Evolution RIP morphological homology2.0

Creationism, Evolution, and other science issues

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
EarthScienceguy
Guru
Posts: 1640
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2018 2:53 pm
Has thanked: 13 times
Been thanked: 34 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: 1640
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2018 2:53 pm
Has thanked: 13 times
Been thanked: 34 times
Contact:

Re: Evolution RIP morphological homology2.0

Post #21

Post by EarthScienceguy »

[Replying to post 16 by DrNoGods]
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.

I understand that but for evolution to occur as you have been describing it. One "letter" at a time. There should be observable evidence that should follow some short of functional equation.

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

Re: Evolution RIP morphological homology2.0

Post #22

Post by ATN »

EarthScienceguy wrote: [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.
A prediction? What one?

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 #23

Post by DeMotts »

[Replying to EarthScienceguy]

You dodged my post on genome variability in primates. I'd appreciate an answer.

User avatar
EarthScienceguy
Guru
Posts: 1640
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2018 2:53 pm
Has thanked: 13 times
Been thanked: 34 times
Contact:

Re: Evolution RIP morphological homology2.0

Post #24

Post by EarthScienceguy »

[Replying to DeMotts]

Well, yeah except it isn't. Let's just take for instance the the two on your chart that are closest together. The human and the chimp.

1. Morphologically the human is much closer to the the orangutan than the chimp. This has led some scientist to suggest that man actually closer to an orangutan in origin than a chimp.

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/anim ... evolution/

So at the outset the morphological data and the genetic data do not correlate.

2. Chimps have 48 chromosomes and humans have but 46. With about the same genome size. So what is the trend we are seeing here. Is the trend towards smaller number of chromosomes. There had to be a correction made so the idea that the two chromosomes fused was invented. It had to be invented to make evolution narrative work.

3. The many of the genes humans have preform different functions than that of chimps.
It turned out that about every fifth gene behaved differently in humans and chimpanzees in the samples that were taken from the brain, heart, kidney and liver, while almost half of the genes behaved differently in testicular tissue. In all, the group was able to identify 90 transcription factors that were particularly different in humans and chimpanzees, says Almaas.
http://earthsky.org/earth/with-such-sim ... rom-chimps

Got to go so will stop here.

Donray
Guru
Posts: 1122
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2011 8:25 pm
Location: CA

Post #25

Post by Donray »

[Replying to post 19 by EarthScienceguy]

But you have no other theory except magic by an inviable god you belive in. No logical proof that even your invisible god exists.

A matter of fact your science proves that your god cannot exist and therefore only evaluation is the logical method that you are here.

Of course you get around the physical laws by setting the your god beyond all laws of the universe and its magic is great.

Evolution holds up under all your attacks as many have pointed out that your arguments are from ignorance. Of course you cannot even come up with an alternative let alone that would stand up to logical debate and scientific proof.

You have shown how ignorant you are of science and evolution.

User avatar
DrNoGods
Guru
Posts: 1902
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2017 2:18 pm
Location: Tucson, AZ
Has thanked: 347 times
Been thanked: 804 times

Re: Evolution RIP morphological homology2.0

Post #26

Post by DrNoGods »

[Replying to post 18 by EarthScienceguy]
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.


Yes ... that is why I said in the section you quoted "Morphology requires genetic change."
Now where we would disagree is my view that morphological change only occurs through heredity.


Heredity can only transfer existing genetic information from the parents. Unless a morphological feature is controlled by existing genetic information in the parents (eg. hair color and which genes are dominant for that trait in the mother and father) then the offspring cannot obtain a new trait via heredity. If neither parent has genes for red hair from their maternal or paternal lines, then their offspring cannot have genes for red hair unless a mutation occurs in the gamete cells (sperm and egg) that would create red hair in the offspring. But that is evolution (mutation) and not heredity.
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.


Assuming you mean h^2 and not h, a value of 0.5 is much more reasonable than a value of 1. Heritability is a measure of the change in variation in a trait across a population (not the change in the trait itself) due to genes alone, vs. genes and the environment. A value of 0 means any variation in the trait is due to environment alone, while a value of 1 means any variation in the trait is due to genes alone. A value of 1 is not seen in actual measurements and is not at all reasonable or realistic. Typical values are between 0.2 and 0.8 ... just Google the subject and there are many examples of this.

But that doesn't help your argument in any case. If you change h^2 from 0.5 to 1.0 in the equation for R you just get an even fewer number of generations to form an eye. h^2=1 gives R = 0.0001m, or 1.0001^n = 80129540, so n ~ 182,000 generations. This equation for R only evaluates to a fractional change in a trait per generation relative to the mean. If you change h^2 from 0.5 to 1.0 this only roughly doubles the fractional change you get per generation and therefore speeds up the process. It has nothing to do with whether those changes are due to environment or genes, which is contained entirely in the h^2 factor.
A linear relationship can be easily shown with heredity equal to 1 just look at breeding experiments.


A linear relationship for what? Again, R in the "big eye" paper only describes the fractional change per generation in a trait, and it is linear in h^2 (i, V and m being constant) for any value of h^2. But what parameters are you referring to as having a linear relationship, and how does that relate to "the possibility of mutations" not having a linear relationship? A linear relationship to what? Using the "big eye" paper's equation for R seems to have no relationship to the point you are trying to make, if that point is that morphological change happens only via heredity and not via mutations and natural selection (ie. evolution). The equation for R has no connection to that particular issue, regardless of the value for h^2, so I don't know why you broght that up at all.

If I understand your point then you don't need this equation for R. You need to explain how morphological changes that are not due solely to existing alleles and dominant/recessive properties being expressed in the offspring, can arise via heredity alone. That has nothing to do with R.
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

User avatar
DrNoGods
Guru
Posts: 1902
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2017 2:18 pm
Location: Tucson, AZ
Has thanked: 347 times
Been thanked: 804 times

Re: Evolution RIP morphological homology2.0

Post #27

Post by DrNoGods »

[Replying to post 24 by EarthScienceguy]
There had to be a correction made so the idea that the two chromosomes fused was invented. It had to be invented to make evolution narrative work.
This wasn't just "invented." There is evidence directly on the chromosomes how this happened (from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromosome_2):

The evidence for this includes:

The correspondence of chromosome 2 to two ape chromosomes. The closest human relative, the chimpanzee, has near-identical DNA sequences to human chromosome 2, but they are found in two separate chromosomes. The same is true of the more distant gorilla and orangutan.[10][11]

The presence of a vestigial centromere. Normally a chromosome has just one centromere, but in chromosome 2 there are remnants of a second centromere in the q21.3–q22.1 region.[12]

The presence of vestigial telomeres. These are normally found only at the ends of a chromosome, but in chromosome 2 there are additional telomere sequences in the q13 band, far from either end of the chromosome.[13]

According to researcher Jacob W. Ijdo, "We conclude that the locus cloned in cosmids c8.1 and c29B is the relic of an ancient telomere-telomere fusion and marks the point at which two ancestral ape chromosomes fused to give rise to human chromosome 2."[13]


There are many more easily-found descriptions of this fusion event, eg.:

https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/libr ... 73_47.html
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

User avatar
brunumb
Prodigy
Posts: 3930
Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2017 4:20 am
Location: Melbourne
Has thanked: 2998 times
Been thanked: 1633 times

Re: Evolution RIP morphological homology2.0

Post #28

Post by brunumb »

[Replying to post 24 by EarthScienceguy]
2. Chimps have 48 chromosomes and humans have but 46. With about the same genome size. So what is the trend we are seeing here. Is the trend towards smaller number of chromosomes. There had to be a correction made so the idea that the two chromosomes fused was invented. It had to be invented to make evolution narrative work.
The fusing of two chromosomes is well documented and supported. It is not merely an invention.
https://www.genome.gov/13514624/2005-re ... s-2-and-4/
Refute the evidence rather than simply waving your hands and making dismissive remarks. Jeffrey Tomkins claimed to debunk chromosome 2 fusion, but his case is flimsy and has been thoroughly debunked. This article is just a start and contains a few useful links.

3. The many of the genes humans have preform different functions than that of chimps.
So, what was your point?
One special group of transcription factors is called KRAB-ZNF. This is the most common type of transcription factor found in mammals and fully a third of them are found only in primates. The activity of these particular transcription factors was demonstrably different in the human brain than in chimpanzee.

“On average, KRAB-ZNF genes have many more mutations than other genes, in the time since we split from chimpanzees,� said Almaas. “This suggests that they have contributed to many of the important differences between us and chimpanzees.�
http://earthsky.org/earth/with-such-sim ... rom-chimps

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 #29

Post by DeMotts »

EarthScienceguy wrote: [Replying to DeMotts]

Well, yeah except it isn't. Let's just take for instance the the two on your chart that are closest together. The human and the chimp.

1. Morphologically the human is much closer to the the orangutan than the chimp. This has led some scientist to suggest that man actually closer to an orangutan in origin than a chimp.

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/anim ... evolution/

So at the outset the morphological data and the genetic data do not correlate.
That article makes it extremely clear that the paper is highly controversial and in no way at all widely accepted. The morphological similarities could be similar adaptations evolving in parallel. Again, you have decided what you expect to see and when the data is different you cry foul.
2. Chimps have 48 chromosomes and humans have but 46. With about the same genome size. So what is the trend we are seeing here. Is the trend towards smaller number of chromosomes. There had to be a correction made so the idea that the two chromosomes fused was invented. It had to be invented to make evolution narrative work.
As has been posted by brunumb and DrNoGods the presence of vestigial centromeres is solid evidence of the ancient fusing of chromosomes, given that the chromosomes themselves are almost identical. Why are you saying this is "invented"? This is like a police investigator arriving at a murder scene and saying the bullet holes in the victim are an invention to make the gun narrative fit. They are evidence of what happened.
3. The many of the genes humans have preform different functions than that of chimps.
It turned out that about every fifth gene behaved differently in humans and chimpanzees in the samples that were taken from the brain, heart, kidney and liver, while almost half of the genes behaved differently in testicular tissue. In all, the group was able to identify 90 transcription factors that were particularly different in humans and chimpanzees, says Almaas.
http://earthsky.org/earth/with-such-sim ... rom-chimps

Got to go so will stop here.
The article you posted supports evolution and offers theories about the very questions you are asking so I will let it speak for itself.

User avatar
EarthScienceguy
Guru
Posts: 1640
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2018 2:53 pm
Has thanked: 13 times
Been thanked: 34 times
Contact:

Re: Evolution RIP morphological homology2.0

Post #30

Post by EarthScienceguy »

[Replying to post 27 by DrNoGods]
According to researcher Jacob W. Ijdo, "We conclude that the locus cloned in cosmids c8.1 and c29B is the relic of an ancient telomere-telomere fusion and marks the point at which two ancestral ape chromosomes fused to give rise to human chromosome 2."[13]
Well, if it is a telomere-telomere fusion it would be the first one ever witnessed in mammals. WOW THAT SURE IS LUCKY ISN'T IT.

Post Reply