They DO exist. Alien life found on meteorite!

citation needed wrote:

(Unlike in that specious "house construction by earthquake" analogy at the bottom of that article)

Again I probably should clarify - the author argues that mutation is too destructive, that "information gains" will be undone by the same mutations that created them. But as was already pointed out, evolution is much more complex than just alterations in the code. The epigenome can cause the expression or suppression of DNA without destroying anything.

v(d)j recombination wrote:

do you know what an enhancer is?

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20833320

please stop.

the "monkey typing shakespeare" comment was spot on. grab a banana.

someone else wrote:

I meant all of the well-known types of mutations. Of course there are others, but explain to me how they:

1. add new words to the sentence being created.

2. add new meaning to the sentence.

Yes, I know what an enhancer is. It regulates genes, but it only acts on information that is already there. These shaky, hazy concepts are not going to cut it. Tell me how it adds new words to the sentence and gives the sentence new meaning in terms of base pairs.

Furthermore, if you'll admit there is a staggering loss of information, as I have demonstrated, how do you propose this loss be overcome with the few examples you have provided? There has to be a staggering amount of examples for it to overcome the mutations that don't produce something useful. Every time there is a mutation, there is a net loss in information, so how do a bunch of losses make a gain?

someone else wrote:

I'm not saying it didn't happen. I'm saying it didn't happen without a Creator.[/quote]

And the creator, of course, is remarkably immune to probably, and essentially just 'is'.

citation needed wrote:

someone else wrote:

This article explains the monkeys typing shakespeare and dawkin's weasel fallacies.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v12/i3/dawkins.asp

Yes! Exactly! The game is rigged! Because "junk" mutations are weeded out by death, and functional mutations are passed on to progeny! (Unlike in that specious "house construction by earthquake" analogy at the bottom of that article)

(For what it's worth, I'll admit Dawkins is a bit of a jackass)

That was a pretty fast response for reading the whole article. The game is rigged because it was CREATED rigged by Dawkins. The article explains all this, and yet you fail to understand.

someone else wrote:

Every time there is a mutation, there is a net loss in information, so how do a bunch of losses make a gain?

Did you know that only roughly half (it's a hard number to estimate) of human conceptions lead to live birth? That's what happens to most of your destructive frameshift and inversion mutations. Meanwhile the benign, and potentially helpful mutations lurk in the background, inching towards functionality.

It's not exactly calculated, but I did provide a scientific study that rigorously proved that the probability could not be "more than 1 in 10^79. Can you point out flaws in the study or are you simply going to keep on avoiding the question? You have to admit there's a problem with abiogenesis (what I think you meant to say when you said 'biogenesis'). It simply doesn't happen.

someone else wrote:

That was a pretty fast response for reading the whole article. The game is rigged because it was CREATED rigged by Dawkins. The article explains all this, and yet you fail to understand.

I'll admit I skimmed. Dawkin's model is a silly simulation of evolution. Congratulations, you found another straw man.

citation needed wrote:

someone else wrote:

Every time there is a mutation, there is a net loss in information, so how do a bunch of losses make a gain?

Did you know that only roughly half (it's a hard number to estimate) of human conceptions lead to live birth? That's what happens to most of your destructive frameshift and inversion mutations. Meanwhile the benign, and potentially helpful mutations lurk in the background, inching towards functionality.

Source?

I'm pretty sure frame-shift and inversion mutations happen in live births, too, and look what the result is. Also, did you know that cancer is simply a development of mutations in your cells over time? The effects of mutations are overwhelmingly destructive. More 'benign' mutations does not equal a good change. It equals lots of benign mutations constituting a big problem.

someone else wrote:

It's not exactly calculated, but I did provide a scientific study that rigorously proved that the probability could not be "more than 1 in 10^79. Can you point out flaws in the study or are you simply going to keep on avoiding the question? You have to admit there's a problem with abiogenesis (what I think you meant to say when you said 'biogenesis'). It simply doesn't happen.

Hey did you even read my post pointing out the flaws in that study? You can go back and check that out while I finish reading why Richard Dawkins is a jackass.

Didn't mean to click reply to you Drakes.

Someone-I guess I know nothing about science, as well as the majority of scientists since they disagree too.

What do you believe happened if God didn't use evolution as a tool? I assume you don't think the earth is 6k years old. If it's older and we can rely on the fossil record, why did God take so long to make everything? I ask sincerely, and seem to remember you being more civil on religious threads.

well with the ensuing argument about creationism.....i might as well say it...

10/10.

Well disguised though in the OP.

I like the cave dwellers that evolved err were given no vision by God because its more energy efficient. But they still have eye sockets because God was dumb or capricious.

someone else wrote:

It's not exactly calculated, but I did provide a scientific study that rigorously proved that the probability could not be "more than 1 in 10^79. Can you point out flaws in the study or are you simply going to keep on avoiding the question? You have to admit there's a problem with abiogenesis (what I think you meant to say when you said 'biogenesis'). It simply doesn't happen.

It didn't. It calculated probably against a scenario, but the scenario is not known in detail enough to calculate likelihood against, even of of 'no better than'. Like I said, it's fine for an exercise in mathematics, but not one of science.

someone else wrote:

Source?

Touche :)

The effects of mutations are overwhelmingly destructive.

EXACTLY. Non-"information" tends to be destroyed. The game is rigged - not as neatly as Dawkins might have us believe, but rigged nonetheless.

1) You also forget that most information between species is shared (in terms of what genes there are and their sequence). What is most different is how and when those genes are expressed. 99% of the mouse genome has analogous human genes. If you alter these mechanisms you can possibly create a new species without changing the protein sequences. 2) Entirely new sequences can and have be inserted through retrovirus like elements. Also gene elements can move between areas of the genome.

someone else wrote:

In your example, you systematically determine what the changes are going to be each time to produce a new sentence. I would like to see a genetic code that knows what it's doing in order to change "You mom is fat" into "and stupid" one letter at a time. I think you should take a look at the article I posted again, as it explains it very well how the sentence will get messed up at some point rather than arranged nicely into a new sentence.

Are you retarded?

someone else wrote:

In your example, you systematically determine what the changes are going to be each time to produce a new sentence. I would like to see a genetic code that knows what it's doing in order to change "You mom is fat" into "and stupid" one letter at a time. I think you should take a look at the article I posted again, as it explains it very well how the sentence will get messed up at some point rather than arranged nicely into a new sentence.

answer 1:

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v424/n6945/full/nature01763.html

and don't forget alternative splicing, microRNAs, long non-coding RNAs, etc.

new info isn't necessarily needed. more elegant levels of spatial & temporal regulation can do a lot.

answer 2: what if a mutation occurs in a regulatory domain of a scr family kinase that needs to be phosphorylated to keep the kinase inactive. but the mutation changes ser/thr to amino acid "X" and the kinase is now constituatively active, conferring some growth advantage to the cells & some survival advantage to the organism in which the mutation occurred (relative to peers with the canonical kinase).

"Every time there is a mutation, there is a net loss in information, so how do a bunch of losses make a gain?"

This is such a retarded statement on so many levels.

How do you think the flu viruses changes year after year, and we struggle to keep up with vaccines to fight it? A: mutations that confer it the ability to infect better.

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/328/5983/1272

seriously, what do you do for a living? what makes you think you're qualified to spread the garbage you're tossing out?

On the other hand did you guys hear about the idiots that claim the world will end on may 30th. Same news every year around this time, just keeps repeating and we are dumb enough to fall for it.

"The simplest explanation is that there are microbes in the meteorites; they are Earth microbes. In other words, they are contamination."

Pilcher said the meteorites that Hoover studied fell to Earth 100 to 200 years ago and have been heavily handled by humans, "so you would expect to find microbes in these meteorites."