Darwinian evolution in the light of genomics (Surprise! Darwin's tree becomes creationist forest!!!)

Nucleic Acids Research via PubMed Central ^ | March 2009 | Eugene V. Koonin

[GodGunsGuts]

Darwinian evolution in the light of genomics

Eugene V. Koonin*

National Center for Biotechnology Information, National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA

ABSTRACT

Comparative genomics and systems biology offer unprecedented opportunities for testing central tenets of evolutionary biology formulated by Darwin in the Origin of Species in 1859 and expanded in the Modern Synthesis 100 years later. Evolutionary-genomic studies show that natural selection is only one of the forces that shape genome evolution and is not quantitatively dominant, whereas non-adaptive processes are much more prominent than previously suspected. Major contributions of horizontal gene transfer and diverse selfish genetic elements to genome evolution undermine the Tree of Life concept. An adequate depiction of evolution requires the more complex concept of a network or ‘forest’ of life...

(Click link for full paper)

[GodGunsGuts]

Of course, the Evos are still scrambling to find a way to explain God's specially created biological discontinuities in materialistic terms. But the fact that God's creation has forced them to use the same language as the Creationist Model of Origins speaks VOLUMES! See reply #2 for more details.

And speaking of the survival of the fittest...After sustaining repeated broadsides by the HMS Creation, the HMS Beagle is listing badly and is threatening to sink beneath the waves of scientific falsification. The HMS Creation, on the other hand, is standing tall, is battle ready, and will continue to dominate the scientific seas of God's special creation!

[Alter Kaker]

The authors of the paper are not arguing in favor of creationism.

I think you know it too.

The issue is the relative prevalence of horizontal gene transfers within evolution. The authors are arguing for a larger role, whereas tradition Darwinian models assigned a smaller role.

It's remarkable how dishonest so many creationists seem to be. You're at the top of the list -- congenital liar territory.

[GodGunsGuts]

Creationist Classification — An Update
by Wayne Frair, Ph.D.

Note: This article is based on Dr. Frair’s presentation in the education track of the 1998 ICC.

Creationists frequently have been criticized for merely being anti-evolutionary without offering viable alternatives, and frequently this is true. But in the past two decades there has been a genuine movement toward establishment of well-founded creationist models based upon empirical research and inductive science. For example, in 1994 and in 1998 the themes for the Pittsburgh International Conference on Creationism has been “Establishing a Creation Model of Origins.”

At the 1990 Pittsburgh International Conference on Creationism, Walter J. ReMine introduced “Discontinuity Systematics” (5,1), and Kurt P. Wise “Baraminology”(9). Both of these are creationist-sensitive taxonomic methods which can be employed for classifying all forms of life into their natural groups. Most scientists utilize systematic schemes which assume macroevolution or at least are quite consistent with it; so if it is true that the biosphere consists of groups of unrelated plants and animals, these macroevolution-oriented procedures would be immune from detecting this reality. Both discontinuity systematics and baraminology are systems which presume an origins model that could be termed “limited-change,” “abrupt-appearance,” “microevolutionary,” or “polyphyletic.”

Practitioners of these methods have no compulsion to jump natural gaps among living or fossil forms, and the investigators attempt to ascertain patterns of genetic continuity based upon persuasive evidence. The baraminology and discontinuity systematics disciplines may be expressed visually as an orchard or forest of trees (Figure 1) rather than the macroevolutionary single-tree drawing (Figure 2) for depicting how life might have evolved. The difference between baraminology and discontinuity systematics mainly is that the former includes Biblical revelation as one of its criteria for determining natural groupings. In the latter only comparative data from fossil, living and preserved material are employed.

The term baraminology is derived from the Hebrew bara, “create,” and from min, “kind.” In 1941 Dr. Frank L. Marsh introduced the term baramin, and over the decades since that time there have been some efforts aimed at incorporating the concept into empirical studies (see 4,2). But it was not until after 1992 that taxonomic tools began to be used in some depth to characterize the discrete groupings of specific types of organisms (3,6,7,8,10).

Taxonomic specialists in various species should be encouraged to utilize these  "limited-change" approaches. With them a scientist need not feel obligated to jump any gaps unless the evidence is compelling. Even though evolutionary theorizing can be a somewhat enjoyable and challenging “game” that biologists play, the procedures of the “limited change” models emphasize factual data, and when they are compared to macroevolutionary methodology, they appear to be more natural, objective and verifiable.

References

1. Bartz, P.A. 1991. A refinement of biosystematics which reflects baraminic variation. Creation Research Society Quarterly 28(1):18-20.
2. Frair, W.F. 1991. Original kinds and turtle phylogeny. Creation Research Society Quarterly 28(1):21-24.
3. García-Ponzuelo-Ramos, C. 1998. Dental variability in the domestic dog (Canis familiaris): implications for the variability of primates. Creation Research Society Quarterly 35(2):66-75.
4. Marsh, F.L. 1969. The form and structure of living things. Creation Research Society Quarterly 6(1):13-25.
5. ReMine, W.J. 1990. Discontinuity systematics: a new methodology of biosystematics relevant to the creation model. in R.E.Walsh, editor. Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Creationism. Volume II, Technical Symposium :207-216. Creation Science Fellowship, Pittsburgh, PA.
6. Robinson, D.A. 1997. A mitochondrial DNA analysis of the testudine apobaramin. Creation Research Society Quarterly 33(4):262-272.
7. Robinson, D.A. and D.P. Cavanaugh. 1998. A quantitative approach to baraminology with examples from the catarrhine primates. Creation Research Society Quarterly 34(4):196-208.
8. Robinson, D.A. and D.P. Cavanaugh. 1998. Evidence for a holobaraminic origin of the cats. Creation Research Society Quarterly 35(1):2- 14.
9. Wise, K.P. 1990. Baraminology: a young-earth creation biosystematic method. in R.E.Walsh, editor. Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Creationism. Volume II, Technical Symposium :345- 360. Creation Science Fellowship, Pittsburgh, PA.
10. Robinson, D.A. 1992. Practical baraminology. Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal 6(2):122-137.

Dr. Frair (Emeritus Professor of Biology at The King’s College, NY) is a current CRS board member, and was CRS president from 1986-1994.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the ping!

[GodGunsGuts]

==The authors of the paper are not arguing in favor of creationism. Of course, they are not intentionally arguing in favor of creation...but God's creation is forcing them to do just that. Just as it always has, just as it always will. All the best--GGG

[Alter Kaker]

Of course, they are not intentionally arguing in favor of creation...but God's creation is forcing them to do just that. Just as it always has, just as it always will. All the best--GGG

Nonsense. The whole idea of horizontal gene transfer is incompatible with creationism. Arguments that strengthen and expand evolutionary theory do not promote your worldview. Continuous experimentation and observation simply yields better, more robust science.

[BillT]

You will have to explain to me what you mean by “horizontal gene transfers”. This sounds to me like simple micro evolution within a species.

For instance why is a house cat not the same size as a tiger? Both are of the same species.

Life is amazingly adaptive but species remain a species.

[RobbyS]

Darwin worked on the same problems a Mendel, but his own theories led him to come upwith very different conclusions. Neo-Darwinism sought to reconcile the two but at the cost of clarity. It is a bit like Einstein difficulties with quantum theories, but more like the old necessity of abandoning Ptolemy’s cosmology because it got so complicated that it could no longer be useful. IAC, Mendel, not Darwin, deserves the title of of “ Copernicus of biology.”

[GodGunsGuts]

Actually, Creation Scientists have been invoking horizontal gene tranfer as a possible explanation for the created function of endogenous retroviruses for years. You are waaayyy behind the times my FRiend.

[Alter Kaker]

You will have to explain to me what you mean by “horizontal gene transfers”. This sounds to me like simple micro evolution within a species.

HGT is a process whereby one organism obtains genetic information from another organism (same species or different) without being the offspring of it. A common example of this would be a virus inserting its genetic code into a human being, which in some cases can then become part of our genetic code.

For instance why is a house cat not the same size as a tiger? Both are of the same species.

That's not what this article is about, but FYI the domestic cat is Felix catus whereas the tiger is Panthera tigris. They're not only different species, they're also members of different genera and subfamilies of the Felidae family.

Life is amazingly adaptive but species remain a species.

Well you can say that, but you'd be hard pressed to find anyone familiar with evolution who would agree with you.

[count-your-change]

“Practitioners of these methods have no compulsion to jump natural gaps among living or fossil forms,...”

Makes sense they wouldn’t. Darwinists are sure the gaps are filled by something and that the gaps must be filled, if not by fossil finds then by conjecture. Afterall if everything is from a primitive form there must be something in the gaps, if only it can be found.

[Alter Kaker]

Darwin worked on the same problems a Mendel, but his own theories led him to come upwith very different conclusions. Neo-Darwinism sought to reconcile the two but at the cost of clarity.

I think they were looking at very different but overlapping issues. Darwin looked at the big picture and saw what had happened and is happening. Mendel looked at the very small scale and observed what happened. Mendel had no understanding of evolution, even though Mendellian genetics came to explain why and how evolution works.

[GodGunsGuts]

Isn’t it interesting that the more they try to fill the gaps with materialist conjecture, the more God’s creation smacks them down. If ever there was a group of people who never tire of beating their heads against a brick wall, it’s the Temple of Darwinistic Materialism.

[GodGunsGuts]

Did you read the OP? The Evos are now being forced to admit what creation scientists have predicted all along. Namely, the Evos are replacing Darwin’s “tree of life” with a “forest of life.” The same type of thing is happening in the field of cosmology. Many evo-cosmologists are now admitting that we probably do indeed live in a special place in the Universe after all!

[GodGunsGuts]

Don’t forget to read the startling Evo admission contained in the OP above!

[count-your-change]

Interesting indeed. I like the artist’s drawings of feathered dinosaurs, as though being to able imagine a thing is proof that it existed. And then once the conjecture is made the conjecture is built upon as fact.

The “gaps” appear more like the Grand Canyon. How does one leap to the other side one small step at a time?

[Caesar Soze]

I'm wandering into Poe's Law territory here, but ... are you a parodist? Like one of those RationalWiki guys that trolls Conservapedia? Your rhetoric (in the non-Quintillian sense) is growing increasingly colorful, and you are posting increasingly anti-creationist articles as evidence for creationism. Even your allusion to the "God of the Gaps" in this comment reads like a thinly veiled nod-wink to the evil Darwinistic Materialists.

If you are a member of the Temple, Brother, just give me the recognition sign or speak the words of recognition so that I may recognize you.

[GodGunsGuts]

LOL...I will take your comments as evidence that my words and selections are right on target! Thanks for the feedback, FRiend :o)

[Alamo-Girl]

Yes I read the article.

A long time ago, I remarked that the tree of life is actually a lawn because the fossil record is incomplete (not everything that ever lived left a permanent record so that lineage could be established by empirical tests.) You can imagine the response. LOLOL!

Subsequently though one of the best mathematicians ever to post on this forum who sadly is no longer with us came up with a brand new logical fallacy he called quantizing the continuum.

He was posting to one of betty boop's wonderful essay-articles! Her essays and reply posts encourage others to think deeply, to question the foundations of their views.

And naturally the others on that side of the debate quickly agreed including our most beloved physicist.

It was great! They filled our quiver of logical arguments with very amusing arrows. And I for one had a great deal of fun serving it back up to them on subsequent threads.

Essentially, the fallacy concerns the quantization of any continuum - that calling a man rich if he makes $100,000.00 and not calling a man rich if he makes $99,999.99 is a logical fallacy of the quantization (who is rich and who is not.)

According to the theory of evolution, speciation is a quantization of the continuum and therefore, by this new logical fallacy, the theory of evolution is a logical fallacy.

I laughed so hard, I couldn't see.

[Ha Ha Thats Very Logical]

The “gaps” appear more like the Grand Canyon. How does one leap to the other side one small step at a time?

One walks down one side and up the other. The same way an ant would cross the "gap" between two twigs on a bush. Evolution doesn't claim that there are intermediate forms between every end point, just that if you go back far enough you'll find the branching point.