Molecular Decay of Enamel-Specific Gene in Toothless Mammals Supports Theory of Evolution

Sep 04, 2009
Extinct baleen whales, such as Aetiocetus weltoni (top; ~25 million years old) possessed teeth with enamel. Living baleen whales (bottom) lack teeth and feed on minute organisms with their brush-like baleen filters. Despite the absence of teeth, modern baleen whales retain copies of tooth-specific genes, such as enamelin, in their genomes; these unnecessary genes, which were inherited from toothed ancestors, show evidence of mutational decay, as predicted by evolutionary theory. Credit: Paintings are by Carl Buell. Copyrighted to John Gatesy and Carl Buell.

(PhysOrg.com) -- Biologists at the University of California, Riverside report new evidence for evolutionary change recorded in both the fossil record and the genomes (or genetic blueprints) of living organisms, providing fresh support for Charles Darwin's theory of evolution.

The researchers were able to correlate the progressive loss of enamel in the fossil record with a simultaneous molecular decay of a gene, called the enamelin gene, that is involved in enamel formation in mammals.

Enamel is the hardest substance in the vertebrate body, and most mammals have teeth capped with it.

Examples exist, however, of mammals without mineralized teeth (e.g., baleen whales, anteaters, pangolins) and of mammals with teeth that lack enamel (e.g., sloths, aardvarks, and pygmy sperm whales). Further, the fossil record documents when enamel was lost in these lineages.

"The fossil record is almost entirely limited to hard tissues such as bones and teeth," said Mark Springer, a professor of biology, who led the study. "Given this limitation, there are very few opportunities to examine the co-evolution of genes in the genome of living organisms and morphological features preserved in the fossil record."

In 2007, Springer, along with Robert Meredith and John Gatesy in the Department of Biology at UC Riverside, initiated a study of enamelless mammals in which the researchers focused on the enamelin gene. They predicted that these species would have copies of the gene that codes for the tooth-specific enamelin protein, but this gene would show evidence of molecular decay in these species.

"Mammals without enamel are descended from ancestral forms that had teeth with enamel," Springer said. "We predicted that enamel-specific genes such as enamelin would show evidence in living organisms of molecular decay because these genes are vestigial and no longer necessary for survival."

Now his lab has found evidence of such molecular "cavities" in the genomes of living organisms. Using modern gene sequencing technology, Meredith discovered mutations in the enamelin gene that disrupt how the enamelin protein is coded, resulting in obliteration of the for the enamelin protein.

Results of the study appear in the Sept. 4 issue of the open-access journal PLoS Genetics.

Darwin argued that all organisms are descended from one or a few organisms and that natural selection drives . The fossil record demonstrates that the first mammals had teeth with enamel. Mammals without enamel therefore must have descended from mammals with enamel-covered teeth.

"We could therefore predict that nonfunctional vestiges of the genes that code for enamel should be found in mammals that lack enamel," Springer said. "When we made our predictions, however, we did not have sequences for the enamelin gene in toothless and enamelless mammals. Since then my lab worked on obtaining these sequences so we could test our prediction."

Previous studies in evolutionary biology have provided only limited evidence linking morphological degeneration in the fossil record to molecular decay in the genome. The study led by Springer takes advantage of the hardness of enamel and teeth to provide more robust evidence for the linkage.

"The molecular counterpart to vestigial organs is pseudogenes that are descended from formerly functional genes," Springer explained. "In our research we clearly see the parallel evolution of enamel loss in the and the molecular decay of the enamelin gene into a pseudogene in representatives of four different orders of mammals that have lost enamel."

Broadly, the research involved the following steps: First, Meredith collected the DNA sequences for the enamelin gene in different mammals. Next, the researchers analyzed sequences using a variety of molecular evolutionary methods, including new approaches developed by Springer's group. Finally, the group used the results of their analyses to test previous hypotheses and generate new ones.

"Currently, we are actively engaged in deciphering the evolutionary history of other that are involved in enamel formation," Springer said.

Source: University of California - Riverside (news : web)

Explore further: Prehistoric conflict hastened human brain's capacity for collaboration, study says

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Genetic discovery could lead to advances in dental treatment

Feb 23, 2009

Researchers have identified the gene that ultimately controls the production of tooth enamel, a significant advance that could some day lead to the repair of damaged enamel, a new concept in cavity prevention, and restoration ...

Researchers Crack the Mystery of Resilient Teeth

Apr 17, 2009

(PhysOrg.com) -- After years of biting and chewing, how are human teeth able to remain intact and functional? A team of researchers from The George Washington University and other international scholars have ...

Ancient mammals shifted diets as climate changed

Jun 03, 2009

A new University of Florida study shows mammals change their dietary niches based on climate-driven environmental changes, contradicting a common assumption that species maintain their niches despite global ...

Teeth: a future renewable natural resource?

Nov 21, 2006

Most vertebrates have continuous tooth generation, meaning that lost teeth are replaced with new teeth. Mammals, however, including humans, have teeth that are generally only replaced once, when milk teeth are replaced with ...

Recommended for you

Genomes of malaria-carrying mosquitoes sequenced

10 hours ago

Nora Besansky, O'Hara Professor of Biological Sciences at the University of Notre Dame and a member of the University's Eck Institute for Global Health, has led an international team of scientists in sequencing ...

Bitter food but good medicine from cucumber genetics

10 hours ago

High-tech genomics and traditional Chinese medicine come together as researchers identify the genes responsible for the intense bitter taste of wild cucumbers. Taming this bitterness made cucumber, pumpkin ...

New button mushroom varieties need better protection

15 hours ago

A working group has recently been formed to work on a better protection of button mushroom varieties. It's activities are firstly directed to generate consensus among the spawn/breeding companies to consider ...

User comments : 42

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Birthmark
3.4 / 5 (5) Sep 04, 2009
The evidence keeps piling on. I want to know why so many people disbelieve (apart from religion), I'd like to hear their logic.
xpst
2.4 / 5 (10) Sep 04, 2009
Birthmark: Evolution is just a behavioral model that is useful for prediction/control. The findings presented above make evolutionary models more useful, not more true. It has no necessary bearing on truth.

The universe could have been created 5 min ago, with just the right attributes to make it look as it does now. Your brain could now be connected to a supercomputer that is feeding you synthesized perceptions. These possibilities mean that perception-derived models are limited to being useful, as a value judgment.

In summary: The evidence that 'piles on' makes evolution more useful, but does not necessarily constitute convergence (asymptotic or otherwise) to truth.

To be fair, alternative models do not appear to be nearly as useful for prediction/control as evolution.
210
1.6 / 5 (7) Sep 04, 2009
"To be fair, alternative models do not appear to be nearly as useful for prediction/control as evolution."

I must concur and wholeheartedly agree!!!

Evolution IS the suitcase and the carriage, the mode of being and becoming, of rising up and going and the activities thereof. IT is NOT the 'beginner/creator/reason for being, neither is it providing itself or anything within the sphere of its growing change a reason or a blueprint for WHY it is doing what it is doing (we merely plug in our reasons and say it is so and with sufficient weight of mass notion, that becomes 'truth')

Man is polluting and has polluted the environment.

ADAPTIVE EVOLUTION will bring consequences to all living things as the result of the actions of a powerful component of that adaptive process that is polluting.
But evolution is reactionary not tertiary or even fundamental/all powerful.

(A person chokes on a chicken bone and dies at seven years old - dead end evolutionary pathway? The parents remove DNA and clone child in Brazilian lab, child makes antimatter drive possible, this is subverted, antimatter weapons destroy the world. Point? Our actions checkmate individual development or can end all discussion of evolution entirely. Ergo, evolution of thought and moral humanity is REALLY the big show on earth. Not the cave people or ancient big bang theory, nope! What we do matters most!!)
WHAT made evolution (Give me empirical. COLD, HARD, FACT!!!)
What is evolution's guidance on where it will take man in a billion years (Prove it now!)
One says Evolution another says God.
In any case, in supreme likelihood, we will see both - IN TIME.
Only ONE of these powerful images - GOD or Evolution - promises to be controlled by the actions of another, by humans, ultimately yielding its place in life as we knew it.
Can we humans guess which one and act wisely?
I am listening...
Fig
3.5 / 5 (4) Sep 04, 2009
Question - How does a gene know that it's vestigial and how does the cell which genes "vestigial and no longer necessary for survival". The cell (organism) then selectively allows the particular vestigial gene to decay. So how does it know?

Sound a bit like lamarckism to me. And evolutionist have abandoned that theory.
nkalanaga
5 / 5 (2) Sep 04, 2009
No, the cell doesn't "allow" the gene to decay. If the gene was essential, and decayed, the organism would be less fit, and wouldn't survive. The gene decays because it's no longer being used.
teledyn
3 / 5 (4) Sep 04, 2009
waitasec, did you say THEORY of evolution? I thought it was a FACT, an undeniably PROVEN thing that no one was to ever question. Now PhysOrg calls it the "Theory of Evolution" and offers evidence that only "supports" the theory?

All this is unusually, well, rather REASONABLE and SCIENTIFIC, if you don't mind me saying, which is highly unusual for the Science Media who usually just stomp up and down proclaiming their theories as Not-A-Theory-Damnit factual proofs.

Is this going to be a new trend? This 'scientific thinking' I mean.
teledyn
1 / 5 (1) Sep 04, 2009
"To be fair, alternative models do not appear to be nearly as useful for prediction/control as evolution."

and I say amen, brother xpst!

and I realize this is maybe not the forum, and I truly don't mean to troll, but could someone just post a few really surprising non-intuitive predictions of evolution that have NOT been post-hoc, and perhaps a case of an applied control predicted and subsequently implemented out of the theory of Evolution? There must be some, so much stuff is published every day and everyone always proclaims about there being such mounds of evidence, its just that little of it is capturing popular attention, so perhaps a forum like this might correct that.

For one example, while Mitrochrondial DNA mapping of human migration is post-hoc fit of observations back onto theory, and awkardly we have no way of independently confirming their findings (tho that recent study which moves out-of-africa 20,000 years later does now find better corroberative evidence in archaeology, tho that didn't stop its proponents at NatGeographic from proclaiming it all as 'truth' last year ;) it nonetheless has a hypothesis about evolving DNA over time that, while it DIDN'T fit the facts last year (and still made news) it DOES fit "better" this year and so we're no worse off then when Einstein wrongly predicted the abberation of Mercury and then the expedition wrongly measured that exact same wrong prediction, but nonetheless later more careful work WAS able to confirm Einstein's principle (and find his and Eddington's(?) complimentary mistakes)
MrFred
2.3 / 5 (6) Sep 05, 2009
"We predicted that enamel-specific genes such as enamelin would show evidence in living organisms of molecular decay because these genes are vestigial and no longer necessary for survival."

This entire case is based upon a loss of genetic information. And this proves evolution how?!? You can always lose something you already have. I know! Maybe this proves that we were all super complex beings in the beginning and we are all slowly de-evolving into primordial soup. Hey, I've heard this before... its called entropy, and it IS proven to exist!!!

Show me where new genetic information was created...um, I mean randomly came into existence. Give me just one documented example of new genetic information...anybody? hello?
jsa09
3 / 5 (4) Sep 05, 2009
mrFred - Are you serious? Where have you been for the last hundred years?
zilqarneyn
1.7 / 5 (6) Sep 05, 2009
@ PhysOrg news
Springer said. "We predicted that enamel-specific genes such as enamelin would show evidence in living organisms of molecular decay because these genes are vestigial and no longer necessary for survival."

This news' logic assumes something as if "first, teeth were lost, then, gene went decaying." That might be the vice versa, too. That is, first, the gene would change, to the point of not coding that enamel to form.

The question of vestigiality is altogether gross. All of what they had told "useless" in humans, turned out to be essential. Now, perhaps knocking out that "enamel-gene" entirely, would test the case of those mammals. (But, perhaps, the gene's side effects has special worth, in specific situations. Thus, necessary to watch a long time, before listing as "junk gene.") And even in case that would seem to be truly "junk" this time (finally, some true case), even then, that would again not tell against the Creator, because He is presumably keeping the module there, in the secies genome, for future. I think, the species' genomes keep constant, while subspecies adapt.
[url][url]http://imame.org/4/gf[/url][/url]




@MrFred
This entire case is based upon a loss of genetic information. And this proves evolution how?!? You can always lose something you already have.

Right. That is not any support for macro-evolution. But evolutionists commit that fallacy, all the time. That is how they start to apperceive genetics as if "evolutionist," in the first place.
http://i-slam.inf...nsky.htm
[url][url]http://imame.org/4/gf[/url][/url]




@ PhysOrg news
Springer explained. "In our research we clearly see the parallel evolution of enamel loss in the fossil record and the molecular decay of the enamelin gene into a pseudogene in representatives of four different orders of mammals that have lost enamel."

There they go again. Templategod was mutating four different orders of mammals to lose enamel, in parallel. And they call that a godless "evolution?" When there is parallel-evolution (to build up something), there you would need the templategod, having His policy toward that result.




@xpst
In summary: The evidence that 'piles on' makes evolution more useful, but does not necessarily constitute convergence (asymptotic or otherwise) to truth.

To be fair, alternative models do not appear to be nearly as useful for prediction/control as evolution.

No alternative is more illogical than (spontaneous-continuous-macro-)evolutionism. Even people believing in myths such as four cows carrying the world, might make sense logically, in the story sense, even if not fitting the data. But para-evo (parallel and/or convergent evolutionism) is illogical, entirely. The piling data, is piling to contradict evolutionism. There is no strict "evolutionary-tree (common root of somethings)," but some mythical "environment" which acts as a templategod to make things into same shapes (such as dolphins and sharks look the same, etc, etc).

Genetics is the scientific study. Evolutionists try to hijack that.
http://imame.org/...tion.htm
[url][url]http://imame.org/4/gf[/url][/url]
gwrede
3.4 / 5 (5) Sep 05, 2009
Luckily the US is the only nation where one even needs to discuss the validity of evolution. The rest of the world simply yawns at such discussions.

Unbelievable that this same nation put man on the moon. Hmmm. Maybe it was just Nevada, after all.
jto
4 / 5 (1) Sep 05, 2009
There's a clear explanation of the significance of fossil genes (like the baleen whales' enamelin gene) in Sean Carroll's book "The Making of the Fittest". The book is a pleasure to read.

The hypothesis supported by the reported study is that, to the extent that enamel is unnecessary for survival, spontaneous random mutations in the enamelin gene aren't eliminated, and gradually accumulate.
smiffy
not rated yet Sep 05, 2009
Show me where new genetic information was created...um, I mean randomly came into existence. Give me just one documented example of new genetic information...anybody? hello?
You might be interested to read this
http://www.newsci...unk.html
jto
5 / 5 (2) Sep 05, 2009
To smiffy, in response to a request for a documented example of new random production of genetic information:

I paraphrase from the book "The Making of the Fittest" by Sean Carroll.

Most mammals, and new world primates, have a single gene which produces the MWS/LWS opsin, a visual protein (MWS/LWS stands for medium wavelength sensitive/long wavelength sensitive).

Humans and other old world primates have 2 adjacent, and very similar opsin genes. One produces MWS, the other LWS opsin. Their contiguity and their similarity indicate that they arose by duplication of an MWS/LWS opsin in an ancestral primate. Random duplication is a common type of change in genomes. Often it is detrimental to survival and is thus eliminated from the genome, but there are many gene families resulting from such duplication, and subsequent development of useful new or modified function of the gene product of the duplicate gene.

The presence of the two opsins, optimally sensitive at different wavelengths enables trichromatic vision in humans and other old world primates. This has been shown in field studies of new and old world primates to aid in selection of the fruits and vegetables they eat.
It appears that the mutation arose in the old world primates after the geographic separation of the 2 groups.

Thus there is quite good evidence for new genetic information that randomly came into existence.

I hope this is helpful. It's really a great book!

jto
Ethelred
5 / 5 (5) Sep 06, 2009
: Evolution is just a behavioral model that is useful for prediction/control.


No. Its an observable process. Also a process that is predictable from first principles and one simple fact. Mutations happen and natural selection occurs.

The universe could have been created 5 min ago, with just the right attributes to make it look as it does now.


And the fact the god spelled backwards is dog could have deep significance. Most likely neither are even close to true. However your idea leads to nothing. Its just another Giant Orbiting Aardvark.

These possibilities mean that perception-derived models are limited to being useful, as a value judgment.


And ignoring them is totally useless so whats your point? Value judment is for politics by the way so whats it in your post?

In summary: The evidence that 'piles on' makes evolution more useful, but does not necessarily constitute convergence (asymptotic or otherwise) to truth.


Looks like you have something against evidence. And that is the real truth.

To be fair, alternative models do not appear to be nearly as useful for prediction/control as evolution.


To be REALLY fair there is no alternative model that isn't based on religion.

Ethelred
Ethelred
5 / 5 (5) Sep 06, 2009
WHAT made evolution (Give me empirical. COLD, HARD, FACT!!!)

What made your god? Give me evidence NOW.

However your statement shows ignorance of what evolution is. Its a process and therefor it doesn't have a maker. Mutation has be shown to occur time and again in test after test. Mutation combined with natural selection makes the process of evolution inevitable.
What is evolution's guidance on where it will take man in a billion years (Prove it now!)

What is your god doing PROVITNOW?

Evolution has no guidance. Why do you think it has such? Wherever did you get that idea from?
One says Evolution another says God.

One is inherent in biology the other is a claim made by ignorant men.
I am listening...

You seem to ranting. Try REALLY listening or better yet reading.

A good starting place for reading about real evolution as opposed to nonsense you seem to have been exposed to.
http://pandasthumb.org/

One more question. Are you just one more hit and run Creationist or are you going to try to converse here? Are you going to listen?

Ethelred
Ethelred
5 / 5 (5) Sep 06, 2009
That is, first, the gene would change, to the point of not coding that enamel to form.

True, but that would only be survivable if the enamel was no longer needed.
The question of vestigiality is altogether gross. All of what they had told "useless" in humans, turned out to be essential.

This is not true. We have hordes of genes in our DNA that have been turned off. Those genes do NOT function, yet they are still in the DNA. That is as vestigial as it gets.

Vestigial does not mean not needed. It means not useful for its original purpose. Wings on flightless birds for instance. They are now used for balance. Useful but far less useful than arms.
And even in case that would seem to be truly "junk" this time (finally, some true case), even then, that would again not tell against the Creator, because He is presumably keeping the module there, in the secies genome, for future.

Not needed by your standards as an all powerful Creator could simply add it back in when needed.
Right. That is not any support for macro-evolution. But evolutionists commit that fallacy, all the time.

It's not a fallacy. It is support for evolutionary theory and macro vs micro is nonsense as micro over time becomes macro.
When there is parallel-evolution (to build up something), there you would need the templategod, having His policy toward that result.,

You are the one that requires a god. Evolution is a process that does not need a god. There is no template. You just made it up.
There is the environment and that is where the selection comes from. Similar environments will select similar results. There is no policy. There is survival and failure to reproduce. That is all that is needed for selection to occur.
No alternative is more illogical than (spontaneous-continuous-macro-)evolutionism.

True but only IF you understand that no alternative HAS ANY LOGIC AT ALL. Its just religion.
There is no strict "evolutionary-tree (common root of somethings)," but some mythical "environment" which acts as a templategod to make things into same shapes (such as dolphins and sharks look the same, etc, etc).

The environment is mythical? You believe in the Matrix? You think you are living in a simulated environment?

This is bizarre even by your standards.

Ethelred
malapropism
not rated yet Sep 06, 2009
... I realize this is maybe not the forum... but could someone just post a few really surprising non-intuitive predictions of evolution that have NOT been post-hoc, and perhaps a case of an applied control predicted and subsequently implemented out of the theory of Evolution? There must be some, so much stuff is published every day and everyone always proclaims about there being such mounds of evidence...

I think I understand what you are proposing here - that it would be quite helpful to have scientific predictions based on theory posted in advance of the research that investigates any particular prediction so that everyone could see for themselves that the method makes sense. (Please correct me if I'm wrong here.)

Personally, I agree that this would indeed be good however I think that the competitive nature of scientific research these days would preclude that from happening. This is simply because as soon as a researcher posted their prediction(s) they'd have half-a-dozen other researchers looking at the same thing and killing the poster's chances of getting funding for the research.

This is similar to why you sometimes see, for example, letters to Journals that are written in a way that really does obfuscate any research methods, results or outcomes - the letter is only there to establish priority in case another researcher pips them at the post in publishing similar results. "Publish or perish", and the implications thereof, is an extremely important concept to understand in today's research climate.

I'd suggest though, that the evidence of a priori prediction should exist (in dated and verifiable documentation) in the form of the funding proposal for the research. (Very little research these days will go ahead without some sort of proposal, even if it's only just an in-department document/memo to the HoD to cover off, "here's what I'm doing for my salary over the next n months.")

Of course, whether such a date-stamped document containing predictions would ever be made public or not is another matter altogether....
malapropism
not rated yet Sep 06, 2009
This entire case is based upon a loss of genetic information. And this proves evolution how?!?

No, this is quite incorrect; there is no loss of genetic information involved at all, there is only loss of expression of the gene in question - you need to re-read the article. What it clearly states (several times) is that the enamelin gene remains in existence in the genomes of the animals studied but that the gene has been rendered non-functional by accumulation of mutations. (The phraseology used by the researcher is, "nonfunctional vestiges of the genes", and "pseudogenes".)

The reason that the mutations in the gene were allowed to build up to the point where the gene became non-expressive (basically it is now useless) is that the gene is no longer necessary to the survival of the animal. The reason it is not necessary for survival is that these animals no longer have enameled teeth, as exhibited in the fossil record, which enabled the researchers to make their prediction regarding the gene.

In fact, to go back to the point you attempting to make, no only is there no loss of genetic information in this example but it could be argued that there has been a gain in genetic information by accumulation of mutations. Albeit that these mutations render the gene inoperative for its original purpose, it nevertheless still exists in the animals and because it is mutated it could conceivably now or in the future serve some other purpose.
zilqarneyn
1 / 5 (4) Sep 09, 2009
smiffy & jto (both, Sept. 05, 2009),
The examples you link/quote, do not witness any process. You are looking at that with evolutionist eyeglasses. People create software, by "evolving" the software (creatively). The software would not evolve by itself, from Win95 to become WinXP. Likewise, the species have gaps, rather than having infinitely-continuity between species. That fits the software-publishing metaphor, too.




@Ethelred - Sep 06, 2009 (1)
Evolution is just a behavioral model that is useful for prediction/control.

No. Its an observable process.

Macro-evolution is not observable, but contradictory. Para-evo (parallel/convergent "evolutionist") phenomena pile up. This PysOrg news is listing yet another.


((Rating: Ethelred dumps his/her/its baseless evolutionist slogans. That goes on. If this post will be like http://www.physor...744.html , we might have lots of waste of time, in this list, too. From the start, let me state that, I might trackback the commentary upto one month from now, perhaps at weekly intervals. That will suffice to inform the rest of you, how to talk against a chatbot, or so. I might think automating, or semi-automating the responses, too, while responding to Ethelred. Routine, chatbot talk, mutually, then. ))


And the fact the god spelled backwards is dog could have deep significance.

Reverting? The inequality how I acknowledge, is
theGod > human > dog
((Rating: If Ethelred is willing to revert that inequality for Ethelred, then, himself/herself/itself would count lesser than any dog -- while he/she/it would argue himself/herself/itself as more substantial than theGod.))




@Ethelred - Sep 06, 2009 (2),
What made your god? Give me evidence NOW.

If you find godless macro-evolution to be possible in theory (although that is not valid by data in practice), then you have to accept that the God is infinitely more likely to exist. ((Rating: Ethelred has that double-standard of subscribing to "godless" macro-evolutionism while denying that the Creator might have evolved by Himself, in "infinite" time, without a "god" before Himself.))
http://www.imame....rial.htm

A good starting place for reading about real evolution as opposed to nonsense you seem to have been exposed to.
http://pandasthumb.org/

Even the name of that, is nonesense. That is taking a "vestigiality" hoax, as its name. People, long ago foundout that Panda's thumb is appropriate for a Panda. You cannot continue that lore, unless you only want to keep that as a hoax.




@Ethelred - Sep 06, 2009 (3),
That is, first, the gene would change, to the point of not coding that enamel to form.

True, but that would only be survivable if the enamel was no longer needed.

That is neutral. If enamel is necessary for survival, nothing without enamel would survive. They probably had alternative food sources, or the Creator created those food sources, while creating species/subspecies without enamel.
((Rating: Yet another not-worth-to-respond comment of Ethelred.))

The question of vestigiality is altogether gross. All of what they had told "useless" in humans, turned out to be essential.

This is not true. We have hordes of genes in our DNA that have been turned off. Those genes do NOT function, yet they are still in the DNA. That is as vestigial as it gets.

Turning off the gene, is nothing. I keep telling that.
[url]http://www.imame.org/4/gf[/url]
Besides, people find new value in that, such as microRNAs, which you would previously think as "junk."

Vestigial does not mean not needed. It means not useful for its original purpose.

That is not true. Vestigial certainly was meant in that sense of NOT NEEDED. Then, when all of the things turned out to be useful, evolutionists turned to their agnosticism. Now, they beg the question. How do they suggest that the different is vestigial? Why are there no "useless organs" (how evolutionists told at first)? If survivable with, they would have equal chance of remaining (by randomness). ((Rating: People know all this. Ethelred is told, too. Repetitively forgetting?))

The list they now list as "vestigial" is a joke. Re-tweeting what I ( http://www.twitte...lqarneyn ) wrote on July 18, 2009:
" Almost all agree that VanGogh was WRONG in cutting his ear. So, was he evolutionist? Unable to move his ear like monkeys, was it worthless? "

The joke is, wikipedia lists that as "vestigial." If Allah (Yahweh), the Creator, chose us not to have that "monkey ears" funniness, that is welcome. ((Rating: But, Ethelred might wish a pair for himself/herself/itself if human. If bot, ask your designer to create some .gif with animated monkey-ears.))



And even in case that would seem to be truly "junk" this time (finally, some true case), even then, that would again not tell against the Creator, because He is presumably keeping the module there, in the secies genome, for future.

Not needed by your standards as an all powerful Creator could simply add it back in when needed.

Add the concept of a "subspecies" into your knowledge-base.
[url]http://www.imame.org/4/gf[/url]

The species genome is (most likely) constant, while subspecies are shiftable-to, like setting a switch. We do that all the time, with the software we use. In WinXP, I turn off lots of services which Microsoft had put there. I might turn those on, in contexts, if those services would be useful for me.
((Rating: I have told this same thing, or equivalent, countless times. Ethelred keeps neglecting what you tell. A bot that processes only isolated sentences (or, half of a sentence)?))


Micro-"evolution" (mock-evolution) happens in short time (to adapt, within capabilities of a species). Macro-evolution never happens.
((Rating: Ethelred keeps neglecting the evolutionist fallacies.))

If without a template, how would the same shapes surface, "in parallel?" What sort of "environment" is enforcing a few shapes all around the world? No continuity. But similarity. That "result" is reflecting a template. The creative taste of the Creator.
((Rating: It was not worth to tell that again to Ethelred, but I myself start to respond, in routine, it seems, when talking against Ethelred. I should code the bot to respond to Ethelred. Perhaps, they would talk back and forth, eternally.))

There is no strict "evolutionary-tree (common root of somethings)," but some mythical "environment" which acts as a templategod to make things into same shapes (such as dolphins and sharks look the same, etc, etc).

The environment is mythical? You believe in the Matrix? You think you are living in a simulated environment?

The "environment" if taken to justify the para-evo (parallel/convergent evolutionism) illogical hoaxes, that is a mythical concept of "environment." You rename the templategod as "environment." What para-evo supporters assume expectable from environment, in creating new species, is nothing less than what a creationist expects from Allah (Yahweh).

I'm a (sunni) muslim, and neither totally materialist nor the other extreme.
http://www.I-slam...body.htm




malapropism (Sept. 6, 2009),
What is the definition of "macro-evolutionist" experiment? Genes going beyond their flexibility of subspecies-formation?

I think "mutations" as only micro-instincts (without free-will, but built-in patterns). Just how monkeys are taught to talk with sign language (through conditioning), people might guide mutations, too. That is, mock-evolution (micro-"evolution"). Not evolutionist.
http://www.imame....tion.htm

No macro-evolutionary experiment. Furthermore, with para-evo data piling, there is no way to support macro-evolutionism as the "cause of (all or any) species."

In fact, to go back to the point you attempting to make, no only is there no loss of genetic information in this example but it could be argued that there has been a gain in genetic information by accumulation of mutations. Albeit that these mutations render the gene inoperative for its original purpose, it nevertheless still exists in the animals and because it is mutated it could conceivably now or in the future serve some other purpose.

If the gene expression is making no sense of that, that is not a gain of information. Furthermore, even when that might strike back (when that species is adapting to some other environment), that again will not be some "gain" in view of the genome's flexibilities, but the gene pool of that species would be representing that gene's status as "on," more frequently.




P.S: Getting off for a week or more.
Ethelred
3 / 5 (2) Sep 09, 2009
Someone at physorg wants shorter posts, very short. So this will be broken up.

Sorry this is so long but so was the post I am replying to. If you don't want to read it then don't read it. It won't acomplish anything anyway. Zilqarneyn practicly defines the term Active Ignorance but I won't let this bilge go unnopposed.

You are looking at that with evolutionist eyeglasses.


Which means with logic and science as opposed to looking at everything through a book written long ago by an ignorant man that spread his relgion by violence. Who married a twelve year old girl. And was good at poetry which seems to be your reason for ignoring the rest.

Kind of like Jerry Lee Lewis only with religion and more violence.

And no piano.

The software would not evolve by itself, from Win95 to become WinXP.


Wrongo. Self modifying software exists. Some speficaly to show evolution in action.

Continued
Ethelred
3 / 5 (2) Sep 09, 2009
http://en.wikiped...gramming

http://en.wikiped...ulation)

http://en.wikiped...ki/Avida

http://avida.devo...ckground

Likewise, the species have gaps, rather than having infinitely-continuity between species. That fits the software-publishing metaphor, too.


A pretty ridiculous metaphor but when all you have is a hammer every problem tend to look like a nail.

Macro-evolution is not observable, but contradictory.


The claim that is contradictory is just that, a bare faced unsupportable claim. The fossil evidence is observable and backs up macro-evolution.

Para-evo (parallel/convergent "evolutionist") phenomena pile up.


Yes they do. Which is evidence for evolution. Its predicted by Darwin and many others.

(Rating: Ethelred dumps his/her/its baseless evolutionist slogans.


Back to that rating rant again I see. No evidence to support you so you rant.

Continued
Ethelred
3 / 5 (2) Sep 09, 2009
we might have lots of waste of time, in this list, too.

So quit wasting time on disproven nonsense to back your religious beliefs.

Chatbot? Talking about yourself? You are not making sense, as usual.
Rating: If Ethelred is willing to revert that inequality for Ethelred, then, himself/herself/itself would count lesser than any dog -

Rating - Flames from an ingnoramous get the all the respect they deserve.

Your a pig ignorant flamer incapable of much beyond ad homonym attacks.

Tit for tat. Every time Flamer.
while he/she/it would argue himself/herself/itself as more substantial than theGod.)

Which god? I made no such claim so quit calling me a dog and quit putting words in my mouth.
If you find godless macro-evolution to be possible in theory (although that is not valid by data in practice), then you have to accept that the God is infinitely more likely to exist. (


Continued
Ethelred
3 / 5 (2) Sep 09, 2009
First off Flamer, I modeled that on the person I was replying to so if you don't like it take it up with him.

Second, a god only adds a layer of complexity to things. So I am under no obligation to lie and claim otherwise.

((Rating: Ethelred has that double-standard of subscribing to "godless" macro-evolutionism while denying that the Creator might have evolved by Himself, in "infinite" time, without a "god" before Himself.


Not a double standard. You are ADDING complexity which is not needed. Not only that I don't deny the possibility, though I see no need for it, it is the Christians that deny that Jehovah can change. Take it up with them. With me you must show that a god explains things that without adding more complexity.

Continued - This feels like Youtube The site for ignorance.
Ethelred
3 / 5 (2) Sep 09, 2009
However this discussion was about EVOLUTION not biogenesis nor your personal, religion based, problems with me. Evolution comes AFTER biogenesis and is not dependent on it. Even if a god was responsible for the initiation of life evolution is still something that is inherent in the way life functions.
Even the name of that, is nonesense.

Well that remark is nonsense anyway.
That is taking a "vestigiality" hoax, as its name.

What hoax? Its a substitute thumb and not at all vestigial. Pandas do not have opposible thumbs but they do have a spur on their wrist that functions as a thumb well enough for pandas to grasp bamboo.
People, long ago foundout that Panda's thumb is appropriate for a Panda

Yes BIOLOGISTS did that. That is why it is evidence for evolution. If pandas had been designed by a god, at least a remotely competent one, they would have real opposible thumb.

So go learn something Flamer.

Tit for tat.

Continued on crippledPhysorg
Ethelred
3 / 5 (2) Sep 09, 2009
You cannot continue that lore, unless you only want to keep that as a hoax.

Your lore not mine. I never said anything about pandas having a vestigial thumb. Your ignorance about evolution is clear from this.
That is neutral. If enamel is necessary for survival, nothing without enamel would survive.

Go read it again. That remark was about no longer expressed genes that have mutations that would have damaged the enamel. Such mutations would have been counter survival in animals that still needed the enamel.

And by way why did Allah/Jehovah leave the genes there if that is what you think happened? As I pointed out already a perfect god could add them back in later if it should be needed.
They probably had alternative food sources, or the Creator created those food sources, while creating species/subspecies without enamel.


Continued on screwedoverphysicsorg
Ethelred
3 / 5 (2) Sep 09, 2009
Got any evidence for that? What most likely REALLY happened was the animals where on a fish diet and no longer needed hard teeth. So when a mutation arose that blocked the expression of the enamel gene it had no effect on the survival of the animals EXCEPT that they no longer needed to waste resources on enamel.
((Rating: Yet another not-worth-to-respond comment of Ethelred.))

Rating - Yet another silly remark from you.
Turning off the gene, is nothing. I keep telling that.

It is something. It is something that makes sense with evolution and not a wit of sense when you claim a perfect designer as you do.
Besides, people find new value in that, such as microRNAs, which you would previously think as "junk."

Then again I pointed it out long ago that the mRNA is just RNA and Ribosomes clearly have RNA in them and that must be coded for in the DNA. I wrote about that on Apolyton.com in 2002 BEFORE any biologist did, at least that I am aware of.

Continued on CENSOREDorg
Ethelred
3 / 5 (2) Sep 09, 2009
So again quit putting words in my mouth.
That is not true. Vestigial certainly was meant in that sense of NOT NEEDED.

It was true when I wrote it the first time and is still true.
Then, when all of the things turned out to be useful, evolutionists turned to their agnosticism.

Agnosticism has nothing to do with it. However NOT all things have turned out to be useful. That enamal genes in the article for instance. They have NO USE as they are no longer expressed.
Why are there no "useless organs" (how evolutionists told at first)?

Eyes on fish in black caverns are useful? Is that why the fish lose their eyes because they are useful? Only SOME of the fish have lost their eyes. So in those fish that still have them the eyes are vestigial.
If survivable with, they would have equal chance of remaining (by randomness).


Continued by a stubborn writer on IfPigsHadWingsPhysorg
Ethelred
3 / 5 (2) Sep 09, 2009
Wrong. Random mutations accumulate in genes that don't decrease survivability. That is what the article was about. If the genes were expressed AND needed then any mutations that led to their loss would remove the individual with those mutations from the gene pool.
Rating: People know all this. Ethelred is told, too. Repetitively forgetting?

Rating - Ignoramuses know a lot falsehoods like that. Actively ignorant?
" Almost all agree that VanGogh was WRONG in cutting his ear. So, was he evolutionist? Unable to move his ear like monkeys, was it worthless? "

Rating- Amazingly stupid and irrelevant. Are you aware that Van Gough had NO CHILDREN and thus has been selected out of the gene pool. Get an education.

That was the dumbest set of TWITering I have seen yet.
Rating: But, Ethelred might wish a pair for himself/herself/itself if human. If bot, ask your designer to create some .gif with animated monkey-ears.


And that is your dumbest remark here.

Continued on Oops
Ethelred
3 / 5 (2) Sep 09, 2009
Add the concept of a "subspecies" into your knowledge-base.

Ad the concept of DESIGNER that is remotely competent to your data-base. If you want to claim that Allah is incompetent as a designer that is YOUR problem. Try to avoid posting that to Islamic websites, even yours, or you might be subject to Fatwa.

Of course since you STILL can't post a link to your own website that shows you:

Never learn anything.

Don't have a clue as to what constitutes design.

Here is the link that YOU cannot post but I can.

http://www.imame....-frz.htm

I have done this for you many times now and you STILL can't learn. Active ignorance should have narrower limits.

* internally-settable (then, revokable)
* internally not available. Might only patch externally, or publish new software.

Yes you linked, just as badly, to that before. It has nothing in it yet that makes it make sense when you claim a competent designer.

Continued on annoyingphysorg
Ethelred
3 / 5 (2) Sep 09, 2009
You do claim that Jehovah/Allah is competent don't you?
We do that all the time, with the software we use. In WinXP, I turn off lots of services which Microsoft had put there.

Yes that would go with your not being to make a link that works after many tries. Learn how to program and how to post a link then you might look competent.
Rating: I have told this same thing, or equivalent, countless times. Ethelred keeps neglecting what you tell. A bot that processes only isolated sentences (or, half of a sentence

I can count it but it isn't worth the effort. Its about three or four times, can't you count that high? Yes you did try to pass of that nonsense before.

How many time before you notice that you are claiming your god is incompetent?
Micro-"evolution" (mock-evolution) happens in short time (to adapt, within capabilities of a species). Macro-evolution never happens.

Saying it doesn't make it so. The fossils disagree with you. So does this long term lab test.

Con
Ethelred
3 / 5 (2) Sep 09, 2009
tinued

https://www.msu.e...cle.html
If without a template, how would the same shapes surface, "in parallel?"

Similar environments. If you want to pretend that constitutes a template be my guest but it will obscure the reality of the environment. Speaking of things oft told why do you still rant on about templates when you have been told many times, not countless but many, that its the environment.
What sort of "environment" is enforcing a few shapes all around the world?

Any sort of SIMILAR environment. Get an education about jungles and deserts and their similarities. Its not up to me to cure your ignorance on all this.
The creative taste of the Creator.

Such taste. Parasites and mosquitoes, small pox and bubonic plague, bad backs and poor eyesight. Go ahead and blame your god for that. I can see evolution explaining it without a god.

Continued on RantingAtPhysorg for behaving like Youtube
jsa09
5 / 5 (1) Sep 09, 2009
ethelred when I was young and foolish, I used to argue with people like zilqarneyn using logic and sensible argument points by point when given time.

Now that I have aged and can see the pointlessness of trying to shin a light into an empty box I just haven't got the patience any more.

It was fun once too, but now I just see someone that is trying to suck the life out of other people. ID proponents do not follow the idea because it seems sensible to them, they follow the idea because if agrees with their faith. There is no thought process involved, except the thought process of deceiving other people.

To try and argue logically and sensibly with such people is like trying to put out a fire in a three store building by pissing on it. It is just not going to do any good. Logic and sense play no part in the argument at all, the goal of such people is to twist and deceive until you appear to agree with them. Even if that agreement is just that you agree that they have a right to exists.
Ethelred
3 / 5 (2) Sep 09, 2009
Rating: It was not worth to tell that again to Ethelred, but I myself start to respond, in routine, it seems, when talking against Ethelred.(Rating: It was not worth to tell that again to Ethelred, but I myself start to respond, in routine, it seems, when talking against Ethelred.

Perhaps when you start learning and stop repeating the same mistakes you will figure out that I am right. If nothing else you could learn how to post a link.
The "environment" if taken to justify the para-evo (parallel/convergent evolutionism) illogical hoaxes, that is a mythical concept of "environment."

Uou still think the environment is mythical. Thank you for making your ignorance so very clear.
You rename the templategod as "environment."

No. You just lie a lot. There is no god needed just an environment. It is not my fault that you can't understand ANYTHING without thinking a god is involved.

How about you consult the 'link god' for information on how to post a link?

Continued
Ethelred
Sep 09, 2009
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Ethelred
3 / 5 (2) Sep 09, 2009
ethelred when I was young and foolish, I used to argue with people like zilqarneyn using logic and sensible argument points by point when given time.

What gives you the idea I am arguing with HIM. I am simply opposing his ignorance.

Bets on who is older? I am 58.
I just haven't got the patience any more.

The key is to consider it entertainment and education.
ID proponents do not follow the idea because it seems sensible to them, they follow the idea because if agrees with their faith. There is no thought process involved, except the thought process of deceiving other people.


I think Dr. Behe has deceived himself.
Even if that agreement is just that you agree that they have a right to exists.

Which is unlike zilqarneyn who thinks it OK to murder ex Muslims. For the capital crime of being ex-Muslims.

He calls tolerance not calling for the murder of ALL non-Muslims. Just the ex ones.

Ethelred

End crippled posts Tell Physorg what you think.
malapropism
5 / 5 (1) Sep 09, 2009
@ zilqarneyn:
I was undecided initially whether to respond to your post, for several reasons:

Firstly, I read through your post several times, trying to take my time and be careful and thinking about what you had written but I regret that I still cannot fathom some of your meaning. Without wishing to be too obnoxious about it, I don't think that this is due to a lack of intelligence or potential to understand by me.

Secondly, you are ranting and flaming. It seems clear that you have no intention of, or perhaps ability to, make reasoned, logical arguments that support your case.

Thirdly, at first I felt that I really couldn't be bothered but then again, someone more sensible may read this and decide to think rationally on their conceptualisation of the universe. Also, I thought it possibly useful to show some solidarity with Ethelred, given the apparent similarity of our opinions and his/her decision to reply. (Wow! That was a long post.)

Contd.
malapropism
5 / 5 (1) Sep 09, 2009
So, to respond then (in part):
The examples you link/quote, do not witness any process.


I don't understand why you think they should? In the 1st case, jto points to a book that I presume (I've not yet read it) outlines the significance of fossil genes, jto then reasonably and correctly makes the links from this to the current article. In the 2nd case, a question was put to give an example of new genetic information arising; smiffy did exactly this, and an excellent example it was too.

I was going to suggest you find and read up on self-modifying software however Ethelred has already ably done that. I shall therefore limit myself to suggesting that one can (and you do in this case) take a metaphor too far. Specifically, the software metaphor can be useful to clarify some thinking about biological processes but it is a limited metaphor.

Contd.
malapropism
not rated yet Sep 09, 2009
For example, the dominant majority of software systems use digital binary processes. Biological systems are anything but binary (in fact, they are overwhelmingly analogue non-binary).

Vestigial does not mean not needed. It means not useful for its original purpose.

That is not true. Vestigial certainly was meant in that sense of NOT NEEDED.

While you may be right in that the sense that was meant in using the word was in terms of "not needed", this is not a correct definition of the word - look up any reasonable authority such as dictionary.com. The use of vestigial in the article is clearly in the correct biological sense of the word.

Contd.
malapropism
5 / 5 (1) Sep 09, 2009
If you find godless macro-evolution to be possible in theory (although that is not valid by data in practice), then you have to accept that the God is infinitely more likely to exist.


Certainly it is possible in theory. It is possible in theory that we are living "in the matrix." It is possible in theory that the moon is made of green cheese, that the Earth is the center of the universe and stars are fairy dust sprinkled on a black sheet or even that your god exists. "Theory" allows us to place things or concepts that require testing at the centre of a thought experiment (or a practical experiment or investigation) to validate our suppositions about the thing. Evidence shows us that some of these theories are wrong, however the evidence for evolution is very substantial.



Contd.
malapropism
5 / 5 (1) Sep 09, 2009
That evolution is evidenced by research on the world around us does not in any way imply that your god or any god, or gods, are "infinitely more likely to exist." Nor must we accept this until and unless we see evidence for its veracity.

The existence of a god is (as Richard Dawkins has pointed out, I do not wish to claim this as an original idea) at least potentially a subject for confirmatory empirical evidence by research using the scientific method. This may be difficult however do not let this dissuade you from attempting the task. Further, I encourage you to present me your research methods, results and conclusions when done and I in turn shall seriously consider them.

Contd.
malapropism
5 / 5 (1) Sep 09, 2009
Ethelred has that double-standard of subscribing to "godless" macro-evolutionism while denying that the Creator might have evolved by Himself, in "infinite" time, without a "god" before Himself.


Here you accuse Ethelred of holding double-standards however you also argue in the same sentence that your god evolved, and from no precursor. Therefore, you are here arguing that evolution, at least in terms of your god, occurs, or has occurred at some past time, and moreover that "biogenesis" of your god (deiogenesis?) has happened. This surely is the ultimate in double-standards?

I can only assume that you believe that what (you say) has happened for your god cannot also have happened for the universe and for life; that your god which evolved from nothing does not allow the universe the same accord and respect but must continually meddle with it through some undefined creation method. Your assertion that your god evolved but life cannot/does not is a logical non-sequitur.
malapropism
not rated yet Sep 13, 2009
There are prophecies in the Book of Daniel that are testable.

Perhaps you could explain them to me? (I regret I have no real desire to spend my money on purchasing a DVD from an organisation that I consider to be promoting crack-pottery. Nor do I think I especially require an "easy to understand dvd" as I'm quite capable of understanding many even-rather-complex arguments and I'm reasonably confident that I can manage to figure out any explanations of predictions you may be able to provide.)

Of the various "how could they know...?" questions you pose, trial and error is a very good instructor. If I see someone eat something from the wild and get ill and die soon after, I'm very likely to avoid eating the same stuff, unless I'm very stupid, and to tell other people to avoid it too. Or to wash my hands, or the various other actions you suggest. One doesn't need to know about microbes to realise cause and effect over time. What's so biblically impressive about that?
malapropism
5 / 5 (1) Sep 13, 2009
by our definition of faith, atheists and evolutions also exercise faith

No, this is wrong, at least in my case. I require no faith at all to hold the 'beliefs' that I do: that there is no such thing as your biblical god. Rather this is due to a lack of any evidence that can be presented to me that is testable, repeatable, objective and has clear outcomes supporting your contention.

If I was presented with that then I would concede that there is indeed a god - ergo I would believe in that god. It is highly unlikely that I would also offer any respect or worship however as I see no good that this god has yet performed and a lot of bad that they have allowed, despite his/her supposed omnipotence and omniscience. Because of this, I hold that even if it exists, this god is unworthy of my respect, let alone worship.

And I emphatically do not need Jesus to love me! (Besides which, this person has now been dead close to 2,000 years so hasn't the ability to love anyone.)
Ethelred
Sep 14, 2009
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Ethelred
Sep 14, 2009
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Ethelred
Sep 14, 2009
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Ethelred
Sep 14, 2009
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Ethelred
Sep 14, 2009
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Ethelred
Sep 14, 2009
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
zilqarneyn
Sep 19, 2009
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
zilqarneyn
Sep 29, 2009
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.