question for those who reject biological evolution

[SkepticThinker]

: do you know? how about scientists, do they know? Now the first bat, that interests me...not so much the species but the first bat and its bat partner. (I was going to say batty partner, but figured I'd leave that out.) We can go on to your other questions later, who knows, maybe someone here knows. Or can cite what scientists say about that.

It's your belief system that says there was a "first bat" and a "first human" and a "first" everything. Your God supposedly made all these "firsts."

The theory of evolution makes no such claim. As several hundred posters have pointed out to you at this point.

 

[leroy]

Not true. Your inability to understand does not mean that it did not happen.

Maybe, but the burden proof is on you …….. you claimed that convergent necessarily means “not the same”

so far these type of comments form the article

The echolocation abilities of bats and whales, though different in their details, rely on the same changes to the same gene – Prestin. These changes have produced such similar proteins that if you drew a family tree based on their amino acid sequences, bats and toothed whales would end up in the same tight-knit group, to the exclusion of other bats and whales that don’t use sonar.

seem to indicate that the article is talking about same variation in the same genes.....................and I will not change my mind just because an anonymous guy that has been proven to lie in the past says so .................. but you could provide a source to prove me wrong

By the way, how did they determine that echolocation arose in bats twice?

No, idea I don’t remember reading that echolocation evovled in bats twice ………relevance?

 

[Pogo]

Maybe, but the burden proof is on you …….. you claimed that convergent necessarily means “not the same”

so far these type of comments form the article

The echolocation abilities of bats and whales, though different in their details, rely on the same changes to the same gene – Prestin. These changes have produced such similar proteins that if you drew a family tree based on their amino acid sequences, bats and toothed whales would end up in the same tight-knit group, to the exclusion of other bats and whales that don’t use sonar.

seem to indicate that the article is talking about same variation in the same genes.....................and I will not change my mind just because an anonymous guy that has been proven to lie in the past says so .................. but you could provide a source to prove me wrong


No, idea I don’t remember reading that echolocation evovled in bats twice ………relevance?

The echolocation abilities of bats and whales, though different in their details, rely on the same changes to the same gene – Prestin. These changes have produced such similar proteins that if you drew a family tree based on their amino acid sequences, bats and toothed whales would end up in the same tight-knit group, to the exclusion of other bats and whales that don’t use sonar.

In red is the proof that your conjecture is wrong. It is convergent evolution of a protein involved in hearing in mammals. the particular version of Prestin is better at high frequencies.

 

[leroy]

Are you interpreting non random as intentional?

Intentional as in “one day God woke up and decided to cause a mutation in a bat and then in a dolphin?”…….no

With nonrandom I mean exactly what the source that I shared means…and what scientists mean (this is not a creationists term)…….why would I mean something different from the sources that I share?

 

[metis]

Yes but showing that evolution happens, doesn't automatically prove that it happens by the exact mechanism that @Pogo suggests and afirms with certanity (ranmdom mutations +NS alone) as has been suggested by most scientists it is likelly the case that there are other important mechanisms that played an important role.

There's mutation, genetic drift, and natural selection that's involved.

 

[leroy]

In red is the proof that your conjecture is wrong. It is convergent evolution of a protein involved in hearing in mammals. the particular version of Prestin is better at high frequencies.

Yes the proteins and the genes are similar (not identical) in bats and dolphins…….such that if you make a tree based on similarities and differences, dolphins appear closer to bats than with other mammals that are supposed to be closer relatives.

Do you have any reason to think that this is wrong?

 

[F1fan]

Intentional as in “one day God woke up and decided to cause a mutation in a bat and then in a dolphin?”…….no

With nonrandom I mean exactly what the source that I shared means……….

What is your interpretation of that meaning?

why would I mean something different from the sources that I share?

Because that is what religious bias motivates some to do.

Could non-random mean the same as order?

 

[Pogo]

Intentional as in “one day God woke up and decided to cause a mutation in a bat and then in a dolphin?”…….no

With nonrandom I mean exactly what the source that I shared means……….why would I mean something different from the sources that I share?

but you think it is significant with no reason other than it seems odd to you. Without a hypothesis of why this happens it is nothing but an observation like that cloud looks like a cat.

 

[Pogo]

Yes the proteins and the genes are similar (not identical) in bats and dolphins…….such that if you make a tree based on similarities and differences, dolphins appear closer to bats than with other mammals that are supposed to be closer relatives.

Do you have any reason to think that this is wrong?

No, but as it says in the article, it is a false tree. It is remarkable as in it can be remarked but basically meaningless.

Convergent evolution says that similar solutions can be found in otherwise disparate species like flippers on whales and penguins.
The Prestin gene existed in the ancestor to both bats and whales and cows and horses in some bats and some whales a variant that was better in translating auditory hair movement at higher frequencies arose in both but not in cows, horses and some other bats.

What you should be wondering is that because dogs are also in this group. what is the similarity of their Prestin protein in that they also have good high frequency hearing.
But you don't understand enough evolution to know why you should wonder this.

 

[leroy]

What is your interpretation of that meaning?

Because that is what religious bias motivates some to do.

Could non-random mean the same as order?

In the context of genetics, random means that a mutations or any other variation is not more likely to occur, just because the organism would benefit form it, for example a mutation that would make you resistant to COVID was not more likely to occur in 2020 than today , despite the fact that in 2020, this mutation would have represented a better benefit

So nonrandom simply means the opposite, a mutation is more likely to occur if the mutation would benefit the organism



This is obviously an oversimplification…………….

 

[leroy]

but you think it is significant with no reason other than it seems odd to you. Without a hypothesis of why this happens it is nothing but an observation like that cloud looks like a cat.

Weather if it “looks odd “or not is irrelevant-…………. The issue is that I originally claimed that mutations are not necesairly random………. And you rejected the claim and you mocked me and even called me “intelectaully illed”

Now you seem to change your mind and accept the reality of nonrandom mutations , but you haven´t admitted your mistake nor apologize

 

[leroy]

No, but as it says in the article, it is a false tree. It is remarkable as in it can be remarked but basically meaningless.

Convergent evolution says that similar solutions can be found in otherwise disparate species like flippers on whales and penguins.
The Prestin gene existed in the ancestor to both bats and whales and cows and horses in some bats and some whales a variant that was better in translating auditory hair movement at higher frequencies arose in both but not in cows, horses and some other bats.

Yes that is and has always been my point……..bats and dolphins have the same variants in some loci, and this variats are absent in dogs cows and bats that don’t use echolocation-.

So we agree on this point…………….. could you help me out and tell me if we disagree on anything?

What you should be wondering is that because dogs are also in this group. what is the similarity of their Prestin protein in that they also have good high frequency hearing.
But you don't understand enough evolution to know why you should wonder this.

relevance?

No I don’t understand enough about this gene Perstin to determine what it it´s function in dogs and other animals.......... but relevance?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Maybe, but the burden proof is on you …….. you claimed that convergent necessarily means “not the same”

so far these type of comments form the article

The echolocation abilities of bats and whales, though different in their details, rely on the same changes to the same gene – Prestin. These changes have produced such similar proteins that if you drew a family tree based on their amino acid sequences, bats and toothed whales would end up in the same tight-knit group, to the exclusion of other bats and whales that don’t use sonar.

seem to indicate that the article is talking about same variation in the same genes.....................and I will not change my mind just because an anonymous guy that has been proven to lie in the past says so .................. but you could provide a source to prove me wrong


No, idea I don’t remember reading that echolocation evovled in bats twice ………relevance?

Wow! That was pointed out to you by me more than once and also by @Pogo at least once. That shows that your interpretation is wrong. Not only that, you just did it again in the quote that you made:

"These changes have produced such similar proteins"

But you won't let yourself understand how that line refutes your interpretation of the article either.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes the proteins and the genes are similar (not identical) in bats and dolphins…….such that if you make a tree based on similarities and differences, dolphins appear closer to bats than with other mammals that are supposed to be closer relatives.

Do you have any reason to think that this is wrong?

No, not at all. We agree with that. But you once again refuted your misinterpretation of the article.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes that is and has always been my point……..bats and dolphins have the same variants in some loci, and this variats are absent in dogs cows and bats that don’t use echolocation-.

So we agree on this point…………….. could you help me out and tell me if we disagree on anything?




relevance?

No I don’t understand enough about this gene Perstin to determine what it it´s function in dogs and other animals.......... but relevance?

Not the same. Remember, you are reading from a nonscientific source that may have misinterpreted the articles themselves. National Geographic is just a popular science site. Their writers can and do make mistakes quite often, especially in new finds.

 

[Pogo]

So nonrandom simply means the opposite, a mutation is more likely to occur if the mutation would benefit the organism

Yup and the Luria-Delbruck experiment put that one to bed in 1943, back when the original Looney Tunes was on and won a Nobel prize
"The Luria–Delbrück experiment (1943) (also called the Fluctuation Test) demonstrated that in bacteria, genetic mutations arise in the absence of selective pressure rather than being a response to it."

If you can figure out how to disprove it, there is a Nobel waiting for you.

 

[Pogo]

Weather if it “looks odd “or not is irrelevant-…………. The issue is that I originally claimed that mutations are not necesairly random………. And you rejected the claim and you mocked me and even called me “intelectaully illed”

Now you seem to change your mind and accept the reality of nonrandom mutations , but you haven´t admitted your mistake nor apologize

No I said you do not understand randomness as applied to biology, an observation that has been borne out in multiple posts.

 

[leroy]

Not the same. Remember, you are reading from a nonscientific source that may have misinterpreted the articles themselves. National Geographic is just a popular science site. Their writers can and do make mistakes quite often, especially in new finds.

Multiple quotes for the original articles have been provided and they all indicate that the variants in the loci are the same.

But even then national geographic is much more reliable than the words of an anonymous fanatic guy that has been proven to lie in the past and that is not willing to support their claims.

 

[leroy]

No, not at all. We agree with that. But you once again refuted your misinterpretation of the article.

according to you what was my interpretation of the article?

 

[leroy]

No I said you do not understand randomness as applied to biology, an observation that has been borne out in multiple posts.

Ok but that is a random and unsupported claim………….. You have no reason to think that I don’t understand randomness in this context.

Basically you are saying

1 Yes Leroy you are correct , likely mutations are not necessarily random

2 but you are wrong, because I arbitrarily decided that you don’t understand the concept of randomness