Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

In other words, phylogenetic reconstruction is sheer fantasy …

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Here’s some research done 100 miles down the road from me. Note the sentence highlighted. The actual phylogenies here were experimentally known and yet standard evolutionary theory drew completely wrong conclusions. Oh, but it was a small population, small genomes, and intense selection pressure. Spare me.

“Exceptional Convergent Evolution in a Virus”
Bull JJ, Badgett MR, Wichman HA, Huelsenbeck JP, Hillis DM, Gulati A, Ho C, Molineux IJ.
Department of Zoology, Institute of Cellular and Molecular Biology, University of Texas, Austin 78712, USA. bull@bull.zo.utexas.edu

Replicate lineages of the bacteriophage phiX 174 adapted to growth at high temperature on either of two hosts exhibited high rates of identical, independent substitutions. Typically, a dozen or more substitutions accumulated in the 5.4-kilobase genome during propagation. Across the entire data set of nine lineages, 119 independent substitutions occurred at 68 nucleotide sites. Over half of these substitutions, accounting for one third of the sites, were identical with substitutions in other lineages. Some convergent substitutions were specific to the host used for phage propagation, but others occurred across both hosts. Continued adaptation of an evolved phage at high temperature, but on the other host, led to additional changes that included reversions of previous substitutions. Phylogenetic reconstruction using the complete genome sequence not only failed to recover the correct evolutionary history because of these convergent changes, but the true history was rejected as being a significantly inferior fit to the data. Replicate lineages subjected to similar environmental challenges showed similar rates of substitution and similar rates of fitness improvement across corresponding times of adaptation. Substitution rates and fitness improvements were higher during the initial period of adaptation than during a later period, except when the host was changed.

PMID: 9409816 [PubMed – indexed for MEDLINE]

Comments
You folks don't need me here. You have Alan Fox to converse with. Furthermore, there is no room for "debate" in science and there never will be. There is only discovery. Enjoy the "debate." If anything important surfaces, which doesn't seem very likely, let me know. jadavison.wordpress.comJohnADavison
April 15, 2009
April
04
Apr
15
15
2009
12:39 PM
12
12
39
PM
PDT
John Davison - I understand your frustration and disgust dealing with the huge number of irrational Liars For Darwin that inhabit both the Internet and academia. However please realize that your posts (both here and elsewhere) are some of the most enlightening I've read and are much appreciated by me. I'm sure many here feel the same. I don't blame Allen MacNeill, P.Z. Myers, etc. for avoiding you like the plague. Your 50+ years of studying biology combined with your ruthless attitude towards their atheistic religion must send shivers down their spines.ShawnBoy
April 15, 2009
April
04
Apr
15
15
2009
12:33 PM
12
12
33
PM
PDT
"natural selection was assisted by input from an unknown source," This indicates that you do not understand the debate. Natural selection is a minor factor in the evolution debate and possibly the most over blown concept in the history of science. The debate is over how variation was created. Best expressed by Hugo DeVries assessment in 1904, that the survival of the fittest does not explain the arrival of the fittest"jerry
April 15, 2009
April
04
Apr
15
15
2009
12:28 PM
12
12
28
PM
PDT
Alan,
What’s a rabbit test?
The rabbit test of ID shows whether the world has been impregnated by a designer.David Kellogg
April 15, 2009
April
04
Apr
15
15
2009
10:40 AM
10
10
40
AM
PDT
Alan, ID is not anti-evolution. Nor is it anti Six-Day Creationism. It’s just a rabbit test for design.
Do you mean evolution occured as the evidence shows, but that natural selection was assisted by input from an unknown source, at unknown moments, or is there more to it? What's a rabbit test?Alan Fox
April 15, 2009
April
04
Apr
15
15
2009
10:05 AM
10
10
05
AM
PDT
According to NDE how many mutations to the genome would be required to turn LUCA into an elephant? Is reasonable to think this could occur using any observed rate of mutation?
I don't know, and I suspect nobody else does. But Toe is the only explanation that fits with the evidence. Do you think elephants were on the ark with Noah?Alan Fox
April 15, 2009
April
04
Apr
15
15
2009
10:01 AM
10
10
01
AM
PDT
Alan Fox:
Where, When? How? What data?
Where, when and how are irrelevant questions and expose an ignorance of ID. These questions can only be answered by studying the design in question. And the data is in all scientific papers.Joseph
April 15, 2009
April
04
Apr
15
15
2009
09:59 AM
9
09
59
AM
PDT
OTOH, how does NDE account for the saltations evident in the fossil record?
I don't think evidence shows "saltations" (not in the Goldsmchidt sense, certainly. So the necessity for an explanation does not arise.Alan Fox
April 15, 2009
April
04
Apr
15
15
2009
09:57 AM
9
09
57
AM
PDT
[Intelligent design] simply says the data indicates eyes to be designed.
Where, When? How? What data?Alan Fox
April 15, 2009
April
04
Apr
15
15
2009
09:53 AM
9
09
53
AM
PDT
Alan Fox, The only evidence for the evolution of the vision system is that we have observed varying degrees of complexity in living organisms, from simple light sensitive spots on unicellular organisms to the vision system of more complex metazoans, and we “know” that the first population(s) of living organisms didn’t have either. Therefore the vision system “evolved”. Isn’t evolutionary “science” great!Joseph
April 15, 2009
April
04
Apr
15
15
2009
09:52 AM
9
09
52
AM
PDT
And as I said in another thread you can’t even account for the evolution of the eye/vision system via selected mutations.
If you mean me personally, Joe. No, I doubt I could give an account of the possible hierarchy of development of the mammalian eye.
No one can Alan. No one even knows if an eye/ vision system can "evolve" from a population that never had one.
There are many accounts of how this might have happened.
Nothing within the realm of science though. BTW I have read just about everything there is on the subject. That is why I can say what I do in full confidence.
BTW, how does Intelligent Design theory account for the appearance of eyes?
Observers need a means of observing. And seeing that the universe was designed for scientific discovery, well there you have it.Joseph
April 15, 2009
April
04
Apr
15
15
2009
09:50 AM
9
09
50
AM
PDT
In your hypothesis, what keeps organisms in lockstep with their niches? In the modern theory of evolution this is taken care of by adaptation by the environment. Are the saltations controlled by supernatural forces? OTOH, how does NDE account for the saltations evident in the fossil record? According to NDE how many mutations to the genome would be required to turn LUCA into an elephant? Is reasonable to think this could occur using any observed rate of mutation?tribune7
April 15, 2009
April
04
Apr
15
15
2009
09:22 AM
9
09
22
AM
PDT
how does Intelligent Design theory account for the appearance of eyes? It doesn't. It simply says the data indicates eyes to be designed :-) Does it suggest why vertebrate eyes and cephalopod eyes are similar but differ in important ways, for instance? Nope. Nor does it suggest why camera lenses are similar but different in important ways to cephalopod eyes. Alan, ID is not anti-evolution. Nor is it anti Six-Day Creationism. It's just a rabbit test for design.tribune7
April 15, 2009
April
04
Apr
15
15
2009
09:10 AM
9
09
10
AM
PDT
So John, You claim that all necessary information for all organisms was preloaded at the moment or moments of initial creation my one or more gods, I believe? This then unfolds in saltationary leaps at (appropriate) moments. In your hypothesis, what keeps organisms in lockstep with their niches? In the modern theory of evolution this is taken care of by adaptation by the environment. Are the saltations controlled by supernatural forces?Alan Fox
April 15, 2009
April
04
Apr
15
15
2009
09:05 AM
9
09
05
AM
PDT
cha-gingUpright BiPed
April 15, 2009
April
04
Apr
15
15
2009
09:05 AM
9
09
05
AM
PDT
...I did a tiny bit of research (one google search, clicked the 2nd link, as the 1st had already been posted on this thread). It wasn't until after I read the article that I noticed it was from an ID blog. But in it, I found this quote from the authors of the study (not the authors of the ID blog) (emphasis added):
"These valves are similar in overall appearance and structure to those found in herbivorous lacertid, agamid, and iguanid lizards and are not found in other populations of P. sicula (the lizard in question) or in P. melisellensis."
Here is the final paragraph from the blog. It also doubts the possibility of a Darwinian mechanism, but in a different way (not enough time to develop the mechanism, even if an incremental, beneficial pathway is imagined). It seems to come to a similar conclusion, though, that the possibility for cecal valves were pre-programmed in the lizards, awaiting activation:
The cecal valve finding is, however, dramatic. This is the finding that drew the comment that the animals "are evolving in ways that would normally take millions of years to play out". There can be no rationale for a Darwinian mechanism here - involving incremental assembly of the cecal valve. There is no time for this, even if a gradualist route could be found. No, the relevant genetic information must be present in the ancestors and epigenetic factors can be inferred to have activated the relevant mechanisms to make the structure. This research is revealing that organisms have a capacity for variability that goes significantly beyond their current phenotype. This implication has not escaped the attention of creationist biologists, who find this research a vindication of their view that animal radiations are rapid and the expression of innate variability embedded in the genome. It would be an interesting and educational activity for students to evaluate this theoretical model alongside others - although we can already be confident that Darwinism would not fare well in the exercise.
Here's the link: Rapid morphological change in lizardsuoflcard
April 15, 2009
April
04
Apr
15
15
2009
08:54 AM
8
08
54
AM
PDT
Joe writes:
And as I said in another thread you can’t even account for the evolution of the eye/vision system via selected mutations.
If you mean me personally, Joe. No, I doubt I could give an account of the possible hierarchy of development of the mammalian eye. One problem is that eyes don't generally fossilize, so most of the evidence of possible pathways is in extant organisms. There are many accounts of how this might have happened. If you are genuinely interested in finding out more, why not start with this Wikipedia article. It gives plenty of links to other sources. BTW, how does Intelligent Design theory account for the appearance of eyes? Does it suggest why vertebrate eyes and cephalopod eyes are similar but differ in important ways, for instance?Alan Fox
April 15, 2009
April
04
Apr
15
15
2009
08:53 AM
8
08
53
AM
PDT
"We might as well stop looking for the missing links as they never existed....The first bird hatched from a reptilian egg." Otto SchindewolfJohnADavison
April 15, 2009
April
04
Apr
15
15
2009
08:48 AM
8
08
48
AM
PDT
There is no such thing as a "rate of appearance" of any real evolutionary change. I don't know how many times I have to repeat this, but EVERY evolutionary event from speciation to the appearnce of every other taxonomic category was an instantaneous event exactly as the fossil record very clearly shows. Only Darwinians insist on gradualism because they refuse to acknowledge what the fossil record demonstrates very clearly. Incidentally, this is not a matter for "debate." "Debates" never resolved anything either in science or in any other aspect of human endeavor. Pardon my impatience on this very important matter, so resume debating if you must. I have little more to add here.JohnADavison
April 15, 2009
April
04
Apr
15
15
2009
08:45 AM
8
08
45
AM
PDT
Replace "suspect" in the first paragraph with "expect" ... sorry for not proofreading.
But even if some were found, if they are less numerous than you would statistically expect based on the rate in which they appeared on the new island, it would still be a bad sign for NDET.
uoflcard
April 15, 2009
April
04
Apr
15
15
2009
07:37 AM
7
07
37
AM
PDT
Let me add something to my question, which I thought of last night. I said if ZERO cecal valves were found on the home island, it would be a bad sign for NDET, which still holds. But even if some were found, if they are less numerous than you would statistically suspect based on the rate in which they appeared on the new island, it would still be a bad sign for NDET. The cecal valves that formed on the original island could have been triggered in a few specimens, but not triggered as frequently as on the new island. This is not as clear cut as there being zero cecal valves on the original island, because some questions might be unanswerable, especially the question of how many lizards (on either island) inherited cecal valves rather than developed tham (whether Darwinian, Lamarackian, whatever).uoflcard
April 15, 2009
April
04
Apr
15
15
2009
07:34 AM
7
07
34
AM
PDT
John A Davison, Is it possible that the genetic sequence does not do anything except carry out the orders of a program that resides somewhere in/ on the cell? This program would be similar to a computer program in that a computer program is not the disk but resides on the disk. Joe GallienJoseph
April 15, 2009
April
04
Apr
15
15
2009
04:34 AM
4
04
34
AM
PDT
It is very possible that there is nothing left in the genome indicating a program by which evolution took place (past tense). It is my opinion that, like ontogeny, phylogeny involved (past tense) the LOSS of potential with geological time rather than a GAIN. Is the adult organism capable of any further differentiation? No, is my answer. Once again ontogeny presents the model for phylogeny. This is one of the reasons I am now convinced that creative evolution is no longer in progress. The development of the individual proceeds from a totipotent egg to the adult by a series of steps each of which further limit possible changes. In other words ontogeny proceeds largely, if not enturely, by inhibition. So apparently did phylogeny. This notion is not original with me. William Bateson anticipated this view of phylogeny nearly a century ago. He regarded phylogeny as - "an unpacking of an original complex which contained within itself the whole range of diversity which living things present." Quoted by Leo Berg, Nomogenesis, page 359. The source of Bateson's statement is - Bateson, W., Nature 93: 635-642, 1914. Leo Berg agreed with Bateson's view of the evolutionary process - "Evolution is in a great measure an unfolding of pre-existing rudiments." Nomogenesis, page 406. So it is no wonder that the Darwinians have ignored both the "Father of Modern Genetics" and the greatest Russian biologist of his generation. It is hard to believe isn't it? Not at all. It is par on the eighteen hole golf course of Darwinian mysticism, the most ridiculous proposal in the history of science. I love it so!JohnADavison
April 15, 2009
April
04
Apr
15
15
2009
04:25 AM
4
04
25
AM
PDT
Fox has a special affection for me. He suffers from a severe case of geriatrophilia. In other word he likes old guys a lot, at least this one! It is hard to believe isn’t it?
You should know this from your main follower VMartin.sparc
April 15, 2009
April
04
Apr
15
15
2009
01:26 AM
1
01
26
AM
PDT
Well...in any case uoflocard, I hope you get a response on the Adriatic Lizards. You can search UD and see the original discussion when the paper first appeared. I had it saved...the general web response was typical: "they developed an entirely new biological feature that didn't exist in their ancestral population, which ID has claimed is not possible. If the genetics confirm it, it will be definitive proof of macroevolution, and ID will once again have to revise their "theory" to include yet another concept of evolutionary biology that has been proven" Strawmen, by means of misrepresentation. And, seemingly unable to comprehend that the event basically eliminates RV+NS as the mechanism.Upright BiPed
April 14, 2009
April
04
Apr
14
14
2009
10:48 PM
10
10
48
PM
PDT
Is anyone in the materialist's camp planning a response to uoflcard's analysis?Upright BiPed
April 14, 2009
April
04
Apr
14
14
2009
10:17 PM
10
10
17
PM
PDT
Mr Tribune7, Yes, it is interesting that the event of speciation is the real test of our definitions of species.Nakashima
April 14, 2009
April
04
Apr
14
14
2009
07:32 PM
7
07
32
PM
PDT
Alan Fox:
What are body plans and body parts made of, Joe?
The question isn't what are they made out of, the question is what makes them? What is it Alan, that controls cellular differentiation thus making all the uniquely specialized cells- which happen to have the same DNA? Geez Alan why don't you just address the point instead of flailing away while back-peddling?
“Yet by the late 1980s it was becoming obvious to most genetic researchers, including myself, since my own main research interest in the ‘80s and ‘90s was human genetics, that the heroic effort to find the information specifying life’s order in the genes had failed. There was no longer the slightest justification for believing that there exists anything in the genome remotely resembling a program capable of specifying in detail all the complex order of the phenotype. The emerging picture made it increasingly difficult to see genes in Weismann’s “unambiguous bearers of information” or to view them as the sole source of the durability and stability of organic form. It is true that genes influence every aspect of development, but influencing something is not the same as determining it. Only a very small fraction of all known genes, such as developmental fate switching genes, can be imputed to have any sort of directing or controlling influence on form generation. From being “isolated directors” of a one-way game of life, genes are now considered to be interactive players in a dynamic two-way dance of almost unfathomable complexity, as described by Keller in The Century of The Gene.” Michael John Denton page 172 of Uncommon Dissent
And as I said in another thread you can't even account for the evolution of the eye/ vision system via selected mutations. So it appears it is you who have fallen for something and you don't have any idea what it is.Joseph
April 14, 2009
April
04
Apr
14
14
2009
06:01 PM
6
06
01
PM
PDT
I see Alan Fox is still following me around whereever I go as the self appointed one man goon squad for Wesley Elsberry, P.Z. Myers and Richard Dawkins. As always he contributes nothing to any discussion, issuing only sarcastic mindless drivel. I have no intention of honoring him by responding to him. I long ago lost all respect for him and his cronies from Pharyngula, richardawkins.net, Panda's Thumb and especially After the Bar Closes, Wesley Elsberry's "inner sanctum." I recommend that others ignore him as well. Fox has a special affection for me. He suffers from a severe case of geriatrophilia. In other word he likes old guys a lot, at least this one! It is hard to believe isn't it? Not at all. It has been going on for at least three years.JohnADavison
April 14, 2009
April
04
Apr
14
14
2009
04:45 PM
4
04
45
PM
PDT
You not only need to account for new species but new body plans and body parts.
What are body plans and body parts made of, Joe? I think they are made of cells. I think you are falling into the same semantio trap as the good Professor and DaveScot, from whom you borrowed the line.Alan Fox
April 14, 2009
April
04
Apr
14
14
2009
03:08 PM
3
03
08
PM
PDT
1 3 4 5 6 7 8

Leave a Reply