Re: Can any old earther refute common genetic ancestry?

Ernest Major wrote:
In message <OXX5j.10649$Mu4.5111@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Danwood <noreply@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes
Ernest Major wrote:
In message <fvp5j.11967$_m.10905@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Danwood <noreply@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes
John Harshman wrote:
r norman wrote:

On Tue, 4 Dec 2007 12:58:12 -0800 (PST), James Goetz
<james.goetz@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:


Comparative genetics and population genetics provide compelling
evidence for common genetic ancestry. All genome differences in all
extant biological life can be broken down to population isolation and
microevolution, where microevolution is the processes of mutation and
drift and selection. And mutations include point substitutions,
indels, conversions, and chromosome aberrations. Can anybody show me
an extant genome that cannot be explained by population isolation and
microevolution?

Can anybody show me an extant genome that cannot be explained by
special creation?

Your demand has validity only if you accept the materialistic world
view that has dominated most of western civilization for the last few
centuries. Reject that and it is meaningless.

Taking up part-time creationism? I'll toss out the usual response,
because it's a dandy response.
Sure, you can "explain" anything at all by special creation.

I don't defend special creationism, but one can say the same thing
about evolution. It can explain anything.
You are incorrect. Evolution cannot explain any possible thing.

Oh, I sure it could not explain human bones in Precambrian
strata or human footprints in the Cambrian etc. But in the
actual fossil record or the modern world it can. Any good
practitioner can come up with imaginative scenario to explain
anything observed.

It's
just that we've only observed (in the relevant domains) things which are explicable by evolution. As there are billions of such observations this is powerful support for the factuality of common descent with modification through the agency of natural science and other processes.

I read how Louis Pasteur devised several test and via these test
falsified spontaneous generation. How would one devise a Pasteurian
type test that could possibly have a chance at falsifying evolution.

Evolution has been observed in real time in the wild and in the laboratory, so it's difficult to falsify it - it would be like falsifying gravity. But if you mean common descent ...

Identify the genetic codes of organisms. (The near uniformity of genetic codes and the nature of the deviations is support for the factuality of common descent with modification through the agency of natural selection and other processes, but we've only done the work for a small proportion of organisms. Finding more organisms with genetic codes uncorrelated or negatively correlated with the nested hierarchy inferred from other traits would do the trick.

The same holds for DNA sequences of homologous genes, or for the gene contents of organisms. Common descent with modification has already effectively passed the tests relating to genetic codes and DNA sequences - while we've only looks at a small proportion of the data we would have to have been very unlucky to have avoiding disconfirming data if common descent was false. The test for gene contents is currently in progress.

But it's an
odd sort of explanation. If you assume an omnipotent creator, anything
can happen. So nothing at all can be evidence in favor of such a
creator, or evidence against either. It belongs to a family of
explanations that also includes omphalism and Last-Tuesdayism.
Then again, common descent with modifications from microevolutionary
mutations has quite definite expectations. If we see them, we have good
evidence for common descent. If we don't see them, that's a problem for
common descent. And so common descent is a useful hypothesis. And one
that turns out to have lots of support.

Most living organisms are finely tuned "machines", not too differently
to lines of code in a complicated computer program. Randomly
altering a line of code does not improve function? Most mutations
are neutral or detrimental, often leading to severe mental/physical handicaps or even death. When neutral or detrimental mutations do
not cause death they become a genetic burden which tens towards
a decline in the overall fitness of the species. A benefical
mutation if not accompanied by an array of cooperative and supportive mutations facilitating a new function or behavior, a point mutation has no survival value.
The analogy to computer programs is dodgy - living organisms are less brittle than computer programs.

This is true, but when living organisms with detrimental mutations survive and reproduce, which is implied by the "less brittle" comment, they contribute to the overall genetic burden. These persistent
harmful genes which are passed on to offspring. As the human species continues those with heritable genetic defects thrive and reproduce: and this is observed in the increase in mental and physical defects which are not lethal, but has been going on for tens of thousands of years.
There are more heritable genetic disorders, both mental and physical diseases and defects, today in the human gene pool than say 5000 years ago.
This "burden" over time would eventually cause the gradual degeneration of our specie and modern medicine enables many today to thrive and reproduce, which in the past, would have died out without leaving offspring. The ultimate future of the human race is towards overall decline.
>
What about this?

Another puzzler for me is that genes are "multi-purpose" ie pleiotropic
This means a change in one gene leads to a host of changes on different parts and traits. In the past genetics assumed that a gene expressed for single well defined trait or function. However, now it is understood that a mutation in a single gene can have far reaching and unexpected consequences in other parts of the affected organism. So it would
seem that a mutation that was beneficial regarding one trait would
likely have detrimental effects on other trait(s). These effects of
the various parts of the mind and body would have to be orchestrated
or else catastrophic and disastrous changes could occur. Creationist probably don't know about this, or at least, I haven't found a writer
on creation or evolution who has dealt with this.
Not that I have read very extensively in either camp. Anyway:
Breeders have know about this as Did Darwin, but no one knew how or why. White cats with blue eyes are blind according to my vet. (I have one). Some breeds of dogs that are bred for one desirable trait often have defective parts that are totally unrelated except gene that expresses for the various traits.
<snip>

(Most) genes are pleiotropic, but (most) traits are multifactorial,
>
I expect all genes are pleiotropic. When you consider that the human genome is composed of only some 20,000 + genes to express for a body like the human body. It seems absurd, if it were not true-that these
few genes express for an assortment of proteins which engineer the intricacies of the kidneys, liver, heart, brain, hair color eyes hearing
mechanics etc.etc. etc.
Imagine how many words would required to to tell a biochemist how to make the hundreds of different kinds of cells and organize them in their proper place in the body of some 75 trillion cells. Even the human skin holds thousands different organs from the various glands, hair follicles and senses not to mention the nerves and blood and the biochemestry involved in day to day living. The brain with it's 100 billion + intricately organized neurons and the trillions of connections in the brain. And this is just the tip of the iceberg.

But all of this is complexity is expressed for by just 20,000 - 25,000 genes. I would say they must all be highly pleiotropic.

One can easily say evolution and billions of years accomplished this incredible task. Call it what you like, but I have problems with believing this. To say that it required a super intelligence to
accomplish such complexity is much easier to believe.

Danwood

that
is controlled by multiple genes. Over time mutations in other genes can separate the beneficial and detrimental effects of a mutation in the original gene.
>
This explanation is so generalized that it really says nothing.



Also, I think that you will find that problem with dogs is more often than not due to a combination of linkage and inbreeding than to pleiotropy.

Even so It's doubtful that pleiotropy is not the cause.
Danwood



.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Can any old earther refute common genetic ancestry?
    ... And mutations include point substitutions, ... As there are billions of such observations this is powerful support for the factuality of common descent with modification through the agency of natural science and other processes. ... The same holds for DNA sequences of homologous genes, or for the gene contents of organisms. ... In the past genetics assumed that a gene expressed for single well defined trait or function. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Long distance running in some human populations recent
    ... which shows that a genetic mutation that boosts muscle endurance has spread ... There are two types of skeletal muscle fibers. ... protein at all due to mutations in both their copies of the gene ACTN3, ... Genetics. ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)
  • Re: Can any old earther refute common genetic ancestry?
    ... And mutations include point substitutions, ... As there are billions of such observations this is powerful support for the factuality of common descent with modification through the agency of natural science and other processes. ... There are more heritable genetic disorders, both mental and physical diseases and defects, today in the human gene pool than say 5000 years ago. ... In the past genetics assumed that a gene expressed for single well defined trait or function. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Its official, the Ashkenazi Jews and Arabs Share Same Gene Mutation -- from two separate sou
    ... Genetic Link to Parkinson's Disease Is Detected in 2 Ethnic Groups, ... Scientists say a mutation causes 18% of cases in Ashkenazi Jews and 37% ... The fact that the gene plays such a large role in the two ethnic groups ... "The importance of genetics has been disputed ...
    (uk.politics.misc)
  • Re: Dawkins gives incorrect answer
    ... In this context how would you address the "concept of the gene"? ... require just as much attention..even though scientists can't be the only ... Yet when it comes to genetic engineering ... the environment has less influence on the phenotype than genetics. ...
    (sci.bio.evolution)