Transitional fossils in 18 minutes

I liked it.. but then at 6:15ish it says "needs to develop" and then "the fossil record clearly shows all of these being developed". You know that it will be parsed by some as "Oh? How did that fish KNOW it had to develop waterproof skin to become a reptile? Well? See!? You can't answer that!!". Use enough long words and you'll end up with people picking the words they do know and interpret them as best they can (ie not always very well).

I don't know how to make this basic information more accessible, maybe with easier to remember names... I can't spell austrapheliticus without help but I know how to write Lucy. Scientific accuracy is one thing.. outreach potential is quite another.

I fully support the teaching of biology set to Neil Young and Grand Funk.

Great find

Thanks, and keep up the good work!

Hat Tip to Reed Cartwright.

perfect

Jackelope King: I fully support the teaching of biology set to Neil Young and Grand Funk.

"I fully support the teaching of biology set to Neil Young and Grand Funk."

Kool music. I think I'll watch it again with the headphones on!

The music will probably turn the fundies off faster than the facts. Should it be re-mixed with something like Lawrence Welk?

;-)

"...I'm getting closer to my home"...Oh yeahhh!

Oh yes! Clear and succinct and fine background tunes. More, please.

Evolution makes no predictions by definition. It is an uncaring molecular process driven by random mutations and ratcheted by additional random processes, called selective pressures. Weather, climate, predation, disease, accidents, catastrophes and floods are all dominated by randomness and thus two concatenated random processes cannot predict anything.

Evolution curve fits observations over intervals by adding such variables as may be necessary to connect the dots, much like a multivariate regression where with enough variables invented any continuous curve cab be approximated over a short interval of outcomes.

And since mutational effects are 99% harmful or useless even when expressed there should be millions of fossils that do fit any series such as so called whale evolution where the blowhoile apparatus supposedly evolved as teh nose moved steadily backward on teh head to the top.

But where are all the blowholes or noses moving in any other of the 359 degree directions, there should be many with nostrils moving sideways, down at all angles, after all successive mutational expressions don't care. It's true only those that proved "beneficial" would persist, but that does not excuse the absense of failed expressions that would be 100/1 in evidence. This is of course the case in all other so called transitional series where every fossil is perfect fit in the series....how convenient...anbd impossible.

Evolution the science for the committed myopic community.

Evolution makes no predictions by definition. It is an uncaring molecular process driven by random mutations and ratcheted by additional random processes, called selective pressures. Weather, climate, predation, disease, accidents, catastrophes and floods are all dominated by randomness and thus two concatenated random processes cannot predict anything.

— Keith Eaton

Evolution curve fits observations over intervals by adding such variables as may be necessary to connect the dots, much like a multivariate regression where with enough variables invented any continuous curve cab be approximated over a short interval of outcomes.

— Keith Eaton

And since mutational effects are 99% harmful or useless even when expressed there should be millions of fossils that do fit any series such as so called whale evolution where the blowhoile apparatus supposedly evolved as teh nose moved steadily backward on teh head to the top.

Evolution the science for the committed myopic community.

And since mutational effects are 99% harmful or useless even when expressed there should be millions of fossils that do fit any series such as so called whale evolution

but that does not excuse the absense of failed expressions that would be 100/1 in evidence.

I see we’ve gone from ‘there are no intermediate fossils’ to ‘there should be millions’, which I suppose is progress. Keep it up, Keith!

While I'm now certain that Keith is a parody, his "where are all the failures" point should be addressed.

Only lucky critters get fossilized. The odds are very poor that any given critter is going to wind up preserved and then dug up so that we can bring it into a lab to study. Some environments lend themselves more to fossilization than others, but by and large, fossilization is going to be a rarity, just like the "99% harmful" mutations (ignoring for a moment that this is completely wrong... most mutations are neutral or nearly neutral, thanks to wobble in the codons).

But let's keep assuming that 99% of mutations are going to be bad. "Bad" in this case means lowered fitness, which means fewer viable offspring (in many cases, it would be zero, as the organism might not even gestate completely and die before birth/hatching), while that 1% of mutations would be beneficial, producing more offspring. That would mean that, over a few generations, there would be MANY more examples of critters with that beneficial mutation than all of the ones with bad mutations (many of which might never reach a stage in development where fossilization is at all possible). Which one is going to be more likely to fossilize: an example of a mutation that has propagated through a population for a few generations, or one which was seen only once or twice in a few critters who never had offspring? More examples means there's more chance to fossilize, so the odds are heavily against the hypothetical "nose moving in other directions" that Keith the Parody mentions.

To take a more modern example, let's say you're going into a landfill to look for an mp3 player with a specific feature to chart the "development of mp3 players". If that feature is something found in the iPod line (let's go with the scroll wheel), you're more likely to find it, because there were more of those models manufactured and sold than any other mp3 player (ie it was more successful and more fit). It would be more likely to wind up in the particular pile in the particular landfill you happened to be digging in.

even when expressed there should be millions of fossils that do fit any series such as so called whale evolution

Once again Keith displays his ignorance. Where to start?

First, evolution is not an entirely random process as PvM pointed out and as this guy no doubt already knows.

Second, just because there are some random elements in evolution, doesn't mean that no predictions can be made. So Keith, the outcome of flipping a coin is random. Can you make any predictions as to what the outcome would be if you flipped the coin one million times? If not, you don't understand probability. If so, then your contention is falsified.

Third, there are plenty of examples of large lineages where many species went extinct, many without giving rise to any other species. Just look at the horse lineage. How many species existed in the past? How many species exist today? How many toes do they run on? So Keith, is three intermediate betwewen four and one? Then look at the hominid lineage. How do you explain Neanderthals? If you say they are an intermediate in the human lineage then you concede that humans evolved. If you don't thyink that they are intermediates, then once again your contention is conclusively falsified.

Fourth, as for whale evolution, how do you explain the fact that there are fossils that document the intermediate forms in the movement of the whale nostrils? So if fossils are found that don't fit in as intermediates, will you concede that those would be no problem for evolutionary theory or would you then claim that evolution could not explain them?

Keith, grow up, learn some biology and go somewhere else, not necessarily in that order.

Science. 2007 Aug 10;317(5839):813-5. Links Adaptive mutations in bacteria: high rate and small effects.Perfeito L, Fernandes L, Mota C, Gordo I. Instituto Gulbenkian de Ciência, Rua da Quinta Grande, number 6, 2780-156 Oeiras, Portugal. Evolution by natural selection is driven by the continuous generation of adaptive mutations. We measured the genomic mutation rate that generates beneficial mutations and their effects on fitness in Escherichia coli under conditions in which the effect of competition between lineages carrying different beneficial mutations is minimized. We found a rate on the order of 10(-5) per genome per generation, which is 1000 times as high as previous estimates, and a mean selective advantage of 1%. Such a high rate of adaptive evolution has implications for the evolution of antibiotic resistance and pathogenicity.

No beneficial mutations is just a creo lie. All they have are lies.

It is an uncaring molecular process driven by random mutations and ratcheted by additional random processes, called selective pressures

@harold,

Nice, detailed rebuttal.

It might be simpler and more accurate to use "random" in a different sense, though. Mutation is "random" in the sense that it is not controlled by the needs of the organism in which it appears. Random as opposed to "directed" (e.g., Larmarkian).

I'm not disagreeing with the points you made, but it seemed like an additional and useful way of explaining "random" mutation.

How do you explain Neanderthals? If you say they are an intermediate in the human lineage then you concede that humans evolved. If you don’t thyink that they are intermediates, then once again your contention is conclusively falsified.

Recent research publications indicate that some Neanderthals may have had red-hair, fair complexions, and the capacity for speech and language. This is not surprising to creationists who have long held that Neanderthals are fully human, descendants of Adam and Eve, and therefore would be expected to share many modern human characteristics. These findings are contrary to evolutionary-based predictions of Neanderthals as knuckle dragging, dark-haired, grunting savages.

Peter,

I know that some creationists think that neanderthals were completely human, however, they are completely wrong. Neanderthals were very distinct morphologically, culturally and genetically. The genetic evidence clearly indicates that they were not humans. I can provide references if you wish. The best hypothesis based on current evidence is that they are an extinct sister group to homo sapiens that may or may not have made a slight genetic contribution to the modern human gene pool.

In any event, they certainly fulfill the criteria put forward by Keith. They were an unsuccessful hominid lineage, whether or not they were in the direct line of descent to modern humans is immaterial. And I suppose we could add Homo florensis to the list as well.

Keith just doesn't seem to get the concept of the tree of life. If he did, he wouldn't make such nonsensical claims.

some Neanderthals may have had red-hair, fair complexions, and the capacity for speech and language. This is not surprising to creationists who have long held that Neanderthals are fully human,

These findings are contrary to evolutionary-based predictions of Neanderthals as knuckle dragging, dark-haired, grunting savages.

Where to start with the math and logically challenged...?

The fact that a process has a known distribution means it is random...sort of by definition. The copying errors in DNA are best described as from a uniform distribution without any bias. About 1 per 10**9 base pairs approximately in human DNA according to Wills.

Now if you want to contend that small incremental changes occurred effecting a specific morphological change like a nose/blowhole location then the gene(s) expressing nose location would have to be varying due to mutations on the same gene perhaps several loci, some neutral, some harmful, some beneficial and through selection pressure changes, etc. always were reflected in some perfectly coordinated movement front to top..so be it..but statistically that's essentially impossible.

There would be some increments in a given direction that were so slight that no selective advantage could be distinguished, then perhaps reversion, then sideways, then down...it's absolutely inevitable. Thus although if the advantage is to go deeper into water and be able to breathe it is logical moving up top is the way to go, over eons necessary to effect such it is rediculous to presume there would not be many, many, "failures" in nose location and certainly some would be fossilized. The same can be said fore the enormous number of additional adaptations to get to a sperm whale from a land dwelling, quadruped with its many specialized features. Thuis again many failed experiements...ad finitum over millions of species, yet neat little perfect series are what you claim to construct.

Its a fairy tale.

Neanderthals are currently thought to have interbred with so called fully human populations, perhaps onoly rarely. They were degenerative genetically for reasons not understood..perhaps isolation and interbreeding in small populations, disease,radiation effects localized to their population..no one knows.

The genomes are considered 99% identical to homo sapien, they had the ability for language and speaking in their DNA analysis.

Jeez even the wikipedia site knows this.

The tree of life is a bush, not a tree and its upsidedown with almost all major taxa, etc. bursting into full fruition folowed by stasis, extinction, and minor variation within narrow vertical limits.

Can't you all see that Keith is a parody? please stay on topic.

The fact that a process has a known distribution means it is random…sort of by definition

not at all, actually.

a standard bell-shaped distribution hardly implies complete randomness.

in fact, just the opposite.

if you can find a best fit curve to a distribution of data points that is significant, that indicates non-randomness by definition. However, since you don't appear to understand the difference between "randomness" and "probability distribution"...

Where to start with the math and logically challenged…?

project much, moron?

ad infinitum Keith? There is no infinite series involved. Have you looked at a Hox gene mutant? Do you understand the myriad of variations that organisms possess? For example that most organisms are not perfectly symmetrical in bone size from left to right? Are you aware that increased symmetry increases performance? Are you aware that the mathematics on population genetics nicely predicts a dramatic increase in fixation chance for any beneficial allele, where as there is only a threshold based on population size only for slightly deleterious mutations? And it all ends up as only a chance of fixation (much smaller than the advantageous chance) anyways? You have a non-sensical Platonic idea of a species as being one thing and only one thing with no regard for the tremendous amount of variation within a species. Further your simplistic notions of probability would not even get out of chapter 1 of a college algebra treatment of probability.

Where to start with the math and logically challenged…?

The fact that a process has a known distribution means it is random…sort of by definition. The copying errors in DNA are best described as from a uniform distribution without any bias. About 1 per 10**9 base pairs approximately in human DNA according to Wills.

Now if you want to contend that small incremental changes occurred effecting a specific morphological change like a nose/blowhole location then the gene(s) expressing nose location would have to be varying due to mutations on the same gene perhaps several loci, some neutral, some harmful, some beneficial and through selection pressure changes, etc. always were reflected in some perfectly coordinated movement front to top..so be it..but statistically that’s essentially impossible.

Its a fairy tale.

Jeez even the wikipedia site knows this.

The tree of life is a bush, not a tree and its upsidedown with almost all major taxa, etc. bursting into full fruition folowed by stasis, extinction, and minor variation within narrow vertical limits.

Like I said, Keith just doesn't understand the tree of life. Whether it is best described as a bush or a tree, his assertations about no forms other that those in the direct line of descent are ridiculous. So which is it Keith, there are no transitional forms or there are not enough forms that are not transitional? What about those equine lineages Keith?

So, you admit that neanderthals were an unsuccessful hominid lineage. So I guess you will quite whining about nothing that is not in the direct line of descent going extinct due to deleterious mutations now.

As for the blowhole, (the whale's not Keith's), the evidence shows that it did migrate to the top of the skull in response to selection pressure. To try to argue that it could not is like arguing that a bumblebee cannot fly. Try again.

Now about those random processes that Keith claimed were so unpredictable, if you dissolve a dye crystal in a beaker of water the molecules will move randomly. Can you predict the outcome Keith? If not you do not understand diffusion. If so, once again, your claim is falsified.

Perhaps Keith is confused by how phylogenetic trees are represented by straight lines and believes that this indicate limited variation.

The answer is because the Cambrian "bush" metaphor is essentially an arthropod phenomenon. Gould could not have made the same case if he had chosen to discuss, for example, brachiopods, molluscs or chordates: These groups achieved their peaks of diversity respectively in the Devonian, Cretaceous and Carboniferous.

"Morphometric and phylogenetic studies have shown that the supposedly ‘bizarre’ Burgess Shale-type arthropods fall into a phylogenetic scheme that gives no support to the idea that they are outliers in morphospace awaiting the grim reaper of contingent extinction" (Conway Morris 2000, p. 4428).

Now I can add Stanton to the list of math ignorant morons along with ithc.

Can you predict how long the diffusion will require until the number of red dye molecules is precisely the same per unit of volume? What if the red dye molecules are distinguishable (like the sequences of the four letter DNA code molecules)? Are you going to predict the location of the red dye molecules one by one at each instant of time and then at equibrium as well? And for sure the instant case deals with the meaning and functional outcome of precise distinguishable molecular object locational changes.

The question was are mutations considered random in evolution?

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/mutations_07

Mutations are random

Mutations can be beneficial, neutral, or harmful for the organism, but mutations do not "try" to supply what the organism "needs." Factors in the environment may influence the rate of mutation but are not generally thought to influence the direction of mutation. For example, exposure to harmful chemicals may increase the mutation rate, but will not cause more mutations that make the organism resistant to those chemicals. In this respect, mutations are random — whether a particular mutation happens or not is unrelated to how useful that mutation would be.
For example, in the U.S. where people have access to shampoos with chemicals that kill lice, we have a lot of lice that are resistant to those chemicals. There are two possible explanations for this:

Hypothesis A: Hypothesis B:

Resistant strains of lice were always there — and are just more frequent now because all the non-resistant lice died a sudsy death. Exposure to lice shampoo actually caused mutations for resistance to the shampoo.

Scientists generally think that the first explanation is the right one and that directed mutations, the second possible explanation relying on non-random mutation, is not correct.

Researchers have performed many experiments in this area. Though results can be interpreted in several ways, none unambiguously support directed mutation. Nevertheless, scientists are still doing research that provides evidence relevant to this issue.

In addition, experiments have made it clear that many mutations are in fact random, and did not occur because the organism was placed in a situation where the mutation would be useful. For example, if you expose bacteria to an antibiotic, you will likely observe an increased prevalence of antibiotic resistance. Esther and Joshua Lederberg determined that many of these mutations for antibiotic resistance existed in the population even before the population was exposed to the antibiotic — and that exposure to the antibiotic did not cause those new resistant mutants to appear.

The Lederberg experiment
In 1952, Esther and Joshua Lederberg performed an experiment that helped show that many mutations are random, not directed. In this experiment, they capitalized on the ease with which bacteria can be grown and maintained. Bacteria grow into isolated colonies on plates. These colonies can be reproduced from an original plate to new plates by "stamping" the original plate with a cloth and then stamping empty plates with the same cloth. Bacteria from each colony are picked up on the cloth and then deposited on the new plates by the cloth.

Esther and Joshua hypothesized that antibiotic resistant strains of bacteria surviving an application of antibiotics had the resistance before their exposure to the antibiotics, not as a result of the exposure. Their experimental set-up is summarized below:

1. Bacteria are spread out on a plate, called the "original plate."
2. They are allowed to grow into several different colonies.
3. This layout of colonies is stamped from the original plate onto a new plate that contains the antibiotic penicillin.
4. Colonies X and Y on the stamped plate survive. They must carry a mutation for penicillin resistance.
5. The Lederbergs set out to answer the question, "did the colonies on the new plate evolve antibiotic resistance because they were exposed to penicillin?" The answer is no:
When the original plate is washed with penicillin, the same colonies (those in position X and Y) live — even though these colonies on the original plate have never encountered penicillin before.

So the penicillin-resistant bacteria were there in the population before they encountered penicillin. They did not evolve resistance in response to exposure to the antibiotic.

But what do those Berkeley guys know compared to you buttheads? HA!

And for the idiot comment that if a variable has a probability distribution its not random.

Wikipedia:

Broadly, a random variable is defined as a quantity whose values are random and to which a probability distribution is assigned.

Britannica Concise Encyclopedia: random variable

In statistics, a function that can take on either a finite number of values, each with an associated probability, or an infinite number of values, whose probabilities are summarized by a density function.

http://www.stats.gla.ac.uk/steps/glossary/probability_distributions.html

A random variable has either an associated probability distribution (discrete random variable) or probability density function (continuous random variable).

I knew evos were math ignorant but this level of stupidity is frightening.

I have to hit the hay now, but I'll be pleased to pistol whip your butts some more tomorrow if you like.

Oh and let's set up PAYPAL for me to bet you 100 bucks you can't predict the precise number of heads in a fair coin flip series of 100 flips. And it is a binomial distribution.. no problem right?

Let me know when you want to get started dodo.

"... inner ears and jaws are completely different ... any fossils in this transition MUST show the middle ear / jaw changing as well"

strictly speaking, this isn't true. while this particular transition must occur across many species of the reptile-mammal transition, it doesn't necessarily span the entire transition (i.e. components of the reptile-mammal transition don't need to all evolve at the same rate, or start/finish in the same species). therefore (insofar as the logic of the quote is concerned) an ancestor/descendant pair with no middle ear transition wouldn't disprove the evolutionary transition between reptiles and mammals

The question was are mutations considered random in evolution?

The combination of important refinements in the treatment of the systematics of Cambrian fossils, and in our understanding of Cambrian stratigraphy is leading to a more precise view of the Cambrian explosion. Phyla do not appear in a sudden jumble, implying an appearance in the fossil record induced by some external influence (e.g., a rise in atmospheric oxygen levels) that allowed a standing diversity already present to be manifested in the record. Rather, the impression rather is of a rapid, but nevertheless resolvable and orderly appearance, starting with the earliest skeletal forms such as Cloudina that are reasonably assignable to a diploblast grade (i.e., stem- or crown-group cnidarians or basal stem-group bilaterians). These are followed by taxa that lie in basal positions within bilaterian clades, and (in general) considerably later by representatives of the crown-groups of phyla. Revisions to the Cambrian time-scale allow a moderately long period of time, some tens of millions of years, between the first likely bilaterian trace fossils, and the general appearance of crown-group members of the phyla.

It has long been assumed that the extant bilaterian phyla generally have their origin in the Cambrian explosion, when they appear in an essentially modern form. Both these assumptions are questionable. A strict application of stem- and crown-group concepts to phyla shows that although the branching points of many clades may have occurred in the Early Cambrian or before, the appearance of the modern body plans was in most cases later: very few bilaterian phyla sensu stricto have demonstrable representatives in the earliest Cambrian. Given that the early branching points of major clades is an inevitable result of the geometry of clade diversification, the alleged phenomenon of phyla appearing early and remaining morphologically static is seen not to require particular explanation. Confusion in the definition of a phylum has thus led to attempts to explain (especially from a developmental perspective) a feature that is partly inevitable, partly illusory. We critically discuss models for Proterozoic diversification based on small body size, limited developmental capacity and poor preservation and cryptic habits, and show that the prospect of lineage diversification occurring early in the Proterozoic can be seen to be unlikely on grounds of both parsimony and functional morphology. Indeed, the combination of the body and trace fossil record demonstrates a progressive diversification through the end of the Proterozoic well into the Cambrian and beyond, a picture consistent with body plans being assembled during this time. Body-plan characters are likely to have been acquired monophyletically in the history of the bilaterians, and a model explaining the diversity in just one of them, the coelom, is presented. This analysis points to the requirement for a careful application of systematic methodology before explanations are sought for alleged patterns of constraint and flexibility.

Keith Eaton doth vomit upon the board with :

Now I can add Stanton to the list of math ignorant morons along with ithc.

Can you predict how long the diffusion will require until the number of red dye molecules is precisely the same per unit of volume? What if the red dye molecules are distinguishable (like the sequences of the four letter DNA code molecules)?

Selection is NOT random, twit.

For a POPULATION of organisms, some will be more effective at living long enough to reproduce than others. Their DNA sequences become more and more common in later generations. If you are unable or unwilling to understand such a simple concept, you really shouldn't be posturing like you know anything about evolution. Or science in general.

Are you going to predict the location of the red dye molecules one by one at each instant of time and then at equibrium as well? And for sure the instant case deals with the meaning and functional outcome of precise distinguishable molecular object locational changes.

Good thing that, IN REALITY, selection is not random. Those organisms with variations that enable them to live long enough to reproduce more effectively than other sequences tend to become more common.

The question was are mutations considered random in evolution?

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0…

Mutations are random

Mutations can be beneficial, neutral, or harmful for the organism, but mutations do not “try” to supply what the organism “needs.” Factors in the environment may influence the rate of mutation but are not generally thought to influence the direction of mutation. For example, exposure to harmful chemicals may increase the mutation rate, but will not cause more mutations that make the organism resistant to those chemicals. In this respect, mutations are random — whether a particular mutation happens or not is unrelated to how useful that mutation would be. For example, in the U.S. where people have access to shampoos with chemicals that kill lice, we have a lot of lice that are resistant to those chemicals. There are two possible explanations for this:

Hypothesis A: Hypothesis B: Resistant strains of lice were always there — and are just more frequent now because all the non-resistant lice died a sudsy death. Exposure to lice shampoo actually caused mutations for resistance to the shampoo.

Scientists generally think that the first explanation is the right one and that directed mutations, the second possible explanation relying on non-random mutation, is not correct.

And this is relevant to your plaintive bleatings HOW ?

No one - except the strawmen lurking in that fetid lump of grease you call your mind and gibbering creationuts, IDiots and theoloons - claim that organisms can 'will' any given mutation into existence when they need it.

Mutations are random with respect to need - whether they are neutral, deleterious, or beneficial depends on environmental context. In fact, your OWN bleatings will back up this point, revealing you are confused about evolution (amongst other things).

Researchers have performed many experiments in this area. Though results can be interpreted in several ways, none unambiguously support directed mutation. Nevertheless, scientists are still doing research that provides evidence relevant to this issue.

You seem to have problems with reading comprehension - NONE of what you said so far supports your gibberings. In fact, it contradicts it - but you are too slackwitted to know that, apparently.

In addition, experiments have made it clear that many mutations are in fact random, and did not occur because the organism was placed in a situation where the mutation would be useful. For example, if you expose bacteria to an antibiotic, you will likely observe an increased prevalence of antibiotic resistance. Esther and Joshua Lederberg determined that many of these mutations for antibiotic resistance existed in the population even before the population was exposed to the antibiotic — and that exposure to the antibiotic did not cause those new resistant mutants to appear.

The Lederberg experiment In 1952, Esther and Joshua Lederberg performed an experiment that helped show that many mutations are random, not directed. In this experiment, they capitalized on the ease with which bacteria can be grown and maintained. Bacteria grow into isolated colonies on plates. These colonies can be reproduced from an original plate to new plates by “stamping” the original plate with a cloth and then stamping empty plates with the same cloth. Bacteria from each colony are picked up on the cloth and then deposited on the new plates by the cloth.

Esther and Joshua hypothesized that antibiotic resistant strains of bacteria surviving an application of antibiotics had the resistance before their exposure to the antibiotics, not as a result of the exposure. Their experimental set-up is summarized below:

1. Bacteria are spread out on a plate, called the “original plate.” 2. They are allowed to grow into several different colonies. 3. This layout of colonies is stamped from the original plate onto a new plate that contains the antibiotic penicillin. 4. Colonies X and Y on the stamped plate survive. They must carry a mutation for penicillin resistance. 5. The Lederbergs set out to answer the question, “did the colonies on the new plate evolve antibiotic resistance because they were exposed to penicillin?” The answer is no: When the original plate is washed with penicillin, the same colonies (those in position X and Y) live — even though these colonies on the original plate have never encountered penicillin before.

So the penicillin-resistant bacteria were there in the population before they encountered penicillin. They did not evolve resistance in response to exposure to the antibiotic.

They were there at VERY LOW LEVELS until the ENVIRONMENT CHANGED, giving those VARIANTS a SELECTIVE ADVANTAGE relative to the unmutated bacteria.

No one - except the strawmen wandering around in that vast emptiness of your skull - actually claimed that the bacteria evolved the resistance AT NEED.

NONE of what you've posted supports your impotent ragings against evolution.

But what do those Berkeley guys know compared to you buttheads? HA!

We know what they know, since they provided the EVIDENCE that mutations are random WITH RESPECT TO NEED. You are trying to make something known to SUPPORT evolution for fifty years contradict evolution !

And for the idiot comment that if a variable has a probability distribution its not random.

Wikipedia:

Broadly, a random variable is defined as a quantity whose values are random and to which a probability distribution is assigned.

Britannica Concise Encyclopedia: random variable

In statistics, a function that can take on either a finite number of values, each with an associated probability, or an infinite number of values, whose probabilities are summarized by a density function.

http://www.stats.gla.ac.uk/steps/glossary/probabil…

A random variable has either an associated probability distribution (discrete random variable) or probability density function (continuous random variable).

I knew evos were math ignorant but this level of stupidity is frightening.

Yes, your level of willful stupidity IS quite frightening.

Selection is not random - certain phenotypes are more likely to live long enough to reproduce than others. Those variants become more common. Thus a 'direction' manifests, and so evolution can make retrodictions (if evolution happened the way we think it did, we PREDICT we'll find organisms with certain features in rocks of a particular age.) Tiktaalik was a successful PREDICTION of evolutionary theory.

Initiating empty, vainglorious posturing :

I have to hit the hay now, but I’ll be pleased to pistol whip your butts some more tomorrow if you like.

With what ? More willful stupidity ? More festering arrogance and belligerent pomposity ? More references that show your bleatings are wrong ?

Oh and let’s set up PAYPAL for me to bet you 100 bucks you can’t predict the precise number of heads in a fair coin flip series of 100 flips. And it is a binomial distribution.. no problem right?

Why is the PRECISE number required, twit ?

With a fair coin, there should be 50 heads, +/- a small bit due to the random chance.

In fact, if the numbers were way off, that would mean that one outcome is more favored than the other - kind of what SELECTION does with genomic variation !

And for the idiot comment that if a variable has a probability distribution its not random.

hello?

who said that?

if you mean me, I never said that.

here's an example of how you are wrong, yet again, and shouldn't rely on your google fu skills to substitute for a course in probability and statistics:

Oh and let’s set up PAYPAL for me to bet you 100 bucks you can’t predict the precise number of heads in a fair coin flip series of 100 flips. And it is a binomial distribution.. no problem right?

If i thought you actually would pay up, I'd take you up on that.

the answer is that there is an equal probability it will be either heads or tails, all else being controlled for.

it's not the EXACT FUCKING NUMBER that's important, it's the PROBABILITY of any given number occuring.

hence the term: Probability distribution.

in your example of the coin toss, the binomial distribution shows what the probability is that you will get a head or a tail on any given toss, not whether or not it will be heads or tails on toss number "x", which is totally irrelevant.

sweet jesus, for someone who wants to play "math wiz" you're even worse at playing "statistics wiz".

seriously, google is no substitute for a proper education.

btw, there are many types of mutations that can occur within a given genome, and none of them are entirely randomly distributed. Point mutations in any given chromose are more likely to be of one type than another, and each type is more likely to occur in some places on a DNA strand than others. This is simply based on the fact that there is a chemical structure to DNA, which has an effect on what happens when a mutagenic factor is introduced. And I'm just talking point mutations here, translocation, excision, insertion events... all have different probability curves, entirely dependent on the circumstances.

Which, as others pointed out, also has absolutely nothing to do with selection on the variation resulting from any given mutation event or series of events. Selection is hardly random, as even a moment of thought given to any specific example would have told you.

Explaining evolution as "RM + NS" is about the level we try to explain it to 3rd graders, who of course haven't the slightest clue what statistics even means.

funny, you even failed at the 3rd grade level of understanding.

but you can't even give a moment of thought to it, of course, which continues to make me wonder why I, or anybody else, even bothers to respond to you.

frankly, I'm done. You're little more than an obtuse moron, pretending to be intelligent and failing miserably.

Pim can have fun allowing you to spew your idiocy over and over again all he wishes.

I know that some creationists think that neanderthals were completely human, however, they are completely wrong. Neanderthals were very distinct morphologically, culturally and genetically. The genetic evidence clearly indicates that they were not humans. I can provide references if you wish. The best hypothesis based on current evidence is that they are an extinct sister group to homo sapiens that may or may not have made a slight genetic contribution to the modern human gene pool.

How does the blow-hole migrate from just below the eyes to just above the eyes and then to the top of the head. Would not having a nostril in between the eyes be a distinct survival disadvantage? It has to happen in gradual steps correct?

A thought on probability:

A few months ago I conducted a time study at work. I had a stopwatch, that measured hundredths-of-a-second accuracy. I would start the stopwatch when the operator picked up a workpiece, and stop it when the operator finished the task, and put the piece on the conveyor, and then recorded the time it took to complete the job. Each time I recorded the time, I woud clear the stopwatch, and I did not look at the display until I had stopped the watch when the operator finished the job (thus the decimal display was essentially random in the hundredths place). The probability of seeing a display of XX.00 seconds given those conditions is 1:100. (The overall cyle time was on the close order of 60 seconds)
The probability of seeing XX.00 twice in a row under these conditions is 1:10,000, yet I saw that result in less than 45 iterations. Creationist 'math' would predict that this result would not occur for nearly 7 days of continuous trials, if this was a desired result.

As my Statistics professor used to say: "Probability is a great way of going wrong with confidence".

Peter Henderson said: Interestingly, in a BBC programme on the subject a few years ago make-up experts transformed TV presenter Alan Titchmarsh into what they thought a neanderthal would look like. While a few passers by did stare at his slightly unusual appearance, most just ignored him.

Keith,

Now I know for sure that you are just an ingorant troll who has no decency at all.

Your claim was that one cannot make any predictions if events are random. However, if you dissolve a dye crystal in a beaker of water the random motion of the molecules will create an even distribution of dye molecules. The result is absolutely predictable and the rate at which this state will be achieved is dependent on the temperature of the water and the molecular weight of the dye. Don't try to confuse the issue by demanding all sorts details that are irrelevant. The prediction can be made and tested, period.

Of course, the exact same thing goes for evolution as well. We can predict the outcome of genetic drift which is due to random processes. We might not be able to predict the exact outcome in every subpopulation, but we can make meaningful predictions.

Now Keith can go on demanding that we make ever more specific predictions until he is satisfied, but who cares? As was already pointed out, evolution is not random. And as for demanding more details, still no response about the horses or the neanderthals Keith? You were just plain wrong and you know it. You are the one who you are pistol-whipping.

Blaidd Drwg: A thought on probability: The probability of seeing XX.00 twice in a row under these conditions is 1:10,000, yet I saw that result in less than 45 iterations. Creationist 'math' would predict that this result would not occur for nearly 7 days of continuous trials, if this was a desired result.

The copying errors in DNA are best described as from a uniform distribution without any bias.

jacob said: How does the blow-hole migrate from just below the eyes to just above the eyes and then to the top of the head. Would not having a nostril in between the eyes be a distinct survival disadvantage? It has to happen in gradual steps correct?

Keith's self study on the topic of randomness has been moved to the bathroom wall.

Jon Fleming:

The copying errors in DNA are best described as from a uniform distribution without any bias.

In reality, copying errors in DNA are not at all describable as from a uniform distribution without any bias.

Well, I don't believe it. Keith actually got something right. I guess when your opinions are random it is bound to happen eventually. In this case Keith actually presented real evidence that mutations are random with respect to the needs of the organism. As others have pointed out, this is exactly correct. Now why he thinks that this is somehow a problem for evolutionary theory I don't know. Maybe he can enlighten realPC the next time he shows up here spouting unsubstantiated nonsense. See, no guiding force, no intelligence involved, no evidence of anything but mindless random processes.

Now, if mutations are random with respect to need, then inevitably some of them will be beneficial, some of these will not be eliminated by drift and some of them will increase in frequency due to selection. What could possibly prevent this from occurring? And as we have already seen, the fact that random processes are involved in no way prevents us from making useful predictions. That is in fact how the entire field of population genetics came to be so successful.

So Keith, if you can't accurately predict the position of every electron in every atom of water, does that mean that you can't predict when if will freeze or boil? If the cards are dealt randomly, does every poker player have an equal probability of winning a tournament? Enquiring minds want to know.

Now, about those horses. There were at least ten different lineages that branched from the lineage leading to modern horses that went extinct. Since they were not in the direct line of descent that lead to horses, by definition they were not transitional, they were however intermediate. That is the way that the tree of life works. Maybe some day Keith will understand the tree of life, maybe not. In any event, you can't have it both ways. If there are transitional forms there are intermediate forms as well, even if they have not yet been discovered. Demanding a certain ratio of intermediate to transitional forms is just plain silly. Of well, at least it beats the old "there are no transitional forms" routine.

In this case Keith actually presented real evidence that mutations are random with respect to the needs of the organism. As others have pointed out, this is exactly correct.

"A highbrow is a person educated beyond his intelligence."

James Brander Matthews

I anticipate additional opportunities to enlighten you in a countably infinite number of areas.

Keith,

No one has agreed with any of you arguments and I doubt anyone ever will.

Your claim that extinct species cannot be intermediate confirms that you simply do not understand the tree of life.

I have asked three time about the horses, I will not ask again. Until you respond I will ignore anything else you write and I suggest others do the same.

Keith's 'contributions' can be found on the more appropriate bathroom wall.

Typical of the loser evos to essentially ban those who intellectually pistol whip them into jelly.

I win you lose.

Typical of the loser evos to essentially ban those who intellectually pistol whip them into jelly. I win you lose.

Evolution makes no predictions by definition. It is an uncaring molecular process driven by random mutations and ratcheted by additional random processes, called selective pressures. Weather, climate, predation, disease, accidents, catastrophes and floods are all dominated by randomness and thus two concatenated random processes cannot predict anything.

thus two concatenated random processes cannot predict anything.

Keith Eaton: Typical of the loser evos to essentially ban those who intellectually pistol whip them into jelly. I win you lose.

If random processes were completely unpredictable, then casinos would go broke.

slang: I liked it.. but then at 6:15ish it says "needs to develop" and then "the fossil record clearly shows all of these being developed". You know that it will be parsed by some as "Oh? How did that fish KNOW it had to develop waterproof skin to become a reptile? Well? See!? You can't answer that!!".

Why not use a more amazing everyday example. The chances of picking all the balls in the Lottery are about 14,000,000:1, but someone has done it almost every week for the last fourteen years.

However, I just wonder how Don would fare against a seasoned (and well educated) professional creationist such as Dr. David Menton.

jacob: How does the blow-hole migrate from just below the eyes to just above the eyes and then to the top of the head. Would not having a nostril in between the eyes be a distinct survival disadvantage? It has to happen in gradual steps correct?

Of course intermediate forms can be extinct, just watch the video. That's like saying that if all your cousins and nieces and nephews are not still alive, you can't exist!

Still, your cousins, nieces and nephews might still be alive. That doesn't mean that they aren't related to you. For example, the phylum Onychophora is intermediate between annelids and arthropods both morphologically and genetically. There are still some velvet worms in Jamaica and a few other places. And this is only one example out of many.

Now some people come here to make nonsensical arguments, refuse to answer questions, babble so incoherently that their nonsense is moved to TBW, (no small feat given the incredible patience of PvM), then amazingly delcare victory and run away. And all of this without ever even taking the time to look at the videos that were supposed to be the topic of the thread.

Keep up the good work Whit. Some of us enjoyed the videos.

Sperm whale blowholes are located left of center. So Keith, will you now contend that sperm whales don't exist?

David Stanton: Still, your cousins, nieces and nephews might still be alive. That doesn't mean that they aren't related to you. For example, the phylum Onychophora is intermediate between annelids and arthropods both morphologically and genetically. There are still some velvet worms in Jamaica and a few other places. And this is only one example out of many.

The tolweb page http://tolweb.org/Bilateria/2459 puts velvet worms (and water bears) on a branch as sibling groups to arthopods.

Keith Eaton: Evolution makes no predictions by definition. It is an uncaring molecular process driven by random mutations and ratcheted by additional random processes, called selective pressures. Weather, climate, predation, disease, accidents, catastrophes and floods are all dominated by randomness and thus two concatenated random processes cannot predict anything. Evolution curve fits observations over intervals by adding such variables as may be necessary to connect the dots, much like a multivariate regression where with enough variables invented any continuous curve cab be approximated over a short interval of outcomes. And since mutational effects are 99% harmful or useless even when expressed there should be millions of fossils that do fit any series such as so called whale evolution where the blowhoile apparatus supposedly evolved as teh nose moved steadily backward on teh head to the top. But where are all the blowholes or noses moving in any other of the 359 degree directions, there should be many with nostrils moving sideways, down at all angles, after all successive mutational expressions don't care. It's true only those that proved "beneficial" would persist, but that does not excuse the absense of failed expressions that would be 100/1 in evidence. This is of course the case in all other so called transitional series where every fossil is perfect fit in the series....how convenient...anbd impossible. Evolution the science for the committed myopic community.

David Stanton: Like I said, Keith just doesn't understand the tree of life. Whether it is best described as a bush or a tree, his assertations about no forms other that those in the direct line of descent are ridiculous. So which is it Keith, there are no transitional forms or there are not enough forms that are not transitional? What about those equine lineages Keith? So, you admit that neanderthals were an unsuccessful hominid lineage. So I guess you will quite whining about nothing that is not in the direct line of descent going extinct due to deleterious mutations now. As for the blowhole, (the whale's not Keith's), the evidence shows that it did migrate to the top of the skull in response to selection pressure. To try to argue that it could not is like arguing that a bumblebee cannot fly. Try again. Now about those random processes that Keith claimed were so unpredictable, if you dissolve a dye crystal in a beaker of water the molecules will move randomly. Can you predict the outcome Keith? If not you do not understand diffusion. If so, once again, your claim is falsified.

I don' think you understand, it did happen. As to why, it was obviously advantageous and thus subject to selection. Why couldn' t it have an advantage every step of the way? Why couldn't every progressive change be more and more beneficial? Why couldn't it change in small increments if that is the most likely route given genetic and developmental constraints? Have you ever watched a whale come up for air? The closer the blowhole is to the top of the head the easier it is, the less drag on the body, the less slowing down, the less danger of predation from killer whales or even humans. Look at the fossils, that is exactly what happened.

Of course it didn't have to happen in a straight sequence. Of course other mutations could arise, they would simply be selected against. For example, some whales are still born with external hind limbs. They don't tend to do so well however so the whales without hind limbs predominate.

noncarborundum:

jacob said: How does the blow-hole migrate from just below the eyes to just above the eyes and then to the top of the head. Would not having a nostril in between the eyes be a distinct survival disadvantage? It has to happen in gradual steps correct?

Given that the whale's eyes are on the sides of its head, where exactly is this "between" you speak of, and why would it be a distinct disadvantage to have a nostril there?

I don’t you understand the nasal drift situation. The progression would have to an advantage EVERY STEP OF THE WAY. And all those with nostrils near the tip would have to be wiped out by those more toward the center. Why would that happen?

Again why is it an overwhelming advantage to have a nostril 2 inches from the tip as opposed to 1 inch from the tip?

The changes in the ancestors of cetaceans are consistent with the morphology of modem day whales, dolphins, and porpoises. Modem cetaceans do not have common nostrils. The air hole has shifted over time through intermediates from the snout of the Mesonychid, to the blowhole of the common whale and dolphin. The position of the blowhole is thought to have come about due to the animals center of gravity. When the cetacean is slumbering, the snout is underwater and the back of the head/middle of the back lies just above the surface of the water. Thus, this area provides the most suitable position for the nasal passage duct. Natural selection acted to push the blowhole back because as the body size and shape changed through time, the buoyancy changes. If the nasal duct had remained at the front of the snout, a cetacean would have had to work harder in order to breathe.

Again why is it an overwhelming advantage to have a nostril 2 inches from the tip as opposed to 1 inch from the tip?

PvM:

I don’t you understand the nasal drift situation. The progression would have to an advantage EVERY STEP OF THE WAY. And all those with nostrils near the tip would have to be wiped out by those more toward the center. Why would that happen?

Wiped out? Or just being less successful in reproduction?

Again why is it an overwhelming advantage to have a nostril 2 inches from the tip as opposed to 1 inch from the tip?

That depends on the morphology of the animal.

The fact that the cetacean nose moved, in the course of evolution, from the tip of the rostrum up to the vertex of the head, is among the most perfect of adaptations to aquatic life. In this and many other special adaptations of their morphology and physiology, cetaceans surpass most primarily aquatic animals even though they themselves have developed from land mammals that breathe with lungs, and have only secondarily conquered the aquatic environment. To a certain extent, cetaceans can be considered to be the most successful group of aquatic animals of all time. Conclusive paleontological evidence shows the way in which the nasal openings were moved in the course of phylogeny (see Kellogg 1928; Slijper 1962; Gaskin 1976; Oelschlager 1978, 1987, 1990; Moore 1981). That this evolutionary process is repeated in a way during ontogeny became obvious through external observations on embryos and fetuses (Kukenthal 1893). At the earliest embryonic stages the nasal openings are still situated at the rostra tip like those of land mammals; they are gradually shifted more and more towards the vertex of the head at the older stages. At the same time, a long rost rum with narrow jaws develops. Until recently, practically nothing was known about the morphogenetic processes concealed in this metamorphosis, about what cranial structures take part in it, and about the exact way in which the cetacean skull becomes transformed during embryogeny.

Well apparently wiped out since they are no longer around.

And if the nostril was just .25 inches towards the top of the head this would make a survival difference because the animal could sleep better? And those animals not getting the refreshing sleep would not be able to catch food as well?
And those with the 1/4 inch advantage would produce a difference in offspring that would drive the others out of the gene pool?

Sound fishy to me.

Richard Simons:

Again why is it an overwhelming advantage to have a nostril 2 inches from the tip as opposed to 1 inch from the tip?

It does not need to be overwhelming. Just a 1% better chance of surviving to produce offspring is enough for evolution to work.

PvM: From Milan Klima Development of the Cetacean Nasal Skull 1999 Springer

The fact that the cetacean nose moved, in the course of evolution, from the tip of the rostrum up to the vertex of the head, is among the most perfect of adaptations to aquatic life. In this and many other special adaptations of their morphology and physiology, cetaceans surpass most primarily aquatic animals even though they themselves have developed from land mammals that breathe with lungs, and have only secondarily conquered the aquatic environment. To a certain extent, cetaceans can be considered to be the most successful group of aquatic animals of all time. Conclusive paleontological evidence shows the way in which the nasal openings were moved in the course of phylogeny (see Kellogg 1928; Slijper 1962; Gaskin 1976; Oelschlager 1978, 1987, 1990; Moore 1981). That this evolutionary process is repeated in a way during ontogeny became obvious through external observations on embryos and fetuses (Kukenthal 1893). At the earliest embryonic stages the nasal openings are still situated at the rostra tip like those of land mammals; they are gradually shifted more and more towards the vertex of the head at the older stages. At the same time, a long rost rum with narrow jaws develops. Until recently, practically nothing was known about the morphogenetic processes concealed in this metamorphosis, about what cranial structures take part in it, and about the exact way in which the cetacean skull becomes transformed during embryogeny.

Sound fishy to me.

Would it not have been more efficient for a fish to evolve to take advantage of the food niche that whales used? Why didnt a fish evolve to that point.

Ontogeny recapitulate phylogeny? How Haekel of you. Any proof?

Modern biology rejects the literal and universal form of Haeckel's theory. Although humans are thought by scientists to share ancestors with many other taxa (roughly, fish through reptiles to mammals), stages of human embryonic development are not functionally equivalent to the adults of these shared common ancestors. In other words, no cleanly defined and functional "fish", "reptile" and "mammal" stages of human embryonal development can be discerned.

Does the human sequence of embryionic heart development recap phyolog?

Conclusive? How many fossils between the land animal and whales? 10?

And again why didnt a fish out compete the protowhales? They had a shorter route.

Enjoy these pictures from the Digital Library of Dolphin Development

Jacob,

In fact a 1% selection advantage would be quite adequate. Since selection is deterministic, there are equations that can be used to predict exaclty how many generation it would take for fixation. In any event, it doesn't matter since that is in fact what occurred.

As for fish not evolving similar adapatations, it would seem silly for a fish that already has gills to develop a less efficient mechanism for respiration. The whales need it since thy are mammals and must surface to breathe..

David Stanton: Jacob, In fact a 1% selection advantage would be quite adequate. Since selection is deterministic, there are equations that can be used to predict exaclty how many generation it would take for fixation. In any event, it doesn't matter since that is in fact what occurred. As for fish not evolving similar adapatations, it would seem silly for a fish that already has gills to develop a less efficient mechanism for respiration. The whales need it since thy are mammals and must surface to breathe..

And again why didnt a fish out compete the protowhales? They had a shorter route.

Different niches.

How do you know there were different niches?

David Stanton: In fact a 1% selection advantage would be quite adequate.

""Repeat after me, a whale is not a fish.""

Repeat after me: I will read more carefully. I will read more carefully.

I never said a whale is a fish.

jacob:

David Stanton: In fact a 1% selection advantage would be quite adequate.

How do you know that 1% would be quite adequate?

jacob: And again why didnt a fish out compete the protowhales? They had a shorter route. Different niches. How do you know there were different niches?

So Jacob, you asked some good questions and now you have the supporting data that shows how the nostrils of a cetacean move from the snout to the top as evidenced both in the fossil record and embryological data.

Fascinating how evolutionary science seems to always find these 'coincidences' isn't it, and how annoying that they tend to support the scientific argument.
Of course, in addition to the nostrils many other aspects show a nice transition.

The expanded cardiac field in Ets1/2-activated mutants results in a proportion of animals having a functional, two-chambered heart. "The conversion of a simple heart tube into a complex heart was discovered by chance, but has general implications for the evolutionary origins of animal diversity and complexity", says Mike Levine, a co-author of the paper.

jacob: And again why didnt a fish out compete the protowhales? They had a shorter route. Different niches. How do you know there were different niches?

Jacob,

You are bercoming quite tiresome. Are you just arguing to argue or do you have some point you are trying to make?

Of course fish could have evolved to occupy the whale niches more efficiently than whales, but that is not what happened. There was no plan, there was no goal, there was no reason why whales or anything like them ever had to evolve, it is just what happened.

As for your assumption that a 1% selection differential is not enough to provide fixation, look up the equations yourself. I told you it was a deterministic process, if you don't believe me you do the math. There are plenty of examples of lower selection coefficients that have resulted in fixation.

As for my circular reasoning, you are just making things up now. I did not say that since whales evolved 1% selection has to be enough. What I said was that since whales obviously did evolve that the selection coefficient was obviously large enough to allow them to evolve. If you think that that is circular reasoning then you are the one going around in circles.

Now, do you admit that whales evolved from terrestrial ancestors or not? Do you admit that all of the developmental, palentological and genetic evidence supports this conclusion or not? If you do, quite arguing. If you don't, then you need to examine the evidence more closely. If you are not familiar with the evidence then go away until you are.

David Stanton: Of course fish could have evolved to occupy the whale niches more efficiently than whales, but that is not what happened. There was no plan, there was no goal, there was no reason why whales or anything like them ever had to evolve, it is just what happened.

David Stanton: Of course fish could have evolved to occupy the whale niches more efficiently than whales, but that is not what happened.

Shebardigan:

jacob:

David Stanton: In fact a 1% selection advantage would be quite adequate.

How do you know that 1% would be quite adequate?

If you put $10.00 in a bank at 1% compound interest, for a hundred thousand years, what do you end up with?

David Stanton: Jacob, You are bercoming quite tiresome. Are you just arguing to argue or do you have some point you are trying to make? Of course fish could have evolved to occupy the whale niches more efficiently than whales, but that is not what happened. There was no plan, there was no goal, there was no reason why whales or anything like them ever had to evolve, it is just what happened. As for your assumption that a 1% selection differential is not enough to provide fixation, look up the equations yourself. I told you it was a deterministic process, if you don't believe me you do the math. There are plenty of examples of lower selection coefficients that have resulted in fixation. As for my circular reasoning, you are just making things up now. I did not say that since whales evolved 1% selection has to be enough. What I said was that since whales obviously did evolve that the selection coefficient was obviously large enough to allow them to evolve. If you think that that is circular reasoning then you are the one going around in circles. Now, do you admit that whales evolved from terrestrial ancestors or not? Do you admit that all of the developmental, palentological and genetic evidence supports this conclusion or not? If you do, quite arguing. If you don't, then you need to examine the evidence more closely. If you are not familiar with the evidence then go away until you are.

"Any fish that would compete successfully in the “whale niches” would need a significant upgrade to its respiratory system at the very least."

Why a fish's breathing system is much better suited to the water that a whales.

I do not know if any of the poster have the patience to do a walk thru to show my point:

1. Are any of you willing to agree that it is claimed that the whale evolved from land animal in 10 million years.

"What I said was that since whales obviously did evolve that the selection coefficient was obviously large enough to allow them to evolve."

You really do not see how what you just said is circular?

The expanded cardiac field in Ets1/2-activated mutants results in a proportion of animals having a functional, two-chambered heart. “The conversion of a simple heart tube into a complex heart was discovered by chance, but has general implications for the evolutionary origins of animal diversity and complexity”, says Mike Levine, a co-author of the paper.

I do not think 1% would make a diff. Got any proof?

Shebardigan: If you put $10.00 in a bank at 1% compound interest, for a hundred thousand years, what do you end up with?

Well with an inflation rate of just 3% you would have nothing.

Again why is it an overwhelming advantage to have a nostril 2 inches from the tip as opposed to 1 inch from the tip? It does not need to be overwhelming. Just a 1% better chance of surviving to produce offspring is enough for evolution to work.

Jacob,

So, you really aren't familiar with the evidence after all. No, the evolution of whales from terrestrial ancestors took about 50 million years.

Here is your circular reasoning: I don't want to believe that whales evolved, therefore I refuse to believe it, therfore it didn't happen. Now that is circular reasoning.

Every adaptation that is known evolved in this way. Slight differences in fitness allow selection to operate over many generations eventually causing changes in characters. If you don't want to believe it then you tell us, why didn't God just make fish that could do what whales do?

jacob: "Any fish that would compete successfully in the “whale niches” would need a significant upgrade to its respiratory system at the very least." Why a fish's breathing system is much better suited to the water that a whales.

It would not surprise me if additional study of cetacean (or related critter) genetics found that the factors regulating nostril position operated in such a way as to produce nostril shifts that were fairly sizable, not a mere 1/4 inch (or so) at a time. Sure, this is speculation, but it's testable speculation.

jacob: Richard: here is the original comment

Again why is it an overwhelming advantage to have a nostril 2 inches from the tip as opposed to 1 inch from the tip? It does not need to be overwhelming. Just a 1% better chance of surviving to produce offspring is enough for evolution to work.

This was my point: I do not see how this animal having its nostril in a position one inch from another identical genetic group other than the nostril would have a significant survival advantage to eventually wipe out the other type of animal. Of course if group A consistently loses 1% of its popluation and group B gains 1% per generation then group A will evenentually die out. But the point is will this change in nasal position cause this differential? And remember these two groups can mate with each other. Now if we had a group that developed a very disabling mutation say like a cleft nostril or a nostril that was almost close that group could be out competed. But it both of these groups could breath and hunt and run I do not see how this difference in nasal position would cause one group to out compete the other to extinction which would have to happen to have the gene pool be completely group B.

mark said: It would not surprise me if additional study of cetacean (or related critter) genetics found that the factors regulating nostril position operated in such a way as to produce nostril shifts that were fairly sizable, not a mere 1/4 inch (or so) at a time. Sure, this is speculation, but it’s testable speculation. Comment #146927 on March 19, 2008 11:59 AM | Quote

jacob: Pvm:

The expanded cardiac field in Ets1/2-activated mutants results in a proportion of animals having a functional, two-chambered heart. “The conversion of a simple heart tube into a complex heart was discovered by chance, but has general implications for the evolutionary origins of animal diversity and complexity”, says Mike Levine, a co-author of the paper.

In this situation animals went from a one chamber to two in one generation, correct?

What if the 1 inch change in the position of the blowhole comes about because the same morphological/embryological/developmetal changes that cause it also make other skeletal changes that are more than 1% advantageous? (Assuming that you refuse to accept the 1%advantage being "enough") That seems to me to be where MET diverges from what some like to call "Darwinism" - that it uses more than just straight gradualism to explain adaptive change.

jacob: I do not see how this animal having its nostril in a position one inch from another identical genetic group other than the nostril would have a significant survival advantage to eventually wipe out the other type of animal. Of course if group A consistently loses 1% of its popluation and group B gains 1% per generation then group A will evenentually die out. But the point is will this change in nasal position cause this differential? And remember these two groups can mate with each other. Now if we had a group that developed a very disabling mutation say like a cleft nostril or a nostril that was almost close that group could be out competed. But it both of these groups could breath and hunt and run I do not see how this difference in nasal position would cause one group to out compete the other to extinction which would have to happen to have the gene pool be completely group B.

jacob: I do not see how this animal having its nostril in a position one inch from another identical genetic group other than the nostril would have a significant survival advantage to eventually wipe out the other type of animal. Of course if group A consistently loses 1% of its popluation and group B gains 1% per generation then group A will evenentually die out. But the point is will this change in nasal position cause this differential? And remember these two groups can mate with each other. Now if we had a group that developed a very disabling mutation say like a cleft nostril or a nostril that was almost close that group could be out competed. But it both of these groups could breath and hunt and run I do not see how this difference in nasal position would cause one group to out compete the other to extinction which would have to happen to have the gene pool be completely group B.

Richard Simmons: The best advice I can give you is to take a course in population genetics (or to study the textbook for one). There is too much material that needs to be covered to fit into a comment. Besides, it is many years since I took a course, I’ve rarely used it and no doubt there is additional information compared with what I received. But yes, the evidence is that even small differences in survival can change populations.

David Stanton: “What I said was that since whales obviously did evolve that the selection coefficient was obviously large enough to allow them to evolve.” Jacob: You really do not see how what you just said is circular?

Jacob said: I think you should look at the evidence more closely esp that math side and until you are familiar with it or at least be willing to study it you should go away.

Thanks Science Avenger.

Well it looks like Jacob has run away. I know he claims not to have a religious agenda, but consider that he has all of the hallmarks of a classic creationist:

1) He questions the validity of evolutionary theory without offering any alternative

2) He is not familiar with any evidence and he refuses to examine any evidence

3) He demands answers from others and then refuses to answer questions that they ask him

4) He claims that he doesn't have to answer anyone who is rude to him, even though he repeatedly offends everyone else

5) He claims that he has no religious agenda (this one is usually a dead give away)

If anyone is really interested, the correct equation for the change in allele frequency due to selection on a newly arisen favorable dominant allele is:

p(t+1) = pt(ptw11 + qtw12)/w (where w is the average fitness of the population)

Under these conditions the favorable allele will initially increaase rapidly in frequency and then continue to increase more slowly to fixation. For example, when the allele frequency reaches 0.5 the change will be about 0.1% per generation.

Of course, fixation is not required in order to give rise to a better adapted subpopulation. Of course, one hundred new mutations each moving the blow hole 0.1 inches are not required. Of course the selection coefficient might be considerably higher than 1%. Of course the rate of change need not, and probably will not, be constant. Of course, some mutations will have some very large phenotypic effects. So, of course these calculations are completely meaningless. Still, it seems as though 50 million years would be plenty of time for the evolution of cetaceans to occur, given any reasonable assumptions.

The important thing is that the embryologic, palentologic and genetic data all show definitively that cetaceans evolved from terrestrial ancestors over a period of about 50 million years. Our good friend Jacob cannot dispute these findings, nor can he offer any alternative explanations. Apparently he thinks that copying and pasting every posting only to ignore the substance of the posting somehow constitutes an argument. As far as I can tell, his only purpose here and on the other thread was to make the thread as long and boring and tedious as possible. He certainly never made any discernable argument.

Science Avenger:

David Stanton: “What I said was that since whales obviously did evolve that the selection coefficient was obviously large enough to allow them to evolve.” Jacob: You really do not see how what you just said is circular?

It is not circular. A circular argument uses its conclusion as one of its premises. David's argument may use a premise with which you disagree, but that doesn't make it circular.

Not worth responding to. So many false statements it would take 500 words to show them all.

And that formula is comical.

Now Gould has done exactly this: the fossil evidence did not fit with the theory so he modified the theory: PE.

We might be just inches away from a great new discovery but constantly throwing away data that does not fit into the ‘old school’ is going to prevent a new theory from being studied.

Jacob,

If you find my response so comical, why did you copy and paste the entire thing? Everyone can already see what I wrote. If you don't intend to give any credible response, why copy the entire post?

If you think the equation is incorrect, what equation would you suggest? That is the proper equation. Why don't you agree? Your response is comical. (And you can't say I am being impolite because you used those words first).

Do you want to add sexual selection, frequency dependent selection, assortative mating, hitchhiking, pleiotropy, founder effect, bottleneck, drift? Please, enlighten us as to what equation you think is appropriate. And also please tell everyone why my argument that this type of calculation is meaningless is not an argument you find convincing. Can you refute any of the points I made that would completely invalidate this approach?

You have asked me two questions, I have answered both of them. You have not accepted either answer but you have not provided any alternatives. Why don't you tell us what answer it is that you want? If you will not accept any answers, why do you ask for them?

Now about that genetic data. Got any response to that yet? If I ask pretty please without being insulting will you agree to answer? As long as you cannot refute this data, then my premise that whales evolved cannot be refuted and my reasoning is not circular. As long as you will not address the evidence, any arguments about rate of evolution, or power of selection are futile.

And anyway, you haven't made any argument yet. You still won't tell anyone why you think the math will not work out. You still have not given any equation or quantification of any kind. You have not given any estimates for any paramaters. No one else is going to make your argument for you. Either present some testable hypothesis or admit that you have none.

So your answers all pretty much boil down to "NOOOOOOO NOT TRUE, NOT LISTENING LALALALALALA"

You really are a special little boy, jakie.

Again not worth responding to.

— Jacob

Jacob,

You are extremely rude and I don't have to respond to anyone who is rude to me. Since you are not willing to engage in a civil scientific discussion, I will not respond to anything else you write. Until you answer my questions about the SINE insertions, I will not read anything else you have to write. I suggest that others treat you the same way.

If you show up on any other threads I will repeat my questions. I will keep asking until you answer or go away. Your refusal to discuss the evidence disqualifies you from any serious scientific consideration.

Jacob: Again not worth responding to.

You really missed my point didn’t you

There are three theories about the origin a mankind, creation, evolution, and Ufology, the belief that mankind is Alien origin.
Creation is Christianity and other religious beliefs that mankind was created from the earth, evolution teaches that mankind evolved from the earth, and Ufology teaches God is an alien and mankind is a product of a genetic experiment with the primates. If this is true, then we have discovered the missing link to mankind and the primates.
To make everyone happy, we could agree with the UFO theory and say that God is an alien and humankind is the results of genetic experiment with primates. This would satisfy Christianity and other religious groups that believe in intelligent design. It also would be the missing link to how humankind evolved. But how could we solve the debate about life after death.
But have you ever considered why there much emphasis on our existed? Beginning with our childhood, most of us if not all have asked our parents, “How did we get here?” And I parents will tell our ancestry history linking us to the beginning of mankind and God.
Now why do you suppose, we asked this question? Now I am going to guess that you might say we were just curious about our existence. If this is your answer how do you explain it being a universal question that most children asked between the age of six and eight.
What if we never asked this question? Religion, evolution and Ufology would not exist. Why? It is because the origin of every belief begins with man questioning his existence. Neither would science. For without this thought there would be no reason for science to search for the origin and age of mankind, the earth, or the universe. We would be like the primates we supposedly evolved from.
Through science we learn the purpose of everything that exists. But what is mankind purpose? Do we exist to protect the human species, protect the earth and its inhabitants? Not if exist by chance. Besides if mankind is an advance stage of evolution, there is a major flaw. Mankind is a threat to himself and everything that exist. It is man's nature to protect the earth because God gave this task to him. God blessed them; and God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over every living thing that moves on the earth." Genesis 1:28 (NASB) there are about 6 billions of people on the earth, mankind have subdued the earth and made things of creation, giving it a reason for existing, and man rule over every the animals.

Now if evolution is the truth and there is no God, the least that can happen is to die with the faith of believing that there is eternal life. If we are lucky we live to be of old age and good health. You just spend your hold life doing good for nothing. However there is a brighter side to your belief. Your efforts of being generous are good for society. Therefore, why not let people believe that God exist, that if it there belief promotes good works. On the other hand, if there is an afterlife, the worst that can happen is dying and wakening up to an afterlife..
Now about the origin our thoughts, the bible says that God set eternity in man's heart. It also says that man will not find out the work which God has done from the beginning even to the end. In this case it means creation for it says that everything made appropriate for its time.
He has made everything appropriate in its time. He has also set eternity in their heart, yet so that man will not find out the work which God has done from the beginning even to the end. Ecclesiastes 3:11 (NASB)
This passage explains mankind relentless pursuit to discover the origin of life and why there are various beliefs about the life's origin. The bible also says that mankind suppressed the truth about creation. For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, Romans 1:18 (NASB)
God already gave mankind a hint when He said every creature came from the earth and was created according to its kind. Thousands of years later science discovers that mankind came from the earth.
. Scientists that support evolution believe it the only idea that holds biology together. In other words, without evolution nothing in biology makes sense. On the contrary scientists supporting creation believes that creation is the only way of understand how life exist. Everything that exists was created for a purpose and science is the way of understanding the purpose and meaning of everything created. This is the task given to humankind by the creator. Moreover, without the wisdom and knowledge of creation even biology would not exist.

Evolution theory does not imply absence of God; it only implies that life forms are ancestrally related to each other, just as they appear to be to those familiar with the subject area.

Henry

Henry J said: Evolution theory does not imply absence of God; it only implies that life forms are ancestrally related to each other, just as they appear to be to those familiar with the subject area. Henry

the only way that life is related is because the earth was made from water and all life species come from the earth. read 2 peter 3. In Gen 1, God created all things according to its kind.

Don't be deceived, evolution do imply that God does not exist. For example God says the there is an afterlife, but evolution says there is no Afterlife. Now if you want to gamble with your eternity that is up to you. But eternity without God is like living on the earth without any moral or goodness. So if you think world is evil now, just wait until the afterlife. Now if there is no after life, you don't have anything to worry about, but if there is you will have a lot to worry about.

God created all things according to its kind.

Don’t be deceived, evolution do imply that God does not exist

but evolution says there is no Afterlife.

read 2 peter 3. In Gen 1,

You know there is truth in creation, evolution, and the belief that mankind is a product of an alien experiment and it is that mankind came from the earth. But of course the Bible gave us a hint thousands of years ago that mankind came from the earth. The bible says that God put eternity in man’s heart yet mankind would never discover the work of God from the beginning to the end. Eternity is the reason we asked our parents," Where did we come from" This is the beginning of our journey of discovering God, our purpose and what happens after death. This question is also the core of everyone’s belief. Without this question, religion, evolution, or Ufology would not exist. Moreover there would be no reason for science to discover the origin of man, the earth, or the universe. There we would be like the primates we supposedly have evolved from. I hope you think about this.
The bible says that mankind purpose is to procreate, fill the earth and rule over the animals. Evolution teaches that man is an advance stage of evolution evolved for a similar purpose. In fact you don’t have to read to the bible to know this. Just look around you, there 6 billion people in the world, mankind have subdue the earth making thing s out of creation, and he rules over the animals. Our purpose is as natural as breathing. We never think about breathing until we are out of breath. The threat of global warming is the reason that man recognizes his stewardship over the planet.
Now if mankind is an advance stage of evolution then there is a major flaw in evolution. Mankind is a threat to his existence, the planet and other life species. It would have been better for us to stay in our primate state.
Now if mankind was to vanish from the earth the evidence of his existence would be what he has made from creation. Just the same the evidence that God exist is creation. And since mankind is made in his image he emulates God by creating things from creation giving them a reason for existence. Even the attempt clone in the image of man is because man emulates God nature.
If man wrote the Bible did he know that the earth was once a super continent, the earth is round and hangs on nothing, the expanse of the heavens cannot be measured neither the stars can be counted.
Now if I am wrong I just die believing what I believe. But will I be wrong to promote my faith if it inspires others to love one another, do good to others. Think what the world would be like if we all did this. So why discourage people from trying to believe in God. We have soldiers dying for our rights and we honor them. Jesus died for our sins and people reject Him. Now if there is a motive behind evolution it is because no one wants you to learn the truth about mankind's heart. And the truth is that mankind heart is the reason why the wars, famines, and diseases. However, I do respect your beliefs.

The bibles say to examine all things. For this reason I don not ask a person to believe in creation, however I suggest that we examine every religious and non religious beliefs about mankind existence.
And as you do think about this. God says mankind will not discover His work from the beginning to the end. Evolution trys to explain how life began. Ufology teaches says that God is an alien, the Big bang theory was the Planet X colliding without another planet creating the earth and the moon, And the missing link between mankind and primates is Aliens DNA.
and there are varous relgious belief that contents with the Gen. story of creation. The bible also says what seems right to man end in death. Now the truth stands alone but the lie needs the truth to exist. that is why in every lie there is some truth. And the truth about mankind existence that the he is of the earth. But before science confirm this God said it. Which means in this case science validates what God said. The problem with science is that it tries to discover the beginning of God's work.

Of course people have learn much about the universe, the Bible says that mankind's knowledge would increase. That is why God said mankind is without excuse. The knowledge of creation is proof that God exist.
The lack of knowledge about creation is the reason why Darwin believed that life evolved. Nevertheless the scriptures prophesied that man will suppress the the truth about creation.
Now that mankind knowledge have increase there is no excuse for rejection intelligent design and believing in a natural process of selection of survival of the fittest. Furthermore for creation to exist each species must depend on others to exist. This is impossible if it took millions of years for things to evolved.
The chance that life is evolved is like sending a rocket to the moon without the knowledge of the solar system .
For mankind to send a rocket to the moon. He had to determined the distance to the moon from the earth and determine the exact time the launch the rocket, since the earth spins on its axis and the moon orbits around the earth. Now if took wisdom and knowledge for mankind to figure this the solar system had to be created with knowledge and wisdom. The Bibles says By wisdom and knowledge the heavens and earth was created. And God gave mankind the task to discover everything He created.
Now if everything evolved by chance then everything would be unstable.
Mankind is unstable because he reject the knowledge and wisdom of God to procreate, protect the environment and rule over the creatures. at least you must agree to that.