|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The Origin of Novelty | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mindspawn Member (Idle past 2659 days) Posts: 1015 Joined: |
Hi Granny Magda, nice to see you in this thread, i enjoy your sharp wit. You make a good point regarding my view on transitional fossils. To clarify, due to the lack of DNA analysis, it is impossible to be certain that any particular fossil is in fact a transition, as opposed to being one of a grouping of similar extinct animals.
However an attempt has been made, with some organisms eg human/ape horse hoofs etc These attempts at creating sequences are not proof or even evidence for evolution, but at least its something better than the complete lack for example of transitionary bat fossils
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mindspawn Member (Idle past 2659 days) Posts: 1015 Joined: |
Here, we describe a comprehensive search for promiscuous proteins that can impart new phenotypes on E. coli. We provide experimental evidence that the overexpression of preexisting E. coli proteins can provide resistance to >80 antibiotics and toxins. Our results suggest that the evolution of novel traits is surprisingly likely, and that even the genomes of well-characterized bacteria harbor substantial reservoirs of latent resistance determinants.
"The next logical step was to survey the entire E. coli proteome for its LATENT ability to confer genuinely new PHENOTYPES""even the genomes of well-characterized bacteria harbor substantial reservoirs of LATENT resistance determinants" They already harbor latent reservoirs. This isn't evolution, its latent. Their conclusion is not consistent with their own wording. Genomes already hold the ability to adapt, the adaptation is not proof of evolution of the genome, its proof that the GENOTYPE has the latent ability to express itself in differing PHENOTYPES. (how would evolution ever produce LATENT abilities in the gentoype .... natural selection - WOW that's funny)
It certainly confers a new advantageous function. What happened was, firstly, at least two potentiating mutations. Then there was a duplication that formed a new hybrid gene. At this point the selection advantage was there, but still relatively weak. Then further duplications added copies (amplification) which greatly improved the new function. So, there was advantageous duplication upon advantageous duplication upon advantageous duplication.
I appreciate the fact that you are the first to emphasize the AMPLIFICATION that occurred in that particular example. No-one else has mentioned this, not even RAZD in our private discussion. I believe the amplification adds more to the evoltuionists argument than the initial duplication and activation. Yet I honestly feel you have not addressed the possibility that these duplications are merely copying what was already in nature. When the number of duplications goes beyond anything already found in nature, you would have a point. Its only logical that if the E.coli used to be aerobic and have amplification in its citrate transporting region then it would have de-selected its useless amplification once the aerobic promoter was disabled in an anaerobic environment. We have to compare it to its original state which was aerobic, as can be concluded by the fact that it does have an existing aerobic promoter in the rnk gene. Natural selection could never create a promoter for oxic conditions if it was never active in oxic conditions. that makes no sense under evolutionary conclusions, so logically under both creationism and evolution, E.Coli used to be active in oxic conditions. And therefore could have deselected amplifications once becoming anaerobic. The fact that nature can now duplicate itself back to an optimum when aerobic selection pressure is nor re-applied, does not mean it can surpass that optimum.
And the other one I showed you, with the Advantageous Duplications adaptive to increased heat And just for good measure, The malarial parasite regularly adapts to our attacks on it by both duplications (plural) and point mutations. I haven't got time to delve into these links in this post, but have maintained the links so that I can address them in the next post, but they do look like good challenging studies. (please quote this comment in your next post so I don't forget)Just a moment... Adaptive Copy Number Evolution in Malaria Parasites | PLOS Genetics Were you trying to make me laugh with that last sentence?. The mtDNA haplogroups that we were discussing are a good example of what might be called a short term hierarchy (see chart below). It's a nested family tree of mutations within a species. If you want a longer term one, what about the Elephantidae? They have nice long generations like us, so I'm wondering if you want to try to fit them into your 6,500 yr (about 260 generations) biosphere as one "kind"? I wasn't trying to make you laugh, but I've had a few good laughs here on this site, so it's cool if you get a few as well Remember both the Baramin view, and evolution would support short term nested hierarchies with approximately 99.5 percent or more genetic similarity between two species (eg like the mammoth/elephant or the tiger/lion or the human/Neanderthal) Now when I see the elephant and the hyrax put into a hierarchy together, it speaks to me of evolutionary assumptions. There are some phenotype and genotype similarities between the two, just as the human shares DNA sequences with coral. This does not prove a hierarchy, it once again proves that sets of features can sometimes be best in a combination. Its neither here nor there, you would need a trail of transitional fossils from the original giant hyrax, showing transitions to an elephant that would add more weight to your nested hierarchy. To a creationist it looks like a number of completely separate baramins (hyrax is too different to an elephant) and some short term devolution/evolution from baramins (elephant/mammoth). ie the long-term "nested hierarchys" do not in any manner favor evolution over recent baramins.The fact that both share a few features, shows that fitness is sometimes maximised in groupings of features. Attempts to show that feature groupings are not maximised, but are the less perfect result of a natural evolutionary path from a common ancestor, have not been convincing. All hard science sans philosophie so far. How many people survive this flood? 8. So if a few of these eight humans had higher copy numbers, and a few had lower copy numbers, the high copy numbers had no advantage in the meat eating society just after the flood. It is only recently that the ones with high copy numbers would be favored. I was just pointing out that a modern return to alleles that favor vegetarianism does not contradict the biblical theory, rather it affirms the biblical notion of a pre-flood vegetarian society followed by a post-flood meat eating society. An observation of copy number increases is no proof of evolution, its just proof that humans with high copy numbers are currently favored with modern diets. Anything else is jumping to conclusions, and those sort of jumps are unscientific.
Amplification has been observed to add to fitness. You may not realise it, but you're defeating your own arguments against an evolutionary scenario. If humans are perfectly healthy with high copy numbers of AMY1, there is nothing to stop them having evolved by duplication from one original. I entirely agree that there would have been copy number variation and high copy numbers present in the population 6,500 years ago (and before). Did you know that there are some genes with hundreds of copies in some individuals, and copy number can vary by more than 100 between individuals? And, moving from CNV to SNPs, did you know that there are some genes with more than 1000 alleles at the same loci, and at least one that is known to have more than 2000? That's interesting when you consider that your original population could only have 4 between them. Just because I'm a creationist, does not mean I deny all mutations. SNPs are single nucleotide polymorphisms. ie they involve just one little change to a gene. These are pretty common each human has about 30 point mutations per generation. This is a conservative estimate, the estimates do vary. So about 1 in 700 genes are affected in each offspring (21000 coding genes/30). So for every 700 people born, you should average one new allele at each locus. For every 70 million people born, you should get 100000 new alleles at each locus. For every 7 billion people born you should get 10 000 000 new alleles at each locus . I dare say, the figure 2000 is possibly just a reflection of the lack of genome sequencing done across the entire human population, it should logically be WAY higher than 2000 per locus. I haven't got time tonight for the rest of your post, but thanks for your challenging post. Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mindspawn Member (Idle past 2659 days) Posts: 1015 Joined: |
Okay. But let's be clear, we're never going to get DNA from fossils that are hundreds of millions of years old and where most of the original organic material has been replaced. That seems like an unreasonable burden of proof Well that's not true, but let's put that to one side for now. I didn't ask you for examples of things that aren't evidence for evolution, I asked you what evidence for evolution you would accept. On the basis of your answer here, it would seem that nothing would be sufficient. Is that the case? After all, it seems pointless to harp on about a lack of bat fossils, when you wouldn't accept them as evidence even if they were put in front of you. So again; what would a genuine transitional fossil look like? What criteria would it have to fulfil? To be blunt, there is nothing that can prove a genuine transitional fossil. Its impossible to prove, because phenotypes are not always a reflection of DNA similarity. But even so, if evolution is true there should be many cases of what appears to look like transitionary fossils, to support the theory of evolution. There are not enough of these dated sequences to make a good case for evolution, as opposed to the known fact that there was huge diversity, and now there is less diversity. Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mindspawn Member (Idle past 2659 days) Posts: 1015 Joined: |
Baloney. It is a fact that fossils have a mixture of features from two divergent taxa. Transitional fossils are a fact. Oh really? Even today we see completely differing genotypes having near identical phenotypes. This is known in evolutionary circles as "convergent evolution". Due to DNA analysis we are sure they are from completely different nested hierarchies. Due to the fact that we do not have DNA analysis for so-called transitional fossils means we can never be sure if they are a transition or not. Even from an evolutionist's perspective, there are no two fossils that exist that we can be sure of, due to convergent evolution re-creating similar phenotypes from completely different species. Your point is baloney, transitional fossils are guess work. But even so, there are so few fossils that even look transitional so that even the guesswork lacks enough quantity to be taken seriously. i would like to see some more guessed sequences of similar looking fossil sequences so that evolution at least looks like it makes some sense. Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given. Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mindspawn Member (Idle past 2659 days) Posts: 1015 Joined: |
Much of the genome isn't in coding genes. I don't know the proportion off the top of my head. Fair enough. But my main point stands, the high numbers of observed alleles are consistent with mutation rates and do not in any manner contradict a 6500 year period.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mindspawn Member (Idle past 2659 days) Posts: 1015 Joined: |
If you redo your math but this time include the 98% noncoding figure you'll find that on average only 1 gene out of 35,000 is affected. Since the genome actually has only 21,000 genes that means that on average only one gene experiences a mutation, and in only a little over half of offspring. This is true. Which means that a little over half the world's population has a unique gene compared to their parents. That's about 4 billion unique genes, but only about 21000 gene locations exist. Whichever way you work it out, there's millions of new alleles being created each generation due to our huge populations, and so to find a few thousand at one locus is not surprising in the least, and does not contradict the "ark" view of 8 survivors , and mutations since then.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mindspawn Member (Idle past 2659 days) Posts: 1015 Joined: |
Isn't that the Mexican freetail bat?
Digimorph - Tadarida brasiliensis mexicana (Mexican free-tailed bat) Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mindspawn Member (Idle past 2659 days) Posts: 1015 Joined: |
There's a link right there in the message. Or just google "transitional", "bat" and "fossil" and click the first link. You're not exactly giving the impression of having done extensive research here... Thanks, I should have noticed that link
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mindspawn Member (Idle past 2659 days) Posts: 1015 Joined: |
What? No! Did you read the article? Ok I have read it, yes its claws and wingspan are slightly different to modern bats, and I would also agree with the expected differences from a non-flying mammal. The problem though is that the Palaeochiropteryx is actually dated earlier than the Onychonycteris, which shows that the Onychonycteris was not necessarily transitional, but contemporary with other bat species that also preceded it. I am impressed, but it would be more convincing if it was the first bat fossil instead of a subsequent one. Of course the creationist explanation is that there was a lot more diversity, and diversity itself does not prove an evolutionary process to create diversity. And also I'm not too sure about their "limb ratio" claims, when I look at for example the California leaf-nosed bat , I see the same short-wing to long hind-leg ratio as in this fossil. But if evolution managed to find more of these fossils in expected transitional forms from the logical common ancestor, and dated in the correct sequence (unlike this fossil), it would strengthen the theoretical basis of evolution. I can't speak for other creationists, but I would raise an eyebrow if fossils like these, but in the correct transitional order, kept showing up across many species and taxa. The lack of these transitions, and yet the sheer number of "before and after" fossils without transitions between them, is what creates the doubt. Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given. Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mindspawn Member (Idle past 2659 days) Posts: 1015 Joined: |
Convergence times for both the Y-chromosome and mitochondrial DNA are well beyond the 6,000 year mark. Human variation in these two parts of the genome already falsify a 6,000 year old Earth ? Give me figures, not sweeping statements. In what manner does "Human variation in these two parts of the genome already falsify a 6,000 year old Earth"?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mindspawn Member (Idle past 2659 days) Posts: 1015 Joined: |
Fossils do not contain DNA. Whatever definition we give for a transitional fossil, it has nothing to do with DNA or the lack of it. Criticising fossils for a lack of DNA is like criticising the Gospels for not having photo's of Jesus. It has everything to do with DNA. In just the same way that a tasmanian wolf is related to marsupials and not real wolves, two fossils could be vastly different in genotype and deceptively similar in phenotype. They can therefore be mistaken as transitional. Or two fossils could be contemporary from a common ancestor, and yet because of a certain feature, mistaken for a transition. For example if we find a gemsbok fossil above a steenbok fossil, it would be so easy to conclude antelope are getting larger with longer horns. If however they are found to be contemporary, then we know these are two separate species, and are not transitions. It is impossible to conclude any transitional sequence from fossils without DNA analysis.
Even if I were to show you two species that share DNA, would you accept this as evidence for evolution? No you would not. It is deeply dishonest of you to harp at me for a lack of DNA evidence, when you routinely dismiss the DNA evidence that does exist. Specifically, what are you referring to here? I hope you built your case logically because I have no obligation to accept an illogical argument.
Isn't it? In your latest reply you claim that it's impossible. Make your damn mind up. If there is a clear sequence of fossils with gradually changing features, in the correct date order, this would help evolution's case. If such sequences were regularly found across many species, this would strengthen evolution's case. No one sequence would prove anything, but a case could be building to add strength to evolution. Instead the opposite is happening, more and more modern species are being shown to exist in nearly identical form in ages past, so the fossil record increasingly points to creationism.
Huh? But you just said that it's impossible to recognise a transitional fossil, so how can you say whether there is a lack or not? Your habit of making shit up as you go along has led you into a contradiction; either there is a way to recognise transitional fossils and they turn out to be lacking or there is no way to recognise transitional fossils and you have no idea how many there are. You don't get to have it both ways, so which is it? But even after all of this, I notice that you have still not answered my question. You have told me that there is "nothing that can prove a genuine transitional fossil". Well that's not really what I'm asking for. No-one claims to be able to prove that a fossil fits into a particular transition or not; science doesn't work on "proof". I asked you what a genuine transitional fossil would look like, what characteristics it would have. You refuse to answer. A less charitable poster than I might suspect that haven't actually given the matter the slightest thought, or that you haven't got a clue what you're talking about. But I'm not mean like that, so I'll ask again; what would a genuine transitional fossil look like? What characteristics would it have to fulfil for us to begin to recognise it as transitional? Seriously mindspawn, if you are unable to answer that simple question, you have no business commenting on the subject of the fossil record. Answer the question, or stop making claims about things you can't even define. I was already clear, you cannot prove any particular transitional fossil. Its impossible EVER to know if there is a GENUINE transitional fossil without DNA analysis. So its impossible to prove. If evolutionists manage to indicate transitions through many sequentially dated sequences of gradually changing features across many species, it would build a case for evolution. Instead the case for creation is building as modern species are increasingly found fossilized in ancient layers. The evidence is working against you. Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given. Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mindspawn Member (Idle past 2659 days) Posts: 1015 Joined: |
Transitional does not mean ancestral. The platypus is transitional between reptiles and placental mammals even though the platypus is not ancestral to modern placental mammals. You would need fossils that appear to be transitional between reptiles and the platypus, and between the platypus and mammals before you could make such a statement with any scientific backing. science is not guess work, its based on evidence.
Theories don't dig up fossils. Humans do. I have a sneaking suspicion that you missed my actual point here by focussing on my error in grammar.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mindspawn Member (Idle past 2659 days) Posts: 1015 Joined: |
No, it doesn't. The transitional nature of fossils is determined solely by their morphology. It has nothing to do with DNA. Exactly! That is why it is so faulty, because DNA is not available, and so assumptions concerning transitions have to be based on morphology.If you take two fossils of similar time period, its impossible to really know if they are very similar yet contemporary , or are evolved ancestors. If the features fit evolutionary assumptions, then they are ASSUMED to be evolved, however that is as logical as saying an alligator evolved from a crocodile, or a crocodile evolved from an alligator, depending on which fossil survived the longest. The actual facts are unknown, evolution based on morphology is guesswork.
Actually, the anatomy of the tasmanian wolf is much more like other marsupials than it is placental wolves. This is true, nevertheless the point is that we cannot know for sure if there is an ancestral relationship rather than a contemporary relationship, or a lack of relationship, based on morphology alone.
We already have those. The hominid transitional fossil record shows exactly that. I already dealt with the Lucy joke, she has one human feature, and many ape features. Does this mean that we are descended from crabs, because we both have eyes, hahahahahaha. Just because Lucy, and gibbons and humans, have an upright Pelvis, does not make Lucy any more human than a crab is a human because we share eyesight and limbs.
The transitional nature of a fossil is a fact. A platypus is transitional. That is a fact. Again, you keep confusing ancestral with transitional. They are two different things.
Wikipedia:A transitional fossil is any fossilized remains of a life form that exhibits traits common to both an ancestral group and its derived descendant group The definition is very clear, I don't see why you are getting confused.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mindspawn Member (Idle past 2659 days) Posts: 1015 Joined: |
Palaeochiropteryx. I should have said that the first bat fossil is similar to the Palaeochiropteryx and is 55 million years old, older than the Onychonycteris. regarding the horse, I genarally avoid creationist websites, but this particular site had a lot of interesting points regarding the so-called horse transitions: http://www.bible.ca/...extbook-fraud-dawn-horse-eohippus.htm As for the whales, the last half of your chart could easily fit into a modern list of extant whales and dolphins, some with dorsal fins, and some without. The first half are land based. To assume some extinct creature with the lifestyle of a crocodile or sea-lion is an evolutionary "missing link" by placing it between a group of pictures of land creatures and a group of pictures of sea creatures is a big and unscientific jump of logic. Nevertheless the sequence has been succesfully created, and has a logical progression about it, so even though it concludes nothing, more of these sequences can make one think twice. But even more so, should evolutionists be thinking twice about their view every time we see "living fossils", modern organisms also reflected in ancient fossils.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mindspawn Member (Idle past 2659 days) Posts: 1015 Joined: |
No we do not. Disagree? Show me an example. You said we do not get examples of highly similar phenotypes but differing genotypes. There are a number of examples of this phenomenon in the following link:http://www.zo.utexas.edu/courses/THOC/Convergence.html
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024