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 ...
Ping!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I’ll take that as a no.
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.
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.
In other words, not always harmful, especially in the case of duplications.
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.
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.
“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?
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.
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.
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.
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.