Page 34 of 36 FirstFirst ... 243233343536 LastLast
Results 331 to 340 of 353

Thread: The book Darwin Devolves

  1. #331
    tWebber Roy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Atheist
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    5,594
    Amen (Given)
    633
    Amen (Received)
    1455
    Quote 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 at 01:33 AM.
    Jorge: Functional Complex Information is INFORMATION that is complex and functional.

    mikewhitney: What if the speed of light changed when light is passing through water? ... I have 3 semesters of college Physics.

  2. Amen TheLurch, shunyadragon amen'd this post.
  3. #332
    Evolution is God's ID rogue06's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Southeastern U.S. of A.
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    50,769
    Amen (Given)
    1078
    Amen (Received)
    18438
    Quote 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)

  4. Amen Roy amen'd this post.
  5. #333
    tWebber lee_merrill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Durham, NC
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    1,125
    Amen (Given)
    344
    Amen (Received)
    181
    Quote 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)

  6. #334
    tWebber lee_merrill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Durham, NC
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    1,125
    Amen (Given)
    344
    Amen (Received)
    181
    Quote 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)

  7. #335
    tWebber shunyadragon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Hillsborough, NC
    Faith
    Agnostic
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    14,081
    Amen (Given)
    1507
    Amen (Received)
    959
    Quote 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.

  8. #336
    tWebber TheLurch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Northeast USA
    Faith
    MYOB
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    1,302
    Amen (Given)
    85
    Amen (Received)
    503
    You seem to have completely lost track of what your arguments are.
    Quote 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

    Quote 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."

  9. Amen shunyadragon amen'd this post.
  10. #337
    tWebber Roy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Atheist
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    5,594
    Amen (Given)
    633
    Amen (Received)
    1455
    Quote 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.

    mikewhitney: What if the speed of light changed when light is passing through water? ... I have 3 semesters of college Physics.

  11. Amen shunyadragon, Duragizer amen'd this post.
  12. #338
    tWebber shunyadragon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Hillsborough, NC
    Faith
    Agnostic
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    14,081
    Amen (Given)
    1507
    Amen (Received)
    959
    Quote 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.

  13. #339
    tWebber lee_merrill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Durham, NC
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    1,125
    Amen (Given)
    344
    Amen (Received)
    181
    Quote 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.

    Quote 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)

  14. #340
    tWebber shunyadragon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Hillsborough, NC
    Faith
    Agnostic
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    14,081
    Amen (Given)
    1507
    Amen (Received)
    959
    Quote 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 at 01:47 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.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •