Can't explain

[Glenn]

"The shifting perspective from a read-only-memory genome with copying errors to a read- and-write genome with competent change operators is fundamental: For decades it was assumed that driving force of evolution is mutation (error) and selection. Now it is recognized that errors cannot explain genetic novelty and complexity."

http://www.nature.com/natureevents/science/events/20674-DNA_Habitats_and_it_s_RNA_Inhabitants

[Bob Casanova]

On Tue, 16 Feb 2016 08:03:30 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by "Glenn" <g...@invalid.invalid>:

>"The shifting perspective from a read-only-memory genome with copying errors to a read- and-write genome with competent change operators is fundamental: For decades it was assumed that driving force of evolution is mutation (error) and selection. Now it is recognized that errors cannot explain genetic novelty and complexity."
>
>http://www.nature.com/natureevents/science/events/20674-DNA_Habitats_and_it_s_RNA_Inhabitants

OK. In your own words, what is the significance of this
statement? Please include context. Thanks.
--

Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov

[Glenn]

"Bob Casanova" <nos...@buzz.off> wrote in message news:sgp6cblr290to7mrl...@4ax.com...

> On Tue, 16 Feb 2016 08:03:30 -0700, the following appeared
> in talk.origins, posted by "Glenn" <g...@invalid.invalid>:
>
>>"The shifting perspective from a read-only-memory genome with copying errors to a read- and-write genome with competent change operators is fundamental: For decades it was assumed that driving force of evolution is mutation (error) and selection. Now it is recognized that errors cannot explain genetic novelty and complexity."
>>
>>http://www.nature.com/natureevents/science/events/20674-DNA_Habitats_and_it_s_RNA_Inhabitants
>
> OK. In your own words, what is the significance of this
> statement? Please include context. Thanks.
> --
>

Sure. Settled science?

"A persistent and fundamental question in evolutionary genetics concerns the
origin of genetic novelty."

http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/royptb/370/1678/20140332.full.pdf

[Jørgen Farum Jensen]

And?

> http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/royptb/370/1678/20140332.full.pdf
>

What you're pointing out is that science
constantly works towards a better understanding
of the natural world.

This is news?
--

Jørgen Farum Jensen
"Science has proof without any certainty.
Creationists have certainty without any proof."
— Ashley Montagu

[Bob Casanova]

On Tue, 16 Feb 2016 21:28:12 -0700, the following appeared

in talk.origins, posted by "Glenn" <g...@invalid.invalid>:

>
>"Bob Casanova" <nos...@buzz.off> wrote in message news:sgp6cblr290to7mrl...@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 16 Feb 2016 08:03:30 -0700, the following appeared
>> in talk.origins, posted by "Glenn" <g...@invalid.invalid>:
>>
>>>"The shifting perspective from a read-only-memory genome with copying errors to a read- and-write genome with competent change operators is fundamental: For decades it was assumed that driving force of evolution is mutation (error) and selection. Now it is recognized that errors cannot explain genetic novelty and complexity."
>>>
>>>http://www.nature.com/natureevents/science/events/20674-DNA_Habitats_and_it_s_RNA_Inhabitants
>>
>> OK. In your own words, what is the significance of this
>> statement? Please include context. Thanks.

>Sure. Settled science?
>
>"A persistent and fundamental question in evolutionary genetics concerns the
>origin of genetic novelty."
>
>http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/royptb/370/1678/20140332.full.pdf

So the significance of the OP is "settled science"? Exactly
how? And who ever claimed that all of evolutionary theory is
"settled science", when it's obvious that many of the
details are still under investigation, as noted in your new
reference? Do you think that the observed fact of evolution,
as contrasted with the theory which attempts to explain it
(and which, as noted, is a "work in progress" like all
scientific theories) is refuted, or even challenged, by the
unknowns? It's not; observations of facts are not negated by
a lack of full understanding of the causes, or of the
details of the process.

[Bob Casanova]

On Wed, 17 Feb 2016 09:52:53 +0100, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Jørgen Farum Jensen
<atei...@733.dk>:

>Den 17-02-2016 kl. 05:28 skrev Glenn:
>>
>> "Bob Casanova" <nos...@buzz.off> wrote in message news:sgp6cblr290to7mrl...@4ax.com...
>>> On Tue, 16 Feb 2016 08:03:30 -0700, the following appeared
>>> in talk.origins, posted by "Glenn" <g...@invalid.invalid>:
>>>
>>>> "The shifting perspective from a read-only-memory genome with copying errors to a read- and-write genome with competent change operators is fundamental: For decades it was assumed that driving force of evolution is mutation (error) and selection. Now it is recognized that errors cannot explain genetic novelty and complexity."
>>>>
>>>> http://www.nature.com/natureevents/science/events/20674-DNA_Habitats_and_it_s_RNA_Inhabitants
>>>
>>> OK. In your own words, what is the significance of this
>>> statement? Please include context. Thanks.
>>> --
>>>
>> Sure. Settled science?
>>
>> "A persistent and fundamental question in evolutionary genetics concerns the
>> origin of genetic novelty."
>
>And?
>
>> http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/royptb/370/1678/20140332.full.pdf
>>
>
>What you're pointing out is that science
>constantly works towards a better understanding
>of the natural world.
>
>This is news?

Apparently.

[Glenn]

"Bob Casanova" <nos...@buzz.off> wrote in message news:jq69cbt4f53loer6b...@4ax.com...

> On Wed, 17 Feb 2016 09:52:53 +0100, the following appeared
> in talk.origins, posted by Jørgen Farum Jensen
> <atei...@733.dk>:
>
>>Den 17-02-2016 kl. 05:28 skrev Glenn:
>>>
>>> "Bob Casanova" <nos...@buzz.off> wrote in message news:sgp6cblr290to7mrl...@4ax.com...
>>>> On Tue, 16 Feb 2016 08:03:30 -0700, the following appeared
>>>> in talk.origins, posted by "Glenn" <g...@invalid.invalid>:
>>>>
>>>>> "The shifting perspective from a read-only-memory genome with copying errors to a read- and-write genome with competent change operators is fundamental: For decades it was assumed that driving force of evolution is mutation (error) and selection. Now it is recognized that errors cannot explain genetic novelty and complexity."
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.nature.com/natureevents/science/events/20674-DNA_Habitats_and_it_s_RNA_Inhabitants
>>>>
>>>> OK. In your own words, what is the significance of this
>>>> statement? Please include context. Thanks.
>>>> --
>>>>
>>> Sure. Settled science?
>>>
>>> "A persistent and fundamental question in evolutionary genetics concerns the
>>> origin of genetic novelty."
>>
>>And?
>>
>>> http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/royptb/370/1678/20140332.full.pdf
>>>
>>
>>What you're pointing out is that science
>>constantly works towards a better understanding
>>of the natural world.
>>
>>This is news?
>
> Apparently.
> --

"The origin of new genes and proteins is actually a common, fairly trivial event, well-known to anyone who spends a modicum of effort investigating the scientific literature. The evolution of new genes has been observed in the lab, in the wild, inferred in great detail between closely-related modern species, and reconstructed in hundreds of cases by comparing the genomes from organisms sequenced in genome projects over the last decade"

http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2004/08/meyers-hopeless-1.html

[Glenn]

"Bob Casanova" <nos...@buzz.off> wrote in message news:9d69cb1de4mpbl9tb...@4ax.com...

"This isn't empirical science. This is story-telling."

[r3p...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, February 16, 2016 at 7:05:04 AM UTC-8, Glenn wrote:
> "The shifting perspective from a read-only-memory genome with copying errors to a read- and-write genome with competent change operators is fundamental: For decades it was assumed that driving force of evolution is mutation (error) and selection. Now it is recognized that errors cannot explain genetic novelty and complexity."
>

It was ASSUMED! So much for evidence! Exactly what anti-Evolutionists have been saying all along including "Now it is recognized that errors cannot explain genetic novelty and complexity."

Life is the result of continuous errors! Pure atheistic nonsense. And the issue is not about details as Bob Casanova has portrayed, but a MAJOR fundamental claim of evolutionary theory: genetic copying errors feeding the selection process.

Anti-Evolutionists have always recognized that what is seen does NOT correspond to errors, but purposeful design.

Ray

[r3p...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, February 17, 2016 at 8:09:55 AM UTC-8, Bob Casanova wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Feb 2016 21:28:12 -0700, the following appeared
> in talk.origins, posted by "Glenn" <g...@invalid.invalid>:
>
> >
> >"Bob Casanova" <nos...@buzz.off> wrote in message news:sgp6cblr290to7mrl...@4ax.com...
> >> On Tue, 16 Feb 2016 08:03:30 -0700, the following appeared
> >> in talk.origins, posted by "Glenn" <g...@invalid.invalid>:
> >>
> >>>"The shifting perspective from a read-only-memory genome with copying errors to a read- and-write genome with competent change operators is fundamental: For decades it was assumed that driving force of evolution is mutation (error) and selection. Now it is recognized that errors cannot explain genetic novelty and complexity."
> >>>
> >>>http://www.nature.com/natureevents/science/events/20674-DNA_Habitats_and_it_s_RNA_Inhabitants
> >>
> >> OK. In your own words, what is the significance of this
> >> statement? Please include context. Thanks.
>
> >Sure. Settled science?
> >
> >"A persistent and fundamental question in evolutionary genetics concerns the
> >origin of genetic novelty."
> >
> >http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/royptb/370/1678/20140332.full.pdf
>
> So the significance of the OP is "settled science"? Exactly
> how? And who ever claimed that all of evolutionary theory is
> "settled science", when it's obvious that many of the
> details are still under investigation, as noted in your new
> reference?

How is genetic random mutation a detail as opposed to a long standing major claim? Of course my question is rhetorical.

> Do you think that the observed fact of evolution....

Excuse me? Observed fact? Don't you mean inferred from observations? If not show us a live action observation of descent with modification occurring on YouTube?

> ....as contrasted with the theory which attempts to explain it

> (and which, as noted, is a "work in progress" like all
> scientific theories) is refuted, or even challenged, by the
> unknowns?

Unknowns! Random genetic mutation has been declared a well understood process for quite some time! The same is a fundamental claim, not a detail. And your comment is logically invalid because it assumes the conclusion via inverting cause-and-effect.

In reality: The OP evidence says a major component of evolutionary cause is now known not to be true. Yet your commentary insists the same does not harm the validity of the effect (evolution as a result). Sound logic says the degree that cause has been harmed is the same degree effect has been harmed. But in your logic, the effect does not suffer **any** harm. This supports my claim that when the chips are down, evolutionary theory is not really falsifiable. Your commentary says and/or implies the effect of evolution is observed (it is not, it is inferred) then you essentially say nothing can harm the effect----even major harm to cause. And again, error-based mutation is NOT a detail, but a major claim. Yet the falsification of a major claim, in your eyes, has no effect on the alleged validity of the inference of evolution.

Bottom line: You're admitting evolution as an effect is not falsifiable, which means evolution is not scientific by 20th century standards.

> It's not; observations of facts are not negated by
> a lack of full understanding of the causes, or of the
> details of the process.

Inverted or perverted logic with no awareness of the fact (effect-and-cause).

Error-based mutation isn't a detail, but a major claim. Effect is harmed greatly when cause is harmed because absent cause you don't know evolution has occurred? Species could have been created similar to one another, and this is EXACTLY what Genesis implies. And evolution is not directly observed: completely false! Your logic is altogether perverted; structured to prevent objective falsification every step of the way.

Ray

[Bill Rogers]

The OP "evidence" is a single sentence from the announcement of a scientific meeting. There's no evidence there at all. Nor did the OP make any specific argument or give any evidence that he understood what he cited.

[Glenn]

"Bill Rogers" <broger...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:671a4894-8a2b-4e15...@googlegroups.com...

Maybe it was a Wendy's commercial.

[Glenn]

"Glenn" <g...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message news:na3eut$h1p$1...@dont-email.me...

Or not.

http://www.biocommunication.at/modules/publications/index.php?id=1:1

[jillery]

On Wed, 17 Feb 2016 20:51:41 -0700, "Glenn" <g...@invalid.invalid>
wrote:

Where's the beef?
--
This space is intentionally not blank.

[Glenn]

"jillery" <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:06macbd3a9cfrqsuj...@4ax.com...

That's the question.

[Bob Casanova]

On Wed, 17 Feb 2016 12:34:45 -0700, the following appeared

>"This isn't empirical science. This is story-telling."

Actually, assuming you're referring to the content of my
post and not to a previous one of yours in which you made
that statement (and were rebutted), it's fact. Nothing you
posted refutes evolution *or* the overall theory explaining
it; only the details are in contention.

And you *still* haven't explained what you were trying to
demonstrate.

[Bob Casanova]

On Wed, 17 Feb 2016 15:27:58 -0800 (PST), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by r3p...@gmail.com:

>On Wednesday, February 17, 2016 at 8:09:55 AM UTC-8, Bob Casanova wrote:
>> On Tue, 16 Feb 2016 21:28:12 -0700, the following appeared
>> in talk.origins, posted by "Glenn" <g...@invalid.invalid>:
>>
>> >
>> >"Bob Casanova" <nos...@buzz.off> wrote in message news:sgp6cblr290to7mrl...@4ax.com...
>> >> On Tue, 16 Feb 2016 08:03:30 -0700, the following appeared
>> >> in talk.origins, posted by "Glenn" <g...@invalid.invalid>:
>> >>
>> >>>"The shifting perspective from a read-only-memory genome with copying errors to a read- and-write genome with competent change operators is fundamental: For decades it was assumed that driving force of evolution is mutation (error) and selection. Now it is recognized that errors cannot explain genetic novelty and complexity."
>> >>>
>> >>>http://www.nature.com/natureevents/science/events/20674-DNA_Habitats_and_it_s_RNA_Inhabitants
>> >>
>> >> OK. In your own words, what is the significance of this
>> >> statement? Please include context. Thanks.
>>
>> >Sure. Settled science?
>> >
>> >"A persistent and fundamental question in evolutionary genetics concerns the
>> >origin of genetic novelty."
>> >
>> >http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/royptb/370/1678/20140332.full.pdf
>>
>> So the significance of the OP is "settled science"? Exactly
>> how? And who ever claimed that all of evolutionary theory is
>> "settled science", when it's obvious that many of the
>> details are still under investigation, as noted in your new
>> reference?
>
>How is genetic random mutation a detail as opposed to a long standing major claim? Of course my question is rhetorical.

....and ignorant. The question isn't whether random mutation
occurs, but how much it influences evolution. There seems to
be some consensus that it's not as strong a factor as once
thought. Big whoop...

>> Do you think that the observed fact of evolution....

>Excuse me?

Why, did you fart?

> Observed fact? Don't you mean inferred from observations? If not show us a live action observation of descent with modification occurring on YouTube?

Yes, observed fact. If you actually understood that
evolution-the-fact is simply the change in allele
frequencies in a population over time (which has been noted
*many* times) you'd understand that. Evolution-the-theory,
OTOH, is the ongoing process of *explaining* that fact.

>> ....as contrasted with the theory which attempts to explain it
>> (and which, as noted, is a "work in progress" like all
>> scientific theories) is refuted, or even challenged, by the
>> unknowns?

>Unknowns! Random genetic mutation has been declared a well understood process for quite some time! The same is a fundamental claim, not a detail. And your comment is logically invalid because it assumes the conclusion via inverting cause-and-effect.

Maybe *you* know what that statement means; I suspect you're
alone in that.

>In reality: The OP evidence says a major component of evolutionary cause is now known not to be true.

Wrong *again*. It says that the influence of that component
isn't as strong as once thought. That's how science works,
Ray; *nothing* is actually "settled science" in the way you
mean it, and every theory is subject to modification as new
evidence is found.

> Yet your commentary insists the same does not harm the validity of the effect (evolution as a result). Sound logic says the degree that cause has been harmed is the same degree effect has been harmed. But in your logic, the effect does not suffer **any** harm. This supports my claim that when the chips are down, evolutionary theory is not really falsifiable. Your commentary says and/or implies the effect of evolution is observed (it is not, it is inferred) then you essentially say nothing can harm the effect----even major harm to cause. And again, error-based mutation is NOT a detail, but a major claim. Yet the falsification of a major claim, in your eyes, has no effect on the alleged validity of the inference of evolution.

It wasn't falsified; that would mean it was found to have
*no* effect. Write that on your hand.

>Bottom line: You're admitting evolution as an effect is not falsifiable, which means evolution is not scientific by 20th century standards.

Of course the theory is falsifiable. And once more,
observations, such as the observed change in allele
frequencies in a population over time, are not theories, and
are not subject to falsification in the manner of theories.

>> It's not; observations of facts are not negated by
>> a lack of full understanding of the causes, or of the
>> details of the process.

>Inverted or perverted logic with no awareness of the fact (effect-and-cause).

How exactly does that ridiculous comment address my
statement which precedes it? Do you claim that lack of full
understanding of causes *does* negate observed facts?

>Error-based mutation isn't a detail, but a major claim.

Yes, and that claim has not been falsified; only its level
of influence is in contention.

I find it fascinating that, when some particular scientific
paper seems to you (in your ignorance) to support you (which
this one doesn't), you're *very* quick to latch onto it,
effective endorsing the science which you otherwise reject
out of hand. Why is that, I wonder?

> Effect is harmed greatly when cause is harmed because absent cause you don't know evolution has occurred? Species could have been created similar to one another, and this is EXACTLY what Genesis implies. And evolution is not directly observed: completely false! Your logic is altogether perverted; structured to prevent objective falsification every step of the way.

Your concept of evolution is indeed not observed. But then,
it's a false concept, so one would expect it to not be
observed. And BTW, speciation *has* been observed, so that
argument is a non-starter anyway, even if it were correct
(which it's not; evolution does not require speciation).

Your basic problems are two: First, you don't really
understand what evolution is, and apparently have a concept
of it similar to "cat gives birth to dog". But more
importantly, you have no real idea how science works in
general, and think research starts from ex nihilo
assumptions (invariably of the "strong atheism" variety) and
cherry-picks data to support those assumptions.

[Glenn]

"Bob Casanova" <nos...@buzz.off> wrote in message news:g82ccbp12rk26rh37...@4ax.com...

You do seem to have some sort of problems.

[*Hemidactylus*]

As Bill Rogers alluded it's sexed up hype to generate interest for a
symposium. Some of the topics sound interesting and over my head. Not
exactly toppling the foundations of evolutionary biology, but maybe
chipping a bit at the edges.

See:
"Infectious RNAgents manipulate host genomes for (i) selfish replicative
purposes or (ii) persistent co-evolutionary integration. The latter in
most cases remain as defectives, i.e. abundance of parts that now serve
as co-opted modular tools for cellular needs or as full function
elements that regulate complex developmental processes such as
placentation in mammals. Also mixed consortia of RNA- and DNA
virus-derived parts that integrate in host genomes have been found."

Retrovectors perhaps? Retroviruses abound in our genomes.

AND

"All fine-tuned steps and substeps of key cellular processes such as
gene expression, transcription, translation, DNA recombination and
repair, epigenetic imprinting (memory, learning), as well as various
forms of innate and adaptive immunity are essentially constituted by
such natural genetic content operators."

Seems like Semon's mnemic organic memory retooled. The genetics of
immunity sure are neat IMO. Will you be covering that in your book?

[*Hemidactylus*]

Umm, what is meant by "new genes"? Are we talking about those arising by
duplication or the de novo manner in the previous link you glossed over
as earth shattering? Curious minds want to know.

[*Hemidactylus*]

Yeah this paper is talking about de novo genes that seeming arise out of
non-coding areas and not as duplicates from existing genes. Duplicates
are initial redundant and selection is relaxed a bit with a degree of
freedom not present before. The duplicated gene can then diverge in
function. The de novo approach in this paper you linked is a bit
different in that it must have a gene product beneficial to the organism
to achieve relevance vis a vis selection and not get culled if
deleterious. But in small populations drift may be more important than
selection. And what proprtion of genes in the human genome are these
sort of de novo?

I found these juicy tidbits:

"We carried out an independent analysis to identify protein-
coding genes in human and Homininae. Our criteria were
purposely very strict to avoid inclusion of ambiguous cases
such as those hinting at protein elongations or those cases
where recent independent gene losses could not be excluded.
We found a total of 35 de novo candidates: 16 human-
specific, 5 human + chimp-specific and 14 Homininae-specific
(D Guerzoni and A McLysaght, manuscript in preparation).
These counts are roughly proportional to branch lengths and
thus support the inference of a relatively constant rate of de
novo gene acquisition in this lineage.

[...]

The numbers of genes detected vary quite widely from study to
study with very little overlap (table 1). For example, the first
report of human-specific de novo genes predicted around 18
such genes should exist [26], whereas a more recent paper
identified 60 [28]."

How many genes in the human genome?

And I'm not competent to assert much, but could there be a risk of
veering towards ENCODE hype excesses? There might be some incipent de
novo genes just waiting to break through to relevance, but lots of stuff
that might appear potential function at first glance with probes might
just be irrelevant garbage. I'm not Larry Moran so I don't know.

[Bob Casanova]

On Thu, 18 Feb 2016 13:48:14 -0700, the following appeared

>You do seem to have some sort of problems.

Not really; attempting to elicit meaning from the postings
of idiots isn't a problem per se. It sometimes gets amusing,
though.

[Bob Casanova]

On Thu, 18 Feb 2016 19:35:36 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by *Hemidactylus*
<ecph...@allspamis.invalid>:

I hope you don't expect an actual response...

[Bob Casanova]

On Thu, 18 Feb 2016 11:39:10 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>:

[Crickets...]

[Glenn]

"Bob Casanova" <nos...@buzz.off> wrote in message news:8jnecb1ee2nn9i1gc...@4ax.com...

At least you think you get some sort of enjoyment out of life.

[Glenn]

"Bob Casanova" <nos...@buzz.off> wrote in message news:apnecbhpfkstmognq...@4ax.com...

Which is what your rant deserves.

[Glenn]

"Bob Casanova" <nos...@buzz.off> wrote in message news:hnnecbl76sjbajdqa...@4ax.com...

Should he?

[Bob Casanova]

On Fri, 19 Feb 2016 11:42:25 -0700, the following appeared

>At least you think you get some sort of enjoyment out of life.

Oh, that's not in question; watching your antics offers
endless entertainment.

[Bob Casanova]

On Fri, 19 Feb 2016 11:42:55 -0700, the following appeared

>Should he?

Not really, for obvious reasons.

[Bob Casanova]

On Fri, 19 Feb 2016 11:43:52 -0700, the following appeared

>Which is what your rant deserves.

It's fascinating how a factual post becomes a "rant" when
some idiot can't refute it...

Perhaps you could note the part of my "rant" which is
incorrect; I'm sure Ray can't and could use the assistance.
The blind leading the halt and lame, as it were...

[Glenn]

"Bob Casanova" <nos...@buzz.off> wrote in message news:hcchcb9g0563c7g7h...@4ax.com...

Goody for you.

[Glenn]

"Bob Casanova" <nos...@buzz.off> wrote in message news:oechcb9mo436g8k1n...@4ax.com...

We agree on that, but obviously not for what you consider obvious.

[Glenn]

"Bob Casanova" <nos...@buzz.off> wrote in message news:8gchcb90vilftugbb...@4ax.com...

Rants need no "refutation".

>
> Perhaps you could note the part of my "rant" which is
> incorrect; I'm sure Ray can't and could use the assistance.
> The blind leading the halt and lame, as it were...
> --

You demonstrate your "blindness" just fine without my help.

[*Hemidactylus*]

Your responses leave something to be desired.

[Glenn]

"*Hemidactylus*" <ecph...@allspamis.invalid> wrote in message news:A9OdnfNY1dsRJlXL...@giganews.com...

I'm sure.

[RonO]

On 2/16/2016 9:03 AM, Glenn wrote:
> "The shifting perspective from a read-only-memory genome with copying errors to a read- and-write genome with competent change operators is fundamental: For decades it was assumed that driving force of evolution is mutation (error) and selection. Now it is recognized that errors cannot explain genetic novelty and complexity."
>
> http://www.nature.com/natureevents/science/events/20674-DNA_Habitats_and_it_s_RNA_Inhabitants
>

Do you understand what these guys are claiming. Your god is the god of
the DNA parasites.

For some reason they claim that mutations caused by the DNA parasites
(transposons and retrovirus etc) are not the same type of errors that
could happen without such parasites. They are mobile (jump around the
genome) and they do carry transcriptional regulatory sequences with them
(they have to replicate somehow). Is this the type of god that you want
to worship?

There are other methods to transfer regulatory regions around the
genome, but transposons are obviously better at it. You have Alu
transposons in your genome that account for around 10% of your genomic
sequence. Around every 3,000 base-pairs you have a 300 base-pair Alu
sequence that has jumped into that space. Different people have Alu in
different places because they are parasites that can pick themselves up
and put themselves down someplace else in the genome.

Alu is only one such parasite in your genome. You also have retrovirus
that integrate into your genome. Things like HIV. As virus they can
make you sick like a flu virus, but as a DNA parasite they can cause
issues like cancer if they integrate into the wrong region of your genome.

It is a given that these are not your normal mutations, but they are
mutations in your genome and they are not directed by any higher force
in nature.

Have you ever thought about trying to explain something of your own.
Just one IDiot explanation that can be verified in nature.

Why are you limited to what you think that we cannot explain? What
always happens when it gets explained?

Ron Okimoto

[Bob Casanova]

On Sat, 20 Feb 2016 14:16:28 -0500, the following appeared

>> We agree on that, but obviously not for what you consider obvious.

>Your responses leave something to be desired.

Silence, perhaps?

[Bob Casanova]

On Sat, 20 Feb 2016 11:46:06 -0700, the following appeared

Of course not. So do you intend to try to refute my
non-rant?

>> Perhaps you could note the part of my "rant" which is
>> incorrect; I'm sure Ray can't and could use the assistance.
>> The blind leading the halt and lame, as it were...

>You demonstrate your "blindness" just fine without my help.

Did you fart?

[Glenn]

"RonO" <roki...@cox.net> wrote in message news:nachv8$oev$1...@dont-email.me...

Get help, Ron.

[Glenn]

"Bob Casanova" <nos...@buzz.off> wrote in message news:oh0kcb58pastaj0ep...@4ax.com...

Stop ranting.

>
>>> Perhaps you could note the part of my "rant" which is
>>> incorrect; I'm sure Ray can't and could use the assistance.
>>> The blind leading the halt and lame, as it were...
>
>>You demonstrate your "blindness" just fine without my help.
>
> Did you fart?
> --

Why do you ask?

[Bob Casanova]

On Mon, 22 Feb 2016 05:24:53 -0700, the following appeared

Done, 2 posts back.

>>>> Perhaps you could note the part of my "rant" which is
>>>> incorrect; I'm sure Ray can't and could use the assistance.
>>>> The blind leading the halt and lame, as it were...
>>
>>>You demonstrate your "blindness" just fine without my help.
>>
>> Did you fart?

>Why do you ask?

Just wondering if the gas displaced so much oxygen that
you're suffering from hypoxia; that would explain your
posts.

[RonO]

So you didn't know what you were talking about and you don't care. Who
needs the help?

When do you think that you are going to get the ID science from the ID
perps? Since Dembski called it quits, it looks like more than half the
possible ID science bit the dust. Who else was trying to do anything
with the new law of thermodynamics, SC, and CSI? I guess there is one
person that could help you out with the space alien Dembski claims, but
has he done what he claimed he would do tomorrow?

When is your reality going to change? Why is it still possible to lie
to yourself about IDiocy? Why didn't you just believe Phillip Johnson
and quit with the rest of the IDiots that made up the ID Network and ISCID?

Ron Okimoto

[Glenn]

"Bob Casanova" <nos...@buzz.off> wrote in message news:kbnmcbpk451dco5ec...@4ax.com...

The pursuit of knowledge, eh?

[Bob Casanova]

On Mon, 22 Feb 2016 21:20:46 -0700, the following appeared

>The pursuit of knowledge, eh?

Not really; morbid curiosity would be more accurate. I
confess that I tend to look at physical train wrecks, too,
not just the virtual ones you exemplify so well.

[Glenn]

"Bob Casanova" <nos...@buzz.off> wrote in message news:ef6pcb9m6htu41lpi...@4ax.com...

I'm glad to provide you with a venue.

[Bob Casanova]

On Tue, 23 Feb 2016 19:27:27 -0700, the following appeared

>I'm glad to provide you with a venue.

You don't; Usenet and Supernews do. You merely provide an
example, as I noted.

[Rolf]

"Glenn" <g...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:n9vdij$27q$1...@dont-email.me...

> "The shifting perspective from a read-only-memory genome with copying
> errors to a read- and-write genome with competent change operators is
> fundamental: For decades it was assumed that driving force of evolution is
> mutation (error) and selection. Now it is recognized that errors cannot
> explain genetic novelty and complexity."
>
> http://www.nature.com/natureevents/science/events/20674-DNA_Habitats_and_it_s_RNA_Inhabitants
>

If this is a subject worthy of debating here I think it would have served
the purpose better if the complete abstract(?) would have been included with
the O.P.instead of only a link to the source.

Here is the omitted part of the text an I think I see a somewhat different
picture than a qoutemine allows:

"A variety of RNA based agents play essential roles in evolution and
regulation in all DNA/Protein based life: basic non-coding RNA secondary
structures built of (paired) stems and (not-paired) loops. RNA stem-loop
swarms such as group I introns, group II introns, viroids, viral (RNA
viruses, retrotransposons, LTRs, non-LTRs) and subviral networks (SINEs,
LINEs, Alus) cooperate within cellular genomes as modular tools with its
abundance of regulatory functions. Some noncoding RNAs built complementary
consortia such as rRNAs, tRNAs, spliceosomes, editosomes, and other RNPs.
Additionally counterbalancing modules such as toxin/antitoxin (TA) -,
restriction/modification (RM) -, and insertion/deletion (INDEL) ? modules
assure identity (self/non-self) of cells, tissues, organs and even
organisms.
Infectious RNAgents manipulate host genomes for (i) selfish replicative
purposes or (ii) persistent co-evolutionary integration. The latter in most
cases remain as defectives, i.e. abundance of parts that now serve as
co-opted modular tools for cellular needs or as full function elements that
regulate complex developmental processes such as placentation in mammals.
Also mixed consortia of RNA- and DNA virus-derived parts that integrate in
host genomes have been found.

All fine-tuned steps and substeps of key cellular processes such as gene
expression, transcription, translation, DNA recombination and repair,
epigenetic imprinting (memory, learning), as well as various forms of innate
and adaptive immunity are essentially constituted by such natural genetic
content operators."

Rolf