front loading: did evos get it backwards

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.

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. 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. 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. That's certainly true, but that doesn't mean new or modified traits cannot arise without mutations. 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. 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.

So you agree that molecular data can make indications of what the theoritical last common ancestor's genome contained, right? That's what I cited in the OP, and yet you insist it can only be considered as evidence for Darwinism, not front-loading, regardless of what the data says.Am I getting you right? Serious question, not baiting.You stated: However, evos do believe we can infer what sort of DNA and even specific types of genes were in extinct, ancestral cells, right? Sop here you admit that there can be evidence for front-loading, but you seem to think it cannot be tested. Nevertheless, evos infer what types of genes were in the LCA all the time.Do you think the scientists that believe that can make valid statements on unobserved common ancestor's genomes are correct in doing so, or not?And if you think they are correct, why would you challenge the concept only when front-loading is the hypothesis?Additionally, this thread is about the specific molecular studies that do exactly that: that are used to make claims on ancient, theoritical common ancestors and their genes. As such, I am providing studies which are evidence for front loading because the front loaders predicted what the studies would indicate, and the Darwinists predicted the opposite and were wrong. That's what the thread is about here.

No, I am not. I was pointing out the fallacy of Deerbrah's claim that mutations that reduce fitness are an indication and evidence against ND. She, I think realizes now, was mistaken on that part. Rather than drive that home, I jumped to the next point which was the same one all along, namely that ND doesn't really make falsfiable predictions according to evos, it seems. Pretty much an result as far as evos go is evidence for NeoDarwinism.And no, NeoDarwinism doesn't explain reality that well, but maybe we should stick more closely with the OP here and focus on it. Except it hasn't. No matter what the results of those experiments, evos just say it predicts it. There is no falsification even when apparent falsification has been reached, such as the case with the genomes of the theoritical common metazoan ancestor being what front loaders predicted, and not what evos did.

His comments are the result of his research. His statement is that the research indicates this, but before we get into the paper and other papers, I think it would be interesting to settle the issue first of whether any finding at all contradicts NeoDarwinism.Specifically, front loaders predicted this and evos did not, and the front loaders were right. However, rather than some acknowledgement that based on their hypotheses, the front loaders were correct and evos wrong, it seems the argument is, no, evos predicted it too or could have, etc, etc,.....In other words, is there anything NeoDarwinism predicts at all in regards to the evolution of the genome? Is any finding support for ND automatically?

Not exactly. From what I can tell, first off, front loaders and some others that argued for internal mechanisms for evolution, do accept variation and perhaps speciation (species seems such an elastic term these days) as a result of Darwinian means. In fact, creationists and IDers do as well. The point is not contested except perhaps the speciation. But regardless, the idea is that some evolution within a range will occur, but that this does not explain the facts, the origin of higher taxa and a number of other findings.So to honestly discuss "evolution", we need to be clear on what meaning we are discussing.The big point is the genome starts out big, not that mutations or additions of new genes (especially since genes that were lost might come back) can never be involved. It does include the idea though of substantial loss of genes as a pattern of variation, but not necessarily some absolute.a few points Having more types of genes is still very significant, but since you are introducing size of base-pairs, would you accept then that size is a standard which if violated, disproves ND?Say we find an amoeba or some smaller, earlier evolved form with as many base-pairs as a human being, does that disprove ND?Or does ND fit all facts, regardless, whatsoever?Moreover, you are dodging the central point of this thread. Let's deal with it. ND posits that genetic changes result in morphological changes which are selected on by the environment, correct?And so you would expect corresponding genetic changes as a result of morphological changes, correct?Answering this question is vital to a fruitful discussion or just speaking of semantics.I assume that yes, you agree that genetic changes precede generally morphological changes according to ND. One would expect then with more morpholigical evolution of all types of animals, there would be more evolution of the genomes of all biota. In fact, one specific claim of evos has been new genes evolving for new traits.In this manner, evo theory predicted that simpler organisms would have simpler genomes. In fact, I've debated evos who insisted that was the case, and this is why evo scientists were generally suprised or shocked to find the theoritical last common ancestors would not be much simpler and that the theoritical common metazoan ancestor had genes corresponding to complex nerve function. They described these findings as "paradoxical."One of the problems with this thread is the lack of any attempt by evos to admit these findings are "paradoxical" and explain why they were considered paradoxical. There doesn't seem to be a willingness to really address the OP head-on in that regard.Front loaders made a different predeiction and said, nope, all those types of genes were specifically programmed or in place from the beginning and so explain the origin of higher taxa as a process where the program so to speak plays out. The predictions of the front loaders are turning out to be true if you accept some common assumptions of evos. Keep in mind I am not a front loader, just viewing these theories in light of the facts.

It'd be nice if you just corrected her logic to start out with rather than claiming my comment was a trap. It's not a trap but an illustration of the fallacy of her argument on that point.On your other post, I'll get to it later but am heading out for a bit.