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 book Darwin Devolves

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

  • Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
    But in the paper, just the selection for the previous state was considered. And evolution was not expected to get back there.

    And in the paper, what was considered was getting back to the previous state, not to any similar state.
    Source: Bridgham, Ortlund, Thornton

    The evolutionary reversibility of a protein can be evaluated at three levels: molecular sequence, protein function, and the structural/mechanistic underpinnings for that function. The latter is most relevant to understanding the roles of contingency and determinism in evolution. Exact molecular reversal to the ancestral amino acid sequence is extremely unlikely and of trivial interest, because of the large number of sequences that code for the same structure and function. Selection will always produce adaptive functions or phenotypes in some form; however, if the underlying mechanism for a reversed function differs from that of the ancestor, then a new, analogous state will have been achieved by onward evolution, not reversal—a situation similar to false morphological reversal caused by convergent evolution

    © Copyright Original Source



    As usual, refuting Dory only requires confirming that his references don't say what he thinks they do.

    That's at least a dozen times in this thread alone where Dory has misread, misunderstood, forgotten or lied about his sources. The default assumption should be that if he refers to a source, it refutes his claim.
    Last edited by Roy; 04-26-2019, 03:33 AM.
    Jorge: Functional Complex Information is INFORMATION that is complex and functional.

    MM: First of all, the Bible is a fixed document.
    MM on covid-19: We're talking about an illness with a better than 99.9% rate of survival.

    seer: I believe that so called 'compassion' [for starving Palestinian kids] maybe a cover for anti Semitism, ...

    Comment


    • Originally posted by TheLurch View Post

      Always look at the papers that creationists are citing as evidence.
      That ^^^

      I'm always still in trouble again

      "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
      "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
      "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

      Comment


      • Originally posted by TheLurch View Post
        No, it's not. It's the average per gene, which has now been pointed out to you multiple times. On average, a duplication of a gene is fixed every 5,000 years for organism with 20,000 genes (assuming this rate applies to them).
        Right, it's per gene, and once every 5,000 years would be the right rate per organism per population with 20,000 genes, which is slow.

        Incidentally, did you bother to look at the first table in that paper? The number in parentheses is the percentage of genes derived from duplications in each genome examined. It's about 40% for humans (!) and they're on the low end for metazoans (!). How can you possibly claim that gene duplications aren't a dominant factor in evolution when your own reference has numbers like that?
        Well, that's over all its evolutionary history, right? So the rate could still be slow.

        Blessings,
        Lee
        "What I pray of you is, to keep your eye upon Him, for that is everything. Do you say, 'How am I to keep my eye on Him?' I reply, keep your eye off everything else, and you will soon see Him. All depends on the eye of faith being kept on Him. How simple it is!" (J.B. Stoney)

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Roy View Post
          Source: Bridgham, Ortlund, Thornton

          The evolutionary reversibility of a protein can be evaluated at three levels: molecular sequence, protein function, and the structural/mechanistic underpinnings for that function. The latter is most relevant to understanding the roles of contingency and determinism in evolution. Exact molecular reversal to the ancestral amino acid sequence is extremely unlikely and of trivial interest, because of the large number of sequences that code for the same structure and function. Selection will always produce adaptive functions or phenotypes in some form; however, if the underlying mechanism for a reversed function differs from that of the ancestor, then a new, analogous state will have been achieved by onward evolution, not reversal—a situation similar to false morphological reversal caused by convergent evolution

          © Copyright Original Source

          Well, I'm surprised, because in the abstract they say:

          Source: Thornton et. al.

          Unless these ratchet-like epistatic substitutions are restored to their ancestral states, reversing the key function-switching mutations yields a non-functional protein. Reversing the restrictive substitutions first, however, does nothing to enhance the ancestral function. Our findings indicate that even if selection for the ancestral function were imposed, direct reversal would be extremely unlikely, suggesting an important role for historical contingency in protein evolution.

          © Copyright Original Source



          But I don't have a subscription to Nature, so I cannot delve further without spending money.

          Blessings,
          Lee
          "What I pray of you is, to keep your eye upon Him, for that is everything. Do you say, 'How am I to keep my eye on Him?' I reply, keep your eye off everything else, and you will soon see Him. All depends on the eye of faith being kept on Him. How simple it is!" (J.B. Stoney)

          Comment


          • Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
            Well, I'm surprised, because in the abstract they say:

            Source: Thornton et. al.

            Unless these ratchet-like epistatic substitutions are restored to their ancestral states, reversing the key function-switching mutations yields a non-functional protein. Reversing the restrictive substitutions first, however, does nothing to enhance the ancestral function. Our findings indicate that even if selection for the ancestral function were imposed, direct reversal would be extremely unlikely, suggesting an important role for historical contingency in protein evolution.

            © Copyright Original Source



            But I don't have a subscription to Nature, so I cannot delve further without spending money.

            Blessings,
            Lee
            They abstract is not appropriate as usual and incomplete. Again . . . you are relying on something you cannot correctly cite the whole context of the article.
            Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
            Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
            But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

            go with the flow the river knows . . .

            Frank

            I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

            Comment


            • You seem to have completely lost track of what your arguments are.
              Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
              Right, it's per gene, and once every 5,000 years would be the right rate per organism per population with 20,000 genes, which is slow.
              What you perceive as "slow" is irrelevant (not to mention entirely subjective and unscientific). Your argument - echoing Behe - is that duplications aren't a major factor in evolutionary history, and that their rate isn't high enough to counteract the loss of genes through fixation of null mutations. This provides a rough estimate of how often duplications are fixed, but you have provided no measure of how often null mutations are fixed. Therefore, you only have half of an argument.

              If you could be bothered to produce an actual argument, i'll take the time to explain why, biologically, the per-gene duplication rate isn't actually especially relevant to evolution due to the different roles genes play within cells and organisms. But right now, you've got nothing for me to argue against

              Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
              Well, that's over all its evolutionary history, right? So the rate could still be slow.
              Again, you're not paying attention to your own argument. You've been telling us that duplications aren't very relevant to evolution; the rate at which they occur is simply a subsidiary argument meant to support the contention they're irrelevant. If there's evidence they are relevant - and nearly half the gene content being derived from duplications sure seems like evidence to me - then the subsidiary argument is superfluous and can be ignored.
              "Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling."

              Comment


              • Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
                Well, I'm surprised, because in the abstract they say:

                Source: Thornton et. al.

                Unless these ratchet-like epistatic substitutions are restored to their ancestral states, reversing the key function-switching mutations yields a non-functional protein. Reversing the restrictive substitutions first, however, does nothing to enhance the ancestral function. Our findings indicate that even if selection for the ancestral function were imposed, direct reversal would be extremely unlikely, suggesting an important role for historical contingency in protein evolution.

                © Copyright Original Source



                But I don't have a subscription to Nature, so I cannot delve further without spending money.
                So you're making claims about the contents of a paper that you haven't read.

                I'm going to reject any and every claim you make about any source on the grounds that you might not have actually read it.
                Jorge: Functional Complex Information is INFORMATION that is complex and functional.

                MM: First of all, the Bible is a fixed document.
                MM on covid-19: We're talking about an illness with a better than 99.9% rate of survival.

                seer: I believe that so called 'compassion' [for starving Palestinian kids] maybe a cover for anti Semitism, ...

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Roy View Post
                  So you're making claims about the contents of a paper that you haven't read.

                  I'm going to reject any and every claim you make about any source on the grounds that you might not have actually read it.
                  Selectively citing abstracts, and wiki to justify a religious agendi are Lee's modus operandi. Of course, he has read and memorized all of Behe's books.
                  Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                  Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                  But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                  go with the flow the river knows . . .

                  Frank

                  I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by TheLurch View Post
                    … but you have provided no measure of how often null mutations are fixed. Therefore, you only have half of an argument.
                    Good point, and I poked around the internet looking for such a measure and couldn't find one.

                    Maybe it's time to call a halt, since we seem to have reached an impasse.

                    Originally posted by Roy
                    So you're making claims about the contents of a paper that you haven't read.

                    I'm going to reject any and every claim you make about any source on the grounds that you might not have actually read it.
                    I might say in reply that you are arguing about a book you haven't read!

                    Blessings,
                    Lee
                    "What I pray of you is, to keep your eye upon Him, for that is everything. Do you say, 'How am I to keep my eye on Him?' I reply, keep your eye off everything else, and you will soon see Him. All depends on the eye of faith being kept on Him. How simple it is!" (J.B. Stoney)

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
                      Good point, and I poked around the internet looking for such a measure and couldn't find one.

                      Maybe it's time to call a halt, since we seem to have reached an impasse.


                      I might say in reply that you are arguing about a book you haven't read!

                      Blessings,
                      Lee
                      If you are referring to Behe's books you have cited enough to reveal that Behe's books are not science, and not with reading. The Lurch, Roy and I prefer peer reviewed scientific literature and a sound foundation in education in science.

                      You might as well end it, because neither Behe nor you have presented any sound arguments grounded in science.
                      Last edited by shunyadragon; 04-27-2019, 03:47 PM.
                      Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                      Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                      But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                      go with the flow the river knows . . .

                      Frank

                      I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
                        Maybe it's time to call a halt, since we seem to have reached an impasse.
                        If by "impasse" you mean "all the evidence presented here has run contrary to my contentions", then i couldn't agree more.
                        "Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling."

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
                          So you're making claims about the contents of a paper that you haven't read.

                          I'm going to reject any and every claim you make about any source on the grounds that you might not have actually read it.
                          I might say in reply that you are arguing about a book you haven't read!
                          Yeah, you might. You say lots of things that aren't true.
                          Jorge: Functional Complex Information is INFORMATION that is complex and functional.

                          MM: First of all, the Bible is a fixed document.
                          MM on covid-19: We're talking about an illness with a better than 99.9% rate of survival.

                          seer: I believe that so called 'compassion' [for starving Palestinian kids] maybe a cover for anti Semitism, ...

                          Comment


                          • Sorry to resurrect this thread, but I came across a paper today that's relevant to some of the evidence we've discussed here, namely the gene changes in the polar bear lineage. The paper is looking at polar bear evolution, and makes an obvious point I didn't see come up: polar bear evolution involved the shift from an omnivorous diet to near complete carnivorism. As such, a lot of the genes that would have been involved in diet and detoxification of plant material, etc. would have become superfluous. So you'd expect a lot of gene loss on this lineage, and therefore it's a bit of a trick to use it as an example of evolution only acting by breaking stuff.

                            In any case, the paper:
                            https://www.pnas.org/content/early/2.../11/1901093116
                            "Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling."

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by TheLurch View Post
                              As such, a lot of the genes that would have been involved in diet and detoxification of plant material, etc. would have become superfluous. So you'd expect a lot of gene loss on this lineage, and therefore it's a bit of a trick to use it as an example of evolution only acting by breaking stuff.
                              Well, usually acting by breaking stuff, is the argument. And this would indeed be an example of evolution breaking stuff, to convey an advantage.

                              Blessings,
                              Lee
                              "What I pray of you is, to keep your eye upon Him, for that is everything. Do you say, 'How am I to keep my eye on Him?' I reply, keep your eye off everything else, and you will soon see Him. All depends on the eye of faith being kept on Him. How simple it is!" (J.B. Stoney)

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
                                Well, usually acting by breaking stuff, is the argument. And this would indeed be an example of evolution breaking stuff, to convey an advantage.
                                It would also be an example of Behe cherry picking his example to make his case look good.
                                "Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling."

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-18-2024, 12:15 PM
                                48 responses
                                135 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Sparko
                                by Sparko
                                 
                                Started by Sparko, 03-07-2024, 08:52 AM
                                16 responses
                                74 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Started by rogue06, 02-28-2024, 11:06 AM
                                6 responses
                                46 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Working...
                                X