News: Bizarre New Form of Life Found in Arctic Ocean.
Ye Old One
Kelly Hearn
for National Geographic News
January 11, 2007
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/01/070111-new-lifeform.html?source=rss
An entirely new group of tiny and bizarre marine algae has been
discovered in the Arctic Ocean.
A team of European researchers found the new organisms while analyzing
DNA sequences in samples of seawater.
Genetic evidence pointed to the presence of an unknown type of
microalgae, which the researchers named picobiliphytes ("pico" means
"a trillionth of a part of") because of their miniscule size.
But the discovery may be huge—scientifically speaking.
"These organisms represent a new evolutionary lineage," said team
member Fabrice Not. Not is a marine biologist at the Institut de
Ciències del Mar, a part of Spain's National Research Council.
"The discovery didn't provide any sister relationship to any other
groups of organisms known to date. It means that this new group is
probably a high-rank taxon [group] in terms of classification," Not
added—hinting at the huge amount of diversity in sea life.
"In fact, the divergence of this group from known organisms is as
great as the difference between land plants and animals," Connie
Lovejoy, a biologist at Universit Laval in Canada and another member
of the research team, said in a statement.
The find will be reported in tomorrow's edition of the journal
Science.
Inside Track
Over the past year the research team has used various techniques to
see and count the tiny picobiliphytes, Not said, though the scientists
have not yet been able to grow the microalgae in the lab.
The scientists believe the organisms are widely distributed in the
northern seas.
The researchers also found that picobiliphytes contain pigments called
phycobilins that give off orange fluorescence when bathed in blue
light.
The picobiliphytes, like most microalgae, probably acquired their
pigments through an evolutionary act of cooperation, Not added.
Another organism probably lived inside the picobiliphytes and provided
them with an energy supply in the form of the light-absorbing
pigments, Not said.
In this case, judging from the type of pigments involved, the
picobiliphytes probably got their pigments from a reddish microalgae,
he added.
Food for the Future
While the discovery is a potential boom for biodiversity, it isn't
likely to attract investors just yet, Not said.
"This is primarily pure fundamental research with no commercial
application," he said. "The main fields of research impacted by this
discovery are the microbial ecology and the evolution of
eukaryotes"—organisms that contain cells with a nucleus.
But Robert Andersen, director of the Provasoli-Guillard National
Center for Culture of Marine Phytoplankton in Maine, says the
discovery is "terrific" and may turn out to have "considerable value"
commercially.
Andersen said other phycobilin-producing algae are commercially grown
for their pigments, which are used in products such as cosmetics.
"Phycobilipigments are also rich sources of protein, and they are used
as a food source in aquaculture hatcheries," he said.
If the new picobiliphytes can be grown in sufficient quantities to
provide such a nutrient source, he added, "they will really be
valuable."
--
Bob.
Perplexed in Peoria
"Ye Old One" <use...@mcsuk.net> wrote in message news:g5shq2595lqpv0ouk...@4ax.com...
> Bizarre New Form of Life Found in Arctic Ocean, Scientists Announce
> Kelly Hearn
> for National Geographic News
> January 11, 2007
> http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/01/070111-new-lifeform.html?source=rss
>
> An entirely new group of tiny and bizarre marine algae has been
> discovered in the Arctic Ocean.
>
> A team of European researchers found the new organisms while analyzing
> DNA sequences in samples of seawater.
>
> Genetic evidence pointed to the presence of an unknown type of
> microalgae, which the researchers named picobiliphytes ("pico" means
> "a trillionth of a part of") because of their miniscule size.
>
[snip remainder of article]
Here is a link to the abstract of the research paper:
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/315/5809/253
The journal apparently didn't think this paper was a big deal - no
internal promotion or perspective articles. But it does seem odd
and interesting to me - eukaryotic rRNA, but much smaller in morphology
than the typical eukaryote. A photosynthetic pigment system like
the red algae, but they are not typical red algae. But lots of
details are missing since they have not been cultured.
Friar Broccoli
> Bizarre New Form of Life Found in Arctic Ocean, Scientists Announce
> Kelly Hearn
> for National Geographic News
> January 11, 2007
> http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/01/070111-new-lifeform.html?source=rss
>
> An entirely new group of tiny and bizarre marine algae has been
> discovered in the Arctic Ocean.
>
> A team of European researchers found the new organisms while analyzing
> DNA sequences in samples of seawater.
[snip]
> "These organisms represent a new evolutionary lineage," said team
> member Fabrice Not. Not is a marine biologist at the Institut de
> Cičncies del Mar, a part of Spain's National Research Council.
>
> "The discovery didn't provide any sister relationship to any other
> groups of organisms known to date. It means that this new group is
> probably a high-rank taxon [group] in terms of classification," Not
> added_hinting at the huge amount of diversity in sea life.
[snip]
For me this raises a debating point with creationists that I am
having difficultly getting my head around:
Namely their claim that evolution, specifically the nested
hierarchy, is not falsifiable because no matter what new
species shows up there's always some way of putting it into
the tree, to support evolution.
The strongest form of the argument that I can imagine would go
like this:
We can imagine three methods ways by which creatures can acquire
a given set of characteristics:
1) By direct inheritance from a recent ancestral species which
has left other descendants or evidence of other descendants.
2) By inheritance from a long extinct ancestor which has left
no other descendants; the case with this organism and with
the platypus.
3) By convergent or parallel evolution when independent species
evolve together in a similar environment to acquire similar
characteristics. As an example, I recently saw a case where
a type of whale had evolved a brain cell structure that is
the same as found in apes.
And of course one can imagine other methods by which species
could acquire interesting characteristics. For example, a
virus might inadvertently carry some useful characteristic
between two completely unrelated species. I'm sure that if
evolutionary biologists were really stuck they would suggest
something like this.
So creationists can say: No matter what species or combination
of characteristics show up, you guys will find some way of
making it fit into evolutionary theory. Therefore evolution is
not falsifiable.
I would appreciate recommendations on how to deal with this
argument.
Cordially;
Friar Broccoli
Robert Keith Elias, Quebec, Canada Email: EliasRK (of) gmail * com
Best programmer's & all purpose text editor: http://www.semware.com
--------- I consider ALL arguments in support of my views ---------
Wall Of Sleep
The best way to deal with this argument is to admit that it's true. The
"T"oE is not falsifiable. It is a "one size fits all" 'theory'.
Frank J
Chez Watt? Or did you just forget the " ;-) "?
Not sure what Friar means, but what has bugged me for years is that "in
light of the existing lines of evidence" it is *virtually* impossible
to falsify *common descent*. But that is by no means the same as
"unfalsifiable." For example, if there were no nested hierarchies
(genetic or anatomic), and good evidence that eukaryotes could
"spontaneously generate" (which would not rule out a designer, so don't
even think of that bait-and-switch), then Occam's Razor would elevate
the alternative - the "independent abiogenesis" that anti-evolutionists
imply but rarely address directly (why?) - to the the most reasonable
hypothesis.
As for evolution, or "macroevolution," I think that self-organization
concepts could conceivably discover "saltation" processes that might
falsify it, if not *common descent.* Although that too seems like an
incredible long shot.
TomS
<1168782690.3...@m58g2000cwm.googlegroups.com>, Frank J stated..."
I am not a scientist, but it seems to me that there are
possibilities:
It is still possible that there would be a discovery that some
form of life is outside the "tree of life" as we know it. That
would falsify "common descent for all life from a single
ancestral form."
Extra-terrestrial life, if it exists, could be independent.
If there is a life form on earth with a radically different
genetic code, I believe that such a form would call into
question whether it had common ancestry with the rest.
It could even be that there is a multiple origin for the
tree of life on earth. It is conceivable that there was a
symbiosis at some early stage from those multiple original
forms. A "tree of life with multiple roots" isn't out of
the question.
>
>As for evolution, or "macroevolution," I think that self-organization
>concepts could conceivably discover "saltation" processes that might
>falsify it, if not *common descent.* Although that too seems like an
>incredible long shot.
>
>
In addition to self-organization, how about the symbiotic
theory of Margulis?
--
---Tom S.
"...when men have a real explanation they explain it, eagerly and copiously and
in common speech, as Huxley freely gave it when he thought he had it."
GK Chesterton, Doubts About Darwinism (1920)
Friar Broccoli
Given your posting history, I believe you are suggesting that
creation/design is true and evolution false. The problem with
accepting that position is that it means throwing out the vast
amounts of other evidence I know about, including in summary:
- verifiable continuous change in the fossil record going back
about 1.5 billion years.
- 3.5 billion years of earths geologic record embedded in
a 13.5 billion year old universe.
- vestigial organs like the appendix and leg bones in
whales.
- the fact that AT LEAST 8% of our DNA is made from Endogenous
Retroviral fragments, almost all of which are shared with
chimps and gorillas, which is part of the roughly 99% of DNA
that we share in common with chimps.
- observable speciation events, circular species and the like.
Assuming there is a weakness in the scientific logic
(non falsifiable) behind evolution, how do you suggest I deal
with all this other evidence?
CreateThis
wrote:
The fact that you can't falsify it doesn't make it unfalsifiable,
doofus. If you had any competence in the subject, your inability to
falsify it might be support for it - but you don't have a clue, so it
only makes you another antievolutionist doofus.
CT
CreateThis
wrote:
Clearly he suggests that you ignore it and accept Antievolutionist
Jesus as your Lord and Saviour. Later you can come on newsgroups like
this and deny reality with the rest of the Faithful.
CT
Kermit
If mutations were shown to be biased towards the needs of a species
when the environment changed, that would falsify the part of the model
that relies on a random pool of genetic variability.
If there were shown to be a barrier to change, and some mechanism at
work which prevents species from changing beyond a certain point, that
would refute the part of the model that posits all existing species
derived from earlier ones.
If either the genetic *or morphological tree of life were not nested
(e.g. bird with milk, or whales with gills), that would be very strong
evidence against a common ancestor, or at least a complete reworking of
genetic science.
If these two nested hierarchies did not correspond, it would pretty
much require replacing genetics, and/or the descent from a common
ancestor model.
If the fossil record did not paint a picture of small, simple life
radiating out to a great variety, thru many stages to the modern forms,
then evolutionary science would never have been established.
Of course, there's been so much evidence accumulated that at this point
it's difficult to imagine what could possibly be found now that would
require major alteration or a discarding of the modern synthesis. That
doesn't mean it's not falsifiable, it means you and your imaginary
possibilities missed your best chances. If you can find evidence for
any of the above, go for it; you'll be famous. But please note that
mere assertion is not evidence.
If you are a fan of ID/creationism, perhaps you could explain what sort
of evidence would refute *that. There are a number of models besides
ToE that fit the data, but they are not testable.
Kermit
Frank J
But it would not falsify "the common ancestry of known extant and
extinct species." In fact, some scientists who fully accept evolution
already do think that life can be traceable to 2 or 3 "forms", not just
one. Even Darwin himself said "one or a few forms." My own speculation,
formed from reading some interesting papers (big caveat: I need to read
more critiques of it) is that a common, not yet free-living chemical
system in porous minerals formed free living eubacteria and archaea
independently.
I also find compelling the suggestions that self-assembly of life is
far more probable than most people think (which seems to be "once in a
universe"). There too, I admit my bias as a chemist, and may be
extrapolating too much on the "miracle" of enzyme catalysis.
>
> Extra-terrestrial life, if it exists, could be independent.
> If there is a life form on earth with a radically different
> genetic code, I believe that such a form would call into
> question whether it had common ancestry with the rest.
>
> It could even be that there is a multiple origin for the
> tree of life on earth. It is conceivable that there was a
> symbiosis at some early stage from those multiple original
> forms. A "tree of life with multiple roots" isn't out of
> the question.
That's what I mean above. But it would be still consistent with "common
descent" as scientists define it. Of course, anti-evolutionists are
keenly aware of how to bait-and-switch it with the most rigid
definition of the term, which is exactly one common ancestor. E.g., in
the *same article*, William Dembski speaks of Michael Behe's acceptance
of CD and Carl Woese's denial of it. Woese is one of those who defends
the "several abiogenesis events", but does not conflate abiogenesis
with evolution or use the design argument like Behe.
>
> >
> >As for evolution, or "macroevolution," I think that self-organization
> >concepts could conceivably discover "saltation" processes that might
> >falsify it, if not *common descent.* Although that too seems like an
> >incredible long shot.
> >
> >
>
> In addition to self-organization, how about the symbiotic
> theory of Margulis?
There too, AIUI, it is fully consistent with CD as science defines it.
And "macroevolution" too, although conceivably it could be considered
"saltation." But that is all semantics. The thing to remember is that,
even if all scientists got on board and said that Margulis falsified
"macroevolution," that would still not falsify the conclusion that most
(all?) multi-celled species are still related by common descent via a
process of evolution. IOW it would be no comfort at all to creationists
wishing not to be related to chimps, or to IDers hoping to cover up
that fact for the sake of the big tent.
My overall point is that, there are conceivable ways to show that
"nearly everything we know about descent with modification is wrong."
*And* which would give OECs, if not necessarily YECs, everything they
want. And I haven't even touched on some (admittedly poorly formulated)
ideas I have regarding chaos theory. But that "holy grail" of
falsification gets further away with each discovery. In fact, IDers, if
not classic creationists, seem to be fully aware of that inconvenient
fact, as evidenced by their steady retreat into "don't ask, don't
tell," and their increased reliance on bait-and-switch tactics.
I'll go so far as to say that I even think that most IDers are *glad*
that evolution is not falsified. Because if it were, most likely - as
Behe admitted in 1996 before ID became so politically correct - the
alternative would still include common descent. And even in the highly
unlikely event that it didn't, it would still be OEC, not YEC. And that
would be bad news for the big tent strategy.
Robert Grumbine
Friar Broccoli <Eli...@gmail.com> wrote:
[snip]
> For me this raises a debating point with creationists that I am
> having difficultly getting my head around:
>
> Namely their claim that evolution, specifically the nested
> hierarchy, is not falsifiable because no matter what new
> species shows up there's always some way of putting it into
> the tree, to support evolution.
They lack imagination. More in a mo.
Spread the imagination wider.
Your options above implicitly presume that the new life form
is amazingly much like the known life forms (ex: viruses being
able to transfer genetic material between them).
If the new life form were silicon based and lived in magma
chambers, common descent would be rapidly ruled out. Ditto,
if not quite as fast, for a life form coding out of quintuplets
of DNA base pairs vs. triplets, or with 13 bases instead of 4,
or which used no DNA at all, or which copied its code _perfectly_
to the next generation, or ...
The last there would also be a blow against (that species)
evolving, not just against common descent.
But it's also the case that at some point, the evidence
in hand is so overwhelming that the notion it supports
(currently is considered to) can no longer be thrown out
whole cloth. The earth is a sphere. The laws of thermodynamics
apply. Newton was right. Known life forms share a single
ancestor.
Each of those statements has their (also known) exceptions/
modification -- the earth is more accurately considered an
oblate spheroid, classical thermodynamics needs modifications
for quantum and relativistic cases, Newton was not right if
you're considering high speeds or accelerations. ... And known
life may have a few different ancestors rather than a single.
At this point, though, there's been rather a lot of beating
against the concept of common ancestry, as there was against
Newtonian mechanics. (Given the explosion in scientist
populations, I'd wager far more against common ancestry than
Newton.) Very likely there will be some modifications, as
there were to Newton (curtesy of Einstein and QM). But, as
for Newton, there will be a correspondance principle. There's
too much supporting data to throw Newtonian mechanics out whole
cloth. The replacement will have to reduce to the old (i.e.
current) idea in the appropriate domain (i.e. that for which
we already have tested the idea(s) of common descent).
--
Robert Grumbine http://www.radix.net/~bobg/ Science faqs and amateur activities notes and links.
Sagredo (Galileo Galilei) "You present these recondite matters with too much
evidence and ease; this great facility makes them less appreciated than they
would be had they been presented in a more abstruse manner." Two New Sciences
Wall Of Sleep
Fossils are dated by geological strata, strata is dated by... fossils.
It's a circular process. How much of it is actually "verified"? What
happens when a fossil is found "out of place"? It is either discarded
as an anomaly or it is assumed there was some sort of earth upheaval or
local flood that "mixed up" the strata. The entire fossil record is
based on the assumption that the "T"oE is true (as is much of biological
science).
As for "change", show me the gradual transitionals. The idea of
punctuated equilibrium was put forth to try to make evolution match the
fossil record and it's lack of transitionals. If the fossil record
verified the "T"oE, there would be no need for PE.
> - 3.5 billion years of earths geologic record embedded in
> a 13.5 billion year old universe.
>
What does this have to do with the "T"oE?
> - vestigial organs like the appendix and leg bones in
> whales.
>
How do you *know* they are "vestigial"?
> - the fact that AT LEAST 8% of our DNA is made from Endogenous
> Retroviral fragments, almost all of which are shared with
> chimps and gorillas, which is part of the roughly 99% of DNA
> that we share in common with chimps.
>
Science is now finding that the *differences* between human and chimp
DNA would require some pretty unbelievable mutation rates. They are
"baffled" by this.
http://www.the-scientist.com/news/20040527/01/
http://pressreleasegold.com/08/16/20.htm
> - observable speciation events, circular species and the like.
>
No such thing. A new species cannot revert to it's original form. All
observed "speciation" can.
> Assuming there is a weakness in the scientific logic
> (non falsifiable) behind evolution, how do you suggest I deal
> with all this other evidence?
>
There's not that much really.
A "theory" is an hypothesis that has been verified experimentally.
How much of the "Theory" of Evolution has actually been verified
experimentally?
What exactly *is* the "Theory" of Evolution?
What is it's mechanism? It seems to be constantly changing.
Once you separate the conjecture from the hard evidence, you'll find
that the "Theory" of Evolution does not have much of a leg to stand on.
> Cordially;
>
> Friar Broccoli
> Robert Keith Elias, Quebec, Canada Email: EliasRK (of) gmail * com
> Best programmer's & all purpose text editor: http://www.semware.com
>
> --------- I consider ALL arguments in support of my views ---------
>
>
I hope that's true.
Wall Of Sleep
Like this?
http://www.underwatertimes.com/news.php?article_id=60102475813
To quote:
"the divergence of this group from known organisms is as great as the
difference between land plants and animals"
> Extra-terrestrial life, if it exists, could be independent.
> If there is a life form on earth with a radically different
> genetic code, I believe that such a form would call into
> question whether it had common ancestry with the rest.
>
The common genetic code is evidence of a single designer. It's all in
the interpretation.
> It could even be that there is a multiple origin for the
> tree of life on earth. It is conceivable that there was a
> symbiosis at some early stage from those multiple original
> forms. A "tree of life with multiple roots" isn't out of
> the question.
>
>> As for evolution, or "macroevolution," I think that self-organization
>> concepts could conceivably discover "saltation" processes that might
>> falsify it, if not *common descent.* Although that too seems like an
>> incredible long shot.
>>
>>
>
> In addition to self-organization, how about the symbiotic
> theory of Margulis?
>
>
It's gotten to the point now where you are all having to hypothesize new
mechanisms for the failed "T"oE. You know why? Much of the recently
discovered evidence contradicts the "theory".
A "tree of life with multiple roots"?
"Spontaneously generation"?
Sounds a lot like what creationists have been saying for years!
John Harshman
This is one of the dumber of the creationist errors. Don't make that
mistake. Strata are dated by radiometric means, generally. Those that
can't be dated directly are *correlated* with strata that can, and
fossils are one useful tool for correlation, as are various other
similarities -- lithology, remanent magnetism, horizontal continuity, etc.
> It's a circular process. How much of it is actually "verified"? What
> happens when a fossil is found "out of place"? It is either discarded
> as an anomaly or it is assumed there was some sort of earth upheaval or
> local flood that "mixed up" the strata. The entire fossil record is
> based on the assumption that the "T"oE is true (as is much of biological
> science).
Wrong. The succession of fossils was discovered considerably before the
theory of evolution was advanced, and by people who believed in the
fixity of species. Look up William "Strata" Smith.
> As for "change", show me the gradual transitionals. The idea of
> punctuated equilibrium was put forth to try to make evolution match the
> fossil record and it's lack of transitionals. If the fossil record
> verified the "T"oE, there would be no need for PE.
Again, wrong. PE was an attempt at explaining the rarity (not absence)
of smooth, transitional series among closely related species (not
transitional fossils per se, which are common enough). Gould spend much
effort trying to remove this creationist misconception of his work, but
without success: once a falsehood becomes common, creationists cling to it.
>> - 3.5 billion years of earths geologic record embedded in
>> a 13.5 billion year old universe.
>
> What does this have to do with the "T"oE?
Once you agree that there is a 3.5 billion year geologic record, you
have to accept that faunal succession you disposed of with your
"circularity" argument, which argues for evolution.
>> - vestigial organs like the appendix and leg bones in
>> whales.
>
> How do you *know* they are "vestigial"?
They don't serve their original purposes of digesting leaves and
walking, respectively. That makes them vestigial. We know their original
purposes on the basis of phylogenetic analysis.
>> - the fact that AT LEAST 8% of our DNA is made from Endogenous
>> Retroviral fragments, almost all of which are shared with
>> chimps and gorillas, which is part of the roughly 99% of DNA
>> that we share in common with chimps.
>
> Science is now finding that the *differences* between human and chimp
> DNA would require some pretty unbelievable mutation rates. They are
> "baffled" by this.
No, you are baffled. The required mutation rates are not surprising. You
have misinterpreted the news.
> http://www.the-scientist.com/news/20040527/01/
> http://pressreleasegold.com/08/16/20.htm
Norhing in these links supports your claim. If you think so you are
confused. I would be happy to correct your misconception if you would
like to explain your thinking in a bit more detail.
>> - observable speciation events, circular species and the like.
>
> No such thing. A new species cannot revert to it's original form. All
> observed "speciation" can.
Once again you are confused. No observed speciation shows reversion to
an original form. Some adaptive evolution shows reversal when the
environment returns to past conditions. Maybe that's what you are
thinking of. But that wasn't speciation.
>> Assuming there is a weakness in the scientific logic
>> (non falsifiable) behind evolution, how do you suggest I deal
>> with all this other evidence?
>
> There's not that much really.
That's only your near total ignorance of the evidence talking. And you
have certainly revealed the extent of your ignorance in this post.
> A "theory" is an hypothesis that has been verified experimentally.
>
> How much of the "Theory" of Evolution has actually been verified
> experimentally?
Lots of it. Even more if your misconception about the nature of science
is corrected, and we remove "experimentally"; experimental science is
only one part of the scientific method.
> What exactly *is* the "Theory" of Evolution?
Evolutionary biology is actually composed of quite a number of theories.
But I would consider the central "theory of evolution" to be
encapsulated in the idea of common descent, i.e. that all life is
related. There's a vast amount of evidence for that.
> What is it's mechanism? It seems to be constantly changing.
Not really. Natural selection has been the dominant mechanism in
theories of adaptive evolution for almost a century now, after a phase
of eclipse following Darwin. And neutral evolution makes a useful
adjunct. The fun is in the details.
> Once you separate the conjecture from the hard evidence, you'll find
> that the "Theory" of Evolution does not have much of a leg to stand on.
How would you know? You read only creationist web sites. On your rare
forays into actual scientific sources, you misinterpret everything you
read. You need to take off your Opinion-Guard (TM) helmet.
>> Cordially;
>>
>> Friar Broccoli
>> Robert Keith Elias, Quebec, Canada Email: EliasRK (of) gmail * com
>> Best programmer's & all purpose text editor: http://www.semware.com
>>
>> --------- I consider ALL arguments in support of my views ---------
>
> I hope that's true.
Or maybe it's not the helmet; maybe you just can't read for comprehension.
Ernest Major
<Sabo...@Vol4.net> writes
>> It is still possible that there would be a discovery that some
>> form of life is outside the "tree of life" as we know it. That
>> would falsify "common descent for all life from a single ancestral
>>form."
>>
>
>Like this?
>
>http://www.underwatertimes.com/news.php?article_id=60102475813
>
>To quote:
>"the divergence of this group from known organisms is as great as the
>difference between land plants and animals"
>
No. The difference between land plants and animals is less that the
difference between land plants and eubacteria, or land plants and
archaea. The title of the primary source identifies picobiliphytes as
eukaryotes, i.e. nearer to land plants and animals, than to eubacteria
and archaea, and therefore within the tree of life as we previously knew
it.
Can you find something nearer to a primary citation for "the divergence
of this group from known organisms is as great as the >difference
between land plants and animals"? It's possible that they form a 7th
major group of eukaryotes, sister to all the others, but I suspect that
it is an overstatement resulting from the "Chinese whispers" effect.
Reading between the lines of the Science abstract, and the Alfred
Wegener Institute press release
(http://www.awi-bremerhaven.de/AWI/Presse/PM/pm07-1.hj/070112Science-e.html)
I'd guess that these are chromalveolates, which according to the
consensus are slightly closer to land plants than to animals, and are a
highly diverse group in themselves. 18S rDNA, unfortunately, has a
greater tendency to vary in its rate of change between groups of
organisms than many other loci, and therefore is not a reliable guide to
the nearest relations of an isolated group.
If anyone here has read the Science article then presumably we may be
enlightened as to what exactly has been found.
--
alias Ernest Major
CreateThis
It's not a mistake when it's made over and over despite being
corrected over and over. It's typical creationist dishonesty.
CT
wf3h
Wall Of Sleep wrote:
> >
> The common genetic code is evidence of a single designer. It's all in
> the interpretation.
actually, it's evidence against a designer. a designer could do
anything he wanted. he could make organisms with wheels, or humans and
dinosaurs in the same fossil strata.
he didn't. so a common genetic code is evidence against a designer.
> > >
>
> It's gotten to the point now where you are all having to hypothesize new
> mechanisms for the failed "T"oE. You know why? Much of the recently
> discovered evidence contradicts the "theory".
funny that scientists don't see it that way.
>
Friar Broccoli
I cannot improve on Harshman's response, but I do want to add a
few other comments.
Wall Of Sleep wrote:
> Friar Broccoli wrote:
>> Wall Of Sleep wrote:
[snip of my technical question on falsification of TOE]
>>> The best way to deal with this argument is to admit that it's
>>> true. The "T"oE is not falsifiable. It is a "one size fits
>>> all" 'theory'.
>>
>> Given your posting history, I believe you are suggesting that
>> creation/design is true and evolution false. The problem with
>> accepting that position is that it means throwing out the vast
>> amounts of other evidence I know about, including in summary:
>>
>> - verifiable continuous change in the fossil record going back
>> about 1.5 billion years.
>>
>
> Fossils are dated by geological strata, strata is dated by... fossils.
> It's a circular process. How much of it is actually "verified"? What
> happens when a fossil is found "out of place"? It is either discarded
> as an anomaly or it is assumed there was some sort of earth upheaval or
> local flood that "mixed up" the strata. The entire fossil record is
> based on the assumption that the "T"oE is true (as is much of biological
> science).
I'm puzzled here. Are you claiming everything we see in the
fossil record happened in 6,000 years?
> As for "change", show me the gradual transitionals. The idea of
> punctuated equilibrium was put forth to try to make evolution match the
> fossil record and it's lack of transitionals. If the fossil record
> verified the "T"oE, there would be no need for PE.
Well it seems to me that Punk-Eeek is "needed" when there are
dramatic changes in the environment. Do you think evolution
should have proceeded slowly after the dinosaurs were
exterminated by an asteroid? Change occurs, sometimes very
rapidly, and life quickly adapts when it needs to. Where's the
problem?
As for gradual transitionals, what about our 6 million year
transition from chimp like tree dwelling ape to the bipedal
tool maker we are today:
_Name______________________ When_Lived Brain_Size___
Sahelanthropus_tchadensis_: 7-6 myr ~375 cc
Australopithecus_Afarensis: 3.9-3.0 myr 375 to 550 cc
Australopithecus_Africanus: 3.0-2.0 myr 420 to 500 cc
Homo_habilis______________: 2.4-1.5 myr 500 and 800 cc
Homo_erectus______________: 1.8-0.3 myr 775 to 1225 cc
Homo_sapiens_(archaic)____: 0.5-0.2 myr ~1200 cc
Homo_sapiens_(modern)_____: ___________ ~1350 cc
For details see:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/species.html
See, lots of evidence, all you needed to do was ask !!
>> - 3.5 billion years of earths geologic record embedded in
>> a 13.5 billion year old universe.
>>
>
> What does this have to do with the "T"oE?
Well, it's always seemed to me that the fact that it took 3.5
billion years for us to get here, is pretty good evidence that God
used evolution as one of His instruments in creation. How else
could it be understood?
>> - vestigial organs like the appendix and leg bones in
>> whales.
>>
>
> How do you *know* they are "vestigial"?
>
>
>> - the fact that AT LEAST 8% of our DNA is made from Endogenous
>> Retroviral fragments, almost all of which are shared with
>> chimps and gorillas, which is part of the roughly 99% of DNA
>> that we share in common with chimps.
>>
>
> Science is now finding that the *differences* between human and chimp
> DNA would require some pretty unbelievable mutation rates. They are
> "baffled" by this.
>
> http://www.the-scientist.com/news/20040527/01/
> http://pressreleasegold.com/08/16/20.htm
Great articles, thanks for pointing them out.
However, you didn't address the point I raised. Why do humans
and chimps share Retroviral fragraments that amount to at least
8% of our DNA? If they didn't come from a common ancestor
where did it all come from? Did God put viral fragments into
8% of our DNA, and use the same fragments in Chimps?
[more snipping]
>> --------- I consider ALL arguments in support of my views ---------
> I hope that's true.
Can we agree to disagree on that ?? :-)
TomS
<1168914266.5...@a75g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>, wf3h stated..."
>
>
>Wall Of Sleep wrote:
>> >
>> The common genetic code is evidence of a single designer. It's all in
>> the interpretation.
>
>actually, it's evidence against a designer. a designer could do
>anything he wanted. he could make organisms with wheels, or humans and
>dinosaurs in the same fossil strata.
>
>he didn't. so a common genetic code is evidence against a designer.
If someone wants to claim that a "common designer" was constrained
by prior conditions, was only solving problems with life as it was
handed over to the designer ... I suppose that that's within the "big
tent" strategy of "Intelligent Design".
>
>> > >
>>
>> It's gotten to the point now where you are all having to hypothesize new
>> mechanisms for the failed "T"oE. You know why? Much of the recently
>> discovered evidence contradicts the "theory".
>
>funny that scientists don't see it that way.
>>
>
John Harshman
I would like to point out that what you describe here is not PE. PE is a
very specific theory, that major evolutionary change is coincident with
speciation. That has nothing to do with long-term rates of evolution or
with fluctuation in evolutionary rates, per se.
[snip]
rthe...@hotmail.com
Ye Old One wrote:
> "In fact, the divergence of this group from known organisms is as
> great as the difference between land plants and animals,"
Now we are six?
Roy
Ray Martinez
In other words, Harshman committs the exact "error" that he criticized
Creationists for.
The above comment says rocks date fossils and fossils date rocks =
"circular database of self-fulfilling predictions" (Richard Milton,
1997). There is no way to externally check the accuracy of radiometric
dating except when history and archaeology happens to know the date of
a material. Sometimes radiometric dating confirms and other times it
fails miserably. The point is that radiometric dating is unreliable -
that's why Darwinists date rocks with fossils and fossils with rocks.
Ray
SNIP....
Wall Of Sleep
Your interpretation of the data is entirely based on an assumption of
common ancestry (as is most of biological science). Mutation rates &
etc. are calculated based on the assumption that "X and Y *descended*
from Z" (Z of course is an unknown hypothetical common ancestor). The
reasoning is so circular it makes my head spin.
Face it, no organism can ever be discovered that can't be wedged into
the phylogenic tree somewhere. It will simply be called a "7th, 8th,
9th...'n'th, major group of" blah blah blah.
Wall Of Sleep
> Wall Of Sleep wrote:
>> The common genetic code is evidence of a single designer. It's all in
>> the interpretation.
>
> actually, it's evidence against a designer. a designer could do
> anything he wanted. he could make organisms with wheels, or humans and
> dinosaurs in the same fossil strata.
>
> he didn't. so a common genetic code is evidence against a designer.
>
The designer of your chair could have made it out of cheese. He didn't,
so it must not be designed.
>> It's gotten to the point now where you are all having to hypothesize new
>> mechanisms for the failed "T"oE. You know why? Much of the recently
>> discovered evidence contradicts the "theory".
>
> funny that scientists don't see it that way.
>
I guess there are no scientists on this forum then.
John Harshman
The only reason you think so is that you don't understand the reasoning.
It has, for example, nothing to do with mutation rates. And there are
ways to test whether or not data have phylogenetic structure. No such
assumption is needed.
> Face it, no organism can ever be discovered that can't be wedged into
> the phylogenic tree somewhere. It will simply be called a "7th, 8th,
> 9th...'n'th, major group of" blah blah blah.
I see you ignored the point: that plants and animals are by no means the
most distantly related pair of eukaryote groups. This "new major group"
is no more major than many other groups of single-celled eukaryotes. And
finding another group of eukaryotes is hardly surprising, and hardly a
challenge to evolution. Now at this late date, challenges are not
likely. But a truly alien life form would at least give rise tot he
possibility that not all life had a common ancestor. These new
eukaryotes are nothing like that.
Wall Of Sleep
Which have been "calibrated" by the assumed timeframe of evolution.
> generally. Those that
> can't be dated directly are *correlated* with strata that can, and
> fossils are one useful tool for correlation, as are various other
> similarities -- lithology, remanent magnetism, horizontal continuity, etc.
There's a whole bunch of circularity going on in all those methods.
>
>> It's a circular process. How much of it is actually "verified"? What
>> happens when a fossil is found "out of place"? It is either discarded
>> as an anomaly or it is assumed there was some sort of earth upheaval or
>> local flood that "mixed up" the strata. The entire fossil record is
>> based on the assumption that the "T"oE is true (as is much of biological
>> science).
>
> Wrong. The succession of fossils was discovered considerably before the
> theory of evolution was advanced, and by people who believed in the
> fixity of species. Look up William "Strata" Smith.
>
He was the first to use fossils to date strata - that's true.
http://www.unh.edu/esci/explanation.html
That doesn't make it right.
It's interesting how you will quote from a centuries old scientist when
it suits your needs, but refuse to accept anything but the latest and
greatest research in support of a non-evolutionist argument.
>> As for "change", show me the gradual transitionals. The idea of
>> punctuated equilibrium was put forth to try to make evolution match the
>> fossil record and it's lack of transitionals. If the fossil record
>> verified the "T"oE, there would be no need for PE.
>
> Again, wrong. PE was an attempt at explaining the rarity (not absence)
> of smooth, transitional series among closely related species (not
> transitional fossils per se, which are common enough).
Yeah, they're everywhere!
> Gould spend much
> effort trying to remove this creationist misconception of his work, but
> without success: once a falsehood becomes common, creationists cling to it.
>
Pot, kettle, black. Talk about clinging to falsehoods!
>>> - 3.5 billion years of earths geologic record embedded in
>>> a 13.5 billion year old universe.
>> What does this have to do with the "T"oE?
>
> Once you agree that there is a 3.5 billion year geologic record, you
> have to accept that faunal succession you disposed of with your
> "circularity" argument, which argues for evolution.
>
No you don't. What does the time period have to do with succession?
>>> - vestigial organs like the appendix and leg bones in
>>> whales.
>> How do you *know* they are "vestigial"?
>
> They don't serve their original purposes of digesting leaves and
> walking, respectively. That makes them vestigial. We know their original
> purposes on the basis of phylogenetic analysis.
>
Conjecture.
Your phylogenetic analysis is based on the assumption of common descent.
If you don't assume CD, you don't have vestigial limbs and organs.
>>> - the fact that AT LEAST 8% of our DNA is made from Endogenous
>>> Retroviral fragments, almost all of which are shared with
>>> chimps and gorillas, which is part of the roughly 99% of DNA
>>> that we share in common with chimps.
>> Science is now finding that the *differences* between human and chimp
>> DNA would require some pretty unbelievable mutation rates. They are
>> "baffled" by this.
>
> No, you are baffled. The required mutation rates are not surprising. You
> have misinterpreted the news.
>
>> http://www.the-scientist.com/news/20040527/01/
>> http://pressreleasegold.com/08/16/20.htm
>
> Norhing in these links supports your claim. If you think so you are
> confused. I would be happy to correct your misconception if you would
> like to explain your thinking in a bit more detail.
>
In order for all 49 of the HAR regions to have evolved in the alloted
time period, human mutation rates would have to be much higher than
those observed today. This forced one serious scientist to speculate
that perhaps the "pressure" of walking upright caused humans to
hyper-mutate. When you can only believe in evolution, you must
constantly grasp at straws to maintain your *belief*.
>>> - observable speciation events, circular species and the like.
>> No such thing. A new species cannot revert to it's original form. All
>> observed "speciation" can.
>
> Once again you are confused. No observed speciation shows reversion to
> an original form. Some adaptive evolution shows reversal when the
> environment returns to past conditions. Maybe that's what you are
> thinking of. But that wasn't speciation.
>
With all the malleable definitions of "species" floating about nowadays,
I'm not surprised that you would say this. The truth is, there are no
instances of speciation that you can refer to that 1. meet the classic
definition and 2. have been experimentally verified non-reversible.
>>> Assuming there is a weakness in the scientific logic
>>> (non falsifiable) behind evolution, how do you suggest I deal
>>> with all this other evidence?
>> There's not that much really.
>
> That's only your near total ignorance of the evidence talking. And you
> have certainly revealed the extent of your ignorance in this post.
>
>> A "theory" is an hypothesis that has been verified experimentally.
>>
>> How much of the "Theory" of Evolution has actually been verified
>> experimentally?
>
> Lots of it. Even more if your misconception about the nature of science
> is corrected, and we remove "experimentally"; experimental science is
> only one part of the scientific method.
>
The part that least verifies the "T"oE.
>> What exactly *is* the "Theory" of Evolution?
>
> Evolutionary biology is actually composed of quite a number of theories.
> But I would consider the central "theory of evolution" to be
> encapsulated in the idea of common descent, i.e. that all life is
> related. There's a vast amount of evidence for that.
>
>> What is it's mechanism? It seems to be constantly changing.
>
> Not really. Natural selection has been the dominant mechanism in
> theories of adaptive evolution for almost a century now, after a phase
> of eclipse following Darwin. And neutral evolution makes a useful
> adjunct. The fun is in the details.
>
Natural selection is not a *creative* mechanism. It's an editor, not an
author. You must first create a new function/gene for it to be
selected. Saying that "IF" this came to be, it would be selected, is a
cop out and a no-brainer. "IF" a new gene made an organism impervious
to disease - sure - it will be selected (probably), but you must first
have a *mechanism* that can create such a gene.
Got any?
>> Once you separate the conjecture from the hard evidence, you'll find
>> that the "Theory" of Evolution does not have much of a leg to stand on.
>
> How would you know? You read only creationist web sites. On your rare
> forays into actual scientific sources, you misinterpret everything you
> read. You need to take off your Opinion-Guard (TM) helmet.
>
>>> Cordially;
>>>
>>> Friar Broccoli
>>> Robert Keith Elias, Quebec, Canada Email: EliasRK (of) gmail * com
>>> Best programmer's & all purpose text editor: http://www.semware.com
>>>
>>> --------- I consider ALL arguments in support of my views ---------
>> I hope that's true.
>
> Or maybe it's not the helmet; maybe you just can't read for comprehension.
>
Yeah, you're smarter than me. There, now that we've got that out of the
way, can we discuss issues without insults?
John Harshman
In other words, Ray has no idea what I said.
> The above comment says rocks date fossils and fossils date rocks =
> "circular database of self-fulfilling predictions" (Richard Milton,
> 1997).
My comment doesn't. It refutes that idea.
> There is no way to externally check the accuracy of radiometric
> dating except when history and archaeology happens to know the date of
> a material. Sometimes radiometric dating confirms and other times it
> fails miserably. The point is that radiometric dating is unreliable -
> that's why Darwinists date rocks with fossils and fossils with rocks.
The reliability of radiometric dating is a separate question. But nobody
dates rocks with fossils. Your failure to understand this simple point
just shows that you can't read.
Wall Of Sleep
Maybe your "correction" is not as convincing as you believe it to be.
Tiny Bulcher
Ray Martinez wrote:
> John Harshman wrote:
<big snip>
> > This is one of the dumber of the creationist errors. Don't make that
> > mistake. Strata are dated by radiometric means, generally. Those that
> > can't be dated directly are *correlated* with strata that can, and
> > fossils are one useful tool for correlation, as are various other
> > similarities -- lithology, remanent magnetism, horizontal continuity, etc.
> >
>
> In other words, Harshman committs the exact "error" that he criticized
> Creationists for.
>
> The above comment says rocks date fossils and fossils date rocks =
> "circular database of self-fulfilling predictions" (Richard Milton,
> 1997). There is no way to externally check the accuracy of radiometric
> dating except when history and archaeology happens to know the date of
> a material. Sometimes radiometric dating confirms and other times it
> fails miserably. The point is that radiometric dating is unreliable -
> that's why Darwinists date rocks with fossils and fossils with rocks.
The accuracy of radiometric dating is based on the known half-life of
various radioactive isotopes. If you have any problems with the process
of determining said half-lives, please present the relevant physics.
Also, look up the word 'correlated' in a dictionary.
Anyway, I thought you believed the Earth to be millions of years old?
What evidence, if not dating of strata, leads you to this conclusion?
Your argument above, that dating is unreliable, is only of use to a
YEC, so what's your point?
--
Tiny
Wall Of Sleep
Not at all. To be honest, I have no idea what the true timeframe is. I
think on one side, the evolutionists are so steeped in their own
circular reasoning that no timeframe or dating mechanism that doesn't
jibe with the proposed evolutionary timeframe will ever be allowed. On
the other hand, biblical literalists will accept no other timeframe than
the literal 6000 years.
I'm somewhere in between.
>> As for "change", show me the gradual transitionals. The idea of
>> punctuated equilibrium was put forth to try to make evolution match the
>> fossil record and it's lack of transitionals. If the fossil record
>> verified the "T"oE, there would be no need for PE.
>
> Well it seems to me that Punk-Eeek is "needed" when there are
> dramatic changes in the environment. Do you think evolution
> should have proceeded slowly after the dinosaurs were
> exterminated by an asteroid? Change occurs, sometimes very
> rapidly, and life quickly adapts when it needs to. Where's the
> problem?
>
The problem is that it's all *speculation*.
> As for gradual transitionals, what about our 6 million year
> transition from chimp like tree dwelling ape to the bipedal
> tool maker we are today:
>
> _Name______________________ When_Lived Brain_Size___
>
> Sahelanthropus_tchadensis_: 7-6 myr ~375 cc
> Australopithecus_Afarensis: 3.9-3.0 myr 375 to 550 cc
> Australopithecus_Africanus: 3.0-2.0 myr 420 to 500 cc
> Homo_habilis______________: 2.4-1.5 myr 500 and 800 cc
> Homo_erectus______________: 1.8-0.3 myr 775 to 1225 cc
> Homo_sapiens_(archaic)____: 0.5-0.2 myr ~1200 cc
> Homo_sapiens_(modern)_____: ___________ ~1350 cc
>
> For details see:
> http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/species.html
>
> See, lots of evidence, all you needed to do was ask !!
>
All that 'evidence' is
1. circular,
2. speculative, and
3. cast into serious doubt by recent discoveries.
>
>>> - 3.5 billion years of earths geologic record embedded in
>>> a 13.5 billion year old universe.
>>>
>> What does this have to do with the "T"oE?
>
> Well, it's always seemed to me that the fact that it took 3.5
> billion years for us to get here, is pretty good evidence that God
> used evolution as one of His instruments in creation. How else
> could it be understood?
>
Maybe "God" is a slow mover. I still don't understand the thinking. It
took 3.5 billion years for airplanes to get here too - are they designed
or evolved?
>
>>> - vestigial organs like the appendix and leg bones in
>>> whales.
>>>
>> How do you *know* they are "vestigial"?
>>
>>
>>> - the fact that AT LEAST 8% of our DNA is made from Endogenous
>>> Retroviral fragments, almost all of which are shared with
>>> chimps and gorillas, which is part of the roughly 99% of DNA
>>> that we share in common with chimps.
>>>
>> Science is now finding that the *differences* between human and chimp
>> DNA would require some pretty unbelievable mutation rates. They are
>> "baffled" by this.
>>
>> http://www.the-scientist.com/news/20040527/01/
>> http://pressreleasegold.com/08/16/20.htm
>
> Great articles, thanks for pointing them out.
>
> However, you didn't address the point I raised. Why do humans
> and chimps share Retroviral fragraments that amount to at least
> 8% of our DNA? If they didn't come from a common ancestor
> where did it all come from? Did God put viral fragments into
> 8% of our DNA, and use the same fragments in Chimps?
>
Perhaps. A designer often uses similar programming structures and
methods on similar machines. On the other hand, maybe both species were
infected with the same viruses during their shared history on earth.
I really don't know, but I sure don't blindly accept the evolutionary
explanation. I question everything.
>
> [more snipping]
Ray Martinez
All geologists do - its not a matter of opinion. But you are not a
geologist.
How did Lyell get ballpark close to how long ago the Cretaceous period
ended in the 19th century?
What a miracle for modern dating to confirm his speculation, wouldn't
you say?
Ray
John Harshman
No. Radioactive decay rates are measured directly. All you need is a
lump of the isotope in question, and then you count the number of decays
per unit time. Evolution has nothing at all to do with it.
>>generally. Those that
>>can't be dated directly are *correlated* with strata that can, and
>>fossils are one useful tool for correlation, as are various other
>>similarities -- lithology, remanent magnetism, horizontal continuity, etc.
>
> There's a whole bunch of circularity going on in all those methods.
If so, you will be able to explain what's circular about them. Go ahead.
>>>It's a circular process. How much of it is actually "verified"? What
>>>happens when a fossil is found "out of place"? It is either discarded
>>>as an anomaly or it is assumed there was some sort of earth upheaval or
>>>local flood that "mixed up" the strata. The entire fossil record is
>>>based on the assumption that the "T"oE is true (as is much of biological
>>>science).
>>
>>Wrong. The succession of fossils was discovered considerably before the
>>theory of evolution was advanced, and by people who believed in the
>>fixity of species. Look up William "Strata" Smith.
>
> He was the first to use fossils to date strata - that's true.
> http://www.unh.edu/esci/explanation.html
>
> That doesn't make it right.
But it does mean that no assumption of evolution is required, which was
my point. Do you agree that you were wrong about that? (If not, explain
how Smith managed it before there was a ToE.)
> It's interesting how you will quote from a centuries old scientist when
> it suits your needs, but refuse to accept anything but the latest and
> greatest research in support of a non-evolutionist argument.
This is nonsense. Are you confusing me with someone else?
>>>As for "change", show me the gradual transitionals. The idea of
>>>punctuated equilibrium was put forth to try to make evolution match the
>>>fossil record and it's lack of transitionals. If the fossil record
>>>verified the "T"oE, there would be no need for PE.
>>
>>Again, wrong. PE was an attempt at explaining the rarity (not absence)
>>of smooth, transitional series among closely related species (not
>>transitional fossils per se, which are common enough).
>
> Yeah, they're everywhere!
Archaeopteryx, Tiktaalik, Probainognathus, Ichthyostega, Pakicetus,
Morganucodon, Ichthyornis, Halkieria, Naraoia, and Anomalocaris, to name
a few off the top of my head.
>>Gould spend much
>>effort trying to remove this creationist misconception of his work, but
>>without success: once a falsehood becomes common, creationists cling to it.
>
> Pot, kettle, black. Talk about clinging to falsehoods!
Which falsehoods? Explain why they're falsehoods.
>>>>- 3.5 billion years of earths geologic record embedded in
>>>> a 13.5 billion year old universe.
>>>
>>>What does this have to do with the "T"oE?
>>
>>Once you agree that there is a 3.5 billion year geologic record, you
>>have to accept that faunal succession you disposed of with your
>>"circularity" argument, which argues for evolution.
>
> No you don't. What does the time period have to do with succession?
The usual creationist argument against succession is that radiometric
dates are useless and that therefore we can't determine the temporal
succession of deposits, and that therefore any faunal succession is
illusory. If you agree that radiometric dating works (as you must in
order to accept a 3.5-billion-year history of life), then faunal
succession is obvious from the dates of different strata.
>>>>- vestigial organs like the appendix and leg bones in
>>>> whales.
>>>
>>>How do you *know* they are "vestigial"?
>>
>>They don't serve their original purposes of digesting leaves and
>>walking, respectively. That makes them vestigial. We know their original
>>purposes on the basis of phylogenetic analysis.
>
> Conjecture.
> Your phylogenetic analysis is based on the assumption of common descent.
> If you don't assume CD, you don't have vestigial limbs and organs.
Common descent is not an assumption, but a result of analyzing data. If
you think it's flawed, please explain why. Do species form a single,
nested hierarchy? If so, what other than common descent can explain
that? If not, I can easily falsify your claim by presenting actual data.
>>>>- the fact that AT LEAST 8% of our DNA is made from Endogenous
>>>> Retroviral fragments, almost all of which are shared with
>>>> chimps and gorillas, which is part of the roughly 99% of DNA
>>>> that we share in common with chimps.
>>>
>>>Science is now finding that the *differences* between human and chimp
>>>DNA would require some pretty unbelievable mutation rates. They are
>>>"baffled" by this.
>>
>>No, you are baffled. The required mutation rates are not surprising. You
>>have misinterpreted the news.
>>
>>
>>>http://www.the-scientist.com/news/20040527/01/
>>>http://pressreleasegold.com/08/16/20.htm
>>
>>Norhing in these links supports your claim. If you think so you are
>>confused. I would be happy to correct your misconception if you would
>>like to explain your thinking in a bit more detail.
>
> In order for all 49 of the HAR regions to have evolved in the alloted
> time period, human mutation rates would have to be much higher than
> those observed today.
No they wouldn't. What makes you think so? You appear to have confused
mutation with fixation. The known mutation rate is fast enough for sites
under positive selection to evolve at much greater than the neutral rate.
> This forced one serious scientist to speculate
> that perhaps the "pressure" of walking upright caused humans to
> hyper-mutate. When you can only believe in evolution, you must
> constantly grasp at straws to maintain your *belief*.
Please cite this quote. I don't believe it's accurate. But one of you
has again confused mutation with fixation.
>>>>- observable speciation events, circular species and the like.
>>>
>>>No such thing. A new species cannot revert to it's original form. All
>>>observed "speciation" can.
>>
>>Once again you are confused. No observed speciation shows reversion to
>>an original form. Some adaptive evolution shows reversal when the
>>environment returns to past conditions. Maybe that's what you are
>>thinking of. But that wasn't speciation.
>
> With all the malleable definitions of "species" floating about nowadays,
> I'm not surprised that you would say this. The truth is, there are no
> instances of speciation that you can refer to that 1. meet the classic
> definition and 2. have been experimentally verified non-reversible.
Which classic definition? And how would you experimentally verify
non-reversibility? I fear that you are very confused about what
speciation is.
>>>>Assuming there is a weakness in the scientific logic
>>>>(non falsifiable) behind evolution, how do you suggest I deal
>>>>with all this other evidence?
>>>
>>>There's not that much really.
>>
>>That's only your near total ignorance of the evidence talking. And you
>>have certainly revealed the extent of your ignorance in this post.
>>
>>
>>>A "theory" is an hypothesis that has been verified experimentally.
>>>
>>>How much of the "Theory" of Evolution has actually been verified
>>>experimentally?
>>
>>Lots of it. Even more if your misconception about the nature of science
>>is corrected, and we remove "experimentally"; experimental science is
>>only one part of the scientific method.
>
> The part that least verifies the "T"oE.
Nonsense. Experiment verifies many aspects of evolutionary theory. It
can't verify processes that take a long time to happen, or events that
happened a long time ago. But other techniques do that.
>>>What exactly *is* the "Theory" of Evolution?
>>
>>Evolutionary biology is actually composed of quite a number of theories.
>>But I would consider the central "theory of evolution" to be
>>encapsulated in the idea of common descent, i.e. that all life is
>>related. There's a vast amount of evidence for that.
>>
>>
>>>What is it's mechanism? It seems to be constantly changing.
>>
>>Not really. Natural selection has been the dominant mechanism in
>>theories of adaptive evolution for almost a century now, after a phase
>>of eclipse following Darwin. And neutral evolution makes a useful
>>adjunct. The fun is in the details.
>
> Natural selection is not a *creative* mechanism. It's an editor, not an
> author. You must first create a new function/gene for it to be
> selected. Saying that "IF" this came to be, it would be selected, is a
> cop out and a no-brainer. "IF" a new gene made an organism impervious
> to disease - sure - it will be selected (probably), but you must first
> have a *mechanism* that can create such a gene.
>
> Got any?
Your assumption here is that a "new gene" (whatever you mean by that)
must be created in one mutation and then presented to natural selection
to accept or reject. That's not how it works. New features arise
gradually through small variations. This is why natural selection is a
creative force -- it constrains these gradual changes along a particular
pathway. If variation happens in random directions from the current
point (and it largely does), then natural selection does provide
direction in the evolution of features. Only if a new feature must arise
by a single, large mutation is selection robbed of its creative
importance. Gould, in his last book, has a decent explanation of this.
Try it.
>>>Once you separate the conjecture from the hard evidence, you'll find
>>>that the "Theory" of Evolution does not have much of a leg to stand on.
>>
>>How would you know? You read only creationist web sites. On your rare
>>forays into actual scientific sources, you misinterpret everything you
>>read. You need to take off your Opinion-Guard (TM) helmet.
>>
>>
>>>>Cordially;
>>>>
>>>>Friar Broccoli
>>>>Robert Keith Elias, Quebec, Canada Email: EliasRK (of) gmail * com
>>>>Best programmer's & all purpose text editor: http://www.semware.com
>>>>
>>>>--------- I consider ALL arguments in support of my views ---------
>>>
>>>I hope that's true.
>>
>>Or maybe it's not the helmet; maybe you just can't read for comprehension.
>
> Yeah, you're smarter than me. There, now that we've got that out of the
> way, can we discuss issues without insults?
Sorry. But you really do seem incapable of reading for comprehension.
That sig is a joke. Considering only arguments in support of your views,
even if you consider all of them, would be a bad thing. You have to
consider the arguments against your views too. The fact that you don't
get the joke suggests you have comprehension problems. And your
inability to paraphrase the claims of others is more evidence. Now this
problem may be correctable, but the first step is to realize that you do
have a problem. Most of it is, I think, caused by your desire not to
understand arguments that contradict your views.
Friar Broccoli
> Friar Broccoli wrote:
> > Well it seems to me that Punk-Eeek is "needed" when there are
> > dramatic changes in the environment. Do you think evolution
> > should have proceeded slowly after the dinosaurs were
> > exterminated by an asteroid? Change occurs, sometimes very
> > rapidly, and life quickly adapts when it needs to. Where's the
> > problem?
>
> I would like to point out that what you describe here is not PE. PE is a
> very specific theory, that major evolutionary change is coincident with
> speciation. That has nothing to do with long-term rates of evolution or
> with fluctuation in evolutionary rates, per se.
Thanks. I have never read anything about PE.
Just doing my usual thing of making it up as I go along.
Friar Broccoli
I just thought about this some more. I'm not sure that I made a
mistake. After a major extinction event many new niches will
open up and be filled by new species, derived from the ones
that survived. I used the word "adapt" but was thinking in terms
of speciation as a type of adaptation.
Does intending to have meant something count here?
Perplexed in Peoria
"Wall Of Sleep" <Sabo...@Vol4.net> wrote in message news:wmcrh.3576$tZ.2894@trndny05...
No, he based it on reading the abstract and the press release, in which
it is stated that the evidence for a large divergence from other
organisms is comparison of the sequence of the 18s rRNAs. If you knew
a little about what that means, you wouldn't be so ready to cite this
as a possible exception to common origin of all life. These things are
eukaryotes, and share a common ancestor with other eukaryotes - that is
how they were even able to recognize the DNA coding for the 18s rRNA.
It is quite possible that scientists are wrong about some stuff, and
it is also possible that they don't realize their mistakes due to
social 'bandwagon' effects. But it is pretty obvious to me that the
people who are quickest to claim that the scientists are wrong are
invariably the people who know the least about how science is actually
done.
Friar Broccoli
In my experience, most geologists and physicists who are the
people most responsible for the dates, don't care one way or
the other about TOE. So I'm puzzled by your skepticism.
In any case whatever your "in between" value might be, it must
be a very very long time, because the fossil record is very
extensive. There were, for example, 15,000 plus species of
trilobites, many of which are never found together. These in
turn are never found with crabs, which show up at the time of
the dinosaurs. Dinosaurs similarly show clear change over an
extended time and (except for birds) they are never found
together with recently extinct species, like mammoths.
So given that the fossil record, all by itself, is completely
incompatible with creation, what's the point of disputing the
scientific evidence for life in the geologic column at 2 and 3
billion years?
>
>>> As for "change", show me the gradual transitionals. The idea of
>>> punctuated equilibrium was put forth to try to make evolution match the
>>> fossil record and it's lack of transitionals. If the fossil record
>>> verified the "T"oE, there would be no need for PE.
>>
>> Well it seems to me that Punk-Eeek is "needed" when there are
>> dramatic changes in the environment. Do you think evolution
>> should have proceeded slowly after the dinosaurs were
>> exterminated by an asteroid? Change occurs, sometimes very
>> rapidly, and life quickly adapts when it needs to. Where's the
>> problem?
>>
>
> The problem is that it's all *speculation*.
Actually, I think it's just reasonable (even obvious) inference
based on observation. Twenty million years after the dinosaurs
went extinct, the fossil record is littered with new species.
And the species living today show every indication of having
evolved from those. Everything we see in the fossil record
suggests evolution, sometimes faster, sometimes slower;
Nothing, I know of suggests that there have been any creation
events.
>
>
>> As for gradual transitionals, what about our 6 million year
>> transition from chimp like tree dwelling ape to the bipedal
>> tool maker we are today:
>>
>> _Name______________________ When_Lived Brain_Size___
>>
>> Sahelanthropus_tchadensis_: 7-6 myr ~375 cc
>> Australopithecus_Afarensis: 3.9-3.0 myr 375 to 550 cc
>> Australopithecus_Africanus: 3.0-2.0 myr 420 to 500 cc
>> Homo_habilis______________: 2.4-1.5 myr 500 and 800 cc
>> Homo_erectus______________: 1.8-0.3 myr 775 to 1225 cc
>> Homo_sapiens_(archaic)____: 0.5-0.2 myr ~1200 cc
>> Homo_sapiens_(modern)_____: ___________ ~1350 cc
>>
>> For details see:
>> http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/species.html
>>
>> See, lots of evidence, all you needed to do was ask !!
>>
>
> All that 'evidence' is
> 1. circular,
> 2. speculative, and
> 3. cast into serious doubt by recent discoveries.
OK, I agree that fossil skulls are round or circular, but I'm
not sure why that's relevant. I'm also not sure how this
evidence is speculative. We have a series of hominid fossils
showing increasing brain size. You asked for "gradual
transitionals". They look like just what you asked for.
Also, what recent discoveries cast serious doubt on any part of
TOE? I know of none.
>>>> - 3.5 billion years of earths geologic record embedded in
>>>> a 13.5 billion year old universe.
>>>>
>>> What does this have to do with the "T"oE?
>>
>> Well, it's always seemed to me that the fact that it took 3.5
>> billion years for us to get here, is pretty good evidence that God
>> used evolution as one of His instruments in creation. How else
>> could it be understood?
>>
>
> Maybe "God" is a slow mover.
I completely agree. It looks like He used evolution to get us
here.
> I still don't understand the thinking. It took 3.5 billion
> years for airplanes to get here too - are they designed or
> evolved?
Well, this is the first I've heard about blue-green algae
trying to design airplanes during the proterozoic. :-)
This argument looks unusually ridiculous. Why not just accept
that 3.5 billion years of creation doesn't seem reasonable,
unless God was using evolution as His creation process?
>
>
>>
>>>> - vestigial organs like the appendix and leg bones in
>>>> whales.
>>>>
>>> How do you *know* they are "vestigial"?
>>>
>>>
>>>> - the fact that AT LEAST 8% of our DNA is made from Endogenous
>>>> Retroviral fragments, almost all of which are shared with
>>>> chimps and gorillas, which is part of the roughly 99% of DNA
>>>> that we share in common with chimps.
>>>>
>>> Science is now finding that the *differences* between human and chimp
>>> DNA would require some pretty unbelievable mutation rates. They are
>>> "baffled" by this.
>>>
>>> http://www.the-scientist.com/news/20040527/01/
>>> http://pressreleasegold.com/08/16/20.htm
>>
>> Great articles, thanks for pointing them out.
>>
>> However, you didn't address the point I raised. Why do humans
>> and chimps share Retroviral fragraments that amount to at least
>> 8% of our DNA? If they didn't come from a common ancestor
>> where did it all come from? Did God put viral fragments into
>> 8% of our DNA, and use the same fragments in Chimps?
>>
>
> Perhaps. A designer often uses similar programming structures
> and methods on similar machines.
In that case, why aren't the genes of orangutans as similar to
ours as chimps. After all we look as much like them, as we do
chimps.
> On the other hand, maybe both species were infected with the
> same viruses during their shared history on earth.
One of the many problems with this suggestion is that it is
possible to construct a phylogenetic tree using only the viral
DNA fragments that we share with other types of primates. And
you know what; it looks just like the tree you'd get using any
other method. See an example here:
http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=9484
about 1/3rd the way down the page.
So we share HERVs
- almost completely with chimps
- mostly with gorillas
- a lot with orangutans
- about 1/2 with gibbons
- a few with old world monkey's
- and not many with new world monkey's
This looks exactly like an evolutionary tree.
Or was that a duck?
> I really don't know, but I sure don't blindly accept the evolutionary
> explanation. I question everything.
It looks to me like you're blindly rejecting evolution. Why?
John Harshman
Ah, but speciation doesn't depend on niches opening up. It depends
mostly on geographic isolation and slight differences in either
selective environment or response to selection in different
regions/populations. PE has in fact nothing to say about speciation as
an adaptive response, nor does standard population genetics. (Exception:
reinforcement, selection favoring increased reproductive isolation
between two sympatric populations.) So you're on your own here.
What PE does claim that might be relevant is that something (originally
"coadapted gene complexes") prevents responses to selection from
proceeding very far except during speciation events. That means that if
there is going to be adaptation to new niches (according to PE), one
will have to wait for speciation to happen. But you can think of this as
similar to the idea that natural selection within populations has to
wait around for the appropriate mutations to happen; selection doesn't
cause the mutations.
On rereading, this doesn't sound clearly stated to me. I'll try again.
Under both PE and standard popgen, open niches don't cause speciation.
They may allow more species to live in sympatry, and thus the number of
species in a community can increase through migration -- species that
evolve into different niches will not be in competition and will not
competitively exclude each other from habitats. Under both these
theories, speciation is not adaptive, though it may result from
adaptation. However, in both cases adaptation is secondary to geographic
isolation. Without isolation, no speciation happens.
But again, PE says nothing about this. PE is simply a theory that makes
two major claims:
1. Stasis is an active process that prevents species from changing very
much during their existence.
2. Most evolution happens during speciation (because whatever it is that
causes stasis is not operating at such times).
That's all.
John Harshman
> Negative.
>
> PE was an attempt to explain why the geologic fossil record shows no
> signs of that which an evolutionary theory necessitates (=
> intermediacy). Gould simply asserted that stasis represents antonymic
> rapid evolution in "geologic time" (= fraudulent special pleading).
Have you ever actually read Eldredge & Gould 1972? I doubt it.
> The cornerstone of Science is observation. When "A" (stasis) means "Z"
> (rapid evolution) then religious needs have entered Science; and in
> this case the anti-religious needs of atheism, which is what Gould was:
> an atheist attempting to say that which confirms special creation at
> face value does not mean what is seen.
>
> What should the geologic fossil record look like if SC is true?
>
> Answer: Exactly how it actually looks: no explanations (= excuses)
> needed.
Really? So you expected to see whales with feet, Velociraptors with
feathers, mammals with double jaw joints, insects with wings on their
abdomens, etc.? You expected to see species sorted in the strata roughly
by their similarity to modern species?
And I never get tired of pointing this out: the main evidence for common
descent is not the fossil record, but the traces that descent left in
living species, especially, now that we're able to look, in their genomes.
> Why do Darwinists say that which shows SC means antonymic rapid
> evolution?
>
> Dr. Scott: Darwinism is a penalty from God for denying Him the credit
> and status of Creator.
>
> This is the only explanation since the geologic fossil record shows no
> signs of macroevolution.
>
> That's all.
Ask Dr. Scott what your total ignorance of biology is a penalty for, and
get back to me.
Tiny Bulcher
Ray Martinez wrote:
> Dr. Scott: Darwinism is a penalty from God for denying Him the credit
> and status of Creator.
How does that work? Do you have to stop believing in God as Creator
first, before he blinds you with Darwinism, or do you accept evolution
first, and then conclude from that that God is not a Creator, and then
you get blinded - no, wait, you've already contracted Darwinism, so you
can't get blinded twice ... I'm confused, now. What did God use to
punish atheists with before Darwin?
> This is the only explanation since the geologic fossil record shows no
> signs of macroevolution.
And signs of macroevolution would be what?
--
Tiny
rockytom
amphibians. We have today lungfish which can breath air, fish with
digits which resemble feet and can "walk" from place to place on land.
Development of the amniote egg which freed amphibians from water and
allowed them to develop into reptiles. Reptiles ruled the Earth during
the Mesozoic Era and birds today have developed from ornithician
dinosaurs. Evidence abounds in invertebrate fossils.
Frank J
Yeah you do. Take a best guess. For each of these:
Origin of the universe
First Life on Earth
Cambrian
K/T boundary
S tchadensis
First modern human
You can do it.
> I
> think on one side, the evolutionists are so steeped in their own
> circular reasoning that no timeframe or dating mechanism that doesn't
> jibe with the proposed evolutionary timeframe will ever be allowed.
Do you think that OECs and most IDers also "so steeped in their own
circular reasoning that no timeframe or dating mechanism that doesn't
jibe with their timeframe will ever be allowed "?
> On
> the other hand, biblical literalists will accept no other timeframe than
> the literal 6000 years.
> I'm somewhere in between.
Again. *where* in between. Best guesses will do.
(snip)
Tiny Bulcher
Yes, I know that. But Ray says there are no signs of macroevolution in
the fossil record, and I want to know what he thinks these missing
signs would be - I mean, you must know what they are, in order to know
they are missing, no?
--
Tiny
Alan Morgan
Tiny Bulcher <RSGD...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>Ray Martinez wrote:
>
>> Dr. Scott: Darwinism is a penalty from God for denying Him the credit
>> and status of Creator.
>
>How does that work? Do you have to stop believing in God as Creator
>first, before he blinds you with Darwinism, or do you accept evolution
>first, and then conclude from that that God is not a Creator, and then
>you get blinded - no, wait, you've already contracted Darwinism, so you
>can't get blinded twice ... I'm confused, now. What did God use to
>punish atheists with before Darwin?
Christians.
Alan
--
Defendit numerus
bullpup
Originally, i thought the thread title meant that someone had found where
nando was hiding...
Boikat
wf3h
Wall Of Sleep wrote:
>>
> I really don't know, but I sure don't blindly accept the evolutionary
> explanation. I question everything.
>
except, of course, the ridiculous notion that 'god did it' is science
bullpup
"wf3h" <wf...@vsswireless.net> wrote in message
news:1169264104.1...@51g2000cwl.googlegroups.com...
If he did, he would disqualify himself as a cretinist. In order to be a
"skeptical cretinist", you have to be a hypocrite.
Boikat
Wall Of Sleep
> Wall Of Sleep wrote:
>
>> John Harshman wrote:
>>
>>> Wall Of Sleep wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Friar Broccoli wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Wall Of Sleep wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Friar Broccoli wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Ye Old One wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Bizarre New Form of Life Found in Arctic Ocean, Scientists Announce
>>>>>>>> Kelly Hearn
>>>>>>>> for National Geographic News
>>>>>>>> January 11, 2007
>>>>>>>> http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/01/070111-new-lifeform.html?source=rss
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> An entirely new group of tiny and bizarre marine algae has been
>>>>>>>> discovered in the Arctic Ocean.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> A team of European researchers found the new organisms while analyzing
>>>>>>>> DNA sequences in samples of seawater.
>>>>>>> [snip]
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "These organisms represent a new evolutionary lineage," said team
>>>>>>>> member Fabrice Not. Not is a marine biologist at the Institut de
There are a number of problems with radiometric dating. I don't have
time to dig them all up for you now but here's a nice blurb someone
posted at another forum which makes a pretty good case and includes
several references (I've edited out some the comments):
" 163 Dy (normally stable ) can, under certain conditions beta-decay
into 163 Ho with a t 1/2 (halflife) of ~47days
(see jung, m et al first observation of bound-state b– decay, physical
review letters 69(15)2164–2167, 1992)
the Re-Os system was experimentally, observably, repeatably revealed to,
under certain conditions of b-decay, change its decay rate (usual t 1/2
= ~41-42ga..."ga" = billion(s) of years) being accelerated in excess of
1,000,000,000 times faster than normal
(bosch, f et al observation of bound-state b– decay of fully ionized
187Re physical review letters 77(26)5190–5193, 1996; see also kienle, p
beta-decay experiments and astrophysical implications in: prantzos, n
and harissopulus, s proceedings, nuclei in the cosmos pp181–186, 1999
there are other factors that could lead to even further acceleration of
these processes
that's more than 1 BILLION times faster,
the mechanisms are varied; aside from b b - decay, there is also huge
decay rate fluctuation found under certain temperature conditions in the
Lu-Hf system...the t 1/2 of 176 Lu can be accelerated from ~41ga to
under 4hrs , something in the vicinity of ~14 orders of magnitude,
(kappeler, f, beer, h, and k, wisshak s-process nucleosynthesis—nuclear
physics and the classical model, reports on progress in physics
52:1006–1008, 1989; see also klay, n et al nuclear structure of 176Lu
and its astrophysical consequences physical review c 44(6):2847–2848, 1991)
analyses indicate that there are at least 25 other elements whose
nuclide decay rates are susceptible to considerable alteration and
variance consequent to bound beta decay
(takahashi, k et al bound-state beta decay of highly ionized atoms,
physical review c 36(4)1522–1527, 1987)"
http://www.scienceagogo.com/message_board3/messages/177.shtml
>>> generally. Those that
>>> can't be dated directly are *correlated* with strata that can, and
>>> fossils are one useful tool for correlation, as are various other
>>> similarities -- lithology, remanent magnetism, horizontal continuity, etc.
>> There's a whole bunch of circularity going on in all those methods.
>
> If so, you will be able to explain what's circular about them. Go ahead.
>
I think I've already done that.
>>>> It's a circular process. How much of it is actually "verified"? What
>>>> happens when a fossil is found "out of place"? It is either discarded
>>>> as an anomaly or it is assumed there was some sort of earth upheaval or
>>>> local flood that "mixed up" the strata. The entire fossil record is
>>>> based on the assumption that the "T"oE is true (as is much of biological
>>>> science).
>>> Wrong. The succession of fossils was discovered considerably before the
>>> theory of evolution was advanced, and by people who believed in the
>>> fixity of species. Look up William "Strata" Smith.
>> He was the first to use fossils to date strata - that's true.
>> http://www.unh.edu/esci/explanation.html
>>
>> That doesn't make it right.
>
> But it does mean that no assumption of evolution is required, which was
> my point. Do you agree that you were wrong about that? (If not, explain
> how Smith managed it before there was a ToE.)
>
Well, we've now established that fossils *are* used to date strata. The
evolutionary assumption is more recent, but it colors the dating
none-the-less.
>> It's interesting how you will quote from a centuries old scientist when
>> it suits your needs, but refuse to accept anything but the latest and
>> greatest research in support of a non-evolutionist argument.
>
> This is nonsense. Are you confusing me with someone else?
>
Perhaps. I've been chided several times on this forum for citing any
paper that's more than a few years old.
>>>> As for "change", show me the gradual transitionals. The idea of
>>>> punctuated equilibrium was put forth to try to make evolution match the
>>>> fossil record and it's lack of transitionals. If the fossil record
>>>> verified the "T"oE, there would be no need for PE.
>>> Again, wrong. PE was an attempt at explaining the rarity (not absence)
>>> of smooth, transitional series among closely related species (not
>>> transitional fossils per se, which are common enough).
>> Yeah, they're everywhere!
>
> Archaeopteryx, Tiktaalik, Probainognathus, Ichthyostega, Pakicetus,
> Morganucodon, Ichthyornis, Halkieria, Naraoia, and Anomalocaris, to name
> a few off the top of my head.
>
How do you know these are transitionals and not examples of *lost*
features? The Archaeopteryx for example could be just another
flightless bird like an ostrich or an emu.
>>> Gould spend much
>>> effort trying to remove this creationist misconception of his work, but
>>> without success: once a falsehood becomes common, creationists cling to it.
>> Pot, kettle, black. Talk about clinging to falsehoods!
>
> Which falsehoods? Explain why they're falsehoods.
>
There are many. Of course they won't seem like falsehoods to you. The
main one being that the "T"oE is good science.
>>>>> - 3.5 billion years of earths geologic record embedded in
>>>>> a 13.5 billion year old universe.
>>>> What does this have to do with the "T"oE?
>>> Once you agree that there is a 3.5 billion year geologic record, you
>>> have to accept that faunal succession you disposed of with your
>>> "circularity" argument, which argues for evolution.
>> No you don't. What does the time period have to do with succession?
>
> The usual creationist argument against succession is that radiometric
> dates are useless and that therefore we can't determine the temporal
> succession of deposits, and that therefore any faunal succession is
> illusory. If you agree that radiometric dating works (as you must in
> order to accept a 3.5-billion-year history of life), then faunal
> succession is obvious from the dates of different strata.
>
Faunal succession is defined as:
* A principle or law stating that fossil species succeed one
another in a definite and recognizable order; in general, fossils in
progressively older rock show increasingly greater differences from
species living at present. (See page(s) 186)
highered.mcgraw-hill.com/sites/0072402466/student_view0/chapter8/glossary.html
This we do not see. Aside from perhaps dinosaurs, where are these
"increasingly greater differences"?
>>>>> - vestigial organs like the appendix and leg bones in
>>>>> whales.
>>>> How do you *know* they are "vestigial"?
>>> They don't serve their original purposes of digesting leaves and
>>> walking, respectively. That makes them vestigial. We know their original
>>> purposes on the basis of phylogenetic analysis.
>> Conjecture.
>> Your phylogenetic analysis is based on the assumption of common descent.
>> If you don't assume CD, you don't have vestigial limbs and organs.
>
> Common descent is not an assumption, but a result of analyzing data. If
> you think it's flawed, please explain why. Do species form a single,
> nested hierarchy? If so, what other than common descent can explain
> that? If not, I can easily falsify your claim by presenting actual data.
>
Correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't a nested hierarchy suggest
succession from a more general *type* to more specific *types*? IOW,
you get a nested hierarchy by subtraction, not by addition. This can be
seen in the man-made nested hierarchy created by dog breeding. Breeds
get more and more specific as they're selected out (they also tend to
become more "fragile"). If you allow the (specific) "pure" breeds to
interbreed, they become the more general (and more robust) mutt. They
are in essence reverting back towards the original dog "type". The
nested hierarchy of dog breeds is a nested hierarchy of *loss* not gain.
This is the crux of the arguments made by:
Robert Broom
Broom, R. (1933) Evolution - Is there intelligence behind it? South
African Journal of Science, 30: 1-19
Richard Goldschmidt
Goldschmidt, R. B. (1940) “The Material Basis of Evolution.” Yale
University Press, New Haven.
Pierre Grasse
Grasse, P. (1977 “Evolution of Living Organisms: Evidence for a New
Theory of Transformation.” Academic Press, New York. (Original French
edition 1973).
Prof. John A. Davison (Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis)
http://www.uvm.edu/~jdavison/davison-manifesto.html
Phil Engle (Macrodevelopment)
http://www.fellowshipofstbenedict.org/Fosb_site/macrodevelopment.html
Peter M. Scheele (Degeneration)
http://www.evolutionisdegeneration.com/index.asp?PaginaID=2577
>>>>> - the fact that AT LEAST 8% of our DNA is made from Endogenous
>>>>> Retroviral fragments, almost all of which are shared with
>>>>> chimps and gorillas, which is part of the roughly 99% of DNA
>>>>> that we share in common with chimps.
>>>> Science is now finding that the *differences* between human and chimp
>>>> DNA would require some pretty unbelievable mutation rates. They are
>>>> "baffled" by this.
>>> No, you are baffled. The required mutation rates are not surprising. You
>>> have misinterpreted the news.
>>>
>>>
>>>> http://www.the-scientist.com/news/20040527/01/
>>>> http://pressreleasegold.com/08/16/20.htm
>>> Norhing in these links supports your claim. If you think so you are
>>> confused. I would be happy to correct your misconception if you would
>>> like to explain your thinking in a bit more detail.
>> In order for all 49 of the HAR regions to have evolved in the alloted
>> time period, human mutation rates would have to be much higher than
>> those observed today.
>
> No they wouldn't. What makes you think so? You appear to have confused
> mutation with fixation. The known mutation rate is fast enough for sites
> under positive selection to evolve at much greater than the neutral rate.
>
In higher order mammals? Where is the evidence of this?
>> This forced one serious scientist to speculate
>> that perhaps the "pressure" of walking upright caused humans to
>> hyper-mutate. When you can only believe in evolution, you must
>> constantly grasp at straws to maintain your *belief*.
>
> Please cite this quote. I don't believe it's accurate. But one of you
> has again confused mutation with fixation.
>
I've been looking but can no longer find it. It was in an article about
the paper. It seems to have disappeared from the web though.
>>>>> - observable speciation events, circular species and the like.
>>>> No such thing. A new species cannot revert to it's original form. All
>>>> observed "speciation" can.
>>> Once again you are confused. No observed speciation shows reversion to
>>> an original form. Some adaptive evolution shows reversal when the
>>> environment returns to past conditions. Maybe that's what you are
>>> thinking of. But that wasn't speciation.
>> With all the malleable definitions of "species" floating about nowadays,
>> I'm not surprised that you would say this. The truth is, there are no
>> instances of speciation that you can refer to that 1. meet the classic
>> definition and 2. have been experimentally verified non-reversible.
>
> Which classic definition?
Cannot interbreed and produce a fertile offspring.
> And how would you experimentally verify
> non-reversibility?
By attempts to interbreed with the "old" species.
> I fear that you are very confused about what
> speciation is.
OK. What is it?
(I'll add your definition to the multitude that already exist - it'll be
like "The Definition Of The Day"!)
>
>>>>> Assuming there is a weakness in the scientific logic
>>>>> (non falsifiable) behind evolution, how do you suggest I deal
>>>>> with all this other evidence?
>>>> There's not that much really.
>>> That's only your near total ignorance of the evidence talking. And you
>>> have certainly revealed the extent of your ignorance in this post.
>>>
>>>
>>>> A "theory" is an hypothesis that has been verified experimentally.
>>>>
>>>> How much of the "Theory" of Evolution has actually been verified
>>>> experimentally?
>>> Lots of it. Even more if your misconception about the nature of science
>>> is corrected, and we remove "experimentally"; experimental science is
>>> only one part of the scientific method.
>> The part that least verifies the "T"oE.
>
> Nonsense. Experiment verifies many aspects of evolutionary theory.
Such as?
Cite?
> It
> can't verify processes that take a long time to happen, or events that
> happened a long time ago. But other techniques do that.
>
Circular ones.
>>>> What exactly *is* the "Theory" of Evolution?
>>> Evolutionary biology is actually composed of quite a number of theories.
>>> But I would consider the central "theory of evolution" to be
>>> encapsulated in the idea of common descent, i.e. that all life is
>>> related. There's a vast amount of evidence for that.
>>>
>>>
>>>> What is it's mechanism? It seems to be constantly changing.
>>> Not really. Natural selection has been the dominant mechanism in
>>> theories of adaptive evolution for almost a century now, after a phase
>>> of eclipse following Darwin. And neutral evolution makes a useful
>>> adjunct. The fun is in the details.
>> Natural selection is not a *creative* mechanism. It's an editor, not an
>> author. You must first create a new function/gene for it to be
>> selected. Saying that "IF" this came to be, it would be selected, is a
>> cop out and a no-brainer. "IF" a new gene made an organism impervious
>> to disease - sure - it will be selected (probably), but you must first
>> have a *mechanism* that can create such a gene.
>>
>> Got any?
>
> Your assumption here is that a "new gene" (whatever you mean by that)
I mean a gene that didn't exist in the very first lifeform. Every gene
that ever existed must have been "new" at some point.
> must be created in one mutation and then presented to natural selection
> to accept or reject.
Every mutation must "make it" to the next round. If it does, it was
"selected".
> That's not how it works. New features arise
> gradually through small variations.
Each of which must be selected. If they are not selected (passed on),
how can they be built upon?
> This is why natural selection is a
> creative force -- it constrains these gradual changes along a particular
> pathway.
Unless it can foresee a future use for these mutations (variations), how
does NS "constrains these gradual changes along a particular pathway"?
Natural selection does not have any "goal" (other than survival). It
does not "constrain" *potential* advantages along any "pathway". If it
does, it is a prescribed, predetermined process.
Interestingly, some are arguing that it indeed is:
"In 1988 Harvard geneticist John Cairns and colleagues published
evidence of environmentally induced mutations in the bacterium E. coli.
Their claim was audacious: that under certain conditions the bacteria
spontaneously crafted needed mutations in direct response to stresses in
their environment. Cairns also had the gall to end his paper by
suggesting that whatever process was responsible for the directed
mutations "could, in effect, provide a mechanism for the inheritance of
acquired characteristics" -- a bald allusion to Darwin's rival-in-theory
Jean-Baptiste Lamarck.
Another molecular biologist, Barry Hall, published results which not
only confirmed Cairns's claims but laid on the table startling
additional evidence of direct mutation in nature. Hall found that his
cultures of E. coli would produce needed mutations at a rate about 100
million times greater than would be statistically expected if they came
by chance. Furthermore, when he dissected the genes of these mutated
bacteria by sequencing them, he found mutations in no areas other than
the one where there was selection pressure. This means that the
successful bugs did not desperately throw off all kinds of mutations to
find the one that works; they pinpointed the one alteration that fit the
bill. Hall found some directed variations so complex they required the
mutation of two genes simultaneously. He called that "the improbable
stacked on top of the highly unlikely." These kinds of miraculous change
are not the kosher fare of serial random accumulation that natural
selection is supposed to run on. They have the smell of some design."
http://www.kk.org/outofcontrol/ch19-d.html
> If variation happens in random directions from the current
> point (and it largely does), then natural selection does provide
> direction in the evolution of features.
Only if every random mutation is not disallowed from being passed on by
all the mechanisms that exist to stop it - the organisms own copying
error eliminating processes, natural disasters, sickness, predators,
reproductive isolation (won't breed), infertility (can't breed)... etc.,
*all* of which comprise Natural Selection.
> Only if a new feature must arise
> by a single, large mutation is selection robbed of its creative
> importance.
Wrong. Only if every non-functional (but potentially functional
(down-the-road (if only other mutations can eventually be added
(provided the non-functioning potential system doesn't get corrupted
along the way)))) mutation gets passed on, does NS work in the way you
describe (as a "creative" force).
That's a lot of conditions. Do you have *any* evidence that NS rewards
*potential*
You're right. I misread the sig and didn't get the joke (It's actually
pretty funny!). Sometimes I get a little hurried in my reading and
"skip to the end" - missing key elements. I'll admit that.
Ernest Major
<Sabo...@Vol4.net> writes
>
>There are a number of problems with radiometric dating. I don't have
>time to dig them all up for you now but here's a nice blurb someone
>posted at another forum which makes a pretty good case and includes
>several references (I've edited out some the comments):
Unfortunately most of the papers cited aren't freely available online,
and I can only gone on the abstracts. However ...
>
>" 163 Dy (normally stable ) can, under certain conditions beta-decay
>into 163 Ho with a t 1/2 (halflife) of ~47days
>
>(see jung, m et al first observation of bound-state b– decay,
>physical review letters 69(15)2164–2167, 1992)
See explanation of bound state beta decay below.
This doesn't seem to pose a challenge to the radio-dating of rocks.
>
>the Re-Os system was experimentally, observably, repeatably revealed
>to, under certain conditions of b-decay, change its decay rate (usual t
>1/2 = ~41-42ga..."ga" = billion(s) of years) being accelerated in
>excess of 1,000,000,000 times faster than normal
>
>(bosch, f et al observation of bound-state b– decay of fully ionized
>187Re physical review letters 77(26)5190–5193, 1996; see also kienle,
>p beta-decay experiments and astrophysical implications in: prantzos, n
>and harissopulus, s proceedings, nuclei in the cosmos pp181–186, 1999
>
>there are other factors that could lead to even further acceleration of
>these processes
>
>that's more than 1 BILLION times faster,
See explanation of bound state beta decay below.
This doesn't seem to pose a challenge to the radio-dating of rocks.
>
>the mechanisms are varied; aside from b b - decay, there is also huge
>decay rate fluctuation found under certain temperature conditions in
>the Lu-Hf system...the t 1/2 of 176 Lu can be accelerated from ~41ga to
>under 4hrs , something in the vicinity of ~14 orders of magnitude,
>
>(kappeler, f, beer, h, and k, wisshak s-process
>nucleosynthesis—nuclear physics and the classical model, reports on
>progress in physics 52:1006–1008, 1989; see also klay, n et al
>nuclear structure of 176Lu and its astrophysical consequences physical
>review c 44(6):2847–2848, 1991)
Nuclei have excited states. An excited state can decay to the ground
state by gamma emission. It can also decay by other paths, such as beta
decay. The Klay paper refers to the relevant temperatures for the
existence of the nuclei in excited states as being in the 100 of
millions of Kelvin.
This doesn't seem to pose a challenge to the radio-dating of rocks.
>
>analyses indicate that there are at least 25 other elements whose
>nuclide decay rates are susceptible to considerable alteration and
>variance consequent to bound beta decay
>
>(takahashi, k et al bound-state beta decay of highly ionized atoms,
>physical review c 36(4)1522–1527, 1987)"
Note that this refers to bound state beta decay of highly ionised atoms.
In an un-ionised atom beta decay is slowed by the potential barrier
formed by the electrons surrounding the nucleus. My physics is rather
rusty, but I expect that not needing the extra energy to boost the
electron all the way out the nuclear potential well also speeds the
process. (At the least, if the energy difference between the parent and
daughter nucleus is insufficient for normal beta decay, then ionisation
may be the difference between the decay become possible or not
possible.)
Highly ionised atoms are not found in rocks.
This doesn't seem to pose a challenge to the radio-dating of rocks.
>
>http://www.scienceagogo.com/message_board3/messages/177.shtml
>
--
alias Ernest Major
John Harshman
It appears that these are all forms of beta decay, which can be
influenced by ionization. I had no idea that the possible differences
were so extreme, but I have to suppose that the conditions tested were
equally extreme, the sorts of things you might find in stellar interiors
during supernovae. Bet none of this is relevant to conditions on earth,
and certainly not to other sorts of decay. Notice, by the way, that none
of that has anything to do with any "assumption of evolution".
>>>>generally. Those that
>>>>can't be dated directly are *correlated* with strata that can, and
>>>>fossils are one useful tool for correlation, as are various other
>>>>similarities -- lithology, remanent magnetism, horizontal continuity, etc.
>>>
>>>There's a whole bunch of circularity going on in all those methods.
>>
>>If so, you will be able to explain what's circular about them. Go ahead.
>
> I think I've already done that.
You think wrong. But the simplest thing to do would be to explain it
again, in greater detail and with more clarity.
>>>>>It's a circular process. How much of it is actually "verified"? What
>>>>>happens when a fossil is found "out of place"? It is either discarded
>>>>>as an anomaly or it is assumed there was some sort of earth upheaval or
>>>>>local flood that "mixed up" the strata. The entire fossil record is
>>>>>based on the assumption that the "T"oE is true (as is much of biological
>>>>>science).
>>>>
>>>>Wrong. The succession of fossils was discovered considerably before the
>>>>theory of evolution was advanced, and by people who believed in the
>>>>fixity of species. Look up William "Strata" Smith.
>>>
>>>He was the first to use fossils to date strata - that's true.
>>>http://www.unh.edu/esci/explanation.html
>>>
>>>That doesn't make it right.
>>
>>But it does mean that no assumption of evolution is required, which was
>>my point. Do you agree that you were wrong about that? (If not, explain
>>how Smith managed it before there was a ToE.)
>
> Well, we've now established that fossils *are* used to date strata. The
> evolutionary assumption is more recent, but it colors the dating
> none-the-less.
No, we have established no such thing. Fossils were used to *correlate*
strata, which is quite another thing. Do you see the difference? One is
"X and Y are the same age", and the other is "X is Y years old".
So exactly how does "the evolutionary assumption" color the dating? Be
specific. Give examples if you possibly can.
>>>It's interesting how you will quote from a centuries old scientist when
>>>it suits your needs, but refuse to accept anything but the latest and
>>>greatest research in support of a non-evolutionist argument.
>>
>>This is nonsense. Are you confusing me with someone else?
>
> Perhaps. I've been chided several times on this forum for citing any
> paper that's more than a few years old.
Depends on the field, and on what the paper says, and on how much the
field has advanced since the paper was published.
>>>>>As for "change", show me the gradual transitionals. The idea of
>>>>>punctuated equilibrium was put forth to try to make evolution match the
>>>>>fossil record and it's lack of transitionals. If the fossil record
>>>>>verified the "T"oE, there would be no need for PE.
>>>>
>>>>Again, wrong. PE was an attempt at explaining the rarity (not absence)
>>>>of smooth, transitional series among closely related species (not
>>>>transitional fossils per se, which are common enough).
>>>
>>>Yeah, they're everywhere!
>>
>>Archaeopteryx, Tiktaalik, Probainognathus, Ichthyostega, Pakicetus,
>>Morganucodon, Ichthyornis, Halkieria, Naraoia, and Anomalocaris, to name
>>a few off the top of my head.
>
> How do you know these are transitionals and not examples of *lost*
> features? The Archaeopteryx for example could be just another
> flightless bird like an ostrich or an emu.
No, it was in fact a flying bird. Lost features can be distinguished
from primitive features by phylogenetic analysis. That's how we know
that whales, for example, are not primitively aquatic.
>>>>Gould spend much
>>>>effort trying to remove this creationist misconception of his work, but
>>>>without success: once a falsehood becomes common, creationists cling to it.
>>>
>>>Pot, kettle, black. Talk about clinging to falsehoods!
>>
>>Which falsehoods? Explain why they're falsehoods.
>
> There are many. Of course they won't seem like falsehoods to you. The
> main one being that the "T"oE is good science.
You will have to justify that claim, but I don't think you're equipped
for it.
>>>>>>- 3.5 billion years of earths geologic record embedded in
>>>>>> a 13.5 billion year old universe.
>>>>>
>>>>>What does this have to do with the "T"oE?
>>>>
>>>>Once you agree that there is a 3.5 billion year geologic record, you
>>>>have to accept that faunal succession you disposed of with your
>>>>"circularity" argument, which argues for evolution.
>>>
>>>No you don't. What does the time period have to do with succession?
>>
>>The usual creationist argument against succession is that radiometric
>>dates are useless and that therefore we can't determine the temporal
>>succession of deposits, and that therefore any faunal succession is
>>illusory. If you agree that radiometric dating works (as you must in
>>order to accept a 3.5-billion-year history of life), then faunal
>>succession is obvious from the dates of different strata.
>
> Faunal succession is defined as:
>
> * A principle or law stating that fossil species succeed one
> another in a definite and recognizable order; in general, fossils in
> progressively older rock show increasingly greater differences from
> species living at present. (See page(s) 186)
>
> highered.mcgraw-hill.com/sites/0072402466/student_view0/chapter8/glossary.html
>
> This we do not see. Aside from perhaps dinosaurs, where are these
> "increasingly greater differences"?
That claim reveals nothing more than your total ignorance of the fossil
record. Different modern groups appear in the fossil record at
different times, mostly in order of taxonomic rank: first phyla, then
classes, orders, families, etc. The closer you get to the present, the
more modern groups there are, and the more at lower taxonomic ranks. Are
you familiar at all with the Cambrian biota, for instance? For one
thing, there are no land animals or plants at all in the Cambrian. Many
modern phyla are known, but few modern classes, vanishingly few modern
orders, and no families at all.
>>>>>>- vestigial organs like the appendix and leg bones in
>>>>>> whales.
>>>>>
>>>>>How do you *know* they are "vestigial"?
>>>>
>>>>They don't serve their original purposes of digesting leaves and
>>>>walking, respectively. That makes them vestigial. We know their original
>>>>purposes on the basis of phylogenetic analysis.
>>>
>>>Conjecture.
>>>Your phylogenetic analysis is based on the assumption of common descent.
>>> If you don't assume CD, you don't have vestigial limbs and organs.
>>
>>Common descent is not an assumption, but a result of analyzing data. If
>>you think it's flawed, please explain why. Do species form a single,
>>nested hierarchy? If so, what other than common descent can explain
>>that? If not, I can easily falsify your claim by presenting actual data.
>
> Correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't a nested hierarchy suggest
> succession from a more general *type* to more specific *types*? IOW,
> you get a nested hierarchy by subtraction, not by addition.
No. You are indeed wrong.
> This can be
> seen in the man-made nested hierarchy created by dog breeding. Breeds
> get more and more specific as they're selected out (they also tend to
> become more "fragile"). If you allow the (specific) "pure" breeds to
> interbreed, they become the more general (and more robust) mutt. They
> are in essence reverting back towards the original dog "type". The
> nested hierarchy of dog breeds is a nested hierarchy of *loss* not gain.
Even this is wrong. First, dog breeds are not a nested hierarchy;
different breeds have arisen by breeding together various dogs, not by
splitting previous breeds. Second, many breeds originate from mutations
-- new features that breed true and were not found in their ancestors,
such as the various forms of dwarfism seen in basset hounds, dachshunds,
corgis, and so on.
> This is the crux of the arguments made by:
>
> Robert Broom
> Broom, R. (1933) Evolution - Is there intelligence behind it? South
> African Journal of Science, 30: 1-19
>
> Richard Goldschmidt
> Goldschmidt, R. B. (1940) “The Material Basis of Evolution.” Yale
> University Press, New Haven.
>
> Pierre Grasse
> Grasse, P. (1977 “Evolution of Living Organisms: Evidence for a New
> Theory of Transformation.” Academic Press, New York. (Original French
> edition 1973).
>
> Prof. John A. Davison (Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis)
> http://www.uvm.edu/~jdavison/davison-manifesto.html
>
> Phil Engle (Macrodevelopment)
> http://www.fellowshipofstbenedict.org/Fosb_site/macrodevelopment.html
>
> Peter M. Scheele (Degeneration)
> http://www.evolutionisdegeneration.com/index.asp?PaginaID=2577
I don't believe you have actually read any of these. They are mutually
contradictory, and I don't see that any of them, at least the ones that
I have read, support your notion. Perhaps the last, judging by the
title. But this is easily shown to be nonsense. Species have many
features not found in their ancestors. (And trying to use Goldschmidt to
support a theory of non-evolution is just perverse.)
>>>>>>- the fact that AT LEAST 8% of our DNA is made from Endogenous
>>>>>> Retroviral fragments, almost all of which are shared with
>>>>>> chimps and gorillas, which is part of the roughly 99% of DNA
>>>>>> that we share in common with chimps.
>>>>>
>>>>>Science is now finding that the *differences* between human and chimp
>>>>>DNA would require some pretty unbelievable mutation rates. They are
>>>>>"baffled" by this.
>>>>
>>>>No, you are baffled. The required mutation rates are not surprising. You
>>>>have misinterpreted the news.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>http://www.the-scientist.com/news/20040527/01/
>>>>>http://pressreleasegold.com/08/16/20.htm
>>>>
>>>>Norhing in these links supports your claim. If you think so you are
>>>>confused. I would be happy to correct your misconception if you would
>>>>like to explain your thinking in a bit more detail.
>>>
>>>In order for all 49 of the HAR regions to have evolved in the alloted
>>>time period, human mutation rates would have to be much higher than
>>>those observed today.
>>
>>No they wouldn't. What makes you think so? You appear to have confused
>>mutation with fixation. The known mutation rate is fast enough for sites
>>under positive selection to evolve at much greater than the neutral rate.
>
> In higher order mammals? Where is the evidence of this?
The evidence is pretty simple. The mutation rate in humans is around
10^-9 per site per year. That means that every possible point mutation
happens many times in the human population each and every year. That's a
high enough mutation rate to support the number of mutations you're
talking about in only one generation. Now the actual time would be spent
in fixing those mutations, and that rate depends on parameters like
population size and selective advantage. But the mutation rate is no
problem at all.
>>>This forced one serious scientist to speculate
>>>that perhaps the "pressure" of walking upright caused humans to
>>>hyper-mutate. When you can only believe in evolution, you must
>>>constantly grasp at straws to maintain your *belief*.
>>
>>Please cite this quote. I don't believe it's accurate. But one of you
>>has again confused mutation with fixation.
>
> I've been looking but can no longer find it. It was in an article about
> the paper. It seems to have disappeared from the web though.
More likely, you have misremembered. At any rate, it's not true, and
that's the important point. The rate of mutation is high enough to
account for all differences between human and chimp in a very short
time. What actually controls the amount of difference is the rate of
fixation. For every mutation that is fixed, thousands (or, in the
current population, billions) disappear. The gross rate of fixation is
almost entirely due to drift. Selection can fix alleles much more
quickly, and regions (like the ones you are talking about) that show a
high rate of evolution are almost certainly undergoing positive
selection. This is by no means a conundrum for evolutionary biology.
>>>>>>- observable speciation events, circular species and the like.
>>>>>
>>>>>No such thing. A new species cannot revert to it's original form. All
>>>>>observed "speciation" can.
>>>>
>>>>Once again you are confused. No observed speciation shows reversion to
>>>>an original form. Some adaptive evolution shows reversal when the
>>>>environment returns to past conditions. Maybe that's what you are
>>>>thinking of. But that wasn't speciation.
>>>
>>>With all the malleable definitions of "species" floating about nowadays,
>>>I'm not surprised that you would say this. The truth is, there are no
>>>instances of speciation that you can refer to that 1. meet the classic
>>>definition and 2. have been experimentally verified non-reversible.
>>
>>Which classic definition?
>
> Cannot interbreed and produce a fertile offspring.
This is not the classic definition. Note that the definitions you have
quoted so far do not match this.
>>And how would you experimentally verify
>>non-reversibility?
>
> By attempts to interbreed with the "old" species.
That wouldn't demonstrate non-reversability. It would demonstrate a
current situation, if anything.
>>I fear that you are very confused about what
>>speciation is.
>
> OK. What is it?
> (I'll add your definition to the multitude that already exist - it'll be
> like "The Definition Of The Day"!)
Speciation is the evolution of reproductive isolation between
populations. Note that reproductive isolation does not require the
inability to produce fertile offspring.
What other definitions of speciation do you know of?
>>>>>>Assuming there is a weakness in the scientific logic
>>>>>>(non falsifiable) behind evolution, how do you suggest I deal
>>>>>>with all this other evidence?
>>>>>
>>>>>There's not that much really.
>>>>
>>>>That's only your near total ignorance of the evidence talking. And you
>>>>have certainly revealed the extent of your ignorance in this post.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>A "theory" is an hypothesis that has been verified experimentally.
>>>>>
>>>>>How much of the "Theory" of Evolution has actually been verified
>>>>>experimentally?
>>>>
>>>>Lots of it. Even more if your misconception about the nature of science
>>>>is corrected, and we remove "experimentally"; experimental science is
>>>>only one part of the scientific method.
>>>
>>>The part that least verifies the "T"oE.
>>
>>Nonsense. Experiment verifies many aspects of evolutionary theory.
>
> Such as?
> Cite?
To pick one at random, the Luria-Delbruck experiments showed that
mutations are random with respect to the needs of the organism.
>>It
>>can't verify processes that take a long time to happen, or events that
>>happened a long time ago. But other techniques do that.
>
> Circular ones.
So you say, but you have presented no argument for circularity.
>>>>>What exactly *is* the "Theory" of Evolution?
>>>>
>>>>Evolutionary biology is actually composed of quite a number of theories.
>>>>But I would consider the central "theory of evolution" to be
>>>>encapsulated in the idea of common descent, i.e. that all life is
>>>>related. There's a vast amount of evidence for that.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>What is it's mechanism? It seems to be constantly changing.
>>>>
>>>>Not really. Natural selection has been the dominant mechanism in
>>>>theories of adaptive evolution for almost a century now, after a phase
>>>>of eclipse following Darwin. And neutral evolution makes a useful
>>>>adjunct. The fun is in the details.
>>>
>>>Natural selection is not a *creative* mechanism. It's an editor, not an
>>>author. You must first create a new function/gene for it to be
>>>selected. Saying that "IF" this came to be, it would be selected, is a
>>>cop out and a no-brainer. "IF" a new gene made an organism impervious
>>>to disease - sure - it will be selected (probably), but you must first
>>>have a *mechanism* that can create such a gene.
>>>
>>>Got any?
>>
>>Your assumption here is that a "new gene" (whatever you mean by that)
>
> I mean a gene that didn't exist in the very first lifeform. Every gene
> that ever existed must have been "new" at some point.
No, that's not true. Suppose, for example, that gene A is duplicated. We
now have two genes. But which one is new? They're both copies of A. If
they diverge, giving us A' and A'', is there a new gene, or two new
genes, or none?
Most evolution, by the way, probably doesn't result from new genes, just
changes in old ones, even without duplication. Or there could be changes
in regulatory sequences that may or may not be part of genes, depending
on how you like to count it.
>>must be created in one mutation and then presented to natural selection
>>to accept or reject.
>
> Every mutation must "make it" to the next round. If it does, it was
> "selected".
You miss the whole point. The question is about the magnitude of the
individual changes.
>>That's not how it works. New features arise
>>gradually through small variations.
>
> Each of which must be selected. If they are not selected (passed on),
> how can they be built upon?
That's right. They're selected.
>>This is why natural selection is a
>>creative force -- it constrains these gradual changes along a particular
>>pathway.
>
> Unless it can foresee a future use for these mutations (variations), how
> does NS "constrains these gradual changes along a particular pathway"?
Because that's the pathway that is advantageous. Why does water run
downhill? Can it see the ocean approaching and wants to get there? No,
it merely responds to the local slope of the land.
> Natural selection does not have any "goal" (other than survival). It
> does not "constrain" *potential* advantages along any "pathway". If it
> does, it is a prescribed, predetermined process.
The environment constrains certain changes to be advantageous or not.
Nothing more than that.
> Interestingly, some are arguing that it indeed is:
They are wrong. Further research has shown that what's going on is
merely an evolved response to stress: an increase in the rate of
mutation. There is no change in the ratio of useful to non-useful
mutations. These are not targeted or prescribed mutations, must more
mutations. The bacterial clone is just throwing lots of darts at the
target of selection in hopes that some of them will hit the bullseye.
This turns out not to be correct.
>>If variation happens in random directions from the current
>>point (and it largely does), then natural selection does provide
>>direction in the evolution of features.
>
> Only if every random mutation is not disallowed from being passed on by
> all the mechanisms that exist to stop it - the organisms own copying
> error eliminating processes, natural disasters, sickness, predators,
> reproductive isolation (won't breed), infertility (can't breed)... etc.,
> *all* of which comprise Natural Selection.
I have no idea what you are trying to get at there.
>>Only if a new feature must arise
>>by a single, large mutation is selection robbed of its creative
>>importance.
>
> Wrong. Only if every non-functional (but potentially functional
> (down-the-road (if only other mutations can eventually be added
> (provided the non-functioning potential system doesn't get corrupted
> along the way)))) mutation gets passed on, does NS work in the way you
> describe (as a "creative" force).
>
> That's a lot of conditions. Do you have *any* evidence that NS rewards
> *potential*
No. It doesn't, and such a claim suggests you have no idea what I'm
trying to say. Let's try an analogy. Suppose that a drunk is trying to
get home. He sets out in a random direction, lurching to a new random
direction every few seconds. I, standing behind him, give him a shove
back to his starting point every time he heads in the wrong direction,
but leave him alone every time he heads in the right direction.
Eventually, he will get home. Now, who got him there? I never pushed him
in the right direction; I just eliminated all his wrong choices. Was I a
creative force or not? I would claim that I was.
I believe you're doing that with evolution too. You constantly
misinterpret what people are saying here in order to make them wrong in
your head.
Friar Broccoli
> Friar Broccoli wrote:
>> Friar Broccoli wrote:
>>>John Harshman wrote:
>>>>Friar Broccoli wrote:
>>>>> Well it seems to me that Punk-Eeek is "needed" when there are
>>>>> dramatic changes in the environment. Do you think evolution
>>>>> should have proceeded slowly after the dinosaurs were
>>>>> exterminated by an asteroid? Change occurs, sometimes very
>>>>> rapidly, and life quickly adapts when it needs to. Where's the
>>>>> problem?
>>>> I would like to point out that what you describe here is
>>>> not PE. PE is a very specific theory, that major
>>>> evolutionary change is coincident with speciation. That has
>>>> nothing to do with long-term rates of evolution or with
>>>> fluctuation in evolutionary rates, per se.
I note that on a simple reading your statement here:
"[PE has] nothing to do with [...] fluctuation in evolutionary
rates, per se."
appears to be in direct contradiction with one of your final
statements below:
"Stasis is an active process that prevents species from
changing very much during their existence."
>>> Thanks. I have never read anything about PE.
>>> Just doing my usual thing of making it up as I go along.
>> I just thought about this some more. I'm not sure that I made a
>> mistake. After a major extinction event many new niches will
>> open up and be filled by new species, derived from the ones
>> that survived. I used the word "adapt" but was thinking in terms
>> of speciation as a type of adaptation.
>> Does intending to have meant something count here?
> Ah, but speciation doesn't depend on niches opening up.
As I understand things, the above statement is well ... false:
My favorite example is sticklebacks that have been trapped in 5
different lakes in northern BC. In all five lakes they
independently developed into two different species; one with a
large mouth that feeds on large prey close to shore, the other
with a small mouth that feeds on plankton in open water.
http://www.answers.com/topic/speciation (search for "sticklebacks")
Then there are hawthorn flies (rhagoletis) that moved to apples,
which I know you know about, and just view as a special case of
isolation.
Then there are codling moths that in addition to going from
apples to walnuts and then plums also changed its mating time
as an adaptation to the fruit ripening cycle, which I suspect
you will also reinterpret as a special case of isolation.
Then there are the 2000 different species of cichlids in the
lakes closely connected to Lake Victoria, which seem to
speciate every time some female decides she would prefer
another color scheme. Cichlids in these and many other lakes
frequently find new niches as part of their speciation
processes.
It is also my general understanding that when pests are
effectively controlled, then another pest that formerly fed on
another crop but is resistant to the pest control measure will
quickly adapt (and speciate) to take advantage of the new
opportunity.
I have summarised my "adaptation is really first" (sometimes)
view below, in response to another point.
> It depends mostly on geographic isolation and slight
> differences in either selective environment or response to
> selection in different regions/populations. PE has in fact
> nothing to say about speciation as an adaptive response, nor
> does standard population genetics. (Exception: reinforcement,
> selection favoring increased reproductive isolation between
> two sympatric populations.) So you're on your own here.
From my understanding of PE it can be interpreted to fit my
model. See my comments below on your two ending points.
> What PE does claim that might be relevant is that something
> (originally "coadapted gene complexes") prevents responses to
> selection from proceeding very far except during speciation
> events. That means that if there is going to be adaptation to
> new niches (according to PE), one will have to wait for
> speciation to happen. But you can think of this as similar to
> the idea that natural selection within populations has to wait
> around for the appropriate mutations to happen; selection
> doesn't cause the mutations.
In the following paragraph YOU say:
"species that evolve into different niches will not be in
competition and will not competitively exclude each other from
habitats"
which just means that mutations that are useful but less than
optimal will be positively selected for when new niches open
up. And as the examples above illustrate when new
resources/niches become available, speciation will happen and
fast. (more below)
> On rereading, this doesn't sound clearly stated to me. I'll
> try again. Under both PE and standard popgen, open niches
> don't cause speciation. They may allow more species to live in
> sympatry, and thus the number of species in a community can
> increase through migration -- species that evolve into
> different niches will not be in competition and will not
> competitively exclude each other from habitats. Under both
> these theories, speciation is not adaptive, though it may
> result from adaptation. However, in both cases adaptation is
> secondary to geographic isolation. Without isolation, no
> speciation happens.
I don't think your claim here that "adaptation is _secondary_"
is coherent. If a few members of a species develop a "taste"
for a new resource, that change in taste will essentially
always cause some type of breeding isolation in space, time or
sexual selection. Thus it is clear that the adaptive change to
the new resource was the primary (not secondary) driver/impetus
toward speciation.
> But again, PE says nothing about this. PE is simply a theory
> that makes two major claims:
> 1. Stasis is an active process that prevents species from
> changing very much during their existence.
As I understand it stasis results from the fact that the user
of a resource is already the most efficient occupier of that
niche, and thus tends to retain its optimal characteristics.
Of course the corollary of that is that other groups already
efficiently occupy the nearby alternative niches, thus all
attempts by specialists to cross into the neighbouring niches
will be will be blocked.
After an extinction event most of this efficient competition is
gone from many niches so adaptive speciation by users who are
not efficient can proceed.
Thus extinction events punctuate a static equilibrium.
(Of course other things, like opening up dry land resources
during the Devonian, or the movement of air breathers back into
the water will have similar effects. Extinction events are
simply the most dramatic example)
> 2. Most evolution happens during speciation (because whatever
> it is that causes stasis is not operating at such times).
Replacing "evolution" with "adaptation" I can say:
- Most adaptation happens during speciation
or
- Most speciation happens during adaptation
as far as I can tell the two sentences are equally true and
thus no priority is established.
Thus in summary, I think Punk-Eeek has a lot to do with
extinction events, which reopen niches thereby causing (or
allowing if you prefer) speciation events.
> That's all.
Not while I can draw breath it's not ;-)
Friar Broccoli
Wall Of Sleep wrote:
[ giant snip]
> >>>>> --------- I consider ALL arguments in support of my views ---------
[ snip ]
> ... I misread the sig and didn't get the joke (It's actually
> pretty funny!).
Thanks !!
[ snip ]
Augray
wrote in <5dwsh.277$dk1.168@trndny03> :
>John Harshman wrote:
>> Wall Of Sleep wrote:
>>
>>> John Harshman wrote:
>>>
>>>> Wall Of Sleep wrote:
[snip]
>>>>> As for "change", show me the gradual transitionals. The idea of
>>>>> punctuated equilibrium was put forth to try to make evolution match the
>>>>> fossil record and it's lack of transitionals. If the fossil record
>>>>> verified the "T"oE, there would be no need for PE.
>>>> Again, wrong. PE was an attempt at explaining the rarity (not absence)
>>>> of smooth, transitional series among closely related species (not
>>>> transitional fossils per se, which are common enough).
>>> Yeah, they're everywhere!
>>
>> Archaeopteryx, Tiktaalik, Probainognathus, Ichthyostega, Pakicetus,
>> Morganucodon, Ichthyornis, Halkieria, Naraoia, and Anomalocaris, to name
>> a few off the top of my head.
>>
>
>How do you know these are transitionals and not examples of *lost*
>features? The Archaeopteryx for example could be just another
>flightless bird like an ostrich or an emu.
Archaeopteryx could glide at the very least. Aside from that,
Archaeopteryx had several features possessed by conventional dinosaurs
but lacking in living birds, such as teeth, gastralia, and a fifth
metatarsal.
[snip the rest]
richardal...@googlemail.com
On Jan 20, 9:55 pm, Wall Of Sleep <Sabot...@Vol4.net> wrote:
> John Harshman wrote:
> > Wall Of Sleep wrote:
>
> >> John Harshman wrote:
>
> >>> Wall Of Sleep wrote:
>
> >>>> Friar Broccoli wrote:
>
> >>>>> Wall Of Sleep wrote:
>
> >>>>>> Friar Broccoli wrote:
>
> >>>>>>> Ye Old One wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>> Bizarre New Form of Life Found in Arctic Ocean, Scientists Announce
> >>>>>>>> Kelly Hearn
> >>>>>>>> for National Geographic News
> >>>>>>>> January 11, 2007
> >>>>>>>>http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/01/070111-new-lifeform.h...
>
> >>>>>>>> An entirely new group of tiny and bizarre marine algae has been
> >>>>>>>> discovered in the Arctic Ocean.
>
> >>>>>>>> A team of European researchers found the new organisms while analyzing
> >>>>>>>> DNA sequences in samples of seawater.
> >>>>>>> [snip]
>
> >>>>>>>> "These organisms represent a new evolutionary lineage," said team
> >>>>>>>> member Fabrice Not. Not is a marine biologist at the Institut de
> >>>>>>>> Cičncies del Mar, a part of Spain's National Research Council.
> > per unit time. Evolution has nothing at all to do with it.There are a number of problems with radiometric dating. I don't have
> time to dig them all up for you now but here's a nice blurb someone
> posted at another forum which makes a pretty good case and includes
> several references (I've edited out some the comments):
>
> " 163 Dy (normally stable ) can, under certain conditions beta-decay
> into 163 Ho with a t 1/2 (halflife) of ~47days
>
> (see jung, m et al first observation of bound-state b- decay, physical
> review letters 69(15)2164-2167, 1992)
>
> the Re-Os system was experimentally, observably, repeatably revealed to,
> under certain conditions of b-decay, change its decay rate (usual t 1/2
> = ~41-42ga..."ga" = billion(s) of years) being accelerated in excess of
> 1,000,000,000 times faster than normal
>
> (bosch, f et al observation of bound-state b- decay of fully ionized
> 187Re physical review letters 77(26)5190-5193, 1996; see also kienle, p
> beta-decay experiments and astrophysical implications in: prantzos, n
> and harissopulus, s proceedings, nuclei in the cosmos pp181-186, 1999
>
> there are other factors that could lead to even further acceleration of
> these processes
>
> that's more than 1 BILLION times faster,
>
> the mechanisms are varied; aside from b b - decay, there is also huge
> decay rate fluctuation found under certain temperature conditions in the
> Lu-Hf system...the t 1/2 of 176 Lu can be accelerated from ~41ga to
> under 4hrs , something in the vicinity of ~14 orders of magnitude,
>
> (kappeler, f, beer, h, and k, wisshak s-process nucleosynthesis-nuclear
> physics and the classical model, reports on progress in physics
> 52:1006-1008, 1989; see also klay, n et al nuclear structure of 176Lu
> and its astrophysical consequences physical review c 44(6):2847-2848, 1991)
>
> analyses indicate that there are at least 25 other elements whose
> nuclide decay rates are susceptible to considerable alteration and
> variance consequent to bound beta decay
>
> (takahashi, k et al bound-state beta decay of highly ionized atoms,
> physical review c 36(4)1522-1527, 1987)"
>
> http://www.scienceagogo.com/message_board3/messages/177.shtml
>
> >>> generally. Those that
> >>> can't be dated directly are *correlated* with strata that can, and
> >>> fossils are one useful tool for correlation, as are various other
> >>> similarities -- lithology, remanent magnetism, horizontal continuity, etc.
> >> There's a whole bunch of circularity going on in all those methods.
>
> > If so, you will be able to explain what's circular about them. Go ahead.I think I've already done that.
>
>
>
> >>>> It's a circular process. How much of it is actually "verified"? What
> >>>> happens when a fossil is found "out of place"? It is either discarded
> >>>> as an anomaly or it is assumed there was some sort of earth upheaval or
> >>>> local flood that "mixed up" the strata. The entire fossil record is
> >>>> based on the assumption that the "T"oE is true (as is much of biological
> >>>> science).
> >>> Wrong. The succession of fossils was discovered considerably before the
> >>> theory of evolution was advanced, and by people who believed in the
> >>> fixity of species. Look up William "Strata" Smith.
> >> He was the first to use fossils to date strata - that's true.
> >>http://www.unh.edu/esci/explanation.html
>
> >> That doesn't make it right.
>
> > But it does mean that no assumption of evolution is required, which was
> > my point. Do you agree that you were wrong about that? (If not, explain
> > how Smith managed it before there was a ToE.)Well, we've now established that fossils *are* used to date strata.
No, we haven't. We've established that fossils are used to *correlate*
strata. There are no "evolutionary assumptions" at all in this system.
The
> evolutionary assumption is more recent, but it colors the dating
> none-the-less.
An empty assertion for which you can provide no supporting evidence.
It has been explained to you over and over again that you are wrong in
this. Dating of strata is independent of the use of zone fossils to
correlate strata, and is based on a number of different methods, none
of which require "evolutionary assumptions". Rates of sedimentation can
be observed. Rates of decay of radioactive isotopes can be observed.
The orbital precession of the earth can be observed. These observations
have formed the basis of dating methods.
>
> >> It's interesting how you will quote from a centuries old scientist when
> >> it suits your needs, but refuse to accept anything but the latest and
> >> greatest research in support of a non-evolutionist argument.
>
> > This is nonsense. Are you confusing me with someone else?Perhaps. I've been chided several times on this forum for citing any
> paper that's more than a few years old.
>
> >>>> As for "change", show me the gradual transitionals. The idea of
> >>>> punctuated equilibrium was put forth to try to make evolution match the
> >>>> fossil record and it's lack of transitionals. If the fossil record
> >>>> verified the "T"oE, there would be no need for PE.
> >>> Again, wrong. PE was an attempt at explaining the rarity (not absence)
> >>> of smooth, transitional series among closely related species (not
> >>> transitional fossils per se, which are common enough).
> >> Yeah, they're everywhere!
>
> > Archaeopteryx, Tiktaalik, Probainognathus, Ichthyostega, Pakicetus,
> > Morganucodon, Ichthyornis, Halkieria, Naraoia, and Anomalocaris, to name
> > a few off the top of my head.How do you know these are transitionals and not examples of *lost*
> features? The Archaeopteryx for example could be just another
> flightless bird like an ostrich or an emu.
>
Nonsense.
How many modern birds have teeth?
> >>> Gould spend much
> >>> effort trying to remove this creationist misconception of his work, but
> >>> without success: once a falsehood becomes common, creationists cling to it.
> >> Pot, kettle, black. Talk about clinging to falsehoods!
>
> > Which falsehoods? Explain why they're falsehoods.There are many. Of course they won't seem like falsehoods to you. The
> main one being that the "T"oE is good science.
>
Well, the overwhelmingly vast majority of the world's scientists think
that it is. It is considered to be good science by every university or
other place of higher learning in which it is taught. It is considered
to be good science by the commercial organisations who make billions
from the application of evolutionary theory.
Perhaps you can explain to us what it is that you know that all these
people don't?
Evidently you must have some overwhelmingly strong argument which will
completely overturn all the assumption made by all these academics,
administrators and financiers, so please share it with us.
RF
> >>>>> - 3.5 billion years of earths geologic record embedded in
> >>>>> a 13.5 billion year old universe.
> >>>> What does this have to do with the "T"oE?
> >>> Once you agree that there is a 3.5 billion year geologic record, you
> >>> have to accept that faunal succession you disposed of with your...
>
> read more »
richardal...@googlemail.com
On Jan 16, 11:25 pm, "Ray Martinez" <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> John Harshman wrote:
> > Ray Martinez wrote:
>
> > > John Harshman wrote:
>
> > >>Wall Of Sleep wrote:
>
> > >>>Friar Broccoli wrote:
>
> > >>>>Wall Of Sleep wrote:
>
> > >>>>>Friar Broccoli wrote:
>
> > >>>>>>Ye Old One wrote:
>
> > >>>>>>>Bizarre New Form of Life Found in Arctic Ocean, Scientists Announce
> > >>>>>>>Kelly Hearn
> > >>>>>>>for National Geographic News
> > >>>>>>>January 11, 2007
> > >>>>>>>http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/01/070111-new-lifeform.h...
> > dates rocks with fossils. SNIP....All geologists do - its not a matter of opinion. But you are not a
> geologist.
>
> How did Lyell get ballpark close to how long ago the Cretaceous period
> ended in the 19th century?
>
By calculating rates of sedimentation based on observations of what
could be observed happening at the time and extrapolating from there.
Isn't it interesting that his calculations were reasonably (in the
sense that they were of the correct order of magnitude at least)
accurate?
Or is this where you claim that tens, if not hundreds of thousands of
scientists working over the better part of two centuries have been
engaged in a campaign deliberately to falsify the evidence?
I suggest that if you make such a sweeping accusation of systematic
dishonesty on the part of so many people that you offer some evidence
at least to support your denigration. A failure to do so would by utter
hypocrisy.
But still, you think that an opposition to dishonesty is the mark of an
atheist, so it is very clear that your moral and ethical values are
deeply flawed.
RF
John Harshman
> John Harshman wrote:
>
>>Friar Broccoli wrote:
>
>
>>>Friar Broccoli wrote:
>
>
>>>>John Harshman wrote:
>
>
>>>>>Friar Broccoli wrote:
>
>
>>>>>>Well it seems to me that Punk-Eeek is "needed" when there are
>>>>>>dramatic changes in the environment. Do you think evolution
>>>>>>should have proceeded slowly after the dinosaurs were
>>>>>>exterminated by an asteroid? Change occurs, sometimes very
>>>>>>rapidly, and life quickly adapts when it needs to. Where's the
>>>>>>problem?
>
>
>>>>>I would like to point out that what you describe here is
>>>>>not PE. PE is a very specific theory, that major
>>>>>evolutionary change is coincident with speciation. That has
>>>>>nothing to do with long-term rates of evolution or with
>>>>>fluctuation in evolutionary rates, per se.
>
>
> I note that on a simple reading your statement here:
>
> "[PE has] nothing to do with [...] fluctuation in evolutionary
> rates, per se."
>
> appears to be in direct contradiction with one of your final
> statements below:
>
> "Stasis is an active process that prevents species from
> changing very much during their existence."
What I mean to say is that PE isn't about just any fluctuation in
evolutionary rates, but about one particular pattern of difference in
rates, i.e. pretty much zero most of the time, but very fast during
speciation.
All of these are most probably cases of speciation through geographic
isolation, including the Lake Victoria cichlids. The fact that many
species can now occupy the same locality is an indidental effect of the
different paths they followed during their geographic isolation.
>>It depends mostly on geographic isolation and slight
>>differences in either selective environment or response to
>>selection in different regions/populations. PE has in fact
>>nothing to say about speciation as an adaptive response, nor
>>does standard population genetics. (Exception: reinforcement,
>>selection favoring increased reproductive isolation between
>>two sympatric populations.) So you're on your own here.
>
> From my understanding of PE it can be interpreted to fit my
> model. See my comments below on your two ending points.
OK. I'm unsure so far what your model is, exactly.
>>What PE does claim that might be relevant is that something
>>(originally "coadapted gene complexes") prevents responses to
>>selection from proceeding very far except during speciation
>>events. That means that if there is going to be adaptation to
>>new niches (according to PE), one will have to wait for
>>speciation to happen. But you can think of this as similar to
>>the idea that natural selection within populations has to wait
>>around for the appropriate mutations to happen; selection
>>doesn't cause the mutations.
>
> In the following paragraph YOU say:
>
> "species that evolve into different niches will not be in
> competition and will not competitively exclude each other from
> habitats"
>
> which just means that mutations that are useful but less than
> optimal will be positively selected for when new niches open
> up.
No, it means nothing of the sort. I have no idea how you managed that
interpretation.
> And as the examples above illustrate when new
> resources/niches become available, speciation will happen and
> fast. (more below)
Only if there is some form of geographic isolation. The opening of new
niches does not cause genetic isolation to evolve.
>>On rereading, this doesn't sound clearly stated to me. I'll
>>try again. Under both PE and standard popgen, open niches
>>don't cause speciation. They may allow more species to live in
>>sympatry, and thus the number of species in a community can
>>increase through migration -- species that evolve into
>>different niches will not be in competition and will not
>>competitively exclude each other from habitats. Under both
>>these theories, speciation is not adaptive, though it may
>>result from adaptation. However, in both cases adaptation is
>>secondary to geographic isolation. Without isolation, no
>>speciation happens.
>
> I don't think your claim here that "adaptation is _secondary_"
> is coherent. If a few members of a species develop a "taste"
> for a new resource, that change in taste will essentially
> always cause some type of breeding isolation in space, time or
> sexual selection. Thus it is clear that the adaptive change to
> the new resource was the primary (not secondary) driver/impetus
> toward speciation.
If your chain of reasoning were correct, then yes. But who said that a
change in taste will always, or ever, cause breeding isolation? This
model just doesn't work well.
>>But again, PE says nothing about this. PE is simply a theory
>>that makes two major claims:
>
>
>>1. Stasis is an active process that prevents species from
>> changing very much during their existence.
>
> As I understand it stasis results from the fact that the user
> of a resource is already the most efficient occupier of that
> niche, and thus tends to retain its optimal characteristics.
That's one idea about stasis. In fact it is not the idea on which PE is
founded.
> Of course the corollary of that is that other groups already
> efficiently occupy the nearby alternative niches, thus all
> attempts by specialists to cross into the neighbouring niches
> will be will be blocked.
>
> After an extinction event most of this efficient competition is
> gone from many niches so adaptive speciation by users who are
> not efficient can proceed.
>
> Thus extinction events punctuate a static equilibrium.
That would work if the existence of niches did promote speciation. But
there is little evidence that it does, and much that geographic
isolation is the main factor.
> (Of course other things, like opening up dry land resources
> during the Devonian, or the movement of air breathers back into
> the water will have similar effects. Extinction events are
> simply the most dramatic example)
>
>
>
>>2. Most evolution happens during speciation (because whatever
>> it is that causes stasis is not operating at such times).
>
>
> Replacing "evolution" with "adaptation" I can say:
>
> - Most adaptation happens during speciation
> or
> - Most speciation happens during adaptation
>
> as far as I can tell the two sentences are equally true and
> thus no priority is established.
I would say that the two are not equivalent. The first is almost
certainly false, and the second is probably true, but only in the sense
that adaptation is always happening, and that speciation may result from
the incidental effects of adaptation to different environments in
geographically isolated populations.
> Thus in summary, I think Punk-Eeek has a lot to do with
> extinction events, which reopen niches thereby causing (or
> allowing if you prefer) speciation events.
In order to do this, I think it's necessary to misunderstand the content
of PE and the speciation process.
>>That's all.
>
>
> Not while I can draw breath it's not ;-)
I recommend, for understanding of PE, the initial paper on the subject,
Eldredge, N., and S. J. Gould. 1972. Punctuated equilibria: an
alternative to phyletic gradualism. Pages 82-115 in Models of
Paleobiology (T. J. M. Schopf, ed.) or Gould's big book. For speciation,
the book of that title by Jerry Coyne and H. Allen Orr.
Friar Broccoli
What I was after was: Exactly what was wrong with my initial
statement. I've finally done what I should have done to start
with and read some faqs on PE. I now understand that it is
(on my reading) focused on the idea that evolution (adaptation
and speciation) occurs in small groups apart from the main
population. This obviously has nothing to do with extinction
events, as I suggested.
Thanks for pointing me in the right direction. I will be more
careful on this issue in the future. No doubt many new mistakes
and misunderstandings lie before me.
Wall Of Sleep
Even during their formation?
John Harshman
Yes. The ions in magma are only slightly ionized. By "highly ionized" I
think they're talking about much more than valence electrons; they're
talking about stripping away the inner electron shells too.
Ernest Major
>Ernest Major wrote:
>> In message <5dwsh.277$dk1.168@trndny03>, Wall Of Sleep
>><Sabo...@Vol4.net> writes
>>>
>>> There are a number of problems with radiometric dating. I don't
>>>have time to dig them all up for you now but here's a nice blurb
>>>someone posted at another forum which makes a pretty good case and
>>>includes several references (I've edited out some the comments):
>> Unfortunately most of the papers cited aren't freely available
>>online, and I can only gone on the abstracts. However ...
>>>
>>> " 163 Dy (normally stable ) can, under certain conditions
>>>beta-decay into 163 Ho with a t 1/2 (halflife) of ~47days
>>>
>>> (see jung, m et al first observation of bound-state b– decay,
>>>physical review letters 69(15)2164–2167, 1992)
>> See explanation of bound state beta decay below.
>> This doesn't seem to pose a challenge to the radio-dating of rocks.
>>>
>>> the Re-Os system was experimentally, observably, repeatably revealed
>>>to, under certain conditions of b-decay, change its decay rate (usual
>>>t 1/2 = ~41-42ga..."ga" = billion(s) of years) being accelerated in
>>>excess of 1,000,000,000 times faster than normal
>>>
>>> (bosch, f et al observation of bound-state b– decay of fully
>>>ionized 187Re physical review letters 77(26)5190–5193, 1996; see
>>>also kienle, p beta-decay experiments and astrophysical implications
>>>in: prantzos, n and harissopulus, s proceedings, nuclei in the cosmos
Not even during their formation. (One also wonders why you would think
it would help your case if it did.)
--
alias Ernest Major
Wall Of Sleep
OK. "Correlating" strata based on fossils is a procedure based on the
assumption that certain fossils *only* appear in certain strata. If
this method is used, it can give the appearance of any type of
*previously defined* succession. Not only are "X and Y" the same age,
but "X and Y" also came before "Z".
For example, if a level of strata is unearthed that contains only
prokaryotes, is it "newer" or "older" than one containing mammals?
It's circular reasoning in it's purest form.
>>>> It's interesting how you will quote from a centuries old scientist when
>>>> it suits your needs, but refuse to accept anything but the latest and
>>>> greatest research in support of a non-evolutionist argument.
>>> This is nonsense. Are you confusing me with someone else?
>> Perhaps. I've been chided several times on this forum for citing any
>> paper that's more than a few years old.
>
> Depends on the field, and on what the paper says, and on how much the
> field has advanced since the paper was published.
>
>>>>>> As for "change", show me the gradual transitionals. The idea of
>>>>>> punctuated equilibrium was put forth to try to make evolution match the
>>>>>> fossil record and it's lack of transitionals. If the fossil record
>>>>>> verified the "T"oE, there would be no need for PE.
>>>>> Again, wrong. PE was an attempt at explaining the rarity (not absence)
>>>>> of smooth, transitional series among closely related species (not
>>>>> transitional fossils per se, which are common enough).
>>>> Yeah, they're everywhere!
>>> Archaeopteryx, Tiktaalik, Probainognathus, Ichthyostega, Pakicetus,
>>> Morganucodon, Ichthyornis, Halkieria, Naraoia, and Anomalocaris, to name
>>> a few off the top of my head.
>> How do you know these are transitionals and not examples of *lost*
>> features? The Archaeopteryx for example could be just another
>> flightless bird like an ostrich or an emu.
>
> No, it was in fact a flying bird.
Which Archaeopteryx are you talking about?
"The relationships of the specimens are problematic. Most specimens have
been given their own species at one point or another. The Berlin
specimen has been designated as Archaeornis siemensii, the Eichstätt
specimen as Jurapteryx recurva, the Munich specimen as Archaeopteryx
bavarica and the Solnhofen specimen was designated as Wellnhoferia grandis.
"Recently, it has been argued that all the specimens belong to the same
species (New Scientist, 17 April 2004, p.17). However, significant
differences exist among the specimens. In particular, the Munich,
Eichstätt, Solnhofen and Thermopolis specimens differ from the London,
Berlin, and Haarlem specimens in being smaller or much larger, having
different finger proportions, having more slender snouts, lined with
forward-pointing teeth and possible presence of a sternum. These
differences are as large as or larger than the differences seen today
between adults of different bird species. However, it is also possible
that these differences could be explained by different ages of the
living birds."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaeopteryx
> Lost features can be distinguished
> from primitive features by phylogenetic analysis. That's how we know
> that whales, for example, are not primitively aquatic.
>
We don't "know" this. It is hypothesized based on the evidence as
interpreted through the evolutionary assumption.
And there it is. You asked above how the assumption of evolution colors
fossil dating, then you provide the answer.
This fossil record is all correlated *based on* which fossils appear in
which strata. (Remember "X and Y are the same age"?)
Circular.
>>>>>>> - vestigial organs like the appendix and leg bones in
>>>>>>> whales.
>>>>>> How do you *know* they are "vestigial"?
>>>>> They don't serve their original purposes of digesting leaves and
>>>>> walking, respectively. That makes them vestigial. We know their original
>>>>> purposes on the basis of phylogenetic analysis.
>>>> Conjecture.
>>>> Your phylogenetic analysis is based on the assumption of common descent.
>>>> If you don't assume CD, you don't have vestigial limbs and organs.
>>> Common descent is not an assumption, but a result of analyzing data. If
>>> you think it's flawed, please explain why. Do species form a single,
>>> nested hierarchy? If so, what other than common descent can explain
>>> that? If not, I can easily falsify your claim by presenting actual data.
>> Correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't a nested hierarchy suggest
>> succession from a more general *type* to more specific *types*? IOW,
>> you get a nested hierarchy by subtraction, not by addition.
>
> No. You are indeed wrong.
How so?
>
>> This can be
>> seen in the man-made nested hierarchy created by dog breeding. Breeds
>> get more and more specific as they're selected out (they also tend to
>> become more "fragile"). If you allow the (specific) "pure" breeds to
>> interbreed, they become the more general (and more robust) mutt. They
>> are in essence reverting back towards the original dog "type". The
>> nested hierarchy of dog breeds is a nested hierarchy of *loss* not gain.
>
> Even this is wrong. First, dog breeds are not a nested hierarchy;
> different breeds have arisen by breeding together various dogs, not by
> splitting previous breeds.
The proposed evolutionary "tree" provides no less "sloppy" a nested
hierarchy than dog breeds. In fact it's more like a multi-stemmed bush
than a true tree.
> Second, many breeds originate from mutations
> -- new features that breed true and were not found in their ancestors,
> such as the various forms of dwarfism seen in basset hounds, dachshunds,
> corgis, and so on.
>
Dwarfism is common to all mammals. It's not really a "new" feature. It
is a mutation though - you're right about that.
>> This is the crux of the arguments made by:
>>
>> Robert Broom
>> Broom, R. (1933) Evolution - Is there intelligence behind it? South
>> African Journal of Science, 30: 1-19
>>
>> Richard Goldschmidt
>> Goldschmidt, R. B. (1940) “The Material Basis of Evolution.” Yale
>> University Press, New Haven.
>>
>> Pierre Grasse
>> Grasse, P. (1977 “Evolution of Living Organisms: Evidence for a New
>> Theory of Transformation.” Academic Press, New York. (Original French
>> edition 1973).
>>
>> Prof. John A. Davison (Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis)
>> http://www.uvm.edu/~jdavison/davison-manifesto.html
>>
>> Phil Engle (Macrodevelopment)
>> http://www.fellowshipofstbenedict.org/Fosb_site/macrodevelopment.html
>>
>> Peter M. Scheele (Degeneration)
>> http://www.evolutionisdegeneration.com/index.asp?PaginaID=2577
>
> I don't believe you have actually read any of these.
I've read most of Prof. Davison's papers (which draw heavily from the
Grasse, Goldschmidt, Broom papers). I've perused the Engle paper (which
I only recently discovered), and I've read the Scheele book.
> They are mutually
> contradictory,
Perhaps in details, but not in the general sense. They all espouse a
non-random "directed" evolution. Some are more "top down" than others
but all reject Darwinism and Neo-Darwinism.
> and I don't see that any of them, at least the ones that
> I have read, support your notion.
Which ones have *you* read?
> Perhaps the last, judging by the
> title. But this is easily shown to be nonsense. Species have many
> features not found in their ancestors.
Name some.
> (And trying to use Goldschmidt to
> support a theory of non-evolution is just perverse.)
>
"Richard Goldschmidt (1878-1958), a brilliant but unorthodox geneticist,
did not believe that Charles Darwin's idea of slow, gradual changes
could account for the origin of species...
"Although he recognized the constant accumulation of small changes in
populations (microevolution), he believed they did not lead to
speciation. Between true species he saw "bridgeless gaps" that could
only be accounted for by large sudden jumps, resulting in "hopeful
monsters.""
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/people/richard_goldschmidt.html
"However, even more heretical was his view that these abrupt
macroevolutionary changes need not occur as a result of a gene mutation
at all. Phenotypic changes, identical to those produced by genetic
mutations, could occur in response to serious environmental stress. He
referred to these as "phenocopies". Later he came to the conclusion that
these abrupt macroevolutionary changes were the result of a complete
repatterning or "reshuffling" of the chromosomal architecture, which
could have
"a huge effect upon a series of developmental processes, leading at
once to a new and stable form by diverging from the former."
"In other words, he considered that changes acquired during the course
of the life of living things - could be fixed genetically, thereby
stating - in a perhaps more acceptable manner - Lamarck's heretical
thesis that acquired characteristics could be transmitted genetically.
"Perhaps even more heretical was his view that these "systemic
mutations", as he referred to them, "rarely occurred by chance". In
other words, they were directive rather than random - again a notion
that could not possibly be reconciled with the neo-Darwinian thesis.
Later Goldschmidt went even so far as to deny the existence of what he
referred to as the "corpuscular gene", and came to view all genetic
changes as alterations in pattern. "
http://www.edwardgoldsmith.org/page29.html
"Contrary to near-unanimity among scientists, he insisted that the
neo-Darwinian theory of micromutations applied only within species and
was no longer tenable as a general theory of evolution. Instead,
Goldschmidt claimed, macroevolution resulted from larger jumps in
genotype - across "bridgeless gaps" - related either to systemic
mutations or to mutations affecting early development."
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0300028237/
>>>>>>> - the fact that AT LEAST 8% of our DNA is made from Endogenous
>>>>>>> Retroviral fragments, almost all of which are shared with
>>>>>>> chimps and gorillas, which is part of the roughly 99% of DNA
>>>>>>> that we share in common with chimps.
>>>>>> Science is now finding that the *differences* between human and chimp
>>>>>> DNA would require some pretty unbelievable mutation rates. They are
>>>>>> "baffled" by this.
>>>>> No, you are baffled. The required mutation rates are not surprising. You
>>>>> have misinterpreted the news.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.the-scientist.com/news/20040527/01/
>>>>>> http://pressreleasegold.com/08/16/20.htm
>>>>> Norhing in these links supports your claim. If you think so you are
>>>>> confused. I would be happy to correct your misconception if you would
>>>>> like to explain your thinking in a bit more detail.
>>>> In order for all 49 of the HAR regions to have evolved in the alloted
>>>> time period, human mutation rates would have to be much higher than
>>>> those observed today.
>>> No they wouldn't. What makes you think so? You appear to have confused
>>> mutation with fixation. The known mutation rate is fast enough for sites
>>> under positive selection to evolve at much greater than the neutral rate.
>> In higher order mammals? Where is the evidence of this?
>
> The evidence is pretty simple. The mutation rate in humans is around
> 10^-9 per site per year.
In the gametes?
> That means that every possible point mutation
> happens many times in the human population each and every year.
Every possible mutation? In the gametes? Every year?
> That's a
> high enough mutation rate to support the number of mutations you're
> talking about in only one generation. Now the actual time would be spent
> in fixing those mutations, and that rate depends on parameters like
> population size and selective advantage. But the mutation rate is no
> problem at all.
>
How are human mutation rates calculated?
According to "Nature":
"How to measure the rate of mutation in modern humans? One approach is
to identify large numbers of random point mutations, which are
transmitted from one generation to another in random families, thereby
allowing one to calculate sex-specific mutation rates. This is a
formidable task, however, and is hardly feasible with available technology."
and...
"By using the formula Y/A = 2alpham /(1 + alpham) on summed internal
branch lengths of human-bonobo-gorilla-siamang-gibbon trees, they
estimated alpham to be 5.2. Clearly, this estimate is based on mutations
that arose during several million years of evolution and does not
necessarily reflect the mutation processes in contemporary human
populations. However, there are no obvious reasons to think that human
alpham would be lower than in other primates. If anything, we should
rather expect human alpham to be higher owing to a longer generation
time and an older age at reproduction than our ancestors and the apes.
The new alpham estimate of 5.2 carries a large 95% confidence interval
(2.44 to ), but it should be noted that it is similar to that obtained
in previous comparisons of homologous X-Y genes10."
http://www.nature.com/ng/journal/v31/n1/full/ng0502-9.html
So human mutation rates are calculated based on the *assumption* of
evolution from a common ancestor - and the proposed timeframe involved.
Isn't that what I said?
(Or did you miss this part? "Clearly, this estimate is *based on*
mutations that arose during several million years of evolution and does
not necessarily reflect the mutation processes in contemporary human
populations. However, there are no obvious reasons to think that human
alpham would be lower than in other primates." Which are, of course,
*based on* the same evolutionary assumption.)
And, I see no mention of your 10^-9 per site per year rate.
>>>> This forced one serious scientist to speculate
>>>> that perhaps the "pressure" of walking upright caused humans to
>>>> hyper-mutate. When you can only believe in evolution, you must
>>>> constantly grasp at straws to maintain your *belief*.
>>> Please cite this quote. I don't believe it's accurate. But one of you
>>> has again confused mutation with fixation.
>> I've been looking but can no longer find it. It was in an article about
>> the paper. It seems to have disappeared from the web though.
>
> More likely, you have misremembered.
I did not. It's the type of things us IDers don't "misremember".
> At any rate, it's not true, and
> that's the important point.
Of course. It was an evolutionist who said it, but since it can be used
against certain elements of the "T"oE, by default it cannot be true.
> The rate of mutation is high enough to
> account for all differences between human and chimp in a very short
> time. What actually controls the amount of difference is the rate of
> fixation. For every mutation that is fixed, thousands (or, in the
> current population, billions) disappear. The gross rate of fixation is
> almost entirely due to drift. Selection can fix alleles much more
> quickly, and regions (like the ones you are talking about) that show a
> high rate of evolution are almost certainly undergoing positive
> selection. This is by no means a conundrum for evolutionary biology.
>
It's so simple! It's a no-brainer! All of this is experimentally
verified I assume?
No?
Oh well, why bother? It's all "possible", so it must've happened - right?
>>>>>>> - observable speciation events, circular species and the like.
>>>>>> No such thing. A new species cannot revert to it's original form. All
>>>>>> observed "speciation" can.
>>>>> Once again you are confused. No observed speciation shows reversion to
>>>>> an original form. Some adaptive evolution shows reversal when the
>>>>> environment returns to past conditions. Maybe that's what you are
>>>>> thinking of. But that wasn't speciation.
>>>> With all the malleable definitions of "species" floating about nowadays,
>>>> I'm not surprised that you would say this. The truth is, there are no
>>>> instances of speciation that you can refer to that 1. meet the classic
>>>> definition and 2. have been experimentally verified non-reversible.
>>> Which classic definition?
>> Cannot interbreed and produce a fertile offspring.
>
> This is not the classic definition. Note that the definitions you have
> quoted so far do not match this.
>
I've never embraced another definition - although, for the sake of
argument, I've referred to "speciation" or "species" using whatever
definition my opponent used.
>>> And how would you experimentally verify
>>> non-reversibility?
>> By attempts to interbreed with the "old" species.
>
> That wouldn't demonstrate non-reversability. It would demonstrate a
> current situation, if anything.
>
It would demonstrate non-reversibility if no amount of breeding could
reverse the speciation process. How else would you demonstrate it?
>>> I fear that you are very confused about what
>>> speciation is.
>> OK. What is it?
>> (I'll add your definition to the multitude that already exist - it'll be
>> like "The Definition Of The Day"!)
>
> Speciation is the evolution of reproductive isolation between
> populations. Note that reproductive isolation does not require the
> inability to produce fertile offspring.
>
> What other definitions of speciation do you know of?
>
# The development of one or more species from an existing species.
www.fao.org/docrep/003/X3910E/X3910E22.htm
# formation of new species through natural selection; occurs when
selective force is intense; accounts for diversity of living things on
planet today.
www.estuaries.gov/glossary.html
# the process by which one or more populations of a species become
genetically different enough to form a new species. This process often
requires populations to be isolated for a long period of time.
www.pbs.org/strangedays/glossary/S.html
# the evolutionary process of differentiation, in which a population of
organisms becomes two or more different species
www.csa.com/hottopics/lang/gloss.php
# Description: Separation of one population into two or more
reproductively isolated, independent evolutionary units. Source:
Specialized encyclopedia and dictionaries
europa.eu.int/comm/research/biosociety/library/glossarylist_en.cfm
# The process whereby a new species arises as a regional variant of a
parent population. It usually involves a small population size. They
become unable to produce fertile offspring when mating with the parent
population, thus preserving whatever adaptations they had acquired in
their somewhat different niche . [120]
williamcalvin.com/BrainForAllSeasons/glossary.htm
# This is the evolution of multiple species from a single founding
(ancestral) species. Closely related forms are usually defined as
species if there is some form of reproductive isolation. Anagenetic
speciation (anagenesis) is where a single species changes over time to
the extent that it is recognized as a new species. see [1: peripatric
speciation . ...
www.ecotao.com/holism/glosoz.htm
# The evolutionary development of new species, usually as one population
separates into two different populations no longer capable of interbreeding.
biology.usgs.gov/s+t/noframe/z999.htm
# formation of new species.
www.csupomona.edu/~jcclark/classes/bio406/glossary.html
# The processes by which a single species splits into two or more species
www.amonline.net.au/evolutionary_biology/glossary.htm
# The form or "species" taken by a metal. Metals such as copper can
appear in numerous forms in the Chesapeake Bay, some far more toxic than
others.
www.mdsg.umd.edu/CBEEC/toxicsrpt/glossary.html
# The development of new species as a result of evolutionary processes.
www.genpromag.com/Glossary~LETTER~S.html
# A group of organisms that are able to interbreed all belong to the
same species. It follows then that organisms that are unable to
interbreed belong to separate species.
www.fisicx.com/quickreference/science/glossary.html
# determination of particular chemical forms of an element, rather than
just the total element. Metals may be speciated by oxidation state
(Cr(VI) vs. Cr(III), for example,) or by successively stronger
extractions from a solid sample.
eies.njit.edu/~kebbekus/definitions-aquatic-chem%20htm.htm
# When a single species splits into two species, usually as the result
of a new character state developing.
scorescience.humboldt.k12.ca.us/fast/teachers/Critters/vocab.html
# the process by which new species arise. The process by which
discontinuities between populations occur due to the development of
mechanisms creating the reproductive isolation of one population from
the other.
www.radford.edu/~swoodwar/CLASSES/GEOG303/humnglos.html
# The evolutionary formation of new biological species, usually by the
division of a single species into two or more genetically distinct ones.
www.angelfire.com/mo2/marivi/Environmental%20Systems%20Glossary.html
# The origin of a new species.
highered.mcgraw-hill.com/sites/0767430220/student_view0/glossary.html
# the process of species formation.
www.eman-rese.ca/eman/reports/publications/rt_biostrat/cbs28.htm
# Evolution of reproductive isolation within an ancestral species,
resulting in two or more descendant species.
evolution.unibe.ch/teaching/GlossarE.htm
# The formation of two or more species from one as the result of
divergent natural selection and response to changes in environmental
conditions.
www.environment.nelson.com/0176169040/glossary.html
# the evolution of a biological species
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
# Speciation refers to the appearance of a new species of life on earth,
particularly as seen in the fossil record. There are many ideas about
the process leading to the creation of new species, each typically based
on any of the Darwinian theories of biological evolution.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciation
# Speciation is a process that occurs naturally in evolution and is
modeled explicitly in some genetic algorithms. Speciation in nature
occurs when two similar reproducing beings evolve to become too
dissimilar to share genetic information effectively or correctly. In the
case of living organisms, they are incapable of mating to produce
offspring. Interesting special cases exist such as a horse and a donkey
mating to produce an infertile mule. ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciation_(genetic_algorithm)
Need more?
>>>>>>> Assuming there is a weakness in the scientific logic
>>>>>>> (non falsifiable) behind evolution, how do you suggest I deal
>>>>>>> with all this other evidence?
>>>>>> There's not that much really.
>>>>> That's only your near total ignorance of the evidence talking. And you
>>>>> have certainly revealed the extent of your ignorance in this post.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> A "theory" is an hypothesis that has been verified experimentally.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> How much of the "Theory" of Evolution has actually been verified
>>>>>> experimentally?
>>>>> Lots of it. Even more if your misconception about the nature of science
>>>>> is corrected, and we remove "experimentally"; experimental science is
>>>>> only one part of the scientific method.
>>>> The part that least verifies the "T"oE.
>>> Nonsense. Experiment verifies many aspects of evolutionary theory.
>> Such as?
>> Cite?
>
> To pick one at random, the Luria-Delbruck experiments showed that
> mutations are random with respect to the needs of the organism.
>
Here's a study that seems to suggest the opposite with respect to rapid
morphological changes among Laysan finches:
http://www.nicholas.duke.edu/people/faculty/pimm/publications/pimmreprints/56_TREE_1988.pdf
Note that these morphological changes happen much too rapidly to be the
result of *random* mutations.
>>> It
>>> can't verify processes that take a long time to happen, or events that
>>> happened a long time ago. But other techniques do that.
>> Circular ones.
>
> So you say, but you have presented no argument for circularity.
All the evidence that supposedly supports the "T"oE is interpreted in a
circular manner. Those of us on the "outside" can see this plainly.
>
>>>>>> What exactly *is* the "Theory" of Evolution?
>>>>> Evolutionary biology is actually composed of quite a number of theories.
>>>>> But I would consider the central "theory of evolution" to be
>>>>> encapsulated in the idea of common descent, i.e. that all life is
>>>>> related. There's a vast amount of evidence for that.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> What is it's mechanism? It seems to be constantly changing.
>>>>> Not really. Natural selection has been the dominant mechanism in
>>>>> theories of adaptive evolution for almost a century now, after a phase
>>>>> of eclipse following Darwin. And neutral evolution makes a useful
>>>>> adjunct. The fun is in the details.
>>>> Natural selection is not a *creative* mechanism. It's an editor, not an
>>>> author. You must first create a new function/gene for it to be
>>>> selected. Saying that "IF" this came to be, it would be selected, is a
>>>> cop out and a no-brainer. "IF" a new gene made an organism impervious
>>>> to disease - sure - it will be selected (probably), but you must first
>>>> have a *mechanism* that can create such a gene.
>>>>
>>>> Got any?
>>> Your assumption here is that a "new gene" (whatever you mean by that)
>> I mean a gene that didn't exist in the very first lifeform. Every gene
>> that ever existed must have been "new" at some point.
>
> No, that's not true. Suppose, for example, that gene A is duplicated. We
> now have two genes. But which one is new?
Neither. (This seems painfully obvious to me!)
> They're both copies of A. If
> they diverge, giving us A' and A'', is there a new gene, or two new
> genes, or none?
>
The one that changes into a gene that is functionally different from
gene A would then be "new" now wouldn't it? (Again, painfully obvious!)
> Most evolution, by the way, probably doesn't result from new genes, just
> changes in old ones, even without duplication. Or there could be changes
> in regulatory sequences that may or may not be part of genes, depending
> on how you like to count it.
You have to get from a proposed first lifeform with "n" genes (n=0? n=1?
n=100?) to the vast amount of genes that have existed in the past and do
exist today. Even if they are all the result of changing one gene into
another, the new gene is still, well, "new".
>
>>> must be created in one mutation and then presented to natural selection
>>> to accept or reject.
>> Every mutation must "make it" to the next round. If it does, it was
>> "selected".
>
> You miss the whole point. The question is about the magnitude of the
> individual changes.
The magnitude has never been in dispute. I'm challenging *your*
mechanism. Your mechanism is gradual, minute changes adding up over time.
>
>>> That's not how it works. New features arise
>>> gradually through small variations.
>> Each of which must be selected. If they are not selected (passed on),
>> how can they be built upon?
>
> That's right. They're selected.
>
Why? What functional advantage do these partial systems and minute
changes offer? You say these are not significant changes, so they are
not fully functional systems. You must show that NS will select for
*potential* then. This you cannot do.
>>> This is why natural selection is a
>>> creative force -- it constrains these gradual changes along a particular
>>> pathway.
>> Unless it can foresee a future use for these mutations (variations), how
>> does NS "constrains these gradual changes along a particular pathway"?
>
> Because that's the pathway that is advantageous.
Ha ha ha! Yeah! Umm, again, *minute* changes and partial systems are
advantageous how?
> Why does water run
> downhill?
Gravity?
Are you suggesting that gravity is the mechanism for evolution? ;)
> Can it see the ocean approaching and wants to get there? No,
> it merely responds to the local slope of the land.
This is the *BEST* argument if favor of the "T"oE ever! I nominate it
for "Argument of the Century"!
>
>> Natural selection does not have any "goal" (other than survival). It
>> does not "constrain" *potential* advantages along any "pathway". If it
>> does, it is a prescribed, predetermined process.
>
> The environment constrains certain changes to be advantageous or not.
> Nothing more than that.
>
Yes, I get that.
That is the definition of Natural Selection.
So how does this reward non-functional (but potential) systems?
Your argument was that NS is a creative force. It's not - unless you
give it something to be creative with. These minute changes don't
qualify. If there are large changes, ie; fully functional systems that
provide a decided advantage, then yes, NS will most likely select them
(barring any number of circumstances that will kill an organism - no
matter the advantage). But to suggest that NS will select minute
changes based on what they *might* become someday is ridiculous.
>> Interestingly, some are arguing that it indeed is:
>
> They are wrong. Further research has shown that what's going on is
> merely an evolved response to stress: an increase in the rate of
> mutation. There is no change in the ratio of useful to non-useful
> mutations. These are not targeted or prescribed mutations, must more
> mutations. The bacterial clone is just throwing lots of darts at the
> target of selection in hopes that some of them will hit the bullseye.
>
How can these be "non-targeted" and "targeted" ("throwing lots of darts
at the *target* of selection") at the same time?
The truth is, you don't know what causes these hyper-mutations.
Because you say so?
What part of the following statement is incorrect?
"Furthermore, when he dissected the genes of these mutated bacteria by
sequencing them, he found mutations in no areas other than the one where
there was selection pressure. This means that the successful bugs did
not desperately throw off all kinds of mutations to find the one that
works; they pinpointed the one alteration that fit the bill. Hall found
some directed variations so complex they required the mutation of two
genes simultaneously."
Is it incorrect because it directly contradicts your "random dart
throwing" hypothesis? Or was his experiment flawed in some way? (Some
way you haven't thought important enough to share with us)
>
>>> If variation happens in random directions from the current
>>> point (and it largely does), then natural selection does provide
>>> direction in the evolution of features.
>> Only if every random mutation is not disallowed from being passed on by
>> all the mechanisms that exist to stop it - the organisms own copying
>> error eliminating processes, natural disasters, sickness, predators,
>> reproductive isolation (won't breed), infertility (can't breed)... etc.,
>> *all* of which comprise Natural Selection.
>
> I have no idea what you are trying to get at there.
I'm trying to help you understand that even a fully functional "vast
improvement" will not *always* be selected.
Let's say a bird lays an egg which contains a mutated gene that will
cause the resultant bird to never need food - ever. Surely such an
extreme advantage would be selected for right? No doubt.
But what if I shake the tree, knock the egg out of it's nest, step on it
and squash it to bits? Or what if a snake devours the baby bird? What
if the bird develops some sickness that is not at all related to it's
mutation and dies before breeding? What if it can't breed? How will it
get selected? It's back to the drawing board for RM+NS!
It's not a sure thing - even if all your minute changes somehow get
selected and finally add up to a real functional system.
>
>>> Only if a new feature must arise
>>> by a single, large mutation is selection robbed of its creative
>>> importance.
>> Wrong. Only if every non-functional (but potentially functional
>> (down-the-road (if only other mutations can eventually be added
>> (provided the non-functioning potential system doesn't get corrupted
>> along the way)))) mutation gets passed on, does NS work in the way you
>> describe (as a "creative" force).
>>
>> That's a lot of conditions. Do you have *any* evidence that NS rewards
>> *potential*
>
> No. It doesn't, and such a claim suggests you have no idea what I'm
> trying to say. Let's try an analogy. Suppose that a drunk is trying to
> get home.
OK, he has a *goal*.
> He sets out in a random direction, lurching to a new random
> direction every few seconds. I, standing behind him, give him a shove
> back to his starting point every time he heads in the wrong direction,
The wrong direction being "not towards the pre-defined *goal*". I'm
with you.
> but leave him alone every time he heads in the right direction.
That being the pre-defined *goal*.
> Eventually, he will get home.
Right. When you can show that Natural Selection has the *goal* of
producing functional systems by allowing only changes that have the
*potential* to become said systems, (like your drunk example), then
you'll have something.
> Now, who got him there? I never pushed him
> in the right direction; I just eliminated all his wrong choices. Was I a
> creative force or not? I would claim that I was.
>
Yes you were.
Of course the only *goal* NS has is survival (and judging by the
extinction rate, it fails pretty miserably at that).
To be like real NS, you would have to also push him back to his starting
point when he's going the *right direction*, since he hasn't reached his
goal in one step. You forgot that part. NS doesn't reward "steps
toward a goal", it only rewards the goal (That's all it *can* do).
I knew you'd say that! (How could you resist?)
You're welcome BTW!
wf3h
Wall Of Sleep wrote:
> wf3h wrote:
> > Wall Of Sleep wrote:
> >> the interpretation.
> >
> > actually, it's evidence against a designer. a designer could do
> > anything he wanted. he could make organisms with wheels, or humans and
> > dinosaurs in the same fossil strata.
> >
> > he didn't. so a common genetic code is evidence against a designer.
> >
>
> The designer of your chair could have made it out of cheese. He didn't,
> so it must not be designed.
ah, but you're missing the point. unless the designer, like evolution,
is FORCED into a certain situation, since he can do ANYTHING, the
'designer' idea explains zip.
>
>
> >> It's gotten to the point now where you are all having to hypothesize new
> >> mechanisms for the failed "T"oE. You know why? Much of the recently
> >> discovered evidence contradicts the "theory".
> >
> > funny that scientists don't see it that way.
> >
>
> I guess there are no scientists on this forum then.
certainly none that your 14th century theology recognizes
Friar Broccoli
This is a gratuitous insult which conveys no information or
meaningful argument. All it does is convince creationists that
we have no reasonable arguments, and must thus resort to insults
to fill in the gaps of a flawed theory.
Was that your intent?
Augray
wrote in <VARsh.3823$o31.3565@trndny04> :
>John Harshman wrote:
>> Wall Of Sleep wrote:
>>
>>> John Harshman wrote:
>>>
>>>> Wall Of Sleep wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> John Harshman wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Wall Of Sleep wrote:
[snip]
>>>>>>> As for "change", show me the gradual transitionals. The idea of
>>>>>>> punctuated equilibrium was put forth to try to make evolution match the
>>>>>>> fossil record and it's lack of transitionals. If the fossil record
>>>>>>> verified the "T"oE, there would be no need for PE.
>>>>>> Again, wrong. PE was an attempt at explaining the rarity (not absence)
>>>>>> of smooth, transitional series among closely related species (not
>>>>>> transitional fossils per se, which are common enough).
>>>>> Yeah, they're everywhere!
>>>> Archaeopteryx, Tiktaalik, Probainognathus, Ichthyostega, Pakicetus,
>>>> Morganucodon, Ichthyornis, Halkieria, Naraoia, and Anomalocaris, to name
>>>> a few off the top of my head.
>>> How do you know these are transitionals and not examples of *lost*
>>> features? The Archaeopteryx for example could be just another
>>> flightless bird like an ostrich or an emu.
>>
>> No, it was in fact a flying bird.
>
>Which Archaeopteryx are you talking about?
>
>"The relationships of the specimens are problematic. Most specimens have
>been given their own species at one point or another. The Berlin
>specimen has been designated as Archaeornis siemensii, the Eichstätt
>specimen as Jurapteryx recurva, the Munich specimen as Archaeopteryx
>bavarica and the Solnhofen specimen was designated as Wellnhoferia grandis.
About the only one that stands up to scrutiny is Wellnhoferia.
>"Recently, it has been argued that all the specimens belong to the same
>species (New Scientist, 17 April 2004, p.17). However, significant
>differences exist among the specimens. In particular, the Munich,
>Eichstätt, Solnhofen and Thermopolis specimens differ from the London,
>Berlin, and Haarlem specimens in being smaller or much larger, having
>different finger proportions, having more slender snouts, lined with
>forward-pointing teeth
Virtually all of this is explainable as ontogenetic differences (i.e.
different stages of growth). Even if every specimen could be assigned
to different species, it wouldn't change the fact that they're all
excellent examples of transitional forms. Pick one of the specimens,
and we can discuss it.
>and possible presence of a sternum.
No known specimen of Archaeopteryx has a sternum. The supposed sternum
in the "Munich" specimen has now been shown to be part of the left
coracoid.
>These
>differences are as large as or larger than the differences seen today
>between adults of different bird species.
That's debatable. We can, if you like.
>However, it is also possible
>that these differences could be explained by different ages of the
>living birds."
>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaeopteryx
[snip]
John Harshman
Notice that you have made no mention either of dating or of evolution.
> For example, if a level of strata is unearthed that contains only
> prokaryotes, is it "newer" or "older" than one containing mammals?
Impossible to tell. This could have more to do with the environment or
taphonomy than the age. Biostratigraphy does not deal with such
high-level groups, but with particular species, and in fact with
particular species that are known to have restricted stratigraphic
ranges, plus other useful characteristics. Still nothing to do with
evolution.
> It's circular reasoning in it's purest form.
Note that your sole example was a fake one that nobody doing
biostratigraphy would ever in fact use, and that it didn't even involve
assignment of a date to any strata.
>>>>>It's interesting how you will quote from a centuries old scientist when
>>>>>it suits your needs, but refuse to accept anything but the latest and
>>>>>greatest research in support of a non-evolutionist argument.
>>>>
>>>>This is nonsense. Are you confusing me with someone else?
>>>
>>>Perhaps. I've been chided several times on this forum for citing any
>>>paper that's more than a few years old.
>>
>>Depends on the field, and on what the paper says, and on how much the
>>field has advanced since the paper was published.
>>
>>
>>>>>>>As for "change", show me the gradual transitionals. The idea of
>>>>>>>punctuated equilibrium was put forth to try to make evolution match the
>>>>>>>fossil record and it's lack of transitionals. If the fossil record
>>>>>>>verified the "T"oE, there would be no need for PE.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Again, wrong. PE was an attempt at explaining the rarity (not absence)
>>>>>>of smooth, transitional series among closely related species (not
>>>>>>transitional fossils per se, which are common enough).
>>>>>
>>>>>Yeah, they're everywhere!
>>>>
>>>>Archaeopteryx, Tiktaalik, Probainognathus, Ichthyostega, Pakicetus,
>>>>Morganucodon, Ichthyornis, Halkieria, Naraoia, and Anomalocaris, to name
>>>>a few off the top of my head.
>>>
>>>How do you know these are transitionals and not examples of *lost*
>>>features? The Archaeopteryx for example could be just another
>>>flightless bird like an ostrich or an emu.
>>
>>No, it was in fact a flying bird.
>
> Which Archaeopteryx are you talking about?
All of them. Did you have a point to make with the irrelevant
digressions below?
> "The relationships of the specimens are problematic. Most specimens have
> been given their own species at one point or another. The Berlin
> specimen has been designated as Archaeornis siemensii, the Eichstätt
> specimen as Jurapteryx recurva, the Munich specimen as Archaeopteryx
> bavarica and the Solnhofen specimen was designated as Wellnhoferia grandis.
>
> "Recently, it has been argued that all the specimens belong to the same
> species (New Scientist, 17 April 2004, p.17). However, significant
> differences exist among the specimens. In particular, the Munich,
> Eichstätt, Solnhofen and Thermopolis specimens differ from the London,
> Berlin, and Haarlem specimens in being smaller or much larger, having
> different finger proportions, having more slender snouts, lined with
> forward-pointing teeth and possible presence of a sternum. These
> differences are as large as or larger than the differences seen today
> between adults of different bird species. However, it is also possible
> that these differences could be explained by different ages of the
> living birds."
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaeopteryx
Point?
> > Lost features can be distinguished
> > from primitive features by phylogenetic analysis. That's how we know
> > that whales, for example, are not primitively aquatic.
> >
>
> We don't "know" this. It is hypothesized based on the evidence as
> interpreted through the evolutionary assumption.
Show me another valid way to interpret the evidence, one that fits the
data at least as well as a the standard phylogenetic tree. And that is
in fact the only way we "know" anything in science.
>>>>>>Gould spend much
>>>>>>effort trying to remove this creationist misconception of his work, but
>>>>>>without success: once a falsehood becomes common, creationists cling to it.
>>>>>
>>>>>Pot, kettle, black. Talk about clinging to falsehoods!
>>>>
>>>>Which falsehoods? Explain why they're falsehoods.
>>>
>>>There are many. Of course they won't seem like falsehoods to you. The
>>>main one being that the "T"oE is good science.
>>
>>You will have to justify that claim, but I don't think you're equipped
>>for it.
I see you agree.
You still don't understand the difference between corelation and
absolute dating. No stratigraphic correlation is going to make a
Cambrian formation into an Eocene one, or vice versa. You don't
understand the first thing about biostratigraphy, which used individual
species, not families or any other such. Evolution is irrelevant to
biostratigraphy. Only your ignorance allows you to suggest otherwise.
>>>>>>>>- vestigial organs like the appendix and leg bones in
>>>>>>>>whales.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>How do you *know* they are "vestigial"?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>They don't serve their original purposes of digesting leaves and
>>>>>>walking, respectively. That makes them vestigial. We know their original
>>>>>>purposes on the basis of phylogenetic analysis.
>>>>>
>>>>>Conjecture.
>>>>>Your phylogenetic analysis is based on the assumption of common descent.
>>>>> If you don't assume CD, you don't have vestigial limbs and organs.
>>>>
>>>>Common descent is not an assumption, but a result of analyzing data. If
>>>>you think it's flawed, please explain why. Do species form a single,
>>>>nested hierarchy? If so, what other than common descent can explain
>>>>that? If not, I can easily falsify your claim by presenting actual data.
>>>
>>>Correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't a nested hierarchy suggest
>>>succession from a more general *type* to more specific *types*? IOW,
>>>you get a nested hierarchy by subtraction, not by addition.
>>
>>No. You are indeed wrong.
>
> How so?
You get a nested hierarchy by distributing innovations over a
phylogenetic tree, such that later branches inherit them from ancestral
ones. Nothing there are general vs. specific, or about subtraction.
>>>This can be
>>>seen in the man-made nested hierarchy created by dog breeding. Breeds
>>>get more and more specific as they're selected out (they also tend to
>>>become more "fragile"). If you allow the (specific) "pure" breeds to
>>>interbreed, they become the more general (and more robust) mutt. They
>>>are in essence reverting back towards the original dog "type". The
>>>nested hierarchy of dog breeds is a nested hierarchy of *loss* not gain.
>>
>>Even this is wrong. First, dog breeds are not a nested hierarchy;
>>different breeds have arisen by breeding together various dogs, not by
>>splitting previous breeds.
>
> The proposed evolutionary "tree" provides no less "sloppy" a nested
> hierarchy than dog breeds. In fact it's more like a multi-stemmed bush
> than a true tree.
This is absolutely wrong about all levels of the tree other than the
very deepest, at which it's either true or we don't currently have the
tools to disentangle it. But it bears no resemblance to the situation
with any organisms you can see with the naked eye, for example.
>>Second, many breeds originate from mutations
>>-- new features that breed true and were not found in their ancestors,
>>such as the various forms of dwarfism seen in basset hounds, dachshunds,
>>corgis, and so on.
>
> Dwarfism is common to all mammals. It's not really a "new" feature. It
> is a mutation though - you're right about that.
It's new every time it happens, just as any mutation is. The point is
that it falsifies your claim about the distribution of existing
variation being the means of dog breed differentiation.
>>>This is the crux of the arguments made by:
>>>
>>>Robert Broom
>>>Broom, R. (1933) Evolution - Is there intelligence behind it? South
>>>African Journal of Science, 30: 1-19
>>>
>>>Richard Goldschmidt
>>>Goldschmidt, R. B. (1940) “The Material Basis of Evolution.” Yale
>>>University Press, New Haven.
>>>
>>>Pierre Grasse
>>>Grasse, P. (1977 “Evolution of Living Organisms: Evidence for a New
>>>Theory of Transformation.” Academic Press, New York. (Original French
>>>edition 1973).
>>>
>>>Prof. John A. Davison (Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis)
>>>http://www.uvm.edu/~jdavison/davison-manifesto.html
>>>
>>>Phil Engle (Macrodevelopment)
>>>http://www.fellowshipofstbenedict.org/Fosb_site/macrodevelopment.html
>>>
>>>Peter M. Scheele (Degeneration)
>>>http://www.evolutionisdegeneration.com/index.asp?PaginaID=2577
>>
>>I don't believe you have actually read any of these.
>
> I've read most of Prof. Davison's papers (which draw heavily from the
> Grasse, Goldschmidt, Broom papers). I've perused the Engle paper (which
> I only recently discovered), and I've read the Scheele book.
I've read enough of Davison to know that he radically misinterprets
Goldschmidt, and is otherwise just a nut.
>>They are mutually
>>contradictory,
>
> Perhaps in details, but not in the general sense. They all espouse a
> non-random "directed" evolution. Some are more "top down" than others
> but all reject Darwinism and Neo-Darwinism.
Not so. Certainly Goldschmidt doesn't fit any of this except for "reject
Neo-Darwinism". But so what? Rejecting theory X is not any sort of
unifying principle.
>>and I don't see that any of them, at least the ones that
>>I have read, support your notion.
>
> Which ones have *you* read?
Actually, just a bit of Goldschmidt, de Grasse, and Davison. I don't
find much in common except for a rejection of the standard view. Might
as well include YECs in the mix, if that's your criterion.
>>Perhaps the last, judging by the
>>title. But this is easily shown to be nonsense. Species have many
>>features not found in their ancestors.
>
> Name some.
Come now. This is easy. Humans have big brains, bipedal locomotion, a
chin, three color receptors, digits with a phalangeal formula of 23333,
iodine-binding cells in the floor of the pharynx, and mitochondria, all
missing on one or more of their ancestors.
>>(And trying to use Goldschmidt to
>>support a theory of non-evolution is just perverse.)
>
> "Richard Goldschmidt (1878-1958), a brilliant but unorthodox geneticist,
> did not believe that Charles Darwin's idea of slow, gradual changes
> could account for the origin of species...
> "Although he recognized the constant accumulation of small changes in
> populations (microevolution), he believed they did not lead to
> speciation. Between true species he saw "bridgeless gaps" that could
> only be accounted for by large sudden jumps, resulting in "hopeful
> monsters.""
> http://www.stephenjaygould.org/people/richard_goldschmidt.html
All true, and none of it supporting your contention of the mere sorting
of existing variation. In fact it specifically contradicts such a view.
> "However, even more heretical was his view that these abrupt
> macroevolutionary changes need not occur as a result of a gene mutation
> at all. Phenotypic changes, identical to those produced by genetic
> mutations, could occur in response to serious environmental stress. He
> referred to these as "phenocopies". Later he came to the conclusion that
> these abrupt macroevolutionary changes were the result of a complete
> repatterning or "reshuffling" of the chromosomal architecture, which
> could have
>
> "a huge effect upon a series of developmental processes, leading at
> once to a new and stable form by diverging from the former."
>
> "In other words, he considered that changes acquired during the course
> of the life of living things - could be fixed genetically, thereby
> stating - in a perhaps more acceptable manner - Lamarck's heretical
> thesis that acquired characteristics could be transmitted genetically.
>
> "Perhaps even more heretical was his view that these "systemic
> mutations", as he referred to them, "rarely occurred by chance". In
> other words, they were directive rather than random - again a notion
> that could not possibly be reconciled with the neo-Darwinian thesis.
> Later Goldschmidt went even so far as to deny the existence of what he
> referred to as the "corpuscular gene", and came to view all genetic
> changes as alterations in pattern. "
> http://www.edwardgoldsmith.org/page29.html
No idea what he meant by that. You?
> "Contrary to near-unanimity among scientists, he insisted that the
> neo-Darwinian theory of micromutations applied only within species and
> was no longer tenable as a general theory of evolution. Instead,
> Goldschmidt claimed, macroevolution resulted from larger jumps in
> genotype - across "bridgeless gaps" - related either to systemic
> mutations or to mutations affecting early development."
> http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0300028237/
Isn't that just a repetition of your first quote?
>>>>>>>>- the fact that AT LEAST 8% of our DNA is made from Endogenous
>>>>>>>>Retroviral fragments, almost all of which are shared with
>>>>>>>>chimps and gorillas, which is part of the roughly 99% of DNA
>>>>>>>>that we share in common with chimps.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Science is now finding that the *differences* between human and chimp
>>>>>>>DNA would require some pretty unbelievable mutation rates. They are
>>>>>>>"baffled" by this.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>No, you are baffled. The required mutation rates are not surprising. You
>>>>>>have misinterpreted the news.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>http://www.the-scientist.com/news/20040527/01/
>>>>>>>http://pressreleasegold.com/08/16/20.htm
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Norhing in these links supports your claim. If you think so you are
>>>>>>confused. I would be happy to correct your misconception if you would
>>>>>>like to explain your thinking in a bit more detail.
>>>>>
>>>>>In order for all 49 of the HAR regions to have evolved in the alloted
>>>>>time period, human mutation rates would have to be much higher than
>>>>>those observed today.
>>>>
>>>>No they wouldn't. What makes you think so? You appear to have confused
>>>>mutation with fixation. The known mutation rate is fast enough for sites
>>>>under positive selection to evolve at much greater than the neutral rate.
>>>
>>>In higher order mammals? Where is the evidence of this?
>>
>>The evidence is pretty simple. The mutation rate in humans is around
>>10^-9 per site per year.
>
> In the gametes?
No. In the germ line, from all sources.
>>That means that every possible point mutation
>>happens many times in the human population each and every year.
>
> Every possible mutation? In the gametes? Every year?
You do the math.
No. Note that there are several ways of calculating mutation rates, only
some of which involve assuming common ancestry among species. And they
match well.
> (Or did you miss this part? "Clearly, this estimate is *based on*
> mutations that arose during several million years of evolution and does
> not necessarily reflect the mutation processes in contemporary human
> populations. However, there are no obvious reasons to think that human
> alpham would be lower than in other primates." Which are, of course,
> *based on* the same evolutionary assumption.)
>
> And, I see no mention of your 10^-9 per site per year rate.
I'm not sure what alpham is. It's certainly not a mutation rate. I'm
suspecting it's the ratio of Y chromosome mutation rate to autosomal
mutation rate, which is quite another thing. Was that a paper one
"male-driven evolution"?
>>>>>This forced one serious scientist to speculate
>>>>>that perhaps the "pressure" of walking upright caused humans to
>>>>>hyper-mutate. When you can only believe in evolution, you must
>>>>>constantly grasp at straws to maintain your *belief*.
>>>>
>>>>Please cite this quote. I don't believe it's accurate. But one of you
>>>>has again confused mutation with fixation.
>>>
>>>I've been looking but can no longer find it. It was in an article about
>>>the paper. It seems to have disappeared from the web though.
>>
>>More likely, you have misremembered.
>
> I did not. It's the type of things us IDers don't "misremember".
Then of course I believe you.
>>At any rate, it's not true, and
>>that's the important point.
>
> Of course. It was an evolutionist who said it, but since it can be used
> against certain elements of the "T"oE, by default it cannot be true.
It's not true because it's a nonsensical statement. Walking upright does
not cause mutation. Why should it?
>>The rate of mutation is high enough to
>>account for all differences between human and chimp in a very short
>>time. What actually controls the amount of difference is the rate of
>>fixation. For every mutation that is fixed, thousands (or, in the
>>current population, billions) disappear. The gross rate of fixation is
>>almost entirely due to drift. Selection can fix alleles much more
>>quickly, and regions (like the ones you are talking about) that show a
>>high rate of evolution are almost certainly undergoing positive
>>selection. This is by no means a conundrum for evolutionary biology.
>
> It's so simple! It's a no-brainer! All of this is experimentally
> verified I assume?
> No?
> Oh well, why bother? It's all "possible", so it must've happened - right?
This is all basic population genetics, supported by large amounts of
theoretical and experimental work. Which parts don't you believe?
>>>>>>>>- observable speciation events, circular species and the like.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>No such thing. A new species cannot revert to it's original form. All
>>>>>>>observed "speciation" can.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Once again you are confused. No observed speciation shows reversion to
>>>>>>an original form. Some adaptive evolution shows reversal when the
>>>>>>environment returns to past conditions. Maybe that's what you are
>>>>>>thinking of. But that wasn't speciation.
>>>>>
>>>>>With all the malleable definitions of "species" floating about nowadays,
>>>>>I'm not surprised that you would say this. The truth is, there are no
>>>>>instances of speciation that you can refer to that 1. meet the classic
>>>>>definition and 2. have been experimentally verified non-reversible.
>>>>
>>>>Which classic definition?
>>>
>>>Cannot interbreed and produce a fertile offspring.
>>
>>This is not the classic definition. Note that the definitions you have
>>quoted so far do not match this.
>
> I've never embraced another definition - although, for the sake of
> argument, I've referred to "speciation" or "species" using whatever
> definition my opponent used.
You may embrace whatever definition you like; just don't expect anyone
else to use it.
>>>>And how would you experimentally verify
>>>>non-reversibility?
>>>
>>>By attempts to interbreed with the "old" species.
>>
>>That wouldn't demonstrate non-reversability. It would demonstrate a
>>current situation, if anything.
>
> It would demonstrate non-reversibility if no amount of breeding could
> reverse the speciation process. How else would you demonstrate it?
Since I'm not sure what you mean by "non-reversability", I can't say. It
doesn't seem to have much to do with speciation, though.
>>>>I fear that you are very confused about what
>>>>speciation is.
>>>
>>>OK. What is it?
>>>(I'll add your definition to the multitude that already exist - it'll be
>>>like "The Definition Of The Day"!)
>>
>>Speciation is the evolution of reproductive isolation between
>>populations. Note that reproductive isolation does not require the
>>inability to produce fertile offspring.
>>
>>What other definitions of speciation do you know of?
>
> # The development of one or more species from an existing species.
> www.fao.org/docrep/003/X3910E/X3910E22.htm
Fine as far as it goes.
> # formation of new species through natural selection; occurs when
> selective force is intense; accounts for diversity of living things on
> planet today.
> www.estuaries.gov/glossary.html
That's not even a definition. It's a claim about mechanism.
> # the process by which one or more populations of a species become
> genetically different enough to form a new species. This process often
> requires populations to be isolated for a long period of time.
> www.pbs.org/strangedays/glossary/S.html
Bad definition. The amount of genetic difference shown by different
species greatly overlaps the amount seen within other species. There is
no rigorous meaning of "different enough".
> # the evolutionary process of differentiation, in which a population of
> organisms becomes two or more different species
> www.csa.com/hottopics/lang/gloss.php
More or less the same as the first one.
> # Description: Separation of one population into two or more
> reproductively isolated, independent evolutionary units. Source:
> Specialized encyclopedia and dictionaries
> europa.eu.int/comm/research/biosociety/library/glossarylist_en.cfm
More or less the one I am using.
> # The process whereby a new species arises as a regional variant of a
> parent population. It usually involves a small population size. They
> become unable to produce fertile offspring when mating with the parent
> population, thus preserving whatever adaptations they had acquired in
> their somewhat different niche . [120]
> williamcalvin.com/BrainForAllSeasons/glossary.htm
Here is another non-definition, another hypothesis of mechanism.
> # This is the evolution of multiple species from a single founding
> (ancestral) species. Closely related forms are usually defined as
> species if there is some form of reproductive isolation. Anagenetic
> speciation (anagenesis) is where a single species changes over time to
> the extent that it is recognized as a new species. see [1: peripatric
> speciation . ...
> www.ecotao.com/holism/glosoz.htm
Same as mine.
> # The evolutionary development of new species, usually as one population
> separates into two different populations no longer capable of interbreeding.
> biology.usgs.gov/s+t/noframe/z999.htm
Same as mine.
> # formation of new species.
> www.csupomona.edu/~jcclark/classes/bio406/glossary.html
Same as the first.
> # The processes by which a single species splits into two or more species
> www.amonline.net.au/evolutionary_biology/glossary.htm
Same as the first.
> # The form or "species" taken by a metal. Metals such as copper can
> appear in numerous forms in the Chesapeake Bay, some far more toxic than
> others.
> www.mdsg.umd.edu/CBEEC/toxicsrpt/glossary.html
Now you're just being stupid.
[snip after the part showing that you haven't even read this]
> Need more?
No. You have shown that the same ideas can be expressed in different
words. Congratulations.
>>>>>>>>Assuming there is a weakness in the scientific logic
>>>>>>>>(non falsifiable) behind evolution, how do you suggest I deal
>>>>>>>>with all this other evidence?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>There's not that much really.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>That's only your near total ignorance of the evidence talking. And you
>>>>>>have certainly revealed the extent of your ignorance in this post.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>A "theory" is an hypothesis that has been verified experimentally.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>How much of the "Theory" of Evolution has actually been verified
>>>>>>>experimentally?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Lots of it. Even more if your misconception about the nature of science
>>>>>>is corrected, and we remove "experimentally"; experimental science is
>>>>>>only one part of the scientific method.
>>>>>
>>>>>The part that least verifies the "T"oE.
>>>>
>>>>Nonsense. Experiment verifies many aspects of evolutionary theory.
>>>
>>>Such as?
>>>Cite?
>>
>>To pick one at random, the Luria-Delbruck experiments showed that
>>mutations are random with respect to the needs of the organism.
>
> Here's a study that seems to suggest the opposite with respect to rapid
> morphological changes among Laysan finches:
>
> http://www.nicholas.duke.edu/people/faculty/pimm/publications/pimmreprints/56_TREE_1988.pdf
>
> Note that these morphological changes happen much too rapidly to be the
> result of *random* mutations.
What makes you say that? Certainly nothing in the article itself. Are
you suggesting that Laysan finches changed their bill sizes due to
directed mutations? If so, whatever gave you that impression?
>>>>It
>>>>can't verify processes that take a long time to happen, or events that
>>>>happened a long time ago. But other techniques do that.
>>>
>>>Circular ones.
>>
>>So you say, but you have presented no argument for circularity.
>
> All the evidence that supposedly supports the "T"oE is interpreted in a
> circular manner. Those of us on the "outside" can see this plainly.
So your argument is that it's circular because it's circular because you
can see it's circular. Is that right?
>>>>>>>What exactly *is* the "Theory" of Evolution?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Evolutionary biology is actually composed of quite a number of theories.
>>>>>>But I would consider the central "theory of evolution" to be
>>>>>>encapsulated in the idea of common descent, i.e. that all life is
>>>>>>related. There's a vast amount of evidence for that.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>What is it's mechanism? It seems to be constantly changing.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Not really. Natural selection has been the dominant mechanism in
>>>>>>theories of adaptive evolution for almost a century now, after a phase
>>>>>>of eclipse following Darwin. And neutral evolution makes a useful
>>>>>>adjunct. The fun is in the details.
>>>>>
>>>>>Natural selection is not a *creative* mechanism. It's an editor, not an
>>>>>author. You must first create a new function/gene for it to be
>>>>>selected. Saying that "IF" this came to be, it would be selected, is a
>>>>>cop out and a no-brainer. "IF" a new gene made an organism impervious
>>>>>to disease - sure - it will be selected (probably), but you must first
>>>>>have a *mechanism* that can create such a gene.
>>>>>
>>>>>Got any?
>>>>
>>>>Your assumption here is that a "new gene" (whatever you mean by that)
>>>
>>>I mean a gene that didn't exist in the very first lifeform. Every gene
>>>that ever existed must have been "new" at some point.
>>
>>No, that's not true. Suppose, for example, that gene A is duplicated. We
>>now have two genes. But which one is new?
>
> Neither. (This seems painfully obvious to me!)
Then it hardly seems necessary that there be any genes that didn't exist
in the first lifeform; all we need is duplication and divergence. (Mind
you, I think there are indeed new genes that don't result from gene
duplications -- but not all that many.)
>>They're both copies of A. If
>>they diverge, giving us A' and A'', is there a new gene, or two new
>>genes, or none?
>
> The one that changes into a gene that is functionally different from
> gene A would then be "new" now wouldn't it? (Again, painfully obvious!)
What if they both changed function?
>>Most evolution, by the way, probably doesn't result from new genes, just
>>changes in old ones, even without duplication. Or there could be changes
>>in regulatory sequences that may or may not be part of genes, depending
>>on how you like to count it.
>
> You have to get from a proposed first lifeform with "n" genes (n=0? n=1?
> n=100?) to the vast amount of genes that have existed in the past and do
> exist today. Even if they are all the result of changing one gene into
> another, the new gene is still, well, "new".
So? What's the problem, if one gene changes into another?
>>>>must be created in one mutation and then presented to natural selection
>>>>to accept or reject.
>>>
>>>Every mutation must "make it" to the next round. If it does, it was
>>>"selected".
>>
>>You miss the whole point. The question is about the magnitude of the
>>individual changes.
>
> The magnitude has never been in dispute. I'm challenging *your*
> mechanism. Your mechanism is gradual, minute changes adding up over time.
It would seem to me that this has to do with magnitude, if so.
>>>>That's not how it works. New features arise
>>>>gradually through small variations.
>>>
>>>Each of which must be selected. If they are not selected (passed on),
>>>how can they be built upon?
>>
>>That's right. They're selected.
>
> Why? What functional advantage do these partial systems and minute
> changes offer? You say these are not significant changes, so they are
> not fully functional systems. You must show that NS will select for
> *potential* then. This you cannot do.
I say nothing of the sort. "Small" is not the same thing as
"insignificant". In order for this to work, every change must be some
improvement over the previous condition. It doesn't have to be a big
improvement, and the original state of the system doesn't have to be all
that good, as long as the original system does something selectable.
>>>>This is why natural selection is a
>>>>creative force -- it constrains these gradual changes along a particular
>>>>pathway.
>>>
>>>Unless it can foresee a future use for these mutations (variations), how
>>>does NS "constrains these gradual changes along a particular pathway"?
>>
>>Because that's the pathway that is advantageous.
>
> Ha ha ha! Yeah! Umm, again, *minute* changes and partial systems are
> advantageous how?
Consider, for example, Nilsson, D., and S. Pelger. 1994. A pessimistic
estimate of the time required for an eye to evolve. Proc. R. Soc. Lond.
B 256:53-58.
>>Why does water run
>>downhill?
>
> Gravity?
>
> Are you suggesting that gravity is the mechanism for evolution? ;)
Try not to be willfully stupid. Surely you can recognize analogies when
you run into them.
>>Can it see the ocean approaching and wants to get there? No,
>>it merely responds to the local slope of the land.
>
> This is the *BEST* argument if favor of the "T"oE ever! I nominate it
> for "Argument of the Century"!
>>>Natural selection does not have any "goal" (other than survival). It
>>>does not "constrain" *potential* advantages along any "pathway". If it
>>>does, it is a prescribed, predetermined process.
>>
>>The environment constrains certain changes to be advantageous or not.
>>Nothing more than that.
>
> Yes, I get that.
>
> That is the definition of Natural Selection.
>
> So how does this reward non-functional (but potential) systems?
It doesn't. I never said anything about non-functional (but potential)
systems. That was all your imagination.
> Your argument was that NS is a creative force. It's not - unless you
> give it something to be creative with. These minute changes don't
> qualify. If there are large changes, ie; fully functional systems that
> provide a decided advantage, then yes, NS will most likely select them
> (barring any number of circumstances that will kill an organism - no
> matter the advantage). But to suggest that NS will select minute
> changes based on what they *might* become someday is ridiculous.
Agreed. But nobody has been suggesting that. Try responding to what I
actually say rather than your imaginary distortions.
>>>Interestingly, some are arguing that it indeed is:
>>
>>They are wrong. Further research has shown that what's going on is
>>merely an evolved response to stress: an increase in the rate of
>>mutation. There is no change in the ratio of useful to non-useful
>>mutations. These are not targeted or prescribed mutations, must more
>>mutations. The bacterial clone is just throwing lots of darts at the
>>target of selection in hopes that some of them will hit the bullseye.
>
> How can these be "non-targeted" and "targeted" ("throwing lots of darts
> at the *target* of selection") at the same time?
>
> The truth is, you don't know what causes these hyper-mutations.
You have presented no argument that they are hypermutations at all. What
the evidence shows is an increase in mutation rate under stress. And in
fact research has done quite a bit to elucidate the mechanism that
results in the increased rate.
I can't tell without seeing the actual publication on which this quote
was based. Unfortunately, no publication by Hall appears in the
bibliography of that book. All I can rely on is reviews I've read of the
whole "directed mutation" controversy. Here's one I happen to have
handy: Sniegowski, P. D. 1995. The origin of adaptive mutants: Random or
nonrandom? J. Mol. Evol. 40:94-101.
>>>>If variation happens in random directions from the current
>>>>point (and it largely does), then natural selection does provide
>>>>direction in the evolution of features.
>>>
>>>Only if every random mutation is not disallowed from being passed on by
>>>all the mechanisms that exist to stop it - the organisms own copying
>>>error eliminating processes, natural disasters, sickness, predators,
>>>reproductive isolation (won't breed), infertility (can't breed)... etc.,
>>>*all* of which comprise Natural Selection.
>>
>>I have no idea what you are trying to get at there.
>
> I'm trying to help you understand that even a fully functional "vast
> improvement" will not *always* be selected.
>
> Let's say a bird lays an egg which contains a mutated gene that will
> cause the resultant bird to never need food - ever. Surely such an
> extreme advantage would be selected for right? No doubt.
>
> But what if I shake the tree, knock the egg out of it's nest, step on it
> and squash it to bits? Or what if a snake devours the baby bird? What
> if the bird develops some sickness that is not at all related to it's
> mutation and dies before breeding? What if it can't breed? How will it
> get selected? It's back to the drawing board for RM+NS!
>
> It's not a sure thing - even if all your minute changes somehow get
> selected and finally add up to a real functional system.
Ah, so all you're saying is that there's a stochastic component to
evolution. Agreed. Was it ever at issue?
>>>>Only if a new feature must arise
>>>>by a single, large mutation is selection robbed of its creative
>>>>importance.
>>>
>>>Wrong. Only if every non-functional (but potentially functional
>>>(down-the-road (if only other mutations can eventually be added
>>>(provided the non-functioning potential system doesn't get corrupted
>>>along the way)))) mutation gets passed on, does NS work in the way you
>>>describe (as a "creative" force).
>>>
>>>That's a lot of conditions. Do you have *any* evidence that NS rewards
>>>*potential*
>>
>>No. It doesn't, and such a claim suggests you have no idea what I'm
>>trying to say. Let's try an analogy. Suppose that a drunk is trying to
>>get home.
>
> OK, he has a *goal*.
Please try not to concentrate on irrelevant features. In fact it's not
necesary that he have a goal. Perhaps he's just lurching about, and I'm
the one trying to get him home.
>>He sets out in a random direction, lurching to a new random
>>direction every few seconds. I, standing behind him, give him a shove
>>back to his starting point every time he heads in the wrong direction,
>
> The wrong direction being "not towards the pre-defined *goal*". I'm
> with you.
>>but leave him alone every time he heads in the right direction.
>
> That being the pre-defined *goal*.
>
>>Eventually, he will get home.
>
> Right. When you can show that Natural Selection has the *goal* of
> producing functional systems by allowing only changes that have the
> *potential* to become said systems, (like your drunk example), then
> you'll have something.
Sigh. You ignore the point, which is whether selection acting on random
variation can be creative. This analogy was not an attempt to simulate
all features of natural selection. Just the one we were arguing about
just then.
>>Now, who got him there? I never pushed him
>>in the right direction; I just eliminated all his wrong choices. Was I a
>>creative force or not? I would claim that I was.
>
> Yes you were.
>
> Of course the only *goal* NS has is survival (and judging by the
> extinction rate, it fails pretty miserably at that).
>
> To be like real NS, you would have to also push him back to his starting
> point when he's going the *right direction*, since he hasn't reached his
> goal in one step. You forgot that part. NS doesn't reward "steps
> toward a goal", it only rewards the goal (That's all it *can* do).
Again, we weren't arguing there about that particular point. The analogy
was intended only to show that a process that selects from small, random
variations can be creative. I could improve the model by having one in
which each step closer to the goal was advantageous in some way, as it
would be in natural selection. But the analogy was intended to teach one
lesson only, not all possible lessons. Are we agreed that an agency that
selects from random small variations can be creative in effect?
I'm welcome? Aren't you the one who should be thanking me, for helping
you overcome your deficiencies?
Wall Of Sleep
Well, one of the many theories of planetary formation proposes that the
earth was spun off from the sun. This would mean that the entire earth
was once part of the sun and may have contained highly ionised atoms.
Thus, from the very start, the age may be incalculable.
Augray
wrote in <OJ8th.2712$yj7.783@trndny08> :
This post indicates that you have no idea of the theory behind
radiometric dating. It's dependent upon radioactive decay *after* the
formation of the rock, not before.
Ernest Major
Would you like a Chez Watt nomination for that? (In the "when you're in
a hole you should stop digging" category.)
Apart from the fact that no astronomer espouses that theory nowadays,
that would mean no more than the date at which the material which was
later to become the Earth was ejected from the Sun is not measurable by
radio-dating.
You may be interested to know that the nearly all of the material of the
Earth was once highly ionised - all elements other than Hydrogen and
Helium were synthesised in stellar interiors, and later injected into
the interstellar medium, mostly via the stellar winds of red giants or
during supernova explosions.
This doesn't have the slightest relevance to the issue of the validity
of the radio-dating of rocks.
--
alias Ernest Major
richardal...@googlemail.com
On Jan 21, 10:14 pm, Wall Of Sleep <Sabot...@Vol4.net> wrote:
> John Harshman wrote:
> > Wall Of Sleep wrote:
>
> >> John Harshman wrote:
>
> >>> Wall Of Sleep wrote:
>
> >>>> John Harshman wrote:
>
> >>>>> Wall Of Sleep wrote:
>
> >>>>>> Friar Broccoli wrote:
>
> >>>>>>> Wall Of Sleep wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>> Friar Broccoli wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>> Ye Old One wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>>> Bizarre New Form of Life Found in Arctic Ocean, Scientists Announce
> >>>>>>>>>> Kelly Hearn
> >>>>>>>>>> for National Geographic News
> >>>>>>>>>> January 11, 2007
> >>>>>>>>>>http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/01/070111-new-lifeform.h...
> >> (see jung, m et al first observation of bound-state b- decay, physical
> >> review letters 69(15)2164-2167, 1992)
>
> >> the Re-Os system was experimentally, observably, repeatably revealed to,
> >> under certain conditions of b-decay, change its decay rate (usual t 1/2
> >> = ~41-42ga..."ga" = billion(s) of years) being accelerated in excess of
> >> 1,000,000,000 times faster than normal
>
> >> (bosch, f et al observation of bound-state b- decay of fully ionized
> >> 187Re physical review letters 77(26)5190-5193, 1996; see also kienle, p
> >> beta-decay experiments and astrophysical implications in: prantzos, n
> >> and harissopulus, s proceedings, nuclei in the cosmos pp181-186, 1999
>
> >> there are other factors that could lead to even further acceleration of
> >> these processes
>
> >> that's more than 1 BILLION times faster,
>
> >> the mechanisms are varied; aside from b b - decay, there is also huge
> >> decay rate fluctuation found under certain temperature conditions in the
> >> Lu-Hf system...the t 1/2 of 176 Lu can be accelerated from ~41ga to
> >> under 4hrs , something in the vicinity of ~14 orders of magnitude,
>
> >> (kappeler, f, beer, h, and k, wisshak s-process nucleosynthesis-nuclear
> >> physics and the classical model, reports on progress in physics
> >> 52:1006-1008, 1989; see also klay, n et al nuclear structure of 176Lu
> >> and its astrophysical consequences physical review c 44(6):2847-2848, 1991)
>
> >> analyses indicate that there are at least 25 other elements whose
> >> nuclide decay rates are susceptible to considerable alteration and
> >> variance consequent to bound beta decay
>
> >> (takahashi, k et al bound-state beta decay of highly ionized atoms,
> >> physical review c 36(4)1522-1527, 1987)"
> > specific. Give examples if you possibly can.OK. "Correlating" strata based on fossils is a procedure based on the
> assumption that certain fossils *only* appear in certain strata.
No, it's based on the *observation* that where we have a sedimentary
series, certain fossils always occur in the same sequential order
within the series. In the lower lias, we have the ammonite zones
(starting at the bottom) Psiloceras planorbis, Alsatities liasicus,
Schlotheimia angulata, Arietites bucklandi, Arnioceras semicostatum,
Caenisites turneri, Oxynoticeras oxynotum, Echioceras raricostatum,
Utponi jamesoni, Tragyphylloceras ibex and Prodactyloceras davoei.
People have been collecting fossils from the lias for centuries, and we
*always* find P.planorbis in the lowest strata, whether we are
collecting in Dorset, Somerset, Yorkshire, or along the line of
quarries in Nottinghamshire and Lincolnshire. These ammonites are
*always* found at lower levels than A.liasicus, which in turn is
*always* found at lower levels than S.angulata, and so on. The sequence
is not complete in any single location - there are always some zones
missing - but the ammonites are *always* found in the same order.
These are observations, not assumptions. If you have a better
explanation for these observations than that they represent the order
in which these strata were deposited, feel free to offer one. Unless
you can offer a very, very convincing alternative, I'll stick to
recording ammonite zones, and relative dating of any finds I make by
reference to the ammonites with which they are found.
> If
> this method is used, it can give the appearance of any type of
> *previously defined* succession. Not only are "X and Y" the same age,
> but "X and Y" also came before "Z".
>
> For example, if a level of strata is unearthed that contains only
> prokaryotes, is it "newer" or "older" than one containing mammals?
>
It depends entirely on the prokaryotes which are found there. Most
living organism alive today, measured both as numbers of individuals
and biomass are prokaryotes.
> It's circular reasoning in it's purest form.
It's observation.
You should try learning about it.
RF
>
> >>>> It's interesting how you will quote from...
>
> read more »
Friar Broccoli
> No, it's based on the *observation* that where we have a
> sedimentary series, certain fossils always occur in the same
> sequential order within the series. In the lower lias, we have
> the ammonite zones (starting at the bottom)
>
> - Psiloceras planorbis,
> - Alsatities liasicus,
> - Schlotheimia angulata,
> - Arietites bucklandi,
> - Arnioceras semicostatum,
> - Caenisites turneri,
> - Oxynoticeras oxynotum,
> - Echioceras raricostatum,
> - Utponi jamesoni,
> - Tragyphylloceras ibex and
> - Prodactyloceras davoei.
>
> People have been collecting fossils from the lias for centuries,
> and we *always* find P.planorbis in the lowest strata, whether
> we are collecting in Dorset, Somerset, Yorkshire, or along the
> line of quarries in Nottinghamshire and Lincolnshire. These
> ammonites are *always* found at lower levels than A.liasicus,
> which in turn is *always* found at lower levels than S.angulata,
> and so on. The sequence is not complete in any single location -
> there are always some zones missing - but the ammonites are
> *always* found in the same order.
Just wanted to thank you for providing this wonderful example
which I have carefully filed away for future use.
Mark Isaak
>>Well, one of the many theories of planetary formation proposes that the
>>earth was spun off from the sun. This would mean that the entire earth
>>was once part of the sun and may have contained highly ionised atoms.
>>Thus, from the very start, the age may be incalculable.
On Mon, 22 Jan 2007 20:24:17 +0000, Ernest Major wrote:
>
> Would you like a Chez Watt nomination for that?
How could one resist?
--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) earthlink (dot) net
"Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of
the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are
being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and
exposing the country to danger." -- Hermann Goering
Wall Of Sleep
So all the material which ultimately became "rocks" was once in a highly
ionised state (which increases radiometric decay by orders of
magnitude), but this is irrelevant to the issue of the radiometric
dating of rocks?
Hmm
John Harshman
Of course it's irrelevant. Nothing that happened before the rock formed
is relevant. That's how it's possible to date rocks at all: by the decay
that happens inside the rock. Whatever happened before that only
contributes to the initial composition of the rock. You are way out of
your league here.
Ernest Major
Yes. Surely you are capable of understanding that the being in a highly
ionised state billions of years before the rocks were formed is
irrelevant to the dating of the formation of the rocks.
Even if you aren't I'm sure the great majority of the people you're
trying to convince are.
--
alias Ernest Major
Mark Isaak
>[...]
> So all the material which ultimately became "rocks" was once in a highly
> ionised state (which increases radiometric decay by orders of
> magnitude), but this is irrelevant to the issue of the radiometric
> dating of rocks?
What makes you think ionization increases radioactive decay (which I
assume is what you mean by "radiometric decay") by orders of magnitude?
I doubt ionization would make any noticeable difference at all unless the
ions are moving at temperatures comparable to what you find in stars
(and then the temperature, not the ionization, is to blame).
John Harshman
> On Wed, 24 Jan 2007 19:36:16 +0000, Wall Of Sleep wrote:
>
>>[...]
>>So all the material which ultimately became "rocks" was once in a highly
>>ionised state (which increases radiometric decay by orders of
>>magnitude), but this is irrelevant to the issue of the radiometric
>>dating of rocks?
>
>
> What makes you think ionization increases radioactive decay (which I
> assume is what you mean by "radiometric decay") by orders of magnitude?
> I doubt ionization would make any noticeable difference at all unless the
> ions are moving at temperatures comparable to what you find in stars
> (and then the temperature, not the ionization, is to blame).
>
Look back a few posts for his references. They do seem to be talking
about stellar interiors, but major ionization seems to influence beta
decay. I think we're talking about the inner shells here.
Ernest Major
<eci...@earthlink.net> writes
>On Wed, 24 Jan 2007 19:36:16 +0000, Wall Of Sleep wrote:
>>[...]
>> So all the material which ultimately became "rocks" was once in a highly
>> ionised state (which increases radiometric decay by orders of
>> magnitude), but this is irrelevant to the issue of the radiometric
>> dating of rocks?
>
>What makes you think ionization increases radioactive decay (which I
>assume is what you mean by "radiometric decay") by orders of magnitude?
>I doubt ionization would make any noticeable difference at all unless the
>ions are moving at temperatures comparable to what you find in stars
>(and then the temperature, not the ionization, is to blame).
>
He found a post on a web-based forum, by another creationist, citing
several papers, mostly in Physical Review C. The papers aren't readily
available to the general public, such as myself, but it seems to be true
that ionisation (of a level that occurs in the interior of stars) does
increase the rate of some forms of radioactive decay, sometimes by
orders of magnitude. Discussion of the decay mode referred to in most
cases (bound state beta minus decay) seems to postdate in the main, if
not completely, the days when I studied physics, but it all makes sense
- the problem is that it applies to conditions found in the interior of
stars, not to conditions found in rocks, either during or after
formation.
In radioactive decay there is a mass (and equivalent energy) difference
between the parent and daughter nuclei. This energy difference must be
sufficient to provide for the mass and kinetic energy of an electron
(and an antineutrino, but I think that that can be neglected), and to
boost the electron out of the potential well of the nucleus. In a fully
ionised atom the latter is not required, as the electron can end up in
an atomic orbital (bound state). In an extreme case this could be the
difference between the decay be energetically allowed or not. In the
other extreme, where the electron is ejected with lots of kinetic
energy, it makes scarcely any difference. One naively expects that there
will be intermediate cases where there as an order of magnitude
difference between the decay rates. I also suspect that the existence of
a potential barrier in the form of the atom's electrons slows decay in
the unionised case. (Note that it is the ionisation that is to blame,
but that the ionisation is caused by the temperature.)
In the other case cited in the post he copied, the process involved the
population of excited states of nuclei, which requires absorption of
gamma rays, or high energy collisions, such as occur in the interior of
stars.
To reiterate, the problem is not with the existence of accelerated decay
rates in some highly ionised atoms of some isotopes, but in the
erroneous claim that it has relevance to the radiodating of rocks.
--
alias Ernest Major
Friar Broccoli
> Ernest Major wrote:
[extensive snipping]
>> You may be interested to know that the nearly all of the material of the
>> Earth was once highly ionised - all elements other than Hydrogen and
>> Helium were synthesised in stellar interiors, and later injected into
>> the interstellar medium, mostly via the stellar winds of red giants or
>> during supernova explosions.
>> This doesn't have the slightest relevance to the issue of the validity
>> of the radio-dating of rocks.
> So all the material which ultimately became "rocks" was once in a highly
> ionised state (which increases radiometric decay by orders of
> magnitude), but this is irrelevant to the issue of the radiometric
> dating of rocks?
>
> Hmm
Since you appear continue to have doubts on this, you may be
missing something obvious, so I'm going to make a guess about
what it might be:
Do you think that a highly ionised radioactive element might
continue to decay at an accelerated rate long after it has
regained its electrons?
If this is your question, I think the answer is clearly not. It
seems obvious that the reason decay proceeds more quickly in a
highly ionised state is because there is no negatively charged
electron cloud around the nucleus helping to prevent it from
blowing itself apart (ie decaying to a lighter element). So as
soon as the element regains its electrons it should immediately
become stable again.
But lets suppose I'm wrong about that (not likely but ...)
It still doesn't make any difference, because the only natural
conditions under which such high degrees of ionization can take
place are inside a star.
If the star explodes it will send clouds of heavy elements out
across vast expanses of space. In most cases heavy elements
will have regained their electrons within minutes (or perhaps a
few years) after the initial explosion.
After that, it will be 10's or 100's of millions of years
before those elements will start condensing as part of a new
solar system. At that point some of this radioactive material
will find its way into a crystal lattice of some kind. It is
then, and only then, that the clock begins ticking.
However that will usually be 100's of millions of years after
the time when the element was last stripped of all its
electrons, so any effects will be LONG in the past.
Does that help, or is there something else bothering you here?
Wall Of Sleep
You've illustrated my point well enough. Fossils are used to date
rocks. It may be indirect dating (X only exists in this strata, and X
came before Y (this is the "T"oE part BTW), so the strata with X in it
is older than the strata with
Y), but it is still a circular process.
The "standard phylogenetic tree" is a mythological tree built on the
assumption of common descent. If you want me to base my interpretation
of the evidence on an invalid assumption, then how can I have any other
interpretation than the one you have?
A true nested hierarchy must be traceable back to a single source. If
it's not, then there must be multiple nested hierarchies. If there are
multiple nested hierarchies (there are), then there were multiple
beginnings (there were). That is what the evidence shows.
>>>> This can be
>>>> seen in the man-made nested hierarchy created by dog breeding. Breeds
>>>> get more and more specific as they're selected out (they also tend to
>>>> become more "fragile"). If you allow the (specific) "pure" breeds to
>>>> interbreed, they become the more general (and more robust) mutt. They
>>>> are in essence reverting back towards the original dog "type". The
>>>> nested hierarchy of dog breeds is a nested hierarchy of *loss* not gain.
>>> Even this is wrong. First, dog breeds are not a nested hierarchy;
>>> different breeds have arisen by breeding together various dogs, not by
>>> splitting previous breeds.
>> The proposed evolutionary "tree" provides no less "sloppy" a nested
>> hierarchy than dog breeds. In fact it's more like a multi-stemmed bush
>> than a true tree.
>
> This is absolutely wrong about all levels of the tree other than the
> very deepest,
You mean the "stem"?
> at which it's either true or we don't currently have the
> tools to disentangle it. But it bears no resemblance to the situation
> with any organisms you can see with the naked eye, for example.
>
>>> Second, many breeds originate from mutations
>>> -- new features that breed true and were not found in their ancestors,
>>> such as the various forms of dwarfism seen in basset hounds, dachshunds,
>>> corgis, and so on.
>> Dwarfism is common to all mammals. It's not really a "new" feature. It
>> is a mutation though - you're right about that.
>
> It's new every time it happens, just as any mutation is. The point is
> that it falsifies your claim about the distribution of existing
> variation being the means of dog breed differentiation.
>
Is dwarfism a loss or a gain of information?
The problem with your argument is there is no way from "ancestor" to
your named species via the mechanism of evolution.
>>> (And trying to use Goldschmidt to
>>> support a theory of non-evolution is just perverse.)
>> "Richard Goldschmidt (1878-1958), a brilliant but unorthodox geneticist,
>> did not believe that Charles Darwin's idea of slow, gradual changes
>> could account for the origin of species...
>> "Although he recognized the constant accumulation of small changes in
>> populations (microevolution), he believed they did not lead to
>> speciation. Between true species he saw "bridgeless gaps" that could
>> only be accounted for by large sudden jumps, resulting in "hopeful
>> monsters.""
>> http://www.stephenjaygould.org/people/richard_goldschmidt.html
>
> All true, and none of it supporting your contention of the mere sorting
> of existing variation. In fact it specifically contradicts such a view.
>
His (and all the other's) claim is that evolution (which they all
believe in BTW) is a "directed" process. My original claim was this was
due to a loss of function. I'm not prepared to stand by that (in regard
to these scientists) because I didn't make myself clear. They all
reject the mechanism of random mutation and natural selection. While
they disagree on the actual mechanism, none of them believe evolution
proceeded by the accumulation of variations.
>> "However, even more heretical was his view that these abrupt
>> macroevolutionary changes need not occur as a result of a gene mutation
>> at all. Phenotypic changes, identical to those produced by genetic
>> mutations, could occur in response to serious environmental stress. He
>> referred to these as "phenocopies". Later he came to the conclusion that
>> these abrupt macroevolutionary changes were the result of a complete
>> repatterning or "reshuffling" of the chromosomal architecture, which
>> could have
>>
>> "a huge effect upon a series of developmental processes, leading at
>> once to a new and stable form by diverging from the former."
>>
>> "In other words, he considered that changes acquired during the course
>> of the life of living things - could be fixed genetically, thereby
>> stating - in a perhaps more acceptable manner - Lamarck's heretical
>> thesis that acquired characteristics could be transmitted genetically.
>>
>> "Perhaps even more heretical was his view that these "systemic
>> mutations", as he referred to them, "rarely occurred by chance". In
>> other words, they were directive rather than random - again a notion
>> that could not possibly be reconciled with the neo-Darwinian thesis.
>> Later Goldschmidt went even so far as to deny the existence of what he
>> referred to as the "corpuscular gene", and came to view all genetic
>> changes as alterations in pattern. "
>> http://www.edwardgoldsmith.org/page29.html
>
> No idea what he meant by that. You?
The "corpuscular gene" part? No idea, but Goldschmidt wrote a paper on it:
http://www.springerlink.com/content/pj35x63847w4u6x4/
Unfortunately there's no abstract.
>
>> "Contrary to near-unanimity among scientists, he insisted that the
>> neo-Darwinian theory of micromutations applied only within species and
>> was no longer tenable as a general theory of evolution. Instead,
>> Goldschmidt claimed, macroevolution resulted from larger jumps in
>> genotype - across "bridgeless gaps" - related either to systemic
>> mutations or to mutations affecting early development."
>> http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0300028237/
>
> Isn't that just a repetition of your first quote?
No. It's different (though similar).
Yes it was.
>>>>>> This forced one serious scientist to speculate
>>>>>> that perhaps the "pressure" of walking upright caused humans to
>>>>>> hyper-mutate. When you can only believe in evolution, you must
>>>>>> constantly grasp at straws to maintain your *belief*.
>>>>> Please cite this quote. I don't believe it's accurate. But one of you
>>>>> has again confused mutation with fixation.
>>>> I've been looking but can no longer find it. It was in an article about
>>>> the paper. It seems to have disappeared from the web though.
>>> More likely, you have misremembered.
>> I did not. It's the type of things us IDers don't "misremember".
>
> Then of course I believe you.
>
>>> At any rate, it's not true, and
>>> that's the important point.
>> Of course. It was an evolutionist who said it, but since it can be used
>> against certain elements of the "T"oE, by default it cannot be true.
>
> It's not true because it's a nonsensical statement. Walking upright does
> not cause mutation. Why should it?
>
I thought the same thing when I read it.
>>> The rate of mutation is high enough to
>>> account for all differences between human and chimp in a very short
>>> time. What actually controls the amount of difference is the rate of
>>> fixation. For every mutation that is fixed, thousands (or, in the
>>> current population, billions) disappear. The gross rate of fixation is
>>> almost entirely due to drift. Selection can fix alleles much more
>>> quickly, and regions (like the ones you are talking about) that show a
>>> high rate of evolution are almost certainly undergoing positive
>>> selection. This is by no means a conundrum for evolutionary biology.
>> It's so simple! It's a no-brainer! All of this is experimentally
>> verified I assume?
>> No?
>> Oh well, why bother? It's all "possible", so it must've happened - right?
>
> This is all basic population genetics, supported by large amounts of
> theoretical and experimental work. Which parts don't you believe?
>
"The gross rate of fixation is almost entirely due to drift."
Neutral non-selected mutations - correct?
"Selection can fix alleles much more quickly, and regions (like the ones
you are talking about) that show a high rate of evolution are almost
certainly undergoing positive selection."
First, you have to show that HAR regions undergo higher mutation rates
(without appealing to the circular argument "They're different from an
assumed CA so they must've mutated.").
This is highly unlikely since the regions have to do with *brain
development*! If the regions of our DNA that control the development of
the brain have higher mutation rates than other regions, we'd see
abundant evidence of abnormal brain development in our past and present
(due to all those mutations).
"non-reversability" was your term. (see the line above my answer). I
assumed you knew what it meant before you used it.
This part: "They become unable to produce fertile offspring when mating
with the parent population", is the classic definition of speciation
(mechanism aside). This is the definition I use. I don't ascribe to
the others.
The fact that these changes took place too rapidly to be random.
>
>>>>> It
>>>>> can't verify processes that take a long time to happen, or events that
>>>>> happened a long time ago. But other techniques do that.
>>>> Circular ones.
>>> So you say, but you have presented no argument for circularity.
>> All the evidence that supposedly supports the "T"oE is interpreted in a
>> circular manner. Those of us on the "outside" can see this plainly.
>
> So your argument is that it's circular because it's circular because you
> can see it's circular. Is that right?
>
No. My argument is that it's circular because it assumes it's
conclusion, then uses that assumption to interpret all the evidence.
Duplication just makes a copy of the original gene - nothing new. It's
the divergence part that must fashion a new gene out of an old one.
>>> They're both copies of A. If
>>> they diverge, giving us A' and A'', is there a new gene, or two new
>>> genes, or none?
>> The one that changes into a gene that is functionally different from
>> gene A would then be "new" now wouldn't it? (Again, painfully obvious!)
>
> What if they both changed function?
Then they're both new. Of course if the original gene is an essential
gene, the chances of it changing much are highly unlikely.
>
>>> Most evolution, by the way, probably doesn't result from new genes, just
>>> changes in old ones, even without duplication. Or there could be changes
>>> in regulatory sequences that may or may not be part of genes, depending
>>> on how you like to count it.
>> You have to get from a proposed first lifeform with "n" genes (n=0? n=1?
>> n=100?) to the vast amount of genes that have existed in the past and do
>> exist today. Even if they are all the result of changing one gene into
>> another, the new gene is still, well, "new".
>
> So? What's the problem, if one gene changes into another?
You still have to show that random mutations and natural selection can
change one gene into another without killing the organism.
>
>>>>> must be created in one mutation and then presented to natural selection
>>>>> to accept or reject.
>>>> Every mutation must "make it" to the next round. If it does, it was
>>>> "selected".
>>> You miss the whole point. The question is about the magnitude of the
>>> individual changes.
>> The magnitude has never been in dispute. I'm challenging *your*
>> mechanism. Your mechanism is gradual, minute changes adding up over time.
>
> It would seem to me that this has to do with magnitude, if so.
No. It has to do with mechanism plain and simple.
>
>>>>> That's not how it works. New features arise
>>>>> gradually through small variations.
>>>> Each of which must be selected. If they are not selected (passed on),
>>>> how can they be built upon?
>>> That's right. They're selected.
>> Why? What functional advantage do these partial systems and minute
>> changes offer? You say these are not significant changes, so they are
>> not fully functional systems. You must show that NS will select for
>> *potential* then. This you cannot do.
>
> I say nothing of the sort. "Small" is not the same thing as
> "insignificant". In order for this to work, every change must be some
> improvement over the previous condition.
Exactly. But yet, you'll argue that most mutations are neutral, so how
will they be selected?
> It doesn't have to be a big
> improvement, and the original state of the system doesn't have to be all
> that good, as long as the original system does something selectable.
>
>>>>> This is why natural selection is a
>>>>> creative force -- it constrains these gradual changes along a particular
>>>>> pathway.
>>>> Unless it can foresee a future use for these mutations (variations), how
>>>> does NS "constrains these gradual changes along a particular pathway"?
>>> Because that's the pathway that is advantageous.
>> Ha ha ha! Yeah! Umm, again, *minute* changes and partial systems are
>> advantageous how?
>
> Consider, for example, Nilsson, D., and S. Pelger. 1994. A pessimistic
> estimate of the time required for an eye to evolve. Proc. R. Soc. Lond.
> B 256:53-58.
>
>>> Why does water run
>>> downhill?
>> Gravity?
>>
>> Are you suggesting that gravity is the mechanism for evolution? ;)
>
> Try not to be willfully stupid. Surely you can recognize analogies when
> you run into them.
>
Surely you recognized the ;)
>>> Can it see the ocean approaching and wants to get there? No,
>>> it merely responds to the local slope of the land.
>> This is the *BEST* argument if favor of the "T"oE ever! I nominate it
>> for "Argument of the Century"!
>
>>>> Natural selection does not have any "goal" (other than survival). It
>>>> does not "constrain" *potential* advantages along any "pathway". If it
>>>> does, it is a prescribed, predetermined process.
>>> The environment constrains certain changes to be advantageous or not.
>>> Nothing more than that.
>> Yes, I get that.
>>
>> That is the definition of Natural Selection.
>>
>> So how does this reward non-functional (but potential) systems?
>
> It doesn't. I never said anything about non-functional (but potential)
> systems. That was all your imagination.
>
Then all you have to do is show a believable pathway for the evolution
of *any* new gene - one advantageous step at a time. Can you do that?
>> Your argument was that NS is a creative force. It's not - unless you
>> give it something to be creative with. These minute changes don't
>> qualify. If there are large changes, ie; fully functional systems that
>> provide a decided advantage, then yes, NS will most likely select them
>> (barring any number of circumstances that will kill an organism - no
>> matter the advantage). But to suggest that NS will select minute
>> changes based on what they *might* become someday is ridiculous.
>
> Agreed. But nobody has been suggesting that. Try responding to what I
> actually say rather than your imaginary distortions.
>
Again, do you know of *any* gene which can be demonstrated to have
evolved by known advantageous steps?
>>>> Interestingly, some are arguing that it indeed is:
>>> They are wrong. Further research has shown that what's going on is
>>> merely an evolved response to stress: an increase in the rate of
>>> mutation. There is no change in the ratio of useful to non-useful
>>> mutations. These are not targeted or prescribed mutations, must more
>>> mutations. The bacterial clone is just throwing lots of darts at the
>>> target of selection in hopes that some of them will hit the bullseye.
>> How can these be "non-targeted" and "targeted" ("throwing lots of darts
>> at the *target* of selection") at the same time?
>>
>> The truth is, you don't know what causes these hyper-mutations.
>
> You have presented no argument that they are hypermutations at all. What
> the evidence shows is an increase in mutation rate under stress. And in
> fact research has done quite a bit to elucidate the mechanism that
> results in the increased rate.
>
Yes, research also shows that these extra mutations are targeted at
specific regions (IOW non-random).
Yes. First off, there's a stochastic component to *Natural Selection*.
This is the component of the "T"oE often referred to as "non-random".
But NS has a random component to it that is often overlooked. Usually
it is assumed that any advantageous mutation *will be* selected, but the
random nature of NS might just as easily knock out the advantageous
mutation.
>>>>> Only if a new feature must arise
>>>>> by a single, large mutation is selection robbed of its creative
>>>>> importance.
>>>> Wrong. Only if every non-functional (but potentially functional
>>>> (down-the-road (if only other mutations can eventually be added
>>>> (provided the non-functioning potential system doesn't get corrupted
>>>> along the way)))) mutation gets passed on, does NS work in the way you
>>>> describe (as a "creative" force).
>>>>
>>>> That's a lot of conditions. Do you have *any* evidence that NS rewards
>>>> *potential*
>>> No. It doesn't, and such a claim suggests you have no idea what I'm
>>> trying to say. Let's try an analogy. Suppose that a drunk is trying to
>>> get home.
>> OK, he has a *goal*.
>
> Please try not to concentrate on irrelevant features. In fact it's not
> necesary that he have a goal. Perhaps he's just lurching about, and I'm
> the one trying to get him home.
>
OK *YOU* have a goal (you represent NS in this scenario).
I was.
> The analogy
> was intended only to show that a process that selects from small, random
> variations can be creative. I could improve the model by having one in
> which each step closer to the goal was advantageous in some way, as it
> would be in natural selection.
Except then your analogy of the "drunkards walk" would no longer work.
I think your analogy correctly represents *directed* (goal oriented)
evolution.
For your analogy to accurately represent RM+NS, you'd have to change it
a lot. For instance, since most mutations are neutral, you'd have to
allow the drunk to wander aimlessly *a lot* (in fact most of the time).
Then, since NS has a stochastic component, you'd have to randomly push
him back towards the beginning every now and then. Then, since there is
no "home" with NS (each step represents "home"), you could not reward
him in any way but to *not* push him backwards.
Now your drunkards walk will more correctly represent RM+NS. Let's see
if he ever makes it to his house!
> But the analogy was intended to teach one
> lesson only, not all possible lessons. Are we agreed that an agency that
> selects from random small variations can be creative in effect?
>
If it has a goal in mind - yes.
Yes, I am learning a lot by this discussion. Thank you.
Wall Of Sleep
The process of "regaining their electrons" is the part I was unaware of.
I was proceeding under the assumption that this decay was permanent.
John Harshman
Oh, my. There are two sorts of electrons we're talking about here: the
ones that hang out in orbitals outside the nucleus and neutralize its
charge, and beta particles, which result from decay of neutrons in the
nucleus. (The only difference is where they are.) Ionization either adds
or removes an electron from an orbital. Decay spits one out from the
nucleus. Decay is permanent. Ionization is very temporary, especially
the extreme ionization we're talking about here. An ion with a high
positive charge deseprately wants electrons, and will get them from just
about any source once conditions allow.
[snip]
Ernest Major
Friar Broccoli <Eli...@gmail.com> writes
I'm not sure that you'd want it, but perhaps you deserve an award for
penetrating to the depths of the misunderstanding.
>
> Cordially;
>
> Friar Broccoli
> Robert Keith Elias, Quebec, Canada Email: EliasRK (of) gmail * com
> Best programmer's & all purpose text editor: http://www.semware.com
>
> --------- I consider ALL arguments in support of my views ---------
>
--
alias Ernest Major
Puppet_Sock
[snip]
> So creationists can say: No matter what species or combination
> of characteristics show up, you guys will find some way of
> making it fit into evolutionary theory. Therefore evolution is
> not falsifiable.
The problem is with the phrase "making it fit." For example,
much of the "tree of life" predates Darwin. People just
started classifying things that way because they are
manifestly similar. It's certainly not a question of having
to work hard to "make something fit" the scheme. What
is hard, in some situations, is deciding exactly where
in the scheme something fits. So, did this species branch
off before or after that species? Or did species A diverge
into B, then B branch off C? Or did A spin of B then C?
It's not always clear, especially when several of the
intermediate steps are extinct.
Also, as to "not falsifiable." What would it take to get
you to think that the country France does not exist?
Probably it would be a seriously difficult task to do
on the basis of evidence, considering that it is a fact
that France does exist. Does that make geography
a non-falsifiable subject and so not a science?
Or does it mean we actually know that it is a fact
that France exists?
That is to say, there are things about which we are very
confident indeed. Such as the general outlines of the
geography of Europe. (Though the details of exactly
where boundaries are may be a bit vague.) If we decline
to be drawn into serious debate about the existence of
France (in a science forum) it is only reasonable. (Though
a philosopher might entertain us for some time on the
question.) So too, the nested arrangement of species,
and the manifest fact that they very strongly appear to
be related.
Socks
John Harshman
If you think so, then you haven't understood anything I've said. You
still don't understand the differnce between dating and correlation. You
still don't understand that evolution has nothing to do with it. When
you say "X came before Y" all that means is that X is older than Y. A
pencil made in 1850 is older than a pencil made in 1950, but no
evolution is implied. We can know that X is older than Y in two ways:
strata containing X have been radiometrically dated as older than strata
containing Y, or strata containing X and Y are both found in a single
vertical sequence at one location, and X is below Y. There is nothing
circular here.
Again, point? Please connect this to some claim you have made previously.
>>> > Lost features can be distinguished
>>> > from primitive features by phylogenetic analysis. That's how we know
>>> > that whales, for example, are not primitively aquatic.
>>> >
>>>
>>>We don't "know" this. It is hypothesized based on the evidence as
>>>interpreted through the evolutionary assumption.
>>
>>Show me another valid way to interpret the evidence, one that fits the
>>data at least as well as a the standard phylogenetic tree.
>
> The "standard phylogenetic tree" is a mythological tree built on the
> assumption of common descent. If you want me to base my interpretation
> of the evidence on an invalid assumption, then how can I have any other
> interpretation than the one you have?
Show me another way to interpret the evidence that doesn't rely on an
invalid assumption. (And by the way, common descent is neither invalid
nor an assumption; you are confused again.)
It's conceivable there are multiple nested hierarchies, though I doubt
it. It's just barely conceivable that life arose more than once, though
I doubt it. What's really confusing is the occasional horizontal
transfer, which may have been more common early in the history of life.
However, for a person like you, who doubts any common descent of any two
species, this hardly seems important. Even if there are 10 origins of
life, all of which were combined in the common ancestor of all
eukaryotes, everything I've claimed is still true, since I have limited
my discussion to eukaryotes, in fact to plants and animals only. And
eukaryotes definitely have a single common ancestor, and form a single
nested hierarchy. You have, so far, not even addressed the evidence, so
it would be hard for it to show anything to you.
>>>>>This can be
>>>>>seen in the man-made nested hierarchy created by dog breeding. Breeds
>>>>>get more and more specific as they're selected out (they also tend to
>>>>>become more "fragile"). If you allow the (specific) "pure" breeds to
>>>>>interbreed, they become the more general (and more robust) mutt. They
>>>>>are in essence reverting back towards the original dog "type". The
>>>>>nested hierarchy of dog breeds is a nested hierarchy of *loss* not gain.
>>>>
>>>>Even this is wrong. First, dog breeds are not a nested hierarchy;
>>>>different breeds have arisen by breeding together various dogs, not by
>>>>splitting previous breeds.
>>>
>>>The proposed evolutionary "tree" provides no less "sloppy" a nested
>>>hierarchy than dog breeds. In fact it's more like a multi-stemmed bush
>>>than a true tree.
>>
>>This is absolutely wrong about all levels of the tree other than the
>>very deepest,
>
> You mean the "stem"?
Hard to say, because I don't know what you mean by "the stem". I mean
the part of the tree at which eukaryotes, eubacteria, and archaeans come
together. Generally, we call this the root of the tree. And we're
talking about events that happened several billions of years ago.
Nothing to do with dogs. Just the extremely remove ancestors of dogs,
people, fungi, E. coli, and everyone else.
>>at which it's either true or we don't currently have the
>>tools to disentangle it. But it bears no resemblance to the situation
>>with any organisms you can see with the naked eye, for example.
>>
>>
>>>>Second, many breeds originate from mutations
>>>>-- new features that breed true and were not found in their ancestors,
>>>>such as the various forms of dwarfism seen in basset hounds, dachshunds,
>>>>corgis, and so on.
>>>
>>>Dwarfism is common to all mammals. It's not really a "new" feature. It
>>>is a mutation though - you're right about that.
>>
>>It's new every time it happens, just as any mutation is. The point is
>>that it falsifies your claim about the distribution of existing
>>variation being the means of dog breed differentiation.
>
> Is dwarfism a loss or a gain of information?
If you could define "information", we could ask that question. So far
I've never found a creationist who could present a rigorous definition.
What makes you think so?
>>>>(And trying to use Goldschmidt to
>>>>support a theory of non-evolution is just perverse.)
>>>
>>>"Richard Goldschmidt (1878-1958), a brilliant but unorthodox geneticist,
>>>did not believe that Charles Darwin's idea of slow, gradual changes
>>>could account for the origin of species...
>>>"Although he recognized the constant accumulation of small changes in
>>>populations (microevolution), he believed they did not lead to
>>>speciation. Between true species he saw "bridgeless gaps" that could
>>>only be accounted for by large sudden jumps, resulting in "hopeful
>>>monsters.""
>>>http://www.stephenjaygould.org/people/richard_goldschmidt.html
>>
>>All true, and none of it supporting your contention of the mere sorting
>>of existing variation. In fact it specifically contradicts such a view.
>
> His (and all the other's) claim is that evolution (which they all
> believe in BTW) is a "directed" process. My original claim was this was
> due to a loss of function. I'm not prepared to stand by that (in regard
> to these scientists) because I didn't make myself clear. They all
> reject the mechanism of random mutation and natural selection. While
> they disagree on the actual mechanism, none of them believe evolution
> proceeded by the accumulation of variations.
Agreed. It happens that they are wrong. Or do you have any evidence you
would like to present for this viewpoint?
You understand that Goldschmidt was writing long before we had any clue
about what genes are, physically, long before all the advances in
molecular biology we know about today. And these render his speculations
moot. He was wrong.
Then it's pretty certain that my guess is right. Alpham is not a
mutation rate, but a ratio of Y fixation rate to autosomal fixation
rate. The paper is irrelevant to what we were discussing.
>>>>>>>This forced one serious scientist to speculate
>>>>>>>that perhaps the "pressure" of walking upright caused humans to
>>>>>>>hyper-mutate. When you can only believe in evolution, you must
>>>>>>>constantly grasp at straws to maintain your *belief*.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Please cite this quote. I don't believe it's accurate. But one of you
>>>>>>has again confused mutation with fixation.
>>>>>
>>>>>I've been looking but can no longer find it. It was in an article about
>>>>>the paper. It seems to have disappeared from the web though.
>>>>
>>>>More likely, you have misremembered.
>>>
>>>I did not. It's the type of things us IDers don't "misremember".
>>
>>Then of course I believe you.
>>
>>
>>>>At any rate, it's not true, and
>>>>that's the important point.
>>>
>>>Of course. It was an evolutionist who said it, but since it can be used
>>>against certain elements of the "T"oE, by default it cannot be true.
>>
>>It's not true because it's a nonsensical statement. Walking upright does
>>not cause mutation. Why should it?
>
> I thought the same thing when I read it.
Then you are correct. I still don't believe you ever read such a thing.
>>>>The rate of mutation is high enough to
>>>>account for all differences between human and chimp in a very short
>>>>time. What actually controls the amount of difference is the rate of
>>>>fixation. For every mutation that is fixed, thousands (or, in the
>>>>current population, billions) disappear. The gross rate of fixation is
>>>>almost entirely due to drift. Selection can fix alleles much more
>>>>quickly, and regions (like the ones you are talking about) that show a
>>>>high rate of evolution are almost certainly undergoing positive
>>>>selection. This is by no means a conundrum for evolutionary biology.
>>>
>>>It's so simple! It's a no-brainer! All of this is experimentally
>>>verified I assume?
>>>No?
>>>Oh well, why bother? It's all "possible", so it must've happened - right?
>>
>>This is all basic population genetics, supported by large amounts of
>>theoretical and experimental work. Which parts don't you believe?
>
> "The gross rate of fixation is almost entirely due to drift."
>
> Neutral non-selected mutations - correct?
Yes.
> "Selection can fix alleles much more quickly, and regions (like the ones
> you are talking about) that show a high rate of evolution are almost
> certainly undergoing positive selection."
>
> First, you have to show that HAR regions undergo higher mutation rates
> (without appealing to the circular argument "They're different from an
> assumed CA so they must've mutated.").
No, no, no. HAR regions do *not* undergo higher mutation rates. They
have the same mutation rates as anything else. They have high *fixation*
rates, and the obvious explanation for that is selection.
> This is highly unlikely since the regions have to do with *brain
> development*! If the regions of our DNA that control the development of
> the brain have higher mutation rates than other regions, we'd see
> abundant evidence of abnormal brain development in our past and present
> (due to all those mutations).
You are confused about the difference between mutation and fixation. Try
to learn this one.
No. I took it from you. See the parts you snipped out.
Notice: nothing about artificial insemination. What if they don't
produce fertile offspring because they don't mate? At any rate, this is
a poor definition. Congratulations. You can find both good and bad
definitions of speciation by searching the web at random.
You are confusing all sorts of things here. At the very least your are
confusion mutation with fixation, randomness with selection, and
selection with mutation. It's most likely that this particular change
was mostly due to selection acting on pre-existing variation. There is
not the slightest hint of directed mutation here.
>>>>>>It
>>>>>>can't verify processes that take a long time to happen, or events that
>>>>>>happened a long time ago. But other techniques do that.
>>>>>
>>>>>Circular ones.
>>>>
>>>>So you say, but you have presented no argument for circularity.
>>>
>>>All the evidence that supposedly supports the "T"oE is interpreted in a
>>>circular manner. Those of us on the "outside" can see this plainly.
>>
>>So your argument is that it's circular because it's circular because you
>>can see it's circular. Is that right?
>
>
> No. My argument is that it's circular because it assumes it's
> conclusion, then uses that assumption to interpret all the evidence.
That would be circular, all right. But please show a real example of
such circularity. So far all your examples (e.g. fossils date rocks date
fossils) have been bogus. Can you do better?
Exactly. So what's the problem? Genes get duplicated, and they diverge.
Do that enough times and you can have many times the original number of
genes.
>>>>They're both copies of A. If
>>>>they diverge, giving us A' and A'', is there a new gene, or two new
>>>>genes, or none?
>>>
>>>The one that changes into a gene that is functionally different from
>>>gene A would then be "new" now wouldn't it? (Again, painfully obvious!)
>>
>>What if they both changed function?
>
>
> Then they're both new. Of course if the original gene is an essential
> gene, the chances of it changing much are highly unlikely.
Not at all. "Essential" can only have meaning with reference to
environment. If the environment changes, a gene that was once essential
may become redundant, and vice versa. Also, genes can take over all or
part of each others' functions. Suppose, for example, that gene A has
two functions. If it splits into A' and A'', each new gene might
specialize in only one of those functions -- both functions are still
performed, but neither gene does both and so is not the old gene. There
are other ways too, but that will do.
>>>>Most evolution, by the way, probably doesn't result from new genes, just
>>>>changes in old ones, even without duplication. Or there could be changes
>>>>in regulatory sequences that may or may not be part of genes, depending
>>>>on how you like to count it.
>>>
>>>You have to get from a proposed first lifeform with "n" genes (n=0? n=1?
>>>n=100?) to the vast amount of genes that have existed in the past and do
>>>exist today. Even if they are all the result of changing one gene into
>>>another, the new gene is still, well, "new".
>>
>>So? What's the problem, if one gene changes into another?
>
> You still have to show that random mutations and natural selection can
> change one gene into another without killing the organism.
What would prevent that from happening? We can see that selection
changes gene function; there are plenty of examples of adaptation in the
present. We can see that genes are grouped into families that can be
traced back to common ancestors, and while we can't say that the changes
resulted from natural selection, that's a plausible explanation. Put
those together, and they make a pretty good argument.
>>>>>>must be created in one mutation and then presented to natural selection
>>>>>>to accept or reject.
>>>>>
>>>>>Every mutation must "make it" to the next round. If it does, it was
>>>>>"selected".
>>>>
>>>>You miss the whole point. The question is about the magnitude of the
>>>>individual changes.
>>>
>>>The magnitude has never been in dispute. I'm challenging *your*
>>>mechanism. Your mechanism is gradual, minute changes adding up over time.
>>
>>It would seem to me that this has to do with magnitude, if so.
>
> No. It has to do with mechanism plain and simple.
If so, it seems to be only that quantity has a quality all its own. Try
to clarify your thoughts here.
>>>>>>That's not how it works. New features arise
>>>>>>gradually through small variations.
>>>>>
>>>>>Each of which must be selected. If they are not selected (passed on),
>>>>>how can they be built upon?
>>>>
>>>>That's right. They're selected.
>>>
>>>Why? What functional advantage do these partial systems and minute
>>>changes offer? You say these are not significant changes, so they are
>>>not fully functional systems. You must show that NS will select for
>>>*potential* then. This you cannot do.
>>
>>I say nothing of the sort. "Small" is not the same thing as
>>"insignificant". In order for this to work, every change must be some
>>improvement over the previous condition.
>
> Exactly. But yet, you'll argue that most mutations are neutral, so how
> will they be selected?
The neutral ones are not selected. It's the less common non-neutral ones
that are selected.
>>It doesn't have to be a big
>>improvement, and the original state of the system doesn't have to be all
>>that good, as long as the original system does something selectable.
>>
>>
>>>>>>This is why natural selection is a
>>>>>>creative force -- it constrains these gradual changes along a particular
>>>>>>pathway.
>>>>>
>>>>>Unless it can foresee a future use for these mutations (variations), how
>>>>>does NS "constrains these gradual changes along a particular pathway"?
>>>>
>>>>Because that's the pathway that is advantageous.
>>>
>>>Ha ha ha! Yeah! Umm, again, *minute* changes and partial systems are
>>>advantageous how?
>>
>>Consider, for example, Nilsson, D., and S. Pelger. 1994. A pessimistic
>>estimate of the time required for an eye to evolve. Proc. R. Soc. Lond.
>>B 256:53-58.
>>
>>
>>>>Why does water run
>>>>downhill?
>>>
>>>Gravity?
>>>
>>>Are you suggesting that gravity is the mechanism for evolution? ;)
>>
>>Try not to be willfully stupid. Surely you can recognize analogies when
>>you run into them.
>
> Surely you recognized the ;)
That's why I said "willfully".
>>>>Can it see the ocean approaching and wants to get there? No,
>>>>it merely responds to the local slope of the land.
>>>
>>>This is the *BEST* argument if favor of the "T"oE ever! I nominate it
>>>for "Argument of the Century"!
>>
>>>>>Natural selection does not have any "goal" (other than survival). It
>>>>>does not "constrain" *potential* advantages along any "pathway". If it
>>>>>does, it is a prescribed, predetermined process.
>>>>
>>>>The environment constrains certain changes to be advantageous or not.
>>>>Nothing more than that.
>>>
>>>Yes, I get that.
>>>
>>>That is the definition of Natural Selection.
>>>
>>>So how does this reward non-functional (but potential) systems?
>>
>>It doesn't. I never said anything about non-functional (but potential)
>>systems. That was all your imagination.
>
> Then all you have to do is show a believable pathway for the evolution
> of *any* new gene - one advantageous step at a time. Can you do that?
If I do, you will just say that it's not really a new gene. How about
this one? A new gene in one advantageous step (or perhaps in zero steps,
depending on how you look at it):
www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=282134
>>>Your argument was that NS is a creative force. It's not - unless you
>>>give it something to be creative with. These minute changes don't
>>>qualify. If there are large changes, ie; fully functional systems that
>>>provide a decided advantage, then yes, NS will most likely select them
>>>(barring any number of circumstances that will kill an organism - no
>>>matter the advantage). But to suggest that NS will select minute
>>>changes based on what they *might* become someday is ridiculous.
>>
>>Agreed. But nobody has been suggesting that. Try responding to what I
>>actually say rather than your imaginary distortions.
>
> Again, do you know of *any* gene which can be demonstrated to have
> evolved by known advantageous steps?
How would I go about demonstrating this? Would it be necessary for you
to see each step happening in real time?
>>>>>Interestingly, some are arguing that it indeed is:
>>>>
>>>>They are wrong. Further research has shown that what's going on is
>>>>merely an evolved response to stress: an increase in the rate of
>>>>mutation. There is no change in the ratio of useful to non-useful
>>>>mutations. These are not targeted or prescribed mutations, must more
>>>>mutations. The bacterial clone is just throwing lots of darts at the
>>>>target of selection in hopes that some of them will hit the bullseye.
>>>
>>>How can these be "non-targeted" and "targeted" ("throwing lots of darts
>>>at the *target* of selection") at the same time?
>>>
>>>The truth is, you don't know what causes these hyper-mutations.
>>
>>You have presented no argument that they are hypermutations at all. What
>>the evidence shows is an increase in mutation rate under stress. And in
>>fact research has done quite a bit to elucidate the mechanism that
>>results in the increased rate.
>
> Yes, research also shows that these extra mutations are targeted at
> specific regions (IOW non-random).
I have doubts that this result actually happened. Can you cite the
primary literature?
It might. This is however taken into account by population geneticists.
It's only your ignorance of the subject that makes you think this is a
real issue.
>>>>>>Only if a new feature must arise
>>>>>>by a single, large mutation is selection robbed of its creative
>>>>>>importance.
>>>>>
>>>>>Wrong. Only if every non-functional (but potentially functional
>>>>>(down-the-road (if only other mutations can eventually be added
>>>>>(provided the non-functioning potential system doesn't get corrupted
>>>>>along the way)))) mutation gets passed on, does NS work in the way you
>>>>>describe (as a "creative" force).
>>>>>
>>>>>That's a lot of conditions. Do you have *any* evidence that NS rewards
>>>>>*potential*
>>>>
>>>>No. It doesn't, and such a claim suggests you have no idea what I'm
>>>>trying to say. Let's try an analogy. Suppose that a drunk is trying to
>>>>get home.
>>>
>>>OK, he has a *goal*.
>>
>>Please try not to concentrate on irrelevant features. In fact it's not
>>necesary that he have a goal. Perhaps he's just lurching about, and I'm
>>the one trying to get him home.
>
> OK *YOU* have a goal (you represent NS in this scenario).
Suppose I just pushed him back whenever he went down hill and not when
he went up hill. Eventually he'd find himself on top of whatever the
highest local peak was. Do I have a goal now?
That's because you misunderstood the analogy, natural selection, and
most other things.
> > The analogy
>
>>was intended only to show that a process that selects from small, random
>>variations can be creative. I could improve the model by having one in
>>which each step closer to the goal was advantageous in some way, as it
>>would be in natural selection.
>
> Except then your analogy of the "drunkards walk" would no longer work.
> I think your analogy correctly represents *directed* (goal oriented)
> evolution.
Why wouldn't the analogy work?
> For your analogy to accurately represent RM+NS, you'd have to change it
> a lot. For instance, since most mutations are neutral, you'd have to
> allow the drunk to wander aimlessly *a lot* (in fact most of the time).
> Then, since NS has a stochastic component, you'd have to randomly push
> him back towards the beginning every now and then. Then, since there is
> no "home" with NS (each step represents "home"), you could not reward
> him in any way but to *not* push him backwards.
> Now your drunkards walk will more correctly represent RM+NS. Let's see
> if he ever makes it to his house!
Of course he would. It would just take a bit longer. However, you are
confused about the analogy. A neutral mutation would be one that didn't
move him either closer to or farther away from his goal. That is, it
would have no effect.
>>But the analogy was intended to teach one
>>lesson only, not all possible lessons. Are we agreed that an agency that
>>selects from random small variations can be creative in effect?
>
> If it has a goal in mind - yes.
What if it just follows a simple rule, like I have suggested above for
moving up hill. All we need to make this a great analogy is to call the
ground a fitness surface.
If only I could believe that you actually are learning. I see few signs.
Augray
wrote in <yL7uh.10059$Kf.9890@trndny07> :
>John Harshman wrote:
>> Wall Of Sleep wrote:
>>
>>> John Harshman wrote:
>>>
>>>> Wall Of Sleep wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> John Harshman wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Wall Of Sleep wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> John Harshman wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Wall Of Sleep wrote:
[snip]
But immediately following is this: "However, it is also possible that
these differences could be explained by different ages of the living
birds."
Unfortunately, no reference is given for the claim that the
differences are significant enough to justify placing the specimens in
several different species, and at least two papers advocate a single
species:
Houch, M. A., J. A. Gauthier, & R. E. Strauss. 1990. Allometric
Scaling in the Earliest Fossil Bird, _Archaeopteryx lithographica_.
Science 247:195-198.
Senter, P., & J. H. Robins. 2003. Taxonomic Status of the Specimens of
_Archaeopteryx_. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 23(4):961-965.
Whatever the case, these specimens are still excellent examples of
transitional forms.
[snip]
Friar Broccoli
> Friar Broccoli wrote:
>> Wall Of Sleep wrote:
[more extensive snipping]
>> If the star explodes it will send clouds of heavy elements out
>> across vast expanses of space. In most cases heavy elements
>> will have regained their electrons within minutes (or perhaps a
>> few years) after the initial explosion.
> The process of "regaining their electrons" is the part I was
> unaware of. I was proceeding under the assumption that this
> decay was permanent.
In general electrons can only be kept away from a nucleus by
considerable effort. The protons in the nucleus are
positively charged, so they attract negatively charged
electrons. If a heavy element like uranium is completely
stripped of its electrons it will have a very strong positive
charge and will therefore attract new electrons quickly.
On the other hand, if a uranium-238 atom decays to lead for
example by losing 10 protons (and 22 neutrons) from its nucleus
then that is definitely permanent (at least for all practical
purposes).
See:
http://www.ieer.org/fctsheet/uranium.html
However, since the chemical properties of lead are completely
different from the chemical properties of uranium, the lead
atom won't find its way into the same types of crystals as the
uranium atom would.
In general (and this is greatly over simplified) we can tell
how long ago some types of crystals formed by counting the
number of lead atoms that are in locations where uranium atoms
should be, and comparing that with how many uranium atoms still
remain in the crystal. (Note that Potassium and Thorium are
also used.)
Again, I hope this was helpful.
Wall Of Sleep
>>>>>> This forced one serious scientist to speculate
>>>>>> that perhaps the "pressure" of walking upright caused humans to
>>>>>> hyper-mutate. When you can only believe in evolution, you must
>>>>>> constantly grasp at straws to maintain your *belief*.
>>>>> Please cite this quote. I don't believe it's accurate. But one of you
>>>>> has again confused mutation with fixation.
>>>> I've been looking but can no longer find it. It was in an article about
>>>> the paper. It seems to have disappeared from the web though.
>>> More likely, you have misremembered.
>> I did not. It's the type of things us IDers don't "misremember".
>
> Then of course I believe you.
>
>>> At any rate, it's not true, and
>>> that's the important point.
>> Of course. It was an evolutionist who said it, but since it can be used
>> against certain elements of the "T"oE, by default it cannot be true.
>
> It's not true because it's a nonsensical statement. Walking upright does
> not cause mutation. Why should it?
>
I found it!
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/genetics/2006-08-16-brain-evolution-gene_x.htm
"Andrew Clark, a Cornell University professor molecular biology who was
not part of Haussler's team, said that if true, the change in genes
would be fastest and most dramatic in humans and would be "terrifically
exciting."
"However, the gene changed so fast that Clark said that he has a hard
time believing it unless something unusual happened in a mutation. It's
not part of normal evolution, he said. Haussler attributed the dramatic
change to the stress of man getting out of trees and walking on two feet."
Notice that the one making what you and I both agree is a "nonsensical
statement" is none other than the study co-author David Haussler,
director of the Center for Biomolecular Science and Engineering at the
University of California, Santa Cruz - (the guy that found the HAR
regions!).
(Somehow I sense a reversal of opinion coming from you!)
Ernest Major
writes
>John Harshman wrote:
>>>>>>> This forced one serious scientist to speculate that perhaps the
>>>>>>>"pressure" of walking upright caused humans to hyper-mutate.
>>>>>>>When you can only believe in evolution, you must constantly
>>>>>>>grasp at straws to maintain your *belief*.
>>>>>> Please cite this quote. I don't believe it's accurate. But one of you
>>>>>> has again confused mutation with fixation.
>>>>> I've been looking but can no longer find it. It was in an article
>>>>>about the paper. It seems to have disappeared from the web
>>>>>though.
>>>> More likely, you have misremembered.
>>> I did not. It's the type of things us IDers don't "misremember".
>> Then of course I believe you.
>>
>>>> At any rate, it's not true, and
>>>> that's the important point.
>>> Of course. It was an evolutionist who said it, but since it can be
>>>used against certain elements of the "T"oE, by default it cannot be
>>>
>>does
>> not cause mutation. Why should it?
>>
>
>I found it!
>http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/genetics/2006-08-16-brain-evolution
>-gene_x.htm
>
>"Andrew Clark, a Cornell University professor molecular biology who was
>not part of Haussler's team, said that if true, the change in genes
>would be fastest and most dramatic in humans and would be "terrifically
>exciting."
>
>"However, the gene changed so fast that Clark said that he has a hard
>time believing it unless something unusual happened in a mutation. It's
>not part of normal evolution, he said. Haussler attributed the dramatic
>change to the stress of man getting out of trees and walking on two feet."
>
>Notice that the one making what you and I both agree is a "nonsensical
>statement" is none other than the study co-author David Haussler,
>director of the Center for Biomolecular Science and Engineering at the
>University of California, Santa Cruz - (the guy that found the HAR
>regions!).
The report doesn't say what you claim it does. Haussler is *reported* to
have said that the change in the gene was a result of adaptation to
bipedalism; he is not reported to have speculated about hypermutation -
that is your misinterpretation, which is about as sensible as you
opinions on the relevance of high ionisation in stars to the radiodating
of terrestrial rocks. Anyone familiar with the theory of evolution would
interpret him as speculating that bipedalism changed the selective
pressures so that more mutations were *fixed* in that gene, not that
more mutations occurred.
>
>(Somehow I sense a reversal of opinion coming from you!)
>
I hope to see a reversal of opinion from you.
--
alias Ernest Major
John Harshman
Wrong. You have in fact conflated paraphrases by some science journalist
of statements made by two separate people, Haussler and Clark. Who knows
what either of them really said? I can make sense of Haussler's fairly
well: he's saying that becoming bipedal presented a new selective
environment that caused fixation of multiple mutations in a short time.
Nothing weird there. I have no idea what Clark was trying to say. I
suspect garbling by the journalist. Nobody, not even the anonymous
journalist, is saying that walking upright causes mutation.
> (Somehow I sense a reversal of opinion coming from you!)
You sense wrong, as usual. Try thinking as well as sensing, and see
where that gets you.
Wall Of Sleep
I don't really have the time or the expertise to dispute your points on
this subject any further right now, so I'm going to leave off this
rabbit trail and focus on those aspects of this post I feel more
confident about.
Common descent is not *proven*, nor is it *verified*, so yes, it is an
assumption.
Of course it is, if you only believe in natural causes.
> What's really confusing is the occasional horizontal
> transfer, which may have been more common early in the history of life.
If you aren't married to the idea of naturalism, then this is not
"confusing" at all.
> However, for a person like you, who doubts any common descent of any two
> species,
I never said that. Many species share a common ancestor. I believe
that all felines are related for example. I don't believe in common
descent from a single ancestor.
> this hardly seems important. Even if there are 10 origins of
> life, all of which were combined
Huh? "combined"?
> in the common ancestor of all
> eukaryotes,
No, there were original eukaryotes as well.
> everything I've claimed is still true, since I have limited
> my discussion to eukaryotes, in fact to plants and animals only. And
> eukaryotes definitely have a single common ancestor,
Definitely? What was it? What pathway can you show me for the
evolution of all plants and animals from a single organism?
> and form a single
> nested hierarchy.
They don't, except in the most superficial sense.
Prof. John A. Davison, in his "AN EVOLUTIONARY MANIFESTO: A NEW
HYPOTHESIS FOR ORGANIC CHANGE" points out some problems with germ cells
and their supposed continuous cell lineage:
"In birds the cells destined to
become the germ cells first appear in the extra-embryonic endoderm
(germinal crescent) anterior to the head of the developing embryo.
Incidentally, this region has no homologue in the hatched bird as the
extra-embryonic endoderm is, by definition, resorbed as nutrient for
the developing chick. From there the presumptive germ cells enter
the circulatory system and, after a period of time in the bloodstream,
penetrate the walls of the venous circulation and invade the gonad
where they differentiate into the definitive gametes. In mammals
the presumptive germ cells first appear in the endoderm of the
allantois, a structure destined to become the urinary bladder of
the adult. From here they migrate in amoeboid fashion anteriorly
and laterally to reach the gonad where they complete their
differentiation. Thus, there is no way that the reproductive
cells of mammals can be homologized with those of birds as they
originate from opposite ends of the embryonic axis and reach the
gonads by completely different means.
Similarly, the eggs and sperm of the Anura (frogs and toads) arise
in an entirely different way than do those of the Urodela (salamanders
and newts). Staining methods reveal that in frogs, the cells destined
to become the germ cells result from the presence of preformed
granules near the vegetal pole of the unfertilized egg, a region
destined to become part of the endoderm. From there they move first
dorsally and then laterally to enter the embryonic gonads which are
mesodermal structures. In salamanders the presumptive germ cells
first appear in the mesoderm as a result of the inductive action of
the underlying endoderm on the lateral plate mesoderm. From there
they migrate medially to invade the embryonic gonads. Thus the germ
cells of the Anura and the Urodela do not even arise from the same
germ layer! In short, there is not a scintilla of evidence to support
the notion of germ cell continuity."
http://www.uvm.edu/~jdavison/davison-manifesto.html
Based on these germ cell differences alone, how do these organisms fit
into the nested hierarchy?
> You have, so far, not even addressed the evidence, so
> it would be hard for it to show anything to you.
>
What evidence? Where is this nested hierarchy? Show it to me. There
have been literally billions of species in the history of this planet,
has any attempt been made to construct a nested hierarchy that shows
even a fraction of their placements within the "tree"? If so, where can
I see it?
>>>>>> This can be
>>>>>> seen in the man-made nested hierarchy created by dog breeding. Breeds
>>>>>> get more and more specific as they're selected out (they also tend to
>>>>>> become more "fragile"). If you allow the (specific) "pure" breeds to
>>>>>> interbreed, they become the more general (and more robust) mutt. They
>>>>>> are in essence reverting back towards the original dog "type". The
>>>>>> nested hierarchy of dog breeds is a nested hierarchy of *loss* not gain.
>>>>> Even this is wrong. First, dog breeds are not a nested hierarchy;
>>>>> different breeds have arisen by breeding together various dogs, not by
>>>>> splitting previous breeds.
>>>> The proposed evolutionary "tree" provides no less "sloppy" a nested
>>>> hierarchy than dog breeds. In fact it's more like a multi-stemmed bush
>>>> than a true tree.
>>> This is absolutely wrong about all levels of the tree other than the
>>> very deepest,
>> You mean the "stem"?
>
> Hard to say, because I don't know what you mean by "the stem". I mean
> the part of the tree at which eukaryotes, eubacteria, and archaeans
allegedly
> come
> together. Generally, we call this the root of the tree. And we're
> talking about events that happened several billions of years ago.
> Nothing to do with dogs. Just the extremely removed
supposed
> ancestors of dogs,
> people, fungi, E. coli, and everyone else.
>
>>> at which it's either true or we don't currently have the
>>> tools to disentangle it. But it bears no resemblance to the situation
>>> with any organisms you can see with the naked eye, for example.
>>>
>>>
>>>>> Second, many breeds originate from mutations
>>>>> -- new features that breed true and were not found in their ancestors,
>>>>> such as the various forms of dwarfism seen in basset hounds, dachshunds,
>>>>> corgis, and so on.
>>>> Dwarfism is common to all mammals. It's not really a "new" feature. It
>>>> is a mutation though - you're right about that.
>>> It's new every time it happens, just as any mutation is. The point is
>>> that it falsifies your claim about the distribution of existing
>>> variation being the means of dog breed differentiation.
>> Is dwarfism a loss or a gain of information?
>
> If you could define "information", we could ask that question. So far
> I've never found a creationist who could present a rigorous definition.
>
Let's just use the commonly held definition that applies to genetic
coding instructions and their resultant functions (you will agree that
the coding of DNA is commonly referred to as "information" won't you?).
Does dwarfism require more complex coding or less? Is dwarfism a
result of a loss of function or a gain?
The lack of evidence.
>
>>>>> (And trying to use Goldschmidt to
>>>>> support a theory of non-evolution is just perverse.)
>>>> "Richard Goldschmidt (1878-1958), a brilliant but unorthodox geneticist,
>>>> did not believe that Charles Darwin's idea of slow, gradual changes
>>>> could account for the origin of species...
>>>> "Although he recognized the constant accumulation of small changes in
>>>> populations (microevolution), he believed they did not lead to
>>>> speciation. Between true species he saw "bridgeless gaps" that could
>>>> only be accounted for by large sudden jumps, resulting in "hopeful
>>>> monsters.""
>>>> http://www.stephenjaygould.org/people/richard_goldschmidt.html
>>> All true, and none of it supporting your contention of the mere sorting
>>> of existing variation. In fact it specifically contradicts such a view.
>> His (and all the other's) claim is that evolution (which they all
>> believe in BTW) is a "directed" process. My original claim was this was
>> due to a loss of function. I'm not prepared to stand by that (in regard
>> to these scientists) because I didn't make myself clear. They all
>> reject the mechanism of random mutation and natural selection. While
>> they disagree on the actual mechanism, none of them believe evolution
>> proceeded by the accumulation of variations.
>
> Agreed. It happens that they are wrong. Or do you have any evidence you
> would like to present for this viewpoint?
>
They all do. I'd add also the papers and works of Dr. Leo Berg and Dr.
Lee Spetner to this list.
If you think they render his speculations moot, cite some specific examples.
(Here BTW is the dismissal of an "old" source - when it contradicts your
beliefs)
OK. I'll have to do some more research (don't have time now).
>>>>>>>> This forced one serious scientist to speculate
>>>>>>>> that perhaps the "pressure" of walking upright caused humans to
>>>>>>>> hyper-mutate. When you can only believe in evolution, you must
>>>>>>>> constantly grasp at straws to maintain your *belief*.
>>>>>>> Please cite this quote. I don't believe it's accurate. But one of you
>>>>>>> has again confused mutation with fixation.
>>>>>> I've been looking but can no longer find it. It was in an article about
>>>>>> the paper. It seems to have disappeared from the web though.
>>>>> More likely, you have misremembered.
>>>> I did not. It's the type of things us IDers don't "misremember".
>>> Then of course I believe you.
>>>
>>>
>>>>> At any rate, it's not true, and
>>>>> that's the important point.
>>>> Of course. It was an evolutionist who said it, but since it can be used
>>>> against certain elements of the "T"oE, by default it cannot be true.
>>> It's not true because it's a nonsensical statement. Walking upright does
>>> not cause mutation. Why should it?
>> I thought the same thing when I read it.
>
> Then you are correct. I still don't believe you ever read such a thing.
See my other post!
You know, pretty much any animal would benefit from a larger, more
complex brain that is capable of rational thought. Yet remarkably, only
the humans have had one "fixated" (even though all these other organisms
are full of the same type of mutations). Why is that?
I never snipped anything.
If they are able to artificial inseminate them and produce fertile
offspring - they are the same species.
Why then is *that* not mentioned in the paper?
> There is
> not the slightest hint of directed mutation here.
>
Of course not.
>>>>>>> It
>>>>>>> can't verify processes that take a long time to happen, or events that
>>>>>>> happened a long time ago. But other techniques do that.
>>>>>> Circular ones.
>>>>> So you say, but you have presented no argument for circularity.
>>>> All the evidence that supposedly supports the "T"oE is interpreted in a
>>>> circular manner. Those of us on the "outside" can see this plainly.
>>> So your argument is that it's circular because it's circular because you
>>> can see it's circular. Is that right?
>>
>> No. My argument is that it's circular because it assumes it's
>> conclusion, then uses that assumption to interpret all the evidence.
>
> That would be circular, all right. But please show a real example of
> such circularity. So far all your examples (e.g. fossils date rocks date
> fossils) have been bogus. Can you do better?
Pretty much any scientific paper discussing the evolution of any feature
will use circular reasoning.
Take this paper for example:
http://genetics.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1371%2Fjournal.pgen.0020168
The purpose of the paper is to explain the evolution of HAR regions in
humans. The divergence from a common human/chimp ancestor is assumed
throughout and is used to calculate much of the data. A common ancestor
is also assumed for rats/humans/chimps and this assumption colors much
of the data as well.
It's never a question of *if* we evolved from a common human/chimp
ancestor, it's merely *how* (based on the already forgone conclusion we
did).
So the conclusion (that humans and chimps diverged from a common
ancestor) is assumed, and this assumption is used to interpret all evidence.
Circular.
Yes, but each of these divergences must be functional in order to be of
any use.
If you just randomly change letters in this post, you'll get mostly
gibberish. You'll also get some new words. You won't however get many
sentences (if any).
The problem is, life requires functional genetic *sentences* not gibberish.
>>>>> They're both copies of A. If
>>>>> they diverge, giving us A' and A'', is there a new gene, or two new
>>>>> genes, or none?
>>>> The one that changes into a gene that is functionally different from
>>>> gene A would then be "new" now wouldn't it? (Again, painfully obvious!)
>>> What if they both changed function?
>>
>> Then they're both new. Of course if the original gene is an essential
>> gene, the chances of it changing much are highly unlikely.
>
> Not at all. "Essential" can only have meaning with reference to
> environment.
In the environment of the *organism* - many genes are essential for the
survival and function of that organism.
> If the environment changes, a gene that was once essential
> may become redundant, and vice versa. Also, genes can take over all or
> part of each others' functions. Suppose, for example, that gene A has
> two functions. If it splits into A' and A'', each new gene might
> specialize in only one of those functions -- both functions are still
> performed, but neither gene does both and so is not the old gene. There
> are other ways too, but that will do.
>
Those are big "ifs". Do you know of any real world examples of this?
>>>>> Most evolution, by the way, probably doesn't result from new genes, just
>>>>> changes in old ones, even without duplication. Or there could be changes
>>>>> in regulatory sequences that may or may not be part of genes, depending
>>>>> on how you like to count it.
>>>> You have to get from a proposed first lifeform with "n" genes (n=0? n=1?
>>>> n=100?) to the vast amount of genes that have existed in the past and do
>>>> exist today. Even if they are all the result of changing one gene into
>>>> another, the new gene is still, well, "new".
>>> So? What's the problem, if one gene changes into another?
>> You still have to show that random mutations and natural selection can
>> change one gene into another without killing the organism.
>
> What would prevent that from happening?
Natural selection.
> We can see that selection
> changes gene function;
No, mutation changes gene function, selection allows the organism to
live with that changed function.
> there are plenty of examples of adaptation in the
> present.
Adaptation is not the issue.
> We can see that genes are grouped into families that can be
> traced back to common ancestors,
Assumed common ancestors.
> and while we can't say that the changes
> resulted from natural selection, that's a plausible explanation. Put
> those together, and they make a pretty good argument.
>
To be honest, I don't understand how you can look at the vast
complexities of life and come to this conclusion. If you only focus on
one area, you might be able to convince yourself that the evolution of a
particular system is possible, but if you look at the trillions of
systems that had to evolve through random accidental changes, it makes
no sense whatsoever.
>>>>>>> must be created in one mutation and then presented to natural selection
>>>>>>> to accept or reject.
>>>>>> Every mutation must "make it" to the next round. If it does, it was
>>>>>> "selected".
>>>>> You miss the whole point. The question is about the magnitude of the
>>>>> individual changes.
>>>> The magnitude has never been in dispute. I'm challenging *your*
>>>> mechanism. Your mechanism is gradual, minute changes adding up over time.
>>> It would seem to me that this has to do with magnitude, if so.
>> No. It has to do with mechanism plain and simple.
>
> If so, it seems to be only that quantity has a quality all its own. Try
> to clarify your thoughts here.
>
Unless you believe that a "magnitude" of genetic changes occur at the
same time, we're dealing with minute changes - one at a time.
>>>>>>> That's not how it works. New features arise
>>>>>>> gradually through small variations.
>>>>>> Each of which must be selected. If they are not selected (passed on),
>>>>>> how can they be built upon?
>>>>> That's right. They're selected.
>>>> Why? What functional advantage do these partial systems and minute
>>>> changes offer? You say these are not significant changes, so they are
>>>> not fully functional systems. You must show that NS will select for
>>>> *potential* then. This you cannot do.
>>> I say nothing of the sort. "Small" is not the same thing as
>>> "insignificant". In order for this to work, every change must be some
>>> improvement over the previous condition.
>> Exactly. But yet, you'll argue that most mutations are neutral, so how
>> will they be selected?
>
> The neutral ones are not selected. It's the less common non-neutral ones
> that are selected.
>
Maybe. Barring the random element of natural selection which could wipe
them out too.
"Reconstruction of the evolutionary history of the LDH
protein family reveals that the mammalian Ldh-C gene most
probably originated from an ancestral Ldh-A gene and that the
amino acid replacement rate in LDH-C is approximately 4
times the rate in LDH-A. Molecular modeling of LDH-B
sequences shows that the increased thermostability of the avian
tetramer might be explained by mutations that increase the
number of ion pairs. Furthermore, the replacement of bulky
side chains by glycines on the corners of the duck protein
suggests an adaptation to facilitate close packing in the lens."
This, from the abstract, reveals that the method used to determine the
"origin" of this gene is the assumed evolution from an ancestral Ldh-A
gene. The rest of the paper continues building upon one such assumption
after another.
I tell you, the assumption of common ancestry is so ingrained, you guys
don't even realize how much it colors your interpretation of the evidence.
It's a mythological world where you find similarities between organisms,
assume a connection, then use that assumed connection to calculate rates
of genetic change.
>>>> Your argument was that NS is a creative force. It's not - unless you
>>>> give it something to be creative with. These minute changes don't
>>>> qualify. If there are large changes, ie; fully functional systems that
>>>> provide a decided advantage, then yes, NS will most likely select them
>>>> (barring any number of circumstances that will kill an organism - no
>>>> matter the advantage). But to suggest that NS will select minute
>>>> changes based on what they *might* become someday is ridiculous.
>>> Agreed. But nobody has been suggesting that. Try responding to what I
>>> actually say rather than your imaginary distortions.
>> Again, do you know of *any* gene which can be demonstrated to have
>> evolved by known advantageous steps?
>
> How would I go about demonstrating this? Would it be necessary for you
> to see each step happening in real time?
>
No. Just a *realistic* theoretical pathway would be sufficient. It
must be detailed though - no skipping of developmental steps allowed.
And the advantage of each step must be demonstrated.
>>>>>> Interestingly, some are arguing that it indeed is:
>>>>> They are wrong. Further research has shown that what's going on is
>>>>> merely an evolved response to stress: an increase in the rate of
>>>>> mutation. There is no change in the ratio of useful to non-useful
>>>>> mutations. These are not targeted or prescribed mutations, must more
>>>>> mutations. The bacterial clone is just throwing lots of darts at the
>>>>> target of selection in hopes that some of them will hit the bullseye.
>>>> How can these be "non-targeted" and "targeted" ("throwing lots of darts
>>>> at the *target* of selection") at the same time?
>>>>
>>>> The truth is, you don't know what causes these hyper-mutations.
>>> You have presented no argument that they are hypermutations at all. What
>>> the evidence shows is an increase in mutation rate under stress. And in
>>> fact research has done quite a bit to elucidate the mechanism that
>>> results in the increased rate.
>> Yes, research also shows that these extra mutations are targeted at
>> specific regions (IOW non-random).
>
> I have doubts that this result actually happened. Can you cite the
> primary literature?
>
Here's a link to the Cairns paper, unfortunately it only gives a brief
summary:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v335/n6186/abs/335142a0.html
"Nucleic acids are replicated with conspicuous fidelity. Infrequently,
however, they undergo changes in sequence, and this process of change
(mutation) generates the variability that allows evolution. As the
result of studies of bacterial variation, it is now widely believed that
mutations arise continuously and without any consideration for their
utility. In this paper, we briefly review the source of this idea and
then describe some experiments suggesting that cells may have mechanisms
for choosing which mutations will occur."
Notice the last part of the last sentence where they...
"describe some experiments suggesting that cells may have mechanisms for
choosing which mutations will occur."
Yes, your goal is to get him uphill.
I understand it well enough to show that your "drunkards walk" analogy
doesn't work when realistic parameters are used.
>> > The analogy
>>
>>> was intended only to show that a process that selects from small, random
>>> variations can be creative. I could improve the model by having one in
>>> which each step closer to the goal was advantageous in some way, as it
>>> would be in natural selection.
>> Except then your analogy of the "drunkards walk" would no longer work.
>> I think your analogy correctly represents *directed* (goal oriented)
>> evolution.
>
> Why wouldn't the analogy work?
>
>> For your analogy to accurately represent RM+NS, you'd have to change it
>> a lot. For instance, since most mutations are neutral, you'd have to
>> allow the drunk to wander aimlessly *a lot* (in fact most of the time).
>> Then, since NS has a stochastic component, you'd have to randomly push
>> him back towards the beginning every now and then. Then, since there is
>> no "home" with NS (each step represents "home"), you could not reward
>> him in any way but to *not* push him backwards.
>
>> Now your drunkards walk will more correctly represent RM+NS. Let's see
>> if he ever makes it to his house!
>
> Of course he would. It would just take a bit longer. However, you are
> confused about the analogy. A neutral mutation would be one that didn't
> move him either closer to or farther away from his goal. That is, it
> would have no effect.
>
Umm, he has no "goal", so a neutral mutation may move him closer or
farther away from any *actual function*, but - since he himself has no
goal - there's no "pressure" to produce said function.
>>> But the analogy was intended to teach one
>>> lesson only, not all possible lessons. Are we agreed that an agency that
>>> selects from random small variations can be creative in effect?
>> If it has a goal in mind - yes.
>
> What if it just follows a simple rule, like I have suggested above for
> moving up hill. All we need to make this a great analogy is to call the
> ground a fitness surface.
>
Well, you'd still have to randomly push him downhill to replicate the
stochastic component to NS. You'd also have to allow him to walk
downhill on his own sometimes to replicate non-fatal yet deleterious
mutations. Keep trying. Eventually you'll realize that no *realistic*
analogy will get the guy anywhere very quickly.
I may not be learning what you want me to learn, but trust me, I'm learning.
Friar Broccoli
> John Harshman wrote:
[snipped most of the message to make a few comments]
>> You have, so far, not even addressed the evidence, so
>> it would be hard for it to show anything to you.
> What evidence? Where is this nested hierarchy? Show it to me. There
> have been literally billions of species in the history of this planet,
> has any attempt been made to construct a nested hierarchy that shows
> even a fraction of their placements within the "tree"? If so, where can
> I see it?
Here is one set of web pages where they are building a visual
tree illustrating the nested hierarchy:
http://tolweb.org/Life_on_Earth/1
To get from the root to us, follow this path:
Eukaryotes
Animals
Bilateria
Deuterostomia
Chordata
Craniata
Vertebrata
Gnathostomata
Sarcopterygii
Terrestrial Vertebrates
Amniota
Synapsida
Therapsida
Mammalia
Eutheria
Primates
Catarrhini
Hominidae
Homo sapiens
> You know, pretty much any animal would benefit from a larger,
> more complex brain that is capable of rational thought. Yet
> remarkably, only the humans have had one "fixated" (even
> though all these other organisms are full of the same type of
> mutations). Why is that?
1) We got here first (somebody had to)
2) Evolution doesn't know in advance what's best.
3) Large brains are easy, usefully complex brains likely need
more time, and seem to have taken a long time.
4) Large brains are very costly. Yours consumes 20%
of your resting energy.
You may recall that we began a discussion of the human brain
here:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/82c2483efc0319f0
after you asked:
>>> As for "change", show me the gradual transitionals.
I responded with:
FB>> _Name______________________ When_Lived Brain_Size___
FB>> Sahelanthropus_tchadensis_: 7-6 myr ~375 cc
FB>> Australopithecus_Afarensis: 3.9-3.0 myr 375 to 550 cc
FB>> Australopithecus_Africanus: 3.0-2.0 myr 420 to 500 cc
FB>> Homo_habilis______________: 2.4-1.5 myr 500 and 800 cc
FB>> Homo_erectus______________: 1.8-0.3 myr 775 to 1225 cc
FB>> Homo_sapiens_(archaic)____: 0.5-0.2 myr ~1200 cc
FB>> Homo_sapiens_(modern)_____: ___________ ~1350 cc
You replied with the assertion that:
> All that 'evidence' is
> 1. circular,
> 2. speculative, and
> 3. cast into serious doubt by recent discoveries.
I remain confused about what in the above is "circular", or
"speculative" and am anxious to learn about the "recent
discoveries" that cast any of this "into serious doubt".
Friar Broccoli
> On Jan 13, 10:19 pm, "Friar Broccoli" <Elia...@gmail.com> wrote:
> [snip]
[all content snipped]
I just wanted to thank the 4 people who proposed arguments for
dealing with the falsification argument.
CreateThis:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/c6151d5c0fae8706
Kermit:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/b69a97ce6a8138ec
Robert Grumbine:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/5b8b888929b0a58f
Puppet_Sock:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/1797605ebe849030
I see (I think) now that I was just missing the obvious. I really
liked the
france argument, although I will change it to Brazil, because fewer
people
actually visit that country and thus have direct experience of its
existence.
The obvious strategy of turning the question back and asking how ID
can
be falsified is one that I will use immediately in an off-line
discusssion I
am now in.
Thanks;
Wall Of Sleep
Thanks.
Wall Of Sleep
Thanks.
There's definitely a lot of "blanks" in this hierarchy. It seems that
this hierarchy is not as neat and clean as it's often made out to be
here in this forum.
These blanks represent unknown, assumed common ancestors.
From your link:
"The rooting of the Tree of Life, and the relationships of the major
lineages, are controversial. The monophyly of Archaea is uncertain, and
recent evidence for ancient lateral transfers of genes indicates that a
highly complex model is needed to adequately represent the phylogenetic
relationships among the major lineages of Life."
Is the "recent evidence for ancient lateral transfers of genes" based on
necessity (in order to keep the illusion of common descent alive)?
The part where divergence from a common ancestor is assumed (just read
any of the papers dealing with these finds).
> or
> "speculative"
It is speculative to call all of these "ancestors" of modern man.
> and am anxious to learn about the "recent
> discoveries" that cast any of this "into serious doubt".
>
I've already discussed the HAR regions. There are 49 of them.
John Harshman
In that sense, there are nothing but blanks. You mistake the nature of
phylogenetic analysis. All ancestors are unknown. Or if we know about
them (because we have found their fossils), we can never know that they
actually are ancestors. But that doesn't matter. We can conclusively
infer their former existence from the nested hierarchy, which demands
them as an explanation for the data.
> From your link:
>
> "The rooting of the Tree of Life, and the relationships of the major
> lineages, are controversial. The monophyly of Archaea is uncertain, and
> recent evidence for ancient lateral transfers of genes indicates that a
> highly complex model is needed to adequately represent the phylogenetic
> relationships among the major lineages of Life."
>
> Is the "recent evidence for ancient lateral transfers of genes" based on
> necessity (in order to keep the illusion of common descent alive)?
It you would like to present an alternative theory that fits the data
better, go ahead now.
It's not assumed. It's tested every time we find such a fossil.
>>or
>>"speculative"
>
> It is speculative to call all of these "ancestors" of modern man.
Now that's true. Like I said above, we can never tell if they're
ancestors or not. What we can tell is their cladistic relationships.
They might be ancestors, or they might be cousins of the ancestors. It
makes no difference which, in terms of evidence of common descent.
>>and am anxious to learn about the "recent
>>discoveries" that cast any of this "into serious doubt".
>
> I've already discussed the HAR regions. There are 49 of them.
Yes, and the crucial misconceptions on which you based your claim that
they cast doubt on evolution have been explained too. You have a strong
tendency to misinterpret the results of scientific studies -- there have
been several examples in the past couple weeks alone.
Friar Broccoli
I am surprised to learn that someone in Talk.Origins suggested
that anything in evolutionary biology was "neat and clean". If
the tree was like that, it would be good evidence for Design
:-).
> These blanks represent unknown, assumed common ancestors.
Well, it's true we don't know everything. That's clearly
impossible. Are you unwilling to consider evolution until we
have achieved the impossible?
Although my question here is stated a bit tongue in cheek, I
would be grateful if you would answer seriously. Suppose, ONLY
for the sake of argument, that TOE is a more or less correct
description of how life on earth has changed over time. Is
there any REASONABLE and POSSIBLE evidence that we could
provide which might convince you to consider TOE seriously?
> From your link:
>
> "The rooting of the Tree of Life, and the relationships of the major
> lineages, are controversial. The monophyly of Archaea is uncertain, and
> recent evidence for ancient lateral transfers of genes indicates that a
> highly complex model is needed to adequately represent the phylogenetic
> relationships among the major lineages of Life."
>
> Is the "recent evidence for ancient lateral transfers of genes" based on
> necessity (in order to keep the illusion of common descent alive)?
That quote could be referring to a number of different things
including the organelles like mitochondria which have a
bacterial origin. But just taking it at face value I note that
modern micro-organisms do exchange genes between "species", so
I'm not sure why you think this is a problem for ancient
micro-organisms.
OK, then let's assume ID. Do you thing the designer created
and then allowed to die a series of ape like and then human
like species with increasing brain size during the past 6
million years?
To me descent with modification looks like a sensible and
coherent explanation for the above observations. If I assume
design, it doesn't make sense (to me anyway). How do you make
sense of these observations?
>> or
>> "speculative"
>
> It is speculative to call all of these "ancestors" of modern man.
To me it looks like a well marked trail leading from an ape
like ancestor to us (an ape like descendant). Then when we
look at the DNA, 99% of it, including the junk, is shared with
other modern apes.
If this were a murder trial, such a well marked trail combined
with the DNA evidence would convince any jury to convict
"beyond a reasonable doubt".
So just how is it speculative to infer from such compelling
evidence that we have ape like ancestors?
>> and am anxious to learn about the "recent
>> discoveries" that cast any of this "into serious doubt".
> I've already discussed the HAR regions. There are 49 of them.
We are a unique species, especially (as you've mentioned
yourself) with respect to our mental abilities. It seems
obvious from the fossil record that in some areas we have
undergone rapid and unusual change.
Thus it seems to me that the fossil record exactly matches the
DNA evidence showing accelerated evolution in unique areas. So
how do you think the HAR regions create "serious doubt"?
Wall Of Sleep
There are actually some who believe the nested hierarchy *is* evidence
for design and that is much "neater and cleaner" than neo-Darwinians
would like (I just discovered this).
http://www.fellowshipofstbenedict.org/Fosb_site/symmetry_in_evolution.pdf
>> These blanks represent unknown, assumed common ancestors.
>
> Well, it's true we don't know everything. That's clearly
> impossible. Are you unwilling to consider evolution until we
> have achieved the impossible?
>
I have no problem with evolution. It's the neo-Darwinian mechanism of
Random Mutations + Natural Selection I dispute. There are many
scientists who have suggested other mechanisms (Berg, Goldschmidt,
Davison, Spetner, Scheele, Borger, Engle, DeHaan) would you consider them?
> Although my question here is stated a bit tongue in cheek, I
> would be grateful if you would answer seriously. Suppose, ONLY
> for the sake of argument, that TOE is a more or less correct
> description of how life on earth has changed over time. Is
> there any REASONABLE and POSSIBLE evidence that we could
> provide which might convince you to consider TOE seriously?
>
If it can be shown that RM+NS is capable of *building* complex
functional cellular machinery, then - yes.
>> From your link:
>>
>> "The rooting of the Tree of Life, and the relationships of the major
>> lineages, are controversial. The monophyly of Archaea is uncertain, and
>> recent evidence for ancient lateral transfers of genes indicates that a
>> highly complex model is needed to adequately represent the phylogenetic
>> relationships among the major lineages of Life."
>>
>> Is the "recent evidence for ancient lateral transfers of genes" based on
>> necessity (in order to keep the illusion of common descent alive)?
>
> That quote could be referring to a number of different things
> including the organelles like mitochondria which have a
> bacterial origin. But just taking it at face value I note that
> modern micro-organisms do exchange genes between "species", so
> I'm not sure why you think this is a problem for ancient
> micro-organisms.
>
I was just asking.
I haven't looked into the examples you cite, so I don't know how much of
the conclusions are based on the assumption of common descent. They
could just be different species of ape, or they could be smaller humans
(children, pygmies).
> To me descent with modification looks like a sensible and
> coherent explanation for the above observations. If I assume
> design, it doesn't make sense (to me anyway). How do you make
> sense of these observations?
>
I try not to let the "T"oE color my interpretation.
>>> or
>>> "speculative"
>> It is speculative to call all of these "ancestors" of modern man.
>
> To me it looks like a well marked trail leading from an ape
> like ancestor to us (an ape like descendant). Then when we
> look at the DNA, 99% of it, including the junk, is shared with
> other modern apes.
>
We've already discussed this.
"83% of the genes have changed between the human and the chimpanzee —
only 17% are identical — so that means that the impression that comes
from the 1.2% [sequence] difference is [misleading]. In the case of
protein structures, it has a big effect,"
http://www.the-scientist.com/news/20040527/01/
> If this were a murder trial, such a well marked trail combined
> with the DNA evidence would convince any jury to convict
> "beyond a reasonable doubt".
>
Hardly.
> So just how is it speculative to infer from such compelling
> evidence that we have ape like ancestors?
>
If you're open to critical interpretations, you'll find the case for the
"T"oE far from compelling.
>
>>> and am anxious to learn about the "recent
>>> discoveries" that cast any of this "into serious doubt".
>
>> I've already discussed the HAR regions. There are 49 of them.
>
> We are a unique species, especially (as you've mentioned
> yourself) with respect to our mental abilities. It seems
> obvious from the fossil record that in some areas we have
> undergone rapid and unusual change.
>
Only if you assume that those apes are our ancestors.
> Thus it seems to me that the fossil record exactly matches the
> DNA evidence showing accelerated evolution in unique areas. So
> how do you think the HAR regions create "serious doubt"?
>
First, they're not "changes", they're "differences". Differences that
make it impossible for the mechanisms of the "T"oE to have produced them
from any "ancestor" that did not have them.
John Harshman
This paper shows so many basic misunderstandings of biology that it can
only be used to demonstrate one thing: you will clutch at any message
that seems to contradict standard biology.
This "symmetry" that he mentions is no more than the generally
bifurcating nature of the tree, which has the obvious biological
explanation that populations are most often split into two by barriers
to dispersal.
>>>These blanks represent unknown, assumed common ancestors.
>>
>> Well, it's true we don't know everything. That's clearly
>> impossible. Are you unwilling to consider evolution until we
>> have achieved the impossible?
>
> I have no problem with evolution. It's the neo-Darwinian mechanism of
> Random Mutations + Natural Selection I dispute. There are many
> scientists who have suggested other mechanisms (Berg, Goldschmidt,
> Davison, Spetner, Scheele, Borger, Engle, DeHaan) would you consider them?
Then why do you spend so much time attacking common descent? You are
very confused.
>> Although my question here is stated a bit tongue in cheek, I
>> would be grateful if you would answer seriously. Suppose, ONLY
>> for the sake of argument, that TOE is a more or less correct
>> description of how life on earth has changed over time. Is
>> there any REASONABLE and POSSIBLE evidence that we could
>> provide which might convince you to consider TOE seriously?
>
> If it can be shown that RM+NS is capable of *building* complex
> functional cellular machinery, then - yes.
No, he's asking for what evidence you would accept, not what
conclusions. How would this be shown?
>>> From your link:
>>>
>>>"The rooting of the Tree of Life, and the relationships of the major
>>>lineages, are controversial. The monophyly of Archaea is uncertain, and
>>>recent evidence for ancient lateral transfers of genes indicates that a
>>>highly complex model is needed to adequately represent the phylogenetic
>>>relationships among the major lineages of Life."
>>>
>>>Is the "recent evidence for ancient lateral transfers of genes" based on
>>>necessity (in order to keep the illusion of common descent alive)?
>>
>> That quote could be referring to a number of different things
>> including the organelles like mitochondria which have a
>> bacterial origin. But just taking it at face value I note that
>> modern micro-organisms do exchange genes between "species", so
>> I'm not sure why you think this is a problem for ancient
>> micro-organisms.
>
> I was just asking.
Sure you were. Are you satisfied now that the answer is "no"?
So you base your conclusions on a thorough non-examination of the
evidence? Note, by the way, that you are once more spending your effort
finding alternatives to common descent, which you had just denied above.
>> To me descent with modification looks like a sensible and
>> coherent explanation for the above observations. If I assume
>> design, it doesn't make sense (to me anyway). How do you make
>> sense of these observations?
>
> I try not to let the "T"oE color my interpretation.
You apparently try not to let either knowledge or evidence color your
interpretation too. I see you haven't even tried to make sense of the
observations.
>>>>or
>>>>"speculative"
>>>
>>>It is speculative to call all of these "ancestors" of modern man.
>>
>> To me it looks like a well marked trail leading from an ape
>> like ancestor to us (an ape like descendant). Then when we
>> look at the DNA, 99% of it, including the junk, is shared with
>> other modern apes.
>
> We've already discussed this.
> "83% of the genes have changed between the human and the chimpanzee —
> only 17% are identical — so that means that the impression that comes
> from the 1.2% [sequence] difference is [misleading]. In the case of
> protein structures, it has a big effect,"
> http://www.the-scientist.com/news/20040527/01/
All that means is that a small sequence difference in the right place
can have a big effect on phenotype. How does that affect the conclusion?
>> If this were a murder trial, such a well marked trail combined
>> with the DNA evidence would convince any jury to convict
>> "beyond a reasonable doubt".
>
> Hardly.
>
>> So just how is it speculative to infer from such compelling
>> evidence that we have ape like ancestors?
>
> If you're open to critical interpretations, you'll find the case for the
> "T"oE far from compelling.
Then why don't you offer some of the evidence against it? Your claim is
much farther from compelling than anything backed up by evidence.
>>>>and am anxious to learn about the "recent
>>>>discoveries" that cast any of this "into serious doubt".
>>
>>>I've already discussed the HAR regions. There are 49 of them.
>>
>> We are a unique species, especially (as you've mentioned
>> yourself) with respect to our mental abilities. It seems
>> obvious from the fossil record that in some areas we have
>> undergone rapid and unusual change.
>
> Only if you assume that those apes are our ancestors.
It's not an assumption. It's a conclusion from the data, which you have
in fact done nothing to challenge. And I thought (according to you) that
your only problem was with mutation and natural selection. Why are you
still unwilling to accept common descent?
>> Thus it seems to me that the fossil record exactly matches the
>> DNA evidence showing accelerated evolution in unique areas. So
>> how do you think the HAR regions create "serious doubt"?
>
> First, they're not "changes", they're "differences". Differences that
> make it impossible for the mechanisms of the "T"oE to have produced them
> from any "ancestor" that did not have them.
You will have to explain why that's impossible, because nobody else sees
the problem. Your attempts so far have only shown that you don't
understand the data, mutation, or selection.
Friar Broccoli
> Friar Broccoli wrote:
>> Wall Of Sleep wrote:
>>> Friar Broccoli wrote:
>>>> Wall Of Sleep wrote:
Hi Wall;
Because the message was getting rather long I have cut most of
it to focus on two points: one where it appears we can agree
and the other which seems to be a misunderstanding(?):
> I have no problem with evolution. It's the neo-Darwinian
> mechanism of Random Mutations + Natural Selection I dispute.
> There are many scientists who have suggested other mechanisms
> (Berg, Goldschmidt, Davison, Spetner, Scheele, Borger, Engle,
> DeHaan) would you consider them?
The above statement/question appears to be very clear, but I
want to restate it in my own words before replying to insure
there is no communication problem:
Evolutionary theory has two distinct parts:
1) Common descent which is observed in the fossil record and
confirmed by the DNA evidence indicating that all known
organisms have a common ancestor. Thus, all organisms found
in the Tree_of_Life today can trace their origins back to a
single organism (Last Universal Ancestor) that lived maybe 2
billion years ago. For you and me our linage looks vaguely
like:
ancient_bacteria
___> worm
_____> fish
_______> reptile_like
_________> mouse_like
___________> lemur/monkey
_____________> ape
_______________> man
2) The "mechanism of Random Mutations + Natural Selection".
This just describes the fact that every time an organism
reproduces itself it makes a few copying errors, most
importantly in the DNA. If the error is bad, it prevents
replication and is eliminated, but on rare occasions an
error is good, and thus allows the organism to produce more
offspring.
If I understand correctly, at least some (maybe all) of the the
people you mention above accept (1) Common Descent, but reject
(2) RM+NS as the only mechanism driving evolution. Instead, you
and they appear to prefer the idea that God sometimes steps in
to give evolution a little push. Thus, not all mutations are
random. This is often described as Theistic Evolution (TE).
So your question becomes: Would I consider TE?
Answer: Yes.
As it happens I BELIEVE that God created us through the purely
naturalistic "mechanism of Random Mutations + Natural
Selection". But that's just my opinion, because it seems to me
that RM+NS is enough, especially given the time involved.
However, I cannot prove that; their just isn't enough evidence.
On the other hand the evidence for (1) Common Descent is
absolutely overwhelming.
So, in summary it appears we are not too far apart on (2) RM+NS,
and completely agree on (1) Common Descent.
BUT then we have this exchange:
>>>>FB>> _Name______________________ When_Lived Brain_Size___
>>>>FB>> Sahelanthropus_tchadensis_: 7-6 myr ~375 cc
>>>>FB>> Australopithecus_Afarensis: 3.9-3.0 myr 375 to 550 cc
>>>>FB>> Australopithecus_Africanus: 3.0-2.0 myr 420 to 500 cc
>>>>FB>> Homo_habilis______________: 2.4-1.5 myr 500 and 800 cc
>>>>FB>> Homo_erectus______________: 1.8-0.3 myr 775 to 1225 cc
>>>>FB>> Homo_sapiens_(archaic)____: 0.5-0.2 myr ~1200 cc
>>>>FB>> Homo_sapiens_(modern)_____: ___________ ~1350 cc
>
>>>> You replied with the assertion that:
>
>>>>> All that 'evidence' is
>>>>> 1. circular,
>>>>> 2. speculative, and
>>>>> 3. cast into serious doubt by recent discoveries.
>>>> I remain confused about what in the above is "circular",
>>> The part where divergence from a common ancestor is assumed
>>> (just read any of the papers dealing with these finds).
>
>> OK, then let's assume ID. Do you thing the designer created
>> and then allowed to die a series of ape like and then human
>> like species with increasing brain size during the past 6
>> million years?
>
> I haven't looked into the examples you cite, so I don't know
> how much of the conclusions are based on the assumption of
> common descent. They could just be different species of ape,
> or they could be smaller humans (children, pygmies).
In your comments above you appear to agree that Common Descent
is correct, but then when I provide you with a small part of
the evidence you start questioning again. Why?
I note that it really doesn't matter what you name these
creatures: monkeys, pre-humans, or whatever. The fossil
evidence is clear: modern humans share an ancestor with other
apes. That's how God made us.
You also quoted:
> "83% of the genes have changed between the human and the
> chimpanzee _ only 17% are identical _ so that means that the
> impression that comes from the 1.2% [sequence] difference is
> [misleading]. In the case of protein structures, it has a big
> effect,"http://www.the-scientist.com/news/20040527/01/
I'm sorry, but in this context, this is just silly. Your
average gene is something like 5,000 bases long. If there is a
difference of one or two point mutations, so what? Using a
measure like this I am perhaps 95% identical to my brother and
maybe 80% identical to a person of Japanese extraction.
However you chop up the numbers, we a VERY similar to chimps,
similar to mice, somewhat similar to birds, and not completely
unlike trees.
But again, I come back to the basic question: You said you
"have no problem with evolution" (presumably the Common Descent
part) so why are you questioning Common Descent here?
Can we agree about the evidence for Common Descent, and agree
to disagree about Random Mutations + Natural Selection?