Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 110 (8803 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 11-19-2017 7:02 PM
356 online now:
Coyote (1 member, 355 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: jaufre
Upcoming Birthdays: DC85
Post Volume:
Total: 822,680 Year: 27,286/21,208 Month: 1,199/1,714 Week: 42/365 Day: 42/40 Hour: 0/0

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
2
345Next
Author Topic:   Evolution Theory Issue - Great Debate -mindspawn and RAZD only
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19217
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.4


(1)
Message 16 of 65 (689014)
01-27-2013 1:33 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by mindspawn
01-27-2013 3:47 AM


Novelty and Evolution
Third regarding novelty and evolution:

... If you could prove ...

Nothing is proven in science, not even that the earth orbits the sun, this is just the best explanation for the observations we have.

... the "regaining" part ... Can you prove the regained" portion of genes was actually from a population that never had them in any form already? ...

This was demonstrated by the genetic analysis to be the best explanation for the observations made from the genetic sequencing of the different species.

... you have already won this debate. ...

Again, I am not interested in winning, but in reaching consensus. In consensus we both "win"

... Were they just dormant genes ? Inactivated genes that were already there?

How is a dormant gene activated?
How is a gene deactivated?
How is an inactivated gene reactivated?

Answer: by mutation/s.

How do they become predominant in the population?

Answer: by selection, by improved fitness within the ecology.

... for you to simply describe this process as fact when this is the essence of the debate, makes me wonder if you are on the same page as me that this is what you need to prove. Your arguments will gain strength if you are able to avoid the assumption of evolution in forming your arguments.

It is what the genetic information shows.

I don't assume evolution, I assume natural processes occur and look at the analysis of the data for the best explanation for the observations.

If you can provide an alternative natural explanation that better fits the observations, then please post it.

This is where I completely disagree. I thought we had this already covered and discussed. You see its possibly for some aspects of macro-evolution to already exist within a genome,...

Please define macro-evolution so we can agree on this term. I know how science uses the term, I want to see your understanding of what the term means.

What is it, how does it occur, how do you know when it has occurred?

... merely through new allele frequencies. ...

But this would be micro-evolution yes? Note that we've already agreed on this definition for the proces of evolution:

The process of evolution involves changes in the composition of hereditary traits, and changes to the frequency of their distributions within breeding populations from generation to generation, in response to ecological challenges and opportunities.

This is sometimes called microevolution, however this is the process through which all species evolve and all evolution occurs at the breeding population level.

So when you talk about changing allele frequencies you are talking about the process of evolution, or micro-evolution, yes?

... Let's say fish are slowly introduced into environments where their food source is increasingly above the water instead of in the water. The population will gradually change to reflect this, but in many many areas of the genome. Fin shape and size, speed, muscles that assist jumping etc etc . Every feature that assists the survival of that species in that restricted environment will be enhanced until new allele frequencies are obtained for the new environment once the environment is stabilized. The result: jumping fish, a new function. No need for for mutations.

This would still be micro-evolution, but it is just the beginning of the process. Evolution would not stop there. Any mutation that assisted jumping would also be selected for.

Jumping ability would have already existed in the breeding population, so this would not be a novel feature\function\trait, and the height of jumping would be restricted by the existing alleles in the population if no mutations occur to improve this ability.

Small mutations could easily increase the "fin shape and size, speed, muscles that assist jumping etc etc" would be subject to positive selection pressure, as the individuals with such mutations would have increased fitness compared to those that don't. Over generations the shift in alleles within the breeding population would show increased frequency of the mutations and decreased frequency for non-modified genes until one replaces the other.

For instance Pelycodus:

http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/pelycodus.html

quote:

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.


Note that the range in the population just above "P. jarovvi" lies completely to the right of the range in the population just below "P. ralstoni" -- the size alleles in the upper population did not exist in the lower population and vice versa.

This is how (micro)evolution works.

Thus I believe new functions can be created outside of novel gene sequences, ...

But curiously, your example does not show a new function, but enhancement of an existing function, enhancement by standard evolutionary processes, including mutation and selection.

... my dispute with the theory of evolution remains focused on those new functions that are specifically related to new additional coding genes, and not new functions that are attained through unique combinations of existing alleles, and some point mutations or deletions or other processes.

Again, demonstrating that you misrepresent or misunderstand evolution.

With this in mind I wish to introduce an acronym , but for the record I am not 100% sure its the perfect acronym, but at least something to use to save me typing the entire description of what I am looking for every post.

G = Gene
A = Additional (ie not a changed gene, but more genes than that organism had)
I = Instrumental - has a function
N = novel (Unique)
S = selected - gains fitness

I am therefore looking for evidence of coding GAINS in organisms, one process essential to the theory of evolution. I believe new functions/features can exist outside of mutations and/or coding GAINS.

Not sure why you differentiate additional from changed - either constitutes a mutation to the genome.

Novel would mean agreeing on the term definition.

Would you agree that a novel gene\feature\function\trait would be one that did not exist in a previous generation?

yes, but remember I am not merely discussing novel genes. ...

Excellent. We can update the list of terms:

  1. evolution (process) - yes
  2. theory (scientific) - yes
  3. hypothesis (scientific) - yes
  4. the theory of evolution - yes
  5. novel genes\features\functions\traits - yes
  6. complexity (drop)
  7. speciation (divergent) - yes
  8. fitness - yes
  9. god hypothesis (drop)
  10. micro-evolution (same as 'a' above) - yes
  11. macro-evolution - not yet

... These have got be ADDITIONAL. Not a mutated gene. NEW ADDITIONAL NOVEL genes. I have to be very careful with the wording here, because you can even have new non-coding sequences that add to an organisms fitness, and I am not referring to non-coding sequences either. Sure we can observe some complexity increasing, but can entire new functions evolve in a new gene, while retaining the gene of the original function?

The process here would be gene duplication, (mutation of the genotype) then modification of one of the duplicates (mutation of the genotype) to produce a new feature\function\trait in the phenotype.

You would not know that this occurred until you see it expressed in the phenotype.

Enjoy

Edited by RAZD, : added pelycodus


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by mindspawn, posted 01-27-2013 3:47 AM mindspawn has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by mindspawn, posted 01-28-2013 2:51 AM RAZD has responded

  
mindspawn
Member (Idle past 249 days)
Posts: 1015
Joined: 10-22-2012


(1)
Message 17 of 65 (689078)
01-28-2013 2:05 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by RAZD
01-27-2013 12:46 PM


Re: the god hypothesis place in science
God-did-it is not science, nor is it refutation of science, it justs exhibits a failure to consider how it occurred. This is not debate it is failure to debate.

I'm a Deist: god made the natural laws that caused what you see, and out interest is not in whether he did it, but how -- what were the mechanisms?

The only reason I brought up the "God-did-it" is to highlight that whenever you make a claim about evolution being a fact, it must be compared to the God "hypothesis" to see if the evolutionary process is more likely. To make sweeping statements that a certain gene evolved before we have even discussed whether genes can evolve is not showing respect to the topic.

So I move to strike the god hypothesis from this debate, and stick to science and natural explanations:

Organisms exist, DNA exists. They mutate. That is observed.

The "God-hypothesis" says they were created that way, an intelligent designer created all the intricacy in each gene and nature cannot spontaneously create that intricacy found in genes.

Evolutionary theory states that all modern life is a result of evolutionary processes, and due to the fact that most organisms show more coding genes than the basic organisms, evolutionary theory involves coding GAINS.

When looking at any genome sequencing, it is therefore essential to show that the evolutionary process is more observable than the pre-existence of the intricacy of that gene, if the theory of evolution is to be a more acceptable explanation for the existence of the gene. So I don't feel that we have to discuss the God-hypothesis, all I request is that every time you bring up evidence you are mentally comparing it to the other possibility that God created that gene. This will sharpen up your logic, because I will always look at all evidence with the "created that way" alternative in mind. And I will show you the alternative creationist possibilities if necessary to reveal evolutionist circular reasoning.

and that brings me to this...........

Does not explain why the genetic patterns fit the nested hierarchy shown. If god/s made them different how come he made them so similar that they fit the nested hierarchy shown? Is s/he faking evidence? There is no cause to create the nested hierarchy unless the method\mechanism used to created used the natural process of evolution and selection.

.

Nested hierarchy is an assumption based on the pre-acceptance of evolutionary theory, when the entire concept of groups of similar organisms could simply be explained by the fact that God designed organisms in groups. ie there is an overlap of genetic sequences of certain organisms due to being designed so similar. Intelligent designers (think cars) always use this process, never having to "re-invent the wheel"., but duplicating their basic designs and adjusting other features to produce their full range.

Additionally, there are huge numbers of extinct species, to find some sort of phylogenetic tree by ordering them into artificial sequences of fossils is just that, artificial.

So to conclude, any genetic evidence brought forward regarding genes evolving will be compared to the "always was there" hypothesis so we can look at the evidence in an unbiased fashion, which is the essence of the evolution/creation debate. Whether mentioned or unmentioned, the comparison has to be there the whole time.

Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by RAZD, posted 01-27-2013 12:46 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by RAZD, posted 01-28-2013 7:11 PM mindspawn has responded

  
mindspawn
Member (Idle past 249 days)
Posts: 1015
Joined: 10-22-2012


(1)
Message 18 of 65 (689084)
01-28-2013 2:51 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by RAZD
01-27-2013 1:33 PM


Re: Novelty and Evolution
Nothing is proven in science, not even that the earth orbits the sun, this is just the best explanation for the observations we have.

I'm happy with "best explanation for the observations we have".

How is a dormant gene activated?
How is a gene deactivated?
How is an inactivated gene reactivated?

Answer: by mutation/s.

How do they become predominant in the population?

Answer: by selection, by improved fitness within the ecology.

No problem. I thought you were using this as an example of coding GAINS, but I now see you are not. I have no problem with these processes.

Please define macro-evolution so we can agree on this term. I know how science uses the term, I want to see your understanding of what the term means.

What is it, how does it occur, how do you know when it has occurred?

If you wouldn't mind doing the homework yourself, and we will use your definition from now on.

But curiously, your example does not show a new function, but enhancement of an existing function, enhancement by standard evolutionary processes, including mutation and selection.

You are correct here, I was just describing the process and yet believe this process can lead to macro-evolutionary changes when continued for long enough. And can include some mutations too.

So when you talk about changing allele frequencies you are talking about the process of evolution, or micro-evolution, yes?

I mean macro-evolution as well, I see no limitations on the genetic diversity that can be produced by re-combining alleles into unique combinations. Like I already said, there are ten billion unique individuals from just the variety of ten alleles in the first ten genes. The figures gets ridiculous over 22000 genes, or if you extend the alleles beyond ten per location you then multiply the effect exponentially. The potential variety is too huge to restrict it to micro-evolution given enough evolutionary pressures. But you can check in with me on this after you have given me your definition of macro-evolution.

Not sure why you differentiate additional from changed - either constitutes a mutation to the genome.

I agree that rarely mutations can add fitness. But I have never observed them add a gene at the same time. It is this gene adding process that is essential to explain most modern life-forms.

The process here would be gene duplication, (mutation of the genotype) then modification of one of the duplicates (mutation of the genotype) to produce a new feature\function\trait in the phenotype.

You would not know that this occurred until you see it expressed in the phenotype.

Those genotypes can be re-interpreted according to creationist theory and normally the creationist view is more statistically viable. For example often when two similar genes are observed in a population, and yet some members of a population do not have one of those two genes, the evolutionist assumption is a duplication and mutation, and yet an inactivation or deletion is a pretty common mutational process. Therefore its not necessarily more likely that the number of genes has increased, the more likely process is that the number of genes has decreased. It is these observations that have to be interpreted correctly before evolutionary conclusions can be reached.

Regarding phenotypes, as I keep saying we cannot assume macro-evolution comes from coding GAINS, it can come from deletions, and non-mutative processes in theory too.

Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.

Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.

Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by RAZD, posted 01-27-2013 1:33 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by RAZD, posted 01-28-2013 8:55 PM mindspawn has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19217
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.4


(1)
Message 19 of 65 (689210)
01-28-2013 7:11 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by mindspawn
01-28-2013 2:05 AM


Re: the god hypothesis place in science
The only reason I brought up the "God-did-it" is to highlight that whenever you make a claim about evolution being a fact, ...

What is fact is objective evidence and observation. Theory does not claim to be fact, but to be an explanation, and the best theory is the one that best explains all the objective evidence and observations.

... it must be compared to the God "hypothesis" to see if the evolutionary process is more likely. ...

Actually it doesn't -- the hypothesis needs to become a scientific theory before it can challenge other scientific theories.

What predictions does the god/s hypothesis make that differentiates it from evolution?

Then let us see if it pans out in the evidence.

The "hypothesis" that god made it look that way -- for every bit of evidence known and found -- does not explain anything - it's a cop-out.

The "God-hypothesis" says they were created that way, an intelligent designer created all the intricacy in each gene ...

If there is no way to distinguish creation\design from natural evolution then all you are doing is stating that creation\design looks just like evolution. You are making no prediction\test of the hypothesis but using the post hoc ergo propter hoc logical fallacy to say "me too" ...

... and nature cannot spontaneously create that intricacy found in genes.

Which, curiously, is not claimed by evolution. Nothing in evolution happens "all at once" but develops over generations.

Nested hierarchy is an assumption based on the pre-acceptance of evolutionary theory, ...

Actually it is based on the observed fact that speciation events form a branch in the hereditary lineage of organisms, and that further speciation events form more branches in nested hierarchies. This has been observed to happen, via the known mechanisms and processes of evolution.

Thus nested hierarchies are a prediction of the theory of evolution, not an assumption. The data from the walking sticks matches the pattern of nested hierarchies that is predicted from observed objective evidence. I'll go into this in more detail in the next post.

... when the entire concept of groups of similar organisms could simply be explained by the fact that God designed organisms in groups. ...

Which does not explain the specific nested hierarchy pattern found in the walking sticks.

... ie there is an overlap of genetic sequences of certain organisms due to being designed so similar. ...

So your god/s could not decide whether to have wings or no wings, and when it came to Lapaphus parakensis, they kept changing their minds? Doesn't sound like intelligent design to me.

... Intelligent designers (think cars) always use this process, never having to "re-invent the wheel"., but duplicating their basic designs and adjusting other features to produce their full range.

Curiously, I am a designer by profession. The borrowing used by designers from one product to another actually violates the nested hierarchy pattern. Rear window wipers, to use an example from cars, were originally on one model and then added to other makes and models with no original development. Chevy, Ford, Subaru, Volvo, etc all sported rear window wipers.

And I'm also a Deist that believes that what was designed were the natural laws, not the products of them. Thus evolution is the tool of creation. My god/s hypothesis therefore explains the nested hierarchy of the walking sticks via evolution as well as the rest of the diversity of life on earth.

You want to compare god/s-hypothesis or talk about evolution?

... the pre-existence of the intricacy of that gene, ...

Meaningless word salad to me. Try using terminology in evolutionary science. This just looks like pretentious pretend pseudo-intellectualism, attempting to say something meaningful.

So to conclude, any genetic evidence brought forward regarding genes evolving will be compared to the "always was there" hypothesis so we can look at the evidence in an unbiased fashion, which is the essence of the evolution/creation debate. Whether mentioned or unmentioned, the comparison has to be there the whole time.

Are we now replacing the "god-did-it" hypothesis with this "always was there" hypothesis?

And how do you test the "always was there" hypothesis against evolutionary theory mechanisms and processes?

If it "always was there" then why is the expression of this genetic sequence not in the phenotypes of the organisms carrying the hidden genes?

Does a longer genetic sequence means that there is a sequence that was not "always there" and how can you tell when it is from duplication of existing sequences?

Does a shorter sequence mean that some "always was there" genetic sequence has been lost? Seems wasteful for intelligent designing.

This seems like clutching at straws to me.

The rest of your Message 17 is included in the next reply.

Enjoy

Edited by RAZD, : the new god-did-it: hidden genes


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by mindspawn, posted 01-28-2013 2:05 AM mindspawn has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by mindspawn, posted 01-29-2013 3:04 AM RAZD has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19217
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 20 of 65 (689217)
01-28-2013 8:55 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by mindspawn
01-28-2013 2:51 AM


Nested Hierarchies and Macroevolution
Continuing reply to Message 17:

Evolutionary theory states that all modern life is a result of evolutionary processes, and due to the fact that most organisms show more coding genes than the basic organisms, evolutionary theory involves coding GAINS.

Not quite. Evolution theory states that all modern life (and all historic and prehistoric life) can be explained by evolutionary processes and mechanisms. Evolutionary theory involves occasional development of novel genes\features\functions\traits by various mechanisms.

The earliest life form we know from the fossil record is a blue-green algae, a prokaryote similar to the blue-green algae today. We do not know (yet) about any earlier life forms. The DNA of those algae may have been similar to what we see today or it may have been simpler ... or it may have been more convoluted with a lot of dead weight left over from whatever process first developed for life on earth. We don't know. We do know that some fairly simple organisms have extremely long DNA. The genetic sequences necessary for life may have been relatively simple, but there also may not have been any mechanism to reduce baggage.

We also know that for the first billion years prokaryotic life was what left evidence that we can find, and that eukaryotic life seems to have developed by combining two or more forms into a new and novel form of life before developing into multicellular life forms.

... evolutionary theory involves coding GAINS.

Evolutionary theory involves evolution of organisms, from generation to generation, occasionally involving the development of novel genes\features\functions\traits.

When looking at any genome sequencing, it is therefore essential to show that the evolutionary process is more observable than the pre-existence of the intricacy of that gene, if the theory of evolution is to be a more acceptable explanation for the existence of the gene. ...

All evolution needs to show is that in population "A" the gene did not exist but in population "B" it does exist, with population "B" being direct descendants of population "A".

Continuing from my previous reply (Message 19):

Nested hierarchy is an assumption based on the pre-acceptance of evolutionary theory, ...

Actually it is based on the observed fact that speciation events form a branch in the hereditary lineage of organisms, and that further speciation events form more branches in nested hierarchies. This has been observed to happen, via the known mechanisms and processes of evolution.

Thus nested hierarchies are a prediction of the theory of evolution, not an assumption. The data from the walking sticks matches the pattern of nested hierarchies that is predicted from observed objective evidence. I'll go into this in more detail in the next post.

This ties into the issue of what macro-evolution involves ... in scientific usage anyway.

Please define macro-evolution so we can agree on this term. I know how science uses the term, I want to see your understanding of what the term means.

What is it, how does it occur, how do you know when it has occurred?

If you wouldn't mind doing the homework yourself, and we will use your definition from now on.

Macro-evolution is likely the most misunderstood term among lay people in general and creationists in specific.

Unlike evolution\micro-evolution, macro-evolution is not a process per se, rather it is the natural history record of evolutionary processes in populations over the span of many generations. Evolutionary scientists generally draw the line between micro-evolution and macro-evolution at divergent speciation.

You have previously accepted my definition for divergent speciation (in Message 9):

No problem with this. I agree on divergent speciation. ...

Now we look at how this ties into nested hierarchies and see if we can define macro-evolution for you:

If we look at the continued effects of evolution on a breeding population over many generations, the accumulation of changes from generation to generation may become sufficient for individuals to develop combinations of traits that are observably different\modified from the ancestral parent population. This lineal change within species is sometimes called phyletic change in species, or phyletic speciation. This is also sometimes called arbitrary speciation in that the place to draw the line between linearly evolved genealogical populations is subjective, and because the definition of species in general is tentative and sometimes arbitrary.

If phyletic speciation was all that occurred, then all life would be one species, readily sharing DNA via horizontal transfer (asexual) and interbreeding (sexual) and various combinations. This is not the case, however, because there is a second process that results in multiple species and increases the diversity of life.

The process of divergent speciation involves the division of a parent population into two or more reproductively isolated daughter populations, which then are free to (micro) evolve independently of each other.

The reduction or loss of interbreeding (gene flow, sharing of mutations) between the sub-populations results in different evolutionary responses within the separated sub-populations, each then responds independently to their different ecological challenges and opportunities, and this leads to divergence of hereditary traits between the subpopulations and the frequency of their distributions within the sub-populations.

Over generations phyletic change occurs in these populations, the responses to different ecologies accumulate into differences between the hereditary traits available within each of the daughter populations, and when these differences have reached a critical level, such that interbreeding no longer occurs, then the formation of new species is deemed to have occurred. After this has occurred each daughter population microevolves independently of the other/s. These are often called speciation events because the development of species is not arbitrary in this process.

If we looked at each branch linearly, while ignoring the sister population, they would show phyletic change in species (accumulation of evolutionary changes over many generations), and this shows that the same basic processes of evolution within breeding populations are involved in each branch.

An additional observable result of speciation events, however, is a branching of the genealogical history for the species involved, where two or more offspring daughter species are each independently descended from the same common pool of the ancestor parent species. At this point a clade has been formed, consisting of the common ancestor species and all of their descendants.

With multiple speciation events, a pattern is formed that looks like a branching bush or tree: the tree of descent from common ancestor populations. Each branching point is a node for a clade of the parent species at the node point and all their descendants, and with multiple speciation events we see a pattern form of clades branching from parent ancestor species and nesting within larger clades branching from older parent ancestor species.

Where A, B, C and G represent speciation events and the common ancestor populations of a clade that includes the common ancestor species and all their descendants: C and below form a clade that is part of the B clade, B and below form a clade that is also part of the A clade; G and below also form a clade that is also part of the A clade, but the G clade is not part of the B clade.

The process of forming a nested hierarchy by descent of new species from common ancestor populations, via the combination of phyletic change in species and divergent speciation, and resulting in an increase in the diversity of life, is sometimes called macroevolution. This is sometimes confusing, because there is no additional mechanism of evolution involved, rather this is just the result of looking at evolution over many generations and different ecologies.

Macroevolution is the natural history\record of the evolution of organisms via phyletic speciation (microevolution), and divergent evolution, over many generations.

I'm going to hold off on replying to the rest of Message 18 pending acceptance of the definition of macroevolution, as most of it seems to involve this in your posting.

Nothing is proven in science, not even that the earth orbits the sun, this is just the best explanation for the observations we have.

I'm happy with "best explanation for the observations we have".

Excellent. We also determine that they are the best possible explanation known by using prediction and testing to differentiate it from other explanations.

As with complexity, I suggest that the god hypothesis and the hidden gene hypothesis be dropped from the debate unless you can provide a scientific basis for including them -- a way to test them that differentiates them from evolutionary theory:

  1. evolution (process) - yes
  2. theory (scientific) - yes
  3. hypothesis (scientific) - yes
  4. the theory of evolution - yes
  5. novel genes\features\functions\traits - yes
  6. complexity - (dropped)
  7. speciation (divergent) - yes
  8. fitness - yes
  9. god hypothesis - (drop?)
  10. hidden gene hypothesis - (drop?)
  11. micro-evolution (same as 'a' above) - yes
  12. macro-evolution - not yet

If you accept this then we can move forward on novel genes\features\functions\traits.

Enjoy.

Edited by RAZD, : added

Edited by RAZD, : 18 not 19


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by mindspawn, posted 01-28-2013 2:51 AM mindspawn has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by mindspawn, posted 01-29-2013 7:06 AM RAZD has responded

  
mindspawn
Member (Idle past 249 days)
Posts: 1015
Joined: 10-22-2012


(1)
Message 21 of 65 (689253)
01-29-2013 3:04 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by RAZD
01-28-2013 7:11 PM


Re: the god hypothesis place in science
Actually it doesn't -- the hypothesis needs to become a scientific theory before it can challenge other scientific theories.

What predictions does the god/s hypothesis make that differentiates it from evolution?

Then let us see if it pans out in the evidence.

The "hypothesis" that god made it look that way -- for every bit of evidence known and found -- does not explain anything - it's a cop-out

I don't go by the "God made it look that way" theory. I agree that's silly.

I am saying that all genomes look created. They exist, they have many genes, each gene is highly intricate in structure. The science behind the evolution of those genes is hypothesied, but I do not see actual evidence for it. That's enough to put the two theories of where the genes came from on equal footing, unless you can show me evidence for your hypothesis that coding genes can increase in number over time. (adding fitness)

If there is no way to distinguish creation\design from natural evolution then all you are doing is stating that creation\design looks just like evolution. You are making no prediction\test of the hypothesis but using the post hoc ergo propter hoc logical fallacy to say "me too"

It does not look evolved at all. When you look at a genetic sequence it looks like it is created with some mutations afterwards. It does not look like each of those genes has evolved naturally unless you can show evidence otherwise. All the other processes we agree on (point mutations, disabling of a gene, subsequent enabling of a gene, deletions, duplications). Gene's look too intricate to evolve naturally, and when duplicating normally cause abortions or loss of fitness. This is normally due to the fact that excess proteins are produced, beyond what the organism requires.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene_duplication
Duplications of oncogenes are a common cause of many types of cancer

http://www.rightdiagnosis.com/...rtial_duplication/intro.htm
Chromosome 16q, partial duplication: A rare chromosomal disorder involving an extra copy of genetic material from the long arm of chromosome 16. The type and severity of symptoms are determined by the amount and location of the duplicated genetic material. Severe cases often result in spontaneous abortion or infant death.

Which, curiously, is not claimed by evolution. Nothing in evolution happens "all at once" but develops over generations

The word "spontaneously" does not mean "all at once".
1. Happening or arising without apparent external cause; self-generated.
2. Arising from a natural inclination or impulse and not from external incitement or constraint.
3. Unconstrained and unstudied in manner or behavior.
4. Growing without cultivation or human labor.

I am saying that nature cannot naturally create the intricacy found in genes.

So your god/s could not decide whether to have wings or no wings, and when it came to Lapaphus parakensis, they kept changing their minds? Doesn't sound like intelligent design to me

I thought I already agreed on the processes involved there. Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't you claim that's a process of disabling, and subsequent enabling? I agree with many evolutionary processes, but not the evolving of coding GAINS over time.

Of course there would be nested hierarchies in that instance.

Meaningless word salad to me. Try using terminology in evolutionary science. This just looks like pretentious pretend pseudo-intellectualism, attempting to say something meaningful.

LOL

I said:
... the pre-existence of the intricacy of that gene, ...

(it was already intricate???)

My daughter could understand that with ease. Please don't get unnecessarily nasty........ especially when unjustified.

And how do you test the "always was there" hypothesis against evolutionary theory mechanisms and processes?

If no known natural process can create coding GAINS, the concept that those coding genes were already there becomes more and more acceptable.

Does a shorter sequence mean that some "always was there" genetic sequence has been lost? Seems wasteful for intelligent designing.

Longer sequences, and shorter sequences, were all designed that way. nothing wasteful. There have been some subsequent mutations (eg some gene disabling, point mutations, deletions, enabling, damaging/neutral duplications etc etc)

Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.

Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by RAZD, posted 01-28-2013 7:11 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by RAZD, posted 01-29-2013 2:09 PM mindspawn has responded

  
mindspawn
Member (Idle past 249 days)
Posts: 1015
Joined: 10-22-2012


(1)
Message 22 of 65 (689256)
01-29-2013 7:06 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by RAZD
01-28-2013 8:55 PM


Re: Nested Hierarchies and Macroevolution
The earliest life form we know from the fossil record is a blue-green algae, a prokaryote similar to the blue-green algae today. We do not know (yet) about any earlier life forms. The DNA of those algae may have been similar to what we see today or it may have been simpler ... or it may have been more convoluted with a lot of dead weight left over from whatever process first developed for life on earth. We don't know. We do know that some fairly simple organisms have extremely long DNA. The genetic sequences necessary for life may have been relatively simple, but there also may not have been any mechanism to reduce baggage.

We also know that for the first billion years prokaryotic life was what left evidence that we can find, and that eukaryotic life seems to have developed by combining two or more forms into a new and novel form of life before developing into multicellular life forms.

Ok well I have to admit that I never thought of this argument, that DNA could have started out long. Yes maybe the fact that we cannot observe the unlikely event of nature adding on just one gene, is because nature did all 22000 genes at once............ (I want to burst out laughing at this concept)

A) If you do assume a long DNA, then your view is similar to mine. We started with highly involved DNA. Then you have a huge problem with credibility because how does nature do this?

B) If you do not assume a long DNA then we are back to the same problem, where did the additional genes come from?

Both ways the theory of evolution has a big problem to solve.

Evolutionary theory involves evolution of organisms, from generation to generation, occasionally involving the development of novel genes\features\functions\traits.

It usually takes many many pages in discussions with evolutionists for them to realise to get from a simple 1000 gene organism to a 22000 gene organism, involves the evolving of genes. I will ask my three year old nephew about this, how does the basket with one apple become the basket with 22 apples? You add in 21 apples. But how? Without this process , life as we know it would not exist under evolutionary processes (the range of existing modern organisms). Or maybe 22000 gene organisms just appeared? (sounds a bit like creation to me)

I agree on the evolving of traits, and features, and functions. Let's discuss genes.

Macroevolution is the natural history\record of the evolution of organisms via phyletic speciation (microevolution), and divergent evolution, over many generations

No problem with this. I feel this definition would include extreme changes through changes to allele frequencies (continued micro-evolution of one population under continued evolutionary pressures until the two populations are so different or so separated they no longer breed)

If you accept this then we can move forward on novel genes\features\functions\traits.

Have you considered that it is possible to discuss novel genes directly, without agreeing on everything else first. If we do not agree on these other topics, which is highly likely, then we may never get there. All I'm asking is that you tell me the theoretical process behind the evolving of genes, and some evidence to support this theory on gene evolving. (duplication then mutation?)

As with complexity, I suggest that the god hypothesis and the hidden gene hypothesis be dropped from the debate unless you can provide a scientific basis for including them -- a way to test them that differentiates them from evolutionary theory:

I don't see this as possible, if you present evidence for evolution, and at that time I point out that the creationist view explains the evidence better, then at that time I will be providing evidence for creationism as a better explanation for what is observed. This is after all a creation/evolution debate. I reserve the right to point out the creationist explanation as a more viable one throughout this debate.

As for the "hidden gene hypothesis" I don't know anything about that, explain more?

Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.

Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by RAZD, posted 01-28-2013 8:55 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by RAZD, posted 01-29-2013 5:57 PM mindspawn has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19217
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 23 of 65 (689310)
01-29-2013 2:09 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by mindspawn
01-29-2013 3:04 AM


pseudoscience vs science
Message 22: Have you considered that it is possible to discuss novel genes directly, without agreeing on everything else first. ...

Yes, but the likelihood that we would be talking past each other would be extremely high. By going through these definitions and agreeing on their usage and meaning then it means we have a discussion with common terminology.

I am saying that all genomes look created. They exist, they have many genes, ...

What makes you say they look created? What distinguishes created from occurring naturally?

Give me a test, a measurement, a means to distinguish one from the other.

Else all you are claiming is your opinion based on belief, rather than hypothesis based on evidence. This is pseudoscience.

... Please don't get unnecessarily nasty........ especially when unjustified.

Please don't post unnecessary twaddle and pretend it is a scientific debate.

Ok well I have to admit that I never thought of this argument, that DNA could have started out long. Yes maybe the fact that we cannot observe the unlikely event of nature adding on just one gene, is because nature did all 22000 genes at once............ (I want to burst out laughing at this concept)

A) If you do assume a long DNA, then your view is similar to mine. We started with highly involved DNA. Then you have a huge problem with credibility because how does nature do this?

B) If you do not assume a long DNA then we are back to the same problem, where did the additional genes come from?

Both ways the theory of evolution has a big problem to solve.

Duplications of gene sequences have been observed, so it is not a problem for evolution. So have random insertions and deletions, sequence rearrangements and flipping of sections of genetic code. What's to explain?

... each gene is highly intricate in structure.

Every gene is composed of sequences of four base molecules, for every living organism, yes?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA

quote:
Deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) is a molecule encoding the genetic instructions used in the development and functioning of all known living organisms and many viruses. Along with RNA and proteins, DNA is one of the three major macromolecules that are essential for all known forms of life. Genetic information is encoded as a sequence of nucleotides (guanine, adenine, thymine, and cytosine) recorded using the letters G, A, T, and C. ...


The structure of the DNA double helix. The atoms in the structure are colour coded by element and the detailed structure of two base pairs are shown in the bottom right.

Where A (adenine) is cross-linked to T (thymine), while G (guanine) is cross-linked to C (cytosine). These base pairs are then arranged in a sequence, but there are only so many variations ... if we start with A then the next molecule can be A, T, C, or G, and if we start with T then the next molecule can be A, T, C, or G, and if we start with C then the next molecule can be A, T, C, or G, and if we start with G then the next molecule can be A, T, C, or G.

Thus there are 16 variations in the bonding of any two molecules along the strand, and half of them are mirror images of the other half. The length of the strand does not change this, it just duplicates sections already included. Take any two molecules in any sequence in any strand of DNA and you will find one of these 16 possible arrangements,

Do you AGREE or DISAGREE?

Thus DNA is boringly repetitious rather than intricate (or complex ...).

The process of evolution adequately explains the boring repetition of sequences.

For instance I could theoretically take a strand of DNA from the amoeba A. dubia and select from its DNA (670,000,000,000 base pairs) the sequences that match the 2,900,000,000 base pairs necessary to form our human (H. sapiens) DNA ... would the result be an amoeba or human DNA?

Does this mean that the amoeba DNA is more intricate (or complex) than the human one?

Message 22:

It usually takes many many pages in discussions with evolutionists for them to realise to get from a simple 1000 gene organism to a 22000 gene organism, involves the evolving of genes. I will ask my three year old nephew about this, how does the basket with one apple become the basket with 22 apples? You add in 21 apples. But how? Without this process , life as we know it would not exist under evolutionary processes (the range of existing modern organisms). Or maybe 22000 gene organisms just appeared? (sounds a bit like creation to me)

All it takes is the accumulation of duplication of parts of the DNA sequence, whether by insertions of single pairs, sections of DNA or whole gene sequences. We've had a few billion years to build up the sequences in life seen today.

Mutation and selection is more than adequate to explain this.

I agree on the evolving of traits, and features, and functions. Let's discuss genes.

Easy to do once all the terminology is settled.

Macroevolution is the natural history\record of the evolution of organisms via phyletic speciation (microevolution), and divergent evolution, over many generations

No problem with this. ...

Excellent. We can update the terminology list:

  1. evolution (process) - yes
  2. theory (scientific) - yes
  3. hypothesis (scientific) - yes
  4. the theory of evolution - yes
  5. novel genes\features\functions\traits - yes
  6. complexity - (dropped)
  7. speciation (divergent) - yes
  8. fitness - yes
  9. god hypothesis - (drop?)
  10. hidden gene hypothesis - (drop?)
  11. micro-evolution (same as 'a' above) - yes
  12. macro-evolution - not yet
  13. intricacy (= complexity) - (drop?)

... I feel this definition would include extreme changes through changes to allele frequencies (continued micro-evolution of one population under continued evolutionary pressures until the two populations are so different or so separated they no longer breed)

And here we see the typical lay person \ creationist confusion with macro-evolution.

What do you mean by "extreme changes"? The evolution of a novel feature\function\trait?

I don't see this as possible, if you present evidence for evolution, and at that time I point out that the creationist view explains the evidence better, then at that time I will be providing evidence for creationism as a better explanation for what is observed. This is after all a creation/evolution debate. I reserve the right to point out the creationist explanation as a more viable one throughout this debate.

You can claim it, but for me to accept it you need to show something more than assertion. You need to tell me how a created sequence can be distinguished from a naturally occurring one.

As for the "hidden gene hypothesis" I don't know anything about that, explain more?

This is your "was already there" gene that somehow did not influence development in the phenotype until millions of years later - it lay hidden within the genome. Another assertion unsupported by evidence and with no identification test methodology proposed ... and thus not scientific, but pseudoscience.

Enjoy.

Edited by RAZD, : clrty

Edited by RAZD, : sequence

Edited by RAZD, : ...


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by mindspawn, posted 01-29-2013 3:04 AM mindspawn has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by mindspawn, posted 01-30-2013 5:19 AM RAZD has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19217
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 24 of 65 (689336)
01-29-2013 5:57 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by mindspawn
01-29-2013 7:06 AM


Re: Nested Hierarchies and Macroevolution
Ok well I have to admit that I never thought of this argument, that DNA could have started out long. ...

Early reproducing molecules could have used different nucleotides altogether. Certainly RNA shows some variation by using uracil instead of thymine, and current thinking is that life evolved from RNA pre-biotic systems (RNA world). There could have been other players in the early life mix.

Until evolution processes took over control of molecular reproduction via selection there was likely no mechanism to eliminate unnecessary material. But the issue is that we do not know what the first life forms on earth were like, whether it was long or short, circular or stranded.

A) If you do assume a long DNA, then your view is similar to mine. We started with highly involved DNA. Then you have a huge problem with credibility because how does nature do this?

B) If you do not assume a long DNA then we are back to the same problem, where did the additional genes come from?

Curiously, I don't need to assume either. Evolution still answers the issue of how life changes over time. All I need to do is look at the evidence that is available and see that evolutionary processes explain the evidence.

Both ways the theory of evolution has a big problem to solve.

The process of evolution solves those imaginary problems. Remember that evolution is a two-step feedback response system that is repeated in each generation:

Like walking on first one foot and then the next. To get any great distance you need to use both feet.

Mutations and mixing existing hereditary traits in different combinations (ie for eye color) can cause changes in the composition of hereditary traits for individuals in a breeding population. Not all mutations cause hereditary change (many are in non-hereditary areas or are neutral to selection). In addition there are many different kinds of mutations and they have different effects (from small to large), especially if they affect the developmental process of an organism.

Random mutations and sexual trait mixing affect the genotype, and any changes are subject to possible selection when they are expressed in the phenotype.

Natural Selection and Neutral Drift can cause changes in the frequency distribution of hereditary traits within a breeding population, but they are not the only mechanisms known that does so. Selection processes act on the expressed genes of individual organisms, so bundles of genetic mutations are selected rather than individual genes, and this means that non-lethal mutations can be preserved. The more an individual organism reproduces the more it is likely to pass on bundles of genes and mutations to the next generation, increasing the selection of those genes.

Selection affects the phenotype, the whole bundle of various traits expressed in each individual of the breeding population.

The ecological challenges and opportunities change when the environment changes, when the breeding population evolves, when other organisms within the ecology evolve, when migrations change the mixture of organisms within the ecology, and when a breeding population immigrates into a new ecology. These changes can result in different survival and reproductive challenges and opportunities, affecting selection pressure, perhaps causing speciation, perhaps causing extinction.

I agree on the evolving of traits, and features, and functions. Let's discuss genes.

Are you ready to drop the god hypothesis, the hidden gene hypothesis and any other appeal to belief over evidence?

Are you ready to drop "intricacy" as just as problematic as "complexity" was (and any other verbal attempts to use different terms to mean the same basic thing)?

  1. evolution (process) - yes
  2. theory (scientific) - yes
  3. hypothesis (scientific) - yes
  4. the theory of evolution - yes
  5. novel genes\features\functions\traits - yes
  6. complexity - (dropped)
  7. speciation (divergent) - yes
  8. fitness - yes
  9. god hypothesis - (drop?)
  10. hidden gene hypothesis - (drop?)
  11. micro-evolution (same as 'a' above) - yes
  12. macro-evolution - not yet
  13. intricacy (= complexity) - (drop?)

Then we can discuss what science says.

Enjoy


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by mindspawn, posted 01-29-2013 7:06 AM mindspawn has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by mindspawn, posted 01-30-2013 6:01 AM RAZD has responded

  
mindspawn
Member (Idle past 249 days)
Posts: 1015
Joined: 10-22-2012


(1)
Message 25 of 65 (689376)
01-30-2013 5:19 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by RAZD
01-29-2013 2:09 PM


Re: pseudoscience vs science
Yes, but the likelihood that we would be talking past each other would be extremely high. By going through these definitions and agreeing on their usage and meaning then it means we have a discussion with common terminology.

Not nearly as important as you are claiming. the word "complex" would naturally come up many times in a conversation like this, and to restrict its usage is extremely pedantic and not conducive to good communication. I therefore wish to continue the usage of this word in this thread and you can strike it off the list of consensus.

Duplications of gene sequences have been observed, so it is not a problem for evolution. So have random insertions and deletions, sequence rearrangements and flipping of sections of genetic code. What's to explain?

I already dealt with duplications. If they code for proteins they are damaging or neutral. This is what is observed. I posted evidence for some observed duplications that do damage. So it definitely is a problem for evolution, unless you can show how duplicated coding genes improve fitness?

Do you AGREE or DISAGREE?

Thus DNA is boringly repetitious rather than intricate (or complex ...).

The process of evolution adequately explains the boring repetition of sequences.

I agree that there are 4 possibilities, and agree that it is repetitive. However it is highly complex.
Just like binary bits of a computer are long sequences of boring repetition, place them in a certain order (computer software) and they become highly effective codes containing processing information. This is a good analogy with DNA which has double the information per position than the binary code of computers and four times the options over two positions. This "boring repetition" encodes highly detailed production of proteins, and slight changes (point mutations) can have devastating effects on the organism. The very complexity of the genetic code speaks huge volumes in favor of creation over evolution, and so I cannot agree with your comments above.

And here we see the typical lay person \ creationist confusion with macro-evolution.

What do you mean by "extreme changes"? The evolution of a novel feature\function\trait?

Well your defintion of macro-evolution didi not actually require novel features/functions/traits. You keep saying I am confused, yet you agree that changes to allele frequencies can cause micro-evolution. You also seem to agree that continuous micro-evolution can result in macro-evolution according to your definition of macro-evolution. So I'm failing to see where I am confused? Could you explain this better? Would you like to use a new definition of macro-evolution that includes novel features/traits?

Macroevolution is the natural history\record of the evolution of organisms via phyletic speciation (microevolution), and divergent evolution, over many generations

Changes to allele frequencies and some minor mutations can cause phyletic speciation and divergent evolution without the need for new coding GAINS. To always assume coding GAINS through the observation of new traits is not being true to the variety of evolutionary processes claimed by evolution.

Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.

Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by RAZD, posted 01-29-2013 2:09 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by RAZD, posted 01-30-2013 6:08 PM mindspawn has responded

  
mindspawn
Member (Idle past 249 days)
Posts: 1015
Joined: 10-22-2012


(1)
Message 26 of 65 (689379)
01-30-2013 6:01 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by RAZD
01-29-2013 5:57 PM


Re: Nested Hierarchies and Macroevolution
Early reproducing molecules could have used different nucleotides altogether. Certainly RNA shows some variation by using uracil instead of thymine, and current thinking is that life evolved from RNA pre-biotic systems (RNA world). There could have been other players in the early life mix.

Until evolution processes took over control of molecular reproduction via selection there was likely no mechanism to eliminate unnecessary material. But the issue is that we do not know what the first life forms on earth were like, whether it was long or short, circular or stranded.

Aaah ok. Do you think that its possible that the very first life-form had many thousands of distinct coding genes? When you answer, please consider that genes are so perfect as they are , that even just a point mutation can sometimes cause death. So the possibility of an organism with many separate coding genes just appearing from nature and yet that organism still surviving is actually ridiculously improbable, and would be a creation "miracle" all on its own?

Curiously, I don't need to assume either. Evolution still answers the issue of how life changes over time. All I need to do is look at the evidence that is available and see that evolutionary processes explain the evidence.

You keep saying this stuff, yet refuse to post your evidence. That is not debating in good faith, when you require me to post evidence.

Are you ready to drop the god hypothesis, the hidden gene hypothesis and any other appeal to belief over evidence?

That's ironic that you refuse to discuss the topic of the thread , evidence for the theory of evolution, until I give my evidence (ironic? hypocritical?)

Nevertheless I will drop discussing this for the sake of getting on with this discussion.

Are you ready to drop "intricacy" as just as problematic as "complexity" was (and any other verbal attempts to use different terms to mean the same basic thing)?

No. The word "complexity" is highly relevant to this discussion and the need to use it may arise repeatedly. I see it as highly pedantic to demand that I do not use a specific word before you discuss the core issues. For the sake of discussion I have been willing to compromise, hoping you can do the same.

Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by RAZD, posted 01-29-2013 5:57 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by RAZD, posted 01-30-2013 8:37 PM mindspawn has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19217
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.4


(2)
Message 27 of 65 (689437)
01-30-2013 6:08 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by mindspawn
01-30-2013 5:19 AM


Backing up the bus
Sadly, I had hoped that I could split off a couple of easy items that would not need further discussion, and as this doesn't appear to be the case I am combining my replies into one post. This means it is long ...

Message 25:

Yes, but the likelihood that we would be talking past each other would be extremely high. By going through these definitions and agreeing on their usage and meaning then it means we have a discussion with common terminology.

Not nearly as important as you are claiming. the word "complex" would naturally come up many times in a conversation like this, and to restrict its usage is extremely pedantic and not conducive to good communication. I therefore wish to continue the usage of this word in this thread and you can strike it off the list of consensus.

The word "complexity" and any stand-in ("intricacy" etc) is meaningless to me in this debate so far, because I cannot measure it. Thus whenever you use it you are thinking you are meaning something but it is not being communicated -- you are talking past me.

Curiously, the words I've defined can be measured, quantified and compared.

I already dealt with duplications. If they code for proteins they are damaging or neutral. This is what is observed. I posted evidence for some observed duplications that do damage. So it definitely is a problem for evolution, unless you can show how duplicated coding genes improve fitness?

Yes, you have cherry picked some examples. Mutations can be deleterious, neutral or beneficial depending on how they affect the development, survival and reproduction of the organism.

Only looking ones that are deleterious is using confirmation bias to support your arguments. We can cover this in greater detail later.

I agree that there are 4 possibilities, and agree that it is repetitive. However it is highly complex. ...

What I see:

I agree that there are 4 possibilities, and agree that it is repetitive. However it is highly gobbledygook. ...

Just like binary bits of a computer are long sequences of boring repetition, place them in a certain order (computer software) and they become highly effective codes containing processing information. This is a good analogy with DNA which has double the information per position than the binary code of computers and four times the options over two positions. This "boring repetition" encodes highly detailed production of proteins, ...

Easily assembled over millions of years with trial and error testing: those that survive to reproduce continue, those that don't die off. This is not like computer programing.

Try this analogy: there is a truck with a load of bricks, the bricks are in four different colors, and they are piled randomly in the truck; a blind worker in the truck picks up a brick and hands it to another worker outside the truck who then adds it to the line of bricks made by placing one after the other.

Is this complex? Is it intricate? Does the complexity change the longer the line gets? How complex is it?

Well your defintion of macro-evolution didi not actually require novel features/functions/traits. ...

Curiously, this is how evolutionary science uses the term. As I said, it is likely the most misunderstood term by the typical lay person \ creationist resulting in confusion about what macro-evolution involves. As such I find it better to not use this term.

... You keep saying I am confused, yet you agree that changes to allele frequencies can cause micro-evolution. You also seem to agree that continuous micro-evolution can result in macro-evolution according to your definition of macro-evolution. So I'm failing to see where I am confused? Could you explain this better? ...

All that is needed for macro-evolution to be recorded is speciation. Breeding isolation can occur without any distinctly novel feature/trait being involved, ie - when we look at the Greenish Warbler:

http://www.zoology.ubc.ca/~irwin/GreenishWarblers.html

quote:
Greenish warblers (Phylloscopus trochiloides) inhabit forests across much of northern and central Asia. In central Siberia, two distinct forms of greenish warbler coexist without interbreeding, and therefore these forms can be considered distinct species. The two forms are connected by a long chain of populations encircling the Tibetan Plateau to the south, and traits change gradually through this ring of populations. There is no place where there is an obvious species boundary along the southern side of the ring. Hence the two distinct 'species' in Siberia are apparently connected by gene flow. By studying geographic variation in the ring of populations, we can study how speciation has occurred. This unusual situation has been termed a 'circular overlap' or 'ring species'. There are very few known examples of ring species.



This shows how little difference is needed to have breeding isolation, and this is all that is necessary to make nested hierarchies.

After many speciation events and continued divergent evolution of the daughter populations over many generations features and traits can develop that are distinctly different, but that is due to many generations of phyletic evolution in each hereditary lineage, not to any new process or mechanism.

When you trace a novel feature\trait backwards to see how it developed all that is observed is normal evolution from generation to generation, and it is only when you look at features\traits from say 10 or more generations apart that you begin to see differences enough to categorize as novel.

Back in Message 16 I posted information about Pelycodus:

http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/pelycodus.html

quote:

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.


Note that the range in the population just above "P. jarovvi" lies completely to the right of the range in the population just below "P. ralstoni" -- the size alleles in the upper population did not exist in the lower population and vice versa.

Would you AGREE or DISAGREE that variation in sizes from one generation to the next generations is small, with a lot of individuals having the same sizes, but when comparing P. jarovvi to P. ralstoni we see that none of them are the same size? This is macro-evolution.

Speciation does not cause novel features\traits, and novel traits\features can occur without speciation.

Macro-evolution does not cause novel features\traits. It is a record of the evolutionary history of a hereditary lineage/s.

... Would you like to use a new definition of macro-evolution that includes novel features/traits?

Why should I use a definition that isn't used in evolutionary science?

Changes to allele frequencies and some minor mutations can cause phyletic speciation and divergent evolution without the need for new coding GAINS. To always assume coding GAINS through the observation of new traits is not being true to the variety of evolutionary processes claimed by evolution.

What I see:

Changes to allele frequencies and some minor mutations can cause phyletic speciation and divergent evolution without the need for new coding blahblah. To always assume coding blahblah through the observation of new traits is not being true to the variety of evolutionary processes claimed by evolution.

More on this below.

Message 26 response:

Are you ready to drop "intricacy" as just as problematic as "complexity" was (and any other verbal attempts to use different terms to mean the same basic thing)?

No. The word "complexity" is highly relevant to this discussion and the need to use it may arise repeatedly. I see it as highly pedantic to demand that I do not use a specific word before you discuss the core issues. For the sake of discussion I have been willing to compromise, hoping you can do the same.

What I have asked is that you not use a word that is not defined in a way that it can be measured and quantified.

Is the Amoeba dubia more or less complicated than Homo sapiens? How do you know?

Are you ready to drop the god hypothesis, the hidden gene hypothesis and any other appeal to belief over evidence?

That's ironic that you refuse to discuss the topic of the thread , evidence for the theory of evolution, until I give my evidence (ironic? hypocritical?)

Nevertheless I will drop discussing this for the sake of getting on with this discussion.

A small step forward after one step back ...

We can also drop the usage of micro-evolution and macro-evolution, and focus on the evolution of novel genes\features\functions\traits:

  1. evolution (process) - yes
  2. theory (scientific) - yes
  3. hypothesis (scientific) - yes
  4. the theory of evolution - yes
  5. novel genes\features\functions\traits - yes
  6. complexity - needs to be defined or dropped
  7. speciation (divergent) - yes
  8. fitness - yes
  9. god hypothesis - (drop?)
  10. hidden gene hypothesis - (drop?)
  11. micro-evolution (= 'a' above) - (drop?)
  12. macro-evolution - (drop?)
  13. intricacy (= complexity) - needs to be defined or dropped

Back to Message 25

Changes to allele frequencies and some minor mutations can cause phyletic speciation and divergent evolution without the need for new coding ...

You keep saying this, but I don't think you really understand the process of evolution, so we should go into this in more detail:

Would you AGREE or DISAGREE that selection mechanisms only operate on the existing mixture of alleles\traits\features within the breeding populations and does not cause novel genes\features\functions\traits?

Would you AGREE or DISAGREE that any change to the genetic sequences is a mutation?

From Message 24:

... Remember that evolution is a two-step feedback response system that is repeated in each generation:

Like walking on first one foot and then the next. To get any great distance you need to use both feet.

Mutations and mixing existing hereditary traits in different combinations (ie for eye color) can cause changes in the composition of hereditary traits for individuals in a breeding population. Not all mutations cause hereditary change (many are in non-hereditary areas or are neutral to selection). In addition there are many different kinds of mutations and they have different effects (from small to large), especially if they affect the developmental process of an organism.

Random mutations and sexual trait mixing affect the genotype, and any changes are subject to possible selection when they are expressed in the phenotype.

Does not any mutation create a genetic sequence that was not in the parent population?

Enjoy.

Edited by RAZD, : rearranged

Edited by RAZD, : ...


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by mindspawn, posted 01-30-2013 5:19 AM mindspawn has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by mindspawn, posted 01-31-2013 2:53 AM RAZD has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19217
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 28 of 65 (689459)
01-30-2013 8:37 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by mindspawn
01-30-2013 6:01 AM


Re: Nested Hierarchies and Macroevolution
See Message 27

Edited by RAZD, : ..


This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by mindspawn, posted 01-30-2013 6:01 AM mindspawn has not yet responded

  
mindspawn
Member (Idle past 249 days)
Posts: 1015
Joined: 10-22-2012


Message 29 of 65 (689488)
01-31-2013 2:53 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by RAZD
01-30-2013 6:08 PM


Re: Backing up the bus
Changes to allele frequencies and some minor mutations can cause phyletic speciation and divergent evolution without the need for new coding blahblah. To always assume coding blahblah through the observation of new traits is not being true to the variety of evolutionary processes claimed by evolution.

I took a lot of time to create an acronym, instead of politely asking me not to use that acronym, this is your response, to call my acronym blahblah? Nice one RAZD!

The word "complexity" and any stand-in ("intricacy" etc) is meaningless to me in this debate so far, because I cannot measure it. Thus whenever you use it you are thinking you are meaning something but it is not being communicated -- you are talking past me.

Curiously, the words I've defined can be measured, quantified and compared.

I understand your sentiments, for the sake of argument, let us define complexity as additional coding genes. If one organism has one more coding gene than another with an otherwise identical chromosomal organization, this is added complexity.

And I need to have your consensus that most organisms have increased in coding genes from the original organism. Do you think its possible that the original organism started with as many coding genes as a human? YES or NO

Yes, you have cherry picked some examples. Mutations can be deleterious, neutral or beneficial depending on how they affect the development, survival and reproduction of the organism.

Only looking ones that are deleterious is using confirmation bias to support your arguments. We can cover this in greater detail later.

I agree with the confirmation bias and the cherry picking, but what I did was give SOME support for my position. I am not claiming a concluded principle, neither do I claim that the lack of support for your position is a concluded principle. It merely weakens the theory of evolution's ability to explain all life-forms to the status of an hypothesis, if you have no evidence for organisms gaining novel coding genes that increase fitness.

This shows how little difference is needed to have breeding isolation, and this is all that is necessary to make nested hierarchies.

After many speciation events and continued divergent evolution of the daughter populations over many generations features and traits can develop that are distinctly different, but that is due to many generations of phyletic evolution in each hereditary lineage, not to any new process or mechanism.

When you trace a novel feature\trait backwards to see how it developed all that is observed is normal evolution from generation to generation, and it is only when you look at features\traits from say 10 or more generations apart that you begin to see differences enough to categorize as novel.

True, completely agree with this. New species and new traits can develop slowly , generation to generation, without the requirement of an additional new novel coding gene, or a definite duplication mutation which is what I have been saying. This is macro-evolution at work through minor changes, generation to generation.

Would you AGREE or DISAGREE that selection mechanisms only operate on the existing mixture of alleles\traits\features within the breeding populations and does not cause novel genes\features\functions\traits?

I agree that selection mechanisms only operate on the existing mixture,
I disagree that selection mechanisms do not cause novel traits; through selection the allele frequency that enhances that feature/trait can be emphasized in the population of the very next generation. Continuous selection can cause a new feature/trait/function to dominate in a population (without the need for novel genes).

Would you AGREE or DISAGREE that any change to the genetic sequences is a mutation?

The phrase "genetic sequence" seems ambiguous to me, so I can't answer that for sure. If the sequence changes, that does seem like a mutation, but if allele frequencies change, that is not a mutation. Thus the genetic make-up of the population can change over time through non-mutational processes.

Does not any mutation create a genetic sequence that was not in the parent population?

A point mutation does not always change the sequences within a gene.

Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.

Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.

Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.

Edited by mindspawn, : removing the acronym GAINS in favor of typing out a long sentence.

Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by RAZD, posted 01-30-2013 6:08 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by RAZD, posted 01-31-2013 7:14 PM mindspawn has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19217
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 30 of 65 (689526)
01-31-2013 7:14 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by mindspawn
01-31-2013 2:53 AM


mutation vs selection
I took a lot of time to create an acronym, instead of politely asking me not to use that acronym, this is your response, to call my acronym blahblah? Nice one RAZD!

Understood, I spend a lot of time on my replies, and presenting information, and a lot of it seem to be ignored (or hopefully accepted without comment ). When you ignore parts of my posts, that is me talking past you - it all goes blahdeblahblahblah to you.

However, making up an acronym before you have established a need for it can interfere with communication and I would be prefer the longer sentence (less potential for confusion). The blahblah actually referred more to the definition of the acronym, btw, using terms that we haven't really addressed at this point. Your acronym seemed to me to be setting up a strawman that doesn't accurately portray how evolution necessarily works when novel features are developed.

I understand your sentiments, for the sake of argument, let us define complexity as additional coding genes. ...

What is a "coding gene" versus a "non-coding gene" and how do we tell them apart?

What I have in this regard is:

http://www.phschool.com/...coach/transcription/procodgn.html

quote:
Concept 4: Basic Structure of a Protein-Coding Gene
A protein-coding gene consists of a promoter followed by the coding sequence for the protein and then a terminator.

The promoter is a base-pair sequence that specifies where transcription begins.

The coding sequence is a base-pair sequence that includes coding information for the polypeptide chain specified by the gene.

The terminator is a sequence that specifies the end of the mRNA transcript.


... If one organism has one more coding gene than another with an otherwise identical chromosomal organization, this is added complexity.

Okay, so then the walkingsticks presumably lost complexity when they lost wings and gained complexity when they gained wings?

Message 12: For instance we can look at the evolutionary history of walking sticks:

See Figure 1 from Nature 421, 264 - 267 (16 January 2003); doi:10.1038/nature01313 (reproduced below)

Walkingstick insects originally started out as winged insects (blue at start and top row). That diversified.

And some lost wings (red). And diversified.
And some regained wings (blue again). And diversified.
And one lost wings again (Lapaphus parakensis, below, red again).

And this doesn't even address the ones where one sex (usually male) has wings and the other sex doesn't (the red includes these, so it is hard to determine from this graphic how many times the female sex gained and lost wings independent of the winged males).

  • Is one with wings "more complex" than one without wings?
  • Is one without wings "more complex" than one with wings?
  • Is one with wingless females and winged males "more complex"?

Does the relative apparent differences in complexity predict which form is more fit for the ecology?

Where do the female wingless male winged walkingsticks fit into this paradigm - half complexity between winged and wingless?

Are all winged species equally complex?
Are all non-winged species equally complex?

... If one organism has one more coding gene than another with an otherwise identical chromosomal organization, this is added complexity.

And we compare the number of "coding genes" between A. dubia and H. sapiens ...

Message 12: A Sample of Species and Genome Size (in base pairs)

Amoeba dubia
670,000,000,000

Homo sapiens
2,900,000,000

... which is more complex?

And I need to have your consensus that most organisms have increased in coding genes from the original organism. Do you think its possible that the original organism started with as many coding genes as a human? YES or NO

As I don't know what the original organism started with, I can't really say. What I can say is that the process of evolution has resulted in occasional gain in the number of genes (coding or otherwise) and occasional loss in the number of genes (coding or otherwise), and that both cases could result in novel traits\functions\features in the phenotypes within a breeding population.

I agree with the confirmation bias and the cherry picking, but what I did was give SOME support for my position. I am not claiming a concluded principle, neither do I claim that the lack of support for your position is a concluded principle. It merely weakens the theory of evolution's ability to explain all life-forms to the status of an hypothesis, if you have no evidence for organisms gaining novel coding genes that increase fitness.

In your opinion. We know that mutations of all types can be either deleterious, neutral or beneficial, so citing only deleterious instances does not weaken the knowledge that mutations can be either deleterious, neutral or beneficial. Citing instances of black swans in one location does not weaken the position that white swans are also known in other locations.

True, completely agree with this. New species and new traits can develop slowly , generation to generation, ... This is macro-evolution at work through minor changes, generation to generation.

Indeed. As was observed in the Pelycodus fossil record (at the top of the diagram the population divides into two daughter populations, thus showing a speciation event).

And as is observed with the Greenish Warbler populations that show minor changes as you go from one end of the ring species to the other, but reaching the point where two population overlap but do not interbreed because these minor differences are sufficient to block breeding. The features\functions\traits in one population are different from the features\functions\traits in the other population.

... without the requirement of an additional new novel coding gene, or a definite duplication mutation ...

And here we run into trouble with this concept of yours regarding "coding genes" ... why is it necessary to only consider "coding genes" when looking for novel genes\features\functions\traits?

Is not the new trait a novel one?

The phrase "genetic sequence" seems ambiguous to me, so I can't answer that for sure. ...

A point mutation does not always change the sequences within a gene.

Let's not equivocate between gene and genetic sequence.

Assume a genetic sequence (whether it is a whole gene or not, or several genes is not important yet),

say ... AAGTCCGTAAGGG ... (where the ... indicate that the sequence continues to each side of the section in question),

Can you add or delete a molecule at any point in this sequence without changing the sequence?

... If the sequence changes, that does seem like a mutation, ...

Indeed, whether it is a point mutation or a complete gene duplication, any change to the overall genetic sequence is a mutation, and one that did not exist in the genome before the mutation, yes?

... but if allele frequencies change, that is not a mutation. ...

Correct, that is selection or drift.

... Thus the genetic make-up of the population can change over time through non-mutational processes.

Not quite clear here. Changing the frequency of alleles does not change the genetic make-up of the breeding population, loss of alleles through selection or drift changes the genetic make-up of the breeding population, but this does not add new genes\features\functions\traits.

Selection, drift, etc do not develop new genes\features\functions\traits - that only occurs through mutations.

Not every mutation results in new genes\features\functions\traits as some are not in hereditary sections of DNA (mutations within skin cells are not hereditary for example), some mutations are deleterious, some are neutral and some are beneficial, but they may not add up to novel features\functions\traits until additional generations of added mutations have occurred.

Whether a mutation improves fitness means that the mutation is expressed in the phenotype so selection can occur, and that selection operates on the whole individual, not necessarily one specific genetic sequence.

I disagree that selection mechanisms do not cause novel traits; through selection the allele frequency that enhances that feature/trait can be emphasized in the population of the very next generation. Continuous selection can cause a new feature/trait/function to dominate in a population (without the need for novel genes).

But that novel trait was not developed by selection, rather selection operated on its existence in the population to make it dominant. What made it novel was the genetic mutation/s that resulted in the selectable trait.

So now we add "coding gene" to our list of terms -- can we drop "intricacy" if you want to use complexity?

  1. evolution (process) - yes
  2. theory (scientific) - yes
  3. hypothesis (scientific) - yes
  4. the theory of evolution - yes
  5. novel genes\features\functions\traits - yes
  6. complexity - ... maybe ... (see 'n')
  7. speciation (divergent) - yes
  8. fitness - yes
  9. god hypothesis - (dropped for now)
  10. hidden gene hypothesis - (dropped for now)
  11. micro-evolution (= 'a' above) - (drop?)
  12. macro-evolution - (drop?)
  13. intricacy (= complexity) - (drop?)
  14. coding gene - needs to be defined

Enjoy

Edited by RAZD, : .

Edited by RAZD, : clrty

Edited by RAZD, : link


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by mindspawn, posted 01-31-2013 2:53 AM mindspawn has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by mindspawn, posted 02-01-2013 3:01 AM RAZD has responded

  
Prev1
2
345Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017