Stupid Christian Article on Evolution

[Avicenna]

Why is that? Specifically, why are they surprised to find genes corresponding to complex nerve functions in vertebrates and human beings?

The answer is pretty simple but we can't really move this discussion forward without a clear understanding of why they were surprised since that's at the heart of what I am talking about here.

Genes often repurpose themselves to new methods of working out.

Did you ever consider that corals rely on the same mechanism to maintain their homeostasis as we do? Remember our blood is as salty as seawater and maintaining a calcium gradient would be necessary for the functioning of our nerves. I mean we are basically walking bags of sea water mixed with our RBCs.

I am trying to find your original post but it is not surprising. The genes that determine limb formation in flies also is responsible for the same in humans.

 

[devnull]

Well, you would have to read the 2 papers by Davison I cited along with my comments. If you do that, you could see the idea of saltation is a concept front loaders and others that reject the Modern Synthesis aka NeoDarwinism (at least how I am using) and how there is renewed interest in it. Same with the whole list challening Neodarwinian orthodoxy. Point 4 discusses the web-like patterns of relations but really you should read the whole paper and then maybe look up other papers on the various topics. These are areas of research suggested by front loaders, IDers and others long before mainstream evos would take them up and back when evos mocked these concepts and stood by strict NeoDarwinian orthodoxy.

Excuse my ignorance, but what is "front loading"?

 

[randman]

I am a lurker, randman can you provide some clarification on your theory. Everything you have provided seems to merely suggest that evolution is wrong. Correct? What exactly is your alternative theory? Intelligent Design has been hinted at by other posters but you have not specifically said this is the theory you believe.

Just to clarify. I think young earth creationists do some good science. I am not convinced the Bible says the "days" in Genesis refer to 24 hour periods and believe there is strong evidence from the text they do not. So I am not generally a young earther. That being said, things like finding red blood cells in dinosaur bones has me convinced that mainstream dating methods are way off and need adjusting.

So I guess I'd be an old earth creationist/IDer. There is really a range. On the science, I argue things I think the data can support and as I stated, there is some elasticity in a model I would create.

For example, Darwinism is fine for microevolution though it'd kind of iffy for speciation but then again how you define species is iffy. I definitely see evidence for evolution within a kind as creationists say, including the limitations of the kind being a barrier to evolved into another kind. On the Bible since this forum here is the R&P forum, I think the creationist interpretation of "kind" being a limiting factor is likely correct but maybe not. The text could just mean the next generation of offspring will be similar to the parent or immediate ancestor.

In the Bible, we see 3 separate creation methods. First, we see God speak and command the water and land to bring forth. This actually sounds a lot like evolution in the common descent sense. It's more indirect. However, this would Intelligent Design because it's the Word going forth providing the information (word) and energy causing this to happen.

Then we see God "forming" animals that are more closely related to man such as domestic animals. This "forming" suggests a more direct hands on approach. Special creation from the ground? Maybe yes. Or via some ID mechanism involving prior organisms that came from the ground. Regardless, it's a new creation event in Genesis.

Then we see man both "formed" and "created" with the "created" part referring to God speaking directly into man and imparting His Spirit into man, creating man in His image. So man has some qualities like the domestic animals and some, frankly, like God. Man is also either the last or in the latter creation acts.

So when it comes to man, I generally see that as a special creation event without any sort of evolution to it but I suppose you could argue that God used some creatures like apes that were formed from the ground and changed them. But it's really at the "hand" of God and even more so than other mammals.

I think the answer is special creation and likely for domestic animals and other mammals seemingly more closely related to man. But some sort of ID mechanism could explain evolution for other things based on my reading of the biblical text.

These are my personal beliefs. What I talk about with science is what the data does and does not support and so don't normally lay out in a science discussion what I think the Bible says.

 

[devnull]

I think we should end the thread here

 

[randman]

Go back a few pages and look for a couple of lengthy posts talking about John Davison's papers. Front loading is the idea that the original creatures were front loaded genetically and to a degree programmed then to evolve in certain patterns. Their prediction was the more primitive the organism, then the greater genetic complexity, and that the process of evolution has largely been spent and ended. All that's left is some small dead ends as far as macroevolution.

It's a whole theory and model touching on a lot of things. The 2 papers I mentioned is a decent introduction.

 

[randman]

Genes often repurpose themselves to new methods of working out.

Did you ever consider that corals rely on the same mechanism to maintain their homeostasis as we do? Remember our blood is as salty as seawater and maintaining a calcium gradient would be necessary for the functioning of our nerves. I mean we are basically walking bags of sea water mixed with our RBCs.

I am trying to find your original post but it is not surprising. The genes that determine limb formation in flies also is responsible for the same in humans.

I am saying they are surprised for 2 reasons; one the idea of massive loss of genes as a means of evolving greater morphological complexity and another that the basic idea of greater genomic complexity leading to greater morphological complexity is wrong.

 

[devnull]

one the idea of massive loss of genes as a means of evolving greater morphological complexity

What "massive loss of genes" do you refer to?

and another that the basic idea of greater genomic complexity leading to greater morphological complexity is wrong.

What is surprising about that?

Its already been explained to you that quite simple organisms can have large and/or "complex" (in terms of number of changes) genes. I fail to see what is so surprising.

 

[PixyMisa]

One thing I have to give you credit for, randman, when you were asked what your ideas were, you answered clearly, specifically, and politely. I may think that your ideas are wrong, but you honestly stood by them and didn't attempt to duck the question. Good on you.

 

[randman]

What "massive loss of genes" do you refer to?

Come on devnul, can't you go back and read a little of some of my posts. Just look for where I quoted something and show a link. They are talking about evolution via massive loss of genes in some animal lineages based on a molecular study of coral. That's not the only study but the thinking has shifted now to the idea the last common ancestor was very complex genetically (some hint maybe otherwise), and the same for the last common animal ancestor, which they specifically mention in that study.

So genetic sequences for things like human nerve function are present in the simple coral and envisioned to be present in the common ancestor to all animals. Some lineages of evolution such as that which led to fruit flies were the result of a "massive loss" of genes rather than a slow accumulation of them.

 

[randman]

What is surprising about that?

Its already been explained to you that quite simple organisms can have large and/or "complex" (in terms of number of changes) genes. I fail to see what is so surprising.

And it's already been explained back. If you guys want to discuss things, then drop the phrase it's "already been explained to you" as if you are teaching my something. It's ridiculous.

If you fail to see what's surprising, take it up with the peer-reviewed authors that say their findings are surprising and try to get a handle on why they say that.

Maybe you can explain to them how they are ignorant and don't properly understand evolution?

 

[PixyMisa]

Its already been explained to you that quite simple organisms can have large and/or "complex" (in terms of number of changes) genes. I fail to see what is so surprising.

Actually - and one of the biologists please correct me here if I'm mistaken - it seems to me that simpler organisms are more likely to have extremely large numbers of genes, because one big driver for an increase in gene count is polyploidy, and polyploid mammal fetuses (for example) rarely even survive to birth. Polyploid plants, on the other hand, are extremely common, and frequently more robust than the parent strain.

 

[devnull]

Come on devnul, can't you go back and read a little of some of my posts. Just look for where I quoted something and show a link. They are talking about evolution via massive loss of genes in some animal lineages based on a molecular study of coral. That's not the only study but the thinking has shifted now to the idea the last common ancestor was very complex genetically (some hint maybe otherwise), and the same for the last common animal ancestor, which they specifically mention in that study.

So genetic sequences for things like human nerve function are present in the simple coral and envisioned to be present in the common ancestor to all animals. Some lineages of evolution such as that which led to fruit flies were the result of a "massive loss" of genes rather than a slow accumulation of them.

Im sorry, but you make many massive mental leaps here.

Firstly, they werent genes for human nerve function, specifically.

Secondly, there is no evidence the LCA was "very complex genetically", just that genes they assumed evolved at one point on the tree must have evolved earlier. Thats it.

Thirdly, genes often get re-purposed. To say these genes are specifically "human nervous system genes" is silly.

Finally, you havent shown any such "massive loss". If you can provide figures and/or example genetic sequences Im all ears.


On the whole, you seem to have taken a small paper outlining a specific case where the tree of life may need to be tweaked slightly, and blown it all out of proportion in order to support your ideas. Unfortunately, this is not entirely uncommon with creationists.

More power to you though, and as someone else noted, thanks for being upfront and honest. Being mistaken is not a crime.

 

[randman]

Firstly, they werent genes for human nerve function, specifically.

They specifically state they correspond to genes or genetic sequences for HUMAN nerve function and that this is "particularly surprising" given the relative simplicity of corals. They use the word, "human." Take up your beef with them if you don't believe it. In terms of their function in the coral, since it doesn't have a complex nerve function, no one is saying they do. As far as any function in corals, they don't know what the genetic sequences do or are doing there in the first place.

Secondly, there is no evidence the LCA was "very complex genetically", just that genes they assumed evolved at one point on the tree must have evolved earlier. Thats it.

The authors of the paper and other researchers in the field disagree with you. I suggest you read the paper and the other things I linked to. They unequivocally state the last common ancestor would have to be genetically complex.

Thirdly, genes often get re-purposed. To say these genes are specifically "human nervous system genes" is silly.

I suggest you read the paper again.

Finally, you havent shown any such "massive loss". If you can provide figures and/or example genetic sequences Im all ears.

If you are "all ears", why don't you read the paper and their other comments where they use the phrase "massive loss" of genes. That's what they wrote.

Did you not bother to read it?

 

[randman]

By complexity, it's not just numbers but types of genes.

 

[randman]

Genes often repurpose themselves to new methods of working out.

Did you ever consider that corals rely on the same mechanism to maintain their homeostasis as we do? Remember our blood is as salty as seawater and maintaining a calcium gradient would be necessary for the functioning of our nerves. I mean we are basically walking bags of sea water mixed with our RBCs.

I am trying to find your original post but it is not surprising. The genes that determine limb formation in flies also is responsible for the same in humans.

But what's the corresponding mechanism to human nerve function in a coral. Frankly, they don't know what those genetic sequences do. Of course, some genes are repurposed. But there is a reason they said they were "surprised" with these findings.

 

[Avicenna]

First, it depends on how you define "evolution." The stuff I am writing here primarily addresses problems with Neodarwinism as a means of organic evolution of higher taxa. In other words, I haven't really challenged common descent on this thread though that's not because I necessarily accept it. I think evolutionist science needs to be fact-based and don't see that with NeoDarwinism and believe evolutionist thinking needs to move away from that and has begun to a little.

Stop calling us evolutionist. The term is biologist. Common descent is obvious when you see it in action such as the Galapagos finches or indeed comparative anatomy of humans and apes. It's not neo darwinism since Darwin was kind of wrong on his theory of evolution. We have better theories now and they were postulated by people with more information than him. It's like how Newton's theory of gravity is wrong.

I posted some about front loaders because people here seemed unware they even existed, much less of a fairly long history of the concept or related concepts, including some very prominent scientists.

We knew about exaptation from the start. A variety of genes in various creatures are expressed for different purposes in others. Calcium pump channels for example are used within human beings for transmission of electrical impulse and for muscle contraction. Front-loading is failing to understand how you can open cans with a can opener or a screwdriver and a hammer.

If it were front loading the genes of your sea sponge synapses would have to be inactive. The research points out that they are active. Meaning that they aren't doing the function of a synapse but something else. If they are active it means we are right and that it is a case of exaptation rather than front loading.

On Intelligent Design, I actually believe a thinking person would even call theistic evolution ID because evolution would have to proceed based on the properties of chemistry dictating it, and so is programmed and directed in some sense. Of course, many evos probably think the universe created itself, but that's just hogwash.

No. That's a huge assumption based on wishful thinking that a being exists that is capable of magic. If chemistry were different then life would be different too or not existent. If nitrogen behaved like carbon then maybe we would use a nitrogen base rather than carbon and so on...

We don't think the universe created itself. That's nonsensical. And has nothing to do with evolution since that is astronomy and physics. We don't know what was there before the big bang no one does. And if there was a god even it seems like it would be spinoza's god. A god of engineering and mechanics who sets up processes and then buggers off to never interfere in our universe again.

I don't think the data supports the current discussed models completely yet, but I could be wrong. I am more interested in looking at the data and seeing what it does and does not say and believe that's the best approach to the topic.

Because you don't understand the data doesn't mean other people do not. I don't understand quantum mechanics but that does not mean that I cannot understand that physicists understand it via mechanisms that I just don't understand because I have not spent the time.

I think a lot of evos basically approach the subject as a matter of faith and doctrine and so have difficulty assessing data and ideas they are not sure fits into their worldview.

Some of them do because they believe in biologists who have studied the science and work in the field. A lot of the "evos" are not scientists. However a lot of us are biologists of a sort and can answer that questions.

I believe you quoted the soft inheritance nonsense? A work by a bunch of philosophers quote mining? (Even PLoS points out that this is the origin of synapses indicating exaptation rather than front loading which is a "freaking stupid concept since it means that the creature created would have the most incredibly complicated and conflicting genomic system ever and would be more complex than its offspring and it would ignore the existence of viruses who are the line between biology and chemistry".)

1. One of the addresses on your paper is an actual house in the UK. It was done in someone's bedroom near Muswell Hill.

2. The book it references (Jablonka) tries to link behavioural evolution to human beings which doesn't work. We have very few behavioural patterns that are genetic. Mostly its just threat, aggression, friendship and love displays that are genetic. She tries to link food and cultural things based on genetics rather than them being the product of culture.

3. It uses ideas such as "Birds being able to open british foil top milk bottles". It is problem solving ability. Birds are pretty smart, it can be a simple exercise in problem solving. The ability for humans to produce fire is not universal (yes there are stone age civilisations still around who don't have fire.) and it seems an invention that has occurred repeatedly over time rather than in one place. It's like how the iron revolution occurred at different periods in different places rather than at one time all over the world. There is a level of information spread and there is a level of smart birds figuring it out themselves. If ravens are smart enough to use cars to crush seeds or use and co-apt tools then tits are smart enough to realise that foil top bottles have soft tops that are easily pierced by a handy sharp object such as their beaks. Learning in animals is very impressive as seen in gorilla linguistic studies.

4. In one paragraph it talks about birdsong and whale song and fails to realise the correlation to the next paragraph about human speech. And the sheer irony is that this is what Dawkin's became famous for. Meme transfer. Your paper published circa 2008 is pointing out the same things that Arch Heretic (ALL HAIL!) Dawkins did in the Selfish Gene in 1976.

5. Unmethylated DNA is prone to mutation however DNA Mutations that count only occur in the germline cell which is methylated for storage. The paper assumes that mutations that occur in unmethylated expressed sections are more prone to mutation without realising that those mutations are rarely expressed to offspring.

So basically your paper is a rehashing of Dawkin's own research given by a philosopher who assumes that learning is only possible in human despite the fact that we have known for millenia that it you can teach dogs tricks and they will teach their offspring the same tricks because the tricks help the dog survive.

 

[Lowpro]

Actually - and one of the biologists please correct me here if I'm mistaken - it seems to me that simpler organisms are more likely to have extremely large numbers of genes, because one big driver for an increase in gene count is polyploidy, and polyploid mammal fetuses (for example) rarely even survive to birth. Polyploid plants, on the other hand, are extremely common, and frequently more robust than the parent strain.

yea right; if you want to find trends of complexity it's more accurate to determine between closely related phyla. This is obvious, but you get problems like we have here and "too" general an idea becomes detrimental to your understanding (Rand may have become the most extreme of this, again I really wish the writers of said paper(s) could comment. I'm sure they'd be mortified to see how the semantic games have bastardized their research. Ignorance can really damage good intentions)

I mean, oxytocin in mammals seems to serve a purely mammalian physiological change (milk letdown etc) and yet oxytocin in turtles causes egg release.

Why does the same hormone affect two absolute total different species, totally different PHYLA.

The gene's appearance isn't drastic or game changing as much as Rand thinks it is. It doesn't change evolution or genetics one bit, and as far as it affects neodarwinism, it doesn't although it is interesting AND a testament to the fact that we do not know everything about biology, there are always new things to discover...and the people in front of that line will ALWAYS be biologists and darwinists.

Creationism and ID'ers do not have the luxury of the yield of new data to support their ideas when their ideas hinge on a lack of knowledge ("God did it")

Again...keep looking for fossil rabbits, and by jove let me know if you find one...

Thirdly, genes often get re-purposed. To say these genes are specifically "human nervous system genes" is silly.

I suggest you read the paper again.

Any biologist...any student passing their first year of genetics would call this (and you) ridiculous.

 

[devnull]

They specifically state they correspond to genes or genetic sequences for HUMAN nerve function and that this is "particularly surprising" given the relative simplicity of corals.

Write to them and ask. Ill bet pennies to a pound the response will be "they are not specific to humans". They merely used humans as an example.

They use the word, "human." Take up your beef with them if you don't believe it.

Oh, I believe it - I just dont think it means what you think it does

For example, distant ancestor X evolved a set of genetic changes to, I dunno, use salt from seawater for something. This is passed down to early corals, but is re-purposed along with other changes and is expressed differently. As the years pass, the genes are repurposed a few more times and end up in the specific piece of coral this guy looks at.

The genes also get passed down to us, but they perform some sort of task pertaining to our nervous system. Genes do not act alone, remember.

In terms of their function in the coral, since it doesn't have a complex nerve function, no one is saying they do.

Understood.

As far as any function in corals, they don't know what the genetic sequences do or are doing there in the first place.

They may do nothing at all. They are there because they were inherited.

The authors of the paper and other researchers in the field disagree with you. I suggest you read the paper and the other things I linked to. They unequivocally state the last common ancestor would have to be genetically complex.

More complex than previously thought perhaps?

Its like this - they assumed the LCA to have a certain set of genes, perhaps the intersection of all sets of genes on the planet? They have found some genes in coral they didnt think would be there - so either these genes were in the LCA, or the LCA wasnt the LCA

Even if this were the case, you appear to be extrapolating this out to "the LCA was the superset of all genetic material on the planet".

I suggest you read the paper again.

Give me a break, Im working, my head is full of other stuff

If you are "all ears", why don't you read the paper and their other comments where they use the phrase "massive loss" of genes. That's what they wrote.

Did you not bother to read it?

I lack the time, thats why I asked you. Why would they think that the LCA was so complicated? I dont get it.

 

[randman]

Stop calling us evolutionist. The term is biologist.

There are non-evolutionist biologists, both non-Darwinian but accepting common descent and creationists. So I will keep saying evolutionist.

We don't think the universe created itself. That's nonsensical.

So who or what did?

God?

But you miss the point on determinism via chemistry via the creation of the universe in reference to theistic evos.

Because you don't understand the data doesn't mean other people do not.

I understand it. You just didn't read the paper or you wouldn't say things like they don't talk about a "massive loss of genes in some animal lineages".

Or are you saying you are just incapable of understanding the paper? I am giving you the benefit of the doubt that you didn't read it.

Did you?

Please answer.

If it were front loading the genes of your sea sponge synapses would have to be inactive. The research points out that they are active.

Not necessarily. Front loading does not mean they must be inactive though that some have argued for repressed genes.

Can you cite the research you mention here?

and would be more complex than its offspring

What are you saying here? That it must be more complex genetically or morphologically or both? Let's put your idea here to the test and look at the data to see if it fits.

We have very few behavioural patterns that are genetic.

How do you then explain, say, a dog's hunting instincts such as pointing when the dog has been raised as a pet and never been taught to hunt? If not it's not in his genes, where does it come from?

Your paper published circa 2008 is pointing out the same things that Arch Heretic (ALL HAIL!) Dawkins did in the Selfish Gene in 1976.

Which paper are you referring to?

So basically your paper is a rehashing of Dawkin's own research given by a philosopher

What are you talking about? Which paper? Davison is or was a biology professor at the University of Vermont.

 

[randman]

Write to them and ask. Ill bet pennies to a pound the response will be "they are not specific to humans". They merely used humans as an example.

I don't have to write to them. The paper is a comparison of the human genome and corals with other organisms.

Be honest. You never read the paper, did you?