Real Science Friday: Multitasking Genes, Missing Years
Bob Enyart LiveGreetings to the brightest audience in the country. I am Bob Enyart...... discuss Bob's shows here! Bob's show is aired live on the radio and rebroadcast at: KGOV.com
* Humans and Worms - Same # of Genes: Bob Enyart and Real Science Friday co-host Fred Williams talk about worms and humans having about the same number of genes. How can that be? According to the evolutionary publications Nature.com and ScienceDaily.com, human genes are heavily multitasking, which helps explain the many years of confusion among evolutionists who thought that humans and chimpanzees were 95% alike. RSF suggests that obviously false conclusion would be like claiming nearly identical Einstein's Theory of Relativity and Dumb and Dumber after finding similar words in each. Creation magazine's March 2009 issue further explains that our human genes not only multitask in general, but they have a greater regulatory role in embryonic development. This shows the greater genetic design that God put into humans, who are uniquely made in His image. And likely helps explain some of the counter-productive effects of embryonic stem cell treatment as compared to the far-more effective adult stem cell therapy. Regardless though, it would be wrong to kill a single tiny child even if it would cure the whole world.
* Yikes! Millions of Years are MISSING: According to evolutionary geologists, there are MORE THAN 100 MILLION YEARS MISSING in the extraordinarily regular and straight layers of the Grand Canyon!
Supposed geological layers entirely missing from the beautifully formed Grand Canyon strata include the Ordovician and the Silurian. The flat boundaries between strata provide hard evidence proving that millions of years of erosion DID NOT OCCUR, and that therefore, those millions of years DID NOT PASS, neither in the canyon nor anywhere on Earth, for they are an atheistic fiction. Subscribers to Creation magazine have already read Jonathan Sarfati's FABULOUS interview with biologist and geologist Ariel Roth, and others can either subscribe now (highly recommended) or wait a year or so until that interview appears in their archive. (You can add this POWERFUL evidence against the old-earth claims to our RSF List of Not-So-Old Ancient Things!)
* Darwin's 2009 Orchestral Homage: CMI's Creation magazine points out that the world-wide 2009 Darwin celebrations that include art exhibits, pilgrimages, music festivals, conferences, paintings, dedicated publications and websites, sculptures, and orchestral works do not celebrate far greater scientists like the Christian Isaac Newton, nor Galileo, Mendel, or even the thoroughly-secular Albert Einstein. Rather, universities and governments praise Darwin because of their philosophical and zealous commitment to godlessness. These are effectively atheistic religious events promoted falsely in the name of science.
* Humans and Worms - Same # of Genes: Bob Enyart and Real Science Friday co-host Fred Williams talk about worms and humans having about the same number of genes. How can that be? According to the evolutionary publications Nature.com and ScienceDaily.com, human genes are heavily multitasking, which helps explain the many years of confusion among evolutionists who thought that humans and chimpanzees were 95% alike. RSF suggests that obviously false conclusion would be like claiming nearly identical Einstein's Theory of Relativity and Dumb and Dumber after finding similar words in each. Creation magazine's March 2009 issue further explains that our human genes not only multitask in general, but they have a greater regulatory role in embryonic development. This shows the greater genetic design that God put into humans, who are uniquely made in His image. And likely helps explain some of the counter-productive effects of embryonic stem cell treatment as compared to the far-more effective adult stem cell therapy. Regardless though, it would be wrong to kill a single tiny child even if it would cure the whole world.
1. Who does God look like?
2. While human genes may have regulatory jobs in embryonic development to a greater extent than those in worms (C. elegans?), are human embryonic regulatory genes busier than those in other mammals, in other primates, in apes? How does one draw the line?
3. If it is wrong to kill a single child (your word--"child") to save the whole world is it right to kill terrorists to save Americans?
4. Do you have a cite to the scientific literature which indicates that using adult stem cells is "more effective".
5. Why would not the intelligent designer (God) have used simpler genetic mechanisms in his look alike? He could have, no?
Thanks
"Against stupidity, the gods themselves fight in vain", G. Smiley
...and evolutionists, when they say "Well look at the similarity between a human and a chimp -- 97% similar -- can't they just open their eyes and see that a chimpanzee cannot write a book on how to build a bridge, can't they see the extraordinary difference between humans and chimps? And they thought that because there's similar proteins and all, that we must be 97% the same.
Anyone with a brain can see that there is a large functional gap between humans and chimpanzees, so clearly the evolutionists are not referring to functional similarity (it is often helpful to assume at least some intelligence in your opponent when you feel you see something obvious that they are missing. Clearly any reasonable person making a statement as to the close similarity between apes and humans is not referring exclusively to cognitive similarities, therefore to point out such a wide cognitive gap in response to their statement is misguided.) Scientists are referring to the similarity of our genetic make-up. The gene, after all, is the ultimate source of all evolutionary changes. Thus, in determining evolutionary relationships, it is helpful to understand genetic similarity. By deduction, then, a large functional gap does not necessarily represent a large genetic gap. Often times a single mutation can completely change the function of the protein product of a gene. And when these mutations occur in genes that regulate and guide neural development, we are likely to see large changes in cognitive capacity. In evolutionary terms, we are remarkably similar to chimps.
Of course, the similarity depends on just what you're comparing (and no, it's not based on the thought that "since there's similar proteins and all, we must be 97% similar"). In every case where a percentage is put forth in a paper, it is accompanied by an explanation of the analytical techniques used to reach the conclusion and exactly what was compared.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fred Williams
...a gene can do multiple tasks, a single gene can create different kinds of proteins...it's remarkable...multiple genes can also play a role in just one function in the body. The complexity is staggering.
This appears to be the standard argument from incredulity.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Enyart
It's almost like...their arguments are so simplistic! You know, they say, "Well giraffes were hungry, and there were only leaves on the tops of trees, and so their necks stretched out. I mean, that's so absurd! So simplistic, so embarrassing!
This is just a classic set up and take down of an old straw man. This is not a correct representation of evolutionary theory in any way and the fact that Fred Williams let it go shows that he is more interested in which side you're on than in truthfully representing his opponent.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Enyart
It would be as though they said, "Well if you look at the number of words in Einstein's theory of relativity, and you look at the number of words in the script for say that movie Dumb and Dumber, turns out their 97% the same!" I mean, what a juvenile comparison!
What a juvenile comparison indeed, Bob! Your analogy and subsequent mocking might have some relevance had scientists simply compared the length of the human genome and the chimp genome, and determined that they were 97% similar based on length! But they didn't. Again, simply assuming your opponents intelligence goes a long way here, because obviously this is not how the comparison is done. Many of the comparisons are actually more akin to "word for word" comparisons, with some being "letter for letter" and others being "sentence for sentence. Therefore a more valid analogy would be saying that if the 97% of the sentences in two movie scripts are similar, then we can conclude that one script is very similar to the other script. Again, you've set up a sloppy and obvious straw man, and then patted yourself on the back for knocking it down.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Enyart
"...the genes in the human genome regulate the development of embryos far beyond what happens in animals, and so when they use a rat embryo, and they have success, that doesn't mean they'll have success when they transfer that idea to humans, because the level of sophistication of the development of the embryo is so far beyond what you'll find in animals and worms."
That's quite an assertion. You set the bar low here with your example by comparing rats and humans, but when you used the term "animals" you went too far with your generalizations. When a technique fails in a human that was successful in a rat, it's because they're different systems (despite their numerous similarities). If you put diesel in a gasoline cars fuel tank, it doesn't fail because the car engine is more complicated, it fails because the car engine it isn't a diesel engine. You'd have an extremely difficult time providing evidence that the increased complexity was the direct cause of failure rather than the simple fact that they are different systems. For example, genetic techniques that work on human embryos might not work on rat embryos. Is this because the genetic regulation of the development of rat embryos is more complicated? No. Do you assert that genes in the human genome regulate embryonic development far beyond what the chimpanzees genes do?
“There's nothing I like less than bad arguments for a view that I hold dear.” - Daniel Dennett
Regardless though, it would be wrong to kill a single tiny child even if it would cure the whole world.
...Unless God says its OK, of course, in which case it is entirely right, just and proper to put entire cohorts of babies to the sword, amirite?
Quote:
This shows the greater genetic design that God put into humans, who are uniquely made in His image.
So if I understand you correctly, your benchmark for greater genetic design is that humans are more intelligent than the other animals? Because, I would suggest, each species has its own niche to which it is better adapted than a human would be.
I am always struck when I go to the zoo how superficially similar the great apes are to human beings. They have finger nails and fingerprints on their hands, as we do. They cradle their babies, they press them to their chests to breastfeed, they coo over them, and play with them. They appear to have a wider array of moods than other animals.
It is hard not to see a closer affinity between us and them as oppose to say, us and a dog. So I am not really surprised to learn they have a closer genetic affiliation as well. And yes, there are obviously large differences too, but of all the animals, the primates are closer to that quintessence of animals in both appearance and behavior. You can kvetch and bark about that all you like, but all anyone has to do is go visit and zoo and spend some time looking at the primates to see how similar they are to us in so many ways.
Pastor Bob is often too busy saving souls or excoriating homosexuals to respond to these threads but how about Fred Williams.
Any comments Mr. Williams or do you simply stand by your earlier statements as put forth on the show and in this thread??
Thanks
"Against stupidity, the gods themselves fight in vain", G. Smiley
Children are innocent of anything deserving of death, especially the unborn children.
Terrorists? Not so much. So don't be an idiot.
An embryo is not necessarily a "child" much as an acorn is not necessarily an oak tree.
But that is not the issue. The issue is whether the death of a person (and I will give you that for the moment although I do not believe an embryo is a "person") can ethically be denied if such denial would "cure the whole world" of some disease.
Suppose the person were a 100 year old person with Alzheimers, is your answer different? Suppose the person is a "suspected" terrorist, is your answer different? And if the person is a mass muderer, is it different?
Given the premise it seems to me that the answer you must give is "no". Remember, the reason for killing the person is not punishment, nor retribution, but is something which can save many many people.
"Against stupidity, the gods themselves fight in vain", G. Smiley
Bob Enyart and Real Science Friday co-host Fred Williams talk about worms and humans having about the same number of genes. How can that be? According to the evolutionary publications Nature.com and ScienceDaily.com, human genes are heavily multitasking, which helps explain the many years of confusion among evolutionists who thought that humans and chimpanzees were 95% alike. RSF suggests that obviously false conclusion would be like claiming nearly identical Einstein's Theory of Relativity and Dumb and Dumber after finding similar words in each. Creation magazine's March 2009 issue further explains that our human genes not only multitask in general, but they have a greater regulatory role in embryonic development. This shows the greater genetic design that God put into humans, who are uniquely made in His image. And likely helps explain some of the counter-productive effects of embryonic stem cell treatment as compared to the far-more effective adult stem cell therapy. Regardless though, it would be wrong to kill a single tiny child even if it would cure the whole world.
So genes in chimps and roundworms and all metazoans don't multitask? I'll bet my best boots that the genetic architecture of the multitasking is hierarchical and matches other phylogenetic topologies.
Battling TOL creationist jerks-for-Jesus since 1998
Slogan/motto:
"Overwhelming strong proofs of intelligent and benevolent design lie around us ... The atheistic idea is so nonsensical that I cannot put it into words."- Lord Kelvin
Reputation:
May 6th, 2009, 12:46 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jukia
Do you have a cite to the scientific literature which indicates that using adult stem cells is "more effective".
Thanks
"People need to take notice that it is not embryonic stem cells that provide promise of treatments in the future, but rather it is adult stem cells that are already providing safe and effective therapies for patients now, without the problems of rejection or tumors...We need to pour our resources, especially taxpayer dollars, into adult stem cell research to foster more and better treatments and put the patients first"
An embryo is not necessarily a "child" much as an acorn is not necessarily an oak tree.
You're disgusting.
Quote:
But that is not the issue. The issue is whether the death of a person (and I will give you that for the moment although I do not believe an embryo is a "person") can ethically be denied if such denial would "cure the whole world" of some disease.
If it's not a person, what is it? A dog? A cat? A bird? A fish?
Quote:
Suppose the person were a 100 year old person with Alzheimers, is your answer different? Suppose the person is a "suspected" terrorist, is your answer different? And if the person is a mass muderer, is it different?
Given the premise it seems to me that the answer you must give is "no". Remember, the reason for killing the person is not punishment, nor retribution, but is something which can save many many people.
Do what?
The death of an innocent person can always ethically be denied. And you cannot ethically take the life of an innocent person, ever.
And you're an idiot if you think the answer must always be, "no," simply because the purpose is not to punish. If the person is certainly [100%] a mass murderer, then execute them. No matter the reason you are executing them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jukia
Because the people he talks to think that he knows what he is talking about. It is an ego thing.
The issue is that evolutionists clearly don't know what they are talking about. I haven't heard a proponent of evolution make any logical sense in all the years of my life that I've been able to understand human speech. At least the language of American English.
Slogan/motto:
"Human beings make life so interesting. Do you know, that in a universe so full of wonders, they have managed to invent boredom."- DEATH, in The Hogfather by Terry Pratchett
Reputation:
May 6th, 2009, 01:12 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jefferson
* Yikes! Millions of Years are MISSING: According to evolutionary geologists, there are MORE THAN 100 MILLION YEARS MISSING in the extraordinarily regular and straight layers of the Grand Canyon!
Supposed geological layers entirely missing from the beautifully formed Grand Canyon strata include the Ordovician and the Silurian. The flat boundaries between strata provide hard evidence proving that millions of years of erosion DID NOT OCCUR, and that therefore, those millions of years DID NOT PASS, neither in the canyon nor anywhere on Earth, for they are an atheistic fiction. Subscribers to Creation magazine have already read Jonathan Sarfati's FABULOUS interview with biologist and geologist Ariel Roth, and others can either subscribe now (highly recommended) or wait a year or so until that interview appears in their archive. (You can add this POWERFUL evidence against the old-earth claims to our RSF List of Not-So-Old Ancient Things!)
Linear Mode
