|
Author
|
Topic: pentadactilism again challenges the modern synthesis
|
peter borger
Member
Member # 722
|
posted 28. April 2006 07:02
John, the new age of biology shows that common descent is untrue. The chimpanzee's genome reveals something darwinians -- evolutionists in general-- should not like: the putative common ancestor to humans and chimpanzees must have had MORE active genes then the individual species together. Remarkably, the genes that appear to have been inactivated all contributed to longivity; it is important to realize these genes also qualify as genetic redundancies as they can be lost without affecting reproduction rate (in darwinian jargon: they can be lost without affecting fitness). The new biology has made it all so crystal clear that everybody overlooks it, but the account of life in Genesis seems to be the right one: the genomes show that poeple were created with the intention to live eternally (the details will be revealed in the GUToB; the general & ultimate theory of biology).
PS: this in addition to the other new biology revalation: chimp and human genes are not 99 percent identical but rather 95 percent. And guess what makes the difference? Indeed, short stretches of repetitive DNA that affect gene expression.
[ 28. April 2006, 07:15: Message edited by: peter borger ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Bruce Fast
Member
Member # 924
|
posted 28. April 2006 19:54
Peter Borger: quote:
Remarkably, the genes that appear to have been inactivated all contributed to longivity...
You mean longevity, I presume.
This is intriguing, exciting! I have found real evidence of a world-wide super-flood that helps make sense of Noah. I have been expecting scientific evidence to support the Biblical assertion that our ancients lived for a very long time. I have heard tell that, like the flood, there are oral histories throughout the world which, as a pattern, suggest that our ancients live a long time.
Do you have published source material for this report?
You said "John, the new age of biology shows that common descent is untrue." What particularly do you mean? I, for one, though not a neo-Darwinist, have bit into the common descent doctrine. What evidence is there that this is in error. I have noted that in "can some aspect of Darwinism be falsified" you have mentioned one example that does not jibe with a pure common descent view, is there more such evidence?
I notice in your profile that you list as a "research scientist". I presume you have a Ph.D. What is your area of study?
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 28. April 2006 23:01
Whoa Peter. Are you claiming common descent is no true? You have got to be kidding. Just who were our ancestors if they weren't Primates? Do you think that we were conjured up out of nothing? If so by whom and how? The entire Primate karyology can be explained as a reshuffling of a common chromosomal stock of information with no input from the environment and certainly no input from the Almighty. There is not a shred of evidence that any aspect of evolution required any intervention except at the very beginning or more likely beginings. It was all, as near as I can tell, the result of goal seeking programs that were produced millions of years ago by one or more Big Front Loaders (BFLs). All of evolution can probably be explained as a series of controlled gene sequence activations and silencings. That is exactly how ontogeny proceeds and ontogeny is still a darn good model for phylogeny. There is no intervention during ontogeny and there probably was none for phylogeny either. One thing is for sure. There had to have been a Plan just as Robert Broom insisted and the Plan, in my opinion, has been fully executed with ourselves the terminal product.
IP: Logged
|
|
peter borger
Member
Member # 722
|
posted 29. April 2006 08:45
One of the genes that has been inactivated in primates is the GULO gene. I is the result of a non-random accumulation of mutations that give the suggestion of common descent, but in actuality it is a common mechanism. I have scientific proof for that and the mansucript is currently under review by the J Mol Evolution. The alignment of mutations (shared mutations) that are usually taken as evidenc of common descent are nothing but non-random "hot spot" mutations. An active GULO gene conveys longevity as it is the final step in the synthesis of the radical scavenger vitamin C.
The caspase-12 gene has been inactivated in humans only (but it is still active in chimp); an active caspase 12 gene prevents from the neurodegenerative disease Alzheimer. Caspase 12 thus qualifies as a genetic redundancy (it was inactivated without affecting fitness = reproductive success). As does the CCR5 gene, as does ACTN3. When you look at the genetic content of humans and chimpanzee it turns out man has three dozen unique genes and chimps have unique genes as well (the exact number has to be determined yet). Anybody with access to Nature could have deduced this last year when the two genomes were discussed after the chimp's genome had been sequenced. I discuss the two genomes extensively in GUToB. The bottomline is, if we are to believe man and chimp had a common ancestor it must have had many more active genes than the two individual species. (It could still be prescribed evolution, but there is plenty of evidence against common descent)
Davison, I thought that you were the one who argued that common descent could be easily shown wrong as it requires a undisrupted reproductive continuity. In your manifesto you argue that the continuity of the germ plasm is a myth and you provide compelling biological evidence for that view. And I agree.
If common descent is what we have to deduce from the reshuffled primate genomes we must also deduce that it is a non-random phenomenon. A non-random reshuffling of genomes is probably the same as an active intervening process. In other words acts of independent creation using the same or similar genetic modules. Such modules are like building blocks, and their location in the genome determines whether a particular program is activated or silenced. Genetically this is known as the non-random order of the mammalian genomes. It was another surprise of the new biology.
best wishes and be prepared for the return,
peebee
[ 29. April 2006, 09:04: Message edited by: peter borger ]
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 29. April 2006 11:57
Peter
Of course a common ancestor had more genetic potential than its products have. That is because evolution involved the progressive loss of potenetial just as occurs during ontogney.
The facts argue against the "continuity of the germ plasm," but NEVER against reproductive continuity. The germ cells that are now being employed are not primordial but secondary germ cells. I think the true primordial germ cells were produced by the gonadal epithelium which is now sterile. That is why contemporary vertebrate germ cells all originate from outside the gonad and must invade it in order to mature. There was probably a time when both sources were functioning simultaneously. The secondary source is purely sexual which is why no modern forms can ever evolve. I am still claiming that the major effect of sexual reproduction is to stabilize the species and bring creative evolution to a screaming stop. Of course this gives the Darwinians fits. Good!
There is an interesting case demonstrating the possible occasional function of the gonadal epithelium which, as you know, I have postulated functioned (past tense) semi-meiotically.
Certain benign ovarian tumors are differentiated structures consisting entirely of hair and teeth. In one case that I know of, a woman had two such ovarian tumors, one blond, the other brunette. She must have been a brunette herself and her tumors could only have been produced semi-meiotically assuming of course that they were diploid. Isn't that wild? That is the only direct evidence I know of that the primitive vertebrate gonad functioned semi-meiotically as I have suggested. I know of not a single vertebrate whose gonad is the direct source of gametes. Some of the lower chordates may have but no known vertebrate does at least to my knowledge. I never denied reproductive continuity and I never will. We are just the last product that's all.
I hope that clarifies matters.
I don't think man is cytogenetically any different basically than any of his primate cousins. I could be wrong of course but nobody will ever tell me that we haven't shared a common ancestor or ancestors with Chimpanzees, Orang Utans and Gorillas. No way Jose!
Thanks for posting
IP: Logged
|
|
peter borger
Member
Member # 722
|
posted 03. May 2006 07:18
The problem is genetic redundancy. How can apparent genetic elements be conserved over an evolutionary timeframe when there is no force to keep the sequences stable?
If you argue for a prescribed long-age evolution how could elements such as caspase-12 be preserved over such long time frames without an accumulation of debilitating mutations? In order to work, the pre-scribed evolutionary hypothesis must also address genetic redundancy.
The new biology showed that the major part of genes can be knocked out with no effect on reproductive success. For instance, 90 percent of the genes of Saccharomyces can be erased from the genome without any effect on reproductive success, even in the presence of severe selective contraints. Importantly, there is NO association between gene duplication and genetic redundancy. To be successful, evolutionary theories must be able to address genetic redundancy. It is here, where Darwinism fails (again).
Prescribed evolution depends on the (prescribed) release of preexisting information and as such is instantaneous. It should be obvious that instant evolution does not require long ages, contrary to (neo)darwinian evolution. Prescribed evolution must have been a very rapid process otherwise we would not observe genetic redundacy unrelated to gene duplication. The bottomline is, we might not be able to distinguish PEH from instant creation events. That is why prescribed evolution cannot be accepted by the scientific establishment (although it is much better than Darwin's idea).
Peter
[ 03. May 2006, 08:38: Message edited by: peter borger ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Bruce Fast
Member
Member # 924
|
posted 03. May 2006 12:17
Peter Borger, I take it that you are YEC? I abandoned the YEC theory a long time ago based upon geological evidence. However, recent discovies of soft tissue in T-Rex fossils has caused me to at least pause and wonder. I find it unfathomable that science cound maintain such a significant blunder for so long.
I got into a debate with a biologist about unimplemented genes which should, as I put it "turn to mush" in about a million years. This was, for some strange reason, not obvious to him, not really understandable by him. The world is wierd.
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 04. May 2006 07:09
True species and all tne higher categories were produced instantly which is why we can't find any gradual transitions. Otto Schindewolf put it this way and I paraphtase:
"We might as well stop looking for the missing links as they never existed."
He also said and this is verbatim:
"The first bird hatched from a reptilian egg,"
Saltational evolution, which is the only kind there ever was, in no way conflicts with reproductive continuity. To postulate special creation just because it looks that way is absurd and totally in conflict with the very essence of evolution which demands reproductive continuity. If that is the only reason the PEH is not taken seriously, all I can say is the hell with the scientific establishment. It is still dominated by Darwinian atheists anyway as everyone knows. Darwinism is the biggest hoax in the history of civilization, dwarfing both the Phlogiston of Chemistry and the Ether of Physics.
"Science commits suicide when she adopts a creed."
Thomas Henry Huxley
She sure does and it is about time it is recognized.
IP: Logged
|
|
peter borger
Member
Member # 722
|
posted 04. May 2006 08:34
Bruce, PB is a scientist. YEC or OEC are merely denominations of the same and just as unimportant as Adam and Eve's belly buttons. The new biology shows that biology is not the result of blind chance and selection is completely irrelevant. The world isn't weird, Darwinian naturalistic phylosophers turned the world weird.
peebee
IP: Logged
|
|
peter borger
Member
Member # 722
|
posted 04. May 2006 09:06
John, the word is instant evolution. Instant means no long ages required. That is one of the consequences of PEH. It makes sence in the light of genetic redundancy, however. If all genetic element had been created a long, long time ago (say billions of years), you better make sure there is a permanent selective constraint on these elements throughout time otherwise there would be nothing left of the original information in these elements due to the accumulation of debilitating mutations which proceeds with high rates in unused genetic elements.
Genetic redundancy has been defined as the situation in which the inactivation of gene does not affect fitness. Thus, selection (which is merely the outcome of differential reproductive success = fitness) cannot explain genetic redundacy. We observe genetic redundancy in all genomes (and it does not correlate with gene duplicatons) and its mere existance terminates Darwin's era. As genetic redundancy is a general phenomenon of all living organisms your PEH only works in a YEC setting. If your hypothesis is to correctly describe an evolutionary process is must address genetic redundacy and can do so only if you accept a recent creation event.
Of course, I agree with you that (neo)darwinism is a whole load of non-sense.
Greetings,
Peebee
IP: Logged
|
|
Shi
Member
Member # 1923
|
posted 04. May 2006 12:35
John,
The PEH is much easier for me to digest if the prescription happens at the time of creation of the first individual of a species. Each fundamentally novel species requires a prescription at the time of creation of the first individual of the species. At the time of the first bacteria, the prescription is mostly about bacteria and contains little information about human being. I dont think you can find any data that would contradict my way of interpreting your PEH.
IP: Logged
|
|
Bruce Fast
Member
Member # 924
|
posted 04. May 2006 13:06
PB: "The world isn't weird, Darwinian naturalistic phylosophers turned the world weird." WHen I said that the world is wierd, I was refering to the world of human thought. I am still baffled when I encounter a biologist who does not recognize that natural selection, if it does anything, certainly protects coding DNA by selecting out destructive mutations. By the same token, if copies of genes are just sitting there doing absolutely nothing, they will turn to mush, I think you agree. How can a genuine Ph.D. biologist not understand this?
BTW PB, you are posting in my "pentadactilism" thread. I would like your specific reaction to my argument against neo-Darwinism. To put it very simply, Behe and others suggest that variet exists which cannot be explained by RM+NS. I suggest that lack of variety as seen with pentadactilism would not reasonably be the result of RM+NS. Please comment.
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 05. May 2006 02:01
I agree that the problem is the retention of information over long periods. But I also see no need or evidence that new information had to be introduced. I could be wtong of course. One problem is that evolution seems no longer to be in progress.
IP: Logged
|
|
peter borger
Member
Member # 722
|
posted 05. May 2006 03:30
Bruce, the role of selection is exactly that: filtering out disabled organsisms, it ensures the wild type be preserved. When I say that selection is irrelevant, I mean irrelevant for an evolutionary process from microbe to man. Genetic redundancy is the scientific evidence.
You argue that the lack of variety as seen with pentadactilism would not reasonably be the result of RM+NS. In other words, why are five toes preferred and not four or six? Evo's will tell you pentadactylism has been fixed early during evolution. Depending on their beliefs they will argue it was the result of selection (the darwinians) or random extinction of polydactylisms of primordial organisms (the neutralists). ID proponents might argue it is the result of intelligent design. I argue it is the result of a creation event (the Alx-4 gene), but the information in the gene is implicit as it has a propensity to vary its lenghts due to a built-in genetic element, and may as well produce four, five or six digits. All of which has been observed in all sorts of organisms, including humans.
peebee
[ 05. May 2006, 05:56: Message edited by: peter borger ]
IP: Logged
|
|
peter borger
Member
Member # 722
|
posted 05. May 2006 09:00
quote:
The facts argue against the "continuity of the germ plasm," but NEVER against reproductive continuity. The germ cells that are now being employed are not primordial but secondary germ cells. I think the true primordial germ cells were produced by the gonadal epithelium which is now sterile. That is why contemporary vertebrate germ cells all originate from outside the gonad and must invade it in order to mature. There was probably a time when both sources were functioning simultaneously.
John, this is an interesting idea. Two equivalent systems that function simultaneously means one of them is redundant!
quote:
An engineering wisdom says that simple systems are more robust than complex systems; simple engineering solutions are expected to last longer. A system with many components – a complex system – is more prone to become inactivated than a system composed of only a few components – a simple system. For two biological systems with the same function this means selective constraints are weak for both systems. Both systems will accumulate slightly deleterious genetic changes (mutations) and deteriorate over time. Until one of the systems – usually the more complex – has accumulated so many mutations that it crashes. The simpler system (or: the system with more redundancy in the genetic network) is more likely to be preserved, because it has fewer essential components that can be damaged. [from: The GUToB, to be released]
Apparently, the generation of primordial germ cells from the gonadal epithelium was more complex (the system with less genetic redundancy) and was inactivated. The redundancy as a whole (i.e. the two biological systems to provide offspring) was solved and now selective contraints operate to preserve this single reproductive system, which "can't" be damaged, as it would subject the organism immediately to a reproductive disadvantage (if it were not lethal).
peebee
[ 05. May 2006, 09:35: Message edited by: peter borger ]
IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic