|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 66 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,469 Year: 3,726/9,624 Month: 597/974 Week: 210/276 Day: 50/34 Hour: 1/5 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: questions evolutionists can't or won't answer | ||||||||||||||||||||
Quetzal Member (Idle past 5894 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
Hi Philip:
Just a quick clarification on your reference here: quote: (Thanks for your kind words, btw). If you'll look back over the post you referenced, you'll note that a key assumption in NS is: 1. There must be heritable variation for some trait. Examples: beak size, color pattern, thickness of skin, fleetness, visual acuity. Without going into excruciating detail, the bit that I left out (because it wasn't germane to the specific topic) is that this variation is based on changes to the genetic code of the organism. Heritable variation occurs by mutational changes in an organism’s DNA (any change in the hereditary message — base pair substitution or insertion/deletion of new bases, etc) leading to the creation of new genetic material AND/OR creation of new genetic combinations through transposition (changing the position of a gene changes what it does), recombination (through cross-over during meosis), or genetic reshuffling (through sexual reproduction). So it's still the old "mutationalist" explanation. NS operates on those genetic changes that cause changes in the phenotype of the organism. Sorry.
|
||||||||||||||||||||
Quetzal Member (Idle past 5894 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
Hi Philip:
I think I'm beginning to catch a glimmer of where our disagreement lies (I mean, beyond the obvious). quote: In the first place, mutations leading to metastatic conditions (sorry if that's the wrong term - I'm not an oncologist) only occur in somatic cells. In addition, metastasis only occurs if the somatic mutation is of a specific type that modifies the protein product without killing the cell. In any event, a somatic mutation has no direct bearing on evolution or natural selection, since these mutations are not inherited. (The indirect exception would be if a tumor kills the organism before it can reproduce.) The only mutations that can have any effect on evolution are therefore germline mutations. Even here, the vast majority are going to either be neutral (i.e., of no consequence to natural selection because they have no effect on phenotype) or will kill the cell (or at least render the developing organism unviable). Another fraction of these mutations will have effects that show up later in development which may kill the organism before it can reproduce - again, having no effect on evolution because the changed genotype is eliminated from the population before it can be passed on. What's left, therefore, are the few mutations that are either mild enough to permit the organism to live long enough to reproduce, OR provide a genuinely beneficial phenotypical change. http://207.36.64.70/ubb/smilies/wink.gif[/IMG] When it's expressed, then I'll worry about it. These are the mutations that create the actual heritable novelty in a population. They are not "in the a priori (sic) population’s gene pool". They represent NEW additions. However, you are correct: mutations alone - which as you can see are relatively rare - cannot completely account for the significant variation between individuals within a given population on which natural selection operates. Instead, NS operates on variation thrown up by recombinations or other changes in the genetic code which already exists in the gene pool - everything from random chromosome shuffling to transposition and cross-over. Just to complicate things, plants are especially liable to chromosome doubling (polyploidy), and some prokaryotes can swap genetic material - again creating the diversity upon which NS operates. The above is, of course, grossly over-simplified. I hope I've made my position clearer, however.
quote: Actually, your error is your misunderstanding that mutation = cancer. As I explained, this is not necessarily the case.
|
||||||||||||||||||||
Quetzal Member (Idle past 5894 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
quote: Why is this rash? Any mutation that causes a change to the DNA code and hence final protein product would be a new addition since the new code sequence didn’t exist in the genome before the mutation. It is certainly not a latent manifestation — implying the new code was already present (as opposed to gene duplication, reshuffling, etc, which could fit under a very generous interpretation of latent). Remember, a mutation is merely a copying error in DNA that isn’t repaired by the cell’s own repair mechanisms. I would argue that any change in the protein product — whether a single-base substitution, a frameshift or even duplication constitutes a NEW addition.
quote: I’m sorry, Philip, but I have no idea what you’re on about here. What are the genetic-structural boundaries of an organism. Could you please provide an example of genetic bounds — since you state they are presently seen?
quote: I’m not going to argue with your jargon — although I’ve never heard the terms labyrinth and algorithm used in this context in biology (you wouldn’t be inventing terms just to confuse me, would you? You can point to some mainstream literature that uses the terms in this fashion, yes?). You are simply incorrect that novel biochemical structures are never created naturally. The classic example is the evolution of an anti-freeze glycoprotein derived from a pancreatic gene that normally codes for trypsinogen in Antarctic fish. A reading error or frameshift mutation occurred in a small region spanning the boundary between the first intron and second exon of the trypsinogen gene plus amplification of a 9-nt Thr-Ala-Ala coding element from the trypsinogen progenitor to create a new protein coding region for the repetitive tripeptide backbone of the antifreeze protein. (The full article, Evolution of antifreeze glycoprotein gene from a trypsinogen gene in Antarctic notothenioid fish.) This is by no means the only example.
quote: Again, I’m not entirely clear what you are trying to say. If you are attempting to argue against speciation in toto, I’m afraid I’m going to have to ask you to explain away a lot of very compelling evidence to the contrary, including ring species, rodent speciation (check out Madeiras Island studies on Mus musculus — six different species on one island — and they’ve only been there for 250 years!), the observed evolution of sticklebacks, the entire science of developmental genetics and molecular phylogeny, etc.
quote: Once again, I have absolutely no idea what you’re on about. What aspect? You seem to be arguing that polyploidy — which is a whole ‘nother mechanism of speciation unrelated to anything we’ve discussed so far — is the ONLY mechanism. Wrong again. Polyploidy — chromosome multiplication. It’s very common in plant speciation, but relatively rare in animals. It is NOT a mutation.
quote: Sorry, once again you’ve gone over my head. Could you possibly explain what you’re talking about in layman’s terms, without jargon? Thanks.
quote: Uhhh, okay. However, you’re back to insisting mutation = cancer. This is not the case.
[QUOTE]--Polyploidy is an interesting phenomenon, but again limited to mutation spots else you observe metastasis, decay, etc. No doubt metastasis arises in these [i]hot[/] spots as well. Randomness and decay, thus, are allowed ‘some’ free expression beyond the mainstream norm as in your multi-tiered mechanism of NS involving beneficial mutations. [/QUOTE] Once again you’re confusing mutation and polyploidy. Not the same thing.
quote: Err, nope. That’s pretty straightforward neo-Darwinian evolution. Mutation is how novel genetic material is produced. Variation is only the first step — after that you start working with natural selection and all its various complex mechanisms.
quote: Nope. Just a few beneficial mutations or genetic reshuffling of existing genes, plus natural selection (especially directional selection: try this website Examples of Beneficial Mutations and Natural Selection for some nice abstracts of recent articles. Here’s a good article on evolution of novel proteins in mammals, Positive Darwinian selection drives the evolution of several female reproductive proteins in mammals. Here’s a really good article on the genetic basis for evolution, Morphological innovation and developmental genetics. I like this one because it shows that a small number of genes may be responsible for major morphological changes.
quote: Since cancer is a negative survival pressure, I’d say 1. There’s no such thing as reproductive metastasis, and 2. It’s not even ONE of the mechanisms for ToE, let alone the only viable one. Philip, I say this with all due respect, you really need to read some basic biology — I’m not sure you even understand what you’re arguing against.
|
||||||||||||||||||||
Quetzal Member (Idle past 5894 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
quote: quote: Actually, my objection is that I don’t think there’s any reason to bring in a new term. It’s not a question of perspective — book or not, the way I use the terminology is pretty much the way every biologist uses it. As to your specific use of metastasis, I appreciate the clarification, but submit that mutation covers any change in DNA code sequence either pre- or post-zygote. Once again, mutation does NOT equate necessarily to disease. Your use of metastasis in this context is misleading, at best. Beneficial mutations DO exist (see the articles I referenced in my previous post for several examples). The fact is, most mutations of any stripe are simply neutral as far as the individual organism is concerned. Although I accept the fact that you have a degree in biology, once again you bring in elements that are very non-standard, or at least used incorrectly, in the discipline. What do you mean by non-direct parts of reproductive chromosomes? The phrase doesn’t seem to make sense to me. Perhaps you could explain what you mean. In addition, all sexually reproducing organisms are diploid. One copy of the chromosomes is received from each parent. This is one of the reasons that even germline mutations may not have any effect on the organism — they may have received a fully functioning copy from the other parent (c.f, heterozygous recessives.)
quote: I understand what labyrinth means. If you are referring to anatomical structures in the sense that they are irreducibly complex (a la Behe), then your use in the context of definition 2 above is at least slightly justified — although in this case you’re going to have to show that the examples you gave are, in fact, irreducibly complex — something Behe himself has failed to do. I’m not going to argue definitions with you, but I would like to point out that definition 3 is merely a reference to the shape — a labyrinth can be used as a descriptive metaphor for the convolutions and maze-like structure of the inner ear. I don’t suppose there’s any point in drawing your attention to the varieties of suture patterns in foraminifera (you’d love ‘em, they’re an almost classic example of the golden mean in action in nature) as an illustration of how convoluted — labyrinthine — structures can be formed quite easily in nature? My point is you are not justified in using the term as a falsification. As for how complicated systems such as protein cascades can be formed (evolved quote: I’m aware what the term algorithm means. My question was how you were using it. Would you care to try an algorithmic approach to refute the evidence provided in the antifreeze glycoprotein article I referenced? The authors certainly don’t see an evolutionary problem in the development of this protein. Considering that in Algorithm Information Theory (at least as proposed by Kolmogorov-Chaitan) the amount of information is an abstract thing, not a concrete fact about the world, it applies only to a description of things, not to the things themselves. If DNA is information bearing, it is because we can make a sequence of abstract symbols out of it and apply AIT to that. Even so, we keep finding features of DNA that the simple code does not capture (eg, histone and methylation patterns). I bid you, Good luck in your refutation.
quote: quote: Perhaps it is the only viable one you can conclude. However, in this case, you’re pretty much a minority of one. You certainly have failed to show that disease metastasis even has any bearing on this discussion — let alone that evolutionary biologists are basing their theories on it as such.
quote: quote: No insult intended. My apologies if you took it that way. However, with your stated background I’m having difficulty comprehending why you consistently misunderstand basic biological concepts. Your genetics, developmental biology, microbiology, and biochemistry assertions are often simply wrong. I’m having a hard time reconciling the two.
quote: This is YOUR assertion — and I have to say it’s becoming a rather obvious strawman. I have argued consistently (and repetitiously, I’m afraid) that beneficial mutations are only ONE aspect of the ToE. Selection pressures operating on the phenotypical variations occurring in a given population of organisms — whether arising through mutation or the normal recombination/reshuffling of genetic material that occurs during gametogenesis — provide the foundation of the ToE. Your assertion is wrong, and ignores almost all of biology. You don’t even have to accept evolution to be aware of variation in populations and the statistical processes that change the relative frequency of expressed alleles. Just look in the mirror: unless you are a clone of your parents, you differ from them in many traits. Your cousin is even more different. In the wild, given that some of these traits can have an effect on the survival of an organism (an herbivore that runs very fast or jumps very high has a better chance of surviving a predator’s attack than one that runs slowly or doesn’t jump high enough), the variation that provides at least some survival advantage to an organism is the one that gets passed on. This is the type of variation that drives evolution. The origin of that variation is what I’ve been discussing in the last several posts.
quote: Why is it impossible? For just one example, Bandyopdhyay PK, Garrett JE, Shetty RP, Keate T, Walker CS, and Olivera BM, 2001, Glutamyl carboxylation: An extracellular posttranslational modification that antedates the divergence of molluscs, arthropods, and chordates. In this article, the authors report the discovery that one of the key essential elements in the mammalian blood clotting cascade, carboxylglutamate (Gla), is a modification of much older protein found in simpler organisms.
quote: Impossible? Apparently not
quote: This certainly occurs. However, I think you need to provide specific examples showing how widespread the problem is, as well as how this refutes the ToE. This isn’t biblical inerrancy, after all. It’s science.
quote: Okay, glad you’re enjoying the discussion. I obviously don’t expect to change your mind, but from my perspective it’s useful to get the actual science on the table. Viva los lurkers!
[QUOTE]
Hmm, not sure I understand this. If you’re arguing that the biochemical origins of life are not proven, I agree with you. However, since every OTHER phenomenon in nature IS understandable using natural laws without recourse to the supernatural, I have to say that I’m relatively confident that abiogenesis will ultimately be understood the same way. I’m content to wait. Fraudulent it certainly isn’t — nobody’s setting out to deceive anyone. The only true a priori bias I’ve ever encountered is from the religious side. After all, since you don’t profess a belief in the Egyptian or Norse pantheon alongside your particular flavor of the Christian god, I’d have to say that the only difference between us is that I believe in one less deity than you do
|
||||||||||||||||||||
Quetzal Member (Idle past 5894 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
I'm a bit unhappy, after the last two lengthy posts I provided, that this is the best you can come up with. Philip, it appears you are studiously ignoring my specific points. If this discussion is to continue, I would ask that you take a little more time and address or rebut the points I've made. Especially since the examples and discussion I have laboriously provided are direct refutations of many of your assertions. Thanks.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Philip:Quetzal: I have argued consistently (and repetitiously, I’m afraid) that beneficial mutations are only ONE aspect of the ToE. Selection pressures operating on the phenotypical variations occurring in a given population of organisms — whether arising through mutation or the normal recombination/reshuffling of genetic material that occurs during gametogenesis — provide [b]the foundation of the ToE Philip: --Your quoted statement above is all that is necessary to refute. You just inferred normal recombination/reshuffling of genetic material and played-out all the freak mutations, rhetorically. You can’t do that Quetzel, not within the framework of the mega-ToE (supposed high level trans-taxonomic ‘speciation’) ... because:[/QUOTE] This is getting a tad surreal. I'm not quite sure why you keep insisting that I subscribe to your (erroneous) version and/or misunderstanding of evolution. Nothing I have posted so far on this thread or any other is in any way controversial or unaccepted in the context of mainstream evolutionary biology and genetics. I'm quite sure that if I had posted anything incorrectly, one of the experts on this board would have been all over it with hob-nailed boots. I haven't "inferred" anything when I talk about "normal" recombination during gametogenesis. This is such fundamentally basic biology - it's not even evolution!!! - that I'm surprised you would even question it. EVEN IN THE ABSENCE OF MUTATION, the process of meiosis in sexually reproducing organisms produces variation upon which natural selection can operate. Cross-over: In prophase I, two non-sister chromatids aligned together swap sections while synapsed together. The process is called crossing over. It is reciprocal - the segments exchanged by each non-sister chromatid are identical (but often carry different alleles). Each chromatid contains a single molecule of DNA. So crossing over is really just the swapping of portions of adjacent DNA molecules. It must be done with great precision so that neither chromatid gains or loses any genes. In fact, crossing over has to be sufficiently precise that not a single nucleotide is lost or added at the crossover point if it occurs within a gene. OTHERWISE YOU GET A MUTATION! This form of recombination can create new alleles in the recipient gamete. THIS IS NOT MUTATION!!!! It is a basic property of meiosis. Random assortment: In meiosis I, the orientation of paternal and maternal homologous chromosomes during metaphase is random - hence during anaphase I each homologue separates and moves to its respective pole. The poles are separated in meiosis II. Therefore, although each cell produced by meiosis contains one of each homologue, the number of possible combinations of maternal and paternal homologues is 2^n, where n = the haploid number of chromosomes. In humans this translates to 2^23, or 8,388,608 possible combinations of chromosomes FOR EACH GAMETE!!!!! Fertilization: If the parents differ genetically - each providing one of the 8 million possible combinations - new combinations of genes occur in their offspring. This is one of the primary ways variation occurs within a population: the recombination of existing genetic material. Natural selection operating on the individual expression of this variety leads to changes in the frequency of alleles in the population. This is utterly uncontroversial and so basic that I'm aware the idea is presented in Jr High School biology texts. You must have slept through that part of all those biology courses you supposedly took.
quote: This is your assertion. If you are going to continue to argue this point, you need to present evidence that meiosis in the absence of mutation is abnormal. Then you can present evidence that all mutations are themselves "abnormal". Mutations, as I've continually pointed out, are the source of novel genetic material. When the selection pressures on a population change, it is the presence (or absence) of these novel traits that determines the survival or extinction of the population. A very conservative estimate is about one non-lethal mutation in any given locus per 100,000 gametes. That means that a human baby, for instance, will be born with 1-3 mutations. Combine these mutations (most of which are neutral in terms of survival) with the recombination during meiosis, and voila, you have literally staggering amounts of potential variation upon which natural selection can operate.
quote: Ah, the old argument from incredulity raises its head. Pure assertion - care to take a stab at providing evidence of "uncanny variation", and what you mean by "set in"?
quote: You can call it anything you want - and as often as you want. Your insistence on this point when I have patiently provided the actual scientific terms and mechanisms is becoming redundant. "My theory", as you put it, is absolutely, positively, wholly neo-Darwinian synthesis. I'm probably about as orthodox in this science as you can get.
quote: Again, you should - as I asked previously - provide evidence that any biologist has deliberately "perpetrated fraud", indulged in "self deception", or is somehow deluded because they find that nearly every observation they make in nature adds more to the strength of the evolutionary edifice. The only obstinancy I see is yours.
quote: I have never accused you of Brad-like behavior. I have stated, and will continue to do so, that in many cases your use of non-standard terms is confusing. As far as the human foot goes, since I know sod-all about it, I'll take a look at the thread but doubt I'll have anything to do with the discussion. Meanwhile, you can try your hand at refuting any of the evidence I've provided in this thread. More handwaving or ignoring my posts will ultimately get you on my ignore list.
|
||||||||||||||||||||
Quetzal Member (Idle past 5894 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
Hi Bart:
quote: Not really. This is a relatively common misunderstanding of linnean classification and "phyla" in particular. A critter is assigned to a phylum based on a shared body plan. All phyla were described within the last couple hundred years - using modern organisms. One of the key fallacies here is that means that all extinct organisms - whether they really share a body plan or not - are shoehorned into one of the 33 identified phyla alive today! Needless to say, this means that some of the really weird pre-Cambrian and Cambrian fossils are listed in one of the modern phyla - whether they share a common body plan or not - leading to serious misconceptions that all phyla magically appeared 580 million years ago. In point of fact, only about 13 actually show up in the fossil record during the Vendian and around the Paleozoic-Cambrian boundary (the so-called "explosion"). Here's a listing: Era Phyla Recent 13Eocene 2 Cretaceous 2 Jurassic 1 Triassic 3 Carboniferous 5 Devonian 4 Silurian 1 Ordovician 1 Cambrian 9 Vendian 4 As you can see, only 13 phyla show up during/prior to the Cambrian. 20 phyla appear later. There IS, therefore, evidence of inter-phyla evolution. Why? Because "phylum" is simply a convenient term, not an intrinsic entity defining a discontinuity or barrier. Even then, stuffing organisms into existing phyla leads to problems: look up Asbestopluma or the Cladorhizidae - classified under phylum Porifera, but sharing none (or almost none) of the Porifera bodyplans. The whole thing is very arbitrary - and substantially more complex than a cursory examination of the issue would lead one to believe.
|
||||||||||||||||||||
Quetzal Member (Idle past 5894 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
You can start by explaining how what I posted constitutes "special pleading". Also, the chart I used came from Mayr, not Morton (although Morton's site provided the Porifera reference). I'm sure he'd be pleased you consider his works "great". IMO, they're pretty good, but I wouldn't go so far as to say "great".
quote: Yeah, I've seen the figure before (I think, Wilson "Diversity of Life") concerning the total number of phyla that ever existed - including proctists, archea, bacteria, etc - but not limited to the Cambrian. The most recently discovered phylum was found less than ten years ago (the Gnathostimulida), and there is absolutely no evidence it existed in the Cambrian. I've also seen as few as 22, of which only a dozen or so appear in the Cambrian. Depends on the taxonomist. However, you have some significant flaws in your diatribe, err, argument. For example, your assertion "84 phyla appeared in the Vendian/Cambrian" is incorrect (to say the least), as it completely ignores the emergence of terrestrial plants (for example) containing 12 phyla (depending on your classification scheme) all on their own - and which didn't appear until the Ordovician or later. Or phylum Uniramia which also evolved on land sometime either in the late Cambrian or early Ordovician - after the "explosion" was long over (of course, whether you consider Uniramia, Crustacea, and Chelicerata as phyla or superclass, and Arthropoda as phylum or superphylum depends on your cladistics teacher). Remember, phylum refers to body plan - it doesn't say ANYTHING about whether or not the organism that first developed the plan had an ancestor with a different plan.
quote: You're so right. It's terrible when those evilutionists invent stuff like control genes. Homeobox genes in the ribbonworm Lineus sanguineus: Evolutionary implications. You'll really like this next one - it has a much better table showing when various phyla first appear than Morton or Futuyma (fig. 3), and a really neat table showing relative numbers of Hox genes in existing phyla and the branch nodes (fig. 6): Fossils, molecules and embryos: new perspectives on the Cambrian explosion. In fact, I like this one so much I'm going to quote their conclusion:
quote:
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024