Stupid Christian Article on Evolution

[randman]

Do you actually think a species giving birth to a different species is something "Darwinism" predicts, or did I just misread an example you were trying to make? Have you ever actually defined what your opposing stance is yet on all this?

No, I was pointing out Darwinism is a gradual and defined process with specific predictions, and on this thread, particularly about the evolution and development of the genomes of living creatures. Evolution predicts a slow accumulation of genes as a result of a slow process of mutations that survive in the mutated creatures via natural selection. The further back in time, in general, you should see simpler genomes and less types of genes. The last common ancestor should have very few gene types compared to living biota (all living creatures) today.

The problem is the evidence, assuming evolution in the first, place is the exact opposite.

 

[randman]

Natural selection has nothing to do with 'the process of new genes', it simply means the individuals with genes that enable them to have more viable offspring will increase the frequency of those genes in the population. It's important for that reason.

The genes were already there assuming common descent in the first place with the last common ancestor. They didn't arrive via mutation and natural selection. They didn't arrive via adaptionism (Neodarwinism). That means the whole NeoDarwinian story was wrong.

So what value has it? It doesn't line up with the data.

 

[Halfcentaur]

You're proposing that mice evolved in Australia independently of the mice which evolved in the rest of the world? You think "Darwinists" posit this?

 

[randman]

Yes. Shocking, isn't it? But there you go. Evolutionists believe you are more closely related to a placental mice than a placental mice is to an Australian marsupial one.

Those Aussies are up to no good anyway

 

[Halfcentaur]

Species of marsupials who evolved to fill specific ecological niches, in many cases physically similar to the placental mammals in Eurasia and North America that occupy similar niches, are a demonstration of exactly what you would expect if evolution through natural selection exists. You seriously maintain this is just an ad hoc explanation? The placental mice of Australia are not posited to be an example of convergent evolution. Tasmanian tigers, gliding possums, and numbats are.

 

[PixyMisa]

Here is one of the papers, and yes Pixy, I have read it, understood it, debated it and discussed it great length long before I posted here.

http://www.cell.com/current-biology/abstract/S0960-9822(03)00872-8

What are genes for complex and even human nerve function doing in this simple coral?

They're not genes for human nerve function. They're genes for nerve function that also appear in humans. Coral is an multi-celled animal, so there is not reason it should have genes for nerve function.

Note the researchers were "shocked", "surprised", etc,.....This is not what NeoDarwinism predicts.

Wrong. It is perfectly in accordance with evolutionary theory. It indicates a higher gene deletion rate than was previously expected, but we've been correcting you throughout the thread on your assumption that genes accumulate and are never deleted.

Since the coral has no vertebrate nerve function, natural selection could not have been involved in selecting for vertebrate nerve function and the genes corresponding to that.

Wrong. They're genes for nerve function. No reason for them not to be there.

How did the genes get there?

Starts with e. Ends with volution.

 

[Halfcentaur]

Do you have an alternative theory you are favoring, Randman?

 

[randman]

Species of marsupials who evolved to fill specific ecological niches, in many cases physically similar to the placental mammals in Eurasia and North America that occupy similar niches, are a demonstration of exactly what you would expect if evolution through natural selection exists. You seriously maintain this is just an ad hoc explanation? The placental mice of Australia are not posited to be an example of convergent evolution. Tasmanian tigers, gliding possums, and numbats are.

Yep, totally ad hoc. Just look at it objectively. Look at all the pairs. That's a pattern not explained by random mutations to fill niches. Keep in mind evos are always saying how imperfect designs are and so evidence against God in their minds.

Well, why would a random process of mutation lead to the same imperfect design over and over again? Surely a better design would have evolved in a different area? I mean it's not like they were programmed or anything to mutate in a certain way.

 

[PixyMisa]

So evolution is not really a change in gene frequency but gene regulation?

I don't know how you get there, but of course it can be both.

Is this just a new ad hoc explanation from evos to explain why the data didn't fit their theory? Kind of like the idea similar traits are the result of common ancestry except, well, Marsupial and Placentals mess that idea up.

Well, no. Placental mammals evolved from marsupials. Common ancestry.

So hey, must be convergent evolution. Just happened to evolve extremely similar pairs like mice, even in different environments.

Sure.

Evolution explains if similarities are inherited, and if not, evolution explains that they evolved independently. Evolution explains every result?

Only the ones that actually happen, randman.

Why would there not be a marsupial analogue of the placental mouse? Or rather, why would there not be a placental analogue of the marsupial mouse, since that's very likely the order in which they evolved.

I like to look at the data and see what it does and does not say. When someone says the data must mean such and such, I look for examples where the data shows that to be wrong, and when it does, that means the original contention is not scientifically supported. Do this and it will be very hard to accept NeoDarwinism as factual.

Except that people don't say what you are claiming they say, and the implications you claim for evolutionary theory exist only in your limited understanding.

 

[randman]

Do you have an alternative theory you are favoring, Randman?

I like to look at the data and see what it does and does not say. I think people can make a decent argument for a number of models except ironically the one generally accepted, which absolutely flies in the face of all the facts and data we have.

Front-loading predicted what might be called super-genomes. That impressed me they were so bold and correct in their predictions and NeoDarwinism failed so miserably. But there are other areas of data.

Maybe common descent and evolution never happened in the first place. Common descent is a given assumption in most of these studies.

I could elaborate. Guess I would be considered an Intelligent Design theorist as far as my ideas, but it gets kind of complicated. I think the whole field whether evolutionist, front loading evolutionist (non-Darwinist), young earth creationist, old earth creationist, IDers, etc,....are still generally locked into a materialist perspective on reality outdated by modern physics.

But the NeoDarwinists are the worst in that regard.

But that would be a physics thread, and yes, I do have some ideas on how reality including life is generated.

 

[PixyMisa]

Yep, totally ad hoc.

Nope. Natural selection acting on genetic variation. Where there's an ecological niche, but separate populations, you'd expect similar evolutionary results but different genetics. That's exactly what we find.

Just look at it objectively. Look at all the pairs.

We are looking at it objectively.

That's a pattern not explained by random mutations to fill niches.

On the contrary, it's exactly what we'd expect to find.

Keep in mind evos are always saying how imperfect designs are and so evidence against God in their minds.

They are, of course, imperfect. So?

Well, why would a random process of mutation lead to the same imperfect design over and over again?

Natural selection.

Surely a better design would have evolved in a different area?

And it frequently does. Have you not noticed that there are several different species of animal in the world, with different adaptations?

I mean it's not like they were programmed or anything to mutate in a certain way.

Right.

 

[randman]

Well, no. Placental mammals evolved from marsupials. Common ancestry.

Nope, they did not.

 

[PixyMisa]

Front-loading predicted what might be called super-genomes.

Which haven't been found.

But there are other areas of data.

Such as?

Maybe common descent and evolution never happened in the first place.

Well, except for the fact that we can see evolution happening. Oh, and all the evidence that it's been proceeding for billions of years.

Common descent is a given assumption in most of these studies.

It's not an assumption, it's a conclusion.

I could elaborate. Guess I would be considered an Intelligent Design theorist as far as my ideas, but it gets kind of complicated. I think the whole field whether evolutionist, front loading evolutionist (non-Darwinist), young earth creationist, old earth creationist, IDers, etc,....are still generally locked into a materialist perspective on reality outdated by modern physics.

Nope. Biology in general, and evolution in particular, is perfectly in accordance with modern physics. Thanks anyway.

But that would be a physics thread, and yes, I do have some ideas on how reality including life is generated.

I'm sure you do, randman. I'm sure you do.

 

[Halfcentaur]

Yep, totally ad hoc. Just look at it objectively. Look at all the pairs. That's a pattern not explained by random mutations to fill niches. Keep in mind evos are always saying how imperfect designs are and so evidence against God in their minds.

Well, why would a random process of mutation lead to the same imperfect design over and over again? Surely a better design would have evolved in a different area? I mean it's not like they were programmed or anything to mutate in a certain way.

You're just demonstrating you do not understand the position you're debating against, again. Designs are not favored because they are perfect, they are favored because they function well in certain conditions. Why would you expect a better design to evolve in a different area? You would expect a variety of course, which you will find actually comparing different regions. But this does not rule out similar paths at all, it would be expected.

The imperfections "evos" are citing are a matter of vestigial organs and other similar vestiges which are clearly a result of mindless natural selection.

Mice and rats in Australia were never posited as examples of convergent evolution, again exposing you for nothing but a denialist with an agenda to champion, an agenda you've yet to even reveal. But by looking at the post I've quoted you seem to be implying an alternative to a Godless designer, which seems to suggest your agenda to me.

Here's what a convenient wikipedia search could have taught you about placentals in Australia.

Australia has indigenous placental mammals from two orders: the bats—order Chiroptera—represented by six families; and the mice and rats—order Rodentia, family Muridae. Bats and rodents are relatively recent arrivals to Australia; bats are present in the fossil record only from as recently as 15 MYA, and probably arrived from Asia.[citation needed] There are only two endemic genera of bats, although 7% of the world's bats species live in Australia. Rodents first arrived in Australia 5–10 MYA, undergoing a wide radiation to produce the species collectively known as the 'old endemic' rodents The old endemics are represented by 14 extant genera.A million years ago, the rat entered Australia from New Guinea and evolved into seven species of Rattus, collectively called the 'new endemics'.

 

[randman]

Pixa, just saying I am wrong or must be wrong is not an argument. There is absolutely no reason for natural selection, for example, to cause the mammalian ear to independently evolve in the same design.

Same with other features that supposedly independently evolved.

It's not even the latest thing evos think any longer. They are abandoning what you claim is reasonable. You can read your textbooks or some internet site and parrot that, but environmental factors don't cut it any longer as an explanation. The idea now among evo researchers has to do with the convergent mutation effects, not environmental pressures.

I'd appreciate it if you'd quit acting like I'm the one not understanding the issues when you acted like you had never heard the term "genome" before.

 

[PixyMisa]

Nope, they did not.

Okay, I checked that, and while there are clear common ancestors, it's not so clear which evolved first or whether one evolved from the other. So I'll withdraw that statment.

 

[Halfcentaur]

The vast majority of evidence points to evolution by natural selection based on common descent. You're again merely overlooking and dismissing all the correlations in favor of the gaps you can find which have yet to be filled in, and you're presenting these gaps as "all the facts and data we have". There are still many debates among biologists about the speed at which species can evolve, gradual mutation vs radical mutation among others, and these are all acknowledged without destroying the theory. You also seem to be dragging abiogenesis into it as is usually done by Intelligent Design proponents, which is another topic altogether.

 

[dlorde]

What are genes for complex and even human nerve function doing in this simple coral?

They're surprised that we're still using the same basic neural patterning genes used by a very early organism? OK, but there are many instances of gene sequences that specify the pattern of development of human systems that are found doing a similar job in far less complex creatures - the Hox genes, for example, which specify the placement of embryonic segment structures such as legs, antennae, and wings in insects (e.g. fruit flies), and also specify the equivalent development in humans and other animals.

If they're surprised at the complexity of the gene cluster necessary to specify the layout of this organism's simple neural net, so what? It's what this organism uses to pattern its neural net. It may be possible that a simpler gene cluster could do the job, but evolution doesn't always find the complexity minima in the genetic landscape. There's also the possibility that this organism's ancestors were actually more complex than expected - some organisms have evolved to become considerably less complex over time.

I'm not quite clear what your theory claims - you seem to be suggesting that increasing complexity in evolution occurs via progressive elimination of genes. Doesn't this imply that the earliest common ancestor must have contained all the genes of all the descendants, and more (evolution hasn't finished) - or even all possible genes? That's a lot of genes - where did it keep them all?

 

[randman]

Designs are not favored because they are perfect, they are favored because they function well in certain conditions.

Right. So there is little reason to think the same design would evolve, especially a whole bunch of the same designs, as there would be numerous other designs that would work.

And yea, I understand the position I am debating against. I suggest you think about what I wrote. If the mutations are random and there are tons of designs that could work because the current ones are not perfect or anything, there is no reason for the same designs to evolve over and over again, often with the exact same flaws to boot.

if you disagree, explain why they would repeat the same designs if the mutations are random?

Mice and rats in Australia were never posited as examples of convergent evolution, again exposing you for nothing but a denialist with an agenda to champion, an agenda you've yet to even reveal.

This is really pathetic. A denialist? Must be, eh? Couldn't be that there are such things as Marsupial and Placental mice?

Do you really believe the pairs are not given as examples of convergent evolution?

Here is a link with pics of "convergent evolution examples." Please note the pic of the Marsupial mouse.

http://cas.bellarmine.edu/tietjen/Evolution/convergent_evolution_examples.htm

 

[PixyMisa]

Pixa, just saying I am wrong or must be wrong is not an argument. There is absolutely no reason for natural selection, for example, to cause the mammalian ear to independently evolve in the same design.

The same as what? The mammalian ear evolved from the reptilian ear. What exactly are you claiming "independently evolve[d] in the same design"?

Same with other features that supposedly independently evolved.

What features?

It's not even the latest thing evos think any longer. They are abandoning what you claim is reasonable. You can read your textbooks or some internet site and parrot that, but environmental factors don't cut it any longer as an explanation. The idea now among evo researchers has to do with the convergent mutation effects, not environmental pressures.

[citation needed]

I'd appreciate it if you'd quit acting like I'm the one not understanding the issues when you acted like you had never heard the term "genome" before.

You seem confused. You were talking about genomes evolving. A genome is the set of genes of an individual creature. It doesn't evolve. You can speak of a genome's evolutionary history, but that's not what you were saying.