Wednesday, June 9, 2010

Are Gill Slits Really Powerful Evidence for Evolution?

A few years ago I debated an evolutionist who claimed that the human embryo's gill slits are powerful evidence for evolution. The idea is that as new species evolve, their embryonic development tends to build upon the embryonic development stages of the ancestral species. Imagine a 10-story building is constructed, and then years later a few more stories are added to the top of the building. The first 10 stories would remain unchanged. Similarly, nineteenth century evolutionists expected that the embryonic development of an organism would reflect its evolutionary history.

Darwin contemporary Ernst Haeckel gave this idea the memorable moniker “ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny.” Its more technical title is "the biogenetic law." As with most evolutionary expectations it is now a relic. Indeed, even cousin species are found to have profound differences in their embryonic development.

Nonetheless evolutionists, like the one I debated a few years back, remain fond of the biogenetic law, if in a weaker form. Perhaps ontogeny does not recapitulate phylogeny, but those gill slits in the human embryo are obviously powerful evidence of an evolutionary history. Are they? Let's briefly review the biology.

Fish use their gills for gas exchange. The main problem for fish is in obtaining sufficient oxygen from the water. The oxygen content in water is about 20 times less than that of air. Both air and water breathers rely on the process of diffusion to obtain their oxygen, but that process is about 300,000 times slower in water. Also, because water is denser than air, more energy is required to move the fluid over the gas-exchanging surface. On top of all this, warm water presents even more of a problem for fish, because its oxygen content is reduced while the fish metabolism is increased, thus requiring more oxygen. Fish overcome these obstacles with a sophisticated active gas transport system--the gills--which transport oxygen from the water to the blood.

First, the many gill filaments that float off of the gill arches provide a large surface area over which the oxygen diffuses from the water into the bloodstream. Next, a near continuous flow of water over the gills is created by a combination of positive pressure from the mouth cavity upstream of the gills and negative pressure from the opercular flaps downstream of the gills. The opercular flaps also serve to protect the vulnerable gills. Finally, the diffusion rate is maximized by using unidirectional and opposing fluid flows. That is, the external water flow and the internal blood flow do not reverse direction (as with the air in our lungs, for example) but continues along in the same direction. Also the water and blood move in opposite directions. This counter current flow produces a higher diffusion rate than if they flowed along together in the same direction.

Of course none of these designs are apparent in the early stages of development. In these stages fish and human embryos take on different forms. One exception is the pharyngula stage in which the different vertebrate embryos have a fish-like form, including a series of paired folds or grooves. In fish these lead to gill slits while in other vertebrates they lead to various structures.

So why is this such powerful evidence for evolution? Simple, it refutes design and creation. As evolutionist Tim Berra explained, as though reporting on a scientific finding, "The passage through a fishlike stage by the embryos of the higher vertebrates is not explained by creation, but is readily accounted for as an evolutionary relic."

Similarly philosopher Elliott Sober, in a recent paper, informs the reader that human fetuses have gill slits, and that such structures are evidence for common ancestry precisely because they are useless in humans.

Aside from the fact that human fetuses, in fact, do not have gill slits and that therefore reports of their uselessness are greatly exaggerated, Sober's paper reveals the subtle, yet enduring reason why evolutionists find this evidence so persuasive. The reason does not come from science. Religion drives science, and it matters.

89 comments:

  1. "The human embryo, on the other hand, has no gill slits. It does have folds in the skin that superficially resemble gills but they serve no function akin to fish’s gills."

    Unreal. You wrote pages of dreck just so you could employ a silly fallacy of equivocation?

    Here are the facts:

    1) Humans have pharyngeal slits. Whether one calls them "gill slits" or "pharyngeal slits" doesn't matter. You're avoiding the evidence, as usual.

    2) Fish have pharyngeal slits.

    3) In fish, the gill slits aren't gills either. They are the openings over the actual gills. This is apparent in sharks, less so in teleosts.

    4) You can't explain why both fish and humans have pharyngeal slits, so you wave your hands wildly.

    "In his book, Evolution and the Myth of Creationism, evolutionist Tim Berra admits that vertebrate embryos do not respire by means of gills… "

    That has to be your lamest straw man yet. He "admits" it? That's the best you can do?

    Explain why human embryos have pharyngeal slits. Show a picture of that stage, instead of the later stage that you chose to deceive your audience.

    Why do you have so much contempt for the Ninth Commandment, Dr. Hunter? Why do you have so little faith in your own position that you blog instead of DOING science?

    ReplyDelete
  2. This bit is even more absurd than I realized:

    "In his book, Evolution and the Myth of Creationism, evolutionist Tim Berra admits that vertebrate embryos do not respire by means of gills… "

    What exactly is your point with this alleged admission, Dr. Hunter?

    1) Are humans vertebrates?
    2) Are fish vertebrates?
    3) Do human embryos respire by means of gills?
    4) Do fish embryos respire by means of gills?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Wow, what a scientifically confused article.

    To give Cornelius his dues, at least he avoids making the mistake so common among Creationists of implying that Haekel's hypothesis is part of modern evolutionary theory. But he does make others of his own.

    Beyond that, it's pretty hookie. Yes, the way humans and fish breathe is very different. But the features in both are formed from the same embryonic features - the pharyngeal arches. That's the point. Why should the same embryonic feature turn into different 'adult' features in different species?

    Evolution can make sense of this. Evolution tinkers and tweaks. It builds on what has gone before. So it develops new breathing systems from those that already exist.

    Ask any surgeon and they'll say that underneath the skin of your lower jaw and throat it's a total mess. Spaghetti junction. Why aren't the nerves, fibres and tissues laid out neatly and logically? Because they were built by tinkering with what had gone before. This explanation makes sense, and it certainly implies no design or forward planning of any kind.


    If we have learned anything from embryonic development, it is that development is complicated and sometimes uncooperative with evolutionary theory.


    THIS evidence isn't uncooperative with evolutionary theory in the slightest. It is an elegant demonstration of it.

    ReplyDelete
  4. "It is the job of good, solid scientific research to investigate such thorny problems."

    Is perhaps the truest thing written on this blog. Sadly, I think it is said as sarcasm, or with a misplaced belief in where solid scientific research is conducted.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Yes, the original post is incoherent. Surely Dr Hunter learned some biology at some time in the past?

    Has he forgotten it?

    (At times like this I thank my lucky stars for my courses in embryology and comparative anatomy.)

    ReplyDelete
  6. I was under the impression that the human embryo has pharyngeal folds, not pharyngial slits. Andthe folds do grow into various organs.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Nat,

    Just what, in your opinion, is Dr. Hunter trying to say? THe only thing I see him trying to say is that because a structure called a "gill slit" doesn't cover up an actual gill, evolutionary theory is wrong.

    If you disagree, how about answering my four questions above?

    ReplyDelete
  8. When examined, the alleged 'mountain of evidence' evolutionists claim to have for their 'theory' is nothing but smoke and mirrors.

    ReplyDelete
  9. So, music, why don't you explain what Dr. Hunter is arguing and answer my four questions? You have faith that he wouldn't be trying to deceive you, correct?

    ReplyDelete
  10. "Yes, the original post is incoherent."

    Just about. I can see my automated blog writing algorithm isn't quite working. The post is now fixed.

    ReplyDelete
  11. "The post is now fixed."

    No, your semantic game is still utterly incoherent; removing the statement you falsely labeled as an admission wasn't enough to fix the underlying illogic. Try answering these questions to see why:

    1) Are humans vertebrates?
    2) Are fish vertebrates?
    3) Do human embryos respire by means of gills?
    4) Do fish embryos respire by means of gills?
    5) Do fish embryos have gill slits?

    ReplyDelete
  12. Okay. I'll try. Humans have pharyngeal folds that develop into organs in the neck. Fish have pharyngeal folds that develop into gill slits.

    ReplyDelete
  13. The blog seems to attract an inordinate number of IDC "one hit wonder" posters for some reason. They come by and post a one sentence smarmy comment, you ask them a technical question, and they are never heard from again.

    You'd think at least a few of them would belong to the vertebrata, but I guess if they had spines they wouldn't be IDCers.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Embryonic structures that we observe as pharyngeal folds become mineral-regulating gills in fish, but in humans become mineral-regulating glands. The structures are observed to diverge in the embryo before they become gills. Each of these structural adaptations support the nested hierarchy of descent.

    ReplyDelete
  15. nat wrote:
    "Okay. I'll try."

    But you didn't answer my questions.

    "Humans have pharyngeal folds that develop into organs in the neck. Fish have pharyngeal folds that develop into gill slits."

    Wrong. Thanks for trying, though. Even if you were right, how would that contradict modern evolutionary theory?

    If, as Dr. Hunter claims, it's wrong to call them gill slits in human pharyngulas because they aren't over gills, is it right to call them gill slits in fish pharyngulas?

    ReplyDelete
  16. Let me clarify my "Wrong" above.

    You're right in that's what Dr. Hunter wants you to believe. He's omitting a great deal of relevant information to fool you.

    ReplyDelete
  17. smokey (and your mirrors),

    maybe go learn to at least understanding the errors CH is pointing out before spewing forth useless spittle and froth that only reveals your own ignorance?

    ReplyDelete
  18. Darwinists are amazingly gullible souls.
    Frogs to princes, reptiles to birds - anything goes, ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny - no proof required, no evidence needed.

    Old lies die hard.

    "Looks like this, therefore comes from or is related to this" is still one of Darwinisms chief logical fallacies and visible everywhere - except to the Darwinian mind - which is perpetually on hold.

    You can't make this stuff up, but they do anyway and then have the gall (and stupidity) to call it science.

    Unreal.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Smokey:

    The point isn't that it contradicts evolution, but rather that the evidence for evolution is weak.

    ReplyDelete
  20. It looks like they contribute to more than just glands. They develop into bones, muscles ect.

    ReplyDelete
  21. nat,

    When you omit vast amounts of relevant evidence, the evidence for anything can be made to look weak to gullible people.

    Now, how about answering my questions based on your understanding of Dr. Hunter's post?

    Gary,

    What did I write that was ignorant? Be specific and back it up with real evidence.

    Why don't you take a shot at answering my questions?

    The unwillingness to do so here reveals a clear lack of faith in Dr. Hunter's writing.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Gary said...

    Darwinists are amazingly gullible souls.
    Frogs to princes, reptiles to birds - anything goes, ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny - no proof required, no evidence needed.

    Old lies die hard.

    "Looks like this, therefore comes from or is related to this" is still one of Darwinisms chief logical fallacies and visible everywhere - except to the Darwinian mind - which is perpetually on hold.

    You can't make this stuff up, but they do anyway and then have the gall (and stupidity) to call it science.


    Ahem...

    Thorton said...

    The blog seems to attract an inordinate number of IDC "one hit wonder" posters for some reason. They come by and post a one sentence smarmy comment, you ask them a technical question, and they are never heard from again.

    You'd think at least a few of them would belong to the vertebrata, but I guess if they had spines they wouldn't be IDCers.


    Q.E.D.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Humans are vertebrates.
    Fish are vertabrates.
    Humans embryos don't respire by means of gills.
    Fish embryos do not respire by means of gills.
    Fish embryos do not have gill slits.
    Fish embryos have folds that form into gill slits.
    Human embryos have folds that form into bones, muscles, glands etc.
    I'm not sure what the point is.

    Anyway, some very relevnet information is the fact that the different vertebraet embryos are very different at the blastula stage, and also at the stage of gastrulation. They only sorat look alike at one stgae in development. So the differences are as reat as the similarities.

    ReplyDelete
  24. natschuster:
    Humans are vertebrates.
    Fish are vertabrates.


    Embryos fit the nested hierarchy expected of common descent, and we can show incremental changes in development consistent with descent with modification.

    ReplyDelete
  25. nat wrote:
    "Humans are vertebrates. Fish are vertabrates. Humans embryos don't respire by means of gills. Fish embryos do not respire by means of gills."

    All correct. For the last sentence, note that Dr. Hunter's dissertation on respiration was completely irrelevant. What's the primary function of fish gills in terms of time, BTW?

    "Fish embryos do not have gill slits. Fish embryos have folds that form into gill slits."

    You're falling for Dr. Hunter's obfuscation.

    Tunicates, lampreys, and cartilagenous fishes have slits over their gills.

    Bony fishes don't.

    "Human embryos have folds that form into bones, muscles, glands etc."

    So do fish embryos.

    "I'm not sure what the point is."

    The point is that the pharyngeal structures (what we call them is irrelevant) are virtually identical in fish and human pharyngula embryos.

    Question: does their differentiation into different morphologies involve the same genes, or different ones?

    "Anyway, some very relevnet information is the fact that the different vertebraet embryos are very different at the blastula stage,…"

    Don't just claim it, show it with evidence.

    "... and also at the stage of gastrulation."

    Oh, really? What's different about the mechanisms of gastrulation in different animals? Does it not involve the same cell types? Doesn't the ectoderm always invaginate, forming a tube within a tube?

    Does gastrulation involve different genes in fish and humans?

    "They only sorat look alike at one stgae in development. So the differences are as reat as the similarities."

    Ah, so "being alike" = "looking alike" and nothing else?

    But since you brought up differences, why does Dr. Hunter misrepresent superimposable nested hierarchies (based on the differences) as nothing more than "similarity"?

    ReplyDelete
  26. Well, according to this:

    mammals are so different at the blastula stage, that they are called blastocysts.

    ReplyDelete
  27. And gastrulation follows different paths in different animals.

    http://www.gastrulation.org/

    ReplyDelete
  28. nat:
    "mammals are so different at the blastula stage, that they are called blastocysts."

    How are they different? In your own words, based on YOUR examination of the evidence. You're not afraid to do that, are you?

    Why are you dodging my questions about genes and mechanisms, nat? When we look more deeply, are there any differences at all there?

    ReplyDelete
  29. "And gastrulation follows different paths in different animals."

    Different in what ways? Why is it still called gastrulation, then (I couldn't resist)?

    Tell me about the evidence, don't desperately look for a quote to pull.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Here's how blastula and blastocysts are different:


    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blastula

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blastocyst


    I already provided a link on gastrula.

    Do I understand you to be saying that I should think for myself? Do you mean to say that I should not be blindly following experts? Then I can say that evolution makes no senses to me. It goes against common sense. Its like saying I can make random changes to my car, svae the changes that imporve the functioning somehow, junk the car if the change doesn't improve it, and hope it will turn into a truck.

    ReplyDelete
  31. According to this:

    http://www.genoscope.cns.fr/spip/Lampetra-fluviatilis-the-lamprey.html

    the genes that control gastrulation in dogfish and lampreys are not all the same. Some are different. I'm not sure what the relevence is.

    ReplyDelete
  32. I wrote: "Different in what ways? Why is it still called gastrulation, then (I couldn't resist)? Tell me about the evidence, don't desperately look for a quote to pull.

    natschuster said…
    "Here's how blastula and blastocysts are different:"

    I already know. The blastocyst contains cells that will become extraembryonic tissues, the blastula doesn't. They aren't homologous; the embryoblast and the blastula are.

    So how are the embryoblast and the blastula different?

    "I already provided a link on gastrula."

    But you were dishonest because you didn't look at the evidence.

    "Do I understand you to be saying that I should think for myself?"

    I wrote, in clear English, "In your own words, based on YOUR examination of the evidence. You're not afraid to do that, are you?"

    Now why would you "understand" my demand that you examine the evidence for yourself as saying that you should merely think for yourself, unless you are afraid to examine the evidence for yourself?

    "Do you mean to say that I should not be blindly following experts?"

    You are blindly following non-experts. I am saying that you should examine the evidence for yourself. You are afraid to do so.

    "Then I can say that evolution makes no senses to me."

    Straw man coming…

    "It goes against common sense. Its like saying I can make random changes to my car, svae the changes that imporve the functioning somehow, junk the car if the change doesn't improve it, and hope it will turn into a truck."

    That's a perfectly dishonest characterization of evolution, nat. Evolution doesn't happen to individual organisms, it happens to populations.

    Why are you being dishonest?

    natschuster said…
    "According to this:
    http://www.genoscope.cns.fr/spip/Lampetra-fluviatilis-the-lamprey.html
    the genes that control gastrulation in dogfish and lampreys are not all the same."

    You're just lying now, nat. There's nothing on that page that says that.

    Why are you afraid of the evidence?

    "Some are different."

    Which ones, specifically? You didn't even read it.

    "I'm not sure what the relevence is."

    The relevance is that you're all rhetoric and no evidence.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Here's a quote from the article linked:


    "Furthermore, our work has shown that the study of embryonic expression profiles of genes implicated in early regionalization of the forebrain (Otx, Emx, Pax6, Pax3, Lhx1/5, Lhx2/9) has shown that the majority of the neuromeric subdivisions characterized in the bony fish (osteichthyes) are found in these two groups. Important differences have nevertheless been observed: thus the variation present in jawed vertebrates, Nkx2.1, is not expressed in the telencephalon in the lamprey. We have also characterized the embryonic expression profile in lampreys of several genes which play essential roles during gastrulation in bony fish (Fox-a@, Lim1, Otx, Brachyury), and also provided the first molecular characterization of gastrulation in a cartiliaginous fish (Chondrichthyes). These first analyses have furnished the basis for much more detailed studies, which are currently being performed using new markers which have recently been amplified in our laboratories."

    Now either my reading comprehension is defective, or it says that there are differences in the genes.

    And I do believe if you peformed the baove experimnet with a population of cars, you would still not wind up with a truck, just a lot of junked cars.

    ReplyDelete
  34. natschuster: And I do believe if you peformed the baove experimnet with a population of cars, you would still not wind up with a truck, just a lot of junked cars.

    Cars do not reproduce, nor do they form a singular nested hierarchy associated with Common Descent.

    ReplyDelete
  35. But if you made new cars that had the improvement brought about by the random change, that would be the same as reproducing. And organisms that die because of a defect caused by a random mutation don't reproduce, or they reporduce as well. Y'know, survival of the fittest.

    Some cars are similar to other cars. And cars are sorta like trucks. And trucks and cars share some characteristics with boats and aiplanes. So they could be put in a sort of nested hierachy.

    ReplyDelete
  36. natschuster -


    But if you made new cars that had the improvement brought about by the random change, that would be the same as reproducing.


    No it wouldn't. It would not be proliferating the genes (or the information equivalent for cars) for the improved characteristics at the expense of models which did not possess them.


    Some cars are similar to other cars. And cars are sorta like trucks. And trucks and cars share some characteristics with boats and aiplanes. So they could be put in a sort of nested hierachy.


    Again, no. That doesn't work at all. How can one sort of vehicle said to be descended from, or related to, another? Is a unicycle more closely related to a boat or a plane? Is a Ford Fiesta more closely related to a Vauxhall Corsa or a Mini Cooper? The whole idea is a nonsense. You cannot draw neat nested hierarchies here at all.

    The whole car metaphor for evolution falls down for many reasons. And some of the reasons why your metaphor fails are similar to why the idea of an Intelligent Designer fails.

    Every single model of car is designed from scratch by conscious agents. In this way, designers can mix and match good features from all sorts of other cars. CD players, for example. I do not know cars very well, but I imagine at some point, when CD's because the common method of distributing recorded music, all new models of car suddenly came with CD players. This is because a single good feature could be superimposed onto all new models of car. A designer for Ford could see that CD players were good on, say, Voltswagon cars and decide to include them in his new car too. In this way, good features are shared and passed around when it comes to designed objects.

    We do not see this in nature. For example, by the time bats came about, birds had been in the skies for millions of years. Bird's wings worked perfectly well. And yet this feature was not then transposed onto a mammal to create a bat. No, bats had to form their own wings out of their own front limbs - effectively they had to re-invent the wing. We can trace this in the fossil and genetic records of bats. Why was this necessary if there is a designer who can mix and match good features to produce new animals in the natural world?

    ReplyDelete
  37. "Why was this necessary if there is a designer who can mix and match good features to produce new animals in the natural world? "

    Why would a designer just mix and match? Do most people just buy a certain number of clothes and mix and match til you die? Or do they like variety?

    ReplyDelete
  38. Fil -


    Do most people just buy a certain number of clothes and mix and match til you die? Or do they like variety?


    Many people like to experiment with new things, it's true. That's because we do not know the consequences of every conceivable action in advance. We are not, in short, all-knowing. Surely an all-knowing agent would know the 'best' limb design for flight and use it repeatedly?

    And, just to anticipate a rebuttal here, it is true that 'best' is a subjective word. The 'best' sort of a wing for an eagle is not necessarily the 'best' sort of wing for an ostrich. Yet this just makes it all the more curious that birds, whose members inlcude penguins, ostriches, eagles, parrots, seaguls, and swifts - animals with hugely varying lifestyles and habitats - all have variations on the same basic design of wing. The bat lives a life far more similar to that of, say, an owl or a bluebird than an ostrich does, but the owl and bluebird's wings far more closely resemble the ostrich's than they do the bat's.

    So, following your logic, if there is an ultimate cosmic designer, he/she/it is not all-knowing. And therefore cannot be the Christian God as traditionally depicted.

    Is that the conclusion you would have us reach?

    ReplyDelete
  39. Fil: Why would a designer just mix and match?

    Because they can. A rational designer won't artificially limit their choices.

    ReplyDelete
  40. I asked Nat:
    "Tell me about the evidence, don't desperately look for a quote to pull."

    Nat pulled a quote (avoiding discussing any actual evidence, predictably):

    " thus the variation present in jawed vertebrates, Nkx2.1, is not expressed in the telencephalon in the lamprey...Now either my reading comprehension is defective, or it says that there are differences in the genes."

    Your reading comprehension is dismal. They described ONE difference in the TELENCEPHALON.

    Is the telencephalon part of the branchial arches, Nat?

    Did you consider looking up the known function of Nkx2.1 before trying to claim that you understand biology better than I do?

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/omim/600635

    ReplyDelete
  41. Nat wrote:
    "So they could be put in a sort of nested hierachy."

    They could be put in many different nested hierarchies. However, organisms, after systematic and experimental and interpretive errors are resolved, only fit into a SINGLE hierarchy.

    And here's another place where your analogy fails miserably. We can look at each of the parts (proteins) and see the same hierarchical pattern of differences. Cars and trucks share hundreds of identical parts.

    This is why it's such a blatant lie when IDCers try to pass off nested hierarchies as just "similarity."

    ReplyDelete
  42. "That's because we do not know the consequences of every conceivable action in advance."

    Neither does the Biblical God if he choses not to. Selective foreknowledge.

    "So, following your logic, if there is an ultimate cosmic designer, he/she/it is not all-knowing. And therefore cannot be the Christian God as traditionally depicted.

    Is that the conclusion you would have us reach? "

    Interesting. So you are saying that they is only one PERFECT way of designing anything. Yet, function is only one aspect of design. Sometimes we sacrifice a bit of function for variety or aethetics.

    "Fil: Why would a designer just mix and match?

    Because they can. A rational designer won't artificially limit their choices. "

    Are you saying they wouldn't just mix and match? Mixing and matching only will limit your choices.

    ReplyDelete
  43. Fil -


    Neither does the Biblical God if he choses not to. Selective foreknowledge.


    Lol. Is there any proposition too absurd to be ascribed to the Biblical God? Why would he chose not to know things?


    Interesting. So you are saying that they is only one PERFECT way of designing anything. Yet, function is only one aspect of design. Sometimes we sacrifice a bit of function for variety or aethetics.


    ... and it's the merest coincidence that God tinkering around with his designs just happen to fall into a pattern we know as the tree of life which indicated common descent?

    Or did God set this pattern deliberately to fool us and make us think He didn't do it?


    Are you saying they wouldn't just mix and match? Mixing and matching only will limit your choices.


    Why do you need choices if you already know what is best?

    ReplyDelete
  44. "Lol. Is there any proposition too absurd to be ascribed to the Biblical God? Why would he chose not to know things?"

    He admits in the bible that before certain events happened he did not know something, he also gives people choices, something pointless if he knew in advance their decision.

    He can know anything he chooses but is not forced to. As an example Ritchie, can you sing? I'm sure you can, but just because you CAN do something does not mean you HAVE TO do it, otherwise I'm sure your friends wouldn't want to be around you ;) God being FORCED to use an ability he has would mean he isnt allpowerful.

    "tree of life"

    Even wikipedia says "A phylogenetic tree or evolutionary tree is a branching diagram or "tree" showing the inferred evolutionary relationships among various biological species or other entities based upon similarities and differences in their physical and/or genetic characteristics."

    Yes, I know it's wikipedia but notice the word "inferred".

    Also:“For a long time the holy grail was to build a tree of life,” says Eric Bapteste, an evolutionary biologist at the Pierre and Marie Curie University in Paris, France. A few years ago it looked as though the grail was within reach. But today the project lies in tatters, torn to pieces by an onslaught of negative evidence. Many biologists now argue that the tree concept is obsolete and needs to be discarded. “We have no evidence at all that the tree of life is a reality,” says Bapteste. That bombshell has even persuaded some that our fundamental view of biology needs to change."

    So apparently not all learned men(of which I am not one, learned that is) agree with that trees existance.

    "Why do you need choices if you already know what is best?"

    Why do you assume one choice is best in every decision faced?

    ReplyDelete
  45. Bapteste: We have no evidence at all that the tree of life is a reality

    Darwin was quite aware that the phylogenetic tree was not perfect. Convergence can make it difficult to discern the tree from trait characters of the taxa, while interspecific hybridization breaks the tree structure. Furthermore, Darwin was aware that there may not be a single universal ancestor, so there could be more than one tree. Since then, many other exceptions to the phylogenetic tree have been discovered, such as endogenous retroviruses, and possibly rampant horizontal evolution at the root of the tree.

    The question, then, becomes one of how closely the actual pattern matches a tree structure. If life descended along uncrossed lines, we expect a nested hierarchy of character traits. Well, for the majority of eukaryote taxa, there is a very clear nested hierarchy (but not 100%). The evidence is less clear for bacteria, but the data suggests that even allowing for horizontal evolution, all life shares a common ancestor.

    ReplyDelete
  46. Fil -


    God being FORCED to use an ability he has would mean he isnt allpowerful.


    There are, incidentally, many contradictions with being all-powerful. For example, can God create a rock that He Himself cannot lift? Whichever answer you give, the conclusion would still be that there is something He cannot do. The logical conclusion is that being all-powerful is actually a logical contradiction. A paradox. Something that cannot actually exist. Just another reason why we should doubt the existence of a being which supposedly has such a quality.

    But we digress. The point is that we see a pattern in nature which does not necessitate a deisnger at all. All birds share a common wing design. In fact, all birds are simple variations on the same basic avian body plan. Bats do not share this body plan - they have a mammalian one, even though they live a live which in habitat and lifestyle is more similar to some birds than other birds are. The idea that God is just tinkering around with body plans for aesthetic purposes sounds like a rather flimsy (not to mention untestable and therefore unscientific) excuse to explain homology, which ignores the fact that we can still draw patterns in the phyla. Structurally a bat's wing has far more in common with a human hand or a dolphin's fin than it does with a bird's wing. How is this to be addressed if God is such a lover of trying out new and interesting physical features for the sake of seeing what happens?


    Yes, I know it's wikipedia...


    For the record I do not get this whole Wikipedia snobbery. I realise it's important not to take Wiki[edia's word as (for want of a better word) gospel, and why, but it is generally a reliable source - far more so than many others on the web!


    but notice the word "inferred".


    It is inferred because much of it is open to revision. For example, I believe we currently think the common ancestor humans share with chimpanzees lived around 6 million years ago (let's just say 6 million. Even if I'm out, it isn't by much and it's not actually that relevant to the point I'm making). Now that is a best guess, and open to revision. We could tomrrow find a specimen that proves it must have been as late as 7 million years, or as recent as 5. So 6 million yeas is only inferred, and open to revision when new evidence comes to light.

    The tree of life is made up of such inferences. We do not know the EXACT dates of practically all the 'branchings' of the tree, and they are constantly being tweaked and revised as new evidence is found. But these revisions do not mean the tree is hypothetical, badly evidenced or probably wrong. Indeed, the more revisions we make, the more accurate it is likely to be. It's quite a good metaphor for how a scientific theory should operate - always open to tweaks and revisions as new evidence is found. In the case of evolution, Cornelius Hunter calls these tweaks 'failed predictions'. In reality they are nothing of the sort.

    ReplyDelete
  47. (cont)


    “We have no evidence at all that the tree of life is a reality,” says Bapteste.


    I don't know where you got that from exactly, but it is an extremely common quote taken out of context in creationist circles. Baptiste was not saying that the tree fails, exactly - more that the pattern is more complex that the 'tree' concept implies.

    "The tree of life was useful. It helped us to understand evolution was real. But now we know more about evolution it's time to move on." (Dupree)

    "Our standard model of evolution is under enormous pressure. We're clearly going to see evolution as much more about mergers and collaboration than change within isolated lineages." (Dupree)

    "We should relax a bit on this. We understand evolution pretty well it's just it is more complex than Darwin imagined. The tree isn't the only pattern." (Doolittle, Dupree's co-worker)

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/4312355/Charles-Darwins-tree-of-life-is-wrong-and-misleading-claim-scientists.html


    Why do you assume one choice is best in every decision faced?


    Again, the problem with this 'God likes variety and can play around with body plans on a whim' idea (apart from the fact it is totally unfalsifiable) is that it ignores the fact that we do see a pattern of common descent.

    ReplyDelete
  48. "There are, incidentally, many contradictions with being all-powerful."

    The Greek word rendered “Almighty” literally means “Ruler Over All; One Who Has All Power.”
    It is not in relationship to himself but to all others. He has Power over all. In fact, the Bible says "God cannot lie". Is that a weakness, showing his inability to do something? Or does it denote a positive character trait of his?

    ""The tree of life was useful. It helped us to understand evolution was real. But now we know more about evolution it's time to move on." (Dupree)"

    "The tree isn't the only pattern." (Doolittle, Dupree's co-worker)"

    'WAS useful'....'time to move on'... then 'isn't the only pattern.'

    Another beautiful contradiction from the evo camp.

    If 'it's time to move on' then stop saying 'tree of life'.....move on.

    ReplyDelete
  49. "Fil, the phylogenetic tree is alive and well. "

    Read Ritchies quotes. If it is well stop using old terms and confusing the issue.

    ReplyDelete
  50. Fil -


    It is not in relationship to himself but to all others. He has Power over all.


    So there are (at least potentially) limits to God's abilities?

    Why then should we believe any specific action (eg, bringing forth life) is within His abilities?


    In fact, the Bible says "God cannot lie". Is that a weakness, showing his inability to do something? Or does it denote a positive character trait of his?


    Maybe it is both? Maybe inabilities can be positive? I do not see your two stated options as mutually exclusive, though I more readily accept the first than the second.


    Another beautiful contradiction from the evo camp.

    If 'it's time to move on' then stop saying 'tree of life'.....move on.


    'On' ie. further, not 'on' ie. away from.

    Dupree is calling the tree too simple. He is saying there is MORE to the pattern of life than one a simple tree suggets.

    You seem to be interpreting these quotes to mean the whole tree of life is all absolute nonsense and we should scrap it as being thoroughly falsified.

    But this is not the case. Can't you see the distinction?

    ReplyDelete
  51. "So there are (at least potentially) limits to God's abilities?"

    If there are they are irrelevant. In creating the universe it shows he has a never ending source of power, or at least so large that, like I said, it's irrelevant.

    "Why then should we believe any specific action (eg, bringing forth life) is within His abilities?"

    So we use the bible to say he is limited then dont use it to accept he created? Nice double standard.

    "Maybe it is both? Maybe inabilities can be positive? I do not see your two stated options as mutually exclusive, though I more readily accept the first than the second."

    You lost me, but I'm tired and need sleep so...

    ''On' ie. further, not 'on' ie. away from.

    Dupree is calling the tree too simple. He is saying there is MORE to the pattern of life than one a simple tree suggets.

    You seem to be interpreting these quotes to mean the whole tree of life is all absolute nonsense and we should scrap it as being thoroughly falsified.

    But this is not the case. Can't you see the distinction? '

    I see the distinction, but that's not what I take from his comment. Maybe he should have phrased it better. If I told my wife it's 'time to move on' from her and that she 'was useful' to me I wonder how she would take it?

    ReplyDelete
  52. Fil -


    If there are they are irrelevant. In creating the universe it shows he has a never ending source of power, or at least so large that, like I said, it's irrelevant.


    Not irrelevant at all. If there are limits to God's power, then why should we believe that He was able to create the whole universe? You are simply begging the question.


    So we use the bible to say he is limited then dont use it to accept he created? Nice double standard.


    No, we use the Bible to say that even taken on its own terms, the Bible doesn't really add up.


    I see the distinction, but that's not what I take from his comment. Maybe he should have phrased it better. If I told my wife it's 'time to move on' from her and that she 'was useful' to me I wonder how she would take it?


    You're taking the comments out of context now. Put the comments in context and it is clear Dupree is in no way undermining the credibility of evolution. He is looking at the tree of life and saying, 'yes but there is more to it' rather than 'no that's all completely wrong'. Maybe he could have phrased it better. My point is that the credibility of the tree of life (if not looked at in too much detail, perhaps) is not to be dismissed.

    ReplyDelete
  53. Fil: If it is well stop using old terms and confusing the issue.

    Phylogeny is not an obsolete term, but an active are of research.

    Journal of Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution

    Journal of Systematic and Evolutionary Microbiology

    Journal Cladistics

    In any case, you didn't respond to the linked comment, so we'll just repeat it here.

    -
    Darwin was quite aware that the phylogenetic tree was not perfect. Convergence can make it difficult to discern the tree from trait characters of the taxa, while interspecific hybridization breaks the tree structure. Furthermore, Darwin was aware that there may not be a single universal ancestor, so there could be more than one tree. Since then, many other exceptions to the phylogenetic tree have been discovered, such as endogenous retroviruses, and possibly rampant horizontal evolution at the root of the tree.

    The question, then, becomes one of how closely the actual pattern matches a tree structure. If life descended along uncrossed lines, we expect a nested hierarchy of character traits. Well, for the majority of eukaryote taxa, there is a very clear nested hierarchy (but not 100%). The evidence is less clear for bacteria, but the data suggests that even allowing for horizontal evolution, all life shares a common ancestor.

    ReplyDelete
  54. Smokey:

    Where did I ever say that I understood biology better than you?

    You asked me to provide an example of genetic differences in embyonic development and I did so.

    ReplyDelete
  55. Nat wrote:

    "Where did I ever say that I understood biology better than you?"

    In every comment, Nat. You, like Dr. Hunter, are incredibly arrogant and un-Christian.

    "You asked me to provide an example of genetic differences in embyonic development and I did so."

    Utterly false. The context of my question was specific—the subject of Dr. Hunter's post:

    "The point is that the pharyngeal structures (what we call them is irrelevant) are virtually identical in fish and human pharyngula embryos. Question: does their differentiation into different morphologies involve the same genes, or different ones?"

    You only provided a single difference in the telencephalon, remember? Even accepting that your reading comprehension is abysmal, how can you conflate the singular with the plural?

    ReplyDelete
  56. Read this article.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/4312355/Charles-Darwins-tree-of-life-is-wrong-and-misleading-claim-scientists.html

    What you say Dupre meant is not what he meant.

    ReplyDelete
  57. Smokey:

    Where am I coming across as arrogant? I recall admitting that I may be mistaken. That's humble.

    And I'm not a Christian.

    Now, since you are making personal comments, and not just sticking to facts and logic, it would be you who is acting unChristian.

    And the point of my postings was to focus on the difference between species at the point of gastrulation. From the context, I thought you were asking about genetic differences at the stage of gatrulation. And why are genetic differences at the pharygial relevant, anyway?

    ReplyDelete
  58. Nat wrote:
    "Where am I coming across as arrogant?"

    When you claim to understand biology better than practicing biologists do.

    When you offer an analogy of an individual car changing into a truck when evolution is entirely about changes in populations. Individuals don't evolve. That's a standard creationist violation of the Ninth Commandment.

    When you claim that a difference in gene expression in the telencephalon has anything to do with gastrulation or gastrulas.

    "I recall admitting that I may be mistaken. That's humble."

    No, that goes without saying.

    "And I'm not a Christian. "

    Fair enough.

    "Now, since you are making personal comments, and not just sticking to facts and logic, it would be you who is acting unChristian."

    You've never stuck to facts and logic. You're all about what rhetoric, taking what people say and twisting it.

    "And the point of my postings was to focus on the difference between species at the point of gastrulation."

    Then your postings were outright lies, as the only difference you cited was in the telencephalon. Gastrulas don't have telencephalons, you arrogant goof!

    "From the context, I thought you were asking about genetic differences at the stage of gatrulation."

    I was. Have you found any significant differences in expression of the genes that are involved in the stereotypic tissue movements of gastrulation, or are you ready to concede the point?

    "And why are genetic differences at the pharygial relevant, anyway?"

    Because genetic identities are far more mechanistically relevant than the appearance of an embryo to a layman.

    ReplyDelete
  59. It seems from this quote from he article linked that not much is known about the genetic differences in gastrulation, so I'll have to say I don't know.


    Evolution of developmental processes in the vertebrates
    Gastrulation. Although it is now clear the the genetic control of gastrulation involves networks which have been conserved over a large evolutionary scale, the precise extent of conservation of genetic and cellular interactions is far from established, even within a group of relatively closely related species such as the vertebrates. This situation is linked to the extensive divergence of morphologies, the difficulties in comparing different functional approaches, and also in the complexity of the evolution of certain genetic systems characterized by duplications or losses of genes, and accelerations of the rate of evolution in certain taxons. In our previous studies, the little dogfish, S. canicula has proven to be the model of choice for the study of the evolution of the mechanisms of gastrulation in vertebrates, not only because of its transitional phylogenetic position in the gnathostomes but also because it has a morphology which is especially easy to interpret and it exhibits an unexpected similarity to embryos of certain amniotes (reptiles, chick). The study of this species may thus lead to a better understanding of the relationships and mechanisms of transition between the modes of gastrulation used by the principal model species that have been studied (Saula-Spengles et al., 2003, Dev. Biol. 264, 296-307). We will also seek to extend the molecular characterization of the gastrula of the dogfish in order to define eventual territorial homologies by focusing on organizer regions but also on extraembryonic tissues which, in amniotes, are sources of secreted signals which are essential for the development of the embryo. For this we will utilize a transcriptome approach, possibly complemented by the degenerate PCR technique. We will complete these molecular descriptions by the implementation of approaches based on heterologous transgenesis. In this case, BACs from the dogfish, which carry marker genes for well-defined territories in this species, will be integrated into the murine genome, and their expression profile will be tested in the murine context. The Otx5 gene of the dogfish will provide a particularly interesting system for this approach. This gene is expressed at very early stages of gastrulation at the level of the dorsal margin of the blastoderm, which may be homologous to Koller’s (Rauber’s) sickle or the posterior marginal zone in the chicken (project developed by S. Mazan and D. Casane).

    ReplyDelete
  60. And I was under the impression that evolution starts with mutations in individual organisms, that give that individual a selective advantage.
    S.J. Gould said something to that effect. I'm hoping I'm not arrogantly twisting his words.


    And I only brought up the car analogy because you gave me permission to think for myself. How humble is that?

    ReplyDelete
  61. Nat wrote:
    "It seems from this quote from he article linked that not much is known about the genetic differences in gastrulation, so I'll have to say I don't know."

    Wow. Your reading comprehension skills need some work:

    "Evolution of developmental processes in the vertebrates
    Gastrulation. Although it is now clear the the genetic control of gastrulation involves networks which have been conserved over a large evolutionary scale…"

    This is precisely the point I am making. They LOOK different to a dilettante like you, but the underlying mechanisms are ridiculously conserved—which would make no sense at all in terms of design.

    "And I was under the impression that evolution starts with mutations in individual organisms, that give that individual a selective advantage."

    Wrong. The mutations that confer advantage to the individuals occurred BEFORE the fertilization that created them; i.e., in their parents. Epic fail of Genetics 101. This is why you are so arrogant—you can't be bothered to learn the most fundamental things before claiming that the experts are wrong.

    "S.J. Gould said something to that effect."

    No, he didn't, and even if he had, the evidence matters far more than any quotes you can pull.

    "I'm hoping I'm not arrogantly twisting his words. "

    You are, predictably.

    "And I only brought up the car analogy because you gave me permission to think for myself. How humble is that?"

    You didn't think of it yourself. It's a standard creationist deception.

    ReplyDelete
  62. Zach:

    "The question, then, becomes one of how closely the actual pattern matches a tree structure. If life descended along uncrossed lines, we expect a nested hierarchy of character traits. Well, for the majority of eukaryote taxa, there is a very clear nested hierarchy (but not 100%). The evidence is less clear for bacteria, but the data suggests that even allowing for horizontal evolution, all life shares a common ancestor. "

    For the majority of physics problems the flat earth works well (but not 100%).

    ReplyDelete
  63. Smokey:

    But the genes that control gastrulation can't be exactly the same, or they follow the same pathways and stuff. so there are important differences as well. Anyway, I'm still not sure what the relevance is.

    Now, maybe you could provide some links on the topic of conservation of genetic control of gastrulation. The only information I could find was the article sited above.

    And the mutations that confer an advantage happen in organism that reproduce asexually as well. So it can happen in an individual. And even if a mutation happnes in the parents, the advantage it confers happens only for the offspring, so it is acting on individuals.

    And where did I say I thought upthe car arguement myself?

    ReplyDelete
  64. Smokey:

    "The mutations that confer advantage to the individuals occurred BEFORE the fertilization that created them; i.e., in their parents. Epic fail of Genetics 101. This is why you are so arrogant—you can't be bothered to learn the most fundamental things before claiming that the experts are wrong."

    You are saying that in humans the egg and the sperm that eventually fertilizes it already have mutations? And it is NOT the combining of the two that produces mutations?

    ReplyDelete
  65. Cornelius Hunter: For the majority of physics problems the flat earth works well (but not 100%).

    That's right. Euclidean geometry is quite adequate for many purposes. The Round Earth Theory has to explain these observations, as well as other observations of a larger scale.

    Similarly, a more complex theory of phylogeny has to explain the observed nested hierarchy as it applies to many taxa of interest, as well as any new observations it is attempting to incorporate.

    ReplyDelete
  66. Nat:
    "But the genes that control gastrulation can't be exactly the same, or they follow the same pathways and stuff. so there are important differences as well. Anyway, I'm still not sure what the relevance is."

    They are the same: for example, nodal, BMP4, Cer, FGFR1, Snai1, FGF8.

    "Now, maybe you could provide some links on the topic of conservation of genetic control of gastrulation. The only information I could find was the article sited above."

    Which was consistent with what I said, not your claim.

    "And the mutations that confer an advantage happen in organism that reproduce asexually as well. So it can happen in an individual."

    In single-celled asexual organisms, yes. But do you now concede that your analogy was misleading for multicellular organisms, which was the context in which you offered it?

    "And even if a mutation happnes in the parents, the advantage it confers happens only for the offspring, so it is acting on individuals."

    Of course, but individuals don't evolve, which was your claim.

    "And where did I say I thought upthe car arguement myself?"

    Where you wrote, "And I only brought up the car analogy because you gave me permission to think for myself."


    Fil said…

    "You are saying that in humans the egg and the sperm that eventually fertilizes it already have mutations?"

    Correct. Mutations happen all the time, but only those in the germline are inherited.

    "And it is NOT the combining of the two that produces mutations?"

    Correct.

    Should you be claiming to understand biology better than the experts when you understand it less than a successful high-school student does?

    ReplyDelete
  67. "Should you be claiming to understand biology better than the experts when you understand it less than a successful high-school student does? "


    Oooooooooo. Please forgive me for asking questions. I should just take your obvious brilliance at face value and adopt your views as my own.

    ReplyDelete
  68. "Oooooooooo. Please forgive me for asking questions."

    Asking questions isn't the problem. Making up your mind without asking first is.

    "I should just take your obvious brilliance at face value and adopt your views as my own."

    Nope. You should base your views on the evidence, not what anyone says about the evidence.

    That being said, you are clearly claiming to understand biology better than the people who actually produce the evidence, which you're afraid to examine for yourself.

    That's the epitome of arrogance.

    ReplyDelete
  69. "That being said, you are clearly claiming to understand biology better than the people who actually produce the evidence,'

    I am? Where? Give me some of my quotes.

    ReplyDelete
  70. "Give me some of my quotes."

    OK:

    "Dupree is calling the tree too simple. He is saying there is MORE to the pattern of life than one a simple tree suggets."

    "What you say Dupre meant is not what he meant."

    "I have zero problem with adaptation, that is definitely shown, sometimes within a year/generation. Adaptability, such as in finches, does not, however, guarantee the ability to adapt to anything however, which is what it seems to me like evolution claims. No situation is so unique that some reasoning cannot be made up for it."

    "Adaptation does not equal microevolution."

    "That one statement tells me that THEY DO NOT KNOW ITS EVOLUTION. They assume it. They cannot determine the factor older animals played in this scenario so their assumption is invalid. A long line of assumptions has propped up this theory.... just like a house of cards."

    " In that E Coli experiment of 50,000 generations there is one specific change( it took place at 30,000 or so if I recall). "

    This last one is especially arrogant because it's completely false.

    ReplyDelete
  71. LMAO Smokey. If that is how you reason I claim to know more than biologists then I feel bad for evolution that you are on it's side. Your prediliction for contempt and snide remarks do your side no justice.

    You say look at the evidence. I do. Not as in depth as some because I don't have the time. It's interesting how you say "You should base your views on the evidence, not what anyone says about the evidence. " But when I disagree with YOUR INTERPRETATION of the evidence then I am an idiot and wilfully blind. So the only way I could not be an idiot and wilfully blind is to agree with YOUR and your colleages interpretation.

    ""What you say Dupre meant is not what he meant."

    Did you read that article? He is saying BYE BYE tree of life. Not evolution. But the tree.

    ""Adaptation does not equal microevolution."

    It doesn't. You assume in your arrogance it does.

    "That one statement tells me that THEY DO NOT KNOW ITS EVOLUTION. They assume it. They cannot determine the factor older animals played in this scenario so their assumption is invalid. A long line of assumptions has propped up this theory.... just like a house of cards."

    Did you read that article on elephant tusks? They admit the don't know the factor older animals played. THEY ADMIT IT.

    "" In that E Coli experiment of 50,000 generations there is one specific change( it took place at 30,000 or so if I recall). "

    That statement of mine was incorrect. The metabolizing of citrate (I believe) was the significant change. Zachriel mentioned there were 10-12 changes and a size increase.

    I am not afraid to admit when I am wrong. When I believe I am wrong. Not when YOU believe it.

    (Now, let's see if Smokey can respond to this without his usual derogatory and condescending remarks.)

    ReplyDelete
  72. "You say look at the evidence. I do."

    You don't.

    "Not as in depth as some because I don't have the time."

    You only look at what people say. You are afraid of the evidence.

    "It's interesting how you say "You should base your views on the evidence, not what anyone says about the evidence. ""

    Yet all you and Dr. Hunter post about is what people say.

    "But when I disagree with YOUR INTERPRETATION of the evidence then I am an idiot and wilfully blind."

    No, it's because your interpretation isn't based on the evidence.

    "So the only way I could not be an idiot and wilfully blind is to agree with YOUR and your colleages interpretation."

    Now you're just lying.

    "Did you read that article?"

    Did it have any evidence in it?

    "He is saying BYE BYE tree of life. Not evolution. But the tree."

    According to you. But you're afraid to look at the evidence.

    "Did you read that article on elephant tusks? They admit the don't know the factor older animals played. THEY ADMIT IT."

    More about what people say, nothing about evidence.

    "" In that E Coli experiment of 50,000 generations there is one specific change( it took place at 30,000 or so if I recall). "

    "That statement of mine was incorrect."

    And it was the ONLY statement you made about evidence!

    "The metabolizing of citrate (I believe) was the significant change. Zachriel mentioned there were 10-12 changes and a size increase. I am not afraid to admit when I am wrong. When I believe I am wrong. Not when YOU believe it."

    So, you're wrong about those experiments. Does that mean that your conclusion is wrong, too, or is it insulated from any evidence?

    ReplyDelete
  73. This is funny.

    Me:"You say look at the evidence. I do."

    Smokey:You don't.

    Me:"Not as in depth as some because I don't have the time."

    Smokey:You only look at what people say. You are afraid of the evidence.

    Me:"It's interesting how you say "You should base your views on the evidence, not what anyone says about the evidence. ""

    Smokey:Yet all you and Dr. Hunter post about is what people say.

    So Smokey says I should focus on the evidence and not what people say.

    NEXT:

    In another post:

    Thornton:OK, fair enough. But know that there are people who have studied it their entire adult lives and do understand it. They're called evolutionary biologists, geneticists, etc. If you're going to reject their accumulated knowledge you'd better have more than personal incredulity in your quiver.

    I read that to mean: Yes, look at the evidence for yourself, but also listen to what these people say since they are experts.

    The fact is I cannot win for losing. Since I am not a evolutionary biologist or geneticist I will never comprehend the evidence as well as they do. So I can spend all my free time looking at evidence gaining little traction OR I can look at it a bit, take what educated people say and form an opiniom. Only problem is, not every biologist agrees with evolution or many of the things associated with it. Evolutionists argue among themselves. Who is right?

    Can't be as smart as them.
    Can't get them to come to a 100% consensus.

    So you know what? I may just stop bothering.

    And kudos Smokey. That was the least insulting post I've seen from you.

    ReplyDelete
  74. Fil said...

    I read that to mean: Yes, look at the evidence for yourself, but also listen to what these people say since they are experts.

    The fact is I cannot win for losing. Since I am not a evolutionary biologist or geneticist I will never comprehend the evidence as well as they do. So I can spend all my free time looking at evidence gaining little traction OR I can look at it a bit, take what educated people say and form an opinion. Only problem is, not every biologist agrees with evolution or many of the things associated with it. Evolutionists argue among themselves. Who is right?


    Acceptance of evolution by those in the scientific community is over 98%, and acceptance by professional biologists is well over 99.9%.

    There are certainly heated scientific debates going on over specific details of evolutionary theory, but there is no scientific debate at all over the basic tenets of the theory. None

    You face the same 'problem' every day with every day decisions. When you feel heart pains do you go to a hospital and see a cardiologist, or do you go find a witchdoctor who claims he can cure you by waving a dead chicken over your head? When your car breaks down do you take it to a certified auto mechanic or to a voodoo lady who says chants over the hood? There must be a 'controversy', not 100% consensus or the witchdoctor / voodoo lady wouldn't be there, right?

    Most people go with the consensus because it works. That's how it gets to be the consensus. Not by some evil atheist scientist conspiracy, not by dissent being stifled, but because ToE works.

    I've tried to give you a small sampling of the huge amount of positive evidence for ToE that's out there. If you stick around I'll provide lots more.

    ReplyDelete
  75. Smokey:

    The only claim I made was that that gastrulation in different species was different.

    The genes you listed that control gastrulation hace the same name, but that doesn't mean they are the same genes. And even if they are, they are different in the different species. That is why gastrulation proceeds differently.

    And evolution starst with an individual that has a selective advantage. It survives and reproduces while all the other members of the population die out. Its offspring become the new population. Its starts with the individual.

    That being said, it has always been my experience that when people enage in personal attacks, e.g. "you're arrogant" it is an indication that they are insecure in their own position. But that's just me.

    ReplyDelete
  76. Fil: Since I am not a evolutionary biologist or geneticist I will never comprehend the evidence as well as they do.

    A lot of science is out of reach for most people, but much of the evidence for Common Descent can be easily verified. Find a good geological map, take a hike and verify your local geology. You might even be able to find a few common fossils. Now that you have verified your local geology, and knowing that many other people have done so around the world, you should be able to understand the basics of geology, including the Principle of Superposition which allows us to place *relative* dates on fossils. Having done that, we can now take a look at the overall history of life on Earth.

    Before there were humans, there were primates. Before primates there were mammals. Before mammals, primitive amniotes. Before amniotes, even more primitive land vertebrates. Before land vertebrates, lobbed fishes. Before lobbed fishes, primitive fishes with jaws. Before jawed fishes, jawless fishes, primitive vertebrates, craniates, chordates. And before that, colonies of single-celled organisms. Wow! Life has substantially changed over time, and clearly, more modern forms are derived from more primitive forms. Legs didn't just appear, but were preceded by fish with bony fins. Jaws didn't just appear, but appeared in an existing fish. And when we look at the embryos, we can see the jaws were derived from gill arches! Fins to legs to arms to wings to fins! And the closer we look, the more evidence we have, the more clearly we can understand the history of descent with modification.

    Fil: Only problem is, not every biologist agrees with evolution or many of the things associated with it.

    Virtually all biologists strongly agree with the fundamentals of the Theory of Evolution.

    Fil: Evolutionists argue among themselves.

    Of course they do! That's a *signature* of a robust scientific theory.

    ReplyDelete
  77. natschuster: And evolution starst with an individual that has a selective advantage. It survives and reproduces while all the other members of the population die out. Its offspring become the new population. Its starts with the individual.

    Evolution is usually analyzed on the level of the population. There are all sorts of competing traits in a population, and populations may divide, rejoin and divide again. The field is called population genetics.

    ReplyDelete
  78. "The only claim I made was that that gastrulation in different species was different."

    You claimed that it involved different genes, and to support it, you quote-mined something you found about the telencephalon, which doesn't exist in a gastrula.

    You were arrogant.

    "The genes you listed that control gastrulation hace the same name, but that doesn't mean they are the same genes."

    They are orthologs.

    "And even if they are, they are different in the different species."

    How different, Nat? Are you claiming that scientists are incapable of testing whether orthologs will work in another species? That we can't turn an endogenous gene off and add in an exogenous ortholog?

    Why are you so arrogant, Nat?

    "That is why gastrulation proceeds differently."

    What an arrogant lie! Tiny differences in gene EXPRESSION are the key, not differences in amino-acid sequence.

    "And evolution starst with an individual that has a selective advantage."

    Yes it does, but that wasn't the analogy you arrogantly offered. You claimed that evolution was silly because individual cars don't morph into individual trucks. You are too arrogant to admit that you were wrong.

    "That being said, it has always been my experience that when people enage in personal attacks, e.g. "you're arrogant" it is an indication that they are insecure in their own position. But that's just me."

    So where will I find your complaint about the blog post titled "Why Coyne is False," Nat?

    ReplyDelete
  79. The genea that cotrol gastrulation in different species are different at some level, or gastrulation would be the same in the species. It may be at the level of genes that control gene expression. Did I say amino acid sequences? I meant to say genes.

    And are you saying that the fact that they are orthologs means they are identical?

    ReplyDelete
  80. I didn't see any name calling in the "Why Coyne is False" post. And even if there was, why I am answerable for what Dr. Hunter posts?

    I recall saying that if I make random changes to my car, I won't be able to turn it into a truck, not that it would morph by itself. My point is that it is really hard to change a complex, functioning, integrated system via a random process and wind up with another complex, integrated, functioning system.

    ReplyDelete
  81. nat wrote:
    "The genea that cotrol gastrulation in different species are different at some level, or gastrulation would be the same in the species."

    No, Nat, you're simply lying. You are presenting an assumption (gene activity during gastrulation is context-independent) and presenting it as a fact. That's dishonest.

    Are you claiming that scientists are incapable of testing whether orthologs will work in another species? That we can't turn an endogenous gene off and add in an exogenous ortholog?

    Answer the questions. Don't be a dishonest coward.

    "It may be at the level of genes that control gene expression."

    Once again, you are assuming that there are nice, neat "levels," as though life was designed. Does the evidence indicate that your assumption is valid?

    "And are you saying that the fact that they are orthologs means they are identical?"

    Nope. I'm saying that they are orthologous, and that you are too brain-dead to understand how real scientists have tested genes for functional identity.

    "I didn't see any name calling in the "Why Coyne is False" post."

    My pointing out that you are arrogant isn't name calling, Nat.

    "And even if there was, why I am answerable for what Dr. Hunter posts?"

    It's about your hypocrisy. That's something that Jesus Christ said infinitely more about than he did about evolution!

    "I recall saying that if I make random changes to my car, I won't be able to turn it into a truck, not that it would morph by itself."

    If you make random changes to a mouse, you won't be able to turn it into another species, either. Evolution isn't random, so your analogy is a smelly lie.

    "My point is that it is really hard to change a complex, functioning, integrated system via a random process and wind up with another complex, integrated, functioning system."

    My point is that you lie about evolution whenever you characterize it. Natural selection is anything but random. Calling evolution "random" is LYING. Pure and simple.

    ReplyDelete
  82. But the genes are different. That is my point.

    And evolution starts out as random change. In my car analogy I that I am saving the changes that improve my car's functioning, and scrapping the car if it doesn't. That, IMHO, is analogous to natural selection.

    And I didn't see Dr. Hunter attacking Coyne personally, just what he wrote. You are attacking me.

    And I'm not a Christian.

    ReplyDelete
  83. "But the genes are different. That is my point."

    My point is that you don't know that the sequence differences cause any FUNCTIONAL differences, and your too ignorant to understand that many orthologs have been empirically tested and are already known to be functionally interchangeable.

    IOW, you're lying. You're presenting an unfounded assumption as a fact. IOW, you're behaving arrogantly.

    "And evolution starts out as random change."

    You're lying again. The "random" is only true in a SINGLE context—wrt fitness. This is a predictable creationist LIE. Moreover, selection isn't random, so your labeling of evolution as simply random is a lie.

    Note that Darwin never even wrote the word "random," so your fixation on it is less than honest.

    "In my car analogy I that I am saving the changes that improve my car's functioning, and scrapping the car if it doesn't. That, IMHO, is analogous to natural selection."

    Not even close. First, you're only using a single car—it's pretty certain to fail. Second, you are using artificial selection, which we already know causes dramatic evolution.

    "And I didn't see Dr. Hunter attacking Coyne personally, just what he wrote."

    He wrote, "Coyne is false." That's personal.

    "You are attacking me."

    You betcha. You're arrogant, dishonest, and incredibly ignorant, but that doesn't stop you from pretending that you understand biology better than people who devote their lives to studying biology.

    "And I'm not a Christian. "

    I didn't claim you were. I just noted what Jesus Christ emphasized in His ministry.

    ReplyDelete
  84. If the genes don't have the same sequence of nucleotides, they are different, even if the function is the same. And I'm assuming that they are different at some level, because if they weren't how would we account for the differences in gastrulation? If they functioned exactly the same, then gastrulation would be the same.


    I said above that if you tried the car experiment with a lot of cars, the result would be the same.


    And I always understood that the mutation was undirected and was not influenced by anything other than chance. That is how I undertand random.


    And "Coyne is False" is obviously referring to what he wrote. How can a person be false? What a person says can be false. "You are ignorant and arrogant" is a personal attack.

    And why is what Jesus said relevent? Why are you even bringing it up? Why not mention Confusius, Buddha, Mohamed, etc, as well?

    ReplyDelete
  85. natschuster: And I always understood that the mutation was undirected and was not influenced by anything other than chance. That is how I undertand random.

    Random mutation means uncorrelated with potential fitness effects.

    ReplyDelete
  86. Nat continued to fabricate instead of learning about reality:
    "If the genes don't have the same sequence of nucleotides, they are different, even if the function is the same."

    Your attempt to pretend that there is some bright white line here is simply wishful thinking and dishonesty. YOURS AND MY GENES have different nucleotide sequences, so your dishonest gambit fails.

    "And I'm assuming that they are different at some level, because if they weren't how would we account for the differences in gastrulation?"

    I gave you a hint in the questions you were too cowardly to answer, Nat.

    ----How different, Nat? Are you claiming that scientists are incapable of testing whether orthologs will work in another species? That we can't turn an endogenous gene off and add in an exogenous ortholog? Why are you so arrogant, Nat?—

    Answer the questions. You might learn something!

    "If they functioned exactly the same, then gastrulation would be the same."

    An utter lie that contradicts vast amounts of empirical data. You are afraid to look for evidence because you have zero faith in your position.

    "I said above that if you tried the car experiment with a lot of cars, the result would be the same."

    There's no need for your analogy, then. We've produced huge differences by artificial selection of wolves for only 40,000 years.

    "And I always understood that the mutation was undirected and was not influenced by anything other than chance."

    You understand a creationist lie. You've made up additional lies to avoid looking behind them for the truth.

    "That is how I undertand random."

    Mutation is only random in one, single respect. Your understanding is fatally flawed. Did Darwin ever use the term?

    "And "Coyne is False" is obviously referring to what he wrote."

    No, it's obviously referring to Coyne.

    "How can a person be false?"

    Ask the person who wrote it.

    "What a person says can be false."

    Yes, and most of what you claim about biology is demonstrably false.

    ""You are ignorant and arrogant" is a personal attack."

    No, it's an observation. Your unwillingness to answer my questions about empirical fact supports the observation.

    "And why is what Jesus said relevent? Why are you even bringing it up?"

    Because the author of this blog is an adjunct professor at a Christian college, of course. Do you even think before you write this stuff?

    ReplyDelete
  87. PROFESSOR HUNTER ESQ; SIR THE MYSTERY IS FINISHED AND THE GATHERING HAS BEGUN, the infection of all Life forms on earth has been located, and is the cause of all sickness and aging in mankind! The same myco controlled phages and bacteria already researched and data taken, are the infection of Life! The eight unclean principalities of the air pointed out by Messiah the Great Physician, who declared He came too bring back Life abundant, and too destroy death has done just as He declared! THE BACTERIAL SPIRITS HE POINTED OUT CENTURIES AGO, ARE NOW FOUND AND ISOLATED BY HIS SCIENCE! Rev:10:7, and Rev:1:18, and Rev:21:4! The code.keys have been given and has lead us directly too satan/the principality of the air/bacterial dictator of the unclean spirits of earths air, water and soil/food! The quorum sensing dictator of death soon dies! We have the cure at hand! For The gathering of those of understanding, which many of which literally soon inherit this promisedland/laboratory called Earth! Go to the Lords Medical and gathering website where Adam ande Eve are now honoured for their completed mission/research at www.adamandeveseedgatheringministry.com therein the mystery is exposed, and literally on the proof of His healing page are verse's which not only prove He created Science, but prophesy He would return in this day of Microbiology! On The proof in the news and science page, are proofs of evolution being created by Gods son for this very day! It is evolution, but not of God, it is of His enemie's, hosts not of His book of Life! That evolved for sinister purpose's/causing aging and death! Much respect r.p.berry / Elijah paul Moses

    ReplyDelete