Stupid Christian Article on Evolution

[tsig]

Go back a few pages and look for a couple of lengthy posts talking about John Davison's papers. Front loading is the idea that the original creatures were front loaded genetically and to a degree programmed then to evolve in certain patterns. Their prediction was the more primitive the organism, then the greater genetic complexity, and that the process of evolution has largely been spent and ended. All that's left is some small dead ends as far as macroevolution.

It's a whole theory and model touching on a lot of things. The 2 papers I mentioned is a decent introduction.

And how do you like those kumquats?

 

[A'isha]

I consider that ended when his lies were exposed and he continued to use them.

Like when he went right back to harping on the "Coral has human genes! HUMAN! And scientists are SHOCKED and don't know WHY!" thing.

I can't say I'm surprised, though. Merely disappointed.

 

[Simon39759]

But at lease you've got Grasse's name right.

To be nit-picky, he actually did not. It is Grassé with an accent aigu.
Nitpick; nitpick...

The problem is that, despite his vehement claims he is the one not knowing much of evolution or genetic (amusing consider he is making the exact opposite accusation, projection, maybe).

For example, his whole point is based that evolution will produce organisms that will gain in complexity. This is illustrated by his fundamental misreading of the sentence: "gradual accumulation of small genetic changes" that he microevolution: "Microevolution decreases genetic variability not increases it."
Presumably, Randman is here thinking about Natural selection, not microevolution. Microevolution would be a combination of genetic mutations -that increase genetic variability, sometime, -it's going to confuse him- by decreasing the number of genes and natural selection, that does reduce genetic variability so that the neat effect can be an increase or a decrease in genetic variability).
Obviously, if he confuse microevolution and natural selection, our argument that microevolution and macroevolution is the same thing will appear illogical to him. Makes sense.

He also misunderstand the definition of macroevolution, which is, let me restate, evolution above the species level. Statements like: "The fossil record just does not show evolutionary transitions of macroevolution." illustrate a misunderstanding of this process. Clearly, he means some big change (outside of the kind). But that's not macroevolution as scientists define it.
Of course, this sentence is also wrong, because transitional fossils, between "kind", are actually well known and described (for example, between fish and tetrapods or reptiles and birds). Obviously, I am sure Randman will shift the goalposts and pretend these were incorrectly identified, the common creationist defence in such case.

In term of genetic, he clearly does not know much better.
For example, he misunderstand the point of comparing corals and human genomes (using the well characterized genome as an animal model for vertebrates).
He also does not seem to understand the concept of genetic homology, despite it being pointed out to him.


And that's his main problem at the end.
He does not know much, understand even less, but consider the various attempts at correcting him by people that actually know what they are talking about (Hello Bonokon) as an attempt to obfuscate the point.
He seems to have received his deficient understanding from creationists websites.

That, in itself, is not as much as a deal breaker as his stubborn refusal to listen and learn.
Clearly, there is no going through him at this stage and the whole discussion is doomed to be nothing but an infuriating waste of time...

 

[Bad vibe]

To be nit-picky, he actually did not. It is Grassé with an accent aigu.
Nitpick; nitpick...

The problem is that, despite his vehement claims he is the one not knowing much of evolution or genetic (amusing consider he is making the exact opposite accusation, projection, maybe).

For example, his whole point is based that evolution will produce organisms that will gain in complexity. This is illustrated by his fundamental misreading of the sentence: "gradual accumulation of small genetic changes" that he microevolution: "Microevolution decreases genetic variability not increases it."
Presumably, Randman is here thinking about Natural selection, not microevolution. Microevolution would be a combination of genetic mutations -that increase genetic variability, sometime, -it's going to confuse him- by decreasing the number of genes and natural selection, that does reduce genetic variability so that the neat effect can be an increase or a decrease in genetic variability).
Obviously, if he confuse microevolution and natural selection, our argument that microevolution and macroevolution is the same thing will appear illogical to him. Makes sense.

He also misunderstand the definition of macroevolution, which is, let me restate, evolution above the species level. Statements like: "The fossil record just does not show evolutionary transitions of macroevolution." illustrate a misunderstanding of this process. Clearly, he means some big change (outside of the kind). But that's not macroevolution as scientists define it.
Of course, this sentence is also wrong, because transitional fossils, between "kind", are actually well known and described (for example, between fish and tetrapods or reptiles and birds). Obviously, I am sure Randman will shift the goalposts and pretend these were incorrectly identified, the common creationist defence in such case.

In term of genetic, he clearly does not know much better.
For example, he misunderstand the point of comparing corals and human genomes (using the well characterized genome as an animal model for vertebrates).
He also does not seem to understand the concept of genetic homology, despite it being pointed out to him.


And that's his main problem at the end.
He does not know much, understand even less, but consider the various attempts at correcting him by people that actually know what they are talking about (Hello Bonokon) as an attempt to obfuscate the point.
He seems to have received his deficient understanding from creationists websites.

That, in itself, is not as much as a deal breaker as his stubborn refusal to listen and learn.
Clearly, there is no going through him at this stage and the whole discussion is doomed to be nothing but an infuriating waste of time...

I wouldn't say the time was entirely wasted Simon I had a very poor understanding of this subject but thanks to you and others and some further reading my understanding and I'm sure others just reading this have benefitted in similar fashion, so thankyou

 

[sphenisc]

To be nit-picky, he actually did not. It is Grassé with an accent aigu.
Nitpick; nitpick...

The problem is that, despite his vehement claims he is the one not knowing much of evolution or genetic (amusing consider he is making the exact opposite accusation, projection, maybe).

For example, his whole point is based that evolution will produce organisms that will gain in complexity. This is illustrated by his fundamental misreading of the sentence: "gradual accumulation of small genetic changes" that he microevolution: "Microevolution decreases genetic variability not increases it."
Presumably, Randman is here thinking about Natural selection, not microevolution. Microevolution would be a combination of genetic mutations -that increase genetic variability, sometime, -it's going to confuse him- by decreasing the number of genes and natural selection, that does reduce genetic variability so that the neat effect can be an increase or a decrease in genetic variability).
Obviously, if he confuse microevolution and natural selection, our argument that microevolution and macroevolution is the same thing will appear illogical to him. Makes sense.

He also misunderstand the definition of macroevolution, which is, let me restate, evolution above the species level. Statements like: "The fossil record just does not show evolutionary transitions of macroevolution." illustrate a misunderstanding of this process. Clearly, he means some big change (outside of the kind). But that's not macroevolution as scientists define it.
Of course, this sentence is also wrong, because transitional fossils, between "kind", are actually well known and described (for example, between fish and tetrapods or reptiles and birds). Obviously, I am sure Randman will shift the goalposts and pretend these were incorrectly identified, the common creationist defence in such case.

In term of genetic, he clearly does not know much better.
For example, he misunderstand the point of comparing corals and human genomes (using the well characterized genome as an animal model for vertebrates).
He also does not seem to understand the concept of genetic homology, despite it being pointed out to him.


And that's his main problem at the end.
He does not know much, understand even less, but consider the various attempts at correcting him by people that actually know what they are talking about (Hello Bonokon) as an attempt to obfuscate the point.
He seems to have received his deficient understanding from creationists websites.

That, in itself, is not as much as a deal breaker as his stubborn refusal to listen and learn.
Clearly, there is no going through him at this stage and the whole discussion is doomed to be nothing but an infuriating waste of time...

I think that starting with a nitpick over an accent was probably...unwise.

Your post seems to have gone badly awry somewhere round the "microevolution" bit, also a bit of proofreading might help the clarity.

Thanks

 

[Foster Zygote]

I am not sure either but that's what the guys doing molecular study say must be.

What guys and what studies?

 

[Foster Zygote]

I know. Being alive is a relative matter....

How so?

 

[Simon39759]

I think that starting with a nitpick over an accent was probably...unwise.

Well, it was a passing remark. It had nothing to do with the core of the post, so I just mentioned it to get it out of the way...

Your post seems to have gone badly awry somewhere round the "microevolution" bit, also a bit of proofreading might help the clarity.
Thanks

Maybe.
My point could be summarise as 'the content of Randman's various posts, to somebody that knows a little about the subject, show that, despite his claims, he doesn't know what he is talking about'.
That, coupled with his apparent unwillingness to correct these misunderstandings, explain why I think the thread is of no interest (except for the spectators, I guess).

I just thought that just stating it like that might not be too convincing and decided to include a few examples, by no mean an exhaustive list, of his mistake to show how I reached that conclusion and that I am not simply 'poisoning the well', even if Randman will probably pretends I do.

*Shrug* It was not really attempted at actually correcting these mistakes. I guess that, if people, the aforementioned spectators, are unclear, I could rewrite it in a less personal way and do so. Maybe starting a thread "Common misunderstanding about evolution" in the science sub-section, or maybe: "ask your [honest and sincere] questions about evolutionary biology". I don't know if people would be interested...

 

[Ignatowski]

I wouldn't say the time was entirely wasted Simon I had a very poor understanding of this subject but thanks to you and others and some further reading my understanding and I'm sure others just reading this have benefitted in similar fashion, so thankyou

I agree. This thread has been very educational.

 

[Mister Agenda]

So basically you were ignorant of the fact that "the mammalian ear" has been discussed in print over the past few years, on how it evolved via convergent evolution, and you were wrong. I was the one informed on the subject and you were talking about the reptilian ear or something prior to the mammalian ear.

It's like you guys don't even know basic terms. Anyone should know if they have been following this debate, what "the mammalian ear" refers to in regard to convergent evolution.

Same with the terms "genome" and "adaptionism."

Google this stuff next time instead of assuming and going off blasting someone more knowledgeable than you as ignorant.

I know monotremes and therians were already mammals and already had ears that were distinct from all other classes: they already had mammalian ears, just more primitive that mammals of today posess. They diverged before the incus was fully developed and both continued the development process independently. However, all early mammals had ossicles that distinguished them from the mammal-like reptiles that preceded them.

You added 'definitive' to my claim, something I did not say. I said the mammalian ear evolved once. True. You say the definitive mammalian ear evolved more than once. Also true. These things don't contradict each other. I know you're desperate to find something I am wrong about because you think if you can catch me in an error, that somehow validates your position, so you latch on to technical details. The only thing that can validate your position is your efforts. Your Google-fu does not hide your basic misunderstandings of the theory.

 

[dlorde]

They specifically state they correspond to genes or genetic sequences for HUMAN nerve function and that this is "particularly surprising" given the relative simplicity of corals. They use the word, "human." Take up your beef with them if you don't believe it.

Apologies if this has already been dealt with (I feel like Rip-Van-Winkle - go to sleep and when I awake, there are four new pages).

I suspect the reason they compared with human genes is the same reason they used Drosophila and Caenorhabditis - because these are the current best sources of sequences for vertebrates and invertebrates (fly, worm) respectively, so are used as the model organisms. Through most of the analysis they talk about vertebrates and invertebrates, that being the important comparison.

 

[Mister Agenda]

Now, addressing the initial point I was making. Mutations happen slowly over time. Evos don't believe the first mammal just popped out of an egg laid by a reptile (Goldschmidt's hopeful monster theory). Mutations happen slower than that.

Mutations happen at the speed of cell division. It's the change in their frequency in a population that happens relatively slowly, and even then there can be dramatic frequency changes in a few generations.

 

[A'isha]

I know monotremes and therians were already mammals and already had ears that were distinct from all other classes: they already had mammalian ears, just more primitive that mammals of today posess. They diverged before the incus was fully developed and both continued the development process independently. However, all early mammals had ossicles that distinguished them from the mammal-like reptiles that preceded them.

You added 'definitive' to my claim, something I did not say. I said the mammalian ear evolved once. True. You say the definitive mammalian ear evolved more than once. Also true. These things don't contradict each other. I know you're desperate to find something I am wrong about because you think if you can catch me in an error, that somehow validates your position, so you latch on to technical details. The only thing that can validate your position is your efforts. Your Google-fu does not hide your basic misunderstandings of the theory.

I already tried pointing that out to him. He appeared to ignore it completely.

Apologies if this has already been dealt with (I feel like Rip-Van-Winkle - go to sleep and when I awake, there are four new pages).

I suspect the reason they compared with human genes is the same reason they used Drosophila and Caenorhabditis - because these are the current best sources of sequences for vertebrates and invertebrates (fly, worm) respectively, so are used as the model organisms. Through most of the analysis they talk about vertebrates and invertebrates, that being the important comparison.

I also pointed that out to him, way back around page 10/11 or so of this thread, before I went to bed myself.

Which is why I facepalmed when I got up this morning and read all the stuff he posted after I went around in circles with him regarding the "human genes" thing...only to see his posts spouting the exact same thing pretty much verbatim (the ones you're responding to here), as if my posts never even happened.

 

[Mister Agenda]

Never said it was ever-increasing but the original genome would necessarily be small as mutations happen slowly. You think all the mutations needed just happened right off the bat?

Moreover, adaptionism (evo theory) posits that natural selection plays a role in causing those mutations to remain. So you have specific traits involved with specific mutations. They do hand in hand.

Why is that so difficult for you to grasp?

So how would the simplest organisms with very few traits have the most complex or close to it, genomes?

Since mutations don't happen slowly and most mutations are neutral, there's no reason why an early microorganism couldn't have a larger genome than it needed. We have larger genomes than we need.

The scenario could go like this: Microorganism mutates to duplicate many of its genes unnecessarily. The extra genes aren't enough of a handicap to keep the microorganism from continuing to reproduce. The microorganism has lots of genetic material for point mutations and other mutation events to act on, so it has the means to evolve faster than other microorganism with fewer genetic raw materials to draw on.

Again (and again and again and again), the TOE does not require that early organisms have small, simple genomes. I know it would be very convenient for you if it did, but it just doesn't.

And if it did, it would mean the theory was wrong on that specific point, not that the general idea was in error, and the theory would be adjusted to fit the new facts or tossed if it couldn't be adjusted. If the existence of black holes hadn't been verified it wouldn't mean the theory of gravity was wrong, just that it wasn't as right as it could be, and it would have been adjusted to be in accordance with the new data or tossed if it couldn't be adjusted.

 

[Mister Agenda]

Even individuals are not generally genetically identical. I assume you are talking about parts of the genome? That a random process isn't going to produce the same genetic sequences, right?

If you believe that, what happens to your theory if we do see the same genetic sequences emerge?

Nothing. It is insignificant if identical genetic sequences emerge. It is significant if entire identical genomes emerge, but they don't. Given enough time you could breed elephants into creatures superficially identical to dogs, but you couldn't breed them into creatures that could breed with dogs. Once lineages diverge, they can't come back together, except possibly on the microbial scale, given the way they exchange genetic information.

 

[dlorde]

... 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".

But in the paper they explicitly explain why/how this loss of genes is likely to have occurred, and it's quite consistent with evolutionary theory - in fact it requires it:

Although a close relationship between coral and human sequences is superficially surprising given that the cnidarian and bilaterian lineages are thought to have diverged in deep Precambrian time, this is largely a consequence of the relative pace of change in the model invertebrates. The greater divergence in D. melanogaster and C. elegans sequences is unlikely to reflect uniform rates of change over long time periods; rather, rapid genome change is likely to have occurred recently (and probably independently) in these organisms and be associated with intense selection for small genome size, rapid developmental rates, and the highly specialized lifestyles of the fly and worm. Although D. melanogaster had the previously reported fastest rate of sequence change, the genes of C. elegans are evolving even faster and genome rearrangements are occurring approximately four times faster in the worm than in the fly. Typically long branch lengths in phylogenetic analyses support the idea that many D. melanogaster sequences are highly derived relative to their coral and human counterparts. This is also true of many C. elegans sequences. If this hypothesis is correct, we might expect sequences from more “primitive,” and so less-derived, protostomes to be more closely related to the coral/human gene set; Hox data for the ribbonworm Lineus are consistent with this hypothesis

(my italics).

 

[Mister Agenda]

Quantum mechanics does not actually work that way though I think I know what you are talking about with superposition. But in reality, QM is more specific. Light behaves particle-like or wave-like depending on what we seek to know about it. If we want to determine the path of a photon, it acts particle-like. It doesn't act wave-like.

All possible results would mean it acts like a wave when we determine which path it took. So it's a "hard", not an elastic theory.

Evolution tends to say no matter what the data, it must be evolution. It's circular logic, but there are areas to pin evo theory down with facts, but even there, evos will likely just say it's evolution and say it predicted that all along.

Take the dinosaur bones with red blood cells. Years ago, that'd be considered the sort of fact so inconsistent with a 65 million year old bone, that it'd be in layman's terms, disproof of such old age. But once we started finding organic molecules such as red blood cells, evos insist, well, there must be a way. Evolution must be right.

But biochemistry has not changed. There is nothing to suggest organic molecules would not have broken down even after just thousands of years much less millions.

Where's that citation of these studies being successfully replicated in other labs? Red blood cells aren't organic molecules, it's fragments of hemoglobin molecules that are claimed to have been discovered.

 

[Mister Agenda]

But we do find organisms with genes for complex nerve function in corals, for example, and the idea is that certainly the ancestor to all animals had these genes, and this is a very primitive creature.

How did those genes get there?

Larval corals (planula) have nervous systems. Just because the adult colony looks like a rock or plant doesn't mean the young can't be little critters that swim around. In colony form, their nervous systems degenerate, but they tend to still be predators (some are symbiotic with algae, so I don't want to assume they all are predatory), using their stinging tentacles to capture prey. Biologists weren't shocked that nerve cells can be found in corals, they were shocked that they were better developed than expected.

 

[Simon39759]

Since mutations don't happen slowly and most mutations are neutral, there's no reason why an early microorganism couldn't have a larger genome than it needed. We have larger genomes than we need.

The scenario could go like this: Microorganism mutates to duplicate many of its genes unnecessarily. The extra genes aren't enough of a handicap to keep the microorganism from continuing to reproduce. The microorganism has lots of genetic material for point mutations and other mutation events to act on, so it has the means to evolve faster than other microorganism with fewer genetic raw materials to draw on.

Indeed, and as I stated in one of my first posts in this thread (I am not just self-indulging, I just want to make it clear that the solution to Randman's apparent contradiction was offered to him long ago, smaller genomes are mostly a consequence of selective pressure to keep them small.
Basically, in smaller organisms, the cost of keeping a bloated genome, the bigger cell and bigger molecular machinery just make the burden to heavy to carry. Hence, we tend to see a stronger selective pressure to keep the genomes smaller...

... 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".

But in the paper they explicitly explain why/how this loss of genes is likely to have occurred, and it's quite consistent with evolutionary theory - in fact it requires it:

Although a close relationship between coral and human sequences is superficially surprising given that the cnidarian and bilaterian lineages are thought to have diverged in deep Precambrian time, this is largely a consequence of the relative pace of change in the model invertebrates. The greater divergence in D. melanogaster and C. elegans sequences is unlikely to reflect uniform rates of change over long time periods; rather, rapid genome change is likely to have occurred recently (and probably independently) in these organisms and be associated with intense selection for small genome size, rapid developmental rates, and the highly specialized lifestyles of the fly and worm. Although D. melanogaster had the previously reported fastest rate of sequence change, the genes of C. elegans are evolving even faster and genome rearrangements are occurring approximately four times faster in the worm than in the fly. Typically long branch lengths in phylogenetic analyses support the idea that many D. melanogaster sequences are highly derived relative to their coral and human counterparts. This is also true of many C. elegans sequences. If this hypothesis is correct, we might expect sequences from more “primitive,” and so less-derived, protostomes to be more closely related to the coral/human gene set; Hox data for the ribbonworm Lineus are consistent with this hypothesis

(my italics).

Thanks DLorde, let me repeat it for Randman:
intense selection for small genome size, rapid developmental rates, and the highly specialized lifestyles

See, just as was said dozen of pages ago...

 

[dlorde]

I wouldn't say the time was entirely wasted Simon I had a very poor understanding of this subject but thanks to you and others and some further reading my understanding and I'm sure others just reading this have benefitted in similar fashion, so thankyou

That's the reason I and many others follow these threads (and occasionally contribute) - it's good exercise in rational debate, spotting fallacies and flaws in arguments, a spur to catch up on the latest research, and generally good education (particularly in human nature)