Forums before death by AOL, social media and spammers... "We can't have nice things"
|    talk.origins    |    Evolution versus creationism (sometimes    |    142,602 messages    |
[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]
|    Message 141,373 of 142,602    |
|    RonO to Chris Thompson    |
|    Re: Recalling Karl Crawford (2/2)    |
|    31 Aug 25 09:27:47    |
      [continued from previous message]              and that the vast majority of "new" genes had evolved by duplication of       existing genes. MarkE wanted to claim that too many new genes were       needed, but few de novo new genes had evolved during this time. Most of       them had evolved from existing genes, but then evolved a new function.       This may have been expected because we already knew that nearly all       existing genes belong to gene families. When a protein coding gene       evolves from non coding DNA sequence. It may have an open reading frame       that codes for a protein, but most possible protein sequences do not       fold into stable structures. When they look at such de novo evolved       genes they have to go through a period of selection for more consistent       folding into a stable 3D structure before they become reliably       functional. It turns out that you can take an existing protein sequence       and change it a bit to make it do something else and you skip the       process of getting it to fold into a stable structure.              My example is always Abzymes. They can get antibodies to evolve       specific enzymatic activity in a single immune response, so in less than       2 trillion (the number of antibody sequences trials has to be less than       the number of cells in a mouse) sequence trials you can evolve a new       enzyme activity in an existing antibody sequence. The ID perps make a       big deal about the small amount of protein space that life occupies, but       the sequence space is such a minor fraction of what is available because       that is all nature has needed to search to find the protein sequences       needed for life on earth.              https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abzyme              Mike Gene was an IDiotic creationist supporter of the ID scam, probably,       from the beginning of the existing ID scam. He was likely the most       scientifically inclined supporters of the ID creationist scam at their       ARN discussion group and claimed to have attended the early ID perp       conferences with the Discovery Institute fellows. Mike Gene was a       pseudonym and Gene never revealed his real name, but claimed to be a       scientist. Gene didn't quit supporting the ID scam until a couple years       after Kitzmiller, but he eventually admitted that the ID science had       never existed. Gene could not give up on the gap denial, so he started       making claims that his god was responsible for front loading the initial       genes needed for current functional lifeforms. He started claiming that       his creator was responsible for creating the first members of the gene       families that exist in nature. After these initial creations, the gene       family could evolve and diversify. As MarkE found out these gene       families evolved and diversified over a very long period of time.       Reality just does not support the Biblical version of creation.              Ron Okimoto>       >       >>       >> Can I perform experiments proving it could not have been done this       >> way? I don't think I would waste my time. Someone else can, but to me       >> the example is obvious. It simply did not happen on it's own. I       >> really don't care how much time you would allow for it. Evolution       >> does not have the required tools.       >       > Many years ago I helped mentor a student doing a bacterial growth study.       > She showed me her data and I asked her where the 12-hour number was. She       > replied, "Oh, I didn't bother taking that measurement. I knew what it       > was going to be." She didn't last in the research program.       >       > Chris       >       >       >>       >> Is this the thing that has convinced me that evolution is wrong and ID       >> is correct? Of course not. It is simply evidence that intelligence       >> was required, and that the superior oblique, much like the woodpecker       >> tongue appear to have been designed as the evolutionary process does       >> not have the tools to come up with these solutions for these two       >> features.       >>       >>       >>       >>       >>       >>       >>       >>       >>       >>       >>       >>       >>       >>       >>       >>       >>       >>       >>       >>       >>       >              --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05        * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)    |
[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]
(c) 1994, bbs@darkrealms.ca