Evolution's Brick Wall

[mark kennedy]

@mark kennedy

As far as I can tell, you seem to be suggesting that 18 mutations could not have occurred over the course of roughly 7 million years. And the fact that you seem considerably shy about posting your sources, leads me to believe that you either dont have sources and are just going off of your own gut feeling, or perhaps your sources are from some unknown young earth creationists websites.

This is about all i can gather.

Apparently you didn't bother looking it up and you are not interested in source material. The background reading would take a fair amount of time but I doubt basic genetics interest you much.

 

[Job 33:6]

Apparently you didn't bother looking it up and you are not interested in source material. The background reading would take a fair amount of time but I doubt basic genetics interest you much.

Genetics interests me very much. You just seem uninterested in supporting your claims. When you're ready to justify your words, let me know. I will be here. Otherwise, I have no choice but to conclude that you don't know what you're talking about.

I'll continue to wait for your sourced material, if such a thing exists beyond your imagination.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Wrong! There is no proof of that. Remember the brick wall.

What is this brick wall you keep referring to? I have gone through this entire thread and have not seen you once give an example of what it is. Just you repeatedly and loudly screeching "But the brick wall!"

 

[mark kennedy]

Genetics interests me very much. You just seem uninterested in supporting your claims. When you're ready to justify your words, let me know. I will be here. Otherwise, I have no choice but to conclude that you don't know what you're talking about.

I'll continue to wait for your sourced material, if such a thing exists beyond your imagination.

Feelings mutual.

 

[Job 33:6]

Feelings mutual.

Like I said, when you have supportive sources, let me know.

If you're curious about anything I've said, feel free to ask. I'll respond. And if you would like sources, let me know and I will provide some.

 

[Job 33:6]

@mark kennedy

In regards to varying rates of evolution, we have plenty of research and discussion on not only its possibility, but it's likelyhood. These observed changes have been attributed to things such as environmental stresses, be them by changes of the earth or changes in the pressures of associated life.

The human and chimpanzee ancestor evidentially existed around 7-8 million years ago, so 18 mutations would put us at a mutation rate of around 2-3 mutations per 1 million years. Or 1 mutation every 330,000 to 500,000 years. Which really is a very extensive amount of time for a single mutation to occur.

And what those mutation rates were previously in the prior 250 million years of course does not dictate what the rate of mutation is in the more recent 7-8 million years, as rates can change.

 

[sfs]

OK, I stand corrected, it looked like it was leaning that way to me.

And I told you then that that was not what I was saying.

Just to be clear, those are your words, not mine. I would not say something like that intentionally either.

What you said was that evolution involved "'anything goes to make your point' speculation and conjecture", was not entirely real science, that evolutionists call things evidence that don't stand up to scrutiny, and that the real science of biology has been usurped by evolution. Since I am paid as a scientist and publish as a scientist, if what I'm publishing is not really science, if my evidence doesn't stand up to scrutiny, if I have usurped real science by studying evolution . . . then yes, you're accusing me of being a fraud as a scientist.

So I'd really like to know what in my published work doesn't stand up to scrutiny. I have no problem with people telling me that I'm wrong -- this is a debate forum, after all. But they'd dang well better tell me how and why I'm wrong.

 

[inquiring mind]

What is this brick wall you keep referring to? I have gone through this entire thread and have not seen you once give an example of what it is. Just you repeatedly and loudly screeching "But the brick wall!"

From the manner of your request, I’m not sure you really want an explanation, but I’m naïve enough to try. Maybe a refresh is needed as this has been going on for some time. As a whole, no one is screeching anything (maybe a very few ‘ranting & ravers’ have jumped in, and right back out). The OP stated that our family tree is more like a huge bush, with so many branches that lead to dead ends (not enough transition fossils found to seal the deal -- a brick wall) that it may be impossible to ever fill the gap and find a verifiable route from ape to the modern man.

Each branch either seems to dead-end or have such a time and fossil gap in it, with lack of sufficient connecting evidence (as perceived by them)… so that one side is saying that some form of questionable speculation has to be used to tie them together, and as such, no evidence of change from one kind to another kind (macro evolution) has ever been produced. Of course, the other side says it’s there (as perceived by them) and has brought to the table such things as genetics and migration, as well as micro evolution within other kinds as more evidence. But, for both sides it all seems to depend on bias and how steeped you are in either science and belief in macro evolution, or your particular interpretation of the Bible and belief in creation.

That’s as fair as I can be. If it’s not, I’m sure someone will correct me.

 

[Job 33:6]

From the manner of your request, I’m not sure you really want an explanation, but I’m naïve enough to try. Maybe a refresh is needed as this has been going on for some time. As a whole, no one is screeching anything (maybe a very few ‘ranting & ravers’ have jumped in, and right back out). The OP stated that our family tree is more like a huge bush, with so many branches that lead to dead ends (not enough transition fossils found to seal the deal -- a brick wall) that it may be impossible to ever fill the gap and find a verifiable route from ape to the modern man.

Each branch either seems to dead-end or have such a time and fossil gap in it, with lack of sufficient connecting evidence (as perceived by them)… so that one side is saying that some form of questionable speculation has to be used to tie them together, and as such, no evidence of change from one kind to another kind (macro evolution) has ever been produced. Of course, the other side says it’s there (as perceived by them) and has brought to the table such things as genetics and migration, as well as micro evolution within other kinds as more evidence. But, for both sides it all seems to depend on bias and how steeped you are in either science and belief in macro evolution, or your particular interpretation of the Bible and belief in creation.

That’s as fair as I can be. If it’s not, I’m sure someone will correct me.

A huge bush with many branches leading to dead ends, is not equivalent to saying that a lineage is unclear. There have been countless dead end branches in the fossil record throughout the entire succession, but that doesn't change whether or not the succession exists.

To clarify, there might be countless species of tetrapod throughout the devonian that lead to dead ends. But this doesnt change that tetrapods descended from prior forms of fish with tetrapod features. Nor does it mean that tetrapods are predated by reptiles.

 

[Job 33:6]

https://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/26/science/26ance.html

The new finds have filled in some of the yawning gaps in the fossil record. They have doubled the record’s time span from 3.5 million back almost to 7 million years ago and more than doubled the number of earliest known hominid species. The teeth and bone fragments suggest the form — the morphology — of these ancestors that lived presumably just this side of the human-ape split.

“The amount of discord between morphology and molecules is actually not that great anymore,” said Frederick E. Grine, a paleoanthropologist at the State University of New York at Stony Brook.



Everyone is aware that life diversifies, and perhaps 99% of life goes extinct, which is to say probably 99% of our fossils are branches leading off into extinction. But that doesn't mean that no single branch leads to us. It just means that we have a lot of family members.

 

[Job 33:6]

@inquiring mind

To better explain:

https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evograms_06


There were countless dinosaurs that went extinct. 99% of them, dead ends. Right, but that doesn't change that the earliest birds were really just theropods with feathers. It doesnt mean that birds appeared before feathered theropods. It doesnt mean that birds appeared before dinosaurs or reptiles at large.

The succession is still present and is visible and is in order, regardless of if species go extinct.

Just because there are countless species of invertebrates, fish, amphibians, reptiles and mammals that have gone extinct, doesnt change the succession that they exist in. The morphologic succession, the biological or genetic succession, the fossil succession etc.

It is the succession that tells us that evolution has occurred. Not so much whether a particular fossil is our direct ancestor, or if its just a relative.

http://learn.district196.org/course/view.php?id=1367

 

[Job 33:6]

Another thing i like looking at are the cladistical orders on wikipedia.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Even-toed_ungulate
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moschidae
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Musk_deer

There are plenty of cross marks, identifying extinct families, and in each family there are more crosses showing us extinct genus, and beneath that still, extinct species.

These are the branches that have ended.

But the cladistical order is still present, despite so many ended branches.

 

[sfs]

[duplicate post]

 

[mark kennedy]

Like I said, when you have supportive sources, let me know.

If you're curious about anything I've said, feel free to ask. I'll respond. And if you would like sources, let me know and I will provide some.

I would but you don't want source material, you won't even bother with a Google search. There are only a few papers on HAR 1f, you could understand more then most if you just read the abstract. What you will do is run it in circles, I dont chase these pedantic arguments in circles. Try PNAS and get back to me.

 

[Job 33:6]

I would but you don't want source material, you won't even bother with a Google search. There are only a few papers on HAR 1f, you could understand more then most if you just read the abstract. What you will do is run it in circles, I dont chase these pedantic arguments in circles. Try PNAS and get back to me.

Ok. Well name one of the papers in particular that you're speaking of, and I'll read it and get back to you.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

The OP stated that our family tree is more like a huge bush, with so many branches that lead to dead ends (not enough transition fossils found to seal the deal -- a brick wall) that it may be impossible to ever fill the gap and find a verifiable route from ape to the modern man.

So your 'brick wall' is the old fallacious argument that there aren't enough transitional fossils, a claim that has been consistently proven to be wrong again and again and again.
That's not really impressive.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

The OP stated that our family tree is more like a huge bush, with so many branches that lead to dead ends (not enough transition fossils found to seal the deal -- a brick wall) that it may be impossible to ever fill the gap and find a verifiable route from ape to the modern man.

So your 'brick wall' is the old fallacious argument that there aren't enough transitional fossils, a claim that has been consistently proven to be wrong again and again and again.
That's not really impressive.

 

[inquiring mind]

And I told you then that that was not what I was saying.

What you said was that evolution involved "'anything goes to make your point' speculation and conjecture", was not entirely real science, that evolutionists call things evidence that don't stand up to scrutiny, and that the real science of biology has been usurped by evolution. Since I am paid as a scientist and publish as a scientist, if what I'm publishing is not really science, if my evidence doesn't stand up to scrutiny, if I have usurped real science by studying evolution . . . then yes, you're accusing me of being a fraud as a scientist.

So I'd really like to know what in my published work doesn't stand up to scrutiny. I have no problem with people telling me that I'm wrong -- this is a debate forum, after all. But they'd dang well better tell me how and why I'm wrong.

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.

 

[mark kennedy]

Ok. Well name one of the papers in particular that you're speaking of, and I'll read it and get back to you.

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.

 

[inquiring mind]

So your 'brick wall' is the old fallacious argument that there aren't enough transitional fossils, a claim that has been consistently proven to be wrong again and again and again.
That's not really impressive.

Neither is this post.