|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: front loading: did evos get it backwards | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Organicmachination Member (Idle past 5738 days) Posts: 105 From: Pullman, WA, USA Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Force Inactive Member |
organicmachination,
the question was not for you. I will bump and reply to the proper individual. Edited by Force, : edit Thanks
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Force Inactive Member |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
deerbreh Member (Idle past 2921 days) Posts: 882 Joined: |
quote: 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 concept Force would have us interbreeding with chimpanzees it seems.Chimpanzee genome project - Wikipedia
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ramoss Member (Idle past 640 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4927 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
redneck22 Junior Member (Idle past 2982 days) Posts: 2 From: Australia Joined: |
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).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Force Inactive Member |
randman,
randman writes: 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. "of course"
randman writes:
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.
"of course"
randman writes: 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. 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Wounded King Member Posts: 4149 From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA Joined: |
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 ...
Certainly, there are examples of convergent mutations. For example, and anyone can google and see more such studies 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.
it's not clear yet if similar genes are used or not for the same functions in Marsupials and Placentals. 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.
As I predicted, others will insist that's what should be expected from NeoDarwinism 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4927 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
N.D. predicts that from generation to generation there is loss of genetic information, for said populations, but for new genetic information. Can you clarify that? Seems like you left a word out.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4927 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4927 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
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. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4927 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
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?
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."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Force Inactive Member |
randman,
Force writes: N.D. predicts that from generation to generation there is loss of genetic information, for said populations, but for new genetic information. randman writes: Can you clarify that? Seems like you left a word out. 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Force Inactive Member |
randman,
randman writes: 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." The "theoritical common ancestors idea" derives from the fossil record. Please provide a link for your claim. Edited by Force, : edit Thanks
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024