Carnivorous bog plant features smallest genome to date

_{Denyse O'Leary

December 17, 2014

Genomics, News}

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

The genus Genlisea (corkscrew plants) belongs to the bladderwort family (Lentubulariaceae), a family of carnivorous plants. Some of the 29 species of Genlisea that have been described possess tiny genome sizes. Indeed, the smallest genome yet discovered among flowering plants belongs to a member of the group.

The LMU researchers also discovered a new record-holder. Genlisea tuberosa, a species that was discovered only recently from Brazil, and was first described by Andreas Fleischmann in collaboration with Brazilian botanists, turns out to have a genome that encompasses only 61 million base pairs (= Mbp; the genome size is expressed as the total number of nucleotide bases found on each of the paired strands of the DNA double helix) Thus G. tuberosa possesses now the smallest plant genome known, beating the previous record by 3 Mbp. Moreover, genome sizes vary widely between different Genlisea species, spanning the range from ~60 to 1700 Mbp.

The reasons for the wide range of genome size found in different species remain largely enigmatic. “Interestingly, the size of an organism’s genome does not correlate with its complexity or evolutionary level. Although unicellular organisms like brewer’s yeast, as well as some plant species, have far less DNA in their cells than humans do, many plants have much larger genomes than ours,” Fleischmann explains. The genus Genlisea, with its broad range of variation in genome size between different species, therefore offers a perfect group of model organisms to study the evolutionary pressures that determine genome size. “Genlisea is an ideal model system for understanding the molecular basis for genome reduction and the mechanisms that drive it, especially since the complete genome of G. aurea has already been sequenced and published,” says Günther Heubl. – “Evolution of genome size and chromosome number in the carnivorous plant genus Genlisea (Lentibulariaceae), with a new estimate of the minimum genome size in angiosperms.” Ann Bot (2014) 114 (8): 1651-1663 first published online October 1, 2014 DOI: 10.1093/aob/mcu189

Photos here. (The one accompanying the press release is not of the actual plant, but of a close relative. )

See also: Crown of Thorns starfish shows “surprising” chordate-like gene organization

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Comments

If you post the theory of evolution I cannot say anything but “Thank you, it’s about time and I was obviously ignorant.” However that will never happen cuz you have nothing but your bluff. I did not ask for people talking about it as if it exists. I did not ask for a statement of the theory of evolution.Joe_{December 22, 2014
December
12
Dec
22
22
2014
12:19 PM
12
12
19
PM
PDT}

What about all the ‘theories’ I listed.
Jerad, I asked for something very specific. What you posted talks about the alleged theories but doesn't get down to it. Also natural selection has proven to be impotent and most of what you posted pertains to natural selection. Not really. For one he argued against a strawman. And for another natural selection has proven to be impotent.
I know you think so.
It is a fact that Darwin argued against a strawman. And it is also a fact that natural selection is impotent.
But, again, a lot of people who actually study and do research into these issues disagree.
Great, when they have the supporting evidence please come back and tell us about it.
You just asked for a statement of the theory of evolution.
No, Jerad. I asked for the and you have failed, again, as usual.theory.
But it is anti-natural selection, genetic drift and sexual selection? Be honest
Jerad, you are sick as all of that was explained in the essay you didn't read. Natural selection exists, it just doesn't do what Darwin thought. Drift exists but again it doesn't do what you need. Sexual selection exists but yours cannot explain sexual reproduction.
Except for you and some of your ilk the theory of evolution has the same kind of hard data support. If you can’t be bothered to look up the 150 of data then I’m not going to waste my time spoon-feeding it to you.
BWAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA- You are a bluffer and a liar, Jerad.
A false objection since ID has even less of a clue but ducks and hides when anyone points that out
LoL! The only way to the answer is through ID. Yours is obstructing progress.
You seem terribly ignorant of how far biological research has progressed.
Spoken like the coward you are. You are pathetic.
You think detecting design is enough and then spend the rest of your time trying to punch holes in modern evolutionary theory.
You think your false accusations and ignorance mean something. I find that amusing.Joe_{December 22, 2014
December
12
Dec
22
22
2014
11:41 AM
11
11
41
AM
PDT}

Jerad, you don't deny that evidence of Design is increasing do you? Natural explanations are starting to be formulated: http://www.forbes.com/sites/anthonykosner/2012/02/29/theres-a-new-law-in-physics-and-it-changes-everything/ It won't be long before people will think "how silly the idea of no design". "How did people ever believe no design."ppolish_{December 22, 2014
December
12
Dec
22
22
2014
11:18 AM
11
11
18
AM
PDT}

ppolish #121
Jerad, Scientific Evidence continues to pour in indicating Design. Mountains of it. Open your eyes and more importantly your brain. Science is cool. Theory of Oops is failing. The debate is becoming whether the Design is Natural or Unnatural. The “Appearance of Design” crowd are looking sillier as the days and months pass. Hopefully the new year will bring you some understanding. It’s awesome:)
I hope you have a wonderous Christmas and New Year. I can't promise to change my view in the new year but I am trying to listen!! And, I do disagree with you. But we do not need to argue over old issues. Not over Christmas.Jerad_{December 22, 2014
December
12
Dec
22
22
2014
11:03 AM
11
11
03
AM
PDT}

Jerad, Scientific Evidence continues to pour in indicating Design. Mountains of it. Open your eyes and more importantly your brain. Science is cool. Theory of Oops is failing. The debate is becoming whether the Design is Natural or Unnatural. The "Appearance of Design" crowd are looking sillier as the days and months pass. Hopefully the new year will bring you some understanding. It's awesome:)ppolish_{December 22, 2014
December
12
Dec
22
22
2014
10:52 AM
10
10
52
AM
PDT}

Joe #118, 119
So you do hide behind others. Did you realize that the scientists you hide behind don’t have any explanations as to the origins of the universe, the laws of nature and the origin of our solar system?
Actually, I have heard some very speculative hypotheses (I won't call them theories) about the origins of the universe. Entertaining but just ideas at this point. The origins of the solar system are more predictable because we have now observed the formation of solar systems and the physics are fairly well understood.
Disagree all you want. That you can’t even produce a testable hypothesis for natural selection creating a bacterial flagellum is enough for us to know you are bluffing.
What about all the 'theories' I listed. Any of them trip your politeness trigger?
Not really. For one he argued against a strawman. And for another natural selection has proven to be impotent.
I know you think so. But, again, a lot of people who actually study and do research into these issues disagree. You really should fess up and be honest Joe about your views. You think that ID is compatible with evolution because you think all the mutations were directed. So, from a molecular level you still get universal common descent. What you don't get is natural selection or sexual selection or genetic drift. Now, each of these ideas has been initially rejected and villified by biologists. There is nothing wrong with questioning new ideas. But now they and natural selection are well understood and established. So, if that's the part of evolutionary theory you are disputing then please be clear and honest. And tell us what your alternative hypothesis is.
Wikipedia did not offer up the theory. Natural selection has proven to be impotent- it wasn’t really a theory. Science requires measurements, Jerad. And Futuyma talks a lot but never references the actual theory. He also thinks bald declarations pass for science. For example he sez that natural selection is the only process known to produce adaptations. Yet we don’t know any such thing.
You just asked for a statement of the theory of evolution. I did try. Now you're shifting the goalposts.
And yes, Jerad, evolution is just change over time. That is why no one is debating evolution. Intelligent Design is NOT anti-evolution
But it is anti-natural selection, genetic drift and sexual selection? Be honest.
I asked for the theory of evolution, not people talking about it as if it exists. People talk about bigfoot too. People talk about alien abductions, the Loch Ness monster- all sorts of things. Scientific theories require measurements, equations- stuff that can actually be tested against reality. Look at Einstein’s relativity papers for examples.
Except for you and some of your ilk the theory of evolution has the same kind of hard data support. If you can't be bothered to look up the 150 of data then I'm not going to waste my time spoon-feeding it to you.
We don’t know what makes an organism what it is. We don’t know how many mutations it takes to build a new protein complex. We don’t have equations for it.
A false objection since ID has even less of a clue but ducks and hides when anyone points that out. Shame on you.
And that could be any number of things including a loss of function- for example blind cave fish. A survival boost can come from being taller, shorter, longer, thinner, fatter, slower, faster, better sight, no sight, better hearing, no hearing, color, no color, legs, no legs- it is a huge whatever.
Of course!! But lots and lots of those effects/influences are being investigated and added to the big picture. C'mon Joe, try and keep up!!
That is false and demonstrates ignorance of how sexual reproduction works. Also what made their parents successful may not be enough to make their offspring who did inherit the advantageous trait more successful also.
You shout everyone else down but when we ask you for an alternative you are strangely silent. Why is that? Where is your explanation?
Over time the environment changes and what was once an advantage may become a detriment.
Yes, that can happen. You seem terribly ignorant of how far biological research has progressed. I don't mind being your whipping boy, up to a point at least. But surely you all must acknowledge that ID has no process or history or pattern or explanation to work with. You think detecting design is enough and then spend the rest of your time trying to punch holes in modern evolutionary theory. Do some work, come up with a model that you can all defend and back. (I know this is not going to happen and that (probably) no one will even respond to this encouragement. But it is true: ID has very little to grab onto. And if you're serious that it is a serious scientific endeavour and not just a way to get God back into culture then you should do some scientific work and stop bitching and moaning about those whose disagree with you.)Jerad_{December 22, 2014
December
12
Dec
22
22
2014
10:34 AM
10
10
34
AM
PDT}

Wikipedia did not offer up the theory. Natural selection has proven to be impotent- it wasn't really a theory. Science requires measurements, Jerad. And Futuyma talks a lot but never references the actual theory. He also thinks bald declarations pass for science. For example he sez that natural selection is the only process known to produce adaptations. Yet we don't know any such thing. And yes, Jerad, evolution is just change over time. That is why no one is debating evolution. Intelligent Design is NOT anti-evolution I asked for the theory of evolution, not people talking about it as if it exists. People talk about bigfoot too. People talk about alien abductions, the Loch Ness monster- all sorts of things. Scientific theories require measurements, equations- stuff that can actually be tested against reality. Look at Einstein's relativity papers for examples. We don't know what makes an organism what it is. We don't know how many mutations it takes to build a new protein complex. We don't have equations for it.
Darwin could see that if individuals must compete, and if they are all unique, some individuals will have variations which give them a survival boost so they will have more opportunity to reproduce and leave a greater number of offspring.
And that could be any number of things including a loss of function- for example blind cave fish. A survival boost can come from being taller, shorter, longer, thinner, fatter, slower, faster, better sight, no sight, better hearing, no hearing, color, no color, legs, no legs- it is a huge whatever.
These offspring will inherit the variations which made their parents successful, so they too will have an advantage.
That is false and demonstrates ignorance of how sexual reproduction works. Also what made their parents successful may not be enough to make their offspring who did inherit the advantageous trait more successful also.
Over time these successful variations will spread through the population – the population will change: that is evolution!
Over time the environment changes and what was once an advantage may become a detriment.
Simple, isn’t it?
When one ignores reality all is simple.Joe_{December 22, 2014
December
12
Dec
22
22
2014
08:55 AM
8
08
55
AM
PDT}

Jerad:
When it gets accepted by most of the Physicists call me.
So you do hide behind others. Did you realize that the scientists you hide behind don't have any explanations as to the origins of the universe, the laws of nature and the origin of our solar system?
In your opinion. I disagree with you.
Disagree all you want. That you can't even produce a testable hypothesis for natural selection creating a bacterial flagellum is enough for us to know you are bluffing.
Darwin made a good start of it.
Not really. For one he argued against a strawman. And for another natural selection has proven to be impotent.Joe_{December 22, 2014
December
12
Dec
22
22
2014
08:41 AM
8
08
41
AM
PDT}

"A few words need to be said about the "theory of evolution," which most people take to mean the proposition that organisms have evolved from common ancestors. In everyday speech, "theory" often means a hypothesis or even a mere speculation. But in science, "theory" means "a statement of what are held to be the general laws, principles, or causes of something known or observed." as the Oxford English Dictionary defines it. The theory of evolution is a body of interconnected statements about natural selection and the other processes that are thought to cause evolution, just as the atomic theory of chemistry and the Newtonian theory of mechanics are bodies of statements that describe causes of chemical and physical phenomena. In contrast, the statement that organisms have descended with modifications from common ancestors--the historical reality of evolution--is not a theory. It is a fact, as fully as the fact of the earth's revolution about the sun. Like the heliocentric solar system, evolution began as a hypothesis, and achieved "facthood" as the evidence in its favor became so strong that no knowledgeable and unbiased person could deny its reality. No biologist today would think of submitting a paper entitled "New evidence for evolution;" it simply has not been an issue for a century." - Douglas J. Futuyma, Evolutionary Biology, 2nd ed., 1986, Sinauer Associates, p. 15Jerad_{December 22, 2014
December
12
Dec
22
22
2014
08:35 AM
8
08
35
AM
PDT}

From The Origin of Species by Charles Darwin: "THE AFFINITIES of all the beings of the same class have sometimes been represented by a great tree. I believe this simile largely speaks the truth. The green and budding twigs may represent existing species; and those produced during each former year may represent the long succession of extinct species . . . The limbs divided into great branches, and these into lesser and lesser branches, were themselves once, when the tree was small, budding twigs; and this connexion of the former and present buds by ramifying branches may well represent the classification of all extinct and living species in groups subordinate to groups . . . From the first growth of the tree, many a limb and branch has decayed and dropped off, and these lost branches of various sizes may represent those whole orders, families, and genera which have now no living representatives, and which are known to us only from having been found in a fossil state . . . As buds give rise by growth to fresh buds, and these, if vigorous, branch out and overtop on all a feebler branch, so by generation I believe it has been with the Tree of Life, which fills with its dead and broken branches the crust of the earth, and covers the surface with its ever branching and beautiful ramifications"Jerad_{December 22, 2014
December
12
Dec
22
22
2014
08:30 AM
8
08
30
AM
PDT}

This is a bit chatty but nice: http://darwin200.christs.cam.ac.uk/pages/index.php?page_id=d3 Natural Selection Natural selection is Darwin’s most famous theory; it states that evolutionary change comes through the production of variation in each generation and differential survival of individuals with different combinations of these variable characters. Individuals with characteristics which increase their probability of survival will have more opportunities to reproduce and their offspring will also benefit from the heritable, advantageous character. So over time these variants will spread through the population. Natural Selection In The Evolutionary Framework: For natural selection to work, it has to occur along with a bunch of other things. Historians and biologists who have analysed Darwin’s work, for example Ernst Mayr, have identified five theories which Darwin outlined in On the Origin of Species, and which work together to bring about evolution. Darwin’s five theories were: Evolution: species come and go through time, while they exist they change. Common descent: organisms are descended from one, or several common ancestors and have diversified from this original stock Species multiply: the diversification of life involves populations of one species diverging until they become two separate species; this has probably occurred billions of times on earth! Gradualism: evolutionary change occurs through incremental small changes within populations; new species are not created suddenly. Natural selection: evolutionary change occurs through variation between individuals; some variants give the individual an extra survival probability. Darwin considered all these theories as parts of one grand idea; they all occur together. Scientists however took a while to see this; they weren’t accepted as a package until the modern synthesis of the 1930/40s. Before then scientists would favour some ideas but propose alternatives to fill in the gaps, natural selection was one of the least popular, to find out why click here. Eventually, as more evidence accumulated and these different ideas were tested it became clear that Darwin was right all along! How Does Natural Selection Work? Natural selection was Darwin’s most novel and revolutionary idea, but in truth (like all the best ideas) it is very simple. Despite its simplicity, since the publication of the theory right up until today, it has widely been misunderstood. Ernst Mayr, in his book One Long Argument (1991) provides a useful way of breaking down the process into just five facts and three inferences, or conclusions, drawn from the five facts; they can be linked in a flow diagram: Figure: modified from One Long Argument by Ernst Mayr (1991) The first inference is drawn from three facts which Darwin observed in the natural world around him. He saw that organisms produce more offspring than is required to replace themselves, so population sizes should increase rapidly (think about the number of frogspawn laid each year, or how many eggs a spider lays). That’s fact one: a fancy word for this over-reproduction is ‘super fecundity’. However Darwin saw for himself, and confirmed his observation with others, that population numbers tend to stay at about the same level (you don’t see a doubling of the number of frogs or mice in your garden each year do you?): that’s fact two. What accounts for this disparity? Darwin found the answer with another fact: resources, such as food, water or places to sleep or mate, are limited. A major influence on Darwin observing this fact was his reading the work of Thomas Malthus who published a paper stating that the human population was increasing at a rapid pace and would soon run out of food, water and space. These are three simple facts which Darwin put together to draw a simple conclusion: individuals compete with each other for scarce resources. Next, Darwin made two other observations about individuals. First he had come to the conclusion through his work on the H.M.S. Beagle, when he was working on barnacles and later pigeons, that individuals are unique and that individuals vary in almost every aspect: that’s fact four, and you only need to take a cursory glance round a group of people to see that it is true! Finally fact five: Darwin had taken to breeding pigeons to investigate variability further. He performed many crosses between different breeds of fancy pigeons to look at whether their offspring had the same variations. He also collected lots of observations from various animal and plant breeders to help him draw out the conclusion that these individual differences are heritable: they are passed on from parent to offspring. The next two inferences demonstrate Darwin’s genius. Darwin could see that if individuals must compete, and if they are all unique, some individuals will have variations which give them a survival boost so they will have more opportunity to reproduce and leave a greater number of offspring. These offspring will inherit the variations which made their parents successful, so they too will have an advantage. Over time these successful variantions will spread through the population – the population will change: that is evolution! Simple, isn’t it?Jerad_{December 22, 2014
December
12
Dec
22
22
2014
08:29 AM
8
08
29
AM
PDT}

This is from an anti-Darwin site (http://www.darwins-theory-of-evolution.com/) but apparently they do think there is a theory of evolution: Darwin's Theory of Evolution is the widely held notion that all life is related and has descended from a common ancestor: the birds and the bananas, the fishes and the flowers -- all related. Darwin's general theory presumes the development of life from non-life and stresses a purely naturalistic (undirected) "descent with modification". That is, complex creatures evolve from more simplistic ancestors naturally over time. In a nutshell, as random genetic mutations occur within an organism's genetic code, the beneficial mutations are preserved because they aid survival -- a process known as "natural selection." These beneficial mutations are passed on to the next generation. Over time, beneficial mutations accumulate and the result is an entirely different organism (not just a variation of the original, but an entirely different creature).Jerad_{December 22, 2014
December
12
Dec
22
22
2014
08:26 AM
8
08
26
AM
PDT}

This is from the BBC: The basic idea behind the theory of evolution is that all the different species have evolved from simple life forms. These simple life forms first developed more than 3 billion years ago (the Earth is about 4.5 billion years old). The theory of evolution states that evolution happens by natural selection. The key points are that: individuals in a species show a wide range of variation this variation is because of differences in their genes individuals with characteristics most suited to the environment are more likely to survive and reproduce the genes that allow these individuals to be successful are passed to their offspring Individuals that are poorly adapted to their environment are less likely to survive and reproduce. This means that their genes are less likely to be passed to the next generation. Given enough time, a species will gradually evolve. You need to remember that variation can be caused by both genes and the environment. But it is only variation caused by genes that can be passed on to the next generation.Jerad_{December 22, 2014
December
12
Dec
22
22
2014
08:24 AM
8
08
24
AM
PDT}

How about this then: Evolution is the change in the inherited characteristics of biological populations over successive generations. Evolutionary processes give rise to diversity at every level of biological organisation, including species, individual organisms and molecules such as DNA and proteins. All life on Earth is descended from a last universal ancestor that lived approximately 3.8-3.5 billion years ago. Repeated speciation and the divergence of life can be inferred from shared sets of biochemical and morphological traits, or by sequencing shared DNA sequences] These homologous traits and sequences are more similar among species that share a more recent common ancestor, and can be used to reconstruct evolutionary histories, using both existing species and the fossil record. Existing patterns of biodiversity have been shaped both by speciation and by extinction. Charles Darwin was the first to formulate a scientific argument for the theory of evolution by means of natural selection. Evolution by natural selection is a process inferred from three facts about populations: 1) more offspring are produced than can possibly survive, 2) traits vary among individuals, leading to different rates of survival and reproduction, and 3) trait differences are heritable. Thus, when members of a population die they are replaced by the progeny of parents better adapted to survive and reproduce in the environment in which natural selection takes place. This process creates and preserves traits that are seemingly fitted for the functional roles they perform. Natural selection is the only known cause of adaptation, but not the only known cause of evolution. Other, nonadaptive causes of evolution include mutation and genetic drift. In the early 20th century, genetics was integrated with Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection through the discipline of population genetics. The importance of natural selection as a cause of evolution was accepted into other branches of biology. Moreover, previously held notions about evolution, such as orthogenesis and "progress" became obsolete. Scientists continue to study various aspects of evolution by forming and testing hypotheses, constructing scientific theories, using observational data, and performing experiments in both the field and the laboratory. Biologists agree that descent with modification is one of the most reliably established facts in science. Discoveries in evolutionary biology have made a significant impact not just within the traditional branches of biology, but also in other academic disciplines (e.g., anthropology and psychology) and on society at large. (That's from Wikipedia)Jerad_{December 22, 2014
December
12
Dec
22
22
2014
08:23 AM
8
08
23
AM
PDT}

BA77 #109
As far as evidence goes, An elephant could sit on your chest and you would still deny the existence of elephants as long as it suited your philosophical bias.
I just disagree with you BA. No need to get snotty. Joe #110
Scientists have presented the evidence and the reasoning.
When it gets accepted by most of the Physicists call me.
Hypocrite- you buy evolutionism even though it has nothing.
In your opinion. I disagree with you.
You can’t, so shut up already. You can’t say who the author was. You can’t say when it was published and you can’t say where it is.
Darwin made a good start of it.
I you post the theory of evolution I cannot say anything but “Thank you, it’s about time and I was obviously ignorant.” However that will never happen cuz you have nothing but your bluff.
I'll think about it. It's tempting to see if I can get a polite response from you instead of the usual abuse.Jerad_{December 22, 2014
December
12
Dec
22
22
2014
08:20 AM
8
08
20
AM
PDT}

Jerad:
I’d say there was zero evidence from Physics and cosmology but that’s just me.
Scientists have presented the evidence and the reasoning.
I ain’t buyin’ none of that ’til they get some real, hard data.
Hypocrite- you buy evolutionism even though it has nothing.
I’m not going to bother because after trying many times I relise that you just decry whatever I post. So, no point really.
You can't, so shut up already. You can't say who the author was. You can't say when it was published and you can't say where it is. I you post the theory of evolution I cannot say anything but "Thank you, it's about time and I was obviously ignorant." However that will never happen cuz you have nothing but your bluff.Joe_{December 22, 2014
December
12
Dec
22
22
2014
07:50 AM
7
07
50
AM
PDT}

"I’d say there was zero evidence from Physics and cosmology but that’s just me. And not because I’m a multi-verse fan either. I ain’t buyin’ none of that ’til they get some real, hard data." As far as evidence goes, An elephant could sit on your chest and you would still deny the existence of elephants as long as it suited your philosophical bias.bornagain77_{December 22, 2014
December
12
Dec
22
22
2014
07:49 AM
7
07
49
AM
PDT}

Jerad:
This is why further discussions are pointless really.
Yes, your bluff has been called and you have nothing left.
I would be very interested in discussing some of your speculations on design implementation timings.
I don't have any.
You gotta speculate, have a guess to come up with a hypothesis that you can test after all.
We have and that is how we have determined intelligent design is present.
AND you’ve had the same data the ‘Darwinists’ have had and they’re publishing masses of stuff.
Nothing to do with unguided/ blind watchmaker evolution, of course.
Lots and lots of research going on.
And it seems to support ID. Go figure.
Hmm . . . that reference is a) over 30 years old...
It still holds. How old is Pythagorean's theorems?
and b) I’m not sure it says what you think/imply it says.
Make your case if you can.
If I were you, I’d look for a bit more that’s a bit more current.
I have looked and there isn't anything. To date no one knows what makes an organism what it is. To date we know that tinkering with developmental genes is either fatal or causes deformities.
It’s tested every time a genome gets sequenced.
Common design is tested every time a genome gets sequencedJoe_{December 22, 2014
December
12
Dec
22
22
2014
07:46 AM
7
07
46
AM
PDT}

Joe #105
The evidence for ID from physics is independent of the evidence for ID from biology which is independent from the evidence for ID from cosmology, etc.
I'd say there was zero evidence from Physics and cosmology but that's just me. And not because I'm a multi-verse fan either. I ain't buyin' none of that 'til they get some real, hard data.
And why is it that no one can reference this alleged “modern evolutionary theory” so we can see what it really says?
I'm not going to bother because after trying many times I relise that you just decry whatever I post. So, no point really.Jerad_{December 22, 2014
December
12
Dec
22
22
2014
07:39 AM
7
07
39
AM
PDT}

Joe #104
Except there isn’t any such evidence. No one even knows what makes an organism what it is. And that means no one knows if there is a mechanism capable of such a thing as universal common descent.
This is why further discussions are pointless really. We're all heard each time after time after time. I would be very interested in discussing some of your speculations on design implementation timings. Nothing to be held accountable to. Nothing to make fun of. Just some speculation. You gotta speculate, have a guess to come up with a hypothesis that you can test after all. AND you've had the same data the 'Darwinists' have had and they're publishing masses of stuff. Lots and lots of research going on. No harm in having a discussion about what ID research might find is there?
So even if differing accumulations of genetic changes were up to the task they appear to be stuck by reality. IOW there isn’t any genetic/ genomic data that supports universal common descent. The claim cannot be tested.
Hmm . . . that reference is a) over 30 years old and b) I'm not sure it says what you think/imply it says. That is: I doubt the authors would agree with your interpretation of one paragraph. If I were you, I'd look for a bit more that's a bit more current. It's tested every time a genome gets sequenced. Could be that tomorrow a new genetic code is found or a creature who shares nothing with what we perceive its ancestors to be. It could happen. Each new genome is a test.Jerad_{December 22, 2014
December
12
Dec
22
22
2014
07:16 AM
7
07
16
AM
PDT}

Jerad:
Yes, especially given that there is no independent evidence of a designer.
The evidence for ID from physics is independent of the evidence for ID from biology which is independent from the evidence for ID from cosmology, etc. And why is it that no one can reference this alleged "modern evolutionary theory" so we can see what it really says?Joe_{December 22, 2014
December
12
Dec
22
22
2014
06:12 AM
6
06
12
AM
PDT}

Jerad:
I find the evidence supporting universal common descent with modification via natural processes to be more than sufficient.
Except there isn't any such evidence. No one even knows what makes an organism what it is. And that means no one knows if there is a mechanism capable of such a thing as universal common descent. Also, there is this:
Loci that are obviously variable within natural populations do not seem to lie at the basis of many major adaptive changes, while those loci that seemingly do constitute the foundation of many if not most major adaptive changes are not variable.- John McDonald, “The Molecular Basis of Adaptation: A Critical Review of Relevant Ideas and Observation”, Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics: 14, 1983, p77-102
So even if differing accumulations of genetic changes were up to the task they appear to be stuck by reality. IOW there isn't any genetic/ genomic data that supports universal common descent. The claim cannot be tested.Joe_{December 22, 2014
December
12
Dec
22
22
2014
05:56 AM
5
05
56
AM
PDT}

bornagain77: The original species had a greater genetic potential to adapt to all possible environments. That doesn't explain spontaneous polyploidy. Nor does it explain why onions have retained a much larger genome than Einstein, or why genome size varies so much even in closely related organisms. bornagain77: MENDEL’S ACCOUNTANT: J. SANFORD†, J. BAUMGARDNER‡, W. BREWER§, P. GIBSON¶, AND W. REMINE Mendel's Accountant has a bug which virtually eliminates the effects of natural selection.Zachriel_{December 22, 2014
December
12
Dec
22
22
2014
05:39 AM
5
05
39
AM
PDT}

"and an ever growing collection of experimental/lab data." Really??? I waiting for the first seed of experimental/lab data to sprout.bornagain77_{December 22, 2014
December
12
Dec
22
22
2014
05:24 AM
5
05
24
AM
PDT}

A. L. Hughes's New Non-Darwinian Mechanism of Adaption Was Discovered and Published in Detail by an ID Geneticist 25 Years Ago - Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig - December 2011 Excerpt: The original species had a greater genetic potential to adapt to all possible environments. In the course of time this broad capacity for adaptation has been steadily reduced in the respective habitats by the accumulation of slightly deleterious alleles (as well as total losses of genetic functions redundant for a habitat), with the exception, of course, of that part which was necessary for coping with a species' particular environment....By mutative reduction of the genetic potential, modifications became "heritable". -- As strange as it may at first sound, however, this has nothing to do with the inheritance of acquired characteristics. For the characteristics were not acquired evolutionarily, but existed from the very beginning due to the greater adaptability. In many species only the genetic functions necessary for coping with the corresponding environment have been preserved from this adaptability potential. The "remainder" has been lost by mutations (accumulation of slightly disadvantageous alleles) -- in the formation of secondary species. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/12/a_l_hughess_new053881.html Genetic Entropy - Dr. John Sanford - Evolution vs. Reality - video (Notes in description) http://vimeo.com/35088933 It is also extremely interesting to note, the principle of Genetic Entropy, which stands in direct opposition to the primary claim of neo-Darwinian evolution, lends itself quite well to mathematical analysis by computer simulation: Using Computer Simulation to Understand Mutation Accumulation Dynamics and Genetic Load: Excerpt: We apply a biologically realistic forward-time population genetics program to study human mutation accumulation under a wide-range of circumstances.,, Our numerical simulations consistently show that deleterious mutations accumulate linearly across a large portion of the relevant parameter space. http://bioinformatics.cau.edu.cn/lecture/chinaproof.pdf MENDEL’S ACCOUNTANT: J. SANFORD†, J. BAUMGARDNER‡, W. BREWER§, P. GIBSON¶, AND W. REMINE http://mendelsaccount.sourceforge.net Whereas, neo-Darwinian evolution has no rigorous mathematical foundation with which we can rigorously analyze it in any computer simulation; in any supposed 'Evolutionary Algorithm': "Darwin or Design" with Dr. Tom Woodward with guest Dr. Robert J. Marks II - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yoj9xo0YsOQbornagain77_{December 22, 2014
December
12
Dec
22
22
2014
05:21 AM
5
05
21
AM
PDT}

BA77 #99
Jerad, feel free to provide any evidence whatsoever of unguided Darwinian processes producing any non-trivial functional complexity/information. I’ve been waiting a long, long time. ,,, For someone who believes as strongly as you do that unguided processes can produce brains that are far more complex than the entire internet combined, your hesitation to flood me with observational evidence of unguided processes producing anything of significance is telling. Moreover, if you subtract non-random cell-mediated processes (J. Shapiro Natural Genetic Engineering), which should rightly be done if we wanted to see what purely material processes can accomplish, your evidence becomes even more desperately impoverished!
I find the evidence supporting universal common descent with modification via natural processes to be more than sufficient. That's including the fossils, the genomic data, the morphological data, the bio-geographic species distributions and an ever growing collection of experimental/lab data. And I know you don't. Not much else to say really. No matter what study or research I link to you'll address it with another link-fest, most of which will probably be videos or blog posts produced by members or good friends of the Discovery Institute. If you really want to talk to me then just talk. You don't need to try and buy me with links.
ID has far more explanatory power than you imagine it does, whereas neo-Darwinism is useless as a heuristic in science:
You say that but when I ask ID supporters to 'explain' some aspect of speciation they usually don't even bother to acknowledge the question. Why is that do you think?Jerad_{December 22, 2014
December
12
Dec
22
22
2014
04:42 AM
4
04
42
AM
PDT}

Jerad, feel free to provide any evidence whatsoever of unguided Darwinian processes producing any non-trivial functional complexity/information. I've been waiting a long, long time. ,,, For someone who believes as strongly as you do that unguided processes can produce brains that are far more complex than the entire internet combined, your hesitation to flood me with observational evidence of unguided processes producing anything of significance is telling. Moreover, if you subtract non-random cell-mediated processes (J. Shapiro Natural Genetic Engineering), which should rightly be done if we wanted to see what purely material processes can accomplish, your evidence becomes even more desperately impoverished! ID has far more explanatory power than you imagine it does, whereas neo-Darwinism is useless as a heuristic in science: Science owes nothing to Darwinism – Jonathan Wells https://uncommondescent.com/darwinism/science-owes-nothing-to-darwinism-jonathan-wells/ “Certainly, my own research with antibiotics during World War II received no guidance from insights provided by Darwinian evolution. Nor did Alexander Fleming’s discovery of bacterial inhibition by penicillin. I recently asked more than 70 eminent researchers if they would have done their work differently if they had thought Darwin’s theory was wrong. The responses were all the same: No.,,, In the peer-reviewed literature, the word “evolution” often occurs as a sort of coda to academic papers in experimental biology. Is the term integral or superfluous to the substance of these papers? To find out, I substituted for “evolution” some other word – “Buddhism,” “Aztec cosmology,” or even “creationism.” I found that the substitution never touched the paper’s core. This did not surprise me. From my conversations with leading researchers it had became clear that modern experimental biology gains its strength from the availability of new instruments and methodologies, not from an immersion in historical biology.” Philip S. Skell – (the late) Emeritus Evan Pugh Professor at Pennsylvania State University, and a member of the National Academy of Sciences. http://www.discovery.org/a/2816 "It has become clear in the past ten years that the concept of design is not merely an add-on meta-description of biological systems, of no scientific consequence, but is in fact a driver of science. A whole cohort of young scientists is being trained to “think like engineers” when looking at biological systems, using terms explicitly related to engineering design concepts: design, purpose, optimal tradeoffs for multiple goals, information, control, decision making, etc. This approach is widely seen as a successful, predictive, quantitative theory of biology." David Snoke*, Systems Biology as a Research Program for Intelligent Design podcast: "David Snoke: Systems Biology and Intelligent Design, pt. 1" http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/entry/2014-08-11T17_19_09-07_00 podcast: David Snoke: Systems Biology and Intelligent Design, pt. 2 http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/entry/2014-08-13T16_30_01-07_00 How the Burgeoning Field of Systems Biology Supports Intelligent Design - July 2014 Excerpt: Snoke lists various features in biology that have been found to function like goal-directed, top-down engineered systems: *"Negative feedback for stable operation." *"Frequency filtering" for extracting a signal from a noisy system. *Control and signaling to induce a response. *"Information storage" where information is stored for later use. In fact, Snoke observes: "This paradigm [of systems biology] is advancing the view that biology is essentially an information science with information operating on multiple hierarchical levels and in complex networks [13]. " *"Timing and synchronization," where organisms maintain clocks to ensure that different processes and events happen in the right order. *"Addressing," where signaling molecules are tagged with an address to help them arrive at their intended target. *"Hierarchies of function," where organisms maintain clocks to ensure that cellular processes and events happen at the right times and in the right order. *"Redundancy," as organisms contain backup systems or "fail-safes" if primary essential systems fail. *"Adaptation," where organisms are pre-engineered to be able to undergo small-scale adaptations to their environments. As Snoke explains, "These systems use randomization controlled by supersystems, just as the immune system uses randomization in a very controlled way," and "Only part of the system is allowed to vary randomly, while the rest is highly conserved.",,, Snoke observes that systems biology assumes that biological features are optimized, meaning, in part, that "just about everything in the cell does indeed have a role, i.e., that there is very little 'junk.'" He explains, "Some systems biologists go further than just assuming that every little thing has a purpose. Some argue that each item is fulfilling its purpose as well as is physically possible," and quotes additional authorities who assume that biological systems are optimized.,,, http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/07/when_biologists087871.htmlbornagain77_{December 22, 2014
December
12
Dec
22
22
2014
04:33 AM
4
04
33
AM
PDT}

BA77 #97
Jerad, oh but let’s do go over the evidence instead of just pretending I disagree with your interpretation shall we???
No point really is there? We've both been here long enough to knew each others' opinion inside and out. EXCEPT I don't know what kind of ID you support . . . all front loaded . . . lots of ongoing tinkering . . . non-random mutations. That would be interesting to talk about. Anyway, Dr Behe from UD and blog posts from the Discovery Institute are not evidence. Those have not been reviewed by people who know the field and can see if their reasoning is sound.
but You said there is ‘lots of evidence’ to support Neo-Darwinism. so can you please cite the exact laboratory experiments Dr. Behe and company have missed? Not only can they not find ‘lots’ of evidence, they can’t find any evidence period! Moreover, the observational evidence that we do have tells us that neo-Darwinism is false!
I'd have to go back and look up some of the many critical reviews of Dr Behe's publications but you could do that yourself if that's really what you want to know. If you're just trying to 'beat' me then I'm sorry, I'm not going to play that game.
That is the whole point. Darwinism is not a science with ANY observational evidence in the present to support its claims but is a pseudo-science that relies on imaginary ‘just so’ stories about what may have happened in the past so as to make it seem plausible.
I disagree. But I would like to add that, even if you disagree with it, evolutionary theory does, at least, attempt to explain why we some some aspects of life. ID hasn't really done that. Yet.
It is junk science supreme!
You are entitled to your severely minority opinion.
I’m glad you are at least starting to realize how incompatible your consciousness and free will are to your atheistic materialism.
Please don't put words in my mouth or make assumptions regarding what I believe. If you want to ask me question that's fine but I ask that I not be categorised.Jerad_{December 22, 2014
December
12
Dec
22
22
2014
04:18 AM
4
04
18
AM
PDT}

Jerad, oh but let's do go over the evidence instead of just pretending I disagree with your interpretation shall we???
“The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution”: Break or blunt any functional coded element whose loss would yield a net fitness gain – Michael Behe – December 2010 Excerpt: In its most recent issue The Quarterly Review of Biology has published a review by myself of laboratory evolution experiments of microbes going back four decades.,,, The gist of the paper is that so far the overwhelming number of adaptive (that is, helpful) mutations seen in laboratory evolution experiments are either loss or modification of function. Of course we had already known that the great majority of mutations that have a visible effect on an organism are deleterious. Now, surprisingly, it seems that even the great majority of helpful mutations degrade the genome to a greater or lesser extent.,,, I dub it “The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution”: Break or blunt any functional coded element whose loss would yield a net fitness gain. http://behe.uncommondescent.com/2010/12/the-first-rule-of-adaptive-evolution/ Lenski's Long-Term Evolution Experiment: 25 Years and Counting - Michael Behe - November 21, 2013 Excerpt: Twenty-five years later the culture -- a cumulative total of trillions of cells -- has been going for an astounding 58,000 generations and counting. As the article points out, that's equivalent to a million years in the lineage of a large animal such as humans. Combined with an ability to track down the exact identities of bacterial mutations at the DNA level, that makes Lenski's project the best, most detailed source of information on evolutionary processes available anywhere,,, ,,,for proponents of intelligent design the bottom line is that the great majority of even beneficial mutations have turned out to be due to the breaking, degrading, or minor tweaking of pre-existing genes or regulatory regions (Behe 2010). There have been no mutations or series of mutations identified that appear to be on their way to constructing elegant new molecular machinery of the kind that fills every cell. For example, the genes making the bacterial flagellum are consistently turned off by a beneficial mutation (apparently it saves cells energy used in constructing flagella). The suite of genes used to make the sugar ribose is the uniform target of a destructive mutation, which somehow helps the bacterium grow more quickly in the laboratory. Degrading a host of other genes leads to beneficial effects, too.,,, - http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/11/richard_lenskis079401.html Response to John Wise – October 2010 Excerpt: A technique called “saturation mutagenesis”1,2 has been used to produce every possible developmental mutation in fruit flies (Drosophila melanogaster),3,4,5 roundworms (Caenorhabditis elegans),6,7 and zebrafish (Danio rerio),8,9,10 and the same technique is now being applied to mice (Mus musculus).11,12 None of the evidence from these and numerous other studies of developmental mutations supports the neo-Darwinian dogma that DNA mutations can lead to new organs or body plans–because none of the observed developmental mutations benefit the organism. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/10/response_to_john_wise038811.html etc.. etc..
but You said there is 'lots of evidence' to support Neo-Darwinism. so can you please cite the exact laboratory experiments Dr. Behe and company have missed? Not only can they not find 'lots' of evidence, they can't find any evidence period! Moreover, the observational evidence that we do have tells us that neo-Darwinism is false! That is the whole point. Darwinism is not a science with ANY observational evidence in the present to support its claims but is a pseudo-science that relies on imaginary 'just so' stories about what may have happened in the past so as to make it seem plausible. It is junk science supreme! I'm glad you are at least starting to realize how incompatible your consciousness and free will are to your atheistic materialism.bornagain77_{December 22, 2014
December
12
Dec
22
22
2014
04:03 AM
4
04
03
AM
PDT}

1 2 3 … 5 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply