tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post1081849472255816427..comments2024-03-27T14:50:47.345-04:00Comments on <center>Sandwalk</center>: An Intelligent Design Creationist explains why chimpanzees and humans are so similarLarry Moranhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.comBlogger58125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-13534343683101053452016-08-03T07:21:03.709-04:002016-08-03T07:21:03.709-04:00Mark: I know I am more than a year later, but I th...Mark: I know I am more than a year later, but I thought it'd be important to add this:<br /><br />http://www.rationalskepticism.org/creationism/casey-luskin-lies-about-ken-miller-on-chromosome-2-t50094.html<br /><br />Ken Miller seems to have admitted nothing.Dennishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00500578909460786378noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-68786011417901165362015-10-25T18:50:16.133-04:002015-10-25T18:50:16.133-04:00*Then we have Larry Moran saying it is irrelevant....<br />*Then we have Larry Moran saying it is irrelevant. So who is correct? And Tompkins states that he has it in writing - in an email, that Ken Miller admitted he was wrong. <br />Here is an excerpt from EvolutionNews.org.<br />"When challenged privately, Dr. Miller conceded that the fusion point was only far away from the gene when one excludes results from a genomic database called "refseq." When refseq is included, a longer gene transcript is found -- produced by a section of DNA that includes the fusion site.<br />Miller admitted the mistake to Tomkins: "In this transcript, the fusion site is in the middle of the first [gene] exon as you note."*<br /><br />Here are 2 emails from Ken Miller (one sent to me) in which he basically says Tomkins is a fucking liar,<br /><br />Here's the email he sent to me: [I have no idea what Luskin wrote, so I don't know whether it was a misquote, a distortion, or a falsehood. I'd leave that to you to judge. However, when I was quoted in a Chris Mooney piece about chromosome 2, Tomkins wrote me out of the blue stating I was wrong about the DDX11L2 gene. He claimed it was a highly transcribed gene that spanned the alleged fusion site, and therefore the fusion hypothesis was falsified.]<br /><br /> [I wrote back explaining that Tomkins' claim was nonsense. The available genome databases actually show that DDX11L2 (which is a pseudogene!) is off to one side of the fusion site. Now, there is a single entry in one of the databases reporting a transcript of that pseudogene that does indeed span the fusion site. All that shows is that sometimes RNA polymerase does not stop at the actual end of this pseudogene, producing a longer RNA transcript. This is a common observation for many genes and pseudogenes where variable length transcripts are reported. But what Tomkins ignored (and I pointed out to him) was that this pseudogene was part of a family of related DDX11 pseudogenes found in many places on the human genome. And, with the exception of DDX11L2, guess where all of them are located? Right next to telomeres. All of them!]<br /><br /> [So, the presence of this pseudogene on chromosome 2 actually confirms that the alleged fusion site is genuine, since it contains an additional marker indicating that it once was a telomere. And there's one more thing. Right next to every member of the DDX11 family is another gene, transcribed in the opposite direction, abbreviated "WILD." That is also true of the chromosome 2 site, further confirming the sequences at that region as the remnants of a true telomere, which is exactly what one would expect for the fusion event.]<br /><br /> [So, if Luskin actually claimed I had "admitted" that Tomkins was right about the fusion site, then his claim was the exact opposite of what I wrote to Tomkins, and the exact opposite of the genetic facts.]<br /><br /> [If this were the case, it would be nothing new for Luskin. During the Kitzmiller v. Dover trial in 2005, every time there was a recess Luskin would stand in the lobby of the courtroom loudly proclaiming to journalists how well that day's events were going for "intelligent design." He did this day after day. And yet, we all know that the trial proved to be a disaster for the ID movement, despite his best efforts to spin it otherwise.]<br /><br /> [Apparently, the Luskin spin machine is still in gear.]<br /><br /> [Sincerely,]<br /><br /> [Ken]<br /><br />Here is another email Ken sent to someone named itsdemtitans and you can read that here: http://www.rationalskepticism.org/creationism/casey-luskin-lies-about-ken-miller-on-chromosome-2-t50094.html<br /><br />*Mooney apparently wanted to give the impression that the "fusion site" is useless junk DNA, produced by random evolutionary mutations. The evidence suggests otherwise-- it's an important, functional gene.*<br /><br />Wrong as I explained above, the evidence suggests it's a sub-telomeric pseudogene. If you put your money on Tomkins, I hope you didn't bet too much.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03007131224174275956noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-16343944236226917852015-10-25T18:31:51.442-04:002015-10-25T18:31:51.442-04:00Hello Kristen,
*Concerning the fused chromosome: ...Hello Kristen,<br /><br />*Concerning the fused chromosome: Well so far we have J Tompkins stating and writing in an article that the fusion site is in the middle of a functioning gene and we have Ken Miller stating that this is not true.*<br /><br />It's not, the gene in question, DDX11L2 is a sub-telomeric pseudo gene, and coincidentally every DDX gene not on sex chromosome is sub-telomeric, I made a list: <br /><br />DDX11L1: 1p36.33, sub-telomeric<br />DDX11L3: 3q29, sub-telomeric<br />DDX11L4: 6p25.3, sub-telomeric<br />DDX11L5: 9p24.3, sub-telomeric<br />DDX11L6: 9q34.3, sub-telomeric<br />DDX11L7: 11p15.5, sub-telomeric<br />DDX11L8: 12p13.33, sub-telomeric<br />DDX11L9: 15q26.3, sub-telomeric<br />DDX11L10: 16p33.3, sub-telomeric<br />DDX11L11:17p13.3, sub-telomeric<br />DDX11L12: 19p13.3, sub-telomeric<br />DDX11L13: 20p13, sub-telomeric<br />DDX11L14: 20q13.3, sub-telomeric<br />DDX11L17: 2q37.3, sub-telomeric<br /><br />If anything the DDX11L2 gene doesn't negate fusion but affirms it.<br /><br />*However, Dr. Tompkins said that a particular data set was omitted in Miller's analysis and when it was included, Miller admitted that Tompkins was right.*<br /><br />This is false but I'll get to that in a minute.<br /><br /> *Then we have Larry Moran saying it is irrelevant. So who is correct? And Tompkins states that he has it in writing - in an email, that Ken Miller admitted he was wrong. <br />Here is an excerpt from EvolutionNews.org.<br />"When challenged privately, Dr. Miller conceded that the fusion point was only far away from the gene when one excludes results from a genomic database called "refseq." When refseq is included, a longer gene transcript is found -- produced by a section of DNA that includes the fusion site.<br />Miller admitted the mistake to Tomkins: "In this transcript, the fusion site is in the middle of the first [gene] exon as you note."*<br /><br />This is utterly false not only can you email, Miller yourself but you can go to rationalskepticism.com and see an email from Miller in which he says he never said Tomkins was right. I'll post an email he sent to me asking about this.<br /><br />*Mooney apparently wanted to give the impression that the "fusion site" is useless junk DNA, produced by random evolutionary mutations. The evidence suggests otherwise -- it's an important, functional gene.*<br /><br />Also wrong, the low levels of transcript suggest DDX11L2 is a pseudo gene. That and it has no known function.<br /><br />*My money is on Tompkins. :)*<br /><br />Hope you didn't bet too muchAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03007131224174275956noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-35092335322496929662015-08-25T22:37:57.125-04:002015-08-25T22:37:57.125-04:00Concerning the fused chromosome: Well so far we ha...Concerning the fused chromosome: Well so far we have J Tompkins stating and writing in an article that the fusion site is in the middle of a functioning gene and we have Ken Miller stating that this is not true. However, Dr. Tompkins said that a particular data set was omitted in Miller's analysis and when it was included, Miller admitted that Tompkins was right. Then we have Larry Moran saying it is irrelevant. So who is correct? And Tompkins states that he has it in writing - in an email, that Ken Miller admitted he was wrong. <br />Here is an excerpt from EvolutionNews.org.<br />"When challenged privately, Dr. Miller conceded that the fusion point was only far away from the gene when one excludes results from a genomic database called "refseq." When refseq is included, a longer gene transcript is found -- produced by a section of DNA that includes the fusion site.<br />Miller admitted the mistake to Tomkins: "In this transcript, the fusion site is in the middle of the first [gene] exon as you note." <br /><br />Mooney apparently wanted to give the impression that the "fusion site" is useless junk DNA, produced by random evolutionary mutations. The evidence suggests otherwise -- it's an important, functional gene.<br />http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/08/youre_welcome_d089381.html<br />My money is on Tompkins. :) Maybe Professor Moran will comment further? Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07905058811123225422noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-87930899767698040282015-02-26T23:51:35.868-05:002015-02-26T23:51:35.868-05:00You can watch the interview here that gives all th...You can watch the interview here that gives all the details,<br />https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jZoto0nyHho<br /><br />This link is where Dr. Miller said Dr. Tomkins was wrong.<br />http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/01/bill-nye-creationism-evolution<br /> <br />This link points out that later after corresponding with Dr, Tomkins, Dr. Miller admitted he was wrong.<br />http://www.theblaze.com/contributions/defenders-of-the-evolutionary-consensus-could-benefit-from-more-fact-checking-2/Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17537389677643697316noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-89601443329778633442015-02-26T09:38:17.838-05:002015-02-26T09:38:17.838-05:00First question: is it supposed to be an intron (pe...First question: is it supposed to be an intron (per Diogenes citing Tomkins) or an exon (per Mark citing ENV citing, apparently, Miller)? Second question: what are the primary sources here? Where did Miller make the claim and where did he retract the claim?John Harshmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06705501480675917237noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-30768699989515626062015-02-26T08:13:11.541-05:002015-02-26T08:13:11.541-05:00If you are correct then I'm sure Diogenes will...If you are correct then I'm sure Diogenes will apologize for insulting me. If you are wrong then you can expect a rant. Larry Moranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-71970941381799665772015-02-26T04:32:14.365-05:002015-02-26T04:32:14.365-05:00Dr. Kenneth Miller admitted he was wrong about th...Dr. Kenneth Miller admitted he was wrong about the alleged Human Chromosome #2 "end-to-end Telomere fusion".<br />See link: http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/08/youre_welcome_d089381.html<br />Quote from this site: Dr. Kenneth Miller admitted the mistake to Tomkins: “in this transcript, the fusion site ("end-to-end Telomere fusion") is in the middle of the first [gene] exon as you note.” (exons contain part of the code for RNA)Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17537389677643697316noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-63857020215603231172014-03-27T18:04:29.906-04:002014-03-27T18:04:29.906-04:00Go back to school and don't stink the world wi...Go back to school and don't stink the world with bacalaha....Newbiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12112647387206975751noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-7020219754595021832014-03-25T10:24:46.430-04:002014-03-25T10:24:46.430-04:00Robert,
YES I'M SURE. That you haven't se...Robert,<br /><br />YES I'M SURE. That you haven't seen any does not surprise me, as you look at all evidence with eyes tight shut. AllanMillerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05955231828424156641noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-35448625455711038962014-03-25T07:49:46.373-04:002014-03-25T07:49:46.373-04:00IMHO, Torley gave up in the first few paragraphs o...IMHO, Torley gave up in the first few paragraphs of his piece. The primary evidence for the fact of evolution is concordance of similarities, i.e., we see a hierarchical structuring of similarities and differences. This was not anticipated under the special creation theory. Under special creation, we should see one giant star phylogeny. When this was not observed, creationists fell back on the idea that different species were created from a smaller number of "types." The expectation from this modified idea is that there will be, not a single star phylogeny, but 1 star phylogeny for each type. <br /><br />Torley simply retro-fits creationism to match phylogeny, proposing a creator that creates types and subtypes and further subtypes, for the sake of efficiency. Otherwise, he explains, the creator would have to give the same mutations to many different lineages. But this just begs the question-- does the creator *have to* give the same mutations to different lineages? <br /><br />Previously, the creator was attributed with various properties such as omniscience and wisdom that, along with the divine record in the bible, guided the construction of creationist theory. I don't remember the creator's "efficiency" being mentioned in the bible or invoked previously in creationist theory. <br /><br />Again, by conceding that a hierarchical pattern of concordance is perfectly explained by a modified creationist theory, Torley is simply revealing that the theory has no substance and can be adjusted at will by attributing ad hoc properties to the creator, so that the creator tends to make things that look like they evolved. Arlinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03243864308260498878noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-72628193714313774592014-03-24T19:46:27.699-04:002014-03-24T19:46:27.699-04:00Allan Miller. ARE YOU SURE/ I've never seen an...Allan Miller. ARE YOU SURE/ I've never seen any yet. Really!<br /><br />judmare<br />No death before the fall and so cancer. Ape males have nipples, i think, and so would we on the same blueprint.Robert Byershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05631863870635096770noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-2016628387422559162014-03-24T14:24:47.527-04:002014-03-24T14:24:47.527-04:00No other kind has an opinion worth listening to, f...No other kind has an opinion worth listening to, for the 'true sceptic'. AllanMillerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05955231828424156641noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-58341624645201896102014-03-24T14:03:37.414-04:002014-03-24T14:03:37.414-04:00How much similarity is required in order for seque...How much similarity is required in order for sequences to be aligned? If I recall Tomkins tried varying lengths of sequences in the range of a few hundred bases.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-32054034602464047752014-03-24T07:26:57.937-04:002014-03-24T07:26:57.937-04:00is there genetic evidence for man/primate common d...<i>is there genetic evidence for man/primate common descent?</i><br /><br />Yes, of <i>course</i> there is. How long have you been doing this?AllanMillerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05955231828424156641noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-18043090624277242882014-03-24T07:05:46.873-04:002014-03-24T07:05:46.873-04:00why not a creator giving man the best body on eart...<i>why not a creator giving man the best body on earth</i><br /><br />Then how come there are undeveloped breasts (nipples) on guys, Robert, that are subject to breast cancer? A creator would have to be either a doofus or very evil to design that intentionally.judmarchttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03111006189037693272noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-21397228630741289062014-03-24T06:19:01.978-04:002014-03-24T06:19:01.978-04:00that chimpanzees will go through an evolutionary p...<i>that chimpanzees will go through an evolutionary process themselves....</i><br /><br />Chimpanzees, like any other species, are undergoing evolution.<br /><br /><br /><i>...and become.... at least self-aware-humans... </i><br /><br />Why should they become "at least self-aware humans"?<br /><br /><br /><i>I personally think that It's about time for the chimpanzees who will take over the universities... to become more than self-aware...</i><br /><br />They already took over the Discovery Institute.Pedro A B Pereirahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15195139833344839287noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-83831504211641502182014-03-24T04:21:20.305-04:002014-03-24T04:21:20.305-04:00Quest, you are clueless. That's the reason you...Quest, you are clueless. That's the reason you are unable to discriminate between two different subejcts: <br />A: How did life originate on Earth?<br />B: What is the cause of the changes in life forms since the beginning 4 billion years?<br /><br />And to make it clear that you are entirely off target: There is no rule that a species shall "evolve". Species exist in synergy with their environment. Variations only have effect when they lead to a change in ratios of alleles within a population. <br /><br />The effect of one powerful environmental factor, geographic isolation, can be observed anywhere you look at life on the planet. What do you propose is the cause?Rolf Aalberghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12878337054438652463noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-31867840013379666222014-03-23T23:22:21.914-04:002014-03-23T23:22:21.914-04:00Is it a FACT that likeness of men and primates is ...Is it a FACT that likeness of men and primates is oNLY explained from common descent??<br />why not a creator giving man the best body on earth within the spectrum of a common biological framework.<br />hOWEVER i'm just showing if its ONLY by lines of reasoning then another line cancels out evolutionists line.<br />Or rather lines of reasoning are not genetic scientific evidence.<br />The other stuuf likewise is well within a common design also.<br />is there genetic evidence for man/primate common descent??Robert Byershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05631863870635096770noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-4106266864071645822014-03-23T21:55:34.911-04:002014-03-23T21:55:34.911-04:00ShadiZ1:
Chris Mooney got it from Ken Miller
But...ShadiZ1:<br /><br />Chris Mooney got it from Ken Miller<br /><br /><i>But that's just wrong, according to Miller. <b>The fusion site is "more than 1,300 bases away from the gene,"</b> he says, based on a review of major gene databanks. "These increasingly desperate efforts to 'debunk' the chromosome 2 story have failed before, and they've failed this time, too," Miller concludes. "Once again, we can see that the story of human evolution is written not only in the language of bones and fossils, but in the far more eloquent script of the human genome."</i><br /><br />[<a href="http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/01/bill-nye-creationism-evolution" rel="nofollow">“This Picture Has Creationists Terrified"</a>, Chris Mooney, Mother Jones, Feb. 4, 2014]<br /><br />FWIW, here is Tomkins naming the gene:<br /><br /><i>In this report, it is also shown that the purported fusion site (read in the minus strand orientation) is a functional DNA binding domain inside <b>the first intron of the DDX11L2 regulatory RNA helicase gene</b>, which encodes several transcript variants expressed in at least 255 different cell and/or tissue types. </i> [<a href="http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/arj/v6/n1/human-chromosome-fusion" rel="nofollow">Alleged Human Chromosome 2 “Fusion Site” Encodes an Active DNA Binding Domain Inside a Complex and Highly Expressed Gene—Negating Fusion.</a> by Jeffrey P. Tomkins. Answers Research Journal. October 16, 2013. ]Diogeneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15551943619872944637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-51834112977373863232014-03-23T16:33:16.236-04:002014-03-23T16:33:16.236-04:00Hi Joe, I think there is a simple explanation to y...Hi Joe, I think there is a simple explanation to your question;<br /><br />http://assets.amuniversal.com/6bf962e05f63012ee3c100163e41dd5b<br /><br />;-)Tom Muellerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09829281784362177069noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-56662541920709327632014-03-23T16:18:46.121-04:002014-03-23T16:18:46.121-04:00Bla bla bla, seen god supernaturally create an org...Bla bla bla, seen god supernaturally create an organism with magic yet? No. Oh well...Mikkel Rumraket Rasmussenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07670550711237457368noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-22542612745488813842014-03-23T15:51:48.223-04:002014-03-23T15:51:48.223-04:00Torley: I owe the above points to a skeptical biol...Torley: <i>I owe the above points to a skeptical biologist who kindly offered me some advice about fixation.</i><br /><br />The "sceptical biologists" among them apparently don't get it.Piotr Gąsiorowskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06339278493073512102noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-34845046810076281682014-03-23T15:40:18.556-04:002014-03-23T15:40:18.556-04:00Rumrocket,
I take it as complement... :)
BTW: A...Rumrocket, <br /><br />I take it as complement... :)<br /><br />BTW: Any news from those hydrothermal vents...? Did any life form appear there yet...? lol <br /><br />Also, I have mentioned it before; What Larry and others believe had happened with mutations leading to macroevolution turned out to be a total fiasco with fruit fly lab experiments... Therefore, your speculations that random mutations can lead to major changes are a species is totally unfounded.... As usual...<br /><br />Same applies to the bacteria lab experiments by Lenski or something...<br />I looked at all the literature regarding those experiments...It's bullshit... No new metabolic pathway evolved... Bacteria is still bacteria an it is not about to fly out of the tube or turn into a fly... Dream on...lolAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-75155178589144879922014-03-23T15:31:32.107-04:002014-03-23T15:31:32.107-04:00@John Harshman,
This is pretty elementary stuff. ...@John Harshman,<br /><br />This is pretty elementary stuff. You can read about it in any evolution textbook. Why do the IDiots have such a hard time understanding evolution? Surely there must be some of them who get it and can explain it to the others?Larry Moranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.com