tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post907578246445880984..comments2024-03-27T14:50:47.345-04:00Comments on <center>Sandwalk</center>: Which animals have barely evolved according to National Geographic?Larry Moranhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.comBlogger60125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-39008874887273747392015-11-20T14:29:47.703-05:002015-11-20T14:29:47.703-05:00@ lutesuite
Thank you for directing my attention ...@ lutesuite<br /><br />Thank you for directing my attention to a previous blog of Professor Moran’s that I was unaware of.<br /><br />In my defense, I did phrase my query as a hypothetical. “Let’s presume the data supporting this claim are valid.”<br /><br />Professor Moran couched his response in interesting terms:<br /><br />“The simplest explanation is that the biochemical mutation rate in elephant sharks is lower than in other species.” [my intended point exactly] <br /><br />Professor Moran than continues with: “In other words, DNA replication is more accurate in sharks or repair is more efficient. While we can't rule this out, it doesn't seem very likely.”<br /><br />Perhaps. I also suspect that more was being read into my response than I intended. Going back to my hypothetical. The elephant shark still seems a far better candidate for “animals that barely evolved” than either the opossum or the platypus. I think we can agree on this.<br /><br />The question then becomes, exactly how slow is the elephant shark clock compared to other vertebrates and what are the theoretical implications for evolutionary theory? Professor Moran states (albeit on opposums and platypus): “The evidence shows that they have evolved at the same rate as ALL [emphasis mine] other species.”<br /><br />On this point, I thought would need to disagreed, until I read Joe Felsenstein’s and John Harshman’s excellent observations on the earlier blog post. Professor Moran also concluded with: “Species with larger genomes tend to have larger mutation rates.” That was, in fact, going to be my next point; and I am somewhat vexed that Professor Moran already made it for me. I confess that I remained unclear on Professor Moran’s apparently contradictory insistence on clock uniformity, until I continued to read Professor Moran’s clarifying exchange with Professor Felsenstein.<br /><br />@ Professor Moran<br />It was a pleasure to read your analysis of the Nature paper on elephant sharks. My compliments. That would explain my lingering lurk-mode. For what it’s worth, at least we have gotten this exchange back on topic. My sincerest apologies if I caused offense.<br />anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06178384393256601953noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-60626119829309579362015-11-20T13:33:25.304-05:002015-11-20T13:33:25.304-05:00Tages Harispex says,
The C. milii genome is the s...Tages Harispex says,<br /><br /><i>The C. milii genome is the slowest evolving of all known vertebrates and appears not to have changed much at all in the last 420 million years!</i><br /><br />I have a low tolerance for people who post incorrect information on my blog. <br /><br />Clean up your act or go somewhere else where your lies might go unnoticed. Larry Moranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-40659204620297137202015-11-20T12:50:21.261-05:002015-11-20T12:50:21.261-05:00Larry has already discussed this. Your claim that...Larry has already discussed this. Your claim that it "appears not to have changed much at all in the last 420 million years" is false.<br /><br />http://sandwalk.blogspot.ca/2014/01/can-some-genomes-evolve-more-slowly.htmlFaizal Alihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00937075798809265805noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-75472575413582141152015-11-20T12:19:48.380-05:002015-11-20T12:19:48.380-05:00Getting back on topic:
Professor Moran says: “If,...Getting back on topic:<br /><br />Professor Moran says: “If, in fact, we discovered modern species that showed no signs of having evolved for millions of years, this would refute modern evolutionary theory."<br /><br />The C. milii genome is the slowest evolving of all known vertebrates and appears not to have changed much at all in the last 420 million years!<br /><br />http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v505/n7482/full/nature12826.html<br /><br />Let’s presume the data supporting this claim are valid. How would the exceptionality of this particularly slow molecular clock “flatly contradict modern evolutionary theory”?<br />anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06178384393256601953noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-71493929418156384162015-11-20T10:40:38.440-05:002015-11-20T10:40:38.440-05:00If that's true, wouldn't it be pretty stro...<i>If that's true, wouldn't it be pretty strong evidence that LUCA had to have lived a long, long time after the abiogenesis event?</i><br /><br />Not just that. Comparative reconstruction shows that -- as Anebo pointed out above -- LUCA had a relatively modern genomic structure. The evolutionary precursors of many of the modern superfamilies of proteins were already encoded in its DNA. Which is hardly surprising, since LUCA is the last common ancestor of Bacteria and Archaea, and anything that is homologous between them and not due to horizontal transfer between domains goes back to LUCA. Some features found in one domain but not the other may be primitive too, though they may be impossible to distinguish from features that arose after the split.Piotr Gąsiorowskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06339278493073512102noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-39040513976911509522015-11-20T10:00:48.274-05:002015-11-20T10:00:48.274-05:00So, my question is, doesn't that indicate that...<i>So, my question is, doesn't that indicate that the RNA world existed after abiogenesis, but before LUCA?<br />If that's true, wouldn't it be pretty strong evidence that LUCA had to have lived a long, long time after the abiogenesis event?</i><br /><br />The RNA world is one of the candidates that has been discussed for the abiogenesis event. It or any other abiogenesis event would presumably have occurred quite a while prior to LUCA.judmarchttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03111006189037693272noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-34976514015632515762015-11-20T09:45:04.944-05:002015-11-20T09:45:04.944-05:00This exchange did make me wonder about one thing; ...This exchange did make me wonder about one thing; when was the RNA world? As far as I know, all extant creatures (unless you count some viruses) have DNA carrying their genetic information. And all extant creatures have the same, or almost the same, genetic code. (And there isn't, as far as I know, any logical reason why the code should be exactly the way it is; that is, I've never heard any chemical explanation of why any particular codon should necessarily code for the particular amino acid that it does.)<br />So, my question is, doesn't that indicate that the RNA world existed after abiogenesis, but before LUCA?<br />If that's true, wouldn't it be pretty strong evidence that LUCA had to have lived a long, long time after the abiogenesis event?hoary puccoonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05784123458643478169noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-42121626388443669802015-11-19T15:18:00.707-05:002015-11-19T15:18:00.707-05:00LOL, so now it's back to the flock to claim vi...LOL, so now it's back to the flock to claim victory? You have been shown that your arguments are flawed, your reasoning is flawed. You're also not willing to learn or perhaps not capable of learning. <br />Clearly you have scored a major victory!<br />Edhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15924368353226400878noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-83551716993083967952015-11-19T14:50:43.492-05:002015-11-19T14:50:43.492-05:00I assume you are a Christian. I assume you know th...I assume you are a Christian. I assume you know the difference between John the Baptist and John the beloved disciple. How would you respond to someone who kept excitedly shouting at you every few seconds that he had disproved Christianity because John the Baptist and John the beloved disciple are the same person?Anebohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05865020806337781472noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-59563541616064193222015-11-19T10:45:04.807-05:002015-11-19T10:45:04.807-05:00NASA astrobiologist Chris McKay; "The scienti...NASA astrobiologist Chris McKay; "The scientific study of the origin of life is still early enough that there's not even a consensus on how to approach the problem..." (http://www.astrobio.net/exclusive/4835/the-origin-of-life-challenge-searching-for-how-life-began)<br /><br />Last common ancestor has been falsified.<br /><br />pseudoscience <> intelligence<br />ItBeMwhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12831217883090341492noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-73329374887745285852015-11-19T08:10:15.000-05:002015-11-19T08:10:15.000-05:00I demand a minimum level of intelligence on my blo...I demand a minimum level of intelligence on my blog. You don't have to agree with me to post comments. In fact, I prefer commenters who disagree.<br /><br />However, you have not met the minimum standard. I do not want this blog to turn into a cesspool like many of the creationists blogs.<br /><br />Goodbye.Larry Moranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-44983450704442888422015-11-19T07:51:49.619-05:002015-11-19T07:51:49.619-05:00pseudoscience: 'a system of theories, assumpti...pseudoscience: 'a system of theories, assumptions, and methods erroneously regarded as scientific'<br /><br />The theory of evolution stands falsified with the falsification of common descent.<br /><br />Common descent is falsified by the falsification of the last common ancestor, sometimes called "last universal ancestor." Darwin called it, "one primordial form."<br /><br />The last common ancestor is the ancestor "from which all organisms now living on Earth have a common descent." (Wikipedia, Last universal ancestor) <br /><br />The last common ancestor was falsified by "Origin of Life" research; which covers everything that's necessary for, and the appearance of, the last common ancestor. <br /><br />NASA: 1. Cosmic evolution of biogenic compounds; 2. Prebiotic evolution; 3. Origin and early evolution of Life.<br /><br />The last common ancestor is the first existence, and origin, of all life forms on Earth.<br /><br />NASA astrobiologist Chris McKay; "The scientific study of the origin of life is still early enough that there's not even a consensus on how to approach the problem..."<br /><br />All the previous theories (prebiotic evolution) on the origin of life, the possibility of the last universal ancestor, have been falsified.<br /><br />There's currently not a single workable theory to support the possibility of the appearance of the last universal ancestor.<br /><br />The last common ancestor "is thought to have been a small, single-cell organism. It likely had a ring-shaped coil of DNA floating freely within the cell, like modern bacteria." (Wikipedia, Last universal ancestor)<br /><br />Currently, there's no know scientific process of how this could be possible. "Steve Benner: We have failed in any continuous way to provide a recipe that gets from the simple molecules that we know were present on early Earth to RNA." (http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/4374373)<br /><br />With no workable theories to support the last common ancestor, and all old theories falsified; the theory of evolution stands FALSIFIED, pseudoscience!<br /><br />ItBeMwhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12831217883090341492noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-18016619017823346162015-11-19T06:43:41.184-05:002015-11-19T06:43:41.184-05:00Did catch an error, though:
"...he or she pr...Did catch an error, though:<br /><br /><i>"...he or she probably existed only a few years ago."</i><br /><br />Should say "...a few <i>thousand</i> years ago."Faizal Alihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00937075798809265805noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-60790757531743682015-11-19T06:41:01.693-05:002015-11-19T06:41:01.693-05:00Oh, I realize I was wasting my time with him. But...Oh, I realize I was wasting my time with him. But some people seem to be honestly confused on this point (present company excepted, of course) and could benefit from its being clarified.Faizal Alihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00937075798809265805noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-38374970110591608142015-11-19T04:56:44.050-05:002015-11-19T04:56:44.050-05:00We all appreciate your efforts Anebo, but trying t...We all appreciate your efforts Anebo, but trying to explain that to a YEC is the same as trying to explain advanced calculus to all the guys who call themselves Elvis and are locked up in some mental institution.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05078909205147852607noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-38278791951423804622015-11-18T21:45:27.393-05:002015-11-18T21:45:27.393-05:00lutesuite,
Nicely explained. Let's see how th...lutesuite,<br /><br />Nicely explained. Let's see how this ItBeMw idiot manages to miss the point again.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-54521667525651219752015-11-18T21:38:25.398-05:002015-11-18T21:38:25.398-05:00ItBeMw,
"You need to document your points, i...ItBeMw,<br /><br /><i>"You need to document your points, if it's not just pointless quibbling."</i><br /><br />There's no need for documenting something so obvious. If you wanted to understand this would have ended long ago. There's a reason the last universal common ancestor is called "last," rather than "first." It's quite simple. From that it should be easy to understand why the LUCA should not be mistaken for the first life.<br /><br />Sure, a lot of journalists and others who write for lay people often put origin of life and last universal common ancestor in a single sentence. That is no excuse for you to refuse to think when something this simple is explained to you. You ask time and again is this is a high school web site. From your comments, and your refusal to pay attention, it would seem like you would be better off at an elementary school one.<br /><br />You're too much of an imbecile.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-66798538178510837322015-11-18T21:26:20.389-05:002015-11-18T21:26:20.389-05:00Maybe this will help you out, ItBeMw:
Who are the...Maybe this will help you out, ItBeMw:<br /><br />Who are the last (as in most recent) common ancestors between you and your cousin? Your grandparents, right?<br /><br />Does that mean your grandparents were the first human beings to ever live?<br /><br />The correct answer is "No."<br /><br />You could go thru the same process with any other person now living on earth. Go thru each of your family trees, and eventually you'll come to a person that is common to both. That would be the LCA between you and that person.<br /><br />You could do the same with any two, or three, or more people. And, in fact, you could do the same with every single person now alive on earth. But the most recent common ancestor of every person on earth would not be the first person who ever existed, In fact, he or she probably existed only a few years ago.<br /><br />The same applies to the LUCA of all organisms alive today. That organism would have lived a long time after life first arose on earth<br /><br />Hope that helps.Faizal Alihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00937075798809265805noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-57554687913720141032015-11-18T21:10:45.922-05:002015-11-18T21:10:45.922-05:00ItBeMw
OK The lUCA was a single individual organi...ItBeMw<br /><br />OK The lUCA was a single individual organism which lived at the time time as billions or trillions of other organisms, millions of years after the origin of life. Can we at least get that clear? I realize you don't believe that. But can you at least accept that that is what scientists say? If you don't understand that, can you say what you think evolutionary proposes instead? It does not propose that the first organism that could be called alive was also the LUCA, if that is what you think.Anebohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05865020806337781472noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-41244936740400882942015-11-18T20:29:27.007-05:002015-11-18T20:29:27.007-05:00bwilson295: "origin of life" and "l...bwilson295: "origin of life" and "last universal common ancestor"<br /><br />You need to document your points, if it's not just pointless quibbling.<br /><br />Wikipedia: 'Evolutionary history of life"' -> '(((Origins of life)))' -> "Biologists reason that all living organisms on Earth must share a single (((last universal ancestor)))..."<br /><br />ItBeMwhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12831217883090341492noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-36814073013494266662015-11-18T20:29:17.977-05:002015-11-18T20:29:17.977-05:00Meanwhile, back on the real world...
Which you qu...<i>Meanwhile, back on the real world...</i><br /><br />Which you quite plainly don't understand, as Anebo is perfectly correct.<br /><br />To make it so obvious that you'll have to try even harder to misunderstand, let's draw the parallel to language.<br /><br />At some point far back in human society, there were people communicating using language that became the foundation for all human languages spoken today. People had communicated before that point, and there were people communicating at the same time, but their communications did not survive to become the foundation for all that came afterward. And there were branches that came after these people - for example, the people who first communicated using the ancestor of all Indo-European languages, and after that the people who communicated using the ancestor of all Romance languages.<br /><br />Or you can use genetics on a more recent and specific scale, tracing homo sapiens back to mitochondrial Eve and Y-chromosomal Adam. Again there were predecessors and contemporaries of each of these, but in the constant nested branching patterns that heredity/evolution makes, those people were at the roots of the branches that led to us.<br /><br />It's no different than finding the first of your family's ancestors in America (if, for example, you live in the USA). This couple obviously had parents, so there were certainly family members who had gone before them, and perhaps they had siblings or cousins, so there may have been one or more family members who were their contemporaries. But they were the ones who led to you. Finding the Last Universal Common Ancestor is the same thing, you just have to go back a few billion years. :-)judmarchttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03111006189037693272noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-31405100021192723832015-11-18T19:49:50.081-05:002015-11-18T19:49:50.081-05:00Anebo: "...would have been plenty of other li...Anebo: "...would have been plenty of other life on earth..."<br /><br />Meanwhile, back on the real world...<br />ItBeMwhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12831217883090341492noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-79187886382226284282015-11-18T15:20:43.492-05:002015-11-18T15:20:43.492-05:00There are two basic problems with your approach so...There are two basic problems with your approach so far, problems that make it difficult to take seriously the idea of discussing evolution with you. <br /><br />First, you've confused the terms "origin of life" and "last universal common ancestor", which are importantly different, and you dismiss pointing out the problem as "quibbling." That suggests that you don't understand these terms and won't fully understand what you're saying or what we might say to you. If the cause of the problem is ignorance rather than stupidity, you can fix that. <br /><br />Second, you don't seem to grasp an important part of the relationship between origin of life issues and the theory of evolution. The fact that evolution occurs is abundantly demonstrated by patterns of variation in extant organisms and fossils, by sequences of fossils, by patterns of genetic variation, by observations of changing modern organisms, and by understanding of how population genetics works, all supported by the findings of geology and even astronomy. Right now, there's no reason to think that life's origin can't be explained well by natural processes. But even if we found out that life was planted on earth by aliens or that some supernatural being started it, evolution would still be true. It certainly wouldn't be "falsified."<br /><br />It's likely that you are concerned with very basic questions about whether the origin of life is fully natural, materialistic, or whether a supernatural being is involved. You may have questions about how humans are related to the rest of life. Clarify what's bothering you and figure out what the relevant terms mean, and this exchange of comments with you might become a useful and interesting discussion.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-46358310547633085292015-11-18T14:14:31.804-05:002015-11-18T14:14:31.804-05:00The LUCA is an organism from which all life today ...The LUCA is an organism from which all life today is descended from. This creature had a relatively modern genetic structure and metabolism. There would have been plenty of other life on earth at the time it existed, some of it perhaps radically different. It was the result of millions or tens of millions of years of evolution from the origin of life which had happened long before. What don't you understand? Anebohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05865020806337781472noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-49037877902679405022015-11-18T14:09:24.118-05:002015-11-18T14:09:24.118-05:00"Lecture outline No. 18 ... The origin of lif..."Lecture outline No. 18 ... The origin of life on earth. ... The last common ancestor." University of Texas<br /><br />Anebo: "has been explained"<br /><br />From the explanations I've gotten so far, I think I'm on a high school blog.<br /><br />Is there anybody here that actually knows anything about the theory of evolution, and isn't afraid to discuss it without hiding behind false word quibbling?<br /><br />ItBeMwhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12831217883090341492noreply@blogger.com