Stupid Christian Article on Evolution

[Dinwar]

Wrong. The paper does not make that claim; nor is it's purpose; nor does the coral have the processes of complex nerve function.

You obviously haven't read the references I posted. Shall I mock you, call you dense, and accuse you of fraud? Or are such things only allowed for the opponents of evolution?

Coral larva have eyes. The gene in question deals with eyes. Thus, the presence of the gene makes sense. But even if it didn't, it wouldn't matter--we're still merely discussing a find that pushes back when a particular trait arose. The traite may have gone dormant, like our viteman C gene, or may simply not be expressed, or may have had one of any number of changes renderinig it useless. It still merely states that the trait arose prior to when corals and vertebrates (remember, this is a VERTEBRATE traite, not merely a human one). This is surprising, but not earth-shattering.

However the paper does mention human genetic sequences and yes does so in part to distinquish how some animal lineages don't have those sequences.

You don't understand the context of the paper. That's obvious. One consequence is that you misunderstand what are, for biology, colloquial statements, and assume that they are precise scientific statements.

 

[randman]

Doesn't floor me at all. You still fail to grasp the basics of my argument. The paper is primarily significant per my argument in what it says about the LCA, and it's not the only paper or research saying the same things about the LCA.

Unfortunately, you guys cannot see the forest for the trees and keep talking about areas that really are not germane to my argument in the first place as if I'd be "floored" with you revelations and have never heard them before.

They are not relevant.

 

[Dinwar]

How many were tested?

Don't know. Look at ANTpogo's comments upthread.

If coral has it then it's just as wrong to call it a vertebrate gene as it is to all it a human one. By the same argument you use.

That's my point--this study demonstrated that we were wrong about something. It's not what randman is arguing.

Not that I've read. Where does he say this?

Really? Apparently ANTpogo and I are reading it differently than you.

 

[Lowpro]

Dinwar and MANY others have already dissected the paper to hopefully let you in on why you're wrong here.

Coral larva have eyes. The gene in question deals with eyes. Thus, the presence of the gene makes sense. But even if it didn't, it wouldn't matter--we're still merely discussing a find that pushes back when a particular trait arose. The traite may have gone dormant, like our viteman C gene, or may simply not be expressed, or may have had one of any number of changes renderinig it useless. It still merely states that the trait arose prior to when corals and vertebrates (remember, this is a VERTEBRATE traite, not merely a human one). This is surprising, but not earth-shattering.

And forgive me, but it's your own damn fault for not being able to communicate to us. If you want to look back, you've took the piss out of macroevolution and have been corrected.

You've mentioned complexity, and you again have been corrected.

You have brought up Degrasse, and have been corrected (in TWO THREADS!)

You now fall back to the ALC paper; we've pointed out how irrelevant it is to you and explained why ( I use the royal "we" the credit goes to ANT, Dinwar (again in two threads) and others)

You cannot claim that your whole argument(s) around this paper, when we're at 18 pages here and you've said a LOT of things, I don't know if you've kept track

 

[randman]

Coral larva have eyes. The gene in question deals with eyes. Thus, the presence of the gene makes sense.

It's not "the gene in question." You need to read the paper. It's a lot of genetic sequences.

But even if it didn't, it wouldn't matter--we're still merely discussing a find that pushes back when a particular trait arose

No, we're not and that's the point.

I

t still merely states that the trait arose prior to when corals and vertebrates (

No, they are not talking about when a trait arose but when a genetic sequence emerged.

Big difference.

 

[randman]

ou've mentioned complexity, and you again have been corrected.

Nope, they have in their paper.

You have brought up Degrasse, and have been corrected

Nope. I accurately stated he condemned NeoDarwinism as a myth while embracing common descent. You guys seemed to have never heard of the guy or just in reference to TalkOrigins misrepresenting his beliefs.

This is a waste of my time. You cannot agree on basic facts like Pierre Grasse not being a NeoDarwinist and condemning it.

See ya.

 

[A'isha]

ANT, are you that dense? Of course, it's the same point of my argument whether it's vertebrates or exclusive to humans? If the genes were conserved across the board, my argument would be the same but the paper wouldn't talk of massive loss of genes in some animal lineages.

You seem to be under the mistaken impression that I have argued the genetic sequences were exclusive to humans and somehow this is relevant to my argument. It's not germane because I never made those points and did not argue them. However the paper does mention human genetic sequences and yes does so in part to distinquish how some animal lineages don't have those sequences.

ironically, the paper does suggest some sort of exclusivity, some lineages with these sequences and others without. But no one has mistaken the idea that the genetic sequences are exclusive to human beings.

Since your entire argument (and that of Davison, who you seem to rely on so much) is built on assumption that genomes were "front-loaded" with everything, and that the role of novel genes in the evolution of later organisms is minimized at best.

So let's say the last common metazoan ancestor. They would have simple genomes because they hadn't evolved so far and didn't have functions like a brain or something. They wouldn't be expected according to evolution to have all the genes human beings have, for example, or chimps or frogs, mice, etc, etc,....

This is from back on page three of this thread. This is why you keep harping on the "human" nature of the genes found in the coral. Because you think it proves your and Davison's assertion that all the genes for the modern human nervous system were already encoded in the genome of the ancestor organism.

It would be interesting to try to determine if these seguences disappeared and reemerged (DNA skipping), but that's not the point the paper makes, nor me here.

Especially since the restoration (ie, re-evolution) of "lost" genes like would torpedo the front-loading theory.

Um, in case you haven't noticed, that's the terminology of the paper itself. How else would you have me describe it?

The terminology used in the paper was done for a specific technical reason, a reason that has nothing to do with the "surprising" and "shocking" discovery of that gene in the coral. The scientists would have had the exact same reaction had they been comparing the genome of the coral to the genome of a salamander, and found a gene in the coral that corresponded to a gene used in the salamander's vertebrate nervous system but was not a gene used in the human nervous system.

Your use of the descriptor "human" for this gene has nothing to do with the terminology as used in the paper, and nothing to do with the actual implications of the discovery.

It's merely a red herring so you can use this paper in a completely unwarranted way - as evidence to support the front-loading theory.

For eight years....I've seen this italicized. For the first time when NOT seeing it so, I actually had to cringe...

This has NOTHING to add to this thread at this time =P

Ooops, sorry!

 

[Dinwar]

No, they are not talking about when a trait arose but when a genetic sequence emerged.

Big difference.

This is sloppy linguistics on my part, and I appologize. I was referring to the gene as a trait. Perhaps "character" would be a better term, given that we're talking phylogeny.

Still, this is not overturning any part of evolution. Such adjustments to our understanding happen ALL THE FREAKING TIME, particularly in paleontology. It's the norm. Someone says "This happened 10 million years ago", then someone else says "Woops, no, here's a 12 million year old fossil with this trait" and a biologist says "Yeah, and here's DNA evidence suggesting it formed 20 million years ago." "Right," the first guy says, "We'll call it 15 million years old until better evidence shows up." Then they all go have a beer. I've seen essentially that conversation numerous times--this is just another example of it.

 

[Mister Agenda]

Really for all we know based on evolution, aliens planted life here.

True, I don't think we have much information that contradicts that. I think we may be the first sapient species in our galaxy, as it seems something like mitochondria are needed for advanced multicellular life and that has only happened once as far as we know. It's thin stuff to base conclusions on, though, so I can't honestly rule out the possibility entirely.

 

[Mister Agenda]

I thought she was referring to all creatures, hence my reference to dogs and animal instincts.

It's an interesting question for humans. Our minds are advanced and so we are a little different (evidence for special creation....).

But I think some do think some behavior is hard-wired. Is sexual preference hard-wired genetically, for example, is emerges through culture. That's actually not so clear cut as some would suggest.

Understandable. Sometimes we use the ultra-royal 'we' to encompass all life, so it can be tricky to know who we really mean when we say 'we'. Oui?

 

[randman]

This is from back on page three of this thread. This is why you keep harping on the "human" nature of the genes found in the coral. Because you think it proves your and Davison's assertion that all the genes for the modern human nervous system were already encoded in the genome of the ancestor organism.

Certainly could have been, right?

Especially since the restoration (ie, re-evolution) of "lost" genes like would torpedo the front-loading theory.

Depends on the mechanism for macroevolution. I'd say it torpedos evolutionism but you guys likely say any result is evidence for evolution.

 

[Mister Agenda]

Depends on the mechanism for macroevolution. I'd say it torpedos evolutionism but you guys likely say any result is evidence for evolution.

The problem with this criticism is that if evolution is correct, we would only find results that are compatible with evolution.

 

[sphenisc]

randman, Dinwar can I please remind you to use the Quote button. This is hellishly convoluted as it is without having to hunt back for where quotes came from.

Thanks

 

[Dinwar]

Depends on the mechanism for macroevolution. I'd say it torpedos evolutionism but you guys likely say any result is evidence for evolution.

You don't understand what evolution is. Evolution is the change in allele frequency through time. That's it. Period. Full stop. The exact pathway evolution followed isn't critical to the theory of evolution--whether genes are added or lost, their frequency is still changing and it's still evolution.

You seem to think that the theory of evolution is the pathway it took, but it's not--the theory woulud hold true had evolution taken any other path. This is obvious: every kingdom and phyla started at a specific point, and evolved from there. Which means evolution can work on complex organisms as well as simple ones.

The problem is that there is no evidence for front-loading, nor is there any mechanism by which the organisms could have the genes you suggest prior to their evolution, other than goddidit (with a nod to panspermia). Paleontology shows the path evolution took. It seems to be from simple (unicellular) to complex (multicellular), though the simple still dominate. Which, by the way, is another nail in the argument's coffin: The world is still dominated by bacteria, by a HUGE margin.

ETA: Unless I state otherwise, I'm quoting randman. Sorry if that wasn't clear.

 

[AdmiralBuckles]

Randman to clarify your argument, please tell us why the paper on coral directly contradicts evolution theory. It seem that you are essentially saying that the paper is evidence for front loading and since "neodarwinists" dismissed frontloading this paper is a gamechanger. Is that correct so far?

But to further clarify you don't actually believe in frontloading, you are just using this paper in an attempt to debunk "neodarwinists. "

So the real issue isn't front loading, the issue is, in your opinion, that evidence exists for front loading and all of your links to papers and quotes are that evidence?

 

[sphenisc]

I think it's an interesting hypothesis that the largest genome was possessed by the most primitive species. So presumably the extant species with the largest genomes are more 'basal' than those with smaller ones.

So far I've got:

Polychaos dubium ("Amoeba") 670 Gbp
Paris japonica (Canopy plant) 150 Gbp
Protopterus aethiopicus (marbled lungfish) 130 Gbp

If anyone would like to fund my search for fossils of these closely related species in strata from the MesoArchean please PM me.

 

[randman]

Admiral, it's not just this paper. I consider front loading a viable scientific hypothesis, perhaps theory. I just am not totally convinced.

I don't consider NeoDarwinism as consistent with the facts. The data in the paper along with other similar findings, imo, contradicts NeoDarwinian predictions but does not necessarily contradict common descent. Common descent is a given assumption in the paper. It'd be interesting to consider some of this data outside of assuming common descent and maybe there is someone out there that has, but this finding and others caught my eye as they were specifically predicted by front loaders whereas Neodarwinists predicted the opposite.

 

[dasmiller]

but this finding and others caught my eye as they were specifically predicted by front loaders whereas Neodarwinists predicted the opposite.

When you say "specifically predicted," what would FrontLoaders predict about coral genes that would be different from mainstream evolutionary predictions?

 

[randman]

Evolution is the change in allele frequency through time. That's it. Period. Full stop.

So no change in allele frequency, then no evolution? How about a change in frequency with no outward changes? Is that evolution?

Are you willing to stand by that?

 

[ehcks]

So no change in allele frequency, then no evolution? How about a change in frequency with no outward changes? Is that evolution?

Are you willing to stand by that?

Neutral mutations are the norm and have no noticeable change on an organism. A coincidental, significant increase in the frequency of a specific neutral mutation... would first require that the species is changing at all, which means it would be evolution... but that accumulation of a neutral change in a species would have no noticeable change on the species by itself.