Belated Happy 271st Birthday, Jean Baptiste Pierre Antoine de Monet!

I suppose that Monet felt the need to explain why there are water-lilies.

Or not.

Glen Davidson

It is a shame that in the storybook version of history good scientists are denigrated for being wrong when their work did advance their field of study. It's a good thing Darwin never floated pangenesis without his theory of evolution, otherwise he might be remembered just a guy with a goofy idea who did some good work on coral reefs and barnacles.

"Give me the fruitful error any time, full of seeds, bursting with its own corrections. You can keep your sterile truth for yourself." - Pareto

(Note this does not apply to members of the Discovery Institute or the Creation Museum, who work tirelessly to create sterile errors.)

He also contributed to the development of the concept of deep time, a very hard to comprehend concept in his time (ours too?).

Lamarck's "use and disuse" mechanism was wrong. Inheritance of acquired characters was wrong but was not initiated by him -- everyone believed it. It is sad that Lamarck has so frequently been considered a crank. He was a great figure of invertebrate biology, an advocate of evolution, and pioneer of a mechanism that could in principle explain adaptation, if it worked at all.

As for deep time, its time had come in the 1700s and his predecessor and patron Buffon had experiments done on how quickly a hot planet would cool, using different size metal spheres. The issue was in the air.

I came across a tale that he met Napoleon, who misunderstood what Lamarck's book Philosophie Zoologique was about, lectured Lamarck about how we needed experiment and observation, not philosophizing. In the tale, Lamarck was reduced nearly to tears. Napoleon was just trying to show off how well he understood biology, by basically being an asshole. Here is a 1920s painting imagining that by the Russian artist Ezuchevsky. There seems to be some uncertainty as to whether this happened.

If inheritance of acquired characters is wrong then how is the common characters that affect so many domesticated, unrelated, creatures??
I'm not saying they are acquired BUT it seems there must be other mechanisms for important bio change unrelated to selection on mutations or simple selection.
If floppy ear dogs was not selected for then there must be another reason for why its common.
So the principal behind Lamarck of innate mechanisms to explain biology change is not wrong.
Its modern evolutionary ideas that are wrong in excluding other mechanisms. Its all wrong anyways but I'm making a point based on obvious bio results.

Robert Byers said: If inheritance of acquired characters is wrong then how is the common characters that affect so many domesticated, unrelated, creatures??

If floppy ear dogs was not selected for then there must be another reason for why its common.

Everybody knows that you get floppy-eared dogs by lifting them by the ears; as former President Lyndon B. Johnson demonstrated. It works especially well with beagles.

Robert Byers said: If inheritance of acquired characters is wrong then how is the common characters that affect so many domesticated, unrelated, creatures?? I'm not saying they are acquired BUT it seems there must be other mechanisms for important bio change unrelated to selection on mutations or simple selection. If floppy ear dogs was not selected for then there must be another reason for why its common. So the principal behind Lamarck of innate mechanisms to explain biology change is not wrong. Its modern evolutionary ideas that are wrong in excluding other mechanisms. Its all wrong anyways but I'm making a point based on obvious bio results.

Robert, have you ever tried reading something on domestication of dogs? I thought not.

justawriter said: It is a shame that in the storybook version of history good scientists are denigrated for being wrong when their work did advance their field of study. It's a good thing Darwin never floated pangenesis without his theory of evolution, otherwise he might be remembered just a guy with a goofy idea who did some good work on coral reefs and barnacles. "Give me the fruitful error any time, full of seeds, bursting with its own corrections. You can keep your sterile truth for yourself." - Pareto (Note this does not apply to members of the Discovery Institute or the Creation Museum, who work tirelessly to create sterile errors.)

It reminds me of a story from publishing. Publishers are notoriously low-profit, and there's always a corporation thinks they can improve their profitability, so the often change hands. When that happens, the new owners send in the management consultants, who analyze everything out the wazoo, and always the same conversation results:

Management consultants: Now, we've found that you make about ninety per cent of your profitable sales from twenty per cent of the titles you publish.

Editors: Uh huh.

MCs: So what you have to do is only publish titles that will make that profit margin.

Editors: And how do we predict what titles that will be?

MC's: Well, obviously, you have to do market surveys to find out what the customers want.

Editors: We do. (points wearily to a stack of statistics)

MC's: So what's the problem, then?

Editors: If we use every measure we can get, we get about eighty percent of our profits made by twenty percent of our titles. If we don't, we get about eighty percent of our profits made by eighteen percent of our titles. You're the consultants. You figure it out.

justawriter said: It is a shame that in the storybook version of history good scientists are denigrated for being wrong when their work did advance their field of study. It's a good thing Darwin never floated pangenesis without his theory of evolution, otherwise he might be remembered just a guy with a goofy idea who did some good work on coral reefs and barnacles. "Give me the fruitful error any time, full of seeds, bursting with its own corrections. You can keep your sterile truth for yourself." - Pareto (Note this does not apply to members of the Discovery Institute or the Creation Museum, who work tirelessly to create sterile errors.)

Publishers are notoriously low-profit, and there’s always a corporation thinks they can improve their profitability, so the[y] often change hands.

eric said:

Robert Byers said: If inheritance of acquired characters is wrong then how is the common characters that affect so many domesticated, unrelated, creatures??

There is some good science to be done on that and being done on that. Like every past question about where some acquired trait comes from, the answer appears to involve descent with modification, not special creation.

If floppy ear dogs was not selected for then there must be another reason for why its common.

The sequences that lead to the development of aggression also lead to the development of stiff ears and other traits. Which is crazy, stupid, and senseless as a design, isn't it? What sane designer would make the same sequence responsible for the development of such disparate things?

oo oo I know. I bet it has something to do with those gene thingies!

Robert Byers said:

eric said:

Robert Byers said: If inheritance of acquired characters is wrong then how is the common characters that affect so many domesticated, unrelated, creatures??

There is some good science to be done on that and being done on that. Like every past question about where some acquired trait comes from, the answer appears to involve descent with modification, not special creation.

If floppy ear dogs was not selected for then there must be another reason for why its common.

The sequences that lead to the development of aggression also lead to the development of stiff ears and other traits. Which is crazy, stupid, and senseless as a design, isn't it? What sane designer would make the same sequence responsible for the development of such disparate things?

I think we are on thread still. Your marrying stuff ears, and many other traits, with a aggresion sequence thing. Hmmm. Easy to say. there are skull changes also. Thats means in nature there is a option for such great anatomical changes just because of a selection on another trait.A trait dealing with character almost. This aggression trait being tied to ears is speculative but even if a option it would mean a new concept in biology for change. its not mere selection on mutation or selection at all on the ears/skull. I don't think Darwin said that and I don't think evolutionism says that today. The mechanism for changing, across the board of different creatures remember, important traits in domesticated animals is or is very close to a Lamark idea of innate ability of bodies to acquire different traits. i suspect its a good angle for a critic of evolution.

Re "Different versions of the same gene are called “alleles”. When they are on the same chromosome, they may travel together."

Minor detail, but isn't that different genes, not different alleles of the same gene?

Robert Byers said:

eric said:

Robert Byers said: If inheritance of acquired characters is wrong then how is the common characters that affect so many domesticated, unrelated, creatures??

There is some good science to be done on that and being done on that. Like every past question about where some acquired trait comes from, the answer appears to involve descent with modification, not special creation.

If floppy ear dogs was not selected for then there must be another reason for why its common.

The sequences that lead to the development of aggression also lead to the development of stiff ears and other traits. Which is crazy, stupid, and senseless as a design, isn't it? What sane designer would make the same sequence responsible for the development of such disparate things?

I think we are on thread still. Your marrying stuff ears, and many other traits, with a aggresion sequence thing. Hmmm. Easy to say. there are skull changes also. Thats means in nature there is a option for such great anatomical changes just because of a selection on another trait.A trait dealing with character almost. This aggression trait being tied to ears is speculative but even if a option it would mean a new concept in biology for change. its not mere selection on mutation or selection at all on the ears/skull. I don't think Darwin said that and I don't think evolutionism says that today. The mechanism for changing, across the board of different creatures remember, important traits in domesticated animals is or is very close to a Lamark idea of innate ability of bodies to acquire different traits. i suspect its a good angle for a critic of evolution.

He won't do either.

harold said:

Robert Byers said:

eric said:

Robert Byers said: If inheritance of acquired characters is wrong then how is the common characters that affect so many domesticated, unrelated, creatures??

There is some good science to be done on that and being done on that. Like every past question about where some acquired trait comes from, the answer appears to involve descent with modification, not special creation.

If floppy ear dogs was not selected for then there must be another reason for why its common.

The sequences that lead to the development of aggression also lead to the development of stiff ears and other traits. Which is crazy, stupid, and senseless as a design, isn't it? What sane designer would make the same sequence responsible for the development of such disparate things?

I think we are on thread still. Your marrying stuff ears, and many other traits, with a aggresion sequence thing. Hmmm. Easy to say. there are skull changes also. Thats means in nature there is a option for such great anatomical changes just because of a selection on another trait.A trait dealing with character almost. This aggression trait being tied to ears is speculative but even if a option it would mean a new concept in biology for change. its not mere selection on mutation or selection at all on the ears/skull. I don't think Darwin said that and I don't think evolutionism says that today. The mechanism for changing, across the board of different creatures remember, important traits in domesticated animals is or is very close to a Lamark idea of innate ability of bodies to acquire different traits. i suspect its a good angle for a critic of evolution.

The implied question here is a good one. There are two reasons why seemingly unrelated genes get selected for along with whatever gene is actually under selection. The first, which applies to organisms with meiosis, such as animals, plants, and fungi (sometimes) is the fact that genes are attached to each other physically on chromosomes. Different versions of the same gene are called "alleles". When they are on the same chromosome, they may travel together. If a phenotype associated with one is selected for, phenotypic traits associated with another allele, even if neutral with respect to the environment, may be simultaneously selected for due to linkage. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_linkage The second is that some genes code may code for proteins that are used in diverse ways by the body. This could happen with alternative splicing or with expression of an enzyme in different types of tissue. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternative_splicing If an allele is selected for because of activity A, but also does activity B, activity B may also increase, even if not directly selected for. The question was good and no-one can say I didn't try to give it a decent answer. The questioner is biased. I don't expect this reasonable answer to the original reasonable question to be accepted. However, here it is.

Robert Byers said: On the second point. you say some genes may have , on code, other proteins. These proteins, possibly, the origin for the body changes. Piggyback change in other words. its speculation first for the traits in question. Second your still saying these proteins are doing the change. if so why not in nature?

so why is this not Lamarkism. its not selection!.

The whole point is that the creatures simply get weaker in vigour.

its very possible there is in this case, worthy of a creationist or anyone, to write a paper and make a good case for another mechanism for biological change. I hear you with the hand in glove piggyback idea but it needs much more evidence.

eric said:

Robert Byers said: its very possible there is in this case, worthy of a creationist or anyone, to write a paper and make a good case for another mechanism for biological change. I hear you with the hand in glove piggyback idea but it needs much more evidence.

Well, when that gets written you let us know. Until then, the best hypothesis is the evolutionary one. And it doesn't matter if you think the evolutionary idea needs more evidence, because (a) the scientific community doesn't consider the "Robert Byers standard" to be meaningful, and (b) no matter how little evidence you think we have, it beats the zero, zilch, nada, nothing you have.

Henry J said: Re "Different versions of the same gene are called “alleles”. When they are on the same chromosome, they may travel together." Minor detail, but isn't that different genes, not different alleles of the same gene?

On the second point. you say some genes may have , on code, other proteins. These proteins, possibly, the origin for the body changes. Piggyback change in other words.

its speculation first for the traits in question.

Second your still saying these proteins are doing the change.

if so why not in nature?

I’m sure its never suspected and instead selection ideas are invoked for cases.

your still saying the mechanism is from a innate protein issue and passed on to offspring.

so why is this not Lamarkism. its not selection!. just from your point it hints at another mechaism for biological change. Not common evolution teaching.

The first point also seems about piggyback genes. You seem to be saying domesticated creatures are selected for something and then these other traits follow on the same chromosomes etc.

Yet its a general reaction amongst different creatures. they all atrophy in body almost the same way. It would be quite a convergence of gene piggybacking. the whole point is that the creatures simply get weaker in vigour. The concept of tameness being the explanation for body changes seems unlikely to me. I see here a bigger and real atrophy that is unrelated to evolutionary selection ideas. Why shoyld such like reactions happen and why thyese just for tamed creatures. its very possible there is in this case, worthy of a creationist or anyone, to write a paper and make a good case for another mechanism for biological change. I hear you with the hand in glove piggyback idea but it needs much more evidence. the first obvious thing is simply atrophy. not much different then cave creatures losing their eyesight or birds their wings.

eric said:

Robert Byers said: On the second point. you say some genes may have , on code, other proteins. These proteins, possibly, the origin for the body changes. Piggyback change in other words. its speculation first for the traits in question. Second your still saying these proteins are doing the change. if so why not in nature?

Because there is no natural selective advantage for a wild deer or fox or puma to be friendly to humans. Doing that gets them shot and killed. It only occurs in dogs, foxes etc. that we've bred because we have specifically bred them to be friendly for humans.

so why is this not Lamarkism. its not selection!.

Completely wrong. Just read the description of the fox experiment: the man took fox kits, identified the ones most friendly to humans, and bred them together. Then he took the kits of those foxes, identified the ones most friendly to humans, and bred them together. So on through multiple generations. In each case mutation and sexual recombination provide the variation in the kits, and the human breeder acts as the selective agent determining which foxes are most reproductively successful.

The whole point is that the creatures simply get weaker in vigour.

Actually, domestic cats and (some breeds of) dogs have lifespans quite a bit longer than wolves and small wild cats. We are talking a doubling here; your laborador retriever may live up to twice as long as a wolf, and your housecat could conceivably live up to three or four times as long as a wildcat of the same size. Some of that is diet/access to food and the lack of predation. However I don't think any wildcat, even if kept in captivity, is going to last 20 years.

its very possible there is in this case, worthy of a creationist or anyone, to write a paper and make a good case for another mechanism for biological change. I hear you with the hand in glove piggyback idea but it needs much more evidence.

Well, when that gets written you let us know. Until then, the best hypothesis is the evolutionary one. And it doesn't matter if you think the evolutionary idea needs more evidence, because (a) the scientific community doesn't consider the "Robert Byers standard" to be meaningful, and (b) no matter how little evidence you think we have, it beats the zero, zilch, nada, nothing you have.

harold said: I'm replying to a completely relevant and on topic comment by Robert Byers here. My understanding of Robert's English is a bit different than Eric's; therefore I agree with Eric's points but mine will be a bit different in a few spots (although in some places I make the same points that Eric already made).

On the second point. you say some genes may have , on code, other proteins. These proteins, possibly, the origin for the body changes. Piggyback change in other words.

Correct, although linkage is probably the main mechanism here. "Piggyback" is probably a correct analogy.

its speculation first for the traits in question.

No, it's beyond speculation, it's strongly supported. In drosophila genetics it's well understood at the molecular level, and the fox experiment, while not molecular, is very convincing.

Second your still saying these proteins are doing the change.

Yes. There is a genotype https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genotype and there is a phenotype https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phenotype. Selection acts on the phenotype. But genes code for proteins, and also some RNAs and perhaps a few other things, that determine the phenotype.

if so why not in nature?

It is 100% the same in nature. Humans are natural. If bears catch high-jumping salmon, selecting for the low jumping phenotype, and thus for the genetic alleles that lead to this phenotype, it is the same as if humans selected for low jumping salmon. If the changing climate of a slope as you move up it selects for smaller, hardier, less rapidly seeding plants at higher altitudes, it is exactly the same as if humans decided to select for the plants with those features. Of course the only thing in nature, with rare possible exceptions, that selects for what humans want, is human agriculture. (Human hunting usually selects for the opposite of what humans want, although if it selects for high fertility in a hunted species that may be an exception.)

I’m sure its never suspected and instead selection ideas are invoked for cases.

Selection is selection. Whether a farm plants the seeds from the bigger tomatoes, or a bear raids the hives of the bees with shorter stingers and causes selection for longer stingers, it's the same.

your still saying the mechanism is from a innate protein issue and passed on to offspring.

Well, not necessarily just one innate protein overall, but yes, basically this is correct.

so why is this not Lamarkism. its not selection!. just from your point it hints at another mechaism for biological change. Not common evolution teaching.

It is the opposite of what is called Lamarckism. Lamarckism proposes that traits that the parent uses will increase in the offspring. According to Lamarckism, if identical twin brothers marry identical twin sisters, but one brother becomes an ironworker and the other becomes a sedentary accountant, the children of the iron worker will be genetically more prone to have larger muscles. This is a fair example. That isn't how it works, though. It's a good hypothesis but in reality it doesn't work that way. The weakness of the hypothesis is how sperm cells in the testicle would "know" to generate mutations that would lead to bigger muscles. The theory of evolution does not have that weakness. What happens is that in certain environments, certain traits are selected for in certain populations. Now imagine two identical twin brother who marry identical twin sisters. But the brothers aren't perfectly identical. One of them carries a dominant allele that makes his children slightly more prone to a certain infection in utero, due to an "innate protein". Each brother impregnates his wife twelve times, but in one case there are twelve living children, and in the other, there was one miscarriage, but a big happy family of eleven children. That allele was selected against, and actually rather strongly, statistically speaking. It led to a reduced reproductive rate in its carrier. That's how it works.

The first point also seems about piggyback genes. You seem to be saying domesticated creatures are selected for something and then these other traits follow on the same chromosomes etc.

I did say that, because that is correct.

Yet its a general reaction amongst different creatures. they all atrophy in body almost the same way. It would be quite a convergence of gene piggybacking. the whole point is that the creatures simply get weaker in vigour. The concept of tameness being the explanation for body changes seems unlikely to me. I see here a bigger and real atrophy that is unrelated to evolutionary selection ideas. Why shoyld such like reactions happen and why thyese just for tamed creatures. its very possible there is in this case, worthy of a creationist or anyone, to write a paper and make a good case for another mechanism for biological change. I hear you with the hand in glove piggyback idea but it needs much more evidence. the first obvious thing is simply atrophy. not much different then cave creatures losing their eyesight or birds their wings.

A fair paraphrase of this paragraph is the idea "since domestic animals aren't as good at being wild as wild animals, they are 'weaker', and therefore agricultural selection can't be the same as non-agricultural selection". But it is essentially the same. The reason is that, putting aside that pigs, cats, horses, goats, and a number of other species easily form feral populations, domesticated tomatoes, say, are 'stronger' in the environment in which domesticated traits are being selected for. Sure, they're 'weaker' in other environments, but that's like saying that tigers are weaker than polar bears because tigers wouldn't do well in the arctic. Selection is environment dependent. What Robert Byers may do next, and I have seen this before from others, is concede that our explanation makes sense, but then insist that we must not be explaining evolution. To some degree he already did that above. Well, I am explaining it, and it does make sense.

Robert Byers said: The whole point is that the creatures simply get weaker in vigour.

Thanks for the well done reply. You present/teach your points well. We seem agreed that the traits in domesticated creatures does not come from selection on those traits. Rather linkage/piggyback to some other selection thing. Possibly this tameness personality thing. Therefore why should it not be textbook taught that important bio changes in creatures, skull features/floppy ears etc etc, are not from evolutionary mechanism of selection on mutatation or simple selection. I MEAN those traits are not being selected for but BANG there they are. Indeed across many species and given to offspring. I don’t think textbooks teach this at all.

this is very important. This because you are only speculating that genes had linkage to these genes for change. IN fact the author of the book on anther thread here mentioned three other options. yet clearly guessing and not sure himself. its an option there is linkage but whats the evidence.Its an option there are so such genes or linkage. So another option.

All you said is that these traits indeed were not selected for but came along with what was. That was whjat? Tameness?? Anyways it doesn’t matter. WE have here, it seems, evidence for bio change without evolution doing the work. EXCEPT , you say/suggest, by linkage/piggyback with actual selection on something. This is where we are!

I think linkage is unlikely because the traits are so common across so many species. Why such convergence in these linkage genes for these traits.

i suggest its simplr atrophy mechanism. just like in nature. flightless birds and cave creatures losing sight could be simply the result of this atrophy mechanism.

Domestication could be just an example of what happens in nature with these creatures.

one equation. the dodo was a domesticated bird. not by man but by a island life. The dodo didn’t evolve atrophied wings but it was innate. It was nnot selection for atrophied wings. Yet textbooks would say it was.

I guess we are simply guessing how domesticated creatures got their new traits. its not evident evolution did it.

Not evident selection on a gene with linkage genes did the deed. i think unlikely. so lamarkism, not his exact idea, but the general thrust of innate mechanisms changing biology is a option after all. He was simply thinking it was innate somehow.

"Not even the most extreme creationist argues that chihuahuas and great Danes were created “in their present form” by a deity."

Don't be too sure. Remember with whom you're conversing.

Not even the most extreme creationist argues that chihuahuas and great Danes were created “in their present form” by a deity.

Is that riddle talking about dogs, or people from Chihuahua and Denmark?

Is that riddle talking about dogs, or people from Chihuahua and Denmark?

Wait a minute, maybe the small one was the preacher (or other officiator) rather than being one of the couple?

Henry J said: Wait a minute, maybe the small one was the preacher (or other officiator) rather than being one of the couple?

Just Bob said:

Henry J said: Wait a minute, maybe the small one was the preacher (or other officiator) rather than being one of the couple?

The ambiguity of certain English idioms can lead to major misunderstanding and embarrassment.

harold said: Robert Byers said -

Thanks for the well done reply. You present/teach your points well. We seem agreed that the traits in domesticated creatures does not come from selection on those traits. Rather linkage/piggyback to some other selection thing. Possibly this tameness personality thing. Therefore why should it not be textbook taught that important bio changes in creatures, skull features/floppy ears etc etc, are not from evolutionary mechanism of selection on mutatation or simple selection. I MEAN those traits are not being selected for but BANG there they are. Indeed across many species and given to offspring. I don’t think textbooks teach this at all.

100% of genetics textbooks teach about linkage. Another mechanism by which alleles may increase in frequency in the population, other than by direct selection for that specific allele, is genetic drift. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_drift Overall, these concepts are well understood and well taught, at least at the university level, otherwise, how would I know about them? If the complaint here is that these concepts aren't included in high school or middle school textbooks, that complaint may be valid. Someone with expertise in the field of education would be better positioned to address that issue.

this is very important. This because you are only speculating that genes had linkage to these genes for change. IN fact the author of the book on anther thread here mentioned three other options. yet clearly guessing and not sure himself. its an option there is linkage but whats the evidence.Its an option there are so such genes or linkage. So another option.

Basically what Robert is saying here is, I think, that unless linkage is demonstrated by detailed molecular studies to be the mechanism in individual cases, something else is possible. That is technically true. It is not, of course, an argument in favor of creationism.

All you said is that these traits indeed were not selected for but came along with what was. That was whjat? Tameness?? Anyways it doesn’t matter. WE have here, it seems, evidence for bio change without evolution doing the work. EXCEPT , you say/suggest, by linkage/piggyback with actual selection on something. This is where we are!

It is still evolution. Any natural mechanism by which alleles change in frequency over time is evolution. Creationism starts with a claim that "must" be true and then says anything to defend that claim. In science, that is not how we operate. We evaluate claims based on evidence. We have learned all kinds of fascinating things about molecular biology and genetics and will continue to. Learning new things will not make what we already know false, but it will expand our knowledge and fine tune our understanding.

I think linkage is unlikely because the traits are so common across so many species. Why such convergence in these linkage genes for these traits.

I'm not sure what traits Robert Byers is talking about here. Linkage is important, multiple effects of a single gene can be important.

i suggest its simplr atrophy mechanism. just like in nature. flightless birds and cave creatures losing sight could be simply the result of this atrophy mechanism.

These are examples of selection. Fish adapt to conditions in which eyes are useless, therefore it is somewhat advantageous not to waste energy developing eyes, therefore if alleles are present or arise that lead to less energy expended developing eyes, they are selected for. In that environment.

Domestication could be just an example of what happens in nature with these creatures.

Sometimes domestication does involve selecting individuals in which some wild type trait is reduced, or "atrophied". Sometimes it doesn't, though.

one equation. the dodo was a domesticated bird. not by man but by a island life. The dodo didn’t evolve atrophied wings but it was innate. It was nnot selection for atrophied wings. Yet textbooks would say it was.

Well, yes, it was selection for flightless behavior. I got myself in trouble here once by underestimating how often flightless behavior has evolved in bird lineages.

I guess we are simply guessing how domesticated creatures got their new traits. its not evident evolution did it.

It is 100% certain that evolution did it. Not even the most extreme creationist argues that chihuahuas and great Danes were created "in their present form" by a deity. It is unequivocal that human breeding caused the different allele frequencies in these two different populations of the same species, for example. Selection for traits by humans is a type of evolution.

Not evident selection on a gene with linkage genes did the deed. i think unlikely. so lamarkism, not his exact idea, but the general thrust of innate mechanisms changing biology is a option after all. He was simply thinking it was innate somehow.

Linkage cannot be denied, it is extremely well documented. DNA can be sequenced etc. Lamarckism, as we call a certain conception of evolution, is incorrect, for the reasons I pointed out in my earlier comment. I think I have made all relevant points now. Robert Byers and I aren't going to convince one another. However, the discussion raised some good points and may be useful to third party readers.

Commence to writin booby. By the way, you will have to do a literature search first and you really should read all of the relevant literature. When you do you might change your mind about spouting off about things you know nothing about. Maybe not. I'm sure we are all looking forward to seeing the evidence for your imaginary process. You do have evidence, right? You just refuse to show it until you publish, right? It all comes down to raw facts. We have dozens of complete genome sequences, you got only your imagination. Good luck with that. Crying that it ain't biological or it's atomic isn't going to cut it.

Re "It all comes down to raw facts."

And all of his facts are cooked.

What interests me the most about Mr. Byers, to the extent that I can follow his arguments, is that he proposes no mechanism for "atrophy" - it just happens. Odd, isn't it, that the eyes of cave fish atrophy, or that wings of birds atrophy when there are no natural enemies? Or that "wildness" atrophies only in domesticated animals? Why all this atrophy? How does it happen? Is there no mechanism? It just happens? How odd!

Matt Young said: What interests me the most about Mr. Byers, to the extent that I can follow his arguments, is that he proposes no mechanism for "atrophy" - it just happens. Odd, isn't it, that the eyes of cave fish atrophy, or that wings of birds atrophy when there are no natural enemies? Or that "wildness" atrophies only in domesticated animals? Why all this atrophy? How does it happen? Is there no mechanism? It just happens? How odd!

DS said:

Matt Young said: What interests me the most about Mr. Byers, to the extent that I can follow his arguments, is that he proposes no mechanism for "atrophy" - it just happens. Odd, isn't it, that the eyes of cave fish atrophy, or that wings of birds atrophy when there are no natural enemies? Or that "wildness" atrophies only in domesticated animals? Why all this atrophy? How does it happen? Is there no mechanism? It just happens? How odd!

It's the magic fall don't you know. I know that makes no sense, but that's what he's going for. News flash for booby, religion isn't biological. You have no biological evidence and your nonsensical parrot defense is laid bare for all to see.

Matt Young said: What interests me the most about Mr. Byers, to the extent that I can follow his arguments, is that he proposes no mechanism for "atrophy" - it just happens. Odd, isn't it, that the eyes of cave fish atrophy, or that wings of birds atrophy when there are no natural enemies? Or that "wildness" atrophies only in domesticated animals? Why all this atrophy? How does it happen? Is there no mechanism? It just happens? How odd!

eric said:

Matt Young said: What interests me the most about Mr. Byers, to the extent that I can follow his arguments, is that he proposes no mechanism for "atrophy" - it just happens. Odd, isn't it, that the eyes of cave fish atrophy, or that wings of birds atrophy when there are no natural enemies? Or that "wildness" atrophies only in domesticated animals? Why all this atrophy? How does it happen? Is there no mechanism? It just happens? How odd!

I'm also scratching my head about how a smaller size counts as atrophy. Tell it to the Kodkod. Or the cave bear. Sometimes, smaller is better adapted.

Matt Young said: What interests me the most about Mr. Byers, to the extent that I can follow his arguments, is that he proposes no mechanism for "atrophy" - it just happens. Odd, isn't it, that the eyes of cave fish atrophy, or that wings of birds atrophy when there are no natural enemies? Or that "wildness" atrophies only in domesticated animals? Why all this atrophy? How does it happen? Is there no mechanism? It just happens? How odd!

Really booby? You don't know what the mechanism is. Really? And here you were going to publish a scientific paper on it. So you have no biological evidence. Hell, you have no evidence of any kind. You are justt spitting into the wind. Read the papers I provided. Then you will see how wrong you are. Whole genome sequencing is biological evidence. It is the quintessential biological evidence. You are blinded to the evidence, can't even admit that it exists.

Anyway, since you have no mechanism, you have no scientific explanation. All you have is your personal incredulity, which is worthless if you ignore the evidence. Your uninformed and ignorant opinion deserves nothing but ridicule. Go ahead, prove me wrong, read the papers and explain the pattern observed. Or just keep blubbering about how it doesn't meet your idiotic definition of biological. Yea, that should be good for another laugh or two.

eric said:

Matt Young said: What interests me the most about Mr. Byers, to the extent that I can follow his arguments, is that he proposes no mechanism for "atrophy" - it just happens. Odd, isn't it, that the eyes of cave fish atrophy, or that wings of birds atrophy when there are no natural enemies? Or that "wildness" atrophies only in domesticated animals? Why all this atrophy? How does it happen? Is there no mechanism? It just happens? How odd!

I'm also scratching my head about how a smaller size counts as atrophy. Tell it to the Kodkod. Or the cave bear. Sometimes, smaller is better adapted.

Here you go Bobby boy. From Nature Communications (2013):

The genetic bases of demographic changes and artificial selection underlying domestication are of great interest in evolutionary biology. Here we perform whole-genome sequencing of multiple grey wolves, Chinese indigenous dogs and dogs of diverse breeds. Demographic analysis show that the split between wolves and Chinese indigenous dogs occurred 32,000 years ago and that the subsequent bottlenecks were mild. Therefore, dogs may have been under human selection over a much longer time than previously concluded, based on molecular data, perhaps by initially scavenging with humans. Population genetic analysis identifies a list of genes under positive selection during domestication, which overlaps extensively with the corresponding list of positively selected genes in humans. Parallel evolution is most apparent in genes for digestion and metabolism, neurological process and cancer. Our study, for the first time, draws together humans and dogs in their recent genomic evolution.

So you see booby, we not only know the selection pressures involved, we also know the genes involved as well. Go ahead booby, try to explain this away. Is it too atomic for you? Is it not biological enough for you? Exactly why should anyone pay any attention to your idiosyncratic definitions anyway?

And you still haven admitted that you were wrong about the Thylacine. What's the matter, dog got your tongue?

Robert Byers said: Most of biology when getting strong gets bigger. Depends on the case however. Domesticated creatures do, I think, siimply atrophy. Yet are not less healthy. Cats no longer select for size in mating and so males and females are no as different as they were originally before domesticated. Sexual selection made the male bigger relative to the female. That being over they both are more alike in size. not less healthy yet in nature they want bigger makes. They think its a good idea.

Robert Byers said:

Matt Young said: What interests me the most about Mr. Byers, to the extent that I can follow his arguments, is that he proposes no mechanism for "atrophy" - it just happens. Odd, isn't it, that the eyes of cave fish atrophy, or that wings of birds atrophy when there are no natural enemies? Or that "wildness" atrophies only in domesticated animals? Why all this atrophy? How does it happen? Is there no mechanism? It just happens? How odd!

I don't know what the mechanism is. Its only that its welcome to creationism as a non evolutionary mechanism. So the domesticated creatures suddenly caught my attention. I knew a little but not how common important changes took place in many different creatures. All of which seem to be about atrophy of traits. Then to connect it to nature. Creatures often atrophy. Its explained as simple evolution by selection YET is this true. I suspect its an option its the same mechanism in nature as in domesticated creatures. Man is not changing the creatures by selection on the traits NOR on a general trait of tameness. Whatever that is. Instead there is a undiscovered atrophy mechanism that is triggered rather easily. flightless birds, very common story in the fossil record for islans, and cave creatures losing eyes/eyesight is unlikely from selection. Instead atrophy. Almost Lamarkism. Our cats and dogs wrer a bigger clue then we knew. It helps creationism models. It isn't proven evolution by selection is the origin for important bio changes in domesticated creatures. Something else likely is going on. Something innate unrelated to favouring a segment of a population. Unless I'm wrong.

I was always amused at fundy high school kids who "knew" more biology than biologists, more physics than physicists, more geology than geologists, etc. This is a new level of amusement -- dare I say, hilarity -- a fundy YEC who "knows" that no biologist knows what biology is! Only HE knows, but can't seem to tell us.

Just Bob said: I was always amused at fundy high school kids who "knew" more biology than biologists, more physics than physicists, more geology than geologists, etc. This is a new level of amusement -- dare I say, hilarity -- a fundy YEC who "knows" that no biologist knows what biology is! Only HE knows, but can't seem to tell us.

"Well, somebody has to stand up to these experts!" Don McLeroy

Mike Elzinga said:

eric said:

Matt Young said: What interests me the most about Mr. Byers, to the extent that I can follow his arguments, is that he proposes no mechanism for "atrophy" - it just happens. Odd, isn't it, that the eyes of cave fish atrophy, or that wings of birds atrophy when there are no natural enemies? Or that "wildness" atrophies only in domesticated animals? Why all this atrophy? How does it happen? Is there no mechanism? It just happens? How odd!

I'm also scratching my head about how a smaller size counts as atrophy. Tell it to the Kodkod. Or the cave bear. Sometimes, smaller is better adapted.

"Genetic entropy" - another version of the ID/creationist second law of thermodynamics - compliments of John Sanford. Probably another part of Byers' subliminal awareness.

Robert Byers said: Cats no longer select for size in mating and so males and females are no as different as they were originally before domesticated. Sexual selection made the male bigger relative to the female. That being over they both are more alike in size.

TomS said:

Mike Elzinga said:

eric said:

Matt Young said: What interests me the most about Mr. Byers, to the extent that I can follow his arguments, is that he proposes no mechanism for "atrophy" - it just happens. Odd, isn't it, that the eyes of cave fish atrophy, or that wings of birds atrophy when there are no natural enemies? Or that "wildness" atrophies only in domesticated animals? Why all this atrophy? How does it happen? Is there no mechanism? It just happens? How odd!

I'm also scratching my head about how a smaller size counts as atrophy. Tell it to the Kodkod. Or the cave bear. Sometimes, smaller is better adapted.

"Genetic entropy" - another version of the ID/creationist second law of thermodynamics - compliments of John Sanford. Probably another part of Byers' subliminal awareness.

"Genetic entropy"? Is that something in biology? I'm sure that it isn't in the Bible.

"Cancer reminds us of the brokenness, the suffering, and the mortality of creation in this present age, all traceable back to Adam’s sin. Genesis makes it clear that everything in the original creation, was “very good.” We can infer that cancer was not a part of that, since the Bible describes death as an “enemy.”

eric said: So why make such claims up?

Just Bob said:

eric said: So why make such claims up?

If you're Robert Byers, that's what you do. (or just about any other creationist you could find)

Although, if the made-up stuff is accusing somebody (or a group of somebodies) of negligence in their profession, that sounds to me like a base of bearing false witness.

Matt Young said: ... Odd, isn't it, that the eyes of cave fish atrophy, or that wings of birds atrophy when there are no natural enemies? Or that "wildness" atrophies only in domesticated animals? Why all this atrophy? How does it happen? Is there no mechanism? It just happens? How odd!

Henry J said: Although, if the made-up stuff is accusing somebody (or a group of somebodies) of negligence in their profession, that sounds to me like a base of bearing false witness.

Re "Atrophy does tend to happen when selection is relaxed. It is generally thought to result from two mechanisms"

Just those two? My first thought was if a feature takes a lot of resources to build or maintain, then dropping it would free up those resources for other things.

Henry J said: Re "Atrophy does tend to happen when selection is relaxed. It is generally thought to result from two mechanisms" Just those two? My first thought was if a feature takes a lot of resources to build or maintain, then dropping it would free up those resources for other things.

(4) Positive selection for reduced features. Wings just get in the way of foot-propelled divers, so absent the need for flight it's advantageous for flightless cormorants to reduce them. Legs get in the way for predators that chase small prey into burrows, hence snakes; Eyes are convenient entries for pathogens, so absent a need they tend to get covered with skin; and so on.

eric said:

Robert Byers said: Cats no longer select for size in mating and so males and females are no as different as they were originally before domesticated. Sexual selection made the male bigger relative to the female. That being over they both are more alike in size.

Domestic cats are sexually dimorphic in size. Though size varies by breed, Wikipedia for example quotes about an 18% weight difference between males and females. Why do you just make up claims out of thin air like that? Not only does it undermine your credibility, but it seems utterly unnecessary. Creationism is not going to stand or fall on the question of whether domestic cats are dimorphic or not. So why make such claims up?

Joe Felsenstein said:

Matt Young said: ... Odd, isn't it, that the eyes of cave fish atrophy, or that wings of birds atrophy when there are no natural enemies? Or that "wildness" atrophies only in domesticated animals? Why all this atrophy? How does it happen? Is there no mechanism? It just happens? How odd!

Atrophy does tend to happen when selection is relaxed. It is generally thought to result from two mechanisms: (1) The bias of mutation toward impairing development of structures, as there are many more mutations that can break or reduce structures than there are that improve them, and (2) pleiotropic effects: natural selection on other characters that are correlated with this one tend to cause random changes in the character that you are observing, and on average those will impair development. Note that #2 does involve natural selection, it's just that this is on another, correlated, character.

John Harshman said: (4) Positive selection for reduced features. Wings just get in the way of foot-propelled divers, so absent the need for flight it's advantageous for flightless cormorants to reduce them. Legs get in the way for predators that chase small prey into burrows, hence snakes; Eyes are convenient entries for pathogens, so absent a need they tend to get covered with skin; and so on.

John Harshman said: (4) Positive selection for reduced features. ...

Robert Byers said: I stand by my point. I said relative to the wild. These cats don't exist in the wild because the original ones were very different. I wasn't aware of the male/female size ratio but was aware it was less then it would be in the wild due to secual selection.

otherwise you would be saying cats do not have sexual selection in their case.

very unlikely. its not just size but other things that reduce the differences between males/females cats. i read on this forum about this matter in the thread on the book.

Robert Byers said: By the way. WHY would this not happen in nature ?

The real data only shows a important atrophy going on across the board in creatures who become less vigouress.

welcome to creationism as we need to have mechanisms for change without evolutionism. We need to explain the quick change in human volours in a post flood world and done and finished in a century or two.

Atrophy does tend to happen when selection is relaxed.

Mike Elzinga said:

TomS said:

Mike Elzinga said:

eric said:

Matt Young said: What interests me the most about Mr. Byers, to the extent that I can follow his arguments, is that he proposes no mechanism for "atrophy" - it just happens. Odd, isn't it, that the eyes of cave fish atrophy, or that wings of birds atrophy when there are no natural enemies? Or that "wildness" atrophies only in domesticated animals? Why all this atrophy? How does it happen? Is there no mechanism? It just happens? How odd!

I'm also scratching my head about how a smaller size counts as atrophy. Tell it to the Kodkod. Or the cave bear. Sometimes, smaller is better adapted.

"Genetic entropy" - another version of the ID/creationist second law of thermodynamics - compliments of John Sanford. Probably another part of Byers' subliminal awareness.

"Genetic entropy"? Is that something in biology? I'm sure that it isn't in the Bible.

Ask the right fundamentalist and they can find anything they want in their holy book. From Answers in Genesis

"Cancer reminds us of the brokenness, the suffering, and the mortality of creation in this present age, all traceable back to Adam’s sin. Genesis makes it clear that everything in the original creation, was “very good.” We can infer that cancer was not a part of that, since the Bible describes death as an “enemy.”

eric said:

Robert Byers said: By the way. WHY would this not happen in nature ?

It does happen in nature. There must be a positive adaptive value for a specific sequence, otherwise it tends to disappear. The blind cave fish are not some counter-example of the mechanism Joe is talking about, they are an example of it. Blind cave fish are blind because there are many more mutations that result in poor eyes vs. good ones, but eyes in dark caves don't help fish pass on their genes. So for every good-eyed fish offspring there may be a hundred bad-eyed fish offspring, but both types leave the same amount of offspring, so eventually the bad-eyed ones dominate the population.

The real data only shows a important atrophy going on across the board in creatures who become less vigouress.

You have no real data. The only "data" you've presented us with is statements you made up about cat dimorphism, claims which are wrong. Stop making up pretend data and actually go get some real data, and we might give your claims a bit more credence.

welcome to creationism as we need to have mechanisms for change without evolutionism. We need to explain the quick change in human volours in a post flood world and done and finished in a century or two.

Here, I agree. You do need a mechanism and you do need to explain that. When you propose a testable mechanism, let us know. No IDer or YECer has done that yet.

Matt Young said:

Atrophy does tend to happen when selection is relaxed.

Yes, I know; I was asking our trollish friend for a mechanism -- nothing just happens, but some people may think that naming something explains it. Things atrophy for a reason, not just because. Besides which, not all of the changes that accompany domestication can fairly be called atrophy.

Robert Byers said: [My bold] It seems to me they can all be interpretated that way. Which are not? Its all about reduction in this or that. So why not the same mechanism as in "natures domestication" in caves/islands etc. A mechanism there could bsimply be the one here in society. Not selection for tameness affecting like traits in many species domesticated. All the trasits, I think, about reduction/atrophy. So evolution is a wrong guess fior the raw data. its just educated speculation but there is this interesting raw data of bio change unrelated to selection on the traits that changed.

So it's educated speculation, in contrast to the science denier's idol speculation?

Another recent study indicates that Lamarck's ideas might not be completely off. Previous studies showed an effect of famine on subsequent generations. A new one shows the transgenerational effect of trauma.

Yardbird said: Another recent study indicates that Lamarck's ideas might not be completely off. Previous studies showed an effect of famine on subsequent generations. A new one shows the transgenerational effect of trauma.

harold said: I know this won't be seen by anyone, but anyway...

Actually what this shows is that the term "Lamarckism" is used in two ways, neither of which is completely fair to Lamarck. First, it's used to demonstrate a common intuitive idea about evolution that is unequivocally wrong and makes no logical sense on close analysis, the idea that germ cell DNA somehow senses "needs" or "desires" of the organism it belongs to and mutates itself precisely so that offspring will have traits slightly closer to those "needs" or "desires". That idea is a projection of human sensory integration and planning onto innate molecules and is wrong, period. You can't make your children genetically more prone to flexibility by going to yoga class, causing your spermatazoa to sense that you "need" flexibility, and mutating genes involved in flexibility, so that the next kid will have better genetics for yoga. It. Does. Not. Work. That. Way. However, in order to appear to be a "maverick", every so often someone who discovers an epigenetic phenomenon in which DNA is impacted by the environment or something and annoyingly refers to it as "neo-Lamarckism". ... Calling epigenetics "Lamarckism" creates confusion. Granted, it might be more fair to Lamarck if we associated him with epigenetics rather than an illustration of how evolution doesn't work. He was actually an important scientist who markedly expanded, and did not attack or deny, the valid science of his day. Maybe efforts to change the common meaning of the term "Lamarckism" are worthwhile. Maybe we should stop unfairly associating the man's name with a common wrong idea that was not central to his work.

Joe Felsenstein said:

harold said: I know this won't be seen by anyone, but anyway...

Oh, some of us will see it.