front loading: did evos get it backwards

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."

Is it your understanding that "molecular studies" refers to the fossil record?hmmm...

Evos do indeed find studies on living animals as evidence for common ancestry. The fossil record contradicts evo models in reality which is one reason they have started harping on the claim the fossil record isn't the primary evidence for evo theory, though they would claim it isn't that the fossil record contradicts evo theory (though it does) but that it is too incomplete or some fossil rarity claim.But as far as this thread, I am not sure how you could misread my discussion of molecular studies from an evo assumption perspective, meaning assuming common descent, as studies on the fossil record. Perhaps you should reread my comments and this thread....or perhaps you think you are on a different thread....it happens.Evos do consider current molecular studies in light of various assumptions to have specific indications of the genome of the last common ancestor of all plants and animals. If you want to argue it's bogus and unfalsfiable science, be my guest. You may well be right.But that's not the point of this thread. What I am talking about is viewing the evidence from these studies, assuming for sake of argument for a minute they were accurate (big assumption since they are based on common descent), and what their conclusions suggest since they were predicted by front loaders and contradict the expectations of evos.

Pretty simple question....what does NeoDarwinism predict? So far, no evo dares answer.

Interesting that you cannot produce the common ancestor for nearly anything of substance, and yet you make this statement.Is it fair to say evos are deluded then because they have no common ancestor alive for all animals, plants, or heck, any common ancestor living for any grouping of animals above the species level?

Why don't you check into some of the fossil threads. You might be surprised what you find and what your fellow evos claim.

Here is your proof from the OP and evidence you should probably just read this thread and learn something rather than try to engage in debate. You apparently have no clue as to how evos do indeed do molecular studies on current species to infer conclusions on the theoritical last common ancestor. Sad you are participating without bothering to read the OP.Page Not Found | University of California

Sorry, but this thread is not about the fossil record and I am not going to be baited by unnecessary and inflammatory language and insults on your part, nor by the fact that you are trying to get me to expound on off-topic material. You know full well I am willing to defend my positions. You guys are trying to discuss the fossil record, making specific unfounded claims, on a thread about the molecular data related to front-loading.My pointing out there are many threads on the fossil record is not dodging the issue, as you suggest, but merely complying with the board rules and suggesting you post your comments on the fossil record on a thread where that is the focus of discussion. Apparently, you are not willing to do that and so it is fully appropiate to reiterate to you that if you wish to discuss the fossil record, which I have done in-depth on many threads, you are welcome to bring that issue up where it is appropiate and where your question has been amply answered, as I suspect you know already.

See my post above. You know full well I am willing to discuss the fossil record and have done so amply. However, as you know, this thread is not about the fossil record but rather the molecular evidence and front-loading/neodarwinism.I will not be baited by your false efforts to try to get me to break the forum rules and move this thread off-topic, nor your false suggestion that somehow I am avoiding the topic when in reality, it is others that have brought up the fossil record, making specific claims which they have not, nor can imo, back up. I have stated they are in error, but obviously there are other, numerous threads where debating that subject is appropiate, and where my comments are public record.

Well, that's a start. But what does NeoDarwinism predict concerning the evolution of the genome in general? Does ND predict whatever result we find?

As I stated, this is wrong. However, it is also off-topic here.Can you start a thread backing up this claim, please? I don't think your view is accepted opinion among evos, but you apparently believe the fossil record is where the idea of the theoritical common ancestor stems from. Edited by randman, : No reason given.Edited by randman, : No reason given.

Seems like some are having difficulty addressing the thread topic.....so I am repeating it. I welcome and would love to see posts addressing the OP and discussions related to it. If you have a strong opinion on some other evo topic, creationism, ID or whatever, I love debating so start your own thread so we can discuss it.

So if we have examples of inherited negative mutations, is that evidence against ND?I realize that you will argue it is not, and I don't really disagree except to say I wish the same standard is applied if there are examples of, say, a bacteria adapting via mutations to overcome, for example, anti-bacterial agents. The truth is neither says that much at all because such small examples are not a comprehensive view of the pattern, and also bacteria adapting but remaining bacteria, a form theoritically stabilized over 500 million years ago, isn't really evidence of anything much at all. So in reality, you are saying no matter what the results are, NeoDarwinism predicts it.Maybe we can look a little deeper into the matter and make ND falsifiable in terms of the molecular data? Would you say ND makes any prediction about the overall pattern? Spefically, would you say new traits arise via random mutation and natural selection among other things?I would assume the answer is yes. So with that in mind, one would expect that the simplest and earliest types of creatures would have what?What does ND predict?What does ND say about the origin of genes and the genome?For example, would ND predict a simpler genome that becomes more complex and/or varied as more mutations are added?Or does ND expect the first genome or the genome to very primitive organisms like the LCA to have genomes of the same complexity of those today?How about the origin of specific genes? Where do they come from?For example, do they come from mutations?

Really? Since harmful mutations do accumulate within a population, how can you make this argument? I would presume you would fall back on arguing they should not "be selected against", and I can make that argument for you. Quite simply an organism's fitness can increase despite accumulations of fitness-decreasing mutations. An organism, for example, can as has been the case with human beings, overcome fitness-decreasing mutations.But that's really besides the point.....the reality is that what you are saying means ND predicts absolutely nothing. If harmful mutations accumulate within a population, you will just say there must be other factors assisting that population. Effectively, ND is therefore non-falsifiable since any existing population will have to be considered fit, and so no matter what mutations occur, evos will say it is evidence for NeoDarwinism. Nothing is therefore tested and verifiable as any results whatsoever must be credited a priori to substantiate ND regardless, thus making ND a sham as far as evidence-based science. Isn't the type of evidence referenced in the OP more comprehensive since it involves a more in-depth review of organism's genomes, and it's noteworthy the results are not what was expected, and those expectations were based on ND theory. To do more genomic mapping as was done in the evidence referenced in the OP. Maybe so.....but certainly testing more gives a more comprehensive knowledge and with more knowledge, we are finding the expectations and predictions based on ND are not holding true. So we're back to your position that no matter what the results, ND by predicts it, and yet you feel it is falsifiable. That's a very interesting statement. I thought ND "does not even touch on the subject of trait emergence"? Additionally, doesn't ND include the spread of new traits and so their emergence and cannot new traits arise via variation and natural selection without mutations? Certainly, breeding has shown that specific traits can be selected for without mutations. Ok, this is potentially a hard prediction. Do you have any evidence at all that this is the case? So you disagree with molecular scientists that believe they can infer with a certain reasonableness on the genome of the LCA? More to the point, are you agreeing or disagreeing that the extinct, theoritical last common ancestor should have had a simpler genome since after all it has not been around as long as today's organisms? I did not ask about the origin of the first life form but rather the origin of the genome and it's evolution. So I'll ask it again. For example, doesn't ND predict new "genes" arising via mutations? It's not? So NeoDarwinism doesn't include the concept of random mutations? Moreover, isn't it a bit odd to insist the genome could only have arisen via random processes without any theory whatsoever as to what those processes are, and no evidence either?Sounds like front loading to me, at least if I were an evo.