|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Discussion of Phylogenetic Methods | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
vaporwave Member (Idle past 2676 days) Posts: 66 Joined: |
Do you even care? I just wonder why evolutionists always bring up cytochrome C but never cytochrome B. Is there a reason for that?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
vaporwave Member (Idle past 2676 days) Posts: 66 Joined: |
Variation in cytB is higher than cytC, making cytC the choice for comparing more distantly related organisms. So in other words.... cytochrome B isn't something you want to show off when trying to sell evolution to people... so you cherry-pick cytochrome C instead. Makes sense I guess from a marketing standpoint.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
vaporwave Member (Idle past 2676 days) Posts: 66 Joined: |
Here is a mouse that, for one gene, is more similar to a jellyfish than any other vertebrate: This mouse carries an exact copy of the jellyfish gene GFP (green fluorescent protein). How did it get there? These mice were DESIGNED by humans. We put the jellyfish gene in the mouse genome. If we can so easily violate a nested hierarchy, why couldn't God? Is God less powerful than humans? This is a really interesting subject, but don't you find it strange that evolutionists are so quick to wander into teleology when making their case for common ancestry? I thought it was strictly all about the science with you guys? I seems in every defense of evolution I've heard, within 3 or 4 posts the evolutionists are always making implications about what God would or wouldn't do...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
vaporwave Member (Idle past 2676 days) Posts: 66 Joined: |
So the same "template" was not used for two very similar critters So the "template" would be inferred as features uniting Marsupials or features uniting Eutherians. Cladistics actually works just fine without assuming common ancestry.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
vaporwave Member (Idle past 2676 days) Posts: 66 Joined: |
The whole point is that there are nearly infinite methods for writing computer code to produce an identical looking web browser. Potentially, sure. But I think if an individual coder designed many variations of a web browser in short span of time, then it could pretty easily be interpreted as an evolutionary pattern.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
vaporwave Member (Idle past 2676 days) Posts: 66 Joined: |
Taq gave a an explanation detailing why and when each of cytochrome B and C would be used, and additionally justified his own choice. But rather than respond, you just act as though no such reasons were given. I accepted Taq's response. He said cytB has "higher variation" than cytC. Higher variation = increased deviation from a phylogenetic signal or pattern. This is essentially an admission that cytochrome B data does not reinforce the preferred evolutionary relationships very well, or at least would not look as convincing when making a case to the public. This is why evolutionists, when trying to make their case, always focus on cytochrome C instead.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
vaporwave Member (Idle past 2676 days) Posts: 66 Joined: |
You mean the features that show hereditary traits from parent to descendant that evolution predicts. Only if you assume shared traits are the product of common inheritance. The traits themselves don't show you that.
"Did the squirrel become a possum or did the possum become a squirrel?" Honestly I have no idea what you're talking about.
Note that you have gone from having a template that accounts for the small difference between sister species to one that applies to whole classes. Are you under the impression that templates can only be used exclusively of each other? You can't use more than one when building something? That would be a bizarre thing to assume from a design perspective.
This seems to me to be a very curious argument for a creationist position, where one of the bulwarks of their argument is that all life reproduces after their own kind and are descendant from the original kind -- ie descendant from the original common ancestors. I haven't said anything about creationist models, but it sounds like you're suggesting that one cannot group objects by shared traits (cladistics) unless those objects are related via common ancestry. Is that really what you're saying?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
vaporwave Member (Idle past 2676 days) Posts: 66 Joined: |
How so? Why would an individual coder produce code so that it falls into a nested hierarchy? I thought this would be obvious. If a coder wants to design, say, a hundred variations of a web browser program, he would probably work off some sort of common coding base for the basic program and then add/remove/tweak various peripheral features in order to generate variety. Such a collection of programs would easily fall into a nested hierarchy, and would have the effect of a phylogenetic signal similar to evolution.
No, it doesn't. It means a loss of phylogenetic signal for distantly related species. Not necessarily. Evolutionists might simply argue the species are still closely related but the genes were not conserved in their lineages. There is just a bit of ad-hoc maneuvering here. If the genetic signal does not reflect a preferred narrative of how closely or distantly related particular species are, then evolutionists will simply argue that the genes in question were either more conserved or less conserved, thus accommodating the discordant data.
The pattern of shared derived characteristics (i.e. an objective phylogeny) Phylogenies are not objective. For example, subjective weighting of characters as either homologous or independent convergences is a huge issue in systematics.
... do show us that they share a common ancestor in the same way that a fingerprint shows us that someone touched a surface. Yes, if you assume common ancestry is true, then that's exactly what phylogenies do. Nobody ever had to assume that people leave physical markings where they've traveled. To be honest that was a ridiculous analogy.
Isn't that the impression you have been pushing all along? If a designer can mix and match design units freely, then creationism should not produce a nested hierarchy. Crude example: start with a vertebrate template, and from a vertebrate template generate a vertebrate-tetrapod template and a vertebrate-fish template, and so on. I'm not sure what your obsession is with this hypothetical mix-and-match scenario. I may as well be disparaging the common ancestry assumption because evolution could potentially have evolved different lifeforms at different times and it didn't.
We are saying that only common ancestry is able to explain why shared derived characteristics found in biological species form an objective phylogeny. Creationism can't explain it. Well then you have problems because you don't have an objective phylogeny.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
vaporwave Member (Idle past 2676 days) Posts: 66 Joined: |
It is true that we often do take what we refer to as an evolutionary approach. That is to say that we will copy some existing code that operates similarly to what we want and then we modify it. Yes.
Now the analogy with evolution starts to fall apart. During the maintenance phase of the product's life we are constantly required to add new features which are often incompatible with the original design, so we have to burrow back into the code and change the fundamental ways that the software works at its lowest levels. That cannot happen in nature. It would be like the evolution of a new species requiring completely changing how DNA works. Cannot happen. Evolution can only work with what it starts with; you cannot completely reinvent entire systems on the fly. You could also spill beer all over the keyboard. I don't think you should take the analogy quite so literally. Human programmers change design scope on the fly and obviously screw things up all the time, usually like you say, not anticipating what kind of effect a new feature will have on the rest of the program. If you set this fallibility aside then my point still stands, a dominant "evolutionary" pattern emerges.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
vaporwave Member (Idle past 2676 days) Posts: 66 Joined: |
I know where he's getting it, from his desire to introduce a designer. Let the record show that the evolutionists here were the first to start talking about gods and designers in this discussion. (as usual) I think it's pretty much a rule at this point, if you're looking for a philosophical presentation on deities or intelligent design, just ask an evolutionist to make his scientific case for common ancestry.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
vaporwave Member (Idle past 2676 days) Posts: 66 Joined: |
So that there would in fact be common ancestry and descent with modification, but of designs rather than organisms? Sure, depending on how ambiguous you want to get with those terms you could also say a wood furniture set is made up of modified descendants of a common ancestral oak tree.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
vaporwave Member (Idle past 2676 days) Posts: 66 Joined: |
Any idea why primate phylogenies constructed from protein sequences match phylogenies created from synonymous sites? I assume whatever you're driving at is universal to all phylogenies, right? You wouldn't be cherry-picking primates would you?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
vaporwave Member (Idle past 2676 days) Posts: 66 Joined: |
No-one mentioned creators before you did I did not invoke creation/intelligent design as any part of an argument. I just anticipated the evolutionists would and then they did.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
vaporwave Member (Idle past 2676 days) Posts: 66 Joined: |
It is significantly widespread among phylogenies constructed from well-conserved, non-saturated nucleic acid sequence sites -- and this is the data set that's relevant. So when sequence data reinforces a preferred evolutionary relationship you assume it was well-conserved. And when the sequence data contradicts a preferred evolutionary relationship, you assume it was not well-conserved. Then when making your case to laypeople, of course be sure to only focus on the "well-conserved" sequences, because they make evolution look better. Is that about right?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
vaporwave Member (Idle past 2676 days) Posts: 66 Joined: |
But a tetrapod derived from a vertebrate is both a tetrapod and a vertebrate. Yes, but nothing in that statement necessitates evolutionary history. That's just the way you automatically think about traits when you assume evolution is true.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024