|
Author
|
Topic: Teaching evolution in the context of science
|
John
Inactive Member
|
quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
Yes Jaako, even most scientists know very, very little about evolution. And they all equate the moths and finches as evidence that life on earth really could have evolved fom simpler forms.
Interesting how the group of people who created the concept, and who base their work on it, can know so little about it.
[QUOTE][b] The most amazing thing is that most PhDed biologists also know almost nothing about macroevolution. In fact, the scientific literature has very little in it on genuinely macroevoltionary topics. I'm serious.
[/QUOTE] [/b] Maybe that is because what creationists call macro-evolution is nothing but what creationist call micro-evolution-- and everyone else calls just plain evolution-- over large time frames? The distiction is a means for the creationist to get around the fact that evolution can be demonstrated in a lab. If you want macro vx. micro to be taken seriously you need to demonstrate that the two are fundamentally different. And you can't. Just call that a challenge.
quote:
But I agree that mainstream science rarely if ever gets to the crux of the matter
What is the crux, TB? ------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
John
Inactive Member
|
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
[b]John 99.5% (stat plucked out of the air) of PhDed biologists do not work on evoltuion John!
[/QUOTE] [/b] What field of biology does not deal with evolution of some level? .5% (stat plucked out of the air)?
[QUOTE][b]I define macroevoltuion via studies on the origin of novelty and there is very, very little of this in the literature.[/QUOTE] [/b] I looked up novelty/evolution on Google and got 62,000 results.
quote:
I do not search for the word macroevoltuion (although when one does there are 61 hits in Medline - pretty amazing for a word that deosn't exist in the mainstream lit).
Granted, but it really sidesteps the point, which is that there isn't a lot of difference between the two - micro and macro-- except scale. The lines beetween the two are not clearly demarcated. And this despite the abstract you cited, which may or may not support your position. The abstract contains not enough information.
quote:
The crux of the matter is the origin of novelty and evolutionists hardly address this issue.
How is it that I can sit at my desk here at home and find 13,200 results about the origin of novelty (Google-- evolution origin novelty), yet evolutionists hardly address the issue? Take care ------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
John
Inactive Member
|
quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
Lots of areas of biology have to do with evolution but almost none of them are dependent on aspects of it which aren't compatible with creation.
Well that's a wee bit more specific than 'even most scientists know very, very little about evolution' or 'most biologists don't work on evolution' Now it has become 'most biologists don't work on parts of evolution that are incompatible with creation'
quote:
Very few researchers actually work on evoltuion itself. Most work on this or that gene, very few set out to study evoltuion.
But many work with the concept and that requires some understanding of it.
quote:
Mutations of proteins cannot gradually go from one protein fold to another systematically whilst maintinaing some sort of function all the way.
I never said that protein folds change in this manner. Why should I? Protein folds don't evolve, the organisms carring the genes for those proteins do. That is, bad protein==dead organism... this would be natural selection. Good protein== reproductive organism. How is this different from textbook evolution? And how does it make micro and macro fundamentaly different? I think that you have so completely equated protein folding and macroevolution that you can't see past yourself. oh... all I ever do is read Google results. That's what I do. Take care. ------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
John
Inactive Member
|
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
[b]John You sound like a black box person from that post- you believe evoltuion in faith.[/QUOTE] [/b] Potent retort TB. You sound like someone who can't answer a straight question.
[QUOTE][b]Molecular evolutionists propose that proteins originated via duplicaiton and drift. Our point is, becasue of the folding problem, that you may as well start from random to get each fold.[/QUOTE] [/b] Fine. You still haven't answered the questions I asked. And how about some citations? Something like this Molecular Biology Citation Weird, all about protein evolution. Who knew? Appeal to authority is still appeal to authority even if that authority is you.
quote:
I suggesested that you read the links to your Google hits and not just complile word usage statistics.
I suggest that you say something substantial. This could be interesting but I can barely hear you yelling down from that pedestal. I suggest that you stop implying that I don't research my subject matter. I do. ------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com [This message has been edited by Admin, 07-02-2002]
|
John
Inactive Member
|
quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
Textbook evolution has Nature selecting from natural varieties for the best function.
'k
[QUOTE][b]A protein can't typically change from one fold to another without being non-functional for most of the transtion time.[/QUOTE] [/b] I think you may be overemphasizing protein folding as this article suggests to me. Secondly, a protein doesn't evolve. The organism carring that protein survives or doesn't, and the population evolves. I can't shake the feeling that you are treating proteins as if they are directly evolving, or directly selected selected for and against independent of the rest of the organis and the poulation. Evolution doesn't require the typical case. 1 in several thousand or ten-thousand is adequate.
quote:
Regardles, fold families contain no hints of their anscestral protein familes. Hence protein fold evolution brings one back to randomness.
"This is consistent with the view that the two proteins arose from a common ancestor protein (say CRP) via a gene duplication event ... and that they have been evolving and diverging since." http://www.keele.ac.uk/depts/ma/esgi2001/probs5.html quote:
So, microevoltuion is the optimization of an alrady functional gene (we see this all the time in mol biol). Macroevolution reuqires the origin of new genes....
Change a gene and it becomes a new gene. I don't know how you can defend the distiction.
quote:
.... and systems that in many cases we know generated novel fold families that bear no similarity at all to other genes in the genome.
I can't make out what you mean. Genes bear no resemblance to other genes? Systems bear no resemblance to genes? Fold families bear no resemblance to genes? Fold families bear no resemblance to systems?
quote:
That is the difference between micro/macro from a genomics POV whether one is creationist or evolutionist.
I'm not buying it. Can you cite something supporting this assertation? Proteins and protein folds are ancient in many cases. 403: Access Method Forbidden - Alert: Error - Stanford University School of Medicine"> www.hells-handmaiden.com [This message has been edited by Admin, 07-02-2002]
|
John
Inactive Member
|
quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
Very little on that page is relevant to how we go from one fold to another.
I know that. The point was to suggest that you over-emphasize the protein folding. But I wonder if you pay attention....
quote:
Variation clearly happens at the molecular level via recombinaiton and mutations of one sort or another. Selection occurs at the organism level via surival to reproducability but what is it that is passed on? The gene of course. The only reason we have variation in populations is becasue of genetic variation. We shouldn't be overly reductionist but the idea that selection can't be understood at the moelcualr level is a mistake.
Thanks for the biology lesson. I missed that in high school, and of course, I was drunk and tripping all through college. I'm getting the feeling that you are being reductionistic, or myopic with reguard to protein folding.
quote:
The distinction I make is that it is easy to mutate a gene into a gene that codes for a protein with the same fold. It is not easy to do otherwise.
Sure, but not impossible.
Minor Shuffle Makes Protein Fold U. of Arizona Boston U. And this sometimes is all it takes.
quote:
I didn't say that 'Systems bear no resemblance to genes'? It is clear that cellualr systems have associated unique gene families, in addition to paralogs!
This was a question, TB. Calm down.
quote:
My micro/macro differentiation is completely suported by this mainstream paper "Macroevotution is more than repeated rounds of microevolution".
I can't tell what this paper concludes since I only have the abstract. I wish you wouldn't post links to things that require memberships. But I can't find anything making a similar claim online, except for creationist sites.
If you can't trust Cecil..... quote:
As we go from genome to genome, there are introductions of cellular novelities which correlate with novel gene families.
Big deal! You need to link protein folding inexorably with speciation. This is your micro/macro diff, yes? If you can't do so, then what you are arguing collapses. Correct me, please, if I've got your argument wrong. From what I've read, this can't be done, or at least hasn't been done. ------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
John
Inactive Member
|
quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
Protein fold evoltuion is virtually untouched in the literature becasue it is both a difficult problem and a prohibative barrier to macroevoltuion.
TB: This is just silly in light of what I have been able to find on the subject.
quote:
The protein fold is actually the same fold by many researchers definition!
Does this make sense to you?
quote:
I don't have access to that particular jounral I linked to either but abstracts themselves are a valuable resource.
You're joking!!!! Ever heard of, 'a little knowledge is a dangerous thing'? Abstracts may be useful for browsing, but not for constructing arguments.
quote:
It is clear from the abstract that this mainstream author argues that macro is not just lots of micro and that micro = allelic mutaitons whereas macro equals novel features.
Clear that that is what the author argues, but not how it is argued. The later is the important bit. I remember seeing something like this once before. It turned out to be nothing it claimed to be.
quote:
I don't link micro/macro to speciation per se - we believe in rapid speciation. It's organisms with genuinely novel genomes (eg with new gene families) and organs we don't believe ever occurred naturalistically.
Huh? ------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
John
Inactive Member
|
quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
My statement about speciaiton is what I meant to say. We beleive in speciation! I don't believe God created hundreds of species of finch! But I do beleive he created horses and giraffes seperately. Very, very different.
Didn't this start out with a discussion of the difference between micro and macro-evolution? And didn't you point me to mainstream literature to prove that the difference is recognized in mainstream biology? I looked it up and stand corrected on the terminology, though you've still not shown a hard-line of demarcation between the two. Mainstream > macro > speciation Now you've redefined macro to not be speciation per se.
quote:
I don't link micro/macro to speciation per se
------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
John
Inactive Member
|
quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
John I don't think mainstream evolution researchers would say that speciation had to be macroevoltuion. I think the Erwin ref supports my statement. Allelic variation can no doubt lead to speciation but Erwin wouldn't call that macroevoltuion.
Do you depend upon the nebulous nature of your ideas? If not, please post a detailed rundown of your theory tying this all together-- macro/micro, novelty, protein folding, etc. ------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
John
Inactive Member
|
quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
John, I would have hoped that the extensive posts I have made in this BBS on geology, paleontology, systematics, molecular biology and genome sciences were beginning to be seen as a rather systematic view of creation/flood with, yes, (i) gaps in my personal understandings in some areas and (ii) some gaps in answers by creationists, but otherwise rather neatly consistent.
Well, yes, I was getting an idea of what you proposed; but this is much more clear.
[QUOTE][b]So we simply see the created kinds as genomic stock, distinguishable primarily by ultimately cellular novelties that are nevertheless frequently evident anatomically.[/QUOTE] [/b] For example....? One genomic stock whould be ________, another would be _______; and the cellular novelties would be _______?
quote:
This discontinuity is manifest as novel gene families that bear no resemblance to other famiiles in the genome.
How does one determine resemblance? How does one determine a gene family within this scenario?
quote:
Many of these gene families turn out to have new protein folds.
But not all? So folding isn't the primary determinant?
quote:
Within fold optimization is continuous at every point - exsiting function optimized by evoltuion. This is the evoltuion of an allele coding for a selectable trait. A new protein function on an existing fold requires a chance event to generate some novel, selectable funciton. Once this occurs there can be optimization up to a point dictated by the potential of that fold to allow that eg enzymatic activity.
What determines the potential of a fold?
quote:
That is the discontinuity that differentiates micro/macro or existing gene/novel fold.
Sorry, still foggy about exactly where this line falls as far as real world critters. New folding/function marks the edge of a family (although you seem a bit hedgie about that-- new folding would be an undebatable hard line but new function is much more subjective), but how does this apply to animals. Your theory should be easily testable. Has it been? Do these criteria line up with genus/species lines or family/genus or order/family? Take care. ------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
John
Inactive Member
|
quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
Are you aware that European artificial selection over about 200 years on the wild mustard led to cabbage, brocolli and cauliflower? That is the power/allelic variation within existing genes in the genomes.
In particular, no; but no argument.
quote:
OK, our genomic stock could have been the horse family inlcuding donkeys, perhaps including the zebra. 2 or 3, maybe 1 big/small cat families etc.
Really, I wanted something a bit more precise. This is too loose to be useful, the way I see it.
[QUOTE][b]Cellular novelties? Origin of life issue of course invovles all systems. After that: Multicellularity. Respiratory proteins. Immune system proteins. Plant unique metabolic. Animal unique metabolic. Etc.[/QUOTE] [/b] Again, not very precise. Abiogenesis does NOT involve all systems, as has been addressed on this forum before. There are organism that skirt the boundary between multicellular/single cell organism. Someone else can take the proteins and metabolic issues, or perhaps I will later.
quote:
The genomes document non-stop cellular nmovelty. A mammalian cell is very different to a prokaryotic cell.
... but the change didn't happen in one jump, or are you arguing that it did? ------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
John
Inactive Member
|
quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
More precise? Creationist biologists recently stated that they expect the kinds to approximate the family level. When we've got more genomes we'll be able to say more.
That puts us in with chimps, gorillas, and orangutans; as well as a string of extinct creatures. This is ok by me, but....
quote:
Are you doubting that there are thousands of cellular systems with associated novel gene families?
Just doubting that you can make a case for your faith using these gene families/novelties/system. So far you haven't. Take care. ------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
John
Inactive Member
|
quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
John I think you need to check out your systematics - I am 99.99% sure we are not in the same (Linnean) family as chimps et al!
Nope. I looked it up.
Hominidae ------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
John
Inactive Member
|
quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
As mentioned by the web site this is a 'recent' change in classificaiton. I wonder how recent. I have looked this up before and that's why I was so 'sure'.
The page I cited implies that the change was within the past ten years or so. ------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
™ Version 4.2
