Is there any evidence for evolution?

[lesliedellow]

Yea so important in fact he forged the current working definition based on genetics and including the various aspects of selection.

He thought that natural selection was the driving force behind evolution, and he came up with the generally accepted explanation of how speciation happens. So how does that make him a creationist's hero?

I'm not a good cell phone typist but its not like your actually listening anyway.

I listen to you spouting incomprehensible nonsense.

 

[mark kennedy]

Still arguing semantics and using pedantic arguments?

You got your nerve

 

[mark kennedy]

He thought that natural selection was the driving force behind evolution, and he came up with the generally accepted explanation of how speciation happens. So how does that make him a creationist's hero?

He's my hero because he had the courage of his convictions defined his term and didn't hang everything on an ad hominid fallacy.

I listen to you spouting incomprehensible nonsense.

The incomprehensible part I get since you can't learn if you think you know everything.

 

[lesliedellow]

He's my hero because he had the courage of his convictions defined his term and didn't hang everything on an ad hominid fallacy.

Jolly good, so you accept Darwinian Evolution now.

The incomprehensible part I get since you can't learn if you think you know everything.

You have got nothing to teach anybody.

 

[Loudmouth]

Natural selection is an effect not a cause.

And again with the semantic arguments. When are these going to stop?

Selective pressure can influence the emergence of a new trait but the cause is always genetic.

Again with semantics.

When are you actually going to get past the pedantic arguments based on semantics?

 

[Loudmouth]

You got your nerve

Still waiting for you to present something other than pedantic arguments based on semantics.

 

[RickG]

After you pulled this doosey on me: 61?

Let's see, I made a word change, highlighted it so it would be obvious what I changed, and then commented fixed, which means I disagreed with what you posted and corrected it. That is not a quote mine.

 

[AV1611VET]

Let's see, I made a word change, highlighted it so it would be obvious what I changed, and then commented fixed, which means I disagreed with what you posted and corrected it. That is not a quote mine.

And I terminated my sentence with a question mark. That is not a quote mine.

 

[RickG]

Natural selection is an effect not a cause. Selective pressure can influence the emergence of a new trait but the cause is always genetic.

Evolution and genetic changes are for the most part accelerated by way of isolation of populations and/or environmental changes.

 

[RickG]

Rick is a climatologist by trade.

Not professionally, I'm a retired research chemist and process engineer. The climatology comes from my M.S In Earth Science which consisted of 1/3 climatology, 1/3 oceanography, and 1/3 geology. But if you want to look at it from solely an academic point of view, perhaps. My M.S. thesis was on the Occurrence and Causes of Ice Ages. And to further confuse things. I have three degrees all in completely different disciplines.

 

[RickG]

And I terminated my sentence with a question mark. That is not a quote mine.

I didn't interpret it that way, but okay, now that it is clarified I agree.

 

[AV1611VET]

Not professionally, I'm a retired research chemist and process engineer. The climatology comes from my M.S In Earth Science which consisted of 1/3 climatology, 1/3 oceanography, and 1/3 geology. But if you want to look at it from solely an academic point of view, perhaps. My M.S. thesis was on the Occurrence and Causes of Ice Ages. And to further confuse things. I have three degrees all in completely different disciplines.

My bad -- sorry!

 

[mark kennedy]

Still waiting for you to present something other than pedantic arguments based on semantics.

So far there haven't been any arguments. The fallacious wastes of time don't count. It's coming LM, you know me better then that.

 

[RickG]

So far there haven't been any arguments. The fallacious wastes of time don't count.

Well then, with that in mind let's revisit the topic of this thread. Is there any evidence for evolution? An answer to the question in just your own words would be much appreciated. Thank you.

 

[RealityCheck01]

Sure! If you want hundreds of quotes from modern scientists refuting evolution, ...

Which was not quite your assertion or my question: Can you give any evidence for this, Gregory Mallett, e.g. a list of maybe hundreds of biologists who used to believe in evolution and now do not?
An accessible, credible reference would be good - the little I have seen of the book hints of an ignorant author.

There is a difference between "not always being 100% proven" and thinking that anything can be crammed into the tiny, always decreasing % that remains.

The same applies for evolution - the huge body of evidence for evolution means that it would need incredible evidence to invalidate it. That is why many people describe evolution as a fact. Abiogenesis is an obvious fact since at one point the Earth did no exist, formed without life and now we have life. Which of the several possible mechanisms is responsible is what is being investigated.

I assume that the "math" you are quoting is the ignorance of Mike Snavely which totally ignores the real world of fossilization. I have already pointed out that Snavely seems at least ignorant about several things but what you missed is that even he does not trust his calculation - he did not get it published in a scientific journal!

ETA: If you want to do proper math on the subject for yourself then you need to realize that disease, predators and limited resources exist and include them. The population of a species does not increase without limit or double each generation. Also

• Most animals that die are eaten.
• Most animals that are not eaten rot.
• Fossils from the animals that are not eaten and do not rot can be destroyed by erosion and other processes.
• The surface area of the land on Earth is large.
• The surface of the Earth is not static - large areas have been under sea at times. Other areas are now mountains (see the point about erosion).

This does not prevent layers of fossils hundreds of meters thick existing in specific circumstances - look up limestone.

 

[RealityCheck01]

Prove me wrong, do the math:

Prove you wrong about what, mark kennedy?
You quote numbers and text from Estimate of the Mutation Rate per Nucleotide in Humans Michael W. Nachmana and Susan L. Crowella Genetics, 297-304, September 2000
You do realize that this paper is 16 years old and there is probably better, more recent papers in the hundreds of citations for the paper.

You ask us to do math to disprove something but I did not see any of your math in that post. Is your math in a previous post and if yes can you link to it?

 

[USincognito]

Back in 2006 I parodied Mark's "objection" to human evolution with "I can't believe it's not a brain", which was a reference to I can't believe it's not butter. The humor was lost on him, but the point remains 10 years later - his only objection is personal incredulity.

 

[mark kennedy]

Prove you wrong about what, mark kennedy?
You quote numbers and text from Estimate of the Mutation Rate per Nucleotide in Humans Michael W. Nachmana and Susan L. Crowella Genetics, 297-304, September 2000
You do realize that this paper is 16 years old and there is probably better, more recent papers in the hundreds of citations for the paper.

Of course but it's like posting a definition for science or evolution, seeing it isn't going to be the same as doing it yourself. Those numbers and ratios are not going to change significantly btw, except when you add the indels in an overall comparison.

You ask us to do math to disprove something but I did not see any of your math in that post. Is your math in a previous post and if yes can you link to it?

What? Another game of go fish? As far as the math what are you actually trying to calculate here because the numbers remain pretty consistent. This is cited in the Genetics paper:

This is a comparison of chimpanzee chromosome 22 (PTR22) and human chimpanzee chromosome 21 (HSA21). Each are 33.3 million base pairs (mbp), differences considered the result of single base substitutions are 1.44%, and those from 68,000 insertions/deletions (indels) or 5%.

“molecular analysis of HSA21 and its genes is of central medical interest because of trisomy 21, the most common genetic cause of mental retardation in the human population. “

83% of the 231 coding sequences show differences at an amino acid sequence level. These differences do not include duplications, translocations and transpositions.

20.3% of the PTR22 proteins have “gross structural changes affecting gene products” (DNA sequence and comparative analysis of chimpanzee chromosome 22, Nature 2004)
​

They have done the math since the Chimpanzee genome paper in 2005 but always seem to leave out the indels:

The rate of deleterious amino acid mutation per diploid genome is therefore UP ≈ 2 × 1.1 × 10−8 × 22,500 × 1,340 × 0.75 × 0.7 ≈ 0.35 (assuming the median of the range for gene number and disregarding a contribution of indels). (Rates and Fitness Consequences of New Mutations in Humans, Genetics 2012)
​

What I have been told is the the mutation rate does not change really. Even though we are talking about 45 million base pairs and some of the segments are millions of base pairs long. They never calculate for the indels in such a way that is meaningful to the fitness rate for good reason, it would be way too high to be sustainable:

estimates are U ≈ 2.2 for the whole diploid genome per generation and 0.35 for mutations that change an amino acid of a protein-coding gene. A genome-wide deleterious mutation rate of 2.2 seems higher than humans could tolerate if natural selection is "hard," but could be tolerated if selection acts on relative fitness differences between individuals or if there is synergistic epistasis. I argue that in the foreseeable future, an accumulation of new deleterious mutations is unlikely to lead to a detectable decline in fitness of human populations. (Rates and Fitness Consequences of New Mutations in Humans, Genetics 2012)
​

There is just one problem with that:

Direct estimates from genome sequencing of relatives suggest that μ is about 1.1 × 10−8, which is about twofold lower than estimates based on the human–chimp divergence. (Rates and Fitness Consequences of New Mutations in Humans, Genetics 2012)
​

Calculating mutation rates to include effects of fitness can be pretty complicated math. What I have learned is that regardless of how you calculate it the divergence is entirely too high to be sustainable due to the obvious effects of fitness when you include indels.

Have a nice day
Mark

 

[mark kennedy]

Back in 2006 I parodied Mark's "objection" to human evolution with "I can't believe it's not a brain", which was a reference to I can't believe it's not butter. The humor was lost on him, but the point remains 10 years later - his only objection is personal incredulity.

That's the difference between me and you, you write parody and I read genetics:

the promoter and first nine exons of SRGAP2 (large interspersed duplication of 258 kbp) ) duplicated to become SRGAP2B ~3.4 million years ago (mya). Two larger duplications later copied SRGAP2B (two larger duplications >500 kbp) to become SRGAP2C SRGAP2D ~2.4 and ~1 mya…Coinciding with the transition of Australopithecus to Homo and the beginning of neocortex expansion…the development of language (FOXP2), changes in the musculature of the jaw (MYH16), and limb and digit specializations (HACNS1). (Human-specific evolution of novel SRGAP2 genes by incomplete segmental duplication. Cell. 2012 May 11)
​

That's a gene(s) involved in the development of the human brain. The human brain is about twice as dense as any other apes and this genetic basis is why. You guys like to pretend it's a simple matter but there is far more involved then personal incredulity, it's the Darwinian who is arguing from ignorance which is the real meaning of 'argument from incredulity'.

A very long string of events have to happen with clock work precision to include three duplications. Then there have to be extraordinary mutations involving whole exons and amino acid sequences of considerable length. One simulation calculates how likely a gene duplication would be given no selective pressure:

In most models of the development of evolutionary novelty by gene duplication, it is implicitly assumed that a single, albeit rare, mutation to the duplicated gene can confer a new selectable property…In particular, some protein features require the participation of multiple amino acid residues (MR)...If six mutations were required then, as indicated by Figure 6, on average a population size of ∼10^22 organisms would be necessary to fix the MR feature in 10^8 generations, and a population of ∼10^30 organisms would be expected to fix the mutation in one million generations...In order for such a process to occur in vivo by gene duplication and point mutation within a hundred million generations would be expected on average to require >10^25 organisms. (Simulating evolution by gene duplication of protein features that require multiple amino acid residues Protein Science 2004)
​

Incredulous because this ridiculous fantasy has to be assumed?

Getting back to the SRGAP2 gene, they screened 7,137 individuals finding, 'no deletions of SRGAP2C …with rare deletions and duplications observed only in cases with intellectual disability for SRGAP2A':

a ten-year-old child with a history of seizures, attention deficit disorder, and learning disabilities. An MRI of this patient also indicates several brain malformations, including hypoplasia of the posterior body of the corpus callosum…a five-year-old girl diagnosed with West syndrome and exhibiting epileptic seizures, intellectual disability, cortical atrophy, and a thin corpus callosum…(Human-specific evolution of novel SRGAP2 genes by incomplete segmental duplication. Cell. 2012 May 11)
​

Which is understandable since the gene is highly conserved due to it's vital effect on brain development. They found the protein product from this gene in:

adipose, whole brain, cerebral cortex, breast, colon, heart, liver, lymph node, skeletal muscle, lung and testes…genes having highest expression level was highest in cerebral cortex followed by the testes (Cell 2011)
​

Why don't you write another parody because trivializing the seriousness of the subject matter appears to be your sole contribution to these boards.

Have a nice day
Mark

 

[RickG]

..........

Mark, I really would like an answer to the question I asked you in post # 635.