My overall view from this boards.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt:

Mutation has nothing to do with variation!! Can you prove that it does?

---

Mutation is the major cause of variation. If you have actually read anything besides creationist sites or popular press books you would know this.Try a search on PubMed using the key words "Point mutation", here are the first two hits you will get:1: Visapaa I I, Fellman V, Vesa J, Dasvarma A, Hutton JL, Kumar V, Payne GS, Makarow M, Van Coster R, Taylor RW, Turnbull DM, Suomalainen A, Peltonen L.GRACILE Syndrome, a Lethal Metabolic Disorder with Iron Overload, Is Caused by a Point Mutation in BCS1L.
Am J Hum Genet. 2002 Sep 5 [epub ahead of print]
PMID: 12215968 [PubMed - as supplied by publisher]2: Fernandez R, Marchal JA, Sanchez A, Pasaro E.A point mutation, R59G, within the HMG-SRY box in a female 45,X/46,X, psu dic(Y)(pter-->q11::q11-->pter).
Hum Genet. 2002 Sep;111(3):242-6.
PMID: 12215836 [PubMed - in process]Maybe, just maybe, you should do a little research before making such bold assertions?------------------
compmage

Hey. Look. I am talking about transformations from one kind of animal into the next. Not about variations within a kind. I am talking about the big picture here.You're the one making bold assertations. Have you ever SEEN a Dog produce a non-Dog? How about a bacterium turning into a mosquito?The answer is no...no one has.You have no case. Drop your dumb idea.[This message has been edited by Matt, 09-08-2002][This message has been edited by Matt, 09-08-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt:
Hey. Look. I am talking about transformations from one kind of animal into the next. Not about variations within a kind.

---

Until you can tell us what a 'kind' actually is, you have no case.

quote:

---

I am talking about the big picture here.

---

Actually, no. You are talking about a very small picture-- one based on mythology.

quote:

---

You're the one making bold assertations. Have you ever SEEN a Dog produce a non-Dog? How about a bacterium turning into a mosquito?

---

Ridiculous questions demonstrating your ignorance of the subject matter. If you are going to attack evolution, at least attack EVOLUTION, and not some incorrect representation of it.------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

The point is that we can easily see the sequence simlarity of the ribosome proteins that are in all of life. But the 'new' genes in the 'most primitive' organism with an immune system aren't recognizable as having come from elsewhere. They came out of thin air.Of course you can propose that hemoglobin in humans is related to hemoglobin in frogs - but that does not work for the 'first' hemoglobin. It does not work for the first insulin.Genomes are orderable into protein families. We have protein families that other organisms categorically do not have. In hope evolutionists call that drift to unrecognizability. We call it creation. Faith either way.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt:
Hey. Look. I am talking about transformations from one kind of animal into the next. Not about variations within a kind. I am talking about the big picture here.

---

The mechanism for change within a 'kind' or from one 'kind' to another are exactly the same. Why don't you define 'kind' and then we can look for examples for you?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt:

You're the one making bold assertations. Have you ever SEEN a Dog produce a non-Dog? How about a bacterium turning into a mosquito?

---

For starters, this is a strawman, evolution doesn't claim that bacteria will give 'birth' to a mosquito. Secondly, your logic is flawed. Did you see your father impregnate your mother? No? Well then it obviously didn't happen and you don't exist. See the problem?------------------
compmage

Ahh - there you are TB. You must have missed this:***********************************************************We are simply prepared to tell you the common sense reasons why we beleive in creation and why 99% of scientific findings have an immediate creationist interpretation.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Then perhaps you would care to start doing this?You can start, for example, by providing the "common sense reasons" that we should believe that a 'creator' would put the observed patterns of shared mutation in organisms.Not the same genes.The same exact mutations.I would love to hear the 'creationist interpretation' of that.You can look here:http://www2.norwich.edu/spage/alignmentgam.htmfor example, and provide a creationist 'interpretation' of what you see.Of course, there are locial interpretations, and illogical ones.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Matt:
[B]Originally posted by SLPx:

quote:

---

Then perhaps you would care to start doing this?

​

You can start, for example, by providing the "common sense reasons" that we should believe that a 'creator' would put the observed patterns of shared mutation in organisms.

---

Are you sure they are mutations? How can you tell if you didn't originally see those strands as they were begotten? Perhaps they were originally unmutated strands that were later subjected to excessive ultraviolet radiation and were both likely changed in similar manners. I can do the same thing with 2 identically programmed EEPROM chips and come out with similar observed (mutated) data by subjecting them to ultraviolet light for a set period of time. [/quote]It is a shame that computer chips are nothing at all like DNA. I have often wondered, perhaps you can answer: Why is it that computer geeks always seem to think that everything in the world works just their little computer chip does?Well, anyway, maybe YOU can go here:http://www2.norwich.edu/spage/alignmentgam.htmAnd see if real life data is just like your little chips.

quote:

---

Similar strands are obviously a repetative design coming from a single style/process used at some type of inception.

---

Yes, obviously. Perhaps you can provide some documentation demonstrating that this applies to DNA.

quote:

---

Repetative mutation in no way proves common ancestry one bit for holding a water-tight argument. It can however back the ID claim that they were originally designed similar at the beginning of inception. So, as you see, I now have more than 1 solution to your problem.

---

I see you think you have a 'solution.' However, I also see that as is typical for non-biology oriented folks, you are going about it in a very simplistic manner.The problem is, you are forgetting/did not know that mutations happen. And in reproducing organisms, these mutations can get passed on. As this occurs, these passed-on mutations start forming patterns (see the link I provided). Only when one ignores the data and its implications can one produce the 'solution' you do.

quote:

---

There are MANY observed phenomena that can't be explained rationally.
Obviously you "believe" you know the answer for the evolutionist's. So let's hear it!

---

See above. And the support for the validity of the argument?One of several:Science 1991 Oct 25;254(5031):554-8
Gene trees and the origins of inbred strains of mice.Atchley WR, Fitch WM.Department of Genetics, North Carolina State University, Raleigh 27695.Extensive data on genetic divergence among 24 inbred strains of mice provide an opportunity to examine the concordance of gene trees and species trees, especially whether structured subsamples of loci give congruent estimates of phylogenetic relationships. Phylogenetic analyses of 144 separate loci reproduce almost exactly the known genealogical relationships among these 24 strains. Partitioning these loci into structured subsets representing loci coding for proteins, the immune system and endogenous viruses give incongruent phylogenetic results. The gene tree based on protein loci provides an accurate picture of the genealogical relationships among strains; however, gene trees based upon immune and viral data show significant deviations from known genealogical affinities.

quote:

---

I am a computer scientist.

---

That much was clear.

quote:

---

So your answer has to be PROVEN and unbiased. If you can't answer then you have no claims for your argument. So why bring up this topic in the first place if it can't be proven??

---

I doubt you are any sort of 'scientist'. A troll, if anything. This shopworn simpleton's view of what science is something of a joke. PROVEN?One thing I can prove - computer scientists have little reason for engaging in discussions of anything other than computer science...[This message has been edited by Matt, 09-07-2002][/B][/QUOTE]

Hi Matt. I just noticed that you are form Grand Rapids. I lived there for about 3 years.You have a subscription to the "Something Better News", right?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt:
Please explain to all of us where "evolution" has anything to do with medical science. I would really like to know.

---

Can Vet J 2002 Jul;43(7):556-9
Darwinian medicine: applications of evolutionary biology for veterinarians.LeGrand EK, Brown CC.Toxicology/Pathology, Johnson & Johnson Pharmaceutical Research & Development, L.L.C., 1000 Rt. 202, Room B-305, Raritan, New Jersey 08869, USA.*****************************************************************
Prog Neuropsychopharmacol Biol Psychiatry 2002 Jan;26(1):1-19Evolutionary psychiatry. Adaptationist and nonadaptationist conceptualizations.Dubrovsky B.McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada. bdubro@po-box.mcgill.ca"Darwin's theory of evolution, and in particular one of its mechanisms, natural selection, is being used as the explanatory cornerstone of many unsolved problems in human biology and human affairs."
****************************************************************Q Rev Biol 2001 Dec;76(4):417-32Evolution in health and disease: work in progress.Stearns SC, Ebert D.Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, Yale University New Haven, Connecticut 06520-8106, USA. stephen.stearns@yale.edu"This article surveys progress in Darwinian medicine since 1991. Evolutionary thinking has been providing an increasing flow of fresh ideas into medical science, ideas that would not be suggested by other perspectives. "
****************************************************************Well, that is just three. Searching PubMed (you know all about Pubmed, right?) for "Darwinian medicine" got 80 hits.Changing the search parameters would probably yield even more.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt:
Hugh?

​

Mutation has nothing to do with variation!! Can you prove that it does?

​

[This message has been edited by Matt, 09-08-2002]

---

Hugh? Hugh who?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt:
Hey. Look. I am talking about transformations from one kind of animal into the next.

---

Fiunny - that is not what you wrote.

quote:

---

Not about variations within a kind. I am talking about the big picture here.

---

What is the mechanism behind in-kind variation? Can you PROVE that this has occurred?

quote:

---

You're the one making bold assertations. Have you ever SEEN a Dog produce a non-Dog? How about a bacterium turning into a mosquito?

---

Have YOU ever seen an ocelot spring from some mythological original cat-kind?

quote:

---

The answer is no...no one has.

​

You have no case. Drop your dumb idea.

---

Indeed...

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
But the 'new' genes in the 'most primitive' organism with an immune system aren't recognizable as having come from elsewhere.

---

Did you put those words in quotes to indicate that you can't tell us with any precision exactly what you are talking about?

quote:

---

They came out of thin air.

---

Only in your straw man.

quote:

---

Of course you can propose that hemoglobin in humans is related to hemoglobin in frogs - but that does not work for the 'first' hemoglobin. It does not work for the first insulin.

---

TB, I am getting so very tired of your double-talk. What exactly is a 'first' hemoglobin? I dare you to define it.

quote:

---

Genomes are orderable into protein families.

---

Ok, lets have it. What are those families and how do they relate to kinds?------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

JohnI used quotes to indicate that for us they are only 'new' or 'primative' in the sense of God's design blueprints.I am very happy to define the 'first' hemoglobin. From your point of view it is the hemoglobin in the first organism in the evoltuionary progression that has hemoglobin. From our point of view it would be the hemoglobin in the organism with the least complexity. Much the same actually. But in your scenario the hemoglobin requires a natural explanation. It is in one organism and not in the previous (extant) anscestor or ansecestral relative and yet the rest of the genomic sequence nicely lines up between these similar kinds (eg man and ape). There are almost invariably no hints as to where these new sequences come from. You don't get any genomic hits using sequence search tools.Almost every protein type you can think of are organizable into families which are undoubtedly 'related' (inverted commas simply means that you and I interpret this differently). There are cytokines, insulins, globins, enzyme families etc. You can think of your genome as made up of about (guess coming up) 5,000 to 10,000 protein families. Each family might have between one and a half-dozen members (some families might have much larger numbers of members).We would not argue that the members of the families could have evolved from each other (although we believe hat they didn't).But what we ask is where did the first member of each family come from - eg the first insulin, or the first globin? Becasue the closest living 'relative' has almost all of the genes that the 'descendent' has but no hint of where the new 25 proteins came from. That is how life is organized. You can't find the hints of where these genes came from in the genomic sequence databases. I'm not kidding. If you could there would be no creationists who were also scientists.By the way, I talk no double talk. I talk the same language as a molecualr evolution researcher. With the genomes in now there is some fascinating work going on trying to understand how genomes are organised and how they relate to each other. Some of my collegues would say that some of my work is molecular evoltuion (and I would agree except that the data actually supports microevolution and kinds). The term 'first hemoglobin' contains no ambiguity, nor does the term 'protein family'. I enjoy explaining my work regardless of creation/evoltuion so it is no hassle for me.[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 09-09-2002]

SLPxIn kind variation is extremely well understood. We all know exactly how the Galapogos finch beaks changed shapes. I know you know that. Go to Medline and check out the protein sequence variations from finch to finch. It's variation of existing genes.What about brocoli, cabbage, cauliflower and mustard. They all have the same genome - they're all mustard actually! If you select for leaves or stems or flowers you end up with these varities. Not a single evoltuionist suggests that new genes arose during the hundreds of years that agriculturalists bred these varities. It is a mix of hybridization and selection.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
SLPx

​

In kind variation is extremely well understood. We all know exactly how the Galapogos finch beaks changed shapes. I know you know that. Go to Medline and check out the protein sequence variations from finch to finch. It's variation of existing genes.

---

Of course, you KNOW that is not what I was talking about, don't you?Please explain how this applies to, say, all extant felines springing forth from the original cat-kind in just a few thousand years.
Oh - what about the rest of my cut-and-pasted message?