Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 64 (9163 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,407 Year: 3,664/9,624 Month: 535/974 Week: 148/276 Day: 22/23 Hour: 2/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   SIMPLE common anscestors had fewer but MORE COMPLEX systems: genomics
Randy
Member (Idle past 6268 days)
Posts: 420
From: Cincinnati OH USA
Joined: 07-19-2002


Message 8 of 104 (22589)
11-13-2002 9:38 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Fred Williams
11-13-2002 8:23 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Fred Williams:
From Susumo Ohno, The notion of the Cambrian pananimalia genome, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA: Vol 93, No 16, 8475-78, August 6, 1996.
Assuming a spontaneous mutation rate to be a generous 10 -9 per base pair per year and also assuming no negative interference by natural selection, it still takes 10 million years to undergo 1% change in DNA base sequences. It follows that 6-10 million years in the evolutionary time scale is but a blink of an eye. The Cambrian explosion denoting the almost simultaneous emergence of nearly all the extant phyla of the Kingdom Animalia within the time span of 6-10 million years can’t possibly be explained by mutational divergence of individual gene functions.

The paper continues:
quote:
Rather, it is more likely that all the animals involved in the Cambrian explosion were endowed with nearly the identical genome, with enormous morphological diversities displayed by multitudes of animal phyla being due to differential usages of the identical set of genes. This is the very reason for my proposal of the Cambrian pananimalia genome. This genome must have necessarily been related to those of Ediacarian predecessors, representing the phyla Porifera and Coelenterata, and possibly Annelida. Being related to the genome possessed by the first set of multicellular organisms to emerge on this earth, it had to be rather modest in size. It should be recalled that the genome of modern day tunicates, representing subphylum Urochordata, is made of 1.8 3 10 8 DNA base pairs, which amounts to only 6% of the mammalian genome (9).
PNAS is available online for free I think. I assume that is how I got it but I don't have time to find it right now. I just thought others would like to see what Ohno's interpretation of the Cambrian explosion is. I think there may be other explanations of the Cambrian "explosion" as well.
Randy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Fred Williams, posted 11-13-2002 8:23 PM Fred Williams has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by Mammuthus, posted 11-14-2002 3:24 AM Randy has not replied

  
Randy
Member (Idle past 6268 days)
Posts: 420
From: Cincinnati OH USA
Joined: 07-19-2002


Message 11 of 104 (22711)
11-14-2002 12:04 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by Fred Williams
11-14-2002 11:50 AM


Fred,
Do you accept Ohno's claim that it takes about 10,000 million years to get a 1% change in a genome?
If so how much change can one expect in 5,000 Years?
Randy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Fred Williams, posted 11-14-2002 11:50 AM Fred Williams has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by Fred Williams, posted 11-14-2002 3:03 PM Randy has replied

  
Randy
Member (Idle past 6268 days)
Posts: 420
From: Cincinnati OH USA
Joined: 07-19-2002


Message 15 of 104 (22781)
11-14-2002 5:29 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by Fred Williams
11-14-2002 3:03 PM


quote:
Bottlenecks, subsequent drift, radiation events, all could account for considerable diversity among genomes within 5K years.
Bottlenecks, now there’s an interesting point. Don’t bottlenecks show up in the genome of species that went through a bottleneck? Why don’t all species show evidence of a bottleneck about 5,000 years ago? You are claiming that the bottleneck was down to 2 of each kind (whatever that is). Why is there no genetic evidence of all these bottlenecks? Why don’t humans have more genetic diversity than most animals? Weren’t there supposed to be 8 humans and only two of each unclean kind on the ark? Humans should have more diversity in our species than the entire genus (or maybe family or at least Kind) of unclean Kinds. Does genetic analysis show this? I don’t think so. Why not?
Randy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Fred Williams, posted 11-14-2002 3:03 PM Fred Williams has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by derwood, posted 11-15-2002 1:35 PM Randy has not replied
 Message 25 by Fred Williams, posted 11-18-2002 6:35 PM Randy has not replied

  
Randy
Member (Idle past 6268 days)
Posts: 420
From: Cincinnati OH USA
Joined: 07-19-2002


Message 50 of 104 (23519)
11-21-2002 2:32 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by Fred Williams
11-21-2002 12:38 PM


quote:
You are making false assumptions. We first must consider only the kinds that were required to be on the ark. We are not required to account for all the species of algae, fungi, insects, fish, mollusks, etc. (note that there are almost a million catalogued species of insects/spiders!). To compare apples to apples, I will compare the number of estimated kinds (which is based on known species) to the number of catalogued species required to originate on the ark. My source for species is:
Page Not Found | World Resources Institute
4,000 Mammals
4,184 Amphibians
6,300 Reptiles
9,040 Birds
The total number of species that would have had to originate on the ark is 23,524. As you can see, it is entirely reasonable to achieve 23K species from an original 18K kinds over the period of 4000 years! It only requires 1.3 species per each kind. As I mentioned earlier, there are over 32 bat species, at least a dozen rabbit species, etc. It appears the 18,000 "kind" estimate is likely too high.
Actually there are far more than 32 bat species. There are 18 families of bats and I think around 900 known species. There are 355 known species in the 42 genera of Vespertilionid Bats which represent just one family.
Page not found | Hopkins Press
One problem with your numbers that you seem to be ignoring is that you need representatives of all the extinct "kinds" of land animals that ever lived on earth to be represented on the ark. I think this changes your numbers quite a bit and every time new extinct kinds are discovered it makes your problem worse.
BTW those million or so species of insects/spiders are a falsification of the global flood as well.
EvC Forum: Insect diversity falsifies the worldwide flood.
Woodmorappe puts about 16,000 animals of 8,000 different kinds on the ark. Of course the idea that a 600 year old man and 7 family members cared for 16,000 of 8,000 different kinds of animals for a year on a big wooden boat during a global flood is totally absurd but that's another subject.
Randy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Fred Williams, posted 11-21-2002 12:38 PM Fred Williams has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by Fred Williams, posted 11-21-2002 4:33 PM Randy has replied

  
Randy
Member (Idle past 6268 days)
Posts: 420
From: Cincinnati OH USA
Joined: 07-19-2002


Message 53 of 104 (23561)
11-21-2002 7:35 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by Fred Williams
11-21-2002 4:33 PM


quote:
Fairy Tale Fred: IMO Woodmorappe makes a solid case in his book why this is not absurd (even without invoking miracles). I agree that's another subject.
I have the Woodmorappe book as well. It is a pretty remarkable collection of complete nonsense even for a YEC. The miracle is that anyone could take it seriously. I suspect that I have a lot more experience taking care of animals the he does since some of the things he says are real howlers and he makes some pretty elementary blunders. I hope to have time to write a post on it someday but there is so much wrong with it that it will take more time than I have right now. Maybe next year.
Randy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Fred Williams, posted 11-21-2002 4:33 PM Fred Williams has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by Fedmahn Kassad, posted 11-21-2002 11:02 PM Randy has not replied

  
Randy
Member (Idle past 6268 days)
Posts: 420
From: Cincinnati OH USA
Joined: 07-19-2002


Message 73 of 104 (23778)
11-22-2002 5:29 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by Fred Williams
11-22-2002 1:25 PM


quote:
from Fairy Tale Fred: This is your way of avoiding the fact you were orders of magnitude off? The Bible did not require insects, plants, fresh-water fish, etc. Your argument was based on what the Bible required on the ark. How these non-ark organisms survived outside the ark is another debate. Such is a fair question, and a good discussion, that has been discussed many times. The point is, it’s another topic. Your original claim requiring the ark to somehow accommodate the originators of 10 million species was a fallacious argument that needs to be put to rest.
So the Bible does not require insects on the ark? It doesn’t seem that way to me.
Here are the verses in Genesis.
7:21 And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, and every man:
7:22 All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land, died.
7:23 And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth: and Noah only remained alive, and they that were with him in the ark.
8:1 And God remembered Noah, and every living thing, and all the cattle that was with him in the ark: and God made a wind to pass over the earth, and the waters asswaged;
8:17 Bring forth with thee every living thing that is with thee, of all flesh, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth; that they may breed abundantly in the earth, and be fruitful, and multiply upon the earth.
Now it does say in 7:22 all in whose nostrils was the breath of life so the modern YEC apologists use this to claim that insects and other invertebrates that don’t breath through nostril did not have to be on the ark. However it does not say that ONLY those who breathe through nostril died and it more than once says every living thing and every creeping thing died . If insects were not thought to be living or need air this would seem a pretty big blunder in the supposedly inerrant Bible even if they don’t have nostrils. If insects are not among creeping things then why are grasshoppers identified in Leviticus as flying creeping things ye may eat? I suppose those questions belong on the Bible inerrancy page but I have made the point before that many families and even some whole orders of insects could not have survived on or off the ark
and it has not been discussed much here.
http://EvC Forum: Insect diversity falsifies the worldwide flood. -->EvC Forum: Insect diversity falsifies the worldwide flood.
I do recall KC (on OCW) saying that the flood could have collected a forest along with its dirt to preserve ground dwelling insects. That was pretty far out even for KC.
Many species of fresh water fish and many plants are also big problems as well. Why don’t YECs do the experiment of soaking a wide variety of plant seed in salty water for a year and then throwing them out on ground that had been under salt water to see if they grow? I think I know why. Do you?
Randy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by Fred Williams, posted 11-22-2002 1:25 PM Fred Williams has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by Fred Williams, posted 11-22-2002 6:12 PM Randy has replied
 Message 93 by Fedmahn Kassad, posted 11-26-2002 3:01 PM Randy has not replied

  
Randy
Member (Idle past 6268 days)
Posts: 420
From: Cincinnati OH USA
Joined: 07-19-2002


Message 79 of 104 (23812)
11-22-2002 7:38 PM
Reply to: Message 76 by Fred Williams
11-22-2002 6:12 PM


quote:
Fairy Tale Lover: Even though most Bible scholars believe the text supports they were not on the ark, for the sake of argument let’s assume they were on the ark. Why could they not have survive on the ark? (there certainly would have been plenty of room for them).
Were there free flowing streams on the ark for the 1500 species of the order Ephemeroptera (Mayflies), which only live in fresh water? Were there living milkweed plants for Monarch butterflies to lay their eggs on? Were there living trees on board so that Cicada larva could live at their roots? Were there flowers for the bees and all the thousands upon thousands of insects that need nectar in their adult stages to feed on? Did the all insects come on two at a time or were colonies of social insects allowed to board?
The problem is not the physical space but the requirements for housing and caring for so many organisms with such complex and varied life cycles.
I also find it very amusing that you can claim that "most Biblical Scholars" don’t think the people who wrote the Bible thought insects were living things (since Genesis clearly says that all living things outside the ark died) and still claim that the Bible is inerrant.
Randy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by Fred Williams, posted 11-22-2002 6:12 PM Fred Williams has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024