be taken or in some cases handled by pregnant women because the reuse is even for different developmental stages - handling things like hair loss medication that interferes with dihydroxytestosterone can interfere with male fetal development at critical stages, since the testosterone by-products do different things at different stages in the womb.

Distal-less is another pretty fascinating example. It's reused in butterfly development in multiple separate stages from segments to legs to wing spots, and humans have it as well (DLX1-4), performing some similar and some different functions.

You are correct when you say that nothing by itself will produce pressure sensitivity. That ought not compel us to stop finding out why.

My guess is that at least some of the components predate the deuterostome/protostome split, since components of vision go back at least that far (e.g. mouse and human homeobox genes for eye development can cause fly eyes to be expressed in flies)

Remember that mutations are not usually a works/doesn't work scenario. There is duplication in the genetic code (usually, spelling changes in the last of the 3 'letters' doesn't matter), plus the biggest driver in protein shape is the attraction or repulsion to water of the amino acids that make it up, and mutations tend to go between amino acids of similar (but not the same) attraction to water. Many of these mutated proteins simply affect the rates of other reactions (which go on to spur others), and that alone can be better or worse depending on the situation - think metabolism, or mucus production or adrenalin.

This is just what we find when we try to find out how things work. The is no grand moral conspiracy here, and I must say the implication of such is confusing at best.

Not up for an explanation?

1. You claim that features arise from “something else” but we’re still waiting for you give us that hypothetical scenario of what that might look like. It should be easy for you as we are giving you the leeway of using fantasy, verses provable facts. If evolutionists can’t even come up with solid hypothetical scenarios on how new features arise from random mutations and natural selection, the theory of evolution is nothing but faith, not science.

2. You also claim that evolution “reused” a previously evolved ion channel (TRPA1) and that some components “predate the deuterostome/protostome split.” You fail to connect that your weak attempt just pushes the creation of them back to a previous time so you still need to explain how these materials arose originally.

3. I have NO idea of what your point is on the medication/pregnant women analogy???

4. In regard to your comment,
“My guess is that at least some of the components, since components of vision go back at least that far (e.g. mouse and human homeobox genes for eye development can cause fly eyes to be expressed in flies)”

Hox (homeobox) genes again?

“Control genes like homeotic genes may be the target of mutations that would conceivably change phenotypes, but one must remember that, the more central one makes changes in a complex system, the more severe the peripheral consequences become. … Homeotic changes induced in Drosophila genes have led only to monstrosities, and most experimenters do not expect to see a bee arise from their Drosophila constructs.” (Mini Review: Schwabe, C., 1994. Theoretical limitations of molecular phylogenetics and the evolution of relaxins. Comp. Biochem. Physiol. 107B:167–177).
Refer to http://trueorigin.org/homeobox.asp

5. In regard to your comment,
“You are correct when you say that nothing by itself will produce pressure sensitivity. That ought not compel us to stop finding out why.”

When you figure it out, let us know. But currently, the theory of evolution is still nothing but faith, not science.

6. In regard to your comment,
“Many of these mutated proteins simply affect the rates of other reactions (which go on to spur others), and that alone can be better or worse depending on the situation - think metabolism, or mucus production or adrenalin. “

Think proving they ‘simply’ arose by random mutations and natural selection…

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

Random mutations from what? All of these would have come from something else.

There's an interesting case of a considerable amount of reuse of one particular ion channel, TRPA1, which is involved in hearing (http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=503849) and expressed in hair cells.

It is also used in other sensory-type situations (http://www.genecards.org/cgi-bin/carddisp.pl?gene=TRPA1) - distinguishing strong smells like cinnamon and mustard, as well as participating in the feeling and detection of cold (http://www.molecularpain.com/content/1/1/16)

There is a considerable amount of reuse of genes, proteins and substances. A number of medications are not to be taken or in some cases handled by pregnant women because the reuse is even for different developmental stages - handling things like hair loss medication that interferes with dihydroxytestosterone can interfere with male fetal development at critical stages, since the testosterone by-products do different things at different stages in the womb.

Distal-less is another pretty fascinating example. It's reused in butterfly development in multiple separate stages from segments to legs to wing spots, and humans have it as well (DLX1-4), performing some similar and some different functions.

You are correct when you say that nothing by itself will produce pressure sensitivity. That ought not compel us to stop finding out why.

My guess is that at least some of the components predate the deuterostome/protostome split, since components of vision go back at least that far (e.g. mouse and human homeobox genes for eye development can cause fly eyes to be expressed in flies)

Remember that mutations are not usually a works/doesn't work scenario. There is duplication in the genetic code (usually, spelling changes in the last of the 3 'letters' doesn't matter), plus the biggest driver in protein shape is the attraction or repulsion to water of the amino acids that make it up, and mutations tend to go between amino acids of similar (but not the same) attraction to water. Many of these mutated proteins simply affect the rates of other reactions (which go on to spur others), and that alone can be better or worse depending on the situation - think metabolism, or mucus production or adrenalin.

This is just what we find when we try to find out how things work. The is no grand moral conspiracy here, and I must say the implication of such is confusing at best.

Re: Not up for an explanation?

1. Fine. I will explain one process by which new information can be added. Take a gene. Any gene. Doesnt matter which. Duplicate it (it has been observed). Most gene duplications are neutral. One copy continues to perform its task while the other sits by. Now, either of these genes can mutate without harming the organism. So one continue its function while the other can mutate without worry. As the copy mutates, it will run into beneficial or deleterious mutations. Eiether of those will be an addition of information. Think of it this way. AGTC copies to AGTC, AGTC. A mutatution occurs and it is now AGTC, ATCG. New info. This has all been observed.

2.How the materials arose orgnially, the fisrt life form, is a problem for abiogenesis. Not evolution.

3. He was using it as an example as to how reusing the same materials can yeild different effects.

4.Drosophila genes are but one class of hox gene. Using one example in an attempt to discredit them all is childish at best.

5. You keep saying that, but whenever asked you refuse to back that up. Even when presented with obvious evidence, you keep picking at tiny little points that we have yet to come up with an answer for. It´s no different from when people told Edison he was crazy for trying the lightbulb when he hadnt succeeded yet.

6. It´s been observed. You deny what people have seen, studied, oberved, and replicated many times before?

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

1. You claim that features arise from “something else” but we’re still waiting for you give us that hypothetical scenario of what that might look like. It should be easy for you as we are giving you the leeway of using fantasy, verses provable facts. If evolutionists can’t even come up with solid hypothetical scenarios on how new features arise from random mutations and natural selection, the theory of evolution is nothing but faith, not science.

2. You also claim that evolution “reused” a previously evolved ion channel (TRPA1) and that some components “predate the deuterostome/protostome split.” You fail to connect that your weak attempt just pushes the creation of them back to a previous time so you still need to explain how these materials arose originally.

3. I have NO idea of what your point is on the medication/pregnant women analogy???

4. In regard to your comment,
“My guess is that at least some of the components, since components of vision go back at least that far (e.g. mouse and human homeobox genes for eye development can cause fly eyes to be expressed in flies)”

Hox (homeobox) genes again?

“Control genes like homeotic genes may be the target of mutations that would conceivably change phenotypes, but one must remember that, the more central one makes changes in a complex system, the more severe the peripheral consequences become. … Homeotic changes induced in Drosophila genes have led only to monstrosities, and most experimenters do not expect to see a bee arise from their Drosophila constructs.” (Mini Review: Schwabe, C., 1994. Theoretical limitations of molecular phylogenetics and the evolution of relaxins. Comp. Biochem. Physiol. 107B:167–177).
Refer to http://trueorigin.org/homeobox.asp

5. In regard to your comment,
“You are correct when you say that nothing by itself will produce pressure sensitivity. That ought not compel us to stop finding out why.”

When you figure it out, let us know. But currently, the theory of evolution is still nothing but faith, not science.

6. In regard to your comment,
“Many of these mutated proteins simply affect the rates of other reactions (which go on to spur others), and that alone can be better or worse depending on the situation - think metabolism, or mucus production or adrenalin. “

Think proving they ‘simply’ arose by random mutations and natural selection…

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

Random mutations from what? All of these would have come from something else.

There's an interesting case of a considerable amount of reuse of one particular ion channel, TRPA1, which is involved in hearing (http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=503849) and expressed in hair cells.

It is also used in other sensory-type situations (http://www.genecards.org/cgi-bin/carddisp.pl?gene=TRPA1) - distinguishing strong smells like cinnamon and mustard, as well as participating in the feeling and detection of cold (http://www.molecularpain.com/content/1/1/16)

There is a considerable amount of reuse of genes, proteins and substances. A number of medications are not to be taken or in some cases handled by pregnant women because the reuse is even for different developmental stages - handling things like hair loss medication that interferes with dihydroxytestosterone can interfere with male fetal development at critical stages, since the testosterone by-products do different things at different stages in the womb.

Distal-less is another pretty fascinating example. It's reused in butterfly development in multiple separate stages from segments to legs to wing spots, and humans have it as well (DLX1-4), performing some similar and some different functions.

You are correct when you say that nothing by itself will produce pressure sensitivity. That ought not compel us to stop finding out why.

My guess is that at least some of the components predate the deuterostome/protostome split, since components of vision go back at least that far (e.g. mouse and human homeobox genes for eye development can cause fly eyes to be expressed in flies)

Remember that mutations are not usually a works/doesn't work scenario. There is duplication in the genetic code (usually, spelling changes in the last of the 3 'letters' doesn't matter), plus the biggest driver in protein shape is the attraction or repulsion to water of the amino acids that make it up, and mutations tend to go between amino acids of similar (but not the same) attraction to water. Many of these mutated proteins simply affect the rates of other reactions (which go on to spur others), and that alone can be better or worse depending on the situation - think metabolism, or mucus production or adrenalin.

This is just what we find when we try to find out how things work. The is no grand moral conspiracy here, and I must say the implication of such is confusing at best.