Always talking about micro-evolution?

quote:

---

I may sound absurd, but the question is still valid: "How did you determine when evolution started?"

---

You sound curious, not absurd. You WOULD sound absurd if you started throwing around crazy theories and expect everyone to accept them just on your word. Curiosity, though, is not absurd.To get to your question, we go by the fossil record which leads us to bacteria like organisms in pre-Cambrian rock. This is the earliest fossil evidence of life. However, self replicating reactions could have been occurring before this and would not have left a fossil record because of their size (molecules do not leave fossils). Of course, self replicating chemical reactions are just theoretical. The simplest life we have evidence for is bacteria. I think current dating puts the first fossils at 3.5 billion years ago (this is by memory, I can get a better number if you want one).But just remember, there is scant evidence for the origin of life, but there is very strong evidence of when it appeared. How those early organisms evolved into the species today is well supported. Evolution starts with the first life, Abiogenesis theory deals with how life started. They are separate theories for very good reasons, they deal with different mechanisms.[This message has been edited by Loudmouth, 02-03-2004][This message has been edited by Loudmouth, 02-03-2004]

quote:

---

Can you give me a more precise figure? "Almost zero" could mean "0.0001" just as easily as "0.00000001" depending on context, viewpoint, and purpose. If you could show me your math, I would appreciate that too.
  —Skeptic

---

Actually, the info you seek is in the abstracts that Mammuthus posted.From Halos SC, et al: "The average power of paternity exclusion for the nine loci is 0.9962 and the discriminating power is 1-2 x 10(-9)."From de Pancorbo MM, et al: " In all these systems, no exclusion was observed, with a combined probability of paternity of 0.9997. This demonstrates the reliability of the obtained results."From Holt CL, et al:"During rigorous evaluation, AmpFlSTR PCR Amplification Kits reproducibly yielded sensitive and locus-specific results, as required in routine forensic analyses." No numbers, but considered reliable.And from Birus I, et al:"STR DNA typing is the "golden standard" of human identification, but evidential value of a genetic match can be easily misinterpreted. Therefore, careful use of statistical methods is essential for the proper evaluation of laboratory results. Whenever possible, multiple relatives should be analyzed and other evidence based on the information about time, place, and other conditions of disappearance, as well as anthropological and other "classical" forensic data should always be put together and compared before any final decision about the identity is made." This abstract shows how inbreeding can cause false positives, which must be taken into consideration.The abstracts that Mammuthus put time and effort into finding give you exactly what you were looking for. These not only show the probability with given loci, but also possible causes of misidentification due to overepresentation of alleles in a given population. One population was found to have even distribution for given loci (Filipino) and another displayed skewed distributions (Croatia). What else do you need?

This is off topic, so if you have anymore questions perhaps we could open a new thread. I found a decent website (found here) that you might want to check out, it describes STRs (short tandem repeats) that one of the abstracts was talking about. For the 0.9962, this is the percentage of the population that is excluded for each of the nine loci. Multiply by 100 and you get the percentage (99.26% of the population excluded, 0.74% included), and this is for each loci. The discrimination power is the ability to tell one person from another (in this case 1-2x10^(-9)) 1 person can be identified out of a population of 1-2 billion people. For any given profile of the nine STR's there should only be about 2-3 people in the whole world with those specific STR's.Again, this is off topic, a new thread should be opened for further discussion. That is unless I have made a glaring error in my interpretation of the data.

I am guilty as anyone else of causing topic drift, but perhaps we should get back on to the topic at the top of the page.In the fossil record, there is no defined line between the major divisions of life we see today. For instance, there are fossils that possess both reptile and bird characteristics. There are also fossils that display characteristics of both mammals and reptiles. In my opinion, this does away with the idea that there are hard, defined lines that life can not pass over. Evolutionists don't simply proclaim that there is no barrier, quite the opposite. The absence of a barrier has been observed in the fossil record.It is for this reason that I look at micro-evolution as changes within a species and macro-evolution as speciation events. Do you, or any other poster, see any other way to classify macro and micro. If so, by what criteria or rules do you use in applying macro and micro evolution. Examples are not enough, you must have a set of criteria that apply to every example, otherwise the descriptions are arbitrary and subjective.[This message has been edited by Loudmouth, 02-07-2004]

quote:

---

Um,... What?? I said they're interfertile, and you correct me by saying they can interbreed? Interfertile means capable of interbreeding.

---

When I first saw "interfertile" I misread it as infertile. This may be the source of confusion. But for the most part, two organisms are said to be in the same species if they can produce fertile offspring. Horses and asses are in separate species because their offspring are almost always sterile. There are also sub-species, such as wolves and domestic dogs. These equate to the layment term "breed", however this grouping is a man made contrivance used to help clarify descriptions of organisms. "Kinds" must use the same rules of grouping, anything else is arbitrary. For instance, I have often heard that dogs are in the dog kind because "dogs produce dogs". This is nonsensical, I could state with just as much authority that when dalmations mate they produce dalmations, making a dalmation kind. I could even go in the other direction. Primates make primates, putting humans in the primate kind. I could even go further. Eukaryotes produce eukaryotes. This puts humans and bannana slugs in the same eukaryote kind. The only real dividing line between organisms is at the species level.

quote:

---

Nope, you just missed it, as discussed above. Your failure to understand terms like "interfertile" was the first tipoff. But I love you like any student still trying to learn.

---

This coming from a person who has to have primary literature interpreted for him/her. Pot calling the kettle black methinks.

quote:

---

(in reference to transitional fossils)Did I say I have evidence for that? I don't have evidence for that. I've never found an evolutionist who could either provide any, just lots of verbiage, and references to many frauds, and forgeries. If there is evidence, your camp seems to be hiding it pretty well because they can't show us any. Why are you saying that "we" have evidence? Are you hoping I have something you don't, and that I might accidently let it slip?

---

Perhaps we should present some transitionals and see what you think. The fossils below show a transition between reptiles and mammals. These fossils deal with the lower jaw bone (search TalkOrigins Archive: Exploring the Creation/Evolution Controversy for more info). In this series you can see jaw bones move up into the mammalian middle ear, which is evidence for the evolution of an irreducibly complex system. On top of this, mammalian fetal development follows the same path, jaw bones move up into the middle ear. Perhaps you have heard the statement "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny"? This is a very fine example of just that, fetal development replays ancestral lines. While this is not true for every single feature, it is still quite obvious for many. Perhaps you can show us which ones are reptiles and which ones are mammals. Or perhaps you agree with the consensus of science, that these fossils indicate that modern mammals and reptiles share a common ancestor.

quote:

---

ToE, as Darwin clearly knew, cannot avoid discussing the origin of life itself, as I've explained in several other posts, and which has not been refuted other than to just repeat the your statement.

---

I am not speaking for anyone else but myself, but you are trying to force your opinion on the scientific world. I think we should let the scientists decide what is part of their theory, not an engineer who had nothing to do with the actual constructing of it. They say it is not part of their theory, I go along with that. Not only that, but once you become familiar with the ToE, you will indeed see that life origins and species origins are in fact separate phenomena controlled by separate mechanisms. Until then, I will keep teaching my new student here .[This message has been edited by Loudmouth, 02-09-2004]

quote:

---

But I would keep an eye on "loudmouth" because I don't think he holds a degree or degrees like you do, and might just be explaining ignorantly.

---

Hehehe, you really are a skeptic, aren'y you? No offense taken. Currently only have a bachelors in zoology, but have worked in infectious disease research for eight years. When I posted those numbers I also included a disclaimer that I could be wrong (something like 'If these numbers are wrong, please let me know'). But from Mammuthus's reaction, I am pretty sure those numbers were accurate. I'm sure Mammuthus isn't afraid of answer, otherwise he wouldn't have posted those abstracts. But, you don't have to take my word for it.

deleted[This message has been edited by Loudmouth, 02-09-2004]

quote:

---

The observation of an irreducibly complex system is a whole handful of nails in Darwin's coffin. Mentioning OICS and "evidence" in the same sentence sounds like someone chewing on gravel. Ok, I'll play; What was the evolutionary process that developed the complex eye from a simple eye? Or the digestive system? Or the reproductive system? Or any system that must depend on evolving all or most of its parts simultaneously for it to be of any use to the organism (or to even allow for it to survive)?

---

How about addressing the example I gave you. You seem to be afraid of it, as most creationists are. They like to stick with things that aren't recorded in the fossil record, like flagellar proteins and digestive systems. Are you afraid of the example I gave you? It shows exactly what Behe says can't happen, the evolution of an irreducibly complex system. If you remove any of the middle ear bones in a mammal, guess what happens? They go deaf. It is an IC system, no doubt about it. However, that system evolved. It is the final nail in "Behe's Empty Box". Not that he had a testable theory to start with, but nevertheless.

quote:

---

Recapitulation was debunked long ago. Fetal development does not replay ancestral lines during developement. It's still in your textbook, because the creationists haven't applied pressure to make evolutionists take it out; but when you ask an informed evolutionist, they'll admit that it was indeed debunked as a fraud, and the Haekel's drawings, a forgery admitted by the artist himself. I suspect the creationists haven't applied the pressure because they want the world to see how desperate Darwin has become.

---

The drawings were debunked, and reliability of ORP (ont recap phyl) to accurately reference all evolutionary steps is low. However, we still never see a bird develop along mammalian lines, unless that characterstic is also shared with reptiles. Aquatic mammals show leg buds in early development, but lose them later. This speaks to their terrestrial heritage. Jawbones moving from the jaw to the middle ear in fetal development speaks to the evolutionary heritage found in the transitional series I just showed you, and you have yet to address. Yes, ORP is not used to a great extent and is not reliable for precise steps in the evolution of certain characteristics, but it can give clues to previous evolutionary steps. In this case, it hits it right on the head (or ear). Is ORP inaccurate for explaining all embryologic development? That would be a big yes. Is there a rough parallel between development and past evolutionary steps? That would be a big yes. ORP by itself is never used by itself to explain evolutionary pathways, but it does help in searching for possibilities.

quote:

---

Could you have predicted the number of chromosomes in various forms of life as they evolved? For example:

---

Chromosome number and evolutionary pathways are independent of each other. Polyploidy is quite common in plants (do you know what polyploidy is?) and shifts in chromosome number can not be predicted, just as mutations can't be predicted.

quote:

---

As for your trusty DNA evidence, chimps and humans are about 98.4% similar. You know this. The human DNA has indeed been "mapped" but take a wild guess as to what percent of DNA "FUNCTION" has been determined? (hint: 1 or 2%). But yet we make wild claims about what DNA reveals about our common ancestor from millions/billions of years ago.

---

Judging by this post and your inability to understand the abstracts that have been posted for you, you still don't understand how damning the relationships between chimp and human DNA is. For comparison, if I turned in a thesis project and it was 1.6% different than another thesis, on a word by word basis, I would be accused of plagarism. And rightly so. Unless you can correctly explain to me your understanding of HERV's and pseudogenes there is no reason to keep going along this vien. At this time you simply don't have the background for understanding the implications of genetics in constructing phylogenies or establishing common descent. If you can show me that you do understand these principles, I will gladly debate them with you. Right now it is like discussing the beauty of Mozart with a deaf person.

quote:

---

The crazy thing about this whole DNA reseach is what Dr. Barney Maddox, a leading genetic genome researcher, said about the genetic difference between humans and chimps; the difference is about 1.6%, which he claims is "a gap of at least 48,000,000 nucleotides,

---

Correct so far, 48 million is 1.6% of a 3 billion base genome.

quote:

---

and a change in only three (3) nucleotides is fatal to an animal." Dr. Maddox also stated that, "science has now quantitated that a genetic mutation of as little as .0000001% of an animal's genome is relentlessly fatal".

---

Absolute and total poppycock. Have you ever heard of neutral mutations. How about mutations that do not even result in a change in amino acid sequence? Do you even know what you are talking about. Mutational changes per generation in humans is around 5-20 bases. During your lifetime you will acquire more mutations, although you may or may not be able to pass those on. Your Dr. Maddox is a quack and not to be trusted.

quote:

---

You do know, that we could go on for quite some time with many examples. You see, your camp just claims victory by proclamation.

---

Blah, blah, blah. Whatever. Your total lack of knowledge in the relevant scientific fields does not even allow you to recognize supporting data. Until this changes you have no room to judge. We could show you data till the cows come home, but to you it is just proclamation. It kind of makes me sad in a way, it is like the education system has not prepared you for the real world, or at least the scienctific world. To get back in my good graces, do the following. If common descent is incorrect, what interspecies DNA testing can we do to falsify this assumption? What line of reasoning are you using? What type of DNA data would SUPPORT common descent? Until you can do this I will not debate you on DNA evidence/non-evidence.

quote:

---

Not afraid; it's just that drawings from the evolutionist camp have been suspicious in the past, and I don't have the experience to interpret them. Guess what, neither do you. I could say anything, and you wouldn't know the difference. I have other another source that speaks AGAINST what you think you see on your drawings, but I can't make heads or tails out of why two experts have different opinions of the same data.

---

So your best defense is that evolutionists are liars? Sorry, that doesn't work. Nice try, but utterly baseless. The actual fossils are available for inspection by other scientists. Maybe the folks at ICR can debunk these drawings? They can inspect the fossils themselves. Secondly, your lack of knowledge is duly noted. You seem to think that you can argue against something that you have no clue about and still carry on a meaningful debate. Sorry, this doesn't work either. Not to sound to childish, but I asked first. As soon as you can argue coherently and with evidenciary support on the drawings of the jawbones I will not argue about the complexity of any other system. This is your test. If you pass we will move on to other topics. Since we are drifting away from the original topic, I have started a new thread for you. See Behe's Irreducible Complexity Is Refuted.

quote:

---

So, since he doesn't have a PHD in DNA studies, are you insinuating that we should just discard his views/reviews?

---

Since what he says can be refuted with even a cursory knowledge of biology and genetics, his distortions should be thrown out. One amino acid change could be lethal for a human, if it is in the catalytic center of cytochrome B for example. However, any organism with this mutation probably won't make it past the single cell stage, if it is a human that is. He takes this distortion and says that any mutation will cause death. Completely and utterly false. Mutations to the gene that controls vitamin C synthase resulted in a non-functional protein millions of years ago. Humans seem to be fine, except when going to sea for months at a time without any fresh fruit (this is how the Brits came to be called "Limeys", just an interesting side note). In fact, the human genome contains about 30,000 (Mammuthus probably has a more accurate number) functional genes and 8,000 broken genes (pseudogenes). Quite amazing, and completely understood in the framework of the theory of evolution.

quote:

---

Ah, yes. You seem to have run into some difficulty, eh? We must play a game which deals in drawings that the average person can't make heads or tails of, but must be reviewed by "by other scientists", as you say? And to play the "childish" (your word) "I asked first" card, is indeed, as you say, childish.

---

If you can't see the evolutionary processes that lead to the mammalian middle ear, then my other efforts in other areas are going to fall flat because you don't understand them. This is not childish, this is saving my time for posters who will actually comprehend the implications of fossil evidence.

quote:

---

But since I have now been brilliantly discredited, and proven to lack knowledge, let's score points for you (as many points as you'd like) so you have an extremely comfortable lead in this discussion. Now that I admit that I can't make heads or tails out of your "jaw drawings" (that help prove a common ancestor), will you please help my pitiful existence and answer just a couple of questions? I've already asked them, in post # 116 in this topic. You ignored them once, but now I understand that you did so rightfully, but I had no idea it was because of my abysmal level of knowledge that you were so disgusted.

---

So you agree that Behe has been refuted. Good, we can move on.

quote:

---

I wrote:
While we're looking at processes of evolution, could you take a look at these three creatures that appear to have been handpainted by a master artist:

---

This is a subjective statement that has no place in science (master artist vs natural process). However, getting to the point, sexual selection plays an important role, especially in bird species. In other words, mates are selected for their markings. This causes genetic isolation and leads to speciation. So, the answer is they look like that because it attracts more mates. That is, unless you can find a diety painting chicks while they are still in the nest.

quote:

---

Just simple questions are what I'm down to, not much more. Tell me, which stage should I now evolve into, that would be acceptable to you so we can continue with this topic?

---

Any topic that you want to go into will require some knowledge beforehand. Not a lot, mind you, but a little. Questions like "how long did it take to evolve precise coloration," tend to lead nowhere. However, asking "what mechanism can lead to differing coloration within the same species," would be a much better question. If I were to ask you "If you guys know so much about how earthquakes occur, what will the next earthquake in Diluth, Minnesota measure on the Richter scale," while insinuating that the current theories on earthquakes are wrong, how would you answer? If you weren't able to answer, could I then assume that the current theories on earthquakes are wrong? Of course not. The better question would be "what is the cause of earthquakes, and what are the possibilities of an earthquake in Diluth."All I am trying to say is that you might want to delve into the basic tenets of the theory of evolution. This might help out both you and your responders. Mind you, you don't have to believe that the ToE is correct, just understand what it is saying. This way we can have an INFORMED debate.Just to get your toes wet, perhaps you could start a topic on the evidences of common descent by commonalities in DNA sequences. We could go over specifics like pseudogenes and HERV's, which evolutionists believe to be strong indications for common descent. Best of luck.