Nothing like 'assuming the conclusion' to establish scientific certainty eh Chas??? you not even in the realm of experimental science, you refuse to acknowledge it, the thread is long, and i am done with you!bornagain77
October 28, 2011
October
10
Oct
28
28
2011
05:38 PM
5
05
38
PM
PDT
Well, though not referenced by any experimental work, you seem to think that existing proteins diverged into other proteins quite pervasively, and easily, in your postulated conjecture for the evolution of whales?
I can only tell yer what I know. Protein (and noncoding DNA) in whales is most closely related to that in Artiodactyls. Interesting, isn't it? Inexplicable, almost. Suppose we pick a DNA sequence that has nothing to do with 'being a whale', or 'being a land-based Artiodactyl'. Something from the cytochrome family, for example (with care, because some cytochromes are more tightly conserved than others). Cytochrome c is the classic. I'm sure you have a Creationist tract immediately to hand where this has been shown to be totally bogus, so let's pick another gene. What, that one's bogus too - what about another? And this one? And that? Something from the mitochondrion, perhaps? What about a transpositional insertion? Or this bit where a block of text has simply been reversed? The whole of molecular phylogeny is just bullshit, you say? So if these patterns are not the result of common descent, then what? Don't say common design ...
... however counterintuitive it may be, the genetic evidence shows that: yes, the whale and the hippo are both made from essentially the same proteins that were in their common ancestor. Most of those are little changed, which is why these groups are considered related in the first place. To state the obvious, if the genes were nothing like each other, we would not think they were related. Of course, there must be some differences (because they are clearly different organisms). But the bulk of their genes say that they are, for the most part, the same, despite the sundry novelties that have been added or subtracted (by accident or design) along the way. You seem to think you have proved, with some nonsense about quantum entanglement, protein search space and some vague speculations about the plasticity of organisms, that this cannot be so.Chas D
October 28, 2011
October
10
Oct
28
28
2011
04:56 PM
4
04
56
PM
PDT
Chas D,
Yes I fully understand that there is no way to scientifically test the claim that whales evolved from land mammals. Thank you for admitting it too.
My point is we don't even know what makes a whale a whale- there isn't any evidence that a whale is a sum of its genome. And I can take your "evidence" for common ancestry and use it for a common design OR convergent evolution.Joseph
October 28, 2011
October
10
Oct
28
28
2011
04:50 PM
4
04
50
PM
PDT
GinoB,
Losing fins is not the same as turning hooved legs into fins.Joseph
October 28, 2011
October
10
Oct
28
28
2011
04:47 PM
4
04
47
PM
PDT
Chas, simply incredible! Known science falsifies what you believe to be possible for the platicity of organisms and you pretend, very unscientifically, as if all is business is usual, and do not even attempt to list any experiment to show otherwise (there are none!).,,,,,, Well, though not referenced by any experimental work, you seem to think that existing proteins diverged into other proteins quite pervasively, and easily, in your postulated conjecture for the evolution of whales? But here again I have experimental evidence in hand to show that you are wrong in this presumption:
notes:
What makes matters much worse for the materialist is that he will try to assert that existing functional proteins of one structure can easily mutate into other functional proteins, of a completely different structure or function, by pure chance. Yet once again the empirical evidence betrays the materialist. The proteins that are found in life are shown to be highly constrained in their ability to evolve into other proteins:
Dollo’s law, the symmetry of time, and the edge of evolution - Michael Behe - Oct 2009
Excerpt: Nature has recently published an interesting paper which places severe limits on Darwinian evolution.,,,
A time-symmetric Dollo’s law turns the notion of “pre-adaptation” on its head. The law instead predicts something like “pre-sequestration”, where proteins that are currently being used for one complex purpose are very unlikely to be available for either reversion to past functions or future alternative uses.
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/10/dollos_law_the_symmetry_of_tim.html
Severe Limits to Darwinian Evolution: - Michael Behe - Oct. 2009
Excerpt: The immediate, obvious implication is that the 2009 results render problematic even pretty small changes in structure/function for all proteins — not just the ones he worked on.,,,Thanks to Thornton’s impressive work, we can now see that the limits to Darwinian evolution are more severe than even I had supposed.
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/10/severe_limits_to_darwinian_evo.html#more
Wheel of Fortune: New Work by Thornton's Group Supports Time-Asymmetric Dollo's Law - Michael Behe - October 5, 2011
Excerpt: Darwinian selection will fit a protein to its current task as tightly as it can. In the process, it makes it extremely difficult to adapt to a new task or revert to an old task by random mutation plus selection.
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/10/wheel_of_fortune_new_work_by_t051621.html
Stability effects of mutations and protein evolvability. October 2009
Excerpt: The accepted paradigm that proteins can tolerate nearly any amino acid substitution has been replaced by the view that the deleterious effects of mutations, and especially their tendency to undermine the thermodynamic and kinetic stability of protein, is a major constraint on protein evolvability,,
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19765975
The Evolutionary Accessibility of New Enzyme Functions: A Case Study from the Biotin Pathway - Ann K. Gauger and Douglas D. Axe - April 2011
Excerpt: We infer from the mutants examined that successful functional conversion would in this case require seven or more nucleotide substitutions. But evolutionary innovations requiring that many changes would be extraordinarily rare, becoming probable only on timescales much longer than the age of life on earth.
http://bio-complexity.org/ojs/index.php/main/article/view/BIO-C.2011.1/BIO-C.2011.1
When Theory and Experiment Collide — April 16th, 2011 by Douglas Axe
Excerpt: Based on our experimental observations and on calculations we made using a published population model [3], we estimated that Darwin’s mechanism would need a truly staggering amount of time—a trillion trillion years or more—to accomplish the seemingly subtle change in enzyme function that we studied.
http://biologicinstitute.org/2011/04/16/when-theory-and-experiment-collide/
Corticosteroid Receptors in Vertebrates: Luck or Design? - Ann Gauger - October 11, 2011
Excerpt: if merely changing binding preferences is hard, even when you start with the right ancestral form, then converting an enzyme to a new function is completely beyond the reach of unguided evolution, no matter where you start.
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/10/luck_or_design051801.html
“Mutations are rare phenomena, and a simultaneous change of even two amino acid residues in one protein is totally unlikely. One could think, for instance, that by constantly changing amino acids one by one, it will eventually be possible to change the entire sequence substantially… These minor changes, however, are bound to eventually result in a situation in which the enzyme has ceased to perform its previous function but has not yet begun its ‘new duties’. It is at this point it will be destroyed - along with the organism carrying it.” Maxim D. Frank-Kamenetski, Unraveling DNA, 1997, p. 72. (Professor at Brown U. Center for Advanced Biotechnology and Biomedical Engineering)
"A problem with the evolution of proteins having new shapes is that proteins are highly constrained, and producing a functional protein from a functional protein having a significantly different shape would typically require many mutations of the gene producing the protein. All the proteins produced during this transition would not be functional, that is, they would not be beneficial to the organism, or possibly they would still have their original function but not confer any advantage to the organism. It turns out that this scenario has severe mathematical problems that call the theory of evolution into question. Unless these problems can be overcome, the theory of evolution is in trouble."
Problems in Protein Evolution:
Extreme functional sensitivity to conservative amino acid changes on enzyme exteriors - Doug Axe
Excerpt: Contrary to the prevalent view, then, enzyme function places severe constraints on residue identities at positions showing evolutionary variability, and at exterior non-active-site positions, in particular.
http://nsmserver2.fullerton.edu/departments/chemistry/evolution_creation/web/AxeProteinEvolution.pdf
As well, the 'errors/mutations' that are found to 'naturally' occur in protein sequences are found to be 'designed errors':
Cells Defend Themselves from Viruses, Bacteria With Armor of Protein Errors - Nov. 2009
Excerpt: These "regulated errors" comprise a novel non-genetic mechanism by which cells can rapidly make important proteins more resistant to attack when stressed,
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/11/091125134701.htm
bornagain77
October 28, 2011
October
10
Oct
28
28
2011
02:23 PM
2
02
23
PM
PDT
Well do you believe that there is even one novel functional protein/gene in whales from their transition from Artiodactyla(EVEN-TOED UNGULATES
Sorry, just attempting to extract a little from your post relevant to the subject at hand, for people who do care - about the facts, not about what I think - it is a fact that the issue of novelty, indeed of function per se, is completely irrelevant to phylogenetic analysis. As is the mechanism by which divergence between any two sequences is established. Those are completely separate evolutionary matters.
One simply cannot compare genes that do not exist in one of the lineages. They clearly are not commonly descended! One can only compare the ones that do.
So we have a set of genes that identifiably exist in all the organisms we wish to compare. This method says nothing at all about anything except the hypothesis of common descent. You can even do it yourself. Genomes are freely available on the internet. This is the kind of science that anyone with an aptitude for computing can join in with. Demonstrate, using this public resource, that common descent is NOT the best hypothesis for sequence congruence in the general case. It is certainly a possible outcome. Many genes do not betray common origins. Many appear to do so but result from convergent evolution. But for the rest, common descent is a hypothesis that one has to display a quite unseemly amount of intellectual gymnastics to avoid. Like I say, I didn't think common descent was even a big deal for ID?Chas D
October 28, 2011
October
10
Oct
28
28
2011
12:36 PM
12
12
36
PM
PDT
and here is Falsification by population genetics:
Whale Evolution Vs. Population Genetics - Richard Sternberg PhD. in Evolutionary Biology - video
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4165203
Waiting Longer for Two Mutations - Michael J. Behe
Excerpt: Citing malaria literature sources (White 2004) I had noted that the de novo appearance of chloroquine resistance in Plasmodium falciparum was an event of probability of 1 in 10^20. I then wrote that 'for humans to achieve a mutation like this by chance, we would have to wait 100 million times 10 million years' (1 quadrillion years)(Behe 2007) (because that is the extrapolated time that it would take to produce 10^20 humans). Durrett and Schmidt (2008, p. 1507) retort that my number ‘is 5 million times larger than the calculation we have just given’ using their model (which nonetheless "using their model" gives a prohibitively long waiting time of 216 million years). Their criticism compares apples to oranges. My figure of 10^20 is an empirical statistic from the literature; it is not, as their calculation is, a theoretical estimate from a population genetics model.
http://www.discovery.org/a/9461
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
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
Chas as well, as was mentioned in the OP, the Darwinian fossil record is just plain fraudulent:
Whale Evolution vs. The Actual Evidence – video - fraudulent fossils revealed
http://vimeo.com/30921402
Whale Evolution? - Exposing The Deception - Dr. Terry Mortenson - video
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4032568
How Whales Have (NOT) Changed Over 35 Million Years – May 2010
Excerpt: We could have found that the main whale lineages over time each experimented with being large, small and medium-sized and that all the dietary forms appeared throughout their evolution, or that whales started out medium-sized and the largest and smallest ones appeared more recently—but the data show none of that. Instead, we find that the differences today were apparent very early on.
https://uncommondescent.com/education/beacon-comes-home-with-the-bacon/#comment-356170
Now Chas, you can buy all those 'forced' similarity sequences all day long, jump up and down, hold your breath until your blue, screaming that your sequence similarity proves neo-Darwinism is conclusively true. I DON"T CARE!!! for despite all your protestations to the contrary, the plain fact is to be scientifically legitimate you must ACTUALLY DEMONSTRATE that what you say can be done by Darwinian processes, actually can be done. Whereas on the other hand, as I have shown you, the ACTUAL DEMONSTRATED evidence that we now have in hand says that your Darwinian scenario is completely impossible as far as probabilistic resources of the universe are concerned!!! You see Chas it would not matter to science, even if the sequences were practically 100% identical, if you have no demonstrated mechanism to show that such change is possible!!!bornagain77
October 28, 2011
October
10
Oct
28
28
2011
11:39 AM
11
11
39
AM
PDT
Well Chas, you ask:
do you have something from the genetics of E. coli or Drosophila that fatally undermines the “tree hypothesis” for genes in the Artiodactyla/Cetacea?
Well do you believe that there is even one novel functional protein/gene in whales from their transition from Artiodactyla(EVEN-TOED UNGULATES http://www.nsrl.ttu.edu/tmot1/ordartio.htm ), as is found in every unique genome sequenced thus far? If so then your imaginary 'tree hypothesis' is fatally undermined by rarity of proteins in sequence space as well as by population genetics!!!
Estimating the prevalence of protein sequences adopting functional enzyme folds: Doug Axe:
Excerpt: The prevalence of low-level function in four such experiments indicates that roughly one in 10^64 signature-consistent sequences forms a working domain. Combined with the estimated prevalence of plausible hydropathic patterns (for any fold) and of relevant folds for particular functions, this implies the overall prevalence of sequences performing a specific function by any domain-sized fold may be as low as 1 in 10^77, adding to the body of evidence that functional folds require highly extraordinary sequences.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15321723
Correcting Four Misconceptions about my 2004 Article in JMB — May 4th, 2011 by Douglas Axe
http://biologicinstitute.org/2011/05/04/correcting-four-misconceptions-about-my-2004-article-in-jmb/
ID Scientist Douglas Axe Responds to His Critics - June 2011 - Audio Podcast
http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/entry/2011-06-01T15_59_43-07_00
Proteins Did Not Evolve Even According to the Evolutionist’s Own Calculations but so What, Evolution is a Fact - Cornelius Hunter - July 2011
Excerpt: For instance, in one case evolutionists concluded that the number of evolutionary experiments required to evolve their protein (actually it was to evolve only part of a protein and only part of its function) is 10^70 (a one with 70 zeros following it). Yet elsewhere evolutionists computed that the maximum number of evolutionary experiments possible is only 10^43. Even here, giving the evolutionists every advantage, evolution falls short by 27 orders of magnitude.
http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2011/07/response-to-comments-proteins-did-not.html
The Case Against a Darwinian Origin of Protein Folds - Douglas Axe - 2010
Excerpt Pg. 11: "Based on analysis of the genomes of 447 bacterial species, the projected number of different domain structures per species averages 991. Comparing this to the number of pathways by which metabolic processes are carried out, which is around 263 for E. coli, provides a rough figure of three or four new domain folds being needed, on average, for every new metabolic pathway. In order to accomplish this successfully, an evolutionary search would need to be capable of locating sequences that amount to anything from one in 10^159 to one in 10^308 possibilities, something the neo-Darwinian model falls short of by a very wide margin."
http://bio-complexity.org/ojs/index.php/main/article/view/BIO-C.2010.1
The Case Against a Darwinian Origin of Protein Folds - Douglas Axe, Jay Richards - audio
http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/player/web/2010-05-03T11_09_03-07_00
Stephen Meyer – Functional Proteins And Information For Body Plans – video
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4050681
bornagain77
October 28, 2011
October
10
Oct
28
28
2011
11:19 AM
11
11
19
AM
PDT
Well by golly Chas seems you got it all figured out (save for crossing the t’s and dotting the i’s) with your 3-card monte game of massive gene transfer, and I guess us IDiots got egg on our face once again. NOT!!!
Sorry, I don't quite understand the tenor of your response ...
But do you have something from the genetics of E. coli or Drosophila that fatally undermines the "tree hypothesis" for genes in the Artiodactyla/Cetacea?Chas D
October 28, 2011
October
10
Oct
28
28
2011
09:32 AM
9
09
32
AM
PDT
related note:
How to Play the Gene Evolution Game - Casey Luskin - Feb. 2010
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/02/how_to_play_the_gene_evolution.html
bornagain77
October 28, 2011
October
10
Oct
28
28
2011
06:15 AM
6
06
15
AM
PDT
Well by golly Chas seems you got it all figured out (save for crossing the t's and dotting the i's) with your 3-card monte game of massive gene transfer, and I guess us IDiots got egg on our face once again. NOT!!!
Widespread ORFan Genes Challenge Common Descent – Paul Nelson – video with references
http://www.vimeo.com/17135166
Genomes of similar species - Cornelius Hunter PhD.
Excerpt: Different variants of the Escherichia coli bacteria, for instance, each have hundreds of unique genes. And some of these genes have been found to have important functions, such as helping to construct proteins. [8]
Massive genetic differences were also found between different fruit fly species. The fruit fly is one of the most intensely researched organisms and in recent years a systematic study of the genomes of a dozen different species was undertaken. Evolutionists were surprised to find novel features in the genomes of each of these different fruit fly species. Thousands of genes showed up missing in many of the species, and some genes showed up in only a single species. [9] As one science writer put it, “an astonishing 12 per cent of recently evolved genes in fruit flies appear to have evolved from scratch.” [10] These so-called novel genes would have had to have evolved over a few million years—a time period previously considered to allow only for minor genetic changes. [11,12] ,,, etc.. etc…
http://www.darwinspredictions.com/#_4.2_Genomes_of
One other persistent nagging problem I have though, Chas, could you please explain to me how the within space and time, energy and matter, events of materialistic neo-Darwinism caused the non-local, beyond space and time, mass and energy, quantum information/entanglement to reside within molecular biology on a massive scale???
Falsification Of Neo-Darwinism by Quantum Entanglement/Information
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1p8AQgqFqiRQwyaF8t1_CKTPQ9duN8FHU9-pV4oBDOVs/edit?hl=en_US
bornagain77
October 28, 2011
October
10
Oct
28
28
2011
06:13 AM
6
06
13
AM
PDT
bpragmatic
[It’s pretty hard to teach someone who doesn’t want to learn.]
Who are you talking about?
Folks like you are Exhibit 1A.GinoB
October 28, 2011
October
10
Oct
28
28
2011
06:10 AM
6
06
10
AM
PDT
Joseph
What is the genetic data that demonstrates the changes required are even possible?
LOL! You were the one who just yesterday told us whales used to have hind FINS, and they lost them through "mutation and survival"
You can't even keep your story straight for a single day.GinoB
October 28, 2011
October
10
Oct
28
28
2011
06:06 AM
6
06
06
AM
PDT
Try again, this time also try to pay attention-
What is the genetic data that demonstrates the changes required are even possible?
I my previous response, I said this:
You want the individual step-by-step transformations, and fitnesses in the actual organisms, then quite clearly I am not going to give them to you.
Please try and pay attention. I realise you won't see that as an answer, but in order to demonstrate that a change was possible, we would have to know the genetic and environmental milieu in which it was to take place. As you well know, this is not a reasonable expectation - you know that I can't, so you think the demand negates the entire position - if I can't prove it possible, then it is impossible. If this permits you to keep trumpeting the line that there is no genetic evidence that whales evolved from land animals (BY SOME MEANS), then tootle away.Chas D
October 28, 2011
October
10
Oct
28
28
2011
05:47 AM
5
05
47
AM
PDT
And for anyone with a genuine interest in the topic, horizontal transfer events are, by their very rarity among higher eukaryotes, a strong signal for common descent. If we see a sequence in two unrelated groups, common parental descent has no way of explaining this. But with mechanisms of lateral transfer (eg viruses) we have a means by which nonfunctional sequences can move between groups. But then they are copied by parent-child descent. This is one of several reasons why not every genetic sequence will map to the same tree in its entirety, but at the same time these nonfunctional signals give an excellent mapping to the tree of descent from the point at which they appear. I didn't think common descent was an unacceptable issue for ID.Chas D
October 28, 2011
October
10
Oct
28
28
2011
05:32 AM
5
05
32
AM
PDT
ChasD:
Well, it seems to me it does – you were asking for genetic evidence of a relationship by descent between land animals and whales, and there it is.
No, that is not what I was asking for.
Try again, this time also try to pay attention-
What is the genetic data that demonstrates the changes required are even possible?Joseph
October 28, 2011
October
10
Oct
28
28
2011
05:16 AM
5
05
16
AM
PDT
Well by golly Chas, I guess you have conclusively shown to us IDiots that whales evolved from some type of four-footed land creature by pointing to these genetic similarity trees.
Well by golly BA77, you have completely missed the point of the "tangled tree of life" issue. At its roots, and on some branches (ie, among prokaryotes and single-celled eukaryotes) there is extensive lateral gene transfer, and trees are not so robust. How do we discover this? By looking at this supposedly discredited phylogeny data and seeing where it breaks down!
Among the 'higher' animals and plants - ie multicellular forms - lateral gene transfer is of minor significance at best, and these trees are pretty rock solid. In the interests of full disclosure, trees do not always map onto each other with "100% bootstrap support". But the percentages are well in the region of ... oh, for God's sake, learn some biology!Chas D
October 28, 2011
October
10
Oct
28
28
2011
05:05 AM
5
05
05
AM
PDT
That doesn’t even respond to what I said.
Well, it seems to me it does - you were asking for genetic evidence of a relationship by descent between land animals and whales, and there it is. You want the individual step-by-step transformations, and fitnesses in the actual organisms, then quite clearly I am not going to give them to you. You think THAT is a good reason to deny the land ancestry of whales?
And whales and all mammals have quite a bit in common- ou do realize tat most of the genes are used, not for development, but for sustaining and everyday operations?
Yes, I kind of know what most genes are used for. But whales and artiodactyls have far more in common, genetically, than do artiodactyls and horses, for example. Why? And we can pick genes by type - developmental, metabolic, etc - and they display the same pattern. Again, why? Why would artiodactyls need metabolism more closely aligned to whales than to horses?
Beyond that, what is really important to grasp is that 'mistakes' - repeats, transpositions, deletions, inversions, silent substitutions etc - follow those gene phylogenies very closely, and point to exactly the same thing - common descent. They can't ALL be functional, or if they are, they cannot ALL result from functional differences between these very different organisms. If you don't see such things as indicative of common descent, and can persuade others you are right, you have an excellent future as a defender of paternity suits.Chas D
October 28, 2011
October
10
Oct
28
28
2011
04:50 AM
4
04
50
AM
PDT
How can it conclude that when there isn’t any genetic data that supports the alleged transformations?
ChasD:
There is EXTENSIVE genetic data that places whales slap bang in the middle of the artiodactyls (apart from cetaceans, a predominately land-dwelling group: horses, cows, pigs, hippos etc), by constructing phylogenetic trees on proteins (built from genes) and on the genes (DNA) themselves.
That doesn't even respond to what I said.
And whales and all mammals have quite a bit in common- ou do realize tat most of the genes are used, not for development, but for sustaining and everyday operations?Joseph
October 28, 2011
October
10
Oct
28
28
2011
04:24 AM
4
04
24
AM
PDT
Well by golly Chas, I guess you have conclusively shown to us IDiots that whales evolved from some type of four-footed land creature by pointing to these genetic similarity trees. But I suspect that you are not aware that this conclusive genetic similarity proof, that you have placed so much faith in, is not nearly as rock solid as you have imagined it to be. For one thing:
Why Darwin was wrong about the (genetic) tree of life: - 21 January 2009
Excerpt: Syvanen recently compared 2000 genes that are common to humans, frogs, sea squirts, sea urchins, fruit flies and nematodes. In theory, he should have been able to use the gene sequences to construct an evolutionary tree showing the relationships between the six animals. He failed. The problem was that different genes told contradictory evolutionary stories. This was especially true of sea-squirt genes. Conventionally, sea squirts - also known as tunicates - are lumped together with frogs, humans and other vertebrates in the phylum Chordata, but the genes were sending mixed signals. Some genes did indeed cluster within the chordates, but others indicated that tunicates should be placed with sea urchins, which aren't chordates. "Roughly 50 per cent of its genes have one evolutionary history and 50 per cent another," Syvanen says. ."We've just annihilated the tree of life. It's not a tree any more, it's a different topology entirely," says Syvanen. "What would Darwin have made of that?"
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20126921.600-why-darwin-was-wrong-about-the-tree-of-life.html
I would like to point out that this, 'annihilation' of Darwin's genetic tree of life, article came out on the very day that Dr. Hillis, a self-proclaimed 'world leading expert' on the genetic tree of life, testified before the Texas State Board Of Education that the genetic tree of life overwhelmingly confirmed gradual Darwinian evolution. One could almost argue it was 'Intelligently Designed' for him to exposed as a fraud on that particular day of his testimony instead of just any other day of the year.
Here is another article, written by an evolutionist mind you, that states the true pattern found for life, from comparative genetic evidence, is not the tree pattern Darwin had envisioned:
A New Model for Evolution: A Rhizome - May 2010
Excerpt: Thus we cannot currently identify a single common ancestor for the gene repertoire of any organism.,,, Overall, it is now thought that there are no two genes that have a similar history along the phylogenic tree.,,,Therefore the representation of the evolutionary pathway as a tree leading to a single common ancestor on the basis of the analysis of one or more genes provides an incorrect representation of the stability and hierarchy of evolution. Finally, genome analyses have revealed that a very high proportion of genes are likely to be newly created,,, and that some genes are only found in one organism (named ORFans). These genes do not belong to any phylogenic tree and represent new genetic creations.
http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2010/05/new-model-for-evolution-rhizome.html
Since evolutionists continually misrepresent the true state of the evidence for molecular sequences, here are several more comments and articles, by leading experts, on the incongruence of molecular sequences to Darwin's theory:
https://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=1S5wXsukzkauD5YQLkQYuIMGL25I4fJrOUzJhONvBXe4
Moreover Chas, you have no proof that mutations to DNA can generate radical Bogy-Plan morphogenesis which is beneficial:
Response to John Wise - October 2010
Excerpt: But there are solid empirical grounds for arguing that changes in DNA alone cannot produce new organs or body plans. A technique called "saturation mutagenesis"1,2 has been used to produce every possible developmental mutation in fruit flies (Drosophila melanogaster),3,4,5 roundworms (Caenorhabditis elegans),6,7 and zebrafish (Danio rerio),8,9,10 and the same technique is now being applied to mice (Mus musculus).11,12 None of the evidence from these and numerous other studies of developmental mutations supports the neo-Darwinian dogma that DNA mutations can lead to new organs or body plans--because none of the observed developmental mutations benefit the organism.
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/10/response_to_john_wise038811.html
In fact mutations to DNA are 'bottom rung of the ladder' as far as the information within the cell is concerned:
Stephen Meyer - Functional Proteins And Information For Body Plans - video
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4050681
Dr. Stephen Meyer comments at the end of the preceding video,,,
‘Now one more problem as far as the generation of information. It turns out that you don’t only need information to build genes and proteins, it turns out to build Body-Plans you need higher levels of information; Higher order assembly instructions. DNA codes for the building of proteins, but proteins must be arranged into distinctive circuitry to form distinctive cell types. Cell types have to be arranged into tissues. Tissues have to be arranged into organs. Organs and tissues must be specifically arranged to generate whole new Body-Plans, distinctive arrangements of those body parts. We now know that DNA alone is not responsible for those higher orders of organization. DNA codes for proteins, but by itself it does insure that proteins, cell types, tissues, organs, will all be arranged in the body. And what that means is that the Body-Plan morphogenesis, as it is called, depends upon information that is not encoded on DNA. Which means you can mutate DNA indefinitely. 80 million years, 100 million years, til the cows come home. It doesn’t matter, because in the best case you are just going to find a new protein some place out there in that vast combinatorial sequence space. You are not, by mutating DNA alone, going to generate higher order structures that are necessary to building a body plan. So what we can conclude from that is that the neo-Darwinian mechanism is grossly inadequate to explain the origin of information necessary to build new genes and proteins, and it is also grossly inadequate to explain the origination of novel biological form.’ - Stephen Meyer - (excerpt taken from Meyer/Sternberg vs. Shermer/Prothero debate - 2009)
Here are A few comments on 'higher order' ‘non-local’ epigenetic (quantum) information:
https://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=1iNy78O6ZpU8wpFIgkILi85TvhC9mSqzUSE_jzbksoHY
Further note:
Getting Over the Code Delusion (Epigenetics) - Talbot - November 2010
Excerpt: The standard doctrine has it that functionally important sequences, precisely because they are important to the organism, will generally be conserved across considerable evolutionary distances. But the emerging point of view holds that architecture can matter as much as sequence. As bioinformatics researcher Elliott Margulies and his team at the National Human Genome Research Institute put it, “the molecular shape of DNA is under selection” — a shape that can be maintained in its decisive aspects despite changes in the underlying sequence. It’s not enough, they write, to analyze “the order of A’s, C’s, G’s, and T’s,” because “DNA is a molecule with a three-dimensional structure.”[14] Elementary as the point may seem, it’s leading to a considerable reallocation of investigative resources.
http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/getting-over-the-code-delusion
The Origin at 150: is a new evolutionary synthesis in sight? - Koonin - Nov. 2009
Excerpt: The edifice of the modern synthesis has crumbled, apparently, beyond repair.
http://www.arn.org/blogs/index.php/literature/2009/11/18/not_to_mince_words_the_modern_synthesis
Modern Synthesis of Neo-Darwinism (Genetic Reductionism) Is Dead - Paul Nelson - video
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/5548184/
bornagain77
October 28, 2011
October
10
Oct
28
28
2011
03:09 AM
3
03
09
AM
PDT
And I cocked up - horses aren't artiodactyls!Chas D
October 28, 2011
October
10
Oct
28
28
2011
02:37 AM
2
02
37
AM
PDT
Oh, go on then, here's a summary. Note the multiple independent lines of evidence.
hereChas D
October 28, 2011
October
10
Oct
28
28
2011
02:32 AM
2
02
32
AM
PDT
How can it conclude that when there isn’t any genetic data that supports the alleged transformations?
There is EXTENSIVE genetic data that places whales slap bang in the middle of the artiodactyls (apart from cetaceans, a predominately land-dwelling group: horses, cows, pigs, hippos etc), by constructing phylogenetic trees on proteins (built from genes) and on the genes (DNA) themselves. I won't bore you with a reference you won't follow, but this data is freely available. We don't have DNA in fossils, but we do have DNA in the living members of the clade. Either whales evolved from land-dwelling artiodactyls, or land-dwellers evolved from marine creatures - take your pick, but you can guess which conclusion the researchers reached, without the need for the detailed stepwise series of transformations. It happened again in the manatees, from the elephant clade this time. And, partially, in seals, from the carnivores.
To spare you writing the inevitable follow-up post, these trees are very unlikely to reflect commonality of design since, by your own lights, whales and land-dwelling even-toed ungulates share very little commonality of design. The only explanation left is common descent.Chas D
October 28, 2011
October
10
Oct
28
28
2011
02:19 AM
2
02
19
AM
PDT
Joseph
I would think “evolution” would favor a cetacean with long arms with grasping hands. Why didn’t “evolution” do that?
What you think reality should be and what it actually is apparently are mutually exclusive domains.GinoB
October 27, 2011
October
10
Oct
27
27
2011
03:39 PM
3
03
39
PM
PDT
Liddle:
"Well, no, it’s not a dumb question. Cetacean comparative anatomy is distributed into a tree with creatures with legs at the node."
====
Again, I don't posess your particular brand of faith in a religious Iconic Tree of image worship. If you choose to read things into a materialist vision of life then so be it. But I'm not receiving visions here of what you're seeing.
----
Liddle:
"Although, it has to be said, many ID proponents, including Behe, as far as I know, accepts the evidence for common ancestry."
====
Personally I could care less if Michael Behe or any other ID proponant wants to believe in 'common ancestry'. No problem with members of the same kind of organism developing from a common ancestor of one particular KIND, but anything else takes FAITH and I don't posess yours. Behe(Shapiro, Yocky, etc) have the same proof problems of macro-evolutionary assumptions as any of the rest of you. While he has beautifully shown and illustrated to us complex sophisticated mechanisms for environmental adaptional survival and varietal changes in the same KIND of living organism, it delves into the realm of faith to assume that these micro adaptations eventually split/cut off of a KIND into another KIND of creature. That's called FAITH and I simply don't posess your brand of religious faith.Eocene
October 27, 2011
October
10
Oct
27
27
2011
01:59 PM
1
01
59
PM
PDT
GinoB:
Why did the designer put hind limb buds in for hind fins that are not used and not present?
Ask the designer- but that may not even be the case.
You say Cetacean hind limbs are just old, unused FINS, so when were the fins present and used?
Back when cetaceans first appeared.
By what mechanism did they disappear?
Mutation and survival
Did the designed change his mind and delete them from newer models?
Ask the designer- but that may not even be the case.
I would think "evolution" would favor a cetacean with long arms with grasping hands. Why didn't "evolution" do that?Joseph
October 27, 2011
October
10
Oct
27
27
2011
01:54 PM
1
01
54
PM
PDT
Why did the designer put hind limb buds in for hind fins that are not used and not present?
You say Cetacean hind limbs are just old, unused FINS, so when were the fins present and used? By what mechanism did they disappear? Did the designed change his mind and delete them from newer models?GinoB
October 27, 2011
October
10
Oct
27
27
2011
12:21 PM
12
12
21
PM
PDT
Please reference the active research - developmental biology perhaps- that demonstrates a land mammal can evolve into a fully aquatic mammal.Joseph
October 27, 2011
October
10
Oct
27
27
2011
04:19 AM
4
04
19
AM
PDT
Right those hind limb buds could have been for hind fins.Joseph
October 27, 2011
October
10
Oct
27
27
2011
04:17 AM
4
04
17
AM
PDT
Designers have been observed to design stuff and from that we can extrapolate.
Your position has nothing to extrapolate from.Joseph