Monday, March 4, 2013

Non-Coding RNA-Activators Regulate Genes Via a “Mediator”

Another Refutation

Remember when it was discovered that most of our DNA does not code for proteins and evolutionists said it was probably junk? And remember when it was discovered that most of that non coding DNA is nonetheless transcribed and evolutionists said it was probably erroneous transcription? Well it turns out that this non coding DNA continues to surprise, as not only is it transcribed, but it reveals all kinds of function. For instance, as one recent report explained, thousands of long segments of non coding DNA have, err, “a crucial role in turning genes on and off.”

The transcripts, known as non-coding RNA-activators (ncRNA-a), interact with a protein machine known as Mediator, and DNA sequences known as enhancers, to control the expression of genes that may be quite distant in the genome. There are a great many moving parts here and new research shows that a few mutations can disrupt the whole process, resulting in serious health problems.

And no, there is no scientific evidence that all this could have originated spontaneously, via any sort of gradual process. That means that there is no scientific evidence that all this could have evolved. And that means evolution is not supported by the evidence. This is not conjecture, it is a scientific fact. Evolutionists can make all the religious arguments they like, and that is their right, but that doesn’t change the science.

77 comments:

  1. It is good to remember that not only is the junk DNA argument from Darwinists a 'religious argument' as to how Darwinists think God should or should not act in this world, but also that the junk DNA argument from Darwinists was actually required in neo-Darwinism by the mathematics of population genetics:

    Carter: Why Evolutionists Need Junk DNA - December 2009
    Excerpt: Junk DNA is not just a label that was tacked on to some DNA that seemed to have no function, but it is something that is required by evolutionary theory. Mathematically, there is too much variation, too much DNA to mutate, and too few generations in which to get it all done. This was the essence of Haldane's work. Without junk DNA, evolutionary theory cannot currently explain how everything works mathematically. Think about it; in the evolutionary model there have only been 3-6 million years since humans and chimps diverged. With average human generation times of 20-30 years, this gives them only 100,000 to 300,000 generations to fix the millions of mutations that separate humans and chimps. This includes at least 35 million single letter differences, over 90 million base pairs of non-shared DNA, nearly 700 extra genes in humans (about 6% not shared with chimpanzees), and tens of thousands of chromosomal rearrangements. Also, the chimp genome is about 13% larger than that of humans, but mostly due to the heterochromatin that caps the chromosome telomeres. All this has to happen in a very short amount of evolutionary time. They don't have enough time, even after discounting the functionality of over 95% of the genome--but their position becomes grave if junk DNA turns out to be functional. Every new function found for junk DNA makes the evolutionists' case that much more difficult.
    Robert W. Carter - biologist
    http://indicium.us/2009/12/carter-why-evolutionists-need-junk-dna.html

    Kimura (1968) developed the idea of “Neutral Evolution”. If “Haldane’s Dilemma” is correct, the majority of DNA must be non-functional.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Haldane's Dilemma
      Excerpt: Haldane was the first to recognize there was a cost to selection which limited what it realistically could be expected to do. He did not fully realize that his thinking would create major problems for evolutionary theory. He calculated that in man it would take 6 million years to fix just 1,000 mutations (assuming 20 years per generation).,,, Man and chimp differ by at least 150 million nucleotides representing at least 40 million hypothetical mutations (Britten, 2002). So if man evolved from a chimp-like creature, then during that process there were at least 20 million mutations fixed within the human lineage (40 million divided by 2), yet natural selection could only have selected for 1,000 of those. All the rest would have had to been fixed by random drift - creating millions of nearly-neutral deleterious mutations. This would not just have made us inferior to our chimp-like ancestors - it surely would have killed us. Since Haldane's dilemma there have been a number of efforts to sweep the problem under the rug, but the problem is still exactly the same. ReMine (1993, 2005) has extensively reviewed the problem, and has analyzed it using an entirely different mathematical formulation - but has obtained identical results.
      John Sanford PhD. - "Genetic Entropy and The Mystery of the Genome" - pg. 159-160

      Kimura's Quandary
      Excerpt: Kimura realized that Haldane was correct,,, He developed his neutral theory in responce to this overwhelming evolutionary problem. Paradoxically, his theory led him to believe that most mutations are unselectable, and therefore,,, most 'evolution' must be independent of selection! Because he was totally committed to the primary axiom (neo-Darwinism), Kimura apparently never considered his cost arguments could most rationally be used to argue against the Axiom's (neo-Darwinism's) very validity.
      John Sanford PhD. - "Genetic Entropy and The Mystery of the Genome" - pg. 161 - 162

      A graph featuring 'Kimura's Distribution' being ‘properly used’ is shown in the following video:

      Evolution Vs Genetic Entropy - Andy McIntosh - video
      http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4028086

      At the 2:45 minute mark of the following video, the mathematical roots of the junk DNA argument, that is still used by many Darwinists, can be traced through Haldane, Kimura, and Ohno's work in the late 1950’s, 60’s through the early 70’s:

      What Is The Genome? It's Not Junk! - Dr. Robert Carter - video - (Notes in video description)
      http://www.metacafe.com/w/8905583

      Delete
    2. Hey bornagain77,

      How about you state credentials of your sources in full. As in
      Robert W. Carter - former biologist, currently professional creationist of the young-Earth variety.

      That would be a little more accurate, wouldn't it?

      Delete
    3. oleg attacks the character when he cannot refute the argument.

      As Carter and many others have elucidated, Darwinian Evolution is impossible. It's not even remotely plausible, and any layman can figure this out using basic logic.

      Evolutionists appear to invisible supernatural events poofing the right genes into existence at the right times and right combinations. It makes ZERO sense from the perspective of population genetics, stumbling on the correct functional sequence space, selection, and fixation. It's a fairy-tale.

      Delete
    4. lifepsy,

      It's BA77 who insists on mentioning credentials. I am merely helping him with that. :)

      Delete
    5. lifepsy

      As Carter and many others have elucidated, Darwinian Evolution is impossible. It's not even remotely plausible, and any layman can figure this out using basic logic.


      You seem to be a layman. Why don't you explain to the audience using basic logic why evolution is impossible.

      Delete
    6. It's not rocket science, Thorton.

      Evolution requires both the random discovery of millions of functional sequences, as well as fixation of each variation, no matter how small. And it must act on most if not all of what we now know to be a highly functional genome.

      This is why Evos will constantly prop up examples with Bacteria.. it's the only example where fixation actually works. (though it still never evolves novel function)

      Here's what happens when you try and get fixation in a sexual species like fruit flies. It doesn't work.

      "Genome-wide analysis of a long-term evolution experiment with Drosophila" - Burke et. al 2010

      "Signatures of selection ***are qualitatively different than what has been observed in asexual species***; in our sexual populations, adaptation is not associated with ‘classic’ sweeps whereby newly arising, unconditionally advantageous mutations become fixed. More parsimonious explanations include ‘incomplete’ sweep models, in which mutations have not had enough time to fix, and ‘soft’ sweep models, in which selection acts on pre-existing, common genetic variants. We conclude that, at least for life history characters such as development time, unconditionally advantageous alleles rarely arise, are associated with small net fitness gains or cannot fix because selection coefficients change over time."

      http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v467/n7315/abs/nature09352.html

      And this was using presumably highly advantageous alleles.

      And you really think a bunch of rats running around on the beach are going to evolve into whales? You've got to be kidding me. Wouldn't happen in 10 billion years, much less 10 million. It's mythology.

      Delete
    7. lifepsy: Evolution requires both the random discovery of millions of functional sequences, as well as fixation of each variation, no matter how small. And it must act on most if not all of what we now know to be a highly functional genome.

      There are at least three false statements in this paragraph.

      Delete
    8. lifepsy: And you really think a bunch of rats running around on the beach are going to evolve into whales? You've got to be kidding me. Wouldn't happen in 10 billion years, much less 10 million. It's mythology.

      Not rats, my friend. Someone misinformed you about that. Ungulates are not rodents.

      Delete
    9. "There are at least three false statements in this paragraph. "

      Well, oleg, if it weren't for your constant equivocation, you wouldn't even be able to post comments.

      Delete
    10. That's another false statement. You are on a roll today, lifepsy!

      Delete
    11. lifepsy

      Evolution requires both the random discovery of millions of functional sequences, as well as fixation of each variation, no matter how small. And it must act on most if not all of what we now know to be a highly functional genome


      So? Evolutionary processes have been working for close to 4 billion years to get the cumulative genomic functions we see today.

      You were suppose to logically demonstrate it was impossible, remember?

      Looks like you can't do it and were just blowing smoke. What a surprise.

      Delete
    12. Why don't either of you comment on the data I posted?

      That is a perfect empirical demonstration of how darwinian selection *does not work* in sexual populations, even under favorable conditions.

      And from BA77, you have a detailed and rational argumentation on the inability for darwinism to work in the times allotted.

      Were either of you thinking about actually responding to these points? Or maybe even *gasp* advance actual evidence for Evolution?

      I know, Thorton, just call it all a PRATT and continue with your usual spamfest, lol

      Delete
    13. lifepsy

      Why don't either of you comment on the data I posted?


      OK, I'll comment. Why did you omit the part of the paper where the authors gave three plausible reasons for the findings, avenues of further investigation?

      "There are several possible explanations for our failure to observe the signature of a classic sweep in these populations, despite strong selection. Classic sweeps may be occurring, but have had insufficient time to reach fixation. This explanation is consistent with observed data, but requires that newly arising beneficial alleles have small associated selection coefficients (Supplementary Fig. 7). Alternatively, selection in these lines may generally act on standing variation, and not new mutations. This soft sweep model predicts partial losses of heterozygosity flanking selected sites, provided that selection begins acting when mutations are at low frequencies12, 17, and this is consistent with our observed data. However, if a large fraction of the total adaptive response is due to loci fixed by means of soft sweeps, there should be insufficient genetic variation to allow reverse evolution in these populations. But forward experimental evolution can often be completely reversed with these populations5, which suggests that any soft sweeps in our experiment are incomplete and/or of small effect (Supplementary Fig. 5). A third explanation is that the selection coefficients associated with newly arising mutations are not static but in fact decrease over time. This could be the case if initially rare selected alleles increase to frequencies where additional change is hindered, perhaps by linked deleterious alleles or antagonistic pleiotropy. Laboratory evolution experiments typically expose populations to novel environments in which focal traits respond quickly and then plateau at some new value (compare with refs 13, 18). Chevin and Hospital19 recently modelled the trajectory of an initially rare beneficial allele that does not reach fixation because its selective advantage is inversely proportional to the distance to a new phenotypic optimum, and that optimum is reached, because of other loci, before the variant fixes. This model therefore has appeal in the context of experimental evolution, as it assumes populations generally reach a new phenotypic optimum before newly arising beneficial mutations of modest effect have had time to fix"

      Lies of omission are still lies. Creationist have to lie all the time it seems.

      Now where is your demonstration of the logical impossibility of evolution? You sure ran from that claim quickly.

      Delete
    14. Hahaha, gee maybe because I was interested in the actual RESULTS and not pasting 5 pages in the comments?

      Thorton, the comitted evolutionist, chooses SPECULATION over EMPIRICAL DATA. LOL

      "Now where is your demonstration of the logical impossibility of evolution?"

      Thorton, has it really come to this? Can you prove it's impossible for the tooth-fairy to exist?

      Evolution is a PRATT, and so are you.

      Delete
    15. lifepsy

      Thorton, has it really come to this? Can you prove it's impossible for the tooth-fairy to exist?


      I didn't run my mouth and claim it's impossible for evolution to happen. You did. In fact you said any layman could figure it out. Guess you were lying about that too.

      Like all Creationists, you run your mouth them run away when challenged.

      That's exactly why you clowns get laughed at.

      Delete
    16. //Like all Creationists, you run your mouth them run away when challenged//

      It looks like the only one running away from the challenge is Thornton. Still no satisfactory rebuttal to posted results of empirical data, other than resting on speculation of unproven alternatives.

      //That's exactly why you clowns get laughed at.//

      This is an Appeal to Ridicule, not an argument.

      Delete
  2. Haven't you been listening to Moronton, BA? UCA'ists don't need all those religious arguments. They can generate cladistic trees by applying enough rules to force each critter to a position in the tree!!!!!! And, BA, it just so happens that a tree is the same structure we use to represent genealogical descent!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! What more do you need?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Lets sign up Thorton for Discovery Institute Summer Seminar.
    Get ready Thorton. Buy a notebook, pen and lunch baggy.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Nah, it would never work. I could practice the mouth breathing and the praise Jeebus!! spittle-flying ranting enough to pass for a Creationist, but I could never lower my IQ by the required 50 points.

      Delete
    2. I just read more "science" from Joke G, Louis, Tedford, Elijah2012, and lifepsy.

      Make that lower my IQ by 75 points.

      Delete
  4. CH, you must have hit a nerve here because the evolutions bypassed their lame arguments and went right to immature name calling.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Maybe if you boobs ever offered any actual supported arguments instead of your usual PRATTS and ignorance based personal incredulity you get some actual responses.

      But you don't. Why are you surprised that so many in the scientific community see you guys as clowns only good for comic relief?

      Delete
    2. Butt-plug Thorton:

      Why are you surprised that so many in the scientific community see you guys as clowns only good for comic relief?

      Who is surprised? I personally would not have it any other way. I would be horrified if it were otherwise. Besides, there are two sides to every coin. I, and others who share the opinion that Darwinian evolution is a less-than-mediocre (i.e., chicken sh!t) theory, see people like you as a bunch of hand-waving clowns, jumping up and down and foaming at the mouth. You will soon be forgotten and the Darwinian era will be known in the history books as the great era of collective stupidity. LOL.

      Delete
    3. Thorton:

      Maybe if you boobs ever offered any actual supported arguments instead of your usual PRATTS and ignorance based personal incredulity you get some actual responses.

      But you don't. Why are you surprised that so many in the scientific community see you guys as clowns only good for comic relief?

      Maybe if someone wold actually tell me how the adaptation in the above OP evolved it would reduce my incredulity. Some details would be nice, like functional intermediate. Oh, and don't forget to quantify things. And, just once, could I see some evidence that something actually evolved, not just tht it could have evolved.

      Delete
    4. Natschuster

      Maybe if someone wold actually tell me how the adaptation in the above OP evolved it would reduce my incredulity.


      Highly unlikely given your history of trolling Creationist behavior.

      Tell me, what reading or research on the topic have you done on your own? What background material have your covered so that you'll understand the technical terms and concepts?

      This seems to be yet another one of your usual whine-fests where you demand others do the work and spoon feed you, just so you can ignore all the documentation that is presented.

      You've used that one way too often nat. You need another dishonest Creationist technique.

      Delete
    5. I did a Google search for "evolution of non-coding RNA." I didn't find anything on how they could have evolved. The only thing I could find about their evolution was how lncRNA is not as highly conserved as proteins. But no mention about how they evolved, or evidence that they evolved. Maybe I just didn't look hard enough. Problem is, I have a life outside of blogging.

      Delete
  5. LOL... I was wondering who out of Oleg and Thorton had already posted in this brand new post by Cornelius

    and it was both :) . Every post C makes get these guys jumping up and down hopping mad.Why? If its such gibberish nonsense and only mindless people would swallow it then why care? Why spend copious amounts of time running around fighting in blog comments that the average user barely looks at?

    Answer is rather obvious: Theres a basic insecurity on display here. They don't really believe its nonsense and the stuff posted intimidates and threatens the life out of them because they know that though they will buy into the "evolution did it" fairy tale, the more complex things get in our knowledge about life, DNA and the code behind it the more likely it is that others will join Flew in recanting atheism and gasp! many of those will become theists.

    They might DESPERATELY grasp at Evolution of the gasps but they know it will never sell to the greater populace and render atheism not only incapable of hitting double digit acceptance but shrink it to the point that Dawkins might need to go and get a new job.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Cue the cursing, hand waving and name calling that only confirms the charge ;)

      Delete
    2. Elijah,

      Answer is rather obvious: Theres a basic insecurity on display here. They don't really believe its nonsense and the stuff posted intimidates and threatens the life out of them

      I doubt it, I imagine it is more like a hobby.How about you?

      the more complex things get in our knowledge about life, DNA and the code behind it the more likely it is that others will join Flew in recanting atheism and gasp! many of those will become theists

      There are plenty of theists who accept evolutionary theory, and by the way Flew did not become a theist, at best he became a deist. He never thought much of Yahweh even after his " conversion" .

      Delete
  6. Evolutionists are constantly falling off their chairs in surprise of new discoveries. A good theory ought not to be surprised as much as ToE folks are.

    But, being surprised is nothing compared to the damage this theory has done to scientific progress. Every single discovery must resist the evolutionary gravity that wants to dumb down everything in biology.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Neal, you have no idea what you are talking about. No idea.

      When surprises stop, a science is dead. Like classical mechanics or geometrical optics. No surprises there for a century or more.

      I. I. Rabi famously quipped "Who ordered that?" when he was told about the discovery of the muon. I am sure you think that particle physics is a good science. If surprises are good in particle physics, why not in evolutionary biology?

      I can only shake my head at the silly stuff you, guys, say.

      Delete
    2. Oleg you are just hand waving not shking your head. Blame it on your own side. You sung for years how junk DNA was a great evidence for Evolution and its coming right back around to biting you in the rear.

      No IDist or Creationists made you (plural) use this as one of your key points so you can whine all you want the other side has every right to call you out on it now that the claim is blowing up in your face.

      Delete
    3. oleg:

      I. I. Rabi famously quipped "Who ordered that?" when he was told about the discovery of the muon. I am sure you think that particle physics is a good science. If surprises are good in particle physics, why not in evolutionary biology?

      The difference is that the Standard Model in physics makes no grand claims about the origin of particles. SM is just a classification system. Physicists knew from the beginning that it would have to be modified to accommodate new particle discoveries.

      Darwinian evolutionists, by contrast, are adamant that they know how all species of life came about. If it turns out that life was designed and engineered, they will have plenty egg on their faces, to put it mildly.

      Delete
    4. Louis,

      There was no standard model of particle physics at Rabi's time.

      Now you will have to change this to something along the lines of "biologists are more arrogant than physicists." Which is, in my experience, patently not so. :)

      Delete
    5. oleg:

      There was no standard model of particle physics at Rabi's time.

      Aw, come on. The Standard Model was codified in the 1970s. That does not mean there was no model before that. There was always a model, from the moment that physicists began to discover the particulate nature of matter at the subatomic level. Heck, even Isaac Newton was beginning to formulate a particle model, starting with the particles of light.

      Now you will have to change this to something along the lines of "biologists are more arrogant than physicists." Which is, in my experience, patently not so. :)

      I agree with you that physicists are more arrogant than biologists. Arrogance is a universal trait of the scientific community. And yet, as Feyerabend wrote in Against Method, "...the most stupid procedures and the most laughable results in their domain are surrounded with an aura of excellence. It is time to cut them down in size, and to give them a more modest position in society."

      ahahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahaha...

      Delete
  7. The idea of junk DNA seems odd knowing how intricately interlocked and delicately balanced every structure in the cell is. If you start with a world view that begins with God the Creator, then you can assume that nothing in the cell is wasted. The whole idea of junk can never throw you off the discovery track. If you assume everything within the cell is a result of a somewhat random blind process it's easy to lose your sense of wonder.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Marcus

      The idea of junk DNA seems odd knowing how intricately interlocked and delicately balanced every structure in the cell is. If you start with a world view that begins with God the Creator, then you can assume that nothing in the cell is wasted. The whole idea of junk can never throw you off the discovery track. If you assume everything within the cell is a result of a somewhat random blind process it's easy to lose your sense of wonder.


      Marcus, what's your explanation for the Polychaos dubium? It's a fairly common single-celled amoeboid. What's interesting is that its genome size is 670 billion base pairs, some 200x time larger than the human genome.

      Most all of this little critter's huge genome is composed of many identical stretches of DNA that have been duplicated hundreds to thousands of times and which show no apparent function.

      Do you think all 670 billion base pairs with all the duplications were put there for a specific reason? Do you think this little single-celled guy needs 200x the information of a complex human?

      Delete
    2. Wow, and just look at all the evolution that happened with all that allegedly extra information. Great example, Thorton.

      Delete
    3. lifepsy

      Wow, and just look at all the evolution that happened with all that allegedly extra information. Great example, Thorton.


      Go ahead and give us your explanation for all that "extra information" as you call it. Why did your Designer put it in there?

      Delete
    4. Thorton, I hope my answer doesn't sound too glib. Perhaps God is showing us He can make small little guys with lots of information and less complexity and He can make large guys with less information and more complexity.

      Delete
    5. I wouldn't say 'glib' but I wouldn't say 'answer' either.

      That's why positing an unknown Designer with unknown powers and unknown mechanisms is 100% worthless scientifically. Merely saying "the Designer could have done it that way for reasons we don't know" explains absolutely nothing.

      Delete
  8. "Marcus, what's your explanation for the Polychaos dubium? It's a fairly common single-celled amoeboid. What's interesting is that its genome size is 670 billion base pairs, some 200x time larger than the human genome."

    How could Polychaos dubium evolve his genome size up to 670 billin base pairs. Which was the advantage of the Polychaos dubium over his ancestor of 669 billion base pairs?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Not everything has to be an advantage. The large majority of mutations are neutral with respect to reproductive fitness and often just get carried along for the ride.

      If having large duplicated non-functional sequences in your genome doesn't hurt you there's no reason why the phenomenon couldn't just hang around.

      Now what is the ID Creation explanation for the size and all the long duplicated segments?

      Delete
    2. Thorton, the butt plug specialist:

      Not everything has to be an advantage. The large majority of mutations are neutral with respect to reproductive fitness and often just get carried along for the ride.

      This explains why some insects have not changed in tens of millions of years. Not!

      ahahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahaha...

      Delete
    3. Thorton -
      "Not everything has to be an advantage. The large majority of mutations are neutral with respect to reproductive fitness and often just get carried along for the ride. "

      Evidence? You're just telling stories.

      How exactly are a majority of mutations neutral when the majority of the genome is functional? That is precisely why darwinian evolution is nonsensical and anti-fact.

      You might believe something is neutral because it can be knocked out without harming an organism in any immediate and obvious way, but that does not mean the organism isn't affected over a lifetime.

      Here Thorton, try actually reading the literature instead of your anti-science evo-blogs.

      "The Majority of Animal Genes Are Required for Wild-Type Fitness. Ramani et al. 2012"

      "Almost all eukaryotic genes are conserved, suggesting that they have essential functions. However, only a minority of genes have detectable loss-of-function phenotypes in experimental assays, and multiple theories have been proposed to explain this discrepancy. Here, we use RNA-mediated interference in C. elegans to examine how knockdown of any gene affects the overall fitness of worm populations. ****Whereas previous studies typically assess phenotypes that are detectable by eye after a single generation, we monitored growth quantitatively over several generations.**** In contrast to previous estimates, we find that, in these multigeneration population assays, the majority of genes affect fitness, and this suggests that genetic networks are not robust to mutation. ****Our results demonstrate that, in a single environmental condition, most animal genes play essential roles.**** This is a higher proportion than for yeast genes, and we suggest that the source of negative selection is different in animals and in unicellular eukaryotes."

      http://www.cell.com/abstract/S0092-8674%2812%2900084-0

      Delete
    4. lifepsy, you forgot to give us your Creationist explanation for the size of the Polychaos dubium genome, and all the duplicated segments. Why is it 200x the size of a human genome?

      Still waiting.

      Delete
    5. Thorton... silenced by the data again, and unable to back up his claims about neutral mutations.

      Delete
    6. lifepsy: How exactly are a majority of mutations neutral when the majority of the genome is functional? That is precisely why darwinian evolution is nonsensical and anti-fact.

      This is not a contradiction, lifepsy. Neutral mutations are not restricted to non-functional parts of the genome. You are making stuff up at an astonishing rate! I normally do not use strong words, but you do seem to be one of those liars for Jesus.

      Delete
    7. You're right Oleg, some mutations have no effect on amino acid sequence. What a powerful driver for evolution. How far do you think "neutral" mutations are going to get you when major portions of function need to be altered, deleted, or added? Do you have an actual argument for the plausibility of this to occur?

      Delete
    8. This is marginally better, lifepsy, but this is still far from an accurate representation of neutral mutations. Try again.

      Delete
    9. Sorry Oleg, I couldn't be less concerned with your standards on accuracy. If you believe in darwinian evolution than most of your knowledge of biology is probably the product of the imagination anyways, at best untestable hypotheticals.

      I'll wait till you actually have a rational point or argument to make. You or thorton could start by citing a shred of evidence that accumulated "neutral" mutations lead to novel function, or even a fitness advantage.

      Delete
    10. lifepsy

      You or thorton could start by citing a shred of evidence that accumulated "neutral" mutations lead to novel function, or even a fitness advantage.


      Why would we do that when neither of us made that claim? It seems to be some Creationist stupidity you came up with all by yourself.

      Delete
    11. lifepsy

      Sorry Oleg, I couldn't be less concerned with accuracy.


      Fixed it for you lifepsy. You're welcome.

      Delete
    12. lifepsy: Sorry Oleg, I couldn't be less concerned with your standards on accuracy. If you believe in darwinian evolution than most of your knowledge of biology is probably the product of the imagination anyways, at best untestable hypotheticals.

      Again, this paragraph is jam-packed with silliness.

      For starters, lifepsy, if you wish to criticize a theory you should criticize the theory as it is. Not a caricature that you presented. You are free to leave it alone and just declare that you think it is stupid. But that does not qualify as a coherent criticism.

      It also bears noting that the neutral theory is emphatically non-Darwinian. Thus your dig at my "belief in darwinian evolution" misses the point by a mile.

      All the best,

      Oleg

      Delete
    13. Thorton admits neutral mutations do not support evolution after being called on his bluff.

      Oleg with the usual equivocating and pointless spam.

      Neither could advance an argument for evolution if their lives depended on it. They have no mechanism and they know it.

      Delete
    14. LOL WUT? No mechanism? What do you think mutations are, lifepsy, if not a mechanism for variation?

      Delete
    15. Adding non useful codons to an eukariote´s DNA cannot be neutral. The Polychaos dubium ancestor with 669 blilion pair basis spend 0.15% less energy and time to reproduce than the mutant Polychaos dubium. How could natural selection could let Polychaos dubium survive and his ancestor not?

      Delete
    16. Blas

      The Polychaos dubium ancestor with 669 blilion pair basis spend 0.15% less energy and time to reproduce than the mutant Polychaos dubium.


      Evidence for this claim please.

      Delete
    17. Simply biochemystry if you have 0.15% more bases, you need 0,15% more energy and time in the duplication of your genoma that is the main energy and time for the duplication of a single celled eukaryota.

      Delete
    18. Blas

      Simply biochemystry if you have 0.15% more bases, you need 0,15% more energy and time in the duplication of your genoma that is the main energy and time for the duplication of a single celled eukaryota.


      So you have no evidence there's a 1:1 correspondence between genome size and energy used for reproduction. You're making it up. Got it.

      Delete
    19. Thorton, I tought you were smart, each base you put in the DNA is a nucleoside tri phosphate, that is energy, the cell needs energy to synthesize each base is added. The more bases you add more energy you need.
      Now tell me what evidence you have that adding bases is neutral?

      Delete
    20. LOL! Show me the data which indicates a Polychaos dubium. uses 200x more energy to reproduce than a human cell.

      Give me the actual numbers from a study that show the energy cost of the larger genome reproduction is sufficient to affect overall reproductive fitness.

      Delete
    21. Thorton are you so blind? If the human DNA has 200x less nucleotides the duplication of the DNA require 200x less nucleotides triphosphate that is energy, and I´m not taking into account the energy spend in packaging the larger DNA molecule.
      Have you studied biochemistry Thorton?

      Delete
    22. LOL! Just admit you were making it up and have no evidence that the energy cost of the larger genome reproduction is sufficient to affect overall reproductive fitness.

      You're not the first Creationist to make things up whole cloth, and you won't be the last.

      Delete
    23. Thorton
      "LOL! Just admit you were making it up and have no evidence that the energy cost of the larger genome reproduction is sufficient to affect overall reproductive fitness."

      And your evidence that 0.14% of genoma do not affect reproductive fitness is ...

      Delete
  9. Is Lifespy....*SHOCK* Joe G / Jim / John Paul / ID Guy's sock puppet?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Rich Hughes simply has da best avatar ever! Jak sie masz!

      Delete
    2. Wow. It must be convergent devolution.

      Delete
  10. If physicists acted like Darwinists, then by 1860 they would have defined their theory of everything based on their knowledge at that time and then stuck with it no matter what. Each discovery of subatomic particles just be retrofitted into their theory of everything.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Neal,

      Let's turn things around: if biologists acted like physicists, then in the 20th century they would come up with new theories on top of Darwin's.

      And you know what? They did! Kimura's neutral theory goes well beyond Darwin's. In Darwin's model, selection always pushed organisms up the fitness slope. Kimura showed that random drift dominates in small populations. Advantageous traits do not necessarily get fixed in small populations.

      Or take early evolution, where genes are not passed vertically, from ancestor to descendant, but are shared horizontally. This model of communal evolution is also very different from Darwin's. So don't tell us that biologists are intellectually lazy. They don't simply parrot Darwin's original work.

      Delete
    2. oleg, Darwin presumed a biological theory of everything before the facts were in. It it a straightjacket for open minded discovery. New discoveries must resist the gravity of Darwinism that tends to take a dumb dumb view of life.

      Physicists tentatively propose theories (like string theory) without labeling it as fact. If string theory physicists acted like Darwin, then they would establish String as an unquestioned fact, and then accommodate every future subatomic discovery to fit. Add or subtract dimensions, tweek the math, ignore contradictory data... you know kind of like Darwinists do on a routine basis.

      Darwinists have taken their narrow interpretation of the historical record and called it fact and then presumed to retrofit every future discovery by expanding ToE.

      Delete
    3. Neal,

      You have chosen the worst example from physics. In fact, string theorists do refer to string theory as Theory of Everything. There is, in fact, no evidential support for string theory (evidence that would distinguish it from, say, the Standard Model of particle physics). And to top it off, the number of dimensions changed a couple of times: from 26 to 10 and 11.

      So if you wish to charge biologists with being arrogant sons of bitches, physicists are equally guilty. Lord Kelvin famously proclaimed in 1900 that physics was over, save a couple of small clouds on the horizon. Well, he was wrong.

      That new theories in science face an uphill battle is not a bug, it's a feature. The vast majority of new theories die without laymen ever noticing it. A new theory has to do several things to be accepted. First, it has to agree with existing tested theories in a region where both the old and new theories are applicable. (E.g., classical and quantum mechanics agree about the physics of macroscopic objects.) Many new theories fail at this stage. Second, a new theory must make predictions that differ from the old one and, furthermore, an experiment must affirm them. That's pretty hard. Every theory has to go through this, and when it does, it deserves some respect.

      Delete
    4. NO ONE has ever demanded that String theory be accepted as a fact beyond criticism. Arrogance is one thing, but Darwinists are beyond arrogant- they are zealots that dictate what must be believed.

      Delete
    5. Neal is right. By interpreting every bit of evidence through their presuppositions, Darwinists are religious by definition:

      "relating to or manifesting faithful devotion to an acknowledged ultimate reality OR deity"

      Delete