Surprises in sea anemone genome

[PlastikBuddha]

It was said in jest (so relax, Barbie).

I figured it was, I was trying to use that comment as a springboard.

There's a difference between not deserving to reproduce, and not deserving to live. Can you not see that?

There is a difference, but how big is it? Both seem like misapplications of ToE and/or sound judgement.

 

[The Barbarian]

What is disturbing, is the notion that natural selection is a good guide to human behavior. I'm not sure that's what he's suggesting here, but it's a little too close to that for my taste.

What is natural is not necessarily good, particularly when it comes to human behavior.

 

[Skeptic]

Hey, Bob! .... :wave:

Correct. We predict that God did it because He said He did and also because evolutionary theory has failed to solve the origin of the DNA/RNA/protein interlocked system as well as sexual reproduction and the origin of the Hoxdomains prior to the Cambrian explosion.

No, you do not predict that God did it. Rather, you presume that God did it, presume that He said He did it, and presume that God created fully formed organisms.

Predictions can be tested.

Your presumptions cannot be tested.

Also, any real or alleged failings of evolutionary theory is NOT evidence for your unfounded hypothesis.

Then why do you believe that all life began with a single hypothetical primitive protocell? (because that is what common descent means?).

Common descent means that various organisms descended from certain other organisms. As a result of careful observations (testing), it turns out the theory successfully predicts that complex organisms would be found to have lived after less complex organisms, early in the fossil record. The theory does not try to predict what the first life form looked like.

They are not aware of any processes that could have started life out as a single cell either.

You are not aware of any processes that could have started life out as multiple forms.

At least scientists are actively studying many clues to possible processes.

 

[bob b]

Evolution has successfully predicted many things. For example: HERE are several more predictions.

What evolution does NOT predict is that simple life forms will ALWAYS evolve into progressively more complex forms. Again, if this were the case, we would not still have bacteria.

Actually, the theory predicts that lifeforms will either get more complex, less complex or not change. What is confusing you is that some scientists do at times make a guess and sometimes they turn out to be right.

Which brings me to an example from the little book How to Lie With Statistics. It seems that toothpaste manufacturers make claims about their product based on tests that are run. A cartoon in the book had a wastepaper basket labeled "Bad Tests", filled to the brim with reports. In other words if nobody is keeping track of every prediction to see how it turned out, but only report the ones that were successful. then a false picture is easily formed about how "scientific" the process is.

"The study also found that these similarities were absent from fruit fly and nematode genomes, contradicting the widely held belief that organisms become more complex through evolution." (The study does NOT contradict evolution.)

Since evolution is only a miscellaneous collection of beliefs, no finding could ever contradict it. One would only have to "absorb" the new finding into the belief system, which was what happened in this case (i.e. the genomes must have arisen prior to the Cambrian Explosion).

You mischaracterize the evolutionary scientists as having no plausible explanations for sexual reproduction.

That is the consensus which my quotes of famous scientists showed

You mischaracterize the theory as predicting far more transitional forms should have been found than have been.

That was the expectation. But Gould revealed the "Trade Secret", i.e. the fossil record had a huge shortage.

You characterize the theory has having "huge holes" in it ("Such huge holes in the theory should logically downgrade the status of the theory to a mere imperfect hypothesis."), as if scientists have no supporting evidence or plausible explanations for the things you cite.

"Just so" stories don't count as evidence in science.

"The ToE actually explains (scientifically) very little if anything." (mischaracterization of ToE not having explanatory value)

"Just so" stories don't count as evidence in science.

You mischaracterize the status of the ToE within the scientific community: "The evidence against neoDarwinism has accumulated via laboratory research to the point where even biologists are beginning to ask themselves questions."

If they don't they are less bright and honest than I have assumed.

You mischaracterize evolutionists have having to lie to support their theory.

They probably don't realize they are repeating a lie.

You mischaracterize evolutionists as being dishonest: "The dishonest thing about evolutionists is citing papers that we do not have access to."

Funny, you just did the same thing !!!

You mischaracterize the ToE as not allowing for spurts of rapid evolution: "any experimental evidence of rapid adaptation to changes in the environment should be considered as a violation of ToE (neoDarwinism), requiring a new theory or at least a major revision of the current theory"

NeoDarwinism never predicted changes could be rapid.

You mischaracterize the ToE as not falsifiable: "This hypothesis will protect evolution from falsification, but at the price of removing it from the realm of science where theories must be potentially falsifiable."

Yep.

Another mischaracterization: "Yes, but there is no coherent theory of evolution. It is merely a bunch of ad hocs and just-so stories."

Yep.

Yet another: "In other words the theory never predicts anything that would ever confirm or falsify the theory, meaning that it is not really a scientific theory at all, even though it is said to have been developed by scientists."

Yep.

But you think miracles (i.e. the supernatural) should be included in scientific explanations. Is this not true?

The origin of life and the universe are both miracles.

Isn't the God-did-it hypothesis essentially a then-a-miracle-happened hypothesis?

No. It is a first-two-miracles-happened.

 

[The Barbarian]

Actually, the theory predicts that lifeforms will either get more complex, less complex or not change.

More accurately, it describes the conditions under which this will happen. Would you like to learn about it?

What is confusing you is that some scientists do at times make a guess and sometimes they turn out to be right.

In fact, scientists generally don't make guesses with established theories like evolution. But they do make many predictions. There is a very large body of verified predictions based on evolutionary theory. Would you like to learn about it.

Which brings me to an example from the little book How to Lie With Statistics. It seems that toothpaste manufacturers make claims about their product based on tests that are run. A cartoon in the book had a wastepaper basket labeled "Bad Tests", filled to the brim with reports. In other words if nobody is keeping track of every prediction to see how it turned out, but only report the ones that were successful. then a false picture is easily formed about how "scientific" the process is.

That's why there's peer review in getting work published. That sort of thing would be enough to ruin a career, if someone was dumb enough to submit it.

"The study also found that these similarities were absent from fruit fly and nematode genomes, contradicting the widely held belief that organisms become more complex through evolution." (The study does NOT contradict evolution.)

Since evolution is only a miscellaneous collection of beliefs, no finding could ever contradict it.

A reasonably intelligent 8th-grader could correct you on that misconception. One of the reasons you are so furious with science is, you don't really understand what it is.

One would only have to "absorb" the new finding into the belief system, which was what happened in this case (i.e. the genomes must have arisen prior to the Cambrian Explosion).

Hmm... that was never part of evolutionary theory. It makes no such predictions.

You mischaracterize the evolutionary scientists as having no plausible explanations for sexual reproduction.

That is the consensus which my quotes of famous scientists showed

Like your doctored "quote" from Koonin, who turned out to believe exactly the opposite of what you presented him to believe? No thanks. The simpleist forms of sex are optional ones; bacterial conjugation is a good example. Many organisms can reproduce either sexually or asexually. It became the only possible way much later, in some groups, but not all.

You mischaracterize the theory as predicting far more transitional forms should have been found than have been.

That was the expectation. But Gould revealed the "Trade Secret", i.e. the fossil record had a huge shortage.

Another of your doctored quotes. You claimed Gould said there was an absence of transitionals between major groups. Gould wrote:

"Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups." -- Stephen Jay Gould (from his book Hen's Teeth and Horse's Toes, page 260

You mischaracterize the ToE as not allowing for spurts of rapid evolution: "any experimental evidence of rapid adaptation to changes in the environment should be considered as a violation of ToE (neoDarwinism), requiring a new theory or at least a major revision of the current theory"

NeoDarwinism never predicted changes could be rapid.

It was part of evolutionary theory long before the modern synthesis. Look here:

In particular, where Darwin had seen evolution and a slow, gradual, continuous process, Huxley thought that an evolving lineage might make rapid jumps, or saltations. As he wrote to Darwin just before publication of the Origin of Species, "You have loaded yourself with an unnecessary difficulty in adopting Natura non facit saltum [Nature does not make leaps] so unreservedly."
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/history/thuxley.html

From the beginning, the theory included rapid evolution.

The origin of life and the universe are both miracles.

Not according to God. He says that He created life by natural means.

Bob, have you no sense of what your behavior tells others about you?

 

[zoo22]

We used to have a sea anemone. It was very large, larger than a standard softball. The anemone got sucked up into the tank's water filter and ripped apart, but it lived. After the ripping up, it was more of a flat creature rather than of a round one. It was very surprising. It shared a surprising degree of similarity to a misshapen oblong hamburger patty.

Unfortunately, I never got a chance to do any substantial genome experimentation with it. But I will say it was a miracle that it survived, if that helps with anyone's research.

 

[noguru]

Bob, have you no sense of what your behavior tells others about you?

I thinnk he is oblivious to it. He is too focused on trying to be convincing. It seems that being convincing is a higher priority to him than being honest and having integity.

 

[bob b]

I thinnk he is oblivious to it. He is too focused on trying to be convincing. It seems that being convincing is a higher priority to him than being honest and having integity.

You evolutionists are amusing. I present a new dilemma for you and all you respond with is personal attacks on my character.

I guess that is to be expected, since your so-called theory is nothing more than a hodge podge of "just so" stories.

Apparently nobody wants to talk about the sea anemone genome "mystery".

 

[The Barbarian]

You evolutionists are amusing. I present a new dilemma for you and all you respond with is personal attacks on my character.

Yes, people will draw inferences about your character from your behavior. You said:

That was the expectation. But Gould revealed the "Trade Secret", i.e. the fossil record had a huge shortage. [/b]

But Gould wrote:

"Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups." -- Stephen Jay Gould (from his book Hen's Teeth and Horse's Toes, page 260

If you persist in this behavior, you can hardly complain when people draw conclusions from it.

I guess that is to be expected, since your so-called theory is nothing more than a hodge podge of "just so" stories.

All you have left is faked "quotes" and slogans? How about that?

Apparently nobody wants to talk about the sea anemone genome "mystery".

It's a mystery to you, because you deny common descent. If you knew anything about genomes, you'd know that even bacteria have more in common with us genetically than things by which they differ. But even more striking is the fact that the amount of difference correlates very well with the tree of live showing common descent.

The fact that coelentrates have genes in common with humans is a prediction of evolutionary theory. So is the amount of difference.

Here's the way the DNA works out:
http://www.geojeff.org/course-materials/historical-geology-lab/lab-4-morphology/life_cladogram.png

As you see, no "mystery" about common descent. One more point for evo-devo, though.

 

[bob b]

Barb forgot to quote the pages just prior to the brief quote on page 260.

Hens Teeth & Horses Toes - taken from pages 257-259

Our confidence that evolution occurred centers upon three general arguments. First, we have abundant, direct observational evidence of evolution in action, from both field and laboratory. This evidence ranges from countless experiments on change in nearly everything from fruit flies subjected to artificial selection in the laboratory to the famous populations of British moths that became black when industrial soot darkened the trees upon which the moths rest. (Moths gain protection from sharp-sighted bird predators by blending into the background.) Creationists do not deny these observations: how could they? Creationists have tightened their act. They now argue that God only created “basic kinds,” and allowed for limited evolutionary meandering within them. Thus toy poodles and Great Danes come from the dog kind and moths can change color, but nature cannot convert a dog t a cat or a monkey to a man.

The second and third argumentsfor evolution – the case for major changes – do not involve direct observation of evolution in action. They rest upon inference, but are no less secure for that reason. Major evolutionary change requires too much time for direct observation on the scale of recorded human history. All historical sciences rest upon inference, and evolution is no different than geology, or human history in this respect. In principle, we cannot observe processes that operated in the past.

The second argument – that the imperfection of nature reveals evolution reveals evolution – strikes many people as ironic, for they feel that evolution should be most elegantly displayed in the nearly perfect adaptation expressed by some organisms – the camber of a gull’s wing , or butterflies that cannot be seen in ground because they mimic leaves so precisely. But perfection could be imposed by a wise creator or evolved by natural seelection. Perfection covers the track of past history. And past history – the evidence of descent – is the mark of evolution.

Evolution lies exposed in the imperfections that record a history of descent. Why should a rat run, a bat fly, a porpoise swim, and I type this essay with structures built of the same bones unless we all inherited them from a common ancestor? An engineer, starting from scratch, could design better limbs in each case. Why should all the large native mammals of Australia be marsupials, unless they descended from a common ancestor isolated on this island continent? Marsupials are not “better,” or ideally suited to Australia; many have been wiped out by placenta mammals imported by man from other continents. This principle of imperfection extends to all historical sciences. When we recognize the etymology of September, October, November and December (seventh, eight, ninth, and tenth), we know that the year once started in March, or that two additional months must have been added to an original calendar of ten months.

The third Argument is more direct: transitions are often found in the fossil record. Preserved transitions are not common – and should not be, according to our understanding of evolution (see next section) – but they are not entirely wanting, as creationists often claim.

(emphasis added)

So one might ask what Gould meant by "abundant" on page 260.

Gould also seems to be impressed by imperfections. Could it be that he thinks that the Bible teaches that God created all lifeforms perfectly in the beginning, and they have never changed since?

 

[PlastikBuddha]

Barb forgot to quote the pages just prior to the brief quote on page 260.

Hens Teeth & Horses Toes - taken from pages 257-259



(emphasis added)

So one might ask what Gould meant by "abundant" on page 260.

Gould also seems to be impressed by imperfections. Could it be that he thinks that the Bible teaches that God created all lifeforms perfectly in the beginning, and they have never changed since?

I don't think Gould ever explicitly mentioned what he thought the Bible taught in that area. Considering the bible doesn't say anything to contradict that statement, I can see how he might have thought that, but did he explicitly say it?

 

[bob b]

I don't think Gould ever explicitly mentioned what he thought the Bible taught in that area. Considering the bible doesn't say anything to contradict that statement, I can see how he might have thought that, but did he explicitly say it?

He brings up "the argument from impefection" quite frequently in his magazine articles. The article with the quoted passages was originally from Discover Magazine 1981. The book is a collection of articles previously published in various popular science type magazines. Gould stated that many of the chapters in the book came from his regular monthly article in Natural History Magazine.

 

[PlastikBuddha]

He brings up "the argument from impefection" quite frequently in his magazine articles. The article with the quoted passages was originally from Discover Magazine 1981. The book is a collection of articles previously published in various popular science type magazines. Gould stated that many of the chapters in the book came from his regular monthly article in Natural History Magazine.

Seeing as how the majority of creationists believe that life has changed little beyond the non-evolution from "kinds" how is that an invalid point? These imperfections are not just cosmetic, but fandamental problems that creationsism does not address.

 

[The Barbarian]

Gould writes:
The third Argument is more direct: transitions are often found in the fossil record. Preserved transitions are not common – and should not be, according to our understanding of evolution (see next section) – but they are not entirely wanting, as creationists often claim.

(emphasis added)

So one might ask what Gould meant by "abundant" on page 260.

He says that transitions between major groups are abundant, but transitionals are not common. As he points out elsewhere, for them to be common, we would need a fossil of every species that ever lived, or at least the majority of them, and we do not. New species are being found every day.

But there are abundant transitionals between major groups, even though transitionals between species aren't as common, for the reason mentioned above.

I offered to test the assertion, but you cut and ran the last time. Would you like to put your beliefs to the test now? Give me two major groups said to be related, and we'll see if I can find a transitional.

Or you can choke again, and hide. Up to you.

So what's it going to be bob? Be a man. Step up and defend your beliefs. Everyone is watching.

 

[bob b]

I don't think Gould ever explicitly mentioned what he thought the Bible taught in that area. Considering the bible doesn't say anything to contradict that statement, I can see how he might have thought that, but did he explicitly say it?

He brings up "the argument from impefection" quite frequently in his magazine articles. He usually throws in a "Why would God do that?" as well. The article with the quoted passages was originally from Discover Magazine 1981. The book is a collection of articles previously published in various popular science type magazines. Gould stated that many of the chapters in the book came from his regular monthly article in Natural History Magazine.

 

[The Barbarian]

So, it's cut and run, one more time. If you ever get your confidence up to the point that you're willing to test your beliefs, let me know.

 

[noguru]

I thinnk he is oblivious to it. He is too focused on trying to be convincing. It seems that being convincing is a higher priority to him than being honest and having integrity.

You evolutionists are amusing. I present a new dilemma for you and all you respond with is personal attacks on my character.

I guess that is to be expected, since your so-called theory is nothing more than a hodge podge of "just so" stories.

Apparently nobody wants to talk about the sea anemone genome "mystery".

So you took me off your ignore list? I suspect that is because you cannot call this response "non-sensical". You are one of a kind. And your thin veil of immature defenses is as transparent as your claim to understand science.

Bob, you may find this an ad hominem attack, but I think the factor I mention in this response is a crucial aspect as to why you choose your particular style of argument.

 

[bob b]

So you took me off your ignore list? I suspect that is because you cannot call this response "non-sensical". You are one of a kind. And your thin veil of immature defenses is as transparent as your claim to understand science.
Bob, you may find this an ad hominem attack, but I think the factor I mention in this response is a crucial aspect as to why you choose your particular style of argument.

Careful. I may put you back on my ignore list if you don't start saying things with substance.

---------

I wonder why Barb doesn't tell us what a "major group" is or what is meant by "abundant"?

 

[The Barbarian]

I wonder why Barb doesn't tell us what a "major group" is or what is meant by "abundant"?

I thought you knew, since you used the terms yourself. But major groups, the way Gould used it, meant "above family." "Abundant" means a lot of them.

Does this mean you now have worked up the courage to test your beliefs? Great. Two major groups, which are said to have a last common ancestor. Name as many of these as you like, and we'll see if Gould is right or you are right.

 

[noguru]

Careful. I may put you back on my ignore list if you don't start saying things with substance.

---------

I wonder why Barb doesn't tell us what a "major group" is or what is meant by "abundant"?

Bob since I am a fallible human I may make comments that are either in part or totally without substance. If my response does not need one from you then you can just skip it. Or you can point out how they lack substance. Instead of making unsupported claims as you usually do.

Think about the logic of putting me on ignore. If I do post a response that lacks substance you will not see it. And you also cannot offer your insight to keep me on track. Also if my response does have substance you will not know.

I honestly believe that your committment to being convincing about your interpretation of Genesis overshadows your commitment to truth and integrity in natural philosophy. I think this is a major stumbling block in having effective communication with you. Should I overlook this issue that I feel is crucial? If you would like me to explain more I will. If you do not want me to explain then let's just leave it at that.