Dr. Schwartz' "MIssing Links"

quote:

---

Now when we compare "molecular clocks" for mtDNA Eve and yChrom Adam what do we see? More change in Eve than in Adam? Longer change in Eve than in Adam or slower change in Adam than in Eve? We don't know. There is no connection to fossils, hard data, to be able to say at this point.

---

Again, that is not always the case. Local molecular clocks use fossil divergence dates as calibration points. This paper, for example, employs such clocks and its results are quite congruent with dates inferred from fossil data when applicable.

Percy:

quote:

---

...Based upon morphological comparisons, he believes humans are more closely related to orangutans than to chimpanzees, and his view naturally conflicts with the DNA analysis.

​

Schwartz's list of significant publications on this Wikipedia page as well as a search for his papers by Google Scholar support the view that he is unqualified to comment with any authority on molecular clocks....

​

In other words, Schwartz is not challenging molecular clocks because he is a qualified researcher in this area and has evidence supporting his view of them. He's challenging molecular clocks because they conflict with his views on human evolution in particular and on the theory of evolution in general. He is an example of the worst kind of scientist one can imagine, one who just like creationists lets his ideas about the way the world must be govern his acceptance and interpretation of evidence.

---

I agree with all of the above.I had meant to critique his paper already linked to here a while ago, and had basically forgotten about it.My interest was piqued as several of my graduate advisor's papers are cited, including one on which I am a co-author and I can guarantee that our results are beyond Schwartz's criticisms.

Oh, hi Dr Schwartz!I'm the guy who was emailing you about your views on intermediate forms about a month ago. If you aren't the same person as the Intelligent Design Schwartz, as I suggested in my emails, I apologise for mixing you up, and you can see on this thread where I got the idea from.Re the Darwin quote. You write: Well, he says in the quote that it is probable that stasis was the rule and change the exception. His writings tend to dwell on the change rather than the stasis, it's true, but surely that's because the change is the interesting bit. I'm rather inclined to P.E. myself, but when I write about evolution I tend to write about stuff changing rather than stuff staying the same. If you looked at the "total corpus of my work", stasis gets very few mentions, but that doesn't refute the fact that I think most of the history of any given lineage consists of stasis.Oh, and welcome to the forums!Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Yeah, Oxford. Where speaking Latin is compulsory, and they empty their chamber-pots into the streets. Unless for some reason my information is wildly out of date.You do know that Giordano Bruno lived in the sixteenth century, right?

While this is a step in the right direction (compared to the molecular adam and eve dates) I still have some problems with it: they use four calibration dates - 63Ma, 45Ma, 25Ma and 14Ma - based on the fossil evidence for last common ancestor (LCA) congruent with the branching of these clades ... and then give us average rates of change for each segment in between while saying that these are the actual rates of change in those groups for those periods.Correct me if I'm wrong, but this appears to be the same kind of error in thinking that I objected to originally Different rates of selection of specific mutations for change versus rates of selection under stasis conditions would mean different rates of change at different times showing up in the DNA development over time.I also notice that this paper focuses on non-coding DNA changes -- not the ones leading to the changes that would result in speciation and selection of novel features. I suspect that if I divide the DNA into coding sections and non-coding sections and assume that a specific mutation can occur in one OR the other that

under stasis conditions -- when selection is for status quo -- that novel feature mutations would be selected against and neutral mutations would be selected for (ie more mutations would survive in non-coding sections while mutations in coding sections would be weeded out)and

under change conditions -- when selection is for change (survival or sexual selection) -- that novel features benefiting selection would be selected for while neutral and disadvantageous mutations would be generally selected against (ie more mutations would survive in coding sections while mutations in non-coding sections would lose out to the change selections).

​

This would explain the apparent anomaly of slower rates in the non-coding sections when there is selection for longer life or larger brains. At least one other study have shows much higher rates of mutation selection in humans than in chimpanzees (UCR, aug 2004):

​

http://www.newsroom.ucr.edu/cgi-bin/display.cgi?id=875

quote:

---

"The explosive expansion of the DNA repeats and the resulting restructuring of our genetic code may be the clue to what makes us human," Dugaiczyk said. "During the same amount of time, humans accumulated more genetic novelties than chimpanzees, making the human/chimpanzee genetic distance larger than that between the chimpanzee and gorilla."

---

​

It seems to me you have to compare the whole genomes and differentiate between coding and non-coding mutations to get a more complete picture of what went on. I expect this to be done and await the results with curiosity.

​

My main point, however, is that the rate of mutation selection changes under different selection conditions, that you cannot assume a steady rate over any period of time without knowing those selection conditions, and thus molecular clocks cannot be used to determine when speciation - or selection of specific features - occurred. Am I wrong?

​

Enjoy.

​

---

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

quote:

---

... and then give us average rates of change for each segment in between while saying that these are the actual rates of change in those groups for those periods.

---

They ARE the actual amounts of change in the branch between the LCA and the taxon in question.

quote:

---

Correct me if I'm wrong, but this appears to be the same kind of error in thinking that I objected to originally

quote:

---

Message 52
My main criticism of molecular clocks is that it cannot differentiate between survival selection and sexual selection. In the case of human evolution there is pretty good evidence for fisherian runaway sexual selection,...

---

---

I fail to see the relevance of this.

quote:

---

Different rates of selection of specific mutations for change versus rates of selection under stasis conditions would mean different rates of change at different times showing up in the DNA development over time.

---

This is irrelevant to the general 'accuracy' of local clock calculations. ZThe goal of such calculations is not to make such differentiations. Your criticisms seem similar to Paul Nelson's criticism of molecular phylogenetics as being a diversion because they do not explain what the mechancim behind the changes is.

quote:

---

I also notice that this paper focuses on non-coding DNA changes -- not the ones leading to the changes that would result in speciation and selection of novel features.

---

Yes, that is all clearly stated and finding such changes was not the goal of our research nor is it the goal of molecular phylogenetics in general.

quote:

---

I suspect that if I divide the DNA into coding sections and non-coding sections and assume that a specific mutation can occur in one OR the other that
-under stasis conditions -- when selection is for status quo -- that novel feature mutations would be selected against and neutral mutations would be selected for (ie more mutations would survive in non-coding sections while mutations in coding sections would be weeded out)and

​

under change conditions -- when selection is for change (survival or sexual selection) -- that novel features benefiting selection would be selected for while neutral and disadvantageous mutations would be generally selected against (ie more mutations would survive in coding sections while mutations in non-coding sections would lose out to the change selections).

---

And?

quote:

---

It seems to me you have to compare the whole genomes and differentiate between coding and non-coding mutations to get a more complete picture of what went on. I expect this to be done and await the results with curiosity.

---

Well of course, but criticising a paper in which the goal was not to do that for not doing that seems superfluous.

quote:

---

My main point, however, is that the rate of mutation selection changes under different selection conditions, that you cannot assume a steady rate over any period of time without knowing those selection conditions, and thus molecular clocks cannot be used to determine when speciation - or selection of specific features - occurred. Am I wrong?

---

Yes. Since local molecular clocks do not rely on any assumptions about mutation rates or rate differentials, a sufficiently large data set will nto suffer from potential short term bursts of mutation and selection or the lack thereof.

Not to belabor this, but they are the average rates, by definition.You do not know when each individual fixed selected mutation occurred, you don't even know if half occurred in the first half of the time period and half occurred in the second half or whether 90% occurred in the first half and 10% in the second. All you have is (n) mutations occurred in (t) time and the average rate of mutation over time (t) was (n/t). Within that time period (t) the specific rate of change could have varied considerably: you don't know. They would de facto have different rates of fixing selected mutations. Again the rate of fixing selected mutations would be de facto different under punctuated versus stasis conditions. You were the one that introduced the paper in answer to my criticism. If it doesn't do that it is not my fault. Nor will it be able to identify short term bursts or conditions under which they may apply. Thus it will be unable to identify when a period could be high rate or low rate. By identifying average rates as uniform rates over long periods it also ignores the fact that different rates occur during different times.One thing I do note from your paper is that the different rates are significantly different even in spite of the averaging of the rates over the time periods involved. To me this is validation that different rates occur regularly during evolution. I would think that the question of rate changes and maximum rates of change would be of high interest.When you look at speciation events, such as Pelycodus(1):

quote:

---

The numbers down the left hand side indicate the depth (in feet) at which each group of fossils was found. As is usual in geology, the diagram gives the data for the deepest (oldest) fossils at the bottom, and the upper (youngest) fossils at the top. The diagram covers about five million years.

​

The numbers across the bottom are a measure of body size. Each horizontal line shows the range of sizes that were found at that depth. The dark part of each line shows the average value, and the standard deviation around the average.

​

The dashed lines show the overall trend. The species at the bottom is Pelycodus ralstoni, but at the top we find two species, Notharctus nunienus and Notharctus venticolus.

---

We see a gradual trend to larger size with a branch that reverts to a smaller size at a different (faster) rate of change than the long term trend before it settles into a new long term trend.It is logical for me that the rates of selecting and fixing change away from other daughter species would be higher for one or both than the average rate of selecting and fixing change.This would make understanding the magnitudes of different rates of fixing selected mutations fairly critical to the understanding of speciation and the causes of different rates. Especially if you are doing studies involving multiple speciation events or periods of intense selection pressure.Different rates of selecting and fixing mutations is part of evolution, and understanding those different rates, and the conditions under which they occur, is also part of understanding evolution.Enjoy.Reference:
(1) Lindsay, Don, "A Smooth Fossil Transition: Pelycodus, a primate" Don Lindsay Archive on-line, 25 April 1997 accessed 18 Feb 2007 from A Smooth Fossil Transition: Pelycodus

---

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

There's a reason that the links are missing; because they're made up in the minds of men.So I got news for you,the DNA of mice and chicken is closer to human DNA than monkeys. Why do you suppose that is? Since evolutionists have tunnel vision, then can only see one answer; that means that chickens, mice and animals all shared a common ancestor (Even though they don't know what kind of beast that would be).Sorry, since the eyes of evolutionists are closed, then they can't see that the reason for similar DNA in animals and humans is because in order to exist in the world that God created, ALL HUMANS AND ANIMALS HAVE TO HAVE THESE THINGS IN COMMON:1) A heart
2) Lungs
3) A brain
4) A circulatory system
5) A respiratory system
5) A stomach
7) Intestines
8) Four limbs
9) 2 eyes, 2 ears, a nose and a mouth
10) Skin
11) An endocrine system
13) A reproductive systemAnd many, many, many more similarities than differences. And notice that a reproductive system is so that each species can produce themselves. That's what reproduction means.But those whose whol goal is to deny God say; "Duh, I guess the similarities means dat, uh, my ancesotor was a mouse, yeah, uh-huh, uh-huh." And atheists consider themselves reasonable? No wonder God says that he who is wise in his own eyes is a fool, especially since it's impossible for an animal to breed a human descendant. Edited by Refpunk, : No reason given.

This is false.- This, too, is false.

---

I've done everything the Bible says, even the stuff that contradicts the other stuff! -- Ned Flanders

One must consider the source of this somewhat less-than-brilliant observation to truly fathom its significance. A person who actually says that an octopus is not an animal. Edited by anglagard, : clarification for those few here who may not understand the meaning of ironyEdited by anglagard, : replace word

---

Read not to contradict and confute, not to believe and take for granted, not to find talk and discourse, but to weigh and consider - Francis BaconThe more we understand particular things, the more we understand God - Spinoza

Do humans have to have them twice then? have them twice then?Animal - Wikipedia

quote:

---

Animals have several characteristics that set them apart from other living things. Animals are eukaryotic and usually multicellular (although see Myxozoa), which separates them from bacteria and most protists. They are heterotrophic, generally digesting food in an internal chamber, which separates them from plants and algae. They are also distinguished from plants, algae, and fungi by lacking cell walls. All animals are motile, if only at certain life stages. Embryos pass through a blastula stage, which is a characteristic exclusive to animals.

​

With a few exceptions, most notably the sponges (Phylum Porifera), animals have bodies differentiated into separate tissues. These include muscles, which are able to contract and control locomotion, and nerve tissue, which sends and processes signals. There is also typically an internal digestive chamber, with one or two openings. Animals with this sort of organization are called metazoans, or eumetazoans when the former is used for animals in general.

---

The sad thing about your list is that it is so easy to find correct information: any (good) encyclopedia should have this information. One should try to learn first, rather than make such ignorant posts. What about all the christians (to say nothing of people of other faiths) that don't have a problem with evolution and the study of the biological sciences?What do they say?Enjoy.

---

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

The first time you say something this stupid could just be another example of your ignorance. However I have told you personally that I believe in God, am a Christian and also fully accept the FACT that evolution happened and that the Theory of Evolution is the best explanation so far of how that happened.In addition, the Clergy Letter Project, currently signed and endorse by almost 11,000 US Christian Clergy is proof that neither a belief in Evolution or support for the TOE or opposition to Biblical Creationism and the Christian Cult of ignorance implies a lack of belief in either God or the Bible.Now that you have been informed of the facts, repeating such comments can only be an example of lying.Finally, this thread is on the specific book mentioned in the Title and OP. Your posts are simply off topic in addition to being filled with factual errors.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Then what is an octopus? An insect? Sorry, but an octopus is a sea animal because it's a form of fish. No wonder evolutionists are confused. They not only don't don't know the difference between humans and animals, they don't even know what an animal is!Edited by Refpunk, : No reason given.Edited by Refpunk, : No reason given.

A mollusc. Thanks for the giggles, you are most amusing.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

That's not so much "news" as a fatuous lie.Someone's been pulling your leg.