The Problem With Evolution- Part 1, Ape to Man Ridiculousness

[The Barbarian]

18 hours ago, Tristen said:

I actually made this very point in the next sentence to the one you quoted. The modern creationist perspective has always suggested that the "Homo" Genus is comprised of descendants of Adam - and therefore fully human (with the noted exception of Homo habilis which is likely comprised of fragments from both ape and human fossils).

Sounds unlikely, since the H. erectus fossils are almost exactly like H. sapiens in post cranial skeleton,and their skulls look far more like those of modern humans than they look like the skulls of other apes.  

The cranium of H. erectus, with its low profile and average endocranial (brain) capacity of less than 1,000 cubic cm (61 cubic inches), is distinctly different from that of other humans. The average endocranial capacity of modern Homo sapiens, for example, is 1,350 cubic cm, although the range for recent humans is appreciable, perhaps 1,000 to 2,000 cubic cm. The upper part of the maximum estimated range for H. erectus endocranial capacity (1,200 cubic cm) thus overlaps with the lower values expected for Homo sapiens.

https://www.britannica.com/topic/Homo-erectus/Body-structure

Chimpanzee brains are about 1/3 of the size of those of the genus Homo.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pan_(genus)

The foramen magnum on non-hominid apes is at the rear of the skull, showing a largely quadrupedal stance.   It is below the skull in humans like H. erectus and H. sapiens.

18 hours ago, Tristen said:

More accurately, "bats" were grouped together with the other 'flying creatures' (Hb. 'oph'). Using the modern English word "bird" would be an appropriate translation of 'oph' most of the time (though it is also used of flying insects). However, given the inclusion of "bats" on the list, in this instance, the term "bird" is slightly over-specific on this occasion.

This is the source of the confusion as to the meaning of "kind" in the Bible.   It is used for living things in different ways, just as it is in English.   In this case, the Bible uses those classifications for living things as a functional group; they all fly.   Obviously, that is not a scientific classification that indicates common descent.    Sometimes, "baraminologists" attempt to limit common descent to "baramin" (which is an attempt to make "kinds" into a precise term) but the large number of transitional series of fossils between those "baramin" are a serious and presently unsolvable problem for creationists.    The same evidence that shows common descent if individual "barmin" shows common descent of all known living things on Earth.

18 hours ago, Tristen said:

The first thing I find interesting is that, in my advice to @Starise, I suggested asking for evidence to be provided. If we look at the image in your post, you did not provide any evidence, but rather a stylized representation of the evidence; an illustration of what the researchers claim to have found.

I suppose it's always possible for scientists to all be lying about this.  However...

So they aren't lying.

18 hours ago, Tristen said:

The second thing I find interesting is that, your best evidence is from an old, imprecise method.

And yet, even there, the evidence is quite clear.   As to why the telomere and old centromere sites are degenerated (but still recognizable as such) is that mutation is a common thing.   Every person has about a hundred of them that was present in neither parent.   So unless there's a selective value to keeping a section of DNA constant, it's going to change over time.   Which is exactly what we see happening to those telemere and centromere remains. 

PNAS 

October 15, 1991

88 (20) 9051-9055

Origin of human chromosome 2: an ancestral telomere-telomere fusion.

Abstract

We have identified two allelic genomic cosmids from human chromosome 2, c8.1 and c29B, each containing two inverted arrays of the vertebrate telomeric repeat in a head-to-head arrangement, 5'(TTAGGG)n-(CCCTAA)m3'. Sequences flanking this telomeric repeat are characteristic of present-day human pretelomeres. BAL-31 nuclease experiments with yeast artificial chromosome clones of human telomeres and fluorescence in situ hybridization reveal that sequences flanking these inverted repeats hybridize both to band 2q13 and to different, but overlapping, subsets of human chromosome ends. We conclude that the locus cloned in cosmids c8.1 and c29B is the relic of an ancient telomere-telomere fusion and marks the point at which two ancestral ape chromosomes fused to give rise to human chromosome 2.

 

------------

 

Genome Research

July 2023, 33 (7)

Genomic Structure and Evolution of the Ancestral Chromosome Fusion Site in 2q13–2q14.1 and Paralogous Regions on Other Human Chromosomes

Abstract

Human chromosome 2 was formed by the head-to-head fusion of two ancestral chromosomes that remained separate in other primates. Sequences that once resided near the ends of the ancestral chromosomes are now interstitially located in 2q13–2q14.1. Portions of these sequences had duplicated to other locations prior to the fusion. Here we present analyses of the genomic structure and evolutionary history of >600 kb surrounding the fusion site and closely related sequences on other human chromosomes. Sequence blocks that closely flank the inverted arrays of degenerate telomere repeats marking the fusion site are duplicated at many, primarily subtelomeric, locations. In addition, large portions of a 168-kb centromere-proximal block are duplicated at 9pter, 9p11.2, and 9q13, with 98%–99% average sequence identity. A 67-kb block on the distal side of the fusion site is highly homologous to sequences at 22qter. A third ∼100-kb segment is 96% identical to a region in 2q11.2. By integrating data on the extent and similarity of these paralogous blocks, including the presence of phylogenetically informative repetitive elements, with observations of their chromosomal distribution in nonhuman primates, we infer the order of the duplications that led to their current arrangement. 

Would you be able to answer that question about any character in birds that does not exist in dinosaurs?    I used to know of one, but recently, it was found in dinosaurs.   What do you have?

 

 

Edited September 16, 2023 by The Barbarian

[Tristen]

On 9/15/2023 at 11:27 PM, Starise said:

Let me ask you this, how would you describe the ideas as put forth by evolutionists that say men came from apes using the above terms, or would you use other terms? If so, which terms would they be?

I think I'd have to hear the argument being put forward. Then I'd examine the supporting evidence for that argument.

In the absence of an argument, I guess I would then be inclined to focus in on the different types of genetic changes required to make each model plausible.

We commonly observe mutations that change existing genetic information (usually inactivating that information from being processed (transcribed/translated) or making something useless). Both creationist and secular models accept this kind of genetic change.

However, what has never been observed, but what is required to make Common Ancestry plausible (including the supposed relationship between Apes and humans), is a mechanism that generates genetic material that is:

- Novel: Genes that have never existed before in any assumed ancestor group.

- Additive: Genetic information that exists on top of the information that was already there. Like adding an appendix to a book - without changing the information that was originally in the book. Mammals, for example, have more (not just different) genes than the microbes from which we supposedly evolved.

- Functional: It has to either produce a protein (including the insertion of start and stop codons in the exact right places), or else act as some form of transcription control.

- Beneficial: The function of the gene has to provide a competitive advantage to the organism. If the function is toxic (detrimental to the organism) or inert (a waste of energy to produce), then the organism will have a selective disadvantage.

- Adaptive: Not only should the new gene have a generally positive function, but that function has to be specifically positive in the context of the organism's environment - affording the organism a competitive advantage over those lacking the new gene - and thereby promoting the new gene's survival and propagation.

- Heritable: the new gene has to appear in the germ line cells - so that it will be passed on to offspring.

And there's probably other criteria that I've forgotten. The point is, such a mechanism, fulfilling all these criteria, has never been observed - i.e. to produce the genes that exist in some creatures, that don't exist in others. Furthermore, this mechanism is required to generate every unique gene that has ever existed in every creature that has ever existed. Yet this mechanism hasn't been observed in nature once - despite all our molecular experimentation.

 

On 9/15/2023 at 11:27 PM, Starise said:

We can say a given species is one type of an animal. We can say a Kind is also a type

Different "types" (a.k.a. different categories).

I think you wording here is potentially confusing - since "a given species" also belongs to a particular "kind" (which they may, or may not share with other "species")

 

On 9/15/2023 at 11:27 PM, Starise said:

I believe the correct model sees  variation within the partitions of that kind.

As a matter of theory, the creationist model accepts that speciation (diverging into separate "species") can (and does) occur within "kinds".

The tricky part is that both models operate on premises that are contrary to each other. We therefore cannot talk about "kinds" within the context of Common Ancestry - because that concept does not exist in that paradigm. For example, in a previous post you spoke in terms of debating the relationship "between kinds". But in recognizing the concept of "kinds" one must be operating in a paradigm in which there can be no relationship "between kinds" - by definition. This leads to a potentially self-defeating, logical inconsistency.

Sometimes it is preferable to use model-independent language. For example, both models recognize that there are closely related groupings of organisms (as demonstrated by morphological, molecular and hybridization data). The debate revolves around the boundaries of each group, and whether or not one internally-related group is externally-related to another internally-related group.

 

NEXT POST

On 9/15/2023 at 11:35 PM, Starise said:

I would only add that "novel genetic information" seems an understatement

Even so - a mechanism for novel genetic information remains a sizable hurdle for the paradigm.

 

On 9/15/2023 at 11:35 PM, Starise said:

What do you mean in this context by "high genetic diversity"?

There are many mechanisms by which a small number of genes can contribute to a variety of outcomes. Examples include: the many genes whose expressions are dependent on the expression of a specific precursor gene. There are gene crossover events - where the paternal chromosome exchanges genetic information with the maternal chromosome - producing an entirely new version of the gene to pass on to offspring. Gene splicing can produce different expressions of the same gene by rearranging the genetic information before making a protein. etc. etc.

My go-to example for "high genetic diversity" is the history of domestic dog breeds. A couple of centuries ago, there was only a handful of domestic dog breeds. Now there are hundreds. All of the many and varied traits that distinguish modern dog breeds from each other existed in that original population of five-or-so breeds. The way we made pure dog breeds was to inbreed them, thereby breeding out the diversity of genes that existed in the ancestor dog - and leaving only the genes for the desired traits in the descendant breed. Since the ancestors were so highly genetically diverse, no information needed to be added to the dogs to produce such a variety in the descendants in such a short time.

 

On 9/15/2023 at 11:35 PM, Starise said:

Maybe a better term here would be to "discredit". Intead of building on a vew they support, one attempts to discredit the other. That's what I mean't by "falsify".

Both are valid argument strategies - so long as they are accomplished within the bounds of logic (which is unfortunately, increasingly rare).

 

[BeyondET]

3 hours ago, Tristen said:

I think I'd have to hear the argument being put forward. Then I'd examine the supporting evidence for that argument.

In the absence of an argument, I guess I would then be inclined to focus in on the different types of genetic changes required to make each model plausible.

We commonly observe mutations that change existing genetic information (usually inactivating that information from being processed (transcribed/translated) or making something useless). Both creationist and secular models accept this kind of genetic change.

However, what has never been observed, but what is required to make Common Ancestry plausible (including the supposed relationship between Apes and humans), is a mechanism that generates genetic material that is:

- Novel: Genes that have never existed before in any assumed ancestor group.

- Additive: Genetic information that exists on top of the information that was already there. Like adding an appendix to a book - without changing the information that was originally in the book. Mammals, for example, have more (not just different) genes than the microbes from which we supposedly evolved.

- Functional: It has to either produce a protein (including the insertion of start and stop codons in the exact right places), or else act as some form of transcription control.

- Beneficial: The function of the gene has to provide a competitive advantage to the organism. If the function is toxic (detrimental to the organism) or inert (a waste of energy to produce), then the organism will have a selective disadvantage.

- Adaptive: Not only should the new gene have a generally positive function, but that function has to be specifically positive in the context of the organism's environment - affording the organism a competitive advantage over those lacking the new gene - and thereby promoting the new gene's survival and propagation.

- Heritable: the new gene has to appear in the germ line cells - so that it will be passed on to offspring.

And there's probably other criteria that I've forgotten. The point is, such a mechanism, fulfilling all these criteria, has never been observed - i.e. to produce the genes that exist in some creatures, that don't exist in others. Furthermore, this mechanism is required to generate every unique gene that has ever existed in every creature that has ever existed. Yet this mechanism hasn't been observed in nature once - despite all our molecular experimentation.

 

Different "types" (a.k.a. different categories).

I think you wording here is potentially confusing - since "a given species" also belongs to a particular "kind" (which they may, or may not share with other "species")

 

As a matter of theory, the creationist model accepts that speciation (diverging into separate "species") can (and does) occur within "kinds".

The tricky part is that both models operate on premises that are contrary to each other. We therefore cannot talk about "kinds" within the context of Common Ancestry - because that concept does not exist in that paradigm. For example, in a previous post you spoke in terms of debating the relationship "between kinds". But in recognizing the concept of "kinds" one must be operating in a paradigm in which there can be no relationship "between kinds" - by definition. This leads to a potentially self-defeating, logical inconsistency.

Sometimes it is preferable to use model-independent language. For example, both models recognize that there are closely related groupings of organisms (as demonstrated by morphological, molecular and hybridization data). The debate revolves around the boundaries of each group, and whether or not one internally-related group is externally-related to another internally-related group.

 

NEXT POST

Even so - a mechanism for novel genetic information remains a sizable hurdle for the paradigm.

 

There are many mechanisms by which a small number of genes can contribute to a variety of outcomes. Examples include: the many genes whose expressions are dependent on the expression of a specific precursor gene. There are gene crossover events - where the paternal chromosome exchanges genetic information with the maternal chromosome - producing an entirely new version of the gene to pass on to offspring. Gene splicing can produce different expressions of the same gene by rearranging the genetic information before making a protein. etc. etc.

My go-to example is domestic dog breeds. A couple of centuries ago, there was only a handful of domestic dog breeds. Now there are hundreds. All of the many and varied traits that distinguish modern dog breeds from each other existed in that original population of five-or-so breeds. The way we made pure dog breeds was to inbreed them, thereby breeding out the diversity of genes that existed in the ancestor dog - and leaving only the genes for the desired traits in the descendant breed. Since the ancestors were so highly genetically diverse, no information needed to be added to the dogs to produce such a variety in the descendants in such a short time.

 

Both are valid argument strategies - so long as they are accomplished within the bounds of logic (which is unfortunately, increasingly rare).

 

The mechanism is a stem cell

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3410208/

" The distribution of stem cells has been recorded throughout the animal and plant kingdoms, and all these organisms are known to be multicellular.

However, during the development of multicellular organisms through natural selection, stem cells accompanied the evolutionary process, either in the mode of asexual or sexual reproduction.

In general, stem cells can be separated by two basic strategies. One is asymmetric cell division and the other is stochastic differentiation.

In the asymmetric cell division, there are mechanisms that might be described as invariant in which a stem cell gives rise through asymmetric cell division splitting into a stem daughter while the other undergoes differentiation.

In the case of stem cell, due to asymmetric cell division, the cells first undergo a divide and produce one daughter like itself that maintains stem cell characteristics while the other programmed to differentiate into a non-stem cell fate leading to the path of differentiation.

Such a division can be seen in single cell organisms and invertebrates. Asymmetric cell divisions occur during the development of Drosophila and Caenorhabditis elegans. Similarly, multicellular organisms with a relatively few cell types can go though such splitting.

In the multicellular hydra, head and foot can be regenerated in adult from a tiny piece of tissue mass from the body column"

Edited September 17, 2023 by BeyondET

[Tristen]

20 minutes ago, BeyondET said:

The mechanism is a stem cell

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3410208/

Hi B,

I read through the paper and couldn't figure out how you were applying this information to anything I wrote.

EDIT: Even after you edited in a quote, I still don't know what you are saying.

[BeyondET]

1 hour ago, Tristen said:

Hi B,

I read through the paper and couldn't figure out how you were applying this information to anything I wrote.

You mentioned a mechanism that generates genetic material that is:

And I was referring to stem cells being a mechanism 

Edited September 17, 2023 by BeyondET

[Tristen]

2 hours ago, BeyondET said:

You mentioned a mechanism that generates genetic material that is:

And I was referring to stem cells being a mechanism 

There is nothing in the paper about stem cells being able to generate new genetic material.

[BeyondET]

12 hours ago, Tristen said:

There is nothing in the paper about stem cells being able to generate new genetic material.

Thats what happens during the metaphorisis of the butterfly. The whole process is done by stem cells. The blue print for the butterfly is stored in a stem cell. The soup is reconstructed into body parts wings etc.

The duplicate isn't new material but the differentiation is in the cell is what the paper was mentioning.

A slice off a flat worm will create new genetic brain material from stem cell.

Edited September 17, 2023 by BeyondET

[FJK]

4 minutes ago, BeyondET said:

Thats what happens during the metaphorisis of the butterfly. The whole process is done by stem cells. The blue print for the butterfly is stored in a stem cell.

What is being specifically referred to as "genetic material" here?

[BeyondET]

10 minutes ago, FJK said:

What is being specifically referred to as "genetic material" here?

Legs and wings and a body that the caterpillar didn't have before the total rebuild with an exoskeleton.

 

Edited September 17, 2023 by BeyondET

[FJK]

4 minutes ago, BeyondET said:

Legs and wings and a body that the caterpillar didn't have before the total rebuild

 

I think new cellular structures might be a better term to use than new genetic material.

Just my thoughts, but it seems easier to consider for conversation.