Ants more closely related to most bees than to most wasps?

_{Denyse O'Leary

October 10, 2013

Intelligent Design, News, speciation}

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

“Despite great interest in the ecology and behavior of these insects, their evolutionary relationships have never been fully clarified. In particular, it has been uncertain how ants—the world’s most successful social insects—are related to bees and wasps,” Ward said. “We were able to resolve this question by employing next-generation sequencing technology and advances in bioinformatics. This phylogeny, or evolutionary tree, provides a new framework for understanding the evolution of nesting, feeding and social behavior in Hymenoptera.”

That suggest that “most” classifications are a mess. But why?

Comments

So the Grant’s work tells us how speciation can work, even with species that can interbreed.
And after 3 million years they are all compatible genetically. Doesn't sound like much is happening on the evolution front. Whatever evolution is. So to use it as an example is disingenuous. If it is used then it should be brought out that genetically they are all the same just as there are various groups of dogs, cats, humans etc. Wouldn't make much of an example to put in a text book.
Finally, I’m sure I’ve already corrected you on this, but it doesn’t follow form the fact beak size is influenced difference in gene expression that it’s a genetic change.
I have no idea what you are trying to correct. My point was that they do not know what causes the changes in beak sizes but that it is not a coding change. The Grants just say it is a regulatory network which affects the amount of gene expression. I never said any different unless you want to correct the Grants since I am just using them as a source.
Sounds like evolution to me.
We can always start with definitions of things like evolution, species etc. Why don't you offer up your definitions since you are using the terms. My point is that Darwinian processes lead to trivial changes and nothing more. No one has ever been able to show otherwise. I would love to see that statement which is true in the biology textbooks.jerry_{October 11, 2013
October
10
Oct
11
11
2013
02:55 PM
2
02
55
PM
PDT}

The different species of Darwin's finches can interbreed. But they are distinct species. Just like lions and tigers. This is, in fact, and example of what people like Wells don't (or pretend not to) get about speciation. It's a process. You can't, except in vary rare circumstanes, see a new species arise in real-time. But when we look around the world we see populations in every stage of the process form initial divergence (be it spatial or ecological) to the selection agaisnt hybrids and establishment of complete isolation. The fact Darwin's finches occasionally interbred doesn't mean they aren't species. Indeed, phylogeny helps us prove that. When you estimate a tree for these species you find two things (1) they are big genetic gaps between species (2) individuals of one species are more closeley related to each other than to other species. That wouldn't happen if the finches were acting like one big population. In fact, absent selection even one "migrant" between diverging populations per generation is enough to prevent this happening. The fact the species maintain their distinctiveness in spite of the potential for gene flow to homegenise them tells us they represent distinct lineages. The interesting question then is what prevents them folding back in - and it turns out there are pre-mating (size-assortative mating, songs) and post-mating (ecological selection against hybrids) keeping the lineages distinct. So the Grant's work tells us how speciation can work, even with species that can interbreed. Allopatric speciation, where populations never see each so just evolve away on their own, is much easier to understand. Evolutionary biology actually makes a couple of interesting predictions here. Since speciation is a process, and complete genetic isolation between species only occurs after a period then (a) species that diverged longer ago, according to molecular phylogenies, should produce fewer sucessful hybrids (the "speciation clock") (b) in species with chromosomal sex determiniaton, hybrids the sex with different chromosomes (e.g. XY males in placental mammals, ZW females in birds) should be hit harder than their counterparts. (Haldane's rule). These are both true, and teh first ones tells us the sort of ecological speciation going on in the finches might be quite widespread in nature. Finally, I'm sure I've already corrected you on this, but it doesn't follow form the fact beak size is influenced difference in gene expression that it's a genetic change. I don't know of an evidence for transgenerational epigenetics in birds, and it's much much more likely the changes are down to changes in teh genetic sequence of regulator elements. Even if it was a trans-generational epigenetic modification, the Grant's showed the traits are heritable. Hertiable variation is subject to selection so, whether you like it not, changes in beak morhphology have a hertiable basis, are stably inherited and have been shown to be subject to selection. Sounds like evolution to me.wd400_{October 11, 2013
October
10
Oct
11
11
2013
02:16 PM
2
02
16
PM
PDT}

Thanks for the reference
I would listen to all of the Grants but they don't start for about 10 minutes and one can skip the two people from Stanford after the Grant's presentation. The Grants then come back and discuss speciation. What they did is very interesting but in no way threatens ID or supports Darwinian ideas even though they constantly mention natural selection. They essentially say that after all this time where natural selection is working we have the same gene pool. Look for the 32 million year estimate for a new bird species to emerge. Rosemary discusses it in a couple places. Peter talks about genetic controls that are changing beak size and not the coding regions and it is not clear whether there are actually DNA changes happening or if it is epigentic. But he describes extremely complicated feedback loops. Were the changes to the finch beaks caused by DNA changes or epigentic changes? Apparently they do not know. Here is a discussion of epigentics and mentions the Darwin finches. http://www.cals.ncsu.edu/course/zo501/Readings/Epigenetics%20Notes.pdf Also this exchange on Jerry Coyne's site: http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2010/11/04/epigenetics-kerfuffle/ I love the use of the expression "academic auto-censure"
A.Way Posted November 4, 2010 at 6:59 pm | Permalink So – darwinian finches – was this evolution or epigenetics? Sure sound like epigenetics… Reply Luc Posted October 6, 2013 at 3:09 am | Permalink I once read that a recent research on darwin’s finches have shown that the responsible factor has been already isolated and even tests on chickens eggs succesfully conducted, but I can find the reference, so if some is aware of it; the word epigenetic wasn’t used but is perhaps a kind of academic auto-censure Mike Reply Luc Posted October 6, 2013 at 3:15 am | Permalink I found it : Bmp4 and Morphological Variation of Beaks in Darwin’s Finches Arhat Abzhanov1, Meredith Protas1, B. Rosemary Grant2, Peter R. Grant2, Clifford J. Tabin1,* Reply A.Way Posted October 6, 2013 at 6:37 am | Permalink That article identified Bmp4 as associated with changed in beak morphology and change in expression of Bmp4 as maybe being the cause in change in beak shape. The change in expression can be an epigenetic effect. Examples are the Russian tame foxes and the Agouti mouse. You have changed in gene expression without a change in DNA base pairs. This article did not confirm a change in the genetic code. Reply Luc Posted October 9, 2013 at 2:38 am | Permalink for sure and this was my point, that evolution is mostly epigenetic, and that should perhaps explain the punctuated equilibrum stated by Gould Reply
To be continued after further research. Maybe it already exists. So if anyone can add to it, let's see where it stands now.jerry_{October 11, 2013
October
10
Oct
11
11
2013
08:44 AM
8
08
44
AM
PDT}

Watch the whole thing. But I will save you some time. Start at about 109:00 and follow Rosemary for a few minutes till at least 112:00.
I watched just that part and she does say that the species are "genetically compatible". I hope wd400 will respond to that.Silver Asiatic_{October 11, 2013
October
10
Oct
11
11
2013
08:26 AM
8
08
26
AM
PDT}

Thanks for the reference Jerry. You are a encyclopedia.bornagain77_{October 11, 2013
October
10
Oct
11
11
2013
07:28 AM
7
07
28
AM
PDT}

I cannot imagine that to is the case, as there are 15.
But they all can inner breed. They are what they call genetically compatible. Just like someone with a Roman nose and another with a pug nose can have offspring. I once knew a young lady who was beautiful but had a nose job as a teenager. He husband did not know this. Their children had big noses and he was taken aback by this. So too the Darwin finches. They can have all sorts of beaks and when they inner breed with each other they produce a variety of beak sizes. Which are probably called a new species.
Their book “How and Why Species Multiply” would be a good place to start
I prefer to go to the horse's mouth. The Grants made a long presentation at Stanford in 2009 on their work. It is available for all to see on the internet. In it they give the game away. All the so called Darwin finches can inner breed. Doesn't happen much but it does happen and they have viable offspring that reproduce. Here is the link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IMcVY__T3Ho Watch the whole thing. But I will save you some time. Start at about 109:00 and follow Rosemary for a few minutes till at least 112:00. Then go to 146:30 and listen to Peter. Before this is the inane prattle by two of Stanford's finest who do not understand that the Grants are saying that the whole evolution thing is a crock.jerry_{October 11, 2013
October
10
Oct
11
11
2013
07:05 AM
7
07
05
AM
PDT}

Myself, I'm rather mystified that Darwinists can so readily, and adamantly, accept finch beak variation as conclusive proof that the finches themselves arose by Darwinian processes. It is sort of like claiming that the variation in the weather cycle explains how weather arose in the first place. It simply does not follow in logic. It addresses the problem from the wrong level! Here is a small glimpse of what Darwinists must truly explain, besides the extremely sophisticated mechanisms that allow finch beaks to vary around a median position in the first place,,
FLIGHT: The Genius of Birds - Skeletal system - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=11fZS_B6UW4 Flight: The Genius of Birds - Embryonic Development - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Ah-gT0hTto How Bird Wings Work (Compared to Airplane Wings) - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4jKokxPRtck
Verse and Music:
Matthew 10:31 "So do not fear; you are more valuable than many sparrows." Paul McCartney - Blackbird [Live Acoustic] - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c_SrYqLrljU
bornagain77_{October 11, 2013
October
10
Oct
11
11
2013
04:33 AM
4
04
33
AM
PDT}

wd400,
Wired Science: One Long Bluff - Refuting a recent finch speciation claim - Jonathan Wells - Nov. 2009 Excerpt: According to the Grants, in 1981 they found an unusually large male medium ground finch (scientific name: G. fortis) on the island of Daphne Major that they labeled 5110. They inferred that it had probably immigrated from the nearby island of Santa Cruz--though they could not be certain. For 28 years, the Grants followed all known descendants of this presumed immigrant, and genetic analysis suggested that after 2002 the descendants of 5110 bred only with each other (and were thus "endogamous"). The inbred group had a distinctive song that may have contributed to its reproductive isolation from other medium ground finches that were in the same area ("sympatric"). But the Grants did not go so far as to label the inbred descendants a new species. "We treat the endogamous group as an incipient species because it has been reproductively isolated from sympatric G. fortis for three generations and possibly longer." But an "incipient species" is not the same as a new species. In The Origin of Species, Darwin wrote: "According to my view, varieties are species in the process of formation, or are, as I have called them, incipient species." 7 But how can we possibly know whether two varieties (or races) are in the process of becoming separate species? Saint Bernards and Chihuahuas are two varieties that cannot interbreed naturally. The Ainu people of northern Japan and the !Kung of southern Africa are separated not only geographically, linguistically, and culturally, but also (for all practical purposes) reproductively. Are dog breeds and human races therefore "incipient species?" There's no way we can know, unless we observe varieties becoming separate species at a future date. Designating two reproductively isolated populations "incipient species" is nothing more than a prediction that speciation will eventually occur. It is a far cry from observing the origin of a new species. Indeed, in their scientific article the Grants acknowledge that "many episodes of incipient speciation probably fail for every one that succeeds." In the present case, "it is too early to tell whether reproductive isolation is transitory or is likely to be enduring. The odds would seem to be against long-term persistence of the immigrant lineage as a reproductively isolated population." Among other things, it could go extinct due to inbreeding or an environmental catastrophe. Or it "might disappear through interbreeding with other G. fortis." Interbreeding among supposedly reproductively isolated species of GalÃ¡pagos finches is nothing new. The Grants themselves reported widespread hybridization among those species in the 1990s.8 9 This is one reason why, according to a November 16 report in the journal Nature, "the Grants aren't yet ready to call 5110's lineage a new species." Indeed, "the Grants think there is only a small chance that 5110's descendants will remain isolated long enough to speciate." 10 So, will the inbred population described by the Grants become a new species? Maybe; maybe not. Does the Grants' work explain how different species of finches descended with modification from a common ancestor? Maybe; maybe not. "Does the report in Wired Science mean that “biologists have witnessed that elusive moment when a single species (of Galapagos finch) splits in two?” Absolutely not." http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/11/wired_science_one_long_bluff.html
In fact,,
"The closest science has come to observing and recording actual speciation in animals is the work of Theodosius Dobzhansky in Drosophilia paulistorium fruit flies. But even here, only reproductive isolation, not a new species, appeared." from page 32 "Acquiring Genomes" Lynn Margulis.
Moreover, new research shows that the Grants (i.e. the Darwinian) understanding for species formation is 'extremely incomplete' in that reproductive isolation is an 'erroneous assumption' for discerning whether speciation has actually occurred:
Genetic Reproductive Barriers: Long-Held Assumption About Emergence of New Species Questioned - Sep. 2, 2013 Excerpt: The rate at which genetic reproductive barriers arise does not predict the rate at which new species form in nature," Rabosky said. "If these results are true more generally -- which we would not yet claim but do suspect -- it would imply that our understanding of species formation is extremely incomplete because we've spent so long studying the wrong things, due to this erroneous assumption that the main cause of species formation is the formation of barriers to reproduction. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/09/130902162536.htm
One of the reasons why reproductive isolation is 'extremely incomplete' as a measure of speciation is because highly sophisticated, "in-built", phenotype plasticity is what is found to generate variation in a species, not 'randomly occurring' variations as Darwinists have presupposed,,
Phenotypic Plasticity - Lizard cecal valve (cyclical variation)- video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zEtgOApmnTA
The problem that the cyclical variation of Phenotypic Plasticity presents to simplistic Darwinian notions of speciation is best described by Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig:
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
Basically, what is found over and over is this:
“Whatever we may try to do within a given species, we soon reach limits which we cannot break through. A wall exists on every side of each species. That wall is the DNA coding, which permits wide variety within it (within the gene pool, or the genotype of a species)-but no exit through that wall. Darwin's gradualism is bounded by internal constraints, beyond which selection is useless." R. Milner, Encyclopedia of Evolution (1990)
Of related note is this large scale study:
The Mirage of "Evolution Before Our Eyes" - August 2011 Excerpt:,,,the important implication of the massive study by Oregon State University zoologist Josef C. Uyeda and his colleagues. They write in PNAS: "Even though rapid, short-term evolution often occurs in intervals shorter than 1 [million years], the changes are constrained and do not accumulate over time." http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/08/no_evolution_before_our_eyes049911.html
Also of note, materialists never mention the fact that the variations found in nature (such as peppered moth color and finch beak size) which are often touted as solid proof of evolution are always found to be cyclical in nature. i.e. The variations are found to vary around a median position with never a continual deviation from the norm (See Jonathan Wells 'Icons Of Evolution'). This blatant distortion/omission of evidence in textbooks led Phillip Johnson to comment in the Wall Street Journal:
"When our leading scientists have to resort to the sort of distortion that would land a stock promoter in jail, you know they are in trouble."
Related notes:
Natural Limits to Variation, or Reversion to the Mean: Is Evolution Just Extrapolation by Another Name? - Tom Bethell - April, 2012 http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/04/natural_limits058791.html Specious Speciation: The Myth of Observed Large-Scale Evolutionary Change - Casey Luskin - January 2012 - article http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/01/talk_origins_sp055281.html
bornagain77_{October 11, 2013
October
10
Oct
11
11
2013
04:31 AM
4
04
31
AM
PDT}

Of course, there is a tree of life. The tree of life is not a new idea that started with Darwin though. It's an old idea that historically began with the book of Genesis. It's just not the strictly nested tree of life that evolutionists have predicted on the basis of their falsified common descent hypothesis. It is a non-nested tree of life, the kind one might expect to find from intelligent design and genetic engineering spread over millions of years.Mapou_{October 11, 2013
October
10
Oct
11
11
2013
01:14 AM
1
01
14
AM
PDT}

[The grants] said all those famous finches are just one species I cannot imagine that to is the case, as there are 15. There book "How and Why Species Multiply" would be a good place to start for what we know about the origin of one group of species.wd400_{October 10, 2013
October
10
Oct
10
10
2013
08:19 PM
8
08
19
PM
PDT}

Should be "I never met anyone". Pardon the typo.jerry_{October 10, 2013
October
10
Oct
10
10
2013
08:03 PM
8
08
03
PM
PDT}

Shroud of Turin
I saw it when it was displayed for the public in 1998. Possibly the most enigmatic object in the world. I never meant anyone that denies this somehow has an intelligent origin. But who is the designer? And how did the designer do it? Are these answers necessary before we can say that this object is the result of an intelligent agent? I am sure we have some die-hards here who would say it was not the result of an intelligent agent until they could put their fingers/hand.... Here is the website of Barrie Schwortz http://www.shroud.comjerry_{October 10, 2013
October
10
Oct
10
10
2013
07:59 PM
7
07
59
PM
PDT}

There are many many papers detailing the sorts of evidence you are talking about,
Are there? How come they don't make it into the books on evolution? I read most of Dawkins' stuff and Coyne and Futuyama etc. The Grants didn't present anything in a series of presentations honoring Darwin. They said all those famous finches are just one species. Nothing happened to them species wise in 3 million years. Wells cites someone who is a respected biologist saying there has never been a documented speciation event and uses a review of a book by Niles Eldredge to make his point.
Should this be disregarded? And by the way I went on record about DNA a few days ago and I believe you cited me in your comments. Nothing has changed. From a review of a book by Niles Eldredge: The Triumph of Evolution and the Failure of Creationism Despite the conciliatory comments in the final chapter, the book's title is essentially emotive and provocative. Since most theories, if proven to be false, are rejected by scientists, Eldredge claims that, after 150 years, science has failed to disprove the theory of evolution and, therefore, "evolution has triumphed". In other words, the theory of evolution rests on the failure of science to show that it is false. Nevertheless, he believes the theory can be scientifically tested. But where is the experimental evidence? None exists in the literature claiming that one species has been shown to evolve into another. Bacteria, the simplest form of independent life, are ideal for this kind of study, with generation times of 20 to 30 minutes, and populations achieved after 18 hours. But throughout 150 years of the science of bacteriology, there is no evidence that one species of bacteria has changed into another, in spite of the fact that populations have been exposed to potent chemical and physical mutagens and that, uniquely, bacteria possess extrachromosomal, transmissible plasmids. Since there is no evidence for species changes between the simplest forms of unicellular life, it is not surprising that there is no evidence for evolution from prokaryotic to eukaryotic cells, let alone throughout the whole array of higher multicellular organisms. Reviewer: Alan H. Linton emeritus professor of bacteriology, University of Bristol. http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/159282.article
How can one have a tree if there has never been one example of a new branch happening. A little troubling for UCD. And why does one need evolutionary biology to understand any other part of biology?jerry_{October 10, 2013
October
10
Oct
10
10
2013
07:47 PM
7
07
47
PM
PDT}

correction: Barrie Schwortzbornagain77_{October 10, 2013
October
10
Oct
10
10
2013
06:57 PM
6
06
57
PM
PDT}

OT: Shroud of Turin: Hoax or Proof of Resurrection? (feat. Photographer of Los Alamos, Barrie Swortz) - video - Published on Sep 22, 2013 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lCyK2BzLy3Ybornagain77_{October 10, 2013
October
10
Oct
10
10
2013
06:52 PM
6
06
52
PM
PDT}

wd400, you seem to have a very distorted view of how science works. You claim that Darwinian evolution is a fact. We don't believe you. It is up to you to provide scientific evidence that Darwinian evolution can do what you claim of it! Even if genetic sequences were cooperative with Darwinian evolution, which they aren't, but even if they were, this still does not prove that Darwinian processes created the sequences. To 'scientifically' prove that Darwinian processes can create a protein/gene (or a molecular machine) you would actually have to physically demonstrate that random mutation and natural selection can do what you claim of them. This simple demonstration has not been accomplished. In fact there is a null hypothesis in place saying that Darwinian processes can NEVER create any functional information:
The Capabilities of Chaos and Complexity: David L. Abel - Null Hypothesis For Information Generation - 2009 To focus the scientific community’s attention on its own tendencies toward overzealous metaphysical imagination bordering on “wish-fulfillment,” we propose the following readily falsifiable null hypothesis, and invite rigorous experimental attempts to falsify it: "Physicodynamics cannot spontaneously traverse The Cybernetic Cut: physicodynamics alone cannot organize itself into formally functional systems requiring algorithmic optimization, computational halting, and circuit integration." A single exception of non trivial, unaided spontaneous optimization of formal function by truly natural process would falsify this null hypothesis. http://www.mdpi.com/1422-0067/10/1/247/pdf Can We Falsify Any Of The Following Null Hypothesis (For Information Generation) 1) Mathematical Logic 2) Algorithmic Optimization 3) Cybernetic Programming 4) Computational Halting 5) Integrated Circuits 6) Organization (e.g. homeostatic optimization far from equilibrium) 7) Material Symbol Systems (e.g. genetics) 8) Any Goal Oriented bona fide system 9) Language 10) Formal function of any kind 11) Utilitarian work http://mdpi.com/1422-0067/10/1/247/ag
wd400, please feel free to cite the exact experiment which falsified the preceding null hypothesis so that we may see actual proof that Darwinian processes can do ANYTHING that you can for it! Otherwise, with no actual empirical basis to support your claim for Darwinism, you are in fact promoting pseudo-science instead of science!
“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/ Mutations : when benefits level off – June 2011 – (Lenski’s e-coli after 50,000 generations) Excerpt: After having identified the first five beneficial mutations combined successively and spontaneously in the bacterial population, the scientists generated, from the ancestral bacterial strain, 32 mutant strains exhibiting all of the possible combinations of each of these five mutations. They then noted that the benefit linked to the simultaneous presence of five mutations was less than the sum of the individual benefits conferred by each mutation individually. http://www2.cnrs.fr/en/1867.htm?theme1=7 A review of The Edge of Evolution: The Search for the Limits of Darwinism The numbers of Plasmodium and HIV in the last 50 years greatly exceeds the total number of mammals since their supposed evolutionary origin (several hundred million years ago), yet little has been achieved by evolution. This suggests that mammals could have “invented” little in their time frame. Behe: ‘Our experience with HIV gives good reason to think that Darwinism doesn’t do much—even with billions of years and all the cells in that world at its disposal’ (p. 155). http://creation.com/review-michael-behe-edge-of-evolution "The immediate, most important implication is that complexes with more than two different binding sites-ones that require three or more proteins-are beyond the edge of evolution, past what is biologically reasonable to expect Darwinian evolution to have accomplished in all of life in all of the billion-year history of the world. The reasoning is straightforward. The odds of getting two independent things right are the multiple of the odds of getting each right by itself. So, other things being equal, the likelihood of developing two binding sites in a protein complex would be the square of the probability for getting one: a double CCC, 10^20 times 10^20, which is 10^40. There have likely been fewer than 10^40 cells in the world in the last 4 billion years, so the odds are against a single event of this variety in the history of life. It is biologically unreasonable." - Michael Behe - The Edge of Evolution - page 146 Michael Behe, The Edge of Evolution, pg. 162 Swine Flu, Viruses, and the Edge of Evolution “Indeed, the work on malaria and AIDS demonstrates that after all possible unintelligent processes in the cell–both ones we’ve discovered so far and ones we haven’t–at best extremely limited benefit, since no such process was able to do much of anything. It’s critical to notice that no artificial limitations were placed on the kinds of mutations or processes the microorganisms could undergo in nature. Nothing–neither point mutation, deletion, insertion, gene duplication, transposition, genome duplication, self-organization nor any other process yet undiscovered–was of much use.” http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/05/swine_flu_viruses_and_the_edge020071.html Scant search for the Maker Excerpt: But where is the experimental evidence? None exists in the literature claiming that one species has been shown to evolve into another. Bacteria, the simplest form of independent life, are ideal for this kind of study, with generation times of 20 to 30 minutes, and populations achieved after 18 hours. But throughout 150 years of the science of bacteriology, there is no evidence that one species of bacteria has changed into another, in spite of the fact that populations have been exposed to potent chemical and physical mutagens and that, uniquely, bacteria possess extrachromosomal, transmissible plasmids. Since there is no evidence for species changes between the simplest forms of unicellular life, it is not surprising that there is no evidence for evolution from prokaryotic to eukaryotic cells, let alone throughout the whole array of higher multicellular organisms. - Alan H. Linton - emeritus professor of bacteriology, University of Bristol. http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?storycode=159282
bornagain77_{October 10, 2013
October
10
Oct
10
10
2013
04:29 PM
4
04
29
PM
PDT}

"There are many many papers detailing the sorts of evidence you are talking about"' hardly. What we find however are opinion pieces, devoid of any actual evidence or facts, as well as science fiction, propaganda, rhetoric and philisophical views. We find secular fairytales, requiring vast amounts of faith and imaginaion. We find speculation, inference, guess work too. What we don't get is a paper giving us evidence. -ex evolutionisthumbled_{October 10, 2013
October
10
Oct
10
10
2013
03:54 PM
3
03
54
PM
PDT}

These are certainly all topics someone shuould try to understand before they attack evolutionary biology. There are many many papers detailing the sorts of evidence you are talking about, if you want to understand some biology I'd put Wells' book down (it doesn't tackle the best arguments for the presence of junk DNA at all) and read some of them.wd400_{October 10, 2013
October
10
Oct
10
10
2013
02:30 PM
2
02
30
PM
PDT}

importance of trees to understanding biology
On the topic of junk DNA, Barry pointed to Wells'book, The Myth of Junk DNA, of which I read about 15 pages so far. At the beginning which had nothing to do with junk DNA, Wells pointed out there is not one proven example of speciation ever recorded. In order to have a real tree one needs real speciation, not just wishful ones. I found that interesting. I also understand the current hypothesis says it takes a long time for such an event to happen and thus not able to be readily observed. But there must be/should be lots of examples of what should be speciation events and with such there should be just what changed genetically to cause the specific event. That might be more useful for pedagogical purposes to illustrate how the speciation actually occurred and how a tree of life could then be constructed. Without a rough understanding of the steps that happened genetically, trees of life may be just wishful thinking based on aprior assumptions. There should be examples of large changes as well as small changes. Then one could make an assessment as to what were the mechanisms responsible for these events. But then we do need an agreed upon definition of just what a species is and when a new one has arisen. For example, are Darwin Finches different species? The Grants do not think so even though they have minor genetic differences. Where would they fit on a bird tree?jerry_{October 10, 2013
October
10
Oct
10
10
2013
02:21 PM
2
02
21
PM
PDT}

Indeed, why do you think this result “suggests that “most” classifications are a mess”?
That is the impression I am getting or that a lot of life trees are arbitrary but I admit that I have not looked into this very much. How are relationships made, morphology, which part of the morphology, genes, which genes, all the genes, ORFsns, etc? When I was in grad school we used statistical similarity programs that would automatically group entities/people by how similar they were but we had to define the characteristics on which to do the similarity. For two organisms, what are these characteristics? How are they chosen? Trees of life are artificial things. They do not/never have actually existed but only theoretically help with understanding some process.jerry_{October 10, 2013
October
10
Oct
10
10
2013
01:59 PM
1
01
59
PM
PDT}

wd400, what in blue blazes has given you the absurd notion that bees (or even the humble fruit fly) 'randomly' evolved by Darwinian processes?
Evolution vs. The Honey Bee - an Architectural Marvel - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4181791 TEDx Video: Flight of the Fruit Fly - October 8, 2013 Excerpt: "Dickinson is a very intense guy himself, and gives a remarkable discussion of what makes the engineering that goes into fruit fly flight so amazing." (4:50 minute mark of video lists several fascinating high tech 'accessories' of the fruit fly; even a 'gyroscope'!) http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/10/video_flight_of077641.html "The brain of a small fruit fly uses energy in the micro-watts for complex flight control and visual information processing to find and fly to food. I don't think a supercomputer could yet simulate what the fruit fly brain does even while using megawatts of energy. The difference of over ten orders of magnitude and the level of energy used is an indication of just how incredible biological systems are. Professor Keiichi Namba, Osaka University Research Discovers Oldest Bee - Oct. 26, 2006 Excerpt: Researchers at Oregon State University have discovered the oldest bee ever known, a 100 million year old specimen preserved in almost lifelike form in amber,,, The earliest angiosperms (flowering plants) didn't really begin to spread rapidly until a little over 100 millions years ago, a time that appears to correspond with the (appearance) of bees,,. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/10/061025184944.htm 50 million year old Fruit Fly fossil compared to modern Fruit Fly - picture http://en.harunyahya.net/fruit-fly-fossils-creation-museum/ How Bees Decide What to Be: Reversible 'Epigenetic' Marks Linked to Behavior Patterns, ScienceDaily, Sept. 16, 2012 Excerpt: "...DNA methylation "tagging" has been linked to something at the behavioral level of a whole organism. On top of that, they say, the behavior in question, and its corresponding molecular changes, are reversible,..." http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/09/120916160845.htm Look at This Incredible Insect Wing Design - Cornelius Hunter - May 17, 2013 Excerpt: And so using this rational, mathematical, approach to biology the researchers were able to do something that consistently eludes evolutionists—produce a successful prediction: "An optimal cell size of a grid-like structure such as the wing can be predicted using the “critical crack length” of the membrane, which is determined by the material’s fracture toughness and the stress applied. … An “optimal” wing cell should have a diameter of around 1132 µm. Is this the case in locust wings? Our results show that the distribution of the wing cell size in locust wings corresponds very well to this prediction, with the most common wing-cell “class” being between 1000 and 1100 µm." http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2013/05/look-at-this-incredible-insect-wing.html Gene Regulatory Networks in Embryos Depend on Pre-existing Spatial Coordinates - Jonathan Wells - July 2011 Excerpt: The development of metazoan embryos requires the precise spatial deployment of specific cellular functions. This deployment depends on gene regulatory networks (GRNs), which operate downstream of initial spatial inputs (E. H. Davidson, Nature 468 [2010]: 911). Those initial inputs depend, in turn, on pre-existing spatial coordinate systems. In Drosophila oocytes, for example, spatial localization of the earliest-acting elements of the maternal GRN depends on the prior establishment of an anteroposterior body axis by antecedent asymmetries in the ovary. Those asymmetries appear to depend on cytoskeletal and membrane patterns rather than on DNA sequences,,, http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=7751 Development of a fly embryo in real time - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OQ86d9sTeaQ Seeing the Natural World With a Physicist’s Lens - November 2010 Excerpt: Scientists have identified and mathematically anatomized an array of cases where optimization has left its fastidious mark, among them;,, the precision response in a fruit fly embryo to contouring molecules that help distinguish tail from head;,,, In each instance, biophysicists have calculated, the system couldn’t get faster, more sensitive or more efficient without first relocating to an alternate universe with alternate physical constants. Per New York Times 'No matter what we do to a fruit fly embryo there are only three possible outcomes, a normal fruit fly, a defective fruit fly, or a dead fruit fly. What we never see is primary speciation much less macro-evolution' – Jonathan Wells 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. per Evolution News and Views Experimental Evolution in Fruit Flies (35 years of trying to force fruit flies to evolve in the laboratory fails, spectacularly) - October 2010 Excerpt: "Despite decades of sustained selection in relatively small, sexually reproducing laboratory populations, selection did not lead to the fixation of newly arising unconditionally advantageous alleles.,,, "This research really upends the dominant paradigm about how species evolve," said ecology and evolutionary biology professor Anthony Long, the primary investigator. http://www.arn.org/blogs/index.php/literature/2010/10/07/experimental_evolution_in_fruit_flies
bornagain77_{October 10, 2013
October
10
Oct
10
10
2013
01:58 PM
1
01
58
PM
PDT}

Sometime UD commenter Joe Felsenstein (who more or less invented modern phylogenetics) wrote the best book. That requires considerable mathmatical background, if you don't have that David Baum's text is a good introduction to the importance of trees to understanding biology.wd400_{October 10, 2013
October
10
Oct
10
10
2013
01:57 PM
1
01
57
PM
PDT}

Is phylogeny dependent on who invites who to dinner?(the world’s most successful social insects) This really should be a topic (phylogeny) that is more investigated. Is there any book/text that is accessible to the non expert?jerry_{October 10, 2013
October
10
Oct
10
10
2013
01:40 PM
1
01
40
PM
PDT}

To all bees than most "wasps", wasps being paraphyletic. That suggest that “most” classifications are a mess. But why? Indeed, why do you think this result "suggests that “most” classifications are a mess"?wd400_{October 10, 2013
October
10
Oct
10
10
2013
01:38 PM
1
01
38
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply