Stupid Christian Article on Evolution

[randman]

No, it isn't.

Evolution predicts that genomes will change over time. Those changes may result in more, less, or the same amount of complexity in daughter organisms.

The summed complexity of all the variations in all the genomes may also increase, decrease, or stay the same.

From the beginning, it predicts greater complexity. It's silly to deny it. I am not arguing that evolution can proceed with decreases in genes. In fact, the only kind of evolution that is observed pretty much does exactly that.

What I am saying is that if life evolved, then genes and the genome evolved, at least according to NeoDarwinism. ND rejects the idea God or any intelligent force designed it, right?

So it couldn't start out all the way done, right?

Genetic material would have to evolve in a species that survives via natural selection. The changes would be connected to actual traits and how well they do in the physical environment. It's what evos have taught for decades and should not even be an issue.

If you disagree that the genome did not evolve, how did it get it here then?

 

[PixyMisa]

Please check some of your other statements of "facts."

I have, thanks.

 

[Mister Agenda]

Nope. Not at all. But it has taken a very long time just to obtain some admission on what NeoDarwinism predicts relative to natural selection, as you suggested, being required for new mutations to remain.

You mean eventually someone got so tired of you dancing around your point that they dangled what you were trying to get us to say in front of your nose so you would finally expose the hook behind all that baiting.

 

[PixyMisa]

From the beginning, it predicts greater complexity.

No.

 

[randman]

But that's an extreme misrepresentation of the theory. When two creatures converge on the same trait we can call it convergent evolution. But if they converge on the same sequence of DNA, especially in the non coding regions, and we call it convergent then you can complain we're not using the data properly.

Why does the designer plant most of his changes in to the non-functional DNA regions?

I think you'd be surprised that argument no longer holds water as we have clear examples of non-coding DNA showing the opposite of what you think.

But it would be interesting to know what you think on something.

Are similar traits the result of similar genes (DNA sequences) or can such similar traits between species arise through different DNA sequences? What does evolutionary theory predict there?

 

[dlorde]

Have you read the paper? First, they don't even say the genes for human nerve function are involved in the limited coral nerve function.

Yes, I read it. They compare samples of coral genes with vertebrate (human) and invertebrate (fly, worm) genes and are surprised to find that the vertebrate lineage has preserved a far higher proportion than the invertebrate lineage. They are also surprised by the unexpected complexity of the coral genome, which contains many genes previously thought to have evolved in vertebrates. The relatively low proportion preserved in invertebrates is explained in terms of the "intense selection for small genome size, rapid developmental rates, and the highly specialized lifestyles of the fly and worm".

They don't explicitly deal with nerve function at all, they talk about gene function associated with nervous systems. They qualify their surprise at the complexity of the coral gene encodings by noting that the coral larva (which is motile, phototaxic and sonotaxic) would have a use for some of those encodings (e.g. encodings for photoreceptor function).

You are just stabbing in the dark.

Not really, no.

Secondly, I am not the one saying the species that gave rise to animals had all the gene types that exist today. Evos are now. I wouldn't argue that all life evolved from a single ancestor in the first place.

OK, that's a relief! It did sound like that was what you were suggesting...

These studies are among the early explorations into the actual genomes of creatures (coral in this instance) that are believed to be genetically similar to ancestors of both vertebrates and invertebrates. Naturally, there are many surprises - previous work was phenotypically informed guesswork, not having actual genetic sequences to work from. The main surprise is that these (presumed) ancestral genomes are far more complex than had been thought. It's exciting stuff.

None of it invalidates or casts doubt on evolution by natural selection, although it will undoubtedly cause a re-evaluation of the assumptions about the origins of the common ancestor of vertebrates and invertebrates.

 

[PixyMisa]

The snout is very similar to the shape I see in the possums here in Oklahoma. Fascinating.

It's a good shape for crunching up beetles, earthworms, and my unsuspecting fingers.

The placental mouse (which is a herbivore) has a more rounded nose and is significantly less bitey.

 

[randman]

No.

Do you want me to bring up quotes where you agreed with me earlier that it does?

 

[Mister Agenda]

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.

Are you seriously mystified why a process that depends on random genetic variation for its novel material would not lead to a specific result?

 

[PixyMisa]

Do you want me to bring up quotes where you agreed with me earlier that it does?

You mean, the multiple times that I pointed out that an increase in maximal complexity over time is not a prediction of evolution at all, but of simple statistics?

Yeah, sure. Whatever floats your boat.

 

[Mister Agenda]

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

What do you think changes in gene regulation are caused by?

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

When a dino-bone is cut open and isn't too much different than cutting an ostrich bone, something is wrong with your theory, bigtime, maybe with your whole view of reality in fact.

There's something wrong with your honesty, big time, if you think dinosaur bones are like recently dead ostrich bones. That's simply an outrageous lie.

 

[randman]

OK, that's a relief! It did sound like that was what you were suggesting...

I am suggesting these are things your side is now saying.

None of it invalidates or casts doubt on evolution by natural selection

Yes it does and even some evos are saying as much and talking about the limitations of "adaptionism."

 

[randman]

Didn't say recently dead, and I referred to ostrich bones because that's exactly what the scientists in the field referred to.

 

[PixyMisa]

These studies are among the early explorations into the actual genomes of creatures (coral in this instance) that are believed to be genetically similar to ancestors of both vertebrates and invertebrates. Naturally, there are many surprises - previous work was phenotypically informed guesswork, not having actual genetic sequences to work from. The main surprise is that these (presumed) ancestral genomes are far more complex than had been thought. It's exciting stuff.

None of it invalidates or casts doubt on evolution by natural selection, although it will undoubtedly cause a re-evaluation of the assumptions about the origins of the common ancestor of vertebrates and invertebrates.

Yes. randman is confusing evolutionary theory with evolutionary history. Of course we don't know how all of evolutionary history played out, since it's been and gone. Our previous understanding was based on comparitive morphology of living and fossil specimens; this is now being increasingly complemented by molecular information. Often, this confirms the earlier work, or fills in details. Sometimes there are surprises. In no instance has it contradicted evolutionary theory.

 

[randman]

You mean, the multiple times that I pointed out that an increase in maximal complexity over time is not a prediction of evolution at all, but of simple statistics?

Yeah, sure. Whatever floats your boat.

And where the stats had to be correct, right? I pointed out the statistics are not the problem, but the theory is.

Are you saying the statistics are wrong?

 

[bokonon]

From the beginning, it predicts greater complexity. It's silly to deny it. I am not arguing that evolution can proceed with decreases in genes. In fact, the only kind of evolution that is observed pretty much does exactly that.

No, it doesn't "predict" greater complexity. I'm comfortable with the way Simon39759 expressed it back in post #86:

Evolution predicts the arrival of new genes, but evolutions also predicts the deletion of genes.
It is not directional toward more complexity, it goes in whatever direction is the more advantageous at any given time.

Now, if you look at the earliest organisms, there were just about as simple as could be. So there is no way they could have gained an evolutionary advantage by gaining in simplicity. So the system was walled at the 'bottom' and the only diversity possible was up, toward more complexity.

[...]

So, yes, there has been a trend toward more complexity, but it is only the vaguest of trend and certainly not a universal law...

What I am saying is that if life evolved, then genes and the genome evolved, at least according to NeoDarwinism. ND rejects the idea God or any intelligent force designed it, right?

I wouldn't say that. Human beings have been designing by selection for thousands of years, and have recently begun designing by genome manipulation as well. Such design does not invalidate the general model of mutation and selection.

So it couldn't start out all the way done, right?

Whether it could or couldn't, it doesn't seem to have happened that way on this planet.

 

[randman]

Yes. randman is confusing evolutionary theory with evolutionary history. Of course we don't know how all of evolutionary history played out, since it's been and gone. Our previous understanding was based on comparitive morphology of living and fossil specimens; this is now being increasingly complemented by molecular information. Often, this confirms the earlier work, or fills in details. Sometimes there are surprises. In no instance has it contradicted evolutionary theory.

I am not confusing anything at all. Maybe you don't know what evolutionary theory is? NeoDarwinism is a theory that explicitly lays out a mechanism for evolution to take place.

Please explain how that mechanism explains the data on genomic complexity of the LCA.

How does it explain the origin of novel genes?

If it cannot explain the origin of novel genes, then is it that explanatory?

Adaptionism became a religion, but it's mask is wearing thin.

 

[randman]

OK, you are comfortable with this statement:

Evolution predicts the arrival of new genes

How does evolution predict the arrival of new genes? Break it down. What happens to evolve new genes?

 

[Mister Agenda]

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.

It didn't. It evolved once and has been preserved on all species descended from that common ancestor.

Same with other features that supposedly independently evolved.

Since you aren't even talking about features that evolved independently, it's hard to conclude you know what you're talking about.

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 think your fundamental flaw in this conversation is that you think you understand things when you don't. Whatever biologists may find most interesting at the moment, natural selection is still a critical part of the theory of evolution.

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.

I've never encountered anyone who doesn't accept the theory of evolution as the best explanation we have for speciation who doesn't also misunderstand it. I submit your posts as evidence of this contention.

It's very cheeky, by the way, to complain of others being evasive when you're working at building a verbal trap.

Who I would really like to meet is someone who argues against evolution with integrity, but I'm beginning to think they're nearly as rare as fire-breathing dragons.