Ever changing science.

[lucaspa]

Originally posted by Jerry Smith
By the way, we still have something to discuss on whether DNA dissimilarity would falsify evolution, but I cannot do it right now.

Oh, yes, it would.  Phylogenetic studies offered an opportunity of testing descent with modification.  It could have detected those elusive "kinds" creationists keep saying there is no going beyond.

DM Hillis, Biology recapitulates phylogeny, Science (11 April) 276: 276-277, 1997.  Primary articles are JX Becerra, Insects on plants:  macroevolutionary chemical trends in host use.  Science 276: 253-256, 1997; VA Pierce and DL Crawford, Phylogenetic analysis of glycolitic enzyme expression, Science 276: 256-259; and JP Huelsenbeck and B Rannala, Phylogenetic methods come of age:  testing hypotheses in an evolutionary context. Science 276: 227-233, 1997.

Phylogenetic analysis is based on the analysis of DNA sequences, and thanks to new technology of automated DNA sequencers and supercomputers, now large data sets of of hundreds or thousands of DNA sequences, each of which has thousands of nucleotides, are now routinely being analyzed.

"As phylogenetic analyses became commonplace in the 1980s, several groups emphasized what should have been obvious all along:  Units of study in biology (from genes through organisms to higher taxa) do not represent statistically independent observations, but rather are interrelated through their historical connections."

Now, if creationism were correct, the units of study in biology would represent independent observations -- whether IC systems or entire species or groups of species.

 

[Jerry Smith]

Well made point, lucaspa... especially the remark that DNA analysis could have yielded up the "kinds" (showing that dogs are related to other dogs and wolves but not to cats, mice, or humans). That would have been an excellent falsification for common descent.

 

[lucaspa]

Originally posted by Jerry Smith
Well made point, lucaspa... especially the remark that DNA analysis could have yielded up the "kinds" (showing that dogs are related to other dogs and wolves but not to cats, mice, or humans). That would have been an excellent falsification for common descent.

Yes, it would. IF the data would have turned out that way. Instead creationism was falsified instead.  Again.

A "problem" is that we have tested evolution so much that there really aren't many possible falsifications left out there.  The mammalian fossils in the pre-Cambrian and the organ only for another species are about the only ones left. What happens to a theory when there are no possible falsifications left? Do we finally say it's "proved"?

 

[RufusAtticus]

Originally posted by Rize
Well certainly some of them do, but AiG doesn't.  What they dispute is the gaining of information in the genome.

Despite the fact that they avoid defining "information" in any meaningful biological way. You can't dispute that information increases if you don't even define it.

Speciation and natural selection can work on changing characteristics that are already present, and loss of genetic information from damaging mutations.

Well then you must have no problem with humans and chimpanzees having a common ancestor. Find me a single body part that humans have but chimps don't.

I'll go a step further than them and say that insignificant "increases" in info might occur as well.  AiG may not go that far though.

What to prevent "insignificant" increases from accumulating so much that so much that a terrestial predator becomes a fully aquatic filter feeder?

In any case, evolution from the first one celled organisms to complicated multicellular creatures like mammals requires a serious gain in information.

You need to define information and give a way to quantify "gain in information" before you assert this.

Unless it was all there in the first place, in which case you don't have evolution anymore, but intelligent design (whether it was God or aliens).  And this assumes long ages which creationists argue against.

You don't need front-loading if you have mutation plus selection, drift, migration, and mating system.

 

[RufusAtticus]

Originally posted by Rize:
This still tells me nothing. I'm a computer scientist, I want to see the code. Or at least a comprehensive report on the program.

Good. What's your opinion of genetic and evolutionary algorithms?

 

[lucaspa]

Originally posted by Rize Well certainly some of them do, but AiG doesn't.  What they dispute is the gaining of information in the genome. 

Moved the goalposts, didn't you?  Or tried to.

Natural selection can't do anything else but  increase information.  William Dembski, the darling of ID, showed this. The equation for information is -log2(M/N) where this is log to the base 2, N is the number of possibilities and M is the number of possibilities selected.  Since N is always greater than M, information can only increase.  

In any case, evolution from the first one celled organisms to complicated multicellular creatures like mammals requires a serious gain in information. 

And the mechanisms to get that without it being directly manufactured by God are already known.  It's a two fold process:

1. Increase in DNA.  This comes about by insertion mutations, gene duplication, transposon insertion, chromosome duplication, and transposition.

2. Natural selection increases information by selecting among possibilities in the population.

What AiG has done is play the shell game and tried to hide the pea on you.

 

[troodon]

The mammalian fossils in the pre-Cambrian and the organ only for another species are about the only ones left.

What about anomalocaris? It is obviously a mammal and comes from the Cambrian (not the pre-Cambrian I know).
http://www.geocities.com/goniagnostus/anohome.html
Ha! I guess there goes evolution. I would have just posted the picture but I lack the necessary 100 posts.

(Joke)

 

[lucaspa]

Originally posted by Rize
When a cell reproduces, is the mitochondria responsible for reproducing itself, or is that included in the mother cell's DNA?

When a cell divides, the mitochondria are split between the new cells.  Mitochondria divide during S phase -- when the cell is quiescent.  http://cellbio.utmb.edu/cellbio/mitoch2.htm

 

 

[lucaspa]

Originally posted by Rize
And how do you know that rats are more similar to humans than frogs?  Because they're both "mammals"!  And they have backbones! (They're chordates).  What I'm saying is that the evolutionary descent charts are based on physiological and genetic information.  So when you use "evolutionary" path ways to determine what animals you want to use, you may simply be comparing genetic and physiological similarity.

What you are forgetting is that the evolutionary lines of descent are based on characteristics we can see.  Research takes you into the unknown -- to characteristics that were not used to draw up the evolutionary lineages.  We are not comparing "genetic and physiological similarity" because we are into genetics and physiology we have not studied yet.

Yes, using warm blood, placentas, live birth, backbones, rats and humans are both classed as "mammals".  However, when that was done no genetics and little physiology outside body temp was done.

So, now we come to something new: fracture repair.  I want to study the cellular events in fracture repair. Well, I can't dissect humans for it.  Ethical considerations: deliberately breaking their leg and then chopping it off 7 days later so I can look at the cells at the fracture site under a microscope is frowned upon.

So, what animal do I use as an animal model?  I haven't looked at humans. I haven't looked at rats. I haven't looked at any species to see what the cellular events happen when broken bones are repaired.  OK, I can eliminate all the invertebrates and plants because they don't have bones.

So which vertebrate species do I use?   Creationists say humans are separate from all other vertebrate species.  Perhaps the Creator decided to make their fracture repair totally unique. Right?  But perhaps the Creator used a system similar to one of the other vertebrates.  But which one? Just because rats are similar to humans in other areas doesn't mean they have to be similar to humans in fracture repair, does it?  It's all up to the whim of the Creator. So now I have to go through all the species and somehow get some human samples (from individuals unlucky enough to die from other causes after a broken bone) to compare them to.

OR, if evolution is true, and species are really a product of descent with modification, then, by heredity, other mammals must be similar to humans in areas we can't see like they are similar in areas we can see.  Just like your cousin is going to be more similar to you than someone not related at all.

So, by accepting evolution as true, and then using deductions from that, I can study the cellular events in the fracture healing of rats and be very sure that they are similar to humans. I don't have to spend years and maybe decades studying all vertebrates and comparing them to humans.  Now, when it turns out that fracture repair in rats is similar to humans (as it is), then that lends more support to evolution being true.

 

[lucaspa]

Originally posted by troodon
What about anomalocaris? It is obviously a mammal and comes from the Cambrian (not the pre-Cambrian I know).
http://www.geocities.com/goniagnostus/anohome.html
Ha! I guess there goes evolution. I would have just posted the picture but I lack the necessary 100 posts.

Not a good joke, Troodon.  Nowhere on the website does it say anomalocaris is a vertebrate, much less a mammal!!

"Opabinia and <I>Anomalocaris</I> are considered members of an extinct arthropod class (with some workers still suggesting subphylum or phylum grade)."

An arthropod.

&nbsp;

 

[troodon]

Dang, I'll shut up now

 

[lucaspa]

Originally posted by Rize No He's not obligated, but it appears that He has anyway.

Since "He" is not obligated, then how would I know ahead of time that He had? I would have to go through all the species to find out, each time, wouldn't I?

I believe in a sort of theistic "evolution", but not stretched across the millions of years that normal theistic evolutionists and evolutionists believe.&nbsp; And I believe that new kinds were created individually, but in a progression.

What you "believe" is irrelevant compared to the data.&nbsp; Now, what are new "kinds"? Are humans a new "kind"?&nbsp; If so, then humans are not "grossly similar animals" are they? They are fundamentally different.

In other words, my beliefs preserve the genetic similarity of vertebraes, not because of common descent, but because of common physiology.&nbsp;

Only if all the vertebrates are in the same "kind".&nbsp; If not, there is no reason for common physiology.&nbsp; And, BTW, why are some vertebrates cold-blooded and some warm-blooded?&nbsp; That's not very similar physiology, is it?&nbsp; So what happened to preserving common physiology among all the vertebrates?

Your belief isn't even internally consistent, much less consistent with the data.&nbsp; What you have, Rize, is a bunch of ad hoc hypotheses to protect your belief, and these ad hoc hypotheses contradict each other.

The belief of theistic evolutionists is both internally consistent and consistent with the data.

 

[lucaspa]

Originally posted by Rize
You didn't really take to what I said.&nbsp; I already addressed this.&nbsp; The evolutionary paradigm could be rewritten.&nbsp; It would not have to be abandoned.&nbsp;

You are going to have to show us specifically how evolution could be re-written. Because I'm with Jerry.&nbsp; I can't see how descent with modification could survive mammalian fossils in the Pre-Cambrian.

Now, atheism could be re-written (and existed prior to evolution), but we aren't talking about atheism, but about evolution.

 

[Jerry Smith]

OR, if evolution is true, and species are really a product of descent with modification, then, by heredity, other mammals must be similar to humans in areas we can't see like they are similar in areas we can see. Just like your cousin is going to be more similar to you than someone not related at all.

For Rize, this elaboration on Lucaspa's comments.

There are 3 people in my hometown who look very similar to me. All three are within an inch of being 5'9" tall, they weigh 125 lbs +/- 5 lbs, have hazel eyes, a small nose, and short brown hair. In addition all three are slightly bow-legged.

I've just been rushed to the emergency room because I have been shot by an angry ex-girlfriend, and I am about to die of blood loss. The hospital's blood bank is out of my (somewhat rare) type of blood. Nurses at the hospital know my three look-alikes, and think that possibly one of them can give me a transfusion, so they call them. All three of them show up to the hospital.

Bob is my brother.
Fred is my fourth cousin.
Joe is (unbeknownst to me) a very distant relative from England whose gggggggggrandmother stayed behind while her sister, my gggggggggrandmother came to America.

The doctors are running out of time, and they may not have time to test each man's blood type before I die. They want to make their best guess, but they need more information.

Joe, with a pronounced British accent, yells out "He looks like me! I can give him a transfusion!"
Fred screams "That's my cousin - let me give him blood!"
Bob bellows "That's my brother. We might share a blood type!"

Now, the doctor has more information. Looks alone would make any one of them reasonable candidates. But it is signifcantly more likely that my brother will have my blood type than my fourth cousin or my very distant cousin.

That's the point, but just to keep from leaving you hanging, my bro did turn out to have the right blood type and I was rescued just in the nick of time. The angry ex-girlfriend went to prison for attempted murder and we all lived happily ever after.

The moral is that one set of similarities does not indicate that there are other similarities. Without common descent, the similarities between mice and humans might end just as soon as we get through listing the ones we already know about - and there's no good reason they shouldn't. It's just a toss up. I flip 10 heads in a row, and the 11th is just as likely to be tails as if I was flipping for the first time. The knowledge that we are closely related to other mammals does tell us that we will find many similarities, above and beyond the ones we already know about. By the way, I would have died if they picked Joe.

 

[Jerry Smith]

Only if all the vertebrates are in the same "kind". If not, there is no reason for common physiology. And, BTW, why are some vertebrates cold-blooded and some warm-blooded? That's not very similar physiology, is it? So what happened to preserving common physiology among all the vertebrates?

This is correct but doesn't address Rize's point. His point was that similarities in phenotype account for similarities in genotype. So, even if two different vertebrates are two different kinds, the fact that God deemed it good for them to share features X, Y, and Z accounts for the reason God deemed it good to give each the same genetic codes that are expressed as X, Y, and Z. Whether they fail to share Q is irrelevant, and so is the reason that God decided that they should share X, Y, and Z in the first place. (all according to Rize perspective, if I understand it correctly)

The best counter for this, IMO, is to look at pseudogene homologies, endogenous retroviral markers, and other genetic records of historical events that are "function-independent," which is what I am working on in my other set of posts.

Of course, your point about dissimmilarities among vertebrates should not be missed - they do exist (in patterns that are explained and/or predicted by evolution), and therefore, without evolution as a guide, we cannot predict what similarities we can hope to find between ourselves and a potential laboratory animal with any success above the level of pure chance.

 

[Jerry Smith]

You didn't really take to what I said. I already addressed this. The evolutionary paradigm could be rewritten. It would not have to be abandoned.

If you re-write the evolutionary paradigm so that it no longer resembles its original form, have you really saved evolution from falsification or have you, instead, set up a different theory in its place?

If I re-wrote the Bible until it looked like Moby Dick, would it still be the Bible?

 

[Arikay]

The difference is that a theory is dynamic. As you gather more evidence it either strengthens the old theory or changes the theory so that it matches all the evidence. A theory and a book are two different things, and cant be compared.

Originally posted by Jerry Smith
If you re-write the evolutionary paradigm so that it no longer resembles its original form, have you really saved evolution from falsification or have you, instead, set up a different theory in its place?

If I re-wrote the Bible until it looked like Moby Dick, would it still be the Bible?

 

[lucaspa]

Originally posted by Jerry Smith This is correct but doesn't address Rize's point. His point was that similarities in phenotype account for similarities in genotype. So, even if two different vertebrates are two different kinds, the fact that God deemed it good for them to share features X, Y, and Z accounts for the reason God deemed it good to give each the same genetic codes that are expressed as X, Y, and Z. Whether they fail to share Q is irrelevant, and so is the reason that God decided that they should share X, Y, and Z in the first place. (all according to Rize perspective, if I understand it correctly)

Rize is saying that because God decided they share X, Y, and Z, then they also share M, N, and O.&nbsp; Forget the genetics.&nbsp;&nbsp;

Which, BTW, you addressed brilliantly with your blood type analogy.&nbsp; It's a simple demonstration of the fallacy of the "similarity not descent" argument. I'll have to remember that when I encounter&nbsp;the argument again.&nbsp;&nbsp;

The best counter for this, IMO, is to look at pseudogene homologies, endogenous retroviral markers, and other genetic records of historical events that are "function-independent," which is what I am working on in my other set of posts.

That is a good counter.&nbsp; Since the genes aren't contributing to functionality, there is no reason they should be similar.

Of course, your point about dissimmilarities among vertebrates should not be missed - they do exist (in patterns that are explained and/or predicted by evolution), and therefore, without evolution as a guide, we cannot predict what similarities we can hope to find between ourselves and a potential laboratory animal with any success above the level of pure chance.

Thank you.&nbsp; But it's also predicting that rat M, N, and O will also be similar to human M,. N, and O because the rat shares a common ancestor with humans. Otherwise, the human could have human X, Y, and Z and bird M, frog N, and snake O.&nbsp; All on the whim of a Creator.

 

[lucaspa]

Originally posted by Arikay
The difference is that a theory is dynamic. As you gather more evidence it either strengthens the old theory or changes the theory so that it matches all the evidence. A theory and a book are two different things, and cant be compared.

Jerry's analogy was valid.&nbsp; Evolution, as in descent with modification from one or a few common ancestors, couldn't survive mammalian fossils in the pre-Cambrian.&nbsp; What would result might still have the name "evolution" (but probably wouldn't) but it would be as completely different from what went before as the Bible is from Moby Dick.

 

[Rize]

Right. Your confidence lies in their assumptions as well. Mine does not.