In regard to your comment:

"No mechanism to build anything new??? We have now discussed several mechanisms by which new DNA code is added to an existing genome (e.g. transposons). So in fact, destruction of DNA is not the only type of mutation possible."

1. Are you throwing in the towel that mutations cause novel and new traits to appear?

2. Are you claiming that transposons are the same as mutations?

3. Are you aware that transposons have been considered 'junk DNA' for over 50 years so research on them has been lacking … and no one quite knows what is going on in genetics anymore?

“Bejerano and his colleagues aren't the first to suggest that transposons play a role in regulating nearby genes. In fact, Nobel laureate Barbara McClintock, PhD, who first discovered transposons, proposed in 1956 that they could help determine the timing for when nearby genes turn on and off."
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/04/070423185538.htm

“IT WILL TAKE YEARS, perhaps decades, to construct a detailed theory that explains how DNA, RNA and the epigenetic machinery all fit into an interlocking, self-regulating system. But there is no longer any doubt that a new theory is needed to replace the central dogma that has been the foundation of molecular genetics and biotechnology since the 1950s.”
http://www.arn.org/docs2/news/JunkDNA111903.htm

"Science is just starting to probe the wilderness between genes," said John M. Greally, molecular biologist at New York's Albert Einstein School of Medicine. "Already we're surprised and confounded by a lot of what we're seeing." ...
In any event, lots of basic biological beliefs are going out the window these days as new discoveries come so rapid-fire that the effect is almost more disorienting than illuminating.
The discoveries have one common theme: Cellular processes long assumed to be "genetic" appear quite often to be the result of highly complex interactions occurring in regions of DNA void of genes. This is roughly akin to Wall Street waking to the realization that money doesn't make the world go 'round, after all.
"It's a radical concept, one that a lot of scientists aren't very happy with," said Francis S. Collins, director of the National Human Genome Research Institute. "But the scientific community is going to have to rethink what genes are, what they do and don't do, and how the genome's functional elements have evolved.
"I think we're all pretty awed by what we're seeing," Collins said. "It amounts to a scientific revolution."”
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/health_science/articles/2007/09/24/dna_unraveled/

4. Are you aware that, like endogenous retroviruses, the more that is actually discovered about them, the more beneficial they are appearing to be?

Are you aware that nothing you wrote in any way contradicts the theory of evolution?

Also,
1. I don't know what you're asking.
2. Did I write that? Um, no, I didn't.

Brian:

I notice you took the operative words out of my quote. Here is what you said I said:

'In a nutshell, mutations alter DNA by destruction ONLY....how is it even possible to create something new by destruction, and where does the original code come from in the first place, with no mechanism to build anything new?" (your caps)

Here is what I actually said:

"In a nutshell, mutations alter DNA by destruction ONLY. But creative adaptations require new, creative gene codes. So how is it even possible to create something new by destruction, and where does the original code come from in the first place, with no mechanism to build anything new?"

You seem to be allergic to the concept of creative adaptations that require new, creative gene codes, which is THE VERY POINT I AM MAKING. In previous posts I mentioned smaller, more primitive brains supposedly evolving into far larger and much more complex modern brains--imagine all of the new code that would be required for such a feat. When dogs became adapted from wolves by expectation and artificial selection to the jobs humans gave them, their basic gene structures remained the same. They did not put on clothes and start shaving by having their paws change into hands and fingers (as Darwin generally postulated), because they did not turn into Canis humanus. They retained their original Canis lupus traits, even though there was obviously some alteration of DNA and they were different from wolves, all the while remaining the same in essential characteristics.

Below is how transposons, as discovered by Barbara McClintock as you know, change corn color. Notice that the genes that affect color are turned off, and that the basic gene code remains intact. This is very like the example I gave (and I meant it only as an example) of radiation "knocking off" genetic material, thus affecting blossom color.


Grains of Indian corn come in different colors, such as purple, yellow and white. Sometimes the individual grains are purple with white streaks or mottling. This mottling effect defies Mendel's basic principles of genetics because individual grains may be multicolored rather than a single color. The movement of transposons on chromosomes may result in colored, non-colored and variegated grains that do not fit traditional Mendelian ratios based solely on chromosome assortment during meiosis and random combination of gametes. The explanation for this phenomenon involves "jumping genes" or transposons, and earned Dr. Barbara McClintock the prestigious Nobel Prize in Medicine in 1983 for her life-long research on corn genetics.
Transposons are genes that move from one location to another on a chromosome. In the pigmented aleurone layer of corn grains, the position of transposons may inhibit or block pigment production in some cells. For example, if the transposon moves to a position adjacent to a pigment-producing gene, the cells are unable to produce the purple pigment. This results in white streaks or mottling rather than a solid purple grain. The duration of a transposon in this "turned off" position affects the degree of mottling. If the pigmentation gene is turned off long enough by a transposon, the grain will be completely unpigmented. The reddish-purple patterns caused by transposons may be blotches, dots, irregular lines and streaks.

-www.waynesword.palomar.edu/1mexer3.htm


Changing color by blocking or destroying genes is a FAR CRY from one organism becoming another organism. Moreover, transposons are primarily selfish DNA molecules and do not "like" to cooperate, according to Andreas Wagner, and "Because such cooperation [in allowing bacteria to adapt] does not pay in the long run, the vehicles of such survival WILL EVENTUALLY DISAPPEAR AGAIN." (caps mine)

From "Cooperation is Fleeting in the World of Transposeable Elements" by Andreas Wagner, www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov

This is very close to what WIYC says in her section on genetics:

"Almost ALL mutations are detected and 're-written' by minuscule machines that check for errors."

Thus most changes are small, and the organism tends to revert to the original once the condition in the environment changes. All organisms seem to have a master plan, aka a body plan, and changes do not seem to go much beyond that.

But your real problem is not that all of life operates from basic plans. This really is self-evident, and I deplore all of the time, money, and effort that goes into denying the obvious. I know what the real problem is with you humanist beings, and if you like, I will explain it to you.

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

Replying to:

I've taken the liberty of starting a new thread, since the other one was getting a little lengthy.

Here is what you said, John:
"In a nutshell, mutations alter DNA by destruction ONLY....how is it even possible to create something new by destruction, and where does the original code come from in the first place, with no mechanism to build anything new?" (your caps)

No mechanism to build anything new??? We have now discussed several mechanisms by which new DNA code is added to an existing genome (e.g. transposons). So in fact, destruction of DNA is not the only type of mutation possible. Therefore, John, you were wrong. Own up to it.

"They did not put on clothes and start shaving by having their paws change into hands and fingers (as Darwin generally postulated), because they did not turn into Canis humanus."

For crying out loud, when did Darwin say that WOLVES are a common ancestor to humans? Good grief, man, you know as well as I know that Canines are a completely different "branch of the tree".

"This really is self-evident, and I deplore all of the time, money, and effort that goes into denying the obvious."

Yup. Bingo. Just what I was saying. Creationism is a "science stopper".

Why EXACTLY is it obvious? Because "changes are small", it "tends to revert to the original code", they "seem to have a master plan", and they don't "seem to go much beyond that"?

What is this magical "barrier" that prevents DNA from changing "too much"? How does it work? What is this "plan"? How can we figure this out?

Why am I asking these questions? Oh yea, BECAUSE IT'S NOT OBVIOUS.

What makes it obvious to you? Verses in the Bible?

Somebody doesn't know what somebody is talking about.

From the article "Mixing Mammals," appearing in Technology Review, professor Richard Behringer, a professor of molecular genetics at the university of Texas MD Cancer Center, says this about a DNA mouse/bat experiment, where mice had their legs slightly elongated through bat DNA insertion:


To have any chance of flying, mice would have to develop very different forelimbs, like those of bats, which are longer and have membranes stretched between the bones. Behringer says that he'd like to try replacing the limb enhancers in mice with those from other animals, such as whales or wallabies.

Charles Darwin contemplated the evolution of different kinds of limbs in On the Origin of Species. Starting with a BASIC LIMB PATTERN, "successive slight modifications," he wrote, eventually produce the various MAMMAL LIMBS we see today: HUMAN HANDS, bat wings, whale fins. [caps mine]

"We think what we've done is made one of those slight modifications," Behringer says. "Maybe during evolution you'd have a lot of those and the limb would get a lot longer, and maybe some of the tissue would be retained between digits, ultimately leading to the structures that would allow a bat to fly."


Yeah, and maybe if pigs had wings they could fly, too. Pig bats, you know. Why not? Hey, it COULD happen.

Of course, I'm sure you know far more than the good professor. Please contact him post haste and inform him that mammal limbs CANNOT change into human hands.
Kindly explain to him that he is being delusional. I'm sure he will appreciate your wisdom.

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

Replying to:

"They did not put on clothes and start shaving by having their paws change into hands and fingers (as Darwin generally postulated), because they did not turn into Canis humanus."

For crying out loud, when did Darwin say that WOLVES are a common ancestor to humans? Good grief, man, you know as well as I know that Canines are a completely different "branch of the tree".

"This really is self-evident, and I deplore all of the time, money, and effort that goes into denying the obvious."

Yup. Bingo. Just what I was saying. Creationism is a "science stopper".

Why EXACTLY is it obvious? Because "changes are small", it "tends to revert to the original code", they "seem to have a master plan", and they don't "seem to go much beyond that"?

What is this magical "barrier" that prevents DNA from changing "too much"? How does it work? What is this "plan"? How can we figure this out?

Why am I asking these questions? Oh yea, BECAUSE IT'S NOT OBVIOUS.

What makes it obvious to you? Verses in the Bible?

Certainly MAMMAL LIMBS come from a common ancestor. Agreed.

What I am pointing out is that WOLVES are not an ancestor of HUMANS.

Wolves and humans SHARE a common ancestor.

But humans did not evolve FROM wolves. To suggest such a thing is ridiculous. That is what I was pointing out what you suggested in your previous post.

Gee whiz. You guys have to stop twisting my statements.

"Yeah, and maybe if pigs had wings they could fly, too. Pig bats, you know. Why not? Hey, it COULD happen"

The pure ridiculousness of this statement shows me that you don't know a thing about common ancestry.

In regard to your comment:

"Certainly MAMMAL LIMBS come from a common ancestor. Agreed."



Yes, evolutionists may devise all sorts of stories and theories, but to believe them as fact without any observation, evidence, or any facts substantiating the claims, it's nothing but your faith, not science.

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

Replying to:

Certainly MAMMAL LIMBS come from a common ancestor. Agreed.

What I am pointing out is that WOLVES are not an ancestor of HUMANS.

Wolves and humans SHARE a common ancestor.

But humans did not evolve FROM wolves. To suggest such a thing is ridiculous. That is what I was pointing out what you suggested in your previous post.

Gee whiz. You guys have to stop twisting my statements.

"Yeah, and maybe if pigs had wings they could fly, too. Pig bats, you know. Why not? Hey, it COULD happen"

The pure ridiculousness of this statement shows me that you don't know a thing about common ancestry.