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.
I was "inferring" that "Evolutionists" do not depend on the "study of living species" specifically to suggest evolution from a theoretical last common ancestor.
Edited by Force, : edit
Edited by Force, : edit
Edited by Force, : edit
Edited by Force, : edit
Edited by Force, : pointless argument will lead no where and off topic
Concerning the diversion onto the fossil record, it appears to have begun in Force's Message 105, and it resulted a couple exchanges later in this from Randman's Message 108:
Randman in Message 108 writes:
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.
As there do not seem to be any recent threads discussing the fossil record, those who take issue with this characterization may want to propose a new topic.
All discussions will *by necessity* touch on a variety of off-topic issues. It would help keep discussions from digressing if references to other topics and issues were kept non-controversial.
For instance, if in a thread discussing Isaiah's passage about a virgin giving birth I were to reply, "The phrase actually refers to a young woman having a child, not a virgin giving birth to the Lord Jesus, who never existed anyway," I've pretty much guaranteed that the thread will now discuss the existence of Jesus.
In other words, no matter how much noise one makes about striving to stay on topic, making "fightin' words" types of declarations on off-topic issues doesn't lend such protestations much credibility.
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.
You're interpreting falsifiability backwards and concluding that the more evidence from the real world that a theory explains, the less falsifiable it is. But the goal of any theory is the accurate understanding of reality, and the more actual evidence from the real world a theory explains, the stronger it is.
What makes a theory falsifiable is the real possibility of uncovering evidence which would prove the theory false. Mammal fossils in the Cambrian would be an example of hypothetical falsifying evidence against evolution. Every paleontological dig in Cambrian strata carries with it the possibility that a mammal fossil might be found.
That hereditary diseases persist through generations is part of reality. Any robust biological theory must explain this, which evolution does. The breadth of biological phenomena explained by evolution is a strength, not a weakness, and an indication that it has survived countless potentially falsifying observations and experiments.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
You're interpreting falsifiability backwards and concluding that the more evidence from the real world that a theory explains, the less falsifiable it is.
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.
and an indication that it has survived countless potentially falsifying observations and experiments.
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?
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.
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
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).
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.
Don't you want to discuss the actual OP topic then?
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.
So before we actually discuss the topic you want to discuss something totally different. Why not start another thread on findings that would contradict ND?
Specifically, front loaders predicted this and evos did not
Don't just keep repeating the same claims, why not show us some specific instances where 'front loader's specifically predicted findings like this?
based on their hypotheses
What specific hypotheses?
In other words, is there anything NeoDarwinism predicts at all in regards to the evolution of the genome?
I already suggested what I thought would constitute some strong genetic evidence for front loading.
Is any finding support for ND automatically?
Definitely not, horizontal gene transfer (HGT) is one finding which is not supportive of ND in any substantial way, but it certainly isn't contradictory of it and once a gene has been introduced by HGT it seems to behave in accordance with ND population genetics. Similarly an ancestral genome at some point which was larger than some or even all descendant lineages is not something which supports or contradicts ND, but is still consistent with it.
As has already been pointed out the predictions of ND concern genetic evolution with respect to fitness and the spread of traits through populations. Even expanding this to include different evolutionary scenarios for the origins of genetic novelty does not produce anything the research you have brought up would contradict. All the research does is expand the minimal predicted genome of the latest common ancestor of the groups in question.
You go on to reiterate ...
Having more types of genes is still very significant
Would you care to try and substantiate this from the paper yet? You seem happy to keep repeating the claim over and over again without apparently knowing if it is true or exactly what it means.
the theoritical common metazoan ancestor had genes corresponding to complex nerve function.
Please either address the criticism of this point I have pointed out to you several times or stop making the same misleading claim. To refresh your memory ...
The fact that a species carries genes related to the those involved in the development of the nervous system does not imply we should expect to see something resembling the human nervous system in the organism. your argument relies heavily on the idea that these genes have no other conceivable function, this is easily shown to be false simply doing a literature search on the gene that the paper identifies as 'bilaterian genes whose specialized functions are associated with highly differentiated nervous systems' but which are not know to be present in any invertebrates. Of the three genes so identified 2 of them, Tumorhead and Churchill, are also involved in early morphogenetic movement in the developing embryo even in the first few cleavage stages in the case of Churchill in Zebrafish (Londin et al., 2007). Tumorhead has been shown to be similarly expressed at early stages in Xenopus (Traverso et al., 2006).
Care to address this yet, or will you admit that 'complex nerve function' is not the be all and end all of these genes.
In this manner, evo theory predicted that simpler organisms would have simpler genomes
None of the papers you are touting show that simpler organisms don't have simpler genomes, all they show is that their genomes are not as simple as the previous simplest estimates of them. You have yet to produce any evidence showing simpler organisms don't have simpler genomes than their 'complex' modern counterparts. I have already detailed several data from the paper the OP is discussing which show that modern metazoan lineages have more gene types than the estimated LCA genome the paper posits, see Message 25.
Havign said that, as I pointed out previously, some LCA could have a more complex genome and not contradict ND, but it would have to have had a simpler ancestor itself at some point. We can accept almost any level of fluctuation in size and genetic complexity throughout lineages evolutionary history but they must have originated at some point from a genetically simpler form. Just pointing at one point on the lineage and saying, 'look how complex this is' shows us nothing other than the complexity at that particular point. it certainly doesn't produce a pattern of genetic change which contradicts ND.
all those types of genes were specifically programmed or in place from the beginning
Don't these 2 scenarios produce 2 potentially contradictory expectations of what we would predict to see? If not then how do the scenarios' predictions differ? Can you actually cite any specific prediction made?
P.S. Please start spelling theoretical correctly! I'm not a grammar or spelling Nazi but when you use a word so often it gets annoying when you persistently misspell it