Questions about nested Hierarchy

[RichardG (Richard Gillett)]

@T_aquaticus

In biology, we observe the birth of new organisms that are the result of copying, with a few copying errors thrown in.

But that is not Evolution, that is reproduction. For Evolution to work it must be able to make radical changes not little oddities. And your experiments with Viruses and other short-life organisms has never proved that capability. How can you claim a route if you can’t even prove one link in practice? (Only theory) Your definition of Theory now becomes the world’s greatest small print get-out claus. It becomes fact because your definition of theory makes it fact. Brilliant!

Richard

[Mervin_Bitikofer]

@RichardG

For Evolution to work it must be able to make radical changes not little oddities.

But that is precisely what evolution cannot do (even Darwin 150 years ago is still ahead of you in understanding this). In fact the word itself implies - gradual. There are no sustainable radical changes between organisms and their immediate descendants. The “hopeful monster” caricature is, and always has been a creationist straw man.

[T_aquaticus (The Friendly Neighborhood Atheist)]

@RichardG

Science seems to be working by its own rules and criteria, that do not match up to other disciplines

That is very true. The strength of science is its rules and criteria.

@RichardG

And you do not seem to try and verify from any other perspective.

All I ask for is consistency. If you are going to reject evolution because it is a product of the scientific method then you should also reject all scientific theories. Wouldn’t you agree?

@RichardG

You see your connections, and you see your process, but you haven’t actually proved that one will marry the other in practice (only in theory, but for you, that is enough)

It seems that your philosophy has no way of marrying anything together. It is just a long list of excuses for rejecting any evidence and any conclusion.

[T_aquaticus (The Friendly Neighborhood Atheist)]

@RichardG

Everything is based on amino acids, cells, and other building blocks, so you will see identical DNA for those things in everything.

But we don’t see identical DNA. We see differences in DNA sequence for the same function in different species, and even within species.

For example, there is an estimated 10^94 possible amino acid sequences that will produce functional cytochrome c, as one example.

With this in mind, consider again the molecular sequences of cytochrome c. Cytochrome c is absolutely essential for life - organisms that lack it cannot live. It has been shown that the human cytochrome c protein works in yeast (a unicellular organism) that has had its own native cytochrome c gene deleted, even though yeast cytochrome c differs from human cytochrome c over 40% of the protein (Tanaka et. al 1988a; Tanaka et al. 1988b; Wallace and Tanaka 1994). In fact, the cytochrome c genes from tuna (fish), pigeon (bird), horse (mammal), Drosophila fly (insect), and rat (mammal) all function in yeast that lack their own native yeast cytochrome c (Clements et al. 1989; Hickey et al. 1991; Koshy et al. 1992; Scarpulla and Nye 1986). Furthermore, extensive genetic analysis of cytochrome c has demonstrated that the majority of the protein sequence is unnecessary for its function in vivo (Hampsey et al. 1986; Hampsey et al. 1988). Only about a third of the 100 amino acids in cytochrome c are necessary to specify its function. Most of the amino acids in cytochrome c are hypervariable (i.e. they can be replaced by a large number of functionally similar amino acids) (Dickerson and Timkovich 1975). Importantly, Hubert Yockey has done a careful study in which he calculated that there are a minimum of 2.3 x 1093 possible functional cytochrome c protein sequences, based on these genetic mutational analyses (Hampsey et al. 1986; Hampsey et al. 1988; Yockey 1992, Ch. 6, p. 254). For perspective, the number 1093 is about one billion times larger than the number of atoms in the visible universe. Thus, functional cytochrome c sequences are virtually unlimited in number, and there is no a priori reason for two different species to have the same, or even mildly similar, cytochrome c protein sequences.
29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Part 4

That’s a 1 with 94 zeros after it. So why do we see such similar sequences when that similarity isn’t needed for function?

As mentioned in another thread, we could also switch the anti-codons on tRNAs which would completely change the codon table. The DNA could be very different, but the amino acid sequence would be the same.

[RichardG (Richard Gillett)]

@Mervin_Bitikofer

There are no sustainable radical changes between organisms and their immediate descendants.

And in practical terms, there are some transformations that cannot be achieved in small changes (been here, done that, don’t want the T-shirt.) But, of course, you believe anything can be done given enough time! Unfortunately, you have yet to prove this rather essential assertion. (Application of your theory in terms of other disciplines like physiology, ecology, and basic philosophical abstraction)

Recently some people have been trying to convince me that the process has no limits in terms of scope. You have just said the opposite. Which is correct?

Richard

[T_aquaticus (The Friendly Neighborhood Atheist)]

@RichardG

And in practical terms, there are some transformations that cannot be achieved in small changes

That’s a bare assertion. You have yet to present any evidence to back this claim.

[RichardG (Richard Gillett)]

@T_aquaticus

We see differences in DNA sequence for the same function in different species, and even within species.

You told me that you cannot interpret DNA.

Therefore you cannot tell which sequences mean what.

So the rest is garbage.

Richard

[Mervin_Bitikofer]

@RichardG

Recently some people have been trying to convince me that the process has no limits in terms of scope. You have just said the opposite. Which is correct?

I said no such thing. Here is what I said (emphasis now added):

@Mervin_Bitikofer

There are no sustainable radical changes between organisms and their immediate descendants.

I’m not at all going along with your entirely unsubstantiated claim that large scale change cannot be accomplished through many generations.

[T_aquaticus (The Friendly Neighborhood Atheist)]

@RichardG

You told me that you cannot interpret DNA.

False. I said that we don’t need to know the function of DNA in order to compare DNA sequence. The vast majority of the human genome doesn’t have a function, and yet we can still compare the sequence of those bases in the non-functional portions of the human genome. We also inherit non-functional DNA, so non-functional DNA can be used to test our hypotheses surrounding common ancestry and evolution.

We can also determine if DNA has function, and how sequence affects that function. We can determine if DNA has the same function in different species. These facts are also used to test our hypotheses surrounding common ancestry and evolution.

@RichardG

Therefore you cannot tell which sequences mean what.

We don’t need to know what sequences do in order to compare their sequences.

[RichardG (Richard Gillett)]

@Mervin_Bitikofer

I’m not at all going along with your entirely unsubstantiated claim that large scale change cannot be accomplished through many generations.

I know that, but that does not make it correct. I have demonstrated both philosophically and practically that there is such a thing as too big (impossible) a change. Time cannot do what you claim. Everything has limits, including Evolutionary change.

There is no halfway house between endothermic and ectothermic. And the differences between the two are astronomic in terms of physical attributes and dynamics. And even if you claim that there was a neutral ancestor, you cannot describe what are the minimum attributes for life. You could not tell me how to slowly “build” an endothermic metabolism. What parts are not essential? Or whether the creature could exist with no defined metabolism!

Nor could you explain how a random and uncontrolled method of change could “build” anything at all.

Get real!

Richard

[T_aquaticus (The Friendly Neighborhood Atheist)]

@RichardG

I have demonstrated both philosophically and practically that there is such a thing as too big (impossible) a change.

If your philosophy is, “whatever I assert is automatically true” then I guess you can prove anything you want within your philosophy.

@RichardG

Time cannot do what you claim.

Empty assertion.

@RichardG

There is no halfway house between endothermic and ectothermic.

Tuna would like to disagree.

Scientists have discovered how prized bluefin tuna keep their hearts pumping during temperature changes that would stop a human heart. The research helps to answer important questions about how animals react to rapid temperature changes, knowledge that’s becoming more essential as the earth warms. Pacific bluefin tuna are top predators renowned for their epic migrations across the Pacific Ocean. They are also unique amongst bony fish as they are warm bodied (endothermic) and are capable of elevating their core body temperature up to 20°C above that of the surrounding water. They are also capable of diving down below 1000 m into much colder water which affects the temperature of their heart.
How tuna stay warm with cold hearts | ScienceDaily

I can almost guarantee that the DNA differences between tuna and other bony fish aren’t that large, nor is the anatomy and physiology.

@RichardG

You could not tell me how to slowly “build” an endothermic metabolism. What parts are not essential?

If you are claiming that the gap between endothermic and ectothermic can not be crossed, shouldn’t you be able to tell us these things?

[beaglelady]

@RichardG

There is no halfway house between endothermic and ectothermic. And the differences between the two are astronomic in terms of physical attributes and dynamics.

I have already explained that such creatures exist, and provided a video explaining it. And you just ignored it, as you do everything else. You’ve been leading everyone into an ant mill.

[T_aquaticus (The Friendly Neighborhood Atheist)]

@RichardG

Continuing with tuna . . .

The endothermy of tuna is achieved by conserving the heat generated through normal body metabolism. This is accomplished through the action of an intertwined meshwork of veins and arteries, known as the rete mirable (meaning “wonderful net”), located in the periphery of the body. The rete mirable reclaims much of the heat in the venous blood, and transfers it to arterial blood through the action of a counter-current exchange system. This heat transfer slows down the rate of cooling of the tuna at the body surface, and thereby allows the animal to maintain a warmer core temperature. Higher body temperatures allow tuna to use their muscles more efficiently, and therefore swim more quickly with relatively little expenditure of energy. Higher temperatures of the body core may also contribute to the rapid and efficient digestion and absorption of food.
Tuna - Biology Of Tuna - Body, Relatively, Maintain, and Temperature - JRank Articles

I would like to hear why these adaptations could not be produced by evolutionary mechanisms. It is essentially using muscle contractions to heat blood, and then using heat transfer between blood vessels to keep a warmer body temp.

[RichardG (Richard Gillett)]

@T_aquaticus

I would like to hear why these adaptations could not be produced by evolutionary mechanisms. It is essentially using muscle contractions to heat blood, and then using heat transfer between blood vessels to keep a warmer body temp

Count how many elements are mentioned?
Network of veins and arteries, counter-exchange system, Heat transfer system, Body temperature, the absorption rate of food and digestion, Muscles.

Which ones can you do without and still function? Evolution, as it stands, cannot create them all at once.

Get real. And understand what your claims actually mean in reality. Apply your precious principles to Physiology and Ecology. Connect the dots instead of just drawing them or claiming they exist.

Richard

[RichardG (Richard Gillett)]

@T_aquaticus

@RichardG

Time cannot do what you claim.

Empty assertion.

I repeat, been there, done that, don’t want the T-shirt.

@T_aquaticus

If you are claiming that the gap between endothermic and ectothermic can not be crossed, shouldn’t you be able to tell us these things?

I have, many times!

@T_aquaticus

I can almost guarantee that the DNA differences between tuna and other bony fish aren’t that large, nor is the anatomy and physiology.

But it is between a fish and an amphibian, the next stage in your Evolutionary progression. And why on earth would reptiles regress? (If that was at all possible!)

Richard

[T_aquaticus (The Friendly Neighborhood Atheist)]

@RichardG

Count how many elements are mentioned?
Network of veins and arteries, counter-exchange system, Heat transfer system, Body temperature, the absorption rate of food and digestion, Muscles.

Which ones can you do without and still function? Evolution, as it stands, cannot create them all at once.

Those features were already present in the ectothermic ancestor of bluefin tuna. All that was really required to span the distance between ectothermy and endothermy was bringing the veins and arteries closer to one another. How is this a problem for evolution?

@RichardG

Get real. And understand what your claims actually mean in reality. Apply your precious principles to Physiology and Ecology. Connect the dots instead of just drawing them or claiming they exist.

Physician, heal thyself.

[rsewell (All Truth is God's Truth)]

@RichardG

But, of course, you believe anything can be done given enough time!

To repeat for the umpteenth time, evolution is as much about constraint as possibility. Biologists do NOT believe that anything can be done given enough time. The claim is that variation is inexorable and cumulative over time, but variation always happens on existing traits. Evolution is just biology over time.

[Paraleptopecten (Timothy Campbell)]

@RichardG

The DNA will match, of course it will match.

In what fashion is this not valid?

@Paraleptopecten

Nearly all members (that have been checked) of Buccinoidea, Muricidae, Olivoidea, “Turbinelloidea”, and Conoidea share TTTACTGGT GC GTCGGCTGCGAGCGT in the earlier part of their 28S genes. Most other caenogastropods have a CG instead of the bold GC.

The gene is producing part of nuclear ribosomes in pretty much all animals. Why does that change only appear in a large subset of gastropods that also share a siphon, fairly frequent large size, have similar radular morphologies, and are macrocarnivors (except for columbellids), if they are not actually related?

[paleomalacologist (David Campbell)]

Everything is based on the same amino acids. There is no necessity for that - there are plenty of possible amino acids that a designer could draw on if not using an evolutionary approach. There is no need for the DNA to match. Yet it matches in patterns that fit evolutionary expectations. Life does not have to be made of the same building blocks, yet it is. The same building blocks do not need to be assembled in the same way, yet they are.

[RichardG (Richard Gillett)]

@T_aquaticus

Those features were already present in the ectothermic ancestor of bluefin tuna

That just shows what you do not know about basic physiology.

I do not need any healing. (and I will ask you to keep personal comments to yourself)

Richard