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 #51

Post by EarthScienceguy »

[Replying to post 48 by DeMotts]

There are not vestigial centromeres and telomeres in the middle of chromosome 2 in humans.
In a recent analysis characterizing the DNA sequence and genomic organization of the chromosomal telomere end cap regions of gorilla and chimpanzee chromosomes, researchers found large amounts of chimpanzee specific satDNA at the ends of chromosomes 2A and 2B, but absent in human (Ventura et al. 2012). The authors postulated that the chimp satDNA was deleted in the fusion event, yet the telomere sequence distal to it, somehow remained. Despite the proposed deletions of DNA in the fusion event described by Ventura et al., their model cannot realistically account for a 24 Mb DNA loss.
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. 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.
You can read the paper yourself all the information is in the paper.

https://answersingenesis.org/genetics/d ... x-and-hig/

Bust Nak
Savant
Posts: 9458
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2012 6:03 am
Location: Planet Earth
Has thanked: 117 times
Been thanked: 182 times

Re: Evolution RIP morphological homology2.0

Post #52

Post by Bust Nak »

EarthScienceguy wrote: Since when has Science ever been a majority wins. We would not have the theory of quantum mechanics if that were the case.
Quantum mechanics is the majority view though... You seem to forgetting to account for the reason why it became the majority.
Since when has scientific theories not been able to be criticized and experimented on to be disproved.
Since never.
Many of the theories that evolution has today is because of creationist arguments.
Like what?
When these papers are talking of the fusion of the chimp chromosomes, that has never been observed in nature up to this point...
What made you think that? There are obvious examples of chromosome fusion which causes a number of genetic diseases.
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.
If you know that then why are you still appealing to creationist material?

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 #53

Post by DrNoGods »

[Replying to post 50 by EarthScienceguy]
Since when has Science ever been a majority wins. We would not have the theory of quantum mechanics if that were the case.


As Bust Nak pointed out ... you missed the point. It is when multiple papers published in peer-reviewed journals reach the point where there is a consensus among the scientific community that the results are validated and accepted. Quantum mechanics is a perfect example of this ... it was not the result of one person publishing one paper called "Quantum Mechanics" and that was it. There is an excellent book I read recently called "The Quantum Story" by Jim Baggott (Oxford University Press, 2011) that goes through the process in 40 chapters, starting with Plank. This is a far better description of how quantum mechanics came about and how the process works. By "consensus" I did not mean simply that the majority of the general public believe it ... I mean that enough peer-reviewed papers have been published, confirmed, refined, etc. that the scientific community is satisfied that the hypothesis has been shown to be valid.
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.


Again, Bust Nak has already pointed out that this is incorrect.
So if you can't handle the heat stay out of the kitchen.


I've been in the kitchen for over 30 years now as far as doing science and publishing papers (more than 100) in peer-reviewed science journals. I know how the process works.
Now, if you cannot refute my argument don't feel bad it is a very strong argument.


I don't need to refute your argument ... this has already been done by the peer-reviewed published papers that show the chromosome 2 fusion did, in fact, happen. You are quoting from creationists websites and articles who are trying to refute it simply because it doesn't jive with their creationist and religious views. Religious views are not a basis for showing that anything is scientifically correct or not. There is nothing wrong with having faith and believing things based solely on religious doctrine, and many people are fine to admit that this is why they believe what they do. No problem. But this isn't science, and you are arguing from a position of non-science (ie. religion).
There is no reason to believe. That man came from chimps. We do not look like chimps. This means the morphology is not correct.

We don't need to "believe" this. It has been shown, conclusively, from genetics work that humans evolved from a great ape ancestor (which wasn't a chimp ... we share a common ancestor with chimps but humans did not evolve directly from chimps and evolution does not say that we did). And we do look a great deal like apes (technically, we are apes) as far as basic body structure and morphology. This significant resemblance is what gave Darwin and others the idea early on that humans may indeed have evolved from a great ape ancestor, long before genetics proved it.
Otherwise, all evolution is a fantasy story.


You can keep believing that, but you can't support it with any scientific arguments. The evolution train left the station long ago.
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: 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 #54

Post by EarthScienceguy »

[Replying to DrNoGods]

Just say you cannot refute the argument.

Quote:
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.


Again, Bust Nak has already pointed out that this is incorrect.
Really who saw this happen. Name the study that observed this.

I don't need to refute your argument ... this has already been done by the peer-reviewed published papers that show the chromosome 2 fusion did, in fact, happen. You are quoting from creationists websites and articles who are trying to refute it simply because it doesn't jive with their creationist and religious views.
Then they should be easy to refute they were proposed by creationist.
I've been in the kitchen for over 30 years now as far as doing science and publishing papers (more than 100) in peer-reviewed science journals. I know how the process works.
Then act like it.

The paper makes very specific observations that should be easily refutable.

I think naturalistic evolution is crazy religion.

1. It requires its believers to have faith that life can start on its own.
2. It requires it believers to have faith that man came from an animal that it does not really look anything like. In fact there are other animals that resemble man more than chimps do.
3. Then it requires it believers to faith that man descended from chimps even though there is a difference in chromosomes. With some made up story that they say happen millions of years ago. .
4. Then evolution says that when discrepancies are brought up we have to check our brain at the door. And just believe what someone tells us to believe.

If you want to work like that you go right ahead and have your evolution religion. I do not work like that. I have been reading papers on all sides of this creation evolution issue for more than 20 years. In fact, I usually know the Evolution religion argument better than they know it.

I have watched as creationist predictions have been proven by observations.
1. Like predicting that comets would have rounded rocks on them.
2. Like pools of water on under major mountains.
3. Like predicting the Mercury's magnetic degradation from the seventies to the present.
4. Predicting the strength Uranus's magnetic field.
5. Remnants of Tectonic plates on the bottom of the mantle.
6. The existence of a large body outside the orbit of pluto.
7. The usefulness of 'junk DNA"
8. The usefulness of vestile organs.
9. Salt water on Mars.
10. Comets made of salt water.
11. There is even a new paper out that talks light traveling instantaneously right after the "Big Bang". (this will probably be in a future string)

All of these were crazy when they were first proposed but now are known to be true. So excuse me for not believing your published papers. I have watched theory after theory based on what the Bible says turn out to be reality.

So save me your little lecture on how many paper are written on this. That does not impress me in the least. If you have any FACTS that dispute what is in Dr. Tomkin's paper share them and we can discuss it. Otherwise you are simply spewing evolutionary religious propaganda.

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 #55

Post by DrNoGods »

[Replying to post 54 by EarthScienceguy]
Then act like it.


I think I am. I am the one stating that the peer-reviewed scientific literature is the method by which new hypotheses and other scientific results are disseminated, and consensus reached on issues. On the other hand, you say this "So excuse me for not believing your published papers."
I think naturalistic evolution is crazy religion.

1. It requires its believers to have faith that life can start on its own.


Another standard fallback by creationists and anti-evolutionists when they can't support their claims ... call evolution a religion. Evolution says nothing whatsoever about HOW life originated. It has no dependence on HOW life came about. If you know so little about evolution that you don't know this, why are you trying to debate it?
2. It requires it believers to have faith that man came from an animal that it does not really look anything like. In fact there are other animals that resemble man more than chimps do.


"Came" from an animal? What does that even mean? Humans evolved from a great ape ancestor as proven by genetics and the fossil record. And we resemble apes a great deal. What other animals resemble humans more than apes do? I'm using the word ape instead of chimp because humans did not evolve from chimpanzees, but from the common ancestor we share with them.
3. Then it requires it believers to faith that man descended from chimps even though there is a difference in chromosomes. With some made up story that they say happen millions of years ago.


Humans didn't descend from chimps ... we share a common ancestor with them. But of course there is a difference in chromosomes between the great apes and humans. DNA changes via evolution ... that's sort of the whole idea.
4. Then evolution says that when discrepancies are brought up we have to check our brain at the door. And just believe what someone tells us to believe.


No ... we analyze the data presented in peer-reviewed scientific journals where evidence and analysis is presented, and make decisions based on that. It is religion where people believe what they are told to believe, without any evidence. That is called faith and is the basis for religion.
If you want to work like that you go right ahead and have your evolution religion.


Just the usual weak fallback from creationists ... a very old and worn out tactic.
I have watched as creationist predictions have been proven by observations.
1. Like predicting that comets would have rounded rocks on them.
2. Like pools of water on under major mountains.
3. Like predicting the Mercury's magnetic degradation from the seventies to the present.
4. Predicting the strength Uranus's magnetic field.
5. Remnants of Tectonic plates on the bottom of the mantle.
6. The existence of a large body outside the orbit of pluto.
7. The usefulness of 'junk DNA"
8. The usefulness of vestile organs.
9. Salt water on Mars.
10. Comets made of salt water.
11. There is even a new paper out that talks light traveling instantaneously right after the "Big Bang". (this will probably be in a future string)


What is that all about? No one said that a scientist who is a creationist can't come up with real science, and publish it in proper journals. And nothing in the above list has anything to do with evolution and whether it violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics, or whether the chromosome 2 fusion happened, etc. I doubt it was creationists who came up with all of the items above, but that is beside the point. I never said there weren't legitimate scientists who also happen to be creationists.
I have watched theory after theory based on what the Bible says turn out to be reality.


Really? Name something actually predicted by a biblical story that isn't some wild interpretation, or something so generic it could apply to virtually anything.
If you have any FACTS that dispute what is in Dr. Tomkin's paper share them and we can discuss it. Otherwise you are simply spewing evolutionary religious propaganda.


And yet another claim of evolution being a religion. For those who don't know, this Dr. Tomkin's person is a real Ph.D. scientist who has published papers in legitimate journals, and he now works for the Institute for Creation Research:

http://www.icr.org/jeffrey_tomkins/

Tell me ESG ... why are NONE of his chromosome 2 arguments published in any of the legitimate journals (what he calls "secular journals")? This stuff is only published in the "creation science" (what an oxymoron that is!) journals. What does that tell you?
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: 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 #56

Post by EarthScienceguy »

[Replying to post 55 by DrNoGods]

Sure Ok. As I though no new facts.

Try again some time.

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 #57

Post by DeMotts »

[Replying to post 56 by EarthScienceguy]

I think we've reached the logical end conclusion of this discussion. We could continue posting peer reviewed journals that illustrate the point that the chromosome fusion is accepted science backed by National Human Genome Research Institute and the Human Genome Project and the National Institutes of Health and the following institutions that were a part of the sequencing: Washington University; Broad Institute of MIT, Cambridge, Mass.; Stanford DNA Sequencing and Technology Development Center, Stanford, Calif.; Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute, Hinxton, England; National Yang-Ming University, Taipei, Taiwan; Genoscope, Evry, France; Baylor College of Medicine, Houston; University of Washington Multimegabase Sequencing Center, Seattle; U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Joint Genome Institute, Walnut Creek, Calif.; and Roswell Park Cancer Institute, Buffalo, N.Y., and you will likely say that all of these people are idiots and they're wrong.

We could keep posting refutations of Tompkins work on this particular subject. You will no doubt say all these people are idiots and they're wrong.

We could continue to argue about this but it's clear that you don't regard any of this as legitimate science, and then start ranting about what legitimate science really is while ignoring all the evidence we've posted that is considered legitimate, accepted, reviewed and supported science.

So ultimately we have to ask what you are looking to achieve here. We're obviously not going to accept non-peer reviewed assertions from a creation scientist. It seems very much like you're just here to preach now, to blast us with your assertions, and pivot to things about magnetic fields and this and that.

More than anything I'm amused that you absolutely, totally refuse to actually give any explanations of your own. You keep posting links to the ICR and Answers in Genesis knowing full well that those aren't persuasive to us. You won't tell us anything about your own point of view regarding human or universe origins. Take a stand man. Start a new thread if you have to. I want to know how old you think the world is, and why. I want to know if you think Noah loaded up animals on a boat during a flood that raised sea level by 30,000 feet. I want to know if you think a talking snake bamboozled us. We're done with this thread as far as I can tell. You haven't convinced anyone of anything and it's clear that there is nothing we can post that will budge you. No doubt you'll start gloating that this is somehow a win, that you wore us down by posting link after link and ignoring everything we threw back at you. I'm bored. Start something new.

Edit: As a side note, this discussion did force me to dig rather deeply into some scientific articles I might not usually read and I feel much better educated on this topic and convinced of the fusion theory should I ever need to have this argument in a face to face setting. So thanks for that I guess!

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 #58

Post by Goat »

EarthScienceguy wrote: [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.

It is not sufficent, because it is giving misinformation. For one, your point 1 can be totally refuted. In fact, we have a modern example of a man who only has 44 chromosomes instead of 46 because of a fusion event

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
rikuoamero
Under Probation
Posts: 6707
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2015 2:06 pm
Been thanked: 1 time

Re: Evolution RIP morphological homology2.0

Post #59

Post by rikuoamero »

EarthScienceguy wrote: [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/
That site has a Statement of Belief
https://creationresearch.org/statement-of-belief/

I refer you to my standing response when it comes to those who cite such groups. Several people on this website have adopted my response.

viewtopic.php?t=32772

If you, as a creationist, present to me or link me to a website containing a Statement of Faith like the above, with points that basically mean they reject any and all evidence that contradicts what they say the Bible teaches...then I will automatically disregard what you've cited.
Not because it challenges my worldview. But precisely because it doesn't. Because the operator(s) of that site, and yourself by extension, will have just proven you cannot be trusted. I cannot trust that any 'research' you have just linked me to has not had key evidence distorted or deleted, or trust someone who dismissed research automatically because it contradicted a certain book.
Image

Your life is your own. Rise up and live it - Richard Rahl, Sword of Truth Book 6 "Faith of the Fallen"

I condemn all gods who dare demand my fealty, who won't look me in the face so's I know who it is I gotta fealty to. -- JoeyKnotHead

Some force seems to restrict me from buying into the apparent nonsense that others find so easy to buy into. Having no religious or supernatural beliefs of my own, I just call that force reason. -- Tired of the Nonsense

User avatar
rikuoamero
Under Probation
Posts: 6707
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2015 2:06 pm
Been thanked: 1 time

Re: Evolution RIP morphological homology2.0

Post #60

Post by rikuoamero »

[Replying to post 50 by EarthScienceguy]
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.
I find EarthScienceGuy saying the above to be the most hypocritical thing ever said on this website. Given that he has earlier said that he reads from and is willing to quote from CMI, CRS, AiG etc...what do these groups demand of their members, of their quote unquote scientists?

From CRS
"ALL MEMBERS MUST SUBSCRIBE TO THE FOLLOWING STATEMENT OF BELIEF:"
https://creationresearch.org/statement-of-belief/

From AiG
" it is imperative that all persons employed by the ministry in any capacity, or who serve as volunteers, should abide by and agree to our Statement of Faith, to include the statement on marriage and sexuality, and conduct themselves accordingly."
https://answersingenesis.org/about/faith/

From ICR
"Our research is conducted within a biblical worldview, since ICR is committed to the absolute authority of the inerrant Word of God. The real facts of science will always agree with biblical revelation because the God who made the world of God inspired the Word of God."
(obvious implication being that if something is given to them as research that does NOT agree with what they said is biblical revelation...then it must not be true, must not be science)
http://www.icr.org/how-we-do-research
Image

Your life is your own. Rise up and live it - Richard Rahl, Sword of Truth Book 6 "Faith of the Fallen"

I condemn all gods who dare demand my fealty, who won't look me in the face so's I know who it is I gotta fealty to. -- JoeyKnotHead

Some force seems to restrict me from buying into the apparent nonsense that others find so easy to buy into. Having no religious or supernatural beliefs of my own, I just call that force reason. -- Tired of the Nonsense

Post Reply