Topic: In Defense of Young Earth Creationism (Read 11895 times)

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #40 on:** May 18, 2006, 08:18:29 PM »

"I'm sorry SJ, but this is hard data, not imagination."

I am sorry that you found it difficult to understand what I was saying. I believe that I have expressed myself clearly, and in light of my desire to keep this thread on an even keel, will simply decline not to comment further. Except to say that repeating myself four times is too many times even for me.

Your post is not a response to my point.

Copernicus · « **Reply #41 on:** May 18, 2006, 08:28:36 PM »

Quote from: sntjohnny

"I'm sorry SJ, but this is hard data, not imagination."

I am sorry that you found it difficult to understand what I was saying. I believe that I have expressed myself clearly, and in light of my desire to keep this thread on an even keel, will simply decline not to comment further. Except to say that repeating myself four times is too many times even for me.

Your post is not a response to my point.

Sntjohnny, I agree that you expressed yourself clearly. Broken completely demolished your position, so your refusal to comment further is understandable. Admitting that he ate your lunch is unthinkable.

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #42 on:** May 18, 2006, 09:42:37 PM »

I knew going into this how certain people on the board wouldn't be able to actually comprehend the points that were being made, let alone consider them. I also knew that this failure all in all will tend to strengthen my argument in the eyes of the objective reader, so it doesn't really bother me.

Broken has not responded to my actual position, nor have you. Its easy to demolish a position that is not being defended.

I highly doubt that either of you have anything of value to add, so in the near future I will simply move on.

If either of you think that you grasp my position- and clearly you think that Broken grasps it- it shouldn't be very difficult to restate my position in your own words. Perhaps either of you could give that a go. However, Broken has conceded the main point that I raised, and that is that we observe variation with limits. Anything beyond that is a digression into the theory of evolution, which is not, and has not been, my target.

That, too, is a point that went clean over both your heads. In that light, it seems to me that the odds are very likely that even an attempt to restate what my position really was may be off the point of the thread to begin with.

So, I will be moving on with the assumption that it is in fact an observable fact that we see variation with limits.

Copernicus · « **Reply #43 on:** May 18, 2006, 10:01:30 PM »

Sntjohnny, I applaud your decision to move on. It's better to get your thoughts out there for all to see than to try to please everyone who disagrees with you.

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #44 on:** May 19, 2006, 09:21:50 AM »

Moving on.

We observe variations with limits. Not only that, but when we take a population and attempt to manipulate it under controlled circumstances, we can test those limits. For example, even allowing for the possibility that mutations can affect the available genetic information, we see that no mutation in 8,000 of the 12,000 genes of the Drosophila genome seems to have an effect on the phenotype. (Drosophila is the fruit fly, for those who don't know). After thousands and thousands of generations witnessed under direct experimentation (and manipulation), Drosophila populations remain... Drosophila populations.

Artificial selection in the animal husbandry industry is a high stakes enterprise. The development and sustaining of stable, but 'pure' genetic lines, takes a lot of work... and mutational problems can compound quickly. In this respect, dog breeding comes to mind. There is quite a bit of variation among dogs, and yet there are discrete limits to how much variation you can extract from the canine genome before the animals are genetically useless.

However, for my next point, I wish to take three examples from the 'wild' where artificial selection- the intelligent effort to manipulate variation for our own gain- is not a factor. A long time ago, Dr. Phil was on this forum and he was going to defend evolution from the bottom up similar to how I am doing YEC, now. The only problem is that he kept using examples that did not support his argument. First, he mentioned Darwin's finches.

Then I produced links showing that Darwin's finches have been observed to interbreed. Then he moved on to the tiger and the lion. Then I produced evidence that tigers and lions can interbreed. He could have used the bears: but recently the polar bear and grizzly bear interbred, producing a hybrid which was recently killed. Dr. Phil was aiming to establish the notion of 'common ancestry,' and to a large extent he was arguing a point that was not disputed.

Another irony of that attempt was that Dr. Phil acknowledged that variation with limits is what we observe, while in this thread winning this concession has been like pulling teeth. Dr. Phil responded the way that Broken responded: TIME. Time can overcome these limits. Of course, if you are allowed to invoke the unobserved processes of the past to account for any present reality (even extrapolating from processes we DO see today), you can practically justify ANYTHING.

I have another hypothesis. It recognizes two critical aspects of observation and draws a much simpler inference. On the one hand, it affirms that 'variation with limits' is a real phenomena. On the other hand, it affirms, too, that you can have significant variation and that this variation can work itself out statistically according to various environmental pressures.

Simply put, if Dr. Phil had not tried to argue that EVERYTHING was the result of a single common ancestor* but instead argued that there are discrete common ancestors for various classes of animals, he would have quickly won agreement.

For that is what I believe the observational and experimental evidence supports: For every 'class' of creature there is a distinct 'common ancestor.' This much is supported by the biological evidence. This much is supported by the experimental data.

According to this hypothesis, each class of 'common ancestors,'** contained a perfectly robust and healthy genome which, over time and circumstance, has expressed itself in interesting ways, but nontheless retained in the LIMITS of the genome of that particular class. Thus, for the lion and tiger, we can infer that there was a 'Cat' or possibly 'Big Cat' class, and it contained the code for the variation observed between the two populations I referenced. And yet, the variation is not so extreme as to preclude the possibility of interbreeding.

Its worth noting that just because in some instances animals won't interbreed doesn't mean that they CAN'T.

Thus, when Broken points out that we can go from donkey to horse to donkey, this effectively supports my hypothesis. You can have all sorts of variation within the class, with limits. Mules are an observation of such limits: in pushing the variation, a hybrid is produced, and it is sterile.

This hypothesis is able to accomodate ALL EXPERIMENTAL AND OBSERVATIONAL DATA.

Thus, Broken's comments about 'transposons' make little difference to me. My hypothesis allows for, and even predicts, the change of the genome over time. To any extent that any evolutionist wishes to show how mutations do this, or duplication errors do that, or whatever, this is consistent with my hypothesis.

HOW the 'common ancestor' class variated over time is certainly worthy of discussion.

To put a finer point on it, my hypothesis is superior because it treats both the variation AND the limits as real things. Exceptions are known to exist- and are recognized for what they are, exceptions. My hypothesis is firmly supported by the evidence, and also has some specific predictions that could be verified either now or sometime in the near future.

Now allow me to tie this in to why this hypothesis belongs in this thread. TIME is a much more insignificant player in this hypothesis. Since you have variation around a median, so to speak, or a 'fulcrum,' you can conceivably move from horse to donkey to horse to donkey to horse to donkey for a thousand years or for a hundred million years. Indeed, this view can be perceived as being consistent with an old earth, too, because a 'class' or 'species,' having found its niche, may subsequently remain unchanged for many hundreds of thousands if not millions of years. Even given the old earth view which accepts the fossil record as a real record of biological evolution, such a stasis of a widespread populous species is widely observed in the fossil record.

So if it is consistent with either a young earth and an old earth, why do I mention it?*** Specifically, its because it is NOT time dependant. A common ancestor for ALL living organisms is unbelievable (at least right now) even by evolutionary biologists if there is not enough TIME to break the rules. Thus, if Broken did not think he had enough TIME, he would not be an evolutionist. Remember his quote: "Time is the only limit..." His theory REQUIRES a specific position on TIME or else it fails.

MY hypothesis could care less whether or not we have a little time or a lot of time. Thus, it will free me up from having any specific need to be presupposed to choose 'old dates' for the earth over 'young dates.' I can investigate the age of the earth without specifically NEEDING one date or another in order for another hypothesis (mine) to stand.

Get rid of the epicycle of time, posit a class of 'common ancestor' for EACH family (using 'family' in its scientific sense), and the observational and experimental data fits just fine.

And that will allow me to turn to questions about dating the age of the earth.

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

* Depending on the evolutionist, they may argue with you whether or not there is a single common ancestor or if there were more than one, or more than once. At the very least, I don't think anyone will quibble with me that it is accepted that everything reduces to the six kingdoms- so at most, SIX individual 'common ancestors'? My readings suggest 'three domains.' At anyrate, this is a trifling point that evolutionists in the past have played the "AHA!" game with me, so I wanted to treat it.

** Trying to pick a name to describe this 'class' is difficult because of all the baggage that exists for all the possible terms. I could say "A singular collection of particular phenotypes" and that might be close. Within current classification systems, the 'Family' seems to be the nearest equivalent. At anyrate, I'm hesitant to use any terms, because even scientists haven't been able to successfully construct a completely coherent classification system. If they can't, I don't see why I should be required to do so. At anyrate, I may have to invent a term if need be.

*** Its worth mentioning as a stand-alone hypothesis, in fact. I believe it is completely compatible with the evidence, and in fact is the BEST inference FROM the evidence. From ALL of the evidence. Stand-alone or not, it frees me from the attitude which requires me to cite 'TIME' whenever I'd otherwise lose the argument.

Broken · « **Reply #45 on:** May 19, 2006, 10:48:17 AM »

Quote from: sntjohnny

We observe variations with limits.

Further down in your post you seem to acknowledge that time is the only real limit on variation. If your POV has evolved to encompass that point, then I will cease giving examples of how new genetic material is created, such as the transposon example above.

Quote

A common ancestor for ALL living organisms is unbelievable (at least right now) even by evolutionary biologists if there is not enough TIME to break the rules. Thus, if Broken did not think he had enough TIME, he would not be an evolutionist. Remember his quote: "Time is the only limit..." His theory REQUIRES a specific position on TIME or else it fails.

Yes, if one agrees that there are no imposed limits on micro-evolution, and, given enough time, micro-evolution becomes macro-evolution, then showing that there is not enough time is a reasonable way to render evolution implausible.

This argument, in fact, was used by Darwin as a critique of his own theory. When he developed his theory of evolution, the age of the earth was thought to be only a few tens of millions of years. Darwin had serious doubts that this was enough time for evolution to create the modern diversity of life from a pool of common ancestors.

Of course, the current estimated age of the earth is 4.56 billion years, give or take 50 million. This is roughly 100 times the length of time Darwin thought was available for evolution to do it's work.

Quote

And that will allow me to turn to questions about dating the age of the earth.

It will be interesting to see if you can present a good argument that the earth is "young" without tossing out piles of data as well as several branches of science.

I suspect you will proceed with an attack on scientific inductive reasoning.

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #46 on:** May 19, 2006, 11:24:42 AM »

"Further down in your post you seem to acknowledge that time is the only real limit on variation."

No, I'm just re-stating your view. My hypothesis is that these limits exist no matter how much time you alot. Whether you have a little time, or a lot of time, you will only have fluctuations within the available genetic material- which of course, can become corrupted, or narrowed, etc, along lines commonly argued by evolutionists themselves (and not disputed by most YECcers).

"If your POV has evolved to encompass that point,"

Ah, but it didn't evolve. It was always this way. :)

"then I will cease giving examples of how new genetic material is created, such as the transposon example above."

And there was much rejoicing! YEAAAAAAAAAAAA!

"When he developed his theory of evolution, the age of the earth was thought to be only a few tens of millions of years. Darwin had serious doubts that this was enough time for evolution to create the modern diversity of life from a pool of common ancestors."

We'll tuck that away for future reference. You are, of course, absolutely right.

"Of course, the current estimated age of the earth is 4.56 billion years, give or take 50 million. This is roughly 100 times the length of time Darwin thought was available for evolution to do it's work."

And yet the most impressive stages of evolution occurred only 500-600 years ago, well documented, and currently described as the Cambrian or pre-Cambrian explosions. For a long time it was thought that the origin of multi-cellular animals occurred in the Cambrian, which began only 543 million years ago. In a short period the majority of the skeleton-bearing phyla of animals appeared as fossils in early Cambrian strata. You might say that the seeming suddenness of the simultaneous appearance of so many phyla of animals is perhaps only an artifact of another evolutionary development at that time. Namely, perhaps the new fossils had skeletons but their soft-bodied ancestors did not have. (keep in mind that this view is threatened by the finding of exceptions)

But if the apparent explosionof new phyla in the early Cambrian was in part due to the skeletonization of a great variety of already existing soft-bodied types (one proffered alternative), one would have to ask, what caused this sudden skeletonization of so many unrelated phyla ONLY about 500 million years ago?

Its not like you get the full 4.5 billion years to account for what we presently observe. You only get 500 million years, and that is only 1/9th of the time you just tried to invoke. That's a lot less time for 'evolution to do its work.' If Darwin thought the earth was only a few tens of millions of years old, it is not fair to compare the time for 'evolution' to work to the full scale ('roughly 100 times more time than Darwin thought he had'). Its perhaps only 10-20 times more time than Darwin thought he had for 'evolution to work.'

This raises the question (which I don't mean to discuss here, but what I allude to when I say "let's tuck this away"), if 10-30 million years strains Darwin's credulity, but 4,500,000,000 years would not, then how strained is our credulity if we discover the fossil record only allows us 500,000,000, a full 4 billion years less time?

This is not a thread attacking evolution, though. :) So, we'll just thank you for raising the opportunity to pose that question and we'll take it up another time.

"It will be interesting to see if you can present a good argument that the earth is "young" without tossing out piles of data as well as several branches of science."

I will certainly be giving it a shot. :)

"I suspect you will proceed with an attack on scientific inductive reasoning."

Is there a difference between scientific inductive reasoning and other forms of inductive reasoning?

Copernicus · « **Reply #47 on:** May 19, 2006, 12:14:41 PM »

Sntjohnny, you know the old saying: "Time is money". Then there is the old saying from a member of Congress (I forget whom): "A million here, a million there. Pretty soon it starts to add up to real money."

You have a habit of thinking that a few hundred million years is a short time, but length is always relative to a standard. Short compared to what standard? A human life span? Not likely.

You are looking at these numbers through the wrong end of the telescope. A million years in practically inconceivable in terms of the way humans measure time. Recorded history only goes back roughly 4,000 years, and that is a looooong time by human standards. Modern humans are thought to have existed for rougly 200,000 years--50 times the period of recorded history! And 200,000 is a fifth of a million. Let's not let our relativistic language make us lose sight of how immense the time spans are.

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #48 on:** May 19, 2006, 12:34:47 PM »

"You have a habit of thinking that a few hundred million years is a short time, but length is always relative to a standard."

But I have challenged you to provide for me some objective measure for what can be reasonably expected, and you declined. You are not making a reasonable argument. You are hiding behind 'time.' But this is neither here nor there. Darwin understood the implications of time, just as Broken did:

"showing that there is not enough time is a reasonable way to render evolution implausible"

I was not at all arguing that 500 million years was not a lot of time! Please note how Broken replied, though. He went from Darwin's presumed 'a few ten millions' of years right out to 4.5 billion years because Darwin HIMSELF didn't think 10-30 million years was old enough for evolution to be plausible. Sure- maybe 4.5 billion years is enough to paint over the lack of explicit evidence- but 4.5 billion years is not a true account of how much time was actually in play. That amount was 'only' 500 million years.

Where on the scale between 10-30 million years and 4.5 billion years does evolution go from being implausible to plausible (leaving aside the finer point that plausible does not equal actual, in any case)? Can you provide any OBJECTIVE measure for how much time is really deemed to be necessary?

That was my point in highlighting Broken's comments. 4.5 billion years might sound awfully good if you are looking for plausibility, and its interesting to me how many evolutionists knee-jerk their way to that number, but the fact is you don't have 4.5 billion years. You have .5 billion years.

Clearly, you think that is enough. But why should what any person 'thinks' matter? Does the argument simply boil down to "500 my must be enough, because, well, we are here" ?

"Modern humans are thought to have existed for rougly 200,000 years--50 times the period of recorded history!"

Remember that number, if you please.

Anyway, this is really a discussion about the 'plausibility of evolution,' and my point is to argue towards YEC. If this has the unfortunate consequence (unfortunate for ya'll) of meaning you can't plausibly accept evolution, that is not my problem. Although, it does raise the curious question as to which came first, the chicken or the egg? Are you so convinced the earth is old because evolution is true, or are you convinced evolution is true because the earth is old?

My hypothesis avoids this problem by interpreting the available EXPERIMENTALLY VERIFIABLE evidence in such a way that there is a residual (but important for the purposes of this thread) effect of not having the plausibility of the argument hinge on TIME.

Copernicus · « **Reply #49 on:** May 19, 2006, 01:50:58 PM »

Quote from: sntjohnny

But I have challenged you to provide for me some objective measure for what can be reasonably expected, and you declined. You are not making a reasonable argument. You are hiding behind 'time.'

I cannot provide you with an answer to an incoherent question. You presuppose that there is some kind of objective "mutation rate" by which we could calculate the rate of evolution. I have explained repeatedly that the rate depends on constantly varying environmental circumstances and variable generational cycles for different organisms, so it makes no sense to ask for an invariant rate that applies to all living organisms under all circumstances.

Quote

But this is neither here nor there. Darwin understood the implications of time, just as Broken did:

"showing that there is not enough time is a reasonable way to render evolution implausible"

Absolutely correct. The problem is in trying to calculate how much time is "enough". We know that evolution requires many generations and that it tends to take place in small increments rather than the huge leaps and bounds that you imagine. We can actually observe evolution in fast-breeding organisms, plants, and viruses in the laboratory. We cannot observe it easily in slow-breeding creatures such as larger animals. Darwin wrote the seminal work on this subject, so it is a little silly to look to him as having understood the implications of his theory perfectly. He worried that there would not have been enough time, because he understood the slow incremental process required by his theory. The discovery that the earth was much older than expected actually lent more credibility to his theory.

Quote

I was not at all arguing that 500 million years was not a lot of time! Please note how Broken replied, though. He went from Darwin's presumed 'a few ten millions' of years right out to 4.5 billion years because Darwin HIMSELF didn't think 10-30 million years was old enough for evolution to be plausible. Sure- maybe 4.5 billion years is enough to paint over the lack of explicit evidence- but 4.5 billion years is not a true account of how much time was actually in play. That amount was 'only' 500 million years.

Half a billion years. Gosh, Darwin was only off by more than an order of magnitude. I can see what you mean.

Quote

Where on the scale between 10-30 million years and 4.5 billion years does evolution go from being implausible to plausible (leaving aside the finer point that plausible does not equal actual, in any case)? Can you provide any OBJECTIVE measure for how much time is really deemed to be necessary?

I'm not sure that one can provide an objective measure in the sense that you require, because there are simply too many variables to take into account. However, we have sufficient evidence from the fossil record and dating methods to see that such changes DID take place over geologic time. We cannot explain everything that we observe in the record, but scientists are in the process of piecing it together. The consistency of the evidence attests to a slow, incremental process.

Quote

That was my point in highlighting Broken's comments. 4.5 billion years might sound awfully good if you are looking for plausibility, and its interesting to me how many evolutionists knee-jerk their way to that number, but the fact is you don't have 4.5 billion years. You have .5 billion years.

Almost an eternity from the perspective of a human generational cycle. You keep minimizing how off-the-scale of human temporal reckoning these figures are.

Quote

Clearly, you think that is enough. But why should what any person 'thinks' matter? Does the argument simply boil down to "500 my must be enough, because, well, we are here" ?

No. It is that it must be enough because we observe the changes in the fossil record.

Quote

Anyway, this is really a discussion about the 'plausibility of evolution,' and my point is to argue towards YEC. If this has the unfortunate consequence (unfortunate for ya'll) of meaning you can't plausibly accept evolution, that is not my problem. Although, it does raise the curious question as to which came first, the chicken or the egg?

Never forget that YEC is proposed as an alternative to evolution. You cannot discuss YEC independently of the theory that it purports to contradict. As for the "which came first" question, it was obviously the case that the egg did. Offspring contain new genetic material. The doctrine of homogenesis as the ONLY means by which an organism can occur is falsified by the fossil record, not to mention observed cases of genetic evolution in lab experiments. Mutations happen.

Quote

Are you so convinced the earth is old because evolution is true, or are you convinced evolution is true because the earth is old?

False dichotomy. The age of the earth is consistent with evolution. The two theories stand on their own and support each other.

Quote

My hypothesis avoids this problem by interpreting the available EXPERIMENTALLY VERIFIABLE evidence in such a way that there is a residual (but important for the purposes of this thread) effect of not having the plausibility of the argument hinge on TIME.

That remains to be seen.

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #50 on:** May 19, 2006, 02:18:20 PM »

"I cannot provide you with an answer to an incoherent question. You presuppose that there is some kind of objective "mutation rate" by which we could calculate the rate of evolution."

The mutation rate was merely the flavor of the day. The goal of that exercise was to find out if you could provide any OBJECTIVE means for determing just 'how much' time is plausible.

"I have explained repeatedly that the rate depends on constantly varying environmental circumstances"

That is not true. The environment does not cause mutations. I have mentioned before that there are circumstances where radiation can cause such changes, but there is nothing about, say, a population being suddenly separated by a body of water (allopatric speciation) that would CAUSE a mutation.

"and variable generational cycles for different organisms, so it makes no sense to ask for an invariant rate that applies to all living organisms under all circumstances."

*shrug.* So, I guess you can't look to mutational rates to come up with your objective tool for deciding how 'plausible' evolution is for the time allotted. BTW, it is not as hopeless as you make it out. My readings of evolutionary literature reveals all sorts of comments and calculations based on mutation rates. Makes no difference to me- there isn't a single assertion made by evolutionists that is not challenged by some other evolutionist... save one: evolution is true.

"Absolutely correct. The problem is in trying to calculate how much time is "enough"."

Right. Objectively.

"We know that evolution requires many generations and that it tends to take place in small increments rather than the huge leaps and bounds that you imagine."

You continue to misrepresent me on this matter. Take a breath. Take a pause. Listen. THEN talk.

"The discovery that the earth was much older than expected actually lent more credibility to his theory."

How? Where is the line? It goes without saying that additional time added credibility to the theory. I guess I labor under the assumption that any theory trying to set itself up as being a 'scientific fact' should have some sort of OBJECTIVE basis for determining just how much or little time makes it plausible, or so implausible as to be thrown out.

"Half a billion years. Gosh, Darwin was only off by more than an order of magnitude. I can see what you mean."

You are being obtuse. My point was explicit, once again, and your response is completely incongruent with the actual words before your eyes. I will not address this matter again with you.

"I'm not sure that one can provide an objective measure in the sense that you require, because there are simply too many variables to take into account."

Thanks. That's all I needed. :) EXACTLY. We'll be moving along, shortly. We don't want people to think this thread is nothing more than 'an attack on evolution,' now, do we?

"Almost an eternity from the perspective of a human generational cycle. You keep minimizing how off-the-scale of human temporal reckoning these figures are."

You keep ignoring the explicit context by which Broken invoked 4.5 billion years for 'evolution to work.' That's the critical point that is required to correctly interpret my statements on that matter. You are pulling a Stathei in attacking a hill that is not being defended. I have no intention at this time- and never did in this thread- of deciding whether or not 500 million years is 'enough' time. As such, for you to continue in that vein is a waste of time.

"No. It is that it must be enough because we observe the changes in the fossil record."

Right. It must be enough, because that's what happened. Right. Got it. lol

"Never forget that YEC is proposed as an alternative to evolution."

Oh, is it? I thought that YEC pre-dated evolution for thousands of years.

"You cannot discuss YEC independently of the theory that it purports to contradict."

Which is why I have proposed my own hypothesis to account for the same data. I don't like it when you ignore obvious efforts that I have made that are already part of the record of the thread. Its rude.

"False dichotomy. The age of the earth is consistent with evolution. The two theories stand on their own and support each other."

That's interesting, if only because it ignores the context. So, even though you just said that evolution and YEC are at odds, you are of the mind that if I pull down the age of the earth, evolution will remain viable. Is that it? If not, then you cannot say that evolution truly 'stands on it own.'

"That remains to be seen."

Stop throwing up smokescreens that badly represent my position or ignore it outright and I bet we could get to it much faster.

Broken · « **Reply #51 on:** May 19, 2006, 02:44:57 PM »

Quote from: sntjohnny

"Further down in your post you seem to acknowledge that time is the only real limit on variation."

No, I'm just re-stating your view. My hypothesis is that these limits exist no matter how much time you alot. Whether you have a little time, or a lot of time, you will only have fluctuations within the available genetic material- which of course, can become corrupted, or narrowed, etc, along lines commonly argued by evolutionists themselves (and not disputed by most YECcers).

I gave you a specific and verifiable example, transposons, that genetic variations are not limited to fluctuations within limits. Simply labelling this example as "irrelevent" will not make it go away, SJ. Justify your POV.

I can lay out a description of other known mechanisms by which new and useful genetic material are created naturally, such as gene duplication, domain shuffling, and lateral transfer, but those will also contradict your viewpoint that genetic variation cannot produce useful and novel genetic material.

If you do accept the verifiable fact that new useful genetic material is created in nature, then could you clarify for me what exactly imposes the limits of which you speak?

Quote

"Of course, the current estimated age of the earth is 4.56 billion years, give or take 50 million. This is roughly 100 times the length of time Darwin thought was available for evolution to do it's work."

And yet the most impressive stages of evolution occurred only 500-600 years ago, well documented, and currently described as the Cambrian or pre-Cambrian explosions.

The cambrian is an impressive stage of evolution, but many other equally impressive stages preceded it. Such as:

3+ billion years ago: The diversification of bacteria and archea into an enormous range of habitats. This required the development of photo-synthesis, as well as the ability to metabolize diverse "food" sources such as sulphur, iron, and hydrogen sulfide. These organisms are responsible for the vast majority of the protein motifs which have evolved.

2+ billion years ago: The beginning of the creation of an oxygen atmosphere by photosynthetic bacteria. Without this advance, aerobic metabolism essential for higher organisms could not exist.

1+ billion years ago: The evolution of eukaryotic cells; that is cells with a nucleus, mitochondria, and the other complex organelles. All higher organisms are eukaryotes, since the genetic structure of bacteria is insufficient to support the complex gene regulation of multicellular life.

800+ million years ago: The first multicellular organisms, including the first fossil zygotes (animal embryos).

600+ million years ago. The oldest fossil macroscopic animals of the Vendian and Ecardarian periods. These creatures resembled sea-pens corrals, and other simple sessile animals.

Quote

For a long time it was thought that the origin of multi-cellular animals occurred in the Cambrian, which began only 543 million years ago. In a short period the majority of the skeleton-bearing phyla of animals appeared as fossils in early Cambrian strata. You might say that the seeming suddenness of the simultaneous appearance of so many phyla of animals is perhaps only an artifact of another evolutionary development at that time. Namely, perhaps the new fossils had skeletons but their soft-bodied ancestors did not have. (keep in mind that this view is threatened by the finding of exceptions)

Also, all living animals decended from phyla originating in the Cambrian possess HOX genes which regulate the "body plan" of complex animals. The evolution of this gene complex is most likely the true origin of the cambrian "explosion".

Quote

But if the apparent explosionof new phyla in the early Cambrian was in part due to the skeletonization of a great variety of already existing soft-bodied types (one proffered alternative), one would have to ask, what caused this sudden skeletonization of so many unrelated phyla ONLY about 500 million years ago?

A number of reasonable hypotheses, but no conclusive evidence. The development of teeth and armor are obvious survival enhancers as animals got larger and more complex. Also, there is some evidence of calcium build-up in the sea-water at this time, which would make it easier for animals to develop mineralized parts.

Quote

Its not like you get the full 4.5 billion years to account for what we presently observe. You only get 500 million years, and that is only 1/9th of the time you just tried to invoke.

As my timeline above points out, there was a lot going on during the time periods dominated by single-celled life. In fact, life is still dominated by single-celled organisms. Roughly 2/3 of the earth's biomass is bacteria. All the plants, animals, and other eukaryotes have to share the remaining 1/3. We "higher" organisms are only the tip of the iceberg, so to speak. So, for us to claim that life started 500 million years ago is being a bit parochial.

Quote

That's a lot less time for 'evolution to do its work.'

As I pointed out above, most of evolution had already occurred by 500 million years ago. Bacteria, early eukaryotes, and simple multicellular organisms did most of the heavy lifting. All the building blocks were in place: complex genomes, a vast array of proteins, intercellular communication and cellular differentiation. Then the advent of HOX genes set off the explosion.

The rest of your post recapitulates your position that most of evolution happened in the last 500 million years. I think I have made it clear that most of evolution happened before 500 million years ago. What has happened since then has mainly been evolution of different body plans. That is why there is 85% commonality between the translated DNA of humans and zebrafish. The main difference between humans and zebrafish is how our cells are organized into higher structures, such as limbs, brain, and skin.

Quote

"I suspect you will proceed with an attack on scientific inductive reasoning."

Is there a difference between scientific inductive reasoning and other forms of inductive reasoning?

I will stick with Newton's definition of induction, which I have posted here before.

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #52 on:** May 19, 2006, 03:39:40 PM »

"SJ. Justify your POV."

My POV is simply that you are invoking observed exceptions to the observed rules we observe in order to create an imagined rule into the unfalsifiable past. You are welcome to do that, if you like. I consider that epistemologically weak, and a lot of folks would agree with me.

"but those will also contradict your viewpoint that genetic variation cannot produce useful and novel genetic material."

Oh, I said that did I? You go ahead and find where I said that and paste it on in here. With one exception... 'novel' is ridiculous. All new genetic material is going to be 'novel,' regardless of its impact.

"Of course, the current estimated age of the earth is 4.56 billion years, give or take 50 million. This is roughly 100 times the length of time Darwin thought was available for evolution to do it's work."

"The cambrian is an impressive stage of evolution, but many other equally impressive stages preceded it. Such as:"

Sorry, that's not going to cut it. I think you are well informed enough to know why the part of evolution allegedly documented in the 'Cambrian' period is MUCH more interesting for our purposes than 'archea.'

"Also, all living animals decended from phyla originating in the Cambrian..."

Ah, there you go. I knew you knew why we should care specifically about the creatures arising in the Cambrian. I knew it. :)

"A number of reasonable hypotheses, but no conclusive evidence."

No. Its a FACT. A FACT. A FACT, I SAY. IT MUST HAVE HAPPENED THAT WAY BECAUSE THAT'S THE WAY IT HAPPENED.

Oh well. I guess it only works when ya'll do it.

"As my timeline above points out, there was a lot going on during the time periods dominated by single-celled life."

And yet you accidentally reduced it all to irrelevancy by pointing out by yourself the critical fact that "all living animals decended from phyla originating in the Cambrian"

The other alleged events do not concern us. The sudden explosion of hard-bodied fossils of fully formed and non-intermediate creatures at that time provides the important practical 'end point' to trace back the evolution of OUR phyla.

"In fact, life is still dominated by single-celled organisms."

Kinda makes one wonder why there is anything else if single-celled organisms can handle whatever is thrown at it.

"So, for us to claim that life started 500 million years ago is being a bit parochial."

I did not claim that life started 500 million years ago. If I get down on my knees and beg do you think that I could get you guys to read what is written and stick to that instead of what you think I mean?

"The rest of your post recapitulates your position that most of evolution happened in the last 500 million years."

No it doesn't. For one thing, that would be an asinine and stupid and completely uninformed position. Fortunately, it is not my position. And you are not being honest if you dismiss the significance of this period from a fossil POV- presuming you are actually informed about it. You seem to think you are informed about it, so there you go. Combine this with yet another stream of comments that do not accurately reflect what was written and instead presume to know what you think I meant, and one gets the idea that you aren't really interested in hearing about different POVs.

"I will stick with Newton's definition of induction, which I have posted here before."

You'd better post it again just so you can't complain if I come up with something else. But you didn't answer the question. How will Newton's definition of 'induction' be different than any other inductive exercise. Induction isn't induction whereever you come across it?

Broken · « **Reply #53 on:** May 20, 2006, 01:15:17 AM »

Quote from: sntjohnny

My POV is simply that you are invoking observed exceptions to the observed rules we observe in order to create an imagined rule into the unfalsifiable past.

Transposable elements are not "exceptions to the observed rules", SJ. A survey in 2003 found retrotransposons inserted in 25% of human gene promoter-regions. So this one mechanism alone has had a significant impact in human evolution. Altogether, retrotransposons represent over 30% of our genome. Not exactly rare.

This is the reality your theory has to deal with, SJ. Not only have positive mutations been identified, but their natural causes have been deciphered. If positive mutations are a common reality, how can you claim variation has limits? What "observed rule" would contradict the observation that variation is only limited only by time?

Quote

"but those will also contradict your viewpoint that genetic variation cannot produce useful and novel genetic material."

Oh, I said that did I? You go ahead and find where I said that and paste it on in here. With one exception... 'novel' is ridiculous. All new genetic material is going to be 'novel,' regardless of its impact.

Here is what you said: "you will only have fluctuations within the available genetic material". That rather excludes new genetic material, don't you think? Yet we have proof of such new genetic material being created. Your theory is contradicted.

Quote

I think you are well informed enough to know why the part of evolution allegedly documented in the 'Cambrian' period is MUCH more interesting for our purposes than 'archea.'

Interesting to you because you identify with animals, not archaea.

I am not trying to denigrate the amazing number of animals which have appeared since the beginning of the cambrian, but life accomplished more significant advances before the cambrian. I listed some of those earlier.

What has happened since the cambrian? Not sex: many one-celled eukayotes have reproductive sex. Even bacteria have non-reproductive sex, which is called conjugative gene transfer.

The basic HOX gene cluster which controls the development of animals exists (in simple form) in animals which were present before the cambrian began. Since the cambrian, the HOX genes have exploded in complexity, but they are not a new invention.

Intercellular communication, essential for multicellular organisms, exists in simpler creatures than animals. For example, some protozoans form simple multicellular organisms, with primitive cell differentiation into sex cells and body cells, mediated by intercellular communication proteins. Protozoans predate the cambrian.

However, complex tissues, skeletons and organs are post-cambrian. Nervous, immune, and circulatory systems, MAY be post-cambrian, but it depends on whether you consider cnidarians (hydras and jellyfish) precambrian or not. These systems obviously have greatly evolved, post-cambrian. Life capable of reasoning (even if rarely employed) is post-cambrian.

Quote

"A number of reasonable hypotheses, but no conclusive evidence."

No. Its a FACT. A FACT. A FACT, I SAY. IT MUST HAVE HAPPENED THAT WAY BECAUSE THAT'S THE WAY IT HAPPENED.

Oh well. I guess it only works when ya'll do it.

Heh, heh. I agree that there are some people who back evolution without a shred of understanding of the science behind it. It is simply faith to them, although they would never see it as such.

Quote

"As my timeline above points out, there was a lot going on during the time periods dominated by single-celled life."

And yet you accidentally reduced it all to irrelevancy by pointing out by yourself the critical fact that "all living animals decended from phyla originating in the Cambrian"

No, read it again. Animals originated before the cambrian. Fossils of zygotes, unique to animals, have been found dating to over 100 million years before the cambrian. The cambrian represents the HOX gene revolution: body plans and development.

Quote

The sudden explosion of hard-bodied fossils of fully formed and non-intermediate creatures at that time provides the important practical 'end point' to trace back the evolution of OUR phyla.

I am missing your point here. Once animals developed mineralized skeletons and shells, fossils of such animals are obviously much easier to find than their non-skeletal ancestors.

Quote

"In fact, life is still dominated by single-celled organisms."

Kinda makes one wonder why there is anything else if single-celled organisms can handle whatever is thrown at it.

Obviously multi-cellularity has some advantages to it. For one thing, cells can specialize. For another, it is a lot easier to eat one-celled organisms if you are much bigger than they are. Unfortunately, our size also makes us targets for infection. Call it assymetrical warfare.

Quote

"So, for us to claim that life started 500 million years ago is being a bit parochial."

I did not claim that life started 500 million years ago. If I get down on my knees and beg do you think that I could get you guys to read what is written and stick to that instead of what you think I mean?

We were discussing Darwin, who had no evidence of life before the Cambrian. This disturbed him deeply, which he openly admitted. Darwin was refreshingly honest. I think he would be greatly surprised at how well his theory has been vindicated by the data from the last 150 years. Darwin was not the first evolutionist. He was the first to develop a systematic theory of evolution.

Quote

"The rest of your post recapitulates your position that most of evolution happened in the last 500 million years."

No it doesn't.

Does. As does the post I am currently critiquing. Archaea are not evolutionarily interesting, you say. Animals are a fairly recent invention, evolutionarily speaking, but it is what we humans focus on, being animals ourselves. We aren't too interested in protist evolution, for example.

In any case, 543 million years is a long time, as Copernicus ably pointed out. That is a lot of generations. Most simple marine animals reproduce at least once a year. In vast quantities. Think of the cambrian as a time when life had discovered a new toy, the Hox body-plan genes, and exploiting this new toy was highly profitable.

The fossil record is the fossil record, and any theory which wishes to supplant evolution must fit the data at least as well.

Quote

"I will stick with Newton's definition of induction, which I have posted here before."

You'd better post it again just so you can't complain if I come up with something else. But you didn't answer the question. How will Newton's definition of 'induction' be different than any other inductive exercise. Induction isn't induction whereever you come across it?

I have posted them here before, so Google for it, you will remember it better that way. "Newton induction philosophy" should work. Check out his rules 2 and 3 in particular, but they are all worth reading.

Copernicus · « **Reply #54 on:** May 20, 2006, 11:57:51 AM »

Broken, very nice job in responding to SJ's posts. You obviously have much better knowledge than either of us when it comes to biology, although I am probably learning more than he is by reading your posts.

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #55 on:** May 20, 2006, 12:59:31 PM »

"I am probably learning more than he is by reading your posts"

There actually isn't anything in his posts that I have not heard before. Thankfully, since I restrict myself to evolutionary materials to teach me about evolution, I don't tend to be surprised. Much of the post is getting off track, and as much as I hate leaving things unanswered, I'm moving on.

With one exception, because obviously it goes to my own hypothesis, which is what I'm using to unhinge myself from requiring a certain amount of 'time' before I tend to the actual question of ascertaining exactly how much time there is.

I would be interested in hearing your source, Broken, for your assertion that the human genome is composed of 30% transposable elements. I am quite certain that you are over-stating it, but as evolutionists are constantly changing their mind, perhaps the consensus has changed. There is one critical reason why TE's do not help you:

No selectively valuable contributions are known for ANY of the TEs. Rather they often seem deleterious, but natural selection seems unable to eliminate them (which by God, you'd think it could).

Since they don't typically have effects that can be selected for, you gain nothing by proposing them. When they do, they are deleterious. Also, when they happen they may cause mutations on an adjacent gene, which while 'new information,' given the fact that most mutations are deleterious, that's not saying much.

[edited because I found Broken said something that confirms the above]

You yourself said:

"When a TE inserts itself into a gene's regulatory region (their usual target), the gene's function is alterred, mostly for the worse, but sometimes for the better."

Now, let's compare that to what I said that started this line of discourse:

Quote

My POV is simply that you are invoking observed exceptions to the observed rules we observe in order to create an imagined rule into the unfalsifiable past. You are welcome to do that, if you like. I consider that epistemologically weak, and a lot of folks would agree with me.

So, you admit that when a TE inserts itself, though it affects gene function, it is MOSTLY FOR THE WORSE. Let's compare that with what I said....

YOU ARE INVOKING EXCEPTIONS TO THE OBSERVED RULES. What are the observed rules? You said it yourself: MOSTLY FOR THE WORSE.

Perhaps my English is poor, but 'MOSTLY' seems consistent with 'OBSERVED RULES,' while 'SOMETIMES' would seem to be consistent with EXCEPTIONS.

In otherwords, the point that I am actually making you yourself confirm virtually explicitly. Your problem consists mainly in not recognizing my point, but also because you are comfortable to create rules out of exceptions and exceptions out of the rules.

Whose hypothesis does TE's support? Mine. Which hypothesis does it provide EMPIRICAL support for? Mine.

To that end, I thank you for mentioning them.

[/end edit]

You also fail to understand your own theory. At heart, EVERY bit of the gene code must, by definition, have been a 'mutation' at one time. The presumption is that these mutations have been sifted through resulting in productive organisms. So, telling me that we observe 'new information' coming in when in principle EVERY bit of ANY genome necessarily was 'new' at one time is.... well... uninteresting and unimpressive.

Now hang on a second while I do a quick look in my biology text book to see if it has anything more d--ning than what I just said...

I quote:

"What role do these repeated sequences play in the cell? There are few answers."

lol. That's ok, Broken. You just keep trotting TE's out. Here follows a handful of statements about 'possibilities.' Now, perhaps the most interesting thing about the TEs in my textbook (besides the fact that they are mainly only talked about having any real manifestations in regards to BACTERIA, is the fact that they are only talked about on 5 pages, and then not very much. The included teh comment above "There are few answers." lol

A text book that has 1241 pages and is obnoxiously evolutionary in nature has only 5 pages containing any discussion on TEs, and then, in the main, expresses uncertainty about their 'role.' They get a little bit better play in regards to bacteria.

And it may be interesting to further note that for something you are apparently quite confident in parading out as the coup de grace, Chapter 20 "The Mechanisms of Evolution" doesn't bother to mention them at all.

Maybe they are not as important as you think they are. Perhaps you should consult the editors and tell them that they are forgetting to mention some of the best evidence for evolution!

This is a 1998 book. Evolutionists, as I said, are constantly changing their mind, so perhaps views have changed. I stand by my assessment above that "No selectively valuable contributions are known for ANY of the TEs. Rather they often seem deleterious, but natural selection seems unable to eliminate them (which by God, you'd think it could)."

That sums up what I knew based on information I picked up before I bought and began to read the text book.

Oh yes, my friends. Virtually every night before I go to bed I read the textbooks and primary sources that are produced by my opposition. And you thought I read my Bible.

It saddens me how rarely I need to speak to specifics. Its practically a waste of time, since most arguments are around generalities. In that respect, then, I thank you Broken, for allowing me to trot out some of my latent reserves of otherwise worthless knowledge.

I especially thank you for trotting out what seems to be a practically worthless feature in support of your position. If I were an evolutionist trying to support my position, I'd leave the TE's out. And it would be nice if some of my opponents spent as much time reading the primary sources and texts produced by MY side (not merely speaking of YEC, here). We'd be able to cut through a lot of the bullcrap.

Allow me to summarize: The General Rule is that there is variation with limits. That is the observation.

TEs do not produce noticeable variation. They operate almost parasitically. As such, even they do not speak to the question of 'variation with limits,' but to the extent that they speak to anything, they support my hypothesis, which maintains not that every part of the genome was at one time in history a 'mutant', but that the genome in a given 'class' was itself 'perfectly complete.'

Hey, you've heard the saying,

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #56 on:** May 20, 2006, 01:17:55 PM »

Quote

but those will also contradict your viewpoint that genetic variation cannot produce useful and novel genetic material."

Oh, I said that did I? You go ahead and find where I said that and paste it on in here. With one exception... 'novel' is ridiculous. All new genetic material is going to be 'novel,' regardless of its impact.

"Here is what you said: "you will only have fluctuations within the available genetic material"."

But that is not all I said, and I was speaking specifically to variation.

Here are other things that I have said:

Quote

The acquisition of significant morphological traits would represent new, different, or corrupted genetic code not present in the original population.

In such cases where we can expose creatures to radiation to speed up mutations, creatures with these crazy new morphological features, these mutants, really, rarely live to reproduction. They would not in the wild, for sure.

This is a reality that forms an important part of my belief that there are definite limits to the amount of variation that natural selection can produce on a gene pool.

Clearly, it is not my position that there is never anything different. Also clear, in this early post, is that when I'm talking about limits it is, and I quote, "limits to the amount of variation."

Let's find some more:

Quote

Mutations are just that- mutations. They are random, they are errors, they are mistakes. They are not caused by the environment, though an environment MAY select from mutated genes. Mutations are notoriously deleterious when they do happen. They are rarely beneficial. In otherwords, empirically speaking, we see limits of variation, and where the genetic code is altered via some mutation of some kind (point mutation, or whatever, it doesn't matter), obsevationally speaking the progeny is quite likely gunna die. It won't reproduce. We may imagine that theoretically the environment happens to change just at that exact right moment so that the progeny actually happens to have a trait that is compatible with that genetic expression. But this is clearly ad hoc. It might be theoretically possible, but it is not demonstrably actual.

More:

Quote

Mutations are often nuetral, when they manifest, they nearly are always deleterious, and the progeny rarely survives.

There is more rapid change in smaller populations than larger populations.

Wow, you're right man. Let's see what you said again:

"That rather excludes new genetic material, don't you think? Yet we have proof of such new genetic material being created. Your theory is contradicted."

Hmmm. I've talked about new genetic material about a dozen times in the above material. I wonder if your inference that my comment 'excludes new genetic material' perhaps flows from a theory that YOU are entertaining.

It ticks me off when people ignore paragraphs of material that I have already produced, on THAT very thread, and mischaracterize it later. Its bluming obvious that I don't think that 'new information' can NOT be found in the code. What should be obvious, but somehow isn't, is that No one gives a rip. That's not the contention.

Now, the problem is that this is an example that happened to be pretty easy to highlight, but I find that my friends on the forum constantly take what I say and flatly ignore it and then put words into my mouth, which I need to come back and address later. THAT IS A WASTE OF TIME. And its rude.

I'm telling you all right now, if that's the technique you need to employ to persuade people of your position, you've got a very weak position. I'm at my wits end on it. I am going to have to think of a way to classify remarks by ya'll that I think have completely misconstrued what I actually said and just put a notation by it, because I don't have enough time in the day to go back and instruct people who are obviously literate what the literature before their eyes REALLY SAID.

Now, I see an interesting quote worth returning to that I noticed again when Broken quoted one of my comments above (thus leaving him no excuse for suggesting that I'm arguing that there is NO information added to the genome [a positively stupid thing for anyone to argue, and i"m insulted you put it into my mouth]). So, time to edit the previous post.

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #57 on:** May 20, 2006, 03:12:08 PM »

Moving on:

Variation with limits is the observed reality.

As you say- and this will be representative to about any example you might wish to suggest:

"When a TE inserts itself into a gene's regulatory region (their usual target), the gene's function is alterred, mostly for the worse, but sometimes for the better."

Ie, what is the observed rule? MOSTLY FOR THE WORSE. What is the EXCEPTION? SOMETIMES for the better.

How you got from me saying there were no exceptions is beyond me. At anyrate, this is exactly what I said, and I quote:

"My POV is simply that you are invoking observed exceptions to the observed rules we observe in order to create an imagined rule into the unfalsifiable past."

I further say:

"You are welcome to do that, if you like. I consider that epistemologically weak, and a lot of folks would agree with me."

In otherwords, for people who consider themselves experimentalists, like me, if anything is going to be postulated back into the distant past, its not going to be the OBSERVED exceptions, but rather the OBSERVED rules. That is how someone who cares about the empirical facts on the ground will proceed. As I say, you are welcome to behave and believe otherwise, and I won't stop you. Lurkers can decide who is being more reasonable on that particular point.

As a final note, if you do not think that we observe variation with limits, your position had better be that you are not against, as a matter of public policy, marital relationships between close relatives- brothers marrying sisters, mothers marrying sons, etc- so long as it is, of course, 'consenting.' That's putting your money where your mouth is. In the real world, when the chips are down, we know that there are limits to the variation, and our incest laws are a case in point to that effect.

So, in the interests of moving on, let me say that if you are not willing to defend that position above, you are de facto conceding the reality that 'we observe variation with limits.' So, I will only entertain further comments on the matter if you are willing to defend that position.

As I know that no evolutionist is willing to bank on the exceptions being the rule when the chips are down in real life, I will be moving on.

It may take until later tonight or perhaps tomorrow.

Peace out homeys.

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #58 on:** May 21, 2006, 09:18:59 PM »

Sometime this week.

Broken · « **Reply #59 on:** May 22, 2006, 02:44:15 PM »

Quote from: sntjohnny

I would be interested in hearing your source, Broken, for your assertion that the human genome is composed of 30% transposable elements.

I was speaking of retrotransposons. The figure is closer to 45% if one counts all transposable elements. Here is one article:

Transposable elements in mammals promote regulatory variation and diversification of genes with specialized functions

Transposable elements (TEs) (primarily retroelements) comprise at least 45% of the human genome and 40% of the mouse genome, and ancient elements that have diverged beyond recognition have also undoubtedly contributed to the composition of mammalian chromosomes [1,2].

Here is the LINK. (warning: pdf file).

Quote

No selectively valuable contributions are known for ANY of the TEs.

Pay attention, SJ. I have already given you an example of a TE producing a positive mutation, the amylase gene TE allowing primates to digest complex carbohydrates with their saliva. Being able to more rapidly digest complex carbohydrates is certainly an evolutionary advantage.

Quote

You yourself said:

"When a TE inserts itself into a gene's regulatory region (their usual target), the gene's function is alterred, mostly for the worse, but sometimes for the better."

Of course only a small percentage of mutations are positive. That is all that is necessary, since the negative mutations are weeded out by natural selection, leaving just the positive and neutral ones.

Quote

YOU ARE INVOKING EXCEPTIONS TO THE OBSERVED RULES. What are the observed rules? You said it yourself: MOSTLY FOR THE WORSE.

You have been claiming that evolution is limited to "micro-evolution" because variation is limited. You say variation is limited because mutations cannot produce "selectively valuable contributions". I have given you examples of positive mutations, contradicting your argument. I chose mutations induced by transposable elements, TEs, for my example because it is obvious TE-induced mutations are natural and not the hand of God.

Apparently, your fall-back position is that because MOST mutations are negative or neutral, the positive ones don't matter. But as we all know, negative mutations reduce the survival of their hosts and get weeded out by selection, leaving just the positive and neutral ones.

So where are you going with this, except into a deeper hole?

Quote

At heart, EVERY bit of the gene code must, by definition, have been a 'mutation' at one time.

We are not discussing the origin of life here, SJ. Stay on topic.

Quote

Now hang on a second while I do a quick look in my biology text book to see if it has anything more d--ning than what I just said...

I quote:

"What role do these repeated sequences play in the cell? There are few answers."

lol. That's ok, Broken. You just keep trotting TE's out. Here follows a handful of statements about 'possibilities.' Now, perhaps the most interesting thing about the TEs in my textbook (besides the fact that they are mainly only talked about having any real manifestations in regards to BACTERIA, is the fact that they are only talked about on 5 pages, and then not very much. The included teh comment above "There are few answers." lol

Perhaps you might consider looking beyond your introduction-to-biology textbook. For example, try Fred Bushman's "Lateral DNA Transfer" which I suggested to Matt. That's 430 pages on transposable elements.

Also, the article I linked to above, "Transposable elements in mammals promote regulatory variation and diversification of genes with specialized functions", would contradict your textbook's claim that there are "few answers" concerning the function of TEs.

A few quotes:

We found that recently expanded gene classes, such as those involved in immunity or response to external stimuli, have transcripts enriched in TEs, whereas TEs are excluded from mRNAs of highly conserved genes with basic functions in development or metabolism. These results support the view that TEs have played a significant role in the diversification and evolution of mammalian genes.

TEs serve as alternative promoters of many genes. A search of the Human Promoter Database has shown that 25% of analyzed promoter regions contain a TE-derived sequence [4] and several studies have demonstrated a role for TEs in human gene transcription in individual cases [5,7

Author Topic: In Defense of Young Earth Creationism (Read 11895 times)