Evolution RIP morphological homology2.0

Creationism, Evolution, and other science issues

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
EarthScienceguy
Guru
Posts: 1669
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2018 2:53 pm
Has thanked: 16 times
Been thanked: 35 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
DrNoGods
Guru
Posts: 1982
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2017 2:18 pm
Location: Tucson, AZ
Has thanked: 367 times
Been thanked: 886 times

Re: Evolution RIP morphological homology2.0

Post #2

Post by DrNoGods »

[Replying to post 1 by EarthScienceguy]
In the paper below El-Shehawl and Esseehy make the following following observation.


This "journal" is a useless publication and publishes garbage like the paper you referenced, which is obvious just from reading that paper. But it is apparently also common knowledge that it isn't legitimate.

http://phylonetworks.blogspot.com/2013/ ... onary.html

This paper makes a completely wrong assumption that humans are some kind of end result of the evolution process and therefore should have the largest genome and the largest number of chromosomes. What utter nonsense! Where do you find this junk? Or more importantly, why do you actually believe it? Nothing in ToE suggests that humans are the endpoint of the process, or the most complex, etc. But you fell for it hook, line and sinker.
Some call this an example of convergence. But the entire idea of convergence would indicate the evolution based on morphology does not exist.


What?
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.


Independent of all the other nonsensical stuff you are throwing out here, no logical person would take those two statements and conclude what you just concluded.

Looks like Evolution RIP 2.0 is another fail.
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

DeMotts
Scholar
Posts: 263
Joined: Tue Apr 28, 2015 1:58 pm
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 11 times

Re: Evolution RIP morphological homology2.0

Post #3

Post by DeMotts »

[Replying to post 1 by EarthScienceguy]

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.
C-values vary enormously among species. In animals they range more than 3,300-fold, and in land plants they differ by a factor of about 1,000.[5][7] Protist genomes have been reported to vary more than 300,000-fold in size, but the high end of this range (Amoeba) has been called into question. Variation in C-values bears no relationship to the complexity of the organism or the number of genes contained in its genome; for example, some single-celled protists have genomes much larger than that of humans. This observation was deemed counterintuitive before the discovery of non-coding DNA. It became known as the C-value paradox as a result. However, although there is no longer any paradoxical aspect to the discrepancy between C-value and gene number, this term remains in common usage. For reasons of conceptual clarification, the various puzzles that remain with regard to genome size variation instead have been suggested to more accurately comprise a complex but clearly defined puzzle known as the C-value enigma. C-values correlate with a range of features at the cell and organism levels, including cell size, cell division rate, and, depending on the taxon, body size, metabolic rate, developmental rate, organ complexity, geographical distribution, or extinction risk (for recent reviews, see Bennett and Leitch 2005;[5] Gregory 2005[7]).

The C-value enigma or C-value paradox is the complex puzzle surrounding the extensive variation in nuclear genome size among eukaryotic species. At the center of the C-value enigma is the observation that genome size does not correlate with organismal complexity; for example, some single-celled protists have genomes much larger than that of humans.
Further, I would love to hear which evolutionist asserted that the most complicated and "newest" creatures MUST have the largest genomes. This so called paper is disproving a theory that no evolutionist made, because no evolutionist views genomes that way.

As for the other point about convergence, different animals having similar solutions for their environments is a point in favour of evolution. Squid and octopus eyes are different from human eyes but still demonstrate the usefulness of having visual acuity. Animals that diverge where a distinct population migrates to a cave system lose their vision over time. (https://academic.oup.com/mbe/article/35/8/2005/5000155)

Bats and birds have different wings but they both still fly. Whales, dolphins, fish and sharks all have fins despite completely different evolutionary paths. What does this point even mean? Because two animals develop similar features it's impossible that they both evolved? I mean this is really silly stuff.

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

Re: Evolution RIP morphological homology2.0

Post #4

Post by ATN »

[Replying to EarthScienceguy]

EarthScienceguy, what is the definition of you biblical kind?
Is fish defined as a kind?
Do you have to be more specific and call salmon a kind?
Or is kind even more specific, is it only the same kind if it "bring forth" together? The specification equal to Kokanee salmon?

Are there multiple types of kinds, so several of your answers are "yes". Why or why not? If yes, how do we differentiate between them? Is it different names of the different types of kinds?

User avatar
Divine Insight
Savant
Posts: 18080
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2012 10:59 pm
Location: Here & Now
Been thanked: 15 times

Re: Evolution RIP morphological homology2.0

Post #5

Post by Divine Insight »

EarthScienceguy wrote: And the following is supported by the evidence about.

Independent appearance of living organism on the Earth. I.E. the Biblical kinds.
Even if we didn't know about evolution the Biblical narrative makes no sense. So it fails as a theology in any case.

The very idea that a Creator God would create a universe that is hostile to life resulting in this God having to babysit every biological process by-hand independently makes no sense. This would be a God who had created a world that is detrimental to his own purposes.

Not only this, but once you conclude that a God is personally responsible for manually intervening in every biological process intentionally you then end up with a God who is necessarily personally responsible for every disease and genetic defect that has ever occurred.

This becomes a theology that is simply insane. This creator God would then be personally responsible for everything, including whether or not a woman gets pregnant.

In other words, when a legitimate married couple cannot have a baby, this could only be God's doing. And when any woman becomes pregnant due to unwanted rape, that too is God's doing. Etc.

Once you go down this theological path you have a God who is responsible for all the ills of the world. So you haven't gained anything in your attempts to dismiss natural evolution. Even if you succeeded you would end up with a theology that is based upon a necessarily malevolent creator.

So good luck with this approach to trying to save a dead theology. You're going to need all the luck you can muster.
[center]Image
Spiritual Growth - A person's continual assessment
of how well they believe they are doing
relative to what they believe a personal God expects of them.
[/center]

User avatar
EarthScienceguy
Guru
Posts: 1669
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2018 2:53 pm
Has thanked: 16 times
Been thanked: 35 times
Contact:

Re: Evolution RIP morphological homology2.0

Post #6

Post by EarthScienceguy »

[Replying to DrNoGods]

You are missing the point. Based on Darwinian evolution from some sort of common ancestor there should be some sort of trend. And there is not. Therefore, there are not any predictions that evolution can make about the future of the genome.

And are you saying that man is not the most advanced form of life. That man has not dominated their environment. So what will the genome look like of the life that will place man? (putting this in your worldview.)


Morphology of development does not indicate any type of common decent either. Hence my Eye example.

Morphology is how Darwin came up with his "hypothesis of evolution".

So morphology does not support evolution and trends in the genome does not support evolution. There is no one that can predict a direction the genome will take. Evolution cannot make any predictions about the future. Except the those of heredity that creationist would make.

User avatar
EarthScienceguy
Guru
Posts: 1669
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2018 2:53 pm
Has thanked: 16 times
Been thanked: 35 times
Contact:

Re: Evolution RIP morphological homology2.0

Post #7

Post by EarthScienceguy »

[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.

User avatar
DrNoGods
Guru
Posts: 1982
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2017 2:18 pm
Location: Tucson, AZ
Has thanked: 367 times
Been thanked: 886 times

Re: Evolution RIP morphological homology2.0

Post #8

Post by DrNoGods »

[Replying to post 6 by EarthScienceguy]
Based on Darwinian evolution from some sort of common ancestor there should be some sort of trend. Therefore, there are not any predictions that evolution can make about the future of the genome.


Why should there be a trend? Evolution is not a process that leads to any specific outcome or set of creatures. There is no "plan" for what may come next. If the earth's atmosphere somehow slowly became less oxygenated over the next few million years and dominated by CO2 (like Mars and Venus both are, although at vastly different surface pressures) then humans would slowly adapt (or die out) and eventually may have lungs that can extract O2 from CO2 rather than by breathing it in directly. There would be other physical changes as well. But if this hypothetical shift from O2 to CO2 happened slowly enough, you'd end up with a population of humans with very different lungs and probably other changes as well. But it would not be due to any "plan" or prediction by the genome ... it would be caused by the environmental change and by the genome reacting to that via natural selection. Just look at the different ways humans have evolved changes just in the last few tens of thousands of years to adapt to high altitudes:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-alti ... _in_humans

This is how evolution works.
And are you saying that man is not the most advanced form of life. That man has not dominated their environment. So what will the genome look like of the life that will place man? (putting this in your worldview.)


No, man is not the most advanced form of life. Man has evolved the most complex and capable brain, but otherwise we're wimps in comparison to many other animals when it comes to physical size, strength, eyesight, hearing, running speed, etc. The only thing humans have over other mammals is our brain, which evolved from a much smaller, less capable version in Homo habilis or Homo erectus, to the large, mostly neocortex version we have today. Neandertals had larger brains than Homo sapiens. You seem to be equating mental intelligence with "advanced" in terms of evolution, but that is not the case.
Morphology of development does not indicate any type of common decent either. Hence my Eye example.


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.
There is no one that can predict a direction the genome will take. Evolution cannot make any predictions about the future.


Right ... you've finally made a correct statement regarding evolution. But this doesn't help your argument. Evolution does not try to predict anything about the future ... that is not part of the theory in any way. So you're left with a claim that morphology must trend according to ToE, but nothing in ToE actually says this. A creature will adapt to its environment, or die out, and if this requires morphological change then that will happen given enough time and beneficial mutations.
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

DeMotts
Scholar
Posts: 263
Joined: Tue Apr 28, 2015 1:58 pm
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 11 times

Re: Evolution RIP morphological homology2.0

Post #9

Post by DeMotts »

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.
But you're just asserting that this must be true - that genomes MUST get larger over time. This is like saying that spiders MUST be more complex organisms than humans because they have 8 eyes and eye number MUST increase over time. It's a totally arbitrary assertion. A given genome could rapidly increase down a certain pathway for a huge number of reasons, hence the example of Paris japonica. Protists could massively and very quickly inflate their genome number through rapid change, it doesn't mean that they are older, newer, or more or less "advanced". The point is that there is no correlation between genome size and age or pathway of organism - this doesn't prove your point at all. You have simply decided what YOU personally expect to see - "every successive organism MUST have a larger genome" - and throwing out everything else when it doesn't meet an expectation you have concocted for some reason.

Genomes can contract. Genomes have huge amounts of junk DNA. Genomes don't HAVE to do anything you're saying. A much better metric to examine would be genome differences between closely related animals. We have a genetic difference of approximately 1.6% with our closest relatives - chimpanzees and bonobos. Interestingly, bonobos, chimps and humans ALL show the same genetic difference from gorillas, indicating that our group of bonobos, chimps and humans share a common ancestor with gorillas. All great apes and humans differ from rhesus monkeys by a factor of about 7%, indicating a common ancestor with rhesus monkeys. All of these genomes have had sections deleted, copied, changed. The SIZE doesn't matter, the amount of similarity and difference does. There is a pattern, it's just not the one you have decided should exist, based on nothing at all.
Last edited by DeMotts on Tue Oct 09, 2018 11:10 am, edited 4 times in total.

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

Re: Evolution RIP morphological homology2.0

Post #10

Post by ATN »

[Replying to post 7 by EarthScienceguy]

You have some misconception about evolution. There isn't any organization mechanism I am aware of in evolutionary theory, I would think that is what should be expected if an intelligent being organized the DNA into all living things.

The length of the genome effect it's stability, a longer genome is less stable and mutate more often. Its length don't equal more advanced.

There is many traits other animals have that is more advanced than human traits, but we have a problem solving ability that is very useful to self-adapt to different environments.

What do you mean when you say "trend" in common decent? It is a trend to find similar creatures changing over time. It's a trend seeing creatures splitting into different creatures over time. It's a trend that fellowing a creatures development back through time it's charring more traits with other creatures of the same time.

Still haven't heard what you mean by "kind".

Post Reply