Evolution RIP morphological homology2.0

Creationism, Evolution, and other science issues

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
EarthScienceguy
Guru
Posts: 2192
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2018 2:53 pm
Has thanked: 33 times
Been thanked: 43 times
Contact:

Evolution RIP morphological homology2.0

Post #1

Post by EarthScienceguy »

Problem 1

In the paper below El-Shehawl and Esseehy make the following following observation.
"The lack of correlation between Genome Size and Chromosome number as well as the location of human genome among other genomes provide evidence against the darwinian evolution theory. Results indicate that human which is considered the most developed and complicated species does not have the largest genome or chromosome number among living organisms. The 3943 genomes smaller than human genome and the 2108 genomes larger than human genome have a mix of plant and animal genomes. In addition, some genomes have the same genome size, but form and reproduce completely different organisms."


Some Early theories explained variation in genome size by large amounts of non-coding DNA, but it was criticized by the fact that evolution does ot possess such foresight and the non-coding DNA in eukaryotic genomes mostly consists of repetitive elements of various lengths and does not contribute to the structure of functional genes. This confirms the lack of genome size evolution trend of living groups and that plant and animals genomes appeared simultaneously not in a specific sequence as it has been claimed by Darwinian evolution theory.


So, based on Darwinian evolution from common ancestor, we expect gradual change (increase) in genome size from the assumed common ancestor (smallest detected genome in this study, Buchnera) to the largest detected genome (P. aethiopicus). Based on this assumption, human is expected to have the larges genome because it is the most recent and the most developed species on earth, and consequently is expected to lie at the end of genome size evolution curve. In addition, according to the Darwinian evolution from common ancestor, the gradual increase in genome size must be correlated with gradual increase or decrease in chromosome number (chromosome number evolution). This rules out the idea that human genome evolved from smaller pre-existing genome. It is well documented that the genome size of an organism does not reflect its structural complexity which raised the question about what mechanisms led to the huge variation in genome size. This was described as the "C-value enigma".


In addition, finding diploid plants with larger genome size than human genome raises a cloud of doubt about the sequence of appearance of living organisms on the earth.

https://www.omicsonline.org/open-access ... ?aid=89529
The above paper indicates that there is no evolutionary trend in the genome of living organisms.


Problem 2

Morphological Homology

Darwinian evolution suggest that we come from a common ancestor and so morphology of organisms should indicate that. Take for example the eye of the classic example of the similarity between the eyes of humans and vertebrates and the eyes of squids and octopuses. The octopus eye and the vertebrate eye are complete, complex, and totally distinct from one another right from their first appearance in the fossil sequence. The vertebrate eye “shares design features but not evolution� with the eye of the cephalopod mollusks such as the octopus.

Some call this an example of convergence. But the entire idea of convergence would indicate the evolution based on morphology does not exist.


So the genome does indicate evolution taking place morphology does not indicate evolution taking place. The only logical conclusion is that Evolution does not happen and has never taken place.



And the following is supported by the evidence about.

Independent appearance of living organism on the Earth. I.E. the Biblical kinds.

User avatar
EarthScienceguy
Guru
Posts: 2192
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2018 2:53 pm
Has thanked: 33 times
Been thanked: 43 times
Contact:

Re: Evolution RIP morphological homology2.0

Post #11

Post by EarthScienceguy »

[Replying to post 4 by ATN]

Nice thoughtful question, I like it.

It is a field of study called BARAMINOLOGY.

https://creationresearch.org/current-st ... aminology/

User avatar
EarthScienceguy
Guru
Posts: 2192
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2018 2:53 pm
Has thanked: 33 times
Been thanked: 43 times
Contact:

Re: Evolution RIP morphological homology2.0

Post #12

Post by EarthScienceguy »

[Replying to post 8 by DrNoGods]
Why should there be a trend?
This comment is just another demonstration that you don't really understand how all of this works.

First, there is no such thing as a "coding protein." Genes do the coding (of proteins) via the arrangement of base pairs on the gene. The base pairs are organized on the gene in groups of 3 called codons, and each codon specifies an amino acid. The ordering of the codons specifies the ordering of amino acids on the protein. So what you really mean to say is coding gene, not coding protein. Do you know the difference between a gene and a protein?

Second, the median protein length in a human is about 375 amino acids (the longest is Titin with 34,350 amino acids). You are trying to create a large statistical number by continuing to toss out the statistical number of ways that 20 amino acids could combine to make a 100 amino acid long protein, then claiming that this number of combinations would have to be "gone through" to randomly arrive at any particular mutation that could become fixed (ie. selected). But that is not how it works. Here is your comment from post 97 in this thread:
If what you said was true then we should see some sort of linear progression in the genome connecting phenotypes that we see in nature. That is not what we see. What good is a theory if it makes predictions and does not follow its own predictions.

DeMotts
Scholar
Posts: 276
Joined: Tue Apr 28, 2015 1:58 pm
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 22 times

Re: Evolution RIP morphological homology2.0

Post #13

Post by DeMotts »

EarthScienceguy wrote: If what you said was true then we should see some sort of linear progression in the genome connecting phenotypes that we see in nature. That is not what we see. What good is a theory if it makes predictions and does not follow its own predictions.
When we examine genomes we find that we are a similar genomic percent different from chimps and bonobos. We then find that chimps, bonobos and humans are a similar percentage different from gorillas. We then find that chimps, bonobos, humans and gorillas are similar percentage different from orangutans. We then find that chimps, bonobos, humans, gorillas and orangutans are a similar percentage different from lesser apes. We then find that lesser apes and great apes are a similar percentage different from old world monkeys.

Image

This is exactly the type of pattern you are asking for, and here it is.

If they didn't evolve from series of common ancestors - please explain why we see similar genomic difference between these branches of primates.

User avatar
Goat
Site Supporter
Posts: 24999
Joined: Fri Jul 21, 2006 6:09 pm
Has thanked: 25 times
Been thanked: 207 times

Re: Evolution RIP morphological homology2.0

Post #14

Post by Goat »

EarthScienceguy wrote: [Replying to post 3 by DeMotts]
In addition to what DrNoGods posted, this completely ignores the fact that genomes can contract or contain non-coding DNA. Paris japonica is a flower that is 50 times the size of the human genome. Does this somehow mean it has evolved 50 times as much or is 50 times as complex? Of course not. You can read more about this is you look up the C-value enigma.
Thank you so much for making my point

There is no direction. Darwinian evolution would predict that there must me some sort of organization to the genome and there is not. It there is not any organization to the genome then there would be no evolution from common decent.

Whether you agree with his assumption about man being the most advanced organism really does not matter. The facts is there is no trend in the among genomes of the life.

Uh. no, Organization to the genome and direction for evolution is two different things. You are conflating issues.

You are building straw men.
“What do you think science is? There is nothing magical about science. It is simply a systematic way for carefully and thoroughly observing nature and using consistent logic to evaluate results. So which part of that exactly do you disagree with? Do you disagree with being thorough? Using careful observation? Being systematic? Or using consistent logic?�

Steven Novella

ATN
Student
Posts: 26
Joined: Wed Sep 26, 2018 5:26 pm

Re: Evolution RIP morphological homology2.0

Post #15

Post by ATN »

[Replying to post 11 by EarthScienceguy]

From what I gather, Baraminolygy once used reproductivity as criteria, but now they look for "discontinuation" between animals. Wert seems to think evolutionary "familia" just about hit a baramin or kind. He admits himself that there is obscure where the line between baramins go (no definition). It really seams like they take the evolutionary three of life and put the lines where it suits them.

Are you a young Earth creationist? Was it, in your estimate, a Noah's flood? If so, how long ago? Just about 4'000 years ago?

User avatar
DrNoGods
Prodigy
Posts: 2716
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2017 2:18 pm
Location: Nevada
Has thanked: 593 times
Been thanked: 1642 times

Re: Evolution RIP morphological homology2.0

Post #16

Post by DrNoGods »

[Replying to post 12 by EarthScienceguy]
If what you said was true then we should see some sort of linear progression in the genome connecting phenotypes that we see in nature. That is not what we see. What good is a theory if it makes predictions and does not follow its own predictions.


As pointed out by DeMotts, we do see these kinds of progressions (they don't have to be linear). But evolution doesn't make predictions. We can observe patterns and sequences and use those observations to confirm the theory, which has been done so often that it is now called a theory rather than a hypothesis.

And there are different levels of "graininess" in ToE. If you take a big picture view and look at all tetrapods, for example, it is clear that there is a lot of commonality in skeletal structure. This is a morphological feature that is controlled by common genetic functions that create the growth paths of various skeletons. This link shows the skeleton of a flying mammal ... a bat:

http://www.ikonet.com/en/visualdictiona ... -a-bat.php

Note how many common features there are to a human (another mammal) skeleton in terms of the basic structure. This is consistent with evolution both from the genetics standpoint as well as morphology. There is no requirement that there be some kind of linear progression from a bat to a human, and ToE doesn't "predict" any such thing.

Again, evolutionary change is usually a response (via mutations and natural selection) to changes in the overall living environment such as climate, geography, mix of predators and prey, availability of food sources (eg. beak length in Darwin's finches), disease, etc. These factors are not predictable, in general, so the path evolution will take is also not predictable. There is no reason to expect a smooth transition between one creature and the next, or a predictable path, because the external factors that drive evolutionary change are themselves not always predictable.
In human affairs the sources of success are ever to be found in the fountains of quick resolve and swift stroke; and it seems to be a law, inflexible and inexorable, that he who will not risk cannot win.
John Paul Jones, 1779

The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read.
Mark Twain

Donray
Guru
Posts: 1195
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2011 8:25 pm
Location: CA
Been thanked: 3 times

Post #17

Post by Donray »

Everyone, ignore any Earythscience guys posts until he can come up with a logical replacement for evolution that fit with all the fossil records.

He posted once that he believes in a KINDS and ADAPTATION theory but never expanded on this.

Ignore his posts until he give a solid theory to replace evolution and will debate it.

User avatar
EarthScienceguy
Guru
Posts: 2192
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2018 2:53 pm
Has thanked: 33 times
Been thanked: 43 times
Contact:

Re: Evolution RIP morphological homology2.0

Post #18

Post by EarthScienceguy »

[Replying to post 8 by DrNoGods]
Enough morphological change will result in a different looking creature, but as with the high altitude adaptations in humans there can be evolutionary change that is not accompanied by obvious morphological change, and vice versa. Eyes have developed many different times with many different designs. Morphology requires genetic change (eg. for long hair and stubby legs vs. short hair and longer legs), but there is no requirement in ToE that all genetic changes follow morphology.

For morphology to change there has to be a change in the genome. So there must be a change in the genome to cause morphological change. I would think that we would both agree on this. Now where we would disagree is my view that morphological change only occurs through heredity. You would say that it would be through heredity and mutations.

Change through heredity and change through heredity and mutations should follow the equations that your "Big Eye" paper used if the equations is correct.

R = h^2i V m or R = h^2 i Op

Where
h is heritability
i is intensity of selection
V is the coefficient of variation
m is mean
R which is the observable change in each generation

In this equation the only difference between what you believe and what I believe is the h value and the Op value. I would make the h value 1 and you if you follow the the big eye paper would make the h value somewhere around 0.5.

I would also say that Op value would have a maximum. As long as h remains a constant both should produce a linear graph.

A linear relationship can be easily shown with heredity equal to 1 just look at breeding experiments.

What is not observed is a the linear relationship when we calculate in the possibility of mutations.

User avatar
EarthScienceguy
Guru
Posts: 2192
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2018 2:53 pm
Has thanked: 33 times
Been thanked: 43 times
Contact:

Post #19

Post by EarthScienceguy »

[Replying to post 17 by Donray]

Why is that? If evolution is such a robust theory, then it should hold up under little scrutiny.

Besides the topic on the string is Evolution RIP, I would think that means that we would be talking about the problems with evolution.

User avatar
EarthScienceguy
Guru
Posts: 2192
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2018 2:53 pm
Has thanked: 33 times
Been thanked: 43 times
Contact:

Re: Evolution RIP morphological homology2.0

Post #20

Post by EarthScienceguy »

[Replying to post 16 by DrNoGods]
As pointed out by DeMotts, we do see these kinds of progressions (they don't have to be linear). But evolution doesn't make predictions. We can observe patterns and sequences and use those observations to confirm the theory, which has been done so often that it is now called a theory rather than a hypothesis.
Your big eye paper did.

Post Reply