Ernst Haeckel's embryological diagrams and biology textbooks

[randman]

This is really simple. For example, some major genes arose at specific points in time
Before there were land dwelling animals there were no genes for hair.
Before there were birds there were no genes for feathers.

I understand what's what you were taught and what evo theory predicted, but the facts indicate otherwise.

Hopefully you can see then why this is a major failing of NeoDarwinian theory and prediction.

 

[Reality Check]

I understand what's what you were taught and what evo theory predicted, but the facts indicate otherwise.

Hopefully you can see then why this is a major failing of NeoDarwinian theory and prediction.

I understand what you were taught in Sunday School and and what creationists theory predicts (nothing), but the facts indicate otherwise.

Hopefully you can see then why this is a major success of NeoDarwinian theory and prediction.

 

[randman]

I understand what you were taught in Sunday School and and what creationists theory predicts (nothing), but the facts indicate otherwise.

Hopefully you can see then why this is a major success of NeoDarwinian theory and prediction.

How does evolution explain the following?

“The cells which gave rise to plants and animals had more types of genes available to them than are presently found in either plants or animals,” explains William Loomis, a professor of biology at UCSD and one of the key members of the international sequencing effort.

http://ucsdnews.ucsd.edu/newsrel/science/mcamoeba.asp

If all the genes needed for every function were already present in such a simple, one-cell organism, why do you need to invoke Darwinian adaption to explain their origin?

How does adaptationism explain why an organism without all the complex functions of organisms today would evolve all the genes for things, like nerve function, hair or any such thing?

Does it not look a little planned since genes did not slowly accumulate over time via adaptive mechanisms as evos claimed?

 

[Reality Check]

This would be funny if it wasn't so sad you cannot see the problems with it. First, it's circular reasoning.

Firstly it is not circular reasoning unless you are ignorant enough to ignore all of the physical evidence for evolution.
There are especially ignorant people who just cannot grasp the strong evidence for evolution. I hope that you are not one.

Secondly, you are wrong on genes.

Secondly you are wrong on gene types - they are not referenced in the paper. It is genes that are used not gene types.
A phylogenetically based transcriptome age index mirrors ontogenetic divergence patterns

Parallels between phylogeny and ontogeny have been discussed for almost two centuries, and a number of theories have been proposed to explain such patterns1. Especially elusive is the phylotypic stage, a phase during development where species within a phylum are particularly similar to each other2, 3, 4, 5, 6. Although this has formerly been interpreted as a recapitulation of phylogeny1, it is now thought to reflect an ontogenetic progression phase2, where strong constraints on developmental regulation and gene interactions exist2, 3. Several studies have shown that genes expressed during this stage evolve at a slower rate, but it has so far not been possible to derive an unequivocal molecular signature associated with this stage7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15. Here we use a combination of phylostratigraphy16 and stage-specific gene expression data to generate a cumulative index that reflects the evolutionary age of the transcriptome at given ontogenetic stages. Using zebrafish ontogeny and adult development as a model, we find that the phylotypic stage does indeed express the oldest transcriptome set and that younger sets are expressed during early and late development, thus faithfully mirroring the hourglass model of morphological divergence2, 3. Reproductively active animals show the youngest transcriptome, with major differences between males and females. Notably, ageing animals express increasingly older genes. Comparisons with similar data sets from flies and nematodes show that this pattern occurs across phyla. Our results indicate that an old transcriptome marks the phylotypic phase and that phylogenetic differences at other ontogenetic stages correlate with the expression of newly evolved genes.

Genes are in types or families, and the latest science is shown by this comment:
http://ucsdnews.ucsd.edu/newsrel/science/mcamoeba.asp

You really need to read and understand your links. Nothng to do with gene lines or families. All to do with evolution.

So considering all these genes predated animals and plants, it's a bit silly on your part to say some are older for fish than they are for mammals.

That is idiotic

1. I did not say that.
   The paper states that genes appear within evolutionary history.
   This is obvious since genes mutate and so some have to be older than others.
2. The link explicitly states that some genes are older than others!
   It start with showing that Dictyostelium discoideum evolved before invertebrates and humans. Thus is all of its genes are older than invertebrate or human specific genes, e.g. the genes for human eyes (I assume you know that amoeba do not have eyes !).
   And then
   

   Three years ago, another team of UCSD biologists discovered that two genes that are used by Dictyostelium to guide the organism to food sources are also used to guide human white blood cells to the sites of infections and play a role in the spread of cancer. (see: http://ucsdnews.ucsd.edu/newsrel/science/mcchemo.htm )
   

 

[A'isha]

M. acropora again? Isn't this where you came in, randman? Have you really learned nothing over the past half-year?

EDIT: Guess not, but the same front-loading nonsense nevertheless.

 

[randman]

The paper states that genes appear within evolutionary history.
This is obvious since genes mutate and so some have to be older than others.

So how do you explain the simple, unicellular organisms that are proposed to have evolved into plants and animals already had all these genes in the first place?

 

[randman]

Thus is all of its genes are older than invertebrate or human specific genes

But molecular studies show human specific genes were already present long before animals even came onto the scene.

How do you explain that?

 

[Reality Check]

How does evolution explain the following?
http://ucsdnews.ucsd.edu/newsrel/science/mcamoeba.asp

Nice quote mining, randman:

“The cells which gave rise to plants and animals had more types of genes available to them than are presently found in either plants or animals,” explains William Loomis, a professor of biology at UCSD and one of the key members of the international sequencing effort. “Specialization appears to lead to loss of genes as well as the modification of copies of old genes. As each new genome is sequenced, we learn more about the history and physiology of the progenitors and gain insight into the function of human genes.”

How does adaptationism explain why an organism without all the complex functions of organisms today would evolve all the genes for things, like nerve function, hair or any such thing?

That is really displaying your ignorance, randman. Read up on the basics of evolution.

 

[A'isha]

But molecular studies show human specific genes were already present long before animals even came onto the scene.

How do you explain that?

Simple. They're not human-specific genes.

 

[Reality Check]

But molecular studies show human specific genes were already present long before animals even came onto the scene.

How do you explain that?

Because they are not 'human specific' - Duh!
If they were human specific then they would only appear in humans.
What molecular studies show is that genes can be coopted by evolution for other purposes. Thus
Biologists Determine Genetic Blueprint Of Social Amoeba

Three years ago, another team of UCSD biologists discovered that two genes that are used by Dictyostelium to guide the organism to food sources are also used to guide human white blood cells to the sites of infections and play a role in the spread of cancer. (see: http://ucsdnews.ucsd.edu/newsrel/science/mcchemo.htm )

This is of course evidence of common descent.

 

[randman]

Because they are not 'human specific' - Duh!
If they were human specific then they would only appear in humans.
What molecular studies show is that genes can be coopted by evolution for other purposes. Thus
Biologists Determine Genetic Blueprint Of Social Amoeba

This is of course evidence of common descent.

They were genes formerly considered to be human specific. One has to wonder if there is such a thing now as human-specific or vertebrate specific or any "species specific" genes?

Why is that?

You say they can be co-opted for other purposes. Ok, but that doesn't explain why such a simple, single-cell organism would have all the types of genes and more that plants and animals have today.

Didn't you guys claims novel genes arose through adaption (evolution) of function as plants and animals arose?

Well, apparently that's not the case, is it? Because the genes were already there.

 

[randman]

Simple. They're not human-specific genes.

They were considered human-specific genes, however. It is questionable in light of all the genes for plants and animals predating plants and animals whether you can say there are any plant or animal specific genes if you are going to take that tack.

The genes were already there.

How did they get there?

 

[randman]

Nice quote mining, randman:



That is really displaying your ignorance, randman. Read up on the basics of evolution.

How does your bolded quote change the earlier comment that the genes were already there? One reason he mentions loss of genes is because the genes were already there.

 

[steenkh]

Ok, but that doesn't explain why such a simple, single-cell organism would have all the types of genes and more that plants and animals have today.

Where did you read that single-celled organisms have all of the genes that plants and animals have today? Your quote only says that the single-celled organisms had more gene types (original genes) available. It is quite possible that there has been a gene loss, but as the part of the quote that you omitted says, later on, some of the surviving genes got copied and modified, thus leading to a richer set of genes than the original single-celled organism had available.

 

[randman]

Where did you read that single-celled organisms have all of the genes that plants and animals have today? Your quote only says that the single-celled organisms had more gene types (original genes) available. It is quite possible that there has been a gene loss, but as the part of the quote that you omitted says, later on, some of the surviving genes got copied and modified, thus leading to a richer set of genes than the original single-celled organism had available.

A "richer set of genes" is not what the molecular evidence suggests though you are correct that they envision gene loss and modification, particularly in how genetic sequences are used, as part of the process (because they assume common descent I might add).

But that's not a "richer set" of genes.

There isn't a good Darwinian explanation for all these types of genes and such genetic complexity to be present basically right there in the beginning of the proposed divergence and evolution of plants and animals. The Darwinian narrative of mutations adding traits which are selected for and so a gradual accumulation of genes with the emergence of new traits is clearly not what we see in the data here.

These genes arrived long before so many features and traits evolved, if they ever evolved in the first place.

So how did they get here?

 

[steenkh]

A "richer set of genes" is not what the molecular evidence suggests though you are correct that they envision gene loss and modification, particularly in how genetic sequences are used, as part of the process (because they assume common descent I might add).

But that's not a "richer set" of genes.

The quote from the article you quote-mined did not mention "a richer set of genes", but that the original cell "had more types of genes available". It might have had more types of genes, and today plants and animal might have "a richer set of genes".

There isn't a good Darwinian explanation for all these types of genes and such genetic complexity to be present basically right there in the beginning of the proposed divergence and evolution of plants and animals.

Nobody claims that the original cells were more complex than what came after them, the claim was merely that they had more "types of genes" (and I do wonder how this is determined). For instance, it is quite definite that the first cells did not have a nucleus.

So how did they get here?

Evolution?

 

[randman]

You guys claimed the later sets had a richer set of genes, and you have no evidence of that. You guys say that because of theory and assume what the data says prior to reading it. But the molecular claims when you dig into the literature is that by any standard, the earliest organisms did have a richer set of genes (though you guys do not define that) than the plants and animals that followed as a general pattern.

 

[Reality Check]

They were genes formerly considered to be human specific.

They are just as likely be genes formerly considered to be amoeba specific. In either case they are no longer specific to anything but the common ancestor of us and the Dictyostelium discoideum amoeba.

One has to wonder if there is such a thing now as human-specific or vertebrate specific or any "species specific" genes?

One would be especially ignorant to wonder that.

You say they can be co-opted for other purposes. Ok, but that doesn't explain why such a simple, single-cell organism would have all the types of genes and more that plants and animals have today.

What it does not explain is why you are writing this nonsense without any evidence.

Dictyostelium discoideum does not have 'all the types of genes and more that plants and animals have today', e.g. it has no genes to form bones.

You are also ignoring what you quote mined before which explains why it has more genes the many other organisms:
Biologists Determine Genetic Blueprint Of Social Amoeba

“The cells which gave rise to plants and animals had more types of genes available to them than are presently found in either plants or animals,” explains William Loomis, a professor of biology at UCSD and one of the key members of the international sequencing effort. “Specialization appears to lead to loss of genes as well as the modification of copies of old genes. As each new genome is sequenced, we learn more about the history and physiology of the progenitors and gain insight into the function of human genes.”

(my emphasis added)

Didn't you guys claims novel genes arose through adaption (evolution) of function as plants and animals arose?

No we do not: Evolution states that novel genes arise through several mechanisms none of which seem to be your 'adaption of function'.

Well, apparently that's not the case, is it? Because the genes were already there.

Rather dumb assertion.
Only 2 genes are listed in the article (Biologists Determine Genetic Blueprint Of Social Amoeba). These 2 genes were already there in the common ancestor of us and the Dictyostelium discoideum amoeba. They just happened to not change enough to be so different that they would produce different proteins (and so be considered different genes).

I do hope that you do not have the delusion that evolution means that every gene in every organism changes.

 

[Reality Check]

How does your bolded quote change the earlier comment that the genes were already there? One reason he mentions loss of genes is because the genes were already there.

It does not - it explains their loss.
Read the quote in full again:
Biologists Determine Genetic Blueprint Of Social Amoeba

“The cells which gave rise to plants and animals had more types of genes available to them than are presently found in either plants or animals,” explains William Loomis, a professor of biology at UCSD and one of the key members of the international sequencing effort. “Specialization appears to lead to loss of genes as well as the modification of copies of old genes. As each new genome is sequenced, we learn more about the history and physiology of the progenitors and gain insight into the function of human genes.”

But if you want an explanation for the 'more types of genes' then consider the opposite process of specialization - generalization.

Also this is a press release - I would have liked a citation to the literature to support this opinion.

 

[randman]

How is it that all the genes for later life forms were present in the earliest common ancestor to plants and animals?

You can try to dodge this if you want? I won't be surprised if you do because it's a big problem for your narrative.