Dolphins' are back on Earth

[Gman]

Yes, please. I would appreciate it.

Analogies are used in evolution all the time. They can be used in contrast with homologies... Nothing new here..

http://virtuallaboratory.net/Biofundame ... -5_Evo.htm

I did not say they are totally unscientific.
However, as when discussing about ID I like to let IDs define what ID is, now I prefer to keep stuck to what biologists say about biology. It usually helps in preventing strawmen.

They may be correct and totally scientific. If so they are reporting faithfully the claims of biologists. In that case I prefer to discuss biologists' claims directly.

Or biologists that support your claims.. If not, their scientific background is questionable according to your terms it seems...

We share a lot with escherichia coli!
Most of the basic biochemical structures and mechanisms, for instance.
Please, be explicit.
Are you claiming that you can produce evidences of totally different organismswith no similarities?
This (for example organisms based on right handsided amminoacids) would be enough evidence to disprove the common ancestro theory (though maybe not to disprove a common ancestor between humans and chimps).
Please if you have such data, I would be more than happy to consider it.

No, I'm not talking about totally different organisms with no similarities...

We are discussing because we strongly disagree on what "clear" means.
Fossil records are not the unique nor the most direct argument in favor of common ancestor scenario. The clearest argument today are coming from genetics of living lifeforms.
And they are becoming stronger and stronger.
For example we can directly compute on a purely genetic basis how long ago we shared our common ancestors with chimps (gorilla, ...).
The genetic dating is pretty good agreeing with the known fossil record dating. The record may be lacking and incomplete but there is no way in which you can show this agreement to be necessary if the designer created humans and chimps independently.
I'm not saying that you cannot force your creationist scenario with it (goddidit argument is perfect) I'm just saying that you have to assume that your designer decided to do so for some unknown reason, while the "coincidence" is perfectly predicted by evolution.

By saying "clear", as an example with chimps, can you explain why humans have 23 pairs of chromosomes while chimpanzees have 24? Or that the "mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) sequences in chimpanzees are more variable than those in humans (1-3)? A recent study has examined a 10,154-base pair sequence on the chimpanzee X chromosome and found that sequence variability is four times greater in chimpanzees than humans (4), indicating a last common ancestor at least three times earlier than humans."

Source: http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/originnews.html

Well. the point is exactly this. In science the final judge is not the individual but the experiment/observation.
It is something it should be decided by observing nature and evaluating arguments.
Science is not a democracy in which you are free to think that the Earth stands still and the sun goes around.

Who ever said that science was a democracy? Also why are some evolutionist saying that life could have began from aliens from outer space? Why? Are they not credible scientists either?

Of course you are free to believe what you please (as a friend of mine likes to say) but when you do it you are not doing science anymore.
Here we are discussing about science (and faith), I supposed.
In any event, that was what I meant by "some *scientific* argument".

As you have stated before... "Scientific knowledge about origins of life is quite approximate and yet not based on solid ground.' If it is not based on scientific solid ground, then it is questionable science.. Not a fact...

Do you mean the origins of species or the origin of life all together?

And in any case, what do you mean by you are against science in that case?
Science is simply enumerating and weighting evidences.

One cannot be against mathematics when one gets to the multiplications by 7!
One is free not to use mathematics, but I cannot understand how one can be "against" mathematics.

As I said, I don't think that one necessarily needs to believe or to care about what science claims. But likes or dislikes are not among the arguments which should be used to judge science scientifically.

Likes or dislikes?? Are you implying that true science is based your belief system? While I don't agree with that, I would agree that scientist can be biased (at times) in their scientific explanations..

There is no debate in the scientific community about common ancestor.
And the public debate is irrelevant to science.

Oh, obviously some scientist believe that we had a common ancestor. But can you tell us who that common ancestor was?

I hope we agree that science is a self contained discipline with its own laws and procedures
which are and have to be disconnected by social issues.

I wish I could believe that... Unfortunately scientist are humans that can be socially biased in both camps (to certain degrees).

The problem is simply that despite what you think, there is no scientifc doubt about the fact that we share a common ancestor with chimps.
And there won't be any doubt in the future.

They have been singing that song for years... In the future we will have it all figured out.. Just give us more time.. And more money..

Moreover, to use your own words, we have not in yet nothing. We have no final answer about gravity, about cosmology, about quantum mechanics, etc.
We do not even know if we will ever have a final answer.

Are you suggesting that we should suspend teaching these as well?

No, of course not, please re-read my posts.. My case is just for ID as to origins. There is NO solid proof of that either. So? We will probably be questioning these things for the rest of eternity.. Who gives a flying banana.. Just let ID and evolution breath together.. It's just speculation in both camps.. I don't see any problems with people being allowed to question either side.. Neither sides are completely factual when it comes to origins...

[angel]

Dear GMan,
I am sorry for the time passed before reply, but I preferred to let it cool down a while in order to keep the discussion constructive.

First of all let me say that I am not questioning the bias or background of anybody (as you can check back on my posts). I am just requiring the discussion to be kept stuck to "what science claims" which means what scientists say while they are working, i.e. writing for scientific reviews.

It is more than obvious that each scientist has his/her bias. However, they are trained (or/and selected) to keep their biases out of their arguments. I have friend scientists (some believers and some atheists) and none of them ever used arguments which are not scientific in their work. Even if they did, their work is refereed and considered by people who is trained to ignore such arguments and evaluate pure evidences.

As such I believe that, despite scientists may be biased, science is not.
I am perfectly aware that you do not share such belief.
Luckily, that is not what we are discussing, nor something that I wish discuss with you.

So please let us stuck to scientific sources or to raw arguments/evidnces. If any.

About homologies/similarities you post a reference. Let me say that your reference (despite not research material) does in fact support my claim

The biological species concept was defined by Mayr in 1942.
The traits used in such studies were originally anatomical, but more
recently molecular genetic and DNA sequence data have become
increasingly important.

and

How do we distinguish between these two possibilities? 
In general, we carry out a detailed comparative analysis of the development
and final form of the structure. 
In the modern world of molecular biology, this involves the genes that
are active as the structure forms. 
The more details two structures share, the more likely they are homologous.

My claim being that homologies between species have to be considered at genetic level, NOT at morphological level.
If that is what you meant originally, I beg your pardon for misunderstanding.

You also raised some questions. I do not know your sources, however, none of the issues you considered is actually a problem for evolution.
The 2nd human chromosome is known to the the joining of the 2p and 2q chimps' chromosome. Such mutation amounts to relatively few rearrangements at genetic level which then produced relatively big mutations at phenotype level.
http://www.evolutionpages.com/chromosome_2.htm

Similarly, for variations in mtDNA in apes.
For example see
Extensive Polymorphism in the Mitochondrial DNA of Apes
Stephen D. Ferris; Wesley M. Brown; William S. Davidson; Allan C. Wilson

ABSTRACT: Ape species are 2-10 times more variable than the human species with respect to the nucleotide sequence of mtDNA, even though ape populations have been smaller than the human population for at least 10,000 years. This finding was made by comparing purified mtDNAs from 27 individuals with the aid of 25 restriction endonucleases; for an additional 59 individuals, comparisons were made with fewer enzymes by using the blot hybridization method. The amount of intraspecific sequence divergence was greatest between orangutans of Borneo and Sumatra. Among common chimpanzees, a large component of the variation is due to two highly distinct forms of mtDNA that may reflect a major geographic subdivision. The least amount of sequence variation occurred among lowland gorillas, which exhibit only twice as much sequence variation as humans. The large intraspecific differences among apes, together with the geological and protein evidence, leads us to propose that each ape species is the remnant of an ancient and widespread population that became subdivided geographically and reduced in size and range, perhaps by hominid competition. The low variation among human mtDNAs is consistent with geological evidence that the human species is young. The distribution of site changes within the mitochondrial genome was also examined. Comparison of closely related mtDNAs shows that the ribosomal RNA genes have diverged more slowly than the rest of the genome.

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articl ... tid=349030

Just the first hit! )
Variability of mtDNA does depends mainly on population dimensions.
There is no reason to assume similar populations of humans and chimps.
So can you explain why such thing should it be a problem?

Then you referred to differences in X chromosome...
Well it was referring to a comparison among humans chimps and bononos. I am not sure that "4 times" refer to intra species common ancestor, but it may refer to inter species common ancestor (and it is very well known that bonobos and chimps share a common ancestor younger than humans and chimps).
see http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/a ... /5442/1159
Extensive Nuclear DNA Sequence Diversity Among Chimpanzees
Henrik Kaessmann, * Victor Wiebe, Svante Pääbo

In any event, variability in DNA refers to what is called "mutation frequencies" (which depends on selective pressure, not as "mutation rates" which are independent of selection). It is pretty well known that mutation frequencies may be very different in different DNA areas. This is pretty trivial since different areas of DNA may express different characteristics with different impact on fitness, depending on the environmental conditions.
Actually, they use this variability to define a way of measuring selective pressure. Hence your source provides evidences that a segmant of X chromosome has been subjected to a greater selective pressure than the rest of the genome. And then what?
I see no problem with it. Sorry GMan if i do not catch your point. Can you explain it better?

No, I'm not talking about totally different organisms with no
similarities...

Then your argument above is completely inconsistent to my understanding.

Evolution does in fact predict that evolving organisms will develop
some different characteristic.
So where is the problem is observing some differences among living animals?
Should it indicate that they have been created independently?
Can you explain it better or do you want me to drop it?

Let me leave the rest of your post unanswered. I believe that is not the sort of discussion which improves knowledge of anybody.
Let me only add four comments about it.

First: there is not a single evidence of any scientific doubt about the fact that we share a common ancestor with chimps. You provided quotations which do not faintly indicate that. You are trying to show that there is a scientific debate about it. I do not know if your belief is sincere, nor I am interested to know it. Let me just say that it is not supported by any evidence.

Oh, obviously some scientist believe that we had a common ancestor.

ALL scientists believe in common ancestor between human and chimps.
Can you show a single paper on a scientific review claiming the opposite?

I wish I could believe that... Unfortunately scientist are humans that
can be socially biased in both camps (to certain degrees).

There are NOT two camps.
Can you show a single paper on a scientific review claiming the opposite?

Second:

As you have stated before... "Scientific knowledge about origins of life
is quite approximate and yet not based on solid ground.' If it is not
based on scientific solid ground, then it is questionable science.. Not
a fact...

You are playing a dirty game, here.
I agreed that origins are poorly understood.
You claimed you don't believe in common ancestor.
Are you claiming that based on ignorance about the first we are
right to consider poorly understood common ancestor as well?

I hope you are joking!

Third:

They have been singing that song for years... In the future we will have
it all figured out.. Just give us more time.. And more money..

Can you be explicit on who you mean by that "they"?

Of course you are free to offer your money to creation science.
If you were self-consistent, you should use medicine out of creation science to cure yourself.
Good luck.

Fourth:

No, of course not, please re-read my posts.. [...]

I'm glad to hear it. Unfortunately I see no reason (except your likes and dislikes) you should draw a line between gravitational theory and evolution.
Unless you can show me why evolution should be considered differently from gravity.

It is not a matter of what you said, but a matter of what your claims imply.

You call for the fact that evolution is not well founded. You provided arguments for that. You claimed that for that reasons evolution should not be tought alone in science class.

The same arguments would show that gravity is not well founded either.
You cannot sinply say: well gravity is a different story. Either:
you provide other reasons to reject evolution and accept gravity,
or you allow both
or you reject both.

Which of the three?

[Gman]

So please let us stuck to scientific sources or to raw arguments/evidnces. If any.

Oh you are so cute... Such wit...

My claim being that homologies between species have to be considered at genetic level, NOT at morphological level.
If that is what you meant originally, I beg your pardon for misunderstanding.

You mean your understanding.. Again let me refresh your memory... I was talking about your statement in your 3rd post of this thread before you made your genetic level statement..

Quote Angel: "I don't think there are very much instances of serious scientific discussions about functionality in evolution."

You are wrong... Again, evolutionists have separated most supposed examples of homology into two types... Analogy and homology. "This division is based on a distinction between similarity due to common ancestry, or homology, and resemblance which is due solely to similarity of FUNCTION, called analogy."

After that you said "Nowadays evolution is concerned with genetic similarities." Read it yourself.. Follow the logic?

You also raised some questions. I do not know your sources, however, none of the issues you considered is actually a problem for evolution.
The 2nd human chromosome is known to the the joining of the 2p and 2q chimps' chromosome. Such mutation amounts to relatively few rearrangements at genetic level which then produced relatively big mutations at phenotype level.
http://www.evolutionpages.com/chromosome_2.htm

None of the issues I've considered are actually a problem for evolution?? Well perhaps you should contact these groups of scientists (who are evolutionists) and debate them in their science.. One of them is from the National Academy of Science. Perhaps you have heard of them..

1. Gagneux, P. et al. 1999. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 96: 5077
2. Morin, P. A. et al. 1994. Science 265: 1193.
3. Wise, C. A., M. Sraml, D. C. Rubinsztein, S. Easteal. 1997. Mol. Biol. Evol. 14, 707.
4. Henrik Kaessmann, H., V. Wiebe, and S. P””bo. 1999. Extensive Nuclear DNA Sequence Diversity Among Chimpanzees. Science 286:1159-1162.

What do you mean you don't know my sources? Again let me refresh your memory: Source: http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/originnews.html

Similarly, for variations in mtDNA in apes.
For example see
Extensive Polymorphism in the Mitochondrial DNA of Apes
Stephen D. Ferris; Wesley M. Brown; William S. Davidson; Allan C. Wilson

ABSTRACT: Ape species are 2-10 times more variable than the human species with respect to the nucleotide sequence of mtDNA, even though ape populations have been smaller than the human population for at least 10,000 years. This finding was made by comparing purified mtDNAs from 27 individuals with the aid of 25 restriction endonucleases; for an additional 59 individuals, comparisons were made with fewer enzymes by using the blot hybridization method. The amount of intraspecific sequence divergence was greatest between orangutans of Borneo and Sumatra. Among common chimpanzees, a large component of the variation is due to two highly distinct forms of mtDNA that may reflect a major geographic subdivision. The least amount of sequence variation occurred among lowland gorillas, which exhibit only twice as much sequence variation as humans. The large intraspecific differences among apes, together with the geological and protein evidence, leads us to propose that each ape species is the remnant of an ancient and widespread population that became subdivided geographically and reduced in size and range, perhaps by hominid competition. The low variation among human mtDNAs is consistent with geological evidence that the human species is young. The distribution of site changes within the mitochondrial genome was also examined. Comparison of closely related mtDNAs shows that the ribosomal RNA genes have diverged more slowly than the rest of the genome.

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articl ... tid=349030

Just the first hit! )
Variability of mtDNA does depends mainly on population dimensions.
There is no reason to assume similar populations of humans and chimps.
So can you explain why such thing should it be a problem?

First hit.. Yes, stop hitting yourself.. Again please re-read the sources..

Then you referred to differences in X chromosome...
Well it was referring to a comparison among humans chimps and bononos. I am not sure that "4 times" refer to intra species common ancestor, but it may refer to inter species common ancestor (and it is very well known that bonobos and chimps share a common ancestor younger than humans and chimps).
see http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/a ... /5442/1159
Extensive Nuclear DNA Sequence Diversity Among Chimpanzees
Henrik Kaessmann, * Victor Wiebe, Svante Pääbo

In any event, variability in DNA refers to what is called "mutation frequencies" (which depends on selective pressure, not as "mutation rates" which are independent of selection). It is pretty well known that mutation frequencies may be very different in different DNA areas. This is pretty trivial since different areas of DNA may express different characteristics with different impact on fitness, depending on the environmental conditions.
Actually, they use this variability to define a way of measuring selective pressure. Hence your source provides evidences that a segmant of X chromosome has been subjected to a greater selective pressure than the rest of the genome. And then what?
I see no problem with it. Sorry GMan if i do not catch your point. Can you explain it better?

Again you failed to check my sources and now you are attacking the scientists who believe in evolution and their scientific works.. Oops..

Then your argument above is completely inconsistent to my understanding.

Evolution does in fact predict that evolving organisms will develop some different characteristic.
So where is the problem is observing some differences among living animals?
Should it indicate that they have been created independently?
Can you explain it better or do you want me to drop it?

Again you have failed to read what was posted.. Let's review it again...

Angel: Are you claiming that you can produce evidences of totally different organisms with no similarities?

Gman: No, I'm not talking about totally different organisms with no similarities...

Angel: Evolution does in fact predict that evolving organisms will develop some different characteristic.

Do you know the difference between the words total and some?

Again, you twist my words to support your own warped views... You are the one playing a dirty game here..

Let me leave the rest of your post unanswered. I believe that is not the sort of discussion which improves knowledge of anybody.
Let me only add four comments about it.

First: there is not a single evidence of any scientific doubt about the fact that we share a common ancestor with chimps. You provided quotations which do not faintly indicate that. You are trying to show that there is a scientific debate about it. I do not know if your belief is sincere, nor I am interested to know it. Let me just say that it is not supported by any evidence.

If you are so sure, why does the evidence seem to suggest the difference now is 4.8% as opposed to 1-2%? The closer we get the farther it seems to go..

"Before 2002, it was commonly claimed that humans differed genetically from chimpanzees by 1-2%. However, following the completion of the human genome project's complete genetic sequence, and the beginning of the chimpanzee genome sequence, we now have a much better estimate of the genetic difference. Gene sequence differences are very close to what had been previously estimated at 1.4%. However, there are quite a few insertions and deletions found in comparing the two sequences. These differences equal 3.4%. Therefore, the total genetic difference between chimpanzees and humans is now seen as being 4.8%1 - much larger than previously thought. Such a large genetic difference now brings into question the paradigm of common descent."

Source: http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/sld070.html

or

Britten, R.J. 2002. Divergence between samples of chimpanzee and human DNA sequences is 5%, counting indels. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 99: 13633-16335.

ALL scientists believe in common ancestor between human and chimps.
Can you show a single paper on a scientific review claiming the opposite?

No, all scientists that believe in the "evolution" theory.. Can you show me a single scientific review that does prove it without a shadow of doubt? Of course there are claims about common ancestor between human and chimps.. Everyone knows that.. Are you surprised by this?

Also I see you omitted my second question..."But can you tell us who that common ancestor was?" Well can you?

There are NOT two camps.
Can you show a single paper on a scientific review claiming the opposite?

There are two camps.. One group of scientists believes in "creationism" the other in a science called "evolution." Both are "theories" both make claims against each other.. Again nothing new here but maybe for you..

You are playing a dirty game, here.

You made the statement that "Scientific knowledge about origins is yet not based on solid ground" and now you are upset with me? Perhaps you should be more careful about how you choose your words...

I agreed that origins are poorly understood.
You claimed you don't believe in common ancestor.
Are you claiming that based on ignorance about the first we are
right to consider poorly understood common ancestor as well?

I hope you are joking!

I hope you have total 100% proof... Do you?

Can you be explicit on who you mean by that "they"?

Guess..

Of course you are free to offer your money to creation science.
If you were self-consistent, you should use medicine out of creation science to cure yourself.
Good luck.

Oh, you are so funny Angel.. I'm on my knees..

I'm glad to hear it. Unfortunately I see no reason (except your likes and dislikes) you should draw a line between gravitational theory and evolution.
Unless you can show me why evolution should be considered differently from gravity.

It is not a matter of what you said, but a matter of what your claims imply.

You are playing a dirty game, here... Are you saying now that I'm drawing a line between gravitational theory and evolution? What do you think I'm implying Angel? Have you forgotten again?

You call for the fact that evolution is not well founded. You provided arguments for that. You claimed that for that reasons evolution should not be tought alone in science class.

Again you claimed that evolution isn't well founded either... Go figure..

The same arguments would show that gravity is not well founded either.
You cannot sinply say: well gravity is a different story. Either:
you provide other reasons to reject evolution and accept gravity,
or you allow both
or you reject both.

Which of the three?

Oh you are quite the funny one... Again you stated "Scientific knowledge about origins of life is quite approximate and yet not based on solid ground." Maybe you should have that argument with yourself...

[angel]

GMan,
I think it is worthless going on with the discussion.
We presented our positions, we explained it, we showed our ability in understanding the opponent's arguments. Everything is there for people to go through and honestly I could not add anything to what I already posted.

People can read and decide if I know the difference between total and some;
or whether my quotations hits on my head or yours.

Few things are clear TO ME (i.e. in my opinion) which I wish to summarize:

1- The discussion started on homologies in evolution.
You posted a quotation (from answers in genesis).
I just pointed out that in THAT quotation they mixed functional homologies and structural homologies. It is my opinion that functional homologies are very misleading. BTW your quotation
seems to agree. In fact they say:

For example, the rudimentary male mammary gland and nipple are clearly homologous to those of the female, but they are not taken as evidence that males once nursed their young.

It agrees with me since it mentions a functional difference (nurcing) in view of a structural homology (male mammary glands) in "animals" (men and women) which are known to share a common ancestor.
The quotation you posted is a long list of such points noticing a structural homology paired with a functional difference. My point is that even accepting those data they are in fact showing that functional differences ARE NOT a reliable argument against common ancestors.
Then you asked for references. At that stage I thought YOUR references were enough and I did not posted further. My bad.
However, there I mentioned that among structural analogies nowadays most of attention is towards GENETIC homologies more than the classical bones homologies. Which you were so kind to support by referencing to virtuallaboratory.net.

2- I asked about viral insertions. You ignored the issue.

3- You commented

I would assume that if we all evolved from a common ancestor we would have some common similarities (I suppose you mean "features") with other species.

I noticed that we in fact share a lot with bacteria!
You clarified your statement

I'm not talking about totally different organisms

To the best of my understanding this means you were talking about partially different (hence partially similar) organisms (as you originally posted).
And I remarked that in that case it is perfectly understandable within evolution that organisms sharing common ancestor share SOME characteristics and differ in others.
Finally you asked me if I know the difference between total and some.
I leave it to the reader for judging.

4- About human and chimp genetic differences.
You asked me why the difference is increasing as long as studies goes on.
I answer "because new studies are better than the old one", that is why one does further investigations.
You quoted a beatiful comment which ended with

[...] Such a large difference now brings into question the paradigm of common ancestor descendent

The source is from the site god and science (we are at home here aren't we?) or Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. (2002).
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/99/21/13633.pdf
Needless to say that the comment is not mentioned in the second.
Nor I need to claim once again that the authors of the paper have no doubt about the fact that we share a common ancestor with chimps, gorillas and bonobos.

There is no reason why such difference should be considered against a common ancestor, unless differently argumented. It is definitely not enogh that you claim it to be a problem for it to be a problem.


Please read
http://discussions.godandscience.org/ol ... 3580#13580
where you can see that based on paleontological data one should expect a difference greater than 1-3%. The link you posted INCREASED the agreement between paleontological and genetic data! It enhanced the support to common ancestor!

So please!

5- I leave the issue about evolution/gravity unanswered.
If you are not satisfied about my rendering of your position with respect to this issue of gravity it is your right to call for moderation.
I am ready to explain my view on the discussion to the moderators, if necessary.

In any event, the whole discussion between me and you is quite irrelevant to the main topics of this thread. I called for comments about a scenario

My original goal was to discuss the possibility of providing new organs by random mutations (which are being discussed in a parallel thread right now).

I think the interesting way of looking at the link is the following.

You can consider obvious that once dolphins were terrestrial. In that case it is obvious that their DNA still remembers the typical mammals structures.
These characters have been suppressed by selection (which means they are still there as 'junk DNA'), and now they have re-emerged by a small random mutation which forced the genetic material to express itself again. Nothing too strange with it.

Or you can consider dolphins as designed. In that sense there is no apparent reason for a designer to hide coding for legs which are not expressed. (Ok, here I am not discussing designer right to do what it pleases, I am just asking for a good reason for it to do such a thing).
Under this viewpoint there are two possibilities:

FIRST: the designer did designed legs for dolphins and forced that character to hide. Going this way it is clear that we shall soon obtain an ID theory which is completely and absolutely un-observable and un-distinguishable for evolution, in principle.

SECOND: the designer did not encoded for delphins legs. Then either they emerged by random mutations or by designer action.


Is there anyone who believes it to be an istance of designer action? If so, I stress it would be the first instance of designer's action ever detected.

If "legs" emerged from nothing by random mutations... well how should I go on claiming that random mutations cannot produce NEW ORGANS.

I renew the call.

E.g. your position is that you do not believe in common ancestor. Then you should declare if the mutation which is mentioned in dolphins is an action of designer or a random mutation. In the second case if it can be interpretaed as the emergence of a NEW structure.
It is more than obvious that I called the new structure "legs" just for fun. It is more that obvious that they are not functional as legs (yet).

My original intention was exactly to discuss if functionality of a structure preceeds or follows the structure itself. It is my opinion that it follows. I know many instances of people (e.g. some IDs) believing the opposite.

Could we discuss about this?

[Gman]

The quotation you posted is a long list of such points noticing a structural homology paired with a functional difference. My point is that even accepting those data they are in fact showing that functional differences ARE NOT a reliable argument against common ancestors.

Angel, let's recap here from the main article... I will try to be brief..

1. Part of the original link you posted (which is now a broken link) was talking about how dolphins had possibly once WALKED on earth with legs and how they were homologous (similar) to those of land mammals in this case...

As the story went according to the Fox News reports, "Japanese researchers said Sunday that a bottlenose dolphin captured last month has an extra set of fins that could be the remains of back legs, a discovery that may provide further evidence that ocean-dwelling mammals once lived on land." Even the topic you chose "Dolphins' are back on Earth" is implying this same issue.. I don't think you meant "swimming on earth.."

2. AIG countered and stated "But there are significant differences in both structure and function between the fin bones of dolphins and the limb bones of terrestrial mammals." Also, associating these extra fins to legs isn't a good analogy since dolphins use their pectoral flippers mainly to steer and, with the help of the flukes, to stop.

3. You countered and stated "as far as I understand 'homology argument' is mainly concerned with homology of structures and very little with functional homology." And then went off on DNA and genetic and structural homologies.. As evidenced.. (which I countered later with my genetic percentages).

I just pointed out that in THAT quotation they mixed functional homologies and structural homologies. It is my opinion that functional homologies are very misleading.

Then why were scientists claiming that dolphins had once WALKED on earth with legs as once the land mammals did? Isn't walking a FUNCTION? The main article goes on to quote one researcher as saying, “I believe the fins may be remains from the time dolphins' ancient ancestors lived on land … this is an unprecedented discovery.”

To the best of my understanding this means you were talking about partially different (hence partially similar) organisms (as you originally posted).
And I remarked that in that case it is perfectly understandable within evolution that organisms sharing common ancestor share SOME characteristics and differ in others.
Finally you asked me if I know the difference between total and some.
I leave it to the reader for judging.

Are you trying to bleed a turnip? The words total and some have TOTALLY different meanings in the English language.. Obviously I would agree that they would share SOME characteristics since God extracted elements from the earth to create both man and the animals..

Yes the other is YOUR opinion...

2- I asked about viral insertions. You ignored the issue.

Read my 4th post Angel.. I stated "I don't know exactly how he did it..." On the other hand you have completely ignored my question "Can you tell us who that common ancestor was?" numerous times.. Also, I didn't delete your statement as you did mine..

The source is from the site god and science (we are at home here aren't we?) or Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. (2002).
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/99/21/13633.pdf
Needless to say that the comment is not mentioned in the second. Wink

No kidding.. Really? Is that why this comment came after the reference 1?

Nor I need to claim once again that the authors of the paper have no doubt about the fact that we share a common ancestor with chimps, gorillas and bonobos. Razz

There is no reason why such difference should be considered against a common ancestor, unless differently argumented. It is definitely not enogh that you claim it to be a problem for it to be a problem.

Oh, I don't think so... Scientists have presented FLUCTUATING percentages for genetic differences and you don't think this poses a question? He didn't say PROBLEM Angel he said "a large difference now brings into question the paradigm of common ancestor descendent."

I wonder what that percentage will be 10 years from now? Also why is the genetic difference getting larger with time?

5- I leave the issue about evolution/gravity unanswered.
If you are not satisfied about my rendering of your position with respect to this issue of gravity it is your right to call for moderation.
I am ready to explain my view on the discussion to the moderators, if necessary.

Because that same argument can be used for God too...

I renew the call.

E.g. your position is that you do not believe in common ancestor. Then you should declare if the mutation which is mentioned in dolphins is an action of designer or a random mutation. In the second case if it can be interpretaed as the emergence of a NEW structure.

What call? It's not a new structure, it's just the emergence of another fin...

It is more than obvious that I called the new structure "legs" just for fun. It is more that obvious that they are not functional as legs (yet).

My original intention was exactly to discuss if functionality of a structure preceeds or follows the structure itself. It is my opinion that it follows. I know many instances of people (e.g. some IDs) believing the opposite.

Could we discuss about this?

At first you say it is worthless going on with the discussion then you want to continue the discussion? If you want to post a new thread about this then do..

[angel]

At first you say it is worthless going on with the discussion then you want to continue the discussion?

Not with you. Not at least on topics which have been exhausted.

[BGoodForGoodSake]

Just wanted to chime in, there seems to be alot of confusion.

1. Part of the original link you posted (which is now a broken link) was talking about how dolphins had possibly once WALKED on earth with legs and how they were homologous (similar) to those of land mammals in this case...

As the story went according to the Fox News reports, "Japanese researchers said Sunday that a bottlenose dolphin captured last month has an extra set of fins that could be the remains of back legs, a discovery that may provide further evidence that ocean-dwelling mammals once lived on land." Even the topic you chose "Dolphins' are back on Earth" is implying this same issue.. I don't think you meant "swimming on earth.."

The term homologous means similar in form not function. The idea here is that they are similar in form because they have similar origins.
When you ask if it "meant swimming on earth" it seems as if you are mocking the notion, surely when one already dismisses the opposition, what is the point of continuing the discussion?

Consider the following.
In the development of a dolphin fetus, back fins first form and then disappear. The location of these back fins is homologous to the hind limbs of other mammals. Is it possible that over generations the animals lost their back fins?

2. AIG countered and stated "But there are significant differences in both structure and function between the fin bones of dolphins and the limb bones of terrestrial mammals."

This is to be expected given that they are not terrestrial creatures. However that doesn't take away from the fact that they are structurally similar. And the differences are not significant enough to say they are not mammals, are they?

Also, associating these extra fins to legs isn't a good analogy since dolphins use their pectoral flippers mainly to steer and, with the help of the flukes, to stop.

Function has nothing to do with this discusion. Even still, they are both used for locomotion. lol

Am I to say that comparing the paws of a dog and that of a cat is nonsence, since the dogs paw is used for digging? Can you see how selecting a function can be subjective?

3. You countered and stated "as far as I understand 'homology argument' is mainly concerned with homology of structures and very little with functional homology." And then went off on DNA and genetic and structural homologies.. As evidenced.. (which I countered later with my genetic percentages).

How do changes in genetic percentages counter genetic homologies? The homologous genes don't become less homologous with time. At least not in our lifetimes. The differences are found elsewhere in the genomes being compared. Changes in the percentage are to be expected as they are only estimations untill full genomes can be mapped out. Regardless, I repeat that the genes being compared are not becomming less homologous as we reveal more DNA.

For instance it's like saying candidate A is receiving 90% of the votes with 70% of the votes having been counted. Later when all the votes have been counted it turns out that the candidate won only 87% of the votes. however the ballots for the first 70% counted remain the same.

Then why were scientists claiming that dolphins had once WALKED on earth with legs as once the land mammals did? Isn't walking a FUNCTION?

The function of once walking is concluded from structural homology. What use would functional homology be to any discussion?
Would it be helpful to say tigers walk so they must have once walked? Spiders walk too so they must be closely related?
Making conclusions on functional homology alone doesn't make any sence.
Yet that seems to be what you are suggesting.

What call? It's not a new structure, it's just the emergence of another fin...

Do you beleive function is a result of form?
For instance if a dog is born with no forelimbs, do you think it will be unable to adapt?
What if someone is born with backward facing fingers, will they struggle because the function doesn't match the form?

[angel]

Thank you, BGoodForGoodSake

Not to open a discussion but an answer is due

Can you tell us who that common ancestor was?

A lot of common ancestors are known. What is relatively unknown is the LAST common ancestor.
Which is however, irrelevant since most of the evidences today are not coming from fossils as you like to think but from genetics.

Do you know your ancestor at Jesus time?
I suppose this does not mean that you are a separate part of creation or that you are not human!

About the broken link:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15581204/?GT1=8717

[Gman]

A lot of common ancestors are known. What is relatively unknown is the LAST common ancestor.

That's correct Angel.. You don't know who your last common ancestor was...

[Gman]

The term homologous means similar in form not function. The idea here is that they are similar in form because they have similar origins.
When you ask if it "meant swimming on earth" it seems as if you are mocking the notion, surely when one already dismisses the opposition, what is the point of continuing the discussion?

Right BGood, what is the point of continuing the discussion? In fact you stated before, "I don't think that this would be good evidence for terrestrial origins" now you have something to say.. Interesting how you have changed now...

Why don't you explain homologous terms to Angel? In fact he stated, "It is my opinion that functional homologies are very misleading." However, my point was that analogies are used better and mainly to describe or contrast homologies when it comes to the distinction between similarity due to common ancestry...

Consider the following.
In the development of a dolphin fetus, back fins first form and then disappear. The location of these back fins is homologous to the hind limbs of other mammals. Is it possible that over generations the animals lost their back fins?

Structurally speaking no.... Even if they are developing further back... Again, associating these extra fins to legs isn't a good analogy since dolphins use their pectoral flippers mainly to steer.. If anything they would be more related to arms not legs..

Function has nothing to do with this discusion. Even still, they are both used for locomotion. lol

You don't think the functions of a pectoral flipper and a fluke are different?

Am I to say that comparing the paws of a dog and that of a cat is nonsence, since the dogs paw is used for digging? Can you see how selecting a function can be subjective?

This is a horrible analogy... BGood, tell me, do you have a cat? I tell you what, if you don't have a cat, buy one somewhere or take in your neighborhoods cat.. Next feed it a lot of food.. After that watch what it does with it's paws when it has to go to the bathroom..

How do changes in genetic percentages counter genetic homologies? The homologous genes don't become less homologous with time. At least not in our lifetimes. The differences are found elsewhere in the genomes being compared. Changes in the percentage are to be expected as they are only estimations untill full genomes can be mapped out. Regardless, I repeat that the genes being compared are not becomming less homologous as we reveal more DNA.

No... The article was claiming that humans differed genetically from chimpanzees.. It didn't get into all the homologous genes.. But later I will get into that as well...

For instance it's like saying candidate A is receiving 90% of the votes with 70% of the votes having been counted. Later when all the votes have been counted it turns out that the candidate won only 87% of the votes. however the ballots for the first 70% counted remain the same.

Angel and I have already agreed that science is not a democracy.. No voting allowed in science...

The function of once walking is concluded from structural homology. What use would functional homology be to any discussion?

Oh, so you do agree that there can be a functional homology? Let me ask you this.. What use would structural homology be to any discussion without functional homology? What good are legs if they are not used to walk? Do you suppose they are used simply for looks or pantyhose??

Would it be helpful to say tigers walk so they must have once walked? Spiders walk too so they must be closely related?

Another poor analogy... And how do spiders and tigers walk BGood? Are you implying that they walk the same?

Making conclusions on functional homology alone doesn't make any sence.
Yet that seems to be what you are suggesting.

Making conclusions on structural homology alone doesn't make any sense either...

Do you beleive function is a result of form?
For instance if a dog is born with no forelimbs, do you think it will be unable to adapt?

Better yet, what do you think would happen if he had no legs at all? Do you think it will be unable to adapt? Maybe he could roll himself to dinner..

What if someone is born with backward facing fingers, will they struggle because the function doesn't match the form?

What if someone is born with fingers on their feet and toes on their hands? Do you think he may have trouble finding a job?

[angel]

Angel
Gman, as far as I understand 'homology argument' is mainly concerned with homology of structures and very little with functional homology.

GMan
Why don't you explain homologous terms to Angel?
In fact he stated, "It is my opinion that functional homologies are very misleading."

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:
The term homologous means similar in form not function.

[BGoodForGoodSake]

Right BGood, what is the point of continuing the discussion? In fact you stated before, "I don't think that this would be good evidence for terrestrial origins" now you have something to say.. Interesting how you have changed now...

There is plenty of more compelling evidence for the terrestrial origins of dolphins. In this case the appearance of a hindlimb without knowing whether it originated the same way a hindlimb does in other mammals makes it insufficient to be used as evidence. That is why I made that statement.

Consider the following.
In the development of a dolphin fetus, back fins first form and then disappear. The location of these back fins is homologous to the hind limbs of other mammals. Is it possible that over generations the animals lost their back fins?

Structurally speaking no.... Even if they are developing further back... Again, associating these extra fins to legs isn't a good analogy since dolphins use their pectoral flippers mainly to steer.. If anything they would be more related to arms not legs..

Explain to me why functional analogy is better at determing common ancestry. You don't have me convinced.

Am I to say that comparing the paws of a dog and that of a cat is nonsence, since the dogs paw is used for digging? Can you see how selecting a function can be subjective?

This is a horrible analogy... BGood, tell me, do you have a cat? I tell you what, if you don't have a cat, buy one somewhere or take in your neighborhoods cat.. Next feed it a lot of food.. After that watch what it does with it's paws when it has to go to the bathroom..

Perhaps this was a bad example. The point is that a structure can be coopted for other function, be it grasping a branching or steering through an ocean. So function in itself is a poor choice to determine homology. For example see below.

The chimpanzee hand is not used for typing, since they do not share these functions are they not homologous?

For instance it's like saying candidate A is receiving 90% of the votes with 70% of the votes having been counted. Later when all the votes have been counted it turns out that the candidate won only 87% of the votes. however the ballots for the first 70% counted remain the same.

Angel and I have already agreed that science is not a democracy.. No voting allowed in science...

Is this a joke?
The point was not about voting.
Let me try again with a different analogy.
Lets say we have a book which is written in both spanish and english. After reading three quarters of the book we determine that 60% of the content is in english. Finally after completeing the entire book it turns out that the book actually consists of 62% english content.
The final analysis does not invalidate any studies done on the first three quarters of the book.

The function of once walking is concluded from structural homology. What use would functional homology be to any discussion?

Oh, so you do agree that there can be a functional homology?

NO

Let me ask you this.. What use would structural homology be to any discussion without functional homology? What good are legs if they are not used to walk? Do you suppose they are used simply for looks or pantyhose??

Function follows structure. So functional analogy can come into the discussion but only after structural homology has been determined.

Would it be helpful to say tigers walk so they must have once walked? Spiders walk too so they must be closely related?

Another poor analogy... And how do spiders and tigers walk BGood? Are you implying that they walk the same?

Of course not because the structure of their walking mechanisms are very different. Do you see my point?

Making conclusions on functional homology alone doesn't make any sence.
Yet that seems to be what you are suggesting.

Making conclusions on structural homology alone doesn't make any sense either...

Why not? Is a snake a reptile? On what basis do you make this conclusion?

Do you beleive function is a result of form?
For instance if a dog is born with no forelimbs, do you think it will be unable to adapt?

Better yet, what do you think would happen if he had no legs at all? Do you think it will be unable to adapt? Maybe he could roll himself to dinner..

I think it will adapt as well as it could.
See here

[Gman]

There is plenty of more compelling evidence for the terrestrial origins of dolphins.

I'm going to try to be nice about this... But I'm growing tired of having to repeat myself everytime.. Ok?

BGood, as you stated before about dolphins, "I don't think that this would be good evidence for terrestrial origins." Now you are... Which is it then?

Explain to me why functional analogy is better at determing common ancestry. You don't have me convinced.

Again... I clearly said they can be used to CONTRAST homologies... I stated, "they can be used in contrast with homologies..." Not standing alone by themselves... Obviously structure is part of that too...

Perhaps this was a bad example. The point is that a structure can be coopted for other function, be it grasping a branching or steering through an ocean. So function in itself is a poor choice to determine homology. For example see below.

Interesting, before you stated, "The function of once walking is concluded from structural homology." Now you are saying it is a poor choice to determine homology.... Well which one is it? If it can bring it to an end and conclude it, then how can it suddenly be a poor choice now?

Is this a joke?

Only your statements...

The point was not about voting.
Let me try again with a different analogy.
Lets say we have a book which is written in both spanish and english. After reading three quarters of the book we determine that 60% of the content is in english. Finally after completeing the entire book it turns out that the book actually consists of 62% english content.
The final analysis does not invalidate any studies done on the first three quarters of the book.

Again... The article was claiming that humans differed genetically from chimpanzees.. It didn't get into all the homologous genes.. But later I will get into that as well... What don't you understand about this? I see what you are saying but again the homologous percentages are moot IMO..

NO

Well stop saying FUNCTIONAL HOMOLOGY then, ok? As you stated before, "Making conclusions on functional homology alone doesn't make any sence." If you are saying you can make conclusions from it then there can be a functional homology then... Follow the logic? Holy cow.. Functions can be analogous as I have stated many times before...

Function follows structure. So functional analogy can come into the discussion but only after structural homology has been determined.

Let's get back to the basics... Again please read my very first post... I grow tired of people's inability to read my posts...

"But there are significant differences in both structure and function between the fin bones of dolphins and the limb bones of terrestrial mammals. First, dolphins do not actually swim with their pectoral fins (this is largely a function of the tail flukes) but mostly use them to steer and to assist the flukes in stopping. Dolphins do not have a movable elbow joint and hold their pectoral fins rather rigidly out from the body. Their only mobile joint is at the shoulder. While this is an effective arrangement for simple steering and stopping it is unsuitable for walking or grasping.

The dolphin, like nearly all vertebrates, has five fingers or digits but in the dolphin there are many bones that make up the “fingers” (fin rays) rather than the typical sequence of three bones seen in the digits of humans and many other mammals. This serves to greatly lengthen the fin."

I don't know how to make this any clearer... You don't think it is talking about structure here and function in another?

Of course not because the structure of their walking mechanisms are very different. Do you see my point?

Yes, and do you see my point now? I wasn't talking about function alone...

Why not? Is a snake a reptile? On what basis do you make this conclusion?

Again please re-read my other posts..

I think it will adapt as well as it could.

I've seen that video before.. Actually that's pretty funny... I might have to give you points there...

[BGoodForGoodSake]

There is plenty of more compelling evidence for the terrestrial origins of dolphins.

I'm going to try to be nice about this... But I'm growing tired of having to repeat myself everytime.. Ok?

BGood, as you stated before about dolphins, "I don't think that this would be good evidence for terrestrial origins." Now you are... Which is it then?

Read what you just deleted. I don't understand why you're spending much of your post pointing out perceived contradictions in my statements?
Read more carefully and it is obvious that you are simply misunderstanding. I implore you to stick to the subject and try to maintain an academic discussion.

There is plenty of more compelling evidence for the terrestrial origins of dolphins. In this case the appearance of a hindlimb without knowing whether it originated the same way a hindlimb does in other mammals makes it insufficient to be used as evidence. That is why I made that statement.

There was no need to repeat yourself, unless you want me to restate it again. I was never in doubt regarding the terrestrial origin of dolphins, only whether this particular piece of evidence from the article presented is good enough. And I still don't think this is good evidence. Nothing has changed, you just didn't pick up on the 'nuances' of my statement.

Saying that a particular article is not convincing evidence for the terrestrial origin of dolphins is not tantamount to stating that I do not think there is any evidence for the terrestrial origins of dolphins.

There has been no change in position.

Perhaps this was a bad example. The point is that a structure can be coopted for other function, be it grasping a branching or steering through an ocean. So function in itself is a poor choice to determine homology. For example see below.

Interesting, before you stated, "The function of once walking is concluded from structural homology." Now you are saying it is a poor choice to determine homology.... Well which one is it? If it can bring it to an end and conclude it, then how can it suddenly be a poor choice now?

I don't follow your logic.

The two statements are not in opposition.

A conclusion is on the right side of the equation.
Homology --> similar function in the past.

The function of once walking is concluded from structural homology."

Use in determination is on the left side of the equation.
Similar Function --> Homology

So function in itself is a poor choice to determine homology.

There is no conflict so simply
"Now you are saying it is a poor choice to determine homology.... Well which one is it?" The answer is both.
Function cannot be used to determine homology, however homology can be used to determine that at one time the functions were the same (they shared a common ancestor).

The statement remains function is a poor determinent.

To put it another way lets say when water boils there must be heat.
But heat does not always lead to boiling water.

False
No Heat now --> Never Boiled

True
Boil-->Heat in the past

Similarily

False
Functionally different now--> Not Homology

True
Homology-->Functionally same in the past

I see what you are saying but again the homologous percentages are moot IMO..

Why are they moot? If the genes are similar, but don't have to be similar doesn't that peak your curiosity?

NO

Well stop saying FUNCTIONAL HOMOLOGY then, ok? As you stated before, "Making conclusions on functional homology alone doesn't make any sence." If you are saying you can make conclusions from it then there can be a functional homology then... Follow the logic? Holy cow.. Functions can be analogous as I have stated many times before...

Exactly,there is no term functional homology. However your insistence in using functions to show that a common ancestor could not have existed can only be termed functional homology. Which is my point, your argument is flawed, you cannot argue that differing functions are proof against common descent. see below your dolphin quote
Analogy cannot be used to argue for or against common descent.

Function follows structure. So functional analogy can come into the discussion but only after structural homology has been determined.

Let's get back to the basics... Again please read my very first post... I grow tired of people's inability to read my posts...

"But there are significant differences in both structure and function between the fin bones of dolphins and the limb bones of terrestrial mammals. First, dolphins do not actually swim with their pectoral fins (this is largely a function of the tail flukes) but mostly use them to steer and to assist the flukes in stopping. Dolphins do not have a movable elbow joint and hold their pectoral fins rather rigidly out from the body. Their only mobile joint is at the shoulder. While this is an effective arrangement for simple steering and stopping it is unsuitable for walking or grasping.

The dolphin, like nearly all vertebrates, has five fingers or digits but in the dolphin there are many bones that make up the “fingers” (fin rays) rather than the typical sequence of three bones seen in the digits of humans and many other mammals. This serves to greatly lengthen the fin."

The homology here is that the fin and the hands of mammals share an embryonic origin. That they have been co-opted(adapted) to perform different functions is no concern and is in fact a result of evolution. Arguing that they have different functions is therefore pointless and only serves to point out the obvious.
For instance if I have a vacuum tube and I modify it slightly the function is now that of a lightbulb. But obviously they share a common origin. Function is a result of the modified form. So new functionality if it occurs is nothing to be surprised about. And then arguing that because the functions are no longer the same that the origins have changed is nonsensical.

I don't know how to make this any clearer... You don't think it is talking about structure here and function in another?

The quote talks mostly about function and arguing that the functional differences counts out any posibility of common descent. Simply stating functional differences does not make a case. And the few references to structure certainly do not make any statements other than the obvious. For example a fused elbow joint is not something evolution is incapable of doing.

Of course not because the structure of their walking mechanisms are very different. Do you see my point?

Yes, and do you see my point now? I wasn't talking about function alone...

The lets take out all the references to function in your quote. We are left with the following.

Dolphins do not have a movable elbow joint and hold their pectoral fins rather rigidly out from the body. Their only mobile joint is at the shoulder...The dolphin, like nearly all vertebrates, has five fingers or digits but in the dolphin there are many bones that make up the “fingers” (fin rays) rather than the typical sequence of three bones seen in the digits of humans and many other mammals. This serves to greatly lengthen the fin."

What we have left are sesamoid bones varying in size in a population and perhaps a mutation which can cause joints to become imobile. Do you see any of these posing a challenge to evolutionary theory? In other words is it possible that a dog can be born with a fused elbow joint? What about a human born with a sesamoid on the end of their thumb? Of course it's possible. If this population happened to be living in the ocean would nature select against it?
In the case of the elbow joint I would expect this trait to become fairly common in the population. Would you disagree?

[Gman]

I have found many many flaws in your argument.. I'm simply posting now so that I can see if you will edit or change them later.. I will return next week to address them...