Thank you. I told @John_Harshman that it was a little bit of both in regards to the source of the quote. I copied and pasted the quote from that ID source but then bought Ernest Mayr’s book to double check whether the substance of the quote was fundamentally altered. Other than the typo they mentioned, it was pretty much the same. But, of course, they still call me a liar even though they are primarily drawing from the wrong quote.
You specifically suggested that sequence/functional convergence is better explained by selection and I was explaining why that is not the case in these situations.
I will have to get back to you on Psuedogenes then. But, I have already explained why for ERV’s .
I will make it easier then. I am talking about the explanation for those observed nested patterns. The common descent model needs it to be Universal while my model does not.
Wikipedia got it from another source that I gave you already
Then I apologize for the accusation in this particular instance. But you’re still quote-mining, and you don’t seem to understand that context matters, not just the exact words. If you had used the book to check more than that limited quote you would have noticed that Mayr then goes on to explain why there is no reason to suppose either saltation or separate creation. As, for example, in the context of the quote you have just provided from @nwrickert, which goes on to say
But first, you misunderstand your source, and second, that’s irrelevant to the subject of this thread.
No, you have not. You have cited a few ERVs that are hypothesized to have a function. That’s not evidence that most ERVs have a function. Random mutations, on occasion, gain functions. And again, this has nothing to do with the ostensible subject of the thread that you yourself started.
Your model has to settle on some hypothesis of what the kinds are, or it can’t be distinguished from the common descent model. You can just point to any evidence of common descent and claim that it’s happening within a kind. I would claim that we have good evidence favoring common descent of any two species you are unwilling to believe belong to the same kind. But in order to nail that down, you would have to tell me what at least a few of those species are.
Did you read that source? Do you know what it actually said? I’m guessing not.
4 Likes
Dunning and Kruger seem to be the patron saints of creationism 
3 Likes
That’s a splendid idea. Take two animals which seem so utterly different as to make common descent impossible, and then have a look at the actual evidence. The Eastern Gray Squirrel and the Western Gray Squirrel, for example – who can imagine the massive genetic mutations required for these two to have descended from one common ancestral stock? I certainly cannot.
And yet: as different as they are, the threads converge and common descent of these two very unlike mammals is the only plausible conclusion. The difference between humans and chimps is, of course, of somewhat lesser magnitude than that, and so if we can imagine the former, we should certainly be able to see the latter.
4 Likes
Well, I said that it seemed that you were wrong and just asked whether you disagree with Ernest on that quote. That’s it. Relax
I could not find that part but so what anyways. It would not change the state of the fossil record. Thus, my model can use it to establish basic types.
First off, I was responding to what you were saying. Second, how did I misunderstand the source?
I was talking about the explanation for why the designer designed similar DNA sequences among all living organisms from HGT. Again, I will get back to you on why this is the case for psuedogenes.
Again, I was just responding to what you said.
Why not? Why can’t we just say that we will find function in psuedogenes and ERV’s, which would it into a prediction and thus be useful?
Why do we have to define what the kinds are as well for the model to have predictive value?
Lastly, if I did define the kinds a priori, would you concede that it would potentially be a useful scientific model.
Yes I did, but you clearly did not.
Again, please read section “3. How ancient errors can persist in modern species” and “4.7 Implications of functionless sequences shared between species” of the article I gave you.
It not only explains how random mutations plays a significant part in the process of common descent but how psuedogenes and retroposons are evidence for common descent and finding function within those examples would support the common design model.
You may not know it, but you’re effectively saying that the second half of Mayr’s description of the fossil record doesn’t change his description of the fossil record.
Somewhat like this:
Yossarian_SK5: Earnest Mayor wrote “Zebras are black.”[1]
Patient_scientist:If you had used the book to check more than that limited quote you would have noticed that Mayr then goes on to say that zebras have white stripes.
Yossarian_SK5: I could not find that part but so what anyways. It would not change the color of zebras.
[1] Actually copied from Crazy Lizard’s website, but Yossarian_SK5 didn’t mention that.
3 Likes
Go on, then. What are some “basic types”, and what do you mean by this term, which you seem to have introduced just now for the first time?
That makes no sense. Separate creation is not compatible with HGT. Under a separate creation hypothesis, those sequences were in place from the beginning.
We can say it, but it seems like more word salad. You are very bad at expressing yourself, and this prevents anyone from knowing what you’re trying to say. At least it prevents me.
Because you’re trying to account for data by separate creation, and we must be able to identify those separate creations in order to test the theory.
Yes. It would provide a testable hypothesis, which makes science possible. Mind you, any such hypothesis you could come up with has already been falsified by the data, so it would have a very short existence as science. But that’s as close to a useful scientific model as you could hope to come.
Weren’t we supposedly talking about Ernst Mayr’s book here? What article are you referring to?
Well of course random mutations are significant. My point is that shared characters would be significant even if they weren’t random. How would function support separate creation?
2 Likes
I am saying when God created basic types with DNA similarities among living things, He used HGT as the mechanism, then allowed common descent to take place afterwards.
You suggested that if I define kinds a priori, then this would make the model predictive. I am saying it is not necessary because psuedogenes and ERV’s have already been defined as evidence for Macroevolution of common descent or common ancestry.
So finding function from those examples would be a confirmed prediction from the common design model because it suggests a common design rather than a common ancestry.
Yes, I would agree for basic types but not for kinds that evolved after those basic types.
I am talking about this article:
Plagiarized Errors and Molecular Genetics (talkorigins.org)
Again, read the article above then
But HGT isn’t a mechanism of separate creation. It’s a mechanism of common descent. The transferred gene is descended, by the ordinary process of semi-conservative replicaton, from a gene in another species. You just can’t make up your own definitions for words and expect to be understood. So far, you just sound incoherent.
My point is that it doesn’t suggest common design. You have never given a reason why it should.
No idea what you mean either by “basic types” or “kinds”, at this point. But can you identify some basic types?
Good to know. So how does this make any sort of point for you? Please try to be clear about that.
2 Likes
I will just copy and paste a key paragraph from the article:
"All of the examples of functionless sequences shared between humans and chimpanzees reinforce the argument for evolution that would be compelling even if only one example were known. This argument can be understood by analogy with the legal cases discussed earlier in which shared errors were recognized as proof of copying. The appearance of the same “error”–that is, the same useless pseudogene or Alu sequence or endogenous retrovirus at the same position in human and ape DNA–cannot logically be explained by independent origins of the two sequences.
The creationist argument discussed earlier–that similarities in DNA sequence simply reflect the creator’s plans for similar protein function in similar species–does not apply to sequences that do not have any function for the organism that harbors them. The possibility of identical genetic accidents creating the same two pseudogene or Alu or endogenous retrovirus independently in two different species by chance is so unlikely that it can be dismissed.
As in the copyright cases discussed earlier, such shared “errors” indicate that copying of some sort must have occurred. Since there is no known mechanism by which sequences from modern apes could be copied into the same position of human DNA or vice versa, the existence of shared pseudogenes or retroposons leads to the logical conclusion that both the human and ape sequences were copied from ancestral sequences that must have arisen in a common ancestor of humans and apes."
That doesn’t work, as what you pasted doesn’t make any sort of point for you, at least that I can see. Please explain what your point is.
2 Likes
This paragraph from RTB is attempting to explain why evidence supporting common descent ,such as psuedogenes and ERV’s, is dependent on random mutations and thus cannot reasonably be assigned to the common design model as well. Moreover, it explains why a creator should make it look like a protein-coding sequence in another species:
"Evolutionary biologists have long maintained that identical (or nearly identical) pseudogene sequences found in corresponding locations in genomes of organisms that naturally group together (such as humans and the great apes) provide compelling evidence for shared ancestry. This interpretation was persuasive because molecular geneticists regarded pseudogenes as nonfunctional, junk DNA. Presumably, random biochemical events transformed functional DNA sequences (genes) into nonfunctional garbage.
Creationists and intelligent design proponents had little to offer by way of evidence for the intentional design of genomes. But all this changed with the discovery that virtually every class of junk DNA has function, including all three types of pseudogenes (processed, duplicated, and unitary).
If junk DNA is functional, then the sequences previously thought to show common descent could be understood as shared designs . The competitive endogenous RNA hypothesis supports this interpretation. This model provides an elegant rationale for the structural similarity between gene-pseudogene pairs and also makes sense of the widespread presence of unitary pseudogenes in genomes."
Not true at all. What’s been found is that a small number of pseudogenes may have some function. You can’t extend that to every pseudogene being known to have a function.
No, they can’t. Even if they’re functional, that doesn’t explain why they are in the same place and with similar sequences to protein-coding genes in related species. (Of course, processed pseudogenes aren’t in place. But they’re processed, and frequently have poly-A tails, which should suggest how they arose. And it’s not by creation.)
It doesn’t, though. And it doesn’t explain why pseudogenes show a nested hierarchy in both location and sequence. And it doesn’t even address the question; even if pseudogenes are functional, they’re still evidence of common descent.
You have to stop cutting and pasting from creationist web sites; they aren’t real science.
5 Likes
"The ceRNA hypothesis elegantly explains the functional utility of three classes of junk DNA: duplicated and unitary pseudogenes, plus long noncoding RNAs. As it turns out, the transcripts produced from these types of so-called junk DNA also harbor MREs. None of these transcripts codes for proteins yet they play an indispensable role in regulating gene expression. In fact, all three are much better suited for the role of molecular sponges precisely because they aren’t translated into proteins.
Of particular utility are duplicated pseudogenes due to their close structural resemblance to the corresponding coding genes. Duplicated pseudogenes not only exert a sponge effect but also serve as decoys that allow the transcripts of the intact genes to escape degradation and to be translated into proteins."
"The appearance of the same “error”–that is, the same useless pseudogene or Alu sequence or endogenous retrovirus at the same position in human and ape DNA–cannot logically be explained by independent origins of the two sequences.
… The possibility of identical genetic accidents creating the same two pseudogene or Alu or endogenous retrovirus independently in two different species by chance is so unlikely that it can be dismissed.
For example, “Since there is no known mechanism by which sequences from modern apes could be copied into the same position of human DNA or vice versa, the existence of shared pseudogenes or retroposons leads to the logical conclusion that both the human and ape sequences were copied from ancestral sequences that must have arisen in a common ancestor of humans and apes.”
Please stop with the naked quotes that 1) don’t respond to the point and 2) aren’t referenced and 3) don’t come with an explanation of why they’re relevant to whatever you’re trying to say.
Same comments as above. Please stop.
2 Likes
Again, Duplicated pseudogenes not only exert a sponge effect but also serve as decoys that allow the transcripts of the intact genes to escape degradation and to be translated into proteins.
This is why pseudogenes show a nested hierarchy in both location and sequence according to the common design model.
No, they can’t be because random biochemical events transform functional DNA sequences into nonfunctional garbage.
As the article has even pointed out…
"Functionless DNA sequences that scientists have inserted into the DNA of mice or other species are faithfully passed to descendants, and naturally occurring pseudogenes and retroposons apparently behave similarly. "
So what?
But what you said doesn’t explain either of those things. Besides, I asked you first about the GULO pseudogene, which isn’t even duplicated.
That isn’t a response to my claim.
That too was not a response. I have to conclude that you are incapable of recognizing a relevant argument.
1 Like
It may be the only way he has of producing meaningful sentences.
2 Likes
The problem is that, even if they were meaningful in situ, being quoted by him, specifically, destroys what meaning they may have had.
3 Likes