Problems for evolution — squid recodes its own RNA

[Stripe]

RNA being the reactive of DNA cannot seek anything; it is always random.

Nobody has claimed that RNA is seeking anything. And I think "random" is a poor choice of words given that RNA is dependent on the DNA.

There is no intelligent design, which is a priori in itself. All genetics are the creation of God.

"Intelligent design" is a concept that includes the idea that God designed genomes.

Did you respond coherently to any of the evidence I posted? No.

Did any of it show how squids evolved the ability to recode their RNA? No.

Why shouldn't it?

Begging the questin is not very convincing.

Why would the creator, going from scratch, give this ability only to squid? If it's so cool, why don't humans do it?

Flying is "cool" too. Is this your argument?

You're still arguing "I don't know, therefore God.

Nope.

 

[6days]

And there we have it....the standard creationist tactic of ignoring questions, waiting a while, then lying by saying you've already answered.

It is impossible to advocate creationism honestly.

Pretty sure we have had this conversation a couple times and I've offered definitions such as 'complex specificity'

How does that apply to genetics? If I have two genomes, how do I tell which has more "information"?

Fallacy of moving the goal posts. You asked for a definition. You now have one...or more.

 

[Ktoyou]

Creationists had a long history of belief in the 'fixity' or immutability of species, as even Answers in Genesis begrudgingly acknowledges. This didn't really begin to change until the 19th century.

What changed? Genesis in the 19th century, or the 'fixity' or immutability of species?

 

[6days]

So evolutionism and creationism both evolved at about the same time?*Actually both have existed in some form for a couple thousand years.

Creationists had a long history of belief in the 'fixity' or immutability of species, as even*Answers in Genesis*begrudgingly acknowledges. This didn't really begin to change until the 19th century.

Excellent article!

In the 19th century people had all kinds of ideas which science has proven wrong. For example evolutionists had a long history of belief in the inheritance of aquired traits.*

 

[Dennyg1]

That is not generally observable. Organisms often will adapt and become *'fit' to specific envioronments, but are often now less fit when the environment changes.*

The fact that some organisms get so specialized to stable environments is strong evidence for evolution. As you would expect, after such specialization these species often do go extinct when faced with a drastic and sudden change in habitat.

Except in artificial selection, it is rare that an overall decline in fitness is seen. Mutations that are harmful make an organism less fit, and when it cannot survive and produce as many offspring as rivals, this bad mutation is likely to die out within a few generations.

Mutations that increase fitness allow an organism to survive longer and reproduce more, and its offspring that receive the helpful mutation will also live longer and have more progeny of their own. Over time, due to this mutation allowing those with it to be fitter and produce more offspring than those without it, the good mutation becomes part of the general genome of the entire species. That is how evolution works.

Example: which of the three will likely survive longest?
1. Normal deer
2. Deer with larger ears (better detect predators)
3. Deer with smaller ears (opposite effect)

Obviously it's 2. And because of that it will have more babies, some of whom will also inherit the big ear gene. The cycle continues until the whole species has larger ears

You should have read the peer reviewed article I linked to yesterday discussing that very thing.*

Where did you get the notion it was peer reviewed? And by who?

The author did not understand how mutations could lead to an increase in fitness. I explain that above. It was based on a false premise

 

[Alate_One]

Did any of it show how squids evolved the ability to recode their RNA? No.

Evolution already explains a lot of things which you reject. So even if I had a specific explanation ready for you, it wouldn't matter because you would reject it anyway.

There will be an explanation eventually once the molecular mechanism for this is understood. So far the report is only that it occurs, not exactly how it happens or what triggers it.

Begging the questin is not very convincing.

I don't think you'd find anything you don't already agree with convincing.

Flying is "cool" too. Is this your argument?

Your argument is that because squid do something unexpected in adapting to their environment, therefore no evolution.

Isn't that your argument?

Evolution would predict that many different types of mechanisms of regulation would evolve in the variety of different organisms, especially those more distantly related to others.

What do your ideas predict?

 

[Daedalean's_Sun]

What changed? Genesis in the 19th century, or the 'fixity' or immutability of species?

Neither, but of course, you already knew that.

 

[Daedalean's_Sun]

Excellent article!

In the 19th century people had all kinds of ideas which science has proven wrong. For example evolutionists had a long history of belief in the inheritance of aquired traits.*

Right because as we all know, organisms never inherit traits :liberals:

 

[Dennyg1]

Right because as we all know, organisms never inherit traits :liberals:

6days means the idea of passing on traits acquired during one's lifetime. Like a person getting big from lifting weights and then having very muscular babies. But this was proven false early on

 

[Daedalean's_Sun]

Based on prior experience. We know men write. We have seen men write before. We can ourselves write. Based on prior experience we know that writing comes from men, the same with clocks, or watches, or paintings, or whatever other analogy you wish to proffer.

These are based on prior experience. The [watchmaker] argument is predicated on a false premise. We do not know intuitively whether something is intelligently designed. We only know this if we can see them being designed thus the analogy always relies on something that we already know is designed. We have not seen life being designed. We have no prior experience to rely on. Nor is there any objectively discernible characteristic that tells us if something is designed.

People used to think the Giant's Causeway in Northern Ireland was something that was built, but they were wrong. The Giant's causeway is a natural feature.

 

[Daedalean's_Sun]

6days means the idea of passing on traits acquired during one's lifetime. Like a person getting big from lifting weights and then having very muscular babies. But this was proven false early on

Ah, you're talking about Pangenesis. Darwin's attempt to explain inheritance before Gregor Mendel. Though I don't see how that is relevant to the statement that adaptation is a pillar of Creationism. Clearly it was co-opted from Lamarckian and Darwinian thought.

 

[Stripe]

There will be an explanation eventually once the molecular mechanism for this is understood.

Explanations aren't evidence. And appealing to future knowledge shows that your faith is overpowering your scientific inquiry.

Your argument is that because squid do something unexpected in adapting to their environment, therefore no evolution.
Isn't that your argument?

Nope. You need to learn to respond to what I write.

What do your ideas predict?

Plenty of stuff. Stuff that I have outlined many times. Why don't you see if you can honestly present some of my predictions. :up:

 

[Daedalean's_Sun]

Explanations aren't evidence.

How could random mutations and natural selection produce a system by which squids can recode their own RNA? The RNA-editing system seen in the animal may have evolved from mononucleotide deaminases... Or it might have been designed. A proposed explanation is not dispelled by your ability to conjecture another. A proposed explanation involves an explanation — not a declaration that evolution exists. Or that design exists? [no responses to follow...]

 

[Daedalean's_Sun]

Stripe,

As far as I am aware, no one here is claiming to know definitively how RNA-editing arose; You asked for explanation, and got one.

 

[Dennyg1]

after reading up on the subject, I found the wiki editors are lying or merely copying and pasting from other deceptive sources. for clarity, here is a timeline of Stalin's education so you can understand how this wiki editor distorts the truth.
Gori Church School (1889-1894) age at the time 11 to 15
Tbilisi Spiritual Seminary (1894–1899) age at the time 16 to 21
for reference here is the full statement by wiki


Now here is the direct quote from the YEC source.
http://creation.com/what-happened-when-joseph-stalin-read-charles-darwin
now the quote from Robert Conquest's book "Stalin: breaker of Nations" (the leading historian that was mentioned above)

So right off the bat it's clear that this historian is refuting a narrow claim about Stalin's youth promoted by soviets and not making some broad statement that Stalin never read nor was influenced by Darwin's ideas. Secondly, the referenced refutation date is off by at least 3 years since what was mentioned in the YEC article was about his time in seminary school and not his time Gori. Lastly, Stalin did indeed read Darwin's works at his time at seminary. from the same source as above

Now onto the "soviet claim" that this historian disputes, this comes from a biography published in Stalin's "Glory" years titled "Landmarks in the Life of Stalin"
http://www.icr.org/article/stalins-brutal-faith/

So in the mind of the soviets who created this false testimony, Darwin's works have a strong connection towards enlightenment towards Atheism and Marxism. So, in essence this allegedly false testimony only enhances the case that evolution was a fundamental building block of the atheistic soviet/marxist worldview.


conclusion: Never take wiki at face value and why are evolutionists so desperate that they would have to resort to quote mining to attack YEC?

"The Talk.Origins Archive: Exploring the Creation/Evolution Controversy

Index to Creationist Claims, edited by Mark Isaak, Copyright © 2006
Previous Claim: CA006.1 | List of Claims | Next Claim: CA008
Claim CA006.2:

Stalin accepted Darwinian evolution, which he used to justify oppression and murder.
Source:

AiG, 1988. What happened when Stalin read Darwin? Creation 10(4) (September): 23. http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v10/i4/stalin.asp
Response:

Stalin rejected neo-Darwinian evolution in favor of Lamarckism:

"Mendeleyev's "periodic system of elements" clearly shows how very important in the history of nature is the emergence of qualitative changes out of quantitative changes. The same thing is shown in biology by the theory of neo-Lamarckism, to which neo-Darwinism is yielding place." (Stalin 1906, 304)

More specifically, Stalin rejected the ideas of August Weismann, a 19th-century German biologist, in favor of Trofim Lysenko, a pseudoscientist who based his ideas on Lamarckism. Weismann, who accepted Darwin's theory of evolution, disproved Lamarckism and proposed that germ cells pass on hereditary information; his work was an early variant of the modern evolutionary synthesis which unites evolutionary theory with genetics. Stalin appointed Lysenko head of the Academy of Agricultural Sciences of the Soviet Union, where he had great political power. (Rossiannov 1993)

Stalin and Lysenko rejected evolution and genetics for ideological, not biological, reasons. (Stalin was quite ignorant of science in general.) The class struggle of Marxism contradicts the individual competition implied by natural selection. More importantly, genetics, implying that traits were fixed at birth, contradicted the ideal of moulding and improving traits. Stalin proclaimed genetics a capitalist pseudo-science.

Stalin was, first and foremost, a Marxist dictator, far above any allegiance he might have had to any theories concerning the origin of species, whether Lamarckian or Darwinian. Stalin distrusted scientists as being prone to free-thinking. Though his persecution of biologists and biology were particularly egregious (causing appalling damage to Soviet agriculture), he imprisoned and killed thousands of scientists and engineers from all fields.

Oppression and murder have been used as tools of statecraft long before Darwin published his work.

There is no evidence that Darwin's work was used as a justification for oppression and murder. Stalin doubtless accepted Newton's theory of gravity, but creationists do not claim that Newton's theory should be suppressed because Stalin believed it.
References:

Rossianov, Kirill. 1993. Stalin as Lysenko's Editor: Reshaping Political Discourse in Soviet Science, Configurations - Volume 1, Number 3, Fall 1993, pp. 439-456, The Johns Hopkins University Press. Online at http://muse.jhu.edu/cgi-bin/access.cgi?uri=/journals/configurations/v001/1.3rossianov.html and http://cyber.eserver.org/stalin.txt.

Stalin, Josef V. 1906. Anarchism or Socialism? In Collected Works, vol. 1, Moscow: Foreign Languages Publishing House, 1954. http://www.marx2mao.com/Stalin/AS07.html
Further Reading:

Elsberry, Wesley R. and Mark Perakh, n.d. How Intelligent Design advocates turn the sordid lessons from Soviet and Nazi history upside down. http://www.talkreason.org/articles/eandp.cfm
Previous Claim: CA006.1 | List of Claims | Next Claim: CA008
created 2006-7-28"

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA006_2.html

 

[Jose Fly]

Pretty sure we have had this conversation a couple times and I've offered definitions such as 'complex specificity'

That's not a definition. Do you even know what a "definition" of a word is?

Fallacy of moving the goal posts. You asked for a definition. You now have one...or more.

????????????? No it's not. You creationists keep talking and making claims about "genetic information", yet not one of you can say what "genetic information" is, or how it should be measured.

All you can do is the standard creationist dishonest tactic of waiting a while and then lying by saying "I've already answered that" (of course with no links or references to where you answered).

Again, it is impossible to advocate creationism honestly.

 

[Jose Fly]

As far as I am aware, no one here is claiming to know definitively how RNA-editing arose; You asked for explanation, and got one.

That's the luxury of being a creationist. You don't have to do any actual work or science of your own, you just sit on the sidelines and criticize real scientists as they do their work. And since we don't have full evolutionary scenarios for every biological system and structure that's ever existed, there's always opportunities to point to something and demand "How did that evolve", and when you get "We don't know" back, you can declare victory.

It's both emotionally safe and intellectually lazy.

 

[Stripe]

:mock: Dennyg1.

Gee, I was just starting to like the guy as well.

 

[Daedalean's_Sun]

That's not a definition. Do you even know what a "definition" of a word is?


????????????? No it's not. You creationists keep talking and making claims about "genetic information", yet not one of you can say what "genetic information" is, or how it should be measured.

I made a similar point before. I asked how we should define information in terms of genetics, I got the same definition you were given, but when I queried how we should measure information of that definition, the answer I got then was "It's not measurable", puzzled I responded "Then how do you know there is always a decrease?".

I wish I could find that thread.

 

[Mocking You]

:mock: Dennyg1.

Gee, I was just starting to like the guy as well.

Why was he banned?