Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 76 (8908 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 05-21-2019 1:25 PM
35 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WeloTemo
Post Volume:
Total: 851,726 Year: 6,763/19,786 Month: 1,304/1,581 Week: 126/393 Day: 59/50 Hour: 11/11


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
...
56
7
8910Next
Author Topic:   questions evolutionists can't or won't answer
Fedmahn Kassad
Inactive Member


Message 91 of 141 (14735)
08-02-2002 9:58 AM
Reply to: Message 89 by derwood
08-01-2002 3:44 PM


That was a good article, but you know that the incompetent will read it and think it doesn't apply to them.

FK


This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by derwood, posted 08-01-2002 3:44 PM derwood has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by derwood, posted 08-02-2002 2:48 PM Fedmahn Kassad has not yet responded

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 92 of 141 (14754)
08-02-2002 2:37 PM
Reply to: Message 80 by John
07-31-2002 7:58 PM


"No it isn't; but accurate."
--Accurate by your view of the Creationist, obviously, this is not a universal definition of acceptance when using the context of his 'creationist humor'. I don't think that way. Besides, the vocab is incorrect in that he is not pointing out the Creationist but the YEC, extremely different concepts.

"It must be nice to be able to dismiss the evidence with a magic wand."
--No, I didn't nor did I attempt to dismiss this segment of evidence. My point was that speciation happening today, is not the same as speciation millions of years ago, in that it was not observed.

"You're joking. The ark, had it ever existed, wouldn't have been big enough to hold two of all of the currently living critters, much less all of the extinct ones."
--I know your headed for the 'define a kind' paradigm because you want exact numbers. But either way, a dinosaur would have been no more of a problem size-wize than many of the other larger animals.

"I've read it. Didn't see no dinosaurs."
--Behemoth, leviathan and another one somewhere in Job. I don't think that thousands of years ago the term 'dinosaur' was available for use.

"Don't know your comparative mythology do ya?"
--No I do, I've been given more than plenty time-lines for various ancient cultures. However I have found the older dates given to be flexible in the line of acceptence for archaeologists. Even in that, I have seen very very little direct data for the dating of these old ages, this is what would rightly be called for here.

"But all you have for evidence is a book of fairy-tales."
--I don't use the bible as my evidence, never have. In my perspective, there should be no evidence of a 'first human'.

"You mean up where you dismiss the evidence?"
--Nope, I just don't do that John.

"Sounds like you just admitted to abiogenesis? Life is just chemistry."
--I just 'admitted to abiogenesis' is much too vague for me. I simply made the assertion that with the fact that biological processes are chemistry, we should be able to make them in the lab if we figure out how to pinpoint the correct series of steps.

"Welcome back TC."
--Thank ya

-------------------


This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by John, posted 07-31-2002 7:58 PM John has not yet responded

  
derwood
Member (Idle past 13 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 93 of 141 (14756)
08-02-2002 2:48 PM
Reply to: Message 91 by Fedmahn Kassad
08-02-2002 9:58 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Fedmahn Kassad:
That was a good article, but you know that the incompetent will read it and think it doesn't apply to them.

FK


Oh, I know. I used to present it on a regular basis on the old OCW board, primarily for the benefit of Fred Williams. In the usual fashion, he ignored it...


This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by Fedmahn Kassad, posted 08-02-2002 9:58 AM Fedmahn Kassad has not yet responded

    
derwood
Member (Idle past 13 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 94 of 141 (15093)
08-09-2002 12:09 PM


Well, Joe's 48 suspension is up. I am still wondering what it was he thought he fed me my lunch on at the Baptist Board. I suspect that since he caanot simply say what it was that he, like all creationists do at some point, declaring victory in the hopes that he can score points with those even less knowledgible. And, of course, make himself feel better.
Replies to this message:
 Message 95 by Admin, posted 08-09-2002 2:31 PM derwood has responded

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


Message 95 of 141 (15104)
08-09-2002 2:31 PM
Reply to: Message 94 by derwood
08-09-2002 12:09 PM


SLPx writes:

Well, Joe's 48 suspension is up. I am still wondering what it was he thought he fed me my lunch on at the Baptist Board. I suspect that since he caanot simply say what it was that he, like all creationists do at some point, declaring victory in the hopes that he can score points with those even less knowledgeable. And, of course, make himself feel better.

This could easily be misinterpreted as baiting or taunting. Board administration has exchanged emails with John Paul, and he has expressed a desire to follow the guidelines. Please afford him every opportunity to do so by generously interpreting his earlier comments as well-intentioned but misexpressed.

------------------

--EvC Forum Administrator


This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by derwood, posted 08-09-2002 12:09 PM derwood has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by derwood, posted 08-10-2002 12:56 PM Admin has not yet responded
 Message 98 by John Paul, posted 08-12-2002 3:22 PM Admin has not yet responded

    
derwood
Member (Idle past 13 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 96 of 141 (15156)
08-10-2002 12:56 PM
Reply to: Message 95 by Admin
08-09-2002 2:31 PM


No taunts intended, rather, just a documentable observation. It is true that Joe has repeatedly claimed to have "handed me my lunch" or something similar in the previously linked Baptist Board threads. It is also true that I have repeatedly asked him to explain/point out what is was that he supposedly did this on. Ity is also true that in response to each request, if not ignored, he has simply reiterated his claims.

A rational logical conclusion is that he is simply posturing.

Reading the threads in question, the only point that I concede to Joe Gallien is the issue of insects having 'femurs'. That issue, as any reader caqn see by reading the threads, is completely irrelevant to the issue we had been discussing (whether or not whales have vestigial limbs). Of relevance is the fact that Joe Gallien simply blew off important issues, such as the fact that whale embryos have hind limb buds by saying that he was referring to adult whales. There are similar examples in the threads in question.

Again, it was not my intent to sound taunting, just an expression of my observations.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by Admin, posted 08-09-2002 2:31 PM Admin has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by John Paul, posted 08-12-2002 3:13 PM derwood has responded

    
John Paul
Inactive Member


Message 97 of 141 (15303)
08-12-2002 3:13 PM
Reply to: Message 96 by derwood
08-10-2002 12:56 PM


Look Scotty, even if I did take the time to splain it to ya you still wouldn't understand.

The femur fiasco was just one little tidbit. Then you ranted about doubting a femur being a limb or appendage when the link YOU provided stated that.

scotty:
Please provide the documentation that DNA is or appears to be directly related to morphology.

John Paul:
LOL! The theory of evolution tells us that or do you think our morphology is similar to the alleged starting population(s)? The ToE tells us that changes in the genome (DNA) led to the changes in the organism that led to the diversity we observe. If DNA isnít responsible for those changes the ToE needs to be rewritten.

Scott Page:
Previously, you dealt only with issues surrounding abiogenesis.

John Paul:
That is a lie. As had been pointed out to you earlier.

Scott Page:
Abiogenesis is not the 'grand sweep' of evolution, so please explain.

John Paul:
Nothing to explain as I never said abiogenesis is part of the grand sweep of evolution.

Phylogenic analysis has been offered (by Scotty) as an objective method to test descent with modification (as in chimps & humans having a common ancestor being a branch (or part of a branch) that diverges on the evolutionary bush-like tree of life). In that light the following two questions were asked:

1. Do you believe that mutations are heritable?
2. Do you believe that the patterns of such heritable mutations can be used to infer relatedness?

1) Is tricky. Yes mutations are heritable. Neutral, harmful and beneficial, mutations can be passed on. However in sexual reproduction they donít always get passed on. Iím not as tall as my grandfather was, but I am taller than my parents (were). My father was color-blind, I am not, nor are my sisters and brothers, but I have a nephew that canít see green (not the Special Agent). However his brotherís vision is OK.

In humans this is evident- not every organism that is born gets a chance to mate and not every mating couple can conceive. No mating or conception no chance of passing on of the DNA. Take an organism born with a beneficial mutation that its parents didnít have, nor do its siblings. Not only does this organism have to live long enough to reproduce, it has to do so successfully in order just to have a chance of that beneficial mutation being passed on, never mind becoming fixed. Another factor would be having a genetically impaired mate such that any combination would give you offspring less functional than the better parent is (was). You know, basic Punnett Square stuff and Mendelian genetics.

That said, if adaptive mutations were the norm (Dr. Lee Spetner), they would become more readably fixed because they would occur population wide due to the organismsí DNA reacting directly to environmental pressure(s). However adaptive mutations, unless applied to cleverly written evolutionary algorithm acting with an incrementally sequenced genetic algorithm, couldnít account for the grand sweep of the theory of evolution.

What we would have to determine is what was it about the alleged shared mutations that allowed them to be fixed in the populations? IOW why were they selected for (kept in the population) over this alleged span of time (5+ millions years)?

2) I donít think that every person with sickle-cell anemia is related to the first person that got the mutation that caused that disease and was able to pass it on. (Sickle-cell anemia is caused by a point mutation in a specific locus- a substitution of a T for an A in the codon for the sixth amino acid of the beta chain in the human hemoglobin protein. That mutation changes a glutamic acid to a valine.) Is everyone with Downs syndrome related? The same goes for all genetic diseases. Do you think that every person with the same genetic disease is related to each other? That DNA gets passed on to the offspring doesnít mean chimps and humans share a common ancestor.
As I previously stated ďAs for apparent similar mutations, again given that we have a restricted selection of possibilities for change to occur, it could be more of a coincidence than it is coinciding.Ē I would like to change that to most likely be more of a coincidenceÖ

Mutations occurring and getting passed on is just part of the problem. And a mutation getting fixed in a population is another. What the theory of evolution requires is for mutations to accumulate in such a way as to eventually give rise to new structures and organs (assuming of course the alleged starting population(s) didnít have arms, legs, a spine or a brain). Is there even a way to test if that premise is feasible?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by derwood, posted 08-10-2002 12:56 PM derwood has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 99 by derwood, posted 08-12-2002 5:59 PM John Paul has responded
 Message 101 by mark24, posted 08-12-2002 9:03 PM John Paul has not yet responded
 Message 107 by Peter, posted 08-20-2002 5:53 AM John Paul has not yet responded

  
John Paul
Inactive Member


Message 98 of 141 (15304)
08-12-2002 3:22 PM
Reply to: Message 95 by Admin
08-09-2002 2:31 PM


It's OK. I feel as taunted & baited as the New England Patriots must have felt before the last Super Bowl.

The reality is I don't have time to respond to nonsense so, for the most part, I just let it slide.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by Admin, posted 08-09-2002 2:31 PM Admin has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 100 by derwood, posted 08-12-2002 6:05 PM John Paul has not yet responded

  
derwood
Member (Idle past 13 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 99 of 141 (15309)
08-12-2002 5:59 PM
Reply to: Message 97 by John Paul
08-12-2002 3:13 PM


quote:
Originally posted by John Paul:
Look Scotty, even if I did take the time to splain it to ya you still wouldn't understand.

That is untrue, Joey, and I take this as yet another ad hominem.

quote:

The femur fiasco was just one little tidbit. Then you ranted about doubting a femur being a limb or appendage when the link YOU provided stated that.

Lie. Here are all of the links that I provided in the thread in question :

Re: baraminology (no mention of femurs at all)

Page on whales. Says: "Rodhocetus had well-developed hind limbs (although only the thighbone, or femur, has been preserved)..."

Two links to pictures of guenons - nothing about femurs at all.

A link to a DNA alignment - obviously nothing on femurs.

An interesting and pertinent link that you tried to blow off. . But again, nothing equating femurs to limbs.

That is all. Please demonstrate that I provided a link in which it is claimed that femurs are also appendages unto themselves.

In reality, it was YOU that provided (via your beloved encyclopedia) a general definition of femur that stated what you claim above:

"FEMUR: limb or appendage of an animal..."

It seems that you cannot even support your own claims without resorting to projection.

quote:

scotty:
Please provide the documentation that DNA is or appears to be directly related to morphology.

John Paul:
LOL! The theory of evolution tells us that or do you think our morphology is similar to the alleged starting population(s)? The ToE tells us that changes in the genome (DNA) led to the changes in the organism that led to the diversity we observe. If DNA isnít responsible for those changes the ToE needs to be rewritten.


Why are you laughing? There is no reason to do so. Is this another alleged example of you feeding me my lunch? Your first sentence makes no sense whatsoever.
Additionally, I have also responded to this repeated goof in this thread:


You can copy my writing style all you want to, and you will still be incorrect. The theory of evolution tells us that creatures with similar morphology will have similar DNA sequences throughout their genomes? Please tell me where I can read this for myself. The DNA that controls of influences morphology will obviously ďbe related toĒ morphology, but there is no rationale to assume that creatures with similar morphology would have similar synapomorphic changes in their genes that encode proteins having nothing to do with morphology. It Is not the ToE that needs to be rewritten, it is the creationistís understanding of it that needs improvement.

The reason I had asked that in the first place is that creationists attempt to minimize phylogenetic studies by claiming that because humans and chimps, for instance, look sort of alike, their DNA should be alike. But that says nothing of the patterns of shared mutations, nor the fact that, to date, no genes direclty influencing morphology have been identified much less sequenced and compared.

quote:

Scott Page:
Previously, you dealt only with issues surrounding abiogenesis.

John Paul:
That is a lie. As had been pointed out to you earlier.


It is no lie at all. Please re-read your opening post:


Here is a challenge to evolutionists: Please answer all the questions below to the best of your ability.
Could provide us with the evidence that life could originate from non-life via purely natural processes?

(HINT: there isnít any:

http://www.panspermia.org/rnaworld.htm )

How could that be objectively tested and falsified?

What are the alternatives if life could not have originated via purely natural processes?

Why are those alternatives un-scientific?

If abiogenesis and evolution are separate why does one theory begin where the other ends? (abiogenesis ends with the formation of progenotes and that is where the theory of evolution begins)

How could we objectively test and falsify the hypothesis that progenotes evolved into procaryotes?*

How could we objectively test the hypothesis that eucaryotes evolved via procaryotic endosymbiosis?*

How could we objectively test and falsify the hypothesis that true multi-cellularity evolved from colonies of single-celled organisms (i.e. the Volvox)?*

Or for that matter how could we objectively test and falsify the hypothesis that the eye could evolve?
...
Bottom line is the Theory of Evolution is a philosophy and should be discussed in that venue. That is until it can be objectively tested.


I will ignore for now the fact that you have yet to provide a single objective test for any aspect of creationism or Design, but the fact remains that your primary thrust has been your personal disbelief in abiogenesis. Your 'follow-up' questions all derive from your first. Indeed, your 'disclaimer':

"If abiogenesis and evolution are separate why does one theory begin where the other ends? (abiogenesis ends with the formation of progenotes and that is where the theory of evolution begins)."

says it all. If, you ask. Your assumption is clear - you think that they are not. Therefore, you deal primarily with abiogensis.
There is no reason to deal with your laughable attempts to blow-off things like the fossil record with your amazing scientific insights...

quote:

Scott Page:
Abiogenesis is not the 'grand sweep' of evolution, so please explain.

John Paul:
Nothing to explain as I never said abiogenesis is part of the grand sweep of evolution.


"Here is a challenge to evolutionists: Please answer all the questions below to the best of your ability.
Could provide us with the evidence that life could originate from non-life via purely natural processes?

(HINT: there isnít any:

http://www.panspermia.org/rnaworld.htm )

How could that be objectively tested and falsified?

What are the alternatives if life could not have originated via purely natural processes?

Why are those alternatives un-scientific?

If abiogenesis and evolution are separate why does one theory begin where the other ends? (abiogenesis ends with the formation of progenotes and that is where the theory of evolution begins)"

Emphases mine.

quote:

Phylogenic analysis has been offered (by Scotty) as an objective method to test descent with modification (as in chimps & humans having a common ancestor being a branch (or part of a branch) that diverges on the evolutionary bush-like tree of life). In that light the following two questions were asked:

1. Do you believe that mutations are heritable?
2. Do you believe that the patterns of such heritable mutations can be used to infer relatedness?

1) Is tricky. Yes mutations are heritable. Neutral, harmful and beneficial, mutations can be passed on. However in sexual reproduction they donít always get passed on. Iím not as tall as my grandfather was, but I am taller than my parents (were). My father was color-blind, I am not, nor are my sisters and brothers, but I have a nephew that canít see green (not the Special Agent)[sic]. However his brotherís vision is OK.


Irrelevant red herrings. Molecular phylogenetics is, and this should be pretty obvious, not interested in the slightest about mutations that are NOT passed on. How, pray tell, would a molecular analysis be able to assess mutations that were not passed on? Surely, you must know, as you are trying to make an issue out of it. Or is this just another example of what happens when someone tries to make confident statements in areas that they know nothing of?

quote:

In humans this is evident- not every organism that is born gets a chance to mate and not every mating couple can conceive. No mating or conception no chance of passing on of the DNA. Take an organism born with a beneficial mutation that its parents didnít have, nor do its siblings. Not only does this organism have to live long enough to reproduce, it has to do so successfully in order just to have a chance of that beneficial mutation being passed on, never mind becoming fixed. Another factor would be having a genetically impaired mate such that any combination would give you offspring less functional than the better parent is (was). You know, basic Punnett Square stuff and Mendelian genetics.

I'm sorry - does this have ANYTHING to do at all with molecular phylogenetics and heritable mutations? This has become something of your calling card - write volumiunous minutiae on tangential topics in the hopes that .... someone.. might be impressed. It is a tactic. What you are writing is completely irrelevant.

quote:

That said, if adaptive mutations were the norm (Dr. Lee Spetner), they would become more readably fixed because they would occur population wide due to the organismsí DNA reacting directly to environmental pressure(s). However adaptive mutations, unless applied to cleverly written evolutionary algorithm acting with an incrementally sequenced genetic algorithm, couldnít account for the grand sweep of the theory of evolution.

More irrelevance, with a ref to the evidence-less prince of purposelessness Spetner thrown in for good measure....
I'm getting hungry - where is that lunch, boy?

quote:

What we would have to determine is what was it about the alleged shared mutations that allowed them to be fixed in the populations? IOW why were they selected for (kept in the population) over this alleged span of time (5+ millions years)?

No, that is not even relevant. Why are you trying to conflate so many disparate ideas?
The question that you want us to believe that you are actually responding to:

"1. Do you believe that mutations are heritable?"

Your real answer - the ONLY relevant one here:

"Yes mutations are heritable."

Thank you. The rest of what you wrote is, as I already indicated, complete garbage.

quote:

Question 2:

2. Do you believe that the patterns of such heritable mutations can be used to infer relatedness? keep this in mind as you read Joey's "response"]

2) I donít think that every person with sickle-cell anemia is related to the first person that got the mutation that caused that disease and was able to pass it on. (snip attempt to look smart.) Is everyone with Downs syndrome related? The same goes for all genetic diseases. Do you think that every person with the same genetic disease is related to each other? That DNA gets passed on to the offspring doesnít mean chimps and humans share a common ancestor.
As I previously stated ďAs for apparent similar mutations, again given that we have a restricted selection of possibilities for change to occur, it could be more of a coincidence than it is coinciding.Ē I would like to change that to most likely be more of a coincidenceÖ


The naivete revealed in this response simply confirms my long-held suspicions. Joe Gallien simply does not have a clue as to what molecular phylogenetic analyses entail. This is not unique to Joe, of course. I have yet to meet an internet creationist that does know how such things work.
If it were all up to a couple of specific substitutions here and there, then - and only then - would Joe's naive treatment have even a hint of validity. I suggest that the creationist at least try to familiarize himself with the literatue and actually LOOK AT some real data. I have provided a link to my website on which I have an alignment of about 13000 characters for a few dozen species. The patterns of mutation - in both coding and noncoding DNA - is striking. .

quote:

Mutations occurring and getting passed on is just part of the problem. And a mutation getting fixed in a population is another. What the theory of evolution requires is for mutations to accumulate in such a way as to eventually give rise to new structures and organs (assuming of course the alleged starting population(s) didnít have arms, legs, a spine or a brain). Is there even a way to test if that premise is feasible?

I don't know. That is just another move of the goal posts. I presented molecular phylogentics as objective tests of evolutionary hypotheses of descent, not as a way of plotting specific DNA changes leading to specific phenotypic changes.
Whether or not a substitution is beneficial, neutral, or detrimental is irrelevant to Molecular phylogenetics. Whether or not the substitution occurs in coding or noncoding DNA is irrelevant. Whether the change is fixed or not is irrelevant.
If you knew half as much about this subject as you portray yourself as knowing, you would realize the futility, shallowness, and naivete of your above post.

So, again - where is it that you fed me my lunch?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by John Paul, posted 08-12-2002 3:13 PM John Paul has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 102 by John Paul, posted 08-14-2002 8:07 AM derwood has responded

    
derwood
Member (Idle past 13 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 100 of 141 (15310)
08-12-2002 6:05 PM
Reply to: Message 98 by John Paul
08-12-2002 3:22 PM


quote:
Originally posted by John Paul:
It's OK. I feel as taunted & baited as the New England Patriots must have felt before the last Super Bowl.

The reality is I don't have time to respond to nonsense so, for the most part, I just let it slide.


The incompetent rarely know it, often are even boastful, study finds...


This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by John Paul, posted 08-12-2002 3:22 PM John Paul has not yet responded

    
mark24
Member (Idle past 3332 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 101 of 141 (15314)
08-12-2002 9:03 PM
Reply to: Message 97 by John Paul
08-12-2002 3:13 PM


quote:
Originally posted by John Paul:

1. Do you believe that mutations are heritable?
2. Do you believe that the patterns of such heritable mutations can be used to infer relatedness?


Hi JP,

Thereís a few misconceptions here that Iíd like to tackle, if I may.

Phylogenetic inference is a method which we infer relationships of genetic sequences. It is important to make this distinct from the inferred species tree from such analysisí. To reliably be able to infer a species tree, we may need several gene/data trees, maybe morphological trees as well, in order to get a reliable enough consensus.

Imagine a species tree to be a glass pipe stretching back into the past. Within this pipe are cotton threads representing gene lineages. Now, imagine a gene for ďnormal colour sightĒ that gets a mutation & becomes the ďcolourblind alleleĒ. At some point in the past, if you trace the two threads (alleles) back to the the ďmutation pointĒ, they will join. This is called a coalescent event (itís arse about face, if you ask me, but in the interests of using the same definitions as everyone elseÖ.). As such, gene lineages arenít expected to completely match species lineages. It gets more complicated if the coalescent event occurred before speciation, because you have one pipe getting itself a Y connector (speciation event), with both alleles splitting & heading up different pipes (separate species), for a total of four threads.

BUT, it matters not one iota whether that gene allowed excellent colour vision or not (Iím assuming, purely for the sake of argument that colour blindness is caused by a mutant allele, I could easily use any gene), because you are tracing back two (or more) homologous alleles (from different species) to the coalescent event, which is what [/I]infers the relationship[/I]. The allele frequencies that cause the inheritance patterns is an utterly separate issue.

As I have said above, gene lineages need not match exactly (in real life) the species lineage, but nails down most of the details. Unresolved parts of the first tree may be resolved by a second & third molecular phylogeny using different genes/data sets. In the end, we can reliably infer a species tree using multiple congruent phylogenies derived from many different & diverse data sets.

Of course, the above requires sequences that are both different enough to be informative, & homologous. This is why a single polymorphism isnít adequate to infer very much. As a result, not being able to infer relationships from a sickle cell allele, or trisomy 21, isnít exactly falsifying molecular phylogenetic inference.

We are attempting to infer species trees from sequence data (cotton threads) that that has survived in a direct unbroken lineage all the way up those pipes, being split into two, & threaded up two pipes (Y connectors) potentially many times. There are threads that donít make it, & are lost, we can only infer from the extant threads that poke out the top (present day).

If common descent is true, then phylogenetic analysis should consistently show (& there are reasons why it doesnít) that homologous sequences are related, & subsequent studies should be broadly congruent. They are.

Apologies for the analogy, it just seemed easier.

quote:
Originally posted by John Paul:

1/ Is tricky. Yes mutations are heritable. Neutral, harmful and beneficial, mutations can be passed on. However in sexual reproduction they donít always get passed on. Iím not as tall as my grandfather was, but I am taller than my parents (were). My father was color-blind, I am not, nor are my sisters and brothers, but I have a nephew that canít see green (not the Special Agent). However his brotherís vision is OK.

You are confusing inheritance patterns with phylogeny.

Assuming you had sequence data of homologous ďcolour-blindnessĒ genes between humans & apes, you could infer a phylogeny, provided that there were enough informative differences between extant sequences, or you had a large variable sample, & then similarities would mean recent divergence.

quote:
Originally posted by John Paul:

In humans this is evident- not every organism that is born gets a chance to mate and not every mating couple can conceive. No mating or conception no chance of passing on of the DNA.

Irrelevant. No passing on of DNA, no phylogeny from which to infer anyway!

quote:
Originally posted by John Paul:

Take an organism born with a beneficial mutation that its parents didnít have, nor do its siblings. Not only does this organism have to live long enough to reproduce, it has to do so successfully in order just to have a chance of that beneficial mutation being passed on, never mind becoming fixed. Another factor would be having a genetically impaired mate such that any combination would give you offspring less functional than the better parent is (was). You know, basic Punnett Square stuff and Mendelian genetics.

That said, if adaptive mutations were the norm (Dr. Lee Spetner), they would become more readably fixed because they would occur population wide due to the organismsí DNA reacting directly to environmental pressure(s). However adaptive mutations, unless applied to cleverly written evolutionary algorithm acting with an incrementally sequenced genetic algorithm, couldnít account for the grand sweep of the theory of evolution.

What we would have to determine is what was it about the alleged shared mutations that allowed them to be fixed in the populations? IOW why were they selected for (kept in the population) over this alleged span of time (5+ millions years)?


Irrelevant. This has nowt to do with inferring phylogenies, except the first sentence that describes a coalescent event.

quote:
Originally posted by John Paul:

2/ I donít think that every person with sickle-cell anemia is related to the first person that got the mutation that caused that disease and was able to pass it on. (Sickle-cell anemia is caused by a point mutation in a specific locus- a substitution of a T for an A in the codon for the sixth amino acid of the beta chain in the human hemoglobin protein. That mutation changes a glutamic acid to a valine.) Is everyone with Downs syndrome related? The same goes for all genetic diseases. Do you think that every person with the same genetic disease is related to each other? That DNA gets passed on to the offspring doesnít mean chimps and humans share a common ancestor.

As I previously stated ďAs for apparent similar mutations, again given that we have a restricted selection of possibilities for change to occur, it could be more of a coincidence than it is coinciding.Ē I would like to change that to most likely be more of a coincidenceÖ


Regarding sickle cell, you may be right. But since itís a single polymorphism that proves to have a net beneficial effect to the owners in malaria infested Africa, itís entirely possible that the identical alleles arose more than once, incidences of trisomy 21 certainly do. In any case, a single polymorphism across the entire potential range of samples isnít enough to infer a phylogeny with, except a close relationship with the original heamaglobin.

But thatís not what were talking about, is it? Were talking about homologous sequences between species, not people, that have A LOT in common. Suggesting that these alleles arose spontaneously alike, & were then fixed, neutral loci as well, is an entirely different prospect to a single polymorphism. Not only did they arise spontaneously alike, phylogenetic inference shows that they are congruent with other genetic phylogenies. By chance? The odds are colossally against such an event. An 11 taxa phylogeny has 34,000,000 possible trees. Iíll give you the benefit of the doubt & assume that two phylogenies for the same 11 taxa was only 50% congruent. Thatís 17,000,000 * 17,000,000 = 289,000,000,000,000 : 1 odds that such an event occurred by chance. Because of this, & the fact it occurs over & over, most people reasonably accept that phylogenetic analysis is good evidence of common descent.

quote:
Originally posted by John Paul:

Mutations occurring and getting passed on is just part of the problem. And a mutation getting fixed in a population is another.

Nope. If a mutation doesnít get passed on, we canít infer from it. If a mutation isnít fixed, & worse, is lost, the same applies.

quote:
Originally posted by John Paul:

What the theory of evolution requires is for mutations to accumulate in such a way as to eventually give rise to new structures and organs (assuming of course the alleged starting population(s) didnít have arms, legs, a spine or a brain). Is there even a way to test if that premise is feasible?

This has nothing to do with molecular phylogeny either.

With respect, JP, you have left the subject of molecular phylogenies behind, more than once. Talking about something other than molecular phylogeny doesnít falsify molecular phylogeny, now, does it? Nor does confusing inheritance patterns with inferring phylogenies.

Mark

------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by John Paul, posted 08-12-2002 3:13 PM John Paul has not yet responded

    
John Paul
Inactive Member


Message 102 of 141 (15422)
08-14-2002 8:07 AM
Reply to: Message 99 by derwood
08-12-2002 5:59 PM


quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scott Page:
Previously, you dealt only with issues surrounding abiogenesis.
John Paul:
That is a lie. As had been pointed out to you earlier.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scotty:
It is no lie at all. Please re-read your opening post:

Here is a challenge to evolutionists: Please answer all the questions below to the best of your ability.
Could provide us with the evidence that life could originate from non-life via purely natural processes?
(HINT: there isnít any:

http://www.panspermia.org/rnaworld.htm )

How could that be objectively tested and falsified?

What are the alternatives if life could not have originated via purely natural processes?

Why are those alternatives un-scientific?

If abiogenesis and evolution are separate why does one theory begin where the other ends? (abiogenesis ends with the formation of progenotes and that is where the theory of evolution begins)

How could we objectively test and falsify the hypothesis that progenotes evolved into procaryotes?*

How could we objectively test the hypothesis that eucaryotes evolved via procaryotic endosymbiosis?*

How could we objectively test and falsify the hypothesis that true multi-cellularity evolved from colonies of single-celled organisms (i.e. the Volvox)?*

Or for that matter how could we objectively test and falsify the hypothesis that the eye could evolve?
...
Bottom line is the Theory of Evolution is a philosophy and should be discussed in that venue. That is until it can be objectively tested.

John Paul:
Now as everyone can see I wasn't ONLY talking about abiogenesis. Anyonwe with a little common sense could see the context of the abiogenesis questions was to determine what reasoning is there to not even consider ID or Creation as viable alternatives.

Scotty:
Therefore, you deal primarily with abiogensis.

John Paul:
There IS a difference between ONLY & PRIMARILY. However neither would be correct.

On the femurs- you have no shame do you?

Scott Page: Funny - I have read that Minke whales have rudimentary pelvi and femurs embedded in their abdominal wall musculature.

John Paul: Do you have a reference?

Scott:
I do
Here is one, though not on Minke whales specifically:

http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/mammal/cetacea/cetacean.html

quote:
The forelimbs are specialized to form flippers, and the hind limbs and pelvis are extremely small and do not normally extend out of the body wall of the animal.

Scott:
That is all. Please demonstrate that I provided a link in which it is claimed that femurs are also appendages unto themselves.

John Paul:
Are you trying to tell me that a) there is more to the alleged "hindlimbs" besides the femur? and b) that the embryo slide you linked to shows more than a femur?

On phylogeny:

ďIn order to analyze which amino acid replacements have occurred during the evolution of humans and apes, the evolutionary relationships among the species being studied must be inferred.Ē

Yup, sounds real objective to me.

toodles scotty

------------------
John Paul


This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by derwood, posted 08-12-2002 5:59 PM derwood has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by derwood, posted 08-14-2002 5:41 PM John Paul has responded

  
derwood
Member (Idle past 13 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 103 of 141 (15444)
08-14-2002 5:41 PM
Reply to: Message 102 by John Paul
08-14-2002 8:07 AM


quote:
Originally posted by John Paul:
Scott Page:
Previously, you dealt only with issues surrounding abiogenesis.
John Paul:
That is a lie. As had been pointed out to you earlier.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
John Paul:
Now as everyone can see I wasn't ONLY talking about abiogenesis. Anyonwe with a little common sense could see the context of the abiogenesis questions was to determine what reasoning is there to not even consider ID or Creation as viable alternatives.

As all of your 'follow-up' "questions" relied upon your assumption that abiogenesis is, in fact, part of (the foundation of?) evolution, it all goes back to that. That you may have mentioned (blown-off, really) other issues is really a moot point. To avoid allowing this to wander off on one of your nitpicking minutiae hunts, I will grant that I should not have written that you "Only dealt with" issues surrounding abiogenesis.

quote:

Dr.Page:
Therefore, you deal primarily with abiogensis.

joey gallien:
There IS a difference between ONLY & PRIMARILY. However neither would be correct.


Yes, there is a difference.

quote:

On the femurs- you have no shame do you?

Yes, I do. However, it would appear that you have limited comprtehension skills.

quote:

Scott Page: Funny - I have read that Minke whales have rudimentary pelvi and femurs embedded in their abdominal wall musculature.

John Paul: Do you have a reference?

Scott:
I do
Here is one, though not on Minke whales specifically:

http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/mammal/cetacea/cetacean.html

quote:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The forelimbs are specialized to form flippers, and the hind limbs and pelvis are extremely small and do not normally extend out of the body wall of the animal.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Scott:
That is all. Please demonstrate that I provided a link in which it is claimed that femurs are also appendages unto themselves.

John Paul:
Are you trying to tell me that a) there is more to the alleged "hindlimbs" besides the femur? and b) that the embryo slide you linked to shows more than a femur?


The embryo slide I linked to - the one you said was irrelevant because you were talking about adult whales (LOL!) - said nothing about femurs. It said limb buds. I suggest you look into the embryology of limb development to see what is in a limb bud. There is no "femur" per se, or anything else for that matter. Not in the early stages, at least. A limb bud contains the tissue precursors of such bony elements and the development o fhtese bones proceeds as development continues. At the stage of development shown in the slide I linked, probably the equivalent of human week 6 or so, the limb bones would be present. Continued development would result in the regression of the limb.
The quote you provide from a link of mine in fact, as the careful reader can see, does not contain the word 'femur', so your providing it seems to be a red herring. I could be minutiae-boy and remind the reader that I had only mentioned Minke whales when I mentioned femurs, while the link I provided refers to whales in general.
Here:http://www.seaworld.org/infobooks/Baleen/phycharbw.html

we see that, in baleen whales, anyway:

F. Hind limbs.
1. In baleen whales all traces of hind limbs have disappeared except for two reduced, rod-shaped pelvic bones that are buried deep in body muscle.

quote:

On phylogeny:

ďIn order to analyze which amino acid replacements have occurred during the evolution of humans and apes, the evolutionary relationships among the species being studied must be inferred.Ē

Yup, sounds real objective to me.

toodles Dr.Page


Wow. Some rebuttal. Shame that this doesn't actually deal directly with phylogenetics, as you imply. Rather, this deals with assessing amino acid replacements.

I guess I would going to far to actually expect a retraction of all that mumbo-jumbo from your last post, wouldn't it? You know - the stuff that didn't even deal with what you claimed to be addressing?

bye joey


This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by John Paul, posted 08-14-2002 8:07 AM John Paul has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 104 by John Paul, posted 08-15-2002 12:03 PM derwood has responded

    
John Paul
Inactive Member


Message 104 of 141 (15483)
08-15-2002 12:03 PM
Reply to: Message 103 by derwood
08-14-2002 5:41 PM


SLP:
As all of your 'follow-up' "questions" relied upon your assumption that abiogenesis is, in fact, part of (the foundation of?) evolution, it all goes back to that.

John Paul:
That is NOT correct. It is not my fault if you infer what is not implied. As I had previously stated the ONLY reason I brought up abiogenesis was to find out if there isn't any evidence to support a purely natural process to the origins of life why are the alternatives not even considered?

Also as I posted at least some evolutionists stated that abiogenesis IS part of the ToE. (Kerkut)

If you don't know the difference between an embryo and an adult then I feel very sorry for your students.

quote:
F. Hind limbs.
1. In baleen whales all traces of hind limbs have disappeared except for two reduced, rod-shaped pelvic bones that are buried deep in body muscle.

John Paul:
Again, that would only be assuming they were once limbs. Do you have any evidence to support that?

------------------
John Paul


This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by derwood, posted 08-14-2002 5:41 PM derwood has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 105 by mark24, posted 08-15-2002 4:30 PM John Paul has not yet responded
 Message 106 by derwood, posted 08-16-2002 12:59 PM John Paul has not yet responded

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 3332 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 105 of 141 (15492)
08-15-2002 4:30 PM
Reply to: Message 104 by John Paul
08-15-2002 12:03 PM


[QUOTE]Originally posted by John Paul:
[B][quote]F. Hind limbs.

John Paul:
Again, that would only be assuming they were once limbs. Do you have any evidence to support that?
[/B][/QUOTE]

I can't speak for baleen whales, but Sperm whales have vestigial hind limbs.

A pelvic girdle is present in all sperm whales, but in a few individuals only, abutting the pelvis, bones are in evidence. The expression appears as 1 to 10 bones, depending on individual.

Why on earth are they there? They have no function, else they'd be in ALL members of the species. It appears that the expression of these bones is an atavism, an expression of alles that have a low frequency, & are being removed from the genome, or have at least have had their frequencies reduced purely by genetic drift.

Mark

------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

[This message has been edited by mark24, 08-15-2002]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by John Paul, posted 08-15-2002 12:03 PM John Paul has not yet responded

    
Prev1
...
56
7
8910Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019