Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Science Forum

Science Forum

  1. 09 Jan '10 05:41 / 1 edit
    http://www.icj.org/article/5136/

    Macroevolutionary proponents claimed that the presence of transposons, a class of mobilie genetic elements, supports Darwinian evolution. But a recent investigation showed transposons have wrongly been interpreted, changing Macroevolution's best argument into its worst nightmare.

    Discuss!!
  2. 09 Jan '10 06:43
    404 not found
  3. 09 Jan '10 08:06
    Originally posted by whodey
    http://www.icj.org/article/5136/

    Macroevolutionary proponents claimed that the presence of transposons, a class of mobilie genetic elements, supports Darwinian evolution. But a recent investigation showed transposons have wrongly been interpreted, changing Macroevolution's best argument into its worst nightmare.

    Discuss!!
    About Macroevolution, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macroevolution
  4. Subscriber AThousandYoung
    Do ya think?
    09 Jan '10 16:31 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by jekeckel
    404 not found
    http://www.icr.org/articles/view/5136/282/

    I see a few references for the science, but not for what "evolutionists claim". The Institute for Creation Research is not an organization I am inclined to trust much, so I can't help but notice this likely strawman.
  5. 10 Jan '10 22:25
    Originally posted by AThousandYoung
    http://www.icr.org/articles/view/5136/282/

    I see a few references for the science, but not for what "evolutionists claim". The Institute for Creation Research is not an organization I am inclined to trust much, so I can't help but notice this likely strawman.
    Here is another article about it.

    http://www.nature.com/ng/jovinal/v41/n5/full/ng.368.html

    References for the article include the following

    1. Faulkner, G.J et al. 2009. Theregulated retrotransposon scriptome of mammalian cells. Nature Genetics. 41 (5): 563-571.

    2. http://creation.com/junk/dna/evolutionary/discards-or-gods-tool

    3. http://www.icr.org/article/genetic-expression-same-genes-can-produce-differen/

    4. The reason that both chimpanzees and humans have such similar looking sequences on similar chromosomes could be because both species experienced similar retrotransposon activity in the past, following similar patterns when they were being copied and inserted within their respective species.
  6. 11 Jan '10 03:44 / 3 edits
    Such function has been suspected by geneticists for some time. Furthermore, this does not negate our understanding of transposons, or their relationship between species as established by common descent. It seems either the author is deliberately lying, or does not understand the arguments put forth supporting evolution. Given that the creationist is often dishonest, and generally sprouts nonsense about biology, my suspicion is that it is some combination of the two.
  7. 11 Jan '10 04:37
    Originally posted by amolv06
    Such function has been suspected by geneticists for some time. Furthermore, this does not negate our understanding of transposons, or their relationship between species as established by common descent. It seems either the author is deliberately lying, or does not understand the arguments put forth supporting evolution. Given that the creationist is often ...[text shortened]... enerally sprouts nonsense about biology, my suspicion is that it is some combination of the two.
    Most of the evolution denyers don't know much about evolution anyway.
  8. 11 Jan '10 16:25 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by amolv06
    Such function has been suspected by geneticists for some time. Furthermore, this does not negate our understanding of transposons, or their relationship between species as established by common descent. It seems either the author is deliberately lying, or does not understand the arguments put forth supporting evolution. Given that the creationist is often ...[text shortened]... enerally sprouts nonsense about biology, my suspicion is that it is some combination of the two.
    Well I really don't have a horse in the race because although I believe God created I will by no means say how. I was just provided this by a friend and wondered what others thought.

    Having said that, what misunderstandings about transposons does he seem to have? Can you elaborate?
  9. 11 Jan '10 16:37
    Originally posted by whodey
    Well I really don't have a horse in the race because although I believe God created I will by no means say how. I was just provided this by a friend and wondered what others thought.

    Having said that, what misunderstandings about transposons does he seem to have? Can you elaborate?
    I don't get it, in what respect is evolution on trial?
    Do you think Darwin was wrong because of the observations supporting macroevolution?
    Or are you just trying to stir things up in orderly fundamenatlistic fashion?
  10. 11 Jan '10 22:19
    Originally posted by AThousandYoung
    http://www.icr.org/articles/view/5136/282/

    I see a few references for the science, but not for what "evolutionists claim". The Institute for Creation Research is not an organization I am inclined to trust much, so I can't help but notice this likely strawman.
    I agree, but I certainly don't trust wikipedia any more than the Institute for Creation Research. In fact, remember those old 8-Balls we had as kids, where you asked a question, put the ball under your chin and concentrated? Then the 8-Ball answered? I trust that more than I do wikipedia.
  11. Subscriber AThousandYoung
    Do ya think?
    13 Jan '10 09:20
    Originally posted by PinkFloyd
    I agree, but I certainly don't trust wikipedia any more than the Institute for Creation Research. In fact, remember those old 8-Balls we had as kids, where you asked a question, put the ball under your chin and concentrated? Then the 8-Ball answered? I trust that more than I do wikipedia.
    What does Wikipedia have to do with this?
  12. 15 Jan '10 03:53
    Originally posted by AThousandYoung
    What does Wikipedia have to do with this?
    second reply to this thread.
  13. 15 Jan '10 08:20
    What?
  14. Subscriber AThousandYoung
    Do ya think?
    15 Jan '10 09:24
    Originally posted by PinkFloyd
    second reply to this thread.
    Ah.

    http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/VIADefinition.shtml
  15. 16 Jan '10 00:16
    One happy medium would be to say that God* created evolution, as part of his beautiful creation. That way both theories could co exist peacefully. As such, things were never mentioned in 'The Bible' though, so all the staunch believers will completely deny this. 'Couldn't possibly be true cos the book don't say it'. Ha ha. Completely forgetting the fact that the 'good book' has been distorted through translation more than once, during its history. You know, people who take it word for, literally. 'The world was created in 7 days'. Even though the original stated 7 ages???? Mmmmm?

    You all refuse to give an inch on your backward, witch hunting, early days mind controlling rhubarb don't you?!

    The way I see it is the bible has a lot of truth and good sentiment and morals. Use it wisely.

    It is a tool like any other: People can use it for good or bad purposes.

    Though shall not claim the moral high ground through it.
    Though shall not quote chapters, paragraphs, lines to prove ones own point.
    Though shall not consider ones religion above any other.
    Though shall not take it soooo literally. Jesus really did not perform the miracles he was reputed to, it is all symbolism.


    *God - The unknown driving force behind all existence, as we know it.