Macroevolution: Its all around us...

Crash, are you denying that convergent DNA occurs?LOL.So you think that just has to be wrong, eh?Lemme ask you something. Is this something that falsifies universal common descent? If I can show you that convergent DNA is real, does that mean common descent is not true?Your mocking tone suggests it is such an audicious concept to you that you feel it undermines common descent and is tantamount to God playing tricks on people, if true.

Perhaps you should back up and explain what you define as "convergent DNA"?It is a parallel to the convergent evolution of some traits of course. These traits are under selective pressure (streamlining in water living animals e.g.). Crash and others are refering to DNA that is NOT under any selective pressure.Can you clarify what it is that you are talking about and show, in some detail, why you think it counters the idea of common descent?

The claim that you repeatedly assert that I am making; the claim that random mutation and natural selection necessitate common descent. But that's not the claim I made, not in that quote, nor anywhere else.

I'm denying that it occurs in pseudogenetic sequences, or at least, that it occurs in any greater frequency than we would expect from random chance, in which case I guess it wouldn't really be convergent. No, of course not. You would have to explain why the false trees established by convergent pseudogenes would match the trees constructed from morphology and stratiography, when in fact they shouldn't match at all. If convergent pseudogenes exist to such a degree that they match inferred trees from stratiography and morphology to the precision that we observe, then the only reasonable conclusion is that someone is playing a grand joke with our genetics. There's no other explanation.

Ned, this was discussed at length on a thread with your participation. Here is a link discussing the issue. http://www.pubmedcentral.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=509321Maybe instead of berating me for "learning nothing", you would do well to take some of your own advice.

I think that was Crashfrog's statement, but it is essentially true.Let's look at what transpired here.My original statement:ToE explains how selection, both natural and artificial, acts on plant genomes, thus enabling plant breeders to continually breed improved crop plants and secure the human food supply, and this without genetic engineering - just conventional plant breeding. What do you think that creationist thinking has contributed to securing our food supply? Zero.You wrote:The fact is even YECism explains those things as well. YECism predicts those exact same things as OECism and ID.I said:Then they need to make some predictions that run counter to those of ToE and show that they can be right when (if) ToE is wrong. Otherwise they are just redundant. And I take issue with their ability to explain anything. Neither YEC nor ID postulate any testable mechanistic explanations at all.So now you say:"I was responding to a quote by an evolutionist here that claimed 'anything that incorporates selection and mutation is the exact same thing as evolution. It's an evolutionary model.' "Well if it is not an evolutionary model, it would be *redundant* to an evolutionary model (and most likely inferior). It is not sufficient to say that ID and YEC 'allow' for the same observations and, ergo, may also be true. They must also frame testable hypothesis and conduct experiments. Neither can be afforded recognition as 'science' at all until they do.The truth of the matter is that scientists working on resistance evolution, plant breeding, wildlife management, and countless other fields all rely on evolutionary theory. I challenge you to find ONE scientific article in ANY of these fields that mentions even the most remote insight from ID or YEC. You cannot do it. But you *can* come along and spew out "ID theory and YEC both make the same predictions as ToE w/r/t microevolutionary change." Bullshit, I say. It wasn't until these nitwits were faced with the incontrovertable evidence of evolutionary change that they began to admit that living things changed AT ALL.So now, you and the rest of all these insidious, pedantic, disingenuous pseudoscientists want to take credit for detailing the 'hows' and 'whys' of all microevolutionary change ? I don't think so. Creationist ideas contributed NOTHING to the development of microevolutionary theory. Care to argue otherwise? Then why don't you explain how YEC 'theory' can explain the evolution of metamorphosis in insects as I use evolutionary theory to explain it here?Now you say "well, species can change, but they have to stay within their 'kinds' - there is no common descent". So I say to you, why don't you take up the challenge over here and explain what mechanism it is that puts some sort of limit on the degree to which organisms can change once they comprise separate gene pools ? Then you could have grounds to argue against common descent (which is NOT, incidentally, the topic of this thread).At this point I would like to direct readers of the thread to address the excellent topic of retorviral symbioses as a relatively unrecognized cause of speciation through a mechanism known as 'pandemic culling'. TimChase has posted some excellent articles outlining this subject and it is far more worthy of comment and discussion here than any pedantic argument about commonality of descent.This message has been edited by EZscience, 06-19-2005 04:24 PM

EZ, you are still wrong because plant breeding preceded ToE. That fact alone disproves your entire point. Creationists used plant breeding techniques long before Charles Darwin was even born.Basically, your argument is to try to stretch the fact things evolve into proof of universal common descent.The truth is ID and creationism all offer the same insights into plant breeding as you common descenters do. Your claim that they offer not a shred of insight into breeding, etc,...is demonstrably false then.You are just misrepresenting your critics, in typical evolutionist fashion, because you don't want to honestly deal with their criticisms, nor are willing to give up overstating your case.Furthmore, your insistence they run claims "counter to common descent" as evidence for common descent is specious. Your whole line of reasoning is specious.No one denies evolution occurs. What people are less convinced of is that this fact equates that all living things evolved from a single common ancestor.Why is that so hard for you to get your head around and deal honestly with?This message has been edited by randman, 06-19-2005 05:40 PM

If by single common ancestor, you mean the Last Universal Common Ancestor, then actually this is something which even evolutionists disagree upon. Some evolutionists would argue that while there is common decent, LUCA was itself some sort of community of microbes more or less freely exchanging their genetic material.You can find out a little bit more about this and the controversies involved at:Looking for LUCA
http://www-archbac.u-psud.fr/...sTreilles/LesTreilles_e.htmlI should note that things have advanced considerably since this was written, but it is a good place to start.However, somehow, I don't believe that LUCA being some sort of a community of organisms is quite what you meant. If, for example, you believe that "evolution" can only occur within a given population, in essence, that there can be only changes in the relative frequencies of genes within a population, but no real evolution from one species into another, then would you deny that whales evolved from animals which walked on land?If so, you might want to check out:Whale Evolution/Cetacean Evolution (Atavistic Hind Limbs on Modern Whales)
Whale Evolution and Atavistic Hind Limbs on Modern Whales
from
Edward T Babinski
ScriveningsWould you wish to deny that whales are closely related to hipos?If so, you might wish to check out:Phylogenetic relationships among cetartiodactyls based on insertions of short and long interersed elements: Hippopotamuses are the closest extant relatives of whales
Masato Nikaido, Alejandro P. Rooney, and Norihiro Okada
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci.
Vol. 96 pp. 10261-10266, August 1999
Just a moment...And while we are looking at this, we might also want to turn to the phylogenetic relationships between man and the other primates:Constructing primate phylogenies from ancient retrovirus sequences
Welkin E. Johnson and John M. Coffin
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci.
Vol. 96, pp. 10254-10260, August 1999
Just a moment...There is a great deal of evidence for evolution -- not simply the kind of microevolution which occurs within a given species, but macroevolution, even among broad kinds -- even from single-celled creatures to the multicellular organisms such as yourself. To give one example, there is the social amoeba which comes together temporarily into a single multicellar organism for the purpose of procreation through spores. Currently, the mechanisms used by this odd creature are shedding light even on the human brain itself:Social Amoeba Sheds Light On Communication In Human Brain
http://www.sciencedaily.com/...ases/2005/05/050517111933.htmAmoeba studies reveal new insight into human DNA
Page not found – Daily BreezeSOCIAL STUDIES
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/...
{Shortened display form of URL. - AM}Would you deny that you and the social amoeba are related? If you are a creationist, I believe you must. But clearly we are learning a great deal from our little relatives -- things which might even shed light upon various mental illnesses.Of course, I hope that I am not overloading you with too much to digest. Take your time. But please do tell me where -- as a creationist -- you draw the line between organisms which are related and organisms which are not. And if instead you are a proponent of intelligent design, then clearly you must accept a great deal of evolutionary theory. Please tell us what specific points you do not accept and where exactly intelligent design must differ from evolutionary science, rather than simply "ape" it and its discoveries. I am sure that everyone here will appreciate such an enlightening moment and that there will be much less frustration than we have seen for quite a while.This message has been edited by TimChase, 06-19-2005 11:07 PMThis message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 06-20-2005 12:21 PM

Of course it doesn't. The Indians used asprin for hundreds of years before the white man came. Does that fact disprove the effecacy of modern pharmacology? How does plant breeding make sense in the light of anything but evolution?

True, but they never developed a theory about *how* and *why* it works. Once again, you dodge all pointed questions. Please address them or desist in your rantings. If things can evolve, then what is stop them becoming more and more different until they are separate genera or families? What mechanism determines the boundaries of one 'kind' of animal and another? The fact is, there is no limit to how different organisms can get once they are separate gene pools. Then where the hell is it in the literature ? They offer no 'insights' whatsoever. You haven't found an example of a single one as I challenged you. You are still pissing in the wind. Once again, this thread is about inferences of macroevolutionary change. Lots of evidence on speciation processses have been discussed. We don't have to go all the way back to a single common ancestor to make some really strong inferences about phylogenetic divergence of major taxa, but both ID and YEC are COMPLETELY USELESS as tools for this purpose. They are intellectually bereft of mechanisms, inferences, and testable hypotheses. Can you come up with one model of evolutionary change derived from either? Anything quantitative or analytical published anywhere? You can't, becuase your 'theories' aren't theories at all int he scientific sense. They don;t 'explain' anything - they just pontificate.This message has been edited by EZscience, 06-20-2005 06:43 AM

I just wanted to welcome you over to this forum. Your posts so far have been excellent and very educational. I just want to encourage you to stick around despite some of the derailing of good discussion that goes on. For every dissenting and unreasonable YEC you have to suffer there are a number of people out there who are not part of the discussion who are thoroughly enjoying your posts. If in doubt, just check the "## Guests" in the who list at the top of the page. I was an uninformed and curious member of that group long before I started posting here and it was the great insight of posters of your quality who made me really want to be a part of this community.

---

Organizations worth supporting:
Electronic Frontier Foundation | Defending your rights in the digital world (Protect Privacy and Security)
Home | American Civil Liberties Union (Protect Civil Rights)
AAUP (Protect Higher Learning)

Thank you!Actually I am kind of used to online debates. I have participated a great deal in them in the past, and oftentimes found that even when arguing with people who were little above the level of trolls, it was possible to have highly productive conversations in which I learned a great deal. For personal reasons, I have had to bow out for the past five years, but the issue of Evolution vs. Intelligent Design has brought this old warrior out of mothballs -- I believe it may very well be the most critical political issue facing us today. It is my intention to be a little more precise than I used to be -- it is all too easy to be oblivious to the unintended consequences of one's behavior -- even when you think you are taking the high road.

Actually the article which he cites is quite interesting -- at least up to a point. But as is typical among some groups of visitors, he misapplies it.I will repeat the link here:Evolution's "Molecular Clock": Not So Dependable After All?
http://www.pubmedcentral.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=509321Neighboring locations in the genome appear to have mutations triggered as the result of nearby mutations, and they appear to mutate in the same way. This is essentially what was meant by "convergent" which the article itself does not specifically apply to DNA, but to evolution -- but by "convergent evolution," it is not refering to different species converging (as his use of this discovery would suggest -- particularly since he was attempting to use this discovery to argue against common descent), but to neighboring (or at least relatively close) parts of the genome of the same organism. However, this particular problem is fairly easy to correct for when using a molecular clock approach: one simply checks for mutations in sufficiently distant parts of the genome such that these "coherences" (if I may borrow a term from Quantum Mechanics) do not distort one's calculations.In all honesty, I would have expected something along these lines. As I understand it, from a mathematical analysis of DNA, it has been concluded that it has a mathematical structure which places it at a mathematical mean between white noise and brownian motion, or to put this in more colloquial terms, it has equal measures of order and disorder. But to employ a more technical term, one may say that it has a spectral density of one (similar to music), whereas white noise has a spectral density of zero, and brownian motion has a spectral density of two, and spectral density may exist in fractional quantities. If there are a good number of purely random mutations, the only way that DNA can preserve its spectral density of one is through the existence of coherences in regions neighboring the random mutations.There is, however, another problem with the molecular clock which I have run into in an article by Frank Ryan (I will try looking it up): namely, that lateral gene transfer may make events appear further in the past than they actually are. However, this doesn't have the kind of effect that an anti-evolutionist might find particularly appealing -- it would mean that the Last Universal Common Ancestor could be much closer to the present than would otherwise be suggested by a naive application of the molecular clock, meaning that if, for example, according to a naive application of the molecular clock, the LUCA had to be eight billion years in the past (when the earth itself is only 4.5 billion years old), by properly accounting for lateral gene transfer, LUCA may have existed only 3.9 billion years ago, giving evolution more than enough time in which to accomplish what it has.This message has been edited by TimChase, 06-21-2005 11:51 AM

I'm not sure how you are measuring 'close' here. The microsatellites studied were taken from throughout the human genome, so they were only close in as much as they were part of the same genome.TTFN,WK

Actually, it does appear to be local, if I am reading the article correctly (although if DNA has a spectral density of one, there should also be some pattern at higher scales). Here is the relevant passage: At the same time, I could see reason for interpreting this passage differently: in particular, there are the words "entirely unrelated microsatellites." We really shouldn't be that suprised that the text is unclear -- it is afterall, semi-popularized -- we should probably go to the original source. I might do that a little later today.