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
Pardon my typos. I am a lousy proof reader.JohnADavison
April 13, 2009
April
04
Apr
13
13
2009
02:01 PM
2
02
01
PM
PDT
shuangtheman in #48 I have proposed with the Prescribed Evolutionarty Hypothesis (PEH) that all of organic evolution has resulted from the controlled release from inhibition of an enormous stockpile of preformed specific information. Furthermore I have presented both direct and indirect evidence favoring this proposal. This hypothesis is based on the realities that we know with certainty occur during the development of every creature as it develops from the egg (ontogeny). Do you not agree that all the necessary information for the adult is already contained in the egg even before it begins to develop? All I have done with the PEH is to assume that was also true with our original ancestor, millions of years ago. This notion is not original with me as it was proposed by William Bateson and Leo Berg long ago. To understand the reasons I have reached this perspective I recommend that you read my "An evolutionary manifesto: a new hypothesis for organic change." You will find it under John A. Davison on the side bar along with other of my evolutionary papers. Of course if you have already rejected my hypotheis there is no point in responding to my suggestion. Let me say however that the PEH is in full accord with the Universal Genome Hypothesis (UGH). Both are based on the same body of facts, facts that show that the information thought to be of recent origin may often be found in very simple primitive organisms. I have summarize some of this evidence recently discovered evidence in my 2005 paper "A Prescribed Evolutioary Hypothesis" also available on the side bar. Most important, in order to liberate ourselves from the Darwinian model we must first discard it in its entirety as it is completely without foundation. It has always been that way. We are currently engaged in a very real war for our very souls. Are we accidents as the Darwinians insist or are we the ultimate products of a planned phylogeny? I favor the latter position because it is required by the present state of our knowledge. I agree with Leo Berg as he commented on both ontogeny and phylogeny - "Neither in the one nor in the other is there room for chance." Nomgenesis, page 134. Ontogeny remains the best model for phylogeny and I rely on it heavily. There is no middle ground between Darwinian atheism and a purposeful goal directed evolution. Each can take his pick as I have taken mine. "Everything is determined...by forces over which we have no control." Albert Einstein, a summary in complete accord with the Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis. I hope this helps.JohnADavison
April 13, 2009
April
04
Apr
13
13
2009
01:58 PM
1
01
58
PM
PDT
Allen McNeill said:
rants rather than logical arguments supported by evidence...
That is a very sorry statement coming from a die-hard Darwinian fundamentalist that has never seen through the smoke and mirrors of virtually all Darwinian explanations. It gets worse...
As for how to deal with people who are apparently constitutionally incapable of carrying on a reasoned intellectual argument,...
Even atheist astrophysicist Fred Hoyle saw through the Darwinian tree of imagination passing off as reasoned intellectual argument. Maybe ask yourself why he said Darwinists were mentally ill? Gets even worse...
the best thing to do under such circumstances is to do what you would do with schoolyard bullies
Bullies!? That's like the devil calling Mother Theresa a rotten sinner. But then you Darwinists know a whole lot about academic bullying eh? You're the great experts at it these days. Darwinists have such a wonderful track record - of witch hunting, discriminating and persecuting - that it pales compared to what scientists did to Galileo by using the highest power of their day against him! Darwinists have revealed themselves as pathologically paranoid of any dissent and thus exhibit fascist behavior towards all dissidents! Get real Allen. This kind of talk from any Darwinist makes them look lost in the woods without a compass or even knowledge of the existence of north and south poles.Borne
April 13, 2009
April
04
Apr
13
13
2009
01:29 PM
1
01
29
PM
PDT
Nakashima "Since the paper is about reproduction of viruses in a bacterial host, I think it is directed at the issue of mutation by copying error, not the more general kinds of genomic variation that can happen in cells." This is only true if you assume that viruses are not part of a designed system. There is no reason why virus DNA does not make use of the mutational system of the host in the same way that it makes use of its copying system.johnnyb
April 13, 2009
April
04
Apr
13
13
2009
01:23 PM
1
01
23
PM
PDT
Nakashima: This thread was started to discuss a paper in the primary literature. Can we please continue discussing it? My impression of ID people is that they know very little about molecular evolution. In fact no one does. The theoretical foundation for the interpretation of molecular evolution is largely incorrect. This paper is a good example. If ID really wants to contribute to the scientific literature, it needs to come up with scientific explanations of factual data that scientists collect daily. The best opportunity is to come up with a theory to explain the molecular clock and other molecular data accumulated in the past 46 years. These data remains unexplained by any of the existing theories, neodarwinism, neutral theory, ID, etc.shuangtheman
April 13, 2009
April
04
Apr
13
13
2009
12:44 PM
12
12
44
PM
PDT
I can’t wait to enjoy the vituperation this will evoke. It was a pretty sensible post to me, JAD.tribune7
April 13, 2009
April
04
Apr
13
13
2009
12:40 PM
12
12
40
PM
PDT
Nakashima in #32 If two forms produce fertile hybrids they are BY DEFINITION the same species. It was Theodosius Dobzhansky, a Darwinian by the way, who gave us this unambiguous, eminently testable definiton of what a species really is. It is sound as a dollar, it is testable and its results are not to be ignored. That is why the Darwinians choose not to use it. Here is an example to illustrate the point. Some Darwinians claim that dog varieties represent "evolution in action." Among these are Richard Dawkins, and at one time William Provine although I am unsure as to his present postion. They have cynically ignored a well documented instance which involved a spontaneous union between a male St. Bernard and a female Dachshund. The Dachshund delivered a single pup which proved to be fertile herself, thereby proving beyond any doubt that the Dachshund and the St. Bernard were the same species. The pup was named "rollmops" because her body rubbed on the ground. She had inherited her short legs from her mother but a very large body from her father. During her pregnancy her body dragged on the ground to such an extent that it had to be protected by towels. The case is fully documented in "Inheritance in Dogs" by Ojvind Winge, the distinguished Danish geneticist, page 44. Using Dobzhansky's physiological definition we now know that the wolf, the coyote and the varieties of dogs are actually a single species. That any Darwinian should neglect these facts is a disgrace. So you see the varieties of dogs are no more different species than are the members of Darwin's precious finches. Just because some taxonomist somewhere in the distant past has decided that two forms are separate species means absolutely nothing. In the absence of the physiological criterion, no such conclusion is ever valid. I am willing to bet that a cross between a Chihuahua and a Great Dane would result in fertile pups in either direction. It would undoubtely require artificial insemination. If the bitch is the Great Dane I predict she will have a very large litter, possibly a world record. If the bitch is the chihuahua and the sire is the Great Dane (the son of a bitch), she will have a single pup for the same reason that the Dachshund bitch had a single pup when she was inseminated by the St. Bernard. This isnan example of what is known as embryonic regulation. I have been trying to find someone who is willing to offer their pets up for this very important experiment, but so far no one pays any attention to me as is typical of many of my proposals, includimg some I have made right here at Uncommon Descent! That neither surprises me nor troubles me as I have supreme confidence in my science and that of the sources on which mine is so firmly based. You must understand that Darwinians are not scientists. If they were they would have performed these experiments years ago. For all I know they may have and, unhappy with the results, they ignored them. I wouldn't put anything past a Darwinian. They are so committed against the notion of a planned and guided evolution that they have abandoned science entirely to expend all their energies to the denigration of those of us who do believe in a planned and guided evolution. The classic examples of this "congenital syndrome" are provided by the dynamic duo of P.Z. Myers and Richard Dawkins, neither of whom ever did an evolutionary experiment in their lives and probably never will. They have gone so far as to give up science entirely to dedicate the rest of their miserably unhappy lives to the conversion of every living human being to "universal atheism" by denigrating any person or institution that was so out of touch with reality as to believe that there was a purpose in the world that we all see around us. As is well known, they are now peddling Tshirts, coffee mugs and bumper stickers, all emblazoned with the big red A for ATHEISM. It is hard to believe isn't it? Not at all. There it is for all to see. I can't wait to enjoy the vituperation this will evoke.JohnADavison
April 13, 2009
April
04
Apr
13
13
2009
12:22 PM
12
12
22
PM
PDT
Mr Shuangtheman, I'm sure Coyne's book is fascinating, but it is not part of the primary scientific literature. If ID cannot critique, and eventually contribute to, the primary scientific literature, it doesn't matter what you feel about popularizations. This thread was started to discuss a paper in the primary literature. Can we please continue discussing it?Nakashima
April 13, 2009
April
04
Apr
13
13
2009
11:55 AM
11
11
55
AM
PDT
Mr JohnnyB, Since the paper is about reproduction of viruses in a bacterial host, I think it is directed at the issue of mutation by copying error, not the more general kinds of genomic variation that can happen in cells. One thought I had from reading the paper was that they didn't sequence the E. coli host at the end of the runs to see if it had evolved also.Nakashima
April 13, 2009
April
04
Apr
13
13
2009
11:50 AM
11
11
50
AM
PDT
#33 tragic mishap
John “Credentials” Davison:
“A monophyletic evolution is no more established than a monotheistic God. They are both based on pure ideological assumption without a shred of ascertainable fact to justify them. Those who choose to believe in either will never be scientists.”
… What?
I'll also ask: Huh? John, if you mean we will never scientifically validate a monotheistic belief over polytheistic, well, maybe. there may be arguments against that, but it would at least appear to be reasonably logical. Refer to Denise's last post, her five arguments for why religious faith is not "belief without evidence":
2. Some doctrines are based on logic. For example, why are there not Two Gods? Well, what happens when the irresistible force meets the immovable object? The point is, it can’t happen. So there are not Two Gods. Or Many.
The problem with your post is the assumption that if you believe in a monotheistic God, you "will never be a scientist". What does one have to do with the other? And why is your belief in two Gods (if you were being serious) immune from the same illogical, arbitrary statement? Perhaps because it was illogical and abritrary to begin with, lending itself no obligation to any rational, fair application? Personally, I think the traditional Christian view makes more sense than any other (one of many reasons I am Christian), which is one God, and a powerful force, Satan, who is still hopelessly powerless compared to the one true God (hence the necessity yet fullness of santification through Christ's sacrifice). Combine that with other factors, like those listed in Denyse's post: 1. Evidence (at least of god(s)) - finely tuned universe, complex, specified biological structures, consciousness, altruism 4. Testimony - I have much greater reason to belief dozens of people who risked/sacrificed their lives reporting events that where witnessed (and not denied) by hundreds or thousands of people rather than one guy, hungry for power, alone in a cave, who had "prophetic revelations" which directly conflict with previous revelations. 5. Experience - Everything that's happened in my life has pointed to the validity and truth of the Bible While my belief is still not based (entirely) on scientificly validated evidence, that doesn't mean I can't be a scientist (i.e. "engage in a systematic activity to aquire knowledge", in its broadest terms). And I would argue that my belief is more logically validated than your own (or what little of it you just disclosed, if that is truly your belief), but that would probably enter into the realm of philosophy.uoflcard
April 13, 2009
April
04
Apr
13
13
2009
11:39 AM
11
11
39
AM
PDT
JAD, if you really want to know who I am you may have a look here. Back to your "hypothesis":
Suitable material would be female frogs (or other animals or plants) known to be heterozygous for one or more chromosme inversions or other chromosome rearrangements. It is to be predicted that the diploid gynogenetically produced offspring of such females would be females one half of which would be like the wild type mother, the other half a new female species. This new female species could then hybridize with males of the original species and establish a new bisexual species through ordinary Mendelian means.
I.e., you would consider children of individuals with balanced trisomies as new species, would you? E.g., female Down patients with (45, xx, t(14,21q)) or (45, xx, t(21q,21q)). Still, some of their offspring would be normal due to inheritance of normal copies of chromosome 21. Thus; if you were right a single woman would have children of two different species.sparc
April 13, 2009
April
04
Apr
13
13
2009
10:42 AM
10
10
42
AM
PDT
AmerikanInKananaskis It is clear that you are a fake ID follower. if you are not, you should jump on any opportunity to discredit Darwin followers. Coyne's book is the latest and best opportunity to do so. Now, do you dare to do it or not by simply say in your next post here that Coyne cheated in his book?shuangtheman
April 13, 2009
April
04
Apr
13
13
2009
10:16 AM
10
10
16
AM
PDT
AmerikanInKananaskis shuangtheman says: "Second, if human and yeast differ by 60% in a gene, the neutral theory says that all these differences are neutral to yeast as well as to human." AmerikanInKananaskis says: "No. You’re wrong. That’s not what it says at all. That’s beyond incorrect." here is what Kimura says on this: "The neutral theory claims that the great majority of evolutionary changes at the molecular (DNA) level are caused not by Darwinian selection but by random fixation of selectively neutral or nearly neutral mutants." Kimura, M. (1986). "DNA and the Neutral Theory". Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological Sciences 312 (1154): 343–354. doi:10.1098/rstb.1986.0012. Rephrase this using our example: The neutral theory claims that the great majority of evolutionary changes at the molecular (DNA) level, i.e., the 60% difference between yeast and human, are caused not by Darwinian selection but by random fixation of selectively neutral or nearly neutral mutants. I dont think you know anything substantial about the neutral theory.shuangtheman
April 13, 2009
April
04
Apr
13
13
2009
10:06 AM
10
10
06
AM
PDT
Textbooks and primary journal articles are an entirely different matter from popular books to lay public. Can you pick a Joe on the street who knows who Kimura is? Not one in a million. yet thanks to books by Coyne et al, nearly all know who Darwin is. But it is Kimura's theory not Darwin's that is relevant to the modern study of evolution in the past 46 years. Again, answer the question: can you honestly say that Coyne did the right thing in his book by misrepresenting contradicting facts as supporting evidence for neodarwinism? if you do not want to address this question, you have no business in the matter of truth.shuangtheman
April 13, 2009
April
04
Apr
13
13
2009
09:51 AM
9
09
51
AM
PDT
Second, if human and yeast differ by 60% in a gene, the neutral theory says that all these differences are neutral to yeast as well as to human. No. You're wrong. That's not what it says at all. That's beyond incorrect. There is a reason for Coyne et al to avoid the neutral theory. it simply cannot be taught together with neodarwinism without making a joke of the latter. Say wha? All textbooks on evolutionary theory contain extensive treatments of both, including how they interact. Please, before you make these claims, learn what you're talking about. Things like this are an embarassment to people who actually want to see ID promoted.AmerikanInKananaskis
April 13, 2009
April
04
Apr
13
13
2009
09:39 AM
9
09
39
AM
PDT
AmerikaninKananaskis wrote:
"I came to this site after reading some thought-provoking work by Dembski and others, and because the racist/genocidal/eugenic implications of Darwinism were so obvious that I thought I should align myself against them."
As has been amply demonstrated in previous threads at this website, virtually all philosophical and religious traditions can be distorted by people pursuing racist, genocidal, and eugenic programs. There is no evidence from evolutionary biology that directly supports such programs, and considerable evidence acquired since 1945 that can be used to oppose them. For more on this subject, please read Stephen Jay Gould's book, The Mismeasure of Man.Allen_MacNeill
April 13, 2009
April
04
Apr
13
13
2009
09:36 AM
9
09
36
AM
PDT
Sorry about the confusion in the numbering of comments. Because my comments are always held for moderation, they do not appear for several hours (sometimes more than a day), and during that period of time the numbers of the comments changes. To avoid this problem from now on, I will not include a reference to the comment number, but will simply paste the comment to which I am referring.Allen_MacNeill
April 13, 2009
April
04
Apr
13
13
2009
09:32 AM
9
09
32
AM
PDT
Nakashima: "it did do so by changes to the genome easily explicable by copying errors of the bacterial host machinery. The result was improved fitness by three orders of magnitude. RM+NS, ne? So I don’t think ‘modern evolutionary theory’ got it completely wrong." I have not read the paper, but usually the designation of something as a "copying error" has turned out to be vastly wrong throughout biology. I'm sure there are some cases of copying errors, but what really seems to be in play is what Caporale calls an "implicit genome" - that is, the genome has not only its present value, but an implicit set of options available to it - paths for it to navigate to. These are not copying errors, but rather guiding structures to tell the cell the optimum places to make changes, and even in many cases they way in which the changes should happen. The simplest and easiest to understand of these are SSRs - short repetitive sequences that mainly mutate by adding and removing copy numbers, not by changing the individual base pairs. These often adjust regulation of larger regions of gene expression. It would be difficult to classify such mutations as "copying errors" when it seems to be acting like a tuning knob with the purpose of manipulation. As I said, I'm sure some copying errors do occur, and occasionally they may bring benefit, but most of the evidence so far, in the places which have had the most study, seem to indicate that there are systems in place guiding the mutation of DNA to a large extent. The places where "copying error" is thrown about is usually either in cases where the mechanism has not been fully researched, or when it is a metaphysical presupposition that all changes must be, by definition, "copying errors".johnnyb
April 13, 2009
April
04
Apr
13
13
2009
09:21 AM
9
09
21
AM
PDT
AmerikanInKananaskis I am certainly familiar with that kind of rationalization. My point however is: Jerry Coyne should not cheat and mislead. He should not spin data that falsify neodarwinism into something of the opposite. If you are honest, ask him to retract the book. Second, if human and yeast differ by 60% in a gene, the neutral theory says that all these differences are neutral to yeast as well as to human. This means that natural selection/neodarwinism has nothing to do with the genetic changes that is associated with the evolution to human from simple organisms. Try teach this message of the neutral theory to the lay public. There is a reason for Coyne et al to avoid the neutral theory. it simply cannot be taught together with neodarwinism without making a joke of the latter. Plus, the neutral theory is false. Essentially, the molecular data has yet to be correctly interpreted by any existing theory. The new MGD hypothesis is the first theory that interprets all the data, molecular or not, without a single contradiction. http://precedings.nature.com/documents/1751/version/2/htmlshuangtheman
April 13, 2009
April
04
Apr
13
13
2009
09:14 AM
9
09
14
AM
PDT
Nakashima, yes you are right. My original comment @18 was directed at Dr. Dembski, not at Dr. Davidson. Unfortunately, I skipped over Allen's comment (because I don't particularly care what he has to say) and didn't catch his error. Thanks for pointing it out.AmerikanInKananaskis
April 13, 2009
April
04
Apr
13
13
2009
09:01 AM
9
09
01
AM
PDT
shuangtheman, you are a perfect example of why ID advocates need to be educated about evolution before they open their mouths. Neutral theory and neo-Darwinism are perfectly compatible. One says that most DNA changes are selectively neutral. The other says that changes that are NOT selectively neutral will be seized upon by natural selection. What's not to get? Seriously. I came to this site after reading some thought-provoking work by Dembski and others, and because the racist/genocidal/eugenic implications of Darwinism were so obvious that I thought I should align myself against them. I really didn't know that most of the minor-league ID advocates know so little about what they criticize.AmerikanInKananaskis
April 13, 2009
April
04
Apr
13
13
2009
08:57 AM
8
08
57
AM
PDT
mauka in #19 said: "Genomics is lending tremendous support to modern evolutionary theory. For a nice overview, see Sean Carroll’s latest book, titled The Making of the Fittest." If it is, Jerry Coyne would not employ cheating to explain in his latest book "Why evolution is true". The modern evolution theory consists of two opposite sub-theories, NeoDarwinism/natural selection and the neutral theory. NeoDarwinism or natural selection is largely irrelevant to molecular evolution, or, more precisely, contradicted by molecular data. As a result, a theory based on the negation of NeoDarwinism or natural selection, the neutral theory, is used to explain molecular evolution, in particular the molecular clock. And the neutral theory is however widely acknowledged to be an incomplete explanation and has countless contradictions of its own. But the only theory Coyne ever talks about in his book is NeoDarwinism or natural selection. There are very few sentences that mention molecular evolution. And these in fact mislead the readers into believing that NeoDarwinism is supported rather than contradicted by facts of molecular evolution. Here is what Coyne wrote: “Evolution theory predicts, and data support, the notion that as species diverge from their common ancestors, their DNA sequence change in roughly a straight-line fashion with time.” Does Coyne really expect the lay readers to know that the ‘evolution theory’ here means the neutral theory, when it is never mentioned in the book and must negate the key idea of Darwin? If the lay readers, after reading this, then believe incorrectly that NeoDarwinism predicts the major facts of molecular evolution, is it the readers’ fault or the author’? If cheating/misrepresentation was employed to explain why evolution is true, it really means it is false. We are here more precise in our definition than the cheater: evolution here just means the Darwinian theory. The neutral theory is in great contradiction to NeoDarwinism: 1. It makes a fool of natural selection. 2. It was never predicted by NeoDarwinism. 3. It was called Non-Darwinian evolution by two of the founders of the neutral theory, King and Jukes in 1969. 4. It was ‘unthinkable’ to neodarwinists. Quote: “The constant rate of evolution was unthinkable for classical evolutionists, who had studied the evolution of morphological characters (Simpson, Mayr).” from Nei and Sudhir Kumar, 2000, Molecular evolution and phylogenetics, page 188 To a reader of Coyne’s book, evolution theory is neodarwinism/natural selection and vice versa. That theory is contradicted by molecular data. Coyne has certainly succeeded in misleading them to believe the exact opposite. That is shame to science. Essentially no laymen, not even most biologists who are not evo specialists, ever heard of the neutral theory. And yet, half of all data on evolution are interpreted by this theory (the other half morphology and fossils). Neodarwinims is contradicted by half of all data on evolution and yet Coyne’s book says that it has no factual contradictions.shuangtheman
April 13, 2009
April
04
Apr
13
13
2009
08:41 AM
8
08
41
AM
PDT
John "Credentials" Davison: "A monophyletic evolution is no more established than a monotheistic God. They are both based on pure ideological assumption without a shred of ascertainable fact to justify them. Those who choose to believe in either will never be scientists." ... What?tragic mishap
April 13, 2009
April
04
Apr
13
13
2009
08:39 AM
8
08
39
AM
PDT
Dr Davison, Thank you @28 for your explanation, but I then do not see how domesticating and breeding Darwin's finches will prove they are a single species. It seems that fertile hybrids of closely related species prove nothing. I apologize to other participants if it seems I am hijacking the thread by pursuing these questions.Nakashima
April 13, 2009
April
04
Apr
13
13
2009
08:28 AM
8
08
28
AM
PDT
Mr MacNeil, I fear that you have jumped to a conclusion @20. To me, it appears that Mr AmerikaninKansasKis' @18 comment on juvenile approach was aimed at the opening post, not at the comment of Dr. Davison which immediately preceded it. I have no more love of preacherly grandstanding descending into frothy-mouthed invective than you do. I only ask you as a person with respect for science and respect for your own personal principles not to participate in derailing yet another thread.Nakashima
April 13, 2009
April
04
Apr
13
13
2009
08:19 AM
8
08
19
AM
PDT
John A. Davison: I get the impression that you do not know what you're talking about, and that you mask this fact with obfuscationism and tl;dr. Paraphrasing you, I would like to know why your own quote does not apply to yourself: Davison, not being a scientist, chooses not to test his “hypothesis” because he is terrified of what such tests will probably disclose. - If you have not already, I suggest you read Darwin's Black Box to learn how a scientist should present the case for ID.AmerikanInKananaskis
April 13, 2009
April
04
Apr
13
13
2009
08:15 AM
8
08
15
AM
PDT
Let me say also that there is no compelling reason to assume a single ancestor either and plenty of reasons not to. Leo Berg, the greatest Russian biologist of his day and, in my opinion the greatest evolutionary biologist of all time, had this to say about what the real unbiased evidence indicated. "Organisms have developed from TENS OF THOUSANDS of primary forms, i.e, polyphyletically." Nomogenesis, page 406, my emphasis. His conclusion is in perfect accord with what the fossil record really has disclosed and there is absolutetly nothing in it that can be refuted based on our present knowledge. A monophyletic evolution is no more established than a monotheistic God. They are both based on pure ideological assumption without a shred of ascertainable fact to justify them. Those who choose to believe in either will never be scientists. Real scientists believe what has been proven to be true. Neither monophyleticism nor monotheism qualify and it is very possible that they never will. My own persona peference is for two Gods one benevolent, the other malevolent. How else can we account for pathetic creatures like Paul Zachary Myers, Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins on the one hand and great scientists like Leo Berg, Robert Broom, William Bateson, Richard B. Goldschmidt, Otto Schindewolf and Pierre Grasse on the other hand? The answer is we can't!JohnADavison
April 13, 2009
April
04
Apr
13
13
2009
07:26 AM
7
07
26
AM
PDT
Nakahima Evolution did not take place gradually as the Darwinians still maintain. It took place by several series of discrete steps with each organism discretely different from ist predecessor. That does not mean that there would be tcomplete sterility between adjacent members of each guided series. Here is an example of what I mean. The chinmpanzee karyoptype differs from ours by about twelve chromosome rearrangements. I speculate that that indicates that there were twelve discrete species, now all extinct that have existed since the chimp and the human had a common ancestor. Neanderthal is uquestionably a separate species from Homo sapiens. That does not mean it could not produce a fertile hybrid with Homo sapiens. Indeed it seems it did! If evolution took place stepwise as I have proposed, one chromosome rearrangement at a time, the reconstruction I have offered is perfectly reasonable. One thing is certain. Single chromosome rearrangements or even a few simultaneous ones are not going to produce total sterility. When there are several as between the horse and the donkey, one can be fairly certain that the hybrid, though viable, will be sterile due to the improbability that it can produce balanced gametes during meiosis. I hope this serves to explain my proposed explanation for a stepwise yet nonDarwinian speciation. Everything we know from the karyotypes of Primates indicates that the whole Order may have diversified strictly through the reorganization of a common ancestral structural genome. However, when it comes to the origin of the different Orders of animals or plants such an explanation is undoubtedly inadequate. Actually what we see in the fossil record resembles the Biblical origin of "kinds" and for all I know may indicate special creation at the taxonomic level of Order differences. The fossil record is crawling with unexplained gaps that still escape explanation. Until they are explained we must give possible credence to the Biblical account. That doesn't trouble me in the least nor should it for any objective student of the great mystery of phylogeny. Of course Darwinians can never even consider such a scenario as they believe that it is intrinsic in the nature of nonliving matter to spontaneously organize itself into living, evolving creatures, something I regard as absurd. If that were possible, it would have been demonstrated in the laboratory long ago. So you see why I must remain a Creationist until it is proven that is no longer necessary. Under the circumstances I do not regard that as an untenable position. I hope this helps.JohnADavison
April 13, 2009
April
04
Apr
13
13
2009
04:29 AM
4
04
29
AM
PDT
Dr Davison, Previously you were asked about your species concept, and you replied that if two animals could be mated, even artificially in the lab, and produce fertile offspring, then they were the same species. This was a question in respect to Darwins finches. How does that apply to the frogs and human/Neanderthal matings you are discussing here? It seems to me that in both cases, your species concept would say that there is no new species of frog, and humans and Neanderthals were the same species.Nakashima
April 13, 2009
April
04
Apr
13
13
2009
03:03 AM
3
03
03
AM
PDT
sparc, whoever that is and we probably will never know. Why else would he insist on using an alias? A person who must hide his identity should not be taken seriously and will not be by this investigator. Nevertheless, I will attempt to answer his question. Before I begin, it was decent of DaveScot to finally, after deleting them in a fit of pique, leave my papers available here at Uncommon Descent, although all comments are now closed which is fine with me. That does not mean they should not be read! A guided evolution follows as the only conceivable alternative to an evolution driven by chance. Darwinism has repeatedly been proven to be without foundation. In the Law this is known as the exhaustion of all remedies and it is a perfectly valid criterion when applied to experimental and descriptive science. In Physics it led to the rejection of the Ether, in Chemistry the Phlogiston. It is true that, as far as I know, my Semi-meiotic Hypothesis (SMH) has not been tested with suitable material. Suitable material would be female frogs (or other animals or plants) known to be heterozygous for one or more chromosme inversions or other chromosome rearrangements. It is to be predicted that the diploid gynogenetically produced offspring of such females would be females one half of which would be like the wild type mother, the other half a new female species. This new female species could then hybridize with males of the original species and establish a new bisexual species through ordinary Mendelian means. This theoretical reconstruction is given credibility since it is now apparent through the work of Eric Trinkhaus that Homo sapiens and Neanderthal hybridized. Thus the Semi-meiotic hypothesis remains valid until tested and found to be without foundation. I was unable to obtain suitable material to test my hypothesis and was in fact "expelled" from my laboratory, rendering such a test quite impossible further to pursue. Until it is tested expermentally, the SMH will, like every other untested hypothesis, remain perfectly valid. Let me add that the most tested and failed hypothesis in all of science is the Darwinian fairy tale. All tests (when actually applied) have revealed nothing more than intraspecific varieties none of which are incipient species in any event. Darwinians, not being scientists, choose not to test their "hypothesis" because they are terrified of what such tests will probably disclose. Darwin's finches are the perfect example. The canary is a finch and has been in domestication for centuries. Why haven't Darwin's finches been domesticated and tested? I will tell you why. Don't expect Darwinians to test their devout beliefs when there is an excellent chance a test will prove to be intellectual suicide! They have also failed to follow through on the fact that the Galapagos marine and terrestrial iguanas are also known, like the finches, to spontaneously hybridize. My God the marine and terrestrial igauanas are still assumed to be in separate genera, a most unlikely reality considering they hybridize. It is hard to believe isn't it? Not at all. It is par for the Darwinian golf course, eighteen black holes from which the truth can never escape! Furthermore, I have provided both indirect and direct evidence for a "prescribed" evolution in both my 2000 and 2005 published papers, both of which are available on the side bar here under my name. If you had read these papers you would know that and would not be asking that question. Furthermore, the idea of a planned evolution can be traced all the way back to William Bateson as I have explained both here and elsewhere. It is absurd to think that Jesus was a haploid. "You can lead a man to the literature but you cannot make him read it." John A Davison Or even if he does read it, you cannot make him comprehend. I hope this helps but my experience here as elsewhere leads me to doubt that it will. That suits me just fine!JohnADavison
April 13, 2009
April
04
Apr
13
13
2009
02:29 AM
2
02
29
AM
PDT
1 5 6 7 8

Leave a Reply