[_ Old Earth _] Questions about ID

[lordkalvan]

......it is doubtful that very many of Moses' readers were "Darwinists".

It is even more doubtful, in a pre-literate society, if very many individuals could read the OT at all. Most of the audience would understand interpretations of text provided by sages, scholars and priests.

Hint: The 5 books of Moses are written at the time of Israel in the dessert for 40 years.

This is a non sequitur. Your point is what? That because the Pentateuch was 'written at the time of Israel in the desert for 40 years' (an absurd period of time itself) it was not written in and for a pre-literate society, and not interpreted for the largely illiterate masses by sages, scholars and priests, not all of whom would necessarily have been literate either?

Let's go back to step 1 in Exegesis.

The intent of the author as his words are read by his primary intended reader.

You presume to know the intent of writer(s) dead for millennia and you presume to know how the words would be understood by the intended audience.

You appear in a "backhanded dragging feet" kinda way to admit that neither Moses NOR his readers were thinking "Darwinism" as they all saw the words

"SIX DAYS you shall labor... FOR IN SIX days the LORD MADE".

How could Moses, or anyone else at that time, be supposed to be 'thinking Darwinism'? Most of them probably thought the world was flat and the stars just tiny lights in the sky. Does this mean that whatever they were thinking must ipso facto have been correct?

Is this the part where you tell us that paying attention to this "inconvenient detail" is a bad idea?

No, it's the part where I tell you that you presume to know more than you have grounds for knowing.

[quote:8280e]so that leads to the obvious question -- how would a "non-Darwinist" read this text?

Ex 20
8 ""Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.
9 "" Six days you shall labor and do all your work,
10 but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the LORD your God; in it you shall not do any work, you or your son or your daughter, your male or your female servant or your cattle or your sojourner who stays with you.
11 "" For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.[/quote:8280e]
Well, that would very much depend on the pre-existing assumptions the 'non-Darwinist' had about the use of language by the writer and the intent behind that use. What did the writer understand? What did the writer intend the expected audience to understand?

[quote:8280e]L.K.
Why would a 'non-Darwinist' necessarily interpret it differently from a 'Darwinist'?

The non-Darwinist would have no "reason to wrench the texT" as you claim you need to do.[/quote:8280e]
That does not mean that the 'non-Darwinist' would bring to their interpretation of the text the same understanding that you do. Your point does not follow because you presume only two mutually exclusive alternatives: the 'Darwinist' is ideologically driven to deny that only one conclusion can be drawn from the text; the 'non-Darwinist' is logically driven to agree with Bob's conclusion drawn from the text.

 

[BobRyan]

Bob said

[quote:5be5e]L.K.
Why would a 'non-Darwinist' necessarily interpret it differently from a 'Darwinist'?

The non-Darwinist would have no "reason to wrench the texT" as you claim you need to do.[/quote:5be5e]

That does not mean that the 'non-Darwinist' would bring to their interpretation of the text the same understanding that you do. Your point does not follow because you presume only two mutually exclusive alternatives: the 'Darwinist' is ideologically driven to deny that only one conclusion can be drawn from the text; the 'non-Darwinist' is logically driven to agree with Bob's conclusion drawn from the text.

You keep pointing to this mythical 3rd solution that is not the darwinist one you choose and is not the darwinist-and-Christian one that I demonstrate BOTH sides to accept. Please show such a non-Darwinist conclusion that ignores the direct meaning in the text that I SHOW BOTH Darwinists and Christians to "easly get" right off the bat!

Bob said --
You appear in a "backhanded dragging feet" kinda way to admit that neither Moses NOR his readers were thinking "Darwinism" as they all saw the words

"SIX DAYS you shall labor... FOR IN SIX days the LORD MADE".

L.K
How could Moses, or anyone else at that time, be supposed to be 'thinking Darwinism'? Most of them probably thought the world was flat and the stars just tiny lights in the sky. Does this mean that whatever they were thinking must ipso facto have been correct?

In which case EVEN in your model the OBVIOUS conclusion they draw from the way the text is framed is?.... (you like dancing around that point for some reason)

Bob asks

[quote:5be5e]so that leads to the obvious question -- how would a "non-Darwinist" read this text?

Ex 20
8 ""Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.
9 "" Six days you shall labor and do all your work,
10 but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the LORD your God; in it you shall not do any work, you or your son or your daughter, your male or your female servant or your cattle or your sojourner who stays with you.
11 "" For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.[/quote:5be5e]

L.K
Well, that would very much depend on the pre-existing assumptions the 'non-Darwinist' had about the use of language by the writer and the intent behind that use. What did the writer understand? What did the writer intend the expected audience to understand?

Fine - provide an example of the non-Darwinist coming up with something besides the obvious meaning in the text as we can all clearly see it?

Particularly applicable to the point given that I have provided examples of BOTH non-Darwinists AND DARWINISTS admitting to the SAME conclusion about the obvious meaning in "SIX days you shall labor...FOR in SIX days the LORD MADE the heavens and the earth the sea and ALL that is in them.."

"again" -- Time to "pony up" some actual math on that repeated assertion of yours -- since I have already done it for mine. (A long while back).

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Bob Ryan

1. I have already conceded that even the ORTHODOX (i.e most strict of the Jewish sects) have caved in to Darwinian doctrine.

No, you claimed that Orthodox Rabbis who had 'caved in to Darwinian doctrine' supported your exegesis of Exodus 20.

No -- here again I see that we have "failure to communicate".

The argument is that Orthodox Rabbis WHO DO teach Darwinism -- are ALSO the same group that admit from a linguistic POV that the term YOM used in Exodus 20:8-11 is provided in a context meaning 24 hour -- literal day JUST LIKE we see Jews today observing that SAME 7 day cycle.

I also argue that they readily place tradition HIGHER than the text of scripture so it does not matter to them that the text itself is locked-in to a 24 hour time line.

We keep coming back to these two points as if they were never stated. I find that confusing.

L.K said -

I have yet to see you substantiate either of these two points by quotation, reference or citation.

Here is a hint showing the same thing in print that I got in first hand (not audio taped) interview with one of the Rabbis in Jerusalem.

http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/rncse_ ... 0_1899.asp

Though I fail to see how facts are changing your argument one iota.

And "yet" as I stated - when it comes to the Sabbath commandment of Exodus 20 -- they make no bones about the fact of the day being a real 7 day cycle all the way back to creation.

When Moses told the Jews about the forthcoming Manna, he said (Ex. 16:26), "You shall gather it for six days, but on the seventh day, the Sabbath, there shall be none."

This also answers another important question. How do we know which day was the Sabbath? Who counted it from the time of Creation?

The answer is that G-d Himself revealed the exact day of the Sabbath in giving the Manna. 14

Thus, the Torah says (Ex. 16:29), "See, G-d has given you the Sabbath. Therefore, He gives you two days' food every sixth day ... let no man go out on the seventh day."

From then on, for over three thousand years from the Exodus until our own day, the Sabbath has been faithfully kept.

We recall the Exodus and the miracle of the Manna every time we celebrate the Shabbos.

http://www.ou.org/publications/kaplan/shabbat/why.htm

Bob

 

[lordkalvan]

That does not mean that the 'non-Darwinist' would bring to their interpretation of the text the same understanding that you do. Your point does not follow because you presume only two mutually exclusive alternatives: the 'Darwinist' is ideologically driven to deny that only one conclusion can be drawn from the text; the 'non-Darwinist' is logically driven to agree with Bob's conclusion drawn from the text.

You keep pointing to this mythical 3rd solution that is not the darwinist one you choose and is not the darwinist-and-Christian one that I demonstrate BOTH sides to accept. Please show such a non-Darwinist conclusion that ignores the direct meaning in the text that I SHOW BOTH Darwinists and Christians to "easly get" right off the bat!

Sorry, the burden of proof is with you. You argue the point that there are only two solutions to your stated problem, but you have yet to show that there are only two solutions. You see the world as either this or that when I see it as many shades inbetween. I may have missed an earlier reply to this point, in which case I am sorry, but is someone who accepts the fact of microevolution but denies the fact of macroevolution a 'Darwinist' or a 'non-Darwinist'?

[quote:895df]L.K
How could Moses, or anyone else at that time, be supposed to be 'thinking Darwinism'? Most of them probably thought the world was flat and the stars just tiny lights in the sky. Does this mean that whatever they were thinking must ipso facto have been correct?

In which case EVEN in your model the OBVIOUS conclusion they draw from the way the text is framed is?.... (you like dancing around that point for some reason)[/quote:895df]
I lack your confident certainty in being so sure in my interpretation as to what the obvious conclusion is. That you regard an argument based on the fact that text cannot be analysed with objective certainty, because both the act of writing and the act of analysis are inherently subjective, as 'dancing around [the] point' says more about your unwillingness to consider my argument on its own merits rather than in the terms you wish it to be framed.

[quote:895df]L.K
Well, that would very much depend on the pre-existing assumptions the 'non-Darwinist' had about the use of language by the writer and the intent behind that use. What did the writer understand? What did the writer intend the expected audience to understand?

Fine - provide an example of the non-Darwinist coming up with something besides the obvious meaning in the text as we can all clearly see it?[/quote:895df]
You asked a hypothetical question. I provided you with a hypothetical answer. I do not need to provide you with an example; I only need to show that the possibility of an alternative viewpoint exists. I have already pointed you to examples of 'non-Darwinist' biblical scholars who argue that the creation days are not actual, literal 24-hour days. Why is this so unpalatable to you that you avoid addressing the reasons they have for their conclusions?

Particularly poignant given that I have provided examples of BOTH non-Darwinists AND DARWINISTS admitting to the SAME conclusion about the obvious meaning in "SIX days you shall labor...FOR in SIX days the LORD MADE the heavens and the earth the sea and ALL that is in them.."

You have asserted such examples; you have not actually supported them with quotations and references. If you have and I have missed this, I am sorry. Can you provide links?

"again" -- Time to "pony up" some actual math on that repeated assertion of yours -- since I have already done it for mine. (A long while back).

Again you are presuming that because I question the assumptions underlying your analysis I must therefore be saying your analysis is wrong. I say no such thing; I only say that you have no grounds for the certainty of your conclusion and that there are ample reasons for me to doubt that your conclusion is the only one that can be arrived at. There is no actual objective math that supports your assertion. Whether you carry out your subjective analysis once, ten times or a hundred times and come to the same conclusion every time is not proof that your analysis is objectively correct and makes no difference to the fact that it remains subjective. This is the point you refuse to grasp.

 

[lordkalvan]

Here is a hint showing the same thing in print that I got in first hand (not audio taped) interview with one of the Rabbis in Jerusalem.

http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/rncse_ ... 0_1899.asp

And yet you still fail to name or quote your source. Does this reference from the article you cited above support your argument?

Rabbis AI Kook and JB Soloveitchik, for example, two of the giants of early-to-mid–20th–century Orthodox Judaism in Palestine and in the United States, respectively, both embraced evolutionary thought based on their readings of canonical, normative Jewish texts and exegeses.

Seems like these Rabbis reconciled evolutionary thought and exegesis of biblical text without the concession to your argument that you keep claiming.

Though I fail to see how facts are changing your argument one iota.

Because you have so far failed to provide anything that could reasonably be interpreted as a fact rather than assertion, opinion and appeals to anonymous authority.

And "yet" as I stated - when it comes to the Sabbath commandment of Exodus 20 -- they make no bones about the fact of the day being a real 7 day cycle all the way back to creation.

More assertion. Why the quotation marks around 'yet'?

When Moses told the Jews about the forthcoming Manna, he said (Ex. 16:26), "You shall gather it for six days, but on the seventh day, the Sabbath, there shall be none."

This also answers another important question. How do we know which day was the Sabbath? Who counted it from the time of Creation?

The answer is that G-d Himself revealed the exact day of the Sabbath in giving the Manna. 14

Thus, the Torah says (Ex. 16:29), "See, G-d has given you the Sabbath. Therefore, He gives you two days' food every sixth day ... let no man go out on the seventh day."

How do you know which was the chicken and which was the egg in this piece of ex facto rationalising?

From then on, for over three thousand years from the Exodus until our own day, the Sabbath has been faithfully kept.

We recall the Exodus and the miracle of the Manna every time we celebrate the Shabbos.

So.....? Are you arguing that the seven-day week is an exclusively biblical artefact and that this in some way establishes the literal truth of the Bible? If you are, I would suggest you do some further research on the origins of the seven-day week before arriving at such a conclusion. You could start here:

http://www.ac.wwu.edu/~stephan/Astronomy/7day.html

and continue here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Week

 

[BobRyan]

That does not mean that the 'non-Darwinist' would bring to their interpretation of the text the same understanding that you do. Your point does not follow because you presume only two mutually exclusive alternatives: the 'Darwinist' is ideologically driven to deny that only one conclusion can be drawn from the text; the 'non-Darwinist' is logically driven to agree with Bob's conclusion drawn from the text.

You keep pointing to this mythical 3rd solution that is not the darwinist one you choose and is not the darwinist-and-Christian one that I demonstrate BOTH sides to accept. Please show such a non-Darwinist conclusion that ignores the direct meaning in the text that I SHOW BOTH Darwinists and Christians to "easly get" right off the bat!

Sorry, the burden of proof is with you.

I am not the one that keeps arguing that "there exists" a third option -- you do.

When you make wild claims like that the burden of proof is on you to prove that your claim is anything other then fleeting momentary imagination.

For example -- were you to claim that the easter bunny lives in a candy store on the far side of the moon from earth.

Wild claims have to be substantiated by the one making them.

Obviously.

(As it normally goes for these threads - I seem to be left with the job of pointing out the obvious points).

You argue the point that there are only two solutions to your stated problem,

And I show them BOTH due to the incredibly obvious nature of the language in the text..

You argue that there are three -- and then provide nothing to back up such a claim.

You see the world as either this or that when I see it as many shades inbetween.

Great -- now you claim to have even more than 3 for non-Darwnists.

I will accept you providing factual support for just one.

Please go ahead and provide factual evidence for your claim at any moment you feel is right.

L.K
I may have missed an earlier reply to this point, in which case I am sorry, but is someone who accepts the fact of microevolution but denies the fact of macroevolution a 'Darwinist' or a 'non-Darwinist'?

All Creationists I know - do that.

[quote:c8c9d]L.K
How could Moses, or anyone else at that time, be supposed to be 'thinking Darwinism'? Most of them probably thought the world was flat and the stars just tiny lights in the sky. Does this mean that whatever they were thinking must ipso facto have been correct?

Bob said -
In which case EVEN in your model the OBVIOUS conclusion they draw from the way the text is framed is?.... (you like dancing around that point for some reason)[/quote:c8c9d]

This is where you say "They read this text and then concluded that the SIX DAYS the LORD MADE meant..." because they were thinking the stars were tiny lights in the sky.

But instead (and of course "predictably") we get this...

L.K
I lack your confident certainty in being so sure in my interpretation as to what the obvious conclusion is. That you regard an argument based on the fact that text cannot be analysed with objective certainty, because both the act of writing and the act of analysis are inherently subjective, as 'dancing around [the] point'...

Ok -- so still not ready to commit on that one - eh?

Remember you are the one who admits they are not teaching darwinism and you are among those here who can easily read the plain language in the text.

so... we will continue to wait for you to come around on that one.

Bob said

[quote:c8c9d]L.K
Well, that would very much depend on the pre-existing assumptions the 'non-Darwinist' had about the use of language by the writer and the intent behind that use. What did the writer understand? What did the writer intend the expected audience to understand?

Fine - provide an example of the non-Darwinist coming up with something besides the obvious meaning in the text as we can all clearly see it?[/quote:c8c9d]

L.K.
You asked a hypothetical question. I provided you with a hypothetical answer.

In case of the "non-darwinist coming up with something OTHER THAN the obvious reading of the text" we have "only you" as a source for that.

Nothing hypothetical about that from my point of view -- I do not conjecture that such a thing exists -- but clearly you imagine that it exists.

I simply ask that you provide something other than imagination as support for your guess -- and innexplicably, you keep claiming that this is my job.

L.K.
I do not need to provide you with an example; I only need to show that the possibility of an alternative viewpoint exists.

I see that that exercise in imagination clearly satisifies your need for actual substantive evidence ...

needless to say -- I do not go for simply "making stuff up" as "all the evidence needed".

Clearly we differ there. But as Patterson notes "Stories in Darwinism about how one thing came from another - are stories easy enough to tell but not science".

Perhaps this is just "something you get used to" if you are a Darwinist.

Who knows!?

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Here is a hint showing the same thing in print that I got in first hand (not audio taped) interview with one of the Rabbis in Jerusalem.

http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/rncse_ ... 0_1899.asp

And yet you still fail to name or quote your source. Does this reference from the article you cited above support your argument?

As you remember - you admitted to the obvious fact that my point from the Orthodox Rabbis statement was TWO.

1. That they DO preach Darwinism
2. That they DO NOT claim any Hebrew linguistic justification exists for "redefining the term YOM" in Ex 20:8-11

Remember?

Details details.

You said I had not given you a reference to check on BOTH of those points.

So... I gave you one.

And I also noted that whether you get one or not -- the support for the facts you say you question don't appear to lead to your reconsidering the point even when proven.


As for my first point being "established yet again"

You provide this

Rabbis AI Kook and JB Soloveitchik, for example, two of the giants of early-to-mid–20th–century Orthodox Judaism in Palestine and in the United States, respectively, both embraced evolutionary thought based on their readings of canonical, normative Jewish texts and exegeses.

Hello? Are you getting this? That would be point number 1 of the TWO points you claimed that I had not documented.

l.k
Seems like these Rabbis reconciled evolutionary thought and exegesis of biblical text without the concession to your argument that you keep claiming.

Indeed and since I keep asking you to SHOW 'the math" to "Do the work" to support your wild claims in Exodus 20 -- mabye these guys can help you "do it".

I gave you the link -- surely "NOW" you can finally come up with some actual exegesis on Exodus 20!!

(Though I think you recently took the position that exegesis was bunk - are you in a position to change your mind on that - yet?)

Anyway - as usual I am waiting on you to come up with substance for your argument about Exodus 20 just as we wait for substance on your claim about "non Darwinists" having a "3rd view" that differs from the obvious reading of the text.

Meanwhile I have the CONFIRMED view of all the YEC guys on Exodus 20 that DOES AGREE with the SAME view of that text provided by darwinists like, Dawkins, Provine, Meyers, Huxley and yes -- even DARWIN.

And obviously I have the confirmation of the view you provide as a view that "exists" in real life rather than in "pure imagination".

Bob

 

[Snidey]

Not really, nothing more has been put on the table for me to address. I guess I would like to indicate that yes, genetic mutations occur in nature and insertion is one of them.

Some work that might interest you, Potluck:

http://jvi.asm.org/cgi/reprint/64/4/1794.pdf
http://genome.cshlp.org/cgi/content/abstract/10/9/1403
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_o ... b0e817b5c3
http://gastroenterology.jwatch.org/cgi/ ... 2001/731/3
http://signal.salk.edu/tabout.html
http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=1917170
http://hmg.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/conte ... /5/10/1657

 

[Rick W]

Some work that might interest you, Potluck:

Interest me? :o
I asked for examples yes but... :o
These are links you would use as examples to support evolution??? Half of them are parasitic viruses attacking a host cell injecting their own DNA into the cell to do their dirty work and multiply. Another attacks the digestive tract (great for increasing complexity :roll: ), one link is Biotinidase Deficiency (BIOT) found in babies (great for preserving the species :-? ) and the other is a detection tool to aid in finding and killing/eradicating these things. Somewhere in this thread was the word "beneficial". :o


I'll address these links in the sequence they were posted.

1) http://jvi.asm.org/cgi/reprint/64/4/1794.pdf
2) http://genome.cshlp.org/cgi/content/abstract/10/9/1403
3) http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_o ... b0e817b5c3
4) http://gastroenterology.jwatch.org/cgi/ ... 2001/731/3
5) http://signal.salk.edu/tabout.html
6) http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=1917170
7) http://hmg.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/conte ... /5/10/1657

 

[Rick W]

1
http://jvi.asm.org/cgi/reprint/64/4/1794.pdf
Insertion Mutation of the int-1 and int-2 Loci by Mouse Mammary Tumor Virus in Premalignant and malignant Neoplasms from the GR Mouse Strain.

These results indicate that insertion mutation of the int-i and int-2 loci by MMTV provirus can
be involved in the earliest identifiable stages of neoplastic development

MMTV - Provirus.

http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictio ... m/provirus
provirus /pro·vi·rus/ (pro-vi´rus) the genome of an animal virus integrated (by crossing over) into the chromosome of the host cell, and thus replicated in all of its daughter cells. It can be activated to produce a complete virus; it can also cause transformation of the host cell.

 

[Rick W]

2
http://genome.cshlp.org/cgi/content/abstract/10/9/1403
Rapid Detection of Deletion, Insertion, and Substitution Mutations via Heteroduplex Analysis Using Capillary- and Microchip-Based Electrophoresis

With the efforts of the Human Genome Project, our ability to identify genes that are responsible for human diseases will increase immensely. The identification of new genes, the detection of variations in these genes, and the relationship between the disease states and these variants will not only improve our understanding of human disease but also affect the clinical practice (Cantor and Smith 1999; Felsenfeld et al. 1999). As a result of both the DNA sequence information collected by the Human Genome Project and the increasing number of genes linked to specific diseases, it is increasingly more important to develop simple, low-cost, reliable, high-speed, high-throughput methods to detect sequence variations in specific genes.

A great medical tool to combat disease.

 

[Rick W]

3
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_o ... b0e817b5c3
A novel insertion mutation in the FOXL2 gene is detected in a big Chinese family with blepharophimosis–ptosis–epicanthus inversus

Blepharophimosis–ptosis–epicanthus inversus syndrome (BPES), an autosomal dominant syndrome in which an eyelid malformation is associated (type I) or not (type II) with premature ovarian failure (POF), has recently been ascribed to mutations in the forkhead transcription factor 2 (FOXL2) gene. In this work, we reveal a novel insertion mutation in the 3UTR of the FOXL2 gene in a big Chinese family which is to our knowledge the first BPES (type II) family reported in China. It is the first time that a 3UTR mutation in the FOXL2 gene has ever been found to demonstrate a close correlation between genotype and BPES. Our result gains a greater insight into the function of 3UTR in the FOXL2 gene.

http://www.djo.harvard.edu/site.php?url ... page=KR_AN

1. What is the diagnosis and what are the characteristic findings?
Answer: Blepharophimosis/ptosis/epicanthus inversus syndrome (BPES).

* Blepharophimosis - horizontal and vertical shortening of the palpebral fissure. The normal palpebral fissure width is 25-30mm. In BPES the palpebral fissure is typically 18-22 mm.
* Ptosis - drooping of the upper eyelid
* Epicanthus inversus – a medial canthal fold of skin is present which is most prominent in the lower lid

2. What are the associated findings in this condition?
Answer: Premature ovarian failure, or secondary amenorrhea, is seen in a subset of patients with BPES (type 1).

According to one study of 204 patients with BPES, 46% had strabismus and 35% had significant refractive errors.

3. Describe the genetics and pathogenesis of the condition?
Answer: BPES is dominantly inherited. It is the only known form of dominantly inherited premature ovarian failure. The gene responsible for BPES has been identified as the FOXL2 gene on chromosome 3q23. It encodes a forkhead transcription factor that is expressed only in the developing fetal eyelid and granulosa cells. There are 2 types of this condition seen. Type I BPES is characterized by the previously mentioned eye findings as well as premature ovarian failure. The mutations responsible for Type I BPES are those that result in a truncated protein. Type II BPES is characterized by the eyelid findings alone. Mutations further downsteam are responsible for type II BPES.

* Ptosis - drooping of the upper eyelid
* Epicanthus inversus – a medial canthal fold of skin is present which is most prominent in the lower lid

 

[Rick W]

4
http://gastroenterology.jwatch.org/cgi/ ... 2001/731/3
Insertion Mutation in the NOD2 Gene Associated with Crohn's Disease

Must have an account to view the full article at the posted link.
However another site was found on the same subject.



http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11385577
A frameshift mutation in NOD2 associated with susceptibility to Crohn's disease.

Here we show, by using the transmission disequilibium test and case-control analysis, that a frameshift mutation caused by a cytosine insertion, 3020insC, which is expected to encode a truncated NOD2 protein, is associated with Crohn's disease.

http://digestive.niddk.nih.gov/ddisease ... x.htm#what

What is Crohn’s disease?

Crohn’s disease is an ongoing disorder that causes inflammation of the digestive tract, also referred to as the gastrointestinal (GI) tract. Crohn’s disease can affect any area of the GI tract, from the mouth to the anus, but it most commonly affects the lower part of the small intestine, called the ileum. The swelling extends deep into the lining of the affected organ. The swelling can cause pain and can make the intestines empty frequently, resulting in diarrhea.

 

[Rick W]

5
http://signal.salk.edu/tabout.html
A Sequence-Indexed Library of Insertion Mutations in the Arabidopsis Genome

With the availability of the entire Arabidopsis genome sequence, one of the next challenges is to uncover the functions of the more than 25,000 genes in this reference plant. Given the scope of the NSF 2010 program, -to identify the function of all Arabidopsis genes in the next decade-, an efficient and cost effective approach is necessary to identify mutations in all genes. The goal of this program is to create a sequence-indexed library of mutations in the Arabidopsis genome. The Salk Institute Genome Analysis Laboratory (SIGnAL) will use high-throughput genome sequencing methods to identify the sites of insertion of Agrobacterium T-DNA in the Arabidopsis genome.

Agrobacterium

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agrobacterium

Agrobacterium is a genus of Gram-negative bacteria that uses horizontal gene transfer to cause tumors in plants. Agrobacterium tumefaciens is the most commonly studied species in this genus. Agrobacterium is well known for its ability to transfer DNA between itself and plants, and for this reason it has become an important tool for plant improvement by genetic engineering.

http://microbewiki.kenyon.edu/index.php/Agrobacterium

Description and Significance
At the turn of the century Agrobacterium tumefaciens was identified as the causal agent in crown gall disease in dicotyledonous plants. Since then, thorough research has been done on this bacterium's mechanism of tumor induction; in addition, Argorbacterium is used in numerous research projects as a means with which to introduce new genes into the genomes of a number of plants.

 

[Rick W]

6
http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=1917170

Titre du document / Document title
A family of insertion mutations between codons 67 and 70 of human immunodeficiency virus type 1 reverse transcriptase confer multinucleoside analog resistance

HIV


http://www.avert.org/virus.htm

What is HIV?

HIV stands for Human Immunodeficiency Virus. Like all viruses, HIV cannot grow or reproduce on its own. In order to make new copies of itself it must infect the cells of a living organism.

HIV belongs to a special class of viruses called retroviruses. Within this class, HIV is placed in the subgroup of lentiviruses. Other lentiviruses include SIV, FIV, Visna and CAEV, which cause diseases in monkeys, cats, sheep and goats.

 

[Rick W]

7
http://hmg.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/conte ... /5/10/1657
Deletion/insertion mutation that causes biotinidase deficiency may result from the formation of a quasipalindromic structure

Biotinidase is responsible for recycling the vitamin biotin from biocytin that is formed after the proteolytic degradation of the biotin-dependent carboxylases. We have identified a deletion/insertion mutation within exon D of the human biotinidase gene in a child with biotinidase deficiency. The mutation causes a frame shift and premature termination which are predicted to result in a truncated protein.

Biotinidase deficiency is an autosomal recessively inherited trait (3 ,5 ). Children with biotinidase deficiency cannot hydrolyze biocytin and thus cannot recycle biotin. If these children are not treated with biotin supplementation, they become biotin deficient, resulting in multiple carboxylase deficiency and the accumulation of toxic metabolites (6 ). Untreated individuals with biotinidase deficiency may exhibit seizures, hypotonia, ataxia, developmental delay, hearing loss, ophthalmologic abnormalities, alopecia, skin rash, ketolactic acidosis, and organic aciduria, which may result in coma (7 ,8 ). Treatment with pharmacologic doses of biotin resolves and reverses most or all of the clinical symptoms (3 ). Early diagnosis and treatment of biotinidase deficiency are important to prevent permanent neurological damage. Many states and countries perform newborn screening for biotinidase deficiency (9 ).

http://www.savebabies.org/diseasedescri ... nidase.php

Biotinidase Deficiency (BIOT)

Save Babies Through Screening Foundation is comprised of volunteers. Some have children who were helped by newborn screening, and some have children who have died, or suffered brain damage. For many of the Foundation's volunteers, joy comes from knowing that your child was saved. Many hours of hard work have been done to help children, maybe even yours. Please let us hear from you.

What is it?
Biotinidase Deficiency (BIOT) is caused by the lack of an enzyme called biotinidase. Without treatment, this disorder can lead to seizures, developmental delay, eczema, and hearing loss.

Inheritance and Frequency
The gene defect for biotinidase deficiency is unknowingly passed down from generation to generation. This faulty gene usually emerges when two carriers have children together and pass it to their offspring. For each pregnancy of two such carriers, there is a 25% chance that the child will be born with the disease and a 50% chance the child will be a carrier for the gene defect. Studies show that 1 of every 60,000 live births will have biotinidase deficiency.

Signs & Symptoms
Infants with biotinidase deficiency appear normal at birth, but develop critical symptoms after the first weeks or months of life. Symptoms include hypotonia, ataxia, seizures, developmental delay, alopecia, seborrheic dermatitis, hearing loss and optic nerve atrophy. Metabolic acidosis can result in coma and death.

 

[BobRyan]

The result of supposedly hundreds of millions of years of deforming micro-mutations is staysis!!

We see them living today JUST as they were THEN! ...

Coelacanth 410 Million years
Horseshoe Crab – 450 Million years
Cockroach – 350 Million years
crocodile 200 million years ago
Australian and African lungfish 400 Million years ago
Shrimp Living: genus Penaeus) same as fossil shrimp (Antrimpos) 150 Million yrs ago
Sea Turtles still Sea Turtles (from 115 Million years ago – no non-sea turtle ancestors)

--

ID is not about "showing that all of life is designed" ID science is about following the data WHERE it leads and discovering ONE Design at a time.

Deveoted Darwinists constantly miss that salient point in their zealous devotion to darwinist dogma and pretend that finding ONE thing that is to their atheist darwinist reasoning "not designed" is disproving all OTHER designs found in the much more scientific methods of ID science.

Each time they unwittingly use such an a-factual blatantly religionist argument against ID science they expose the real nature of their own darwinist position.

Bob

 

[Snidey]

Um, lol? Those aren't to "support evolution," Potluck (though they do, indirectly, as do all mutations), they are examples of insertion mutations, which you asked for and I Googled some results for you. It's easy to study viruses because they can be independent of an organism, and that's why they are frequently used.

You first asked for examples of increased complexity that comes out of mutations. I was confused because on its own that could mean a large amount of things. So I took it in the most literal sense and said a DNA strand is definitionally more complex when insertion mutations occur. You then asked for examples of this occurring. I provided. Then you sarcastically asked how these support evolution.

I am as amateur a biologist as they come, but I have studied it a decent amount on my own time. I have picked up a decent amount, and a lot still is way beyond me. So far, you have made it clear that you don't know the definition of taxonomic class (you called both "fish" and "frog" different classes), something I learned in 9th grade. You were unaware of different kinds of mutations apparently, which I learned in my biology intro class freshman year of college. You forced me to Google some insertions for you, which I did, and then you declared you were asking for beneficial mutations, which you weren't. Not to mention that a mutation beneficial to a virus is still beneficial. Why, when you don't understand rudimentary biology, do you feel that you are capable of understanding any of those articles? You didn't delve into the substance of a single one, because you don't know what they are talking about. I don't mean this as an insult - most of those articles have a decent amount of content that is over my head. But I don't make grandiose claims as to their relevance to evolutionary biology.

 

[Rick W]

Forget it.
I've seen enough.

 

[Snidey]

BTW if you want examples of BENEFICIAL mutations as opposed to examples of increased DNA complexity, that is a different story.