Stupid Christian Article on Evolution

[randman]

so yes, the overall complexity of the genome of new species does tend to increase over time.

Ok, we are getting somewhere. "Evolution" which I am calling Darwinism predicts a greater level of genetic complexity over time. That's a specific prediction of the theory.

So what if that isn't true?

Would that convince you Darwinism is incorrect?

 

[Sledge]

Does that explain the fear and reluctance to answer my question and discuss the data?

"Fear and reluctance."

Yeah, I'm just terrified that someone who uses the word "Darwinism" is going to blow away all the evidence. Here's a tip: if you want people to engage with you, you have to use the correct language.

 

[Lukraak_Sisser]

Finally getting somewhere. "Those changes accumulate." Mutations are part of that, right? Those changes accumulate. Evolution predicts the slow accumulation of genes as species mutate and evolve. Mutation and the addition of genes is connected with the gradual, Darwinist process of evolution. It doesn't just happen all at once according to Darwinism.

You agree with that?

Not really, as it is not necessary to always increase the size of the genome. There are various examples of organisms actually downsizing their genomes to get an evolutionary advantage (mycoplasms for instance).
Also, what we consider a simple organism needs not actually BE simpler when looking at what they need to encounter. And increasing the genome size through genome duplication does not a more complex organism make.
Strangely enough, nature is not black and white in these things.

 

[Lukraak_Sisser]

Ok, we are getting somewhere. "Evolution" which I am calling Darwinism predicts a greater level of genetic complexity over time. That's a specific prediction of the theory.

So what if that isn't true?

Would that convince you Darwinism is incorrect?

NO, as you've misinterpreted the theorie. It predicts no such thing.

 

[randman]

Not really, as it is not necessary to always increase the size of the genome. There are various examples of organisms actually downsizing their genomes to get an evolutionary advantage (mycoplasms for instance).
Also, what we consider a simple organism needs not actually BE simpler when looking at what they need to encounter. And increasing the genome size through genome duplication does not a more complex organism make.
Strangely enough, nature is not black and white in these things.

Ok, let's talk over a 500 million year period. Evolution predicts the slow accumulation of genes during that time, right? Exceptions noted but the first organisms didn't start out with all the genes that exist today according to darwinism. They evolved via an adaptionist process where mutations occurred and selective advantage promoted species and so with new traits and species, new genes evolved.

That's evolution, right?

 

[randman]

NO, as you've misinterpreted the theorie. It predicts no such thing.

Guess it can predict any results then, right?

 

[randman]

"Fear and reluctance."

Yeah, I'm just terrified that someone who uses the word "Darwinism" is going to blow away all the evidence. Here's a tip: if you want people to engage with you, you have to use the correct language.

Since evolution is often defined as change over time, what other term should I use to the describe the current theory of evolution?

 

[sphenisc]

This is really simple. A species or group of living creatures has within it a level of genetic material, it's genome.

A single cell has a genome. Because all the cells in an individual multicellular organism are genetically identical (to a first approximation) we can refer to the genome of an individual. A species or group can have many genomes which aren't identical and are these are collectively referred to as the gene pool.

 

[PixyMisa]

Ok, we are getting somewhere. "Evolution" which I am calling Darwinism predicts a greater level of genetic complexity over time. That's a specific prediction of the theory.

If you want to talk about Darwinism, I have to inform you that Darwin made no such prediction. He made no statements with regards to genetics whatsoever.

Besides that, no, it's not a specific prediction and it's only true in a very broad and vague sense, if you actually compare different phyla, even different kingdoms. A bacterium that evolved this morning could well have a genome no more complex than one that evolved a billion years ago. A platypus has a more complex genome than a bacterium, because there you can't encode all the information needed to produce a platypus into the size of a baterial genome.

Platypi are more genetically complex than bacteria not because evolution necessarily increases complexity over time, but because there's an ecological niche that a platypus can fill that cannot be filled at a bacterial level of complexity.

So what if that isn't true?

The thing is, it is true, broadly and vaguely. The most complex genomes around today are more complex than the most complex genomes around a billion years ago. That's just a fact.

Would that convince you Darwinism is incorrect?

Nope.

 

[PixyMisa]

Ok, let's talk over a 500 million year period. Evolution predicts the slow accumulation of genes during that time, right?

Nope.

It predicts the slow accumulation of genetic variations. This may involve additional genes, and often does. But it's certainly not required.

Exceptions noted but the first organisms didn't start out with all the genes that exist today according to darwinism.

Evolution. But no, they didn't.

They evolved via an adaptionist process where mutations occurred and selective advantage promoted species and so with new traits and species, new genes evolved.

Selective advantage promotes genes and evolves species. You have it backwards.

That's evolution, right?

Not really, no.

 

[TheGoldcountry]

It's simple. Darwinism basically says mutations occur which result in new traits and these are selected if they confer an advantage generally and so new species evolve. The genome evolves along with these new traits.

Isn't that the basics of evolution?

Not quite- evolution occurs WITHIN species. A new trait is found, and either bred into the community, or dies. Over time, species can develop their own unique genome, but it takes time. Humans have been pretty much the same for 13,000 years.

 

[Lukraak_Sisser]

Guess it can predict any results then, right?

No, all modern medicine and anti cancer drugs are based on wild guesswork, as are all modern ways of dealing with viruses and genetic diseases.

Oh no wait, they're based on predictions made by the theory of evolution and work carried out in yeast and mice, the results of which ONLY make sense if you assume these organisms evolved from a shared ancestor so we can correlate the function of a genetic pathway in one to deal with a problem found in the other organism.

In fact, none of the alternatives given for the theory of evolution, be it creationism or ID have any predicitive value at all, and thus are useless as a scientific theory to help understand the nature of life.

 

[randman]

t's not a specific prediction and it's only true in a very broad and vague sense, if you actually compare different phyla, even different kingdoms. A bacterium that evolved this morning could well have a genome no more complex than one that evolved a billion years ago. A platypus has a more complex genome than a bacterium, because there you can't encode all the information needed to produce a platypus into the size of a baterial genom

I am just asking in a broad sense not nitpicking on irregularities to the process. You are saying novel genes developed through mutation and natural selection over a very long process, over the past 500 plus years. The earliest creatures in the animal kingdom wouldn't have genes for human nerve function or something like that. Very simple organisms wouldn't either. They would evolve those genes via the adaptionist process of slow accumulation of genes through mutation and natural selection.

That's all I am asking you. That's what Darwinism predicts, correct?

The thing is, it is true, broadly and vaguely. The most complex genomes around today are more complex than the most complex genomes around a billion years ago. That's just a fact.

Kind of hard to say what was there a billion years ago, but let's just go back to whatever evolved into plants and animals or the last common ancestor or metazoans (animal kingdom). They'd be expected to have simpler genomes, right?

I have forgotten when evos think they existed. Maybe it was a billion years ago but whenever, let's nail it down to the last common metazoan ancestor or the creatures that evolved into plants and animals. They'd be pretty simple life forms with simple genomes that early on, correct?

 

[Simon39759]

Please don't dodge the question. Perhaps you've figured out where I am going. Face it head on. Just trying to reduce the conversation to actual data.

Indeed, as Sledge mentioned, the tone of your very first tone pretty much enlightened most of us about where you were coming from...

Does that explain the fear and reluctance to answer my question and discuss the data?

Yes, although, I wouldn't call it "fear" per se.
Most of us here have some experience dealing with creationists. We know that, by and large, it is not a rewarding experience. It is fruitless and often infuriating as creationists rarely care about the answers or learning about the theory they pretend to be disproving but rather want to sprout out their ill formed 'proofs' which, if they cared to listen, they'd know do not stand.
At best, these stubborn creationists will realize the vacuity of a particular argument and simply to the next creationist talking point...

In such circumstances, you can hardly blame people from being wary about entering such a time wasting debate.
For example, this is lengthy post but didn't really get to the meat of the matter Let's try to get some clarity here. Did and does the genome evolve via adaptionism aka Darwinism aka evolution aka the rather the theory of evolution?"]your answer to a rather long and time consuming post of mine. I am not certain that, despite the time I put in crafting the answer, you even bothered reading it as you say:

Let's try to get some clarity here. Did and does the genome evolve via adaptionism aka Darwinism aka evolution aka the rather the theory of evolution?

Without apparently realizing that my response had already been given: "That being said, new genes are produced by evolution, quite regularly."

Simon, I am well aware of the things you are discussing. One of the problems with evo talk involves terminology. Label things however you want. Regulatory genes or properties are fine but I am getting at something very basic. Are novel genes or genetic sequences or changes in how they are used or however you want to describe it related to novel morphology or not?

Indeed, too basic.
But, yes, short answer, yes. These mutation, alongside epigenetic changes, do accumulate into phenotypic changes, including novel morphology.

I want to move this on .....

Mutations happen all the time

.
Ok, so you could have a bird lay an egg and a reptile be born or vice versa. Species can just mutate wholesale. Natural selection plays no part in it or is it key according to Darwinism?

This is a particularly atrocious example of not understanding the simplest, most basic aspects of the theory of evolution. Once again, coming after you claim being 'well aware of the things you are discussing".
Let me try and clarify it for you... If you care to read.
New mutations happen all the time. For example, the mutation rate in human is about 2.5 errors every 100 millions base pair in average. It might seem like a lot but, the human genomes being about 3 billions base pair, that's still quite a lot of them. However, most of our genome is composed of so-called 'junk DNA', the exact amount is subject to debate, current estimates place the exact amount slightly above 80%... That means that most of mutation won't occur in regions that have an impact. In total, it is estimated that about 2 to 3 mutations occur in the coding region of every new generation (also, you realize that Darwin, while his theory predicted the existence of such mechanism, had no idea about genes? Calling such molecular evolution 'Darwinism' is so ridiculous...)

Anyway...
What we can see is that, in average, every generation is accumulating 2 or 3 mutations in coding genes.
Some of these mutations will confer tiny evolutionary advantage to the people carrying them, thus giving, in average, a slight advantage to the people carrying them. Over the long run, this particular version of the gene is going to rise within the population until being the dominant version.

Of course, because every individuals carries a number of mutations, there are, at the same time, another individual which also has its own version of a different genes that also confers him with a different advantage. So, over time, this allele is also going to rise in the population... After a while, the average genome of the population will carry both of these new variants...

Anyway, because it happens so often, there are, for most genes, at any given time a handful of alleles competing with each others. Tiny and tiny of evolutionary steps taken at the same time.

Now, of course, in your silly example; first of all, you seem to ignore that, as far as cladists are concerned, birds are actually reptiles.
Now, if you want to talk about birds giving birth to reptiles such as snakes... You need to realize the huge evolutionary gulf being the two. Millions of individual mutations accumulating over millions of generations.
So, if each mutations is an individual steps, these steps have, over time, accumulated to a large distance, let say, a couple of miles. What you try to argue that, unless one can take a two-miles long step and go back home in a single leap, it is impossible that he could, little step after little step, walk there in the first place... Silly.

What's 12 inches?

I don't know, I am no good at riddles... Ron Jeremy?

 

[randman]

Evolution. But no, they didn't.

Ok, it's kind of hazy what the first creatures evolved from chemicals were. So let's say the last common metazoan ancestor. They would have simple genomes because they hadn't evolved so far and didn't have functions like a brain or something. They wouldn't be expected according to evolution to have all the genes human beings have, for example, or chimps or frogs, mice, etc, etc,....

Selective advantages promotes genes and evolves species. You have it backwards.

Nope. Mutations are random, right? They don't happen just because they are needed by the environment according to standard evo science.

 

[TheGoldcountry]

No, all modern medicine and anti cancer drugs are based on wild guesswork, as are all modern ways of dealing with viruses and genetic diseases.

Oh no wait, they're based on predictions made by the theory of evolution and work carried out in yeast and mice, the results of which ONLY make sense if you assume these organisms evolved from a shared ancestor so we can correlate the function of a genetic pathway in one to deal with a problem found in the other organism.

In fact, none of the alternatives given for the theory of evolution, be it creationism or ID have any predicitive value at all, and thus are useless as a scientific theory to help understand the nature of life.

"Wild guesswork?" all the work done by doctors and medical scientists is "guesswork?" Go back to your dictionary, friend.

 

[randman]

No, all modern medicine and anti cancer drugs are based on wild guesswork, as are all modern ways of dealing with viruses and genetic diseases.

Oh no wait, they're based on predictions made by the theory of evolution and work carried out in yeast and mice, the results of which ONLY make sense if you assume these organisms evolved from a shared ancestor so we can correlate the function of a genetic pathway in one to deal with a problem found in the other organism.

In fact, none of the alternatives given for the theory of evolution, be it creationism or ID have any predicitive value at all, and thus are useless as a scientific theory to help understand the nature of life.

They are no more predicted by universal common descent than creationism but nice dodge.

 

[PixyMisa]

I am just asking in a broad sense not nitpicking on irregularities to the process. You are saying novel genes developed through mutation and natural selection over a very long process, over the past 500 [million] plus years.

Novel genes develop via mutation, and are established in the gene pool via natural selection.

The earliest creatures in the animal kingdom wouldn't have genes for human nerve function or something like that. Very simple organisms wouldn't either.

Correct.

They would evolve those genes via the adaptionist process of slow accumulation of genes through mutation and natural selection.

I don't know what you man by the "slow accumulation of genes". Where do you think these genes are accumulating?

Kind of hard to say what was there a billion years ago, but let's just go back to whatever evolved into plants and animals or the last common ancestor or metazoans (animal kingdom). They'd be expected to have simpler genomes, right?

Simpler in what sense, and simpler than what?

I have forgotten when evos think they existed. Maybe it was a billion years ago but whenever, let's nail it down to the last common metazoan ancestor or the creatures that evolved into plants and animals. They'd be pretty simple life forms with simple genomes that early on, correct?

Simpler in what sense? As I said earlier, the biochemistry of a human is more complex than that of a bacterium, so more genetic material is required to control that biochemistry. However, nothing precludes a bacterium (or a plant, or a starfish) from having a whole heap of DNA that it doesn't use. Actually, this is particularly true in plants, because plants duplicate genetic material like mad.

 

[randman]

Simon, you answered this.

But, yes, short answer, yes. These mutation, alongside epigenetic changes, do accumulate into phenotypic changes, including novel morphology.

So mutations are related to morphology. You stated:

So, if each mutations is an individual steps, these steps have, over time, accumulated to a large distance, let say, a couple of miles. What you try to argue that, unless one can take a two-miles long step and go back home in a single leap, it is impossible that he could, little step after little step, walk there in the first place... Silly.

These steps "accumulate"? That's all I am asking you to acknowledge. Shouldn't be hard and doesn't require nasty comments on creationists. Mutations and so new genetic material, new genes, are thought to accumulate slowly over time as species evolve.

That's what you believe, what evolution predicts, right?

Very simple question and shouldn't be hard to answer. Evolutionary theory envisions as mutations occur and are selected for over time as species evolve, new genetic material is slowly added to biota. Starts simple and evolves into greater complexity. Not trying to say species cannot evolve losing genes or that some bad mutations cannot persist due to other more beneficial mutations happening at the same time or anything along those lines, but just that the way the genes got here in the first place is this slow accumulation of genes connected to evolving species mutating and those genes having a selective advantage.

 

[Simon39759]

What I am getting it is Darwinism predicted that simple organisms, earlier evolved organisms, would have simpler genomes. I've debated this for a long time and this claim had been told by evos at least going back to the very early 90s. It makes sense too. Of course, as mutations occur, new species evolve that have selective advantage and so the genome becomes more complex with more evolution overall.

Very, very broadly, yes. But it is not that simple.
Organisms will, indeed, tend to accumulate more complex genome as evolutionary time goes by.

But there is a big caveat to that is that bigger bloated genomes leads to bigger cells, leads to longer replication times...
So, there are some level of evolutionary pressure to keep the genome size down. This pressure is not uniform, though. It is not a big deal for us, for example. But it has been shown that flying vertebrates, birds in particular but it is also true in the bats to some extend, tend to have smaller genomes.
Similarly, species who live in very highly competitive environment will have a pressure for smaller, faster replicating genomes. Bacteria being a prime example of this, most of their genome to play a direct role.

Also, the term 'older' means little. Life on earth, by all known facts, share a universal common ancestor. So all life form are as old as each others.
Furthermore, life forms that appeared earlier tend to be smaller and have shorter generations. So they tend to replicate, and thus evolve, faster. And yet, because they are so small, there is an active pressure to keep their genome size down...

Your general statement is broad enough to be pretty meaningless. Still, I'd like to hear it, it is probably fallacious, but I don't think I heard it before and would be curious to hear it...