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

The lungfish genome, tetrapods, and junk DNA

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

  • #46
    Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
    I did do what you asked, and found two instances that match the "hard definition."

    [cite=fossilmuseum.net]Transitional fossils are the fossilized remains of transitional forms of life that tangibly and demonstrably encode an evolutionary transition.

    [cite=fossilmuseum.net [/cite]
    This is a layman source and not clear.

    Source

    And this is the soft definition.
    Actually what you call 'hard and soft' definitions are not in reality distinctly different. All transitional forms of species, subspecies and varieties of life forms evolution represent evidence of a natural dynamic process. The difference is not specific and clear. Evolution takes place as continuous process involving related life forms involve large population usually in the millions over time and not a direct step by step of direct transitional species of forms. Some fossil remains based anatomical and isolation considerations are considered transitional in form only, because of isolated from related species and subspecies.

    Genetic research in recent history has confirmed this natural process over time.
    Last edited by shunyadragon; 01-26-2021, 08:56 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? Shakespeareís Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

    go with the flow the river knows . . .

    Frank

    I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
      I did do what you asked, and found two instances that match the "hard definition."

      Source: fossilmuseum.net

      Transitional fossils are the fossilized remains of transitional forms of life that tangibly and demonstrably encode an evolutionary transition.

      Source

      © Copyright Original Source




      And this is the soft definition.

      Blessings,
      Lee
      No you didn't.

      There is no such thing as a hard and soft definition. That is a deliberate misrepresentation plain and simple.

      You are merely looking for individual sentences that you think you can use by ripping them out of context.

      That isn't just dishonest but deliberately dishonest.

      Behe and Evolution News has taught you well and you appear to be too far gone to be able to distinguish right from wrong

      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)
      "Of course, human life begins at fertilization thatís not the argument." --Tassman

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
        Though I may still invoke common design instead of common descent!
        Actually, this has me curious: under what circumstances would you not claim common design?

        I ask, because this instance has one of the largest collections of fossils bearing intermediate features of any. And now we have genomic data confirming the fossil evidence. If you're not going to accept common descent there, i'm kind of at a loss to understand where you would.
        "Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling."

        Comment


        • #49
          Originally posted by TheLurch View Post
          Actually, this has me curious: under what circumstances would you not claim common design?

          I ask, because this instance has one of the largest collections of fossils bearing intermediate features of any. And now we have genomic data confirming the fossil evidence. If you're not going to accept common descent there, i'm kind of at a loss to understand where you would.
          Probably the only one with a more complete and continuous documented fossil record would be the one from basal amniotes to basal mammals. It is so robust that in fact there remains some rather heated debates over whether to describe some creatures as a "mammal-like-reptile" or as "reptile-like mammal"[1]. The record really is that complete in that an almost continuous series of well-preserved fossils exists. Over a dozen years ago there were over 250 different species in that lineage found in recent years that helped fill out the record for this transition and many more have been found since then.





          1. pardon the outdated terminology since the synapsids that evolved into mammals weren't reptiles and weren't the same synapsids that evolved into reptiles. Its just that folks don't generally recognize terms like synapsids, therapsids and the like.

          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)
          "Of course, human life begins at fertilization thatís not the argument." --Tassman

          Comment


          • #50
            Originally posted by TheLurch View Post
            Actually, this has me curious: under what circumstances would you not claim common design?
            About at the level of "family":

            Source: Edge of Evolution, p. 201

            Combining the reasoning from the past several sections, then, we can conclude that animal design probably extends into life at least as far as vertebrate classes, maybe deeper, and that random mutation likely explains differences at least up to the species level, perhaps somewhat beyond. Somewhere between the level of vertebrate species and class lies the organismal edge of Darwinian 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


            • #51
              Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
              About at the level of "family":
              So, basically, there's no possible amount of evidence that could convince you otherwise because "Behe said so"?
              "Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling."

              Comment


              • #52
                Originally posted by TheLurch View Post

                So, basically, there's no possible amount of evidence that could convince you otherwise because "Behe said so"?
                8cf.jpg


                This is rich since Behe himself, in his The Edge of Evolution actually contends that humans and chimpanzees have a common ancestor. In fact he argues for common descent for all life on earth saying that the evidence for it obvious. He even argued for universal common descent back in Darwin's Black Box.


                From the former

                For example, both humans and chimps have a broken copy of a gene that in other mammals helps make vitamin C. ... It's hard to imagine how there could be stronger evidence for common ancestry of chimps and humans. ... Despite some remaining puzzles, there's no reason to doubt that Darwin had this point right, that all creatures on earth are biological relatives."


                and from the latter

                "For the record, I have no reason to doubt that the universe is the billions of years old that physicists say it is. Further, I find the idea of common descent (that all organisms share a common ancestor) fairly convincing, and have no particular reason to doubt it."




                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)
                "Of course, human life begins at fertilization thatís not the argument." --Tassman

                Comment


                • #53
                  Originally posted by TheLurch View Post
                  So, basically, there's no possible amount of evidence that could convince you otherwise because "Behe said so"?
                  No, I think Behe's arguments are solid, here is a sample:

                  Source: Edge of Evolution

                  Thus, because of its coherence and the number of its components (well beyond our criterion of three), it’s reasonable to think the system to specify B cell differentiation was also designed. B cells don’t occur in invertebrates; they are found only in vertebrates. Based on just this one particular example, then, it appears that design extends into the phylum Chordata, past the divide between invertebrates and vertebrates, which is the level of subphylum.

                  © Copyright Original Source



                  Originally posted by rogue06
                  This is rich since Behe himself, in his The Edge of Evolution actually contends that humans and chimpanzees have a common ancestor. In fact he argues for common descent for all life on earth saying that the evidence for it obvious. He even argued for universal common descent back in Darwin's Black Box.
                  Behe holds that common descent and intelligent design are compatible, though. See for example, the following discussion from Ann Gauger:

                  Source: Evolution News

                  I first need to make clear that living things can be the product both of intelligent design and of common descent. If the designer chose to guide the process of gradual change from species to species, that would be both common descent and intelligent design. In other words, intelligent design theory does not require that common descent is false. Neither does intelligent design require that common descent is true. All that intelligent design theory says is that the best explanation for what we see in the universe, and most particularly in life, is intelligence — that intelligence had to be involved in producing the living things that we see around us.

                  Source

                  © Copyright Original Source



                  Blessings,
                  Lee
                  Last edited by lee_merrill; 01-29-2021, 08:25 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


                  • #54
                    Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post



                    Behe holds that common descent and intelligent design are compatible, though. See for example, the following discussion from Ann Gauger:

                    Source: Evolution News

                    I first need to make clear that living things can be the product both of intelligent design and of common descent. If the designer chose to guide the process of gradual change from species to species, that would be both common descent and intelligent design. In other words, intelligent design theory does not require that common descent is false. Neither does intelligent design require that common descent is true. All that intelligent design theory says is that the best explanation for what we see in the universe, and most particularly in life, is intelligence — that intelligence had to be involved in producing the living things that we see around us.

                    Source

                    © Copyright Original Source



                    Blessings,
                    Lee
                    Essentially this could be boiled down to saying that evolution is God's Intelligent Design.

                    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)
                    "Of course, human life begins at fertilization thatís not the argument." --Tassman

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
                      No, I think Behe's arguments are solid, here is a sample:

                      Source: Edge of Evolution

                      Thus, because of its coherence and the number of its components (well beyond our criterion of three), it’s reasonable to think the system to specify B cell differentiation was also designed. B cells don’t occur in invertebrates; they are found only in vertebrates. Based on just this one particular example, then, it appears that design extends into the phylum Chordata, past the divide between invertebrates and vertebrates, which is the level of subphylum.

                      © Copyright Original Source

                      Please see the other thread, where i made it clear that one aspect of Behe's argument is garbage. Let's do another, shall we?

                      This is his descendant of specified complexity - too many components interacting in specific ways to evolve. Except we've known examples of this sort of thing evolving, dating back to before Behe even started writing about this.

                      Lee, meet the proteasome. I'll embed an image of its structure so we can all appreciate its complexity. Note that the red and blue regions, which look to be single components, are actually collections of multiple proteins. So, so many interactions, can't possibly have evolved according to Behe.
                      26S_proteasome_structure.jpg
                      Except we know it has. The red regions are stacks of four sets of six proteins - put differently, there are four rings of six proteins stacked on top of each other. In yeast, each of the six proteins of each stack is a distinct gene, so well beyond Behe's limit of complexity. Except all six are descendants of a single protein through duplication of the ancestral gene followed by mutations that cause specialization. If we go back to the ancestors of eukaryotes (the archaea), they still have only a single gene that produces all six members of each ring. So, each half of the red structure was built based on a grand total of two protein interactions: one in between members of the ring, and one between neighboring rings.

                      It's the same thing with the blue structure. It's a ring, and all members of the ring are descendants of a single ancestral protein. It only took one protein-protein interaction to make the ring, then another to get it to link to the red structure, and then a series of duplication/diversification events to create lots of individual, specialized genes instead of a single, generalist version.

                      What about all that stuff on top? That's all built out of individual protein-protein interactions. Once the scaffolding was in place, interactions among them could be selected for, and have in a couple of places.

                      Behe's whole argument is based on the presumption that you can't build up these complicated networks of protein interactions one individual, selected step at a time. The proteasome shows that this entire argument is laughably false, since there's an obvious and well documented path to its stepwise assembly. And we have known about this for years, during which time Behe should know that his argument is false.

                      Yet he keeps making it.

                      Behe is lying to you. He may also be lying to himself so that he can sleep at night, but he's definitely lying to you.
                      "Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling."

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                        Essentially this could be boiled down to saying that evolution is God's Intelligent Design.
                        Now where have i seen that phrase before...?
                        "Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling."

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Originally posted by TheLurch View Post
                          Now where have i seen that phrase before...?


                          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)
                          "Of course, human life begins at fertilization thatís not the argument." --Tassman

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Originally posted by TheLurch View Post
                            It's the same thing with the blue structure. It's a ring, and all members of the ring are descendants of a single ancestral protein. It only took one protein-protein interaction to make the ring, then another to get it to link to the red structure, and then a series of duplication/diversification events to create lots of individual, specialized genes instead of a single, generalist version.

                            What about all that stuff on top? That's all built out of individual protein-protein interactions. Once the scaffolding was in place, interactions among them could be selected for, and have in a couple of places.
                            And was it working as a proteasome through all this time? And were all the mutations selectable? I would guess the duplications, for instance, were not selectable.

                            Behe's whole argument is based on the presumption that you can't build up these complicated networks of protein interactions one individual, selected step at a time.
                            Behe actually acknowledges that with selectable mutations, evolution can work. His argument is about neutral or deleterious mutations.

                            Blessings,
                            Lee
                            Last edited by lee_merrill; 01-30-2021, 04:46 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


                            • #59
                              Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
                              And was it working as a proteasome through all this time? And were all the mutations selectable? I would guess the duplications, for instance, were not selectable.
                              Yes, it was a proteasome in archaea, and it remains one today. And we know duplications take place in every single generation of humans, so it doesn't matter whether they're selectable.
                              "Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling."

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Originally posted by TheLurch View Post
                                Yes, it was a proteasome in archaea, and it remains one today. And we know duplications take place in every single generation of humans, so it doesn't matter whether they're selectable.
                                Just saying howdy with no attempt whatsoever to derail the thread in any way, shape or form.
                                "Neighbor, how long has it been since youíve had a big, thick, steaming bowl of Wolf Brand Chili?Ē

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by lee_merrill, 02-24-2021, 08:33 PM
                                4 responses
                                39 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Started by rogue06, 02-24-2021, 11:11 AM
                                2 responses
                                42 views
                                3 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by shunyadragon, 02-23-2021, 09:32 PM
                                13 responses
                                58 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by lee_merrill, 02-20-2021, 04:51 PM
                                57 responses
                                311 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by Sparko, 02-18-2021, 09:07 AM
                                48 responses
                                159 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Sparko
                                by Sparko
                                 
                                Working...
                                X