Is there any evidence for evolution?

[VirOptimus]

Sure, I was close on a number of occasions, the fossils were especially intriguing. It was genetics that finally convinced me and it's very interesting how it's nearly impossible to get a discussion going on fossils and no one wants to talk about indels.

Have a nice day
Mark

Ok, but the genetic evidence for common descent is overwhelming.

 

[mark kennedy]

Is there any evidence for evolution?

A better question would be,
Is there any evidence for anything other than evolution?

Well yes there is, it's rare but there is such a thing as stasis. However, the way you are using the term it actually means two things. Evolution is defined scientifically as the change of alleles in populations over time. It also is a reference to the a priori assumption of universal common descent by exclusively naturalistic means. Which one do you mean because I have a ton of evidence against chimpanzee/human common ancestry.

Have a nice day
Mark

 

[mark kennedy]

Ok, but the genetic evidence for common descent is overwhelming.

I'm almost entirely underwhelmed. Here's my favorite example:

The 118-bp HAR1 region showed the most dramatically accelerated change, with an estimated 18 substitutions in the human lineage since the human–chimpanzee ancestor, compared with the expected 0.27 substitutions on the basis of the slow rate of change in this region in other amniotes (Supplementary Notes S3). Only two bases (out of 118) are changed between chimpanzee and chicken indicating that the region was present and functional in our ancestor at least 310 million years (Myr) ago. No orthologue of HAR1 was detected in the frog (Xenopus tropicalis), any of the available fish genomes (zebrafish, Takifugu and Tetraodon), or in any invertebrate lineage, indicating that it originated no more than about 400Myr ago (An RNA gene expressed during cortical development evolved rapidly in humans, Nature 16 August 2006)
​

That's getting pretty close to the Cambrian with the primates emerging about 90 mya. In all that time only 2 substitutions are allowed then suddenly about 2mya 18 substitutions, no explanation how. That's not the only one, then there is the SRGAP2 gene:

SRGAP2A, SRGAP2B, SRGAP2C, and SRGAP2D, which are located in three completely separate regions on chromosome number 1.1 They appear to play an important role in brain development.2 Perhaps the most striking discovery is that three of the four genes (SRGAP2B, SRGAP2C, and SRGAP2D) are completely unique to humans and found in no other mammal species, not even apes…

Unique in their protein coding arrangement and structure. The genes do not look duplicated at all…

duplicated, spliced into different locations on the chromosome, then precisely rearranged and altered with new functions—all without disrupting the then-existing ape brain and all by accidental mutations… (Newly Discovered Human Brain Genes Are Bad News for Evolution by Jeffrey P. Tomkins, Ph.D)
​

But wait there's more:

These include genes involved with 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 May 2012)​

Supposedly proceeding from:

a surge of genomic duplications over the last 10 million years…(Cell May 2012)
​

The only explanation is to wiggle your nose, tap your heels, and keep saying the magic word, natural selection, :

this mechanism provides a means for rapid evolutionary change of an otherwise constrained developmental gene…selective pressures acting on SRGAP2…while maintaining purifying selection…. relaxation of selective pressure on the duplicate copies….(Cell May 2012)
​

Ad infinitum ad nauseam. Darwinism is a leach, it feeds off of Genetics and gives nothing in return. Remove Darwinism from Biology and it would be unchanged, remove genetics from Darwinism and you have a modern myth of a stone age ape man that never existed.

Have a nice day
Mark

 

[VirOptimus]

I'm almost entirely underwhelmed. Here's my favorite example:

The 118-bp HAR1 region showed the most dramatically accelerated change, with an estimated 18 substitutions in the human lineage since the human–chimpanzee ancestor, compared with the expected 0.27 substitutions on the basis of the slow rate of change in this region in other amniotes (Supplementary Notes S3). Only two bases (out of 118) are changed between chimpanzee and chicken indicating that the region was present and functional in our ancestor at least 310 million years (Myr) ago. No orthologue of HAR1 was detected in the frog (Xenopus tropicalis), any of the available fish genomes (zebrafish, Takifugu and Tetraodon), or in any invertebrate lineage, indicating that it originated no more than about 400Myr ago (An RNA gene expressed during cortical development evolved rapidly in humans, Nature 16 August 2006)
​

That's getting pretty close to the Cambrian with the primates emerging about 90 mya. In all that time only 2 substitutions are allowed then suddenly about 2mya 18 substitutions, no explanation how. That's not the only one, then there is the SRGAP2 gene:

SRGAP2A, SRGAP2B, SRGAP2C, and SRGAP2D, which are located in three completely separate regions on chromosome number 1.1 They appear to play an important role in brain development.2 Perhaps the most striking discovery is that three of the four genes (SRGAP2B, SRGAP2C, and SRGAP2D) are completely unique to humans and found in no other mammal species, not even apes…

Unique in their protein coding arrangement and structure. The genes do not look duplicated at all…

duplicated, spliced into different locations on the chromosome, then precisely rearranged and altered with new functions—all without disrupting the then-existing ape brain and all by accidental mutations… (Newly Discovered Human Brain Genes Are Bad News for Evolution by Jeffrey P. Tomkins, Ph.D)
​

But wait there's more:

These include genes involved with 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 May 2012)​

Supposedly proceeding from:

a surge of genomic duplications over the last 10 million years…(Cell May 2012)
​

The only explanation is to wiggle your nose, tap your heels, and keep saying the magic word, natural selection, :

this mechanism provides a means for rapid evolutionary change of an otherwise constrained developmental gene…selective pressures acting on SRGAP2…while maintaining purifying selection…. relaxation of selective pressure on the duplicate copies….(Cell May 2012)
​

Ad infinitum ad nauseam. Darwinism is a leach, it feeds off of Genetics and gives nothing in return. Remove Darwinism from Biology and it would be unchanged, remove genetics from Darwinism and you have a modern myth of a stone age ape man that never existed.

Have a nice day
Mark

I have seen your "evidence" for years. Your whole argument has shown to be baseless time after time and yet you double down.

Its a pity you choose ignorance over knowledge.

 

[mark kennedy]

I have seen your "evidence" for years. Your whole argument has shown to be baseless time after time and yet you double down.

Its a pity you choose ignorance over knowledge.

I'm not the one ignoring the evidence, in most of these debates I'm the only one appealing to the actual scientific evidence. There are two basic assumptions to Darwinian logic, the first is the a priori assumption of universal common descent by exclusively naturalistic means. If you refuse to make the first one the second one kicks in automatically, you must be ignorant. That's not science, that's supposition.

Darwinism was spliced into Genetics as it was growing into a genuine science through the Modern Synthesis. It has wrapped itself around genetics like a snake wraps itself around it's prey. Genetics has produced not one but two laws of science and all Darwinism has done is make ubiquitous assumptions of exclusively naturalistic causes. This is Genetics:

The rediscovery of Mendel's laws of heredity in the opening weeks of the 20th century sparked a scientific quest to understand the nature and content of genetic information that has propelled biology for the last hundred years. The scientific progress made falls naturally into four main phases, corresponding roughly to the four quarters of the century. The first established the cellular basis of heredity: the chromosomes. The second defined the molecular basis of heredity: the DNA double helix. The third unlocked the informational basis of heredity, with the discovery of the biological mechanism by which cells read the information contained in genes and with the invention of the recombinant DNA technologies of cloning and sequencing by which scientists can do the same. (Initial Sequence of the Human Genome, Nature 2001)
​

This is Darwinism:

The doctrine that species, including man, are descended from other species. He first did the eminent service of arousing attention to the probability of all change in the organic, as well as in the inorganic world, being the result of law, and not of miraculous interposition. (Darwin, On the Origin of Species)
​

Ignore the obvious all you like but at this point I'm still the only one appealing to the actual science.

Have a nice day
Mark

 

[VirOptimus]

I'm not the one ignoring the evidence, in most of these debates I'm the only one appealing to the actual scientific evidence. There are two basic assumptions to Darwinian logic, the first is the a priori assumption of universal common descent by exclusively naturalistic means. If you refuse to make the first one the second one kicks in automatically, you must be ignorant. That's not science, that's supposition.

Darwinism was spliced into Genetics as it was growing into a genuine science through the Modern Synthesis. It has wrapped itself around genetics like a snake wraps itself around it's prey. Genetics has produced not one but two laws of science and all Darwinism has done is make ubiquitous assumptions of exclusively naturalistic causes. This is Genetics:

The rediscovery of Mendel's laws of heredity in the opening weeks of the 20th century sparked a scientific quest to understand the nature and content of genetic information that has propelled biology for the last hundred years. The scientific progress made falls naturally into four main phases, corresponding roughly to the four quarters of the century. The first established the cellular basis of heredity: the chromosomes. The second defined the molecular basis of heredity: the DNA double helix. The third unlocked the informational basis of heredity, with the discovery of the biological mechanism by which cells read the information contained in genes and with the invention of the recombinant DNA technologies of cloning and sequencing by which scientists can do the same. (Initial Sequence of the Human Genome, Nature 2001)
​

This is Darwinism:

The doctrine that species, including man, are descended from other species. He first did the eminent service of arousing attention to the probability of all change in the organic, as well as in the inorganic world, being the result of law, and not of miraculous interposition. (Darwin, On the Origin of Species)
​

Ignore the obvious all you like but at this point I'm still the only one appealing to the actual science.

Have a nice day
Mark

I know this has been said to you a million times; common descent is not a priori assumption.

Common descent is concluded from the facts.

Write a peer-reviewed paper if you think you can. As long as you dont your whole argumentation can be safely discarded and ignored.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Yes, there is.

It is arguably the most evidenced theory we have.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ViaCrucis]

The majority of Christians don't believe in verbal plenary inspiration.

As they have no reason to. It's not a biblical teaching or a teaching of the Christian Church.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[AdamSK]

He says "no explanation how" the human accelerated regions accelerated. Which displays profound ignorance on his part, as explanations for the HARs have been uncovered along with the HARs themselves since we started identifying them.

http://journals.plos.org/plosgenetics/article?id=10.1371/journal.pgen.0020168

 

[AdamSK]

Also, be very wary of the misuse of probability in HAR discussions. Remember the HAR regions are defined by having the most unexpected differences from chimp DNA.

If you roll a million dice, you will expect to get about 1/6th sixes, but there will be regions that just by chance have a considerably higher proportion of sixes. Don't make the mistake of identifying those regions and then using them to criticize the randomness of the system.

 

[mark kennedy]

He says "no explanation how" the human accelerated regions accelerated. Which displays profound ignorance on his part, as explanations for the HARs have been uncovered along with the HARs themselves since we started identifying them.

http://journals.plos.org/plosgenetics/article?id=10.1371/journal.pgen.0020168

Unlike you I've actually read that, I don't just spam a link and make snide remarks. And there is no 'we' here, the only thing you have discovered is a forum where you can sling ad hominem attacks that pass for actual arguments.

Also, be very wary of the misuse of probability in HAR discussions. Remember the HAR regions are defined by having the most unexpected differences from chimp DNA.

You mean they have been identified as being the biggest differences and they do include vitally important genes, HAR1f for example.

If you roll a million dice, you will expect to get about 1/6th sixes, but there will be regions that just by chance have a considerably higher proportion of sixes. Don't make the mistake of identifying those regions and then using them to criticize the randomness of the system.

You think you can roll the dice with a regulatory gene that is:

...expressed specifically in Cajal– Retzius neurons in the developing human neocortex from 7 to 19 gestational weeks, a crucial period for cortical neuron specification and migration. HAR1F is co-expressed with reelin, a product of Cajal–Retzius neurons that is of fundamental importance in specifying the six-layer structure of the human cortex.(Nature 2006)
​

And you have the nerve to call me ignorant. Scraping the bottom of the barrel again I see.

Have a nice day
Mark

 

[AdamSK]

No, I mean they are defined as having the biggest difference. HAR1 is literally the most divergent region from chimp genes, by definition - just as chromosome 1 is the longest chromosome by definition.

 

[AV1611VET]

Which tells everyone that you know nothing about evolution,

Then daisy chain it from Cyanobacteria to man -- with physical evidence.

 

[AV1611VET]

It's not a biblical teaching or a teaching of the Christian Church.

-CryptoLutheran

Says you.

 

[AdamSK]

Then daisy chain it from Cyanobacteria to man -- with physical evidence.

I don't think Cyanobacteria is a human ancestor according to biologists. Correct me if I'm wrong.

 

[AdamSK]

Yeah, I confirmed. Cyanobacteria are a likely progenitor of chloroplasts and eventually plants. Not ancestral to heterotrophic eukaryotes.

 

[mark kennedy]

No, I mean they are defined as having the biggest difference. HAR1 is literally the most divergent region from chimp genes, by definition - just as chromosome 1 is the longest chromosome by definition.

Which leads one to ask what this vitally important regulatory is doing there. Its represented in both chimpanzees and chickens with only two nucleotides diverging which represents over 300 million years then 2 million years ago it gets 18. At the same time the SRGAP2 is supposedly its third duplication followed by massive overhauls. Meanwhile the chimpanzees have disappeared from the fossil record so all we know is that they were getting inundated by endoretroviruse invasions leaving over a million base pairs in their genome.

What puzzles me is that evolutionist never seem to have the slightest difficulty. That just tells me they are either grossly uninformed or disingenuous. I suspect both.

 

[VirOptimus]

Which leads one to ask what this vitally important regulatory is doing there. Its represented in both chimpanzees and chickens with only two nucleotides diverging which represents over 300 million years then 2 million years ago it gets 18. At the same time the SRGAP2 is supposedly its third duplication followed by massive overhauls. Meanwhile the chimpanzees have disappeared from the fossil record so all we know is that they were getting inundated by endoretroviruse invasions leaving over a million base pairs in their genome.

What puzzles me is that evolutionist never seem to have the slightest difficulty. That just tells me they are either grossly uninformed or disingenuous. I suspect both.

Write a peer reviewed paper.

Put up or shut up as they say.

 

[AdamSK]

What puzzles me is that evolutionist never seem to have the slightest difficulty.

Pure rhetoric. You extensively quote any acknowledgement that there's a discrepancy in the data or a transition not fully understood. Then you turn around and say that no one ever acknowledges any problems.
Biologists are looking for aberrations in the model and then finding explanations for them - that is what scientists are doing in all experimental fields. The model is not widely suspect nor in particular jeopardy, but as in every other area we are refining the data and we do find things that don't fit. To act like we don't is just as dishonest as to act like those anomalies undermine whole model. Neither is true.

 

[AV1611VET]

I don't think Cyanobacteria is a human ancestor according to biologists. Correct me if I'm wrong.

I was talking about all life in general.

But if it'll make it easier for him, he can daisy chain us back to the first hominids with physical evidence.