The light of evolution: What would be lost

[whois]

Instead of continuing to argue about who said what about what Koonin said, why don't you do what I've asked you repeatedly: show how anything Koonin said -- in print, in an email, to his barber -- has any relevance at all to the subject of this thread. We have posted several examples of how evolution is used in science. If you think any issue Koonin raised affects those uses in any way, show it. Don't just suggest that HGT is some kind of problem for the practical application of evolution; explain why it is.

Let's be concrete. One of the practical applications of common descent is using a closely related species to determine the ancestral state of a locus. Thus, if I want to know which base is ancestral in humans, I see which base is present in chimpanzees and gorillas. I know that I'll be wrong a small fraction of the time (on the order of 1%, less if I take some precautions), and that's acceptable. If you think epigenomic inheritance affects that error rate, show how it does. If you think HGT means I'll be wrong a lot of the time, do the calculation and show how much it increases the error. If you can't do that, then your quotations from Koonin are irrelevant to the subject of this thread and do not belong here.

i have already answered this, and i'll repeat it here.
how can any type of prediction based on neodarwinism be correct when koonin and noble both agree that neodarwinism needs replaced?
the assumptions made by neodarwinism are simply wrong sfs.

 

[Loudmouth]

instead of sidestepping the issue with your pathetic strawman "email" tactic, why don't you directly address the issue?
it's quite obvious koonin isn't a creationist*, and that is all you are concerned with.

It is also quite obvious that he thinks life evolved. So why keep bringing it up?

evolution IS NOT this "small gradual change" stuff everyone is led to believe.

I was brought up understanding that HGT can transfer large amounts of DNA. Perhaps you should stop with the generalities?

koonin also makes it clear that "natural selection" is not the only mode of evolution, and might not be the primary mode.

Primary mode for what, specifically? If you are talking about overall genetic changes throughout a genome, I would probably agree. Overall, genetic drift accounts for more base changes in a genome than positive or negative selection. If you are talking about adaptive change, then I would disagree. The changes that improve fitness are primarily the product of selection acting on random mutations.

the fossil record certainly seems to support that position.
in regards to punctuated equilibrium, this is not "fast gradual change".

Punctuated Equilibria works just fine through vertical inheritance in eukaryotes.

maynard smith makes that clear with his paper of the 8 transitions noted in evolution.
maynard also makes it clear that there is no theory that explains these transitions, nor is there empirical evidence of them.

"Our excuse for writing an article concerning topics as diverse as the origins of genes, of cells and of language is that all are concerned with the storage and transmission of information. The article is more of an agenda for future research than a summary of what is known. But there is sufficient formal similarity between the various transitions to hold out the hope that progress in understanding any one of them will help to illuminate others."--Eors Szathmary and John Maynard Smith, "The Major Evolutionary Transitions" (1995), [any transcription errors are mine]
https://www.phy.duke.edu/sites/defa...ajor-evolutionary-transitions-Nature-1995.pdf

That Maynard, the one who openly admits that his paper was not meant to be a summary of previous research?

 

[Loudmouth]

i have already answered this, and i'll repeat it here.
how can any type of prediction based on neodarwinism be correct when koonin and noble both agree that neodarwinism needs replaced?

Koonin already stated that neo-Darwinism still works quite well in eukaryotes.

the assumptions made by neodarwinism are simply wrong sfs.

The assumptions are still right for the vast majority of eukaryote genetics.

Also, sfs laid out some questions for you to answer, which you didn't. They are very important questions. You should try to answer them.

"If you think epigenomic inheritance affects that error rate, show how it does."

"If you think HGT means I'll be wrong a lot of the time, do the calculation and show how much it increases the error."

 

[lasthero]

did you notice that i used the word "strawman" in regards to what the cadet did in his email tactic?
i directly challenged the cadet to send koonin my posts and ask koonin if i misrepresented him.
so far, the cadet has not done that.
if you have any doubt whatsoever about what i posted, or linked to regarding koonin and what he said, then feel free to send him my posts.
please don't resort to this strawman attempt like the cadet has done.

What's stopping you from emailing him?

 

[whois]

sfs,
i have already given one paper on HGT for animals, and you said it was a claim, essentially not really "proven".
you might be interested in this:
www.huffingtonpost.com/james-a-shapiro/the-evolutionary-importan_b_1936059.html

 

[whois]

What's stopping you from emailing him?

i have no reason to.
i'm not the one that has a problem with what he is saying.

 

[Loudmouth]

sfs,
i have already given one paper on HGT for animals, and you said it was a claim, essentially not really "proven".
you might be interested in this:
www.huffingtonpost.com/james-a-shapiro/the-evolutionary-importan_b_1936059.html

We can give you hundreds of thousands of papers on VGT in animals.

Why do you think you share nearly 100% of your DNA with your parents and siblings? Is it due to HGT or VGT?

 

[Loudmouth]

i have no reason to.
i'm not the one that has a problem with what he is saying.

Really?

" The comparative infrequency of HGT in the eukaryote part of the biological world means, however, that in this case the conceptual implications for the TOL might not be as drastic: the evolutionary histories of many eukaryotes appear to produce tree-like patterns (e.g., 27])."
http://www.biologydirect.com/content/6/1/32

So you have no problem with using tree-like vertical inheritance for eukaryotes, being that this is what Koonin agrees with?

 

[sfs]

i have already answered this, and i'll repeat it here.
how can any type of prediction based on neodarwinism be correct when koonin and noble both agree that neodarwinism needs replaced?

And I already answered your question, so I'll repeat my answer: the parts of the neodarwinian synthesis that need to be changed have no effect on the kind of predictions we're talking about. So why are you bringing up irrelevant issues?

Why didn't you answer my question? What effect do any of these processes have on the subject of this thread? Are you unable to answer?

 

[sfs]

sfs,
i have already given one paper on HGT for animals, and you said it was a claim, essentially not really "proven".

I also said that, if that paper were 100% correct, it would make no real difference to the questions we're discussing here. As I recall, you ignored that point. Why?

you might be interested in this:
www.huffingtonpost.com/james-a-shapiro/the-evolutionary-importan_b_1936059.html

Not particularly. As usual, Shapiro overstates his conclusion (a "key" role in adaptive evolution? how has he demonstrated that?). More to the point, my response is the same as it is every time you introduce HGT into this thread: so what? Show how it matters.

 

[The Cadet]

The fact that he posted direct quotes from the man saying that he in no way disagrees with the major concepts of the ToE including common descent, and completely looks down upon people who try to twist his words didn't end this argument immediately?

Yeah, pretty much. As soon as that email was dropped, we needed to drop that subject, as it is perfectly clear that whois is wrong, and that even if he didn't, it would have absolutely nothing to do with the topic of this thread.

Can we all please stop engaging him on that subject, and report any further off-topic posts he makes? This thread is disrupted enough as it is and it would be really nice to get back to, yanno, the topic.

 

[sfs]

Yeah, pretty much. As soon as that email was dropped, we needed to drop that subject, as it is perfectly clear that whois is wrong, and that even if he didn't, it would have absolutely nothing to do with the topic of this thread.

Can we all please stop engaging him on that subject, and report any further off-topic posts he makes? This thread is disrupted enough as it is and it would be really nice to get back to, yanno, the topic.

My memory is that whois is female, but other than that . . . sure. Maybe we can get back to juvi explaining how he can reproduce the predictions of common descent with simple logic.

 

[Loudmouth]

My memory is that whois is female, but other than that . . . sure. Maybe we can get back to juvi explaining how he can reproduce the predictions of common descent with simple logic.

That had the strangely entertaining qualities of a panda trying to recreate the Mona Lisa.

 

[whois]

My memory is that whois is female, but other than that . . . sure. Maybe we can get back to juvi explaining how he can reproduce the predictions of common descent with simple logic.

my point exactly, how can anyone make any such prediction when i introduced at least 4 sources that say any such prediction would be impossible.
you cannot possibly know what genes would be incorporated by HGT. (2 sources, biology direct and shapiro)
how can any such prediction be made when the assumptions the theory is based on are wrong. (2 sources, noble and koonin)

so, don't be telling me my posts are off topic.

 

[Loudmouth]

under construction

 

[Loudmouth]

my point exactly, how can anyone make any such prediction when i introduced at least 4 sources that say any such prediction would be impossible.

They said it was possible in eukaryotes.

you cannot possibly know what genes would be incorporated by HGT.

Yes we can. All you need to do is align the genomes.

how can any such prediction be made when the assumptions the theory is based on are wrong. (2 sources, noble and koonin)

Koonin clearly said that you can use the tree model for eukaryotes.

 

[MikeEnders]

Did you watch the videos in the first post? The evolutionary model has been used to make countless predictions and advances in our lives. Common ancestry was a crucial part in many of these discoveries.

Your video is a strawman for what you are using it for. The very first thing it does in order to get to where it wants to go is conflate microevolution with macroevolution. At least try to think logically. it doesn't matter that you or the video thinks they are the same thing. The position of creationists is that they DO ACCEPT one but not the other so citing evidence that what they call microevolution WHICH THEY ADHERE TO AS WELL is used for scientific advances in no way shape or form makes your point that creationism would impede science or that evolution offers ANYTHING more than a creationists would offer.

This is why your claims are CLASSIC strawman fallacies. You cannot in any logical way make a claim that what creationists accept and believe anyway can be used to deny their position or bolster yours against them. Creationists believe that the same designer designed all creatures so even many of the things some evolutionist do (such as use animals to test for drugs on humans - which often doesn't equate anyway) would and are STILL used by creationists since they expect similarities based on design.

Once you spot the obvious strawman fallacies in your argument your whole premise just falls apart and flat. Sorry.

 

[bhsmte]

.

 

[MikeEnders]

incidentally for those trying to make it out like Whois has no point whatsoever - although I never build my case on personalities or authority figures - I don't see how any of you can make that case when he mentions Noble and Coyne himself has a conniption about Noble's claims

https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpres...the-modern-theory-of-evolution-is-in-tatters/

IF Noble is so much inline with neo darwinism then what is Coyne so upset over? Obviously Whois has a valid point although as I stated I don't rest my case on authority

 

[Loudmouth]

Your video is a strawman for what you are using it for. The very first thing it does in order to get to where it wants to go is conflate microevolution with macroevolution.

The theory of evolution proposes that the accumulation of changes from microevolution add up to macroevolution which is why they are discussed as being one in the same.

The position of creationists is that they DO ACCEPT one but not the other . . .

It isn't the fault of scientists that creationists refuse to accept the evidence. Refusing to believe something does not change the reality.

This is why your claims are CLASSIC strawman fallacies. You cannot in any logical way make a claim that what creationists accept and believe anyway can be used to deny their position or bolster yours against them. Creationists believe that the same designer designed all creatures so even many of the things some evolutionist do (such as use animals to test for drugs on humans - which often doesn't equate anyway) would and are STILL used by creationists since they expect similarities based on design.

SIFTER is an algorithm based on macroevolution, which you refuse to accept. This algorithm can predict protein function better than other methods. It does this by using the evolutionary relationships from different species. Different species evolving from a common ancestor is macroevolution.

We present a statistical graphical model to infer specific molecular function for unannotated protein sequences using homology. Based on phylogenomic principles, SIFTER (Statistical Inference of Function Through Evolutionary Relationships) accurately predicts molecular function for members of a protein family given a reconciled phylogeny and available function annotations, even when the data are sparse or noisy. . . Given function annotations for 3% of the proteins in the deaminase family, SIFTER achieves 96% accuracy in predicting molecular function for experimentally characterized proteins as reported in the literature. The accuracy of SIFTER on this dataset is a significant improvement over other currently available methods such as BLAST (75%), GeneQuiz (64%), GOtcha (89%), and Orthostrapper (11%).
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16217548​