What decides which synthesizer is applied to what family? How is this parameterized for each family genome?
Have you ever seen a cut log? Do you trust your own, direct vision to be credible?
Yes it would Torpedo my entire Argument if I made The claim that evolution is wrong and YEC is correct, of course, but I don’t say that, actually.
My argument merely is, that parameterized designed objects can adapt within the borders of overlapping variation ranges - >assuming< intelligent design as a presupposition.
Of course I couldn’t prove that organisms have been designed. But the same way, evolution- proponents couldn’t prove that they came about by a continuity from species to species due to mutations.
My position is that both options are nothing more than more or less explanatory powerful >interpretations of the observable data<.
And that’s exactly what can happen if the variation range is wide enough.
Think about the following:
If the genome of the proto-cell had been designed to encode the whole biodiversity of the entire planet, its variation range would be so extremely wide that it would be on the level of “life”, so to speak.
The taxonomic system / cladistic may not even work in it’s entirety for the kinds-concept. We shouldn’t even think in that category anymore when it comes to kinds, I think.
Phylogenetic signal is an objectively measurable observation.
If you are saying that data can’t be interpreted, then you are saying that we shouldn’t do science. Science is the process of interpreting data. Do you reject the very act of doing science?
Let’s envision two neighboring variation-potential-countries for the birds and mammals. Why can’t there be overlap between them so that we get species with feathers, teats, and three middle ear bones?
1 Like
Using tree rings and patterns within them for climate change as a indicator for time periods that then independently line up with data from ice cores and from fossil records and so on all create a very sound system of dating. If you believe all of those are not consistent then what’s your methood? Because I’m quite certain whatever it is will fall short so much so that the bit of messiness within ours is insignificant. I’m thinking you don’t have a system for that.
Also, trying to say that all genetic possibilities was within waiting for adaptation just does not match what we understand about basal, ancestral, and derived traits within clades and kingdoms.
How would passionflowers or Heliconius butterfly’s eggs just happen to have the traits within them to match up for mimicry but not oaks or monarchs? Evolution explains that. Yours can’t provide a scientific explanation for that.
@Henry_Dalcke, rhetoric is nice, but could you point us to any data that support your idea? Such as, if you found a wolf frozen in the Arctic would a DNA analysis would show a dachshund hidden in its genes?
2 Likes
The problem here is they are just testing two models, tree or chance. A more general graph model than a tree fits the data much better.
But it doesn’t point to tree-like hereditary structures without >assuming< decent with modification beforehand!
Phyligeny in its entirety is nothing but an argument from genetic similarities and dissimilarities - which are in as much verifying the concept of neighboring variation-ranges.
Interpretation is not the problem. The underlying assumptions on which the interpretation is based, are the problem.
Actually, they can very well overlap! Feathured dinosaurs could very well be at the overlap zone between dinosaurs and birds, for instance.
That’s a prediction based on my model, actually.
1 Like
Sure! Variation by Mendelian recombination in connection with epigenetic reactions to the environment due to gene methylation is a well documented phenomenon that doesn’t impact the DNA.
Wolves have all genes in them that are needed for the expression of all dogs in the world.
Here is the issue. Everyone here essentially knows that within a wolf there is the genetic material that can become this or that dog over time because it’s already happened. It takes a long long time even with human intervention. Besides the debate of red wolf vs grey wolf or a even older wolf species that was the ones that were domesticated we know the dogs are descended from wolves. If all canines died on earth except chihuahuas and those chihuahuas were spread globally and into the wild we would expect in millions of years we could find all kinds of new dog species and even maybe they evolved to the point of dozens of genera and hundreds of species. We could find species that are large , and species even smaller and so on.
But these evolved forms happen because of mutations. Like the dogs that ended up in a colder climate. One would be born with slightly thicker hair. That one would do better in the cold and be able to mate more often and have more kids. Some of his kids would be hairier offsprings. Those would do better and be able to have a higher chance of mating as well. Over time you would see that gene more dominate and expressed more often until it becomes a species of it own. Then out of those species some would have a mutation that gives it’s a slightly longer legs and those would be a little faster and a little better at hunting and able to survive easier and make more often. Out of those there would be one that has slightly larger feet. It can move across snow better. Eventually you would have these chihuahuas that are a new species sharing ancestral traits with modern ones but also had derived traits that make them three times as tall, with five times as big feet and significantly hairier.
But you want find those as basal traits in any of the modern chihuahuas. So it’s not like it suddenly one was tossed into Alaska it’s puppies would pop out three times as hairy and twice as tall. If it did, it would most likely not do well because jump would be to fast and other things like hip development and so on would not have occurred and been bred stronger throughout the same time period.
Derived traits that evolved over time is how new species are created. It’s not a candy store or genes to choose.
What you seem to be pushing is that organisms did not evolve from single cells organisms and over millions of years of random mutations and events that kill off many and leave a few did not occur.
It seems you are pushing a idea that thousand or millions of animals were created fully developed with all these traits possible that can be bred really quickly.
It only makes sense in part because you’re essentially arguing evolution to a degree. But then it seems you reject evolution and try to smooth the process over.
You can’t have species genetically changing and becoming a genus or new species without evolution. A wolf can’t just pop out some labs one day and chihuahuas the next time. The genetic possibilities are there for all kinds of things to happen but they don’t without natural selection fulfilling ecological niches. Domestication and horizontal gene transfer (like with ferns ) can be trickier but none of that is tied into any of these views.
Convergent evolution is not evidence for preloaded genetics either. Dolphins and sharks look very similar. You can see similarities between hundreds and hundreds of aquatic animals. These all evolved independently because those species ancestors had similar mutations that benefited them in similar environments.
But the brain reason why your thoughts don’t flow well for me is the denial of common ancestors. Such as how you denied chimpanzees and humans coming from a common ancestor. Within ancient spiny fish some evolved into tetrapods which eventually evolved into mammals which eventually evolved into some sort of primate that eventually evolved into bipedal primates which eventually became us. But if we could go and look at ancient spiny fIsh and get their dna we would not see anything that would become us. We could find some basal genes I imagine but the services genes that was created through evolution would not be there.
You argue from false premises, so you are coming to wrong conclusions. I’ll explain in the evening.
Factually incorrect claim. While dogs are very similar to wolves, having diverged only about 27 kya, there are in fact identified mutations specific to dogs as a species or sub-species, as well as within specific breeds. That really has little bearing on the discussion on way or another, because none of the principle advocates for created kinds deny that mutation happens; quite the contrary. But it is not true that wolves have all the genes necessary for any given dog breed, and for that matter, neither does any particular breed. It is not just recombination at play.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2211124717304564#bib35
https://science.sciencemag.org/content/316/5821/112
https://science.sciencemag.org/content/316/5821/112
https://science.sciencemag.org/content/326/5949/150.abstract
1 Like
Well, evolutionists would expect that. I clearly don’t! I predict that chihuahuas won’t be able to diversify yet very much more, as they’re probably situated at the border of the variation range of dog-likes
All dogs we know adapted merely due to selection acting on phenotypic results of recombination and epigenetics. That’s a fact. You are of course allowed to >believe< that mutations could cause new species or even genera over time, or even did so in the past, if you want, but that’s clearly not in accordance with the empirical evidence! You assume decent with >unlimited< modification and interpret your observation accordingly!
Mendel at work. So far so compatible with my hypothesis.
These phenotypic changes you describe are all imaginary, to remind you. Mendelian recombination and epigenetics can adapt dogs by fine-tuning their appearance to fit environmental factors, but it’s not empirically provable that selection acting on mutations will cause phenotypes located outside of any variation range - especially if you don’t know where its borders are.
And that’s exactly where you have to start imagining! You don’t observe changes from dogs to non-dogs as you couldn’t grey old enough to observe the morphing over time. You have to >imagine/ believe/ speculate/ wish/ dream< that this can happen! It’s out of scientific reach!
Derived traits within the variation range come about by changed gene expression caused by recombination and epigenetic reactions to the environment! Speciation by recombination is not unlimited! It narrows out the genetic adaptability towards the borders of the variation range. You cannot show that a chihuahua can “evolve” into something else but a dog. Don’t stress your imagination and start bringing up empirical evidence, per favore!
Leave out the part “events that kill off many and leave a few did not occur” and you have it right. Of course these events happened. Talk about genetic bottlenecks. Extinction events are the reason why we don’t have quite a bunch of animal kinds anymore! That’s actually what the flood model would predict.
No, I don’t argue evolution at all! Again: I emphasize, capitalize, write boldly, highlight and underline it for you: I argue VARIATION BY RECOMBINATION AND EPIGENETIC REACTIONS TO THE ENVIRONMENT! That has >nothing< at all to do with selection acting on phenotypic results of random mutations as needed for an unlimited evolution from species to species to species to species. I empirically observe recurrent variation - nothing more and nothing less! You >imagine< too much!
Wolves became dogs of all species by RECOMBINATION AND EPIGENETIC REACTIONS TO THE ENVIRONMENT - not by molecules-to-man-evolution by mutations! Sadly, you don’t seem to get it! Of course this genetic mechanism doesn’t produce new genera - DUH! - it produces species that represent “sub-kinds”! My case!
That displays your bias pro evolution, but not the scientific evidence! You didn’t observe evolution from a common ancestor by mutations! That’s your >interpretation< of the observable data seen in the here-and-now! You cannot go back in time and you don’t know if the fossil order represents an evolution over time. That’s all you’re interpretation you put over the observable data!
“Denial” made my day! I don’t see a reason to believe in a common ancestor of birds and bananas, but I clearly see a reason why different finches had a common ancestor! Guess what: it’s been a finch!
If you believe that you’re ultimately related to a tree-dwelling proto-ape that swung from branch to branch by its tail, you enjoy yourself, but that’s your belief - not what empirical science would suggest to be true!
Thanks for enlightening me with your >>>belief<<<!
Of course you wouldn’t see human genes in a spiney fish! Duh! You’re blind by the light of your wisdom. Sorry, but that’s not science.
Of course mutations had phenotypic effects on dogs. But not to the degree of achieving a clearly new species! The point is, that you aren’t able to scientifically prove that these phenotypic alterations by mutations couldn’t also have been achieved by recombination and epigenetic effects and therefore locate a phenotype outside its kind’s variation range! You cannot prove a continuity of species! You’d have to know
- how many genetic traits are recombinable
- how they recombine (dominant- recessive / intermediate)
- how polygenetic traits affect the variation range
- how epigenetic reactions to the environment affect the variation range.
You don’t know that! You actually >couldn’t< know that! Period!
And in addition to that, genetic traits aren’t even clearly defined on a molecular-biological level, so you clearly don’t know where variation ends and evolution begins.
Don’t tell me you know the Mendelian+epigenetically caused variation range of >any< life form without estimating. You’d be instantly granted the Nobel Prize! Go ahead. Make my day.
Then we are agreed.
Still agreed.
I’m dealing with your claim as to what did happen, not what sorta could’a happen.
BTW, epigenetic methylation only plays a role in expression, it does not alter the protein.
True. This is not math class.
1 Like
But that’s wrong. We know quite well that lots of phenotypes are caused by mutations. You’re trying to model something that doesn’t resemble reality.
5 Likes
Do we “know” this in a way that doesn’t beg the question?
Serious? So you know that the phenotypic results of mutation couldn’t also have been encoded within the variation range? Excuse me, did you breed ALL phenotypes hidden inside the variation range which have still not been expressed? Surely not. So how can you know that a phenotype altered by mutations couldn’t also be achieved by recombination and epigenetics? Let me make an educated guess, here: you don’t know. 
1 Like
Do you? I didn’t make any claim that this or that happened at all! I said, that phenotypic similarity could be achieved by recombination and epigenetics alone! It’s a new interpretation of observable data - not a claim that it actually happened!
Exactly the point! And the necessary genes to be expressed could have either been >designed< or evolved! You have to believe, they evolved, but cannot prove it and I have to believe, they have been programmed and cannot prove it.
It’s not a scientific issue - which I have admitted from the beginning!
Here’s another new interpretation: it could all be achieved by purple fairies alone. Or by The Force. Or, to use a recurring favourite on the forum, by a superintelligent shade of blue.
Without any evidence that this is actually what happened, and with plenty of evidence that real phenotypic differences are often due to genetic differences, why should we care about any of the infinite speculations about other things that could possibly put mutations out of work?
1 Like