Wholly Natrualistic Alternative To Neo-Darwinism?

[Mojo]

I (and the majority of biologists and molecular genetists) cannot find the 'species baramin barrier' you seem to insist exists to prevent small changes mounting to larger changes over time.

ftfy

 

[Lukraak_Sisser]

Of course such mutations could be even more convincing if we could find human examples.

If only there was some foodstuff that only a part of the population of humanity has had historic access to for over a few thousand years that is hard to metabolize, but with a small change in the genome would confer some advantage. Then that population would have pressure to ensure such a mutation becomes widespread, whereas it would be rare amongst other humans who would then be less tolerant of that foodstuff.

But I can't think of anything.

Well, off to eat my cheese sandwich and wash it down with a glass of milk.

 

[Patrick1000]

You totally missed the point here Reality Check.....

You are once again bringing up a strawman (or just displaying your ignorance). It is duplication + mutation that evolved α-globin in hemoglobin to β-globin.
A good blog article on this: Hemoglobin: A Molecule Connecting Us All

You are also wrong: There is a lineage.
(the vague 'clear' bit of your question is a typical creationist tactic, i.e. demanding that every single step be listed)

Also read this 1999 American Scientist article: The Evolution of Hemoglobin (PDF).

You totally missed the point here Reality Check.....


I used "haemoglobin" as an example of a counter-example that anti-evolutionists bring up all the time to show where and how conventional evolution theory was/is wrong. My point above in bringing up "doubling" was to show that anyone familiar with microbiology/biochemistry can come up with a scenario that dismantles the anti-evolutionist's claim that the study of the various haemoglobin forms is a way to prove to oneself "evolution" cannot possibly be correct. On the contrary, and as I not only pointed out but EMPHASIZED, the conventional mechanism as proposed would seem to account for the haemoglobins pretty well indeed.

The haemoglobin example was a taunt in a way, a counter-taunt actually. One of the posters made the bad mistake of pretending he knew something about biology and he furthermore suggested that I did not. I said, "OK what about a haemoglobin? You show us why anti-evolutionists like Michael Denton are incorrect when they bring haemoglobin up as a counter-example". He could not and did not provide an answer to my question and I do not expect to see him here debating evolution, at least not competently.

Some here seem to be claiming my arguments are creationist like. Since when have creationists supported in general outline the truth of evolution, the notion of common ancestry? Not only am I an atheist, but one who has consistently made the claim throughout this thread that there is strong evidence for "evolution"(common genetic code, structural homology.....as brought up/discussed above). Doesn't appear as though I'd fair very well as a creationist debater on a team opposing evolutionists, does it?

Anyway, my point about haemoglobin is/was THAT IT IS FAIRLY EASY TO SHOW COMMON ANCESTRY in its case. One can come up with dozens of plausible scenarios, good ones, all of them. It is not a counter-example but actually is a very good example of how microbiologic evolutionary mechanisms as conventionally presented may account for the 4 different heme protein types, alpha, beta, fetal, myoglobin. You have actually been arguing FOR me, WITH me in a sense against my detractor nomuse.

I like the Scientific American presentation on haemoglobin, but there are many others as good or better. No one knows for sure how the haemoglobins came about, what the EXACT steps were as many scenarios are theoretically possible and fit the facts quite well.

I could present my own detailed account with doublings, crossing overs, transpositions and mutations that would look and BE as credible as any. That would be it seems a waste of time here as we are all in agreement on this point, you and I are anyway.

It seems that you had been under the impression that I thought the haemoglobin case actually was a counter-example. On the contrary, I would suggest to micro biologist Michael Denton and any other anti-evolutionists that the facts with respect to haemoglobin are consistent with those of evolution's mechanism as conventionally presented.

 

[Mojo]

The haemoglobin example was a taunt in a way, a counter-taunt actually. One of the posters made the bad mistake of pretending he knew something about biology and he furthermore suggested that I did not. I said, "OK what about a haemoglobin? You show us why anti-evolutionists like Michael Denton are incorrect when they bring haemoglobin up as a counter-example".

No, you didn't. You wrote:

[...snip taunts...]

The human genome contains 4 different haemoglobin type domains. Two of the domains code for the more familiar alpha and beta chains of the haemoglobin found in adult red blood cells. Another domain codes for a fetal haemoglobin chain, and a fourth domain codes for myoglobin, the latter, a heme based carrier of oxygen found within muscles. We assume in outline the tenets of the modern synthesis, its mechanism, the model for evolution in which you believe nomuse.

Such being the case, one would assume all four of the haemoglobin chains arose from a common haemoglobin ancestor. We might call that HA. So HA became first alpha say, then alpha became beta, then beta became fetal, then fetal became myoglobin. This isn't a real path, just an example to make a point. AND, the point is, were the modern synthesis on target, its mechanism, one would expect the haemoglobins and myoglobin would line up in such a way, have conventional mechanism evident by way of a step by step logical haemoglobin thread, one leading to the next. A sequence of haemoglobins, a pedigree should be evident, one underscoring your favored mechanism nomuse, mutations occurring that lead from one heme protein coding domain to the next. You'd be able to tell such was the case, that the modern synthesis was valid, if say in my hypothetical above; DNA sequence wise/homology wise, alpha was found to be closer to HA than beta, was found to be closer than fetal, was found to be closer than myoglobin.

As it turns out, nothing could be further from the truth. In the first place, myoglobin is very distinct in terms of its coding sequence as compared to the adult haemoglobins(alpha, beta) and fetal haemoglobin. The three of them, hemoglobin alpha, haemoglobin beta and fetal haemoglobin are equally distant from myoglobin in terms of their coding, their respective DNA sequences.

Beta and fetal haemoglobins are much closer together DNA sequence wise than either are to alpha. On the other hand, the DNA sequence homology, the sequence distances between alpha and fetal and beta and fetal are equal.

[...snip further taunts...]

You asked why we do not see the various haemoglobins arranged in an orderly sequential manner (alpha --> beta --> foetal --> myoglobin), and claimed that this is what the current theory predicts (it doesn't).

And your own answer to this ("DOUBLING") actually does nothing beyond explaining why instead of just one type of haemoglobin there is more than one type of haemoglobin plus myoglobin.

 

[Patrick1000]

Good point, I do have a bad habbit of refereing to duplication as "doubling"....

You are once again bringing up a strawman (or just displaying your ignorance). It is duplication + mutation that evolved α-globin in hemoglobin to β-globin.
A good blog article on this: Hemoglobin: A Molecule Connecting Us All

You are also wrong: There is a lineage.
(the vague 'clear' bit of your question is a typical creationist tactic, i.e. demanding that every single step be listed)

Also read this 1999 American Scientist article: The Evolution of Hemoglobin (PDF).

Good point Reality Check, I do have a bad habit of referring to duplication as "doubling"....Many others do as well, but it creates confusion. I am sure it is evident from context my "doubling" is what most others refer to as duplication, even the biology text book I reviewed(see above) used "duplication" and not "doubling" so I was being very sloppy semantically. Your point is excellent with respect to the proper use of the term "duplication", and my incorrect employment of "doubling" very bad and very very old habit on my part.

 

[Patrick1000]

I SUGGESTED it was what the current theory predicts......

No, you didn't. You wrote:


You asked why we do not see the various haemoglobins arranged in an orderly sequential manner (alpha --> beta --> foetal --> myoglobin), and claimed that this is what the current theory predicts (it doesn't).

And your own answer to this ("DOUBLING") actually does nothing beyond explaining why instead of just one type of haemoglobin there is more than one type of haemoglobin plus myoglobin.

I SUGGESTED it was what the current theory predicts......

Recall the haemoglobin SOFTBALL was a counter-taunt to nomuse. It is an old old old example of anti-evolutionist wrong thinking. I alluded to that by pointing out that Denton had brought it up in his anti-evolutionary book written in the mid eighties.

And so, anyone that knew/knows anything about biology, in the depth we are discussing it here anyway, would have called me on it immediately and said, "Patrick, that is a bogus claim. The haemoglobin facts actually fit the mechanism well. Look at this article , or that one, or even look here, I can make up my OWN good scenario".

Read my posts to nomuse and the ones that followed to others that jumped in a bit there. You'll see this is what I was up to. Unfair? Of course not. Anyone who has studied molecular biology knows the haemoglobin example, as they do the sickle cell example, as they do the cytochrome c example, as they do the penicillin resistance one.

The question was a SET UP. Regardless of how nomuse answered, if nomuse answered the question, I was planning to run circles around him. I was planning to bring up the Scientific American article myself if he responded.

Anyway, looks like he lost his nerve. Unfair of me? I think not. He started it....

 

[Mojo]

You asked why we do not see the various haemoglobins arranged in an orderly sequential manner (alpha --> beta --> foetal --> myoglobin), and claimed that this is what the current theory predicts (it doesn't).

And remember: you are the one claiming that evolution is somehow directed, in which case we might expect to see some sort of orderly progress, while the current theory (which you claim is inadequate) states that it is the result of random variation plus the selective pressures of the environment at the time, in which case you would not expect to see this sort of orderly progress.

 

[Mojo]

I SUGGESTED it was what the current theory predicts......

This is what you posted:

We assume in outline the tenets of the modern synthesis, its mechanism, the model for evolution in which you believe nomuse.

Such being the case, one would assume all four of the haemoglobin chains arose from a common haemoglobin ancestor. We might call that HA. So HA became first alpha say, then alpha became beta, then beta became fetal, then fetal became myoglobin. This isn't a real path, just an example to make a point. AND, the point is, were the modern synthesis on target, its mechanism, one would expect the haemoglobins and myoglobin would line up in such a way, have conventional mechanism evident by way of a step by step logical haemoglobin thread, one leading to the next. A sequence of haemoglobins, a pedigree should be evident, one underscoring your favored mechanism nomuse, mutations occurring that lead from one heme protein coding domain to the next. You'd be able to tell such was the case, that the modern synthesis was valid, if say in my hypothetical above; DNA sequence wise/homology wise, alpha was found to be closer to HA than beta, was found to be closer than fetal, was found to be closer than myoglobin.

That is a clear claim that the modern synthesis predicts an orderly linear sequence of haemoglobins.

The question was a SET UP.

It was indeed a set up. What you set up was another strawman. Additionally, you posed your question in such a way that your 'answer' didn't actually fit it.

Regardless of how nomuse answered, if nomuse answered the question, I was planning to run circles around him.

The best laid plans of mice, men, and Patrick1000...

 

[Mojo]

It is an old old old example of anti-evolutionist wrong thinking.

You're good at those.

 

[Patrick1000]

I actually claim I don't know squat about mchanism......

And remember: you are the one claiming that evolution is somehow directed, in which case we might expect to see some sort of orderly progress, while the current theory (which you claim is inadequate) states that it is the result of random variation plus the selective pressures of the environment at the time, in which case you would not expect to see this sort of orderly progress.

I actually claim I don't know squat about mechanism, at least as regards the big stuff, life's origin for one, major changes over time such as reptile to Jrandi poster for another ......

Again, if you review my posts, you'll note I suggest that more than anything else this stuff may well be beyond the ken of human understanding. If I were to be asked to present my best account of all this, I would conclude with that very point. In my mind, if we cannot get "gravity right", if General Relativity cannot explain gravity(and it doesn't), then it is unlikely to assume phenomena infinitely more complex, those that account for life's becoming, and those that account for the changing of living systems over time, will ever be known. It actually seems rather silly I think more often than not, people making claims that they know how life came to be, biologic information materializing out of thin or thick primordial soup, how reptiles became JRandi posters.

That said, we should of course proceed with full effort to try and figure out as much as we can.

And so, in proceeding along, when one looks at biologic information, it does appear to be something that the creation of which was directed in a sense. Bill Gates I will presume for the moment is not a creationist, though I do not know that for a fact. He says when he looks at genetic code it strikes him just like super high level computer code, like something WRITTEN BY A PERSON only WAY MORE COMPLICATED. So he thinks it LOOKS LIKE it was WRITTEN ON PURPOSE, DIRECTED. And so do others. Could it have been directed, written by an outside agent? Perhaps, but I typically disregard the suggestion. I am not a staunch atheist, present good evidence and I might go with God. Haven't seen it yet, the evidence, not nearly good enough anyway, not close.

So if it wasn't written from the "outside", could the code be in some way internally directed? Hard to see exactly how that might take place, but at least consider the notion that living things might more than anything else be fundamentally AWARE. Say one takes that as his/her definition of life, something that is aware. Maybe progress could be made. Long shot, but in some ways much better than what people work on now.

 

[Patrick1000]

I'll be the first to admit it....

You're good at those.

I'll be the first to admit it....

I am a mistake making machine. But I am also good at getting things correct after initial errors.

 

[Patrick1000]

So perhaps it was unfair.......

This is what you posted:


That is a clear claim that the modern synthesis predicts an orderly linear sequence of haemoglobins.




It was indeed a set up. What you set up was another strawman. Additionally, you posed your question in such a way that your 'answer' didn't actually fit it.




The best laid plans of mice, men, and Patrick1000...

So perhaps it was unfair.......

Do you see nomuse around any more?

Touchdown 49ers!

 

[Mojo]

So perhaps it was unfair.......

Do you see nomuse around any more?

Touchdown 49ers!

I can see why you might consider that a victory.

 

[Mojo]

But I am also good at getting things correct after initial errors.

Not on the evidence of this thread.

 

[Patrick1000]

Onward, we shall now unravel evolution's deep mysteries....

I can see why you might consider that a victory.

Onward, we shall now unravel evolution's deep mysteries...Nomuse long gone to evolve or de-evolve into a biologist of sorts..... or not.........

 

[Patrick1000]

We've only just begun Mojo, I save the fireworks for last.....

Not on the evidence of this thread.

We've only just begun Mojo, I save the fireworks for last.....Just like Joe Montana. You ain't seen nothing yet.....

 

[Mojo]

Again, if you review my posts, you'll note I suggest that more than anything else this stuff may well be beyond the ken of human understanding. If I were to be asked to present my best account of all this, I would conclude with that very point. In my mind, if we cannot get "gravity right", if General Relativity cannot explain gravity(and it doesn't), then it is unlikely to assume phenomena infinitely more complex, those that account for life's becoming, and those that account for the changing of living systems over time, will ever be known. It actually seems rather silly I think more often than not, people making claims that they know how life came to be, biologic information materializing out of thin or thick primordial soup, how reptiles became JRandi posters.

Another argumentum ad ignorantiam, although of a different flavour. This looks very much like the tactic Stephen Law calls "Going Nuclear".

And so, in proceeding along, when one looks at biologic information, it does appear to be something that the creation of which was directed in a sense. Bill Gates I will presume for the moment is not a creationist, though I do not know that for a fact. He says when he looks at genetic code it strikes him just like super high level computer code, like something WRITTEN BY A PERSON only WAY MORE COMPLICATED. So he thinks it LOOKS LIKE it was WRITTEN ON PURPOSE, DIRECTED. And so do others. Could it have been directed, written by an outside agent? Perhaps, but I typically disregard the suggestion. I am not a staunch atheist, present good evidence and I might go with God. Haven't seen it yet, the evidence, not nearly good enough anyway, not close.

I've seen this argument before as well:

Everybody - even Richard Dawkins - sees design in biology. You see this design when you see co-ordinated parts coming together to perform a function - like in a hand. And so it's the appearance of design that everybody's trying to explain. So that if Darwin's theory doesn't explain it we're left with no other explanation than maybe it really was designed. That's essentially the design argument.

So if it wasn't written from the "outside", could the code be in some way internally directed?

Got any evidence for this?

Hard to see exactly how that might take place, but at least consider the notion that living things might more than anything else be fundamentally AWARE. Say one takes that as his/her definition of life, something that is aware.

Got any evidence that all living things have some sort of "awareness" which directs evolution?

Long shot, but in some ways much better than what people work on now.

Not if it has no supporting evidence.

 

[steenkh]

We've only just begun Mojo, I save the fireworks for last.....Just like Joe Montana. You ain't seen nothing yet.....

I wonder if you have any idea of how often we have heard such claims, and they invariably fizzle out when presented at last.

So far your track record here has shown a faulty understanding of the current theory, and you have insisted on continuing to use old debunked books as your source of knowledge.

I may be a pessimist, but it is hard to believe that your next argument will be any better than the previous ones. Presumably you have still some way to go before you have emptied the creationist websites of arguments that you just think are irresistible, so you can continue to say "you ain't seen nothing yet" for a long time ...

 

[Aridas]

I actually claim I don't know squat about mechanism, at least as regards the big stuff, life's origin for one,

I've been leaving this to the experts, mostly, but still, I really have to ask again, since you're bringing up this repeatedly, Patrick1000...

Why do you think that life's origin is in any way relevant to evolutionary theory?

 

[Patrick1000]

Great question!!!!

I've been leaving this to the experts, mostly, but still, I really have to ask again, since you're bringing up this repeatedly, Patrick1000...

Why do you think that life's origin is in any way relevant to evolutionary theory?

GREAT QUESTION!!!!

The two subjects, origin of life, and how and why living things change over time, are not necessarily related. Conceivably, they are not related at all in any strict sense. However, given the nature of the two subjects, they may be related, and very very tightly so. If we do ever learn how it was life began, or if we ever learn all of the details as to how living things change over time, we may find one subject, "evolution", sheds a great deal of light on the other, "life's origin", and vice versa. Each subject will help the curious in understanding what the other subject is all about.

EXCELLENT QUESTION I THINK.......