front loading: did evos get it backwards

Could you summarize what you mean by "lost" and the premise of your question? I'd rather not do the hunting to figure out what the question is. I'm new to this overarching debate and it would be in the best interests of this discussion if I could have some sort of basis to work on rather than having to read and dissect pages of posts.If it is indeed a lot of info, feel free to reject my request. In that case, I'll have to read the entire thread and take some time to formulate a response.

organicmachination,the question was not for you. I will bump and reply to the proper individual.Edited by Force, : edit

---

Thanks

randman,What about the evolution between H.heidelbergensis and H.Sapien? What was lost?http://EvC Forum: front loading: did evos get it backwards -->EvC Forum: front loading: did evos get it backwards

---

Thanks

quote:

---

Either way, even if both the species had the same gene exactly, it still wouldn't prove we're the same species. It would simply prove that the gene diverged without mutation and was conserved as humans and neanderthals evolved from an ancestral species.

---

Spot on. I am glad someone understands the meaning of "common ancestor" on this board. "One unique common gene = same species?" Oh my, that is wrong in so many ways one doesn't know where to begin so I won't. I would just refer everyone to the biological species concept. It really is a simple concept.
Evolution - A-Z - Biological species conceptForce would have us interbreeding with chimpanzees it seems.
Chimpanzee genome project - Wikipedia

What a species is often is blurred. Tigers and lions are considered seperate species, but they have been known to interbreed. The males are sterile, but the females are most often fertile.About 35000 years ago, there appeared a variation of a gene introduced into the homo sapian population of Europe that appears to be an introgression into the gene pool.

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.

Randman said:
Or is it your contention that no matter what the results are, NeoDarwinism predicts it (as far as this issue)?http://www.physorg.com/news127055240.html"This finding challenges the traditional view of the base of the tree of life, which honored the lowly sponge as the earliest diverging animal. "This was a complete shocker," says Dunn. "So shocking that we initially thought something had gone very wrong.""But even after Dunn's team checked and rechecked their results and added more data to their study, their results still suggested that the comb jelly, which has tissues and a nervous system, split off from other animals before the tissue-less, nerve-less sponge.The presence of the relatively complex comb jelly at the base of the tree of life suggests that the first animal was probably more complex than previously believed, says Dunn."I think the NeoDarwinists specialise in the game called Heads I win, Tails you lose.

---

“The link between belief and behavior raises the stakes considerably. Some propositions are so dangerous that it may be ethical to kill people for believing them. This may seem an extraordinary claim, but it merely enunciates an ordinary fact about the world in which we live” (Sam Harris-The End of Faith, p. 52).

randman, "of course" "of course" N.D. does not predict that there will be no loss of genetic information. N.D. predicts that from generation to generation there is loss of genetic information, for said populations, but for new genetic information. N.D. also predicts that the new genetic information is then tested by the real world via natural selection.

---

Thanks

I've been on holiday and haven't had a chance to look over this thread again yet, I hope to get to it in a day or two.Just for now though I would point out that ... Is not supported by the following extract from the paper, 'three regions consistently mutated in all monkeys studied', does not speak to identical genetic mutations occurring, so while they may have described this as convergent it by no means necessarily fits the criteria we have been talking about. I haven't had a chance to read the paper yet, as I don't have access at home, but the abstract given does not support the specific contention. Similar genes isn't the question. I'd be perfectly happy to stipulate that similar genes are probably involved. It's whether there is a specific shared genetic basis at the sequence level that is the question. So as you predicted what? As you predicted you still predict the same thing? Is this to give the impression that people are now doing this even though they aren't?As I said, hopefully in a couple of days I 'll be in a position to address this thread at greater length.TTFN,WK

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.

Sounds like a contradiction. If similar traits means similar sequences, then that's one thing. If you are saying similar traits are the result of a random process that produces different sequences for similar traits, that's another.it would be nice to hear what evos think ND predicts in this regard.

Evos consider molecular studies on current animals as evidence for preexisting and extinct animals that are there theoritical common ancestors. So for evos, they consider it "falsifiable."

randman, N.D. evolution predicts that in a given population there is going to be a loss of genetic information which is due to random selection of the old genetic information and a new gene is born. Hence "loss of genetic" information for "new genetic information". The theory is that the new genetic information sometimes contains dormant mutated genetic information, due to a error in the copy process at the RNA level, that can be passed from generation to generation and for thousands of years before it is tried by natural selection.

---

Thanks

randman, The "theoritical common ancestors idea" derives from the fossil record. Please provide a link for your claim.Edited by Force, : edit

---

Thanks