Evolution My ToE

[Dan From Smithville]

Of course, one sees above that you again protest that you've answered the question, again ignored the request to quote the alleged answer, and are persisting in your games.

You don't have a definition of a real god, such that we could tell whether any real candidate is a real god or not. That is, you don't know what real thing or entity you intend to denote when you say "God".

You don't even know what 'godness' is, the quality a real god would have and a real superscientist who could make universes and raise the dead &c would lack.

So I take from our dialog the fact that when you speak of God, you don't intend to denote any real being, any being with objective existence. You don't know what that could be. You intend instead to denote an imaginary being, a most convenient concept and flexible to meet all occasions.

No shame in that, since no one else knows either. But seems to me it's not to your own benefit to leave the matter unanswered in your own mind, regardless of any RF or other conversations ─ you'd just be kidding yourself.

Ciao. Feel free to let me know when you've worked it out.

A question I have no answer for, but has given me pause for consideration at various times over the years regards the concepts you have been asking about, but receiving no answer to.

How could an alien being or population with technology so advanced as to have the appearance of godlike ability be delineated from an actual god?

I don't know myself, though I have tried to tackle it. It is not a question unknown even in popular culture. The idea has come up in literature and movies.

 

[shunyadragon]

You've thrown in different things that I wasn't alluding to as I was not referring to the creation accounts. It's obviously that they were typically looked at as being literal even though it's questionable as to whether the original authors took it that way, and many Jewish scholars believe that these accounts may have been carried orally prior to being written.

Logically, the first three centuries of the Church could not have believed in sola scriptura as the canon had not been decided upon, plus there was significant disagreement as even to which books should be admitted into it. It took over 1/2 a century to decide upon the canon, and even at the end of that council the books we now call the "Apocrypha" weren't decided upon.

Even though Luther started the movement towards sola scriptura, it took another several hundred years for some denominations to teach inerrancy with what we call the "fundamentalist movement" that was largely a rejection of "modernism".

I disagree based on the references to the Church Fathers. It is true concerning the NT that in the first centuries the gospels evolved, and the number and which of the books and letters were considered cannon varied, but the with some variation the Church Father did indicate the books they had were the true scripture and Sola Scriptura. The Pentateuch is a different story. At the time of the Church fathers the Pentateuch was well established and Genesis and Exodus was considered literal history as referenced.

 

[nPeace]

To say this is to be utterly ignorant of all of the available facts.

And, yet again, you insert the word "prove" where it doesn't belong. YoursTrue, how many times have people told you on this forum that science doesn't PROVE things?

What DNA provides is EVIDENCE of common ancestry, especially when COUPLED WITH ALL THE REST OF THE EVIDENCE.

Only when you apply circular reasoning.

See, DNA alone would be very solid evidence of evolution, since we only know of one possible means by which two organisms can share large amounts of DNA, and that is shared ancestry.

That's not true.
Common ancestry is only one possible mechanism that results in similarity between sequences.

But even ignoring this, the DNA coupled with the nested hierarchy of the fossil record, ERVs, chromosome fusion and all the remaining geological and archaeological evidence all leads us to the conclusion of common ancestry.

By using circular reasoning based on assumptions you can arrive at that conclusion, yes.

Please try to memorize this simple fact: No ONE FACT demonstrates the truth of common ancestry. It is a conclusion REACHED when looking at a wide variety of evidence from multiple fields.

A conclusion that has been questioned for so many years now, and is being questioned even more so, today.
The public may not know this, unless they read peer reviewed journals.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Only when you apply circular reasoning.

Care to demonstrate the circuclar reasoning, then?

That's not true.
Common ancestry is only one possible mechanism that results in similarity between sequences.

Not a single thing in this post actually addresses what I wrote.

Please demonstrate a means by which two organisms can share a large amount of genetic information without common descent.

By using circular reasoning based on assumptions you can arrive at that conclusion, yes.

There is no circular reasoning unless you can demonstrate it.

A conclusion that has been questioned for so many years now, and is being questioned even more so, today.
The public may not know this, unless they read peer reviewed journals.

This is just a lie. Evolution is more widely accepted now than ever. Your manipualtive misuse and misunderstanding of scientific papers doesn't indicate anything else.

 

[nPeace]

Care to demonstrate the circuclar reasoning, then?

I already did, but I don't want to get in the usual back and forth argument with you, so I'll put this in the frivolous category... for now (only because it gets us absolutely nowhere).

Not a single thing in this post actually addresses what I wrote.

Addresses? It doesn't address it. The post refutes your assertion.
Did you not say..."See, DNA alone would be very solid evidence of evolution, since we only know of one possible means by which two organisms can share large amounts of DNA, and that is shared ancestry."?

Then, how is this statement in agreement... Common ancestry is only one possible mechanism that results in similarity between sequences.

The latter statement refutes the former. Isn't that true?

Please demonstrate a means by which two organisms can share a large amount of genetic information without common descent.

Alignments are often assumed to reflect a degree of evolutionary change between sequences descended from a common ancestor; however, it is formally possible that convergent evolution can occur to produce apparent similarity between proteins that are evolutionarily unrelated but perform similar functions and have similar structures.

...is common ancestry the only explanation? The answer is: no, a logically consistent alternative does exist and involves convergence from unrelated sequences

There is no circular reasoning unless you can demonstrate it.


This is just a lie. Evolution is more widely accepted now than ever. Your manipualtive misuse and misunderstanding of scientific papers doesn't indicate anything else.

No, I did not lie.
Please explain what you mean by evolution. The terminology is applied various ways, and I do accept evolution is observed on a daily basis.

If you are referring to the theory of evolution as being "more widely accepted now than ever", please identify which theory of evolution you are referring to, and please demonstrate that your statement is true.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I already did, but I don't want to get in the usual back and forth argument with you, so I'll put this in the frivolous category... for now (only because it gets us absolutely nowhere).

"I totally did, but I don't have to show you because you smell."

Convincing argument.

Addresses? It doesn't address it. The post refutes your assertion.
Did you not say..."See, DNA alone would be very solid evidence of evolution, since we only know of one possible means by which two organisms can share large amounts of DNA, and that is shared ancestry."?

Then, how is this statement in agreement... Common ancestry is only one possible mechanism that results in similarity between sequences.

The latter statement refutes the former. Isn't that true?

No, it doesn't.

Read carefully.

Alignments are often assumed to reflect a degree of evolutionary change between sequences descended from a common ancestor; however, it is formally possible that convergent evolution can occur to produce apparent similarity between proteins that are evolutionarily unrelated but perform similar functions and have similar structures.

...is common ancestry the only explanation? The answer is: no, a logically consistent alternative does exist and involves convergence from unrelated sequences

Do you have any expert analysis which shows that LARGE AMOUNTS of similarity can be ascribed the convergent evolution?

We're talking 20 - 98% of the entire sequence.

No, I did not lie.

Yes, you did. You claimed the conclusion of common ancestry is being questioned "even more so" today. This is categorically and demonstrably not true.

Please explain what you mean by evolution. The terminology is applied various ways, and I do accept evolution is observed on a daily basis.

Did you mean to address common ancestry specifically? Because my statement was equally true for evolutionary theory in general, and common ancestry specifically.

If you are referring to the theory of evolution as being "more widely accepted now than ever", please identify which theory of evolution you are referring to, and please demonstrate that your statement is true.

There is one unified theory of evolution currently, with many different schools of thought adding evidence to the whole.

 

[John53]

A conclusion that has been questioned for so many years now, and is being questioned even more so, today.
The public may not know this, unless they read peer reviewed journals.

Questioning it is a good thing, that's how we learn. Unlike the many religions which don't allow questioning...

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Questioning it is a good thing, that's how we learn. Unlike the many religions which don't allow questioning...

It is the attempt for creationist denial to be lumped in with actual questioning by science and give that denial legitimacy.

 

[ecco]

How could an alien being or population with technology so advanced as to have the appearance of godlike ability be delineated from an actual god?

They wouldn't really need too much advanced technology. All that would be necessary would be to have a ship hover in orbit and take over our TVs I-phones etc. They would just need to say "I am God. If you believe in me, swim naked" and a goodly segment of the population would strip and dive.

The point is that people want to believe, so they do believe.

 

[nPeace]

"I totally did, but I don't have to show you because you smell."

Convincing argument.

No, it doesn't.

Read carefully.

Oh brother.
Do you have anyone around you, whom you can ask to help you understand that statement?
I'll try, but only this time. After that, you are on your own... ma'am.
Common ancestry is only one possible mechanism that results in similarity between sequences.
Notice the sentence does not say... Common ancestry is the only one possible mechanism that results in similarity between sequences.

For example... I might say, 'Karate is only one possible use of force that can result in the death of someone.'
That means of course, there are other possible uses of force that can result in someone's death.

Does that help? I'm done.
Oh. Yes it does.

Do you have any expert analysis which shows that LARGE AMOUNTS of similarity can be ascribed the convergent evolution?

We're talking 20 - 98% of the entire sequence.

That does not matter. We know that they cannot give an accurate measure of the sequences.
All we have to do, is look at the example of the human-chimp comparison, to see how they are limited.
Big mismatches between human and chimp DNA, were not considered - approximately 1.3 billion (or larger.

So you know though, they don't use DNA sequencing where convergent evolution is involved, anyway.

Yes, you did. You claimed the conclusion of common ancestry is being questioned "even more so" today. This is categorically and demonstrably not true.

No it is not. I am not lying. Would you like me to say you are lying?
You are not speaking the truth.

With new understandings now coming to light, the huge assumptions proposed by the Original Modern Synthesis, and those in the more recent Modern Synthesis, are being questioned, big time.

Did you mean to address common ancestry specifically? Because my statement was equally true for evolutionary theory in general, and common ancestry specifically.

Okay, cool.

There is one unified theory of evolution currently, with many different schools of thought adding evidence to the whole.

I think two theories were merged... That's it (speaking under correction)
That unifying theory does not appear to be working out, and even though they don't want to use the term "revolution" it appears to be.

The Extended (Evolutionary) Synthesis Debate: Where Science Meets Philosophy
Abstract
Recent debates between proponents of the modern evolutionary synthesis (the standard model in evolutionary biology) and those of a possible extended synthesis are a good example of the fascinating tangle among empirical, theoretical, and conceptual or philosophical matters that is the practice of evolutionary biology.

[Supporter of MS]
[D]espite mounting empirical discoveries of new phenomena (e.g., epigenetic inheritance) and the elaboration of entirely new concepts (e.g., evolvability; Pigliucci 2008) during the past several decades. ... Lynch (2007) went so far as charging his scientific opponents of engaging in little more than uninformed musings comparable to those of intelligent-design creationists.

At the opposite extreme are some prominent proponents of the ES, ... who on the basis of the very same empirical discoveries and conceptual advancements just mentioned claim that the new biology has dealt an essentially fatal blow to the orthodox Darwinian, genecentric worldview of the MS... The ES would therefore constitute something akin to what philosopher and historian of science Thomas Kuhn (1962) called a “paradigm shift.”

Is a New and General Theory of Evolution Emerging?
Abstract
The “modern synthetic” view of evolution has broken down, at least as an exclusive proposition, on both of its fundamental claims: (1) “extrapolationism” (gradual substitution of different alleles in many genes as the exclusive process underlying all evolutionary change) and (2) nearly exclusive reliance on selection leading to adaptation. Evolution is a hierarchical process with complementary, but different modes of change at its three large-scale levels: (a) variation within populations, (b) speciation, and (c) very long-term macroevolutionary trends.

A new and general evolutionary theory will embody this notion of hierarchy and stress a variety of themes either ignored or explicitly rejected by the modern synthesis: e.g., punctuational change at all levels, important nonadaptive change at all levels, control of evolution not only by selection, but equally by constraints of history, development, and architecture — thus restoring to evolutionary theory a concept of organism. — The Editor

Bear in mind too that you may not know of those scientists who are questioning the mechanism of the theories of evolution. The debate is intense.

 

[Jose Fly]

" Oh brother.
Do you have anyone around you, whom you can ask to help you understand that statement?
I'll try, but only this time. After that, you are on your own... ma'am.
Common ancestry is only one possible mechanism that results in similarity between sequences.
Notice the sentence does not say... Common ancestry is the only one possible mechanism that results in similarity between sequences.

You've been quote mining that paper for some time now. As you did with me before, you once again only quoted where Theobald describes a possible issue/problem, but left out the rest of what he wrote where he explains how he addresses it (i.e., by applying statistical tests to the larger nested hierarchy of the shared sequences).

 

[Astrophile]

Then, how is this statement in agreement... Common ancestry is only one possible mechanism that results in similarity between sequences.

So what other possible mechanisms result in similarity between sequences? Your link doesn't mention intelligent design or special creation as possible mechanisms. Are these other possible mechanisms connected with evolutionary changes resulting from genetic mutations?

 

[nPeace]

You've been quote mining that paper for some time now. As you did with me before, you once again only quoted where Theobald describes a possible issue/problem, but left out the rest of what he wrote where he explains how he addresses it (i.e., by applying statistical tests to the larger nested hierarchy of the shared sequences).

Why should I quote what is not applicable to my point? Should I quote the whole paper, just so you can hear something that's important to you?

 

[nPeace]

So what other possible mechanisms result in similarity between sequences? Your link doesn't mention intelligent design or special creation as possible mechanisms. Are these other possible mechanisms connected with evolutionary changes resulting from genetic mutations?

Are there other possible mechanisms? That is the only point I am making.

 

[Astrophile]

Are there other possible mechanisms? That is the only point I am making.

I don't know; I do not know enough about biology to understand the papers that you linked to. However, I don't think that any professional biologists would assert that the genetic similarities between humans and the other great apes are the result of any mechanism other than descent from a common ancestor.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Are there other possible mechanisms? That is the only point I am making.

There could be. Please note saying that there could be other possible mechanisms is not the same as saying that there are other possible mechanisms. There is no scientific evidence for other possible mechanisms. For example there is no scientific evidence for creationism, and that is at least partially the fault of the cowardice of "creation scientists". I used the scare quotes because it is pretty difficult to call someone a scientist that does not follow the scientific method.

 

[Jose Fly]

Why should I quote what is not applicable to my point? Should I quote the whole paper, just so you can hear something that's important to you?

So you admit to deliberately quoting a paper to make it look like it supports your point, even though it doesn't.

Noted.

 

[Jose Fly]

I don't know; I do not know enough about biology to understand the papers that you linked to. However, I don't think that any professional biologists would assert that the genetic similarities between humans and the other great apes are the result of any mechanism other than descent from a common ancestor.

Actually there's a relatively recent paper that describes how they conducted a test that doesn't assume sequence similarity equals common ancestry, and it still concluded (by far) that humans share a common ancestry with other primates.

I'll post it tomorrow if I get a chance.

 

[nPeace]

I don't know; I do not know enough about biology to understand the papers that you linked to. However, I don't think that any professional biologists would assert that the genetic similarities between humans and the other great apes are the result of any mechanism other than descent from a common ancestor.

It seem strange, you used the term "professional biologist". Is there a reason for that?

I can't count the number of times I have been told to go and learn what I don't know, nor understand.
I suppose you can always apply that. Learning is fun... sometimes.

I decided though, rather than send you to find the information yourself, I'd snip out some bits on HGT (horizontal gene transfer)

Transfer of DNA from Bacteria to Eukaryotes\
...Indeed, analyses of accumulating genomic data reveal cases of horizontal gene transfer from bacteria to eukaryotes and suggest that it represents a significant force in adaptive evolution of eukaryotic species. Specifically, recent reports indicate that bacteria other than Agrobacterium, such as Bartonella henselae (a zoonotic pathogen), Rhizobium etli (a plant-symbiotic bacterium related to Agrobacterium), or even Escherichia coli, have the ability to genetically transform their host cells under laboratory conditions.

Numerous cases of HGT from bacteria to eukaryotes have been demonstrated, although this process is assumed to be much less frequent than HGT between bacteria. The early evolution of eukaryotes was marked by endosymbiotic events leading to permanent acquisition of major organelles, e.g., mitochondria that originated from proteobacteria and plastids that originated from cyanobacteria, followed by organelle-to-nucleus gene transfer, usually referred to as endosymbiotic gene transfer (EGT) (6). Whereas the episodic gene transfer via EGT has a demonstrated evolutionary significance, the importance of HGT in the evolution of eukaryotes is still debated

Horizontal gene transfer in eukaryotes - The weak-link model
About a decade ago, Doolittle et al. raised a question about the number of bacterial genes in protists, speculating that many bacterial genes should have accumulated in genomes of protists through feeding activities 1,2. Back then, horizontal gene transfer (HGT) had been documented widely as a mechanism to gain foreign genetic materials in prokaryotes, but remained largely an exotic concept in eukaryotes, with little substantial evidence. It is now clear that HGT has occurred in all major eukaryotic lineages. Horizontally acquired genes are not only frequent in unicellular eukaryotes 3–5, but also found in various multicellular eukaryotes, including cnidarians 6,7, mites 8, insects 9–12, nematodes 13–15, fish 16, and land plants 17–22. Although reports of HGT in eukaryotes are still frequently met with skepticism, evidence for HGT throughout eukaryotic evolution is abundant and increasing.

In this paper, I discuss issues related to HGT in eukaryotes. Because most foreign genes reported in eukaryotes thus far are from bacteria, I will focus on bacterial genes. I argue that many bacterial genes in eukaryotes cannot be explained simply as gene transfers from mitochondria or plastids; rather, HGT in eukaryotes should be widespread and expected. Further, I propose a mechanism for integration of foreign DNA into eukaryotic genomes during unicellular or early developmental stages, when their nuclear DNA is relatively exposed to potential sources of HGT.

Horizontal gene transfer in eukaryotic evolution

Horizontal Gene Transfer and the History of Life
Microbes acquire DNA from a variety of sources. The last decades, which have seen the development of genome sequencing, have revealed that horizontal gene transfer has been a major evolutionary force that has constantly reshaped genomes throughout evolution. However, because the history of life must ultimately be deduced from gene phylogenies, the lack of methods to account for horizontal gene transfer has thrown into confusion the very concept of the tree of life. As a result, many questions remain open, but emerging methodological developments promise to use information conveyed by horizontal gene transfer that remains unexploited today.

Evolutionary Consequences of Horizontal Transfer
The true evolutionary role and impact that horizontal gene transfer has had on the evolution of life were only realized recently with the advent of genome sequencing. The above mechanisms have relatively low specificity, and thus allow movement of genetic information even between distant species, with correspondingly profound consequences on the modes of adaptation and the concept of bacterial species (Ochman et al. 2005).

In comparison to descent with modification, horizontal gene transfer offers the possibility for quite drastic adaptation. However, far from questioning the principle of Darwinian evolution, as has been suggested, this mode of evolution underscores the importance of taking into account different levels of selection (e.g., genes vs. genomes) for understanding the evolution of genomes.

Horizontal gene transfer in evolution: facts and challenges
The contribution of horizontal gene transfer to evolution has been controversial since it was suggested to be a force driving evolution in the microbial world.

Recently, several calls have been put forward for a new evolutionary synthesis (Dean & Thornton 2007; Pigliucci 2007; Carroll 2008; Koonin 2009) that encompasses mechanisms other than mutation, natural selection and drift to explain evolutionary changes, such as developmental constraints and epigenetic modifications among others.

Today it seems evident, from the studies discussed below, that horizontal (or lateral) gene transfer, the direct visualization of which has been achieved recently (Babić et al. 2008), is an important force driving the evolution of Bacteria and Archaea, as well as that of unicellular eukaryotes, and should therefore also be considered as part of the structure of any evolutionary synthesis.


You can always do some more research, on it.
In a nutshell, scientists don't know. They discover new things that overturn previous assumptions, and their current assumptions can be thrown out tomorrow.

Just as the tree of life was turned into a web, with new discoveries, including HGT... and I am sure there will be more webs, we can wait and see what new surprises may be in store.

However, whatever assertions scientists make, or don't make, the fact is, they don't know, and time will tell.
Did you notice that the discovery of HGT in eukaryotes, has already led to some suggesting that question the principle of Darwinian evolution?

 

[nPeace]

So you admit to deliberately quoting a paper to make it look like it supports your point, even though it doesn't.

Noted.

No. That is false.