Smoking-Gun Evidence of Man-Monkey Kindred: Episode II... Tails

I couldnt get a single prof at Cornell to tell me what numbers one should use when counting Darwinian Individuals!

"But given that atavisms do exist, the theory of evolution makes definite predictions as to the pattern that they should exhibit."Repeating, evolution does not predict a pattern. There could be zero, one, or many atavisms according to evolution. I think what you are trying to say is that there are some non existent atavisms that evolution predicts will not occur (eg, wings). We don't observe wings on people, and evolution predicts that we should not observe wings on people. This is hardly a meaningful prediction. In other words, evolution predicts that chaos will not occur, and sure enough, chaos is not occurring. There is some order and reason to biology. This hardly is a plus for evolution.

quote:

---

I think what you are trying to say is that there are some non existent atavisms that evolution predicts will not occur (eg, wings).

---

That is the pattern.There are whales that are born with legs. These legs are not functional, but they have bones and joints that look remarkably like the leg of an archetypal terrestrial mammal. So it is possible for rather complex organs and features, that are not typically present in a given species, to appear in the occasional individual, even if the feature is in a deformed, useless state.Yet, even though relatively complex organs can and do suddenly appear we never see wings appear on human babies. Why not? There is no rhyme or reason for what does appear and what does not appear -- it is chaos.Actually, it is chaotic unless we have a theory that points out the pattern and explains it. According to the theory of evolution, there should be a pattern to these atavisms, and we do see this pattern. So it is not chaotic -- but that is a plus for evolution, because it is only with the theory of evolution that we can identify the pattern. Without the theory of evolution, or any other theory, it remains reasonable to expect some babies to be born with angel wings, and a mystery why this should not be seen.This constitutes a potential falsification for evolution: if a human baby, for example, is born with clearly identifiable angel wings, then we have an observation that is contrary to what the theory of evolution predicts.

"This constitutes a potential falsification for evolution: if a human baby, for example, is born with clearly identifiable angel wings, then we have an observation that is contrary to what the theory of evolution predicts."OK, I think we agree. That's quite a prediction. Evolution passes with flying colors. Now, how about we move on to the falsification of evolution. Since development patterns and genes are not conserved, is evolution falsified? If you say yes, then the previous discussion about atavisms is moot. If you say no, then you are ignoring a falsification, and biased in your evidence evaluation.

quote:

---

That's quite a prediction. Evolution passes with flying colors.

---

And that is exactly how all scientific theories are verified/falsified. They make predictions of what must occur, what may occur, and what cannot occur. Then we observe what does occur and what does not occur.--

quote:

---

Since development patterns and genes are not conserved, is evolution falsified?

---

I don't know what this means. You'll have to be more explicit here. However, before you explain this, the moderators here hate it when a thread goes off-topic. So, is this question relevant to the atavism discussion? If not, it might be better if you start a new thread.

"I don't know what this means. You'll have to be more explicit here. However, before you explain this, the moderators here hate it when a thread goes off-topic. So, is this question relevant to the atavism discussion? If not, it might be better if you start a new thread."Yes, I think it is relevant because unconserved development falsifies evolution (countering the claim of this thread), and it deals with embryonic development. Here is what it means: similar structures in related species (such as in the same genus), come from different genes and/or develop in completely different ways. This makes no sense on evolution, and it is rampant in biology.

quote:

---

similar structures in related species (such as in the same genus), come from different genes and/or develop in completely different ways.

---

Do you have an example of this?--

quote:

---

This makes no sense on evolution, and it is rampant in biology.

---

What prediction does evolution make concerning this? How does this observation contradict the prediction? Is there an alternate explanation that is consistent with the theory of evolution?

"Do you have an example of this? What prediction does evolution make concerning this? How does this observation contradict the prediction? Is there an alternate explanation that is consistent with the theory of evolution?"An example that has been known for decades is the eye of the frog species Rana fusca and Rana esculents which determination and differentiation are completely different (in one the lens develops from the epidermis on the optic cup. In the other, the optic cup does not induce the lens to develop). This sort of thing is common, and not surprisingly we often find different genes involved. Evolution predicts that similar structures, in similar species, would be homologous. That is, they derive from the same structure that appears in their most recent common ancestor. Hence they should come from the same genes and development pathway. It would be very strange for two similar species of frog, in the same genus, to have evolved their eyes independently. Or, it would be equally strange for evolution not to evolve the eyes indendently, but while preserving the eye structure and design to change around how it develops and the corresponding genes. The only explanation I can think of is the latter, but that is quite weak. It amounts to blind faith in evolution. And this would have to happen quite frequently. It definitely falsifies a prediction of evolution (no one expected it by any means).

Interesting claim. Do you have any links for this? It would be interesting to see how different the induction events actually are. I've just had a quick search on pubmed and couldn't find much - possibly because the work was done a while ago. I did find this abstract though:

quote:

---

Our data lead us to propose that the optic vesicle in amphibians is not generally sufficient for lens induction. Instead, we argue that lens induction occurs by a multistep process in which an essential phase in lens determination occurs as a result of inductive interactions preceding contact of ectoderm with the optic vesicle.

---

I'll do a little digging but it does look as though all is not as black and white as it once seemed. Do you have any other examples of molecular mechansims for closely related species being different? I can only think of ones which show how developmental patterning and gene expression are conserved (a very important prediction of the ToE)- the hox genes being a prime example.

Pretty interesting. I tried to do a quick search on the internet, but couldn't find much more detailed information than you already gave. I really do think that you should start a new thread on this -- it would be interesting to hear the opinions of people who are more knowledgible in this field.My first question would be whether the different pathways in the development of the lens could be due to a simple genetic change. My knowledge of developmental biology isn't all that great, but I do know enough that often a very simple change in the early development process can lead to rather large difference in the end result.

"Interesting claim. Do you have any links for this? Do you have any other examples of molecular mechansims for closely related species being different?"No I don't have links for this. This is not my area of expertise. I just read review articles which clearly admit that development is not conserved (eg, "it is the rule rather than the exception that homologous structures form from distinctly dissimilar initial states." Sys Zool, 34, 1985, 46). And I'm afraid the evolutionists would rather talk about all those successful "predictions" than discuss the problems. Another example is the anther cones of flowers in the nightshade family which appear to be identical, but have different developmental pathways. Speaking of eyes, Pax-6 is another interesting case. It is the master control gene for vision development. It is so widespread that it would have had to be present in a very distant ancestor, long before there were such complications as vision."My first question would be whether the different pathways in the development of the lens could be due to a simple genetic change. My knowledge of developmental biology isn't all that great, but I do know enough that often a very simple change in the early development process can lead to rather large difference in the end result."Beware of the "just add water" renditions of evolution. If a "very simple change" leads to "rather large differences" then the appropriate programming had to be there a priori.By the way, this non conserved development is only one of dozens of severe problems with evolution. Why does every new genome we transcribe have all kinds of new, unique/novel sequences? Why do we find the same designs in completely independent lineages? What about ultra conserved elements (100% conservation in human and mouse sequences!!)? Why is adaptation preprogrammed? Why do new fossil species appear abruptly and then persist without changing for eons? Why is it that evolution has failed to explain actually how structures are supposed to have evolved? I could go on and on. Oh but I forgot, evolution is a fact.

quote:

---

Beware of the "just add water" renditions of evolution.

---

I am merely pointing out that we don't know yet whether this is a problem for evolution.

What a confusing post! What do you have in mind? Completely independent lineages?? Please list them. What about them? Please explain. Examples please. It does exactly that. Read up on the evolution of mitochondria and chloroplasts for just one example.

JohnRay writes:

quote:

---

It would be very strange for two similar species of frog, in the same genus, to have evolved their eyes independently.

---

Why?Vision seems to have independently arisen at least 40 times. What is so surprising about it having developed twice within a major taxonomic branch?You do understand that a genus is not a species, yes?

quote:

---

Or, it would be equally strange for evolution not to evolve the eyes indendently, but while preserving the eye structure and design to change around how it develops and the corresponding genes.

---

Why? If the development of the lens could occur in two ways, why would all members of a taxonomic lineage have to share the same lens morphology?

quote:

---

And this would have to happen quite frequently.

---

Why?I do not see a problem here.

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

But, Rrhain, all amphibian groups have eyes and pretty similar kinds of eyes at that. For two frogs within the same genus to have seperately evolved eyes, one would have had, for some unclear reason, have lost it's eyes altogether and then evolved them all over again. That's a pretty unlikely scenario; especially given that both frogs are from the same genus and thus not awfully disimilar in other ways.