Home » Human evolution » Adam and Eve could be real?: Genes’ introns and exons tell different stories here. Who to believe?

Adam and Eve could be real?: Genes’ introns and exons tell different stories here. Who to believe?

We’ve been looking at a new book, Science and Human Origins, by Ann Gauger, Doug Axe, and Casey Luskin (Discovery Institute Press, 2012), in which Gauger takes issue with Templeton winner Francisco Ayala’s claim that genetics shows that there cannot have been a literal Adam and Eve.

“Cannot” is a big word, one that prompts investigation.

See also: Breaking: Adam and Eve are scientifically possible

Adam and Eve possible?: Ayala’s contrary claim built in favourable assumptions

Here’s another brief excerpt, not enough to justify being a noviewer (not reading the book, but still holding forth on it):

Phylogenetic confusion

Ayala created his phylogenetic tree based on exon 2 sequences of the HLA-DRB1 genes, while Bergström et al. used intron 2 sequences. A third study by Doxiadis et al. examined the phylogenetic histories of chimp, macaque and human HLA-DRB1 genes again, but this time using sequences taken either from exon 2 or introns 1-4. Surprisingly, the tree alignments using exon 2 or using introns 1-4 give markedly different pictures of the gene’s phylogenetic history, even though both sets of sequences come from the very same genes. There is a substantial difference in the phylogenetic relationships. Exon 2 comparisons typically showed cross-species associations, while intron comparisons showed within-species associations.

It is clear that the intron sequences group according to species, whereas exon 2 sequences show no species-dependent relationships.

[Explanatory figure follows]

This should be surprising. Although trees based on gene comparisons sometimes do not show the same phylogenetic relationships as the species themselves do, as is the case for the exon 2 sequences, when this happens it indicates something unusual is going on.

It’s even more unusual that trees drawn from adjacent segments of the same gene disagree with one another. It’s not that exon 2 is highly variable and the introns are more conserved, because this is not the case. Intron lineages can differ quite a bit from one another. Rather, the intron lineages group together according to species, while the exon 2 lineages do not.

Some evolutionary biologists try to explain this discordance between the HLA-DRB1 trees by arguing that this proves that these genes have their origin in deep time, before the lineages of chimps, humans and macaques separated, and that it is the exon 2 data that defines the gene’s history. Others think that there has been cross-species shuffling of ancient peptide-binding motifs between different exon 2 sequences over time, but leaving the intron lineages unchanged. It is not clear, however, how such a patchwork cross-species assortment of exon 2 sequences could have been acquired without disrupting the species-specific introns. Furthermore, this would require that the incipient species’ populations intermingled for a prolonged period of time. The intermingling is highly unlikely to have lasted for thirty million years, though, which is the last time macaques, chimps, and humans supposedly shared a common ancestor. And the fact that the intron sequences do associate by species, with branch lengths as long or longer than the exon branch lengths, argues that many of these intronic lineages have been evolving independently for quite a while, indeed some as long as thirty to forty million years. Therefore this phylogenetic discordance is something that cannot be explained by common ancestry, especially when one considers an additional piece of information: The HLA-DRB1 region of chromosome six shows little or no signs of recombination.

Note: David Klinghoffer formally introduces the book here.

  • Delicious
  • Facebook
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Twitter
  • RSS Feed

48 Responses to Adam and Eve could be real?: Genes’ introns and exons tell different stories here. Who to believe?

  1. This excerpt from Dr. Gauger’s, Axe’s, Luskin’s, book, reminds me of a little these videos which took Richard Dawkins to task for making a false claim from genetic evidence. (In fact Dawkins had made the grand claim that it was ‘the best evidence’ for Darwinism):

    Dawkins Claimed Best Evidence For Evolution Refuted – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IfFZ8lCn5uU

    Dawkins Caught Lying for Darwin – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vnYik52Y5rI

  2. This is from the “no really we’re not creationists” department.

  3. Starbuck, would you like to unpack that comment, or else shed some light on it? By the way, have you ordered the book? Or read any part of Chapter 5 other than what’s been posted here?

  4. It’s a perfectly legitimate scientific question whether it’s possible for two humans to have started the human race.

  5. Of course it is. If it’s a legitimate question whether one protozoan started all life on Earth (the common ancestor), it is a legitimate question whether more than two humans were needed to start our species.

  6. You didn’t say two humans you said specifically, Adam and Eve. It just seems like apologetics. But to answer your question News, I do plan on getting the book, I’ll probably download it later today.

  7. We will read your comments with interest when you have read the book. We don’t mind if you choose to call them Ada and Evan.

  8. 8

    OK then. And ID isn’t creationism, it’s just that the ID movement is widely promoting a book arguing that Adam and Eve were specially created like it says in Genesis. Good luck with the “ID isn’t creationism, we swear!” line from here on out…

  9. Nick Matzke:

    Do you have proof that Adam and Eve weren’t specially created? If you do, please offer it.

    What does a “mitochondrial Eve” mean? Does this mean nothing to you? Do you have a whole line of ancestors to Homo sapiens covering the millions upon millions of years it would need for such an evolution to occur?

    What is your proof exactly?

  10. Nick Matzke, have you read what Ann Gauger has to say in Chapter 5 about Francisco Ayala’s hypothesis? If you disagree, why?

    As someone with a position in a science faculty, could you not make a better use of your time by actually offering a rebuttal than by behaviing like a superannuated bore at the American Scientific Affiliation? (Ooh! Ooh! I’ve proven my stupid point just by hearing that this researcher is accused of creationism!) We bet you can.

  11. Wait, Nick, are you saying belief that “Adam and Eve were specially created like it says in Genesis” requires giving a person the label ‘creationism’? If so, we have different views of that term. Likewise, a majority of Muslims, Christians, Jews and Baha’is would be ‘creationists’ according to your ideological labelling.

    Does the definition of ‘creationism’ on NCSE include reference to Adam and Eve? I just looked; No, it doesn’t.

    Oh, wait, and NCSE is not actually an advocacy group, it is a worldview-neutral ‘educational membership organisation’ of people simply promoting ‘good science’ in the USA yet who don’t seem to care one iota about ‘abuse of science’ by ideological ‘scientism.’ ;) That’s like Richie Rich ironic!

  12. We’re looking forward to commenters who have read Gauger’s Chapter 5 and can offer an information-based opinion.

    People are free to go on offering non-Attention: UD troll mod opinions, of course.

    Free country, this Internet of ours … :)

    But it’ll be curious if commenters who can legitimately claim a knowledge of genetics shout labels from the sidelines and don’t actually engage with what Gauger, a respectable researcher, is saying.

  13. Nick,

    Have you read the book yet?

    We argue that intelligent design is a better explanation for human origins than neo-Darwinism, by showing some kind of guidance or information is required to get sufficient anatomical change in the time allowed. But that’s not necessarily special creation.
    We show why Ayala’s population genetics arguments area flawed, and cannot rule out a two person bottleneck. We also discuss some surprising gene trees that are hard to explain by common descent alone. But we draw no final conclusion and do not argue for special creation. We don’t know enough yet to say one way or another based on the science.

    So, would you care to address our scientific arguments?

  14. “Good luck with the “ID isn’t creationism, we swear!” line from here on out…”

    The essence of your rebuttal being that if the argument intersects Philosophy that it must be religion. Of course, Evolution is to date completely free of empirical validation. [1] And so since Evolution is a purely Philosophical affair then we know that you consider your work with evolutionary biology is a simple matter of theological seminary.

    Not that you should consider this a rehab of Gauger’s statement that ID is a better explanation. But if you wish to claim that Philosophy, a discipline that defines itself as non-empirical, is not science then we’re in good agreement.

    [1] Addenda for the uninformed: We have not observed macroevolution or its causal mechanisms in action as yet. Stating that sex and Down’s Syndrome is a necessary and sufficient cause for everything is just as bad as stating that since every structured system with which we’re familiar with was designed by a monkey wearing pants, that ID is a necessary and sufficient cause.

  15. Nick,

    I know a lot of people have responded to you and I don’t want you to feel “piled on.” But your statement was provocative, you must admit.

    ID is a big tent. It can accommodate many views. Most creationists would feel comfortable with ID, so they are supporters of ID. There are some non-creationists who support ID. I admit that there are only a few, but their ideological background does not tell us if ID is right or wrong. After all, if Hitler said that 2 plus 2 is 4 and Gandhi said 2 plus 2 is 5, would you agree with Gandhi because he was a good person while Hitler was not? And if creationists WANT ID to be true does this therefore make it untrue?

    One definition of maturity is that you do something even though your parents want you to do it. In other words, you do something (or believe something) regardless of whether or not people you don’t like or otherwise disagree with believe similarly. You could believe in ID too one day! Dont make the conversion any more painful for your ego than it has to be.

    Also, this blog talks about a lot of issues, theology, climate change, creationism, biology, geology, history, computer science etc. There is no law that it must not dip its toe into creationism and it does not mean that ID is the same thing as creationism even though they share some mutual support.

    And finally, scientists that discuss this issue often refer to the hypothetical first people as “adam and eve” even though they fully support evolution. It’s just an easy way to identify the idea.

  16. Doncha love that word “creationiam”? What was once almost universally accepted is now treated as an object of scorn.

    The great irony is that modern science is friendly to “creationism.” We mean the real stuff–empirical science, not theory. Go look at it. We invite you. Open any medical journal and tell me what you are looking at in the research papers. Tell me what the magnificent complexity being uncovered in those studies implies. Warm ponds? Simple theories of origins? Not really.

    Those who rely upon the stigma attached to “creationism” have now become the conservatives. They are defending an historical position that seems destined to fall.

  17. This may be of interest;

    De Novo Origin of Human Protein-Coding Genes – November 10, 2011
    Excerpt: The de novo origin of a new protein-coding gene from non-coding DNA is considered to be a very rare occurrence in genomes. Here we identify 60 new protein-coding genes that originated de novo on the human lineage since divergence from the chimpanzee. The functionality of these genes is supported by both transcriptional and proteomic evidence.,,,
    Here we identify 60 new protein-coding genes that originated de novo on the human lineage since divergence from the chimpanzee, supported by both transcriptional and proteomic evidence. It is inconsistent with the traditional view that the de novo origin of new genes is rare.
    http://www.plosgenetics.org/ar.....7D2D1D4569

    Of note: The actual count for de novo genes in humans is now up to over 1000 and possibly as high as 7000,,,

    Human Gene Count Tumbles Again – 2008
    Excerpt: Applying this technique to nearly 22,000 genes in the Ensembl gene catalog, the analysis revealed 1,177 “orphan” DNA sequences.,,, the researchers compared the orphan sequences to the DNA of two primate cousins, chimpanzees and macaques. After careful genomic comparisons, the orphan genes were found to be true to their name — they were absent from both primate genomes.
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/re.....161406.htm

    From Jerry Coyne, More Table-Pounding, Hand-Waving – May 2012
    Excerpt: “More than 6 percent of genes found in humans simply aren’t found in any form in chimpanzees. There are over fourteen hundred novel genes expressed in humans but not in chimps.”
    Jerry Coyne – ardent and ‘angry’ neo-Darwinist – professor at the University of Chicago in the department of ecology and evolution for twenty years. He specializes in evolutionary genetics.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....60271.html

    Study Reports a Whopping “23% of Our Genome” Contradicts Standard Human-Ape Evolutionary Phylogeny – Casey Luskin – June 2011
    Excerpt: For about 23% of our genome, we share no immediate genetic ancestry with our closest living relative, the chimpanzee. This encompasses genes and exons to the same extent as intergenic regions. We conclude that about 1/3 of our genes started to evolve as human-specific lineages before the differentiation of human, chimps, and gorillas took place. (of note; 1/3 of our genes is equal to about 7000 genes that we do not share with chimpanzees)
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....47041.html

    A False Trichotomy
    Excerpt: The common chimp (Pan troglodytes) and human Y chromosomes are “horrendously different from each other”, says David Page,,, “It looks like there’s been a dramatic renovation or reinvention of the Y chromosome in the chimpanzee and human lineages.”
    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....richotomy/

    Moreover:

    Could Chance Arrange the Code for (Just) One Gene?
    “our minds cannot grasp such an extremely small probability as that involved in the accidental arranging of even one gene (10^-236).”
    http://www.creationsafaris.com/epoi_c10.htm

    The Extreme Complexity Of Genes – Dr. Raymond G. Bohlin – video
    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/8593991/

    “Estimating the Prevalence of Protein Sequences Adopting Functional Enzyme Folds” 2004: – Doug Axe ,,,this implies the overall prevalence of sequences performing a specific function by any domain-sized fold may be as low as 1 in 10^77, adding to the body of evidence that functional folds require highly extraordinary sequences.”
    http://www.mendeley.com/resear.....yme-folds/

    As well, just changing one protein into another protein of similar functionality is found to be extremely problematic as well:

    When Theory and Experiment Collide — April 16th, 2011 by Douglas Axe
    Excerpt: Based on our experimental observations and on calculations we made using a published population model [3], we estimated that Darwin’s mechanism would need a truly staggering amount of time—a trillion trillion years or more—to accomplish the seemingly subtle change in enzyme function that we studied.
    http://www.biologicinstitute.o.....nt-collide

    Corticosteroid Receptors in Vertebrates: Luck or Design? – Ann Gauger – October 11, 2011
    Excerpt: if merely changing binding preferences is hard, even when you start with the right ancestral form, then converting an enzyme to a new function is completely beyond the reach of unguided evolution, no matter where you start.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....51801.html

  18. This may be of interest;

    De Novo Origin of Human Protein-Coding Genes – November 10, 2011
    Excerpt: The de novo origin of a new protein-coding gene from non-coding DNA is considered to be a very rare occurrence in genomes. Here we identify 60 new protein-coding genes that originated de novo on the human lineage since divergence from the chimpanzee. The functionality of these genes is supported by both transcriptional and proteomic evidence.,,,
    Here we identify 60 new protein-coding genes that originated de novo on the human lineage since divergence from the chimpanzee, supported by both transcriptional and proteomic evidence. It is inconsistent with the traditional view that the de novo origin of new genes is rare.
    http://www.plosgenetics.org/ar.....7D2D1D4569

    Of note: The actual count for de novo genes in humans is now up to over 1000 and possibly as high as 7000,,,

    Human Gene Count Tumbles Again – 2008
    Excerpt: Applying this technique to nearly 22,000 genes in the Ensembl gene catalog, the analysis revealed 1,177 “orphan” DNA sequences.,,, the researchers compared the orphan sequences to the DNA of two primate cousins, chimpanzees and macaques. After careful genomic comparisons, the orphan genes were found to be true to their name — they were absent from both primate genomes.
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/re.....161406.htm

    From Jerry Coyne, More Table-Pounding, Hand-Waving – May 2012
    Excerpt: “More than 6 percent of genes found in humans simply aren’t found in any form in chimpanzees. There are over fourteen hundred novel genes expressed in humans but not in chimps.”
    Jerry Coyne – ardent and ‘angry’ neo-Darwinist – professor at the University of Chicago in the department of ecology and evolution for twenty years. He specializes in evolutionary genetics.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....60271.html

    Study Reports a Whopping “23% of Our Genome” Contradicts Standard Human-Ape Evolutionary Phylogeny – Casey Luskin – June 2011
    Excerpt: For about 23% of our genome, we share no immediate genetic ancestry with our closest living relative, the chimpanzee. This encompasses genes and exons to the same extent as intergenic regions. We conclude that about 1/3 of our genes started to evolve as human-specific lineages before the differentiation of human, chimps, and gorillas took place. (of note; 1/3 of our genes is equal to about 7000 genes that we do not share with chimpanzees)
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....47041.html

    A False Trichotomy
    Excerpt: The common chimp (Pan troglodytes) and human Y chromosomes are “horrendously different from each other”, says David Page,,, “It looks like there’s been a dramatic renovation or reinvention of the Y chromosome in the chimpanzee and human lineages.”
    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....richotomy/

    Moreover:

    Could Chance Arrange the Code for (Just) One Gene?
    “our minds cannot grasp such an extremely small probability as that involved in the accidental arranging of even one gene (10^-236).”

    The Extreme Complexity Of Genes – Dr. Raymond G. Bohlin – video
    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/8593991/

    “Estimating the Prevalence of Protein Sequences Adopting Functional Enzyme Folds” 2004: – Doug Axe ,,,this implies the overall prevalence of sequences performing a specific function by any domain-sized fold may be as low as 1 in 10^77, adding to the body of evidence that functional folds require highly extraordinary sequences.”
    http://www.mendeley.com/resear.....yme-folds/

    As well, just changing one protein into another protein of similar functionality is found to be extremely problematic as well:

    When Theory and Experiment Collide — April 16th, 2011 by Douglas Axe
    Excerpt: Based on our experimental observations and on calculations we made using a published population model [3], we estimated that Darwin’s mechanism would need a truly staggering amount of time—a trillion trillion years or more—to accomplish the seemingly subtle change in enzyme function that we studied.
    http://www.biologicinstitute.o.....nt-collide

    Corticosteroid Receptors in Vertebrates: Luck or Design? – Ann Gauger – October 11, 2011
    Excerpt: if merely changing binding preferences is hard, even when you start with the right ancestral form, then converting an enzyme to a new function is completely beyond the reach of unguided evolution, no matter where you start.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....51801.html

  19. 1) To answer the headline, it doesn’t really matter which sequence you “believe” since neither of them suggest our species descends from a population of 2.

    2) The Ayala paper is from 1995. No disrespect to him, but who cares what a one-gene study said n 1995 when we have whole genome estimates of human effective population size (http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature10231). (The question of introns and exons telling different stories is interesting, but nothing to do with adam and eve).

  20. So, wd400, you’ve read Chapter 5. Otherwise, you would hardly speak with such confidence. Why doesn’t “the question of introns and exons telling different stories” have anything to do with “adam and eve”?

  21. I find it quite hard to read books that haven’t be released in my country.

    I’m replying to this post. If you’d to explain to me how incongrunce between trees estimated from introns and exon2 help the case for adam and eve I’m all ears.

  22. Some of us order from Amazon.com. Are you saying such shipments/Kindle transmissions are blocked?

  23. Takes weeks to get here, I don’t have an e-reader.

    But that’s a distraction, you presumably wrote this post because you thought it had something to say. Why does an incongruence between intron-trees and exon-trees support a real Adam and Eve?

  24. 24

    wd400, good news! You can download the Kindle app for just about any platform, for free, or just use Amazon cloud reader to begin reading instantly on your browser.

  25. Why doesn’t “the question of introns and exons telling different stories” have anything to do with “adam and eve”?

    It doesn’t.

    What is wrong with the explanation given by Doxiadis et al. for the interesting finding? I found it to be rather interesting, suggestive of some testable and thought-provoking hypotheses. Much better than an appeal to an unidentified designer and mechanism.

  26. 26

    PaVJune 21, 2012 at 1:03 pm

    Nick Matzke:

    Do you have proof that Adam and Eve weren’t specially created? If you do, please offer it.

    What does a “mitochondrial Eve” mean? Does this mean nothing to you? Do you have a whole line of ancestors to Homo sapiens covering the millions upon millions of years it would need for such an evolution to occur?

    What is your proof exactly?

    We have proof that they didn’t exist in anything like the traditional idea of Adam and Eve. The fossils say humans have been evolving for millions of years. The fossils prove anatomically modern humans existed hundreds of thousands of years ago, and the first ones appeared in Africa, not the Middle East.

    Fossils fossils fossils. Deal with it:
    http://pandasthumb.org/archive.....ini-1.html

    Furthermore, the genetics discovered in recent decades confirms all these findings based on fossils. Humans are closest genetically to chimps, modern human genetic diversity is centered in Africa, humans bred with another species, Neanderthals, which split off probably 500,000 years ago, etc.

    Nick Matzke, have you read what Ann Gauger has to say in Chapter 5 about Francisco Ayala’s hypothesis? If you disagree, why?

    As someone with a position in a science faculty, could you not make a better use of your time by actually offering a rebuttal than by behaviing like a superannuated bore at the American Scientific Affiliation? (Ooh! Ooh! I’ve proven my stupid point just by hearing that this researcher is accused of creationism!) We bet you can.

    Gauger & co. attacking study of one or a few loci that is almost 20 years old is pretty strange when we are now in the age of genomics and we have thousands of loci to study in humans, chimps, Neanderthals, etc.

    But the argument against Adam and Eve can be made much more simply than can elaborate exercises in population genetics which make estimates of ancestral population size, etc.

    For any locus in the genome (locus = location that holds a gene), any individual human can only hold 2 different alleles, because we only have 2 copies of any given chromosome. Thus, two people (Adam and Eve) could only hold 4 alleles, total, for any locus in the human genome.

    However, at many loci, the human population contains many more than just 4 alleles. HLA alleles are just one example. It is true that you get new alleles by mutation, but to explain modern human genetic diversity from a single pair of people you would have to dramatically up the mutation rate above the known, measured rates for humans, chimps, etc. This is rather like when the YECs arbitrarily postulate dramatic acceleration of radiometric decay rates, just in order to save their pet interpretation of the Bible.

    Furthermore, for alleles like the HLA alleles, the alleles are *shared* across species. HLA and similar alleles are under selection for diversity (they are involved in the immune system), thus they almost never coalesce, thus populations of these alleles are inherited from species to species. You can get an absolute minimum estimate of the population size of a common ancestral population just by counting how many alleles had to have been in that ancestral population. If the number is greater than 4, then there were more than 2 people in the ancestral population.

    Of course, you can always just say that God did a miracle and just happened to make humans share pretty much arbitrary immune system alleles with chimps, gorillas, etc., just to make it look like these evolved from a common ancestor, but this is no better than when YECs say the Earth is young but God miraculously created it to look old.

    If you’re going to invoke miracles, don’t even bother pretending to argue about the science, there’s no point.

    Re: gauger and “tree-drawing programs”. I’m a phylogeneticist, anyone who refers to phylogenetic inference as “tree-drawing programs” doesn’t know the basics of the field they are criticizing. Anyone who discusses incongruence without mentioning the *degree* of incongruence (is it minor or major? does it have a well-known, entirely predictable cause, like incomplete lineage sorting, which the creationists regularly, totally ignorantly, cite as contradiction of the evolutionary tree, when in fact it is an automatic product of population genetics processes.)

    I’ve got the book on order, I won’t say much more until I have it.

  27. 27

    Edit: Anyone who discusses incongruence without mentioning the *degree* of incongruence…

    to:

    Something similar can be said of anyone who discusses incongruence without mentioning the *degree* of incongruence

  28. Perhaps Nick when he is done with his ‘tree drawing’ prestidigitation can produce actual empirical evidence that Darwinism can do anything at all other than deceive people with smoke and mirrors!

    Selection and Speciation: Why Darwinism Is False – Jonathan Wells:
    Excerpt: there are observed instances of secondary speciation — which is not what Darwinism needs — but no observed instances of primary speciation, not even in bacteria. British bacteriologist Alan H. Linton looked for confirmed reports of primary speciation and concluded in 2001: “None exists in the literature claiming that one species has been shown to evolve into another.”
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....why_d.html

    Scant search for the Maker
    Excerpt: But where is the experimental evidence? None exists in the literature claiming that one species has been shown to evolve into another. Bacteria, the simplest form of independent life, are ideal for this kind of study, with generation times of 20 to 30 minutes, and populations achieved after 18 hours. But throughout 150 years of the science of bacteriology, there is no evidence that one species of bacteria has changed into another, in spite of the fact that populations have been exposed to potent chemical and physical mutagens and that, uniquely, bacteria possess extrachromosomal, transmissible plasmids. Since there is no evidence for species changes between the simplest forms of unicellular life, it is not surprising that there is no evidence for evolution from prokaryotic to eukaryotic cells, let alone throughout the whole array of higher multicellular organisms. – Alan H. Linton – emeritus professor of bacteriology, University of Bristol.
    http://www.timeshighereducatio.....ode=159282

    Wired Science: One Long Bluff – Refuting a recent finch speciation claim – Jonathan Wells – Nov. 2009
    Excerpt: “Does the report in Wired Science mean that “biologists have witnessed that elusive moment when a single species (of Galapagos finch) splits in two?” Absolutely not.”
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....bluff.html

    Here is a detailed refutation, by Casey Luskin, to TalkOrigins severely misleading site on the claimed evidence for observed macro-evolution (speciation);

    Specious Speciation: The Myth of Observed Large-Scale Evolutionary Change – Casey Luskin – January 2012
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....55281.html

    Here is part 2 of a podcast exposing the Talk Origin’s speciation FAQ i.e. ‘literature bluff’

    Talk Origins Speciation FAQ, pt. 2: Lack of Evidence for Big Claims – Casey Luskin
    http://intelligentdesign.podom.....9_41-08_00

    As well, materialists never mention the fact that the variations found in nature (such as peppered moth color and finch beak size) which are often touted as solid proof of evolution are always found to be cyclical in nature. i.e. The variations are found to vary around a median position with never a continual deviation from the norm. This blatant distortion/omission of evidence led Phillip Johnson to comment in the Wall Street Journal:

    “When our leading scientists have to resort to the sort of distortion that would land a stock promoter in jail, you know they are in trouble.”

    Creation/Evolution: Natural Limits to Biological Change 1/2 – Dr. Raymond G. Bohlin – video (starts at the 13:00 minute mark of video)
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dk9wmQP7SdM

    Creation/Evolution: Natural Limits to Biological Change 2/2 – Dr. Raymond G. Bohlin – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vo3OKSGeFRQ

    Evolution? – The Deception Of Unlimited Variation – video
    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4113898

  29. Of related note to the Linton observation mentioned above:

    A review of The Edge of Evolution: The Search for the Limits of Darwinism
    The numbers of Plasmodium and HIV in the last 50 years greatly exceeds the total number of mammals since their supposed evolutionary origin (several hundred million years ago), yet little has been achieved by evolution. This suggests that mammals could have “invented” little in their time frame. Behe: ‘Our experience with HIV gives good reason to think that Darwinism doesn’t do much—even with billions of years and all the cells in that world at its disposal’ (p. 155).
    http://creation.com/review-mic.....-evolution

    Static evolution: is pond scum the same now as billions of years ago?
    Excerpt: But what intrigues (paleo-biologist) J. William Schopf most is lack of change. Schopf was struck 30 years ago by the apparent similarities between some 1-billion-year-old fossils of blue-green bacteria and their modern microbial microbial. “They surprisingly looked exactly like modern species,” Schopf recalls. Now, after comparing data from throughout the world, Schopf and others have concluded that modern pond scum differs little from the ancient blue-greens. “This similarity in morphology is widespread among fossils of [varying] times,” says Schopf. As evidence, he cites the 3,000 such fossils found;
    http://www.thefreelibrary.com/.....a014909330

  30. and this from Casey Luskin just yesterday:

    Can Random Mutations Create New Complex Features? A Response to TalkOrigins – Casey Luskin June 22, 2012
    Excerpt: The take-home message here is that the ID movement is producing both empirical and theoretical research showing that when multiple mutations are required before conferring any advantage on an organism, the “waiting time” for those mutations is often beyond the time available over the entire history of the Earth. There are good reasons to expect that random mutations cannot build many complex features we see in biology. Some non-random process that can “look ahead” and find complex advantageous features is necessary.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....61221.html

  31. Nick Matzke:

    For any locus in the genome (locus = location that holds a gene), any individual human can only hold 2 different alleles, because we only have 2 copies of any given chromosome. Thus, two people (Adam and Eve) could only hold 4 alleles, total, for any locus in the human genome.

    And from those 4 recombination and other directed and non-directed mutations can produce the diversity we now observe.

    If you’re going to invoke miracles, don’t even bother pretending to argue about the science, there’s no point.

    No miracles required. Just a well written genetic algorithm to produce the variation observed.

    BTW Nick, ID includes YEC and OEC. That you cannot grasp that simple fact says quite a bit about your agenda.

  32. Nick,

    Isn’t it definitional that you cannot breed with another species? Isn’t that why mules are infertile, because horses and donkeys are different species? Probably just semantics, sorry.

  33. 33

    Nick,

    Isn’t it definitional that you cannot breed with another species? Isn’t that why mules are infertile, because horses and donkeys are different species? Probably just semantics, sorry.

    Actually mules are not always sterile:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mule#Fertility

    The definition of “species” is a famous debate. As we should expect, because if evolution is real, species gradually transform and gradually become less fertile, thus there will be no single point at which you can say one species has become two. It’s a gradual process.

    And from those 4 recombination and other directed and non-directed mutations can produce the diversity we now observe.

    Please tell us which alleles originated this way, and how you know which ones were directed.

    No miracles required. Just a well written genetic algorithm to produce the variation observed.

    Please show us the algorithm.

  34. Nick Matzke, the reference says, “Since 1527 there have been more than 60 documented cases of foals born to female mules around the world.[9] There are reports that a mule in China produced a foal in 1984.[11][12] In Morocco, in early 2002, a mare mule produced a rare foal.[9] In 2007 a mule named Kate gave birth to a mule son in Colorado.[13][14] Blood and hair samples were tested verifying that the mother was a mule and the colt was indeed her offspring.” So in five hundred years, there were only 60 documented cases. This would not found a species. It sounds like a dead end. If humans were not keeping the group alive, nature certainly wouldn’t.

  35. News,

    Nicks’s point is not that mules could become a hybrid species (although hybrid speciation is quite common in plants and possible in animals), just that the high school definition of species (populations incapable of interbreeding) is a huge simplification of an interesting and complex situation.

    The fact that horses and donkeys can be (slightly) inter-fertile goes to show that.

  36. Nick Matzke:

    Please tell us which alleles originated this way, and how you know which ones were directed.

    That is what science is for Nick. Heck YOU can’t tell us how it was determined that all mutations are happenstance/ chance events.

    But anyway any mutation other than a point mutation, including recombination, is most likely directed- see Dr Spetner’s “Not By Chance”.

    Please show us the algorithm.

    It’s inside the cells Nick. There is a reason why synthetic ribosomes do not function- they lack programming. And if your scenario was right synthetic ribosomes should work.

    You lose, again.

  37. Nick Matzke:

    The definition of “species” is a famous debate. As we should expect, because if evolution is real, species gradually transform and gradually become less fertile, thus there will be no single point at which you can say one species has become two. It’s a gradual process.

    Not even YEC argues against speciation, Nick. And why does it have to be gradual? Let’s see the science that says speciation has to be gradual.

  38. 38

    If all extant humans arose from a single breeding pair, producing phenotypes as diverse as those found in the diminutive, dark-skinned pygmies and the towering, blond fair-skinned Dutch, I have to wonder why cheetahs are having such a hard time.

  39. If all extant humans arose from a single breeding pair, producing phenotypes as diverse as those found in the diminutive, dark-skinned pygmies and the towering, blond fair-skinned Dutch, I have to wonder why cheetahs are having such a hard time.

    Cheetahs are at their end, just as the pygmies and Dutch.

  40. Joe,

    Cheetahs are at their end, just as the pygmies and Dutch.

    What? Oh, must be a joke!

  41. Nope, the “theory” of evolution is the joke…

  42. Joe,

    I’m sorry you chose not to address the question I put to you on the other thread. How come you didn’t attempt to answer them?

  43. Jerad,

    I am confused-

    You say:

    I’m sorry you chose not to address the question I put to you on the other thread.

    That refers to one, 1, question. Yet in the very next sentence you say:

    How come you didn’t attempt to answer them?

    Which refers to more than one.

    So how many did I refuse to answer? How many are relevant to Intelligent Design?

    What are the “towering, blond fair-skinned Dutch” evolving into, ie what’s next (or are they as I said)? What about those “diminutive, dark-skinned pygmies”? What’s on tap for them, evolutionary speaking, or was I right again?

  44. Joe,

    So how many did I refuse to answer? How many are relevant to Intelligent Design?

    Well, I asked you all of these in the ‘Engineer says, the atom has a designer. Trolls disagree.’ thread. Comment 179 on July 9th:

    Interesting. How is that different from evolutionary theory?

    How does the variation arise? Or do you mean a front loading kind of thing where all future varieties are already inherit in the system?

    Does that mean you think there were transitional forms that did not fossilise?

    Does that mean no designer influence after the initial launch of life forms?

    What was the point of all the species that went extinct then?

    If all the transitional forms had to get slogged through first does that mean that humans were not predestined?

    Are Polio, Maleria, Tuberculosis, Dengue Fever, Ebola, the Plague, Infuenza, Yellow Fever, etc part of the plan?

    If humans were predestined then why not just jump to the tips of the clades?

    Feel free to address any of them. If you’re going to take it seriously. If you really want to find out how our views differ.

    What are the “towering, blond fair-skinned Dutch” evolving into, ie what’s next (or are they as I said)?

    Haven’t a clue. But I don’t understand how ‘the Dutch’ are different from any other European cultural group. Or even any other human cultural group.

    What about those “diminutive, dark-skinned pygmies”? What’s on tap for them, evolutionary speaking, or was I right again?

    Were you right? To say they’re near the end? I guess we’l have to wait and see.

    But I’m interested in your hypothesis. What do you think is in store for the pygmies?

  45. How is that different from evolutionary theory?

    ID says the variation is not by chance, ie it is directed. Evolutionary “theory” sez the variation is random, totally a chance event.

    Evolutionary “theory” = accumulations of random mutations and events (ie endosymbiosis)- designer mimic

    Intelligent Design evolution = accumulations of directed mutations and events

    How does the variation arise?

    1- “Built-in responses to environmental cues”, ie the deck is stacked- “Not By Chance” Dr Lee Spetner

    2- Targeted search, meaning there is an active search via some (real) genetic algorithm/ genetic programming- searching to make new proteins and enzymes

    Or do you mean a front loading kind of thing where all future varieties are already inherit in the system?

    That is only one narrow view of front-loading. There could be a front-loading that is contingent upon environmental pressures. There could be a front-loading driven by a targeted search.

    Does that mean you think there were transitional forms that did not fossilise?

    It is a given that not every type of organism that has lived and died has become fossilized.

    Does that mean no designer influence after the initial launch of life forms?

    That is a possibility.

    What was the point of all the species that went extinct then?

    So people of today could ask that question.

    If all the transitional forms had to get slogged through first does that mean that humans were not predestined?

    No.

    Are Polio, Maleria, Tuberculosis, Dengue Fever, Ebola, the Plague, Infuenza, Yellow Fever, etc part of the plan?

    Why only one, ie “the”, plan? In a perfect world we wouldn’t need science. So yeah, those could be part of the “step up, learn and adapt or die” plan.

    If humans were predestined then why not just jump to the tips of the clades?

    That is what the evidence says happened. So what is your point?

    What do you think is in store for the pygmies?

    They will remain pygmies until they go extinct.

  46. Joe,

    ID says the variation is not by chance, ie it is directed. Evolutionary “theory” sez the variation is random, totally a chance event.

    Evolutionary “theory” = accumulations of random mutations and events (ie endosymbiosis)- designer mimic

    Intelligent Design evolution = accumulations of directed mutations and events

    1- “Built-in responses to environmental cues”, ie the deck is stacked- “Not By Chance” Dr Lee Spetner

    2- Targeted search, meaning there is an active search via some (real) genetic algorithm/ genetic programming- searching to make new proteins and enzymes

    Okay. I get that. I’m not sure that’s the same as other see ID but I get it.

    Essentially you’re saying that everything looks like it evolved along the lines of evolutionary theory but that the whole process was directed or determined by some programmed target/goal/reponses.

    So, the ‘tree of life’ is correct basically. The proposed fossil progressions of whales and horses is essentially correct. Humans and chimps came from a common ancestor. The biogeographic data is correct. The genetic data does show universal common descent.

    Interesting. Universal common descent via modification is correct but selection can’t ‘do it’.

    I’m not sure how you’d test this . . . I suppose you’d have to analyse lots and lots of ‘beneficial’ mutations and show they’re not random . . . somehow. Interesting.

    And thanks for answering the questions.

  47. Jerad:

    Essentially you’re saying that everything looks like it evolved along the lines of evolutionary theory but that the whole process was directed or determined by some programmed target/goal/reponses.

    That doesn’t even make sense. The only things that looked like they evolved along the lines of evolutionary theory are non-functional and broken stuff.

    So, the ‘tree of life’ is correct basically.

    What “tree of life”?

    The proposed fossil progressions of whales and horses is essentially correct.

    It could be but it still cannot be tested and the genetics do not support such trandsformations.

    Universal common descent via modification is correct but selection can’t ‘do it’.

    There isn’t any evidence that natural selection, a result, can do anything.

  48. Hello.

    Secular Scientists has long prove that Adam and Eve actually existed.

    “In recent years, scientists have researched human genes extensively. By comparing human genetic patterns around the earth, they found clear evidence that all humans have a common ancestor, a source of the DNA of all people who have ever lived, including each of us. In 1988, Newsweek magazine presented those findings in a report entitled “The Search for Adam and Eve.” Those studies were based on a type of mitochondrial DNA, genetic material passed on only by the female. Reports in 1995 about research on male DNA point to the same conclusion—that “there was an ancestral ‘Adam,’ whose genetic material on the [Y] chromosome is common to every man now on earth,” as Time magazine put it. Whether those findings are accurate in every detail or not, they illustrate that the history we find in Genesis is highly credible, being authored by One who was on the scene at the time.”

    So even Atheists can acknowledge that the Bible is a reliable, scientific acurate tools when it comes to history.

    Bye,
    Tobi

Leave a Reply