Epic Amounts of Facepalm

creationist cartoon

Incl. intelligent design, belief in divine creation

Moderators: Calilasseia, DarthHelmet86, Ironclad, Onyx8

Epic Amounts of Facepalm

#1  Postby Shagz » Feb 26, 2012 4:01 am

http://mightymag.org/category/darwin-was-wrong/
You can thank PZ Myers for finding this.
Here's a sample:
Image
:facepalm:
User avatar
Shagz
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 685

United States (us)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Epic Amounts of Facepalm

#2  Postby Calilasseia » Feb 26, 2012 10:22 pm

Is there nothing so retarded, that a creationist won't use it to propagandise for his worthless little doctrine?

That example you posted above fell from 50,000 feet and hit every branch of the stupid tree before reaching the ground.
Signature temporarily on hold until I can find a reliable image host ...
User avatar
Calilasseia
Moderator
 
Posts: 16977
Age: 52
Male

Country: England
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Epic Amounts of Facepalm

#3  Postby theropod » Feb 27, 2012 1:42 am

Calilasseia wrote:Is there nothing so retarded, that a creationist won't use it to propagandise for his worthless little doctrine?

That example you posted above fell from 50,000 feet and hit every branch of the stupid tree before reaching the ground.


...and then bounced into the pit of dishonesty with a great thud.

RS
14 years off-grid and counting.

Sleeping in the hen house doesn't make you a chicken.
User avatar
theropod
RS Donator
 
Name: Roger
Posts: 6501
Age: 60
Male

Country: USA
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Epic Amounts of Facepalm

#4  Postby Dogmatic Pyrrhonist » Feb 27, 2012 3:04 am

And it's such a forward thinking, optimistic view of the world they have too.
Dogmatic Pyrrhonist
AKA https://plus.google.com/u/0/105518842266362138077/about (google has decided my name isn't a 'real' name)

Image
User avatar
Dogmatic Pyrrhonist
 
Posts: 712
Age: 43
Male

Country: Australia
Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: Epic Amounts of Facepalm

#5  Postby Wuffy » Feb 27, 2012 3:10 am

Shiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiit
Wuffy
 
Posts: 2172
Age: 30
Male

Country: Australia
Belgium (be)
Print view this post

Re: Epic Amounts of Facepalm

#6  Postby Shagz » Feb 27, 2012 3:13 am

Yeah, and if you feel like being really disgusted, you should take a look at the link. All of his cartoons are just as idiotic.
There's something about them I find particularly revolting. I think it's because they're obviously geared towards children.
User avatar
Shagz
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 685

United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Epic Amounts of Facepalm

#7  Postby quas » Feb 27, 2012 3:49 am

If the whole world begins to deteriorate, then why have lifespans increased?
The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem
those who think alike than those who think differently. -Nietzsche
User avatar
quas
 
Posts: 1067

Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Epic Amounts of Facepalm

#8  Postby Onyx8 » Feb 27, 2012 3:53 am

quas wrote:If the whole world begins to deteriorate, then why have lifespans increased?



In the very recent past.

Of course here you do have to disregard the mumblings of the ancients who claimed millennial life-spans...
The problem with fantasies is you can't really insist that everyone else believes in yours, the other problem with fantasies is that most believers of fantasies eventually get around to doing exactly that.
User avatar
Onyx8
Moderator
 
Posts: 13686
Age: 58
Male

Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: Epic Amounts of Facepalm

#9  Postby SafeAsMilk » Feb 27, 2012 3:57 am

This has to be a surrealist comic, it doesn't make any sense.
Yes, a mighty hot dog is our Lord!
User avatar
SafeAsMilk
 
Posts: 5302
Age: 34
Male

United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Epic Amounts of Facepalm

#10  Postby Ihavenofingerprints » Feb 27, 2012 4:06 am

Why are they so obsessed with Darwin? FFS you may as well say special relativity is wrong because Newton made an error.

The worst part is that their criticisms of a man who has been dead for over 100 years is completely wrong, even though they have the benefit of google and the internet to use. There is no excuse for such stupidity.
User avatar
Ihavenofingerprints
 
Posts: 6712
Age: 21
Male

Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: Epic Amounts of Facepalm

#11  Postby JoeB » Feb 27, 2012 3:37 pm

It seems their entire argument comes down to their idea that no new (genetic) information is created through evolution. Is this correct? (I assume not, just checking as I'm no biologist).
"Education is not the filling of a pail, but the lighting of a fire." - W. B. Yeats
User avatar
JoeB
RS Donator
 
Name: Johan
Posts: 1393
Age: 27
Male

Country: European Union (NL)
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: Epic Amounts of Facepalm

#12  Postby Keira Strettner » Feb 27, 2012 5:47 pm

It'd be good if it were satire, but sadly it is a testament to the ignorance of man.
User avatar
Keira Strettner
 
Name: Keira Strettner
Posts: 14
Age: 24
Female

Country: United Kingdom
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Epic Amounts of Facepalm

#13  Postby Matt_B » Feb 27, 2012 5:56 pm

JoeB wrote:It seems their entire argument comes down to their idea that no new (genetic) information is created through evolution. Is this correct? (I assume not, just checking as I'm no biologist).


It's totally incorrect. New genes, containing new information, are constantly being created by mutations. Their argument rests entirely on the idea that this doesn't really count as information because the mutation process is essentially random. However, the process of natural selection that decides which genes ultimately survive certainly isn't random so even that argument is a hollow one.
User avatar
Matt_B
 
Posts: 3358
Male

Country: Australia
Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: Epic Amounts of Facepalm

#14  Postby CdesignProponentsist » Feb 27, 2012 6:07 pm

Matt_B wrote:
JoeB wrote:It seems their entire argument comes down to their idea that no new (genetic) information is created through evolution. Is this correct? (I assume not, just checking as I'm no biologist).


It's totally incorrect. New genes, containing new information, are constantly being created by mutations. Their argument rests entirely on the idea that this doesn't really count as information because the mutation process is essentially random. However, the process of natural selection that decides which genes ultimately survive certainly isn't random so even that argument is a hollow one.


Exactly. If you randomly toss a bunch of randomly sized beads onto a grate (natural environment) only the ones small enough or shaped appropriately will pass through (natural selection) therefor the process is no longer random.

The natural environment imparts information into genetic code through mutation and natural selection.
"Infinite loop?! I don't have time for that!" - Bender Bending Rodríguez
User avatar
CdesignProponentsist
 
Posts: 8949
Age: 47
Male

Country: U.S.A
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Epic Amounts of Facepalm

#15  Postby Paul Almond » Feb 27, 2012 6:22 pm

My view is that rather than think of Darwinian evolution as "creating new information" it is better to think of it as copying information from the environment into the genetic code. That is to say, the information about the features that living things should have to be good at reproducing is already out there in the environment. It is implicit in the environment. Evolution extracts this information gradually from the environment.
If I ever start making posts like "On the banning and partial banning of words!" then I view my life as less than worthless and I hope that my friends here would have a collection to pay for ninjas to be sent to my home to kill me*. (*=humanely)
User avatar
Paul Almond
 
Name: Paul Almond
Posts: 1534
Male

Country: United Kingdom
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Epic Amounts of Facepalm

#16  Postby Rumraket » Feb 27, 2012 7:36 pm

Paul Almond wrote:My view is that rather than think of Darwinian evolution as "creating new information" it is better to think of it as copying information from the environment into the genetic code. That is to say, the information about the features that living things should have to be good at reproducing is already out there in the environment. It is implicit in the environment. Evolution extracts this information gradually from the environment.

Agreed 100%.
I've been hammering this point for a while now, and tried to make it explicit with examples and analogies in the various threads with Jireh. I also tried to get the same point across to Rodcarty at one point. As I know Cali has written before, information can be said to represent "the physical state of a system". Since all material systems are always in some kind of state, the process of selection working on randomly generated variation will constantly work to "write" the gene-sequences most successful at propagating in this environment. It follows that all sequence information is produced by an evolutionary process. That's why I now think there must have been a transtition from chemical to template directed evolution. Origin of life research must search for non-templated chemical systems capable of evolving. Instead of evolution writing sequences with information about the environment, it is constructing something else that serves the same purpose.
Work is being done on exactly that: Evolution before genes.
We live in exciting times!
"When inventing a god, the most important thing is to claim it is invisible, inaudible and imperceptible in every way. Otherwise, people will become skeptical when it appears to no one, is silent and does nothing." - Anonymous
User avatar
Rumraket
 
Posts: 9552
Age: 34
Male

Denmark (dk)
 
Birthday
Print view this post

Re: Epic Amounts of Facepalm

#17  Postby JoeB » Feb 27, 2012 7:50 pm

Matt_B wrote:
JoeB wrote:It seems their entire argument comes down to their idea that no new (genetic) information is created through evolution. Is this correct? (I assume not, just checking as I'm no biologist).


It's totally incorrect. New genes, containing new information, are constantly being created by mutations. Their argument rests entirely on the idea that this doesn't really count as information because the mutation process is essentially random. However, the process of natural selection that decides which genes ultimately survive certainly isn't random so even that argument is a hollow one.

Thanks, that's what I thought was the case.

I remember arguing with my (baptist christian) family about evolution. I just don't understand why they don't want to get it (well I do know why, but still...), it makes so much sense. Essentially I said it's comparable to a mathematical truth, evolution through natural selection is impossible not to have!
But then they went on how a dog remains a dog and a cat remains a cat.... :banghead:
"Education is not the filling of a pail, but the lighting of a fire." - W. B. Yeats
User avatar
JoeB
RS Donator
 
Name: Johan
Posts: 1393
Age: 27
Male

Country: European Union (NL)
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: Epic Amounts of Facepalm

#18  Postby willhud9 » Feb 27, 2012 9:42 pm

Where exactly in the Bible does it say that God's creation began to degenerate, and create loss of "data" (whatever that means)? Makeshitupicus strikes back.
"Well sweet Mother Teresa on the hood of a Mercedes Benz, you sound like a majestic fucking eagle." ~Instructor Shadis
User avatar
willhud9
 
Name: William
Posts: 13201
Age: 23
Male

Country: United States
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Epic Amounts of Facepalm

#19  Postby Zwaarddijk » Feb 27, 2012 10:25 pm

willhud9 wrote:Where exactly in the Bible does it say that God's creation began to degenerate, and create loss of "data" (whatever that means)? Makeshitupicus strikes back.


Ah but you know the canopy of water - totes kept all the radiation out, and everyone knows radiation is the source of mutations! (And, well, God said the world was GOOD, and he's got the most exacting definition for that every - would he call something less than perfect good?) The first part I've actually seen in apologetics arguments, the parenthesis is assumed by a lot of Christians, afaict.
Zwaarddijk
 
Posts: 4053
Male

Country: Finland
Finland (fi)
Print view this post

Re: Epic Amounts of Facepalm

#20  Postby Calilasseia » Feb 27, 2012 10:51 pm

JoeB wrote:It seems their entire argument comes down to their idea that no new (genetic) information is created through evolution. Is this correct? (I assume not, just checking as I'm no biologist).


Time for another scientific paper methinks.

De Novo Origination Of A New Protein-Coding Gene In Saccharomyces cerevisiae by Jing Cai, Ruoping Zhao, Huifeng Jiang and Wen Wang, Genetics, 179: 487-496 (May 2008) [full paper downloadable from here]

Cai et al, 2008 wrote:Origination of new genes is an important mechanism generating genetic novelties during the evolution of an organism. Processes of creating new genes using preexisting genes as the raw materials are well characterized, such as exon shuffling, gene duplication, retroposition, gene fusion, and fission. However, the process of how a new gene is de novo created from noncoding sequence is largely unknown. On the basis of genome comparison among yeast species, we have identified a newde novo protein-coding gene, BSC4 in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. The BSC4 gene has an open reading frame (ORF) encoding a 132-aminoacid-long peptide, while there is no homologous ORF in all the sequenced genomes of other fungal species, including its closely related species such as S. paradoxus and S. mikatae. The functional protein-coding feature of the BSC4 gene in S. cerevisiae[/]i is supported by population genetics, expression, proteomics, and synthetic lethal data. The evidence suggests that [i]BSC4 may be involved in the DNA repair pathway during the stationary phase of S. cerevisiae and contribute to the robustness of [/i]S. cerevisiae[/i], when shifted to a nutrient-poor environment. Because the corresponding noncoding sequences in S. paradoxus, S. mikatae, and S. bayanus also transcribe, we propose that a new de novo protein-coding gene may have evolved from a previously expressed noncoding sequence.


The paper continues with:

Cai et al, 2008 wrote:THE total number of different proteins in all organisms on earth is estimated to be 1010–1012 (Choi and Kim 2006). How the protein repertoire evolved to this giant diversity that underlies the evolution of the complexity of life is the basis of attracting many evolutionary biologists to the field. Discussions began 40 years ago (Perutz et al. 1965); however, with the accomplishment of complete genome sequences, we have begun to get a more comprehensive view of this complex issue. Comparative genomic study supports the notion that novel protein genes derive from preexisting genes or parts of them. For example, exon shuffling, gene duplication, retroposition, and gene fusion and fission all contribute to the origin of new genes (Long et al. 2003). But the de novo gene origination process that a whole protein-coding gene evolves from a fragment of noncoding sequence is considered seldom and receives little attention. A computational analysis of several archeal and proteobacterial species’ genomes suggests that at least 240 and 320 genes, respectively, originated de novo along the branches leading to the Archea and Proteobacteria. Furthermore, there are also many de novo origination events among the species within each of the lineages (Snel et al. 2002). On the basis of the analysis, the author ranked the de novo gene origination process quantitatively the second most important process after gene loss among gene loss, de novo origination, gene duplication, gene fusion/fission, and horizontal gene transfer. This study suggests that de novo evolution not only plays an important role in generating the initial common ancestral protein repertoire but also contributes to the subsequent evolution of an organism. However, it is nearly impossible to identify the noncoding origin of the initial ancestral proteins because of long-term accumulation of mutations. Recently evolved novel protein-coding genes provide us the opportunity to investigate the de novo evolution mechanism of protein-coding genes. This methodology on gene origination has been developed in Drosophila by Long et al. (Long and Langley 1993), which has led to many advances in understanding the mechanism of new gene origination, including gene duplication, retroposition, exon shuffling, and gene fission and fusion (Nurminsky et al. 1998; Wang et al. 2002, 2004; Arguello et al. 2006; Yang et al. 2008). However, only recently did Begun et al. (2006, 2007), Levine et al. (2006), and S. T. Chen et al. (2007) find cases of whole-gene de novo origination in Drosophila melanogaster, D. yakuba, and D. erecta. The de novo genes may be functional on the basis of the RNA expression analysis, although the protein-coding potential of those de novo ORFs still needs to be proven.


In more detail:

Cai et al, 2008 wrote:In this study, we identified a novel protein-coding gene BSC4 that completely evolved from a noncoding sequence in S. cerevisiae. This gene first caught our attention as a species-specific protein-coding gene in our genome comparison analysis among Saccharomyces species (H.-F. Jiang and W. Wang, unpublished data). Previously the BSC4 gene was found as one of the stop codon readthrough genes in baker’s yeast by Namy et al. (2003). They found that BSC4 has a typical readthrough nucleotide context around its stop codon and its readthrough frequency is 9% when cloned into a plasmid with reporter genes (Namy et al. 2003). Although the BSC4 gene has been included in many large-scale studies, no specific study has been done with an aim to characterize it. The Saccharomyces Genome Database (SGD) (http://www.yeastgenome.org/) curates dozens of data sets, most of which were carried out using the gene chips of S. cerevisiae. In all the gene chips there are probes designed against the BSC4 gene along with other genes in S. cerevisiae. These data sets provide much expression information for BSC4 under different culture conditions. This gene was also included in the systematic gene deletion project in which ORFs of yeast genes were deleted and subsequent phenotypic analyses were carried out on those derived gene deletion strains (Saccharomyces Genome Deletion Project, http://wwwsequence.stanford.edu/group/y ... ions3.html). On the basis of the panel of those gene deletion strains, whole-genome synthetic lethal analyses were carried out by Pan et al. (2006) that deleted two genes to see if that would be lethal to S. cerevisiae. Their result shows that deletion of gene DUN1 or RPN4 is lethal to S. cerevisiae if BSC4 is also deleted (Pan et al. 2006). In addition, there are multiple tandem mass-spectrometry analysis results of yeast protein samples deposited into the ‘‘Peptide Atlas’’ (http://www.peptideatlas.org/repository). Our analysis of these proteomics data supports the existence of the BSC4-coded peptides and our population genetic analysis suggests that the ORF of this novel protein-coding gene is under strong negative selection at the nonsynonymous sites. Our expression data show that its orthologous noncoding sequences have detectable expression at the RNA level, across the closely related species of baker’s yeast. On the basis of these data, we suggest that a novel protein gene can wholly evolve from a noncoding sequence.


The authors cite their results thus:

Cai et al, 2008 wrote:RESULTS

Origin of the de novo gene BSC4: BSC4 is a S. cerevisiae gene, which has an ORF of 132 amino acids, and with no apparent similarity to any previously characterized protein. BSC4 has no significant homolog when we used tBLASTN to search against genome sequences of S. bayanus, S. kudriavzevii, S. mikatae, and S. paradoxus under the standard parameters. Even if we use the putative translation product of the stop codon bypass event predicted by Namy et al. (2003), which is a peptide of 237 amino acids, there is still no significant homolog in these sibling species. The absence of homolog might be the false negative result due to incompleteness of the genomic databases of those species. However, the multiple-species search makes this possibility less likely, and the genome databases of Saccharomyces species are widely considered as the most reliable compared with genome databases of other species. These results suggest that BSC4 may be a newly evolved gene in S. cerevisiae. To further rule out possible spurious results caused by sequencing gaps in the outgroups, we conducted a genomic Southern blot with the probe designed against BSC4. The southern blot result shows that only the S. cerevisiae genome exhibits obvious hybridization signals (Figure 1). We also carried out a further tBLASTN search against genome sequences of other fungal species to exclude the probability of multiple-gene loss in the four outgroup species. The results showed that this ORF has no homolog in any other fungal species. However, the origination mechanism still remains to be clarified until we find its ancestral sequence because horizontal gene transfer or high divergence of sequences can both explain the above results.

In addition to sequence similarity, the chromosomal context–synteny relationship is another important piece of information for identification of gene relationships. A pair of sequence fragments in two related species can be supposed to be in orthologous relationship if they have weak homology and their flanking genes are in orthologous status, when they do not have BLAST hits of a higher score in other regions of the genome. The Synteny Viewer on the Saccharomyces Genome Database website indicates that the flanking genes of BSC4 have their orthologs in the same synteny blocks of S. bayanus, S. mikatae, and S. paradoxus (Kellis et al. 2003). We cut the intergenic region between the two flanking genes and manually aligned them with BSC4 of S. cerevisiae (Figure 2). Because S. kudriavzevii is not covered in the Synteny Viewer on the Saccharomyces Genome Database website, we did not include it in Figure 2, although we also found by genome comparison that the synteny relationship of the locus in this species is also conserved (data not shown). The alignment shows that there are tracts of homologous sequences and the overall identity across those four Saccharomyces species is 35.71%. Data on the UCSC genome browser also indicate the same orthologous relationship, which is consistent with our analysis. These orthologous regions in the sibling species of S. cerevisiae have very low probability to code for proteins even if we consider stop codon readthrough in those species, because of the existence of a number of premature stop codons (supplemental Figure 1).

The flanking genes of BSC4 in the S. cerevisiae genome, ALP1 and LYP1, are a pair of paralogs lined in an inverted direction. This gene order also remains conserved in the more distant yeast genomes of Ashbya gossypii, Kluyveromyces lactis, and S. castelli beyond Saccharomyces sensu stricto complex species (Figure 3). In addition, the length of this intergenic region does not change much across all those species (713 bp in A. gossypii and 889 bp in S. cerevisiae). From these results, we can make an estimate that the origin of the BSC4 ancestral sequence can be dated back at least to the last common ancestor of A. gossypii and S. cerevisiae, i.e., .100 million years ago (Dietrich et al. 2004) when an inverted gene duplication event formed the syntenic orthologs flanking the ancestor of BSC4. However, only after the divergence from S. paradoxus the ancestral noncoding sequence evolved into a protein-coding gene in S. cerevisiae. On the basis of these pieces of evidence, it is very likely that this is a real de novo origination case with clearly defined lineage.


So, we have hard scientific evidence for the de novo origination of protein-coding genes. The above paper isn't the only one by the way. Other appropriate papers on de novo gene origination include:

Extensive De Novo Genomic Variation In Rice Introduced By Introgression From Wild Rice (Zizania latifolia Griseb.) by Yong-Ming Wang, Zhen-Ying dong, Zhoing-Juan Zhang, Xiu-Yun Lin, Ye Shen, Daowei Zhou and Bao Liu, Genetics, 170: 1945-1956 (August 2005) [full paper downloadable from here]

Novel Genes Derived From Noncoding DNA In Drosophila melanogaster Are Frequently X-Linked And Exhibit Testis-based Expression by Mia T. Levine, Corbin D. Jones, Andrew D. Kern, Heather A. Lindfors and David J. Begun, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, 103(26): 9935-9939 (27th June 2006) [full paper downloadable from here]

Evidence For De Novo Evolution Of Testis-Expressed Genes In The Drosophila yakuba/Drosophila erecta Clade by David J. Begun, Heather A. Lindfors, Andrew D. Kern and Corbin D. Jones, Genetics, 176: 1131-1137 (June 2007) [full paper downloadable from here]

Evolution Of Enzymes For The Metabolism Of New Chemical Inputs Into The Environment by Lawrence P. Wackett, Journal of Biological Chemistry, 279(40): 41259-41264 (1st October 2004) [full paper downloadable from here]

Evolution Of Hydra, A Recently Evolved Testis-Expressed Gene With Nine Alternative First Exons In Drosophila melanogaster by Shou-Tao Chen, Hsin-Chien Cheng, Daniel A. Barbash and Hsiao-Pei Yang, PLoS Genetics, 3(7): 1131-1143 (July 2007) [full paper downloadable from her]

Recently Evolved Genes Identified From Drosophila yakuba And D. erecta Accessory Gland Expressed Sequence Tags by David J. Begun, Heather A. Lindfors, Melissa E. Thompson and Alisha K. Holloway, Genetics, 172: 1675-1681 (March 2006) [full paper downloadable from here]

Also, this article may prove useful.

Incidentally, I covered the Wackett paper on new enzymes cited above in more detail in this post over at the old Richard Dawkins website..
Signature temporarily on hold until I can find a reliable image host ...
User avatar
Calilasseia
Moderator
 
Posts: 16977
Age: 52
Male

Country: England
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Next

Return to Creationism

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest