Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,807 Year: 3,064/9,624 Month: 909/1,588 Week: 92/223 Day: 3/17 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Any practical use for Universal Common Ancestor?
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 706 of 1385 (851921)
05-04-2019 10:28 AM
Reply to: Message 701 by DrJones*
05-04-2019 2:41 AM


Re: Side issue: gene deletion
I'm sorry I failed to take it seriously but that's why I labeled it a "side issue." I was curious enough to ask but not interested enough to study the phenomenon, and as I say in my previous post it doesn't change my basic argument.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 701 by DrJones*, posted 05-04-2019 2:41 AM DrJones* has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 707 of 1385 (851922)
05-04-2019 10:30 AM
Reply to: Message 695 by Theodoric
05-03-2019 2:33 PM


Re: Just to interject the YEC floodist view
Instead of just blasting me about nothing why not try to figure out what I'm trying to say? I AM creating an argument here although it is clear few care enough to try to follow it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 695 by Theodoric, posted 05-03-2019 2:33 PM Theodoric has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 711 by edge, posted 05-04-2019 12:26 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 708 of 1385 (851924)
05-04-2019 10:42 AM


Restating the question
Here's another way of trying to state the argument. Surely all would agree that any given species/kind/creature produces only that same species/kind/creature, with some variations mostly in superficial traits while the basic structure or form is preserved from generation to generation. Dogs are always the most dramatic example because there are so many breeds of them that are all still clearly dogs. They vary in size, temperament, color and length and texture of hair, while maintaining the characteristics by which everyone recognizes them as dogs, basic structure for instance but also some behaviors.
So it would be with the Triassic rodent AZ mentioned in Message 669. It would produce only variations on the rodent into the distant future, with superficial variations that don't change its basic character as rodent.
The ToE, however, says that at some point it will acquire changes that ultimately produce a new species, in this case some sort of mammal. Since all we know about any creature is that it always reproduces itself with superficial variations, which is commonly known as "microevolution" the question remains: since the theory holds that it will eventually produce something other than itself, how do you see this happening? What changes and where, either in the phenotypic traits or in the genome? Is a new kind of paw other than the rodent type of paw going to show up somewhere in the lineage, and how is that going to happen considering that only the rodent paw exists in the rodent genome? You would need something entirely different than exists in the rodent genome to get a new kind of paw. Mutations affect the existing genes, make variations on those genes, they don't change one kind of paw ito another, it's always going to be a rodent paw. I don't understand HOX genes very well except that they have to do with the structural traits such as a rodent paw and that they are fairly resistant to mutations, though when a mutation occurs it tends to creature a monster rather than anything at all beneficial, so changes there don't seem likely to further the evolutionary project.
This is all another attempt to define the question I've been asking. How do you get from the genome of one species to that of another considering that each genome is a blueprint as it were for only the traits of the species it belongs to?
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Replies to this message:
 Message 713 by caffeine, posted 05-04-2019 3:18 PM Faith has replied
 Message 715 by JonF, posted 05-04-2019 3:41 PM Faith has replied
 Message 716 by PaulK, posted 05-04-2019 3:54 PM Faith has replied

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


Message 709 of 1385 (851932)
05-04-2019 11:10 AM
Reply to: Message 705 by Faith
05-04-2019 10:24 AM


Re: Side issue: Gene deletion
quote:
What mutations do isn't important enough to my argument to spend time on it
That’s probably true for you, because you don’t care about whether your argument is correct or not. But your argument does rest on the claim that mutations cannot account for the genetic differences between species - and that makes it very, very important.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 705 by Faith, posted 05-04-2019 10:24 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 710 by Faith, posted 05-04-2019 11:13 AM PaulK has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 710 of 1385 (851934)
05-04-2019 11:13 AM
Reply to: Message 709 by PaulK
05-04-2019 11:10 AM


Re: Side issue: Gene deletion
Then answer the question and prove that mutations can make a new species out of an old one.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 709 by PaulK, posted 05-04-2019 11:10 AM PaulK has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1705 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 711 of 1385 (851939)
05-04-2019 12:26 PM
Reply to: Message 707 by Faith
05-04-2019 10:30 AM


Re: Just to interject the YEC floodist view
Instead of just blasting me about nothing why not try to figure out what I'm trying to say?
We've been trying that for years, Faith. It still comes out the same: your arguments make no sense and are not backed up by anything but denial and dismissal.
I AM creating an argument here although it is clear few care enough to try to follow it.
Your monkey, your circus.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 707 by Faith, posted 05-04-2019 10:30 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 712 by Faith, posted 05-04-2019 2:57 PM edge has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 712 of 1385 (851941)
05-04-2019 2:57 PM
Reply to: Message 711 by edge
05-04-2019 12:26 PM


Re: Just to interject the YEC floodist view
It makes sense to me and I don't know why it doesn't to you and I guess I never will because nobody can say why for some reason. I can see in Taq's case that he's so deeply into the evo box he can't think outside it but otherwise I don't get people's inability to follow what seems like a straightforward argument. It's reasoned out from what ought to be recognizable observations.
Actually I don't believe you, I think it's easy enough to follow, you just don't want to bother.
abe: Mad Censor: You censored "L-I=K=E"? You really ARE mad.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 711 by edge, posted 05-04-2019 12:26 PM edge has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 714 by PaulK, posted 05-04-2019 3:29 PM Faith has not replied

  
caffeine
Member (Idle past 1024 days)
Posts: 1800
From: Prague, Czech Republic
Joined: 10-22-2008


(1)
Message 713 of 1385 (851942)
05-04-2019 3:18 PM
Reply to: Message 708 by Faith
05-04-2019 10:42 AM


Re: Restating the question
Hi Faith,
I have to start first with a nitpick, since unfortunately I'm a pedant and can't help it:
So it would be with the Triassic rodent AZ mentioned in Message 669. It would produce only variations on the rodent into the distant future, with superficial variations that don't change its basic character as rodent.
The 'rodent' you and AZPaul are talking about never existed. 'Rodent' does not mean generic, small, furry thing. Rodents are a specific group with many unique features - of which the most distinctive and well known are their continuously growing incisor teeth (that's where the name comes from - rodent comes from the Latin word for gnawing; since that's exactly what their teeth are good for). Nor are they necessarily small. The largest living rodents are bigger than most dogs; and the largest extinct rodent that's been discovered may have been the size of a bison. There are no rodents in the Triassic, and being a small furry creature does make one 'rodent-like', regardless of what journalists might say.
That out of the way, let's get to your actual point.
This is all another attempt to define the question I've been asking. How do you get from the genome of one species to that of another considering that each genome is a blueprint as it were for only the traits of the species it belongs to?
I think you're still mislead about what genes do. As I have explained previously, there is no gene for making hands. Genes make proteins, and out of those proteins organisms are built. You were talking before about chimp hands and human hands - so let's look at the proteins these are built out of. You may or may not be surprised to discover that they're exactly the same. Human and chimp skin are made out of the same proteins (mostly collagen, keratin and melanin). Human and chimp nails are made out of the same proteins - mostly keratin. Human and chimp muscles are made out of the same proteins (mostly actin and myosin). Bone is mostly made of hard minerals rather than protein, but these too are exactly them same in humans and chimps - it's mostly hydroxyapatite; while the soft part of the bone; constructed of proteins, is primarily collagen, again in both humans and chimps.
The point here is that all the materials used to produce a chimp hand are synthesised by the human genome. All of them - without exception. And vice versa - all the materials used to produce a human hand are synthesised by the chimp genome. We are made from identical materials - so there is no need for any new genes to go from one to the other.
Obviously, there's a bit more to it than this, otherwise why would chimp and human hands be different? We both have the same genes producing the same proteins, but it's not like everything is just thrown together and mixed up in the hope of producing a hand. There are other part of the genome that regulate the expression of the different protein-synthesising genes. That is, they make different genes 'turn on' or 'turn off' in different places of the body at different stages in development. This means that different proteins are made in different combinations at different times and parts of the body, all of which leads to the creation of organs and body parts.
This is what things like HOX genes are for. HOX genes would not be relevant for the difference between a human and chimpanzee hand - I mentioned them earlier only because they are one of the most well-known families of regulatory genes. HOX genes are involved specifically in regulating how ectodermal tissue develops differently depending on what body segment it's in (so they make your head look different than your bum and your arms look different than your legs). But there are many, many other families of regulatory genes involved in making genes express differently throughout the body.
And that's all that's needed to make a hand develop into a chimp hand instead of into a human hand. At the early stages of embryonic development the two would be totally indistinguishable. Actually look at the two side by side (the third hand is an extinct species):
These two things are not different in kind - there are just differences in relative size and shape. The bone, remember, is identical in chemical composition. As you can see above - the number and shape of the bones are also basically the same. All is takes is a slight variation in differential growth at different points in the hand to make this slight change in shape. And that just needs certain regulatory genes to be slightly different, so that they cause a particular protein to be produced in slightly bigger quantities in one hand than in the other.
And remember that it's not just the bone that's the same - the skin, blood vessels, muscles, nerves, hair etc - it's all made of the same stuff in humans as in chimps. All you need is slight differentiations in relative growth. Exactly the same mechanism that can make the different shapes and sizes of dog. What barrier are you seeing here that makes this an unacheivable change?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 708 by Faith, posted 05-04-2019 10:42 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 718 by Faith, posted 05-04-2019 11:00 PM caffeine has replied

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


Message 714 of 1385 (851943)
05-04-2019 3:29 PM
Reply to: Message 712 by Faith
05-04-2019 2:57 PM


Re: Just to interject the YEC floodist view
quote:
It makes sense to me and I don't know why it doesn't to you and I guess I never will because nobody can say why for some reason
You’ve been given reasons many times. To give just one recent example from this thread Message 664. And that only lists some of the major objections.
quote:
I can see in Taq's case that he's so deeply into the evo box he can't think outside it....
It’s pretty obvious that you are very deeply stuck in your “floodist” box.
quote:
I don't get people's inability to follow what seems like a straightforward argument. It's reasoned out from what ought to be recognizable observations.
People understand the argument alright. They just don’t understand why you think it’s any good. Especially when the “observations” are over-generalisations at best, and when you ignore many observations that don’t fit - or “explain” them away by inventing crazy nonsense.
Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 712 by Faith, posted 05-04-2019 2:57 PM Faith has not replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 167 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 715 of 1385 (851944)
05-04-2019 3:41 PM
Reply to: Message 708 by Faith
05-04-2019 10:42 AM


Re: Restating the question
Your extrapolation of what we see over 100 years or so to millenia is not justified.
A genome is not a blueprint.
Edited by JonF, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 708 by Faith, posted 05-04-2019 10:42 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 723 by Faith, posted 05-05-2019 2:04 PM JonF has replied

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


Message 716 of 1385 (851945)
05-04-2019 3:54 PM
Reply to: Message 708 by Faith
05-04-2019 10:42 AM


Re: Restating the question
Caffeine has provided a better answer than I can but here’s a bit more to think about.
quote:
Here's another way of trying to state the argument. Surely all would agree that any given species/kind/creature produces only that same species/kind/creature, with some variations mostly in superficial traits while the basic structure or form is preserved from generation to generation.
Well let’s start by pointing out that your ideas of which traits are “superficial” seems to be based purely on convenience to your position. Sharper claws is not a superficial trait to you, but all the variations in trilobite eye structure are. On any objective assessment that is utterly ridiculous.
Next, while parents and children will generally be similar they will not be identical. There will be small differences in the genome that are not inherited from the parents. Some of these differences will have a phenotypic effect and some of these will persist and eventually take over a population of the descendants - many generations down the line.
So, it is not that there is no change - there is slow, cumulative change within a population.
quote:
The ToE, however, says that at some point it will acquire changes that ultimately produce a new species, in this case some sort of mammal. Since all we know about any creature is that it always reproduces itself with superficial variations, which is commonly known as "microevolution" the question remains: since the theory holds that it will eventually produce something other than itself, how do you see this happening? What changes and where, either in the phenotypic traits or in the genome?
This is not a sensible question. How can you ask about specifics when dealing with the general situation ? There can be biochemical changes, changes in colouration or shape, hair might be gained or lost. The hooded crow and carrion crow seem to be separating based on nothing more than sexual selection - the plumage differences being enough to drive them apart. No doubt they will slowly diverge, since there is very little, if any, gene flow between the populations. But how they will diverge is simply not predictable. We can’t know which mutations will occur or which of those will be advantageous over the next few millennia (and I expect it will take longer than that for them to become greatly distinct)
quote:
You would need something entirely different than exists in the rodent genome to get a new kind of paw
As caffeine points out, that isn’t true. It would take adjustments to regulatory sequences to affect the development of the paw.
quote:
This is all another attempt to define the question I've been asking. How do you get from the genome of one species to that of another considering that each genome is a blueprint as it were for only the traits of the species it belongs to?
A genome is not a blueprint. It does not describe the morphology at all. It is more like instructions to grow the creature. Make this protein under these conditions is the basic level. And adjusting those instructions produces the sort of differences we see.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 708 by Faith, posted 05-04-2019 10:42 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 717 by Faith, posted 05-04-2019 10:39 PM PaulK has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 717 of 1385 (851948)
05-04-2019 10:39 PM
Reply to: Message 716 by PaulK
05-04-2019 3:54 PM


Re: Restating the question
My reason for using the term "superficial" is nothing like what you are imagining. Your speculations are wrong and they are unwelcome.
I already said there are differences from generation to generation. Pay attention.
The question has to do with explaining how anything that does not exist in the species genome can come to exist in the creature.
Obviously you do not grasp the question and are not interested in it but only in making irrelevant points.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 716 by PaulK, posted 05-04-2019 3:54 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 719 by PaulK, posted 05-05-2019 1:52 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 720 by Theodoric, posted 05-05-2019 7:51 AM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 718 of 1385 (851949)
05-04-2019 11:00 PM
Reply to: Message 713 by caffeine
05-04-2019 3:18 PM


Re: Restating the question
Pick any creature. I don't care if it's a rodent or whatever you want. I just want someone to explain how the genome for the traits of that creature can change to make a trait for a completely different creature.
I know that genes make proteins and that somehow a trait is the product of that protein. What's the problem? I wouldn't expect that one gene could make a hand either.
But no I'm not at all surprised that all living things are made out of the same basic stuff.
We are made from identical materials - so there is no need for any new genes to go from one to the other.
The form of the product is different in each case. You can make a lot of different things out of the same clay. Also it seems to me that comparison of hands doesn't have the proportions right. Aren't chimp hands much larger? And if the gene in the chimp genome that makes the chimp hand is the same gene in the human genome that makes the human hand and the same for the extinct creature whatever it is, you certainly do need new genes or something new to get from one to the other. The chimp genome is only going to make the chimp hand and tne human genome is only going to make the human hand and despite the picture and despite the fact that the basic materials are the same these are very different things. The powerful large slender chimp hand is so different from the human hand you cannot confuse them. I want to know how you propose to bring about the DIFFERENCES between them as supposedly the chimp evolves to the human. What's the genetic pathway? What has to change in the genome? How do you turn chimp skin and fur and nails into human skin and nails? What has to change and in what order? Obviously you aren't going to see a human hand emerge from the chimp genome, millions of changes have to take place all at once. In fact the number of "transitionals" that would have to occur must be staggering and yet maybe you'll find one somewhere that seems to be a transitional. I'm asking how you solve these problems. Nothing you've said so far solves it. If you think HOX genes could accomplish something along these lines let's see the argument.
But there are many, many other families of regulatory genes involved in making genes express differently throughout the body.
Yes this explains how a human genome makes these differences in the human body, or a chimp genome in a chimp body, but it says nothing about how you could ever get a human trait from a chimp genome.
As for the same materials, one can make many different things out of clay but there's nothing about the clay that can get you one thing from another.
Thanks for the information though. It just doesn't do anything to answer the question. It's obvious to me that it is simply impossible to get a human being from a chimp or other ape even after millions of years. FF
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 713 by caffeine, posted 05-04-2019 3:18 PM caffeine has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 721 by Tangle, posted 05-05-2019 1:40 PM Faith has replied
 Message 761 by caffeine, posted 05-06-2019 1:32 PM Faith has replied

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


(2)
Message 719 of 1385 (851950)
05-05-2019 1:52 AM
Reply to: Message 717 by Faith
05-04-2019 10:39 PM


Re: Restating the question
quote:
My reason for using the term "superficial" is nothing like what you are imagining. Your speculations are wrong and they are unwelcome.
So what is your reason for using an obvious double standard ? I think the fact that your arguments would collapse without it shows adequate reason for my conclusion.
Note that this is a highly relevant point since you claim that the minor differences between a human hand and a chimpanzee’s require new genes.
quote:
I already said there are differences from generation to generation. Pay attention.
Did you admit that there are differences in the genome that are not inherited from the parents ? Did you admit that these differences can include phenotypic changes ? Did you admit that these new traits can spread to entire populations ? If not then you are the one failing to pay attention.
quote:
The question has to do with explaining how anything that does not exist in the species genome can come to exist in the creature.
A new trait coming from a mutation would seem to fit.
quote:
Obviously you do not grasp the question and are not interested in it but only in making irrelevant points.
Since the points you are objecting to are obviously relevant it seems that the reality is that you don’t want an answer.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 717 by Faith, posted 05-04-2019 10:39 PM Faith has not replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 720 of 1385 (851951)
05-05-2019 7:51 AM
Reply to: Message 717 by Faith
05-04-2019 10:39 PM


Re: Restating the question
Irrelevant does not mean things that do not fit into your religious views and things you disagree with.
Scientific evidence and facts are relevant.

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.
If your viewpoint has merits and facts to back it up why would you have to lie?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 717 by Faith, posted 05-04-2019 10:39 PM Faith 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