Has human evolution stopped?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Andor:
Yes you're right. But I think this is variation not speciation.
I was thinking in the change of species, to Homo sideralis or something like that.

---

Variation in isolated populations can (but doesn't have to) lead to speciation, right? It's just that it takes too long for us to see it in large mammals such as ourselves.

Philip: I’m afraid you are either still misunderstanding or possibly deliberately misrepresenting my explanations.

quote:

---

Or by Quetzal’s scheme, some highly variable (‘abnormal’) mutation in the gene pool would preclude the necessity of further abnormal mutations, allowing flexible incremental adaption(s) for an epoch or so. Even more impossible, don’t you think?

​

--I appreciate your calling them ‘mutations’, Daydreamer. My evo-brethren here seem to have a problem with that, as abnormal mutations invalidate the ToE (as yours must be). They are ‘hush hush’ in this matter (as we shall see), preferring to cry out microevo terms like natural selection, normal recombinance, diploidy (in plants), etc.

---

Our conversation to date has dealt with the sources of the variation within specific genomes upon which natural selection operates. In the interests of clarity, I have repeatedly maintained that there are two primary sources of variation within a population:1. genetic recombination that occurs during gametogenesis through crossing over, randomization during the anaphase of meiosis I, and random selection of gametes during fertilization.2. mutation, which I have repeatedly — including referencing articles from the scientific literature which you have failed to address — stated is the source of novel genetic materialMoreover, I have in several threads discussed the action of natural selection on this variety, how natural selection can change the frequency of alleles in a population, and how this can lead to speciation - and ultimately to gross morphological change.Please provide an example of where I have called anything abnormal (which is a term I have quite specifically taken exception to when you have used it, along with disease metastasis with reference to mutation, etc). Also please cite any example where I have played hush hush as you so quaintly put it with the role of mutation. Finally please cite a reference where I have misused diploidy as you assert.I’m becoming concerned that your continual mis-statements on both the information I’ve provided and the explanations I have used to accompany that information may have a more sinister explanation than my inability to communicate clearly. I don’t want to believe that you are engaging in deliberate fabrication or distortion for purposes of your own. Please correct me if I'm misunderstanding you.

​

[This message has been edited by Quetzal, 06-04-2002]

Phil if I had said "populate outer space" I guess the table would look more periodic??

Hey S, what then did GOULD actually mean by developemental constraint? I know invariance is not impenetrability but why so much ado about Bauplans also what is up with the word "mild" in this context. It was not wine tasting! Over the bow-tie to you.

--Thank you for your indepth rebuttal.
--Your point is well taken about pseudo-science, etc.; I will try not to offend, henceforth.
--If its OK with you, I will attempt to refute Mark, Shraf, Quetzel, and John. As they merit response.
--If you want me to critique your rebuttal, later. Please state so.--Thanks for you feedback,
--Philip

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Quetzal:
[b]Philip: I’m afraid you are either still misunderstanding or possibly deliberately misrepresenting my explanations.
(Or by Quetzal’s scheme, some highly variable (‘abnormal’) mutation in the gene pool would preclude the necessity of further abnormal mutations, allowing flexible incremental adaption(s) for an epoch or so. Even more impossible, don’t you think?I appreciate your calling them ‘mutations’, Daydreamer. My evo-brethren here seem to have a problem with that, as abnormal mutations invalidate the ToE (as yours must be). They are ‘hush hush’ in this matter (as we shall see), preferring to cry out microevo terms like natural selection, normal recombinance, diploidy (in plants), etc. [/QUOTE]--Perhaps a misunderstanding; I apologize for any sinister motives that may have arisen (accidental, non-volitional, please accept that).

quote:

---

1. genetic recombination that occurs during gametogenesis through crossing over, randomization during the anaphase of meiosis I, and random selection of gametes during fertilization.

​

2. mutation, which I have repeatedly — including referencing articles from the scientific literature which you have failed to address — stated is the source of novel genetic material

---

--OK, you’ve clarified ‘mutation’ as the source of new genetic material in [2.]. But [1.] seems irrelevant to higher taxonomic changes, unless you concede freak meiotic ‘mutations’, i.e., meiotic ‘errors’, deletions, as Daydreamer has crudely alluded. (Daydreamer at least goes unabashedly for the mechanism of: mutations invoking the ‘higher taxonomic changes’.)

quote:

---

Moreover, I have in several threads discussed the action of natural selection on this variety, how natural selection can change the frequency of alleles in a population, and how this can lead to speciation - and ultimately to gross morphological change.

---

--Not gross enough for higher taxonomic change, I’m afraid:
--Drosophilae selection studies have failed to produce anything accept freaky fruit flies.
--Interdependent bio-complexities (akin to ICs but more systems related) when negatively exploited, even in increments-->extinction.
--You and/or Daydreamer might contend this, adnauseum. But if you (or anyone on this forum) continues to hold ‘non-mutation’ as a source of high-level taxonomic evolution, I will refute your scheme (hopefully in a non-slanderous way).

quote:

---

Please provide an example of where I have called anything abnormal (which is a term I have quite specifically taken exception to when you have used it, along with disease metastasis with reference to mutation, etc).

---

--You stated: Selection pressures operating on the phenotypical variations occurring in a given population of organisms — whether arising through mutation or the normal recombination/reshuffling of genetic material that occurs during gametogenesis — provide the foundation of the ToE.
Here you used the term normal (vs. abnormal) indiscriminately, implying levels of a ‘norm’ or ‘normality’ to high level taxonomic change (which I refuted). Anytime you state that word ‘NORMAL’, degrees of abnormality are implied, since it is not a black and white term in the ToE, right?

quote:

---

Also please cite any example where I have played hush hush as you so quaintly put it with the role of mutation. Finally please cite a reference where I have misused diploidy as you assert.

---

--Not you singularly, most all the evo-brethren on this forum. All conceal that term in their sophisticated bio-jargon. That this ongoing fraud/deception/denial/etc. continue to be perpetrated upon an unsuspecting public is wrong. Mutations are the source of high level taxonomic change, not mere gametogenesis sans mutations. Now, I dare say that some honest proto-evos here would disagree on your non-mutational scheme as well, because they regard consistent Drosophilae selection limitations as globally suggestive. What about it Shraf, Percy, Dr. Taz, Daydreamer, Joz, anyone?

quote:

---

I’m becoming concerned that your continual mis-statements on both the information I’ve provided and the explanations I have used to accompany that information may have a more sinister explanation than my inability to communicate clearly. I don’t want to believe that you are engaging in deliberate fabrication or distortion for purposes of your own. Please correct me if I'm misunderstanding you.

---

--Apologies for my ‘sin’-ister nature. I admit my arguments are crude and forced, lacking scientific jargon, etc., at times. You communicate keenly and clearly in my opinion. True, I am engaging in deliberate fabrication hypothetically (to fit my Biblical scheme and faith/biases). You (and I) are (both) fighting for ‘scientific’ truth for our (beloved) science’s 'sake, right? (I see your passion in this matter and support it). Peradventure you yourself have no other non-deliberate (yet enticing) motives of anarchy, fornication, humanism, environmentalism, etc.--Philip

​

[This message has been edited by Philip, 06-04-2002]

quote:

---

--OK, you’ve clarified ‘mutation’ as the source of new genetic material in [2.]. But [1.] seems irrelevant to higher taxonomic changes, unless you concede freak meiotic ‘mutations’, i.e., meiotic ‘errors’, deletions, as Daydreamer has crudely alluded. (Daydreamer at least goes unabashedly for the mechanism of: mutations invoking the ‘higher taxonomic changes’.)

---

A horribly inaccurate Straw Man. My point was not that big mutations can occur, but that small mutations can cause relatively big changes because of Object Oriented development and the heritability fudge factor. (relatively highlighted in hopes of scaring off attempts to Straw Man my use of the word)

quote:

---

Moreover, I have in several threads discussed the action of natural selection on this variety, how natural selection can change the frequency of alleles in a population, and how this can lead to speciation - and ultimately to gross morphological change.
--Not gross enough for higher taxonomic change, I’m afraid:
--Drosophilae selection studies have failed to produce anything accept freaky fruit flies.

---

Straw Man again - Its not our bloody fault that we can't live for the tens to hundreds of thousands of years that would take.

quote:

---

--Interdependent bio-complexities (akin to ICs but more systems related) when negatively exploited, even in increments-->extinction.
--You and/or Daydreamer might contend this, adnauseum. But if you (or anyone on this forum) continues to hold ‘non-mutation’ as a source of high-level taxonomic evolution, I will refute your scheme (hopefully in a non-slanderous way).

---

Go for it, my refutation is on Page 1.

quote:

---

--You stated: Selection pressures operating on the phenotypical variations occurring in a given population of organisms — whether arising through mutation or the normal recombination/reshuffling of genetic material that occurs during gametogenesis — provide the foundation of the ToE.
Here you used the term normal (vs. abnormal) indiscriminately, implying levels of a ‘norm’ or ‘normality’ to high level taxonomic change (which I refuted). Anytime you state that word ‘NORMAL’, degrees of abnormality are implied, since it is not a black and white term in the ToE, right?

---

Your equivocating - his point was that if one organism has nearly neutral gene, and another has a different nearly neautral gene, there is a possibility, however slight, that their child will inherit both of these nearly neutral genes which together form a new, useful pathway for the formation of some benficial protein.

quote:

---

--Not you singularly, most all the evo-brethren on this forum. All conceal that term in their sophisticated bio-jargon. That this ongoing fraud/deception/denial/etc.

---

B.S. - your equivocating indistinct language into full blown attempts to befuddle you.

quote:

---

Mutations are the source of high level taxonomic change, not mere gametogenesis sans mutations. Now, I dare say that some honest proto-evos here would disagree on your non-mutational scheme as well, because they regard consistent Drosophilae selection limitations as globally suggestive. What about it Shraf, Percy, Dr. Taz, Daydreamer, Joz, anyone?

---

I was not here for the original debate on this, nor am I trained enough in Evo Bio to pick it up mid-way, so I'm out I'm afraid.

quote:

---

I’m becoming concerned that your continual mis-statements on both the information I’ve provided and the explanations I have used to accompany that information may have a more sinister explanation than my inability to communicate clearly. I don’t want to believe that you are engaging in deliberate fabrication or distortion for purposes of your own. Please correct me if I'm misunderstanding you.

---

And now for a bit of parody:I’m becoming concerned that your continual mis-statements on both the information we’ve provided and the explanations we have used to accompany that information may have a more sinister explanation than our inability to communicate clearly. We don’t want to believe that you are engaging in deliberate fabrication or distortion for purposes of your own. Please correct us if we misunderstand you.

quote:

---

--Apologies for my ‘sin’-ister nature. I admit my arguments are crude and forced, lacking scientific jargon, etc., at times. You communicate keenly and clearly in my opinion. True, I am engaging in deliberate fabrication hypothetically (to fit my Biblical scheme and faith/biases). You (and I) are (both) fighting for ‘scientific’ truth for our (beloved) science’s 'sake, right? (I see your passion in this matter and support it).

---

I think we both doubt the scincerity of our opponents dedication to science.

quote:

---

Peradventure you yourself have no other non-deliberate (yet enticing) motives of anarchy, fornication, humanism, environmentalism, etc.

---

Isn't it nice how you try to tie in these dishonest Evolutionists boogums you see with your political and ideological rivals?Now if you'll excuse me I'm going to go whack off to some porn.

​

[This message has been edited by Daydreamer, 06-04-2002]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by mark24:
Philip,

​

Despite your repeated assertions that evolution on the macro scale is impossible, the evidence contradicts you.

--What oversimplified ‘evidence’ contradicts ID. Embryology recapitulating phylogeny? New phylogenetic trees (same as the old)? Evolution proves evolution? Molecular vs. solar clocks? What evidence contradicts ID and/or the impossibility of humans evolving from fruit flies? More & more phylogenetic analysis, using different data sets, are repeatedly producing highly congruent trees. These trees show relationships that sail right through your objections, above & beyond family level.

--Phylogenetic trees are grossly oversimplified Mark, using apriori phylogenetic constructs, remember? You will need 100’s of thousands of such trees before they even approach a valid high-level taxonomic mutational hypothesis. Why? Because the tiny segments of data are way over-simplified/generalized and correlation does not equal causation (anymore than embryology recapitulates phylogeny).--Alas, lets look at some of these ‘suggestive’ trees:
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/96/18/10254
The genomes of modern humans are riddled with thousands of endogenous retroviruses (HERVs), THE PROVIRAL REMNANTS OF ANCIENT VIRAL INFECTIONS of the primate lineage. Most HERVs are nonfunctional, selectively neutral loci. This fact, coupled with their sheer abundance in primate genomes, makes HERVs ideal for exploitation as phylogenetic markers. Endogenous retroviruses (ERVs) provide phylogenetic information in two ways: (i) by comparison of integration site polymorphism and (ii) by orthologous comparison of evolving, proviral, nucleotide sequence. In this study, trees are constructed with the noncoding long terminal repeats (LTRs) of several ERV loci. Because the two LTRs of an ERV are identical at the time of integration but evolve independently, each ERV locus can provide two estimates of species phylogeny based on molecular evolution of the same ancestral sequence. Moreover, tree topology is highly sensitive to conversion events, allowing for easy detection of sequences involved in recombination as well as correction for such events. Although other animal species are rich in ERV sequences, the specific use of HERVs in this study allows comparison of trees TO A WELL ESTABLISHED PHYLOGENETIC STANDARD, that of the Old World primates. HERVs, and by extension the ERVs of other species, constitute a unique and plentiful resource for studying the evolutionary history of the Retroviridae and their animal hosts hosts.
--Retrovirus and provirus substitutions in apes, humans, chimps, and OWMs(?#!) proving microbiological time-stamps on homologues thereby confirming (apriori) ANCIENT phylogeny?! The researchers themselves admit conformance to an (apriori) PHYLOGENETIC STANDARD. Based on what, the fossil record#?! Evolution?. Circular reasoning? Respectfully, these trees have been indiscriminately tossed around, already.
--Do mega-mutations really ‘sail’ here, Mark? Furthermore, the unique markers (HERVs) are unconvincing (apriori) time clocks and need more validity. http://www.indiana.edu/~ensiweb/lessons/cl.mo.tr.pdf
--Correct me if I’m wrong Mark. These monkey trees appear old to me (like when I was a student 20 years ago): Albumin proteins, Carbonic Anhydrase Inhibitors, B-Globin genes, and DNA hybridization
--Nevertheless, what kind of evidence do these homologues imply, should we sail into mutationalistic speculations. I hope not, on scientific grounds. http://tolweb.org/tree?group=Hominidae&contgroup=Catarrhini
--Relationships and great Gorilla tee-shirts yes, phylogenetic no! [b][/QUOTE]If so many phylogenies show humans related to the apes, & apes to OWM in such a congruent way, & representing staggering odds of occurring by chance, how do you make your objections fit in with these evidences? i.e. If humans, apes & monkeys evolved from a common ancestor, then how did their feet/hands evolve for the different tasks that they are called upon to perform? E.g. Arboreal, land living quadrupeds, & bipeds. [/b][/QUOTE]--Because these evidences aren’t evidences at all. Mere homologous relationships alone. [b] [QUOTE] Also of note, is that that the molecular evidence is congruent with the fossil/morphological evidence.
[/b][/QUOTE]--Respectfully Mark, how circular does this sail-boat have to sail before realizing no distance has been covered? I.e., the evidence being entirely circular. [b] [QUOTE] In short, do you have any scientific evidence that says that an arboreal monkey type foot couldn’t evolve into a human foot?
[/b][/QUOTE]--In sum:
1) DROSOPHILAE-LIKE LIMITATIONS on genetic variation. (Respectfully, as a somber podiatrist, using your phylogenetic trees: I think I have more ‘evidence’ of fruit-fly mutants becoming people--do you believe they could? Anyone else, Shraf, Joe, Dr. Taz, Quetzel)
2) Intermediary mutants: delicate pedal interdependent (bio)-complexities (e.g., organ relationships) require multi-tiered fortuitous mutations to prevent extinctionimpossible from a STATISTICS perspective.
3) I already scientifically explained how the bio-complexities of the foot are ‘set-in’ physiologically (and hence biochemically) with innumerable examples above. You change the foot ever so subtly SURGICALLY (i.e., mutational surgery) and the results are always detrimental. This is always confirmed in the APMA literature, Mark. Legally its referred to as Do no harm (i.e., Don’t do it unless its pathological). Mutational/recombinant surgery is no different, always detrimental.

​

[This message has been edited by Philip, 06-04-2002]

Before I get started, A Priori should be two words and capitalized. Also, your use of the word gets slightly muddled - you might consider touching up on your Philosophy of Science.

quote:

---

--What oversimplified ‘evidence’ contradicts ID. Embryology recapitulating phylogeny?

---

Depends on what you mean by this -
If you mean a human embryo has a fish stage, an amphibian stage, a replite stage, etc. then no. That was debunked nearly a century ago.
If you mean that we can form trees of all mammalian (and with some modification, other major taxa as well) development based on differences in protein gradients in zygotes of different species, and changes to which trascription inhibitors/promoters they effect, then most assuredly yes.

quote:

---

What evidence contradicts ID and/or the impossibility of humans evolving from fruit flies?

---

Yet another Straw Man Argument. Modern species do NOT, under ANY circumstances, EVER evolve from other modern species - they evolve down separate lineages from a common ancestor. In the fly-human case, the split would go back over a hundred million years.

quote:

---

--Phylogenetic trees are grossly oversimplified Mark, using apriori phylogenetic constructs, remember? You will need 100’s of thousands of such trees before they even approach a valid high-level taxonomic mutational hypothesis. Why? Because the tiny segments of data are way over-simplified/generalized and correlation does not equal causation (anymore than embryology recapitulates phylogeny).

---

Yes they are over simplified, but its the best we are capable of - take the Berkley search for Mitochondrial Eve, for example. A sample of just a 135 women is enough to form 2.7 x 10^230 power trees without making any but a basic factorial tree. Its a matter of parsimony - a question of whether phylogenetic evolutionary trees or creationism are more likely. Because requiring any sort of designer requires they be calculated into this measurement of parsimony, and the god descripbed by Christian IDers in infinite in a number of different aspects, it fails the competition with inglorious indignation.

quote:

---

--Retrovirus and provirus substitutions in apes, humans, chimps, and OWMs(?#!) proving microbiological time-stamps on homologues thereby confirming (apriori) ANCIENT phylogeny?! The researchers themselves admit conformance to an (apriori) PHYLOGENETIC STANDARD. Based on what, the fossil record#?! Evolution?. Circular reasoning? Respectfully, these trees have been indiscriminately tossed around, already.
--Do mega-mutations really ‘sail’ here, Mark? Furthermore, the unique markers (HERVs) are unconvincing (apriori) time clocks and need more validity.

---

Its called not reinventing the wheel. I stated above that generating any tree takes a fuck-ton of work, so its absurd to force scientists to craft a new one for each and every study. A rough draft phylogenetic tree (the origional A Posteriori tree you were whinning about us missing) is formed by sorting existing fossils and modern animals by dates and locations, then its exact branching pattern is determined by these above methods.

quote:

---

http://www.indiana.edu/~ensiweb/lessons/cl.mo.tr.pdf
--Correct me if I’m wrong Mark. These monkey trees appear old to me (like when I was a student 20 years ago): Albumin proteins, Carbonic Anhydrase Inhibitors, B-Globin genes, and DNA hybridization
--Nevertheless, what kind of evidence do these homologues imply, should we sail into mutationalistic speculations. I hope not, on scientific grounds.
http://tolweb.org/tree?group=Hominidae&contgroup=Catarrhini
--Relationships and great Gorilla tee-shirts yes, phylogenetic no!
--Because these evidences aren’t evidences at all. Mere homologous relationships alone.

---

Parsimony - if there are great numbers of homologues between organisms, do we infer a lazy designer or an ancestral relationship? As stated above, we go for the latter because the former can never pass any parsimony tests because it involves an nearly ineffable infinite being.

quote:

---

--Respectfully Mark, how circular does this sail-boat have to sail before realizing no distance has been covered? I.e., the evidence being entirely circular.

---

Its not circular, as pointed out above.

quote:

---

--In sum:
1) DROSOPHILAE-LIKE LIMITATIONS on genetic variation. (Respectfully, as a somber podiatrist, using your phylogenetic trees: I think I have more ‘evidence’ of fruit-fly mutants becoming people--do you believe they could? Anyone else, Shraf, Joe, Dr. Taz, Quetzel)
2) Intermediary mutants: delicate pedal interdependent (bio)-complexities (e.g., organ relationships) require multi-tiered fortuitous mutations to prevent extinctionimpossible from a STATISTICS perspective.
3) I already scientifically explained how the bio-complexities of the foot are ‘set-in’ physiologically (and hence biochemically) with innumerable examples above. You change the foot ever so subtly SURGICALLY (i.e., mutational surgery) and the results are always detrimental. This is always confirmed in the APMA literature, Mark. Legally its referred to as Do no harm (i.e., Don’t do it unless its pathological). Mutational/recombinant surgery is no different, always detrimental.

---

1) Answered above in my third text bloc
2 & 3) This is the THIRD time I say this - I refuted this aregument on two fronts on page one of this topic. Refute it or shut up about it. I have yet to see you respond to single point in my previous posts - not one.

quote:

---

--Perhaps a misunderstanding; I apologize for any sinister motives that may have arisen (accidental, non-volitional, please accept that).

---

Very well.

quote:

---

Quetzal: 1. genetic recombination that occurs during gametogenesis through crossing over, randomization during the anaphase of meiosis I, and random selection of gametes during fertilization.

​

2. mutation, which I have repeatedly — including referencing articles from the scientific literature which you have failed to address — stated is the source of novel genetic material
Philip: --OK, you’ve clarified ‘mutation’ as the source of new genetic material in [2.]. But [1.] seems irrelevant to higher taxonomic changes, unless you concede freak meiotic ‘mutations’, i.e., meiotic ‘errors’, deletions, as Daydreamer has crudely alluded. (Daydreamer at least goes unabashedly for the mechanism of: mutations invoking the ‘higher taxonomic changes’.)

---

Evidently I have once again failed to make things clear enough for you. I’m not quite sure how I can simplify it further than I already have, but here goes.Speciation (and in fact evolution in general) is a two-step process. In the first step, variation arises in a population. Variation = some traits or characteristics of an individual organism that reflect a difference between it and all other organisms of the same type within a local population. I’ve given you the two primary direct ways that this variation occurs and re-quoted them above. The other, indirect process is called genetic drift, and is a stochastic process by which the frequency of a particular trait or suite of traits can change within a small population simply through the vagaries and vicissitudes of life. For the purposes of simplifying as far as possible this discussion, I will only consider the first two direct sources of variation.First off, let me clarify the relationship between these two sources of variation. Mutation creates the novel genetic material — the multiple alleles affecting a given characteristic — within the population’s gene pool. I’ve already discussed how major mutations are generally eliminated immediately because their deleterious effects preclude them being passed on. (I’m excluding gene doubling — polyploidy - in plants here, since that’s something of a special case.) Most of the non-lethal mutations are essentially neutral in a particular environment simply because they have no immediate effect on the organism’s development or survival. After all, there’s a second copy of a fully functioning gene around to take up the slack. In this instance (and this is a gross simplification — but apparently you feel that adding too many details or using the correct terminology implies an attempt at deception or fraud), normal (for clarification of yet another misunderstanding, I am not using the term as the antonym of abnormal as you are using it, but rather in the sense of routine, expected, every-day, mundane, etc), recombination during meiosis can throw up homozygous versions of the new genes. BTW: Crossing over is able to (rarely) produce novel sequences all on its own. But novel genetic material is primarily created through mutation. Recombination and the randomizing process of meiosis MAY permit the expression of the novel material. Otherwise it just sort of hitch-hikes its way down the generations, or may possibly be eliminated from the population by chance alone. In addition, polymorphisms can be created when the recessive has an net effect even though recessive (think sickle cell and malaria). Damn, try and reduce population genetics to one syllable words (Daydreamer: I hope this clarifies my statement.)Mirounga angustirostris[/i]) off the Pacific coast had reduced its population to only 20 survivors. Since hunting ended, the population has rebounded from this population bottleneck to some 100,000 animals today. However, these seals are homozygous at every one of the gene loci that have been examined. Cheetahs ( Acinonyx jubatus) seem to have passed through a similar period of small population size with its accompanying genetic drift. They are homozygous at 52 loci — all that have been sequenced to date. The lack of genetic variability is so profound that cheetahs will accept skin grafts from each other just as identical twins (and inbred mouse strains) do. IOW, they’re closer genetically to each other than you are to your immediate family!Anyway, what happens to these variations? The next step in the process is natural selection. Environmental factors (known collectively as selection pressures) act on those varied characteristics that have some impact on the organism’s individual survival. (To forestall yet another misunderstanding, I am using environment in the context of all biotic and abiotic factors that have an influence on the organism in it’s particular ecosystem. These factors include both non-living elements such as terrain, climate, rainfall, etc, and living elements such as other species, food resources, and even members of the organism’s own population). Again, so what? How do these factors change a fly into a hippo (or whatever cartoon strawman you want to use)?In the first place, the selection pressures in the organism’s environment tend to favor the survival of individuals with certain characteristics, primarily by weeding out those individuals who DON’T have those characteristics. (Just like in the old joke where two guys were being chased by a bear. One sees the other putting on tennis shoes and says, Why are you doing that? You can’t outrun a bear. The other responds, I don’t have to outrun the bear — I only have to outrun you.) What does this weeding out imply for overall change in characteristics within a population? It means that eventually you’re going to see a population where certain characteristics — the ones that gave a survival advantage in bear-racing, for instance — are going to come to predominate in the population. IOW, if being eaten by bears is a significant selection pressure, eventually everyone will be wearing tennis shoes, because the folks that didn’t have them have all been eaten — a fairly significant morphological change (I think I’ve dragged that particular metaphor as far as I can take it).Okay, with me so far? We still haven’t gone from moth to mongoose, of course. Next thing we need to consider is exactly what speciation is all about. You appear to be fixated on the idea that some kind of saltational chicken-from-a-lizard’s-egg one-generation change in morphology is what evolutionary biologists are claiming when they discuss speciation. This is not the case. In fact, saltationism has been long-discredited just like inheritance of acquired characteristics. When I use species for the purposes of this discussion, I am using the biological species concept: two (or more) populations of the same organism which have accumulated sufficient phenotypical differences that they no longer interbreed in the wild — even when sharing portions of the same range — are considered distinct species. It doesn’t matter what can be done artificially in a zoo for this definition, okay? Some isolating mechanism exists that precludes interbreeding. Compare the following photos: These photos are of three distinct species of Lake Victoria cichlids. And yes, I’m aware they are all cichlids — bear with me. They all share the same ecosystem — a lake in East Africa. They are, along with their 397+ brothers and sisters, however, distinct species separated by behavior and habitat preference. Note the rather substantial morphological difference in fin, coloration, mouth, etc. These distinct species all originated within the last 12,000 years from a single population of generic river cichlid, through the process I outlined above.This brings me to the last element in the equation: time. It has been shown in both the lab and in the field that divergent populations accumulate genetic changes over time. The longer populations have been isolated — for whatever reason — the more they diverge from the parent stock because the more mutations and random genetic recombinations occur — and are thrown up to the tender mercies of natural selection. Consider these photos: Here you see two species in the same genus, Lepus. The jackrabbit (Lepus townsendii) on the left, and the arctic hare (Lepus arcticus) on the right. Note the highly divergent morphology between two closely related species. These two species were separated about 29 mya (note for people who bother to check: the date corresponds to the date the rather primitive L. arcticus is estimated, via molecular phylogeny, to have speciated off the main Laporidae lineage). Quite a lot of change over time here, yes?You can certainly see that a significant amount of gross morphological variation can be achieved between two species. Of course, they’re still rabbits, right? Let’s take a look at that statement. The creationist quibble is that microevolution can occur within/between species, but that macroevolution is somehow impossible between higher taxa. Just what are higher taxa? Well, under the Linnean classification system that is most commonly used, organisms are organized (in ascending order) into species, genera, families, orders, classes, and phyla. What is a genus (plural genera)? A genus is the name given to a collection of closely related species that share many traits, but are different in others, like our two hares — both are members of the genus Lepus. A family is the name given to a group of closely related genera, in this case Leporidae, a family that includes all the genera of rabbits, as well as all the OTHER genera of hares. An order, in this case Lagomorpha, is the name given to a collection of families, which for our hares includes not only the families of rabbits and hares, but also the pika (Ochotonidae). A class is a much larger grouping of orders that includes all organisms that share some trait — in this case our hares belong to the Class Mammalia, because they have fur/hair, are warm-blooded, etc. Mammals, of course, belong to the Phylum Vertebrata, because every organism in that phylum has a bony spinal chord — roughly the same structure in every case.So what’s all this classification stuff mean? It means that no matter how far up the taxonomic ladder you go, all you’re really talking about is a way to organize and list ever larger-groups of related organisms — and each higher taxa is simply a way to show the relationships between ever more species. In other words, ANY MECHANISM, SUCH AS NATURAL SELECTION, THAT OPERATES AT THE SPECIES OR POPULATION LEVEL WILL BY DEFINITION OPERATE AT EVERY HIGHER TAXONOMIC LEVEL BECAUSE THEY ARE NOTHING MORE THAN GROUPS OF SPECIES. There is no such thing as macroevolution or evolution of higher taxa — because all evolutionary mechanisms operate at the individual or species/population level, and all the higher taxa are are names — ways of organizing our perceptions of the relationships between species. Period. They have no intrinsic existence except as a way of organizing relationships. The higher up the taxonomic ladder you go, the larger the number and the more distantly-related are the organisms included in the classification.If all of the above is true, what would be the evidence — what would we observe that could lend credence to the idea that evolution has created the incredible diversity of life we see around us? To get that evidence, we have to look at history — the history of life as written in the fossil record. We should see that in the lowest and presumably oldest rocks we can find the fossils are limited to relatively simple forms. We should see an increasing progression toward relatively more complex organisms as we proceed upward through the rock layers. We should see gross morphological changes occurring in isolated populations of obviously (and not so obviously) related organisms over time — like our two hares (I’m not talking begats, rather referring to the overall pattern). We should see the flowering and disappearance of particular groups of organisms at different times. And we should see that modern complex organisms will not appear in the same rocks as the simpler, less complex organisms (no giraffes in the pre-Cambrian). Oddly enough, this is precisely what is seen.In closing, therefore, since speciation does occur, since gross morphological change can be observed, and since there is no intrinsic reason why one species cannot, over time through the simple processes of mutation, recombination, and natural selection, diverge sufficiently from another species that we are justified in naming it as fitting into a different genus, family, order, etc, the standard creationist quibbles are rendered pretty much empty rhetoric.Philip: I hope I have been clear enough in this post that you will not find yourself misrepresenting what I’ve said. I think, for me, this conversation is pretty much over unless you can come up with specific, empirical, evidence-based refutations of what I have written.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Philip:

​

Despite your repeated assertions that evolution on the macro scale is impossible, the evidence contradicts you.

​

--What oversimplified ‘evidence’ contradicts ID. Embryology recapitulating phylogeny? New phylogenetic trees (same as the old)? Evolution proves evolution? Molecular vs. solar clocks? What evidence contradicts ID and/or the impossibility of humans evolving from fruit flies?

---

I never said there was oversimplified evidence that contradicted ID, just that there was evidence of macroevolution that contradicted your own position.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Philip:

More & more phylogenetic analysis, using different data sets, are repeatedly producing highly congruent trees. These trees show relationships that sail right through your objections, above & beyond family level.

​

--Phylogenetic trees are grossly oversimplified Mark, using apriori phylogenetic constructs, remember? You will need 100’s of thousands of such trees before they even approach a valid high-level taxonomic mutational hypothesis. Why? Because the tiny segments of data are way over-simplified/generalized and correlation does not equal causation (anymore than embryology recapitulates phylogeny).

​

---

You do not need hundreds of thousands of such trees to infer reliable phylogenies, the more the better, sure, but a handful will do in most cases to get a good consensus tree. The odds alone of gaining congruent trees makes this possible. For example, there are 34,459,425 possible inferred trees for 11 taxa. The odds of getting 2 identical trees from different genetic data is therefore 34,459,425^2 = 1,187,451,971,330,625:1. Unless you're in the business of waving away such odds, they are saying something, & saying it loud. Now, identical phylogenies are rarely inferred, but congruent ones are the norm, still representing millions to one odds. I’ll be generous & half the multiplier from the above example, (34,459,425/2)^2 = 296,862,992,832,656.25:1 . Note, the trees are usually highly congruent, the above example is for an 11 taxa tree that is only 50% congruent, & the odds are still staggering. If you add another 50% congruent tree in, you get, 5,114,864,018,396,227,798,828.125:1 chance that the three phylogenies are only 50% congruent by chance. But the trees shouldn’t even be 50%, should they? The more you add in, the more confidence we can have with the results. We reasonably conclude there is something more than chance that is responsible for genetically derived phylogenies, namely common descent. If this is true, then the human foot evolved. Take another look at those odds.These odds increase astronomically with the number of sample organisms. There are 8,200,794,532,637,891,559,374 possible trees for 20 organisms, for example. You can do the math if you want to! MESSAGE: The odds of getting multiple congruent phylogenetic trees by chance is astronomical. As a result, the overall confidence in the conclusions overall are extremely high.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Philip:

--Retrovirus and provirus substitutions in apes, humans, chimps, and OWMs(?#!) proving microbiological time-stamps on homologues thereby confirming (apriori) ANCIENT phylogeny?! The researchers themselves admit conformance to an (apriori) PHYLOGENETIC STANDARD. Based on what, the fossil record#?! Evolution?. Circular reasoning? Respectfully, these trees have been indiscriminately tossed around, already.
--Do mega-mutations really ‘sail’ here, Mark? Furthermore, the unique markers (HERVs) are unconvincing (apriori) time clocks and need more validity.

---

Genetically based phylogenies can be inferred because..1/ Genetic material is heritable.
2/ Genetic material is mutable.
3/ Therefore phylogenetic analysis can be conducted on genetic material to infer phylogenies.
4/ Phylogenetic analysis is basically a mathematical procedure, & can & has been tested on known phylogenies such as bacteriophage T7 (Hillis et al 1992).We can now go on to test evolutionary theory by attempting to infer phylogenies between taxa. If there is no relationship, there will be no sensible, consistent phylogeny inferred. If there is a relationship, as evolution predicts, then we should be a pattern of relationships emerge. We see relationships.No circular reasoning as far as I can see.Saying these trees have been indiscriminately tossed around is just waving away evidence.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Philip:

​

http://www.indiana.edu/~ensiweb/lessons/cl.mo.tr.pdf
--Correct me if I’m wrong Mark. These monkey trees appear old to me (like when I was a student 20 years ago): Albumin proteins, Carbonic Anhydrase Inhibitors, B-Globin genes, and DNA hybridization
--Nevertheless, what kind of evidence do these homologues imply, should we sail into mutationalistic speculations. I hope not, on scientific grounds.

---

So what if they’re old? You want me to find some new ones too? These are peer reviewed scientific works.The evidence that these homologues imply (along with others), is that humans, apes & monkeys are related. Pretty obviously.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Philip:

http://tolweb.org/tree?group=Hominidae&contgroup=Catarrhini
--Relationships and great Gorilla tee-shirts yes, phylogenetic no!

---

What? Please read the references.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Philip:

--Respectfully Mark, how circular does this sail-boat have to sail before realizing no distance has been covered? I.e., the evidence being entirely circular.

---

See above.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Philip:

In short, do you have any scientific evidence that says that an arboreal monkey type foot couldn’t evolve into a human foot?

​

--In sum:

​

1) DROSOPHILAE-LIKE LIMITATIONS on genetic variation. (Respectfully, as a somber podiatrist, using your phylogenetic trees: I think I have more ‘evidence’ of fruit-fly mutants becoming people--do you believe they could? Anyone else, Shraf, Joe, Dr. Taz, Quetzel)

​

2) Intermediary mutants: delicate pedal interdependent (bio)-complexities (e.g., organ relationships) require multi-tiered fortuitous mutations to prevent extinctionimpossible from a STATISTICS perspective.
3) I already scientifically explained how the bio-complexities of the foot are ‘set-in’ physiologically (and hence biochemically) with innumerable examples above. You change the foot ever so subtly SURGICALLY (i.e., mutational surgery) and the results are always detrimental. This is always confirmed in the APMA literature, Mark. Legally its referred to as Do no harm (i.e., Don’t do it unless its pathological). Mutational/recombinant surgery is no different, always detrimental.

​

​

[This message has been edited by Philip, 06-04-2002]

---

1/ Reference for the Drosophila limitations please.Please present your evidence for fruit flies becoming people, you did say you had it!.. That has confidence margins greater than millions to one.And no, I don’t believe they could, humans & Drosophila occupy very different adaptive peaks, & would require loss of fitness to jump between them.2/ Phylogenetic evidence shows that "interdependent biocomplexities" must have occurred.3/ This is true unless the foot is less fit than the environment allows, in which case there are potential improvements.I repeat, do you have any scientific evidence that says that an arboreal monkey type foot couldn’t evolve into a human foot? When I say scientific evidence, I mean from scientific, peer reviewed papers/research, that conclude mutation can’t be responsible for large scale differences of chemistry & morphology, which after all, is the bone of contention. Not something plucked out of somewhere that you think supports your argument.Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

quote:

---

By Daydreamer
Before I get started, A Priori should be two words and capitalized. Also, your use of the word gets slightly muddled - you might consider touching up on your Philosophy of Science.

---

--Thanks, I’m always learning. (Note your own numerous typos below, too, please I use the Spell-Checker in Word)
--Now please forgive my glossing over some items (or I’ll shut-up) due to time constraints and the ‘sea’ of evolutionists who seem to deserve response time. I’ve used the same hard time as you have Daydreamer, so forgive me if I seem to over-selectively respond (i.e., with ‘hand-wavings’), etc.

quote:

---

By Daydreamer
we can form trees of all mammalian (and with some modification, other major taxa as well) development based on differences in protein gradients in zygotes of different species, and changes to which trascription inhibitors/promoters they effect

---

--Agreed, we have all ethical, constitutional, and ‘scientific’ right to make such hypothetical trees in the science of origins.

quote:

---

By Daydreamer
Modern species do NOT, under ANY circumstances, EVER evolve from other modern species - they evolve down separate lineages from a common ancestor.

---

--Agreed (Do the rest of you agree to this ABSOLUTE, Mark, Quetzel, Shraf, Dr. Taz, others? It would help me to know, especially on this thread: Has Human (macro-) Evolution Stopped?)

quote:

---

By Daydreamer
(Philip)--Phylogenetic trees are grossly oversimplified Mark, using apriori phylogenetic constructs, remember? You will need 100’s of thousands of such trees before they even approach a valid high-level taxonomic mutational hypothesis. Why? Because the tiny segments of data are way over-simplified/generalized and correlation does not equal causation (anymore than embryology recapitulates phylogeny).

---

quote:

---

By Daydreamer
Yes they are over simplified, but its the best we are capable of - take the Berkley search for Mitochondrial Eve, for example. A sample of just a 135 women is enough to form 2.7 x 10^230 power trees without making any but a basic factorial tree. Its a matter of parsimony - a question of whether phylogenetic evolutionary trees or creationism are more likely.

---

--I appreciate your explanation and apologetic for science.
--(I hope Mark doesn’t take offense to your responding my refutation that was addressed to him.)
--That matter of PARSIMONY — (see below)

quote:

---

By Daydreamer
Because requiring any sort of designer requires they be calculated into this measurement of parsimony, and the god descripbed by Christian IDers in infinite in a number of different aspects, it fails the competition with inglorious indignation.
quote:

---

--Respectfully, DD, this is incoherent and Brad-like.

quote:

---

By Daydreamer
Its called not reinventing the wheel. I stated above that generating any tree takes a fuck-ton of work, so its absurd to force scientists to craft a new one for each and every study.

---

--OK, I feel your pain (respectfully). (Hopefully, my tax dollars aren’t funding their research grants. Who’s pumping these poor wretches with not-enough research cash, anyway? Sorry, United Way, all my charity goes to Haiti, direct.)
--DD, can’t we refute each other without sermonizing? I strongly respect your zeal for science; you’ve done me no wrong. I hope we can continue. I’ve bitten the dust on this forum innumerable times.

quote:

---

By Daydreamer
A rough draft phylogenetic tree (the origional A Posteriori tree you were whinning about us missing) is formed by sorting existing fossils and modern animals by dates and locations, then its exact branching pattern is determined by these above methods.
quote:

---

--I regret that it’s A Posteriori, as you nobly concede; the dates especially. You’ve wiped away my tears in this matter, DD.

quote:

---

By Daydreamer
Parsimony - if there are great numbers of homologues between organisms, do we infer a lazy designer or an ancestral relationship? As stated above, we go for the latter because the former can never pass any parsimony tests because it involves an nearly ineffable infinite being.

---

--This matter of PARSIMONY -- the principle of endorsing the simplest explanation that covers a case — I concede, may be appealed to, as it seems rooted in all of science. But all to often the concept is an appeal to common sense -- that common stupidity that perpetrates much of our discussions. Understandable Well-taken.
--But your ‘LAZY DESIGNER’ motif needs elaboration (as does the grammar). I’d be interested to attempt discussing a supposed ‘lazy designer’ who allows his creation to go awry in decay, devolution, degeneration, randomness, and the like, and how that would/would not invalidate ID (and the nature thereof).
--A NEARLY INEFFABLE INFINITE BEING, I admit, is extremely difficult, scientifically. Few YEC’s elaborate(d) on it, to the extent that I have here (i.e., See the thread, the nature of the ID necessarily a Christian one?). I tried to anticipate the ‘indescribable Being’ by working up a hypothetical description based on numerous observed events, especially, it’s creation-cursed-restorative nature), but only Quetzel was so kind to take the time to comment on it. Percy and the other evo’s hand-waved it, called it (essentially) ‘Brad-like’, religious, etc.
--But the test of parsimony needs elaboration, right now it appears fraudulently oversimplified.
(I’d discuss it more with anyone here, how that ‘the Adamic curse’/’restoration’ is really more parsimonious then evo-trees)

quote:

---

By Daydreamer
[Philip states]--In sum:
1) DROSOPHILAE-LIKE LIMITATIONS on genetic variation. (Respectfully, as a somber podiatrist, using your phylogenetic trees: I think I have more ‘evidence’ of fruit-fly mutants becoming people--do you believe they could? Anyone else, Shraf, Joe, Dr. Taz, Quetzel)
2) Intermediary mutants: delicate pedal interdependent (bio)-complexities (e.g., organ relationships) require multi-tiered fortuitous mutations to prevent extinctionimpossible from a STATISTICS perspective.
3) I already scientifically explained how the bio-complexities of the foot are ‘set-in’ physiologically (and hence biochemically) with innumerable examples above. You change the foot ever so subtly SURGICALLY (i.e., mutational surgery) and the results are always detrimental. This is always confirmed in the APMA literature, Mark. Legally its referred to as Do no harm (i.e., Don’t do it unless its pathological). Mutational/recombinant surgery is no different, always detrimental.

​

[DD responds]--
1) Answered above in my third text bloc
2 & 3) This is the THIRD time I say this - I refuted this aregument on two fronts on page one of this topic. Refute it or shut up about it. I have yet to see you respond to single point in my previous posts - not one.

---

--Do you have me confused with someone else? I just met you, DD. (You’ve done me no wrong.)
--Again, as I apologized to others, so I to you. Albeit, remember, this response is addressed primarily to Mark. Mark should be the one telling me to shut-up, albeit, in more convincing terms.
--Note: I appreciate your frustration and taking valuable time, evo-brethren, please accept profuse apologizes for any untoward responses, scientific or otherwise. Please don’t banish me forever on the ‘ignore’ list(s).

Human evolution has not stopped, because it never started.Simple, evolution is false trash, even Charles Darwin admitted it... and those who are not ignorant recognize the truth which is easy to understand.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Creationist:
Human evolution has not stopped, because it never started.

​

Simple, evolution is false trash

---

Care to provide any arguments for this? Or are you just trying to prostelyze us?

quote:

---

even Charles Darwin admitted it

---

Back this up. If this is another rehash of the Lady Hope Hoax I will quite gleefully rip you a new one. Darwin's last few works make it explicitly clear he was born a Christian and died an Agnostic (this was before the term was coined, however, so the term itself is never used).

quote:

---

... and those who are not ignorant recognize the truth which is easy to understand.

---

Put up some arguments supporting your position or I will ignore your rambling.

quote:

---

--I appreciate your explanation and apologetic for science.
--(I hope Mark doesn’t take offense to your responding my refutation that was addressed to him.)

---

Apologetic is misleading, since its colloquial meaning is along the lines of an 'excuse'. I merely pointed out the logistic impossibility of what you demand, and that the science was not as weak as you imagined, though I think Mark's statement on the impossibilty of getting near identical phylogenetic trees made the point more clear than I did.

quote:

---

--OK, I feel your pain (respectfully). (Hopefully, my tax dollars aren’t funding their research grants. Who’s pumping these poor wretches with not-enough research cash, anyway? Sorry, United Way, all my charity goes to Haiti, direct.)
--DD, can’t we refute each other without sermonizing? I strongly respect your zeal for science; you’ve done me no wrong. I hope we can continue. I’ve bitten the dust on this forum innumerable times.

---

I apologize if I sound zealous, the history of how much science, a glorified guess and check method, has revolutionized our view of the universe in just under four hundred years has biased my views a little .

quote:

---

--I regret that it’s A Posteriori, as you nobly concede; the dates especially. You’ve wiped away my tears in this matter, DD.

---

Wha? I'm confused as to what you want: Do you want an A Priori or A Posteriori tree form us? Which would you consider more valid scientifically? Why?

quote:

---

--This matter of PARSIMONY -- the principle of endorsing the simplest explanation that covers a case — I concede, may be appealed to, as it seems rooted in all of science. But all to often the concept is an appeal to common sense -- that common stupidity that perpetrates much of our discussions. Understandable Well-taken.
--But your ‘LAZY DESIGNER’ motif needs elaboration (as does the grammar). I’d be interested to attempt discussing a supposed ‘lazy designer’ who allows his creation to go awry in decay, devolution, degeneration, randomness, and the like, and how that would/would not invalidate ID (and the nature thereof).
--A NEARLY INEFFABLE INFINITE BEING, I admit, is extremely difficult, scientifically. Few YEC’s elaborate(d) on it, to the extent that I have here (i.e., See the thread, the nature of the ID necessarily a Christian one?). I tried to anticipate the ‘indescribable Being’ by working up a hypothetical description based on numerous observed events, especially, it’s creation-cursed-restorative nature), but only Quetzel was so kind to take the time to comment on it. Percy and the other evo’s hand-waved it, called it (essentially) ‘Brad-like’, religious, etc.
--But the test of parsimony needs elaboration, right now it appears fraudulently oversimplified.
(I’d discuss it more with anyone here, how that ‘the Adamic curse’/’restoration’ is really more parsimonious then evo-trees)

---

Interesting argument. I'll reseach the philosophy behind parsimony and see if I can find a coherent answer to your challenge.

quote:

---

--Do you have me confused with someone else? I just met you, DD. (You’ve done me no wrong.)

---

I was mistaken - it was page 2. It was however, still you.You posted a clear version of this in this thread, message 18, to which I responded with message 19. Your response to my post 19, arguing the impossibility of such change, was responded to with my message 29, wherein I argued for Object Oriented development of organisms, and the the power of the Heritability factor. It is these points that I see as refuting your points here, and hope to see addressed.

quote:

---

--Again, as I apologized to others, so I to you. Albeit, remember, this response is addressed primarily to Mark. Mark should be the one telling me to shut-up, albeit, in more convincing terms.
--Note: I appreciate your frustration and taking valuable time, evo-brethren, please accept profuse apologizes for any untoward responses, scientific or otherwise. Please don’t banish me forever on the ‘ignore’ list(s).

---

Lol, we may have gotten off to a rocky start, but I think we can work through it. Though our weapons are words and ideas, not swords, I look forward to the day we meet in battle.