Evolution RIP morphological homology2.0

Creationism, Evolution, and other science issues

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
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.

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 #41

Post by EarthScienceguy »

[Replying to post 34 by Goat]
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
.

This has nothing to do with what we are talking about. This is simply an example of a Robertsonian translocation same type that happens with down syndrome.

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 #42

Post by DeMotts »

EarthScienceguy wrote: [Replying to post 36 by DeMotts]

Check post 37 to DrNoGods.

If that is not sufficient let me know.
Given that the only arguments I can find supporting your position come from creationist websites, and given that the areas that lack synteny are much smaller than you claim and are the result of well understand gene duplication patterns, I will say no, that is not sufficient. You still need to explain why there are vestigial centromere and telomeres. You also need to explain why the chromosomes have a difference of only 0.05%.

Further reading for you:

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/loom/ ... gpaNPlVhBc

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/loom/ ... g-blogger/

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/loom/ ... freak-out/

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/loom/ ... -can-rest/ <--- particularly this one

Papers:
https://bmcgenomics.biomedcentral.com/t ... 164-10-250

https://genome.cshlp.org/content/22/6/1036.long

Your move.

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 #43

Post by EarthScienceguy »

[Replying to DeMotts]
Given that the only arguments I can find supporting your position come from creationist websites,
To convincing, Eh.

This should help your research. I just gave you conclusions on a previous post. The following should help.
Since the original complete sequencing of the fusion region on chromosome 2 (Fan et al. 2002a), the gene containing the fusion sequence has since been renamed from CHLR1 to DDX11L2 and found to be a member of the DDX11L family of at least 18 different RNA helicase genes (Costa et al. 2009). Oddly, while Costa et al. functionally and structurally characterized the DDX11L2 gene, they mentioned nothing of the fact that it contained the well-known chromosome 2 fusion sequence. Because the evolutionary model of gene origins is largely based on the idea of duplication from an original ancestral sequence, Costa et al. proposed that the variants of DDX11L genes in humans all evolved from ancestral sequences in apes. However, when a human DDX11L gene sequence was used as a cytogenetic probe for fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) in chimpanzee, it only hybridized to two places on chimp chromosomes 12 and 20 [image url: http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2164/10/250/figure/F3]. The same FISH experiment was also done in gorilla and showed four areas of gene synteny on chromosomes 3, 6, 7, and 20. In complete contradiction to evolutionary predictions, the human DDXL11L gene showed no synteny with chromosomes 2A or 2B in chimpanzee or gorilla (see image url above). This is highly significant because as described below, the fusion site appears to be a key functional motif contained within the DDX11L2 gene on chromosome 2. Furthermore, the fact that 18 copies of the DDX11L gene exists in humans verses only two copies in chimps and four in gorillas, is completely discordant with the inferred human-ape evolutionary phylogeny. Another evolutionary discordant fact about these genes is that their genomic locations are all different in each of the human and ape genomes.
from the paper.
https://answersingenesis.org/genetics/d ... x-and-hig/

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

Re: Evolution RIP morphological homology2.0

Post #44

Post by ATN »

[Replying to post 43 by EarthScienceguy]

You, EarthScienceguy, use many creationist sources, Answers in Genesis are young Earth creationists. 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? Answers in Genesis have stated that they believe about 7'000 Baramins was on the Ark. We estimate it is about 16 million species today,
16'000'000/(7'000*365.25) = 11. Answers in Genesis expect that in average 11 new species develops every day for the last 4'000 years. I don't closely fellow speciation events, but I am only aware of a couple hands full events that is happening at the time, and the events are lasting over several years. And you use a source that assume 11 a day.

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 #45

Post by EarthScienceguy »

[Replying to post 44 by ATN]
You, EarthScienceguy, use many creationist sources, Answers in Genesis
Oh, I would not say just Answers in Genesis, but also ICR, Creation Journal, Answers Journal and several others. I can give you my whole reading list if you would like.
Are you a young Earth creationist?
I have not said what I believe yet on this site. But I will all in the proper time.

Answers in Genesis expect that in average 11 new species develops every day for the last 4'000 years. I don't closely fellow speciation events, but I am only aware of a couple hands full events that is happening at the time, and the events are lasting over several years. And you use a source that assume 11 a day.
I really do not think you want say this. Because it would not bode well for the cambrian explosion.

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

Re: Evolution RIP morphological homology2.0

Post #46

Post by ATN »

[Replying to post 45 by EarthScienceguy]

Why not? It was an "explosion" that lasted more than 20 million years. I don't think it even conclude with half a million species. And you insinuate that 16 million species in 4'000 year is a fraction of the likelihood of the cambrian explosion?

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 #47

Post by DrNoGods »

[Replying to post 43 by EarthScienceguy]

These creationist websites have as their main goal to dispute only those scientific results which contradict their biblical views. For example, they are happy to accept that atomic physics was understood well enough in the 1930s and 1940s to design and build fission bombs that worked, but they go through all kinds of gyrations to try and discredit radiometric dating (a far simpler application of the same basic physics), because it destroys their young earth views. They do this for anything that shows that their biblical interpretations are wrong, including this chromosome 2 issue, or anything else related to evolution.

But their minority views and misinterpretations of real science will never trump the scientific method and the consensus derived from the results of peer reviewed articles published in legitimate scientific journals. You'll see none of their twisted views on evolution, radiometric, dating, etc. in these scientific journals ... only on their websites or in the so-called free, online "predatory journals" like the one you referenced earlier that attempted to debunk a common ancestor using the ridiculous assumption that humans are the end result of the evolutionary process. There is debate in scientific journals, and often corrections are needed, etc. But in pretty short order enough research is presented to arrive at a consensus, and errors are corrected if they slip through the process initially.

Find a legitimate source from the peer-reviewed literature that can disprove that human chromosome 2 is the result of the fusion of chromosomes 2A and 2A in apes. There is no shortage of such papers supporting this event.
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 #48

Post by DeMotts »

EarthScienceguy wrote: [Replying to DeMotts]
Given that the only arguments I can find supporting your position come from creationist websites,
To convincing, Eh.

This should help your research. I just gave you conclusions on a previous post. The following should help.
Since the original complete sequencing of the fusion region on chromosome 2 (Fan et al. 2002a), the gene containing the fusion sequence has since been renamed from CHLR1 to DDX11L2 and found to be a member of the DDX11L family of at least 18 different RNA helicase genes (Costa et al. 2009). Oddly, while Costa et al. functionally and structurally characterized the DDX11L2 gene, they mentioned nothing of the fact that it contained the well-known chromosome 2 fusion sequence. Because the evolutionary model of gene origins is largely based on the idea of duplication from an original ancestral sequence, Costa et al. proposed that the variants of DDX11L genes in humans all evolved from ancestral sequences in apes. However, when a human DDX11L gene sequence was used as a cytogenetic probe for fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) in chimpanzee, it only hybridized to two places on chimp chromosomes 12 and 20 [image url: http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2164/10/250/figure/F3]. The same FISH experiment was also done in gorilla and showed four areas of gene synteny on chromosomes 3, 6, 7, and 20. In complete contradiction to evolutionary predictions, the human DDXL11L gene showed no synteny with chromosomes 2A or 2B in chimpanzee or gorilla (see image url above). This is highly significant because as described below, the fusion site appears to be a key functional motif contained within the DDX11L2 gene on chromosome 2. Furthermore, the fact that 18 copies of the DDX11L gene exists in humans verses only two copies in chimps and four in gorillas, is completely discordant with the inferred human-ape evolutionary phylogeny. Another evolutionary discordant fact about these genes is that their genomic locations are all different in each of the human and ape genomes.
from the paper.
https://answersingenesis.org/genetics/d ... x-and-hig/
DDX11L2 is a telomere specific pseudogene, and is only found adjacent to telomeres. You have avoided the question and presented evidence of vestigial telomeres without explaining your theory of why they are found in the middle of the chromosome. Care to try again? Why, in your opinion, are there vestigial centromeres and telomeres in the middle of chromosome 2 in humans?

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 #49

Post by DrNoGods »

[Replying to post 47 by DrNoGods]
... of chromosomes 2A and 2A in apes.
That should have been 2A and 2B.
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
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 #50

Post by EarthScienceguy »

[Replying to DrNoGods]

What is this?

Since when has Science ever been a majority wins. We would not have the theory of quantum mechanics if that were the case.

Since when has scientific theories not been able to be criticized and experimented on to be disproved. Many of the theories that evolution has today is because of creationist arguments.

When these papers are talking of the fusion of the chimp chromosomes, that has never been observed in nature up to this point and it supposedly happened millions of years ago. This is an unobserved event in history. You say there are many papers that explain how this event did happen. Well, then it should be easy to falsify Dr. Tomkin's 4 assertions against this event.

This is what science is. Men make predictions, preform experiments and then explains why the results happen. And then other scientists attempt to falsify that theory with other experiments and other facts that the experimenter may not have known of. That is science.

So if you can't handle the heat stay out of the kitchen.

When you gave me a paper from your point of view. I read it and told you exactly where I disagreed with it and told you why.

Now, if you cannot refute my argument don't feel bad it is a very strong argument.

There is no reason to believe. That man came from chimps. We do not look like chimps. This means the morphology is not correct. And there is no reason to believe that two chimp chromosome fused to produce man. End to End telomere fusion does not take place in mammals.

That is the argument on the table. If you are saying that End to End telomere fusion happens then tell me way Dr. Tomkin's is in correct in his assertion.

Otherwise, all evolution is a fantasy story.

Post Reply