Science shows that evolution can't create new genes

Incl. intelligent design, belief in divine creation

Moderators: Calilasseia, DarthHelmet86, Onyx8

Re: Science shows that evolution can't create new genes

#241  Postby MarioNovak » Feb 10, 2015 10:39 am

Rumraket wrote:
The introns cut themselves out using metal ions as cofactors, sort of like small "spot welders". Such introns exist today, we call them self-splicint introns. They belong to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_I_catalytic_intron and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_II_intron.

RNA can do that. The RNA backbone is negatively charged (it just is, the phosphate group is negatively charged, this doesn't have to evolve), so it binds a positively charged metal cofactor such as Mg2+.

All RNA folds into some structure, some of them stably, some of them not. So it folds back on itself and when the metal cofactor comes into contact with the phosphodiester backbone, it breaks the bonds.

There, that's it. No reason for me to sit here and spell it all out. You can just read this:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2756803/
Structural Insights into RNA Splicing
Navtej Toor,Kevin S. Keating, and Anna Marie Pyle

Please, stop spamming. Here we are arguing about EVOLUTION of RNA splicing through accumulations of small changes and NOT about how this procces OCCURS in present-day cells. We are arguing on how evolution "find the right way" in the space of infinite number of ways one of which spells your name using multiprotein complexes.

You will note how there are introns that don't depend on proteins to help them excise themselves. So all that is required to make introns cut themselves out to begin with is that mutations change the first introns insertions such that they bind metal cofactors and fold themselves into the right position.


Yes, I know that. All that is required for threat of bodily harm cease to exist is to provide a correct answer. Tell me something I don't know.
MarioNovak
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: MArio Novak
Posts: 42

Country: Croatia
Croatia (hr)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Science shows that evolution can't create new genes

#242  Postby Sendraks » Feb 10, 2015 10:48 am

MarioNovak wrote:Please, stop spamming.


I'm sure Rumraket will be happy to acquiesce to any requests to cease spamming. However, in order to stop spamming he'd have to be undertaking the activity in the first place.
"One of the great tragedies of mankind is that morality has been hijacked by religion." - Arthur C Clarke

"'Science doesn't know everything' - Well science knows it doesn't know everything, otherwise it'd stop" - Dara O'Brian
User avatar
Sendraks
 
Name: D-Money Jr
Posts: 15239
Age: 104
Male

Country: England
Print view this post

Re: Science shows that evolution can't create new genes

#243  Postby Sendraks » Feb 10, 2015 10:48 am

MarioNovak wrote:
Please, stop spamming.


I'm sure Rumraket will be happy to acquiesce to any requests to cease spamming. However, in order to stop spamming he'd have to be undertaking the activity in the first place.
"One of the great tragedies of mankind is that morality has been hijacked by religion." - Arthur C Clarke

"'Science doesn't know everything' - Well science knows it doesn't know everything, otherwise it'd stop" - Dara O'Brian
User avatar
Sendraks
 
Name: D-Money Jr
Posts: 15239
Age: 104
Male

Country: England
Print view this post

Re: Science shows that evolution can't create new genes

#244  Postby Sendraks » Feb 10, 2015 10:49 am

MarioNovak wrote:
Please, stop spamming.


I'm sure Rumraket will be happy to acquiesce to any requests to cease spamming. However, in order to stop spamming he'd have to be undertaking the activity in the first place.
"One of the great tragedies of mankind is that morality has been hijacked by religion." - Arthur C Clarke

"'Science doesn't know everything' - Well science knows it doesn't know everything, otherwise it'd stop" - Dara O'Brian
User avatar
Sendraks
 
Name: D-Money Jr
Posts: 15239
Age: 104
Male

Country: England
Print view this post

Re: Science shows that evolution can't create new genes

#245  Postby Sendraks » Feb 10, 2015 10:49 am

MarioNovak wrote:
Please, stop spamming.


I'm sure Rumraket will be happy to acquiesce to any requests to cease spamming. However, in order to stop spamming he'd have to be undertaking the activity in the first place.
"One of the great tragedies of mankind is that morality has been hijacked by religion." - Arthur C Clarke

"'Science doesn't know everything' - Well science knows it doesn't know everything, otherwise it'd stop" - Dara O'Brian
User avatar
Sendraks
 
Name: D-Money Jr
Posts: 15239
Age: 104
Male

Country: England
Print view this post

Re: Science shows that evolution can't create new genes

#246  Postby Sendraks » Feb 10, 2015 10:50 am

That was me, spamming.

I've just reported myself.

Move along.
"One of the great tragedies of mankind is that morality has been hijacked by religion." - Arthur C Clarke

"'Science doesn't know everything' - Well science knows it doesn't know everything, otherwise it'd stop" - Dara O'Brian
User avatar
Sendraks
 
Name: D-Money Jr
Posts: 15239
Age: 104
Male

Country: England
Print view this post

Re: Science shows that evolution can't create new genes

#247  Postby Rumraket » Feb 10, 2015 11:29 am

MarioNovak wrote:
Rumraket wrote:
The introns cut themselves out using metal ions as cofactors, sort of like small "spot welders". Such introns exist today, we call them self-splicint introns. They belong to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_I_catalytic_intron and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_II_intron.

RNA can do that. The RNA backbone is negatively charged (it just is, the phosphate group is negatively charged, this doesn't have to evolve), so it binds a positively charged metal cofactor such as Mg2+.

All RNA folds into some structure, some of them stably, some of them not. So it folds back on itself and when the metal cofactor comes into contact with the phosphodiester backbone, it breaks the bonds.

There, that's it. No reason for me to sit here and spell it all out. You can just read this:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2756803/
Structural Insights into RNA Splicing
Navtej Toor,Kevin S. Keating, and Anna Marie Pyle

Please, stop spamming. Here we are arguing about EVOLUTION of RNA splicing through accumulations of small changes and NOT about how this procces OCCURS in present-day cells. We are arguing on how evolution "find the right way" in the space of infinite number of ways one of which spells your name using multiprotein complexes.

You will note how there are introns that don't depend on proteins to help them excise themselves. So all that is required to make introns cut themselves out to begin with is that mutations change the first introns insertions such that they bind metal cofactors and fold themselves into the right position.


Yes, I know that. All that is required for threat of bodily harm cease to exist is to provide a correct answer. Tell me something I don't know.

Then your questions have been answered. What you want is for me to tell you the complete nucleotide sequence of the very first intron, then you want me to tell you what the first mutation in that intron was and how it affected it, and then you want me to tell you want the 2nd mutation was, and then the 3rd and 4th and so on. And every step of the way you want me to tell you how each of those mutations altered the function of the intron.

That's idiotic, I'm not going to do that, I'm not required to do that. We can know that a man can walk across a continent without knowing where exactly he places his foot every step. Knowledge at that detail is not required.

So your demand comes down to an unreasonable and irrational level of required detail. This is your final refuge in order to avoid admitting defeat, a demand invented entirely for the purpose of defiance. You're not prepared to discuss the subject rationally, you are not here to understand or discuss, you are here to show that you cannot be convinced and you will go to any length to do that.

Science isn't good enough for you if it doesn't answer every historical question at an atomic resolution, yet you are prepared to accept blanket answers of "design" without any detail at all. "The spliceosome was designed" is the level of detail you find acceptable and believable when it comes to design. But roughly reconstructed evolutionary histories through comparative genetics is insufficient. And they are insufficient only because it is a naturalistic answer that conflicts with your religious views.

This is why you will always fail to convince a rational 3rd party observer coming to this discussion to try to understand your objections, because it is obvious you are holding an irrational double standard for emotional reasons. This is why ID lost the Dover case partly on Michael Behe's testimony when his refusal to accept the evidence for evolution came down to the same basic objection "the explanation is not detailed enough to convince me", while at the same time "designerdidit" was good enough for him to believe in design.

You're being irrational Mario because you are holding a hypocritical double standard, and somewhere deep down you know it. There's nothing more for us to discuss here.
Half-Life 3 - I want to believe
User avatar
Rumraket
 
Posts: 13215
Age: 40

Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Science shows that evolution can't create new genes

#248  Postby hackenslash » Feb 10, 2015 11:52 am

Rumraket wrote:There's nothing more for us to discuss here.


Unless, of course, you can give us a step-by-step of how your magic man dun it...
User avatar
hackenslash
 
Name: The Other Sweary One
Posts: 21444
Age: 51
Male

Country: Republic of Mancunia
Print view this post

Re: Science shows that evolution can't create new genes

#249  Postby ScholasticSpastic » Feb 10, 2015 1:36 pm

This thread is an excellent example of why I wince whenever I see or hear the words, "Science shows that....."
"You have to be a real asshole to quote yourself."
~ ScholasticSpastic
User avatar
ScholasticSpastic
 
Name: D-Money Sr.
Posts: 6354
Age: 45
Male

Country: Behind Zion's Curtain
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Science shows that evolution can't create new genes

#250  Postby Sendraks » Feb 10, 2015 1:47 pm

ScholasticSpastic wrote:This thread is an excellent example of why I wince whenever I see or hear the words, "Science shows that....."


I start to hear the theme tune from Jaws, only it is changed slightly...

*to the theme tune of Jaws*

Dun, Dun
Dun, Dun, Dun, Dun
Dun, Dun, Dun, Dun, Dunning-Krueger, Dunning-Krueger.. etc...etc
"One of the great tragedies of mankind is that morality has been hijacked by religion." - Arthur C Clarke

"'Science doesn't know everything' - Well science knows it doesn't know everything, otherwise it'd stop" - Dara O'Brian
User avatar
Sendraks
 
Name: D-Money Jr
Posts: 15239
Age: 104
Male

Country: England
Print view this post

Re: Science shows that evolution can't create new genes

#251  Postby MarioNovak » Feb 10, 2015 2:31 pm

Rumraket wrote:
Then your questions have been answered. What you want is for me to tell you the complete nucleotide sequence of the very first intron, then you want me to tell you what the first mutation in that intron was and how it affected it, and then you want me to tell you want the 2nd mutation was, and then the 3rd and 4th and so on. And every step of the way you want me to tell you how each of those mutations altered the function of the intron.

That's idiotic, I'm not going to do that, I'm not required to do that. We can know that a man can walk across a continent without knowing where exactly he places his foot every step. Knowledge at that detail is not required.

So your demand comes down to an unreasonable and irrational level of required detail. This is your final refuge in order to avoid admitting defeat, a demand invented entirely for the purpose of defiance. You're not prepared to discuss the subject rationally, you are not here to understand or discuss, you are here to show that you cannot be convinced and you will go to any length to do that.

Science isn't good enough for you if it doesn't answer every historical question at an atomic resolution, yet you are prepared to accept blanket answers of "design" without any detail at all. "The spliceosome was designed" is the level of detail you find acceptable and believable when it comes to design. But roughly reconstructed evolutionary histories through comparative genetics is insufficient. And they are insufficient only because it is a naturalistic answer that conflicts with your religious views.

This is why you will always fail to convince a rational 3rd party observer coming to this discussion to try to understand your objections, because it is obvious you are holding an irrational double standard for emotional reasons. This is why ID lost the Dover case partly on Michael Behe's testimony when his refusal to accept the evidence for evolution came down to the same basic objection "the explanation is not detailed enough to convince me", while at the same time "designerdidit" was good enough for him to believe in design.

You're being irrational Mario because you are holding a hypocritical double standard, and somewhere deep down you know it. There's nothing more for us to discuss here.


Can you please please please please... stop using this red herring fallacies. :pray:

I don't want you to tell me what the first mutation in intron was and then the 2nd, and then the 3rd and so on.

I want you to tell me just one thing: how did evolution find "the right way" in the space of infinite number of possible ways, one of which spells your name using multiprotein complexes? Or in other words, what selection criteria evolution used in choosing the right combination of molecules, a combination that solves a particular cellular problem.

As I have already said, even if we assume (contrary to experimental evidence) that evolution can produce new information, new genes, new proteins or new functions in some random temporal point, what does that have to do with the solution to a particular cellular problem, like intronic insertion or the ability of egg cell to interact functionally in the production of an offspring with a new combination of genes.

Claim "evolution proceeds by random chance", is referred to as "one of the five major misconceptions about evolution".

This is from the TalkOrigins:

There is probably no other statement which is a better indication that the arguer doesn't understand evolution. Chance certainly plays a large part in evolution, but this argument completely ignores the fundamental role of natural selection, and selection is the very opposite of chance. Chance, in the form of mutations, provides genetic variation, which is the raw material that natural selection has to work with.

Now, I want you to explain me what and where is the fundamental role of natural selection in our example of RNA splicing evolution. So, in some random temporal point during eukaryotic evolution one random and fully functional protein emerges from junk DNA. How does natural selection knows that this new protein is a correct protein for future function of intron removal?

Or using our question-answer analogy: I am mixing letters randomly and at some point semantically correct word pops up. How do I know this new word is a correct word in the answer if I am unable to see the question?

I am claiming that the only way to solve this problem is by chance, but according to TalkOrigins: I don't understand evolution. Since you do understand evolution I want you to explain me how evolution did it. Ok?
MarioNovak
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: MArio Novak
Posts: 42

Country: Croatia
Croatia (hr)
Print view this post

Re: Science shows that evolution can't create new genes

#252  Postby Sendraks » Feb 10, 2015 2:40 pm

MarioNovak wrote:Can you please please please please... stop using this red herring fallacies. :pray:


Please, please, please, please......stop talking shite.

MarioNovak wrote:I want you to tell me just one thing: how did evolution find "the right way" in the space of infinite number of possible ways,


Evolution does not find "the right way" because that is presupposing an must be "right" or that there is some sort of purpose behind it.

Evolution doesn't find anything. It is a process. Sometimes the process leads to a beneficial mutation, but that mutation is only beneficial for as long as the circumstances in which it is beneficial persist.

The number of evolutionary options for any given organism in any given circumstance is not infinite, it is very finite. The opportunities for any given population to evolve a beneficial mutation within a specified period of time, will be limited by the size of the population, the amount of time available and other competing factors.
"One of the great tragedies of mankind is that morality has been hijacked by religion." - Arthur C Clarke

"'Science doesn't know everything' - Well science knows it doesn't know everything, otherwise it'd stop" - Dara O'Brian
User avatar
Sendraks
 
Name: D-Money Jr
Posts: 15239
Age: 104
Male

Country: England
Print view this post

Re: Science shows that evolution can't create new genes

#253  Postby MarioNovak » Feb 10, 2015 3:01 pm

Sendraks wrote:
Evolution does not find "the right way" because that is presupposing an must be "right" or that there is some sort of purpose behind it.

Evolution doesn't find anything. It is a process. Sometimes the process leads to a beneficial mutation, but that mutation is only beneficial for as long as the circumstances in which it is beneficial persist.

So, in the absence of RNA splicing process, no "right" combination of molecules is needed to remove introns out? You just pick molecules randomly throw them into the cell and voilà - this mixture will capture, cut, rearrange, join and release mRNA molecule in the right place and at the right time? :crazy:

Go sell this nonsensical evo-mantra someplace else.
MarioNovak
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: MArio Novak
Posts: 42

Country: Croatia
Croatia (hr)
Print view this post

Re: Science shows that evolution can't create new genes

#254  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Feb 10, 2015 3:04 pm

MarioNovak wrote:
Sendraks wrote:
Evolution does not find "the right way" because that is presupposing an must be "right" or that there is some sort of purpose behind it.

Evolution doesn't find anything. It is a process. Sometimes the process leads to a beneficial mutation, but that mutation is only beneficial for as long as the circumstances in which it is beneficial persist.

So, in the absence of RNA splicing process, no "right" combination of molecules is needed to remove introns out? You just pick molecules randomly throw them into the cell and voilà - this mixture will capture, cut, rearrange, join and release mRNA molecule in the right place and at the right time? :crazy:

Go sell this nonsensical evo-mantra someplace else.

An appeal to personal incredulity and ignorance won't be any less fallacious if you present if with a lot of bluster. :nono:
"Respect for personal beliefs = "I am going to tell you all what I think of YOU, but don't dare retort and tell what you think of ME because...it's my personal belief". Hmm. A bully's charter and no mistake."
User avatar
Thomas Eshuis
 
Name: Thomas Eshuis
Posts: 31088
Age: 31
Male

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

Re: Science shows that evolution can't create new genes

#255  Postby Sendraks » Feb 10, 2015 3:13 pm

MarioNovak wrote:
So, in the absence of RNA splicing process, no "right" combination of molecules is needed to remove introns out? You just pick molecules randomly throw them into the cell and voilà - this mixture will capture, cut, rearrange, join and release mRNA molecule in the right place and at the right time? :crazy:


You can use the word "right" in the sense that a given combination will be "right" for a particular set of circumstances. However, taking Lenski's experiment as an example, the different populations of E-coli were "right" for the test circumstances under which they were existing. Then one of the populations evolved a beneficial mutation that gave this population an advantage. That doesn't make that new population "more right" any more than it made the other populations "wrong."

MarioNovak wrote:Go sell this nonsensical evo-mantra someplace else.


If you had the humility, you'd just admit you don't understand. It is nothing to be embarrassed about.

This is a learning environment.....

...which probably explains why you are having so much difficulty here.
"One of the great tragedies of mankind is that morality has been hijacked by religion." - Arthur C Clarke

"'Science doesn't know everything' - Well science knows it doesn't know everything, otherwise it'd stop" - Dara O'Brian
User avatar
Sendraks
 
Name: D-Money Jr
Posts: 15239
Age: 104
Male

Country: England
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Science shows that evolution can't create new genes

#256  Postby hackenslash » Feb 10, 2015 3:22 pm

MarioNovak wrote:So, in the absence of RNA splicing process, no "right" combination of molecules is needed to remove introns out? You just pick molecules randomly throw them into the cell and voilà - this mixture will capture, cut, rearrange, join and release mRNA molecule in the right place and at the right time? :crazy:


Why 'in the absence of', since we have such a process? Your personal incredulity is not an argument.

Go sell this nonsensical evo-mantra someplace else.


Errr, you fucking came here, genius. Go sell your fucking ignorance some place else.
User avatar
hackenslash
 
Name: The Other Sweary One
Posts: 21444
Age: 51
Male

Country: Republic of Mancunia
Print view this post

Re: Science shows that evolution can't create new genes

#257  Postby Rumraket » Feb 10, 2015 7:39 pm

MarioNovak wrote:I don't want you to tell me what the first mutation in intron was and then the 2nd, and then the 3rd and so on.

No? We'll see about that.

MarioNovak wrote:I want you to tell me just one thing: how did evolution find "the right way" in the space of infinite number of possible ways

The space of possibilities needed to be searched to alight on functional self-splicing intron RNA is nowhere near infinite. Probably not even particularly large.

In fact I suspect that RNA that can get copied and subsequently inserted is probably close in sequence space to RNA can that cut itself out (because we know that this is actually true for transposons), otherwise there's a good chance the two capabilities would not be realizable in the same RNA molecule. But it is, so we have good reasons for thinking it does not require many mutations to gain the splicing function from the situation where it only has insertion functionality.

MarioNovak wrote:I want you to tell me just one thing: how did evolution find "the right way"...

Mutation. The "right way" was alighted upon by mutating the string of nucleotides until it functioned in "the right way" that was useful. Yes, it was chance mutations. Random variation accumulated until the "solution" popped up.

That means mutations accumulated until the intron could cut itself out. For all we know, the first intron might even be able to do this to begin with. But that is not a necessary precondition. They might not have been able to do so at the beginning, so they would just be mutating over many generations until they could.

So here's your problem: You imagine evolution has to search a near-infinite space of irrelevant function, or non-function, to find self-splicing capacity from the position of insertion capacity. This is the same basic fallacy I spoke about earlier in this thread: You imagine, because you've been swallowing IDcreationist propaganda, that sequence space is a vast sea of non functionality, that mutations will be degrading, or destroying, or be just plain neutral, in their thousands upon thousands of combinations, until by some miracle "the right function" is found in this desert. Like finding a single specific grain of sand on a beach.

That view is in your mind because religious propagandists have been installing it there, because they have polluted your understanding of RNA and protein sequence space. So I must again insist that you come to terms with the fact that these functions you think are so hard to find and so unimaginably rare and well hidden from each other, that mutations just cannot ever be expected to find them, are in fact not.

And we know this because we can use comparative genetics to track the evolutionary histories of these functions, and see through this that these functional polymers are actually quite close in sequence space. They have commonalities in structure, function and sequence. So we know that it is not a problem for evolution, we know that the IDcreationists LIE when they make up these stories about insurmountable barriers "infinite possibilities" that need to be searched through.

MarioNovak wrote:Or in other words, what selection criteria evolution used in choosing the right combination of molecules, a combination that solves a particular cellular problem.

The selection criteria was: Is the function (self-splice) carried out? If yes, those cells had higher fitness and the mutations were retained by selection. If not, then they just mutated further until they could.
Half-Life 3 - I want to believe
User avatar
Rumraket
 
Posts: 13215
Age: 40

Print view this post

Re: Science shows that evolution can't create new genes

#258  Postby MarioNovak » Feb 11, 2015 8:28 am

@Rumraket
You are repeating the same old mantra over and over again and completely ignore the most important question. Your brothers in ideology are doing the same with this "personal incredulity" mantra. If I found The Flat Earth model difficult to understand, or I am unaware of how it works then I am guilty of "personal incredulity". :picard:
When I registered to this forum I thought this is a good place to have a rational discussion. Now I realize this is the place of most faithful worshippers in the Darwinian cult, place of dogmatisam and irationality.

Anyhow, over and out.
MarioNovak
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: MArio Novak
Posts: 42

Country: Croatia
Croatia (hr)
Print view this post

Re: Science shows that evolution can't create new genes

#259  Postby hackenslash » Feb 11, 2015 8:29 am

Riddance, it is good. Except, of course:

Image
User avatar
hackenslash
 
Name: The Other Sweary One
Posts: 21444
Age: 51
Male

Country: Republic of Mancunia
Print view this post

Re: Science shows that evolution can't create new genes

#260  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Feb 11, 2015 9:08 am

MarioNovak wrote:@Rumraket
You are repeating the same old mantra over and over again and completely ignore the most important question. Your brothers in ideology are doing the same with this "personal incredulity" mantra. If I found The Flat Earth model difficult to understand, or I am unaware of how it works then I am guilty of "personal incredulity". :picard:
When I registered to this forum I thought this is a good place to have a rational discussion. Now I realize this is the place of most faithful worshippers in the Darwinian cult, place of dogmatisam and irationality.

Anyhow, over and out.

Translation: I cannot adress the refutation of my fatuous crap, so I'll beat a hasty retreat while claiming victory and smearing the forum. :nono: :naughty:
"Respect for personal beliefs = "I am going to tell you all what I think of YOU, but don't dare retort and tell what you think of ME because...it's my personal belief". Hmm. A bully's charter and no mistake."
User avatar
Thomas Eshuis
 
Name: Thomas Eshuis
Posts: 31088
Age: 31
Male

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

PreviousNext

Return to Creationism

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest