Evolution: the Facts.

[Dancing David]

Some of the experiments I would show, but once again am not going to veer off much from genetics for the sake of brevity, are being done in quantum physics but for other reasons and involve the origin of information. It's quite positive evidence.

Others have papers more in line with what you may be looking for. You should take the time to read some of them. The Discovery Institute has a nice link to some. Take a look at it.

I showed 2 papers by John Davison on the other thread. Why don't you look at them?

He was right in predicting greater complexity for the LCA, for example.

Excuse me, you are here present them here or go back to the other thread. Forum etiquette and all that.

 

[Dancing David]

The issue for front loaders and men like Pierre Grasse is not whether they share a common ancestor but whether internal mechanisms such as the local environment for DNA (properties of chemicals and coded information, etc, etc,...) dictated the pattern or was it driven by mere random mutations being selected for due to environmental pressures.

yes and random mutation is NOT the sole way that variation withina apsecies occurs, take white squirells and black squirells, they occur. Not because of a random mutation making them black or white. But because of double dominant and double recessive alleles.

Variation can occur within an extsablished genorme through teh variation within the genome.

Front loading is not demonstrated as both placental mammals and non-placental mammals share a common ancestor.

So you brought it up, why? And I countered it.

More later.

Keep in mind there are lots of features that do not seem to serve to help the organism adapt to the environment that well. I know what an evo would say so you don't have to repeat it, but if you'd actually take a step back and listen to what men like Pierre Grasse emphasize and paraphrasing his words, being encouraged to look past this thinking of evolution as an easily understood process, etc,....., you might see what they are talking about.

You are here state your case, otherwise this hand waving on your part. It is up to you to make your case.

I will make mine.

And you are very rude to say what you think I should or should not say.

So why does your claime xplains traits that are neutral or detrimental in the population. Please explain yourself.

It's quite astonishing when you begin to look at the data more objectively without the lens of insisting and assuming NeoDarwinian mechanisms explain everything.

Empty rhetoric about things you haven't stated.

They really do not. The patterns emerging do not indicate they were driven strictly by random mutations and the environment.

And when did all random become a theory?

Even looking at phylogeny, the pattern of how species seem to be grouped together, it's not what "evolution" in the sense of Darwinism would predict, but you have to take the time to look at the patterns and consider the arguments closely.

Heard of contingent history by any chance? More straw claims without evidence.

Support your claims.

Lots of scientists, even some of great reputation, came and come to the same conclusions that NeoDarwinism just doesn't explain the data.

 

[randman]

Front loading is not demonstrated as both placental mammals and non-placental mammals share a common ancestor.

Once again, you need to take the time to learn what critics of Darwinism are saying. Front loading predicts a common ancestor too so saying front loading cannot be true because "mammals share a common ancestor" is silly.

 

[Dancing David]

Once again, you need to take the time to learn what critics of Darwinism are saying. Front loading predicts a common ancestor too so saying front loading cannot be true because "mammals share a common ancestor" is silly.

It is up to you to explain your ideas, not for me to investigate them. If front loading supposedly predicts that idependant lines will produce common traits then you have to select independant lines, not conjoined lines, as you did in your example.

You want to critique the ToE, that is great, it is critiqued by those who study and promote it.

But if you want to present an alternate, it takes more than a handwaving reference. The burden is yours to explain why you think it is a good idea.

 

[randman]

It is up to you to explain your ideas, not for me to investigate them. If front loading supposedly predicts that idependant lines will produce common traits then you have to select independant lines, not conjoined lines, as you did in your example.

So you are claiming convergent evolution (independent lines) did not occur with placentals and marsupials? That they are "conjoined", whatever that means?

 

[six7s]

Once again, you need to take the time to learn what critics of Darwinism are saying. Front loading predicts a common ancestor too so saying front loading cannot be true because "mammals share a common ancestor" is silly.

randman, you seem - to me, at least - to have perfected the art of using many, many words to convey absolutely nothing of any importance whatsoever

Please, do try to be concise and coherent

Otherwise your side of the argument is nothing more than a vacuous mess

I have a question for you:

Has there been ANY scientific progress made thanks (primarily or, better yet, exclusively) to the views you hold?​

 

[randman]

randman, you seem - to me, at least - to have perfected the art of using many, many words to convey absolutely nothing of any importance whatsoever

Please, do try to be concise and coherent

Otherwise your side of the argument is nothing more than a vacuous mess

I have a question for you:

Has there been ANY scientific progress made thanks (primarily or, better yet, exclusively) to the views you hold?​

yes

 

[Halfcentaur]

So it really is going to be a case of two separate threads derailed by randman with exactly the same discussion?

Yes. And beneath all his tangents, his message is clearly "I know you are but what am I". Which is better known as, "no,.... you are", or "nuh-uh", as well as "I have some really good evidence that would convince you if you were able to understand it but it's complicated so just take my word for it".

It's clear he's just here to tell us things, rather than discuss anything.
He thinks mutations in animals are literally completely random, rather than subject to a number of correlations which actually create tendencies.

Yes, there are tendencies, and it seems like he would rather force these tendencies into being evidence of his personal opinion of God, which is at the heart of this breed of denialism. An existential world view and a God that is very much a personalized amalgam of privileged insights cherry picked from this theory or that.

 

[Halfcentaur]

So you are claiming convergent evolution (independent lines) did not occur with placentals and marsupials? That they are "conjoined", whatever that means?

No, he's saying you have the burden of proof, it doesn't matter how informed he is of your opposing theories. You have the burden of proof to tell him of these things regardless of how well known and common you believe they are. If you wish to posit them as a defense of your ideas, the burden of proof is on you, otherwise you're simply making anecdotes and telling people they should trust you because you know it's so. The slippery tactic would be to ignore that, and instead focus all your effort on spotlighting how uninformed your opposition is, when it's self evident. Then the tactic will be to then proceed to split as many hairs as possible to evade this burden of proof in favor of exposing your opponent as being too ignorant to be worth your time.

 

[Kotatsu]

I am not saying you cannot use arguments of similarity in functional DNA, just that evos have often argued that junk DNA was particularly a strong argument because the similarities were not related to function and so indicated a common ancestor apart from design.

Now, that argument based on pseudogenes is off the table.

So the problem is not at all related to what the data shows, but to what label we put on the data? If we had called it "non-junk DNA" from the beginning, there would never have been a problem?

I would hope evos would learn to appreciate such thinking as it can help bring clarity to their arguments and beliefs and perhaps lead to their modification of their theories or their abandoning them for new paradigms, or at least avoid gross overstatements which often turn out to be wrong, such as assuming junk DNA was non-functional and spending quite a bit of time insisting pseudogenes were VERY strong evidence for Darwinism. You have to realize evos such as folks at TalkOrigins often presented this as definite proof of Darwinism.

Yet it never really was. It was a gross overstatement.

Well, pseudogenes and "junk DNA" would be very strong evidence for evolution regardless of if they exist or not, as two closely related lineages would be more likely to have shared mutations than would two more distantly related lineages in any given gene. It does not matter if a gene is structural, coding, genuine junk, or whatever else it may be. The only difference is the level of resolution you would a priori expect a phylogenetic tree based on the gene to have.

The fact that what was previously thought to be useless has been found to be functional doesn't change the fact that the very same sequences are very strong evidence for evolution. All it does is change the label.

Even looking at phylogeny, the pattern of how species seem to be grouped together, it's not what "evolution" in the sense of Darwinism would predict, but you have to take the time to look at the patterns and consider the arguments closely.

As I am a practicing phylogeneticist, and have read hundreds of papers on phylogenies, I am going to have to ask you to support this assertion with something more tangible than your opinion. Which phylogenies, more specifically, are you referring to when you claim that Darwinism -- for which will read "evolution", as that, in contrast to term one you choose, is a meaningful word -- does not predict the groupings of species? I have access to most of the journals that publish phylogenies, so just direct me to any article and I will see if I can get it. Please just select a phylogeny -- any phylogeny -- detail the groupings you believe evolutionary theory would have predicted, and wherein the differences impossible to explain by evolutionary theory between the predicted grouping and the obtained grouping are.

On nested hierarchies, keep in mind there is a tendency for evos to overstate their arguments, ignoring their weaknesses. Lots of time you will read some "fact" that is supposedly so but down the road it turns out to be an overstatement.

I am well aware of how phylogenetic papers are written, and am actually writing two and preparing data sets for another two at the moment. In my experience, your assertion is generally not true. Phylogeneticist are as cautious as any other scientist when presenting their results, and these are typically presented within the framework of e.g. Bayesian analysis, the strengths, drawbacks and shortcomings of which everyone in the field is aware of.

However, I am prepared to be proven wrong by looking at as many cases as you care to present in support of your claim.

A few years back on another forum someone linked to a program that would create cladistics by plugging in a gene to look for among different animals. We were discussing convergent evolution and whether, for example, the placental mouse was really more closely related to human beings than it is to the Marsupial mouse.

And what was the result?

I would advise caution in assuming the molecular data always shows what you think it does and what is predicted by NeoDarwinism. Let's wait to see what the studies and data really show.

As phylogenetics is an ongoing process, do you suggest we wait until all organisms have been adequately analysed, or can we start looking at some data that have already been published? If the latter, please suggest some phylogenies and we can look through them together. As I said above, in most case availability of published phylogenies is not a problem for me, unless they are from a smaller, more obscure, journal, so take your choice and I'll see what I can do.

 

[Dancing David]

So you are claiming convergent evolution (independent lines) did not occur with placentals and marsupials? That they are "conjoined", whatever that means?

How can they be independant? The ears structures came from the same ancestor.

So what do you think that this divergence between groups shows, what are you trying to say?

 

[Think_Tank]

yes

Interesting, although I believe that six7s was hoping that you would tell us what particular progress you are referring to...

 

[Sideroxylon]

Some quality posting going on - thanks.

 

[Kotatsu]

On nested hierarchies, keep in mind there is a tendency for evos to overstate their arguments, ignoring their weaknesses. Lots of time you will read some "fact" that is supposedly so but down the road it turns out to be an overstatement.

Should I assume, as you just changed tracks, that you have no answer to the questions I asked you? I am referring to the following part:

Why, for instance, do the ectoparasites of birds so often show phylogenies significantly similar to those of their hosts(e.g., Paterson et al., 2000; Page et al., 2004; Hughes et al., 2007)? Are the differences between the environment on two given closely related host taxa so different that there is a need for designed differences in their parasites? If so, why do these differences, when analysed phylogenetically, so often form nested hierarchies which are concordant with the nested hierarchies obtained when performing the same kind of analysis on their hosts? And why do these designed differences so often occur mostly in the third positions in gene coding regions, positions which are known to be subject to a certain amount of redundancy in the translation codes?

And if these differences are so large between closely related bird hosts that it warrants seemingly random changes in the design of their DNA, why is this not consistent over different kinds of lice on the same birds? Why can wing lice spread by phoresy (2), through shared nest holes, and from prey to predator species and establish new populations on novel hosts in some cases (documented from a large variety of bird louse groups) if their genetic design is based on their normal host? Instinctively -- and this is most likely a false dichotomy -- the DNA would either be designed for a specific host (and then lateral spread to novel hosts would never be viable), or it would be designed for a large amount of hosts or a generic host (and then there is no reason for co-phylogenetic patterns to occur).

ETA:
I would also like to apologise for my clumsy wording, above. When, in the following section, I refer to "genes", this should include also portions of the DNA which are not genes. The poor choice of words likely comes from local jargon, as at my university (and likely elsewhere) we refer to every sequenced section of DNA as a "gene", regardless of if the section actually includes a gene or not.

two closely related lineages would be more likely to have shared mutatons than would two more distantly related lineages in any given gene. It does not matter if a gene is structural, coding, genuine junk, or whatever else it may be. The only difference is the level of resolution you would a priori expect a phylogenetic tree based on the gene to have.

 

[randman]

The fact that what was previously thought to be useless has been found to be functional doesn't change the fact that the very same sequences are very strong evidence for evolution.

It does change it completely. Evos claimed pseudogenes not being functional but appearing among certain groupings of species thought to have a common ancestor was "very strong evidence" for evolution. They had been told they were overstating their case. Their idea is that since the genes were not functional, similar function cannot explain similar design (similar genes) but that ONLY common ancestry could explain the appearance of homologous pseudogenes.

Got it now?

On the phylogeny, I am talking about the overall pattern so we're talking all of them. It's not a point original I have thought of. If you look at the pattern and assume common descent, it suggests a couple of things; first a process that has largely ended; second, evolution seeming to occur via a pulse and burst of groupings of creatures that remain largely in stasis or go extinct but evolve around a range; the common ancestor that began each of these bursts is conspiciously absent; a repetition of forms such as with placentals and marsupials suggesting the pattern was in some sense preformed in DNA; etc,....

It doesn't look like an unguided process. We haven't seen a new phyla, for example, in what 500 million years or something like that? How long for the other taxa? Say a new kingdom in what? even longer, right? New family? New genus? New species?

Hopefully you get the picture? Why have bacteria with such a remarkable adaptive and mutation rate not evolved something else in the past billion years? They are one of the most stable forms around. Micrevolution happens all the time there but never adds up to macroevolution.

 

[randman]

How can they be independant? The ears structures came from the same ancestor.

So what do you think that this divergence between groups shows, what are you trying to say?

The mammalian ear is thought to have evolved independently among mammals, not that the common ancestor of mammals had a mammalian ear.

Take some time to look at the different "pairs' between placentals and mammals. The Darwinian answer is that a random process still produced these pairs because of environmental pressures. That's ridiculous. What environmental pressures duplicated the mammalian ear, for example.

A more likely scenario, if one assumes common descent in the first place, would be that these forms were in some sense already programmed into the DNA of the theoritical common ancestor; in other words, it's the DNA that drove the emergence of very similar "pairs", not environmental pressures.

 

[Paulhoff]

The mammalian ear is thought to have evolved independently among mammals, not that the common ancestor of mammals had a mammalian ear.

Do you think mammals had no ears at all before the new type of ear evolved.

Paul

 

[Wowbagger]

The patterns emerging do not indicate they were driven strictly by random mutations and the environment. Even looking at phylogeny, the pattern of how species seem to be grouped together, it's not what "evolution" in the sense of Darwinism would predict, but you have to take the time to look at the patterns and consider the arguments closely.

I would like to remind you, and anyone else who needs it, that:

Random mutations do NOT drive adaptations in the Darwinian view!

Creationists (and even some Evolutionists I know) always seem to get this wrong!

Darwin discovered that the very process of Natural Selection is what drives adaptation! Therefore, the data we are looking at DOES match the patterns predicted by the theory, very closely!

The only thing "random mutations" do is provide a source of variety in the gene pool, for the Natural Selection to select from.

Though, it is not even the only source of variety: there are also transposons ("jumping DNA"), recombination, insertions, deletions, reversals, bit-shifts, etc. to consider.

Do you know what theory does NOT contribute anything to our understanding of the data? Intelligent Design. We have yet to find where I.D. had to intervene in all of this.

 

[Dancing David]

The mammalian ear is thought to have evolved independently among mammals, not that the common ancestor of mammals had a mammalian ear.

Citations and evidence that this statement was made?

Take some time to look at the different "pairs' between placentals and mammals. The Darwinian answer is that a random process still produced these pairs because of environmental pressures.

Which paris and who says what where, cite your sources, please.

That's ridiculous. What environmental pressures duplicated the mammalian ear, for example.

What claim do you think you are making, who said that the proto mammals did not have ears that led to later ears?
What claim are you trying to state?

A more likely scenario, if one assumes common descent in the first place, would be that these forms were in some sense already programmed into the DNA of the theoritical common ancestor; in other words, it's the DNA that drove the emergence of very similar "pairs", not environmental pressures.

Or that the ears already existed, what is your data for these statements? That mammalian ears arose independantly?
Common ancestor has ears, yes or no?

 

[randman]

wowbagger, first natural selection is generally a conservative process counter to the origin of higher taxa. Second, people speak of and yes the most prominent evos even like Watson and Wilson of "random mutations" because it's a huge part of NeoDarwinian theory. The idea is that mutations are necessary to add and change the genome, that genetic drift and variation alone is not sufficient, and that these mutations are not guided, directed or anything like that but are "random" within the context of potential mutations that could occur.

That's standard evolutionary theory.

There are a lot of problems with that, of course. The idea of mutations conferring new traits that are selected via natural selection suggests new genes emerge in conjunction with new traits over time. One would expect then for the earliest and simpler life forms to have the simplest genomes, but at least as far as molecular data and analysis indicates, the last common ancestor to animals and the LCA to plants and animals are now considered to have been incredibly complex genetically.

So the narrative didn't quite work out.

Another significant objection I noted above which is that microevolutionary processes are evolution in the wrong direction. The easiest way to illustrate this is to consider dog breeding. We can breed and produce an incredible level of complexity with this one species, really a subspecies since dogs can mate with wolves, but the further we evolve a breed, the less it can evolve further.

The primary way evolution is envisioned to occur is that small groups are isolated and evolve. Let's consider that for sexually reproducing creatures. This in-breeding process involves less genes available to the subgroup but produces more pronounced features. Mutations are allowed to spread because they are not swallowed up the by the whole, the original parent species, and so washed out.

Evolution definitely occurs but not the sort of evolution that can produce the higher taxa. The reason is this process reduces genetic variability. Even if there are novel genes via a mutation, there is a large loss of genes through isolation, and the beneficial novel gene addition is speculative anyway.

This is why you have a species like the cheetah that is unlikely to be able to evolve further because all cheetah's are basically twins genetically.

Evos have never done any peer-reviewed studies to back up their claims that microevolutionary processes like this result in a greater rate of addition of novel genes than the rate of loss. They insist it is so as a matter of faith.

Therefore, it's not real science.