Genetic on/off Switches

[noguru]

Then doesn't that say something about the integrity of your sources? I want sources for these three claims. I suspect you added your own little flavor to what was said. Cite URLs, papers, anything. I want to see the credentials of the inept biologist who is making these claims. Claim #1 is demonstrably false. Claim #2 is just outright wrong. Claim #3 is questionable. I'd like to see how the author supports this contention.

Claim #1: "But similar DNA studies that show how closely related all humans are, when applied to other animals, show vast DNA differences separating the major types, something not predicted by evolutionary theory."
Claim #2: "Thus, punctuated equilibria was postulated to fix the problem."
Claim #3: "because the DNA evidence shows that major DNA changes had to have occurred between the major types to explain the vast DNA differences between major types."

PE is also supported by the evidence gained from the fossil record in an old earth scenario. Of course if you refuse to entertain the possibility that the earth is billions of years old and multi-celled life is 1.6 billion - 600 million years old, then the evidence from the fossil record doesn't support much at all.

 

[MindonFire]

The Genetic On-Off Switch
by Stephen Caesar
06/21/2006

___As has been discussed many times in this column, scientists have witnessed firsthand these transcription factors or “on/off switches” being engaged, usually by external factors such as radical, often catastrophic, environmental changes. The changes in an individual species brought about by the turning on (or off) of these transcription proteins are sometimes so profound that the species in question often appears to transform into a completely new species. However, this is not trans-specific macroevolution via random mutation and consequent survival of the fittest, as Darwin had theorized.
___Instead, the on-off switches show all the appearance, as mentioned above, of having been pre-programmed into the blueprint of every living creature on the planet. It is almost as if someone intentionally did this so that all living things would be able to survive and overcome the uncountable disasters, environmental changes, and radical transformations the world would undergo in its long history.

Reference: Powell, A. 2005. “Bulyk searches for DNA on-off switches.” Harvard Gazette, Nov. 3.

Could these switches have been in existence during the floods of Noah? And if so, what role would they play?

 

[bob b]

Could these switches have been in existence during the floods of Noah? And if so, what role would they play?

"It is almost as if someone intentionally did this so that all living things would be able to survive and overcome the uncountable disasters, environmental changes, and radical transformations the world would undergo in its long history."

This might be called "rapid adaptation", something that random changes as acted upon by natural selection could not possibly do fast enough to be effective to aid in survival following rapidly changing conditions (e.g. conditions after the flood).

Although some would argue that slow changes could eventually create such a survival mechanism, note that even evolutionists admit there is no ability to "look ahead" in their mechanism, so that it could not develop in advance so as to aid survival during a rapid change that had not yet occurred.

 

[MindonFire]

"It is almost as if someone intentionally did this so that all living things would be able to survive and overcome the uncountable disasters, environmental changes, and radical transformations the world would undergo in its long history."

This might be called "rapid adaptation", something that random changes as acted upon by natural selection could not possibly do fast enough to be effective to aid in survival following rapidly changing conditions (e.g. conditions after the flood).

Although some would argue that slow changes could eventually create such a survival mechanism, note that even evolutionists admit there is no ability to "look ahead" in their mechanism, so that it could not develop in advance so as to aid survival during a rapid change that had not yet occurred.

How did these switches work during the flood? In other words, during that time how did it cause the animals or the people to behave?

 

[Johnny]

Sources please, bob.

 

[CapnFungi]

Sure, but that doesn't means that they could not have come about via natural processes. Such as Natural Selection and Random Mutations. The word "random" by the way has a different meaning in a scientific context than it does in an ordinary day context. Evolution is not random in the ordinary day context.

See here, look for the point "The theory of evolution says that life originated, and evolution proceeds, by random chance"...

http://talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html


Valz

The theory of evolution was some morons random idea.. i do know that much

 

[Jukia]

Sources please, bob.

It is a secret. Perhaps if you know the secret handshake (or believe in Noah's Ark, etc.) bob b will let you in on the secret. Otherwise, consider the source as you now have it.

 

[fool]

It is a secret. Perhaps if you know the secret handshake (or believe in Noah's Ark, etc.) bob b will let you in on the secret. Otherwise, consider the source as you now have it.

Yet another illustration of why I don't bother with BobB anymore.
What a waste of time.

 

[CapnFungi]

First Bob wants Johnny to give evidence as to why what he (bob) has to say is wrong. Johnny ignored this and continued. I believe Bob is just waiting for johnny to step up to the plate.

 

[Jukia]

First Bob wants Johnny to give evidence as to why what he (bob) has to say is wrong. Johnny ignored this and continued. I believe Bob is just waiting for johnny to step up to the plate.

Nah, bob b loves to throw statements out that seem to have some scientific validity but then it becomes tough, sometimes, to get the basis for his statement. Johnny is pretty good at providing sources. bob b tends to paraphrase and editorialize in such a way to support his fundamentalist positions. Simple thing would be to provide a source and then everyone could check.

 

[CapnFungi]

No, it will continue when you give your evidences that I was wrong. (I love to counterpunch).

i'm going on this statement Jukia. I see nothing in this thread BobB has stated that I don't agree with. Johnny on the otherhand disagrees. Thus, he needs to support his claim as to why BobB is wrong..

 

[Evoken]

The theory of evolution was some morons random idea.. i do know that much

How informative!


Valz

 

[CapnFungi]

How informative!


Valz

Now, all you need to do is use that information and start finding out for yourself rather than just believing your teachers. And before you say "Think for myself? Ha Ha, your a sheep" or something along that line. I use to be a devout athiest. It was my looking into things that led me to Christ, not what I was told so don't even try to throw that arguement back at me.

 

[fool]

First Bob wants Johnny to give evidence as to why what he (bob) has to say is wrong. Johnny ignored this and continued. I believe Bob is just waiting for johnny to step up to the plate.

Johnny, and eveyone else with a brain, is asking Bob to cite his source, Bob refuses to do so, hence, Bob is in default. It's very simple.

 

[Evoken]

Now, all you need to do is use that information and start finding out for yourself rather than just believing your teachers. And before you say "Think for myself? Ha Ha, your a sheep" or something along that line. I use to be a devout athiest. It was my looking into things that led me to Christ, not what I was told so don't even try to throw that arguement back at me.

You seem to think I am an atheist or something...

 

[CapnFungi]

Yes I did assume you are an athiest. Will you find it in your heart to forgive me and accept my apolagy. 8)

 

[Johnny]

First Bob wants Johnny to give evidence as to why what he (bob) has to say is wrong. Johnny ignored this and continued. I believe Bob is just waiting for johnny to step up to the plate.

Chronologically speaking, I asked bob for his sources first. It is bob who ignored my request. I will be more than happy to oblige bob, as I have done extensively in the past, after I read his sources. I am so adamant at seeing his sources for various reasons. First, he editorlializes much of what he posts. He mixes his opinions and a poor understanding of certain aspects of biology with statements of fact so that the facts cannot be separated from his twist without scrutiny (which he does not receive from the creationist population here). Second, if he does have a valid source for this information, I am interested in the source's qualificaitons and background. I find it hard to believe anyone with a B.S. in biology would make such glaring mis-statements.

 

[Evoken]

Yes I did assume you are an athiest. Will you find it in your heart to forgive me and accept my apolagy. 8)

Don't worry about it.


Valz

 

[CapnFungi]

Don't worry about it.


Valz

Sorry.. i was in attack mode.. LOL

 

[bob b]

Chronologically speaking, I asked bob for his sources first. It is bob who ignored my request. I will be more than happy to oblige bob, as I have done extensively in the past, after I read his sources. I am so adamant at seeing his sources for various reasons. First, he editorlializes much of what he posts. He mixes his opinions and a poor understanding of certain aspects of biology with statements of fact so that the facts cannot be separated from his twist without scrutiny (which he does not receive from the creationist population here). Second, if he does have a valid source for this information, I am interested in the source's qualificaitons and background. I find it hard to believe anyone with a B.S. in biology would make such glaring mis-statements.

The think I can clear up some (but not all) of Johnny’s misunderstanding which occurred with my previous posting which was as follows:

There is no question that common descent occurs. For example, both evolutionists and creationists believe that all humans living today descended from a single female as well as a single male only thousands of years ago. This was demonstrated by DNA studies.

But similar DNA studies that show how closely related all humans are, when applied to other animals, show vast DNA differences separating the major types, something not predicted by evolutionary theory. Thus, punctuated equilibria was postulated to fix the problem. [emphasis not in original]

If one assumes that only a few DNA changes are needed to make a great difference in morphology, thus "fixing" the problem with the fossil record having no evidence of major morphological changes between types, because they happened too fast to be preserved, [emphasis not in original] it unfortunately makes the DNA problem worse, because the DNA evidence shows that major DNA changes had to have occurred between the major types to explain the vast DNA differences between major types.

Johnny thinks I was arguing that “punctuated equilibrium was postulated to fix the problem” with vast DNA differences between the major types. However, PE was first advanced in 1972 by paleontologists Gould and Eldredge, and it was clear to everyone reading their paper that their theory was in response to what they saw in the fossil record. So how did that “punctuated equilibrium was postulated to fix the problem” sentence get into the wrong place in my posting instead of the following sentence (see above) which mentioned “morphology”. Easy. I edited the posting, but left the offending sentence sitting clearly in the wrong place. My error. Obviously Gould and Eldredge, being paleontologists, invented their theory to explain the problem with morphology, i.e. the presence of stasis, little fossil species change for long periods of time followed by new fossil forms appearing abruptly in the following layers with no ancestors leading up to them, i.e. the Gould invented term “trade secret of paleontology”.