Does evolution have a chance?

[Micaiah]

How many papers on the topic of convergence have you reviewed?

 

[Jet Black]

I fail to see the relevance of your line of questioning. As Karl said, you are basically asking us to prove a negative.

 

[Micaiah]

I was trying to gauge the credibility of the statements made by you and Karl. Both claimed unconditionally that there were none. The claim has little credibility. I will continue to research the topic.

Let's suppose I find that such a case exists, and the calcualtion is a reasonable estimate. Would you agree it is a strong argument against evolution.

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

Okay, so we agree that no one has checked out all genes of all animals exhibiting convergence and demonstrated that all are accounted for by basal genes.

Are you and Jet Black saying that of all studies conducted to date, none have been found to exhibit this, or are you saying that you are not aware of any?

You don't seem to be getting the problem with your argument here.

I could think of a list of potential problems for evolution:

1) The existence of winged horses
2) Feathered fish
3) Lineages where the same identical gene has evolved independently.

What these three have in common is that they have not been observed.

What I don't understand is why you're banging on about what a problem 3) would be, when it's totally hypothetical - such a case has not been observed. Why not, for a change, lecture us on why evolution must be false if winged horses exist? I mean, I've never seen one, but by your reasoning I need to be able to prove they don't exist, don't I?

Or for a real change, why not suggest that atomic theory has fundamental problems because of stable elements with nine electrons in their outer shell? Just because we don't know of any such element shouldn't be a problem, should it?

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

I was trying to gauge the credibility of the statements made by you and Karl. Both claimed unconditionally that there were none. The claim has little credibility. I will continue to research the topic.

Let's suppose I find that such a case exists, and the calcualtion is a reasonable estimate. Would you agree it is a strong argument against evolution.

It would be a very serious problem for evolution. That such cases have not been found is therefore corroborating evidence that evolution is true.

Why not write to the ICR? The search for such an evolution-falsifying observation ought to be exactly what an institute for Creation Research should be about.

Interestingly, there is one place we do see the same gene in seperate lineages. Bacteria that are subject to lateral gene transfer. Odd that, eh? This phenomenon is seen in exactly the organisms evolution expects to see it in.

 

[Tomk80]

Okay, so we agree that no one has checked out all genes of all animals exhibiting convergence and demonstrated that all are accounted for by basal genes.

Are you and Jet Black saying that of all studies conducted to date, none have been found to exhibit this, or are you saying that you are not aware of any?

I know of no such cases. In all cases where convergent evolution has taken place that I know of, it has taken a completely different pathway in different organisms.

Eyes in mammals, insects and octopusses have a very differnt structure.
Wings in birds, bats and pteranodons all have wings, but all of them are structurally different.
Echolocation in different animals is arrived at in different ways.
Streamline in dolphins, sharks, penguins and ichthyosaurs is all similar, but arrived at through different structures.

In all of the above, the morphology is different. Since morphology is derived from genotype, we have no reason to assume that the genotype in these animals will somehow, miraculously, be the same.

I have looked into a bit of the similarity of a number of proteins in mice and man. In the case of similar proteins, the proteins mostly (unless highly conserved) have undergone some mutations since their split from a most recent common ancestor, so they are not the same. In these cases, the different proteins always derive from a more basal protein that this common ancestor had, and the patterns fit perfectly into what we would expect if evolution were happening.

So no, I know of no research that ever confirmed a case like the one you want to present and base your calculations on. I also have never seen such a case presented by creationists (which I'm sure they would have, because that would be, at the least, truly astounding and would make a very nice story to spin for the LCW). If you, or Spetner or any other creationist or maybe a biologist or anyone else (I really don't care who) knows of such a case, I'll be very happy if you would like to present it in detail. Untill you do, I have nor reason to think such a case exists, nor do I have any reason to think your calculations are anything more than bogus.

 

[notto]

I could think of a list of potential problems for evolution:

1) The existence of winged horses
2) Feathered fish
3) Lineages where the same identical gene has evolved independently.

4) Fire breathing giraffes.

 

[Tomk80]

Has Tomk80 worked out how to do probaility yet? Take two dice. The chance of throwing a 6 AND a 3 is 1/6 x 1/6.

The probabality of of throwing a 6 OR a 3 is 1/6+1/6.

If my memory serves me okay the rule is stated as follows:

For two independent events A and B, the probabaility of event A AND event B is:

P(A and B) = P(A) x P(B)

The probabilty of an event A OR an event B is:

P(A or B)= P(A) + P(B)

As pointed out by Ebia, the above is not correct. Furthermore, it seems that you apparantly haven't grasped the analogy I was making. Please read my post again and show that you understand it. If you're so good at both math and biology, than surely that should be no problem to you.[/sarcasm]

 

[Jet Black]

I was trying to gauge the credibility of the statements made by you and Karl. Both claimed unconditionally that there were none. The claim has little credibility

strange that you question my credibility but you continue to support spetner, even though his one example turned out to be wrong.

 

[Tomk80]

4) Fire breathing giraffes.

Although that would be awesome!

 

[Micaiah]

Well I don't really have a lot more to discuss in this thread. I'd like to do a bit more reading on convergence, and maybe discuss further specific examples in other threads. Thanks for the thought provoking discussion.

 

[mark kennedy]

Wait a minute, what would inbreeding have to do with any of this?

Not much really, I'm not really sure what I was responding to here, sorry.

We're geologically isolated? We're separated by rocks? And yet that doesn't prevent in-breeding?

Human beings have encountered every kind of a geologic isolation and yet do not speciate. The Bonobos were seperated by, I believe it was the Congo River Valley, they speciated but we never do.

If you're really concerned about the bottleneck effect, then Adam and Noah must present two very serious problems for you. But if you want an example of an adaptive trait following limited gene flow, (and I know you really don't want one) take a look at the CCR5-delta 32 mutation. About 10% of whites of European origin now carry it. But the incidence is only 2% in central Asia, and is completely absent among East Asians, Africans, and American Indians. It appears to have suddenly become relatively common among white Europeans about 700 years ago, evidently as a result of the Black Plague, indicating another example of natural selection allowing one gene dominance in a changing environment. It is harmless (or neutral) in every respect other than its one clearly beneficial feature; if one inherits this gene from both parents, they will be especially resistant (if not immune) to AIDS.

It's been a while since I looked this one up but the improved resistance gives them a 10% longer survival rate. It only effects those who have the original strain of AIDs and it's not bringing about a adaptive trait. It seems a little odd that the Europeans would be the sole carriers of this mutation since the Black Plauge started in Asia. Now, I have no idea what kind of a problem Adam and Noah are supposed to create for me so I'm not sure what kind of a response your looking for here.

It can't be done. You can change your future, but you can't change your past, and you certainly can't change your ancestry.

That's right, Adam and Noah are your ancestors, not some bipedal ape.

Every time I ask you this, you change the subject. How much does an ape have to change for it to still be an ape?

The brain must triple in size weight and density. There would be some 35 million SNPs and 5 million indels averaging 300 bps and some being much larger. 83% of the protein coding genes would have to be altered at an amino acid sequence level. The most signifigant change would be in the Cerbral Cortex, primary visual cortex, frontal lobes in order for an ape to become human.

You're still a mammal, right? I mean, why do you accept that you are a mammal, if we had to change so much more to have evolved from them? How many nucleotides had to change for that to happen, Mark? Because we exactly no more different from "mammals" than we are from monkeys or even Eukaryotes. And look how far we had to evolve from them! And yet we're still Eukaryotes too! Can you evolve from any of these groups without still being one of them? Is it possible to change that much?
Yet look what a 0.0000103% change per generation would accomplish after closer to ten million years at an average of only 14 or 15 years per generation.

That is 6.6 nucleotides substituted per year for 6 million years. That's 3.5 rearrangements per year for the same period, this just does not happen in nature.

Yes it does, Mark. And this could be easily demonstrated for you, if you dare look at reality. Name any two examples of animal lineages you like, and we'll explore that, shall we?

Ape and human.

You don't have to accept it. In fact, faith literally means not accepting anything you don't want to believe, no matter if its true or not. And that is your positon. But if you were to challenge it, (as you keep refusing to do) then you would quickly see that it is a self-evident -even demonstrable fact. That's why you had to dodge all my direct questions when this came up in our private debate.

Faith is the substance of things believed and the evidence of things hoped for. Faith in the New Testament as it is in the Old Testament is based on the faithfullness of the object of faith, God himself.

Now I am well aware of the debate you abandoned which was laced with all sorts of personal jabs that I found amusing but not very signifigant. I have since studied the genetic basis of human evolution. Why don't you check the Quiet Thread Post on the Evolution of the Human Brain. I know your not really into genetics but you might find it interesting.

Have a nice day,
Mark

http://www.christianforums.com/t1155768-the-quiet-thread.html&page=4

 

[Loudmouth]

Human beings have encountered every kind of a geologic isolation and yet do not speciate. The Bonobos were seperated by, I believe it was the Congo River Valley, they speciated but we never do.

How long were the Bonobos isolated? How long have humans been geographically isolated at any time in history? I think you will see a difference in the numbers.

That's right, Adam and Noah are your ancestors, not some bipedal ape.

The brain must triple in size weight and density. There would be some 35 million SNPs and 5 million indels averaging 300 bps and some being much larger. 83% of the protein coding genes would have to be altered at an amino acid sequence level. The most signifigant change would be in the Cerbral Cortex, primary visual cortex, frontal lobes in order for an ape to become human.

Which genes are responsible for these changes?

That is 6.6 nucleotides substituted per year for 6 million years. That's 3.5 rearrangements per year for the same period, this just does not happen in nature.

There are 150 nucleotides substituted per individual. It does happen in nature.

 

[Aron-Ra]

Human beings have encountered every kind of a geologic isolation and yet do not speciate.

Not so. So far in "human" history, there have been at least two speciation events just in the last quarter million years. And when you consider that we have one of the longest reproductive cycles, (from birth to fertility) that's something to consider, especially since most human cultures can't claim to have been isolated for even a few hundred generations, much less the magnitude required for speciation in our case.

The Bonobos were seperated by, I believe it was the Congo River Valley, they speciated but we never do.

Its funny what a difference bridges, boats, and an mood to explore will do for you.

It's been a while since I looked this one up but the improved resistance gives them a 10% longer survival rate.

The article I read indicated that a double-copy would likely result in immunity, not just higher resistance.

It only effects those who have the original strain of AIDs and it's not bringing about a adaptive trait.

Its not supposed to. Its a carry-over of a trait that was already selected centuries ago.

It seems a little odd that the Europeans would be the sole carriers of this mutation since the Black Plauge started in Asia.

Not really. The crowded cities and commerce of Europe provided a fertile ground for this infestation, which could travel westward much easier than it could head east.

If you're really concerned about the bottleneck effect, then Adam and Noah must present two very serious problems for you.

Now, I have no idea what kind of a problem Adam and Noah are supposed to create for me so I'm not sure what kind of a response your looking for here.

Then you don't really understand -or care about- genetic bottlenecks.

You can change your future, but you can't change your past, and you certainly can't change your ancestry.

That's right, Adam and Noah are your ancestors, not some bipedal ape.

If either man ever really existed, (and neither man did) then they would both be bipedal apes, just as you and I are right now.

The brain must triple in size weight and density. There would be some 35 million SNPs and 5 million indels averaging 300 bps and some being much larger. 83% of the protein coding genes would have to be altered at an amino acid sequence level. The most signifigant change would be in the Cerbral Cortex, primary visual cortex, frontal lobes in order for an ape to become human.

Which ape are you talking about? Where is your imagined division? Because for all your posturing, it seems the men who really know this stuff better than you or I, keep finding more and more evidence of exactly this sort of development.

"Duke University researchers say they've discovered the first brain regulatory gene that shows clear evidence of evolution from lower primates to humans."
--Physorg.com -today- December 12th 2005

That is 6.6 nucleotides substituted per year for 6 million years. That's 3.5 rearrangements per year for the same period, this just does not happen in nature.

As I'm no geneticist, and this figure was already refuted earlier in this thread, then I'll leave this alone. Besides, when I present the conclusions of actual geneticists, you still dismiss them without consideration, -even when it comes from Christians.

Don't you remember professor Buettner's response to your article on Two Dogs/Wolves on Noah's Ark?

"I don't follow this supposed "math proof" at all. There is a huge problem with this argument. He states (in the longer article): "As Dr Lee Spetner has pointed out in his book (above, right) and refutations of sceptics, no one has yet found a mutation that adds new complex coded heritable information to any organism." This is absolutely false, or just very misleading. Completion of genome projects, including yeast, fruit flies, and man, has shown that genomes have duplicated many times from yeast to man, thus providing the required addition of new complex coded heritable information. The duplicated genes then mutate slightly to take on novel roles and produce novel proteins and phenotypes not seen before.

The other HUGE fallacy is that a lizard would "turn into" a bird, via evolution. Evolution NEVER suggests this direct descendancy at all. Rather, both modern birds and modern lizards share a common ancestor, some kind of birdy-lizard or lizardy-bird (Pterodactyl-ish, maybe?) Then the line split, with each group accumulating different mutations to a common set of genes, which would then define the different structures that you see today.

So, even though I can't follow his mathematical proof, these two BASIC misunderstandings show me that he is not knowledgeable enough to continue this argument."
--Jill Buettner, genetics and cellular biology, Richland College, Dallas TX

mark kennedy[/b]]Never mind that this never happens in nature,

Yes it does, Mark. And this could be easily demonstrated for you, if you dare look at reality. Name any two examples of animal lineages you like, and we'll explore that, shall we?

Ape and human.

I asked for two animal lineages. This is only one!

[Pardon me, Jet Black, let me borrow your sig for a moment so I can explain this to Mark again, as if I haven't eight times already.]

"If you have a spine, four limbs, an ear with three bones and a jaw with one, fur, your females lactate and give birth to live young, warm blood, flexible fingers, forward facing eyes, general body plan, general dentition, trichromatic vision, fingernails, opposable thumb, no tail, larger than average brain cavity, then you are an ape. If you have a chin, your foramen magnum enters towards the front of the skull, a large Broca's Region, and are suited to bipedality, then you are also a Human."

Faith is the substance of things believed and the evidence of things hoped for. Faith in the New Testament as it is in the Old Testament is based on the faithfullness of the object of faith, God himself.

Faith is a tool of deception and nothing more.

Now I am well aware of the debate you abandoned which was laced with all sorts of personal jabs that I found amusing but not very signifigant.

I don't know that one. I'm talking about the one you lost by the terms you agreed to, and even admitted at that time, only to recant later and pretend you won.

I have since studied the genetic basis of human evolution. Why don't you check the Quiet Thread Post on the Evolution of the Human Brain. I know your not really into genetics but you might find it interesting.

Since you're much more interested in genetics than I, why don't you account for professor Buettner's other comments to you regarding her experience as a professional geneticist with the human genome project?

"The evidence of taxonomic relationships is overwhelming when you look at the comparisons between the genomic (DNA) sequences of both closely-related and even distantly-related species. The DNA of yeast and humans shares over 30% homology with regard to gene sequences. Comparison of the human and mouse genome shows that only 1% of the genes in either genome fails to have an orthologue ithe other genome. Comparison of non-gene sequences, on the other hand, shows a huge amount of divergence. This type of homology can be explained only from descent from a common ancestor. The probability of these things being a coincidence, which I guess would be the argument of creationism and intelligent design, is statistically so small as to be negligible."

"By the way, I am Christian and I CAN accept that Noah's Ark was a folk tale told by mouth until it was written down around Moses' time - it is not a first-hand account! Only literal Bible readers get bogged down trying to prove that the Creation story, Adam and Eve, and Noah's Ark are absolute fact (which is, in the end, futile)."
--Jill Buettner

 

[Jet Black]

The brain must triple in size weight and density.

what a silly claim for you to make; that's mathematically impossible.

It seems now like you really are being blinded by your preconceptions and your mind is not open at all. and as loudmouth points out, you really need to start pointing out the actual genes that cause these things, because the genes responsible for this change in brain size could actually be relatively few in number.

 

[mark kennedy]

what a silly claim for you to make; that's mathematically impossible.

Yes, I know it is a silly claim and an impossibility but none the less this is exactly what would have had to happen for us to have a common ancestor with the chimpanzee.

It seems now like you really are being blinded by your preconceptions and your mind is not open at all. and as loudmouth points out, you really need to start pointing out the actual genes that cause these things, because the genes responsible for this change in brain size could actually be relatively few in number.

"The size of human brain tripled over a period of 2 million years (MY) that ended 0.2–0.4 MY ago. This evolutionary expansion is believed to be important to the emergence of human language and other high-order cognitive functions, yet its genetic basis remains unknown. An evolutionary analysis of genes controlling brain development may shed light on it. ASPM (abnormal spindle-like microcephaly associated) is one of such genes, as nonsense mutations lead to primary microcephaly, a human disease characterized by a 70% reduction in brain size."

Evolution of the Human ASPM Gene, a Major Determinant of Brain Size

Here is the The dN/dS ratios for the entire ASPM coding sequence in the human, chimpanzee, and orangutan lineages. The values were estimated from a likelihood analysis.

http://www.genetics.org/content/vol165/issue4/images/large/GEN9778.f2.jpeg

Jianzhi Zhang tried to determine if positive selection of amino acid substitutions that left the reading frame open are detectable in the ASPM gene. He instead found strong purifying selection and concluded that the postive selection of the ASPM gene took place time between 6–7 and 0.1 MY ago (0.5 x 10,000 generations x 20 years/generation). Researchers have determined that the gene is still evolving but I wonder how a congenital developmental defect characterized by severely reduced brain size could be an advantage.

That's just one gene and rest assured there are more then a few others.

Have a nice day
Mark

 

[mark kennedy]

There are 150 nucleotides substituted per individual. It does happen in nature.

The are not substituted, fixed or resulting in adaptive traits with a selective advantage. What they are, are transcript errors that are resulting in SNPs and indels that either do nothing at all or create genetic defects.

Human DNA diverges by 1/10 of one percent and in those differences they have found over a million SNPs. Guess what these mutations result in because it isn't evolution?

Have a nice day
Mark

 

[mark kennedy]

Not so. So far in "human" history, there have been at least two speciation events just in the last quarter million years. And when you consider that we have one of the longest reproductive cycles, (from birth to fertility) that's something to consider, especially since most human cultures can't claim to have been isolated for even a few hundred generations, much less the magnitude required for speciation in our case.

I'm short on time Aron-Ra and while I enjoy reading you posts I sometimes miss your point. We are in every ecological niche in the world, bar none. All it takes for many mammals to speciate is to be seperated by a river or a mountain range. I don't know what you think happened a quarter of a million years ago but humans do not speciate.

The article I read indicated that a double-copy would likely result in immunity, not just higher resistance.

The paper I read some months ago indicated that it resulted in a defective receptor that made it difficult, if not impossible for the virus to attach to the T-Cell. Like the ASPM gene producing a defective spindle resulting in a smaller brain, this is a change in alleles over time but not adaptive evolution. There is no selective advantage from a defective receptor or a malformed spindle.

Its not supposed to. Its a carry-over of a trait that was already selected centuries ago.

So you move it further back in time and its supposed to become more viable. It still has to be an inheritable trait with a selective advantage.

Then you don't really understand -or care about- genetic bottlenecks.

It's the most common result of geologic isolation and one way random changes can become fixed in the genome. But lets move on...

[quoteIf either man ever really existed, (and neither man did) then they would both be bipedal apes, just as you and I are right now. [/quote]

Not unless they were tree dwelling, knuckle draging apes with a brain the size of a grapefruit.

Which ape are you talking about? Where is your imagined division? Because for all your posturing, it seems the men who really know this stuff better than you or I, keep finding more and more evidence of exactly this sort of development.

Homo Habilis and the Cerebral Rubicon was what I had in mind. If you decide to pursue this I can elaborate a little, Oh, by the way, does L. Leaky ring any bells? He is named at the top of a paper dated 1962 and I was wondering if you knew what his first name was.

"Duke University researchers say they've discovered the first brain regulatory gene that shows clear evidence of evolution from lower primates to humans."
--Physorg.com -today- December 12th 2005

I'll get back to you on this article, thanks though, I really enjoy a good story.

As I'm no geneticist, and this figure was already refuted earlier in this thread, then I'll leave this alone. Besides, when I present the conclusions of actual geneticists, you still dismiss them without consideration, -even when it comes from Christians.

You do the math Aron-Ra, there are 35 million nucleotide substitutions, five million indels and they had to be fixed genome wide in 6 million years ago. This point has never been refuted or even substantivly addressed.

Don't you remember professor Buettner's response to your article on Two Dogs/Wolves on Noah's Ark?

Yes I remember and the point of the article and link was that recombinations are adequete to explain the divergance of canines. That was my only point and the fact that it was a lengthy quote in the debate was poor editing on my part, nothing more.

"I don't follow this supposed "math proof" at all. There is a huge problem with this argument. He states (in the longer article): "As Dr Lee Spetner has pointed out in his book (above, right) and refutations of sceptics, no one has yet found a mutation that adds new complex coded heritable information to any organism." This is absolutely false, or just very misleading. Completion of genome projects, including yeast, fruit flies, and man, has shown that genomes have duplicated many times from yeast to man, thus providing the required addition of new complex coded heritable information. The duplicated genes then mutate slightly to take on novel roles and produce novel proteins and phenotypes not seen before.

This is what I am basing my math on and it is a simple abstract. I actually had a brief exchange with one of the authors, how cool is that?

Here we present a draft genome sequence of the common chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes). Through comparison with the human genome, we have generated a largely complete catalogue of the genetic differences that have accumulated since the human and chimpanzee species diverged from our common ancestor, constituting approximately thirty-five million single-nucleotide changes, five million insertion/deletion events, and various chromosomal rearrangements.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v437/n7055/full/nature04072.html

The other HUGE fallacy is that a lizard would "turn into" a bird, via evolution. Evolution NEVER suggests this direct descendancy at all. Rather, both modern birds and modern lizards share a common ancestor, some kind of birdy-lizard or lizardy-bird (Pterodactyl-ish, maybe?) Then the line split, with each group accumulating different mutations to a common set of genes, which would then define the different structures that you see today.

So, even though I can't follow his mathematical proof, these two BASIC misunderstandings show me that he is not knowledgeable enough to continue this argument."
--Jill Buettner, genetics and cellular biology, Richland College, Dallas TX

mark kennedy[/b]]Never mind that this never happens in nature,
I asked for two animal lineages. This is only one!

The Pterodactyl while interesting doesn not explain how the differences in metabolism, lungs, heart to say nothing of the external traits were created genetically in the first place, let alone preserved.

[Pardon me, Jet Black, let me borrow your sig for a moment so I can explain this to Mark again, as if I haven't eight times already.]

"If you have a spine, four limbs, an ear with three bones and a jaw with one, fur, your females lactate and give birth to live young, warm blood, flexible fingers, forward facing eyes, general body plan, general dentition, trichromatic vision, fingernails, opposable thumb, no tail, larger than average brain cavity, then you are an ape. If you have a chin, your foramen magnum enters towards the front of the skull, a large Broca's Region, and are suited to bipedality, then you are also a Human."

Yes I have read that and it is quite cleaver.

Faith is a tool of deception and nothing more.

Yea, like blind faith in single common ancestory.

Sorry Aron-Ra, I have to cut this short. I'll do what I can to get to the other comments as soon as possible but I am super busy these days.

Mark

 

[Mathematician]

Yea, like blind faith in single common ancestory.

I find it ironic how evolutionists accept a single common ancestory for all life yet are so quick to reject a single common ancestory for humans.

 

[Tomk80]

I find it ironic how evolutionists accept a single common ancestory for all life yet are so quick to reject a single common ancestory for humans.

How do they reject that?