AiG on Genetic Convergence

All are welcome to this forum, which is for debating the teaching of creationism or intelligent design in schools. This forum can be boisterous, and you should not participate if easily offended.

Moderator: Moderators

AiG on Genetic Convergence

Postby Atheoscanadensis » Fri Oct 18, 2013 1:43 pm

Hello folk, here's a link to an AiG article from September in which the author argues that the genetic convergence seen in dolphins and bats is evidence against evolution:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/article ... s-dolphins

Basically they are saying that genetic convergence is too improbable to be produced by unguided forces and must therefor be evidence of a common designer. Now it seems to me that if you have similar genes that do similar things being exposed to similar pressures then genetic convergence is not necessarily unexpected. But they do quote geneticist Todd Castoe as saying that this finding muddies the waters in terms of distinguishing homology from homoplasy and that "we currently have no way to deal with this".

What do you guys think of this article and this issue?
Atheoscanadensis
 
Posts: 44
Joined: Sun Oct 21, 2012 10:00 pm

Re: AiG on Genetic Convergence

Postby Brian Jordan » Fri Oct 18, 2013 3:54 pm

Well, I'd hardly started reading it when I found that it demolishes a popular creationist canard.
Using echolocation, bottlenose dolphins and some (though not all) bats scout their dark or murky surroundings with high-pitched “shouts” that bounce back full of information. That information tells these animals how to avoid obstacles and home in on their dinner.
I thought new information was supposes to require an intelligent input. Yet I doubt even the creationists would claim that that fish are intelligently guiding dolphins towards themselves, or rocks intelligently guiding dolphins around themselves.
Own goal, Dr Mitchell! Thanks for an excellent example to use when refuting the ID Crowd.
"PPSIMMONS is an amorphous mass of stupid" - Rationalwiki
User avatar
Brian Jordan
Forum Admin
 
Posts: 4215
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 4:59 pm

Re: AiG on Genetic Convergence

Postby Brian Jordan » Fri Oct 18, 2013 5:01 pm

I'll leave it to the specialists to debunk it, but here are a few comments to be going on with.
1)
Presumably, the random road of genetic evolution would not tend to travel the same way twice, particularly to produce complex traits in animals of different lineages. More likely, evolutionists have assumed, evolution found its way through different genetic means to achieve the same ends.
Deliberate or incompetent misunderstanding of evolution? She clearly does not understand - or admit? - that evolution requires both mutation and selection. Nor that it is not directed.
2)
However, having compared their genomes with those of other mammals, researchers found that the genetic basis of echolocation in these very different mammals is quite similar. They therefore conclude that the ancestors of bats and dolphins evolved echolocation through the same molecular mechanisms.
So what? They have achieved the same result, after all. Would it be surprising if two groups of explorers independently found, say, the same way to cross the Andes?
3)
Just how those 200 genes relate to echolocation, however, is as yet unclear. Only 17 of the genetic similarities are present in genes known to be associated with hearing—specifically with the development of the spiral-shaped cochlea and vibration-sensing hair cells in the inner ear
That the genes are common to species with echolocation does not mean that they are all involved in echolocation.
4)
However, he adds that the discovery is “bittersweet.” Why? Because evolutionary biologists tracing evolutionary family trees may be misled by large blocks of convergently evolved genetic similarities into mistakenly thinking the divergent animals are actually related through a recent common ancestor. Castoe says,
Says nothing - and it's a mistake creationists are more likely to make than are evolutionary biologists. It smacks of quote-mining, too.
5)
Rossiter’s team writes that this dramatic “mode of molecular evolutionary change is relatively underappreciated, and is under-exploited in seeking to understand the genetic basis of complex traits such as echolocation.”1
She'd no doubt castigate it as poor research if it didn't come up with something new. It says nothing whatever to suggest that convergent evolution is really ID.
6)
Do lots of common genes really imply recent common ancestry, as evolutionists have generally assumed, or could they be the result of convergent evolution?
Utter bullshit. Does having common genes for, say, respiratory biochemistry imply recent common ancestry?
7)
Evolutionary scientists ignore, however, a third alternative: a common Designer. Common designs do not imply that either common evolutionary ancestry or convergent evolutionary development must have been involved. Common designs—whether in grossly visible phenotype or at the level of the genome—are exactly what we would expect from a common Designer. And that common Designer is the Creator God of the Bible.
At which point she not only begins preaching but deals a devastating blow to the IDproponentsists. No chance that the mysterious designer is a little green man, nor even some unknown intelligence. It's God wot dun it.
"PPSIMMONS is an amorphous mass of stupid" - Rationalwiki
User avatar
Brian Jordan
Forum Admin
 
Posts: 4215
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 4:59 pm

Re: AiG on Genetic Convergence

Postby a_haworthroberts » Fri Oct 18, 2013 9:36 pm

Atheoscanadensis wrote:Hello folk, here's a link to an AiG article from September in which the author argues that the genetic convergence seen in dolphins and bats is evidence against evolution:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/article ... s-dolphins

Basically they are saying that genetic convergence is too improbable to be produced by unguided forces and must therefor be evidence of a common designer. Now it seems to me that if you have similar genes that do similar things being exposed to similar pressures then genetic convergence is not necessarily unexpected. But they do quote geneticist Todd Castoe as saying that this finding muddies the waters in terms of distinguishing homology from homoplasy and that "we currently have no way to deal with this".

What do you guys think of this article and this issue?



If evolutionists were fumbling in the dark, they might think that the bats and dolphins have a recent common ancestor when they don't. Evidence for evolution is not solely from genetics - as Mr Darwin knew.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8834
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: AiG on Genetic Convergence

Postby Christine Janis » Tue Nov 05, 2013 12:04 am

Do lots of common genes really imply recent common ancestry, as evolutionists have generally assumed, or could they be the result of convergent evolution?


This is the beauty of using mitochondrial DNA, which is completely distinct from nuclear DNA (and reflects only the evolutionary divergence of the mitochondrias' host), but which shows the same interrelationships as nuclear DNA.

It's also true, of course, that nuclear DNA does not show that bats and dolphins are closely related.
Christine Janis
 
Posts: 98
Joined: Sun Feb 12, 2012 3:25 am


Return to Free For All

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests

cron