I give up on you!
Yesterday, HGT and HRT didn’t overlap at all, but today HGT includes HRT. @Meerkat_SK5 doesn’t seem to realise that he is the only one who can’t remember what he wrote yesterday.
Attempting to pretend that some genetic material is not actual genetic material rather than admitting error is the most pathetic excuse I’ve seen this year.
Does anyone think @Meerkat_SK5 knows what BGT even means?[1]
It’s unlikely, but not impossible, that he’s stumbled across comments about Hormone Replacement Therapy made on Britain’s Got Talent. ↩︎
What took you so long?
2 Likes
I gave up in the past. There is no harm in doing the same thing twice.
You really don’t, but I expect to derive enormous amusement from the attempt. Please, continue.
Wait, so you are trying to quote what you think is in conflict with the one part of my message where I actually make an effort to throw you a bone? The one part where I actually serve you on a silver platter things you could have pointed to in support of the notion that quantum mechanics plays a necessary part in macroscopic physics, that’s the part you say I’m mistaken about? Never mind the irrelevancy to the subject matter of the blog passage you quote. You are that committed to being completely wrong every step of the way, that even when I help you out you can’t help but oppose it.
Very well. Go on, then, and invite Sean Carroll here, and let’s see what his actual contribution to our discussion would be. To stay consistent with my earlier conduct, with him, too, I shall render no prediction speculation as to what his opinions may be, or how gravely they’ll conflict with your expectations. I shall until his arrival also not take seriously your vague yay/nay opinions of the contents of excerpts from his blog that frankly hardly would have relevancy to our discussion, even if we were to treat them as primary literature. Pull your off-topic quotes or don’t, until you actually present any interpretation (let alone comprehension), they are nothing for me to respond to.
3 Likes
You are assuming that neutral mutations don’t provide a benefit to the organism, but it does according to the ENCODE results as I shown. The frequency of beneficial mutations are also at play as I shown.
In regard to detrimental mutations, the fidelity of the process of DNA replication is also not rare as I shown with the studies.
For these reasons, it can’t be considered random based on this particular definition regardless of the definition:
"(i) they are rare exceptions to the fidelity of the process of DNA replication and because (ii) there is no way of knowing which gene will mutate in a particular cell or in a particular individual.
However, the meaning of “random” that is most significant for understanding the evolutionary process is (iii) that mutations are unoriented with respect to adaptation; they occur independently of whether or not they are beneficial or harmful to the organisms. Some are beneficial, most are not, and only the beneficial ones become incorporated in the organisms" through natural selection."
Since vast majority of mutations are oriented to benefit the organism from what was found in the ENCODE results…
Mutations should no longer be considered random.
Let me remind you of the definitions again…
Design: To create and develop animals through the process of HRT for the purpose of surviving, reproducing, and pioneering different environments.
Universal common designer: universal self-collapsing genetic code shown by the shared DNA among all living organisms (i.e., objective reduction).
As you can see from the definitions, both common design and common descent are two different explanations that can explain the same data, such as why you and your siblings have the same genes. However, they both mean something totally different:
The change in the assumed basis of classification came with general acceptance of the theory of evolution. The belief that different animals, even very unlike animals, were actual flesh-and-blood relatives and had common ancestors suggested that it would be more natural, or philosophically preferable, to define groups by community of origin. This radical change, much the most revolutionary in the whole history of taxonomy, had extraordinarily little immediate effect on the general nature and aspect of formal classifications. From their classifications alone, it is practically impossible to tell whether zoologists of the middle decades of the nineteenth century were evolutionists or not, and classifications intended to be phylogenetic differed as much among themselves as they did from frankly archetypal classifications.
This was partly because the superficial aspects of classification do not necessarily change when the underlying meaning changes — we still use the Linnaean hierarchy and nomenclature (in essentials), although we have rearranged and multiplied his categories and give them a totally different significance. More particularly, in this transition period and, in decreasing extent, almost up to the present, the reason for so little evident change in classification was that the evolutionists and non-evolutionists followed the same procedures. The evolutionists continued to group animals by the number and kind of characters that they have in common, but they explained the possession of these characters by community of inheritance, while the nonevolutionists explained them by a subjective pattern. By substituting “common ancestor” for “archetype” the same classification could be considered phylogenetic or not, at will.
The Principles of Classification and the Classification of Mammals. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History 85:i-xvi, 1-350.
If two hypotheses make the same prediction, observing the prediction to be correct is not evidence for either one over the other.
However, in this case, burden of proof is on you because the common archetype theory came first. So you guys need to provide evidence that can only be explained by universal common descent.
However,There is nothing in the article that the common design/archetype theory either cannot explain or explain better. Moreover, the predictions that are unique to common descent either have been falsified or cannot be tested.
The Common archetype theory suggests that independent phylogenies emerged from archetypical blueprints in the mind of God, which contain nested hierarchies within them.
This means that these nested patterns don’t exist above the level of Order from the supposed universal of tree life. But, no one is saying they don’t exist at all.
More importantly, observations do NOT show a universal nested tree of life. As described by Eugene Koonin, it looks like a bush or star tree of life at the base of the tree:
“A Bush of Life: a typical tree with unresolved deep branches. The tree was generated from simulated data using the TreeView program [114].”
Here is part of the abstract:
"The relationships between major groups within an emergent new class of biological entities are hard to decipher and do not seem to fit the tree pattern that, following Darwin’s original proposal, remains the dominant description of biological evolution… In each of these pivotal nexuses in life’s history, the principal “types” seem to appear rapidly and fully equipped with the signature features of the respective new level of biological organization. No intermediate “grades” or intermediate forms between different types are detectable. [emphasis added]The Biological Big Bang model for the major transitions in evolution | Biology Direct | Full Text (biomedcentral.com)
According to the study, it includes other plants and Cambrian fish:
"The bushes in the tree of life (TOL) recently have been examined in some detail, and their appearance has been attributed, primarily, to cladogenesis compressed in time that appears to be characteristic of transitional epochs in evolution. Also, the erosion of the phylogenetic signal inevitably results in poor resolution of phylogenetic trees for ancient divergence events like all those listed above. Nevertheless, it is generally assumed that, in principle, the TOL exists and is resolvable although, in practice, full resolution might never be attained and, furthermore, might not even be particularly important for understanding the actual events that transpired during the respective transitional stages .
Here, I argue for a fundamentally different solution, i.e., that a single, uninterrupted TOL does not exist , although the evolution of large divisions of life for extended time intervals can be adequately described by trees. I suggest that evolutionary transitions follow a general principle that is distinct from the regular cladogenesis." [Emphasis added]
Not true.
Owen believed in the idea of a natural order or “gradation” of living things, which he believed reflected a divine plan. He believed that the characteristics of living things were arranged in a linear series from the simplest to the most complex, with each level of complexity building on the previous one. This idea was based on the concept of “archetypes,” which Owen believed were ideal forms that gave rise to the diversity of life on Earth.
According to Owen, the nested hierarchy of living things was a reflection of this natural order, with each level of the hierarchy representing a higher degree of complexity and organization than the one below it. He believed that this order was inherent in the structure and organization of living things themselves and was not the result of any specific mechanism or process, such as natural selection.
Based on what we know from the law of entropy, his theory’s assumptions and claims ended up being right while Darwin was wrong. For example, HGT is the transfer of genetic material between different organisms that are not related by descent, and it can occur through a variety of mechanisms, including conjugation, transformation, and transduction. During HGT, genetic material is moved from one organism to another, and this process involves a transfer of energy and the rearrangement of atoms and molecules.
According to the second law of thermodynamics, the entropy, or disorder, of a closed system tends to increase over time. In the context of HGT, this means that the transfer of genetic material between organisms will generally result in an increase in entropy. However, this can create nested hiearachies as well when horizontal regulatory transfer occurs.
For instance, the transferred regulatory regions can potentially interact with genes in the recipient organism’s genome, leading to changes in gene expression patterns. Over time, these changes can lead to the emergence of new traits or functions.
Nested hierarchies can arise as a result of this process because the transferred regulatory regions tend to have specific functions and targets, and thus their effects on gene expression tend to be consistent across different individuals or species that acquire them.
This can result in a pattern where the regulatory regions are associated with certain traits or functions, which are shared by different groups of organisms that have acquired the same or similar regulatory regions.
This pattern can be seen, for example, in the evolution of bacterial operons, which are groups of functionally related genes that are regulated by a single promoter and regulatory region. Horizontal transfer of operons can lead to the spread of related functions across different bacterial groups, producing a nested hierarchy of shared functions and regulatory elements. Similarly, the transfer of regulatory regions between different eukaryotic lineages can lead to the emergence of new gene regulatory networks, which can also exhibit nested hierarchical patterns.
@Michael_Okoko and @Roy, you should read this to get a full understanding of what I said before.
As I showed you before, observations do not show a nested hierarchy that extends all the way down the tree, as you just alluded to. More importantly, common design merely claims that animal groups after the cambrian explosion emerged from primitive multicellular organisms. You have never explained how this would not produce the same nested hierarchy between families and orders as it does with common descent.
No, I did admit error. The error was that I did not clarify my point.
Let me try to understand you then. What is your main issue or objection against an aspect of my overall case for common design? And why do you think it refutes my case?
Yes, it is biased gene transfer.
I made a mistake when I said it like that. So Move on to a different objection.
Neutral mutations do not provide a benefit to the organism, by definition.
The ENCODE results show nothing of what you are claiming. Doing something is not the same as function. A TV that is broken into a thousand pieces will attach dust particles to the pieces, but just because it is doing something does not meant it is a functioning TV. Just because a stretch of DNA participates in a biochemical interaction does not mean it is functional.
Yes, they can be considered random because they are.
You are arguing that a vast majority of random mutations are oriented to benefit the organism. That doesn’t make them non-random.
That’s not design. That’s evolution. That’s entirely natural without any input from a designer. We can see HRT happening naturally and without a designer.
“Self-collapsing genetic code”? That’s just another bovine excrement term.
Common design does predict any of those observations, such as the nested hierarchy.
That doesn’t explain the nested hierarchies that exist between archetypes. You also haven’t explained why they would have nested hierarchies within them, or even between them.
A nested hierarchy exists amongst eukaryotes which is more than enough to falsify your separate archetypes for eukaryotes.
Beliefs are not predictions. What you are essentially saying is that God was forced to use a nested hierarchy for no apparent reason other than to mimic what would happen with evolution.
We observe that HGT produces violations of a nested hierarchy.
That doesn’t create a nested hierarchy. You need to learn what a nested hierarchy is.
It extends well beyond your archetypes which means your archetypes are falsified.
A common designer could mix and match features from different multi-cellular animals to create new archetypes. This would produce violations of a nested heirarchy.
Why are you struggling to understand this basic concept?
5 Likes
Thanks for making it so clear, so quickly that you haven’t a clue what you’re talking about.
You should do this with all your posts. It would eliminate any remaining possibility of being taken seriously.
We aren’t the ones that don’t understand this. That would be you. (See above for confirmation)
No you did not.
Which is? (I already know what it is, but do you?)
4 Likes
They don’t assess fitness.
3 Likes
Are you implying that transcription binding is not necessary for gene regulation?
If you are, then that simply isn’t correct as has been pointed out by many scientists to this day, such as Mattick and Dinger:
“Assertions that the observed transcription represents random noise…is more opinion than fact and difficult to reconcile with the exquisite precision of differential cell- and tissue-specific transcription in human cells.”
Here is what they were talking about:
“Most data acquisition in the project thus far has taken the biochemical approach, using evidence of cellular or enzymatic processes acting on a DNA segment to help predict different classes of functional elements. The recently completed phase of ENCODE applied a wide range of biochemical assays at a genome-wide scale to study multiple human cell types”
As suggested, they were able to find function based on that definition, which “ascribes function to sequences that play some observationally or experimentally determined role in genome structure and/or function.”
The ENCODE Project focused on experimentally determining which sequences in the human genome displayed biochemical activity using assays that measured:
- transcription,
- binding of transcription factors to DNA,
- histone binding to DNA,
- DNA binding by modified histones,
- DNA methylation, and
- three-dimensional interactions between enhancer sequences and genes.
The implied assumption is that if a sequence is involved in any of these processes—all of which play well-established roles in gene regulation—then the sequences must have functional utility." [Emphasis added]
Remember, whenever someone is constructing a new model of nature, there is usually going to be new definitions that come with it as a consequence of the scientific method:
The scientific definition of a term sometimes differs substantially from its natural language usage. For example, mass and weight overlap in meaning in common discourse, but have distinct meanings in mechanics. Scientific quantities are often characterized by their units of measure which can later be described in terms of conventional physical units when communicating the work.
New theories are sometimes developed after realizing certain terms have not previously been sufficiently clearly defined. For example, Albert Einstein’s first paper on relativity begins by defining simultaneity and the means for determining length. These ideas were skipped over by Isaac Newton with, “I do not define time, space, place and motion, as being well known to all.” Einstein’s paper then demonstrates that they (viz., absolute time and length independent of motion) were approximations. Scientific method - Wikipedia
How do you test this assumption of an unguided process? How do you know a conscious agent is not guiding the process?
No, I am arguing that the vast majority of the non-coding regions in DNA benefit the organism. And yes, it does make them non-random based on the definition:
However, the meaning of “random” that is most significant for understanding the evolutionary process is (iii ) that mutations are unoriented with respect to adaptation; they occur independently of whether or not they are beneficial or harmful to the organisms. Some are beneficial, most are not, and only the beneficial ones become incorporated in the organisms" through natural selection."
Wrong.
God’s purpose for creating animals and humans the way they are is to survive and reproduce under a particular environment AND fill other environments around the globe.
As a result, we would expect to see a creationary phylogenetic tree that is very similar in form and function to the evolutionary tree.
However, we would also expect to see a creationist tree that traces life back to a number of unrelated populations (i.e. separate created kinds) that roughly resemble the forms of life we see today.
This means that we would expect to find violations of nested hierarchies ONLY at the base of the tree which is exactly what we find even among animals.
For instance, there are instances of high gene-tree conflict in major clades, which correspond to rate increases in morphological innovation.
The study concluded that there is “an important link between genomic and morphological evolution at deep timescales. We suggest that episodic evolutionary and population events leave signatures of conflict within genomes that may offer important insight on the processes responsible not only for conflict but also for massive changes in phenotype across disparate lineages.”
Phylogenomic conflict coincides with rapid morphological innovation | PNAS
These gene conflicts provide support for the hypothesis that independent hierarchies emerged from archetypical blueprints in the mind of God (even if containing nested hierarchies within them).
Furthermore, the fossil record has revealed for some time now that the observed patterns, which is no evolutionary change punctuated by rapid biological innovations, match the patterns predicted if common design accounts for life’s history and diversity.
The million-year wait for macroevolutionary bursts | PNAS
This is because they are optimal, these organisms undergo limited change for the duration of their existence, accounting for stasis. Richard Owen’s universal common archetype theory has predicted this even before Darwin’s common ancestry theory came out 10 years afterwards. So we do have a track record, especially when we include the many instances of functional pseudogenes and ERV’s that have been discovered.
I am afraid it is the other way around.
According to Theobald, transmutation can be confirmed through phylogenetics if morphology and molecular sequences are congruent.
29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Part 1 (talkorigins.org)
This means that finding examples of family trees based on anatomical features that contradict family trees based on molecular similarities would falsify the claim that nested hierarchies are universal.
The results of the study I just mentioned shows this.
These results would be expected if Darwinian evolution only explains modest differences among closely related species. On the other hand, the various similarities and differences across plants and animals of widely varying types would be primarily due to a universal common designer reusing the universal common blueprint for common purposes and fresh DNA sequences for innovations.
In other words, “the persistent failure of a single tree of life to emerge makes perfect sense: there is no evolutionary tree of life, because common descent isn’t the case. A common designer is.”
BTW , your study was outdated compared to mine, which does involve animals as well.
As alluded to before…
We expect these violations to only occur at the base of tree for animals.
Well, I have already explained why we would expect to see nested hierarchies within closely related and distantly related species in regards to HRT and BGT. Here are the studies again:
Biased gene transfer mimics patterns created through shared ancestry | PNAS
https://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/analyzing-regulatory-networks-in-bacteria-14426192/
Moreover, the studies on frequent gene conflicts between morphology and molecular similarities show how nested hierarchies could have occurred between different species as well.
1 Like
Why would you think he’s implying that? Unless I’m missing something.
I’m implying that not all transcription factor binding is functional. You are committing a category fallacy. Just because transcription factor binding is functional in one instance does not mean that all transcription factor binding is functional.
That’s hogwash. Again, just because some transcription factor binding is functional does not mean all transcription factor binding is functional. Different tissues will express different transcription factors, so it isn’t surprising that different tissues will have different patterns of spurious transcription and binding.
There is absolutely no reason to believe that just because a sequence binds a transcription factor that it is functional.
It’s still bovine excrement.
The same way we do in the rest of nature. If natural processes are sufficient then we don’t invent an unnecessary undetectable process that is also involved. It’s the same rule for weather, volcanic eruptions, etc.
That is falsified by the observation that the vast majority of sequence in the human genome accumulates mutations at a rate consistent with neutral drift. If there were sequence specific function then there would be selection against deleterious mutations, but there isn’t.
That doesn’t require a nested hierarchy.
We don’t find violations between taxonomic families.
False. We expect punctuated events with evolution. We don’t expect to see a nested hierarchy with design, and we see a nested hierarchy.
We only need to show nested hierarchies between your families in order to falsify common design. We definitely see that.
We expect to see these violations between families of organisms, and we don’t.
Right, but I don’t see your point here because inductive reasoning is inherently a part of the scientific method. As Fuz Rana has pointed out…
" If a scientist then observes transcription factors binding to DNA, it is reasonable to conclude that these binding sites play a role in regulating gene expression. Though not certain, this conclusion is probabilistic. Despite the uncertainty associated with it, the conclusion is still reasonable because a vast body of data demonstrates that transcription factors bind to specific DNA sequences that regulate gene expression. Yes, another explanation for why these transcription factors bind to DNA may exist. Confirmatory experiments can reduce this uncertainty.
The key point is this: there is nothing wrong with concluding, when using inductive reasoning, that sequences that bind transcription factors are functional. By extension, there is nothing wrong with the reasoning the ENCODE Project employed to assign function to sequences in the human genome. The ENCODE Project did not affirm the consequent because they were making use of induction (as do all scientists), not deduction."
This objection “fails to take into account other work—such as research involving pseudogenes—that not only identifies function for individual members of this junk DNA class, but also presents an elegant framework to explain the function of all members of the category. (Go here and here to read about the competitive endogenous RNA hypothesis as a comprehensive model for pseudogene function.) This type of advance coheres nicely with the catalogue of functional elements ENCODE identified.” by Fuz Rana.
This study seems to beg to differ:
"We consider the possibility that natural selection against weak binding sites contributes to this process, and using an evolutionary model we show that the strength of selection needed to maintain global word compositions is on the order of point mutation rates.
Likewise, we show that evolutionary mechanisms based on interference of protein-DNA binding with replication and mutational repair processes could yield similar results and operate with similar rates. On the basis of these modeling and bioinformatic results, we conclude that genome-wide word compositions have been molded by DNA binding proteins acting through tiny evolutionary steps over time scales spanning millions of generations."
How can this be when this definition is based upon observations and experiments?
Yeah but, unguided natural process do not explain observations as reported in multiple fields, and thus, a different perception of evolution is beginning to manifest, wherein the processes by which organisms develop are recognized as causes of evolution. [2] For instance, analysis of the genomes of 46 sequenced isolates of Escherichia coli provided a statistically supported comparison of the phylogenetic tree topologies for regulatory regions, their regulated genes, and vertical inheritance. The results of this comparison highlight the notion that the evolution of regulatory regions of over half of the core genes (i.e., genes shared by all isolates) was incongruent with that of vertical inheritance. [3] Many studies have drawn the same conclusion. [27, 28]
Moreover, Martincorena et al. [4] similarly proposed that observations suggest that the mutation rate has been evolutionarily optimized to reduce the risk of deleterious mutations. Recent studies have drawn the same conclusion.
However, current knowledge of factors influencing the mutation rate does not explain these observations, suggesting that other mechanisms are likely involved as pointed out by the researchers.
More importantly, it is detectable. Support for a conscious agent in nature has come from confirmed predictions that show non-random mutations, as I pointed out before. For instance, as Mattick and Dinger indicated, it has long been argued that the presence of non-protein coding or so-called ‘junk DNA’ that comprises more than 90% of the human genome is evidence for the accumulation of evolutionary debris by blind Darwinian evolution, which would argue against intelligent design, as an intelligent designer would presumably not fill the human genetic instruction set with meaningless information.
This objection has been essentially refuted in the face of growing functional indices of noncoding regions of the genome, with the latter reciprocally used in support of the notion of ID and to challenge the conception that natural selection accounts for the existence of complex organisms.
[3] Transfer of noncoding DNA drives regulatory rewiring in bacteria | PNAS
[4] Evidence of non-random mutation rates suggests an evolutionary risk management strategy | Nature
I am not sure what you mean by this or why you think this is relevant. But, if God’s purpose is to make sure animals survive and reproduce under particular environments around the globe, then this would naturally produce a nested hierarchies by default. Since this needs to be God’s purpose for us to even ask the question, it follows that it needs to look like a nested hierarchy.
No, violations of nested hierarchies do not represent the origin of created kinds. Instead, family trees based on anatomical features that contradict family trees based on molecular similarities among animal families is the origins of created kinds. This is exactly what we find:
FYI, sudden appearances and stasis fossils are expected from creationists models and many scientists apparently concur:
“Palaeobiologists flocked to these scientific visions of a world in a constant state of flux and admixture. But instead of finding the slow, smooth, and progressive changes Lyell and Darwin had expected, they saw in the fossil records rapid bursts of change, new species appearing seemingly out of nowhere and then remaining unchanged for millions of years-patterns hauntingly reminiscent of creation."
Pagel, M. Happy accidents?. Nature 397 , 664–665 (1999). Happy accidents? | Nature
Fossil Record • Darwin, Then and Now (darwinthenandnow.com)
I think what you are talking about is that we would expect to find the illusion of stasis and sudden appearances from Darwin’s theory. But, you guys have yet to prove this.
This can’t be the case unless you explain to me how animal groups having emerge from primitive multicellular organisms rather than complex ones would NOT produce the same nested hierarchy.
Excellent. Denial of basic logic followed by sufficient irrelevancy that it’s clear you don’t understand the topic. No-one will be fooled into believing you.
And you’ve even finished your post with something just as absurd to allow for readers who are scrolling upwards:
Keep it up!
4 Likes
But not just that, going above and beyond Meer has made sure that the middle bits are also nutty.
1 Like
You are committing the category error, so you are using flawed inductive reasoning. For example,
All monkeys are mammals. Cows are mammals. Therefore, all cows are monkeys.
False. A transcription factor can bind to DNA without affecting expression of the downstream DNA.
Everything is wrong with it.
Finding function in a handful of pseudogenes does not mean all pseudogenes are functional. Basic logic.
It doesn’t. It is saying that there is weak selection against random binding sites.
It’s word salad. Just read it.
Yes, they do.
That’s explained by naturally occurring horizontal genetic transfer that looks like this:
No, it wouldn’t. A nested hierarchy is not required for survival and reproduction.
The few violations that we see are extremely minor and what we would expect from common ancestry.
They are also expected from evolution and common ancestry because the fossil record is an imperfect record of history.
Separately created archetypes would not be expected to fall into a nested hierarchy because there is no reason why they would. The designer could mix and match different characteristics, including combinations that would violate a nested hierarchy. Why do you still not understand this?
2 Likes
Now, you are just strawmanning ENCODE’s argument, which is not constructed like that at all.
Again, while you rightly point out that this argument is a logical fallacy when engaged in deductive reasoning, this error doesn’t apply to inductive reasoning. Induction produces conclusions that are probabilistic though not certain.
As pointed out by Fuz:
The ENCODE team performed a large number of assays, systematically surveying the human genome and cataloging the functional sequences. They didn’t simply identify a few examples of function in particular members of a junk DNA category and then conclude the whole class must be functional. Instead, they identified, one by one, members of a sequence elements group that displayed function.
Sure, of course it can, but it is not probable and that is the point.
If most of the binding was random it would mess up the process of gene regulation because random interactions among genome components would potentially be very deleterious to the organism. Without minimizing these disruptive interactions, biochemical processes in the cell would most likely grind to a halt. This means that most of the binding that was measured by the ENCODE project was probably functional binding.
In fact, a study by Harvard scientists indicated that the concentration of PPI-participating proteins in the cell is also carefully designed.
As Fuz Rana has further suggested and pointed out, “high-precision structures and interactions, exemplified by PPIs, are hallmark features of biochemical systems and, by analogy to fine-tuned human designs, point to the work of a Creator.”
So what? This does not make it a useless or invalid definition.
The researchers in the study you are ignoring disagree with you:
Importantly, the variation is not random: we detect a lower rate in highly expressed genes and in those undergoing stronger purifying selection. Our observations suggest that the mutation rate has been evolutionarily optimized to reduce the risk of deleterious mutations. Current knowledge of factors influencing the mutation rate—including transcription-coupled repair and context-dependent mutagenesis—do not explain these observations, indicating that additional mechanisms must be involved.
There are other studies like the previous one showing how incongruencies between family trees are much more widespread, as Hugh Ross pointed out:
…the naturalistic biological evolution model based on phylogenetics predicts that introduction of new species has exceeded extinctions, but the fossil record shows that the reverse is true. The research team did not address the fact that the discrepancies between phylogenetics and the fossil record appear to increase with the complexity and the adult body size of the genus. By contrast, such a correlation is predicted from a biblical creation model perspective for life
Yes but, it is only the illusion of stasis and sudden appearances that Darwin’s theory would predict. You guys have yet to prove that this is an illusion and it has already been over 150 years now. It just shows how this is an ad-hoc or post-hoc explanation.
The study I referenced involved Horizontal regulatory transfer, which leads to a substantial innovation in one scoop, rather than point mutations or gene duplication. So it can’t be by unguided processes because it is not relying on the principles of natural selection and random mutations, which produces a gradual process rather than a saltational one.
I gave you the reason already. The various similarities and differences across plants and animals of widely varying types would be primarily due to a universal common designer reusing the universal common blueprint for common purposes and fresh DNA sequences for innovations.
Moreover, if God’s purpose is to make sure animals survive and reproduce under particular environments around the globe through the process of HRT, then this would naturally produce nested hierarchies by default because more closely related species are more ecologically similar.
For example, a study published in the journal “Ecology” in 2012 examined the relationship between phylogenetic relatedness and functional similarity in a group of plant species in a grassland ecosystem. The study found that more closely related plant species were more similar in their functional traits, such as leaf area and photosynthetic rate, than more distantly related species. Moreover, phylogenetic relationships influence the strength of species’ interactions, which in turn structures community composition.
https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1013003108
This leads me to address your follow up objection to this…
I agree, but this is not what I said. Instead, it is survival, reproduction, AND adaptation under different environments around the globe
Nested patterns need to exist in order to influence species interactions.
For example, closely related species may have similar physical or behavioral traits that allow them to exploit similar resources, leading to competition between them. In contrast, distantly related species may have different traits that enable them to use different resources, reducing competition and promoting coexistence.
No, you’re doing it wrong. You should have started with this bit:
Then everyone would have known you could be ignored.
2 Likes
So that would predict that if we test for such binding in vitro, there would be zero baseline, nonspecific binding?
1 Like
Then blame @RonSewell because he is the one that raised a question that was off topic. I was simply answering his question. Besides, you have gone off-topic many times on my threads.