AdMan
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2010
- Messages
- 10,293
You've demonstrated you don't understand natural selection. Why don't you show that you do, before you cut and paste posts from other threads?
-
Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more
Wholly Natrualistic Alternative To Neo-Darwinism?
- Thread starter Patrick1000
- Start date
You've demonstrated you don't understand natural selection. Why don't you show that you do, before you cut and paste posts from other threads?
Lowpro
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jan 1, 2011
- Messages
- 5,399
Wow wouldn't you know it; Cytochrome C's function is conserved even with changes to its code because the changes are between isoleucine and threonine which are structurally similar and it maintains its function. There may have been intermediates because I'm sure we haven't mapped out Cytochrome C for all living organisms, hell why don't YOU go do it, but evolution is hardly standing on a rickety pillar waiting to give way just because YOU don't understand. You're arguing from incredulity again.
And because Patrick1k doesn't get selection... it has been addressed you're drawing a bad conclusion because you don't know what you're actually talking about. And now you've done this in two threads.
You should take a biochemistry course if you want to talk Cytochrome C bucko. While you're doing that, go get Evolutionary Analysis and learn ya something so as to stop seeming so stupid here. And stop lying while you're at it.
ETA: I mean seriously do you think that this argument of yours means ANYTHING? There are organisms with novel genes! Stuff that is SO much more interesting AND STILL explicable, and you're stuck here? You may try to distance yourselves from CT nutbags and creationists, but you're so ignorant that if what you say is true you're just ...ignorant in your own right. You mean to tell me you reached the conclusions of CT nutters and creationists...without them? That you're a novel idiot?
Last edited:
Tricky
Briefly immortal
You do realize that the above is mostly gibberish, don't you? I'm trying to decipher it and is sounds like your point is that because Cytochrome C doesn't change that much, even though the majority of the DNA molecule does, then evolution must be wrong. As you would know, if you actually understood anything about evolution, successful adaptations may be carried on through a long string of organisms if it works in all of them, and these successful adaptations will be preserved in the DNA even though a large part of the DNA is different than it is in other organisms. This is not surprising at all. Why you find it to be worth shouting about is puzzling.
Foster Zygote
Dental Floss Tycoon
- Joined
- Jun 24, 2006
- Messages
- 23,448
Agreed. Patrick1000 can find someone else to participate in his infantile games. I'm bored with them.
Perhaps because we're all equally divergent from bacterium.
Seriously, that's likely part of the answer (the other part likely dealing with how infrequently variations in that gene are successful--stabilization pressure isn't uncommon). ALL LIVING THINGS are equally evolved. The concept of "higher" and "lower" animals makes no sense, biologically speaking.
Because it's had a few hundred million, if not billion, years to work out the kinks (I'm of the opinion that the kingdoms, and perhaps phyla, had diverged well before the Cambrian Explosion, but that's certainly open to debate). That's more than enough time for selection pressure (which you pretend doesn't exist) to work out the bugs.
Not necessarily. Sometimes the changes are inconsequential--they don't actually DO anything. The third codon can generally change into nearly any other and it won't affect the gene. And remember, genes code for proteins--just because the gene changes, doesn't necessarily mean that the protein function changes. You're assuming that it does, and that's a pretty major assumption to make without any evidence at all, not even a reference to a textbook.
Of course not, nor would we expect to--DNA almost never is preserved in the fossil record. Remember, an intermediate form IS NOT an intermediate between a sunflower and a modern bacterium--it's between a sunflower and one of its ancestors. And modern bacteria are just as evolved as we are--meaning that it's more than a safe bet that bacteria today are as different from bacteria when the sunflowers diverged as sunflowers are.
You're falling for yet another Creationist trick here, Patrick1000.
So I'm unaware of any evolutionary curve balls thrown by this post. I see a number of misconceptions, a number of flagrant fallacies, a number of unsupported assertions, and I see the heavy hand of Creationists at work in your understanding of evolution, but I see nothing that's even remotely a challenge to the modern theory of evolution.
Could it be, perhaps, that you don't actually understand the theory?
Patrick1000
Banned
- Joined
- Jul 22, 2011
- Messages
- 3,039
No that is not the point
No that is not the point.
Evolution is not "wrong".
But it turned out to not be as people thought. This is a very famous example of what the renown biologist Motoo Kimura in 1968 ultimately termed "neutral evolution".
This of course, to those familiar with the example, is very much not a game, it is reflective of an extremely important/famous/classic biologic problem. Here one has the genotype, the genetic information coding for cytochrome c, CHANGING AT A CONSTANT RATE LIKE A "MOLECULAR CLOCK" AND CHANGING INDEPENDENTLY OF ANY SELECTION PRESSURE.
So unlike the conventional view, unlike the case of conventional mechanism, here with cytochrome c, the phenotype is not affected by selection pressures, not affected by natural selection. AND, the phenotype in some broad sense, does not appear to be affected by a change in the underlying genotype/DNA information.
So "molecular clock stuff", now taken for granted, was a big deal when people first stumbled on it because it upset the neo-Darwinian apple cart.
Motoo Kimura, the great Japanese biologist, saved face for Darwinism, or attempted to anyway, by suggesting there were these occasions of "neutral evolution" where the conventions don't apply.
My objection to that is it is a form of having one's cake and eating it too, and doing so when this should very much not be allowed. One cannot begin by saying the underlying informational change is responsive to selection pressure, and that the phenotype is responsive to changes in genotype, and then find examples like this and so because now you're cornered, turn around and say, "well here it doesn't count. Our notion of mechanism breaks down, so we'll simply say something else is going on here". In my mind, this is CHEATING in science.
This is a classic old example of what was when it was discovered a "non-conventional" change in genotype that seemed to be occurring with clock like regularity, and occurring independently of selection pressures. As such, it is of course NOT Darwinism in any conventional sense, any sense at all as far as I am concerned, and there are of course many many example of this now known.
No that is not the point.
Evolution is not "wrong".
But it turned out to not be as people thought. This is a very famous example of what the renown biologist Motoo Kimura in 1968 ultimately termed "neutral evolution".
This of course, to those familiar with the example, is very much not a game, it is reflective of an extremely important/famous/classic biologic problem. Here one has the genotype, the genetic information coding for cytochrome c, CHANGING AT A CONSTANT RATE LIKE A "MOLECULAR CLOCK" AND CHANGING INDEPENDENTLY OF ANY SELECTION PRESSURE.
So unlike the conventional view, unlike the case of conventional mechanism, here with cytochrome c, the phenotype is not affected by selection pressures, not affected by natural selection. AND, the phenotype in some broad sense, does not appear to be affected by a change in the underlying genotype/DNA information.
So "molecular clock stuff", now taken for granted, was a big deal when people first stumbled on it because it upset the neo-Darwinian apple cart.
Motoo Kimura, the great Japanese biologist, saved face for Darwinism, or attempted to anyway, by suggesting there were these occasions of "neutral evolution" where the conventions don't apply.
My objection to that is it is a form of having one's cake and eating it too, and doing so when this should very much not be allowed. One cannot begin by saying the underlying informational change is responsive to selection pressure, and that the phenotype is responsive to changes in genotype, and then find examples like this and so because now you're cornered, turn around and say, "well here it doesn't count. Our notion of mechanism breaks down, so we'll simply say something else is going on here". In my mind, this is CHEATING in science.
This is a classic old example of what was when it was discovered a "non-conventional" change in genotype that seemed to be occurring with clock like regularity, and occurring independently of selection pressures. As such, it is of course NOT Darwinism in any conventional sense, any sense at all as far as I am concerned, and there are of course many many example of this now known.
Patrick1000
Banned
- Joined
- Jul 22, 2011
- Messages
- 3,039
It most certainly is relevant.
It most certainly is relevant. And cut the straw man stuff, that line is so tired. Back to the point.
Cytochrome c is one of many examples where there is "evolution", biologic informational change, outside what is viewed as the conventional mechanism.
This here is a counter example. "Evolution" occurring very much not according to the conventionally presented neo-Darwinian mechanism. I have many many of them. And many other types of objections, concrete ones like this example here.
What is with this "straw man" stuff anyway? Where do you guys get that line?, and even if it were appropriate, which it is not here, why not try a different line occasionally?
It most certainly is relevant. And cut the straw man stuff, that line is so tired. Back to the point.
Cytochrome c is one of many examples where there is "evolution", biologic informational change, outside what is viewed as the conventional mechanism.
This here is a counter example. "Evolution" occurring very much not according to the conventionally presented neo-Darwinian mechanism. I have many many of them. And many other types of objections, concrete ones like this example here.
What is with this "straw man" stuff anyway? Where do you guys get that line?, and even if it were appropriate, which it is not here, why not try a different line occasionally?
Last edited:
Lowpro
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jan 1, 2011
- Messages
- 5,399
First off, read a good book on evolution.
Second, you are just not making the connection of Cytochrome C to evolution like everyone else has said there is, and when you're told what the connection is, you call it cheating, with no basis other than the fact you don't like it. But here it goes again.
Cytochrome C is a protein complex used in the ETC. It's varied because it's function is VERY highly conserved (if the variation were to cause the organism with it to perform poorly in the ETC chances are it won't be prevalent; this is predicted by evolutionary theory) and changes only at the mutation rate and OBSERVED; it's also predicted in evolutionary theory.
Whatever Neo-Darwinist mechanics you think are there, you've been lied to, that's all I can think of. And what's worse, you've been told that here already, many times. It's your failure, not the failure of the theory.
We get this "straw man stuff" because your arguments are disconnected and misdirected. You've been shown why too, you've ignored it though.
Last edited:
No kidding.
Unfortunately, you're not doing any better than the average person in this regard.
WRONG, sir! [/Willy Wonka] Neutral selection IS part of the conventional view of evolution. You, like most, simply don't know what that view is.
Why not? You have a lot of words after this quote that utterly fail to address the question: What mechanism prevents this from happening? Until you provide one, it's irrational to assume that neutral selection is impossible. In fact, it's very much in line with much of evolutionary thought--it's just that Motoo Kimura found a somewhat novel application for it.
And it DOES NOT MATTER, because what you take as the "conventional mechanism" IS NOT the mechanism accepted by those who study the subject. Your entire argument is based on what Johnny Everyman thinks evolution is, and in the USA at least it's demonstrable that Johnny Everyman is more than 200 years out of date on this theory.
When you want to talk about science, go to scientists. Your problem will magically vanish.
I find it very hard to believe that a person on the internet who's trying to argue about evolution is so completely ignorant of basic fallacies that they can't recognize the most common one (or at least, the one that people are most commonly accused of). For your edification: A straw man argument is when you construct a version of your opponent's argument that's vastly weaker than, and not at all the same as, your opponent's argument, then proceed to rip the argument you constructed apart. For example, if one were discussing evolutionary theory, and in particular if one wanted to challenge evolutionary theory, and one ignored the scientific view of the subject and instead used the man on the street's view, that would be a straw man. The man on the street view of evolution is not what the person in question is actually arguing against--that's the scientific view. But the view of evolution held by the average person is so hopelessly flawed that it's trivially easy to show it to be untenable. So our hypothetical scoundrel chose to replace the ACTUAL issue with one which is much easier to demolish, in an attempt to make their position look better-supported than it actually is.
AdMan
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2010
- Messages
- 10,293
You've demonstrated you don't understand natural selection, so lay off the ********.
No one here is buying it.
Patrick's postings used to be largely confined to the Lost Bird/Apollo moon landings conspiracy thread before that thread was moderated (109 pages, ultimately including a series of posts with Patrick referring to "Poopie Pants Borman"). Although I am generally intensely drawn to debates on evolution, I think I will sit this one out before it begins to be a discussion of Darwin's bowel habits.
Last edited:
Patrick1000
Banned
- Joined
- Jul 22, 2011
- Messages
- 3,039
Hit us with some Dinosaur to Bird evidence then bro
Hit us with some Dinosaur to Bird evidence then bro. Show us your chops.
Hit us with some Dinosaur to Bird evidence then bro. Show us your chops.
AdMan
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2010
- Messages
- 10,293
Why are you calling me "bro"?
You're coming across as someone who clearly doesn't know what he's talking about.
You don't understand natural selection. Prove that you do. And I am not your "bro". How old are you?
Last edited:
Patrick1000
Banned
- Joined
- Jul 22, 2011
- Messages
- 3,039
You too are missing the point, and again making mine
As I recall, my point was, and since it was my point, I must be recalling it correctly, that what was at issue was not whether biologic systems/phenotypes were selected for by exposure to environmental pressures, but rather, that the mechanism for generating new compliments of information as conventionally presented by modern day evolutionary biologists was inadequate in terms of it only accounting for biologic systems changing in a very limited sense, the mechanism not having the requisite creative power to change dinosaurs into birds, or single celled bugs into people, but having the power to say make previously sensitive bacteria penicillin resistant, or perhaps make fairly fast cheetahs become cheetahs that run all the faster still.
I did not say natural selection was not a feature of how it came to be that biological systems changed over time . Nor did I say "evolution" did not occur. I actually emphasized that I thought there was excellent evidence for common ancestry, and so excellent evidence for evolution.
Of course natural selection is a mechanism operating on a daily basis upon living systems. I gave the example of penicillin sensitive bacteria becoming penicillin resistant when exposed to an environment containing the antibiotic. I gave the example of sickle cell genes being found in populations of men/women despite its deleterious effects, given the gene's ability to confer protection against malaria.
I did give one counter example above, cytochrome c, showing that the mechanism for evolution as conventionally presented is not explanatory in all cases. That does not mean I suggested, nor obviously did I in fact suggest, that natural selection does not play a significant role in the change in a biologic system's compliment of information/code over time.
What I did suggest by and large was that the genotypes/phenotypes being selected for by way of environmental pressure, when such pressure is a factor in selection(not so with cytochrome c above), do not owe their being what they are to unintentional, more or less random, more or less purposeless, unrelated mutations occurring in series and/or by way of such mutations occurring in batches over time.
I challenged those members of the forum subscribing to the gospel of conventional neo-Darwinism to provide concrete examples, empiric evidence of some sort to support the case for genomes changing to any appreciable degree by way of unintentional mutations occurring in series and/or batches as discussed above. I have yet to see such evidence, and remain confident it cannot be produced for it simply does not exist.
No kidding.
Unfortunately, you're not doing any better than the average person in this regard.
WRONG, sir! [/Willy Wonka] Neutral selection IS part of the conventional view of evolution. You, like most, simply don't know what that view is.
Why not? You have a lot of words after this quote that utterly fail to address the question: What mechanism prevents this from happening? Until you provide one, it's irrational to assume that neutral selection is impossible. In fact, it's very much in line with much of evolutionary thought--it's just that Motoo Kimura found a somewhat novel application for it.
And it DOES NOT MATTER, because what you take as the "conventional mechanism" IS NOT the mechanism accepted by those who study the subject. Your entire argument is based on what Johnny Everyman thinks evolution is, and in the USA at least it's demonstrable that Johnny Everyman is more than 200 years out of date on this theory.
When you want to talk about science, go to scientists. Your problem will magically vanish.
For your edification: A straw man argument is when you construct a version of your opponent's argument that's vastly weaker than, and not at all the same as, your opponent's argument, then proceed to rip the argument you constructed apart. For example, if one were discussing evolutionary theory, and in particular if one wanted to challenge evolutionary theory, and one ignored the scientific view of the subject and instead used the man on the street's view, that would be a straw man. The man on the street view of evolution is not what the person in question is actually arguing against--that's the scientific view. But the view of evolution held by the average person is so hopelessly flawed that it's trivially easy to show it to be untenable. So our hypothetical scoundrel chose to replace the ACTUAL issue with one which is much easier to demolish, in an attempt to make their position look better-supported than it actually is.
As I recall, my point was, and since it was my point, I must be recalling it correctly, that what was at issue was not whether biologic systems/phenotypes were selected for by exposure to environmental pressures, but rather, that the mechanism for generating new compliments of information as conventionally presented by modern day evolutionary biologists was inadequate in terms of it only accounting for biologic systems changing in a very limited sense, the mechanism not having the requisite creative power to change dinosaurs into birds, or single celled bugs into people, but having the power to say make previously sensitive bacteria penicillin resistant, or perhaps make fairly fast cheetahs become cheetahs that run all the faster still.
I did not say natural selection was not a feature of how it came to be that biological systems changed over time . Nor did I say "evolution" did not occur. I actually emphasized that I thought there was excellent evidence for common ancestry, and so excellent evidence for evolution.
Of course natural selection is a mechanism operating on a daily basis upon living systems. I gave the example of penicillin sensitive bacteria becoming penicillin resistant when exposed to an environment containing the antibiotic. I gave the example of sickle cell genes being found in populations of men/women despite its deleterious effects, given the gene's ability to confer protection against malaria.
I did give one counter example above, cytochrome c, showing that the mechanism for evolution as conventionally presented is not explanatory in all cases. That does not mean I suggested, nor obviously did I in fact suggest, that natural selection does not play a significant role in the change in a biologic system's compliment of information/code over time.
What I did suggest by and large was that the genotypes/phenotypes being selected for by way of environmental pressure, when such pressure is a factor in selection(not so with cytochrome c above), do not owe their being what they are to unintentional, more or less random, more or less purposeless, unrelated mutations occurring in series and/or by way of such mutations occurring in batches over time.
I challenged those members of the forum subscribing to the gospel of conventional neo-Darwinism to provide concrete examples, empiric evidence of some sort to support the case for genomes changing to any appreciable degree by way of unintentional mutations occurring in series and/or batches as discussed above. I have yet to see such evidence, and remain confident it cannot be produced for it simply does not exist.
Last edited:
yomero
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Jul 31, 2009
- Messages
- 1,222
Cytochrome C aminoacid sequence in rabbits, fish, penguins and people is approximately equally divergent from that of bacteria because all of those organisms have continued to evolve. None of them is genetically closer to bacteria than the others. Therefore it is logical that their sequences vary from bacteria more or less to the same degree.
However, if 2 species share a common ancestor more recently than the common ancestor with a third organism, there will be fewer differences in the aminoacid sequence of the first 2 than either of them has with the third. This is exactly what can be seen if we analyze the aminoacid sequence of cytochrome C in different species. In the link that I post below, there is a table that charts this sequence in 38 different organisms, from humans to bacteria. Humans and chimpanzees have no variation. There are 2 differences between humans-chimps and spider monkeys, 6 with cows, 9 with kangaroos. None between chickens and turkeys, but 1 between them and ducks and 2 from pigeons.
Cytochrome C, important in the electron transport chain in mitochondria, is a protein composed of 102 or 104 aminoacids. Some of those aminoacids are invariable across all species. I believe that those constant aminoacids are essential to the protein's structure and-or functionality. The other, variable aminoacids can mutate without altering the protein's function. The distribution of those changes across species, closely following phylogenetic relationships, is evidence FOR evolution, not against it.
http://chemistry.umeche.maine.edu/CHY431/Evolve2.html
Last edited:
Kid Eager
Philosopher
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2010
- Messages
- 7,296
ftfy - now you have a theory of everything - enjoy!
Mojo
Mostly harmless
Two questions to help me understand what you mean. 1) What would be an intentional mutation (as opposed to "unintentional")? 2) Are you asking for examples of mutations that didn't work, weren't selected for, and aren't common in the genome now? In other words, how are we to detect evolutionary dead ends -- or are you asking for something else altogether?
Jack by the hedge
Safely Ignored
Partick: Neo-Automobilism cannot account for transportation.
Rest-of-the-world: Neo-what? Oh, do you mean cars?
Patrick: I do not reject the concept of the internal combustion engine, I merely point out that an internal combusion engine cannot credibly account for people travelling from place to place. It is unbelievable.
R.o.t.w: You know cars have wheels too, don't you?
Patrick: Give me proof of an engine moving people around. There is none.
R.o.t.w.: Here is a book about cars. Read it and ask if you have any remaining questions.
Patrick: So you cannot show that an internal combustion engine is sufficient to make people move from one place to another. You are making my point.
(continued to page 94)
Rest-of-the-world: Neo-what? Oh, do you mean cars?
Patrick: I do not reject the concept of the internal combustion engine, I merely point out that an internal combusion engine cannot credibly account for people travelling from place to place. It is unbelievable.
R.o.t.w: You know cars have wheels too, don't you?
Patrick: Give me proof of an engine moving people around. There is none.
R.o.t.w.: Here is a book about cars. Read it and ask if you have any remaining questions.
Patrick: So you cannot show that an internal combustion engine is sufficient to make people move from one place to another. You are making my point.
(continued to page 94)