Could any creationist explain the DNA-differences from a sudden creation?

Dear Crashfrog,quote PB: In addition, I discussed the completely stable ZFX region (no differences between any primate tested) and the ZFY region on this forum. Both have not solution in the evolutionary paradigm. It still is a thorn in the eyes of evo's.CF: I don't understand why this is contrary to expectations of evolutionary models. Wouldn't we expect to see similarities between primates genetically if all primates are the decendants of a common ancestor?PB: One would indeed expect such similarities, but these similarities are supposed to be subject to molecular evolutionary rules. But they are not. For instance for the ZFX region we do not see any change for approx 25 million 'hypothetical evolutionary years'. Not even at neutral positions. Kimura wouldn't understand it either I guess. I believe that evo's don't undestand their own theories anymore. They've made up so many ad hoc explanations (=stories) that they can't see the wood for the trees anymore. Therefor it is easy for any interested molecular biologist to bring it down.CF: Also, I'm no molecular biologist (simply a layman who likes to think about things) but just because the locations of mutations along the chromosome are statistically non-random, I don't see that it follows that the mutations themselves are non-random and the result of a guiding force.PB: The guiding force is the DNA molecule itself. All DNA elements for variation are already in the genome.CF: By analogy, in a casino, random events (gambling) occus only in specific areas of the floor, i.e. gaming tables. But simply because the roulette wheel is in the same place every turn doesn't mean that the wheel result itself ceases to be random. (Although if you can find a reason why that isn't so you could make a fortune!)PB: The gambling table is equivalent to the postion where the mutation is introduced: fixed. The roulette wheel has only four possibilities: A, T, C, G. Now if it happens that the result are always the same, I would get a bit suspicous about the wheel too. That is what probably is going on in the genome. What we don't know, however, is WHEN the wheel is spun. But WHEN it is spun, we can be almost certain about the outcome. That is what I mean by NRM. It should be noted that I do not exclude random mutations. What we see in the genome is a result of NRM and RM acting together. (BTW, NRM are denied by atheistic evolutionists for obvious reasons.)CF: In fact, it would seem that a mechanism that allowed mutation to occur only at specific sites would provide an evolutionary advantage because it would generate a greater percentage of mutations with actual phenotypic change. For better or worse, of course, but such a mechanism would make for a very adaptable organism.PB: Yep, it is a mechanism to protect the organism from becoming immediately extinct. It allows for variation within bounderies.
This idea is called the multipurpose genome. It has nothing in common however with evolution from microbe-to-man (that's a fairytale for the gullible), unless one is to accept that all information was already present in the first genome. But that would be creation too. In other words, 'evolution' is not 'evolution' unless you accept creation.Best wishes,
Peter

quote:

---

This kind of thinking, imo is what leads evolutionists rediculous extremes like constructing an alleged ape-man transitionary from a tooth or a jawbone.

---

Tell me, do you believe that the scientists who have determined, say, the existence of quasars, or electrons, or that spacetime is curved, are making rediculous (sic) extrapolations?Why or why not?

quote:

---

Wouldn't it be more scientific and sensible to observe and consider the impossible odds of so many billions of random formations of complex things like dna, cells, human brains and trees to say "Hmmm, the odds here are highly indicative that some intelligent entity had to do all this?"

---

Uh, no, it wouldn't be scientific at all to do that.------------------
"Evolution is a 'theory', just like gravity. If you don't like it, go jump off a bridge."

Thanks for continuing the gambling analogy; I really don't have the background to debate molecular genetics at a really technical level. I'll leave that to the experts.Anyway, to continue our analogy - how can some mutations be random and some not? I mean, how could one tell the difference? At the roulette wheel, that seems like it's saying "every time the wheel comes up A, it's a non-random mutation - the other three nucleotide results are random mutations."it seems like you're taking the mutations that are useful or beneficial and saying "these are non-random" even though, at the same location, other, less beneficial mutations occur sometimes as well. It seems like either all mutations must be random, or none are.How could one tell the difference between NRM and RM? If RM is happening all over the genome, how do you know that it's not happening at those specific sites? I mean, to confirm that the mutations are truly non-random you'd have to observe every mutation at that site and discover that every time, the mutation was beneficial. Only then could you determine that the mutation wasn't simply random.Also, if the mutation is non-random, shouldn't it be possible to predict what the mutation will be before it occurs? Predictability would seem to be the opposite of random.Or that's how I see it, anyway.------------------
Epimenedes Signature: This is not a signature.

Buz,

quote:

---

M: Science works like this: An observation is made that makes someone inductively derive a hypothesis. They basically go ?hmmm, I wonder if this larger idea I have explains the observation X?? They then go on to make predictions, data that should be discovered if the hypothesis is indeed true.

​

B:This kind of thinking, imo is what leads evolutionists rediculous extremes like constructing an alleged ape-man transitionary from a tooth or a jawbone. Wouldn't it be more scientific and sensible to observe and consider the impossible odds of so many billions of random formations of complex things like dna, cells, human brains and trees to say "Hmmm, the odds here are highly indicative that some intelligent entity had to do all this?"

---

LOL, you mean that kind of woolly thinking that pervades all of science? It isn’t just the jawbone, you know, gross simplification. What about the thousands of other fossil hominid bones? What about the cladistic analyses & molecular phylogenies that consistently support the same theory?You stated:

quote:

---

Better to assemble the known and work to determine the unknown from that..

---

Isn’t that what I said? So why , without gross simplifications, can’t this work for evolution too?What was the odds of DNA occurring naturally that is actually a position theorised in science?

quote:

---

IMO, there ought to be billions of observable transitionary fossils to warrant a move toward TOE.

---

Why? Show your working. I expect you to be able to support your own claims to the same standard you expect of evolution. The fossil record in NO WAY supports a flood, unless plants had brains, & molluscs & brachiopods could run like cheetahs.Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

Hi CF,You say:
Thanks for continuing the gambling analogy; I really don't have the background to debate molecular genetics at a really technical level. I'll leave that to the experts.Anyway, to continue our analogy - how can some mutations be random and some not?PB: NRM are introduced on the same spot over and over independent from each other due to mechanism operating at the level of the genome. Such mechanisms have recently been discovered and are described in Caporale's book "Darwin in the genome". One such mechanism is due to an imperfect hairpin model, and results in mutations that are far from randomly introduced: same spot same nucleotide. Besides, for many genes protein driven mechanism have been desribed that introduce mutations in a very specific way. Mutations that are introduced deliberately and dependent on preexistent proteins can not be classified as random, since they are introduced upon a trigger. Whether or not mutations can be introduced as a result of to environmental input remains to be established but we now know that it is absolutely not excluded. See here:http://EvC Forum: Doe the climate direct mutations towards the ATP6 gene? -->EvC Forum: Doe the climate direct mutations towards the ATP6 gene?Furthermore, mutations introduced through oxidative stress, radiation, etcetera are also not really random since they often are introduced at the same spot. See here:http://EvC Forum: More non-random evolution -->EvC Forum: More non-random evolutionCF: I mean, how could one tell the difference?PB: I realise that it is difficult to discriminate between random and non random mutations but I have tried to explain it in several threads. For instance here:http://EvC Forum: Dr Page's best example of common descent easily --and better-- explained by the GUToB -->EvC Forum: Dr Page's best example of common descent easily --and better-- explained by the GUToBPB: It should be realised that comparison of several sequences of (sub)species is the appropriate tool. I discovered NRM in the 1G5 gene since the authors presented the genes of 13 subtypes of Drosophila. But they are also present in the ZFY region and in human mtDNA.CF: At the roulette wheel, that seems like it's saying "every time the wheel comes up A, it's a non-random mutation - the other three nucleotide results are random mutations."PB: The most important thing is that the same postion is involved over and over, and usually the same nucleotide. That the rule is not 100% with respect to nucleotide makes it more easy to detect NRM in sequence comparisons.CF: It seems like you're taking the mutations that are useful or beneficial and saying "these are non-random" even though, at the same location, other, less beneficial mutations occur sometimes as well. It seems like either all mutations must be random, or none are.PB: It should be noted that at present it is not known whether or not an association exists between the NRM and benefit of the mutations. Although, the offspring of cone snails benefit from the NRM introduced in their toxin genes.CF: How could one tell the difference between NRM and RM?PB: That's what Dr Page is going to tell us, since he is using computerprograms that discriminate between RM and NRM.CF: If RM is happening all over the genome, how do you know that it's not happening at those specific sites?PB: For RM mutations in mtDNA they are indeed introduced on the same sites. Which makes them in fact NRM.CF: I mean, to confirm that the mutations are truly non-random you'd have to observe every mutation at that site and discover that every time, the mutation was beneficial. Only then could you determine that the mutation wasn't simply random.PB: There is to my knowledge no direct association between NRM and benefit of that mutation. All NRM holds is that the position and nucleotide that is being introduced are non-random. But that it will have tremendous impact for phylogenetic analysis is fo sure.CF: Also, if the mutation is non-random, shouldn't it be possible to predict what the mutation will be before it occurs? Predictability would seem to be the opposite of random.PB: I think that for certain NRM the possibility exists that we can actually predict where they will be introduced as soon as we elucidate the underlying mechanism. It should be noted that high levels of radiation introduced mutations on the same spot in the mtDNA over and over. So eventually we will be able to exactly determine where the next mutaion will be introduced (within a certain probability range). But it will be dependent on the flanking DNA sequences, whether or not the DNA mutated already in the region and on the DNA microenvironment. Eventually it will be like mechanics: we can always exactly determine where the planets will be relative to the earth. Likewise we will be able to exactly locate where and when the next NRM will be introduced.Best wishes,
Peter

Mark: What about the thousands of other fossil hominid bones?Buz:
1. But how many alleged hominid bones comprise a total or near total hominid at a single site?
2. How many at a single site which comprise a complete or near complete entity have been proven to, in fact, be hominid?Can you furnish documentation to either of the above?

quote:

---

What was the odds of DNA occurring naturally that is actually a position theorised in science?

---

"Theorized" odds? That sounds quite guessy. Shouldn't odds be mathmatically calculated determinations?I saw the math on it but all I remember is that it was impossible odds.The following statement which is broader in scope does not show the math, but the statements, imo, make sense.

quote:

---

Random Chance Odds

​

The odds of random chance generating an ecologically unique environment essential to produce and sustain organic life on Planet Earth is mathematically less likely than 6-billion blindfolded humans simultaneously solving a Rubik cube puzzle---three times in a row.

​

Protein’s Left-handed Building Blocks

​

Proteins use “left-handed” building blocks. DNA & RNA use only “right-handed” building blocks. Natural forms come in a 50-50 mixture. Evolutionism offers no “scientific” explanation for the cause or the process.

---

creationdigest - informations les plus rcentes et jour

The statements look like complete nonsense to me.I would guess that the numbers are concocted by someone with no idea of the relevant chemistry.While I cannot see where those statements were made - or if they provide any supporting evidence, I see that creationdigest.com saw fit to publish Fred Williams assertion that the invertebrate fossil record is being concealed because it does not support evolution ! (Page not found - creationdigest). Of course anyone who did basic fact checking would knwo that that was false..Obviously creationdigest.com does no fact-checking on the articles they publish. (Nor does Fred Williams on the articles he writes).Fred William's article was discussed on this forum, here :
http://EvC Forum: Information -->EvC Forum: Information

You've misparsed the sentence. "Theorized" modifies "position", not "odds".Mark's question was rhetorical. He's trying to get you to think about how impossible it is know the odds if we don't even know how it happened.Look at it this way. Say we enter you in a race, and you want to know the odds that you'll win, so you ask the race distance, and we say we don't know. You ask who your competitors will be, whether it will be people your own age, or world-class atheletes. We say we don't know. You ask if it will be cross-country, on a track or on a road. We say we don't know. How are you going to calculate the odds?It's the same with the first DNA. How did it come about? We don't know? Did it come about in a single step, dozens of steps, hundreds of steps, thousands of steps? We don't know. Did it arise on land, beneath the land, on the sea or beneath the sea? We don't know. How, then, are you going to calculate the odds?In other words, any website or book that is telling you that you can calculate the odds of DNA forming naturally is just making things up. At a minimum science believes that the first DNA was a result of gradual change over a long period of time, and that there were many stages prior, and this is the basis of Mark's rhetorical question. If the odds you speak of are being calculated for DNA forming in a single step from scratch from a soup of consituent chemicals then this doesn't represent any view within science.--Percy

Buz,

quote:

---

"Theorized" odds? That sounds quite guessy. Shouldn't odds be mathmatically calculated determinations?

​

I saw the math on it but all I remember is that it was impossible odds.

​

The following statement which is broader in scope does not show the math, but the statements, imo, make sense.

---

I never said "theorised odds". What was meant, was what precisely were these odds of? Of a 3 Gb genome appearing in one hit? A single gene? Regardless, it is already a strawman, since no scientist seriously theorises that DNA spontaneously appeared in the first place. Therefore, any argument that tries to scupper the claim would be scuppering an argument no one is making.Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

Schrafinator: And you know this how? That's just an Argument from Personal Incredulity. You see it as amazingly compley, therefore god must have been responsible.Convince-me: I have never heard of a proper explanation of how DNA arose. Can any evolutionist tell me how it happened. Do not only give me a reference(Which is right to do). But also tell me in own words how the nucleotids gathered. I am going to adapt my thinking to the proper facts that exists.SCHR: What is the definition of "kind"? Specifically, I'd like to know what method or rule to use to tell the different kinds apart. Are domestic cats and Siberian tigers the same "kind"? Are chimps and humans the sam "kind"?CONV: The definitions of kinds has to do with probability. Either there was ONE or MANY separately created forms. But God must have controlled it if it was one or a few created kinds and in some cases even within a created kind corresponding to a family.
An ape-foetus have a mutation and the concentration of a hormone raises. That makes the hips growing in a special way. But that extra concentration of that hormone could also cause some damage. If not now, there wont be long til a damaging mutation comes. Maybe the third or the 100:th mutation. Gathering mutations is a blind alley. But if God controll this, its OK.SCHR: So, there is a wolf-dog kind, and a seperate coyote kind? Why do cuyotes get there own kind and wolves and dogs are lumped together?No, that was a misunderstanding. Ofcourse coyotes have the same ancestor as dogs and wolves. But looking at the differences in certain DNA regions, especially the mitochondrial D-loop there was at least 14 times longer time since the coyote split from the wolves than the dog-wolf separation. 7%/0,5%=14
ref: savo@biotech.kth.se

So this applies to the time of divergence of gorillas, chimps, orangs, and humans exactly how? None of them differ by as much as 7% in DNA sequence.

A swedish group is now working with the origin of the domestic dog. The differences according to them is 0,5%(dogs-wolf) and 7%(wolf-coyote) Its in the D-loop of the mitochondrion.
Email: savo@biotech.kth.seIt was interesting what you said about the ZFY-gene with unchanged neutral regions and DNA-sequences not presented on the net. If I should believe that we really was copied from a chimp ancestor (which I right now believe.) I would like to see MUCH of it (The DNA). On ncbi they have very little about the wolf. Either people have not worked with wolves a lot or they have not presented all wolf sequences.Ill check your references.

To PaulK, sure, the specimens of "archy" have feathers and lizard characteristics, but without the assumption of evolution behind the evolutionary interpretation...there is no cause for an evolutionary interpretation.If I follow this line of reasoning, then I would be in-line with reasoning that the platypus belongs to both mammal and bird ancestry. We both know that this is not the case.The case for "archy" is based upon the assumption of evolutionary common ancestry. i.e., that they have features common to both birds and lizards. This in no way means that these similar traits is a sign that Archy is an ancestor of birds, nor any other lizard with feathers. This is assumption of TOE and assumption that similarity means relatedness. Nothing more.The same gose for so-called whale evolution. There are too many problems with the stories that evolution cannot fix, even with all of the assumptions behind it.

Phospo,Please respond to message 13. You are making the same mistakes.Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.