Cells' Molecular Motor Diversity Confounds Evolution

[rhutchin]

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.

Mind reading? The research authors state, "We do not aim to infer a eukaryotic tree of life from the myosin genomic content." Why should they have said this at all - what purpose does it serve? The ICR guy gives his take on it. The research findings have made it more difficult to construct a eukaryotic tree of life. Is this true or false? If false, then why make that statement? Had the research findings made a positive contribution to constructing a eukaryotic tree of life, the authors would have said so - wouldn't they? It sounds like the authors present their results and then say that they don't see how their research contributes anything to constructing a eukaryotic tree of life.

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.

From NATURE magazine:

Convergent evolution seen in hundreds of genes

http://www.nature.com/news/convergent-evolution-seen-in-hundreds-of-genes-1.13679

"Different organisms often independently evolve similar observable traits such as anatomical or functional features, but the genetic changes underpinning such 'convergent evolution' are usually different. The new study, published today in Nature1, hints that evolution may be finding the same genetic solutions to a problem more often than previously thought."

Perhaps, you are misrepresenting the situation. Possible?

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.

You say, "I am not a geneticist nor am I even a biologist." The ICR guy has a PHD in genetics and spent ten years on the Genetics faculty at Clemson University. Why should you be taken seriously?

 

[rhutchin]

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.

I agree. Maybe you could start posting research results that contradict what I claim. It should be interesting. If you read something relevant, start a new thread to discuss it.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Mind reading? The research authors state, "We do not aim to infer a eukaryotic tree of life from the myosin genomic content." Why should they have said this at all - what purpose does it serve?

Well, yeah. That's mind reading. Rather than ask them what purpose the statement had, which would be an effort to actually understand their statement, you (or the ICR writer) infer what you THINK their intention must be. And spin it to support the ICR agenda...

 

[Keith&Co.]

You say, "I am not a geneticist nor am I even a biologist." The ICR guy has a PHD in genetics and spent ten years on the Genetics faculty at Clemson University. Why should you be taken seriously?

Maybe because zorq hasn't signed a statement of faith, promising that he'll never, ever, ever, ever post anything that doesn't match and support his employer's dogma?
Maybe because zorq is free to find factual conclusions, not pre-approved conclusions?

Just saying...

 

[rhutchin]

You say, "I am not a geneticist nor am I even a biologist." The ICR guy has a PHD in genetics and spent ten years on the Genetics faculty at Clemson University. Why should you be taken seriously?

Maybe because zorq hasn't signed a statement of faith, promising that he'll never, ever, ever, ever post anything that doesn't match and support his employer's dogma?
Maybe because zorq is free to find factual conclusions, not pre-approved conclusions?

Just saying...

Factual conclusions??

Really!

 

[Keith&Co.]

Factual conclusions??

Really!

Yeah, that's a rebuttal.

On the other hand, i suppose that in rhutchin land, the fact that you didn't dispute the 'statement of faith makes your science untrustworthy' thesis, makes it safe for the rest of us to conclude that it must be true.

 

[James Brown]

Science can explain the ark. It was just a large barge.

This is not correct.

Wood is not the best material for shipbuilding. It is not enough that a ship be built to hold together; it must also be sturdy enough that the changing stresses don't open gaps in its hull. Wood is simply not strong enough to prevent separation between the joints, especially in the heavy seas that the Ark would have encountered. The longest wooden ships in modern seas are about 300 feet, and these require reinforcing with iron straps and leak so badly they must be constantly pumped. The ark was 450 feet long [ Gen. 6:15]. Could an ark that size be made seaworthy?

Many more problems with a global flood here.

 

[Bronzeage]

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.

I agree. Maybe you could start posting research results that contradict what I claim. It should be interesting. If you read something relevant, start a new thread to discuss it.

I asked a question about mitochondrial DNA, to which you have not responded. The answer contradicts your claims.

You have boxed yourself in, but I doubt that matters to you. It would have been better to dismiss the objections to the idea of the Ark by saying "with God, all things are possible." This ends the discussion, because miracles are unpredictable and not reproducible.

Your syllogism is faulty.

DNA research says the genetic material is too diverse to have all evolved from a single source.
Evolution is not valid
Therefor all animals on earth survived a great flood on the Ark.

Your conclusion is vulnerable, not only because it does not follow from your premises, but because without miracles, it is not technically possible. If you are going to rely on a miracle to support your claim, your entire argument is now superfluous, because you cannot demonstrate have a miracle is performed.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

Can science explain how insects survived the Flood?

 

[Keith&Co.]

Can science explain how insects survived the Flood?

Well, yeah.
We examine the strata and say, "there weren't never no global fludd." And it's explained.

 

[Kharakov]

Problems with evolution are not evidence for creation.

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

Keith, you absolutely sure about that one?

 

[Keith&Co.]

Problems with evolution are not evidence for creation.

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

Keith, you absolutely sure about that one?

Absotively.
the ICR's political and religious agendas are far higher priority for them than any scientific agenda. Thus their statements of faith for their researchers.
Their job is to support a literal reading of Genesis, whether or not Genesis is literal history.

 

[rhutchin]

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.

I agree. Maybe you could start posting research results that contradict what I claim. It should be interesting. If you read something relevant, start a new thread to discuss it.

I asked a question about mitochondrial DNA, to which you have not responded. The answer contradicts your claims.

Can you repeat it or link back to it? I missed it.

Your syllogism is faulty.

DNA research says the genetic material is too diverse to have all evolved from a single source.
Evolution is not valid
Therefor all animals on earth survived a great flood on the Ark.

Your conclusion is vulnerable, not only because it does not follow from your premises, but because without miracles, it is not technically possible. If you are going to rely on a miracle to support your claim, your entire argument is now superfluous, because you cannot demonstrate have a miracle is performed.

My syllogism would be:

DNA research has determined that genetic material is extremely complex and greater complexity is being discovered as new research is done.
Evolution research has not discovered a way for ordinary biological processes to enhance genetic material on the scale required to support the viability of evolution from one universal common ancestor.
Therefore, evolution is not a valid explanation for diverse organisms tracing back to a universal common ancestor.

and

The Bible records the destruction of animals in a global flood with some few being preserved on an ark.
Biological processes have determined that individual animals can speciate and change over time.
Therefore, the animals exiting the ark could account for the diversity we observe today.

I don't think any miracles are involved above.

 

[rhutchin]

Wood is not the best material for shipbuilding. It is not enough that a ship be built to hold together; it must also be sturdy enough that the changing stresses don't open gaps in its hull. Wood is simply not strong enough to prevent separation between the joints, especially in the heavy seas that the Ark would have encountered. The longest wooden ships in modern seas are about 300 feet, and these require reinforcing with iron straps and leak so badly they must be constantly pumped. The ark was 450 feet long [ Gen. 6:15]. Could an ark that size be made seaworthy?

Many more problems with a global flood here.

And the creationist response: http://www.trueorigin.org/arkdefen.asp

- - - Updated - - -

Factual conclusions??

Really!

Yeah, that's a rebuttal.

On the other hand, i suppose that in rhutchin land, the fact that you didn't dispute the 'statement of faith makes your science untrustworthy' thesis, makes it safe for the rest of us to conclude that it must be true.

Didn't seem relevant to the discussion.

- - - Updated - - -

Can science explain how insects survived the Flood?

I think, Yes.

 

[Keith&Co.]

On the other hand, i suppose that in rhutchin land, the fact that you didn't dispute the 'statement of faith makes your science untrustworthy' thesis, makes it safe for the rest of us to conclude that it must be true.

Didn't seem relevant to the discussion..

Oh, sure. Well, there you go, then. That's why no one really tore into your ICR quote after you posted it.
Announcements from them are not relevant to a science discussion.

 

[James Brown]

Wood is not the best material for shipbuilding. It is not enough that a ship be built to hold together; it must also be sturdy enough that the changing stresses don't open gaps in its hull. Wood is simply not strong enough to prevent separation between the joints, especially in the heavy seas that the Ark would have encountered. The longest wooden ships in modern seas are about 300 feet, and these require reinforcing with iron straps and leak so badly they must be constantly pumped. The ark was 450 feet long [ Gen. 6:15]. Could an ark that size be made seaworthy?

Many more problems with a global flood here.

And the creationist response: http://www.trueorigin.org/arkdefen.asp

This is insufficient. Your trueorigin.org link dismisses concerns about Noah's Ark being fifty percent larger than any other wooden ship--never mind the iron strapping and constant pumping--by asserting that "The Ark was built for stability, not movement." While that may be the case, insomuch that the Ark may not have had a rudder or a means of propulsion, your link ignores the fact that given the Genesis description, ocean currents would have moved the Ark plenty.

Here's a summary written by Old-Earth Creationists that debunks the trueorigin conclusion.

 

[Bronzeage]

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.

I agree. Maybe you could start posting research results that contradict what I claim. It should be interesting. If you read something relevant, start a new thread to discuss it.

I asked a question about mitochondrial DNA, to which you have not responded. The answer contradicts your claims.

Can you repeat it or link back to it? I missed it.

Your syllogism is faulty.

DNA research says the genetic material is too diverse to have all evolved from a single source.
Evolution is not valid
Therefor all animals on earth survived a great flood on the Ark.

Your conclusion is vulnerable, not only because it does not follow from your premises, but because without miracles, it is not technically possible. If you are going to rely on a miracle to support your claim, your entire argument is now superfluous, because you cannot demonstrate have a miracle is performed.

My syllogism would be:

DNA research has determined that genetic material is extremely complex and greater complexity is being discovered as new research is done.
Evolution research has not discovered a way for ordinary biological processes to enhance genetic material on the scale required to support the viability of evolution from one universal common ancestor.
Therefore, evolution is not a valid explanation for diverse organisms tracing back to a universal common ancestor.

and

The Bible records the destruction of animals in a global flood with some few being preserved on an ark.
Biological processes have determined that individual animals can speciate and change over time.
Therefore, the animals exiting the ark could account for the diversity we observe today.

I don't think any miracles are involved above.

You need one. The Ark, as you describe its mission is technically impossible.

Just a question, Is there a conflict between, "...evolution is not a valid explanation for diverse organisms..." and "Biological processes have determined that individual animals can speciate and change over time."

 

[Mageth]

My syllogism would be:

DNA research has determined that genetic material is extremely complex and greater complexity is being discovered as new research is done.
Evolution research has not discovered a way for ordinary biological processes to enhance genetic material on the scale required to support the viability of evolution from one universal common ancestor.
Therefore, evolution is not a valid explanation for diverse organisms tracing back to a universal common ancestor.

Still the same old argument from ignorance, and thus still fatally flawed.

And rife with errors. For example, in your "conclusion":
Evolution is "diverse organisms tracking back to a universal common ancestor".
Once again, EVOLUTION (descent with modification from a common ancestor) IS A FACT. The Theory of Evolution would the explanation as to how eveolution happens. You keep repeating this same basic mistake, either intentionally or unintentionally. Which is it?

The Bible records the destruction of animals in a global flood with some few being preserved on an ark.
Biological processes have determined that individual animals can speciate and change over time.
Therefore, the animals exiting the ark could account for the diversity we observe today.

Your conclusion is not supported by your premises. Oh, and as for your first premise, science shows that the Biblical flood is pure fiction. So this syllogism does not get off the ground. Fictional animals exiting a fictional ark can't account for anything in the real world.

Also, in this syllogism, you assert "Biological processes have determined that individual animals can speciate and change over time." While ignoring the odd wording ("biological processes have determined...") and factual errors ("individual animals can speciate..."), this clearly conflicts with your first syllogism.

I don't think any miracles are involved above.

A lot of mistakes and fallacious arguments are involved, as usual.

 

[Mageth]

You need one. The Ark, as you describe its mission is technically impossible.

Just a question, Is there a conflict between, "...evolution is not a valid explanation for diverse organisms..." and "Biological processes have determined that individual animals can speciate and change over time."

Indeed, and yes there is, as I also noticed and pointed out.

 

[Malintent]

you are using the word "explaination" in a very novel way, when referencing the bible as an "explanation" of anything.

Also, stating that creationism is a "competing explanation" is laughable. Besides not being an explanation (unless "'cause I said so" is an explanation - lol) it is not even a theory.. or hypothesis.. or even a logical idea...