Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   front loading: did evos get it backwards
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4898 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 121 of 164 (473175)
06-27-2008 1:43 PM
Reply to: Message 119 by ramoss
06-27-2008 8:31 AM


Re: hmm....
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by ramoss, posted 06-27-2008 8:31 AM ramoss has not replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4898 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 122 of 164 (473176)
06-27-2008 1:46 PM
Reply to: Message 118 by mark24
06-27-2008 5:02 AM


Re: hmm....
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by mark24, posted 06-27-2008 5:02 AM mark24 has not replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4898 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 123 of 164 (473177)
06-27-2008 1:49 PM
Reply to: Message 117 by Wounded King
06-27-2008 3:59 AM


Re: Shaking up the tree of life
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by Wounded King, posted 06-27-2008 3:59 AM Wounded King has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 126 by Blue Jay, posted 06-27-2008 3:07 PM randman has replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4898 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 124 of 164 (473178)
06-27-2008 1:59 PM
Reply to: Message 105 by Force
06-24-2008 6:37 PM


please back up your point on different thread
The "theoritical common ancestors idea" derives from the fossil record. Please provide a link for your claim.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by Force, posted 06-24-2008 6:37 PM Force has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 137 by Force, posted 06-28-2008 9:38 PM randman has not replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4898 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 125 of 164 (473180)
06-27-2008 2:15 PM


what the thread topic is.....
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.
For clarity, let me preface this proposed thread with the comment that I don't subscribe to front loading ID theories about evolution necessarily, but at least think they have some scientific merit as a potential hypothesis, being rooted in some facts, as oppossed to NeoDarwinism. By front loading ID theories, I mean the hypothesis commonly known as front loading. Front loading advocates generally accept, as far as I can tell, either common descent from a number of original forms and organisms or an original, single organism and genome. They are usually thought of as ID theories since the information is considered to be programmed into the front loaded organism but I suppose one could imagine a non-ID front loaded theory as well. NeoDarwinism, on the other hand, posits a slow accumulation of genes via mutations which are selected for by organisms adapting an acquired trait granting them a natural selective advantage.
With that being said, I think the topic deserves a fair hearing. Note the following:
"The cells which gave rise to plants and animals had more types of genes available to them than are presently found in either plants or animals," explains William Loomis, a professor of biology at UCSD and one of the key members of the international sequencing effort. "Specialization appears to lead to loss of genes as well as the modification of copies of old genes. As each new genome is sequenced, we learn more about the history and physiology of the progenitors and gain insight into the function of human genes."
Page Not Found | University of California
Apparently there is significant evidence, assuming common descent, that the ancestor to all plants and animals had a genome with "more types of genes" than is present in any plant or animal today and that evolution, assuming it occurred at all, proceeded through loss and changes of genes rather than the slow accumulation of them as envisioned by NeoDarwinism.

Replies to this message:
 Message 131 by mark24, posted 06-28-2008 3:14 PM randman has replied
 Message 139 by Wounded King, posted 06-29-2008 9:16 AM randman has replied

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2697 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 126 of 164 (473182)
06-27-2008 3:07 PM
Reply to: Message 123 by randman
06-27-2008 1:49 PM


Re: Shaking up the tree of life
randman writes:
But what does NeoDarwinism predict concerning the evolution of the genome in general?
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by randman, posted 06-27-2008 1:49 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 127 by randman, posted 06-27-2008 4:19 PM Blue Jay has replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4898 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 127 of 164 (473189)
06-27-2008 4:19 PM
Reply to: Message 126 by Blue Jay
06-27-2008 3:07 PM


Re: Shaking up the tree of life
NeoDarwinism predicts that the genome will evolve in a manner that will increase fitness.
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.
NeoDarwinism therefore predicts that all can (and even, likely will) happen at some point in the process of the genome's evolution over time.
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by Blue Jay, posted 06-27-2008 3:07 PM Blue Jay has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 128 by Blue Jay, posted 06-28-2008 12:43 AM randman has replied

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2697 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 128 of 164 (473270)
06-28-2008 12:43 AM
Reply to: Message 127 by randman
06-27-2008 4:19 PM


Re: Shaking up the tree of life
randman writes:
So if we have examples of inherited negative mutations, is that evidence against ND?
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.
randman writes:
The truth is neither says that much at all because such small examples are not a comprehensive view of the pattern...
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.
randman writes:
So in reality, you are saying no matter what the results are, NeoDarwinism predicts it.
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.
randman writes:
Spefically, would you say new traits arise via random mutation and natural selection among other things?
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.
randman writes:
So with that in mind, one would expect that the simplest and earliest types of creatures would have what?
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.
randman writes:
What does ND say about the origin of genes and the genome?
Nothing: ND is not an origins science. I'm sure this has been explained to you before.
randman writes:
How about the origin of specific genes? Where do they come from?
For example, do they come from mutations?
NeoDarwinism is not a theory about how genes originate: it only touches on how those genes effect the organism's fitness.

Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 127 by randman, posted 06-27-2008 4:19 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 129 by randman, posted 06-28-2008 1:27 AM Blue Jay has replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4898 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 129 of 164 (473276)
06-28-2008 1:27 AM
Reply to: Message 128 by Blue Jay
06-28-2008 12:43 AM


Re: Shaking up the tree of life
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.
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.
Arguably, you're right: a comprehensive view of the pattern is preferable to the bits and pieces that we're using now.
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.
But, what would you have us do to get a "comprehensive view of the pattern,"
To do more genomic mapping as was done in the evidence referenced in the OP.
In order to get comprehensive knowledge, you’d have to test everything that’s currently alive.
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.
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:
So we're back to your position that no matter what the results, ND by predicts it, and yet you feel it is falsifiable.
However, the real explanation for this is that ND does not even touch on the subject of trait emergence.
That's a very interesting statement.
only mutations are involved in the emergence of new traits
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.
The easliest creatures would have simpler genomes than today’s organisms.
Ok, this is potentially a hard prediction. Do you have any evidence at all that this is the case?
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.
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?
Nothing: ND is not an origins science.
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.
What does ND say about the origin of genes and the genome?
For example, doesn't ND predict new "genes" arising via mutations?
NeoDarwinism is not a theory about how genes originate
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 128 by Blue Jay, posted 06-28-2008 12:43 AM Blue Jay has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 130 by Blue Jay, posted 06-28-2008 4:47 AM randman has replied

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2697 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 130 of 164 (473296)
06-28-2008 4:47 AM
Reply to: Message 129 by randman
06-28-2008 1:27 AM


Re: Shaking up the tree of life
randman writes:
Since harmful mutations do accumulate within a population, how can you make this argument?
Provide your data. Note that harmful mutations in humans do not count because medicines and health practices counteract the harmful effects of the mutations.
randman writes:
. If harmful mutations accumulate within a population, you will just say there must be other factors assisting that population.
And, I will of course back it up with good data.
randman writes:
. we are finding the expectations and predictions based on ND are not holding true.
Developing multiple-personality disorder, are you? Because, I only see one person who is finding this.
randman writes:
Bluejay writes:
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:
So we're back to your position that no matter what the results, ND by predicts it, and yet you feel it is falsifiable.
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.
randman writes:
Bluejay writes:
However, the real explanation for this is that ND does not even touch on the subject of trait emergence.
That's a very interesting statement.
Bluejay writes:
only mutations are involved in the emergence of new traits
I thought ND "does not even touch on the subject of trait emergence"?
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.
randman writes:
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?
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.
randman writes:
Certainly, breeding has shown that specific traits can be selected for without mutations.
“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.
randman writes:
Bluejay writes:
Nothing: ND is not an origins science.
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.
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?
randman writes:
For example, doesn't ND predict new "genes" arising via mutations?
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.
randman writes:
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?
(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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 129 by randman, posted 06-28-2008 1:27 AM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 133 by randman, posted 06-28-2008 3:37 PM Blue Jay has replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5194 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 131 of 164 (473363)
06-28-2008 3:14 PM
Reply to: Message 125 by randman
06-27-2008 2:15 PM


Re: what the thread topic is.....
randman,
Seems like some are having difficulty addressing the thread topic.....
What a hypocrite! You, you mean? You shouldn't be making claims that the fossil record contradicts the ToE in a thread that you started that isn't about the fossil record, then, should you?
Nevertheless, you made the claim & Forum Guideline 4 requires that you support it. Start a new thread explaining how it is so.
I will take your failure to do so as an admission of hyperbole.
Mark

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by randman, posted 06-27-2008 2:15 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 132 by randman, posted 06-28-2008 3:17 PM mark24 has replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4898 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 132 of 164 (473364)
06-28-2008 3:17 PM
Reply to: Message 131 by mark24
06-28-2008 3:14 PM


Re: what the thread topic is.....
Um Mark, why not read the thread. I am not the one bringing up the fossil record. It's not my claim per se, but rather someone else's claim, specifically arguing that the idea for common descent originates with the fossil record. I did point out that and some other things as an obvious error of Force's and some others and have challenged them since then to back up THEIR claims on a thread.
It's worth noting they, nor you, are accepting the challenge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 131 by mark24, posted 06-28-2008 3:14 PM mark24 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 134 by mark24, posted 06-28-2008 3:57 PM randman has not replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4898 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 133 of 164 (473365)
06-28-2008 3:37 PM
Reply to: Message 130 by Blue Jay
06-28-2008 4:47 AM


Re: Shaking up the tree of life
Note that harmful mutations in humans do not count
Why not? We are not the only creatures that change our diet and habits to be healthier. Moreover, I think you miss the point here. Harmful mutations do and can accumulate. That's one reason you see in certain families hereditary diseases, and yet there are other aspects about those same families which make them thrive. I think one study on some hereditary diseases of Ashkenaz Jewish families showed this. At the same time, a bottle-neck and creation of a mutation was harmful and accumulated within a population, there was also the hypothesis that IQ rose due to their being restricted to certain clerical and finance jobs.
By the way, you didn't deal with the point. You will insist any result is consistent with ND under your analysis. That makes ND non-falsifiable.
Why can’t you distinguish between mutations and natural selection? They are two entirely different phenomena.
I can distinquish between them just fine and recognize both are part of NeoDarwinism theory. Why can't you figure that out? ND does indeed address the origin of new traits and genetic changes. The question is whether it does so accurately.
so ToE is NOT involved whatsoever in the processes of mutation.
By ToE, do you mean the Theory of Evolution? If so, doesn't ToE include mutations are part of it's modern form (NeoDarwinism)? Of course, the answer is yes. It is involved, but that's a weird way to say it.
You can only select for traits that are already within the genetic capacity of your breeding population.
That's certainly true, but that doesn't mean new or modified traits cannot arise without mutations.
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?
Pretty simple. The genome had to have had evolved from something, and since the ToE starts with the first organism, right, conveniently leaving out step one in the process I might add, then ToE should address the origin of the genome.
But frankly, you miss the point again here. NeoDarwinism does address the origination of new genes (genetic sequences) because it hypothesizes these genes arise via random mutations.
So can we get back to the OP and some common sense here? Clearly, ND does talk of the origin of new genes just as it does the origin of new traits. If you want to insist it cannot address the origin of the first gene, fine. I think you misunderstand ToE but who cares. We are talking about the evolution of the genome, where new genes and genetic sequences come from, how they are added, and so forth, and ND makes very specific claims in this regard.
The problem is those claims don't match the facts.
Neo-Darwinism (which is an incorrect term, by the way) is only natural selection
Reading wiki, eh? It's still wrong. NeoDarwinism is a term commonly and widely used to refer to the Modern Synthesis of evo theory. That's what it is.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by Blue Jay, posted 06-28-2008 4:47 AM Blue Jay has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 135 by Blue Jay, posted 06-28-2008 7:26 PM randman has replied
 Message 140 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-29-2008 11:58 AM randman has not replied
 Message 141 by Percy, posted 06-30-2008 8:09 AM randman has replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5194 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 134 of 164 (473373)
06-28-2008 3:57 PM
Reply to: Message 132 by randman
06-28-2008 3:17 PM


Re: what the thread topic is.....
randman,
I am not the one bringing up the fossil record. It's not my claim per se
False.
You said in message 108
The fossil record contradicts evo models in reality
This is your claim, no one else made it, per se, or otherwise.
Mark

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

This message is a reply to:
 Message 132 by randman, posted 06-28-2008 3:17 PM randman has not replied

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2697 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 135 of 164 (473394)
06-28-2008 7:26 PM
Reply to: Message 133 by randman
06-28-2008 3:37 PM


Re: Shaking up the tree of life
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 133 by randman, posted 06-28-2008 3:37 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 147 by randman, posted 07-02-2008 3:16 PM Blue Jay has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024