Cheers.  Funny and true!

Very good. I'm laughing muchly.

Even if we didn't have any fossils, evolution can be proven true through DNA evidence which is observable in the here and now.  A good starting place for info is The Making of the Fittest  by Sean Carroll.  If deludedgod shows up, he has some interesting info regarding molecular clocks in DNA...stuff I don't understand yet because I haven't forced myself to read it in detail.

(When I read, I much prefer to be supine, reading from an actual book.  Too much computer reading hurts my eyes, neck and back.  I often skim long posts...)

Todangst had pointed out a few of his other writings, but most are, you know, serious.  Bah.  That list is too funny.

 Edit: In all seriousness myself, it's a must-read for Christians especially to get an idea of what's come before.  Especially the thermodynamics stuff, IMO.  I expect that's an easy one to fall into if you've never read up on it.

Yeah, dude.  I need to print it out and look up the terms I don't understand.  I found Sean Carroll's books fascinating (need to read it again) and would like to add to my knowledge. 

Creationists and Evolutionists look at the same fossils and the same DNA. Its all about how you intrepret what you are looking at and that intrepretation will be determined by your starting assumptions. 

*cracks knuckles*

(BTW, deludedgod is on the other side of the planet. I'm getting sleepy and winding down, but it's not even noon there. If he's in the mood and has the time, prepare to have your uneducated ass handed to you.  At least educate your ass before you let it do the talking.)

Thank you. And correct, it is 11:23 am as I type. And a public holiday.

Creationists and Evolutionists look at the same fossils and the same DNA. Its all about how you intrepret what you are looking at and that intrepretation will be determined by your starting assumptions.

No. Molecular genetics is absolutely in favor of evolution. The only way to disupte this is to have never seen them. everything I am writing about henceforth comes not from a textbook but rather from experimentations and genetic sequencings. From thousands of read printouts, scans, tracks, SEM photographs, and microarray chemical readouts.

 My first thought was...that's it? Thats your response to 16,000 homology catalogues, Endogenous Retroviral insertions, and Mitochondrial DNA transfers? Sir, this relationship is extremely obvious, and it is not one, it is tens of thousands of homologies which clearly diverge as separation widens and close as it narrows, as indicated by time length separation. This test will come up on any protein domain I pick. It clearly indicates that life began a primordial genome, and as the genome duplicated, parts diverged and it expanded thusly. Genetic duplication error and polyploids are set in stone fact, and no geneticist would say otherwise. I can even watch gene duplication myself, using a microarray, although I hardly think it is worth the trouble. Using decoders, microarrays, and homology databases, geneticists have now catalogued evolutionary relationships between vast swaths of life, and the effects of these changes.

The existence of paralogies of genetics across the families in the proteome, even diverged as far as separations between the three domains themselves, and the fact that amino acid tracking reveals this to narrow as the organisms in question become more closely related (a fact which is reinforced by advanced radiometry) can only be possible via repeated duplication and divergence of genes, thusly bearing gene families which in turn branched out depending on the survival requisites of the organism and location, the lack of originality in the proteome, especially the vertebrae proteome, which can be explained entirely in terms of domain shuffling and protein string recombination can only be explained by origin from a common descent, a primordial genome who bore only the survival requisites for the simplest of life. What this genome may have looked like is mysterious, but insight into a small bacteria called Mycoplasm genitalium can give us the answer, when computationally recombined with cross-references of genes exclusive to archae, eubacteria and eukaryotes (Excluding ESP proteins of course) we arrive at an answer of roughly 200 genes dedicated to basic metabolic and structural proteins, rRNAs and mitosis control gates. Ad it is from this humble beginning that life evolved. A fact which is correlated 100% by genomic/proteomic analysis and ortholog/paralog/xenolog tracking.

Quite simply, molecular genetics tracking, ERVs and mtDNA, in addition to computational searches for paralogies across the spectrum, leads us inevitably to the conclusion that the whole swath of life arose from a single, simple, primodial cell.

Across the spectrum of life we see very little originality. From the time of the primordial genome, it has expanded in size due to duplication error. This provides the mutation carrier with superfluous genetic baggage, basically an extra copy of a gene. This copy is free to mutate based solely on random frequency probability. It diverges from its original function guided by Natural selection.

This new gene or section will be closely related to the original, both in function and sequence (although divergence starts widening over time). These two genes are said to be paralogous of each other in the same carrier. For instance, the human genome contains seven haemoglobin proteins, all of which are in a gene family called the haemoglobin family. This is part of a larger family called the globin family, under which all oxygen binding proteins are classed like myoglobins.

When two species diverge, the new genetic arm of the phylogenic tree retains much of the genetic code of it's predecessor. Any related batches of genes in two species are said to be orthologous of each other. The seven human haemoglobins are orthologous to the seven chimp ones.

Basically this is how all of evolution works. Genes duplicate by accident, then these new copies diverge in function over time, species branch off, and whole families of related genes spring up. However, when we trace it back to the proto-cells, all the genes are related. There is no such thing as a truly original gene.

It is about duplicative mutations, followed by recombinative mutations, or shuffling mutations. For instance, A protein is not subdivided merely by it’s amino acid. It is grouped into large subunits called polypeptides, regional stretches of protein subunit roughly 100 amino acids long. In this way we can see that massive proteins (>1000 amino acids) are not only defined by their individual, but ultimately, the order of different units created by smaller strings of amino acids within the complex. The protein transforms into it’s secondary structure by folding at the kinks between the subunits. The shape, therefore, of a protein is directly determined by it’s chemical sequence. The folding becomes further intricate during progression to tertiary structure when the folds between individual units take shape. Finally, the protein reaches it’s quaternary structure or it’s native state, with the intricate system of folds.

there is almost nothing original in the vertebrae genome. It is the result of multiple whole-global duplications throughout evolution. Even in humans, the proteome contains only 7% vertebrae-specific proteins. The only place we really seem to have any originality is in domain shuffling (Im pretty sure that the human tyrpsin can bind to at least 18 domains, while in drosophilia it's only 5). As I said about protein structure, much of the innovation merely comes from rearrangement of subunits, which is beneficial in terms of the shuffling mutation quite often.

 For instance, I could pick two random protein domains, even non-conserved ones, in two seperate species. Say a human and a fruit fly. And I could (which I am doing) array them along a microarray and decode the amino acid sequences in protein domains. Here are the results (each letter represents an amino acid):

HUMAN:

WYFGKKITRRESERLLLNAERPRGTFLVRESETTKGAYCLSVSDFDNAKGL

Drosophilia:

WFFENVLREADKLLLAEENPEGTFLVRPSEHNNGYSLSVKDWEDGRKYGY

Protein Domain Signature Homologies in Both:

WYFGKITRRESERLL
GTFLVRESE

Side chain grouping matches:
W+F+R+E+++LLLENPRGTFLVRSEYLSVD+++_G

These are divergences found in an identical protein domain confirmed exactly by molecular clock tracking against the known divergence rate of the domain and the orthologous seperation of these two species. If (as you claim) these species were created within days of each other, or had no common ancestor, this divergence would not exist. This is the same domain for each animal, which I took the liberty of sequencing myself. Because I can.

I can provide some more if you want!

Orthologous Divergence of the haemoglobin chain of various vertebrae correlated by molecular tracking:

Percentage divergence in amino acids between conserved domain of haemoglobin

Human/Lamprey (divergence: 550 million years ago) 35%

Human /Shark (Divergence: 520 million years) 51%

Human/tuna fish (450 million years) 55%

Human/frog (350 million years) 56%

Human/chicken (320 million years) 70%

Human/lizard (270 million years) 77%

Bird/Crocodile (220 million years) 76%

Human/Kangaroo (170 million years) 81%

Human/Sloth/Mouse/Elephant/Rabbit/Pig/Sheep/Whale/Cat/Dog/rat

All between 150 and 50 million years, all 80-85% related in this domain

Human/orangutang (10 million years) 98%

and finally...human/chimp (7 million years) 100%

 

All this in turn is corroborated by ERV tracking and the vertical transfers in Mitochondrial DNA

How do you explain and account for mitochondrial DNA horizontal transfer migration without common descent?

Endogenous retroviral insertion occurs when a retrovirus reverse transcribes it's own RNA into a host's DNA by means of polymerase RNA-DNA conversion, 3' and 5' enzymatic degradation and intergrase fusion. Retroviruses are the only organisms that can do this. That is what makes HIV so deadly. The ERV insertions are rare and very random. Although complementation ensures they can only bind to specific points on the host's genome, the amount of possible insertions that the ERV could transcribe, not to mention the fact that this has to be to the power of seven to account for all seven retroviruses, and of course, the fact that it is a very rare occurrence and the fact that even a single transcribed piece has numerous choices of insertion due to multiple duplication errors that exist in Eukaryotic genomes means the odds of finding even just one insertion (let alone 8% of the genome for humans alone) on one identical position in the chromosomal karyotype would be astronomical. And then, that number has to be raised to the power of seven, then multiplied by several thousand to account for all the possible transcribable genes, which has to multiplied by 10 again to account for the duplicative errors, and that doesn't even factor in how rare the insertions are.

The only way it is possible that we can find large strings of ERV's on identical interspersals throughout the genome of species throughout every eon is because of common descent.

It is empirically demonstratable that mitochondria are the result of billion year old symbiosis between ancient oxyphobic bacteria and proto-eukaryotes. This is the reason they have their own little genome. The mtDNA genome in humans is only 16,000 base pairs. Prokaryotes have a remarkable ability to exchange genetic material by a different process which is critical to bacterial evolution. This is called horizontal transfer. Vertical transfer is an ability eukaryotes do not have because their DNA is enclosed in an intercellular packaged membrane (hence the name eukaroyote). Vertical transfer occurs when bacteria simply exchange genes by passing them through the cell membrane to each other. This can occur either by direct junction fusing or literally uptaking of the new material. Prokaryotes can take any peice of nucleic acid string and simply incorporate it immediately because their DNA is not kept in an intercellular membrane.

So, mitochondria, as ancient prokaryotes, of course keep their DNA is a loop strand like every other bacteria. Indeed, mtDNA also undergoes transfer. This is very rare and obviously useless. In this case, it is intracellular thus the transfer is into the nucleus of the host cell, where the master genome is stored. Such is termed mtDNA migration.

I think mtDNA migration is even better than ERV because the probability is even lower by several orders of magnitude that we could find mtDNA on identical positions of the genotypes of multipe species throughout multiple eons without common descent whereby the offspring would inherit the mtDNA. The best part is that obviously, as time passes, the amount of mtDNA in the master genomes should accumulate, since more horizontal transfer is taking place over longer periods of time, and this should still turn up on the same positions in the genotype. What a surprise! It does.

Without common descent, the probability of individual horizontal transfers accounting for entire species inheriting identical mtDNA which remains so throughout geological eons and continues to accumulate and end up in the same places is so low the number is unfathomable.

 

 

 

 

Thats all well and good but you are still assuming that evolution is the only possible cause of the evidence you cited. Ultimately we are dealing with the inductive method here so nothing can be proved.  I'm not a creation scientist but there are plenty who would disagree with your conclusions.  The fact is that regardless of how strongly you feel about your argument, you can't escape your assumptions.  Were you there 15 billion years ago?  No.  You are assuming that evolution is the only thing that can account for the cited evidence.

Thats all well and good but you are still assuming that evolution is the only possible cause of the evidence you cited.

"Well, of course. That is because it is the only explanation."

Exactly my point.

 Ultimately we are dealing with the inductive method here so nothing can be proved. The fact is that regardless of how strongly you feel about your argument, you can't escape your assumptions.

"My assumptions are perfectly reasonable in light of the evidence I presented, unless you have a better theory for the existence of the aformentioned genetic relationships. Remember what I said. These relationships would be impossible without common descent. So I am just waiting for you to present a viable alternative, and until then there is no reason to abandon the theory, unless you have a refutation."

 Your evidence is fine. Everybody deals with the same evidence. But then you start using words like impossible and other absolute language which simply cannot be obtained through the inductive method.

Were you there 15 billion years ago?  No.

What are you, high? Life has only been around on Earth for 3.8 billion years. And for all intents and purposes, I was there, because with today's techniques, I can read the primordial genome as easily as if it were written in English.

My fault 3.8 billion.  I don't know how I could have forgot that fact.  You can intend and you can purpose all you want, the fact is, you weren't there. So all you can do is speculate based on your assumptions.

 you are assuming that evolution is the only thing that can account for the cited evidence.

"That is because nothing else can. I explained very carefully why these events would be impossible without common descent. Care to refute that or present a scientific alternative?"

 If you want alternatives, look in creationist science literature.  There is plenty of it out there.  But my guess is that you will say that your explanation is "better" and better is quite a subjective thing.  Keep in mind, you are still assuming naturalism as the only explanation.  You are also saying that if I can't come up with an explanation your position is proved. That's not logically valid.  You are trying to jump to absolute conclusions about origins with the inductive method.  And despite how much thought you put into your posts, this is something that just can't be done.  

I remembered I'd left something in the microwave and made the mistake of logging back onto this thread.

mountaineer, THIS  is all you have to say? A bunch of assertions with no facts?  You ought to be ashamed of yourself!  You haven't even tried to understand anything deludedgod wrote, have you?  And you won't bother to try to learn anything because "goddidit" is an easy answer and you won't have to read any big words.  This is nothing but intellectual laziness.

I don't understand all of deludedgod's post, but I do understand some of it and I plan to learn more.  Once again I ask you to educate yourself just a little bit.  The Making of the Fittest by Sean Carroll is a little more understandable to a lay person.  So, start there...or anywhere, for crying out loud.  Any decently educated person cannot deny evolution because the natural world makes no sense without it.

mountaineer, I had a TERRIBLE science education at a fundamentalist Christian school, but I didn't let myself off the hook.  I go out of my way to learn things because ignorance could quite possibly get us all killed someday.  The American public--in other words, YOU, ME, ALL OF US in America--have a duty to educate ourselves if the schools didn't do a decent job (which is, unfortunately, quite likely).

"Goddidit" is a lazy answer.  Now, go educate your mind.

Deluded God is my new science hero.

I'm sure you get asked this all the time, but what is your formal education? It's easy to tell you have alot of it.

 

**swoon** 

my all time favorite.

 

Mr. Kirk Cameron..

 

"we wanna emphasize the principle of swinging from the intellect, straight to the conscience. It's so important to know that by doing this, you're not side-stepping the questions of the atheist, but you have to learn that it's not wise to stay in the intellect and wrestle with someone intellectually"

 

Not for you it isn't, bozo boy.