Elsewhere on the internet...

The League of Reason has some social media accounts! You can find us on Facebook or on Twitter for some interesting links and things.

Evolution for Leroy

Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 3 of 5
 [ 86 posts ] 
Evolution for Leroy
Author Message
SparhafocPosts: 536Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: Evolution for Leroy

If a human disagrees with you, let him live! In a hundred billion galaxies you will not find another!
Thu Jul 06, 2017 10:10 pm
SparhafocPosts: 536Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: Evolution for Leroy

Someone mentioned elsewhere that LEROY here has used the same argument about echolocation as some kind of 'PROOOOOOFF111!!' that evolution is wrong as occurred in the debate between Dandan and Inferno. I didn't notice because LEROY doesn't bother reading more than the first sentence of anything anyone else writes, so I thought I'd join him in that discourtesy.

Having read the debate, what's clear is that Inferno explained in spades, so clearly I think a rock would have grasped it, that even though bats and dolphins have echolocation, no one supposes that the echolocation trait is due to immediate ancestry. Rather, that prestin - a protein found in all mammals and essential to hearing - is produced by the SLC26A5 gene, and that this gene (like any other) can mutate and offer benefits to survival and reproduction.

Given that the prestin found in bats and dolphins is different in molecular terms, LEROY/DANDAN's argument has no basis whatsoever, and he's had this explained to him far more patiently than he has any right to, so why is he still trotting it out? Because Creationism.

That's what Creationism do.

As soon as a Creationist stops wittering and admits their error, the whole stack of cards falls down.
If a human disagrees with you, let him live! In a hundred billion galaxies you will not find another!
Fri Jul 07, 2017 5:38 am
RumraketUser avatarPosts: 1014Joined: Fri Jun 25, 2010 7:49 am Gender: Male

Post Re: Evolution for Leroy

leroy wrote:OK so you obviously know what my answer would be, so there is no need for details, because you have heard this answer multiple times.

sure in your example we have some diversity of squirrels, this diversity was caused by evolution (random genetic change and natural selection) and you can even get to a point where you can call these 2 populations of squirrels a different specie

we both agree that evolution can account for at least some of the diversity that we see, so how do you go from some diversity to all diversity, how does accepting your "squirrel example " implies that I also have to accept that squirrels came from ancient fish-like organisms trough the same mechanism.

how does accepting squirrel to squirrel evolution, implies that I also have to accept fish to squirrel evolution?

Because we can derive a very particular prediction from the hypothesis that they do, and then we can test this prediction using observation.

Allow me to elaborate with a hypothetical idealistic example designed to make the principle understandable.

The specific prediction is commonly known by the name of The Twin Nested Hiearchy Of Life.

In general terms the prediction goes as follows: If three or more taxa share common descent trough a common genealogical process of branching descent with modification, we should be able to construct highly congruent phylogenetic trees from objective but independent data sets.

You might now ask: What the hell does that mean, and why is this uniquely a prediction of evolution and not a prediction of creationism/Intelligent Design?

Because if they (the three taxa) share descent with the gradual accumulation of changes, more closely related taxa which share more recent descent, should also be closer together in the phylogenetic tree because fewer changes in character states should separate them. Because there have been fewer replication events for mutations to creep in since they split into independent lineages.

Think about it for a moment. Lets take a really simple hypothetical example and see if we assume evolution over time what we can then predict about what kind of evidence this process should leave behind.

Say there is a species A and this species reproduces asexually (just to make it simple) so the individial members of the population makes copies of itself. Like when a cell divides. Say the organism has four genes, G1, G2, G3 and G4 and these mutate randomly along the way every generation. Maybe each gene gets a single random mutation every generation to keep it simple.

This A organism divides into two (that we call A1 and B1), so now we have two independent lineages. So we have lineage A, and lineage B now. A1 is the species of the A lineage at generation 1, B1 is the species of the B lineage at generation 1.

The two are initially very similar in the chosen character state (to make it simple we just use DNA sequence) at the first generation. At generation 1, they are only separated by two mutations in any one of their genes. Gene G1 in A1, is different from A0 by 1 mutation, Gene G1 B1 is different from A0 by 1 mutation. And the mutation is not the same in A1 and B1 gene G1, so they differ from each other by a total of 2 mutations.

The next generation, the newest offspring (A2 and B2) are slightly less similar (more mutations separate them). The ancestors (A0, A1 and B1) die (maybe of old age, or disease, doesn’t matter). The generation after again, the latest offspring (A3 and B3) have diverged even further (even more mutations have crept in). And so on.

At some point, maybe a new lineage emerges (B10 splits into B11 and C1) so now there are three independent lineages. The C lineage will always be more similar to the B lineage, than it is to the A lineage, right? Because more generations, and thus more mutations, separate the A lineage from the B and C lineage, than separate the B and C lineage. Because A and B diverged and went through multiple generations (in this case, 10 generations), before C and B diverged.

So what tree would we expect from gene G1, say three generations after the B-C split?

Well, we will have a tree with three branches because we have three taxa of course. How will it look? Well in our hypothetical example here we have rooting information, we know this started with a split between A and B. So we start with a node that splits into two branches A and B. How long should the branches that separate A and B be? Well we’ve been going for 13 generations, and one mutation creeps into G1 every generation, so both lineages must have accumulated 13 mutations independently. So each branch must be 13 "units" in length, separating A13 and B13 by 26 total distance units (the distance units here refer to mutations, but when drawing the tree on a piece of paper you can make it inches, centimeters or whatever you want).

Then there’s the C-branch, where to place that one? Well we know that the split happened at generation 10, so that’s of course where we put the C branch on the B branch.

So we can see now that our simple model of evolution predicts that gene G1 from B13, should be more similar to G1 from C3, than G1 from A13.

Okay, but how will the tree we predict look for gene G2? And G3? And G4?

Well, since G2 went through the same exact same genealogical process as G1, it should of course produce the same tree. Because G2 also went on for 10 independent generations after the A-B split, and then the B-C split happened and G2 should diverge between B and C from then on for another three generations.

And same with G3 and G4.

I trust that you can see why this should be so. Admittedly this is very idealized and simplified, but this is basically the principle by which evolution predicts that independent data set should produce the same trees. That’s why, if the organisms we see really did go through a common genealogical relationship of gradual accumulation of changes from common ancestors, the trees we construct from independent genetic data should be congruent. And congruent just means show the same overall branching order.

At this stage you might be tempted to reply that designers can also design nesting hiearchies. And you might even give an example of an actual nesting hiearchy we know was designed: The folder system on your computer. An actual nesting hierarchy that was designed. But! Does this single nesting hiearchy PREDICT that trees constructed from multiple independent data sets should produce the same branching patterns? No, it actually doesn't. And you can test this for yourself:
While the folder system in your computer is a nesting hiearchy, there are folders within folders, it does not represent a multiple nesting hiearch. Like the "twin" nested hiearchy of life.

What do I mean by this?

Suppose I didn’t tell you the order of folders, and asked you to construct an independent tree from each of their properties (filename or folder name, number of files contained, length of file name, total size of content, size of individual files, file-change-dates, proportion of file-name-length that are letters versus numbers, and so on), would you expect that the tree you construct using the differences in file-sizes would be congruent with the tree you construct using number of files? Or the change-dates? You wouldn’t expect that at all, there is almost never a systematic relationship between the actual order of folders and the properties of those folders and their contents (there’s nothing that says a new file can’t go in an older folder, for example). The names of the folders inside your Windows-folder do not yield trees that display the same hiearchical branching order as you would get if you used the total number of files, or the lengths of the file names or any other property.

Which is why I’m not saying “a nested hierarchy” is a prediction of evolution. I specifically used the term “twin nested hierarchy”, and by that I really mean multiple highly congruent nesting hiearchies constructed from independent data. In particular, I meant my elaboration above. The particular hypothetical example I gave was one using a QUADRUPLE nesting hierarchy because it was constructed using four independent data sets (one from each of the four genes G1, G2, G3, and G4). That using independent data sets to build your hierarchy from, you’re going to come up with the roughly the same branching pattern over and over and over again.

For reasons already elaborated on here above, evolution really does predict that independent data sets (sequences from different genes, for example, or trees constructed from morphology compared to trees constructed from gene sequences) yield similar branching patterns.

So of all the hypotheses we can construct, the only one that absolutely DEMANDS that we can build the same overall branching patterns from independent data sets, is the theory that the taxons in question share a common genealogical relationship of branching decent with modification.

Now you might ask how we know the data sets we use from different genes really are independent? Because we know something about the physiology of the organism. For example, we know that the cause of the gene sequence of your cytochrome C gene, is not the cause of the gene sequence of your GAPDH gene. Nor are either of these genes the cause of your particular anatomical arrangements (nor the other way around).

To pick an example, the amino acid sequence of cytochrome C is not causing you to have a spine (aka, be a vertebrate), or to have four limbs (be a tetrapod), or to have mammary glands (be a mammal). How do we know this? Muhc of life on Earth has the cytochrome C gene, but not all of that life on Earth has a spine, or four limbs, or mammary glands. Also, the cytochrome C gene has been experimentally taken from humans (or cows, or pigs, or birds, or fish IIRC), and replaced the cytochrome C gene in yeast, or wheat, or E coli, and they didn’t grow a spine, four limbs or mammary glands. They worked just as they did before. It’s a core metabolic enzyme, it catalyzes the same basic chemical reaction in the electron transport chain.

As such, a tree constructed using cytochrome C amino acid sequence should not correlate with one constructed from comparative anatomical traits (or with another metabolic enzyme) except if they share a common genealogical realtionship of branching descent with modification. This is why, if the trees contructed from both agree with each other, this is evidence for evolution because only evolution would make us expect them to agree.

Systematists have constructed trees from dusins and dusins of independent genes (or genes and morphology) and found they agree to an astonishing level of accuracy.

There is only one rational explanation for this observation. They share a common genealogical realtionship of branching descent with modification. In other words, they evolved from common ancestors.
"Nullius in verba" - Take nobody's word for it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nullius_in_verba
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Fri Jul 07, 2017 12:58 pm
SparhafocPosts: 536Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: Evolution for Leroy

Nice analogy!
If a human disagrees with you, let him live! In a hundred billion galaxies you will not find another!
Fri Jul 07, 2017 2:05 pm
he_who_is_nobodyBloggerUser avatarPosts: 3222Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 1:36 amLocation: Albuquerque, New Mexico Gender: Male

Post Re: Evolution for Leroy

leroy wrote:Barrier number 1

1 Haldane's dilemma,


Talk.Origins - Claim CB121 wrote:Haldane's "cost of natural selection" stemmed from an invalid simplifying assumption in his calculations. He divided by a fitness constant in a way that invalidated his assumption of constant population size, and his cost of selection is an artifact of the changed population size. He also assumed that two mutations would take twice as long to reach fixation as one, but because of sexual recombination, the two can be selected simultaneously and both reach fixation sooner. With corrected calculations, the cost disappears (Wallace 1991; Williams n.d.).

Haldane's paper was published in 1957, and Haldane himself said, "I am quite aware that my conclusions will probably need drastic revision" (Haldane 1957, 523). It is irresponsible not to consider the revision that has occurred in the forty years since his paper was published.


This is the only new claim dandan/leroy presented. All the rest have been debunked multiple times before on this forum.

leroy wrote:Barrier number 2

Genetic entropy...


Rumraket on May 29, 2014 wrote:Most mutations in large, multicellular eukaryotes are actually netrual. That's because they happen in junk-regions of the genome. Most of the genome is constituted of ancient pseudogenes, retroviral elements, retrotransposons and so on. That's why the mutations that happen in those regions aren't removed by natural selection, because they have no effect on fitness. That means those neutral mutations are either fixed or lost due to genetic drift.

See how that works?

The picture is significantly different when we talk about protein coding or regulatory regions. Here the mutations can alter binding sites for transcription factors, or change amino acid sequences in important proteins, so here the majority of mutations that happen will be deleterious. That means selection will be working against modifications to these regions MOST OF THE TIME (but not always). That means most of the mutations that happen in these regions get removed by natural selection. But because most of the genome is actually junk, most mutations that happen and get fixed are neutral and get fixed due to genetic drift.

So there are multiple things to consider regarding mutations. In what kind of organism do they happen? Single-celled or prokaryotes vs multicellular or eukaryotes? (there's a difference, fast dividing single celled organisms have much less junk, so a smaller fraction of mutations that happen in their genomes will be neutral). Do they happen in junk, coding or regulatory regions? Which ones does selection get rid of and which one does it fix?

So you see, there is no case for degradation of the genome, because you're mistaken about the effectivenes of natural selection and the effect of mutations. The junk regions are evolving at a neutral rate, that means it is evolving at a rate equal to the mutation rate due to the absense of purifying selection. You could say the junk regions are degrading, but that would be irrelevant to the survival of the organism, because it's junk.

Most(most, not all) mutations that happen in the non-junk portions of the genome are deleterious. True. But they are removed by purifying selection. Of all the mutations that happen in the non-junk regions, almost the entirety of those that GET FIXED (as in they happen and spread to every individual) in the population are beneficial. And the reason they get fixed is due to positive selection.
This is called the Nearly netrual theory of molecular evolution. I suggest you read up on it.

Here's a nice graph from the Lenski Long-term evolution experiment with E coli:
Image
This constitutes a direct falsification of the proposition that "most mutations that happen are deleterious and never get removed by natural selection." The picture is pretty self-explanatory. On the Y-axis we see the number of mutations and improvements in relative fitness, on the X axis is measured the number of generations over the course of the experiment. The green line plots the average change in fitness over time, the green dots are the actual measured fitness effects of mutants at various generations. As you can see, over the first 40.000 generations, most mutations that got fixed in the population were BENEFICIAL mutations. Meaning they resulted in an increase in relative fitness compared to the ancestral population. At about 30.000 generations, a mutator phenotype arose that significantly increased the mutation rate, leading to fixation of additional hundreds of mutation. The fitness kept rising at a relatively steady rate, meaning most of the mutations that happened were probably neutral, but occasionally a beneficial one would happen and get fixed.


leroy wrote:barrier 3

Irreducible complexity...


Rumraket on June 08, 2014 wrote:The issue is not that the eye is not irreducibly complex, it certainly is (you can pick out parts that will destroy the function of the extant eye, that means it is irreducibly complex).

The issue is when you think this prevents it's gradual evolution. This is what IDcreationists fail to get time and time again. The biologist Hermann Joseph Muller predicted that the evolutionary process would inevitably produce such irreducibly complex structures, and actually coined the phrase Interlocking Complexity, all the way back in the 1930's, to describe the same phenomenon. Basically Muller suggested that such structures would evolve in what is called the Mullerian two-step, which in a rather simple formulation is:

1. Add a component.
2. Make it necessary.

Things didn't always function they way they do now. The parts that make up the eye didn't have to function in ancestral stages of the eye, the way they do in the extant one.

But fuck all that, I don't have to sit here and spell all that out. You can read all about it here:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/ICsilly.html
The Mullerian Two-Step: Add a part, make it necessary

or, Why Behe's "Irreducible Complexity" is silly


Version 1.1
Copyright © 2006-2007 by Douglas Theobald, Ph.D.
[Last Update: July 18, 2007]


"... an irreducibly complex system might arise by gradually co-opting parts that initially were dispensable but eventually become indispensable ...."
William A. Dembski 2004, p. 24.

Introduction

Michael Behe's term "irreducible complexity" is, to be frank, plainly silly — and here's why.

"Irreducible complexity" is a simple concept. According to Behe, a system is irreducibly complex if its function is lost when a part is removed1. Behe believes that irreducibly complex systems cannot evolve by direct, gradual evolutionary mechanisms. However, standard genetic processes easily produce these structures. Nearly a century ago, these exact systems were predicted, described, and explained by the Nobel prize-winning geneticist H. J. Muller using evolutionary theory2. Thus, as explained below, so-called "irreducibly complex" structures are in fact evolvable and reducible. Behe gave irreducible complexity the wrong name.

... more


leroy wrote:Barrier 4
Convergent evolution at a genetic level...


On July 19th, 2014 Inferno wrote:In the exact way Dr. Whittington explained that the amino acids converged in platypus and snakes, meaning the protein sequence, so also do the protein sequences in bats and toothed whales. This is what you get wrong and that's why your example is not valid. Let me make this absolutely clear: When comparing the gene or nucleotide sequence, bats and toothed whales are correctly classified. If the protein sequence is compared, bats are classified with toothed whales. That's the whole deal. The gene sequences are not the same. This is made absolutely clear in a paragraph I quoted earlier:

Convergent sequence evolution between echolocating bats and dolphins (2010) wrote:To test whether convergent changes in bat Prestin genes have also occurred in echolocating whales, we sequenced the entire gene in a range of echolocating toothed whales and non-echolocating baleen whales, as well as additional bats (see Table S1 in the Supplemental Data available on-line with this issue). Trees based on nucleotide alignments from this larger dataset strongly supported the accepted species tree topology, albeit with the clustering of echolocating bats reported earlier [3]. However, in trees based on amino acid sequences, constructed using a range of different phylogenetic methods, we found that the echolocating dolphins now formed a well-supported group with echolocating horseshoe and Old World leaf-nosed bats (node posterior probability = 0.99 or 0.94 depending on the analysis), members of which emit Doppler-sensitive signals dominated by a constant frequency (CF) component [6] ( Figure 1A). Intriguingly, the addition of the sperm whale, which appears to echolocate at much lower frequencies [7], was seen to decrease support for this convergent signal, leading to the cetaceans and bats both forming monophyletic groups. The extent of sequence convergence between bats and whales was thus not sufficient to unite these clades when non-dolphin odontocetes were included in the analysis.


Do you understand your mistake, can we move on?

It's even more fun that you accuse me of not reading the article when you make a grave mistake:
However, in trees based on amino acid sequences, constructed using a range of different phylogenetic methods, we found that the echolocating dolphins now formed a well-supported group with echolocating horseshoe and Old World leaf-nosed bats.


You quote the passage that disproves what you claim, yet you fail to register that. Reading comprehension fail if ever there was one.

Now as I said, you can have the same amino acid sequence even if the underlying genetic code is different (I even showed that using the BLASTed sequences) and you can have very similar amino acids forming basically identical proteins, which is what they found. Don't let the pop-science articles cloud your judgement on this.


Creationists really need to stop hoarding debunked arguments.

While looking for these I also found this gem addressed to dandan/leroy:

Rumraket on Jude 08, 2014 wrote:I have already responded by correcting all your misapprehensions about modern evolutionary theory and the nearly neutral theory of molecular evolution. You said you would read my response, but you have not responded to it since.

You're now back making all the same mistakes again which I corrected in my response to you.

So this is how you get by, by simply outright ignoring contradictory information? Maybe you forgot to read my post? I would like for you to go back and read it and give your response, instead of coming back and blindly reasserting all your misapprehensions about molecular evolution as if you have not recieved any corrections.
_BONES AND FOSSILS = LOVE_
(_'--------------------'_)
(_.--------------------._)
Sat Jul 08, 2017 11:50 pm
YIM WWW
RumraketUser avatarPosts: 1014Joined: Fri Jun 25, 2010 7:49 am Gender: Male

Post Re: Evolution for Leroy

It is sad to see that my last comment there is still pertinent in 2017. Three years later and Leroy is back to making all the same mistakes, that he had already made many times before and been corrected on in 2014.

This is how ID creationism survives. It's adherents aren't interested in the facts, they are only interested in their beliefs.
"Nullius in verba" - Take nobody's word for it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nullius_in_verba
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Sun Jul 09, 2017 8:06 am
VisakiUser avatarPosts: 698Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2010 12:26 pmLocation: Helsinki, Finland Gender: Male

Post Re: Evolution for Leroy

Rumraket wrote:It is sad to see that my last comment there is still pertinent in 2017. Three years later and Leroy is back to making all the same mistakes, that he had already made many times before and been corrected on in 2014.

This is how ID creationism survives. It's adherents aren't interested in the facts, they are only interested in their beliefs.

Aron has said that it's impossible to defend creationism honestly. Looks like he's still right.
Sun Jul 09, 2017 8:34 am
Nesslig20User avatarPosts: 213Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2016 6:44 pm Gender: Male

Post Re: Evolution for Leroy

leroy wrote:about the stuff in big letters, I was really talking about common ancestry, not evolution. ..........if an alien has a big portion of genetic material in common with humans that would be a problem for common ancestry, because such an even is not predicted given our current understanding on cladistics and nested hierarchies.


Well not really. Some scientists expect there to be life on mars and we also know that each planet (mars and the earth) has contaminated each other with debris before and after even after life already existed on earth. So if there is life on mars (probably microscopic), there would be a great change that it is very distantly related to earth life.

leroy wrote:about my position on evolution, I personally like to divide evolution in 3 parts, this is obviously just a personal subjective and arbitrary division.

1 the idea organisms change and adapt

2 the idea that all organisms share a common ancestry

3 the idea that complex organs (or stuff) came form simpler organs, through the process of random genetic changes and natural selection


1 obviously true

2 probably true, the most of the evidence suggests that the statement is true, but there is some evidence against that idea.

3 a controversial idea that has not been proven

about teaching evolution in class

I believe that students should learn about evolution, but one should not make a big deal if they don't (for whatever reason)

please let me know if you disagree with any of my points.


#1 isn't evolution. Evolution is a population level change of inheritable traits over generations.
#2 Common ancestry isn't evolution, but still a central part of evolutionary theory, which is not in dispute nor is there any evidence to suggest otherwise.
#3 Is a straw man or at best a rudimentary form of evolution. Natural selection and mutations are just two mechanisms. There are others like drift. Also there is no known complex organ known so far that could not have evolved by natural selection or any other mechanism and we have explained the evolution of allot of organs, more than creationists would like to admit.
"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."
Charles Darwin
Sun Jul 09, 2017 8:50 pm
leroyPosts: 1349Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

Post Re: Evolution for Leroy

Leroy Wrote
So with that said, my position is that evolution can only account for some of the diversity of life, while your position is that evolution can account for all (or nearly all) the diversity that we observe, including the origin of complex organs and systems (wings, eyes, reproductive systems, brains etc.)



Sparhafoc wrote:
Nope, not my position.

Read what I wrote, show you understand what I wrote, then I will read the rest of your post.




Sparhafoc wrote:[
You actually acknowledged the latter, but because Creationists are inherently incapable of admitting mistakes, you're now pretending that my argument is that all variation is evolution. Clearly, as anyone with a shred of honesty would agree, I never said anything like that.

.



again, the conversation is over, we both agree, we both agree that evolution can not account for the diversity of life...............I apologize for misrepresenting your view and suggesting that you believe that evolution can account for all (or nearly all) the diversity of life.


just to be clear, this statement does not represent your position, and I admit that I was wrong in misrepresenting your position.
while your position is that evolution can account for all (or nearly all) the diversity that we observe, including the origin of complex organs and systems (wings, eyes, reproductive systems, brains etc.)
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Tue Jul 11, 2017 6:18 pm
leroyPosts: 1349Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

Post Re: Evolution for Leroy

leroy wrote:while your position is that evolution can account for all (or nearly all) the diversity that we observe, including the origin of complex organs and systems (wings, eyes, reproductive systems, brains etc.)




ok Sparhafoc let me change the wording.


while your position is that random genetic change, natural selection and genetic drift can account for all (or nearly all) the diversity that we observe, including the origin of complex organs and systems (wings, eyes, reproductive systems, brains etc.)


so is that your position? yes or no?


I accidentally edited my original comments........
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Last edited by leroy on Wed Jul 12, 2017 6:44 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Tue Jul 11, 2017 6:25 pm
leroyPosts: 1349Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

Post Re: Evolution for Leroy

he_who_is_nobody wrote:This is the only new claim dandan/leroy presented. All the rest have been debunked multiple times before on this forum.



2 things

1 does this statement represents your view?
while your position is that evolution can account for all (or nearly all) the diversity that we observe, including the origin of complex organs and systems (wings, eyes, reproductive systems, brains etc.)

or do you agree with Sparhafoc and I, and believe that that view is wrong?

2 I provided mathematical evidence that strongly suggested that evolution can only account for 0.02% of the difference between chimps and humans, and this assuming a very convenient and unrealistic scenario, if you think there is something wrong with the math, please provide the correct maths, instead of copy and pasting and irrelevant article from Wikipedia.





Barrier number 2


Rumraket made a mistake that nullifies his reply
Most(most, not all) mutations that happen in the non-junk portions of the genome are deleterious. True. But they are removed by purifying selection.


most mutations that happen in the non junk portions are deleterious, but slightly deleterious, the effect in survival is so small that natural selection wont remove them.

after a significant amount of time (say 1,000,000 years) organisms would accumulate so many slightly deleterious mutations, that at one point the accumulation of all of them would inevitable cause extinction.

you can find more details in the various sources I have provided since 2014





Irreducible complexity...



it is a fact that at least some steps require multiple independent genetic changes in order for them to have a benefit that would be selected by natural selection, I even provided an example.


why don't you refute my actual argument instead of a straw man version of it.?

.



leroy wrote:Barrier 4
Convergent evolution at a genetic level...



once again, you are focusing in secondary and irrelevant details, the fact is that dolphins and bats suffered from the same genetic changes multiple independent times, so ether these genetic changes where random mutations or caused by some other non random mechanism, given that the first is statistically very unlikely I am suggesting that the second is more probably true.


sure as you have pointed out multiple times and as I already agreed multiple times if you look at the whole gene (or protein) you do have consistent trees, but that doesn't nullifies the fact that dolphins and bats suffered from the same genetic changes multiple independent times,
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Tue Jul 11, 2017 7:00 pm
SparhafocPosts: 536Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: Evolution for Leroy

again, the conversation is over, we both agree, we both agree that evolution can not account for the diversity of life...


Fuck off you morally stunted little wankstain.
If a human disagrees with you, let him live! In a hundred billion galaxies you will not find another!
Tue Jul 11, 2017 9:45 pm
SparhafocPosts: 536Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: Evolution for Leroy

Fucking weebles.

You smack em down to the ground, knock the living shit out of them, and they still think they're winning while they're lying on their backs counting stars.

Fundamentalism is the Black Knight:

If a human disagrees with you, let him live! In a hundred billion galaxies you will not find another!
Tue Jul 11, 2017 9:46 pm
leroyPosts: 1349Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

Post Re: Evolution for Leroy

leroy wrote:while your position is that evolution can account for all (or nearly all) the diversity that we observe, including the origin of complex organs and systems (wings, eyes, reproductive systems, brains etc.)




ok Sparhafoc let me change the wording.


while your position is that random genetic change, natural selection and genetic drift can account for all (or nearly all) the diversity that we observe, including the origin of complex organs and systems (wings, eyes, reproductive systems, brains etc.)


so is that your position? yes or no?
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Wed Jul 12, 2017 6:43 pm
SparhafocPosts: 536Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: Evolution for Leroy

leroy wrote:ok Sparhafoc let me change the wording.


Oh, you want to play ball again after bullshitting about what I said?

Then I will await your apology, and magnanimously accept it and move on.

Otherwise, enjoy!
If a human disagrees with you, let him live! In a hundred billion galaxies you will not find another!
Wed Jul 12, 2017 7:38 pm
leroyPosts: 1349Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

Post Re: Evolution for Leroy

Sparhafoc wrote:
leroy wrote:ok Sparhafoc let me change the wording.


Oh, you want to play ball again after bullshitting about what I said?

Then I will await your apology, and magnanimously accept it and move on.

Otherwise, enjoy!



I already apologized for misrepresenting your view , but no problem I ll apologize again, please accept my apologies.


I am not trying to troll, I honestly and sincerely don't understand your position, this is why I am honestly asking this question...


while your position is that random genetic change, natural selection and genetic drift can account for all (or nearly all) the diversity that we observe, including the origin of complex organs and systems (wings, eyes, reproductive systems, brains etc.)


so is that your position? yes or no?




this is an honest question and from previous comments I bet that no other member from this forum would know how would you answer to the question.
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Thu Jul 13, 2017 12:11 am
SparhafocPosts: 536Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: Evolution for Leroy

Fine, then we can return to civil discussion, but be warned that I will never accept anyone misrepresenting what I write, not least because I spend effort ensuring what I write is clear.

The half question you asked is problematic for a number of reasons, but it is 7am and I got about 2 hours sleep last night, so I am not sure I'll do it justice right now.

First of all, the most simple answer is that genotype produces phenotype, so of course any change to the genotype will result in changes to the phenotype, even if undetectable to the naive eye, thus it's naturally the exact kind of change we are talking about, and consequently, iterative changes to the genotypes of a population necessarily result in changes to the phenotypes of that population.

But, of course, it's not 1:1 because phenotypes are expressions of the genotype.

Consequently, there is as I already pointed out, an environment in which those genes operate, and that environment is complicated. Firstly, there's the environment of the genes themselves, where some genes modify, silence, or boost the expression of another gene's expression. For example, RNAi, CRISPR, or siRNA all silence other genes, resulting in a reduction of expression of the targeted gene by about 70%. Another environmental element is the in-vitro environment of ontogeny; reduce the mother's nutrient intake, and this naturally has an effect on the child growing inside her, as does the ensuing environment of development up til adult. A common mistake is to think of genotype->phenotype to be 1:1, whereas we have known for a long time that nutrient intake is going to have a dramatic effect on phenotype, i.e. the expression of genes. Take two identical twins and ensure one has a healthy diet while the other is nutritionally restricted, and regardless of their starting identical genotype, the expressed phenotype will be markedly different, a clear example of this would be in height with the nutritionally restricted twin being shorter than their sibling.

Finally, there's also the Lamarkian crap I already addressed - that while genotype->phenotype, it's not the other way round. Changing your appearance by any method has no impact whatsoever on your genotype, and consequently these observable variations are not passed on. A Long Neck (Kayan) tribesperson of Northern Thailand does not pass on their stretched neck ligaments, muscles, and neck bones to their offspring any more than getting a tan, a tattoo, or chopping off an appendage is passed on.

So of course, no one has ever, ever, ever suggested that all physical variation is evolution. That would be stupid, and it assuredly isn't a statement made by science.

Instead, as I expressly pointed out, the kind of change we are talking about isn't the single instance of any given individual, but the statistical change of the available genes in the population pool. This kind of change is evolution, and it's the kind of change which is necessarily heritable. It's expressly what evolution is, and if you recall, it's the very definition I gave you which started this whole aside. Evolution is specifically the changes in allele (gene variants) frequencies (statistical distribution) in a population, and each and every step - every time an offspring is born or a member of that population dies, then the allele frequencies in that population have changed too. This is what you would want to call microevolution. And microevolution literally occurs all the time, if by nothing else then by the random shuffling and combination of alleles. Further, as already explained in spades, microevolution accrues generationally, resulting in more dramatic change over time, iteratively through generations.

Any notion that the latter sentence is incorrect is bizarre and contrived. You can show yourself in minutes how small changes accrue to make larger changes. Take a bone dry cup, turn your tap on so it's just dripping, pop the cup under and note the 'evolution' of the state of the cup, each drip is a generation, and while the first drip barely makes any observable difference, many instances of that drip will result in a cup overflowing with water. The principle being stated here is not a complex or logically challenging one: it is a necessity: accruing little changes over time leads to larger changes on a larger time scale.

As for 'macroevolution', Creationists always misuse the term. In science, macroevolution is concerned with a different level of focus, where microevolution occurs at the population level, macroevolution is observable above the species level, so it would be the lens under which we looked at the radiation of flowering plants, or the origin of mammals for example. As such, no one can expect to 'see' macroevolution occurring within a lifetime because it is very large, ponderous evolution of entire clades, or orders and it is very much affected by large scale environmental aspects which operate over geological time scales.

However, we don't need to talk about macroevolution here; microevolution is sufficient to account for the question you raised about wings, eyes, reproductive systems, brains etc, because these develop in small steps from preexisting morphology. Hearts, eyes, and any other complex organ do not just snap into existence fully formed. Instead, we find (and this is empirical evidence) that there were gradual steps where previous structures employed for other tasks were co-opted over time to become a quite different morphology and have a different function, and of course, because natural selection is always at play, every gradual step must either offer an immediate survival benefit (i.e. improve reproductive chance) or at least not harm the survival chance. The eye is obviously one of the most well evidenced examples, it being Darwin's first example of how complexity might arise gradually. So we see those steps both in the fossil record and in extant organisms today. In this case, as I already explained to you elsewhere, you only need to have a photosensitive spot for it to offer an improved chance of survival. Being able to detect a predator before it is in range to swallow you offers survival benefits that are strongly selected for. A photosenstive spot is not fantastic, but it's better. Then a photosensitive spot just needs to sink into the skin a little to focus that incoming light and produce a sharper image of light detection. Again, that offers a slight survival benefit over just having a photosensitive spot, and so on. Of course, there never is just 5% of an eye waiting to evolve, instead there's always 100% of a structure which can itself then change via mutation and selection.

We can go further and look at the classic Mullerian two-step, but I am running out of time.

Regardless, plunging on... there are other issues with what you've written, in the sense that I've seen you write other things that suggest a miscomprehension and therefore which need to be broken down.

Again, the primary point is that you are essentially challenging whether genotype->phenotype, which it obviously primarily and definitionally means, so it's hard to strip away the errors in your question to focus on the thrust of the question. However, you've written 'random genetic change' and I have no idea what you mean there because you also include selection, which thereby means the genetic change is not wholly random. Instead, I assume you mean random mutation, i.e. de novo genes arising in the population pool. Even then, mutation isn't strictly 'random'. There are genes which cannot mutate, they are fixed. Mutations there would just make the organism fail biologically. Similarly, on the opposite end of the spectrum there are genes which are very easy to change, which have little effect on phenotype, and essentially fly under the radar of evolution. - a good example of this would be non-coding DNA. Science has long talked (5 decades at least) about the problem with the Hopeful Monster notion, as in, if dramatic gene changes occurred wholly at random or in huge steps as per the oft-used Creationist strawman, then the chances are that the mutations will affect something critical and the individual with those mutations would not survive. Instead, small changes are less likely to have major dysfunctional effect, and then present a new platform of genotype from which other mutations can occur, and a modified genetic environment for the other genes to be expressed. We don't find hopeful monsters either in the fossil record, or in the lab, nor do we expect to. Thus cats evolving to dogs, ducks evolving to crocodiles etc. is a notion held only by Creationists, not predicted by evolution.

So we never have proposed that wings, eyes, brains etc simply popped into existence. Instead, very small mutations accrued via selection and drift, and they presented new opportunities for other mutations to succeed and enter the gene pool. But the mutations themselves are not wholly 'random', rather the change of any given gene depends on a host of other components. And each and every step of the wing trait, for example, offered a survival benefit over its predecessor trait. Or we can talk brains as its much closer to my field of knowledge: nerves->ganglion->central processing located in proximity to organs which need to communicate fastest.

I have dozens more things to say about this, but I have to go and teach 60 students who won't be impressed if I roll up late. As such, I will curtail it here. But to summarize, the only kind of 'change' that's relevant to the discussion is the kind of change which is heritable. Heritable change is evolution, it's expressly what the theory of evolution proposes, it's expressly what the theory of evolution explains - the ToE is our model of what we directly observe in the fossil record, in genetics, and in comparative morphology. So, with clarity achieved, then yes, any heritable change is evolution, regardless of the source of that change, and consequently evolution is the only explanation for all the heritable variation we see because it is exactly the variable heredity we see and the process by which it arises. Definitionally.

So 'no' is my answer to your question because your question has assumptions that are erroneous and one of those assumptions is to ask me whether evolution cannot account for evolution, and is therefore a broken question - you want me to resolve a paradox that doesn't exist.
If a human disagrees with you, let him live! In a hundred billion galaxies you will not find another!
Last edited by Sparhafoc on Thu Jul 13, 2017 2:52 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Thu Jul 13, 2017 2:16 am
leroyPosts: 1349Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

Post Re: Evolution for Leroy

I am sorry but I dont think you answered to my question,


Sparhafoc wrote:, and each and every step - every time an offspring is born or a member of that population dies, then the allele frequencies in that population have changed too. This is what you would want to call microevolution. And microevolution literally occurs all the time, if by nothing else then by the random shuffling and combination of alleles. Further, as already explained in spades, microevolution accrues generationally, resulting in more dramatic change over time, iteratively through generations.
.


Do you believe that those steps where caused mainly by random genetic changes (mutations) that where then selected by natural selection or kept by genetic drift.?

or do you believe that these genetic changes where mainly non random but "guided" in some way ether by an intelligent designer or some natural mechanism. ?
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Thu Jul 13, 2017 2:47 pm
SparhafocPosts: 536Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: Evolution for Leroy

I don't 'believe' anything, LEROY. I am telling you about what empirical evidence shows to be factual.

Now please address the rest of my post rather than seeming to, once again, ignore all of it to pick at a couple of words you think you can address.

I want you to show you've processed the post where I have done as you requested and answered your question before I am prepared to answer another question.

Please show you understand, or acknowledge that there are no other contentions you have, because I don't want to waste time trying to nail jelly to the wall.
If a human disagrees with you, let him live! In a hundred billion galaxies you will not find another!
Thu Jul 13, 2017 2:54 pm
SparhafocPosts: 536Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: Evolution for Leroy

leroy wrote:IDo you believe that those steps where caused mainly by random genetic changes (mutations) that where then selected by natural selection or kept by genetic drift.?



The reason why I wont continue performing tricks is because I've actually addressed your mistaken woolly words in the very post you are citing asking me to repeat.

I wrote:

Again, the primary point is that you are essentially challenging whether genotype->phenotype, which it obviously primarily and definitionally means, so it's hard to strip away the errors in your question to focus on the thrust of the question. However, you've written 'random genetic change' and I have no idea what you mean there because you also include selection, which thereby means the genetic change is not wholly random. Instead, I assume you mean random mutation, i.e. de novo genes arising in the population pool. Even then, mutation isn't strictly 'random'. There are genes which cannot mutate, they are fixed. Mutations there would just make the organism fail biologically. Similarly, on the opposite end of the spectrum there are genes which are very easy to change, which have little effect on phenotype, and essentially fly under the radar of evolution. - a good example of this would be non-coding DNA. Science has long talked (5 decades at least) about the problem with the Hopeful Monster notion, as in, if dramatic gene changes occurred wholly at random or in huge steps as per the oft-used Creationist strawman, then the chances are that the mutations will affect something critical and the individual with those mutations would not survive. Instead, small changes are less likely to have major dysfunctional effect, and then present a new platform of genotype from which other mutations can occur, and a modified genetic environment for the other genes to be expressed. We don't find hopeful monsters either in the fossil record, or in the lab, nor do we expect to. Thus cats evolving to dogs, ducks evolving to crocodiles etc. is a notion held only by Creationists, not predicted by evolution.


So I write that I have no idea what the neologism you've crafted means because it's scientifically illiterate, and I explained why, pointing out that you mean 'mutation' or else you are writing a tautology (as I've pointed out... about 5 previous times?), and that even mutations cannot be so easily described by the word 'random'....

And then you ask me the same question with the same mistaken assumptions I've just spent time explaining to you, and indicate I didn't answer your question. Yes, I fixed your broken question and educated you as to why it's an error on your part, and therefore basically a loaded question. The answer to a loaded question, LEROY, is always to deconstruct the erroneous assumptions and explain why they're erroneous. Any following retort cannot simply restate the same errors and expect a different answer.

What can I do, LEROY? Just keep copying and pasting the same responses until they sink in? Will they ever sink in? I am not sure that you want to hear explanations which don't fit your beliefs.
If a human disagrees with you, let him live! In a hundred billion galaxies you will not find another!
Thu Jul 13, 2017 2:57 pm
PreviousNext
Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 3 of 5
 [ 86 posts ] 
Return to Science & Mathematics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 8 guests
cron