Evolution: the Facts.

[randman]

Just because it had more gene families does not mean it is more genetically complex. You dont understand the words you are using

Rather than blather about spurious claims I am wrong, show some data.

On genetic complexity, define it. If I choose to define it as having more gene families, I am right by your own admission. Now, explain how you see it.

More gene families plus more numbers of genes?

Like organisms, gene families can also go extinct or be lost in specific lineages.

No kidding. Isn't that a point I made?

 

[randman]

and you have conflated and confused several different issues. When talking about the LCA of animals dont start blabbing about the LCA of plants and animals without some sort of segway

I haven't confused anything. You just didn't follow. There is a reason I put the "and" between LCA of animals and LCA of plants and animals. You just didn't pay attention.

But you at least are conceding, maybe, on one point, the presence of all these gene families in LUCA.

Why is that considering it's theoritical morphology and earlier evolution?

In other words, this is very good evidence for front loading. I am not even totally committed to front loading but it struck me their predictions here were correct when evos were wrong in what they predicted.

I think if you took a step back and considered these things, you'd see the relevance.

 

[A'isha]

Easy, he says:

No. You said back in this post

The evidence is not from this guy but from peer-reviewed studies of evolutionists themselves. He just predicted it. I just threw that in there to say there are theories that actually predicted what we'd see and NeoDarwinism had it dead wrong, exactly backwards.

It is getting time for me to go, but you will find the general trend and consensus now is that "the creatures that gave rise to plants and animals" had many more types of genes than exist in plants and animals today. If evolution happened, it was through loss of genes not the slow accumulation of them, which begs the question: If natural selection is not needed in the process of new genes, then why do we think it is central in the first place?

And once you see natural selection and gradual mutation are not the means of adding genetic material, what good is Darwinism in the first place except to explain microevolution?

And since microevolution actually decreases genetic variability, isn't it evolution in the wrong direction? Meaning the more something evolves, the less it can? It loses genes, not adds them?

Sexual and geographic isolation which is necessary for any real evolution massively decreases the available gene pool?

Look some of this up. Every bit if evidence for microevolution is evidence against macroevolution. Microevolution works against and opposite macroevolution. Natural selection itself is a conservative process.

You later posted that the exact quote Dr. Loomis was specifically what you were talking about regarding the above, which was nothing more and nothing less than Davison's moronic front-loading theory.

So prove the connection. Prove that Dr. Loomis was talking about what you were talking about, that the data he discovered is evidence for front-loading, and not evolution per the Synthetic Model.

 

[ThunderChunky]

Rather than blather about spurious claims I am wrong, show some data.

I dont need any new data, your are simply misinterpreting the very data you bring to the table.

On genetic complexity, define it. If I choose to define it as having more gene families, I am right by your own admission. Now, explain how you see it.

More gene families plus more numbers of genes?

You cannot choose to define words just to retroactively make you arguments somehow correct. You were flat out wrong on the complexity of the LCA of animals. You thought that because it had genes that worms do not, that it was more complex that worms. Genetic complexity involves number of genes and number of interactions between genes.

No kidding. Isn't that a point I made?

Except you think that it is evidence against evolution, you apparently think evolution means no genes are lost.

I haven't confused anything. You just didn't follow. There is a reason I put the "and" between LCA of animals and LCA of plants and animals. You just didn't pay attention.

I read that and I understood what you meant. But in previous posts you confused the two issues, it was only in the last one that you finally clarified. Either way you ignore an argument you are losing and then conflate it with some other argument...that is equally unimpressive. The LCA of animals was no "so complex" as you claimed the science currently shows, you arguments for reaching that conclusion were falsified.

But you at least are conceding, maybe, on one point, the presence of all these gene families in LUCA.

Absolutely not. Do you know what LUCA is?

Why is that considering it's theoritical morphology and earlier evolution?

In other words, this is very good evidence for front loading. I am not even totally committed to front loading but it struck me their predictions here were correct when evos were wrong in what they predicted.

No, it's not evidence for front loading. As I pointed out numerous times, the prediction by evolutionary theory was based on a few data points, you add more data points and you get a new prediction. That is how science works.

I think if you took a step back and considered these things, you'd see the relevance.

The thing is I actually understand the scientific literature. I know the methods used and what they actually show. You apparently do not.

 

[randman]

No. You said back in this post



You later posted that the exact quote Dr. Loomis was specifically what you were talking about regarding the above, which was nothing more and nothing less than Davison's moronic front-loading theory.

So prove the connection. Prove that Dr. Loomis was talking about what you were talking about, that the data he discovered is evidence for front-loading, and not evolution per the Synthetic Model.

Simple. Front loaders predicted what Loomis claims.

 

[randman]

You were flat out wrong on the complexity of the LCA of animals. You thought that because it had genes that worms do not, that it was more complex that worms. Genetic complexity involves number of genes and number of interactions between genes.

So show the evidence of your claim the genetic complexity of the LCA of animals is less than worms, which is rather vague I might add.

Define genetic complexity and show your evidence, please.

Except you think that it is evidence against evolution, you apparently think evolution means no genes are lost.

Wow, I point out the new emphasis on loss of genes, even massive loss of genes, and you post the comment above? You are avoiding the issue here.

No, it's not evidence for front loading. As I pointed out numerous times, the prediction by evolutionary theory was based on a few data points, you add more data points and you get a new prediction. That is how science works.

Now, might be a good time to answer some questions put forward quite awhile back in response to your posts.

I think you need to go back and read what you wrote and actually answer some questions put forward quite awhile back.

You stated, bolded emphasis added.

Greater morphological complexity does require greater genetic complexity, nothing has changed about that.

I responded:

Thank you for responding. This is an interesting comment which I think the data says is not true, but even more interesting is why this should be true.

Why do you think this is the case?

Why do you say greater morphological complexity requires greater genetic complexity? And that nothing has changed.

You said:

We know how new genes arise once life has started.

I asked:

Do we know how new genes arise? If so, how? Can this be tested as a general pattern?

You then don't answer and then jump in saying how I was wrong and so forth but cite no specifics, nada, of anything I said that was wrong at all except to pretend I relied on only one study when I already told you it's not just one study.

These are straightforward questions that go to the heart of what we're talking about. Shouldn't be too hard to answer them.

 

[randman]

You also claimed:

Again, we do not see greater complexity the further we look back.

Who says and why would this be so? Moreover, define complexity.

 

[Dinwar]

Prove it then, Dinwar. Show where he didn't mean what his words said. Keep in mind it's not just this one paper.

No. You have no standards of proof, and will refuse to read what I write the instant I disagree with you (you've done so before). You'll probably insult me while doing it.

Besides, others already have.

You cannot choose to define words just to retroactively make you arguments somehow correct.

At least most crackpots have the common curtesy to TRY to hide it when they shift the goal posts.

 

[randman]

So you cannot prove it but don't want to admit it.

 

[A'isha]

Simple. Front loaders predicted what Loomis claims.

That's not what I asked you.

I asked you if Loomis, effectively, agrees with that statement, that Loomis agrees that what Loomis says was predicted by (and is thus evidence for) front-loaders' theories.

 

[Dinwar]

So you cannot prove it but don't want to admit it.

Wrong. You forgot to read the sentence below that. Again.

Here is an article you need to read.

 

[Foster Zygote]

Nope. Since you failed to grasp another's argument, your whole line of reasoning falls apart.

How does this not apply to your reasoning? You were in error when you implied that research using the data from the ENCODE project had eliminated the possibility that pseudogenes are evidence of common ancestry among species.

Delusions of grandeur by evos.....everyone knows pure-bred dogs suffer negative effects from in-breeding but I commend you here to taking a stand. The problem is in-breeding does not increase fitness in the long run as you guys claim.

Tell us, are all domesticated breeds of plants and animals inbred?

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

randman, you've done a nice side-shuffle, but let's not forget what it is that you're trying to avoid here - you've yet to provide any evidence to back up your statement that phylogenic groupings aren't what would be predicted by the theory of evolution. Please do so.

You know what this sounds an aweful lot like? An intermediate form. You know, those thigns which don't exist?

That is so cool.

 

[ThunderChunky]

So show the evidence of your claim the genetic complexity of the LCA of animals is less than worms, which is rather vague I might add.

Define genetic complexity and show your evidence, please.

You claimed that the genetic complexity of the LCA was more complex, you provided evidence that you thought supported the claim and I showed that it did not. I further showed that you didn't understand the context or the conclusions of your reference.

If I had to define genetic complexity I would say that is is a function of the number of genes, the functions of the genes, the regulation of the genes, and the interactions between the genes of an oraganism. And perhaps other factors that don't immediately come to mind.

Wow, I point out the new emphasis on loss of genes, even massive loss of genes, and you post the comment above? You are avoiding the issue here.

You are avoiding the issue. The paper you referenced on animal evolution never supported the claims you made about it. Yes, loss of genes is important, that has been known for a long time.

Now, might be a good time to answer some questions put forward quite awhile back in response to your posts.

You ask a lot of questions to avoid admitting you were wrong. Dpont sidetrack the conversation. Your claims about the LCA of animals was wrong and you have yet to admit it.

I think you need to go back and read what you wrote and actually answer some questions put forward quite awhile back.

You stated, bolded emphasis added.



I responded:



Why do you say greater morphological complexity requires greater genetic complexity? And that nothing has changed.

Yes, you picked out one statement from a post and asked a question about it, that is fair, but you also need to admit when you are wrong such as your statements about the LCA of animals. The reason I made that statement was because you asserted the opposite, which is untrue.

You said:



I asked:



You then don't answer and then jump in saying how I was wrong and so forth but cite no specifics, nada, of anything I said that was wrong at all except to pretend I relied on only one study when I already told you it's not just one study.

I answered and I linked you to a wikipedia article. Your one study (that you provided) did not show what you claimed it to show. You never even acknowledged that you or at the very least addressed my specific points about that specific paper and how it doesn't show what you claimed.

These are straightforward questions that go to the heart of what we're talking about. Shouldn't be too hard to answer them.

You brought the paper up, I clearly told you how it does not say what you think it says, that's when you drifted off. If you want to get back on topic, bring the conversation back to the paper.

You also claimed:



Who says and why would this be so? Moreover, define complexity.

You claimed the opposite. I would say complexity is a function of the number and interactions of biological "parts." Parts could be any component of biology such as genes, proteins, structures, pathways, genetic circuits, etc..

Look at the fossil record, things get less complex when you go back in time. For example, eukaryotic cells are more complex than prokaryotic cells (new specialized structures in the eukaryotes)...eukaryotes appear after prokaryotes. Multicellularity is inherently more complex than unicellularity. Multicellularity arises after unicellularity. Complex body plans arise after the simple bodyplans.

Why is this so? Well that gets into the history and origins of life, not evolution per se. For life to originate without magic, it would have to start off simple. Then it could build up complexity overtime via evolution. Evolution does not require that complexity develop, but it provides the mechanisms to add complexity to life once it exists.

It's funny that you think ancient life is more complex than current life.

 

[randman]

You claimed that the genetic complexity of the LCA was more complex, you provided evidence that you thought supported the claim and I showed that it did not. I further showed that you didn't understand the context or the conclusions of your reference.

If I had to define genetic complexity I would say that is is a function of the number of genes, the functions of the genes, the regulation of the genes, and the interactions between the genes of an oraganism. And perhaps other factors that don't immediately come to mind.




You are avoiding the issue. The paper you referenced on animal evolution never supported the claims you made about it. Yes, loss of genes is important, that has been known for a long time.





You ask a lot of questions to avoid admitting you were wrong. Dpont sidetrack the conversation. Your claims about the LCA of animals was wrong and you have yet to admit it.



Yes, you picked out one statement from a post and asked a question about it, that is fair, but you also need to admit when you are wrong such as your statements about the LCA of animals. The reason I made that statement was because you asserted the opposite, which is untrue.



I answered and I linked you to a wikipedia article. Your one study (that you provided) did not show what you claimed it to show. You never even acknowledged that you or at the very least addressed my specific points about that specific paper and how it doesn't show what you claimed.



You brought the paper up, I clearly told you how it does not say what you think it says, that's when you drifted off. If you want to get back on topic, bring the conversation back to the paper.



You claimed the opposite. I would say complexity is a function of the number and interactions of biological "parts." Parts could be any component of biology such as genes, proteins, structures, pathways, genetic circuits, etc..

Look at the fossil record, things get less complex when you go back in time. For example, eukaryotic cells are more complex than prokaryotic cells (new specialized structures in the eukaryotes)...eukaryotes appear after prokaryotes. Multicellularity is inherently more complex than unicellularity. Multicellularity arises after unicellularity. Complex body plans arise after the simple bodyplans.

Why is this so? Well that gets into the history and origins of life, not evolution per se. For life to originate without magic, it would have to start off simple. Then it could build up complexity overtime via evolution. Evolution does not require that complexity develop, but it provides the mechanisms to add complexity to life once it exists.

It's funny that you think ancient life is more complex than current life.

Thundermonkey, show me where I was wrong on any point at all. You erroneously claimed, when I told you otherwise, that I was not just relying on one report. That report, which I correctly understood, was meant to be a starting off point. The paper I cited does contain "surprising" findings that indicate the LCA of animals was much more genetically complex that one would expect. We can revisit it later.

Also, I asked about genetic complexity, not complexity in general, and you did not answer. Earlier you claimed:

Greater morphological complexity does require greater genetic complexity, nothing has changed about that.

We know how new genes arise once life has started.

You responded by talking about morphological complexity.

Look at the fossil record, things get less complex when you go back in time. For example, eukaryotic cells are more complex than prokaryotic cells (new specialized structures in the eukaryotes)...eukaryotes appear after prokaryotes. Multicellularity is inherently more complex than unicellularity. Multicellularity arises after unicellularity. Complex body plans arise after the simple bodyplans.

Why is this so? Well that gets into the history and origins of life, not evolution per se. For life to originate without magic, it would have to start off simple. Then it could build up complexity overtime via evolution.

So since you stated that "Greater morphological complexity does require greater genetic complexity, nothing has changed about that", do you stand by that?

You say became more complex. So according to you, with greater morphological complexity, there had to be greater genetic complexity, right?

You say "nothing has changed" and so none of these findings have changed that, correct?

You also say we know how new genes arose. I asked and you refused to answer. How do they arise according to you? Please note: don't try to dodge the answer by saying, well, we know creatures can evolve via loss of genes, etc, etc,.....so what? That's not my question.

How do novel genes arise?

Also, it's disingenuous to define genetic complexity by morphological traits as you did above. You could have a very complex genome that does less things is the issue. Otherwise, you are making a circular argument.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

You also say we know how new genes arose. I asked and you refused to answer. How do they arise according to you? Please note: don't try to dodge the answer by saying, well, we know creatures can evolve via loss of genes, etc, etc,.....so what? That's not my question.

How do novel genes arise?

You do realise that all this demonstrates is that you haven't been paying attention to what people have been saying to you, don't you? This has already been explained to you clearly and concisely not long after you started posting in these threads. You should already know the answer to this question because it's already been given to you. That you think it's a question you've not asked before speaks volumes.

Now, stop changing the subject, you made the assertion that phylogenic groupings aren't what you would expect to see according to the theory of evolution, please provide some evidence to support this assertion or retract it.

 

[randman]

Finally figured you the Ignore list feature so I can condense these discussions down a bit.

 

[A'isha]

You also say we know how new genes arose. I asked and you refused to answer. How do they arise according to you? Please note: don't try to dodge the answer by saying, well, we know creatures can evolve via loss of genes, etc, etc,.....so what? That's not my question.

How do novel genes arise?

I told you. Gene duplication (ranging from single genes all the way up through the duplication of the entire genome), with loss versus gain equilibrium shifted toward functional divergence and away from degradation to pseudogenes via epigenetic silencing. I even linked you to a number of papers about that very thing. And that's just the current version...Susumu Ohno's 2R Hypothesis of polyploid evolution, which Rodin's view above is built on (Dr. Rodin actually holds the Dr. Susumo Ohno Chair in Theoretical Biology at the Beckman Research Institute of City of Hope), was first proposed back in 1970; we've known and explored how novel genes arise almost as long as we've known about the double helix.

This is at least the fifth time this has been asked and answered, and you completely ignore the answer every time.

 

[randman]

You missed the point. Novel genes are thought to be selected for under Neo Darwinism. It's worth noting that some cracks in that narrative have begun where ideas such as neutralism are being more properly considered.

 

[A'isha]

You missed the point.

You ask, specifically, "How do novel genes arise?" I told you.

This is not missing the point. This is you trying to cover for yet another gaping hole in your knowledge of the subject.

Novel genes are thought to be selected for under Neo Darwinism.

What happens to the novel genes after they arise has nothing to do with how they arise in the first place. Which, remember, was your actual question.

It's worth noting that some cracks in that narrative have begun where ideas such as neutralism are being more properly considered.

No, neutralism has nothing to do with "cracks in the narrative". Kimura himself explicitly said that his neutral theory doesn't deny selection in any way. Neutralism merely says that most changes at the molecular level are neutral changes, neither positive nor negative, and that therefore selection doesn't come into play. Selection, however, still acts on those changes that are not neutral.

In short, neutralism says that the genomes of diverging species will show an increase in genetic variation, therefore increasing the chances that a positive mutation will occur and allowing for phenotypic changes that otherwise wouldn't happen if each intermediate step in the changing of the genome that results in those changes had to be selected for individually.