Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 76 (8908 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 05-22-2019 2:34 AM
28 online now:
Heathen, PaulK (2 members, 26 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WeloTemo
Post Volume:
Total: 851,782 Year: 6,819/19,786 Month: 1,360/1,581 Week: 182/393 Day: 5/110 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
1
23456
...
11NextFF
Author Topic:   front loading: did evos get it backwards
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3036 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 1 of 164 (470840)
06-12-2008 10:52 PM


For clarity, let me preface this proposed thread with the comment that I don't subscribe to front loading ID theories about evolution necessarily, but at least think they have some scientific merit as a potential hypothesis, being rooted in some facts, as oppossed to NeoDarwinism. By front loading ID theories, I mean the hypothesis commonly known as front loading. Front loading advocates generally accept, as far as I can tell, either common descent from a number of original forms and organisms or an original, single organism and genome. They are usually thought of as ID theories since the information is considered to be programmed into the front loaded organism but I suppose one could imagine a non-ID front loaded theory as well. NeoDarwinism, on the other hand, posits a slow accumulation of genes via mutations which are selected for by organisms adapting an acquired trait granting them a natural selective advantage.

For clarity, let me preface this proposed thread with the comment that I don't subscribe to front loading ID theories about evolution necessarily, but at least think they have some scientific merit as a potential hypothesis, being rooted in some facts, as oppossed to NeoDarwinism. By front loading evo theories, I mean the hypothesis commonly known as front loading. I added evo theories because front loading advocates generally accept, as far as I can tell, either common descent from a number of original forms and organisms or an original, single organism and genome. They are usually thought of as ID theories since the information is considered to be programmed into the front loaded organism but I suppose one could imagine a non-ID front loaded theory as well. NeoDarwinism, on the other hand, posits a slow accumulation of genes via mutations which are selected for by organisms adapting an acquired trait granting them a natural selective advantage.

With that being said, I think the topic deserves a fair hearing. Note the following:

"The cells which gave rise to plants and animals had more types of genes available to them than are presently found in either plants or animals," explains William Loomis, a professor of biology at UCSD and one of the key members of the international sequencing effort. "Specialization appears to lead to loss of genes as well as the modification of copies of old genes. As each new genome is sequenced, we learn more about the history and physiology of the progenitors and gain insight into the function of human genes."

http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/news/article/7129

Apparently there is significant evidence, assuming common descent, that the ancestor to all plants and animals had a genome with "more types of genes" than is present in any plant or animal today and that evolution, assuming it occurred at all, proceeded through loss and changes of genes rather than the slow accumulation of them as envisioned by NeoDarwinism.

Edited by randman, : No reason given.

Edited by randman, : No reason given.

Edited by randman, : No reason given.

Edited by Admin, : Minor mods to 1st para for consistency.


Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by Admin, posted 06-13-2008 9:23 AM randman has responded
 Message 14 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-15-2008 6:47 AM randman has responded

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12596
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 2 of 164 (470890)
06-13-2008 9:23 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by randman
06-12-2008 10:52 PM


Could you include a sentence or two describing what "front loading evo theories" are?

Also, if by NeoDarwinism you're referring to the modern synthesis of Darwinian evolution with genetics, and if you believe that "front loading evo theories" are not part of the modern synthesis, then you need to explain that a little, since it seems unlikely that scientists like William Loomis do not accept the modern synthesis. That there are signficant schools of evolutionary thought that reject the modern synthesis would actually be a more significant issue than "front loading".

Please post a note when the edits are complete and I'll take another look.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by randman, posted 06-12-2008 10:52 PM randman has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by randman, posted 06-13-2008 12:19 PM Admin has responded

    
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3036 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 3 of 164 (470916)
06-13-2008 12:19 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by Admin
06-13-2008 9:23 AM


I added some more. Seems pretty clear what the topic is. As far as William Loomis or any other scientist, I don't see how what camp they are in is all that relevant. Certainly, we can discuss factual findings from anyone I would think. Whether Loomis has attached significance or not to the fact isn't the thread topic. It would be interesting to know his ideas on how all those types of genes got there so early, but whether he's publicized that or not shouldn't derail the thread.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Admin, posted 06-13-2008 9:23 AM Admin has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by Admin, posted 06-13-2008 1:26 PM randman has responded

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12596
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 4 of 164 (470926)
06-13-2008 1:26 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by randman
06-13-2008 12:19 PM


I think the phrase you really want is "front loading ID theories about evolution." Since "evo" is normally a reference to traditional evolution or its supporters, the phrase "front loading evo theories" implies that there's some facet of evolutionary thought within mainstream circles that accepts "front loading."

What I'm trying to avoid is your thread bogging down in accusations that you're misrepresenting the scientific views about evolution within biology.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by randman, posted 06-13-2008 12:19 PM randman has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by randman, posted 06-13-2008 1:36 PM Admin has responded

    
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3036 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 5 of 164 (470931)
06-13-2008 1:36 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by Admin
06-13-2008 1:26 PM


Ok, made the change.

Note....many claim ID is creationism and so using the term ID is problematic as well here. The point is that front loaders accept that things evolve, though not in a Darwinian fashion primarily.

Edited by randman, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Admin, posted 06-13-2008 1:26 PM Admin has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by Admin, posted 06-13-2008 2:09 PM randman has responded

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12596
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 6 of 164 (470936)
06-13-2008 2:09 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by randman
06-13-2008 1:36 PM


I did further modifications to the 1st para, see if they're okay with you. Your original 1st para is still there, just hidden.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by randman, posted 06-13-2008 1:36 PM randman has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by randman, posted 06-13-2008 2:15 PM Admin has not yet responded

    
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3036 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 7 of 164 (470940)
06-13-2008 2:15 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Admin
06-13-2008 2:09 PM


Looks the same to me on my screen. Could be a technical problem or maybe I am missing something. It is OK as it appears on my screen.

Edited by randman, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Admin, posted 06-13-2008 2:09 PM Admin has not yet responded

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12596
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 8 of 164 (470945)
06-13-2008 2:56 PM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.
    
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 9 of 164 (470953)
06-13-2008 3:44 PM


Types of genes?
What are the different types of genes?

What does "types of genes" mean?


Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by randman, posted 06-13-2008 5:23 PM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded
 Message 162 by Livingstone Morford, posted 12-29-2010 6:35 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3036 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 10 of 164 (470971)
06-13-2008 5:23 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by New Cat's Eye
06-13-2008 3:44 PM


Re: Types of genes?
It means types of genes (genes that were present that no longer are, not just modified genes but whole types of genes were lost). Perhaps the following comment in the paper can add some clarity.

Specialization appears to lead to loss of genes

Specialization (evolution into new forms) "appears to lead to LOSS [my caps] of genes." Obviously, he is saying that genes were present and were lost.

The cells which gave rise to plants and animals had more types of genes available to them than are presently found in either plants or animals

Seems pretty clear to me.

Edited by randman, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-13-2008 3:44 PM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by Wounded King, posted 06-13-2008 6:20 PM randman has responded

  
Wounded King
Member (Idle past 2232 days)
Posts: 4149
From: Edinburgh, Scotland
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 11 of 164 (470984)
06-13-2008 6:20 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by randman
06-13-2008 5:23 PM


Re: Types of genes?
The full text of the paper is freely available online here.

By 'type' the paper seems to be discussing protein superfamilies and PFAM protein domains.

It is an obvious prediction of common descent that many modern lineages will not contain genes their common ancestors possessed. That this has turned out to be the case is not surprising. Simply looking at the diversity we see in modern bacteria and unicellular organisms would suggest there was probably a wealth of genetic diversity which may have been available to the latest common ancestor of plants, animals and fungi which is not represented in these more recently derived lineages. It is likely that similar losses occurred in particular lineages when the eukaryotes evolved.

I'm not sure you should really be adding full stops to quotations when you are actually truncating the quote.

You quote Loomis saying "appears to lead to LOSS [my caps] of genes." adding the full stop and leaving out ...

as well as the modification of copies of old genes

You are right about specialisation involving gene loss but to overemphasis loss and entirely excise diversification seems somewhat misleading.

TTFN,

WK


This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by randman, posted 06-13-2008 5:23 PM randman has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by randman, posted 06-14-2008 4:50 PM Wounded King has responded

    
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3036 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 12 of 164 (471121)
06-14-2008 4:50 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by Wounded King
06-13-2008 6:20 PM


Re: Types of genes?
Misleading? You seem to admit that the simplist, earliest common ancestor to plants and animals was indeed front loaded with all the types of genes that future plants and animals would need. This is in stark contrast to the NeoDarwinian hypothesis of a slow accumulation of genes via random mutation and natural selection.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Wounded King, posted 06-13-2008 6:20 PM Wounded King has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by Coyote, posted 06-14-2008 5:16 PM randman has not yet responded
 Message 18 by Wounded King, posted 06-15-2008 3:58 PM randman has responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 243 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 13 of 164 (471124)
06-14-2008 5:16 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by randman
06-14-2008 4:50 PM


This is in stark contrast to the NeoDarwinian hypothesis of a slow accumulation of genes via random mutation and natural selection.

I think you have this wrong. Could you please supply some documentation?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by randman, posted 06-14-2008 4:50 PM randman has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16094
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 5.5


Message 14 of 164 (471155)
06-15-2008 6:47 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by randman
06-12-2008 10:52 PM


For clarity, let me preface this proposed thread with the comment that I don't subscribe to front loading ID theories about evolution necessarily, but at least think they have some scientific merit as a potential hypothesis, being rooted in some facts, as oppossed to NeoDarwinism.

If you are going to pretend that mutation, recombination, lateral gene transfer, natural selection, and genetic drift are not facts, perhaps you should start another thread. You could call it: "Randman Denies Reality ... Again".

NeoDarwinism, on the other hand, posits a slow accumulation of genes via mutations which are selected for by organisms adapting an acquired trait granting them a natural selective advantage.

Is there nothing you can't mess up?

"Organisms adapting an acquired trait ..." oh dear.

---

What's wrong with front-loading is the obvious fact that when we observe adaptive evolution take place, it isn't front-loaded. We observe the creation of new genes and alleles by mutation, not the bringing of previously untranscribed genes into play.

To this we might add the consideration that front-loaded evolution is impossible. For if a gene is not yet in use, then there is nothing to prevent it from being degraded by mutations, since natural selection won't act on it even as a conservative force. Dormant front-loaded genes would be have their function annihilated by mutation and genetic drift millions of years before they were needed.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by randman, posted 06-12-2008 10:52 PM randman has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by randman, posted 06-15-2008 3:03 PM Dr Adequate has responded

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3036 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 15 of 164 (471207)
06-15-2008 3:03 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by Dr Adequate
06-15-2008 6:47 AM


Nice attempt to avoid the thread topic with circular reasoning.

What's wrong with front-loading is the obvious fact that when we observe adaptive evolution take place, it isn't front-loaded. We observe the creation of new genes and alleles by mutation, not the bringing of previously untranscribed genes into play.

Problem is you don't observe "evolution" as defined by the origin of new and the higher taxa. All you observe is something you claim is "evolution" and define it so, but clearly is not the mechanism, assuming common descent even occurred, that produced life as we know it.

To this we might add the consideration that front-loaded evolution is impossible. For if a gene is not yet in use, then there is nothing to prevent it from being degraded by mutations, since natural selection won't act on it even as a conservative force. Dormant front-loaded genes would be have their function annihilated by mutation and genetic drift millions of years before they were needed.

In other words, it must be impossible because NeoDarwinism just has to be true. The fact that contrary to ND, we don't see a gradual evolving of new genes as new traits are acquired but that all these types of genes pre-existed the theoritical evolution of plant and animal lineages just cannot be, eh? Has to be impossible....darn the facts.

Edited by randman, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-15-2008 6:47 AM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by ramoss, posted 06-15-2008 3:33 PM randman has responded
 Message 23 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-15-2008 10:27 PM randman has not yet responded
 Message 76 by Force, posted 06-21-2008 4:45 PM randman has responded
 Message 93 by Force, posted 06-21-2008 9:35 PM randman has not yet responded

  
1
23456
...
11NextFF
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019