Stupid Christian Article on Evolution

[tsig]

I think it's just a matter of dinosaurs going extinct and that evolution doesn't really have much an answer for that. Things that go extinct is not evidence or a strong argument that they evolved into something else.

Birds.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

Then complain about it with a paper. Otherwise, your protests are weak, and for the record I am using exactly as it is used in peer-reviewed published papers. If you don't like the way science uses the term, don't blame me.

Please explain that exact use or cite a paper that uses it the way you are using it.

 

[randman]

Simple organisms do have simple genomes. I mentioned E. coli before -- a simple organism, with 4,377 genes, as compared with over 20,000 for humans. The fact that you are saying "now, we know that's wrong" suggests that this is one thing you have misunderstood.

Some simple organisms do, and as you would know if you've followed the debate for a long time, it was once a staple argument among evos that simple organisms have simple genomes BECAUSE that's what evolution predicted. I can't tell you how many evos practically screamed that point out.

Well, we now know that's not the case. That the earliest creatures we hope to be able to assess, the last common metazoan ancestor, for example, would have had an incredibly complex genome, not a simple one, which was the exact opposite of what evos had predicted.

You guys won't acknowledge that, but that doesn't change the fact it's true. That's what evos predicted which is why in the peer-reviewed literature even you read comments such as "surprised" and in interviews, "shocked" to find it wasn't the case.

The front loaders predicted these findings. An honest person would admit that.

 

[randman]

Please explain that exact use or cite a paper that uses it the way you are using it.

Already gave you one. What do I get if I take the time to provide a quote?

An apology? an admission? an honest effort to get what I am saying?

Or just more stonewalling?

I'd like to know at this point before taking the time to dig it out.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

I can't tell you how many evos practically screamed that point out.

Please do. Provide examples.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

Some simple organisms do, and as you would know if you've followed the debate for a long time, it was once a staple argument among evos that simple organisms have simple genomes BECAUSE that's what evolution predicted. I can't tell you how many evos practically screamed that point out.

We suspect the reason you can't tell us this is because it isn't true and wouldn't support your case.

Well, we now know that's not the case. That the earliest creatures we hope to be able to assess, the last common metazoan ancestor, for example, would have had an incredibly complex genome, not a simple one, which was the exact opposite of what evos had predicted.

You guys won't acknowledge that, but that doesn't change the fact it's true.

We won't acknowledge this because you haven't provided the evidence for this and it likely isn't true.

 

[A'isha]

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.

Have you?

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?

If you bother to read the full paper and not merely the abstract, that gets explained.

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; e.g., those that encode photoreceptor all-trans-retinol dehydrogenase (AmEP00301), Churchill, and Tumorhead. They also include more generally conserved homologs of genes that encode Frequenin, Homer 2d, Glia maturation factor b, and Notch pathway components. This complexity is particularly surprising given the morphological simplicity of the coral nervous system (anthozoans have the simplest extant nervous systems—morphologically homogeneous nerve nets) and the absence of recognizable photoreceptors. Nevertheless, coral larvae display phototactic behavior [30] and the Pax-6-related gene PaxC is expressed in a subset of A. millepora presumed neurons [31]. The detection of ESTs matching hex and snail, genes that play key roles in endoderm and mesoderm patterning in triploblastic animals, supports the renewed interest in the nature of the cnidarian primary tissue layers [12]. At the very least, these findings provide a strong argument for developing a much better understanding of cnidarian developmental mechanisms, if we are to understand the origins of these mechanisms.

In other words, the coral actually uses a number of these "vertebrate nervous system" genes, and the paper's authors suggest that a closer look at the coral's other tissues and developmental mechanisms to find where and how these other genes get expressed, since that will give scientists a much better understanding of how the coral develops and operates.

Note the researchers were "shocked", "surprised",

Those were actually the words of the reporter, not the researchers. But that's actually irrelevant.

etc,.....This is not what NeoDarwinism predicts.

No, they weren't "shocked" because "NeoDarwinism" didn't predict it. They had previously assumed certain genes had arisen after invertebrates and vertebrates diverged, rather than before, because the intermediate invertebrates did not possess those vertebrate genes.

But since nothing inherent in "NeoDarwinism" says that early organisms MUST HAVE BEEN simpler than modern organisms. They usually are, yes, but not always. And while scientists had previously assumed the ancestor metazoan was simpler based on invertebrate evolution vs. vertebrate evolution, the fact that this new evidence changes that assumption doesn't affect anything about the way evolution works or is presumed to work.

In fact, the paper's writers point out that in their conclusion, saying "These data are a provocative reminder of the limited extent of our understanding of metazoan genome evolution and the potential hazards associated with extrapolating general evolutionary principles based on the model invertebrates." In other words, "we shouldn't have assumed the ancestor metazoan was a simple organism based simply on what modern metazoans are like, because evolution doesn't mandate that early = simpler."

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.

How did the genes get there?

The ancestor metazoan evolved them, using them in a fashion presumably very much like the way A. millepora currently uses them. As vertebrates evolved, they took those particular genes and developed them further into the modern vertebrate nervous system. Other invertebrates (like D. melanogaster and C. elegans) found that they didn't use and therefore need those genes, and so evolved them out from their genome.

But, as the paper notes, not all invertebrates lost those genes during the long evolutionary journey:

Comparisons with the urochordate Ciona [19] emphasize the derived position of the model invertebrates and, although only limited comparative data are available for representatives of the more basal insect orders, these often also dramatically support the derived position of D. melanogaster. For example, although D. melanogaster does not carry out standard CpG methylation and lacks typical MBD proteins [27], more primitive insects such as the cricket Acheta are more vertebrate-like in both respects (see Figure 2C; [28]). Similarly, comparisons of retinoic acid receptor ligand binding domains (RXR LBDs) indicate that tick, crab, and grasshopper (Locusta migratoria) sequences are more similar to their vertebrate orthologs than to the D. melanogaster LBD or those of other holometabolous insects [29].

Yes, it does. So does the paper I linked to.

Can you quote the sentence in the paper where it does that, please?

You need to read the original paper and some other work to understand why they don't think that's the case.

You're right that they don't think that's the case. But the reason they give for it contradicts what you claim about it. dlorde explained exactly that to you way back in post 206!

He stated that the creatures that gave rise to plants and animals have more types of genes than are available today. When you think of that, it is quite an amazing comment which completely upends the NeoDarwinian narrative.

It does no such thing. And, as I noted above, the paper's authors use that to warn against making that very assumption you're making (and, bizarrely, that you think the evolutionary narrative actually depends on, when it doesn't).

And that's even setting aside the fallacy of thinking that "more complex than we thought" means "more complex than modern species" (because that's irrelevant to your complete misunderstanding of what this paper both says and implies).

Instead of novel genes emerging with the adaption of through mutations of beneficial traits, which is the basic NeoDarwinian narrative, this guy is saying the genes were all there before there were even plants and animals.

That's quite an astonishing statement.

It certainly would be, if that were the statement being made. But the paper and the paper's authors are saying no such thing. Early analogues of some genes found in vertebrates are found and used in a modern coral but aren't in other invertebrates, which suggests that those particular genes evolved in the common ancestor organism.

But neither the ancestor metazoan nor the modern coral has the genetic code for the modern human nervous system or anything close to it, merely genes for small parts of it. A whole hell of a lot of "novel genes" were required to get from what that ancestral metazoan possessed to the nervous system that you and I possess.

 

[randman]

Evolution can act pretty fast. The evolution of MRSA is like human beings suddenly being able to eat cyanide. It's occurred in just 60 years. The domestication of foxes started (or restarted?) in the 40s in Russia. Thirteen generations later the foxes look different from their wild peers and behave wildly differently. Evolution is pretty solid pressure all things considering and selective breeding is pretty much how evolution works only on a more cruel scale.

Those are not examples of macroevolution. I agree microevolution happens a lot faster than evos predicted.

And the fossil record cannot be gradualistic because animals that form fossils die in very specific conditions. What you are doing is hiding between the gaps. You would only be happy with the explanation if we had a set of fossils dating back over individual generations of change (AKA offspring fossilised

No hiding the gaps....when will you guys just listen so you can understand what critics of evolution are saying instead of spending all your efforts fabricating things about their character. The fossil record just does not show evolutionary transitions of macroevolution.

You guys claim fossil "rarity" and yet there are no peer-reviewed studies to demonstrate that.

If you disagree, cite one. Cite one comprehensive analysis showing fossil rarity is why we should not expect, say, on the family level, to see evolutionary steps from one family of species gradually evolving into another.

I can save you some time. There are no studies. As is typical, it's just something thrown out there without any peer-reviewed studies to back it up, just like haeckel's data was despite every single decade, creationists and others repeatedly pointed out and showed the data was faked for well over 100 years.

 

[randman]

If you bother to read the full paper and not merely the abstract, that gets explained.

I have read the paper and debated the paper much more than just one thread and at length since it came out and on sites with far more informed evolutionists. It says exactly what I said because I just repeated them, as far as genes corresponding to vertebrate nerve function including human nerve function.

I skipped the rest of your post. Starting a new policy, a poster assumes something like I haven't read the paper or my motives are off, etc, etc,....I am moving on to someone that can assess the data and talk about it.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

I have read the paper and debated the paper much more than just one thread and at length since it came out and on sites with far more informed evolutionists.

Did they tell you you were wrong, too? Or did any of them say that you were right and that the theory of evolution had been proven false?

 

[bokonon]

Some simple organisms do, and as you would know if you've followed the debate for a long time, it was once a staple argument among evos that simple organisms have simple genomes BECAUSE that's what evolution predicted. I can't tell you how many evos practically screamed that point out.

Why not? Isn't there a list somewhere on a "front-loader" website?

I would be interested in an actual quote which can be verified, but if you don't have one that's fine. I already know that scientists can be wrong, and I agree with you that they're as susceptible to confirmation bias as anyone else.

That the earliest creatures we hope to be able to assess, the last common metazoan ancestor, for example, would have had an incredibly complex genome, not a simple one, which was the exact opposite of what evos had predicted.

I disagree. The current evidence suggests that the LCMA's genome would be more complex than we previously thought, because many traits which we previously thought arose with vertebrates now appear to have predated them. Going from a high number of traits to a higher number of traits in the LCMA is not "the exact opposite" of anything.

The front loaders predicted these findings. An honest person would admit that.

I'm not familiar with papers published by "the front loaders," or where these predictions were made. How many traits do they predict the LCMA will have, and when did they predict it?

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

I skipped the rest of your post.

"La la la la I'm not listening!"

 

[randman]

Please do. Provide examples.

Nope. Pretty much done with you. Been debating this stuff since the 80s and have watched the stance of evos all during that time.

One particular galling lie promoted by evos is no biologist or life sciences scientist rejects their theory.

Back in the 80s, I listened to a lecture from a botany professor from NC State (not at state). It's amazing how much evos have had wrong factually and how hard it is to get them to deal with facts. He had shown where Haeckel's stuff was a forgery way back then and how this has been known for over 100 years.

When the internet came out, this info was spread around more and it was in books in every decade. Well, it wasn't until 1998 or thereabout Richardson finally stood up among evos and said it was "one of the biggest fakes in all of biology."

Of course it was. Everyone knew that if they were not brainwashed by Darwinism. But even Richardson in his peer-reviewed paper stated Haeckel's data was relied on by the scientists in his field (evolutionists).

Of course, non-evos were educated on the subject all along.

If you won't wish to debate in an honest fashion, that's Ok. See ya.

 

[randman]

Why not? Isn't there a list somewhere on a "front-loader" website?

predates the internet but maybe some of the debates on the internet in the mid-90s....but that's a long ways back....googling does not give that kind of stuff to my knowledge

Maybe John Davison mentions in it since his papers go back a ways or Uncommon Descent.

 

[Avicenna]

Did I ever mention wolves? Of course, dogs and wolves were misclassified by evos. They are clearly the same kind...

They are actually the same species. Just different locus of alleles. It's like showing someone a pygmy and Zhiao Ming. One is a giant chinese guy and so looks giant and chinese. The other is a tiny black guy and so looks tiny and african. We misclassified them earlier too. Turns out genetics solves all our classification problems and makes sure our phylogenetic trees don't churn out any silly nonsense like this.

He asked about what I believe. If I or you waited around for empirical proof of something, we'd not get too far in life. Certainly wouldn't get married and have kids, for example.

I asked what evidence you have for your world view in relationship to ours. Saying "yours is wrong, therefore magic" is kind of silly.

Like i said, evos are still trying to use Haeckel. I rest my case on that one (and his ideas were and are still way off from "the truth" and his data fraudulent).

No we are not. I saw Haeckel's diagrams in a history of medicine display. I never have seen them in any good medical textbook of embryology or any evolutionary text bar as an example of incorrect embryology.

Well, even evos now say the proto-organisms are indeed insanely complex genetically, having "more types of genes than are available today."

I said your proto-organism has to be very complicated. Ours can be quite simple to start with.

But you are correct there is no known mechanism still in operation to explain it. That doesn't justify insisting mechanisms which clearly work against macro-evolution such as natural selection are the mechanism.

The mechanism is genetics. Changes to the genome result in changes to the species. Small changes can result in big ones hardly rocket science. We know because we can muck around with genetics causing things to show various traits.

MRSA is like human beings suddenly processing Cyanide. It's a pretty big leap. It's just a chemical to you but so is cyanide. And fossils are creatures that were lucky to die undisturbed in sedimentary rock that is quickly compressed. If you died normally in loam you weren't fossilised. If you got eaten, chances are you aren't going to be fossilised. If you got scavenged? Same again. The rules for fossilisation are really quite narrow.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

You guys claim fossil "rarity" and yet there are no peer-reviewed studies to demonstrate that.

In the first place I'm not simply accepting your assertion that there are no studies, but how many studies do you need? Look up how many fossiles there are and estimate how many lifeforms have existed. Think about how many animals you see dead now in circumstances that will even bury them, let alone fossilize them.

 

[randman]

I disagree. The current evidence suggests that the LCMA's genome would be more complex than we previously thought, because many traits which we previously thought arose with vertebrates now appear to have predated them. Going from a high number of traits to a higher number of traits in the LCMA is not "the exact opposite" of anything

.

No, the stance the LCA must have been genetically very complex is not just based on this paper. This is just the paper I cited because I've read it about 20 times and debated it extensively and so can recall easier what it says, but there's been a lot since then that's been studied. It's not just that corals have genes corresponding to vertebrate nerve function.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Nope.

The true response of the honest rationalist when asked for evidence to back up claims.

One particular galling lie promoted by evos is no biologist or life sciences scientist rejects their theory.

You really do like your straw men, don't you?

If you won't wish to debate in an honest fashion, that's Ok. See ya.

The thing is, I honestly believe that you see no irony in this statement. The human mind is a funny thing sometimes.

 

[randman]

In the first place I'm accepting your assertion that there are no studies, but how many studies do you need? Look up how many fossiles there are and estimate how many lifeforms have existed.

I think it's needed. You cannot have basic claims as evidence for a theory and not have them backed up by science. What is "rare"?

Whale fossils are not rare?

Maybe an analogy would help. Diamonds are rare. It's not rare for a married American woman to have a diamond.

Let's talk whales. Should we expect to see more of the transitions in the fossil record? There are something like 28 species of horse in the fossil record. The changes can be quantified. Let's call that unit of change X. So per X changes, one could estimate 28 species shown in the fossil record. Examine other mammals with similar levels of fairly small changes. Of course, that 28 per X is more exponential though not completely so. There should be lots of branching but not all continues. Still per just a relatively small area of evolution, there should be thousands of fossils. We see that with whales. We find thousands of fossils per whale family. But we don't see the transitions represented in the fossil record with the same numbers. We see a few paltry 5-6 candidates and they are iffy.

Now extrapolate that out to macro-changes. I think it's clear for say, whales, we should see the forms of transitions and we do not. Evos present 5-6 stages when there should be thousands represented in the different stages that are missing.

We have thousands of whale fossils of just one genus.

Where are the transitions?

And please don't present a few pics of those 5-6 with one of them being the laughable "walking whale" classified due to an expansion in the bone around the ear.

 

[A'isha]

I have read the paper and debated the paper much more than just one thread and at length since it came out and on sites with far more informed evolutionists. It says exactly what I said because I just repeated them, as far as genes corresponding to vertebrate nerve function including human nerve function.

Except it actually doesn't, as my post (and dlorde's earlier) showed. Either you didn't read the paper, or you didn't understand it. Because it says nothing like you're claiming it says, especially regarding "human nerve function." No gene discussed in the paper is unique to humans, with analogs for the nervous system genes in this coral found in (as noted in the paper) even such lower-order vertebrates as fish and frogs!

So, where in this paper do you find support for your claim that it contains genes for "complex and even human nerve function"?

I skipped the rest of your post. Starting a new policy, a poster assumes something like I haven't read the paper or my motives are off, etc, etc,....I am moving on to someone that can assess the data and talk about it.

In other words, you're not going to respond to anyone who points out how wrong you are?