|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 66 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,461 Year: 3,718/9,624 Month: 589/974 Week: 202/276 Day: 42/34 Hour: 5/2 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: SIMPLE common anscestors had fewer but MORE COMPLEX systems: genomics | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Fred Williams Member (Idle past 4878 days) Posts: 310 From: Broomfield Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Fred Williams Member (Idle past 4878 days) Posts: 310 From: Broomfield Joined: |
quote: Uh, Mams, I don’t think Randy was implying I was taking the quote out-of-context. Explain why you think Ohno’s speculation about differential usage of genes somehow rescues his prior observation from being support for TB’s argument. I did not need Ohno’s speculative conclusion because even it subtly supports TB’s argument. FYI, I have the paper and was well aware of Ohno’s conclusions based on this unfavorable data for evolution. I cited this paper in my fossil article almost a year ago: 404 Not Found
I wrote: Some evolutionists who realize the soft-bodied excuse no longer carries weight are invoking strange ideas in an attempt to deal with this mammoth problem of the sudden arrival of such complex and diverse life. One evolutionist has proposed that all the animal phyla before the Cambrian explosion had nearly identical genes, and that differential usage of the same set of genes accounted for the extreme diversities of body plans.19 There are two primary problems with this: 1) he offers little evidence to support his hypothesis; 2) even if true it would only serve to push the problem back in time - it would then fail to explain why the fossil record left absolutely no trace whatsoever of such a massive accumulation of all this shared genetic information.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Fred Williams Member (Idle past 4878 days) Posts: 310 From: Broomfield Joined: |
quote: No, I actually believe it’s worse than he states! (he’s assuming none of the mutations are removed via selection)
quote: Plenty! Maybe this is before your time, but do you remember that annoying commercial of a German scientist who said it’s better to push a car than to pull it ? Well, imagine him today commenting on this discussion, saying it’s easier to shuffle a deck than to create it!. Bottlenecks, subsequent drift, radiation events, all could account for considerable diversity among genomes within 5K years. Even non-random mutations could play a role! What do the evolutionists have? Nothing, really. Why can’t you propose the same mechanisms to account for the Cambrian explosion? You even get millions of years as opposed to thousands. That’s a lot of points to spot you. The reason is due to you starting point - conventional wisdom is that your precursors do not already have the genetic information and need to somehow produce it in a very short period of time. Our starting point is 30K or so kinds, each with an information-rich genome. That is, we can start shuffling the deck right away. You need to first create the deck, then you can start shuffling! This is why Ohno was forced into his differential gene story. He essentially created the deck from scratch. All he really accomplished was to push the problem back in time, kind of like what the panspermia crowd has done!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Fred Williams Member (Idle past 4878 days) Posts: 310 From: Broomfield Joined: |
quote: You mean that1) neutrals incur a higher reproductive cost to fix than beneficials? 2) Neutral mutations may play a role in hyperspeciation? Do you really want to go down this road again, Scott? You apparently still refuse to realize that the above statements are not mutually exclusive. Both can be true. I’ll give you a clue: etar. What is that spelled backwards? (that's about all the time I have today...) PS. Bonus clue: "ycneuqerf"Super Bonus Clue: "dnas dnuop"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Fred Williams Member (Idle past 4878 days) Posts: 310 From: Broomfield Joined: |
quote: Uh, Doc, please either return your hasbro PhD, or check carefully what I wrote. Do you realize the vast number of dog breeds are essentially artificial bottlenecks? You find a trait you like, then you bottleneck a pair, and before long you have another dog breed. But I see what you have done, and what your argument amounts to is a strawman. Your mind is locked into intra-species, I am thinking inter-species. I agree that bottlenecks reduce the genetic diversity of the new, bottlenecked species (INTRA). For example, I suspect poodles have much less genetic diversity than wolves. Bye bye strawman. But after various bottlenecks, the diversity of the original parent population, at least from a global perspective, has been realized (INTER). In other words, if I saw a picture of the original two domestic dogs, then a picture showing many different dog breeds, I would conclude that the 2nd picture is a reflection of the genetic diversity of the dog. This diversity was the result of various bottlenecks and subsequent mutations. Son’s birthday, gotta run (I'll be back Monday and try to catch up...)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Fred Williams Member (Idle past 4878 days) Posts: 310 From: Broomfield Joined: |
quote: As Peter stated this truly is an irrelevant question. I believe even from the evolutionary POV, there is nowhere near enough data to even make speculations, let alone draw any conclusions as to when various species bottlenecks occurred. There is much in the genetic code that is still a big mystery. For example, there are these jumping genes (retrotransposons) that can cause dramatic rearrangement of the genome, and we seem to be light-years away from reverse-engineering these (which BTW give all the appearance of non-random, pre-programmed "mutations").
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Fred Williams Member (Idle past 4878 days) Posts: 310 From: Broomfield Joined: |
quote: I suspect most understand the point I am making, and I suspect you are one of them but are obfuscating with the aid of strawman arguments. It was asked how the diversity of life can be explained given a starting point of 5K years ago with some number of kinds of animals. I illustrated how bottlenecks and subsequent drift would easily account for some if not much of the diversity we see, and I provided dogs as an illustration. I did not say the genome or the gene pool became more diverse. Its diversity was realized . A deck of cards contains some diverse number of different cards (13 in the case of a poker deck). By itself its diversity is not apparent or interesting. When you fan the cards out its diversity is realized, becoming both apparent and interesting. Bottlenecks in a sense help fan the cards because various traits can be amplified. Radiating a population would also fan the cards (or melt them ). Directed mutations (pre-programmed variation) would also fan the cards. Is this really that hard to understand?
quote: No, they actually contradict evolutionist arguments: 404 Not Found
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Fred Williams Member (Idle past 4878 days) Posts: 310 From: Broomfield Joined: |
quote: I never said this creates diversity. In fact, if you recall I corrected Mamuthusus when he denied genetic information was lost due to bottlenecks (he later recanted, claiming I misunderstood him). What I said is bottlenecks & drift is a process that helps realize the already inherent diversity. If you don’t understand the difference between create and realize there is no point debating this further. I can only say that blue = blue for so long.
quote: It is obvious you do not know what realize means, and it has led you to erect a strawman. You guys are on a role on this board with these assemblages of straw. I also did not say dog diversity was fully realized via breeding (which I pointed out emulates bottlenecks). In fact I completely agree with your sentence above (beginning at they remain, of course).
quote: It is one mechanism that has surely produced new species, we have observed it. I remind you that species is a man-made, subjective term. I have debated some biologists who say that merely isolating a population can qualify the isolated group as a new species. Consider that there are at least 32 species of bats. Each species could easily be the result of population isolation (pseudo-bottleneck) from a parent population (bat kind).
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 Mammals4,184 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. Problem solved.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Fred Williams Member (Idle past 4878 days) Posts: 310 From: Broomfield Joined: |
quote: Don’t worry Mams I stopped taking you seriously after your debacle with your random mutation strawman (even the posts’ originator realized his error; only you remain a lone hold-out to your incredible illogic).
quote: As I have always stated, the resulting bottlenecked population has indeed likely lost genetic information from the parent population. It took several posts before you would come right out and agree with this after you had originally claimed cheetahs had not suffered genetic loss (BTW, in case you missed it, I also provided per your request a reference from a researcher who agrees that cheetahs likely have lost genetic segments). What you refuse to understand is this vein of the argument is that the entire deck of cards still exists as long as the parent population still exists. Bottlenecking a portion of that population, and subjecting it to subsequent selection may cause some diversity to be realized, not created.
quote: Wow, big Bible-killer. See my post to Quetzal. To summarize, there are 23K species that would have been required to originate on the ark. Creationist estimates the total number of kinds to be around 16-18K (I apologize for my previous 30K number, I’m not sure where I saw that). That means roughly 1.3 species per kind is all that is needed in 4K years. BTW, some day when you get a job perhaps you might realize the difference between "ignore" and "lack of time". One of the refreshing things about this board is that I've found that most of the evolutionist requlars here realize the difference. Why do you have trouble with this? Taking in too much of Page's canned rhetoric? Perhaps you too have less faith in your arguments, and thus turn to such empty complaints? Just checking.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Fred Williams Member (Idle past 4878 days) Posts: 310 From: Broomfield Joined: |
I suspected ark lover Randy would be popping in any moment!
[Last night I watched Tombstone with Kurt Russell for about the 50th time. Doc Holliday facetiously called one of the cowboys music lover, much as I use ark lover here! ] quote: Thanks.
quote: My copy of Woodmorappe's book is at home, but I just found on the web that you are correct that his kind estimate is 8K, not 16K. Woodmorappe's number apparently also accounts for extinct kinds. Regardless, that means each original kind needs to account for only 3 species each. Let’s say I’m off substantially, by an order of 10. That means each kind still only needs to account for roughly 30 species (sub-kinds) each in 4K years. You have shown that bats alone account for 355 known species. I know there are also many species of mice. I think it should be quite evident to everyone that an average of between 3 and 30 species per original "kind" is quite feasible, and thus Quetzal’s argument is toothless.
quote: IMO Woodmorappe makes a solid case in his book why this is not absurd (even without invoking miracles). I agree that's another subject.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Fred Williams Member (Idle past 4878 days) Posts: 310 From: Broomfield Joined: |
quote: That would be a bad guess.
quote: Yes, and a new species. Catching on?
quote: I’m extremely confident it would not, because we have even observed the arrival of new species, all without any new genetic information. In fact, many are likely to be the result of lost genetic information. The cheetah is a great example! BTW, I’m still waiting for any evidence that new genetic information has arisen naturalistically.
quote: Obviously, very little!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Fred Williams Member (Idle past 4878 days) Posts: 310 From: Broomfield Joined: |
quote: No. I can’t keep repeating myself. Please go back and read what I wrote.
quote: It seems this way to you because you were unable to follow the discussion.
quote: Huh? I stated that the cheetah has less genetic information than its pre-bottleneck parent species. Why is this so hard to understand? This is a simple, straightforward statement.
quote: The cheetah is a cat kind. A branch of this cat kind became isolated. This resulted in the CHEETAH. The cheetah has LESS information than its parent, pre-bottleneck cat kind. I already provided a citation from a CHEETAH expert who agrees it is likely the cheetah has lost gene segments. Lions and Tigers also share a common cat kind ancestor. Each likely has less information than their common ancestor cat kind. Savvy?
quote: No, what I wish is that you would follow the discussion. I do not know of a single evolutionist trained in info science who thinks the appearance of a new allele necessarily represents new information. Yet this is what you keep claiming, because you cannot get it through your thick skull. Find me ONE evolutionist who has a background in info science who thinks a new allele always equals new information. If this is true, then DISEASE = new information by this standard. Utter nonsense.
quote: The problem is, your blinders are on so tight you deny that 1+1=2. Let me lay it on the line: You have to be a complete moron to believe deterioration = new information. You would give flat-earthers a good name.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Fred Williams Member (Idle past 4878 days) Posts: 310 From: Broomfield Joined: |
quote: ROTFL! Yet another Page hairsplit. I can just hear you going na na na na na, na. Scott, you are showing your desperation again to latch on to such trivialness. Not being a bat expert, I qualified my number with at least and over because it was based on what little I scrounged up on the internet. It didn’t matter how high the number was, the fact it was at least 32 served my point well. I am glad that Randy provided the right number. It aided my point even more, and by golly I lernt seomthin. What you refuse to acknowledge is the huge disparity between 23K and 5-50M. Quetzal’s argument was based on a flawed assumption that was several orders of magnitude off, yet you remain true to form and still defend it. You go guy! Loyalty to the cause at all costs!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Fred Williams Member (Idle past 4878 days) Posts: 310 From: Broomfield Joined: |
I believe Mams has blown a gasket. I'd recommend pursuing immediate medical attention!
Regarding founder vs bottleneck, I know the difference. In a sense a small founder population is really no different than a bottleneck. DO you deny this? If so, please educate me, oh wise one.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Fred Williams Member (Idle past 4878 days) Posts: 310 From: Broomfield Joined: |
quote: Hence why I followed-up with the top paragraph. I thought it was clear as a whistle. Even the emphasized sentence you quoted should have been clear. It is simply true that bottlenecks and subsequent drift help us SEE the diversity. It does not create the diversity, it helps us SEE it. Realize, see, all words with solid definitions. I am not the one having grammar problems here. You too appear to be equivocating/hairsplitting. But I’m used to it. I really in a sense don’t blame you. If the point you are defending is specious, well
quote: Oh please. Like I said, hairsplit... but I didn't expect this specific hairsplit from you. See my comments to Page, who appears to be a bad influence on some of you. Do you want provocative, reasonable debate, or silly nonsense?
quote: 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.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024