Evolutionists: How did legs evolve?

[patrick jane]

Don't need to be clairvoyant to see the future on that one...

Did ya get your legs from monkeys too, Art?

 

[The Barbarian]

To summarize:
Vertebrate legs have been shown to have evolved from the bony fins of lobed-fin fish, which have the same bones as tetrapods. Genetics, anatomy, and fossil transitionals all show the same fact.

Arthropod legs have been shown to have evolved from lobopods of annelid worms or their close relatives. Again, genetic data, fossil transitionals and anatomy have shown this to be true.

The "legs" Clete has mentioned in transport proteins (kinesins in the particular molecule he is discussing) have been shown to have evolved from simpler kinesins that did not involve transport or "legs."

 

[Arthur Brain]

Did ya get your legs from monkeys too, Art?

No, Wallmart...

 

[6days]

Why then do you spend so much effort trying to argue against the notion that some genetic sequences are non-functional?

I argue against your false belief system, that declares things "junk" as you did, without full knowledge.

It's fascinating that you would cite those papers, where they explain the evolutionary history of certain sequences (and how the evolutionary framework is the basis for their discoveries), and in doing so describe how mutations turn non-functional repeats into functional sequences. One would think that such a process would be an increase in "genetic information", would it not?

Wait.... before we move the goalposts, are you now agreeing that some microsats are not junk; that they serve a purpose, and do have function?

 

[Jose Fly]

I argue against your false belief system, that declares things "junk" as you did, without full knowledge.

But to be clear, we both agree that there are genetic sequences that have no function, correct?

Wait.... before we move the goalposts, are you now agreeing that some microsats are not junk; that they serve a purpose, and do have function?

We've known for quite some time that some microsats have functions, and as the paper you linked to describes, we found that out through an evolutionary framework. But most microsats have no function, and you certainly don't want them to become functional because they cause all sorts of problems.

Now back to my question. The paper you linked to describes how mutations have turned non-functional microsats into functional sequences. Is that a gain of "genetic information"?

 

[Stripe]

No one really expected Stipe to back up his daffy notion of complexity. As predicted, blurted out some generic insults and ran for the bunker. It's his M.O.Every other YE creationist peddling the "complexity" scam does the same thing. Let's make it easier for Stipe, who is clearly befuddled by the data I gave him.Stipe, just tell us which has more complexity, a rabbit or a bumblebee? Show your numbers and how you got them(prediction: Stipe will yet again dodge the question and give us some more generic insults)

Nope. The issue is your incorrect assertion about how science works.

We know why you're desperate to talk about something else. You've been embarrassed once too often.

Predictions are not the be-all-and-end-all.

 

[Stripe]

Don't need to be clairvoyant to see the future on that one...

:mock: Blablaman's toy boy.

 

[Greg Jennings]

They do indeed have joints, of a kind. There'd be no way of putting one foot in front of the other without some sort of pivot point (a.k.a. joint) and the foot has a specific function beyond simply being the end of the leg and it too has a pivot point. I understand that its a protein, folding and unfolding, but that doesn't mean that the pivot points that we would call a joint in any other context don't exist.

Regardless, the point is that they are fully function legs. They aren't "like a leg"; they don't just look like legs in appearance; they function precisely as fully fledged legs, similar in function to any other set of legs you want to name. Their structure is different but their function is not. They are legs - period.

Clete

Again, this is an animation. There are no mini-muscles and mini-ligaments powering these "molecular legs" and keeping them together

 

[Greg Jennings]

Of course they are different. Are you suggesting that because they're different that they didn't evolve? If not, what's the point in saying something so obvious?

Because intracellular machinery often operates on a quantum scale.

Do you understand how that differs from normal, everyday life?

 

[6days]

But to be clear, we both agree that there are genetic sequences that have no function, correct?

I don't know. There very well could be some functionless sequences (especially in plants). ...even likely, since we have had about 6000 years of mutations.

We've know for quite some time that some microsats have functions...

It would seem you did not know that. When you were pressed for an answer you said "Microsats have no function".

and as the paper you linked to describes, we found that out through an evolutionary framework.But most microsats have no function, and you certainly don't want them to become functional because they cause all sorts of problems.

Jose... you now seem to be chasing your tale. You started your discussion on microsats trying to prove neutral mutations exist. You seem to have come full circle and now argue that mutations even on' junk' can be detrimental to our genome.

Now back to my question. The paper you linked to describes how mutations have turned non-functional microsats into functional sequences. Is that a gain of "genetic information"?

Your 'question seems to be a bunny trail leading away from the discussion on if neutral mutations exist. But, in any case the answer to your question is 'most likely NO' There is much unknown about our genome, and evolutionists keep coming up with false conclusions based on their false history beliefs. For example... we don't know if the microsat is triggered by a gentic switch, like a design feature. We don't know if the microsat had no purpose previously.


So..... back to where we started. Why did you ask "if you get a mutation in a microsatellite region of your genome, what effect will it have?" and then say 'microsats have no function'?.

 

[Clete]

Again, this is an animation. There are no mini-muscles and mini-ligaments powering these "molecular legs" and keeping them together

No need to repeat yourself but in actual fact, you're only half right. While there aren't actual muscles and other connective tissues, there are things that perform the same function. Otherwise, as I said before, there'd be no way to put one foot in front of the other. You can make every attempt you'd like to undermine it but it won't work. The fact is that those motor proteins have fully functional legs. Legs that evolution hasn't a prayer of ever explaining (along with a thousand other molecular machines).

Because intracellular machinery often operates on a quantum scale.

Do you understand how that differs from normal, everyday life?

As a matter of fact, I do. Well enough, in fact, to know without a doubt that it has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with this debate.

He's a question that is relevant to the discussion.

If you saw this...

Rope Weaver

would you assume that it had been designed, manufacture, assembled and maintained by someone or would be willing to entertain the notion that it happened to come together by a lucky set of undirected cause and effect events that started by accident?


Clete

 

[SUTG]

Did ya get your legs from monkeys too, Art?

What does that even mean?

 

[patrick jane]

:mock: Blablaman's toy boy.

:mock: stipe, the internet intellectual.

 

[Greg Jennings]

No need to repeat yourself but in actual fact, you're only half right. While there aren't actual muscles and other connective tissues, there are things that perform the same function. Otherwise, as I said before, there'd be no way to put one foot in front of the other. You can make every attempt you'd like to undermine it but it won't work. The fact is that those motor proteins have fully functional legs. Legs that evolution hasn't a prayer of ever explaining (along with a thousand other molecular machines).


As a matter of fact, I do. Well enough, in fact, to know without a doubt that it has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with this debate.

He's a question that is relevant to the discussion.

If you saw this...

Rope Weaver

would you assume that it had been designed, manufacture, assembled and maintained by someone or would be willing to entertain the notion that it happened to come together by a lucky set of undirected cause and effect events that started by accident?


Clete

These aren't fully functional legs. Nobody but yourself had said as much.

You are projecting what you want onto as admitted best-guess animation. As they said, this is the only way WE can understand what's going on in our cells. That doesn't mean it actually happens exactly that way. Quantum level is simply too small

 

[Jose Fly]

I don't know. There very well could be some functionless sequences (especially in plants)

So if you have no problem with the possibility of non-functional sequences, why is the notion of neutral mutations such an issue for you? Obviously if a sequence is non-functional, a point mutation that doesn't change its non-functional state would be neutral, correct?

When you were pressed for an answer you said "Microsats have no function".

And that's generally true.

You started your discussion on microsats trying to prove neutral mutations exist. You seem to have come full circle and now argue that mutations even on' junk' can be detrimental to our genome.

One thing you need to understand about biology is that things are rarely black/white, all-or-none. Some mutations to non-functional sequences will be neutral, some will be negative, and some will be beneficial. I mean...the paper you linked to described all that. Didn't you read it?

the answer to your question is 'most likely NO'

And thus we see the uselessness of the "genetic information" creationist talking point. Apparently changing a non-functional genetic sequence to a functional one (even if it's beneficial as the paper you linked to described) isn't an increase in "genetic information".

And that's what makes this so funny.

So..... back to where we started. Why did you ask "if you get a mutation in a microsatellite region of your genome, what effect will it have?" and then say 'microsats have no function'?.

See above.

 

[Clete]

These aren't fully functional legs. Nobody but yourself had said as much.

Saying it doesn't make it so, Greg.

The thing walks and steps over obstacles. In what way are they less than fully functioning as legs?

You are projecting what you want onto as admitted best-guess animation.

I'm projecting nothing. No one, and I mean not one single scientist on this planet disputes the science behind that animation.

As they said, this is the only way WE can understand what's going on in our cells. That doesn't mean it actually happens exactly that way. Quantum level is simply too small

This is just wishful thinking on your part. The fact is that it does actually happen that way or very nearly so. That's what makes the animation so remarkable. He didn't just make it up. This isn't some example of a fancy cartoon based on pure theory. They know very precisely just how these proteins fold and unfold, what shape they are and why they are that shape and how they accomplish the tasked they are used for. It is chemistry. And, as I said earlier, Quantum Mechanics, has nothing to do with it. Quantum Mechanics operates almost entirely on the subatomic level, not the molecular level. These molecular machines are several orders of magnitude bigger than things that are governed by Quantum Mechanics. It's chemistry, well established, well understood chemistry not theoretical sub-atomic physics.

Clete

 

[Greg Jennings]

Saying it doesn't make it so, Greg.

The thing walks and steps over obstacles. In what way are they less than fully functioning as legs?


I'm projecting nothing. No one, and I mean not one single scientist on this planet disputes the science behind that animation.


This is just wishful thinking on your part. The fact is that it does actually happen that way or very nearly so. That's what makes the animation so remarkable. He didn't just make it up. This isn't some example of a fancy cartoon based on pure theory. They know very precisely just how these proteins fold and unfold, what shape they are and why they are that shape and how they accomplish the tasked they are used for. It is chemistry. And, as I said earlier, Quantum Mechanics, has nothing to do with it. Quantum Mechanics operates almost entirely on the subatomic level, not the molecular level. These molecular machines are several orders of magnitude bigger than things that are governed by Quantum Mechanics. It's chemistry, well established, well understood chemistry not theoretical sub-atomic physics.

Clete

Well Mr. Clete it appears we are reaching an impasse that cannot be bridge between us. No scientist would agree that molecular legs are real legs

 

[Clete]

Well Mr. Clete it appears we are reaching an impasse that cannot be bridge between us. No scientist would agree that molecular legs are real legs

Liar.

The translation of your post is... "I got nothin'!"

If you had any cojent response to the argument at all, it would take an act of God Himself to keep you from shouting from the roof tops.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Because intracellular machinery often operates on a quantum scale.

Do you understand how that differs from normal, everyday life?

Explaining complexity with even greater complexity. Funny how that works...

 

[6days]

So if you have no problem with the possibility of non-functional sequences, why is the notion of neutral mutations such an issue for you?

Haha... ask yourself and Greg why it's such a big deal. Why are you trying so hard to prove neutral mutations exist when it's impossible to prove. When geneticists graph all mutations on the negative side of zero, why do you want some mutations to be totally neutral?

You started your discussion on microsats trying to prove neutral mutations exist. You seem to have come full circle and now argue that mutations even on' junk' can be detrimental to our genome.

One thing you need to understand about biology is that things are rarely black/white, all-or-none.

Some mutations to non-functional sequences will be neutral, some will be negative, and some will be beneficial.

Then, that is what you should have answered instead of trying to be cute with the truth.

I mean...the paper you linked to described all that. Didn't you read it?

The papers I cited refuted your argument of no function. You obviously had not read them.