Stupid Christian Article on Evolution

[randman]

Ok, going to post another correction and then those that choose to misrepresent a scientific paper's facts, going to take note and just ignore you.

Gene loss has thus been much more extensive in the model invertebrate lineages than previously assumed and, as a consequence, some genes formerly thought to be vertebrate inventions must have been present in the common metazoan ancestor. The complexity of the Acropora genome is paradoxical, given that this organism contains apparently few tissue types and the simplest extant nervous system consisting of a morphologically homogeneous nerve net.

Here they clearly refer to the genome of the coral as "complex." If you choose to deny that, that's fine. Have a nice day!

For example, the A. millepora EST dataset contains homologs of many bilaterian genes whose specialized functions are associated with highly differentiated nervous systems. These include genes with vertebrate, but no known invertebrate, counterparts .....This

complexity is particularly surprising given the morphological simplicity of the coral nervous system.

..

Please note "highly differentiated nervous systems." If you cannot see that as a reference to "complex nerve function", then have a nice day. No need to talk any more!

For others please note the comment "this complexity is particularly surprising given the morphological simplicity of the coral nervous system".

For those that refuse to admit their citation of why this was so particularly surprising, namely that the coral has a simple nervous system, have nice day as well. No need for further discussion.

These are quotes in black and white. If you cannot accept them, what more is there to discuss?

 

[randman]

At no point in any of the papers you've linked to is the word "overturn" used. Your implying that it is by putting it in quotes is dishonest.

No, they do not. They use the phrase "turn upside down." Forgive me for not realizing you lack the capacity to connect the phrase "turn upside down" as "overturn" and to have misremembered the exact phrase here.

Maybe we shouldn't discuss things? I am not prepared to spend a lot of time explaining why "overturn" is another way of saying "turn upside down."

Our preliminary survey of the expressed sequences of planula stage Acropora millepora appears to turn upside down several preconceived ideas about the evolution of animal genomes.

For others, please note the word "preconceived" here.

 

[Dinwar]

Here they clearly refer to the genome of the coral as "complex." If you choose to deny that, that's fine. Have a nice day!

So what? This is obviously a relative term, meant to be taken in context. A lever with one end attached to a pully is by definition a complex machine, but it's hardly difficult to comprehend. This is called "cherry picking".

Please note "highly differentiated nervous systems." If you cannot see that as a reference to "complex nerve function", then have a nice day. No need to talk any more!

Read the whole sentence. These are genes ASSOCIATED WITH highly differentiated nervous systems. Hardly means that they are the same genes--these may also be associated with toenail growth or something. Genetics is more complex than you give it credit for. Which means that you have NOT read my reference list.

For others please note the comment "this complexity is particularly surprising given the morphological simplicity of the coral nervous system".

You don't read many science articles do you? This means that something odd has cropped up, something that needs explained. The argument "Corals have genes associated with complex nervous systems, therefore the corals should have complex nervous systems" is flawed, and to attach "therefore evolution is wrong" is nonsensical.

These are quotes in black and white. If you cannot accept them, what more is there to discuss?

Let's start with your gross misrepresentation of what it says. "These genes are associated with complex nervous systems" does not necessarily mean "this organism should have a complex nervous system"--the genes could be being expressed in a completely different way. For reference, this is dealt with in Chapters 1, some of 8, 13, 14, 16, 20, and 23 of "Essentials of Genetics" (Fifth Edition; it may be slightly different in the edition I linked you to earlier). Obviously you are refusing to read the research I've provided.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

No, they do not. They use the phrase "turn upside down." Forgive me for not realizing you lack the capacity to connect the phrase "turn upside down" as "overturn" and to have misremembered the exact phrase here.

In the future don't quote things when there is a possibility you've misremembered them. BTW He could have rightly also complained about the words you put around that quoted word also as not being a proper paraphrase.

 

[A'isha]

Please note "highly differentiated nervous systems." If you cannot see that as a reference to "complex nerve function", then have a nice day. No need to talk any more!

What do you think "associated with" means, in this context?

For those that refuse to admit their citation of why this was so particularly surprising, namely that the coral has a simple nervous system, have nice day as well. No need for further discussion.

These are quotes in black and white. If you cannot accept them, what more is there to discuss?

I told you exactly why the scientists found this so surprising. It's not why you think they found it so surprising. And it has nothing to do with the nature of the coral's own nervous system, which is not surprising to anyone (scientists included).

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Maybe we shouldn't discuss things?

I thought you'd already decided that you were "done" with me?

 

[randman]

I told you exactly why the scientists found this so surprising. It's not why you think they found it so surprising. And it has nothing to do with the nature of the coral's own nervous system, which is not surprising to anyone (scientists included).

Nothing to do with the nature of the coral's own nervous system, eh?

This complexity is particularly surprising given the morphological simplicity of the coral nervous system

What more can we say? In your world the reference to "the morphological simplicity of the coral NERVOUS SYSTEM [my caps]" does not exist. In mine, it does.

 

[randman]

Dinwar, no need for further discussion with you it seems. Never said the coral should have a complex nervous system and have repeatedly said it does not.

see ya

 

[Dinwar]

Dinwar, no need for further discussion with you it seems. Never said the coral should have a complex nervous system and have repeatedly said it does not.

So.....I got put on "Ignore" because he misread what I wrote and I had the audacity to bring up the complexity of gene expression?

ETA: This is an example of another trend I've seen in Creationist debates: They attempt to control the conversation. randman has attempted to dictate what terms mean to be more favorable to his argument, dictated to us what the conclusions of the articles were despite the authors disagreeing with him, and is now deciding who can and cannot enter into debate. I'm not saying this to insult randman--he's doing enough of that on his own--but he does provide a beautiful case study in this particular Creationist tactic. If they're going to debate it'll be on THEIR terms, with THEM setting the standards of proof, the definitions, and determining what every piece of evidence means. Contrast this with a scientific debate, in which definitions are agreed upon and the standards of proof are more or less standardized (within each discipline, of course).

 

[dlorde]

...those that choose to misrepresent a scientific paper's facts, going to take note and just ignore you.

Dang, another irony meter just blew...

Here they clearly refer to the genome of the coral as "complex." If you choose to deny that, that's fine. Have a nice day!

Nobody has denied that. The whole point of the discussion is that it's more complex than expected.

Please note "highly differentiated nervous systems." If you cannot see that as a reference to "complex nerve function", then have a nice day

Leaving aside that 'a highly differentiated system' doesn't mean 'complex function', they're saying these genes appear to have persisted since the common ancestor of chordates and cnidarians, and this is surprising. They didn't expect them to have originated that early. When you use better tools to investigate, you often find surprises. This one means they'll have to reorder the time sequence for the emergence of these genes now that they realise "the unexpectedly deep evolutionary origins of at least some vertebrate gene families". We're still making surprising discoveries, isn't evolutionary science exciting?

For others please note the comment "this complexity is particularly surprising given the morphological simplicity of the coral nervous system".

We already covered that - as did the article - they say that the larval stage, which is free-swimming and responds to light and sound, uses some of these genes. I expect they intend to investigate further.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

So.....I got put on "Ignore" because he misread what I wrote and I had the audacity to bring up the complexity of gene expression?

He's pretty much putting anyone on ignore who doesn't agree with him. Soon he'll just be posting into the aether. Really makes me wonder what the point of him posting at all is.

 

[A'isha]

What more can we say? In your world the reference to "the morphological simplicity of the coral NERVOUS SYSTEM [my caps]" does not exist. In mine, it does.

Except that's not the earthshattering surprise you were going on about (and, thus, not the one I was referring to). The thing that you say "shocked" them the most, was not the complexity level of the genome vs. the nervous system, but the presence of genes previously only encountered in vertebrate genomes.

And the surprising presence and manifestation of those genes have nothing to do with any surprises in the complexity or simplicity of the coral's nervous system. The coral genome is more complex in that sense not because it has a lot of genes in it (it does, but that's irrelevant to what the paper's findings imply), but because it has genes that no other invertebrate has.

Had the paper merely found that the coral genome was larger and more complex than previously thought, but didn't have these vertebrate genes that change our understanding of how certain parts of the vertebrate nervous system originated, I can guarantee you that there wouldn't be news items taking about how shocking the discovery was.

EDIT: bokonon puts this a little bit better in his post further down.

Nice attempt at trying to find a "gotcha" reason to dismiss all my arguments without actually addressing your complete and total misunderstanding of the paper in question, though.

 

[Lowpro]

Is ANYONE going to point out how ridiculous this argument's gotten? Rad's confused genetic expression, and I think maybe all of you are misinterpreting the paper's vocabulary...or maybe it's just Rad and we're trying to point it out.

Anyways, this paper has VERY little to do to discredit evolution or genetics and I think I've lost sight of what the point was earlier. I thought he was trying to discredit macroevolution, and in doing so infinitely moved the goalpost by taking the piss out of what macroevolution is.

ETA: All Rad wants is a fossil rabbit and he's trying to form one through this article.

 

[bokonon]

That's not the only reason. They specifically state that because there was no advanced nerve function, they were "surprised" to find these genes here.

To restate, they expected these genes to emerge along with the function of complex nerve function. That's what I am getting at. It shouldn't even be controversial. That's what evos expected to find. They expected such genes to emerge and evolve along with vertebrate nerve function.

Why?

Because that's the basic narrative (exceptions noted) for how genomes evolve. They are thought to evolve hand in hand with traits that are selected for.

We can talk about other papers but if you guys are going to pretend ND does not predict natural selection playing a role in the emergence of new genes, we have nothing to talk about.

I think this is the core of your misunderstanding.

Genes which serve one function in one organism may serve a different function (or several functions) in another organism. The reason they were surprised to find the neural and vision genes is because they weren't seen in the model invertebrates, even though the model invertebrates have vision systems and neural systems. The researchers even state that the "most surprising" implication of their results is the loss of function seen in the invertebrate line. Since the invertebrate nerve function in the mapped model organisms was known not to employ these genes, it was assumed that they had arisen in the vertebrate line. That turned out not to be the case. While the simplicity of the nervous system in the coral was a side issue, it wasn't the main source of the surprise.

Your "basic narrative" is mistaken, I think. Mutation results in new genes; natural selection can only cull that pool. New genes don't appear "hand in hand" with traits that are selected. It's more complicated than that. A gene that was selected yesterday may be different today. It can only be selected along with all the other genes an individual possesses, which means many useless genes can be conserved along with the vital ones. Maybe some of them will be co-opted to perform some other function later, after additional mutations or a change in the regulatory framework.

New function can appear when new genes appear, and when old genes disappear. The researchers didn't expect to find "vision" genes in the coral, but it turned out that they were providing vision services for the larva. Some of those "neural" genes can be found in yeast, but in yeast they're obviously doing something other than stitching together rudimentary brains.

 

[Simon39759]

Haven't looked at it yet, but speciation is not macroevolution, imo. If you don't wish to discuss things with someone criticizing Darwinian evolution, that's Ok.

We don't have to waste each other's time.

Actually, it is.
That is a common definition of macro-evolution. Change above the species level.
It is a bit of a outdated term though; as we have been pointing out to you.


Basically, I know you won't listen but, basically:
- Genes can be passed over a long period of evolutionary time, their function changing or being refined over time.
- When an individual posses a gene, he passes down his line of descent, although these, as I have been saying to you since my first post, can be lost.
- Therefore, when two parallel branches posses a same gene, they probably inherited it from a common ancestor.
- Inversely if one branch is lacking a particular gene, the most common explanation is that this gene appeared after the two branches separated.

So, because the genes in question were absent in the invertebrate, it was assumed that it had appeared after the branching out.
Surprisingly, it was not the case, the gene was present in the common ancestor and lost later in the invertebrate branch.
This was surprising because is it not the most common scenario, as explained earlier.
However, gene and function loss are not particularly unusual and that's certainly not something that not something that pause particular problem to the TOE.

It is pretty neat and unexpected but, nothing extraordinary let alone anything to put into question what constitutes the core of biological science.


Honestly, it is rather straightforward and it's not something that has not been seen before...

 

[Dinwar]

Is ANYONE going to point out how ridiculous this argument's gotten?

It was attempted. We got put on "Ignore". Randman doesn't like it when his rediculous statements are called out.

Anyways, this paper has VERY little to do to discredit evolution or genetics and I think I've lost sight of what the point was earlier. I thought he was trying to discredit macroevolution, and in doing so infinitely moved the goalpost by taking the piss out of what macroevolution is.

No kidding. That's why I linked to all of those books I did--they pretty much destroy randman's point. The problem is, he doesn't want to discuss anything. He wants to make statements that are accepted as gospel truth, and win the argument by virtue of "I said X, therefore X". He put me, Skeptic Tank, and a few others on "Ignore" for that. I'm not saying you're wrong, merely pointing out that soon you'll be joining us, if you haven't already.

New function can appear when new genes appear, and when old genes disappear. The researchers didn't expect to find "vision" genes in the coral, but it turned out that they were providing vision services for the larva. Some of those "neural" genes can be found in yeast, but in yeast they're obviously doing something other than stitching together rudimentary brains.

Well put. Much better than my statement.

 

[Simon39759]

No kidding. That's why I linked to all of those books I did--they pretty much destroy randman's point. The problem is, he doesn't want to discuss anything. He wants to make statements that are accepted as gospel truth, and win the argument by virtue of "I said X, therefore X". He put me, Skeptic Tank, and a few others on "Ignore" for that. I'm not saying you're wrong, merely pointing out that soon you'll be joining us, if you haven't already.

Well put. Much better than my statement.

I mentioned the Dunning-Kruger effect a while back and, the more this thread is progressing, the more it seems to me like this is the core of the problem.

For people familiar with genetic and evolution, the content of the paper is hardly difficult to understand. It is pretty straightforward, indeed.

But for somebody with a simplistic view of evolution ("things are always becoming more complex!") and little grasp of genetic (one gene = one morphological trait, "genes homologous to that of the human nervous system = a nervous system similar to that of a human"), it can, I guess be confusing.
Add to that a dash of wishful thinking and and little knowledge becomes a dangerous thing indeed...


*Shrug* Anyway, at this point, I think it is clear that Randman has little desire to learn anything about the subject...

 

[randman]

Yep, ignoring some posters because instead of dealing with then claims I have made, they make up stuff I didn't say over and over again.

That strikes me as someone that cannot follow the issue. Take Simon's comment that somehow I misunderstood the paper. Certainly did not, nor just quoted that one paper, but he thinks I think "things are always becoming more complex." He assumes that's where I am coming from and so is completely unable to see the argument being made.

It's sad really, but that's typical with so many evos. They've never even understood what their critics are saying because they are convinced they know what they think and are going to say.

Reminds of bit of talking to someone a bit brainwashed in an extreme religion. Outsiders have evil intentions they are told, and this is what they think, and so when they say something that sounds like this, respond with this comment.

Even if the response has nothing to do with what you say, they will shrug and say among themselves, can you believe how these unbelievers are....just really deluded man and go on.

It's an extremely rare event to find an evolutionist that can actually understand criticism, much less respond to it.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

- Genes can be passed over a long period of evolutionary time, their function changing or being refined over time.

Or, indeed, not have a function at all.

It's sad really, but that's typical with so many evos. They've never even understood what their critics are saying because they are convinced they know what they think and are going to say.

Of course the irony here is that people in this thread have for the most part been addressing the arguments you make, while you've been busy spouting off about what some homogeneous group called "evos"* supposedly think and say.

*What is that, anyway, evolutionary biologists who wear black and cut themselves?

 

[catsmate]

Haven't misquoted Grasse at all

As has been pointed out to you this statement is a lie.

and if you are linking to TalkOrigins, I feel sorry for you.

Really? For embracing scientific reality rather than some silly superstitions?

Grasse called NeoDarwinism a myth.

I'm sure you can provide a valid citation for this......... Otherwise it's just another of your unsupported assertions.

He calls "evolution" a "myth", a lie perpetuated in part by fraud.

Again a lie. One created by creationists to support their nonsense.

That's what he was talking about when he called evolution a myth.

You mean where he said:

"Zoologists and botanists are nearly unanimous in considering evolution as a fact and not a hypothesis. I agree with this position and base it primarily on documents provided by paleontology, i.e., the history of the living world ... [Also,] Embryogenesis provides valuable data [concerning evolutionary relationships] ... Chemistry, through its analytical data, directs biologists and provides guidance in their search for affinities between groups of animals or plants, and ... plays an important part in the approach to genuine evolution."

Hmmmmmm.

That's one reason I started out using the term, Darwinism and then NeoDarwinism, and talked about how evos use "evolution" in different ways.

No you use those terms in an attempt to belittle science and create a myth of Charles Darwin as some sort of scientific god. Pathetic.

But here is the truth.

That's be a first............

Pier Grasse

Would you at least try and make some effort to get the man's name right?

called what you believe and what TalkOrigins believes and writes about, a "myth"

And again this is a lie, as shown by the quote above from his book Evolution of Living Organisms. Just to help you I'll repeat it here.

"Zoologists and botanists are nearly unanimous in considering evolution as a fact and not a hypothesis. I agree with this position and base it primarily on documents provided by paleontology, i.e., the history of the living world ... [Also,] Embryogenesis provides valuable data [concerning evolutionary relationships] ... Chemistry, through its analytical data, directs biologists and provides guidance in their search for affinities between groups of animals or plants, and ... plays an important part in the approach to genuine evolution."

Should I use boldface? Would colours help you?

and went so far as to say although some do it in ignorance, many evos deliberately perpetuated this myth knowingly, that some evos (talking prominent scientists) are deliberately lying at least on some levels. He said you guys are either ignorant or lying.

Actually he didn't. Which means you, and your fellow creationists, are the ones deliberately and intentionally lying by taking the sentence fragment

"myth of evolution, considered as a simple, understood, and explained phenomenon"

grossly out of context and stating that it supports creationism. It doesn't.
Grasese accepted the reality of evolution, he disagreed with other scientists on the mechanism for evolutionary change. He was a neo-Lamarckian, part of the cultural tradition in France. And while Lamarckism is wrong it's not as wrong as IDiocy.

If creationists say the same things and quote him, they are not taking him out of context at all.

Right................

Moreover, you mischaracterize what he believed, probably parroting TalkOrigins. He was not Lamarckian in the way you define it; nor was his whole argument on living fossils.

Really? Hmm I wonder which of us has his book (in translation) in his library. I'm guessing not you. So kindly cease you silly patronising nonsense it merely exposes your ignorance and duplicity.
Perhaps you'd care to explain, if Grosse wasn't a neo-Lamarckian why he organised the 1947 international congress in support of Lamarckism? Or why he defended Lamarck in print? Such as in the Encyclopædia Universalis......

Pier Grasse would likely be in the ID camp today.

Wow. I think this is you single biggest lie yet.

Accepting common descent does not make one an evolutionist in the way you guys define evolutionist. Michael Behe believes in common descent, for example.

Is he an evolutionist?

Is this strawman relevant to something?

Same with a lot of ID theorists. I have for the most part not even talked about special creation here but ideas from front loading evolutionists and ID theorists, discussing the facts in the context of common descent, even though I don't necessarily accept it.

Despite the best efforts of these "ID theorists" they're utterly failed to produce a scrap of evidence for "Intelligent Design" or a designer. Which isn't surprising as IDiocy is merely a facade for religion.

So who is misusing Pier Grasse?

That would be you. And the other creationists of course. For fecks sake you can't even get his name right.
Which makes me wonder if you're even doing your own research or just pasting from onr of those silly xian anti-evolution screeds.

I think TalkOrigins is when they say he's an evolutionist like they are. Grasse said that scientists saying the same things as the folks at TalkOrigins are either ignorant or lying.

For the third time: [from page 3 (AP English translation of 1978) of Evolution of Living Organisms]

"Zoologists and botanists are nearly unanimous in considering evolution as a fact and not a hypothesis. I agree with this position and base it primarily on documents provided by paleontology, i.e., the history of the living world ... [Also,] Embryogenesis provides valuable data [concerning evolutionary relationships] ... Chemistry, through its analytical data, directs biologists and provides guidance in their search for affinities between groups of animals or plants, and ... plays an important part in the approach to genuine evolution."

Interesting book, pity about his neo-Lamarckism but that was still fashionable in France.

So how's he taken out of context again?

I hope this is clear to you now. Though you're not likely to accept that you've been shown to be a liar, that's one of the problems with religious belief.