Your Garage botysf16 Amazon Fashion Learn more Discover it $5 Albums Fire TV Stick Subscribe & Save Patriotic Picks Shop-by-Room Amazon Cash Back Offer WienerDog WienerDog WienerDog  Amazon Echo  Echo Dot  Amazon Tap  Echo Dot  Amazon Tap  Amazon Echo Introducing new colors All-New Kindle Oasis UniOrlando Best Camping & Hiking Gear in Outdoors
Customer Discussions > Evolution forum

Evolutionist Beliefs Proven Wrong: In Portraying Molecular Biology as Evidence of Evolution (Remember to click to reveal all the blocked posts evolutionists don't want you to read)


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-25 of 366 posts in this discussion
Initial post: Nov 19, 2012 7:08:11 PM PST
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 20, 2012 6:55:55 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Nov 20, 2012 6:57:55 AM PST
Gwaithmir says:
Largo said: "Perhaps the worst of the totally unrealistic claims in the National Academy of Sciences booklet appear in the chapter "New Evidence from Molecular Biology" (Science and Creationism, 1999). Once again, the NAS proves in this chapter that it totally discounts all the research and observations over the last 50 years, and supports the theory of evolution in the face of scientific facts."

>Once again, Largo, it is apparent that you've never actually read the publication in question. The relevant chapter is titled "Evidence Supporting Biological Evolution". I can understand why a creationist wouldn't want to mention that.

>The sub-chapter "New Evidence from Molecular Biology" begins as follows:

"The unifying principle of common descent that emerges from all the foregoing lines of evidence is being reinforced by the discoveries of modern biochemistry and molecular biology.

"The code used to translate nucleotide sequences into amino acids sequences is essentially the same in all organisms. Moreover, proteins in all organisms are invariably composed of the same set of amino acids. This unity of composition and function is a powerful argument in favor of the common descent of the most diverse organisms." (Science and Creationism: A View from the National Academy of Sciences, 1999; Pg. 17)

>What follows is a detailed study of how information obtained in the previous five decades of research is being updated and integrated with data from recent discoveries. To allege that it "...totally discounts all the research and observations over the last 50 years..." is a blatant lie.

Science and Creationism: A View from the National Academy of Sciences, Second Edition

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 20, 2012 7:07:14 AM PST
A customer says:
Not to mention which, phyletic trees generated from the sequences produce a branching pattern consistent with Linnaean classification.

Posted on Nov 20, 2012 10:27:36 AM PST
Emilio Largo says:
The basic claim of the aforementioned chapter is that "The unifying principle of common descent that emerges from all the foregoing lines of evidence is being reinforced by the discoveries of modern biochemistry and molecular biology." (Science and Crationism, p.17) The first example of these proofs in the booklet is nothing other than an assumption produced in the light of evolutionist preconceptions. The previous two posters should take note of this. It is, of course, a fact that the code which translates the nucleotide sequences into amino acid sequences is the same in all living things, and that the proteins in all living things consist of the same 20 amino acids. Th NAS's error lies in the inferring from this fact the conclusion that living things descended from a common ancestor. This inference is quite ridiculous. Evolutionists first assume that the theory of evolution is an established fact, and then claim that facts deduced from the theory constitute evidence in support of the theory (circular reasoning). However,the fact that all living things possess the same features and functions can also be interpreted as proof of the existence of a common design. There is one Creator Who creates and designs all living things, for which reason it is only to be expected that they all should consist of the same basic features and structures.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 20, 2012 5:11:50 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Nov 20, 2012 5:13:12 PM PST
"Once again, the NAS proves in this chapter that it totally discounts all the research and observations over the last 50 years, and supports the theory of evolution in the face of scientific facts."

And what, exactly, would those be? Can you cite some actual papers in scientific journals? Or is this just what Harun Haha says on his site? (Answers on a postcard -----)

Posted on Nov 20, 2012 5:54:32 PM PST
Emilio Largo says:
I'm glad you asked that question, Christine.

In the chapter, "New Evidence from Molecular Biology", the examples of the molecules hemoglobin and myoglobin are cited, and it is suggested that there is an evolutionary relationship between the two. The claim takes this form in the NAS book: "each chain [that make up hemoglobin] has a theme [group] exactly like that of myoglobin, and each of the four chains in the hemoglobin molecule is folded exactly like myoglobin. It was immediately obvious in 1959 that the two molecules are very closely related."

It is true that the molecules hemoglobin and myoglobin possess similar features. What is not true is the suggestion by the NAS and other evolutionists that this similarity constitutes proof that hemoglobin evolved from myoglobin. These claims rest on no scientific foundation and are simply the work of evolutionist prejudice. Let us consider the reasons for this:

>It first needs to be made clear that myoglobin and hemoglobin are two molecules with similar functions; hemoglobin carries oxygen to the blood, myoglobin takes the oxygen from hemoglobin and stores it in the tissues, providing oxygen to the working muscles. It is therefore natural that two protein molecules with similar functions should have been designed to have similar properties. To draw an analogy, two transport vehicles possess similar features; they almost all have an engine, a steering wheel, wheels, and special sections to hold cargo or passengers. It is evident that, because of these similarities, every one of these vehicles was designed for a specific purpose and possess common features in line with that purpose. Hemoglobin and myoglobin are molecules designed for a similar purpose, for which reason they have similar features.

>When we look at the NAS claim in more detail, its impossible nature can be seen more clearly. According to the claim, myoglobin gradually evolved as a result of mutations, differences formed in the amino acid sequence, and thus the hemoglobin molecule emerged. However, we know that both myoglobin and hemoglobin posses exceedingly complex structures. If either of these molecules is subjected to random factors like mutations, the molecule's function will be corrupted, and it will become useless. The disease known as sickle-cell anemia is one example of this. Therefore, to expect a mutation which randomly changes a protein's amino acid sequence to turn that protein into a more complex one with more features is to believe in the impossible. In order to prove the evolutionist claims, every transitional stage between myoglobin and hemoglobin needs to be functional (and more advantageous than the preceding stage), and that is impossible.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 20, 2012 6:01:24 PM PST
"Can you cite some actual papers in scientific journals? Or is this just what Harun Haha says on his site? "

Yup. Thought so.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 20, 2012 6:42:22 PM PST
Gwaithmir says:
Largo said: "There is one Creator Who creates and designs all living things, for which reason it is only to be expected that they all should consist of the same basic features and structures."

>Kindly prove the existence of this Creator, then describe the mechanism by which creation is accomplished.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 20, 2012 6:56:28 PM PST
Gwaithmir says:
Largo said: "It first needs to be made clear that myoglobin and hemoglobin are two molecules with similar functions; hemoglobin carries oxygen to the blood, myoglobin takes the oxygen from hemoglobin and stores it in the tissues, providing oxygen to the working muscles. It is therefore natural that two protein molecules with similar functions should have been designed to have similar properties. To draw an analogy, two transport vehicles possess similar features; they almost all have an engine, a steering wheel, wheels, and special sections to hold cargo or passengers. It is evident that, because of these similarities, every one of these vehicles was designed for a specific purpose and possess common features in line with that purpose. Hemoglobin and myoglobin are molecules designed for a similar purpose, for which reason they have similar features."

>Your analogy is inappropriate as it involves man-made artifacts and presupposes that myoglobin and hemoglobin molecules are also artifacts. Your allegation rests on no scientific foundation and is simply the work of creationist prejudice.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 20, 2012 7:34:09 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Nov 20, 2012 7:49:23 PM PST
noman says:
**Quite a bit of research has been done on the evolution of hemoglobin. However, since Evoblock is allergic to big words I'll save him from Anaphylaxis and post his reply for him:
"Noman, Fairytales are not science."
"Nice little nonsensical, hilarious rant, noman. Maybe you should rest for awhile."
"noman - Why do you stick up for mutations after what nature did to you?"
"...and noman, bag the incomprehensible laboratory trash talk. Seeking refuge there isn't working. "
***********

Real science follows:
*******************
The Journal of Experimental Biology 201, 1099-1117 (1998) 1099
Printed in Great Britain © The Company of Biologists Limited 1998
JEB1357
The discovery of hemoglobins in virtually all kingdoms
of organisms has shown (1) that the ancestral gene for hemoglobin is ancient, and (2) that hemoglobins can serve additional functions besides transport of oxygen between tissues, ranging from intracellular oxygen transport to catalysis of redox reactions. These different functions of the hemoglobins illustrate the acquisition of new roles by a preexisting
structural gene, which requires changes not only
in the coding regions but also in the regulatory elements of the genes. The evolution of different regulated functions within an ancient gene family allows an examination of the types of biosequence data that are informative for various types of issues. Alignment of amino acid sequences is informative for the phylogenetic relationships among the hemoglobins in bacteria, fungi, protists, plants and
animals. Although many of these diverse hemoglobins are induced by low oxygen concentrations, to date none of the molecular mechanisms for their hypoxic induction shows common regulatory proteins; hence, a search for matches in non-coding DNA sequences would not be expected to be fruitful. Indeed, alignments of non-coding DNA sequences do not reveal significant matches even between mammalian
a- and b-globin gene clusters, which diverged
approximately 450 million years ago and are still expressed in a coordinated and balanced manner. They are in very different genomic contexts that show pronounced differences in regulatory mechanisms. The a-globin gene is in constitutively active chromatin and is encompassed by a CpG island, which is a dominant determinant of its regulation, whereas the b-globin gene is in A+T-rich genomic DNA. Non-coding sequence matches are not seen between avian and mammalian b-globin gene clusters, which diverged approximately 250 million years ago, despite the fact that regulation of both gene clusters requires tissue-specific activation of a chromatin domain regulated by a locus control region. The cis-regulatory sequences needed for domain opening and enhancement do
show common binding sites for transcription factors. In contrast, alignments of non-coding sequences from species representing multiple eutherian mammalian orders, some of which diverged as long as 135 million years ago, are reliable predictors of novel cis-regulatory elements, both proximal and distal to the genes. Examples include a potential target for the hematopoietic transcription factor TAL1.

http://www.bx.psu.edu/~ross/pubs/HardisonHbBactMan_JExpBiol.pdf

*****************
MOLECULAR EVOLUTION

"...Gene duplication is a minimalist version of repetitive DNA (figures 10.1-10.3, pgs. 257-259). Many genes in the genome are duplicated and when this happens one of the copies may be "freed" from constraints and evolve a new function. The best understood case of this phenomenon is the evolution of the globin genes myoglobin, a-hemoglobin, ß-hemoglobin. The existence of duplicated genes forces us to recognize different kinds of homology because there are two ways to have a common ancestor: by gene duplication and by speciation. When two genes share a common ancestor due to a duplication event we call them paralogous (a-hemoglobin and ß-hemoglobin in you are paralogous as are the a-hemoglobin in you and the ß-hemoglobin in chimps). When two genes share a common ancestor due to a speciation event we call them orthologous (a-hemoglobin in you and a-hemoglobin in chimps). Obviously when constructing a cladogram from molecular data one should use orthologous genes if one wants to build a tree of organisms...."

http://biomed.brown.edu/Courses/BIO48/12.Molecular.Evolution.HTML

Posted on Nov 20, 2012 10:11:32 PM PST
[Deleted by Amazon on Nov 21, 2012 5:00:07 AM PST]

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 20, 2012 11:40:03 PM PST
A customer says:
Block Ed - "The disease known as sickle-cell anemia is one example of this."

Except that your silly claims cannot be supported by single examples, only hope never to be condemned by a single counter-example. Which on the face of it would make them scientific per se, were it not for your clinging to them after years of being shown such examples.

"Hemoglobin and myoglobin are molecules designed for a similar purpose, for which reason they have similar features."

And similar non-features, such as the overwhelming bulk of amino acids which affect neither the shape nor the reactivity and which happen to provide both a useful clock function and a phyletic tree. And only common descent can explain all of these features in one go.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 20, 2012 11:42:43 PM PST
A customer says:
Oh, and about your degenerate spelling: It's HAEMoglobin. The diphthong provides indispensable hints as to the etymology, and therefore also the meaning, and to pronunciation. Listen to an American trying to pronounce "oedema" if you don't believe me.

I'd have thought a God-bothering literalist would be the last person to deny Greek roots.

Posted on Nov 21, 2012 12:04:50 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Nov 21, 2012 12:11:00 AM PST
Elliott - nice of you to leave your Barbie collection and offer yet another effete opinion. Anyone with a personal logo depicting a cat doing its litter box duty has their issues, for sure.

Only common descent can explain these similarities in hemoglobin and myoglobin and not Creation? Because only features with common descent come from a phyletic tree because only features from the same phyletic tree show common descent? Ah, the circular reasoning that is the foundation of evolution.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 21, 2012 12:10:52 AM PST
David Félix says:
"It is, of course, a fact that the code which translates the nucleotide sequences into amino acid sequences is the same in all living things..."

Except it is not, of course, a fact. There are several different genetic codes, as documented here:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/Taxonomy/Utils/wprintgc.cgi

In fact, the taxonomy of these genetic codes is quite consistent with the determined phylogenetic relatioships between organisms.

Posted on Nov 21, 2012 12:23:17 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Nov 21, 2012 12:24:15 AM PST
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 21, 2012 2:08:46 AM PST
A customer says:
Block Ed - Grow up.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 21, 2012 2:18:41 AM PST
A customer says:
Block Ed - "Ah, the circular reasoning that is the foundation of evolution."

Nope, you just made it up. The point of phyletic trees is that different ones plotted for independent feature sets MATCH, thus eliminating the risk of circularity. No design rationale exists for a pattern of branching deviation among inactive stretches of a protein chain that demonstrates the same branching layout for independent sets of data, nor can you possibly articulate one. Needless to say, you are not even pretending to have one available.

Common descent combined with the random drift of stretches not exposed to natural selection, on the other hand, leads ipso facto to such a matching pattern.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 21, 2012 2:19:24 AM PST
David Félix says:
Do you understand anything of what you just wrote?

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 21, 2012 2:41:19 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Nov 21, 2012 2:42:26 AM PST
A customer says:
Blocked Ed - "A,C,G,T - the DNA code is universal in all living things."

No, the list of bases is universal in all living things. The code varies. In fact, it even varies in your own cells between mitochondrial and nuclear DNA.

And even just using the same four bases is extremely anomalous from a design point of view when many more are available. A designer could have replaced a 4-state locus with a 16- or 32-state locus, thus packing vastly more information, or alternatively gaining far more range of variation, in the same-sized chain. Instead, the DNA code is a degenerate affair where 64 states code for 20 amino acids and one stop, with some acids coded by multiple codons. Its a botch job. No engineer would design it this way.

Common descent from a single, contingent molecular ancestor explains it without effort. It's just what LUCA ended up with.

Posted on Nov 21, 2012 12:06:00 PM PST
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 21, 2012 12:55:29 PM PST
noman says:
**No, it's not. Examples of research:

*************
The globin gene family of the cephalochordate amphioxus: implications for chordate globin evolution.
.
Authors:
Ebner, Bettina1
Panopoulou, Georgia2
Vinogradov, Serge N.3
Kiger, Laurent4
Marden, Michael C.4
Burmester, Thorsten5
Hankeln, Thomas1 hankeln@uni-mainz.de
.
Source:
BMC Evolutionary Biology; 2010, Vol. 10, p370-384
Abstract:
Background: The lancelet amphioxus (Cephalochordata) is a close relative of vertebrates and thus may enhance our understanding of vertebrate gene and genome evolution. In this context, the globins are one of the best studied models for gene family evolution. Previous biochemical studies have demonstrated the presence of an intracellular globin in notochord tissue and myotome of amphioxus, but the corresponding gene has not yet been identified. Genomic resources of Branchiostoma floridae now facilitate the identification, experimental confirmation and molecular evolutionary analysis of its globin gene repertoire. Results: We show that B. floridae harbors at least fifteen paralogous globin genes, all of which reveal evidence of gene expression. The protein sequences of twelve globins display the conserved characteristics of a functional globin fold. In phylogenetic analyses, the amphioxus globin BflGb4 forms a common clade with vertebrate neuroglobins, indicating the presence of this nerve globin in cephalochordates. Orthology is corroborated by conserved syntenic linkage of BflGb4 and flanking genes. The kinetics of ligand binding of recombinantly expressed BflGb4 reveals that this globin is hexacoordinated with a high oxygen association rate, thus strongly resembling vertebrate neuroglobin. In addition, possible amphioxus orthologs of the vertebrate globin X lineage and of the myoglobin/cytoglobin/hemoglobin lineage can be identified, including one gene as a candidate for being expressed in notochord tissue. Genomic analyses identify conserved synteny between amphioxus globincontaining regions and the vertebrate b-globin locus, possibly arguing against a late transpositional origin of the b-globin cluster in vertebrates. Some amphioxus globin gene structures exhibit minisatellite-like tandem duplications of intron-exon boundaries ("mirages"), which may serve to explain the creation of novel intron positions within the globin genes. Conclusions: The identification of putative orthologs of vertebrate globin variants in the B. floridae genome underlines the importance of cephalochordates for elucidating vertebrate genome evolution. The present study facilitates detailed functional studies of the amphioxus globins in order to trace conserved properties and specific adaptations of respiratory proteins at the base of chordate evolution.

*************

Evolution in multigene families

We now know a lot about the dynamics of nucleotide substitutions within existing genes, but we've neglected one key component of molecular evolution. We haven't talked about where new genes come from. It's important to understand this phenomenon because, after all, new metabolic functions are likely to arise only when there are new genes that can perform them. It's not likely that an existing gene can adopt a new function while continuing to serve its old one.

Fundamentally the source of new genes is the duplication of existing genes and their divergence in function. As we'll see in a moment, for example, genes coding for myogblobin and hemoglobin in mammals are descendants of a single common ancestor. That's the duplication. Myoglobin is involved in oxygen metabolism in muscle, while hemoglobin is involved in oxygen transport in blood. That's the divergence. Although there are many interesting things to say about the processes by which duplication and divergence occur, we're going to focus on the pattern of nucleotide sequence evolution that arises as a result.

http://darwin.eeb.uconn.edu/eeb348/lecturenotes/molevol-multigene/molevol-multigene.html

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 21, 2012 5:07:06 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Nov 21, 2012 5:14:40 PM PST
Emilio Largo says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 21, 2012 5:36:46 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Nov 21, 2012 5:55:55 PM PST
"Branchiostama floridae?:

Just the name of a species of animals, Largo. The same as "Homo sapiens" describes our own species. Hardly incomprehensible.

"Amphioxus globin" just describes a type of molecule found in that species (commonly known as amphioxus). Again, easy to understand if you try.

What's so easy about desoxyribonucleotic acid (AKA DNA)? Biochemists use this term all the time. Such language is simply the language of science, not just of evolutionary biologists. (And the paper that noman cites is about biochemistry.)

"I prefer plain English without BS tactics"

No, you prefer the language of non-scientists. Which is fine. You don't have to try to understand science if you don't want to.

EDIT. The thing is, Largo, you've only seen postings from evolutionary science. So you imagine that they are using this language to deceive and befuddle people. Try any science (I suggest medical science in particular). It's universal. It's just the specialist language of any discipline.

I remember telling you on one post about the usefulness of the specialist term "arabesque" rather than "the pose in which the dancer balances on one leg, with the other one pointed horizontally, and then bends at the waist so that her torso is parallel to the floor, and extends one arm horizontally forwards and the other one backwards." Would you claim that the language of ballet is BS specifically designed to confuse the general public?

Specialist language is a way of expressing complex terms in a simple fashion. Fortunately today it's easy to look up such terms on Google. If, of course, one is so inclined.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 21, 2012 6:04:30 PM PST
noman says:
RE: Evoblock demands: "I prefer plain English without BS tactics..."

**Ah...you mean "Plain English" like auto mechanics use:
Halfshafts
Inboard CV joint
Limited slip differential
Locking differential
Lockup torque converter
Manual transmission
Motor mounts
Inboard CV joint
Outboard CV joint
Pinion gear
Plunge joint
Pressure plate
Ring gear
Rzeppa CV joint
Throw-out bearing
Torque converter
Torque converter clutch
Torque steer
...
Harmonic balancer
Head bolts
Head gasket
Heavy metal
Horsepower
Hydraulic lash adjusters
Hydraulic lifters
Inline cylinder block
Installed valve height
Intake manifold
Intake valve
Internally balanced
Journals
Lash adjusters
Lifters
Main bearings

OR
"Plain English" used in Electronics
BGA
Buffer
CMOS
DAC
ECL
EPROM
flip-flop
Float
Gate

OR
The "Plain English" of
Sound and Audio Engineer
Absorption
Baffles
Early Reflections
Face
Fundamental,
Haas Effect
Isolation Booth/ Isolation Room,
Layering
Lower Toms,
Machine Head
NAB to Nyquest Rate,
PZM,
Quarter Track,
Run Off,
System Exclusive Bulk Dump,

OR,
Perhaps the "Plain English" of Textiles:

ACTINIC DEGRADATION
ADIPIC ACID
DECATING
DIAL
DIP PICKUP
LAPPING
LICKERIN
PARA

and etc.

**All specialties have their own language or "jargon" which facilitates communication among fellow experts.
‹ Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 15 Next ›
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


Recent discussions in the Evolution forum (659 discussions)

 

This discussion

Discussion in:  Evolution forum
Participants:  16
Total posts:  366
Initial post:  Nov 19, 2012
Latest post:  May 3, 2013

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 1 customer

Search Customer Discussions