|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: front loading: did evos get it backwards | |||||||||||||||||||||||
ramoss Member (Idle past 611 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
Let me get it this way.
We observe phenomena, and gather data, then come up with a model to explain the data and phenomena we observe, and you object to that? Do you know what evidence that caused scientists to conclude common decent? Do you understand that evidence? Could you please show that you know what that evidence is, then , show how that evidence is 'circular reasoning'? I get the distinct impression you do not know what that evidence is.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4898 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
We observe phenomena, and gather data, then come up with a model to explain the data and phenomena we observe, and you object to that? If that was all evos do, I wouldn't object to it, but that's not the case as can be clearly seen when one takes a comprehensive and close look at the data.
Could you please show that you know what that evidence is, then , show how that evidence is 'circular reasoning'? I get the distinct impression you do not know what that evidence is.
As typical of so many evos, you ignore the facts raised and launch into character assassination. Why not simply deal with the facts presented here? As far as circular reasoning, you cannot define "evolution" as one thing and say it is observed, and then claim a different definition of evolution has been observed.Furthemore, you cannot merely discount a fact by saying it is impossible based on evo theory being true as somehow evidence for evo theory. You are SUPPOSSED to deal with the facts, not claim the facts cannot be true because you believe your theory is true.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Wounded King Member Posts: 4149 From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA Joined: |
Wounded King writes: would suggest there was probably a wealth of genetic diversity which may have been available to the latest common ancestor of plants, animals and fungi which is not represented in these more recently derived lineages. becomes ...
Randman writes: You seem to admit that the simplist, earliest common ancestor to plants and animals was indeed front loaded with all the types of genes that future plants and animals would need. Did someone declare opposite day and just not tell me? Or is it just that you have as poor a grasp of what I said as of what the paper says? TTFN, WK
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4898 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
How is opposite? The ancestor to all plants and animals had more types of genes than plants and animals today. If you are objecting to the term, "front loading," just restate it to say you agree that the ancestor to all plants and animals had present more types of genes than are present in animals and plants today, and that assuming evolution occurred, it occurred via a loss of genes or modification of genes rather than the slow accumulation of genes via mutation that in turn resulted in new traits being selected for.
Edited by randman, : No reason given. "Haeckel's much-criticized embryo drawings are .... evidence for evolution." Richardson and Gerhard Keuck, 2002 paper
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Wounded King Member Posts: 4149 From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA Joined: |
I object to you taking something I say about the latest common ancestor of certain lineages and representing it as concerning the earliest common ancestor.
If you can't differentiate those two concepts you are seriously out of your depth. TTFN, WK
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4898 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
Ok, let's go with the latest common ancestor (theoritical) because that is what I meant. Do you agree that the latest common ancestor for all plants and animals had more types of genes than plants and animals today?
If so, then don't we see the opposite of ND; rather than a slow accumulation of genes via mutation and natural selection, we see them at this early stage despite the fact the theoritical organism would be quite primitive (meaning early) and simple. Evolution primarily via a loss of genes rather than a slow accumulation of genes is the opposite of ND. Plus, how can natural selection be involved with the origination of all of these genes if the organism did not express the complexity that comes along later? Just handwaiving this away doesn't do, btw. Edited by randman, : No reason given. "Haeckel's much-criticized embryo drawings are .... evidence for evolution." Richardson and Gerhard Keuck, 2002 paper
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ramoss Member (Idle past 611 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
Well, individual people might make overstatements. However, considering you are not looking at this thing called 'context' , I find your statement to be highly disingenuous. You make a lot of accusations, but when you read the 'evidence' for your accusation in context, the 'evidence' evaporates.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 284 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Nice attempt to avoid the thread topic with circular reasoning. You are a liar. I have not tried to avoid the thread topic of front-loaded evolution, which I have discussed at length.
Problem is you don't observe "evolution" as defined by the origin of new and the higher taxa. Evolution is not defined by the "origin of new and higher taxa", a phrase that is all but devoid of meaning. I reiterate that all the evolution that we observe is not front-loaded.
All you observe is something you claim is "evolution" and define it so ... Actually, it is not I who define the meaning of scientific terms.
... but clearly is not the mechanism, assuming common descent even occurred, that produced life as we know it. When you say that this is "clearly" true, you are speaking for yourself rather than for, let's say, biologists, aren't you? It is interesting to see what is "clear" to you, considering that you are helpless to understand even the simplest of statements in your native language. Yet somehow your own effortless genius in overturning 150 years of science, ah, yes, that's quite clear. To you.
In other words, it must be impossible because NeoDarwinism just has to be true. The fact that contrary to ND, we don't see a gradual evolving of new genes as new traits are acquired but that all these types of genes pre-existed the theoritical evolution of plant and animal lineages just cannot be, eh? Has to be impossible....darn the facts. That is not what I said in other words. That was something that I did not say nor in any way imply that dribbled out of your own fevered brain. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Do you agree that the latest common ancestor for all plants and animals had more types of genes than plants and animals today? Sure, I'll agree.
If so, then don't we see the opposite of ND; rather than a slow accumulation of genes via mutation and natural selection Not neccessarily. Assuming, by going from the latest common ancester to animals and plants, the population loses a bunch of types of genes (to specialize into either plant or animal). If, after of slow accumulation of new genes (through RM and NS), new species of either/both animals and plants emerge, then everything is hunky-dorey. Evolution has occured like the discription in the ToE, AND, the latest common ancestor had more types of genes. Just because genes were lost at some point in the past doesn't mean that they must continue to be lost and that no new ones can come about. If a WHOLE LOT of gene types were lost from when the latest common ancestors specialized into plant and animal, then plants and animals would have a lot of room to evolve new genes before they exceeded the original number of types of genes. They don't however, as you seem to be assuming, have to continue to lose more and more gene types all the while never evolving a new one.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Wounded King Member Posts: 4149 From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA Joined: |
Do you agree that the latest common ancestor for all plants and animals had more types of genes than plants and animals today? I don't agree. What the paper shows is that what diversity there was in the latest common ancestor has been retained more by Dictyostelium than any other group, it doesn't say that the ancestor had more types of gene than any modern group. In this respect I think Loomis statement is an exaggeration going beyond what the data will support. Indeed if we look at Figure 6 from the paper we can see that the number of PFAM domains which must have been found in the common ancestor of plants, animals and Dictyostelium, following the papers logic that Dictyoselium split from the metazoa after the split form plants, is 938. We get this from taking the genes common to animals and plants (which includes the numbers in boxes within those shared domains) and the ones shared by Dictyostelium and plants (the boxed number in the blue plants domain). The metazoa however have 1560 PFAM domains, 502 of which are unique to the metazoa. Even if we include the fungi and say that the LCA's complement was 1092, which is all of the genes shared by any 2 or more groups, it is still smaller than the complement of the metazoa. Even if we add in the SFAM superfamily data there are still only another 261 families to play with, not enough to make up the shortfall to the metazoans. In the paper the authors conclude ...
Eichinger, et al. writes: The surprising molecular diversity of the Dictyostelium proteome, which includes protein assemblages usually associated with fungi, plants or animals, suggests that their last common ancestor had a greater number of genes than had been previously appreciated. This seems much more moderate language than the quote you provide from Loomis, he may simply have been exaggerating the impact of the research as happens all too often when research is being presented for media consumption. I just can't see how the data presented in the paper can support the claim that 'The cells which gave rise to plants and animals had more types of genes available to them than are presently found in either plants or animals'. Perhaps Loomis was relying on other data outwith their research, who can say? The statement may well still be true, there could easily have been gene types in the LCA which haven't survived in the organisms studied in the paper or indeed in any modern lineage. We will probably be able to expand the shared number of gene types as more organisms are sequenced, but at the same time we are likely to be expanding the number of novel or unique gene types. The number of gene types ascribed to the LCA might grow to exceed that for individual class lineages, as it already does for the fungi, but I think it is unlikely.
If so, then don't we see the opposite of ND; rather than a slow accumulation of genes via mutation and natural selection, we see them at this early stage despite the fact the theoritical organism would be quite primitive (meaning early) and simple. Having said that the quote is exaggerated there has still obviously been considerable gene loss of particular domain types among different lineages since the latest common ancestor. The data shows at least 34 PFAM domains which have been lost in the metazoan lineage. I don't see anything supporting your scenario however, especially since there is a large disjunction between types of gene as identified by PFAM domains and the actual number of genes in terms of discrete protein coding sequences. It is worth noting that a discrete protein coding sequence is now becoming a somewhat obsolete definition of a gene, but it will do in this instance. Even if the trend since the LCA had been a net decrease in gene number it would not go against our theories of how evolution operates or known evolutionary mechanisms. However, it would be contrary to what our current models of evolutionary history would predict; such models are based upon an assumption of parsimony. If you want to make an argument against parsimony as an assumption in phylogenetics then you should feel free, although maybe a new thread would be more suitable for that.
Evolution primarily via a loss of genes rather than a slow accumulation of genes is the opposite of ND. This is in no way supported by the evidence. A significant role for gene loss is certainly undeniable, but I don't see how it is a problem for current evolutionary theory. I certainly don't see any basis for claiming gene loss is the primary mechanism of evolution.
Plus, how can natural selection be involved with the origination of all of these genes if the organism did not express the complexity that comes along later? Because the genes involved are not solely involved in the generation of the complexity you are talking about, especially when we are not talking about individual genes but about protein domains which can be shared by hundreds of genes. If one ancestral shared protein with a given domain subsequently diversifies into multiple genes would you not consider that a basis for increased complexity? TTFN, WK
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4898 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
I think you are missing the pattern. This is not some bump in the road but a general pattern and it conflicts completely with the ND hypothesis on evolution. There is not a slow accumulation of genes via random mutation and natural selection, at least not for the bulk of plants and animals. So when people observe microevolution, they are not observing the process that evolved the design of organisms, their genes.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2105 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
There is not a slow accumulation of genes via random mutation and natural selection, at least not for the bulk of plants and animals. So when people observe microevolution, they are not observing the process that evolved the design of organisms, their genes. Is it possible that what we are seeing is changes in genes and the other things that express those genes?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4898 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
What the paper shows is that what diversity there was in the latest common ancestor has been retained more by Dictyostelium than any other group, it doesn't say that the ancestor had more types of gene than any modern group. In this respect I think Loomis statement is an exaggeration going beyond what the data will support. So you disagree with Loomis. That's fair but keep in mind this isn't the only study indicating front loading. Remember the paper on the mollusk where a very simple organism was found with genes corresponding to complex nerve function? They also felt their study indicated greater genetic complexity, in their paper for the common metazoan ancestor and that at least "with many animal lineages", there was a "massive loss of genes" during the evolutionary process. It seems clear that whenever someone says they observe evolution, meaning microevolution, they are not observing the process the design of organisms, their genes. "Haeckel's much-criticized embryo drawings are .... evidence for evolution." Richardson and Gerhard Keuck, 2002 paper
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
This is not some bump in the road but a general pattern and it conflicts completely with the ND hypothesis on evolution. But I just explained how that is not neccessarily the case.
There is not a slow accumulation of genes via random mutation and natural selection, at least not for the bulk of plants and animals. Non sequitor. There could still be slow accumulation of genes, even if the latest common ancestor of plants and animals had more types of genes if the specialization into either plant of animal cause a loss of a lot of types of genes. Because then the specialized plant or animal could slowly accumulate genes after that while still being below the original amount.
So when people observe microevolution, they are not observing the process that evolved the design of organisms, their genes. Well now you're just taking it and running with it
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Wounded King Member Posts: 4149 From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA Joined: |
Did you actually read the paper? Do you think it shows more gene types in the LCA than in extant groups? Do you have an opinion? Or did you simply decide that since it sounded like what you wanted to hear it was automatically good science and got a free pass from any actual scrutiny?
Remember the paper on the mollusk where a very simple organism was found with genes corresponding to complex nerve function? I remember the paper but how you describe it is pretty well scientifically illiterate. I went into some detail on your presentation of this paper on the Criticizing neo-Darwinism thread, see my response in Message 263.
They also felt their study indicated greater genetic complexity, in their paper for the common metazoan ancestor and that at least "with many animal lineages", there was a "massive loss of genes" during the evolutionary process. I have no problem with these conclusions, a brief glance at endoparasitic organisms would be sufficient to confirm the large scale loss in some lineages, but it is a far cry from being evidence for front loading.
It seems clear that whenever someone says they observe evolution, meaning microevolution, they are not observing the process the design of organisms, their genes. This isn't just scientifically illiterate, it seems to be actually illiterate. Did you hit send a bit too soon? TTFN, WK Edited by Wounded King, : No reason given. Edited by Wounded King, : No reason given.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024