The Primary Axiom or Evolution is just a lie and should be replaced by Intelligent Design

a reply to: neoholographic

Typical creationist/ID dogma that mutations are inherently harmful. I have repeatedly illustrated examples of mutations causing functional differences.

Let us concentrate say on various Haemoglobin mutations. Most of these are SNP's (single nucleotide polymorphisms). These mutations cause a difference in the amino acids which are expressed by the genetic coding. These lead to a difference in function.

Now before you go "But those are harmful".

“HbC.” Having one copy of this mutant gene makes you 29% less likely to get malaria, while having two copies makes it 93% less likely. (Homozygous Hemoglobin C Disease". New England Journal of Medicine 350 (26) )

Where is this mutation most prevalent? Oh look West Africa. Well known malaria country.

How does it function? The glutamic acid residue with a lysine residue at the 6th position of the β-globin chain (that is first year biochemistry neighbour).

Lets look at another beneficial mutation.

The CCR5Δ32 mutation. This helps protect against HIV infection of certain strains of HIV (bot all but a group of them). Again a single mutation. It changed function.

How does it work? It alters (that means changes) chemokine ligand binding function.

originally posted by: whereislogic
a reply to: neoholographic

I hope someone at least appreciates the humor of the DS9 video without doing other things with that comment (not quite sure how to describe it).

I'm not talking about you, except when I used "I hope someone...". Not sure what my purpose for this comment is, perhaps I'm hoping some other people notice something I just noticed and I want to stress looking into what certain persons don't want others to be looking into. Including an honest description of how the word "evolution" is used and has been used since Darwin's time. Which I tried to point at by quoting you when you quoted Dr. Sanford, he's also considering the whole show (or story involved with both so-called "chemical evolution" as well as so-called "biological evolution").

Should I mention something about "information overload" again? This thread suddenly filled up quick after a lull in proceedings.

I just looked at the video and I liked the quote. It reminds me of that lyric telling lies that sound true.

So here we have mutations causing a change in function which are benificial. Lets see ....

Lactose Tollerance (ie you are the mutant if you are tollerant to diary, here I bet you hoped for a healing factor and claws )

Malaria resistance (Both HbC and HbS)

HIV resistance.

Here are some more...

Apolipoprotein AI-Milano. It helps with cholestoral removal, and is known for the village Limone in the North of Italy

Increased bone density due to a mutation in lipoprotein receptor-related protein 5, (LRP5).

Tetrachromatic vision

Tollerance to altitude in Tibetans and Nepalese populations ( EPAS1)

Immunity to Kuru (G127V)

Rh-null blood

Decreased need for sleep (DEC2)

There we go, some more examples.

Thus this amply demonstrates that mutation does indeed cause new functions. It also shows that "evolution is NOT a big lie"

a reply to: Noinden

You just keep rambling on with things that have nothing to do with the debate.

I never said mutations can't interfere with the expression of a gene. What they can't do is create any new function or meaning to a sequence of DNA that regulates gene expression. Nothing you have said or anyone else refutes this.

Like many Darwinist, you post half truths. Look at LRP5 for instance. Mutations of LRP5 cause all types of problems like polycystic liver disease also Familial exudative vitreoretinopathy.

There's increased bone density but this isn't always a good thing and many bone density related diseases are caused by mutations in LRP5.

This isn't the point though. Like I said, mutations can interfere with the expression of a gene but mutations or natural selection can't give function or meaning to a sequence of DNA that regulates expression.

The sequence of DNA letters that regulate the expression of LRP5 wasn't given meaning or function via random mutations or natural selection. Mutations interfere with a gene that regulated by a sequence of DNA letters and there's zero evidence that random mutations can give meaning and function to a sequence of DNA that regulates expression.

THAT'S A FANTASY!

originally posted by: lordcomac

originally posted by: neoholographic

The fact is, there's not a shred of evidence that the genetic code evolved. Instructions and the machinery to carry out these instructions don't evolve by chance.

How do you figure we know apes and man are related? There are many, fossils out there showing how animals evolved over time. Evolution happens- you can observe it in your own home with fruit flies if you were so inclined.

DNA is just chemistry- chemistry happens all around you, every day. This is one of those infinite monkeys with typewriter type deals.

I came to this board way too late but it has the same flaw injected into it that EVERY evolutionist seems to and ive always just shut up cuz it seems pointless as no matter how many times a correction is attempted, it is ignored and the same false info bleeds into the next thread.

Not once, never in history, has evolution been observed. Never. Even when scientists decided to speed things up cuz they weren't getting the desired results and they replaced animals with bacteria and amoebas someof which reproduce in minutes giving thousands of observable generations in a single day, and STILL no scientist has observed evolution of one species of animal or even bacteria making that magic switch into another. Which is the whole reason the argument is out there, "you twiddle with environment all you want and a beaver may grow thicker fur (adaptation not evolution) but even given a million generations that beaver isnt going to give birth to a panda bear." And so eve more ridiculous is the lesson that a fish became a mud eel became a four foot iguana became a monkey became a chimp became man.

And if you only knew the reasons why not just creationists intelligent designists and other nonevolutionists AND evolutionists themselves slowly but some rely are admitting and throwing out what is known by supposed fossils strata and carbon dating. I thought like you too til I finally said, "shut up me, you really dont know squat but a Jr high level understanding of evo." and i watched a YouTube on the truly scandalous way they came up with the monkey to man theory, the homohabilis and its single knee bone leading to its discovery, one step which when tested modern times shows homosapien but with severe arthritis, not another species, and hopefully I dont need to talk to you about carbon dating not but the dinosaurs of academia will touch that for now.

But evolutionist ppl, stop spreading bad info nobody has observed evolution. No science site book or person will even say that in fact only the misinformed. Nobody claims to have observed it or wed all be singing quite a different tune.

Geeze, anybody search the house yet?

This thread is like reading a season of House scripts without the comedic moments.

Good work tho!

originally posted by: AlexandrosTheGreat

originally posted by: lordcomac

originally posted by: neoholographic

The fact is, there's not a shred of evidence that the genetic code evolved. Instructions and the machinery to carry out these instructions don't evolve by chance.

How do you figure we know apes and man are related? There are many, fossils out there showing how animals evolved over time. Evolution happens- you can observe it in your own home with fruit flies if you were so inclined.

DNA is just chemistry- chemistry happens all around you, every day. This is one of those infinite monkeys with typewriter type deals.

I came to this board way too late but it has the same flaw injected into it that EVERY evolutionist seems to and ive always just shut up cuz it seems pointless as no matter how many times a correction is attempted, it is ignored and the same false info bleeds into the next thread.

Not once, never in history, has evolution been observed. Never. Even when scientists decided to speed things up cuz they weren't getting the desired results and they replaced animals with bacteria and amoebas someof which reproduce in minutes giving thousands of observable generations in a single day, and STILL no scientist has observed evolution of one species of animal or even bacteria making that magic switch into another. Which is the whole reason the argument is out there, "you twiddle with environment all you want and a beaver may grow thicker fur (adaptation not evolution) but even given a million generations that beaver isnt going to give birth to a panda bear." And so eve more ridiculous is the lesson that a fish became a mud eel became a four foot iguana became a monkey became a chimp became man.

And if you only knew the reasons why not just creationists intelligent designists and other nonevolutionists AND evolutionists themselves slowly but some rely are admitting and throwing out what is known by supposed fossils strata and carbon dating. I thought like you too til I finally said, "shut up me, you really dont know squat but a Jr high level understanding of evo." and i watched a YouTube on the truly scandalous way they came up with the monkey to man theory, the homohabilis and its single knee bone leading to its discovery, one step which when tested modern times shows homosapien but with severe arthritis, not another species, and hopefully I dont need to talk to you about carbon dating not but the dinosaurs of academia will touch that for now.

But evolutionist ppl, stop spreading bad info nobody has observed evolution. No science site book or person will even say that in fact only the misinformed. Nobody claims to have observed it or wed all be singing quite a different tune.

blogs.scientificamerican.com...

evolution.berkeley.edu...

MISCONCEPTION: Evolution is not science because it is not observable or testable.

CORRECTION: This misconception encompasses two incorrect ideas: (1) that all science depends on controlled laboratory experiments, and (2) that evolution cannot be studied with such experiments. First, many scientific investigations do not involve experiments or direct observation. Astronomers cannot hold stars in their hands and geologists cannot go back in time, but both scientists can learn a great deal about the universe through observation and comparison. In the same way, evolutionary biologists can test their ideas about the history of life on Earth by making observations in the real world. Second, though we can't run an experiment that will tell us how the dinosaur lineage radiated, we can study many aspects of evolution with controlled experiments in a laboratory setting. In organisms with short generation times (e.g., bacteria or fruit flies), we can actually observe evolution in action over the course of an experiment. And in some cases, biologists have observed evolution occurring in the wild. To learn more about rapid evolution in the wild, visit our news story on climate change, our news story on the evolution of PCB-resistant fish, or our research profile on the evolution fish size in response to our fishing practices. To learn more about the nature of science, visit the Understanding Science website.

Now that we have addressed that point for the two hundredth time, can we move on already?

a reply to: neoholographic

The searchterm "evolution" has 84 results for me on the wikipage for abiogenesis, the search term "evolv" has 19 results. Yet still Terrydon79 is arguing for:

Evolution is about life evolving, not forming. 2 completely different subjects.

With impeckable timing regarding listing definitions for the term "organic evolution" (because I slipped up and bolded a word I shouldn't have bolded and stayed on-topic of the definition for the word "evolution" and perhaps quoting Haldane & Oparin in the same comment about "the chemical evolution theory of life").

The topic being a definition for the word "evolution" (not "organic evolution"; I played right into his cards by bolding that word, then following up with a poor usage of the term cherry picking allowing him to play the dictionary card specifically for "organic evolution" and not discuss "chemical evolution", and the door is still open for pretending that in the latter term "evolution" just means "change over time" or taking another definition listed in dictionaries, "a process of slow change and development", or other variations to dismiss all the 84 instances of "evolution" and 19 instances of "evolv" on that wikipage and anywhere else it is used in that manner) as it is used by human beings, which is what definitions are supposed to do (and historical usages are allowed, very useful actually, please read my commentary about that if you want to know what I'm talking about).

He phrases the same 'argument' (twist, but I'm talking about a different twist now than what I was talking about in reply to him) a couple of times over then reminds me:

Just because you say something over and over again, doesn't make it true.

Which is a very typical and very effective propaganda technique he just used himself. By repetition people will believe it regardless of whether or not what he's saying is true or not (he also twisted what I said about "accusations" 3 times in a row making it about something else that he could call a "fact", hmmm reminds me of something else; even to the point of telling me, or actually the audience, what I supposedly was pointing towards with the word "accusations", also 3 times I think but one time very clearly). It's a little too complicated to explain in more detail, there's a lot more to it. The point about how humans use the word "evolution" is crucial. The definition I used as an example for the word "evolution" is the one that is most honest in describing all evolutionary philosophies pertaining to life. There are also historical switches that are made by evolutionary philosophers how they use the word "evolution" and how many dictionaries will follow suit (perhaps all). It gets really complicated if you go in deep like that, but I guess for some people just mentioning the 84 instances I talked about just isn't enough (because of the possible switch to "change over time" and the other variations I gave, it's all just capitalizing on the ambiguity of language and leaving out or distracting away from the facts, especially the usage of the term "chemical evolution"). They'll find a way to confuse the issue and pretend you need to "learn the difference" (cause you supposedly don't know what you're talking about and are spreading "misleading...flawed arguments").

Perhaps I should once more emphasize the core myth and philosophy of both so-called "chemical evolution" as well as "biological evolution" as well as "organic evolution" and a few more "... evolution" that I'm not going to get into now:

'(Mother) Nature did it' / 'Gaia did it'

That is one of the many reasons why you can never logically argue for what I quoted from TerryDon79 at the start of this comment, only deceptively (or ignorantly, but he's not ignorant, his timing and how he executed that play gives a big clue about that). Especially the bolded part.

Here is a historical definition for the word "evolve" that may be of help:

Meaning "to develop by natural processes to a higher state" is from 1832.

I would say that the story that the first living organism developed from lifeless matter by natural processes, as it is for example presented on the wikipage for abiogenesis and by evolutionary philosophers Haldane & Oparin as "the chemical evolution theory of life", qualifies as developing to a "higher state". Trying to seperate the word "evolution" from the topic of "abiogenesis" (by 'Nature did it'), is a futile attempt that exposes part of what's going in this world regarding people being deceived with myths according to 2 Timothy 4:3,4 (so it's also evidence for the reliability and accuracy of the bible). That's why I'm stressing this issue perhaps a bit too much now.

a reply to: cooperton and neoholographic

originally posted by: cooperton
No its not. Its the result of "Alternative splicing giving rise to chimeric transcripts encoding the TRIM motif fused to a C-terminal CypA domain (TRIM5-CypA). " Alternative splicing is a form of gene regulation, and has an epigenetic aspect to it. In other words, the pieces are there, and it is gene regulation that determines if it gets expressed or not through alternative splicing. It is not a completely new gene.

Yes you are right, it is a form of gene regulation. The very definition of alternative splicing says:

Alternative splicing (AS) therefore is a process by which exons or portions of exons or noncoding regions within a pre-mRNA transcript are differentially joined or skipped, resulting in multiple protein isoforms being encoded by a single gene. This mechanism increases the informational diversity and functional capacity of a gene during post-transcriptional processing and provides an opportunity for gene regulation

Alternative splicing generates a tremendous amount of proteomic diversity in humans and significantly affects various functions in cellular processes, tissue specificity, developmental states, and disease conditions.

bitesizebio.com...

So it also seems to add function and information. No?

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
a reply to: Noinden

originally posted by: Noinden

Except, alternative splicing is a type of mutation aka a splice site mutation. Thus it is a mutation. THUS it casued new function. QED this is evidence of mutation causing new function.

No I don't think this is correct. Alternative splicing is not a mutation, it's a process of gene regulation. However it is true that a disruption in the process, such as in the article you cited, can cause a mutation.

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: neoholographic

Except, alternative splicing is a type of mutation aka a splice site mutation. Thus it is a mutation. THUS it casued new function. QED this is evidence of mutation causing new function.

You quoted a paper regarding cancer and the effect on aberrant splicing. Your go fish article had nothing to do with the TRIM5-CypA gene. Of course the genetic coding for splicing proteins can be mutated, that's common sense, but we have no proof showing that was what gave rise to a novel TRIM5-CypA splicing gene. Researchers often jump the gun and say they've discovered a mutation, when it could just as easily be explained by a differing allele which was always present. For example, In Mendel's experiment there was a green and a yellow pea - Did the green pea allele at one time mutate to become the yellow pea? We don't know. The Green and Yellow allele could easily have been two options that were encoded by a Creator.

This isn't necessarily you or anyone's fault except the researchers who jump the gun and say they've discovered something amazing just to embellish their reputation - the moment we stop looking at these people as infallible priests, we'll be able to look past a lot of the hype.

originally posted by: PhotonEffect

So it also seems to add function and information. No?

A good point

There are two possibilities: 'a priori' and 'a posteriori'.

A priori, or "from the earlier", would be evolution - the adding of function through random mutation over time.

A posteriori, "from the latter", would be the ID aspect that claims everything came from an already complete entity/force - in which all life is in the semblance of this unchanging perfect "image", Alpha-Omega, etc.

In the case of the TRIM5-CypA gene, there are two options: it came into being through a beneficial mutation over time (a priori - evolution). Or, the TRIM5-CypA gene has always been present in relevant organisms and it has always been that way (a posteriori - ID).

a reply to: lordcomac

DNA is just chemistry- chemistry happens all around you, every day. This is one of those infinite monkeys with typewriter type deals.

No its not...it also emits light

originally posted by: PhotonEffect

originally posted by: Barcs

Evolution = genetic mutations sorted by natural selection.

Uh, no, for the umpteenth time. i thought you were one of the ones that actually cared about giving people accurate information. Apparently I thought wrong, which is unfortunate.

What about all the other mechanisms? Do you want me to list them all?

I'm just trying to keep it simple. I know there are other mechanisms, those are the main ones. My point was to explain how biological evolution is different from the origin of life / DNA. That's all.

a reply to: neoholographic

Apparently, you didn't read the article:
Moreover, the kinds of molecular events required to construct the two TRIM5-CypA genes are thought to be rare.

This is getting extremely tiresome.

For at least the third time: That sentence is referring to the conditions for 'convergent evolution' - that is: that FACT that the mutation occurred in two different populations on opposite sides of the planet.

The full context to your quoted sentence is:

Normally, evolutionary biologists assume that similar DNA sequences, present in the same location in the genomes of two or more species, evolved only once. In this scenario, the gene arises first in a common ancestor and is subsequently inherited by all the species that descend from that ancestor. In the case of TRIM5-CypA and TRIMCyp, this does not appear to be the case.

TRIM5-CypA was not found in monkeys closely related to the Asian macaques, and in fact, was not found in every macaque individual tested. Likewise, owl monkey TRIMCyp was not found in any other species of South American primate. Researchers interpret this to mean that the two genes arose independently, once in owl monkeys and once in macaques. More tellingly, even though the protein sequences specified by the two TRIM5-CypA genes are similar, at the DNA level it is obvious that the molecular events leading to formation of the two genes were different.

Evolutionary biologists refer to the acquisition of a similar adaptation in different species as "convergent evolution," an example being the independent appearance of flight in both birds and bats. The Harvard team's genetic evidence indicates that the two TRIM5-CypA genes constitute an unambiguous and particularly striking example of convergent evolution. Moreover, the kinds of molecular events required to construct the two TRIM5-CypA genes are thought to be rare.

It is NOT saying that the molecular events for the mutation are rare, it is saying that it is rare for it to occur more than once in independent circumstances.

How many different ways does it need to be worded before you can understand it.

1) Mutations happen all the time - they are NOT rare - and the paper does not say so and does not imply anything of the sort. The article is completely silent on the rarity or frequency of mutations in general or this class of mutation in specific.

2) What IS rare is for the same mutation to occur in different populations - in this case African macaques and South American monkeys. The article points this out as something that makes this mutation particularly interesting.

Look, nothing you said answers the question. Random mutation and natural selection don't create any new function.

You are wrong and you will continue to be wrong as long as you refuse to understand what a mutation is. You do not get to invent your own definition of the word - it is a technical term that has a precise definition.

Inventing your own definition just so you can continue to argue that everyone else is wrong is childish, immature, ignorant, and one of the defining definition of troll.

This is why you guys will not list the regulatory sequences that express TRIM5-CypA.

Peter has done that for you; he has done what you refuse to do, read the actual paper that the informal article was based upon.

Out of shear spitefulness I will repeat his work here so that you cannot lie about it again. Notice that I am emphasizing your disingenuousness here. I am calling you out - do not repeat this lie again.

We have previously reported that the TRIM5 coding sequence of old world monkeys is highly polymorphic [7]. In the course of genotyping the TRIM5 locus in a colony of captive bred rhesus macaques, we identified a single-nucleotide polymorphism in the terminal nucleotide of intron 6 (Figure 1). The SNP is the result of a G-to-T substitution that alters the canonical 3′ splice acceptor site (AG to AU) immediately upstream of exon 7. Initial sequence data revealed the presence of this mutation in 2 of 8 animals, including one homozygote (T/T) and one heterozygote (G/T). The cis-acting AG element at the end of introns is a highly conserved feature of 3′ splice sites, and the presence of such a mutation is predicted to interfere with mRNA splicing.

You imply that you could tell us the gene sequence where the mutation occurred, but that 'we' couldn't. Apparently you have some access to some secret boojee-whoojee that has all actual biologists stumped, because "the canonical 3the terminal nucleotide of intron6 at the canonical 3′ splice acceptor site (AG to AU) immediately upstream of exon 7" seems to be a pretty specific 'address'.

Now it is not 'our' fault that you cannot read that - you asked for the information and you got the information - take it on board or not, that is up to you. Just stop lying about it, OK?

originally posted by: Barcs
I'm just trying to keep it simple. I know there are other mechanisms, ... My point was to explain how biological evolution is different from the origin of life / DNA. That's all.

And now he suddenly switches to "biological evolution" instead of just saying "evolution" as in his first comment about it which demonstrates this game of making people think about what I bolded from TerryDon79 in my previous comment, remember that this is a response to someone else's use of the word "evolution" (as if he now has the right to change the subject to specifically or exclusively "biological evolution" when someone else is saying just "evolution", like neoholographic in the title of this thread; oh, I so wish I could explain this mindgame better and in more detail). Quoting Barcs first comment on this subject:

Evolution applies to biological organisms only. Otherwise you are equivocating terms that mean different things.

That is simply not how the word "evolution" is exclusively used and mentioning the definition "change over time" to somehow pretend that you're letting people know that there are more applications for the word "evolution" than just the one you mentioned, is telling a half-truth and leaving out the term "chemical evolution" or "the chemical evolution theory of life'" completely from the discussion just so that no one gets to think about it and you can pretend you had a valid reason to point out things about "biological evolution" that are already known to those who use the word "evolution" to refer to both "chemical evolution" as well as "biological evolution", which is entirely appropiate and justified to do so. Unlike your implication that someone doesn't understand the word "evolution" or is "equivocating terms that mean different things" (when it's others that are obscuring things, allthough I'd have to check the complete comment you were responding to, which is besides my point and hopefully not used as a distraction now for me mentioning it). Only for people to be distracted away from the overlapping mythology of both evolutionary philosophies and their connection and promoting the thought that TerryDon79 adequately expressed with "completely different". It all has to do with the mythology being more obvious regarding the subject of the so-called "chemical evolution theory of life" a.k.a. "the hypothesis of abiogenesis" (quoting Huxley). And once a person recognizes the propaganda techniques used in that field of research (including expressed in peer reviewed papers) it becomes more easier to recognize the same techniques in the propagandistic papers about the subject of "biological evolution". That's why certain people want to disassociate the 2 and you get all this confusion and back and forth about how the word "evolution" is supposed to be used.

originally posted by: whereislogic
What's the matter, you've got some kind of program looking for keywords that comes up with automatic responses and arguments to that keyword or keyphrase and it can't handle videos? The reference to research papers is well described in the 2nd video which allows you to easily find them. On top of that, there's the option of doing your own research into the matter and using inductive reasoning regarding established facts, being honest with yourself and others, stop waving your 'magic stick of truth' around and attempt to respond with something other than illogical standard lines of argumentation that have been promoted by philosophers over and over already.

Why do you assume that I have not done any research? I have actually researched this topic extensively, although I'm not a genetics expert, and it sounds like neither are you or Neo. It all boils down to creationists nitpicking and assuming that complexity automatically means ID, or that the features of modern DNA couldn't have arisen over time. I prefer to read research papers because anybody can say anything in a youtube video and they are notorious time wasters. I'm not going to watch an hour long youtube video when I can read the actual science right from the source in 20 minutes or less. If the scientific research actually says what you claim it does, then link the papers. Nobody's waving a magic stick. I don't rely on philosophy. I rely on objective science.

Your 'silent' request for so-called "peer reviewed" science is also heard loud and clear again, I refer back to my previous comment about that, since it doesn't seem that you are truly interested in getting the type of links you are asking for, it seems you want something else than what you're asking for, the type of links Krazysh0t put up which do not qualify under your terminology. Mythology and illogical speculation, published or otherwise, are not "scientific research papers". They qualify as "papers" though. Not sure about the word "research", but definitely not "scientific".

Laughable. So creationist books, bible verses and youtube videos are the truth, but scientific research papers are just mythological and illogical speculation... yet you believe the bible. Seriously, post the paper that your beloved youtube video references. You guys work on nothing but assumptions and speculation. Scientists don't know exactly how all features of DNA arose. I've said this repeatedly, abiogenesis is just a hypothesis that has nothing to do with evolution. It gets tiresome having to correct the same mistakes over and over again, which is why my responses so far have been pretty simple. The mistakes some of you make are very common misunderstandings in logic.

The main problem here of course is that you recognize and treat facts as propaganda, and propaganda of myths as facts, science, "scientific theory", "(scientific) hypotheses" or "scientific research papers". And I somewhat doubt the playlist I shared earlier was watched by you completely and even if you did watch it, the wall in your mind (revolving around how you apply logic and how you think about these subjects) prevents the logic and facts from getting through and getting their appropiate place in your mind (understood as being factual/true/absolute/certain/conclusive/definitive, adjective: correct, without error).

Your comment cited Michael Behe. Enough said...

A scientific theory is a well substantiated and backed up explanation of how a verified process or phenomenon works. A hypothesis is a work in progress, something that has not yet been verified enough to become a theory. Research papers are the scientific method in action with proper documentation that have been reviewed and fact checked by other scientists. This is what folks in this thread do not understand. Nobody is saying that abiogenesis hypothesis (origin of life naturally) is proven. They say the evolutionary process is proven.

Most creationists can't tell the difference between evolution and abiogenesis, so they dishonestly put them in the same boat. Neo is arguing against abiogenesis and claiming it means evolution is wrong. He's appealing to the complexity of DNA and assuming that it couldn't have arisen naturally. My point is that even if DNA did not arise naturally and was created by god, it still doesn't counter evolution. Evolution is its own theory. Evolution does not counter or go against god, it only counters bronze age mythology about the 7 day creation. I don't see why it couldn't be both god and evolution or why god couldn't have created evolution. Do you have more faith in god, or more faith in men from 4000 years ago?

Remember that in the comment above I'm referring to other comments and quatations I've made about that, please don't ignore them, such as the comment with Newton's full quote and the entire Micheal Behe presentation that really doesn't tickle your ears, I know, but it's over before you know it.

I read your comment. You claim that scientific studies are mythology because they use the word theory. Your argument is self defeating. I explained what a scientific theory is in my paragraph above. Theories aren't just wild guesses, they are based on verifiable facts. We all know hypotheses are not proven, that's why they are called hypotheses.. You know.. Hypothetical? The Newton quote doesn't prove anything except you don't understand what a hypothesis is. And as for Behe again, the dude is a proven creationist shill. I have no reason to take him seriously about anything. Do you understand what is meant by objective evidence in science? There is NO objective evidence for design. There is speculation about complexity. You can't prove design without knowing what to look for. Complexity alone isn't enough, I already know all the arguments that are presented in the video and they are fallacious. There is no evidence for ID, NONE. In order to suggest ID, you need objective evidence of a god or design processes. Thus far these simple requirements have not been met, while evolution has literally mountains of evidence to back it, all of which is flat out ignored by the deniers. Even if you were to prove abiogenesis wrong, it wouldn't prove god. It would prove we don't know the answer yet.

originally posted by: Barcs
My point was to explain how biological evolution is different from the origin of life / DNA. That's all.

Abiogenesis is the origin of life. If RNA organisms were the first lifeforms, then the random creation of RNA organisms, with the hundred-some necessary mechanisms in place, would be the hypothetical completion of abiogenesis. I don't see how DNA could've possibly predated RNA, and thinking that abiogenesis culminated DNA first would make this non-life to life gap even more unfathomable.

Now, with the abiogenesis gap cleared with the first hypothetical RNA organism, it must then "evolve" into higher complexity and ultimately give rise to DNA. The culmination of DNA, therefore, is a matter of evolution, not abiogenesis.

This semantic game is making me sick. Can we talk about something proven, and easily defined? Such as E = mc^2... Rather than the undefinable theory of evolution.

originally posted by: Barcs
Laughable. So creationist books, bible verses and youtube videos are the truth, but scientific research papers are just mythological and illogical speculation...

Sometimes youtube videos can speak the truth:



It's also sometimes called a straw man. And makes dialogues futile. But perhaps they may serve some use as demonstrations for attentive readers.

originally posted by: cooperton

There are two possibilities: 'a priori' and 'a posteriori'.

A priori, or "from the earlier", would be evolution - the adding of function through random mutation over time.

A posteriori, "from the latter", would be the ID aspect that claims everything came from an already complete entity/force - in which all life is in the semblance of this unchanging perfect "image", Alpha-Omega, etc.

In the case of the TRIM5-CypA gene, there are two options: it came into being through a beneficial mutation over time (a priori - evolution). Or, the TRIM5-CypA gene has always been present in relevant organisms and it has always been that way (a posteriori - ID).

So are you under the belief that there isn't sufficient evidence for a priori so this can only mean a posteriori is in play? Does the evidence presented thus far not show that TRIM5-CypA is the fusion of two genes?

a reply to: rnaa

You said:

This is getting extremely tiresome.

Of course it is because you guys keep making up as you go and you haven't responded to any questions. You try to obfuscate with nonsense and then you just repeat the same things or you just make something up. You said:

It is NOT saying that the molecular events for the mutation are rare

Where did I say this? We're talking about TRIM5-CypA and you somehow make the leap that I'm saying molecular events for mutation are rare. This is again the type of nonsense you guys come up with. I was specifically talking about TRIM5-CypA because that was the topic of discussion but you can't debate this issue so you just make it up as you go.

Quote from me where I said molecular events for mutation are rare. Just more lies.

Finally, you said:

You imply that you could tell us the gene sequence where the mutation occurred, but that 'we' couldn't. Apparently you have some access to some secret boojee-whoojee that has all actual biologists stumped, because "the canonical 3the terminal nucleotide of intron6 at the canonical 3′ splice acceptor site (AG to AU) immediately upstream of exon 7" seems to be a pretty specific 'address'.

First off, you didn't give me the sequence of DNA letters that regulate the expression of TRIM5-CypA. What's quoted there is the mutation site and that single mutation does nothing but prove my point. It's what I've been pointing out in the last few posts. Mutations can interfere with expression but they can't create any new information or function that regulates expression.

Here's a quote from the article you posted:

The cis-acting AG element at the end of introns is a highly conserved feature of 3′ splice sites, and the presence of such a mutation is predicted to interfere with mRNA splicing.

This isn't a mutation creating anything new or giving meaning or function to a sequence of DNA letters. This is a mutation INTERFEREING with a sequence of DNA letters that are already in place that have meaning and function when it comes to the regulation of gene expression. Here's another quote from your friend Peter:

Thus, the mutation, which interferes with expression of the normal TRIM5α protein, instead contributes to expression of a novel protein.

Again, exactly my point. Mutations can interfere with the expression of a SEQUENCE OF DNA LETTERS THAT REGULATE GENE EXPRESSION. What mutations can't to is bestow meaning and function to a sequence of DNA letters that regulate expression.

THIS IS A FANTASY!

It goes back to my analogy about the can of pop.

Let's say I construct an automated system that makes a can of pop. Intelligence constructed the automated process through a sequence of letters and numbers that regulate the expression or the can of pop.

During this automation, the process may get mixed up and then a different flavor of pop is produced.

As the owner of this brand, I may like the flavor even though it's a mistake. Now the mistake didn't create any new sequences that regulate the process of making a can of pop. There's no new function or information in the sequences that regulate the expression of a can of pop.

Like I said, this DESTROYS any notion of evolution and this is always why there's a search for a simple magic molecule coming out of the prebiotic goo because there's no way to explain how the complexity of a cell evolved DNA sequences that regulate expression.

Irreducible Complex ‘Minimal’ Microbe Evidence of Intelligent Design

All of this leads to an obvious question. This little bacterium has to be able to copy its DNA, transcribe and translate it into protein, plus be able to coordinate all the steps involved in cell division. It has to be able to make all the things it can't get from its environment. That's a lot of information to be stored and used appropriately. Hence 473 genes.

But where did the cell come from in the first place? It's a chicken-and-egg problem. Given the number of things the cell has to do to be a functioning organism, where does one begin? DNA or RNA alone is not enough, because protein is needed to copy the DNA and to carry out basic cellular processes. But protein is not enough by itself either. DNA is needed to stably inherit the genetic information about how to make proteins.

cnsnews.com...

This goes back to my question:

Where's the evidence that random mutations and natural selection can give a DNA sequence meaning and function that regulates gene expression?

This is evolution is a house of cards. There's NO WAY random mutations can give meaning and function to a sequence of DNA letters that regulate expression. Without these sequences that instruct the machinary on how to make a protein, there's no evolution and there's no evidence that random mutation can bestow meaning and function to a sequence of DNA.

I keep asking this simple question and I get nothing but obfuscation.