Here comes another one...

[Rumraket]

gilbo12345 wrote:
How is evolution experimentally verified, I have been asking for evidence of such in the other thread and its simply faith claims... with no experimental basis

By the extremely high degree of congruence of the millions upon milliions of phylogenetic trees you can construct from sequence alignments of multiple orthologous loci in multiple species. There is only one single explanation for this dataset that makes sense, evolution through common descent.

If common descent was false, there would be absolutely no expectation to have such massively statistically supported trees.

http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0069924
Beyond Reasonable Doubt: Evolution from DNA Sequences
W. Timothy J. White, Bojian Zhong, David Penny

Abstract

We demonstrate quantitatively that, as predicted by evolutionary theory, sequences of homologous proteins from different species converge as we go further and further back in time. The converse, a non-evolutionary model can be expressed as probabilities, and the test works for chloroplast, nuclear and mitochondrial sequences, as well as for sequences that diverged at different time depths. Even on our conservative test, the probability that chance could produce the observed levels of ancestral convergence for just one of the eight datasets of 51 proteins is ≈1×10[sup]−19[/sup] and combined over 8 datasets is ≈1×10[sup]−132[/sup]. By comparison, there are about 10[sup]80[/sup] protons in the universe, hence the probability that the sequences could have been produced by a process involving unrelated ancestral sequences is about 10[sup]50[/sup] lower than picking, among all protons, the same proton at random twice in a row. A non-evolutionary control model shows no convergence, and only a small number of parameters are required to account for the observations. It is time that that researchers insisted that doubters put up testable alternatives to evolution.

Introduction

There are some areas of science where there is still strong resistance to basic scientific conclusions: anthropogenic climate change [1], the reality of long term evolution [2] http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org, the origin of life, and the safety and efficacy of vaccination programs [3] are well-known examples. Thus we still require strong quantitative tests of our main scientific hypotheses, even if the conclusions appear obvious to most researchers. In the case of evolution, a strong prediction of Darwin’s ‘descent with modification’ [4] is that, as we go further and further back in time, the sequences for a given protein should become increasingly similar – we call this either ‘ancestral convergence’ or ‘reverse convergence’. The prediction from evolutionary theory is that DNA or protein sequences carrying out the same basic functions in different organisms are generally inherited from a common ancestor – in this sense they are fully homologous proteins (or orthologs) [5]. We must be able to measure this convergence and test it quantitatively. In practice, although the information comes primarily from DNA sequences, we convert them to protein sequences for the tests. As we see later, we currently cannot yet find any other hypothesis that leads inevitably to the same prediction without an explosive increase in the number of parameters.

It is basic to science that we have never tested all possible hypotheses; consequently we never obtain final and absolute knowledge about any aspect of the universe. Nevertheless, the scientific method provides us with the best form of knowledge that humans can attain, and ensures that we use the most thoroughly tested understanding at any time [6]. This Popperian framework allows both Bayesian and frequentist approaches to be used, dependent on what is appropriate for the questions being tested.

We use a non-evolutionary null model and develop a quantitative test of ancestral convergence, and apply it to a range of datasets that have diverged at deeper and deeper times. As a control we show that unrelated proteins do not show convergence. Furthermore, an excessive number of free parameters are required to account for the observed convergence by other processes. This clearly does not ‘prove’ that yet unknown models are impossible, but the theory of evolution leads to extremely strong predictions, and so the onus is now on others to propose testable alternatives.

From the discussiom:

So our conclusions are perhaps three-fold. Firstly we have provided a strong quantitative test rejecting a non-evolutionary model that amino acid sequences do not become more similar as we go back in time. Secondly, we have raised the problems of the number of parameters required of some alternatives, and finally we shift the requirement onto doubters to provide testable alternatives. On this third aspect, there does appear to also be a similar reaction from climate change advocates on placing responsibilities onto doubters [32]. Other aspects of evolution have been tested [33]–[35] and further aspects of evolution could be tested, perhaps especially the ‘random’ nature of mutations that occur without regard for any ‘need’ of the organism, but this is outside the scope of the present work. Indeed, there has always been excellent support for evolution from fossils and comparative morphology, and molecular data enables this to be quantitative. We can say that, as yet, no features of genomes have yet been found that are not understandable by ‘causes now in operation’ [4].

From the scientific point of view, there is no doubt that evolution has occurred, and there really were a continuous set of intermediates connecting individuals, populations, varieties, species, genera, families, etc. Nevertheless, as scientists we need to ensure that we have good quantitative tests available of all our favoured models. Given our results, we suggest that researchers need to be more assertive that evolution has both occurred, and continues to occur. It is essential that any person who does not accept the continuity of evolution puts forward alternative testable models. As we tell our first year undergraduates, ‘belief is the curse of the thinking class’.

Your failure to properly appreciate this evidence is borne primarily out of your lack of understanding of the subject matter. To anyone who really understands molecular phylogenetetics, the subject is exactly as in the words of the authors: Beyond reasonable doubt.

We know we are related through common descent, beyond all reasonable doubt. It is possibly the most well-attested fact in all of science, given the extreme degree to which the observations converge on a single statistical tree of life. Given the enormity of the dataset from which phylogenetic trees can be build, the total number of trees that can be constructed defies comprehension. Yet they all statistically converge on universal common descent.

 

[Deleted member 619]

Your failure to properly appreciate this evidence is borne primarily out of your lack of understanding of the subject matter.

I would suggest that it is borne out of a need for evolutionary theory to be wrong. It's such a strong challenge to his requirement for truth that it simply cannot be countenanced, regardless of its veracity.

Problem is, of course, that evolution occurs, and has been observed to do so.

 

[Dave B.]

Genetic nature - culture : anthropology and science beyond the two-culture divide - Goodman et al 2003.

Apparently a fusion occurred in the human lineage, creating chromosome 2 and reducing the count from 24 pairs to 23 pairs. Is that what makes us human? Yes and no. Yes in a narrow, diagnostic sense: given the chromosomes from a cell of any living species, if you find chromosome 2 among them, they are from a human. No in a functional sense: the fusion is not what gives us language or bipedalism or a big brain or art or sugarless bubble gum. It is simply one of those neutral changes lacking outward expression, which is neither good nor bad but merely diagnostic.

This doesn't support your claim that they are expressed identically. It can't because it's just not true.

 

[herebedragons]

This doesn't support your claim that they are expressed identically. It can't because it's just not true.

No, in fact, IIRC, human chromosome 2 contains genes that are not even in the chimp chromosome, so expression cannot be identical.

I don't think the point is that they are expressed identically, but that there is no particular advantage to way they are packaged. Here is a link to a modern human with a fusion of 14 and 15, he now has 44 chromosomes. He apparently lives a very normal life, with no observed abnormalities. From the article:

a doctor in China has identified a man who has 44 chromosomes instead of the usual 46. Except for his different number of chromosomes, this man is perfectly normal in every measurable way.

There is almost certainly no advantage in how the DNA is packaged. If anything, having a different number of chromosomes hurts someone in terms of having the most babies possible.

It might be that where the two chromosomes fused together, some new helpful gene was created. Maybe one that let our ancestor communicate more effectively or walk upright. Unfortunately, there is no evidence to support this.

So, more to the point, there is no evidence that the fusion of chromosome 2 is what makes us uniquely human.

HBD

 

[Rumraket]

Yes, a big problem for many in evolutionary biology is to get over the idea that "everything happened for a reason", whether because of functional reasons retained and shaped by natural selection or otherwise.

There are many features of organisms, many properties of their physiologies that simply have no selective benefit. They just are.

Take an example like the human brain. It's sort of grey-white in it's colour. Was this ever selected for? Of course not, if you should ever find yourself in the position where someone can see directly into your skull and detect the colour of your braintissue, chances are you're in very very bad shape.
The brain is what makes us able to think, make decisions on sensory information. What colour it has is irrelevant. Nevertheless, it just so happens that the combination of cells and their constituents from which brainmatter is made, is grey-white. It's a neutral feature, a byproduct of something else.

The same goes for the fact that humans have 46 chromosomes instead of 48, it's the result of a neutral mutation in the past that got fixed in some ancestral lineage. It doesn't really do anything, it serves no purpose, there is no "design advantage" or reason by natural selection, to prefer human beings with 46 chromosomes over potential humans with 48.

Unfortunately this kind of "selectionist reasoning" is found all too frequently even among evolutionary biologists. No, the fact that some kind of physiological property happens to exist in some organism doesn't necessarily need an explanation from natural selection. Sometimes things are the way the are as a matter of chance, or as a byproduct of something else.

 

[Deleted member 619]

This doesn't support your claim that they are expressed identically. It can't because it's just not true.

You are correct, of course. I overstated the case. It does, however, support the claim that it accounts for none of the morphological difference between our species.

 

[Dave B.]

This doesn't support your claim that they are expressed identically. It can't because it's just not true.

You are correct, of course. I overstated the case. It does, however, support the claim that it accounts for none of the morphological difference between our species.

That would be correct. Thank you.

 

[DutchLiam84]

So apparently Gilbo is at it again in the comment section here: http://freethoughtblogs.com/aronra/2014/01/14/creationism-and-flat-earthers/#comments

Enjoy!

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

So apparently Gilbo is at it again in the comment section here: http://freethoughtblogs.com/aronra/2014/01/14/creationism-and-flat-earthers/#comments

Enjoy!

After skimming the comments a bit, I do not believe that is our [sarcasm]beloved[/sarcasm] gilbo12345. In one of the comments, gil makes it clear that English is not his native tongue.

english is not my native.

Gilbo12345, although displaying an impressive lack of reading comprehension, was from Australia. In addition, the argument gil is using is nothing like gilbo12345’s. Gilbo12345 argued semantics, whereas gil is constructing arguments such as:

plus: if a self replicate car cant evolve into an airplan, how can a bacteria can evolve into human ?

Gilbo12345 was not the sharpest tool in the shed, but his arguments were not that terrible.

 

[DutchLiam84]

Ohh goddamnit, I thought I read his first comment on this forum. Google "i study biology and i think i have very strong evidence for design in nature" and see how many times he copy pasted that comment. Where have I read this??

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

Ohh goddamnit, I thought I read his first comment on this forum. Google "i study biology and i think i have very strong evidence for design in nature" and see how many times he copy pasted that comment. Where have I read this??

Wow. That is an impressive bit of spamming gil has done. It is surprising he has not found his way here.

Well, gilbo12345 has claimed, several times on this forum, that he is a student of biology. You must have thought because that person’s handle is gil and studies biology, that they were one in the same.

 

[Dave B.]

I am pretty sure that it's not him. Dildo12345 is too busy Gish Galloping his way across EFF to have the time to troll on any other forums.