User Tag List


Members banned from this thread: Morning Star and SomeCallMeTim


Page 41 of 41 FirstFirst ... 313435363738394041
Results 401 to 406 of 406

Thread: Scientific Challenge to Evolutionists

  1. #401
    Senior Member
    Overall activity: 4.0%

    freethinker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    Posts
    144
    Thanks
    14
    Thanked: 44
    Rep Power
    429498
    Quote Originally Posted by usfan View Post
    ..not a fact, just an unbased assertion. Show me. Present identical genes from 2 different phylogenetic types. Show me identical genes, with identical function, from 2 disparate organisms.

    The chromosomes, the mtdna, the rma development, the structure.. everything is different.

    IF... You could present such evidence, then it could imply universal common descent. But since you cannot, the theory depends on fallacies and assertions.

    .
    Horizontal gene transfer does not change the architecture of an organism. It is a trait of SOME organisms, like bacteria. But like polyploidy, it does not change the structure of the organism. Bacteria remain bacteria, and only vary within their genetic parameters.

    Another unbased assertion. Show me these identical genes from both humans and chimps.
    I do not dispute similarity, but that does not compel a conclusion of universal descent.

    If there was ancestry, we would expect the ability to share some organs, blood, or have some reproductive commonality.

    Yes, Google is a wealth of information. You can learn about global warming, Bigfoot, and alien abductions, too. If you have empirical evidence that supports your claim of universal common descent, by all means, post it.


    Those are all wonderful techno babble terms. But they do not describe the creation of new genetic information. Mutations alter some genes, they do not form the components of an eye, or change fins to legs.
    If they mutate large segments of the genome, the organism cannot survive, and certainly cannot reproduce, to pass on the mutations.

    I probably like, 'exon shuffling,' the best! it sounds more fitting. I suppose the 'Potomac shuffle' is a similar thing, taught in the same progressive institutions.

    You know, just dropping undefined terms is a fallacy, especially when these terms do not support or apply to your premise.
    There were 2 points that I was trying to make: most genes pass from parent to offspring (vertically not horizontally) and that there are mechanisms to create new genes. Your argument about genes

    not being interchangeable among different species is irrelevant if true, and I don't think that it is entirely true. Since new genes are created in the germ line during meiosis and passed on to offspring,

    the new genes are not transferred to a different species. They can be transferred to a new species after being fixed in a population and if that population evolves into a new species. There is no problem

    with genetics because your scenario of genes being transferred from one species to the next like lego blocks is not how new genes generally appear in organisms. Lateral transfer of genes is common in

    bacteria but it is rare in multicellular organisms.

    The creation of new genes is a complicated subject that is not easy to discuss. Most new genes come about through gene duplication and divergence. There are families of genes that have arisen this way.

    The evidence has been inferred from examining genomes.

    I don't know how many identical genes there are in humans and chimps. 29% of the synthesized proteins are identical in both humans and chimps. There are many genes that are slightly different as would be expected from

    the fact that each has had a separate course of evolution for 6 to 7 million years and mammal genes mutate at a fast rate relative to other classes of organisms.

  2. #402
    Alumni Member & VIP V.I.P
    Overall activity: 77.0%

    nonsqtr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    15,964
    Thanks
    4,550
    Thanked: 12,593
    Rep Power
    21474856
    Quote Originally Posted by freethinker View Post
    and mammal genes mutate at a fast rate relative to other classes of organisms.
    That. ^^^

    Why?

    The genomes of more highly Advanced organisms are supposed to be more highly protected.

    This speaks to the point I've been trying to make here and in the other thread for mr. Bombastic.

    "Gene duplication and divergence", I believe, is still an understatement. At the very least it is not a random process. I believe there is more than enough evidence to conclude that it is being specifically controlled in a very sophisticated way, by the genome itself.

    What goes on in the human ventromedial prefrontal cortex, is very suggestive this way, and it's being actively investigated right now as we speak.

    However in the human brain, it looks as if at least a part of the genome has been repurposed for the acquisition and storage of memory. It is not entirely clear yet which cells are involved, but it looks like glial cells play a prominent role.

    In this context, it turns out that the adaptation of the human immune response is of great interest. The recognition of One's Own proteins relative to the spectrum of available biomolecules, is quite fascinating.

  3. #403
    Alumni Member & VIP V.I.P
    Overall activity: 77.0%

    nonsqtr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    15,964
    Thanks
    4,550
    Thanked: 12,593
    Rep Power
    21474856
    There is yet another element we haven't even discussed yet. Although it's been alluded to several times.

    That is the active repair of DNA. Which is once again under control of the genome.

    You can get the gist of what they're looking at just by looking at the keywords in stuff like this:

    DNA REPAIR MECHANISMS AND THEIR RELATION TO MUTATION AND RECOMBINATION. (Journal Article) | SciTech Connect

    This is simple stuff though, compared to what's really going on. Right now we're at the level of base and nucleotide excision repair, which is basically correcting point mutations, but in reality, point mutations are all but insignificant when it comes to things like speciation.

    This is why I've been encouraging you to think in terms of the Dynamics. Because these events, let's say, the more sophisticated ones, like the ones that might be related to speciation, they probably have little or nothing to do with any of the types of mutations we commonly consider. I suspect they are more along the lines of catastrophes in the dynamic system, and as such they could be far more easily regulated by the genome.

  4. #404
    The Last Free American V.I.P
    Overall activity: 1.0%

    usfan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Sedona, Az
    Posts
    11,525
    Thanks
    13,383
    Thanked: 8,236
    Blog Entries
    7
    Rep Power
    21474853
    Quote Originally Posted by nonsqtr View Post
    Go to school. ^^^

    Read LEHNINGER. The Bible of biochemistry.

    You will come to understand many things that presently seem to confuse you.
    I am surprised, after all the exchanges we have had, that you think this reply will pass for a rebuttal. This is just another fallacy.. pretending superior knowledge about something, and smearing your opponent with claims of ignorance, without even addressing the points being made.

    Perhaps disappointed is a better term.

    But in a way that you did not intend, I think you are right. Our academic institutions are so steeped in the naturalistic belief system, and have been so effective in indoctrinating the belief in universal common descent, that the only way you see to get to the same level of belief and assurance of this belief, is to follow your path of institutional indoctrination.

    Most of what I have learned, over the last few decades, has been from independent study.. piecing together facts and experimental evidence that is relevant to this subject. It has taken those years to break the grip of indoctrination that these same institutions have had on me. So while I sympathize with your plight, I can only point out the departures from science and reason that you take, in these many exchanges we have had, here.

    You have presented mostly fallacies.. in several of your replies, you have made:
    1. Appeals to authority
    2. Ad hominem
    3. Unbased assertions
    4. Dismissal
    5. Faux indignation
    6. Techno term dropping
    7. Abstract speculations

    You have not presented any arguments for universal descent, or facts, or evidence that might support this theory. It is merely a firmly held belief, with nothing empirical to support it. You BELIEVE it has a wealth of evidence to support it, but you cannot produce it, so you lash out at me.

    I offer this common scenario in 'debates' on this subject as evidence that the theory of universal descent is a religious or philosophical opinion, not a scientifically valid theory. The most dedicated believers in this fantasy do not believe it because of compelling empirical evidence, but because of indoctrination and it's importance in their worldview. This devotion to their worldview and belief system renders them incapable of critically examining the science behind the theory.
    ..taking a break..

  5. #405
    The Last Free American V.I.P
    Overall activity: 1.0%

    usfan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Sedona, Az
    Posts
    11,525
    Thanks
    13,383
    Thanked: 8,236
    Blog Entries
    7
    Rep Power
    21474853
    Quote Originally Posted by freethinker View Post
    There were 2 points that I was trying to make: most genes pass from parent to offspring (vertically not horizontally) and that there are mechanisms to create new genes. Your argument about genes

    not being interchangeable among different species is irrelevant if true, and I don't think that it is entirely true. Since new genes are created in the germ line during meiosis and passed on to offspring,

    the new genes are not transferred to a different species. They can be transferred to a new species after being fixed in a population and if that population evolves into a new species. There is no problem

    with genetics because your scenario of genes being transferred from one species to the next like lego blocks is not how new genes generally appear in organisms. Lateral transfer of genes is common in

    bacteria but it is rare in multicellular organisms.

    The creation of new genes is a complicated subject that is not easy to discuss. Most new genes come about through gene duplication and divergence. There are families of genes that have arisen this way.

    The evidence has been inferred from examining genomes.

    I don't know how many identical genes there are in humans and chimps. 29% of the synthesized proteins are identical in both humans and chimps. There are many genes that are slightly different as would be expected from

    the fact that each has had a separate course of evolution for 6 to 7 million years and mammal genes mutate at a fast rate relative to other classes of organisms.
    Ok.. I will try to sift out your points, which are mostly vague and not evidenced.

    1. You assert, 'there are mechanisms to create new genes,' but you still produce no evidence. What mechanism creates these new traits? Organisms can only produce like organisms, with the existing genetic information they got from their parents. You claim that they can 'evolve!' into another distinct genetic type, but have no mechanism for generating the genes necessary to form an eye, legs, egg production, or any number of complex biological processes that you claim appeared by random accident.
    2. You reassert your belief that genes are interchangeable, between different phylogenetic families, but present no evidence. You seem stuck with the Lego block perception of genetics.
    3. The creation or duplication of existing genes is a false equivalence. Organisms are constantly creating cells, and transferring their genetic code to their offspring. But that is not the same thing as creating new genetic information as is premised by universal common descent. Organisms obviously reproduce, replace, and repair their cells at the genetic level. But they do not conjure up new traits or genes that change the basic structure.
    4. Proteins, compounds, or atomic structure are not an indication of common descent. Just because atoms all have protons and electrons does not mean organisms, made up of atoms, share ancestry.
    5. Assuming the variety of existing genes is from evolution is circular reasoning. It is an argument of similarity, claiming that the similar architecture of genetic information implies descent. Correlation does not imply causation. You must demonstrate HOW these organisms morphed from one distinct genetic architecture to another, not just assume it, because you can imagine it could happen.
    6. Your 'facts,' are just assumed and asserted.. You present no evidence of the central claim of structural changes at the genetic level.
    ..taking a break..

  6. #406
    Alumni Member & VIP V.I.P
    Overall activity: 77.0%

    nonsqtr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    15,964
    Thanks
    4,550
    Thanked: 12,593
    Rep Power
    21474856
    Quote Originally Posted by usfan View Post
    I am surprised, after all the exchanges we have had, that you think this reply will pass for a rebuttal. This is just another fallacy.. pretending superior knowledge about something, and smearing your opponent with claims of ignorance, without even addressing the points being made.

    Perhaps disappointed is a better term.

    But in a way that you did not intend, I think you are right. Our academic institutions are so steeped in the naturalistic belief system, and have been so effective in indoctrinating the belief in universal common descent, that the only way you see to get to the same level of belief and assurance of this belief, is to follow your path of institutional indoctrination.

    Most of what I have learned, over the last few decades, has been from independent study.. piecing together facts and experimental evidence that is relevant to this subject. It has taken those years to break the grip of indoctrination that these same institutions have had on me. So while I sympathize with your plight, I can only point out the departures from science and reason that you take, in these many exchanges we have had, here.

    You have presented mostly fallacies.. in several of your replies, you have made:
    1. Appeals to authority
    2. Ad hominem
    3. Unbased assertions
    4. Dismissal
    5. Faux indignation
    6. Techno term dropping
    7. Abstract speculations

    You have not presented any arguments for universal descent, or facts, or evidence that might support this theory. It is merely a firmly held belief, with nothing empirical to support it. You BELIEVE it has a wealth of evidence to support it, but you cannot produce it, so you lash out at me.

    I offer this common scenario in 'debates' on this subject as evidence that the theory of universal descent is a religious or philosophical opinion, not a scientifically valid theory. The most dedicated believers in this fantasy do not believe it because of compelling empirical evidence, but because of indoctrination and it's importance in their worldview. This devotion to their worldview and belief system renders them incapable of critically examining the science behind the theory.
    "Arguments for universal descent"?

    Surely you jest.

    There is only one Breath of Life.

    If you're being confused by the complexity, don't be. It's just building blocks and an Erector Set, that's all.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •