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

  • #61
    Originally posted by TheLurch View Post
    [Lee] 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.
    No, you misunderstand Behe's edge, it's systems requiring two new protein-protein interactions:
    Source: Edge of Evolution

    we can be reasonably confident that, at the least, no new cellular systems needing two new protein-protein interactions would develop in 1040 cells...

    © Copyright Original Source



    ... 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...
    Behe relies on published research, and develops his argument from multiple sources: from malaria, from HIV, from Lenski's experiment.

    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


    • #62
      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



      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


      • #63
        Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
        Behe relies on published research, and develops his argument from multiple sources: from malaria, from HIV, from Lenski's experiment.

        Blessings,
        Lee
        You mean Behe cherry-picks published research while doing no work himself and drastically misrepresents actual evolutionary biology in his ID-Creationist propaganda claims. But we get you don't understand any of this Lee, you're just witnessing for your Fundy religious beliefs.

        Comment


        • #64
          Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
          More on the article under discussion, from Evolution News:

          Blessings,
          Lee
          LOL! ID-Creationist Bechly belching out more of his NUH-UH! hand waves on the DI's anti-science propaganda site.

          Comment


          • #65
            Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
            No, you misunderstand Behe's edge, it's systems requiring two new protein-protein interactions:
            Source: Edge of Evolution

            we can be reasonably confident that, at the least, no new cellular systems needing two new protein-protein interactions would develop in 1040 cells...

            © Copyright Original Source

            No, i understand his argument quite well. It's just that it's so comprehensively bad i find i can only focus on one aspect of it as a time.

            You commented on a thread that showed that random sequences have affinity for specific proteins at a reasonably high probability. And you have to add that fact to a whole lot of other ones, all inconvenient to Behe's argument: both interactions don't actually have to happen simultaneously, that interactions may pre-exist selection, that different proteins may have different probabilities of forming interactions, etc. etc. I could go on listing, but any one of these facts are fatal to Behe's argument.

            Which is why nobody doing science pays any attention to what Behe says other than to explain why he's wrong.

            Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
            Behe relies on published research, and develops his argument from multiple sources: from malaria, from HIV, from Lenski's experiment.
            Maybe you could explain why Behe did experiments before he started focusing on intelligent design, but finds they're unnecessary now, and explain what that says about him as a scientist.
            "Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling."

            Comment


            • #66
              Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
              There's a problem here, though, and that's that reconstruction of evolution by comparative studies does not demonstrate how the putative changes took place.

              Source: dev.biologists.org

              The complexity of GRNs has increased during the past 600 Ma through an increase in promoters and transcription start sites and the increasing hierarchical structuring of GRNs as subcircuits have been co-opted for new functions (Sabarís et al., 2019).

              © Copyright Original Source


              I respond with this excerpt from Darwin's Doubt:

              Source: Darwin's Doubt

              mutations that are expressed early in the development of animals have probably the only realistic chance of producing large-scale macroevolutionary change. As evolutionary geneticists Bernard John and George Miklos explain, “macroevolutionary change” requires changes in “very early embryogenesis.” Former Yale University evolutionary biologist Keith Thomson concurs: only mutations expressed early in the development of organisms can produce large-scale macroevolutionary change.

              Yet from the first experiments by geneticist T. H. Morgan systematically mutating fruit flies early in the twentieth century until today, as many model species have been subjected to mutagenesis, developmental biology has shown that mutations affecting body-plan formation expressed early in development inevitably damage the organism. ... As one of the founders of neo-Darwinism geneticist R. A. Fisher noted, such mutations are “either definitely pathological (most often lethal) in their effects,” or they result in an organism that cannot survive “in the wild state.”11

              11. Fisher, The Genetical Theory of Natural Selection, 44.

              © Copyright Original Source


              So changes to regulatory DNA would have to affect early development, yet such mutations seem to be invariably pathological or fatal.

              Blessings,
              Lee
              To add: The Lurch and rogue06 have already trashed this 'ground hog' response. You failed to respond to the fact that your Creationist reference was dead wrong concerning the number of 'body plans' that arose in the Edicarian. All you come up with is bad ID Creationist references
              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


              • #67
                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

                Reposted for someone to respond to...

                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


                • #68
                  Originally posted by TheLurch View Post
                  You commented on a thread that showed that random sequences have affinity for specific proteins at a reasonably high probability.
                  And Behe acknowledges that single protein-protein interactions can evolve, but random sequences contain many "mutations" as a rule.

                  And you have to add that fact to a whole lot of other ones, all inconvenient to Behe's argument: both interactions don't actually have to happen simultaneously...
                  I would say, based on this quote, that this is not critical to Behe's argument:

                  Source: Edge of Evolution

                  The bottom line is, it’s reasonable to think that building multiprotein complexes one protein at a time is also well beyond the edge of evolution.

                  © Copyright Original Source



                  ... that interactions may pre-exist selection...
                  But Behe is talking about new protein interactions, not building on existing ones.

                  ... that different proteins may have different probabilities of forming interactions...
                  Yes but his argument is based primarily on what evolution actually did. Or didn't do, no new protein-protein interactions in 1020 malarial cells, and one new interaction in HIV. This gives an order of an estimate on how often we might expect this, where the field is open for varied protein-protein interactions.

                  Maybe you could explain why Behe did experiments before he started focusing on intelligent design, but finds they're unnecessary now, and explain what that says about him as a scientist.
                  Some scientists are theoretical, some are experimental. Do I recall correctly that you said you read papers for a living?

                  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


                  • #69
                    Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
                    And Behe acknowledges that single protein-protein interactions can evolve, but random sequences contain many "mutations" as a rule.
                    From a probability perspective, there's no difference between variations on an existing sequence and a set of new, random sequences, so that's a bad argument, and i'll just pretend you never made it, ok?

                    And, since multiprotein interactions can be built from the progressive formation of single protein interactions, Behe acknowledging that is basically acknowledging the game is over, and he's just too obstinate to realize it. Which brings us to this:

                    Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
                    I would say, based on this quote, that this is not critical to Behe's argument:

                    Source: Edge of Evolution

                    The bottom line is, it’s reasonable to think that building multiprotein complexes one protein at a time is also well beyond the edge of evolution.

                    © Copyright Original Source

                    What you should say is that Behe claims this. Him saying something is not in any way a reflection of something actually being true. In fact, the two are often inversely correlated.

                    Behe is wrong for all the reasons i listed, and more.

                    Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
                    IBut Behe is talking about new protein interactions, not building on existing ones.]
                    See, that's one of the problems we've been talking about with Behe's arguments. He doesn't actually know whether some of the variants that allow interactions pre-exist the appearance of selection. Nobody does in the case he's highlighting. So he can't actually make that distinction.

                    Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
                    Yes but his argument is based primarily on what evolution actually did. Or didn't do, no new protein-protein interactions in 1020 malarial cells, and one new interaction in HIV. This gives an order of an estimate on how often we might expect this, where the field is open for varied protein-protein interactions.
                    No, it's really not. As noted repeatedly, his probability calculations on malaria are nonsense. The HIV ones, which we did not discuss in detail, are as well. HIV evolved new protein-protein interactions to adapt to human cells as part of its host transition. But it was technically SIV during this transition, so Behe doesn't count those interactions in his calculations. For him, only those changes that happened after it could already reproduce at high levels in humans counts. In other words, he eliminates the time that the virus was under strong selection, and only counts the changes afterwards, when it was flourishing in a new niche.

                    It's garbage. People have told him it's garbage. He's not changed his arguments at all.

                    QUOTE=lee_merrill;n1229999]Some scientists are theoretical, some are experimental. Do I recall correctly that you said you read papers for a living?[/QUOTE]
                    Among other things, yes. I am no longer an active scientist.

                    Neither is Behe. He just fools people like you into thinking that he is.
                    "Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling."

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post

                      Some scientists are theoretical, some are experimental.

                      Blessings,
                      Lee
                      Some like Behe are dishonest con artists only out to make a buck off the scientifically ignorant True Believerstm.

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Originally posted by TheLurch View Post
                        From a probability perspective, there's no difference between variations on an existing sequence and a set of new, random sequences...
                        But I meant that a random sequence will likely have two or more differences with an existing sequence, thus multiple mutations would be required to reach that new sequence.

                        And, since multiprotein interactions can be built from the progressive formation of single protein interactions, Behe acknowledging that is basically acknowledging the game is over, and he's just too obstinate to realize it.
                        Well, no, he estimates how many generations it would take to come up with one new protein-protein interaction, and then extrapolates to two. To refute Behe, you have to refute his numbers, which is what Larry Moran tried to do.

                        Originally posted by lee_merrill
                        But Behe is talking about new protein interactions, not building on existing ones.
                        [Behe] doesn't actually know whether some of the variants that allow interactions pre-exist the appearance of selection. Nobody does in the case he's highlighting. So he can't actually make that distinction.
                        He highlights chloroquine resistance, which occurred in about 1 in 1020 generations, whereas atovaquone resistance occurs in about 1 in 1010 generations. It therefore makes sense that chloroquine resistance takes two mutations, and atovaquone one, without pre-existing mutations. He then observes that no new protein-protein interactions occurred in malaria, and one in HIV.

                        Source: Edge of Evolution

                        Since we see no new protein-protein interactions developing in 1020 cells, we can be reasonably confident that, at the least, no new cellular systems needing two new protein-protein interactions would develop in 1040cells—in the entire history of life... The principle we use to make the extrapolation—that the odds against two independent events is the multiple of the odds against each event—is very well tested.

                        © Copyright Original Source


                        So this circumvents pre-existing interactions.

                        As noted repeatedly, his probability calculations on malaria are nonsense.
                        It's not a probability calculation, though, it's an observation on what malaria actually did.

                        Behe doesn't count those interactions in his calculations. For him, only those changes that happened after it could already reproduce at high levels in humans counts. In other words, he eliminates the time that the virus was under strong selection, and only counts the changes afterwards, when it was flourishing in a new niche.
                        Well, we have better numbers with humans, which I expect is why Behe used those numbers.

                        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


                        • #72
                          Originally posted by HMS_Beagle View Post

                          Some like Behe are dishonest con artists only out to make a buck off the scientifically ignorant True Believerstm.
                          The Discovery Institute and the likes of Behe survive on donation of fundamentalist churches and institutions including the Seventh Day Adventists and MacLellan Foundation..
                          Last edited by shunyadragon; 01-21-2021, 09:32 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


                          • #73
                            You should really stop and think, because when you reply quickly, you get even more wrong than usual. You'd also limit your errors by focusing on only one topic at a time instead of trying to reply to everything. The more you talk about, the more you get wrong.

                            I've long since given up on you acknowledging you got anything wrong — i think you've done it once so far — much less apologizing for it. So, i'm hoping to convince you to at least be wrong less often.

                            Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
                            But I meant that a random sequence will likely have two or more differences with an existing sequence, thus multiple mutations would be required to reach that new sequence.
                            That's not how the probabilities work. if an interacting sequence happens to be physically similar to a pre-existing sequence, then very few mutations would be needed. And one of the key points of the randomized sequence experiment is showing that we can't a priori predict which sequences will enable biologically significant interactions.

                            Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
                            Well, no, he estimates how many generations it would take to come up with one new protein-protein interaction, and then extrapolates to two. To refute Behe, you have to refute his numbers, which is what Larry Moran tried to do.
                            You can refute it that way, but the alternative — which Moran did successfully and you've been too dense to register, despite having it pointed out to you multiple times — is show that the assumptions behind Behe's numbers were wrong, and therefore the numbers could not possibly demonstrate what Behe tried to use them to demonstrate.

                            Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
                            He then observes that no new protein-protein interactions occurred in malaria, and one in HIV.
                            And here we see that you don't even pay people the respect of actually reading their posts before replying. We all do that for you - why are you rude that you're incapable of returning what should be common courtesy?

                            I explained in detail how Behe cherry picked his analysis of HIV to choose a period where it was not under much selective pressure, and therefore wouldn't fix many new mutations. Behe's numbers are fine, but he picked them so they would be misleading. Being told that and then repeating the misleading information anyway... I'm not even sure what that says about your mental processes.

                            Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
                            It's not a probability calculation, though, it's an observation on what malaria actually did..
                            Which he converted into a probability using flawed assumptions. And then claimed that the probability applied to every case of protein interactions, in every single type of organism, under every single possible selective pressure. The probability he was left with is garbage not because his estimate of what happened in malaria is wrong, but because every single one of those claims — and again, more i haven't mentioned — are wrong.

                            Which i've said about a dozen times in 3 different threads now. But you've just demonstrate that you pay no attention to what anyone else here says, so i'm not surprised you're acting like you've never heard this.
                            "Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling."

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Originally posted by HMS_Beagle View Post

                              Some like Behe are dishonest con artists only out to make a buck off the scientifically ignorant True Believerstm.
                              A conclusion that is increasingly difficult to defend against

                              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


                              • #75
                                Really informative and important information. There certainly had been evidence for the evolution of Ediacaran animals to Cambrian ones, but this is very impressive. As you probably know, at least some Ediacaran organisms were already known to be true animals:
                                https://cen.acs.org/biological-chemi...-Earths/96/i38

                                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
                                46 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Working...
                                X