Originally posted by Roy
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
Fossil discovery helps bridge gap between Ediacaran animals & those from the Cambrian
Collapse
X
-
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.
-
Originally posted by lee_merrill View PostThere's a problem here, though, and that's that reconstruction of evolution by comparative studies does not demonstrate how the putative changes took place.
I respond with this excerpt from Darwin's Doubt:
So changes to regulatory DNA would have to affect early development, yet such mutations seem to be invariably pathological or fatal.
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
-
Originally posted by lee_merrill View PostBecause the edge of evolution, Behe places at two new protein-protein interactions.
A) Behe's argument has been trashed repeatedly, including here. Remember all those discussions about how evolution works in parallel, and this "limit" assumes it doesn't. They still apply.
B) Even if it were right, there's utterly no evidence that the generation of new species or body forms is limited by protein-protein interactions. So you're just making stuff up.
Originally posted by lee_merrill View PostNo, you misunderstand me, I mean that the important point is that we don't see a Darwinian diversification of animals in the Cambrian and pre-Cambrian. Moving the boundary around does not explain this.
The only sense in which I don't understand you is that i don't understand why you just make up nonsense all the time with no evidence to support it."Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling."
Comment
-
Originally posted by TheLurch View PostWhy doesn't it? If there are open niches that no previously existing body plan can exploit, why wouldn't a new one figure out how to exploit it?
You're mistaking an evidence-free assertion for an argument.
And, coincidentally and on the topic of this thread, the more bilaterians we discover in the Ediacaran, the fewer body plans that actually arose in the Cambrian. Which is precisely the thing you said wasn't important just a page or two ago, back when you wanted to dismiss the significance of this find. In other words, you dismissed a finding's implications as unimportant, only to turn around and say it's a problem that we don't have evidence of what you just said was unimportant.
I'd consider it highly dishonest if it weren't for the fact that you seem to be pathologically incapable of remembering what you wrote two days ago.
For those whose feet are more firmly planted in the real world, i'd note the the implications of Precambrian bilaterians is more important in this regard than it might appear. We tend to find that organism's like this have features that show up in diverse groups of organisms in the ensuing period, much like early mammals have features that are now present in everything from whales to bats. So, a single example early on often represents an ancestral form of many different branches in the evolutionary tree a few million years later.
I'd also like to point out that "body plan" is a vague term, and if it's being used for this type of argument, it really needs to be made well defined and quantitative.
This sort of thing typically happens after a mass extinction event like those that took place at the end of the Permian and the Cretaceous, and of course at the end of the Proterozoic Period immediately prior to the start of the Cambrian.
The organisms still left will begin to move into and adapt to the niches vacated and thereby made available. This is a process known as adaptive radiation which is defined as the evolution of an animal or plant group into a wide variety of types acclimatized to specialized modes of life.
Essentially it is the rapid evolutionary diversification of a single ancestral line that takes place when it occupies a different distinct niche (or niches) with different environmental conditions. Inevitably, they evolve different morphological features (adaptations) in response to the different selection pressures found in these niches.
Probably the best known and understood example of such rapid diversification is the one that took place after the mass extinction event at the end of the Cretaceous. This resulted in basal mammalian stock forms expanding into empty ecological niches where they adapted to become better and better at running, climbing, flying, swimming etc. in order to exploit the resources available[1]. And specialization often will subdivide a single niche into many new niches further dividing the organism that filled it into separate species, genre and even families.
Consequentially, these of course resulted in new "body plans" as anyone looking at a cheetah, a whale and a bat can plainly see.
Another thing that can trigger an adaptive radiation is the evolution of a new resource to exploit. For instance, the emergence of angiosperm (flowering plants) which apparently began during the Carboniferous Period roughly 300 mya and really took off during the early Cretaceous (140 to 120 mya) likely triggered the enormous beetle radiations[2] as they started to feed on them.
And bees would have never evolved from their predatory (carnivorous) wasp ancestors if angiosperms hadn't evolved. They first appeared as flowering plants started their rapid radiation during the early Cretaceous.
The point is that those who gain beneficial mutations that allow them to better exploit the resources are the ones most likely to survive and thrive, outcompeting their relatives who don't have this advantage. And this is a continuing process.
1 There are other, much smaller and substantially less expansive examples known such as the cichlid fish which have diversified in East African lakes into more than 600 species and of course Darwin's observation in the Galapagos concerning the wide variety of finches.
2. 400,000 species consisting of 40% of all known insects
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 lee_merrill View PostBecause the edge of evolution, Behe places at two new protein-protein interactions.
Sheesh.
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 TheLurch View PostA) Behe's argument has been trashed repeatedly, including here. Remember all those discussions about how evolution works in parallel, and this "limit" assumes it doesn't. They still apply.
B) Even if it were right, there's utterly no evidence that the generation of new species or body forms is limited by protein-protein interactions. So you're just making stuff up.
But we do. That's the whole point of discoveries like this one - they reinforce previous evidence that Cambrian species evolved through common descent. That's specifically what this discovery shows.
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 PostHave you already forgotten that this supposed "edge of evolution" was based upon a false premise -- namely that mutations must take place simultaneously? Something that you FINALLY acknowledged even starting a thread admitting that this was the case: A retraction on Behe
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 PostNo, the limit does not assume evolution works in sequence. And my latest thread on Behe's edge has gone unanswered.
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
-
News flash! Evolution News is going to publish an evaluation of this paper. For what has been published so far, we read:
Like what I had said before, their language is hesitant in the paper itself.
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 PostHow many times do your gross misunderstandings and the same PRATTs need to be beaten into a fine pink mist? You just come back and repeat the same garbage over and over, again and again figuring that if you tweak the verbiage oh so slightly that it somehow changes everything.
Blessings,
Lee
P.S. You can get an indication as to who has the better argument, by who feels a need to resort to venom, and who does not!Last edited by lee_merrill; 01-19-2021, 02:42 PM."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 PostNo, the limit does not assume evolution works in sequence. And my latest thread on Behe's edge has gone unanswered.
Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
Originally posted by lee_merrill View PostWell, protein interactions are rather fundamental, and relatively simple compared to the molecular machines in the cell.
My bet is that you have none, since, as Rogue keeps pointing out, you would flunk a basic biology class.
Originally posted by lee_merrill View PostNot a Darwinian diversification, though. Small, successive, selectable modifications, no abrupt appearances.
Repeating something that's false doesn't somehow make it true. Please stop doing it and actually engage with the evidence, instead of just repeating what you want to believe."Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling."
Comment
-
Originally posted by TheLurch View Post
My bet is that you have none, since, as Rogue keeps pointing out, you would flunk a basic biology class.
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 PostBecause the edge of evolution, Behe places at two new protein-protein interactions.
No, you misunderstand me, I mean that the important point is that we don't see a Darwinian diversification of animals in the Cambrian and pre-Cambrian. Moving the boundary around does not explain this.
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
-
Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
And, if you think about it, that shouldn't be surprising, given that Behe's argument is fundamentally ludicrous. He takes a sample of 1*, and tries to claim that the lessons he derived from it apply to every single protein everywhere. Contrary to his statements, there are absolutely no reasons to think that would be the case. Proteins have a truly vast range of properties, some of which undoubtedly influence their ability to interact with others. Yet Behe just hand-waves away all that reality.
This is the quality of the people you believe, Lee.
* think about that - trying to derive rules for all of life from a single sample! With absolutely no attempt to look at other examples or - just imagine - doing experiments himself. It's almost comical."Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling."
Comment
-
Originally posted by TheLurch View PostYou know, this stuck in my brain last night. It's striking because Lee knows it's wrong. Because he commented on a thread in which results made it clear that protein-protein interactions showed up multiple times in a randomized population of 100 million proteins. That's a probability that's a vanishingly small fraction of the 10^20 that Behe is claiming.
And, if you think about it, that shouldn't be surprising, given that Behe's argument is fundamentally ludicrous. He takes a sample of 1*, and tries to claim that the lessons he derived from it apply to every single protein everywhere. Contrary to his statements, there are absolutely no reasons to think that would be the case. Proteins have a truly vast range of properties, some of which undoubtedly influence their ability to interact with others. Yet Behe just hand-waves away all that reality.
This is the quality of the people you believe, Lee.
* think about that - trying to derive rules for all of life from a single sample! With absolutely no attempt to look at other examples or - just imagine - doing experiments himself. It's almost comical.
What's disheartening is that most of them that do this, like Behe, claim to be Christians and they largely target Christian audiences. They are effectively "flock fleecers."
But at some point, when shown over and over and over that the sources he relies on are at best as ignorant as he is and far more likely lying through their teeth, Lee needs to start taking responsibility for aiding and abetting folks like Behe and the hucksters at Evolution News. As the old adage goes
Fool me once, shame on you.
Fool me twice, shame on me.
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
Comment