'Micro' evolution vs 'macro' evolution

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
Gene 'loss' could be through crucial single mutaitons, being deleted, catastrophic down regulation mutations etc. Anyway, it doesn't matter. The point is what looks like a 'new gene' by comparison is frequently interpreted by genome researchers as a gene loss in the other (wheterh o not there is pseudo-gene evidence). Of course these genes had to arrive somewhere along the line via creation or evolution.M: Hi TB,
Thanks for the clarification. You are claiming gene loss encompasses differences in regulation as well. However, not all differences are "catastrophic" down regulation. Look at the paper I posted in my response to Itzpaplotl analyzing gene expression differences in chimp and human brains. You don't need a brand new gene to form a species when you can cause tremendous differences by changing gene regulation i.e. hox genes.TB:
Do we know where a zebras stipes come from? Can we compare horse vs zebra. Not yet. I suspect the correspinding genes will be absent or inoperative in the horse. Did this mean that the zebra stripe genes evolved? Not necessarily.M: We can certainly compare horses and zebras
Oakenfull EA, Clegg JB.
Phylogenetic relationships within the genus Equus and the evolution of alpha and theta globin genes.
J Mol Evol. 1998 Dec;47(6):772-83.And why would the pigment genes be inactive in horse or zebra? Or why would you need a new gene at all? All you need is a slight change in level or timing of gene expression and you can alter hair color patterns. Superficial traits such as hair or skin color do not require monumental changes in the genome.TB:
There could have been an original 'horse' kind. Perhaps the male was a long eared but horse-like and the female short eared and zebra-like. Over generations you get zebras, horses and donkeys. We just don't know for sure but it is quite plausible. In detail we would have to compare the genes and alleles of all three genomes to assess the feasability of this proposal.M: To bad the phylogeny of equids and the fossil record do not support a horse-zebra like "kind" hybridization leading to the observed extant and extinct horse diversity.If you are interested in equid genetics, there was an interesting study published recently on horse domestication using modern and ancient DNA...don't have it handy but would be happy to dig it out for you if you want.Cheers,
M

MammuthusI essentially agree with you. I'll simply allow for the possibility that some aspects of diversity that emerged from kinds since creation were essentially designed in (eg zebra stripes) but I wont be dogmatic about it. Zebras just happen to be one of my favourite animals!If the flood is the answer then it could be that all you are seeing in the fossil record is the burial order of contemporaneous species.[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 12-05-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
Mammuthus

​

I essentially agree with you. I'll simply allow for the possibility that some aspects of diversity that emerged from kinds since creation were essentially designed in (eg zebra stripes) but I wont be dogmatic about it. Zebras just happen to be one of my favourite animals!

​

If the flood is the answer then it could be that all you are seeing in the fossil record is the burial order of contemporaneous species.

​

[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 12-05-2002]

---

Hi TB,
Glad you won't be dogmatic about it but here is a reference I found on coat color in horses (sorry, they did not include zebras).Mamm Genome 2001 Jun;12(6):450-5 Related Articles, LinksMutations in the agouti (ASIP), the extension (MC1R), and the brown (TYRP1) loci and their association to coat color phenotypes in horses (Equus caballus).Rieder S, Taourit S, Mariat D, Langlois B, Guerin G.Laboratoire de Genetique biochimique et de Cytogenetique, Departement de Genetique animale, INRA Centre de Recherche de Jouy, 78352 Jouy-en-Josas cedex, France.Coat color genetics, when successfully adapted and applied to different mammalian species, provides a good demonstration of the powerful concept of comparative genetics. Using cross-species techniques, we have cloned, sequenced, and characterized equine melanocortin-1-receptor (MC1R) and agouti-signaling-protein (ASIP), and completed a partial sequence of tyrosinase-related protein 1 (TYRP1). The coding sequences and parts of the flanking regions of those genes were systematically analyzed in 40 horses and mutations typed in a total of 120 horses. Our panel represented 22 different horse breeds, including 11 different coat colors of Equus caballus. The comparison of a 1721-bp genomic fragment of MC1R among the 11 coat color phenotypes revealed no sequence difference apart from the known chestnut allele (C901T). In particular, no dominant black (ED) mutation was found. In a 4994-bp genomic fragment covering the three putative exons, two introns and parts of the 5'- and 3'-UTRs of ASIP, two intronic base substitutions (SNP-A845G and C2374A), a point mutation in the 3'-UTRs (A4734G), and an 11-bp deletion in exon 2 (ADEx2) were detected. The deletion was found to be homozygous and completely associated with horse recessive black coat color (Aa/Aa) in 24 black horses out of 9 different breeds from our panel. The frameshift initiated by ADEx2 is believed to alter the regular coding sequence, acting as a loss-of-function ASIP mutation. In TYRP1 a base substitution was detected in exon 2 (C189T), causing a threonine to methionine change of yet unknown function, and an SNP (A1188G) was found in intron 2.

quote:

---

Originally posted by SLPx:

Seemed pretty amateurish to me.

​

That old addage comes to mind:

​

When yo a little about science, creationist claims can seem to have merit.
When you know a lot about science, you can see that they don't.

---

Let me repeat what I've said elsewhere:
I don't know if it is appreciated the difficulty in discussing matters with "evo-experts", in that they always want "peer-reviewed proof", well the problem lies in that obviously "main stream" science doesn't want to deal with what they call "religious science", so any proof offered or shown, would most likely come from an ID reference or a creationist reference. Those references seem to be immediately dismissed, and possible ad hominem responses follow.

Let me repeat what I've said elsewhere:
I don't know if it is appreciated the difficulty in discussing matters with "evo-experts", in that they always want "peer-reviewed proof", well the problem lies in that obviously "main stream" science doesn't want to deal with what they call "religious science", so any proof offered or shown, would most likely come from an ID reference or a creationist reference. Those references seem to be immediately dismissed, and possible ad hominem responses follow.You are not being singled out sonnikke. If I were to make an assertion at a scientific meeting etc. without providing any supporting data or even some kind of testable hypothesis I would at the very least face extreme skepticism and probably ridicule as well. You could turn your argument around, it is difficult to argue with creaationists because they merely state that they are correct, that evolution is wrong, but do not support their claims and then get pissy when scientists don't just fall on their knees and say "oh yeah, I will drop my lifes research activity and just believe what some guy on a forum told me".

deleted by M due to duplication[This message has been edited by Mammuthus, 12-18-2002]

Dear Mammuthus,I am back and you are still around! Excellent!In the meantime I have cloned myself. Well, at least partially. (open goal, Mammuthus )You say:M: Let me repeat what I've said elsewhere:
I don't know if it is appreciated the difficulty in discussing matters with "evo-experts", in that they always want "peer-reviewed proof", well the problem lies in that obviously "main stream" science doesn't want to deal with what they call "religious science", so any proof offered or shown, would most likely come from an ID reference or a creationist reference. Those references seem to be immediately dismissed, and possible ad hominem responses follow."PB: You should know that papers are always discussed subject to the favorite paradigm. A careful look at such peer reviewed papers often demonstrate data that can be differentially interpreted, and sometimes it contains data that are not even discussed since they do not fit the this framework. I demonstrated that several times. The comments I get from evolutionists in this forum goes like "...but where do the authors say this or that etcetera..." Well, the authors do NOT say this or that, since I pointed out that these data are NOT discussed.M: You are not being singled out sonnikke. If I were to make an assertion at a scientific meeting etc. without providing any supporting data or even some kind of testable hypothesis I would at the very least face extreme skepticism and probably ridicule as well.PB: What a humbug. I did several very risky statements that oppose evolutionism and backed them up with scientific papers. All I got is denial, scoffing and mocking!M: You could turn your argument around, it is difficult to argue with creaationists because they merely state that they are correct, that evolution is wrong, but do not support their claims and then get pissy when scientists don't just fall on their knees and say "oh yeah, I will drop my lifes research activity and just believe what some guy on a forum told me".PB: That is because it involved two believe systems.Have a good one. (O yes, I recently read a book about mammoths. Why did they go extinct?)Best wishes,
Peter"Random mutation & Selection? Don't let me laugh"

Hi PeterPB:
I am back and you are still around! Excellent!M: But only around for 6 more days...then I am offline for a month and travelling with my wife. But I will return to the forums in late January for more fun PB:
In the meantime I have cloned myself. Well, at least partially. (open goal, Mammuthus )M: So I guess we expect twice as much nonsense from you PB:
You say:M: Actually the quote you are addressing is not mine..it was sonnikke'sPB: You should know that papers are always discussed subject to the favorite paradigm. A careful look at such peer reviewed papers often demonstrate data that can be differentially interpreted, and sometimes it contains data that are not even discussed since they do not fit the this framework. I demonstrated that several times. The comments I get from evolutionists in this forum goes like "...but where do the authors say this or that etcetera..." Well, the authors do NOT say this or that, since I pointed out that these data are NOT discussed.M: When you claim that a paper states that i.e. chimps and humans have a common ancestor 150Kya and the paper does not state that I and other point out that it is a fallacy. And you were never able to substantiate your independent conclusions...towards the end of your posting before your break from the forums you claimed you would no longer even read articles we posted so this hardly argues for your drawing independent conclusions either.M: You are not being singled out sonnikke. If I were to make an assertion at a scientific meeting etc. without providing any supporting data or even some kind of testable hypothesis I would at the very least face extreme skepticism and probably ridicule as well.PB: What a humbug. I did several very risky statements that oppose evolutionism and backed them up with scientific papers. All I got is denial, scoffing and mocking!M: You did not back up your claims so of course you got denial.M: You could turn your argument around, it is difficult to argue with creaationists because they merely state that they are correct, that evolution is wrong, but do not support their claims and then get pissy when scientists don't just fall on their knees and say "oh yeah, I will drop my lifes research activity and just believe what some guy on a forum told me".PB: That is because it involved two believe systems.M: ???Have a good one. (O yes, I recently read a book about mammoths. Why did they go extinct?)M: Three hypotheses 1) climate change at the transition from the Pleistocene to the Holocene 2) Overkill by human hunters entering the new world 3) hyperdisease. Thus far, climate change seems fairly unlikely as the culprit...2 and 3..we are working on gathering data."Random mutation & Selection? Don't let me laugh"Morphogenetic fields, creatons, non-random mutation, multipurpose genome make me laugh a lot LOL! cheers and welcome backM

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mammuthus:
..."oh yeah, I will drop my lifes research activity and just believe what some guy on a forum told me".

---

I think that's probably what it all boils down to, you guys feel that at all costs you must defend your position and defeat the creationist, because a life's work is at stake. It makes sense.I don't think it has to be that way.Mammuthus tell me, the research you do, would it be undermined in any way by a creationists position? It's just a question.Regards,
S

Hi SonnikkeI think that's probably what it all boils down to, you guys feel that at all costs you must defend your position and defeat the creationist, because a life's work is at stake. It makes sense.M: That actually was not what I was trying to get at. I do get irked when I spend my time doing science which can be an extremely difficult and often unrewarding endeavor and then am told by someone with not a shred of education or interest in the subject that everything I do is incorrect because of their belief system.But more important to me (and most of the evolutionists here most likely) is that creationism is a direct attack on science and the scientific method. It is trying to equate superstition with a field that must have testable hypothesis which is falsifiable and requires a great deal of evidence. And most importantly, is never absolute but always tentative i.e. someone could overthrow the theory of gravity if the right evidence came along.S:
I don't think it has to be that way.M: For the most part it is not. A large proportion of the religious community does not take the bible literally and accept science and the scientific method. The RCC accepts evolution. In this case it is not in conflict. However, like with most subject, there is a very activist, motivated and vocal fringe which seeks to impose their beliefs on others.S:
Mammuthus tell me, the research you do, would it be undermined in any way by a creationists position? It's just a question.M: Everything I do in science would be undermined by the creationist position. When someone believes that god created the first replicating molecule etc versus abiogenesis and then let the things go by evolution (theistic evolution) this does not undermine what I do particularly. However, claiming that humans do not share a common anscestor with other animals, that species do not evolve, etc. undermines not just my evolutionary work but the genetics work I have done as well. First because it requires ignoring over a hundred years of observation in nature and experimental evidence from thousands of scientists (none of which 99% of creationists ever bother to inform themselves about), second it means that if creationism spread that science will become a private hobby of the few highly educated people in the U.S. with a public that in no way can understand anything that is going on, and third, there could be some true genius out there who will never get to shine because they are brainwashed into a perverted cartoonish idea of what science is.In its extreme form why bother doing science at all or research? Instead of trying to figure out how cancer works, everyone could propose a "theory" based on their personal beliefs without bothering to get evidence except perhaps some piece of scripture and then that would be the truth...we would be back to treating the flu with leeches in no time.I have noticed that you are taking some of the criticism and poking very seriously. Note that I don't think anyone is trying to directly attack you as a person but rather attacking your statements. I think I am fairly consistent in this i.e. you are not singled out by me..I am not particularly respectful to Symansu or Peter Borger when I think they are posting nonesense....just to let you know that you should not take the jokes aimed at you to personally...hey, I was called an evil sorcerer, a hasbro Ph.D., moron etc on this board lots of times ciao,
M

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mammuthus:

M: That actually was not what I was trying to get at. I do get irked when I spend my time doing science which can be an extremely difficult and often unrewarding endeavor and then am told by someone with not a shred of education or interest in the subject that everything I do is incorrect because of their belief system.

---

I think you are over-generalizing a bit here, and making some unfounded assumptions.

quote:

---

But more important to me (and most of the evolutionists here most likely) is that creationism is a direct attack on science and the scientific method. It is trying to equate superstition with a field that must have testable hypothesis which is falsifiable and requires a great deal of evidence. And most importantly, is never absolute but always tentative i.e. someone could overthrow the theory of gravity if the right evidence came along.

---

I believe just about all creationists would agree that creationism is NOT an attack on science, it is an alternative explanation, NOT based on superstition, for the creation of the world we live in.
evolution does not equal science, correct? Just like animals do not equal humans (remember that? )

quote:

---

M: For the most part it is not. A large proportion of the religious community does not take the bible literally and accept science and the scientific method. The RCC accepts evolution. In this case it is not in conflict. However, like with most subject, there is a very activist, motivated and vocal fringe which seeks to impose their beliefs on others.

---

You are using prejudicial language here to give the appearance of "fanatics". What you are saying is not true. Thousands of scientists question "evolution" and say that ToE does NOT provide acceptable answers, and these scientist are NOT what you would describe as biblical fundementalists.eg.: http://www.discovery.org/...leFiles/PDFs/100ScientistsAd.pdf

quote:

---

M: Everything I do in science would be undermined by the creationist position. When someone believes that god created the first replicating molecule etc versus abiogenesis and then let the things go by evolution (theistic evolution) this does not undermine what I do particularly. However, claiming that humans do not share a common anscestor with other animals, that species do not evolve, etc. undermines not just my evolutionary work but the genetics work I have done as well. First because it requires ignoring over a hundred years of observation in nature and experimental evidence from thousands of scientists (none of which 99% of creationists ever bother to inform themselves about), second it means that if creationism spread that science will become a private hobby of the few highly educated people in the U.S. with a public that in no way can understand anything that is going on, and third, there could be some true genius out there who will never get to shine because they are brainwashed into a perverted cartoonish idea of what science is.

---

That is a straw man, no further comment.

quote:

---

In its extreme form why bother doing science at all or research? Instead of trying to figure out how cancer works, everyone could propose a "theory" based on their personal beliefs without bothering to get evidence except perhaps some piece of scripture and then that would be the truth...we would be back to treating the flu with leeches in no time.

---

again Mammuthus, straw man..you can't be serious.

quote:

---

I have noticed that you are taking some of the criticism and poking very seriously. Note that I don't think anyone is trying to directly attack you as a person but rather attacking your statements. I think I am fairly consistent in this i.e. you are not singled out by me..I am not particularly respectful to Symansu or Peter Borger when I think they are posting nonesense....just to let you know that you should not take the jokes aimed at you to personally...hey, I was called an evil sorcerer, a hasbro Ph.D., moron etc on this board lots of times

​

ciao,
M

---

I appreciate that (except for the "nonsense" part). yeah, call it beginners paranoia...anyway, from now on I'll take it as compliments when I'm attacked ciao to you (enjoy your vacation)S

quote:

---

Thousands of scientists question "evolution" and say that ToE does NOT provide acceptable answers, and these scientist are NOT what you would describe as biblical fundementalists.

---

And how many of these "thousands" view a 6000 year old earth as a viable option? How many deny the fact of common descent of life?

quote:

---

In its extreme form why bother doing science at all or research? Instead of trying to figure out how cancer works, everyone could propose a "theory" based on their personal beliefs without bothering to get evidence except perhaps some piece of scripture and then that would be the truth...we would be back to treating the flu with leeches in no time.

​

again Mammuthus, straw man..you can't be serious.

---

I don't see this as a "strawman" at all - maybe a little bit of exaggeration.... If you deny that evolution can take place, how would you be able to fight rapidly evolving organisms like tuberculosis bacteria or HIV?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Coragyps:
I don't see this as a "strawman" at all - maybe a little bit of exaggeration.... If you deny that evolution can take place, how would you be able to fight rapidly evolving organisms like tuberculosis bacteria or HIV?

---

Well no one is arguing that HIV "evolves" (but it is still HIV and not all of a sudden a rhino virus) it is the extrapolation from micro-evolution to macro-evolution that is the argument.Regards,
S

quote:

---

Originally posted by sonnikke:
Well no one is arguing that HIV "evolves" (but it is still HIV and not all of a sudden a rhino virus) it is the extrapolation from micro-evolution to macro-evolution that is the argument.

---

HIV started out not being HIV. It was a very similar but distinct virus that does not infect humans, but it mutated and now we call it HIV.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by John:

HIV started out not being HIV. It was a very similar but distinct virus that does not infect humans, but it mutated and now we call it HIV.

​

---

Would you mind being a bit more explicit about your statement?