I say no but why do evolutionists?
This is a sly way to demonstrate how unlikely evolutionism is on a probability curve.when on thinks of the millions (billions?) of segregated populations in biology(species) then it should be a high, or respectable percentage, are evolving as we speak to create new populations with new bodyplans to survive in some niche. By high I mean millions, with a allowance for mere hundreds of thousands. YET I am confident there is none evolving today. further i suspect evolutionists would say there is none evolving today. WHY? If not today what about yesterday or 300 years ago? Why couldn’t creationists say its not happening today because it never happened? Its accurate sampling of todays non evolution for predicting none in the past!
i think the only hope (hope?) is if evolutionism said , under pE influence, that all biology today is in the stasis stage and just waiting for a sudden need to change, qickly done, then stasis again. Yet why would it be that stasis has been reached so perfectly today relative to the enormous claim of the need in the past for evolutionism?
Anyways i think creationists have a good point here but willing to be corrected.
I’d also mention that, in sexual organisms, reproduction is even more specialised than simple genome copying. Reproductive cells have to do meiosis, generating haploid outputs. This further enhances the coordination of a body, because cooperation between diploid cells is enforced by the gametic exit. If that’s the only way out, and it’s a complex process, and you’ve surrendered the capacity to do it directly because you’ve specialised for something else, then you’ve no choice but to help gene copies in the germline. I think sex plays a major part in keeping multicellularity on track – and is indeed, a big reason why it arose. Multicellularity allows massive amplification of the genome, and nutritional provisioning of eggs, neither available to unicellular individuals.
You intrigue me. I feel you could say more!
Heh heh! Work in progress! 😃
Sure..sure 😉
https://new.hindawi.com/journals/crig/2011/913020/
Nothing is better than true, experimental lab works…eh?
No ID theorist can accuse you of speculations anymore and why would a evolution choose a target from asexual reproduction to sexual for not particular reason…
Me too! 😉
Sure.. sure…
The Role of Epigenetics in Type 1 Diabetes
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5559569/
How long have you spent in a lab, then? Or Sungenis for that matter? This idiot, self-defeating idea that science is only done in labs.
What’s the ID speculation? Anyone can have a crack, you know.
Neil Rickert,
Yes we do as you say.
Well then are there any popping up. Or one? Do you not want any? Do you want a lot?
I think no evolution is going on today because it never did go on. So I ask if its going on today in affecting the billions of species. any?? I think not. the only reason can be the claim of stasis of PE fame. otherwise on a probability curve it seems unlikely no evolution would be going on when its the claimed mechanism for biology. I think Darwin would think it should be constantly happening but PE ws invented to correct Darwin.
i think creationism here is winning a interesting insight.
CharlieM,
There are claims like this. i know they say African elephants/others have evolved smaller tusks based on severe hunting tactics. This would be, if true, very trivial and miss the greater point I make about the likely truth that in the billions of species there being no present evolution goin on is very indicative that it never did happen. It seems unlikel mass biology would not be evolving today when evolution was claimed as its creative force.
They can only retreat to stasis of PE fame. it would be funny if my insight was deadly to the claims of evolutionism. A logical point could wreck a historic error after all.Lots of folks commented here but very poor answers. Hmmm.
DNA_Jock,
Plascity is a new idea to get around the observation biology changes bodyplans without selection on new mutations. its another point but another good point for creationism.
anyways if this is the only case for modern evolutionism then it makes my case evolutionism is not affecting the billions of species today.
I think very unlikely on a probability curve that things are so perfect but maybe they might say stasis /PE is being witnessed as opposed to evolution.
However NO EVOLUTION going on is very interesting surely for such a load of biology chances. Hmmm.
Allan Miller,
Is sexual selection affecting any of the billions of species today resulting in evolution of new bodyplans of new populations relative to parent ones?? perhaps harder then my original question and probably just as much NO!!
Goodness’ sake Robert! You aren’t listening!.
Sexual selection is not supposed to account for a new, instantaneous ‘body plan’. Imagine – “Phwoar! Look at the wings on that!”, says the dinosaur. It’s about enhancement of features already present.
I do wonder what Creationists get out of this kind of thing. I mean, Robert made it clear to the internet many years ago that he doesn’t accept evolution. OK, but, then what?
“I don’t accept evolution”
OK, got it.
“It’s not possible. What I’d expect to see isn’t seen”.
Righto.
“Evolution. Don’t accept it. Makes no sense”.
Yeah, you said.
“Did I mention that I don’t accept evolution?”
Er…
Of course, that’s not how our end of the conversation goes. Mugs that we are, we try and answer, and explain. Again. And again. And again. It’s a hobby, I suppose.
I’ve often wondered about the motivations of commentators like you; I’m glad you find it a pleasurable hobby (if that is what you mean by the last sentence).
As a lurker in these conversations, I often learn some science from them. so I appreciate your dedication for that.
But that only happens for me when your opponents try to bring in some new science, even if they usually misunderstand it or slant it to meet their worldview.
One example is Sal. He seems to be making an effort to engage with some of Joe’s book over at PS. He’s also tried some physics there as well (less successfully IMHO) and the feedback from the physicists there as been helpful.
Another example is the math that Tom is able to discuss in response to Eric’s work.
I would not put J-Mac or Robert in that class of of commentator.
I would have never guessed that 😂
I understand that you don’t see the similarity in the way that these processes mirror each other. We are looking at things from opposite perspectives. You tend to look from the parts to the whole and I tend to look from the whole to the parts. You see separation where I see unity. But the parts cannot exist without the whole.
The only viable natural forms of life are whole organisms and single celled organisms are the lower limit to self sustaining viable life. For example plasmids would not exist without the whole organism to which they belong. The cell, not the DNA is the unit of biological inheritance. What we observe are organisms instigating and producing offspring, we do not see DNA instigating and producing descendent DNA.
Extinction during evolution is paralleled with cell types or tissues ceasing to exist during individual development. As above so below.
And if we look at life’s classification, higher levels always persist when there is extinction at a the lower levels.
There is some truth to that. We shouldn’t throw the baby out with the bathwater.
In the case of individual development each new tissue type and organ is a novelty. They are parts which are new to that particular organism. Body organs are novel structures not seen at the germinal stage.
So not much in the way of essential differences.
Surely anyone who believes in such a thing as a LUCA would conclude that all life after that point is related through heredity. As all body cells are related to the zygote through heredity.
So, your somatic cells have given up their continued existence in favour of germ cells? The only value you see in your life is reproduction?
You say separate organisms don’t always play nice. Do you think that all body cells appear to “play nice” if we are just looking in at narrow processes without consideration for the wider picture. There are body cells being pushed out, killled off and scavenged constantly all to maintain the body.
Lions may be detrimental to the health of individual herbivores, but are they detrimental to the health of the herds as a whole?
Because it stimulates us into asking questions and legitimate science thrives by its participants asking questions and searching for answers.
And don’t forget, no pain, no gain 🙂
The Fibonacci sequence is seen at all levels from seed heads to spiral galaxies. Likewise cells relate to individuals as individuals relate to life as a whole.
But how did the TE get there? Did it jump or was it pushed? 🙂
It does highlight the need for species to be variable enough to cope with changing environments. And any changes within organisms, whether we think of them as evolutionary or not, cannot be understood in isolation from the environment.
But this lining of ducks is only necessary for those who believe that matter is primal. I believe that the first appearance of physical life was already a cell. IMO the first cell appeared as a condensation from a more field like existence (as in matter condensing from energy) rather than being built up from material parts like some machine like construction. No duck juggling necessary.
So why mention genes at all?
You, you, you’re good you! 😉
Yes but HOX genes can do nothing without the surrounding regulatory networks. There is greater whole within which they are used.
Incidentally, HOX gene positions mirror the body structure. As above, so below.
Surely it would be more accurate to say that NEUROG2 is part of the regulatory network.
Of course!
First, dinosaurs evolve wings they don’t need.
Then, the wings become useful, because…. well… birdies evolved…
Aha!
Blind, mindless processes ‘knew’ they weren’t evolving wings for nothing…
What a blind foresight!!!
This reminds me a fairytale of a car with wings that later was supposed to evolve into an airplane…
A. Why did you design a car with wings?
D. I don’t know… but I thought it could use them in the future..
A. For what?
D. Like an airplane..
A. Have you lost your mind? Why would you carry this extra, inconvenient, unnecessary load? Nobody’s going to buy it because the competitors are making lighter, more efficient cars that fit (-ness) everywhere better than yours. You wiil be naturally selected against by your competitors!
D. But my car design has a potential to become an airplane in the future…
A. You will not survive until then… Get it?!
🤗
I was comparing increasing complexity. From zygote to adult there is an increase in complexity. From early prokaryotic life to the organic diversity now on earth there is an increase in complexity. A comparison between individual organisms and the entity known as the biosphere.
Again – zygote to mature organism in comparison to organism to biosphere. Not a comparison of materials but a comparison of processes.
dazz,
Please don’t over-strain your brain on my account 🙂
P.S. I didn’t realise that Dazz was short for Daffy 🙂
BruceS,
Yeah, it’s a pastime. I have plenty others! But I enjoy writing, even if it’s just jabbing away at a tablet while the missus watches sport or detective shows!
Writing for someone you know won’t get it is little different from writing speculatively for a completely unknown audience. It’s about marshalling thoughts and presenting a case, and helps to clarify my own thinking, rather than an expectation I’ll get somewhere. And I do learn from others’ mistakes***, even if they don’t.
(***and my own, indeed).
CharlieM,
It seems an inevitable consequence, to me. Evolution produced humans, complex organisms which don’t just pop into complex existence in a heartbeat, but develop, iteratively. That’s what the evolutionary process produces, a series of developmental processes. So the complex thing is a product both of that evolutionary process and of that development process. How could it be otherwise? Try to imagine an evolutionary process that led to complex organisms whose complexity did not also develop.
You could take any multicellular organism and say the same thing. The fruiting body of a fungus is the end product of an evolutionary process and a developmental process. But the evolutionary process wouldn’t have led to the fruiting body other than via the developmental process, iterated and tuned.
It seems both trivial and inevitable, and tells us nothing about evolution or development that we didn’t already know.
I’m not sure I’ve done anything other than agree with that.
Whoah, there. Where do you get such ideas? It is absurd to turn an observation on biology into a value judgement. I’ve just taken the dog for a walk in the mountains, had a splendid day in the snow, bantered with my kids on Messenger, listened to some great tunes on the way home, had a beer and a nice tea. Tomorrow we’re meeting up to take my 90 year old auntie for lunch … but yeah, the dog and my auntie and my kids and me – our somas are there to propagate the germline, in the grand scheme of things. Doesn’t mean I don’t care.
They all contain the same genome. They don’t mind a bit. This is a crucial distinction. Relatedness of the soma is the reason it hangs together.
Depends how you measure things. The human race could do with a few ‘lions’. Fancy doing a bit of light culling, for the good of the species?
I don’t see you as searching for answers so much as proselytising.
To help those members of the BBC audience who do not understand what “heritability” entails towards understanding how the study relates to evolution. It is evidently a problem. And this is the recurring challenge of science journalism: making the science simple enough that non-scientists will be able to understand it, whilst avoiding saying things that doofi will mis-interpret.
As I said, it is a “great example of the dangers of relying on secondary sources”.
Maybe but first it will take a mommy and daddy car ,who love each other very much ,to make little baby cars.
Allan Miller,
Fine. However to bring evolution there must be evolution from this to that. however little it still means selection occured to make a new population. Sexual selection is claimed as a mechanism for having changed bodyplans. in fact the males look different then the females. Indeed sexual selection is keeping a spieces as the same one but anyways its not creating new ones today or name one.
There was little to none answering here on my thread. This because there was no answer except NO there is no evolution affecting billipons of living species today. or 200 years ago or ever. its a myth.
there is bodyplan changes but not from evolutionists untested hypothesis.
I gave them a chance with PE’s stasis but they didn’t think it was a god idea. i think they are right. Somethings wrong with wrong ideas.
OK, it’s a myth. Can we look forward to many more posts from you saying “I still don’t accept evolution”?
LUCA is not a genome, it is an organism. People get fixated on genomes. Let us for a moment forget about the genome and think about what we see being passed on from one generation to the next. Development – generation of cells: Evolution – generation of organisms.
First consider individual development. Life begins with a single living cell. It divides and becomes two and so on. Living cells are what we observe multiplying and being transferred down the generations. The living cell is the unit, the entity, which we see passing from one generation to the next. Here it is apt to use the terms parent cell and daughter cells. A descent of cells from ancestral cells. Cellular descent with modification.
Now consider what evolutionists call common descent. What is the unit, the entity that we see passing from one generation to the next? It is the individual organism. From parent to offspring. Individuals multiply. Descent with modification pertaining to organisms.
Cells are to organisms as organisms are to the biosphere.
Well, no. Individual people can be studied as units and corporations can be studied as units without reference to their employees. We can look at a cell as a single entity and we can look at an organism as a single entity without having to refer to what it is made up of.
Perhaps it’s men that fixate on genomes as that’s all there is that gets passed on in a sperm cell.
You will need to make your reasoning a bit more explicit, because there is nothing in the links you posted that contradicts anything Jock and I said.
Just pretend that I cannot read your mind, but you actually have to tell me things.
Class II transposons encode an enzyme that actively excises and re-integrates the transposable element. So I think it is fair to say it jumped* . Of course, it needs the host machinery for transcription and translation, but so do many indisputable parasites like viruses.
* Just like J-Mac, I would advise you to not leave me guessing at what it is you want to say. I interpreted “jumping” and “pushing” as meaning the insertion event usually benefits the element itself or its host, respectively.
What kind of answer would satisfy you?
I thought people like you, adapa, and the like, are very critical of ID for not doing enough science in labs…
So, the self-defeating idea of doing science only in labs only applies to evolutionary science, and not to ID?
How convenient…
As mentioned above, materialists have doublestandards; one when they do their speculations, and another when ID people do theirs…
So, you obviously missed the point because of your bias.
So, I’d suggest, before you propose another of your speculative ideas, make sure it fits the criteria of a scientific theory; i.e. observation, prediction, reproduction by experiments…
Otherwise…you know what’s it like with ideas that have application only in science-fiction…😉
Really?!
I’d asked you if you’ve suggested mustache was a disease, and you referred to developmental process. Now, I linked you to mustache as being a disease in children before puberty and you pretend nothing you said has been contradicted…
Jock can’t distinguish between 2 different types of diabetes, each one having different causes and onset…
What’s the point of further discussion?
You both either do not understand the point initially challenged in the OP by Neil, Allan and Joe::
Does our genome change over our life time?
Or choose to ignore it because of your preconceived worldview…
Either way… this proves that materialism based evolution is a one ways street: all efforts are focused on to support the preconceived notions and evidence contradicting them are ignored, or mocked…
Some science….🤗
Ha! I don’t think that is going to happen.
It is essential to J-Mac’s MO to keep his “reasoning” *not* explicit, relying on random citations and many, many ellipses to appear (to the uninitiated) that he has a clue. The fun bit is asking him simple questions (about statistics, cancer treatments, heart disease, LDL levels) that cannot easily be answered via google-and-paste, and watching him squirm.
[I will note that his diabetes link, with its focus on epigenetic changes, is a GSW to the foot.]
So why have sex in the first place (if you get my drift 🙂 ). What was the reason for it showing its ugly head 😉 (I can’t help it, I’ve watched too many “Carry On” films. If you know what they are you’ll understand)
Parthenogenesis enables all of the genetic material to be passed on without external contamination. Genes are faithfully passed on from parent to offspring. Introducing a second source of genetic material, no matter how similar it is to the genome of the female, is interfering with the mother’s ability to pass faithful copies to the next generation.
As you say the introduction of sex involves greatly increased complexity. Both partners are required to have very their own very sophisticated, complex processes. And equally important, they must coordinate with each other at every level. In animals there is the level of individual behaviour, attraction and instincts, the level of matching sexual organs, the cellular level of sperm and egg, and the genetic level of matching chromosomes.
And all this to achieve something that we are told is unwanted by the genes. They lose the guarantee of being faithfully copied. As far as faithfully passing on genomes cloning is more accurate than sexual reproduction.
So let me get this straight. You believe that the 3-year old boy described in that case report developed premature facial hair because he received two mutations in the CYP21A2 Gene at that precise point! In every cell of his body! At the same time! Teehee. Excuse me while I point and laugh at you.
No, J-Mac, that does in no way whatsoever support your bizarre claim that every age-dependent process requires genomic changes. That boy was born with the mutations that caused his condition. This is demonstrated by the fact that the responsible mutations were detected in DNA isolated from peripheral lymphocytes, and that one of the mutations was carried by his mother.
Oh, that’s right. Wikipedia called to ask if they could have your picture for the lemma “psychological projection”.
Yes they need to explain how we get from variation about a mean, keeping organisms in tune with their environment, to jumps in novel complexity.
But how do you explain findings such as the locations of fossils which would suggest that creatures such as dinosaurs or pterosaurs appeared at specific times and then subsequently disappeared?
If gradual macro evolution is happening we are not going to see it in the time span available to us. Similarly we cannot tell that the moon is moving relative to the visible planets just by looking at them in the course of a single night.
An awareness of this requires us to see with our minds as a complement to seeing with our eyes.