front loading: did evos get it backwards

NeoDarwinism predicts that the genome will evolve in a manner that will increase fitness. Alteration of existing genes, loss of genes, emergence of new genes, duplication of genes, etc. can all lead to increased fitness, and have, in fact, been shown to do so in scentific studies. NeoDarwinism therefore predicts that all can (and even, likely will) happen at some point in the process of the genome's evolution over time.

---

Darwin loves you.

Yes. Well, no, but yes anyway. All sorts of bad mutations can happen and are expected to happen. This is not a problem for ToE. However, if those fitness-decreasing mutations accumulate over time within a population, despite the fact that they should be selected against, that would be a major problem for ToE. Arguably, you're right: a comprehensive view of the pattern is preferable to the bits and pieces that we're using now. But, what would you have us do to get a "comprehensive view of the pattern," Randman? How do you expect us to have comprehensive knowledge of anything? In order to get comprehensive knowledge, you’d have to test everything that’s currently alive. That’s not going to happen, Randman. So, we have to work with what we have. But, that’s not a problem, because what we have is actually quite a lot. I guess I did say that, didn't I? After further reflection, I realize that I was wrong, and I'll retract that claim.Here is a better explanation.NeoDarwinism is not a theory about how mutations happen: it's a theory about the effects of those mutations at a population level. As such, it doesn't have any power to predict what may or may not cause mutations or what patterns of mutation or gene change could occur: it only predicts how the physiological changes caused by genetic changes effect fitness. NeoDarwinism is not harmed by either statement because it does not specifically require either an accumulation or a loss of genes to occur.The theories that cover how mutations happen are the basic principles of organic chemistry: hydrogen-bonding, polymerization, catalysis, etc.You claim that ND is unfalsifiable and faith-based because it can’t be refuted by the emergence of any kind of trait. However, the real explanation for this is that ND does not even touch on the subject of trait emergence. No. Take out everything from your first "and" onward: only mutations are involved in the emergence of new traits. Natural selection is only involved in the spread of that trait from its point of origin. The easliest creatures would have simpler genomes than today’s organisms. Please note that all organisms from today have been evolving for the same period of time, and have thus had the same amount of time to accumulate genetic mass, so we shouldn’t expect to see a correlation between morphological complexity and genetic complexity. Nothing: ND is not an origins science. I'm sure this has been explained to you before. NeoDarwinism is not a theory about how genes originate: it only touches on how those genes effect the organism's fitness.

---

Darwin loves you.

Provide your data. Note that harmful mutations in humans do not count because medicines and health practices counteract the harmful effects of the mutations. And, I will of course back it up with good data. Developing multiple-personality disorder, are you? Because, I only see one person who is finding this. How do you manage to turn “ND can’t predict this” into “ND predicts it, no matter what”? The emergence of new alleles is not explained by natural selection, but by the chemical principles that govern the interaction of the genome and molecules involved with the genome. Right. In fact, that’s what my second sentence affirms: mutations, not ToD, touch on the emergence of new traits. Why can’t you distinguish between mutations and natural selection? They are two entirely different phenomena. Admittedly, I should have used the term “allele emergence.” And, natural selection does not take effect until after the mutation is complete and the new allele is already in existence, so ToE is NOT involved whatsoever in the processes of mutation. “Selected for” is not the same as “caused to appear.” You can only select for traits that are already within the genetic capacity of your breeding population. You cannot select for blue eyes in a population of pureblood Zulus unless a mutation happens first. I didn’t say anything about the origin of the first life form, either, did I? Origins are origins. If ToE doesn’t touch on the origins of the first organism, how the hell do you propose it could touch on the origins of the first genome? No. Neo-Darwinism (which is an incorrect term, by the way) is only natural selection: mutations do not arise by natural selection, and natural selection does not act on an allele until that allele is in existence. ToE has nothing to do with how the alleles arise: those are chemical processes described well by organic chemistry, free radical chemistry, acid-base chemistry, etc. (1) When did I or anyone else “insist that the genome could only have arisen via random processes”?(2) What made you jump to the conclusion that there are no theories? Why are you having trouble understanding that there are other scientific theories outside of ToE? I explained earlier how the theories explaining mutations are basic, well-documented chemical principles (for which there are mounds of evidence). These same principles possibly governed the original formation of the genome on the primordial Earth.

---

Darwin loves you.

Okay, back to the OP (which is what I thought we were discussing pretty clearly with that last exchange).From what I’ve gathered, front-loading posits that the genome starts out big, and changes over time primarily via loss of genes, and that addition of new genes is not a significant factor in evolution. A science report shows that a cellular slime mold (an early divergence from the multicellular eukaryotes) has more gene families than fungi, plants or animals, and you have taken this as solid evidence of front-loading. For the past few pages, you have been complaining that Darwinists don’t see how loss of genes poses any sort of problem for the mainstream ToE.My rebuttal:(1) Neo-Darwinism posits that the environment alters the fitness of an organism and selects for certain traits, and that these traits arise from mutations.(2) Mutations are defined as changes in the base-pair sequence in the genome. Therefore, all Neo-Darwinism actually says about the emergence of traits is that they are determined by genetic sequences, and that the sequences can change. It does not in any way dictate or attempt to predict what sorts of genetic changes will occur nor how these changes happen.(3) Loss of genes is a type of change in genetic sequence, so it’s reasonable to posit that losing genes will somehow affect the evolution of organisms. Note that this does not mean Neo-Darwinism predicts that genes will be lost.(4) About social amoebas (I like the older term “cellular slime mold”): while they have more gene families than animals, plants and fungi, the total amount of base pairs is much smaller (the paper lists the Dictyostelium genome as consisting of 34,042,810 base pairs, while the Human Genome Project lists the human genome as consisting of 3 billion base pairs, fully 100 times the size of the amoeba’s genome). Also, the number of genes is smaller (social amoebas have about 12,500 genes, while the human genome has about 20,000-25,000 genes (same sources, respectively)).From this, it is easy to show that, however evolution has occurred, both loss and addition of genes played an important role. If humans are the stem branch, and social amoebas, the divergent branch, there are entire families of genes (protein families) that emerged in the amoeba line. If amoebas are the stem branch, then the number of individual genes was doubled in the human line (not to mention the 100-fold increase in material). Either way, you have to have had new genes arise. Thus, this study very clearly shows that both loss and addition of genes must be taken into account in theories of evolution, which is actually more of a challenge to front-loading than to Darwinism.

---

Darwin loves you.

Hi, Randman. I stand corrected: "front-loading" apparently does not deny addition or accumulation of genes. No. The whole point of my diatribe on that data was to show that the human genome has experienced a lot more addition to its genome since its split with Dictyostelium than loss. That humans have lost some "types" of genes is insignificant next to the fact that total gene count has more than doubled and genomic mass has increased one hundredfold. The major trend defining the evolutionary separation between human and LCA is addition, not loss, which is more difficult for front-loading to explain than ToE.Note that this parallels the fossil record: we have “lost” many “types” of organisms to extinction (e.g. anomalocaridids, lepidodendrales, calamites, trilobites, thylacines, dinosaurs, multituberculates, cycadioids, ammonites, arthropleurids, phorusrhacids, chalicotheres, ground sloths, mesonychids, Titanopterans, Paleodictyopterans, Protodonatans, etc.), but we still have a rich and diverse biosphere alive today that is made up from only the few lineages that have managed to survive. The problem, then, is that you have failed to show how these findings are paradoxical. ToE doesn’t require or predict any specific pattern of change mechanics at all. It doesn’t even require that complexity increase over time. It only requires that changes (of any sort: addition, alteration, loss, duplication, etc.) accumulate as natural selection weeds out the ones that had detrimental effects. Please note that “losses” can also “accumulate,” which is a point you’re seeming to miss somehow.Another thing that you’ve completely missed is the difference between last common ancestor and earliest common ancestor, despite it having been explained to you. Because ToE doesn’t require a net gain or loss over an unspecified evolutionary interval, it does not predict how big a genome will be at any given time. Common descent would suggest a simple beginning, but ToE also doesn’t really depend on common descent, either: everything could have just as easily evolved from two independent ECAs if two primal organisms could arise and compete with each other, or seven, or four hundred and ninety-three.

---

Darwin loves you.

Read more carefully, and you'll see that he actually said, "molecular DNA evidence can support common ancestry arguments," not "molecular DNA evidenc can support Neo-Darwinist arguments." Last I checked, "common ancestry" is neither support nor hindrance to either Neo-Darwinism or front-loading.It would take an entirely different line of research to distinguish between front-loading and Neo-Darwinism. Front-loading, as described here, amounts only to a theory of origins (the only thing it really describes is how life started) and you should know by now that ToE doesn’t rely on any specific circumstance of origins to still function. However the organisms popped into existence, they still had to compete with one another for survival, and conditions in the world invariably will lead to changes in their genomes.

---

Darwin loves you.

Just for the record, I think it's tacky to reply to the same message twice, but it was unavoidable this time. I failed to notice this beforehand: I can't help but notice that, under your definition of "predict," the above explanation of front-loading seems to allow front-loading to "predict" everything that Neo-Darwinism "predicts."So, I now request that you support the claim that Neo-Darwinism can be made to predict all observations while simultaneously showing that front-loading cannot. I'm granting you your definition and usage of the word "predict" for the sake of this challenge, even though it's inaccurate.If you can't do that, your entire point in this thread is defeated.

---

Darwin loves you.