Paradigm-shifting With New Discovery About RNA

Pseudogenes are regarded in the evolutionary world that has value with history and claims of being good genes at one point in time then by random chance natural selection didn’t act upon them anymore.  However, advancements in science say otherwise…

“In a study appearing in the June 24, 2010 issue of Nature, the authors describe a new regulatory role for RNA — independent of their protein-coding function — that relies on their ability to communicate with one another. Of potentially even greater significance, because this new function also holds true for thousands of noncoding RNAs, the discovery dramatically increases the known pool of functional genetic information.”

This newly discovered function in RNA unrelated to protein production is vital in fighting tumors! Without this presumed piece of junk with only history in it’s sequences your chances of getting cancer go extremely up!  A complete surprise by evolutionary scientists because if evolution was true it ought to leave junk behind right? Because of this faulty concept that evolution promotes, growth in knowledge has been hindered!

“Defining ‘junk DNA’ is getting trickier.  Pseudogenes, for instance,  have been viewed as non-essential genomic elements and have mostly been ignored.  Well, they shouldn’t be anymore, according to Poliseno and colleagues, who show a clear functional relationship between the tumour-suppressor gene PTEN and its pseudogene PTENP1 (Fig. 1).  This study could have major implications for understanding mechanisms of disease, and of cancer in particular.”

Evolutionists insist it looks like the wind blew it together, rather than intelligently designed. The Darwin crowd should not be so surprised by these discoveries, there is a pattern of junk DNA having some kind of function. Instead of assuming it’s junk, they better start asking other questions like why has it been placed there, for what purpose? When unable to answer, it shouldn’t be considered junk for history value rather no known function has been found but continue research. If evolutionary geneticists think outside the box of Darwinian evolution, they will discover even more amazing things!

Advertisements

115 thoughts on “Paradigm-shifting With New Discovery About RNA

  1. Michael,

    I still want you to refute me on what I show about the bacterial flagellum. . . .

    . . . the flagellum IS NOT EVEN IRREDUCIBLE. — In 1988, G. Kuwajima was able to remove ONE-THIRD of the 497 amino acids from the flagellum, AND IT STILL WORKED PERFECTLY!!!!! . . . Also, we know that the L and the P-rings can be taken away from the flagellum, and it will STILL work. . . .

    Still waiting for a refutation . . . .

  2. One more thing, Michael,

    Nobody ever said that RNA CANNOT have some functions at all. Once again, you are attacking a strawman that you do not understand.

  3. My turn this time. The Questions of the Mo—Year—are:

    (1) Blog readership numbers ?

    (2) Your qualifications to discuss any scientific subject, in response to the challenge to Olorin.

    (3) A substantive review of Signature in the Cell, promised for August 2009.

    (4) outstanding question from Upson Downes on mitochondrial Eve

    Well, Upson has been banned, so maybe we can substitute one of the previous cave-man questions A-F:

    Name four or five characteristics of spoken language that are not represented in written language.

    I’ll even give you a hint: If I write “The wood box is on the other end of the garage,” you could wonder whether I am referring to a box that holds wood, or to a box that is made of wood. If I speak this same sentence to you, there would be no doubt as to which interpretation is correct.

    The point is that the invention of writing involves separating out and analyzing hundreds of different attributes of spoken language, simplifying them in specific ways, and then extracting only certain ones of them in order to convey meaning. And all of this must happen before our prehistoric man even begins to think of how to represent these characteristics in an entirely new medium.

  4. Kris — Interestingly, I found your posts on a blog from last June where you were defending the irreducibility of the flagellum.

    The argument remains very weak since the task is to show the evolutionary pathway with the correct mathematics on how the proteins evolved to create the flagellum.

    If protiens can be removed and the flagellum still functions perfectly, then how were those proteins necessary for the function of the flagellum? Why did they evolve if they were unnecessary?

    The removal of some parts does not explain how the flagellum evolved.

    How many mutations were required? Were they single point or double point or more? Where is the evidence of the transitional forms that moved from non-function to function.

    That’s the ultimate in reducibility — the move from non-function to function in a series of steps. When the function was unnecessary in the cell, then explain why. When the function evolved to because it was necesary — explain when and why. When the function was only partly functional, explain why it existed.

    I wonder if that discussion that I found on A view from the pew blog was the event that caused you to change your views. If so, I think you should revisit the argument. Also, consider that Darwin’s Black Box was written in 1994 — so, that’s 16 years of relentless attack on the idea, and all we have to show for it is a claim that some proteins could be removed?

    Behe’s second book adds much more detail. He used lab data to determine what mutations could be expected and if there would be enough time in the entire history of the universe to evolve biochemical machines.

  5. A complete surprise by evolutionary scientists because if evolution was true it ought to leave junk behind right?

    That was the claim — that the pseudogenes were non-functional junk. Now we learn that they have a complex and essential function.

    Thus, we have a Darwinian prediction falsified. With this finding, the gap in knowledge increased, not decreased (since far more is unexplained now versus the mindless claim that “it’s all junk”).

    If science ever discovers that there is actually an infinite complexity in the cell (as some have already suggested there is) – that will be positive evidence for the existence of God.

  6. creationbydesign,

    Kris — Interestingly, I found your posts on a blog from last June where you were defending the irreducibility of the flagellum.

    The argument remains very weak since the task is to show the evolutionary pathway with the correct mathematics on how the proteins evolved to create the flagellum.

    Well, I DID tell you that a year ago, I WAS a Creationist.

    — And likewise, the argument for Irreducuble Complexity of the flagellum is invalid since it can be reduced…

    From a scientific paper from 1987-88, on the subject,

    Various deletions were introduced into the central region of Escherichia coli flagellin (497 residues without destroying its ability to form flagellar filaments. The smallest flagellin retained only the N-terminal 193 residues and the C-terminal 117 residues, which are suggested to be the domains essential for filament formation.

    Here’s the paper: http://jb.asm.org/cgi/reprint/170/7/3305.pdf

    My defence of the flagellum BACK THEN was uninformed, and based on wishful thinking. I’m embarassed I even ever made those arguments.

  7. creationbydesign,

    also

    The removal of some parts does not explain how the flagellum evolved.

    Not the point!! It was meant to show that the IC argument is wrong.

    How many mutations were required? Were they single point or double point or more?

    I’m not a biochemist, so I don’t know professionally how many mutations were required. But, we do understand that there is evidence of several Gene Duplications which occured in the evolution of the flagellum. Evidence of Gene Duplications can be detected by family genes:

    Link: http://www.pnas.org/content/104/17/7116.abstract

    Where is the evidence of the transitional forms that moved from non-function to function.

    That is not how evolution works. There was never a non-functional precursur of the flagellum. The ancestors of the flagellum need not have had the same function. — Taking away an interlocking piece does NOT mean non-functionality. It means it takes on another function. Consider this: Every piece does something!

    Also, consider that Darwin’s Black Box was written in 1994 — so, that’s 16 years of relentless attack on the idea, and all we have to show for it is a claim that some proteins could be removed?

    It’s not a “claim” that they can be removed. It’s a fact! — Refering you back to a previously linked science paper:

    http://jb.asm.org/cgi/reprint/170/7/3305.pdf

    That was the claim — that the pseudogenes were non-functional junk. Now we learn that they have a complex and essential function.

    Correction: It is a Darwinian prediction that MOST (get the word “MOST”) pseudogenes would be either non-functional or non-functional. . . Nobody ever said that there could never be pseudogenes that could function. That is a strawman argument.

  8. Pseudogenes are regarded in the evolutionary world that has value with history and claims of being good genes at one point in time then by random chance natural selection didn’t act upon them anymore. However, advancements in science say otherwise…

    You have put your ignorance on public display again, Michael. “Random chance” has nothing to do with whether selection acts. The reason natural selection does not act on a pseudogene is that the gene either has already lost its function, or it is part of a cascade in which a different gene no longer performs its function.

    It is truly ironic that creationists should focus upon pseudogenes, because the existence of pseudogenes is one of the stronger evidences for common ancestry.

    How can we tell that humans and apes descend from a common ancestor? One way is to look at the genes for the citric-acid cycle. This cycle is functional in apes, but one of its four genes has mutated in the human lineage. The three remaining functional genes in humans are identical to those of apes, and the broken human gene has only a couple of identifiable mutations from the corresponding ape gene.

    How can we tell that birds and reptiles have a common ancestor? One way is to notice that, even though birds have no teeth, they do have genes for manufacturing some of the proteins which occur only in teeth. An experiment a few years ago analyzed the dentin gene of chickens and found that the gene sequences that are highly conserved in reptiles and mammals are also present in the chicken genome.[1]

    Other examples abound.

    What explanation can Michael offer for the presence of almost identical citric-acid genes in both apes and humans, where the ape set produce citric acid. but the human set does not—regardless of whether or not the human set may have some other, unknown function? What explanation does Michael offer for the presence of a dentin pseudogene in toothless birds, even if this gene might someday be found to be an evolutionary resource or have a vestigial function?

    Also note that the pseudogene evidence does not stand alone. It confirms evidence from other fields, such as fossils and embryonic development.

    It would seem at the very least that creationist researchers would pounce upon these and similar pseudogenes to attempt to show that there may be some other reason for their inclusion in these different “kinds”.

    That is, some reason other than the Devil’s attempt to mislead the faithful.

    ==================
    [1] Toyosawa, et al., “Expression of the dentin matrix protein 1 gene in birds,” J Mol Evol 50(1):31-38 (2000)

  9. Talk about strawmen!

    The existence of DNA without a function is not a prediction of any evolutionary theory, and never was.

    Scientists had found a lot of DNA that does not code for proteins. Susumu Ohno, who found the first non-coding DNA called it “junk DNA” because he didn’t know what it did.[0] This discovery was in no way predicted by evolution, although it is consistent with evolution. That is, evolution allows for relics to accumulate, because natural selection does not act upon DNA that is neither advantageous nor disadvantageous to reproductive fitness.

    So the claim that evolution somehow requires functionless DNA is a shell game to divert attention away from a contrary prediction that creationism does make.

    This is the “good-design” prediction—that “God don’t make no junk.” The good-design prediction requires that everything in the genome have a function. New discoveries[1] have found functions for some of the DNA previously thought to be junk. But the creationist prediction has a long way to go. Only 2% of the human genome[2] codes proteins. Endogenous retroviruses[3] constitute 7% of the human genome. Broken retrotransposons, which lost the ability to transpose (which ability is irrelevant to the genome, and so is double junk) form about 10-15%. SINEs[4] make up 17% of the genome, and LINEs 14%. So, in addition to the pseudogenes, creationists have yet to explain the apparent non-functionality of 50% of the human genome. Remember, if God didn’t make no junk, then they have to show that 100% of the genome has a function.[5]

    So creationists stick evolution with a prediction that evolution never made, while doing nothing to advance their own prediction—which would not falsify evolution even if it were true.

    =============

    [0] During the entire period from its discovery in 1972, mainstream scientists have investigated this “junk” to try to find functions for it. See “Junk DNA: Let me say it one more time” And, obviously, despite the name, they are still trying.

    [1] Note that all of these discoveries have been made by biologist who accept evolution, and that the people who made the prediction have never themselves put forth any effort whatever to confirm their vaunted prediction.

    [2] The fraction varies widely. Almost all bacterial DNA is functional. Creationist might wish to explain why the “simple” onion genome is five times as large as the “complex” human genome. Does the onion have five times as much function to perform to make us cry while slicing it?.

    [3] These are viruses that invaded germ cells long ago and stayed for the free ride. Their relative times of appearance confirms phylogenetic evidence from other fields.

    [4] The non-functionality of these segments allows their use in courts to determine ancestry questions. If you think they’re functional, maybe you can still get out of that paternity charge!

    [5] And don’t forget the introns. While creationists cackle over recent discoveries that introns have a function in alternative splicing, they hide the fact that only about 10% of all introns—and only about 5% of the DNA in each of those few introns—play any part in this ability—95% of the DNA in most alternative splicing introns could mutate or disappear altogether with no effect.

  10. There was never a non-functional precursur of the flagellum.

    There had to be. We’d call it a non-existent precursor in a living cell. In other words, before the flagellum existed, it was nothing, then it became something which was not the flagellum (unless it was created whole and entire).

  11. When evolutionists’ claims are refuted, the best response is “we never made that prediction”. When new evidence appears which contradicts prior claims, then this is not a falsification at all.

    From the article:

    “Defining ‘junk DNA’ is getting trickier.

    When a theory is confirmed by evidence, then defintions get easier. When the evidence conflicts with the claims, then it gets trickier.

    But Darwinists have a great way to deal with this. When the evidence conflicts, they claim that the theory predicted this contradiction of their prior unfounded assertion.

    But the creationist prediction has a long way to go.

    Interesting. Creationists predicted something to support their theory. And then what happened?

    New discoveries[1] have found functions for some of the DNA previously thought to be junk.

    Evidence appears which begins to confirm claims by creationists.

    Of course, the best way to understand this is:

    “Creationists never made any scientific predictions, and when they did, they were completely wrong”.

    And following from that important fact:

    When evolutionists “previously thought parts of the DNA were junk”, they were certainly correct.
    Now that “new discoveries” refuted the claim, Darwinists are even more correct since they agree with the new findings.

    So, they were 100% correct before. There were no weaknesses at all in the theory (Eelco????).

    Now, with these new findings which refute the prior claim, evolutionists are at least 120% correct.

    It’s all very mathematical and precise, of course.

    You’ll find much more here:

    http://satirizingscientism.blogspot.com/

  12. creationbydesign,

    There had to be. We’d call it a non-existent precursor in a living cell. In other words, before the flagellum existed, it was nothing, then it became something which was not the flagellum (unless it was created whole and entire).

    *major facepalm*

    Have you even actually read most of what I said, or are you just conveniently ignoring it all? — I notice a trend with your responses: You ignore the stronger points i make, and attack only what could be perceivably the weaker points.

    I already told you that precursurs to the modern flagella need not have had the same function. — The TTSS works (which is the filament to the flagellum) works as a propeller. — It however, when not connected to the flagellum, is an injector for toxic poisons. That alone shows that precusors only would have had different functions.

    I already told you every piece, every protein, every amino acid does something, so precursors need not have had the same function. Is that really so complicated to understand?

    I already cited a study from the National Academy of Sciences which talks about how the flagellum could have been before it evolved. I linked it above, but you completely ignored it.

    I’ll even quote it for your benefit:

    Within a genome, many of these core genes show sequence similarity only to other flagellar core genes, indicating that they were derived from one another, and the relationships among these genes suggest the probable order in which the structural components of the bacterial flagellum arose. These results show that core components of the bacterial flagellum originated through the successive duplication and modification of a few, or perhaps even a single, precursor gene. (From http://www.pnas.org/content/104/17/7116.abstract )

    — So, before the flagellum was the flagellum, it was a gene, or a few genes. It need not have been a flagellum.

  13. The TTSS evolved after the flagellum was already functional. Plus, as you say, it’s a propeller. This says nothing about the mechanism on how it attached itself to the flagellum. Again, this is just speculation — the mutational path is not given.

    If the evolution of the flagellum had been explained already, the information would be clear and easily accessible. One wouldn’t have to hunt through Talk Origins for some speculative proposals.

    many of these core genes show sequence similarity only to other flagellar core genes, indicating that they were derived from one another

    Genetic similarity does not necessarily mean that one is derived from the other. More importantly, it’s the mechanism and pathway that is in question.

    There’s nothing of substance on that issue.

  14. creationbydesign,

    The TTSS evolved after the flagellum was already functional.

    Hmm, you just contradicted your IC notions. . I thought IC meant that the removal of a part would mean that the system would be non-functional. . . . If the flagellum can be “functionaly” without the TSS and BEFORE the TTSS ever evolved, then that itself refutes Irreducible Complexity.

    And again, you missed the point. I mentioned it to show that the precusors would have had their own functions because each individual part is fully functional by itself.

    Again, this is just speculation — the mutational path is not given.

    No doubt any path, no matter how plausible, would be dismissed as “speculation” by you.

    This says nothing about the mechanism on how it attached itself to the flagellum.

    So naturally that means God did it. . .

    Are you sure that the fact they are thought to have evolved from a common ancestor doesn’t have anything to do with it? — The PNAS model I linked to you points that out, though you probably didn’t even read the FULL TEXT of it to see that.

    The TTSS according to current models derived from precursor secretion system that used ATP and the ATMase to drive proteins.

    Link: http://saier-144-51.ucsd.edu/~saier/bimm130/reading130/week4/paper4c.pdf

    If the evolution of the flagellum had been explained already, the information would be clear and easily accessible.

    Uhh, it IS easily accesible. There are several models of it online.

    One wouldn’t have to hunt through Talk Origins for some speculative proposals.

    Uhhh, I’m not. I keep my referencing of Talk Origins to a minimum.

    — But it just his me. I notice you keep calling every single model of the evolution of the flagellum “Speculative.” — Is there ANY model you WOULDN’T just dismiss as speculative?? — Well, we cannot see how the flagellum had evolved, so ANYTHING that is propossed would be “speculation,” so I guess you get your convenient cop out to just dismiss any model you just do not like.

    Genetic similarity does not necessarily mean that one is derived from the other.

    In this particular case, it shows that Gene duplication was at work, so . . . actually, yes it does.

    Again, you have not refuted a single thing I have mentioned.

  15. Creationbydesign,

    I’m curious, what are your sources for your claim that the TTSS came LATER?

  16. Creationbydesign.

    I’m still waiting for you to address the fact that the flagellum CAN be reduced dramattically . . .

    I linked a scientific paper done published in 1988 which is entitled Construction of a Minimum-Size Functional Flagellin of Escherichia coli. It starts off by saying,

    Various deletions were introduced into the central region of Escherichia coli flagellin (497 residues without destroying its ability to form flagellar filaments. The smallest flagellin retained only the N-terminal 193 residues and the C-terminal 117 residues, which are suggested to be the domains essential for filament formation.

    And it is linked here: http://jb.asm.org/cgi/reprint/170/7/3305.pdf

    It clearly says that many deletions were introduced to the flagellum without destroying its ability to function. . . . Notice that it is not a claim. It is a fact. This experiment DID happen.

    Of course I shouldn’t have to link it again for a third time for you to notice it, and I shouldn’t have to quote it for a second time. . . . But I refuse to let this go until you take this on. . . AND I MEAN REALLY TAKE IT ON.

    And what makes this fact all the more interesting is that this paper was written in 1987 and published in 1988. . . . When did Michael Behe make his claim that the Flagellum was irreducible?? Oh, 1996, you say?

    This means Behe’s claim was ALREADY PROVED invalid LONG BEFORE he made it. . . Hmmmmm, interesting, no?

  17. Creationbydesisn is attempting to make krissmith777 demonstrate beyond all possible doubt every detailed step by which the E. coli flagellum evolved from the primeval ooze.

    On the other hand, Creationbydesign offers no evidence whatsoever as to how the E. coli flagellum might have been designed. Was it put together from a potful of bare amino acids, one by one? Was it assembled from the 40 proteins (all except one of which arre found in other organisms)? Were there E. coli without flagella, and the flagella were bolted on afterward? When was the flagellum designed? Why was it designed the way it was?

    The evolution of this particular flagellum is known in part, there is evidence of several possible evolutionary pathways, and many details have yet to be winkled out. But there is no evidence whatever as to how this flagellum might have been designed.

    Why does anyone allow creationists to demand infinite amounts of evidence from evolution, when they provide absolutely none for their own theory, and not even a wild guess as to how it might have happened?

    That’s why creationism is a shell game. It succeeds only by directing attention away from its own failure to explain anything at all.

  18. Kris,
    I’m sorry I don’t have a lot of time for all of the detail on this topic. I’m not ignoring your points, but I have limited time.

    Hmm, you just contradicted your IC notions. . I thought IC meant that the removal of a part would mean that the system would be non-functional. . . . If the flagellum can be “functionaly” without the TSS and BEFORE the TTSS ever evolved, then that itself refutes Irreducible Complexity.

    The TTSS diverged or was remodelled after the flagellum already was functional. So, the part wasn’t removed but had a different combination of genes. It’s a devolution of a part of the flagellum, not the increase of function in a part.

    No doubt any path, no matter how plausible, would be dismissed as “speculation” by you.

    Well, not dismissed as speculation, but correctly defined as speculative. It’s like a guess or a conjecture – it hasn’t been tested. It really is a matter of telling a story about what someone thinks could have happened.

    So naturally that means God did it. . .

    Do you think God created anything? If so, what precisely did He create and how do you know?

    Is there ANY model you WOULDN’T just dismiss as speculative??

    Yes, I already cited the devolution of the TTSS for example.

    I’m curious, what are your sources for your claim that the TTSS came LATER?

    http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/msn153

  19. Creationbydesisn is attempting to make [evolutionists] demonstrate beyond all possible doubt every detailed step by which the E. coli flagellum evolved from the primeval ooze.

    Or, perhaps I should just accept any of their conjectures to be absolutely true — since they could never possibly be wrong about anything, right? It’s best to be a gullible Darwinian disciple and not demand evidence, apparently.

    Ok, now that we know that a detailed evolutionary path for the flagellum is non-existent, and Darwinists cannot even admit that, what should we expect next?

    Hey, how about this — change the topic and attack creationism!

    That definitely works. When evolutionary theory is revealed as too weak, embarrassing and indefensible to even continue a discussion on it — change the topic and attack creationism.

    Why?

    Because creationism is the only possible alternative to the failure of Darwinian theory?

    Um, no. Here’s a better answer:

    Because we can divert attention away from the massive problems in Darwinian theory.

    Yes, definitely. Now, let’s see what really happened …

    On the other hand, Creationbydesign offers no evidence whatsoever as to how the E. coli flagellum might have been designed

    I’m getting good at this game. As predictable as tomorrow’s sunrise.

  20. As noted just above, one of creationism’s most important failings is its failure to explain HOW designs may have occurred. This means that creationism has no way to figure out how anything works other than the what has already been observed. Yet the value of science is precisely that the “how” mechanisms it proposes lead to deeper understanding that allows control of physical phenomena for the benefit of mankind.

    Last month, The Village Green asked three ID supporters “How can the intelligent design community gain academic credibility?”

    Stephen Meyer blew the question off, saying that ID already has metric tons of scientific credibility. (But we already knew he is delusional.)

    Marcus Ross, geology professor at Liberty University and author of papers on young-earth theories, thinks the most important need is to address the questions of

    “how and when the design was implemented…. Was it worked out through a genetic unfolding of a single information-rich cell, or through designed interventions within evolutionary lineages, or by separate ex nihilo creations?”

    Karl Giberson is director of Gordon College’s Forum on Faith and Science and editor-in-chief of Science and Religion Today. Giberson feels that the central problem is that ID’s ideas are sterile. He states—

    At the end of the 18th century, William Paley wrote about how the intricate mechanics of a watch provide evidence of a designer. Two centuries later, Behe is making the same argument about the flagellum of the bacterium. If id proponents want to update Paley’s arguments for the 21st century, they need to show how their version is more fertile.Paley-era biologists—many of them Christians—did not abandon Paley
    because his design arguments were refuted; they weren’t. They moved on because his ideas were sterile Good scientific ideas, like atomic theory, gravity, quarks, and genetics, are rich. Such ideas are like bags of popcorn in the microwave, exploding with new insights into nature.

    .

    Amen, brother. Creationism needs to actually explain something, and to generate some understanding and applications.

    Any predictions as to when this might happen? Michael?

  21. creationbydesign,

    Thanks for the link for your claim, but now as I’m looking through it, I’m having a gnawing question in my mind that I just have to ask you. . .

    And that is . . . . This paper you linked (and i printed out the PDF full text just a moment ago) is an evolutionary model. . . . Why are you citing ONE possible evolutionary model, while rejecting EVERY OTHER one?

    Well, not dismissed as speculation, but correctly defined as speculative.

    But you are still dismissing them because of their speculative nature . . . . But this also begs yet another question. . . . The paper you cited to me, by the same definition, is also speculative . . . So, isn’t there an inconsistency here of you dismissing something that is “speculative,” while accepting yet another model which is ALSO speculative?

    And to Orolin you say,

    Or, perhaps I should just accept any of their conjectures to be absolutely true — since they could never possibly be wrong about anything, right? It’s best to be a gullible Darwinian disciple and not demand evidence, apparently.

    Orolin and I are not accepting ANY of the models as “absolutely true.” We accept them, however, as plausible, and viable. We never said “they could never possibly be wrong.” They are not to be dismissed out of convenience. . .

    But again, this leads us back to the Evolutionary model you cited before. . . When you said that the TTSS evolved LATER after the flagellum WHEN YOU CITED the paper, YOU SAID IT AS IF IT WAS “ABSOLUTELY TRUE,” without qualifiers. . . . Again, doesn’t this show inconsistencies with what you expect of us, and what you expect of yourself?

    Ok, now that we know that a detailed evolutionary path for the flagellum is non-existent, and Darwinists cannot even admit that, what should we expect next?

    Really? Imagine that. . . And I thought the N. J. Matzke was PRETTY detailed. . . In that case, never mind the REALLY wordy model linked below. Just because it is really wordy and technical, that doesn’t mean it is detailed.

    http://www.talkdesign.org/faqs/flagellum.html

    Hey, how about this — change the topic and attack creationism!

    That definitely works. When evolutionary theory is revealed as too weak, embarrassing and indefensible to even continue a discussion on it — change the topic and attack creationism.

    Why?

    Because creationism is the only possible alternative to the failure of Darwinian theory?

    The motive to attack Creationism is because it is unscientific. It gives nothing.

    What has creationism EVER contributed in the fields of Medicine, for example? — NOTHING. . .

    On the other hand, I’ll tell you what evolution has contributed in that particular field. . . It is because of Darwin that we know how viruses like HIV evolve. If it weren’t for Darwin, medicine wouldn’t have advanced as much.

    Now, if you want to go with the Noah’s Ark version, then I guess we should use obsolete drugs that were made BEFORE certain viruses evolved. . .

    The fact is that Creationism is not an alternative to evolution. Only willfull ignorance is.

  22. On the other hand, Creationbydesign offers no evidence whatsoever as to how the E. coli flagellum might have been designed

    I’m getting good at this game. As predictable as tomorrow’s sunrise.</blockquote.

    And what I said remains as true as tomorrow's sunrise. The evidence for evolution might not be as much as you would like, but it has convinced 484,000 resaerchers with PhDs in relevant fields, and only three (3) practicing biological researchers remain outside. (And, by the way, all of them are convinced that the Earth is 4.5B years old.)

    On the other hand, there is more evidence for astrology that there is for creationism. And, as I noted just above, even the creationists feel that creationism can't explain anything.

  23. Olorin: “On the other hand, there is more evidence for astrology that there is for creationism. ”

    As there is no evidence for creationism whatsoever, that means you think there is one or more pieces of evidence for astrology – now I am curious :) !

  24. Eelco

    As there is no evidence for creationism whatsoever, that means you think there is one or more pieces of evidence for astrology – now I am curious :) !

    *looks up* I see stars. Yep. Astrology wins :P

  25. GAAHHH!!!

    I was just reading my old Creationist comments on the blog — No idea why —
    I feel dumb for ever posting them. . .

    Glad that’s not me anymore..

  26. Eelco,

    Can you explain why those in your field believed in an unobservable region called the Oort cloud? There is and continues to be verifying evidence for creationism than there is about the Oort cloud.

  27. Olorin,

    It’s creationist scientists and ID scientists for many years have been keenly interested in Junk DNA having functions not the evolutionary community. Now we know it can be used to understand cancer better and it gives makes the creationist and ID position stronger. You also state…

    “Why does anyone allow creationists to demand infinite amounts of evidence from evolution, when they provide absolutely none for their own theory, and not even a wild guess as to how it might have happened?”

    There are tons of evidence, advancing science makes Darwinian evolution and evolution in general more complex as it’s forces by popular demand within their community, the data into it’s theory. As creationists, we believe nature was designed with a purpose by intelligence. In the genome, there are amino acid tandem repeats. Twelve animals were observed, evolutionary biologists took a look at inside known genes, and outside the protein. Their expectations were to find the genome sequences other than genes without tandem repeats. These areas were assumed, “junk DNA” subjective to mutation alterations.

    Here is what they actually found, repeated similarities between the so-called, junk-DNA and coding areas. What are the chances that mutations could make the same copies that many times in areas that was supposed to be leftovers (junk-DNA) from evolutionary processes? What is interesting, the researchers admitted that those tandem repeats found in the genome were there on purpose rather than by accident! A designer puts things in place on purpose and that is was is found in the genome! The expectation of evolution, did not explain what was found, it was falsified once again! “Purpose” is detectable in science

  28. Michael,

    You say to Eelco,

    Can you explain why those in your field believed in an unobservable region called the Oort cloud? There is and continues to be verifying evidence for creationism than there is about the Oort cloud.

    To date, there may be no “definitive” proof of Oort cloud that is indisputable, BUT, there is some debate that Pluto and Sedna may be part of the inner area of it. . . If that turns out to be true, then that would mean that there are two pieces of evidence for Oort cloud . . . That is, that would be two pieces more than Creationism has.

    Link: http://www.universeguide.com/OortCloud.php

  29. Michael,

    there are some outstanding questions to answer first … I sort of feel that you should first reply to these !

    Of course the Oort cloud is *currently* unobservable, not unobservable in principle. Lots of evidence for it, though.

    on a personal note, I’ve always been grateful to have known Jan Hendrik Oort when I was a pesky little student at Leiden Observatory … he was a wonderful person. Of course that does not means he is right because of that …

  30. Why are you citing ONE possible evolutionary model, while rejecting EVERY OTHER one?

    It was a question of speculation versus data-enhanced speculation. The latter has a bit more going for it. As for you claim about my rejection of microevolution, I’ll say that you’re exaggerating and distorting the point — reaching far beyond what you should.

    But you are still dismissing them because of their speculative nature . . .

    No, I fully accept them as being speculative, like most evolutionary stories. The primary evidence comes from the story-teller’s imagination. There’s nothing there to dismiss because I can’t be expected to believe that a wild guess is true.

    But this also begs yet another question. . . . The paper you cited to me, by the same definition, is also speculative . . . So, isn’t there an inconsistency here of you dismissing something that is “speculative,” while accepting yet another model which is ALSO speculative?

    Well, you’re right about that and there’s the danger of treating evolutionary claims as if they are substantive. We already know that the speculative proposal I cited conflicts with the one you cited. Both came from peer-reviewed sources. So, am I supposed to fully accept two contradictory claims?

    The standard evolutionary response is: “There’s a lot that we’re just learning about”. Or perhaps, “that’s the way science works, one idea is replaced with another”.

    My response is: “That’s the way speculation works”. It’s highly suspect at best. There’s little or no formulaic precision and yet researchers and their defenders get highly offended when someone points out that evolutionists themselves contradict each other.

    So to answer your question — yes, you’re right that I’m being inconsistent by favoring one evolutionary story versus an opposing version. But I need not accept either to point out that the claim that the TTSS was a precursor to the flagellum is disputed and cannot be put forward as solid evidence.

    Keep in mind, this is a small component of the full argument in favor of the evolutionary path of the flagellum. So, when I can see that even this first-line defense is weak, then the non-Darwinian origin of the flagellum seems far more certain.

    Orolin and I are not accepting ANY of the models as “absolutely true.” We accept them, however, as plausible, and viable. We never said “they could never possibly be wrong.” They are not to be dismissed out of convenience. . .

    I say the same thing about evidence for the existence of God. Those models are plausible and viable. So, why does Orolin dismiss those arguments?

    When you said that the TTSS evolved LATER after the flagellum WHEN YOU CITED the paper, YOU SAID IT AS IF IT WAS “ABSOLUTELY TRUE,” without qualifiers. . . . Again, doesn’t this show inconsistencies with what you expect of us, and what you expect of yourself?

    I merely cited what the paper claimed. I assumed that this would be the language that you’re most comfortable with. We can see that the paper assumes a Darwinian origin for the flagellum, so it would definitely be inconsistent for me to use that paper as absolute truth while also arguing that the flagellum is non-Darwinian. Again, the point is that evolutionists state that the TTSS is a devolved adaptation of the flagellum. So, there is very little certainty from the evolutionary view on this point. Keep in mind, this is 16 years after DBB was published. Michael Behe was certainly correct in stating that there was “nothing whatsoever” in the science literature about the evolution of the flagellum when he published.

    As it stands today, the flagellum is far less complex than other IC systems that have since been discovered. I posted a list of 40 such systems previously.

    I found this to be a spectacular video-illustration of an IC system in operation. Please give it 2 minutes to view.

    How does DNA solve this knotty problem?
    http://www.esnips.com/doc/b5b2ce11-cdb8-4548-9ed7-3e5fd20c3ab5/Topoisomerase

    “Type II topoisomerase cuts both strands, and passes an unbroken double strand through it then reanneals the cut strand.”
    Class II topoisomerase performs the amazing feat of breaking a DNA double helix, passing another helix through the gap, and resealing the double helix behind it.

    What has creationism EVER contributed in the fields of Medicine, for example? — NOTHING. . .

    The belief that nature is reducible to rational, ordered laws is a product of creationism. One can see that in Isaac Newton’s belief that his science has its origins in creationism.

    The most important questions I asked you, which could have required pages and days of responses — and the ones that I thought would be the most interesting and compelling for you in this entire discussion are: Do you think God created anything? and parallel to that “What do you think God created”?

    As for the claim that we didn’t know about biological adaptations, prior to Darwin, or that Darwinian theory is limited to claims about microevolution — again, that’s an exaggeration of the facts.

    A Darwinian worldview is atheist, in its essence. At best, I could be dressed up with a non-functioning deity in the background — a god that does nothing, has no impact on nature and who did not know what evolution would produce.

    In other words, an ignorant, powerless, ineffectual, unnecessary god — the kind that evolutionists will permit to superstitious believers. So, a god that is compatible with atheism.

    I’m very afraid that you’ve embraced Darwinism with a religious fervor and intensity which it does not deserve. If anything, I wish you should apply some healthy skepticism to those speculative ideas.

    If you’re worried that faith in God can be damaged by creationism, can you see also how faith can be damaged by exaggerations and speculative stories in evolutionism?

    Any creationist lawyer who got me on the stand could instantly win over the jury simply by asking me: ‘Has your knowledge of evolution influenced you in the direction of becoming an atheist?’ I would have to answer yes. ~ Richard Dawkins

    Evolution is the greatest engine of atheism ever invented. ~ William Provine

  31. And what I said remains as true as tomorrow’s sunrise. The evidence for evolution might not be as much as you would like, but it has convinced 484,000 resaerchers with PhDs in relevant fields, and only three (3) practicing biological researchers remain outside.

    Evidence for the existence of God has convinced the largest part of humanity. The atheistic model actually destroys rationality and is ultimately without value or meaning, by its own admission.

    But at the same time, you’re willing to claim that the tiny minority are correct as against the larger majority.

  32. creationbydesign: “Evidence for the existence of God …”

    Which evidence ?? And which god ? There are plenty, so you would have to be specific.

    creationbydesgin: ” … has convinced the largest part of humanity. ”

    Depends on your god … and none has convinced the majority of human beings.

    creationbydesign: “The atheistic model actually destroys rationality and is ultimately without value or meaning, by its own admission.”

    why would it destroy rationality, and by whose admission ??

  33. Creationbydesign,

    So to answer your question — yes, you’re right that I’m being inconsistent by favoring one evolutionary story versus an opposing version.

    Thank you!! But notice that neither me or Orolin have been falling for that inconsistency. Me and Orolin did not just blindly accept or reject any model because we don’t like them. It’s wrong to reject any model out of convenience (which is what you have been doing).

    I merely cited what the paper claimed. I assumed that this would be the language that you’re most comfortable with. We can see that the paper assumes a Darwinian origin for the flagellum, so it would definitely be inconsistent for me to use that paper as absolute truth while also arguing that the flagellum is non-Darwinian.

    -sighs- Again, like always, you missed my point!! My point was that you cited the paper as if (in your words) it was “absolute truth.” — You said, and I quote: “The TTSS evolved after the flagellum was already functional.” — You didn’t put any qualifiers on it. You just used a paper (which is of minority opinion, by the way). — I am not most comfortable with “absolute truth” language, so you were wrong to think i would be comfrotable with that. . . And NO scientist would be either. Ken Miller himself said during the Dover Trial that evolution wouldn’t be considered “absolute truth.”

    The belief that nature is reducible to rational, ordered laws is a product of creationism. One can see that in Isaac Newton’s belief that his science has its origins in creationism.

    Your comment is misleading. Isaac Newton didn’t contribute to science because he was a creationist, or believed in a 6 day creation, or in the fixity of species (or fixity of a kind, whichever you prefer). — He would have made HIS SAME contribution even if he didn’t, so “Creationism” didn’t contribute. It was mearly an observation of “what goes up, must come down.” — HUGE difference. . . . Besides, Evolution was not even proposed with a viable mechanism yet, so . . . it’s not honest to use him as an example.

    The most important questions I asked you, which could have required pages and days of responses — and the ones that I thought would be the most interesting and compelling for you in this entire discussion are: Do you think God created anything? and parallel to that “What do you think God created”?

    No, not days or pages. Just three four words: “The laws of nature.”

    As for the claim that we didn’t know about biological adaptations, prior to Darwin, or that Darwinian theory is limited to claims about microevolution — again, that’s an exaggeration of the facts.

    I don’t recall anyone ever saying we didn’t know about biological adaptions before Darwin. . . So, I think YOUR statement here is the one that is an exageration.

    A Darwinian worldview is atheist, in its essence. At best, I could be dressed up with a non-functioning deity in the background — a god that does nothing, has no impact on nature and who did not know what evolution would produce.

    Evlution is no more atheistic that plate tectonics. God doesn’t push the plates with his hands . . Just because God didn’t create stars personally, by fusing them together with his own hands, that isn’t Atheistic. Just because we evolved from common ancestors with chimps, that therefore isn’t atheistic.

    I’m very afraid that you’ve embraced Darwinism with a religious fervor and intensity which it does not deserve.

    Impossible, since evolution is not religious.

    If anything, I wish you should apply some healthy skepticism to those speculative ideas.

    I do. That’s what science is all about. — I TOLD YOU already BEFORE that I do not accept “speculative” ideas as absolute truth. Or do you have trouble reading?

    If you’re worried that faith in God can be damaged by creationism, can you see also how faith can be damaged by exaggerations and speculative stories in evolutionism?

    The premise is incorrect. Evolution does not destroy faith. It is the anti-science, intellectual dishonesty of Creationism that destroys faith and Creates Atheists. I’ve seen Creationism create more Atheists than Evolution.

    Evidence for the existence of God has convinced the largest part of humanity. The atheistic model actually destroys rationality and is ultimately without value or meaning, by its own admission.

    But at the same time, you’re willing to claim that the tiny minority are correct as against the larger majority.

    Where have you been? As many as 40% of scientists believe in God, and they ACCEPT the fact of evolution. . . Surprise, surprise!!

  34. creationbydesign . . . . . . . . 25, 2010 at 8:19 am

    Evidence for the existence of God has convinced the largest part of humanity. The atheistic model actually destroys rationality and is ultimately without value or meaning, by its own admission.

    Eelco gave you the (I assume) agnostic’s answer. Let me give you mine.

    God exists as a matter of faith, not of physical evidence. Even Christian philosophers say that the ontological proofs—using reason and physical evidence alone—are insufficient to “prove” the existence of God.

    I do not believe that God deceives us with the physical evidence, which points toward a 13.7By age for this universe, and to the common descent of living organisms. I believe that telling God how he should have created this universe (or any others we may discover) is way above my pay grade.

    CbD apparently will never understand the concept of methodological naturalism, nor why it matters to science. Against the evidence of many Christian scientists—evolutionary biologist Francisco Ayala is a Roman Catholic priest!—CbD continues to claim that science is atheistic. What does one say to such willful blindness?

    Here’s a conundrum for CbD to ponder: In my opinion, science will someday “explain” religion and provide an evolutionary basis for it. In my further opinion, such an explanation would make religion stronger, not weaker.

  35. Posted by krissmith777 on June 25, 2010 at 2:22 am

    GAAHHH!!!

    I was just reading my old Creationist comments on the blog — No idea why –
    I feel dumb for ever posting them.

    Don’t feel dfumb. Just as science without testing and change would become moribund, faith without reexamination and change would devolve into fanaticism. .

  36. Olorin,

    CbD apparently will never understand the concept of methodological naturalism, nor why it matters to science. Against the evidence of many Christian scientists—evolutionary biologist Francisco Ayala is a Roman Catholic priest!—CbD continues to claim that science is atheistic. What does one say to such willful blindness?

    Here’s a conundrum for CbD to ponder: In my opinion, science will someday “explain” religion and provide an evolutionary basis for it. In my further opinion, such an explanation would make religion stronger, not weaker.

    As a Christian, I find arguments that are made by “creationbydesign” quite dangerous.

    He just insisted in a more recent comment that Evolution was the groundwork for an atheistic view. . . Creationists (and even some Atheists) that use this kind of logic are really doing more harm than good.

    The creationist that claims that evolution is atheistic is creating a stumbling block for the sincere religious person who does his own inverstigation. . . If this sincere person gets it into his head that evolution leads to Atheism, AND THEN finds all the mountains of evidence that supports evolution, then this poor Christian is going to have an unnecessary crisis of faith. . . And I mean unnecessary. It may even destroy his faith.

    The Creationist view is “God either created THIS WAY (ex nihlo), or he does not exist, or he is a liar.” And also, their view includes a NEED to find evidence of God in science. . . If they find their arguments from design are spurious, then a major “evidence” for faith is shaken. . . .

    Such views are harmful, not only for science, but also for faith.

  37. No, not days or pages. Just three four words: “The laws of nature.”

    Do you believe that you possess an immortal soul that will live forever? If so, which law of nature produced such a thing?

    Evolution does not destroy faith.

    Many atheists believe that it does. I quoted two of them.

    As many as 40% of scientists believe in God, and they ACCEPT the fact of evolution. . .

    About 80% of the American public believes that God exists. Therefore, this should be enough evidence to convince Eelco, right?

    He just insisted in a more recent comment that Evolution was the groundwork for an atheistic view. . .

    I used the term “the Darwinian worldview” not the ambiguous term “evolution”. I also quoted from some prominent evolutionists who said that evolution was the foundation for their atheism.

    Creationists (and even some Atheists) that use this kind of logic are really doing more harm than good.

    What kind of harm are the atheists doing? Many are seeking to destroy religion. So, by using their logic, are they harming their own cause and causing people to become believers?

    Or are you saying that atheists are actually more successful in promoting atheism by pointing out that evolution supports atheism (and therefore this is harmful to faith)?

    The creationist that claims that evolution is atheistic is creating a stumbling block for the sincere religious person who does his own inverstigation. . .

    And you don’t think atheists create a stumbling block?

    The Creationist view is “God either created THIS WAY (ex nihlo), or he does not exist, or he is a liar.”

    That might have been your prior view, but keep in mind that there are many varieties of creationist thought. Many would say that you’re a creationist yourself since you believe that God created the laws of the universe.

    And also, their view includes a NEED to find evidence of God in science. . . If they find their arguments from design are spurious, then a major “evidence” for faith is shaken. . . .

    I don’t find that true for myself. When I read the ridiculous claims of evolutionists my faith actually gets stronger.

  38. Even Christian philosophers say that the ontological proofs—using reason and physical evidence alone—are insufficient to “prove” the existence of God.

    That’s why we call it “faith”. But the point was “evidence which is plausible” (and not something proven absolutely)– which was the standard that Kris gave me for evolutionary speculations.

    I do not believe that God deceives us with the physical evidence … I believe that telling God how he should have created this universe (or any others we may discover) is way above my pay grade.

    Ok, I didn’t realize you were a believer and that you’ve developed theological opinions about what God does or doesn’t do.

    What do you think God created and what evidence do you use to support that? Do you accept that there are sources of information about God that are of a higher quality and quantity than your own personal ideas? Again, if so, which? If not, how did you arrive at that conclusion?

    evolutionary biologist Francisco Ayala is a Roman Catholic priest

    Well, an ex-priest.

    Of course, one can find atheists who believe in God, and people who call themselves Christian who think that God does not really exist.

    But it’s the concept of the Darwinian worldview that I was criticizing, not the views of individuals who may or may not be consistent at all.

    In the Darwinian worldview, there is no ultimate purpose, no spiritual nature of mankind, and therefore no free-will, no immortal soul, no miracles, no resurrection of Christ, etc. Mankind is an accident produced by a blind, indifferent universe that cares nothing for him.

    That’s pretty standard Darwinian thought. I can provide a list of statements from Biology textbooks that make that clear, if you want.

    So again, let’s not confuse micro-evoution, or minor adaptations with the Darwinian worldview which holds that there is no evidence in nature of the influence of a divine being at all.

  39. creationbydesign,

    Do you believe that you possess an immortal soul that will live forever? If so, which law of nature produced such a thing?

    I was raised a Seventh-Day Adventist, who are soul-sleepers, and therefore do not believe in an immortal soul. — I would tend to agree with that particular view, but I see it as unimportant one way or the other.

    Even if I did believe in an immortal soul, it would have no implications on whether or not God used natural processes for everything else. Even if God created X directly, it would not follow that he therefore did so with the rest.

    Many atheists believe that it does. I quoted two of them.

    And interestingly enough, they are a minority opinion. They just shout the loudest.

    I used the term “the Darwinian worldview” not the ambiguous term “evolution”. I also quoted from some prominent evolutionists who said that evolution was the foundation for their atheism.

    That’s really up to them. Most scientists would disagree with the idea that evolution gives any basis for atheism. Stephen Gould (who was an agnostic) said that those who use evolution as a basis for atheism need to find another reason.

    And again, the view that evolution gives a basis for atheism is only a minority view.

    What kind of harm are the atheists doing? Many are seeking to destroy religion. So, by using their logic, are they harming their own cause and causing people to become believers?

    I wouldn’t say they are making people become believers, BUT they are hurting their cause by making many Christians feel defensive, and therefore making them close their minds to the fact of evolution. .

    Or are you saying that atheists are actually more successful in promoting atheism by pointing out that evolution supports atheism (and therefore this is harmful to faith)?

    I don’t get how you even got that I was saying that atheists were “pointing out that evolution supports atheism,” because it does not support atheism.

    And you don’t think atheists create a stumbling block?

    They do, though Creationists only throw more fuel to the fire.

    That might have been your prior view, but keep in mind that there are many varieties of creationist thought. Many would say that you’re a creationist yourself since you believe that God created the laws of the universe.

    Perhaps they would. Creation and evolution are not mutually exclusive.

    I don’t find that true for myself. When I read the ridiculous claims of evolutionists my faith actually gets stronger.

    Really? What claims would you call “ridiculous”?

  40. Posted by Michael on June 25, 2010 at 3:41 am

    Olorin,

    It’s creationist scientists and ID scientists [sic] for many years have been keenly interested in Junk DNA having [sic] functions not the evolutionary community.

    THEN WHY HAVE NO CREATIONISTS EVER GOT OFF THEIR KIESTERS AND LOOKED FOR ANY OF THESE FUNCTIONS?

    One of the most frequent “scientific” claims that cresationists assert is that soi-disant “junk” DNA is actually functional.

    Yet no creationist biologists have ever lifted so much as a petri dish to attempt to find such a function.

    One of the hot issues in evolutionary theory these days is the relative power of natural selection and genetic drift in speciation. Consequently, the past few years have witnessed hundreds of experiments and peer-reviewed papers to advance a resolution to this one question.

    .

    So doesn’t the creationists lack opf interest in confirming this significant claim seem somehow rather strange to you? Or maybe perverse Or even—might we say—dishonest?

    So stop blathering on about discrimination in the mainstream journals, or about lack of resources. Biola, Liberty, and dozens of other Christian colleges—not to mention the Biologic Institute or the Institute for Creation Research—have both the funding and the motivation to fire up a few fume hoods and get down to work on this project. Should they realize some favorable results, Answers in Genesis runs a couple of publications that would bow toward Mecca to get hold of a paper on a new function for junk DNA. You might even persuade the Discovery Institute to awaken Progress in Com0lexity from its 6-year coma.

    I can think of a number of reasons why this will never happen—Let me make a non-scientific prediction: No creationist biologist will ever write a peer-reviewed paper announcing a new function for junk DNA.

    .

    Of course, as I said earlier, the functionality vel non of any DNA was never a prediction of any evolutionary theory, so even finding functions for 100% of it would have no effect on evolution.

    But I’ll give you the chance anyway, Michael. Describe any evolutionary theory that would be falsified by evidence that 100% of human DNA has a function.

    There. Another challenge you can file away and avoid answering. Perhaps that’s why creationists are so dilatory on researching this prediction. They already know it’s a fool’s errand.

  41. Posted by creationbydesign on June 25, 2010 at 4:36 pm

    What do you think God created and what evidence do you use to support that? Do you accept that there are sources of information about God that are of a higher quality and quantity than your own personal ideas? Again, if so, which? If not, how did you arrive at that conclusion?

    My personal belief is centered on God’s relationship with us and with his world. I believe that Jesus Christ gave us the truest picture of that relationship.

    “Creation” and its manner of occurrence is not important. God gave us reason, and we should use it to probe the universe. Perhaps we’ll understand it eventually, perhaps not.

    Remember that the Babylonian Jews who wrote Genesis 1 were attempting to refute their captors’ view that natural phenomena such as storms and lightning and the sea were divine creatures, and acted capriciously according to their separate wills. One of the major purposes of Genesis 1 is to tell us that these material things are not God, but objects that obey laws.

    Genesis 2 was composed much earlier by pastoral Jews. Its purpose is to inform us of the nature of humanity. I think of it as a highly symbolic—in the manner of their times—account of the dawn of human consciousness. Which includes a sense of the divine presence.

    The early church fought centuries-long disputes before arriving at the creed that Jesus was both fully God and fully man, yet this concept is fundamental, I think. What does that mean in terms of the relationship of God to physical materials?

    As to sources of information about God, well, as Paul said, “we see through a glass, darkly.” Coming from the communications area, I might analogize it this way: Each of us has a receiver that detects God’s word. Some receivers are better than others, and the receivers tend to get better with time—or at least more complicated. There were—and still are—a few who garble the message less than others, but no one has the original text. In fact, our minds are probably still incapable of even speaking the language in which it can be expressed.

    Also, I would say that the message differs for each of us. The rigid Hassidic law might be right for some, but not others. A good friend of my daughter speaks in tongues; that’s not for me. I also think that God broadcasts to and works through many different kinds of people—including not a few atheists and agnostics. (One of the best histories of 1stC Christianity I have read was from Free Inquiry, the atheist magazine.)

    As you may have noticed, I have no detailed religious beliefs as to how God dabbles in the physical world. That’s not central for me, and I’ll leave it to the physical evidence.. I do bristle at attempts to distort or deny physical evidence in order to push a religious agenda. And am frequently dismayed by misunderstanding as to the nature and operation of science, which has been close to my career for almost half a century.

    .

    Some of the above is vague, rambling, and/or even inconsistent. I am not a finished productm, and hope never to be.

  42. Olorin said…

    “Creation” and its manner of occurrence is not important. God gave us reason, and we should use it to probe the universe. Perhaps we’ll understand it eventually, perhaps not.”

    When a hypothesis or a ‘theory’ lacks an explanation and experimentation for evidence on origins which has a direct impact on evolutionary natural processes is not good. Lack of specifics holds no practical purpose especially if it’s considered a theory! A story formulated about such things as a Oort cloud that was assumed to be partly a remnant of the sun’s primordial disk that supposedly spewed out material has been studied for 60 years with no results. I wonder how much money was spent on all that research. The reason why scientists have trouble with history is because its not observable, so it comes from man’s imagination, it’s not like studying DNA.

    “And you don’t think atheists create a stumbling block?”

    Dawkins tries to use evolution all the time to sway people to become atheists but it’s interesting even in the informational age, you have people denying that evolution is a stumbling block. It’s like Michael Ruse trying to convince people to reject ID on the basis of theology. Evolution is a stumbling block not only to people’s faiths but also in regards to things like studying non-coding DNA which was largely neglected for many years. It even hinders other evolutionary theories which try and explain things in nature that are not Darwinian.

  43. Krisssmith777

    You say…

    “One more thing, Michael,

    Nobody ever said that RNA CANNOT have some functions at all. Once again, you are attacking a strawman that you do not understand.”

    Then why did the paper admit to neglecting that area for research? You hide beyond a computer and lie and make foolish accusations.

  44. Michael !

    Those questions !!

    If you want to be taken seriously at all, you have to start answering questions.

  45. Michael,

    Then why did the paper admit to neglecting that area for research?

    Didn’t it ever occure to you that rfesearching ‘junk’ DNA was relatively new in many cases, and that that’s why it is news when new functions are found?

    Evolutionary theory NEVER made the claim that “Junk” DNA could nevefr have any function. That is a fact!! — If you want to claim otherwise, give me a scientific, peer-reviewed journal (not Creationist) that shows that that prediction was ever there.
    You can’t? Thought so.

    Now, if you want to say that evolutionary theory predicts that there will be genetic mistakes, then be my guest. But that is a completely different matter

    You hide beyond a computer and lie and make foolish accusations.

    This is funny. You don’t have one lie on me. All you can do is “accuse” when you know you have no case.

    —- As God himself is my witness, I haven’t said anything while knowing it to be a lie.

  46. And Michael,

    One more thing.

    Who are you to accuse me of “hiding” behind a computer? You hide from the most relevant questions made to you.

    And another thing. . .Why are you still hiding from Eelco’s questions and my flagellum challenge?

    It’s okay for you to hide, but not for me? — I’m not hiding at all.

  47. I’m still trying to figure out what Michael is talking about in his comment on June 26, 2010 at 4:29 am.

    I’m thinking that he has completely muddled religious faith with the scientific process—that he doesn’t even understand that they are different, much less what the differences are. One does not explain God in the same way that one explains the the composition or the history of the solar system.

    .

    Michael fisks Dawkins for attempting to use science to disprove the existence of God. Yet Michael himself tries to employ science to prove the existence of God. Guess what, Michael: Sauce for the atheist is sauce for the creationist. Michael apparently can’t see that.

    But Michael has probably not read the recent series on anosognosia in The New York Times[1] People afflicted with this mental condition cannot understand their own limitations. Although the NYT series focuses mostly on ignorance of physical deficits such as blindness, this malady also works to deprive mental incompetents from realizing their own incompetence. Sorry, Michael, for wandering off-topic again.

    ===================

    [1] I stumbled across this concept years ago, from reading Oliver Sacks. book, The Man Who Mistook His Wife for a Hat. Sacks is probably the foremost researcher in the area of cognitive anomalies. .

  48. Olorin,

    “Michael fisks Dawkins for attempting to use science to disprove the existence of God. Yet Michael himself tries to employ science to prove the existence of God. Guess what, Michael: Sauce for the atheist is sauce for the creationist. Michael apparently can’t see that.”

    It really had nothing to do with my comment. Creating a story that is natural in origin about the solar system past is not science. Creating five more questions while trying to answer one, isn’t viewed as understanding nature or the universe better. Try and solve a math problem like that…lol

  49. Michael,

    Why can’t you understand the RNA post on non-coding DNA?

    And you! Why can’t you understand that inherent non-functionality was NEVER a prediction of Evolutionary theory?

    Again, feel free to give me a link to a PEER-reviewed (non-Creationist) paper if you can prove me wrong on that. . . . So far, the only people I see making the claim were Creationists, not scientists.

  50. In response to Michael on June 26, 2010 at 1:04 pm

    Creating a story that is natural in origin about the solar system [sic] past is not science.

    That is exactly what science is. Michael, I truly think there is no hope for you whatsoever. You will never understand what science is all about. Please, please, please do not help your children with their science homework.

    Creating five more questions while trying to answer one, [sic] isn’t viewed as understanding nature or the universe better.

    Well, I thought your first sentence above was the nadir of understanding, but you have sunk below even that. Would someone else care tor try explaining that one? Only in creationism does one answer shut off further questions:: “God did it.” And that answer doesn’t help us much, does it?

    Try and solve a math problem like that…lol

    You mean like the problem that Alfred North Whitehead posed as to the axiomatization of mathematics. Whose solution raised the question—how can we know whether mathematics is complete? Which led to Godel’s Theorem, one of the most important ever. And whose solution raised the question—how can we devise a procedure for proving mathematical theorems. Which led to the invention of computers.

    .

    What a dunce.

  51. Even if I did believe in an immortal soul, it would have no implications on whether or not God used natural processes for everything else. Even if God created X directly, it would not follow that he therefore did so with the rest.

    Here’s how I see it. If God created an immortal soul, then God created something. Now we have the claim that “God didn’t create anything else”.
    Well, in your case, you have God creating all the natural laws, plus the immortal soul.
    To then say that God didn’t create anything else would be a problem. How would you explain it?
    The immortal soul has an impact on nature, and therefore on science.
    This is why most evolutionists do not believe that there is a soul, or life after death.
    Darwin claimed that “everything in nature can be explained by fixed natural laws”.
    That’s the evolutionary claim in its most mainstream formulation.
    Again, once you have God creating things, then we know that claim is false.

  52. Thanks to Orolin for an execellent summary of his personal views on faith and God. I appreciate that.

    My personal belief is centered on God’s relationship with us and with his world. I believe that Jesus Christ gave us the truest picture of that relationship.

    That is very good to hear and I fully share your belief on this.

    “Creation” and its manner of occurrence is not important. God gave us reason, and we should use it to probe the universe.

    Again, I totally agree that God gave us reason and we should use it. But on the question of creation, I dont think we can dismiss it as unimportant. “What God actually created” is significant. The question of “how God created” is of less importance, true. But if God created anything, that has an impact on nature, and therefore on science (and on evoutionary theory).

    The early church fought centuries-long disputes before arriving at the creed that Jesus was both fully God and fully man, yet this concept is fundamental, I think. What does that mean in terms of the relationship of God to physical materials?

    1. It means that there is some relationship
    2. God is involved with physical materials in some way
    3. By definition, God cannot be reduced to a physical substance or the product of laws

    Each of us has a receiver that detects God’s word. Some receivers are better than others, and the receivers tend to get better with time—or at least more complicated. There were—and still are—a few who garble the message less than others, but no one has the original text. In fact, our minds are probably still incapable of even speaking the language in which it can be expressed.

    I will assume that you have found that there are some receivers who are better than you are. From that, I accept that you’ve found a way to determine how one is better or not.

    As you may have noticed, I have no detailed religious beliefs as to how God dabbles in the physical world. That’s not central for me, and I’ll leave it to the physical evidence..

    Again, it’s not “how” but “whether” God “dabbled” at all. You are affirming (I think) that God has dabbled in the physical world. You mentioned that Jesus is (as he said he is) God and man.
    Or we could talk about an immortal soul, which cannot be the product physical laws. So, here’s where the physical evidence falls short — and the broadest, most sweeping claims of evolutionary theory fall short in the same way.

    Some of the above is vague, rambling, and/or even inconsistent. I am not a finished productm, and hope never to be.

    That is understood. I’m certainly not trying to criticize or undermine your faith. I accept that you have good reasons and you give this some considerable thought. You make some subtle distinctions and have found truths from a variety of sources (as I see it) — so all of that is good.

    But I’ll just offer this — there may be more inconsistencies in your defense of evolutionary theory and your statements of faith than it might seem. I think it’s important to look at evolutionary speculations and recognize that there could be other ways to view the data (e.g. the ID perspective) which may in fact be closer to the truth.

    Thank again for a very thoughtful response — I found that very helpful and worthwhile.

  53. CbD, only one (extended!) remark on your comment of 27, 2010 at 9:51 am.

    But I’ll just offer this — there may be more inconsistencies in your defense of evolutionary theory and your statements of faith than it might seem. I think it’s important to look at evolutionary speculations and recognize that there could be other ways to view the data (e.g. the ID perspective) which may in fact be closer to the truth.

    Ten years ago, the question of evolution was far from my mind. I accepted the scientific view because it was, well, accepted. I had no background in biology, not even a high-school course. MY background was in computers and communications.

    Then, about 8 years ago, I was given a bunch of bioinformatics inventions to write up as patent applications—even the PhD biologist attorneys at my firm go pale at the thought of computers. So I had to learn a lot about biology in a very short tuime. It turned out to be very interesting.

    A little later, Phillip Johnson’s book Darwin on Trial piqued an interest in intelligent design. So, in connection with my autodidactic biology education for professional reasons, I looked at a lot of research on evolution. What I found blew my mind—a picture of life unfolding in grandeur over billions of years, a panoply of gradual increments that could produce stupendous change. How the pieces seemed to fit together, at multiple levels and from many different fields. AND how every discovery led to new investigations at different levels.

    Not that there are no problems with evolutionary theories. Scientists criticize each others’ theories mercilessly. Open warfare sometimes breaks out between the adaptationists and the mutationists. A complex as the genome is, finding the interactions among its components is even more daunting. Yet, despite the disagreements, despite the wrong turns, the overall structure of evolution remains surprisingly intact.

    Another recent interest is the new and burgeoning field of complex-system theory. Amazingly, it is a general property of complex systems–in every field—that they evolve. They evolve in ways very similar to those of biological organisms. And they evolve in ways that are very different from ways that human-designed artifacts change.

    At the same time, the more I learn about intelligent design, the emptier it appears. ID has no viable theory, and therefore no tests. And, most importantly, even if it be true, it evokes no understanding, no usefulness—and hence no value. In addition, ID has become a dishonest political movement, rather than a scientific pursuit. Even Stephen Meyer’s popular-press writings on “information” are vague and rely entirely upon arguments from ignorance. Actually, I might credit ID a little, if it were not for the dishonesty. I feel that biblical creationists have also passed the point of apologetics into intellectual dishonesty—to the point that every source, every quotation, every inference must be checked for accuracy before even considering its validity.

    .

    So that’s the story. Diving into the actual evidence, including a number of primary papers, moved me from indifference to strong acceptance of evolution. And following the ID movement for a number of years has convinced me more and more that it is not only wrong, but vacuous and dishonest as well.

    Oh, yeah. One other thing. Since my half-century career involves working closely with research scientists from astronomy to zoology, I have developed an interest in the practice of science—might I even say the philosophy of science. How scientists think, how they work, what kinds of theories they find reasonable, what persuasive evidence consists of. This experience seems to allow me to fit new knowledge into a framework to determine whether or not it is reasonable according to scientific norms. That’s why looking at some of Michael’s interpretations of new discoveries so often produces an immediate feeling of revulsion. Does he know he’s doing it, or is his ignorance so pervasive that he doesn’t even realize how far off the mark he is? That’s the point of the continuing question as to his qualifications.

  54. creationbydesign,

    Here’s how I see it. If God created an immortal soul, then God created something. Now we have the claim that “God didn’t create anything else”.
    Well, in your case, you have God creating all the natural laws, plus the immortal soul.

    Not in my case. . . Remember, I DO NOT believe the soul is “immortal.” I’,m a “soul-sleeper. I believe that when we die, out souls also become unconcious until the resurrection. — If our souls were immortal, there would be no need for a resurrection of the dead because we would already be in heaven. . . Get my point?

    To then say that God didn’t create anything else would be a problem. How would you explain it?

    The fact that I do not believe that the soul is immortal really makes this argument against me useless. — Perhaps he did create an “immortal soul,” it makes no difference to me in the long run. But even if he did, there is no problem here because the soul would be “intangible,” and there are no genetics or mutation involved in it (to my knowledge anyway) so the objections one way or the other would not apply. — Either way, there is no problem here.

    Besides, it’s a gross oversimplification to say “God created X, so therefore he HAD TO have created Y.”

  55. (I fixed formatting — Michael, feel free to delete previous).

    Kris,

    Not in my case. . . Remember, I DO NOT believe the soul is “immortal.” I’,m a “soul-sleeper. I believe that when we die, out souls also become unconcious until the resurrection. — If our souls were immortal, there would be no need for a resurrection of the dead because we would already be in heaven. . . Get my point?

    Two points. First – “immortal” means that they will live forever. I’m not familiar enough with SDA theology, but I think you believe that the soul will not one day stop existing, right? So, that’s an immortal soul.

    Secondly, even if I’m wrong about that — you haven’t addressed a question I asked a long time ago. You assert that a soul exists. It will be unconscious (but still exist) after death and then have a resurrection.

    I asked you: “What natural laws caused your soul to emerge from matter and physical laws?” Normally, we would say that natural laws cannot create infinite and non-natural (spiritual) essences. So, another way to ask it is if God created your soul or not. If not, what evolutionary path and molecular mutations caused your soul to exist and where is the scientific evidence that it will live after death and be resurrected?

    Again, normally the soul is, by definition, a spiritual substance. It cannot be the product of evolution. But if you see it differently, how do you explain the origin of the soul?

    Perhaps he did create an “immortal soul,” it makes no difference to me in the long run.

    Well, I think it makes a huge difference because first of all, you claimed that the only things God created were the natural laws. Now, however, we have God creating the soul. The soul interacts with nature, in nature. So, God intervened in nature — in human beings. Where is the evolutionary explanation that accounts for this?

    Besides, it’s a gross oversimplification to say “God created X, so therefore he HAD TO have created Y.”

    X influences Y. God created X. Therefore, God influenced Y. Since God created X, he had to have an impact on Y.
    That’s the conflict. The human soul possesses the spiritual powers that define human beings. That is the classical Western philosophical and theological position.

    We should then ask about free-will. The free-will is a “feature” of the rational soul of man. If we have the rational freedom to choose alternatives, then this cannot be determined by evolutionary processes. If it was, then it wouldn’t be free will. It would just be evolution dictating what people will do. We wouldn’t choose, we would just move according to the arrangement of mutations that we possess.

  56. Orolin,

    Thanks for an interesting reflection on your personal journey through these issues. I can understand your view and it is obviously well-considered.

    My reaction though brings us back to your belief in God and in the divinity of Christ. That’s where I noticed the inconsistency (and again, I fully accept that we all will struggle for knowledge on spiritual mysteries and the nature of God, etc).

    So, I’m not getting at the proofs for evolution but the conflicts that have to be reconciled.
    These are two of the most significant that I can see:

    1. The existence and origin of an immortal soul (which will live on forever after death).
    2. The existence and origin of free will in human beings

    Most evolutionists (especially since the majority of atheists) deny that there is an immortal soul or free will. When human life on earth ends, that is the end (see Dawkins, Provine, Dennett, Sagan, Monod, G. G. Simpson). Additionally, natural, evolutionary processes determine human behavior. There is no free will and therefore no true moral choices possible.

    Let me summarize my views on what modern evolutionary biology tells us loud and clear … There are no gods, no purposes, no goal-directed forces of any kind. There is no life after death. When I die, I am absolutely certain that I am going to be dead. That’s the end for me. There is no ultimate foundation for ethics, no ultimate meaning to life, and no free will for humans, either.’
    William Provine, Origins Research 16(1), p.9, 1994.

    I’ll suggest this last problem which may be relevant, depending on how you read and interpret the New Testament. Romans 1:20 seems to me to be the most obvious scientific/theological interaction in the Bible (or I’ll say the strongest evidence of it).

    For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities–his eternal power and divine nature–have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

    This is merely saying that the evidence of design that we see is real. There is evidence of an intelligent plan to be found in the structure of nature.

    Dawkins and Susskind, among many other atheists admit this. They recognize that nature does appear to have been designed, but they say that this is an illusion.

    Another recent interest is the new and burgeoning field of complex-system theory. Amazingly, it is a general property of complex systems–in every field—that they evolve. They evolve in ways very similar to those of biological organisms. And they evolve in ways that are very different from ways that human-designed artifacts change.

    This may be true, but if so, doesn’t it cause a problem in where these systems obtained the property of self-organization? In other words, doesn’t a tendency towards organization leave something more unexplained?

    ID has no viable theory, and therefore no tests.

    We know there are many scientific efforts underway to falsify ID claims. We have discussed some of them on this blog. In the same way, evolutionary narratives cannot be lab-tested. This doesn’t stop anyone from calling them a valid theory. They can be falsified, but not tested. The same is true of ID.

    And, most importantly, even if it be true, it evokes no understanding, no usefulness—and hence no value.

    I think you’re underestimating the effect of your premise here. If it be true it has a massive impact. In the very first place, it would be the truth. That itself has value. The same is said about arcane matters of evolutionary speculation — the only value they have is that “we’ve learned something true about nature”. In the case of ID, you have to put yourself in a new mind-set. Truly imagine what the impact would be on the world of academia – or science in particular, and society “if it were true”. It would be a massive sea-change and I don’t think we could even estimate the impact. After that, many discoveries could flow from the truth. If a Designer truly was at work, would we look at nature differently?

    ID has become a dishonest political movement, rather than a scientific pursuit.

    When I speak about ID I am not talking about political positions. I don’t see that as having any relevance to the discussion, myself.

  57. creationbydesign,

    . So, another way to ask it is if God created your soul or not. If not, what evolutionary path and molecular mutations caused your soul to exist and where is the scientific evidence that it will live after death and be resurrected?

    I already said that the said that the soul is NOT physical, and doesn’t have anything tangible for natural selection and mutation. . . I said, “…the soul would be “intangible,” and there are no genetics or mutation involved in it (to my knowledge anyway) so the objections one way or the other would not apply. “ I already answered your question. Evolution would not apply, because natural selection and mutation cannot apply on something that has no tangible substance.

    The existence of the soul cannot be tested by science. So, it just doesn’t apply to science at all.

    X influences Y. God created X. Therefore, God influenced Y. Since God created X, he had to have an impact on Y.

    You just argued in favor of one of my own basic points. One impacts the other. God created the laws of physics which lead to the formation of the universe, and ultimately the formation of the first living cell which evolved into the diversity of life we have today. God need not have done EVERYTHING directly. God still gets the credit, even if it was indirect. All he had to do is start the process, NOT keep creating directly.

  58. creationbydesign,

    We know there are many scientific efforts underway to falsify ID claims. We have discussed some of them on this blog.

    Falsified. That’s why 97% of scientists do not take it seriously, 40% of who are Christians and ARE NOT EVEN naturalists. — Francis Collins accepts evolution, and he is not even a naturalist.

    In the same way, evolutionary narratives cannot be lab-tested.

    You are mistaken. Evolution HAS been observed in the lab. A good example is experiments on e-coli in temperature experiments. They were shown to be more improved fitness when compared with their ancestor.

    The experiment had these results:

    Adaptation of the groups to temperature was measured by improvement in fitness relative to the ancestor, as estimated by competition experiments. All four experimental groups showed improved relative fitness in their own thermal environment (direct response of fitness) … No necessary tradeoff between direct and correlated responses of fitness was apparent: for example, the improved fitness of the 42°C group at 42°C was not accompanied by a loss of fitness at 37°C or 32°C

    Here’s the link: http://www.d.umn.edu/~jetterso/documents/BennettandLenski1992.pdf

  59. Orolin,

    You say, “You have put your ignorance on public display again, Michael. “Random chance” has nothing to do with whether selection acts. The reason natural selection does not act on a pseudogene is that the gene either has already lost its function, or it is part of a cascade in which a different gene no longer performs its function.”

    Your conclusion is faulty, for one thing, the new discovery was about pseudogenes having a very important function that was overlooked because it was assumed it didn’t have one. So there were no loss of functions by pseudogenes.

    As far as chance. Selection cannot act upon what isn’t there. Mutation rates are usually very low and do not decide what new information is going to be made for example, new information that could build a repair mechanism for DNA for natural selection to act upon. Biological systems go to extraordinary lengths to keep mutations as low as possible, mostly because many mutational effects are harmful. This is why necessity was added to chance. But nature and the universe is an engineered design with a purpose by intelligence.

  60. Michael,

    Your conclusion is faulty, for one thing, the new discovery was about pseudogenes having a very important function that was overlooked because it was assumed it didn’t have one. So there were no loss of functions by pseudogenes.

    I fail to see your point by your mentioning this. It is true that function has been known to arise in pseudogenes. That is indisputable. But it was never a Darwinian prediction that there could be no function at all.

    . . . But the fact remains that there are many pseudogenes that are neither non-functional or sub-functional. . . But, so what?

  61. Kirssmith777,

    Let me quote for you again what makes this discovery of functioning pseudogenes very important that was largely neglected by evolutionary theory, “This newly discovered function in RNA unrelated to protein production is vital in fighting tumors!” You see my point!

    “I fail to see your point by your mentioning this. It is true that function has been known to arise in pseudogenes. That is indisputable. But it was never a Darwinian prediction that there could be no function at all.”

    Wrong again, I quote this time from the study itself…

    “Pseudogenes, for instance, have been viewed as non-essential genomic elements and have mostly been ignored. Well, they shouldn’t be anymore, according to Poliseno and colleagues, who show a clear functional relationship between the tumour-suppressor gene PTEN and its pseudogene PTENP1 (Fig. 1).”

  62. Michael,

    You seem to have bad reading comprehension. . . I asked you twice, and I’ll ask you again . . . WHERE DID YOU GET THE IDEA THAT THIS REFUTES ANY DARWINIAN PREDICTION?? — You still haven’t answered me there.

    I want the source for that idea of yours, because not even your quote mining shows that.

    And I can show you other studies which actually show pseudogenes that gained function BECAUSE of evolution!! In other words, this doesn’t harm evolution at all. — Gene duplication, for example, causes pseudogenes in many cases and causes non-functionalization, and sub-functionalization, and even novel neo-funtionalization:

    http://www.umich.edu/~zhanglab/publications/2003/Zhang_2003_TIG_18_292.pdf

  63. Kriss,

    That study in which you quote from 2003, has nothing to do with the lack of study with pseudogenes which was considered “junk DNA” and was largely ignored by evolutionary studies for further study. My opening statement, said…“Pseudogenes are regarded in the evolutionary world that has value with history and claims of being good genes at one point in time then by random chance natural selection didn’t act upon them anymore. However, advancements in science say otherwise…”My implication is not about predictions per say but assumptions in this case with pseudogenes. If you have been truly following studies on pseudogenes, there is very little!

    Again as stated in Science Daily quoted in my original post…

    “Pseudogenes, for instance, have been viewed as non-essential genomic elements and have mostly been ignored. Well, they shouldn’t be anymore, according to Poliseno and colleagues, who show a clear functional relationship between the tumour-suppressor gene PTEN and its pseudogene PTENP1 .”

    Other than Poliseno, you have yet to post studies that indicate with predictions that pseudogenes will have functions and did obtain functions from the past and also present evidence for it, not just “stuff happens” explanation after the new discovery on it was made.

  64. Michael,

    That study in which you quote from 2003, has nothing to do with the lack of study with pseudogenes which was considered “junk DNA” and was largely ignored by evolutionary studies for further study.

    -hits self in the head- Are you really this dense?!?! — You obviously haven’t read the paper really well, because it does talk about pseudogenes and the function and lack there of as a result of gene duplication!!!!

    — I simply made that point BECAUSE you were making the assertion that “pseodogenes” being non-functional was an inherent claim of evolutionary theory when you said . I was simply adding that detail about “psedogenes” because you yourself made the topic relevant when you started talking about pseudogenes rather than just junk-DNA per se.

    It doesn’t matter if it doesn’t talk about the pseudogenes that are covered in the Nature paper. — THE POINT I was making was that functionalization of pseudogenes IS A RESULT of evolution!!!!!! And that is mentioned in the paper which I should know because I read it multiple times.

    My implication is not about predictions per say but assumptions in this case with pseudogenes.

    In that case, there is not much point in you trying to debunk something that isn’t considered a “prediction.”

    Other than Poliseno, you have yet to post studies that indicate with predictions that pseudogenes will have functions and did obtain functions from the past and also present evidence for it, not just “stuff happens” explanation after the new discovery on it was made.

    Uhhh, when did I say it was a “prediction” of evolutionary theory that pseudogenes would have function? — It is not a prediction one way or the other. It wouldn’t harm or hurt evolution one way or the other. . . THAT WAS MY OVER ALL POINT!!!!!

    But, if you want exaples of Pseodogenes that actually “gained” function, I would cite the ECP and the EDN. — The ECP is usefull for controlong Asthma, and also it is toxic to bacteria. . . . The EDN is usefull against viral infections. . . These were pseudogenes (would have been considered “junk” at one point) that were produced by gene duplication, and now they are fully finctional. . . That is through a major mechanism for evolution, gain of function through mutation. — So, no. Functional pseudogenes do not hurt evolutionary theory at all . . Those two exaples I just gave HELP a lot because they are NEW FUNCTIONS gained my mutation.

  65. Michael,

    How is this for a good wake up call:

    From a paper on pseudogenes:

    Apparent pseudogenes could possibly retain full or partial activity or could gain new functions.

    Link: http://www.ecogene.org/topic.php?topic_id=207

    Get that, Michael??????????

    They can retain full function, AND EVEN GAIN function!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1

    How is that for proof that your assumtions on them are wrong?!?!?!?!?

  66. Kriss,

    “Apparent pseudogenes could possibly retain full or partial activity or could gain new functions.”

    The apparent letter Z is “spontaneously generated” could be a letter B (within protein function) but also it could be C (outside protein function), so you you say this is evidence…lol…Just saying it can happen doesn’t mean it does! I asked for hard evidence not “stuff happens.” Where are the studies that they were testing for function in non-coding pseudogenes? How pseudogenes arisen and identifying them as “true” pseudogenes is a different topic.

  67. Michael,

    Just saying it can happen doesn’t mean it does!

    That’s a poor cop-out excuse, and you know it.

    I asked for hard evidence not “stuff happens.”

    I already gave hard evidence when I mentioned the ECP and the EDN genes to you!!! — Perhaps you missed it? I’ll just quote myself from the comment I cited them on:

    I would cite the ECP and the EDN. — The ECP is usefull for controlong Asthma, and also it is toxic to bacteria. . . . The EDN is usefull against viral infections. . . These were pseudogenes (would have been considered “junk” at one point) that were produced by gene duplication, and now they are fully finctional. . . That is through a major mechanism for evolution, gain of function through mutation. — So, no. Functional pseudogenes do not hurt evolutionary theory at all . . Those two exaples I just gave HELP a lot because they are NEW FUNCTIONS gained my mutation.

    I cannot emphesize enough that both the ECP and the EDN were “junk” at one point, and that THEY ARE FULLY FUNCTIONAL NOW. They have “new” functions.

    Where are the studies that they were testing for function in non-coding pseudogenes

    You know what, Michael? I find it very amusing that you are challenging me to produce “proof” for a claim . . . WHEN YOU STILL HAVEN’T ANSWERED EELCO’S questions, and also when you haven’t answered MY challenge on the reducibility on the bacterial flagellum. — Tell you what! If you answer Eelco’s questions, and my flagellum challenge, I’ll be more inclined to answer you. . . . I mean, fair is fair, right? And I’ll answer if you finally do Eelco that courtesy, and take on my flagellum challenge. (I’ll do it).

  68. Michael, if you do (finally) answer those outstanding questions, I’ll answer your question on the Oort cloud as well, as promised.

  69. Francis Collins accepts evolution, and he is not even a naturalist.

    Francis Collins believes that God created the human mind (that the mind is not reducible to evolutionary processes). So, he is a creationist. So, when you condemn creationists you condemn yourself (you already agreed that you could be considered a creationist) and Francis Collins.

    You’re causing confusion with the use of the term “evolution” as an undefined entity. That is ambiguous.

  70. I said:

    In the same way, evolutionary narratives cannot be lab-tested.

    You are mistaken. Evolution HAS been observed in the lab.

    I shoud have been more clear. The evolutionary narrative which spans from the origin of life (or just after) to the present day, cannot be tested.

    You cannot take the history of the earth and test it in a lab.

  71. “You cannot take the history of the earth and test it in a lab.”

    But you can certainly dig in the earth, and read off its history. The fossil record is pretty convincing, these days (see Prothero’s wonderful book on this).

    You could also simulate the history of the earth, although that is quite an ambitious project …

  72. I said:

    In the same way, evolutionary narratives cannot be lab-tested.

    Wrong. They are tested all the time.

    Remember that the purpose of a historical narrative (as opposed to a just-so story) is to provide a means for testing alternative hypotheses[1]. For example, an evolutionary narrative holds that humans and apes descended from a common ancestor who lived about 6Mya, while the creationist narrative asserts a separate creation of humans and apes about 6kya.

    One test to distingu8ish between the two narratives is tha age of human fossils. Creationism says no fossils older than about 6ky, while evolution says there are fossils dating back millions of years. Although radioisotope dating methods must be applied with care, the evidence for the evolutionary model is overwhelming.

    Creationism predicts that there are no intermediate fossils between humans and apes, evolution just the opposite. H. erectus, H. ergaster, and many other intermediates have been found. Ar. ramidus has a foot that is smack-dab halfway between ape prehensile and modern human bipedal. Although creationists claim that distinguishing “human” from “ape-like” fossils is simple, there are fossils that even they disagree as to which “kind’ they should be placed in.

    Biblical creationists look to Genesis, and find that Adam and Eve, the first humans ever, had fire, agriculture, and domesticated animals; and their first children, at least, had metals. Evolution predicts that these arts are gradually acquired over a long period. What do we find? Fossils that all creationists accept as human, yet none of them had any domesticated animals, and were exclusive hunter-gatherers, with no planted crops. And almost no prehistorical humans worked metals.

    We could go on, with evidence from chromosome fusion to citric-acid cycles, to color vision, and many more. (And,, of course, I have not even touched upon physics and astronomical evidence for age of the Earth.)

    One thing we know is that the creationist narrative has never produced any positive evidence, nor successfully predicted any result that is inconsistent with evolution.

    So, should we not “follow the evidence wherever it leads?”

    ====================

    [1] See, e.g., Auyang, “Foundations odf Complex-System Theories,” p.332:

    ” The natures of narratives and just-so stories are diametrically opposite. In historical narratives, theory is always subordinate to evidence. In just-so stories, it is the other way around…. The burden of the narrative is to weigh competing models and show that one is ore appropriate in view of the evidence.

  73. creationbydesign,

    Francis Collins believes that God created the human mind (that the mind is not reducible to evolutionary processes). So, he is a creationist. So, when you condemn creationists you condemn yourself (you already agreed that you could be considered a creationist) and Francis Collins.

    You’re causing confusion with the use of the term “evolution” as an undefined entity. That is ambiguous.

    No, it’s not confusing. The definition od evolution is the biological change they went through AFTER life first appeared. Anyone who understand evolution knows that.

    In the same way, evolutionary narratives cannot be lab-tested.

    I shoud have been more clear. The evolutionary narrative which spans from the origin of life (or just after) to the present day, cannot be tested.

    You cannot take the history of the earth and test it in a lab.

    That’s what the fossil record is for.

    The fossil record shows unicellularlife first, and multi-cellular, animal life 100 million years before the cambrian “short fuse.” — Bilaterian life appeared 40 to 55 years before the cambrian, and then we have transitional fossils between 17,000 species of trilobites.

    And after that, we have many transitions between fish and ambians in the Devonion period such as Hynerpeton; Tulerpeton; Ichthyostega; Acanthostega, and Tiktaalik.

    There are many more. — We know the order in which they came because of radiometric dating.

    As Eelco said, just read Donald Prothero’s book.

  74. Olorin,

    You say, Wrong. They are tested all the time.

    The past is neither observable nor testable especially when one claims billions of years. There is no way to validate the results that are based on assumptions of the unknown. Take space exploration for example, how many times were predictions falsified? These predictions came from their labs that tested for supposed conditions through assumptions. The earth’s past with assumed age of billions of years is even more unknown because we can’t send a spaceship back to it to make observations.

    The lab hasn’t produced life from dead-chemicals because no new information was created so the lab with it’s controlled setting and energy to try and spark life into existence (unlike nature) has not produced the results that evolution requires. And it’s funny how you try and validate evolution with testing because one can test for irreducible complexity and purpose in nature too.

  75. Kriss,

    My point you seem to miss and the lack of studies your unable to produce is telling. If the evolution ‘theory’ had predicted functional non-coding pseudogenes there would have been a substantial amount that you could have pointed to. But as science daily pointed out, “Pseudogenes, for instance, have been viewed as non-essential genomic elements and have mostly been ignored.” So many scientists were not expecting function therefore did not study it for that purpose, thus prediction falsified!

    Creationists and ID have pushed for more research into non-coding areas for years because we believe more functions exist than what is predicted by evolutionary ‘theory.’ After a pattern of new functions found so far, evolutionists should not be surprised to find new functions rather start looking for it more.

  76. The claim is that one organism evolved from another. That’s the theory.

    Now test it. Find the one organism and show it evolving into the other.

    Fossils do not evolve. The only change they show is decay.

    Again, a historical narrative is a story. It is based on some data but it is not merely the documentation of something observed experimentally.

    We have data that proves Julius Caesar existed and that he did things. Historians then create a narrative seeking to explain what he did in his life. There are gaps in the narrative that they fill with assumptions based on the data that they have.

    We have even stronger data about the life of Christ, for example. We can build narratives based on the facts that we have to prove His resurrection. We can find this to be plausible and convincing. We can evaluate the evidence, but we cannot show what actually happened without returning to the past. We cannot replay the actual history in the science lab. Simulations are what they are — a model which can only represent an idea, not show the actual event.

    If this is what you mean by “testing” then ID is very testable.
    We find data and evidence. We build an ID-narrative. We test it by seeking to discover natural processes can produce DNA language and molecular machines without the need for an intelligent agent. If this fails, then the ID proposal stands.

  77. Orolin,

    In case you missed it in my post on June 27, 2010 at 8:16 pm …
    Please reconcile your views on these issues:

    … your belief in God and in the divinity of Christ.

    and

    1. The existence and origin of an immortal soul (which will live on forever after death).
    2. The existence and origin of free will in human beings

    Do you believe that human beings possess an immortal soul?
    Do you believe that human beings possess free will?

    If so, what are the origins of those features?
    If not, how do you reconcile that with Christianity?

    Finally, what, precisely did God create and how do you know?

  78. The fossil record shows unicellularlife first, and multi-cellular, animal life 100 million years before the cambrian “short fuse.” — Bilaterian life appeared 40 to 55 years before the cambrian, and then we have transitional fossils between 17,000 species of trilobites.

    This says nothing about how they evolved. What are the biochemical pathways that explain what you’ve described here? How many mutations were required and how, precisely, did they change the function of the pre-cambrian organisms to the post-cambrian?

    Stating that things “appeared” is not the result of an empirical lab test. Claiming that something is a “transisitonal” is a speculative claim. Testing that claim requires a demonstration of one of those organism transitioning to the other.

  79. “Pseudogenes, for instance, have been viewed as non-essential genomic elements and have mostly been ignored.”

    That is right. They “have been viewed”. In other words, scientific claims were made. Those claims have been falsified.

    Here’s a good example from 2005 at Dover Kitzmiller:

    It doesn’t work. It’s a pseudogene, and a pseudogene is recognized as a gene because it’s so similar to the other five in its DNA sequence, but it has some mistakes. It’s broken, and it has a series of molecular errors that render the gene non-functional.

    It’s just a mess.

    Now, the reason that this is important in evolution is actually very simple, and that is, these errors appear in a gene, they have no functional purpose.

    KEN MILLER
    Dover Transcript, 2005
    http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/day1am2.html

    (I quote from talk origins only because they can’t be suspected of bias in favor of creationism.)

  80. “Pseudogenes, for instance, have been viewed as non-essential genomic elements and have mostly been ignored.”

    Non-essential is not the same as non-functional !

  81. “Fossils do not evolve. The only change they show is decay.”

    That is a willfully ignorant statement …

  82. creationbydesign,

    This says nothing about how they evolved. What are the biochemical pathways that explain what you’ve described here? How many mutations were required and how, precisely, did they change the function of the pre-cambrian organisms to the post-cambrian?

    How they evolved is not the point. The fossil record DOES show that they DID evolve. — Not knowing how something works is not evidence (fossil evidence, in this case) that it does NOT work. —- We don’t understand completely how gravity works, but that doesn’t refute the fact that it DOES work.

    Stating that things “appeared” is not the result of an empirical lab test.

    Doy!!!!!! — It wasn’t meant to be. — But it STILL is a statement of fact because at one point, certain species do not appear, and then they do. — That’s a fact. It needs no lab test.

    Claiming that something is a “transisitonal” is a speculative claim. Testing that claim requires a demonstration of one of those organism transitioning to the other.

    The test fot that is to use radiometric dating to see when a certain species appears in relation to another that are obviously related to eachother. For example, we know that Tiktaalik appears before Acanthostega. Also, Austalopithecus afarensis appears before Australopithecus africanus.

    Also, Homo erectus appears before Homo heidelbergensis, which appears before both Homo neandertalensis and Homo sapiens. — Now, does this prove that these hominid species gave rise to OUR species? — No, not exactly, BUT they do appear in the fossil record before Homo sapiens (out species) AND they HAVE transitional traits between modern humans and ape-like animals. . And that is a successful prediction that evolutionary theory makes.

    When species (that are obviously related to eachother) appear in a sequence to eachother in differing geological moments, that indicates that te older ones possibly gave rise to the younger ones. — There are several examples of this. Human evolution is one great example. — BUT there is also the evolution of the elephant. Deinotherium and gomphotherium are OBVIOUSLY related just by looking at their appearance, BUT they have differences that can ONLY be related by MACRO-change. — Also, the differences those particular species with OTHER elephant species when compared to Stegotetrabelodon, the mammoth and the African elephant can only be explained by MACRO-evolution because plenty of the differences ARE macro.

    Another good example is the evolution of the horned dinosaurs (the family that Triceratops is in). — Though SOME of the differences can be explained as microevolution, the further you go, the changes become even more different very gradually. . . The differences between Triceratops and Totosaurus would be considered “micro.” — HOWEVER, the difference that Triceratops has with Ptotoceratops would be MACRO.

    Now, do i know the mutations that lead to these groups evolving? No! — But that doesn’t refute the evidence from the fossil record that they DID evolve. — They appear in different moments in time relative to eachother, and each species shows differences from the FORMER RELATED species that preceeded them. That itself can only be explained by evolution.

  83. Michael,

    My point you seem to miss and the lack of studies your unable to produce is telling.

    I told you: I will only indulge you IF you answer Eelco’s questions and my challenge on the flagellum. — The fact YOU keep avoiding that TO ME is telling.

    -sighs- The fact that scientists are producing papers about newluy discovered function itself is all the proof you need that scientists are testing for function. That should be good enough to answer you.

    And the fact that you completely ignored my examples of pseudogenes GAINING function BY evolution is equally telling.

    Creationists and ID have pushed for more research into non-coding areas for years because we believe more functions exist than what is predicted by evolutionary ‘theory.’

    And yet, Creationists cannot get off their behinds to do the research themselves. The studies comming out about function of pseudogenes are produced by Scientists. — Creationists have not produced anything in this subject.

  84. Micael,

    Maybe I should re-word my objection.

    Even IF it were a perception among scientists that “Junk” dna had no finction, how does that disprove or hurt evolutionary theory when function is found? — You may produce statements from scientists saying that it is “thought to be functionless” or “junk.” — BUT you haven’t produced ANY statement from ANY scientist saying “For evolution to be true, ‘Junk’ DNA and Pseudogenes shouldn’t have ANY function.” — Those are two completely different things, and you shouldn’t confuse them.

    Again, I repeat to make my point all the more clearer: You haven’t produced ANY statement from ANY scientist saying “For evolution to be true, ‘Junk’ DNA and Pseudogenes shouldn’t have ANY function.” — Those are two completely different things, and you shouldn’t confuse them.

    I actually went back to 4 years ago, and I found a statement by a scientist (Howard Hershey) saying he had no problem with pseudogenes having function:

    “I have no problem with a duplicate protein having some biological activity. I have no problem with pseudogenes having certain types of biological activity.”

    Link: http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/2008_03.html

    Think for a moment! Howard Hershey made that statement BEFORE much of the research was made. So, EVEN IF it was a perception that pseudogenes were functionless, IT IS NOT A NECESSITY to confirm or deny evolutionary theory.

    And here’s a scientific discussion about “junk” dna and function:

  85. Posted by creationbydesign on June 28, 2010 at 1:28 pm

    “Pseudogenes, for instance, have been viewed as non-essential genomic elements and have mostly been ignored.”

    That is right. They “have been viewed”. In other words, scientific claims were made. Those claims have been falsified.

    Creationbydesign does not understand how scientific theories work.

    Non-functionality of certain stretches of DNA was never a “claim” or a “prediction” of any evolutionart theory. It is consistent with evolution, but was never thought by anyone to be essential. In fact, that was why it received less attention—precisely because the issue was immaterial to evolutionary research.

    .

    Do I love traffic lights![1] My extensive research into traffic control has revealed that red lights cause cars to stop, and green lights allow them to proceed.[2]

    Another researcher, wishing to confirm and extend my work, notices that the periods of red and green lights seem not to be constant. He thinks that variations in the durations of the lights can be explained by the flow of traffic that passes them. He conducts experiments, and finds a strong correlation between the volume of traffic and the duration of the lights, and that different volumes produce different lengths of red and green lights. He publishes a paper in the Journal of Theoretical Roadways, and receives an Ig Noble prize.

    Soon an anomaly appears. Certain lights vary, but not always in proportion to traffic through their intersection. Another scientist, spurred onward by the paper in the JTR, discovers that the apparent anomaly can be explained by a linkage between multiple traffic lights. That the problem at the second light occurs when a large portion of the vehicles passing through the first light turn off onto another street before reaching the second light.[3]

    However, a group of zealots believe that a Supreme Traffic Controller designed traffic lights, and sets their durations according to His ineffable will. They dispute the–by then—mainstreet theory of Traffic Sensing (TS). Their belief is based upon the introduction to a book on traffic control written in 1896, that does not mention traffic lights. Their evidence is based upon scientists’ lack of knowledge as to how traffic lights appeared from inanimate glass and steel, and that the information required to sense traffic flow is far greater than the capacity of a stupid bulb on a stick.

    Traffic scientists had long known about yellow lights, but most had thought they were irrelevant to the theory of traffic sensing, or even traffic control. Then another mainstreet scientist discovered that yellow lights did sometimes influence traffic speeds. The effect was puzzling, because sometimes yellow lights slowed the cars, other times the cars sped up. Yellow lights always preceded a red light;[4] but was this a “function” or not? Eventually, it was decided, through further observation, that the effect was real. After replication in northern Italy (see Note [1], infra), the JTR published the paper.

    The very day the JTR hit the newsstands in Buxom, Mississippi, the acolytes of STCism stayed up past their bedtime, hooting to all and sundry that the discovery of a function for yellow lights slathered egg yolk on the faces of the evil[5] Traffic Sensing Theorists. In fact, they claimed that they had predicted all along that yellow lights would be found to have a function, and asserted that their research budget for the following century included $10 for research into this very topic.

    So, in this hands-on, learn-by-doing science lesson, the question for the astute reader is: DOES THE DISCOVERY OF A FUNCTION FOR YELLOW LIGHTS FALSIFY THE THEORY THAT TRAFFIC-LIGHT DURATIONS ARE INFLUENCED BY THE VOLUME OF TRAFFIC?

    Some guides for the student: (a) Was the non-functionality of yellow lights a claim or prediction of mainstream traffic theory or traffic-sensing theory? (b) Is the non-functionality of yellow lights a requirement of traffic-sensing theory? (c) Is functionality of yellow lights consistent with traffic-sensing theory? (d) What functions do yellow lights provide in sensing traffic flow? (e) Does finding a function for yellow lights provide evidence that a Supreme Traffic Controller determines the durations of traffic lights? (f) Why did the STCists themselves never attempt to discover a function for yellow lights? (g) Why did the STCists not make a prediction on the functionality of yellow lights until after the first function was found by mainstreet traffic theorists?[6]

    .

    By recasting the “theory” in a less emotionally charged subject than the evolution of living organisms, perhaps we can inducer the STC acolytes-to remove their blinders for a moment.

    Or not.

    ================

    [1[ In Milan, traffic lights are the law. In Rome, they are a suggestion. In Naples, they are an insult.

    [2] “Vehicles” is broader than “cars.” However, someone else has made another study of trucks and buses. (Bicycles still seem to be a pesky exception, however. Further studies are needed.)

    [3] This leads to an invention: a sensor placed at corners to detect whicjh cars turnn before reaching another light, and adjusting the duration of the other light accordingly.

    [4] In Europe, they frequently precede a green light as well. I think this is highly civilized :-)

    [5] The STC Chowder & Marching Society had long ago established a close link between traffic sensing in Germany and the Holocaust..

    [6] Discovery of yellow lights, 1972. First function proposed by scientists, 1975. First prediction of functionality, by Malcolm Simons, 1984. “Lacy Cuskin and the yellow-light controversy”

    [18] Satire at short notice is a specialty of the house at Chez Olorin..

  86. Kriss,

    You say, “I actually went back to 4 years ago, and I found a statement by a scientist (Howard Hershey) saying he had no problem with pseudogenes having function:”

    One scientist doesn’t constitute a consensus in evolution! Also just one scientist (or even more) saying he or she doesn’t have a problem with non-coding pseudogenes having a function is one thing, but researching to see if it has a function is quite another! No creationist have stated that evolutionists have a disagreement with finding a function in non-coding areas…

  87. Michael,

    One scientist doesn’t constitute a consensus in evolution!

    I know it doesn’t. That’s why I didn’t just cite ONE scientist. — The YouTube video was was made by ANOTHER scientist.

    I didn’t post lots of links, because at a certain pont, your dashboard would read them as spam. That’s why I keep the links to a minimum.

    Also just one scientist (or even more) saying he doesn’t have a problem with non-coding pseudogenes having a function is one thing, but researching to see if it has a function is quite another!

    — Uhhh, obviously they ARE researching is. Why else do you think you are able to cite a paper from the AAAS on the subject.

    No creationist have stated that evolutionists have a disagreement with finding a function in non-coding areas…

    Funny you should admit that, because if you admit that no evolutionist has a problem with finding function in “junk” DNA, then there is no point to saying that this hurts the current theory of evolution. — What’s the point of even talking about it then?

  88. Kriss,

    “Funny you should admit that, because if you admit that no evolutionist has a problem with finding function in “junk” DNA, then there is no point to saying that this hurts the current theory of evolution. — What’s the point of even talking about it then?”

    You built this strawman now you don’t know where to go with it…lol…My contention wasn’t based on who had a problem with finding what…I said that previously and alluded to it more than once.

    “Pseudogenes are considered to be defunct relatives of known genes. But there is some surprising news: pseudogenes are functional and could have a role in the control of cancer1. Two experts discuss the significance of these findings for understanding the regulation of gene expression and cancer biology.” -Nature

    Finding a function in RNA has nothing to do with evolution, it’s those who interpret data based on a particular hypothesis or theory. Poliseno and colleagues were right that there was a lack of research due to the evolutionary theory in regards to junk DNA and now his new discovery opens the door for more research plus gives critical information about a deadly disease because he didn’t go along with the prediction!

  89. Michael,

    You built this strawman now you don’t know where to go with it…lol…My contention wasn’t based on who had a problem with finding what…I said that previously and alluded to it more than once.

    Interesting you should accuse me of attacking a strawman when everyone else commenting here also understood you the same way as I did.

  90. I’ve asked Orolin some questions (actually posting them a second time now).

    Perhaps Eelco can start a campaign for me and on every one of Michael’s new posts, ask Orolin when he is going to answer my outstanding questions.

    I notice that Orolin find a lot of time for some drivel about traffic lights, but somehow avoided these questions again. They should be fairly simple:

    Posted by creationbydesign on June 28, 2010 at 1:18 pm

    In case you missed it in my post on June 27, 2010 at 8:16 pm …

    Please reconcile your views on these issues:

    … your belief in God and in the divinity of Christ.

    and

    1. The existence and origin of an immortal soul (which will live on forever after death).
    2. The existence and origin of free will in human beings

    Questions
    Do you believe that human beings possess an immortal soul?
    Do you believe that human beings possess free will?

    If so, what are the origins of those features?
    If not, how do you reconcile that with Christianity?

    Finally, what, precisely did God create and how do you know?

  91. Kriss,

    “Interesting you should accuse me of attacking a strawman when everyone else commenting here also understood you the same way as I did.”

    Nope, a strawman is easier to knock down than what is said…

    Also, there is also something you should know about Junk DNA, it’s required by Darwinian evolution and every time a function is found in non-coding DNA, the tougher it gets to explain it by math. “Neutral Evolution” was an idea created during the 1960s. It explained that non-functional DNA is free to mutate over time without intervention by natural selection. Thus, natural selection would be able to focus on important things while neutral evolution could act randomly on the rest. The term “Junk DNA” was first used to describe non-coding DNA in 1972. And it’s not just a label for possible future functions but rather it’s required by Darwinian evolution.

    For example, evolution theory claims 3–6 million years since humans and chimps diverged with an average human generation times of 20–30 years. That gives 300,000 years max to correct millions of mutations between humans and chimps. These corrections include 35 million single letter differences, 90 million base pairs of non-shared DNA, 700 extra genes in humans that chimps do not have, tens of thousands of chromosomal rearrangements, Making the genome 13% smaller (chimps have larger genomes than humans). All this would have to happen and 300,000 years is not enough time. So each time a new function is found, it makes it that much harder on the story of evolution to be accomplished. So in the future if enough functions are found with non-coding DNA, you might find some scientists who are not so thrilled by the new discoveries.

    However, it’s not required in creationism that a genome has to have a certain level of function or non-function thus both options are valued the same for research! But like I said before, we believe there is more function than what evolution predicts.

  92. For example, evolution theory claims 3–6 million years since humans and chimps diverged with an average human generation times of 20–30 years. That gives 300,000 years max to correct millions of mutations between humans and chimps. These corrections include 35 million single letter differences, 90 million base pairs of non-shared DNA, 700 extra genes in humans that chimps do not have, tens of thousands of chromosomal rearrangements, Making the genome 13% smaller (chimps have larger genomes than humans). All this would have to happen and 300,000 years is not enough time. So each time a new function is found, it makes it that much harder on the story of evolution to be accomplished. So in the future if enough functions are found with non-coding DNA, you might find some scientists who are not so thrilled by the new discoveries.

    That’s a good summary. It renders the fossil record mostly irrelevant (as even Dawkins now admits). Haldane’s Dilemma touches on this issue also (and understates the problem). There are a limited number of mutations that one can expect in the time period given. If more mutations are required than time permits, then there is a problem. You didn’t mention the existence of a newly-discovered (just this year) DNA sub-code which controls many as-yet-unknown functions. Again, as stated “it makes it that much harder on the story of evolution”. Indeed it does.

  93. “It renders the fossil record mostly irrelevant (as even Dawkins now admits). ”

    Even though it doesn’t matter at all what Dawkins thinks, where did he say that ?!?
    I remember him saying that because of the DNA evidence, even without the fossil record there is enough evidence for evolution. But that does not make it irrelevant.

  94. My comment of June 28, 2010 at 9:44 pm noted that the function of yellow lights was found puzzling by scientists, and that further studies are needed. As it turns out, a story from the Washington Post[1] reports a study from Cincinnati involving more than 1,500 observations of drivers approaching yellow lights.

    One counterintuitive finding, noted by Zhixia Li, an engineering PhD student, was that the longer a yellow light persists, the more likely drivers are to go through it without slowing.

    Although most mainstreet traffic theorists had long thought that yellow lights were functionless—even calling them “fools’ gold”—it should be noted this discovery was made by them, and not by the followers of the Supreme Traffic Controller.

    ===============

    [1] Leslie Tamura, “Who really runs yellow lights?” June 30, 2010.

  95. OK, CbD, your questions. They are irrelevant to the topic at hand, and Michael has already chastised me for straying off-message. Actually, I thought I answered most of them previously. So, briefly—

    Yes, I believe in the Christian God, and that Jesus was both fully God and fully man.

    The nature of the soul and its immortality are still hotly debated, and I am far less qualified to judge than the experts I read. So I have no firm belief on that subject. The Bible is less than lucid on this point, actually. Judaism was and is divided. Complex-system theory has a similar concept that may be relevant.

    Free will is more complicated than a simple yes or no. For example, it is now known that a system can be entirely deterministic under a mathematical equation, and still have unpredictable behaviors that appear to be “free.” I’m beginning to think that the question is ill-posed.

    Since i have no fixed belief as to the above two questions, the next two are moot.

    What did God create, and how? I’ve already answered that several times. Go look it up. What my prolonged inquiries have shown thus far is that the physical evidence confirms the mainstream scientific view, and that there is no theological basis for biblical literalism—in fact, reading Genesis as historical narrative subverts the intended meaning.

    .

    I do not see my lack of an unalterable belief in the above undecided questions as critical. It has been said that the only real question in philosophy is what to do next. Since settling these matters would not alter my actions, I take comfort in Ralph Waldo Emerson’s thought, “It is the mark of a great mind to entertain simultaneously two mutually contradictory views, without having to decide in favor of either.”

    .

    Now can you persuade Michael to get to work on the questions that have been put to him for the past four months without any response?

  96. The questions that “creationbydesign” has been asking us are really traps (or trick questions) than anything else.

    For the question: “What did God create?”

    —- I cannot say what God DIRECTLY created, so there is no way I can actually answer this question . . . . that is, if CbD wants me to say what God created “DIRECTLY.” — What I CAN do is say what I THINK God created directly. . . But that is completely different.

    And as for the other question “And how do you know?”

    —- Since I do not know what God DIRECTLY created, (i only have my suspicions), then it follows that this question cannot be answered. I DON’T actually KNOW what God created directly.

    The questions are a trap to justify that IF we know God created something directly, then therefore we should accept the oversimplified view that he created EVERYTHING directly, despite the evidence for evolution that life forms show.

  97. Well, if it was a trap, he can’t find the trigger.

    Do you know the expression “The bigger the hat, the smaller the ranch”? It applies to creationists following through on challenges as well.

  98. I agree that it’s a trap, but not that it’s a trick. It’s a trap because you both assert that a God exists. You’re trapped by this assertion though since a God, by definition, is a Creator. You’re both aware of this and therefore must retreat from the implications. The obvious implication, first, is that you’re both creationists in the wider meaning of the term. The other problem that you’re trapped with is that if God created anything directly (and neither of you is willing to assert that you possess an immortal soul which is not the product of natural causes), then you’re trapped by the fact that you’ll have to “control” somehow what God could or couldn’t, did or didn’t create.

    If God created any one thing directly, then this is a problem for your belief in scientism.

    I can see this problem very clearly, and I observe how you both had to dodge the question and claim agnosticsm about God’s creative power.

    There’s nothing to follow-through on here. I can’t see that either of you offer any valuable knowledge at all on the nature of God and what God created. I do see that you’ve fallen into the trap and you can’t get out. I also can’t see that you’re interested in successfully getting out (with any semblance of faith left).

    Often, people who have travelled that far down the path you’re on, simply get honest can conclude that they’re atheistic. They no longer believe in a God who “did nothing, does nothing, created nothing”.

    The problem is yours at this point. You both seem to be satisfied with ignorance about God and an unwillingness to explore what God directly created — understandably, you’re both afraid of going against the materialist-scientific establishment. This paralyzes your discovery about God and His creative power.

    So — thanks for your responses, but I’m not interested in pursuing the discussion further.

  99. Well, krissmith, first we’re creationists in the wider sense, and then we’re headed toward atheism. It’s a good thing that consistency is low on the list of priorities for the True Believers.

    It is also a great truth that True believers cannot abide anyone who is uncertain as to anything that they take on absolute faith—which includes almost everything. They hate uncertainty as much as they hate contrary beliefs, and agnostics as much as atheists.

    This seems to be true in general. Radical Muslims, for example, hate moderate Muslims as much as they hate Jews or Christians.

    .

    Someday, krissmith, I may expound upon the Olorinic Theory of absolute and relative truth. Briefly, absolute truth comes from within. One feels it directly, not from any exterior observation. Relative truth is something that a number of people can agree upon.

    Ironically, there are many mutually incompatible absolute truths, but only a small number of relative truths—almost by definition, since the absolute variety is intrinsically personal, while relative truth is shared with many other people. The purpose of Einstein’s theory of “relativity,” after all, is to allow observers in any frame of reference to share the same consistent truth.

    Relative truth characterizes science, while the absolute variety informs religion.

  100. “I agree that it’s a trap, but not that it’s a trick. It’s a trap because you both assert that a God exists. You’re trapped by this assertion though since a God, by definition, is a Creator.”

    Evolution serves a purpose for liberal beliefs, it’s to doubt the very word of God because their foundation is contrary to the Word of God. Look how Eve was tempted by the devil suggesting, “did God really say not to eat of this tree.” How many evolutionists try and suggest the same idea? In reality, they want to be their own gods sort of speak which is why any story about evolution that is positive appeals to them…

  101. Good point, Michael. The first and best Satanic temptation is persuade the person to engage in self-worship. I don’t want to bother trying to show the vacuous reasoning and illogic behind the claims that “God exists but has created nothing”. I know how that goes. Requests for proof of God’s existence are met with disingenuous ambiguity. They claim that God exists, so where is the evidence? I’ve seen enough already to know that we’re dealing with the deception you indicated above: “did God really say …”? When Eve’s question is applied to the entire New Testament nothing of faith will survive.
    Instead, what we’ll have to deal with is something like “the Olorinic Theory” — which is a classic illustration of the egoism involved here. Instead of honestly assessing the teaching of Christ, for example, we have a private “theory”. That happens when a person is only comfortable in talking about (and agreeing with) himself.

  102. Isn’t it a stitch watching two True believers congratulating each other in their dark cave. Pretending that the wolves of doubt can’t see them.

    What if the scientists are right? What if you really can accept evolution and still believe in God? Better to deny blindly than to think.

  103. Reconciling the Bible and Science: A primer on the Two Books of God”

    Kirk Blackard & Lynn Mitchell (BookSurge Publishing Dec., 2009)

    Might you be lured out of the cave long enough to read it?

  104. Orolin says:

    Reconciling the Bible and Science …

    That’s what I asked you to do but you retreated into agnosticism. Now, apparently, you’ve found a book that explains your beliefs. You don’t think there are a hundred theological books that reconcile science and the Bible already? Yes, I can see the wolves of doubt — and they have you completely surrounded. Why not try to explore the topic yourself and make a committment of faith. If you think science is going to provide all of the answers for you, then you’ve denied the transcendent already.
    Again, the problem is yours to solve and then communicate. You’ve left the discussion with a non-answer and now a book which supposedly communicates your view. But if this book can answer the questions which you already stated that you can’t answer — then why didn’t you cite this before when I asked you?

  105. creationbydesign says “Now, apparently, you’ve found a book that explains your beliefs.”
    and “… and now a book which supposedly communicates your view. ”

    So …. what about that one very old book that you use ?

  106. CbD, I did not say that this book represents my beliefs. It’s relatively recent, I came across an e-flier for it, and thought (wrongly, apparently), you might be interested.

    But the overall discussion here is about science. And the thing about science uis that MY BELIEFS DON’T MATTER.

    I probably disagree with Eelco about religious issues. Yet it doesn’t matter to our scientific views. We may also disagree about scientific matters—the finality of string theory, say. Yet it doesn’t matter. The evidence will decide.

    .

    There is one aspect in which science affects my religious beliefs. I enjoy studying the Bible—and in fact other religious writings as well. And researching their history and milieus. The hope is that this may make some matters more sure, challenge others, and generally lead to deeper understandings.

    .

    Oh, i have another book to recommend. Karen Anderson’s A History of God. It”s somewhat controversial, and will make you think (assuming you are so inclined). I read it shortly after finishing James Michener’s novel The Source—whose theme is essentially the same, in a fictionalized context.

  107. Olorin: “I probably disagree with Eelco about religious issues. Yet it doesn’t matter to our scientific views. We may also disagree about scientific matters—the finality of string theory, say. Yet it doesn’t matter. The evidence will decide.”

    I have no religious issues, as I am not religious … but indeed, evidence will eventually decide any scientific disagreements !

  108. A few points for Orolin and Eelco:

    1st — the evidence doesn’t necessarily decide. One must interpret the findings and draw a conclusion. So, the evidence is weighed and one argues that a certain view is “the most reasonable”. Scientists can view the same evidence and arrive at different conclusions.

    2nd – for Orolin. Yes, I’m familiar with Karen Armstrong (I haven’t read her book but have read several of her articles). She is controversial, but she also accepts much of traditional theism as well as the historical Jesus (miracles and resurrection).

    3rd — Orolin, I think your beliefs do matter a great deal. It would help me to understand how you evaluate evidence – in this case, historical and logical evidence which supports your theological views. Are you consistent? Do you base your faith on a reasonable foundation? Do you give more credibility to scientific conjectures than to theological propositions which are supported with far more evidence?

    So, it’s a matter of observing the ambiguity and uncertainty you offer on theological views, versus ardent certainty on even questionable science.

  109. @creationbydesign:
    of course the evidence decides in the end, if it is available, of course !
    That’s why so much money is spent on finding the evidence !

    You do not need to interpret the evidence if your model makes clear predictions about what you should find, i.e. what your measured value should be !
    Interpretation is often needed for new evidence which was not expected and not looked for, i.e. serendipitous discoveries. For those discoveries you then build a theory, which will make predictions as well as explain the discovery. Those new predictions one can then test by gathering more evidence, which will decide whether the new model was any good.

    So yes, the evidence always has the final say !

  110. “the evidence doesn’t necessarily decide.”

    Excellent point, it’s the person. For example, John Horgan in Scientific American who doesn’t consider smart people to be intelligent design proponents or creationists or anything supernatural based, he describes it this way…

    “intelligent-designers (aka IDiots) and other religious ignorami but knowledgeable scientists and scholars.”

    John Horgan defends Darwinian evolution because he follows it like others who follow their religious leaders, but he rejects other alternatives even those theories are based on naturalism. His reason, those theories have problems, but so does Darwinian evolution!

  111. he rejects other alternatives even those theories are based on naturalism. His reason, those theories have problems, but so does Darwinian evolution!

    Michael – excellent point. Horgan’s article gives some information on the dispute on Darwinism among non-religious scientists. Clearly, it’s not possible to hide this kind of thing. I’m reminded of the claim that “there are no weaknesses in evolutionary theory”. Mr. Horgan exposes the fact that “knowledgeable scientists and scholars” reject Darwinian claims. As you say, he then goes on to defend Darwinism anyway, even against other alternatives based on naturalism.
    So, when we see a passionate and unyeilding defense of Darwinism — we know that this ignores the fact that some non-ID scientists find Darwinism “dubitable”. I think we can also conclude that the fervent defense of Darwinian theory is driven by something other than an objective, dispassionate view of the data.

  112. Creationbydesign, you and Michael can congratulate each other all you like. But your conclusion that it is faith rather than evidence that decides the nature of the physical world is the major reason that creationism is scientifically vacuous, and has never benefited anyone in its entire history.

    Once more: Believe whatever pleases you, but do not help your children with their science homework.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s