Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   If you believe the human genome is "designed" why is it such a mess?
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 6475 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 1 of 31 (16546)
09-04-2002 8:57 AM


In several threads I have seen posts referring to the "apparent design" of the human genome in particular because it is "complex". The truth is, the genome is a mess...retroelements, microsatellites, duplicated segments, pseudogenes. Compared to ours, bacterial genomes are a like BMW versus a Yugo in terms of efficiency. It seems the IDers feel their "intelligent designer" is a completely incompentent engineer.

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by nos482, posted 09-04-2002 11:41 AM Mammuthus has replied
 Message 24 by mopsveldmuis, posted 09-17-2002 12:50 PM Mammuthus has replied

  
nos482
Inactive Member


Message 2 of 31 (16561)
09-04-2002 11:41 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Mammuthus
09-04-2002 8:57 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Mammuthus:
In several threads I have seen posts referring to the "apparent design" of the human genome in particular because it is "complex". The truth is, the genome is a mess...retroelements, microsatellites, duplicated segments, pseudogenes. Compared to ours, bacterial genomes are a like BMW versus a Yugo in terms of efficiency. It seems the IDers feel their "intelligent designer" is a completely incompentent engineer.
You'll probably get an answer like it is because of the Fall of Man that it is a mess. That Adam and Eve(His second wife) were created perfectly without flaw. They are saying that it is our own fault for being a mess.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Mammuthus, posted 09-04-2002 8:57 AM Mammuthus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Dr_Tazimus_maximus, posted 09-04-2002 2:44 PM nos482 has not replied
 Message 4 by Quetzal, posted 09-04-2002 3:06 PM nos482 has not replied
 Message 11 by Mammuthus, posted 09-05-2002 4:49 AM nos482 has replied

  
Dr_Tazimus_maximus
Member (Idle past 3217 days)
Posts: 402
From: Gaithersburg, MD, USA
Joined: 03-19-2002


Message 3 of 31 (16569)
09-04-2002 2:44 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by nos482
09-04-2002 11:41 AM


quote:
Originally posted by nos482:
You'll probably get an answer like it is because of the Fall of Man that it is a mess. That Adam and Eve(His second wife) were created perfectly without flaw. They are saying that it is our own fault for being a mess.
Actually Fred Kelly has used a reply like that to me when I asked him about the inbreeding and rapid accumulation of deleterious homozygous alleles that would have occured in Adam and Eves family. He claimed that they had no mutations and had perfect genomes, and that all of the current mutations and flaws occured after "the fall". Interesting part is that, with all of his calculations re: mutations and back-calculations concerning the age of man, that he has not used calculated data from this supposition. Maybe it is because the answer did not come out like he wanted. On a side note, I have recently downloaded his comments concerning the nature paper and the harmful mutation rate and will try to look into it again with the additional papers. I have another of Dr. Crow's papers on the subject somewhere that I will re-read as well. He and I went around and around on this on the yahoo CvsE board a few years ago.
------------------
"Chance favors the prepared mind." L. Pasteur
Taz

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by nos482, posted 09-04-2002 11:41 AM nos482 has not replied

  
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5872 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 4 of 31 (16571)
09-04-2002 3:06 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by nos482
09-04-2002 11:41 AM


I think this idea - the Fall as the explanation for screwed-up genomes, etc - may have been popularized by Henry Morris in "Studies in the Bible and Science". He probably wasn't the first to push the idea, but was certainly the most well known.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by nos482, posted 09-04-2002 11:41 AM nos482 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by gene90, posted 09-04-2002 4:23 PM Quetzal has not replied

  
gene90
Member (Idle past 3823 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 5 of 31 (16579)
09-04-2002 4:23 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by Quetzal
09-04-2002 3:06 PM


The party line is that after the world was cursed (a position I do not subscribe to) everything went downhill. This is a fix-all explanation for Creationists. It also precludes evolution.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Quetzal, posted 09-04-2002 3:06 PM Quetzal has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by Dr_Tazimus_maximus, posted 09-04-2002 7:40 PM gene90 has not replied

  
Dr_Tazimus_maximus
Member (Idle past 3217 days)
Posts: 402
From: Gaithersburg, MD, USA
Joined: 03-19-2002


Message 6 of 31 (16588)
09-04-2002 7:40 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by gene90
09-04-2002 4:23 PM


quote:
Originally posted by gene90:
The party line is that after the world was cursed (a position I do not subscribe to) everything went downhill. This is a fix-all explanation for Creationists. It also precludes evolution.
They even say that this is the result of entropy and 2LOT. I picked on Fred earlier so I will give him his due here. Fred, to the best of my knowledge, has never claimed that evolution violates 2LOT. Although I still think that he is wrong about the info theory and mutational debate, and about the age of the human species as well.
------------------
"Chance favors the prepared mind." L. Pasteur
Taz

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by gene90, posted 09-04-2002 4:23 PM gene90 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by mark24, posted 09-04-2002 8:04 PM Dr_Tazimus_maximus has replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 7 of 31 (16590)
09-04-2002 8:04 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Dr_Tazimus_maximus
09-04-2002 7:40 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Dr_Tazimus_maximus:
quote:
Originally posted by gene90:
The party line is that after the world was cursed (a position I do not subscribe to) everything went downhill. This is a fix-all explanation for Creationists. It also precludes evolution.
They even say that this is the result of entropy and 2LOT. I picked on Fred earlier so I will give him his due here. Fred, to the best of my knowledge, has never claimed that evolution violates 2LOT. Although I still think that he is wrong about the info theory and mutational debate, and about the age of the human species as well.

It occured to me that Haldanes Dilemma (or whatever) actually presents a worse conundrum to the created kind concept than evolution. Why? Well if there are only 1667 fbm in 10 my, then how do creationists, who use this argument explain the diversity seen in created kinds in only 4,500 years? If man & chimp can't have a common ancestor, then surely feral cats & lions are even more problematic.
Mark
------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Dr_Tazimus_maximus, posted 09-04-2002 7:40 PM Dr_Tazimus_maximus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by Dr_Tazimus_maximus, posted 09-04-2002 9:32 PM mark24 has not replied

  
Dr_Tazimus_maximus
Member (Idle past 3217 days)
Posts: 402
From: Gaithersburg, MD, USA
Joined: 03-19-2002


Message 8 of 31 (16592)
09-04-2002 9:32 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by mark24
09-04-2002 8:04 PM


quote:
Originally posted by mark24:
It occured to me that Haldanes Dilemma (or whatever) actually presents a worse conundrum to the created kind concept than evolution. Why? Well if there are only 1667 fbm in 10 my, then how do creationists, who use this argument explain the diversity seen in created kinds in only 4,500 years? If man & chimp can't have a common ancestor, then surely feral cats & lions are even more problematic.
Mark
You know Mark, I never thought of it from that angle before. One reason may be that there is a marked difference between inter and intraspecies genetic differences (at least that is a valid scientific aspect), and I am refering to closely related species. However, with limits such as Fred is touting I think that you still may have a very valid point.
I am more a physical biochemist, any computational molecular biologists out there familiar enough with the current approaches to take a crack at this?
------------------
"Chance favors the prepared mind." L. Pasteur
Taz
Fixed UBB quote code - Adminnemooseus
[This message has been edited by minnemooseus, 09-04-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by mark24, posted 09-04-2002 8:04 PM mark24 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by Tranquility Base, posted 09-04-2002 10:15 PM Dr_Tazimus_maximus has replied

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 9 of 31 (16594)
09-04-2002 10:15 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by Dr_Tazimus_maximus
09-04-2002 9:32 PM


^ I'm a computational moelcular biologist.
All I'll add is that we'll need to see a lot more genomes to
(a) Reclassify life. Eg: the Linnean family could be redefined to indicate no new protein families for example. If the old guard is too scared and resistive the new gaurd will simply come up with a completely new classification system.
(b) See what the differences between man and chimps and tigers and cheetahs really are. %DNA differences mean almost completely nothing. It is genomic protein family content which is the imporant issue. But the issue of genetic loss vs gain will always be there to haunt us although to a certain extent the vestigal pseudo-genes will help in this respect.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Dr_Tazimus_maximus, posted 09-04-2002 9:32 PM Dr_Tazimus_maximus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by Mammuthus, posted 09-05-2002 4:45 AM Tranquility Base has replied
 Message 14 by Dr_Tazimus_maximus, posted 09-05-2002 1:22 PM Tranquility Base has not replied

  
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 6475 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 10 of 31 (16613)
09-05-2002 4:45 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by Tranquility Base
09-04-2002 10:15 PM


Why bother sequencing more genomes? In both a and b of your two part post you claim to "know" the answer already. That is not a particularly impressive scientific approach to any question.
quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
^ I'm a computational moelcular biologist.
All I'll add is that we'll need to see a lot more genomes to
(a) Reclassify life. Eg: the Linnean family could be redefined to indicate no new protein families for example. If the old guard is too scared and resistive the new gaurd will simply come up with a completely new classification system.
(b) See what the differences between man and chimps and tigers and cheetahs really are. %DNA differences mean almost completely nothing. It is genomic protein family content which is the imporant issue. But the issue of genetic loss vs gain will always be there to haunt us although to a certain extent the vestigal pseudo-genes will help in this respect.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Tranquility Base, posted 09-04-2002 10:15 PM Tranquility Base has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by Tranquility Base, posted 09-05-2002 7:34 PM Mammuthus has replied

  
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 6475 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 11 of 31 (16614)
09-05-2002 4:49 AM
Reply to: Message 2 by nos482
09-04-2002 11:41 AM


Ah..but then the IDers and creationists must worship bacteria as they are not nearly the mess we are in genomic terms. Bacteria then must have never "fallen" or were so great that they got back up
Viruses to for that matter though it is a topic of debate as to whether they can be considered "alive".
The implications are that rather than focusing on the heart as the organ of compassion and love, they will have to turn to the colon as it has a much higher bacterial content and therefore must be "holier".
cheers,
Mammuthus
quote:
Originally posted by nos482:
quote:
Originally posted by Mammuthus:
In several threads I have seen posts referring to the "apparent design" of the human genome in particular because it is "complex". The truth is, the genome is a mess...retroelements, microsatellites, duplicated segments, pseudogenes. Compared to ours, bacterial genomes are a like BMW versus a Yugo in terms of efficiency. It seems the IDers feel their "intelligent designer" is a completely incompentent engineer.
You'll probably get an answer like it is because of the Fall of Man that it is a mess. That Adam and Eve(His second wife) were created perfectly without flaw. They are saying that it is our own fault for being a mess.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by nos482, posted 09-04-2002 11:41 AM nos482 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by nos482, posted 09-05-2002 7:54 AM Mammuthus has replied

  
nos482
Inactive Member


Message 12 of 31 (16620)
09-05-2002 7:54 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by Mammuthus
09-05-2002 4:49 AM


Originally posted by Mammuthus:
Ah..but then the IDers and creationists must worship bacteria as they are not nearly the mess we are in genomic terms. Bacteria then must have never "fallen" or were so great that they got back up
Viruses to for that matter though it is a topic of debate as to whether they can be considered "alive".
The implications are that rather than focusing on the heart as the organ of compassion and love, they will have to turn to the colon as it has a much higher bacterial content and therefore must be "holier".
cheers,
Mammuthus
So, that is where the term "Holy Sh*t!" comes from.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Mammuthus, posted 09-05-2002 4:49 AM Mammuthus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by Mammuthus, posted 09-05-2002 8:11 AM nos482 has not replied
 Message 15 by Dr_Tazimus_maximus, posted 09-05-2002 1:26 PM nos482 has not replied

  
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 6475 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 13 of 31 (16621)
09-05-2002 8:11 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by nos482
09-05-2002 7:54 AM


So, that is where the term "Holy Sh*t!" comes from. [/B][/QUOTE]
LOL!!!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by nos482, posted 09-05-2002 7:54 AM nos482 has not replied

  
Dr_Tazimus_maximus
Member (Idle past 3217 days)
Posts: 402
From: Gaithersburg, MD, USA
Joined: 03-19-2002


Message 14 of 31 (16645)
09-05-2002 1:22 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by Tranquility Base
09-04-2002 10:15 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
I'm a computational moelcular biologist.
All I'll add is that we'll need to see a lot more genomes to
(a) Reclassify life. Eg: the Linnean family could be redefined to indicate no new protein families for example. If the old guard is too scared and resistive the new gaurd will simply come up with a completely new classification system.
Actually Colin Patterson has been discussing this, relationships based on the molecular aspects although I think that you are wrong about the no new protein families , as a natural consequence of Descent with Modification. The sad part is that he is constantly mis-interpreted or misquoted by many of the older creationist crowd (ICR for example) as saying that Natural Selection destroyed classification or was incompatable with classification.
quote:
(b) See what the differences between man and chimps and tigers and cheetahs really are. %DNA differences mean almost completely nothing. It is genomic protein family content which is the imporant issue. But the issue of genetic loss vs gain will always be there to haunt us although to a certain extent the vestigal pseudo-genes will help in this respect.
Actually I was refering mainly to proteomics due to the sometimes larger effects of a single mutation than expected under the simple forms of the one gene one protein hypothesis.
------------------
"Chance favors the prepared mind." L. Pasteur
Taz

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Tranquility Base, posted 09-04-2002 10:15 PM Tranquility Base has not replied

  
Dr_Tazimus_maximus
Member (Idle past 3217 days)
Posts: 402
From: Gaithersburg, MD, USA
Joined: 03-19-2002


Message 15 of 31 (16647)
09-05-2002 1:26 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by nos482
09-05-2002 7:54 AM


quote:
Originally posted by nos482:
So, that is where the term "Holy Sh*t!" comes from.
Actually, wouldn't that make the colon the seat of the soul. And that would make the sphincter the mouth. Gives a totally new meaning to speaking something into existence.
OK, now that i have gone totally into the three and four year old potty humor I need to get back to work and do something usefull.
Thanks for the laughs, I needed them today .
------------------
"Chance favors the prepared mind." L. Pasteur
Taz

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by nos482, posted 09-05-2002 7:54 AM nos482 has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024