Creation vs. Evolution

[6days]

Hello everyone,

Here are some questions I found. Allegedly these were compiled by some creationist organization

Allegedly??

:devil:

 

[Jose Fly]

Your quote...in quote marks was fabricated. They say no such thing.

You dodged the question. Again, what exactly did you think the section entitled "Evolution and Conservation of Pseudogenes" was about, if not evolution and pseudogenes?

I will... and I can continue to give examples. For example millions of people were exterminated by the nazis. This is directly connected to Darwinism. Nazis tried to create s more fit race by eliminated those they deemed unfit.

Wow. Every time I think you can't get more desperate, you one-up yourself. Now you're stooping to the old "evolution = Nazism" canard?

First, if Darwinism was directly responsible for Nazism, why were the works of Darwin banned by Nazi Germany?

6. Writings of a philosophical and social nature whose content deals with the false scientific enlightenment of primitive Darwinism and Monism (Haeckel).​

Also, are you saying we should evaluate the validity of an idea based on the worst acts carried out in its name? Should we evaluate Christianity by the same standard?

So if scientists' statements are authoritative

Are they? You won't answer (further confirming one of my predictions).

what do you make of statements saying that pretty much all of common ancestry evolutionism is wrong?

Who said that?

Yes... you are trying to dodge by moving the goalposts... and creating strawmen.*

Review: Remember, this started with me saying ""Richard Dawkins has a history of promoting evolution, but using ideas that have conclusively proven incorrect (Such as his 'backward wired eye' argument). Another example... He was asked "Out of all the evidence used to support the theory of evolution, what would you say is the strongest, most irrefutable single piece of evidence in support of the theory?"
Watch Dawkins answer...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PlqNoCAIgA**

The problem with the answer is that either Dawkins is outright fibbing...or he is years behind on genetic research. He claims that we never see contradictions in genetic data of the family trees he describes. The truth is that genes contradict each other all the time"

You jumped into the conversation with this strawman "They've had to tweak their phylogenies over the years, therefore evolutionary biology is false!"
Well.... that wasn't the argument.
And as far as your tweaking 'argument'.....Darwins tree has been chopped down... hundreds of times. *Darwin didn't know genetics so he tried to fo it with homology. Genetics showed Darwins tree was wrong.*

The imaginary is a tangled mess. There is no evolutionary *tree of life. Hundreds of different imaginary trees are in textbooks and journals all based on a belief system and similarities.

Yeah, and to support your assertion about "there is no tree", you cited a New Scientist issue, but have since done everything you can to avoid actually discussing that issue.

So again (another dodged question), what exactly was that issue about? Be specific.

Psuedogenes are not non functional relics that become functional. The article suggests you accept what creationists have been saying for years. Instead of dismissing, ignoring and overlooking these genes as relics... look for purpose and design.

So let me venture a guess about something here. It's obvious to me that you never actually read the Pink et al. paper we've been discussing. Instead, you're just repeating something you read from another creationist who cited the Pink et al. paper. I mean, it's not like you have a subscription to the journal RNA, right? :chuckle:

The problem is, after you copied this creationist argument and the citation, I went and looked up the paper. And we all know in creationist world, you're not supposed to do that. Well, I did and what I found is a paper that is entirely based on our understanding of evolutionary history and mechanisms. Oops. Bet your creationist source didn't tell you that!

Your latest attempt above is a good indication that this is the case. Even though the very paper you cited describes how genes lose function, become non-functional pseudogenes, and later are co-opted to perform other functions, you assert the exact opposite.

So given that this paper is all about the evolutionary history of pseudogenes, describes how evolutionary theory directly adds to our understanding of genetic function, and concludes that further evolution-based research continue.....I'm wondering why you cited it in the first place.

All I can come up with is that you were conned by a dishonest source and are now looking for a way out.

Science is just beginning to discover the purpose of these genes evolutionists have ignored.

See, this is what's so absolutely bizarre. You assert evolutionists have ignored pseudogenes, and to support that claim you cite a paper describing the ways evolutionists are studying pseudogenes!

From the journal Nature "Defining ‘junk DNA’ is getting trickier.* Pseudogenes, for instance, have been viewed as non-essential genomic elements and have mostly been ignored.* Well, they shouldn’t be anymore, according to Poliseno and colleagues, who show a clear functional relationship between the tumour-suppressor gene PTEN and its pseudogene PTENP1 (Fig. 1).* This study could have major implications for understanding mechanisms of disease, and of cancer in particular."(Nature #465, June 2010)

Oh cool....we're going to do this yet again. What's the title of that paper?

This is fun. :banana:

 

[Jose Fly]

You see, this is exactly what happens when you grab all your info on some lame creationist webshite.

How about reading the very next line

(or the entire journal)


Just in case the link fails, here it is:
Yet, the marginality of evolutionary biology may be changing. More and more issues in biology, from diverse questions about human nature to the vulnerability of ecosystems, are increasingly seen as reflecting evolutionary events. A spate of popular books on evolution testifies to this development. If we are to fully understand these matters, however, we need to understand the processes of evolution that, ultimately, underlie them. This thematic issue of BioEssays is a survey of these processes and the ways they shape the properties of living things, from bacteria to humans.

6days busted yet again for dishonestly quote mining. I'll say it again....it's impossible to advocate creationism honestly.

Well done Duke. :thumb:

 

[6days]

6days busted yet again for dishonestly quote mining. I'll say it again....it's impossible to advocate creationism honestly.

Well done Duke. :thumb:

Already answered... The quote was correct and in context.
Common ancestry beliefs contribute hinder scientific progress... its a superfluous idea.

Mutation rates that they discuss in the article is observable science which does help medical advancements.

 

[Jose Fly]

Already answered... The quote was correct and in context.
Common ancestry beliefs contribute hinder scientific progress... its a superfluous idea.

Mutation rates that they discuss in the article is observable science which does help medical advancements.

LOL! You just keep digging deeper, don't you?

So tell me 6days, is this another example of what I speculated previously, i.e., where you copied that quote from a creationist source? Or are you going to tell us that you were a subscriber to BioEssays and just happened to have your issues from 16 years ago lying around?

And let's be clear here....if it's the former, I can kind of understand. You relied on a source you thought you could trust and got conned. But if it's the latter, then I have to wonder (as before) just what you were thinking when you cited a paper that states...

The importance of comprehending the nature of evolutionary processes, in order to make sense of the dynamic properties of biological systems, is particularly well illustrated by three articles in this issue.​

....followed by a description of three papers that directly utilize evolutionary theory to generate useful, productive science, as part of an attempt to argue that evolutionary theory doesn't contribute to science.

The only reasonable thing I can come up with is that you were conned by a secondary source and simply didn't bother to look up the paper in BioEssays. All the other explanations I can think of speak very, very, very poorly of you.

So which is it 6days? Did you copy this from another source, or did you actually have the December 2000 issue of BioEssays?

 

[6days]

I have to wonder (as before) just what you were thinking when you cited a paper that states...
The importance of comprehending the nature of evolutionary processes, in order to make sense of the dynamic properties of biological systems, is particularly well illustrated by three articles in this issue

Already answered this for you Jose.

It is important that we understand mutation rates, genetic drift, selection etc. That is empirical, observational science.

However common ancestry is a beief about the past that has hurt millions of people and hindered science.

 

[Jose Fly]

It is important that we understand mutation rates, genetic drift, selection etc. That is empirical, observational science.

IOW, evolutionary theory is important to science.

However common ancestry is a beief about the past that has hurt millions of people and hindered science.

Directly contradicted by your own posts.

And you ignored yet another question (my predictions are coming true): Did you copy the quote from the BioEssays article from another source, or did you actually have the December 2000 issue of BioEssays?

 

[6days]

Your quote...in quote marks was fabricated. They say no such thing

.
You dodged the question. Again, what exactly did you think the section entitled "Evolution and Conservation of Pseudogenes" was about, if not evolution and pseudogenes?

If the article said what you want it to say, you would not have had to fabricate your quote.

The article is pretty clear..... They admit that evolutionary beliefs about psuedogenes are being challenged by discoveries in genetics. They seem quite surprised psuedogenes are not useless relics but performing important regulatory function. Its easy to see they are trying to understand this within their belief system that psuedogenes are from a common ancestor.

Lets look at the opening remarks [I["The human genome, like that of other mammals, is littered with a variety of repetitive elements and noncoding genes. One such element is the pseudogene, a poor facsimile of an original protein-coding gene that has lost the ability to produce a functional protein (Mighell et al. 2000). Because they do not code for proteins'[/I]

I'm sure you don't find that funny, but you should. Lets look at how they still try to cling to old beliefs. Notice the word "littered"..... Words like that hinder science, as did words like 'junk' DNA. Notice that inspite of science showing these genes perform important functions, they still say it is "a poor facsimile of an original protein-coding gene that has lost the ability to produce a functional protein". At this point they are pushing their beliefs.

As knowledge of genetics increases, we will continue to discover purpose...design...function.

Re. the section of the article you point to, they are again trying to interpret results with their belief system. We can't study common ancestry evolution as they seem to imply. We can study, and we will find similar genetics in a mouse and a man, but that is something expected in genetics, no matter if Biblical creationist or atheist evolutionist.

I will... and I can continue to give examples. For example millions of people were exterminated by the nazis. This is directly connected to Darwinism. Nazis tried to create s more fit race by eliminated those they deemed unfit.

Every time I think you can't get more desperate, you one-up yourself.

Not desperate at all Jose..... You invited that.
I had said evolutionism hurts people and hinders science.

I gave an example of how the Nazi's were evolutionists and that belief system played a large part in the killing of millions of people deemed unfit to live. Would you like more examples? There are plenty.

So if scientists' statements are authoritative what do you make of statements saying that pretty much all of common ancestry evolutionism is wrong?

Are they?

There are authoritative statements from scientists on both sides of the evolution / creation issue. The reason is because they interpret data according to their beliefs about the past.

Example is the RNA article discussed above. They are now coming around to the creationist view that their may be design...purpose...function, but they still interpret according to beliefs about the past.

Yes... you are trying to dodge by moving the goalposts... and creating strawmen.

Review: Remember, this started with me saying ""Richard Dawkins has a history of promoting evolution, but using ideas that have conclusively proven incorrect (Such as his 'backward wired eye' argument). Another example... He was asked "Out of all the evidence used to support the theory of evolution, what would you say is the strongest, most irrefutable single piece of evidence in support of the theory?"
Watch Dawkins answer...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PlqNoCAIgA**

The problem with the answer is that either Dawkins is outright fibbing...or he is years behind on genetic research. He claims that we never see contradictions in genetic data of the family trees he describes. The truth is that genes contradict each other all the time"


You jumped into the conversation with this strawman "They've had to tweak their phylogenies over the years, therefore evolutionary biology is false!"
Well.... that wasn't the argument.
And as far as your tweaking 'argument'.....Darwins tree has been chopped down... hundreds of times. Darwin didn't know genetics so he tried to form it with homology. Genetics showed Darwins tree was wrong.

The imaginary is a tangled mess. There is no evolutionary tree of life. Hundreds of different imaginary trees are in textbooks and journals all based on a belief system and similarities.

Yeah, and to support your assertion about "there is no tree", you cited a New Scientist issue, but have since done everything you can to avoid actually discussing that issue.

Actually, I cited that article to show you were wrong. You seemed to think that Dawkins was correct in that genes never contradict themselves. You tried to soften his error by saying it was only a'tweak their phylogenies'. That is nonsense since in all likelihood there have been hundreds of trees drawn by evolutionists that contradict each other.

There are numerous articles and statements by evolutionists saying things such as "For a long time the holy grail was to build a tree of life. We have no evidence at all that the tree of life is a reality." Dr Eric Bapteste, evolutionary biologist at the Pierre and Marie Curie University in Paris.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/sci...is-wrong-and-misleading-claim-scientists.html

The article you refer to in New Scientist says "The tree of life, one of the iconic concepts of evolution, has turned out to be a figment of our imagination". Because the belief is non falsifiable evolutionists keep the belief but find new explanations to try make the data fit.

The best explanation of the evidence though is that there is no tree..... no common ancestor.

Psuedogenes are not non functional relics that become functional. The article suggests you accept what creationists have been saying for years. Instead of dismissing, ignoring and overlooking these genes as relics... look for purpose and design.

I went and looked up the paper... what I found is a paper that is entirely based on our understanding of evolutionary history and mechanisms.

They do their best trying to interpret the data through evolutionary beliefs.

However, what I said is still correct. Psuedogenes should not be overlooked as evolutionary relics. Science was hindered by that belief system. . The article concludes with "the prevalent attitude that they are nonfunctional relics is slowly changing. With the advent of affordable next- generation sequencing, the study of transcriptomics, and in particular, pseudogenes (and other transcribed noncoding elements), should experience a quantum leap forward. In the coming decade, the extent and mechanisms of pseudogene function should become clearer. "

Your latest attempt above is a good indication that this is the case. Even though the very paper you cited describes how genes lose function, become non-functional pseudogenes, and later are co-opted to perform other functions, you assert the exact opposite.

The paper describes their beliefs about the past.

The paper also says things like "Far from being silent relics, many pseudogenes are transcribed into RNA, some exhibiting a tissue-specific pattern of activation. Pseudogene transcripts can be processed into short interfering RNAs that regulate coding genes". I would say that is evidence of design.

Jose..... You keep confusing science with your beliefs.

The science in the article shows some 'psuedogenes' have important regulatory function.
You can BELIEVE this is the result of mutations and time.
I can believe, (that which is the most consistent with the data)..... These genes appear to be designed to perform regulatory functions.

I'm wondering why you cited it in the first place.

One reason is to show how science often forces evolutionists to move closer to the creationist position. We are wonderfully made. Even those things evolutionists have called junk, turns out to serve important roles.

All I can come up with is that you were conned by a dishonest source and are now looking for a way out.

Funny..... And who were you conned by in thinking that psuedogenes were just junk? oh...wait... you still do?

Good thing we have science rather thanevolutionists just so stories

Science is just beginning to discover the purpose of these genes evolutionists have ignored.

You assert evolutionists have ignored pseudogenes, and to support that claim you cite a paper describing the ways evolutionists are studying pseudogenes!

Doesn't this very article assert that psuedogenes were ignored because of evolutionary beliefs?

YUP! The first sentence of the abstract says "Pseudogenes have long been labeled as “junk” DNA, failed copies of genes that arise during the evolution of genomes. "

Oh... Wait..... Here comes somebody else saying that..... See where you quoted me just below! &#X1f60a

From the journal Nature "Defining ‘junk DNA’ is getting trickier. Pseudogenes, for instance, have been viewed as non-essential genomic elements and have mostly been ignored. Well, they shouldn’t be anymore, according to Poliseno and colleagues, who show a clear functional relationship between the tumour-suppressor gene PTEN and its pseudogene PTENP1 (Fig. 1).* This study could have major implications for understanding mechanisms of disease, and of cancer in particular."(Nature #465, June 2010)

Oh cool....we're going to do this yet again. What's the title of that paper?

You seem to have trouble believing the RNA article. Are you sure you want to look at another article saying much the same? (Evolutionism caused psuedogenes to be ignored / the assumptions were wrong)

But if you want..... there are actually 2 articles (same journal #465) to look at for info on psuedogenes and then the quote.

1. A coding-independent function of gene and pseudogene mRNAs regulates tumour biology...Poliseno et al
2. Gene-expression forum: Decoy for microRNAs...Rigoutsos and Furnari

Rigoutsos as an evolutionist said that these functional psuedogenes was "surprising news".

This is fun. :devil:

 

[6days]

IOW, evolutionary theory is important to science.

False... Its a belief about the past that has no real bearing on science other than to hinder it sometimes.
We can study selection, genetic drift, mutation rates etc and ignore beliefs about the past. However, if we accept that there was a The Creator then we should be able to perform science looking for cause...finding design, purpose and function.

Directly contradicted by your own posts.

Not at all. Even the 'hostile witnesses'I have called to the stand admit evolutionism has hindered science. They admit surprise finding function.

And you ignored yet another question (my predictions are coming true): Did you copy the quote from the BioEssays article from another source, or did you actually have the December 2000 issue of BioEssays?

Google it.
Although Duke found it in Bioessays, the original quote was in a book "Where Darwin Meets the Bible: Creationists and Evolutionists in America" p. 43 By Larry Witham, evolutionist.

And although Duke claimed the next sentence said something he thought was different... Here is the quote.
"“Surprisingly, however, the most notable aspect of natural scientists in assembly is how little they focus on evolution. Its day-to-day irrelevance is a great ‘paradox’ in biology, according to a BioEssays special issue on evolution in 2000. ‘While the great majority of biologists would probably agree with Theodosius Dobzhansky’s dictum that “Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution”, most can conduct their work quite happily without particular reference to evolutionary ideas”, the editor wrote. “Evolution would appear to be the indispensable unifying idea and, at the same time, a highly superfluous one.” The annual programs of science conventions also tell the story. When the zoologists met in 1995 (and changed their name to the Society for Integrative and Comparative Biology), just a few dozen of the 400 academic papers read were on evolution. The North American Paleontological Convention of 1996 featured 430 papers, but only a few included the word ‘evolution’ in their titles. The 1998 AAS meeting organised 150 scientific sessions, but just 5 focused on evolution—as it relates to biotechnology, the classification of species, language, race and primate families.”

 

[MichaelCadry]

6days busted yet again for dishonestly quote mining. I'll say it again....it's impossible to advocate creationism honestly.

Well done Duke. :thumb:

Dear Jose/TheDuke,

The paragraph below, concerning evolution that you posted, is entirely erroneous. It wasn't evolution that interwove itself to create ecosystems, biology, etc. God controls every bit of the changes that happen, not evolving!! If any genome{s} or genes, DNA or RNA, or mutations are changed, it is God's doing, not just 'natural occurring' of life. You are all mad!! Your evolving crap is just that!! God advances the life of everything, not evolution. There is just no getting through to you that God controls the DNA/RNA or genes, and atoms and protons, etc. You all think it just happens naturally, while you are forgetting about God because you don't believe in Him. It's His playpen and He alters things down here, no matter How Minute it is!! He cares about His Creations and changes them as He Wills. God is the MASTER CHEMIST!! He Created The UNIVERSE!! Don't you think He is capable of changing living things on Earth, or dead things for that matter, like drifting sand being placed in an area that He decides. There is Life in Rocks. You are all dumb!! In the end you will find out and say, "Never Mind!!" You are big losers Without Knowledge At ALL!! I can see right through your 'paragraph' and all of the misnomers and holes in it. I won't go on my tirade a minute longer. Just because you don't believe in God doesn't make His Handiwork any less HIS!! I also know why millions of Jews had to die!! But I'm certainly not sharing it with you who don't even believe in God!! You are going to burn at the rate you are going. Then you can add up how many eons it takes to burn up a soul by natural selection!!

Grow Up!! LEARN!!


Just in case the link fails, here it is:
Yet, the marginality of evolutionary biology may be changing. More and more issues in biology, from diverse questions about human nature to the vulnerability of ecosystems, are increasingly seen as reflecting evolutionary events. A spate of popular books on evolution testifies to this development. If we are to fully understand these matters, however, we need to understand the processes of evolution that, ultimately, underlie them. This thematic issue of BioEssays is a survey of these processes and the ways they shape the properties of living things, from bacteria to humans.

Michael

:think:

 

[TheDuke]

Although Duke found it in Bioessays, the original quote was in a book "Where Darwin Meets the Bible: Creationists and Evolutionists in America" p. 43 By Larry Witham, evolutionist.
And although Duke claimed the next sentence said something he thought was different... Here is the quote.
"“Surprisingly, however, the most notable aspect of natural scientists in assembly is how little they focus on evolution. Its day-to-day irrelevance is a great ‘paradox’ in biology, according to a BioEssays special issue on evolution in 2000. ‘While the great majority of biologists would probably agree with Theodosius Dobzhansky’s dictum that “Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution”, most can conduct their work quite happily without particular reference to evolutionary ideas”, the editor wrote. “Evolution would appear to be the indispensable unifying idea and, at the same time, a highly superfluous one.” The annual programs of science conventions also tell the story. When the zoologists met in 1995 (and changed their name to the Society for Integrative and Comparative Biology), just a few dozen of the 400 academic papers read were on evolution. The North American Paleontological Convention of 1996 featured 430 papers, but only a few included the word ‘evolution’ in their titles. The 1998 AAS meeting organised 150 scientific sessions, but just 5 focused on evolution—as it relates to biotechnology, the classification of species, language, race and primate families.”

You Munchkin, how do you think I knew where to look? Witham was honest enough to include a reference. And, NO, his book is NOT the origin of the quote.

How can you possibly turn everything upside down is remarkable. However I'm still fairly sure that the book was NOT the place where you found this gem. I'm siding with Jose on this one: you discovered this certainly on a creationist source and are just too ashamed to admit it!

PS: How do you figure Witham was an "evolutionist" if the only stuff he wrote about was religion and theology ?????

We can study selection, genetic drift, mutation rates etc and ignore beliefs about the past. However, if we accept that there was a The Creator then we should be able to perform science looking for cause...finding design, purpose and function.

The kaleidoscope in your brain is beyond words. How do you figure all of the above works without looking into the past???

You're just like all the typical YECs who go saying: "microevo" is real, but "macro" is blind faith.

It's still a fish. It's still a frog. It's still a bacterium :hammer::hammer::hammer::hammer::hammer::hammer:

 

[6days]

You Munchkin, how do you think I knew where to look? Witham was honest enough to include a reference. And, NO, his book is NOT the origin of the quote.*

You are correct.
I was wrong.

Witham, who i quoted, wrote his book in 2002.
The bioessays article you quoted by a different author was wrote in 2000.

Thanks for the correction.

PS: How do you figure Witham was an "evolutionist" if the only stuff he wrote about was religion and theology ?????

He also writes about evolution....believes in evolution....and is against Biblical creation. Witham would likely describe himsels as a proponent of ID.*

We can study selection, genetic drift, mutation rates etc and ignore beliefs about the past. However, if we accept that there was a The Creator then we should be able to perform science looking for cause...finding design, purpose and function.

The kaleidoscope in your brain is beyond words.

WOW!!! Thanks Duke!. That is exactly what people used to say about Einstein....maybe. ha

How do you figure all of the above works*without*looking into the past???

The reason evolutionists have such a poor track record is because they impose their beliefs on the data. (Psuedogenes which we have been discussing here is one of many examples)

You're just like all the typical YECs who go saying: "microevo" is real, but "macro" is blind faith.
It's still a fish. It's still a frog. It's still a bacterium*

I have never used the words 'micro' and 'macro'.

But yes, science does seem to show us that there are limits to variation.

 

[Jose Fly]

If the article said what you want it to say, you would not have had to fabricate your quote.

You still didn't answer the question (as I predicted). Again, what exactly did you think the section entitled "Evolution and Conservation of Pseudogenes" was about, if not evolution and pseudogenes?

The article is pretty clear..... They admit that evolutionary beliefs about psuedogenes are being challenged by discoveries in genetics.

"Discoveries in genetics" that are being made using our knowledge of evolutionary common ancestry, as your own source very clearly describes in the section entitled "Evolution and Pseudogenes".

Also, I find it interesting how you try and paint it as if all evolutionary biologists were like "Pseudogenes? Meh...non-functional, so don't bother looking". The reality is quite different however. Among evolutionary biologists, "panselectionists" argued quite vehemently that there is little, or even no, junk DNA. Their view was that selection would purge the genome of non-functional sequences. Of course, other evolutionary biologists disagreed, pointing to example sequences where it's quite clear there is no function (e.g., microsats).

So there was disagreement within the scientific community, which happens all the time in every field of science, on I would venture to say most subjects. And in science what do we do when we have such disagreements? We collect more data and analyze it to see if it can settle the dispute.

That's where the paper you linked to plays a role. It reviews the research into one type of junk DNA (pseudogenes)....research that was conducted entirely under the framework of evolutionary common ancestry as described in the "Evolution and Pseudogenes" section...lists some examples where a handful of pseudogenes have been shown to have function. Of course there are lots of pseudogenes in the human genome (at least 12,000 from what I've read), so finding a few that have been co-opted for new functions isn't all that earth-shattering.

So a more accurate description here would be "Research is addressing the debate among evolutionary biologists regarding the functionality of pseudogenes and other junk DNA".

They seem quite surprised psuedogenes are not useless relics but performing important regulatory function. Its easy to see they are trying to understand this within their belief system that psuedogenes are from a common ancestor.

No, it's because of our understanding of common ancestry that this research was even able to be carried out. If not, perhaps you could explain how geneticists would know which organisms' genomes to compare, where to look, and what to look for, with absolutely no knowledge of evolutionary theory whatsoever.

Lets look at the opening remarks [I["The human genome, like that of other mammals, is littered with a variety of repetitive elements and noncoding genes. One such element is the pseudogene, a poor facsimile of an original protein-coding gene that has lost the ability to produce a functional protein (Mighell et al. 2000). Because they do not code for proteins'[/I]

I'm sure you don't find that funny, but you should. Lets look at how they still try to cling to old beliefs. Notice the word "littered"..... Words like that hinder science, as did words like 'junk' DNA.

Yet somehow they keep making scientific advancements and new discoveries, as the paper you cited shows. Further, these advancements and knowledge are a direct result of our understanding of evolutionary common ancestry (as described in the "Evolution and Pseudogenes" section).

Meanwhile, creationism has contributed............nothing.

Notice that inspite of science showing these genes perform important functions, they still say it is "a poor facsimile of an original protein-coding gene that has lost the ability to produce a functional protein". At this point they are pushing their beliefs.

Ah, now I see why you like Answers in Genesis so much. You both operate via the same intellectually dishonest framework, where anything that goes against your religious beliefs is automatically rejected.

As knowledge of genetics increases, we will continue to discover purpose...design...function.

And that brings us to yet another question you won't answer....some of these sequences lead to disease and other afflictions. Are you arguing that God put them there on purpose?

Re. the section of the article you point to, they are again trying to interpret results with their belief system. We can't study common ancestry evolution as they seem to imply.

And that "belief system" that they're interpreting this data through is what led them to these discoveries. It told them what genomes to compare, where to look, and what to look for. So even if we were to grant your silly "belief system" argument, we still have to conclude that it's a pretty productive and useful belief. After all, just this one review paper describes more contributions to science from evolutionary theory than creationism has contributed in the last 100 years!

We can study, and we will find similar genetics in a mouse and a man, but that is something expected in genetics, no matter if Biblical creationist or atheist evolutionist.

Yet it is always evolutionary theory that leads to these discoveries, while creationism hasn't led to a single new discovery in at least 100 years. That should tell you something.

I gave an example of how the Nazi's were evolutionists and that belief system played a large part in the killing of millions of people deemed unfit to live. Would you like more examples? There are plenty.

Why were the works of Darwin banned in Nazi Germany? And again (another unanswered question), do you really want to evaluate a concept based on the worst things it's been used to justify? Should we apply that standard to Christianity?

There are authoritative statements from scientists on both sides of the evolution / creation issue.

Exactly. "Authoritative statements" don't mean a thing in science. That's why your dishonestly mined quotes are useless in these discussions. What matters in science is the data and results. Science is literally a "put up or shut up" endeavor, and the fact is evolutionary theory has "put up" an enormous amount of material whereas creationism hasn't put up a single thing in at least a century.

That's just the harsh reality of science 6days. If you don't contribute, you're irrelevant.

Example is the RNA article discussed above. They are now coming around to the creationist view that their may be design...purpose...function, but they still interpret according to beliefs about the past.

And this is one of the more slimy things about creationism....always coming in after scientists have done the actual work and declaring "we could have done that". Yet they never seem to do it, do they? Always trying to claim credit for other people's work.

Actually, I cited that article to show you were wrong.

And again (another unanswered question), what specifically was that article about?

The fact that you refuse to answer tells me it's either 1) you just copied from a creationist source so you have no idea what it was about, or 2) you know what it's about but because it's not quite what you're making it out to be, you're ducking and dodging having to answer.

You seemed to think that Dawkins was correct in that genes never contradict themselves. You tried to soften his error by saying it was only a'tweak their phylogenies'. That is nonsense since in all likelihood there have been hundreds of trees drawn by evolutionists that contradict each other.

All I've asked is for you to specify what that article was about. You keep dodging.

There are numerous articles and statements by evolutionists saying things such as "For a long time the holy grail was to build a tree of life. We have no evidence at all that the tree of life is a reality." Dr Eric Bapteste, evolutionary biologist at the Pierre and Marie Curie University in Paris.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/sci...is-wrong-and-misleading-claim-scientists.html

Just like the New Scientist issue/article you refuse to discuss in any detail, this newspaper article is about the same thing. Do you even know what the central issue here is?

The article you refer to in New Scientist says "The tree of life, one of the iconic concepts of evolution, has turned out to be a figment of our imagination". Because the belief is non falsifiable evolutionists keep the belief but find new explanations to try make the data fit.

Not at all. There's something much more basic and not at all nefarious as you try and make it.

The best explanation of the evidence though is that there is no tree..... no common ancestor.

Rather, the case these scientists are making is that the earliest history of life on earth is more like...........? Come on 6days, at least make an effort to understand the material you're citing.

Or are you just mining these articles for little soundbites, with no interest at all in what they're actually about?

They do their best trying to interpret the data through evolutionary beliefs.

And as the paper shows, interpreting the data via evolutionary theory led to the discovery that some pseudogenes have functions. Yet astoundingly, you keep trying to cite it as an example of science being against evolutionary theory.

"Kaleidoscope in your brain" indeed. :chuckle:

However, what I said is still correct. Psuedogenes should not be overlooked as evolutionary relics. Science was hindered by that belief system.

As the paper explains, some of them are evolutionary relics....relics that have evolved new functions (some of which aren't exactly good for us).

The article concludes with "the prevalent attitude that they are nonfunctional relics is slowly changing. With the advent of affordable next- generation sequencing, the study of transcriptomics, and in particular, pseudogenes (and other transcribed noncoding elements), should experience a quantum leap forward. In the coming decade, the extent and mechanisms of pseudogene function should become clearer. "

Yep, all of which will be conducted under the framework of evolutionary theory. And not one bit....not a single bit of it....will be conducted under the "Biblical model of creation" (whatever it is).

The paper describes their beliefs about the past.

The paper also says things like "Far from being silent relics, many pseudogenes are transcribed into RNA, some exhibiting a tissue-specific pattern of activation. Pseudogene transcripts can be processed into short interfering RNAs that regulate coding genes". I would say that is evidence of design.

How? Why is that "evidence of design"?

These genes appear to be designed to perform regulatory functions.

Does that include sequences that cause disease?

Funny..... And who were you conned by in thinking that psuedogenes were just junk? oh...wait... you still do?

You didn't answer the question (adding to the pile). Did you have your own copy of this paper, or did you just copy the citation from a creationist source?

Doesn't this very article assert that psuedogenes were ignored because of evolutionary beliefs?

YUP! The first sentence of the abstract says "Pseudogenes have long been labeled as “junk” DNA, failed copies of genes that arise during the evolution of genomes. "

How can you claim "evolutionists ignore pseudogenes", while citing a paper that reviews research evolutionists have conducted into pseudogenes?

You keep trying to tell us black is white and up is down, and we're just scratching our heads wondering what in the world is wrong with you.

You seem to have trouble believing the RNA article.

This just gets more and more bizarre with each post.

Are you sure you want to look at another article saying much the same? (Evolutionism caused psuedogenes to be ignored / the assumptions were wrong)

Oh absolutely! So far we've got you claiming "evolution hinders science" and "evolutionists ignore pseudogenes", and then citing papers and articles where evolution leads to new discoveries and evolutionists have studied pseudogenes.

This oughta be good....

But if you want..... there are actually 2 articles (same journal #465) to look at for info on psuedogenes and then the quote.

1. A coding-independent function of gene and pseudogene mRNAs regulates tumour biology...Poliseno et al
2. Gene-expression forum: Decoy for microRNAs...Rigoutsos and Furnari

Rigoutsos as an evolutionist said that these functional psuedogenes was "surprising news".

Have you read those papers?

False.

Directly contradicted by your own citations that describe how evolutionary biologists, working under the framework of evolutionary theory, have made important contributions to our understanding.

Google it.

So obviously you never had the actual BioEssays article or issue. Now the question is, who did you copy the quote from?

 

[TheDuke]

Jose, man,
How do you have the patience for such a long post? :think:

 

[TheDuke]

You are correct.
I was wrong.
...
Witham would likely describe himsels as a proponent of ID.

Looks like we do live in end times after all. You've just agreed with me and on 2 occasions. I'm speechless.

The reason evolutionists have such a poor track record is because they impose their beliefs on the data. (Psuedogenes which we have been discussing here is one of many examples)

I kinda wonder what you mean when you say something like this? I'm not even going to bother pointing out that you in fact dodged the actual question, however I'd like to ask you 3 things:

1) How do you reckon it is possible to "impose" a belief on data, where in every scientific publication all the data, its interpretation, the conclusions and relevant predictions are published for all to examine and correct?
I've posed this question before, to no avail, so here I try again.
Do you have any concept of how science works, and why it works???

2) How do you reckon anybody noticed that pseudogenes might have a purpose, if not by analysing their prevalence in various related species? The very central thesis of evolution was the only key to realising that pseudogenes are in fact exposed to some selective pressures and therefore deserve a closer look......

3) What exactly has creationism ever contributed to science?

 

[MichaelCadry]

If the article said what you want it to say, you would not have had to fabricate your quote.

The article is pretty clear..... They admit that evolutionary beliefs about psuedogenes are being challenged by discoveries in genetics. They seem quite surprised psuedogenes are not useless relics but performing important regulatory function. Its easy to see they are trying to understand this within their belief system that psuedogenes are from a common ancestor.

Lets look at the opening remarks [I["The human genome, like that of other mammals, is littered with a variety of repetitive elements and noncoding genes. One such element is the pseudogene, a poor facsimile of an original protein-coding gene that has lost the ability to produce a functional protein (Mighell et al. 2000). Because they do not code for proteins'[/I]

I'm sure you don't find that funny, but you should. Lets look at how they still try to cling to old beliefs. Notice the word "littered"..... Words like that hinder science, as did words like 'junk' DNA. Notice that inspite of science showing these genes perform important functions, they still say it is "a poor facsimile of an original protein-coding gene that has lost the ability to produce a functional protein". At this point they are pushing their beliefs.

As knowledge of genetics increases, we will continue to discover purpose...design...function.

Re. the section of the article you point to, they are again trying to interpret results with their belief system. We can't study common ancestry evolution as they seem to imply. We can study, and we will find similar genetics in a mouse and a man, but that is something expected in genetics, no matter if Biblical creationist or atheist evolutionist.


Not desperate at all Jose..... You invited that.
I had said evolutionism hurts people and hinders science.

I gave an example of how the Nazi's were evolutionists and that belief system played a large part in the killing of millions of people deemed unfit to live. Would you like more examples? There are plenty.


There are authoritative statements from scientists on both sides of the evolution / creation issue. The reason is because they interpret data according to their beliefs about the past.

Example is the RNA article discussed above. They are now coming around to the creationist view that their may be design...purpose...function, but they still interpret according to beliefs about the past.


Actually, I cited that article to show you were wrong. You seemed to think that Dawkins was correct in that genes never contradict themselves. You tried to soften his error by saying it was only a'tweak their phylogenies'. That is nonsense since in all likelihood there have been hundreds of trees drawn by evolutionists that contradict each other.

There are numerous articles and statements by evolutionists saying things such as "For a long time the holy grail was to build a tree of life. We have no evidence at all that the tree of life is a reality." Dr Eric Bapteste, evolutionary biologist at the Pierre and Marie Curie University in Paris.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/sci...is-wrong-and-misleading-claim-scientists.html

The article you refer to in New Scientist says "The tree of life, one of the iconic concepts of evolution, has turned out to be a figment of our imagination". Because the belief is non falsifiable evolutionists keep the belief but find new explanations to try make the data fit.

The best explanation of the evidence though is that there is no tree..... no common ancestor.


They do their best trying to interpret the data through evolutionary beliefs.

However, what I said is still correct. Psuedogenes should not be overlooked as evolutionary relics. Science was hindered by that belief system. . The article concludes with "the prevalent attitude that they are nonfunctional relics is slowly changing. With the advent of affordable next- generation sequencing, the study of transcriptomics, and in particular, pseudogenes (and other transcribed noncoding elements), should experience a quantum leap forward. In the coming decade, the extent and mechanisms of pseudogene function should become clearer. "


The paper describes their beliefs about the past.

The paper also says things like "Far from being silent relics, many pseudogenes are transcribed into RNA, some exhibiting a tissue-specific pattern of activation. Pseudogene transcripts can be processed into short interfering RNAs that regulate coding genes". I would say that is evidence of design.

Jose..... You keep confusing science with your beliefs.

The science in the article shows some 'psuedogenes' have important regulatory function.
You can BELIEVE this is the result of mutations and time.
I can believe, (that which is the most consistent with the data)..... These genes appear to be designed to perform regulatory functions.


One reason is to show how science often forces evolutionists to move closer to the creationist position. We are wonderfully made. Even those things evolutionists have called junk, turns out to serve important roles.

Funny..... And who were you conned by in thinking that psuedogenes were just junk? oh...wait... you still do?

Good thing we have science rather thanevolutionists just so stories


Doesn't this very article assert that psuedogenes were ignored because of evolutionary beliefs?

YUP! The first sentence of the abstract says "Pseudogenes have long been labeled as “junk” DNA, failed copies of genes that arise during the evolution of genomes. "

Oh... Wait..... Here comes somebody else saying that..... See where you quoted me just below! &#X1f60a



You seem to have trouble believing the RNA article. Are you sure you want to look at another article saying much the same? (Evolutionism caused psuedogenes to be ignored / the assumptions were wrong)

But if you want..... there are actually 2 articles (same journal #465) to look at for info on psuedogenes and then the quote.

1. A coding-independent function of gene and pseudogene mRNAs regulates tumor biology...Poliseno et al
2. Gene-expression forum: Decoy for microRNAs...Rigoutsos and Furnari

Rigoutsos as an evolutionist said that these functional psuedogenes was "surprising news".

This is fun. :devil:

Dear 6days,

You deserve some fun with this extraneous reading!! You're number ONE in my book!! I think it is FUN TOO!!! I think I'll mispell a word. Heheheheheee!!

God Keep You In His Arms, Where You Belong!!!

Michael

 

[MichaelCadry]

Looks like we do live in end times after all. You've just agreed with me and on 2 occasions. I'm speechless.


I kinda wonder what you mean when you say something like this? I'm not even going to bother pointing out that you in fact dodged the actual question, however I'd like to ask you 3 things:

1) How do you reckon it is possible to "impose" a belief on data, where in every scientific publication all the data, its interpretation, the conclusions and relevant predictions are published for all to examine and correct?
I've posed this question before, to no avail, so here I try again.
Do you have any concept of how science works, and why it works???

2) How do you reckon anybody noticed that pseudogenes might have a purpose, if not by analysing their prevalence in various related species? The very central thesis of evolution was the only key to realising that pseudogenes are in fact exposed to some selective pressures and therefore deserve a closer look......

3) What exactly has creationism ever contributed to science?

Dear Duke,

Everything Science has drawn from has been things that were 'created.' Creation was here thousands of years before man's interpretation called Science. Trying to explain everything without a God. That's what Science is. But there are those of us who still KNOW where everything came from and Who 'manipulates' each genome and neutrons, electrons, and elements within it. He makes the changes... not Science. I have capitalized the word science to help make this clearer for you. Science came along WAY AFTER Creation!!! Evolution is a folly devised by foolish men!! There are no creatures evolving into other animals. God creates each animal individually. That's the myriad of ways that Creationism has contributed to Science. Just as God is the Master Chemist, He is also the Master Biologist, Master Creationist, and Master of Everything!!!

Best Wishes,

Michael

 

[Jose Fly]

Jose, man,
How do you have the patience for such a long post? :think:

I dunno....I'm nuts I guess. If this weren't so entertaining!!

The funny thing is, I wanted to deeper into the pseudogene research, because there's a whole other layer there that I don't think 6days understands or appreciates, but the post was long enough already. Maybe next time?

 

[6days]

You still didn't answer the question (as I predicted).

Your prediction was wrong.
Answer was given. You didn't agree with the answer.

"Discoveries in genetics" that are being made using our knowledge of evolutionary common ancestry, as your own source very clearly describes in the section entitled "Evolution and Pseudogenes".

We disagree. Discoveries are made through knowlege of genetics. Not theough beliefs. And certainly not through beliefs which have hindered science causing people to believe that "our genome is filled with the remains of extinct genes". (Susumu Ohno

Also, I find it interesting how you try and paint it as if all evolutionary biologists were like "Pseudogenes? Meh...non-functional, so don't bother looking".

I quoted from the journal Nature "Pseudogenes, for instance, have been viewed as non-essential genomic elements and have mostly been ignored." IOW, it is evolutionary biologists themselves admitting they ignored psuedogenes because iof their beliefs

That's where the paper you linked to plays a role. It reviews the research into one type of junk DNA (pseudogenes)....research that was conducted entirely under the framework of evolutionary common ancestry as described in the "Evolution and Pseudogenes" section

Don't get so excited just because they use the word evolution. They did the research based on mutation rates and under the same assumptions Biblical creationists like geneticist John Sanford uses. (Similar functions found in different creatures may have similar genes). And they did it under the assumptions science is now proving false (Junk DNA / psuedogenes)

...lists some examples where a handful of pseudogenes have been shown to have function. Of course there are lots of pseudogenes in the human genome (at least 12,000 from what I've read)

Perhaps only a handful so far, but already evolutionists are suggesting the word is a misnomer and function will be found in more. (ENCODE has studied what % of our genome so far? 1 %?)

Since these 'useless relics' were used as evidence of common ancestry, I'm imagining that we can now use these useful and functional genes as evidence of our common Designer

[/quote=6days]
They seem quite surprised psuedogenes are not useless relics but performing important regulatory function. Its easy to see they are trying to understand this within their belief system that psuedogenes are from a common ancestor

No, it's because of our understanding of common ancestry that this research was even able to be carried out.[/quote]
Besides being false....that has notthing to do with evolutionists being surprised. (Fallacy of moving goalposts)

Further, these advancements and knowledge are a direct result of our understanding of evolutionary common ancestry (as described in the "Evolution and Pseudogenes" section).

Don't get so excited just because they use the word evolution. They did the research based on mutation rates and under the same assumptions Biblical creationists use. Similar functions and features may be controlled by similar genes.

Genetic research helps confirm the Biblical account of creation, that we are created by extreme intelligence. Genetic research helps prove a lot of what evolutionists believed is false, like their beliefs about "Junk" DNA.

 

[6days]

CREATIONISM THE CORNERSTONE OF SCIENCE

CREATIONISM THE CORNERSTONE OF SCIENCE

Looks like we do live in end times after all. You've just agreed with me and on 2 occasions. I'm speechless.

Haha... the sun will likely still rise tomorrow.

And...don't get such a big head. I think I only agreed with you once? Witham is a theistic evolutionist it seems. He is definetly not a creationist. Furthermore, I'm sure your condition of "speechlessness" is very temporary.

1) How do you reckon it is possible to "impose" a belief on data

Take a look at how evolutionists imposed beliefs on so called psuedogenes. The data was that these genes were observed in different species, and appeared to have no function. The belief imposed on the data can be seen in this wiki defintion "Pseudogenes are functionless relatives of genes that have lost their gene expression...". That is a belief imposed on the data.

2) How do you reckon anybody noticed that pseudogenes might have a purpose, if not by analysing their prevalence in various related species?

Again, you are trying to impose your belief onto the data. It also works like this.... you and I find a gene in a mouse that petforms a certain function. If humans have the same gene, we expect it may petform the same function. We have opposite beliefs about the past, but we both made our amazing discovery together because of our brilliant minds and our knowlege of genetics. I can claim 'Thats evidence of design'..... you can claim its evidence of common ancestry. But the discovery was made because of our knowledge of genetics; not because of our beliefs.

3) What exactly has creationism ever contributed to science?

Biblical creation is the cornerstone of modern science. Biblical creation is at the root of many fields of modern science. Science is only possible because we live in an orderly creation making discovery possible.

Opposite to that is evolutionism which has a track record of hurting people and hindering science with false beliefs.
I find it amusing that atheists so often think their religion is science, and opposing beliefs are non science. Richard Dawkins in Greatest Show on Earth in Ch. 1, seems to feel sorry for himself and fellow evolutionists that Creationists don't believe as he does.
He claims evolutionist teachers are harried and stymied, hassled and bullied, even threatened. Dawkins claim is echoed by many about the significance of evolutionary biology. For example the US National Academy of Science says evolutionary biology is the cornerstone of modern science linking it to computers, cell phones, cars, airplanes, medicine, food and even space travel. (From their book, Science, Evolution and Creationism)

The funny thing about the claims is its totally bogus. Evolutionary biology does not contribute anything towards newer technologies or better medicines. In fact many of the technologies mentioned have direct links to creationists.

computers...Charles Babbage, creationist but not Bible creationist, invented computing machines.

cell phones...James Maxwell, Bible creationist, pioneered electromagnetic radiation theory upon which cell phones depend.

airplanes... The Wright brothers who were both creationists invented the airplane after studying God's design of birds.

food... Modern day creationist and geneticist John Sanford has inventions which improved food crops, feeding the world

and even space travel.... Werner von Braun believed in a designer....opposing evolution. He headed the moon landing program.

Evolutionism never produces any new technology, nor any advancement in medicine.