RNA editing and Convergence, powerful evidence for design

Fred, lets stop and look at this logically. Let's look at a specific case - the descent of modern whales from Pakicetus (and earlier). First off, I think I'll just add in the fact that the exact properties of the fossils that were later found were predicted precisely ever since it was suspected that conylarths were the ancestors (they share paraxonic toes, the structure of the ear bones, etc) You can read about and see diagrams of the fossils at The Origin of Whales and the Power of Independent Evidence; you don't have to believe the interpretation of the data, but you should be aware of the data, and do your best to fit it into your own world view instead of discarding it.Pakicetus was clearly an intermediary land/water stage, in a steady progression from Sinonyx dating from just before it, and ambulocetus, rodhocetus and dorudon dating progressively after it (wow! What a coincidence, right? Especially since they don't tell the lab what they're having dated!). It probably lived somewhat similar to an otter (if you have to question why they accept that, you didn't read the description of the fossil and the sediments it was in). There are clear advantages to in-between stages of terrestrial and aquatic mammals, as otters and seals show - namely, you can get away from predators on both fronts. Just as seals are more water-reliant than otters, there's no clear dividing line between the two. If land food sources become less common and aquatic sources more common, water adaptations become more valuable - but they still have the ability to sneak off to the land. Eventually, they're adapted enough need merely the ability to escape to the shallows. As they get larger and able to dive deeper, they can handle more the open ocean.And yet, what does this make the organisms like? What do the fossils show a steady progression towards? Why, it makes them more resemble fish and sharks! They get bulkier skulls for stereo hearing underwater, eardrums that can be pressurized better, less protruding limbs, more flexible backbones, limbs shaped more like fins, etc. And yet, there's a progression along this line towards this! Why, they're converging!Yes! Relevant traits to the survival of an organism in a given niche converge towards what is most useful in that niche. This is obvious! But, not every trait of an organism is relevant to its survival. Minor crests, attachment points for limbs (and internal vestigal limbs), fenestra, minor crests and ridges, plates in the skull, etc, are mostly irrelevant to the enviroment. And, wouldn't ya know it - but they get carried over! In short, animals converge on the traits that they should converge on, and retain the traits that they should retain - exactly as evolution predicts. Of course, in creation, there is no reason for this at all.For example, why did God create whales with places to attach legs (and in fact, as embroys, have them develop body hair, limb buds, olfactory lobes, a normal land mammal snout position, etc - just like chicken embryos have teeth, human embroys have tails, etc - and in all of these cases, there have been atavisms where the trait reemerges). Why would God create whales with traits like these? In evolution, it is *expected* that this will happen. It's like blind cave animals, where no light penetrates, but the animals have skinned-over eye sockets; etc.In short, this is *exactly* what would be predicted by evolution, but *not* what would be expected from God. Of course, unless you believe in the "Prankster God" theory. ------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

Well you really seem to have problems grasping the positions you are arguing against.Convergence refers to the evolution of independant evolution of a feature in two groups. It does not imply that they did not have a common ancestor - only that they (probably) did not have a common ancestor with that feature. So it is not opposed to common descent.In this case we have different versions of RNA editing in different lineages so it certainly does not interfere with the attempt to reconstruct phylogenies. Indeed the statements quoted imply that it confirms the existing phylogenies.

quote:

---

Unfortunately I only have time for one post today (I have a self-imposed rule that I will not post from home, let alone even look at a discussion board — so far so good).

---

Thats funny Fred, I have a similar self imposed rule...I also try to enforce a "no EvCforum on the weekends" rule...though I sometimes slip....what do you know, convergence

quote:

---

I ask again, is convergence antithetical to common decent? If you answer no, how do you explain this in light of Campbell’s statement above?

---

Simple, like with horizontal gene transfer or bacterial conjugation, there are similar traits that can be acquired by mechanisms other than inheriting a copy from your parents. If you have a retroviral infection and a copy integrates in your germline i.e. sperm, you can pass that integrated provirus to you children and they can pass it on etc. etc. even though you did not inherit that virus from your parents...8-9% of the human genome is made of elements of this kind called human endogenous retroviruses (HERVs). This still does not violate common descent of the host organism with its last common ancestor any more than you having a novel proviral integration suggests your parents are not related to you.Similarly for convergent traits, read the thylacine wolf article I posted. Similar ecological niche as canids and some similarities in morphology. But DNA analysis shows it is a marsupial with no affinity to canids. This hardly violates common descent.

quote:

---

Would you at least agree it disrupts evolutionist efforts to construct phylogenies

---

Yes, I would agree that it has disrupted phylogenetics. However, now that phylogenetics is more and more based on genomics, a lot of relationships among groups are becoming much clearer since usually even if the morphology has converged, the neutral DNA markers used to test phylogenetic associations have not.Would you at least agree it disrupts evolutionist efforts to construct phylogenies? [/quote]

quote:

---

Thats funny Fred, I have a similar self imposed rule...I also try to enforce a "no EvCforum on the weekends" rule...though I sometimes slip....what do you know, convergence

---

I also impose the no weekend rule, unless I’m at work! (which these days is very seldom)

quote:

---

I ask again, is convergence antithetical to common decent?

​

Simple, like with horizontal gene transfer or bacterial conjugation, there are similar traits that can be acquired by mechanisms other than inheriting a copy from your parents.

---

Since people are fond of citing logical fallacies on this board, in this case this is the fallacy of the exceptions prove the rule (can’t remember the technical, literature geek name). Horizontal gene transfer doesn’t even touch the tip of the iceberg of the myriad of examples of convergence in nature.

quote:

---

Yes, I would agree that it has disrupted phylogenetics. However, now that phylogenetics is more and more based on genomics, a lot of relationships among groups are becoming much clearer since usually even if the morphology has converged, the neutral DNA markers used to test phylogenetic associations have not.

---

I’m glad you at least acknowledge that convergence disrupts scientist’s ability to construct phylogenies. Evolution certainly never predicted that nature would be chalked full of them, the theory sure would have been better off without them (seems to be a common theme of the theory, things always point against it! ). The excuse you give however smells like a circular argument to me. But I’ll have to wait and see.

Rei, right now I don't have time for your elephant-hurling red herring. Sorry. See http://www.trueorigins.org/whales.aspFYI, I heard the same definitive claim made regarding Mesonychid by Massimo Pigliucci in a debate with Remine. Too bad Pigliucci was unawares that Mesonychid had been thrown out of the whale line a couple years earlier...

Wow, it's truly rare to see an article with such ingenuity. Lets take this gem:In a more extensive analysis published three years later, Frederick Szalay suggested that both hapalodectines (which was then considered a mesonychid subfamily) and archaeocetes probably "derived from either early or middle Paleocene mesonychids, species more primitive than known mesonychines" [emphasis mine].[5] In other words, Szalay concluded that both Dissacus and Ankalagon, the only middle Paleocene mesonychids known at that time, were too derived (evolutionarily advanced) to be in the archaeocete lineage.[6] He saw them as "sister groups" of the archaeocetes, not as actual ancestors. 1) Virtually *everything* evolutionarily is going to be a sister species (or sister subspecies, or sister genus, etc). The odds of finding the *direct* ancestor of anything that died more than a few thousand years ago are almost zilch.2) Notice how he mentioned "which was then considered a mesonychid subfamily??? How could he publish this without feeling shame? Hapalodectines had just been discovered and were still under attempt to be classified; there were very few fossils. It never was suggested that they specifically were ancestral to whales.3) *Szalay Himself* places mesonychid condylarths as a close sister species to modern whales ("Origin and evolution of function of the mesonychid condylarth feeding mechanism". Evolution 1969; 23: 703-20). How disingenous can you get?4) Hey, guess what? Pakicetus *IS* an earlier mesonychid. Exactly What This Quote Was Suggesting Whoda guessed? And guess what, it fits the transition perfectly! Pakicetus is 50mya, the archaeocetes range from 49mya to 34mya.You know, it's funny how creationists often try and portray it as if there's some big confusion in the scientific community as to how these events occurred. It's the most ridiculous thing - in the field, there is virtually *no* disagreement. Quotes like this are arguments over minor details of the lineages of fossils; it's sad to see someone do such a sickening job trying to make something out of it. Szalay has written continuously about the evolution of whales - do you think *he* has even the slightest doubt in his mind of the progression? Scientists constantly try to poke holes in lines of progression - and are generally shot down. And yet nowadays these focus on, for the most part, the tinest of steps - claiming that something should be in a different genus, or that two fossils aren't of the same species. Instead of looking at out of context quotes, I recommend you actually read the papers that are being discussed - if you did, you'd catch on fast to this fact.Let's continue onwards..Since publication of the Szalay article, three more genera of middle Paleocene mesonychids have been identified in Asia (Dissacusium, Hukoutherium, Yangtanglestes), but none is known from anything more than fragmentary crania.Um... hello!!! Pakicetus!!! Are you deliberately trying to mislead your readers, or are just completely ignorant? Here's a pic: http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/mammal/cetacea/pakicetus.jpg - is *THAT* a fragmentary cranium??? Also found in Pakistan were similar relatives in slightly later strata, such as Rodhocetus. Want to see what it looks like by late Eocene? http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/mammal/cetacea/zygorhiza.jpg .Do I need to go earlier, say, Sinonyx? [quote]To acknowledge, as Robert Carroll did recently, that "[i]t is not possible to identify a sequence of mesonychids leading directly to whales,[/quote]Hmm, Robert Carroll, and his book which concludes with lines like "Evolutionary forces that can be studied in modern populations are sufficiently powerful to account for the amount and rate of morphological change throughout the entire course of vertebrate history." and "Transitions between environments governed by major differences in physical constraints do not necessarily require special evolutionary processes."? The book is often used as a *TEXT BOOK* for paleontologists. More out-of-context disingenuity for ya I wish I had a copy of the book on hand, because that quote ends in a comma!!!. I want to know what he said after that for which they felt the need to cut him off mid sentence. Regardless, the whale transitional record includes all relevant genuses en route, and quite a few species in each, in a nice progression.The reason evolutionists are confident that mesonychids gave rise to archaeocetes, despite the inability to identify any species in the actual lineage, is that known mesonychids and archaeocetes have some similarities. These similarities, however, are not sufficient to make the case for ancestry, especially in light of the vast differences.My challenge to the author. Name *ONE* "vast difference". The fossils have almost identical tooth structure - the only difference is that they become more triangular and serrated. They're some of the few fossil animals which ever had paraxonic feet. The structure of the ear of Pakicetus is exactly halfway between modern artiodactyls and whales. The skulls all take a smooth progression - and all skull ridges and features follow. Don't just listen to me: LOOK AT PICTURES. They're online. And, I'm sure it's just a coincidence to you, but *every one was found in the exact sediments they should have been found in*. There are *no* modern whales in eocene sediments. There are *no* eocene proto-whales in modern sediments. Radiometric dating corresponds to this. Why are proto-whales found only with other kinds of eocene fossils? Why are modern whales found only with modern fossils? *In Every Last Case*. Why? Animals of all kinds of sizes, shapes, niches, etc - all perfectly sorted. Why?Then, they cite Van Valen talking about how many of the features of Protocetus's skull aren't seen in other fossils. That Is Because Van Valen Wrote In The 1960s. The author knows *damn well* that most of the fossils were found in the 1990s. This is a hideous mockery of respectability here.I can't address the next quote, because I can't tell what skull Colbert is talking about (they filled in the word "archaeocete" - gee, thanks). And take a 5 word clip from someone else's sentence - trying to imply something that is *THE EXACT OPPOSITE* of what the scientific community excepts. Search for papers on whales written by archeologists. I challenge you to find a single one - including one written by these authors - that disagrees with A) the skulls being in a perfect progression, and B) the teeth being a perfect progression. It's simply not true. I've ran into several dozen papers on whales on the net, and kept track of all of the new findings. And I can't point to a single archaeologist who has any doubt at all to either of these points.

quote:

---

One need only compare the reconstructed skull of the late Paleocene Sinonyx jiashanensis to that of an early archaeocete to appreciate these remarks.

---

Yes. One does:http://www.talkorigins.org/features/whales/pakicetus.gif
http://www.talkorigins.org/features/whales/sinonyx.gifCompare each tooth individually. For example, upper-straight point meets lower minor-lobe. Upper double-point meets lower double point. Etc. The only significant difference is in tooth *sizes*, which are something that is incredibly easy to change. Note the elongated muzzle, the large jugular foramen, short basicranium. Look at the pattern of the skull plates. Note that the only significant difference between the two things is *size*. Counts and even shapes are exactly the same.I need to get headed home, so I'll stop here.Before I go, I direct you to:http://diglib1.amnh.org/novitates/i0003-0082-344-01-0001.pdfIt's a study on the DNA of living descendants of these animals. And - Guess. What. It. Matches. Up. With.!!!!

quote:

---

Since people are fond of citing logical fallacies on this board, in this case this is the fallacy of the exceptions prove the rule (can’t remember the technical, literature geek name). Horizontal gene transfer doesn’t even touch the tip of the iceberg of the myriad of examples of convergence in nature.

---

Then I guess you do not believe in mendelian genetics or heredity either as the findings of horizontal transfer is actually more of a problem for Mendel's original laws than Darwin's theory. But you have it completely backwards. The discovery of bacterial conjugation, horizontal transfer, convergent evolution all strengthened both genetics and evolution because it explained occurrences that were previously exception to the rule and clarified the mechanism.

quote:

---

I’m glad you at least acknowledge that convergence disrupts scientist’s ability to construct phylogenies. Evolution certainly never predicted that nature would be chalked full of them, the theory sure would have been better off without them (seems to be a common theme of the theory, things always point against it! ). The excuse you give however smells like a circular argument to me. But I’ll have to wait and see.

---

Not sure what you mean here. If I have a phylogeny based solely on morphology that shows that the thylacine wolf occupies a near identical niche to that of canid wolves and is morphologically very similar, I then analyze its DNA and see that all genetic markers show conclusively it is a marsupial with no relationship to canids...why is this a problem for evolution? I can see where it is a problem for the phylogenetics of this species group and can see that duh! not all markers are useful for specific analysis which is known from genetics, forensics, population biology, ecology you name it....so?There is a little thing that is foreign to religion but is key to science..it is called progress. Over time, science improves itself and thus exposes problems with past work. Religion on the other hand denies, covers up, or just mistranslates its texts into another language and then back again to cover up fallacies without ever progressing...it is not circular reasoning.

I've not said that at all.What I have said is that they are separate/not-connected
and thus can say nothing about each other.Common descent cannot be an antithesis of convergence any more
than wave motion is the antithesis of particle motion.They are used to explain different observations.Both are compatible with evolutionary theory.Likely both have happened (time and again) in the past.

This article supports a living earth, which is pre cellular, not a godhead, which is quite a leap. However, I agree if you are speaking metaphorically of creationism, as this is a young science. However, to me it is not new, which I suppose makes me a deity.Anyway, it is detailed in the Living Earth Thread here in the ID catagory, if you are getting this by email.In short, nucleotides in cirrus are sorted by electro mechanical movements between conductive ionosphere and cloud tops. The charge of the nucleotide, allows cirrus to be ordered in bands in the atmosphere, just like electrophoresis bands the nucleotides. The banding then provides a biological feedback of temperature and rain back down on a earth, and the nucleotides rain, sorted by electrical and genetic condition. This sorting was the start of life, and was precellular and would have caused an assortment of like ion behaving sequences. These sequences then converged as they became more efficient at various replicating processes. To make an arguement that this process supports some means that is not naturalistic is absurd. Anyway, more on the living earth thread.