Nesslig20Posts: 189Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2016 6:44 pm Gender: Male
Sorry I am a bit late. I just want to say first that I have noticed a reoccurring theme with several people I have been dealing with (not just you Rhed). Whenever I make a point, refute a point made by someone else or answer a question, very often that response of mine is ignored and the other person just pulls out something else without responding/acknowledging to any previous response.
Like me and several others have demonstrated that you misinterpreted an article saying "discordance in gene trees" to mean "unrelated" based on your inept understanding of population genetics and the article itself never concluded that mammals were not related. But you ignored that and just moved on.
I find that very disingenuous.
I'm sorry this post is long, but because virtually every sentence you wrote contains at least one misconception.
Rhed wrote:Nesslig20, you stated the following...
I think you meant to say "supported by similarity", but this still isn't correct. Evolution isn't only supported by similarities or better put common traits, but also by differences and especially in what pattern these similarities and differences occur. This is when taxonomy, classification of life forms, comes in to play.
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrar ... enetics_01
There really is no creation model since a scientific model is used to describe and construct a theory and creationists don't have one that qualifies as a scientific theory. What they are arguing for are baramins or "created kinds" that are separate from other "kinds", but the more similarities there are between different "kinds" (which can be clearly seen if you look in the fossil record as the case with ancient relatives of horses and rhinos, see my previous post) the less separate they appear to be. If you look at taxonomy, such that every "kind" is classified together with other "kinds" as sister groups under parent groups, for example that humans are a subset of apes means humans and the other apes are NOT separate at all as is the case with all other life. Not to mention that "created kind" has no definition such that no "kind" can be identified and anything that is touted as a "kind" is called such on a whim like you did. Thus the "creation model" isn't supported by similarities nor anything else for that matter.
Rhed wrote:Genetic drift is a decline of heterozygosity; opposite of upward evolution.
No, wrong, 3 times.
1. Genetic drift is one mechanism that drives evolution by the inheritance of traits that are passed down and spread throughout a population or not due to random chance.
2. Decline of heterozygosity isn't a necessarily consequence of genetic drift. Heterozygosity is when an diploid organism has two different alleles of the same gene in its genome. If a population of 50% heterozygous B,b and 25% homozygous b,b and 25% homozygous was only under influence of genetic drift, the percentage of heterozygosity can both increase or decrease. It increases when for example by change there homozygous b,b organisms mate with homozygous B,B members more often than they are mating with ones that have the same homozygosity and it decreases when the opposite happens.
3. A decline of heterozygosity isn't the opposite of upward evolution. What the fuck is "upward evolution"?? Evolution isn't a ladder or a process with a goal in mind, it isn't progressional.
This is one of the misconceptions listed here:
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrar ... ns_faq.php
MISCONCEPTION: Evolution results in progress; organisms are always getting better through evolution.
CORRECTION: One important mechanism of evolution, natural selection, does result in the evolution of improved abilities to survive and reproduce; however, this does not mean that evolution is progressive — for several reasons. First, as described in a misconception below (link to "Natural selection produces organisms perfectly suited to their environments"), natural selection does not produce organisms perfectly suited to their environments. It often allows the survival of individuals with a range of traits — individuals that are "good enough" to survive. Hence, evolutionary change is not always necessary for species to persist. Many taxa (like some mosses, fungi, sharks, opossums, and crayfish) have changed little physically over great expanses of time. Second, there are other mechanisms of evolution that don't cause adaptive change. Mutation, migration, and genetic drift may cause populations to evolve in ways that are actually harmful overall or make them less suitable for their environments. For example, the Afrikaner population of South Africa has an unusually high frequency of the gene responsible for Huntington's disease because the gene version drifted to high frequency as the population grew from a small starting population. Finally, the whole idea of "progress" doesn't make sense when it comes to evolution. Climates change, rivers shift course, new competitors invade — and an organism with traits that are beneficial in one situation may be poorly equipped for survival when the environment changes. And even if we focus on a single environment and habitat, the idea of how to measure "progress" is skewed by the perspective of the observer. From a plant's perspective, the best measure of progress might be photosynthetic ability; from a spider's it might be the efficiency of a venom delivery system; from a human's, cognitive ability. It is tempting to see evolution as a grand progressive ladder with Homo sapiens emerging at the top. But evolution produces a tree, not a ladder — and we are just one of many twigs on the tree.
Evolution is simply a change in allele frequencies within a population over generations. One change maybe different from another change but none can be called and "upward" change or whatever.
Rhed wrote:Natural Selection only selects already existing genes.
Correct. At least you got something right.
Rhed wrote:Also natural selection is a law in nature that attempts to explain everything, even with opposite outcomes. It explains why some organisms are fast and others slow. It explains why organisms produce more offspring and less offspring. Why flat earthworms are flat and why roundworms are round. This aimless force, natural selection, explains the ups, the downs, the ins, the outs, the sideways, and every way in between.
Damn you were almost on the right track. Natural selection isn't a law, it is a mechanism, and it doesn't explain everything nor is it meant to explain everything. It only explains how organisms evolve to adapt to their environments. The environments determines what is beneficial. In a desert environment it is beneficial to have short fur, big flat ears to lose heat and in the arctic it is beneficial to have thick fur short ears and legs to retain heat.
Natural selection is the same mechanism, but different environments can put different selective pressures on organisms, even if the are very similar like the ones above. This is how you get the "opposite" results.
Rhed wrote:The fossil record reveals that disparity precedes diversity; opposite of evolution predictions.
You got it backwards. it is exactly like evolution predicts. We don't expect and no paleontologist does that we should find every species including the transitional forms that ever lived, fossilized. This is another gross misconception of creationists that fossil formation is somehow prevalent, which is absurd. Rarely if ever, any animal fossilizes. Mostly a dead organism is gets decayed, destroyed, consumed, etc. The conditions of the environment are crucial, certain environments don't promote fossil formation at all and the organisms body (soft body or hard skeleton) are also important factors. The fossil record can only represent a tiny portion of everything that has ever lived YET despite this we have allot of fossils that reveals diverse lineages like dinosaurs, pterosaurs, etc including hundreds of transitional forms. I gave you some in my previous posts.
Rhed wrote:The diagrams, pictures, drawings, etc. to prove the series of flowering lineages connected by common ancestry, are just that; i.e., pictures and diagrams with hypothetical lines connecting to hypothetical nodes arbitrarily arranged to conform to a prejudice view while ignoring mounting contrary evidence.
What evidence? Where is it? Because we have the systematic classification of lifeforms, which is supported by comparative morphology, embryology, paleontology and genetics which do point to common ancestry.
Why are humans still apes, why are birds still dinosaurs. If birds and dinosaurs are separate kinds, why do we find so many transitional fossils between them. And why do we have so many anatomical features like atavisms, vestiges, homologies etc that only make sense in light of common ancestry and evolution.
Rhed wrote:The imaginary diagrams and imaginary pictures are only inferred and have little empirical support, which can be altered on the whim.
They are altered with evidence if the evidence shows we had something wrong. For example not that long ago like 20 years we still put birds alongside dinosaurs in separate classes, but now we have put birds within dinosaurs, based on new evidence.
Rhed wrote:What may be true today may not be true tomorrow.
(some sarcasm) Oh my God, we just learned that we were wrong and even worse, WE ADMIT IT!! RUN FOR THE HILLS!!!
(now serious) Oh please, what you are complaining about is the heart of science. When we find out we were wrong we correct ourselves, it is called learning something that creationists are unable and unwilling to do and you should try it once.
The corrections though, were never in creationists favor (very often against them) and always either concords with evolution or the correction improved it. That is what science does. It never proves something, it either disproves or improves.
Rhed wrote:The one thing we all can agree on and be sure of about a fossil is that the organism once lived and then died.
(Facepalm) We can tell more than that. We can tell wether it is an animal or a plant and based on its characteristics where it belongs in taxonomy like if it is an animal is a vertebrate or more specifically a tetrapod or an amniote or even more specifically a mammals. We can also determine wether it is a transitional species and of what based on those characteristics.
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrar ... 0/lines_03
Rhed wrote:Find me a common ancestor of vertebrates and invertebrates, or unicellular and multicellular.
We have ancestors of some lineages (though not all) and we don't need to, we have the transitional fossils for the ones you mentioned of them and some are still alive.
Transitional fossils between vertebrates and invertebrates can be found between primitive chordates with only a noto-chord through craniates and actual vertebrates.
Pikaia - a primitive chordate with no vertebrae nor skull
Haikouella - a primitive craniate (early skulled chordate)
Haikouichthys - Craniate that has rudimentary vertebrae (it is half-way between having no vertebrae and having true vertebrae)
Myllokunmingia - Craniate with primitive vertebrae, so one of the earliest true-vertebrates.
All of these lived during the Cambrian period like between 541 and 585 million years ago and none of them had jaws, yet. Jawed vertebrates evolved later in the Ordovician.
About unicellular and multicellular transitions, there are several since multicellularity evolved multiple times independently
http://wps.pearsoncustom.com/wps/media/ ... p16_25.htm
like in plants, animals, fungi etc and all of them have "close" (relatively close) relatives that are unicellular and often are both uni and multi-cellular at different times.
Like you have choanoflagellates (closest relative of animals) that are often colonial - almost true multi cellular organisms - and have much in common with animals especially the most primitive animals, sponges.
And you have charophycean algae (closest to plants) that are either multi or uni cellular and also slime molds one of the relatives of the fungi. But a very interesting one is the amoebic slime mold Dictyostelium that is unicellular when eating and multicellular when migrating to new food sites. It is literally an intermediate between a multi and a single cellular organism. Also interesting is the model organism for the evolution multicellularity, volvocine green algae, because it has both multi and uni cellular member that are closely related closer than plants, animals and fungi are to their unicellular relatives.
http://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpag ... y-14433403
Rhed wrote:The factual data and observations do not concord with the fields of science, e.g., genetics and paleontology, but explained away with rescuing devices (a conjecture designed to save someone's view from contrary evidences) and fudge factoring.
Factual data and observations?? Do you have any examples of data and observations that aren't factual? Why do creationist feel the need to make unnecessary tautologies just to boost their cocksure confidence?
And no, none of these things are "rescuing devices". Some are observed and others are ignorant ravings or absurd expectations which you copied from creationist pseudoscience websites.
Rhed wrote:The common rescuing devices (ad-hoc explanations contrary to evolution predictions) used for common decent are the following examples:
Just like I said previously it isn't only similarities but also the differences and the pattern the two occur throughout life. Similarity is a bit vague, I prefer common traits because things may look similar on the outside but are very different in reality.
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrar ... rity_hs_01
For example the eyes of vertebrates and cephalopods are very similar on the outside at a first glance, but fundamentally they are very different especially with their development. Our eyes as well as all other vertebrates develop as parts of the brain bulges outwards and pinches in to form a cavity, where the nerve must penetrate through the retina giving us a blind spot. The cephalopod eyes develop as a patch of light sensitive cells on the outside which pinches inwards.
Beside the design flaw that our vertebrate eyes have that cephalopods don't, our eyes work roughly the same. However, one group only has its own unique type of eye and the other one the other eye and there are no vertebrates with cephalopod eyes nor the other way around, as if each group has inherited its own type of eye from a common ancestor.
Why? (scientists know why for a long time now)
Rhed wrote:E2: Exaptation, or co-option – assume a shift in the function of a trait to explain away irreducible complexity and gradualism
We don't have to assume, we can look at other organism what functions similar systems have with those that are irreducible complex, where some lack components or pathways but still function in other ways.
The immune system is one example: http://www.nature.com/nrg/journal/v11/n ... gure-title
These are observations, not assumptions.
And also we don't need to explain away irreducible complexity. Many creationists don't know this, but Behe's concept isn't original. The original concept called "interlocking complexity" was coined by nobel prize winner Hermann Joseph Muller. He predicted almost a century ago that the now misnamed "irreducible complexity" is to be expected by evolution and explained how they are reducible and evolvable.
Rhed wrote:E3: Lost Traits - shares characteristics to distant related species but not in closely related species
Wait, is losing a trait impossible? Why are humans then losing our wisdom teeth then?
http://www.livescience.com/27529-missin ... teeth.html
Rhed wrote:E4: Atavism - traits reappearing which had disappeared generations before (violation of Dollo’s Law)
This is another instant were we have corrected previous notions, in this case we have enhanced it with the discovery of genetics.
Dolly's law is (currently) formulated such that it is impossible that a population can evolve backward into the exact copy of the ancestral species from which it came. It would be like a domestic dog evolving backward to being a grey wolf. Breeders would be able to breed dogs that would look more like wolves but not be the same as wolves. This is called "breeding back" which has been tried with cattle that resulted in the heck cattle that are lookalikes of the extinct wild ancestor of all cattle, the aurochs. But they didn't recreate or bring back the aurochs from extinction. The species and its original gene pool is extinct and the gene pool of the heck cattle is thus not identical to it.
While atavisms do occur and some traits can appear, disappear and appear again and proportions can fluctuate, but this happens without reverting back to the original gene pool and never takes the identical path. When whales evolved flippers they didn't re-evolve the identical fins of fish, they still retained their tetrapod forelimb in the structure of their flippers and this is also true of their genome. So dollo's law of irreversibility still holds.
Rhed wrote:E5: Horizontal gene transfer - I have it. My father has it. My sister…well, doesn’t have it. But my father's brother's nephew's cousin's former roommate has it. (Parody between Star Wars and Spaceballs)
We have observed that microbes exhibit horizontal gene transfere. Why do you think your genome is about 8% viral DNA?
Rhed wrote:E6: Rapid evolution - explains away the inconsistencies with the fossil record, molecular clock and mutation rates
What inconsistencies and we have observed evolution occur rapidly.
Rhed wrote:E7: Punctuated equilibrium – the observation of the fossil record that shows abrupt appearances of species (stasis); opposite of Darwin’s predictions
PE was proposed to explain why transitions between species are rare (not absent) and transitions between larger groups are more common. Gould and his colleagues have observed that evolution happens not continuously but sometimes occurs rapid in short times and not much for long times. Today the effects of PE that predicts that evolutionary change occurs rapidly during speciation events (macro evolution btw) and slower than between them, has also been observed.
Thus it is based on data and observations, not the lack thereof.
Darwin being wrong on something (he was wrong about inheritance too) has no bearing on the validity of evolutionary theory, otherwise the mistakes of Isaac Newton would make the theory of gravity invalid which it doesn't. All scientist in history made mistakes and scientists are happy to say so, creationists make nothing but mistakes and never admit it. That's the difference between someone who is reasonable and one who is not.
Rhed wrote:E8: Ghost lineages - lineage that is inferred to exist but has no fossil record
We can infer those lineages on other bases like genetics, taxonomy, embryology, etc. The lack of a fossil record has no bearing on wether the lineage never existed. Otherwise we couldn't conclude that dogs descended from wolves since the fossil record is very sparse.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... l-fallacy/
Rhed wrote:E9: Incompleteness of the fossil record (a common go-to if all else fails)
Same refutation as I said earlier about the fossil record.
Rhed wrote:E10: Incomplete lineage sorting (ILS) - discordant gene trees nested within a species
Not an excuse, more of a inevitable consequence of population genetics which again is based on data and especially math, lot's of math described by Coalescent theory.
Rhed wrote:E11: Lamarckism, or Neo-Lamarckism.
Who makes that excuse. Lamarckism has been disproven. Not even epigenetic resurrected it.
Rhed wrote:E12: Conserved traits/sequences (coded and non-coded, which is a problem for genetic drift, population genetics, and neutral evolution)
How is that a problem?
Rhed wrote:Some of these rescuing devices are by far designed mechanisms, such as, co-option, as what we observe in bacteria. Bacteria are amazing in and of itself because of its gene swapping capabilities for survival. They are designed with genetic tools to alter their own DNA and to adapt to certain environments.
So bacteria can evolve then? And no they are not designed, well at least not by any designer since no one has ever give any indication of a designer. I would argue that evolution by natural selection is an example of a process that produces design without a designer.
Rhed wrote:Since bacteria have pan-genomes, they are even able to acquire genes from other strains. Most experiments that attempt to “prove” evolution are done by using bacteria, which in reality are designed to adapt, alter, modify and evolve (but with limitations).
I wonder what those limitations are. I bet you can't name any of those, at least not without making some up or cite someone else who made it up. Again science doesn't prove anything though we have demonstrated that evolution happens, because we have observed it happen. If that is proof than it is proven, get over it. Science use bacteria because they are easy to grow in a lab and have fast reproductive rates to observe a population over many generations. Try imagining to do the same with elephants and realize why they rather use bacteria.
Rhed wrote:As a side note for atheists to think about, if the Theory of Evolution is built on solely naturalistic causes, then one has to ask him/herself: Why would mindless random matter evolve enzymes for DNA repair?
For the same reason why oxygen reacts with iron to create iron oxide. Because there are natural process that are NOT FUCKING RANDOM!!! Why would an organism have enzymes for DNA repair, because without it, it would accumulate too many mutations such it cannot survive to reproduce. Fucking obvious.
Rhed wrote:Think about that for a second.
I did and it only took one second to realize your ineptitude to think about it for one second.
Rhed wrote:Why evolve an enzyme to check for errors (endonuclease) as if there is such a thing as corrections in a purely naturalistic world?
Yup, because if the correction makes the difference between passing on your genes and extinction, it really makes a fucking difference in a naturalistic world.
Rhed wrote:Why in a naturalistic world would this enzyme cut the error nucleotide and mark it as if it had a purpose for doing it?
It does have a purpose just like my eye has a purpose to promote my survival and the genes that enables my to have my eyes. Of course it is not the purpose you WANT to hear, but what you want is irrelevant to what is true.
Rhed wrote:Why would another enzyme (exonuclease) evolve to remove the error as if it had a goal in mind?
Why would oxygen react with iron, as if it had a goal in mind? Wait, it doesn't, because it doesn't have a fucking brain and neither does an enzyme. This is a failure of those who can't let go of Agent detection: the tendency to assume agency in phenomenon that otherwise may not involve one.
Rhed wrote:Also why evolve the polymerase to place the correct nucleotide in the correct location as if there is a right and wrong nucleotide and location in a purely naturalistic world?
Really? Again it takes not much understanding of evolution to realize that organisms that are able to pass on their genes better than others are more successful and that requires that their genome is copied successfully. You are now showing you have no understanding of the subject at all. You are intellectually drooling right now.
Rhed wrote:Finally, the ligase enzyme apparently evolved to weld the pieces back together. The DNA repair kit in my opinion is the death knell of naturalistic causes of life.
So what other causes are their. Unnatural as in magic? And no, the DNA repair kit is not the death knell of naturalistic causes, otherwise why would scientists bother to investigate that at all. They do because they are trying to understand it using the scientific method which requires a natural explanation, you don't because you rather believe in magic and don't have any interest to understand anything you are uncomfortable with because it challenges your precious beliefs.
Rhed wrote:But this has nothing to do with falsifying common descent, so I digress.
You should not have said this at all, you could have spared us this crap and not making a fool of yourself.
Rhed wrote:However, I mentioned the DNA repair kit because it is a barrier for “Descent with modification”, which here is relevant.
It isn't a barrier, it is a necessity of descend with inherent modification. How do you think we got our inherited genes.....? Oh yes, our genes are copies from our parents and what is needed to get good copies that don't result in extinction, oh yes, a mechanism to repair DNA. How fucking hard to understand.
Rhed wrote:But wait…there’s more…
Oh god no, more asinine nonsense?
Rhed wrote:“Descent with modification” has to prove why there are discontinuities at the molecular level of vital molecular machineries necessary for survival; for example, DNA replication, transcription, and translations. These cannot be interchanged between prokaryotes and eukaryotes. See E1, E2, E3, E5, and E10 for explaining away the contrary evidence.
These can be interchanged between eukaryotes and prokaryotes, because we have genetically engineered prokaryotes with genes from eukaryotes and are replicated, transcribed and translated by prokaryotes and vice versa. You are wrong again, not surprised.
Creationists have to prove why it is that they are so often always wrong about everything they say, yet continue to pretend they have the Truth (with a capital T) on their side.
Rhed wrote:This evidence supports the forest of trees model.
No it doesn't, trying to present evidence against something doesn't mean it automatically supports another conclusion. That is an argument from ignorance fallacy.
Rhed wrote:“Descent with modification” has to prove why there are taxonomically restricted essential genes (epigenetics), that if one essential gene or an essential non-coding DNA doesn’t work properly the organism dies. There are domain specific essential genes i.e. eukaryotes-specific and prokaryotes-specific, that makes it highly unlikely they share a common ancestor. See E2, E5, E6, E11, and E12. Epigenetics supports the forest of trees model.
You have no idea what epigenetics means. Epigenetics is not "taxonomically restricted essential genes". Look it up what it is. Epigenetics is not about genes, it is about the expression of them. Stop pretending to know things you don't know anything about!
Rhed wrote:The presence of restriction systems is another hurdle for “Descent with modification” where an organism may contain restrictions enzymes that will cut foreign DNA introduced into a cell. This restriction system supports the forest of trees model.
No it doesn't.
Rhed wrote:Codon incompatibility, that is, UGA codes for tryptophan in bacteria, but in some eukaryotes UGA codes as a stop signal. This is not evidence for “Descent with modification”, but does support the forest of trees model.
No it doesn't either.
Rhed wrote:Similarity supports both models, but discontinuity as well as mosaics needs to be explained via “Descent with modification”.
And it does, as I have explained here.
Rhed wrote:According to Ockham’s razor, the Creation Model would be preferred. No need for the ad hoc explanations listed above.
Creationism doesn't have a model. The explanation with the fewest assumptions is preferred yes, creations however doesn't explain anything since pure freaking magic isn't an explanation for anything and it requires allot of assumptions that are in conflict to everything we know like the age of the earth and the universe, physical constant and the laws of physics.
Rhed wrote:Some ad-hoc explanations are not only darn right ridiculous but miraculous to adhere to “Descent with modification.
Replace the last three words with creationism and you would be right, unfortunately you're not.
Rhed wrote:Take Pac-6 gene for example. Organisms as diverse as jellyfish, arthropods, mollusks, and vertebrates all use this gene to control development of their very distinct types of eyes. Now you could believe that the Pac-6 gene evolved independently 40 times (Modern Synthesis, see E1 and E3), or believe in the Urbilateria that had all the tools needed for the limbs, eyes and hearts before they existed (evo-devo).
Pac-6 as it turns out didn't evolve independently, but after the lineages split, it evolved and got utilized differently in different lineages.
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrar ... _0/eyes_10
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v4 ... 91_F1.html
Rhed wrote:Another example of a miraculous moment in evolutionary history is Bioluminescence, which also evolved independently 40 times. Bioluminescent species are found in most of the major marine phyla from bacteria to fish. As a phylum, comb jellies have the highest proportion of bioluminescent species, whereas other phyla such as diatoms and arrow worms have none or few luminescent representatives. See E1 and E3 for explaining away evidence contrary to common descent.
None of those are evidence against common descent. Your ignorance is not evidence against anything.
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrar ... ishtree_05
http://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlel ... ivAbstract
Rhed wrote:If you assume “descent with modification” is a fact, then you must prove why two organisms could not arise independently although most scientific observations say otherwise.
No scientific observations say otherwise. If you assume you have any idea about what you are talking about, then prove why you are so full of shit.
Also this here I also wanted to address
Rhed wrote:E5: Horizontal gene transfer - I have it. My father has it. My sister…well, doesn’t have it. But my father's brother's nephew's cousin's former roommate has it. (Parody between Star Wars and Spaceballs)Rumraket wrote:This makes no sense. Maybe your bad parody ruined it.
I have demolished the same argument here:
It also includes the comparison of the Prestin genes with echolocating bats and whales and their non-echolocating relatives and the comparisons DO in fact reflect what you expect from common descent. So your statement:
"These changes have produced such similar proteins that if you drew a family tree based on their amino acid sequences, bats and toothed whales would end up in the same tight-knit group, to the exclusion of other bats and whales that don’t use sonar."
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, and not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science."
|Mon Aug 29, 2016 9:33 pm||