Stupid Christian Article on Evolution

[bokonon]

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.

I certainly didn't state, and don't think I implied, that this paper is the sole source of anything.

My point is that saying the LCA is X complex isn't "the exact opposite" of saying the LCA is X+n complex. It's "more complex than we previously thought."

We previously thought the universe was less than 10 billion years old. Now we think it's more than 10 billion years old. The new theory that best fits the current evidence isn't "the exact opposite" of the old theory which fit the facts we had previously.

 

[Avicenna]

Walking whale? Are you discussing the ambulocetus? It's a mammalian crocodile. And ear adaptations would help close off the ear in water. If water floods your ear then you have balance issues as we see in ourselves if our ears get flooded. If you had ears that were shaped to prevent that then you would be better adapted for water dwelling.

 

[Dinwar]

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

This is completely wrong. These genes aren't "for" anything; they're merely a part of a complex chemical. In humans they are expressed as part of nerve function; in corals they are expressed differently (corals, and all cniderians, have neural nets, so it's likely part of that). The answer for why there are similar genes in both organisms are the ones I've listed before: Physical and engineering constraints. They may also be a homology. There's a number of factors.

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

You've been debating this stuff for nearly as long as I've been alive and you STILL don't know the basics?!

Look, if you want to know the data buy the book "Evolutionary Analysis", by Scott Freeman and Jon C. Herron. It provides a good overview of the subject, and the scientific evidence for it. Here is the link. As per your MO, we can now expect you to have read this by your next post. More seriously, expecting us to provide 200 years worth of data to someone who's obviously closed his mind on the topic in an online debate forum is insane. It cannot be done. Don't claim victory though--it's not impossible because we don't have any evidence, but because there's far, far too much. If the book isn't your cup of tea, go to GSA sometime. They always have multiple sets of talks every day be researchers studying evolution.

If all that academic stuff is too much for you, check out this book. It's a very good overview of evolution, starting from the ground up. Or this one. Or this one. For more detail on the age of the Earth, check out this one--a bit dated, but still very good. Here's a book detailing the evidence for evolution that I found for $5 at a used book store.

Like i said, evos are still trying to use Haeckel.

I'd never even HEARD of Haeckel until I got involved in these debates. And it's ALWAYS the Creationist that brings him up. I use the fossil record. It pretty much records evolution happening--there is no other logical way to interpret the bones we find in the rocks we find them in.

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

N one seriously researching the subject. Biologists understand double crossover events (link to all the information you'll ever need to know on genetics). In practical terms, that means that we can pretty much start with any organism with a genetic code that didn't produce enzymes that ate itself. Over the billions of years between when life arose and the Ediacara Period all the other genetic diversity could have arisen easily.

That doesn't justify insisting mechanisms which clearly work against macro-evolution such as natural selection are the mechanism.

There are two types of people who use the term macro-evolution: Creationists who have already decided that it can't happen, and scientists trying to take the word back from those Creationists and failing.

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.

Typical flawed Creationist logic: Someone somewhere once said something, therefore you believe it; it's wrong, therefore you're wrong; therefore, magic. When you're done battling straw-men let us know.

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

More Creationist logic. I saw a lot of that with hereisjoe: They demand honest debate, but define "honest debate" as "agreeing with me".

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

We have thousands of whale fossils of just one genus.

Where are the transitions?

Huh? The transitions would be in the genus. What are you talking about? If you have representatives of multiple species in a genus then you have transitions.

BTW Why didn't you do the analysis I suggested?

 

[bokonon]

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?

What is your justification for saying there should be thousands of stages?

Small regulatory changes in the genome can cause large changes in the phenotype. What if 5-6 stages truly represents the way it happened?

I'm not saying it did, and I think it's fair to ask for details about the "small regulatory changes" which could account for each of these changes from one stage to the next. I believe comparative and functional genomics will be able to answer these questions in the coming century, and many of the answers will probably be found in the coming decade.

Do you have some justification for claiming there should be "thousands" of stages, or is that just front-loader rhetoric?

 

[Dinwar]

We have thousands of whale fossils of just one genus.

Where are the transitions?

Why are Creationists obsessed with vertebrates? Our vertebrate fossil record is pathetic; we can say a lot, yes, but particularly with whales you're talking large organisms, with long generation times and life spans, who are nectic, and who have entire ecosystems eat their carcasses. If you want to talk transitional fossils, check out Eldritch and Gould's work on Punctuated Equilibrium. Several of their papers on the topic (available online if you take five minutes to google the names) show clear transitional forms. There are a lot more known, but those are the ones I can recall of the top of my head. Of course, you have the typical Creationist lie of "Well now there are TWO gaps! Therefore magic".

 

[randman]

ANTpogo, I am going to address your comments on the paper but can't waste a lot of time trying to explain something over and over again. The following are quotes from the paper. The link to the full paper is at the bottom. My comments follow each quote.

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

They considered their findings "paradoxical."

Why?

"Given that this organism contains apparently few tissue types....", etc,... So these scientists find it paradoxical because the organism does not have complex nerve function, pretty much exactly my point except for the part about addressing the larger question of mechanisms for evolution.

More than 10% of the Acropora level of conservation with strong metazoan matches to the databases had clear human homologs

Consistent with higher rates of divergence in the model invertebrates, three-way comparisons show that most coral Acropora millepora. match human sequences much more.....

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.........Acropora and human sequences are often surprisingly similar.

Note the reference to "human" and the use of the term "surprisingly similar." Did you read the paper and note where they did say the findings were "paradoxical" and "surprising" and "appears to turn upside down several preconceived ideas about the evolution of animal genomes."

We can't talk about a paper or data if you won't admit what it says.


http://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...d1984ca18114e9e0f2d1d30b7d3&ie=/sdarticle.pdf

This is from the research group's website.

I

n this project we addressed two questions: firstly, what genes are present in coral? and secondly, how are these genes deployed to regulate development?
.....
Our research has yielded several unexpected results. First, the complexity of the A. millepora genome has proven to be surprising, considering the relatively simple cellular organisation of these animals. We now estimate that there are at least 20,000 genes in the coral genome, many more than we would have guessed when we started the project. Second, many genes previously thought to be vertebrate specific, because they were missing from Drosophila and Caenorhabditis, are present in the genome of A. millepora. This finding indicates that gene loss has played a major role in the evolution of a number of genomes. In addition there often appears to be a greater similarity between the genes of corals and humans, than between coral and the first model invertebrates, Drosophila and Caenorhabditis.

http://www.cmgd.adelaide.edu.au/research/dev_evo/

 

[randman]

What is your justification for saying there should be thousands of stages?

Small regulatory changes in the genome can cause large changes in the phenotype. What if 5-6 stages truly represents the way it happened?

I'm not saying it did, and I think it's fair to ask for details about the "small regulatory changes" which could account for each of these changes from one stage to the next. I believe comparative and functional genomics will be able to answer these questions in the coming century, and many of the answers will probably be found in the coming decade.

Do you have some justification for claiming there should be "thousands" of stages, or is that just front-loader rhetoric?

I gave my justification but if you disagree, so what?

It's a claim by evos. They have not backed it up in peer-reviewed literature or any studies. I gave a potential way some studies could be done. You don't like it? Fine. I am not in a position to do evo's research for them. My point is one of your basic claims, "fossil rarity", has no basis in any actual science that's been done to quantify and demonstrate those claims are true.

You guys shouldn't use it. It's false to do that. It's not teaching science but propaganda.

No textbook should cite fossil rarity. They could say evos claim this but no studies have been done to demonstrate the idea is correct.

But as is typical, instead of teaching and arguing science, it's all about proving a doctrine, just iike most religions but absent any spiritual aspect, for the most part.

I don't really have a dog in the fight except to argue what the data says and does not say.

 

[bokonon]

I gave my justification but if you disagree, so what?

It's a claim by evos.

Okay, which "evos" say there should be thousands of transitional whale stages?

 

[randman]

Huh? The transitions would be in the genus. What are you talking about? If you have representatives of multiple species in a genus then you have transitions.

BTW Why didn't you do the analysis I suggested?

We can discuss ideas or debate semantics. No, critics of evolution whether front loader evos, alternative evos advocating non-Darwinian mechanisms, IDers, old earth creationists, or young earth creationists believe frankly that transitions within a genus of whales represents a process of macroevolution.

There are reasons all of these people doubt those are genuine macroevolutionary transitions. Those reasons are not religious and are not based on God. Some of the greatest scientists in life sciences for the past 100 years, giants like Pier Grasse and others, point out some of those reasons.

Maybe you would like to know what those reasons are before arguing against them.

Also, forgive me for being testy....some posters here I've tired of repeating and having to prove basic facts which are not even contested among evolutionist scientists.

 

[randman]

Okay, which "evos" say there should be thousands of transitional whale stages?

Didn't say that was their claim. Surely you read the part about "fossil rarity" being an evolutionist claim?

 

[Bad vibe]

Sorry to respond twice. Very good question. Glad to see someone get the conundrum here the data presents.

They'd have to not be as old as they are considered to be as a group of creatures in order to have been vertebrates at one time and evolved into simpler organisms. It seems unlikely.

I made what I considered to be a logical assumption with little to no real knowledge of genetics after reading a little of what is a dauntingly complex science I realise the arguement you present simply does not fit the data you claim

 

[bokonon]

Didn't say that was their claim. Surely you read the part about "fossil rarity" being an evolutionist claim?

So in response to my post asking you (twice) to justify the claim that we should expect to find thousands of transitional whale fossils, you say "I gave my justification ... it's a claim by evos" and the claim by evos is that fossils are rare rather than that we should expect to find thousands of transitional fossils?

You're a slippery one.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

We can discuss ideas or debate semantics. No, critics of evolution whether front loader evos, alternative evos advocating non-Darwinian mechanisms, IDers, old earth creationists, or young earth creationists believe frankly that transitions within a genus of whales represents a process of macroevolution.

Most of those groups you cite are pretty rich with idiots so that doesn't really impress me.

There are reasons all of these people doubt those are genuine macroevolutionary transitions. Those reasons are not religious and are not based on God.

That's outrageously untrue.

Some of the greatest scientists in life sciences for the past 100 years, giants like Pier Grasse and others, point out some of those reasons.

And those are rejeced by far greater numbers for good reason. There's a reason you can only cite a handful over a century.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

More Creationist logic. I saw a lot of that with hereisjoe: They demand honest debate, but define "honest debate" as "agreeing with me".

It's especially amusing if you remember the way randman started posting in this thread started.

 

[A'isha]

ANTpogo, I am going to address your comments on the paper but can't waste a lot of time trying to explain something over and over again.

You aren't explaining anything, merely asking questions that are addressed in the paper itself.

They considered their findings "paradoxical."

Why?

Because, in general, simple organisms have simple genomes. But, as we've been trying to point out to you (and as this paper itself warns), using that to make the assumption that simple organisms should or will always have simple genomes is misleading.

"Given that this organism contains apparently few tissue types....", etc,... So these scientists find it paradoxical because the organism does not have complex nerve function, pretty much exactly my point except for the part about addressing the larger question of mechanisms for evolution.

And, as I pointed out to you before (complete with quoting the entire relevant section of the paper), the scientists know how the coral uses these genes as part of its simple neural net and few tissue types. For example, the all-trans-retinol dehydrogenase photoreceptor, not found in other invertebrates, is used in the coral's larval stage, and an early form of the Pax-6 gene found in vertebrate nervous systems expresses itself in A. millepora's neurons.

Do you actually think that the paper says the coral has all the genes for our complex nervous system, just laying about unused in its genome?

Note the reference to "human" and the use of the term "surprisingly similar." Did you read the paper and note where they did say the findings were "paradoxical" and "surprising" and "appears to turn upside down several preconceived ideas about the evolution of animal genomes."

We can't talk about a paper or data if you won't admit what it says.

They use human because they were looking for those genes in comparison to the specific human genome. But you are aware that just because a gene is found in humans that doesn't mean it's exclusive to humans, right?

The paper actually lists every gene that both humans and A. millepora have in common. Not a single one is exclusive to humans, with all of them being found in other vertebrates (and even some invertebrates, depending on the gene in question).

The three genes that the paper even calls out as being nervous-system related genes that have no invertebrate counterpart, the one encoding all-trans-retinol dehydrogenase (a photoreceptor), Churchill, and Tumorhead (both of which regulate the early neural development in vertebrates), are far from exclusive to humans, and can be found in mice and even frogs.

This is from the research group's website.

Again, that doesn't say what you seem to think it says. It says that the A. millepora genome contains some genes that are also found in humans (and other vertebrates), but not in invertebrates that are closer phylogenetically to the coral. It attributes this not to invertebrates gaining these particular genes after the evolutionary diversion, but to invertebrates later losing them.

But these are only a few specific genes, and though they're the same genes used in basically the same way, vertebrates use them as part of a much more complicated nervous system than A. millepora has, because of the massive volume of genes that vertebrates did gain after the evolutionary split that construct the rest of the nervous system that A. millepora does not have.

 

[randman]

Ok, so at least you have begun admitting that the paper says what I say it does though you still are adding things I didn't say and wasting time rebutting point I haven't made. For example, never said the genes were only found in humans, and clearly state the opposite by citing where they are found here. It's offensive to have to correct your claims saying I claimed these were "exclusive" to human beings when I said the exact opposite in citing the study.

Let's try to move this forward.

Why were they surprised? Your answer:

Because, in general, simple organisms have simple genomes.

Why is that? Specifically, why are they surprised to find genes corresponding to complex nerve functions in vertebrates and human beings?

The answer is pretty simple but we can't really move this discussion forward without a clear understanding of why they were surprised since that's at the heart of what I am talking about here.

 

[tsig]

Creationist misunderstands science, thinks it is evidence for god.

News at 11.

Gets his credits at Dempskis' Dumpster University.

 

[randman]

Most of those groups you cite are pretty rich with idiots so that doesn't really impress me.

That's outrageously untrue.

And those are rejeced by far greater numbers for good reason. There's a reason you can only cite a handful over a century.

So you have no interest in discussing why people criticize NeoDarwinism?

Ok, I can just quit talking with you. Your argument from authority holds no water and so don't wish to waste time on it.

 

[tsig]

No lack of understanding here, bud. It's your side shown to laughably ignorant and inept. Saying stupid things like placentals evolved from marsupials while calling me ignorant, and apparently completely unaware of numerous other basic facts and theories, one of the more ignorant evolutionist crowds I've come across.

I've had to slowly break down very basic concepts in the evo debate. Yea, I got a little bothered at the level of ignorance and intellectual inability to follow the debate, but I've come to expect that from most evolutionists. Just thought this might be different here, that you'd at least have the basic facts straight, but you guys haven't even had that right.

I get people that essentially yell in print saying, hey you stupid creationist, don't you know the mammalian ear is not convergent evolution.....I mean, you guys don't even have the evo side of the debate right. So I am bringing up evolutionary theory, you are saying look, he doesn't even understand it, when in reality I've been the only one with my facts right here on this thread, for the most part, and you guys have the gall to suggest I'm the guy that doesn't understand the science here?

This is not coherent.