Junk & Jonathan: Part 8—Chapter 5
This is part 8 of my review of The Myth of Junk DNA. For a list of other postings on this topic see the link to Genomes & Junk DNA in the "theme box" below or in the sidebar under "Themes."Pseudogenes are the classic example of junk DNA and, as pointed out by many evolutionary biologists, they represent a difficult challenge for Intelligent Design Creationists. It's especially difficult to explain pseudogenes that are located in the same place in different species.
Chapter 5: Pseudogenes—Not so Pseudo After All
Chapter 5 is Pseudogenes—Not so Pseudo After All. This is the chapter where Jonathan Wells takes the standard creationist approach to the problem of pseudogenes—he denies that they exist!
Wells begins the chapter by reminding us that several evolutionary biologists have challenged the IDiots to come up with an explanation for pseudogenes, especially those that are found in closely related species. The usual suspects are quoted: Ken Miller, Douglas Futuyma, Jerry Coyne, Richard Dawkins, and John Avise. All of these challenges are based on solid evidence that most pseudogenes are actually pseudogenes (non-functional, degenerate copies of functional genes). But Wells says, "Yet there is growing evidence that many pseudogenes are not functionless, after all."
Types of Pseudogenes
There are three kinds of pseudogenes [Pseudogenes]. The first category contains genes that used to be functional in our ancestors but currently are non-functional. The best example is the human GULOP pseudogene that used to encode a key enzyme in the pathway for synthesis of vitamin C [Human GULOP Pseudogene]. This gene is active in most animals but it has become a pseudogene in primates and, independently, in a few other animals.
The second category includes genes that arise from a gene duplication event followed by inactivation of one of the copies. These pseudogenes tend to be located near their active siblings and they retain most of the features of the original gene except they can't produce an active product. Many of them are transcribed, especially if they have only recently become pseudogenes.
The third category is called "processed" pseudogenes. They arise when a mature mRNA molecule is copied into DNA by reverse transcriptase and the resulting DNA is integrated into the genome. Processed pseudogenes will usually not have any introns and when they integrate they will not be near a promoter. Many of them are truncated because the copying process was not complete. Processed pseudogenes were never able to produce their original functional product (protein or RNA) and they accumulate mutations at the rate expected from fixation of neutral alleles by random genetic drift.
The first two categories of pseudogene will also accumulate mutations once they become inactive. It's a characteristic of pseudogenes that the older they are the more mutations they have. Thus a pseudogene that is only found in chimpanzees and humans will have fewer mutations than one found in monkeys and apes and even fewer that one found in both rodents and primates.
The human genome contains about 20,000 pseudogenes, about the same as the number of genes. Many of these pseudogenes belong to the same family so not every gene has a corresponding pseudogene. About 6,000 of these pseudogenes arose from duplication events and 14,000 are processed. (The first category is rare.)
The pseudogenes in the "duplicated" category tend to be associated with large families of related genes. For example, in the human genome there are 414 pseudogenes in the olfactory receptor gene family [Olfactory Receptor Genes, The Evolution of Gene Families]. It's difficult to imagine how any substantial number of these genes could have a function.
As expected, the processed pseudogenes are scattered thoughout the genome because they insert at random. Roughly 2,000 of them are found in introns and this is further evidence that introns are mostly junk. Of course, if a processed pseudogene plunks down in an intron sequence it will be transcribed. Processed pseudogenes tend to come from functional genes that are abundantly expressed in the germ line. That's because the processed pseudogene has to be integrated into germ line DNA in order to be passed on to the progeny. Most of these genes are standard housekeeping genes. For example, there are 1300 pseudogenes derived from ribosomal protein genes.
Jonathan Wells describes the three categories but doesn't explain any of the other things I just mentioned.
Transcribed Pseudogenes
The first important section of his chapter is "Transcribed Pseudogenes." He quotes a number of papers showing that some pseudogenes are transcribed in humans, cows, and plants. In humans he claims that about one-fifth of pseudogenes are transcirbed at some time or another. This is probably an upper limit since most workers suggest that only 10% are transcribed.
I'm sure that some pseudogenes are transcibed. Many of the pseudogenes derived from gene duplication events will still be transcribed from active promoters even though they may not produce a functional product. Many of the processed pseudogenes will be transcribed because they are found within a gene (introns) or have fortuitously integrated near a promoter.
'Pseudogenes' That Encode Proteins
The key question is whether any pseudogenes produce a functional product and that's addressed in the next section: "'Pseudogenes' That Encode Proteins." Wells describes five studies where presumed pseudogenes were found to be genes after all (three in humans and two in fruit flies). Interesting but irrelevant. These genes are not junk. What about the other 20,000 real pseudogenes? Here's what Wells says at this point in the chapter ...
To be sure, only a relatively small proportion of known pseudogenes have been shown to encode proteins. But there is growing evidence that RNAs transcribed from pseudogenes perform essential functions in the cellHere's where we get to the most important part of the chapter. It's in a section called "RNA Interference."
RNA Interference
RNA interference arises when one RNA molecule interferes with the expression of another. The easiest example to understand is when part of a gene is transcribed in the opposite direction producing what's called "antisense" RNA. This antisense RNA will hybridize to the functional mRNA and either block translation or induce degradation. In either case, less protein is made.
If a pseudogene is transcribed in the opposite direction then its antisense RNA could interfere with the expression of the normal gene. Wells gives us three examples of this phenomenon: one famous one from snails (1999), one from mouse oocytes (2008), and one from rice (2009). I don't know whether all these results have been confirmed but even if they have it doesn't amount to much. All kinds of strange things happen in biology and the fact that a few pseudogenes might have acquired a regulatory function isn't shocking. What about the other 20,000 pseudogenes?
Pseudogene Enhancement of Gene Expression
Theme
Genomes
& Junk DNAWell, there's always the possibility that pseudogenes could enhance gene expression. The next section is "Pseudogene Enhancement of Gene Expression." Jonathan Wells begins this section with a description of the results on the mouse Mkrn-1-p1 pseudogene. The authors of this famous 2003 Nature paper claim that transcripts from the pseudogene protect the functional mRNA by shielding it from degradation. The title of their paper is "An expressed pseudogene regulates the messenger-RNA stability of its homologous coding gene" (Hirotsune et al., 2003).
Wells devotes three paragraphs to this important paper. There's only one slight problem. This work has been discredited in a 2006 PNAS paper with the title "The putatively functional Mkrn-1-p1 pseudogene is neither expressed nor imprinted nor does it regulate its source in trans." (Gray et., 2006) Oops!
Wells knows about this 2006 paper because he discusses it in Chapter 8 when he attacks the defenders of junk DNA. In chapter 5 he adds the following remark in parentheses, "Other biologists later challenged the Makorin-1 pseudogene results, which remain controversial." I think this is the only time when he mentions any legitimate scientific controversy.
There are three other examples of pseudogenes that might have an enhancement function: one from plants and two from humans. I don't know if these studies have been confirmed but even if they have they don't have much of an impact on the possible functions of the remaining 20,000 pseudogenes.
Sequence Conservation
The only significant evidence of widespread functionality of pseudogenes comes from two studies on sequence conservation. Wells covers this in a one-page section on "Sequence Conservation." The studies purport to show that pseudogene sequences are much more conserved than expected if they are really junk DNA. These studies have not been reproduced, as far as I know, and they fly in the face of much evidence to the contrary—evidence that Wells forgets to mention.
The first paper is a review by Balakirev and Ayala (2003). They review the possible functions of some pseudogenes in Drosophila and mammals. Some of them show evidence of sequence conservation. They conclude that most pseudogenes are probably functional. A study published that same year looked at all the known pseudogenes in the human genome and concluded that 95% of them evolved as though they had no function (i.e. they were not conserved) (Torrents et al., 2003)
The second paper that Wells mentions is Khachane and Harrison (2009). They identify 68 human pseudogenes whose sequences appear to be conserved in at least two other mammals. These are good candidates for functional genes.
The strange thing about this argument is that Wells doesn't believe in common descent so the evidence of sequence conservation really shouldn't have any meaning for him. Nevertheless, he says ...
How odd! As we saw in Chapter 2, Kenneth Miller, Richard Dawkins, Douglas Futuyma, Michael Shermer, Jerry Coyne and John Avise argue that pseudogenes confirm Darwinism because they are non-functional. But if we assume that Darwinism is true and then compare the DNA of unrelated organisms, sequence similarities imply that many of their pseudogenes are functional. So nonfunction supposedly implies Darwinism, but Darwinism plus sequence conservation implies function. When it comes to conserved pseudogenes, it seems, Darwinism saws off the very branch on which it sits.For the record, if the majority of pseudogenes really are more conserved than expected from random mutations and fixation by random genetic drift then this would, indeed, be evidence that something is going on. Maybe they do have a function we don't know about. I don't think the evidence points in this direction at all—in fact much of the evidence contradicts it. Balakirov and Ayala (2003) are just speculating. I prefer the evidence of Torrents et al. (2003) suggesting that only a small number of potential pseudogenes have a function. This is consistent with the results of Khachane and Harrison (2009).
[If all 1,000 presumed pseudogenes turned out to be real genes then this moves about 0.06% of the genome from the junk category to the functional category. This isn't enough to save the IDiots.]
The Vitamin C Pseudogene
Finally, there's a section I haven't covered. It's titled "The Vitamin C Pseudogene." Wells has to address this particular pseudogene because it's the one that comes up most often when evolutionary biologists (e.g. Ken Miller and Jerry Coyne) criticize Intelligent Design Creationism. Here's what Wells says,
The evidence is not as straightforward as Miller and Coyne make it out to be, however, and their argument is ultimately circular. In any case, common ancestry and intelligent design are two different issues, and the vitamin C story would take us on a detour from the issue of junk DNA that's the focus of this book, so the details are omitted here and included in an appendix.Which brings us to the Appendix: "The Vitamin C Pseudogene."
The main argument of scientists like Ken Miller and Jerry Coyne is not that the GULOP pseudogene exists. It's that the GULOP gene and its pseudogene are at the same location in the genomes of all mammals. In the primate lineage this gene is non-functional due to a number of mutations that make it impossible to produce a functional protein. Some of the same deactivating mutations are found in related species such as humans and chimpanzees. This suggests strongly that the non-functional pseudogene was inherited from a common ancestor. How do Intelligent Design Creationists deal with this evidence?
How does Wells respond?
... intelligent design and common ancestry are two different issues. Major ID proponents pointed this out before Miller wrote his book....Although some ID proponents (including me) question universal common ancestry on empirical grounds (as do some evolutionary biologists), intelligent design is not necessarily inconsistent with common ancestry.I'm not sure what this means. Does it mean that people like Wells are completely bamboozled by this data since they can't refute either the evidence of common descent or the evidence of bad design? Other IDiots, like Michael Behe, only have to explain the bad design?
Jerry Coyne has published a similar argument but Wells attacks him on two fronts. First, he claims that human and chimpanzee Y chromosomes differ by 60 million nucleotide substitutions. If they really have a common ancestor then one would expect much greater sequence similarity. According to Wells, "If similarities in the vitamin C pseudogene are evidence for common ancestry, then differences in the Y chromosome are presumably evidence against it."
The Y chromosome paper is Hughes et al. (2010). Their results show that in orthologous regions of the Y chromosomes the human and chimp sequences are 98.3% identical. However, the chimp and human chromosomes differ in other regions because of large inserts and deletions. This is still evidence of common ancestry.
As usual, Wells is wanting to have his cake and eat it too.
The second attack is based on a number of quibbles. Coyne said that all primates need vitamin C in their diets but Wells points out that prosimians are primates and they can make vitamin C. Furthermore, according to Wells the requirement for vitamin C has only been established in nine species of monkeys. There are 251 other species and we don't know if they need vitamin C. Not only that, Coyne claimed that all primates have the same single nucleotide deletion in their GULOP pseudogene but Wells is quick to point out that only five primate sequences have been published.
Put that in your pipe and smoke it, Jerry Coyne! I assume that Wells is completely incapable of answering the challenge that's been issued and that's why he resorts to red herrings.
Continuing with this shotgun approach we quickly encounter several other arguments that are designed to distract from the main topic.- "Miller and Coyne rely on speculations about the motives of the designer or creator that have no legitimate place in natural science." (I hope you turned off your irony meter before reading that.)
- Miller and Coyne have not provided any evidence to justify their claim that the GLO pseudogene is completely nonfunctional.
- (Turn off your irony meter!) Their argument is circular. The similarities in sequence between chimp and human pseudogenes could be due to natural selection. "To break the circle, Miller and Coyne would either have to establish the recent ancestry of humans and chimps on other grounds (but why then bother invoking the vitamin C pseudogene at all?), or they would first have to establish that the vitamin C pseudogene has no function whatsoever (but this is impossible). So their argument not only fails to refute ID, but it also fails to establish that humans and chimps are descended from a common ancestor."
Thus endeth Chapter 5.
Gray TA, Wilson A, Fortin PJ, Nicholls RD. (2006) The putatively functional Mkrn1-p1 pseudogene is neither expressed nor imprinted, nor does it regulate its source gene in trans. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 103:12039-12044. [PDF]
Hirotsune, S., Yoshida, N., Chen, A., Garrett, L., Sugiyama, F., Takahashi, S., Yagami, K., Wynshaw-Boris, A., and Yoshiki, A. (2003) An expressed pseudogene regulates the messenger-RNA stability of its homologous coding gene. Nature 423:91-6. [PDF]
Hughes, J.F., Skaletsky, H., Pyntikova, T., Graves, T.A., van Daalen, S.K., Minx, P.J., Fulton, R.S., McGrath, S.D., Locke, D.P., Friedman, C., Trask, B.J., Mardis, E.R., Warren, W.C., Repping, S., Rozen, S., Wilson, R.K., and Page, D.C. (2010) Chimpanzee and human Y chromosomes are remarkably divergent in structure and gene content. Nature 463:536-539. [Nature]
Khachane, A.N., and Harrison, P.M. (2009) Assessing the genomic evidence for conserved transcribed pseudogenes under selection. BMC Genomics 15:435-449. [PDF]
Torrents, D., Suyama, M., Zdobnov, E., and Bork, P.. (2003) A genome-wide survey of human pseudogenes. Genome Res. 13:2559-2567. [PDF]
The authors of this famous 2003 Nature paper claim that transcripts from the pseudogene protect the functional mRNA by shielding it from degradation.
ReplyDeleteA more contemporary take (citation below) on this concept is that pseudogene transcripts protect the functional mRNA by competing for miRNA interference.
A coding-independent function of gene and pseudogene mRNAs regulates tumour biology
Nature 465, 1033–1038 (24 June 2010) doi:10.1038/nature09144
This is really astounding; I thought ID types were at least able to make some good arguments, even if ultimately wrong, at the molecular genetic level, but apparently not.
ReplyDeleteIts actually so bad that I almost feel /embarrassed/ for Dr. Moran for responding to this stuff.
If it weren't for the unfortunately large amount of support that these IDists have, it probably /would/ be embarrassing for people like Dr. Moran to bother refuting them and exposing what look basically like lies of omission!
Also, I seem to recall that the big deal with ID was defining and actually measuring 'degree of purposeful design', but here they seem to have completely abandoned that! Instead they are citing /function/ as support for ID, neverminding that the /design/ of that function if horrible. If anything the pattern we're seeing here, with genes being duplicated, RNA being back-jacked randomly, even partially, into DNA, and then being transcribed from that, that seems like something Nature, not an Intelligent Agent, would create; they should probably be running away from this issue.
It sounds like Wells is too enamored of his 'icono-clasm', he's decided that junk DNA is an Icon of evolution, and that therefore he just has to break it, and since his faith tells him that evolution is wrong anyway, then his iconoclasm MUST be fruitful.
Could the same single nucleotide deletion in their GULOP pseudogene be convergent evolution and not common ancestry?
ReplyDeleteAnonymous writes:
ReplyDeleteCould the same single nucleotide deletion in their GULOP pseudogene be convergent evolution and not common ancestry?
It might have a chance to be if broken vitamin C synthesis were strongly adaptive (it isn't), and evolution somehow decided to accomplish this in exactly the same way multiple times out of uncounted possibilities (not bloody likely), and there weren't excellent corroborating evidence of common ancestry from other genetic sources, paleontology, morphology, geography, etc. (there is).
Or to state this more simply: If all the facts were the exact opposite of what they are, the answer might be yes.
Just something I thought I'd throw out there... since Old World "monkeys" are actually more closely related to us apes than they are to New World "monkeys", does the term "monkey" have any actual scientific validity at all? Isn't it really just an arbitrary label grouping animals that simply bear a resemblance? YouTube's Aron Ra is of the opinion that if it has any use, it has to include apes since one of the included groups is more closely related to them than to the other included group.
ReplyDeleteJud I have a question:
ReplyDeleteConcerning GULOP, does "evolution accomplish this in exactly the same way"?
Is the nucleotide sequence exactly the same in all the creatures that have this characteristic?
Anyone who wishes can answer this.
anonymous asks,
ReplyDeleteCould the same single nucleotide deletion in their GULOP pseudogene be convergent evolution and not common ancestry?
No.
(See Jud's answer for more detail.)
Prof. Moran has written:
ReplyDeleteThe best example is the human GULOP pseudogene that used to encode a key enzyme in the pathway for synthesis of vitamin C [Human GULOP Pseudogene]. This gene is active in most animals but it has become a pseudogene in primates and, independently, in a few other animals.
So we may presume that GULOP was once functional. Have you ever read some courses of "evolutionary biolology" or any book written by R.Dawkins? Then you must have noticed how important is any selective "advantage" however small it is and how quickly it tends to spread over population?
I would say that having functional GULO would give any given organism a small "advantage" however small it can be. How is it possible that once functional GULO has been displaced by non-functional GULO seems to be in odds with all those speculation of effectiveness of "natural selection".
How do Intelligent Design Creationists deal with this evidence?
It seems to be evidence against natural selection imho. GULO obviously remains functional in many mammals and using professor's "irony meter" - in these cases obviously "natural selection" didn't sleep and has wiped out "deleterious mutation" in GULO in accordance with the wise law of "survival of the fittest".
Dr. Moran:
ReplyDelete"The best example is the human GULOP pseudogene that used to encode a key enzyme in the pathway for synthesis of vitamin C [Human GULOP Pseudogene]. This gene is active in most animals but it has become a pseudogene in primates and, independently, in a few other animals."
Independently in humans for example.
VMatrin says,
ReplyDeleteI would say that having functional GULO would give any given organism a small "advantage" however small it can be. How is it possible that once functional GULO has been displaced by non-functional GULO seems to be in odds with all those speculation of effectiveness of "natural selection".
I agree, it conflicts with evolution by natural selection. But it's not in conflict with modern evolutionary theory.
You do know about modern evolutionary theory, don't you?
From Dr. Moran:
ReplyDelete"You do know about modern evolutionary theory, don't you?"
Dr. Moran, just can't seem to control himself. It is not enough for him to make a point. There always has to be some snarky, ridiculing part.
It is really sad to see that over and over again.
Anonymous writes:
ReplyDeleteDr. Moran, just can't seem to control himself. It is not enough for him to make a point. There always has to be some snarky, ridiculing part.
It is really sad to see that over and over again.
Yes, please be more like that nice VMartin, who posts such polite, respectful things to Dr. Moran:
Have you ever read some courses of "evolutionary biolology" [sic] or any book written by R.Dawkins?
No patronization or sarcasm there, oh no.
anonymous, this sort of one-sided tone trolling is the refuge of the intellectually bereft, so it's not a place you want to keep going.
Jud I have a question:
ReplyDeleteConcerning GULOP, does "evolution accomplish this in exactly the same way"? Is the nucleotide sequence exactly the same in all the creatures that have this characteristic?
Yes, exactly the same cytosine deletion is responsible for lack of function of this pseudogene in primates.
But even there you're barking up the wrong tree. The sequences wouldn't have had to be identical (as they are), they'd just have to form what's called a "nested hierarchy." And the other thing to be aware of is that there are 3 enzymes involved in this vitamin synthesis, so if a designer had wanted to stop it, it would have been just as acceptable to make a critical change at any point along any of the coding genes for any of the 3 enzymes. That's a huge number of options, but instead we see the same one, indicating common descent.
And that's just the pseudogenetic evidence. There's a huge amount of other pseudogenetic and genetic evidence, plus corroborating information from all the other scientific disciplines I mentioned in my prior answer to this question.
anonymous writes:
ReplyDelete"This gene is active in most animals but it has become a pseudogene in primates and, independently, in a few other animals."
Independently in humans for example.
Ah, the entertainment never stops. So let me get this straight:
1. The Designer decided He didn't like Vitamin C synthesis in primates and various other mammals. What, He owns orange groves in Florida?
2. Having thousands of ways to bung up the synthesis, He chose the very same one independently in each and every primate. So He wasn't content to do it once and let these animals evolve, carrying the mutation; instead, He made much more work for Himself by doing this mutating on a one-off basis multiple times. He'd fired His planning and efficiency expert, then?
3. And we know this because you are either -
a. So brilliant that you know the unknowable, unfathomable ways of the omniscient Designer; or
b. You gotta hotline straight to Da Lord Hisself.
I'm so very curious, is it a or b in your case?
Really, because it looks pretty funny to me.
ReplyDeleteSad would be getting all butt-hurt over it.
Jud is trolling.
ReplyDeleteIf this deletion has occurred independently in some animals why did people earlier say that it was not an example of convergent evolution?
ReplyDeleteJud had earlier said:
ReplyDelete"It might have a chance to be if broken vitamin C synthesis were strongly adaptive (it isn't)"
If it is not adaptive why would it have survived at all in any animal?
I came to your site to learn something. Within a few sentences you told me that I was an idiot so I went elsewhere.
ReplyDelete"Wells begins the chapter by reminding us that several evolutionary biologists have challenged the IDiots to..."
If you want to teach you should treat your students, no matter how stupid, with dignity and respect otherwise they will leave.
anonymous asks:
ReplyDeleteIf it is not adaptive why would it have survived at all in any animal?
Oh please do catch up to the evolutionary theory of 80-100 years ago when this question was answered. Your personal level of ignorance does not constitute a problem for evolutionary theory.
Anonymous writes:
ReplyDeleteIf this deletion has occurred independently in some animals
The only one I've seen here who says it was independent is you. And you are wrong.
why did people earlier say that it was not an example of convergent evolution?
Because you are wrong about it occurring independently, and so for that reason as well as the many others mentioned to you multiple times now, it is quite obviously (to anyone who will open his/her eyes to see) not an example of convergence.
Dr. Moran posted:
ReplyDelete"This gene is active in most animals but it has become a pseudogene in primates and, independently, in a few other animals."
Jud is really having troubles.
Jud had earlier said:
ReplyDelete"It might have a chance to be if broken vitamin C synthesis were strongly adaptive (it isn't)"
If it is not adaptive why would it have survived at all in any animal?
Jud does not seem able to answer this. Can anyone else?
Ron Van Wegen says,
ReplyDeleteI came to your site to learn something.
I doubt that very much.
Within a few sentences you told me that I was an idiot so I went elsewhere.
Too bad you're gone 'cause I'd really, really like to know what IDiot site you came from. I'm not aware of one that treats evolutionary biologists with dignity and respect.
You must be very thin-skinned. If you had stayed you would have been criticized by your fellow IDiots. :-)
Prof.Moran:
ReplyDeleteYou do know about modern evolutionary theory, don't you?
A little bit. Combination of natural selection, neutral drift, neutral draft accompanied by evolutionary games and frequency dependent selection plus evo-devo... Add to this kin selection and inclusive fitness and you get a conglomerate of ratione no one can ever check.
In the case of Ascorbic Acid we know that not even birds, but also Prosimian can produce it in their livers. The deleterious mutation should have occured in our ancestor some 65 mil. years ago. Prosimian obviously have retained it. Is there such a diffrence in the diet?
According to Irwin Stone "In the long period of human prehistory and history, scurvy has caused more deaths, created more human misery and has altered the course of history more than any other single cause."
It is hard to believe that our putattive ancesstors didn't miss the gene for millions of years and that they have all the time enough Ascorbic Acid and we miss it only now (scurvy was described also by Hippocrates).
One wonders if fruit eating birds do not have enough intake of AA while it seems their gene is functional. Why do they still produce AA?
The most curious thing is that transition of land mammals into whales should have taken cca 10 mil. years. Yet 50 mil. years was not enough time to reestablish internal production of AA in primates.
Ron Van Wegen, I would not worry too much about Dr. Moran. He has his agenda to promote and is also filled with disdain that surfaces constantly as ridicule.
ReplyDeleteanonymous asks,
ReplyDeleteIf it is not adaptive why would it have survived at all in any animal?
You've seen me state, on many occasions, that I am not a Darwinist. You've seen me criticize the IDiots repeatedly for using the term Darwinism and for not understanding evolution.
The fact that you would even ask such a question tells me that you haven't been paying the least bit of attention. That's why I call you IDiots.
Jud had earlier said:
ReplyDelete"It might have a chance to be if broken vitamin C synthesis were strongly adaptive (it isn't)"
If it is not adaptive why would it have survived at all in any animal?
Jud and Dr. Moran do not seem able to answer this. Can anyone else?
Anon:"The most curious thing is that transition of land mammals into whales should have taken cca 10 mil. years. Yet 50 mil. years was not enough time to reestablish internal production of AA in primates."
ReplyDeleteIts curious, definitely, but does the failure of evolution to produce an adaptation mean that evolution doesn't occcur? Clearly not.
Anon:"Dr. Moran...is also filled with disdain that surfaces constantly as ridicule."
Seems to me that he should ridicule the ridiculous.
Anon:'If it is not adaptive why would it have survived at all in any animal?"
So non-adaptive features contradict evolution. But, Intelligent Design means, well, good functional design. So non-adaptive features contradict evolution AND they really actually serve good function and this supports Intelligent Design.
Derp.
Side note:
Really, is it SO HARD to use a name in these postings? Richard Dawkins seemed to be posting here for a while, is Phil Johnson, Behe, Wells, et al actually posting here, and are they such wimps that they won't even use their names? Is that what's going on? Because who /wouldn't/ use a name anyway? At least use a pseudonym consistently.
Schenck seems to be acknowledging that "non-adaptive features" like the GULOP gene "contradict evolution".
ReplyDeleteIs there agreement on that point?
Anonymous: Schenck seems to be acknowledging that "non-adaptive features" like the GULOP gene "contradict evolution".
ReplyDeleteIs there agreement on that point?
Absolutely not. If there is consensus on anything it is that adaptation is not the sum total of evolution. On a genomic level, adaptation (i.e. positive selection) is unlikely to be even a quantitatively large part of evolution, certainly not in large, multicellular eukaryotes with (in relative terms) small populations.
If it is not adaptive why would it have survived at all in any animal?
If there was a high level of vitamin C, e.g. fruit, in the diet of the ancestral haplorhine species in which GULO became GULOP, then the synthesis of vitamin C is not beneficial and its loss via genetic drift becomes possible.
Presumably such a loss could have held a slight fitness advantage at the time (i.e. cutting out an unnecessary biosynthesis pathway) but this is certainly not required to explain its loss.
VMartin:One wonders if fruit eating birds do not have enough intake of AA while it seems their gene is functional. Why do they still produce AA?
ReplyDeleteTully et al. (2000) state that some frugivorous birds have lost the VitC synthesis pathway (sorry I don't have a list, but I'm sure you could find out if you're interested). Amongst the passerine birds able to synthesise VitC, their rates of synthesis are 2-10x lower than in e.g. ducks, quails and chickens.
Also, Cui et al (2011) discuss the progressive loss of VitC synthesis in bats, with reference to its independent loss in haplorrhine primates and guinea pigs.
PaulM posted:
ReplyDelete"Presumably such a loss could have held a slight fitness advantage at the time (i.e. cutting out an unnecessary biosynthesis pathway) but this is certainly not required to explain its loss."
If this just-so story is not required, not sufficient, to explain its loss then there must be some other (or additional) reason for the continuing survival and flourishing of animals that have that lost that ability.
The bottom line is that evolution theory still has a problem explaining how animals with a distinctly non-advantageous mutation flourished.
If the just-so story posted by PaulM is acceptable to evolutionists, then the same just-so story could be used by ID people to explain the intentional design of the GULOP feature.
ReplyDeletePaulM:
ReplyDelete"Also, Cui et al (2011) discuss the progressive loss of VitC synthesis in bats, with reference to its independent loss in haplorrhine primates and guinea pigs."
And the independent loss in humans as well.
Dr. Moran I am glad you have responded to the point I am making.
ReplyDeleteBefore we look at how ID would deal with this, we should spend time in thinking about how evolution theory deals with this.
You have simply asserted that
"This history is perfectly compatible with modern evolutionary theory."
But you have given no explanation. You have not even given a just-so story. You simply assert it.
Please give a scientific explanation about how animals with a distinctly non-advantageous mutation flourished.
Anyone else can offer an explanation as well.
Anon:'seems to be acknowledging that "non-adaptive features" like the GULOP gene "contradict evolution"."
ReplyDeleteFascinating. I said nothing of the sort.
"The bottom line is that evolution theory still has a problem explaining how animals with a distinctly non-advantageous mutation flourished."
But it doesn't. There are plenty of adaptations that would be totally awesome in terms of fitness to have, but not having them hardly means evolution doesn't happen.
And, again, IDists seem to be saying that non-adaptation, iow lack of function, refutes evolution, but at the same time that there really infact is a secret function, and that it was intelligently designed.
Dumb.
Moran: "I assume that Intelligent Design Creationism has a perfectly reasonable explanation of these facts since they have been well-known for deceades and the mark of a scientific theory is that it accounts for known facts. What is the explanation?"
I think I hear the chirping of intelligently designed crickets.
Same question for Schenck:
ReplyDeleteWhat reasonable explanation does evolution theory provide?
Please give a scientific explanation about how animals with a distinctly non-advantageous mutation flourished.
Larry - I'd just like to point out that quote was from Anonymous, not from me!
ReplyDeleteanonymous says,
ReplyDeleteIf this just-so story is not required, not sufficient, to explain its loss then there must be some other (or additional) reason for the continuing survival and flourishing of animals that have that lost that ability.
Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that the original mutations was slightly disadvantageous. Nevertheless, it became fixed in the population of the primate ancestors.
All descendants will, of course, lack the ability to make vitamin C even though it may be beneficial to regain that ability. All descendants will carry the defective gene (pseudogene).
This history is perfectly compatible with modern evolutionary theory.
The question is, is it compatible with Intelligent Design Creationism? Inquiring minds want to know.
Humans have lost the ability to make a dozen or so essential vitamins that other species can make routinely. (They are enzyme cofactors.) We are incapable of making a couple of essential fatty acids that we absolutely need. We can't make half the amino acids that we require for survival.
These are incontroverible facts of biology. I assume that Intelligent Design Creationism has a perfectly reasonable explanation of these facts since they have been well-known for deceades and the mark of a scientific theory is that it accounts for known facts. What is the explanation?
PaulM says,
ReplyDeleteLarry - I'd just like to point out that quote was from Anonymous, not from me!
Thanks. I apologize.
I corrected it.
Dr. Moran I am glad you have responded to the point I am making.
ReplyDeleteBefore we look at how ID would deal with this, we should spend time in thinking about how evolution theory deals with this.
You have simply asserted that
"This history is perfectly compatible with modern evolutionary theory."
But you have given no explanation. You have not even given a just-so story. You simply assert it.
Please give a scientific explanation about how animals with a distinctly non-advantageous mutation flourished.
anonymous asks,
ReplyDeletePlease give a scientific explanation about how animals with a distinctly non-advantageous mutation flourished.
Nearly Neutral Theory has been around for 28 years. It's covered in all the standard textbooks of evolution and population genetics.
I'm not surprised that the average IDiot is ignorant of modern evolutionary theory. They're still stuck in the nineteenth century when it comes to their understanding of evolution. That's why they think "Darwinism" is the appropriate name for evolutionary theory.
It's sad, really, but it's one more reason why I call them IDiots. They don't make even the slighest attempt to understand the theory they criticize. We know this because any textbook would have answered the questions they pose.
When Dr. Moran uses the phrase "modern evolutionary theory" we need to look again at his post entitled:
ReplyDeleteJunk & Jonathan: Part 4—Chapter 1
http://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2011/05/junk-jonathan-part-4-1.html
Here his conception of "modern evolutionary theory" turns into its opposite with no concern that anyone will notice.
It is humorous to see him talk in such a high handed manner now.
And we still do not have an answer to the question:
What reasonable explanation does evolution theory provide?
Please give a scientific explanation about how animals with a distinctly non-advantageous mutation flourished.
Evolution theory cannot explain the GULOP feature. But it is even worse than that, because according to Dr. Moran GULOP is not unique:
ReplyDelete"Humans have lost the ability to make a dozen or so essential vitamins that other species can make routinely. (They are enzyme cofactors.) We are incapable of making a couple of essential fatty acids that we absolutely need. We can't make half the amino acids that we require for survival."
Anonymous,
ReplyDeleteHere's an idea, find out a little about what evolutionary theory actually is before you start trowing around the bold text and the explanation marks.
In this case its easy.
1) It's not actually clear a broken GULO gene would be 'distinctly disadvantageous'. The most parsimonious explanation for the loss of GULO is that the mutation was first fixed in the ancestor of modern monkeys and tarsiers. Most monkeys eat fruit, and fruit-based diet provides enough vitC that losing a the ability to make your own would be no big deal
2) Slightly deleterious genes get fixed all the time, especially in small populations. Selection can only favour a given gene against alternatives in the population. If the difference between two genes is only small, then, sometimes, the 'best' gene won't be the one that fixed. This is a very basic piece of evolutionary biology - it's fine to not understand something abut it's pretty stupid to rant and rave about a theory before you understand it
David Winter is giving it the old school try. Trying to defend the indefensible.
ReplyDeleteNobody can honestly say that they think that all those distinctly deleterious mutations could go to fixation. That is a ludicrous proposition.
Please explain how that could happen.
At least PaulM presented a just-so story.
Nobody else here has even done that.
You know, I used to think calling people IDiots was unfair...
ReplyDeleteAnonymous,
ReplyDelete1. You are a complete IDiot. And proud of it.
2. You are making those questions for rhetorics rather than for answers.
3. You just want to label any answers as "just-co stories" or continue trying to make it all look contradictory.
David Winter is giving it the old school try. Trying to defend the indefensible.
I did not see David trying to defend IDiocy. You on the other hand ...
Nobody can honestly say that they think that all those distinctly deleterious mutations could go to fixation. That is a ludicrous proposition.
Who said those mutations were distinctively deleterious? Do you think that the great apes evolved in ships carrying no vitamin C sources?
Please explain how that could happen.
People have been trying to tell you that population genetics can explain this. Go read about it. Essentially, if a species evolves in a place where some ability is not needed, the probability for fixing a mutation where a gene product is not much needed increases. Much more if you get population bottlenecks. This is not a just-so story, some math would explain it to you if you cared to take the time to learn it (population genetics).
At least PaulM presented a just-so story.
Nobody else here has even done that.
Well, would you expect lots of answers if all you want to do is label them or throw rhetoric without trying to pay the slightest attention? You are a complete IDiot. Most of us here know that rhetoric is all the IDiots have. Reason and study would be too much for you, wouldn't them? Tricks is all we get from you and then you act surprised that we call you by your proper names (IDiots, liars ...).
All you folks have is bluster and attempts at insults.
ReplyDeleteI was expecting just-so stories but you do not even have that.
Nobody can honestly say that they think that all those distinctly deleterious mutations could go to fixation. That is a ludicrous proposition.
And we all know it. You are only fooling yourselves.
AND
ReplyDeleteEvolution theory cannot explain the GULOP feature. But it is even worse than that, because according to Dr. Moran GULOP is not unique:
"Humans have lost the ability to make a dozen or so essential vitamins that other species can make routinely. (They are enzyme cofactors.) We are incapable of making a couple of essential fatty acids that we absolutely need. We can't make half the amino acids that we require for survival."
This is much more than GULOP.
"There are 251 other species and we don't know if they need vitamin C. "
ReplyDeleteOK, so on one hand, Wells wants to claim that because a handful of pseudogenes are functional therefore all of them probably are, but on the other hand, he wants to reserve judgement on whether or not ALL monkeys need vitamin C BECAUSE vitamin C requirements have not yet been established in all monkeys...
Sounds like typical IDCreationist double standards at work.
AnonX
anonymous says,
ReplyDeleteEvolution theory cannot explain the GULOP feature. But it is even worse than that, because according to Dr. Moran GULOP is not unique:
"Humans have lost the ability to make a dozen or so essential vitamins that other species can make routinely. (They are enzyme cofactors.) We are incapable of making a couple of essential fatty acids that we absolutely need. We can't make half the amino acids that we require for survival."
This is much more than GULOP.
I was going to mention that humans have also lost the glyoxylate cycle but I'm not sure how much truth the IDiots can handle in one week.
The just-so story that is given concerning GULOP is that because the animals eat fruit they are not disadvantaged by the loss of the GULO.
ReplyDeleteWhat explanation(s) can be given for the loss of these other vitamins and fatty acids etc?
Anonymous:
ReplyDelete"Nobody can honestly say that they think that all those distinctly deleterious mutations could go to fixation. That is a ludicrous proposition."
Somehow, Anonymous must have missed all the comments noting that mutations in vitamin synthesis genes aren't deleterious if the vitamin is abundant in the diet. Nobody could honestly think that Anonymous would purposely mischaracterize what people say. That would be a lucidrous proposition.
qetzal, is your thinking concerning all these vitamins, fatty acids, etc that they are all "abundant in the diet" of these animals?
ReplyDeleteCan you support that idea?
Please do.
Anon writes: "Can you support that idea?"
ReplyDeleteUmmm... How about: 'The animals aren't dead'
Anonymous the IDiot (aka Anus.) said...
ReplyDeleteqetzal, is your thinking concerning all these vitamins, fatty acids, etc that they are all "abundant in the diet" of these animals?
Can you support that idea?
Please do.
It would seem, Anus., that you are lacking some very basic logic there. Your "question" is like asking: "Can anybody support the idea that my ancestors survived to reproductive age?"
So, tell me: do you see great apes, such as us, around or not? Thus, what would be your conclusion about whether those diets provide enough of those nutrients for these species to survive without those genes? Come on, should be a no brainer even if you are an IDiot. Of course, we know why you pretend to be that stupid. All you want is to create confusion. Answers don't matter to you. I am always amazed at how triumphant IDiots like yourself feel when we just look at you with a perplexed stare. It is a trick for you to claim that you "got us," since you know that your customers won't notice, or will pretend not to notice, that you displayed such an unsurmountable level of stupidity that we are left speechless. What matters is the rhetorical effect. Right Anus.?
Do you really want the world to think that the "IDiot" title is that much well deserved?
(I have a note here about what you next rhetorical trick will be. Will you disappoint?)
I am not sure if the people here don't get it or if they are pretending.
ReplyDeleteAnd vulgar to boot.
Anonymous asks:
ReplyDeleteWhat explanation(s) can be given for the loss of these other vitamins and fatty acids etc?
The same as the explanation of the loss of functionality of the genes and regulatory sequences that promote the growth of leg and foot bones in whales. This results in back leg and foot bones in whales that don't grow enough to be visible outside the whale's body or have any function at all.
Or are you going to regale us with the notion that we can't say definitively there is no function for the relatively tiny vestigial internal rear leg and foot bones in a whale skeleton?
I'm sure they must have some design function, and not be leftovers from the whales' land-dwelling hippo-related ancestors, since we know macroevolution doesn't happen and thus common ancestry's a crock, right?
Anonymous,
ReplyDeleteYour original claim was this:
"Evolution theory cannot explain the GULOP feature. But it is even worse than that, because according to Dr. Moran GULOP is not unique...."
This is proven false. Evolutionary theory can easily explain these features in the manner that I and others have repeatedly described to you.
Before we let you shift the goalposts, do you at least agree that this is a *possible* evolutionary explanation for these features?
> Prof. Moran: All kinds of strange things happen in biology and the fact that a few pseudogenes might have acquired a regulatory function isn't shocking. What about the other 20,000 pseudogenes?
ReplyDeleteThe point here being that function in some pseudogenes increases the burden of proof on those who would claim that the remaining ones have no function.
lee_merrill writes:
ReplyDeleteThe point here being that function in some pseudogenes increases the burden of proof on those who would claim that the remaining ones have no function.
"I have seen a black swan. This increases the burden of proof on those who contend that most remaining swans are not black."
Sorry, elementary logic fail.
lee,
ReplyDeleteThe point here being that function in some pseudogenes increases the burden of proof on those who would claim that the remaining ones have no function.
This is badly worded and contains a false dichotomy.
1. The claim from junkers is not that "the remaining" ones have no function, but that only a few might.
2. What increase in burden of proof? Do you know of any mechanisms that would give functions to all those 20,000 pseudogenes that you mentioned? (Do you now see the problem with those dichotomies?)
3. In terms of science, we try not to talk in such absolutes ("the remaining" vs. "all 20,000 pseudogenes").
4. So what burden of proof and who has it?
Creationists (IDiots are but one subspecies of creationists) feel reinvigorated by that kind of rhetoric, and get all enthusiastic because of the finding of a function for 0.001% of a genome, and then make grandiose claims out of it and write stupid books about it. Scientists prefer science. Scientists rather wait and see, while sometimes making educated predictions.
> Jud: "I have seen a black swan. This increases the burden of proof on those who contend that most remaining swans are not black."
ReplyDelete> Sorry, elementary logic fail.
Alas, verifying lack of function in X items is not however, analogous to counting up colors. Your analogy would then be flawed.
What lee_merrill has said is logical.
ReplyDeleteFolks here just don't want to acknowledge it.
qetzal:
ReplyDelete"Before we let you shift the goalposts, do you at least agree that this is a *possible* evolutionary explanation for these features?"
In what way am I shifting the goalposts?
Or are you saying that, just because you like the sound of that phrase?
Moran:
ReplyDelete"All kinds of strange things happen in biology and the fact that a few pseudogenes might have acquired a regulatory function isn't shocking."
This is the kind of absurd statement that evolutionists make all the time.
Let's look at the phrase: "Pseudogenes acquiring a regulatory function".
For evolutionists who have no experience with the development of complicated mechanisms this is the kind of simplistic idea they come up with. Pseuogenes just "acquire" the function - no problem. What a joke.
I don't expect evolutionists to acknowledge this.
qetzal:
ReplyDelete"..do you at least agree that this is a *possible* evolutionary explanation for these features"?
The "possible explanation" that has been given so far is a just-so story.
Evolution theory is filled with these just-so stories.
If you want to learn about just-so stories, see Moran's article on it.
Anonymous,
ReplyDeleteI'm not asking whether you agree with that explanation. I'm just asking whether you agree that it's a theoretically possible explanation that's fully consistent with modern evolutionary theory.
Not much point in discussing evidentiary support if you're unable/unwilling to acknowledge even the logical possibility.
For evolutionists who have no experience with the development of complicated mechanisms this is the kind of simplistic idea they come up with. Pseuogenes just "acquire" the function - no problem. What a joke.
ReplyDeleteYou really have no idea whatever what you're talking about, do you?
"No experience with the development of complicated mechanisms," eh?
I will personally pledge $100 to either a personal PayPal account or the cause of your preference (your choice) if you can correctly describe even one single valid molecular biological mechanism involved in genes becoming pseudogenes or vice versa of which Dr. Moran has no knowledge.
The issue is not whether I agree or disagree with the just-so story.
ReplyDeleteIt is still a just-so story. A story made up out of the blue, with no evidence to support it.
But the bigger issue is whether you are saying that that kind of just-so story would explain all the losses that number well over a dozen according to Moran!
Is there any limit to how far you want to stretch that type of just-so story.
Why not just be honest and say that the facts contradict evolution theory?
Anon,
ReplyDeleteYour refusal to answer a simple and direct question is noted, but not surprising. I infer that you are the type that cannot bear to admit being wrong about anything.
The reason I can't honestly say that the facts contradict evolutionary theory is because they don't. I can't quite tell if you're consciously refusing to admit that, or if you simply lack the mental capacity to understand it. Either way, I think I've had enough here. Feel free to tell yourself you won, if that makes you feel better.
> Negative Entropy: What increase in burden of proof? Do you know of any mechanisms that would give functions to all those 20,000 pseudogenes that you mentioned? (Do you now see the problem with those dichotomies?)
ReplyDeleteWell, yes, I was referring to Prof. Moran, I agree he may possibly be exceptional in using the broad "junk" brush.
And the burden of proof does increase when function is found, this increase is not just proportionate to the amount of pseudogenes found to have function.
I would hope for a healthy skepticism here, negatives such as "no possible function" being rather suspect in an area as volatile as biology has turned out to be.
Nope, its not just little bags of protoplasm in each cell.
Nope, you're not likely to get life from a primordial soup.
Have we even gotten to the bottom of photosynthesis yet?
Evolutionists are very creative at distracting from any issue that they do not wish to acknowledge.
ReplyDeleteI am very familiar with it.
As I said:
"But the bigger issue is whether you are saying that that kind of just-so story would explain all the losses that number well over a dozen according to Moran!
Is there any limit to how far you want to stretch that type of just-so story."
"The issue is not whether I agree or disagree with the just-so story.
ReplyDeleteIt is still a just-so story. A story made up out of the blue, with no evidence to support it. "
"Anonymous", you're not Rudyard Kipling, you're not Stephen J. Gould and unless I'm very much mistaken you're not Richard Lewontin. So maybe have a think before you bandy that term around again.
A think, and a closer read of what you are purportedly criticising. Allow me to reiterate: Haplorrine diets typically contain a lot of fruit. Many fruits contain a lot of vitamin C. The loss of vitamin C synthesis under these conditions is consistent with evolutionary theory.
Note the use of the word 'consistent'. Has the chain of events that caused the loss of vitamin C biosynthesis been demonstrated? No, nor has anyone here claimed it to be. In fact, above I distinctly remember pointing out that either drift or selection could be responsible. It is your claim that GULOP is somehow incompatible or inconsistent with evolutionary theory with which I have taken issue.
Lee,
ReplyDeleteI think you missed the point. In any event, I don't see why should every pseudogene have a function, and I don't see why finding functions for some puts any burden of proof at all on junkers. None whatsoever.
I would hope for a healthy skepticism here, negatives such as "no possible function" being rather suspect in an area as volatile as biology has turned out to be.
I find it even more suspect to think that everything should have a function. Not only that, I would find such kind of "skepticism" far from healthy. I lean towards most of the genome being junk. If I see a broken gene, it is most probably junk. Thus, I can expect someone to find a function for a few of them, but man, would you expect every broken car to have some function because some broken buses are made into restaurants?
Nope, its not just little bags of protoplasm in each cell.
I never said the opposite.
Nope, you're not likely to get life from a primordial soup.
I dont know. Maybe yes, maybe not. But you're at least somewhat likely to get life out of something primordial. Otherwise we would not be here.
Have we even gotten to the bottom of photosynthesis yet?
Yes. But suppose we hadn't. What would that mean other than we still don't know? I'll make it easier for you to grasp. Once we did not know that thunder was a natural phenomenon. Did our ignorance make it truly the work of Thor, or was it a natural phenomenon before we learned about it being so? Apply this to knowing or not about photosynthesis. Not knowing would not make Hegemone or Demeter or any other gods real. Not even by a little tiny bit. Would it?
PaulM, you and the others here want me to evaluate your just-so story. Whatever I say will not change the fact that it is a just-so story.
ReplyDeleteBut even taking your just-so story seriously, are you proposing that that story has occurred in the over a dozen situations that Moran mentioned?
How many times do you want to use that particular story?
Anonymous writes:
ReplyDeleteIt is still a just-so story. A story made up out of the blue, with no evidence to support it.
I don't know where you think you're going with this, but it really isn't headed anywhere good for you.
It's an observed fact that various mammals, including primates and thus humans, have lost the ability to synthesize Vitamin C. Since we're still here, the Vitamin C had to come from food sources. This is so whether it occurred via evolution or through the fiat of a designer.
Lets' consider the design alternatives.
"Front loading" is one hypothesis that's been floated by Intelligent Design supporters. So let's see, the designer made changes to primate genomes so people around the world could suffer from scurvy? Hmm, doesn't seem like a good idea, does it? So much for the concept of genetics being forward-looking.
There are other Intelligent Design supporters who question common descent, so "front loading" is not available to them. For them, design decisions have to be made on an individual species basis. For them, a designer had to individually decide that gorillas, orangutans, chimps, and humans should lack the ability to synthesize Vitamin C. For the apes, this isn't a problem because there are dietary sources. For humans outside of the African savannahs where we evol- err, were originally designed, it's a big problem. Not terribly good, forward-looking design, is it - unless you think it was purposeful and G- err, the designer, had it in for British sailors.
So it's either evolution or crappy design - which would you rather blame it on?
Here is what I posted:
ReplyDelete"PaulM, you and the others here want me to evaluate your just-so story. Whatever I say will not change the fact that it is a just-so story.
But even taking your just-so story seriously, are you proposing that that story has occurred in the over a dozen situations that Moran mentioned?
How many times do you want to use that particular story?"
Do people think this subject will go away if they simply ignore it?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous:"But even taking your just-so story seriously, are you proposing that that story has occurred in the over a dozen situations that Moran mentioned?
ReplyDeleteGreat. So, did you actually read my post from start to end?
Quite aside from your ignorant misuse of the term 'just-so' story, could you explain why it is implausible for genetic drift to act on 'more than a dozen' loci? Does it have an upper limit of 12?
"How many times do you want to use that particular story?"
I want to use it 30 more times and then I'll stop.
But thank you, I must remember that response next time someone wants talk to me about jesus. I will ask them, "How many times do you want to use that particular story?"
"Do people think this subject will go away if they simply ignore it?"
Why would I want it to go away?
Okay, finally someone (in this case Paul) has actually acknowledged that evolution theory requires the just-so story for all these other vitamins, fatty acids etc.
ReplyDeleteThe story for Vitamin C is that there was ample fruit available, so it was not necessary or even advantageous to produce it endogenously.
So for all these other vitamins, fatty acids etc the idea is that there was ample sources providing all of them?
Do people really think that anyone will buy that idea?
Why even pretend that will fly? It is absurd and we all know it.
"Okay, finally someone (in this case Paul) has actually acknowledged that evolution theory requires the just-so story for all these other vitamins, fatty acids etc."
ReplyDeleteSigh.
As much as I enjoy having my every word distorted and misrepresented, I think I'm done with this thread.
Anus. The IDiot said,
ReplyDeleteWhy even pretend that will fly? It is absurd and we all know it.
Of course it's absurd. Our diets providing what those pseudogenes don't produce? Nonsense!
[We still have this little problem: if our genes don't produce such necessary nutrients/cofactors/whatever, and our diets don't contain them, why are we alive? But who cares, it is still absurd to suppose that our diets provide anything. Anus., The Utmost IDiot, has said so, and that makes it so!]
Anonymous writes:
ReplyDeleteOkay, finally someone (in this case Paul) has actually acknowledged that evolution theory requires the just-so story for all these other vitamins, fatty acids etc.
The story for Vitamin C is that there was ample fruit available, so it was not necessary or even advantageous to produce it endogenously.
So for all these other vitamins, fatty acids etc the idea is that there was ample sources providing all of them?
Do people really think that anyone will buy that idea?
Why even pretend that will fly? It is absurd and we all know it.
It is extremely difficult to believe that even you are that thick.
Do animals need food? Yes. Why? Because they can't synthesize all the substances they require. What happens when you or any living thing gets no food? It dies. Are we and all the apes dead? No. Are we therefore getting all nutrients essential for life from dietary sources? Why yes, I suppose that is the inescapable conclusion, isn't it?
Does hypothesizing a designer change any of this? Lets' see - we and the apes need food, aren't dead, and are therefore getting all the nutrients we need from diet, designer or no designer - so I guess having a designer doesn't change anything.
Anything about the above that you care to argue with? You want to try to convince us that we don't need food, or that we're not alive?
Evolutionists are very creative at distracting from any issue that they do not wish to acknowledge.
ReplyDeleteI am very familiar with it.
As I said:
"But the bigger issue is whether you are saying that that kind of just-so story would explain all the losses that number well over a dozen according to Moran!
Is there any limit to how far you want to stretch that type of just-so story."
Anonymous writes:
ReplyDeleteEvolutionists are very creative at distracting from any issue that they do not wish to acknowledge.
Yes, let's not distract from the issue. The issue is that animals have lost abilities they once had, and you think saying the environment is relevant (allows the animals to live despite the lost abilities) is a problem for evolution.
So I guess the fact that fish can breathe underwater but we can't is a problem for evolution?
Here is the total of what you folks have contributed:
ReplyDelete"If there was a high level of vitamin C, e.g. fruit, in the diet of the ancestral haplorhine species in which GULO became GULOP, then the synthesis of vitamin C is not beneficial and its loss via genetic drift becomes possible".
This is your just-so story related to GULOP.
Moran mentions the other vitamins, fatty acids etc for which there is a loss.
Are people here thinking that the
high level of FRUIT, in the diet of the ancestral haplorhine species satisfied the need for ALL these other vitamins etc. as well?
This is a pretty simple question, but let's see how people avoid answering it.
It looks like people are avoiding answering it by ignoring it.
ReplyDeleteDo people think this subject will go away if they simply ignore it?
Yes. It's a senseless, dishonest question, and those are always best ignored, as are the dishonest people that ask them.
ReplyDeleteBTW, Have you stopped beating your wife?
Anonymous writes:
ReplyDeleteDo people think this subject will go away if they simply ignore it?
No, we know you're determined to keep asking as if there really were a valid subject.
Looks like ScienceAvenger wants to distract from the question I have posed.
ReplyDelete"Are people here thinking that the
high level of FRUIT, in the diet of the ancestral haplorhine species satisfied the need for ALL these other vitamins etc. as well?"
Is anyone willing to answer this question?
Anonymous, please tell us in detail how the Designer coped with the fact that we cannot efficiently digest grass like cows. I want to see what sort of just-so story you come up with about how we replace those vital nutrients.
ReplyDeleteAnd you still haven't answered how the Designer managed to cope with the fact that we cannot breathe underwater like fish. Inquiring minds want the answer to that one also.
Please do tell us how the Designer managed to make humans viable without these abilities, essential to maintaining life, that other animals possess.
From the panicky and vulgar posts from the folks here, I can see that they actually understand the problem they have, that I am pointing out.
ReplyDeleteThey have to make themselves believe (pretend they believe) that the food sources for ALL the vitamins, fatty acids etc were so abundant for ALL of them that the creatures could survive the loss of the endogenous production of All of those vitamins, fatty acids etc.
Everyone knows that is absurd.
No creatures ever experienced that abundance of All those food sources supplying ALL those essential vitamins, fatty acids etc.
This is a scientific question and your attempt to personalize it does not change the facts
But pretend you do not get it. That is up to you.
Anonymous writes:
ReplyDeleteFrom the panicky and vulgar posts from the folks here....
Vulgar? Is it because I mentioned cows?
...I can see that they actually understand the problem they have....
The problem we have? If you think so, you don't understand the problem.
It's a problem for everyone - how do living things survive despite lacking abilities that are vital to the viability of other living things?
It's a problem for you as well, but you've completely refused to respond when the question's been asked repeatedly. So I'm politely inviting you once again: If you are so knowledgeable that you can characterize the obvious, logical answer you've received multiple times now as a "just-so story," what's the real answer?
Anonymous writes:
ReplyDeleteNo creatures ever experienced that abundance of All those food sources supplying ALL those essential vitamins, fatty acids etc.
So we don't get the vitamins, fatty acids, etc., essential for life from our diets? Then how are we alive?
Simple question: Where do we humans get the nutrients essential for our survival, if not from our diets? Please do favor us with your answer.
"No creatures ever experienced that abundance of All those food sources supplying ALL those essential vitamins, fatty acids etc."
ReplyDeleteHow do you suppose Anon. thinks those creatures survive right now, today? Does he think they buy supplements from their local GNCs?
This guy is comedy gold!
Just a reminder of the just-so story given by PaulM:
ReplyDelete"If there was a high level of vitamin C, e.g. fruit, in the diet of the ancestral haplorhine species in which GULO became GULOP, then the synthesis of vitamin C is not beneficial and its loss via genetic drift becomes possible. "
AND
from qetzal:
"mutations in vitamin synthesis genes aren't deleterious if the vitamin is abundant in the diet."
Note the requirement that the food source must be "abundant".
When were food sources "abundant" for providing ALL the vitamins, fatty acids etc.
Will someone be honest and acknowledge the problem or will everyone just keep pretending not to get it?
The Anonymous logician asked, deeply:"When were food sources "abundant" for providing ALL the vitamins, fatty acids etc."
ReplyDeleteNever, and certainly not now. There's good evidence for that. It's a massive problem, the importance of which could hardly be overstated.
All species that ever lost biosynthetic pathways experienced extended illness before presumably going extinct. As predicted by population genetics and observed in situ, such deleterious loss-of-function mutations spread rapidly through populations. It is a notorious problem (e.g. Anonymous, 2011).
As qetzal was forced to admit, dietary needs aren't and couldn't possibly be met by diet. It's not feasible for a diet to include so many naturally occurring compounds. It would be just too large a coincidence for the plants and/or animals in a diet to fortuitously contain those compounds. Frankly, it beggars belief. Hence, the extinction of those species that have lost biosynthetic pathways has occurred, most regrettably including our own species. Their status as extant species is nothing more than a lie, perpetrated by the evolutionists, who are also communists, which is a terribly dishonest thing to be.
Unfortunately, the consequence for us all is that we must admit that life itself is not 'real', but rather more like a dream and we are the imagination of ourselves (Hicks, 1989).
Paul is good at sarcasm.
ReplyDeleteWhen you don't have the facts on your side then sarcasm and ridicule is all you can try.
I am familiar with evolutionists pretending.
Paul is so right!
ReplyDeletePlus, have you ever seen a cat breed with a dog and give birth to a dat?!! Of course not! And even if you had, it would immediately go extinct due to vitamin deficiency.
And what holds up the sky?
The idea behind Paul's post is that evolution theory must be correct because we exist.
ReplyDeleteBut evolution theory cannot account for our existence. GULOP and the other losses contradict evolution theory.
There is a flaw in people's thinking which is hard for them to see. The flaw is that our existence does not prove any particular explanation. The explanation must stand on it's own.
Evolution theory based on mindless, random action is contradicted by GULOP and the other losses.
Only an explanation which includes the intelligence of Nature and the intelligence of the cell can explain the evidence.
Anonymous said...
ReplyDeleteGULOP and the other losses contradict evolution theory.
I am unsure of what charactetures of the actual evolutionary theory you are referring to.
Some papers that can show the adaptive value of gene loss. Not to say it must be adaptive. Just limiting the search.
Human-specific;
References 15-25, found here...
http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pbio.0040052
Recurrent gene loss and change in vertebrates;
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/9780470015902.a0022890/pdf
Bacterial;
http://life.bio.sunysb.edu/dykhuizenlab/papers/tim99a.pdf
A system somewhat analogous to the example you are blathering about is bacterial symbiont gene loss.
First, host tissues provide a constant supply of many metabolic intermediates, eliminating the pressure to maintain many biosynthetic genes; all small genome pathogens and symbionts obtain some amino acids and cofactors from hosts. Second, even if living within a host does not affect the intensity of selection on a gene, it can amplify the corrosive forces of mutation and genetic drift, resulting in loss of beneficial but non-essential genes. This occurs because host-associated bacteria have small genetic population sizes relative to free-living relatives.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1369527403001073
"GULOP and the other losses contradict evolution theory."
ReplyDeleteWar is peace! Freedom is slavery! Ignorance is strength!
Anon. is especially partial to that last one.
Paul posted:
ReplyDelete"The Anonymous logician asked, deeply:"When were food sources "abundant" for providing ALL the vitamins, fatty acids etc."
Never, and certainly not now. There's good evidence for that. It's a massive problem, the importance of which could hardly be overstated."
That part of Paul's post is correct.
And that is indeed a "massive problem" for evolution theory.
Anonymous writes:
ReplyDeleteEvolution theory based on mindless, random action is contradicted by GULOP and the other losses.
Only an explanation which includes the intelligence of Nature and the intelligence of the cell can explain the evidence.
Here are a few questions. Please provide a reasonable, logical answer to any one of them based on "the intelligence of Nature" or cellular intelligence.
- How do "the intelligence of Nature" or cellular intelligence account for GULOP and the other losses?
- If vitamin C is not available in the diet, how does cellular intelligence allow survival of creatures that lack the ability to synthesize vitamin C?
- What in cellular intelligence accounts for diseases stemming from genetic mutations (e.g., cancer)? Are these cells stupid, or have they gone over to the Dark Side and become Al Qaeda "cells"?
- Similar question with regard to the recent E. coli outbreak in Europe. What in cellular intelligence accounts for the mutation of bacteria that normally coexist peacefully with humans (in fact, are necessary to our healthy existence) into forms that sicken or kill us?
- Again with respect to the E. coli outbreak, what in cellular intelligence accounts for the fact that some people die while others only become ill? Are their cells less intelligent?
- Are introns or other "junk DNA" the fount of cellular intelligence? If so, why do onions and primitive species of worms need more cellular intelligence than we do, and where do we see indications of this superior intelligence manifested?
- What in "the intelligence of Nature" or cellular intelligence accounts for men having nipples?
@Anon
ReplyDeleteYou do realize that primate diet has been previously studies and contains ample amounts of micronutrients....
Your argument rests on the premise that native populations of primates are all nutrient deficient, but why then aren't wild primate populations dying of scurvy?
Your failure to grasp this extreme simple point after it has been pointed out multiple times is incredible.
Also as a note- people aren't slow to answer you because your questions are difficult but because they are mind blowingly stupid.
Moran posted:
ReplyDelete"Humans have lost the ability to make a dozen or so essential vitamins that other species can make routinely. (They are enzyme cofactors.) We are incapable of making a couple of essential fatty acids that we absolutely need. We can't make half the amino acids that we require for survival."
AND
"I was going to mention that humans have also lost the glyoxylate cycle".
Further to the 7 questions I asked Anonymous earlier, here's another I'd forgotten:
ReplyDelete- Why didn't "the intelligence of Nature" and/or cellular intelligence prevent GULOP and the loss of the glyoxylate cycle?
@Anon
ReplyDeleteOk lets me try to put this as simply as goddamn possible. Haplorrhini needs X to survive, Haplorrhini gets X from diet, do Haplorrhini need to be able to synthesis X to survive?
NO!!! How is this not completely obvious. I need water to survive, I cannot synthesis sufficient amounts of water to keep myself alive, but this has never been an issue for me because I don't live in a bloody desert.
The lose of these pathways were not deleterious in the environment ancient Haplorrhini lived in, if evolutionists were postulating this all happened onboard a 17th century sailing ship,then you would have a point but they arn't and you don't.
Boojum said to Anonymous:
ReplyDelete"Also as a note- people aren't slow to answer you because your questions are difficult but because they are mind blowingly stupid."
Even his mind blowingly stupid questions have already been answered dozens of times. Yet he cotinues to insist that they haven't. That's the real reason people aren't bothering to answer him any more.
Boojum posted:
ReplyDelete"The lose of these pathways were not deleterious in the environment ancient Haplorrhini lived in,"
Please give a reference or two to support that statement.
When and where did the "ancient Haplorrhini" live?
It would be particularly helpful if you could present evidence for the claim of abundance of the various food sources that supplied the range of vitamins, fatty acids and glyoxylate cycle that Moran mentioned.
Jud asked: "Why didn't "the intelligence of Nature" and/or cellular intelligence prevent GULOP and the loss of the glyoxylate cycle?"
ReplyDeleteUm, because that didn't even happen, Jud. Evolution is a just-so story perpetuated by anarcho-communist atheists. You're not looking at it logically, so let me explain:
God took away GULO, the glyoxylate cycle and other biosynthetic pathways to properly punish mankind for eating an apple.
It is appropriate that especially poor people today suffer from malnutrition to pay for what they didn't personally do in the garden of eden. There's an important lesson for all of us in that.
Now they - and we - know never to do it again, or even for the first time. Instead we learn to cower appropriately under the mercy of our ever-loving God. His apparent absence - puctuated by bouts of fruit-based traps and pestilence - is not for us to contemplate. Ours is the special unquestioning love of a cosmic Stockholm Syndrome.
It's all very simple.
The alternative is some sort of population genetics myth, propped up with all sorts of fancy statistics. And I really don't trust that sort of thing.
@Anon
ReplyDeleteYou mean like these...
Milton K. Micronutrient intakes of wild primates: are humans different? Comp Biochem Physiol A Mol Integr Physiol. 2003 Sep;136(1):47-59.
Smith T., Rose K. D., Gingerich P. D. 2006 Rapid Asia–Europe–North America geographic dispersal of earliest Eocene primate Teilhardina during the Paleocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 103, 11 223–11 227.
Thanks, Paul. I doubt Anonymous' version would be as coherent. In fact I doubt Anonymous will have any explanation at all, since as I recall, previous calls for him to say anything at all in support of what he says is a vastly superior explanation have been met with deafening silence. Quite odd considering the huge volume of his recent output here. One would almost think his alternative theory doesn't really exist, eh?
ReplyDeleteI think we have missed something important.
ReplyDeleteMoran posted:
"Humans have lost the ability to make a dozen or so essential vitamins that other species can make routinely. (They are enzyme cofactors.) We are incapable of making a couple of essential fatty acids that we absolutely need. We can't make half the amino acids that we require for survival."
AND
"I was going to mention that humans have also lost the glyoxylate cycle".
We are only talking about humans, not monkeys.
Humans lack these vitamins, fatty acids etc.
We are not talking about monkeys (aside from GULOP).
We are talking about all the vitamins, fatty acids etc lost in humans that Moran listed.
When did all that happen in humans?
Anonymous writes:
ReplyDeleteWhen did all that happen in humans?
When the "intelligence of nature" and cellular intelligence permitted it to, evidently. I'm sure you'll be able to tell us when and how that occurred.
Humans lack the ability to make the vitamins, fatty acids etc. that Moran mentioned
ReplyDeleteI have asked people here to say WHEN that happened.
We can then look into what food sources were available at that time (and their abundance or lack of abundance).
That will give us an objective and scientific way to judge this topic.
@Anon
ReplyDeleteI suspect you already know the answer yourself and your just trolling. As far as I'm aware all these pathways were lost prior to the divergence from chimps.
All that your pedantry reveals is you have no substantial arguments to make.
Perhaps Dr. Moran can contribute.
ReplyDeleteWhen did the losses occur?
And was it before or after the claimed split from apes/monkeys?
Still no answer by Anonymous to even a single one of my questions.
ReplyDeleteYet he claims "an explanation which includes the intelligence of Nature and the intelligence of the cell can explain the evidence" - in fact that only such an explanation will suffice.
I think his claim of an explanation is, in Shakespeare's words, "full of sound and fury, signifying nothing," i.e., I think he has never had such an explanation.
So here's your big chance, Anonymous. Prove me wrong. Better yet, prove yourself right. Give us that explanation, the existence of which you so confidently and recently proclaimed, and show us all you have something more than empty bluster behind your words.
Jud, I have already said that talking to you is a waste of time.
ReplyDeletePerhaps Dr. Moran can contribute.
When did the losses occur?
And was it before or after the claimed split from apes/monkeys?
"I think we have missed something important.
ReplyDeleteMoran posted:
"Humans have lost the ability [...] We are only talking about humans, not monkeys."
I think you missed something important. Referring specifically to the ability to synthesize the Vitamin C, this is obviously a feature shared by all Haplorrhini suborder of the Primates (including here the Tarsiers which stay with Anthropoidea, according also to Pollock and Mullin - "Vitamin C biosynthesis in prosimians: Evidence for the anthropoid affinity of Tarsius". American Journal of Physical Anthropology 73 (1): 65–70, 1987) and differentiates us from Strepsirrhini. Since on all branches of the clade the aforementioned ability has been lost, the decisive common mutation which turned off the functionality of the terminal enzyme has occured:
1. after the branching between Strepsirrhini and Haplorrhini (~ 63 MYA BP)
2. before the divergence of the Tarsiidae and Anthropoidea (~ 58 MYA BP)
Dr. Moran used the word "Humans" because his argument was built on our own species (genus) and he's obviously right: we humans are Haplorrhini and consequently the mutation occurred on our own lineage. What Dr. Moran did not mention in the same phrase (but it was more than obvious from all other comments) is that at the moment of the mutation one could not speak yet about Humans but about "ancient Haplorrhini".
If you are interested in refining the time-window for the mutation, you should give a look to a recent article coping specifically with that issue (M.Y. Lachapelle & G. Drouin - Inactivation dates of the human and guinea pig vitamin C genes, Genetica 139:199–207, 2011) from which I quote: "We used a method based on sequence comparisons of lineages with and without functional GLO genes to calculate inactivation dates of 61 and 14 MYA for the primate and guinea pig genes, respectively. These estimates are consistent with previous phylogeny-based estimates." Incidentally, you may notice that the authors also speak about "human" gene even if it referes to a larger group than humans.
"We can then look into what food sources were available at that time (and their abundance or lack of abundance)"
ReplyDeleteAs stated, the problem is ill-posed. You should keep in mind a basic common-sense tenet of biology of populations: if a population survives at the time T, their ancestors survived somehow at any time T' < T . That implies the biological needs of the ancestors have necessarily been met by then available supplies of food, water, atmosphere etc. at any moment in the past.
We know that nowdays primates do have a more or less omnivourous diet in which fruits are an essential part, see for instance:
"All primates eat a variety of different food items to obtain the carbohydrates, fats, and proteins they need. Energy and nutrient requirements vary with body size and metabolism, and, therefore, differ among individuals and species (Sussman, 1978). [...] most primates consume a variety of different food types, with the majority considered to be either insectivore-frugivores or frugivore-folivores because, while nearly all primates consume some fruit as their primary sources of energy, they differ in whether they rely on insects or leaves for their protein." (Strier - Primate Behavioral Ecology 4th ed., Pearson 2011)
"There is a strong tendency toward omnivory in primates, and their tooth pattern, though heterodont, is generalized for the consumption of foods from many sources. Most species will favor some kinds of foods over others, but all will consume a variety of fruits, nuts, leaves, and other plants, in addition to some meat." (T. Holmes - Primates and Human Ancestors: the pliocene epoch, Chelsea House 2009)
A shared feature of all members of a clade has a very high probability to characterize also their ancestors, so one can safely infer that ancient Haplorrhini were also regular fruit eaters. This view is supported by independent considerations:
"The size and morphology of molar teeth from 38 species of omomyoid primates were compared to those of an extant database to investigate the dietary adaptations that may have characterized omomyoids. These comparisons indicate that the overwhelming majority of these early primates, especially the anaptomorphini and trogolemurini, were primarily frugivorous." (S. Strait - Dietary reconstruction of small-bodied omomyoid primates, Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology, 21(2):322-334. 2001)
"The variety of dental pattern is great, however, so inference as to diet is at best a variety of fruit, flower, nectar, gum, and insect feeding, with no clear-cut emphasis in any reconstructed common ancestor. [...] Sussman (1995) and I are in broad agreement on the importance of frugivory early in primate evolution." (F. Szalay - Ancestral Locomotor Modes, Placental Mammals, and the Origin of Euprimates: Lessons from History, in Primate Origins: Adaptations and Evolution, Springer 2007)
"In addition, primate gut morphology reflects adaptations for an omnivorous diet (Martin et al., 1985). Sussman (1991, 1999; Sussman and Raven, 1978), therefore, proposed that early primates had an omnivorous diet that included a significant part of plant material [...] the first primates would, therefore, have had to include a substantial amount of fruit in their diet." (A. Muller, C. Soligo, U. Thalmann - New Views on the Origin of Primate Social Organization, in Primate Origins: Adaptations and Evolution, Springer 2007)
So the frugivority of the first Primates and Haplorrhini looks like a very safe assumption. Now, we recall that if the Primates are an extant order, the necessities of their ancestors (including regular fruit eating) have been met at any moment in the past. Consequently, wherever these ancestors were to be found, they necessarily were finding the needed fruits containing fair amounts of Vitamin C. You may bet on that as safe as on the existence of water or of atmospheric oxygen in their origin area.
Jud, I have already said that talking to you is a waste of time.
ReplyDeleteO, Brave Sir Anonymous! All over the comments here, and not one single question have you dared answer having to do with this superior "explanation" you supposedly have for all the "problems" you cite with evolutionary theory.
You have no explanation. The "problems" you cite are with your (lack of) understanding of evolutionary theory, not with the theory itself.
So, a bravely claimed explanation that is never forthcoming. You, sir, are a fraud, and a loud one at that.
Still a chance to make me eat these words, and more important, show you are something other than a fraud - just come forward with your promised explanation.
Hello M. Dionis.
ReplyDeleteThank you for all the references and the quotes from those references.
Please note that I am talking about all the other losses beyond GULOP.
Can you address the many non GULOP losses please?
When did they occur? What was the food situation like at that time (or those times)?
What creature are we actually talking about? What genus? What species?
Together we may be able to analyze this to a conclusion.
I am also hoping that Dr. Moran will contribute. Presumably he knows this topic well.
Anonymous writes:
ReplyDeleteCan you address the many non GULOP losses please?
When did they occur? What was the food situation like at that time (or those times)?
What creature are we actually talking about? What genus? What species?
Together we may be able to analyze this to a conclusion.
"Together"? "We"?
Does this mean we can anticipate your long-awaited explanation, showing how evolutionary theory is inadequate, and bringing into play "the intelligence of Nature and the intelligence of the cell"?
O, do let it be so!
To get the discussion going let me ask the following:
ReplyDeleteDid the non-Gulop losses occur during the time of Australopithecus?
If not, during what period?
Jud asks of Anonymous:
ReplyDelete"Does this mean we can anticipate your long-awaited explanation, showing how evolutionary theory is inadequate...."
But of course, Anon. has already shown that last part. As he's said repeatedly, he thinks it's absurd that the food sources for ALL the vitamins, fatty acids etc were so abundant for ALL of them that the creatures could survive the loss of the endogenous production of All of those vitamins, fatty acids etc.
Clearly, evolutionary theory is inadequate for Anonymous. Whether the fault lies in evolutionary theory or in Anonymous is left for the reader to judge.
This topic is not a question of opinion. It is a question of fact. What are the facts?
ReplyDeleteFor example:
To get the discussion going let me ask the following:
Did the non-Gulop losses occur during the time of Australopithecus?
If not, during what period?
And I am still hoping that Dr. Moran will contribute as well.
qetzal writes:
ReplyDeleteClearly, evolutionary theory is inadequate for Anonymous.
Yes, what I've been waiting for from Anonymous is the intelligence aspect.
@Anon
ReplyDeleteWhy don't you just look it up yourself? No one here seems to be particular keen to waste the rest of their day looking up data on every single dysfunctional synthesis pathway in the human body. If your too lazy for this option how about picking out ONE pathway to troll people about and you may actually irritate someone sufficiently to get a reply after a few days.
Hi Boojum.
ReplyDeleteIt is silly and rude to claim me of trolling when I have asked you and the others reasonable questions that you then evade.
Can you answer the question I have been asking? For example did any of the losses that Moran listed occur in
Australopithecus?
Dr. Moran can you answer my question? That would be very helpful.
ReplyDeleteCan anyone answer my question?
@Anon
ReplyDeleteThere were many loses and occurring at many different times, I am not wasting the rest of the day looking every single one of them up. If you think that these loses are incompatible with evolution then demonstrate it yourself, we have already indulged you by answering your ridiculous questions for well over a hundred comments. Why is it in any way reasonable to expect others to do all the work for you?
Your argument up to this point has been "I don't think this could happen" and when asked if you have any evidence to back this up you reply "find it for me".
Anonymous writes:
ReplyDeletewhen I have asked you and the others reasonable questions that you then evade.
This blog has been full of people answering your repeated questions, only to receive the consistent reply from you that our answers are inadequate and don't measure up to your explanation. But when asked quite reasonably what that explanation is, you have consistently evaded giving it.
People here (including Moran) do not seem able to present any material about the timing of the losses that Moran listed.
ReplyDeleteAnd yet you are all very sure that evolution theory can explain it.
Even though nobody here has a clue about when those losses took place, what creature (species, genus) was involved and what the food sources were like at the time.
Is there anyone honest enough to admit it?
Or will people keep pretending and making excuses.
Anonymous writes:
ReplyDeletePeople here (including Moran) do not seem able to present any material about the timing of the losses that Moran listed. And yet you are all very sure that evolution theory can explain it.
You seem unable to answer a single question about how "an explanation which includes the intelligence of Nature and the intelligence of the cell" can make up for what you claim are the inadequacies of evolutionary theory. Yet you have not withdrawn your positive claim that you have a superior explanation.
Is there anyone honest enough to admit it?
Are you honest enough to admit that the reason your explanation isn't forthcoming is because you have no such explanation?
Even though nobody here has a clue about when those losses took place, what creature (species, genus) was involved and what the food sources were like at the time.
You're ignoring multiple research articles cited in the responses to you that give answers to many of the questions you've asked. But in a time-honored tactic, once many of your questions are answered you simply ask more and more until people run out of time and patience to do your work for you, then claim "victory." It's such a hollow triumph, in reality a sad loss on your part. You are missing so much fascinating knowledge, the sort of thing that has drawn us to science.
Or will people keep pretending and making excuses.
Or will you keep pretending you have such an explanation, and making excuses for your entire failure, after over a hundred comments here, to present any reasoned argument laying it out?
By the way, speaking of the fascination of science, and of fru