Of birds and men. Covergent evolution.

[Heyo]

This is not true though.
Nothing in ID results in this prediction naturally flowing from it.

I'd like to hear that from @Hockeycowboy .
My best hit on the search was an open letter from M. Behe in 2003 - with an explanation after the fact. I wait for an earlier prediction and counterprediction by an evolutionary biologist.

Don't hold your breath.

I don't, but I like to give my interlocutor all the rope he needs.

 

[Deeje]

I can't even count anymore how many times I've corrected you on this...

LOL...is that what you thought you were doing? It just looked like cooked up excuses to me.

The language in your literature betrays your confidence. “Might have” is not a statement of fact. “Could have” or “leads us to conclude” is not stating facts either. Facts do not need those words preceding them. It’s educated guessing. Exposed! You “believe” what you cannot prove.....welcome to “faith”.

First, macro-evolution: evolution on the level of species or above. So divergence as a result of speciation. That is macro-evolution. Speciation has been observed. So we KNOW it happens.

No, science assumes that speciation above a certain level is possible. Observed speciation is just a description of variety that has arisen within a taxonomic family due to adaptation. That is what science “knows”....what it assumes is a whole other excursion.

Second, common ancestry of species can be, and has been, genetically determined. It MOST DEFINATLY thus can be tested. It makes PLENTY of testable predictions. And uncountable amount, actually.

Common ancestry is assumed as well. “Predictions” are what prognosticators do....isn’t it? The fact is, if you can’t suggest the existence of these phantom creatures, your whole theory collapses. So they “must have” existed...right? Tell us who they are if you are so sure that they “must have” existed.

Common ancestry of species through the evolutionary process, predicts a nested hierarchy in genetics and common ancestry. It also predicts a logical distribution of species (like only finding kangaroo's in australia).

And let’s not forget the monotremes....how on earth can evolution explain them? Egg laying mammals......now you have to be very creative.

ALL these predictions are very very testable. And they ALL can be succesfully tested.

So you can provide absolute proof that a single celled organism that just popped into existence one day, fully equipped to transform itself into all the living creatures that live or have lived on this earth? Please tell us what evidence you have for this assumption......amoebas to dinosaurs is a stretch of anyone’s imagination.....but if that appeals to you more than the idea of an all powerful Creator (that you also assume can’t exist) then that is up to you. Your desperation to promote your theory over ours is duly noted. But please don’t pretend that you have more “evidence” for your assumptions than we do....

Our religion has a very different explanation to yours.....same evidence, different interpretation.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

More about the so-called “junk DNA”:

https://www.discovermagazine.com/health/our-cells-are-filled-with-junk-dna-heres-why-we-need-it

 

[Hockeycowboy]

I'd like to hear that from @Hockeycowboy .
My best hit on the search was an open letter from M. Behe in 2003 - with an explanation after the fact. I wait for an earlier prediction and counterprediction by an evolutionary biologist.

(“Don’t hold your breath.”}

I don't, but I like to give my interlocutor all the rope he needs.

Thanks for revealing your hand....here I thought you might have an open mind.

 

[Heyo]

Thanks for revealing your hand....here I thought you might have an open mind.

I can be very sure to be right and also have an open mind.
I'd have no problem to admit if an intelligent design proponent was right in one prediction. We have that often in science that one model has a lot of evidence for it but one special effect that is better explained by an other model. So even if intelligent design had a point, it wouldn't change the consensus. It would take real work to show intelligent design more right in more aspects than evolutionary biology.
But as it stands intelligent design has zero points and evolutionary biology has all the points.

I know that I can't convince you or @Deeje as you aren't allowed to have an open mind. But I can still prevent you from spreading distrust in science - which I deem dangerous. Science works. And scientists work hard to find the facts about our reality. I honour that work by debunking pseudo scientists who don't do lab work at all.

I don't disrespect your belief but please call it what it is - a belief. Intelligent design is not science.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

LOL...is that what you thought you were doing? It just looked like cooked up excuses to me.

Yes, that is part of the problem... that you don't recognise when people are correcting your mistakes.

Macro-evolution refers to evolution of the species level or above. So it refers to speciation and further divergence.

Whenever you pretend it is anything different then that, you are misrepresenting the science.
Clearly though, you don't care about being wrong.

Just know that whenever you are using that term to mean anything else then that, you are no longer using it the way actual biologists use it. Doing that for the purpose of arguing against evolution, is nothing more or less then arguing a strawman and / or misrepresenting the actual science.

The language in your literature betrays your confidence. “Might have” is not a statement of fact. “Could have” or “leads us to conclude” is not stating facts either. Facts do not need those words preceding them. It’s educated guessing. Exposed! You “believe” what you cannot prove.....welcome to “faith”.

Every single scientific paper uses such language when it comes to hypothesizing / theorizing an explanation of the facts. It's called intellectual honesty.

If THAT is your objection to evolutionary science, then your objection is not just to evolution. Then your objection is the every single hypothesis and theory in ALL science.

Hence why people call you anti-science.

You are not arguing against evolution when you do that. You are instead arguing against the entire scientific method / enterprise.

And once again, just like I said earlier, we have a prime example here of a creationist attempting to "drag down" science to their level of make-belief / faith. Only to then hold that against it, as if "faith" is a bad reason to accept something...

I agree off course, that "faith" is a bad reason to believe anything. But the irony is.... mindblowing.

No, science assumes that speciation above a certain level is possible.

No. And this once again betrays how you argue a strawman.
There is no speciation "above a certain level". I don't even know what that means.
Speciation is speciation. It factually happens. What happens, is accumulation of change.
When a lineage speciates multiple times, the divergence from the ancestor and cousin lineages simply increases further.

There is no "other level". There is only divergence resulting in speciation events and the accumulation thereof.

Observed speciation is just a description of variety that has arisen within a taxonomic family due to adaptation

And which accumulated to such a point that the current population is no longer able to interbreed with the ancestral or cousin populations. Yes.

As has been explained ad nauseum already, if this process would take a population outside of its ancestral lineage, it would falsify evolution as it would violate the law of monophy.

How many times must it be repeated?

That is what science “knows”....what it assumes is a whole other excursion.

It doesn't assume anything else. It is only your strawman that there is more to it then that.

Common ancestry is assumed as well

It is not.

“Predictions” are what prognosticators do....isn’t it?

Scientific predictions, is not a form of gambling or making prognoses.
It rather is describing what X would have to look like if A and B are true.

To the point that if X does NOT look like that, A and B are false.

For example: if humans and chimps share a common ancestor, then humans and chimps should share more ERV's then humans and dogs.

Now if you would find that humans share more ERV's with dogs then with chimps, then this would break the phylogenetic tree of primates and canines. It would turn it upside down and disprove it as a family tree.

This is the power of scientific prediction. It predicts what data should and shouldn't look like when found. So data very much has the power to either support or disprove evolution theory (or any other scientific theory).

Evolution makes an enourmous amount of testable predictions. Every single one, has the potential to falsify evolution. Yet no data has ever been discovered that doesn't fit the evolutionary narrative and predictions.

The fact is, if you can’t suggest the existence of these phantom creatures, your whole theory collapses.

How many times must I explain to you that determining common ancestry does not at all require identification of that common ancestor?

Do we need to be able to identify exactly who your biological parents are, in order to be able to determine that you and some other person are biological siblings and thus share parents?

No, off course not. All we need is a sample from your and your brother's / sister's DNA. That's it. We don't need to know who your parents were, where they lived, what their names were, what eye color they had, ... we don't even need their DNA.

Just your DNA and that of your brother / sister is enough to factually determine if you share parents or not.

Because DNA allows us to determine common ancestry and biological relationships..

You keep denying and ignoring this.

So they “must have” existed...right?

Yes. Just like when we determine through genetic testing that you and some guy are siblings, we can reasonably conclude that a couple existed that birthed the both of you - regardless of who that couple was, where they lived, what they looked like....

Your collective DNA proves that they existed. Regardless of who they were.

Tell us who they are if you are so sure that they “must have” existed.

Not required. And in fact, in many cases: completely impossible.
As actually identifying a specific ancestor in a specific lineage, would require DNA from both the extant individuals as well as the ancestor. In the vast vast majority of cases, such DNA would simply not be available.


But let's not forget how this is not necessary at all.
Because determining common ancestry by no means requires being able to identify that common ancester.

I bet it's one ear in and out the other again.

How long before you'll simply repeat this mistake again?
My guess is: not long. Perhaps not even a post.

And let’s not forget the monotremes....how on earth can evolution explain them? Egg laying mammals......now you have to be very creative.

Mammals evolved from egg-laying ancestors, so it's not surprising that during the transition from egg-laying ancestors to placental mammals, along the way lineages existed and branched of that already had mammalian traits and yet still layed eggs.

This doesn't break any nested hierarchy and even actually falls in line with expectations....

Placental mammals are among the most recent developments of mammals.

So why do you think evolution has problems explaining monotremes?​

So you can provide absolute proof that a single celled organism that just popped into existence one day, fully equipped to transform itself into all the living creatures that live or have lived on this earth?

Again with that strawman...
1. abiogenesis is not evolution
2. first life almost certainly did not consist of a modern cell
3. all life shares ancestry, as comparative genetics demonstrates

Please tell us what evidence you have for this assumption......amoebas to dinosaurs is a stretch of anyone’s imagination.....

Just because you can't conceive or imagine something, doesn't mean it's not true.
Before Einstein, it was also a stretch of anyone's imagination that time isn't a constant but rather relative to the observer in context of speed and gravity.

Einstein himself, actually, considered it a stretch of his imagination that such a thing as black holes existed or quantum physics. He actually thought his theories were wrong because he couldn't imagine these things to be real.

Nevertheless, they are.

So no matter how counter-intuitive it is in your head, the data and evidence doesn't lie.
And the data and evidence of comparative genomics, comparative anatomy and geographic distribution of species, unambiguously demonstrates that life shares ancestry.

You can either deal with that evidence or ignore and deny it. Apparantly, you're choosing the latter.
That's on you. Don't blame the evidence for your shortcomings and emotional / religious objections.

but if that appeals to you more than the idea of an all powerful Creator (that you also assume can’t exist) then that is up to you

See? This is what I mean with your emotional and religious objections.
I don't have any preference or "appeal" to one outcome over another. I just go by what the evidence tells us.
It's YOU who thinks that that which "appeals" to you more has some bearing on what is actually true.

So please don't project your flaws upon me.
I'm not driven by emotion, preferences or a priori beliefs.
That's all you - as per your own implicit admission in the quote above.

Your desperation to promote your theory over ours is duly noted. But please don’t pretend that you have more “evidence” for your assumptions than we do....

I'm not the one who's beliefs require the ignoring and misrepresentation of entire scientific fields.
Ignoring / denying / misrepresenting entire scientific fields, is the hallmark of desperation.

So you are projecting once again.

Our religion has a very different explanation to yours.....same evidence, different interpretation.

I don't have a religion. That's you again.
You don't have an interpretation of the evidence either. In fact, you're not even aware of most of the evidence, as your posts demonstrate. You think evolution has problems explaining the existance of monotremes... That pretty much tells us everything we need to know concerning your lack of understanding of evolution and the evidence for it.

You are utterly incapable of making your points WITHOUT misrepresenting the entire scientific enterprise, without strawmanning the theory you are hellbend on ignoring, without repeating the same mistakes and misunderstandings over and over and over again.

As you demonstrate with every post you make.....

Literally almost every post from you that I reply to, I find myself having to repeat the same things over and over and over and over.

I can't even count anymore how many times I had to explain the law of monophy and how violating it would DISPROVE evolution.... and every time in subsequent posts, you come back claiming that "nobody ever observed a creature evolve out of its family", as if such would be a requirement for evolution to be correct.

It's utterly embarassing.

 

[Deeje]

I know that I can't convince you or @Deeje as you aren't allowed to have an open mind. But I can still prevent you from spreading distrust in science - which I deem dangerous. Science works.

'Spreading distrust about science'?.....like suggesting that your belief system is wrong....but you spreading distrust about our Creator is OK?....and beneficial for all humanity? If you take a broad view of what science is responsible for, can you honestly say it has been used wisely especially since the mid 20th century? Would the planet be groaning under the weight of its highly polluted state without the misuse of science? Who is responsible for all the things that are currently taking us down the road to extinction?

The only science I debunk is the one that presents unsubstantiated fantasy as fact. Our minds can't be so open that they let our brains fall out. We are as free as you are to believe what we wish to believe for the reasons we hold them to be true. If science cannot prove what it says is true with anything more concrete than "might have's" or "could have's" then maybe I would understand your protests....but you all behave like we have insulted your gods. The truth makes you angry....offended....indignant.....how dare we question the gods of science! Well we do, and we will keep on doing it because it needs to be said.

And scientists work hard to find the facts about our reality. I honour that work by debunking pseudo scientists who don't do lab work at all.

I don't disrespect your belief but please call it what it is - a belief. Intelligent design is not science.

I will repeat your words back to you...."I don't disrespect your belief but please call it what it is - a belief." The fact is we do call it a belief...the problem is you all don't accept the fact that what you have been taught is also a belief. Call it what it is. If you have no substantiated proof that what you believe is true then you have accepted it on faith. You think it "must have" happened because you are told that it did. When we ask you to prove it we get abused and told that we are disrespecting science. Not all science is respectable IOV.

Who told you that Intelligent Design is not science? If the Intelligent Designer is the originator of all life, then all science is doing is studying his work....and often taking credit for "discovering" how it functions.

Lab work to my way of thinking is just people in white coats looking to confirm what they want the results to show. They read the evidence in a way that confirms their bias. If all of science is dependent on this one theory and it proves to be wrong, does the whole of science then go down the proverbial gurgler?

 

[Heyo]

'Spreading distrust about science'?.....like suggesting that your belief system is wrong....but you spreading distrust about our Creator is OK?....and beneficial for all humanity? If you take a broad view of what science is responsible for, can you honestly say it has been used wisely especially since the mid 20th century? Would the planet be groaning under the weight of its highly polluted state without the misuse of science? Who is responsible for all the things that are currently taking us down the road to extinction?

The only science I debunk is the one that presents unsubstantiated fantasy as fact. Our minds can't be so open that they let our brains fall out. We are as free as you are to believe what we wish to believe for the reasons we hold them to be true. If science cannot prove what it says is true with anything more concrete than "might have's" or "could have's" then maybe I would understand your protests....but you all behave like we have insulted your gods. The truth makes you angry....offended....indignant.....how dare we question the gods of science! Well we do, and we will keep on doing it because it needs to be said.

I'm glad that the cards are now on the table.

I will repeat your words back to you...."I don't disrespect your belief but please call it what it is - a belief." The fact is we do call it a belief...

That wasn't too clear from your posts. I'm glad we agree.

the problem is you all don't accept the fact that what you have been taught is also a belief. Call it what it is. If you have no substantiated proof that what you believe is true then you have accepted it on faith. You think it "must have" happened because you are told that it did. When we ask you to prove it we get abused and told that we are disrespecting science. Not all science is respectable IOV.

I never had a problem with that. Science, like all formal systems, rests on axioms which aren't provable, they have to be believed.

Who told you that Intelligent Design is not science?

The United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania.
You remember the Kitzmiller v. Dover trial?

If the Intelligent Designer is the originator of all life, then all science is doing is studying his work....and often taking credit for "discovering" how it functions.

If there was an intelligent designer, it wouldn't be necessary to presuppose it. Studying the reality it created would be of benefit for you and me.

Lab work to my way of thinking is just people in white coats looking to confirm what they want the results to show. They read the evidence in a way that confirms their bias. If all of science is dependent on this one theory and it proves to be wrong, does the whole of science then go down the proverbial gurgler?

Lab work is what results in real data. The facts. The interpretation is theoretical work. Without a few exceptions no intelligent design proponent does lab or field work - as if they weren't interested in the facts.

To summerize:
We agree that intelligent design is not science but a belief.
We agree that science is a formal system based on axioms (beliefs).
You admit that you try to debunk parts of science.

We could go on and discuss which parts of science you don't like and why.
I assert that you either a) don't know enough about science to debunk it or b) you are biased by your dogma.

 

[Bear Wild]

First I had to clearly define what Convergent evolution is........apparently, its "a process in biology. that occurs when two species from unrelated lines develop the same traits or features. This happens because they live in similar habitats, and have to develop solutions to the same kind of problems.

Similarity in traits can occur in two ways. Both species might have acquired the trait by descent from a common ancestor. . . .On the other hand, both might be independent adaptations to similar conditions in their habitat. In this case the structures are analogous. Convergent evolution leads to analogous features."
Convergent evolution - Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I'm not even into the post and already I see problems with suggestions masquerading as facts....nice try. The suggestions are so subtle that those indoctrinated with their pet theory, don't even notice them. And those elusive "common ancestors" are never identified.....I wonder why?

You have nothing but guesswork here....then a statement that seems to take those "might have's" and changes them to "must have's".....scientific sleight of hand right there.

Now I see the problem. You were not familiar with convergent evolution. No wonder why have so much confusion about evolution. Do not worry it is time to see more of the evidence on this topic.

Source of the information and an interesting article for you to read to get a better understatnding.

science.sciencemag.org/content/362/6411/190.full

Sorry about the complex terms in the diagram descriptions but these diagrams may help to understand. First issue is to understand how turtle, alligator, bird and mammal brains that function like mammalian neocortex are organized. We can see that even though they function in a similar manner they are definitely structurally different with greater similarity between related organisms.

"The amniotes and their pallial anatomies.

Amniotes include mammals and sauropsids (birds and non-avian reptiles). Tuataras, together with snakes and lizards (not shown), form the lepidosaurs. A second major group of sauropsids, the archosaurs, includes birds and crocodilians. Schematic tracings of telencephalon anatomies are shown as left-side coronal cross sections with medial to the right and dorsal at the top. All amniotes have a ventral telencephalon (VT, gray shading) and a dorsal telencephalon, or pallium (peach shading). The mammalian pallium includes the neocortex (Ncx), piriform cortex (CPi), hippocampus (not shown), and amygdala (not shown). The pallium in non-avian reptiles includes a dorsal ventricular ridge (DVR) and a cerebral cortex with medial (MC), dorsal (DC), and lateral (LC) divisions. The bird DVR contains the ventral part of the mesopallium (M), the nidopallium (N), the entopallium (E), and the arcopallium (not shown). Birds have a medial hippocampus (Hp), a lateral piriform cortex (CPi), and a dorsally located Wulst that includes the dorsal mesopallium and the hyperpallium (H). Drawings are not to scale."

Next which is important, although the brains have the same basic function they are not truly homologous - Meaning they are derived through a different path that is not shared. Although derive differently, current research indicates that even though they do not derive from homologous structures they do share homologous neurons from the developmental pallium layer with very different patterns.

"Evolution of excitatory neocortical cell types and circuitry.

The common ancestor of amniotes is hypothesized to have had input (green), output (red), and intratelencephalic (IT, blue) pallial neurons. Input neurons receive primary sensory information from the dorsal thalamus (dTh), whereas output neurons extend axons from the pallium to the brainstem (Bst). IT neurons serve as a relay between input and output neurons and additionally project to the striatum. These three principal pallial cell types were reorganized into the divergent architectures of the neocortex, dorsal cortex, Wulst, and DVR (not shown). Candidate transcriptional regulators of cell identity are listed beside the ancestral cell types (10, 16–18). The evolutionary origin of neocortical corticothalamic neurons (black cells in L6) is not known (18). The pallial inhibitory interneurons, derived from the ventral telencephalon, are not indicated [but see (16)]. HA, hyperpallium apicale; IHA, interstitial nucleus of the hyperpallium apicale; L, layer; Md, dorsal mesopallium."

The final diagram shows how these homologous neurons distribute in completely different patterns when compared between the mammal, reptile (sauropsid), Alligator (archosaur) and bird. Thus even though mammal and bird cortexes develop entirely differently they converged on similar phenotypic outcomes (similar behaviors as the phenotypic outcome). Thus we see convergent evolution.

"Anatomical transformations during the evolutionary diversification of amniote pallial structures.

The hypothetical amniote last common ancestor had an architecturally simple pallium, which contained input (green), output (red), IT (blue), and hippocampal (orange) cell types. The ancestral pallium underwent independent evolutionary transformations to give rise to the mammalian neocortex and the sauropsid DVR, dorsal cortex, and Wulst. The brown arrows denote an expansion of the lateral pallium with the origin of the DVR in early sauropsids. This expansion may have accompanied the origin of non-input nidopallium cells (brown). DVR input nuclei are embedded within the nidopallium. v, ventricle; VT, ventral telencephalon."

The article is available although may take time to read and understand. You will see the word hypothetical used in the article but that is the way ideas are initially started and later supported by evidence and does not negate all of the evidence involved.

 

[tas8831]

First I had to clearly define what Convergent evolution is........

Why? Did you not encounter that concept ever before in your "years of study" of the subject?

I'm not even into the post and already I see problems with suggestions masquerading as facts....nice try.

Your same old tired tactics - argument via definition and argument via word-parsing.
Sad.

Funny that you never post any evidence for Yahweh.

 

[tas8831]

When contemplating Occam's razor which according to Wiki

Again, all these "years of study" and you've never learned what Occam's razor is?

I'm beginning to think that your claim of studying science is total BS.

 

[tas8831]

1) That what was considered defunct genes, called “Junk DNA,” would somehow have useful function in the genome.

Umm.... sort of. The original reference to 'junk DNA' referred specifically to repetitive DNA, not defunct genes. Those were called pseudogenes.

Voilà! According to the most recent ongoing research, they do!

Um, no... Some do. Some is not all.
But that is irrelevant to all noncoding DNA.

2) That life forms would appear suddenly, without obvious precursors. And that is what we find w/ the origin of land-based mammals, marine-based mammals, birds, and especially the Cambrian fauna.

Had you considered why lifeforms might appear to have appeared "suddenly"?
I'm betting not.

 

[tas8831]

I guess this is an answer to my question to @Deeje ? If not, please disregard this.

1) I wasn't aware of that. Nice to learn new things. I mean, I was aware of non-coding DNA and I was aware that non-coding DNA could have regulatory functions.
What I didn't know was that intelligent design had predicted that that function would be found before the finding and that evolutionary biology contradicted that prediction.
I did a little searching but couldn't find anything conclusive.
Can you elaborate?

You didn't find anything because the claim that ID creationists 'predicted' this prior to the discovery of some function in some noncoding DNA is a farce. Actual science on the subject pre-dated all of their "predictions."

By about 20 years. The earliest reference that I have been able to find is to a letter submitted (and not printed) to Science by creationist Forrest Mims in around 1993. Dembski piggy-backed on that in 1998.

But years ago, when this was an issue on the ID sites, I found a paper from 1975 that undermined this:

Cell. 1975
Feb 4(2):107-11.

The general affinity of lac repressor for E. coli DNA: implications for gene regulation in procaryotes and eucaryotes.

By equilibrium competition experiments, the dissociation constant (K(RD)) of lac repressor for E. coli DNA carrying a deletion of the lac operon was measured at a variety of salt concentrations. These data are used in the consideration of several aspects of protein-DNA
interaction: Quantitative estimates of specificity are made. Specificity changes only slightly with salt concentration. We calculate that in vivo, 98 percent or more of repressor is bound to DNA predominately at sites other than the lac operator. Inducers shift repressor from operator to nonoperator DNA, but do not free it from DNA. The general affinity of repressor for E. coli DNA is sufficient to support a model where repressor slides along DNA for significant distances. The effective dissociation constant of repressor for operator (K(eff)) is very sensitive to the total DNA concentration. We propose that "junk" DNA in eucaryotes functions to maintain total DNA at an optimum concentration. We consider the lac operon in the nucleus of a lymphocyte, point out that severe difficulties would be encountered, and suggest possible solutions.​

Or, more explicitly, from 1981:

A general function of noncoding polynucleotide sequences
Zuckerkandl, E.

Abstract

It is proposed that a general function of noncoding DNA and RNA sequences in higher organisms (intergenic and intervening sequences) is to provide multiple binding sites over long stretches of polynucleotide for certain types of regulatory proteins. Through the building up
or abolishing of high-order structures, these proteins either sequester sites for the control of, e.g., transcription or make the sites available to local molecular signals. If this is to take place, the existence of a c-value paradox becomes a requirement. Multiple binding sites for a given protein may recur in the form of a sequence motif that is variable within certain limits. Noncoding sequences of the chicken ovalbumin gene furnish an appropriate example of a sequence motif, GAAAATT. Its improbably high frequency and significant periodicity are
both absent from the coding sequences of the same gene and from the noncoding sequences of a differently controlled gene in the same organism, the preproinsulin gene. This distribution of a sequence motif is in keeping with the concepts outlined. Low specificity of sequences
that bind protein is likely to be compatible with highly specific conformational changes.​

There are many more - the guy who runs the site "Genomicron" has a far more extensive catalog of relevant references, all debunking creationist claims about junk DNA, and the like.


So, not only is that claim that it was ID creationists that "predicted" this false, it also falsifies the common ID creationist claim that evolutionary thinking 'stifles' science. Which is really quite stupid on the face of it.

 

[tas8831]

Common ancestry is assumed as well.

You have been presented sufficient evidence that refutes that claim in the years that I have been here (and I am sure well before that) to conclude that you are just, well, lying.

For instance, I first presented this to you Nov. 13, 2018:

Deeje:
Terminology is interesting.....we have "micro-evolution" which is the verifiable part of this theory....and then we have "macro-evolution" which is what science has assumed to have taken place due to deduction, assertion and large amounts of suggestion.

OK, let me stop you there.

I forget now who originally posted these on this forum*, but I keep it in my archives because it offers a nice 'linear' progression of testing a methodology and then applying it:

The tested methodology:

Science 25 October 1991:
Vol. 254. no. 5031, pp. 554 - 558

Gene trees and the origins of inbred strains of mice

WR Atchley and WM Fitch

Extensive data on genetic divergence among 24 inbred strains of mice provide an opportunity to examine the concordance of gene trees and species trees, especially whether structured subsamples of loci give congruent estimates of phylogenetic relationships. Phylogenetic analyses of 144 separate loci reproduce almost exactly the known genealogical relationships among these 24 strains. Partitioning these loci into structured subsets representing loci coding for proteins, the immune system and endogenous viruses give incongruent phylogenetic results. The gene tree based on protein loci provides an accurate picture of the genealogical relationships among strains; however, gene trees based upon immune and viral data show significant deviations from known genealogical affinities.

======================

Science, Vol 255, Issue 5044, 589-592

Experimental phylogenetics: generation of a known phylogeny

DM Hillis, JJ Bull, ME White, MR Badgett, and IJ Molineux
Department of Zoology, University of Texas, Austin 78712.

Although methods of phylogenetic estimation are used routinely in comparative biology, direct tests of these methods are hampered by the lack of known phylogenies. Here a system based on serial propagation of bacteriophage T7 in the presence of a mutagen was used to create the first completely known phylogeny. Restriction-site maps of the terminal lineages were used to infer the evolutionary history of the experimental lines for comparison to the known history and actual ancestors. The five methods used to reconstruct branching pattern all predicted the correct topology but varied in their predictions of branch lengths; one method also predicts ancestral restriction maps and was found to be greater than 98 percent accurate.

==================================

Science, Vol 264, Issue 5159, 671-677

Application and accuracy of molecular phylogenies

DM Hillis, JP Huelsenbeck, and CW Cunningham
Department of Zoology, University of Texas, Austin 78712.

Molecular investigations of evolutionary history are being used to study subjects as diverse as the epidemiology of acquired immune deficiency syndrome and the origin of life. These studies depend on accurate estimates of phylogeny. The performance of methods of phylogenetic analysis can be assessed by numerical simulation studies and by the experimental evolution of organisms in controlled laboratory situations. Both kinds of assessment indicate that existing methods are effective at estimating phylogenies over a wide range of evolutionary conditions, especially if information about substitution bias is used to provide differential weightings for character transformations.



We can ASSUME that the results of an application of those methods have merit.


Application of the tested methodology:

Implications of natural selection in shaping 99.4% nonsynonymous DNA identity between humans and chimpanzees: Enlarging genus Homo

"Here we compare ≈90 kb of coding DNA nucleotide sequence from 97 human genes to their sequenced chimpanzee counterparts and to available sequenced gorilla, orangutan, and Old World monkey counterparts, and, on a more limited basis, to mouse. The nonsynonymous changes (functionally important), like synonymous changes (functionally much less important), show chimpanzees and humans to be most closely related, sharing 99.4% identity at nonsynonymous sites and 98.4% at synonymous sites. "



Mitochondrial Insertions into Primate Nuclear Genomes Suggest the Use of numts as a Tool for Phylogeny

"Moreover, numts identified in gorilla Supercontigs were used to test the human–chimp–gorilla trichotomy, yielding a high level of support for the sister relationship of human and chimpanzee."



A Molecular Phylogeny of Living Primates

"Once contentiously debated, the closest human relative of chimpanzee (Pan) within subfamily Homininae (Gorilla, Pan, Homo) is now generally undisputed. The branch forming the Homo andPanlineage apart from Gorilla is relatively short (node 73, 27 steps MP, 0 indels) compared with that of thePan genus (node 72, 91 steps MP, 2 indels) and suggests rapid speciation into the 3 genera occurred early in Homininae evolution. Based on 54 gene regions, Homo-Pan genetic distance range from 6.92 to 7.90×10−3 substitutions/site (P. paniscus and P. troglodytes, respectively), which is less than previous estimates based on large scale sequencing of specific regions such as chromosome 7[50]. "




Catarrhine phylogeny: noncoding DNA evidence for a diphyletic origin of the mangabeys and for a human-chimpanzee clade.

"The Superfamily Hominoidea for apes and humans is reduced to family Hominidae within Superfamily Cercopithecoidea, with all living hominids placed in subfamily Homininae; and (4) chimpanzees and humans are members of a single genus, Homo, with common and bonobo chimpanzees placed in subgenus H. (Pan) and humans placed in subgenus H. (Homo). It may be noted that humans and chimpanzees are more than 98.3% identical in their typical nuclear noncoding DNA and probably more than 99.5% identical in the active coding nucleotide sequences of their functional nuclear genes (Goodman et al., 1989, 1990). In mammals such high genetic correspondence is commonly found between sibling species below the generic level but not between species in different genera."

--------------------------------

Just a sampling.​

For you to keep claiming that it is all "assumed" is, well.... it is what it appears to be.

 

[tas8831]

More about the so-called “junk DNA”:

https://www.discovermagazine.com/health/our-cells-are-filled-with-junk-dna-heres-why-we-need-it

Tell me all about it. And tell me why that guy is still referring to ENCODE's all but retracted claims about junk DNA.
I am teaching Genetics again this Fall and I need to brush up. Shall I add this "Discover" magazine article to this list:

Sandwalk: Required reading for the junk DNA debate

It will be interesting to see why mammals need so much and pufferfish needs almost none...

 

[Deeje]

Thank you for posting this....I love it when "evidence" is produced....

Sorry about the complex terms in the diagram descriptions but these diagrams may help to understand.

Ah yes...the diagrams, which substitute for actual evidence. Where would evolution be without those diagrams?
A picture is worth a thousand pieces of real evidence. Realistic computer graphics convey that reality too....but its the work of imagination, not fact.

First issue is to understand how turtle, alligator, bird and mammal brains that function like mammalian neocortex are organized. We can see that even though they function in a similar manner they are definitely structurally different with greater similarity between related organisms.

Which would also be obvious if they had the same Creator who was using basic designs to create other organisms because they are successful. It is the relatedness on some sort of evolutionary chain that is assumed because, without the chain, there is no evolution. Without the links, there is no chain.

Next which is important, although the brains have the same basic function they are not truly homologous - Meaning they are derived through a different path that is not shared. Although derive differently, current research indicates that even though they do not derive from homologous structures they do share homologous neurons from the developmental pallium layer with very different patterns.

If a similar structure is use to create, arms, flippers or wings, science again assumes relatedness, whereas we would assume design with models based on a similar framework....like an architect designs buildings that appear to be different on the exterior, but the same basic structure, based on engineering principles, is the same.

The final diagram shows how these homologous neurons distribute in completely different patterns when compared between the mammal, reptile (sauropsid), Alligator (archosaur) and bird. Thus even though mammal and bird cortexes develop entirely differently they converged on similar phenotypic outcomes (similar behaviors as the phenotypic outcome). Thus we see convergent evolution.

Or in our eyes we see design, deliberate and purposefully functional. Do you see how the assumptions made in the first instance determine the interpretation of your "evidence"...yet it is never questioned, and we believers in an Intelligent Designer are accused of being indoctrinated! Do you not see your own indoctrination?

It is akin to finding a house in the woods with plumbing and lighting, carpet on the floors, heating and cooling, a recycling facility, pure fresh water on tap, a fully stocked pantry and refrigerator, with a sign on the door that says "welcome, come in and help yourself, stay as long as you like". Would you assume that it just got there by accident.....natural forces anticipated the need for those things in order for visitors to be comfortable in their stay....and constructed a building to specifically cater to those needs.....? That is planet earth....which did not get here by evolution. Start there.

The article is available although may take time to read and understand. You will see the word hypothetical used in the article but that is the way ideas are initially started and later supported by evidence and does not negate all of the evidence involved.

Hmmmm....."hypothetical".....which the dictionary defines as ..."imagined or suggested but not necessarily real or true".
HYPOTHETICAL | meaning in the Cambridge English Dictionary

So when I see the word "hypothetical", I immediately think of the imagination and suggestions that are necessary to confirm (from a biased interpretation of the "evidence") that everything science "imagines" must be true.....what is the alternative?

You can believe in macro-evolution with all your mental energy....but it doesn't make it true if you can't prove it. How do we get this across? You have as much "proof" for macro-evolution as we have for an Intelligent Designer. We have a belief...but so do you.

Why does it stick in your collective throats to admit that science assumes that evolution is true rather than giving people (especially young people) the idea that it is beyond question?...an absolute truth? Is it a pride thing?

 

[Bear Wild]

Thank you for posting this....I love it when "evidence" is produced....



Ah yes...the diagrams, which substitute for actual evidence. Where would evolution be without those diagrams?
A picture is worth a thousand pieces of real evidence. Realistic computer graphics convey that reality too....but its the work of imagination, not fact.


Which would also be obvious if they had the same Creator who was using basic designs to create other organisms because they are successful. It is the relatedness on some sort of evolutionary chain that is assumed because, without the chain, there is no evolution. Without the links, there is no chain.



If a similar structure is use to create, arms, flippers or wings, science again assumes relatedness, whereas we would assume design with models based on a similar framework....like an architect designs buildings that appear to be different on the exterior, but the same basic structure, based on engineering principles, is the same.



Or in our eyes we see design, deliberate and purposefully functional. Do you see how the assumptions made in the first instance determine the interpretation of your "evidence"...yet it is never questioned, and we believers in an Intelligent Designer are accused of being indoctrinated! Do you not see your own indoctrination?

It is akin to finding a house in the woods with plumbing and lighting, carpet on the floors, heating and cooling, a recycling facility, pure fresh water on tap, a fully stocked pantry and refrigerator, with a sign on the door that says "welcome, come in and help yourself, stay as long as you like". Would you assume that it just got there by accident.....natural forces anticipated the need for those things in order for visitors to be comfortable in their stay....and constructed a building to specifically cater to those needs.....? That is planet earth....which did not get here by evolution. Start there.



Hmmmm....."hypothetical".....which the dictionary defines as ..."imagined or suggested but not necessarily real or true".
HYPOTHETICAL | meaning in the Cambridge English Dictionary

So when I see the word "hypothetical", I immediately think of the imagination and suggestions that are necessary to confirm (from a biased interpretation of the "evidence") that everything science "imagines" must be true.....what is the alternative?

You can believe in macro-evolution with all your mental energy....but it doesn't make it true if you can't prove it. How do we get this across? You have as much "proof" for macro-evolution as we have for an Intelligent Designer. We have a belief...but so do you.

Why does it stick in your collective throats to admit that science assumes that evolution is true rather than giving people (especially young people) the idea that it is beyond question?...a absolute truth? Is it a pride thing?

Did you read the article? It was a review article with references that contain the evidence. And the evidence is supportive and extensive and some is very technical but with careful reading can be understood.
Because the evidence is so extensive, you need to identify the part which you have any evidence to refute it? I would be happy to read it but be specific, your generalized statements are meaningless without support.
The use of a hypothetical is a part of the research process to form a hypothesis to test. But if you were familiar with the scientific process you would have known that. Sadly you have understanding. The review article was about understanding the evolution of the brain as an example of convergent evolution. You did not even know what convergent evolution was according to you post yet you make false claims that you know enough about evolution to argue against it.

Sadly you revert to the human view of intelligence and design which has nothing to do with the natural world. A house is a not a living thing and cannot reproduce. Termites make mounds, bees make hives, humans make houses but none of these have to do with how the phenotypic changes expressed in self replicating life. Your example is meaningless.

So I presented you with a review of the evidence showing that the genetic code can create similar expressed features through different pathways as predicted by evolution. Yes predicted with impressive evidence to support it.

What is the intelligent designer argument. Well an intelligent designer would design a brain with the best design they could make and then use that design in the creatures that designer designs. You would expect the basic pattern to be used in all creatures requiring that trait. But that is not what we find. Then you could propose there were several different intelligent designers each using their design in their created organism. But wait that would be polytheism and I would not take you to be a polytheistic believer.

 

[Deeje]

Because the evidence is so extensive, you need to identify the part which you have any evidence to refute it? I would be happy to read it but be specific, your generalized statements are meaningless without support.

Every part that is "hypothetical". Every statement prefaced by "might have" or "could have" or "leads us to the conclusion that..." because none of those statements can be verified by anything but assumption. You just don't see it do you. Its a special kind of blindness that blocks the evolutionist's mind apparently....

The use of a hypothetical is a part of the research process to form a hypothesis to test. But if you were familiar with the scientific process you would have known that. Sadly you have understanding.

You don't have any idea how funny that is. The "scientific process" is load of old codswallop if you can't prove that your hypothesis is true. A hypothesis is an unsubstantiated idea......it ceases to be a hypothesis when it is proven.....You can infer that it is true...but that is not proof...is it?

The review article was about understanding the evolution of the brain as an example of convergent evolution. You did not even know what convergent evolution was according to you post yet you make false claims that you know enough about evolution to argue against it.

I know enough to not need the scientific jargon to understand words that imply doubt in the English language.....you don't have to be a genius to understand that suggestions are not facts. And that a bunch of people believing those suggestion are facts, is even meaningful to anyone but them. Preaching to the converted....isn't it?
Examining evidence with a pre-conceived notion about what that evidence should suggest, is not the same as stating a well founded, proven fact. Are we clear on this?

Sadly you revert to the human view of intelligence and design which has nothing to do with the natural world.

The human view? LOL...is science not "the human view of intelligence and design"? Whose view is it then?

A house is a not a living thing and cannot reproduce. Termites make mounds, bees make hives, humans make houses but none of these have to do with how the phenotypic changes expressed in self replicating life. Your example is meaningless.

The earth did not magically produce itself, nor did the laws that govern the universe....they did not evolve because they are not alive......nor did the life that occupies this planet just pop into existence for no apparent reason. Habitats don't just magically appear as though they knew when their residents were coming and decided to cater for them. There is just so much that science can never explain.....without the use of very vivid imagination. IMO it takes more faith to believe what you do, than anything I do.

So I presented you with a review of the evidence showing that the genetic code can create similar expressed features through different pathways as predicted by evolution. Yes predicted with impressive evidence to support it.

I see the same evidence but with an entirely different interpretation. You cannot prove yours is right just because you want it to be. The evidence is cooked.....interpreted by bias and concluded with nothing but inference. Its "pie in the sky" science, not real science proven and factual, but imagined science based on a need for evolution to be true....can't you tell the difference?

What is the intelligent designer argument. Well an intelligent designer would design a brain with the best design they could make and then use that design in the creatures that designer designs. You would expect the basic pattern to be used in all creatures requiring that trait. But that is not what we find. Then you could propose there were several different intelligent designers each using their design in their created organism. But wait that would be polytheism and I would not take you to be a polytheistic believer.

Well, that was creative.....how do you explain intelligence demonstrated by things that have no brains?
Brainless Creatures Can Do Some Incredibly Smart Things

If certain creatures are programmed in their behavior, who programmed them?....and how is that information passed on to the next generation? How does a bird e.g. know how to construct a nest that is unique to that species, yet the next generation was not there to observe how to their parents made it?
How do butterflies know how to navigate over an ocean to all arrive at the same place? GPS?
How do plants process information in order to behave as they do?
How does my wisteria know that winding itself around a support will be beneficial to its growth?

I think science has some serious explaining to do......

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Well, that was creative.....how do you explain intelligence demonstrated by things that have no brains?
Brainless Creatures Can Do Some Incredibly Smart Things

How do you think science explains it?

If certain creatures are programmed in their behavior, who programmed them?

Why "who"? How have you determined it is a "who"? Could it perhaps be that your a priori religious beliefs kind of demands it to being a "who", and a rather specific "who" at that?

Maybe you should rephrase your question using the word "what" instead.

....and how is that information passed on to the next generation?

Didn't anybody ever explain to you how reproduction works?

How does a bird e.g. know how to construct a nest that is unique to that species, yet the next generation was not there to observe how to their parents made it?

It's primarily instinctive behaviour which is genetically determined.
However, research has also shown that even in birds "practice makes perfect" and over the course of a lifetime, birds will learn from their nest-building experience and become better at it. They'll also adapt their nest building technique basd on available material in the environment they live and alike.

So, it's a combination of both genetically determined instinct on the one hand, and learning through experience on the other.

How do butterflies know how to navigate over an ocean to all arrive at the same place? GPS?

Many different species migrate throughout the seasons in many different ways. Some follow blooming patterns of their food source, others orient themselves using the sun, even others orient themselves based on the magnetic poles,...

How do plants process information in order to behave as they do?
How does my wisteria know that winding itself around a support will be beneficial to its growth?

My advice to you would to google these questions and read up, instead of posting them here pretending as if they are some kind of problem for the evolutionary process.

The neat thing about modern science, is that it's quite difficult to come up with some of the most obscure questions without any scientists ever having studied the subject...

I think science has some serious explaining to do......

I think it's more a case of you having some serious reading up to do from proper science sources...

 

[tas8831]

Thank you for posting this....I love it when "evidence" is produced....Ah yes...the diagrams, which substitute for actual evidence. Where would evolution be without those diagrams?

Pathetic... Willful ignorance and feigned incompetence (or real incompetence) is frustratingly pathetic.