home bbs files messages ]

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