front loading: did evos get it backwards

quote:

---

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?

---

Nice try, no. Please do not attempt to characterize my position based on your lack of understanding of the TOE. It is quite rude.Similar genetic sequences coding for similar traits would be evidence for common ancestry and exactly what the TOE would predict, regardless of who credited what. And just what do you mean by similar traits? Morphology, function, or both? It makes a difference as to whether it would be considered to be convergent evolution or not.Edited by deerbreh, : typo

quote:

---

I got a pool of chemical elements that produces a single cell life form over a long period of time this life form produces all life forms.

​

I got a pile of dirt full of chemical elements that produces all lifeforms these life forms produce life forms.

​

I really don't see the difference. But I better leave it there.

---

Well a collection of iron ore, glass, rubber, and plastic is not a car, is it? But maybe you could make one if you knew what you were doing.A pile of elements is not a cell. But maybe you could make one if you were a cell with DNA to tell you how. That is the difference. The cell with DNA is the common ancestor in this case. The theory of evolution says nothing about how the first cell came into being. It starts with a living cell, not a pile of elements.For the sake of argument, lets just say that the pile of elements does produce a cell somehow and then that cell evolves and produces many life forms over time. It is the cell which is the ancestor, not the pile of elements. If the pile of elements were to produce another cell, it would be completely unrelated to the first cell. Of course the two cells or their offspring might get together at some point and exchange genetic information.

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

This is painful to watch. Do you have a case where convergent evolution was concluded on the basis of morphology and then DNA analysis revealed they were genetically related?--Percy

quote:

---

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

---

Again, this is quite rude. You are not presenting arguments. You are being argumentative. Make your arguments. Please refrain from making mine.

"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.

quote:

---

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?

---

Asked and answered already but to be redundant - Yes for some traits (the common ancestry ones), no for others (the convergent evolution ones) What you can't seem to grasp is that marsupials and placentals have many traits in common that derived from a common ancestor - they have other traits which appear similar that are a result of convergent evolution. Why do you think it is called "convergent evolution"? Because there was a split at the common ancestor and way later the two lines converged on some similar traits.

quote:

---

Or is it expected that the "random mutation" process should generate different genetic sequences producing those similar traits?

---

As I pointed out, it is not an eithor/or situation. But to answer this question, yes. we would expect convergent traits to be more distant genetically.

quote:

---

Or is it your contention that no matter what the results are, NeoDarwinism predicts it in this regard?

---

zzzzzYAWN Once again Boys and Girls.....It is my contention that NeoDarwinism predictions are borne out by the available data on both derived traits and convergent traits. They are NOT mutually exclusive and two different organisms can have shared ancestral traits, shared derived traits and convergent traits. "No matter what the results" - No, there would be results which would contradict ND predictions, that is why ND is a valid scientific theory - it is falsifiable - but so far, to the consternation of the YECs, ND has done just fine in explaining the available data. Edited by deerbreh, : No reason given.

We will let the administrators sort it out. I alerted them to your nasty habit of misstating my arguments in your words.

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?

quote:

---

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.

---

Read it again. Note I am not buying your "credited" distinction. People, particularly creationists, misinterpret the data sometimes. Also based on your discussion here, I have little faith in your ability to interpret research papers written by evolutionary biologists, so I do not necessarily accept your characterizations of who credited what. And the playing field of the Evolution/Creationism debate is literally littered with false quotations of evolutionary biologists by creationists.

quote:

---

If the evidence proves otherwise, what do you think the significance of that is?

---

It would mean evolutionary biologists would have to reassess their understanding of convergent evolution of course. Why do you ask? Got such evidence? Lay it out there then.

quote:

---

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?

---

It's clear if you are truly seeking the truth. It would not undermine the basic premise of ND, just require a reassessment of our understanding of convergence. And note that we now know a whole lot more about genetic expression than we did years ago. So some differences in morphology that might once have been attributed to differences in genetics might today be attributed to controller or modifier genes being turned on or off in particular environments. It is very possible, even likely, that some traits with similar function but very different morphology might have been called convergence when in fact it really was a shared derived character. Edited by deerbreh, : fix quote

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?

quote:

---

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.

---

No it isn't. I was just pointing it out as a reason why I find it a waste of time to respond to every "NDs say this and doesn't that contradict the evidence....etc." I can back it up all right but I am not going to do a separate thread on it as it is well documented and it would be beating a dead horse. If you want verification go here, you will find plenty.Quote Mine Project: Examining 'Evolution Quotes' of Creationists

quote:

---

Ok, what if that shared character preexisted even the evolution of plants and animals? Is that front loading?

---

I will answer this one and that is it. The rest is rehash - asked and answered. You just don't like or pretend not to understand the answers.Well, I think you mean the genes for that shared character - otherwise it makes no sense at all. Yes, I suppose that would be front loading, unfortunately we can't do DNA analysis on ancestral cells, so how would that hypothesis be falsifiable?

I wrote this last night but the board was down.You've already moved past it but I'll post it anyways.

---

Random mutation generates the different genetic sequences that produce those similiar traits that have arisen via convergent evolution, but they could still be similiar in sequence(the order of the nucleotides) as those sequences of genes are producing similiar traits. I'd expect different sequences that produce similiar traits to have some similarities in their sequence(the order of the nucleotides) as that order is what produces the trait. If the traits are similiar then the order should be similiar. But they could still be different genetic sequences.That seems confusing because the word "sequence" is being used with different meanings