proving evolution as just a "theory"

[Gene2memE]

Chasing down those cases of "highly specific" from the literature:

Cheng et all 1989

Instance 1:

Plasmid DNAs were isolated from 150 randomly picked transformants and their inserts were sorted by T-lane DNA sequencing. Based on the T-lane patterns, eight different groups of sequences could be categorized, and they were subsequently designated as CAI-CA8. Assuming the primer annealing is highly specific under our PCR conditions, we expected to be able to retrieve at least one of the three partial sequences corresponding to the documented yeast genesnamely, MSS116 (9), TIFJ, and TIF2 (8).
​

Instance 2:

In present day organisms, RNA helicases play a number of specialized roles. However, since the basic features of their enzymatic mechanism are highly specified for the destabilization of RNA helices, the basic structure of these enzymes is therefore highly conserved in evolution.
​

Guilinger et all 2017:

Instance 1:

For all TALENs tested, the targeted base pair at every position in both half-sites is preferred, with the sole exception of the base pair closest to the spacer for some ATM TALENs at the right-half site (Fig. 2C, 2D and Supplementary Fig. S3 through S8). The 5′ T recognized by the N-terminal domain is highly specified, and the 3′ DNA end (targeted by the C-terminal TALEN end) generally tolerates more mutations than the 5′ DNA end; both of these observations are consistent with previous reports.
​

Instance 2:

The in vitro selection results for 30 unique TALENs each challenged with 1012 closed related off-target sequences and subsequent analysis inform our understanding of TALEN specificity through four key findings: (i) TALENs are highly specific for their intended target base pair at 103 of the 104 positions profiled with specificity increasing near the Nterminal TALEN end of each TALE repeat array (corresponding to the 5′ end of the bound DNA); (ii) longer TALENs are more specific in a genomic context while shorter TALENs have higher specificity per nucleotide; (iii) TALE repeats each bind their respective base pairs relatively independently; and (iv) excess DNA-binding affinity leads to increased TALEN activity against off-target sites and therefore decreased specificity.

​

Neither of these references indicate anything like references to specalised complexity or other IDist language, and are more technical terms used as descriptive (rather than indicative) language.

 

[AnotherAtheist]

When you understand that salamanders remaining salamanders is not evidence of evolution, get back to me.

Unproved theories need to be criticised if they are offered as evidence.

There is utterly no reason why salamanders should not remain salamanders even if one population of one species of salamander evolved into something slightly more lizard-like.

This is the classic crude misunderstanding of evolution that leads to ignorant people claiming 'if we evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?'

 

[Bungle_Bear]

There is utterly no reason why salamanders should not remain salamanders even if one population of one species of salamander evolved into something slightly more lizard-like.

This is the classic crude misunderstanding of evolution that leads to ignorant people claiming 'if we evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?'

They're happy that dogs evolved from wolves but wolves still exist and polar bears evolved from brown bears but brown bears still exist. But anything else seems to baffle them. It is really bizarre to watch.

 

[omega2xx]

There is utterly no reason why salamanders should not remain salamanders even if one population of one species of salamander evolved into something slightly more lizard-like.

Your problem is you have no evidence or example a species of salamanders evolving into a different species.

This is the classic crude misunderstanding of evolution that leads to ignorant people claiming 'if we evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?'

This is a classic, crude example of accepting something by faith alone. I will ask you why all monkeys have not evolved into humans? They have had millions of years to do it. You use that as an example of misunderstanding evolution, a concept even a cave man can understand, but can't explain HOW it is possible.

 

[omega2xx]

Eohippus producing Eohippus for 40 million...

Wait, the evidence clearly shows they evolved into Equus, right?

Do you really not understand that pictures are not scientific evidence?
Next time give the HOW it happened.

Whenever we look at the living biota...discontinuities are overwhelmingly frequent ...The discontinuities are even more striking in the fossil record. New species usually appear in the fossil record suddenly, not connected with their ancestors by a series of intermediates; Ernst Mayr, "What Evolution is" p. 189

 

[omega2xx]

They're happy that dogs evolved from wolves but wolves still exist and polar bears evolved from brown bears but brown bears still exist. But anything else seems to baffle them. It is really bizarre to watch.

Talk is cheap. How about some evidence.

 

[omega2xx]

You are doing that?

Ok, you have seen the chart showing various fossils of hominids leading to humans. I have shown you the evidence. Do you have any response?

Now that we are on a roll, here is another picture:

That guy on the left is my favorite. Do you have any explanation for this 1.9 million year old fossil, other than that he is transitional between ape-like creatures and humans?

Of course. They are both separate and distinct species.

When you have something besides pictures drawn and set in order by evolutionists trying and show evolution is true, get back to me. Pictures are not evidence,

 

[omega2xx]

Thanks for providing confirmation that you don't understand how evolution works or how science works.

I always eventually get that remark when the evo can't provide any evidence for what the must accept by faith alone. FYI I took and passed 3 college courses that discussed evolution.

The basic doctrines of the TOE are so simple even a cave man with a 2 digit IQ can understand it.

 

[omega2xx]

Both of your questions can be answered by pointing out that there are existing animals which show a continuum of limb forms from hands to flippers. Rats can swim well, and have pretty much paws. Water Voles are more aquatic, but still have fairly normal paws. Otters are more aquatic, and have webbed paws for better swimming. Seals have things that are intermediate between paws and fins, but are closest to fins. Walruses have even more finny limbs (but notice how they are used on land), and a developing tail. Then there's the whales, dolphins, etc. with pretty much fully finny fins. You can't say that paws couldn't develop into fins when we can see a wide range of intermediate forms today. Or, you could say that, but you'd be rather silly.

It is not what I say, it is what 2 of your respected evolutionist, Gould land Mayr, say---"appear suddenly not connected to their ancestors by intermediates. Gould's "punctuated equlibia, destroyed gradualism as a means of proving evolution.

Secondly you say that it is absurd for land animals to enter the water, because it is a more hostile environment. Well, that depends. For an animal that can catch fish, if there are plenty of fish to eat, but little to eat on land because of too much competition, then fish could be an important part of their diet. There are plenty of land animals that eat fish. E.g. bears. Being able to walk around easily is not much good if you starve to death. Venturing into the water and finding food to eat is much better, even if you can't swim well. Hence, the ancestors of whales may have eaten fish or other food from the water. And because of competition for land based food, there was selection pressure to become more aquatic. And they became more aquatic through intermediate forms similar to those we see today in different lineages.

What is absurd and specifically scientifically absurd is thinking eating fish for any reason can cause a land animal to evolve into a sea creature. During such a transition period , which according to evolution would take hundred if not million of years, pakicetus would have entered an environment(the sea)hostile to its survival. Those legs would not have become fins over night.

As an example of a land animal not especially adapted for the water (though a strong swimmer and a tenacious pursuer of fish), consider the Fishing Cat Fishing Cat It has slight webbing between its toes. But, it's diet is primarily fish. Why wouldn't it hunt on land instead? Quite likely because there is competition from other animals, perhaps even other cats, on land. Meaning that the 'hostile' water is less hostile than land.

You don't get it do you? It is not what they eat or where thy eat it. It is that no diet is a mechanism for a change of species. In the supposed transition from land to sea, pakicetus would be very vulnerable to land and to sea animals. The only thing it would evolve into would be lunch for other predators.

 

[Jimmy D]

Do you really not understand that pictures are not scientific evidence?
Next time give the HOW it happened.

Whenever we look at the living biota...discontinuities are overwhelmingly frequent ...The discontinuities are even more striking in the fossil record. New species usually appear in the fossil record suddenly, not connected with their ancestors by a series of intermediates; Ernst Mayr, "What Evolution is" p. 189

They are pictures of actual fossils, how else is he supposed to present evidence from the fossil record?

The scientific community and in particular paleontologists accept these as a graduated series of fossils representing the evolution of the modern horse. If you want to reject them you need more than "nu huh!". What discontinuities can you spot?

 

[omega2xx]

Poor thing, can't you support your own claims? I don't think that the sciences sub forum is for you.

You said....

BTW they are both very different nostrils and one can't become the other. I know by simple observation. If you can't tell the difference maybe you need a trip the a good optometrist.

So come on, what's the difference?

When you tell me HOW, scientifically of course, I will tell you the difference in very simple language.

 

[Jimmy D]

I always eventually get that remark when the evo can't provide any evidence for what the must accept by faith alone. FYI I took and passed 3 college courses that discussed evolution.

The basic doctrines of the TOE are so simple even a cave man with a 2 digit IQ can understand it.

I presented ERV evidence which remains unaddressed, don't get me wrong, I know you don't understand it, but don't pretend it hasn't been presented.

 

[Jimmy D]

When you tell me HOW, scientifically of course, I will tell you the difference in very simple language.

How what? You can't point out the differences between a nostril and a blow hole so what are you asking?

 

[Jimmy D]

Gould's "punctuated equlibia, destroyed gradualism as a means of proving evolution.

Do you even know what this means? It doesn't sound like it.

 

[omega2xx]

They are pictures of actual fossils, how else is he supposed to present evidence from the fossil record?

The scientific community and in particular paleontologists accept these as a graduated series of fossils representing the evolution of the modern horse. If you want to reject them you need more than "nu huh!". What discontinuities can you spot?

Gould, probably your most respected expert on fossils, with his invented "punctuated equlibria" destroyed gradualism. At least he was honest and admitted there are no intermediate fossils. Refute what he says and we can continue.

 

[omega2xx]

I presented ERV evidence which remains unaddressed, don't get me wrong, I know you don't understand it, but don't pretend it hasn't been presented.

Explain what ERV stands for and how it proves evolution, and I will explain why it does not support evolution.

 

[omega2xx]

How what? You can't point out the differences between a nostril and a blow hole so what are you asking?

HOW it happened. Do you not realize saying something is not evidence? You can't even explain why a land animal could become a sea animal, let alone HOW it is possible.

 

[omega2xx]

Do you even know what this means? It doesn't sound like it.

A better question is do you understand what it means.

 

[Astrophile]

Whenever we look at the living biota...discontinuities are overwhelmingly frequent ...The discontinuities are even more striking in the fossil record. New species usually appear in the fossil record suddenly, not connected with their ancestors by a series of intermediates; Ernst Mayr, "What Evolution is" p. 189

How do you interpret fossils? For example, do you think that Eohippus, Epihippus, Mesohippus, Miohippus, Merychippus, Pliohippus and Equus all lived at the same time in some pre-Flood Garden of Eden? The same question goes for Dryopithecus, Sahelanthopus, Ardipithecus, Australopithecus anamensis, Australopithecus afarensis, Australopithecus africanus, Homo habilis and Homo ergaster.

If you do not think this, do you accept that the genera in these two lists followed one another in time? If so, how do you avoid the inference that the earlier genera were the ancestors of the later ones? Do you think, for example, that all the members of the species Ardipithecus ramidus, for example, suddenly died out and that God then created Australopithecus anamensis to replace them? Or have you got an alternative explanation?

These are not rhetorical questions. I really want to understand how you interpret the scientific evidence and what creationist theory you have adopted to explain this evidence. (I am using the word 'theory' in its scientific sense here.)

In the last sentence of your quotation, Mayr actually says that the early species were the ancestors of the 'new species'. A moment's thought about the meaning of the word 'ancestor' will show you that it is logically impossible for a living being not to be connected with its ancestors by a series of intermediates. Every living thing has parents, grandparents, great-grandparents, great-great-grandparents, and so on through a continuous series of intermediate ancestors and descendants. If you take the word 'ancestor' literally, Mayr cannot have meant what you think he meant.

 

[Jimmy D]

Explain what ERV stands for and how it proves evolution, and I will explain why it does not support evolution.

Endogenous retrovirus, an inherited retrovirus encoded in an organism's genome.

Creationists keep arguing that finding ERV's at the same place in the genomes of different species is not evidence for common ancestry since retroviruses would insert into the same places. What they forget is that the theory of evolution also predicts which ERV's will be found at different places in each genome, something their claims can not do.

Here are the two positions under question:

1. Common ancestry.

2. Two independent insertions at the same base.

As it happens, there are ERV's that we can use to test these hypotheses. In chimps and gorillas we find multiple insertions from the PtERV family of retroviruses. Interestingly, insertions from that retrovirus are NOT found in humans and orangutans. Our two different positions make two different testable hypotheses in this situation.

1. Common ancestry. Since these insertions are not found in the human or orangutan genome, then these insertions must have happened after the chimp lineage split off from the human lineage. If they occurred before this point then they would be found in the human genome. If they occurred at the root of the ape tree, then they would also be found in the orangutan genome. Since they are only found in the chimp and gorilla genomes, this means that they had to occur independently in each species. Therefore, PtERV insertions in the chimp and gorilla genomes should NOT be found at the same location in the chimp and gorilla genomes.

2. Two independent insertions at the same base. If the specificity of retroviral insertion causes ERV's to occur at the same position 99.9% of the time (the rate needed to produce the shared ERV's between the human and chimp genomes), then we should find PtERV insertions at the same location in both the chimp and gorilla genomes.

As you can see, the two positions make the exact opposite prediction. Here is the data:

"Within the limits of this BAC-based end-sequencing mapping approach, 24 sites mapped to similar regions of the human reference genome (approximately 160 kb) and could not be definitively resolved as orthologous or non-orthologous (Table S3). We classified these as “ambiguous” overlap loci (Figure 3). If all 24 locations corresponded to insertions that were orthologous for each pair, this would correspond to a maximum of 12 orthologous loci. The number of non-orthologous loci was calculated as 275/287 (275 + 12) or 95.8%. This is almost certainly a lower-bound estimate owing to the limitation of our BAC-based mapping approach to refine the precise locations of the insertions."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1054887/

The limits of the BAC-based method allow you to determine if two insertions are within about 100k to 200k base pairs of each other. Of the 287 PtERV insertions, 95.8% were not even within hundreds of thousands of base pairs of each other. Already, the independent insertion hypothesis is entirely busted. The authors of the paper then looked at existing genome sequencing to determine if the ones that were close to each other were actually at the same base. They couldn't find a single unambiguous orthologous PtERV shared by chimps and gorillas.

The common ancestor hypothesis is completely supported. The independent insertion hypothesis is thoroughly falsified.

(Thanks Loudmouth!)