Evolution RIP morphological homology2.0

Creationism, Evolution, and other science issues

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
Online
User avatar
EarthScienceguy
Guru
Posts: 1648
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.

Online
User avatar
EarthScienceguy
Guru
Posts: 1648
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2018 2:53 pm
Has thanked: 13 times
Been thanked: 34 times
Contact:

Re: Evolution RIP morphological homology2.0

Post #61

Post by EarthScienceguy »

[Replying to post 57 by DeMotts]

4 points he makes and you all cannot refute any of them? Not a good theory if it cannot refute 4 simple points from one simply paper from one creationist.

You except your papers on faith.

I deal in facts.

Online
User avatar
EarthScienceguy
Guru
Posts: 1648
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2018 2:53 pm
Has thanked: 13 times
Been thanked: 34 times
Contact:

Re: Evolution RIP morphological homology2.0

Post #62

Post by EarthScienceguy »

[Replying to post 60 by rikuoamero]

Yea, that is our worldview. We do not believe that accurate can happen outside of Scripture.

Just like you do not believe that accurate knowledge can happen when based on scripture.

This difference in worldviews is why we are having this discussion the way we are.

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 #63

Post by rikuoamero »

EarthScienceguy wrote: [Replying to post 60 by rikuoamero]

Yea, that is our worldview. We do not believe that accurate can happen outside of Scripture.

Just like you do not believe that accurate knowledge can happen when based on scripture.

This difference in worldviews is why we are having this discussion the way we are.
...I didn't ask you what your worldview was. I was pointing out the hypocrisy of you complaining that scientists are supposed to question, disprove things etc...all the while your go to sources for citations (such as CSR, and AiG) do not allow their members/employees to do just that with their own ideas and claims.
Anyway, I'm dropping out of the conversation here, as this is basically a repeat of the question I have for you in the "Question for a Specific User" sub-forum. Please make your way there, if you would.
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

Online
User avatar
EarthScienceguy
Guru
Posts: 1648
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2018 2:53 pm
Has thanked: 13 times
Been thanked: 34 times
Contact:

Re: Evolution RIP morphological homology2.0

Post #64

Post by EarthScienceguy »

[Replying to post 63 by rikuoamero]

Thanks for the conversation.

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 #65

Post by rikuoamero »

EarthScienceguy wrote: [Replying to post 63 by rikuoamero]

Thanks for the conversation.
Just wondering...do you plan on answering the question I posed to you?
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

PeterPan
Student
Posts: 16
Joined: Wed Apr 22, 2020 4:35 pm
Been thanked: 2 times

Post #66

Post by PeterPan »

The C-Value enigma

The genome of the bladderwort Utricularia Gibba has ~82 million base pairs. 97% of this is coding DNA and 3% is non-coding DNA.
The genome of the amoeba Polychaos Dubium has ~670 billion base pairs. The accuracy of the calculation of the genome size of Polychaos Dubium is somewhat up for debate, but we can say for sure that its genome is huge.
By comparision, the human genome has ~6 billion base pairs.

This is not something that I know much about, but the C Value enigma must have something to do with selfish genetic elements. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selfish_genetic_element

One particularly important example of a selfish genetic element is a transposable element. A transposable element is a fragment of DNA which influences cells in such a way as to copy itself within the genome. Transposable elements which have significant deleterious effects on the organism's phenotype get weeded out by natural selection, and transposable elements which have positive effects on an organism's phenotype are rare. So most transposable elements don't have any effect on the phenotype, and they can multiply so effectively that they swamp an organism's genome with junk DNA.

Utricularia Gibba lives in waters with a very low phosphorus content. As phosphorus is a major constituent of DNA, a lack of phosphorus may have led to high selection pressure to delete junk DNA.

As for why Polychaos Dubium is under so little selection pressure to delete junk DNA? I don't know.

Evolving an eye is easy

Light sensitive patches are common, even in unicellular organisms.
To go from a light sensitive patch to a proper eye:
1. Put the eyespot inside a cup-shaped depression (like the planarians have).
2. Make the entrance to the cup-shaped depression really small (like a nautilus 'eye').
3. Grow a layer of transparent cells over the entrance to the eyes (like a velvet worm's eye).
4. Put a ring of non-transparent cells around the lens to make an iris.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_eye

Eye evolution and its functional basis, Dan-E. Nilsson
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3632888/

Eyes might not be the best example of convergent evolution

If the PAX6 gene (also known as the Eyeless gene) is removed from a mouse or fly or frog, the animal won't grow eyes. By forcing various cells in a fly's body to express the PAX6 gene, a fly can be made to grow eyes on its legs or antennae. If a fly is given a PAX6 gene from a mouse or a frog, the mouse PAX6 gene will enable it to grow fly eyes. Similarly, a PAX6 gene taken from a frog or a fly will enable a mouse to grow mouse eyes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PAX6
Induction of ectopic eyes by targeted expression of the eyeless gene in Drosophila.
Halder G1, Callaerts P, Gehring WJ
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7892602

User avatar
The Barbarian
Sage
Posts: 527
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2021 8:40 pm
Has thanked: 96 times
Been thanked: 330 times

Re: Evolution RIP morphological homology2.0

Post #67

Post by The Barbarian »

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.
Since we can observe evolution occurring in all populations, that's surely wrong. In science, biological evolution is a "change in allele frequency in a population over time. Which is constantly observed. Perhaps the issue is confusing evolution (the change in allele frequencies) with a consequence of evolution (common descent of living things on Earth.)

There is abundant evidence for that as well, starting in the 18th century with Linnaeus' discovery that living things fit nicely into a family tree. Later, genetics gave the same result to a very high degree of accuracy. Genomic sequencing has only sharpened that result.

User avatar
The Barbarian
Sage
Posts: 527
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2021 8:40 pm
Has thanked: 96 times
Been thanked: 330 times

Re: Evolution RIP morphological homology2.0

Post #68

Post by The Barbarian »

EarthScienceguy wrote: Tue Oct 09, 2018 9:45 am [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.
There are many of them. One of the best documented is the trend toward larger size, longer head, and fewer toes in horses. Would you like to learn about some others? However a "trend" is not specified by Darwinian theory. For example, Darwin pointed out that for a well-adapted population, in a constant environment, natural selection would prevent any trend.
Therefore, there are not any predictions that evolution can make about the future of the genome.
Bad assumption, false conclusion. For example, Alexander Flemming (discovered penicillin) predicted bacterial genomes would evolve to resist the antibiotic if it was overused. He was correct.
And are you saying that man is not the most advanced form of life.
"Advanced" is not part of Darwinian theory. I don't even know how you would measure it.
That man has not dominated their environment.
Bacteria, for example, are more numerous, have greater total mass, and occupy more environments than humans. So that's not a very good measure if you want man to win.
So what will the genome look like of the life that will place man?
Lactose tolerance will continue to spread worldwide. Genes for resistance to malaria (over a hundred of them now) will continue to appear as long as malaria continues. Stuff like that.
Morphology of development does not indicate any type of common decent either.
Well, let's see what a knowledgeable YE creationist has to say about that...

Evidences for Darwin’s second expectation — of stratomorphic intermediate species — include such species as Baragwanathia27 (between rhyniophytes and lycopods), Pikaia28 (between echinoderms and chordates), Purgatorius29 (between the tree shrews and the primates), and Proconsul30 (between the non-hominoid primates and the hominoids). Darwin’s third expectation — of higher-taxon stratomorphic intermediates — has been confirmed by such examples as the mammal-like reptile groups31 between the reptiles and the mammals, and the phenacodontids32 between the horses and their presumed ancestors. Darwin’s fourth expectation — of stratomorphic series — has been confirmed by such examples as the early bird series,33 the tetrapod series,34,35 the whale series,36 the various mammal series of the Cenozoic37 (for example, the horse series, the camel series, the elephant series, the pig series, the titanothere series, etc.), the Cantius and Plesiadapus primate series,38 and the hominid series.39Evidence for not just one but for all three of the species level and above types of stratomorphic intermediates expected by macroevolutionary theory is surely strong evidence for macroevolutionary theory. Creationists therefore need to accept this fact. It certainly CANNOT be said that traditional creation theory expected (predicted) any of these fossil finds.
YE creationist Dr. Kurt Wise, Toward a Creationist Understanding of Transitional Forms
Morphology is how Darwin came up with his "hypothesis of evolution".
Morphology and transitional forms between them is how Dr. Wise concluded that there is "very good evidence" for evolution.
So morphology does not support evolution and trends in the genome does not support evolution.
Actually, "trends in the genome" is evolution. That's the scientific definition of evolution; "change in allele frequencies in a population over time."
There is no one that can predict a direction the genome will take.
See above. There are many more examples. Would you like to see some of them?

Post Reply