Ernst Haeckel's embryological diagrams and biology textbooks

[steenkh]

You guys claimed the later sets had a richer set of genes, and you have no evidence of that.

We have evidence that multi-celled organisms appeared after single-celled organisms. Would it not be strange if organisms that cooperate did not have a richer set of genes than very similar organisms that do not? Even later, animals have developed immune systems, pointing to a richer set of genes than before. Certainly, single-celled organisms did not carry genes for multi-celled immune systems, though they might have carried genes that could be used to develop an immune system.

You guys say that because of theory and assume what the data says prior to reading it.

The data says that multi-celled animals appeared after single-celled organisms. Please explain how you can read that the single-celled organisms had a richer set of genes.

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.

"By any standard"? Do not be ridiculous!

 

[randman]

Would it not be strange if organisms that cooperate did not have a richer set of genes than very similar organisms that do not? Even later, animals have developed immune systems, pointing to a richer set of genes than before. Certainly, single-celled organisms did not carry genes for multi-celled immune systems, though they might have carried genes that could be used to develop an immune system.

You are just repeating what evo theory predicts. Problem is the data doesn't agree with you. You think the genes for multicellular life were not present, but you'd be wrong.

Even a lowly form like the coral has genes for complex human nerve function.

Why is that?

 

[Reality Check]

You guys claimed the later sets had a richer set of genes, and you have no evidence of that.

Wrong: steenkh used the phrase 'richer set of genes' (not us guys).
He is right if we take richer to mean more diverse.

You guys say that because of theory and assume what the data says prior to reading it.

Wrong: There is evidence of the various mechanisms in which novel genes can arise, leading to more diverse (richer) sets of genes. Biologists did not make them out of thin air.
For example: Gene duplication.

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.

ETA
There is no problem here for the amoeba in question.
There is no evidence in the press release that 'the earliest organisms did have a richer set of genes'.

 

[randman]

Wrong: steenkh used the phrase 'richer set of genes' (not us guys).
He is right if we take richer to mean more diverse.

Prove it then. Does loss of genes mean "more diverse"?

Are you guys just reduced to arguing semantics?

 

[Reality Check]

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

Citations?
And do not cite the press relaese unless you are just incapable of counting past the number 2 (the 2 genes mentioned)

 

[randman]

Why in the world would I waste time citing something you are unwilling to honestly and objectively deal with in the first place?

You answer the many questions posed to you first and we'll see.

How did the genes get there in a unicellular organism?

How can you say some genes are earlier for embryonic development than others since they all predate the embryo by a long shot?

 

[Reality Check]

Prove it then. Does loss of genes mean "more diverse"?

How dumb: lose of genes means less diverse.
But what steenkh stated was:

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.

and the part of the article that stated that was
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)


So the quote has

1. 'more types of genes' (nothing to do with the entire set of genes).
2. Genes being lost.
3. 'modification of copies of old genes' which is gene duplication, i.e. novel genes.

William Loomis never says that genes are lost overall. He says that they are lost and gained.

 

[randman]

So you are ignoring their claims on loss of genes?

Thought so.

 

[Reality Check]

Citations for all the genes for later life forms were present in the earliest ...

Why in the world would I waste time citing something you are unwilling to honestly and objectively deal with in the first place?

If you give the citations supportiing your assertion then I will honestly and objectively deal with the scientific evidence.

Why How did the genes get there in a unicellular organism?

Evolution.

How can you say some genes are earlier for embryonic development than others since they all predate the embryo by a long shot?

Rather dumb question with an obvious answer - they were inherited!

Now answer:

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

Citations?

 

[randman]

So how does evolution explain the existence of all the major genes for plants and animals prior to plants and animals evolving?

And you failed to even grasp the significance of the question on embyonic development. For creatures with embryos, all the genes were inherited prior to embryonic development according to your response and so that does not explain the wider divergence at the earliest stages of embryonic development if the later proposed hourglass model convergence was due to common ancestry.

Clearly common ancestry is not the answer. Otherwise, the earliest stages would be more similar.

 

[steenkh]

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

That is an interesting claim which you have not backed up in any way. The best you could claim is that the ancestor genes were present in the earliest common ancestor.

So you are ignoring their claims on loss of genes?

You seem to be ignoring the evidence for the creation of new genes.

Obviously, genes can be lost, just like animal species can become extinct. The genes that were not lost were those that got duplicated and diversified into the genes we know today. for instance, it is well-known that mammals lost most of the colour vision that their ancestors had. But some mammals, fortunately including humans, have regained some of that colour vision through the duplication of one of the genes for colour vision. Some humans even have regained the ability to see four colours, again through a fortuitous gene duplication and diversification. Because of the chromosomal location of this change, it is not inheritable in a great degree, so it is a spontaneous mutation that is happening to women.

 

[randman]

Or we take a step back and look at the data and finally realize trying to squeeze into an outdated Darwinian paradigm is unscientific. The truth is the data is not what evos predicted but what their critics predicted.

 

[randman]

Oh, and please note the following comment in your cited paper in color vision.

Second, humans are a large out-bred population. This does not mean that we are not evolving, but it makes it very unlikely that such a mutation will significantly spread throughout the population. It could by chance become prominent in an isolated population – the so-called founder effect.

I have made this point many times on this forum with no evos here willing to grasp even what evo theory says on this point, namely that a mutation even if beneficial will not spread out and become predominant in a large population. It would require a much smaller "isolated" one.

But you guys don't even seem to want to get up to speed on your own theory in this matter.

 

[pakeha]

Just catching up on the thread this morning and I see randman has been repeating the same tired quote mining and distortion tactices I've observed in his posts over time.
It takes a special sort of dedication to do that day after day, especially since at least up til now, it's given no positive results.
But the one randman evasion I read which most amused me was this

...Even a lowly form like the coral has genes for complex human nerve function.

Why is that?

I've snipped the wearisome vulgarity of the opening of this post and simply wanted to point out that randman has gone back to the coral example. Even though it's been explained at length why his example does not in any way disprove the work theory of evolution.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7382708&postcount=497

 

[randman]

Simple cells like bacteria are supposed to be, well, simple. They might have transformed Earth because of their unimaginable numbers, but they’re little more than tiny, solitary bags of chemicals. Or so we thought. Here, New Scientist looks at the growing number of exceptions to the rules. The most recent discoveries are challenging our ideas about the nature of early life.

http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2011/07/new-scientist-not-so-simplebugs-that.html

It amazes me how Darwinist predictions could be so wrong again and again and yet it's proponents are steadfast in their faith.

 

[catsmate]

No, I've been clear all along I do not and still do not believe the evidence shows a phylotypic stage, and that evos fail to realize that even if true, it would be evidence against them, not for it.

I'm sure you'll be supporting your opinion with actual evidence?
Just like you did for your opinion that all material dating techniques are wrong because them conflict with your beliefs.
Oh, wait...........

 

[Cainkane1]

The "standards" point to evolution.

"By any standard"? Do not be ridiculous![/QUOTE]



IDers have to be ridiculous. They have no choice. To continually deny evolution in the face of all the available evidence sets up a situation in which they must grasp at straws. They must do this to keep the conversation going.

 

[pakeha]

http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2011/07/new-scientist-not-so-simplebugs-that.html

It amazes me how Darwinist predictions could be so wrong again and again and yet it's proponents are steadfast in their faith.

Once I got around the snide approach randman chose to use in this post, I went to the link, expecting some independant research.
And I found a blog, with a blogger's comments on someone else's work.
I'm quite disappointed, given the standard set by some of the great resources offered by other posters.

 

[Cainkane1]

http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2011/07/new-scientist-not-so-simplebugs-that.html

It amazes me how Darwinist predictions could be so wrong again and again and yet it's proponents are steadfast in their faith.

The holy books make similar predicitions.

 

[steenkh]

I have made this point many times on this forum with no evos here willing to grasp even what evo theory says on this point, namely that a mutation even if beneficial will not spread out and become predominant in a large population. It would require a much smaller "isolated" one.

This point was covered not so many days ago in the thread "Dear Evolutionsts". It was shown that a particular mutation (a fusion of chromosomes) could easily spread out without being limited to an "isolated" population. At the time, you resorted to hand-waving, claiming that even though the fused chromosomes could spread easily, they would (somehow) not reach a larger population.