Antievolution.org :: Antievolution.org Discussion Board The Critic's Resource on Antievolution

Antievolution.org Discussion Board > From the Panda's Thumb > After the Bar Closes... > Evolution of the horse; a problem for Darwinism?

Pages: (58) < ... 51 52 53 54 55 [56] 57 58 >

mitschlag Posts: 236 Joined: Sep. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 02 2008,04:56    Quote (Daniel Smith @ Mar. 01 2008,21:50) Quote (JonF @ Mar. 01 2008,10:09)     Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Mar. 01 2008,05:10) Daniel, you should also know that the first wave of geologists were creationists who went digging to prove the account of the bible (ok, this is a simplified version of the real events) and found instead that the evidence they were digging up could not support the biblical account. And changed their minds. I'm sure somebody can provide a good reference to these events, if not I'll dig one up for you. History of the Collapse of "Flood Geology" and a Young Earth, adapted from a book by an evangelical Christian, adapted by an evangelical Christian. Thank you for that.  I'll give it a read - along with the other links posted by oldman. Like I've said before, I haven't really studied this, so I really have no opinion on it yet.  I only raise questions to check whether those who would presume to teach me something here have actually studied this area themselves. You made a smart move coming here.  The light is so much better than in that cave. -------------- "You can establish any “rule” you like if you start with the rule and then interpret the evidence accordingly." - George Gaylord Simpson (1902-1984)

Albatrossity2 Posts: 2780 Joined: Mar. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 02 2008,08:32    Quote (JAM @ Mar. 02 2008,00:10) The point you keep missing is that these karyotypically visible events (fission, fusion, inversion, translocation, etc.) can produce speciation with absolutely zero change in phenotype. On the other hand, a single nucleotide substitution can cause massive phenotypic changes. Can you manage to wrap your brain around that fundamental point? And I predict that Daniel will keep on missing this point; I have become convinced that he doesn't understand it... -------------- Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind Has been obligated from the beginning To create an ordered universe As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.                         - Pattiann Rogers

JAM Posts: 517 Joined: July 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 02 2008,09:23    Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Mar. 02 2008,08:32) Quote (JAM @ Mar. 02 2008,00:10) The point you keep missing is that these karyotypically visible events (fission, fusion, inversion, translocation, etc.) can produce speciation with absolutely zero change in phenotype. On the other hand, a single nucleotide substitution can cause massive phenotypic changes. Can you manage to wrap your brain around that fundamental point? And I predict that Daniel will keep on missing this point; I have become convinced that he doesn't understand it... He could if he put his mind to it. IMO, it's more accurate to say that he refuses to understand it.

Daniel Smith Posts: 970 Joined: Sep. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 02 2008,12:40    Quote (JAM @ Mar. 01 2008,22:10)   Quote (Daniel Smith @ Mar. 01 2008,21:46)     Quote (JAM @ Mar. 01 2008,11:18) Schindewolf's hypothesis was about MORPHOLOGICAL saltation. Can't you read and comprehend the adjective CHROMOSOMAL? Did Schindewolf even mention chromosomes in his Bib--er, book? Yes, in notes 21 and 22 on pages 349 and 352 where he speaks of Goldschmidt's Systemmutationen.   On page 352 he says:               Quote This repatterning, or Systemmutation, is attributed to cytologically provable breaks in the chromosomes, which evoke inversions, duplications, and translocations.  A single modification of an embryonic character produced in this way would then regulate a whole series of related ontogenetic processes, leading to a completely new developmental type. (his emphasis) Schindewolf was wrong. The point you keep missing is that these karyotypically visible events (fission, fusion, inversion, translocation, etc.) can produce speciation with absolutely zero change in phenotype. On the other hand, a single nucleotide substitution can cause massive phenotypic changes. Can you manage to wrap your brain around that fundamental point? I'm aware of the former, but can you give me examples of the latter? -------------- "If we all worked on the assumption that what is accepted as true is really true, there would be little hope of advance."  Orville Wright "The presence or absence of a creative super-intelligence is unequivocally a scientific question."  Richard Dawkins

Daniel Smith Posts: 970 Joined: Sep. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 02 2008,12:44    Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Mar. 01 2008,02:10) Daniel, why are you even reading creationist websites? I thought you were after the truth? I am, which is why I go straight to the source.  Are you suggesting I should find out what creationists are saying by not visiting their websites?  How open-minded is that? -------------- "If we all worked on the assumption that what is accepted as true is really true, there would be little hope of advance."  Orville Wright "The presence or absence of a creative super-intelligence is unequivocally a scientific question."  Richard Dawkins

Daniel Smith Posts: 970 Joined: Sep. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 02 2008,12:56    Quote (mitschlag @ Mar. 02 2008,02:40) Quote (Daniel Smith @ Mar. 01 2008,21:17)     Quote (mitschlag @ Mar. 01 2008,03:52)         Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 29 2008,20:11) Both of these papers advance a saltational mechanism for evolution, similar to what Schindewolf proposed.  That such mechanisms require far fewer transitional steps than the gradualism Darwin proposed is IMO vindication for Schindewolf.  If these karyotypic changes resulted in morphological changes, these transitional steps would be next to invisible in the fossil record - thus explaining Schindewolf's gaps between types. From Kinetochore reproduction in animal evolution: Cell biological explanation of karyotypic fission theory: <snip> From Karyotypic fissioning and Canid phylogeny: You  pays your  money and you takes your choice.*  Try this one on for size: A test of the karyotypic fissioning theory of primate evolution             Quote Stanyon R. Karyotypic fissioning theory has been put forward by a number of researchers as a possible driving force of mammalian evolution. Most recently, Giusto and Margulis (BioSystems, 13 (1981) 267-302) hypothesized that karyotypic fissioning best explains the evolution of Old World monkeys, apes, and humans. According to their hypothesis, hominoid karyotypes were derived from the monkey chromosome complement by just such a fissioning event. That hypothesis is tested here by comparing the G-banded chromosomes of humans and great apes with eight species of Old World monkeys. Five submetacentric chromosomes between apes and monkeys have identical banding patterns and nine chromosomes share the same pericentric inversion. Such extensive karyological similarities are not in accordance with, or predicted by karyotypic fissioning. Apparently, karyotypic fissioning is an extremely uneconomical model of chromosomal evolution. The strong conservation of banding patterns sometimes involving the retention of identical chromosomes indicates that ancient linkages of genes have probably been maintained through many speciation events. (Emphasis added) *Cherry-picking the literature is a  favored Creationist tactic. Here's the paper they refer to: Karyotypic fission theory and the evolution of old world monkeys and apes. link Abstract:         Quote The karyotypes of living catarrhines are correlated with the current concepts of their fossil record and systematic classification. A phylogeny, beginning at the base of the Oligocene, for those animals and their chromosome numbers is presented. Todd's (1970) theory of karyotypic fissioning is applied to this case - three fissioning events are hypothesized. A late Eocene event (the primary catarrhine fissioning) is hypothesized to underlie the diversification of the infraorder Catarrhini into its extant families, the second fissioning underlies the radiation of the pongidae/Hominidae in the Miocene and the third accounts for the high chromosome numbers (54 - 72) and the Neogene(Miocene-Pliocene-Pleistocene) radiation of members of the genus Cercopithecus. Published catarrhine chromosome data, including that for "marked" chromosomes (those with a large achromatic region that is the site for ribosomal RNA genes) are tabulated and analysed. The ancestral X chromosome is always retained in the unfissioned metacentric state. The Pongidae/Hominidae have 15 pairs of mediocentric chromosomes that survived the second fissioning whereas the other chromosomes (besides the X) are thought to be fission-derived acrocentrics. Both the detailed karyology and the trend from low to high numbers is best interpreted to support Todd's concept of adaptive radiations correlated with karyotypic fissioning in ancestral populations. So I guess the jury's still out on this one. The HYPOTHESIS presented in the Giusto and Margulis paper that you cited has a time stamp of 1981.  The TEST of their hypothesis by Stanyon that found their hypothesis wanting was published in 1983. Unless subsequent work has further enriched the topic, the judgment of Stanyon holds. I agree. -------------- "If we all worked on the assumption that what is accepted as true is really true, there would be little hope of advance."  Orville Wright "The presence or absence of a creative super-intelligence is unequivocally a scientific question."  Richard Dawkins

JAM Posts: 517 Joined: July 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 02 2008,18:47    Quote (Daniel Smith @ Mar. 02 2008,12:40)   Quote (JAM @ Mar. 01 2008,22:10)     Quote (Daniel Smith @ Mar. 01 2008,21:46)       Quote (JAM @ Mar. 01 2008,11:18) Schindewolf's hypothesis was about MORPHOLOGICAL saltation. Can't you read and comprehend the adjective CHROMOSOMAL? Did Schindewolf even mention chromosomes in his Bib--er, book? Yes, in notes 21 and 22 on pages 349 and 352 where he speaks of Goldschmidt's Systemmutationen.   On page 352 he says:                 Quote This repatterning, or Systemmutation, is attributed to cytologically provable breaks in the chromosomes, which evoke inversions, duplications, and translocations.  A single modification of an embryonic character produced in this way would then regulate a whole series of related ontogenetic processes, leading to a completely new developmental type. (his emphasis) Schindewolf was wrong. The point you keep missing is that these karyotypically visible events (fission, fusion, inversion, translocation, etc.) can produce speciation with absolutely zero change in phenotype. On the other hand, a single nucleotide substitution can cause massive phenotypic changes. Can you manage to wrap your brain around that fundamental point? I'm aware of the former,... Since you know he was wrong about that, why would you claim that he was vindicated? Quote ...but can you give me examples of the latter? Yes; oligodontia, orofacial cleft, optic atrophy, absence of radius, radioulnar synostosis, absence of thumbs, chondrodysplasia, GH insensitivity, split-hand/foot malformation with long bone deficiency, etc.

jhbbunch Posts: 2 Joined: Mar. 2008 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 02 2008,22:54    Evolution of the horse is a problem for Darwinism? How about it being a problem for YEC's? They have yet to show me one fossil bed containing the fossil remains of an ancestor to the horse that contains the remains, fossilized or otherwise of a modern horse. Darwinist prediction: no fossil remains of a modern elephant, rhino .lion, human, etc. will be found in a fossil bed containing an eohippus. The YEC predict they will all be found together. How is my prediction doing, and how is theirs doing?

IanBrown_101 Posts: 927 Joined: April 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 03 2008,02:55    Quote (Daniel Smith @ Mar. 02 2008,18:44) Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Mar. 01 2008,02:10) Daniel, why are you even reading creationist websites? I thought you were after the truth? I am, which is why I go straight to the source.  Are you suggesting I should find out what creationists are saying by not visiting their websites?  How open-minded is that? Why do you care what they say at all? If you want to know about the science, go to the science, not to people who say science is a lie. -------------- I'm not the fastest or the baddest or the fatest. You NEVER seem to address the fact that the grand majority of people supporting Darwinism in these on line forums and blogs are atheists. That doesn't seem to bother you guys in the least. - FtK Roddenberry is my God.

mitschlag Posts: 236 Joined: Sep. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 03 2008,07:06    Quote (JAM @ Mar. 02 2008,18:47)           Quote (Daniel Smith @ Mar. 02 2008,12:40)             Quote (JAM @ Mar. 01 2008,22:10)                 Quote (Daniel Smith @ Mar. 01 2008,21:46)                   Quote (JAM @ Mar. 01 2008,11:18) Schindewolf's hypothesis was about MORPHOLOGICAL saltation. Can't you read and comprehend the adjective CHROMOSOMAL? Did Schindewolf even mention chromosomes in his Bib--er, book? Yes, in notes 21 and 22 on pages 349 and 352 where he speaks of Goldschmidt's Systemmutationen.   On page 352 he says:                             Quote This repatterning, or Systemmutation, is attributed to cytologically provable breaks in the chromosomes, which evoke inversions, duplications, and translocations.  A single modification of an embryonic character produced in this way would then regulate a whole series of related ontogenetic processes, leading to a completely new developmental type. (his emphasis) Schindewolf was wrong. The point you keep missing is that these karyotypically visible events (fission, fusion, inversion, translocation, etc.) can produce speciation with absolutely zero change in phenotype. On the other hand, a single nucleotide substitution can cause massive phenotypic changes. Can you manage to wrap your brain around that fundamental point? I'm aware of the former,... Since you know he was wrong about that, why would you claim that he was vindicated?           Quote ...but can you give me examples of the latter? Yes; oligodontia, orofacial cleft, optic atrophy, absence of radius, radioulnar synostosis, absence of thumbs, chondrodysplasia, GH insensitivity, split-hand/foot malformation with long bone deficiency, etc. Remember this? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Science 6 April 2007: Vol. 316. no. 5821, pp. 112 - 115   Quote A Single IGF1 Allele Is a Major Determinant of Small Size in Dogs The domestic dog exhibits greater diversity in body size than any other terrestrial vertebrate. We used a strategy that exploits the breed structure of dogs to investigate the genetic basis of size. First, through a genome-wide scan, we identified a major quantitative trait locus (QTL) on chromosome 15 influencing size variation within a single breed. Second, we examined genetic variation in the 15-megabase interval surrounding the QTL in small and giant breeds and found marked evidence for a selective sweep spanning a single gene (IGF1), encoding insulin-like growth factor 1. A single IGF1 single-nucleotide polymorphism haplotype is common to all small breeds and nearly absent from giant breeds, suggesting that the same causal sequence variant is a major contributor to body size in all small dogs. -------------- "You can establish any “rule” you like if you start with the rule and then interpret the evidence accordingly." - George Gaylord Simpson (1902-1984)

mitschlag Posts: 236 Joined: Sep. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 03 2008,07:39    As I exercise due diligence in reading Schindewolf, I've been working on the concept of Orthogenesis, which looms large in his thought. I ran across this account (among many others) on the Web, and I wonder whether Daniel Smith thinks that it fairly represents the concept:   Quote Orthogenesis is the notion that evolution proceeds in straight lines. This can refer to the idea that evolution proceeds straight from species A to species B without any side branches. More importantly, it refers to the idea that an evolutionary lineage changes steady, uniform way with no reversals. Sometimes, but not always, it was imagined that species were evolving steadily towards a goal. Usually this trend was supposed to be caused by some “mysterious inner force” (to use Simpson’s words) of the species that compelled it to evolve. Some supporters of orthogenesis would say that once a trend got started in a lineage that it would unchangingly continue until extinction occurred. Lets use some concrete examples to illustrate what this meant. Supporters of orthogenesis had pointed to the sabertooths. They claimed that the sword-like canine teeth of these cats over evolutionary time continuously got bigger until they were overgrown to the degree which they caused the animals extinction... -------------- "You can establish any “rule” you like if you start with the rule and then interpret the evidence accordingly." - George Gaylord Simpson (1902-1984)

JAM Posts: 517 Joined: July 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 03 2008,12:06    Quote (mitschlag @ Mar. 03 2008,07:06) Science 6 April 2007: Vol. 316. no. 5821, pp. 112 - 115   Quote A Single IGF1 Allele Is a Major Determinant of Small Size in Dogs The domestic dog exhibits greater diversity in body size than any other terrestrial vertebrate. We used a strategy that exploits the breed structure of dogs to investigate the genetic basis of size. First, through a genome-wide scan, we identified a major quantitative trait locus (QTL) on chromosome 15 influencing size variation within a single breed. Second, we examined genetic variation in the 15-megabase interval surrounding the QTL in small and giant breeds and found marked evidence for a selective sweep spanning a single gene (IGF1), encoding insulin-like growth factor 1. A single IGF1 single-nucleotide polymorphism haplotype is common to all small breeds and nearly absent from giant breeds, suggesting that the same causal sequence variant is a major contributor to body size in all small dogs. Point of clarification-- The single nucleotide in this case was not shown to cause the phenotype; it was just a marker (SNP). The likely cause is variation in the promoter. IOW, it still counts as evidence against Schindewolf's claim of correlation between the magnitude of events at the DNA and phenotypic levels, it just doesn't fit into the category of single-nucleotide substitutions.

mitschlag Posts: 236 Joined: Sep. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 03 2008,15:48    Quote (JAM @ Mar. 03 2008,12:06) Point of clarification-- The single nucleotide in this case was not shown to cause the phenotype; it was just a marker (SNP). The likely cause is variation in the promoter. IOW, it still counts as evidence against Schindewolf's claim of correlation between the magnitude of events at the DNA and phenotypic levels, it just doesn't fit into the category of single-nucleotide substitutions. Thanks. (Hey, Daniel, see how science works?) -------------- "You can establish any “rule” you like if you start with the rule and then interpret the evidence accordingly." - George Gaylord Simpson (1902-1984)

Daniel Smith Posts: 970 Joined: Sep. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 04 2008,18:33    Quote (mitschlag @ Mar. 03 2008,05:39) As I exercise due diligence in reading Schindewolf, I've been working on the concept of Orthogenesis, which looms large in his thought. I ran across this account (among many others) on the Web, and I wonder whether Daniel Smith thinks that it fairly represents the concept:       Quote Orthogenesis is the notion that evolution proceeds in straight lines. This can refer to the idea that evolution proceeds straight from species A to species B without any side branches. More importantly, it refers to the idea that an evolutionary lineage changes steady, uniform way with no reversals. Sometimes, but not always, it was imagined that species were evolving steadily towards a goal. Usually this trend was supposed to be caused by some “mysterious inner force” (to use Simpson’s words) of the species that compelled it to evolve. Some supporters of orthogenesis would say that once a trend got started in a lineage that it would unchangingly continue until extinction occurred. Lets use some concrete examples to illustrate what this meant. Supporters of orthogenesis had pointed to the sabertooths. They claimed that the sword-like canine teeth of these cats over evolutionary time continuously got bigger until they were overgrown to the degree which they caused the animals extinction... Schindewolf speaks at length about Orthogenesis.  If I understand it correctly, his views were that evolution followed repeatable patterns, was irreversible, eventually led to overspecialization and ultimately ended in extinction. Of the description you quote I'd say this much applies to Schindewolf's view:   Quote Orthogenesis ... refers to the idea that an evolutionary lineage changes [in a] steady, uniform way with no reversals. Species [are not] evolving steadily towards a goal, [rather the path they were set on was "decided" by the saltational event that first formed that type].  [T]his trend was [not] caused by some “mysterious inner force” (to use Simpson’s words) of the species that compelled it to evolve. [Rather, Schindewolf] would say that once a trend got started in a lineage, it would unchangingly continue until extinction occurred. Lets use some concrete examples to illustrate what this meant. Supporters of orthogenesis had pointed to the sabertooths. They claimed that the sword-like canine teeth of these cats over evolutionary time continuously got bigger until they were overgrown to the degree which they caused the animals extinction... [Schindewolf uses this example for his typolosis phase] -------------- "If we all worked on the assumption that what is accepted as true is really true, there would be little hope of advance."  Orville Wright "The presence or absence of a creative super-intelligence is unequivocally a scientific question."  Richard Dawkins

Daniel Smith Posts: 970 Joined: Sep. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 04 2008,18:35    Quote (mitschlag @ Mar. 03 2008,13:48)   Quote (JAM @ Mar. 03 2008,12:06) Point of clarification-- The single nucleotide in this case was not shown to cause the phenotype; it was just a marker (SNP). The likely cause is variation in the promoter. IOW, it still counts as evidence against Schindewolf's claim of correlation between the magnitude of events at the DNA and phenotypic levels, it just doesn't fit into the category of single-nucleotide substitutions. Thanks. (Hey, Daniel, see how science works?) Condescension noted. -------------- "If we all worked on the assumption that what is accepted as true is really true, there would be little hope of advance."  Orville Wright "The presence or absence of a creative super-intelligence is unequivocally a scientific question."  Richard Dawkins

Daniel Smith Posts: 970 Joined: Sep. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 04 2008,18:47    Quote (JAM @ Mar. 02 2008,16:47)     Quote (Daniel Smith @ Mar. 02 2008,12:40)         Quote (JAM @ Mar. 01 2008,22:10) The point you keep missing is that these karyotypically visible events (fission, fusion, inversion, translocation, etc.) can produce speciation with absolutely zero change in phenotype. On the other hand, a single nucleotide substitution can cause massive phenotypic changes. Can you manage to wrap your brain around that fundamental point? I'm aware of the former,... Since you know he was wrong about that, why would you claim that he was vindicated? Come on JAM.  The authors themselves were claiming that these mechanisms could explain "periods of explosive speciation and adaptive radiation".  These periods are what Schindewolf refers to as the evolution of types.  No one is claiming that every instance produces morphological changes though.  Schindewolf merely claimed that it was possible.  He felt such discussions were best left to geneticists.       Quote   Quote ...but can you give me examples of the latter? Yes; oligodontia, orofacial cleft, optic atrophy, absence of radius, radioulnar synostosis, absence of thumbs, chondrodysplasia, GH insensitivity, split-hand/foot malformation with long bone deficiency, etc.   I see.  You're talking about deformities. Do you know of any speciation events based on these types of deformities? -------------- "If we all worked on the assumption that what is accepted as true is really true, there would be little hope of advance."  Orville Wright "The presence or absence of a creative super-intelligence is unequivocally a scientific question."  Richard Dawkins

Daniel Smith Posts: 970 Joined: Sep. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 04 2008,19:22    Here's a prediction I made a while back:         Quote 3.  What are presently considered neutral sites will be found to be "instructional" - that is, they will carry the instructions that tell the various proteins, RNA and enzymes where to go, when to go and what to do when they get there. Now, the third prediction is more of a guess, but I think it makes sense.  We know about sequences that code for proteins, and we know about sequences that regulate them, but we don't know how a certain protein "knows" where to go, what to do and when to do it.  My guess is that these instructions are carried in what are presently considered neutral sites and - for that reason - these sites resist mutations just like all other evolutionarily constrained sites. And here's a paper that makes me at least feel I'm on the right track: Why repetitive DNA is essential to genome function       Quote ABSTRACT There are clear theoretical reasons and many well-documented examples which show that repetitive DNA is essential for genome function. Generic repeated signals in the DNA are necessary to format expression of unique coding sequence files and to organise additional functions essential for genome replication and accurate transmission to progeny cells. Repetitive DNA sequence elements are also fundamental to the cooperative molecular interactions forming nucleoprotein complexes. Here, we review the surprising abundance of repetitive DNA in many genomes, describe its structural diversity, and discuss dozens of cases where the functional importance of repetitive elements has been studied in molecular detail. In particular, the fact that repeat elements serve either as initiators or boundaries for heterochromatin domains and provide a significant fraction of scaffolding/matrix attachment regions (S/MARs) suggests that the repetitive component of the genome plays a major architectonic role in higher order physical structuring. Employing an information science model, the ‘functionalist’ perspective on repetitive DNA leads to new ways of thinking about the systemic organisation of cellular genomes and provides several novel possibilities involving repeat elements in evolutionarily significant genome reorganisation. These ideas may facilitate the interpretation of comparisons between sequenced genomes, where the repetitive DNA component is often greater than the coding sequence component. -------------- "If we all worked on the assumption that what is accepted as true is really true, there would be little hope of advance."  Orville Wright "The presence or absence of a creative super-intelligence is unequivocally a scientific question."  Richard Dawkins

JAM Posts: 517 Joined: July 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 04 2008,23:19    Quote (Daniel Smith @ Mar. 04 2008,18:47)   Quote (JAM @ Mar. 02 2008,16:47)         Quote (Daniel Smith @ Mar. 02 2008,12:40)           Quote (JAM @ Mar. 01 2008,22:10) The point you keep missing is that these karyotypically visible events (fission, fusion, inversion, translocation, etc.) can produce speciation with absolutely zero change in phenotype. On the other hand, a single nucleotide substitution can cause massive phenotypic changes. Can you manage to wrap your brain around that fundamental point? I'm aware of the former,... Since you know he was wrong about that, why would you claim that he was vindicated? Come on JAM.  The authors themselves were claiming that these mechanisms could explain "periods of explosive speciation and adaptive radiation".  These periods are what Schindewolf refers to as the evolution of types. You're dead wrong. The authors themselves are talking about evolution WITHIN what Schindewolf calls types. Canids are a single type, Daniel, no matter how much speciation and radiation goes on. Quote No one is claiming that every instance produces morphological changes though.  Schindewolf merely claimed that it was possible. I don't think so. He was claiming that as the mechanism, when in fact there's not even a correlation. Quote He felt such discussions were best left to geneticists. Then why did he discuss them, and why are you so blatantly fudging his definition of "type"?         Quote       Quote ...but can you give me examples of the latter? Yes; oligodontia, orofacial cleft, optic atrophy, absence of radius, radioulnar synostosis, absence of thumbs, chondrodysplasia, GH insensitivity, split-hand/foot malformation with long bone deficiency, etc.   I see.  You're talking about deformities.[/quote] I'm talking about single-nucleotide changes that result in huge changes in morphology. They happen to be deformities because most geneticists are in the game to help people, unlike you. Quote Do you know of any speciation events based on these types of deformities? What? Are you drunk, Dan? I'm arguing that there's NO CORRELATION BETWEEN SPECIATION EVENTS AND BIG MORPHOLOGICAL CHANGES. Damn, Dan, you're either incredibly dishonest, a complete idiot, or both. I choose both. BTW, the movement of the nostrils from the front to the top of the head has been clearly attributed to changes in the regulation of a gene that is mutated in human craniofacial "deformities," so another one of your incredibly dishonest attempts to place Schindewolf's Ancient Holy Word above real data fails miserably.

JAM Posts: 517 Joined: July 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 04 2008,23:19    Quote (Daniel Smith @ Mar. 04 2008,18:35) Quote (mitschlag @ Mar. 03 2008,13:48)   Quote (JAM @ Mar. 03 2008,12:06) Point of clarification-- The single nucleotide in this case was not shown to cause the phenotype; it was just a marker (SNP). The likely cause is variation in the promoter. IOW, it still counts as evidence against Schindewolf's claim of correlation between the magnitude of events at the DNA and phenotypic levels, it just doesn't fit into the category of single-nucleotide substitutions. Thanks. (Hey, Daniel, see how science works?) Condescension noted. And ever so richly deserved.

JAM Posts: 517 Joined: July 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 04 2008,23:25    Quote (Daniel Smith @ Mar. 04 2008,19:22) And here's a paper that makes me at least feel I'm on the right track: Why repetitive DNA is essential to genome function Wouldn't the authors have produced some actual data by testing their hypothesis if they were on the right track? Tell me about Sternberg's expertise in molecular genetics while you're at it, OK? As well as his ethics; just for fun, let's limit it to his publication of a paper for which the author could not legally assign the copyright because the author had previously published most of it elsewhere.

mitschlag Posts: 236 Joined: Sep. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 05 2008,06:38    Quote (Daniel Smith @ Mar. 04 2008,18:33) Schindewolf speaks at length about Orthogenesis.  If I understand it correctly, his views were that evolution followed repeatable patterns, was irreversible, eventually led to overspecialization and ultimately ended in extinction. Of the description you quote I'd say this much applies to Schindewolf's view:         Quote Orthogenesis ... refers to the idea that an evolutionary lineage changes [in a] steady, uniform way with no reversals. Species [are not] evolving steadily towards a goal, [rather the path they were set on was "decided" by the saltational event that first formed that type].  [T]his trend was [not] caused by some “mysterious inner force” (to use Simpson’s words) of the species that compelled it to evolve. [Rather, Schindewolf] would say that once a trend got started in a lineage, it would unchangingly continue until extinction occurred. Thanks for the clarification. GG Simpson and others who worked in the field found that Schindewolf's orthogenesis theory did not fit the evidence of horse evolution: -------------- "You can establish any “rule” you like if you start with the rule and then interpret the evidence accordingly." - George Gaylord Simpson (1902-1984)

Daniel Smith Posts: 970 Joined: Sep. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 05 2008,11:00    Quote (JAM @ Mar. 04 2008,21:25)   Quote (Daniel Smith @ Mar. 04 2008,19:22) And here's a paper that makes me at least feel I'm on the right track: Why repetitive DNA is essential to genome function Wouldn't the authors have produced some actual data by testing their hypothesis if they were on the right track? Tell me about Sternberg's expertise in molecular genetics while you're at it, OK? As well as his ethics; just for fun, let's limit it to his publication of a paper for which the author could not legally assign the copyright because the author had previously published most of it elsewhere. There are two authors JAM.  Here is their info:   Quote James A. Shapiro1,* and Richard von Sternberg2,3 1 Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, University of Chicago, 920 E. 58th Street, Chicago, IL 60637, USA (E-mail : jsha@uchicago.edu) 2 National Center for Biotechnology Information – GenBank Building 45, Room 6AN.18D-30, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland 20894 (E-mail: sternber@ncbi.nlm.nih.gov) 3 Department of Systematic Biology, NHB-163, National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution,Washington, D.C., 20013-7012 (E-mail : Sternberg.Richard@NMNH.SI.EDU) -------------- "If we all worked on the assumption that what is accepted as true is really true, there would be little hope of advance."  Orville Wright "The presence or absence of a creative super-intelligence is unequivocally a scientific question."  Richard Dawkins

blipey Posts: 2061 Joined: June 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 05 2008,12:13    Wow.  Your response is "There are two authors"? Really.  No address of the issue of evidence and testing of hypothesis?  Just noting the fact that there are two authors? Did the second author bother to test anything?  Does there being a second author somehow advance your case? Or answer the question? -------------- But I get the trick question- there isn't any such thing as one molecule of water. -JoeG And scientists rarely test theories. -Gary Gaulin

oldmanintheskydidntdoit Posts: 4999 Joined: July 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 05 2008,12:52    Quote (blipey @ Mar. 05 2008,12:13) Wow.  Your response is "There are two authors"? Really.  No address of the issue of evidence and testing of hypothesis?  Just noting the fact that there are two authors? Did the second author bother to test anything?  Does there being a second author somehow advance your case? Or answer the question? I suspect Daniel is beginning to see the error of his ways. Say it ain't so Daniel, say it ain't so..... -------------- I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies". FTK if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand Gordon Mullings

swbarnes2 Posts: 78 Joined: Mar. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 05 2008,14:12    I think that a fair bit of what any of us would have to say has already been covered in the panda's thumb review of this paper. Another example of “scholarship” I also add the contents of "the onion test" Junk DNA, Junk Science, and The Onion Test And Daniel, if you fail to say anything intelligent or fact-based in response...well, we'll know that you have neither anything intelligent nor factual to say. No one will be surprised.

Daniel Smith Posts: 970 Joined: Sep. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 05 2008,18:41    Quote (blipey @ Mar. 05 2008,10:13) Wow.  Your response is "There are two authors"? Really.  No address of the issue of evidence and testing of hypothesis?  Just noting the fact that there are two authors? Did the second author bother to test anything?  Does there being a second author somehow advance your case? Or answer the question? I was at work.  I didn't have time for a thorough response.   As for evidence, there's a table that spans six pages listing the evidence for functional repetitive DNA. Did you look at it? -------------- "If we all worked on the assumption that what is accepted as true is really true, there would be little hope of advance."  Orville Wright "The presence or absence of a creative super-intelligence is unequivocally a scientific question."  Richard Dawkins

Dr.GH Posts: 2333 Joined: May 2002 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 05 2008,19:12    My new copy of Davis A. Young's book, "The Biblical Flood" came today.  So did John Allen Paulos's "Irreligion," and Neil Shubin's, "Your Inner Fish."  I needed a chaser for all the biblical literature and creationst tomes I have been reading. Even creationsits can lead to some good reading. -------------- "Science is the horse that pulls the cart of philosophy." L. Susskind, 2004 "SMOLIN VS. SUSSKIND: THE ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE"

blipey Posts: 2061 Joined: June 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 05 2008,19:18    Quote (Daniel Smith @ Mar. 05 2008,18:41) Quote (blipey @ Mar. 05 2008,10:13) Wow.  Your response is "There are two authors"? Really.  No address of the issue of evidence and testing of hypothesis?  Just noting the fact that there are two authors? Did the second author bother to test anything?  Does there being a second author somehow advance your case? Or answer the question? I was at work.  I didn't have time for a thorough response.   As for evidence, there's a table that spans six pages listing the evidence for functional repetitive DNA. Did you look at it? Yes. The table you speak of is found in a section titled "DOCUMENTATION OF DIVERSE GENOMIC FUNCTIONS ASSOCIATED WITH DIFFERENT CLASSES OF REPETITIVE DNA ELEMENTS". It is a list of repetitive DNA elements just as it says.  It is not really (I may be wrong--not reading biology papers for a living) evidence of their conclusion. It seems to be a list of things that exist.  To cite that as evidence of their conclusion seems incorrect.  It would rather be like me concluding "Baseball is the Best Sport" and claiming as evidence the following table: 1.  There are 4 bases 2.  3 strikes and you're out 3.  There are 90 feet between bases I may be wrong, of course.  I'll leave it to professionals to correct me (as I often need correcting). -------------- But I get the trick question- there isn't any such thing as one molecule of water. -JoeG And scientists rarely test theories. -Gary Gaulin

swbarnes2 Posts: 78 Joined: Mar. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 05 2008,19:37    Quote (Daniel Smith @ Mar. 05 2008,18:41) As for evidence, there's a table that spans six pages listing the evidence for functional repetitive DNA. And how many of those functions for repetative DNA were found by Creationists? If Creationists were so sure that their hypotheses would be borne out, why aren't they collecting all that evidence? For goodness sake, no one sensible is claiming that no repetitive DNA has any function at all. But with all the evidence you claim is in this paper, can you draw a conclusion as to what percentage of repetative stuff has a vital function? Or is that, when asked a real, specific question, all your so-called evidence doens't actually support the grandiose claims you think it does? We all remember the last time you made a quantitative claim.  You claimed that 50% of human genes would have no mouse ortholog.   And we all also know that when you jettisoned your integrity in favor of supporting Creationism, you rendered yourself incapable of remembering things like that.  Thank goodness this board remains, with its nunmerous testements to your absurd dishonesty.

Lou FCD Posts: 5455 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 05 2008,20:01    Quote (Dr.GH @ Mar. 05 2008,20:12) My new copy of Davis A. Young's book, "The Biblical Flood" came today.  So did John Allen Paulos's "Irreligion," and Neil Shubin's, "Your Inner Fish."  I needed a chaser for all the biblical literature and creationst tomes I have been reading. Even creationsits can lead to some good reading. Please be very careful, Dr. GH. I really don't want to see you wind up like Steve Story. Sad, sad, sad. -------------- “Why do creationists have such a hard time with commas? Linky“. ~ Steve Story, Legend

Pages: (58) < ... 51 52 53 54 55 [56] 57 58 >

Track this topic	Email this topic	Print this topic

© 2002-2009 Antievolution.org Powered by Ikonboard 3.0.2a © 2001 Ikonboard