|
Author
|
Topic: New molecular evidence against common descent
|
peter borger
Member
Member # 722
|
posted 03. January 2007 08:04
quote:
Genes or genetic material, as currently defined, don't contain anywhere near enough information to explain the development and operation of an existing individual. To suggest that some organism was front loaded with sufficient information to explain all future species is simply not supportable by the evidence.
I agree, they would qualify as genetic redundancy and whither away due to the accumulation of mutations. Frontloading is only an option if there was selective constraint on all frontloaded genetic elements from the start.
[ 03. January 2007, 08:06: Message edited by: peter borger ]
IP: Logged
|
|
LifeEngineer
Member
Member # 3446
|
posted 03. January 2007 10:46
Quote: It's not "the biologist", but rather the neo-darwinians, who's belief it is all life is the result of a random process in conjunfction with selection. I have stressed elsewhere the pattern of mutations, in for instance in FOX2P or the HARF regions, cannot be the result of the Darwinian mode.
It is more than just the neo-Darwinists who have failed to investigate the observed patterns of genes and mutations. Clearly the patterns observed to occur are not compatible with the RM&NS process, but there are lots of other types of processes that could be investigated as possible explanations of the observed patterns. Specifically, there are lots of 'design by intelligence' processes that would produce patterns of genetic data similar to the patterns actually observed. It is difficult to understand why there aren't published articles on the processes that would fit observed patterns, or why articles published on observed patterns avoid discussing the types of processes that could produce the observed patterns.
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 03. January 2007 17:51
No one has any idea how many front-loading were involved and accordingly these comments are meaningless. It is only at the level of the mammalian Order and below that one can explain evolutionary radiation in terms of an original common body of chromosomal information. In many instances even that condition cannot be met. Evolution is the history of unfilled and quite possibly unfillable gaps.
It may turn out that Leo Berg was on the right track when he stated -
"Organisms have developed from tens of thousands of primary forms, i.e, polyphyletically."
Nomogenesis page 406.
I learned long ago not to underestimate the greatest Russian biologist of his day and, in my opinion, the greatest evolutionist of all time. Others have ignored him at their peril. He did not reach that conclusion lightly.
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
peter borger
Member
Member # 722
|
posted 04. January 2007 07:11
quote:
"Organisms have developed from tens of thousands of primary forms, i.e, polyphyletically."Nomogenesis page 406.
John, this is not wat genetics shows. Many, if not most organsism are monophyletical. Think about the platypus, the red panda, etc.
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 04. January 2007 22:56
Nobody, and I mean nobody, knows how many times life was created and once created was subsequently front-loaded. Contemporary genetics cannot answer those questions. It is possible that we will never be able to answer those questions. We can't understand how life could have been created even once not to mention how it could have subsequently evolved. Those that think those questions have been answered are living in a fantasy world. If some choose to believe in a monophyletic evolution that is their choice. I will join them only when I have to and not a moment before.
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
peter borger
Member
Member # 722
|
posted 05. January 2007 07:53
John, your model souds a lot like a special creation model. Except for the long ages it reminds me of the YEC model.
IP: Logged
|
|
LifeEngineer
Member
Member # 3446
|
posted 05. January 2007 09:28
Quote: Nobody, and I mean nobody, knows how many times life was created and once created was subsequently front-loaded. Contemporary genetics cannot answer those questions.
The limitations of comtemporary genetics aside, there are lots of techniques readily available for addressing the 'when' of front-loading.
We can't currently address the issues of creeting life because we can not currently define elementary forms of life/non-life. Just as a matter of scientific principle, if science identifies a process for changing non-life to life, the process would have to be repeatable and thus the creation of life would have to be a repeatable process.
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 06. January 2007 06:58
Peter
I don't know what yuu mean by "long ages." Every evolutionary step waa instantaneus and without gradual stages just like every other genetic transformation. What makes it difficult to accept is the fact that such shanges are no longer occurring. Once that is accepted, the PEH will become the only conceivable explanation for evolution. Random mutations have never played any role in evolution. Of that I am convinced. The whole thing was planned and it is over with.
A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
P.S.
I find it hilarious that you suggest I am a special creationist when you deny an ancestor for Homo sapiens! At least you don't present a candidate. While I am happy to admit that I am a creationist, I am not willing to submit that man was specially created which would seem to be your position. Man is very defnitely an animal.
IP: Logged
|
|
peter borger
Member
Member # 722
|
posted 11. January 2007 09:53
John,
"long ages" = billions of years
I wonder what is the difference between "several distinct frontloadings" and "several disctinct special creations"?
best wishes,
peter
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 11. January 2007 10:03
Peter
All real evolution was instantaneous, without gradual transformations and irrreversible.
"We might as well stop looking for the missing links as they never existed."
Otto Schindewolf
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 11. January 2007 10:34
Peter
I am going to ask you just once more. If the chimpanzee is not our closest living relative, then exactly which organism is? We do have living relatives don't we? I think that requires a yes or no answer.
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
peter borger
Member
Member # 722
|
posted 22. January 2007 06:11
"I am going to ask you just once more. If the chimpanzee is not our closest living relative, then exactly which organism is? We do have living relatives don't we? I think that requires a yes or no answer."
John, although the chimp is our closest biochemical and genetical relative, it is not connected to us by common descent. That is what the new biology shows. Do you have an evolutionary scenario to explain the unique human genes not found in primates? I do not, except may be a special creation event of a multipurpose genomes.
IP: Logged
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic