Evolution RIP morphological homology2.0

Creationism, Evolution, and other science issues

Moderator: Moderators

User avatar
EarthScienceguy
Guru
Posts: 1641
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.

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 #31

Post by DeMotts »

EarthScienceguy wrote: [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.
What a tremendous counter argument. By this logic we can never discover anything because it will be the first example of something and should be discarded. Brilliant.

User avatar
EarthScienceguy
Guru
Posts: 1641
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2018 2:53 pm
Has thanked: 13 times
Been thanked: 34 times
Contact:

Re: Evolution RIP morphological homology2.0

Post #32

Post by EarthScienceguy »

[Replying to DeMotts]
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.
Nope just using it as an example that it is not just creationist that are saying that something "rotten in the state of evolution". Highly controversial or not the author still put his reputation on the line and Nature put there reputation on the line printing it. So there must be more secular scholars saying it.

There is a serious discrepancy here between morphology and phenotype. This does not portray any smooth transition between species. You would have a much better argument if you would have left the original tree of 20 or 30 years ago that had the orangutan evolving in to a human.

But alas facts are a pesky thing aren't they.

Again, I deal in facts and observations, observationally it is ludicrous to say that a human was an orangutan, a chimp than a human.

So again there is a disconnect between the genetic information and morphology. If you want to live in some fantasy world that is fine you are free to do that. Maybe you can go make things up with those guys that believe they exist on the event horizon of a black hole. You all could have a wonderful time telling all of your make believe stories.
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.

Story telling again, eh. We will start with the small little pesky fact that there has never been observed in mammals an end to end telomere fusions in living mammals because telomeres contain a highly specialized end cap called the shelterin protein complex that protects them from fusion.

Facts are pesky

User avatar
DrNoGods
Guru
Posts: 1903
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 #33

Post by DrNoGods »

[Replying to post 30 by EarthScienceguy]
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.


And? What is your point with that comment? Apparently you aren't disputing the fact that this fusion happened (which would be very hard to do given the evidence), so I take it you're happy to walk back your original comment that it was simply "invented."

But that still leaves several other points that have been raised which you have yet to respond to. To wit (and back to the OP) ... explain how morphological change not associated with existing gene expression (dominant vs. recessive) can occur solely due to heredity, without mutations and natural selection. Got anything for us on that?
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
Goat
Site Supporter
Posts: 24863
Joined: Fri Jul 21, 2006 6:09 pm
Has thanked: 8 times
Been thanked: 127 times

Re: Evolution RIP morphological homology2.0

Post #34

Post by Goat »

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.

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.
Well, we have evidence of that being able to happen, since we have found humans that have had pairs of DNA fused. https://genetics.thetech.org/original_news/news124
“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

User avatar
EarthScienceguy
Guru
Posts: 1641
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2018 2:53 pm
Has thanked: 13 times
Been thanked: 34 times
Contact:

Re: Evolution RIP morphological homology2.0

Post #35

Post by EarthScienceguy »

[Replying to post 31 by DeMotts]
What a tremendous counter argument. By this logic we can never discover anything because it will be the first example of something and should be discarded. Brilliant.
Well , we agree then. This has never been observed in mammals. Wonderful we are making head way!!

Wow, your "story telling wopper" just keeps having to grow and grow. So just to recap.

We have to "make believe" that a chimp looks something like a human when it doesn't. And we have to "make believe" that something that does not happen in other mammals just happen to occur in chumps or ah chimps.

That is a convincing argument.

Do you have any other chump or ah chimp stories that you can tell me. Anything from like "Curious George" that would be a whole lot more believable.

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 #36

Post by DeMotts »

[Replying to post 35 by EarthScienceguy]

Ok this is the part of the argument where you switch from "you're wrong hah hah that could never happen for reasons I won't explain hah hah hah chump hah hah"

to

"Here is my explanation of why there is a vestigial centromere and vestigial telomeres in the middle of chromosome 2, which contains near identical dna to two chromosomes in chimps."

Go ahead. Please explain.

User avatar
EarthScienceguy
Guru
Posts: 1641
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2018 2:53 pm
Has thanked: 13 times
Been thanked: 34 times
Contact:

Re: Evolution RIP morphological homology2.0

Post #37

Post by EarthScienceguy »

[Replying to post 33 by DrNoGods]
I take it you're happy to walk back your original comment that it was simply "invented."
Really, wow that was all sooooooooo convincing. Maybe except for the part about.

1. telomeric end-to-end fusion is not observed in mammals. and
2. Chromosome fusions would not be expected to form complex multi-exon, alternatively spliced functional genes.
3. The 614 Kb genomic region surrounding the purported fusion site lacks synteny (gene correspondence) with chimpanzee on chromosomes 2A and 2B (supposed fusion sites of origin)

I know another story for you. Its call "Curious George fly's a Kite." That one is a bit more believable.

User avatar
EarthScienceguy
Guru
Posts: 1641
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2018 2:53 pm
Has thanked: 13 times
Been thanked: 34 times
Contact:

Re: Evolution RIP morphological homology2.0

Post #38

Post by EarthScienceguy »

[Replying to DrNoGods]
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.
You have to give me a better example of what you are talking about for me to comment on this.

User avatar
EarthScienceguy
Guru
Posts: 1641
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2018 2:53 pm
Has thanked: 13 times
Been thanked: 34 times
Contact:

Re: Evolution RIP morphological homology2.0

Post #39

Post by EarthScienceguy »

[Replying to post 36 by DeMotts]

Check post 37 to DrNoGods.

If that is not sufficient let me know.

User avatar
DrNoGods
Guru
Posts: 1903
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 #40

Post by DrNoGods »

[Replying to post 38 by EarthScienceguy]
You have to give me a better example of what you are talking about for me to comment on this.


I'm not an evolutionary biologist so may not be using the correct wording, but I'm simply referring to heritable changes that are controlled by dominant and recessive genes, rather than being caused by mutation. For example, things like hair color, eye color, etc. where the offspring may differ from the parents. These are not mutation-based changes. You seem to be claiming that heredity alone can explain morphological changes across generations, without mutation and natural selection being involved in any way. That isn't true.
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

Post Reply