The Cambrian problem

[lasthero]

Do you tell professional athletes that they don't know anything about their sport?

To be fair, if he does, he's hardly alone in that regard.

 

[sfs]

To be fair, if he does, he's hardly alone in that regard.

Too true. And everybody tells refs how to do their job.

 

[sfs]

I'll dig some up and post them. Probably tomorrow.

On the number of loci that have been under recent positive selection in humans: There was a spate of surveys of positive selection starting around ten years ago. Here is one; here is a another. The latter is a second-generation study, and unlike most earlier efforts includes an estimate of the false discovery rate (which was low). There were several others, and the full list of candidate loci is well over a thousand. Most of them were detected using long-haplotype tests for selection. My estimate of ~20,000 years for the sensitivity of that kind of test comes from this review, which also describes the various kinds of test.

This paper cast some doubt on the selection scans, claiming that there actually few selective events of the kind the scans were looking for. That paper was then refuted by this one, which provided strong evidence for abundant positive selection in humans. Taken at face value, their simulations suggest a lower limit of one successful beneficial mutation every thousand years, but the uncertainties were too large for them to claim a clear bound.

 

[AV1611VET]

And everybody tells refs how to do their job.

Do the refs revel in the fact that they can't wait to be shown wrong for the sake of progress?

Do the refs huddle in the middle of the field and "peer review" each other?

Do the refs rig votes behind closed doors?

 

[sfs]

Do the refs revel in the fact that they can't wait to be shown wrong for the sake of progress?

Do the refs huddle in the middle of the field and "peer review" each other?

Do the refs rig votes behind closed doors?

Do the refs claim the game started in the third quarter with an embedded first half?

 

[ecco]

Do those that have faith in evolutionism realize that when the cambrian fossils are examined it is seen that the major phyla and classes of animals suddenly appear fully developed in the cambrian strata with no ancestral linage leading up to the many different phyla and classes.

In other word, you don't see the speciation of animals producing different genera, then the continuation of morphological evolution producing animals that can be divided into different families and then orders.

Instead, as mentioned above, the cambrian geological record contains fossilized animals that are very diverse in the hierarchy of the taxonomical rank and show no sign of a slow divergence from a common ancestor....the mutations are not show to add up.

The theory belonging to evolutionism tells us that all life evolved from a common ancestor. This hypothesis is taught as fact in our schools and even presented from time to time on this forum as the truth. But is it true or just another lie from the camps of evolutionism which have been kept secret?

The question becomes:

Why do the major phyla and classes of animals suddenly appear fully developed in the cambrian fossils with no ancestral linage leading up to the phyla and classes that are found fossilized there as the T.O.E. predict they should?

Instead, a major problem for evolutionism is recognized. The geological record has fossilized animals that are very diverse in the hierarchy of the taxonomical rank and show no sign of a slow divergence from a common ancestor. The animals found in the cambrian strata are already divided into different phyla and classes.

The bedrock, or the basement strata of rocks don't present descent with modification as the theory of evolutionism calls for. In fact, one could claim that it appears to be pretty much up-side-down.

Perhaps you missed my post #258

Are the words in the OP your original writings? I don't see any attribution to indicate you copy and pasted. However I did a quick Google and found this...

Secret of Evolutionism
Author: YEC
Posted: 01/02/2005 04:48 PM

Let's look at what is in your OP and what YEC wrote in 2005:
From the OP
The theory belonging to evolutionism tells us that all life evolved from a common ancestor. This hypothesis is taught as fact in our schools and even presented from time to time on this forum as the truth. But is it true or just another lie from the camps of evolutionism which have been kept secret?

From YEC 2005

The theory belonging to evolutionism tells us that all life evolved from a common ancestor. This hypothesis is taught as fact in our schools and even presented from time to time on this and other forum as the truth. But is it true or just another lie from the camps of evolutionism which have been kept secret?​

Unless you are YEC your op is blatant plagiarism. Worse yet, it shows you have no ability to convey your own thoughts, if any.
If you are YEC you could have avoided all this by indicating that you were quoting from an earlier posting.​

 

[PsychoSarah]

More nothing. You're kinda like saying, if you poor more blue into the yellow paint you get a different shade of green. Big deal.

...still the amazing thing is...if the fruit fly has such a high rate....why is the fruit fly still a fruit fly? Why are the differences a leg in the wrong place or an extra eye?

Come on my evo-friends....how do mutations add u?

Oh, the leg things are what we use to study mutations because they are really easy to see without having to check genomes constantly. And we are especially interested in the genes that control early development, which control what structures form where... which is unfortunate for the flies.

The fruit fly is still a fruit fly because those experiments are typically used to tell what genes do what, and inheritance patterns over the span of a small number of generations. Bacteria are used for more extensive evolution experiments.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You keep skipping steps by assuming conditions that are impossible.

You cannot compress gas in space.

There is no way to get a ball of gas, only clouds.

Raise the temperature and the clouds disperse.

Sorry, I have been busy. Gravity will compress gas in space. I thought that sfs explained that to you. His post was rather clear.

What will happen is that gravity will compress it to a point, the gas will heat as it compresses resisting the force of gravity. But that heat is quickly radiated away, it will continually compress more and more and heat more and more. By the time something the size of the Sun has compressed it will have heated enough so that it "ignites". You do realize that the Sun is just a hot ball of gas that is only held in place by gravity, don't you?

 

[pat34lee]

99.9999% of all mutations aren't harmful. If the only thing you know about evolution is wildly inaccurate, all you're going to do is convince people that you don't know what you're talking about.

Look up actual experiments on mutations.

I did make a mistake though. 99.9999% includes neutral mutations.
The point is that there are virtually no positive mutations that can
bring about evolution in a positive direction.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Look up actual experiments on mutations.

I did make a mistake though. 99.9999% includes neutral mutations.
The point is that there are virtually no positive mutations that can
bring about evolution in a positive direction.

Not even close:

" An experiment with E. coli found that about 1 in 150 newly arising mutations and 1 in 10 functional mutations are beneficial (Perfeito et al. 2007). "

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB101.html

 

[pat34lee]

You have been lied to, or you are lying.

That might work if DNA only read one way, like English.
DNA reads forward, backward, some parts read from different genes.

Think of trying to make changes to a puzzle where it reads left to right
all the way through, every other line reads right to left, several columns
read top to bottom, and it has a letter-skip code through it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That might work if DNA only read one way, like English.
DNA reads forward, backward, some parts read from different genes.

Think of trying to make changes to a puzzle where it reads left to right
all the way through, every other line reads right to left, several columns
read top to bottom, and it has a letter-skip code through it.

It may read that way in places, but it does not always read that way. There are clearly defined genes. You are making a typical creationist mistake. Creationists tend to be "all or nothing" types. They seem to think that if something happens once it happens all of the time.

And also it is in actuality rather hard to judge if a mutation is positive or detrimental. Quite often it matters on what environment the mutation is in.

 

[pat34lee]

Not even close:

" An experiment with E. coli found that about 1 in 150 newly arising mutations and 1 in 10 functional mutations are beneficial (Perfeito et al. 2007). "

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB101.html

Ok, go back to the original tests and do two things.

Find out how he decides which mutations are harmful, neutral or beneficial.

And, if his experiments are repeatable. Most studies are not.

Either way, notice that 149 of 150 new mutations and 9 of 10 are not beneficial.
That is best case and not likely true to begin.

 

[pat34lee]

Sorry, I have been busy. Gravity will compress gas in space. I thought that sfs explained that to you. His post was rather clear.

What will happen is that gravity will compress it to a point, the gas will heat as it compresses resisting the force of gravity. But that heat is quickly radiated away, it will continually compress more and more and heat more and more. By the time something the size of the Sun has compressed it will have heated enough so that it "ignites". You do realize that the Sun is just a hot ball of gas that is only held in place by gravity, don't you?

Gravity will not compress gas. If you have a large enough body, it may suck the gas into its
atmosphere, but with a star, you have to begin with that mass. You cannot build it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Gravity will not compress gas. If you have a large enough body, it may suck the gas into its
atmosphere, but with a star, you have to begin with that mass. You cannot build it.

Of course it will. Your blanket denials don't prove anything. Talk to the people that have actually done the math.

Once again, the Sun is only a hot ball of gas and all that holds it in place is gravity. Why does the sun hold together, if it isn't due to only gravity? You are merely looking at gas on the Earth and incorrectly using it as a model.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Ok, go back to the original tests and do two things.

Find out how he decides which mutations are harmful, neutral or beneficial.

And, if his experiments are repeatable. Most studies are not.

Either way, notice that 149 of 150 new mutations and 9 of 10 are not beneficial.
That is best case and not likely true to begin.

Wrong, most studies are repeatable. The same mutations will not occur, but that does not mean that the experiment is not repeatable. You need to learn what "repeatable" means in that context. The source that I used linked to actual peer reviewed work that supported his claim. So far you have provided nothing.

 

[sfs]

Look up actual experiments on mutations.

I don't have to look up the experiments; I can walk down the hall to where the grad students are doing the experiments. In fact, we're analyzing data from one of the experiments right now, and I just received a dataset from field samples that I'll have to analyze this week. Both sets of data have beneficial mutations in them (beneficial for the organism in question -- not so good for human beings, unfortunately).

I did make a mistake though. 99.9999% includes neutral mutations.
The point is that there are virtually no positive mutations that can
bring about evolution in a positive direction.

And my point is that you're wrong. Completely wrong. You haven't studied genetics, you haven't generated or analyzed real genetic data, and you have no basis at all for having an opinion on the subject. Yet you're perfectly confident that you understand mutations better than the people who study them for hours every day, year after year.

 

[lesliedellow]

And my point is that you're wrong. Completely wrong. You haven't studied genetics, you haven't generated or analyzed real genetic data, and you have no basis at all for having an opinion on the subject. Yet you're perfectly confident that you understand mutations better than the people who study them for hours every day, year after year.

But of course. People who would have trouble passing a high school science exam, but who think they know better than all the world's biologists/astrophysicists put together, are not exactly a rarity on here.

 

[Subduction Zone]

But of course. People who would have trouble passing a high school science exam, but who think they know better than all the world's biologists/astrophysicists put together, are not exactly a rarity on here.

Learning is such a pain. Why bother when a group of bronze and iron age shepherds already had the answers?

 

[Dr GS Hurd]

Look up actual experiments on mutations.

I did make a mistake though. 99.9999% includes neutral mutations.
The point is that there are virtually no positive mutations that can
bring about evolution in a positive direction.

"Acceleration of Emergence of Bacterial Antibiotic Resistance in Connected Microenvironments" Qiucen Zhang, Guillaume Lambert, David Liao, Hyunsung Kim, Kristelle Robin, Chih-kuan Tung, Nader Pourmand, Robert H. Austin, Science 23 September 2011: Vol. 333 no. 6050 pp. 1764-1767

“It is surprising that four apparently functional SNPs should fix in a population within 10 hours of exposure to antibiotic in our experiment. A detailed understanding of the order in which the SNPs occur is essential, but it is unlikely that the four SNPs emerged simultaneously; in all likelihood they are sequential (21–23). The device and data we have described here offer a template for exploring the rates at which antibiotic resistance arises in the complex fitness landscapes that prevail in the mammalian body. Furthermore, our study provides a framework for exploring rapid evolution in other contexts such as cancer (24).