The Strange Thing about Creationism

[Shermana]

Yet I'd bet $100 you can't give an example of anyone pointing to speciation in fruit flies and saying "Therefore, fish turn into bats". Heck, I'd bet another $100 you won't even try.


So tell me then, how else do new species and traits arise, if not via evolution?

Micro-evolutiohn allows for new 'traits", like Giraffes and Okapis both developing out of a "deer-thing", Lamarckian "Hyper-evolution" as I believe in, can make differences between Lions and Tigers in a matter of generations.

However, like I said to that video supposing cats and bears and dogs come from the same ancestor, I say nay, there is no proof of this, and the fossil evidence is not that compelling. Many animals simply don't develop new "traits" on their own, like bats with their wings. And as I keep repeating, the idea of reptiles-to-mammals including the development of a whole lactation system (it is SIMILAR to the closely related sweat glands but they run a completely different "specialized" network) and the development of hundreds of thousands of base pairs in humans is a bit of a...gap.

So again, the word "Evolution" in this sense still allows for new "traits" even if minor, in various animals. But it will not allow the development of "traits" like Blowholes in Whales, which I believe would require "random mutation "in such a model, and not only that, most Evolutionary theory relies heavily on "random mutation" for their inexplainable gaps. But using RM as the basis of the theory gets kinda old and kinda unprovable.

 

[Jose Fly]

There are strangely no ERVS to indicate common descent with anything pre-mammalian

Assuming that's true, so what?

and interestingly, gorillas and chimps share an ERV that humans don't have.

Citation please.

At what point do ERVs disappear and appear, and do they necessarily demonstrate a shared commonality with a previous ancestor or just a previous specimen?

They "appear" as I described in the previous post. They can "disappear" if the host is able to delete them from its genome. And if the ERV is present in the species (not just one individual), it is indicative of common ancestry with the other species.

 

[LuisDantas]

Thing is, there is no true diferentiation between so-called micro-evolution and so-called macro-evolution. Despite the desires and beliefs of some, living beings do indeed diferentiate into completely new species if they are only given enough generations.

There is plenty of evidence for that in the variety of animals, and even better in the current biological techniques. In fact, you can find much of it in several threads around here.

Why you insist in so emphatically saying things that are known to be not true, that I don't know.

 

[Jose Fly]

Micro-evolutiohn allows for new 'traits", like Giraffes and Okapis both developing out of a "deer-thing", Lamarckian "Hyper-evolution" as I believe in, can make differences between Lions and Tigers in a matter of generations.

And this has been observed where?

However, like I said to that video supposing cats and bears and dogs come from the same ancestor, I say nay, there is no proof of this, and the fossil evidence is not that compelling.

And given that you're the premier expert in the world in evolutionary biology, that's really saying something!

Many animals simply don't develop new "traits" on their own, like bats with their wings. And as I keep repeating, the idea of reptiles-to-mammals including the development of a whole lactation system (it is SIMILAR to the closely related sweat glands but they run a completely different "specialized" network) and the development of hundreds of thousands of base pairs in humans is a bit of a...gap.

Right...because you say so, and we all know that your say-so is absolute unquestioned gospel.

So again, the word "Evolution" in this sense still allows for new "traits" even if minor, in various animals. But it will not allow the development of "traits" like Blowholes in Whales, which I believe would require "random mutation "in such a model, and not only that, most Evolutionary theory relies heavily on "random mutation" for their inexplainable gaps. But using RM as the basis of the theory gets kinda old and kinda unprovable.

First, what is the measurable difference between "minor traits" and other types of traits? Second, can you provide some data for traits arising via some mechanism other than standard evolutionary mechanisms?

 

[Shermana]

Assuming that's true, so what?


Citation please.


They "appear" as I described in the previous post. They can "disappear" if the host is able to delete them from its genome. And if the ERV is present in the species (not just one individual), it is indicative of common ancestry with the other species.

I don't think its necessarily as indicative as you think.

Do Shared ERVs Support Common Ancestry? - Evolution News & Views

Just how target-specific are these ERV integrations? In the portion of the article headed "common creationist responses," we are told that,

...while proviral insertion is not purely random, it is also not locus specific; due to the way it directly attacks the 5' and 3' phosphodiester bonds, with no need to ligate (Skinner et al., 2001). So relative to pure randomness, insertion is non-random, but relative to locus specificity, insertion is highly random.​

Really?
Let's take a few moments to do what any good student of biology would do -- and briefly survey some of the literature.
In one relevant study, Barbulescu et al. (2001) report that,

We identified a human endogenous retrovirus K (HERV-K) provirus that is present at the orthologous position in the gorilla and chimpanzee genomes, but not in the human genome. Humans contain an intact preintegration site at this locus. [emphasis added]​

It seems that the most plausible explanation for this is an independent insert in the gorilla and chimpanzee lineages. Notice that the intact preintegration site at the pertinent locus in humans precludes the possibility of the HERV-K provirus having been inserted into the genome of the common ancestor of humans, chimpanzees and gorillas, and subsequently lost from the human genome by processes of genetic recombination. The inserts in the chimpanzee and gorilla lineages must be independent events.

 

[Shermana]

Thing is, there is no true diferentiation between so-called micro-evolution and so-called macro-evolution. Despite the desires and beliefs of some, living beings do indeed diferentiate into completely new species if they are only given enough generations.

There is plenty of evidence for that in the variety of animals, and even better in the current biological techniques. In fact, you can find much of it in several threads around here.

Why you insist in so emphatically saying things that are known to be not true, that I don't know.

Show the proof that they do indeed differentiate into completely new species. Subpopulations of fruit flies that lose the ability to mate with each other aren't what I'm referring to. Can those fruit flies develop into anything other than fruit flies? If you have proof for this, please share, and I'd love to know why Lungfish never developed lungs...or legs...and where all their buddies that did went, perhaps you have read all the specific points I've made regarding other animals? You say there's proof of new species arising, that's nice for fruit flies and species that differentiate to become more of a "Sub-species".

I'd say that's another muddy word issue, "Species", have we seen SUB-speciation, or true speciation like fish and reptiles to mammals? Explain what kind of speciation has been observed and then let the reader decide if its the same kind of "Macro-development" as discussed in Darwinism. Technically, Llamas and Camels should be regarded as the same "species", they can make fertile offspring. The words themselves need to be more clear for an objective look at what exactly has been observed. Likewise, the Red Wolf and the Coyote should be the same "Species", they are different sub-species. Same with dogs.

 

[idav]

Show the proof that they do indeed differentiate into completely new species. Subpopulations of fruit flies that lose the ability to mate with each other aren't what I'm referring to. Can those fruit flies develop into anything other than fruit flies? If you have proof for this, please share, and I'd love to know why Lungfish never developed lungs...or legs...and where all their buddies that did went, perhaps you have read all the specific points I've made regarding other animals? You say there's proof of new species arising, that's nice for fruit flies and species that differentiate to become more of a "Sub-species".

I'd say that's another muddy word issue, "Species", have we seen SUB-speciation, or true speciation like fish and reptiles to mammals? Explain what kind of speciation has been observed and then let the reader decide if its the same kind of "Macro-development" as discussed in Darwinism. Technically, Llamas and Camels should be regarded as the same "species", they can make fertile offspring. The words themselves need to be more clear for an objective look at what exactly has been observed. Likewise, the Red Wolf and the Coyote should be the same "Species", they are different sub-species. Same with dogs.

The example with the fruit fly is where speciation begins. Obviously they wouldnt just become other than a fruit fly until enough time passed.

When we look at the record we find dinosaurs emerging into birds and reptiles but it took millions of years and came from two different types of dinosaurs, avian and non-avian. What we definitely don't see are any of these species just popping out of thin air. We see gradual change over a very long period of time (i.e. evolution).

 

[Jose Fly]

I don't think its necessarily as indicative as you think.

Sure it is. Just because some ID creationist blog says it isn't, that doesn't make it so.

We identified a human endogenous retrovirus K (HERV-K) provirus that is present at the orthologous position in the gorilla and chimpanzee genomes, but not in the human genome. Humans contain an intact preintegration site at this locus.

Yup, and all you had to do was read the actual paper (and not just quote mine the abstract). The authors give the following explanation for the data...

"The alternative [to the duplication-conversion scenario they just ruled out] is an allelic segregation model (Figure 2d) in which the provirus formed in the most recent common ancestor of Homo, Pan, and Gorilla just before the three lineages separated. The provirus allele was fixed in the Gorilla lineage. Both alleles were then maintained in the Pan-Homo common ancestor until the individual lineages diverged. The provirus allele was fixed in the Pan lineage, while the preintegration site allele was fixed in the Homo lineage. The allelic segregation model is more parsimonious than the gene conversion scenario because it does not require the locus duplication event in the common ancestor or the two independent losses of the duplicated locus in the Gorilla and Pan lineages. In addition, the possibility that humans diverged first, the provirus formed next, and the gorilla-chimpanzee divergence occurred last is extremely unlikely given the greatest sequence similarity between chimpanzees and humans at most loci [1], [2], [3] and [4]. Rather, the presence of HERV-K-GC1 in gorillas and chimpanzees, but not humans, is best explained by the maintenance of the preintegration site in the human lineage since before the time when the provirus formed in the common ancestor of chimpanzees and gorillas." (emphasis mine).

That's why I don't rely on creationists to tell me what various scientific papers say. They're notorious for being outright liars, as is the case here.

 

[Shermana]

The example with the fruit fly is where speciation begins. Obviously they wouldnt just become other than a fruit fly until enough time passed.

When we look at the record we find dinosaurs emerging into birds and reptiles but it took millions of years and came from two different types of dinosaurs, avian and non-avian. What we definitely don't see are any of these species just popping out of thin air. We see gradual change over a very long period of time (i.e. evolution).

What do you mean "We don't see any of these species popping out of thin air", are you serious? You must have seen some missing links that only a few have seen, where is this secret archive of missing links?

The Fruit Fly experiment is where Speciation begins and ends. Lions and Tigers can come from the same cat, but I want to see more proof on that video's claim of a fossil that shows that bears and wolves came from that same "cat". As far as the evidence stands, the only speciation that can occur is of the same kind into a different type of the same kind. Ants can become different kinds of ants (to a degree....the exploding Carpenter Ant of Brunei and even the flight mechanism of the bee are massive gaps), lizards can become different types of lizards, maybe even snakes can pick up one kind of venom that others don't (All of this possible under the Lamarckian "Activatable gene" model that I showed links to earlier such as in Technology Review), but there is no evidence whatseover that anyone can post to that demonstrates anything close to a solid observed case of "Inter"-speciation.

 

[Shermana]

Sure it is. Just because some ID creationist blog says it isn't, that doesn't make it so.


Yup, and all you had to do was read the actual paper (and not just quote mine the abstract). The authors give the following explanation for the data...

"The alternative [to the duplication-conversion scenario they just ruled out] is an allelic segregation model (Figure 2d) in which the provirus formed in the most recent common ancestor of Homo, Pan, and Gorilla just before the three lineages separated. The provirus allele was fixed in the Gorilla lineage. Both alleles were then maintained in the Pan-Homo common ancestor until the individual lineages diverged. The provirus allele was fixed in the Pan lineage, while the preintegration site allele was fixed in the Homo lineage. The allelic segregation model is more parsimonious than the gene conversion scenario because it does not require the locus duplication event in the common ancestor or the two independent losses of the duplicated locus in the Gorilla and Pan lineages. In addition, the possibility that humans diverged first, the provirus formed next, and the gorilla-chimpanzee divergence occurred last is extremely unlikely given the greatest sequence similarity between chimpanzees and humans at most loci [1], [2], [3] and [4]. Rather, the presence of HERV-K-GC1 in gorillas and chimpanzees, but not humans, is best explained by the maintenance of the preintegration site in the human lineage since before the time when the provirus formed in the common ancestor of chimpanzees and gorillas." (emphasis mine).

That's why I don't rely on creationists to tell me what various scientific papers say. They're notorious for being outright liars, as is the case here.

I should have put a disclaimer: "I disagree with the conclusions of this paper, I am using it as an example for my point". I'd like to see how this conclusion in any way that its "unlikely" in the face of what he said earlier. All this shows is that some viruses attach to the same locations.

". In addition, the possibility that humans diverged first, the provirus formed next, and the gorilla-chimpanzee divergence occurred last is extremely unlikely given the greatest sequence similarity between chimpanzees and humans at most loci"

 

[LuisDantas]

Reading is a poor way of actually having access to the evidence, particularly when there is so much desire to believe that it is doctored. You would have to learn to use actual biological research techniques to have access to the evidence itself.

 

[Jose Fly]

I should have put a disclaimer: "I disagree with the conclusions of this paper, I am using it as an example for my point".

Right...that's what creationists usually do; cite a paper they think supports their argument, but when it's clear it actually contradicts their argument, they say "Oh, I didn't say I agree with it".

All this shows is that some viruses attach to the same locations.

And that's also what creationists usually do in the face of this data..."It's all a coincidence". I wonder if that would work in a paternity case? "Your honor, the genetic data linking my client to the child is merely proof that viruses attach to the same locations!"

". In addition, the possibility that humans diverged first, the provirus formed next, and the gorilla-chimpanzee divergence occurred last is extremely unlikely given the greatest sequence similarity between chimpanzees and humans at most loci"

Read the paper. They explain exactly why although this can never be ruled out 100%, it is highly unlikely.

Yeah, yeah, I know...actually read a paper that you cited? How crazy an idea is that, right?

 

[idav]

What do you mean "We don't see any of these species popping out of thin air", are you serious? You must have seen some missing links that only a few have seen, where is this secret archive of missing links?

The Fruit Fly experiment is where Speciation begins and ends. Lions and Tigers can come from the same cat, but I want to see more proof on that video's claim of a fossil that shows that bears and wolves came from that same "cat". As far as the evidence stands, the only speciation that can occur is of the same kind into a different type of the same kind. Ants can become different kinds of ants (to a degree....the exploding Carpenter Ant of Brunei and even the flight mechanism of the bee are massive gaps), lizards can become different types of lizards, maybe even snakes can pick up one kind of venom that others don't (All of this possible under the Lamarckian "Activatable gene" model that I showed links to earlier such as in Technology Review), but there is no evidence whatseover that anyone can post to that demonstrates anything close to a solid observed case of "Inter"-speciation.

Here is just the mammals. The animals are quite diverse but going back far enough we find common ancestors which is how reproduction works. It is an enourmous volume of information just to look at one species let alone an entire genus.

 

[Shermana]

Here is just the mammals. The animals are quite diverse but going back far enough we find common ancestors which is how reproduction works. It is an enourmous volume of information just to look at one species let alone an entire genus.

That's the wheel of Speculation, you'd have to examine the specifics and particulars of any specific fossil cases to determine anything.

 

[Shermana]

Right...that's what creationists usually do; cite a paper they think supports their argument, but when it's clear it actually contradicts their argument, they say "Oh, I didn't say I agree with it".


And that's also what creationists usually do in the face of this data..."It's all a coincidence". I wonder if that would work in a paternity case? "Your honor, the genetic data linking my client to the child is merely proof that viruses attach to the same locations!"


Read the paper. They explain exactly why although this can never be ruled out 100%, it is highly unlikely.

Yeah, yeah, I know...actually read a paper that you cited? How crazy an idea is that, right?

But it was an independent event with the gorilla of course.

 

[idav]

you'd have to examine the specifics and particulars of any specific fossil cases to determine anything.

Yeah I said that. Not speculation there is tons of evidence. The more difference there are just means going back further in time and everything we find supports this. Nothing out of the ordinary has ever been found to indicate species pop out of thin air without the evolutionary process.

 

[Shermana]

Yeah I said that. Not speculation there is tons of evidence. The more difference there are just means going back further in time and everything we find supports this. Nothing out of the ordinary has ever been found to indicate species pop out of thin air without the evolutionary process.

There's "tons of evidence" that the "tons of evidence" you speak of isn't exactly as much "evidence" as you think. The burden of proof is on the one claiming that there's "tons of proof", so go ahead and pick a specific case, and present the evidence of transition.

 

[camanintx]

There are strangely no ERVS to indicate common descent with anything pre-mammalian, and interestingly, gorillas and chimps share an ERV that humans don't have. At what point do ERVs disappear and appear, and do they necessarily demonstrate a shared commonality with a previous ancestor or just a previous specimen?

ERV's appear when a retrovirus inserts itself into the germ cells of an organism. The will show up in every descendant of that organism until some other genetic change deletes them.

Do you know how many ERV's there are in the human genome?

Do you know how many are found in the same location in the genome of other primates?

Do you know what the odds of this are?

 

[Jose Fly]

But it was an independent event with the gorilla of course.

No. Here's a thought...read the paper you cited. Don't rely on the Dishonesty Institute to tell you what it says.

 

[idav]

There's "tons of evidence" that the "tons of evidence" you speak of isn't exactly as much "evidence" as you think. The burden of proof is on the one claiming that there's "tons of proof", so go ahead and pick a specific case, and present the evidence of transition.

Its pretty simple really. The all too famous transition of humans is a good example. My point being that all we find is stuff supporting evolution. If we EVER found a modern human skull dating back 150 thousand years then it would be a good argument against evolution but nothing like that exists. You don't expect us to find every single link do you? Forget finding every link I just want one fossil that stands out against evolution showing that it didn't just emerge into being in a timely fashion like the rest of the animals on this planet.