Modularity and Design

_{Mark

November 16, 2007

Biology}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

The road to modularity Günter P. Wagner, Mihaela Pavlicev and James M. Cheverud Nature Reviews Genetics Volume 8 Dec 2007

“From our reading of the literature, origin of modularity research is still mostly based on model analysis rather than data. It is likely that we have not yet fully explored the range of theoretical possibilities to explain modularity, and more theoretical work will still be valuable. The models reviewed here, however, suggest an emerging theme. It seems that the origin of modularity requires both a mutational process that favours the origin of modularity and selection pressures that can take advantage of and reinforce the mutational bias.”

Hot off the press and freely available, this EvoDevo paper admits that we need a loaded mutational dice to achieve the results that we see in biology. A loaded dice always points to design.

http://ealerts.nature.com/cgi-bin24/DM/y/hhc30TXgoO0Hjc0Bg7i0Ea

Comments

The Borders I used to go to (in Fredericksburg, VA) carried Behe and Wells in the biology section, and though it carried most of Dawkins' books in the biology section as well, they put The God Delusion in the "atheism" sub-category in the Religion section. Would that be objectionable to anyone here?Carl Sachs_{November 18, 2007
November
11
Nov
18
18
2007
12:19 PM
12
12
19
PM
PDT}

Solon: "LIberals have been rearranging the books in the science and religion sections, my neighbor works at Borders and said that they caught someone doing it!!!" I recently noticed this sort of aggravating propagandaistic tactic at my local Borders, where somebody had prominently displayed mainly anti-ID books by Dawkins and others face-forward. Of course there were hardly any pro-ID books in the science life sciences section at all.magnan_{November 18, 2007
November
11
Nov
18
18
2007
10:54 AM
10
10
54
AM
PDT}

This should read: Note; the percent sequence divergence (genetic diversity) of specific breeds of dogs is found to be narrow.bornagain77_{November 18, 2007
November
11
Nov
18
18
2007
10:53 AM
10
10
53
AM
PDT}

Solon, I found this quote on the information in a bacterium. The manuals needed for building the entire space shuttle and all its components and all its support systems would be truly enormous! Yet the specified complexity (information) of even the simplest form of life - a bacterium - is arguably as great as that of the space shuttle! (Dr. J.C. Sanford) Using this example, you can easily see why even the modular system evolutionists are trying to use is ludicrous in the highest order. Bob O'H, I mean percent genetic diversity as measured by percent sequence divergence as done in this study; Some sequences found in dogs were identical to those in wolves… The sequence divergence within (breeds of) dogs was surprisingly large: the mean sequence divergence in dogs 2.06 + or - 0.07% was almost identical to the 2.10 + or - 0.04% (sequence divergence) found within wolves. (notice that sequence divergence is slightly smaller for dogs than for wolves) Coupled with the diverse morphology of domesticated dogs and known hazards of dog breeding, this evidence strongly indicates “front loaded adaptations” at a loss of information from parent species. Thus, this is genetic confirmation of the principle of Genetic Entropy for dogs from wolves! Note; the percent sequence divergence (genetic diversity) of breeds of dogs is found to be narrow.bornagain77_{November 18, 2007
November
11
Nov
18
18
2007
10:51 AM
10
10
51
AM
PDT}

bornagain77: "Why have not the near-de^ath experiences of people like Pam Reynolds made an impression on you? For crying out loud MacT, She was proven to have no electrical activity in her brain whatsoever, yet at the same time she was scientifically proven to be de^ad, she gave an accurate description of the scene in the operation room. And this is just one of thousands of testemonies for near-de-ath experiences found in Judeo-Christian cultures. Taking into consideration your profession it is hard for to see how this escaped your attention. Do you have a naturalistic explanation for the event?" NDE has never been scientifically substantiated. That does not mean it cannot happen, of course. There are some phenomena that are currently outside the reach of science, and maybe NDE is one that will remain so forever. One reason for this is that it is very difficult to study experimentally. The only evidence we do have is from case studies, which are difficult to generalize from. Also, case studies of this type provide evidence that is anecdotal in nature. While such evidence may reflect actual experience, we cannot carry out the systematic studies to validate our interpretations, so in the end, your guess is good as mine. Do I have a naturalistic explanation for such experiences? No. Well, at least not one that is complete in any scientific sense. However, there are some plausible conjectures that do not invoke non-material sources. M. Persinger (Laurentian University) has shown that localized TMS can induce a sensation that religious individuals interpret as a "holy presence" (and non-religious individuals interpret as a "sensed presence" but without religious significance). The sensation lasts as long as the TMS stimulation of a particular region of the temporal lobe continues. A good summary of this work is here: http://neuro.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/full/13/4/515 Also, VS Ramachandran, in the 2003 Reith Lectures, discussed the neurophysiology and psychology of NDE and related experiences in depth. You can listen to these lectures here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/reith2003/ Also, I'm sorry if I sounded harsh in an earlier reply to you. I was responding to a specific point you made about TMS and memory. Nothing you have posted -- and no evidence anywhere that I am aware of -- points to any factual basis for the claim that memory is anything other than a brain-based process. Penfield's (quite dated) studies were ground-breaking but simply point to the fact that memory is distributed in the brain, not located in one area. There is no mystery about this. Memory can be selectively impaired by a variety of pathologies of the brain. One of the better predictors of likelihood of experiencing an NDE in von Lommel's work was short-term memory efficiency (also reflected in the age factor, where younger patients were more likely to report NDE than older ones). Very few scientific pictures are complete, and the NDE phenomenon is one of the least studied of all. There are several aspects of the Reynolds case that, if substantiated (hey, I'm a skeptic, show me the case records), are still mysterious. I'm comfortable with saying I don't know the answer yet, and maybe never will. Where clinical issues are at stake, I'm not comfortable crediting the explanation to non-natural causes that we cannot evaluate, let alone base clinical decisions on.MacT_{November 18, 2007
November
11
Nov
18
18
2007
10:37 AM
10
10
37
AM
PDT}

Bob O'H, how come you are always so difficult with me? To give you an idea what I am looking for as far as genetic diversity is concerned: Tishkoff; Andrew Clark, Penn State; Kenneth Kidd, Yale University; Giovanni Destro-Bisol, University “La Sapienza,” Rome, and Himla Soodyall and Trefor Jenkins, WITS University, South Africa, looked at three locations on DNA samples from 13 to 18 populations in Africa and 30 to 45 populations in the remainder of the world. “We found an enormous amount of diversity within and between the African populations, and we found much less diversity in non-African populations,” Tishkoff told attendees today (Jan. 22) at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science in Anaheim. “Only a small subset of the diversity in Africa is found in Europe and the Middle East, and an even narrower set is found in American Indians.” http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1999/01/990125073157.htm and this: In this study for ancient Austrailian DNA we have clear evidence of Genetic Entropy (loss of information) being obeyed!: http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=33358 Of special note: Adcock et al. (7) clearly demonstrate the actual extinction of an ancient mtDNA lineage belonging to an anatomically modern human, because this lineage is not found in living Australians. Although the fossil evidence provides evidence of the continuity of modern humans over the past 60,000 years, the ancient mtDNA clearly does not, providing an excellent example of why the history of any particular locus or DNA sequence does not necessarily represent the history of a population (LOL). Adcock et al.’s (7 And this analysis of the preceding study http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/multiregional.html Here is a Paper that has confirmation of dogs and grey wolves staying within principle of Genetic Entropy. http://jhered.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/90/1/71.pdf of special note: Some sequences found in dogs were identical to those in wolves… The sequence divergence within (breeds of) dogs was surprisingly large: the mean sequence divergence in dogs 2.06 + or - 0.07% was almost identical to the 2.10 + or - 0.04% (sequence divergence) found within wolves. (notice that sequence divergence is slightly smaller for dogs than for wolves) Coupled with the diverse morphology of domesticated dogs and known hazards of dog breeding, this evidence strongly indicates “front loaded adaptations” at a loss of information from parent species. Thus, this is genetic confirmation of the principle of Genetic Entropy for dogs from wolves! As well morphology can be used to infer Genetic Entropy: It is fairly easy to see Africans have more information for skin color. There are two options for the way you can set up a computer program for separating colors. One is to set up the program as if all the information is in the white color (as with light). The method of dealing with colors is called additive color mixing. http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.g.....ol.html#c1 The other way is to set up the program as if all the information is in the black color (as with material). This method of dealing with colors is called subtractive color mixing. http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.g.....ol.html#c1 Thus, my assertion that the African Race has more information in its genome for skin color stands upon the scientific principle of subtractive color mixing! Well what do we find in the genetics of skin color, Skin color is controlled by melanin. Melanin comes in two types: pheomelanin (red) and eumelanin (dark brown to nearly black). Both amount and type are determined by four to six genes which operate under incomplete dom^ina^nce. One copy of each of those genes is inherited from the father and one from the mother. Each gene comes in several alleles, resulting in a great variety of different skin tones. As well I find interesting evidence for ID/Genetic Entropy here; Maize molecular diversity is roughly 2- to 5-fold higher than that of other domesticated grass crops (1). Tenaillon et al. (2) reported that in 25 maize individuals, one nucleotide every 28 base pairs is polymorphic, and overall nucleotide diversity is almost 1.3%. That study, the largest examination of random maize loci, found almost no evidence of selection in 21 genes along chromosome 1. Maize's closest wild relative, Z. mays ssp. parviglumis (a teosinte), often has levels of nucleotide diversity that surpass 2% (3–6). The tremendous diversity of maize and teosinte has been the raw genetic material for the radical transformation of maize into the world's highest yielding grain crop. (notice 1.3% to 2%) http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=130568 and here is a study linking up to the Parent Species prediction of ID/Genetic Entropy: Single male and female sheep maintain genetic diversity. A mouflon (parent species of sheep) population, bred over dozens of generations from a single male and female pair transplanted to Haute Island from a Parisian zoo, has maintained the genetic diversity of its founding parents. This finding challenges the widely accepted theory of genetic drift, which states the genetic diversity of an inbred population will decrease over time. "What is amazing is that s of genetic drift predict the genetic diversity of these animals should have been lost over time, but we've found that it has been maintained," said Dr. David Coltman, an evolutionary geneticist at the University of Alberta. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/03/070309103157.htm And here are papers showing "sub-species of sheep having problems with inbreeding: Genetic Diversity in Algerian Sheep Breeds, Using Microsatellite Markers http://www.springerlink.com/content/h4qp4g35547xr75m/ Heredity - Diversity and evolution of the Mhc-DRB1 gene in the two ... Low levels of genetic variation were detected in both subspecies, ..... Is the decline of desert bighorn sheep from infectious disease the result of low MHC ... www.nature.com/hdy/journal/v99/n4/full/6801016a.html Bob, This evidence clearly needs a lot of refining to get to the detailed truth of the matter, but I believe you can clearly see the point I'm driving at as far as ID/Genetic Entropy is concerned from this preliminary evidence I have presented you.bornagain77_{November 18, 2007
November
11
Nov
18
18
2007
10:01 AM
10
10
01
AM
PDT}

For idnet.com.au: [From the last sentence in the summary of the paper “the main open problem is the question of whether modules arise through the action of natural selection or because of biased mutational mechanisms.” I would add “or because of Intelligent Design and the other two working together.”] I think you may have misunderstood the meaning of "mutational bias." I've read the paper you cite in detail. Mutational bias does not refer to front-loading. Rather, it is the suggested mechanism by which modularity in structure and/or function could be selected for. It is an alternative to random mutation, although these are not mutually exclusive forces. Modularity is a concept that is also not easy to understand. In my own field, it is an extremely important concept that helps to explain a lot about things like how children acquire syntactic knowledge of their language despite an evident paucity of input. In that particular example, biases are thought to be an important developmental force (though diachronic of course, not synchronic) that leads children to "choose" groupings of syntactic features that tend to cluster together. The article you cite does not provide evidence in favor of intelligent design in nature; in fact, the contrary is true. Unless we only want to preach to a lay choir, we're going to have to offer better examples from research to support the ID proposal.MacT_{November 18, 2007
November
11
Nov
18
18
2007
08:42 AM
8
08
42
AM
PDT}

Anna - I don't know if that's what Bornagain wants, but it is still difficult to understand what you mean. Genetic diversity isn't measured as a percentage. Also the pattern of divergence is more complex than you describe, with geographic separation of populations, and sympatric divergence only coming later.Bob O'H_{November 18, 2007
November
11
Nov
18
18
2007
08:23 AM
8
08
23
AM
PDT}

Solon, You can buy the book here with a gift card from your bank or just a regular credit card: http://www.amazon.com/Genetic-Entropy-Mystery-Genome-Sanford/dp/1599190028 Since you love plants, you will be pleased to know that Dr. Sanford, who is a Christian, is/was a leading researcher in plant Genetics and that he spearheaded the development of the biolistic "Gene Gun" process which is used around the world today: http://www.nysaes.cornell.edu/pubs/press/1999/genegun.html of special note: GENEVA, NY: The development of the gene gun in the early 1980’s revolutionized the science of genetic engineering and ushered in the age of genetic transformation in the United States and the world. This pioneering advance was developed by Cornell University plant scientists at the New York State Agricultural Experiment Station at Geneva, N.Y., and researchers and engineers at the Cornell Nanofabrication Facility (CNF). Horticultural scientists John Sanford and Theodore Klein at the Geneva Station sought the assistance of the Nanofabrication Facility in developing a device that could streamline traditional plant breeding practices by injecting genes directly into plant nuclei and tissues. What was needed was a means by which genetic material carrying desirable characteristics, such as drought or pest resistance in plants, could be coated onto microparticles and then accurately "shot" into living cells and tissues, thereby altering their genetic makeup. What was eventually fashioned and refined by Sanford with the help of CNF experts Edward Wolf and Nelson Allen was the Biolistic Particle Delivery System–or so-called "gene gun. Thus, as you can see Solon, Dr. Sanford is more than well qualified to tell us exactly what is possible in genetics and what is not! The book is written in easy to understand fashion that is accessible to the lay reader, but is technical enough to challenge most experts in the field.bornagain77_{November 18, 2007
November
11
Nov
18
18
2007
06:56 AM
6
06
56
AM
PDT}

Thanks for the book reference. May I find it at my local bookstore? LIberals have been rearranging the books in the science and religion sections, my neighbor works at Borders and said that they caught someone doing it!!! He was in college and said that he got the idea from an evolutionist web page. i'm not sure if they are prosectuing or not but they should. it should be against the law to mess with Gods word or Gods people. I am afraid BA that it doesn't make sense of it all to me when i consider information content being greates when near zero. I was never really good at all the math and chemistry stuff but I was really good with plants. That's what got me thinking about say Oak trees. There are hundreds of what the evolutionists call species but you and me would probably call kinds like the bible says to call them. Imagine how much information that would be all added up and then take into account all the information that has been lost due to the corrosive actions of Sin in our world and also time which is part of sin. oh and the flood, that surely destroyed lots of information.Solon_{November 18, 2007
November
11
Nov
18
18
2007
06:28 AM
6
06
28
AM
PDT}

Solon, Though I can't currently give you an accurate information content measure for a single bacterium, I can give you a fairly hard number on the information content of the Big Bang. "Gain in entropy always means loss of information, and nothing more." Gilbert N. Lewis (October 23, 1875 - March 23, 1946) was a famous American physical chemist. http://lcni.uoregon.edu/~mark/Stat_mech/thermodynamic_entropy_and_information.html It is generally accepted that for our universe to have the extremely low entropy it now has required as the "starting point" at the big bang the selection of a virtually infinitesimally tiny volume of the total phase space of all possible universes (phase space is a complete mathematical description of any physical system). To be more exact, the universe we live in apparently began at a point constituting approximately 1 part in 10 raised to the 10th power raised to the 123rd power of the entire phase space volume of all possible universes! This is a deceptively large number, which in fact cannot be written out! If you tried to write it out by writing the number "1" on a piece of paper, you would have to write a 0 on every single atom in the universe just to approach the number of zeros that follow the one, even then you would not be close to writing out the entire number. This amazing requirement for the initial condition at creation suggests that the odds are no better than 1 in 10 raised to the 10th power raised to the 123rd power that the universe in which we live was created by random chance. If the math holds true, and this interpretation is as logical as it seems, it may mean that the chance that the universe was created at random is about as close to impossible as one can get! (see the Penrose calculations, taken from the Emperors' New Mind, Penrose, pp 339-345 copyright 1989, Penguin Books: http://www.richarddawkins.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1030 Thus since, "Gain in entropy always means loss of information, and nothing more." Gilbert N. Lewis Then this means that the information content (low entropy) of the universe at the Big Bang was about as close to infinite (zero) as we can possibly imagine and still make sense of it all.. And of course, the parallel of high information content (low entropy) that is found in the big bang to this particular scripture, is very curious and compelling to our particular Theistic position, to say the least. John 1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.bornagain77_{November 18, 2007
November
11
Nov
18
18
2007
04:22 AM
4
04
22
AM
PDT}

Solon, The book "Genetic Entropy" by Dr. J.C. Sanford will give you a lot of information on the principle.bornagain77_{November 18, 2007
November
11
Nov
18
18
2007
02:41 AM
2
02
41
AM
PDT}

For MacT. From the last sentence in the summary of the paper "the main open problem is the question of whether modules arise through the action of natural selection or because of biased mutational mechanisms." I would add "or because of Intelligent Design and the other two working together."idnet.com.au_{November 18, 2007
November
11
Nov
18
18
2007
02:25 AM
2
02
25
AM
PDT}

Hello, Bob. I think you are missing BA's pt. He no longer wants the original ancestral species, but the comparison of % genetic diversity between subspecies that is believed to have diverged first and the other 4(?)subspecies that are believed to have diverged later from that subspecies, all of which are currently alive. I too am curious. In dog evolution, many unique breed characteristics came as a resul of mutations scrambling some information, and as a result of genetic reshuffling (drift I believe it's called) Both are examples of info loss, which is easy for random mutation/natural or artificial selction to do.Anna_{November 18, 2007
November
11
Nov
18
18
2007
02:17 AM
2
02
17
AM
PDT}

I can’t open the study, So if you can open the study and find the percent number for genetic diversity of most specialized group...
I have no idea what you mean by "percent number for genetic diversity". Please explain.
I really wish I could open this study, because I would love to see how the more ancestral populations of sub-species look in comparison to the newer sub-species.
I guess you missed the part in my comment where I wrote "There is no one “parent species”. There is an ancestral population (well, if you believe in these things there is :-)), but they estimate that as having lived 350 000 years ago, so getting samples will be tricky." This does raise one important question which the many engineers in ID might like to help with. Would a time machine be irreducibly complex? BobBob O'H_{November 18, 2007
November
11
Nov
18
18
2007
12:08 AM
12
12
08
AM
PDT}

If you don't believe the media are liberal darwinists, take a look at this!!!! http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20071118/sc_nm/farming_flood_dc Proof of Noahs Flood, just like biblical ID predicts! yet these peoples hearts are so hardened to the good news that they attempt to change the date (to keep it from matching the Biblical record) and they change the subject to the topic of agriculture. Sorry, darwinists, we see through this. Perhaps this will change hearts and minds in those who are struggling with doubts.Solon_{November 17, 2007
November
11
Nov
17
17
2007
08:13 PM
8
08
13
PM
PDT}

ahh i have read about the trilobites before. i am not so familiar with the genetic entropy mod^el but i would read. do you have a good source? the trilobites i have heard about because the materialist Halldane had attempted to explain the racial senescence theory in purely darwinist terms instead of the loss of information that we know for a fact occurs due to the 2nd law of Thermodynamics. Of course he was unwilling to consider the irrefutable evidence behind the Genesis story and so clung to the evolutionist story so that he would not have to be responsible to a Creator. Bacteria are weird!!! I have never even seen one. I was wondering however, if invisible things are so complex and carry so much information, imagine how much information the flowers in the garden of eden were carrying!!! Especially potatoes! I have heard darwinists talk about blue and red potatoes and all of these subspecies in South America and how this was proof of evolution but of course they refused to consider that our potato is not a new species but just a degraded form that has lost most of it's information. Hello, potato blight!!! Sometimes the answers are so plainly obvious that I just have to laugh at the darwinists who are busy denying God instead of surveying his wondrous creation!Solon_{November 17, 2007
November
11
Nov
17
17
2007
07:31 PM
7
07
31
PM
PDT}

Solon, I'm not sure of the actual "hard number" for the information content of the "simplest" photosynthetic bacteria on earth is (but I'm very confident it is very impressive when compared to man-made stuff!), but I'm sure one of the engineers around this site could probably give you a ballpark figure fairly quickly for the content. As far as the Genetic Entropy of "simple" bacteria is concerned, that is not as simple as you would think at first glance, for the bacteria have a tremendous ability to resist Genetic Entropy, due to their large population size and the relatively low rate of deleterious mutations to occur in the overall bacteria populations. In fact from the best ancient DNA studies available: “Almost without exception, bacteria isolated from ancient material have proven to closely resemble modern bacteria at both morphological and molecular levels.” Heather Maughan*, C. William Birky Jr., Wayne L. Nicholson, William D. Rosenzweig§ and Russell H. Vreeland ; (The Paradox of the "Ancient" Bacterium Which Contains "Modern" Protein-Coding Genes) http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/19/9/1637 and this: 30-Million-Year Sleep: Germ Is Declared Alive By MALCOLM W. BROWNE Published: May 19, 1995 But Dr. Cano and his former graduate student Dr. Monica K. Borucki said that they had found slight but significant differences between the DNA of the ancient, amber-sealed Bacillus sphaericus and that of its modern counterpart. The small genetic differences could be explained as the result of evolutionary change over 30 million years, during which modern Bacillus sphaericus diverged from its ancient form, he said. Skeptics point out, however, that the slight genetic difference might also be explained in terms of normal variation between individual bacteria. Biologists are likely to argue over this point for some time. s.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=990CEFD61439F93AA25756C0A963958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=2 So Solon, the genetic change is much less than is expected by evolutionary theory but would fit in real well with the ID/genetic entropy theory. As well, it appears that the Genetic Entropy that has occurred from the 30 million year old bacteria in the modern is negligible. (they are trying to say its within the range of modern variation) Needless to say all this evidence is very interesting to the ID/Genetic Entropy mo^del! It really would be neat if they could do a complete robustness/functionality test between the ancient and modern bacteria to get another piece of hard evidence for Genetic Entropy being obeyed in deep time to the molecular level. Instead of just the morphological level: The following article is unique in that is shows the principle of Genetic Entropy being obeyed in the Trilobites, over the 250 million year fossil history of their life on earth (Note: the Trilobites appeared suddenly at the very beginning of the Cambrian explosion with no evidence of transmutation from the "simple" creatures that preceded them). http://www.terradaily.com/reports/The_Cambrian_Many_Forms_999.html So, as you can see from just this evidence, the science is lining up very well for the ID camp.bornagain77_{November 17, 2007
November
11
Nov
17
17
2007
07:11 PM
7
07
11
PM
PDT}

Bornagain what do you think about how much information the first created organisms had? I am guessing that it is much more than we could ever imgaine or estimate. if we only knew then we could perhaps estimate when all of the information will be gone due to the second law of thermodynamics and perhpas that will give us a maximum estimate of the date of the return of Jesus. Although i believe he will come much sooner than that by the look of things in america and the middle east. sometimes i wonder why i want to fight the liberal materialists and athiests here since I don't think our Lord will hold out much longer. also with global warming paranoia, I know I am saved so I guess at the end of the day I can't worry about it too much, it's in His Hands. Grace and PeaceSolon_{November 17, 2007
November
11
Nov
17
17
2007
04:08 PM
4
04
08
PM
PDT}

That's some fine analysis, BA. I don't know why they haven't given you full posting privaliges yet.Nochange_{November 17, 2007
November
11
Nov
17
17
2007
02:39 PM
2
02
39
PM
PDT}

Since I see absolutely nothing solid, in any mutational studies I've seen, to suggest that any of the sub-species will be gaining any meaningful genetic information any time soon, I stand by my assertion that loss of genetic diversity will be discernible for any population that becomes "specialized" and separated from a "ancestral" population. I can't open the study, So if you can open the study and find the percent number for genetic diversity of most specialized group (Those that breed only at a certain time) and the percent number for genetic diversity of the most flexible group (perhaps able to breed in both seasons) . I believe they will differ and fall in line with the ID/Genetic Entropy mo^del. (more genetic diversity for flexible and older: less for genetic diversity for specialized and younger) Bob you stated this: High levels of genetic diversity in all O. castro populations (SI Tables 6 and 7) suggest that the origins of seasonal populations were not associated with severe genetic bottlenecks. (So apparently the numbers for genetic diversity are available in the study) Each population having "high levels of diversity" is not surprising since it was selection for only one trait (The timing of breeding) that separated the sub-species from the parent species. But the truth will be found in the details of this case, so I maintain the sub-speciation event came at a loss of information and thus at a loss of genetic diversity and thus is discernible, if only in very minor degree in the study, IF they have the hard numbers. (hopefully the load of negative mutations has not built up to skew the numbers) The main point of the whole issue is that no new traits are appearing but only a refining of preexisting traits that can be found in the "ancestral population. This fact in and of itself weighs heavily for the ID/Genetic Entropy mo^del. Now if a totally novel trait appeared, now that would be something evolutionists could get really excited about (say an eye in the back of the birds head, LOL). But as it stands, IMHO, they are only gathering further evidence for the ID/Genetic Entropy mo^del. I really wish I could open this study, because I would love to see how the more ancestral populations of sub-species look in comparison to the newer sub-species. Something tells me it will tell us something about the rate at which the negative mutational load builds up.bornagain77_{November 17, 2007
November
11
Nov
17
17
2007
01:51 PM
1
01
51
PM
PDT}

Solon - The paper is suggesting that speciation was caused by separation of breeding seasons - i.e. they started as one species with one breeding season, and diverged (or are diverging, depending on the populations) to have separate breeding seasons. BobBob O'H_{November 17, 2007
November
11
Nov
17
17
2007
11:58 AM
11
11
58
AM
PDT}

Bob I am not impressed with all those big tough words. Evolutionists make many assumptions that are unfounded and one of those is that all those words actually mean something in the real world. I think, and bornagain please correct me if i am wrong, that the ID prediction here is that different breeding times warrants a design inference. it wouldn't do much good for a species to breed at a time that others are breeding or else they might end up mating with the wrong kind of bird. since mating seasons are discrete and irreducibly complex, we are warranted in inferring that they are the product of design. since we know from other sources that the designer is benevolent and omniscient, we are warranted in inferring that this system is working within the intended parameters it was designed for.Solon_{November 17, 2007
November
11
Nov
17
17
2007
11:28 AM
11
11
28
AM
PDT}

(apologies for continuing the thread derailment, but the science is also jolly interesting for me) To answer BA77:
1. The parent species will be found to be genetically similar to all the sub-species.
There is no one "parent species". There is an ancestral population (well, if you believe in these things there is :-)), but they estimate that as having lived 350 000 years ago, so getting samples will be tricky.
2. The genetic variability of the population of parent species will slightly exceed the entire genetic variability of the entire spectrum of sub species.
See point 1.
3. Each sub-species will be found to have a very narrow range of genetic variability when compared to the genetic variability of the parent species.
See point 1.
4. Each sub-species will be found to have a marked increase in problems with inbreeding, the narrower their genetic variability is, when compared to the parent species.
See point 1, but also note that there is no evidence of inbreeding (they didn't find any deviations from Hardy-Weinberg)
5. If the parent species is close enough to the “original” parent species, in which the CSI was implemented, then the parent species will demonstrate such a resistance to inbreeding problems (when one male is forced to start a “new” population with one female) that evolutionists will be surprised that their requirement of “genetic drift” has not occurred. i.e. they will quickly reestablish large genetic variability in their “offshoot” population.
This is all irrelevant. The authors are discussing symaptric speciation brought about by selection for differing breeding times ("allochrony"), so there is no need to invoke drift. They do, however, write
High levels of genetic diversity in all O. castro populations (SI Tables 6 and 7) suggest that the origins of seasonal populations were not associated with severe genetic bottlenecks [thus, not founder-induced divergence (reviewed in ref. 1)].
They also discuss evidence that suggests retained ancestral polymorphism, which would mean that the populations would have been large when they diverged. BobBob O'H_{November 17, 2007
November
11
Nov
17
17
2007
11:21 AM
11
11
21
AM
PDT}

BA you are right on the money with those predictions. in fact you will never see darwinists or materalists trying to test those predictions because they know this is what is propping up their religion and they can't expose it. i've been thinking a lot lately about the fact that information is always lost during this sort of thing and it made me feel very humble. think about how much information all the animals in the garden of eden had!!! Wow! especially the beetles. they must have been virtual libraries of information! we can never know how much information the things that God created were carrying around, but I am certain that each and every bit spoke volumes about the love that the creator has for his creation.Solon_{November 17, 2007
November
11
Nov
17
17
2007
10:49 AM
10
10
49
AM
PDT}

"Favors the origin of" does not mean what you think it means.Bugsy_{November 17, 2007
November
11
Nov
17
17
2007
09:56 AM
9
09
56
AM
PDT}

MacT: I'm not the author of the post. However, I will like to respond to your questions & comments.
I can see the heads nodding in agreement all around UD. What I cannot see is how you arrive at this conclusion from the cited research.
Of course one would assume IDist may be in agreement on the posts comment, but why would this group of people (IDist) "see" something so in sync that others don't?
Can you please elaborate a little? What are loaded mutational dice? OK, I know a metaphor when I see one, but to work, this one is going to have to include some explanation for how special mutational conditions are required for modularity, and why that’s relevant to ID.
I don't think you need to ask the poster of this article how special mutaton conditions be required, when the article he quoted states plainly "It seems that the origin of modularity requires both a mutational process that favours the origin of modularity". That is a special mutational process, unless you think mutations are not normally random! And a favouring of modularity is the loaded aspect of the dice. Loaded dice "favour" a certain outcome.
“Special” in this context — even if you cast the description as an admission — does not necessarily mean design.
I can see all the evolutionists nodding their heads in agreement with you, but I can not understand how you think that a bias towards an intelligent design principle (modularity), vice a purely random mutational process, is not indicative of design. Do you think then, that modularity requires no more intelligence be applied than that to form an ice crystal?JGuy_{November 17, 2007
November
11
Nov
17
17
2007
07:55 AM
7
07
55
AM
PDT}

This comment is interesting to the topic of this thread: “Each cell with genetic information, from bacteria to man, consists of artificial languages and their decoding systems, memory banks for information storage and retrieval, elegant control systems regulating the automated assembly of parts and components, error fail-safe and proof-reading devices utilized for quality control, assembly processes involving the principle of prefabrication and modular construction and a capacity not equaled in any of our most advanced machines, for it would be capable of replicating its entire structure within a matter of a few hours" Geneticist Michael Denton PhD.bornagain77_{November 17, 2007
November
11
Nov
17
17
2007
05:51 AM
5
05
51
AM
PDT}

MacT, On this thread you called one of my assertions utter nonsense: https://uncommondescent.com/science/speculation-presented-as-fact-or-carl-sagans-baloney-detection-kit/#comments Thus, I went to the original source and dug out the original comment to defend my assertion. You will find my responses to you on 169 and 171 of the thread. Since this is an area you are very familiar with, I took great care to revise my study notes to reflect the severe problems with physical recovery that you pointed out to me. But at the same time I maintain my primary assertion that previous memory and personality is intact from before the operation is indeed valid, although the ability to communicate and form new memories (as well as other physically based problems) is severely affected. The other lines of evidence, in conjunction with this one, I present clearly compel this "spiritual" point of view for information over the materialistic point of view that information is basically an illusion.bornagain77_{November 17, 2007
November
11
Nov
17
17
2007
05:27 AM
5
05
27
AM
PDT}

" . . . this EvoDevo paper admits that we need a loaded mutational dice to achieve the results that we see in biology. A loaded dice always points to design." I can see the heads nodding in agreement all around UD. What I cannot see is how you arrive at this conclusion from the cited research. Can you please elaborate a little? What are loaded mutational dice? OK, I know a metaphor when I see one, but to work, this one is going to have to include some explanation for how special mutational conditions are required for modularity, and why that's relevant to ID. "Special" in this context -- even if you cast the description as an admission -- does not necessarily mean design.MacT_{November 17, 2007
November
11
Nov
17
17
2007
03:40 AM
3
03
40
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply