Are there transitional fossils?

[xianghua]

A literal pocket watch made of flesh that replicates itself? No.

why not? we can claim that it help to some human to tell the time or something.

It'd be foolish to think that evolution could explain every single trait in all organisms past and present.

its make my argument even stronger. because if we will find such a watch we can claim that we still dont know how it evolve.

1. Your source has no conclusion at all. Did you not even skim it? By the end, all it advises is further research.
2. Your source doesn't define what a convergent gene is. Believe it or not, this could refer to at least 2 different things.

we can take a specific case from this case (as far as i aware about). as far as i know the gene prestin got a convergent in about 14 amino acid between a whale and some species of bats. it's comparable to about 70 DNA bases in the genetic level from a chance prespective (20^14). so if a part of a gene can get about 70 bases by convergent evolution there is no problem to get even an entire gene. but all of this doesnt matter because we are talking about old fossils without any DNA. so only the morphological traits count.

I don't need genes to tell me a fossil morphologically similar to a rabbit that is 500 million years old spits in the face of evolution, kicks evolution down, and proceeds to defecate on it.

again: what is the problem actually? we only need to explain how a mammal traits evolved twice to explain such a fossil. if it evolved once it canevolve twice. unless you can show me a calculation that show it to be impossible.

 

[PsychoSarah]

why not? we can claim that it help to some human to tell the time or something.

-_- is that a weak attempt to mention symbiotic relationships? Or am I giving you too much credit? In any case, no natural organism would physically be like a designed watch, for reasons of muscle attachments and biological material wearing down.

its make my argument even stronger. because if we will find such a watch we can claim that we still dont know how it evolve.

-_- you say that as if these flesh watches already exist in nature. If a person has to rely on something never observed that likely doesn't exist to "strengthen" their argument, their argument was trash to begin with.

we can take a specific case from this case (as far as i aware about). as far as i know the gene prestin got a convergent in about 14 amino acid between a whale and some species of bats. it's comparable to about 70 DNA bases in the genetic level from a chance prespective (20^14). so if a part of a gene can get about 70 bases by convergent evolution there is no problem to get even an entire gene. but all of this doesnt matter because we are talking about old fossils without any DNA. so only the morphological traits count.

1. Prestin is the protein that the gene you are referencing makes, not the gene itself. You should know that, given you even stated it is made of amino acids (genes are made of nucleic acids).
2. This protein is produced in ALL mammals capable of sensitive hearing, so no shock that bats and whales produce it to begin with. Humans do too, which is relevant to my next point.
3. While I couldn't find the exact number of amino acids in prestin specifically, I did find the low end for human produced proteins. It's 44. So, even if prestin itself was the shortest protein produced (which it isn't), that would mean that between bats and whales that it is, rounding up, 32% similar in terms of relevant mutations. Obviously, the gene that produces prestin isn't identical in bats and whales. Not that it hugely matters, considering the vast majority of mammals produce some variant of this protein to begin with. Heck, if I go with the average length of proteins produced by prokaryotes (which is much shorter than for eukaryotes like bats and whales), that would be 14/359 sequences. To top it off, convergent mutations producing identical amino acid sequences don't even have to be identical to each other, because of the 64 different codons that signal amino acids, only 2 of them aren't redundant (that is, multiple codons coding for the same amino acid or being one of the 3 stop codons). Thus, even if those 14 amino acids are identical in sequence, the gene that produced them doesn't have to be. Also, about 25% of equal length DNA sequences are going to match each other in terms of base pairs just because there are only 4 different ones in DNA.
4. Where did you get 70 DNA base pairs from? Each amino acid is signaled by a codon, which is 3 base pairs. So, with 14 amino acids, that would be 14 codons. 14 codons is 42 DNA base pairs. This is really basic math to anyone that has even a basic understanding of how genes signal the production of proteins.
5. What about exons? You know, the 1-41 segments of a gene that are chemically cut out and don't contribute to producing the protein at all? Are those identical in number and length in both the whale and bat genes? Because those would contribute to this gene not being identical between the two.
6. You haven't shown that the base pair sequences are even identical in the 42 relevant ones, only that they signal the same amino acids. Since DNA codons can be as redundant as 4 different ones coding for the same amino acid, the presence of the same amino acids doesn't make for identical sequences even after the exons have been removed.
7. I see no reason why 42/thousands of base pairs coding for the same protein between species with some shared lineage somehow would mean that an entirely new gene thousands of base pairs long could appear in a random genome that is a perfect match to an existing gene in a relatively unrelated species. I mean, even if this was a short gene of only 1000 base pairs, that'd only be a 4.2% match via mutation. That's not even close to the 25% allowable by pure chance alone.

again: what is the problem actually? we only need to explain how a mammal traits evolved twice to explain such a fossil.

The shear number of traits that would have to evolve at an extreme rapid pace alone is enough reason that a rabbit like mammal couldn't exist 500 million years ago according to evolution. By the way, are you forgetting that I am a biology major? Why do you think random ideas you pull out of your butt are more valid than the ones I learned via years of intense study?

if it evolved once it canevolve twice.

Only in your fantasy land. Specific base pair sequences are statistically unlikely, even though there are only 4 different ones in DNA, just for how long DNA is. Long sequences evolving independently are so statistically unlikely that to consider them impossible is just practicality.

unless you can show me a calculation that show it to be impossible.

-_- your creationist friends like to flaunt the "impossibility" of specific gene combinations a lot, but consider this: has any lottery been won via the same combination of numbers twice in a row? But hey, I'll just use a rounded down average gene size for humans, 8000 base pairs. Now, I use a combinations calculation to see how likely a specific combination of 4 different possible base pairs can be for 8000 of them. So, that makes for 170538695998000 different possibilities. So, each one has a 1/170538695998000 chance of existing at random. Of course, this average includes genes for tRNA, of which the shortest in humans is just 76 base pairs. Perhaps for those, your argument is valid at 1/1282975, but as for complex proteins that don't exist just to transport amino acids, they are pretty long. Of course, this isn't literally impossible even for the longest genes, it is just so improbable that it might as well be. And that's just for a gene, which on average produce about 3 different proteins each. Do you have any idea how many repeat genes it would take for rabbits to independently evolve twice?

This site has the combinations formula and serves as a handy calculator for it. Combinations Calculator (nCr)

 

[xianghua]

-_- is that a weak attempt to mention symbiotic relationships? Or am I giving you too much credit? In any case, no natural organism would physically be like a designed watch, for reasons of muscle attachments and biological material wearing down.

so you are claiming that this kind of watch cant evolve because a technical limitation. but remember again that even according to you scientists cant know how some complex traits in nature evolved. and still they are claiming that they evolved somehow. so again; we dont have any real reason to conclude that a watch cant evolved via evolution (if you believe in evolution of course). also remember that the flagellum is also spinning like a watch. and no one predicted that such a spinning system can be found in nature. so bottom line: if you believe in evolution you have no problem to believe that a watch can evolved naturally.

4. Where did you get 70 DNA base pairs from? Each amino acid is signaled by a codon, which is 3 base pairs. So, with 14 amino acids, that would be 14 codons. 14 codons is 42 DNA base pairs. This is really basic math to anyone that has even a basic understanding of how genes signal the production of proteins.

true. im talking about the sequence space. the sequence space of 42 bp is about 4^42. and for 14 amino acid is about 20^14. i actually refer to another case with about 30 amino acid via convergent. it's comparable to about 70-80 bp from a sequence space perspective.

7. I see no reason why 42/thousands of base pairs coding for the same protein between species with some shared lineage somehow would mean that an entirely new gene thousands of base pairs long could appear in a random genome that is a perfect match to an existing gene in a relatively unrelated species. I mean, even if this was a short gene of only 1000 base pairs, that'd only be a 4.2% match via mutation. That's not even close to the 25% allowable by pure chance alone.

see this paper:

http://www.cell.com/current-biology/fulltext/S0960-9822(09)02073-9?_returnURL=http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0960982209020739?showall=true

The shear number of traits that would have to evolve at an extreme rapid pace alone is enough reason that a rabbit like mammal couldn't exist 500 million years ago according to evolution. By the way, are you forgetting that I am a biology major? Why do you think random ideas you pull out of your butt are more valid than the ones I learned via years of intense study?

remember that we only need about several traits that are unique to mammals. its not so impossible consider the fact that some creatures shared about 20 similar traits by convnergent evolution.

-_- your creationist friends like to flaunt the "impossibility" of specific gene combinations a lot, but consider this: has any lottery been won via the same combination of numbers twice in a row? But hey, I'll just use a rounded down average gene size for humans, 8000 base pairs. Now, I use a combinations calculation to see how likely a specific combination of 4 different possible base pairs can be for 8000 of them. So, that makes for 170538695998000 different possibilities. So, each one has a 1/170538695998000 chance of existing at random. Of course, this average includes genes for tRNA, of which the shortest in humans is just 76 base pairs. Perhaps for those, your argument is valid at 1/1282975, but as for complex proteins that don't exist just to transport amino acids, they are pretty long. Of course, this isn't literally impossible even for the longest genes, it is just so improbable that it might as well be. And that's just for a gene, which on average produce about 3 different proteins each. Do you have any idea how many repeat genes it would take for rabbits to independently evolve twice?

did you forgot about natural selection? if we involve a selection pressure for a specific mutations (like my example above), then this whole calculation is wrong.

 

[PsychoSarah]

so you are claiming that this kind of watch cant evolve because a technical limitation. but remember again that even according to you scientists cant know how some complex traits in nature evolved.

I wouldn't necessarily call teeth shape a "complex trait". But yes, especially in extinct organisms.

and still they are claiming that they evolved somehow.

-_- why wouldn't they have developed through evolution like everything else? Not knowing what purpose a trait served is not the same as not knowing it developed via evolution.

so again; we dont have any real reason to conclude that a watch cant evolved via evolution (if you believe in evolution of course).

-_- we can know physiological limits without seeing literally every possibility that evolution could produce.

also remember that the flagellum is also spinning like a watch.

-_- any watch a person can reasonably use isn't microscopic.

and no one predicted that such a spinning system can be found in nature.

Relevance? Flagella were observed more than 100 years BEFORE evolution was a theory, so said lack of prediction is entirely irrelevant to evolution.

so bottom line: if you believe in evolution you have no problem to believe that a watch can evolved naturally.

-_- I want to write a comprehensive evolution test for you, and see how well or badly you perform on it. Would you take it honestly without looking up answers?

true. im talking about the sequence space. the sequence space of 42 bp is about 4^42. and for 14 amino acid is about 20^14. i actually refer to another case with about 30 amino acid via convergent. it's comparable to about 70-80 bp from a sequence space perspective.

-_- knowing the amino acids in the protein itself doesn't tell you much about the sequence space, such as exons, in the gene, since they don't influence that particular protein product. Hence why you can only confirm the relevant 42 base pairs.

see this paper:

http://www.cell.com/current-biology/fulltext/S0960-9822(09)02073-9?_returnURL=http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0960982209020739?showall=true

http://www.cell.com/current-biology...m/retrieve/pii/S0960982209020739?showall=true
How dumb do you think I am? This is literally the same article as last time, just on a different website and organized more poorly. It even mentions the same 14 amino acids shared in the prestin protein for whales and bats.

remember that we only need about several traits that are unique to mammals. its not so impossible consider the fact that some creatures shared about 20 similar traits by convnergent evolution.

-_- you have no idea how many genes contribute to those traits. It's not a one on one basis. For some traits, thousands of genes contribute. Do you honestly think a reptile is 1 gene away from producing mammary glands or being warm blooded?

did you forgot about natural selection? if we involve a selection pressure for a specific mutations (like my example above), then this whole calculation is wrong.

You can't argue for natural selection in a DISSIMILAR environment of 500 million years ago compared to the 35 million years ago rabbits began to appear.

 

[xianghua]

-_- why wouldn't they have developed through evolution like everything else? Not knowing what purpose a trait served is not the same as not knowing it developed via evolution.

so we can say the same for the watch- why wouldn't it evolved like everything else via evolution?

-_- we can know physiological limits without seeing literally every possibility that evolution could produce.

no we cant. as i said: we cant show how some traits in nature evolved either. so we can always say that we just still dont know how it evolved if we will find such a watch.

-_- I want to write a comprehensive evolution test for you, and see how well or badly you perform on it. Would you take it honestly without looking up answers?

thanks but no thanks. im not here to perform tests. sorry.

How dumb do you think I am? This is literally the same article as last time, just on a different website and organized more poorly. It even mentions the same 14 amino acids shared in the prestin protein for whales and bats.

the paper is talking about the convergent amino acids. here is even more impresive example:

Structure and Organization of Lamprin Genes: Multiple-Copy Genes with Alternative Splicing and Convergent Evolution with Insect Structural Proteins | Molecular Biology and Evolution | Oxford Academic

"Even more striking is a 28/30 amino acid identity shared between oothecin, an eggshell protein of the cockroach, and the tandem repeat sequence of lamprin. While such sequence similarities might suggest descent from a common ancestral protein, there are several difficulties with arguments based on sequence conservation."

so there is no problem to evolve several dozens amino acid by convergent according to evolution.

-_- you have no idea how many genes contribute to those traits. It's not a one on one basis. For some traits, thousands of genes contribute. Do you honestly think a reptile is 1 gene away from producing mammary glands or being warm blooded?

no. but it doesnt matter if we know about examples of dozens shared traits without a common descent.

You can't argue for natural selection in a DISSIMILAR environment of 500 million years ago compared to the 35 million years ago rabbits began to appear.

why not? in similar environment we can find different traits, and similar traits in a different environment too.

 

[PsychoSarah]

so we can say the same for the watch- why wouldn't it evolved like everything else via evolution?




no we cant. as i said: we cant show how some traits in nature evolved either. so we can always say that we just still dont know how it evolved if we will find such a watch.





thanks but no thanks. im not here to perform tests. sorry.





the paper is talking about the convergent amino acids. here is even more impresive example:

Structure and Organization of Lamprin Genes: Multiple-Copy Genes with Alternative Splicing and Convergent Evolution with Insect Structural Proteins | Molecular Biology and Evolution | Oxford Academic

"Even more striking is a 28/30 amino acid identity shared between oothecin, an eggshell protein of the cockroach, and the tandem repeat sequence of lamprin. While such sequence similarities might suggest descent from a common ancestral protein, there are several difficulties with arguments based on sequence conservation."

so there is no problem to evolve several dozens amino acid by convergent according to evolution.





no. but it doesnt matter if we know about examples of dozens shared traits without a common descent.





why not? in similar environment we can find different traits, and similar traits in a different environment too.

Ok, you literally have to show me a gene that isn't ridiculously short arising INDEPENDENTLY in very unrelated species. That is, they can't have shared a similar or identical gene due to shared ancestry that happened to experience a few similar mutations (which is what the dolphin and bat gene was). The ENTIRE gene must arise independently. Not 28/30 amino acids, 30/30 amino acids produced by the EXACT SAME base pair sequence. No redundant sequences that produce identical amino acids allowed. They must have the EXACT SAME exons and occur in analogous locations on the genomes. That is what it means for a gene to independently appear twice. Not similar, not near identical, no. Unless that base pair sequence is exactly the same, my point that identical genes do not arise twice stands. Do you understand me now?

Also, for your 500 million year old rabbit to be valid in evolution, you'd have to demonstrate that genes that arose like this were the norm. That is, you'd have to demonstrate that nearly the same organism with nearly the same genome evolved independently twice. Good luck with finding that.

Similar SINGULAR traits in different environments, but not identical organisms. Convergent evolution that produces two mouse-like organisms involves them arising in very similar environments, not dissimilar ones. You will not get an organism resembling a rabbit 500 million years ago when the conditions were nothing like what produced rabbits 35 million years ago.

A theory without limits or rules to follow is useless. No scientist would accept a theory that allows literally anything, due to how useless it would be in application. You don't learn more about the world by saying "according to this evidence, we have narrowed down the possibilities to literally all of them".

 

[pshun2404]

Ok, you literally have to show me a gene that isn't ridiculously short arising INDEPENDENTLY in very unrelated species. That is, they can't have shared a similar or identical gene due to shared ancestry that happened to experience a few similar mutations (which is what the dolphin and bat gene was). The ENTIRE gene must arise independently. Not 28/30 amino acids, 30/30 amino acids produced by the EXACT SAME base pair sequence. No redundant sequences that produce identical amino acids allowed. They must have the EXACT SAME exons and occur in analogous locations on the genomes. That is what it means for a gene to independently appear twice. Not similar, not near identical, no. Unless that base pair sequence is exactly the same, my point that identical genes do not arise twice stands. Do you understand me now?

Also, for your 500 million year old rabbit to be valid in evolution, you'd have to demonstrate that genes that arose like this were the norm. That is, you'd have to demonstrate that nearly the same organism with nearly the same genome evolved independently twice. Good luck with finding that.

Similar SINGULAR traits in different environments, but not identical organisms. Convergent evolution that produces two mouse-like organisms involves them arising in very similar environments, not dissimilar ones. You will not get an organism resembling a rabbit 500 million years ago when the conditions were nothing like what produced rabbits 35 million years ago.

A theory without limits or rules to follow is useless. No scientist would accept a theory that allows literally anything, due to how useless it would be in application. You don't learn more about the world by saying "according to this evidence, we have narrowed down the possibilities to literally all of them".

"Ok, you literally have to show me a gene that isn't ridiculously short arising INDEPENDENTLY in very unrelated species. That is, they can't have shared a similar or identical gene due to shared ancestry that happened to experience a few similar mutations"

I would say that describes the great majority of orphan genes...(many examples in the 1000 or more uniquely human samples not even remotely found in chimps which are even less likely in allegedly unrelated species)

 

[xianghua]

Not similar, not near identical, no. Unless that base pair sequence is exactly the same, my point that identical genes do not arise twice stands. Do you understand me now?

so you suggest that a near identical gene can evolve twice but an identical gene cant? its seems unlogical. if a "near identical" it's possible then why not an identical?

secondly: i dont need to show it. as i said: i only need to show that it's possible according to evolution to evolve a mammal traits twice in the morhpological level. this will prove that there is no problem for evolution if we will find a 400-500my old mammal fossil. we can claim for convnergent evolution in this case. and indeed, according to evolution several dozens traits can evolve twice. so i dont see any problem for evolution to evolve a mammal twice.

Convergent evolution that produces two mouse-like organisms involves them arising in very similar environments, not dissimilar ones. You will not get an organism resembling a rabbit 500 million years ago when the conditions were nothing like what produced rabbits 35 million years ago.

what was so different in the environment 400-500my ago that cant let evolution to evolve a mammal twice? also remember that both octopus and human shared similar eye structure in a different environment. so if several traits can evolve convergently in a different environment why not dozens of them?

 

[PsychoSarah]

I would say that describes the great majority of orphan genes...(many examples in the 1000 or more uniquely human samples not even remotely found in chimps which are even less likely in allegedly unrelated species)

-_- no, I was specifically talking about genes independently arising in TWO different species. Genes unique to just humans would not qualify. The claim xianghua is making is that he thinks genes can arise identically in relatively unrelated organisms and that if it happened, this would not violate evolutionary principles.

He's not talking about new genes popping up, he's talking about the same exact gene occurring in two species in which that gene has no shared origin. Basically, he thinks that, via mutation, a lineage of fruit flies could end up with genes that were exact matches to the ones in humans which relate to brain development.

The issue is:
1. This does violate evolutionary principles as well as simple statistical probability.
2. All his examples have been with genes that are not entirely identical, and involved organisms with shared ancestry to the degree that the similarity of the genes is reasonable due to shared origin. Basically, none of his examples support his points.
3. I have no idea why he insists upon bringing up items he thinks WON'T disprove evolution. Since he is a creationist, shouldn't he focus on stuff he thinks would disprove evolution? He's been hung up on this idea that evolution cannot be disproven, and I can't fathom why. Does he think that if it could be disproven that it would have been by now? All of his supposed examples of things that "wouldn't disprove evolution" have never been discovered or don't exist, so he has no basis by which to claim that these things wouldn't disprove evolution. There is no watch made of flesh. There are no 500 million year old rabbit fossils (or rabbit-like fossils).

I would consider his idea to be the polar opposite to yours since, as far as I am aware, you don't think genes like that could arise de novo even one time, let alone exactly the same multiple times.

 

[pshun2404]

Yes that is different from my understanding...but at the same time I can totally admit that it is possible that the same gene structurally could arise in entirely unrelated types of organisms but with different function, as well as the possibility that chimps and humans could have the same gene for say the production of a particular protein without that implying they are related (if both creatures require that protein)...but I was not clear on the point you were making so thanks for pointing that out...I misunderstood.

 

[PsychoSarah]

so you suggest that a near identical gene can evolve twice but an identical gene cant? its seems unlogical. if a "near identical" it's possible then why not an identical?

To clarify, I am suggesting that genes with near identical functions can arise independently, at most. If there are a very limited number of base pair sequence combinations that can result in a particularly favorable trait, this can result in very similar genes arising independently. To clarify further, for a gene to arise independently, it cannot be the result of mutation on a pre-existing gene shared by both lineages in question (which is part of why your bat and dolphin example doesn't apply).

secondly: i dont need to show it. as i said: i only need to show that it's possible according to evolution to evolve a mammal traits twice in the morhpological level.

-_- do you not know that echolocation in dolphins and bats is not identical? Do you think the structure of the organs for echolocation are interchangeable? Because they aren't, for crying out loud, it would be physically impossible because dolphins do it underwater and bats do it in air. Sound doesn't travel the same through those mediums (about 4.3 times faster in water than in air), so it requires different structural adaptations to accomplish the same task in water and in the air.

None of your examples have been on the morphological level. Also, how will you "show that it's possible according to evolution" without citing any documentation on evolutionary principles, without any education on the matter, and without having an actual example of the phenomenon occurring?

this will prove that there is no problem for evolution if we will find a 400-500my old mammal fossil.

Out of curiosity, what would you get out of making evolution HARDER to disprove by trying to force it to accommodate situations it doesn't? You aren't an evolution supporter, so it doesn't help you spread your position in the slightest. And if you did support evolution, you wouldn't need to bother doing it, because no such fossils have been discovered. Evolution doesn't need to accommodate that which is purely hypothetical. Anyone that supports evolution wouldn't ever think a rabbit or rabbit like fossil that is 500 million years old would ever be discovered, and thus would feel no need to prepare for such a situation. Heck, the vast majority of people that do support evolution wouldn't be overly concerned if it was disproven thanks to sufficient evidence and would rather keep the theory as it is than try to make it adaptable to every situation, which would make it useless as a learning device.

we can claim for convnergent evolution in this case. and indeed, according to evolution several dozens traits can evolve twice. so i dont see any problem for evolution to evolve a mammal twice.

Because what makes a mammal a mammal isn't just one or two traits controlled by a small number of genes. It's hundreds of them, perhaps even thousands of genes. Additionally when those individual traits do evolve twice, the genes that produce them don't evolve as perfectly identical matches, and it is quite uncommon for the morphology of those traits to be practically identical. Hence why squid eyes and human eyes are not morphologically identical, despite having the same basic function and even very similar outward appearances.

The saddest thing here is, I could argue your own point better than you can. Since I actually know about traits that have independently evolved in entirely different lineages. If you actually knew anything about evolution, you would have used sight organs as your example of "convergent evolution producing morphologically identical structures". You would have mentioned the eyespots on single celled eukaryotes. Because at least then, you'd have structures that are practically identical arising via mutation multiple times. And investigation into eye evolution has been extensively covered, so you'd never be scrambling to find more sources. Of course, the genes which produce these eyespots aren't perfectly identical, eyespots are derived from fewer genes than in sensory organs of multicellular organisms, and once it gets more developed than eyespots, the independent development via evolution is not identical. So it wouldn't cover all your points, but at the very least, you could have made a competent, challenging argument with it. I've even mentioned how many times sight organs have independently evolved and continue to independently evolve in debates with you. You could have utilized my own past arguments against me.

But no, rather than be a challenge to my knowledge, or even manage to have a chance to defeat my position, all you have managed to accomplish is finding the limits of my patience. Get educated so that you are worth debating.

what was so different in the environment 400-500my ago that cant let evolution to evolve a mammal twice?

500 million years ago was roughly the start of the Earth's atmosphere becoming breathable to animals. The very start. Evolution isn't instantaneous, there wouldn't have been terrestrial animals the exact moment the planet was beginning to be hospitable to them. The mutations allowing organisms to live on land would thus take a long time after the fact. Time is a huge factor in evolution, after all. Additionally, mammals appear during one of the highest oxygen levels in our planet's history (no shock, considering that mammals have relatively high metabolisms and thus require larger quantities of oxygen than organisms that aren't warm blooded). This first breathable atmosphere was, at the highest oxygen content, at 18% oxygen (though, it mostly stuck between 10-15% oxygen until the late Triassic period). Mammals developed in an environment that was nearly 30% oxygen.

Most mammals will have extremely impaired energetic activity at 16% oxygen or lower, making, say, running from predators impossible.

Now, I made this particular argument KNOWING it can be beaten. Are you competent enough to actually do it? Do you know the specifics of its weaknesses enough to attempt a specific example to beat it? To provide sources that actually support your position this time?

also remember that both octopus and human shared similar eye structure in a different environment.

XD hahahahahaha, human eyes are not all that similar to that of an octopus. In fact, structurally, our eyes are backwards while the octopus eye is forwards. Also, I am greatly amused that you picked the eye comparison I would have used to actually defeat the eyespot argument that would partly support your position.

so if several traits can evolve convergently in a different environment why not dozens of them?

That's like saying "if I win the lottery once, why can't I win it dozens of times"? How about you actually demonstrate IDENTICAL protein encoding genes arising independently before trying to make me address that compounding unlikely events makes them more unlikely?

 

[xianghua]

To clarify further, for a gene to arise independently, it cannot be the result of mutation on a pre-existing gene shared by both lineages in question (which is part of why your bat and dolphin example doesn't apply).

actually it can. the position of a gene in the genome may have a functional meanning. but i want to be in focus so forget about those genetic examples and lets stay in the morphological level.

Because what makes a mammal a mammal isn't just one or two traits controlled by a small number of genes. It's hundreds of them, perhaps even thousands of genes.

it doenst matter at all. some creatures are very similar and even evolutionists where not sure if those creatures shared this similarity because a common descent or a convergent evolution, like some of the placodonts for example:

Placodont - Wikipedia

That's like saying "if I win the lottery once, why can't I win it dozens of times"?

not at all. i have talked about dozens traits and not just one. so its not the same.

 

[Dirk1540]

I have a few questions for @RickG
Hello, I sincerely have not believed in common descent for a very long time, although I believe evolution is undeniable (the good old micro vs macro thing). I do not wish to CLING to an interpretation of scripture if 'God's world' is telling us otherwise (natural revelation). I don't cling to it, I just have found the arguments for common descent to have holes in it. But I'm no science guy either, I have gone through your post history and I find your explanations of sediment layering to be fascinating! I haven't found the explanation broken down into different examples like in your posts. I have some questions though.

I believe the emphasis of my comment is being misunderstood. As populations of the same species become isolated from one another, they will over time evolve slightly differently, usually due to different environmental influences adaptations...It is quite evident in the geologic record that where abrupt environment changes are seen is where evolution is most noticeably observed.

Yes I have heard the argument many years ago that geographical separation is a key requirement for evolution to kick in. So a problem I always had is that according to everyone's interpretation humans have at the very least spent thousands of years on 7 separate geographical continents, yet every human on Earth can still visit the same physician because they have the same physiological make up?? Can you comment on that?

But to be honest I can't really get a read on your position, do you think we evolved from apes? It's obvious that you believe in simple to complex EVOLUTION of life forms, and you are a Christian, but I haven't seen your position on humans specifically. I'm picking your brain because I liked your strata arguments a lot. And I don't want to be a dogmatic person no matter where the evidence leads me. The typical argument that goes something like "Humans are 99% similar to the chimp"...I have argued in the past that I can sit down and write a 1,000 page book about how humans are not even close to chimps (behavior wise). The way we wreak havoc on nature, the peculiar aspect of a land animal wanting to fly, wanting to even colonize Mars, etc, the list just goes on & on. The fact that if you did a 5,000 year documentary on chimp history (and any non-human history for that matter) it would basically be the same across the board...yet human history is all over the map! Etc Etc.

So, what I have argued in the past sometimes is that IF humans are only 1% different than chimps physiologically, that is actually evidence that physiological similarity must mean absolutely nothing!! Considering how off the charts our behavioral differences are. So would that be your position? That 'Made in God's image' is a reference to self awareness, and that physiological compatibility has zero to do with anything? Hmm, could it perhaps even be God's way of (scientifically) showing us how meaningless physiological make up is??? Food for thought! Should we not LOOK AT THE WORLD as data comes in and adjust accordingly? I still do have major questions about common descent, but like I have said, I would actually find it to be a pretty interesting way for God to reveal to us that physiological compatibility means absolutely squat!

One more question I have for you, I was just wondering why your posts are almost all located in threads with non-Christians, where you receive 'Likes' from non-Christian atheist constantly (which is totally fine), HOWEVER you never tie in your belief in evolution as being compatible with scripture? On the one hand I could see your strategy, you let atheists know that you CAN in fact be a Christian and follow the science!! However, on the other hand, you never seem to point out that connection to any of them. Unless they glance over at your Presbyterian status that you are not an atheist they may as well just assume you are picking Christians apart with them. You never say anything like 'This proves that God can use evolution.' Another problem with simply having a Presbyterian status to glance at is that there are certainly a fair share of liberal Christians out there with non-supernatural Bible beliefs, seeing 'Presbyterian' could possibly mean nothing to an atheist, especially one with a super liberal 'Christian' friend. Just wondering. You have me seriously questioning theistic evolution with your geology points.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I have a few questions for @RickG
Hello, I sincerely have not believed in common descent for a very long time, although I believe evolution is undeniable (the good old micro vs macro thing). I do not wish to CLING to an interpretation of scripture if 'God's world' is telling us otherwise (natural revelation). I don't cling to it, I just have found the arguments for common descent to have holes in it. But I'm no science guy either, I have gone through your post history and I find your explanations of sediment layering to be fascinating! I haven't found the explanation broken down into different examples like in your posts. I have some questions though.

RickG has not posted here for over a month so you might be waiting a while for an answer from him. So I hope you don't mind if I try to answer some of your questions. I wonder what "holes" that you have found in the theory of evolution. Odds are that they are not hole but simply misunderstandings on your part.

Yes I have heard the argument many years ago that geographical separation is a key requirement for evolution to kick in. So a problem I always had is that according to everyone's interpretation humans have at the very least spent thousands of years on 7 separate geographical continents, yet every human on Earth can still visit the same physician because they have the same physiological make up?? Can you comment on that?

Evolution can be a slow and steady process. In the history of the Earth the 12 or 14 thousand of years of separation are nothing. Yes, some evolution events can occur quickly, but that is usually due to an event that puts a heavy stress on a population.

But to be honest I can't really get a read on your position, do you think we evolved from apes? It's obvious that you believe in simple to complex EVOLUTION of life forms, and you are a Christian, but I haven't seen your position on humans specifically. I'm picking your brain because I liked your strata arguments a lot. And I don't want to be a dogmatic person no matter where the evidence leads me. The typical argument that goes something like "Humans are 99% similar to the chimp"...I have argued in the past that I can sit down and write a 1,000 page book about how humans are not even close to chimps (behavior wise). The way we wreak havoc on nature, the peculiar aspect of a land animal wanting to fly, wanting to even colonize Mars, etc, the list just goes on & on. The fact that if you did a 5,000 year documentary on chimp history (and any non-human history for that matter) it would basically be the same across the board...yet human history is all over the map! Etc Etc.

Yes we have many similarities too. Behavior is not as genetic as you seem to think that it is. By the way, humans still are apes. There is no "change of kind" in evolution. That is a creationist error. Our classification system still has some remnants of creationist thought patterns.

So, what I have argued in the past sometimes is that IF humans are only 1% different than chimps physiologically, that is actually evidence that physiological similarity must mean absolutely nothing!! Considering how off the charts our behavioral differences are. So would that be your position? That 'Made in God's image' is a reference to self awareness, and that physiological compatibility has zero to do with anything? Hmm, could it perhaps even be God's way of (scientifically) showing us how meaningless physiological make up is??? Food for thought! Should we not LOOK AT THE WORLD as data comes in and adjust accordingly? I still do have major questions about common descent, but like I have said, I would actually find it to be a pretty interesting way for God to reveal to us that physiological compatibility means absolutely squat!

You might want to ask an expert on behavioral evolution to get answers to these questions. I am not going to try.

Evolution of Behavior

One more question I have for you, I was just wondering why your posts are almost all located in threads with non-Christians, where you receive 'Likes' from non-Christian atheist constantly (which is totally fine), HOWEVER you never tie in your belief in evolution as being compatible with scripture? On the one hand I could see your strategy, you let atheists know that you CAN in fact be a Christian and follow the science!! However, on the other hand, you never seem to point out that connection to any of them. Unless they glance over at your Presbyterian status that you are not an atheist they may as well just assume you are picking Christians apart with them. You never say anything like 'This proves that God can use evolution.' Another problem with simply having a Presbyterian status to glance at is that there are certainly a fair share of liberal Christians out there with non-supernatural Bible beliefs, seeing 'Presbyterian' could possibly mean nothing to an atheist, especially one with a super liberal 'Christian' friend. Just wondering. You have me seriously questioning theistic evolution with your geology points.

The problem is that at this site a disproportionate number of Christian posters are also creationists. Since Rick accepts reality the creationists will not like his posts. One can be a Christian and work in the sciences. The are countless Christians that accept the theory of evolution. In fact you may have heard of Mary Schweitzer. She is the geologist that first discovered "soft tissues" in dinosaur bones. And she is a devout Christian. She also accepts the fact that life is the product of evolution and gets rather irate at creationists that abuse her work. Another famous Christian and scientist is Kenneth Miller, professor of biology and one of the scientists that testified against the ID side at the Dover trial.

There are a handful of scientists that oppose the theory of evolution, but they cannot oppose it using proper science. The evidence is their worst enemy. When they have to use proper scientific methods to defend their beliefs they always end up looking foolish.

 

[Job 33:6]

@Dirk1540

As others seem to be indicating, evolution takes a long time. Major changes such as fish to amphibian, or amphibian to reptile...these changes can take some 50-100+ million years.

Regarding history of mankind, we have what...maybe 10,000 years of written or artist thistory? So while molecular changes may be identified between people of different continents, we would not likely see a human becoming something else (like another genus of being) in such a brief amount of time.

People mention geologic drivers expediting evolution, but even these expedited forms of evolution occur over millions of years.

The reconciliation between science and religion comes when you simultaneously understand that God is creator of the heavens and earth (and mankind), while also understanding that biological evolution is the way in which we have come to be.

 

[Dirk1540]

Oh ok thanks a lot. As strange as it sounds I never even thought to look into who might be the more respected theistic evolutionists, thanks for dropping those names I'll check them out. I can't say however that I'm new to the debate about what genre early Genesis was, or which types of story telling patterns ancient cultures practiced back then. I actually dropped the ball I meant to post this in the Christians only section, just because talking about Genesis might be considered thread stealing or off topic for the title, but I know Christians wouldn't care lol. Even the best Hebrew experts admit that the bar of confusion gets raised when they enter the pre-Abraham sections of Genesis, an extremely abridged update of the universe, the early chapters also contain linguistic differences from post Tower of Babel Genesis. Not to mention Adam is told to RE-populate the world. God only knows what the source material consisted of for early Genesis (no pun intended lol).

Anyway I realize that some types of arguments are weak, like an argument from silence. Or another weak argument is trying to use a blatantly bone headed move as PROOF against itself...like the guy who tries to claim that him leaving the murder weapon in his car, is actually proof that he is innocent/framed because he'd never be that stupid. But there are certain instances where these arguments can be stronger than they seem IMO. For instance I find the 'Argument of silence' quite compelling actually that not a single verse in the New Testament ever mentions the fall of Jerusalem or the destruction of the temple (as far as the early authorship argument goes). Likewise, the blatant bone headed 'Scientific' contradictions between Genesis 1 and Genesis 2...I have for a long time truly believed that the contradiction is SO stupid, that it's actually proof that something else has to be going on than scientific explanation, that the original audience could not possibly be that blind. I genuinely have been rejecting common descent for so long because of non-Biblical reasons, but Biblically I wasn't sure what to make of early Genesis for quite awhile. I mean we're not comparing 2 Corinthians with Ezekiel here, Genesis chapter 2 is directly after Genesis chapter 1 lol.

 

[AV1611VET]

I mean we're not comparing 2 Corinthians with Ezekiel here, Genesis chapter 2 is directly after Genesis chapter 1 lol.

Genesis 1 is a framework story that Genesis 2 completes.

 

[tas8831]

More for Sarah...Though posted in another thread I believe its relevance merits re-posting it here in OUR Lucy discussion. Please note this is not ME...

Stern and Susman in The American Journal of Physical Anthropology, Vol. 60, Issue 3, March 1983 when having examined Australopithicus fossils remarked: “It is demonstrated that A. afarensis (Lucy) possessed anatomic characteristics that indicate a significant adaptation for movement in the trees” (pg. 280). They went on to comment that “The AL 333-91 [designation for a specific A. afarensis fossil—BH/BT] pisiform [bone of the hand—BH/BT] is ‘elongate and rod shaped’ and thus resembles the long, projecting pisiform of apes and monkeys”.

They said “the hands and feet of A. afarensis are devoid of the normal human qualities” assigned to hands and feet. These creatures had long, curved fingers and toes typical of arboreal primates. Now please note that in reading through the following descriptions, bear in mind that the zoo in St. Louis, Missouri, proudly displays a life-size reconstruction of Lucy with perfectly formed human hands and feet. (What an evil deception…lying in the name of truth….sounds Geobbels to me]

A bit further on they tell us “The overall morphology of metacarpals II-V [bones that comprise the hand—BH/BT] is similar to that of chimpanzees and, therefore, might be interpreted as evidence of developed grasping capabilities to be used in suspensory behavior (pg. 283)”.

Moving on they say, “The markedly curved proximal phalanges [bones of the fingers—BH/BT] indicate adaptation for suspensory and climbing activities which require powerful grasping abilities.... The trapezium [bone at the base of the first digit—BH/BT] and first metacarpal are very chimpanzee-like in relative size and shape.... Enlarged metacarpal heads and the mildly curved, parallel-sided shafts are two such features of the Hadar metacarpals not seen in human fingers. The distal phalanges, too, retain ape-like features in A. afarensis.... (pg. 284).”

In their concluding remarks, Stern and Susman tell us, “We discovered a substantial body of evidence indicating that arboreal activities were so important to A. afarensis that morphologic adaptations permitting adept movement in the trees were maintained.. When I started to put the skeleton together, I expected it to look human. Everyone had talked about Lucy as being very modern, very human, so I was surprised by what I saw. I noticed that the ribs were more round in cross-section, more like what you see in apes. Human ribs are flatter in cross-section. But the shape of the rib cage itself was the biggest surprise of all. The human rib cage is barrel shaped, and I just couldn’t get Lucy’s ribs to fit this kind of shape. But I could get them to make a conical-shaped rib cage, like what you see in apes. (pg. 313 on)”

So weird that your in-depth analysis of that paper failed to discover this from the very same paper:

The postcranial skeleton of Australopithecus afarensis from the Hadar Formation, Ethiopia, and the footprints from the Laetoli Beds of northern Tanzania, are analyzed with the goal of determining (1) the extent to which this ancient hominid practiced forms of locomotion other than terrestrial bipedality, and (2) whether or not the terrestrial bipedalism of A. afarensis was notably different from that of modern humans. It is demonstrated that A. afarensis possessed anatomic characteristics that indicate a significant adaptation for movement in the trees. Other structural features point to a mode of terrestrial bipedality that involved less extension at the hip and knee than occurs in modern humans, and only limited transfer of weight onto the medial part of the ball of the foot, but such conclusions remain more tentative than that asserting substantive arboreality. A comparison of the specimens representing smaller individuals, presumably female, to those of larger individuals, presumably male, suggests sexual differences in locomotor behavior linked to marked size dimorphism. The males were probably less arboreal and engaged more frequently in terrestrial bipedalism. In our opinion, A. afarensis from Hadar is very close to what can be called a "missing link." We speculate that earlier representatives of the A. afarensis lineage will present not a combination of arboreal and bipedal traits, but rather the anatomy of a generalized ape.​

Man - that was in the ABSTRACT!

 

[mark kennedy]

So weird that your in-depth analysis of that paper failed to discover this from the very same paper:

The postcranial skeleton of Australopithecus afarensis from the Hadar Formation, Ethiopia, and the footprints from the Laetoli Beds of northern Tanzania, are analyzed with the goal of determining (1) the extent to which this ancient hominid practiced forms of locomotion other than terrestrial bipedality, and (2) whether or not the terrestrial bipedalism of A. afarensis was notably different from that of modern humans. It is demonstrated that A. afarensis possessed anatomic characteristics that indicate a significant adaptation for movement in the trees. Other structural features point to a mode of terrestrial bipedality that involved less extension at the hip and knee than occurs in modern humans, and only limited transfer of weight onto the medial part of the ball of the foot, but such conclusions remain more tentative than that asserting substantive arboreality. A comparison of the specimens representing smaller individuals, presumably female, to those of larger individuals, presumably male, suggests sexual differences in locomotor behavior linked to marked size dimorphism. The males were probably less arboreal and engaged more frequently in terrestrial bipedalism. In our opinion, A. afarensis from Hadar is very close to what can be called a "missing link." We speculate that earlier representatives of the A. afarensis lineage will present not a combination of arboreal and bipedal traits, but rather the anatomy of a generalized ape.​

Man - that was in the ABSTRACT!

Yea the Laetoli footprints certainly indicate a bipedal gait. As does the endocast from the Taung child. The only problem is it's two million years ago and the cranial capacity is still near 3 times smaller. Throw in some tools and some mix and match the specimens and you have everything but the accelerated evolution of the human brain from that of apes. A million year previously there is only Paranthrapos, which cannot be mistaken for a hominid so the split between gorrils and chimpanzee is identifiable.

 

[PsychoSarah]

why not? we can claim that it help to some human to tell the time or something.

-_- humans don't need biological watches to tell time. Even in ancient times, we could do that through movements of the sun, stars, etc. There are no natural selection pressures for this.

its make my argument even stronger. because if we will find such a watch we can claim that we still dont know how it evolve.

Quote mines will do that very easily, I am sure. "It'd be ridiculous to assume that evolution could explain every trait in all organisms past and present" sounds pretty critical of evolution when it is outside the context of my post. The statement followed me mentioning ancient organisms which have traits so alien to us that we can't tell what they are at all. You can't infer what those structures are or how they evolved if one cannot get any hints at possible functions. That is, I was saying that evolutionary theory can't 100% tell what the organisms of the past were, especially ones with lineages that died out long before modern times. If we could actually observe those organisms alive, it'd be a different story.

we can take a specific case from this case (as far as i aware about). as far as i know the gene prestin got a convergent in about 14 amino acid between a whale and some species of bats. it's comparable to about 70 DNA bases in the genetic level from a chance prespective (20^14). so if a part of a gene can get about 70 bases by convergent evolution there is no problem to get even an entire gene.

That's not a logical conclusion to make. That's like saying that, since it is likely for a random number with 3 digits to be produced more than once with a random number generator over the course of a week, I should consider it just as reasonable for it to produce identical numbers with over 1000 digits twice within a week. The longer the sequence, the less probable it is for it to occur at random. Who in their right mind would think that a sequence of 70 base pairs appearing twice is equally probable to about 8000 appearing twice? How do you think math works?

again: what is the problem actually? we only need to explain how a mammal traits evolved twice to explain such a fossil. if it evolved once it canevolve twice. unless you can show me a calculation that show it to be impossible.

I have explained probability to you so many times, I've run out of ways to do it. That you can't understand the difference between the probability of 70 base pairs occurring as a result of convergent evolution versus 8000 base pairs (the average length for a mammalian gene, near as I can find) is on you.