front loading: did evos get it backwards

I don't think the issue of parsimony is the crux of the matter unless you want to disagree with the paper's findings. The real issue as I have stated repeatedly is the NeoDarwinian hypothesis that random mutation produces genetic change that is then adapted via natural selection. This process envisions morphological and genetic evolution occuring roughly parellel so that the expectation is that simpler and more primitive organisms would have simpler genomes as well.What we are finding, if you assume common descent in the first place, is that this hypothesis is wrong and doesn't match the facts. Hmmmm...the fact is the front loaders predicted these findings and evos and ND predicted the opposite which is why they were "surprised" and found it "paradoxical" that the data did not match what they expected. You can call it ludicrous, but one model fit the facts, in this case, and the ND model did not.You appear to want to move the goalposts and say: Even if you want to say it's just as complex, the same holds true. We have a massive genome in the most primitive organisms of the latest common ancestors, evolution (assuming it occurred at all) via loss and recombination of genes instead of the slow accumulation of genes, just as the front loaders predicted and just as ND did not predict. ND is a gradualistic theory. It rests on small changes accumulating over time so that the genome should roughly parallel morphological evolution. The exact opposite is the case. The latest common ancestors of plants and animals and the latest common metazoan ancestor appear to have had genomes as complex or more complex than the following lineages. That's front loading whether you want to admit it or not.

Actually it does. First off, chemistry plays a significant role in DNA as well as physics. Secondly, the idea he's presenting is that commonalities can be explained by the fact creatures were created from the same source, the earth, rather than evolving from a theoritical (almost mythical) common ancestor.

The thread isn't about parsimony, wk, and I still see no relevance here as far as this thread. Except of course when evos don't, and then they call it convergent or parallel evolution, right? Isn't that in agreement with my OP and what front loaders predict? I don't see why you are making a fuss out of parsimony unless you think parsimony is wrong and leads to an incorrect and inflated estimate of the size the LCA genome.Is that what you are saying? So what? There is no single evo model either, but there are general commonalities of evo models. It appears this is a red herring you are throwing out for some reason, at least from my perspective. ND is gradualistic and does predict what I have stated already in terms of morphological and genetic evolution roughly paralleling one another, which as I stated before, is why evos were so startled and shocked to find the data disagreeing with their expectations. I've not mixed anything up. Once again, you are doding the point. Te comment "most primitive" is relative to the creatures that followed the LCA, not the theoritical and I might add mythical first common ancestor.Also, please don't keep trying to move the goal-posts. No one said there is a 1 to 1 parellel between morphological and genetic evolution, but that they "roughly" parellel, and regardless of what you or anyone says, this is what ND says. It is gradualistic, not saltational, nor Lamarckian, and it does posit that random mutations are adapted via natural selection thus coupling the 2 together. As such, it predicts as evos expected that the more primitive LCAs (as opposed to the species that supposedly followed) would be more primitive genetically. That's why they were surprised and consider it paradoxical that this expectation didn't pan out.On the coral paper, why do you think they consider the findings "paradoxical"? Why did scientists expect to find the opposite?Could it just be that's what evo theory predicted?....hmmm

Well, it's not totally divorced. He's saying biology is formed from the earth's chemistry.In general, I think he has a good point even if you are not a creationist. There are certain constraints and put another way, directives, about how biological creatures, DNA, etc,....are made-up. Evos took too simplistic an approach and insisted all commonalities are the result of common descent with their massive exceptions of parallel and convergent evolution (which imo doesn't explain the data that well) and said that's all there is. In reality, specific features and even specific mutations are dictated by the principles of chemistry and so would arise, if evolution even occured as evos think, independently anyway based on the constraints of chemical properties. Of course, that doesn't mean they were not simply created which explains it as well.In other words, all these similarities evos posit as smoking-guns of common descent are not actually smoking guns at all. Heck, there are even studies showing viruses introduced tend to create mutations in the same loci. Evos insist that the only explanation is common descent, but really medical studies indicate otherwise. Let's don't go there because it would be a different thread, but the main point is that chemistry plays a huge role in the appearance of similarities in biological creatures.

Just lost a massive post with several papers linked....arrgghh!So I will cut to the chase and come back with examples of convergent mutation and explain why parsimony isn't the issue later. But the prediction was wrong, right? What was the basis for that model?Btw, I'll address parsimony briefly. If this was due to parsimony causing an underestimate of the LCA's genome, it wouldn't be such a "surprise", "shock", and considered "paradoxical." I can near guarantee evos won't accept it or anything as evidence for front loading, at least for awhile, but addressing the 2 larger points above. Is there any evidence one way or another yet?I thought we went over this before and the conclusion was the genetic data wasn't there yet to say, for example, if genetic convergent evolution was the reason, say, Marsupials and Placentals share common traits.Moreover, I pointed out that either way it is problematic for evolution and incidentally, evos will argue either result fits Darwinism. If there is convergent genetic evolution, they will say, as you did in one example, there is "deep homology" or some such, and if there is not, they will say all the better.But regardless, do you not expect on the whole that similar traits between Marsupials and Placentals will share similar genes expressing those traits? And wouldn't that be, according to you, evidence of front loading per your comment above?I've got more but need to post this for fear I lose it again.

So you would consider it evidence against Darwinism if it can be shown similar genetic sequeces for similar traits, you know, the ones credited to convergent evolution?Is that your position?

So whatever the results, you consider it evidence of evolution?

"Genetically related" is somewhat of a subjective call. Certainly, there are examples of convergent mutations. For example, and anyone can google and see more such studies: RedirectingAs I state to Wk, however, until full genomes are done and compared and the specific genetic sequences identified for certain similar traits and functions considered to have risen independently, it's not clear yet if similar genes are used or not for the same functions in Marsupials and Placentals. I would suspect that's the case. WK seemed to state that would be strong evidence for front loading. As I predicted, others will insist that's what should be expected from NeoDarwinism, and of course, if the opposite is true, they will insist that too was expected.It'd be nice to nail down people's opinions of what ND predicts PRIOR to the facts coming out.

Not sure what to say except rudeness here isn't one-sided. The simple fact is the question is not meant to be rude. It's a basic question. Maybe explaining and rewording the question/issue will help.What do you think NeoDarwinism predicts?Does it predict similar genetic sequences for similar traits between marsupials and placentals that are considered by evos to have arisen via convergent evolution?Or is it expected that the "random mutation" process should generate different genetic sequences producing those similar traits?Or is it your contention that no matter what the results are, NeoDarwinism predicts it (as far as this issue)?These are not meant to be inflammatory questions but genuine questions to your position. I think all 3 are potentially defensible positions from an evo perspective though the 3rd raises the issue of ND being too elastic to be properly tested (at least in this regard).Edited by randman, : No reason given.Edited by randman, : No reason given.

I have presented an argument deerbrah. I realize you consider it rude but I am merely asking for your position. If you are not ready to think through the issue and answer, just say so rather than complain as if something negative has happened. Sometimes we aren't ready to answer and that may be the case here. Take your time and consider what you think is right. WK made a very specific comment on front loading; that there could be evidence of front loading if genetic sequences for similar functions matched.You weighed in whether you realize it or not saying such a finding would not be evidence for front loading but predicted by ND.I am merely asking you if that's really your position or what. It's not an attack on your personally.

OK, so your position is for the traits arising via convergent evolution, they will not be the result of similar genetic sequences. Thanks for taking a stand here. Please note I asked because in Message 61 when asked about the similar traits credited to convergent evolution, you appeared to answer differently and thus contradicted yourself. If the evidence proves otherwise, what do you think the significance of that is?Also, your answer to the last question isn't clear? Are you saying that if we do find similar genetic sequences for traits considered to have arisen via convergent evolution to be evidence against ND or not?

Since creationists don't believe in universal common descent, I thought it would be quite obvious that by "credited", I was referring to evos crediting similarities to convergent evolution. Is this part of the topic here. I don't think it is, but I would love to see you back up your claim on a different thread. I don't think you can. I asked you, not an evolutionary biologist and my reason should be clear. I'd like to see what your position is on the matter and would still like to know. What exactly does ND predict and what are the consequences if the predictions are wrong?Why is that so hard to answer? Ok then, so you are saying I presume that ND makes no specific prediction in this area that either way ND is true, or is that a mischaracterization of your stance? Just seeking for a clear answer on this point. As I see it now, unlike wk, you wouldn't consider any genetic findings evidence for front loading but all findings comparing genetic sequences for traits that evos consider to have arisen convergently to be consistent with NeoDarwinism, right? Ok, what if that shared character preexisted even the evolution of plants and animals? Is that front loading?

Been on the road doing business and so haven't been able to respond to the many messages. Unfortunately, though the subject you raised is interesting and worth discussing, it's not related to the topic. What we are talking about is the general pattern of theoritical genetic evolution. One would expect exceptions to the pattern, but you cannot pick a small portion, say, of supposed evolution as evidence one way or another.The point is what NeoDarwinism predicts and what it predicts is a rough parellel with morphology and the genome due to random mutations being adapted to a wider population group via natural selection so that smaller mutations and changes gradually build up to larger-scale evolution.The problem with the ND story (myth?) is that it doesn't fit the facts. We have very simple organisms with massive genomes and evolution from the LCA via loss of genes. This is the picture the front loaders predicted, not the Darwinists. Keep in mind you have to take a look at the whole picture, not a small slice.

Can you clarify that? Seems like you left a word out.

Yep, basically no matter what the results are, evos insist ND predicted it. However, it's noteworthy they were "shocked" and "surprised" as NeoDarwinism did not predict this.