Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Log in or create an account to join the discussions on the Atheist Republic forums.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
FREE E-BOOKS
Get the book "Why There Is No God" and one more book for FREE!
Sign up below for the Atheist Republic Newsletter to get the books.
Record Your Message!
Record your voice here for it to be aired on the Atheist Republic Voicemails Podcast.
Send us your views and opinions, your personal stories, messages of support, comments on recent news, or any comments you would like to share about your part of the world.
Note : By clicking record you are allowing us to broadcast your message on any of our platforms.
Affiliate Disclaimer
Links to atheist related books, shirts and movies and other atheism related products are affiliate links.
All proceeds will go to keeping the Atheist Republic website up and running; providing resources, advocacy, community tools and encouragement to atheists all over the world.
Hi Greensnake, (If this space gets too constricted, you can answer me at the bottom of this thread)
YOU SAID: “Valiya, it would be another of your wild goose chases. Chasing this strawman issue would allow you to avoid dealing with the main facts of this case, an unpleasant duty in that there are no known alternatives outside of evolution. I do sympathize with your wish to avoid those facts at all costs.”
A strawman issue??? You are the one who raised it as if it’s a very big deal. I am after this because you said that my interpretation is wrong, and challenged me to explain my interpretation. I had spent quite a deal of time and text to answer your challenge, and you have nothing to say on that? If it were a strawman why did you raise it in the first place? I will keep at it until I get a clear answer from you. If you think my interpretation of Shi is right, please accept that, or tell me why I am wrong.
YOU SAID: “In one instance Shi Huang would have been contradicting 7 facts if he meant what you said he was saying.”
What do you mean “if he meant what you said…” Don’t you understand English? Read his paper and tell me what you think he said.
YOU SAID: “So, who cares if you quoted him correctly?”
You cared, didn’t you? Isn’t that the reason you challenged me to explain my interpretation? Talk of shifting goalposts!
YOU SAID: “Most of your other quotations from him were interpreted by you to mean that the tree diagram from cytochrome c was an illusion based on a broken clock.”
So don’t you think it’s time you came out with your million dollar interpretation?
YOU SAID: “If those were his words, Shi Huang would have been contradicting the obvious fact that the cytochrome c tree is remarkably similar to that of DNA or of cladistics, which could hardly be the case if it were an illusion of errors.”
I don’t know how to hold a discussion with you. Shi Huang is contradicting the obvious fact of the “remarkable similarity between the trees” because he finds other facts that show disturbing dissimilarities between them. Please take off your blinkers and look at the facts he is presenting. It’s useless to shut your eyes and pretend that anything that contradicts the tree is false because the tree is an “obvious fact”! You are not even engaging the evidences he is bringing. Don’t I engage your arguments. For example, when you brought the Ediacaran fossil evidence, I showed you how there are scientists who don’t agree with that evidence and for what reasons. I don’t simply brush it aside saying ‘missing links’ is an observed fact, therefore one or two bits of precursors here and there don’t shake the overall picture. That’s what I want you to do. Deal with the arguments please.
YOU SAID: “Just in case anybody has forgotten, the facts that we are dealing with here are those "tree" diagrams that arise from a comparative study of DNA, cytochrome c, cladistics, and even the fossil record. Who has the better explanation for them? That is the question.”
Are you saying that no one can challenge an existing theory until they have a better theory than that? Is that the way science works? People look for alternate theories because they firstly find holes in the existing theory. Would you accept Lamarckism if there was no other alternate theory? We accept and reject ideas based on their individual merit. We don’t simply pick a theory because there is nothing else to replace it.
Yes, there are tree diagrams. But they also have problems. I am trying to bring your attention to the problems in those tree diagrams. But you refuse to engage those arguments using two ruses – either claim that my interpretation of them is wrong, or, if that doesn’t seem to hold water, change tack and discredit the scientist making those criticisms simply on the ground that he is going against mainstream thought.
YOU SAID: “I can't find a single paragraph in all of your discussion that actually attempts to explain why we get those tree diagrams.”
As stated above, my not having an alternative explanation does not automatically give credence to your theory. Your theory has to stand by itself. If you can’t clear the tree of all the alleged problems, then there is no reason why anyone should accept it.
YOU SAID: “Moreover, your fantasy of undermining molecular clocks is a digression of no significance given that molecular clocks are used by scientists around the world.”
So was ‘natural selection’ at one time. It was the most useful tool to explaining a lot of things, but then why are ‘neutralists’ denouncing it as next to useless now. Because it has holes in it that can’t be explained. So, instead of taking refuge behind these sweeping claims, you will need to answer the problems pointed out by scientists. That’s the only way we can take this discussion forward. If you don’t have answers, please spell it out.
YOU SAID: “Maybe you will quote Shi Huang again to "prove" that the fact doesn't exist!”
I quote Shi to show that there is more than one fact in the world. Some facts support the tree, and some facts challenge the tree. The tree in and of itself is NOT a FACT. You might like to believe so, but that’s only your belief.
"I think you agree that there are problems/exceptions in the tree, but you claim that they have to be seen in the light of your 7 principles and not made a big issue out of."
YOU SAID: “I gave you 7 scenarios that showed that a collision between a theory and a fact need not be fatal. Your claim that such a collision must always be very serious is stupid or confused.”
Whether a collision between theory and fact is fatal or not can only be decided by analyzing the actual fact and the theory. I have presented my evidence to show where the facts and the theory are colliding, and why they are serious. But you are not even making an attempt to answer them. Instead you are just throwing broad sweeping statements, not directly related to my arguments.
YOU SAID: “That Shi Huang seems to say as much doesn't make it any better (as though his words were divine and could counter an obvious fact).”
His words are not divine… neither are the words of any scientists in the world. Therefore, let’s just let their arguments speak, instead of falling into genetic fallacies - you are simply disregarding Shi because he is presenting a case against mainstream theory. I haven’t seen you present any other argument against Shi’s paper so far.
YOU SAID: “This is yet another strawman argument! Whether the Ediacaran fossils are the actual predecessors of the Cambrian fauna is totally irrelevant to your original argument.”
NO, it is relevant. Because our original argument is about the tree of life, which tries to map the evolution of life through ancestral relationships. Showing two lifeforms that are not related is next to useless in an argument for the tree.
YOU SAID: “The fact that some scientists also see certain Ediacaran animals as potential precursors to the Cambrian "explosion" doesn't help your case either. You claim that the Cambrian "explosion" came out of nowhere doesn't walk.”
The burden of proof of showing Precambrian ancestors is upon you. You brought the ediacaran fossils as proof. I showed that scientists opine otherwise. And you said that a topic under debate does not prove useful for either camp – meaning YOU or ME can’t use it as an evidence for our cases. Well, I don’t need them anyways, because I am only arguing for absence of fossil evidence. That puts you back in square one still bearing the burden of the unavailable proof! Therefore if Ediacaran can’t be proof for Cambrian body plans, that still leaves us with no positive evidence for Cambrian ancestors – looks like the explosion did come out of nowhere!
YOU SAID: “Now for the big question. Will you now, please, attempt to show us why those tree diagrams exist?”
I have answered it already. If I don’t have an explanation, it doesn’t prove your case automatically.
Hi Greensnake
YOU SAID: [Raising an issue does not necessarily imply that it is a central issue. You misinterpretation of scientific papers could not be ignored.
It is basic courtesy that when you raise an issue and I honor you by giving a detailed response, you have to give me a clear feedback. Even in this mail you have not come clean on whether my interpretation is right, or if Shi himself is wrong. Look at what you just blundered:
“[[I think he (Shi) said something foolish, but I want to give him the benefit of the doubt.]]
You are refusing to take a stance. You think he said something foolish (in which case my interpretation should be right), but you want to give him the benefit of doubt (meaning my interpretation is wrong)!!!! And you call me ‘confused’! What an irony.
YOU SAID: “Indeed, your freewheeling interpretations of scientific papers is humorous at times, especially when your selection actually supports my position!”
You come up with a challenge like, “Explain molecular clock and then show me why Shi thinks it’s a tautology.” When I give you a reply, you use the first part (explanation of molecular clock) and celebrate it as if I have just conceded the point to you – but you ignore the second part. This is how you have twisted my arguments and quotes to make them appear like they support your stance! Show me an example otherwise.
YOU SAID: “No, I'm not going to spend more time in a senseless diversion. Even Alembe broke off with you because of your pigheaded misinterpretation of a quote.]”
When people don’t have answers they break off!
YOU SAID: “[[I'm not going to waste any more time on this quote issue.]]”
How convenient! Make is sound like a big deal when it suits you. And when you get befitting replies just throw it aside as if it’s just a side issue!
YOU SAID: “Show me where Shi Huang unequivocally states that molecular clocks are totally worthless and I'll show you a guy who is out of touch with reality.”
For a hundredth time, here it is again: Shi says: “I show here that the molecular clock hypothesis is merely an ad hoc restatement of a factual observation, the genetic equidistance result. It is a tautology and does not qualify as a scientific theory with true explanatory power.”
But I know it’s not a big deal for you, is it, because you have many workarounds whenever you are confronted with straight-speaking evidence. Blame my interpretive skills, or brush it aside saying it’s not central to our discussion (even though you are the one who brings it up), or call the scientist and all the peers who reviewed his paper as ‘fools’.
YOU SAID: “On second thought, use the time to address the facts of this discussion, which you should have been doing from day one, namely why we have "tree" diagrams and what do they mean?”
My attack of molecular clocks is the premise from which I am tackling the tree diagrams. When I present the evidence, we just saw your loosy goosy attitude towards it.
YOU SAID: “However, if your interpretation is correct for a quote that absurdly contradicts reality itself, then who cares? Does that benefit your position in any way?]]”
If I were in your position, I would take the points that Shi raises in his paper and bring counter arguments to show why he is wrong. For all the insults you hurl at Shi, let’s not forget that he is a scientist who makes his arguments in a peer reviewed paper. Shouldn’t you at least show him that much of respect. Respond to arguments, instead of making a sweeping denunciation because something contradicts the central tenet of evolution.
YOU SAID: [[I already gave it (interpretation of Shi). As usual, you weren't listening.]]
You have not given an interpretation of Shi’s paper. I gave quotations from his paper and explained what he means by them. Instead I just find you calling him names like “foolish” and vacillating between two confused positions: 1. Shi is wrong 2. My interpretation is wrong!
YOU SAID: [Have you every tried looking at the various tree diagrams, valiya? If you do, you might notice that there is a remarkable similarity. That's reality, valiya!
And for a hundredth time again, there are scientists (not just Shi but many others) who feel that the ‘remarkable similarity’ has serious exceptions. When I bring them up, you are refusing to engage it.
YOU SAID: “Only in your fantasy world does the weight of some relatively obscure paper have greater weight than long established knowledge that is available on numerous university websites.]]
This is precisely what I mean by genetic fallacy. You don’t want to accept Shi not because you are trying to understand his arguments but simply because he has come up with something that goes against established beliefs (or facts as you call them). There is no way one can hold a discussion with this mentality.
YOU SAID:[Your original argument was that there was no complex life before the Cambrian explosion, remember? I assume that was your position since you challenged me to produce evidence of such life. I provided that evidence. Then, you just moved the goal posts!]”
Here is what I stated about Cambrian explosion on (Sat, 02/04/2017 - 23:57): “The Cambrian explosion contrary to expectation has gotten more unexplainable as fossil finds are showing that there were more innovative body plans than previously thought… all without any precursors. We see there is clearly not a tree but a forest. The fossil evidences are clearly in disarray.”
I was talking about ‘precursors’ to Cambrian body plans, not some unrelated lifeforms predating the Cambrian animals.
YOU SAID: [You should be worried about their remarkable similarity and the big picture! Remember my discussion about noise levels, valiya? The fact that you have some noise doesn't mean squat if the overall picture is clear.]
The overall picture is NOT an OBSERVATION of lifeforms evolving from common ancestors – that is only an interpretation. What is observed is the homology. But then you also have dissimilarities, which have to be explained using Darwinian mechanism. What I am interested in knowing is if these exceptions have any explanation on your side. Or are you saying that these exceptions should be overlooked because the rest 95% are working well.
YOU SAID:[False! I already explained that with my 7 scenarios, but your ears are stopped up! Since when does noise count more than a clear picture?]
Phew! Yes, you have your scenarios, but you will have to show how the exceptions fit those scenarios. If mercury doesn’t fit the planetary motion theory, then it’s indeed a thorn in the theory until you either explain it or you show how one of the 7 scenarios is applicable in its case. (Of course, the latter would only keep the theory’s fate hanging in the air, until further developments clear it of the snag).
YOU SAID: [Delusion Alert! Neutralists are talking about genetic drift among other things--not the usual role natural selection plays. You have a talent for misrepresenting scientific papers!]
That’s not what I understand. The usual role of natural selection has been greatly sidelined by neutralism. Yes, they have not fully ruled out selection, but its role as the engine of evolution has been seriously challenged. Neutralism is indeed a paradigm shift in evolution. Prof Larry Moran, no outlier to mainstream, says this: The conclusion is inescapable. Random genetic drift is, by far, the dominant mechanism of evolution.
You can check out this link: http://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2014/02/on-difference-between-neutral-theor...
YOU SAID: [Confusion Alert! You're confusing facts with the interpretation of facts. There are no alternate facts, unless you believe Donald Trump.]]
You are right. But I was referring to ‘facts’ in the sense that you have been using it all along. For you the tree is a FACT, but it’s just an interpretation of some observed facts. If the tree can be a fact, then observations that counter it are alternate facts!
YOU SAID: [False! Those diagrams are the product of laboratory and field work! Confusion Alert! You're confusing the fact that we have diagrams with their interpretation.”
LOL! Yes, it’s a fact that we have diagrams… but the diagrams themselves are not facts! We observe that a chimp is like monkey (the similarity is a FACT), from it we INTERPRET that chimps and man have a common ancestor.
YOU SAID: “Diversion Alert! Molecular clocks do work. Fact of life. There is no point in further engaging in that wild goose chase.]
You keep repeating it in spite of my attempts to bring your attention to research papers that deny this so called fact. You don’t care to read them, you don’t care to interpret them, you don’t care to engage them – but simply reject them on the basis that if they go against mainstream tenets then either my interpretation is wrong or they are themselves wrong. I see an ostrich!
YOU SAID: “Misdirection Alert! The fact that the place of the Ediacaran fauna in the evolutionary tree is not entirely clear does not prove there is no connection.”
Neither does it prove there is a connection. Now who bears the burden of proof? You, you says there is a connection, has to prove it.
YOU SAID: “DNA evidence makes it clear that all living creatures are part of the same evolutionary tree. You would have to argue that, despite ruling the known world at one time, no evolved descendants of Ediacaran fauna survived into the present time to show a different genetic system.”
Homology is interpreted to mean common ancestry. In order to establish that interpretation evolution predicts intermediaries. But when we find that there are instances where there are no intermediaries, evolution shrugs its shoulders and says but we all know that homology is from common ancestry! Merry go round.
YOU SAID: “The scientific question is whether they are part of the branch that gives rise to Cambrian life. Explain what we have, valiya!”
How easy! If providing proofs were this easy, I don’t understand why evolutionists were and still are striving to find missing links! You just need to show a 4 billion year old amoeba fossil! And bingo, there you go. Amoeba has life, humans have life… therefore they are similar – similarity means common ancestry – the tree is established!
YOU SAID: “Moreover, your original challenge to me was to provide evidence of multi-cellular Precambrian life. Now, the goal posts have been shifted.]”
As I have shown above, that was not my challenge. My challenge was to show precursors to Cambrian animals!
YOU SAID: [[False! Arguments over whether Ediacaran fauna are a direct ancestor to Cambrian fauna are not arguments over whether there is any ancestry at all to Cambrian fauna!
You can’t show me a snail’s fossil under a dog’s fossil and call it the missing link! But let me guess what you think. After all both are living creatures. Golly, what a striking homology!
YOU SAID: [[Delusion Alert! Absence of evidence (especially rarely preserved evidence) is not evidence of absence.
Absence of evidence is NOT evidence for its presence! If you claim there are precursors, you have to prove it… until proven, the absence is evidence of absence.
YOU SAID: number of scientists do believe that some of the body plans of the Cambrian "explosion" came out of Ediacaran fauna.]]
You said “believe”… that’s what it will remain until positive proof is furnished.
Valiya, you are being ignored here (as spelled out in a previous post) because of a failure, by way of meaningless digressions, to address the core issue! Takes two to have a serious discussion.
An apropriate song
Attachments
Attach Image/Video?:
I have to laugh at the human condition to be curious, its curiosity-driven discoveries and attendant theorizing, and the galleries of on-lookers solidifying lay conclusions from them without validation from any known and concluded authority as fact.
The OP stands in the light of day, looking outward gesticulating with emphasis such an immodest conclusion, and in the midst of that same gallery seeks recognition as a fact finder.
Pure entertainment.
Pitar ! The mild mannered musical wrecking ball.
Concerning the original post, I simply have this to state:
People who do not wish to understand science should not make it up to suit their ideals.
Why is everyone wasting time on this topic? It's doesn't seem to be going anywhere but the Twin towers.
Endri:
No mountain of evidence will move a fanatic, but in that mountain of evidence are a lot of details that may be useful to readers confronting similar arguments by others or in their own minds.
If you think about it you will realize that all animals are really nothing but worms in specialized bodies. The worm is the animal's intestinal tract. In the case of humans the intestines have actual brain cells. The purpose of the body (in whatever form) is to give the worm the means to survive in all kinds of environments and to capture and eat all kinds of foods. We tend to experience most strong emotions in our guts before they become obvious in our brains. That's because our guts are the essential animal. Our bodies just protect it.
Diotrephes,
Interesting observation! Yeah, the gut was a pretty basic development early on. In some sense we are evolved worms but with internal skeletons and other interesting features.
All this talk of worms and humans reminded me of a Lovecraft quote:
Hi Diotrephes,
An interesting thought. I must go and dig up some embryology and review early chordate evolution. I will grant you that we are modified fish. Now the question becomes, are fish modified worms?
It's possible since all animals are basically just a gut (or worm) with teeth. Everything else is just accessories.
This was great. Thanks. It led me on a fascinating learning journey!
Alembe,
The early jawless ones that looked like old-fashioned Hoover vacuum cleaners look kind of suspicious!
Hi valiya,
My comments will be in brackets [[my comments]].
YOU SAID: “Valiya, it would be another of your wild goose chases {the argument over how Shi Huang's paper should be interpreted}. Chasing this strawman issue would allow you to avoid dealing with the main facts of this case {the evolutionary trees}, an unpleasant duty in that there are no known alternatives outside of evolution. I do sympathize with your wish to avoid those facts at all costs.”
A strawman issue??? [[Call it a needless diversion if you wish. Maybe that's a better label. The real issue is who has the best explanation for the central facts of this case, the "tree" diagrams, which you understandably refuse to address.]] You are the one who raised it as if it’s a very big deal. [[Raising an issue does not necessarily imply that it is a central issue. You misinterpretation of scientific papers could not be ignored. Indeed, your freewheeling interpretations of scientific papers is humorous at times, especially when your selection actually supports my position! No, I'm not going to spend more time in a senseless diversion. Even Alembe broke off with you because of your pigheaded misinterpretation of a quote.]] I am after this because you said that my interpretation is wrong, and challenged me to explain my interpretation. I had spent quite a deal of time and text to answer your challenge, and you have nothing to say on that? [[Further comment would be a waste of time as Alembe found out.]] If it were a strawman why did you raise it in the first place? [[I got tired of your novel interpretation of scientific quotes, so a comment or two was necessary.]] I will keep at it until I get a clear answer from you. [[I'm not going to waste any more time on this quote issue.]]
If you think my interpretation of Shi is right, please accept that, or tell me why I am wrong. [[Telling you again and again why you are wrong doesn't seem to go anywhere. Show me where Shi Huang unequivocally states that molecular clocks are totally worthless and I'll show you a guy who is out of touch with reality. Which is more likely, that you put words into his mouth or that this scientist with good credentials is out of touch with reality? You have put words into his mouth. On second thought, use the time to address the facts of this discussion, which you should have been doing from day one, namely why we have "tree" diagrams and what do they mean? Apparently you would rather engage in endless diversions and wild goose chases. The hard truth is unpleasant and I can understand why you don't want to go there.]]
YOU SAID: “In one instance Shi Huang would have been contradicting 7 facts if he meant what you said he was saying.”
What do you mean “if he meant what you said…” Don’t you understand English? Read his paper and tell me what you think he said. [[I think he said something foolish, but I want to give him the benefit of the doubt.]]
YOU SAID: “So, who cares if you quoted him correctly?”
You cared, didn’t you? Isn’t that the reason you challenged me to explain my interpretation? Talk of shifting goalposts! [[Confusion Alert! You are mixing apples and oranges. Yes, I care that you often totally misinterpret quotes by scientists. Sometimes those quotes actually support my position! However, if your interpretation is correct for a quote that absurdly contradicts reality itself, then who cares? Does that benefit your position in any way?]]
YOU SAID: “Most of your other quotations from him were interpreted by you to mean that the tree diagram from cytochrome c was an illusion based on a broken clock.”
So don’t you think it’s time you came out with your million dollar interpretation? [[I already gave it. As usual, you weren't listening.]]
YOU SAID: “If those were his words, Shi Huang would have been contradicting the obvious fact that the cytochrome c tree is remarkably similar to that of DNA or of cladistics, which could hardly be the case if it were an illusion of errors.”
I don’t know how to hold a discussion with you. [[Try discussion the central facts of this topic! That might help.]] Shi Huang is contradicting the obvious fact of the “remarkable similarity between the trees” because he finds other facts that show disturbing dissimilarities between them. Please take off your blinkers and look at the facts he is presenting. It’s useless to shut your eyes and pretend that anything that contradicts the tree is false because the tree is an “obvious fact”! [[Have you every tried looking at the various tree diagrams, valiya? If you do, you might notice that there is a remarkable similarity. That's reality, valiya! Take a good sniff so that you might recognize it. There is nothing that Shi Huang could possibly say that would make that reality go away! Who is wearing the blinkers? Only in your fantasy world does the weight of some relatively obscure paper have greater weight than long established knowledge that is available on numerous university websites.]]
You are not even engaging the evidences he is bringing. Don’t I engage your arguments. [[You deny everything, valiya, even hard facts. The one thing you avoid like the plague is why we have tree diagrams in the first place and what can be deduced from them.]] For example, when you brought the Ediacaran fossil evidence, I showed you how there are scientists who don’t agree with that evidence and for what reasons. [[Your original argument was that there was no complex life before the Cambrian explosion, remember? I assume that was your position since you challenged me to produce evidence of such life. I provided that evidence. Then, you just moved the goal posts!]] I don’t simply brush it aside saying ‘missing links’ is an observed fact, therefore one or two bits of precursors here and there don’t shake the overall picture. That’s what I want you to do. Deal with the arguments please. [[We never got to the real arguments, explaining the tree diagrams. We're lost in diversions and wild goose chases!]]
YOU SAID: “Just in case anybody has forgotten, the facts that we are dealing with here are those "tree" diagrams that arise from a comparative study of DNA, cytochrome c, cladistics, and even the fossil record. Who has the better explanation for them? That is the question.”
Are you saying that no one can challenge an existing theory until they have a better theory than that? [[I am saying that it is customary to address the central facts of an issue.]] Is that the way science works? People look for alternate theories because they firstly find holes in the existing theory. Would you accept Lamarckism if there was no other alternate theory? We accept and reject ideas based on their individual merit. We don’t simply pick a theory because there is nothing else to replace it. [[Misdirection Alert!]]
Yes, there are tree diagrams. But they also have problems. I am trying to bring your attention to the problems in those tree diagrams. [[You should be worried about their remarkable similarity and the big picture! Remember my discussion about noise levels, valiya? The fact that you have some noise doesn't mean squat if the overall picture is clear.]] But you refuse to engage those arguments using two ruses – either claim that my interpretation of them is wrong, or, if that doesn’t seem to hold water, change tack and discredit the scientist making those criticisms simply on the ground that he is going against mainstream thought. [[Delusion Alert! Seeing that you have used quotes that actually favor my point of view should settle the first point. Your failure to understand that scientific papers are tentative submissions (except for factual reports on fossil finds, ect.), and your willingness to elevate one such paper above the established findings that may be found on any university website constitute a flight from reality!]]
YOU SAID: “I can't find a single paragraph in all of your discussion that actually attempts to explain why we get those tree diagrams.”
As stated above, my not having an alternative explanation does not automatically give credence to your theory. [[Misdirection Alert! No one ever said it does! It's all about addressing the evidence. I know it's hard to believe, but it's customary in a debate to address the central evidence.]] Your theory has to stand by itself. [[It does.]] If you can’t clear the tree of all the alleged problems, then there is no reason why anyone should accept it. [[False! I already explained that with my 7 scenarios, but your ears are stopped up! Since when does noise count more than a clear picture?]]
YOU SAID: “Moreover, your fantasy of undermining molecular clocks is a digression of no significance given that molecular clocks are used by scientists around the world.”
So was ‘natural selection’ at one time. [[And it still is!]] It was the most useful tool to explaining a lot of things, but then why are ‘neutralists’ denouncing it as next to useless now. [[Delusion Alert! Neutralists are talking about genetic drift among other things--not the usual role natural selection plays. You have a talent for misrepresenting scientific papers!]] Because it has holes in it that can’t be explained. [[Delusion Alert!]] So, instead of taking refuge behind these sweeping claims [[The fact that molecular clocks work in the real world?], you will need to answer the problems pointed out by scientists. That’s the only way we can take this discussion forward. If you don’t have answers, please spell it out.
YOU SAID: “Maybe you will quote Shi Huang again to "prove" that the fact doesn't exist!”
I quote Shi to show that there is more than one fact in the world. Some facts support the tree, and some facts challenge the tree. [[Confusion Alert! You're confusing facts with the interpretation of facts. There are no alternate facts, unless you believe Donald Trump.]] The tree in and of itself is NOT a FACT. [[False! Those diagrams are the product of laboratory and field work! Confusion Alert! You're confusing the fact that we have diagrams with their interpretation. The nature and interpretation of these tree diagrams was supposed to be the point of our discussion! My position is that they are the number one proof of evolution.]] You might like to believe so, but that’s only your belief. [[I accept the data of laboratory and field work competently done as would any scientist. I'm sorry that you can't recognize the difference between fact and interpretation.]]
"I think you agree that there are problems/exceptions in the tree, but you claim that they have to be seen in the light of your 7 principles and not made a big issue out of."
YOU SAID: “I gave you 7 scenarios that showed that a collision between a theory and a fact need not be fatal. Your claim that such a collision must always be very serious is stupid or confused.”
Whether a collision between theory and fact is fatal or not can only be decided by analyzing the actual fact and the theory. [[Misdirection Alert! Your previous position has been that any error was very serious.]] I have presented my evidence to show where the facts and the theory are colliding, and why they are serious. [[You spent an enormous among of time denying the obvious truth that a collision between theory and a fact need not be fatal. You seem to think that any noise rules out a clear picture.]] But you are not even making an attempt to answer them. Instead you are just throwing broad sweeping statements, not directly related to my arguments.
YOU SAID: “That Shi Huang seems to say as much doesn't make it any better (as though his words were divine and could counter an obvious fact).”
His words are not divine… neither are the words of any scientists in the world. Therefore, let’s just let their arguments speak, instead of falling into genetic fallacies - you are simply disregarding Shi because he is presenting a case against mainstream theory. I haven’t seen you present any other argument against Shi’s paper so far. [[Diversion Alert! Molecular clocks do work. Fact of life. There is no point in further engaging in that wild goose chase.]]
YOU SAID: “This is yet another strawman argument! Whether the Ediacaran fossils are the actual predecessors of the Cambrian fauna is totally irrelevant to your original argument.”
NO, it is relevant. Because our original argument is about the tree of life, which tries to map the evolution of life through ancestral relationships. Showing two lifeforms that are not related is next to useless in an argument for the tree. [[Misdirection Alert! The fact that the place of the Ediacaran fauna in the evolutionary tree is not entirely clear does not prove there is no connection. DNA evidence makes it clear that all living creatures are part of the same evolutionary tree. You would have to argue that, despite ruling the known world at one time, no evolved descendants of Ediacaran fauna survived into the present time to show a different genetic system. That's a tall claim. The scientific question is whether they are part of the branch that gives rise to Cambrian life. Explain what we have, valiya! Don't fantasize over what we don't see. Moreover, your original challenge to me was to provide evidence of multi-cellular Precambrian life. Now, the goal posts have been shifted.]]
YOU SAID: “The fact that some scientists also see certain Ediacaran animals as potential precursors to the Cambrian "explosion" doesn't help your case either. You claim that the Cambrian "explosion" came out of nowhere doesn't walk.”
The burden of proof of showing Precambrian ancestors is upon you. You brought the Ediacaran fossils as proof. [[I showed that Cambrian ancestors is a very reasonable assumption. The Ediacaran fossils were brought up because you challenged me to provide proof of Precambrian life.]] I showed that scientists opine otherwise. [[False! Arguments over whether Ediacaran fauna are a direct ancestor to Cambrian fauna are not arguments over whether there is any ancestry at all to Cambrian fauna! Once again your talent for misrepresenting scientific papers asserts itself!]] And you said that a topic under debate does not prove useful for either camp – meaning YOU or ME can’t use it as an evidence for our cases. Well, I don’t need them anyways, because I am only arguing for absence of fossil evidence. That puts you back in square one still bearing the burden of the unavailable proof! Therefore if Ediacaran can’t be proof for Cambrian body plans, that still leaves us with no positive evidence for Cambrian ancestors – looks like the explosion did come out of nowhere! [[Delusion Alert! Absence of evidence (especially rarely preserved evidence) is not evidence of absence. Frankly, I can't think of any modern scientist of note who believes that there are no ancestors to Cambrian fauna. A number of scientists do believe that some of the body plans of the Cambrian "explosion" came out of Ediacaran fauna.]]
YOU SAID: “Now for the big question. Will you now, please, attempt to show us why those tree diagrams exist?”
I have answered it already. [[Delusion Alert! You have never addressed the issue. If you believe I am mistaken, then produce one paragraph in all your posts dedicated to explaining why evolutionary trees exist. The most you have done that is even remotely relevant is to point out something that everyone already knows, that molecular clocks don't always run at a smooth rate.]] If I don’t have an explanation, it doesn’t prove your case automatically. [[Misdirection Alert! If you refuse to address the evidence, then I assume you have no case. Since you are trying to overthrow established knowledge, and offer us nothing, then the reasonable conclusion is that the established knowledge has not been overthrown! Right? You are under the delusion that the fact of evolution is still being debated by scientists.]]
--------------------------------------------------------
From my previous post:
"Now for the big question. Will you now, please, attempt to show us why those tree diagrams exist? Why do we even get them? Where do they come from? That is, explain the central facts (the tree diagrams) of this discussion. Show us that you have a better explanation for the evidence than does evolution. (The point of any factually based argument is to show that you have the better explanation of the key data.) If you are unable do that, then the obvious explanation for tree diagrams (a solid confirmation of evolution) should be accepted. If you refuse to address the central facts (why the tree diagrams exist) either by ignoring them, by strawman arguments, or by endless diversions and wild goose chases, then you have proven that your discussion is not serious. In that case, you should be ignored."
Well, I didn't see a single paragraph in your post that attempts to grapple with why tree diagrams exist, why they share a remarkable similarity, and how that might be explained. Evolutionary trees are one of the strongest arguments for evolution and, given your failure to even address the tree diagrams, nothing has changed.
I think it's clear by now, valiya, that your discussion is not serious, either by way of some psychological need for denial or by way of intent. Therefore, I should simply ignore you. Sorry, valiya, but it takes two to have a serious discussion. This particular "discussion" is formally closed on my part.
Hi Greensnake
YOU SAID: [Raising an issue does not necessarily imply that it is a central issue. You misinterpretation of scientific papers could not be ignored.
It is basic courtesy that when you raise an issue and I honor you by giving a detailed response, you have to give me a clear feedback. Even in this mail you have not come clean on whether my interpretation is right, or if Shi himself is wrong. Look at what you just blundered:
“[[I think he (Shi) said something foolish, but I want to give him the benefit of the doubt.]]
You are refusing to take a stance. You think he said something foolish (in which case my interpretation should be right), but you want to give him the benefit of doubt (meaning my interpretation is wrong)!!!! And you call me ‘confused’! What an irony.
YOU SAID: “Indeed, your freewheeling interpretations of scientific papers is humorous at times, especially when your selection actually supports my position!”
You come up with a challenge like, “Explain molecular clock and then show me why Shi thinks it’s a tautology.” When I give you a reply, you use the first part (explanation of molecular clock) and celebrate it as if I have just conceded the point to you – but you ignore the second part. This is how you have twisted my arguments and quotes to make them appear like they support your stance! Show me an example otherwise.
YOU SAID: “No, I'm not going to spend more time in a senseless diversion. Even Alembe broke off with you because of your pigheaded misinterpretation of a quote.]”
When people don’t have answers they break off!
YOU SAID: “[[I'm not going to waste any more time on this quote issue.]]”
How convenient! Make is sound like a big deal when it suits you. And when you get befitting replies just throw it aside as if it’s just a side issue!
YOU SAID: “Show me where Shi Huang unequivocally states that molecular clocks are totally worthless and I'll show you a guy who is out of touch with reality.”
For a hundredth time, here it is again: Shi says: “I show here that the molecular clock hypothesis is merely an ad hoc restatement of a factual observation, the genetic equidistance result. It is a tautology and does not qualify as a scientific theory with true explanatory power.”
But I know it’s not a big deal for you, is it, because you have many workarounds whenever you are confronted with straight-speaking evidence. Blame my interpretive skills, or brush it aside saying it’s not central to our discussion (even though you are the one who brings it up), or call the scientist and all the peers who reviewed his paper as ‘fools’.
YOU SAID: “On second thought, use the time to address the facts of this discussion, which you should have been doing from day one, namely why we have "tree" diagrams and what do they mean?”
My attack of molecular clocks is the premise from which I am tackling the tree diagrams. When I present the evidence, we just saw your loosy goosy attitude towards it.
YOU SAID: “However, if your interpretation is correct for a quote that absurdly contradicts reality itself, then who cares? Does that benefit your position in any way?]]”
If I were in your position, I would take the points that Shi raises in his paper and bring counter arguments to show why he is wrong. For all the insults you hurl at Shi, let’s not forget that he is a scientist who makes his arguments in a peer reviewed paper. Shouldn’t you at least show him that much of respect. Respond to arguments, instead of making a sweeping denunciation because something contradicts the central tenet of evolution.
YOU SAID: [[I already gave it (interpretation of Shi). As usual, you weren't listening.]]
You have not given an interpretation of Shi’s paper. I gave quotations from his paper and explained what he means by them. Instead I just find you calling him names like “foolish” and vacillating between two confused positions: 1. Shi is wrong 2. My interpretation is wrong!
YOU SAID: [Have you every tried looking at the various tree diagrams, valiya? If you do, you might notice that there is a remarkable similarity. That's reality, valiya!
And for a hundredth time again, there are scientists (not just Shi but many others) who feel that the ‘remarkable similarity’ has serious exceptions. When I bring them up, you are refusing to engage it.
YOU SAID: “Only in your fantasy world does the weight of some relatively obscure paper have greater weight than long established knowledge that is available on numerous university websites.]]
This is precisely what I mean by genetic fallacy. You don’t want to accept Shi not because you are trying to understand his arguments but simply because he has come up with something that goes against established beliefs (or facts as you call them). There is no way one can hold a discussion with this mentality.
YOU SAID:[Your original argument was that there was no complex life before the Cambrian explosion, remember? I assume that was your position since you challenged me to produce evidence of such life. I provided that evidence. Then, you just moved the goal posts!]”
Here is what I stated about Cambrian explosion on (Sat, 02/04/2017 - 23:57): “The Cambrian explosion contrary to expectation has gotten more unexplainable as fossil finds are showing that there were more innovative body plans than previously thought… all without any precursors. We see there is clearly not a tree but a forest. The fossil evidences are clearly in disarray.”
I was talking about ‘precursors’ to Cambrian body plans, not some unrelated lifeforms predating the Cambrian animals.
YOU SAID: [You should be worried about their remarkable similarity and the big picture! Remember my discussion about noise levels, valiya? The fact that you have some noise doesn't mean squat if the overall picture is clear.]
The overall picture is NOT an OBSERVATION of lifeforms evolving from common ancestors – that is only an interpretation. What is observed is the homology. But then you also have dissimilarities, which have to be explained using Darwinian mechanism. What I am interested in knowing is if these exceptions have any explanation on your side. Or are you saying that these exceptions should be overlooked because the rest 95% are working well.
YOU SAID:[False! I already explained that with my 7 scenarios, but your ears are stopped up! Since when does noise count more than a clear picture?]
Phew! Yes, you have your scenarios, but you will have to show how the exceptions fit those scenarios. If mercury doesn’t fit the planetary motion theory, then it’s indeed a thorn in the theory until you either explain it or you show how one of the 7 scenarios is applicable in its case. (Of course, the latter would only keep the theory’s fate hanging in the air, until further developments clear it of the snag).
YOU SAID: [Delusion Alert! Neutralists are talking about genetic drift among other things--not the usual role natural selection plays. You have a talent for misrepresenting scientific papers!]
That’s not what I understand. The usual role of natural selection has been greatly sidelined by neutralism. Yes, they have not fully ruled out selection, but its role as the engine of evolution has been seriously challenged. Neutralism is indeed a paradigm shift in evolution. Prof Larry Moran, no outlier to mainstream, says this: The conclusion is inescapable. Random genetic drift is, by far, the dominant mechanism of evolution.
You can check out this link: http://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2014/02/on-difference-between-neutral-theor...
YOU SAID: [Confusion Alert! You're confusing facts with the interpretation of facts. There are no alternate facts, unless you believe Donald Trump.]]
You are right. But I was referring to ‘facts’ in the sense that you have been using it all along. For you the tree is a FACT, but it’s just an interpretation of some observed facts. If the tree can be a fact, then observations that counter it are alternate facts!
YOU SAID: [False! Those diagrams are the product of laboratory and field work! Confusion Alert! You're confusing the fact that we have diagrams with their interpretation.”
LOL! Yes, it’s a fact that we have diagrams… but the diagrams themselves are not facts! We observe that a chimp is like monkey (the similarity is a FACT), from it we INTERPRET that chimps and man have a common ancestor.
YOU SAID: “Diversion Alert! Molecular clocks do work. Fact of life. There is no point in further engaging in that wild goose chase.]
You keep repeating it in spite of my attempts to bring your attention to research papers that deny this so called fact. You don’t care to read them, you don’t care to interpret them, you don’t care to engage them – but simply reject them on the basis that if they go against mainstream tenets then either my interpretation is wrong or they are themselves wrong. I see an ostrich!
YOU SAID: “Misdirection Alert! The fact that the place of the Ediacaran fauna in the evolutionary tree is not entirely clear does not prove there is no connection.”
Neither does it prove there is a connection. Now who bears the burden of proof? You, you says there is a connection, has to prove it.
YOU SAID: “DNA evidence makes it clear that all living creatures are part of the same evolutionary tree. You would have to argue that, despite ruling the known world at one time, no evolved descendants of Ediacaran fauna survived into the present time to show a different genetic system.”
Homology is interpreted to mean common ancestry. In order to establish that interpretation evolution predicts intermediaries. But when we find that there are instances where there are no intermediaries, evolution shrugs its shoulders and says but we all know that homology is from common ancestry! Merry go round.
YOU SAID: “The scientific question is whether they are part of the branch that gives rise to Cambrian life. Explain what we have, valiya!”
How easy! If providing proofs were this easy, I don’t understand why evolutionists were and still are striving to find missing links! You just need to show a 4 billion year old amoeba fossil! And bingo, there you go. Amoeba has life, humans have life… therefore they are similar – similarity means common ancestry – the tree is established!
YOU SAID: “Moreover, your original challenge to me was to provide evidence of multi-cellular Precambrian life. Now, the goal posts have been shifted.]”
As I have shown above, that was not my challenge. My challenge was to show precursors to Cambrian animals!
YOU SAID: [[False! Arguments over whether Ediacaran fauna are a direct ancestor to Cambrian fauna are not arguments over whether there is any ancestry at all to Cambrian fauna!
You can’t show me a snail’s fossil under a dog’s fossil and call it the missing link! But let me guess what you think. After all both are living creatures. Golly, what a striking homology!
YOU SAID: [[Delusion Alert! Absence of evidence (especially rarely preserved evidence) is not evidence of absence.
Absence of evidence is NOT evidence for its presence! If you claim there are precursors, you have to prove it… until proven, the absence is evidence of absence.
YOU SAID: number of scientists do believe that some of the body plans of the Cambrian "explosion" came out of Ediacaran fauna.]]
You said “believe”… that’s what it will remain until positive proof is furnished.
Valiya, you are being ignored here (as spelled out in a previous post) because of a failure, by way of meaningless digressions and false issues, to address the core data!
Hi valiya,
My response will be in brackets [[my response]]. This is the other discussion we were having about how new genetic material might arise. I moved it to this more spacious location.
YOU SAID: “This quote that YOU chose plainly accepts the fact of gene duplication and indicates that it is a powerful source (starting point) of new biological innovations.”
Yes. Gene duplication is a powerful source of biological innovations. And I being the ignoramus that I am would ask “what is the mechanism through which gene duplication produces these innovations?” [[Misdirection Alert! No one said anything about gene duplication producing new genetic information all by itself. That's why I repeatedly mentioned the later accumulations of mutations.]] To which the wise evolutionist would reply, “oh, about the mechanism we have very little knowledge, but just accept that gene duplication does it.” [[Mischaracterization Alert!]] Do you want me to accept this kind of nonsense as a proof for something? [[Strawman Alert!]]
YOU SAID: “What the author didn't say is that a duplicated gene (not needed because it is a duplicate) is free to collect mutations which constitutes new genetic information.”
Why do you want to dabble in guess works of what the author said or didn’t say? [[Misdirection Alert! Making note of a fact not mentioned is not an attempt to guess at what the author was saying.]]
Here is the full statement from Nature Magazine: [[Thank you for the quote, but it's a good idea to list the author and date.]]
{See valiya's post for the quote.}
Note, how the author is drawing the attention to what happens to the duplicated genes: he says. “By characterizing the functional fate of duplicate genes we show that duplicated genes rarely diverge with respect to biochemical function, but typically diverge with respect to regulatory control.”
[[I'm afraid that you have done it again, valiya! You have given me a quote that supports my position! The author has developed a procedure that can resolve the evolutionary gene history (genetic evolutionary tree) for a large number of species, and it is applied to 17 fungal species. Gene trees (here small portions of the evolutionary tree) follow from an analysis of the data. Thank you valiya! Note also the phrase "duplicated genes rarely diverge with respect to biochemical function". Did you catch the word "rarely"? That doesn't mean "never." Over tens of millions of years that could be a very strong source of new genetic information. Worse, duplicated genes typically diverge with respect to regulatory control. Guess where the greatest leaps in evolution take place? It's in the all-important regulatory genes. Rather than straining ourselves to read a jargon-loaded paper, why don't we just pull down a university biology textbook and see what it says.]]
[["The different alleles {versions} of a gene are created by changes in the sequence of the original gene. The original sequence itself is a mutation of some other gene. All genetic differences ultimately depend on the accumulation of mutations in the genome. … every now and then, a new mutation turns out to be useful. Under the right circumstances, natural selcection increases the mutation representation in a population of organisms."
(Asking About Life, Third Edition, Tobin/Dusheck, page 214.)]]
[[So, there you have it, straight from a university textbook on biology. The different versions of a gene are due to mutations. Viola! New genetic information!]]
[[As for gene duplication, a quick check with Wikipedia-Gene Duplication-Neofunctionalization nets this:]]
[["Gene duplications are an essential source of genetic novelty that can lead to evolutionary innovation. Duplication creates genetic redundancy, where the second copy of the gene is often free from selective pressure — that is, mutations of it have no deleterious effects to its host organism. If one copy of a gene experiences a mutation that affects its original function, the second copy can serve as a 'spare part' and continue to function correctly. Thus, duplicate genes accumulate mutations faster than a functional single-copy gene, over generations of organisms, and it is possible for one of the two copies to develop a new and different function. Some examples of such neofunctionalization is the apparent mutation of a duplicated digestive gene in a family of ice fish into an antifreeze gene and duplication leading to a novel snake venom gene and the synthesis of 1 beta-hydroxytestosterone."]]
[[If you prefer a scientific paper then how about one by the authors Magadum S, Baneriee U, Murugan P, Gangapur D, and Rauikesauan R. written in 2013. www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23640422
PubMed.gov (U.S. National Library of Medicine; National Institutes of Health)
Here's what we find in the formal abstract of the paper:]]
[[------------"Gene duplication as a major force in evolution -------------
Gene duplication is an important mechanism for acquiring new genes and creating genetic novelty in organisms. Many new gene functions have evolved through gene duplication and it has contributed tremendously to the evolution of developmental programmes in various organisms. … Based on whole-genome analysis of Arabidopsis thaliana, there is compelling evidence that angiosperms underwent two whole-genome duplication events early during their evolutionary history. Recent studies have shown that these events were crucial for creation of many important developmental and regulatory genes found in extant angiosperm genomes. … Gene duplication can provide new genetic material for mutation, drift and selection to act upon, the result of which is specialized or new gene functions."]]
[[So there you have it in jargon-free English. Can there be any remaining question in a rational mind that gene duplication is an important stepping stone on the road to new genetic information? Just add mutations and time.
YOU SAID: “By the way, we have observed the arrival of new species over the years! Doesn't that suggest new genetic information? Or, shall we assume that a shuffling of genes can create a new species?”
This is the logical error I am saying. You assume the mechanism that creates new species is evolution. [[Nah! It was God monkeying around with mosquitoes in the London Underground! That's why a new species developed down there.]] And then when I ask you for proof, you show me the so called ‘observed arrival of new species”. [[Delusion Alert? Confusion Alert? I am talking about new species that have been OBSERVED to evolve during the last 100 years or so! Notice the word "observed." Just Google "observed species" and look at "Darwin Was Right…" or any of the TalkOrigin sources. There you can find lots of proof that evolution has occurred recently enough to be observed!! If that's not enough proof for you, then the word has no meaning.]]
Circles. How are there so many different species? Through evolution. What is the proof for evolution? The fact that so many different species are there!!!! [[Strawman Alert!]]
YOU SAID: “By the way, evolution is an observed fact! But one only observes a few decades worth because that's how long the experiment usually lasts.”
Any examples? Hope you wouldn’t give me gene duplication again. [[See the above paragraph.]]
Hi Greensnake,
I forgot to give the link in the last post. Here It is: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v449/n7158/abs/nature06107.html
I am cutting straight to the core issue here.
Let me break it down for you. Here the author categorically states that the mechanism of gene duplication which gives rise to biological innovations is largely unknown. There are two ways to understand his statement:
1-The mechanism of gene duplication may be unknown. However, once the duplication takes place, the duplicated gene accumulates mutation, giving rise to innovations. Therefore we know the mechanism that gives rise to innovations. I think this is what your understanding is.
2-The second way to understand is that the whole process (gene duplication + the mechanism that gives rise to new functions) is largely unknown. This is what I think the author is talking about.
And here is how I reach that understanding:
Firstly, the title of the paper is ‘Natural history and evolutionary principles of gene duplication in fungi.’ Therefore it’s clear that the author’s main concern is the ‘evolutionary principles’ or how new functions arise.
The author says: “Gene duplication and loss is a powerful source of functional innovation. However, the general principles that govern this process are still largely unknown.”
In the second sentence he says ‘the general principles that govern THIS process…” Which process is he referring to? The answer is the sentence just preceding it: “Gene duplication and loss is a powerful source of functional innovation.” He is referring to the process that gives rise to innovation.”
And then he goes on to explain the experiment, which is not our concern here.
After that the author says: “By characterizing the functional fate of duplicate genes show that duplicated genes rarely diverge with respect to biochemical function, but typically diverge with respect to regulatory control.”
Here he is talking about a peculiarity in the duplicated gene. He says “they rarely diverge’ in some ways, and ‘typically diverge’ in some other ways, ruling out randomness, and underlining some kind of a mechanism at work.
And he concludes by saying: “Surprisingly, paralogous modules of genes rarely arise, even after whole-genome duplication. Rather, gene duplication may drive the modularization of functional networks through specialization, thereby disentangling cellular systems”
He finds it surprising that ‘paralogous genes RARELY arise’ (Or genes that are supposed to evolve by duplication rarely arise). This clearly shows that the mechanism he says that is “LARGELY UNKOWN” is indeed the mechanism that gives rise to biological innovations.
.
Moving on to your points
YOU SAID: [[I'm afraid that you have done it again, valiya! You have given me a quote that supports my position! The author has developed a procedure that can resolve the evolutionary gene history (genetic evolutionary tree) for a large number of species, and it is applied to 17 fungal species. Gene trees (here small portions of the evolutionary tree) follow from an analysis of the data. Thank you valiya!
This is a typical example of how you misconstrue my arguments to make them appear like they support your views. When I am debating a Christian, I may quote a verse from the bible to show that Jesus was NOT divine… but if the Christian misconstrues it saying that therefore I believe in the bible that would be disingenuous. Here our discussion is about gene duplication – as the proof I am bringing against it is from a mainstream Darwinist, it obviously will have portions that support the theory in other respects. You can’t jump on to those portions and say I have brought support for your claims.
YOU SAID: “Note also the phrase "duplicated genes rarely diverge with respect to biochemical function". Did you catch the word "rarely"? That doesn't mean "never."
LOL. This reminds of a Jim Carrey movie in which when he is told by the woman who spurns his proposal there is one in a million chance, he celebrates saying that means there IS a chance!
If I toss a coin and I “rarely” see heads turning up and I “typically” see tails turning up… then what that rules out is randomness. This is what the author means by bringing our attention to this peculiarity in the duplicated gene. And that’s why he thinks the mechanism is still largely unknown.
YOU SAID: “Worse, duplicated genes typically diverge with respect to regulatory control. Guess where the greatest leaps in evolution take place? It's in the all-important regulatory genes.”
What is making a random process (as you claim) favor a mutation in the regulatory genes typically? That does not look like it’s random. If it’s not random, then what is the mechanism that produces this result? That’s what is largely unknown.
YOU SAID: [["The different alleles {versions} of a gene are created by changes in the sequence of the original gene. …….. natural selcection increases the mutation representation in a population of organisms."
(Asking About Life, Third Edition, Tobin/Dusheck, page 214.)]]
This is the more basic understanding, to which our author sheds more light. And according to him, it’s not random mutation, but some hidden mechanism that is largely UNKNOWN.
I am not responding to the rest of the post because I think they more or less repeat the same arguments. If there is anything important I have overlooked, please bring it to my attention.
Hi valiya,
My comments will be in brackets [[my comments]].
I am cutting straight to the core issue here.
Let me break it down for you. Here the author categorically states that the mechanism of gene duplication which gives rise to biological innovations is largely unknown. There are two ways to understand his statement: [[I'm not really interested in your attempts to interpret a jargon-laden, scientific paper! That such materials are way over your head has been made clear on several humorous occasions (including this one!) where the material actually supports my position!!]]
1-The mechanism of gene duplication may be unknown. However, once the duplication takes place, the duplicated gene accumulates mutation, giving rise to innovations. Therefore we know the mechanism that gives rise to innovations. I think this is what your understanding is.
2-The second way to understand is that the whole process (gene duplication + the mechanism that gives rise to new functions) is largely unknown. This is what I think the author is talking about. [[This is your confused interpretation. The scientific paper I quoted from (6 years more recent) does not support your interpretation.]]
…
This clearly shows that the mechanism he says that is “LARGELY UNKOWN” is indeed the mechanism that gives rise to biological innovations. [[Again, this is your confused interpretation which is clearly exposed by the more recent scientific paper I quoted.]]
.
Moving on to your points
YOU SAID: [[I'm afraid that you have done it again, valiya! You have given me a quote that supports my position! The author has developed a procedure that can resolve the evolutionary gene history (genetic evolutionary tree) for a large number of species, and it is applied to 17 fungal species. Gene trees (here small portions of the evolutionary tree) follow from an analysis of the data. Thank you valiya!
This is a typical example of how you misconstrue my arguments to make them appear like they support your views. When I am debating a Christian, I may quote a verse from the bible to show that Jesus was NOT divine… but if the Christian misconstrues it saying that therefore I believe in the bible that would be disingenuous. [[You don't believe the Bible which you quoted from. Do you also not believe the authors of the paper you quoted from?? Your quote from the Bible was to show inconsistency. Your quote from the scientific paper was to establish a point. Huge difference!]] Here our discussion is about gene duplication – as the proof I am bringing against it is from a mainstream Darwinist, it obviously will have portions that support the theory in other respects. You can’t jump on to those portions and say I have brought support for your claims. [[Let me guess. Your authority is right when it agrees with you, but is wrong if it disagrees with you!! It is competent and yet incompetent! That's like a battleship made of half steel and half clay! Doesn't that approach make you the authority since you judge what is right and wrong? What are your credentials?]]
YOU SAID: “Worse, duplicated genes typically diverge with respect to regulatory control. Guess where the greatest leaps in evolution take place? It's in the all-important regulatory genes.”
What is making a random process (as you claim) favor a mutation in the regulatory genes typically? [[Misdirection Alert! Never said that.]] That does not look like it’s random. If it’s not random, then what is the mechanism that produces this result? That’s what is largely unknown. [[Bullshit Alert! I simply noted a scientific fact, namely that a mutation in the regulatory genes can have an outsized effect. Doesn't that undermine your whole misuse of your source? In the authors' own words you have an increase of genetic information in this area.]]
YOU SAID: [["The different alleles {versions} of a gene are created by changes in the sequence of the original gene. …….. natural selection increases the mutation representation in a population of organisms."
(Asking About Life, Third Edition, Tobin/Dusheck, page 214.)]]
This is the more basic understanding, to which our author [["authors" based on the paper you quoted!]] sheds more light. And according to him, it’s not random mutation, but some hidden mechanism that is largely UNKNOWN. [[Your incompetence at interpreting scientific material, even from an introductory university textbook, rises to a spectacular height here!! Tobin and Dusheck are talking about mutations within existing genes--not duplication of genes. Admit it, you don't know what you are talking about. We have a clear case of new genes arising here and, therefore, new genetic information.]]
I am not responding to the rest of the post because I think they more or less repeat the same arguments. If there is anything important I have overlooked, please bring it to my attention.
[[Funny, how the more recent scientific paper I quoted from got totally ignored! Is it because it totally contradicted your confused interpretation of your own jargon-laden source and did it in crystal-clear English? Maybe we should spend some time on that paper. The 6 authors of that paper make it very clear that the duplication of genes followed by mutations is a source of new genetic information.
Have you no response to the Wikipedia article I quoted from? It actually gives some examples from real life that only make sense in the light of gene duplication followed by mutations that created a new gene. Wikipedia states what every competent scientist now knows, that duplication of genes followed by mutations is a major source of new genetic information. Unfortunately, valiya is still trying to milk that jargon-loaded paper even though it actually contradicts his position.
Your cut-and-run tactics also ignored the fact that new genetic information obviously comes with new species. You demanded evidence for my claim that new species have actually been observed in the act of coming into being. I gave you loads of evidence from TalkOrigin and other Internet websites. No response?]]
Hi Greensnake,
My comments will be in brackets [[my comments]].
YOU SAID:[I'm not really interested in your attempts to interpret a jargon-laden, scientific paper!
This time I must congratulate you because you at least made an attempt to hazard an interpretation unlike in Shi’s case! But now you seem to be slipping back into your usual rut. I have critiqued your Jim Carrey-method of interpretation and instead of responding you have slipped back into your denial mode. Anybody can play these tricks of avoiding to face the argument by casting aspersions on the credibility of the opponent.
YOU SAID: “That such materials are way over your head has been made clear on several humorous occasions (including this one!) where the material actually supports my position!!]
I have already explained how you arrive at these baseless conclusions. Yet again, I don’t see you engaging those points, but instead you are relentlessly repeating accusations like a parrot.
YOU SAID: [[This is your confused interpretation. The scientific paper I quoted from (6 years more recent) does not support your interpretation.]]
Whatever gives you the idea that the interpretation of one paper should be sought in another paper! I too can produce a paper that supports my view and say that the paper in question should be interpreted in its light. It’s all there in the paper – that the mechanism of gene duplication as a source of biological innovation is largely unknown – and the reasons for that are explained as well. Just open your eyes and read it.
YOU SAID: [[Again, this is your confused interpretation which is clearly exposed by the more recent scientific paper I quoted.]]
How muddled your sense of logic is! The very basis of my argument is to highlight sharp differences between evolutionists regarding different aspects of the theory. And you insist on interpreting one such paper in the light of another paper that contradicts it. Yes there are papers that try to give a hunky-dory picture of gene duplication trying to explain how it gives rise to new traits according to Darwinian mechanisms – but here is a paper that contradicts that idea. But you insist on interpreting it based on the papers it is trying to contradict.
Imagine you bring me some research material that aims to bring out the flaws in bible. But if I insist that you have to interpret those writings in the light of the scripture, then there will be no way you can prove your case. Let the papers speak for themselves.
YOU SAID: [You don't believe the Bible which you quoted from. Do you also not believe the authors of the paper you quoted from?? Your quote from the Bible was to show inconsistency. Your quote from the scientific paper was to establish a point. Huge difference!
Confusion reigns in your case. It is obvious that I don’t accept the mainstream Darwinian idea. Otherwise why do you think we are having this discussion? So, I don’t accept the central arguments of Darwinists, be it Shi or be it the authors of this paper. But then why am I quoting these people. That’s a basic debating tactic. If I can prove a point using the authorities on your side, then that would settle the dust on those particular issues, won’t it? If you can prove from the Quran that the prophet had, say for example, killed innocent men and women (just an example, I don’t mean it), then that would settle the issue about his violent nature. However, that WOULD NOT mean that you accept all that the book says.
YOU SAID: [[Let me guess. Your authority is right when it agrees with you, but is wrong if it disagrees with you!! It is competent and yet incompetent! That's like a battleship made of half steel and half clay! Doesn't that approach make you the authority since you judge what is right and wrong? What are your credentials?]]
You guessed it wrong. I don’t indulge in the genetic fallacy that you so often fall into. I don’t go by WHO is saying it, I rather focus on WHAT is being said. If there are arguments that I find convincing, I accept them, and if the same person puts forth arguments that are not convincing then I reject them. You might want to know what credentials I have in order to accept and reject arguments by these geniuses. Well, it’s not me sitting and passing judgements. Rather I listen to arguments by geniuses and counter arguments by other geniuses. It’s basically that either position is coming from people who are well grounded in the field. Based on how much I can understand I take sides. That’s all I am doing. And this is all that anybody can do.
YOU SAID: [[Bullshit Alert! I simply noted a scientific fact, namely that a mutation in the regulatory genes can have an outsized effect. Doesn't that undermine your whole misuse of your source? In the authors' own words you have an increase of genetic information in this area.]]
You are so easily digressing from the main point. We are not debating about the size of the effect of mutation on different genes. The paper is bringing our attention to a peculiarity in the probability of two kinds of mutations – one is rare and the other is typical. This highlights that the mutations (which are supposed to be random according to Darwinian mechanism) is not random. If not random, then there aught to be some mechanism. But we know very little about it.
YOU SAID: [Your incompetence at interpreting scientific material, even from an introductory university textbook, rises to a spectacular height here!! Tobin and Dusheck are talking about mutations within existing genes--not duplication of genes. Admit it, you don't know what you are talking about. We have a clear case of new genes arising here and, therefore, new genetic information.]]
That was so easy to understand. In fact it’s just reiterating the model you were proposing of how duplicated genes gather mutation and evolve new information. And as I said, I didn’t want to engage it because I agree that that’s precisely what they mean. But my point is about the paper that contradicts this notion – after all there is nothing in your version of the mechanism that is hidden or hard to understand. But the paper I presented specifically says that the mechanism is largely unknown. Can you explain what is this mechanism that is unknown?
YOU SAID: “Have you no response to the Wikipedia article I quoted from?”
Same as above.
YOU SAID: “You demanded evidence for my claim that new species have actually been observed in the act of coming into being. I gave you loads of evidence from TalkOrigin and other Internet websites. No response?]]
I tried to go through our thread to find those evidences, but I couldn’t. Probably, I missed it. Can you please provide those evidences (of new species evolving) again.
NOTE: Even if you are looking to end this conversation like the other post, please do give me this evidence.
Hi valiya,
My comments will be in brackets [[my comments]].
{GREENSNAKE} SAID: “That such materials are way over your head has been made clear on several humorous occasions (including this one!) where the material actually supports my position!!]
I have already explained how you arrive at these baseless conclusions. Yet again, I don’t see you engaging those points, but instead you are relentlessly repeating accusations like a parrot.
[[Let the reader judge for him or herself! From time to time I have pointed out your embarrassing incompetence in interpreting scientific papers, which I assume arise from a deep, religious prejudice and a lack of a decent scientific background. At times it reaches the level of comedy! However, I prefer to remain focused on the main issue, thank you, namely how genetic novelty arises.]]
{GREENSNAKE} SAID: [[This is your confused interpretation. The scientific paper I quoted from (6 years more recent) does not support your interpretation.]]
Whatever gives you the idea that the interpretation of one paper should be sought in another paper! [[Strawman Alert! My sources provide a clearer light which provides an important check on your inability to interpret scientific papers.]] I too can produce a paper that supports my view and say that the paper in question should be interpreted in its light. It’s all there in the paper – that the mechanism of gene duplication as a source of biological innovation is largely unknown [[which is irrelevant to the fact that genes ARE duplicated]] – and the reasons for that are explained as well. Just open your eyes and read it.
[[Yes, it's all there valiya, including a program to reconstruct parts of the evolutionary tree! But you don't like that, so you deny the credibility of your source in that area and accept it where you THINK it supports you! We have a battleship made half of steel and half of clay!]]
[[I understand that it upsets you when I also play the quote game. Two can play that game, valiya! Why is your older, jargon-loaded paper a better source than my more recent, crystal-clear paper? The words of researchers Magadum S, Baneriee U, Murugan P, Gangapur D, and Rauikesauan R. (submitted in 2013) said: "Gene duplication can provide new genetic material for mutation, drift and selection to act upon, the result of which is specialized or new gene functions." In their abstract they also said: "Gene duplication is an important mechanism for acquiring new genes and creating genetic novelty in organisms. Many new gene functions have evolved through gene duplication and it has contributed tremendously to the evolution of developmental programmes in various organisms." However you slice it, valiya, it spells "new genetic information." You'd have to be blind not to see that. Either your source is obsolete or you have misinterpreted it. Given your track record, that is not hard to answer.]]
{GREENSNAKE} SAID: [[Again, this is your confused interpretation which is clearly exposed by the more recent scientific paper I quoted.]]
How muddled your sense of logic is! The very basis of my argument is to highlight sharp differences between evolutionists regarding different aspects of the theory. And you insist on interpreting one such paper in the light of another paper that contradicts it. [[I think it's fairly obvious to any knowledgeable follower of this discussion that a source 6 years more recent, a standard university textbook on biology, and Wikipedia make it quite clear that the source of new genetic material is no problem for evolution. Those sources certainly trump your dubious interpretations of an older, jargon-laden source!]] Yes there are papers that try to give a hunky-dory picture of gene duplication trying to explain how it gives rise to new traits according to Darwinian mechanisms – but here is a paper that contradicts that idea. [[False! There is no contradiction as I have pointed out. It exists only in your mind.]] But you insist on interpreting it based on the papers it is trying to contradict. [[Valiya, those papers are six years in the future with respect to your source!! Obviously, your source is not trying to contradict them! My source makes crystal clear what is somewhat obscured in the technical jargon or not clearly pointed out in your source. As I have said repeatedly, an honest interpretation of your source supports evolutionary trees (as you even admitted) and it does not say that gene duplication cannot give rise to new information. In particular, it stated that mutations in the all-important controlling genes are not rare.]]
Imagine you bring me some research material that aims to bring out the flaws in bible. But if I insist that you have to interpret those writings in the light of the scripture, then there will be no way you can prove your case. [[Wrong on several counts. First, your interpretation of your source is dubious. Second, my source has the benefit of 6 more years of scientific advancement. Third, my sources stand on their own and represent a scientific consensus.]] Let the papers speak for themselves. [[They have.]]
{GREENSNAKE} SAID: [You don't believe the Bible which you quoted from. Do you also not believe the authors of the paper you quoted from?? Your quote from the Bible was to show inconsistency. Your quote from the scientific paper was to establish a point. Huge difference!
Confusion reigns in your case. [[Does it?]] It is obvious that I don’t accept the mainstream Darwinian idea. Otherwise why do you think we are having this discussion? So, I don’t accept the central arguments of Darwinists, be it Shi or be it the authors of this paper. But then why am I quoting these people. That’s a basic debating tactic. If I can prove a point using the authorities on your side, then that would settle the dust on those particular issues, won’t it? [[In effect you are saying "If source 'A' is correct" then evolution has a fatal flaw. Your follow up is to say "Since you accept source 'A', you must admit that evolution has a fatal problem." Another follow up is to say that source 'A' is highly credible and, therefore, evolution is suspect. If you undermine your own source by asserting that some of his other statements are wrong, then you destroy this second alternative. (A battleship half clay and half steel doesn't sail.) As to the first follow up, there is no reason why I should have to agree with source 'A' even if your interpretation were correct. You would have to further demonstrate that source 'A' is highly credible, meaning that I would likely be wrong if I did not accept it. But why should I accept a source that you have undermined? You could only reply that I should accept source 'A' because of my position, but that's a rather presumptuous statement. I might agree with some points that source 'A' makes, but I could disagree on other points.
There is a much more awkward consideration here. You are in the position of asserting, without a good background in science, that evolutionists (who authored your source) are refuting evolution! Don't you see the absurdity of that situation?]] If you can prove from the Quran that the prophet had, say for example, killed innocent men and women (just an example, I don’t mean it), then that would settle the issue about his violent nature. However, that WOULD NOT mean that you accept all that the book says. [[A better example would be my using the the prophet's words in the Quran to prove that he was really a Christian! That, of course, would be absurd in that the prophet was definitely not a Christian. Equally absurd is your quoting of evolutionists (who were working on a program to reconstruct a small part of the evolutionary tree) to make it seem that they are refuting evolution! Either the authors behind your source are not evolutionists, and I have no obligation to stand by them, or else they are totally irrational in denying what they accept as true!]]
{GREENSNAKE} SAID: [[Bullshit Alert! I simply noted a scientific fact, namely that a mutation in the regulatory genes can have an outsized effect. Doesn't that undermine your whole misuse of your source? In the authors' own words you have an increase of genetic information in this area.]]
You are so easily digressing from the main point. We are not debating about the size of the effect of mutation on different genes. The paper is bringing our attention to a peculiarity in the probability of two kinds of mutations – one is rare and the other is typical. [[And, as I pointed out, the typical mutations have an outsized effect on evolution! That's a virtual admission of new genetic information!!]] This highlights that the mutations (which are supposed to be random according to Darwinian mechanism) is not random. [[Confusion Alert! It says nothing of the kind! Mutations are more or less random, but their rates depend on the molecules involved and on certain other factors. It's like radioactive decay. Some radioactive elements throw off particles at a great rate while other radioactive elements throw off particles at a slow rate. The decay of each atom is a random matter, but not the rate. Individual mutations are random, but not the rate of accumulation.]] If not random, then there aught to be some mechanism. But we know very little about it. [[Wrong again! We know a great deal about the sources of mutations and how different circumstances affect the rate. Don't you read any of the popular science magazines?]]
{GREENSNAKE} SAID: [Your incompetence at interpreting scientific material, even from an introductory university textbook, rises to a spectacular height here!! Tobin and Dusheck are talking about mutations within existing genes--not duplication of genes. Admit it, you don't know what you are talking about. We have a clear case of new genes arising here and, therefore, new genetic information.]]
That was so easy to understand. In fact it’s just reiterating the model you were proposing of how duplicated genes gather mutation and evolve new information. [[Delusion Alert! You still got it wrong!! I guess it's not that easy for you. I'll say it again since you seem a little deaf. Dusheck was not talking about the duplication of genes. She was talking about mutations within an existing gene. Did you happen to notice the phrase "original gene"? A duplicated gene is not an original gene, right? Do you see the word "duplicated" anywhere? Wake up and smell the coffee, valiya!]] And as I said, I didn’t want to engage it because I agree that that’s precisely what they mean. But my point is about the paper that contradicts this notion – after all there is nothing in your version of the mechanism that is hidden or hard to understand. But the paper I presented specifically says that the mechanism is largely unknown. [[The mechanism is totally and completely irrelevant since genes are duplicated. Duplicated genes are the known starting point for new genetic information even as pointed out in the scientific paper I quoted. It's like saying that eggs can't hatch and become birds because we don't know the details of the mechanism behind egg development. Alembe pointed that out, but you persist in your irrational, pigheaded attempt to cling to that idea.]] Can you explain what is this mechanism that is unknown? [[No need to. I've presented a more modern scientific paper, a quote from a university textbook, and common scientific knowledge from Wikipedia that make it very clear to anyone with ears that new genetic information does arise. Far from a mystery, the mechanisms are widely accepted throughout the scientific community! Your own source supports me as well, but through a cloud of technical jargon. I have also provided a mountain of evidence, including photos, from various websites that clearly document the evolution of new species in the last 100 or so years. New species means new genetic information, right? What is there left to discuss?]]
{GREENSNAKE} SAID: “Have you no response to the Wikipedia article I quoted from?”
Same as above. [[Delusion Alert! You haven't even touched that article. What do you make of the examples where a duplicated gene was converted into a new gene?]
{GREENSNAKE} SAID: “You demanded evidence for my claim that new species have actually been observed in the act of coming into being. I gave you loads of evidence from TalkOrigin and other Internet websites. No response?]]
I tried to go through our thread to find those evidences, but I couldn’t. Probably, I missed it. Can you please provide those evidences (of new species evolving) again.
NOTE: Even if you are looking to end this conversation like the other post, please do give me this evidence.
[[From my post on 3/1/2017 01:05: "Just Google "observed species" and look at "Darwin Was Right…" or any of the TalkOrigin sources. There you can find lots of proof that evolution has occurred recently enough to be observed!!"]]
Hi Greensnake
This seems to be another round of dillydallying from your side from giving a straight interpretation of the paper. Please engage my replies to your points on interpretation.
YOU SAID:[[Strawman Alert! My sources provide a clearer light which provides an important check on your inability to interpret scientific papers.]]
The paper I presented clearly spells out that the mechanism of gene duplication which gives rise to biological innovations is ‘LARGELY UNKNOWN’. I have given my understanding of what is “UNKNOWN”… but I am yet to hear from you what the authors mean by it. Here is what I expect from you: 1. Please explain from the paper what is the mechanism that is “UNKNOWN” 2. And then show to me how your ‘more recent’ papers have cast light on this “UNKNOWN” factor.
YOU SAID: Why is your older, jargon-loaded paper a better source than my more recent, crystal-clear paper?
Fine, then please explain to me how your ‘newer’ papers have explained the ‘Unknown mechanism’ in my older paper?
YOU SAID: “The words of researchers Magadum S, Baneriee U, Murugan P, Gangapur D, and Rauikesauan R. (submitted in 2013) said: "Gene duplication can provide new genetic material for mutation, drift and selection to act upon, the result of which is specialized or new gene functions."
Do you mean to say this mechanism of ‘drift and selection’ was unknown to the authors of the paper I presented? These are basic evolutionary mechanisms? But they still claim that the ‘mechanism’ is ‘largely unknown.” So what do they mean by that?
YOU SAID: “In their abstract they also said: "Gene duplication is an important mechanism for acquiring new genes and creating genetic novelty in organisms. Many new gene functions have evolved through gene duplication and it has contributed tremendously to the evolution of developmental programmes in various organisms."
This does not add any extra information to what my paper was already saying. IN fact my source starts out by saying that gene duplication is a powerful source of biological innovation. However, it then adds the qualifier that the ‘mechanism’ of how this is achieved is largely unknown. Does your paper say the mechanism has now been revealed and why some divergences are ‘rare’ while others are ‘typical’?
YOU SAID: [[I think it's fairly obvious to any knowledgeable follower of this discussion that a source 6 years more recent, a standard university textbook on biology, and Wikipedia make it quite clear that the source of new genetic material is no problem for evolution. Those sources certainly trump your dubious interpretations of an older, jargon-laden source!]]
There was a problem raised in a paper. And what I expect to see are answers to that problem. But you have failed to explain what the mechanism that was largely unknown is and how the recent papers have explained that gap in the understanding…. instead, I find your papers simply reiterating a mechanism that predates even the papers I presented.
YOU SAID: [[False! There is no contradiction as I have pointed out. It exists only in your mind.]]
One paper says the mechanism is not known, and the other one pretends to explain the whole mechanism… there clearly is a contradiction.
YOU SAID: [[Valiya, those papers are six years in the future with respect to your source!! Obviously, your source is not trying to contradict them! My source makes crystal clear what is somewhat obscured in the technical jargon or not clearly pointed out in your source.
Yes, there are technical jargons in the paper… but no one can doubt that the authors have clearly spelt out that the mechanism of gene duplication that creates new functions is LARGELY UNKNOWN! Can you interpret this is any other fashion? Please tell me how? So once again, I request you, first explain to me what is the mechanism that was unknown to these authors… and how do your ‘crystal clear’ papers clarify that gap in knowledge?
YOU SAID: “As I have said repeatedly, an honest interpretation of your source supports evolutionary trees (as you even admitted) and it does not say that gene duplication cannot give rise to new information.”
I have very clearly explained that the proofs I bring from evolutionists will of course not upset the fundamental notions of evolution. So you will likely find support for the ‘tree’ ‘common ancestry’ and so forth. However, each paper I bring will highlight problems in a very specific area of the theory – and it’s those details that I will like to you focus on. But to say that my sources support evolution and therefore I have to accept all that they say is quite childish.
YOU SAID: “In particular, it stated that mutations in the all-important controlling genes are not rare.]]”
The paper says mutation is typical in those genes, while rare in other genes. This is so because of some mechanism that is not known… this is my understanding, if you think otherwise please enlighten me with your interpretation.
YOU SAID: [[Wrong on several counts. First, your interpretation of your source is dubious. Second, my source has the benefit of 6 more years of scientific advancement.
So, far I have not found a serious response to my critique of your interpretation. You are once again swinging between two positions: my interpretation is wrong. Or even if it is right, your papers are more recent and therefore trumps my source. Please take a stance. Let’s take it one step at a time. Is my interpretation right or wrong? And then do your sources clarify the ‘unknown’ mechanism?
YOU SAID: Third, my sources stand on their own and represent a scientific consensus.]]
Genetic fallacy. My sources must be right because of where they come from!
YOU SAID: [[In effect you are saying "If source 'A' is correct" then evolution has a fatal flaw. Your follow up is to say "Since you accept source 'A', you must admit that evolution has a fatal problem."
You have got the whole basics wrong! These are two worldviews clashing. It would be entirely delusional for either of us to think that by undermining a few points here and there, we can win a new convert! No… it’s through a series of argumentations, one step at a time, that we slowly get the other person to appreciate our worldview.
So, what you are proposing is some sort of cartoonish version, where I bring a minutiae from an evolutionist that I think aligns with some tiny part of my worldview and I expect you to recant your ideas and join my camp, and vice versa. NO. But it’s rather like this. I bring to the table a series of argumentation with proofs from a vast array of sources (and these sources may or may not agree with my overall world view), and I lay them all in front of you, with bits of evidences from here and there… hoping to draw a larger picture… this of course will take a lot of time… which, I hope, would then start shaking your confidence in some of your fundamental notions.
This is the reason that I am never tired of engaging the same opponent (I don’t mean that in a negative way) on a variety of topics. Unfortunately, many people on this forum seem to come with the idea that you expresses your thoughts that are very obvious (from your perspective) and when the other person doesn’t get it, you throw some insults and say goodbye, never to engage in a discussion again. I have lost some good debating partners on account of that. Pragmatic is a case in point.
YOU SAID: “There is a much more awkward consideration here. You are in the position of asserting, without a good background in science, that evolutionists (who authored your source) are refuting evolution!”
NOT AT ALL. This is a point I have explained over and over again. I am not claiming that my sources have refuted evolution. I am just showing how they differ on certain specific points in the theory. If I can convince you on that single point, we can then move on to the next point and so on and so forth… until perhaps one day you would begin to look askance at the whole theory!
YOU SAID: [[And, as I pointed out, the typical mutations have an outsized effect on evolution! That's a virtual admission of new genetic information!!]]
You don’t get the point. We are not talking about what a mutation can do or cannot do. Rather, we are worried about how they occur in the first place. Let me give you an example: Imagine, you see a blind man who is randomly snipping off flowers from a plant using a garden scissors. The plant has flowers of many different colors, but the man snips off only the yellow flowers. The question is not about the effect of scissors on the flowers – yes, the sharper the scissors the cleaner the cuts will be… but the question is how does the blind man cut only the yellow flowers. It looks like there is some way (mechanism) by which he targets only the yellow ones… it’s not random. Hope the point is clear.
YOU SAID: [[Confusion Alert! It says nothing of the kind! Mutations are more or less random, but their rates depend on the molecules involved and on certain other factors. It's like radioactive decay..
Fine. Then do you have any explanation as to why mutation occurs only in the regulatory genes in OUR case?
YOU SAID: [[Wrong again! We know a great deal about the sources of mutations and how different circumstances affect the rate. Don't you read any of the popular science magazines?]]
Please enlighten me as to how in this particular example the ‘regulatory genes’ are typically mutating. Secondly, are you saying that at the time of this paper these information were not known to the authors?
{GREENSNAKE} SAID: [Admit it, you don't know what you are talking about. We have a clear case of new genes arising here and, therefore, new genetic information.]]
Just that we don’t know how they arise! Mechanism?
YOU SAID [[Delusion Alert! You still got it wrong!! I guess it's not that easy for you. I'll say it again since you seem a little deaf. Dusheck was not talking about the duplication of genes. She was talking about mutations within an existing gene. Did you happen to notice the phrase "original gene"?
I guess I should have been a little more specific on which of your evidences I was responding to. This was in response to your Wikipedia quote, which said: “….Duplication creates genetic redundancy, where the second copy of the gene is often free from selective pressure — that is, mutations of it have no deleterious effects to its host organism….”
When I wrote: Can you explain what is this mechanism that is unknown?
YOU SAID: [[No need to. I've presented a more modern scientific paper, a quote from a university textbook, and common scientific knowledge from Wikipedia that make it very clear to anyone with ears that new genetic information does arise.
You can quote from any source, but they should be relevant to the argument. I presented a paper that raised some specific issues in gene duplication. The paper you bring in response to that must answer those specific points and not just given a generalized version of the overall idea of gene duplication. So, I am waiting to hear from you two things: what is the mechanism that my source found ‘largely unknown’… and how does your source answer that specific point?
YOU SAID: [[From my post on 3/1/2017 01:05: "Just Google "observed species" and look at "Darwin Was Right…" or any of the TalkOrigin sources. There you can find lots of proof that evolution has occurred recently enough to be observed!!"]]
These examples are not any different from the usual wolf-to-dog examples of speciation, which are not examples of evolution unless you get very imaginative.
Hi valiya,
What is there left to discuss? Yes, we could continue with endless quibbling over insignificant details, pursue still more irrelevant diversions, and engage in yet more false issues and red herrings that originate, perhaps, from your inadequate education in the sciences. I see that as a waste of time! However, with regards to your attacks on those decisive sources recently presented by myself, I do have a few more comments since you haven't had a chance to fully address them. I'll finish up with some random comments that I hope will shed some light on the matter.
No doubt you will continue to muddy the water, perhaps unintentionally. If, by chance, you think yourself clever in that respect let me say that any good flat-earther or flying saucer fan can do as much. Genius soon enough rises above orthodoxy, but the fate of such people is to be ignored--to forever seek recognition for their foolishness, and their refuge is in universal conspiracies. Unlike boxing, the last man standing is awarded no prize in such a contest!
In a recent post I laid out four inconvertible facts:
FIRST, taken directly from a university textbook on biology, plainly states that different versions of a gene (alleles) arise due to mutations in the original gene. Note that this is not a statement about gene duplication. No genes are duplicated here! Obviously, new genes (alleles) mean new genetic information.
Should you ever read some of the university textbooks in science, you will quickly find that they are very careful about distinguishing between informed speculation and fact. Anything stated as a fact has the overwhelming approval of the experts. You will find the same information in any modern, introductory, university textbook on biology. There is nothing peculiar about the one I used. This source alone rebuts your claim that new genetic information cannot arise!
SECONDLY, I gave a recent paper by five scientists who plainly stated that duplicated genes followed by mutations are a major source of genetic innovation, i.e., new genetic information!
Scientific papers are also very careful about distinguishing between accepted facts and speculation. Any authors who got careless in that respect would find in tough to get published in a peer-reviewed journal! If somehow published, such an author could look forward to being slammed by fellow scientists in follow-up criticism. Hence, authors take great care in separating speculation and fact. That my source states the above in plain English (minus the confusion of jargon-laden language) is something that you cannot ignore by taking refuge in your layman interpretation of a paper loaded with jargon and six years older!
Regarding gene duplication, let me quote another university textbook:
"Unequal crossing-over may also result in duplication…"
("Biology of Plants, 7th edition; P. Raven, R. Evert, S. Eichhorn, page 154)
Compare that to your statement: "The paper I presented clearly spells out that the mechanism of gene duplication which gives rise to biological innovations is ‘LARGELY UNKNOWN’."
Here we have one of the mechanisms responsible for duplicating genes. Apparently, the "mystery" is not as deep as you would have us believe in your endless beating of that drum, at least for some gene duplications. Did you overlook the word "largely"? Your source is not saying that no mechanisms are known.
Here is some more insight from a 1000-page anthology:
"Given enough evolutionary time, an inactive mutant copy of one of the duplicate genes may become fixed in the population by drift."
("Evolution: The First Four Billion Years," edited by Michael Ruse and Joseph Travis, page 161.) Its authors are Brian Charlesworth (Professor and head of the Institute of Evolutionary Biology at the University of Edinburgh, an author of more than 200 scientific papers.) and Deborah Charlesworth (Professor of Plant Population Genetics at the University of Edinburgh.)
I seem to remember a "fatal contradiction" between natural selection and the fixation of neutral genes, brought out in one of your previous posts! If a neutral gene picks up a mutation (even if it is inactive), then the new gene can become fixed in a population. Thus, there is no need in that sense for the neutral gene, itself, to be fixed in the population.
On page 162 of the above anthology we also learn:
"Sometimes, however, duplicated genes may gain new functions by mutation before inactivating mutations occur." (Brian & Deborah Charlesworth)
Here is a plain statement that mutations can convert a duplicated gene into a new one! This is stated as a simple fact, something that an author of over 200 scientific papers would hardly do if it were contested in any serious manner.
Are we done yet? Nope! Brain and Deborah Charlesworth also inform us of the fact that whole families of closely related new genes can arise from a duplicated gene! That's also on page 162.
"Families of genes that have arisen by duplication are important components of genomes, and sometimes have many members with related kinds of functions, such as mammals' odorant receptors (Mombaerts 2001) or plant disease-resistant genes (Baumgarten et al. 2003)." (Brian & Deborah Charlesworth, p.162) Doesn't that spell "new genetic information"?
Brian and Deborah Charlesworth also inform us that:
"New genes may also form by fusion of parts of two genes if part of the messenger RNA of one gene is transcribed back into DNA and inserted into the chromosome within or adjacent to another gene (Long 2001)." (Brian & Deborah Charlesworth, p.162)
Thus, we have yet another way that new genes can form. Repeat after me: "New genetic information!" It's like fusing parts of the words "copper" and "bat" together to get "coat." The fact that the components of "coat" are already in "copper" and "bat" doesn't change the fact that new information has been created.
THIRD, I quoted from Wikipedia which reaffirmed the accepted fact that duplicated genes followed by mutations can lead to new genes--new genetic information. The Wikipedia source went a little further in that it gave actual examples of such gene changes! The subject has become routine enough to merit its own name, "neofunctionalization."
FOURTH, I pointed out websites that gave lots of examples of new species whose arrival was noted by humans. That is to say, the arrival of new species is an observed fact, not something theoretical. Please spell "n-e-w g-e-n-e-t-c i-n-f-o-r-m-a-t-I-o-n."
Your response to this massive list, including photographs, was to sweep it all under the rug. "These examples are not any different from the usual wolf-to-dog examples of speciation, which are not examples of evolution unless you get very imaginative." (valiya). An ignorant layman is telling the scientific world what constitutes real evolution! That could be a good joke in another setting. Needless to say, these are bona fide examples of new speciation events. Equally needless to say, anyone who expects to see 10 million years worth of evolution in less than 100 years is not connected with reality! The point, valiya, is that we do have new species, meaning new genetic information! Obviously, a new species freshly diverged is not going to be hugely different from its source population. But, once again, we do have new species and that is yet another clear proof that new genetic information arises--even in our own time!
{GREENSNAKE} SAID: “The words of researchers Magadum S, Baneriee U, Murugan P, Gangapur D, and Rauikesauan R. (submitted in 2013) said: "Gene duplication can provide new genetic material for mutation, drift and selection to act upon, the result of which is specialized or new gene functions."
"Do you mean to say this mechanism of ‘drift and selection’ was unknown to the authors of the paper I presented? These are basic evolutionary mechanisms? But they still claim that the ‘mechanism’ is ‘largely unknown.” So what do they mean by that?" (valiya).
I'm saying that once you have a duplicated gene (fact: genes can be duplicated) then they can be turned into new genes via mutations. What part of simple logic don't you understand? (As noted above, they can also become fixed without the aid of natural selection.) How you get the duplicated gene is irrelevant to the fact that we do get them! (The fact that bumblebees fly doesn't depend on one's inability to explain it!!) If it makes you feel any better, I listed above one mechanism that has been identified.
"One paper says the mechanism is not known, and the other one pretends to explain the whole mechanism… there clearly is a contradiction." (valiya).
No, valiya! What we have is a plain statement of fact by my paper and your confused interpretation of your paper. As I've already pointed out above, this whole business about the mechanisms (more than one I'd think) is a red herring. You cling to it like a dog with a bone! I really don't understand that. It's weird! You don't have to know how a bumblebee can fly in order to see that it does fly. You don't have to explain how genes are duplicated in order to see genes being duplicated. What part of that don't you understand?? And, now I have given you one of the mechanisms.
GREENSNAKE SAID: "Third, my sources stand on their own and represent a scientific consensus."
"Genetic fallacy. My sources must be right because of where they come from!" (valiya).
How you do love that expression "genetic fallacy"! Pointing out that a finding has universal scientific support (a general consensus of the scientific community) means that you have the best interpretation that science can currently give, an interpretation that is not likely to be overturned. If you are on the wrong side of that fence, then you might as well concede that your position is all but hopeless! You might hold out for a miracle, but that's more about wishful thinking than objective analysis.
"Unfortunately, many people on this forum seem to come with the idea that {if they express thoughts they consider very obvious, and the other person doesn't get it, then they are justified in throwing some insults and saying "goodbye,"} never to engage in a discussion again.
I have lost some good debating partners on account of that. Pragmatic is a case in point." (valiya, with a bit of rewording by myself to clarify the thought).
I suspect they see your efforts more as misdirection, as debating tactics complicated by a misunderstanding of the subject, than as a serious effort to engage in a meaningful discussion. I know that The Pragmatic is not one to tolerate diversions or misinformation. Judging by my own experience with our discussion of evolutionary trees, I'd have to say that you really do make some pretty outrageous statements which encourage unflattering responses! In our own example on evolutionary trees, we went around the loop some 8 or more times without you ever addressing the central facts. I offered evolutionary trees as the number one proof of evolution. At the very least you needed to explain how tree diagrams arise in some detail and argue that evolution was not the best interpretation of that data.
{GREENSNAKE} SAID: “There is a much more awkward consideration here. You are in the position of asserting, without a good background in science, that evolutionists (who authored your source) are refuting evolution!”
"NOT AT ALL. This is a point I have explained over and over again. I am not claiming that my sources have refuted evolution. I am just showing how they differ on certain specific points in the theory." (valiya).
Sorry valiya, I don't buy that. Your main point here has been that new genetic information cannot arise and, therefore, evolution is false. The whole point of quoting your source was to deny that new genetic information could arise from gene duplication. Therefore, you are in the absurd position of having the evolutionary authors of your source deny evolution! Your denial must be complete, because if you accepted that they supported other sources of new genetic information then your whole case would be undermined.
{GREENSNAKE} SAID: [[And, as I pointed out, the typical mutations have an outsized effect on evolution! That's a virtual admission of new genetic information!!]]
"You don’t get the point. We are not talking about what a mutation can do or cannot do. Rather, we are worried about how they occur in the first place. Let me give you an example: Imagine, you see a blind man who is randomly snipping off flowers from a plant using a garden scissors. The plant has flowers of many different colors, but the man snips off only the yellow flowers. The question is not about the effect of scissors on the flowers – yes, the sharper the scissors the cleaner the cuts will be… but the question is how does the blind man cut only the yellow flowers. It looks like there is some way (mechanism) by which he targets only the yellow ones… it’s not random. Hope the point is clear." (valiya).
The problem for you, valiya, is that new genetic information does arise. How it arises doesn't change the fact that it does arise!
{GREENSNAKE} SAID: "[[Confusion Alert! It says nothing of the kind! Mutations are more or less random, but their rates depend on the molecules involved and on certain other factors. It's like radioactive decay.."
"Fine. Then do you have any explanation as to why mutation occurs only in the regulatory genes in OUR case?" (valiya).
Are you saying that if I can't explain it then your idea is correct? Isn't that the "argument from ignorance" error? I suspect that regulatory genes make them more susceptible to the random factors driving mutations. There is no requirement that random mutations collect at equal rates for all molecules. You have already misinterpreted your source which says nothing about mutations ONLY occurring in regulatory genes.
{GREENSNAKE} SAID: "[Admit it, you don't know what you are talking about. We have a clear case of new genes arising here and, therefore, new genetic information.]]"
"Just that we don’t know how they arise! Mechanism?" (valiya).
Your attack on evolution was based on the idea that new genetic information cannot arise. Fact: It does arise. Therefore, you have a problem. Your strange diversion on how it arises is a red herring and does not change the fact that it does arise! (Later, I gave one mechanism for genetic duplication.)
{GREENSNAKE} SAID [[Delusion Alert! You still got it wrong!! I guess it's not that easy for you. I'll say it again since you seem a little deaf. Dusheck was not talking about the duplication of genes. She was talking about mutations within an existing gene. Did you happen to notice the phrase "original gene"?
"I guess I should have been a little more specific on which of your evidences I was responding to. This was in response to your Wikipedia quote…"
Valiya, your post of 3/3/2017 (5:27) said:
"YOU SAID: [["The different alleles {versions} of a gene are created by changes in the sequence of the original gene. …….. natural selcection increases the mutation representation in a population of organisms."
(Asking About Life, Third Edition, Tobin/Dusheck, page 214.)]]
This is the more basic understanding, to which our author sheds more light. And according to him, it’s not random mutation, but some hidden mechanism that is largely UNKNOWN." (valiya).
Clearly, you were addressing my textbook quote from Dusheck. Since your source was talking about gene duplication, and my source was not, you can perhaps appreciate my response.
"When I wrote: Can you explain what is this mechanism that is unknown?
{GREENSNAKE} SAID: "[[No need to. I've presented a more modern scientific paper, a quote from a university textbook, and common scientific knowledge from Wikipedia that make it very clear to anyone with ears that new genetic information does arise."
"You can quote from any source, but they should be relevant to the argument. I presented a paper that raised some specific issues in gene duplication. The paper you bring in response to that must answer those specific points and not just given a generalized version of the overall idea of gene duplication. So, I am waiting to hear from you two things: what is the mechanism that my source found ‘largely unknown’… and how does your source answer that specific point?" (valiya).
Valiya, for the life of me I really don't understand why you cling so to this dead horse!! For about the 5th time, it's the fact that new genetic information does arise from duplicated genes that destroys your argument. How we get those duplicated genes is academic. Nevertheless, I eventually (in this post) provided a mechanism even though there was no logical requirement to do so.
Hi greensnake
Okay. I am the ignoramus who never understands anything. Can you please explain two things to me? Not for a debate or anything, but just so that I get some understanding.
1-What is it that mechanism which my sources say is largely unknown?
2-How do the papers you presented explain that mechanism?
This may be irrelevant to you. But can you kindly condescend to my lower levels and explain it to me please?
Hi valiya,
I toned down the start of my 22:22 (last post) a little and made a few corrections, so you might want to give it another look before making further comments.
1) Sorry, valiya, can't help you here. Perhaps you can talk to a university professor, search the internet (gene duplication mechanisms), or even write the authors of your source. If you are not argumentative, you might even get a response! My guess is that there are several mechanisms, so it's not a question about "the" mechanism. It seems that at least some mechanisms are known even though (at least in 2007) the larger picture might have been unclear.
2) Having not read the complete paper, I'm not sure that they even discuss the matter. The parts that I quoted simply stated accepted facts. The authors may not have seen any need to go into those details that interest you. Suppose that a gardener wrote up his report for the day, stating among other things that he cut the lawn. Is there any particular reason why he should go into the mechanism by which this job was done? His boss will see that the lawn is cut, and that is enough. Once we have the duplicated genes, it doesn't really matter (at least for our discussion) what the mechanisms might have been. The car has arrived at its destination and the route taken might be a mystery to us, but the car has now arrived and we can make use of it.
hi greensnake
YOU SAID I toned down the start of my 22:22 (last post) a little and made a few corrections, so you might want to give it another look before making further comments.
I couldn't find it... where is it? I will have a look at it and then respond to all your points:)
Hi valiya,
It's the same post with editing.
Pages