Evolution a hoax?

[A'isha]

Now evos generally assume mutation can make up the difference, but they have never produced, nor conducted any peer-reviewed studies to show that despite the fact we have estimates on what are reasonable mutation rates which frankly, are quite low at best. In other words, mutations that confer some advantage or are neutral are fairly slow and rare compared to the loss of genes via natural selection, subgroup isolation (genetic drift).

Not only is this false, I've pointed you to a number of papers about this very thing (ie, the work of Ohno, Rodin, and Lynch, among others, or the paper I told you about describing how the GR receptor evolved via duplication of the genes for the earlier MR receptor). By my rough count, this is the seventh time I've mentioned them in a direct response to one of your posts on this message board.

You've completely ignored it, every single time. Probably because if you acknowledged it, you wouldn't be able to repeat your above falsehood as part of your strawman view of evolutionary theory.

 

[randman]

Um, that makes absolutely no sense to me. Your conclusions do not follow from your premises (at least in what you posted here) and your explanation is extremely confusing.

Part of the problem is your assumption that there is a preferred direction for evolution to occur in (hilited). That to me indicates that you see a willful purpose in genetic change and are therefore already assuming ID to be true.

However, if we step back and look at that from a dispassionate, unbiased position it is not inconsistent with evolutionary theory. Let us assume that as you say, most micro-evolution reduces complexity. Let us assume that only .0001% of all mutations are beneficial and increase diversity. What will happen is that natural selection will favor those changes, making them successful, while the other 99.9999% are not and end up in evolutionary dead-ends. So it seems to me that even though very rare, those positive changes will be all that we will end up seeing over the course of millions of years, because they are what survived. (I may be a layman in biology, but my degree is in Math and I am not a layman in probability and statistics, so this part I do understand).

So let's say a tiny bit of novel genes are conferred through mutation as you suggest. What about the massive loss of genes through natural selection and genetic drift (subgroup) isolation? If you add 1 item and lose 100, your rate of loss of genetic material is truly massive, but you can see outward microevolutionary changes. However, losing genetic variation lessens the ability of the population to evolve further.

Take a look at the cheetah as an example. Cheetahs no doubt evolved from an earlier parent population of cats. But all cheetahs are essentially twins genetically, and it's of some concern whether they will survive long-term as their lack of genetic variation hinders their ability to evolve and adapt further. This is an extreme example but illustrates the point quite well. Microevolution is evolution in the wrong direction as far as macroevolution.

Consider the following paper in 1979, long before evos were willing to accept epigenetics. The authors don't appear to be creationists or anything but they do point to the weakness of Neo-Darwinism (microevolution) as a means for macroevolution.

Beyond neo-Darwinism—an epigenetic approach to evolution

Purchase
$ 39.95
M. W. Ho and P. T. Saunders
Department of Biology, Open University, Walton Hall, Milton Keynes, MK7 6AA, England
Department of Mathematics, Queen Elizabeth College, University of London, London W8 7AH, England
Received 14 July 1978; Revised 21 January 1979. Available online 16 December 2004.
Abstract
We argue that the basic neo-Darwinian framework—the natural selection of random mutations—is insufficient to account for evolution. The role of natural selection is itself limited: it cannot adequately explain the diversity of populations or of species; nor can it account for the origin of new species or for major evolutionary change. The evidence suggests on the one hand that most genetic changes are irrelevant to evolution; and on the other, that a relative lack of natural selection may be the prerequisite for major evolutionary advance.
Contrary to the neo-Darwinian view, we point out that the variations of the phenotype, on which natural selection could act, do not arise at random; they are produced by interactions between the organism and the environment during development. We propose, therefore, that the intrinsic dynamical structure of the epigenetic system itself, in its interaction with the environment, is the source of non-random variations which direct evolutionary change, and that a proper study of evolution consists in the working out of the dynamics of the epigenetic system and its response to environmental stimuli as well as the mechanisms whereby novel developmental responses are canalized.
We postulate that “large” evolutionary changes could be the result of the canalization of novel developmental responses which arose from environmental challenges under conditions of relaxed natural selection, and moreover, that the canalization of novel developmental responses might involve cytoplasmic inheritance or maternal effects at least in the initial stages.

They appear to be talking of epigenetics in the area of evo/devo, but their critique of NeoDarwinism is hardly new. Scientists that would be labelled IDers and also creationists long made the same critiques with some pointing to Neo-Lamarckian mechanisms such as epigenetics as a possible explanation for macroevolution rather than the failed hypothesis that microevolution adds up to macroevolution.

 

[randman]

Not only is this false, I've pointed you to a number of papers about this very thing (ie, the work of Ohno, Rodin, and Lynch, among others, or the paper I told you about describing how the GR receptor evolved via duplication of the genes for the earlier MR receptor). By my rough count, this is the seventh time I've mentioned them in a direct response to one of your posts on this message board.

You've completely ignored it, every single time. Probably because if you acknowledged it, you wouldn't be able to repeat your above falsehood as part of your strawman view of evolutionary theory.

You've never provided even one paper that addresses the specific issue, which is one reason I generally ignore you. If you cannot even grasp the issue after many attempts to explain it to you, why waste my time any further. You have provided no papers comparing the loss of genes and genetic variation as a rate of loss via subgroup isolation with the predicted addition rate via mutation.

If you disagree, please provide the rates.

Provide the rate of the estimated range of loss of genetic variation through subgroup isolation with the rate of estimated additions that can be expected via mutation.

If you cannot provide ranges for rates loss and addition during the process of speciation, then you have provided no papers addressing the issue.

 

[CapelDodger]

cwalner, there are several constraining factors but will try to touch on 2 or 3 for you. The easiest way to illustrate one concept is what occurs with dog breeding. You can breed (evolve) numerous forms of dog breeds and dogs themselves can breed with wolves and perhaps all canines (have read different things). Certainly, wolves and coyotes can breed. Not as sure about foxes.

But what happens when you have a pure-bred dog that brings out certain features. Outwardly, there is microevolution or variation.

Variation is not micro-evolution.

But the more inbred the dog breed is, the more problems develop. In other words, the more it evolves in this direction, the less capacity for evolution the breed has.

And who cares? The people breeding dogs as art-objects have no interest in further evolution. The dogs themselves survive only because humans provide for them.

Let's look a little deeper.

That last wasn't even shallow.

Speciation by definition means subgroup isolation and separation.

No it does not. Examples of speciation in a shared area are numerous.

A new species is not a new species if it still lives with and mates with the parent species. Even before this most consider evolution to occur by some smaller subgroup within the population becoming geographically or sexually isolated.

Sexual isolation means they can't mate with parent or sibling species, and geographic isolation is not required.

Then, this group is said to have mutations that would not then be washed out. We could talk about the finer points of this, but for a layman's understanding, the key is the process involves a smaller group splitting off from a larger group.

So what happens then?

Whatever that group's got going for it pans out and they do well, or it doesn't and they join the long list of dead-ends.

By definition, you are losing genetic variety within the new population because you are separating and reducing the numbers of those reproducing.

Yes, but if its trick is a good one the rate of reproduction will establish it. If it isn't they decline and die out.

This is generally very significant. Natural selection itself actually serves to reduce and conserve genetic variety, the number of available genes. It diminishes genetic variation as does genetic drift.

It drops what's not needed for the new role it's fitting. Slowly. If you ever fall on your cocyx you'll discover that you still have a tailbone. I wouldn't recommend it as an experiment, mind.

Now evos generally assume mutation can make up the difference, but they have never produced, nor conducted any peer-reviewed studies to show that despite the fact we have estimates on what are reasonable mutation rates which frankly, are quite low at best.[//quote]

You repeat the opinions of people you choose to believe. Evolution is not just about the fairly rapid mutation of genes, it's also about gene multiplication, inter-gene synergy and the way natural selection does its nasty business.

In other words, mutations that confer some advantage or are neutral are fairly slow and rare compared to the loss of genes via natural selection, subgroup isolation (genetic drift).

You repeat the opinions of people you choose to believe. If genes are lost to natural selection it's because they confer a disadvantage (why waste effort on a human tailbone?). If genes are lost to genetic drift it's because they don't matter. Let's call them "tailbone related".

Microevolution is evolution in the wrong direction genetically, as far as producing a complex genome from a simple one via Darwinian adaptationism.

That makes no sense at all. Micro evolution over a long enough period is indistinguishable from evolution.

Hope that helps.

Hope must be your special trick.

This is not an original idea.

There's not one single idea in your screed.

Plenty of prominent scientists have pointed these things out for decades.

Name a few.

 

[Bram Kaandorp]

Not only is this false, I've pointed you to a number of papers about this very thing (ie, the work of Ohno, Rodin, and Lynch, among others, or the paper I told you about describing how the GR receptor evolved via duplication of the genes for the earlier MR receptor). By my rough count, this is the seventh time I've mentioned them in a direct response to one of your posts on this message board.

You've completely ignored it, every single time. Probably because if you acknowledged it, you wouldn't be able to repeat your above falsehood as part of your strawman view of evolutionary theory.

I think that is Randman's tactic from the get-go. The only reason that I have not ignored him is because he amuses me.

By the way, Randman, you have still not convincingly explained why speciation is not the same as macroevolution, which makes me think that you actually think they are the same, and that this whole discussion is just a charade.

This stems from my question why ring species are not a problem, which you also haven't comprehensively and convincingly explained.

If you keep on either ignoring or flat-out waving away my questions, I will just assume that you are in fact really not a creationist/IDer, but just someone posing as one. (it would really make sense)

 

[CapelDodger]

Wow, I never thought about that. You blew my mind!

What first came to mind (from experience) was a crude spray-painted penis, but my mind recoiled to its comfort place .

 

[randman]

recovering puppy, the phrase "universal genome" I used was not the best. What I was referring to is the earlier stance of evos of a universal genetic code, which turned out to be false. My point is if a specific claim is used as strong evidence for common descent, why is when we find the opposite is true, a non-universal genetic code in this instance, do evos insist it also is strong evidence for evolution.

Could it be evos just generally wildly overstate their case?

I think a reasonable and objective person that looks into evo claims has to conclude yes, they do generally wildly overstate their case, and that's not a hallmark of real science which promotes a judicious and accurate assessment of data. In that sense, evo are often not that empirical but more faith-based.

 

[A'isha]

You've never provided even one paper that addresses the specific issue, which is one reason I generally ignore you. If you cannot even grasp the issue after many attempts to explain it to you, why waste my time any further. You have provided no papers comparing the loss of genes and genetic variation as a rate of loss via subgroup isolation with the predicted addition rate via mutation.

If you disagree, please provide the rates.

Provide the rate of the estimated range of loss of genetic variation through subgroup isolation with the rate of estimated additions that can be expected via mutation.

If you cannot provide ranges for rates loss and addition during the process of speciation, then you have provided no papers addressing the issue.

See? You still refuse to acknowledge that I've already given you this information. Like when I did it in this post, way back on March 15th of this year.

You even replied to that very post, over here, though you oh-so-conveniently cut out and utterly ignored all my paper citations, in favor of repeating another one of your falsehoods (regarding how the data in the ENCODE project, according to you, confirmed ID predictions, when in fact the data was anticipated by actual biologists and had nothing to do with ID foolishness).

 

[randman]

I think that is Randman's tactic from the get-go. The only reason that I have not ignored him is because he amuses me.

By the way, Randman, you have still not convincingly explained why speciation is not the same as macroevolution, which makes me think that you actually think they are the same, and that this whole discussion is just a charade.

This stems from my question why ring species are not a problem, which you also haven't comprehensively and convincingly explained.

If you keep on either ignoring or flat-out waving away my questions, I will just assume that you are in fact really not a creationist/IDer, but just someone posing as one. (it would really make sense)

Ant has never provided any study addressing this issue, and I have already explained as peer-reviewed science even among evos, that microevolution is different from macroevolution.

You just choose not to accept it.

Speciation alone is not evidence of macroevolution.

 

[randman]

See? You still refuse to acknowledge that I've already given you this information. Like when I did it in this post, way back on March 15th of this year.

You even replied to that very post, over here, though you oh-so-conveniently cut out all my paper citations, in favor of repeating another one of your falsehoods (regarding how the data in the ENCODE project, according to you, confirmed ID predictions, when in fact the data was anticipated by actual biologists and had nothing to do with ID foolishness).

The papers you provided DO NOT address the issue. If they do, please provide the comparison of rates as I requested, specifically the range of estimated rates of loss through subgroup isolation sufficient to reduce the likelihood of novel genes being washed out.

If not, admit you were wrong and apologize, just as you were wrong on mammalian evolution, which you finally half-way admitted.

 

[Bram Kaandorp]

Ant has never provided any study addressing this issue, and I have already explained as peer-reviewed science even among evos, that microevolution is different from macroevolution.

You just choose not to accept it.

Speciation alone is not evidence of macroevolution.

Now I understand what previous posters meant when they said that you keep on repeating the same tired old untruths over and over again.

I hope you live a long life (a really long life), so that you can experience evolution with your own eyes. At least that way you don't have the excuse that we cannot study macroevolution.

Cheers

 

[A'isha]

The papers you provided DO NOT address the issue. If they do, please provide the comparison of rates as I requested.

A rate, in the form of an actual number, is inside the post I linked to. The one you must have read because you replied to part of it. The one you're still ignoring containing links and other references to papers that contain still more rate information that you will continue to refuse to read because they show how wrong you are.

If not, admit you were wrong and apologize, just as you were wrong on mammalian evolution, which you finally half-way admitted.

What on Earth are you talking about?

 

[randman]

Now I understand what previous posters meant when they said that you keep on repeating the same tired old untruths over and over again.

I hope you live a long life (a really long life), so that you can experience evolution with your own eyes. At least that way you don't have the excuse that we cannot study macroevolution.

Cheers

It's hard to move on to newer stuff when you guys won't even admit what evos do in peer-reviewed lit. Consider this comment for example:

Whether macrovolution is reducible to microevolution is one of the persistent debates in evolutionary biology.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1475-4983.2006.00603.x/full

You guys won't even admit the debate exists, but this is a paper whose opening sentence says "whether macroevolution is reducible to microevolution is one of the persisent debates in evolutionary biology".

So how can we move on?

You don't even know what the current issues are from the evo side, much less grasp ID or creationist thinking. Keep in mind, just to head off the usual idiocy, that the author is talking about this debate totally within an evolutionist paradigm. So even "your side" so to speak recognizes the distinction and difference.

Too bad you are not willing to learn and acknowledge that.

 

[Wowbagger]

cwalner, there are several constraining factors but will try to touch on 2 or 3 for you.

We know there are constraining factors in evolution. Extinction is a reality, after all.

But, the examples you are providing are not really constraints on the process. You are neglecting three important things:

1. The Gene Pool, itself - Natural selection does not work in isolation of one germ line. There is a pool of possible genes for reproduction, which nature can select from. This makes your statements about information loss or gain irrelevant. The predominant factor is selection from the pool, not merely "who happens to have the most genetic information".

2. Cumulative Probability - That is: Traits that render a species more fit for reproduction can accumulate over time, to the chances of that happening are actually very likely. Those who find it "improbable" are overlooking this.
And, this also has nothing to do with "loss" or "gain" of information: New traits could emerge, even if the amount of information stayed exactly the same.

3. Speciation has nothing to do with "loss" or "gain" of genetic information, either. Speciation is generally decided on the basis of reproductive compatibility, and can occur if the amount of information is "lost", "gained", or even "remains the same".

Loss and gain of information is still relevant to evolution, when it comes to tracking how changes occur over time. It is not relevant as a constraining factor.

 

[randman]

Wowbagger, you are incorrect which you would see if you actually thought carefully about the process of speciation and what actually occurs.

 

[Bram Kaandorp]

It's hard to move on to newer stuff when you guys won't even admit what evos do in peer-reviewed lit. Consider this comment for example:



http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1475-4983.2006.00603.x/full

You guys won't even admit the debate exists, but this is a paper whose opening sentence says "whether macroevolution is reducible to microevolution is one of the persisent debates in evolutionary biology".

So how can we move on?

You don't even know what the current issues are from the evo side, much less grasp ID or creationist thinking. Keep in mind, just to head off the usual idiocy, that the author is talking about this debate totally within an evolutionist paradigm. So even "your side" so to speak recognizes the distinction and difference.

Too bad you are not willing to learn and acknowledge that.

Read Wowbagger's most recent post.

I'm out of this thread. Too much stubbornness to deal with for one day.

Or is it not stubbornness, but a genuine case of dyslexia where someone unintentionally neglects to read vital information, which leads to a skewed world-view?

See, I try to find plausible reasons for your behaviour which aren't malicious, but I just can't find any, apart from intelligence (or lack thereof), but I don't want to assume that you are stupid, since that would be insulting.

 

[Wowbagger]

I don't agree. SPORE was dull because you didn't have to make choices. Each generation, you could compeltely redesign your dude.

I'm sorry you feel this way. But, even if you didn't like it: It's still gotta be the best thing ever to come out of Intelligent Design thinking!

 

[Wowbagger]

Wowbagger, you are incorrect which you would see if you actually thought carefully about the process of speciation and what actually occurs.

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.

 

[randman]

A rate, in the form of an actual number, is inside the post I linked to. The one you must have read because you replied to part of it. The one you're still ignoring containing links and other references to papers that contain still more rate information that you will continue to refuse to read because they show how wrong you are.



What on Earth are you talking about?

1. Please provide the rates requested.

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?

 

[A'isha]

It's hard to move on to newer stuff when you guys won't even admit what evos do in peer-reviewed lit. Consider this comment for example:



http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1475-4983.2006.00603.x/full

You guys won't even admit the debate exists, but this is a paper whose opening sentence says "whether macroevolution is reducible to microevolution is one of the persisent debates in evolutionary biology".

I see you've also decided to repeat one of your Golden Oldies, and ignore what people tried to correct you on the last time you cited that paper (with the exact same single contextless quote, too).

You don't even know what the current issues are from the evo side, much less grasp ID or creationist thinking. Keep in mind, just to head off the usual idiocy, that the author is talking about this debate totally within an evolutionist paradigm. So even "your side" so to speak recognizes the distinction and difference.

As people tried to explain to you back in March, the first time you tried this, it's you who's severely mistaken about what the "current issues" are.

Too bad you are not willing to learn and acknowledge that.

In light of the above, I laughed so hard at this, randman.