Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
How Religion Drives Science and Why it Matters
Cornelius Hunter
Blog Archive
-
▼
2009
(240)
-
▼
October
(20)
- Shifting the Burden of Proof
- Anthropomorphic Warning, Part II
- The Contradiction of Darwin's Anthropomorphic Warning
- Inherit the Myth, Part II
- Evolution Versus Miracles
- Inherit the Myth
- Richard Dawkins and the Spectacle of Evolution
- Stuart Newman and Evolution's Testability
- Richard Dawkins and the Recurrent Laryngeal Nerve
- Questions for a Sympathetic Witness
- Complex Patterns of DNA Positioning in the Nucleus
- The Elaborate Biological Clock
- Graeme Finlay: Evolution is True, Part II
- Samples of Evolution's Anti Intellectualism
- Replicating Damaged DNA
- Amazing Preparations for Cell Division
- Stephen Matheson: Talking Trash About Junk DNA
- Michael Behe: The Latest on Evolution's Limits
- Junk DNA Beneficial in Cells
- An Open Letter to Karl Giberson
-
▼
October
(20)
I think that Behe's comments are usually incoherent. But then what would we expect from a guy with such a poor research record?
ReplyDeletehttp://www.scienceonline.org/cgi/content/full/316/5830/1427
http://primatediaries.blogspot.com/2007/10/intelligent-design-and-pseudoscience.html
However he does appear to have occasional outbursts of lucidity.
"When two lineages share what appears to be an arbitrary genetic accident, the case for common descent becomes compelling, just as the case for plagiarism becomes overpowering when one writer makes the same unusual misspellings of another, within a copy of the same words. That sort of evidence is seen in the genomes of chimps and chimpanzees. For example, both humans and chimps have a broken copy of a gene that in other mammals helps make vitamin C. As a result, neither humans nor chimps can make their own vitamin C. If an ancestor of the two species originally sustained the mutation and then passed it to both descendant species, that would neatly explain the situation.
More compelling evidence for the shared ancestry of humans and other primates comes from their hemoglobin—not just their working hemoglobin, but a broken hemoglobin gene, too. .... In the region between the two gamma genes and a gene that works after birth, human DNA contains a broken gene (called a "psedugoene") that closely resembles a working gene for a beta chain, but has features in its sequence that preclude it from coding successfully for a protein.
Chimp DNA has a very similar pseudogene at the same position. The beginning of the human pseudogene has two particular changes in two nucleotides that seem to deactivate the gene. The chimp pseudogene has the exact same changes. A bit further down in the human pseudogene is a deletion mutation, where one particular letter is missing. For technical reasons, the deletion irrevocably messes up the gene's coding. The very same letter is missing in the chimp gene. Toward the end of the human pseduogene another letter is missing. The chimp pseudogene is missing it, too.
The same mistakes in the same gene in the same positions of both human and chimp DNA. If a common ancestor first sustained the mutational mistakes and subsequently gave rise to those two modern species, that would very readily account for why both species have them now. It's hard to imagine how there could be stronger evidence for common ancestry of chimps and humans.
That strong evidence from the pseudogene points well beyond the ancestry of humans. Despite some remaining puzzles, there's no reason to doubt that Darwin had this point right, that all creatures on earth are biological relatives."
From 'The Edge of Evolution?' pages 70-71.
WOuld this be an example of good research?
ReplyDeletehttp://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/sep/29/workers-porn-surfing-rampant-at-federal-agency/#
Dr. Hunter - What do you think of Ardipithecus ramidus? How would ID interpret this finding? Does it confirm or disconfirm ID, or does ID have nothing to say on this topic?
ReplyDelete"Anonymous said...
ReplyDeleteI think that Behe's comments are usually incoherent. But then what would we expect from a guy with such a poor research record?
...
However he does appear to have occasional outbursts of lucidity."
So Behe is only lucid when he agrees with you, is that it? And since when did name calling cease being a logical fallacy?
Is it possible that between species,there's a sudden change every time a new specie is emerged(created)after extinction,therefore there would be a coordination process between creation,and evolution? I am a creationist,but also feel that a kind of evolving process there was.
ReplyDeleteAlso, could the resurrection of Jesus in a way gives us an indication,that since He was a normal human being,and also the last human(extinct)who was under the dominion of Satan,and through His death and resurrection He became both the last of His kind of being,and also a completely new being uniting both the old man carnal with the new man spiritual and became the firstborn of the dead(extinct) in a new perfect being and the last of the process of our creation.Therefore we would eventually achieve His state in the future if we believe in HIM??