Pitt Professor's Theory of Evolution Gets Boost From Cell Research [Sudden Origins]

University of Pittsburgh ^ | 26 January 2006 | Staff

[AndrewC]

I didn't present them as being one step away from a histone, did I? No, of course not, but obviously you're not going to let that stop you from inventing the claim for me.

This is your statement....homologs such as the protamines may well have served some entirely different function before doing what histones do now. A minor change to that homolog, and presto - histones

"A" is singular. Now protamines and protamine analogs are only relevant to this discussion in light of your fiction. Thus they are mentioned by you as a possible candidate homolog. If not, then you deserve to have your red herring flushed down the toilet.

And I am now almost certain that you can't provide the sequences of the synthetics.

[Senator Bedfellow]

Sorry, my friend, but I think I'm going to bow out of this foursome here. I can't see myself wasting too much more time on a guy who thinks fair play is kicking his opponent's ball into the rough.

[Torie]

I don't think so. Hoyle has a purely scientific alternative "explanation" to part earthy evolution. ID, other than with the hand of man, ain't science beyond the big bang I don't think. Yes, OK it is a battle over semantics, which so often gets us bogged down when elucidating the competing arguments.

[Torie]

A reference to ID was on the sticker wasn't it by the way?

[jwalsh07]

"The histone-4 case is in fact a case of Michael Behe's Irreducible Complexity long before Behe published his "Darwin's Black Box, since the hand-written version of Mathematics of Evolution was 'published' in 1987. Hoyle is an Intelligent Design Theorist 'avant-la-lettre'. What makes Hoyle different is that he doesn't talk about 'the supernatural' and the 3-letter word. Hoyle indignantly rejects Neo-Darwinists' "retreat in the unknowable and untestable" (p103), when they claim that histone-4 historically had a different function and so could evolve stepwise. Hoyle would be right if evolutionists just claimed it..." Gert Korthof, Darwinist.

I like Korthof, he's a pretty honest guy. Of course he lets his contempt for us dreaded "creationists" slip through now and again but overall he is a very smart and honest guy. If he could just get over the creationist thing. LOL

[jwalsh07]

Yup.

[Torie]

I realize on the reread that your point was too subtle for me to catch the first time. Maybe there was evolution on some other planet, and if only we could study it, it would fill in all the gaps. You DO have a point, but the word "falsifies" is too strong, because a scientist is just saying we can't explain it within the mechanisms of earth, and dumps it out into "secular" space, and calls it a day. He does not posit a higher power as being a possible explanation. I think the judge might have bought off on a mere reference to panspermia. :)

[tallhappy]

...histones had to evolve stepwise into this one and only function, all while being completely nonfunctional until they reached that magic end result - homologs such as the protamines ...

Protamines are not histone homologs.

[Senator Bedfellow]

"Such as" is probably a bad choice of phrasing - were I to rewrite, it would be "akin to" or "similar to".