Some mutations sound too good to be true

But anything that can be described as a "natural consequence" is in the ballpark of something that is "programmed." That is, the chemical substitutions occur in obedience to laws. Yes, I understand the randomness factor. I have read quite a bit about the structure of DNA, but it's not the sort of thing that is easily grasped with all its various processes even on many readings, so the more repetition the better, and when it is repeated by somebody on a thread like this, often it is explained from a new angle, which helps get the idea across better.

Not complicated. One sample = one individual's genetic history. While a single sample can tell you a little, the more samples you have the closer you are to looking at the entire population's history, and the more you can tell about the population, rather than the individual. Of course. And we have observed mutation and rates of mutation. We also know from the historical and fossil record where certain populations divered, so we have a longer view on rates. Which is why there are large margins on the results, and why the loci used for this analysis are neutral loci. Again, it comes down to assuming that thousands of scientists have managed to not notice these issues. They have noticed. "Junk" DNA (neutral DNA) is subject to less variables, namely, selection. Of all of the DNA available to look at, it is the least likely to be influenced by other factors.On one level molecular clocks are easy. You can look at a group of populations and tell when they diverged relative to one another without too much sweat. Where things get complicated is putting a "years ago" on these divergences. It requires a great deal of research (observation) to come up with that.

Well, but all you are doing here is asserting that it is so, not telling what exactly you are looking at in the samples. I guess I risk offending scientists again if I say that the idea you can read time in the fossil record is merely an interpretation. No doubt, but the principle of uniformitarianism and the idea that the fossil record shows evolution over time are open to question. I really am not following you here, but this thread is nearly over anyway, and maybe somebody else will make it clearer.

In fact all you do is show that you don't know anything about that topic either.The "Dates and Dating" forum here is very quiet because YEC'ers are unable to find any answers on the web that stand up to any scrutiny and they give up almost immediately.The "time" in the fossil record is read off very well supported physical facts of radioactive decay.

OK, how about letting me start a thread on the subject with the same intention as this one, in which I only ask questions about how the strata and the fossils are dated?

Hi Faith, It's more like a consistent theory. Either you have data to knock it down, or you have "wild" (read: heretofore unfounded via any empirical theory) speculation that you can come up with another consistent theory."Merely an interpretation" is not insulting; it's wrong. There are (as far as I can see) no competing theories. "Theory" doesn't mean "hypothesis that has not been tested with data." "Theory" means "conistent with the data and other empirical theories."As I said in the beginning, it's not OK to call science "interpretation" until you actually have another theory that allows other "interpretations." Otherwise, it's scientifically dishonest to say this. If they're open to empirical question, then maybe you'd like to suggest being allowed to participate in What is the basis for holding that Uniformitarianism is valid?? This discussion seems to have gone reasonably well; I'm sure there's at least some basis for requesting access to asking questions in other threads.But remember, without actually SHOWING that the fossil record and evolution over time are "open to question", you're making an unsupported assertion. That's not science.By the way, I'm posting in "regular" mode because these thoughts are on the borderline between admin and regular thought. So... to be on the safe side, and to discuss if you want.Somehow I'm ending up feeling like Jimmney Cricket.Ben

I think that's worth considering; I can bring it up with the other admins. Feel free to post a PNT about it.I would, however, ask you to consider taking some time after finishing this thread to review a lot of what's gone on here. There was a LOT of information, and I'm not getting a clear picture of a conclusion. It's important to really either close the issue and accept the view here, to have some questions to continue with, or to come up with some solid objections that have not been answered here.I'm struggling to keep up, so this is just general advice. I'm certainly not trying to say I know your level of knowledge or understanding of the subject, or your intent. Just to repeat the same things I've been trying to say since the beggining of this thread, as we're winding to a close.Thanks.P.S. Sorry for using up 2 precious posts in the last 5 mins

---

EvC Forum: Age Correlations and an Old Earth: Part II.I highly recommend you read that very thought out and extremely montrously long OP by RAZD about the age of the Earth and how we arrived at the conclusions.

---

My favorite quotes of the week.I'd sooner let John Couey, C-O-U-E-Y, who raped and buried alive little Jessica, I'd sooner let him adopt kids, than turn them over to the fags and dykes! That clear enough for ya? --Fred PhelpsYeah, I used to question but I strive to be wise, a questioning philosopher isn't wise, a hard laborer that perhaps lacks education and only has a few simplistic beliefs but does not question those beliefs is wise. -- Guess who

I'll try to tell you, because my wife does this exact thing in the lab. It's called "molecular phylogenetics."It's complicated, but essentially you examine the same gene across several closely related species. With the proper tools, you're able to get an idea of what mutations at that gene each species does or does not share with each other species. Then a tree can be constructed. It's like a logic problem - you know that, for instance, if A shares a given mutation with B but not with C, and B has a mutation that neither A nor C have, that B decended from A, and A decended from C. Now it's rarely this simple, of course, and so when there's multiple trees that can be constructed based on the information in one gene, you can repeat the process for the same individuals on a different gene. When you have the same resulting tree from multiple genes, you've correctly inferred the phylogeny - the family tree - of those species.It's going to take someone much smarter than I to make this any simpler, and I'm probably still over your head. The basic idea to take away from this is that you can determine which individuals decended from which other ones based on the mutations that they do, or do not, share. It's about comparing the genetic information, specifically information that two species would share only if they shared some degree of descent.

I suppose the last few posts for this thread will fill up very fast so this will probably be my last. I will take your advice and ponder this thread before opening a new one. That seems like good counsel as there was a lot of information packed onto this thread that bears more thought.

I get the picture. Which closely-related species have been studied in this way, or in particular which has your wife studied?This message has been edited by Faith, 09-29-2005 07:36 PM

Take your pick. The sort of genetic analysis required - which is the exact same procedure as a paternity test - has gone, in a decade, from something only the nation's top bio labs and leading biochemists were capable of to something that a barely-trained lab tech, or a grad student's husband like myself, can do with a $4,000 PCR machine and a micropipettor.There's been an explosion of papers describing the molecular phylogenetics of literally any group of organisms you choose. Most of the time we wind up confirming the phylogeny that was already inferred from morphology - comparing physical characteristics - but every now and then we find a few surprises - things that lead us to redraw the family tree slightly. You'll pardon me for being vague, but I'm not comfortable divulging details of my wife's in-progress graduate research. Biology, especially that related to agriculture, can be a very competitive field. (And you would probably find it pretty boring.) Suffice to say that she's working the tables on a family of insects that are common agricultural pests throughout most of the Midwest, and are very difficult to identify as larva, which is when they are most damaging. (I may have given it away to the entomologists in the house.)

If you are interested in molecular phylogenetics you might like to look at the 'Sequence comparisons (Bioinformatics)' thread which discusses some basic approaches to making phylogenetic trees from protein or DNA sequence data.TTFN,WK

Think rationally and I'll teach you why Creation is our origin rather then evolution! But before I go on I'm telling you to receive my words in Jesus name and take this as a warning... one because you failed to believe in whom the Father sent!We all have the power to create in ourselves... take a drawing, we create this drawing in our minds and then express our creation with tools like pencils! So then everyone has this wonderful creative power inside them so search inside yourself for your own creative power while I continue...Now for some revelation! With this creative power we can create something within our minds although we cannot create something that is of a higher creative order then we have! It's like having a cup of water filled to the brim... it cannot hold more water! That is the secret of creation... that we cannot create at a higher creative power! This proves (if you searched yourself and are honest) that our source is top down rather then bottom up and the key to this understanding is creation power!Love Richard

Think rationally and I'll teach you why Creation is our origin rather then evolution! But before I go on I'm telling you to receive my words in Jesus name and take this as a warning... one because you failed to believe in whom the Father sent!We all have the power to create in ourselves... take a drawing, we create this drawing in our minds and then express our creation with tools like pencils! So then everyone has this wonderful creative power inside them so search inside yourself for your own creative power while I continue...Now for some revelation! With this creative power we can create something within our minds although we cannot create something that is of a higher creative order then we have! It's like having a cup of water filled to the brim... it cannot hold more water! That is the secret of creation... that we cannot create at a higher creative power! This proves (if you searched yourself and are honest) that our source is top down rather then bottom up and the key to this understanding is creation power!Love Richard