Denial of evolution IV

Yes, the entire sequence is required now. No, that doesn't mean the entire sequence had to develop all at once.
Did you read the rest of that paper?
It delves into pre-existing useful processes that could be coopted into the recombination and homolog pairing steps of meiosis, and suggests how sister chromatid replication suppression and absence of chromosome replication in meiosis II are potential consequences of homolog pairing.

Here's the paper's conclusion:

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Schematic of our hypothesis, which is shown as a time line of events in the evolution of meiosis. Thick arrows indicate long-term events (evolutionary timescale or multi-generation) while the thin arrow for the proposed parameiosis process indicates an immediate consequence and event​

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

OK, I read about the lizards.
Do you understand what an (ileo)cecal valve is? Basically, it's a ring of muscle around the terminal ileum that is contracted more often than it is relaxed.

Now consider:
There are already rings of muscle all along the ileum, controlled by the mesenteric nervous plexuses, a complex system with a myriad of potential genetic and epigenetic sites for introducing variations in gut motility.
I don't know if there is any more complexity in these particular lizards' cecal valves, so I might be oversimplifying... but I don't think your incredulity is justified.
(edit - interestingly, Answers in Genesis agrees. I'm not sure how I feel about that!)

Amazing? Yes. Ludicrous? I don't think so.

And what alternative is there anyway? You agree that there must be some reason for these lizards to have developed cecal valves, right?


Postscript:
One other thing to consider: It seems that ileocecal valves are not unknown in that family (Lacertidae) of lizards. So some of the genetic code might have been existent in that species but suppressed. To be sure, researchers would have to check whether cecal valves occur congenitally in any of the original species members, perhaps by dissecting a few thousand newborn lizards.

Post-postscript:
A followup paper, Anatomical and Physiological Changes Associated with a Recent Dietary Shift in the Lizard Podarcis sicula (pdf), found 16 of 24 lizards from the new island had cecal valves, and also that (much more interestingly), 20 lizards from the island that were fed athropods only for 15 weeks had no cecal valves. (I don't know how old those lizards were, so I don't know whether they had cecal valves and lost them again, or what.) The researchers say that this indicates that the cecal valves are the result of plasticity rather than genetic variation, i.e. that the lizards had the potential for cecal valves already, but that potential was only realised after eating a plant rich diet (this can also explain some of the head morphology changes - more chewing means bigger jaw muscles and larger or denser bony attachments, even with the same genes. Just like a guy who works out will have bigger muscles and stronger bones than his identical twin).

Clearly, they should try feeding some lizards from the original population on plant diets and see if they also develop cecal valves.

And in hindsight, it's a shame they didn't collect and preserve specimens from the introduced population each year, to see when and how the morphological changes developed. Hopefully, someone is doing a repeat experiment as we speak. I've emailed Bart Vervust (who just completed his doctorate on these lizards) to ask.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Thanks Zenithar... now I've lost a good chunk of my day to reading about Croation lizards. Interesting stuff, but not helping me learn about schizophreniform disorders and antipsychotic pharmacology!

Cheers, Pete

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Mod note: All Zenithar66’s posts to date have been moved to here. Despite his/her claims to the contrary, it’s plainly apparent that the intention is to poke holes in evolutionary theory using some of the age-old creationist techniques…

“It’s all just speculation.…”

“It’s not proven….”

“Scientists are not unified in their opinions….”

“I can’t see/understand how X could have happened; therefore it must not have happened.…”

“How can enzyme X have evolved when its function is irreducibly complex….” (or paraphrasing thereof)

etc.

 

huh?

im sorry but what the hell is this? I am actually in shock. This is exactly what happened on that website askabiologist.com becuase i was "denying" evolution(actually I got banned).
I would appreciate you read my other 2 threads(especailly the nitrogen one) where i state i am not a creationist and I know evolutiono occurs!!

I am simply very skeptical of the proposed mechanisms to account for the adaptions we actaully see, im not arguign that those adaptions arent there through a processes of evolution? so how in the world can i be moved to the "denial of evolution" thread?

care to answer this one oh holy moderator?

I am here too learn, i accept when i was totally wrong(nitrogen thread) and i will debate with others? what am i supposed to do, just simply take it on faith that the proposed mechanisms can indeed account for all thsoe adaptions (and so many others) i named as well as the co evolution of parts in the girrafe and the sexes?(and again..MANY others).

This is almost orwellian.

 

interestingly I have not said any of the above and therefore have not met the requirments to be moved?

I am not here to blindly argue or regurgitate anything(show me the last creationist thread about topoisomerase).

 

he he, sorry! and yes very intersting too me also!

 

wow

U]Mod note[/U]: All Zenithar66’s posts to date have been moved to here. Despite his/her claims to the contrary, it’s plainly apparent that the intention is to poke holes in evolutionary theory using some of the age-old creationist techniques…

I have not said its ALL just specualtion, of course their is much speculation WITHIN the theory, i accept evolution has occured and we are indeed all related by DNA as far as i can tell.

what are you referrign too here
if you are referring to proposed co opting of enzymes at a time we cannot observe then clearly its not proven, scientists freely admit they specualte on evolution of mitosis etc...what is the problem here?
evolution IS proven, what is the problem.

I have not said scientists are not uniform, and if i did say it, it would not be to disprove evolution, just an observation(i honestly cant recall if i did)

i didnt say it didnt happen, nor did i say i dont understand how it "happened". I know how it has been proposed to have occured, but i am not saing therefore it must not have happened, clearly topo did evolve, clearly its here, but whats not clear is the way in which it "came to be"..
how is this denying evolution, this is quite a strange way to filter skepticism.

oh, and do you understand HOW it happened? I'd like you to enlighten me.

I said nothing about an enzyme being IC and i am not making that claim, although interstingly many scientists are now propounding that IC systms would be expected to evolve..I think the IC argument is intersting, I dont think it would disprove evolution, at the most it would make us question its mechanisms. again this is not denying evolution,

 

he he sorry!

oh and just so you know we can continue this(grrrrr!) in the....gulp......denial of evolution thread!! sorry for the inconvenience.

 

yes, evolution is true i agree. But what evidence do we have that mutations can ACCRUE to produce anything usefull, let alone those adaptions we actually see in nature, or for that matter coevolution of parts.
or something as logical as looking EXACTLY like a leaf etc..
there is no reason to expect such complexity, why not stay lookign a bit like a leaf, or just gree? people seem to think that, once you look a bit like a leaf then the magic of selection takes over and propels you to ever higher complexities. when infact the mutations must occur first over many many many generations before they are "selected"..

i dont see the evidence that complex mechanisms can evolve through(evolutions proposed mechansims) gradual change?
Only that certain mutations may on very rare occasions express a protein differently etc thereby giving an adavantage, its quite a large leap to go from to extrapolating ontop of the compelx mechanisms(actaully nature much more then compelx, its co ordinated) we see...

your car analogy is good, but of course it dosent hold up in a sense because many scientist indeed ARE tryign to find out how particular pecies of the car(organism) came to be, or how they evolved etc. many others simply presume its origin and go from there instead of reevaluating the power of the mechanisms(have you ever seen a paper that evaluates the mechanism as applied to nature? id love to see it.)

I assure you im not simply "complaining"but inquiring heavily since,as you can proberbly tell, i am not yet convinced..nothing wrong with speculation either, once is based on somethign solid.
so they cant be answered, I agree, but does that mean we should presume HOW it happend? again What is the evidence that mutatios can accrue to produce complex co ordinated systems? and co evolution of those systems?

again, accidental co option of enzymes(got a few examples?) is not good evidence that certain enzymes in the past must have been coopted in a coevolution, otherwise they would not have worked..for instance DNA polymerase is actually held onto the DNA via a mind blowing CLAMP complex that is a ring shaped protein attachign DNApolymease to the DNA itself. But of course the ring shaped clamp is useless on its own(unless we make up hypothetical uses for a ring), it must be LOADED onto the dna by the clamp loader via atp hydrolises...but of course something amazing was discovred about the structure of this clamp, the grooves within its ring MATCH the grooves of teh dna? so it fits like a screw mechanism!!. the ring then bind polyemrase and flies forward a 1000 ntides persection in eucaryotes!

amazingly because the laggign strand must be synthesised bit by bit in okazaki fragments due to both the antiparallel nature of DNA's prime ends and the unidirectionallity of polyerase..this clamp has to be constanly loaded on and of on and off on and off while moving this fast.
first of all its like something out of a sci fi movie and when i try to apply gradual accidental changes to its development i simply hit wall of incredulity!

second, seeign a few mutations causing enzymes to have novel functions does not accout for the fact that in the past, many of these functions would have to be present simultanesouly...i mean, what came first, clamp or clamp loader, how can those grooves that fit the dna gradually evolve?
since if the clamp doesnt fit dna, its game over...it even has a gap between 2 of its sub units to let the spiraling helix escape as the clamp moves forward! if the gap wasnt there?

how can we simply, in one breath admit, we can only speculate, but in the other claim there is good evidence for the "origin" or "co option" of these mind numbing systems..(of course this all leaves out regulation and transferases as applie to these clmaps)..intersting the clamps are uqiquitous across all life, does this mean(this is a question) that we would assume it evolved multiple times? if so.....holy shit!



again, this is arguing from incredulity, but not becuase GOD DID IT.
But becuase as i become aquainted with the mechanisms given the task, the task seems less and less plausible...

yes, because it MUST say that, otherwise it would totally implausible for such systems to "arise", how does saying other systems MUST have been usefull even begin to prove the mechanisms of evolution?
I personally dont know how it happened, and i am open to all opinions, even the ones you suggest(and science of course) but only when i see sufficient reason to do so.

 

That "logic" is an error - it assumes a factual reality that is not necessary or inevitable, and that we have very good reason to think is not the case.

Darwinian theory explains observed reality. Your "logic" there assumes a reality contrary to what is observed, and without evidence of its own.

That is false. You simply don't know what Darwinian evolutionary theory is - you have some kind of bizarre assemblage of creationist nonsense lodged in your brain instead of the actual theory of evolution the rest of us are talking about. Go back to school, study up.

There is no debate here - you don't understand the first, fundamental, simple, basics of evolutionary theory. You are the latest of the dozens and dozens of creationist victims who have and probably will wander into these kinds of forums and post garbage from goofball websites. I'm just informing you of that. I'm not debating.

Sure, I got that - we all learn by asking questions.

You missed the real lesson, though, from the answer: your sources are garbage, you don't know what evolutionary theory is or how to evaluate the evidence for and against it, and so forth.

There are hundreds of such questions available, from your garbage sources and factual ignorance and theoretical confusion. They have all been answered, dozens of times, here and in hundreds of places you could easily find for yourself. Why should we deal with them over and over and over and over, filling a perfectly good forum with pages and pages ot the same bs every time, every time some arrogant little creationist victim takes up the crusade against all of Western science? Are we babysitters, paid to listen to hours of selfish babbling?

The problem is not questions on topics of interest. The problem is the posting of creationist swill. We're sick of it.

Yep. It's like the first eyeball, or the first woodpecker - no such thing.

Only fairly simple things are likely to emerge whole and defined in one step - that's one of the basic premises or starting observations of evolutionary theory.

 

explainingg what it is does not explain its origin as im sure you know.
by saying "basically" i feel you are trivializing(proberbly not on purpose)
the fact that this occured at all, becuase, based on evolutions timescales and mechanissm, this is wholly unexpected, even if no one wants to consider that

first off, there indeed is more complexity in a cecal valve, that is particular bacteria that need to be in it to help process the vegetal matter.
and its not do to with how complex it is its that it happened at all.
I dont really care if answers in genesis agrees or disagrees since they are so blinded by theism that they actaully dont see that this is evidence against the mechanism..they just really badly dont want a new structure to form or they could be in trouble!

the thing is,

I dont pretend to know the alternative, and yes there was obvisly a reason, but that reason(that they now had to eat predominontly plant matter) is so logical, and the solution so obvious(give them a cecal valve!)
and the change so fast that imo it utterly deifes the mechanisms of evolution as far as i can see for now. wouldnt it be much more likely that in 36 years the gene wouldnt be expressed and they would simply die out?
isnt that much more likely?




[/quote]One other thing to consider: It seems that ileocecal valves are not unknown in that family (Lacertidae) of lizards. So some of the genetic code might have been existent in that species but suppressed. To be sure, researchers would have to check whether cecal valves occur congenitally in any of the original species members, perhaps by dissecting a few thousand newborn lizards.

Clearly, they should try feeding some lizards from the original population on plant diets and see if they also develop cecal valves.[/quote]

good idea, though of course that would not explain the sheer feat of what has occured with the others..i mean, seriosly, dont you think this is just a little bit fishy and soemthign else could be at work?

oh hell yes, i would love a follow up!!

 

Creature give birth to offsprings quite like themselfves with more genetic variation in those that reproduce sexually in each genertation.

There is an enormous amount of information stored in the newly formed individuals, even when they are only a single cell, that tells it how to develope. - I would assume that you accept these obvious facts.

The mechanism of evolution is quite simple. Sometimes this "how to make" instruction mechanism is corrupted but only very slightly if the offspring is to be viable. That is the only "mechanism" but all that is all that needed, given enough genreations, to make amazingly different offsprings for their ancester some 100 millions of generations earlier.

What about this do you dispute, doubt, or not understand?

 

You are simply regurgitating the modern synthesis, if you have actaully read my posts i said i indeed belive evolution occurs, but that random mutatiosn and "selection" simply cannot account for countless adaptions in nature as well as countless molecular proceceses unless we simply pre suppose how it happened. creating variation in you offspring does not kick start an event that will lead to a new adaption, there is no forsight, and i would love too see the evidence that mutations can accrue to produce a complex structure.

the way you speak you seem to have simply swallowed the party line without critically evaluating it. how many things does it have to be not able to accoutn for before we realise the mechanissm aren't up to the task?

co evolution of parts, like the girrafe i discussed in that topisomerase thread earlier as well as sex, for me (among countless examples) simply must be taken on faith..but i find myself unable too do such a thing.

 

That's sorta the definition of evolution. (Random mutation combined with natural selection.)

That's exactly right. That's why it requires millions upon millions of "bad" mutations to produce even one beneficial one - and why lamarckism isn't needed to explain the diversity of life.

Then use science instead.

 

No, just stating an OBVIOUS TRUTH, unless you can show some limitations (other than your assertions) on the extent of change that can be achieved one small step at a time over very long perios.

You are asserting this with zero support, for a claim which has support for the opposit claim. Namely it is know that small changes do occrur and not reason is know that limits what gross change may accumulate by many small steps.

Nothing "presuposed"-only thousand of observations that small change do accumulate into larger ones.

Do you take your anti-biotics for mqny day after you are "well"? Have you read the posts about the Preá which due to about 7 highly unusual circumatance change into an different species (can not breed with the guiny pigs they evolved from in only 8000 years) with very different physical appearance, including radical relocation of their eyes to be forward looking with over lapping field of vision for good depth perception, instead of side mounted for nearly 360 coverage as most animals of prey have. (They were the only mamual on the tiny island with a food limited population of 42 or less - many starved each generation so better depth percepton was highly favored, etc. and imporvements spread thru out the tiny population gene pool rapidly.)?

No. I gave the REASONS why I think change occurred and that a tiny (1 in a million?) of the changes gave better reproductive adantage. (probably at leat 99 of every 100 was fatile prior to reproduction

One, which is impossible to achieve via accumulation of small chanfge. The problem is not in postulating one set of small change that could accumulate make the tranformation, but in estimating which of thousands actually made it. Execpt in a few cases, such as the recent transfromation of a land only animal into the sea only whale, where fossils of all the intermediate stages exist, we will never know exactly what the intermediates looked like.

 

[/quote]That's sorta the definition of evolution. (Random mutation combined with natural selection.)[/quote]


the fact that you say it "sorta" the definitino shows just how hard it is to define, in my view it is change over time and species developing and adapting.

so the theory goe, and its easy to believe by simply saying it. of course, saying it proves nothing, if you'd read my threads you'd see its the mechanisms that are my problem not the fact that evolution OCCURS
Its not about whats needed or not, its about assesing the evidence critically.

show me some kind of evidence taht co evolution of many separate parts could occur in the girrafe...
that mutations can accrue to do such thigns, im not talking about single mutattions altering teh expression of a gene,



Then use science instead.[/QUOTE]

 

what exact obvious truth are you stating?


[/quote]You are asserting this with zero support, for a claim which has support for the opposit claim. Namely it is know that small changes do occrur and not reason is know that limits what gross change may accumulate by many small steps. [/quote]

so because small changes occur, therefore evolutions mechanism account for everthing?, even at the molecular level and co evolution of parts as well as very very unexpectadly fast drastic changes in morphology like those wall lizards? you sound slightly like a zealot. my mind is open, and just becuase i am not convinced does not mean i am closed to that..

[/quote]Nothing "presuposed"-only thousand of observations that small change do accumulate into larger ones. Do you take your anti-biotics for mqny day after you are "well"?

No. I gave the REASONS why I think change occurred and that a tiny (1 in a million?) of the changes gave better reproductive adantage. (probably at leat 99 of every 100 was fatile prior to reproduction One, which is impossible to achieve via accumulation of small chanfge.

 

You need to provide some reasoning or evidence for your otherwise evidently contradicted and as yet completely unsupported opinion in the matter.

Since you don't understand Darwinian theory, that will be difficult for you - asserting such nonsense as the logical necessity of a "first cell", or "first time DNA supercoiled", and the like, simply reveals a lack of comprehension.

As does this:

On the one hand, we have the existence of giraffes. That's pretty good evidence. On the other hand, we have to deal with the probability that you are imagining some kind of single step "co-evolution" that amounts to a bunch of coordinated and complex changes happening at once by chance, and are not willing to disabuse yourself of that creationist indoctrination and completely wrongheaded misunderstanding of Darwinian theory - so you can't see how the existence of a giraffe is evidence of anything at all.

You're going to tell us that there had to be a first giraffe, for example.

No. That's just the initial observation. The explication of the theory starts with that fact, and other sound and verifiable circumstances (the small changes are inherited, they are selected, they differ in their reproductive success over generations of time, etc) and proposes a mechanism of evolution to account for the observed reality of living beings. The predictions made by reasoning from that proposed mechanism are then checked, and found to be successful and useful. After a long and thorough process of checking and verifying and using, the proposal takes on the role of theory. Darwinian theory ranks among the most successful, most thoroughly vetted, most reliable and inspirational, and most useful in wide varieties of application, in all of science.

You haven't, as yet, questioned anything actually part of Darwinian theory. Your questions are about creationist delusions, misunderstandings and wrongheaded inventions falsely asserted to be "evolution" or "theory of evolution".

What we are sure of is that you do not understand Darwinian theory.

You're in the position of somebody asserting that things made of steel can't float, because steel is heavier than water. You simply don't comprehend the theory involved.

 

Ice, I applaud your efforts, but really. . . why bother?

A giraffe, though, is the perfect jumping off point (and you'll pardon me if I'm repeating something you already stated): Why would a god make the laryngeal nerve of a giraffe so circuitous, unless he was a crafty fucker and wanted to fool the world into believing in evolution!!!

~String