|
Author
|
Topic: can some aspect of Darwinism be falsified?
|
peter borger
Member
Member # 722
|
posted 24. June 2006 06:28
There is evidence for a saltanional process in the human genome. I accidentally came accross it during a study into cytochrome C (as shown previously the gene falsifies common descent, although Darwinians claim it proofs CD). What would we expect from a PEH with frontloaded information. First, as argued genetic redundancy. We would also expect in, for instance the higher mammals, more than one cytochrome C gene. Why? Because, we see distinct types of them in the different classes. The below excerpt is from GUToB:
quote:
In addition to the one functional cytochrome C gene, the human genome contains eleven processed cytochrome C pseudogenes [14]. Processed pseudogenes are believed to be random insertions of double stranded RNA into the genome and they don’t serve any biological function. All they do is free-riding the human genome and because of lack of functional constraint they easily accumulate mutations. The sequences of the eleven pseudogenes are considered as a unique molecular record of the history of the functional cytochrome c gene. Provided that the pseudogenes are indeed mutated transcripts of the functional gene, we are able to deduce how a gene looked like and how it changed over time. Figure 10.1 shows that the eleven pseudogenes are of two distinct types. Nine of the pseudogenes resemble the rat sequence; the other two have clearly been derived from the functional human gene. The surprise is that there are no transitions from the one into the other. It has been estimated the nine rat-like pseudogenes were formed between 25 and 100 million years before present, while the two human-derived pseudogenes were estimated to have originated between 15 and 17 million years ago: "[T]hese two distinct classes of human pseudogenes provide a molecular record of the history of cytochrome c evolution in primates and demarcate a short period of rapid evolution of the functional gene … [and] … The molecular events governing the rapid transition of the primate cytochrome c to its current human form remain unknown. The relaxation of negative selection has been suggested to accelerate the rate of protein evolution of recently duplicated genes… [but] … We find no evidence to support the existence of a duplicate cytochrome c gene in the human genome. […] Although the time period during which these changed occurred cannot be precisely determined, [the data] suggest that it did not greatly exceed 15 million years" [quoted from 14].
Inspection of the sequences of the pseudogenes shows that two clearly demarcated groups; rat-like and human-like. None of the sequences qualifies as a transitional sequence between the two groups. The rat-like gene was evidently replaced by a ‘modern human-like’ gene only 15-17 million years before present as an instant event. That is awkward. The cytochrome C proteins of humans and chimpanzee are identical – humans and rhesus monkeys differ at only one amino acid position. The Darwinian claim is that the common ancestor for these primates lived around 30 million years ago, and, because all modern primates have the human-like cytochrome C gene, this common ancestor must have had the human-like cytochrome C gene in its genome. Given the 30 million years – how could the rat-like gene be replaced 15-17 million years ago? Not Darwin’s gradual changes but saltational non-random sudden changes typify the genomes of organisms. Saltations that still echo in the genome as processed pseudogenes.
peebee
IP: Logged
|
|
peter borger
Member
Member # 722
|
posted 24. June 2006 06:39
Alternatively, the data can be interpreted as NRM,
peebee
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 24. June 2006 20:14
Sexual diffrentiation has evolved independently many times during evolution exactly as Vorontsov reported. Sex is incompetent as an evolutionary device. It is far too conservative and its primary effect has always been to bring speciation and all higher transformations to a screeching halt. That realization is what led me to postulate the Semi-meiotic hypothesis (SMH), a position to which I still adhere. It should also be noted that the capacity to produce both functional sexes is contained in the amphibian female genome alone. This may also be true for many other creatures and is demonstrably true for the social insects, the Cladocera, aphids and some rotifers. It may even be true for mammals as the appropriate experiments have yet to be preformed. Certain turkeys gynogenetically can produce only male offspring and do so semi-meiotically as I have explained elsewhere.
IP: Logged
|
|
Bruce Fast
Member
Member # 924
|
posted 24. June 2006 21:21
Hi Peter,
I read your exerpt from the GUToB. Again, as a good student, let me try to summarize to see if I understand your case.
100 mil - rat-like
75 mil - rat-like
50 mil - rat-like
25 mil - rat-like
17 mil - human-like
So the rat-like cytochrome C was injected as a pseudogene on numerous occasions between 100 and 25 million years ago (over a period of 75 million years). A short 8 million years later, we suddenly see the injection of a human-like cytochrome C. Therefore the rat-like gene had to have been around essentially unchanged for 75 million years, but in the span not exceeding 8 mil, it had to have adapted to be the human version of the gene. If the span of conversion from rat-like to human-like took no more than 8 mil, it may very well have happened instantly. We certainly have no evidence that it didn't happen instantly, we only have evidence that the rat-like version didn't mutate over a 75 mil period.
This would be a problem for gradualism, and for the cytochrome C's molecular clock. This is the same gene, of course, that has shown an almost perfect phylogenic tree. Ie, it needs to conform to a perfectly ticking molecular clock, or there is a big problem with NDE.
Dr. Borger, between this an the other thread, you are making a potent case against the NDE.
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 25. June 2006 11:39
Every genetic change is and was an instantaneous event. Gradualism is nothing but one more unwarranted assumption of Darwinian mythology right alongside random mutation, natural selection and Mendelian inheritance, none of which were ever involved in creative evolution except to bring it to a halt and thereby ensure ultimate extinction.
How wrong can an hypothesis be I wonder.
"An hypothesis does not cease to be an hypothgesis when a lot of people believe it."
Boris Ephrussi
"It is undesirable to believe a proposition when there is no ground whatsoever for believing it to be true."
Bertrand Russell
"Everything is determined...by forces over which we have no control."
Albert Einstein
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
peter borger
Member
Member # 722
|
posted 26. June 2006 03:14
quote:
Every genetic change is and was an instantaneous event. Gradualism is nothing but one more unwarranted assumption of Darwinian mythology right alongside random mutation, natural selection and Mendelian inheritance, none of which were ever involved in creative evolution except to bring it to a halt and thereby ensure ultimate extinction.
Exactly so!
peebee
IP: Logged
|
|
peter borger
Member
Member # 722
|
posted 26. June 2006 03:27
Bruce,
In addition to your summary: The human-like Cyt C gene is also present in the other primates, so one might argue it must have been laying around in in the genome for dozens of millions of years. Question is then "how was it retained all the time"?
Maybe the assumed time never existed.
peebee
[ 26. June 2006, 03:28: Message edited by: peter borger ]
IP: Logged
|
|
peter borger
Member
Member # 722
|
posted 26. June 2006 03:37
We should realize ourselves that it is the Darwinians that need time, the billions of years, not the IDers.
peebee
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 26. June 2006 10:42
An eternity will never save neDarwinism from being the biggest hoax ever perpetrated and then perpetuated in the history of science. It has been 146 years of continuous mass hysteria fueled by an atheist, congenital "prescribed" ideology totally immune to the real world.
It is hard to believe isn't it?
"Never in the history of mankind have so many owed so little to so many."
After Winston Churchill
IP: Logged
|
|
Scott
Member
Member # 1222
|
posted 26. June 2006 15:23
quote:
We should realize ourselves that it is the Darwinians that need time, the billions of years, not the IDers.
ID needs time too, unless one posits that changes to species are made instantaneously in all members and thus has no need for any given change to propogate throughout the population.
[ 28. June 2006, 11:53: Message edited by: Scott ]
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 26. June 2006 20:59
There is no evidence that any species determining factor ever was transmitted through any population. Population genetics never had anything to do with emergent creative evolution, not now and never in the past. It has only to do with the distribution of alleles in sexually reproducing populations, populations which can't evolve anyway. Like every other genetic event, new species and all the higher categories originated in the germ plasm of an individual organism, most probably in a single reproductive cell. That is where every other heritable genetic change originates isn't it?
IP: Logged
|
|
peter borger
Member
Member # 722
|
posted 27. June 2006 04:39
quote:
ID needs time to0
But not millions/billions of years. Imagine a rabbit-like animal saltationally emerged from a kangaroo. It would take only a few decades to invade all corners of Australia. This is actually what happened after the introduction of the rabbit in the Land Down-under.
peebee
IP: Logged
|
|
Scott
Member
Member # 1222
|
posted 28. June 2006 11:58
quote:
Me: ID needs time too.
quote:
PB: But not millions/billions of years.
So how many years? How many generations would it take to fix a beneficial mutation?
quote:
PB: Imagine a rabbit-like animal saltationally emerged from a kangaroo.
Why would I imagine such a silly thing? I may as well imagine God specially creating the rabbit.
IP: Logged
|
|
peter borger
Member
Member # 722
|
posted 29. June 2006 03:43
quote:
Why would I imagine such a silly thing? I may as well imagine God specially creating the rabbit.
I was talking about a rabbit-like marsupial.
"Imagine" was meant as a thought experiment.
Accidentally, the genomes of the Australian wallibies show some of them were derived from the same genome due to shuffling and the evolvement of jumping DNA elements (VIGEs).(Ref: O’Neill et al, Undermethylation associated with retroelement activation and chromosome remodelling in an interspecific mammalian hybrid, Nature 393:68–72, 1998).
peebee
[ 29. June 2006, 04:28: Message edited by: peter borger ]
IP: Logged
|
|
peter borger
Member
Member # 722
|
posted 29. June 2006 04:18
quote:
So how many years? How many generations would it take to fix a beneficial mutation?
I think I do not entirely understand your question, but, as argued, speciation may be instanteneous non-random events. The reshuffled genome is the beneficial mutations. It is one instant event.
How beneficial is the mutation you talk about? As far as I am concerned, the benefit of mutations only relates to reproduction rate in a particular environment. If selection constraints are extremely strong, one single generation is sufficient to fix a mutation (as the Luria-Delbrück experiments showed). If selective constraints are more relaxed it will take longer but still related to reproduction rate.
The Lenski experiments provided the scientifc evidence for this view: he started with an E.coli, and two decades later he had a E.coli with an almost two-fold increased reproduction rate (but at the expense of genomic content).
peebee
[ 28. June 2007, 08:06: Message edited by: peter borger ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic
