Ask me anything about the science of Evolution :)

[Thermos aquaticus]

Unfortunately, this is the sort of storytelling that is usually proffered as evidence: New species evolve in bursts : Nature News

How is it "storytelling"? You never seem to explain that.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

Evolutionists make charts showing supposed ancestral lines of descent. They call these “trees of life”. The problem is, different genes make different “trees of life”, and there are tens of thousands of different genes.

This is exactly what we would expect to see if evolution is true. Incomplete lineage sorting is expected. This is why they compare whole genomes to find the phylogenetic signal above the noise created by incomplete lineage sorting.

Also, the vast bulk of genes will produce trees that are very similar to one another. For example, 30% of genes put humans closer to gorillas than chimps. However, none of those genes puts humans closer to jellyfish than chimps.

Evolutionists are often forced to invoke the “parallel or convergent evolution” fudge whenever the same new organ appears on unrelated creatures in the fossil record. It is not an explanation, it is an excuse.

Example?

In every taxonomic group studied so far, around 10 to 30% of the genes are so-called “orphan genes” because they are unlike genes in any other species. They are not modifications of genes from supposed ancestors; they must have formed spontaneously, “de novo”. That was formerly assumed to be impossible, and for good reason. It is essentially an admission that the foundation of evolution theory, descent with modification, is falsified. The only way to describe the existence of these genes is miraculous.

Can you please cite any publication that states that orphan genes were impossible?

Also, there are plenty of peer reviewed papers describing how mutations modify existing DNA to produce orphan genes. It is entirely consistent with evolutionary mechanisms. All it takes is for a mutation to produce a weak promoter that results in the downstream DNA being transcribed into RNA. There is nothing miraculous about it.

The evolutionary origin of orphan genes

Origin of Primate Orphan Genes: A Comparative Genomics Approach | Molecular Biology and Evolution | Oxford Academic

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

Evolution is real and happens currently, however, it lacks the mechanisms to create cross-kind species whether slowly or quickly.

How is random mutation, selection, and speciation incapable of producing the differences seen between the genomes of species in different "kinds"? Please explain.

 

[Audie]

How is it "storytelling"? You never seem to explain that.

It is one of those stock expressions like
"random chance" or "half formed" that cannot
be explained. Or "cross species change", another good one. What is it supposed to mean? What would be an example? We never are told.

Regarding the article, it is not a big sudden shock to
biologists that evolution is not a continuous slow
event for all species.

Any duffer can see that the common possum
has not made much progress in millions of years.

The "punctuatted equilibrium" thing has been around for a long time.

Of course we see different things happen at different times and places with different species.

One thing we see with articles cited is that the creationist does not have the background to get much out of what he reads. Like if I read blueprints for a submarine.

It is also of course a keen idea to know your limitations.
I think, creationists assume they and theirs put as much into their facile nonsense as a researcher puts into his life's work.

And, they believe they actually have the advantage, being unbiased, and having god on their side.

Any creationist who feels this is not so should correct me of course.

 

[Audie]

How is random mutation, selection, and speciation incapable of producing the differences seen between the genomes of species in different "kinds"? Please explain.

There is is! "Cross kind species"! W. the pardon my french, does that mean?

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

There is is! "Cross kind species"! W. the pardon my french, does that mean?

From what I have seen, "kind" is defined by the amount of evolution that a creationists is unwilling to accept. Sometimes it is defined by what I call the "name game" where species are considered in the same kind if they can be described by the same name. For example, a new species of finch evolves but it is still in the finch kind because you can still call them finches. Of course, this falls apart when you point out that macaques and humans are still primates, as was their common ancestor.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I sat for a state licensing exam on insurance and could formerly sell it and support it.

Evolution is real and happens currently, however, it lacks the mechanisms to create cross-kind species whether slowly or quickly.

Let's forget the ignorant nonsense that you ended your post with. Simply because you do not understand a mechanism does not mean that it does not exist.

Then you should understand that insurance companies do not profit "by accident". Right? In any population the number of incidents are easily calculable. That is not luck, that is not "accident" for the company.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Evolutionists make charts showing supposed ancestral lines of descent. They call these “trees of life”. The problem is, different genes make different “trees of life”, and there are tens of thousands of different genes.

Evolutionists are often forced to invoke the “parallel or convergent evolution” fudge whenever the same new organ appears on unrelated creatures in the fossil record. It is not an explanation, it is an excuse.

In every taxonomic group studied so far, around 10 to 30% of the genes are so-called “orphan genes” because they are unlike genes in any other species. They are not modifications of genes from supposed ancestors; they must have formed spontaneously, “de novo”. That was formerly assumed to be impossible, and for good reason. It is essentially an admission that the foundation of evolution theory, descent with modification, is falsified. The only way to describe the existence of these genes is miraculous.

No, this is not true and if it was true it would be used to refute the theory of evolution. There are multiple independent ways that phylogenetic trees can be made. The fact that they agree with each other is extremely strong evidence for the theory of evolution. Not only is your claim wrong, it is wrong in such a way that you refute yourself.

 

[Yerda]

As a scientist who closely follow the scientific research on biological evolution, I am in full agreement with 99% of US scientists that evolution is the mechanism by which all life has evolved into its current multifarious forms on earth.

Ask me any specific questions or clear any specific doubts you have about evolutionary science and its conclusions.

Also note that evolutionary science follow the scientific method. If you reject the scientific method as a means of knowing about reality, then this thread is not for you.

Otherwise ask away

What do you make of the extended evoltionary synthesis?

About the EES - Extended Evolutionary Synthesis

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

What do you make of the extended evoltionary synthesis?

About the EES - Extended Evolutionary Synthesis

It's much ado about nothing. Everything that the EES talks about still boils down to the DNA sequence of a genome and how genomes evolve through random mutations, selection, and neutral drift. There really isn't anything new in the EES that isn't already in the standard theory of evolution being used by scientists today.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It's much ado about nothing. Everything that the EES talks about still boils down to the DNA sequence of a genome and how genomes evolve through random mutations, selection, and neutral drift. There really isn't anything new in the EES that isn't already in the standard theory of evolution being used by scientists today.

Yep, a refinement of a theory is not a refutation of a theory. Einstein's General Relativity refined Newton's "Law of Universal Gravitation". We still fall if we go off of a cliff, and the diversity of life is still the result of evolution.

 

[Yerda]

It's much ado about nothing. Everything that the EES talks about still boils down to the DNA sequence of a genome and how genomes evolve through random mutations, selection, and neutral drift. There really isn't anything new in the EES that isn't already in the standard theory of evolution being used by scientists today.

Hi. The link I posted has a list of 12 predictions of EES and how they vary from the modern synthesis. Take this for example,

1. phenotypic accommodation can precede, rather than follow, genetic change, in adaptive evolution

I'm not a working biologist but this strikes me as radically different from the way I thought evolution worked.

 

[Yerda]

Yep, a refinement of a theory is not a refutation of a theory. Einstein's General Relativity refined Newton's "Law of Universal Gravitation". We still fall if we go off of a cliff, and the diversity of life is still the result of evolution.

Of course. The field of evolutionary biology is furthered by EES (if it is accurate) not overthrown.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

Yep, a refinement of a theory is not a refutation of a theory. Einstein's General Relativity refined Newton's "Law of Universal Gravitation". We still fall if we go off of a cliff, and the diversity of life is still the result of evolution.

More than anything, EES is a refinement of the mechanisms that have always been in the theory. For example, EES talks a lot about transposable elements and large scale recombination events changing genomes. This is just a refinement of random mutagenesis which has been in the theory since the beginnings of the Modern Synthesis. They also talk about epigenetics, but this is still just a refinement of gene regulation which has been a part of the theory since the 1961 discovery of the lac operon in E. coli. The EES crowd also likes to talk about neutral drift as if it was something new, but this too has been a part of the theory since it was introduced in 1968 by Motoo Kimura.

In the end, EES looks a lot more like a marketing ploy to make some scientists look more important than they really are.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

Hi. The link I posted has a list of 12 predictions of EES and how they vary from the modern synthesis. Take this for example,

1. phenotypic accommodation can precede, rather than follow, genetic change, in adaptive evolution

I'm not a working biologist but this strikes me as radically different from the way I thought evolution worked.

The only problem is that phenotypic plasticity is DNA sequence based and was selected for, so the genetic change precedes phenotypic accommodation. In other words, the ability to change phenotype in response to the environment was an ability that already evolved through genetic changes followed by natural selection.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Of course. The field of evolutionary biology is furthered by EES (if it is accurate) not overthrown.

I am not too sure about the site that you chose it makes this claim as a prediction of the standard model and I have never seen anyone predict this:

"isolated mutations generating novel phenotypes will occur in a single individual"

It is conceivably possible but highly unlikely.

 

[Yerda]

I am not too sure about the site that you chose it makes this claim as a prediction of the standard model and I have never seen anyone predict this:

"isolated mutations generating novel phenotypes will occur in a single individual"

It is conceivably possible but highly unlikely.

Hmm. I'd have thought this was the common way of thinking about mutation. Almost all mutations are irrelevant etc.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

The Wiki page for the EES has a fair summary:

"Biologists disagree on the need for an extended synthesis. Opponents contend that the modern synthesis is able to fully account for the newer observations, while proponents think that the conceptions of evolution at the core of the modern synthesis are too narrow.[43] Proponents argue that even when the modern synthesis allows for the ideas in the extended synthesis, using the modern synthesis affects the way that biologists think about evolution. For example, Denis Noble says that using terms and categories of the modern synthesis distort the picture of biology that modern experimentation has discovered.[44] Proponents therefore claim that the extended synthesis is necessary to help expand the conceptions and framework of how evolution is considered throughout the biological disciplines."
Extended evolutionary synthesis - Wikipedia

In other words, there are some scientists who think their pet mechanisms should be considered more important than they currently are.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Hmm. I'd have thought this was the common way of thinking about mutation. Almost all mutations are irrelevant etc.

No, multiple mutations are observed. But most of them do not do anything. The claim was that multiple new traits can be observed in an individual and that is something that I have never heard of. Surely if the case you claim is true you should be able to find examples of this.

 

[sayak83]

What do you make of the extended evoltionary synthesis?

About the EES - Extended Evolutionary Synthesis

I am a supporter.