Genome sequencing leaves Creationists unable to respond

[micrurus]

Originally Posted by Onlooker

Easy to type,
hard to understand.
Numbers are large ( hard to comprehend for some-10 to 100 million mutations) just to get one point mutation to stick without a stop codon ending that proteins synthesis.
Now multiply that large number (hard to comprehend for some) by hundreds or thousands for one protein.
Last time I checked, not many organs are one composed of one protein (most receptors on/in cells are 1-6 proteins).
Now multiply that large number to get a functional whatever, organelle or organ.
Those number create, for you, a faith based system.
Prove it.
Thats science isnt it.

Its actually fairly easy to understand.

please, look up "gregor mendel", "crossing over" and "meiosis"

thats the basics and it explains alot.

[Oberon]

Originally Posted by Onlooker

If you ask me, the science of ID actually makes these complex units that "show" up , explainable.

Saying "god did it" might make it easily explained but it isn't science. I could just as easily explain it all by saying the process was guided by super powerful aliens.

[Autodidact]

Originally Posted by Onlooker

To think that random mutations created a new organ is short of blind faith. We know random mutations cause diseases, but not new organs.

Can you produce a scientific cite for this non-fact? Because what I get is:

Mutations can be beneficial, neutral, or harmful for the organism

[UC Berkeley Evolution 101] and

When a unique beneficial mutation arises and sweeps to fixation,...

Genetics, Vol. 151, 1621-1631, April 1999, Copyright © 1999
Beneficial Mutations, Hitchhiking and the Evolution of Mutation Rates in Sexual Populations

Toby Johnson
Institute of Cell, Animal and Population Biology, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh EH9 3JT, Scotland

and

When transduced into the ancestor, this mutation increased competitive fitness by
about 5%.

BMC Evolutionary Biology
Research article Open Access
Identification and dynamics of a beneficial mutation in a long-term
evolution experiment with Escherichia coli
Mark T Stanek†1, Tim F Cooper†2 and Richard E Lenski*1

But, you "scientist" who don't have "faith" , keep believing this awesome leap from logic. The shear numbers of mutation events that would have to occur to produce meaningful and life sustaining changes from the DNA on out(remember, as pointed out earlier, environment doesn't change it just selects) is beyond comprehension.
Remember the quoted mutation rates are very low (1 in 10-100 million bases) and that is for point mutations. New organs are dozens of proteins that consist of thousand of amino acids that would have to mutate all at once to produce a concerted functional unit.
Anybody got faith?

Would you show your math? thanks.

[Autodidact]

Originally Posted by Onlooker

No,
I dont mean give me the millions of pages of arguments/testing/theories etc.
Show us the proof.
The reproducible , irrefutable proof.
You made a claim you have proof that may very well stop all these conversations.
Old books obviously dont have that proof otherwise every ID/Creationist would sit back in marvel.
Finally, reproducible proof.
Dang, we were wrong.
Put it on YouTube and get ready to collect your Nobel Prize

If there were proof, it wouldn't be science. Science never has proof. What science has is evidence, and that's what we have for ToE--lots and lots of evidence.

We don't have proof the earth is round, or proof it revolves around the sun. What we have is evidence--lots of it. That's what supports scientific theories--evidence.

So basically, by asking for final, irrefutable proof, you are rejecting the scientific method.

This is why I say to discuss evolution with creationists, you first have to give them a basic scientific education. Unfortunately they tend to resist it, so they can remain creationists.

In contrast, evidence cannot prove a theory correct because other evidence, yet to be discovered, may exist that is inconsistent with the theory.

wiki

[Autodidact]

Originally Posted by Onlooker

Exactly.
TOE has museums of bones, millions of books.
NO EVIDENCE of TOE assertion that nature was the only drive.

ToE does not assert this, as I have now said at least five times in this thread. ToE only describes HOW, of God created all things, He did so. It says nothing about whether He did so.

So we have yet another creationist who doesn't know what ToE says, and doesn't want to learn.

In fact, numerically impossible to come up with functional organs with mutations that at best cause point mutation of single triplet codon.
That is one amino acid change due to point mutation at a rate of 1 in every 10-100 million bases.
Proteins have hundreds to thousands of amino acids.
Organelles and organs have exponentially larger amounts.
Now remember, once you get that number for the above protein, organelle or organ,
it has to happen all at once since they often function as a unit.
That is to say, an eye doesnt start off with a retinal cell. That cell is an elegant part of a functioning unit.
If you ask me, the science of ID actually makes these complex units that "show" up , explainable.

There is no science of ID. ID is not science.

[David M]

Originally Posted by Onlooker

In fact, numerically impossible to come up with functional organs with mutations that at best cause point mutation of single triplet codon.
That is one amino acid change due to point mutation at a rate of 1 in every 10-100 million bases.

And yet more evidence that you are ignorant of genetics and DNA.

What about all the other types of mutations that affect more than a single codon. Its an observed fact that they happen. You can get entire genes and even the whole genome being duplicated.

[Onlooker]

Originally Posted by micrurus

Its actually fairly easy to understand.

please, look up "gregor mendel", "crossing over" and "meiosis"

thats the basics and it explains alot.

they may explain alot.
you are dodging the question.
your faith based system in crazy numbers is faith and belief.
No real explanation given by you.

[Onlooker]

Originally Posted by Oberon

Saying "god did it" might make it easily explained but it isn't science. I could just as easily explain it all by saying the process was guided by super powerful aliens.

Saying its science and not explaining the unexplainable is faith based magic belief.
Puts you right in "our category".
Welcome.
I at least try to understand my "faith".

[Onlooker]

Originally Posted by Autodidact

Can you produce a scientific cite for this non-fact? Because what I get is: [UC Berkeley Evolution 101] and
Genetics, Vol. 151, 1621-1631, April 1999, Copyright © 1999
Beneficial Mutations, Hitchhiking and the Evolution of Mutation Rates in Sexual Populations

Toby Johnson
Institute of Cell, Animal and Population Biology, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh EH9 3JT, Scotland

and

BMC Evolutionary Biology
Research article Open Access
Identification and dynamics of a beneficial mutation in a long-term
evolution experiment with Escherichia coli
Mark T Stanek†1, Tim F Cooper†2 and Richard E Lenski*1

Would you show your math? thanks.

All nice sites. Out of the millions of pages you can give, did you really need to site Berekely?
No doubt many pages explaining all the faith based beliefs and greater power and strength with mutations that may or may not have done something beneficial.
You need to read some elementary genetics and figure out the system.
How does proteins get made?
What is the rate of mutations that occur?
What does that mutation actually do?
How many of these improbable mutations can actually do anything constructive just on a "1 protein" model.
Now calculate on a simple organelle.
Just not probable.
Your system is faith based.You do the math.

[Onlooker]

Originally Posted by Autodidact

If there were proof, it wouldn't be science. Science never has proof. What science has is evidence, and that's what we have for ToE--lots and lots of evidence.

We don't have proof the earth is round, or proof it revolves around the sun. What we have is evidence--lots of it. That's what supports scientific theories--evidence.

So basically, by asking for final, irrefutable proof, you are rejecting the scientific method.

This is why I say to discuss evolution with creationists, you first have to give them a basic scientific education. Unfortunately they tend to resist it, so they can remain creationists.

wiki

So why do you ask for proof on ID.
Use the scientific method to study all possibilities.
Like Intelligent Design.
That is the scientific way.