|
Author
|
Topic: can some aspect of Darwinism be falsified?
|
peter borger
Member
Member # 722
|
posted 28. April 2006 08:21
There is a way out for evolutionists: non-random directed (prescribed) genetic changes. Dawkins is left empty-handed.
Thank you very much Professor Davison.
Kind regards,
Dr Borger
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 28. April 2006 10:29
Thank you Peter. I wonder how Sir Richard Dawkins is going to react as his self-made empire collapses all around him. It is goimg to be fun to observe.
IP: Logged
|
|
Bruce Fast
Member
Member # 924
|
posted 28. April 2006 12:55
Peter, this is intriguing. I think that if enough of these sorts of patterns are found, RM+NS will be forced to crash.
I put my neo-Darwinian hat on for a bit. (It doesn't fit very well, but I find it useful to wear sometimes anyway.) There are two ways that I could see this occurring. The first, of course, is for an amazing mutational accident to have occurred. That is highly unlikely. The second is if chimpanzees split from Gorillas, then gorillas and pre-humans mated, sharing some genes. I don't know enough about the feasibility of such, it sounds kind impossible, but it could produce the described effect I think.
In light of this proposal, what would really be interesting is if such peculiarities happen more broadly in the tree, say between frogs and man, something like that.
IP: Logged
|
|
Shi
Member
Member # 1923
|
posted 28. April 2006 13:38
The data, indeed all data that we know today, are consistent with common decent with variations from both random and intelligent sources. The ancestor of human is also the common ancestor of chimps. The change along the human lineage, in contrast to the chimp lineage, may have involved more supervised or directed mutations and reorganizations of genomes. Some features of orangutans, including their species specific DNA and life style, are introduced back into humans in a non-random and intelligence directed way. So, human would appear largely more related to chimps than to orangs but also shares some things with the orangs rather than chimps. So, common decent still holds true regardless whether one invokes intelligence or not. I see a lot of data against random mutation but I dont see any against common decent. If I am a creator, it is much easier to create new things based on what exist previously. If I know how to build a human before I know how to build a bacteria or chimp, I would have done it without building bacteria and chimps. The facts that bacteria and chimps are created first before human suggests that the creator is learning to build things along the way. Just like human intelligence evolves to become better, so does the supernatural creator. If the human intelligence comes from the supernatural, then there is no reason to believe that there is a big difference between the two intelligences in terms of how they create things.
IP: Logged
|
|
Shi
Member
Member # 1923
|
posted 28. April 2006 14:03
If the supernatural used numbers/math to create the world, there is no reason that she would not allow humans to do the same thing in the same fashion. If she employs a universal creation law, there is no reason that she would allow humans to use a different law to guide their creative activities. So, to know how she creates, all we need to do is look how we create. When we have found a creation law that describes perfectly our way of creation, we would have found the law of the supernatural as well. Indeed, when we found that the world is built based on numbers/math, we know for certain that the creator is a mathematician. Since we also create things based on math, we know that our way of creation is not much different from her way. So if we dont know how to build the atomic bomb 5000 years ago, neither does the supernatual knows how to build a human 5 billion years ago. We do not know the future and neither does she.
IP: Logged
|
|
Bruce Fast
Member
Member # 924
|
posted 28. April 2006 16:57
Shi: "I see a lot of data against random mutation but I dont see any against common decent." I think that this is the position of the majority of IDers. In general ID is a theory of evolution -- see my post "I am an ID evoluitonist".
However, the data presented here seems inconsistent with what you might call "pure" common descent. It would seem that an intelligent source invoked the same mutation at least twice.
IP: Logged
|
|
peter borger
Member
Member # 722
|
posted 03. May 2006 10:24
Another important finding of the new biology is that many genes do not simply follow the "known" trees of evolutionary descent. If you survey the literature you will find that even text book examples, such as cytochrome C, deviate from assumed ("known") evolutionary trees. You will also find that humans are genetically closer to dogs than to mice, gorilla genes are often closer to human genes than to the chimpanzee's counterparts, etcetera. The concept of horizontal gene transfer, convergent evolution and the new disciplin of "gene reconciliation" are pure inventions to keep up the appearance of biological evolution and the known "pathways" how it proceeded. It turns out evolution from microbe-to-man is a human invention, artificially kept from falling, but not supported by the details of molecular biology.
peebee
[ 03. May 2006, 10:35: Message edited by: peter borger ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Bruce Fast
Member
Member # 924
|
posted 03. May 2006 12:21
"gene reconciliation", a term I had not heard. How interesting.
IP: Logged
|
|
Zachriel
Member
Member # 1793
|
posted 03. May 2006 14:05
peter borger: "If you survey the literature you will find that even text book examples, such as cytochrome C, deviate from assumed ("known") evolutionary trees."
Cytochrome c has the same metabolic function in a very wide variety of organisms. In addition, many variations in the genomic sequence for cytochrome c have little or no effect on function. The null hypothesis, then, is that any variations of the genomic sequence would be random with respect to organism. In fact, these sequences form a nested hierarchy that confirms other lines of evidence concerning common descent. Humans and chimpanzees would be the most similar according to theory, and in fact, are identical.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/bv.fcgi?rid=stryer.figgrp.2527
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 04. May 2006 06:32
Everything that Peter has mentioned can be explained with the Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis (PEH). If all the necessary information was originally front-loaded as the PEH postulates, any combination could appear from virtually any source and apparently has. That immediately explains why we can have marsupial "bears" (koala), "squirrels" including flying forms (phalangers), "mice" (Coenolestes), "moles," "wolves," "woodchucks" (Wombat), "anteaters," "rabbits" (bandicoots) and, most remarkable of all, "saber-toothed cats."
The notion that these were produced through some sort of convergent gradual evolution is absurd. The whole concept of convergent evolution is nonsense just like every other feature of the Darwinian model. There is absolutely nothing in the Darwinian paradigm that ever had anything to do with emergent evolution beyond the trivial production of intraspecific varieties. Many forms are incapable even of that.
Furthermore, there is certainly no reason to question reproductive continuity once the PEH is given serious consideration.
The word "prescribed" is a synonym for the word "determined." Einstein anticipated the PEH in 1929, 77 years ago.
"Everything is determined... by forces over which we have no control."
Certainly that which IS determined WAS determined, as nearly as I can estimate, millions of years ago, by an unknown number of programmers, an unknown number of times, at an unknown number of locations.
One thing is now certain. Chance had absolutely nothing to do with either ontogeny or phylogeny just as Leo Berg recognized in 1922:
"Neither in the one nor in the other is there room for chance."
Nomogenesis, page 134.
IP: Logged
|
|
peter borger
Member
Member # 722
|
posted 04. May 2006 09:40
I talked about the details of molecualr biology. The crude tree you make a link to can't be taken seriously. Better look into the plants cytochromes C. From GUToB:
Zhang and Chinnappa compared the cytochrome C amino acid sequences of 28 plants, two fungi, two animals and two protists . The authors reported that:
quote:
“…two flowering plants - Stellaria longipes and Arabidopsis thaliana - share a low degree (18.9 %) of sequence dissimilarity [of cytochrome C]. Both are similar to fungus Neurospora crassa. It is surprising that these two plants exhibit higher sequence divergence from other plants than from species of fungi and animals. […] The phylogenetic tree shows that the S. longipes cytochrome c is unexpectedly grouped with Neurospora as well as with Arabidopsis and separate from other plants and protists [Zhang XH, Chinnappa CC. Molecular cloning of a cDNA encoding cytochrome c of Stellaria longipes (Caryophyllaceae) - and the evolutionary implications. Mol Biol Evol 1994, volume 11, pages 365-75].
That two flowering plants form a group with fungi rather than with plants is not only beyond expectation, the observation qualifies as a straight forward molecular falsifier of common descent. But there are many more, for instance this one:
quote:
The amino acid sequence of rattlesnake cytochrome c was originally reported in 1965, and was one of the earlier sequences to be studied. When compared with other mitochondrial cytochromes c, the snake sequence was soon seen to be anomalous. There were several positions in which the snake protein resembled human cytochrome c, although comparable anomalies were not reported for the protein from other reptiles such as lizard and turtle. Explanations of these results have included accelerated evolution in the snake lineage, paralogy rather than orthology, and faulty determination of the sequence, and the rattlesnake is now often omitted from cytochrome c phylogenetic trees [Ambler RP, Daniel M. Rattlesnake cytochrome c. A re-appraisal of the reported amino acid sequence. Biochem J. 1991, volume 274 (Pt3), pages 825-31].
I find it rather bizarre that data not fitting Darwin’s idea of common descent are simply ignored and not included in phylogenetic analysis. Deliberately omitting data to fit a preconceived idea of organismal origin is not part of the scientific method. The authors who re-investigated the sequence of the snake protein believe that the correct sequence differs in nine places from that used for evolutionary theorizing since 1965:
quote:
Four of these differences are near the haem-attachment site, in a region that was only analysed for amino acid composition in the original investigation. The other five differences are towards the C-terminus of the molecule, and can be explained as being due to the wrong ordering of amino acids within peptides that had been satisfactorily purified. Despite these corrections, the rattlesnake cytochrome c sequence still more closely resembles human cytochrome c than it does that of any other protein we know. We believe that this is an example of convergent evolution, although it does appear that there has been accelerated change in the line connecting the rattlesnake to the ancestral vertebrate line [Ambler RP, Daniel M. Rattlesnake cytochrome c. A re-appraisal of the reported amino acid sequence. Biochem J. 1991, volume 274 (Pt3), pages 825-31].
A thorough analysis of cytochrome genes revealed an unusual, completely ignored aspect of molecular genealogy – deviation from assumed (‘known’) evolutionary family trees.
And what to think about the alleged horizontal transfer and recombination of plant's mitochondria? It must be invoked to keep up Darwin's ideas, but is not of greater scientific value than ether and phlogiston.
A chimpanzee-human sequence comparison showed that the cytochrome C proteins are exactly identical, whereas the DNA differs at only one position. Isn’t that peculiar? If you look into the annotated human genes you will find out that the human cyt C genes harbor many mutations that change the protein, while people-primate comparisons demonstrate only one. Why is that?
The discrepancy can only be explained as the result of the inter-species comparisons commonly applied by Darwinians, who can do so since the framework of common descent allows for it. It is unlikely that only the human gene harbors polymorphisms. Careful analyses of the chimp’s gene pool will reveal many more polymorphisms in the cytochrome C genes than currently reported. It will turn out that the DNA changes with a much higher pace than calculated under Darwinian assumptions, and those changes are not merely the result of a random process. The darwinian method to keep up the appearance of slow mutation rates is by adding one chimpanzee sequence to a further entirely human study. If you leave out the chimp sequence, mutations rates dramatically increase; even under the assumption of evolution-required long ages.
My question would be (also to ID proponents advocating an evolutionary mechanism): How do you evolutionists explain this?
I know how it can be explained: read GUToB.
peebee
IP: Logged
|
|
peter borger
Member
Member # 722
|
posted 04. May 2006 09:50
Bruce, the official long version is:
"reconciliation of deviant genes with known family trees"
I once read a book on molecular evolution where they introduced this term to get their data in line with common descent. It involves imaginary duplications and deletions. Like phlogiston, gene reconciliation explains it all. What a non-sense Darwinism is,
peebee
[ 04. May 2006, 10:11: Message edited by: peter borger ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Bruce Fast
Member
Member # 924
|
posted 04. May 2006 13:11
Peter Borger, John Davison, and Zachriel: You have made this thread exciting! I love getting people who know much more about a favorite topic to show their cards. When I just talk with one of you, whether I agree with you or not, I don't feel like I learn much. This is great. PB, I will print out and study your discussion on cytochromes C.
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 05. May 2006 01:56
Allelic mutations never had anything to do with creative evolution except to ensure ultimate extinction thus making way for the next preprogrammed evolutionary step to take place. As near as I can tell evolution is finished except for the production of varieties.
"A past evolution is undeniable. A present evolution is undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
Bruce Fast
Member
Member # 924
|
posted 06. May 2006 00:56
PB, Michael Denton has talked a lot about the cytochrome C. He has shown in his book how the cytochrome C presents a very pretty tree of life, too pretty. He suggests that the only way that the tree could be so perfect is if the molecular clock ticked with extremely good rhythm in the cytochrome C. This, of course, would mean that all issues such as: lifespan, offspring/death rates, amount of phenotype change, higher/lower order lifeforms and anything else you can come up with all are inconsequential with reguards to this clock. This seems inconcievable. Further, it does not fit "mutations per generation" rates at all!
However, you seem to be adding that there are some exceptions in the cytochrome C. You suggest that there are two flowering plants whose cytochrome C is more like a fungus than it is like other flowering plants. You also suggest that the rattle snake's cytochrome C is more like man's than it is like the lizzards. Have I understood you correctly?
When you discussed cytochrome C between man and chimp, you kinda lost me. (Sorry, I am an amateur.) You said, "If you look into the annotated human genes you will find out that the human cyt C genes harbor many mutations that change the protein, while people-primate comparisons demonstrate only one." I am a bit lost as to what you mean. Are you saying that between one person and another, between alliles, there is greater difference in cyt C than there is between the tested human and the tested chimp?
Further, you seem to have charged the scientific community with casually ignoring this data that cries out for an explanation. It sounds kinda like the T. Rex blood that was recently reported, it seems that the scientific establishment is more scared of the discovery than they are intrigued.
Lastly, you say "read GUToB". Sorry for my ignorance, but what is GUToB?
IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic
