What if the Theory of Evolution is Right? (Part I)

MW, I stand corrected. See, this is why all published writers (Dawkins included) could benefit from an editor...lol.

   He "attempts" to refute would have been "more better".

   I still haven't found the time to look further into the matter of phylogenetics. This will provide purpose for me a little later. Now I have a good reason to breathe air...hah.

Regarding birds and humans, after I wrote #799 I discovered there is some relevant research published in the last couple of weeks. Now, I don't claim to fully understand this work, but (of course) the authors find it entirely explicible within the theory of evolution. What I do know is that just a couple of mutations in FOXP2 in humans are assocated with speech capabilities that other primates lack, and that such small mutations are exactly the sort that can occur as convergent evolution.

Convergent transcriptional specializations in the brains of humans and song-learning birds

[Newsflash from the other evolution thread: Ignorant layabout thinks posting screen grabs from children's TV is a good argument against scientific facts]

The cambrain Explosion is a perfect example of Evolution at it's finest.

Or God at his finest! 😉

From the song Keep Talking by Pink Floyd. 

feat. Stephen Hawking

For millions of years mankind lived just like the animals
Then something happened which unleashed the power of our imagination
We learned to talk

Example of observed speciation:

In a series of experiments, del Solar (1966) derived positively and negatively geotactic and phototactic strains of D. pseudoobscura from the same population by running the flies through mazes. Flies from different strains were then introduced into mating chambers (10 males and 10 females from each strain). Matings were recorded. Statistically significant positive assortative mating was found.

In a separate series of experiments Dodd (1989) raised eight populations derived from a single population of D. Pseudoobscura on stressful media. Four populations were raised on a starch based medium, the other four were raised on a maltose based medium. The fly populations in both treatments took several months to get established, implying that they were under strong selection. Dodd found some evidence of genetic divergence between flies in the two treatments. He performed mate choice tests among experimental populations. He found statistically significant assortative mating between populations raised on different media, but no assortative mating among populations raised within the same medium regime. He argued that since there was no direct selection for reproductive isolation, the behavioral isolation results from a pleiotropic by-product to adaptation to the two media. Schluter and Nagel (1995) have argued that these results provide experimental support for the hypothesis of parallel speciation.

Less dramatic results were obtained by growing D. willistoni on media of different pH levels (de Oliveira and Cordeiro 1980). Mate choice tests after 26, 32, 52 and 69 generations of growth showed statistically significant assortative mating between some populations grown in different pH treatments. This ethological isolation did not always persist over time. They also found that some crosses made after 106 and 122 generations showed significant hybrid inferiority, but only when grown in acid medium.

Seriously guys, what are ya all smoking out there. Over 50 similar genes in vocalizing birds and humans, with similar motor and connective neural pathways, but none of these genes or specialized systems found in non vocalizing birds or non human primates.

Sort of like the opsin or prestin genes spread out all over different loci throughout the animal kingdom.

Or the melanocorticotropin, or carotenoid genes being used for various creatures for all kinds of purposes throughout the animal world.

I could go on with the common designed genes and features throughout the animal kingdom but you'll continue to claim just another random improbable event that shows the power of evolution.

After a while even the hard of heart will have to admit that all these epicycles of commonly designed genes, systems, characteristics, and complex features, are the handiwork of a master craftsman. 😊

Why wouldn't the genetic clocks of every species on earth just happening to match their shown divergence in the fossil record not be proof?

Or is that just another giant coincidence?

Of course they exist.  They are with God having tea at Russell's.

Well, I've done a bit of research on the phylogenetic species concept. Here are a few items that I thought were interesting

Phylogenetic species concept: A species is the smallest diagnosable cluster of individual organisms within which there is a parental pattern of ancestry and descent (Cracraft 1983).

 Phylogenetic species concept: A species is an irreducible (basal) cluster of organisms, diagnosably distinct from other such clusters, and within which there is a parental pattern of ancestry and descent (Cracraft 1989).

Re: http://science.kennesaw.edu/~rmatson/Biol%203380/3380species.html

Re: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/VA2OtherSpeciesConcept.shtml

Re: http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/phylogenetic_species_concept.aspx

Re: http://courses.washington.edu/biol354/spec.pdf

Then I found this, concerning Ann Gauger:

IDiots at Evolution News & Views Defend Ann Gauger's Video

I few days ago I posted a video by Ann Gauger where she criticizes population genetics. Sandwalk readers recognized right away that she doesn't understand population genetics, or phylogenetics. Read the comments on: Ann Gauger Describes the Intelligent Design Creationist Version of Population Genetics.

I've been waiting for a response from Ann Gauger or any of the other IDiots. I've been waiting to see how they twist the meaning of "population genetics" to fit what she says in the video. I've been waiting to see how they defend her words on tree-making given the criticism on Sandwalk and elsewhere. 

Incidentally, it turns out that the "laboratory" in the background of the video is a stock photo from Shutterstock and not an actual lab where Ann Gauger works. Here's the video so you can see what I'm talking about.

Re: http://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2012/12/idiots-at-evolution-news-views-defend.html

So, I see people on news shows put the picture of some city behind them all the time. That's a little lame PW!😕

varelse1 wrote:

einstein99 wrote:

The first was tested with atomic clocks Elroxh, where's the rest for the story of common descent?😕

Why wouldn't the genetic clocks of every species on earth just happening to match their shown divergence in the fossil record not be proof?

Or is that just another giant coincidence?

___________________

Genetic clocks are bogus. Due to the high mutational variability rate on the mitochondrial genome, one can come up with any timeline one wants.

Okay.

But you still haven't explained why that "anything" should happen to match the fossil record so precisely.

Why do you falsely accuse me of being "hung up" on the green-screen background? You've missed the poin that there are some valid concerns about her remarks on the video clip:

http://sandwalk.blogspot.ca/2012/12/ann-gauger-describes-intelligent-design.html

Quite possibly.  When else did he put in 5-6 million years of honest work?  Really, six days was the previous record for a long work week.

I'm trying to organize the theology in my head with what we know now. I've used round numbers due to the long time frames involved. 

• -4,500,000,000 years - Creates the universe.  Possibly His second finest achievement.

• Spends 4,000,000,000 years messing around with his new chemistry set.

• -450,000,000 years - Creates life in the Pre-Cambrian Explosion.  His finest work.

• Takes a 443,810,000 year break.  Decides he needs some hairless chimpanzees and creates a homo-sapien out of clay then clones him a girl-friend out of his rib.  Kicks them out of his garden after a few years for eating an apple.

• Spends a couple of decades talking to the immediate descendants of the first homo-sapiens.  After that sits out for another 195,000 years but doesn't like how things are turning out so tells Noah to build an ark and collect up a bunch of animals.  He then floods the Black Sea in order to wipe out the dark skinned descendants of the third homo-sapien of 100,000 generations ago.

• Still isn't very happy how things are evolving on their own.  Clocks in 2,000 years later to smite Sodom and Gomorrah.

• 700 years later makes a long distance call to a burning bush.  Talks the guy who answers into take two million people out wandering around the desert.  Lets him wander around for 40 years and rings again giving him 10 commandments. 

• After another 1300 years but not happy with how things are coming together in his terrarium, God impregnates a young married woman so that her baby as a young man can be nailed to a cross.

• And job done.
  
  Broad strokes, I think that is a pretty conclusive argument for intelligent design.

Concerning Thornton, I found this:

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/06/more_strong_exp087061.html

But, curiously, also this:

Thornton showed that it was necessary to undo those mutations too, to reverse the change. To him, the work was a powerful demonstration that the path of evolution can be contingent on random events. “Chance plays a very large role in determining what evolutionary outcomes are possible,” he says. The study captivated the scientific press — and beyond. “Evolution opens gateways into the future. But it appears to close them — firmly — behind it as well,” read an editorial in the New York Times.

And this:

The study flipped another finger to intelligent-design proponents — but “I'm sort of bored with them”, Thornton says. 

re: http://www.nature.com/news/prehistoric-proteins-raising-the-dead-1.10261

Was Mary marrried at the time?

Then, on Axe, I found the following. Watch the video clip...but also read the comments:

re: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ZiLsXO-dYo&list=PLIHsGlleAKaVlItRRFpJ4fzzKBPvAcJoN

Further, check this out:

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/07/douglas_axe_pro074781.html

Not ok at all.

It is the difference between something having a random component and something being entirely random. There is a HUGE signal in the number of mutations, plus some uncertainty. It's almost like saying carbon dating is nonsense because radioactive decay is random.

As an example, the average human protein has about two out of 450 - less than 0.5% - of the amino acids different to the corresponding chimpanzee protein (and almost every human protein has a direct corresponding chimpanzee protein and vice versa).

This is a completely unambiguous signal of how closely related humans and chimpanzees are (far closer than most pairs of species).

It is pure obfuscation to suggest any difficulties with mtDNA (which is in truth, highly informative and with special relevance) because the above comparison exists when mtDNA and non-coding DNA are ignored.