|
Author
|
Topic: can some aspect of Darwinism be falsified?
|
Shi
Member
Member # 1923
|
posted 17. May 2006 23:57
quote:
I think we should also be open to the Designer downloading information in the written language of men particularly since the only creature that would need to comprehend the purpose of creation is man. Genesis 1 is held by all the theistic religions (i.e. Jews, Muslims, and Christians) that premise on a transcendent intelligent Designer (i.e which have a highly ID compatible metatheory) - is it by chance? I have marvelled for many years and the extreme congruence between the ordering of events in Gen 1 and modern origins science - again is it by chance? I am heartened that God is impartial, and does not just reveal things about the past just to those with scientific credentials.
I agree completely. A literal interpretation of religious and mystic writtings may not be scientific or even the divine intention. But there is no evidence to exclude the possibiblity that some parts of these writtings may be divinely inspired.
IP: Logged
|
|
Shi
Member
Member # 1923
|
posted 18. May 2006 00:24
There are remarkable similarities not only among different religions but also between the western religion and the eastern mystic legends. The west says God created the world in 7 days and created with man with clay. The eastern legend of 5000 year old says that Goddess created man with clay in 7 days. Is it by chance that 7 is selected by diverse cultures to be the number to mark the completion of a creation or cycle? Someone has also noted that multiples of 7 characterizes the pregnancy length of many mammal species.
Is it by chance that 5 is the number that dominates both the animal and plant kingdom or any life kindom that is multicellular and thus capabable of forming a pattern that can be described in numbers. Is it by chance that 5 also dominates the domain of mind? Is it by chance that the chinese words for self-enlightenment sound the same as 5 and contain the word for 5?
IP: Logged
|
|
Christopher D. Beling
Member
Member # 723
|
posted 18. May 2006 01:04
Shi; you encourage me with your openess to the idea of God "downloaded" information to man about the past. Your observation about the number 7 I find particularly interesting and I did not know this about the number in early China. One thing I am aware of, but which is not so commonly known, is that in both China and India around 4000y ago (when human populations were small and not so politically controlled) there was a theistic culture with rites very similar to those of the Hebraic faith. Indeed you are probably aware of the Chinese character for "righteous" being a sheep over the I. You can read more about this Don Richardson's book Eternity in their hearts - a great read. So a common origin and originally a common belief. Chris
P.S. I think the reason we have 5 fingers on each hand is so that we can play the piano and other musical instruments (with an octave of 8) with necessary flexibility - well its a thought.
[ 18. May 2006, 01:08: Message edited by: Christopher D. Beling ]
IP: Logged
|
|
peter borger
Member
Member # 722
|
posted 18. May 2006 08:16
John,
quote:
Just for fun, how do you feel about my conviction that speciation and the formation of any higher categories is no longer in progress or even possible through sexual means?
I read your manifesto and I can subscribe to its postulates (almost) entirely.
peebee
IP: Logged
|
|
peter borger
Member
Member # 722
|
posted 18. May 2006 08:34
quote:
BTW I really have some difficulty in calling these "dud" H4 genes "redundant" (or "back-up") genes. They are surely just pseudogenes that have not been deleted by natural selection because the H4 function is being covered by 6 other working genes (that make the essential H4 protein for the exacting nucleosome structure).
I don't know what you are talking about. I argued that in mice (and all other mammals) there are 8 functional H1 genes, and scientists were able to knock out two of them without any effect on the offspring's fitness. This shows that the two genes are redundant. It was performed as an experiment and the authors conclusion was:
quote:
These results suggest that any individual H1 subtype is dispensable for mouse development and that loss of even two subtypes is tolerated if a normal H1-to-nucleosome stoichiometry is maintained [Fan et al, Mol Cell Biol 2001, volume 21, pages 7933-43].
peebee
[ 18. May 2006, 08:49: Message edited by: peter borger ]
IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Bruce Fast
Member
Member # 924
|
posted 18. May 2006 12:07
I find mutation rates to be a whole lot more valuable/fun than you gentlemen seem to.
Let me start by questioning, I belive that destructive random mutations happen. Do you not? I believe that the pace of destructive random mutations can be measured, and that its pace speaks clearly to the quality of DNA duplication, and error correction technologies.
Further, I have had a lot of fun considering the beautiful phylogenic tree as painted by the cytochrome C (is that how you spell it?) molecule. The tree, for the most part, is incredibly perfect. The only natural way for it to be so perfect is if the dear gene has a perfectly running genetic clock. ('sept for the wild exceptions, of course.) The challenge that the cytochrome C offers is that molecular clock theory just doesn't allow for such perfection. Darwinism is challenged.
One day I am convinced a mutation rate calculation is going to demonstrate the impossible, a mutation rate that could hardly be achieved by RM+NS. This, I believe, will send shock-waves through the dominant paradyme.
I hold that I do not see random mutation as a reasonable candidate for "creator", but I still find it to be a real (destructive) phenominon, and intriguing study.
Chris, as far as Don Richardson goes, I have heard him lecture. His view of "cultural keys" has a lot of validity. I personally believe that God has implanted stories into each culture whose purpose is to lead people to himself. As usual, I find that Don reaches a bit far with his theory.
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 18. May 2006 14:55
Of course destructive (deleterious) mutations occur. They may even be a common cause of extinction. That is easily demonstrated experimentally and I certainly never denied it. Quite the contrary, I have suggested that such mutations may have been essential to clear the biotic slate so that the next pre-programmed evolutionary step could take place. As nearly as I can tell that is all they ever did. I would welcome evidence to the contrary.
Without extinction there could never have been evolution. All I see today is extinction without a single documented new species appearng in recorded history. To provide a proof for such new species is just one more of my several unanswered challenges to a continuing creative evolution.
"Any system that purports to account for evolution must invoke a mechanism that is not mutational and aleatory."
Pierre Grasse, Evolution of Living Organisms, page 245
The PEH does just that.
IP: Logged
|
|
Christopher D. Beling
Member
Member # 723
|
posted 18. May 2006 21:09
Hi PB. My apologise for not understanding the experiment. Thanks too for the papers you have referred me too. Much appreciated and I look forward to reading them.
I have also been confused between histones H1 and H4 on this thread. H4 I understand to be very tightly conserved across the animal and plant kingdoms (only a few AAs can change), while H1 can vary quite a lot (Lehninger p939).
Also reading from Lehninger I understand that the H1 histones are really quite different beasts to H2, H3 and H4, in that they are not responsible for nucleosome formation, but rather take part in binding the DNA strands between nucleosomes – thus preventing transcription from taking place on that section of DNA. In this respect I guess they are only found in “non-coding” parts of the DNA. In this sense I wonder whether one expects too much to go wrong with the cell if some H1s are missing? It would only mean that some “non-coding” regions where not properly stuck together – the coding regions, though could probably still do their respective functions. I could also envisage that the other 6 histones could have taken over and provided for the lost function – but I must read the paper before I put my foot in it again! Thanks for your patience. Chris
[ 18. May 2006, 21:11: Message edited by: Christopher D. Beling ]
IP: Logged
|
|
peter borger
Member
Member # 722
|
posted 19. May 2006 03:27
H1 are not only found in non-coding parts of the DNA. They are required for DNA condensation, in order to form chromosomes during cell divisions. They link the nucleosomes, which consits of H2, H3 and H4. This is elementary biology.
quote:
I could also envisage that the other 6 histones could have taken over and provided for the lost function
That's exactly my point: 2 of the 8 H1 genes are redundant! Selection can not act on all eight of them when 2 are redundant.
Peebee
[ 19. May 2006, 04:34: Message edited by: peter borger ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Christopher D. Beling
Member
Member # 723
|
posted 19. May 2006 12:58
Hi Peter,
I appreciate your patience in mentoring. The paper by Fan et al on the H1 subtypes is certainly interesting. If I could summarize. The H1 is a protein only used in linking DNA between nucleosomes (helping with the 30nm fiber structuring) and it comes in 8 different varieties: (H1a, H1b, H1c, H1d, H1e), (H1t,H1oo),(H1o). The 1st set of genes express their proteins only in somatic cells, the 2nd in germ cells, and the 3rd set – well its called “replacement linker” – I’m not sure what “replacement linker” means ? Can you help - I thought all the H1s were “linkers” (never mind). The experiment of Fan et al shows that not only can the mouse develop quite well with no H1o gene at all – it also suffers no loss of fitness in the forms H1o(-)/H1c(-), H1o(-)/H1d(-), H1o(-)/H1e(-) which is surprising because the “c” “d” and “e” forms were the once that were rushed into action when the H1o was totally missing.
This seems to suggest two things
(i) The DNA has a back-up system that is programmed to produce any amount of “c” “d” or “e” if the signal “not enough H1o present” is detected.
(ii) That perhaps the eight varieties H1a, H1b, H1c, H1d, H1e, H1t,H1oo,H1o are all homologous and equally capable of doing the nucleosome linking job if required to do so?
Please correct me if I am wrong in any of these statements. Now to your main point:
quote:
Selection can not act on all eight of them when 2 are redundant.
Well I have to agree – it is very hard to see, or logically argue, how NS could have any role in removing a lethal (or deleterious) mutated subtype of H1.
The redundancy negates any effect of NS in keeping the H1s functional. Thus, if I read you properly(?), you argue that one would expect mutational pressure to eventually damage some of the H1 subtypes and render them ineffective. But this seems not to have happened –right? – they all seem to be capable of doing the job equally effectively (although on must note that a, b, t and oo have not been checked – perhaps an important fact).
So what are the options:
(i) That RM has been operational but for a much shorter time than geology says causing no deleterious effect
(ii) That there is an efficient repair mechanism keeping all the H1 subtypes in pristine condition.
(iii) That because H1 is not a very specific protein – many mutations have occurred but have not degraded the protein function (the 8 subtypes could be variations from an original wildtype – via neutral mutations?) – remember the functionality of H1a and H1b has not been checked! What do you say? rgds. Chris
[ 19. May 2006, 13:06: Message edited by: Christopher D. Beling ]
IP: Logged
|
|
peter borger
Member
Member # 722
|
posted 19. May 2006 14:04
quote:
Well I have to agree – it is very hard to see, or logically argue, how NS could have any role in removing a lethal (or deleterious) mutated subtype of H1.
Which overturns Darwinian Theory,
QED,
peebee
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 19. May 2006 14:39
What a waste of my time it is to have to repeat time and tme again that selection, natural or artificial never had anything to do with evolution except to clear the way for the next step, a step in which it played absolutely no other role.
Let me put it this way. When, in the process of creation, did the Creator hand over the reins to Nature, that which he had up to that moment created?
The answer is NEVER!
IP: Logged
|
|
Shi
Member
Member # 1923
|
posted 19. May 2006 16:21
quote:
That's exactly my point: 2 of the 8 H1 genes are redundant! Selection can not act on all eight of them when 2 are redundant.
A knock out mouse may behave the same as the wild type when kept in a cage but may not survive the same if free in the wild. So, none of the present lab cage experiments can really show that a gene is redundant. So, the redundancy argument may not falsify Darwinism until true redundancy can be established.
IP: Logged
|
|
Bruce Fast
Member
Member # 924
|
posted 19. May 2006 16:26
PB: quote:
quote:
quote:
Well I have to agree – it is very hard to see, or logically argue, how NS could have any role in removing a lethal (or deleterious) mutated subtype of H1.
Which overturns Darwinian Theory,
QED,
peebee
PB, I am rather compelled by your challenge. I question only this, however, if a "voting" mechanism exists as I have described elsewhere, does that not at least fundimentally change the challenge offered by the H1 gene?
If the H1 is a redundant gene, but this redundancy does not offer a mechanism of error correction, then I fully agree with you that the redundant H1 would have mutated to unrecognizable mush in hundreds of millions of years.
If, however, the redundancy, with supporting mechanism, produces an error correction system, then this error correction system should be fully immune to random mutation. If it is fully immune to random mutation then, for NDE to be true, all orgainisms containing the redundant H1 should have H1s that are identical on the amino level. Such is easily verifiable.
Further, if redundancy with supporting mechanism to create error correction does exist in DNA, then I challenge, as I did earlier, that such could not reasonably be developed by NDE because the selectible advantage would be about 1 organism per million organism-years. I really don't think that such a small selectable advantage could possibly be selected for.
PB, I think I am getting redundant, but I believe you are making an exteremely compelling case! (I know, what do I know, I'm just a software developer. However, software developers are logic engineers. We know our logic. NDE has not presented a whole lot of it.)
IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic
