Australopithecus Sediba

Sure, call it whatever you want, but it is still predicting.

An environment that it had never been subjected to? Citrate? Really, because I would think it would be quite readily available in fruit. And the E. coli were subjected to citrate in their environment for something like 30,000 generations. So, what you're suggesting is that somehow the E. coli decided to turn on pieces of their DNA? Uh... by what mechanism could that happen?

Because we pinpointed the nucleotide that caused the frame shift mutation, a nucleotide that was not present in the bacteria previously. I'm confused on two parts: you claim that the mutation could always have been present in the DNA (which it wasn't, and it was actually a nucleotide in the plasmid of the bacteria). This goes back to the previous point I just made, exactly how does an organism switch on a piece of their genetic code? What you're suggesting is a completely unfounded piece of biology that you made up, I'm assuming.

I can guarantee that it would be far more probable than every organism developing the exact same genetic sequence over time. You read the probability of chimps and humans developing the (almost) exact same cytochrome c sequencing. Now multiply that by about a billion times or more to get every other nucleotide sequence that we share with other organisms.

You missed a very important part.

 

There is a difference between predicting with any sort of accuracy, and making guesses.

Where is the isolated petri dish in "the wild?" What continent do you find those in occurring naturally? How about stabilized temperatures...c'mon! This is that intellectual honesty I'm talking about.

Did you read the articles? It was a mutation, and one that FAILED.

As I said, you have to actually READ things.

1st--it didn't say it was an environmentally caused mutation--it was actually due to gene duplication and a frame shift mutation which is a gene duplication error due to chromosomes that are not divisible by three.
And,
2nd--genes can switch "on and off."
http://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/handbook/howgeneswork/geneonoff

Let's see it. 1 billion years and less than 30% of negligent or slightly positive mutations. Have at it. I think you're afraid of the numbers.

HA! What's THAT based on?

 

Guessing and predicting are synonyms, adding the "with any sort of accuracy" could be added to "guessing" and mean the same thing as "predicting with any sort of accuracy".

What's your point, exactly? They evolved to their new environment, and...?

Failed in what way? I remember some lost the ability to repair DNA, and some lost the ability to catabolize ribose. What's your point? The mutation was still beneficial in the lab environment.

Why do you keep bringing up "environmentally caused mutations"? I never said the environment caused this mutation.

I believe you may be right about this, I apologize.

Sure, or I just don't have the time. It really is just common sense. What has higher probability, one person winning a million dollars in the lottery or 8.7 billion people winning 1,000 dollars in the lottery?

The point of that paragraph is to show that there are multiple, and I mean a vast multitude of different ways that cytochrome c proteins can be sequenced. You don't find it odd that the sequence is only 4 nucleotides off of our sequence? You don't find it odd that organisms that SHOULD be more closely related to us (via phylogenetic tree) have more parts of their DNA in common with us than organisms that SHOULD NOT be closely related to us?

 

No...in fact, they are not synonymous.

I do note your acknowledgement of the "unnatural" environment that I already mentioned. I don't want that to slip by...

My point is that it's not evolution--it's mutation in a controlled environment. How is that other than a slow steam boat to gene therapy?

Isn't evolution adaptation of organisms? Isn't adaptation the response to environmental factors? If it's not adaptation, it is then simple heredity or simple mutation--and simple mutation NOT evolution.

No prob.

What the hell is THAT???

Is that supposed to pass for an adequate defense of your claims. It doesn't.

Finding something "odd" is not evidence of anything. AND, you're STILL working within your phylogenetic paradigm. THERE REALLY IS NO EVIDENCE OF ANYTHING EXCEPT SIMILARITIES IN THE CODE. Sure--you are right that change will happen in organisms over time.

Where your 'philosophy' falls down is when you suggest that it happened in a sequence (found or NOT, and we all know it has not been found) from single cells to the complexity of the human organism. The statistical possibility of this sequence is functionally ZERO. Sure...it's POSSIBLE that the in ten minutes an jet liner will crash through my roof and land directly on my head, but the odds are sooooooooooo miniscule as to be ZERO. It's not going to happen....I do not have only 9 minutes to live.

In addition, the way you are viewing the genetic code is from an inductive perspective. You are seeing something you think are similarities and coming up with a way to make it so, and then padding on all kinds of new theory to explain the theory you devised to explain the thing you think you observed! That's like me asking for your phone number and being amazed at the particular sequence. "Imagine that! 999-2374! Of all the possible numbers in the world, THAT number was the one you handed me! AMAZING!" And then I explain what I mean by going through all the possible combinations of numbers and find one that is 999-2373 and say THAT is why it's so amazing that your number is 999-2374! It's ridiculous.

 

I disagree. While it is often argued that common descent is a statistically impossible no one has ever enumerated a scientifically accepted mathematical model which supports such a claim. In terms of the genetic evidence for evolution, while it may not be 'conclusive' evidence of evolution it strongly supports the ToE. When evaluating the ToE, its important to remember that there are many differing lines of evidence that have been identified by a number of scientific disciplines each using only a few or many different scientific methods. A such, while there might not be one singular piece of evidence that is conclusive proof of the ToE, the sum of the dataset is for all intents and purposes 'conclusive' proof of evolution. Yes, I understand that there are no absolutes in science but the ToE is a scientific theory that as a whole is almost universally accepted within the scientific community due to the enormous body of supporting evidence. Phylogenetic analysis- which has really only occurred on a large scale over the last 15-20 years- includes very complex mathematical quantifications of sequence similarities/differences to the point where the descent of all life from a common ancestor can be determined from an empirical dataset. This 'tree of life' is corroborated by other datasets and lines of evidence i.e. the fossil record.

 

Creationists, etc like throwing out the, "Life existing is 132472137413247132984732974712894978279497172984971247949432794 x 10^43251327894522143789 chance of happening so evilution is wrong!"

The point of the matter is that:

1. They don't understand chance
2. They pull numbers out of their arses
3. Earth isn't the only planet in the universe
4. They pull numbers out of their arses
5. They don't understand chance
6. ?
7. Profit

 

No--that's not what I'm saying. I'm simply saying it's statistically less likely than that bus-sized satellite that is falling to earth today will land on Capital Hill no matter how much some people may wish it to do so.

 

Do you really think the modern "scientific" community is amenable to such a "correction?" I don't. It takes away their paradigm and crushes their "god."

 

And witty with enough sarcasm to make it enjoyable.

 

The statistical claim is not good evidence.
Think of a more mundane topic.
Claim that any phenomenon has a 1/a-ridiculously-large-number chance of occurring.
But then say it occurs.

This does not mean that the statistical analysis is wrong.
Nor does it mean that the phenomenon did not happen.

Statistical analysis, even if we overlook its general faultiness, just doesn't work that way.

And if you are concerned that the probability of a planet forming with the conditions for life is low (considering the vast size of the universe, even the large denominators don't mean as much there as it sounds like), what makes you think the probability of a supernatural sentient omnipotent force forming would be?
Nobody bothers thinknig that one through. Statistically denying evolution does not make God any more plausible as you must subject God to the same standards... and the fact that this is really hard to even figure out how to do is no excuse.

The fallacy of ID is that it replaces a theory it claims to blow holes through (most of which are debunked) with... what people want to believe. That's not scientific at all.
If you believe a universe is easier explained by intelligence, you have to be able to explain where that intelligence came from in the first place.

 

When you consider that chemicals come together in very predictable ways the odds of life appearing in certain environments is pretty good.

And when you consider that all life is programed by DNA, RNA or a combination of both...the odds of all life being related is pretty good also.

It is just the arragement of the "letters" CATG that mean the difference between a mouse and a man.

And blue eyes can be predicted if you know the pedigree of the parents.

If both sides of the family have blue eyes on both sides for several generations the kids will have blue eyes. The blue eye gene is ressesive in humans.

google punit squares....I hope I spelled it right.

 

Yours is just a faith of a different name and a different god. I'm sure you have rational reasons to believe as you do, just as I have rational reasons to believe as I do. The difference is that I am free from the self-delusion that what I believe can be proved. I ACCEPT that I do not, and cannot know in this plane of existence, and I do not try to claim otherwise out of fear of being perceived hypocritical. I don't judge you for not having that acceptance--I consider myself fortunate. In fact, I wish everyone had that peace that surpasses understanding!

 

Capital Hill still stands.....