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
See more
See less

Fossil discovery helps bridge gap between Ediacaran animals & those from the Cambrian

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #91
    Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
    I might complain here that you have not picked a representative sample.
    You might, if my point were that it were representative. I'm just pointing out an obvious exception that raises questions about whether the statement that six mutations are required is possibly generalizable. So, your complaint, should you choose to make it, would involve a fundamental error of logic.

    Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
    Of course it is, since randomized sequences contain much more variation than can be expected in evolution.
    That's nonsensical, in that "more variation than would be expected in evolution" is an incoherent statement. There's essentially no limit to the variation generated by evolution.

    What i assume you're trying to mean is "more variation than would be expected from a pre-specified protein". And that is true. But this is where we get back to you not understanding the original argument. Which was that we have now idea how close any two proteins are to forming an interaction — as noted, it could be one mutation that's needed, it could be a half dozen. Given that, the only thing we can use to make inferences about the probability of their interactions is the general probability of protein protein interactions.

    And this experiment suggests that probability is fairly high. On its own, it's only one piece of evidence. But, if you were to look into the scientific literature, you'd find out that there are lots of additional examples indicating that protein-protein interactions are quite common. And there are good biochemical reasons for that.
    "Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling."

    Comment


    • #92
      Originally posted by TheLurch View Post
      And this experiment suggests that probability is fairly high.
      No, it does not, since evolution doesn't typically have sequences with 25 mutations to examine.

      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


      • #93
        Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
        No, it does not, since evolution doesn't typically have sequences with 25 mutations to examine.
        That's irrelevant to what i said. How do you test the frequency of interactions within the large space of potential proteins? You sample that space randomly. That's precisely what this experiment did.
        "Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling."

        Comment


        • #94
          Originally posted by TheLurch View Post
          That's irrelevant to what i said. How do you test the frequency of interactions within the large space of potential proteins? You sample that space randomly. That's precisely what this experiment did.
          I don't think it's irrelevant, since evolution can't start with random proteins, it will have to start with an existing protein, and modify it from there. So if a random protein 25 mutations away exists that interacts, evolution probably won't be able to get there.

          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


          • #95
            Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
            I don't think it's irrelevant, since evolution can't start with random proteins, it will have to start with an existing protein, and modify it from there.
            You can stop right there, because that's false. We have seen proteins derived from previously non-coding DNA.

            Top hit on Google Scholar for some examples:
            https://www.pnas.org/content/103/26/9935.short

            Once again, please try to know stuff first, speak second, so that you avoid making false statements.
            "Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling."

            Comment


            • #96
              Originally posted by TheLurch View Post
              You can stop right there, because that's false. We have seen proteins derived from previously non-coding DNA.

              Top hit on Google Scholar for some examples:
              https://www.pnas.org/content/103/26/9935.short

              Once again, please try to know stuff first, speak second, so that you avoid making false statements.
              And i should also point out that this is still irrelevant to the measurement of the frequency of protein interactions in the total space of all possible proteins.
              "Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling."

              Comment


              • #97
                Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
                I must repeat, how is this a central pillar? Having a few animals predate the Cambrian explosion does little to explain the Cambrian diversification.

                Blessings,
                Lee
                Lee there are far more than a few. The evidence demonstrates that the complexity of life forms, and diversification was well developed in the Ediacaran. Failure to respond to the evidence, and citing non-scientific references just makes your case more foolish.
                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


                • #98
                  Originally posted by TheLurch View Post
                  And i should also point out that this is still irrelevant to the measurement of the frequency of protein interactions in the total space of all possible proteins.
                  But only if evolution can get there. If the next interaction is 25 mutations away, it would seem unlikely that evolution can find it.

                  You can stop right there, because that's false. We have seen proteins derived from previously non-coding DNA.
                  That's fine, but that's also unusual, I would say.

                  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


                  • #99
                    Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                    Lee there are far more than a few.
                    Well, how many? I know of two, one of them (the subject of this thread) having been substantially discounted.

                    The evidence demonstrates that the complexity of life forms, and diversification was well developed in the Ediacaran.
                    So why do they call it the Cambrian explosion?

                    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 Post
                      Well, how many? I know of two, one of them (the subject of this thread) having been substantially discounted.


                      So why do they call it the Cambrian explosion?

                      Blessings,
                      Lee
                      Ignoring the first part, which isn't true, the second part is easy to explain. It was a rapid diversification event -- not the first nor the last[1]. "Explosion" is really a misnomer given we're talking about geologic time covering several millions or even tens of millions of years. That is why Prothero and several others rightly refer to it as being more of a "slow fuse" than explosion in order to put it in proper context.





                      1. As explained in detail back at post #35 not even a month ago:


                      There have been actually been several rapid diversifications of life during earth's history apparently including one at least roughly 33 million years before to the "Cambrian explosion" (the "Avalon explosion" of the Ediacaran biota in the pre-Cambrian). The Cambrian "Explosion" is just one more meaning that there really is nothing unique about adaptive radiations like that.

                      For instance, there was the Ordovician radiation or biodiversity event, some times called the great Ordovician biodiversification event (GOBE) which is considered one of the most extensive diversifications of life seen and followed the mass extinction event that marks the Cambrian-Ordovician boundary. It saw the diversification of trilobites, echinoderms, brachiopods, gastropods and bivalves as well as the rise of true corals, among other things. In fact while the evolutionary radiation during the Cambrian gave rise to most of the modern phyla, GOBE is thought to have been responsible for "filling out" these phyla with the modern -- as well as numerous extinct -- classes and lower-level taxa increasing global diversity several fold.

                      There was a Devonian radiation, which saw another re-radiation of trilobite species, as well as the rise and diversification of large predatory fish such as sharks, ray-finned fish, lobe-finned fish, placoderms, and acanthodians. The Devonian period also experienced a one-time explosion in the evolution of terrestrial plants: after a cryptic history beginning about 450 mya, land plants underwent a uniquely rapid adaptive radiation. And speaking of terrestrial plants 100 mya (mid Cretaceous) witnessed a rapid radiation of angiosperms (flowering plants) as they diversified. It was also the beginning of an enormous diversification of insects -- a radiation that has continued almost unchecked since then.

                      At the end of the Permian, when an estimated 90% of species and 50-60% of families appear to have become extinct and were replaced by a small number of genera which rapidly diversified to fill a wide number of ecological niches during the early Triassic. For instance Lystrosaurus, a small dicynodont therapsid, were by far the most common terrestrial vertebrates for millions of years and appear to have accounted for roughly 90% or more of early Triassic terrestrial vertebrates. The Triassic was also the period when the aforementioned continuing diversification of insects probably was at its peak and the radiation of organisms in both marine and terrestrial ecosystems marked the first major step in the origin of modern ecosystems, which is why this time has been called the "Dawn of the Modern World."

                      And the most recent was the one taking place at the start of the Cenozoic and generally referred to as the Mesozoic-Cenozoic radiation and was possibly the largest of these events. There is, after all, a reason that this era is called the Cenozoic which means "New Life." It affected both terrestrial and marine flora and fauna resulting in "modern" marine fauna replacing much of the Paleozoic fauna (the replacement of brachiopod-dominated environment with one dominated by mollusks) and of course the rapid radiation of mammals after the Cretaceous.

                      The ONLY reason creationists and Intelligent Design advocates focused on the Cambrian was because they continued to insist that the life forms that diversified during it had no predecessors. That they, as Weiland declared "appear[ed] in the Cambrian with no evolutionary ancestors."

                      But now we can show without a doubt that this claim is false.

                      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

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                        Ignoring the first part, which isn't true...
                        Let's try again...

                        Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
                        More on the article under discussion, from Evolution News:

                        Source: Evolution News

                        Pores in the Walls of the Skeleton

                        The authors document evidence for tiny pores and channels in the body wall and write that “the pores or punctae may be homologous to those of similar size in brachiopods, extinct tommotiids, and microconchids, and to pseudopunctae in bryozoans, which house setae and other sensory structures.” However, this statement is pretty much nonsensical, as the pores in these taxa are not considered to be homologous anyway, as is indicated by the term “pseudopunctae” in bryozoans. Also, these taxa do not even form a monophyletic group or clade. The authors themselves acknowledge this non-homology just a page later when they say that the “‘punctae’ have multiple origins across the brachiozoan total group.” But just another sentence later they again emphasize the similarity with the sensory pores in lophophorates. Such sloppy reasoning is embarrassing and is simply poor science.

                        Frontal Membrane

                        The authors describe “an internal membrane abutting the central opening.” They maintain that such a frontal membrane corresponds with the body plan of bryozoans and “does not support a cnidarian affinity.” However, the best supported and most recent attribution of Namacalathus was not to cnidarians but to ctenophorans (Zhao et al. 2019), which the authors inexcusably ignore in their comparisons. But this issue is minor compared to a fatal problem: other than in name, the frontal membrane of Namacalathus (if it is correctly interpreted at all) has no similarity to the frontal membrane in bryozoans. In bryozoans this frontal membrane is not surrounded by tentacles and not only perforated by the gut, but indeed has a large opening for the whole zooid polyp (which includes the anus, mouth, and ring of tentacles). In some groups it can even be closed with a lid called operculum (e.g., see here). Indeed, the reconstructed body plan of Namacalathus is very different from that of bryozoans and other lophophorates.

                        Source

                        © Copyright Original Source


                        There are more points made, this is only a sample, and here is their conclusion:

                        Source: Evolution News

                        There is not much to see here. The new evidence is very ambiguous and totally inconclusive. No far-reaching conclusions should be drawn from such dubious material and such a deficient and sloppy scientific study. Namacalathus remains what it was before — a problematic organism of uncertain affinity. And whatever Namacalathus ultimately turns out to be, the Cambrian Explosion also remains what it always was — fatal conflicting evidence against any theory of unguided evolution.

                        © Copyright Original Source


                        ... the second part is easy to explain. It was a rapid diversification event -- not the first nor the last[1]. "Explosion" is really a misnomer given we're talking about geologic time covering several millions or even tens of millions of years. That is why Prothero and several others rightly refer to it as being more of a "slow fuse" than explosion in order to put it in proper context.
                        Maybe you'll listen to Erwin and Valentine:

                        Source: The Cambrian Explosion

                        Because the Cambrian explosion involved a significant number of separate lineages, achieving remarkable morphological breadth over millions of years, the Cambrian explosion can be considered an adaptive radiation only by stretching the term beyond all recognition… the scale of morphological divergence is wholly incommensurate with that seen in other adaptive radiations.

                        © Copyright Original Source



                        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 Post
                          But only if evolution can get there. If the next interaction is 25 mutations away, it would seem unlikely that evolution can find it.
                          That's the whole point that i keep repeating. We don't know where the next interaction is. So, all we can do is refer to the general probability of interactions. If they are common, then there's likely to be one nearby. If they're rare, there isn't.

                          This is one piece of evidence that protein-protein interactions are common. There are others, but it seems to make sense to come to grips with the one i've already discussed.

                          Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
                          That's fine, but that's also unusual, I would say.
                          Based on what, other than your personal desire for them to be rare?

                          And what in the world makes you say rare immediately after i provide you with an example of multiple cases of it occurring in a single speciation event?
                          "Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling."

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post





                            Maybe you'll listen to Erwin and Valentine:

                            Source: The Cambrian Explosion

                            Because the Cambrian explosion involved a significant number of separate lineages, achieving remarkable morphological breadth over millions of years, the Cambrian explosion can be considered an adaptive radiation only by stretching the term beyond all recognition… the scale of morphological divergence is wholly incommensurate with that seen in other adaptive radiations.

                            © Copyright Original Source



                            Blessings,
                            Lee
                            I think I'm safe in saying that you most certainly didn't get that from reading their book, but rather from your Evolution News. In fact, a quick Google check shows that the only place that quote can be found is at Evolution News, Uncommondescent.com and some website called antidarwin. And given the history of sites like this for taking snippets like this out of context (TalkOrigin has an entire section devoted to similar quote mines), especially considering the conspicuous ellipse, I'm going to take that with a large grain of salt.

                            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

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
                              Well, how many? I know of two, one of them (the subject of this thread) having been substantially discounted.
                              Nothing discounted



                              So why do they call it the Cambrian explosion?

                              Blessings,
                              Lee
                              Nothing to do with specifically the Cambrian explosion, The Cambrian explosion is the rapid diversification of species based on the existing variety of complex organisms in the Ediacaran due to the ideal environment in the Cambrian. Evolution is environmentally driven.

                              Source: https://www.alaeontologyonline.com/articles/2017/fossil-focus-ediacaran-biota/?doing_wp_cron=1612663130.8641219139099121093750


                              The Ediacaran period, from 635 million to 541 million years ago, was a time of immense geological and evolutionary change. It witnessed the transition out of an ice-house climate, the breakup of one supercontinent (Rodinia) and the assembly of another (Gondwana), a major meteorite impact (the Acraman event) and unprecedented shifts in global ocean chemistry that included a significant rise in oxygen concentrations (Fig. 1A). Rocks from the Ediacaran also record the appearance of a diverse (species-rich) group of large, morphologically complex lifeforms: the Ediacaran biota. These organisms were globally abundant from about 571 million to 541 million years ago. To our modern eyes, many Ediacaran fossils look strange and unfamiliar, and they have puzzled palaeontologists for decades. Determining the position of these organisms in the tree of life is one of the biggest unresolved challenges in palaeobiology.

                              © Copyright Original Source



                              The article goes in the diversity of life in the Ediacaran
                              Last edited by shunyadragon; 02-06-2021, 08:04 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 TheLurch View Post
                                That's the whole point that i keep repeating. We don't know where the next interaction is. So, all we can do is refer to the general probability of interactions. If they are common, then there's likely to be one nearby. If they're rare, there isn't.
                                If they are common 25 mutations away! That is my point, that then it doesn't matter, because evolution can't cross that many steps as a rule.

                                Based on what, other than your personal desire for them to be rare?

                                And what in the world makes you say rare immediately after i provide you with an example of multiple cases of it occurring in a single speciation event?
                                That most of non-coding DNA consists of long repeats and putatively inserted pseudogenes. That the latter could be converted back to genes is still unlikely, I would say, since we don't see the vitamin-C gene converting back to a working gene, for instance. Kind of a reverse Dollo's law at the molecular level.

                                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

                                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 Sparko
                                by Sparko
                                 
                                Started by Sparko, 03-07-2024, 08:52 AM
                                16 responses
                                74 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Started by rogue06, 02-28-2024, 11:06 AM
                                6 responses
                                48 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Working...
                                X