Who Is Your Creator message forum

 

Who Is Your Creator message forum
This Forum is Locked
Author
Comment
View Entire Thread
Re: Re: Re: Creationists love TRUE science

WiYC said:
"In regard to your comment:

"We are beginning to understand how body plans are put together."

1. Yes, due to the FACT that evolutionists can't even figure out the specific genetic steps that would create novel or more complex traits, it's obvious that you are just 'beginning to understand.'"

Well, no. Evo/devo has given science tools to understand how this works in many cases. HOX genes provided the initial breakthrough. They have been able to understand how genes are turned on and off to control development of segments, limbs, bones, color patterning, or like the article I gave you sensory organs.

So yes, the science is very new and has not provided all of the answers you ask for. However, they have made great progress in just a few years. What is more significant is that homologous control genes like the HOX sequence reinforce evolutionary theory.

You pick it ... the "Let's See How Evolution Works" game

Since you seem to like the HOX gene scenario, should we cover that instead of convergent evolution? We can do CE next round.

Let me know.

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

Replying to:

WiYC said:
"In regard to your comment:

"We are beginning to understand how body plans are put together."

1. Yes, due to the FACT that evolutionists can't even figure out the specific genetic steps that would create novel or more complex traits, it's obvious that you are just 'beginning to understand.'"

Well, no. Evo/devo has given science tools to understand how this works in many cases. HOX genes provided the initial breakthrough. They have been able to understand how genes are turned on and off to control development of segments, limbs, bones, color patterning, or like the article I gave you sensory organs.

So yes, the science is very new and has not provided all of the answers you ask for. However, they have made great progress in just a few years. What is more significant is that homologous control genes like the HOX sequence reinforce evolutionary theory.

Re: Creationists love TRUE science

WiYC continued:
"2. The definition of evo-devo is “a field of biology that compares the developmental processes of different animals and plants in an attempt to determine the ancestral relationship between organisms and how developmental processes evolved.”
http://www.reference.com/search?r=13&q=Evo%20Devo

Did I miss something or did the article describe “how development processes evolved.” Why don't you help them out?"

Evo/devo does not simply address evolutionary relationships. It helps to define how these processes build bodies. You did miss something. The proteins are used to build sensory systems in a diverse variety of animals groups. I don't think the authors need any help at all. I think I'll conttinue to help you instead.

Re: Creationists love TRUE science

WiYC finished with:
"“The fact that this class of proteins is involved in sensory perception in these diverse species points to a path of evolutionary investigation.”

Why is it that evolutionists have no problem with somthing like convergent evolution (when an organism miraculously evolves the very same trait that an 'unrelated' organism evolved)
... and yet they demand that God use different genetic materials for each organism?"

There is nothing miraculous about convergent evolution. First of all, there are no 'unrelated' organisms. Thylacinus cynocephalus and Canis lupus are distantly related sharing a common ancestor before the split of marsupials and placentals.

Second, my position is that evolution actually provides an explanation for convergence. These animals have similar charactteristics because they have similar ways of making a living. What works for lupus also works for cynocephalus in similar circumstances.

I won't discuss my beliefs about God. I don't discuss my understanding of the Bible, either. I don't wish to offend you.

Awesome! You will love the next game, then!

In regard to your comment:

"There is nothing miraculous about convergent evolution."


I look forward to hearing all about it beginning on February 11th!

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

Replying to:

WiYC finished with:
"“The fact that this class of proteins is involved in sensory perception in these diverse species points to a path of evolutionary investigation.”

Why is it that evolutionists have no problem with somthing like convergent evolution (when an organism miraculously evolves the very same trait that an 'unrelated' organism evolved)
... and yet they demand that God use different genetic materials for each organism?"

There is nothing miraculous about convergent evolution. First of all, there are no 'unrelated' organisms. Thylacinus cynocephalus and Canis lupus are distantly related sharing a common ancestor before the split of marsupials and placentals.

Second, my position is that evolution actually provides an explanation for convergence. These animals have similar charactteristics because they have similar ways of making a living. What works for lupus also works for cynocephalus in similar circumstances.

I won't discuss my beliefs about God. I don't discuss my understanding of the Bible, either. I don't wish to offend you.

Re: Awesome! You will love the next game, then!

Sorry, I'll be abroad when this game starts. I don't expect that I will be seeing much of a keyboard then.

Jumping Genes? Thanks for the Laugh!

Brian:

You accuse me of spreading misconceptions and misinformation, but on the contrary, it is you who demonstrate that you neither read nor think very carefully. You say:

>Wrong. Mutations are also caused by replication errors, DNA chemical instability, and byproducts of metabolism: “[Mutations] can be the result of endogenous processes such as errors in replication of DNA, the intrinsic chemical instability of certain DNA bases or from attack by free radicals generated during metabolism.” Bertram, Molecular Aspects of Medicine, 2000, 21 (6), 167.

Brian, where did I say that there were no other causes of genetic mutations? Nowhere. All I said was that DNA mutations were caused primarily by background radiation in the atmosphere, which includes cosmic rays and rays emanating from soil and rocks.

The causes of spontaneous mutations are multifactorial, but there are three main causes:

"1) The gene-copying process...may go wrong and produce a molecular structure different from that of the original gene; the original gene remains the same but it has produced a faulty copy of itself....

2) The natural 'background' radiation from cosmic rays or from soil and rocks (higher in granite than sandstone areas) or from chemical compounds in food may cause a change in a gene that is not dividing. Once it does start to produce copies of itself the error will be perpetuated until, by further mutation, the normal gene is restored.

Most natural mutations seem to be due to a chemical or physical shock which shakes up and causes a slight alteration, or rearrangement, of the molecular pattern in the gene.

3) The chromosome breakages...are grosser types of mutation...knowledge of how these breakages are caused is scant, but predisposing factors are EXPOSURE TO RADIATION and increasing maternal age."

-From "Biology and the Social Crisis: A Social Biology for Everyman," by John Keith Brierley (caps mine).

And now we come to your "jumping genes":

You quote me below but fail to define what the writer in your answer means by "some good." And your writer fails to define it, I suspect, because actual beneficial changes are virtually always very limited, not resulting in new organs or appendages of any kind. Thus not only is Darwinian gradualism not seen in fossils (by Gould's own admission), it is not seen in any living creature. An animal, such as a bat for instance, appears and is what it is, with no finely graduated changes that would be expected if Macro-evolution were true. That is why we see no half-bats. And that is also why we don't see people being born smarter due to genetic mutations (except on the Sci-Fi channel). Most mutations result in diseases and/or inferior copies of the original. And ALL CANCER is genetic, caused by abnormal gene activity.

>Very few are beneficial, and those that are positive are caused by destroying part of the delicate DNA structure.”
Wrong. Some “beneficial” mutations come from transposition of whole sections of DNA; see transposon, jumping gene, etc.: “Genomes are full of DNA that doesn't belong there. Called transposons, these small bits of sequence jump between chromosomes, often disrupting genes in the process. But sometimes, these interlopers do some good.” Pennisi, Science, 2005 (309), 764.

Brian, are you seriously suggesting that the brain of Australopithecus grew not only in size from 380-450cc to 1400cc, but also vastly morphed in complexity, all by "jumping genes?"

Oh, OK. Now we have the even more altered version of Darwinian evolution:

"The General Theory of Evolution by Jumping Genes."

I think what we really have on display here is a classic demonstration of the truth that facts are stubborn things, but stories mutate endlessly.

I am getting a good laugh at your preposterous "Just So" story about the fabulous jumping genes, but the fact remains that what Cohen calls "the purposeful alignment of billions of nucleotides" in the DNA, CANNOT occur without intelligent intervention of some kind. You have no evidence of such a thing happening anywhere in nature at any time, and this does not even take into account the proveable fact of irreducable complexity and lack of any mechanism of assembly to bring all of the fortuitous "jumping genes" together to create a new species.

What you proponents of evolutionism are suggesting requires some type of creative design to alter DNA code enough to create new organs, appendages, and eventually new species. Nature cannot alter DNA code, nor can the organism itself according to your theory, and I reject the whole concept of Darwinian Intelligent Design in nature. Nature has no mind, nor can it alter DNA code, except in myth.

I repeat, alteration of the DNA code, whether by radiation, chemical, diet or other environmenmtal factors, CANNOT CREATIVELY ADD CODE. Yes, radiation can slightly alter DNA enough so that the color of a blossom changes from, say, red to orange, but that is a FAR CRY from changing a very small brain into a far larger, much more complex brain. This would require altering the code thousands if not millions of times IN JUST THE RIGHT WAY, and that is physically impossible.

Dear reader, don't let yourself be intimidated or bamboozified by "scientific" gobble****ok. These people will try to browbeat you with fanciful stories and actual facts that are misapplied, all to appeal to your emotions. They want to turn off your thinking and turn on your emotions. And that is not science, that is religion. But evolution is a scientific concept, it is NOT a religion, and it is not heresy to question it. In fact it is good to try and falsify EVERY theory, INCLUDING evolution. If you look carefully, you will see that these people defy the laws of logic, and you are perfectly able to judge that for yourselves.

I would add this PS, flowering plants can increase the number of chromosomes, called "polyploidy." But "According to evolutionary biologist Douglas J. Futuyma, polyploidy 'does not confer major new morphological characteristics...[and] does not cause the evolution of a new genera' or higher levels in the biological hierarchy." -Darwinism and Intelligent Design, by J.Wells, page 51.

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

Replying to:

I’m glad you wrote this post, John, I could not possibly have put something up that more clearly demonstrates the misconceptions and misinformation that creationists are spreading. Each sentence in your Cohen quote is simply wrong (with the exception of the one about saltation – that is true), and I’ve addressed his and your assertions below.

“The only change possible under Darwinian theory, is by DNA mutations caused primarily by background radiation in the atmosphere”
Wrong. Mutations are also caused by replication errors, DNA chemical instability, and byproducts of metabolism: “[Mutations] can be the result of endogenous processes such as errors in replication of DNA, the intrinsic chemical instability of certain DNA bases or from attack by free radicals generated during metabolism.” Bertram, Molecular Aspects of Medicine, 2000, 21 (6), 167.

“Very few are beneficial, and those that are positive are caused by destroying part of the delicate DNA structure.”
Wrong. Some “beneficial” mutations come from transposition of whole sections of DNA; see transposon, jumping gene, etc.: “Genomes are full of DNA that doesn't belong there. Called transposons, these small bits of sequence jump between chromosomes, often disrupting genes in the process. But sometimes, these interlopers do some good.” Pennisi, Science, 2005 (309), 764.

There is an entire subset of mutations called “Insertion mutations”, which are exactly what the name suggests: one or more base pairs are inserted into the DNA. For example, “Both germline and somatic mutations have been documented resulting from the insertion of the various types of mammalian repetitive transposable genetic elements. As foreseen by Barbara McClintock, such genetic events can cause either the activation or the inactivation of specific genes, resulting in their identification via an altered phenotype.” Amariglio and Rechavi, Environmental and Molecular Mutagenesis, 1993, 21(3), 212.

“There is no possibility of a new DNA code being creatively produced.”
Wrong. I’ve just outlined several mechanisms by which new DNA is inserted into an existing genome.

“And since adaptions require creative changes in the gene code, how then could a positive, new, creative adaptation occur?”
Adaptations do not require “creative” changes, they just require changes. These changes are then selected for by natural selection.

“In a nutshell, mutations alter DNA by destruction ONLY”
Wrong. There are a host of mechanisms, some of which I’ve outlined above, by which either single base pairs are changed (point mutations), or whole sections of DNA are added or removed (insertions and deletions). Example: “genetic errors may be introduced by nonreplicative mechanisms. Resulting variability is manifested by point mutations and genomic rearrangements (e.g., deletions, insertions and recombination).” Current Topics in Microbiology and Immunology, 2006 (299), 211-259.

“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?”
This entire line of reasoning is clearly flawed. There are a host of mechanisms for creating new genetic material. Therefore, adaptations do not need to come only “by destruction”.

“It makes no sense, dear reader, and if you think about it, you will see that this truth alone means that a Darwinian body plan does not exist anywhere in nature, and that Darwinian evolution could not possibly be true.”
What is clear is that you have no background in genetics or basic biology, therefore you must rely on second- or third-hand sources, such as Cohen’s or Azar’s books, which are designed specifically to mislead people such as yourself. I challenge you, John, to back up your statements with references from the primary literature (i.e. peer reviewed scientific journals), as I’ve done here. Nevertheless, I now understand why you don’t accept the theory of evolution: you do not understand the basics from which the theory derives.

Re: Jumping Genes? Thanks for the Laugh!

John,

Your post is very long, and actually I believe it could have been summed up in about three sentences. For the sake of conciseness, I will make just a couple of counterpoints.

First, you fail to support even a single sentence in your entire post with a reference to the primary literature. For that reason alone, debating you is basically a waste of time. How can I argue with "Nuh-uh, I'm right and you're wrong!"?

What I wrote in my last post was not MY opinion, it was the opinion of the greater scientific community. I directly quoted many peer-reviewed scientific journals. If you don't believe what I wrote, read the article, then e-mail the corresponding authors of the articles. They'll tell you what they meant, then they'll provide the data to back up what they wrote. Go ahead, send them an e-mail right now. Then send the journal editors an e-mail and ask them for the names of the reviewers. Contact them and ask them why they accepted the paper for publication. Finally, get in touch with specialists in that scientific field and ask why they have not written an article refuting what was originally concluded. These are all things you could do tonight. I've listed my references.

Second, you have changed your tune with respect to how mutations occur. Fantastic. Yes I agree, there are many ways that mutations occur. We're moving forward.

The rest of your post really is not worth responding to. You perseverate on this idea of "creative incorporation of new DNA code". Find me a reference that shows how the theory of evolution requires the CREATIVE incorporation of new DNA code.

Jumpin' Genes! Only the Literate Need Apply

Sir:

You falsely accuse me by saying "you have changed your tune with respect to how mutations occur."

No such thing. Do you even understand what the word "primarily" means? Your seriously inaccurate response indicates you do not. I will provide the definition of that word, mostly for the benefit of other readers, since you seem to be unable to comprehend even the simplest wording:

pri·mar·i·ly (prī-mâr'ə-lē, -měr'-)
adv.

1) Chiefly; mainly: a scholastic program primarily for seniors; a primarily middle-class neighborhood.

I never said there were no other causative factors behind mutations, nor would I ever say that, and I consider your assumption to be wholly unwarranted by the actual contents of my post. Here is what I said:

"The only change possible under Darwinian theory, is by DNA mutations caused PRIMARILY by background radiation in the atmosphere."

Is that not crystal clear? "Primarily" does NOT mean solely or only.

I am simply saying that mutations in ages past, when there was no man-made pollution, no insecticides, no chemicals by the multiplied millions polluting our air, water, and food, were CHIEFLY, MAINLY caused by background radiation. Just because an assertion is made for a primary cause, in no way precludes any number of secondary causes. How much plainer can I make it?

Nowhere did I EVER suggest that mutations are caused solely by background radiation. And you cannot point to any statement saying such.

Comprehension of the above requires only simple logic.

But since you have no real argument, you have to put words in my mouth that I never said, and then respond to what I never said or even implied as if I had said it. That is called a straw man argument. Please try it somewhere else, it won't work here.

Further, you refuse to even attempt to answer how the small (380-450cc) primitive brain of Australopithecus, with no guiding external agent, can morph into a sophisticated human brain weighing 1400cc, with no creative addition of DNA code.

Even more troubling is that you don't even understand what I am asserting. I am saying that adaptions that cause an organism to expand into higher levels of biological hierarchy, of necessity require creative incorporation of new, higher levels of DNA code. There is a quantitative and qualitative difference in a sub-human ape-like brain and an advanced human brain. What accounts for that difference?

In other words, WHERE DOES ALL THAT SOPHISTICATED CODE COME FROM?

That is the burning question. And jumping genes is NOT the answer.

You ask me to find you a reference for such a question, but you again miss the point entirely. Assumptions are made on a daily basis that profound changes in size, shape, or form can be achieved without the purposeful alignment of billions of nucleotides in the DNA. Neither nature nor species provides it, so how does it come about?

The obvious answer is that it does not. And it does not, because Darwin was wrong, and his devotees are wrong. It is really just that simple.

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

Replying to:

John,

Your post is very long, and actually I believe it could have been summed up in about three sentences. For the sake of conciseness, I will make just a couple of counterpoints.

First, you fail to support even a single sentence in your entire post with a reference to the primary literature. For that reason alone, debating you is basically a waste of time. How can I argue with "Nuh-uh, I'm right and you're wrong!"?

What I wrote in my last post was not MY opinion, it was the opinion of the greater scientific community. I directly quoted many peer-reviewed scientific journals. If you don't believe what I wrote, read the article, then e-mail the corresponding authors of the articles. They'll tell you what they meant, then they'll provide the data to back up what they wrote. Go ahead, send them an e-mail right now. Then send the journal editors an e-mail and ask them for the names of the reviewers. Contact them and ask them why they accepted the paper for publication. Finally, get in touch with specialists in that scientific field and ask why they have not written an article refuting what was originally concluded. These are all things you could do tonight. I've listed my references.

Second, you have changed your tune with respect to how mutations occur. Fantastic. Yes I agree, there are many ways that mutations occur. We're moving forward.

The rest of your post really is not worth responding to. You perseverate on this idea of "creative incorporation of new DNA code". Find me a reference that shows how the theory of evolution requires the CREATIVE incorporation of new DNA code.

Mutations CAN be beneficial. High school students know this.

Wow, John. Almost 250 words spent on the definition of the word "primarily". What a fantastic waste of space.

---

There's so many "code words" in here:

>new, "higher levels" of DNA "code"
>SOPHISTICATED CODE
>"purposeful" alignment

All of these are simply projecting an expectation of "intelligence" upon a system that works without any. Take those words out of your argument and you're left with something that's actually readable.

>Further, you refuse to even attempt to answer how the small (380-450cc)
>primitive brain of Australopithecus, with no guiding external agent, can
>morph into a sophisticated human brain weighing 1400cc, with no creative
>addition of DNA code.

John, the "guiding external agent" is easy: the environment.

I'm not sure why you're being as thick-headed as you are about this - high school students can understand this stuff. Mutations in DNA (and we are ALL WELL AWARE of the causes now) cause changes in an organism. Whether they are harmful, neutral, or beneficial depends on the environment, whereby the process of natural selection will allow the beneficial mutations to breed through and create organisms that carry the same mutation.

Given hundreds of thousands of these generations, it would certainly make sense that the mammals that mutated with a larger brain size (and thus perhaps a better capacity to survive) would be able to breed through.

Why is this so difficult for you? This has been explained to you before.

>Neither nature nor species provides it, so how does it come about?
>The obvious answer is that it does not. And it does not, because Darwin
>was wrong, and his devotees are wrong. It is really just that simple.

Sounds like your conclusion is backwards, John. In order to conclude that DNA "can't mutate in a positive fashion", you need to assume that Darwin and his "devotees" are wrong... and it's anything but "obvious". (why, pray tell, IS it "obvious"?)

I'm sorry, but that's simply not a scientific conclusion.

What, exactly, IS preventing from DNA mutating with beneficial results? Why not? Just saying "it doesn't work like that" doesn't cut it. I believe both Brian and I would like some references to some peer-reviewed and published documents that categorically state that DNA mutations cannot be beneficial to an organism is any way.

This is exactly what you are arguing, and it stands directly in the face of modern science as it is understood today.

Show Me Just ONE Study

You remark that it took me 250 words to define the word "primarily."

Yes, it IS amazing.

But that is because Brian is seriously obtuse. Even though I used the word "primarily" as a qualifier, he concluded that because I did not list every known cause of genetic mutation, that I was claiming that background radiation was the single cause. I was not, but simply pointing that out is not enough with Brian. It has to be spelled out, repeatedly.

One can hope that at least that much is clear. And it should be obvious that Darwinian evolutionism is not about the present, but the past, when cellular insults by man-made pollutants and chemicals was not an issue in mutations.

As for your assertion that mutations cause beneficial changes in DNA, where exactly is just ONE study that demonstrates how said mutations creates actual improvements in human intelligence?

Just ONE study.

Rather, the contrary is the norm. Mutations produce aberrations such as microcephaly, an abnormally small head, which is the result of an undersized brain. As for the number of different genes that contribute to proper brain development, a 2002 article in Science News says this:


Bruce Lahn, an HHMI investigator at the University of Chicago, is looking for genes that drove human-brain evolution. He agrees that the newly identified microcephaly genes cry out for further study. Still, Lahn cautions against prematurely crediting the genes for the human brain's impressive cerebral cortex.

"Very little, if anything, is known about the genetic basis of brain evolution. It's a complete blank slate," he says. "It's not too far out to speculate that evolution may have played on these genes to select for a larger brain. The caveat is that there are many such genes. It takes thousands, if not tens of thousands, for the brain to develop properly."


It takes thousands, if not tens of thousands of properly-working genes acting in perfect concert with one another for a brain to develop properly. This is a perfect example of irreducible complexity at work.

You people act like a mutation just happens, a superior brain is produced, and voila, out walks a man. No such thing, except in the comic books. As far as what high school students "know," please. These poor kids are brainwashed from the cradle, and are taught what to think, not how to think.

I can show you numerous articles on how mutations produce brain-impaired people, but I notice in advance that you will not be able to show me ONE article that will buttress your fantastic claims. Just ONE.

You people don't know the difference between imagination and reality.

See:

findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1200/is_162/ai_94774391/print. If this does not work, see:

Sizing up the brain: mutations that produce small brains may reveal how human intelligence evolved, by John Travis.

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

Replying to:

Wow, John. Almost 250 words spent on the definition of the word "primarily". What a fantastic waste of space.

---

There's so many "code words" in here:

>new, "higher levels" of DNA "code"
>SOPHISTICATED CODE
>"purposeful" alignment

All of these are simply projecting an expectation of "intelligence" upon a system that works without any. Take those words out of your argument and you're left with something that's actually readable.

>Further, you refuse to even attempt to answer how the small (380-450cc)
>primitive brain of Australopithecus, with no guiding external agent, can
>morph into a sophisticated human brain weighing 1400cc, with no creative
>addition of DNA code.

John, the "guiding external agent" is easy: the environment.

I'm not sure why you're being as thick-headed as you are about this - high school students can understand this stuff. Mutations in DNA (and we are ALL WELL AWARE of the causes now) cause changes in an organism. Whether they are harmful, neutral, or beneficial depends on the environment, whereby the process of natural selection will allow the beneficial mutations to breed through and create organisms that carry the same mutation.

Given hundreds of thousands of these generations, it would certainly make sense that the mammals that mutated with a larger brain size (and thus perhaps a better capacity to survive) would be able to breed through.

Why is this so difficult for you? This has been explained to you before.

>Neither nature nor species provides it, so how does it come about?
>The obvious answer is that it does not. And it does not, because Darwin
>was wrong, and his devotees are wrong. It is really just that simple.

Sounds like your conclusion is backwards, John. In order to conclude that DNA "can't mutate in a positive fashion", you need to assume that Darwin and his "devotees" are wrong... and it's anything but "obvious". (why, pray tell, IS it "obvious"?)

I'm sorry, but that's simply not a scientific conclusion.

What, exactly, IS preventing from DNA mutating with beneficial results? Why not? Just saying "it doesn't work like that" doesn't cut it. I believe both Brian and I would like some references to some peer-reviewed and published documents that categorically state that DNA mutations cannot be beneficial to an organism is any way.

This is exactly what you are arguing, and it stands directly in the face of modern science as it is understood today.

Why evolution is religion and only in the imagination of the evolutionist

In response to your posting:

"Further, you refuse to even attempt to answer how the small (380-450cc) primitive brain of Australopithecus, with no guiding external agent, can morph into a sophisticated human brain weighing 1400cc, with no creative addition of DNA code."

1. Are you aware of the FACT that Austalopethecus 'afarensis' is an ape, which even evolutionists concede is not a "modern human ancestor"?

“Mandibular ramus morphology on a recently discovered specimen of Australopithecus afarensis closely matches that of gorillas. This finding was unexpected given that chimpanzees are the closest living relatives of humans … The presence of the morphology in both the latter and Au. afarensis and its absence in modern humans cast doubt on the role of Au. afarensis as a modern human ancestor.”
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/0606454104v1
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1176152801536&pagename
=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

Also, since you have such vast knowledge in how mutations and natural selection create novel or more complex characteristics, why don't you help out your fellow evolutionists and provide a likely scenario of the step-by-step process that might create some of the components for hearing. Please be specific as possible. This shoud be easy for you considering your knowledge:

1. The first 3 random mutations creating just ONE mechanically gated hair cell
2. The first 3 random mutations in creating the ‘wiring’ for the electrical signals that need to transmit to the brain
3. The first 3 random mutations that would create 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.)

Note: This is 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


Here are some other similar challenges that none of you were up for:

http://pub17.bravenet.com/forum/1424646898/fetch/746833/
http://pub17.bravenet.com/forum/1424646898/fetch/726396
http://pub17.bravenet.com/forum/1424646898/fetch/730588
http://pub17.bravenet.com/forum/1424646898/fetch/730697

Re: Jumpin' Genes! Only the Literate Need Apply

Note to self: every time John begins a post with "Sir", he's about to lose it.

John, your contradiction within a sentence is what confused me. But as long as we're on the same page now, I'm happy.

To recap: There are a variety of mechanisms by which DNA mutates. These mutations result in random insertions of genetic material, deletions, transpositions and point mutations. Do we all agree on this? Great.

As for your question about the Australopithecus brain vs. the human brain, why don't you find me a primary literature reference on the subject? Just one. Just give me the journal, year and page number. That's it.

Since you find the subject of jumping genes to be absolutely hilarious, here are a couple of references on the subject:
"Evolution of genes and genomes on the Drosophila phylogeny", Nature, 2007, 203.
"Transposable elements and the dynamic somatic genome", Genome Biology, 2007, S5.
Actually, if you want to absolutely die laughing, you can just start sifting through the 21,000 hits that come up when you search for "jumping gene" in PubMed. Seriously, my stomach hurts.

So, that leaves us with, "Where does all that sophisticated code come from?" {no need to yell}
Answer: We both agree (I hope) that DNA is the code that makes us what we are. Furthermore, we both agree that there are a host of mechanisms by which this code can be changed (insertions, deletions, point mutations, transpositions, etc.). The final piece to the puzzle is that, after mutation, an organism will either be better-suited to its environment, or worse-suited. The better-suited live, the others die. This is natural selection.

Jumping Genes (Transposons) Selfish DNA Parasites

Well, well, well. Brian tries to convince us that jumping genes caused favorable mutations within cells, conferring large, superior brains on ape-like ancestors, but it appears that the exact opposite is true:


Evolution of transposons

The evolution of transposons and their effect on genome evolution is currently a dynamic field of study.

Transposons are found in all major branches of life. They may or may not have originated in the last universal common ancestor, or arisen independently multiple times, or perhaps arisen once and then spread to other kingdoms by horizontal gene transfer. While transposons may confer some benefits on their hosts, THEY ARE GENERALLY CONSIDERED TO BE SELFISH DNA PARASITES that live within the genome of cellular organisms. In this way, they are similar to viruses. Viruses and transposons also share features in their genome structure and biochemical abilities, leading to speculation that they share a common ancestor.

Since excessive transposon activity can destroy a genome, many organisms seem to have developed mechanisms to reduce transposition to a manageable level. Bacteria may undergo high rates of gene deletion as part of a mechanism to remove transposons and viruses from their genomes while eukaryotic organisms may have developed the RNA interference (RNAi) mechanism as a way of reducing transposon activity. In the nematode Caenorhabditis elegans, some genes required for RNAi also reduce transposon activity.

Transposons may have been co-opted by the vertebrate immune system as a means of producing antibody diversity. The V(D)J recombination system operates by a mechanism similar to that of transposons.

Evidence exists that transposable elements may act as mutators in bacteria.

-Source, Wiki, under "Transposons." Caps mine.


Hmmm. Generally considered to be selfish DNA parasites, like viruses, and can cause irreparable damage to the genome. Gee, Brian, your vast array of scientific knowledge seems to have collapsed under its own very, very light weight.

Pity, really.

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

Replying to:

Note to self: every time John begins a post with "Sir", he's about to lose it.

John, your contradiction within a sentence is what confused me. But as long as we're on the same page now, I'm happy.

To recap: There are a variety of mechanisms by which DNA mutates. These mutations result in random insertions of genetic material, deletions, transpositions and point mutations. Do we all agree on this? Great.

As for your question about the Australopithecus brain vs. the human brain, why don't you find me a primary literature reference on the subject? Just one. Just give me the journal, year and page number. That's it.

Since you find the subject of jumping genes to be absolutely hilarious, here are a couple of references on the subject:
"Evolution of genes and genomes on the Drosophila phylogeny", Nature, 2007, 203.
"Transposable elements and the dynamic somatic genome", Genome Biology, 2007, S5.
Actually, if you want to absolutely die laughing, you can just start sifting through the 21,000 hits that come up when you search for "jumping gene" in PubMed. Seriously, my stomach hurts.

So, that leaves us with, "Where does all that sophisticated code come from?" {no need to yell}
Answer: We both agree (I hope) that DNA is the code that makes us what we are. Furthermore, we both agree that there are a host of mechanisms by which this code can be changed (insertions, deletions, point mutations, transpositions, etc.). The final piece to the puzzle is that, after mutation, an organism will either be better-suited to its environment, or worse-suited. The better-suited live, the others die. This is natural selection.

Re: Jumping Genes (Transposons) Selfish DNA Parasites

Listen, I'm waiting for a real challenge. Why don't you ask me how an inferior brain like that of John could evolve into a far superior brain, like that of Brian?
Answer: the theory of evolution does not claim that my brain evolved from John's, it simply claims that we have a common ancestor. Hehehe.

Now, you once again have made me very proud, John, I can see that you are learning. Really, this pleases me greatly. Wikipedia, while not truly peer-reviewed per se, is a good start for many of the topics we are discussing.

I just want to make sure we agree on a couple of points. First, transposition of pieces of DNA code occurs in all major branches of life. In other words, pieces of DNA in an organism's genetic code occasionally pick up and leave and replant themselves in a different position in that organism's genome. Are we in agreement on that?

Second point: you say "[transposons] CAN cause irreparable damage to the genome." (my caps) I don't want you to spend another 250 words on the definition of CAN, so I'll just ask, do transposons ALWAYS cause irreparable damage? Or can I assume that by "can", you really do mean that they SOMETIMES cause irreparable damage, and sometimes they don't? When they don't cause irreparable damage, what do they do? Do they EVER do anything good for an organism?

Finally, I'm wondering where exactly I said that "jumping genes caused favorable mutations....conferring large, superior brains..". I just can't seem to find where I wrote that, could you point it out to me? Thanks.

So, you claim you're waiting for a real challenge? Give it a shot!

In regard to your comment:

"Listen, I'm waiting for a real challenge."


We've 'challenged' you over and over again, but I guess you aren't quite up for it.

From http://pub17.bravenet.com/forum/1424646898/fetch/746941/

Since you so clearly understand how mutatations and natural selection drive evolution, please share with us the likely scenario of mutations creating some of the components for hearing. Please be specific as this shouldn't be difficult for you considering your claimed vast knowledge of the process:

1. The first 3 random mutations creating just ONE mechanically gated hair cell
2. The first 3 random mutations in creating the ‘wiring’ for the electrical signals that need to transmit to the brain
3. The first 3 random mutations that would create 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


Here are some other challenges that none of you were up for:

http://pub17.bravenet.com/forum/1424646898/fetch/746833/
http://pub17.bravenet.com/forum/1424646898/fetch/724120
http://pub17.bravenet.com/forum/1424646898/fetch/726396
http://pub17.bravenet.com/forum/1424646898/fetch/730588
http://pub17.bravenet.com/forum/1424646898/fetch/730697

Re: So, you claim you're waiting for a real challenge? Give it a shot!

Wow, your cut and paste skills are so impressive...

Jumping Genes Cause Diseases, Like a Very BAD Visiting Relative

Brian:

You are asking me to explain simple concepts to you that you should have learned in the fifth grade:

can: past singular 1st person COULD.

can: to be able to; have the ability, power, or skill to.

In the case of jumping genes, it appears that not only can they cause irreparable damage to genes, apparently they usually do:



Transposons causing diseases

Transposons are mutagens. They can damage the genome of their host cell in different ways:

A transposon or a retroposon that inserts itself into a functional gene will MOST LIKELY disable that gene.
After a transposon leaves a gene, the resulting gap will PROBABLY NOT be repaired correctly.
Multiple copies of the same sequence, such as Alu sequences can hinder precise chromosomal pairing during mitosis, resulting in unequal crossovers, one of the main reasons for chromosome duplication.
Diseases that are often caused by transposons include hemophilia A and B, severe combined immunodeficiency, porphyria, predisposition to cancer, and Duchenne muscular dystrophy.

Additionally, many transposons contain promoters which drive transcription of their own transposase. These promoters can cause aberrant expression of linked genes, causing disease or mutant phenotypes.

-Wiki, under Transposons (caps mine)


Do I need to explain what "most likely" and "probably not" mean?

Your vaunted jumping genes, which you present as carriers of superior genetic material, and which in your imagination quite blindly insert themselves into gene sequences to turn monkeys into men, as it were, are not turning out to be your white knights of evolution after all. Upon insertion they disable the gene, and when they leave like an unwanted house guest, they leave a damaged gene that probably can't be repaired properly.

Sounds like the genetic equivalent of the visiting relative from hell to me.

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

Replying to:

Listen, I'm waiting for a real challenge. Why don't you ask me how an inferior brain like that of John could evolve into a far superior brain, like that of Brian?
Answer: the theory of evolution does not claim that my brain evolved from John's, it simply claims that we have a common ancestor. Hehehe.

Now, you once again have made me very proud, John, I can see that you are learning. Really, this pleases me greatly. Wikipedia, while not truly peer-reviewed per se, is a good start for many of the topics we are discussing.

I just want to make sure we agree on a couple of points. First, transposition of pieces of DNA code occurs in all major branches of life. In other words, pieces of DNA in an organism's genetic code occasionally pick up and leave and replant themselves in a different position in that organism's genome. Are we in agreement on that?

Second point: you say "[transposons] CAN cause irreparable damage to the genome." (my caps) I don't want you to spend another 250 words on the definition of CAN, so I'll just ask, do transposons ALWAYS cause irreparable damage? Or can I assume that by "can", you really do mean that they SOMETIMES cause irreparable damage, and sometimes they don't? When they don't cause irreparable damage, what do they do? Do they EVER do anything good for an organism?

Finally, I'm wondering where exactly I said that "jumping genes caused favorable mutations....conferring large, superior brains..". I just can't seem to find where I wrote that, could you point it out to me? Thanks.

Re: Jumping Genes Cause Diseases, Like a Very BAD Visiting Relative

John, the only people who suggest that monkeys turn into men are you and Julie.

You still didn't answer my question, though. You've told me that transposons wreak havoc MOST of the time, but I'm not interested in what happens MOST of the time, I want to know what happens the rest of the time. So...what happens the rest of the time?

Try Reading More Carefully

Brian:

You are being tedious. Did you happen to notice that I used the phrase "as it were?" The equivalent would be the alliterative "so to speak."

Everyone knows that what we are referring to are the supposed ancestors to apes and humans, and that apes don't have tails while monkeys do.

Please be observant enough to discern between the figurative and the literal.

As to your question about if it is possible for transposons, (and I will add in ten thousand lifetimes), to insert themselves into a DNA sequence and come out with an actual intelligent, working addition to that sequence, I find that proposition to be ridiculous. First, most of the time the gene is usually disabled by the assault, and repair is usually not possible. But even if it were somehow successful, it would take thousands if not tens of thousands of perfect new genes all working in harmony to make a more advanced brain, and that is simply impossible without some kind of intelligent intervention, which Darwinism flatly denies.

"The caveat [in human brain evolution] is that there are many such genes. It takes thousands, if not tens of thousands, for the brain to develop properly."

-Bruce Lahn, University of Chicago.

Just because something COULD happen in ten thousand lifetimes, does not mean that it DID. And that would be for just ONE sequence.

You should be ashamed as an intelligent adult to waste good time on such nonsense. It is gibberish.

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

Replying to:

John, the only people who suggest that monkeys turn into men are you and Julie.

You still didn't answer my question, though. You've told me that transposons wreak havoc MOST of the time, but I'm not interested in what happens MOST of the time, I want to know what happens the rest of the time. So...what happens the rest of the time?

Try Reading More Carefully

Brian:

Monkeys to men is a metaphor. Did you notice I used the phrase "as it were?" Another equivalent in English is "so to speak." Everyone knows what is being spoken of are supposed common ancestors to apes and humans, and everyone knows that monkeys have tails and apes don't.

You are being tedious.

Please be observant enough to discern the figurative from the literal.

As to your question about jumping genes possibly being beneficial, I find what you are suggesting to be preposterous. First, most genomes are disabled and cannot be repaired after being assaulted by your jumping genes, but even so, blindly inserting gene sequences in between DNA code and saying that such a willy-nilly process will result in an intelligent, productive addition to that code, is like trying to repair a damaged and unknown computer code by randomly typing in letters and numbers. It would take a million years at least, just to get one complicated sequence exactly right. If there are tens of thousand of perfect genes working together that are required for a human brain to develop properly, that would require that many new sequences to be developed randomly.

I repeat what Bruce Lahn from the University of Chicago said about the genetic basis of brain evolution:

"The caveat is that there are many such genes. It takes thousands, if not tens of thousands, for the brain to develop."

I have never heard such absurd nonsense in all my life. Just because something COULD happen in a hundred thousand lifetimes, is no proof that it did happen.

You should be ashamed as an intelligent adult to engage in such silliness. What a waste of time.

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

Replying to:

John, the only people who suggest that monkeys turn into men are you and Julie.

You still didn't answer my question, though. You've told me that transposons wreak havoc MOST of the time, but I'm not interested in what happens MOST of the time, I want to know what happens the rest of the time. So...what happens the rest of the time?

Re: Try Reading More Carefully

"Everyone knows", ey? Why don't you ask your congregation on their way out this weekend if evolution means that monkeys turn into men. Let us know what the responses are.

Nevertheless, finally we are getting to the heart of the matter. We've established now that there are a variety of mechanisms for mutation, one of which is transposition. We both agree on this. And I've asked you now what happens when transposition (or any type of mutation, for that matter) is not detrimental, and you claim in this last post, that mutation is NEVER beneficial. Am I interpreting your post correctly?

Again, is transposition (i.e. the action of a jumping gene) EVER beneficial? It's a yes or no question.

Finally, your analogy to computer code is wrong, but let's hold off on that discussion for just a little while.

Oh and thanks for the compliment. "Intelligent", oh stop, I'm blushing.

"Monkeys make men." -- Do You Know Who Said That?

Brian:

You act as if you have some super-secret, obscure, esoteric knowledge that no one else has. Yes, only you few in the inner, inner circle understand such deep mysteries. Please. This is more sad, delusional nonsense, typical of self-flattering unfortunates caught up in a cult. And indeed, Darwinism IS a self-worshipping cult.

But as to your dismissiveness of the monkey reference, the quote "Monkeys make men" is especially relevant. Can you guess who said it?


Men & Apes
An orangutan called Jenny was the first ape Darwin ever saw—and one of the first ever to appear in the London Zoo. Zookeepers often enhanced the humanlike qualities of these popular exhibits by dressing the animals in children's clothes and teaching them human habits. But Darwin would have seen a resemblance between Jenny and his own offspring without the costuming. When Jenny was angry at her keeper, he wrote, the animal "threw itself down on its back & kicked & cryed like a naughty child.—Do monkeys cry?-they whine like children."

Almost as soon as he started thinking about evolution, Darwin understood this: what applied to plants and animals also applied to people. We had evolved, too. "It is absurd to talk of one animal being higher than another," he wrote in one notebook; in another, "Monkeys make men." At a time when most of his fellow citizens took for granted that we had been created in the image of the divine, such thinking was outrageous—the most radical of Darwin's many radical ideas.

Brothers Under the Skin

[Huxley drawing of ape skeletons compared to man did not reproduce HERE. They commonly referred to apes and monkeys as "Brothers Under the Skin."]

Huxley progression from Man's Place in Nature
© AMNH Library

Biologist and teacher Thomas Huxley was known as "Darwin's bulldog." The illustration above is from his book on human evolution, published eight years before Darwin's Descent of Man. A gifted and provocative speaker, Huxley often lectured on evolution with his arm draped affectionately over a gorilla skeleton.

-from www.aucklandmuseum.com


Darwin himself said that men come from monkeys, and he said it long, long before I pointed it out.

Brian, for a man who imagines himself to be so intellectually superior, you sure don't know very much about your own subject, now do you?

I repeat, no one is mystified about the subject under discussion, no one that is except you, apparently.

And I would ask you, IS transposition EVER beneficial, and if so, where? And even if you can demonstrate such a rare occurrence, how is that relevant? The odds of bits of stray DNA code adding creative information to a gene sequence that determines brain size and complexity have to be beyond astronomical. This is especially so, in view of the fact that such an amazing thing would have to happen thousands if not tens of thousands of times.

This is why REAL scientists who actually practice science by following the evidence, rather than fake scientists who "think" by consensus, are becoming very sceptical about Darwinism.

For you to pursue such a tenuous connection with gene jumping to "prove" evolution is to skip the sublime and dive headlong into the absurd.

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

Replying to:

"Everyone knows", ey? Why don't you ask your congregation on their way out this weekend if evolution means that monkeys turn into men. Let us know what the responses are.

Nevertheless, finally we are getting to the heart of the matter. We've established now that there are a variety of mechanisms for mutation, one of which is transposition. We both agree on this. And I've asked you now what happens when transposition (or any type of mutation, for that matter) is not detrimental, and you claim in this last post, that mutation is NEVER beneficial. Am I interpreting your post correctly?

Again, is transposition (i.e. the action of a jumping gene) EVER beneficial? It's a yes or no question.

Finally, your analogy to computer code is wrong, but let's hold off on that discussion for just a little while.

Oh and thanks for the compliment. "Intelligent", oh stop, I'm blushing.

Re: "Monkeys make men." -- Do You Know Who Said That?

John,
There are plenty of people who possess the knowledge that I possess. There are plenty who know more about this subject than I do. You happen to not fit into either one of those groups.

If Huxley wrote that monkeys (modern monkeys, as we know them) turn into men, he was wrong. And if Darwin said that monkeys turn into men, he was wrong. But my guess is they didn't say quite that (in context). My guess is they both wrote that monkeys and men are descendants of a common ancestor, an ape-like creature. This is a subtle, but extremely important distinction. However your assertion that monkeys turn into men, and Julie's challenges to "evolve" a mouse into a bat, and the entire message that is presented graphically on the billboard show that you do not understand this fundamental point.

Re: transposons
You maintained for a long time that all DNA mutations create nonfunctional, "corrupted" DNA. You have since recanted on this, admitting that mutations in fact USUALLY are detrimental, but not always.

More recently you suggested that no mechanism exists for adding DNA code to an existing genome. ("I repeat, alteration of the DNA code, whether by radiation, chemical, diet or other environmenmtal factors, CANNOT CREATIVELY ADD CODE" - your caps.) Now you appear to be recanting on that too, since you acknowledge the existence of transposons, which are in fact pieces of DNA code that add to an existing genome.

So John, to answer your question, "IS transposition EVER beneficial?" The answer is yes.
"we have identified an adaptive transposable element insertion, which truncates a gene and apparently generates a functional protein in the process. The insertion of this transposable element confers increased resistance to an organophosphate pesticide and has spread in D. melanogaster recently."
Aminetzach et. al., Science, 2005 (309) 764.
Look it up yourself.

Your Invisible Friend

Brian:

You are debating someone, but it is not me. Your answers and comments are non-responsive to mine. You make statements about things that you say I said, but in fact I never said. You are even putting words in Julie's mouth that she never wrote.

You seem to have an invisible friend you are debating, and you remind me of the character in the movie "Harvey." He had an invisible friend too, and when he was asked by a shrink to explain himself, he said:

"Well, Doc, I've been wrestling with reality for many years, and I'm glad to say, I won!"

Brian, you may have won in your struggle against reality, but please don't expect the rest of us to go along with your departure from the real world.

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

Replying to:

John,
There are plenty of people who possess the knowledge that I possess. There are plenty who know more about this subject than I do. You happen to not fit into either one of those groups.

If Huxley wrote that monkeys (modern monkeys, as we know them) turn into men, he was wrong. And if Darwin said that monkeys turn into men, he was wrong. But my guess is they didn't say quite that (in context). My guess is they both wrote that monkeys and men are descendants of a common ancestor, an ape-like creature. This is a subtle, but extremely important distinction. However your assertion that monkeys turn into men, and Julie's challenges to "evolve" a mouse into a bat, and the entire message that is presented graphically on the billboard show that you do not understand this fundamental point.

Re: transposons
You maintained for a long time that all DNA mutations create nonfunctional, "corrupted" DNA. You have since recanted on this, admitting that mutations in fact USUALLY are detrimental, but not always.

More recently you suggested that no mechanism exists for adding DNA code to an existing genome. ("I repeat, alteration of the DNA code, whether by radiation, chemical, diet or other environmenmtal factors, CANNOT CREATIVELY ADD CODE" - your caps.) Now you appear to be recanting on that too, since you acknowledge the existence of transposons, which are in fact pieces of DNA code that add to an existing genome.

So John, to answer your question, "IS transposition EVER beneficial?" The answer is yes.
"we have identified an adaptive transposable element insertion, which truncates a gene and apparently generates a functional protein in the process. The insertion of this transposable element confers increased resistance to an organophosphate pesticide and has spread in D. melanogaster recently."
Aminetzach et. al., Science, 2005 (309) 764.
Look it up yourself.

Warning to John & Brian

Please clean up your acts and keep focused on debating the issue.

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

Replying to:

Brian:

You are debating someone, but it is not me. Your answers and comments are non-responsive to mine. You make statements about things that you say I said, but in fact I never said. You are even putting words in Julie's mouth that she never wrote.

You seem to have an invisible friend you are debating, and you remind me of the character in the movie "Harvey." He had an invisible friend too, and when he was asked by a shrink to explain himself, he said:

"Well, Doc, I've been wrestling with reality for many years, and I'm glad to say, I won!"

Brian, you may have won in your struggle against reality, but please don't expect the rest of us to go along with your departure from the real world.

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

Replying to:

John,
There are plenty of people who possess the knowledge that I possess. There are plenty who know more about this subject than I do. You happen to not fit into either one of those groups.

If Huxley wrote that monkeys (modern monkeys, as we know them) turn into men, he was wrong. And if Darwin said that monkeys turn into men, he was wrong. But my guess is they didn't say quite that (in context). My guess is they both wrote that monkeys and men are descendants of a common ancestor, an ape-like creature. This is a subtle, but extremely important distinction. However your assertion that monkeys turn into men, and Julie's challenges to "evolve" a mouse into a bat, and the entire message that is presented graphically on the billboard show that you do not understand this fundamental point.

Re: transposons
You maintained for a long time that all DNA mutations create nonfunctional, "corrupted" DNA. You have since recanted on this, admitting that mutations in fact USUALLY are detrimental, but not always.

More recently you suggested that no mechanism exists for adding DNA code to an existing genome. ("I repeat, alteration of the DNA code, whether by radiation, chemical, diet or other environmenmtal factors, CANNOT CREATIVELY ADD CODE" - your caps.) Now you appear to be recanting on that too, since you acknowledge the existence of transposons, which are in fact pieces of DNA code that add to an existing genome.

So John, to answer your question, "IS transposition EVER beneficial?" The answer is yes.
"we have identified an adaptive transposable element insertion, which truncates a gene and apparently generates a functional protein in the process. The insertion of this transposable element confers increased resistance to an organophosphate pesticide and has spread in D. melanogaster recently."
Aminetzach et. al., Science, 2005 (309) 764.
Look it up yourself.

Your Poorly-Presented Argument

Brian:

What you are trying to say, in your rather garbled fashion, is that transposons are mutagens which can alter genetic structure by insertion. Yes, this is true. I NEVER disputed that. I NEVER said that radiation was the ONLY means of mutation. I merely said, in a world without widespread man-made chemical and food pollution, background radiation was the PRIMARY means of mutation. Here are my exact words:

"The only change possible under Darwinian theory, is by DNA mutations caused PRIMARILY by background radiation in the atmosphere."

-John, "Let's See How Evolution Works - How do Constructive Adaptations Occur?" Sep 21, 07 - 1:14 PM

You are choosing to ignore the word "primarily," and are acting as if I did not say it, thereby changing what I actually said. Further, even though transposons CAN alter DNA in a positive manner, they usually either render the gene inoperative, or they cause human genetic disease, hardly a boon to evolution. Possible, yes, but NOT a PRIMARY CAUSE of positive mutations by any means.

Moreover, the thrust of my original statement had to do with the lack of intelligent direction in DNA alteration that Darwinist strictly adhere to. That is what I meant by DNA code not being CREATIVELY produced. Read what I said in context with the original quote I used. Your subsequent comments reveal that the gist of what I actually said sailed right over your head.

Here is what transposons are capable of:


Transposons and Mutations

Transposons are mutagens. They can cause mutations in several ways:

If a transposon inserts itself into a functional gene, it will probably damage it. Insertion into exons, introns, and even into DNA flanking the genes (which may contain promoters and enhancers) can destroy or alter the gene's activity. The insertion of a retrotransposon in the DNA flanking a gene for pigment synthesis is thought to have produced white grapes from a black-skinned ancestor. Later, the loss of that retrotransposon produced the red-skinned grape varieties cultivated today.

Faulty repair of the gap left at the old site (in cut and paste transposition) can lead to mutation there.
The presence of a string of identical repeated sequences presents a problem for precise pairing during meiosis. How is the third, say, of a string of five Alu sequences on the "invading strand" of one chromatid going to ensure that it pairs with the third sequence in the other strand? If it accidentally pairs with one of the other Alu sequences, the result will be an unequal crossover — one of the commonest causes of duplications. Link to an example of a mutation caused by unequal crossing over.

SINEs (mostly Alu sequences) and LINEs cause ONLY A SMALL PERCENTAGE of human mutations. (There may even be a mechanism by which they avoid inserting themselves into functional genes.) However, they have been found to be the cause of the mutations responsible for some cases of HUMAN GENETIC DISEASES, including:
Hemophilia A (Factor VIII gene) and Hemophilia B [Factor IX gene]
X-linked severe combined immunodeficiency (SCID) [gene for part of the IL-2 receptor]
porphyria predisposition to colon polyps and cancer [APC gene] Duchenne muscular dystrophy [dystrophin gene]

What good are transposons?
We don't know.

They have been called "junk" DNA and "selfish" DNA.
"selfish" because their only function seems to make more copies of themselves and "junk" because there is no obvious benefit to their host.

Because of the sequence similarities of all the LINEs and SINEs, they also make up a large portion of the "repetitive DNA" of the cell.

-caps mine

I will give the reference for the above and deal with more of your distortions next.

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

Replying to:

Please clean up your acts and keep focused on debating the issue.

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

Replying to:

Brian:

You are debating someone, but it is not me. Your answers and comments are non-responsive to mine. You make statements about things that you say I said, but in fact I never said. You are even putting words in Julie's mouth that she never wrote.

You seem to have an invisible friend you are debating, and you remind me of the character in the movie "Harvey." He had an invisible friend too, and when he was asked by a shrink to explain himself, he said:

"Well, Doc, I've been wrestling with reality for many years, and I'm glad to say, I won!"

Brian, you may have won in your struggle against reality, but please don't expect the rest of us to go along with your departure from the real world.

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

Replying to:

John,
There are plenty of people who possess the knowledge that I possess. There are plenty who know more about this subject than I do. You happen to not fit into either one of those groups.

If Huxley wrote that monkeys (modern monkeys, as we know them) turn into men, he was wrong. And if Darwin said that monkeys turn into men, he was wrong. But my guess is they didn't say quite that (in context). My guess is they both wrote that monkeys and men are descendants of a common ancestor, an ape-like creature. This is a subtle, but extremely important distinction. However your assertion that monkeys turn into men, and Julie's challenges to "evolve" a mouse into a bat, and the entire message that is presented graphically on the billboard show that you do not understand this fundamental point.

Re: transposons
You maintained for a long time that all DNA mutations create nonfunctional, "corrupted" DNA. You have since recanted on this, admitting that mutations in fact USUALLY are detrimental, but not always.

More recently you suggested that no mechanism exists for adding DNA code to an existing genome. ("I repeat, alteration of the DNA code, whether by radiation, chemical, diet or other environmenmtal factors, CANNOT CREATIVELY ADD CODE" - your caps.) Now you appear to be recanting on that too, since you acknowledge the existence of transposons, which are in fact pieces of DNA code that add to an existing genome.

So John, to answer your question, "IS transposition EVER beneficial?" The answer is yes.
"we have identified an adaptive transposable element insertion, which truncates a gene and apparently generates a functional protein in the process. The insertion of this transposable element confers increased resistance to an organophosphate pesticide and has spread in D. melanogaster recently."
Aminetzach et. al., Science, 2005 (309) 764.
Look it up yourself.

Re: Your Poorly-Presented Argument

discussion continued under "To John re: Your Poorly-Presented Argument"

Where is your evidence?

In regard to your comment:

"Second, you have changed your tune with respect to how mutations occur. Fantastic. Yes I agree, there are many ways that mutations occur. We're moving forward."

It's interesting that your faith in evolution precludes the fact that you don't know how it actually occurs. When given the chance to reflect your vast knowledge of it, this is all you could offer:

"The answers to your questions are unknown."
See http://pub17.bravenet.com/forum/1424646898/fetch/746945/

Do you believe that theories MUST be backed up with empirical evidence in order for them to be considered fact or is it OK to toss out claims and promote them as fact with absolutely no empirical evidence behind them?

In regard to your comment:
"I directly quoted many peer-reviewed scientific journals. If you don't believe what I wrote, read the article, then e-mail the corresponding authors of the articles. They'll tell you what they meant, then they'll provide the data to back up what they wrote."

Yes, they also make up wild claims with absolutely no empiral evidence substaintiating them:

The following is from a peer-reviewed journal published by the Public Library of Science:

“Why Most Published Research Findings Are False”

http://medicine.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1371%2Fjournal.pmed.0020124

Summary: “There is increasing concern that most current published research findings are false … Simulations show that for most study designs and settings, it is more likely for a research claim to be false than true. Moreover, for many current scientific fields, claimed research findings may often be simply accurate measures of the prevailing bias.”
Corollary 5: The greater the financial and other interests and prejudices in a scientific field, the less likely the research findings are to be true.
“Conflicts of interest and prejudice may increase bias, … Prejudice may not necessarily have financial roots. Scientists in a given field may be prejudiced purely because of their belief in a scientific theory or commitment to their own findings.”
Corollary 6: The hotter a scientific field (with more scientific teams involved), the less likely the research findings are to be true.
“This seemingly paradoxical corollary follows because, as stated above, the PPV of isolated findings decreases when many teams of investigators are involved in the same field. This may explain why we occasionally see major excitement followed rapidly by severe disappointments in fields that draw wide attention. With many teams working on the same field and with massive experimental data being produced, timing is of the essence in beating competition. Thus, each team may prioritize on pursuing and disseminating its most impressive “positive” results. “Negative” results may become attractive for dissemination only if some other team has found a “positive” association on the same question. In that case, it may be attractive to refute a claim made in some prestigious journal. The term Proteus phenomenon has been coined to describe this phenomenon of rapidly alternating extreme research claims and extremely opposite refutations. Empirical evidence suggests that this sequence of extreme opposites is very common in molecular genetics.”

Re: Where is your evidence?

Hi Julie,

Yes, I have unselfishly shared a wealth of my scientific knowledge with you and others on this board, even though it's a thankless job. Sometimes I feel a bit under appreciated, but it's my choice.

I'm curious why you would suggest that I don't know how evolution occurs. I'm not going to bother rehashing things that I've already written, because any reader who has gotten this far knows the score. But I'll leave you to reflect on what your motive for dishonesty is.

Finally, as I wrote in a separate post re: the PLoS article, remember that the scope of their findings is very narrow, that the title of the article is absurd, and that their methodology is suspect. Still, it is interesting that you choose to believe this particular article, but none of the others in scientific journals.

One more chance

Since we've given you multiple opportunities to share with everyone exactly how evolution works (as in the name of this forum), we'll assume you can't get past the theorical into application.

You might review the thread above named 'Deleted Postings'
http://pub17.bravenet.com/forum/1424646898/fetch/730388/

"While we realize that most postings are constructive, the determination of which ones are deleted is purely based on our admitted biased opinion. However, we do attempt to retain postings that are constructive and to the point, but we also 'clean up the board' and delete unconstructive rantings and postings that do nothing but pontificate (which include some of mine) and include nothing but opinions without supporting scientific references.

Supporting articles, research papers are needed to substantiate your argument. Blogs and your personal opinion do NOT qualify as 'evidence.'

If you look at our previous forum @ http://www.123forum.com/777 you can see that we were more than accommodating by retaining many postings that included personal slams and juvenile conjecture. We're not that accommodating anymore.

Most evolutionists and creationists desire a robust and respective debate and that is our goal, however imperfect our attempts may be."



If you would like to offer empirical evidence for the theory of evolution, go ahead. Otherwise, I will delete your postings as I did before as they are a waste of time for those of us who desire a constructive debate instead of a philosophical argument.

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

Replying to:

Hi Julie,

Yes, I have unselfishly shared a wealth of my scientific knowledge with you and others on this board, even though it's a thankless job. Sometimes I feel a bit under appreciated, but it's my choice.

I'm curious why you would suggest that I don't know how evolution occurs. I'm not going to bother rehashing things that I've already written, because any reader who has gotten this far knows the score. But I'll leave you to reflect on what your motive for dishonesty is.

Finally, as I wrote in a separate post re: the PLoS article, remember that the scope of their findings is very narrow, that the title of the article is absurd, and that their methodology is suspect. Still, it is interesting that you choose to believe this particular article, but none of the others in scientific journals.