front loading: did evos get it backwards

quote:

---

The elements in the living creatures are contained in the earth.
Would that not make them related.

---

No that would not make them related. Common genetic ancestry is what makes living things related. Elements are not genes.The TOE has nothing to say about how life began. Edited by deerbreh, : typo correction.

quote:

---

First off, chemistry plays a significant role in DNA as well as physics. Secondly, the idea he's presenting is that commonalities can be explained by the fact creatures were created from the same source, the earth, rather than evolving from a theoritical (almost mythical) common ancestor.

---

First off, the fact that chemistry plays a significant role in DNA (duh - of course it does, DNA is a molecule, after all) in no way validates the claim that being made of the same elements is equivalent to sharing common ancestry. That is just bad logic and it would be really off topic to go into it.The argument that commonalities can be explained by the same creator using the same materials - well yes the logic is a little better there - but 1) that is not what was said and I think you are putting words in the mouth of ICANT. and 2)this argument, while attractive on the surface, is quite easily refuted by studying that other occurance which you seem to think is a problem for the TOE - convergent or parallel evolution. In fact, what parallel evolution shows is there is often more than one way to solve many problems presented by natural selection - exactly what you would expect from evolution acting on different populations of organisms but not what you would expect from a common creator using the same materials.Edited by deerbreh, : typoEdited by deerbreh, : another typo

quote:

---

Evos took too simplistic an approach and insisted all commonalities are the result of common descent...

---

I call strawman on the whole argument. I have never heard an evolutionary biologist make this argument the way you did here. Make your arguments against the TOE if you can but stick to what it actually says and not your cartoon version. Just because you don't understand convergent evolution (imo you don't, based on your comments here) doesn't mean there is something wrong with the way it explains the data.

quote:

---

Could you please explain the difference in everything coming from this single cell creature that came from a chemical reaction and what I proposed. I am just a dumb old Bible Thumper so explain for those with no knowledge of the process.

---

Simple. A random collection of elements does not a common ancestor make. A single cell containing DNA might, on the other hand. There is no ancestor before the first ancestor, in other words.Edited by deerbreh, : clarity

quote:

---

But regardless, do you not expect on the whole that similar traits between Marsupials and Placentals will share similar genes expressing those traits?

---

On the whole, we would expect them to share similar genes, yes, because in fact marsupials and placentals do have a common ancestor. But in the case of traits resulting from convergent evolution, no.

quote:

---

So you would consider it evidence against Darwinism if it can be shown similar genetic sequeces for similar traits, you know, the ones credited to convergent evolution?

---

Nice try, no. Please do not attempt to characterize my position based on your lack of understanding of the TOE. It is quite rude.Similar genetic sequences coding for similar traits would be evidence for common ancestry and exactly what the TOE would predict, regardless of who credited what. And just what do you mean by similar traits? Morphology, function, or both? It makes a difference as to whether it would be considered to be convergent evolution or not.Edited by deerbreh, : typo

quote:

---

I got a pool of chemical elements that produces a single cell life form over a long period of time this life form produces all life forms.

​

I got a pile of dirt full of chemical elements that produces all lifeforms these life forms produce life forms.

​

I really don't see the difference. But I better leave it there.

---

Well a collection of iron ore, glass, rubber, and plastic is not a car, is it? But maybe you could make one if you knew what you were doing.A pile of elements is not a cell. But maybe you could make one if you were a cell with DNA to tell you how. That is the difference. The cell with DNA is the common ancestor in this case. The theory of evolution says nothing about how the first cell came into being. It starts with a living cell, not a pile of elements.For the sake of argument, lets just say that the pile of elements does produce a cell somehow and then that cell evolves and produces many life forms over time. It is the cell which is the ancestor, not the pile of elements. If the pile of elements were to produce another cell, it would be completely unrelated to the first cell. Of course the two cells or their offspring might get together at some point and exchange genetic information.

quote:

---

So whatever the results, you consider it evidence of evolution?

---

Again, this is quite rude. You are not presenting arguments. You are being argumentative. Make your arguments. Please refrain from making mine.

quote:

---

What do you think NeoDarwinism predicts? Does it predict similar genetic sequences for similar traits between marsupials and placentals that are considered by evos to have arisen via convergent evolution?

---

Asked and answered already but to be redundant - Yes for some traits (the common ancestry ones), no for others (the convergent evolution ones) What you can't seem to grasp is that marsupials and placentals have many traits in common that derived from a common ancestor - they have other traits which appear similar that are a result of convergent evolution. Why do you think it is called "convergent evolution"? Because there was a split at the common ancestor and way later the two lines converged on some similar traits.

quote:

---

Or is it expected that the "random mutation" process should generate different genetic sequences producing those similar traits?

---

As I pointed out, it is not an eithor/or situation. But to answer this question, yes. we would expect convergent traits to be more distant genetically.

quote:

---

Or is it your contention that no matter what the results are, NeoDarwinism predicts it in this regard?

---

zzzzzYAWN Once again Boys and Girls.....It is my contention that NeoDarwinism predictions are borne out by the available data on both derived traits and convergent traits. They are NOT mutually exclusive and two different organisms can have shared ancestral traits, shared derived traits and convergent traits. "No matter what the results" - No, there would be results which would contradict ND predictions, that is why ND is a valid scientific theory - it is falsifiable - but so far, to the consternation of the YECs, ND has done just fine in explaining the available data. Edited by deerbreh, : No reason given.

We will let the administrators sort it out. I alerted them to your nasty habit of misstating my arguments in your words.

quote:

---

Please note I asked because in Message 61 when asked about the similar traits credited to convergent evolution, you appeared to answer differently and thus contradicted yourself.

---

Read it again. Note I am not buying your "credited" distinction. People, particularly creationists, misinterpret the data sometimes. Also based on your discussion here, I have little faith in your ability to interpret research papers written by evolutionary biologists, so I do not necessarily accept your characterizations of who credited what. And the playing field of the Evolution/Creationism debate is literally littered with false quotations of evolutionary biologists by creationists.

quote:

---

If the evidence proves otherwise, what do you think the significance of that is?

---

It would mean evolutionary biologists would have to reassess their understanding of convergent evolution of course. Why do you ask? Got such evidence? Lay it out there then.

quote:

---

Also, your answer to the last question isn't clear? Are you saying that if we do find similar genetic sequences for traits considered to have arisen via convergent evolution to be evidence against ND or not?

---

It's clear if you are truly seeking the truth. It would not undermine the basic premise of ND, just require a reassessment of our understanding of convergence. And note that we now know a whole lot more about genetic expression than we did years ago. So some differences in morphology that might once have been attributed to differences in genetics might today be attributed to controller or modifier genes being turned on or off in particular environments. It is very possible, even likely, that some traits with similar function but very different morphology might have been called convergence when in fact it really was a shared derived character. Edited by deerbreh, : fix quote

quote:

---

Is this part of the topic here. I don't think it is, but I would love to see you back up your claim on a different thread. I don't think you can.

---

No it isn't. I was just pointing it out as a reason why I find it a waste of time to respond to every "NDs say this and doesn't that contradict the evidence....etc." I can back it up all right but I am not going to do a separate thread on it as it is well documented and it would be beating a dead horse. If you want verification go here, you will find plenty.Quote Mine Project: Examining 'Evolution Quotes' of Creationists

quote:

---

Ok, what if that shared character preexisted even the evolution of plants and animals? Is that front loading?

---

I will answer this one and that is it. The rest is rehash - asked and answered. You just don't like or pretend not to understand the answers.Well, I think you mean the genes for that shared character - otherwise it makes no sense at all. 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?

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

quote:

---

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."

---

Apples and oranges. Yes, molecular DNA evidence can support common ancestry arguments. Absolutely. That is NOT the same as saying molecular DNA evidence could support your notion of "front loading", however. Can you supply a link where DNA evidence supports your notion of "front loading?" That is what you need if you want to win this argument. (And I want the actual study with the interpretation by the authors of the study - NOT the interpretation of someone else - particularly NOT the interpretation of a YEC. YECs have, as I have pointed out and documented already, a sordid history of misquoting evolutionary biologists.

quote:

---

That hereditary diseases persist through generations is part of reality. Any robust biological theory must explain this, which evolution does.

---

Perhaps we should introduce Randman to Mr. Hardy and Mr. Weinberg.Hardy—Weinberg principle - Wikipedia