Evolution's Brick Wall

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Neither is this post.

I didn't intend it to be. While yourself, on the other hand, obviously hoped yours would be.
An argument from incredulity (i.e. your inability to actually do research and look what the actual evidence says on transitional fossils) is not a great line of argument you should take.

 

[inquiring mind]

I didn't intend it to be. While yourself, on the other hand, obviously hoped yours would be.
An argument from incredulity (i.e. your inability to actually do research and look what the actual evidence says on transitional fossils) is not a great line of argument you should take.

This is post #1101 in the thread.

 

[pitabread]

This is post #1101 in the thread.

Thread length doesn't mean much around these parts...

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

This is post #1101 in the thread.

That doesn't mean squat. Quantity does not equal quality.

 

[Job 33:6]

An DNA gene expressed during cortical development evolved rapidly in humans. (Nature 2006)

I googled HAR 1f and the article was at the top of the list. Now this is based on the comparison of the same gene in human and chimpanzee DNA, with the chicken version used as a outlyer. Interesting stuff, enjoy.

Ok, so I've read the paper. I did not get the impression that the research suggested an implausibility that the evolution of people from proto hominids was unlikely based on the historically conserved nature of HAR1f. Discussion throughout the paper didn't hint at any such conclusion, rather it simply discussed varying rates of change through time.

 

[mark kennedy]

Ok, so I've read the paper. I did not get the impression that the research suggested an implausibility that the evolution of people from proto hominids was unlikely based on the historically conserved nature of HAR1f. Discussion throughout the paper didn't hint at any such conclusion, rather it simply discussed varying rates of change through time.

What was the characterization of the difference. Highly conservered over hundreds of millions of years and then 18 substitutions. They didnt hint at a probabilty argument for it actually occuring, nor did they sugest a cause. This is based on comparisons period, there's no cause and effect. All the anatomical differences related to brain morphology are indicating the emerge 2 mya. There are at least 60 brand new genes required, hundreds if not thousands of mutations rewuired, based on straight forward comparisons. This is just one example, an effect without a cause is an assumption.

So let me ask you, if things in common indicate common ancestry is the inverse logic intuitively obvious? Do differences support independent creation?

 

[pitabread]

Do differences support independent creation?

Without a predictive model for creation, no.

 

[mark kennedy]

Without a predictive model for creation, no.

Like there is a predictive model for HAR 1f, no such cause and effect exists. You just admitted you dont accept the inverse logic, which clearly indicates presupposition well before the evidence. Even apart from it.

 

[pitabread]

You just admitted you dont accept the inverse logic, which clearly indicates presupposition well before the evidence.

But that's not the inverse logic. The claim "we don't know how X evolved" does not lead to "therefore, X was created". In actuality all you're left with is a question; a gap in knowledge.

Or to put it another way: negative arguments against evolution are NOT positive arguments for creation. If you want to make a positive argument for creation, you need to come up with a predictive model under which you can make such arguments. To the best of my knowledge, no such models exist.

 

[sfs]

My comments were only broad-brush swipes regarding some of the "talking points" in the debate. I repeat, it is you and not me that is taking/making it personal.

And my point is that your comments are by their very nature personal -- you're attacking real people. The problem is that you don't think of them as real people -- they're just the vaguely defined "evolutionists" out there somewhere. You aren't engaging with real science, either; your attacks are based on stuff you heard somewhere, not on the real science of evolutionary biology.

If you want to attack evolution as science, you have to learn the science.

 

[mark kennedy]

But that's not the inverse logic. The claim "we don't know how X evolved" does not lead to "therefore, X was created". In actuality all you're left with is a question; a gap in knowledge.

Or to put it another way: negative arguments against evolution are NOT positive arguments for creation. If you want to make a positive argument for creation, you need to come up with a predictive model under which you can make such arguments. To the best of my knowledge, no such models exist.

Its not about a model or we would be talking about the Mendelian laws of inheritance, of course the limits he described do not concern you. You are not considering the enormous burden of proof, just shift all rational responsibility off on some nebulous model you have neither the background nor the patience for. This is simple, if things in common represent evidence for common ancestry, then do differences indicate special creation?

This isn't an honest exposition of evidence or a rational exercise in logic. Its close encounters of the pedantic one liners. You were exposed to the actual evidence and never commented once, let alone made a substantive argument.

 

[Job 33:6]

What was the characterization of the difference. Highly conservered over hundreds of millions of years and then 18 substitutions. They didnt hint at a probabilty argument for it actually occuring, nor did they sugest a cause. This is based on comparisons period, there's no cause and effect. All the anatomical differences related to brain morphology are indicating the emerge 2 mya. There are at least 60 brand new genes required, hundreds if not thousands of mutations rewuired, based on straight forward comparisons. This is just one example, an effect without a cause is an assumption.

So let me ask you, if things in common indicate common ancestry is the inverse logic intuitively obvious? Do differences support independent creation?

Well, we know if things that could cause excellerated rates in mutation. Such as environmental stresses. This article is simply talking about rates of mutation of a particular gene. The human and chimp ancestor was present around 7 million years ago, and the 18 changes described we're suggested to have occured over 1 million years ago. That give us perhaps 6 or so million years for the 18 mutations described, which is 2 mutations per 1 million years.

It is true that 1 mutation every 500,000 years is far more frequent than 1 mutation every 150 million years. But 1 mutation in 500,000 years is still not a fast rate of mutation, by any stretch of the imagination. Nor is it something that is any sort of wild anomoly that could not be the result of what we commonly know as evolution.

 

[Job 33:6]

What was the characterization of the difference. Highly conservered over hundreds of millions of years and then 18 substitutions. They didnt hint at a probabilty argument for it actually occuring, nor did they sugest a cause. This is based on comparisons period, there's no cause and effect. All the anatomical differences related to brain morphology are indicating the emerge 2 mya. There are at least 60 brand new genes required, hundreds if not thousands of mutations rewuired, based on straight forward comparisons. This is just one example, an effect without a cause is an assumption.

So let me ask you, if things in common indicate common ancestry is the inverse logic intuitively obvious? Do differences support independent creation?

Regarding your question toward the end,

It's more than things in common that indicate common ancestry. It's the synchronization of things in common as well as differences across several fields of independent research. I've said this before but, the fact that people can take DNA and use it to predict the spacial and vertical location of a fossil in a remote part of the planet, tells us that our genetics and the fossil record are 1 to 1 in how they match up.

That is to say that dna changes subsequently change our morphology which results in the creation of the fossil record. The fossil record shows us our lineage and that's that. Simple as. Biologists suggest that the fossils are complimentary to what they've already established. As a geologist, I would say that the theory of evolution simply reinforces what we already know about fossils. Both independent , both both telling the same story.

And differences, are mutations. Mutations are those differences. Cladistics is based on morphological differences and genetic differences. So you can look at how similar things are and how different they are, but you come out with the same cladistics based phylogeny which repeats itself in each independent field of study.

So the differences and similarities both support common ancestry.

As far as what would not support common ancestry, things that do not fit the pattern would contradict common ancestry and would suggest independent creation. For example, a dolphin found in the ordovician would contradict common ancestry. A reptile with mammary glands would contradict common ancestry. A bird found in the devonian would contradict common an entry etc. A fish being genetically more similar to a human than to an amphibian would contradict common ancestry etc.

These are the things that, if you presented, It would probably break the theory. But after 200-300 years of uncovering fossils and sequencing genomes, we come to find that these things, to our knowledge just don't exist. I certainly haven't found a dolphin in any paleozoic rock that I've looked at. Or any equivelant. And I've looked at probably more rocks than...well I'm geologist, I've seen a lot of rocks.

 

[Job 33:6]

My comments were only broad-brush swipes regarding some of the "talking points" in the debate. I repeat, it is you and not me that is taking/making it personal. Of course, right now I think it would be ill-advised for me to comment on any published works you have. However, I would be very interested in reading pro & con peer reviews of your work.

I agree with sfs. When you make stabs at the theory, you are directly talking about our work. You are indirectly calling us frauds. And when you aren't familiar with what we do and what we know, it just makes it more offensive when you call our research a sham and suggest that evolutionists have somehow unjustifiably have taken over science.

You probably don't mean to direct it at us, but yeah, when you call the field a sham, that's a direct comment toward our work. Which is often why the discussion requires the discussion of science rather than just random opinions.

 

[xianghua]

Well, we know if things that could cause excellerated rates in mutation. Such as environmental stresses. This article is simply talking about rates of mutation of a particular gene. The human and chimp ancestor was present around 7 million years ago, and the 18 changes described we're suggested to have occured over 1 million years ago. That give us perhaps 6 or so million years for the 18 mutations described, which is 2 mutations per 1 million years.

It is true that 1 mutation every 500,000 years is far more frequent than 1 mutation every 150 million years. But 1 mutation in 500,000 years is still not a fast rate of mutation, by any stretch of the imagination. Nor is it something that is any sort of wild anomoly that could not be the result of what we commonly know as evolution.

and how many mutations we will need to evolve a globin molecule?

 

[Job 33:6]

And to clarify on what I mean when I say that cladistics are based on differences.

A fish has scales. A mammal does not. This is an observed differenceand it's used to classify what is a fish and what is not a fish. So by examining traits of fish, and differences between fish and not fish, we construct a fish clade.

Mutations create differences in DNA. It is these differences that are compared. How different is the HARf1 strand between people and chimps or chimps and chickens? That's what they were doing and talking about in the research. And by comparing what has changed and by comparing differences, they established rates of mutations.

X number of genes are different between animal A and animal B, therefore X amount of differences must have arisen in Y amount of time (the time since the last common ancestor).

So both paleontology and geneticists are looking at both similarities and differences when constructing the bush of life or tree of life or whatever you would like to call it.

 

[mark kennedy]

Regarding your question toward the end,

It's more than things in common that indicate common ancestry. It's the synchronization of things in common as well as differences across several fields of independent research. I've said this before but, the fact that people can take DNA and use it to predict the spacial and vertical location of a fossil in a remote part of the planet, tells us that our genetics and the fossil record are 1 to 1 in how they match up.

That is to say that dna changes subsequently change our morphology which results in the creation of the fossil record. The fossil record shows us our lineage and that's that. Simple as. Biologists suggest that the fossils are complimentary to what they've already established. As a geologist, I would say that the theory of evolution simply reinforces what we already know about fossils. Both independent , both both telling the same story.

And differences, are mutations. Mutations are those differences. Cladistics is based on morphological differences and genetic differences. So you can look at how similar things are and how different they are, but you come out with the same cladistics based phylogeny which repeats itself in each independent field of study.

So the differences and similarities both support common ancestry.

As far as what would not support common ancestry, things that do not fit the pattern would contradict common ancestry and would suggest independent creation. For example, a dolphin found in the ordovician would contradict common ancestry. A reptile with mammary glands would contradict common ancestry. A bird found in the devonian would contradict common an entry etc. A fish being genetically more similar to a human than to an amphibian would contradict common ancestry etc.

These are the things that, if you presented, It would probably break the theory. But after 200-300 years of uncovering fossils and sequencing genomes, we come to find that these things, to our knowledge just don't exist. I certainly haven't found a dolphin in any paleozoic rock that I've looked at. Or any equivelant. And I've looked at probably more rocks than...well I'm geologist, I've seen a lot of rocks.

You totally missing the point, it comes down to cause and effect. Mutations in brain related genes result in disease and disorder, not adaptive evolution. That's not my opinion, it's a well established fact. The HAR 1f gene allows 2 substitutions in 300 million years and you know this f you actually read the paper, then there are 18 for no apparent reason with no conceivable cause. Functional constraint is only relaxed under very rare conditions and usually to preserve the Intigrity of the DNA, not to change it. One thing is sure, mutations are the worst possible explaination, because there is no such thing as a beneficial effect from a mutation in a brain related gene, let alone an adaptive trait on an evolutionary scale.

 

[mark kennedy]

And to clarify on what I mean when I say that cladistics are based on differences.

A fish has scales. A mammal does not. This is an observed differenceand it's used to classify what is a fish and what is not a fish. So by examining traits of fish, and differences between fish and not fish, we construct a fish clade.

Mutations create differences in DNA. It is these differences that are compared. How different is the HARf1 strand between people and chimps or chimps and chickens? That's what they were doing and talking about in the research. And by comparing what has changed and by comparing differences, they established rates of mutations.

X number of genes are different between animal A and animal B, therefore X amount of differences must have arisen in Y amount of time (the time since the last common ancestor).

So both paleontology and geneticists are looking at both similarities and differences when constructing the bush of life or tree of life or whatever you would like to call it.

Oh they established the rate of mutation, do tell.

 

[pitabread]

This is simple, if things in common represent evidence for common ancestry, then do differences indicate special creation?

And again, without a predictive model for creation, the answer is no.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

But that's not the inverse logic. The claim "we don't know how X evolved" does not lead to "therefore, X was created". In actuality all you're left with is a question; a gap in knowledge.

Or to put it another way: negative arguments against evolution are NOT positive arguments for creation. If you want to make a positive argument for creation, you need to come up with a predictive model under which you can make such arguments. To the best of my knowledge, no such models exist.

Nor does the claim “we don’t know how x evolved” preclude creation.

But don’t worry, someone will make up a story that will be touted as evolutionary fact for 10 years until it’s proven wrong. But the basic assumptions which led to the incorrect beliefs will never be questioned..... as we see time after time after time.....