Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


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


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Macroevolution: Its all around us...
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 271 of 306 (219101)
06-23-2005 6:15 PM
Reply to: Message 264 by pink sasquatch
06-23-2005 4:41 PM


Re: ACAC
since it doesn't appear that the convergent mutational bias is a particular issue for other types of sequence
What evidence do you have of that? Can you show extensive studies that show other sequences are unlikely or do not show convergent tendencies?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 264 by pink sasquatch, posted 06-23-2005 4:41 PM pink sasquatch has not replied

pink sasquatch
Member (Idle past 6023 days)
Posts: 1567
Joined: 06-10-2004


Message 272 of 306 (219107)
06-23-2005 6:52 PM
Reply to: Message 269 by randman
06-23-2005 6:11 PM


Re: strength---
You have no evidence offered to back up such a view.
No shit. You don't seem to have very good reading comprehension. What do you think the phrases "I'm now wondering..." and "in my mind I think of it as..." mean?
It's called speculation, not assertion.
Furthermore, your idea assumes that the pattern would run contrary to the "selective force" when the opposite could well be the case.
It doesn't assume that at all. You really need to take time and think about posts rather than quickly try to twist them into something you can take argument with.
In no way did I state that they were necessarily opposite. Obviously two forces in the same direction would be additive - but that doesn't allow us to think about relative strength of those two forces, which is the nature of my conjecture.
Which is: Mutational bias or stabilization is a weaker selective force than natural selection acting on phenotypic traits, since phenotypic traits effect fitness and survival more than mutation of a single base in non-coding sequence near untranslated dinucleotide repeats.
the pattern they uncover is unlike the vast majority of gene sequences. Do you think that is a fair conclusion?
No, it does not seem like a fair conclusion. Can you elaborate?
You judge it to not be a fair conclusion when you're not clear what I was talking about? That's fair.
From my reading of the paper, the flanking sequence was mutationally biased towards repetitive sequence. Gene coding sequences don't contain that degree of repetitive sequence. Therefore, it appears that the convergent evolution of the flanking sequences was actually making said sequences less gene-like. I was asking WK if he though my reading of this was correct.
I think there should also be a recognition in considering this that some "solutions" may be equally positive for selection, but in that case, the pattern that first and most frequently emerges is more likely to emerge dominant.
If they were equally positive they would be additive or cancel each other out. One would not be dominant.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 269 by randman, posted 06-23-2005 6:11 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 274 by randman, posted 06-23-2005 7:07 PM pink sasquatch has replied

EZscience
Member (Idle past 5154 days)
Posts: 961
From: A wheatfield in Kansas
Joined: 04-14-2005


Message 273 of 306 (219111)
06-23-2005 6:57 PM
Reply to: Message 269 by randman
06-23-2005 6:11 PM


Re: strength---
randman writes:
...some "solutions" may be equally positive for selection
Do you even grasp that we are talking about changes occurring in *non-transcribed* flanking regions ? These are not under selection. Only transcribed genes can experience 'selection' acting on the phenotype. This is a genetically driven mode of genomic change that has nothing to do with selection *unless* it occurs in a transcribed region, in which case the changes are very unlikely to be tolerable and therefore unlikely to be retained. Hence:
sasquatch writes:
...it seems to me that the convergent pattern they suggest would be unlikely to converge to functional gene sequence
I think this is stated in the context of pseudogene formation, pseudogenes being dormant sequences with the potential to be activated for transcription. Saskquatch points out that the novel process, as he understands it, is not likely to lead to any sequences that would ever be functional, and therefore would have minimal influence on the 'important' (transcribed) parts of the genome that are under selection.
Sorry, but you seem to be way out of your depth in this discussion.
This message has been edited by EZscience, 06-23-2005 05:58 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 269 by randman, posted 06-23-2005 6:11 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 275 by randman, posted 06-23-2005 7:12 PM EZscience has not replied

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 274 of 306 (219117)
06-23-2005 7:07 PM
Reply to: Message 272 by pink sasquatch
06-23-2005 6:52 PM


Re: strength---
If they were equally positive they would be additive or cancel each other out. One would not be dominant.
No, you miss the point. There could be potentially equal solutions, but the one that gets their first is probably going to win.
That's why I pointed this out. A "weaker" force can still dominant a "stronger" force by virtue of appearing first. The stronger force you posit of natural selection would nonetheless only be able to act upon whatever mutations were offerred to it, and so in reality, the convergent aspects of DNA, to the degree that is real, would exert dominance over the selective process via occuring prior and acting as a sort of control.
Now, the only way the convergent pattern could arise and maintain itself would be if selection either encouraged it, or did not stop it at least.
That's my point, which despite your bashing, is fairly reasonable to me.
Do you see it any differently?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 272 by pink sasquatch, posted 06-23-2005 6:52 PM pink sasquatch has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 277 by pink sasquatch, posted 06-23-2005 8:01 PM randman has replied

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 275 of 306 (219118)
06-23-2005 7:12 PM
Reply to: Message 273 by EZscience
06-23-2005 6:57 PM


Re: strength---
EZ, as usual for you it seems, you bash something I said erroneously.
I was simply responding to:
I'm now wondering about the strength of this form of "convergent evolution" - in my mind I think of it as a rather "weak" force that would not be able to overcome the "strong" selective force of maintaining a phenotypically beneficial gene or sequence.
The use of "beneficial" indicates to me "natural selection", and hence my comment on that.
So "we" meaning you and me or the rest of the board were not in fact only discussing non-coding DNA, and considering I was the one that brought this up, maybe you should be more careful in stating what "we" are discussing, or better yet, avoid the discussion if you don't want anyone disagreeing with you.
Moreover, what you also don't realize, nor will admit to, is that the likelihood exists that if DNA in general is convergent in non-coding sequences, it is probably convergent elsewhere.
That's the whole point.
You seem to argue that this is unlikely. On what basis do you assert that?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 273 by EZscience, posted 06-23-2005 6:57 PM EZscience has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 276 by pink sasquatch, posted 06-23-2005 7:53 PM randman has replied

pink sasquatch
Member (Idle past 6023 days)
Posts: 1567
Joined: 06-10-2004


Message 276 of 306 (219126)
06-23-2005 7:53 PM
Reply to: Message 275 by randman
06-23-2005 7:12 PM


leaping again : NINJA!
Moreover, what you also don't realize, nor will admit to, is that the likelihood exists that if DNA in general is convergent in non-coding sequences, it is probably convergent elsewhere.
There is no evidence that "DNA in general is convergent in non-coding sequences". That requires a huge leap of faith.
(Of course preceding it with "the likelihood exists" renders the statement rather meaningless. The likelihood exists that I am an invisible ninja that can stop the rotation of the planet with my mind.)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 275 by randman, posted 06-23-2005 7:12 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 279 by randman, posted 06-23-2005 10:27 PM pink sasquatch has replied

pink sasquatch
Member (Idle past 6023 days)
Posts: 1567
Joined: 06-10-2004


Message 277 of 306 (219127)
06-23-2005 8:01 PM
Reply to: Message 274 by randman
06-23-2005 7:07 PM


Re: strength---
There could be potentially equal solutions, but the one that gets their first is probably going to win.
Two guys arm wrestle. One guy pushes first, but is much, much weaker, and the other guy beats him easily.
Your "first come, first served" idea doesn't make any sense.
The stronger force you posit of natural selection would nonetheless only be able to act upon whatever mutations were offerred to it, and so in reality, the convergent aspects of DNA, to the degree that is real, would exert dominance over the selective process via occuring prior and acting as a sort of control.
Sorry, incoherent, and from what I can tell, based on serious assumptions.
Now, the only way the convergent pattern could arise and maintain itself would be if selection either encouraged it, or did not stop it at least.
Right - you're actually restating my conjecture that you said was incorrect a few replies back. Also, I've mentioned many times that repetitive sequences may "stabilize" certain sequences in flanking regions. That is selection at the molecular genetic, rather than phenotypic level.
And has nothing to do with convergent evolution of genes at the level of mutational bias or stabilization, which is what you have been trying to argue.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 274 by randman, posted 06-23-2005 7:07 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 280 by randman, posted 06-23-2005 10:43 PM pink sasquatch has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 278 of 306 (219129)
06-23-2005 8:07 PM
Reply to: Message 270 by randman
06-23-2005 6:13 PM


Re: that is illogical
Why is there any necessity of "seed" sequences to get from one species to another.
I would have thought it was obvious.
The paper shows that the "convergence" occurs ajacent to a specific sequence. If you propose that the convergence effect explains genetic similarities between species, then the seed sequence has to already be in the genome of each species whose genetics "converged." (Otherwise, no genetic convergence would have taken place.)
So now you have to explain why multiple, independant, unrelated species each carry this genetic seed; and moreso, the convergence argument can't explain the seed that causes the convergence. you've simply recursed your argument to a segment of DNA that must be shared, and you've left yourself no option to explain that sharing except for 1) an unknown mechanism for horizontal gene exchange; or 2) the very mechanism you started out trying to disprove, common descent.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 270 by randman, posted 06-23-2005 6:13 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 282 by randman, posted 06-23-2005 10:54 PM crashfrog has replied

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 279 of 306 (219160)
06-23-2005 10:27 PM
Reply to: Message 276 by pink sasquatch
06-23-2005 7:53 PM


Re: leaping again : NINJA!
What's to stop it? Actually, that's an unfair question, but just want to throw the typical evolutionist refrain back out there.
You are though, imo, maintaining that DNA is not convergent or even highly convergent without evidence for that.
The paper states that one proposed cause for DNA convergency is the local environment. I see no reason if the local environment has an effect in the area they studied that it would not have a similar effect elsewhere.
I have never denied that this is a new area of research, but then again, the contention that DNA is not convergent is unproven. Basing models on an unproven assumption which looks to be increasingly an erroneous conclusion is fallacious, and yet that's what evolutionists have done.
That seems par for the course though for evolutionists. Assert that something is essentially a fact based on unproven assumptions.
As far as evidence for DNA convergency, we don't know which similarities arose convergently and which via common ancestry.
This message has been edited by randman, 06-23-2005 10:33 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 276 by pink sasquatch, posted 06-23-2005 7:53 PM pink sasquatch has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 281 by pink sasquatch, posted 06-23-2005 10:50 PM randman has replied

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 280 of 306 (219166)
06-23-2005 10:43 PM
Reply to: Message 277 by pink sasquatch
06-23-2005 8:01 PM


Re: strength---
Two guys arm wrestle. One guy pushes first, but is much, much weaker, and the other guy beats him easily.
Your "first come, first served" idea doesn't make any sense.
That's a very poor analogy. Once again, you are juxtaposing forces as adversarial when that's not the case.
As far as equal solutions that could arise randomly or via convergent predispositions, the one that gets there first is the only one on the scene. A better analogy would be who's going to win a race today, me, a somewhat out-of-shape dude nearing 40 or the fastest man in the world but he hasn't been born yet. Sorry, but I'm still going to win every time.
Whoever gets their first is going to win by virtue of being the only contestant on the scene.
Same with presumed beneficial mutations. If there is a predisposition, it's going to come up more frequently and has a higher chance of success than something that may never come up at all.
On the idea of natural selection and mutations, it may be difficult for you to grasp but it's pretty simple. Natural selection alone does not produce mutations. It must act upon what is there. It doesn't choose what to select for. It acts as a filter for what has already been chosen.
In this case, if there is a predisposition towards a genetic pattern, if that pattern is congruent with natural selection, the pattern is not at odds with natural selection, and thus natural selection is not going to favor even more favorable designs because they don't come up.
Right - you're actually restating my conjecture that you said was incorrect a few replies back.
No, I am not repeating your conjecture. You presented the 2 forces as adversarial, and that's not accurate. One precedes the other, and may or may not be adversarial.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 277 by pink sasquatch, posted 06-23-2005 8:01 PM pink sasquatch has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 284 by pink sasquatch, posted 06-23-2005 11:07 PM randman has replied

pink sasquatch
Member (Idle past 6023 days)
Posts: 1567
Joined: 06-10-2004


Message 281 of 306 (219169)
06-23-2005 10:50 PM
Reply to: Message 279 by randman
06-23-2005 10:27 PM


Re: leaping again : NINJA!
randman, you simply do not understand how science proceeds:
the contention that DNA is not convergent is unproven.
Science cannot falsify a negative; in fact, science cannot prove anything.
Science can only test falsifiable theories, and either support or falsify them.
As far as evidence for DNA convergency, we don't know which similarities arose convergently and which via common ancestry.
I'm not even sure what you mean by "DNA convergency" anymore. Do you mean DNA sequence undergoing convergent evolution within a genome (as described in the V&A paper); or convergent evolution of genes between species?
You are though, imo, maintaining that DNA is not convergent or even highly convergent without evidence for that.
We currently have no evidence that DNA is inherently undergoing convergent evolution.
We only have evidence that one specific type of DNA sequence influences the evolution of flanking sequence.
There is no reason to believe that DNA in general (particularly "functional" sequence) is undergoing convergent evolution.
I'll wait for the evidence before I make the overreaching leap that a trend found in one very specific type of sequence applies to all sequence.
That seems par for the course though for evolutionists. Assert that something is essentially a fact based on unproven assumptions.
No, that is on par for the comments you have made throughout this thread. You repeatedly state that "DNA is convergent" as fact when it is simply a huge, unreasonable assumption.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 279 by randman, posted 06-23-2005 10:27 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 288 by randman, posted 06-24-2005 2:01 AM pink sasquatch has not replied
 Message 289 by randman, posted 06-24-2005 2:13 AM pink sasquatch has replied

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 282 of 306 (219173)
06-23-2005 10:54 PM
Reply to: Message 278 by crashfrog
06-23-2005 8:07 PM


Re: that is illogical
The paper shows that the "convergence" occurs ajacent to a specific sequence.
So what do you make of that? Why is that? Unless and until you can fully answer that, you have a very incomplete understanding of how genetic sequences emerge, and thus a very poor understanding of how genetic evidence may or may not be evidence for common ancestry.
I posit it is reasonable to assume that all sequences have predispositions towards a certain pattern. The evidence one sequence has this characteristic is indicative that this is probably part of the general characteristics of DNA, and the authors make that point by stating that DNA mutation is not random based on their study.
If you propose that the convergence effect explains genetic similarities between species, then the seed sequence has to already be in the genome of each species whose genetics "converged." (Otherwise, no genetic convergence would have taken place.)
Actually, no, not at all. The seed sequence can arise independently, and if the study's implications are correct, and certain sequences are predisposed to mutate along a certain pattern, then it is likely that there could be genetic sequences emerge that arose completely independently of one another.
So now you have to explain why multiple, independant, unrelated species each carry this genetic seed
Actually, evolutionists already claim that species can evolve to just about any sequence. I am not as convinced of that, but for you to argue that evolution can occur, and then argue that it cannot, is unreasonable.
You have to keep in mind if parts of DNA are predisposed to mutate according to a certain pattern, and new patterns once they emerge all have a predisposition, then claiming that it is unlikely for there to be high degrees of convergent evolution of DNA due to it being statistically unlikely is faulty logic.
You are assuming mutations only occur by chance, but in fact they may well occur according to a pattern, an embedded design, perhaps governed by the chemical properties of the local environment.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 278 by crashfrog, posted 06-23-2005 8:07 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 283 by crashfrog, posted 06-23-2005 11:04 PM randman has replied
 Message 285 by pink sasquatch, posted 06-23-2005 11:15 PM randman has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 283 of 306 (219175)
06-23-2005 11:04 PM
Reply to: Message 282 by randman
06-23-2005 10:54 PM


Unless and until you can fully answer that, you have a very incomplete understanding of how genetic sequences emerge, and thus a very poor understanding of how genetic evidence may or may not be evidence for common ancestry.
I don't see how that's the case.
I posit it is reasonable to assume that all sequences have predispositions towards a certain pattern.
I don't see how that's the case, either. If all sequences have such a predisposition, then why are sequences so different across the board?
The seed sequence can arise independently
And what are the odds of that occuring across thousands of unrelated species?
and if the study's implications are correct, and certain sequences are predisposed to mutate along a certain pattern
But according to the study that only happens in the presence of very specific sequences that already have to be there.
So you haven't answered my question. How do those first sequences arise? Do you really expect us to believe that it happened, across many thousands of species, entirely by coincidence in such a way as to match phylogenies derived from independant stratiography?
How stupid do you think we are, exactly?
Actually, evolutionists already claim that species can evolve to just about any sequence.
We've already established that there's no selection pressure for these seed sequences, or for any pseudogenetic sequence of the type used for molecular phylogenics.
You have to keep in mind if parts of DNA are predisposed to mutate according to a certain pattern, and new patterns once they emerge all have a predisposition, then claiming that it is unlikely for there to be high degrees of convergent evolution of DNA due to it being statistically unlikely is faulty logic.
And you have to keep in mind that assuming that "it's predisposed to happen", and then saying "and then it did happen, which proves the whole thing true", is circular logic.
You are assuming mutations only occur by chance, but in fact they may well occur according to a pattern, an embedded design, perhaps governed by the chemical properties of the local environment.
Mutations need not be driven by chance for Darwinism to be true. They need simply be undetermined by environment.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 282 by randman, posted 06-23-2005 10:54 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 286 by randman, posted 06-24-2005 1:42 AM crashfrog has replied
 Message 287 by randman, posted 06-24-2005 1:51 AM crashfrog has replied

pink sasquatch
Member (Idle past 6023 days)
Posts: 1567
Joined: 06-10-2004


Message 284 of 306 (219177)
06-23-2005 11:07 PM
Reply to: Message 280 by randman
06-23-2005 10:43 PM


Re: strength---
That's a very poor analogy. Once again, you are juxtaposing forces as adversarial when that's not the case.
If they are not adversarial, then they are working in the same direction. Therefore, it doesn't matter who gets there first, the result will be the same. You have stopped making any sense.
A better analogy would be who's going to win a race today, me, a somewhat out-of-shape dude nearing 40 or the fastest man in the world but he hasn't been born yet. Sorry, but I'm still going to win every time.
I accept your analogy, but not your conclusion.
Because in order for your analogy to be correct the race would have to be a few million years long. Plenty of time for the fastest man to be born, train, and beat your out-of-shape ass...
In this case, if there is a predisposition towards a genetic pattern, if that pattern is congruent with natural selection, the pattern is not at odds with natural selection, and thus natural selection is not going to favor even more favorable designs because they don't come up.
For that to be the case you'd have to assume that non-biased mutations don't occur. Is that what you are arguing?
No, I am not repeating your conjecture. You presented the 2 forces as adversarial, and that's not accurate. One precedes the other, and may or may not be adversarial.
I already explained that I was discussing relative "strengths", and which would overpower the other if they were in opposition. I already explained that they aren't necessarily adversarial.
Again, stop being so reactionary, and actually read the posts you are responding to.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 280 by randman, posted 06-23-2005 10:43 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 290 by randman, posted 06-24-2005 2:22 AM pink sasquatch has replied

pink sasquatch
Member (Idle past 6023 days)
Posts: 1567
Joined: 06-10-2004


Message 285 of 306 (219180)
06-23-2005 11:15 PM
Reply to: Message 282 by randman
06-23-2005 10:54 PM


Re: that is illogical
The evidence one sequence has this characteristic is indicative that this is probably part of the general characteristics of DNA, and the authors make that point by stating that DNA mutation is not random based on their study.
No. You cannot extend the results of this study to all DNA.
As an example, there are many studies showing that certain DNA sequences code for protein sequences. By your logic, we could assume that all DNA codes for protein, which we know is not the case.
Alos, it has been know for quite some time that DNA mutation is non-random, long before the study under discussion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 282 by randman, posted 06-23-2005 10:54 PM randman has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024