Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Genetic 'Crossing-over' Is No Help to Evolution
ICR News ^ | October 26, 2009 | Brian Thomas, M.S.

Posted on 10/26/2009 8:56:51 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts

Shuffling genetic information has long been framed as a biological mechanism that can generate variety as well as fuel evolution. However, new details of a common cellular genetic shuffling process called “crossing over” reveal a tightly controlled system that operates under strict parameters and requires highly specified cellular machinery. It is as if each generation was programmed to have variation, and that variation had strict limitations—limitations that would preclude Darwinian evolution...

(Excerpt) Read more at icr.org ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Miscellaneous; News/Current Events; US: Texas
KEYWORDS: antiscienceevos; belongsinreligion; biology; catholic; cellbiology; christian; creation; dna; evangelical; evolution; evoreligionexposed; genetics; godsgravesglyphs; intelligentdesign; judaism; molecularbiology; notasciencetopic; propellerbeanie; protestant; science; templeofdarwin

1 posted on 10/26/2009 8:56:51 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: metmom; DaveLoneRanger; editor-surveyor; betty boop; Alamo-Girl; MrB; GourmetDan; Fichori; ...

Ping!


2 posted on 10/26/2009 8:57:58 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
"And if selection merely preserves the pre-existing information, then what do either of these processes have to do with Darwinian evolution, which needs brand new advantageous information to select?"

Obviously, these processes support Darwinian evolution. They merely reflect its sophistication. Surely, the pre-existing information is not preserved intact every time fertilization occurs, and certainly mutations will occur providing brand new advantageous information from time to time.

"What this science shows is exactly what one would expect if creatures were engineered by a Creator, rather than being evolutionary products of the natural universe."

What this science shows is exactly what one would expect when creatures are engineered by a Creator, Who employs the natural universe as a means of implementing His will.

The theories of evolution are mankind's best attempt so far to comprehend the way God has chosen to create His creatures.

He has chosen to water the land by causing the sun to raise water from the oceans and the wind to blow it over the land and to cause it to precipitate as it passes over the land. To suggest that this method somehow contradicts the fact that God has caused it to be is downright silly.

The more we struggle to understand just how He has chosen to create the world--moment by moment, as it is destroyed and re-created (Shiva-Vishnu-Brahma)--the more we are forced to stand in awe of His majesty and His methods of creation.

3 posted on 10/26/2009 9:34:05 AM PDT by Savage Beast (29% of Americans think news organizations get the facts correct? No wonder we're in such a mess!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Savage Beast

But when the pre-existing information suffers a mutation significant enough for natural selection to act upon, it is virtually always harmful. Indeed, we are finding very powerful reasons why this is so. For instance, science has learned that genes have multiple functions. As such, genes are polyconstrained, and even if a mutation could hypothetically benefit one function, it will almost certainly prove harmful to the gene’s other functions. Needless to say, this discovery is very powerful evidence against the idea that RM + NS can add benificial information to already super-sophisticated biological organisms.


4 posted on 10/26/2009 9:49:20 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
Once again, Lyin' Brian Thomas MS* rears his ugly head.

It is as if each generation was programmed to have variation, and that variation had strict limitations—limitations that would preclude Darwinian evolution.

False statement, Brian...but nice use of the term "programmed", insinuating a "progerammer" of which there is zero evidence. Crossover is nothing new and I bet you have no clue what the synaptonemal complex is. Crossover does not preculde evolution, Brian, it ensures higher genetic variability and lower coefficients of inbreeding. Mutations still occur, Brian.

Realistically, if horse legs exist at all, they existed from the very beginning.

Wow....such insight in a false claim.

OMG....large proteins and enzymes actually regulated things.....stop the presses!!!! Man wlked the Earth with 100+ species of meat eating dinosaurs!!!

What this science shows is exactly what one would expect if creatures were engineered by a Creator, rather than being evolutionary products of the natural universe.

False conclusion, Dr.....I leave the next 2 false conclusions alone.

5 posted on 10/26/2009 10:40:23 AM PDT by ElectricStrawberry (Didja know that Man walked with vegetarian T. rex within the last 4,351 years?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
Brian Thomas M.S. * must have been asleep when they discussed crossing over in his basic bio class.

Here is part of the abstract he forgot to include:

We show that CO number and distribution are controlled on a chromosome-wide basis at the level of DNA double-strand break (DSB) formation by a condensin complex composed of subunits from two known condensins: the C. elegans dosage compensation complex and mitotic condensin II. Disruption of any subunit of the CO-controlling condensin dominantly changes DSB distribution, and thereby COs, and extends meiotic chromosome axes. These phenotypes are cosuppressed by disruption of a chromosome axis element. Our data implicate higher-order chromosome structure in the regulation of CO recombination, provide a model for the rapid evolution of CO hotspots, and show that reshuffling of interchangeable molecular parts can create independent machines with similar architectures but distinct biological functions.

6 posted on 10/26/2009 11:58:32 AM PDT by Wacka
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Wacka
You obviously didn't read the article. Thomas writes, 'The study authors stated that “recombination facilitates evolution.” But their actual research showed that biology works against big-picture evolution. “Crossover spacing is nonrandom…crossovers occur preferentially, and are controlled on a chromosome-wide basis…by a condensin complex.”' PS Do the authors of the Cell paper provide any actual examples of reshuffling creating the rapid evolution of independent machines with distinct biological functions?
7 posted on 10/26/2009 12:12:39 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

I read BT*’s “article. He obviously didn’t read the article or the entire abstract because he would have to pay for it or god forbid, have to go to a university library to read it (and be tempted by all those thousands of evil scientific journals on the shelves that would jump off the shelves and force the words written in them into his head)!

I take the ICR’s research budget at about what it costs for dialup connection from BT*’s mother’s basement.

The author’s of the Cell paper have to put experimental results in the paper or it wouldn’t get published, unlike the ICR opinion pieces yo post here.


8 posted on 10/26/2009 12:26:05 PM PDT by Wacka
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Wacka

I’ll take that as a no.


9 posted on 10/26/2009 12:34:50 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Savage Beast
If this, “The more we struggle to understand just how He has chosen to create the world—moment by moment, as it is destroyed and re-created (Shiva-Vishnu-Brahma)—the more we are forced to stand in awe of His majesty and His methods of creation.” be true, how would evolution be any sort of acceptable explanation?
10 posted on 10/26/2009 12:38:16 PM PDT by count-your-change (You don't have be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

Get me a subscription to Cell and I’ll read the original article.
As for the Intstitute for Crazy Research, I read the article. Took about 30 seconds (I don’t have to move my lips when I read). BT* again shows he got his MS from a box of cereal.


11 posted on 10/26/2009 12:40:59 PM PDT by Wacka
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
"However, new details of a common cellular genetic shuffling process called “crossing over” reveal a tightly controlled system that operates under strict parameters and requires highly specified cellular machinery.",

Tightly controlled does not mean error-proof and in no way diminishes the possibilities of successful mutations.

You need to be more careful in what you choose to post in support of your positions. My advice is to continue to critically read past the part where you find a nugget that you believe supports your conclusions.

12 posted on 10/26/2009 12:42:23 PM PDT by Natural Law
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
But when the pre-existing information suffers a mutation significant enough for natural selection to act upon, it is virtually always harmful.

In other words, not always harmful, especially in the case of duplications.

13 posted on 10/26/2009 12:46:04 PM PDT by Moonman62 (The issue of whether cheap labor makes America great should have been settled by the Civil War.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Wacka
"I take the ICR’s research budget at about what it costs for dialup connection from BT*’s mother’s basement."

The problem with real research is that if it is done properly one doesn't know where it might go. The last thing the IRC wants to do is to begin without having already written the conclusion.

14 posted on 10/26/2009 12:50:03 PM PDT by Natural Law
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Moonman62

Not so, the ones that natural selection can’t “see” are still slightly harmful, or what they call “near neutral.” These accumulate and become very harmful within our own lifetimes in the soma, and they are also accumulating via the germ lines of the entire human race, and will eventually lead to error catastrophe according to the population geneticists.


15 posted on 10/26/2009 1:10:28 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Moonman62

“In other words, not always harmful, especially in the case of duplications.”

What happens in duplications and what percentage of mutations would you say are harmful?


16 posted on 10/26/2009 1:15:44 PM PDT by count-your-change (You don't have be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
"Not so, the ones that natural selection can’t “see” are still slightly harmful, or what they call “near neutral.”

Who are you and what has happened to GGG? These most recent posts are not the work of the "mad bomber" we have all come to know and love.

17 posted on 10/26/2009 1:27:43 PM PDT by Natural Law
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Natural Law

You need to get yourself up to speed, NL. As I explained above, now that we know that genes are polyconstrained/have many functions, even if a mutation is hypothetically beneficial to one function, it will still be harmful to the gene’s other functions. In such cases, natural selection is powerless to select for the beneficial function, and thus the mutation is harmful to overall fitness.


18 posted on 10/26/2009 1:27:54 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Wacka
I think Brian Thomas is one of the best science writers around right now. You are free to disagree, but I read a lot of science, so I am speaking from experience here. Very few writers are capable of boiling down complex subjects into easily digestible language like Brian Thomas does. And whenever people say he got this or that wrong, when I investigate, it invariably turns out that it is the person who is making the allegation who got it wrong.
19 posted on 10/26/2009 1:34:15 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

Yet it’s observed that the genomes of humans have conserved over 3,000 genes from the two whole genome duplications that occurred in the early vertebrates.


20 posted on 10/26/2009 2:34:04 PM PDT by Moonman62 (The issue of whether cheap labor makes America great should have been settled by the Civil War.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

LOL LOL LOL LOL!!!!!

All he does is look at abstracts, interpret them wrong and tack on the “since this is complex, God must have did it.” paragraph sometimes with a bible verse added. As it said in the Dire Straits song”money for nothin’”

If you read any non”creationist science” stuff, LIKE A TEXTBOOK, you would know how bad his writing and your knowledge on biology is.


21 posted on 10/26/2009 2:37:14 PM PDT by Wacka
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Moonman62

Both “conserved” and “genome duplications” are loaded terms, as neither has been observed, but rather they are inferred based on evolutionary expectations.


22 posted on 10/26/2009 2:39:49 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Wacka

I have a feeling I read far more science papers, articles, and books than you do Wacka. Of course, I can’t confirm that...call it a hunch. But I have noticed that you are routinely behind the times when it comes to science. And I have also noticed that whenever you attempt to critique Brian Thomas and I investigate, it is you who prove to be in error...which is precisely what happened today.


23 posted on 10/26/2009 2:42:28 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
Both “conserved” and “genome duplications” are loaded terms, as neither has been observed, but rather they are inferred based on evolutionary expectations.

They have been observed in the sense that widespread wetness outside means that it has rained.

BTW, whole genome duplications have been induced in plants and led to viable and desirable offspring.

24 posted on 10/26/2009 2:46:25 PM PDT by Moonman62 (The issue of whether cheap labor makes America great should have been settled by the Civil War.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Wacka
"I have also noticed that whenever you attempt to critique Brian Thomas and I investigate, it is you who prove to be in error..."

Did you notice that he investigates and concludes. If you don't believe him, just ask him. (note: he didn't mention that his investigation is most likely limited to asking Brian Thomas or another member of the amen posse)

25 posted on 10/26/2009 5:09:58 PM PDT by Natural Law
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

Pseudoscientists often reveal themselves by their handling of the scientific literature. Their idea of doing scientific research is simply to read scientific periodicals and monographs. They focus on words, not on the underlying facts and reasoning. They take science to be all statements by scientists. Science degenerates into a secular substitute for sacred literature. Any statement by any scientist can be cited against any other statement. Every statement counts and every statement is open to interpretation. - Science and Unreason, Radner and Radner


26 posted on 10/26/2009 6:41:56 PM PDT by Ira_Louvin (Go tell them people lost in sin, Theres a higher power ,They need not fear the works of men.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ira_Louvin
What specific evidence do you have that this occurred in this case?
27 posted on 10/26/2009 8:04:33 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Moonman62

Do you have any links for this...I’m genuinely curious. Thanks.


28 posted on 10/26/2009 8:40:56 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

Thanks for the ping!


29 posted on 10/26/2009 9:17:28 PM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: count-your-change
Are you kidding? To understand--if only in part--the methods He uses to create in no way detracts from the fundamental truth that is He creates. Why challenge His methods? If He chooses evolution as His path of creation how could that possible cause a problem for anyone?

He gave us the polio vaccine as a means of stopping the horrible evil of polio. Don't look a gift horse in the mouth. Be grateful for the grace of understanding which leads to the ability to combat evil.

It is divine grace that gave us the understanding and the knowledge that enabled us to transfuse blood, transplant hearts, and cure leukemia! Be grateful.

An understanding of the process of evolution--if only an incomplete understanding--is a gift of divine grace. Be thankful.

30 posted on 10/26/2009 10:05:25 PM PDT by Savage Beast (29% of Americans think news organizations get the facts correct? No wonder we're in such a mess!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Savage Beast
I chose this brief sentence because it cuts to heart of the questions: “Why challenge His methods?”

How do you know Evolution IS God's method? How do arrive at the conclusion that evolution “—is a gift of divine grace”?

31 posted on 10/26/2009 10:57:20 PM PDT by count-your-change (You don't have be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: count-your-change; Savage Beast
The real question, in your arrogance, is
"What special holy wisdom do you claim to have, and the athority to say it's not.."
32 posted on 10/27/2009 3:49:06 AM PDT by xcamel (The urge to save humanity is always a false front for the urge to rule it. - H. L. Mencken)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: xcamel

I see no reason to respond to your comments and won’t beyond this point.


33 posted on 10/27/2009 4:11:39 AM PDT by count-your-change (You don't have be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: count-your-change
Won't or Can't ????
34 posted on 10/27/2009 4:16:32 AM PDT by xcamel (The urge to save humanity is always a false front for the urge to rule it. - H. L. Mencken)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
I think Brian Thomas is one of the best science writers around right now.

BWAAAAAAhahahahahaha......that's because you do not live in the science world....don't read REAL "science writers." Brian Thomas MS* is a scientific moron that twists everything he sees to fit a false conclusion that Man walked the Earth with 100+ species of meat eating dinosaurs.

I read a lot of science, so I am speaking from experience here.

You read a lot of "science" and that gives you "experience" such that others should listen to your vast experience???? REAL science or Brian Thomas MS* "science"? REAL science or YEC, ICR, DI, ID, CreationSafaris "science"?

Very few writers are capable of boiling down complex subjects into easily digestible language like Brian Thomas does.

OH, I agree....very few science writers are able to "boil down"....read, "twist everything to the false conclusion that Man walked the Earth with 100+ species of large meat eating dinosaurs".....what they don't understand and get anyone to take them seriously.

when I investigate, it invariably turns out that it is the person who is making the allegation who got it wrong

Oh, I'm suuuuuuure you use all that investigative skills you learned in Admin school to look into the wild "scientific" claims Brian Thomas MS* makes.

That Brian Thomas MS* is taken serious by ANYONE is laughable.

35 posted on 10/27/2009 5:19:43 AM PDT by ElectricStrawberry (Didja know that Man walked with vegetarian T. rex within the last 4,351 years?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
The fact that Mr Thomas offers absolutely no empirical evidence to support his assertion, he only presents an Argument from personal incredulity

Photobucket

36 posted on 10/27/2009 5:46:42 AM PDT by Ira_Louvin (Go tell them people lost in sin, Theres a higher power ,They need not fear the works of men.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: ElectricStrawberry

MS* is this case meaning “Mostly Sh*t”


37 posted on 10/27/2009 6:26:29 AM PDT by xcamel (The urge to save humanity is always a false front for the urge to rule it. - H. L. Mencken)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
Do you have any links for this...I’m genuinely curious. Thanks.

First, the effects of polyploidy (a more general term for whole genome duplication) are easily observed with a microscope, and paleopolyploidy has been confirmed by recent analysis of genome sequences. There is no controversy about it having occurred.

If you want to learn more, you can do searches on terms like "polyploidy", "induced polyploidy", "colchicine polyploidy", "crops polyploidy", and "paleopolyploidy".

38 posted on 10/27/2009 12:10:48 PM PDT by Moonman62 (The issue of whether cheap labor makes America great should have been settled by the Civil War.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
Except that it's already been observed.
39 posted on 10/27/2009 12:23:15 PM PDT by <1/1,000,000th%
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Moonman62

A lot of crops are polyploid.

* Triploid crops: banana, apple, ginger, watermelon, citrus
* Tetraploid crops: durum or macaroni wheat, maize, cotton, potato, cabbage, leek, tobacco, peanut, kinnow, Pelargonium
* Hexaploid crops: chrysanthemum, bread wheat, triticale, oat, kiwifruit
* Octaploid crops: strawberry, dahlia, pansies, sugar cane


40 posted on 10/27/2009 4:02:57 PM PDT by Wacka
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Wacka

It’s a fascinating subject that negates the premise that everything was created all at once, fully formed and fully functional, but has only declined in form and function since then.


41 posted on 10/27/2009 5:00:47 PM PDT by Moonman62 (The issue of whether cheap labor makes America great should have been settled by the Civil War.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: count-your-change
Maybe instead of saying, "Why challenge His methods?" I should have said "Why perceive His methods--or our inevitably incomplete understanding of them--as a threat?"

I don't know that the theories of evolution are God's method--but if they are, they are a gift of divine grace. Why would you think otherwise?

Evolution is a theory. When you come right down to it, everything we know is a theory--or an axiom (which is on equally shaky ground).

When Socrates said that he didn't know anything. He wasn't joking. He meant exactly that.

I do not consider the presence of God to be a theory--instead to be the only thing that I know--but obviously some do.

I don't know that the theories of evolution are God's method, but it's the best explanation we've got right now. And if it is His method of creation, why would you perceive it as some kind of threat?

When Galileo said the earth revolved around the sun, leaders of the Church charged him with heresy and forced him to recant. They considered his theory to be a threat. Why? If God has chosen to let the earth revolve around the sun, so what?

Today their horror at his theories strikes us as silly. And, frankly, the horror that the theories of evolution invoke today are just as silly.

Galileo's ideas are widely accepted today. In fact, it would be foolish to challenge their validity. However, we accept them as fact only because (1) every attempt to prove or disprove the truth of them has evidently confirmed them (but, again, even the evidence, based as it is entirely on appearances--i.e. what appears to be--must ultimately be accepted on faith) and (2) everybody believes them to be true. However, the possibility remains that they could be untrue.

I just can't see how the struggle to understand the methods by which God has created and continues to create could be some kind of threat--or blasphemy--or heresy.

On the contrary, our struggle to understand seems to be a part of the method by which He works miracles--such as flight in heavier-than-air vehicles, television, computers, and the ability to fly to the moon--not to mention the cure of childhood leukemia, the prevention of smallpox, and, we pray, the cure of diabetes within our lifetime.

42 posted on 10/28/2009 9:07:09 AM PDT by Savage Beast (29% of Americans think news organizations get the facts correct? No wonder we're in such a mess!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: xcamel
"The real question, in your arrogance, is "What special holy wisdom do you claim to have, and the athority to say it's not...."

No Special Holy Wisdom, but The Athority of Arrogance!

And the Arrogance of the Ruthless Persuit of Truth!

(BTW, X, did you mean to say: "The real question, of Your Arrogance, is..."? I thought maybe you meant it as a form of address.)

43 posted on 10/28/2009 9:16:12 AM PDT by Savage Beast (29% of Americans think news organizations get the facts correct? No wonder we're in such a mess!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: count-your-change; xcamel
“To enter life by way of the vagina is as good a way as any.”
Henry Miller

44 posted on 10/28/2009 9:24:11 AM PDT by Savage Beast (29% of Americans think news organizations get the facts correct? No wonder we're in such a mess!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

Comment #45 Removed by Moderator

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson