Stupid Christian Article on Evolution

[devnull]

I don't have to write to them. The paper is a comparison of the human genome and corals with other organisms.

Be honest. You never read the paper, did you?

No. I stated I didnt

You understand though that just because they compared corals and humans doesnt mean they wouldnt have had the same result had they compared corals and echidnas?

 

[randman]

They may do nothing at all.

Earlier you said they had have a function. So now is this a reversal?

Even if this were the case,

But you said it wasn't the case. You didn't read the paper, did you?

I lack the time, thats why I asked you. Why would they think that the LCA was so complicated? I dont get it.

So basically you didn't read the paper and yet you felt comfortable lecturing me, rudely I might add, in what it said?

It kind of defeats the purpose to help you "get it" if all you are going to do is say the facts and conclusions these scientists and others have come to are not what I say, because well, they just couldn't be in your worldview.

Ask yourself why you reacted and assumed what I was saying was wrong based on what you've been taught about evolution. Get that clear in your mind, and then when you hear the facts, their relevance might sink in.

 

[randman]

No. I stated I didnt

You understand though that just because they compared corals and humans doesnt mean they wouldnt have had the same result had they compared corals and echidnas?

So you are comfortable lecturing me, rudely at times, about how I am wrong on what the authors have written and stated, but you yourself never even read the research at all?

That's where you are coming from?

 

[devnull]

So you are comfortable lecturing me, rudely at times, about how I am wrong on what the authors have written and stated, but you yourself never even read the research at all?

That's where you are coming from?

Rudely? Lecturing?

No, as Ive said before, I only have a layman's grasp of evolution myself. It does appear though that you are making giant leaps of logic. If I can see it, even as a layman, what does that tell you?

I think perhaps you are shadow-boxing here. I have nothing invested emotionally in this argument or in the TOE. I just dont think you have a case, or if you do, you arent stating it well.

So, anyway, do you agree with my point about echidnas or not? Or do you think that this is an isolated case of humans and coral sharing genetic material that no other organism has?

 

[Lowpro]

So you are comfortable lecturing me, rudely at times, about how I am wrong on what the authors have written and stated, but you yourself never even read the research at all?

That's where you are coming from?

I THINK, and I may be wrong on this, that what you've done is misinterpreted a paper poorly, probably through ignorance. Every passage you bolded, passages including complexity and paradox are not some kind of "flipping of the script" for evolutionists, however you've done a great job of interpreting them as such.

A lot of cranks do this too if you ever like to lurk out in the CT discussion board.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

The evolutionist insistence on claims of absolute consensus is mere propaganda.

Straw man. Nobody claims this.

 

[randman]

It does appear though that you are making giant leaps of logic.

Really? Based on what? You not taking the time to review the findings and so assuming I must be mistaken because, hey, no way evolution proceeded through massive loss of genes or something like that?

Or do you think that this is an isolated case of humans and coral sharing genetic material that no other organism has?

No, it's not isolated at all. Here's a news article in Science that talks about some of the research. It's not technical and it's short.....so you can take the time to read it.

Humans top the evolutionary hierarchy because of our supposed complexity, which is backed by an incredibly sophisticated genetic portfolio. But a new survey of marine life indicates that "simple" organisms such as corals and sea anemones have many of the same genes and complex gene families--consisting of many closely related genes derived from the same ancestral gene--as we do, leaving open the question of what really sets us apart from other species.

It stands to reason that the more genetically complex an organism is, the loftier its place on the evolutionary tree. And indeed, genome comparisons of mammals to model organisms such as fruit flies and nematodes reveal that humans typically have larger families of related genes than these lower life forms. Geneticists think such related genes evolved slightly different functions over time, making us what we are today.

But the story may not be that simple. When Ulrich Technau, a molecular biologist at the University of Bergen, Norway, and colleagues conducted a survey of 17,000 expressed sequence tags--pieces of genes yanked from DNA sequence--they found that cnidarians such as coral and sea anemones have similar genetic underpinnings to vertebrates, be they fish or people. Cnidarians share extended gene families with vertebrates that fruit flies and nematodes lack, suggesting that insects and worms lost many members of those families.

http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2005/12/06-02.html?ref=hp

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Antpo knocked the web-source for the quote. What do you think she is implying about the quote?

The source means nothing if the quote is accurate[...]

This coming from the man who dismissed something because it came from TalkOrigins.org.

 

[randman]

I THINK, and I may be wrong on this, that what you've done is misinterpreted a paper poorly, probably through ignorance. Every passage you bolded, passages including complexity and paradox are not some kind of "flipping of the script" for evolutionists, however you've done a great job of interpreting them as such.

A lot of cranks do this too if you ever like to lurk out in the CT discussion board.

Why don't you read the paper or at least the media reports in science magazines I posted. There is no misinterpretation from me of what they've written.

 

[Brainache]

I may have missed it (I skipped a few pages), but has Randman given any links to the peer reviewed research and experimental work done in the Middle East all those thousands of years ago which resulted in the Theory Of Creationism?

He couldn't be just clinging to a bunch of faith-based dogma, could he?

 

[Avicenna]

There are non-evolutionist biologists, both non-Darwinian but accepting common descent and creationists. So I will keep saying evolutionist.

They aren't biologists. Biology only started with Darwin. The entire science is based on the fact of evolution (AKA animals are completely pliable if you understand inheritance.) Darwin's theories were further improved by Mendel to form genetics which formed the basis of our current theories of evolution

The people you reference aren't scientists they are what we medically call quacks. They spread misinformation in the guise of science. We shoot down their nonsense regularly.

So who or what did?

God?

You don't know and neither do we. And if anything we are the ones closer to the truth of finding out how the universe was created. When we do find out we will tell you, but until then you are making guesses and that too uneducated guesses. There is no model for any god that holds any logical water since a god requires the suspension of logic and the presence of magic.

I understand it. You just didn't read the paper or you wouldn't say things like they don't talk about a "massive loss of genes in some animal lineages".

Or are you saying you are just incapable of understanding the paper? I am giving you the benefit of the doubt that you didn't read it.

Did you?

I read through the papers. I even read about the phenomenon of front-loading and realised that it was a creationist viewpoint on Genes doing different things in different creatures.

Not necessarily. Front loading does not mean they must be inactive though that some have argued for repressed genes.

That's what inactive means. When a gene is repressed it means it is coiled around it's histones and is methylated preventing its expression (AKA repressed). If expressed these modifications are removed to allow the DNA sequence to unwind and be read.

The Exaptation evidence? Gould and Vrba (1982 - Yeah it is old)
Meme theory? Richard Dawkin's Selfish Gene (1976 - Even older)

What are you saying here? That it must be more complex genetically or morphologically or both? Let's put your idea here to the test and look at the data to see if it fits.

What i am saying is such a creature would have not been able to function since being a prokaryote with the DNA of a eukaryote without any of the structural mechanisms to keep it alive. Again your theory fails to recognise mitochondria and chloroplasts (Another famous piece of research by Carl Sagan's wife Dorion Sagan and Lynne Marguilis). The level of complexity required to maintain all the novel DNA in one prokaryotic organism would be astounding.

How do you then explain, say, a dog's hunting instincts such as pointing when the dog has been raised as a pet and never been taught to hunt? If not it's not in his genes, where does it come from?

From wolves these are behaviours in the original breed of hunting dogs. You do realise your dog is still a wolf just dressed up to look pretty? It shows the same instincts as a predator. And dogs learn to play with their peers before you get hold of one as a pet. Part of play is learning the skills to point.

Or it could be a reflex. Dogs that noticed and showed that specific behaviour got to breed. Those that did not did not get to breed. It isn't complex behaviour and these "behaviours" themselves are just a pre-existing setting that can be taught out. You can get terriers who do not chase and shake things.

What are you talking about? Which paper? Davison is or was a biology professor at the University of Vermont.

The one by Israeli Philosophers published in a brazilian paper.

 

[devnull]

Oh, Ill answer my own question I think.

I think this is randman's thought process (correct me if Im wrong randman):

* humans share genes with coral
- *only* humans and coral have these genes
- therefore, it follows that the common ancestor of humans and corals had these genes
- therefore, the common ancestor of humans and corals had most, if not all, the genes of both humans and corals

* This ancestor is also an ancestor of other species
- Therefore, this ancestor must have had most, if not all, the genes of these species
- This must have been front-loaded (ie, created by a deity)
- The only way that species can have some but not all of these genes is through shedding massive amounts of genetic material

* TOE states that things "evolve" as they accrue genetic material/changes
* This ancestor was incredibly complicated, genetically
* TOE is wrong

* Therefore, God.

Yes?

 

[Cavemonster]

Rand,

Let's take a step back and get some clarity on something simple.

Does "accumulation of genetic changes" mean "Accumulation of genes"?

 

[randman]

Ok, here is an easier document that lays out some of this, but you can and should read the paper.

The reef-building coral Acropora millepora does not have a lot on its mind. In fact, it doesn't have a mind at all. The invertebrate has only a diffuse net of nerve cells, one of the simplest nervous systems of any animal. Thus, it shocked Australian geneticist David Miller to find that the coral's DNA contains genetic sequences corresponding to genes that guide the patterning of the incredibly complex human nervous system. Worms and flies don't have these genes, so he and other researchers had taken it for granted that the genes were relatively recent innovations that had evolved in vertebrates.

The nervous system genes are among a surprisingly large number of genes shared by vertebrates and A. millepora, but not by the worm Caenorhabditis elegans or the fruit fly Drosophila melanogaster, Miller and his colleagues have found. This discovery demands rethinking of the common ancestor of corals and all other animals, the researchers say in the Dec. 16, 2003 Current Biology.

Despite the presumed physical simplicity of this ancestor, "it must have contained many more genes than we had previously assumed," says Miller, who works at James Cook University in Townsville, Australia.

Evolutionary biologist John Finnerty of Boston University agrees. The ancestor must have exhibited "a stunning degree of genetic complexity. … It is extremely important to reconstruct the genome of this ancestor, since it gave rise to almost all of modern-day animals," he says.

http://www.phschool.com/science/science_news/articles/reef_relations.html

 

[randman]

They aren't biologists.

So John Davison, professor of Biology at Vermont University, is not a biologist?

What world do you live in?

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

In other words, I haven't really challenged common descent on this thread though that's not because I necessarily accept it.

Oh, here we go. This is all a prelude to you disproving that, too, is it?

I think a lot of evos basically approach the subject as a matter of faith and doctrine and so have difficulty assessing data and ideas they are not sure fits into their worldview.

It's always interesting to see people whose explanation for things is "God did it" classify themselves as going on scientific evidence, while accusing those following the science of basing their conclusions on faith. It's a special kind of doublethink.

 

[randman]

What i am saying is such a creature would have not been able to function since being a prokaryote with the DNA of a eukaryote without any of the structural mechanisms to keep it alive. .... The level of complexity required to maintain all the novel DNA in one prokaryotic organism would be astounding.

It's interesting that you here tacitly admit a claim I've been making; that mainstream evo science predicts the LCA could not be so genetically complex. I agree your theory does not predict this; that believing this completely contradicts neodrawinism.

But for sake of argument, why wouldn't an evo just say the genetic sequences were used for different purposes and repurposed later?

 

[devnull]

I think I got my breakdown a little bit wrong, but I think the overall point stands.

Randman, are you suggesting that the LCA contained something of a superset of all genetic material from all species, and that species "evolved" (or whatever word you want to use) by shedding large amounts of this genetic material?

 

[randman]

humans share genes with coral
- *only* humans and coral have these genes

No. Second part about "only" is wrong.

therefore, it follows that the common ancestor of humans and corals had these genes
- therefore, the common ancestor of humans and corals had most, if not all, the genes of both humans and corals

The therefore is wrong. The part about the last common ancestor having these genes is correct. That's what the scientists doing this research are saying.

Read the rest and realize I really should not be taking so much time trying to explain it to you.

 

[randman]

I think I got my breakdown a little bit wrong, but I think the overall point stands.

Randman, are you suggesting that the LCA contained something of a superset of all genetic material from all species, and that species "evolved" (or whatever word you want to use) by shedding large amounts of this genetic material?

sort of, getting pretty close....of course, I am not really saying these things as I am not sure common descent happened at all, and definitely believe if it did, there is not just one source....meaning there are multiple lines of descent. If abiogenesis happened, it likely happened more than once.

But you are getting closer to understanding the point.