Re: [Vo]:Punctuated equilibrium
- Original Message - From: jwin...@cyllene.uwa.edu.au To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2014 11:14 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Punctuated equilibrium On 28/08/2014 7:42 AM, Jojo Iznart wrote: As pointed out, the odds for a mutation occuring that would result in a feature that is useful enough is astronomical. If the necessary information is present from the beginning, then it only needs to be triggered and it will express itself. This is my suspicion of how the process might work. This process my friend, is called micro-evolution or variation or adaptation. The genetic information required to trigger a change is already encoded in the DNA. This mechanism can create large changes in a short time. It does not rely on mutations. This mechanism does not result in a new kind (~species). It does not result in Macro-evolution. This idea of reversibility in itself is already a violation of one of the tenets of Darwinian Theory. Darwinian Theory says the change must be persistent. If the reverse is easier than the forward change, it violates the persistence requirement. Regarding E. Coli resistance. You are correct in that the resistance is conferred by an expression of a gene. In this case, just a single gene which creates a single protein on the cell wall of the bacteria that prevents the antibiotic from attaching itself to the bacteria which prevents the denaturing/splitting of the bacteria cell wall. But this is precisely my argument for the difference between micro from macro-evolution. The mechanism for expressing a trait is already encoded in the DNA in micro-evolution - it is adaptation. There is no mutation that needs to confer a survival advantage. Everything the bacteria needs to mount a defense is already encoded. That is why you will never find E. Coli that is resistant to Chlorine for example. Chlorine will always kill E. Coli, because E.Coli does not have a gene that it can express to confer Chlorine resistance. The extent of what E. Coli can be resistant to is determined by its genetic tool box. It can never be resistant to something that is not in its tool box. Since we don't understand what all the information in the non-coding regions is there for, we can never be sure quite what might pop out of that tool box once a key mutation has had time to occur. You have a point, but since we have never seen E. Coli which can survive a good bleaching, it is safe to assume it does not have the necessary genetic encoding to mount that defense. Micro-evolution has a limited set of stresses it can adapt for. That is why certain whole variations dissappear and go extinct.
Re: [Vo]:Punctuated equilibrium
You would have a point, and I would be with you if there are indeed only one or two anomalies. But, the fact of the matter is, there are hundreds of anomalies that Darwinian Theory can not explain. Even staunch Darwinian Evolutionists are beginning to see that DE theory is becoming untenable. There are new holes poked thru it everyday. Jojo - Original Message - From: jwin...@cyllene.uwa.edu.au To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2014 11:14 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Punctuated equilibrium On 28/08/2014 7:59 AM, Jojo Iznart wrote: You seem to be implying that you know that the Coelacanth is 350 million years old from radiometric dating techniques. Please do tell, what sort of radiometric dating tells you that it is 350 million years old? I don't know how these particular fossils were dated, but I know how this field of science works in general and have been highly impressed at the quality of some of the data. I have no argument with sincere scientists doing the job the best way they know how. Mistakes can be made but with enough diverse minds at work on the same problems the truth usually ends up prevailing. I'm really not interested in being told that one or two interesting anomalies renders this whole field of science invalid.
RE: [Vo]:Punctuated equilibrium
Jojo, if we assume macro-evolution occurs in long time-frames, how can anyone show you concrete proof the way you say you want it? I found this http://www.debate.org/debates/There-is-no-Observable-Evidence-for-Macroevolution/1/ from which I took this http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/images/hominids2.jpg and this: (A) Pan troglodytes, chimpanzee, modern (B) Australopithecus africanus, STS 5, 2.6 My (C) Australopithecus africanus, STS 71, 2.5 My (D) Homo habilis, KNM-ER 1813, 1.9 My (E) Homo habilis, OH24, 1.8 My (F) Homo rudolfensis, KNM-ER 1470, 1.8 My (G) Homo erectus, Dmanisi cranium D2700, 1.75 My (H) Homo ergaster (early H. erectus), KNM-ER 3733, 1.75 My (I) Homo heidelbergensis, Rhodesia man, 300,000 - 125,000 y (J) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, La Ferrassie 1, 70,000 y (K) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, La Chappelle-aux-Saints, 60,000 y (L) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, Le Moustier, 45,000 y (M) Homo sapiens sapiens, Cro-Magnon I, 30,000 y (N) Homo sapiens sapiens, modern (Of course, this list is useless in light of your radioactive dating discussion) Best Regards, Sunil PS A personal question: For what reason you want concrete proof? From: jojoiznar...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Punctuated equilibrium Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2014 09:04:13 +0800 Ken, are you saying the Clymene dolphin is an example of Macro-evolution. It seems to me that it is just a variation of the spinner dolphin. Not sure what you are claiming here. Which 2%-4% of flowering plants are you referring to? Please be specific so that I can research it to see if you are right. So, you people make fun of my probability calculation so I pointed out the probability calculation of a staunch evolutionists who have already considered many of your objections. Now, you make fun of him (Julian Huxley). What level of proof or which personality would you really consider credible? Whose proof is acceptable to you? Please don't just say there are thousands of textbooks. If there are thousands of proofs, it shouldn't be difficult for you to point out one example of an observable macro-evolution event. Though I can understand part of your problem. As a biology teacher, you have been totally immersed in this Darwinian paradigm. Like Huzienga, it is very difficult for you to change your mind or to admit that what you believed your entire life has been a lie. Me? I will accept Darwinian Evolution today if someone can show me concrete proof. Not conjectures, and imaginations and suppositions and speculations and interpretations. I challenged Nigel to do just that, but it seems he could not. Jojo - Original Message - From: Ken Deboer To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2014 2:49 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Punctuated equilibrium Jojo, Here's one (actually a few ): clymene dolphin plus 2-4% of all flowering plants, inc. many sunflowers, and many crop species. BTW. This whole 'odds' thing is a joke. Julian Huxley, for example, did not state his opinion re; the astronomical 'odds' of a horse, but did ridicule the guy that did. It appears, for example, that the odds that you and I could ever agree on most anything is, let's see, 80 billion neuronal actions per sec X 80 billion neurons actions per sec by you X 30 years = (I'm not too good at math, you do the math). From a former biology teacher, ken PS. don't call me, I'll call you back. On Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 12:16 PM, jwin...@cyllene.uwa.edu.au wrote: On 28/08/2014 1:11 AM, Jojo Iznart wrote: John, my friend, you have a fundamental problem in your analysis. Your unyielding adherence to Darwinian dogmaYou are mistaken. I have no adherence to Darwinian dogma whatsoever. If Darwinian dogma (whatever that is) happens to coincide with my understanding - well maybe its right. is blinding you and preventing you from asking the right questions. You assume Darwinian Evolution is true first and that skews your analysis. For example, you assume that the Coelacanth is 350 million years old. How do you know that?We have been over this ad nauseum. I accept radiometric dating. In many cases it is simply superb. You are welcome to continue rubbishing it but you should be aware that in the almost unanimous view of intelligent and well educated people you are thereby only rubbishing yourself. You know that only because Darwinian Evolution theory told you so. Since your first assumption is that Darwinian Evolution is true, you can liberally conclude that the Coelacanth is 350 million years old. Then a wrong question stems from this wrong understanding - wrong assumption. You then ask why the coelacanth stopped evolving
Re: [Vo]:Punctuated equilibrium
Then show me fossil evidence where transition forms are clearly evident. How can we construct the entire narrative of Human evolution when all the fossils of all previous humanoid forms fit in the bed of a F-150 truck. That is some flimsy evidence for humanoid evolution. Also, precisely for the reason that macro-evolution is not obeservable, why I call it a theory, not science, let alone settled science. Jojo PS: I want concrete proof because I wanted to be convinced. As Mulder would say I want to believe. I want to be convinced that I have not wasted my life believing the Bible. But so far, Darwinian Evolution has been shallow and empty from an intellectual point of view. It does not make sense I studied the Bible for a while before I was convinced it is reliable. - Original Message - From: Sunil Shah To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2014 7:26 PM Subject: RE: [Vo]:Punctuated equilibrium Jojo, if we assume macro-evolution occurs in long time-frames, how can anyone show you concrete proof the way you say you want it? I found this http://www.debate.org/debates/There-is-no-Observable-Evidence-for-Macroevolution/1/ from which I took this http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/images/hominids2.jpg and this: a.. (A) Pan troglodytes, chimpanzee, modern a.. (B) Australopithecus africanus, STS 5, 2.6 My a.. (C) Australopithecus africanus, STS 71, 2.5 My a.. (D) Homo habilis, KNM-ER 1813, 1.9 My a.. (E) Homo habilis, OH24, 1.8 My a.. (F) Homo rudolfensis, KNM-ER 1470, 1.8 My a.. (G) Homo erectus, Dmanisi cranium D2700, 1.75 My a.. (H) Homo ergaster (early H. erectus), KNM-ER 3733, 1.75 My a.. (I) Homo heidelbergensis, Rhodesia man, 300,000 - 125,000 y a.. (J) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, La Ferrassie 1, 70,000 y a.. (K) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, La Chappelle-aux-Saints, 60,000 y a.. (L) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, Le Moustier, 45,000 y a.. (M) Homo sapiens sapiens, Cro-Magnon I, 30,000 y a.. (N) Homo sapiens sapiens, modern (Of course, this list is useless in light of your radioactive dating discussion) Best Regards, Sunil PS A personal question: For what reason you want concrete proof? -- From: jojoiznar...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Punctuated equilibrium Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2014 09:04:13 +0800 Ken, are you saying the Clymene dolphin is an example of Macro-evolution. It seems to me that it is just a variation of the spinner dolphin. Not sure what you are claiming here. Which 2%-4% of flowering plants are you referring to? Please be specific so that I can research it to see if you are right. So, you people make fun of my probability calculation so I pointed out the probability calculation of a staunch evolutionists who have already considered many of your objections. Now, you make fun of him (Julian Huxley). What level of proof or which personality would you really consider credible? Whose proof is acceptable to you? Please don't just say there are thousands of textbooks. If there are thousands of proofs, it shouldn't be difficult for you to point out one example of an observable macro-evolution event. Though I can understand part of your problem. As a biology teacher, you have been totally immersed in this Darwinian paradigm. Like Huzienga, it is very difficult for you to change your mind or to admit that what you believed your entire life has been a lie. Me? I will accept Darwinian Evolution today if someone can show me concrete proof. Not conjectures, and imaginations and suppositions and speculations and interpretations. I challenged Nigel to do just that, but it seems he could not. Jojo - Original Message - From: Ken Deboer To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2014 2:49 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Punctuated equilibrium Jojo, Here's one (actually a few ): clymene dolphin plus 2-4% of all flowering plants, inc. many sunflowers, and many crop species. BTW. This whole 'odds' thing is a joke. Julian Huxley, for example, did not state his opinion re; the astronomical 'odds' of a horse, but did ridicule the guy that did. It appears, for example, that the odds that you and I could ever agree on most anything is, let's see, 80 billion neuronal actions per sec X 80 billion neurons actions per sec by you X 30 years = (I'm not too good at math, you do the math). From a former biology teacher, ken PS. don't call me, I'll call you back. On Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 12:16 PM, jwin...@cyllene.uwa.edu.au wrote: On 28/08/2014 1:11 AM, Jojo Iznart wrote: John, my friend, you have a fundamental problem in your analysis. Your unyielding adherence
Re: [Vo]:Punctuated equilibrium
I think you're safe, you will always believe the Bible, because there will probably never be proof to convince you otherwise. /Sunil From: jojoiznar...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Punctuated equilibrium Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2014 19:44:54 +0800 Then show me fossil evidence where transition forms are clearly evident. How can we construct the entire narrative of Human evolution when all the fossils of all previous humanoid forms fit in the bed of a F-150 truck. That is some flimsy evidence for humanoid evolution. Also, precisely for the reason that macro-evolution is not obeservable, why I call it a theory, not science, let alone settled science. Jojo PS: I want concrete proof because I wanted to be convinced. As Mulder would say I want to believe. I want to be convinced that I have not wasted my life believing the Bible. But so far, Darwinian Evolution has been shallow and empty from an intellectual point of view. It does not make sense I studied the Bible for a while before I was convinced it is reliable. - Original Message - From: Sunil Shah To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2014 7:26 PM Subject: RE: [Vo]:Punctuated equilibrium Jojo, if we assume macro-evolution occurs in long time-frames, how can anyone show you concrete proof the way you say you want it? I found this http://www.debate.org/debates/There-is-no-Observable-Evidence-for-Macroevolution/1/ from which I took this http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/images/hominids2.jpg and this: (A) Pan troglodytes, chimpanzee, modern (B) Australopithecus africanus, STS 5, 2.6 My (C) Australopithecus africanus, STS 71, 2.5 My (D) Homo habilis, KNM-ER 1813, 1.9 My (E) Homo habilis, OH24, 1.8 My (F) Homo rudolfensis, KNM-ER 1470, 1.8 My (G) Homo erectus, Dmanisi cranium D2700, 1.75 My (H) Homo ergaster (early H. erectus), KNM-ER 3733, 1.75 My (I) Homo heidelbergensis, Rhodesia man, 300,000 - 125,000 y (J) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, La Ferrassie 1, 70,000 y (K) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, La Chappelle-aux-Saints, 60,000 y (L) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, Le Moustier, 45,000 y (M) Homo sapiens sapiens, Cro-Magnon I, 30,000 y (N) Homo sapiens sapiens, modern (Of course, this list is useless in light of your radioactive dating discussion) Best Regards, Sunil PS A personal question: For what reason you want concrete proof? From: jojoiznar...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Punctuated equilibrium Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2014 09:04:13 +0800 Ken, are you saying the Clymene dolphin is an example of Macro-evolution. It seems to me that it is just a variation of the spinner dolphin. Not sure what you are claiming here. Which 2%-4% of flowering plants are you referring to? Please be specific so that I can research it to see if you are right. So, you people make fun of my probability calculation so I pointed out the probability calculation of a staunch evolutionists who have already considered many of your objections. Now, you make fun of him (Julian Huxley). What level of proof or which personality would you really consider credible? Whose proof is acceptable to you? Please don't just say there are thousands of textbooks. If there are thousands of proofs, it shouldn't be difficult for you to point out one example of an observable macro-evolution event. Though I can understand part of your problem. As a biology teacher, you have been totally immersed in this Darwinian paradigm. Like Huzienga, it is very difficult for you to change your mind or to admit that what you believed your entire life has been a lie. Me? I will accept Darwinian Evolution today if someone can show me concrete proof. Not conjectures, and imaginations and suppositions and speculations and interpretations. I challenged Nigel to do just that, but it seems he could not. Jojo - Original Message - From: Ken Deboer To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2014 2:49 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Punctuated equilibrium Jojo, Here's one (actually a few ): clymene dolphin plus 2-4% of all flowering plants, inc. many sunflowers, and many crop species. BTW. This whole 'odds' thing is a joke. Julian Huxley, for example, did not state his opinion re; the astronomical 'odds' of a horse, but did ridicule the guy that did. It appears, for example
RE: [Vo]:Punctuated equilibrium
The end of Christianity will come if full disclosure takes place peacefully. If our true place in the universe was finally exposed, it would wither away. I intuitively believe that the primary obstacle to disclosure of ET's is the hegemony of the US. Once that is out of the way ( and thankfully, it seems to be fading fast), nations such as China, India and (oddly) Russia will drop the opposition to such revelations. Most people are not aware of how Tom Paine discussed this topic two hundred years ago when he rejected the Bible.
Re: [Vo]:Punctuated equilibrium
On 28/08/2014 6:22 PM, Jojo Iznart wrote: On 28/08/2014 11:14 AM, jwinter wrote: If the necessary information is present from the beginning, then it only needs to be triggered and it will express itself. This is my suspicion of how the process might work. This process my friend, is called micro-evolution or variation or adaptation. The genetic information required to trigger a change is already encoded in the DNA. This mechanism can create large changes in a short time. It does not rely on mutations. This mechanism does not result in a new kind (~species). It does not result in Macro-evolution. If a species of caterpillars which reproduced as caterpillars, one day laid a batch of eggs out of which hatched butterflies which then reproduced as butterflies (which was my example), there is no way that anyone in their right mind would call that micro-evolution! Given that this profound level of transformation occurs millions of times every day within a single generation of many diverse species, it is not a great stretch to imagine that this level of transformation could also have occurred between generations in the process of speciation. My point is that the information for a completely new life form can lie latent in an existing lifeform to suddenly appear fully formed when the trigger occurs - which trigger may in fact need a genuine mutation. But no precursors or slow mutation and adaptation need be required. Such a process would embarrass the evolutionists because they can find no fossil record of transitional forms. It would also embarrasses the honest creationists because all the dating and genetics would point to the first species (caterpillars) giving rise to the second (butterflies). If such a mechanism existed and acted, it would be the perfect producer of the effect known as punctuated equilibrium - and as I understand it, is what the fossil evidence largely points to.
Re: [Vo]:Punctuated equilibrium
Darwin's theory or explanation of evolution is distinct from the general concept of evolution. Several explanations of evolution have been proposed over the last few hundred years. To date Darwin's theory has been the most fertile but it also has major shortcomings. Only neo-Darwinists insist that all aspects of evolution must be explained in Darwinian terms. harry On Thu, Aug 28, 2014 at 6:25 AM, Jojo Iznart jojoiznar...@gmail.com wrote: You would have a point, and I would be with you if there are indeed only one or two anomalies. But, the fact of the matter is, there are hundreds of anomalies that Darwinian Theory can not explain. Even staunch Darwinian Evolutionists are beginning to see that DE theory is becoming untenable. There are new holes poked thru it everyday. Jojo - Original Message - *From:* jwin...@cyllene.uwa.edu.au *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com *Sent:* Thursday, August 28, 2014 11:14 AM *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Punctuated equilibrium On 28/08/2014 7:59 AM, Jojo Iznart wrote: You seem to be implying that you know that the Coelacanth is 350 million years old from radiometric dating techniques. Please do tell, what sort of radiometric dating tells you that it is 350 million years old? I don't know how these particular fossils were dated, but I know how this field of science works in general and have been highly impressed at the quality of some of the data. I have no argument with sincere scientists doing the job the best way they know how. Mistakes can be made but with enough diverse minds at work on the same problems the truth usually ends up prevailing. I'm really not interested in being told that one or two interesting anomalies renders this whole field of science invalid.
Re: [Vo]:Punctuated equilibrium
My friend, caterpillars turning to butterflies are not micro-evolution, that is normal development associated with butterflies. How about a tadpole turning into a frog, is that micro-evolution also? Or an egg into a chick? Heck, we can go hogwild, how about a female ovary egg into a human. The egg is one species Macro-evolving into a human (another species). Is this how you really look at it? My friend, let's get serious. I had hoped not to respond on this subject but this is just plain funny. Jojo - Original Message - From: jwin...@cyllene.uwa.edu.au To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2014 10:07 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Punctuated equilibrium On 28/08/2014 6:22 PM, Jojo Iznart wrote: On 28/08/2014 11:14 AM, jwinter wrote: If the necessary information is present from the beginning, then it only needs to be triggered and it will express itself. This is my suspicion of how the process might work. This process my friend, is called micro-evolution or variation or adaptation. The genetic information required to trigger a change is already encoded in the DNA. This mechanism can create large changes in a short time. It does not rely on mutations. This mechanism does not result in a new kind (~species). It does not result in Macro-evolution. If a species of caterpillars which reproduced as caterpillars, one day laid a batch of eggs out of which hatched butterflies which then reproduced as butterflies (which was my example), there is no way that anyone in their right mind would call that micro-evolution! Given that this profound level of transformation occurs millions of times every day within a single generation of many diverse species, it is not a great stretch to imagine that this level of transformation could also have occurred between generations in the process of speciation. My point is that the information for a completely new life form can lie latent in an existing lifeform to suddenly appear fully formed when the trigger occurs - which trigger may in fact need a genuine mutation. But no precursors or slow mutation and adaptation need be required. Such a process would embarrass the evolutionists because they can find no fossil record of transitional forms. It would also embarrasses the honest creationists because all the dating and genetics would point to the first species (caterpillars) giving rise to the second (butterflies). If such a mechanism existed and acted, it would be the perfect producer of the effect known as punctuated equilibrium - and as I understand it, is what the fossil evidence largely points to.
Re: [Vo]:Punctuated equilibrium
On 28/08/2014 6:25 PM, Jojo Iznart wrote: You would have a point, and I would be with you if there are indeed only one or two anomalies. But, the fact of the matter is, there are hundreds of anomalies that Darwinian Theory can not explain. Even staunch Darwinian Evolutionists are beginning to see that DE theory is becoming untenable. There are new holes poked thru it everyday. I wrote about radiometric dating of fossils, you have jumped to Darwinian Theory whatever that may be. It seems you have a problem following a line of argument? *From:* jwin...@cyllene.uwa.edu.au mailto:jwin...@cyllene.uwa.edu.au *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com *Sent:* Thursday, August 28, 2014 11:14 AM *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Punctuated equilibrium On 28/08/2014 7:59 AM, Jojo Iznart wrote: You seem to be implying that you know that the Coelacanth is 350 million years old from radiometric dating techniques. Please do tell, what sort of radiometric dating tells you that it is 350 million years old? I don't know how these particular fossils were dated, but I know how this field of science works in general and have been highly impressed at the quality of some of the data. I have no argument with sincere scientists doing the job the best way they know how. Mistakes can be made but with enough diverse minds at work on the same problems the truth usually ends up prevailing. I'm really not interested in being told that one or two interesting anomalies renders this whole field of science invalid.
Re: [Vo]:Punctuated equilibrium
Darwinian Evolution is the most popular due to one element. It postulates a natural undirected process that does not require God or a creator. Some proposals of evolution are directed. The evolution is directed or forced into a plan or path towards the more complex form, presumably by God or some Intelligent being. These are not popular because it can be argued that an intelligent being is directing the evolution. This is unpalatable to atheists evolutionists. If fact, Charlie himself really disliked any suggestion of a process that occurs quickly, like micro-evolution or adaptation. He disliked it for the simple reason that it can be argue that an intelligence is behind the evolution. Hence, he already rejected one possible mode of evolution due to his dislike for the concept of God. That attitude my friends is a RELIGION. Darwinian Evolution is a religion. Many people nowadays are afflicted with this unreasonable philosophy. This philosophy is also known as Methological Naturalism. This says all answers must be naturalistic. Jojo - Original Message - From: H Veeder To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2014 10:17 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Punctuated equilibrium Darwin's theory or explanation of evolution is distinct from the general concept of evolution. Several explanations of evolution have been proposed over the last few hundred years. To date Darwin's theory has been the most fertile but it also has major shortcomings. Only neo-Darwinists insist that all aspects of evolution must be explained in Darwinian terms. harry On Thu, Aug 28, 2014 at 6:25 AM, Jojo Iznart jojoiznar...@gmail.com wrote: You would have a point, and I would be with you if there are indeed only one or two anomalies. But, the fact of the matter is, there are hundreds of anomalies that Darwinian Theory can not explain. Even staunch Darwinian Evolutionists are beginning to see that DE theory is becoming untenable. There are new holes poked thru it everyday. Jojo - Original Message - From: jwin...@cyllene.uwa.edu.au To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2014 11:14 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Punctuated equilibrium On 28/08/2014 7:59 AM, Jojo Iznart wrote: You seem to be implying that you know that the Coelacanth is 350 million years old from radiometric dating techniques. Please do tell, what sort of radiometric dating tells you that it is 350 million years old? I don't know how these particular fossils were dated, but I know how this field of science works in general and have been highly impressed at the quality of some of the data. I have no argument with sincere scientists doing the job the best way they know how. Mistakes can be made but with enough diverse minds at work on the same problems the truth usually ends up prevailing. I'm really not interested in being told that one or two interesting anomalies renders this whole field of science invalid.
Re: [Vo]:Punctuated equilibrium
On 28/08/2014 10:38 PM, Jojo Iznart wrote: My friend, caterpillars turning to butterflies are not micro-evolution, that is normal development associated with butterflies. You think I don't know that!? Why don't you read what I wrote - hint look for the If at the beginning of the sentence. *From:* jwin...@cyllene.uwa.edu.au mailto:jwin...@cyllene.uwa.edu.au *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com *Sent:* Thursday, August 28, 2014 10:07 PM *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Punctuated equilibrium On 28/08/2014 6:22 PM, Jojo Iznart wrote: On 28/08/2014 11:14 AM, jwinter wrote: If the necessary information is present from the beginning, then it only needs to be triggered and it will express itself. This is my suspicion of how the process might work. This process my friend, is called micro-evolution or variation or adaptation. The genetic information required to trigger a change is already encoded in the DNA. This mechanism can create large changes in a short time. It does not rely on mutations. This mechanism does not result in a new kind (~species). It does not result in Macro-evolution. _If_ a species of caterpillars _which reproduced as caterpillars_, one day laid a batch of eggs out of which hatched butterflies _which then reproduced as butterflies_ (which was my example), there is no way that anyone in their right mind would call that micro-evolution! Given that this profound level of transformation occurs millions of times every day within a single generation of many diverse species, it is _not a great stretch to imagine_ that this level of transformation _could also have occurred between generations_ in the process of speciation. My point is that the information for a completely new life form can lie latent in an existing lifeform to suddenly appear fully formed when the trigger occurs - which trigger may in fact need a genuine mutation. But no precursors or slow mutation and adaptation need be required. Such a process would embarrass the evolutionists because they can find no fossil record of transitional forms. It would also embarrasses the honest creationists because all the dating and genetics would point to the first species (caterpillars) giving rise to the second (butterflies). If such a mechanism existed and acted, it would be the perfect producer of the effect known as punctuated equilibrium - and as I understand it, is what the fossil evidence largely points to.
Re: [Vo]:Punctuated equilibrium
You're absolutely correct. I realized my error after I posted it but I had to take care of something so I did not have time to correct what I said. I apologize for my mistake. Jojo - Original Message - From: jwin...@cyllene.uwa.edu.au To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2014 10:55 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Punctuated equilibrium On 28/08/2014 10:38 PM, Jojo Iznart wrote: My friend, caterpillars turning to butterflies are not micro-evolution, that is normal development associated with butterflies. You think I don't know that!? Why don't you read what I wrote - hint look for the If at the beginning of the sentence. From: jwin...@cyllene.uwa.edu.au To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2014 10:07 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Punctuated equilibrium On 28/08/2014 6:22 PM, Jojo Iznart wrote: On 28/08/2014 11:14 AM, jwinter wrote: If the necessary information is present from the beginning, then it only needs to be triggered and it will express itself. This is my suspicion of how the process might work. This process my friend, is called micro-evolution or variation or adaptation. The genetic information required to trigger a change is already encoded in the DNA. This mechanism can create large changes in a short time. It does not rely on mutations. This mechanism does not result in a new kind (~species). It does not result in Macro-evolution. If a species of caterpillars which reproduced as caterpillars, one day laid a batch of eggs out of which hatched butterflies which then reproduced as butterflies (which was my example), there is no way that anyone in their right mind would call that micro-evolution! Given that this profound level of transformation occurs millions of times every day within a single generation of many diverse species, it is not a great stretch to imagine that this level of transformation could also have occurred between generations in the process of speciation. My point is that the information for a completely new life form can lie latent in an existing lifeform to suddenly appear fully formed when the trigger occurs - which trigger may in fact need a genuine mutation. But no precursors or slow mutation and adaptation need be required. Such a process would embarrass the evolutionists because they can find no fossil record of transitional forms. It would also embarrasses the honest creationists because all the dating and genetics would point to the first species (caterpillars) giving rise to the second (butterflies). If such a mechanism existed and acted, it would be the perfect producer of the effect known as punctuated equilibrium - and as I understand it, is what the fossil evidence largely points to.
Re: [Vo]:Punctuated equilibrium
Hi John et al It can be shown logically that it is impossible to argue against the hypothesis that God created the world in 4004 BC such that it had all the appearance of there having been Darwinian Evolution up until that point, as I have discovered previously. The possibility that life appeared in various other ways (actions of elves, visits from aliens) is also difficult/impossible to argue against. From my perspective, all of the evidence that I work with does not require such outside interference in order to explain what we have found so far. We cannot explain everything, but each time we get to the bottom of some new aspect of what we find, it fits into the self-contained evolutionary hypothesis. If we find something that does not, I will be one of the first to spread the news as I am more than happy to consider alternative ideas (water, bio-photons, cold fusion etc). So far, the theory of evolution does not seem to require any significant additons. I regard punctuated equilibrium as a minor tweak which I now see as almost having been proposed by Darwin. The bit that will (imho) require something new is our understanding of how evolution stores distributed information in the DNA. But if creationists and alien impregnators want to get all hung up on evolution then I am quite happy to leave them be: I have DNA sequences to analyse. We can see the impact of the first land animals in the genetics of plants. They have many defence mechanisms to deal with pests etc, but it can be shown that land plants spent millions of years not having to deal with the problem of animals eating them as the defence mechanisms that exist today as defence against animal action in land plants evolved comparitively late on. During this period the plants just died and became coal. The phylogenetic trees suggest a time that is consistent with the best understanding of when the animals arrived on land and started eating the plants. This can be shown by looking at the relationship between the different proteins that are involved in this process. This is one of countless bits of information that I work with on a daily basis where everything fits snuggly together based on evolutionary ideas. But God could have created the whole thing in 4004BC such that everything had the appearance of having evolved like this. Who am I to argue? Nigel On 27/08/2014 04:40, jwin...@cyllene.uwa.edu.au wrote: Hi Nigel, Thanks for your erudite and interesting answers. However I don't think you really answered the question I was interested in because you are so saturated with the current paradigm. I sense from your answer that you are happy with the idea that given an *actually* simple (in comparison to later more complex) self-replicating life form, random mutations and selection is sufficient to generate all life as we know it. I don't wish to argue against that view, even though for myself I find it impossible to believe. If you could momentarily put aside the current paradigm and consider the possibility that we have been visited by aliens who although evolving completely independently on another planet have, incredibly as it may seem, ended up with compatible DNA to our own - so that a case of hybrid sexual intercourse such as Antonio Vilas Boas http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ant%C3%B4nio_Vilas_Boas case could occur. The implications to evolution of this type of case being true are I think quite revolutionary. It means for instance that the final human DNA outcome from the whole evolution process must be completely determined from the very beginning!!! I really don't want to hear arguments about how this is impossible and the Vilas Boas case must be fake - I appreciate them fully. What I would like is if you could withhold disbelief sufficiently to consider whether there you can see an argument from within your field of evolutionary genetics? For instance, is it possible that there is sufficient information programmed into the simplest life forms (or at least the ones that unfolded into the forms of life that finally resulted in us) to at least allow, if not ensure, that the final result would be human? Also I wonder what is the current guess at the first (and ongoingly successful) animal to emerge from the sea? I saw some large carnivore types that were proposed - but how would they live on land without other animals to eat? And if they had to go back into the sea to eat (which is their main daily and lifelong task) why not simply stay there. I think it would need to be an animal that could live well on land plants and/or insects (which I believe long preceded the vertebrates). John On 27/08/2014 6:49 AM, Nigel Dyer wrote: To my mind there are two separate evolution question problems that need to be addressed. The first, which you pick up on, is the evolution of the complex folding proteins, and the second is the evolution of the
Re: [Vo]:Punctuated equilibrium
Hi Nigel, Thanks again for your reply but it seems like you were answering someone else's query. I did not remotely suggest recent creation and did not think that I promoted alien impregnation. The alien impregnation that I spoke of was of the sexual variety and is a well known case that even the Wikipedia defenders of the faith cannot build much of a case against. Evolution really can't even get started until you have a self-replicating cell, so evolution as such cannot have any explanation for where the first self-replicating cell came from. Many (if not most?) mainline scientists accept this fact and some well known ones go so far as to even suggest an off-world (ie alien) source. I am not concerned whether the source was alien impregnation or whatever other mechanism you happen to think might have produced the first self-replicating cell. This is something we may never know. But if even one of the alien visitation cases turns out to be true (and it would seem that this could happen any day if certain governments would allow it), then I think it must have an enormous impact on the theory of evolution and thus maybe even impact your job. So my hope was that you might follow this possibly impending scenario through to a logical conclusion. Suppose tomorrow that we find out that there really was a crash at Roswell, and we really did meet live aliens or have dead alien bodies to dissect (the sort of stuff that this list enjoys dreaming about), it either points to the process of evolution being incredibly convergent (and how could that work!), or that the process was largely programmed into the first self-replicating cell. So my question again is: from your knowledge of the DNA of the earliest known forms of life, is there sufficient information content to almost guarantee that humanoid life-forms (very similar to us and even sexually compatible) will finally evolve? Or does the minimal state of the DNA of early life forms strongly suggest that there must be some emergent phenomenon or meddling along the way in order to produce in the end such similar humanoid life forms? John On 27/08/2014 4:08 PM, Nigel Dyer wrote: Hi John et al It can be shown logically that it is impossible to argue against the hypothesis that God created the world in 4004 BC such that it had all the appearance of there having been Darwinian Evolution up until that point, as I have discovered previously. The possibility that life appeared in various other ways (actions of elves, visits from aliens) is also difficult/impossible to argue against. From my perspective, all of the evidence that I work with does not require such outside interference in order to explain what we have found so far. We cannot explain everything, but each time we get to the bottom of some new aspect of what we find, it fits into the self-contained evolutionary hypothesis. If we find something that does not, I will be one of the first to spread the news as I am more than happy to consider alternative ideas (water, bio-photons, cold fusion etc). So far, the theory of evolution does not seem to require any significant additons. I regard punctuated equilibrium as a minor tweak which I now see as almost having been proposed by Darwin. The bit that will (imho) require something new is our understanding of how evolution stores distributed information in the DNA. But if creationists and alien impregnators want to get all hung up on evolution then I am quite happy to leave them be: I have DNA sequences to analyse. We can see the impact of the first land animals in the genetics of plants. They have many defence mechanisms to deal with pests etc, but it can be shown that land plants spent millions of years not having to deal with the problem of animals eating them as the defence mechanisms that exist today as defence against animal action in land plants evolved comparitively late on. During this period the plants just died and became coal. The phylogenetic trees suggest a time that is consistent with the best understanding of when the animals arrived on land and started eating the plants. This can be shown by looking at the relationship between the different proteins that are involved in this process. This is one of countless bits of information that I work with on a daily basis where everything fits snuggly together based on evolutionary ideas. But God could have created the whole thing in 4004BC such that everything had the appearance of having evolved like this. Who am I to argue? Nigel On 27/08/2014 04:40, jwin...@cyllene.uwa.edu.au wrote: Hi Nigel, Thanks for your erudite and interesting answers. However I don't think you really answered the question I was interested in because you are so saturated with the current paradigm. I sense from your answer that you are happy with the idea that given an *actually* simple (in comparison to later more complex)
Re: [Vo]:Punctuated equilibrium
Hi John Evolutionary principles can help understand how the first self replicating cell originated. For example all the evidence suggests that it came from an RNA based predecessor, where RNA is replicated and splits into chunks to form enzymes etc. We are currently finding RNA has far more roles than we had previously realised, plenty of scope for RNA based lifeforms. As for whether there is an inevitability of humanoid based life forms, no there is nothing that suggests that we were inevitable. In 10 million years time it might be that the descendants of todays mice (see Douglas Adams) or dolphins who are in many ways as advanced as we are might be asking themselves the same question, and they are not sexually compatible with us. There is an emergent phenomena that gives rise to more complex life forms that are better fitted than their predecessors to survive. Darwin describes well the process that makes this happen, and all that we have found in genetics supports and can be understood based this idea. However, the more find out about biological processes, the more we seem to rule out alternative none DNA/RNA ways that life could occur. Basically evolution (and our chemists) seems to have explored just about every available option, and there is nothing else that comes close to doing what DNA/RNA can do. If life exists elsewhere, I find it increasingly difficult to see how it can be anything other than DNA/RNA based. If it is DNA/RNA based then that would therefore just be an example of parallel evolution, which we already have lots of examples of within nature. What will then be interesting will be to see what the similarities and differences are in the way that the DNA/RNA encodes information (e.g. coding for proteins, which is more abitary), which would be the only way that we could determine whether there was a common ancester. My particular heresy/unproven hypothesis is that I beleive that some of the information in DNA is stored in a 'non-local' form (similar to Sheldrake's morphogenetic fields), so in principle could be shared with an alien DNA based life form, which could mean that the aliens might indeed turn out to be hairy humanoids. I await the arrival of aliens with interest so that these various hypothesies can be tested. Nigel On 27/08/2014 10:52, jwin...@cyllene.uwa.edu.au wrote: Hi Nigel, Thanks again for your reply but it seems like you were answering someone else's query. I did not remotely suggest recent creation and did not think that I promoted alien impregnation. The alien impregnation that I spoke of was of the sexual variety and is a well known case that even the Wikipedia defenders of the faith cannot build much of a case against. Evolution really can't even get started until you have a self-replicating cell, so evolution as such cannot have any explanation for where the first self-replicating cell came from. Many (if not most?) mainline scientists accept this fact and some well known ones go so far as to even suggest an off-world (ie alien) source. I am not concerned whether the source was alien impregnation or whatever other mechanism you happen to think might have produced the first self-replicating cell. This is something we may never know. But if even one of the alien visitation cases turns out to be true (and it would seem that this could happen any day if certain governments would allow it), then I think it must have an enormous impact on the theory of evolution and thus maybe even impact your job. So my hope was that you might follow this possibly impending scenario through to a logical conclusion. Suppose tomorrow that we find out that there really was a crash at Roswell, and we really did meet live aliens or have dead alien bodies to dissect (the sort of stuff that this list enjoys dreaming about), it either points to the process of evolution being incredibly convergent (and how could that work!), or that the process was largely programmed into the first self-replicating cell. So my question again is: from your knowledge of the DNA of the earliest known forms of life, is there sufficient information content to almost guarantee that humanoid life-forms (very similar to us and even sexually compatible) will finally evolve? Or does the minimal state of the DNA of early life forms strongly suggest that there must be some emergent phenomenon or meddling along the way in order to produce in the end such similar humanoid life forms? John
Re: [Vo]:Punctuated equilibrium
Hi Nigel, Thanks again for your answer, but again I cannot find the data point I am after in all the interesting information you have provided! So I will try again. Purely as an illustration or analogy, consider the growth of the human body. It starts at conception having many embryonic _stem_ cells. These all have the potential to differentiate into the many varieties of cell types that are required to form all the organs in the body. Once they have fully _differentiated_, they seem to lose the plasticity that they once had when stem cells and can no longer go back and reproduce into different types of organ cells. Elements in the phylogenetic tree (made up of life forms instead of cells) seems to possess similar traits. There are elements such as the coelacanth which has reproduced itself for ~350 million years with scarcely a whisker out of place, while the offspring of some very near neighbour has crawled out of the water onto dry land and formed into all the reptiles, dinosaurs, birds, mammals, and finally as human, looked back at its own evolutionary history. I think all must agree that this enormous difference in the evolutionary potential of such near neighbours is truly remarkable! If this has an explanation I would love to hear it. But I am getting sidetracked. My point is that there are some life forms which seem to be like stem cells and have the plasticity to evolve into a countless variety of other life forms. And there are others which seem to be like fully differentiated cells which have spent their evolutionary potential and can no longer produce other forms. So if one draws the phylogenetic tree, there must be a trunk (or root) of simple life forms at the centre from which all large branches proceed, leading finally to leaves at the outer extremities where the fully complex but often evolutionarily spent life forms exist. One could put the first creature that crawled from the sea (which you failed to name but which I might call a proto-frog) as one of the major branches, and things like the bat (which seems have remained unchanged for 50 million years) as one of the leaves. What I would mostly like to find out is whether the DNA information content seems to increase or decrease as we go from trunk to leaves? I appreciate it may be difficult to know the information content when you can't pick the difference between random numbers and vital information. But if one was to zip or compress the DNA letters so as to at least get rid of duplicates and repetitive strings, that would provide an upper limit. So do simple organisms like stromatolites and cyanobacteria seem to have significantly more, or significantly less DNA information than complex organisms like vertebrates? John On 27/08/2014 7:35 PM, Nigel Dyer wrote: Hi John Evolutionary principles can help understand how the first self replicating cell originated. For example all the evidence suggests that it came from an RNA based predecessor, where RNA is replicated and splits into chunks to form enzymes etc. We are currently finding RNA has far more roles than we had previously realised, plenty of scope for RNA based lifeforms. As for whether there is an inevitability of humanoid based life forms, no there is nothing that suggests that we were inevitable. In 10 million years time it might be that the descendants of todays mice (see Douglas Adams) or dolphins who are in many ways as advanced as we are might be asking themselves the same question, and they are not sexually compatible with us. There is an emergent phenomena that gives rise to more complex life forms that are better fitted than their predecessors to survive. Darwin describes well the process that makes this happen, and all that we have found in genetics supports and can be understood based this idea. OK this is something that I would like to find out. I can see no ratchet mechanism to help complexity develop from simplicity rather than vice-versa. Every molecular level mutation that you can imagine must be effectively reversible. Thus every micro-evolutionary step must also be reversible. Thus every macro-evolutionary change must also be reversible _if the selection pressure is removed or reversed_ - No? We have a similar situation in physics: Every microscopic interaction is time reversible, therefore you would expect that every macroscopic event can happen just as well in reverse. And indeed it could, but in practice it doesn't. You can very quickly pick whether a film is being run in reverse or in the forward direction. So what determines the arrow of time? The way that this is usually explained is with probability - the second law of thermodynamics - the inevitable increase of entropy. This is what ensures for instance that objects that are hotter than their environment will cool towards their environment rather than warm up even more. If you were to apply
Re: [Vo]:Punctuated equilibrium
John, my friend, you have a fundamental problem in your analysis. Your unyielding adherence to Darwinian dogma is blinding you and preventing you from asking the right questions. You assume Darwinian Evolution is true first and that skews your analysis. For example, you assume that the Coelacanth is 350 million years old. How do you know that? You know that only because Darwinian Evolution theory told you so. Since your first assumption is that Darwinian Evolution is true, you can liberally conclude that the Coelacanth is 350 million years old. Then a wrong question stems from this wrong understanding - wrong assumption. You then ask why the coelacanth stopped evolving? This of course is the wrong question that you are trying to answer. What you should do is not assume anything. You then look at the data and see if Darwinian Evolution fits the data. Can Darwinian Evolution explain the existence of the Coelacanth up to today and why it hasn't evolved? If not, Darwinian Evolution theory is wrong. Instead, you ask, how could the Coelacanth exist unchanged for 350 million years? This is the wrong questions that should not have been asked if your initial assumptions did not screw with your analysis. Jojo PS: I'm really at a loss understanding why people can't seem to see the stupidities of their belief in Darwinian Evolution - why they can see that Darwinian Evolution could be wrong. - Original Message - From: jwin...@cyllene.uwa.edu.au To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2014 12:50 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Punctuated equilibrium Hi Nigel, Thanks again for your answer, but again I cannot find the data point I am after in all the interesting information you have provided! So I will try again. Purely as an illustration or analogy, consider the growth of the human body. It starts at conception having many embryonic stem cells. These all have the potential to differentiate into the many varieties of cell types that are required to form all the organs in the body. Once they have fully differentiated, they seem to lose the plasticity that they once had when stem cells and can no longer go back and reproduce into different types of organ cells. Elements in the phylogenetic tree (made up of life forms instead of cells) seems to possess similar traits. There are elements such as the coelacanth which has reproduced itself for ~350 million years with scarcely a whisker out of place, while the offspring of some very near neighbour has crawled out of the water onto dry land and formed into all the reptiles, dinosaurs, birds, mammals, and finally as human, looked back at its own evolutionary history. I think all must agree that this enormous difference in the evolutionary potential of such near neighbours is truly remarkable! If this has an explanation I would love to hear it. But I am getting sidetracked. My point is that there are some life forms which seem to be like stem cells and have the plasticity to evolve into a countless variety of other life forms. And there are others which seem to be like fully differentiated cells which have spent their evolutionary potential and can no longer produce other forms. So if one draws the phylogenetic tree, there must be a trunk (or root) of simple life forms at the centre from which all large branches proceed, leading finally to leaves at the outer extremities where the fully complex but often evolutionarily spent life forms exist. One could put the first creature that crawled from the sea (which you failed to name but which I might call a proto-frog) as one of the major branches, and things like the bat (which seems have remained unchanged for 50 million years) as one of the leaves. What I would mostly like to find out is whether the DNA information content seems to increase or decrease as we go from trunk to leaves? I appreciate it may be difficult to know the information content when you can't pick the difference between random numbers and vital information. But if one was to zip or compress the DNA letters so as to at least get rid of duplicates and repetitive strings, that would provide an upper limit. So do simple organisms like stromatolites and cyanobacteria seem to have significantly more, or significantly less DNA information than complex organisms like vertebrates? John On 27/08/2014 7:35 PM, Nigel Dyer wrote: Hi John Evolutionary principles can help understand how the first self replicating cell originated. For example all the evidence suggests that it came from an RNA based predecessor, where RNA is replicated and splits into chunks to form enzymes etc. We are currently finding RNA has far more roles than we had previously realised, plenty of scope for RNA based lifeforms. As for whether there is an inevitability of humanoid based life forms, no there is nothing that suggests that we were
Re: [Vo]:Punctuated equilibrium
If evolution is driven by a random process via random mutations, then evolution can not be reversible, since it is unlikely that a random mutation would occur that cancels out a previous random mutation. The odds are astronomical for that to occur. The fact that we see E. Coli gain penicilin resistance and then loose it again simply means that this micro-evolution variation is reversible and thus not based on a random mutation process. This conclusion can not be denied. Jojo - Original Message - From: jwin...@cyllene.uwa.edu.au To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2014 12:50 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Punctuated equilibrium Hi Nigel, Thanks again for your answer, but again I cannot find the data point I am after in all the interesting information you have provided! So I will try again. Purely as an illustration or analogy, consider the growth of the human body. It starts at conception having many embryonic stem cells. These all have the potential to differentiate into the many varieties of cell types that are required to form all the organs in the body. Once they have fully differentiated, they seem to lose the plasticity that they once had when stem cells and can no longer go back and reproduce into different types of organ cells. Elements in the phylogenetic tree (made up of life forms instead of cells) seems to possess similar traits. There are elements such as the coelacanth which has reproduced itself for ~350 million years with scarcely a whisker out of place, while the offspring of some very near neighbour has crawled out of the water onto dry land and formed into all the reptiles, dinosaurs, birds, mammals, and finally as human, looked back at its own evolutionary history. I think all must agree that this enormous difference in the evolutionary potential of such near neighbours is truly remarkable! If this has an explanation I would love to hear it. But I am getting sidetracked. My point is that there are some life forms which seem to be like stem cells and have the plasticity to evolve into a countless variety of other life forms. And there are others which seem to be like fully differentiated cells which have spent their evolutionary potential and can no longer produce other forms. So if one draws the phylogenetic tree, there must be a trunk (or root) of simple life forms at the centre from which all large branches proceed, leading finally to leaves at the outer extremities where the fully complex but often evolutionarily spent life forms exist. One could put the first creature that crawled from the sea (which you failed to name but which I might call a proto-frog) as one of the major branches, and things like the bat (which seems have remained unchanged for 50 million years) as one of the leaves. What I would mostly like to find out is whether the DNA information content seems to increase or decrease as we go from trunk to leaves? I appreciate it may be difficult to know the information content when you can't pick the difference between random numbers and vital information. But if one was to zip or compress the DNA letters so as to at least get rid of duplicates and repetitive strings, that would provide an upper limit. So do simple organisms like stromatolites and cyanobacteria seem to have significantly more, or significantly less DNA information than complex organisms like vertebrates? John On 27/08/2014 7:35 PM, Nigel Dyer wrote: Hi John Evolutionary principles can help understand how the first self replicating cell originated. For example all the evidence suggests that it came from an RNA based predecessor, where RNA is replicated and splits into chunks to form enzymes etc. We are currently finding RNA has far more roles than we had previously realised, plenty of scope for RNA based lifeforms. As for whether there is an inevitability of humanoid based life forms, no there is nothing that suggests that we were inevitable. In 10 million years time it might be that the descendants of todays mice (see Douglas Adams) or dolphins who are in many ways as advanced as we are might be asking themselves the same question, and they are not sexually compatible with us. There is an emergent phenomena that gives rise to more complex life forms that are better fitted than their predecessors to survive. Darwin describes well the process that makes this happen, and all that we have found in genetics supports and can be understood based this idea. OK this is something that I would like to find out. I can see no ratchet mechanism to help complexity develop from simplicity rather than vice-versa. Every molecular level mutation that you can imagine must be effectively reversible. Thus every micro-evolutionary step must also be reversible. Thus every macro-evolutionary change must also be reversible if the selection pressure is removed or reversed
Re: [Vo]:Punctuated equilibrium
On 28/08/2014 1:11 AM, Jojo Iznart wrote: John, my friend, you have a fundamental problem in your analysis. Your unyielding adherence to Darwinian dogma You are mistaken. I have no adherence to Darwinian dogma whatsoever. If Darwinian dogma (whatever that is) happens to coincide with my understanding - well maybe its right. is blinding you and preventing you from asking the right questions. You assume Darwinian Evolution is true first and that skews your analysis. For example, you assume that the Coelacanth is 350 million years old. How do you know that? We have been over this ad nauseum. I accept radiometric dating. In many cases it is simply superb. You are welcome to continue rubbishing it but you should be aware that in the almost unanimous view of intelligent and well educated people you are thereby only rubbishing yourself. You know that only because Darwinian Evolution theory told you so. Since your first assumption is that Darwinian Evolution is true, you can liberally conclude that the Coelacanth is 350 million years old. Then a wrong question stems from this wrong understanding - wrong assumption. You then ask why the coelacanth stopped evolving? This of course is the wrong question that you are trying to answer. What you should do is not assume anything. You then look at the data and see if Darwinian Evolution fits the data. What about you? You make one massive assumption (that the history and legends brought back by the Jews after their exile in Babylon has to be completely inerrant), and then you look at the data and no matter how good it is, you toss it out if you can't make it fit that massive assumption. Can Darwinian Evolution explain the existence of the Coelacanth up to today and why it hasn't evolved? If not, Darwinian Evolution theory is wrong. Instead, you ask, how could the Coelacanth exist unchanged for 350 million years? This is the wrong questions that should not have been asked if your initial assumptions did not screw with your analysis. Jojo PS: I'm really at a loss understanding why people can't seem to see the stupidities of their belief in Darwinian Evolution - why they can see that Darwinian Evolution could be wrong. Take out the plank that is in your own eye, and then you can see better to pick specks of dust from others assumptions.
Re: [Vo]:Punctuated equilibrium
On 28/08/2014 1:17 AM, Jojo Iznart wrote: If evolution is driven by a random process via random mutations, then evolution _can not be reversible_, since it is _unlikely_ that a random mutation would occur that cancels out a previous random mutation. The odds are astronomical for that to occur. If it is unlikely, then it is possible! But my point is not that a random mutation might actually reverse, my point is that there is _no preferred directionality_ to the process. Evolutionists try to come up with random processes that can produce more complex proteins and structures from simpler ones (climbing mount improbable), without it seems, ever considering that the reverse path is just as possible in every case and typically many many orders of magnitude more probable (rolling down mount improbable). The fact that we see E. Coli gain penicilin resistance and then loose it again simply means that this micro-evolution variation is reversible and thus not based on a random mutation process. This conclusion can not be denied. Sorry but I can see no reason why this effect cannot occur by a random mutation processes? Some mutation can allow resistance and a different mutation prevent it again. I don't know whether penicillin resistance requires something to work, or requires something to be prevented from working. But there are often many ways to switch on some gene to get it working (eg by clobbering whatever is preventing it), and an infinity of ways of breaking something to stop it working.
Re: [Vo]:Punctuated equilibrium
Jojo, Here's one (actually a few ): clymene dolphin plus 2-4% of all flowering plants, inc. many sunflowers, and many crop species. BTW. This whole 'odds' thing is a joke. Julian Huxley, for example, did not state his opinion re; the astronomical 'odds' of a horse, but did ridicule the guy that did. It appears, for example, that the odds that you and I could ever agree on most anything is, let's see, 80 billion neuronal actions per sec X 80 billion neurons actions per sec by you X 30 years = (I'm not too good at math, you do the math). From a former biology teacher, ken PS. don't call me, I'll call you back. On Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 12:16 PM, jwin...@cyllene.uwa.edu.au wrote: On 28/08/2014 1:11 AM, Jojo Iznart wrote: John, my friend, you have a fundamental problem in your analysis. Your unyielding adherence to Darwinian dogma You are mistaken. I have no adherence to Darwinian dogma whatsoever. If Darwinian dogma (whatever that is) happens to coincide with my understanding - well maybe its right. is blinding you and preventing you from asking the right questions. You assume Darwinian Evolution is true first and that skews your analysis. For example, you assume that the Coelacanth is 350 million years old. How do you know that? We have been over this ad nauseum. I accept radiometric dating. In many cases it is simply superb. You are welcome to continue rubbishing it but you should be aware that in the almost unanimous view of intelligent and well educated people you are thereby only rubbishing yourself. You know that only because Darwinian Evolution theory told you so. Since your first assumption is that Darwinian Evolution is true, you can liberally conclude that the Coelacanth is 350 million years old. Then a wrong question stems from this wrong understanding - wrong assumption. You then ask why the coelacanth stopped evolving? This of course is the wrong question that you are trying to answer. What you should do is not assume anything. You then look at the data and see if Darwinian Evolution fits the data. What about you? You make one massive assumption (that the history and legends brought back by the Jews after their exile in Babylon has to be completely inerrant), and then you look at the data and no matter how good it is, you toss it out if you can't make it fit that massive assumption. Can Darwinian Evolution explain the existence of the Coelacanth up to today and why it hasn't evolved? If not, Darwinian Evolution theory is wrong. Instead, you ask, how could the Coelacanth exist unchanged for 350 million years? This is the wrong questions that should not have been asked if your initial assumptions did not screw with your analysis. Jojo PS: I'm really at a loss understanding why people can't seem to see the stupidities of their belief in Darwinian Evolution - why they can see that Darwinian Evolution could be wrong. Take out the plank that is in your own eye, and then you can see better to pick specks of dust from others assumptions.
Re: [Vo]:Punctuated equilibrium
As pointed out, the odds for a mutation occuring that would result in a feature that is useful enough is astronomical. (See my first link). Its like fllipping 1000 consecutive heads followed by 1000 consecutive tails. Unlikely does not mean possible. It depends on the odds. If it is greater than 10^50, it is considered impossible. The concept of reversing the change is just as improbable because the mechanism is random. There is no such thing as rolling downhill. The process is the same in both directions. This idea of reversibility in itself is already a violation of one of the tenets of Darwinian Theory. Darwinian Theory says the change must be persistent. If the reverse is easier than the forward change, it violates the persistence requirement. Regarding E. Coli resistance. You are correct in that the resistance is conferred by an expression of a gene. In this case, just a single gene which creates a single protein on the cell wall of the bacteria that prevents the antibiotic from attaching itself to the bacteria which prevents the denaturing/splitting of the bacteria cell wall. But this is precisely my argument for the difference between micro from macro-evolution. The mechanism for expressing a trait is already encoded in the DNA in micro-evolution - it is adaptation. There is no mutation that needs to confer a survival advantage. Everything the bacteria needs to mount a defense is already encoded. That is why you will never find E. Coli that is resistant to Chlorine for example. Chlorine will always kill E. Coli, because E.Coli does not have a gene that it can express to confer Chlorine resistance. The extent of what E. Coli can be resistant to is determined by its genetic tool box. It can never be resistant to something that is not in its tool box. Jojo - Original Message - From: jwin...@cyllene.uwa.edu.au To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2014 2:38 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Punctuated equilibrium On 28/08/2014 1:17 AM, Jojo Iznart wrote: If evolution is driven by a random process via random mutations, then evolution can not be reversible, since it is unlikely that a random mutation would occur that cancels out a previous random mutation. The odds are astronomical for that to occur. If it is unlikely, then it is possible! But my point is not that a random mutation might actually reverse, my point is that there is no preferred directionality to the process. Evolutionists try to come up with random processes that can produce more complex proteins and structures from simpler ones (climbing mount improbable), without it seems, ever considering that the reverse path is just as possible in every case and typically many many orders of magnitude more probable (rolling down mount improbable). The fact that we see E. Coli gain penicilin resistance and then loose it again simply means that this micro-evolution variation is reversible and thus not based on a random mutation process. This conclusion can not be denied. Sorry but I can see no reason why this effect cannot occur by a random mutation processes? Some mutation can allow resistance and a different mutation prevent it again. I don't know whether penicillin resistance requires something to work, or requires something to be prevented from working. But there are often many ways to switch on some gene to get it working (eg by clobbering whatever is preventing it), and an infinity of ways of breaking something to stop it working.
Re: [Vo]:Punctuated equilibrium
You seem to be implying that you know that the Coelacanth is 350 million years old from radiometric dating techniques. Please do tell, what sort of radiometric dating tells you that it is 350 million years old? Jojo - Original Message - From: jwin...@cyllene.uwa.edu.au To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2014 2:16 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Punctuated equilibrium For example, you assume that the Coelacanth is 350 million years old. How do you know that? We have been over this ad nauseum. I accept radiometric dating. In many cases it is simply superb. You are welcome to continue rubbishing it but you should be aware that in the almost unanimous view of intelligent and well educated people you are thereby only rubbishing yourself.
Re: [Vo]:Punctuated equilibrium
Ken, are you saying the Clymene dolphin is an example of Macro-evolution. It seems to me that it is just a variation of the spinner dolphin. Not sure what you are claiming here. Which 2%-4% of flowering plants are you referring to? Please be specific so that I can research it to see if you are right. So, you people make fun of my probability calculation so I pointed out the probability calculation of a staunch evolutionists who have already considered many of your objections. Now, you make fun of him (Julian Huxley). What level of proof or which personality would you really consider credible? Whose proof is acceptable to you? Please don't just say there are thousands of textbooks. If there are thousands of proofs, it shouldn't be difficult for you to point out one example of an observable macro-evolution event. Though I can understand part of your problem. As a biology teacher, you have been totally immersed in this Darwinian paradigm. Like Huzienga, it is very difficult for you to change your mind or to admit that what you believed your entire life has been a lie. Me? I will accept Darwinian Evolution today if someone can show me concrete proof. Not conjectures, and imaginations and suppositions and speculations and interpretations. I challenged Nigel to do just that, but it seems he could not. Jojo - Original Message - From: Ken Deboer To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2014 2:49 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Punctuated equilibrium Jojo, Here's one (actually a few ): clymene dolphin plus 2-4% of all flowering plants, inc. many sunflowers, and many crop species. BTW. This whole 'odds' thing is a joke. Julian Huxley, for example, did not state his opinion re; the astronomical 'odds' of a horse, but did ridicule the guy that did. It appears, for example, that the odds that you and I could ever agree on most anything is, let's see, 80 billion neuronal actions per sec X 80 billion neurons actions per sec by you X 30 years = (I'm not too good at math, you do the math). From a former biology teacher, ken PS. don't call me, I'll call you back. On Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 12:16 PM, jwin...@cyllene.uwa.edu.au wrote: On 28/08/2014 1:11 AM, Jojo Iznart wrote: John, my friend, you have a fundamental problem in your analysis. Your unyielding adherence to Darwinian dogma You are mistaken. I have no adherence to Darwinian dogma whatsoever. If Darwinian dogma (whatever that is) happens to coincide with my understanding - well maybe its right. is blinding you and preventing you from asking the right questions. You assume Darwinian Evolution is true first and that skews your analysis. For example, you assume that the Coelacanth is 350 million years old. How do you know that? We have been over this ad nauseum. I accept radiometric dating. In many cases it is simply superb. You are welcome to continue rubbishing it but you should be aware that in the almost unanimous view of intelligent and well educated people you are thereby only rubbishing yourself. You know that only because Darwinian Evolution theory told you so. Since your first assumption is that Darwinian Evolution is true, you can liberally conclude that the Coelacanth is 350 million years old. Then a wrong question stems from this wrong understanding - wrong assumption. You then ask why the coelacanth stopped evolving? This of course is the wrong question that you are trying to answer. What you should do is not assume anything. You then look at the data and see if Darwinian Evolution fits the data. What about you? You make one massive assumption (that the history and legends brought back by the Jews after their exile in Babylon has to be completely inerrant), and then you look at the data and no matter how good it is, you toss it out if you can't make it fit that massive assumption. Can Darwinian Evolution explain the existence of the Coelacanth up to today and why it hasn't evolved? If not, Darwinian Evolution theory is wrong. Instead, you ask, how could the Coelacanth exist unchanged for 350 million years? This is the wrong questions that should not have been asked if your initial assumptions did not screw with your analysis. Jojo PS: I'm really at a loss understanding why people can't seem to see the stupidities of their belief in Darwinian Evolution - why they can see that Darwinian Evolution could be wrong. Take out the plank that is in your own eye, and then you can see better to pick specks of dust from others assumptions.
Re: [Vo]:Punctuated equilibrium
On 28/08/2014 7:59 AM, Jojo Iznart wrote: You seem to be implying that you know that the Coelacanth is 350 million years old from radiometric dating techniques. Please do tell, what sort of radiometric dating tells you that it is 350 million years old? I don't know how these particular fossils were dated, but I know how this field of science works in general and have been highly impressed at the quality of some of the data. I have no argument with sincere scientists doing the job the best way they know how. Mistakes can be made but with enough diverse minds at work on the same problems the truth usually ends up prevailing. I'm really not interested in being told that one or two interesting anomalies renders this whole field of science invalid.
Re: [Vo]:Punctuated equilibrium
On 28/08/2014 7:42 AM, Jojo Iznart wrote: As pointed out, the odds for a mutation occuring that would result in a feature that is useful enough is astronomical. If the necessary information is present from the beginning, then it only needs to be triggered and it will express itself. This is my suspicion of how the process might work. Consider insect metamorphosis. An apparently simple ugly grub looking creature evolves within a single generation to a beautiful and apparently more much complex creature. It can suddenly fly! No slow accumulation of appendages to help it glide, etc, etc, etc. Complete and fully functional flying apparatus and body structure to suit in a single generation! Clearly the information to do this was present when the creature was still a grub. It just needed the right trigger for the transformation to happen. So with the right conditions and in the fullness of time an ugly fat landlubbing dinosaur could lay a batch of eggs, and out could hatch a bunch of beautiful flying monsters. Evolution occurs as punctuated equilibrium - to the extreme! If you care to postulate initial design, then this effect would be easy to build in and almost inevitably produce the phylogenetic tree that we find evidence for in the fossil record and from modern genetics. (See my first link). Its like fllipping 1000 consecutive heads followed by 1000 consecutive tails. Unlikely does not mean possible. It depends on the odds. If it is greater than 10^50, it is considered impossible. The concept of reversing the change is just as improbable because the mechanism is random. There is no such thing as rolling downhill. The process is the same in both directions. By climbing uphill I refer to the creation of complexity, of information, of beneficial mutations. Rolling downhill refers to the destruction of this information. Microbes need far less genetic information to build them than men, thus you should be able to simply destroy 90% (or whatever) of the genetic information in a man and still be able to grow an amoeba like creature. But the reverse direction requires the creation of a large amount of information and is thus far more unlikely. Man-Microbe = easy (downhill), Microbe-Man = difficult (uphill). My interest was to try to find out from Nigel how the information content in microbes compared to the information content in men. From that I was hoping to be able to decide if the evolution process (which I have no doubt occurs) from microbe to man could possibly have been designed in from the beginning to await its unfolding in the fullness of time, or whether it needed information to be added (by natural or supernatural means) during the process along the way. Unfortunately I seem to have failed in this endeavour. On 28/08/2014 7:42 AM, Jojo Iznart wrote This idea of reversibility in itself is already a violation of one of the tenets of Darwinian Theory. Darwinian Theory says the change must be persistent. If the reverse is easier than the forward change, it violates the persistence requirement. Regarding E. Coli resistance. You are correct in that the resistance is conferred by an expression of a gene. In this case, just a single gene which creates a single protein on the cell wall of the bacteria that prevents the antibiotic from attaching itself to the bacteria which prevents the denaturing/splitting of the bacteria cell wall. But this is precisely my argument for the difference between micro from macro-evolution. The mechanism for expressing a trait is already encoded in the DNA in micro-evolution - it is adaptation. There is no mutation that needs to confer a survival advantage. Everything the bacteria needs to mount a defense is already encoded. That is why you will never find E. Coli that is resistant to Chlorine for example. Chlorine will always kill E. Coli, because E.Coli does not have a gene that it can express to confer Chlorine resistance. The extent of what E. Coli can be resistant to is determined by its genetic tool box. It can never be resistant to something that is not in its tool box. Since we don't understand what all the information in the non-coding regions is there for, we can never be sure quite what might pop out of that tool box once a key mutation has had time to occur.
[Vo]:Punctuated equilibrium
On 27/08/2014 12:43 AM, Nigel Dyer wrote: This summer I read On the Origin of the Species from cover to cover for the first time. I had not realised what a truely remarkable book it is. It covers the dogs/wolves question in great detail. I bought a copy but still haven't got around to reading it. Knowing that Darwin knew nothing of genetics, I have trouble in getting excited about anything he might have to say on the subject - which is why I haven't read it yet. But on your recommendation maybe I should. In some respects my day job could be described as being an evolutionary geneticist, and it is remarkable how much of the detail of what I work on was predicted in Darwins book. He describes in great detail the general principles of evolution, which are backed up by the DNA sequences that I work on. For quite a while I have wanted to ask someone working in your field about what DNA has to say about evolution of species so maybe now is a good time. I have almost no doubt that physical life on this planet has evolved from a very simple looking self-replicating organism into the plethora of life forms which past and present have occupied it. But the mechanism by which this process occurs is still a complete mystery to me. I am totally convinced (from the maths) that random processes cannot by any means produce the complex folding proteins that are needed for life - so the question is how did they arise? Is it possible that the first life form (that as a minimum must have been implanted on this planet) could have contained in some condensed form sufficient information and machinery to evolve into all the life forms that have occurred? Or is it necessary that some additional injection or meddling was necessary along the way? For instance, as I understand it, the frog was one of the first creatures to invade the land from the sea and all land vertebrates evolved from the frog. So one question would be, is there sufficient information in the DNA of a frog, to have the potential of developing (by pre-designed but natural means) into all the land animals that have occurred (and of course the sea mammals)? Or is it necessary to postulate some other source of DNA information which needs to be added to the limited information available in frog DNA? So my question is really this:- From your knowledge of the DNA content of various life forms (and assuming the so-called junk DNA between gene coding regions actually contains useful information for possible future evolution), is there sufficient information in the DNA of simpler looking life forms to allow them to evolve into the more complex types, or does information need to be added? Interestingly, Darwin discusses how if you specifically breed for variation in a specific characteristic (his example is pigieon beak length) then this shows greater variablity in future variations. He also discusses how some things show a remarkable fixedness over vast periods of time. This suggests the possibility that evolution may proceed in fits and starts: puncutated equilibrium, and yet he then talks very much in terms of gradual and continuous evolution, which has become taken as the defining feature of Darwinian evolution. Punctuated equilibrium is seen as somethiong of a heresy. I have always felt that punctuated equilibrium was far more consistent with the evidence, both fossil records and from DNA, and I strongly suspect that it is associated with the DNA rearrangements that occur occasionally (I have been looking at a virus sequence where a section of the sequence has become inverted). Yes you are right. Punctuated equilibrium (ie sudden and relatively large changes) does match the evidence. I am not aware of any radically new physical features that can be shown to have developed gradually over time. If sufficient information was included in the original protoplasmic life form, then it is easy to imagine how accumulated adaptation could be designed to trigger a new physical feature to suddenly appear, fully formed and functional, just when where and when it is needed! There was also a recent paper that shows that one of the differences between the hooded crow and the black crow, which can interbreed so is arguably a single species, is an inversion of part of the DNA sequence. This will have occurred with one individual (a punctuation of the equilibrium), and has subsequently allowed the two crow races to drift away from each other, potentially leading ultimately to two species.
Re: [Vo]:Punctuated equilibrium
In answer to jwinter To my mind there are two separate evolution question problems that need to be addressed. The first, which you pick up on, is the evolution of the complex folding proteins, and the second is the evolution of the information that is used to define the complex structure of multi celled organisms (such as us). There are countless examples which show how duplication of whole or parts of genes genes, mutation of parts of genes can create complex proteins from simple proteins. Indeed the relationship between equivalent proteins in different organsisms can often be used to produce a 'family tree' or phylogentic tree which closely mirrors the accepted evolutionary relationship between the species, and shows how a simple ancestral protein gave rise to lots of complex variants in different plants/animals. The evolution of structure/form and instincts which is what Darwin talks about, because he knows nothing of proteins, is very different because we still understand very little about how this is encoded into the DNA, although there is absolute evidence that it is. This is increasingly looking to be encoded in the 'junk' DNA in a much more distributed and robust way (like a hologram). These can change and mutate and give rise to variations in the organism without being lethal. A lot of the statistics that creationists use to show that evolution is improbable is based on the sequences in genes that encode for proteins, where small changes are frequently lethal. The statistics for the rest of the DNA is completely different, and I beleive completely compatible with the evolutionary model. So, I see no need for additional injection or meddling in order that DNA could go from producing simple lifeforms to complex lifeforms, but I dont think this can be proved mathematically yet because we dont understand the 'junk DNA' coding rules yet. However, my hunch is that we are in for a big surprise when we finally work out what the coding rules are, but that is a different topic entirely. And the first animal to emerge from the sea was not a frog, but probably shared some aspects of the way that it breathed with frogs. Nigel For quite a while I have wanted to ask someone working in your field about what DNA has to say about evolution of species so maybe now is a good time. I have almost no doubt that physical life on this planet has evolved from a very simple looking self-replicating organism into the plethora of life forms which past and present have occupied it. But the mechanism by which this process occurs is still a complete mystery to me. I am totally convinced (from the maths) that random processes cannot by any means produce the complex folding proteins that are needed for life - so the question is how did they arise? Is it possible that the first life form (that as a minimum must have been implanted on this planet) could have contained in some condensed form sufficient information and machinery to evolve into all the life forms that have occurred? Or is it necessary that some additional injection or meddling was necessary along the way? For instance, as I understand it, the frog was one of the first creatures to invade the land from the sea and all land vertebrates evolved from the frog. So one question would be, is there sufficient information in the DNA of a frog, to have the potential of developing (by pre-designed but natural means) into all the land animals that have occurred (and of course the sea mammals)? Or is it necessary to postulate some other source of DNA information which needs to be added to the limited information available in frog DNA? So my question is really this:- From your knowledge of the DNA content of various life forms (and assuming the so-called junk DNA between gene coding regions actually contains useful information for possible future evolution), is there sufficient information in the DNA of simpler looking life forms to allow them to evolve into the more complex types, or does information need to be added?
Re: [Vo]:Punctuated equilibrium
In my previous existence here, Nigel and I engaged is quite a long discussion about evolution. We did it offline. At that time, I asked Nigel to provide evidence of what he considers to be clear proof of evolution. I don't believe he has satisfied that criteria. So, now, I would like to ask Nigel to provide the group with his best proof (genetic or otherwise) of evolution happenning. Not speculation of maybe this, maybe that, this should happen, that should happen ...etc. Just clear simple proof of evolution that is observable. You see, sometimes many highly qualified people would infer from the data their interpretation of what the data means. This is what Nigel is doing. He is inferring that the genetic data appears to match Darwinian Evolution Theory. But Folks, we need to be circumspect enough to separate the fact from its interpretation. The fact is the fact, but interpretation of what that fact infers is just an opinion. Jojo - Original Message - From: Nigel Dyer l...@thedyers.org.uk To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2014 6:49 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Punctuated equilibrium In answer to jwinter To my mind there are two separate evolution question problems that need to be addressed. The first, which you pick up on, is the evolution of the complex folding proteins, and the second is the evolution of the information that is used to define the complex structure of multi celled organisms (such as us). There are countless examples which show how duplication of whole or parts of genes genes, mutation of parts of genes can create complex proteins from simple proteins. Indeed the relationship between equivalent proteins in different organsisms can often be used to produce a 'family tree' or phylogentic tree which closely mirrors the accepted evolutionary relationship between the species, and shows how a simple ancestral protein gave rise to lots of complex variants in different plants/animals. The evolution of structure/form and instincts which is what Darwin talks about, because he knows nothing of proteins, is very different because we still understand very little about how this is encoded into the DNA, although there is absolute evidence that it is. This is increasingly looking to be encoded in the 'junk' DNA in a much more distributed and robust way (like a hologram). These can change and mutate and give rise to variations in the organism without being lethal. A lot of the statistics that creationists use to show that evolution is improbable is based on the sequences in genes that encode for proteins, where small changes are frequently lethal. The statistics for the rest of the DNA is completely different, and I beleive completely compatible with the evolutionary model. So, I see no need for additional injection or meddling in order that DNA could go from producing simple lifeforms to complex lifeforms, but I dont think this can be proved mathematically yet because we dont understand the 'junk DNA' coding rules yet. However, my hunch is that we are in for a big surprise when we finally work out what the coding rules are, but that is a different topic entirely. And the first animal to emerge from the sea was not a frog, but probably shared some aspects of the way that it breathed with frogs. Nigel For quite a while I have wanted to ask someone working in your field about what DNA has to say about evolution of species so maybe now is a good time. I have almost no doubt that physical life on this planet has evolved from a very simple looking self-replicating organism into the plethora of life forms which past and present have occupied it. But the mechanism by which this process occurs is still a complete mystery to me. I am totally convinced (from the maths) that random processes cannot by any means produce the complex folding proteins that are needed for life - so the question is how did they arise? Is it possible that the first life form (that as a minimum must have been implanted on this planet) could have contained in some condensed form sufficient information and machinery to evolve into all the life forms that have occurred? Or is it necessary that some additional injection or meddling was necessary along the way? For instance, as I understand it, the frog was one of the first creatures to invade the land from the sea and all land vertebrates evolved from the frog. So one question would be, is there sufficient information in the DNA of a frog, to have the potential of developing (by pre-designed but natural means) into all the land animals that have occurred (and of course the sea mammals)? Or is it necessary to postulate some other source of DNA information which needs to be added to the limited information available in frog DNA? So my question is really this:- From your knowledge of the DNA content of various life forms (and assuming the so-called junk DNA between
Re: [Vo]:Punctuated equilibrium
Hi Nigel, Thanks for your erudite and interesting answers. However I don't think you really answered the question I was interested in because you are so saturated with the current paradigm. I sense from your answer that you are happy with the idea that given an *actually* simple (in comparison to later more complex) self-replicating life form, random mutations and selection is sufficient to generate all life as we know it. I don't wish to argue against that view, even though for myself I find it impossible to believe. If you could momentarily put aside the current paradigm and consider the possibility that we have been visited by aliens who although evolving completely independently on another planet have, incredibly as it may seem, ended up with compatible DNA to our own - so that a case of hybrid sexual intercourse such as Antonio Vilas Boas http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ant%C3%B4nio_Vilas_Boas case could occur. The implications to evolution of this type of case being true are I think quite revolutionary. It means for instance that the final human DNA outcome from the whole evolution process must be completely determined from the very beginning!!! I really don't want to hear arguments about how this is impossible and the Vilas Boas case must be fake - I appreciate them fully. What I would like is if you could withhold disbelief sufficiently to consider whether there you can see an argument from within your field of evolutionary genetics? For instance, is it possible that there is sufficient information programmed into the simplest life forms (or at least the ones that unfolded into the forms of life that finally resulted in us) to at least allow, if not ensure, that the final result would be human? Also I wonder what is the current guess at the first (and ongoingly successful) animal to emerge from the sea? I saw some large carnivore types that were proposed - but how would they live on land without other animals to eat? And if they had to go back into the sea to eat (which is their main daily and lifelong task) why not simply stay there. I think it would need to be an animal that could live well on land plants and/or insects (which I believe long preceded the vertebrates). John On 27/08/2014 6:49 AM, Nigel Dyer wrote: To my mind there are two separate evolution question problems that need to be addressed. The first, which you pick up on, is the evolution of the complex folding proteins, and the second is the evolution of the information that is used to define the complex structure of multi celled organisms (such as us). There are countless examples which show how duplication of whole or parts of genes genes, mutation of parts of genes can create complex proteins from simple proteins. Indeed the relationship between equivalent proteins in different organsisms can often be used to produce a 'family tree' or phylogentic tree which closely mirrors the accepted evolutionary relationship between the species, and shows how a simple ancestral protein gave rise to lots of complex variants in different plants/animals. The evolution of structure/form and instincts which is what Darwin talks about, because he knows nothing of proteins, is very different because we still understand very little about how this is encoded into the DNA, although there is absolute evidence that it is. This is increasingly looking to be encoded in the 'junk' DNA in a much more distributed and robust way (like a hologram). These can change and mutate and give rise to variations in the organism without being lethal. A lot of the statistics that creationists use to show that evolution is improbable is based on the sequences in genes that encode for proteins, where small changes are frequently lethal. The statistics for the rest of the DNA is completely different, and I beleive completely compatible with the evolutionary model. So, I see no need for additional injection or meddling in order that DNA could go from producing simple lifeforms to complex lifeforms, but I dont think this can be proved mathematically yet because we dont understand the 'junk DNA' coding rules yet. However, my hunch is that we are in for a big surprise when we finally work out what the coding rules are, but that is a different topic entirely. And the first animal to emerge from the sea was not a frog, but probably shared some aspects of the way that it breathed with frogs.
Re: [Vo]:Punctuated equilibrium
On 27/08/2014 9:09 AM, Jojo Iznart wrote: In my previous existence here, Nigel and I engaged is quite a long discussion about evolution. We did it offline. At that time, I asked Nigel to provide evidence of what he considers to be clear proof of evolution. I don't believe he has satisfied that criteria. Nothing would satisfy that criteria for people like Jojo. A termite colony takes up residence in a 1000 year old dead tree trunk. A biologist walks by and catches a few termites for analysis. A scientific paper is published with the interest grabbing title living termites carbon dated as 1000 years old! Because of a few interesting examples like this Jojo writes off the entire discipline of radionuclide dating with all of its endless self-consistent and cross-discipline consistent results. If you can't date at what time in the past various life forms lived and thus say which ones came before others, then what is left to say!? You may as well save your typing! So, now, I would like to ask Nigel to provide the group with his best proof (genetic or otherwise) of evolution happenning. Not speculation of maybe this, maybe that, this should happen, that should happen ...etc. Just clear simple proof of evolution that is observable. You see, sometimes many highly qualified people would infer from the data their interpretation of what the data means. This is what Nigel is doing. He is inferring that the genetic data appears to match Darwinian Evolution Theory. But Folks, we need to be circumspect enough to separate the fact from its interpretation. The fact is the fact, but interpretation of what that fact infers is just an opinion.
Re: [Vo]:Punctuated equilibrium
http://phys.org/news/2013-07-chimp-pig-hybrid-humans.html It's not aliens, it's pigs. In the case of chimp http://phys.org/tags/chimp/ - pig hybridization, the direction of the cross would likely have been a male boar or pig (Sus scrofa) with a female chimp (Pan troglodytes), and the offspring would have been nurtured by a chimp mother among chimpanzees http://phys.org/tags/chimpanzees/ (shades of Tarzan!). The physical evidence for this is convincing, as you can discover for yourself with a trip over to macroevolution.net http://www.macroevolution.net/human-origins.html#.UdQn3Zz5T1U. On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 11:40 PM, jwin...@cyllene.uwa.edu.au wrote: Hi Nigel, Thanks for your erudite and interesting answers. However I don't think you really answered the question I was interested in because you are so saturated with the current paradigm. I sense from your answer that you are happy with the idea that given an *actually* simple (in comparison to later more complex) self-replicating life form, random mutations and selection is sufficient to generate all life as we know it. I don't wish to argue against that view, even though for myself I find it impossible to believe. If you could momentarily put aside the current paradigm and consider the possibility that we have been visited by aliens who although evolving completely independently on another planet have, incredibly as it may seem, ended up with compatible DNA to our own - so that a case of hybrid sexual intercourse such as Antonio Vilas Boas http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ant%C3%B4nio_Vilas_Boas case could occur. The implications to evolution of this type of case being true are I think quite revolutionary. It means for instance that the final human DNA outcome from the whole evolution process must be completely determined from the very beginning!!! I really don't want to hear arguments about how this is impossible and the Vilas Boas case must be fake - I appreciate them fully. What I would like is if you could withhold disbelief sufficiently to consider whether there you can see an argument from within your field of evolutionary genetics? For instance, is it possible that there is sufficient information programmed into the simplest life forms (or at least the ones that unfolded into the forms of life that finally resulted in us) to at least allow, if not ensure, that the final result would be human? Also I wonder what is the current guess at the first (and ongoingly successful) animal to emerge from the sea? I saw some large carnivore types that were proposed - but how would they live on land without other animals to eat? And if they had to go back into the sea to eat (which is their main daily and lifelong task) why not simply stay there. I think it would need to be an animal that could live well on land plants and/or insects (which I believe long preceded the vertebrates). John On 27/08/2014 6:49 AM, Nigel Dyer wrote: To my mind there are two separate evolution question problems that need to be addressed. The first, which you pick up on, is the evolution of the complex folding proteins, and the second is the evolution of the information that is used to define the complex structure of multi celled organisms (such as us). There are countless examples which show how duplication of whole or parts of genes genes, mutation of parts of genes can create complex proteins from simple proteins. Indeed the relationship between equivalent proteins in different organsisms can often be used to produce a 'family tree' or phylogentic tree which closely mirrors the accepted evolutionary relationship between the species, and shows how a simple ancestral protein gave rise to lots of complex variants in different plants/animals. The evolution of structure/form and instincts which is what Darwin talks about, because he knows nothing of proteins, is very different because we still understand very little about how this is encoded into the DNA, although there is absolute evidence that it is. This is increasingly looking to be encoded in the 'junk' DNA in a much more distributed and robust way (like a hologram). These can change and mutate and give rise to variations in the organism without being lethal. A lot of the statistics that creationists use to show that evolution is improbable is based on the sequences in genes that encode for proteins, where small changes are frequently lethal. The statistics for the rest of the DNA is completely different, and I beleive completely compatible with the evolutionary model. So, I see no need for additional injection or meddling in order that DNA could go from producing simple lifeforms to complex lifeforms, but I dont think this can be proved mathematically yet because we dont understand the 'junk DNA' coding rules yet. However, my hunch is that we are in for a big surprise when we finally work out what the coding rules are, but that is
Re: [Vo]:Punctuated equilibrium
Yes, Darwin is too boring. And as soon as you know the concept of evolution, it becomes obvious. So, I never could get past the first paragraph. Mendelian inheritance, although it is a very rough model, seems to be much more informative, educational and of practical use. 2014-08-26 16:14 GMT-03:00 jwin...@cyllene.uwa.edu.au: round to reading it. Knowing that Darwin knew nothing of genetics, I have trouble in getting excited about anything he might have to say on the subject - which is why I haven't read it yet. But on your recommendation maybe I should. -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
