Macroevolution: Its all around us...

You mean ToE?

I don't want to be overly reactionary, and sometimes other posters responses affect my tone towards those not being uncivil. Sorry. I assumed with the above-comment that you were denying convergent DNA was real. I don't know how many labs are working on it. WK here made the comment that it was a "hot topic" and a cursury review seemed to verify that.Do you think that is incorrect? I guess I disagree here. One of the bedrock principles of common descent is that all DNA is essentially the same thing, but with different compositions, etc,..but exhibiting such similarity that it is used as an argument for universal common descent. I don't really deny that it can be used for evidence of common descent.Along with that, if we discover that DNA has convergent properties within it, then to me it is reasonable to think that holds true across the board. So if human DNA exhibits a predisposition to mutate according to a certain pattern, it is likely that all DNA has within it, an embedded predisposition to mutate according to certain patters.Imp, it is too early to know the extent of this phenomena, and the mechanisms involved, but considering the fundamental role DNA plays in reproduction and any presumed evolutionary processes, the fact DNA displays any convergency at all and is not just random is quite revealing, and it's effects should not be discounted until further understood.One way to look at the patterns certain DNA is predisposed towards is to see those patterns as an embedded design.This message has been edited by randman, 06-23-2005 01:48 PM

Wrong. It is fallacious to compare the reality of convergent DNA with endogenous retroviruses, as you have done.The simple fact is that if DNA contains within it, a certain predisposition to mutate towards a certain pattern, depending upon the existing pattern, and not to just mutate randomly, then that is an embedded characteristic of DNA. So there is a cause creating an effect.You seem to be arguing that the effect is via chance, and thus make a fallacious argument. There is no appeal to chance or coincidence in any of my posts here at all. You are misrepresenting the argument. Maybe you don't understand it?I'll just repeat it and maybe you will get it this time.There is embedded within certain patterns of DNA a predisposition to mutate according to a pattern and not just randomly.Right now, we do not know the extent of this phenomena, but may know more in a few years.But it is a reasonable assumption that if we see this characteristic in human DNA that it is likely true across the board for all species.Why is that so hard for you to grasp?As far as a statement, I provided a link to an entire scientific paper. I suggest you read it. WK originally provided the link, and it could be useful if you would take the time to learn a little about the subject, especially since you seem to be qualified to understand the terms and concepts.

On the first part of your post, my understanding is that is not the only study, and that the evidence does indicate a larger convergent effect for DNA.WK probably could provide better details, but at the same time, I think there is a considerable level of research going on, and we don't have a full picture yet. The pattern itself is a design. It doesn't just indicate a design. I should be more careful. It is a design that preexists based on whatever is causing it, which is presumed at this stage to the chemical properties in the local environment. Chemistry may be the result of the pattern, but the pattern is a design that already exists then, which is based on the properties of chemistry. Either way, we are beginning to have to go beyond biology to understand what occurs. The biology is dependant on the DNA which is influenced and dependant on chemistry which is affected by physics, including quantum physics.Imo, if we are going to get a good grasp of what is really going on, we need a comprehensive understanding of quantum physics, chemistry, and molecular genetics.I suspect once we view the entirety of the process, we will see a mechanism for direct design influencing "natural processes".This message has been edited by randman, 06-23-2005 02:37 PM

No, not at all.

You have no evidence offered to back up such a view. Furthermore, your idea assumes that the pattern would run contrary to the "selective force" when the opposite could well be the case. No, it does not seem like a fair conclusion. Can you elaborate?I think there should also be a recognition in considering this that some "solutions" may be equally positive for selection, but in that case, the pattern that first and most frequently emerges is more likely to emerge dominant.

Your post, imo, seems nonsensical. Why is there any necessity of "seed" sequences to get from one species to another.

What evidence do you have of that? Can you show extensive studies that show other sequences are unlikely or do not show convergent tendencies?

No, you miss the point. There could be potentially equal solutions, but the one that gets their first is probably going to win.That's why I pointed this out. A "weaker" force can still dominant a "stronger" force by virtue of appearing first. The stronger force you posit of natural selection would nonetheless only be able to act upon whatever mutations were offerred to it, and so in reality, the convergent aspects of DNA, to the degree that is real, would exert dominance over the selective process via occuring prior and acting as a sort of control.Now, the only way the convergent pattern could arise and maintain itself would be if selection either encouraged it, or did not stop it at least.That's my point, which despite your bashing, is fairly reasonable to me.Do you see it any differently?

EZ, as usual for you it seems, you bash something I said erroneously.I was simply responding to: The use of "beneficial" indicates to me "natural selection", and hence my comment on that.So "we" meaning you and me or the rest of the board were not in fact only discussing non-coding DNA, and considering I was the one that brought this up, maybe you should be more careful in stating what "we" are discussing, or better yet, avoid the discussion if you don't want anyone disagreeing with you.Moreover, what you also don't realize, nor will admit to, is that the likelihood exists that if DNA in general is convergent in non-coding sequences, it is probably convergent elsewhere.That's the whole point.You seem to argue that this is unlikely. On what basis do you assert that?

What's to stop it? Actually, that's an unfair question, but just want to throw the typical evolutionist refrain back out there.You are though, imo, maintaining that DNA is not convergent or even highly convergent without evidence for that.The paper states that one proposed cause for DNA convergency is the local environment. I see no reason if the local environment has an effect in the area they studied that it would not have a similar effect elsewhere.I have never denied that this is a new area of research, but then again, the contention that DNA is not convergent is unproven. Basing models on an unproven assumption which looks to be increasingly an erroneous conclusion is fallacious, and yet that's what evolutionists have done.That seems par for the course though for evolutionists. Assert that something is essentially a fact based on unproven assumptions.As far as evidence for DNA convergency, we don't know which similarities arose convergently and which via common ancestry.This message has been edited by randman, 06-23-2005 10:33 PM

That's a very poor analogy. Once again, you are juxtaposing forces as adversarial when that's not the case.As far as equal solutions that could arise randomly or via convergent predispositions, the one that gets there first is the only one on the scene. A better analogy would be who's going to win a race today, me, a somewhat out-of-shape dude nearing 40 or the fastest man in the world but he hasn't been born yet. Sorry, but I'm still going to win every time.Whoever gets their first is going to win by virtue of being the only contestant on the scene.Same with presumed beneficial mutations. If there is a predisposition, it's going to come up more frequently and has a higher chance of success than something that may never come up at all.On the idea of natural selection and mutations, it may be difficult for you to grasp but it's pretty simple. Natural selection alone does not produce mutations. It must act upon what is there. It doesn't choose what to select for. It acts as a filter for what has already been chosen.In this case, if there is a predisposition towards a genetic pattern, if that pattern is congruent with natural selection, the pattern is not at odds with natural selection, and thus natural selection is not going to favor even more favorable designs because they don't come up. No, I am not repeating your conjecture. You presented the 2 forces as adversarial, and that's not accurate. One precedes the other, and may or may not be adversarial.

So what do you make of that? Why is that? Unless and until you can fully answer that, you have a very incomplete understanding of how genetic sequences emerge, and thus a very poor understanding of how genetic evidence may or may not be evidence for common ancestry.I posit it is reasonable to assume that all sequences have predispositions towards a certain pattern. The evidence one sequence has this characteristic is indicative that this is probably part of the general characteristics of DNA, and the authors make that point by stating that DNA mutation is not random based on their study. Actually, no, not at all. The seed sequence can arise independently, and if the study's implications are correct, and certain sequences are predisposed to mutate along a certain pattern, then it is likely that there could be genetic sequences emerge that arose completely independently of one another. Actually, evolutionists already claim that species can evolve to just about any sequence. I am not as convinced of that, but for you to argue that evolution can occur, and then argue that it cannot, is unreasonable.You have to keep in mind if parts of DNA are predisposed to mutate according to a certain pattern, and new patterns once they emerge all have a predisposition, then claiming that it is unlikely for there to be high degrees of convergent evolution of DNA due to it being statistically unlikely is faulty logic.You are assuming mutations only occur by chance, but in fact they may well occur according to a pattern, an embedded design, perhaps governed by the chemical properties of the local environment.

Simple. Different sequences have different predispositions. Why the thousands of unrelated species argument? That's totally bogus since no one brought up thousands of unrelated species.But to happen with regularity, I'd say pretty good odds since if certain sequences or aspects of combinations of DNA tend to start it off in a similar direction, that is a common causal effect that can produce a repitition in pattern. No, I expect you to look at the evidence instead of creating a myth you insist is true and argue by asking others to present another myth and argue it is true.Personally, I prefer to look at the evidence. I don't see mutations as random, and it appears DNA is convergent. How those facts fit into current models would be interesting if you guys were not so busy trying to deny reality.By the way, phylogenies from morphologists often do not agree with phylogenies from molecular systemists. You are just, once again, relying on overstatement to bolster a weak case. Why not just admit that there is some disagreement?Also, who said anything about coincidence? I posit causal mechanisms. You posit coincidence.Lemme ask you something. Why should we accept the coincidence that animals flapping their appendages to eat flies would one day mutate fully adaptive wings?What are the odds for that coincidence?You can argue that some evidence backs Darwinism until you are blue in the face, but relying on overstatements does not help you. You argue that repitition of pseudogenetic sequences appearing in different species is an indication of genetic relatedness because there is no other reason for such similarities to be present in different species, say a chimp and human, unless they shared a common ancestor.Convergent DNA disproves that. Convergent DNA shows there is another reason why pseudogenetic sequences can arise independently in different species, and though you and others here dogmatically assert otherwise without any evidence, the fact that convergent DNA is a reality is a good indication it occurs for coding DNA as well.I predict we will see, as more research is done, that convergent DNA occurs across the board.Of course, this may not result in evolutionists being less dogmatic, nor falsifying Darwinism because Darwinism is an unfalsifiable myth based on a simple observation, but greatly overstated and exagerrated. But there are partly determined in all likelihood by the local environment.

One thing I should point out to you is that microsatellites do occur in coding DNA as well. The study suggests that microsatellites somehow react with the local environment to create a non-random tendency in the DNA.To dismiss any, or "establish", that there is no selection pressure because coding DNA displays no convergency is a totally unfounded statement on your part.The only evidence I know of indicates convergency probably exists across the board.Do you guys have any evidence suggesting there are no convergent tendencies in coding DNA?