The Strange Thing about Creationism

[painted wolf]

Throughout all the biology topics I studied at uni, I never once encountered the words macro/micro evolution, just evolution.
I've only seen these terms used on internet forums like this.

Really?

Granted they aren't commonly used in day to day biological discussions of evolution, but they are valid terms and are used in proper context by biologists.
(Which is to say, rarely used... most biologists understand the terms enough to be able to tell if you are talking micro or macro from the context of the discussion. But they are used in papers when you want to get precise ideas across in as few words as possible.)

wa:do

 

[camanintx]

This article is mentioned in several sites, There is quite a bit of material to discuss in that, but little that actually proves transition, and the "Missing data" it admits may heavily skew the observations. And I ask for anything in quote form that shows evidence that they came from the same source rather than having similar molds, as in a similar concept I showed earlier from ER-viruses that similar structures can be affected in similar fashion, I say that similar structures are merely indicative of a similar chassis, and not even of the same "kind". If you can quote anything that is proof of anything except similarity in the structure and how it proves things like retractable claws can develop, here's a piece of it if you want to start with the basics.

Here is an article explaining how ERVs can be used markers in tracing the phylogeny of any species.

ERVs - Evidence for the Evolutionary Model

While you may argue that orthologous ERVs themselves can be explained by "similar chassis", it doesn't explain the shared mutations found within these ERVs. Common descent is the only theory which explains ERVs, their shared mutations and the ratio of discontinuities. Based on this, the Molecular Phylogeny of the Carnivora referenced is more than enough proof that dogs and cats shared a common ancestor.

As for the boundaries of Evolution, as I discussed with the Speed Limits, it's like Doc Brown's Deloreum, you need something to go 88mph for "magic" to happen like wings and lungs growing and the maximum is 5 with drawbacks to the system if it goes faster.

Biochemical Limits to Evolution: The Untold Story

You have yet to present any mechanism which turns your evolutionary speed limit into a stop sign. Until then, the only thing magic is your theory of creation.

 

[Astrid000]

Oh, come now, we all know that macro-evolution can be defined as "a degree of inherited variation that has not been observed in real-time, which is the only way to obtain evidence", so obviously we lying "evolutionists" are still just blowing smoke!

I believe that is the point creationists only deny what has not been observed. Anything past microevolution is proven by way of models and mathematics.

It is not that evolutionists are lying. Evolutionist believe that the evolutionary model best expalins the complexity of life here today.

It appears more likely that a single cell or several can come to life as opposed to a fully formed being having been formed in one hit, from what we know now.

There is a difference betwen saying creationists have no evidence for their stance and no models at all and suggesting that evolutionists have the stronger stance at the moment. But to say creationists are all liars and have nothing but hot air and their bible is a lie.

Evolutionists are well backed financially and their theory has been going for a long time. Creationists have little funding. If it wasn't for some wealthy guy at the Creation Institute they would have alot less as they are the ones working on Baramins.

I do not see why evolutionists feel the need to lie in defence of TOE. For me ignoring what creationists have got appears to give it more validation as if TOE is somehow threatened by creationist ideology.

 

[outhouse]

There is a difference betwen saying creationists have no evidence for their stance and no models at all and suggesting that evolutionists have the stronger stance at the moment

the difference is fantasy and reality

Creationists have little funding

LOL that is far from the truth.

creationist rack in millions from the faithfull by spreading lies and deceit. All the popular creationist websites are nothing more then a money making enteprise

 

[Astrid000]

Here is an article explaining how ERVs can be used markers in tracing the phylogeny of any species.

ERVs - Evidence for the Evolutionary Model

While you may argue that orthologous ERVs themselves can be explained by "similar chassis", it doesn't explain the shared mutations found within these ERVs. Common descent is the only theory which explains ERVs, their shared mutations and the ratio of discontinuities. Based on this, the Molecular Phylogeny of the Carnivora referenced is more than enough proof that dogs and cats shared a common ancestor.

You have yet to present any mechanism which turns your evolutionary speed limit into a stop sign. Until then, the only thing magic is your theory of creation.

Here is the creationist refute to ERV's being used as a basis to prove common decent.
[youtube]zjXP3vEA3Rk[/youtube]
YouTube - ‪ERVs debunked‬‏

And here is the Creation Insitutes rebuttal

"Evolutionists have used shared mistakes in ‘junk DNA’ as ‘proof’ that humans and chimps have a common ancestor. However, if the similar sequences are functional, which they are progressively proving to be, their argument evaporates.
It seems that evolutionist Dr John Mattick, director of the Institute for Molecular Bioscience at the University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia, was spot on in his assessment of the gravity of the ‘junk DNA’ error:

‘The failure to recognize the full implications of this—particularly the possibility that the intervening noncoding sequences may be transmitting parallel information … may well go down as one of the biggest mistakes in the history of molecular biology.’6
​

Both biblical creationists7 and ID proponents8 predicted that transposable elements, such as ‘endogenous retroviruses’, would have a function. In 2000, creationist molecular biologist Linda Walkup proposed that God could have created transposable elements to facilitate variation (adaptation) within biblical kinds.7
If the ‘junk DNA’ is not junk, then it puts a big spanner in the work of molecular taxonomists, who assumed that ‘junk DNA’ was free to mutate at random, unconstrained by the requirements of functionality. As Williams points out:

‘The molecular taxonomists, who have been drawing up evolutionary histories (“phylogenies&#8221 for nearly every kind of life, are going to have to undo all their years of “junk DNA”-based historical reconstructions and wait for the full implications to emerge before they try again.’9 "


Large scale function for 'endogenous retroviruses'

I also see that virus's like Hendra that can jump from bat to horse to human. These would leave some mark in the genome that has nothing to do with common decent.

Besides wasn't SIV found in monkeys.....

"After doing some research, Preston Marx, virologist from Tulane University found otherwise. SIV virus seems to have aged at least 32 thousand years. That is, the virus was already present, you could say almost simultaneously with the appearance of humans, long before the presence of HIV."

Wasn't much of the modelling on HIV in human and chimpanzee ancestry based on incorrect assumptions?

SIV Founded as the Ancestor of HIV | The Daily News Global

This article below highlights the computations that must be made out of meaningless patterns:

"How was it possible for the field to identify tRNAlys3 as the trigger for viral replication yet not recognize for 30 years that an entire copy of the tRNAlys3 gene was part of the viral genome? Ferreting meaningful patterns out of the complex HIV code is a daunting task, with some analysis made possible only through high-speed computing. For that reason, six months ago, Bambara sought out David Mathews, M.D., Ph.D., assistant professor of Biochemistry and Biophysics at the Medical Center. As computational biologists, Mathews and his team were able to combine their novel computer search program with the Bambara team’s insights into RNA biology to reveal the gene."
​

Gene Hijacked By HIV Ancestor Suggests New Way to Block Viral Reproduction - News Room - University of Rochester Medical Center

I think creationists do not place much weight on evidence begotten from such complicated models. They are based on many assumtions, and comon decent is just one of them. It may just be a case of parallel infection of multiple species exposed to the same virus at much the same time, similar to Hendra.

 

[Astrid000]

the difference is fantasy and reality




LOL that is far from the truth.

creationist rack in millions from the faithfull by spreading lies and deceit. All the popular creationist websites are nothing more then a money making enteprise

No Outhouse that is not so at all. Their models are no more based on an assumption than evolutionary models are. If you are going to alledge that their models are fantasy you need to refute them scientifically. When you do this you will also be facing off one assumption against another.

How can you in all truth and sincerity alledge that creationists have anywhere near the support and financial backing that evolutionist do in their search for proof of common decent. It is statements like this that appear to vanquish evolutionists credibility as if creationist modelling was some sort of threat to TOE.

 

[Shermana]

Here is an article explaining how ERVs can be used markers in tracing the phylogeny of any species.

ERVs - Evidence for the Evolutionary Model

While you may argue that orthologous ERVs themselves can be explained by "similar chassis", it doesn't explain the shared mutations found within these ERVs. Common descent is the only theory which explains ERVs, their shared mutations and the ratio of discontinuities. Based on this, the Molecular Phylogeny of the Carnivora referenced is more than enough proof that dogs and cats shared a common ancestor.

You have yet to present any mechanism which turns your evolutionary speed limit into a stop sign. Until then, the only thing magic is your theory of creation.

If you're not going to read the articles I present which explain why there are "limits" to what can occur, then that doesn't count as me not presenting evidence.

I already explained that ERVs can include Parvo-viruses which are target specific, there is nothing that demands "Common descent" as the answer, any reader can see that the ERVs simply attack similar structures similarly, it's very unscientific to come to the conclusion that it means they came from the same ancestor just because a virus affects two groups similarly. Gorillas received the ERV insertions independently. Why? Because they have similar structures so the virus affected them similarly.

 

[outhouse]

Their models are no more based on an assumption than evolutionary models are

wrong evolution is based on observed facts

there is NO creationist model.

If you are going to alledge that their models are fantasy you need to refute them scientifically

they dont have any scientific models.

How can you in all truth and sincerity alledge that creationists have anywhere near the support and financial backing that evolutionist do in their search for proof of common decent

evolution is both fact and scientific theory, its not up for debate and hasnt been in a long time. There is no money being put in to defend it because its already a done deal.

money is spent on different areas of research but not a dollar on ToE


people who work in biology do not need "YOUR" approval and it is not religious people who give science credibility.

the "ONLY" people who have a problem with evolution are the religious. There is ZERO debate among real scientist

 

[Shermana]

"evolution is both fact and scientific theory, its not up for debate and hasnt been in a long time"

Edit: Fixed, since you complained.

If by "Evolution" you mean MICROevolution is a fact, and the Scientific theory is the MACRO-evolution involving things that Science has little explanation (and no observation) such as wings, lungs, land-walking fins, and

(Explanation of fly wings: They came from an unexplained "gill apperatus"...you're welcome to believe that.)

As stated, there is indeed a deliberate attempt to blend "Macro-evolution" as fact rather than separating it with "Microevolution" as the observed fact.

phase 1: Tiny changes within the DNA that aren't usually beneficial and always have drawbacks
Phase 2: ?
Phase 3: Profit!

 

[outhouse]

learn to use the quote function

didnt newhope have a problem with that as well???




the rest of your post was poor personal interpretation of solid scientific facts at hand.

you still have zero credibility

 

[camanintx]

If you're not going to read the articles I present which explain why there are "limits" to what can occur, then that doesn't count as me not presenting evidence.

Please show me where in any of your articles it explains how these genetic changes, regardless of how fast they can accumulate, cannot over the course of 42 million years produce the differences we find between Caniformia and Feliformia. It's like you're saying that because my car cannot exceed 120 mph that I cannot drive from New York to Los Angeles in a week.

I already explained that ERVs can include Parvo-viruses which are target specific, there is nothing that demands "Common descent" as the answer, any reader can see that the ERVs simply attack similar structures similarly, it's very unscientific to come to the conclusion that it means they came from the same ancestor just because a virus affects two groups similarly. Gorillas received the ERV insertions independently. Why? Because they have similar structures so the virus affected them similarly.

If ERVs by themselves were the only evidence, you might have an argument, but you keep ignoring the shared mutations. If you found the same sentence in papers from several students, you might be wrong to conclude plagiarism. But when each sentence has the same misspellings, the argument is almost definitive.

 

[Shermana]

Please show me where in any of your articles it explains how these genetic changes, regardless of how fast they can accumulate, cannot over the course of 42 million years produce the differences we find between Caniformia and Feliformia. It's like you're saying that because my car cannot exceed 120 mph that I cannot drive from New York to Los Angeles in a week.


If ERVs by themselves were the only evidence, you might have an argument, but you keep ignoring the shared mutations. If you found the same sentence in papers from several students, you might be wrong to conclude plagiarism. But when each sentence has the same misspellings, the argument is almost definitive.

As I said earlier, it's like needing to go 88mph to go back to the future when the max speed is 5. If you can only go 5, then any major changes like lungs and legs and wings cannot happen. And you are ignoring the major fact that radical changes cause drastic drawbacks in other locations. If your car can go 120mph, but the tires blow out after 10 seconds of cruising, you ain't going much farther than down the street.

Here's a better example: If there's a computer virus and it affects the exact same files of 1000 people in the exact same way in windows, macs, and linux operating systems, but it shows a few bugs and typos in the coding, you can conclude that the viruses are designed to attack similar files in similar locations with a similar author, and you can conclude that the different operating systems have enough similarities for the file to know what to do exactly the same way. What you call spelling errors are simply the similar "error" transcription effects of the virus in insertions to similar systems.

 

[camanintx]

Here is the creationist refute to ERV's being used as a basis to prove common decent.

And here is the Creation Insitutes rebuttal.

Whether they have function or not is irrelavent, ERV's are proven to be the result of a virus inserting itself into the genome, and as shown in another thread, they almost never insert at exactly the same location. But even if they did, you would still have to explain the share mutations found within these ERVs.

 

[camanintx]

As I said earlier, it's like needing to go 88mph to go back to the future when the max speed is 5. If you can only go 5, then any major changes like lungs and legs and wings cannot happen. And you are ignoring the major fact that radical changes cause drastic drawbacks in other locations. If your car can go 120mph, but the tires blow out after 10 seconds of cruising, you ain't going much farther than down the street.

Here's a better example: If there's a computer virus and it affects the exact same files of 1000 people in the exact same way in windows, macs, and linux operating systems, but it shows a few bugs and typos in the coding, you can conclude that the viruses are designed to attack similar files in similar locations with a similar author, and you can conclude that the different operating systems have enough similarities for the file to know what to do exactly the same way. What you call spelling errors are simply the similar "error" transcription effects of the virus in insertions to similar systems.

So show us a paper calculating the rate of mutations needed for speciation and comparing it to the maximum rate of mutations possible for that organism. Otherwise your examples are no more realistic that they movie they come from.

 

[idav]

As I said earlier, it's like needing to go 88mph to go back to the future when the max speed is 5. If you can only go 5, then any major changes like lungs and legs and wings cannot happen. And you are ignoring the major fact that radical changes cause drastic drawbacks in other locations. If your car can go 120mph, but the tires blow out after 10 seconds of cruising, you ain't going much farther than down the street.

That is why we keep saying that enough time will allow bigger changes. Going 5 miles an hour just means it takes longer to get to your destination but doesn't mean it won't eventually happen.

Also nobody has ignored that a lot of times there are drawbacks. Not surprising since most the animals who have ever lived have gone extinct. Whether or not it is a drawback depends on the environment.

We can easily see that all the hands, wings, claws and fins are very similar in bone structure. I don't really see how you think some drastic change was necessary to develop. Even a worm has a 40 percent gene match with other organisms including humans. Humans happen to have the most junk DNA of any known species which is a result of our organism ancestors.

 

[Gunfingers]

As I said earlier, it's like needing to go 88mph to go back to the future when the max speed is 5. If you can only go 5, then any major changes like lungs and legs and wings cannot happen. And you are ignoring the major fact that radical changes cause drastic drawbacks in other locations. If your car can go 120mph, but the tires blow out after 10 seconds of cruising, you ain't going much farther than down the street.

That's an awful lot of ifs. If the universe worked in such a way that there was a velocity that caused a sudden jump in the way you travel in time you might have an argument, but in reality the universe is gradualistic. The time it takes to travel between two points (as perceived by the traveler) shrinks asymptotically to 0 as as the traveler's velocity approaches c.
The same is true with genetics. The more closely related two organisms are (as defined by the number of generations separating them) the more genetically similar they are. You are more similar to your siblings than to your cousins, more similar to your cousins than to a person of your same ethnicity but to whom you are not closely related, and more similar to that person than to someone of a different ethnicity. This would be that "micro-evolution" you're so hard up on at work. The thing is, as you get more and more distantly related, as those generations of diversion add up, you become more and more dissimilar. If two or three generations can give us different heights and facial structures (such as with your cousins) and a hundred generations can give you different skin tones and hair structures, then, absent some limiting mechanism that, to date, has never been observed, there's no reason not to believe that with the thousands and millions of generations the earth has seen we'd get scales, fur, claws, and all the other diverse aspects of life.
Saying it has to happen slowly isn't going to stop it from oh-so-slowly happening. Putting a speed limit on it is more akin to saying that whether you're going 5 mph or 88 mph, you're eventually going to get to St Louis.

 

[Shermana]

That is why we keep saying that enough time will allow bigger changes. Going 5 miles an hour just means it takes longer to get to your destination but doesn't mean it won't eventually happen.

Also nobody has ignored that a lot of times there are drawbacks. Not surprising since most the animals who have ever lived have gone extinct. Whether or not it is a drawback depends on the environment.

We can easily see that all the hands, wings, claws and fins are very similar in bone structure. I don't really see how you think some drastic change was necessary to develop. Even a worm has a 40 percent gene match with other organisms including humans. Humans happen to have the most junk DNA of any known species which is a result of our organism ancestors.

Start with something small, retractable claws in cats, how did they develop a whole mechanism to retract their claws, why didn't wolves and bears?

Junk DNA is not necessarily Junk either. The "Alu" for example has been discovered to play a role in gene activation and cellular protection. They are not indicative of a base ancestor whatsoever, just because Science is still learning about them.

 

[idav]

Start with something small, retractable claws in cats, how did they develop a whole mechanism to retract their claws, why didn't wolves and bears?

Junk DNA is not necessarily Junk either. The "Alu" for example has been discovered to play a role in gene activation.

Not to be a smart *** but it developed through the evolutionary process. You got a better explanation I'm all ears. As I've said all those claws, hands, wings and even fins are all remarkably similar.

So what if we find some DNA isn't actually junk. Doesn't change the enormous amount of junk DNA that humans have.

edit: Well here is a link anyway. Hope it helps but seriously I'm not trying to explain how every single difference in species came to be. There is so much info on it that it would take a more than a lifetime to go through it all. http://www.bios.niu.edu/davis/bios661b/Hamrick2001.pdf

 

[painted wolf]

Start with something small, retractable claws in cats, how did they develop a whole mechanism to retract their claws, why didn't wolves and bears?

So, the Cheeata isn't a cat then? They do not have retractable claws.

Also retractable claws are found in other species closely related to cats, such as the Foosa.

The first ture cats (such as Proailurnus) had only semi-retractable claws, not nearly as advanced as modern cats.

If you are genuinely interested in felid evolution I would suggest reading The Big Cats and Their Fossil Relatives.
Amazon.com: The Big Cats and Their Fossil Relatives (9780231102292): Mauricio Anton, Alan Turner, F. Clark. Howell: Books

wa:do

BTW... you still seem to misunderstand the term Macroevolution... speciation is macroevolution and it has been observed several times both in the lab and in the wild.

 

[Shermana]

So show us a paper calculating the rate of mutations needed for speciation and comparing it to the maximum rate of mutations possible for that organism. Otherwise your examples are no more realistic that they movie they come from.

If you throw out the data because of the source, I'll take that as concession.



Mutation Rates

What is the typical rate of spontaneous mutations?

Rates of spontaneous mutation seem to be determined by evolutionary balances between the deleterious consequences of many mutations and the additional energy and time required to further reduce mutation rates. Bacteria, Archae, and Eukaryotic microbes produce about one mutation per 300 chromosome replications. For E. coli this works out to be between 10-6 and 10-7 mutations per gene per generation, however it is important to note that there are certain "hot spots" or "cold spots" for spontaneous mutations. (A "hot spot" is a site that has a higher rate of mutations than predicted from a normal distribution, and a "cold spot" is a site with a lower rate of mutations than predicted from a normal distribution.) Higher eukaryotes have the same rate of spontaneous mutation, so that rates per sexual generation are about one mutation per gamete (close to the maximum compatible with life). RNA viruses have much higher mutation rates -- about one mutation per genome per chromosome replication -- and even small increases in their mutation rates are lethal.



DNA Mutation Rates and Evolution

This Poisson approximation shows that out of 10,000 offspring, only 2,202 of them would have the same or less than the original number of detrimental mutations of the parent population. This leaves 7,798 with more detrimental mutations than the parent population.51 Of course, in order to maintain a steady state population of 5,000, natural selection must cull out 5,000 of these 10,000 offspring before they are able to reproduce. Given a preference, those with more detrimental mutations will be less fit by a certain degree and will be removed from the population before those that are more fit (less detrimental mutations). Given strong selection pressure, the second generation might be made up of ~2,200 more fit individuals and only ~2,800 less fit individuals with the overall average showing a decline as compared with the original parent generation. If selection pressure is strong, so that the majority of those with more than 7 detrimental mutations are removed from the population, the next generation will only have about 1,100 mating couples as compared to 2,500 in the original generation. With a reproductive rate of 4 per couple, only 4,400 offspring will be produced as compared to 10,000 originally. In order to keep up with this loss, the reproductive rate must be increased or the population will head toward extinction. In fact, given a detrimental mutation rate of Ud = 3 in a sexually reproducing population, the average number of offspring needed to keep up would be around 20 per breeding couple (2eUd/2). While this is about half that required for an asexual population (2eUd), it is still quite significant. ​

In this light, consider that more recent estimates suggest that the deleterious mutation rate is even higher. "Extrapolations from studies of humans and Drosophila (Mukai, 1979; Kondroshov, 1988; Crow, 1993) suggest that Ud > 5 is feasible." 49 However, the number of required offspring needed to compensate for a detrimental mutation rate of Ud = 5 would soar to 148 per female per generation! And, this is not the worst of it. Recent genetic studies have shown that much of what was once thought of as "junk DNA" is actually functional ( Link ). In fact, these recent studies suggest that the total amount of functional DNA in the human genome is not actually 2-3% as previously thought, but is upwards of 85-90% ( Link ). Consider also that what were once thought to be neutral mutations are now being discovered to be functional mutations governed by natural selection. In a 2007 paper published in the Indian Journal of Human Genetics, author Clyde Winters claims to have made a very interesting discovery. ​

It is often assumed that selection plays a limited role in the mtDNA control region. . . However, there is a selective constraint on mutation frequencies of an mtDNA site. Some of the East African transitions . . . are the most rapidly occurring nucleotide substitutions in the human mitochondrial genome. These transitions are often referred too as "hotspots." These hot spots of mutational activity suggest that positive selection influences mutation rates and not neutral selection which, theoretically, would manifest parallel mutations.53​

Of course, this is not the only region in the human genome that was once thought to be limited to neutral mutations alone. Much of the genome is now known to be subject to differential selection. ​

So what. What does this matter? It matters to this particular problem because the actual detrimental mutation rate would be a significantly greater percentage of the total number of mutations experienced by the genome in each generation. As noted above, the total number of mutations per offspring per generation is at least 175. If the functional genome percentage was actually 50% (instead of just 2%), the likely detrimental mutation rate (Ud) would be well over 30 instead of the usual estimates of ~3 noted above. This would increase the reproductive rate needed to avoid genomic decay from ~20 offspring per woman per generation to well over 10 trillion offspring per woman per generation - obviously an impossible hurdle to overcome. ​

In short, the best available evidence overwhelmingly supports the theory that the human genome is in decay. The various forms of "positive epistasis" (see illustration by Rice below) 49 do not solve this problem. ​

Here is an article that shows that Junk DNA isn't exactly Junk.

One Scientist's Junk Is a Creationist's Treasure