Originally posted by rogue06
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
Natural Science 301 Guidelines
This is an open forum area for all members for discussions on all issues of science and origins. This area will and does get volatile at times, but we ask that it be kept to a dull roar, and moderators will intervene to keep the peace if necessary. This means obvious trolling and flaming that becomes a problem will be dealt with, and you might find yourself in the doghouse.
As usual, Tweb rules apply. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.
Forum Rules: Here
As usual, Tweb rules apply. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.
Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less
New genes required for the Cambrian explosion
Collapse
X
-
I'm always still in trouble again
"You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
"Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
"Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman
- 2 likes
-
Originally posted by TheLurch View PostAll this quote says is that genetic changes must have happened...
I hadn't heard of Yilingia before, though this is only about 10 million years before the Cambrian explosion, so late Ediacaran.
As far as i can infer what the author is positing through his poorly written text, he's basically claiming that evolving an entirely new pathway is wildly improbable. But if parts of the pathway aren't entirely new, then that claim is completely bogus.
Yes, but the fact that neither you nor the author knew about those two is rather telling, don't you think?
"Here we show that the physical linkages among protein domains often differ between M. brevicollis and metazoans, suggesting that abundant domain shuffling followed the separation of the choanoflagellate and metazoan lineages."
Abundant domain shuffling is suggested, but this would need demonstration, as in plausible pathways from one gene to another, preferably selectable pathways.
The difference between bilaterians and everything else is their development. So, you'd expect most of the genes distinct to bilaterians to be involved in regulating development, which means that they're going to be involved in overlapping processes, and thus are more likely to interact.
… and an obvious selective pressure (operating in overlapping process) for retaining interaction domains.
Blessings,
Lee"What I pray of you is, to keep your eye upon Him, for that is everything. Do you say, 'How am I to keep my eye on Him?' I reply, keep your eye off everything else, and you will soon see Him. All depends on the eye of faith being kept on Him. How simple it is!" (J.B. Stoney)
Comment
-
Originally posted by rogue06 View PostAnd it isn't something that took place during the last year or so, so not being aware of that cannot be excused on those grounds
From 2012: Bilaterian Burrows and Grazing Behavior at >585 Million Years Ago
From 2008: Precambrian trace fossils and the rise of bilaterian animals
Also 2008: The Ediacaran emergence of bilaterians: congruence between the genetic and the geological fossil records
From 2003: Early Evolution of the Bilateria
From 2000: Age of Neoproterozoic Bilatarian Body and Trace Fossils, White Sea, Russia: Implications for Metazoan Evolution
From 1997: The Late Precambrian fossil Kimberella is a mollusc-like bilaterian organism
From 1994: Late Precambrian bilaterians: grades and clades
And Spriggina, which were discovered way back in the late 1950s clearly displays a bilateral body plan and Kimberella, discovered in 1964, is usually considered the earliest bilateral (555 to 558 myo -- which would predate confirmed Spriggina fossils by 5 to 8 million years and the beginning of the Cambrian by 14 to 17 million years), although Vernanimalcula is considerably older (600 to 580 million years ago), it's classification as a bilateral is controversial.
Blessings,
Lee
"What I pray of you is, to keep your eye upon Him, for that is everything. Do you say, 'How am I to keep my eye on Him?' I reply, keep your eye off everything else, and you will soon see Him. All depends on the eye of faith being kept on Him. How simple it is!" (J.B. Stoney)
Comment
-
Originally posted by lee_merrill View PostGlendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:
go with the flow the river knows . . .
Frank
I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.
- 1 like
Comment
-
Let's just step back and focus on how phenomenally stupid some of these arguments are, shall we? I'll go into some of the details in a separate post.
Originally posted by lee_merrill View PostAs opposed to oxygenation etc., which implies that the latter were not enough.
But the icing on the cake here is that the example you're giving is an exception! Higher levels of oxygen mean more oxygen radicals, and oxygen radicals are mutagens - it's one of the reasons they think antioxidant consumption correlates with better health. So in this case, you're giving an example where the environmental conditions do cause some of the mutations.
So, to summarize, you're attacking something that's not a feature of evolution, and thinking it's an attack on evolution. And in doing so, you're using an example that negates the premise behind your attack. You're not just shooting yourself in the foot; you're searching the foot for major arteries before aiming.
But the stupidity doesn't end there.
Originally posted by lee_merrill View PostI hadn't heard of Yilingia before, though this is only about 10 million years before the Cambrian explosion, so late Ediacaran.
It's just laughably wrong, and there's no point in discussing anything further about it. These people should be embarrassed for publishing something this stupid, and they're making you look like an utterly gullible idiot for echoing their words.
So i'm going to echo Rogue's words: if you can't acknowledge they're a bunch of misleading hacks given examples like this, what would cause you to acknowledge that?"Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling."
- 1 like
Comment
-
Originally posted by lee_merrill View PostThere may indeed be more genes like this in the 157, but speculation is not demonstration!
Please have some consistent standards.
Originally posted by lee_merrill View PostAbundant domain shuffling is suggested, but this would need demonstration, as in plausible pathways from one gene to another, preferably selectable pathways.
This is the equivalent of arguing that we have to re-demonstrate that gravity applies to every single exoplanet orbit before accepting that exoplanets exist. It's ascientific nonsense.
Originally posted by lee_merrill View PostWhich makes it much more difficult to generate such networks of genes, now we get into the area of irreducible complexity, how many of these networks and subnetworks have a selectable path to the ultimate result?
The entire TGF-beta signaling pathway is present in the sponge. Nodal is a TGF-beta signaling molecule. Nodal signaling's origin is therefore simply a duplication of an existing pathway. No need to generate any novel genes; you can just make copies of existing ones. End of argument.
Originally posted by lee_merrill View PostBut how about generating new interaction domains? If I’m understanding your point here."Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling."
Comment
-
Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
And just because you think that the Discovery Institute disagrees that Kimberella isn't an example of bilateralism does not make it debatable any more than the Flat Earth Society claiming that the earth is flat makes the shape of the earth debatable.
Moreover, if you actually read what they claim you would have noticed that the boys at DI actually admit that Kimberella does represent an example of bilateralism but then argue that it since it might represent an extinct side branch that then somehow in some way they don't explain means it does not count.
You are being played by your sources Lee. As I clearly demonstrated that we have known about bilaterialism developing well before the Cambrian for several decades going back to the mid 20th cent. and yet your go-to source somehow missed that.
You really need to be more careful and stop being what the Soviets used to call a useful idiot because you are not an idiot.
I'm always still in trouble again
"You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
"Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
"Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman
- 1 like
Comment
-
Originally posted by TheLurch View PostFirst off, you're saying the argument is that environmental changes don't directly cause the mutations that enable adaptations to those conditions.
And the piece you used to start this discussion was about the origin of bilaterians, which means it should be talking pre-Cambrian. Yet every example of the arguments it uses is about the Cambrian.
Originally posted by lee_merrillAbundant domain shuffling is suggested, but this would need demonstration, as in plausible pathways from one gene to another, preferably selectable pathways.
Originally posted by lee_merrillWhich makes it much more difficult to generate such networks of genes, now we get into the area of irreducible complexity, how many of these networks and subnetworks have a selectable path to the ultimate result?
My point is that, while new interacting domains had to evolve at some point, this wasn't that point.
Blessings,
Lee"What I pray of you is, to keep your eye upon Him, for that is everything. Do you say, 'How am I to keep my eye on Him?' I reply, keep your eye off everything else, and you will soon see Him. All depends on the eye of faith being kept on Him. How simple it is!" (J.B. Stoney)
Comment
-
Originally posted by rogue06 View PostAnd proceeded to ignore the other examples.
... if you actually read what they claim you would have noticed that the boys at DI actually admit that Kimberella does represent an example of bilateralism but then argue that it since it might represent an extinct side branch that then somehow in some way they don't explain means it does not count.
Blessings,
Lee
"What I pray of you is, to keep your eye upon Him, for that is everything. Do you say, 'How am I to keep my eye on Him?' I reply, keep your eye off everything else, and you will soon see Him. All depends on the eye of faith being kept on Him. How simple it is!" (J.B. Stoney)
Comment
-
Originally posted by lee_merrill View PostWell, Spriggina is also debatable...
Could you fish up the quote you mean? The article is titled "Bechly Series: No Ancestors for Cambrian Animals; Darwin’s Doubt Remains".
Blessings,
Lee
Darwin's doubt was genuine humility as to the limits of his research over 150 years ago. Misrepresenting Charles Darwin is only the beginnings of an atrocious dishonest non-scientific argument. with a religious agenda.Last edited by shunyadragon; 11-20-2020, 07:32 PM.Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:
go with the flow the river knows . . .
Frank
I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.
Comment
-
Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
As I asked before, please cite peer reviewed scientific literature ...
Blessings,
Lee
"What I pray of you is, to keep your eye upon Him, for that is everything. Do you say, 'How am I to keep my eye on Him?' I reply, keep your eye off everything else, and you will soon see Him. All depends on the eye of faith being kept on Him. How simple it is!" (J.B. Stoney)
Comment
-
Originally posted by lee_merrill View PostLet us notice that the quoted part of the article is of peer reviewed scientific literature: "Second, the authors mention that..."
Blessings,
LeeGlendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:
go with the flow the river knows . . .
Frank
I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.
Comment
-
Interesting fossil discovery that documents the great diversity of animal life in the pre-Cambrian/Cambrian between 600-540 million years before the 'Cambrian Explosion of life.'
Last edited by shunyadragon; 11-23-2020, 08:53 AM.Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:
go with the flow the river knows . . .
Frank
I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.
Comment
-
Many more of these diverse early Pre-Cambrian animals have been found in Mongolia.
https://scitechdaily.com/mongolian-m...se-of-animals/Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:
go with the flow the river knows . . .
Frank
I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.
Comment
-
Sorry, been a very challenging month for me, so my presence here has been erratic.
Originally posted by lee_merrill View PostNo, I would say that they are saying that mutations due to oxygenation are not sufficient to account for the changes seen in the Cambrian explosion.
In any case, i'll reiterate - what is the evidence that they're insufficient? You cannot possibly have any, because we have no sense of how many mutations were generated by oxygenation and how many by other means. So you're just making this latest claim based on nothing.
Originally posted by lee_merrill View PostWell, the 157 new genes still stand, that is the essence of the argument.
"After the initial screen, we acquired 169 new gene candidates in D. melanogaster, 253 in D. yakuba, and 191 shared by the D. melanogaster species complex."
See: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2527705/
So, not only do the authors have no clue how much time was involved (since they mistakenly think this is the Cambrian), but the number of genes they're hyperventilating about is far smaller than the count the comes about through mundane speciation.
No matter how you look at this argument, it's utter garbage.
Originally posted by lee_merrill View PostIt's about probabilities, gene shuffling is possible, but is it probable? Selectable pathways would demonstrate that.
Originally posted by lee_merrill View PostBut we are talking about 157 new genes, not duplications of existing ones.
The nodal pathway is a TGF-ß signaling pathway instance. The TGF-ß signaling pathway predates the existence of bilaterians. The nodal pathway is "new" in the sense that it has sequence variations that are not present in other members of the pathway. But it's not new in that the genes those variations are in are copies of an earlier pathway.
It's like the mantis shrimp, which has something like a dozen different photoreceptors. All of these proteins look more or less the same - 7 transmembrane structure, site for retinal linkage, site for linking to a signaling protein, etc. Obviously, a bunch of these are "new" in the sense that they're not found in other genuses. But they're also clearly copies of other photoreceptors.
So, we're left with three options:
These guys don't know biology well enough to understand the details of the paper they're writing about.
These guys know biology well enough, and could have looked it up (like i did), but couldn't be bothered, and didn't consider being accurate important.
These guys did know all of this, but decided it wasn't good for their argument, so misled you.
None of those are good.
So i'll ask you again: how bad does their behavior have to get before you'll stop using them as a source?"Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling."
- 3 likes
Comment
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-18-2024, 12:15 PM
|
48 responses
135 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Sparko
03-20-2024, 09:13 AM
|
||
Started by Sparko, 03-07-2024, 08:52 AM
|
16 responses
74 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by shunyadragon
03-08-2024, 03:12 PM
|
||
Started by rogue06, 02-28-2024, 11:06 AM
|
6 responses
47 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by shunyadragon
03-08-2024, 03:25 PM
|
Comment