Posted on 02/09/2009 10:37:36 AM PST by GodGunsGuts
You have not shown how the GULO pseudogene is functional in primates, or demonstrated how the phylogenetic pattern one can form from it is at all inconsistent with other phylogenetic markers to derive primate lineages.
So now it is “most cases” that they cannot find intact virions from. So much for your “ONLY antibodies” and “zero zip nada of anything else”. When caught out in a blatant lie it is nice that you are at least willing to move the goal posts.
And in case you forgot....
Islamic jihadists are in fact Islamic jihadists not “temple of Darwin fanatics”.
Also, the shuffling of genetic elements to make the variable region of an antibody takes place in the absence of antigen presentation.
Is not the function of ERV sequences retroviral replication? If not how do you explain how they exactly match the sequence and gene order of known retrovirus that are also capable of incorporating themselves into the genome?
So much for ERV’s all being functional. Their primary function is retroviral replication. That these disabled viral genomes have, in a few cases, been co-opted by the host organism to derive functionality only reinforces the evolutionary paradigm. That and the fact that most ERV’s are not conserved between species, but the few found to have function are highly conserved between species.
There is simply no argument among biologists that transcription and translation are different processes.
I am not pretending to speak for all biologists or all scientists when I say that “transcription” is the process of making RNA from a DNA template and “translation” is the process of making a protein from the RNA message.
The fact that Creation “scientists” cannot keep the two distinct in their befuddled minds, and that their readers don’t know enough about the subject to catch the error; should show you all you need to know about their state of knowledge on the subject. ABJECT IGNORANCE, which they wish to pass on to you, their adoring adulating consumers of creationist claptrap.
==Sorry, all phylogenetic data shows that humans and chimps are closer to each other than either is to a gorilla.
Wrong, I showed you the phylogenetic possibilities in Evo papers published in Temple of Darwin journals in good standing. These alternatives demonstrated that they are not sure which is closer to which. Your beef is with them, not with me.
==So much for your “logical impossibility”.
I don’t actually remember the context in which I supposedly said what you have in quotes. Do you have a link?
==So now it is “most cases” that they cannot find intact virions from.
I never said in all cases, I always said “most” or in the “vast majority” of cases or something like that.
==Islamic jihadists are in fact Islamic jihadists not “temple of Darwin
There are plenty (perhaps even a majority) of so-called jihadists who are actually rabid, God-hating materialists. There is plenty of evidence to substanciate this, but you are not interested in expanding your understanding re: the complexities of the WOT. If you want to bury your head in the sand on this issue, be my guest.
==So much for ERV’s all being functional.
I never said they were “all” functional. I predicted that they would find function for most ERVs based on the Creation Model, whereas Evos such as yourself predicted mostly junk (97% junk, to be exact). And now that they have found that some 93%+ of the genome is functional, my prediction is coming true.
BTW, all that junk DNA having function will send all those philogenetic trees based on neutral mutation into the trashheep of history.
Yes, you said that chimps and humans being closer in DNA to a gorilla was a “logical impossibility” which made me laugh as obviously God knows much better than YOU what is impossible or not.
And you said that ALL they find in AIDS patients was anti HIV antibodies, and “zero zip nada” of anything else. Now you freely admit that they find proteins and RNA from HIV in AIDS patients. Once again a subject that you think you know enough to correct the experts in the research field, you have been shown to be completely ignorant of.
How do you think ERV’s got into the human genome? Do you suppose that we were created with ERV’s in our genome? Why do they look exactly like retrovirus in terms of sequence and gene order? Why is it that we observe retrovirus incorporating themselves into their host's genome? Do ERV’s have BOTH origins, some from incorporating retrovirus and other that we were created with? What exactly is your stance on this as you seem as ignorant and confused on this subject as all the others.
Hard to take credit for a “prediction” when you never actually took a stand.
Other than the completely undefined "accomplish anything", this argument has nothing to stand on. Of course, until we understand the entirety of cellular biology (including intracellular genomic networks), we have no idea whether a particular observed result actually "accomplished anything". Until then, it is the principle of spontaneous generation standing against the principle of engineered origins. Spontaneous generation has come down quite a bit since Louis Pasteur though.
Thus I.D. posits an “incompetent designer” in my mind, because the system put in place is insufficient to the task at hand.
So "It can't be God because God wouldn't have done it that way". Do you realize it is even more ridiculous to base a materialist argument on what you believe God wouldn't do than to base a theological argument on what you believe God would do?
==Wrong, your source had the exact same tree. How embarrassing for you, but then again it isn’t the first time your source has not supported your contention.
Actually, it gave a number of possible phylogenetic trees, some of which had gorillas closer to humans than chimps.
==Yes, you said that chimps and humans being closer in DNA to a gorilla was a “logical impossibility”
I would like to see the quote in context before I comment. Please provide the link.
==And you said that ALL they find in AIDS patients was anti HIV antibodies, and “zero zip nada” of anything else.
I cleared that up when I informed you I was talking about in vivo. And all they usually find (in almost every AIDS case) is HIV antibodies and no HIV. This is very embarrassing for your heroes in the AIDS establishment.
==Now you freely admit that they find proteins and RNA from HIV in AIDS patients.
This what they find in vitro, using extremely sensitive amplification technologies. And what they are finding are genetic/protein fossils that may or may not be remnants of HIV infection. The point is, they don’t find HIV in the vast majority of cases, to include full-blown AIDS cases.
Moreover I am saying that as theological arguments go it is a rather shoddy one in that it posits a rank incompetent as God who needs to constantly tinker with his work to get it to go right, exactly analogous to a God who invented Gravity but still needed Angels to hold the universe together rather than “dark matter” or whatever God's particular solution to that conundrum is.
As far as the actual I.D. argument you have to talk to Behe, I think I represented it accurately. They think any novel or complex biological mechanism must be “irreducibly complex”; even though their flagship structure of “irreducible complexity” was found to be completely reducible to a type II secretory system.
I'm sorry, but phylogenetic tree proposals for mammals are not exactly sound.
So stating that a particular molecular machine appears to be engineered is now a theological argument?
Moreover I am saying that as theological arguments go it is a rather shoddy one in that it posits a rank incompetent as God who needs to constantly tinker with his work to get it to go right,
So you presume to know exactly what God's goal was, His chosen methodologies, and other external factors involved in His work that are not directly observable. Maybe you presume that if you had God's resources that you could make a better universe?
They think any novel or complex biological mechanism must be “irreducibly complex”; even though their flagship structure of “irreducible complexity” was found to be completely reducible to a type II secretory system.
I will agree that there is no possible structure that cannot be speculated to have come about given a complex enough "just-so" story. There is, however, a limit to credulity except in the face of an unshakable ideologue.
“I’m calling BS on the notion that chimps are closer to humans than to apes . You can’t have it both ways. You can’t have two organism that are closer to each other than a third organism in terms of body plan and functional needs (which you freely admit), while at the same time being closer to the third organism in terms of the genome and epigenome. As I said, it’s a logical impossibility.” GGG
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2138177/posts?q=1&;page=201
Unshakable ideology is the only thing creationism has going for it.
Saying that natural processes are insufficient to explain natural phenomenon and invoking the actions of supernatural agency is a theological rather than a scientific argument.
Saying that something is “irreducibly complex” and then finding that the component parts are used elsewhere for other functions makes one look like quite a loser. And those that look to that loser as a sage are even lower on the loser scale.
Wow, an article from 1998. And do you suppose that work on mammalian phylogenetic trees has ceased over the past ten years? No, genomic data means that we have just gotten started.
72,743 articles on phylogeny. Many thousands from the past ten years. Obviously you know less than you claim about the science of phylogeny and its current state of being if your authoritative source is ten years old and doesn’t claim what you are trying to say it claims.
But is it a natural phenomenon? That is the question. Do you think anything can exist that is not the result of a natural process? If not, then we know who the ideologue is.
Woohoo, argument by info-dump. Sorry, that doesn't back up your claim.
DNA is part of nature, just a natural molecule. Changes in DNA is part of nature and a natural process. Selection for or against particular genetic variations is a natural process. So yes, change in living systems is a natural process.
But argument by ten year old article backs your claim that phylogeny is in trouble?
In 1998 your source came out. A source that you claim shows that mammalian phylogeny is in trouble.
Between 1998 and 2008 many thousands of articles on mammalian phylogeny have been published.
Obviously the science of phylogeny is doing just fine, in fact due to genomic analysis, it has NEVER been better.
No, but it is a good counter to your argument "all phylogenetic data shows that..."
The specific claim of “irreducible complexity” was that each and every part was not “reducible” to a less complex but still functional part.
Obviously this breaks down if the major feature of a flagellum is also used in a type II secretory system.
The flagellum is most certainly complex, but only in Behe’s imagination was it ever “irreducible”.
But as usual, when a “cdesign proponentists” argument breaks down they move the goal posts.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.