There are a few errors in that post. How many? Let us count the ways.1
Theme
Mutation
-definition
-mutation types
-mutation rates
-phylogeny
-controversies
What's interesting about that post is that we've been over the data many times in an attempt to explain mutation to the creationists. Last year I tried to explain why humans and chimpanzees have accumulated about 22 million point mutations since the time they evolved from a common ancestor about 6 million years ago. I thought it would be helpful if they understood why these numbers are perfectly reasonable according to population genetics.
What happened was that the vast majority of commenters on Uncommon Descent called me names and told me I was wrong. A few creationists, Sal Cordova, Vincent Torley, and Branko Kozulic took up the challenge and, for a short while I thought they understood.
That didn't last. As soon as they began to feel the heat from their fellow creationists they started to make up strange stories to prove that the differences between human and chimp genomes can't be explained by evolution.
Here's the initial exchange ...
- Why are the human and chimpanzee/bonobo genomes so similar?
- So, why are the human and chimpanzee/bonobo genomes so similar? A reply to Professor Larry Moran
- An Intelligent Design Creationist explains why chimpanzees and humans are so similar
- How do you explain the differences between chimpanzees. humans, and macaques?
- Branko Kozulic responds: Part II
- Branko Kozulic has questions about fixation
- Why creationists think they are more open-minded than scientists
- On the frustration of trying to educate IDiots
- Vincent Torley tries to understand fixation
- Vincent Torley apologizes and claims that he is not a liar
- Breaking news: Creationist Vincent Torley lies and moves goalposts
- A creationist illustrates the argument from ignorance while trying to understand population genetics and Neutral Theory
- IDiots respond to the evidence for evolution of chimpanzees and humans
- An Intelligent Design Creationist explains why chimpanzees and humans are so similar
Scientists have even tried to explain how two, or more, mutations can occur within a population. We use dumbed-down language that even some creationists could understand (if their minds were open) [e.g. CCC's and the edge of evolution].
That didn't work either. Nothing seems to work.
Isn't it strange that they can unite behind the argument that the Cambrian Explosion disproves evolution, for example, when most of them think that all the fossils were created in the Deluge only 4500 years ago? In other words, they deny that the fossil record shows rapid evolution over ten million years or so but they're willing to support Stephen C. Meyer anyway. Strange.
Isn't it strange that they can discuss why evolutionary biologists are wrong about the number of mutations that arose naturally since humans and chimpanzees diverged from a common ancestor when most of them believe that humans and chimps were created separately about 6000 years ago?
I asked five questions that I hoped would provide some answers about this "big tent" approach and Vincent Torley responded' Five questions for Intelligent Design Creationists. It shows, once again, how the creationists resist knowledge.
1. Apologies to Elizabeth Barret Browning.
211 comments :
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 211 of 211Explain the above list of designed object without reference to intelligence
They were not designed. Done. You're welcome
LOL :-)
"What happened was that the vast majority of commenters on Uncommon Descent called me names."
Cry me a river! When you quit being a name caller, you can scold others for calling you names.
I wasn't complaining about name calling. That's fair game. I can take it as well as dish it out.
What I complained about was that was all that happened. There was no serious attempt to understand the science and discuss the evidence.
I shouldn't have been surprised since that's typical creationist behavior.
Steve,
As I said, these "questions" are easy to answer. the answer is that your questions are nonsensical. they reveal that you have no idea what life is, how it works, and what evolution is.
Take a look at your "hard" questions yourself:
When did the first organism "realize" it would eventually die?
This has no meaning whatsoever. What makes you think that the first organism had to realize of such a thing? How is this playing in your mind? Do you think that we "believe" that the first organism had to realize about anything? What exactly makes you think that? As it stands, your "question" is pure nonsense. Mere stupidity in display.
When did it 'realize' it would need to do something about death?
Just like above. What the hell are you thinking here Steve? Be very clear and specific. As it stands, it reveals that you have no idea about how life works, what it does, and huge etc. Man, it looks as if you've never seen what's just around you.
When did it 'realize' the solution it would needis to reproduce? When did it "realize" it had to eat?
See what I mean? Life is a phenomenon that includes such things as eating and reproducing. Organisms never had to "realize" such things because those things are part and parcel with life. Your questions are like asking when did the volcano learn that it was accumulating pressure? How did the volcano realize that the solution was to break and let go of the lava?
Yes, you're that astoundingly stupid. Did you realize already?
Yes Steve, I know you used quotation marks around "realize." That does not take away the stupidity of your "questions."
"{That is why the "junk DNA" of the Darwinians is such a hopeless and non-scientific approach to unknown sequences."
Peer,
The level of nonfunctional DNA in a genome says nothing whatsoever about the validity of evolutionary theory.
"Biology killed your god. "
Stop projecting.
Peer stamps his foot and screams :
Yes, peepee, you are unscientific. And not even updated unscientific, but completely out of date and out of data.
There is so much evidence that TEs are simply a part of the regulatory genome and not the remnants of viruses.
It is just the opposite: RNA virsue simply have their origin in TEs. To be precise in what has been coinde retro-transposons. There is ample evidence for this view. For instance, the RSV virus. It is trasposon machinery is almost identical to that of an endogenous ERV-H, but it has picked up small part (the on-switch) of the proto-onco known as SRC. Thus it became an oncovirus. A harmless variation-inducing genetic element transformed (evolved if you like that word better) into an RNA virus.
Or, as sane and rational folk believe : the RNA virus picked up a bit of genomic DNA when it moved.
What is your 'explanation' for the FACT that there are millions of copies of Alu elements littered throughout the genome ?
Oh, right - they were directly installed as is by the Magical Sky Pixie/'Intelligent' Designer ...
You, together with all the nonsense-sellers here, believe that RNA virusen are from space. Or leftovers from an utterly hypothetical RNA world (which there is not a scintilla of evidence).
The ribosome is a riboZYME that interacts with mRNA and tRNA.
You 'explanation' is what again ?
Oh, right - an unknowable being somehow DIDIT !!1!!1!11!!11!11!11!!1
I do not need the RNA world or out-of-space stories to explain RNA viruses. Belief in the unseen and undemonstrable is nice, but it is not science.
Accurate description of your 'model' of quasi-magical transposable elements leaping about the genome to generate mutations at need.
But anyway, as a non-scientist you may not understand what I mean.
I have a Master's degree and 20+ years experience working with DNA.
Peepee peeps: "It took you YEARS to figure out the coding of CEBPA ? It only has 3 start methionines with good Kozak sequences - and all proteins are in the same frame !"
This indeed shows you are not a scientist. You probably know a bit of in silico sequences, but to identify how the code works in vivo is rather elaborate, peepee. It needs hundreds of experiments. In particular because the detection of the proteins is so hard.
I have cloned and sequences almost a dozen genes.
That is why the "junk DNA" of the Darwinians is such a hopeless and non-scientific approach to unknown sequences.
RiiIIiiiIIIight ! Just imagine a function for all of it and prance about like you be a genius and HOPE people fall for your act.
Given mutation rates, mutations to junk DNA would be MORE devastasting to health than mutations to 'mere' coding regions.
Tell me, peepee, how do you identify unique functional code in the human genome with your big fat computer?
By not presuming there is a code there in the first place, and letting EVIDENCE show whether a pattern I see actually means something.
Codes do not need an external intelligence to install them.
You cannot because you are miles away from an experiment. Go to the wetlab and design AND perform an experiment, before you start peeping again. Thanks.
Did it 20+ years ago - I cloned the cubitus interruptus gene from Drosophila melanogaster by taking advantage of the fact that the mutation was caused by the insertion of a gypsy element (a retrotranson) into the regulatory region.
Initiating standard blowhard posturing :
The problem nowadays: belief in in silico models, rather than in observations. The observations killed NeoDarwinism, any kind of evolution by random mutations. That the hard facts you have to live with. So they turn to in silico models.
The mutations are random, but selection isn't. Why is it that most gibbering creationuts, IDiots and theoloons ALWAYS overlook that part ?
Oh, right - it negates the need for a Magical Sky Pixie/'Intelligent Designer' to explain things.
But I understand why you are so upset: Biology killed your god. Too bad. But don't blame me or the creationist...blame science.
'Interesting' delusion there PB !
1. Reproduction.
2. Digestive mechanism
3. Sensory mechanism
4. Threat detection mechanism
5. Damage control mechanism
6. Intra-cellular communication mechanism
7. Inter-cellular communication mechanism
8. Extra-cellular communication mechanism
9. Energy production mechanism
10. Endo-symbiosis.
None of the above can be explains without reference to intelligence.
NONE of them!
Please demonstrate this to my satisfaction.
Ace - you wrote:
If all genetic entropy is leading to the destruction of all genomes, then how come humans and chimpanzees have survived long enough to share a common ancestor while developing novel traits in the mean time?
Has a magical being kept our genomes intact all this time?
Interesting point. A creationist going by "lightwave" on a forum I visit wrote in one thread that mutations are, in effect, God's way of punishing humanity (and apparently all organisms) for Original Sin. The same creationist later proclaimed the greatness of God's design by pointing out that He had Created DNA repair mechanisms.
When I asked him how that jived with the whole Mutation is God's punishment", he refused to respond.
Creationists seem almost incapable of keeping their arguments straight. I love it!
Post a Comment