Posted on 11/15/2009 6:52:24 PM PST by GodGunsGuts
Knockout strategies have demonstrated that the function of many genes cannot be studied by disrupting them in model organisms because the inactivation of these genes does not lead to a phenotypic effect. For living systems, this peculiar phenomenon of genetic redundancy seems to be the rule rather than the exception. Genetic redundancy is now defined as the situation in which the disruption of a gene is selectively neutral. Biology shows us that 1) two or more genes in an organism can often substitute for each other, 2) some genes are just there in a silent state. Inactivation of such redundant genes does not jeopardize the individual’s reproductive success and has no effect on survival of the species. Genetic redundancy is the big surprise of modern biology. Because there is no association between redundant genes and genetic duplications, and because redundant genes do not mutate faster than essential genes, redundancy therefore brings down more than one pillar of contemporary evolutionary thinking...
(Excerpt) Read more at creation.com ...
The hardcore evolutionist liberals hiding out on Free Republic have an easy job, they just cut and paste the loads of garbage they find written by true lunatic leftists at the Daily Kos and HuffPo.
Keep posting good articles the leftist statists want to have censored.
I wonder why, instead of commenting on the article, you immediately resort to name calling. Doesn't do much for your argument.
You know, OL...I think you hit the nail right on the head!
If the evidence in the cited argument is to be believed it slows evolution down and pushes back the dawn of life. If the mutation rate is less frequent the rate of change is slowed the process of evolution is slowed. It does not establish that evolution cannot exist.
You displayed impressive, and knowledgeable restraint. Good job.
Just as much as Jews.
Why do you have to have someone else's approval to believe you are a Christian?
I don’t believe I am a Christian - if fact I’m quite I am not (and profoundly content in that fact, I might add).
This “journal” has a biased agenda, and is not a creditable scientific publication. Real science does not operate this way.
Journal of Creation is dedicated to upholding the authority of the 66 books of the Bible, especially in the area of origins. All our editors adhere to the Creation Ministries International (CMI) Statement of Faith and most papers will be designed to support this. Rarely, other papers may be accepted for publication on merit so that certain issues can be clarified. The views expressed in the papers are those of the authors and not necessarily those of CMI.
http://creation.com/journal-of-creation-writing-guidelines
STATEMENT OF FAITH
(See also “Good News ”)
(A) PRIORITIES
1. The scientific aspects of creation are important, but are secondary in importance to the proclamation of the Gospel of Jesus Christ as Sovereign, Creator, Redeemer and Judge.
2. The doctrines of Creator and Creation cannot ultimately be divorced from the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
(B) BASICS
1. The 66 books of the Bible are the written Word of God. The Bible is divinely inspired and inerrant throughout. Its assertions are factually true in all the original autographs. It is the supreme authority, not only in all matters of faith and conduct, but in everything it teaches. Its authority is not limited to spiritual, religious or redemptive themes but includes its assertions in such fields as history and science.
2. The final guide to the interpretation of Scripture is Scripture itself.
3. The account of origins presented in Genesis is a simple but factual presentation of actual events and therefore provides a reliable framework for scientific research into the question of the origin and history of life, mankind, the Earth and the universe.
4. The various original life forms (kinds), including mankind, were made by direct creative acts of God. The living descendants of any of the original kinds (apart from man) may represent more than one species today, reflecting the genetic potential within the original kind. Only limited biological changes (including mutational deterioration) have occurred naturally within each kind since Creation.
5. The great Flood of Genesis was an actual historic event, worldwide (global) in its extent and effect.
6. The special creation of Adam (the first man) and Eve (the first woman), and their subsequent fall into sin, is the basis for the necessity of salvation for mankind.
7. Death (both physical and spiritual) and bloodshed entered into this world subsequent to, and as a direct consequence of, man’s sin.
(C) THEOLOGY
1. The Godhead is triune: one God, three Persons—God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit.
2. All mankind are sinners, inherently from Adam and individually (by choice) and are therefore subject to God’s wrath and condemnation.
3. Freedom from the penalty and power of sin is available to man only through the sacrificial death and shed blood of Jesus Christ, and His complete and bodily Resurrection from the dead.
4. The Holy Spirit enables the sinner to repent and believe in Jesus Christ.
5. The Holy Spirit lives and works in each believer to produce the fruits of righteousness.
6. Salvation is a gift received by faith alone in Christ alone and expressed in the individual’s repentance, recognition of the death of Christ as full payment for sin, and acceptance of the risen Christ as Saviour, Lord and God.
7. All things necessary for our salvation are set down in Scripture.
8. Jesus Christ was conceived by the Holy Spirit and born of the virgin Mary.
9. Jesus Christ rose bodily from the dead, ascended to Heaven, is currently seated at the right hand of God the Father, and shall return in like manner to this Earth as Judge of the living and the dead.
10. Satan is the personal spiritual adversary of both God and man.
11. Those who do not believe in Christ are subject to everlasting conscious punishment, but believers enjoy eternal life with God.
(D) GENERAL
The following are held by members of the Boards (Directors) of Creation Ministries International to be either consistent with Scripture or implied by Scripture:
1. Scripture teaches a recent origin for man and the whole creation.
2. The days in Genesis do not correspond to geologic ages, but are six [6] consecutive twenty-four [24] hour days of Creation.
3. The Noachian Flood was a significant geological event and much (but not all) fossiliferous sediment originated at that time.
4. The ‘gap’ theory has no basis in Scripture. Nor has the day-age idea (so-called ‘progressive creation’), or the Framework Hypothesis or theistic evolution.
5. The view, commonly used to evade the implications or the authority of Biblical teaching, that knowledge and/or truth may be divided into ‘secular’ and ‘religious’, is rejected.
6. By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record. Of primary importance is the fact that evidence is always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information.
Genetic redundancy already has a definition. Make up your own phrase. Hint: It's when a biochemical reaction is coded for in 2+ genes such that a mutation will have a lesser affect on the phenotype and fitness than if the same biochemical reaction was only coded by one gene and then there's a mutation. ....but you've got a tale to push...
Inactivation of such redundant genes does not jeopardize the individual’s reproductive success and has no effect on survival of the species.
Such a small-world mindset. How about merely lowering the genetic fitness of the individual? ...back to the tale....
Because there is no association between redundant genes and genetic duplications, and because redundant genes do not mutate faster than essential genes, redundancy therefore brings down more than one pillar of contemporary evolutionary thinking.
BWaaaaaaaahahahahahahaha.....so full of himself with this false claim. Genetic redundancy does not such thing.
However, there has been one unexpected surprise—the no-phenotype knockout. This is unexpected, because according to the Darwinian paradigm, all genes should have a selectable advantage.
Small-world thinking....jsut because there's no apparent phenotype change does not mean that is no phenotype change.....just that in vivo, it was not apparent. Good job creating something the ToE does not say....and then bashing it....that's called someething isn't it, scarecrow?
Hence, knockouts should have measurable, detectable phenotypes.
Demends on what gene you're knocking out and how hard you're looking for the effect.
Many genes seem to have no measurable function! This is known as genetic redundancy and it is one of the big surprises of modern biology.
That does not mean they "have no function" at all, just that there is no known function, but real scientists will continue to look for such a function. In addition, this is no big surprise at all.
Some good info on SRC genes.
Uh oh.....a beneficial mutation that kills the kill switch on RBC formation. (hint hint) BUT, this guy doesn't even get that he provides, as ammunition for redundancy, something that is not a redundancy. This gene had a function. The mutated gene lost the function. That it was a plus for increasing RBC counts in an athlete is irrelevant, the gene still had a function and the phenotype was a 15% increase in RBC counts. Hint: it's not a redundancy, Dr.
Ah yes, the art of generating a paradigm to kick around. How's that tactic working for ya?
Astounding. - How much does something have to be retarded before it becomes a statistical impossibility?
The only falsehood in your post is the first line.
The rest is solidly reliable.
As a Christian, a believer in Christ, do you believe and hold that the Bible is the Word of God, revealed to mankind?
This is a very important question to you and serves as the basis for the remainder of any possible discussion. Waiting.
For the record, I am a Christian, who believes we should do as God/Jesus/Holy Sprirt calls us to, walk by Faith and not by sight.
Could you please be so kind as to demonstrate exactly what part of that first line contains a falsehood, and of course please do not forget to cite references and provide examples.
The part that shows on screen.
Nice job at avoidance and misdirection.
Nice job of rectal-dip writing.
Let’s see first it was avoidance, and misdirection now the name-calling. Too bad you cannot answer a simple question.
Nobody but you needs the question answered. - You posted nonsense, and answering nonsense would be nonsense.
Why can’t you see what a fool you are?
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.