Science vs. Creationism

[babe]

Because three letters next to an individual's name doesn't mean anything.

A reputation is built upon amount of published literature, quality of published literature, and what you've done for the progression of the scientific field of your given expertise. Scientists who who sacrifice objectivity for agendas are 'garbage', in my opinion.




It would be foolish, and naive of you to listen to me based on what my credentials are, or in what stage of academic studies I happen to be. Take in my comments in this thread post by post, and try and find loopholes in them. Yes, the fact that I have a background in Genetics will probably help my case-- but expertise and unquestionable truth is not assumption that should be made of any invidiual simply because he has a "PhD" next to his name.



PS: cute post. Your tactics are pathetic. How about you address the two posts that I made in pertinence to gene copies?

A fair challenge. I was interested in the data on the number of amylase copies in long-established populations with a pronounced difference in diet due to available food.

Here's a question:

I have heard of how some genes are expressed. . .. the proteins they code for being produced. . . . as a result of the presence and inferentially the binding of it to some "trigger" that starts the production.

How do we know that the presence of starch in the diet doesn't cause the genes to be copied or duplicated within the DNA in the first place. It appears to me that you assume something about how the genome regulates itself. .. . assume results like what you cite are "obviously" a matter of statistical chance, when it might be the result of some highly sophisticated design feature of the genetic system. . . .

 

[PearlWatson]

Expound on this, please. If you re-arrange the sequence into an order that is different from all other species-- are you suggesting that it isn't not new simply because it is rooted from information that was pre-existing, and it has since been re-arranged?

I'm not quite sure I follow.

You want to know why pre-existing information is not considered new information?

or

You want to know why the distinction between more information and new information matters?


The answer to the first is obvious.
The answer to the second is this:

Darwinists claim "microevolution" (aka population genetics, or designed variation within kinds) proves "macroevolution" (aka molecule to man evolution or Darwinism).

Since "microevolution" involves rearrangement of information (neutral mutations) and or loss of information (genetic drift) it doesn't support "macroevolution" which requires an increase in information.

That's about as simple as I can make it for you besides this chart.

 

[PearlWatson]

Because three letters next to an individual's name doesn't mean anything.

A reputation is built upon amount of published literature, quality of published literature, and what you've done for the progression of the scientific field of your given expertise. Scientists who who sacrifice objectivity for agendas are 'garbage', in my opinion.
It would be foolish, and naive of you to listen to me based on what my credentials are, or in what stage of academic studies I happen to be. Take in my comments in this thread post by post, and try and find loopholes in them. Yes, the fact that I have a background in Genetics will probably help my case-- but expertise and unquestionable truth is not assumption that should be made of any invidiual simply because he has a "PhD" next to his name.
PS: cute post. Your tactics are pathetic. How about you address the two posts that I made in pertinence to gene copies?

Why should I take your posts seriously?

I can just use your tactic. Decide you have an agenda. Call you a junk wannabe scientist and dismiss you.

Turnabout it fair play right?

 

[Deleted member 848]

Why should I take your posts seriously?

The better question is: why not? What, in the content of my posts, or the history of my posting, merits that my posts should not be taken seriously?

I can just use your tactic. Decide you have an agenda. Call you a junk wannabe scientist and dismiss you.

Turnabout it fair play right?

Sure. Point out what you think my agenda is, and why you believe it to be the case. Call me a 'wannabe scientist' and dismiss me-- but then point out what the flaws in my argument are, and how they differ from that of an 'established scientist'.

The thing is this: if you tell me that I have an agenda, or discredit my posts in this thread not because of their content, but because of my label, or title-- then that is a sad commentary for yourself, and it's open for everyone to see. Without justification, your posts are empty assertions, and weaken the cause for whatever argument you are trying to bring forth.



People on both sides of this debate-- whether it is babe, or One Brow, have acknowledged that my points are not worth dismissing. Thus, I can tell that I am being fair with my posts, and I truly do not care for the 'spinning' of one poster who thinks he/she can outsmart me (when she truly cannot).

 

[PearlWatson]

I gave you dolphin as example because you had claimed that whales must use their pelvic limb remnants for sexual function since their penises are huge - hello!!! dolphins and porpoises are kind of related to whales, don't you think so?? And it is so funny how in the same article where you took your diagram there is ventrodorsal view of it with arrows pointing to tibia and femur. You know what tibia and femur is right?

I guess size doesn't matter to you, if Dophin peni are equivalent to whale peni in your mind, but really they both use their pelvic girdles to support their sexual reproductive system.

Because I think labeling the bones that make up the pelvic girdle "tibia" and "femur" is ridiculous if they don't serve that function.

 

[Deleted member 848]

You want to know why pre-existing information is not considered new information?

or

You want to know why the distinction between more information and new information matters?


The answer to the first is obvious.
The answer to the second is this:

Darwinists claim "microevolution" (aka population genetics, or designed variation within kinds) proves "macroevolution" (aka molecule to man evolution or Darwinism).

Since "microevolution" involves rearrangement of information (neutral mutations) and or loss of information (genetic drift) it doesn't support "macroevolution" which requires an increase in information.

That's about as simple as I can make it for you besides this chart.

You completely missed my point, and are arguing an issue that I am not. Try to stay on topic (a tall order for yourself, as I am beginning to be aware of).


If you re-arrange a genetic sequence into an order that is different from all other species-- are you suggesting that it isn't not new simply because it is rooted from information that was pre-existing, and it has since been re-arranged? If half of the 70th page of a novel gets moved to the 1/3rd-point of page 21, and now the 21st page reads in a language that is unique to all other books in this world, are you suggesting that this isn't a new combination?



Also, I am beginning to realize that you think that a species is capped in terms of genome size-- and that anytime the length of a genome increases, it results in deleterious, negative effects. This is a laughable claim.

 

[Deleted member 848]

PearlWatson, are you ever going to address the two articles that I posted on page 71? Or are you simply going to continue to avoid the topic?

 

[PearlWatson]

The better question is: why not? What, in the content of my posts, or the history of my posting, merits that my posts should not be taken seriously?

Sure. Point out what you think my agenda is, and why you believe it to be the case. Call me a 'wannabe scientist' and dismiss me-- but then point out what the flaws in my argument are, and how they differ from that of an 'established scientist'.
The thing is this: if you tell me that I have an agenda, or discredit my posts in this thread not because of their content, but because of my label, or title-- then that is a sad commentary for yourself, and it's open for everyone to see. Without justification, your posts are empty assertions, and weaken the cause for whatever argument you are trying to bring forth.

People on both sides of this debate-- whether it is babe, or One Brow, have acknowledged that my points are not worth dismissing. Thus, I can tell that I am being fair with my posts, and I truly do not care for the 'spinning' of one poster who thinks he/she can outsmart me (when she truly cannot).

You can have a circle jerk with them then, if you don't like my challenging your Darwin ideological agenda.

 

[PearlWatson]

You completely missed my point, and are arguing an issue that I am not. Try to stay on topic (a tall order for yourself, as I am beginning to be aware of).
If you re-arrange a genetic sequence into an order that is different from all other species-- are you suggesting that it isn't not new simply because it is rooted from information that was pre-existing, and it has since been re-arranged? If half of the 70th page of a novel gets moved to the 1/3rd-point of page 21, and now the 21st page reads in a language that is unique to all other books in this world, are you suggesting that this isn't a new combination?
Also, I am beginning to realize that you think that a species is capped in terms of genome size-- and that anytime the length of a genome increases, it results in deleterious, negative effects. This is a laughable claim.

No, you completely missed my point and are arguing an issue I am not.

I answered your questions in #1070 if you would take the time to understand it.

 

[Deleted member 848]

How do we know that the presence of starch in the diet doesn't cause the genes to be copied or duplicated within the DNA in the first place. It appears to me that you assume something about how the genome regulates itself. .. . assume results like what you cite are "obviously" a matter of statistical chance, when it might be the result of some highly sophisticated design feature of the genetic system. . . .

Let me get this straight: you are asking how we know that the mere presence of a human's environment being that of an environment with high starch-- with manages to signal to the human's genome to duplicate his/her genes, to increase amylase production-- which you infer as a highly sophisticated design feature of a genetic system?

First off, let me just say that I have simply never heard of any higher eukaryotic species duplicating a gene (particularly one that is 2kb long) upon environmental exposure. Human genetics are quite remarkable, and host epigenetics are quite versatile too, but there is simply no environmental trigger (that I know of) that can cause the duplication of a protein-coding eukaryotic gene, and I can say this with full confidence in pertinence to AMY1a.

pQUOTE]I have heard of how some genes are expressed. . .. the proteins they code for being produced. . . . as a result of the presence and inferentially the binding of it to some "trigger" that starts the production[/QUOTE]

These 'triggers' are known as transcription factors, or transactivators. They can respond to environmental stimulus, like raised glucose/glycogen (which could stem from a high starch diet, of course).

But heres the problem: inherently, every amylase-producing gene needs to have the exact same sequence, right down to a single amino acid-- any difference, and it ruins the structure of the protein (and as any biochemist knows, structure = function).

So, the only possible way that a human could have more AMY1a genes activated (as starch diet increased) is if you had 20 different transcription factors for 20 different AMY1a gene, with each transcription factor having a varying spectrum of sensitivity to something like glycogen, resulting in them binding to the promoter of their respective AMY1a gene, and causing the transcription of the amylase protein.

Quite frankly, the ^ above ^ explanation is very, very, very, very, very, VERY unlikely-- probably impossible, actually.

It's much more likely, reasonable, and well-explained that the duplications of the AMY1a gene were sustained in populations that actually needed them. Compare the article's explanation for the duplicated genes with the one I made in my post-- the article's is clearly better, more logical, & more realistic.





Regardless, whichever explanation is true, both refute the claims of PearlWatson and her 'genetics professor' that she keeps citing to.

 

[Deleted member 848]

No, you completely missed my point and are arguing an issue I am not.

Ooooh!! Avoiding another question!! I'm floored. No, really.

I answered your questions in #1070 if you would take the time to understand it.

No you didn't. You said this:

Jerry Bergman, Ph.D., Biology: "The adverse effects of gene duplication, such as Down’s syndrome, are well known. Although the methodology is available, evidence of functionally useful genes as a result of duplication is yet to be documented."

I posted two articles that refute this-- and you have yet to respond in pertinence to this.

 

[Deleted member 848]

You can have a circle jerk with them then, if you don't like my challenging your Darwin ideological agenda.

The problem isn't the challenge itself-- its your justifications behind your challenges. No one takes you seriously -- and clearly you don't either-- if this is seriously how you go about 'challenging Darwin ideological agenda'.

PS: Please tell me what you think my agenda is. I'm all ears.