Macroevolution: Its all around us...

Simple. Different sequences have different predispositions. Why the thousands of unrelated species argument? That's totally bogus since no one brought up thousands of unrelated species.But to happen with regularity, I'd say pretty good odds since if certain sequences or aspects of combinations of DNA tend to start it off in a similar direction, that is a common causal effect that can produce a repitition in pattern. No, I expect you to look at the evidence instead of creating a myth you insist is true and argue by asking others to present another myth and argue it is true.Personally, I prefer to look at the evidence. I don't see mutations as random, and it appears DNA is convergent. How those facts fit into current models would be interesting if you guys were not so busy trying to deny reality.By the way, phylogenies from morphologists often do not agree with phylogenies from molecular systemists. You are just, once again, relying on overstatement to bolster a weak case. Why not just admit that there is some disagreement?Also, who said anything about coincidence? I posit causal mechanisms. You posit coincidence.Lemme ask you something. Why should we accept the coincidence that animals flapping their appendages to eat flies would one day mutate fully adaptive wings?What are the odds for that coincidence?You can argue that some evidence backs Darwinism until you are blue in the face, but relying on overstatements does not help you. You argue that repitition of pseudogenetic sequences appearing in different species is an indication of genetic relatedness because there is no other reason for such similarities to be present in different species, say a chimp and human, unless they shared a common ancestor.Convergent DNA disproves that. Convergent DNA shows there is another reason why pseudogenetic sequences can arise independently in different species, and though you and others here dogmatically assert otherwise without any evidence, the fact that convergent DNA is a reality is a good indication it occurs for coding DNA as well.I predict we will see, as more research is done, that convergent DNA occurs across the board.Of course, this may not result in evolutionists being less dogmatic, nor falsifying Darwinism because Darwinism is an unfalsifiable myth based on a simple observation, but greatly overstated and exagerrated. But there are partly determined in all likelihood by the local environment.

One thing I should point out to you is that microsatellites do occur in coding DNA as well. The study suggests that microsatellites somehow react with the local environment to create a non-random tendency in the DNA.To dismiss any, or "establish", that there is no selection pressure because coding DNA displays no convergency is a totally unfounded statement on your part.The only evidence I know of indicates convergency probably exists across the board.Do you guys have any evidence suggesting there are no convergent tendencies in coding DNA?

I suggest you and others read the study.The study considered their testing of this area of DNA to be a sufficient argument challenging the veracity of the molecular clock. http://www.pubmedcentral.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=509321Why do they think this is relevant for considering mutations in coding DNA, if as you guys claim, this has nothing to say about mutations in general?Note that specifically mention estimates of when things evolved. Why do they think this is relevant?For instance, they consider this research valuable for considering whether certain mutations are "highly unlikely" or not, and estimating the risks of harmful mutations.But wait, according to you guys, this study says nothing about mutations that could actually show up as real traits. you guys claim this says nothing about mutations in coding DNA. http://www.pubmedcentral.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=509321This message has been edited by randman, 06-24-2005 02:43 AM

Save the lecture. I know how science is suppossed to proceed. Unfortunately, I don't see that with much of evolutionism. Heck, even here on this forum you see statements like "common descent has been proven beyond any reasonable shadow of doubt." Good point, which is interesting in light of the dogmatism of evolutionists.But back on topic, I am not asking to prove a negative in the manner you claim. DNA either displays convergent tendencies or it does not. You guys say it does not, but you offer no evidence for that.I have offered evidence that it does have convergent tendencies. I am asking evolutionists to back up their claim that the nature of DNA is that it mutates not according to convergent patterns, but randomly.Can you back up Darwinism or not? I am referring to the basic properties of DNA. It appears there are rules or guidance of some sort creating a directional tendency in DNA. If that occurs in human DNA, we should expect to see it elsewhere too. The authors of the paper believed their study is evidence of that, and so do I. You have yet to explain why it could not be so. Admittedly the evidence is scant of this date, but there is some evidence for what they and I say, but no evidence for your claims.The only "leap" imo is to maintain DNA is not convergent.

Your post shows you have grasped nothing of the entire point.It completely matters "who gets there first." I'll try again.1. Mutations occur prior to being "selected for" via natural selection. Agreed?2. If 2 equally good mutations are possible, the one that shows up first wins. Agreed or not?3. Natural selection therefore can be a much stronger force, weaker force, it does not matter because it cannot consciously wait for the other mutation. It acts on the present.Let me illustrate it like this. Suppose there is a better solution possible, but is too rare to occur very often, and a mutation occurs more frequently due to convergent DNA, and this mutation once established, makes the "best" mutation no longer useful.Which mutation is going to arise and take hold?hint: The lesser beneficial mutation that "gets their first."Of course, this is predicated on the idea that such beneficial mutations do occur and create via natural selection the great diversity we see. It's all just speculation because we have not observed that.

Then there's no such thing as convergence, if DNA is predisposed to be divergent. You've undercut your position once again. You brought it up. That's your position, is it not? That the hundreds of thousands - possibly millions or billions - of different species are not the result of common descent from one species, right?If they're not related, then they're unrelated. Simple logic. Try to keep up with your own position, ok? No, you still don't get it yet. You have to explain how all those different genomes wound up with the starter sequences. This convergence effect cannot do that, because the convergence effect requires certain pre-existing patterns. So how did those patterns start multiple times in independant, unrelated species? But it's clearly not, which you yourself have admitted:

quote:

---

Different sequences have different predispositions.

---

When have I not admitted that? Of course there would be some disagreement. The problem for you is that there is considerably - astronomically - more agreement than we would expect from chance alone, or if DNA was simply "converging" on one single pattern. Certainly more than we would expect if DNA was diverging into thousands of different predispositions. What's conincidental about it? But your convergent model is incomplete. The convergence can only occur between two species if they already share certain specific sequences, and you have no mechanism to explain why that would be the case. Why would chimps and humans share non-morphological DNA? This is simply not the case. We observe that mutations almost always arise in populations before they're selected for by the environment.Or are you telling me that DNA can see the future?

If there were, all DNA would have converged on the same sequence by now. There would only be one species.Instead, there are billions. Thus, we know that the vast majority of DNA is shaped by the forces of Darwinism, not by pre-programmed convergence.

No, absolutely not. If the same base is mutated twice, with the second mutation under strong selection, it is obviously the second, not the first, that takes hold.Sequence:ATTCGCAATCGCTAFirst mutation (maintained by weak or neutral selection):ATTCACAATCGCTASecond mutation (maintained by strong selection):ATTCTCAATCGCTA The second one, because the first is history.Your theory is ass-backwards.

It's time for someone to step up and pick the most likely candidate for a carry on thread. Get your final summaries in folk, you pays your nickle and takes your pick.

---

You essentially just wrote, "I'm NOT asking you to prove a negative! But I've asked you to prove a negative, and you guys simply refuse!" This is exactly where your simplistic view is getting you into trouble - it is not necessarily either/or. The situation is likely complex, with some DNA undergoing convergent evolution at a sequence level, and others not. (Weren't you the one just complaining that everybody else was trying to fit data into simple theories, and that you were unique in being open to multifaceted theories?) Specifically explain to me how you feel the study in discussion refutes the Theory of Evolution. You still haven't answered my question, you've just given me more vague babble. You've made up the term "convergent DNA", and don't seem to have a distinct or consistent usage. That makes discussion difficult. The authors of the paper believe that their study is evidence that certain sequences result in mutational bias in flanking sequences.You apparently believe that their study is evidence of preprogrammed evolution within the genome (a sort of genetic restating of Haeckel's biogenetic law), and a refutation of common ancestry. That is a huge leap.

I think we have uncovered some very interesting and worthwhile topics for a subsequent thread that I plan to propose when this one closes.However, it would be nice if the premise of that thread could be one of learning about novel inferences and mechanisms of macroevolution from others with expertise in various disciplines, rather than pedantic arguments against 'evolution' and 'Darwinism' per se. I suggest, for those anyone who wishes to do that, that you start a different thread on that subject and see if anyone wishes to argue with you - instead of corrupting a serious scientific discussion with unnecessary digressions and obvious misunderstandings. I appeal to the moderators for their support in this regard.Randman: You have been told by pretty much everyone on this thread that you don't have a clue what you are arguing about. The path to knowledge begins with acceptance of ignorance. Various contributors to this thread are far more knowledgable than either you or I when it comes to molecular evolution - I am the first to accept that and I am a professional biologist. Your incoherent protestations are NOT constructive. By all means read and learn, but don't degrade the quality of the discussion by making everyone return to explaining first principles to you again and again. It impedes the progress of the discussion and it wastes everyone's time.

Crash, discussions with you don't seem to be fruitful because you never seem to try to understand your critics, and thus you argue with a straw man.Clearly, you are way off here.What you fail to realize, and I assume it's because you never read the paper (right?) is that different sequences have different convergent patterns. Think of it like a river. At a given point, the river or stream is going to cut into the ground according to the path of least resistance, but as it cuts deeper, that can create a new area of least resistance.So there is not one pattern that all DNA converges towards, but rather specific combinations and patterns are predisposed to certain patterns, and as they arise, that changes as well.So convergent DNA is fully consistent with divergent patterns, completely opposite of what you claim here.You would have known that had you read the scientific papers in question, but you did not and therefore are arguing a nonsensical position based on ignorance of the claims of DNA convergency.

Wrong. You make a similar mistake to crash's in applying a simplified process to a complex process.Note the concept that the mutation that arises which is predisposed already contains within it a new and different predisposition, and in my example, I point out that this may make the mutation which would have been beneficial and selected for, no longer the case.In that way, a great many potential beneficial mutations that could conceivable arise would not do so, and this makes sense with what we see, regardless of whether one accepts ToE or not.We don't see perfect designs, which one would sort of expect with randomn mutations considering the long periods of times. What we see rather is a seeming directional tendency within DNA and resulting life forms.Convergent DNA is a significant discovery because it shows how a great many ideal designs never develop, and a great many similar designs that are imperfect do tend to develop, assuming that is the case.But you guys seem to, imo, be afraid of considering the implications of convergent DNA because it is presented in an argument critical of common descent theories.I suspect within a few short years, as evolutionists incorporate this into their models, every one of you will swear it was predicted all along, fits perfectly, etc, etc,....ad nauseum.

First off, you misunderstand the concept of proving a negative. Asking proof of what force would stop microevolution from becoming mancroevolution is asking to prove a negative because it is not established by observable evidence that microevolution and even speciation can produce the major leaps in morphological changes necessary for common descent models to be true, but that never stops you guys.But asking for evidence of the properties of DNA, whether convergent or not, is not asking to prove a negative. If I ask, for example, will this ball bounce or not, is that asking to prove a negative?No, it's clearly not. I have offerred evidence, for both coding and non-coding DNA by the way since microsatellites appear in both, that indicate DNA is convergent. Sure, it's not comprehensive, but thus far all the evidence we have indicates convergent patterns in DNA.You have offered no evidence one way or the other. The studies done could just as easily have shown non-convergency as a property of DNA as convergency.

No. If a second mutation replaces a first mutation, the first mutation is no longer there. Your assertion that the first mutation persists because it gets there first does not make sense on any level whatsoever, simple or complex. No. There is no evidence or logical interpretation of the evidence thus far to suggest that the mutation bias would prevent certain types of mutation. They might be less likely than another type of mutation, but not prevented altogether. More pseudo-scientific word vomit. What would a "perfect design" look like? What are the specific characteristics of, and evidence for, your "seeming directional tendency"?You continue to string words together to form vague, meaningless terms with no definition or consistent usage. Thus there is no way to evaluate (or make sense of) your statements. You still haven't defined what you specifically mean by "convergent DNA". Would you please point out the line of the paper that is critical of common descent theory? (The review article seems to focus on potential problems to the "molecular clock", but the molecular clock is NOT the same as common descent theory.)