@finemoves Sorry about the delay in getting back to you. As far as I'm aware, the LRLN loops under the aorta in all tetrapods. The looping results from the extension of the neck and the posterior migration of the heart that occurred in the early tetrapods. The longer the neck (and lower the heart), the more dramatic the back-track.
Nice work, Evo. I've also enjoyed reading your discussion with mejc 2. I've come across his viewpoint often, that the perceived history of common descent that can be read from the genes is claimed to simply be the result of common design. I'm afraid the only cure for this attitude is to familiarize yourself with the big picture- not only the LRLN, but also the ERV's, the disabled globin genes, the trees generated by just cytochrome c, etc.
There is no "proof" that all this wasn't intelligently designed, of course, but the more you know about it, the more it fits the evolutionary scenario, warts and all, then any sort of Creation scenario. But most creationists are not willing to put in the work to get even a glimpse of this big picture, and those that do, tend to become skeptics.
@fidlfadn Thanks! You're right - the more you know (higher IQ, higher education, etc.), the more likely you are to accept evolution. I have yet to see a good explanation for any of these genetic patterns. If you haven't already, check out my GULOP video for the best case I've seen.
@EvoBiologist - yep, well done. I've heard about the gulop before, and it is, as you point out, another good argument for common ancestry. But it is still subject to the remarkable talent creationists have of refusing to see the only sensible story here, or rather of going into contortions to explain why an omnipotent and omniscient God would design things in this bizarre, piecemeal, and highly misleading (to evilutionists) way.
@fidlfadn It reminds me of a documented phenomenon among devout followers of religions. Sometimes, when presented with a clear refutation of their beliefs, they will cling even stronger to those beliefs and actually come out the other end even more devout. This has been studied in groups like the Jehovah's witnesses, who had unfulfilled doomsday prophecies years ago.
@EvoBiologist Yep, it's rather depressing, isn't it? Actually, it wouldn't bother me at all- everyone's entitled to believe whatever they want, and who cares whatever bizarre worldviews people have?- but unfortunately, bizarre worldviews have a way of impinging on the lives of all of us: we have a former US president who was convinced that waging war in Iraq was the Biblical prophecy of Gog and Magog come true, for instance.
@fidlfadn And we have people like the woman who commented gleefully at Rapture Ready that she didn't have any qualms about pouring weed killer down the drain any more, because Jesus is coming soon anyway. At that point, this kind of nonsense is no longer amusing.
@ychro Actually, I've already got a son, and my beautiful and intelligent biologist wife would like to have 3 more kids. So, in my case, knowing this sort of stuff probably helped me to get laid.
You bring up a good point, though. The more ignorant, uneducated, and poor a person is, the more likely they are to have more kids. This is often not by choice, though. Almost any idiot can have kids - it takes brains to plan this out so that it happens when you want it to. Seen "Idiocracy"?
1) Yes, but if early in development the LRLN branched from the vagus anterior to the aorta, such constraints wouldn't exist
2) What "indications"?
3) Organs that could be innervated on the way down, rather than after looping back up (MUCH shorter nerves possible)
4) What "backup innervation"?
5) Aside from a) the extra energetic expense of building and using a much longer nerve and b) the added risk of nerve damage from being an unnecessarily larger target
and 6) that a longer nerve is slower- but I guess that's obvious. I've heard that "creation scientists" are looking into the matter. I await their findings with bated breath.
@owensphil Thanks for the effort, but the text in your video cuts off abruptly in almost every case. This makes it impossible to follow your argument completely.
As to your point about the LRLN having to be elongated during development due to looping under the aorta, that is MY point exactly. If it innervated the larynx by a more direct path, it wouldn't have to do this. The esophageal innervations could still travel along with the laryngeal ones, without the 15 extra feet in giraffes.
I didn´t see the text cutting off at all so I´m not sure what you mean. In fact for me to respond to your idea of a more direct route, I would have to restate nearly everything in my video.
@owensphil I watched the video again. This time, the text did not cut off for me either, so I was able to read your whole argument.
The redundancy you claim is minimal, and damage to this nerve - a much bigger target, being longer - causes major loss of vocal ability. Even if having a 2nd redundant innervation is beneficial, I still don't see what advantage looping the LRLN under the aorta accomplishes. For instance, why would a giraffe have use for an extra 15 ft, but not a cow or human?
I will look into the points you raised. However, I think it´s premature to simply claim evolution did it. Talk about your science stoppers. How long did evolutionists get away with claiming that our eyes are wired backwards. Your assertion the the LRLN ONLY innervates the larynx is grossly inaccurate. The honest thing to do would to correct this error in your video.
@owensphil I'm only claiming that common ancestry is the best explanation for the LRLN known, because it is. I've yet to hear an alternative explanation that even remotely makes sense.
I did correct the video long ago - there is a text box that pops up when I make the claim that the LRLN only innervates the larynx, correcting my mistake.
Our eyes ARE wired backwards, which is why vertebrates have blind spots. Cephalopods (like squid and octopi) don't have this problem.
The explanations that embryologists provide. such as the one that I cited in the video makes perfect sense.
The correction you made only mentions some of the other organs which makes the circuitous route still seem awkward. What route would you propose?? I think that is a key missing piece in your video.
@owensphil The explanations provided by embryologists are most well aligned with an evolutionary explanation for the origin of those developmental pathways. I'm saying the same thing the embryologists are saying.
@owensphil Ch 1 of my textbook "Developmental Biology" by Scott F. Gilbert outlines 4 principles of Karl Ernst von Baer developed in 1828 and still used. #1 is "The general features of a large group of animals appear earlier in development than do the specialized features of a smaller group" The chapter goes on to discuss the importance of common ancestry in understanding embryology, emphasizing the importance of the concept of homology. Documentation enough of common ancestry in embryology?
@owensphil I thought that the optimal route was pretty obvious. The top of the larynx is wired with relatively short nerves from the vagus, If the LRLN wasn't located posterior to the aorta at any point in development (just have its start on top, like the other laryngeal nerves), then you'd save feet of nerves. Wasn't that clear from the video?
But remember your more direct route must include all of the organs that the laryngeal nerve serves.
"As the recurrent laryngial nerve curves around the subclavian artery or the arch of aorta, it gives several cardiac filaments to the deep part of the cardiac plexus.¨
Gray's Anatomy 1980, p. 1081, similarly also in the 40th edition of 2008, pp. 459, 588/589
@owensphil What do you suggest the nerve is doing with these cardiac filaments aside from supporting itself? No one is claiming the nerve is sending or receiving information to or from the heart.
in humans in 0.3 to 1% of the population the right recurrent laryngeal nerve is indeed shortened and the route abbreviated in connection with a retromorphosis of the forth aortic arch.
¨In this condition, which has a frequency of between 0.3 - 1%, only the right side is affected and it is always associated with an abnormal growth of the right subclavian artery from the aortic arch on the left side" - Gray's Anatomy 2005, p. 644.;
No they aren´t. I have about 5 videos explaining why not. A major reason for the retina reversal is that it allows the rods and cones to interact with the retinal pigment epithelial cells that provide nutrients to the retina, recycle photopigments, provide an opaque layer to absorb excessive light, and perform other functions. Verted eyes tend to be functionally inferior in response to visual stimuli designed to detect motion, not detail like ours
Compared with the vertebrate retina, the retina of Octopus is very simple. There are no equivalents of amacrine, bipolar or ganglion cells in the cephalopod; peripheral processing of the visual input must be much simpler
They can see only in black and white and have a narrow range of vision compared to humans. Their photoreceptor cell population is composed of only rods, and they contain a mere twenty million retina
The laryngeal branch splits up into other branches before entering the larynx at different levels. These many RLN branches serve several other organs with both motor and sensory branches, including the upper esophagus, the trachea, the inferior pharynx, and the cricopharyngeus muscle, the lowest horizontal bandlike muscle of the throat just above the esophagus
@owensphil I don't see your point. I already commented in the video that these innervations are there. Just as with the larynx, these could be innervated without looping under the aorta and save a lot of length (especially in giraffes).
The recurrent laryngeal nerve, moves downward as development proceeds. The movement occurs because the neck's formation and the body's elongation during fetal development force the heart to descend from the cervical location down into the thoracic cavity. The right RLN is carried downward because it is looped under the arch that develops into the right subclavian artery, and thus moves down with it as development proceeds
@owensphil The embryologists are saying the same thing I am:
Because in the early embryonic stages we are very fish-like (complete with tail & slits in place of gills), the modifications that get us from the primitive vertebrate body plan to the more derived human one involve some haphazard manipulations of preexisting plumbing, wiring, etc. This leads to suboptimal solutions to problems that could more efficiently be solved by simply starting with the human body plan.
Why did natural selection not get rid of this "worst design" and improve it during the millions of generations and mutations from fish to the giraffe onwards?
@owensphil Natural selection did not get rid of this design because it was not provided with a better one. In order to avoid this design flaw, the embryo would need to develop the nerve that would later become the LRLN anterior to the blood vessel that would later become the aorta instead of posterior to it. However, in order to do this, it would need to start with a body plan slightly different than a fish body plan (a different segment sequence), and this is no simple task for evolution.
I haven't read all of his material, I would suppose that because he has a PHD in evolutionary biology and has taught biology both at the secondary and university levels, that he is well aware and has commented. I don't know his work that well though.
@mejc2 I can't for the life of me understand the common creationist tactic of giving the name of a random scientist in rebuttal to a point in debate. If you don't know if Dr. Rick Oliver has ever said anything about the animal DNA family tree, then why mention him in the first place? We could discuss a billion and one points for as long as we have the current one, and it would be no different with anything the good Dr. has to say.
Also, do you know of any rebuttal to the point in my last post?
There is no evidence that the genetic pattern that you realize in organisms has arisen from common descent. There is no evidence that the hundreds of millions of differences between Chimps and humans arose from mutations to a common ancestor or that they ever had a common ancestor. No science backs you up.Only speculation about observation. This video is a perfect example. Because the nerve doesn't take the pathway that YOU think is logical, you make speculations.
@mejc2 "There is no evidence that the genetic pattern that you realize in organisms has arisen from common descent."
Oh really? No evidence? How about the fact that every time we see this pattern in DNA it is considered air tight, convict-the-murderer evidence of common descent, because (for one) it is exactly what we see in those organisms whose DNA changes rapidly before our eyes? Since the only difference between a rat DNA tree and a rodent DNA tree is time, then it is AWESOME evidence.
First of all the relatedness of humans and the relatedness of chimps and humans is far from "air tight, convict-the-murderer evidence" all organisms are made of the same stuff, it doesn't mean that they created themselves through wild historical accidents. That is a bronze age myth revitalized by a naturalist in the 1800's. You are grasping at straws Marcus.
@mejc2 What did you mean by "the relatedness of humans"? Do you claim that humans are not all related? On what grounds?
"Made in a family tree pattern of similarity and difference" and "made of the same stuff" aren't the same.
By "air tight, convict-the-murderer evidence", all I meant was that the same DNA evidence used in murder and paternity cases is used to build trees of virus relationships, and relationships within and between species. There is no sign of a division between these levels.
Look Marcus, You and I both know that no scientific paper of any kind has ever shown that mutations create new organs, tissues or body plans. Yet you hold on to the notion that random mutations created all of the symbiotic systems in the entire universe. You explain nothing, you make up stories about your observations. Saying that it just happened is no answer at all and it is certainly not science. Hundreds of PHD's were given based on Java man, a hoax. you study a Fairy Tale.
@mejc2 If the idea of the creation of "new organs, tissues or body plans" is your obstacle, does that mean that you now accept that rodents are all part of one hereditary family? Carnivores? Ungulates? How much change can you get from an original "kind" before it becomes impossible to change any more?
"How much change can you get from an original "kind" before it becomes impossible to change any more?"
This is the question that breeders have dealt with for thousands of years. There are natural limits and they cannot surpass them. Corn can only be so sweet, chickens can only grow so large, no new organs ever arise. These are empirical and can be studied and tested. The kooky stories you make up are not science or even explanations. They are just stories.
@mejc2 Growing algae, I work with a lot of agriculturists. Just yesterday, a famous rice breeder was talking about how corn yields have increased ten-fold over the last 100 years. I've asked about this claim of yours, and so far I haven't heard of any limits that have been reached in agriculture. Each time we think we have, a new mutation pops up that pushes things further.
So how about rodents - no new organs needed, so are they all one "kind"? All rats? Or is each rat species a "kind"?
It seems that we both have worked with people that can give us first hand information. one of my past associates was being considered for the Nobel prize. It seems he was able to splice the gene of a rat that controlled size into the embryo of a mouse. he successfully created six three pound mice. It was he that told me of the limits. Also, claiming that unseen mutations created new body parts, bio systems, and body plans long ago and far away.is not an explanation.
@mejc2 Genetic engineers (like your friend who was considered for a Nobel) are vastly different than plant and animal breeders. Just because both work with genes doesn't make them all experts on all of genetics. In fact, I find that most lab geneticists I've met are pretty clueless about real-world genetics from wild populations. That's why the "Modern Synthesis" took so long to happen.
Are rodents all one "kind"? They all share the same basic parts and body plan.
Marcus, it doesn't matter if I think that horses and rodents are all one kind. My misgivings lend no credence whatever, to your defense of a process that never happened. Just saying that mutations did it doesn't explain anything. There is a pattern. Place the organisms in any order or tree or pattern that you choose. It makes no difference. There is no mechanism that can create the vastly incomprehensibly complicated genetic code needed to produce the life we see.
@mejc2 It isn't just you, mejc2. No one can determine any sort of delineation between "kinds" because animals form a single family tree, not distinct, separate ones. What this suggests is that, regardless of how animal species got to be different and whether or not supernatural forces were involved, animals are all related through birth. This tree pattern is readily accepted as evidence that a group of viruses are related, and it is the same pattern at every level of divergence. Common ancestry.
Incorrect Marcus, There are many patterns that do not conform to your claims. Just as evolutionists have made up the mutation filtered by natural selection story, they have made up other stories to fit the observations of the anomalies that don't fit the pattern. However, even if the genetic code is so similar that every living thing can be aligned in a wonderfully progressive array with smooth transitions from one to another. There is no evidence that accidents wrote the code.
@mejc2 "There are many patterns that do not conform to your claims." Such as? We've already been over this, mejc2. The only DNA found in animals that doesn't fit a perfect family tree pattern is either viral DNA or other DNA that has been found to make copies of itself and insert itself elsewhere. So what doesn't conform to the animal family tree?
Even if "there is no evidence that accidents wrote the code", this is SOLID evidence of one continuous animal family, not separate "kinds".
Gene duplication does not write any new codes to create any new body parts let alone animals. Also What does the bible say? Does the bible say anything that would prohibit you from looking at the DNA of animals and fitting the pattern into your story of wild historical accidents? The Bible says living creatures were created according to their kinds and that they would reproduce according to their kind. There is nothing in nature that would dispute that?
@mejc2 Actually, Hox gene duplication events cause the construction of new body parts. There is even variability in the # of segments within some species of centipedes. Modifications of these new copies causes differences between the new limbs and other ones - this is clear in many arthropods, where even mouth parts are modified legs.
But that's not the issue. If "kinds" of animals were separately created, we would have no reason to predict one continuous family tree, but that's what we see.
I wanted to let you know that I used your video as evidence against evolution. It is a good anti evolution video. Thanks You can see my use of it over on GoodScienceForYou Neutral Evolution Forum.
@GoodScienceForYou "You can see my use of it over on GoodScienceForYou Neutral Evolution Forum"
Still begging for people to show up at your vanity forum where you pretend to be a scientist yet do nothing but lie and insult people. You are pathetic.
Why not get some of your Jehovah's Witnesses buddies to come over and tell you how brilliant you are or do you only get off on acting like a jackass and screeching insults?
@GoodScienceForYou Thanks for helping to propagate my video. I'll let viewers be the judge of what it is evidence of, and they are welcome to discuss it with me here on YouTube. I have no desire to visit your abusive website, much less provide a loose cannon like you with my contact info.
I see that the infanticide supporter is still shining around, EB. The guy is persistent, if nothing else. Any messages from gawd lately, mejc2? He hasn't commanded you to kill anyone yet?
Nah. God just reveals the truth homeo boy. Invent any new fairy tales lately, or is the frog turning into a prince if you wait long enough still good enough for you?
God created man intelligent, free and designed to live forever, Adam screwed up and rejected God and we inherit a sinful nature, evidenced by instant archaeological appearance of advanced societies and man's actions throughout history. Men and animals lived long lives after the fall. Men followed their sinful nature God caused a catastrophic flood causing liquification burying all living things in sediment except Noah and those on his ark.Shown by fossils including reptiles grown large from age.
@mejc2 Where in all of this summary of fundamentalist dogma is an explanation for the animal family tree? Or did you forget again what we were just talking about?
On a side note, I could pick apart each of your claims about evidence for your fundamentalist biblical view, but this particular one stuck out because it falls into my field of expertise - what is the evidence from population genetics for Noah & his sons populating the Earth?
First the family tree. We have already settled this matter. This is how God made life on earth and you have mistakenly identified it as a family tree, despite the lack of mechanism for creating any such tree.
I heard Kenny Miller once give a lecture and describe the number of gene pools in the human race to be equal to the number that was on the ark. However, if you want more detail, feel free to research this portion of the empirical evidence, Although you prefer made up story
@mejc2 Since you seem to think that "miracles" counts as a mechanism and explanation for the creation of life, then let's just go with that for the creation of the animal tree. Now, why does it look like exactly a family tree? Why is there no better explanation available for the pattern than an actual family?
If the people on the Ark interbred to rebuild the human population, there'd be 1 gene pool. Instead, we see ancient diversity in Africa, and a subset diverging 60K ya elsewhere.
Actually Noah's sons wives would diversify the gene pool and 60kya is an estimate based on assumptions that are incorrect. As far as why you have mistaken the infinitesimally small amount of knowledge that you have about DNA as a family that can be constructed through wild historical accidents, You would have to ask yourself that.
@mejc2 I was already factoring in Noah's son's wives when I said it was ONE gene pool. Who do you suppose Noah's grandchildren bred with? They would've had to breed with each other, and preferably not with siblings. Further, all Noah's sons only had some of the DNA of their two parents, so adding all of them up still only gives you the DNA of 2 distinct people at most.
What are they incorrect assumptions for the 60k migration? How about the older African population?
It all depends on the point of view that you start with. when evolutionists look at DNA and see the same gene in various animals they assume conservation from a common ancestor. There is no evidence of that. They don't even know exactly what the gene does. When creationists look at similar genes they assume that they have a similar function and God used the same gene in two different animals. There is no evidence that wild historical accidents could cause all of this Marcus.
@mejc2 You don't have to assume anything to get a family tree pattern for animals using genes. All you have to do is cluster animals by how similar and different their DNA is. The pattern is one of groups within groups, where the pattern of differences can best be tracked on a tree. This is identical in pattern to how DNA in viruses form trees right in front of us.
you can definitely arrange them according to similarity. However, the assumption comes when you start making claims that one animal acquired it's differences through wild historical accidents. To think that you can achieve the immense digital code needed to create new features and body plans through copying errors is ludicrous and unsupported by any experiments. Sorry Marcus but hand waving and assigning names to observations doesn't do it for me.
@mejc2 "the assumption comes when you start making claims that one animal acquired it's differences through wild historical accidents"
Good, because so far in this conversation, I have not. As I said before, let's assume for this discussion that all the differences in animals are a result of miracles from God.
Since you say that this is the only assumption, then you admit that animals actually do form a pattern identical to a family tree, with no better explanation proposed than actual family.
I admit that you can call the pattern a family tree, erroneously. However, the explanation for the patterns is contained in your assumption. That is how God created the animals. If you assume that God created the animals, then the relationship you suppose between the animals is derived from your own lack of knowledge. There is no family tree you only think there is one because you suspect that the ideas of Darwinism are true, despite the empirical evidence to the contrary.
@mejc2 "If you assume that God created the animals, then the relationship you suppose between the animals is derived from your own lack of knowledge."
That is only true if you assume that you understand HOW "God created the animals". If you instead look at the evidence without any preconceived biases about how God behaves, then you are likely to determine that animals form an actual family (as most biologists - religious or not - have since Darwin first published his book).
He spoke them into existence and they appeared, mature and fully formed. Natural selection and each animal's genetic ability for variation and adaptability have taken their course since then. Basically this is what the bible says and is what the empirical evidence supports. Imaginary wild historical accidents make much better science fiction. However, there is no empirical evidence that they ever happened. Also, imaginary starting points for radiometric dating produce old ages.
@mejc2 I won't get into a debate about the specific meaning of words in Genesis, as I don't think it would really be fruitful.
What I would like to dig into is this claim that "the empirical evidence supports" your interpretation of Genesis. Please give me the specific boundaries for ONE rodent "kind", and then let's check out how "variation and adaptability" can account for the genetic diversity within that "kind" since the flood. Sound good? If not a rodent, then suggest another animal.
Wow! why don't you pick a big topic. Why should we waste our time on something so EASY :=). I am sorry to say that defining kinds is beyond me. However, I don't think that defining species is within your power either. Experts on both sides of the issue have problems. Although, you posing the question does call me to the carpet for making a blanket statement. As science moves on, God becomes apparent. Dr. Collins became a theist after heading the human genome project.
@mejc2 Oh, so you made the claim that "the empirical evidence supports" your interpretation of Genesis, but you can't even tell me ONE "kind". Expert biologists do frequently disagree on what a species is, but that is to be expected if organisms diverge gradually over time in different ways. It is not at all to be expected if animals were created separately. It ought to be easy to tell a "kind" if that were true. Dr. Collins became a theist after seeing a frozen waterfall that split into 3.
Expert biologists disagree on what a species is and on what a kind is. After animals go through all of their adaptations and mutations, it is difficult to pin down exactly what the starting point was. I shouldn't be easy no matter which scenario is true. If evolutionism is true there should be mountains of evidence of animals slowly morphing, there is not, there should be mountains of evidence of mutations creating novel features, organs, systems, and body plans, there is not.
@mejc2 "After animals go through all of their adaptations and mutations, it is difficult to pin down exactly what the starting point was."
Not really - not if it is within the last few million years and you have a diversity of descendants. Then all you have to do is construct a phylogenetic tree, and you can trace the mutations on the tree rather easily. The problem creationists face is that the pattern of genes in animals allows you to keep doing this for ALL animals.
Rather easily? I have never seen any representation of a tree that even makes sense let alone fits nicely. Every one that I have seen has more imaginary common ancestors than actual animals.
@mejc2 If the trees don't make sense to you, then that's probably a big part of your problem. Trees of viral relationships are constructed, and mutations tracked along them, without any ancestral viral sequences. I think you would have no trouble (nor should you) accepting recreations of ancestral viral genes from the tree. Why wouldn't the same thing work for animals that should have far less mutations in the few thousand years they have diverged?
similarity explained by an imaginary relationship is what you are offering. there is no relationship from one animal to another except the relationship that they share of being created from the same stuff.
@mejc2 I really wish you would stop oversimplifying the tree-like pattern of animal diversity by calling it "similarity".
Now, can we get back to thread of discussion we were just on? Would you accept that we can reliably predict gene sequences in recent ancestral viral sequences by tracing mutations on a tree of modern viral strains? If all animals in a "kind" are at most a few thousand years divergent, then why can't the same technique be used to determine ancestral "kinds"?
@mejc2 Not that it matters, but Dr. Collins believes that "God did it" by having organisms evolve naturally from a common ancestor, so I'm not sure why you mention him.
Could you answer the questions from my last post 3 days ago about kinds and viral strains?
I don't think I understand your supposition on viral strains vs animal kinds. I mention Dr. Collins because he is a theist. However, you are correct he is a Darwinist. I find it kind of odd that someone can claim to be a Darwinist and a Christian at the same time. No Adam, no need for Jesus.
@mejc2 Collins accepts naturalistic evolution from a common ancestor because he (like most) finds the evidence very convincing.
My argument about viral strains and animal "kinds" is this:
- in years, viruses have as many mutations per nucleotide as animals do in thousands of years, because viruses have far more generations and therefore far more replication events where copy errors can occur.
-therefore, why can't we get clear ancestral animal "kinds" like we can with viruses using DNA trees
Because we don't understand enough about it yet. Don't you realize that you are claiming an innumerable amount of mutations creating new body parts, plans and systems? There is no evidence of this in the fossil record. A few hundred questionable fossils is equivalent to zero when you consider the number that should be present. Also it does not continue today. Many Cambrian fossils are = to living organisms and no new body plans have emerged in 550 million years. It never happened
@mejc2 Presumably, members of a "kind" have all the same "body parts, plans, and systems", so these should be irrelevant for tracking mutations on a family tree to discover the limits of a "kind". What more would we need to understand about animal "kinds" in order to look at genetic relationships within a "kind"? What's the difference between mutations in animal "kinds" and mutations in viral families that makes it possible to do this with viruses but not animals? Do we just give up?
You are searching for something that does not exist. I told you to major in something else. However, like all of my children you have your own mind. Oh by the way, they just doubled the appearance of modern man. 400,000 years is now the oldest. Time to rewrite the fairy tale again and tell how evolution "predicts" that modern man is 400,000 years old and "not" out of Africa. I guess they can rewrite the population expansion charts also.
@mejc2 If humans were in Israel 400,000 years ago, then you are wrong by a factor of 100 for man's origins. Obviously, this has no effect on common ancestry. As for population growth rates, they range so widely in modern populations that just about anything is possible.
Now, care to actually address my last post? I thought we were actually making progress towards some sort of conclusion, but once again you've changed the topic. I must say that at this point, I'd be surprised if you didn't.
@mejc2 Sorry if it seems like I'm picking on you. Repeatedly, I get the feeling that I've finally gotten some point across that you'll have to agree with me on, and then you change the subject and I can't get you back on it again. This is how all of our conversational threads seem to end and it can get a bit frustrating.
Here's the point we were on: Viruses form families that we can use DNA trees to trace. Animal "kinds" should form similar families that are distinct from one another.
I am not familiar enough with DNA to either corroborate your hypothesis or reject it at hand. All that I can say is that there are scientists working on Baraminology despite there lack of billions of dollars of funding afforded the evolutionists.
@mejc2 There is no difference between building trees for the sake of common ancestry or baraminology. A baraminologist with sufficient biological background and an ability to write a grant proposal should be able to get funding for DNA sequencing for the purposes of determining relationships in a group of animals just as easily as any other qualified biologist. He wouldn't even have to mention "baraminology" in the grant proposal. DNA sequences won't care about intent. Plus, it's REALLY cheap.
Are you really that naive Marcus? Do you really think that biologists that buck the fairy tale of evolutionism really get grants? They can't even get Jobs in labs. Forget getting grants. The evolutionists have that sewn up. Next you'll tell me that gun control laws keep guns off the streets.
@mejc2 Most grant reviewers have no idea of the religious or scientific views of the person writing a grant proposal. It isn't like biologists all know each other. Grant reviews are decided largely on the merits of the proposal.
Regardless, any person can FREELY use the vast store of genetic data online at GenBank, and can conduct incredibly detailed phylogenetic analyses on all the genetic data from every paper ever published before. There's NO EXCUSE for creationists not doing so.
Scientists that are seeking the truth are held out of evolutionist controlled environments. Major grants go to major bastions of evolutionism. Also the evolutionist reviewers will never publish a paper of an obscure scientist that is refuting evolutionism based on personal research done using data from GenBank. Why haven't any evolutionists carbon dated the soft tissue found in fossils? OH Yeah carbon dating doesn't work on 85 million year old soft tissue. Or maybe they're afraid
@mejc2 Plenty of good work is done using archival DNA sequence data from GenBank. If you believe that good creationist research using this data can't be published in peer-reviewed journals, then why don't we see it in creationist publications? Surely, baraminologists are eager to objectively determine the boundaries of a "kind". So why don't they?
Even if you assume that the soft tissue in some fossils is young, you still need to address the DNA family tree we've been discussing.
DNA? You mean the DNA that is in the 250 million year old bacteria that shows only a 2% difference in the bacteria that exist today? That DNA? Go ahead Marcus make up a story why that DNA hasn't changed in 250 million years. You don't have to prove it. You just have to say it in a way that makes it sound possible. You know. Dinosaurs turned into birds,Pakicetus turned into a whale, The Cambrian explosion doesn't mean anything, you need to find more fossils. It never happened.
1) considering that evolutionists monopolize the educational system that is not surprising.
2) Phylogenetic trees consist of mostly imaginary common ancestors. Therefore building one is an effort in futility.
3) Anyone who has ever studied genetics honestly, knows that it is impossible for random mutations to create the needed genetic code to create the diversity of life. IT NEVER HAPPENED.
500 PHD's wrote theses on Java man. Might as well have a PHD in Mr potato head.
1) A person doesn't have to accept evolution to understand it.
2) If phylogenetics is an effort in futility, then why is it so good at reconstructing family trees for things like viruses and related populations in a species?
3) The problem for creationism is that when you build something like a tree of relationships among a group of populations, the tree just keeps getting larger and including more and more diverse organisms using exactly the same criteria for determining relationships.
1) Of course not. I don't accept evolutionism and I understand it.
2) relationships within a species has no baring what ever on the story about wild historical accidents creating new genetic information to create new organs tissues and body plans.
3) Creationism doesn't have to be right for evolutionism to be wrong.
Wild historical accidents creating everything we see on a sterile rock in space? The empirical evidence refutes this story. Nothing is created through wild accidents.
@mejc2 1) Good, then we agree that nothing is holding creationists back from learning enough about phylogenetics to use it in baraminology, which they can then use to make family trees using all the DNA so far sequenced FOR FREE.
2) When people try this, they will see that there is no good way to distinguish "kinds", since it all makes one big family tree with no breaks.
3) The theory of common ancestry is the only theory that predicts this, but it poses a serious conundrum for creationists.
1,2,&3) We may very well find that the DNA of all living creatures is so similar that we are unable to distinguish one kind of animal from another once all have been sequenced. However, it lends no credence to the story that one became another through wild historical accidents. To accept this fairy tale you must reject the historical accounts given in the most accurate ancient text known to mankind. Accept an unobserved fairy tale, or history empirically supported? Your choice.
@mejc2 Again, you confuse "similar" with "forming a family tree of similarity and difference". Also, again, I'm not claiming that an animal DNA family tree lends credence "to the story that one became another through wild historical accidents". As I said before, it lends credence to the theory that animals are an actual family (common ancestry) - how they got to be different is a separate issue. Amazing empirical support FOR common ancestry and AGAINST separate creation events. Your choice.
Absolutely incorrect. There is no evidence what ever of common ancestry of all living things. You confuse your ability to arrange DNA sequences with the story that all living organisms arose from one common ancestor. Even if God created the variety of life by changing only one amino acid in each subsequent organism, There is no evidence that the symphony of life could have arranged itself. Science demands a creator. The Bible reveals the creator.
@mejc2 I was referring to the common ancestry of all animals, not all life, and if you think that a DNA animal family tree "is no evidence what ever" of an actual animal family (while an RNA viral family tree is evidence of an actual viral family), then you've got more than one screw loose.
I don't see how "if God created the variety of life by changing [X]", then "the symphony of life...arranged itself". Obviously, if God created an animal family gradually over time, it didn't arrange itself.
There are mounds of evidence that scream against gradualism and only inferences that support it. There is virtually zero fossil evidence to support it, zero evidence that gradual mutations can create new organs, tissue, or body plans, zero evidence that any animal is capable of breaking the invisible barriers that breeders have been facing for thousands of years, carbon 14 is in virtually all the supposed oldest minerals(coal, diamonds), virtual zero probability. It never happened
@mejc2 Forget gradualism - I'm sorry I even mentioned it. I'd like to focus on common ancestry, which you again failed to address. I keep forgetting that all I have to do is mention something other than common ancestry, and like a dog spotting a squirrel, you ignore everything else and pounce on that statement. Let's say for the sake of dicussion that God made animals through a series of large mutational steps over time from one common animal ancestor. Wouldn't this explain the DNA pattern?
If you wanted to make up a story to explain the pattern in DNA That story can suffice. However, you can also say that he created them instantaneously from the same stuff and did it by manipulating the DNA code. Because we don't understand how God could have created the universe instantly, doesn't mean your story is correct. By the way, energy, accelerated enough can become matter. Is it a coincidence that the first thing God said was let there be light?
@mejc2 I suppose that you could say that God created animals "instantaneously from the same stuff and did it by manipulating the DNA code". However, if you make such a claim, you are still left with the strange conclusion that God made animals appear to be all one genetic family, despite making them instantaneously and separately. It makes God seem to be trying to trick us into thinking that wasn't how He did it. To me its more intellectually and spiritually satisfying if animals are related.
Was God trying to trick every other generation that had wrong ideas about the origins of life? The scientists of 200 years ago? To them it appeared as something else. Was God trying to trick them? Marcus, if there is a being that can speak a universe into existence, I must admit, as smart as I am, I don't think I could understand it even if he told me how he did it. The more we learn the less likely it seems that accidents caused creation. It should be reversed if evolution/true.
@mejc2 "The more we learn the less likely it seems that accidents caused creation."
Whether or not that is true, it is true that the more we learn about DNA, the more conclusive it is that animals form a genetic family tree. Since we've already got an enormous stockpile of this data, and the trend is REALLY SOLID, I would bet good money that this trend will continue. This data isn't going away, and needs explaining - aka scientific theory.
No matter how close the pattern is to your imaginary family tree. There is no evidence that it was formed from the imaginary methods that you propose. Additionally, evidence is mounting against the imaginary mutations filtered by natural selection. So you calling the pattern a family tree, has absolutely nothing to do with the origin of the information. If the origin of the information is the God of the Bible then the evolution story is completely irrelevant.
@mejc2 Whether or not the animal family tree "was formed from the imaginary methods that [I] propose" is irrelevant here. What is relevant is that, no matter what the proposed mechanism for how they became different, there is incredibly strong evidence that animals are all descendants of one original population of animals (i.e. animals are an actual family). It is the exact same evidence used to determine relationships between viruses and other groups of known relatives. God or no, it matters.
I disagree, If the creatures were created by manipulating the digital code that makes us unique, Then the pattern exists not because we are related through descent, but related through our creator. There is no evidence, except the pattern, that one can become the other.
@mejc2 We are all unique, regardless of how we were made. "If the creatures were created by manipulating the digital code", then we are still a genetic family - it's just that the "mutations" were intentionally put there. I find it odd that you dismiss this fact so readily. Isn't it a significant and important fact for you that God made animals into a hereditary family (regardless of HOW He did so)? The pattern is incredibly strong evidence of an actual family, which you should recognize.
We are most certainly related. The great debate isn't over weather or not all living organisms on earth are related in some way. The debate is over how and why we are related. Your claim is that wild historical accidents and mutations have created the millions upon millions unfathomably complex interdependent symbiotic systems that we see. I claim that they are designed by an intellect that we cannot begin to comprehend and that being and his purpose is revealed in the Bible.
@mejc2 "The debate is over how and why we are related."
So you finally accept that the animal tree of life represents an actual, hereditary family tree?
If so, then we are done arguing, because I don't really care much if you think the genetic differences came from God or sunlight. The important concept here is the family structure itself, not how the members got to be different. How do "kinds" fit into this family tree concept?
I never denied relatedness, only the concept of evolution from a single organism. As long as you realize that life evolving from a single organism is an opinion and not based on facts, we're all good.
@mejc2 Actually, you did deny relatedness, and even the fact that animals form a family tree to begin with. As of now, it appears that you still deny the actual hereditary relatedness of animals, merely claiming that they are "related" in the fact that they were created by the same Being.
I never claimed that animals result from "evolution from a single organism". By the time of the first animals, we would see a population of animals, not a single animal.
I only deny relatedness in the form of one animal appeared through mutations to another animal over time. Not relatedness in the sense that we are all made by God using the same stuff. Based on probability evolution is impossible, on biology evolution is impossible, on astronomy the big bang cannot create a universe that is fine tuned for life, fossils refute it, symbiotic relationships refute it, anomalies of all sorts refute it, history, archaeology, But you still believe.
@mejc2 You act as if "one animal appeared through mutations to another animal over time" and "we are all made by God using the same stuff" are the only 2 (mutually exclusive) options. What I'm proposing to you is that we are related in both ways (or some intermediate between the 2).
Creationists will never be able to square the idea of distinct, separately created "kinds" with the fact that animals form one continuous family tree. Just look at the group called "rodents" - try defining "kinds".
With the physical and archaeological evidence for the validity of the record contained in the Bible, It is not logical for me to throw out the hypothesis that God did it the way the Bible records it because I cannot define kinds to your liking. I listened to a scientist the other day on Google video. His name is Rick Oliver. He is much more convincing than I am. He has a PHD in evolutionary biology, masters in geology, masters in education, blah blah blah. He does nice work tho.
@mejc2 The animal DNA family tree is empirical, quantifiable, and cannot be manipulated by humans (because anyone can easily double-check a sequence or DNA tree). If no one can explain how you get distinct and separately created "kinds" (a concept written and likely concieved of by humans) from this tree, then I (like any good scientist) question the human sources, not the DNA.
Did Rick Oliver say anything that adequately argues against this point?
Noah and his sons populated the earth. shown by population genetics. God sent his son to be crucified to redeem men. Shown by historical eyewitness testimonies and physical archaeological evidence such as the shroud of Turin. Despite eyewitness testimony, archaeological, geological, and genetic evidences, You cling to your fairy tale of wild historical accidents.
cells are used in all types of animals regardless of relation. I could go on and break it down farther and farther if you like but you get it. Evolution is nothing more than a story that evolutionists have made up to explain the phenomenon that they observe. It is no different than Zeus, Thor, or any other myths.
@mejc2 Yes, cells are present in animals and all cellular life. How does that hurt the tree pattern? All cellular life is more genetically related to each other than it is to all non-cellular life. That actually reinforces the nested hierarchy pattern. Automobiles and other human inventions don't share this pattern. Car bodies (shape and material), for instance, have more to do with current trends and technology than a car's ancestry - they don't form a nested hierarchy.
Dude? Invent a story! that is what you do. Call current trends selective pressures. It's a myth. It never happened. It has never been observed, there is no mechanism, The entire tree is just a fabrication. It is more likely that the most accurate ancient text on the planet has it right than a bunch of school boys stamping there feet insisting that they really are smart and there fairy tale is the way it really happened.
Dude? Change the subject! I guess that you cede your previous point that anything can be made to form a nested hierarchy, and you now admit that this is a precise and rare pattern that so far only makes sense through common ancestry.
Of course - you wouldn't have simply gone back to ranting about "mechanism", "fairy tale", and "accurate ancient text" if you thought you had an actual rebuttal on the current topic. That's your MO, after all.
Did I say that Deer brains compensate for the blind spot? Did I say that snail photo cells would be destroyed by UV? You have refuted your own imaginary arguments. However, that's typical evolutionist BS
@mejc2 So deer eyes are not optimized, only human ones? What does a snail have that allows it to have forward-facing photo cells outside of water (without burning up the cells) that would be impossible to have in human eyes?
Marcus, you are as bad as the Bible thumpers. They say God did it and you say it happened by accident. How do you refute quadrillions of unobservable, untestable, long ago and far away, wild historical accidents?
@mejc2 Why is it every time I back you into a corner, you change the subject and rant about "historical accidents". I've already said that for this argument we can assume God did it using "miracles". Now, can we get back to our discussion about optimization vs common ancestry as explanations for why structures are how they are? Could you answer my questions about the vertebrate eye?
So, your contention is that because you can imagine a way that might be better to design some of the systems in living organisms, That it is more likely that they arose from common ascent.
1. first of all you, because of your limited knowledge, do not know what the ramifications would be if things were designed differently. God does.
2. We do not observe ascent.
3. The Patterns arising in our DNA are just the result of God's creation and in no way represent unobserved asent
@mejc2 No, my contention is that because the pattern of the similarity and difference of structures and genes in animals precisely fits a family tree pattern, it is likely that animals are an actual family. Furthermore, there is no evidence that any animal system is perfectly optimized, and I simply pointed out some good arguments against their optimization that you have yet to refute.
How animals got to be different is a separate issue altogether, whether by "ascent" or "miracles" or whatever.
Is there a such thing as a family tree when comparing animals? How can it be likely that animals are an actual family tree, one animal slowly changing into another animal, When that doesn't happen?
@mejc2 "Is there a such thing as a family tree when comparing animals?"
YES
I feel like a broken record here. It doesn't matter whether "one animal changed slowly into another animal" or not, and it doesn't matter whether "miracles", "magic", evolution (directed by God or not), or some unknown natural or supernatural process is responsible for the complex differences we see between animals...
...whatever the explanation (or source of the information), we must explain the obvious family tree.
1. It absolutely matters. If it happened then it is a family tree. if it didn't happen then you have wrongly identified the similarities as a family tree. If the animals were created, there only commonality would be their creator.
@mejc2 No, it absolutely does not matter. No matter how animals got to be the way they are, the family tree pattern exists, and needs an explanation. Any explanation for animal diversity that doesn't include an explanation for the family tree pattern is no explanation at all. So, even if complex differences in animals are the result of miracles from God, the family tree pattern must be explained, and so far, common ancestry is the only game in town. This makes it logical to accept.
If they are miracles from God, then that is the explanation. It is as much of an explanation as common ascent. The only difference is that many people claim to have observed miracles from God and no one has ever observed ascent. It is illogical to assume empirical data is the result of an unobserved, mathematically impossible, untestable, imaginary, process.
@mejc2 The problem with your assertion is that if one removes common ancestry from the explanation, there is no reason to predict a family tree pattern. If we simply went around with every tricky problem and said, "it's a miracle!", then we'd still be in the stone age. If you have any hope of convincing modern society that common ancestry is wrong, then you'll need an alternative explanation with at least the same level of accurate predictive power. That's how science works.
Evolutionism is not science. You do not predict, you postdict. First you collect data and then you form your fairy tail. As more data comes in you change your fairy tale to fit the data. As the years go by your fairy tale takes form and conforms pretty well to the data. Real scientists are rejecting mutation and random selection every day. That mechanism cannot account for the diversity of life. You have wasted many years of your life following a fairy tale.
@mejc2 "Real scientists are rejecting mutation and random selection every day."
Even if that were true, we aren't talking about either mutation or selection (which, by the way, is non-random by definition).
As for common ancestry (the actual topic), it predicts that all future observations of animal DNA will conform to one animal tree of life (a single, specific, nested hierarchy). This continues to be the case, and has not changed. In fact, the one family tree gains support daily.
@EvoBiologist Just wondering if there are any species descended from fish that don't have this nerve looping around the heart?
finemoves 1 month ago
@finemoves Sorry about the delay in getting back to you. As far as I'm aware, the LRLN loops under the aorta in all tetrapods. The looping results from the extension of the neck and the posterior migration of the heart that occurred in the early tetrapods. The longer the neck (and lower the heart), the more dramatic the back-track.
EvoBiologist 1 month ago
Nice work, Evo. I've also enjoyed reading your discussion with mejc 2. I've come across his viewpoint often, that the perceived history of common descent that can be read from the genes is claimed to simply be the result of common design. I'm afraid the only cure for this attitude is to familiarize yourself with the big picture- not only the LRLN, but also the ERV's, the disabled globin genes, the trees generated by just cytochrome c, etc.
fidlfadn 5 months ago
There is no "proof" that all this wasn't intelligently designed, of course, but the more you know about it, the more it fits the evolutionary scenario, warts and all, then any sort of Creation scenario. But most creationists are not willing to put in the work to get even a glimpse of this big picture, and those that do, tend to become skeptics.
fidlfadn 5 months ago
@fidlfadn Thanks! You're right - the more you know (higher IQ, higher education, etc.), the more likely you are to accept evolution. I have yet to see a good explanation for any of these genetic patterns. If you haven't already, check out my GULOP video for the best case I've seen.
EvoBiologist 5 months ago
@EvoBiologist - yep, well done. I've heard about the gulop before, and it is, as you point out, another good argument for common ancestry. But it is still subject to the remarkable talent creationists have of refusing to see the only sensible story here, or rather of going into contortions to explain why an omnipotent and omniscient God would design things in this bizarre, piecemeal, and highly misleading (to evilutionists) way.
fidlfadn 5 months ago
@fidlfadn It reminds me of a documented phenomenon among devout followers of religions. Sometimes, when presented with a clear refutation of their beliefs, they will cling even stronger to those beliefs and actually come out the other end even more devout. This has been studied in groups like the Jehovah's witnesses, who had unfulfilled doomsday prophecies years ago.
EvoBiologist 5 months ago
@EvoBiologist Yep, it's rather depressing, isn't it? Actually, it wouldn't bother me at all- everyone's entitled to believe whatever they want, and who cares whatever bizarre worldviews people have?- but unfortunately, bizarre worldviews have a way of impinging on the lives of all of us: we have a former US president who was convinced that waging war in Iraq was the Biblical prophecy of Gog and Magog come true, for instance.
fidlfadn 5 months ago
@fidlfadn And we have people like the woman who commented gleefully at Rapture Ready that she didn't have any qualms about pouring weed killer down the drain any more, because Jesus is coming soon anyway. At that point, this kind of nonsense is no longer amusing.
fidlfadn 5 months ago
@fidlfadn Agreed. When beliefs affect other people, they cease to simply be personal in nature.
EvoBiologist 5 months ago
Knowing this will never get you laid, which means your genes will never get passed on.....Natural Selection Fail, or Success?
ychro 6 months ago
@ychro Actually, I've already got a son, and my beautiful and intelligent biologist wife would like to have 3 more kids. So, in my case, knowing this sort of stuff probably helped me to get laid.
You bring up a good point, though. The more ignorant, uneducated, and poor a person is, the more likely they are to have more kids. This is often not by choice, though. Almost any idiot can have kids - it takes brains to plan this out so that it happens when you want it to. Seen "Idiocracy"?
EvoBiologist 6 months ago
bcos
1.Much evidence exists that the present design results from developmental constraints.
2.There are indications that this design serves to fine-tune laryngeal functions.
3.The nerve serves to innervate other organs after it branches from the vagus on its way to the larynx.
4.The design provides backup innervation to the larynx in case another nerve is damaged.
5.No evidence exists that the design causes any disadvantage.
attibannabawi 6 months ago
@attibannabawi
1) Yes, but if early in development the LRLN branched from the vagus anterior to the aorta, such constraints wouldn't exist
2) What "indications"?
3) Organs that could be innervated on the way down, rather than after looping back up (MUCH shorter nerves possible)
4) What "backup innervation"?
5) Aside from a) the extra energetic expense of building and using a much longer nerve and b) the added risk of nerve damage from being an unnecessarily larger target
EvoBiologist 6 months ago
@EvoBiologist:
and 6) that a longer nerve is slower- but I guess that's obvious. I've heard that "creation scientists" are looking into the matter. I await their findings with bated breath.
fidlfadn 5 months ago
Great video! Very strong argument.
22complexity 11 months ago
This video contains so much misinformation. It really would have been nice if you had done the research before making this video.
owensphil 11 months ago
@owensphil I am happy to correct any mistakes. I am not perfect, and love to learn. Please, enlighten me.
EvoBiologist 11 months ago
@EvoBiologist
Your video prompted me to make a video on this topic. Just click on my name.
owensphil 10 months ago
@owensphil Thanks for the effort, but the text in your video cuts off abruptly in almost every case. This makes it impossible to follow your argument completely.
As to your point about the LRLN having to be elongated during development due to looping under the aorta, that is MY point exactly. If it innervated the larynx by a more direct path, it wouldn't have to do this. The esophageal innervations could still travel along with the laryngeal ones, without the 15 extra feet in giraffes.
EvoBiologist 10 months ago
@EvoBiologist
I didn´t see the text cutting off at all so I´m not sure what you mean. In fact for me to respond to your idea of a more direct route, I would have to restate nearly everything in my video.
owensphil 10 months ago
@owensphil I watched the video again. This time, the text did not cut off for me either, so I was able to read your whole argument.
The redundancy you claim is minimal, and damage to this nerve - a much bigger target, being longer - causes major loss of vocal ability. Even if having a 2nd redundant innervation is beneficial, I still don't see what advantage looping the LRLN under the aorta accomplishes. For instance, why would a giraffe have use for an extra 15 ft, but not a cow or human?
EvoBiologist 10 months ago
@EvoBiologist
I will look into the points you raised. However, I think it´s premature to simply claim evolution did it. Talk about your science stoppers. How long did evolutionists get away with claiming that our eyes are wired backwards. Your assertion the the LRLN ONLY innervates the larynx is grossly inaccurate. The honest thing to do would to correct this error in your video.
owensphil 10 months ago
@owensphil I'm only claiming that common ancestry is the best explanation for the LRLN known, because it is. I've yet to hear an alternative explanation that even remotely makes sense.
I did correct the video long ago - there is a text box that pops up when I make the claim that the LRLN only innervates the larynx, correcting my mistake.
Our eyes ARE wired backwards, which is why vertebrates have blind spots. Cephalopods (like squid and octopi) don't have this problem.
EvoBiologist 10 months ago
@EvoBiologist
The explanations that embryologists provide. such as the one that I cited in the video makes perfect sense.
The correction you made only mentions some of the other organs which makes the circuitous route still seem awkward. What route would you propose?? I think that is a key missing piece in your video.
owensphil 10 months ago
@owensphil The explanations provided by embryologists are most well aligned with an evolutionary explanation for the origin of those developmental pathways. I'm saying the same thing the embryologists are saying.
EvoBiologist 10 months ago
@EvoBiologist
I would be very interested in reading what an embryologist has to say that agrees with your position. Could you please provide any documentation?
owensphil 10 months ago
@owensphil Ch 1 of my textbook "Developmental Biology" by Scott F. Gilbert outlines 4 principles of Karl Ernst von Baer developed in 1828 and still used. #1 is "The general features of a large group of animals appear earlier in development than do the specialized features of a smaller group" The chapter goes on to discuss the importance of common ancestry in understanding embryology, emphasizing the importance of the concept of homology. Documentation enough of common ancestry in embryology?
EvoBiologist 10 months ago
@owensphil I thought that the optimal route was pretty obvious. The top of the larynx is wired with relatively short nerves from the vagus, If the LRLN wasn't located posterior to the aorta at any point in development (just have its start on top, like the other laryngeal nerves), then you'd save feet of nerves. Wasn't that clear from the video?
EvoBiologist 10 months ago
@EvoBiologist
But remember your more direct route must include all of the organs that the laryngeal nerve serves.
"As the recurrent laryngial nerve curves around the subclavian artery or the arch of aorta, it gives several cardiac filaments to the deep part of the cardiac plexus.¨
Gray's Anatomy 1980, p. 1081, similarly also in the 40th edition of 2008, pp. 459, 588/589
Does your more direct rout provide for this?
owensphil 10 months ago
@owensphil What do you suggest the nerve is doing with these cardiac filaments aside from supporting itself? No one is claiming the nerve is sending or receiving information to or from the heart.
EvoBiologist 10 months ago
@EvoBiologist
in humans in 0.3 to 1% of the population the right recurrent laryngeal nerve is indeed shortened and the route abbreviated in connection with a retromorphosis of the forth aortic arch.
¨In this condition, which has a frequency of between 0.3 - 1%, only the right side is affected and it is always associated with an abnormal growth of the right subclavian artery from the aortic arch on the left side" - Gray's Anatomy 2005, p. 644.;
owensphil 10 months ago
@owensphil I'm not clear on the point you are trying to make with this quote from Gray's Anatomy about abnormal RRLN growth.
EvoBiologist 10 months ago
@EvoBiologist
¨Our eyes ARE wired backwards¨
No they aren´t. I have about 5 videos explaining why not. A major reason for the retina reversal is that it allows the rods and cones to interact with the retinal pigment epithelial cells that provide nutrients to the retina, recycle photopigments, provide an opaque layer to absorb excessive light, and perform other functions. Verted eyes tend to be functionally inferior in response to visual stimuli designed to detect motion, not detail like ours
owensphil 10 months ago
@owensphil Cephalopod visual acuity often rivals our own.
EvoBiologist 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@EvoBiologist
¨Cephalopod visual acuity often rivals our own.¨
Compared with the vertebrate retina, the retina of Octopus is very simple. There are no equivalents of amacrine, bipolar or ganglion cells in the cephalopod; peripheral processing of the visual input must be much simpler
owensphil 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@EvoBiologist
¨Cephalopod visual acuity often rivals our own.¨
They can see only in black and white and have a narrow range of vision compared to humans. Their photoreceptor cell population is composed of only rods, and they contain a mere twenty million retina
receptor cells compared to 126 million in humans.
Now which eyes would you rather have?
owensphil 10 months ago
@EvoBiologist
The laryngeal branch splits up into other branches before entering the larynx at different levels. These many RLN branches serve several other organs with both motor and sensory branches, including the upper esophagus, the trachea, the inferior pharynx, and the cricopharyngeus muscle, the lowest horizontal bandlike muscle of the throat just above the esophagus
owensphil 10 months ago
@owensphil I don't see your point. I already commented in the video that these innervations are there. Just as with the larynx, these could be innervated without looping under the aorta and save a lot of length (especially in giraffes).
EvoBiologist 10 months ago
@EvoBiologist
The recurrent laryngeal nerve, moves downward as development proceeds. The movement occurs because the neck's formation and the body's elongation during fetal development force the heart to descend from the cervical location down into the thoracic cavity. The right RLN is carried downward because it is looped under the arch that develops into the right subclavian artery, and thus moves down with it as development proceeds
owensphil 10 months ago
@owensphil The embryologists are saying the same thing I am:
Because in the early embryonic stages we are very fish-like (complete with tail & slits in place of gills), the modifications that get us from the primitive vertebrate body plan to the more derived human one involve some haphazard manipulations of preexisting plumbing, wiring, etc. This leads to suboptimal solutions to problems that could more efficiently be solved by simply starting with the human body plan.
EvoBiologist 10 months ago
@EvoBiologist
Why did natural selection not get rid of this "worst design" and improve it during the millions of generations and mutations from fish to the giraffe onwards?
owensphil 10 months ago
@owensphil Natural selection did not get rid of this design because it was not provided with a better one. In order to avoid this design flaw, the embryo would need to develop the nerve that would later become the LRLN anterior to the blood vessel that would later become the aorta instead of posterior to it. However, in order to do this, it would need to start with a body plan slightly different than a fish body plan (a different segment sequence), and this is no simple task for evolution.
EvoBiologist 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@EvoBiologist
¨why would a giraffe have use for an extra 15 ft, but not a cow or human?¨
I would think that reason would be obvious given the difference in neck sizes. I must be missing your point.
owensphil 10 months ago
I haven't read all of his material, I would suppose that because he has a PHD in evolutionary biology and has taught biology both at the secondary and university levels, that he is well aware and has commented. I don't know his work that well though.
mejc2 1 year ago
@mejc2 I can't for the life of me understand the common creationist tactic of giving the name of a random scientist in rebuttal to a point in debate. If you don't know if Dr. Rick Oliver has ever said anything about the animal DNA family tree, then why mention him in the first place? We could discuss a billion and one points for as long as we have the current one, and it would be no different with anything the good Dr. has to say.
Also, do you know of any rebuttal to the point in my last post?
EvoBiologist 1 year ago
@EvoBiologist
There is no evidence that the genetic pattern that you realize in organisms has arisen from common descent. There is no evidence that the hundreds of millions of differences between Chimps and humans arose from mutations to a common ancestor or that they ever had a common ancestor. No science backs you up.Only speculation about observation. This video is a perfect example. Because the nerve doesn't take the pathway that YOU think is logical, you make speculations.
mejc2 1 year ago
@mejc2 "There is no evidence that the genetic pattern that you realize in organisms has arisen from common descent."
Oh really? No evidence? How about the fact that every time we see this pattern in DNA it is considered air tight, convict-the-murderer evidence of common descent, because (for one) it is exactly what we see in those organisms whose DNA changes rapidly before our eyes? Since the only difference between a rat DNA tree and a rodent DNA tree is time, then it is AWESOME evidence.
EvoBiologist 1 year ago
@mejc2
First of all the relatedness of humans and the relatedness of chimps and humans is far from "air tight, convict-the-murderer evidence" all organisms are made of the same stuff, it doesn't mean that they created themselves through wild historical accidents. That is a bronze age myth revitalized by a naturalist in the 1800's. You are grasping at straws Marcus.
mejc2 1 year ago
@mejc2 What did you mean by "the relatedness of humans"? Do you claim that humans are not all related? On what grounds?
"Made in a family tree pattern of similarity and difference" and "made of the same stuff" aren't the same.
By "air tight, convict-the-murderer evidence", all I meant was that the same DNA evidence used in murder and paternity cases is used to build trees of virus relationships, and relationships within and between species. There is no sign of a division between these levels.
EvoBiologist 1 year ago
@EvoBiologist
Look Marcus, You and I both know that no scientific paper of any kind has ever shown that mutations create new organs, tissues or body plans. Yet you hold on to the notion that random mutations created all of the symbiotic systems in the entire universe. You explain nothing, you make up stories about your observations. Saying that it just happened is no answer at all and it is certainly not science. Hundreds of PHD's were given based on Java man, a hoax. you study a Fairy Tale.
mejc2 1 year ago
@mejc2 If the idea of the creation of "new organs, tissues or body plans" is your obstacle, does that mean that you now accept that rodents are all part of one hereditary family? Carnivores? Ungulates? How much change can you get from an original "kind" before it becomes impossible to change any more?
EvoBiologist 1 year ago
@EvoBiologist
"How much change can you get from an original "kind" before it becomes impossible to change any more?"
This is the question that breeders have dealt with for thousands of years. There are natural limits and they cannot surpass them. Corn can only be so sweet, chickens can only grow so large, no new organs ever arise. These are empirical and can be studied and tested. The kooky stories you make up are not science or even explanations. They are just stories.
mejc2 1 year ago
@mejc2 Growing algae, I work with a lot of agriculturists. Just yesterday, a famous rice breeder was talking about how corn yields have increased ten-fold over the last 100 years. I've asked about this claim of yours, and so far I haven't heard of any limits that have been reached in agriculture. Each time we think we have, a new mutation pops up that pushes things further.
So how about rodents - no new organs needed, so are they all one "kind"? All rats? Or is each rat species a "kind"?
EvoBiologist 1 year ago
@EvoBiologist
It seems that we both have worked with people that can give us first hand information. one of my past associates was being considered for the Nobel prize. It seems he was able to splice the gene of a rat that controlled size into the embryo of a mouse. he successfully created six three pound mice. It was he that told me of the limits. Also, claiming that unseen mutations created new body parts, bio systems, and body plans long ago and far away.is not an explanation.
mejc2 1 year ago
@mejc2 Genetic engineers (like your friend who was considered for a Nobel) are vastly different than plant and animal breeders. Just because both work with genes doesn't make them all experts on all of genetics. In fact, I find that most lab geneticists I've met are pretty clueless about real-world genetics from wild populations. That's why the "Modern Synthesis" took so long to happen.
Are rodents all one "kind"? They all share the same basic parts and body plan.
EvoBiologist 1 year ago
@EvoBiologist
Marcus, it doesn't matter if I think that horses and rodents are all one kind. My misgivings lend no credence whatever, to your defense of a process that never happened. Just saying that mutations did it doesn't explain anything. There is a pattern. Place the organisms in any order or tree or pattern that you choose. It makes no difference. There is no mechanism that can create the vastly incomprehensibly complicated genetic code needed to produce the life we see.
mejc2 1 year ago
@mejc2 It isn't just you, mejc2. No one can determine any sort of delineation between "kinds" because animals form a single family tree, not distinct, separate ones. What this suggests is that, regardless of how animal species got to be different and whether or not supernatural forces were involved, animals are all related through birth. This tree pattern is readily accepted as evidence that a group of viruses are related, and it is the same pattern at every level of divergence. Common ancestry.
EvoBiologist 1 year ago
@EvoBiologist
Incorrect Marcus, There are many patterns that do not conform to your claims. Just as evolutionists have made up the mutation filtered by natural selection story, they have made up other stories to fit the observations of the anomalies that don't fit the pattern. However, even if the genetic code is so similar that every living thing can be aligned in a wonderfully progressive array with smooth transitions from one to another. There is no evidence that accidents wrote the code.
mejc2 1 year ago
@mejc2 "There are many patterns that do not conform to your claims." Such as? We've already been over this, mejc2. The only DNA found in animals that doesn't fit a perfect family tree pattern is either viral DNA or other DNA that has been found to make copies of itself and insert itself elsewhere. So what doesn't conform to the animal family tree?
Even if "there is no evidence that accidents wrote the code", this is SOLID evidence of one continuous animal family, not separate "kinds".
EvoBiologist 1 year ago
@EvoBiologist
Gene duplication does not write any new codes to create any new body parts let alone animals. Also What does the bible say? Does the bible say anything that would prohibit you from looking at the DNA of animals and fitting the pattern into your story of wild historical accidents? The Bible says living creatures were created according to their kinds and that they would reproduce according to their kind. There is nothing in nature that would dispute that?
mejc2 1 year ago
@mejc2 Actually, Hox gene duplication events cause the construction of new body parts. There is even variability in the # of segments within some species of centipedes. Modifications of these new copies causes differences between the new limbs and other ones - this is clear in many arthropods, where even mouth parts are modified legs.
But that's not the issue. If "kinds" of animals were separately created, we would have no reason to predict one continuous family tree, but that's what we see.
EvoBiologist 1 year ago
I wanted to let you know that I used your video as evidence against evolution. It is a good anti evolution video. Thanks You can see my use of it over on GoodScienceForYou Neutral Evolution Forum.
GoodScienceForYou 1 year ago
@GoodScienceForYou "You can see my use of it over on GoodScienceForYou Neutral Evolution Forum"
Still begging for people to show up at your vanity forum where you pretend to be a scientist yet do nothing but lie and insult people. You are pathetic.
Why not get some of your Jehovah's Witnesses buddies to come over and tell you how brilliant you are or do you only get off on acting like a jackass and screeching insults?
You are pathetic
AlanCFA 1 year ago
@GoodScienceForYou Thanks for helping to propagate my video. I'll let viewers be the judge of what it is evidence of, and they are welcome to discuss it with me here on YouTube. I have no desire to visit your abusive website, much less provide a loose cannon like you with my contact info.
EvoBiologist 1 year ago
I see that the infanticide supporter is still shining around, EB. The guy is persistent, if nothing else. Any messages from gawd lately, mejc2? He hasn't commanded you to kill anyone yet?
homeostasis4me 1 year ago
@homeostasis4me
Nah. God just reveals the truth homeo boy. Invent any new fairy tales lately, or is the frog turning into a prince if you wait long enough still good enough for you?
mejc2 1 year ago
@mejc2 Lol.
daemonowner 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
God created man intelligent, free and designed to live forever, Adam screwed up and rejected God and we inherit a sinful nature, evidenced by instant archaeological appearance of advanced societies and man's actions throughout history. Men and animals lived long lives after the fall. Men followed their sinful nature God caused a catastrophic flood causing liquification burying all living things in sediment except Noah and those on his ark.Shown by fossils including reptiles grown large from age.
mejc2 1 year ago
@mejc2 Where in all of this summary of fundamentalist dogma is an explanation for the animal family tree? Or did you forget again what we were just talking about?
On a side note, I could pick apart each of your claims about evidence for your fundamentalist biblical view, but this particular one stuck out because it falls into my field of expertise - what is the evidence from population genetics for Noah & his sons populating the Earth?
EvoBiologist 1 year ago
@EvoBiologist
First the family tree. We have already settled this matter. This is how God made life on earth and you have mistakenly identified it as a family tree, despite the lack of mechanism for creating any such tree.
I heard Kenny Miller once give a lecture and describe the number of gene pools in the human race to be equal to the number that was on the ark. However, if you want more detail, feel free to research this portion of the empirical evidence, Although you prefer made up story
mejc2 1 year ago
@mejc2 Since you seem to think that "miracles" counts as a mechanism and explanation for the creation of life, then let's just go with that for the creation of the animal tree. Now, why does it look like exactly a family tree? Why is there no better explanation available for the pattern than an actual family?
If the people on the Ark interbred to rebuild the human population, there'd be 1 gene pool. Instead, we see ancient diversity in Africa, and a subset diverging 60K ya elsewhere.
EvoBiologist 1 year ago
@EvoBiologist
Actually Noah's sons wives would diversify the gene pool and 60kya is an estimate based on assumptions that are incorrect. As far as why you have mistaken the infinitesimally small amount of knowledge that you have about DNA as a family that can be constructed through wild historical accidents, You would have to ask yourself that.
mejc2 1 year ago
@mejc2 I was already factoring in Noah's son's wives when I said it was ONE gene pool. Who do you suppose Noah's grandchildren bred with? They would've had to breed with each other, and preferably not with siblings. Further, all Noah's sons only had some of the DNA of their two parents, so adding all of them up still only gives you the DNA of 2 distinct people at most.
What are they incorrect assumptions for the 60k migration? How about the older African population?
The DNA data is massive.
EvoBiologist 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@EvoBiologist
It all depends on the point of view that you start with. when evolutionists look at DNA and see the same gene in various animals they assume conservation from a common ancestor. There is no evidence of that. They don't even know exactly what the gene does. When creationists look at similar genes they assume that they have a similar function and God used the same gene in two different animals. There is no evidence that wild historical accidents could cause all of this Marcus.
mejc2 1 year ago
@mejc2 You don't have to assume anything to get a family tree pattern for animals using genes. All you have to do is cluster animals by how similar and different their DNA is. The pattern is one of groups within groups, where the pattern of differences can best be tracked on a tree. This is identical in pattern to how DNA in viruses form trees right in front of us.
This requires no assumptions.
EvoBiologist 1 year ago
@EvoBiologist
you can definitely arrange them according to similarity. However, the assumption comes when you start making claims that one animal acquired it's differences through wild historical accidents. To think that you can achieve the immense digital code needed to create new features and body plans through copying errors is ludicrous and unsupported by any experiments. Sorry Marcus but hand waving and assigning names to observations doesn't do it for me.
mejc2 1 year ago
@mejc2 "the assumption comes when you start making claims that one animal acquired it's differences through wild historical accidents"
Good, because so far in this conversation, I have not. As I said before, let's assume for this discussion that all the differences in animals are a result of miracles from God.
Since you say that this is the only assumption, then you admit that animals actually do form a pattern identical to a family tree, with no better explanation proposed than actual family.
EvoBiologist 1 year ago
@EvoBiologist
I admit that you can call the pattern a family tree, erroneously. However, the explanation for the patterns is contained in your assumption. That is how God created the animals. If you assume that God created the animals, then the relationship you suppose between the animals is derived from your own lack of knowledge. There is no family tree you only think there is one because you suspect that the ideas of Darwinism are true, despite the empirical evidence to the contrary.
mejc2 1 year ago
@mejc2 "If you assume that God created the animals, then the relationship you suppose between the animals is derived from your own lack of knowledge."
That is only true if you assume that you understand HOW "God created the animals". If you instead look at the evidence without any preconceived biases about how God behaves, then you are likely to determine that animals form an actual family (as most biologists - religious or not - have since Darwin first published his book).
EvoBiologist 1 year ago
@EvoBiologist
He spoke them into existence and they appeared, mature and fully formed. Natural selection and each animal's genetic ability for variation and adaptability have taken their course since then. Basically this is what the bible says and is what the empirical evidence supports. Imaginary wild historical accidents make much better science fiction. However, there is no empirical evidence that they ever happened. Also, imaginary starting points for radiometric dating produce old ages.
mejc2 1 year ago
@mejc2 I won't get into a debate about the specific meaning of words in Genesis, as I don't think it would really be fruitful.
What I would like to dig into is this claim that "the empirical evidence supports" your interpretation of Genesis. Please give me the specific boundaries for ONE rodent "kind", and then let's check out how "variation and adaptability" can account for the genetic diversity within that "kind" since the flood. Sound good? If not a rodent, then suggest another animal.
EvoBiologist 1 year ago
@EvoBiologist
Wow! why don't you pick a big topic. Why should we waste our time on something so EASY :=). I am sorry to say that defining kinds is beyond me. However, I don't think that defining species is within your power either. Experts on both sides of the issue have problems. Although, you posing the question does call me to the carpet for making a blanket statement. As science moves on, God becomes apparent. Dr. Collins became a theist after heading the human genome project.
mejc2 1 year ago
@mejc2 Oh, so you made the claim that "the empirical evidence supports" your interpretation of Genesis, but you can't even tell me ONE "kind". Expert biologists do frequently disagree on what a species is, but that is to be expected if organisms diverge gradually over time in different ways. It is not at all to be expected if animals were created separately. It ought to be easy to tell a "kind" if that were true. Dr. Collins became a theist after seeing a frozen waterfall that split into 3.
EvoBiologist 1 year ago
@EvoBiologist
Expert biologists disagree on what a species is and on what a kind is. After animals go through all of their adaptations and mutations, it is difficult to pin down exactly what the starting point was. I shouldn't be easy no matter which scenario is true. If evolutionism is true there should be mountains of evidence of animals slowly morphing, there is not, there should be mountains of evidence of mutations creating novel features, organs, systems, and body plans, there is not.
mejc2 1 year ago
@mejc2 "After animals go through all of their adaptations and mutations, it is difficult to pin down exactly what the starting point was."
Not really - not if it is within the last few million years and you have a diversity of descendants. Then all you have to do is construct a phylogenetic tree, and you can trace the mutations on the tree rather easily. The problem creationists face is that the pattern of genes in animals allows you to keep doing this for ALL animals.
EvoBiologist 1 year ago
@EvoBiologist
Rather easily? I have never seen any representation of a tree that even makes sense let alone fits nicely. Every one that I have seen has more imaginary common ancestors than actual animals.
mejc2 1 year ago
@mejc2 If the trees don't make sense to you, then that's probably a big part of your problem. Trees of viral relationships are constructed, and mutations tracked along them, without any ancestral viral sequences. I think you would have no trouble (nor should you) accepting recreations of ancestral viral genes from the tree. Why wouldn't the same thing work for animals that should have far less mutations in the few thousand years they have diverged?
EvoBiologist 1 year ago
@EvoBiologist
similarity explained by an imaginary relationship is what you are offering. there is no relationship from one animal to another except the relationship that they share of being created from the same stuff.
mejc2 1 year ago
@mejc2 I really wish you would stop oversimplifying the tree-like pattern of animal diversity by calling it "similarity".
Now, can we get back to thread of discussion we were just on? Would you accept that we can reliably predict gene sequences in recent ancestral viral sequences by tracing mutations on a tree of modern viral strains? If all animals in a "kind" are at most a few thousand years divergent, then why can't the same technique be used to determine ancestral "kinds"?
EvoBiologist 1 year ago
@mejc2 Are you fucking serious? Haven't you heard? We have sequenced the genome of hundreds of species, theres the link.
daemonowner 1 year ago
@daemonowner
Dr. Collins, the head of the human Genome project became a theist. Even he knows that God did it. Evidently, you didn't get the memo.
mejc2 1 year ago
@mejc2 Not that it matters, but Dr. Collins believes that "God did it" by having organisms evolve naturally from a common ancestor, so I'm not sure why you mention him.
Could you answer the questions from my last post 3 days ago about kinds and viral strains?
EvoBiologist 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@EvoBiologist
I don't think I understand your supposition on viral strains vs animal kinds. I mention Dr. Collins because he is a theist. However, you are correct he is a Darwinist. I find it kind of odd that someone can claim to be a Darwinist and a Christian at the same time. No Adam, no need for Jesus.
mejc2 1 year ago
@mejc2 Collins accepts naturalistic evolution from a common ancestor because he (like most) finds the evidence very convincing.
My argument about viral strains and animal "kinds" is this:
- in years, viruses have as many mutations per nucleotide as animals do in thousands of years, because viruses have far more generations and therefore far more replication events where copy errors can occur.
-therefore, why can't we get clear ancestral animal "kinds" like we can with viruses using DNA trees
EvoBiologist 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@EvoBiologist
Because we don't understand enough about it yet. Don't you realize that you are claiming an innumerable amount of mutations creating new body parts, plans and systems? There is no evidence of this in the fossil record. A few hundred questionable fossils is equivalent to zero when you consider the number that should be present. Also it does not continue today. Many Cambrian fossils are = to living organisms and no new body plans have emerged in 550 million years. It never happened
mejc2 1 year ago
@mejc2 Presumably, members of a "kind" have all the same "body parts, plans, and systems", so these should be irrelevant for tracking mutations on a family tree to discover the limits of a "kind". What more would we need to understand about animal "kinds" in order to look at genetic relationships within a "kind"? What's the difference between mutations in animal "kinds" and mutations in viral families that makes it possible to do this with viruses but not animals? Do we just give up?
EvoBiologist 1 year ago
@EvoBiologist
You are searching for something that does not exist. I told you to major in something else. However, like all of my children you have your own mind. Oh by the way, they just doubled the appearance of modern man. 400,000 years is now the oldest. Time to rewrite the fairy tale again and tell how evolution "predicts" that modern man is 400,000 years old and "not" out of Africa. I guess they can rewrite the population expansion charts also.
mejc2 1 year ago
@mejc2 If humans were in Israel 400,000 years ago, then you are wrong by a factor of 100 for man's origins. Obviously, this has no effect on common ancestry. As for population growth rates, they range so widely in modern populations that just about anything is possible.
Now, care to actually address my last post? I thought we were actually making progress towards some sort of conclusion, but once again you've changed the topic. I must say that at this point, I'd be surprised if you didn't.
EvoBiologist 1 year ago
@EvoBiologist
Hey, I'm old. My mind wanders. Stop pickin on me. Trying to pin down evolution is like trying to grab smoke.
mejc2 1 year ago
@mejc2 Sorry if it seems like I'm picking on you. Repeatedly, I get the feeling that I've finally gotten some point across that you'll have to agree with me on, and then you change the subject and I can't get you back on it again. This is how all of our conversational threads seem to end and it can get a bit frustrating.
Here's the point we were on: Viruses form families that we can use DNA trees to trace. Animal "kinds" should form similar families that are distinct from one another.
EvoBiologist 1 year ago
@EvoBiologist
I am not familiar enough with DNA to either corroborate your hypothesis or reject it at hand. All that I can say is that there are scientists working on Baraminology despite there lack of billions of dollars of funding afforded the evolutionists.
mejc2 1 year ago
@mejc2 There is no difference between building trees for the sake of common ancestry or baraminology. A baraminologist with sufficient biological background and an ability to write a grant proposal should be able to get funding for DNA sequencing for the purposes of determining relationships in a group of animals just as easily as any other qualified biologist. He wouldn't even have to mention "baraminology" in the grant proposal. DNA sequences won't care about intent. Plus, it's REALLY cheap.
EvoBiologist 1 year ago
@EvoBiologist
Are you really that naive Marcus? Do you really think that biologists that buck the fairy tale of evolutionism really get grants? They can't even get Jobs in labs. Forget getting grants. The evolutionists have that sewn up. Next you'll tell me that gun control laws keep guns off the streets.
mejc2 1 year ago
@mejc2 Most grant reviewers have no idea of the religious or scientific views of the person writing a grant proposal. It isn't like biologists all know each other. Grant reviews are decided largely on the merits of the proposal.
Regardless, any person can FREELY use the vast store of genetic data online at GenBank, and can conduct incredibly detailed phylogenetic analyses on all the genetic data from every paper ever published before. There's NO EXCUSE for creationists not doing so.
EvoBiologist 1 year ago
@EvoBiologist
Scientists that are seeking the truth are held out of evolutionist controlled environments. Major grants go to major bastions of evolutionism. Also the evolutionist reviewers will never publish a paper of an obscure scientist that is refuting evolutionism based on personal research done using data from GenBank. Why haven't any evolutionists carbon dated the soft tissue found in fossils? OH Yeah carbon dating doesn't work on 85 million year old soft tissue. Or maybe they're afraid
mejc2 1 year ago
@mejc2 Plenty of good work is done using archival DNA sequence data from GenBank. If you believe that good creationist research using this data can't be published in peer-reviewed journals, then why don't we see it in creationist publications? Surely, baraminologists are eager to objectively determine the boundaries of a "kind". So why don't they?
Even if you assume that the soft tissue in some fossils is young, you still need to address the DNA family tree we've been discussing.
EvoBiologist 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@EvoBiologist
DNA? You mean the DNA that is in the 250 million year old bacteria that shows only a 2% difference in the bacteria that exist today? That DNA? Go ahead Marcus make up a story why that DNA hasn't changed in 250 million years. You don't have to prove it. You just have to say it in a way that makes it sound possible. You know. Dinosaurs turned into birds,Pakicetus turned into a whale, The Cambrian explosion doesn't mean anything, you need to find more fossils. It never happened.
mejc2 1 year ago
@mejc2 You are dodging the issue by bringing up several different unrelated issues..
Since you won't answer my question, here is my assessment of why creationists can't use DNA relationships to determine "kinds":
1) A minuscule fraction of biologists are creationists.
2) Most of those who are don't have the background in phylogenetic trees to try to build one.
3) Anyone who has ever tried knows it is impossible to find discrete animal groups that could be called "kinds" - it's all ONE family.
EvoBiologist 1 year ago
@EvoBiologist
1) considering that evolutionists monopolize the educational system that is not surprising.
2) Phylogenetic trees consist of mostly imaginary common ancestors. Therefore building one is an effort in futility.
3) Anyone who has ever studied genetics honestly, knows that it is impossible for random mutations to create the needed genetic code to create the diversity of life. IT NEVER HAPPENED.
500 PHD's wrote theses on Java man. Might as well have a PHD in Mr potato head.
mejc2 1 year ago
@mejc2
1) A person doesn't have to accept evolution to understand it.
2) If phylogenetics is an effort in futility, then why is it so good at reconstructing family trees for things like viruses and related populations in a species?
3) The problem for creationism is that when you build something like a tree of relationships among a group of populations, the tree just keeps getting larger and including more and more diverse organisms using exactly the same criteria for determining relationships.
EvoBiologist 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@mejc2
1) Of course not. I don't accept evolutionism and I understand it.
2) relationships within a species has no baring what ever on the story about wild historical accidents creating new genetic information to create new organs tissues and body plans.
3) Creationism doesn't have to be right for evolutionism to be wrong.
Wild historical accidents creating everything we see on a sterile rock in space? The empirical evidence refutes this story. Nothing is created through wild accidents.
mejc2 1 year ago
@mejc2 1) Good, then we agree that nothing is holding creationists back from learning enough about phylogenetics to use it in baraminology, which they can then use to make family trees using all the DNA so far sequenced FOR FREE.
2) When people try this, they will see that there is no good way to distinguish "kinds", since it all makes one big family tree with no breaks.
3) The theory of common ancestry is the only theory that predicts this, but it poses a serious conundrum for creationists.
EvoBiologist 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@EvoBiologist
1,2,&3) We may very well find that the DNA of all living creatures is so similar that we are unable to distinguish one kind of animal from another once all have been sequenced. However, it lends no credence to the story that one became another through wild historical accidents. To accept this fairy tale you must reject the historical accounts given in the most accurate ancient text known to mankind. Accept an unobserved fairy tale, or history empirically supported? Your choice.
mejc2 1 year ago
@mejc2 Again, you confuse "similar" with "forming a family tree of similarity and difference". Also, again, I'm not claiming that an animal DNA family tree lends credence "to the story that one became another through wild historical accidents". As I said before, it lends credence to the theory that animals are an actual family (common ancestry) - how they got to be different is a separate issue. Amazing empirical support FOR common ancestry and AGAINST separate creation events. Your choice.
EvoBiologist 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@EvoBiologist
Absolutely incorrect. There is no evidence what ever of common ancestry of all living things. You confuse your ability to arrange DNA sequences with the story that all living organisms arose from one common ancestor. Even if God created the variety of life by changing only one amino acid in each subsequent organism, There is no evidence that the symphony of life could have arranged itself. Science demands a creator. The Bible reveals the creator.
mejc2 1 year ago
@mejc2 I was referring to the common ancestry of all animals, not all life, and if you think that a DNA animal family tree "is no evidence what ever" of an actual animal family (while an RNA viral family tree is evidence of an actual viral family), then you've got more than one screw loose.
I don't see how "if God created the variety of life by changing [X]", then "the symphony of life...arranged itself". Obviously, if God created an animal family gradually over time, it didn't arrange itself.
EvoBiologist 1 year ago
@EvoBiologist
There are mounds of evidence that scream against gradualism and only inferences that support it. There is virtually zero fossil evidence to support it, zero evidence that gradual mutations can create new organs, tissue, or body plans, zero evidence that any animal is capable of breaking the invisible barriers that breeders have been facing for thousands of years, carbon 14 is in virtually all the supposed oldest minerals(coal, diamonds), virtual zero probability. It never happened
mejc2 1 year ago
@mejc2 Forget gradualism - I'm sorry I even mentioned it. I'd like to focus on common ancestry, which you again failed to address. I keep forgetting that all I have to do is mention something other than common ancestry, and like a dog spotting a squirrel, you ignore everything else and pounce on that statement. Let's say for the sake of dicussion that God made animals through a series of large mutational steps over time from one common animal ancestor. Wouldn't this explain the DNA pattern?
EvoBiologist 1 year ago
@EvoBiologist
If you wanted to make up a story to explain the pattern in DNA That story can suffice. However, you can also say that he created them instantaneously from the same stuff and did it by manipulating the DNA code. Because we don't understand how God could have created the universe instantly, doesn't mean your story is correct. By the way, energy, accelerated enough can become matter. Is it a coincidence that the first thing God said was let there be light?
mejc2 1 year ago
@mejc2 I suppose that you could say that God created animals "instantaneously from the same stuff and did it by manipulating the DNA code". However, if you make such a claim, you are still left with the strange conclusion that God made animals appear to be all one genetic family, despite making them instantaneously and separately. It makes God seem to be trying to trick us into thinking that wasn't how He did it. To me its more intellectually and spiritually satisfying if animals are related.
EvoBiologist 1 year ago
@EvoBiologist
Was God trying to trick every other generation that had wrong ideas about the origins of life? The scientists of 200 years ago? To them it appeared as something else. Was God trying to trick them? Marcus, if there is a being that can speak a universe into existence, I must admit, as smart as I am, I don't think I could understand it even if he told me how he did it. The more we learn the less likely it seems that accidents caused creation. It should be reversed if evolution/true.
mejc2 1 year ago
@mejc2 "The more we learn the less likely it seems that accidents caused creation."
Whether or not that is true, it is true that the more we learn about DNA, the more conclusive it is that animals form a genetic family tree. Since we've already got an enormous stockpile of this data, and the trend is REALLY SOLID, I would bet good money that this trend will continue. This data isn't going away, and needs explaining - aka scientific theory.
EvoBiologist 1 year ago
@EvoBiologist
No matter how close the pattern is to your imaginary family tree. There is no evidence that it was formed from the imaginary methods that you propose. Additionally, evidence is mounting against the imaginary mutations filtered by natural selection. So you calling the pattern a family tree, has absolutely nothing to do with the origin of the information. If the origin of the information is the God of the Bible then the evolution story is completely irrelevant.
mejc2 1 year ago
@mejc2 Whether or not the animal family tree "was formed from the imaginary methods that [I] propose" is irrelevant here. What is relevant is that, no matter what the proposed mechanism for how they became different, there is incredibly strong evidence that animals are all descendants of one original population of animals (i.e. animals are an actual family). It is the exact same evidence used to determine relationships between viruses and other groups of known relatives. God or no, it matters.
EvoBiologist 1 year ago
@EvoBiologist
I disagree, If the creatures were created by manipulating the digital code that makes us unique, Then the pattern exists not because we are related through descent, but related through our creator. There is no evidence, except the pattern, that one can become the other.
mejc2 1 year ago
@mejc2 We are all unique, regardless of how we were made. "If the creatures were created by manipulating the digital code", then we are still a genetic family - it's just that the "mutations" were intentionally put there. I find it odd that you dismiss this fact so readily. Isn't it a significant and important fact for you that God made animals into a hereditary family (regardless of HOW He did so)? The pattern is incredibly strong evidence of an actual family, which you should recognize.
EvoBiologist 1 year ago
@EvoBiologist
We are most certainly related. The great debate isn't over weather or not all living organisms on earth are related in some way. The debate is over how and why we are related. Your claim is that wild historical accidents and mutations have created the millions upon millions unfathomably complex interdependent symbiotic systems that we see. I claim that they are designed by an intellect that we cannot begin to comprehend and that being and his purpose is revealed in the Bible.
mejc2 1 year ago
@mejc2 "The debate is over how and why we are related."
So you finally accept that the animal tree of life represents an actual, hereditary family tree?
If so, then we are done arguing, because I don't really care much if you think the genetic differences came from God or sunlight. The important concept here is the family structure itself, not how the members got to be different. How do "kinds" fit into this family tree concept?
EvoBiologist 1 year ago
@EvoBiologist
I never denied relatedness, only the concept of evolution from a single organism. As long as you realize that life evolving from a single organism is an opinion and not based on facts, we're all good.
mejc2 1 year ago
@mejc2 Actually, you did deny relatedness, and even the fact that animals form a family tree to begin with. As of now, it appears that you still deny the actual hereditary relatedness of animals, merely claiming that they are "related" in the fact that they were created by the same Being.
I never claimed that animals result from "evolution from a single organism". By the time of the first animals, we would see a population of animals, not a single animal.
How does the tree jive with "kinds"?
EvoBiologist 1 year ago
@EvoBiologist
I only deny relatedness in the form of one animal appeared through mutations to another animal over time. Not relatedness in the sense that we are all made by God using the same stuff. Based on probability evolution is impossible, on biology evolution is impossible, on astronomy the big bang cannot create a universe that is fine tuned for life, fossils refute it, symbiotic relationships refute it, anomalies of all sorts refute it, history, archaeology, But you still believe.
mejc2 1 year ago
@mejc2 You act as if "one animal appeared through mutations to another animal over time" and "we are all made by God using the same stuff" are the only 2 (mutually exclusive) options. What I'm proposing to you is that we are related in both ways (or some intermediate between the 2).
Creationists will never be able to square the idea of distinct, separately created "kinds" with the fact that animals form one continuous family tree. Just look at the group called "rodents" - try defining "kinds".
EvoBiologist 1 year ago
@EvoBiologist
With the physical and archaeological evidence for the validity of the record contained in the Bible, It is not logical for me to throw out the hypothesis that God did it the way the Bible records it because I cannot define kinds to your liking. I listened to a scientist the other day on Google video. His name is Rick Oliver. He is much more convincing than I am. He has a PHD in evolutionary biology, masters in geology, masters in education, blah blah blah. He does nice work tho.
mejc2 1 year ago
@mejc2 The animal DNA family tree is empirical, quantifiable, and cannot be manipulated by humans (because anyone can easily double-check a sequence or DNA tree). If no one can explain how you get distinct and separately created "kinds" (a concept written and likely concieved of by humans) from this tree, then I (like any good scientist) question the human sources, not the DNA.
Did Rick Oliver say anything that adequately argues against this point?
EvoBiologist 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Noah and his sons populated the earth. shown by population genetics. God sent his son to be crucified to redeem men. Shown by historical eyewitness testimonies and physical archaeological evidence such as the shroud of Turin. Despite eyewitness testimony, archaeological, geological, and genetic evidences, You cling to your fairy tale of wild historical accidents.
mejc2 1 year ago
cells are used in all types of animals regardless of relation. I could go on and break it down farther and farther if you like but you get it. Evolution is nothing more than a story that evolutionists have made up to explain the phenomenon that they observe. It is no different than Zeus, Thor, or any other myths.
mejc2 1 year ago
@mejc2 Yes, cells are present in animals and all cellular life. How does that hurt the tree pattern? All cellular life is more genetically related to each other than it is to all non-cellular life. That actually reinforces the nested hierarchy pattern. Automobiles and other human inventions don't share this pattern. Car bodies (shape and material), for instance, have more to do with current trends and technology than a car's ancestry - they don't form a nested hierarchy.
EvoBiologist 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@EvoBiologist
Dude? Invent a story! that is what you do. Call current trends selective pressures. It's a myth. It never happened. It has never been observed, there is no mechanism, The entire tree is just a fabrication. It is more likely that the most accurate ancient text on the planet has it right than a bunch of school boys stamping there feet insisting that they really are smart and there fairy tale is the way it really happened.
mejc2 1 year ago
@mejc2 "Dude? Invent a story!"
Dude? Change the subject! I guess that you cede your previous point that anything can be made to form a nested hierarchy, and you now admit that this is a precise and rare pattern that so far only makes sense through common ancestry.
Of course - you wouldn't have simply gone back to ranting about "mechanism", "fairy tale", and "accurate ancient text" if you thought you had an actual rebuttal on the current topic. That's your MO, after all.
EvoBiologist 1 year ago
It's extremely disheartening to see so many people unable to grasp or accept common descent.
dookiecheez 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Did I say that Deer brains compensate for the blind spot? Did I say that snail photo cells would be destroyed by UV? You have refuted your own imaginary arguments. However, that's typical evolutionist BS
mejc2 1 year ago
@mejc2 So deer eyes are not optimized, only human ones? What does a snail have that allows it to have forward-facing photo cells outside of water (without burning up the cells) that would be impossible to have in human eyes?
EvoBiologist 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@EvoBiologist
Marcus, you are as bad as the Bible thumpers. They say God did it and you say it happened by accident. How do you refute quadrillions of unobservable, untestable, long ago and far away, wild historical accidents?
mejc2 1 year ago
@mejc2 Why is it every time I back you into a corner, you change the subject and rant about "historical accidents". I've already said that for this argument we can assume God did it using "miracles". Now, can we get back to our discussion about optimization vs common ancestry as explanations for why structures are how they are? Could you answer my questions about the vertebrate eye?
EvoBiologist 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@EvoBiologist
So, your contention is that because you can imagine a way that might be better to design some of the systems in living organisms, That it is more likely that they arose from common ascent.
1. first of all you, because of your limited knowledge, do not know what the ramifications would be if things were designed differently. God does.
2. We do not observe ascent.
3. The Patterns arising in our DNA are just the result of God's creation and in no way represent unobserved asent
mejc2 1 year ago
@mejc2 No, my contention is that because the pattern of the similarity and difference of structures and genes in animals precisely fits a family tree pattern, it is likely that animals are an actual family. Furthermore, there is no evidence that any animal system is perfectly optimized, and I simply pointed out some good arguments against their optimization that you have yet to refute.
How animals got to be different is a separate issue altogether, whether by "ascent" or "miracles" or whatever.
EvoBiologist 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@EvoBiologist
Is there a such thing as a family tree when comparing animals? How can it be likely that animals are an actual family tree, one animal slowly changing into another animal, When that doesn't happen?
mejc2 1 year ago
@mejc2 "Is there a such thing as a family tree when comparing animals?"
YES
I feel like a broken record here. It doesn't matter whether "one animal changed slowly into another animal" or not, and it doesn't matter whether "miracles", "magic", evolution (directed by God or not), or some unknown natural or supernatural process is responsible for the complex differences we see between animals...
...whatever the explanation (or source of the information), we must explain the obvious family tree.
EvoBiologist 1 year ago
@EvoBiologist
1. It absolutely matters. If it happened then it is a family tree. if it didn't happen then you have wrongly identified the similarities as a family tree. If the animals were created, there only commonality would be their creator.
mejc2 1 year ago
@mejc2 No, it absolutely does not matter. No matter how animals got to be the way they are, the family tree pattern exists, and needs an explanation. Any explanation for animal diversity that doesn't include an explanation for the family tree pattern is no explanation at all. So, even if complex differences in animals are the result of miracles from God, the family tree pattern must be explained, and so far, common ancestry is the only game in town. This makes it logical to accept.
EvoBiologist 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@EvoBiologist
If they are miracles from God, then that is the explanation. It is as much of an explanation as common ascent. The only difference is that many people claim to have observed miracles from God and no one has ever observed ascent. It is illogical to assume empirical data is the result of an unobserved, mathematically impossible, untestable, imaginary, process.
mejc2 1 year ago
@mejc2 The problem with your assertion is that if one removes common ancestry from the explanation, there is no reason to predict a family tree pattern. If we simply went around with every tricky problem and said, "it's a miracle!", then we'd still be in the stone age. If you have any hope of convincing modern society that common ancestry is wrong, then you'll need an alternative explanation with at least the same level of accurate predictive power. That's how science works.
EvoBiologist 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@EvoBiologist
Evolutionism is not science. You do not predict, you postdict. First you collect data and then you form your fairy tail. As more data comes in you change your fairy tale to fit the data. As the years go by your fairy tale takes form and conforms pretty well to the data. Real scientists are rejecting mutation and random selection every day. That mechanism cannot account for the diversity of life. You have wasted many years of your life following a fairy tale.
mejc2 1 year ago
@mejc2 "Real scientists are rejecting mutation and random selection every day."
Even if that were true, we aren't talking about either mutation or selection (which, by the way, is non-random by definition).
As for common ancestry (the actual topic), it predicts that all future observations of animal DNA will conform to one animal tree of life (a single, specific, nested hierarchy). This continues to be the case, and has not changed. In fact, the one family tree gains support daily.
EvoBiologist 1 year ago