The Euglenids and Dinoflagellates, for example, also share very odd peculiarities at the molecular level in general. You can hear about them beginning at the [14:05] mark here.
For starters both these eukaryotic groups have permanently condensed chromosomes in their nucleus, polycistronic transcription, trans-splicing and intron poverty. These characteristics are highly unusual in eukaryotes.
Canonical gene expression in eukaryotes involves the transcription of a gene, and the splicing out of the introns so that only the exons remain, before translation takes place to construct the protein.
But in the Euglenids and Dinoflagellates, for example, a string of consecutive genes—sometimes hundreds of genes—are transcribed together in what is known as polycistronic transcription. And when these transcripts are cut up to produce monocistronic transcripts, short genomic sequences known as spliced leaders, which come from RNA genes, are added at the beginning in a process that is called trans-splicing. This was first observed years ago in the kinetoplastids. Also, there are very few introns in these distant eukaryotic groups.
Evolution expects that when organisms are classified according to how they evolved, then the classification serves to predict and explain other aspects of the organisms which were not used in the classification. Simply put, if certain traits point to a certain evolutionary history, then other traits should as well.
These similarities between the Euglenids and Dinoflagellates, of very odd and peculiar traits, disproves evolution yet again. It’s just another example of how the evidence explains evolution rather than evolution explaining the evidence. Evolution is a tautology. It is contorted to fit whatever we find in nature, no matter how absurd the theory must become.
Nothing makes sense in biology in the light of evolution.
Wow! This post seems to have been here about 4 hours and not one single naysayer! Or maybe I'm reading the timeclock wrong and it was just posted 30 seconds ago.
ReplyDeleteRed Reader
ReplyDeleteWow! This post seems to have been here about 4 hours and not one single naysayer! Or maybe I'm reading the timeclock wrong and it was just posted 30 seconds ago.
Nah, it's just that hearing the same old anti-science drivel over and over and over is boring. Creationists have "falsified" ToE thousands of time in the last hundred years. Heck, even CH here himself has falsified it at least a dozen times. He should have a whole closet full of Nobel Prizes by now.
Funny thing is, none of these "falsifications" ever make it into any mainstream scientific publications. You'd think that overturning arguably the world's best supported scientific theory would make a bigger impact. But every day millions of scientists still use the evolution paradigm to do successful research, make new discoveries, produce new medicines, increase human knowledge. And all the while the Creationist scientist wannabes sit on the sidelines with their "ToE is falsified!!" empty blustering rhetoric to keep them company.
Bonobo face:
DeleteNah, it's just that hearing the same old anti-science drivel over and over and over is boring.
Who is more anti-science, a superstitious butt-kissing moron like you who claims that life can spontaneously come out of dirt or someone who claims that life has specified information that can only be designed by an intelligent agent?
As I wrote before, evolution is just chicken feather voodoo science, a ridiculous cult. The only way it can flourish is by force of law through dictatorship. How you idiots got away with this crap in a democracy is an enduring mystery. LOL.
"Creationists have "falsified" ToE thousands of time in the last hundred years. Heck, even CH here himself has falsified it at least a dozen times."
DeleteI'm glad you agree...;)
"Funny thing is, none of these "falsifications" ever make it into any mainstream scientific publications."
We wouldn't expect any would we..since the theory is unfalsifiable in it's core.
"But every day millions of scientists still use the evolution paradigm to do successful research, make new discoveries, produce new medicines, increase human knowledge" This has nothing to do with an EVOLUTIONARY paradigm haha...I mean the greatest discovery in biology was based on a design paradigm. I'm talking about DNA...also I believe it was due to an evolutionary paradigm that RNA almost went undiscovered.
ForJah
DeleteWe wouldn't expect any would we..since the theory is unfalsifiable in it's core.
So according to you evolutionary theory has been falsified, and yet it's unfalsifiable.
You may want to think that through a little more. Maybe a lot more.
Hehe perhaps you should have read into my Sarcasm...It's not that I think that evolution is falsified...it's just that you agree with Creationists that it has been. of course I hope you understood I was joking with you, because clearly you yourself were also being sarcastic.
DeleteI agree with the person who says that evolution does not demonstrate the ability to be falsified. So I don't agree that Creationists have falsified the theory. That is why "none of these "falsifications" ever make it into any mainstream scientific publications."
ForJah
DeleteI agree with the person who says that evolution does not demonstrate the ability to be falsified.
There are plenty of things that if found would have falsified the current theory of evolution. Having the phylogenetic tree formed from the fossil record be a gross mismatch with the one formed from genetic analysis of multi-celled animals and plants would do it. (aside: And before the IDiots all start screaming, that doesn't mean known examples of lateral gene transfer.) Finding groups of animals with entirely different, non-compatable forms of DNA would have done it too. But those finds weren't made.
I agree it's almost impossible to think of a single finding that would falsify ToE today because of the huge amount of positive cross-correlating evidence it has amassed over the last 150 years. It would take something like discovering we're all living on some alien's giant holodeck.
ToE has always been quite falsifiable. It's just never been falsified.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteThat is what I like to call impractical falsification methods....ID advocates have attempted to show exactly what you said has been demonstrated. What reason do you have for saying lateral gene transfer doesn't count haha? It's like saying it matches everywhere, all the time, except when it doesn't but that's okay. It's much more realistic to say evolutionists have MADE UP concepts and other things in order to save the theory, just like EVERYONE does when they are overly attached to an argument. I mean, even if I'm wrong about that last part, I'm sure an evolutionist could figure out a way to explain away those discoveries if they were found. Do you understand what I'm saying? Evolution was once thought of as slow and gradual.. the criterion for falsification at that time was...if something didn't appear gradually then the theory would be falsified, then we saw this happen but instead of throwing away the papers some evolutionists came up with a great way to explain it. Punctuated equilibrium. Now we have a reason to expect both fast and slow organisms in the fossil record, hurray! You can see why I think that is completely stupid.
DeleteAlso, I think one scientist actually did find a non-compatable form of DNA in some bacteria. But of course that just provides, "Insight into the theory". Now I'm not to familiar in all that, but I'm also absolutely sure that many evolutionists would disagree with your falsification criteria. Since I have seen them argued before. That is because evolution is unfalsifiable...that is just true, and I'm speaking as someone who doesn't hold one theory over the other in regards to ID or Evolution, I believe them both to be unfalsifiable. You have to think practically about your falsification methods...not theoretically.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeletethe mitochondria DNA of the single-cell eukaryote Trypanosoma brucei is incredibly complex and unique, and make no sense on evolution, and more over that these incredible mitochondria designs reappear in distant species on the evolutionary tree. For instance, the Euglenids and the Dinoflagellates share these bizarre mitochondria similarities.
ReplyDelete"it's unique!"
...then, one sentence later...
"these bizarre similarities are shared!"
Please pick one. And try harder.
NickM, I hate to dampen your enthusiasm for believing you are a accidental product of time and chance, with all its nihilistic trappings, but I have a few problems with your the empirical evidence of your blind faith that life is ultimately meaningless. Well for starters you clearly are not charitable to Dr. Hunter in your reading of the passage in that Dr. Hunter clearly conveyed that 'unique' pertained to its portion of imaginary the evolutionary tree, and that similar pertained to a completely unrelated portion of the evolutionary tree. But my problems, besides your obvious bias, go deeper in that Lenski's Long Term Evolution Experiment (LTEE), besides confirming the negative epistasis that one would expect from a 'polyfuctional/polyconstrained perspective (J.Sanford - Genetic Entropy)),,
DeletePoly-Functional Complexity equals Poly-Constrained Complexity
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1xkW4C7uOE8s98tNx2mzMKmALeV8-348FZNnZmSWY5H8/edit
,, Lenski's LTEE also showed that evolution, as far as it can be measured within its downhill Genetic Entropy constraints, is shown to be historically contingent,,
Lenski's Citrate E-Coli - Disproof of Convergent Evolution - Fazale Rana - video (the disproof of convergence starts at the 2:45 minute mark of the video)
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4564682
The Long Term Evolution Experiment - Analysis
Excerpt: The experiment just goes to show that even with historical contingency and extreme selection pressure, the probability of random mutations causing even a tiny evolutionary improvement in digestion is, in the words of the researchers who did the experiment, “extremely low.” Therefore, it can’t be the explanation for the origin and variety of all the forms of life on Earth.
http://www.scienceagainstevolution.org/v12i11f.htm
,,, Thus NickM, since evolution, in what little downhill 'devolution' it can accomplish, is shown to be historically contingent, with no unknown mechanism guiding the mutations to any perceivable patterns of convergence, what empirical evidence do you have to justify your unwavering faith that the convergence noted by Dr. Hunter was arrived at by evolutionary processes??? I simply can find no evidence for such a dogmatic position on your part!
Where's the substantiating evidence for neo-Darwinism?
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1q-PBeQELzT4pkgxB2ZOxGxwv6ynOixfzqzsFlCJ9jrw/edit
Falsification Of Neo-Darwinism by Quantum Entanglement/Information
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1p8AQgqFqiRQwyaF8t1_CKTPQ9duN8FHU9-pV4oBDOVs/edit
Well NickM, seeing that I can find no evidence for you being a purposeless product of neo-Darwinian evolution, I can only surmise that, as much as you may regret hearing it, that you were purposely created;
Mandisa - Esther - Born For This - music video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZxFCber4TDo
Proverbs 16:9
In his heart a man plans his course, but the LORD determines his steps.
Well, great debate after all was said and done.
ReplyDeleteBut, I think IDers got the best of the Darwinists today.
It's just hard to win when the design before their eyes (facilitated by the the design OF their eyes) is so obvious, so complex and so well engineered. I mean, most good Darwinians can point out all sorts of ways they would have made these living systems better, but that doesn't mean they really know enough or even anything to actually DO that. It's just bluster. Like my mother used to say, "If you are so smart, how come you're not rich?" I mean, these are people who believe themselves to be accidents, which may not a positive foundation for healthy self-esteem.
Anyway, I am glad to see the ID contributors held their own today.