|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 7607 days) Posts: 634 From: Washington, USA Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Teaching evolution in the context of science | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tranquility Base Inactive Member |
Percy
Cystic fibrosis, as with almost any non-chromosomal disease one can think of is due to one or moreSNPS. I never said it had to be one SNP.
http://www.aruplab.com/guides/clt/tests/clt_a169.htm quote: The reason I and every strutural/molecular biologist knows this is the bread and butter of genetics is that genes are not fairy floss - they code for folded proteins. Your hemoglobin is the same fold as mine. When it ghoes wrong it is either the same fold with the wrong surface or unfolded (and perhaps forms fibrils). Allelic variation will be an SNP issue 99% of the time. Erwin talked about a discontinuity between allelic and large-scale! It is extremely clear from the abstract that he would associate microevoltuion with allelic subsitituion. He points out the discontinuity betwen allelic and large-scale and the paper is about the micro/macro difference! How else do you propose he support his the thesis stated in the title! I'll post segments from the paper to prove this but you are imagining that somehow the title will not be bourne out in the body of the article!
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: In particular, no; but no argument.
quote: Really, I wanted something a bit more precise. This is too loose to be useful, the way I see it.
[QUOTE][b]Cellular novelties? Origin of life issue of course invovles all systems. After that: Multicellularity. Respiratory proteins. Immune system proteins. Plant unique metabolic. Animal unique metabolic. Etc.[/QUOTE] [/b] Again, not very precise. Abiogenesis does NOT involve all systems, as has been addressed on this forum before. There are organism that skirt the boundary between multicellular/single cell organism. Someone else can take the proteins and metabolic issues, or perhaps I will later.
quote: ... but the change didn't happen in one jump, or are you arguing that it did? ------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tranquility Base Inactive Member |
John
More precise? Creationist biologists recently stated that they expect the kinds to approximate the family level. When we've got more genomes we'll be able to say more. Are you doubting that there are thousands of cellular systems with associated novel gene families? I believe God separately created mammalian genomes. [This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 07-07-2002]
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22506 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
Tranquility Base writes: Oh, okay, I misunderstood you. In that case I have no idea whether you're right or wrong. Look, TB, this started when you said this back in Message 24:
I pointed out that your link was to an abstract that doesn't support this statement, and then you revealed in Message 32 that YOU DON'T EVEN HAVE THE PAPER:
What incredible chutzpa! Citing an abstract that provides no support for your position is completely consistent with much of the other evidence you've offered, and that's why I pointed it out. If when the paper arrives you find it supports you then by all means cite it, but don't cite the abstract. It is silent on the matter. If, as you say, the equivalence between allelic variation and SNP folding is a fundamental tenet of structural biology, then citing a paper exploring the sources of macroevolution is both unnecessary and irrelevant. --Percy
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: That puts us in with chimps, gorillas, and orangutans; as well as a string of extinct creatures. This is ok by me, but....
quote: Just doubting that you can make a case for your faith using these gene families/novelties/system. So far you haven't. Take care. ------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tranquility Base Inactive Member |
John
I think you need to check out your systematics - I am 99.99% sure we are not in the same (Linnean) family as chimps et al! I could do a Wilberforce but will refrain. Well, my point is that novel systems frequently use novel gene families with no hint as to where they came from.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: Nope. I looked it up.
Hominidae ------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tranquility Base Inactive Member |
Percy
Erwin shows that micro/macro is distinct via allelic/non-allelic. Standard struc biol tells us that this means existing/new gene family. You are wrong about me jumping to conclusions. I simply translated Erwin into the language of struc biol. Erwin is actaully stating the dead obvious. [This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 07-07-2002]
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tranquility Base Inactive Member |
John
OK - you're right! As mentioned by the web site this is a 'recent' change in classificaiton. I wonder how recent. I have looked this up before and that's why I was so 'sure'. This is obviously one reason why creaitonists say the families approximate the kinds! The second reason is that everyone agrees that the classifcation scheme is not entirely objective. Once the genomes are in the system will tidy up I expect (although the issue of loss vs gain will always haunt both sides).
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: The page I cited implies that the change was within the past ten years or so. ------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
Andya Primanda Inactive Member |
Say, isn't that too exclusive of us? There are families of creatures with members that differ more than us to bonobos. Take Bovidae. By using your 'kind' concept we are forced to accept that cattle, sheep, goats, yak, gazelles and bison shared a common ancestor. Then how do creationists refuse to include chimps and bonobos into the 'human kind'? Are you trying to be inconsistent?
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22506 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
Erwin's paper, which you haven't even read and so can only go by the abstract, is about contributors to macroevolution. Independent of whether you're correct, you cannot cite in support an abstract which makes no comment on the matter. This shouldn't have to be explained.
[addition via edit] I should also mention that citing irrelevant evidence is your consistent pattern, and I only raised this issue to make that point. This is so prevalent in your contributions here that it can't possibly be a new pattern for you, it must have been a repeated issue for you while working on your PhD. Your thesis committee must have had a hay day with your references. In the case of your Erwin cite, there is no possible way you can justify using it. It contains neither the terms nor synonyms for the terms necessary to making statements on the topic, such as SNPs, folds and allelic variation. Why are you even citing a paper (whoops, not a paper, an abstract) on the mechanisms behind macroevolution to support statements about allelic substitution and protein folding? There must be tons of papers actually relevant to this topic, why not use one of them? --Percy [This message has been edited by Percipient, 07-08-2002]
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tranquility Base Inactive Member |
Andya
I'll sit it out until the genomes come in around 2005. Are you serious that sheep and bison are in the same family? I again doubt this but will not make a statement of 99.99% this time!
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tranquility Base Inactive Member |
Percy
Why don't you tell us in what way Erwin's abstract supports the title? And what exactly do you debate? Do you disagree that alleles of a particular gene have the same fold? That's the whole point of the hunman genome and SNPs. We can all be largely descibed by the same human genome + a list of our personal SNPs. Otherwise the concept of The human genome would be silly. BTW - My thesis was passed without a single correction. Every scientists reads and interprets hundreds of abstracts a month. That is a fact. I have to tell my graduate students that frequently. You must read hundreds of abstracts and dozens of papers a month. [This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 07-08-2002]
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
Joe Meert Member (Idle past 5710 days) Posts: 913 From: Gainesville Joined: |
quote: JM: Well, that speaks poorly of your thesis committee that they would not take the time to read it carefully. Having served on both ends of the process I find this claim patently absurd.Then again, Hovind claims the same thing. Cheers Joe Meert [This message has been edited by Joe Meert, 07-08-2002]
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024