Exodus 20:16 “Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.”
1 Like
That’s pretty vague. Is “background in biology” the same as being a biologist or is it a weasel term?
Sure is lucky there’s natural selection then. Right? This is not in any way a successful argument.
You can never eliminate it, since the starting points could be anything. But you can say that it’s unnecessary and that it doesn’t account for nested hierarchy. Incidentally, nothing says the set of genes has to be unique; as you should know, much of the difference among animals isn’t about genes but about differential expression. Pax6 is Pax6, but eyes come out differently nevertheless. None of this has anything to do with separate creation. Like I said, you’ve never been able to make an argument.
2 Likes
And many others. You seem to have already forgotten that these genes were discovered in fruit flies. Why? Do you often forget things right after people tell you about them?
“Some” is lame. What proportion? Be precise and name them, too.
There’s a prediction of your ID hypothesis, Bill. Not about the knockouts, but that your Intelligent Designer would have special gill genes.
It’s false.
How many genes are completely dedicated to the placenta in mice? Name them.
Utterly, spectacularly false. They are not cell-cycle pathways, they are important pathways used for cells to communicate with each other during development. Cell-cycle control is downstream from them.
If your ID hypothesis is so robust, why does it generate only empirically false predictions?
1 Like
The only requirement to understand the issues is knowledge of the transcription translation and cell cycle mechanisms. Two of the 4 have studied biology at university and one uses micro evolution as part of his cancer hypothesis. 2 have significant mathematical backgrounds.
Natural selection is not helpful when sequences are moving toward non function over time. What natural selection does is preserve existing gene function in populations.
You can eliminate it where you can trace ancestry. You can argue it is unlikely when animals have very similar genetic makeup and you can generate a model that can reconcile the differences.
You can say it doesn’t account for the nested hierarchy but this is not more then an assertion with existing counter arguments like Winstons. What is not an assertion is that common descent alone does not account for the unique gene patterns.
So it was a weasel term used to disguise the fact that none of them is a biologist. Got it.
Of course it is. All this shows is that you have no understanding of natural selection.
Of course you can’t. Every supposed ancestor could have been separately created. Similar genetic makeups could have been separately created. You know nothing.
Ewert’s idea doesn’t account for nested hierarchy. It’s purely ad hoc.
Nobody knows what you mean when you say that. What does it have to do with separate creation, which you call “different starting points”?
1 Like
Or Eddie’s falsehood in a desperate attempt to defend Meyer’s multiple falsehoods:
Followed up with more falsehoods:
2 Likes
How would you know, since you obviously don’t understand the issues?
4 Likes
Why does this matter. Do you think you need a PHD in evolutionary biology to understand evolutions limitations.
How does natural selection find a unique function?
Are you separately created from your parents? Can we not infer common ancestry from two different species with the same set of chromosomes and genes?
Back to assertion we go.
Common ancestry does not explain the different gene sets. Separate starting points does.
You were being deceptive.
No, but you do need to engage with the evidence, which you’ve never done.
Name and list the members of five such “different” sets. We’ll look them up together. It’ll be fun!
2 Likes
If natural selection preserves existing gene functions in populations as you say in your second sentence, then sequences are not moving toward non function over time as you declare in the first.
Jesus H W Christ you provide the solution yourself in the very next sentence.
2 Likes
Thats right.
Natural selection in this way acts as a filter to reduce variation. What we see in the Howe is lots of variation. How do you explain the variation given natural selection is operating as a filter.
Not intending to be. I believe the problems of evolution can be understood with a rudimentary understanding of biology.
I have and you know I have as we discussed your myosin argument and I looked at all the human variations available in uniprot.
What’s your prediction with this suggested exercise? Do you think that the Howe diagram is deceptive in the amount of gene variation among vertebrates?
Both @colewd and @Eddie are very effective deceivers. But they are mainly deceiving themselves. Just about everyone else here can see what is actually going on.
3 Likes
It removes deleterious mutations, not neutral or beneficial ones. So you get variation out of change that is neutral and beneficial. Why did I have to write this again for the twentieth time? Others have explained it more.
What is wrong with you?
2 Likes
I am not sure what you mean by this Neil. This is one of the few times I have seen you make an ad hominem attack. It appears on my side that your a good guy who is a" true believer" in macro evolution.
I was also until I found out that DNA and Proteins were highly sequence dependent. This condition has not changed. Now I believe that the theory is most likely wrong. Eddie and I are far from alone here.
@John_Harshman says natural selection is the answer to the sequence problem yet natural selection cannot happen with neutral mutations after a gene duplication until a new gene forms.
If natural selection is giving beneficial mutations it is to an active gene. What you are admitting is this is more a filtering process that eliminates variation.
You are unable to address the sequence problem and the waiting time to fixation problem with realistic assumptions. This is not your fault. It is how biology works. Variation is limited in the reproductive process.
@nwrickert I agree that deception is going on but it is not with either me or @Eddie.
In your case, you cannot see the forest for the trees.
When I write down some mathematics, I make pencil marks on paper. What you are doing is analogous to saying that the theorems don’t explain the arrangement of graphite crystals in those marks.
1 Like
I think you need to understand biology, and a biologist is more likely to have a clue about it than a mathematician. You certainly have no understanding of biology, including evolutionary biology.
This is a question unrelated to your previous claims, which were about the supposed deterioration of genes. But there is a huge literature on the subject, if you wanted to change the subject.
To the first question, there’s no way to say, since the creator could have put a zygote into my mother’s body. To the second question, no, we can’t unless we can use the standard methods and show a nested hierarchy in which the species are embedded. Of course a creator could always make two separate creations with the same set of chromosomes and genes. It’s the nested hierarchy that makes this an unlikely explanation. (Well, that and the fact that no such creator is in evidence.)
You should be familiar with that practice. Intimately familiar. But in fact we’ve discussed the reasoning behind that assertion before; you just conveniently forget everything you’re told unless it fits your view.
Sorry, but separate creation doesn’t explain different gene sets at all. It merely assumes them. And of course almost every species has a few private genes unshared with its closest relatives, so if that were evidence of separate creation, the “separate starting points” would be each species. Then again, the fact that these “different gene sets” are arranged in a nested hierarchy tells us that the species are related by common descent. I think you’re still confusing the causes of the pattern with the causes of the genes that make up that pattern.
That’s irrelevant to the question of common descent vs. separate creation. Once more: the evidence of common descent is nested hierarchy. The causes of the differences that make up that hierarchy are not relevant.
I said no such thing. You misunderstand as usual. First, I don’t know what “the sequence problem” is. Natural selection, I said, is the answer to your supposed conundrum that genes decay over time.
Eddie isn’t a creationist like you are. Neither is your hero Michael Behe. Once again you conflate different questions. As you always do. Pleast stop.
2 Likes
So it turns out you have no idea what you are arguing against.
Either does John.
I agree, Bill. Normally Neil is polite and avoids personal characterizations.