afdave
Posts: 1621
Joined: April 2006
|
Argystokes said ...
| Quote | Hi AFDave,
Let me see if I can add something to the conversation.
You've been arguing that what appears to be a broken GLO in primates may not be in fact broken at all, but is rather a designed stretch of DNA that performs some unknown function (we'll call this "pseudo-GLO"). You haven't stated it explicitly, but I think we can infer that this putative function has nothing to do with Vitamin C synthesis (seeing as primates and guinea pigs can't do it). That is, pseudo-GLO has a function entirely distinct from regular GLO.
If pseudo-GLO has a distinct function, we could use the framework of common design (as well as common descent) to predict that pseudo-GLO would be found in organisms that have functioning GLO. This is because there is no reason to predict that a gene unrelated to Vitamin C would only be found in GLO-deficient species.
So there are two possible scenarios:
(1) Pseudo-GLO is found throughout the animal kingdom (either ubiquitously, randomly, or in nested hierarchies). This type of scenario, where a species has a functional gene and a pseudogene is not uncommon.
(2) Pseudo-GLO is only found in species unable to synthesize vitamin C.
It seems to me that a design hypothesis would only predict scenario (1), for reasons discussed above. Common descent would predict either scenario (2), or scenario (1) with nested hierarchies of Pseudo-GLO (this would be the result of a duplication of GLO followed by the inactivation of one of the copies, which still persists in the population). Seeing pseudo-GLOs (especially those that look very much alike) randomly throughout the animal kingdom would certainly be a surprise to me (I can think of a mechanism by which it might occur, but we won't get in to that). Ubiquitous pseudo-GLO would strongly imply that it has an important function, but would not really support either common descent or common design over the other.
I haven't done the research to find out which is the case, but there should be sufficient online tools to find out which is the correct scenario. With the relatively low number of genomes sequenced, it is probably not possible right now (using good ole look-it-up-online methods) to differentiate between the subscenarios of scenario (1).
I'm willing to look up the information for you (assuming you don't know how to do a BLAST search) if you're willing to concede that scenario (2) does not logically fit with a special creation model.
So how's about it, Dave? Shall we do some science? |
This is an excellent discussion here. I like the terminology you use to keep everything clear. You are correct that I have lately focused on the question "Why are researchers so sure this is a broken gene?" I think this is a legitimate question to ask (but I could be wrong) in light of statements like this from Watson (co-discoverer of DNA) in 2003 ...
| Quote | | ‘The most humbling aspect of the Human Genome Project so far has been the realization that we know remarkably little about what the vast majority of human genes do.(Watson, J.D., DNA: The Secret of Life, Alfred A. Knopf, New York, p. 217, 2003.) |
and we are obviously learning much about pseudogenes as the following title suggests ...
| Quote | PSEUDOGENES: Are They "Junk" or Functional DNA?
Evgeniy S. Balakirev1,2 and Francisco J. Ayala1
1Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of California, Irvine, California 92697-2525; email: fjayala@uci.edu
2Institute of Marine Biology, Vladivostok 690041,
Russia and Academy of Ecology, Marine Biology, and Biotechnology, Far Eastern State University, Vladivostok 690600, Russia; email: esbalak@bio.dvgu.ru |
And the answer may well turn out to be that it is in fact a broken gene, when more is known. But if the answer is "Yes, it IS broken", then there is another question which immediately follows. I mentioned this early on and we never explored it. The next questions would be these ... "Did it break independently in humans and apes? Or did it break in our ape-like ancestor and get transmitted to both apes and humans as Dr. Max asserts?" Is it not just as plausible that both ape and human GLO "broke" independently? Design hypothesis predicts similarity in the the two genomes also, but for a different reason than common descent advocates. It seems to me that it is quite probable that IF apes and humans did in fact at one time have functional GLO, the functional genes would have been quite similar (is it not true that OTHER functional genes found today in apes and humans are similar?)and the large differences b/t apes and humans that we see today would have also been seen at that time in the past. This scenario also seems to me to be supported by the 2003 Inai study comparing guinea pig and human pseudo-GLO. Guinea pigs and humans are obviously not in sister groups, but they both have pseudo-GLO, which actually has 36% "identicalness" according to the report. Are we to conclude that humans are more closely related to guinea pigs who (like humans) have pseudo-GLO, than to pro-simians who have functional GLO? It seems that the guinea pig-human pseudo GLO similarity all by itself falsifies common descent for apes and humans.
So I think the following possibilities exist ...
(1) Pseudo-GLO is NOT "broken GLO" and is found throughout the animal kingdom (either ubiquitously, randomly, or in nested hierarchies). This type of scenario, where a species has a functional gene and a pseudogene is not uncommon.
(2) Pseudo-GLO IS "broken GLO" and is only found in species unable to synthesize vitamin C ... this is because the gene "broke" in the ape-like ancestor, then this "broken gene" was copied throughout the evolutionary path to humans. If this is true, however, you would still need to explain how the gene broke independently in the guinea pig ancestor, but wound up in modern guinea pigs looking "36% similar" to modern human pseudo-GLO. You have the problem of the appearance that humans are more closely related to guinea pigs than to the pro-simians! (who have functional GLO)
(3) Pseudo-GLO IS "broken GLO" and is only found in species unable to synthesize vitamin C ... this is because all animals were designed with a functional gene, but now some have independently lost function because of mutations.
I realize that at this point, I have not given positive evidence for the Design Hypothesis regarding apes and humans, because that was not my goal on this thread. I have only pointed out that Dr. Max's assumptions -- (a) this is a broken gene and (b) if it is broken, this proves common descent -- are unwarranted assumptions.
This whole thread started because someone (I think Renier) said he used to be a YEC advocate, but abandoned it because of this issue which he thought was a closed case. If nothing else, I think I have shown that it is definitely not a closed case.
As for which of the above 3 scenarios is true, I obviously do not know yet. It does appear that (2) is not consistent with the evidence that we DO have. My suspicion is that (3) will turn out to be the correct one when more is known. Either (1) or (3) appears to be consistent with the Design Hypothesis.
| Quote | | ps Once again could you confirm or deny that you don't think we can infer any of this stuff as we didn't see it happen. |
I confirm that we can indeed infer many things in spite of the fact that we did not see it happen with our own eyes. In fact, this is my exact argument on my other thread where I INFER a the idea of a Super-Intelligent Engineer from "apparently engineered" biological "machines." I also INFER an Intelligent "Parameter Setter" from the "apparent precise setting" of the many parameters required for life in the Cosmos in which we find ourselves.
| Quote | | 1- This is ironical, coming from someone taking the Bible as evidence for his hypothesis. |
Again, if you read my threads, you will see that Bible is a source for plausible hypotheses. It is not "evidence" to support them. My evidence comes from scientific observation of nature.
| Quote | | It's not an assumption. It's a tested hypothesis that follows from the theory of evolution. It's been cross-checked in thousands of organisms and it fits neatly with all the data. I asked you to explain why Nishikimi could expect to find gulo-homologous sequences in humans, orangs and guinea pigs, if not because of common descent. No response. |
Are you saying that the analysis proposed by Argystokes has already been done? I know of GLO being analyzed in a few primates, guinea pigs and humans, but thousands of organisms?
| Quote | By the way, it's rather amusing to see you try to lecture people on mistakes in logic: "IF Common Descent is true, then there is no need for a Creator....There is no afterlife, no heaven, no ####, no judgment for actions in this life, and the best we can do is live in harmony with our fellow man and have a good time until we die. And when we die, that's the end of the story.
Is this what you consider logic? There couldn't possibly be a God, heaven, he##, and common descent? Why not? |
Notice carefully what you just did ...
I said this ..."IF Common Descent is true, then there is no need for a Creator"
and you quoted me as saying this ...
"There couldn't possibly be a God, heaven, he##,and common descent?
BIG, BIG difference. Think about it. We need to be very careful in our quotes and our logic. I believe these types of assumptions, rushes to judgment, and lack of sound logic are precisely why Darwinists are painting themselves into a corner which will ultimately be an embarrassment to them. We have already seen the embarrasment to Darwinists of their failed predictions in the fossil record. Darwinists predicted continuous transitional forms in the fossil record. Creationists predicted ubiquitous gaps. Creationists were correct. Darwinists predicted true "vertical evolution" (or macro-evolution), but leading evolutionary scientists have now admitted that no true vertical evolution from one kind of organism to a more complex kind has ever been observed in all human history. Creationists predicted that any "evolution" would be lateral or downward and this has been confirmed. Creationists also predicted the limited variation that we see in natural and artificial selection, but Darwinists try to use this as evidence for their failed predictions of true vertical evolution, when in fact it is better evidence for "designed adaptability" put in the originl created "kinds" by the Creator. Since all this and many other things outlined by Denton and others have been embarrassing and unanswerable by Darwininsts, they are now repeating the same logical mistakes at the molecular level. I predict the results will be the same. And if that were not enough, they are calling Creationists and ID people stupid for questioning their theories!!
| Quote | | After all, it could be that the Flying Spaghetti Monster created us with his noodly appendage. |
I admit this is a logical possibility. I challenge you to find evidence which supports it.
| Quote | | AFDave: Your smugness is quite grating. I assume you're doing that on purpose, no? It always amazes me how the preachiest christians lack what I would have thought would be the "zeroth commandment" of christianity: humility. |
Have I not demonstrated humility by "eating crow" graciously about the chimp chromosome issue? I think what you perceive as smugness here is in reality a little bit of satire and poking fun at a theory. I am trying very hard to use innovative tools to jar people's thinking. I think Darwinists are so steeped in logical fallacies that it takes something rather jarring to make them wake up and see the errors.
| Quote | | I think that idea sounds a little screwy, but it does seem to me that some junk DNA won't be the vesigial stuff we are predicting. Supposedly 90 percent of our genetic material is this junk DNA, but our bodies don't support 90 percent junk organs -- or vestigial organs -- why would our DNA? |
My point exactly. I am not familiar with the "fractal" theory or whatever it was. I do not claim to have an idea about what all that "junk DNA" does. It will be fun to investigate it though.
| Quote | | No, dave. It's not an assumption. It's an inference, based on evidence. There's a difference. |
Thank you for agreeing with me (and Meyer) that INFERENCES to the Best Explanation are valid. This is exactly what I am doing on my other thread to try to explain a Creator.
--------------
A DILEMMA FOR THE COMMITTED NATURALIST
A Hi-tech alien spaceship lands on earth ... DESIGNED.
A Hi-tech alien rotary motor found in a cell ... NOT DESIGNED.
http://afdave.wordpress.com/....ess.com
|
)
But please, pick some research papers on evolution and explain how evolutionists' arguments evolve as you describe.
).
