Cells' Molecular Motor Diversity Confounds Evolution

[Jokodo]

Problems with evolution are not evidence for creation.

And quoting ICR is not evidence of a problem with evolution.

Interesting, however, is that no one is disputing what the ICR guy says so it would appear that his analysis is accurate.

As there are only two competing explanations for life - the creation account and evolution - problems with evolution work to the advantage of creation claims.

False. There are hundreds of different creation stories, and that's only counting the ones that have been preserved in writing. Even if we were to concede that life must have a supernatural cause (and you have presented no reason to do so), the Biblical creation story would still be demonstrably false. Some of those other creation stories at least don't have such a ridiculous timeline.

 

[Jokodo]

<snip>Unfortunately, evolution research is only helping to explain how the animals that came off the ark became the great variety of animal life we observe today. It is having trouble doing anything else.

The origin of life is outside the domain of the Theory of Evolution.

If evolutionists could explain the origin of life, they would gladly own it. For now, it's a miracle - but that is what the creationists say. What is an evolutionist to do?

It's a miracle to me how someone can post such crap in serious; that doesn't imply that you're a god.

What the ToE does very well is show that all extant life on Earth has a universal common ancestor.

ToE is both a creative and imaginative account of life. If only evolutionists could get the science to back it up. Unfortunately, as the ICR analysis indicates, science seems to be going in the opposite direction.

The ICR "analysis" indicates that the people at the ICR are either extremely ignorant or purposefully misleading.

- - - Updated - - -

Does this scenario follow a literal interpretation of the Bible which places the age of the earth somewhere around 5 to 7 thousand years old?

Depending on how we are to understand the genealogies in the Bible, the age of the earth can be in the 13,000-15,000 year range but not likely beyond that.

In other words, the Bible is wrong.

 

[Jokodo]

<snip>Science cannot explain evolution<snip>

Of course it can. Evolution is a necessary consequence once you have a population of individuals with differential reproductive success, partially correlated with their traits, some of which have a heritable component. That's some very weak conditions.

 

[Bronzeage]

Interesting, however, is that no one is disputing what the ICR guy says so it would appear that his analysis is accurate.

That's a bit of a leap. No one's stopping at the corner of Fenn and First street to argue with the guy screaming about the airline/toothpaste conspiracy, either. That doesn't make HIS analysis any more accurate.
'Not worth the time' would also be a description that fits the observed facts.

Science cannot explain dark matter, therefore the toothpaste conspiracy is true, and the Trix rabbit is real.

Thus it is proven.

Science cannot explain evolution - evolutionists can describe what they need it to do - yet science cannot confirm evolutionist beliefs yet evolution is viewed as proven. All science has been able to prove is speciation and that just helps to explain how the animals that came off the ark evolved into the great number of animals that we observe today and this through common descent.

Science cannot explain the Ark, either, and it appears you do not wish to try.

Your lack of understanding of science or evolution does not constitute falsification of evolution and it certainly doesn't confirm your idea about DNA proving that all the mammals of the world were once reduced to one pair, which then repopulated the Earth.

What we have here is one of the oldest tricks in rhetorical history, the "If you can't convince me, I win the argument," dodge. Good luck with that.

 

[Underseer]

Interesting, however, is that no one is disputing what the ICR guy says so it would appear that his analysis is accurate.

That's a bit of a leap. No one's stopping at the corner of Fenn and First street to argue with the guy screaming about the airline/toothpaste conspiracy, either. That doesn't make HIS analysis any more accurate.
'Not worth the time' would also be a description that fits the observed facts.

Science cannot explain dark matter, therefore the toothpaste conspiracy is true, and the Trix rabbit is real.

Thus it is proven.

Science cannot explain evolution - evolutionists can describe what they need it to do - yet science cannot confirm evolutionist beliefs yet evolution is viewed as proven. All science has been able to prove is speciation and that just helps to explain how the animals that came off the ark evolved into the great number of animals that we observe today and this through common descent.

Science cannot explain the Ark, either, and it appears you do not wish to try.

Your lack of understanding of science or evolution does not constitute falsification of evolution and it certainly doesn't confirm your idea about DNA proving that all the mammals of the world were once reduced to one pair, which then repopulated the Earth.

What we have here is one of the oldest tricks in rhetorical history, the "If you can't convince me, I win the argument," dodge. Good luck with that.

It's the old teleological argument, which is just an argument from ignorance in fancy rhetorical wrappings. I don't know what that thing in the sky is, therefore I know what that thing in the sky is: it's an alien space ship. The classic UFO argument gets re-worded to "I don't know how X came to be, therefore I know how X came to be: a magical being magicked it into existence."

 

[rhutchin]

It's the old teleological argument, which is just an argument from ignorance in fancy rhetorical wrappings. I don't know what that thing in the sky is, therefore I know what that thing in the sky is: it's an alien space ship. The classic UFO argument gets re-worded to "I don't know how X came to be, therefore I know how X came to be: a magical being magicked it into existence."

Not really. We observe life. It is natural to ask where life came from. The Bible offers one explanation. Evolutionists devise a non-Biblical explanation. Now science is investigating life and the results of that science are not supporting the evolutionist view.

 

[rhutchin]

Science cannot explain the Ark, either, and it appears you do not wish to try.

Your lack of understanding of science or evolution does not constitute falsification of evolution and it certainly doesn't confirm your idea about DNA proving that all the mammals of the world were once reduced to one pair, which then repopulated the Earth.

What we have here is one of the oldest tricks in rhetorical history, the "If you can't convince me, I win the argument," dodge. Good luck with that.

Science can explain the ark. It was just a large barge. What science cannot do is prove that the ark existed except to the extent that archeologists discover remains of the ark or references to the ark in ancient documents, of which the Bible is one.

Evolution is being falsified by science, acutely so by genetics. Let's let science sort it out. So far, evolution is taking a beating.

 

[rhutchin]

<snip>Science cannot explain evolution<snip>

Of course it can. Evolution is a necessary consequence once you have a population of individuals with differential reproductive success, partially correlated with their traits, some of which have a heritable component. That's some very weak conditions.

OK. You describe speciation. Speciation may get you common descent, but it does not get you universal common descent and UCD is the issue.

 

[rhutchin]

In other words, the Bible is wrong.

Nope. It is what people claim the Bible to say that can be wrong. The Bible is correct in what it says; people can be wrong in their understanding of what the Bible says.

 

[rhutchin]

It's a miracle to me how someone can post such crap in serious; that doesn't imply that you're a god.

The ICR "analysis" indicates that the people at the ICR are either extremely ignorant or purposefully misleading.

A couple of worthless arguments, but when a person has nothing else to offer, that is what we get.

 

[Bronzeage]

Science cannot explain the Ark, either, and it appears you do not wish to try.

Your lack of understanding of science or evolution does not constitute falsification of evolution and it certainly doesn't confirm your idea about DNA proving that all the mammals of the world were once reduced to one pair, which then repopulated the Earth.

What we have here is one of the oldest tricks in rhetorical history, the "If you can't convince me, I win the argument," dodge. Good luck with that.

Science can explain the ark. It was just a large barge. What science cannot do is prove that the ark existed except to the extent that archeologists discover remains of the ark or references to the ark in ancient documents, of which the Bible is one.

Evolution is being falsified by science, acutely so by genetics. Let's let science sort it out. So far, evolution is taking a beating.

If you present evidence of DNA to support your argument, you must accept DNA evidence which contradicts your argument. To do otherwise is intellectually dishonest and hypocritical.

 

[rhutchin]

As there are only two competing explanations for life - the creation account and evolution - problems with evolution work to the advantage of creation claims.

False. There are hundreds of different creation stories, and that's only counting the ones that have been preserved in writing. Even if we were to concede that life must have a supernatural cause (and you have presented no reason to do so), the Biblical creation story would still be demonstrably false. Some of those other creation stories at least don't have such a ridiculous timeline.

There is one creation story and hundreds(?) of variants.

 

[Bronzeage]

As there are only two competing explanations for life - the creation account and evolution - problems with evolution work to the advantage of creation claims.

False. There are hundreds of different creation stories, and that's only counting the ones that have been preserved in writing. Even if we were to concede that life must have a supernatural cause (and you have presented no reason to do so), the Biblical creation story would still be demonstrably false. Some of those other creation stories at least don't have such a ridiculous timeline.

There is one creation story and hundreds(?) of variants.

The Book of Bisexplicit, a new revelation, brought unto man by her Prophet (Warning, not recommended for sensitive viewers)

Show

In the beginning there was Bisex and she was without form or orifice.

On the first day she twisted nipples from her body and created breasts so men would pay attention to her when she talked.

On the second day she stretched out her glorious legs and parted them.

On the third day she felt a tingle and rubbed a sensitive spot which swelled and became clitoral.

On the fourth day, She opened her mouth and moaned, carefull to curl her lips over her teeth, just for practice.

On the fifth day She took two fingers and pierced her featureless groin creating the pussy, temple of felininty and the asshole, temple of egress, twin temples of devotion, source of all good things in life. She saw it was bare and created pubes to cover it and later that afternoon, shaved them all off.

From the pussy came cream, mostly and sometimes blood, which does not bother real men. From the asshole came excrement, which we don't worry about, as it is ignored, unless we are a certain person who shall not see the temple of egress, unless he admits Squidbillies is funny as hell.

On the sixth day She exposed her naked body to the glass eye of the universe and porn was made.

On the seventh day, She looked into the Prophet's blue eyes and said, "Damn, you're good. I need a rest"

Creation stories are easy.

 

[Keith&Co.]

The Bible offers one explanation. Evolutionists devise a non-Biblical explanation.

Well, not a literal The Books explanation. There are plenty of fans of The Books who find their faith can dovetail nicely with the science they can't ignore.

Now science is investigating life and the results of that science are not supporting the evolutionist view.

Your ability to report on what science has found is not credible. You've claimed that everyone has concluded we need a miracle to explain the start of life. Whoever told you that is making shit up.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

You'll need to convince me that:

1. Talking snakes existed.
2. A female can be created from a man's rib.
3. Magical fruit can give knowledge, and a tree can be a repository of knowledge.
4. A magical flaming sword can exist.

Among many, many other things. Considering there is no way you will be able to do that, I'll continue to be doubtful of your creation story.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Seriously? I'll settle for some evidence of his oft-repeated assumption that complexity demands an intelligence. That and argument-from-ignorance is his main problem with evolutionary theory.

 

[Underseer]

You'll need to convince me that:

1. Talking snakes existed.
2. A female can be created from a man's rib.
3. Magical fruit can give knowledge, and a tree can be a repository of knowledge.
4. A magical flaming sword can exist.

Among many, many other things. Considering there is no way you will be able to do that, I'll continue to be doubtful of your creation story.

Or to borrow a popular creationist argument: I did not personally witness any of the events in Genesis, therefore the events in Genesis definitely did not happen.

 

[zorq]

I want to preface this critique with the comment that while I consider myself a scientist, I am not a genetcist nor am I even a biologist. But I just can't help but notice some serious problems with the article posted.

Researchers had hoped to find that matters would be clarified by myosin proteins derived from the DNA sequences of different single-celled eukaryotes, such as flagellated protozoa (protozoa with a whip-like tail), amoeboid protozoa, and algae.1 Instead of finding a pattern of evolving myosin "motor" genes (simple to complex) as life seemingly became more advanced, they found that the highest numbers of different types of myosin genes were found in single-celled eukaryotes.

I doubt that the researchers really hoped to find any such thing. In fact I would have expected that single celled organisms would have more varied and even sophisticated myosin genes. Eucaryotes use a variety of means of transportation but because they rely solely on those means each individual cell can benefit from having more than one kind of motion available to them. Myocin genes in multicellular organisms are used mostly in muscle cells. The pretty much only need to contract and relax the shape of the cell and that simple motion can move EVERY cell in the organism. So while an ameoba might benefit from genes that help it reshape itself into a sphere, a plane, a star, or any other shape, multi cellular organisms just need specialized cells that focus on expanding and contracting.

The end result of all this labor was ultimately counterproductive to the formation of any sort of evolutionary tree. The researchers stated, "We do not aim to infer a eukaryotic tree of life from the myosin genomic content."1 This is because the data was not amenable to do so. Instead, they noted that "we provide an integrative and robust classification, useful for future genomic and functional studies on this crucial eukaryotic gene family."1

The sentence from ICR is a non-sequeter to the sentence that follows. ICR is engaging in mind reading in this paragraph.

So, how did the authors explain the incredible complexity found across the spectrum of life in myosin gene content that had no clear evolutionary patterns? They explained it by 1) convergence (the sudden and simultaneous appearance of a gene with no evolutionary patterns in different taxa),

That's not what convergance is. ICR is lying to you. Convergence is about traits, not genes.

2) lineage-specific expansions (different myosin gene complements found in different creatures),

Just as we would expect, myocin genes in closely related species are similar.

and 3) gene losses (missing genes that evolutionists thought should have been there).

No, evolutionists didn't think the genes "should" have been there. They merely think that they "could" have been there. Fish don't need muscle cells that can contort into all the shapes that an amoeba can. Fish don't need ANY cells that can contort into all the shapes an amoeba can. IF fish happened to be directly descended from an ancestor that resembled an amoeba, the genes that allow cells to contort into a cube would likely have been mutated into junk DNA or redacted entirely eons ago. Evolution isn't all about adding new features all the time. Sometimes it's about losing features. Either because the features no longer have a use or they actively become a hinderance to some other features.

None of these ideas actually explain why there is no evolutionary pattern of simple-to-complex in myosin gene content across the spectrum of life. Specifically, the ideas of convergent evolution and lineage-specific expansions are nothing more than fancy terms for the fact that these different types of myosin genes appeared suddenly in unrelated creatures at the same time.

No. That is not what happened. This article keeps mentioning genes appearing "at the same time" but that is not part of this conversation at all.

First of all, convergant traits among different species don't have to happen at the same time. Convergance can happen anywhere on the time line.

Second of all, we don't know what the DNA of single celled organisms were like eons ago. We only know what the DNA of single celled organisms are like today. Single cells don't survive in fossils for millions of years. We don't have a time capsule filled with pond water preserved in Carbonite from 1 million years ago much less 3.5-2.5 billion years ago when most of this single cellular action is suspected to have been taking place. While some of the bacteria and Eukaryotes that are around today are likely similar to the ones that were around 3 billion years ago, I would bet that NONE of them are exactly the same. Mutation, procreation and death happens all the time, especially so for single cellular creatures.

Third of all, lots of single cellular organisms have the ability to steal the genes from other single cellular organisms. When they go to eat another cell they actually incorporate some of that consumed cell's DNA into their own genetic makeup. So if some of these genes did appear suddenly on the geologic timeline in single celled organisms it still wouldn't be that surprising.

Clearly, the only scientific model that predicts this type of molecular and cellular complexity and innovation across all forms of life is one associated with special creation.

LOL.
Special creation is not a scientific model. It's a magical thinker's wet dream.

Each created kind is genetically unique and has its own special and complex gene repertoire needed for the niche that it fills.

No. genetics has clearly layed out the fact that each species has a gene repertoire that is not unique. Each species has thousands of genes in common with other animals that help each species do similar things. Each genome IS NOT special or unique to each species.

If all creatures were "special created" we really wouldn't expect any similarities in their genetics. But unsurprisingly we see similarities in genetics among ALL branches of life.

In summary, its total BS. The author of your article doesn't even know what he/she is talking about and clearly you don't either.

I would suggest that you educate youself a little bit so that I don't have to do it for you next time, but we both know that that isn't going to happen.

 

[rhutchin]

You'll need to convince me that:

1. Talking snakes existed.
2. A female can be created from a man's rib.
3. Magical fruit can give knowledge, and a tree can be a repository of knowledge.
4. A magical flaming sword can exist.

Among many, many other things. Considering there is no way you will be able to do that, I'll continue to be doubtful of your creation story.

The assumption is that God exists. In that context, all the above can happen. The issue is whether God exists.

 

[Keith&Co.]

You'll need to convince me that:

1. Talking snakes existed.
2. A female can be created from a man's rib.
3. Magical fruit can give knowledge, and a tree can be a repository of knowledge.
4. A magical flaming sword can exist.

Among many, many other things. Considering there is no way you will be able to do that, I'll continue to be doubtful of your creation story.

The assumption is that God exists. In that context, all the above can happen. The issue is whether God exists.

Well, if you can provide convincing evidence any of the above DID happen, then you're closer to settling 'the issue.' Rather than ducking 'the issue.'