Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Origin of Novelty
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


(2)
Message 736 of 871 (693530)
03-17-2013 7:10 AM
Reply to: Message 735 by mindspawn
03-17-2013 3:56 AM


Hi mindspawn,
Drosophila writes:
Please describe your criteria for a 'transitional fossil'
minspawn writes:
Where there have been major phenotype changes claimed by evolutionists, there should be a range of fossils showing this gradual change.
That's the only criterion? Really? Because you've already been shown that. Take the image of hominin skulls shown in Message 727 for example. And yet you still reject them as transitional fossils.
So what's missing exactly? What factor would it take to convince you that these really are transitional fossils?
Please describe your full criteria for a legitimate transitional fossil.
Mutate and Survive

This message is a reply to:
 Message 735 by mindspawn, posted 03-17-2013 3:56 AM mindspawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 737 by NoNukes, posted 03-17-2013 9:05 AM Granny Magda has replied
 Message 739 by mindspawn, posted 03-17-2013 5:35 PM Granny Magda has replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 737 of 871 (693531)
03-17-2013 9:05 AM
Reply to: Message 736 by Granny Magda
03-17-2013 7:10 AM


So what's missing exactly? What factor would it take to convince you that these really are transitional fossils?
Perhaps some evidence gathered via time machine showing all of the ancestors and offspring of each skull? Because anything requiring the slightest amount of inference can be denied. And evolution of humans from non-human primates must be denied at all costs.
Or maybe not even then. Despite the fact that mutations associated with phenotypic variations have been witnessed and identified, and that the fact that we have actually measured mutation rates in humans, mindspawn still won't concede that they happen and contribute to variation.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison.
If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass

This message is a reply to:
 Message 736 by Granny Magda, posted 03-17-2013 7:10 AM Granny Magda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 738 by Granny Magda, posted 03-17-2013 2:31 PM NoNukes has replied

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


(1)
Message 738 of 871 (693544)
03-17-2013 2:31 PM
Reply to: Message 737 by NoNukes
03-17-2013 9:05 AM


Hi NoNukes,
Perhaps some evidence gathered via time machine showing all of the ancestors and offspring of each skull?
Well that would be just super! Ooh! I know! How about a complete family tree for every single living organism that ever lived? Would that be sufficient?
Snark aside, I hope mindspawn realises that if any sensible discussion is to be had on this topic, we need to have an agreed definition of what a transitional fossils is and what evidence we might reasonably expect to see if transitional fossils were real. Ideally, something a bit more reasonable than the complete family tree option, but still a bit more exacting than "a range of fossils showing ... gradual change".
And evolution of humans from non-human primates must be denied at all costs.
Well let's throw that open to mindspawn; is there any evidence that could convince you of ape-to-human evolution mindspawn? What would that evidence look like?
Mutate and Survive

This message is a reply to:
 Message 737 by NoNukes, posted 03-17-2013 9:05 AM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 743 by NoNukes, posted 03-18-2013 12:27 PM Granny Magda has seen this message but not replied
 Message 762 by JonF, posted 04-04-2013 1:33 PM Granny Magda has not replied

  
mindspawn
Member (Idle past 2660 days)
Posts: 1015
Joined: 10-22-2012


Message 739 of 871 (693551)
03-17-2013 5:35 PM
Reply to: Message 736 by Granny Magda
03-17-2013 7:10 AM


Hi Granny Magda, nice to see you in this thread, i enjoy your sharp wit. You make a good point regarding my view on transitional fossils. To clarify, due to the lack of DNA analysis, it is impossible to be certain that any particular fossil is in fact a transition, as opposed to being one of a grouping of similar extinct animals.
However an attempt has been made, with some organisms eg human/ape horse hoofs etc These attempts at creating sequences are not proof or even evidence for evolution, but at least its something better than the complete lack for example of transitionary bat fossils

This message is a reply to:
 Message 736 by Granny Magda, posted 03-17-2013 7:10 AM Granny Magda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 742 by Granny Magda, posted 03-18-2013 3:00 AM mindspawn has replied
 Message 747 by Taq, posted 03-19-2013 12:37 PM mindspawn has not replied

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2698 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


(2)
Message 740 of 871 (693552)
03-17-2013 5:46 PM
Reply to: Message 734 by mindspawn
03-17-2013 2:54 AM


Re: Evidence again
Hi, Mindspawn.
mindspawn writes:
You evolutionists have FAILED to show indisputable proof of favorable mutations causing NOVEL features in this thread, due to not accepting logical alternative explanations.
I mentioned blue egg shells in chickens upthread. This trait is caused by a single allele, which differs from wild-type alleles at two base-pairs.
The blue-shell phenotype has only ever been found in one population of chickens, bred in Chile. All chickens that lay blue eggs are descended from that population of chickens.
Blue egg shells have never been observed in other populations of chickens, or in the wild ancestor of chickens. Given that the blue color is a dominant phenotype, it is highly unlikely that this allele has been hiding out, unobserved, in populations of European, African and Asian chickens for thousands of years.
I feel that the best explanation for this novel phenotype is two point mutations (only one of them may be relevant, but I don't know that). What logical alternative explanation is there that fits all the evidence I mentioned above?
Edited by Blue Jay, : blue eyes have, in fact, been observed in some populations of organisms.

-Blue Jay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 734 by mindspawn, posted 03-17-2013 2:54 AM mindspawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 808 by mindspawn, posted 04-21-2013 8:16 AM Blue Jay has not replied

  
Drosophilla
Member (Idle past 3642 days)
Posts: 172
From: Doncaster, yorkshire, UK
Joined: 08-25-2009


(4)
Message 741 of 871 (693554)
03-17-2013 6:23 PM
Reply to: Message 735 by mindspawn
03-17-2013 3:56 AM


Like Lucy? hahahahahahaha Let's date my grandma's bones by the rocks found 1M below her grave. (there are rocks in that graveyard, rocks take long ages to form.) I can therefore categorically scientifically state that my grandma is thousands of years old. As I am about 50 years younger than my grandma, this makes me scientifically thousands of years old too. Don't worry I won't question science, but I suggest you listen to your elders because I'm thousands of years older than you (proven by dating the rocks below my grandma's grave) All hail science!
The detailed find description, error margins, and scientific assumptions of Lucy - AND ALL OTHER AUSTRALOPITHECUS AFARENSIS SPECIMENS - YOU DID KNOW THERE ARE MORE THAN LUCY DIDN'T YOU? are laid out in the peer-reviewed professional journals. I have to say that if it comes to choosing between professional scientists who lay out every miniscule detail of their work for criticism, or by lying creationists who routinely make shit up for their unprofessional junk websites - then for me there really is no contest.
Aah I must shut up because I do not have a qualification. Why don't you shut down this site and open a new one for experts only? Until this site is shut down, I will question the establishment, and expect an intelligent, scientifically backed answer. Not this weak lazy argument of "scientist's say".
No you don't need to shut up - you need to address the professionals who do the field work and make the scientific claims that they do....but you won't do that will you - you'd be taken apart by professionals who deal in scientific detail that you don't know exist let alone comprehend.
Ditto for those who run and contribute to creationists websites. Why do we never see these guys writing critical reviews of field-work findings and submitting to professional journals? Answer - because underneath they know they would be taken apart and made to look the know-nothings they are - it's obvious.....give me any other possible reason that a creationist with a 'beef' against some evolution announcement in the journals would hold back and not submit. Or better still - give me some actual examples of creationists attacking evolution WITHIN THE PEER-REVIEW SYSTEM, not their own propaganda enriched websites.
Oh really? That's what you guys say, until threads like these expose your lack thereof.
I don't recall you providing a mechanism whereby mutation + Natural Selection cannot lead to species progression. After all, phenotypes come from genotypes, and genotypes are just organic chemistry arrangements - and organic chemistry is stochastic (meaning it is not possible to reproduce long organic chains with perfect accuracy - that's just the nature of the beast as far as chemistry is concerned). As soon as it is realised that stochastic chemistry rules the way in which coding for organisms come about then it's like a line of dominoes falling:
1. Stochastic chemistry means mutations are INEVITABLE
2. Mutations mean that individuals are NECESSARILY different from each other within a population.
3. Different individuals mean that some INEVITABLY will survive (and therefore pass on their unique qualities to their offspring to the detriment of others in the gene pool.
4. Survival until breeding age and passing on those qualities means the EVOLUTION IS INEVITABLE. Once the first domino (stochastic chemistry) goes down there is no mechanism to stop the rest.
Go one ....be a devil - provide the mechanism that stops the dominoes dropping....go on son, get your Nobel prize - do what no individual, scientist or otherwise, has done in 150 years of trying - find a mechanism that trashes the ToE....even Bolder Dash and Faith declined to take me up on this one....make your mark - be a creationist hero! (by the way - I mean a proper mechanism we can examine - not 'what ifs')
Oh really? The megazostrodon has ears more resembling a mole than a mouse. It has NO OTHER reptile features, other than "ground hearing". The THEORY of evolution says we come from this mole-like creature , there is no evidence to back it up, except the assumption of evolution. Its breeding, its tooth structure , everything is mammal like. It's a poor reflection of what you would expect from a transitionary fossil between reptiles and mammals. I think scientists forgot about mole hearing when they classified this as "mouse-like" rather than "mole'like".
And yet a key reptilian feature was present - it held its legs splayed out instead of underneath it - classic reptilian stance. Presumably you don't think this counts in your world of 'no transitional fossils exist' since all the fossil examples of megazostrodon would have been flattened by kilometres of rock and this would have 'splayed the poor critters legs'
And your argument that the megazostrodon was the first mammal, seems to contradict your subsequent argument that it was the first to fossilize and therefore not necessarily the first mammal. Unlike your unjustified assumption that I know nothing about fossils, the very arguments that you are presenting now have been core to my view for a long time now.
Did I say that megazostrodon was the FIRST mammal - or perhaps it's more likely that your can't read posts correctly....try again.
Where there have been major phenotype changes claimed by evolutionists, there should be a range of fossils showing this gradual change. The fact that we can find thousands of the one type (reptiles) and thousands of the very mole-like megazostrodon fossils and nothing that shows a half reptile, half mole definitely weakens the theory of evolution
And yet you completely ignore that range of hominid skulls presented by Coyote above. A sequence clearly moving towards greater encephalisation - as predicted by the ToE if we evolved from earlier hominids, and found in fossil evidence.
And as for 'half reptile, half mammal....is that how you think evolution would produce something. The head full of scales perhaps whilst it's arse is covered by fur?
You have no concept of the huge time frame involved or that miniscule changes are all that’s needed on that continuous passage of time.
Lets try an example outside of biology as an analogy (apologies in advance if it doesn’t hit the mark for everyone — analogies only go so far in illustration).
The distance between New York and LA is around 2780 miles. There are 1760 yards (approx one large human stride) to a mile. Therefore there are around 4,892,800 yards (or 4.9 million to say roughly in English) strides between New York and LA.
We start in the middle of New York. You have a camera. You look around in each direction and take a snapshot, of the street junctions that you might be near, of shops, restaurants, phone booths, trash cans....everything in your 360 degree of vision from your stance on that New York street.
You then move one yard. This represents one generation on (and I'll discuss later how that is hopelessly under-represented in evolution’s timescales). You now take pictures around you again - 360 degrees again. What has changed in that one stride? Looking at the two sets of pictures you will be able to see an oh-so slight altering of perspective from that one stride - but it will be oh so very slight as to be almost unnoticeable.
And so another stride and then another.....eventually you reach the outer suburbs of New York - but (to quote creationists)...it's still New York!!
And on we go, stride after stride. No one stride looks virtually any different from the one that went before it - or after it. But, imperceptibly the landscape changes, the city becomes the suburbs, and then slowly it gives way to countryside ....but oh so very very slowly.
4.9 million strides later we are in LA. At no point have you ever got a picture of 'half of New York and half of LA'. And yet the journey was indeed of that transition. 4.9 million sets of photographs, laid end to end - any one set all but indistinguishable from either the ones that went before or went after. Your cry of half and half, is like wanting to go into the middle of the photos and finding one with the Empire State Building sat side by side with Sunset Strip.
As I said - analogies only go so far, so if other posters on here think I’ve stretched the analogy somewhat then fair enough, but sometimes examples away from the field in question helps in visualisation of the topic under discussion.
And now for the real inadequacy of the above scenario:
Richard Dawkins in his "The Ancestors Tale" calculated roughly 195 million generations between human and (ray-finned) fishes. Undoubtedly the estimate will have a generous error margin implicit in this sort of calculation but our example of striding above, was only 4.9 million strides. To stride out 195 million would require journeying over 110,000 miles (or driving from New York to LA 40 times — picking one stride in 195 million is also 14 times more unlikely than to hit the UK lottery which itself is a one in 14 million chance which goes some way to showing what a huge number 195 million actually is).
It’s a sobering thought that maybe my 195 millionth great grandfather (and grandmother) was a ray-finned fish!!!
Creationists simply have no idea of the vast timescales available for evolution to work, nor the subtlety of change that such a timescale allows.
Edited by Drosophilla, : No reason given.
Edited by Drosophilla, : No reason given.
Edited by Drosophilla, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 735 by mindspawn, posted 03-17-2013 3:56 AM mindspawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 810 by mindspawn, posted 04-21-2013 9:19 AM Drosophilla has not replied

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


(3)
Message 742 of 871 (693564)
03-18-2013 3:00 AM
Reply to: Message 739 by mindspawn
03-17-2013 5:35 PM


To clarify, due to the lack of DNA analysis, it is impossible to be certain that any particular fossil is in fact a transition, as opposed to being one of a grouping of similar extinct animals.
Okay. But let's be clear, we're never going to get DNA from fossils that are hundreds of millions of years old and where most of the original organic material has been replaced. That seems like an unreasonable burden of proof.
However an attempt has been made, with some organisms eg human/ape horse hoofs etc These attempts at creating sequences are not proof or even evidence for evolution, but at least its something better than the complete lack for example of transitionary bat fossils
Well that's not true, but let's put that to one side for now.
I didn't ask you for examples of things that aren't evidence for evolution, I asked you what evidence for evolution you would accept. On the basis of your answer here, it would seem that nothing would be sufficient. Is that the case? After all, it seems pointless to harp on about a lack of bat fossils, when you wouldn't accept them as evidence even if they were put in front of you.
So again; what would a genuine transitional fossil look like? What criteria would it have to fulfil?
Mutate and Survive
Edited by Granny Magda, : Clarification

This message is a reply to:
 Message 739 by mindspawn, posted 03-17-2013 5:35 PM mindspawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 752 by mindspawn, posted 04-03-2013 5:22 PM Granny Magda has replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


(2)
Message 743 of 871 (693581)
03-18-2013 12:27 PM
Reply to: Message 738 by Granny Magda
03-17-2013 2:31 PM


Snark aside...
Yikes, that wouldn't leave much of my message to consider.
Let me try something a bit more snark free. The problem I see with mindspawn's views on what constitutes evidence (and by evidence I certainly don't mean proof) rule out everything that can possibly be found because he adopts the creationist approach of requiring only direct direct evidence that does constitute absolute proof such that the evidence by itself would compel a fundamentalist to join you on the road to hell.
In what other sense would ordering transistional or allegedly transitional fossils using dating and morphology not constitute any evidence at all for evolution.
In what sense is there no evidence at all that human beings possess mutations that are not a part of their parents genome, and thus cannot constitute mere rare combinations of alleles. And in what sense is there no evidence at all that mutations are connected with phenotype variation.
Only is there no evidence in the sense that there the any imagined possible alternative explanation, however implausible, renders a fact not evidence. Only with a mindset that represents a rejection for lacking a certainty that is not applied to anything else.
Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.
Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
I would say here something that was heard from an ecclesiastic of the most eminent degree; ‘That the intention of the Holy Ghost is to teach us how one goes to heaven, not how the heaven goes.’ Galileo Galilei 1615.
If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass

This message is a reply to:
 Message 738 by Granny Magda, posted 03-17-2013 2:31 PM Granny Magda has seen this message but not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


(1)
Message 744 of 871 (693681)
03-19-2013 12:29 PM
Reply to: Message 726 by mindspawn
03-16-2013 9:07 AM


All I'm saying is that no transitional fossil has been found.
What criteria are you using to determine if a fossil is transitional or not?
Oh really? I could arrange any group of vehicles into an order of engine capacity. Or an order of number of wheels. Or an order of fuel tank capacity. Any varied feature you choose. Once ordered, this does not prove the order of their manufacture.
And then I would demonstrate that they do not fall into a nested hierarchy as one would expect from intelligent design.
On the other hand, life does fall into a nested hierarchy which is consistent with evolution.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 726 by mindspawn, posted 03-16-2013 9:07 AM mindspawn has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


(3)
Message 745 of 871 (693682)
03-19-2013 12:35 PM
Reply to: Message 728 by mindspawn
03-16-2013 10:04 AM


The only claim to being "human" is the very qualities already found in a gibbon, the upright pelvis, but her shoulder bones indicate she climbed trees (like an ape). So we have a 100% ape with a gibbons "upright" pelvis. Sure she stood up straight, so do gibbons.
I already showed that a gibbon pelvis is nothing like a human or australopithecine pelvis. Do we really need to go over this again? Seriously?
Take a look for yourself:
Australopithecine pelvis:
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/...PPFiY/s1600/australohipecine.jpg
Modern human pelvis:
Access denied
Gibbon pelvis:
http://yogainthesky.com/...eton-anterior-torso-and-skull.jpg
As you can clearly see, the australopithecine pelvis is much more like a modern human pelvis than the gibbon pelvis.
Unfortunately there are not enough human qualities to make big evolutionary claims.
Yes, until there are too many human qualities, and then it is no longer an ape. We already know how this game is played.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 728 by mindspawn, posted 03-16-2013 10:04 AM mindspawn has not replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 746 of 871 (693684)
03-19-2013 12:36 PM
Reply to: Message 726 by mindspawn
03-16-2013 9:07 AM


I could arrange any group of vehicles into an order of engine capacity. Or an order of number of wheels. Or an order of fuel tank capacity. Any varied feature you choose. Once ordered, this does not prove the order of their manufacture.
The point you keep missing is that you can do that, but none of the ways you can do that is objectively better than any other. The nested hierarchy of life is objectively better than any other arrangement.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 726 by mindspawn, posted 03-16-2013 9:07 AM mindspawn has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


(2)
Message 747 of 871 (693685)
03-19-2013 12:37 PM
Reply to: Message 739 by mindspawn
03-17-2013 5:35 PM


You make a good point regarding my view on transitional fossils. To clarify, due to the lack of DNA analysis, it is impossible to be certain that any particular fossil is in fact a transition, as opposed to being one of a grouping of similar extinct animals.
You are making the same mistake that most creationists make. Transitional does not mean ancestral. Transitional means that the fossil has a mixture of characteristics from two divergent taxa. You don't need DNA to determine this. The theory of evolution makes predictions of which transitionals you should see, and which you should not see. As you have shown, ID/creationism is incapable for making predictions in this manner because any combination of features would be consistent with ID/creationism.
That is what separates evolution from ID/creationism. Evolution can predict which combinations of features you should see and not see.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 739 by mindspawn, posted 03-17-2013 5:35 PM mindspawn has not replied

  
mindspawn
Member (Idle past 2660 days)
Posts: 1015
Joined: 10-22-2012


Message 748 of 871 (694566)
03-25-2013 4:47 PM
Reply to: Message 702 by bluegenes
03-13-2013 2:24 AM


Re: Novel protein coding gene in an Antarctic fish
Here, we describe a comprehensive search for promiscuous proteins that can impart new phenotypes on E. coli. We provide experimental evidence that the overexpression of preexisting E. coli proteins can provide resistance to >80 antibiotics and toxins. Our results suggest that the evolution of novel traits is surprisingly likely, and that even the genomes of well-characterized bacteria harbor substantial reservoirs of latent resistance determinants.
"The next logical step was to survey the entire E. coli proteome for its LATENT ability to confer genuinely new PHENOTYPES"
"even the genomes of well-characterized bacteria harbor substantial reservoirs of LATENT resistance determinants"
They already harbor latent reservoirs. This isn't evolution, its latent. Their conclusion is not consistent with their own wording. Genomes already hold the ability to adapt, the adaptation is not proof of evolution of the genome, its proof that the GENOTYPE has the latent ability to express itself in differing PHENOTYPES.
(how would evolution ever produce LATENT abilities in the gentoype .... natural selection - WOW that's funny)
It certainly confers a new advantageous function. What happened was, firstly, at least two potentiating mutations. Then there was a duplication that formed a new hybrid gene. At this point the selection advantage was there, but still relatively weak. Then further duplications added copies (amplification) which greatly improved the new function. So, there was advantageous duplication upon advantageous duplication upon advantageous duplication.
I appreciate the fact that you are the first to emphasize the AMPLIFICATION that occurred in that particular example. No-one else has mentioned this, not even RAZD in our private discussion. I believe the amplification adds more to the evoltuionists argument than the initial duplication and activation. Yet I honestly feel you have not addressed the possibility that these duplications are merely copying what was already in nature. When the number of duplications goes beyond anything already found in nature, you would have a point.
Its only logical that if the E.coli used to be aerobic and have amplification in its citrate transporting region then it would have de-selected its useless amplification once the aerobic promoter was disabled in an anaerobic environment. We have to compare it to its original state which was aerobic, as can be concluded by the fact that it does have an existing aerobic promoter in the rnk gene. Natural selection could never create a promoter for oxic conditions if it was never active in oxic conditions. that makes no sense under evolutionary conclusions, so logically under both creationism and evolution, E.Coli used to be active in oxic conditions. And therefore could have deselected amplifications once becoming anaerobic. The fact that nature can now duplicate itself back to an optimum when aerobic selection pressure is nor re-applied, does not mean it can surpass that optimum.
And the other one I showed you, with the Advantageous Duplications adaptive to increased heat
And just for good measure, The malarial parasite regularly adapts to our attacks on it by both duplications (plural) and point mutations.
I haven't got time to delve into these links in this post, but have maintained the links so that I can address them in the next post, but they do look like good challenging studies. (please quote this comment in your next post so I don't forget)
Just a moment...
Adaptive Copy Number Evolution in Malaria Parasites | PLOS Genetics
Were you trying to make me laugh with that last sentence?.
The mtDNA haplogroups that we were discussing are a good example of what might be called a short term hierarchy (see chart below). It's a nested family tree of mutations within a species.
If you want a longer term one, what about the Elephantidae? They have nice long generations like us, so I'm wondering if you want to try to fit them into your 6,500 yr (about 260 generations) biosphere as one "kind"?
I wasn't trying to make you laugh, but I've had a few good laughs here on this site, so it's cool if you get a few as well Remember both the Baramin view, and evolution would support short term nested hierarchies with approximately 99.5 percent or more genetic similarity between two species (eg like the mammoth/elephant or the tiger/lion or the human/Neanderthal) Now when I see the elephant and the hyrax put into a hierarchy together, it speaks to me of evolutionary assumptions. There are some phenotype and genotype similarities between the two, just as the human shares DNA sequences with coral. This does not prove a hierarchy, it once again proves that sets of features can sometimes be best in a combination. Its neither here nor there, you would need a trail of transitional fossils from the original giant hyrax, showing transitions to an elephant that would add more weight to your nested hierarchy. To a creationist it looks like a number of completely separate baramins (hyrax is too different to an elephant) and some short term devolution/evolution from baramins (elephant/mammoth). ie the long-term "nested hierarchys" do not in any manner favor evolution over recent baramins.
The fact that both share a few features, shows that fitness is sometimes maximised in groupings of features. Attempts to show that feature groupings are not maximised, but are the less perfect result of a natural evolutionary path from a common ancestor, have not been convincing.
All hard science sans philosophie so far. How many people survive this flood?
8. So if a few of these eight humans had higher copy numbers, and a few had lower copy numbers, the high copy numbers had no advantage in the meat eating society just after the flood. It is only recently that the ones with high copy numbers would be favored. I was just pointing out that a modern return to alleles that favor vegetarianism does not contradict the biblical theory, rather it affirms the biblical notion of a pre-flood vegetarian society followed by a post-flood meat eating society. An observation of copy number increases is no proof of evolution, its just proof that humans with high copy numbers are currently favored with modern diets. Anything else is jumping to conclusions, and those sort of jumps are unscientific.
Amplification has been observed to add to fitness. You may not realise it, but you're defeating your own arguments against an evolutionary scenario. If humans are perfectly healthy with high copy numbers of AMY1, there is nothing to stop them having evolved by duplication from one original.
I entirely agree that there would have been copy number variation and high copy numbers present in the population 6,500 years ago (and before).
Did you know that there are some genes with hundreds of copies in some individuals, and copy number can vary by more than 100 between individuals? And, moving from CNV to SNPs, did you know that there are some genes with more than 1000 alleles at the same loci, and at least one that is known to have more than 2000? That's interesting when you consider that your original population could only have 4 between them.
Just because I'm a creationist, does not mean I deny all mutations. SNPs are single nucleotide polymorphisms. ie they involve just one little change to a gene. These are pretty common each human has about 30 point mutations per generation. This is a conservative estimate, the estimates do vary. So about 1 in 700 genes are affected in each offspring (21000 coding genes/30). So for every 700 people born, you should average one new allele at each locus. For every 70 million people born, you should get 100000 new alleles at each locus. For every 7 billion people born you should get 10 000 000 new alleles at each locus . I dare say, the figure 2000 is possibly just a reflection of the lack of genome sequencing done across the entire human population, it should logically be WAY higher than 2000 per locus.
I haven't got time tonight for the rest of your post, but thanks for your challenging post.
Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 702 by bluegenes, posted 03-13-2013 2:24 AM bluegenes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 749 by Admin, posted 03-25-2013 5:40 PM mindspawn has replied
 Message 750 by Taq, posted 03-26-2013 11:59 AM mindspawn has not replied
 Message 751 by bluegenes, posted 03-31-2013 11:30 AM mindspawn has replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 749 of 871 (694567)
03-25-2013 5:40 PM
Reply to: Message 748 by mindspawn
03-25-2013 4:47 PM


Re: Novel protein coding gene in an Antarctic fish
Hi Mindspawn,
I'm just correcting a math error:
mindspawn writes:
So about 1 in 700 genes are affected in each offspring (21000 coding genes/30).
Much of the genome isn't in coding genes. I don't know the proportion off the top of my head.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 748 by mindspawn, posted 03-25-2013 4:47 PM mindspawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 755 by mindspawn, posted 04-04-2013 9:29 AM Admin has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


(1)
Message 750 of 871 (694632)
03-26-2013 11:59 AM
Reply to: Message 748 by mindspawn
03-25-2013 4:47 PM


Re: Novel protein coding gene in an Antarctic fish
They already harbor latent reservoirs.
Yes, latent reservoirs that are turned on by novel mutations. That is evolution.
I appreciate the fact that you are the first to emphasize the AMPLIFICATION that occurred in that particular example. No-one else has mentioned this, not even RAZD in our private discussion. I believe the amplification adds more to the evoltuionists argument than the initial duplication and activation. Yet I honestly feel you have not addressed the possibility that these duplications are merely copying what was already in nature. When the number of duplications goes beyond anything already found in nature, you would have a point.
A duplication is a mutation. It is a change in DNA sequence of the genome. These mutations result in novel phenotypes. This is the origin of novelty.
Natural selection could never create a promoter for oxic conditions if it was never active in oxic conditions.
A mutation put a new promoter region onto the gene, and natural selection selected for this mutant which was responsible for a novel phenotype.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 748 by mindspawn, posted 03-25-2013 4:47 PM mindspawn has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024