Evolution Inhibits Science Progress

bob b

Science Lover
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Marshall, Fletcher, and Davies, “Hyperactive antifreeze protein in a fish,” Nature 429, 153 (13 May 2004); doi:10.1038/429153a.

Creationist commentary:
Another wonderful discovery, all the more interesting for the last line: “The evolutionary relationship between our 5a-like antifreeze protein and type I AFP, which also contains short tracts of alanine, remains to be solved.”
Here is an example of “junk DNA” proving to be functionally important. Based on Darwinian assumptions, scientists had dismissed the gene as a degenerating relic of a gene duplication event sometime in the fish’s prehistory. Such a mindset is proving to be a hindrance to the advance of science (see 05/10/2004 headline).
 

Nineveh

Merely Christian
I was just reading an article about "junk DNA" last night. All that time, effort, and money wasted to finally reach square 1 (it's there for a reason). How far might they be assuming it had a purpose to begin with?
 

Jukia

New member
Looks to me like science is now addressing the issue so what is your problem? Oh, I see, further investigation is a hinderance. Now I get it.
 

Dimo

BANNED BY MOD
Banned by Mod
Jukia posted:

Looks to me like science is now addressing the issue so what is your problem? Oh, I see, further investigation is a hinderance. Now I get it.

Dimo:

Yes Jukia. Bob and the authors of this see anything that does not support their view as a hindrance to science.
 

Stratnerd

New member
Here is an example of “junk DNA” proving to be functionally important.
So it was a bunch of creationists that discovered the function? Probably not. So if it was evolutionary biologists that discovered the function how did their evolutionary presuppositions come into play here? Creationist logic is lacking... again.
 

Dimo

BANNED BY MOD
Banned by Mod
What Bob is missing is that the term "junk" DNA is a simplification. In some cases no function has been found. In others the function is not apparent at first. In others the functionality is regressive. In others cases the functionality is only a potential for the future.

At any rate if one truly understands the nature of genetics they also understand that using the term "junk" is an oversimplification.
 

bob b

Science Lover
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Originally posted by Stratnerd

So it was a bunch of creationists that discovered the function? Probably not. So if it was evolutionary biologists that discovered the function how did their evolutionary presuppositions come into play here? Creationist logic is lacking... again.

Since you asked nicely I will answer.

Evolutionists have been saying for years that non-coding (for proteins) DNA is "junk", leftovers that have accumulated from random mutations during millions of years of evolution from a primitive protocell.

Creationists on the other hand have been saying for years that the so-called "junk" DNA undoubtedly has a function that simply has not been discovered as yet, and that it would be a good idea to stop calling it "junk" and get to work finding out what its function is.

Most evolutionists have ignored this advice, but fortunately a few less dogmatic individuals have not, and lo and behold, functions are now rapidly being discovered as the "logjam" in thinking has been weakened.

Of course, the same thing happened in the case of antibiotic resistence which originally had been thought to have been due to random mutation, but which is now known to be anything but random.

Let us hope less dogmatic young researchers take these lessons to heart and stop following the siren song of "random mutations", and so get to work in earnest finding out how the marvellous features of lifeforms really operate.
 

Stratnerd

New member
I asked "So it was a bunch of creationists that discovered the function?"

I'll take it from your answer that you meant to that creationist had nothing to do with the discovery. Do you have evidence otherwise? You made it sound as if the researchers heard the call of creationists - do you have any evidence of this?

Or do you think that the evidence itself (e.g., the constancy of sequences amongst taxa) begged the question? And as good scientists would do, they tried to answer?

Instead of making accusations please provide some shred of evidence.
 

YawgmothsAvatar

New member
You know what hinders science even more? Religion.

Take Galileo. He thought that the Earth revolved around the Sun. The Church disagreed and threatened to kill him.

If literal intrepretists of the Bible had gotten their way, then we would still think the universe was centered on Earth.
 

Turbo

Caped Crusader
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Originally posted by YawgmothsAvatar

You know what hinders science even more? Religion.

Take Galileo. He thought that the Earth revolved around the Sun. The Church disagreed and threatened to kill him.
Galileo was a Bible-believing Christian.

If literal intrepretists of the Bible had gotten their way, then we would still think the universe was centered on Earth.
The Bible doesn't state that any more than your weatherman does.
 

YawgmothsAvatar

New member
Originally posted by Turbo

Galileo was a Bible-believing Christian.


The Bible doesn't state that any more than your weatherman does.
He may have said he was, but when you are being threatened with torture and execution, you will say anything.

Josh 10:13
And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed,

Psalms 93:1
The LORD reigneth, he is clothed with majesty; the LORD is clothed with strength, wherewith he hath girded himself: the world also is stablished, that it cannot be moved.

Ecclesiastes 1:5
The sun also ariseth, and the sun goeth down, and hasteth to his place where he arose.

I'll call my weatherman just to check.
 

Dimo

BANNED BY MOD
Banned by Mod
Bob B posted:

Evolutionists have been saying for years that non-coding (for proteins) DNA is "junk", leftovers that have accumulated from random mutations during millions of years of evolution from a primitive protocell.

Dimo:

That is not entirely correct. It is not "junk". That is an oversimplification. DNA effects enzyme production. Slight modifications to DNA can create large changes in these enzymes. Large modifications in DNA may produce little or no enzyme changes. The overall effect of all this is much too intricate and complex to explain here. However, the concept of "junk" DNA is a word that the laymen has grasped onto, because some genotype changes lead to little or no changes in the phenotype. This communication problem is created by the knowledge gap between genetics experts and the laymen. And YECs like yourself like to hold this out and say "Look evolutionists have been wrong all along".

Bob B posted:

Creationists on the other hand have been saying for years that the so-called "junk" DNA undoubtedly has a function that simply has not been discovered as yet, and that it would be a good idea to stop calling it "junk" and get to work finding out what its function is.

Dimo:

Is that so? Which creationists have said this?

Bob B posted:

Most evolutionists have ignored this advice, but fortunately a few less dogmatic individuals have not, and lo and behold, functions are now rapidly being discovered as the "logjam" in thinking has been weakened.

Dimo:

I would like to see some evidence for this claim. Like a testimony from those who freed up the "logjam", that this freedom of thinking is because of the YEC influence on science.

Bob B posted:

Of course, the same thing happened in the case of antibiotic resistence which originally had been thought to have been due to random mutation, but which is now known to be anything but random.

Dimo:

In this case it turns out that this is due to a type of Lamarckian mechanism. Newer research is showing evidence that Lamarkian concepts make a great deal of sense when it comes to simpler organisms, or organs and organelles found in more complex organisms.

Do you have evidence that this is actually due to pressures placed on research by YECs?

Bob B posted:

Let us hope less dogmatic young researchers take these lessons to heart and stop following the siren song of "random mutations", and so get to work in earnest finding out how the marvellous features of lifeforms really operate.

Dimo:

And they will have a much greater chance of this if they steer clear of the YEC mentality; "That some questions in the material sciences just cannot be answered , because they are the result of the supernatural."
 

Stratnerd

New member
> was just reading an article about "junk DNA" last night.

it was because of evolutionary we thought there was a function!
 

Free-Agent Smith

New member
Originally posted by YawgmothsAvatar

Alexander VII, I believe. He ended up house arresting Galileo even after he renounced heliocentricity.

A web search revealed that it was Pope Paul IV issued him a warning in the name of the Church and that Pope Urban VIII seemingly persecuted him.
It was part of the Inquisition so it couldn't have been anything nice.





Galileo's persecution
 

YawgmothsAvatar

New member
Originally posted by Agent Smith

A web search revealed that it was Pope Paul IV issued him a warning in the name of the Church and that Pope Urban VIII seemingly persecuted him.
It was part of the Inquisition so it couldn't have been anything nice.





Galileo's persecution
My bad. Alexander VII banned all books on heliocentricity, which was a precursor to that. I guess I just saw it from my source and thought it was different.
 

bob b

Science Lover
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Originally posted by Stratnerd

I asked "So it was a bunch of creationists that discovered the function?"

I'll take it from your answer that you meant to that creationist had nothing to do with the discovery. Do you have evidence otherwise? You made it sound as if the researchers heard the call of creationists - do you have any evidence of this?

Or do you think that the evidence itself (e.g., the constancy of sequences amongst taxa) begged the question? And as good scientists would do, they tried to answer?

Instead of making accusations please provide some shred of evidence.

You are in deep denial.

"One hypothesis about the junk is that these chromosomal regions are trash heaps of defunct genes, sometimes known as pseudogenes, which have been cast aside and fragmented during evolution. Evidence for a related hypothesis suggests that the junk represents the accumulated DNA of failed viruses. Yet another hypothesis is that the junk DNA provides a reservoire of sequence from which potentially advantageous new genes can emerge. "
 

Dimo

BANNED BY MOD
Banned by Mod
Bob B posted:

"One hypothesis about the junk is that these chromosomal regions are trash heaps of defunct genes, sometimes known as pseudogenes, which have been cast aside and fragmented during evolution. Evidence for a related hypothesis suggests that the junk represents the accumulated DNA of failed viruses. Yet another hypothesis is that the junk DNA provides a reservoire of sequence from which potentially advantageous new genes can emerge. "

Dimo:

Bob, please provide the author of this qoute.

If each one of these hypotheses were partially true, would that make "junk" DNA actually junk?

Come on Bob think about this logically. I mean really now does it have to only one of these that is true? Can you just put your black or white thinking down for a little and consider that these are actually different parts of one hypotheses regarding DNA that is apparently useless under current conditions.

Again I disagree with your methodology of discerning what is accurate.

Or has your level of competence fallen that low?
 

Turbo

Caped Crusader
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Originally posted by YawgmothsAvatar

He may have said he was, but when you are being threatened with torture and execution, you will say anything.

Oddly, he didn't recant his belief that the earth revolved around the sun. :rolleyes:

Galileo's Christian beliefs are well documented. Do you have any evidence that that suggests that he was not a Christian?

Originally written by Galileo

"I think in the first place that it is very pious to say and prudent to affirm that the Holy Bible can never speak untruth -- whenever its true meaning is understood."

"[Copernicus] did not ignore the Bible, but he knew very well that if his doctrine were proved, then it could not contradict the Scripture when they were rightly understood."

"And in St. Augustine we read: 'If anyone shall set the authority of Holy Writ against clear and manifest reason, he who does this knows not what he has undertaken; for he opposes to the truth not the meaning of the Bible, which is beyond his comprehension, but rather his own interpretation; not what is in the Bible, but what he has found in himself and imagines to be there'"

Church vs. Galileo
What were Galileo's scientific and biblical conflicts with the Church?



Originally posted by YawgmothsAvatar
Josh 10:13
And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed,
This was a miraculous event, but it's most likely that the sun and moon were still relative to the observer.
Psalms 93:1
The LORD reigneth, he is clothed with majesty; the LORD is clothed with strength, wherewith he hath girded himself: the world also is stablished, that it cannot be moved.
Do you think that verse mean that even God cannot move the world?

Ecclesiastes 1:5
The sun also ariseth, and the sun goeth down, and hasteth to his place where he arose.

I'll call my weatherman just to check.
Ecclesiastes 1:5 is precisely the verse I was alluding to when I mentioned your weatherman. Do you scoff when your weatherman mentions what time sunrise and sunset were for the day?
 
Top