Evolution a hoax?

[Perpetual Student]

It is not possible to have a rational discussion on any scientific subject with people who cling to supernatural and/or magical explanations for natural phenomena. Their preference for such explanations overrides logic, evidence, experimentation, observations, the scientific method, history, facts, etc. Their belief in the paranormal is iron clad and impenetrable. But -- good luck anyway.
Hang in there Randman -- your gods will not fail you.

 

[randman]

What actually occurs, is what I described: Speciation is often measured by reproductive success, regardless of information loss or gain or whatever.

Speciation is a human reference, anyway. Your arguments are treating the concept like it is defined by nature, itself.
ETA: In other words, it sounds like you are confusing the model for reality, which is a common fallacy amongst Creationists.

So what?

You just want to hide behind semantics and language, saying it's all just a human construct. So is evolution then.

Think about what happens, the actual process, when speciation occurs. Not about defining it this way or that. There is a real world process that happens, no?

Or are you claiming it just occurs in man's imagination?

 

[Wowbagger]

You just want to hide behind semantics and language, saying it's all just a human construct. So is evolution then.

I am going beyond semantics by describing where evolution can actually be found: In the process of natural selection within the gene pool, and how it is shaped by differential reproductive success.

I was merely reminding you that, as a human construct, speciation has value in helping scientists communicate with each other, about factors within this process.

Your arguments seemed to neglect this.

But, we know they don't work, by virtue of the fact that counter-arguments do. If your constraints were true, the Kakapos would all be dead, by now. Clearly there is something wrong with your line of thinking.

 

[randman]

ANT, missed something. You had said the mammalian ear did not emerge independently through convergent evolution.

Pixy, was the one that claimed the following and was incorrect which is not surprising as evos often don't really know the current state of what evo scientists themselves believe.

Well, no. Placental mammals evolved from marsupials. Common ancestry.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6966479&postcount=149

 

[randman]

I am going beyond semantics by describing where evolution can actually be found: In the process of natural selection within the gene pool, and how it is shaped by differential reproductive success.

I was merely reminding you that, as a human construct, speciation has value in helping scientists communicate with each other, about factors within this process.

Your arguments seemed to neglect this.

But, we know they don't work, by virtue of the fact that counter-arguments do. If your constraints were true, the Kakapos would all be dead, by now. Clearly there is something wrong with your line of thinking.

You are still ignoring the process. Whatever label you want to use, there is a process. If you'd spend some time thinking about that process instead of just thinking of definitions and evo doctrine, you'd learn something.

Information does play a central role in the process whether you or anyone wants to admit it and regardless of how that process is defined.

 

[Wowbagger]

You are still ignoring the process.

I just described the process!!

Your arguments, about "loss of information" are not relevant to that process because gene-pool selection, cumulative probability, and the nature of speciation render such constraints irrelevant. Etc.

You seem to be ignoring some important, key components of the process.

Information does play a central role in the process whether you or anyone wants to admit it and regardless of how that process is defined.

Information plays a role, but not in the manner you are describing. Speciation is NOT dependant on information loss or gain. Gene-pool selection is NOT dependent on information loss or gain. Cumulative probability is NOT dependent on information loss or gain. And, all of those factors have far more influence in the process, than the actual amount of data running through the process at any one given time.

 

[A'isha]

1. Please provide the rates requested.

Clicking a link still to hard for you?

Very well. In straight genetic terms, the general vertebrate rate of gain vs. loss in duplicated genes is 50%. That is, when any given gene is duplicated, just about half will develop functional divergence and become new genes with novel gene functions, while half will remain nonfunctional pseudogenes and are quickly lost. This rate varies due to a variety of factors (Sergei Rodin, for instance, has shown how this rate of retention is higher in organisms that have cytosine methylation (H. sapiens, M. musculus, and A. thaliana) than in organisms that do not have methylated genomes (S. cerevisiae, D. melanogaster, and C. elegans), and that epigenetic silencing also increases the rate of genes that develop functional divergence and are therefore kept).

What does that mean in actual organisms? Here's an example - Atsushi Ogura, Kazuho Ikeo, and Takashi Gojobori, when examining the gene loss rate of the gene set the original LCA of bilateria that led to the evolution of the eye, found that organisms with a compound eye showed more of gene loss rate in that set (29.9%, 24.5%, and 23.7% were lost in nematodes, mosquitoes, and flies, respectively) than organisms with a camera eye (12.8%–14.1% in vertebrates). In other words, humans lost less than 15% of the original LCA gene set during evolution, 852 genes out of the original 1019, and thanks to the retention rate of functionally divergent duplicate genes, during the evolutionary process the genome that became the human genome added a whole lot more genes for the eye (there are currently 13,303 known Expressed Sequence Tags for the human eye that code for proteins).

Happy now?

2. Do you deny chiding me and ignorantly claiming placentals evolved from marsupials, a very basic fact which you were completely wrong on and wrong to smear me on when I was entirely correct?

What, specifically, are you referring to? I don't remember bringing up placental mammal evolution vis a vis marsupial evolution, though I do recall correcting your misreading of a paper on the evolution of the ear in placentals and marsupials.

 

[A'isha]

ANT, missed something. You had said the mammalian ear did not emerge independently through convergent evolution.

Did I? I believe I corrected you about what a paper you cited said about ear evolution, but didn't say anything else material on the topic. Mainly because it was irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

Pixy, was the one that claimed the following and was incorrect which is not surprising as evos often don't really know the current state of what evo scientists themselves believe.



http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6966479&postcount=149

So, you accuse me of something, and when you find out that you're totally wrong in your accusation, you not only don't apologize to me, you twist it into yet another claim that "evos" don't know what they're talking about while you do.

I'd facepalm, but really, what's the point by now?

 

[randman]

I just described the process!!

Your arguments, about "loss of information" are not relevant to that process because gene-pool selection, cumulative probability, and the nature of speciation render such constraints irrelevant. Etc.

You seem to be ignoring some important, key components of the process.

Information plays a role, but not in the manner you are describing. Speciation is NOT dependant on information loss or gain. Gene-pool selection is NOT dependent on information loss or gain. Cumulative probability is NOT dependent on information loss or gain. And, all of those factors have far more influence in the process, than the actual amount of data running through the process at any one given time.

You still fail to see the basic point. First, you haven't grasped the process if you think gene-pool selection, etc,.....render such constraints irrevelant. In fact, stating that shows you do not understand the question and issue posed.

Secondly, what we're talking about is what happens informationally through successive chains of speciation, which are presumed to lead to macroevolution and the evolution of the higher taxa. The fact speciation can occur via a loss of information, which is generally the case, supports my point and is not an argument against it.

The claim microevolution adds up to macroevolution means that the origin of higher taxa originated and evolved from an original source does entail a specific claim that information for the origin of the higher taxa stems from NeoDarwinian mechanisms of microevolution. That being said, since microevolution generally over time entails a process of decreasing such information, microevolution is greatly constrained as a mechanism for macroevolution.

This is what many scientists have correctly shown for decades. Grasse called the ND claim "a myth" even though he believed in common descent, and he was correct.

There are no examples in the fossil record or living biota of macroevolution, period. Some argue as far as to claim no examples of true speciation even though I disagree (species defined as biological species).

Can you name some examples?

 

[randman]

Did I? I believe I corrected you about what a paper you cited said about ear evolution, but didn't say anything else material on the topic. Mainly because it was irrelevant to the discussion at hand.



So, you accuse me of something, and when you find out that you're totally wrong in your accusation, you not only don't apologize to me, you twist it into yet another claim that "evos" don't know what they're talking about while you do.

I'd facepalm, but really, what's the point by now?

your correction was wrong which is one reason no apology was warranted.....you were wrong to suggest the mammalian ear did not emerge independently or thought to have had

 

[randman]

Clicking a link still to hard for you?

Very well. In straight genetic terms, the general vertebrate rate of gain vs. loss in duplicated genes is 50%. That is, when any given gene is duplicated, just about half will develop functional divergence and become new genes with novel gene functions, while half will remain nonfunctional pseudogenes and are quickly lost. This rate varies due to a variety of factors (Sergei Rodin, for instance, has shown how this rate of retention is higher in organisms that have cytosine methylation (H. sapiens, M. musculus, and A. thaliana) than in organisms that do not have methylated genomes (S. cerevisiae, D. melanogaster, and C. elegans), and that epigenetic silencing also increases the rate of genes that develop functional divergence and are therefore kept).

What does that mean in actual organisms? Here's an example - Atsushi Ogura, Kazuho Ikeo, and Takashi Gojobori, when examining the gene loss rate of the gene set the original LCA of bilateria that led to the evolution of the eye, found that organisms with a compound eye showed more of gene loss rate in that set (29.9%, 24.5%, and 23.7% were lost in nematodes, mosquitoes, and flies, respectively) than organisms with a camera eye (12.8%–14.1% in vertebrates). In other words, humans lost less than 15% of the original LCA gene set during evolution, 852 genes out of the original 1019, and thanks to the retention rate of functionally divergent duplicate genes, during the evolutionary process the genome that became the human genome added a whole lot more genes for the eye (there are currently 13,303 known Expressed Sequence Tags for the human eye that code for proteins).

Happy now?



What, specifically, are you referring to? I don't remember bringing up placental mammal evolution vis a vis marsupial evolution, though I do recall correcting your misreading of a paper on the evolution of the ear in placentals and marsupials.

Like I said, you still failed to provide any paper that addresses the issue posed. Unfortunately, you cannot seem to grasp the point or are simply unwilling to do so.

But just as a clue for you. Rates related to mutation are only half the question posed, and if you go back and read you will note I already stated evos have theories and papers related to rates of mutation, including which ones they believe would be beneficial or neutral.

So let me ask you something. Why then do I continue to tell you that the papers do not address the question posed?

Could it be that I have not simply asked you for rates of mutation but for something else? a comparison of that and something else?

I am putting this in a question in the hopes that perhaps you can get it then. I have stated and restated ad nauseum the comparison that has not been done, that should be done, but you do not seem to get it.

 

[Resume]

So Randman, you have no scholarship of your own then?

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I would like to make it clear that I am discussing the bedrock crazy fundies,not the majority of Christians. I know two of the latter sort,they are nice people,if a little misguided.

Yeah, they just joined the Party because everyone was was joining the Party. You had to join the Party or you couldn't get a job. And the little people never really knew what was going on in those camps anyway. Most of them never heard about the camps. So we certainly can't blame the "average person" for the camps. It wasn't like they had anything to do with them.

 

[randman]

I am going to try to give you guys an analogy to help you understand the issue that's being raised. Evos are like someone that has a picture and examples of man walking on the earth and man walking on the moon and a man walking (let's just imagine for sake of example this is the case and not floating) in orbit on a space station. The evo says look here, we clearly see men walking here, in orbit and on the moon and so that shows man walked to the moon.

The critic points out that's not the case because walking is not a mechanism that enables one to walk into orbit and then to the moon; that the process itself is constrained. Evos counter that the definition of walking is walking, and that since men walked here, in orbit and on the moon and they are spaced apart in progression that man walked to the moon. After all the definition of evolution, er walking, is heritable change or a change in allelles, etc,... (for evolution) and so the fact man walked to the moon is proven.

You point out that the kind of evolution (walking in the analogy) still does not enable one to walk upward into the air. The evo says, well, I see your problem. You think evolution has to have a direction. The critic counters that clearly the theory states there was a direction, from here to the moon, and unless the mechanism enables one to walk upward, it doesn't work.

The evo says, well, actually in walking, you can walk forward and backwards, and walk upwards to. Why here is a picture of someone walking up a mountain and then down. So you are wrong because you don't understand evolution. It can go in any direction.

Yes, the critic explains but that still doesn't explain how one can walk to the orbital station and to the moon. There are these large jumps and we have no examples of anything ever making that jump. There is a not a single instance of the fossil record or living biota that show a man walking upwards on air.

The evo mocks. You are just an ignorant creationist that insists all the gaps must be filled. Clearly the orbit is an intermediate stage and so proves man walked to the space station and then to the moon.

The critic tries his best to explain that seeming to be intermediate does not actually mean we have any data showing the transition, showing a man walking upwards in air. There are no examples anywhere of this, not in living biota, nor in the fossil record and so it goes because evos don't want to actually bother understanding the issue posed, namely walking is not a mechanism for walking upwards in air or space, and we have no such examples of that anywhere at any time.

 

[Wowbagger]

The fact speciation can occur via a loss of information, which is generally the case, supports my point and is not an argument against it.

Speciation can also occur through a gain of information, or through no change in the amount of information.

Macro-scale evolutionary processes can also occur through a loss, gain, or no change in the amount of information.

Remember: "Largest-sized genome" is generally not an important factor in natural selection.

The claim microevolution adds up to macroevolution means that the origin of higher taxa originated and evolved from an original source does entail a specific claim that information for the origin of the higher taxa stems from NeoDarwinian mechanisms of microevolution.

When we say "micro-evolution adds up to macro-evolution", we do NOT literally mean we are adding anything up. It does not imply that information must be added during the process.

It would be more accurate to say "macro-evolution is an apparent result of lots of micro-evolutions".

And, furthermore, you are wrong about levels of information getting lost, anyway, as ANTPogo has pointed out.

Can you name some examples?

I would like to remind you that wild cabbage has evolved into plants that do not resemble their original form at all: cabbage, broccoli, cauliflower, kale, brussels sprouts, etc.


This page has lots of examples of plants and animals:
http://evolutionlist.blogspot.com/2009/02/macroevolution-examples-and-evidence.html

A few of them:

Owenby (1950) demonstrated that two species in the genus Tragopogon were produced by polyploidization from hybrids. He showed that Tragopogon miscellus found in a colony in Moscow, Idaho was produced by hybridization of Tragopogon dubius and Tragopogon pratensis. He also showed that Tragopogon mirus found in a colony near Pullman, Washington was produced by hybridization of Tragopogon dubius and Tragopogon porrifolius. Evidence from chloroplast DNA suggests that Tragopogon mirus has originated independently by hybridization in eastern Washington and western Idaho at least three times (Soltis and Soltis 1989). The same study also shows multiple origins for Tragopogon micellus.

(snip)

Shikano, et al. (1990) reported that an unidentified bacterium underwent a major morphological change when grown in the presence of a ciliate predator. This bacterium's normal morphology is a short (1.5 um) rod. After 8 - 10 weeks of growing with the predator it assumed the form of long (20 um) cells. These cells have no cross walls. Filaments of this type have also been produced under circumstances similar to Boraas' induction of multicellularity in Chlorella. Microscopic examination of these filaments is described in Gillott et al. (1993). Multicellularity has also been produced in unicellular bacterial by predation (Nakajima and Kurihara 1994). In this study, growth in the presence of protozoal grazers resulted in the production of chains of bacterial cells.

Here is a good example of how we can see macro-evolution happening in sticklebacks:
http://www.indiana.edu/~ensiweb/evo.devo.platt.html


It might also help to read up on the variety of survival strategies amongst cichlids:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cichlid


See also this web site:
http://www.nescent.org/media/NABT/

 

[Wowbagger]

I am going to try to give you guys an analogy to help you understand the issue that's being raised.

I am not quite sure I understand your analogy. But, you seem to be leaving an important part out of it: Experimentation.

Your analogy seems to model only the interpretive or systematic aspects of science: What constitues "walking" or not. You appear to be leaving out how the arguments can be conclusively resolved.

The "evos" derrive their knowledge from experiments (in the lab, or testing ideas in the field). We can experiment to see if it is possible to walk on the moon or space station or whatever, to confirm or refute our theories about the nature of walking. We can experiment to see if macro-evolution is possible or not. We can develop a hypothesis, and see if its predictions match new observations we can make in the field.

Creationism does not lend itself to anything like that.

 

[randman]

Wowbagger:

Speciation can also occur through a gain of information, or through no change in the amount of information.

So what? I think you are clearly wrong but you are still missing the overall point. Nevertheless, let's correct a few things. Speciation can occur through a gain of information overall? How do you know this?

More germane, however, we are talking of multiple speciation events, right? Not some basic variation you call speciation.

The overall point has to do with the mechanisms evos propose for macroevolution (multiple speciation leading to major macroevolutionary change aka the origin of the higher taxa).

It would be more accurate to say "macro-evolution is an apparent result of lots of micro-evolutions".

Nice claim but you have no evidence that it does. Show me some examples of micro-transitions adding up to major macroevolutionary change in living biota or in the fossil record.

Show me where evos have studied the loss of genes via subgroup isolation can be overcome by theorized mutational rates as a general pattern sufficient to suggest microevolution leads to macroevolution. It just does not. Microevolution is highly constrained. Just look at bacteria which experience rapid mutation and microevolution and have done so presumably for billions of years, but without any examples of bacteria evolving into any other basic form than bacteria. Just hasn't happened.

Microevolution appears confined by a range. Things can become much smaller with differences or much larger but the basic form or type of what it is does not change. That's what we observe and no amount of insisting otherwise can change that. We just have no examples of microevolution leading to the large-scale jumps required for the origin of the higher taxa.

It's a dead end.

 

[randman]

wowbagger, let's look at one of your link's claims which frankly was amusing in it's claim of macroevolution being demonstrated simply because sticklebacks are highly adaptive. Keep in mind no one has denied or questioned that there is a variation range of adaptivity within organisms.

Species of stickleback fish can rapid adapt to new environments. Such adaptations can range from minor adjustments to body shape and size to the complete loss of major structures such as the pelvis. It is an example of rapid, intelligent adaptation, not the sort of change expected by evolution.

This is not the only surprise for evolutionists. Recent research has found that these adaptations are controlled by different genes. That surprised evolutionists because they expect the same genes would control the same changes in related species. A basic prediction of evolution is that related species should be genetically similar, because they have been evolving independently for only a relatively short period. But this expectation is routinely contradicted by biology, which seems to be unaware of the theory of evolution.

Another interesting example of this in stickleback fish are the sex-determination genes, which are located on different chromosomes in different species. As one evolutionist admitted:

This is very surprising because these species are fairly closely related.


Evolutionists believe that significant differences such as these must have somehow evolved. Evolutionists may not have a clear or compelling explanation for how or why the change came about, but not surprisingly, they believe evolution did the job. Since these differences do not fit the evolutionary expectation, they are viewed as anomalies, whereas the similarities that are expected are viewed as more informative of evolutionary relationship. It is the latter, not the former, that are more often used when evolutionists create their evolutionary trees.

This pre screening of data is known as confirmation bias.

http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2010/04/stickleback-and-confirmation-bias.html

The stickleback findings actually raise serious problems for evolutionists, and yet rather see the issues raised, they make wild overstatements trumpeting the ability for one basic organism to rapidly adapt as macroevolution when clearly that's not occurring.

The genetic findings are particularly interesting such as the sex determination genes in different chromosomes in different species.

If followed evo logic, wouldn't that mean they were not closely related?

I'll let you chew on that for a bit.

 

[Wowbagger]

Speciation can occur through a gain of information overall? How do you know this?

Speciation is often determined through level of reproductive success between two entities.

The amount of information gained or lost is, technically, not relevant.

Show me some examples of micro-transitions adding up to major macroevolutionary change in living biota or in the fossil record.

I gave you some examples in my previous post.


Here a better analogy for you:

Two astronomers see a faint nebulae in the sky. One says it is a separate galaxy. Another says it is a blob of gas within our own galaxy. In these cases, there are ways to test who is right: We can make use of the Doppler-effect, measure the size of supernovas if they are caught on film, measure the light from cepheid variables, etc.

Now, imagine if a third astronomer comes in and says: "Both theories are false. It is impossible for the information from cosmic nebulae to reach Earth! That blob of light is clearly an angel!"

The first two astronomers are the "evos". The third one are the Creationists and I.D. proponents.

 

[Resume]

So Randman, since you've decided to ignore my requests for your own scholarship in the field of evolutionary biology, I can only conclude you lack any credentials for your criticism of same and are merely parroting the arguments of creationist apology.

Does that about sum it up?