Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/7


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Origin of Novelty
mindspawn
Member (Idle past 2660 days)
Posts: 1015
Joined: 10-22-2012


Message 481 of 871 (691649)
02-23-2013 4:09 PM
Reply to: Message 479 by PaulK
02-23-2013 2:36 PM


I've already done so. The pattern fits the expectations of evolution, while the baramin hypothesis produces no such expectations
LOL - sweeping statements are not evidence.
Cytochrome C is useful for these studies precisely because it is highly conserved. If these particular elements are essential to the function then of course they will be retained. If they are not then, what reason would the hypothetical designer have to make them the same while others vary ?
This isnt just highly conserved, this is exactly conserved over 300 million years... interesting.
Essentially a "mammalian" baramin that falls well outside the nested tree of taxonomy and genetics - or even just one if the two. If the baramin hypothesis were true we'd expect to see rather a lot. So why don't we see even one?
When relating nested trees to fossils unfortunately there is a lack of supporting evidence. Nested trees can be obvious when genetically based on recent species of which DNA is available. Other than this, there is rarely any examples of a correctly dated sequence of fossils. ie there should be a series of transitional fossils showing slight phenotype changes, but also showing radiometric dating in the same sequence. Without this dating confirmation, nested hierarchies are mental projections based on ordering extinct species into time sequences that do not necessarily exist. IT is easy to put a cat fossil next to a wildcat fossil, next to a cheetah fossil next to a tiger fossil and show how cats grew in size over time. But if all the fossils were concurrent then you would be wasting your time on a fantasy sequence, all those species could have been simultaneously alive. So you require dated sequences to add some empirical value to your sequence.
And I can confidently predict that any dated sequence of transitional fossils will show rapid evolution from a baramin, with no specific transitional sequences ever found between the kingdoms, or between the major phyla.
Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 479 by PaulK, posted 02-23-2013 2:36 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 482 by PaulK, posted 02-23-2013 4:18 PM mindspawn has replied
 Message 510 by Taq, posted 02-25-2013 12:29 PM mindspawn has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


(1)
Message 482 of 871 (691650)
02-23-2013 4:18 PM
Reply to: Message 481 by mindspawn
02-23-2013 4:09 PM


quote:
LOL - sweeping statements are not evidence.
You've been shown evidence. I'm still waiting for a reasonable answer.
quote:
This isnt just highly conserved, this is exactly conserved over 300 million years... interesting.
Which is entirely possible if any change would cause a serious problem.
quote:
When relating nested trees to fossils unfortunately there is a lack of supporting evidence.
No, theres plenty of evidence for the trees based on morphology.
quote:
Nested trees can be obvious when genetically based on recent species of which DNA is available
Yes, and this is a severe problem for your hypothesis. You see, you should see a separate tree for each baramin, not one incorporating all of them,
quote:
. Other than this, there is rarely any examples of a correctly dated sequence of fossils. ie there should be a series of transitional fossils showing slight phenotype changes, but also showing radiometric dating in the same sequence. Without this dating confirmation, nested hierarchies are mental projections based on ordering extinct species into time sequences that do not necessarily exist. IT is easy to put a cat fossil next to a wildcat fossil, next to a cheetah fossil next to a tiger fossil and show how cats grew in size over time. But if all the fossils were concurrent then you would be wasting your time on a fantasy ordering, all those species could have been simultaneously alive. So you require dated sequences to add some empirical value to your sequence.
Making unreasonable demands of the fossil record hardly changes the fact that what it does tell us is strongly consistent with common ancestry, and not with your hypothesis.
quote:
And I can confidently predict that any dated sequence of transitional fossils will show rapid evolution from a baramin, with no general transitional sequences ever found between the kingdoms, or between the major phyla.
By which you mean that baramins are to be identified with kingdoms and phyla... Pretty impressive evolution in 6500 years.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 481 by mindspawn, posted 02-23-2013 4:09 PM mindspawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 485 by mindspawn, posted 02-23-2013 4:42 PM PaulK has replied

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


(1)
Message 483 of 871 (691651)
02-23-2013 4:34 PM
Reply to: Message 480 by mindspawn
02-23-2013 3:20 PM


Hi, Mindspawn
mindspawn writes:
If we stick to comparing what happened since life appeared, and compare the recent baramin view to the lengthy common ancestor view, with consensus on most currently observed evolutionary processes I don't see how the theory on baramins has any extra unevidenced processes compared to the theory of a common ancestor.
I think you've done some mental gymnastics in order to deny what seems like an extremely obvious fact to me, but you obviously feel the same about me, so I'm trying my hardest to find a way where we can reach a consensus.
Assuming you're correct, that the parsimony of the two models is equal, because neither has good evidence for origins, then what are left with? Well, ToE explains all the diversity of life, whereas baraminology only explains diversity within baramins, while the diversity among baramins is left unexplained.
So, if we constrain the models to make them equally parsimonious, ToE has more explanatory power.
If we expand to models to maximize explanatory power, ToE is more parsimonious (on unexplained origin, instead of many)
-----
mindspawn writes:
There is a general rule (maybe some exceptions) that placental animals require a higher degree of social behaviour.
You mention that there might be some exceptions. That was my point. There are 10,000 species of birds, and you're telling me that not a single one of those 10,000 niches could have been better filled by a bird with a placenta?
It seems a lot more likely to me that egg-laying is an ancestral constraint, rather than that it was the best design feature for all bird baramins.
-----
mindspawn writes:
Although there are some strange organisms out there, generally they are divided into clear groupings of features, very much like car manufacturers make vehicles in "ranges". The 4x4 range, the family car range, the sports car range. It makes no sense to place a 4x4 chassis in a family car, or sports car speeds of over 150 mph in a 4x4.
Back to my Rolls-Royce Merlin example, then. The Merlin was used in single-engine interceptors, single-engine ground-attack fighters, two-engine fighter-bombers, two-engine torpedo bombers, four-engine heavy bombers, four-engine airliners, and a single-engine racing plane. Actually, a variant was even made for use in tanks.
A license-built American version of the Merlin was used for some single-engine fighters that had previously been using the Allison engine. That same Allison engine had previously been used for three different single-engine fighters, a two-engine escort fighter, and tested for use on a four-engine heavy bomber.
Additionally, most of those airplanes I mentioned also used Browning M2 machine guns, which have also been used as a heavy infantry weapon, as a pintle-mounted gun on helicopters, and a turret gun (twin- or quad-mounted) on tanks or armored fighting vehicles.
Designers do not nest or "baraminize" their design features: they mix and match all the time.

-Blue Jay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 480 by mindspawn, posted 02-23-2013 3:20 PM mindspawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 487 by mindspawn, posted 02-23-2013 5:20 PM Blue Jay has replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(1)
Message 484 of 871 (691652)
02-23-2013 4:38 PM


Baraminology and other nonsense
Baraminology is nothing but religion trying to masquerade as science.
Frair provides us with a series of taxonomic guidelines:
Guidelines
In accomplishing the goal of separating parts of polybaramins, partitioning apobaramins, building monobaramins and characterizing holobaramins, a taxonomist needs guidelines for deciding what belongs to a particular monobaraminic branch. These standards will vary depending upon the groups being considered, but general guidelines which have been utilized include:
1. Scripture claims (used in baraminology but not in discontinuity systematics). This has priority over all other considerations. For example humans are a separate holobaramin because they separately were created (Genesis 1 and 2). However, even as explained by Wise in his 1990 oral presentation, there is not much relevant taxonomic information in the Bible. Also, ReMine’s discontinuity systematics, because it is a neutral scientific enterprise, does not include the Bible as a source of taxonomic information. [Emphasis added]
Source
Because kinds or baramins must follow scripture claims, they are not necessarily related to the evidence. They can be, and generally are, completely refuted by the evidence but folks who are blinded by belief have no choice but to accept whatever nonsense someone comes up with to try and explain away that contradictory evidence.
I think this thread is a prime example.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein
How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein
It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers

  
mindspawn
Member (Idle past 2660 days)
Posts: 1015
Joined: 10-22-2012


Message 485 of 871 (691653)
02-23-2013 4:42 PM
Reply to: Message 482 by PaulK
02-23-2013 4:18 PM


No, theres plenty of evidence for the trees based on morphology.
Morphology is not clear cut. ie if eagles and falcons were extinct and an eagle fossil is found under a falcon fossil, this does not mean that the eagle evolved from the falcon. An evolutionist, always looking for transitional fossils, would too easily make that logic jump between two separate fossils based on their closely matching morphology. they could so easily be wrong, they could just as easily be looking at two separate species rather than a sequence. Taxonomists have to work with what they have, and it takes too many assumptions to be an exact science.
Yes, and this is a severe problem for your hypothesis. You see, you should see a separate tree for each baramin, not one incorporating all of them,
??You do see a separate tree for each baramin. Genome sequencing supports the baramin concept, just look at the similarities among the genotypes of dogs/wolves. And yet the vast differences between chimpanzees/humans. The tree relating to dogs and wolves shows a neat progression, radiating out from specific areas across the globe. The so-called chimpanzee/human tree shows no such relationship, they are unique species, separate baramins. with far too many genetic differences (120 million base pairs) to have occurred in their so-called 6 million years of divergence from each other. Unless you can show how mammals do actually conserve 100 base pair changes per generation.
Making unreasonable demands of the fossil record hardly changes the fact that what it does tell us is strongly consistent with common ancestry, and not with your hypothesis
In the eyes of evolutionists there is a sequence. Its just very funny that taxonomists could be ordering a set of fish into an elaborate order when they could have all been swimming around at the same time. The fact that you feel you don't need a date sequence is illogical. Of course you need a date sequence, its a logical demand, not unreasonable at all. I don't know on what grounds you feel taxonomists are infallible, it is not an exact science.
By which you mean that baramins are to be identified with kingdoms and phyla... Pretty impressive evolution in 6500 years
Which shows you completely misunderstand my position. I would appreciate it if you tried a little harder. Maybe if you didn't post so quickly you would understand what I mean.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 482 by PaulK, posted 02-23-2013 4:18 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 486 by PaulK, posted 02-23-2013 5:03 PM mindspawn has replied
 Message 507 by Taq, posted 02-25-2013 12:14 PM mindspawn has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


(1)
Message 486 of 871 (691654)
02-23-2013 5:03 PM
Reply to: Message 485 by mindspawn
02-23-2013 4:42 PM


quote:
Morphology is not clear cut. ie if eagles and falcons were extinct and an eagle fossil is found under a falcon fossil, this does not mean that the eagle evolved from the falcon. An evolutionist, always looking for transitional fossils, would too easily make that logic jump between two separate fossils based on their closely matching morphology. they could so easily be wrong, they could just as easily be looking at two separate species rather than a sequence. Taxonomists have to work with what they have, and it takes too many assumptions to be an exact science.
This is just pointless nit-picking. I'm not claiming to prove detailed evolutionary relationships by morphology. I'm claiming that the overall pattern of a nested tree is what we should expect if common ancestry is true, and not if your hypothesis were true.
quote:
??You do see a separate tree for each baramin.
No, you don't
quote:
Genome sequencing supports the baramin concept, just look at the similarities among the genotypes of dogs/wolves. And yet the vast differences between chimpanzees/humans. The tree relating to dogs and wolves shows a neat progression, radiating out from specific areas across the globe. The so-called chimpanzee/human tree shows no such relationship, they are unique species, separate baramins. with far too many genetic differences (120 million base pairs) to have occurred in their so-called 6 million years of divergence from each other. Unless you can show how mammals do actually conserve 100 base pair changes per generation.
One minor anomaly doesn't refute or overrule a strong overall pattern. And if that's the best you can offer it's strong evidence AGAINST your position.
quote:
In the eyes of evolutionists there is a sequence. Its just very funny that taxonomists could be ordering a set of fish into an elaborate order when they could have all been swimming around at the same time. The fact that you feel you don't need a date sequence is illogical. Of course you need a date sequence, its a logical demand, not unreasonable at all. I don't know on what grounds you feel taxonomists are infallible, it is not an exact science.
As is said above problems in working out the details don't change the fact of the overall pattern.
quote:
Which shows you completely misunderstand my position. I would appreciate it if you tried a little harder. Maybe if you didn't post so quickly you would understand what I mean.
Maybe if you thought more about your arguments you wouldn't be presenting evidence AGAINST your position. If you need to go to the Kingdom or Phylum level to claim an absence of transitional fossils then you imply that there are plenty of transitional fossils at the more detailed level. Since, in your view, transitional fossils aren't even expected to exist outside of baramins that's a big problem for you - unless you identify the baramins with phyla and kingdoms. It's the only way to get that argument to be anything more than a silly joke.
So, in fact I understood what you were saying better than you did! Pretty good for someone who posts so quickly.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 485 by mindspawn, posted 02-23-2013 4:42 PM mindspawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 488 by mindspawn, posted 02-23-2013 5:53 PM PaulK has replied

  
mindspawn
Member (Idle past 2660 days)
Posts: 1015
Joined: 10-22-2012


Message 487 of 871 (691655)
02-23-2013 5:20 PM
Reply to: Message 483 by Blue Jay
02-23-2013 4:34 PM


Assuming you're correct, that the parsimony of the two models is equal, because neither has good evidence for origins, then what are left with? Well, ToE explains all the diversity of life, whereas baraminology only explains diversity within baramins, while the diversity among baramins is left unexplained.
So, if we constrain the models to make them equally parsimonious, ToE has more explanatory power.
If we expand to models to maximize explanatory power, ToE is more parsimonious (on unexplained origin, instead of many
LOL, unless you want to discuss the relative merits of abiogenesis compared to creation, let's just stick to evolution. But I already said this, yet you for some reason you are still choosing to focus on the source of baramins, bringing that subjective argument right back into the equation. Either reality is a reflection of baramins plus minor evolution, or a common ancestor plus major evolution, this is our discussion. Both theories explain all life. Both have empirically subjective beginnings. The fact that I'm repeating myself and yet you still making statements like "diversity among baramins is left unexplained" is a mystery because you did seem to understand my placing the two sources of origins on equal footing for argument sake, and yet you are still trying to bring creation back into the debate as a less objective source for life. I believe abiogenesis is ridiculously illogical. Its like expecting a rockfall to build a perfect castle.
You mention that there might be some exceptions. That was my point. There are 10,000 species of birds, and you're telling me that not a single one of those 10,000 niches could have been better filled by a bird with a placenta?
It seems a lot more likely to me that egg-laying is an ancestral constraint, rather than that it was the best design feature for all bird baramins.
That's a bit subjective, that's like saying its illogical that of all the millions of cars manufactured, why didn't at least one design have a really strong truck chassis on a fast sports car. Some things just do not go well together, and never will, I do not find your argument appealing to my sense of logic at all. We are assuming the intelligent designer is intelligent after all, why then would you require that he has to place together illogical combinations? Your point is not making sense, and you have made this point more than once. Hoping that you could just drop this line of reasoning.
Back to my Rolls-Royce Merlin example, then. The Merlin was used in single-engine interceptors, single-engine ground-attack fighters, two-engine fighter-bombers, two-engine torpedo bombers, four-engine heavy bombers, four-engine airliners, and a single-engine racing plane. Actually, a variant was even made for use in tanks.
A license-built American version of the Merlin was used for some single-engine fighters that had previously been using the Allison engine. That same Allison engine had previously been used for three different single-engine fighters, a two-engine escort fighter, and tested for use on a four-engine heavy bomber.
Additionally, most of those airplanes I mentioned also used Browning M2 machine guns, which have also been used as a heavy infantry weapon, as a pintle-mounted gun on helicopters, and a turret gun (twin- or quad-mounted) on tanks or armored fighting vehicles.
Designers do not nest or "baraminize" their design features: they mix and match all the time.
This is what genome sequencing shows. I have given two links so far regarding this. There are strong matching sequences between similar species, and some matching sequences are found among completely different species as in the coral example and the cytochrome-C example. So the mix and match has just been shown to you, and then this is your reply?
But even though I have given evidence for mixing, it would not be as common as your example, because biological life is far more diverse than military aircraft which makes your example somewhat irrelevant. Maybe a better comparison is between all forms of transport and biological life. Some would not even share pistons, because some are electrical, some run off jet fuel. Diesel system as opposed to petrol. The basics would show some similarities (screws, metal plates, seats) just like biological life has sequences of DNA. To expect any further similarities just isn't a logical requirement, God is more creative than being bound by repetition, although some repetition between similar designs is logical.
Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 483 by Blue Jay, posted 02-23-2013 4:34 PM Blue Jay has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 494 by Blue Jay, posted 02-24-2013 4:43 PM mindspawn has replied

  
mindspawn
Member (Idle past 2660 days)
Posts: 1015
Joined: 10-22-2012


Message 488 of 871 (691658)
02-23-2013 5:53 PM
Reply to: Message 486 by PaulK
02-23-2013 5:03 PM


This is just pointless nit-picking. I'm not claiming to prove detailed evolutionary relationships by morphology. I'm claiming that the overall pattern of a nested tree is what we should expect if common ancestry is true, and not if your hypothesis were true.
You say that evolution should expect an overall pattern of a nested tree, but there is no overall pattern of a nested tree, that is the fault of your reasoning. The tree is assumed. Both evolution and baraminology would show recent genome traced nested trees, this is observed.
One minor anomaly doesn't refute or overrule a strong overall pattern. And if that's the best you can offer it's strong evidence AGAINST your position.
Now you are referring to the canines as an anomaly. These recent divergences are commonly observed among nearly all species and is a fundamental part of your own evolutionary theory. Whether we are looking at rats/mice, or lions/cats/tigers/leopards cheetahs, or African/Indian elephants or flies, or ants, or antelope. Recently there has been rapid speciation from highly similar genotypes, across many species. The studies of this are limited by incomplete genome sequencing, but this recent speciation is what is seen so far in the field.
As is said above problems in working out the details don't change the fact of the overall pattern
If the only proof of an overall pattern is a fallible process, you are left with nothing. Zero. Your whole evidence for evolution is based on this observable pattern , yet you present no evidence for the pattern. Without this so-called pattern you keep referring to, all we have is recent nested hierachies showing minor evolutionary changes, pointing exactly to baramins.
Maybe if you thought more about your arguments you wouldn't be presenting evidence AGAINST your position. If you need to go to the Kingdom or Phylum level to claim an absence of transitional fossils then you imply that there are plenty of transitional fossils at the more detailed level. Since, in your view, transitional fossils aren't even expected to exist outside of baramins that's a big problem for you - unless you identify the baramins with phyla and kingdoms. It's the only way to get that argument to be anything more than a silly joke.
You are perfectly correct, I do believe there are plenty of transitional fossils at the more detailed level. however this is no problem at all for me because I believe these transitional fossils exist within each baramin (these are recently evolved new species of original baramins).
If you could show proof of dated transitional fossils between the major phyla and kingdoms then you would have some point in favor of your long version of evolution , until then you are just proving the baramin argument or showing assumed sequences with no empirical backing.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 486 by PaulK, posted 02-23-2013 5:03 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 489 by PaulK, posted 02-24-2013 3:29 AM mindspawn has replied
 Message 520 by Taq, posted 02-25-2013 5:05 PM mindspawn has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


(1)
Message 489 of 871 (691684)
02-24-2013 3:29 AM
Reply to: Message 488 by mindspawn
02-23-2013 5:53 PM


quote:
You say that evolution should expect an overall pattern of a nested tree, but there is no overall pattern of a nested tree, that is the fault of your reasoning. The tree is assumed. Both evolution and baraminology would show recent genome traced nested trees, this is observed.
This is obviously false for the morphological tree. It is also false for the genetic tree. The genetic data lets us infer relationships between extant species and this, too, points to a nested tree. This is NOT expected by baraminology.
quote:
Now you are referring to the canines as an anomaly.
Actually I was referring to the divergence between humans and chimpanzees as a possible anomaly. Since that's the one you claimed to be contrary to common ancestry.
quote:
If the only proof of an overall pattern is a fallible process, you are left with nothing. Zero. Your whole evidence for evolution is based on this observable pattern , yet you present no evidence for the pattern. Without this so-called pattern you keep referring to, all we have is recent nested hierachies showing minor evolutionary changes, pointing exactly to baramins.
Why don't you support your claim? I've given an example of mine. Show to me that the evidence points only to recent nested hierarchies.
quote:
You are perfectly correct, I do believe there are plenty of transitional fossils at the more detailed level. however this is no problem at all for me because I believe these transitional fossils exist within each baramin (these are recently evolved new species of original baramins).
Well you are quite right that you don't find contrary evidence to be a problem - because you feel that you can blow it off with ad hoc assumptions. Unfortunately that doesn't change the fact that the existence of numerous transitional fossils is a problem for your hypothesis, because you have no adequate explanation for it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 488 by mindspawn, posted 02-23-2013 5:53 PM mindspawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 496 by mindspawn, posted 02-25-2013 2:14 AM PaulK has replied

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2477 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


(1)
Message 490 of 871 (691688)
02-24-2013 6:34 AM
Reply to: Message 211 by mindspawn
02-20-2013 12:47 PM


Re: Novel protein coding gene in an Antarctic fish
mindspawn writes:
What "known process of duplication?
The observed fact that duplication is a real phenomenon.
Duplication produces damage or is neutral according to actual current observations.
No. Duplication can be detrimental, neutral or advantageous according to actual current observations. Message 35
And "neutral" on arrival is all that would be required for subsequent neofunctionalization.
You should be able to see that if child is born with a duplicate of CCL3L1, it has a potential advantage. Duplication of FCGR3B and AMY1 could also be advantageous if the individual has inherited low copy numbers. Therefore, you can figure out that there are known circumstances in which duplications can be advantageous. Also, with AMY1, you can see that duplication could be either advantageous or neutral depending on environmental circumstances and the number of copies already present in the individual in whom the mutation happens.
There are other examples. Pfmdr1 amplification is known to be advantageous for the malarial parasites in developing drug resistance.
Gene duplications can go to fixation in populations if they are advantageous or neutral, like all other mutations.
To base a "known process" on the circular reasoning of evolution makes no sense, nothing at all.
There's no circular reasoning in direct observation of both present day duplications and of historic duplications.
mindspawn writes:
bluegenes writes:
Would you like to describe another known process other than duplication by which genes which appear to be duplicates can appear in the genome of a species. A known process.
Its no process, its the appearance of baramins, as opposed to the chemical appearance of a common "bacterial" ancestor.
So, you don't know of a process that would produce apparent paralogs other than duplication. Go for the best explanation, then.
We both believe in this sudden appearance of life, and subsequent evolution. Which view does the Antarctic Fish favor?
You mean its anti-freeze gene? Evolution by gene duplication. The two genes look exactly as they should if that were the case.
If you know of one process and only one process by which a phenomenon can be caused (two nearly identical genes in the same species in this case), then the best explanation for historical examples is that they were formed by that known process.
mindspawn writes:
Have you got any biological reasons to favor the evolving of paralogs over the appearance of a baramin?
Of course. Evolution is a demonstrably real process in biology. Gene duplication is a demonstrably real process in biology. Supernatural beings making things is not a demonstrably real process. Supernatural beings creating whole organisms like fish is not a demonstrably real process.
I think you might be confusing creationist arguments about paralogs with creationist arguments about orthologs. Orthologs are similar genes in different species. That might be why you keep saying that we're assuming "evolution" (meaning speciation and common descent) in order to prove it.
Paralogs could exist in your model of created kinds, because they could occur and go to fixation within one species, although on your time scale of 6,500 years there are unlikely to be that many.
Orthologs could only exist in your model to the extent that you accept speciation. You presumably wouldn't accept them as such in anything excepting closely related species that could be regarded as the same "kind".
What you should be arguing, in order to fit what we observe in genomes into your 6,500 year model, is that gene duplication followed by neo-functionalization can happen very quickly and frequently, and can go to fixation very quickly. You also need to argue that neutral and positive copy number variation can happen by both duplication and deletion, and can go to fixation quickly in groups.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 211 by mindspawn, posted 02-20-2013 12:47 PM mindspawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 492 by mindspawn, posted 02-24-2013 3:13 PM bluegenes has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 491 of 871 (691709)
02-24-2013 2:54 PM
Reply to: Message 461 by mindspawn
02-23-2013 7:18 AM


There was nothing implicit in anything I said that would point to God fooling people.
Actually, you said so pretty explicitly. You wrote: "An intelligent designer could have created two baramins extremely similar. This would confuse the issue."
I did not say that this would deliberately fool people, but people would in fact be fooled. Creationists would put them in the same baramin, biologists would also group them together, and no-one would know any better.
I really do believe that baramins could be very clearly defined in future as genome sequencing advances, but in theory, its possible for there to be one or two instances of close matches that are grey areas. The occasional grey area would not threaten the view of baramins in any manner whatsoever, I don't see why you are insisting that grey areas would somehow discredit a view.
It's not the gray areas as such, it's the act of drawing a line at all. Once we've agreed that two similar species can have an evolutionary relationship, then there seems to be no reason to deny that two slightly less similar species have a more distant relationship, using the same kind of data and the same method of inference. So where does this process stop? If the answer is: "wherever creationists feel like it" then this seems to lack intellectual rigor.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 461 by mindspawn, posted 02-23-2013 7:18 AM mindspawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 493 by mindspawn, posted 02-24-2013 3:38 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
mindspawn
Member (Idle past 2660 days)
Posts: 1015
Joined: 10-22-2012


Message 492 of 871 (691710)
02-24-2013 3:13 PM
Reply to: Message 490 by bluegenes
02-24-2013 6:34 AM


Re: Novel protein coding gene in an Antarctic fish
The observed fact that duplication is a real phenomenon.
Yes its real. It often kills or maims if the duplication is coding. I still am waiting to see examples when it does not kill or maim when both copies code for proteins.
No. Duplication can be detrimental, neutral or advantageous according to actual current observations. Message 35
And "neutral" on arrival is all that would be required for subsequent neofunctionalization.
You should be able to see that if child is born with a duplicate of CCL3L1, it has a potential advantage. Duplication of FCGR3B and AMY1 could also be advantageous if the individual has inherited low copy numbers. Therefore, you can figure out that there are known circumstances in which duplications can be advantageous. Also, with AMY1, you can see that duplication could be either advantageous or neutral depending on environmental circumstances and the number of copies already present in the individual in whom the mutation happens.
There are other examples. Pfmdr1 amplification is known to be advantageous for the malarial parasites in developing drug resistance.
Gene duplications can go to fixation in populations if they are advantageous or neutral, like all other mutations.
Regarding message 35, have you ever thought that high copy numbers could have been present and yet rare before these studies showed their favorable selection? Deletions could have been selected and become dominant due to lack of need of high copy numbers, however the high copy numbers become selected for and dominant when the need arises again to have the high copy numbers. How do you know that these are duplications from low copy numbers rather than deletions from high copy numbers?
You mean its anti-freeze gene? Evolution by gene duplication. The two genes look exactly as they should if that were the case.
If you know of one process and only one process by which a phenomenon can be caused (two nearly identical genes in the same species in this case), then the best explanation for historical examples is that they were formed by that known process.
Well the two genes also look exactly like they were created that way, so your "looks like" argument does not favor evolution in any manner, you will need to come up with something better than that. Two similar sequences speak of an intelligent designer.
Of course. Evolution is a demonstrably real process in biology. Gene duplication is a demonstrably real process in biology. Supernatural beings making things is not a demonstrably real process. Supernatural beings creating whole organisms like fish is not a demonstrably real process.
Forget the supernatural beings argument of yours, abiogenesis is really dumb, its like a rockfall instantly creating a perfect castle, the chances of nature instantly producing 3 million base pairs in perfect order for beneficial protein coding is ..........a joke. A bad joke. So forgetting the dumbness of abiogenesis, compared to the "supernatural beings" view, and looking at actual evidence the fish looks like its a baramin that is well designed with separate genes showing some matching sequences, this is exactly what an intelligent designer would do, duplicate good designs, and make slight adjustments when necessary. So looking at the icy fish genome does not favor evolution.
Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 490 by bluegenes, posted 02-24-2013 6:34 AM bluegenes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 506 by bluegenes, posted 02-25-2013 11:56 AM mindspawn has replied

  
mindspawn
Member (Idle past 2660 days)
Posts: 1015
Joined: 10-22-2012


Message 493 of 871 (691712)
02-24-2013 3:38 PM
Reply to: Message 491 by Dr Adequate
02-24-2013 2:54 PM


Actually, you said so pretty explicitly. You wrote: "An intelligent designer could have created two baramins extremely similar. This would confuse the issue."
I did not say that this would deliberately fool people, but people would in fact be fooled. Creationists would put them in the same baramin, biologists would also group them together, and no-one would know any better.
Aah I see. Sorry I misunderstood you then, yes people could easily misunderstand what they see if God made two designs with near identical genotypes. I doubt He did this, but its entirely possible within the view of intelligent design.
It's not the gray areas as such, it's the act of drawing a line at all. Once we've agreed that two similar species can have an evolutionary relationship, then there seems to be no reason to deny that two slightly less similar species have a more distant relationship, using the same kind of data and the same method of inference. So where does this process stop? If the answer is: "wherever creationists feel like it" then this seems to lack intellectual rigor.
This is a good point, makes a lot of sense. However the line is not arbitrary , its based on likely mutations over 6500 years. Once creationists have drawn our own line, then the test is, does anything contradict the line that has been drawn to test our theory. The theory has to be tested according to scientific criteria, delving into any possible contradictory evidence to baramins 6500 years ago. Because creationism is written off from the start, mainstream science has neglected to properly test the theory of baramins against the evidence. Other than dating techniques, which I will be discussing soon, mainstream science will be shocked to find that nothing contradicts the baramin view.
Yet I believe the problem of evidence also lies with evolutionists. The problem is that evolutionists haven't had enough time to prove their processes over long timeframes, because all we do observe is current snapshots of genomes that show definite divergences within the last few thousand years. These genomes show recent divergence from recent common ancestors just as would be expected by both the baramin view and admittedly also the long timeframe evolutionary view. (Near identical genomes are observed). The only further evidence that evolution has, is assumed long term nested hierarchies.
Unfortunately the long-term nested hierarchies as reflected in the phylogenetic tree are assumptions based on taxonomy , with not enough evidence for dated transitional sequences across the kingdoms and phyla. More detailed sequences of fossils within a phylum could merely reflect short term evolution from baramins and so this is not an argument in favor of long term evolution.
Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.
Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 491 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-24-2013 2:54 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 495 by DBlevins, posted 02-24-2013 5:00 PM mindspawn has replied
 Message 509 by Taq, posted 02-25-2013 12:22 PM mindspawn has replied
 Message 518 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-25-2013 3:20 PM mindspawn 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 494 of 871 (691713)
02-24-2013 4:43 PM
Reply to: Message 487 by mindspawn
02-23-2013 5:20 PM


Hi, Mindspawn.
mindspawn writes:
But I already said this, yet you for some reason you are still choosing to focus on the source of baramins, bringing that subjective argument right back into the equation.
No, I brought it back in because your hypothesis requires it. Look at this example:
Let's assume that tigers and lions comprise a single baramin, and no other animals belong to that baramin.
  • Your hypothesis purports to explain "where tigers and lions came from" (i.e., they evolved from a common ancestor).
  • ToE also purports to explain "where tigers and lions came from," but, in addition, also purports to explain "where their common ancestor came from," using the exact same explanation.
Your hypothesis cannot explain this full set of data (i.e., tigers + lions + common ancestor) without dipping into its "subjective, unproven, faith-based" (your words) mechanism of Origins
ToE, however, can explain this data without referring to its "subjective, unproven, faith-based" mechanism of Origins.
So, like I said in my last post, if we remove the mechanisms associated with Origins, ToE explains more of the data (tigers + lions + common ancestor) than your hypothesis explains (tigers + lions).
But, if we leave the "Origins" mechanisms in, both hypotheses can explain lions, tigers and their common ancestor, but ToE does it with fewer mechanisms.
That's why ToE is more parsimonious.
Is that clear?
-----
mindspawn writes:
That's a bit subjective, that's like saying its illogical that of all the millions of cars manufactured, why didn't at least one design have a really strong truck chassis on a fast sports car. Some things just do not go well together, and never will, I do not find your argument appealing to my sense of logic at all.
"Sports car" counts as a "baramin" of automobiles in the same way that "flying creatures" counts as a baramin of animals. You can't make a sports car with a heavy truck chassis, because the term "sports car" is defined to exclude automobiles with a heavy truck chassis.
"Birds and placentas" is just an example, so don't get hung up on the specificity of it. But, it's a particularly interesting example, because it's a pattern that is not violated, but nobody can think of a good, design-based reason for it to be inviolate. I mean, you talked about mammals having higher parental investment and higher social requirements, but this explanation, on top of being factually wrong, also doesn't really explain why all birds would be designed like this, and all mammals like that.
Don't you agree that a pattern that is repeated 10,000 times with no exceptions, with no apparent reason for the lack of exceptions, is a bit odd? Can you think of an example of a family of human inventions that matches that?
-----
mindspawn writes:
There are strong matching sequences between similar species, and some matching sequences are found among completely different species as in the coral example and the cytochrome-C example. So the mix and match has just been shown to you, and then this is your reply?
Again, you have so far failed to demonstrate any evidence for mixing-and-matching. These examples are genes that exist in all animals, and show different patterns of diversification among subgroups of animals. What you need is a gene that is more similar in two separate types of organisms, than it is in the common ancestor of the two.
You should look into cases like this, in which human researchers intentionally insert jellyfish genes into pig embryos. That's what "mixing and matching" would look like.

-Blue Jay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 487 by mindspawn, posted 02-23-2013 5:20 PM mindspawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 498 by mindspawn, posted 02-25-2013 3:57 AM Blue Jay has replied

  
DBlevins
Member (Idle past 3775 days)
Posts: 652
From: Puyallup, WA.
Joined: 02-04-2003


Message 495 of 871 (691714)
02-24-2013 5:00 PM
Reply to: Message 493 by mindspawn
02-24-2013 3:38 PM


Not actually science
However the line is not arbitrary , its based on likely mutations over 6500 years.
Actually a 6500 year line is arbitrary, based on one interpretation of passages in the bible.
Once creationists have drawn our own line, then the test is, does anything contradict the line that has been drawn to test our theory. The theory has to be tested according to scientific criteria, delving into any possible contradictory evidence to baramins 6500 years ago.
Starting with the assumption that the line starts at 6500 years ago doesn't help your theory. The fact that the age of the Earth and the universe is billions of years old is upheld by multiple scientific disciplines. At one time, there were 'scientists' who believed that the Earth was young and that the flood was real, but over time science has found that their assumptions were wrong. The scientific evidence did not support those conclusions. You would have us go back 100's of years so that we can start over again and be wrong about many of the basic processes of geology, physics, chemistry, etc. That would not serve you or future generations well.
The biggest problem you are having is you need to fit your view of the world into your version of the bible. You don't seem to be able to separate your belief from the science.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 493 by mindspawn, posted 02-24-2013 3:38 PM mindspawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 499 by mindspawn, posted 02-25-2013 4:41 AM DBlevins has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024