Message 1 of 2 (807991)
05-07-2017 7:27 PM
Creationists continually claim that their model(s) explain the data just as well or better than evolutionary models. I posted a challenge in Message 353 for creationists to propose a research approach to a simple, real world problem using only a creationist model without including evolutionary principals. The purpose was two-fold; 1) to get creationist to think about how to apply their model to a real problem and 2) to expose how important evolutionary principals are to applied biology.
This was met with rather predictable responses (and no usable solutions). CRR responded in Message 355 with
There is no need to invoke the theory of evolution for common sense predictions.
Faith responded in Message 358
I have no reason at all to bring in anything from my model. As CRR said this is a practical matter.
To her credit, Faith does a fairly good job of describing her hypothesis about how evolution proceeds. One such place where she describes her hypothesis is in Message 86. A couple brief excepts from that message that give the gist of her ideas.
So what I said above is where I ended up about the basic built in genetic system for variation within a Kind. The original pair had to have all the genetic capacity to produce every variation of the Kind that exists today, but also probably a lot of different forms that died in the Flood.
My main argument since I came to EvC has been that there is a natural barrier to evolution beyond the genome of the Kind, which is that the processes of evolution themselves decrease genetic diversity, so that ultimately wherever evolution is continuing from population to population a point will be reached where no further evolution is possible.
From Message 79
So remove the mutations and you get "change in heritable traits of biological populations over time due to
mutation built-in allelic differences and natural selection (or descent with modification)" the definition would be getting closer to the genetic truth.
Here we have her claiming that changes in traits are not due to mutation but are pre-existing in populations and simply spread by recombination.
But this is the comment that really got me thinking about proposing this thread:
An alternate model for diversification would need to be put forward. The closest answer to that I have seen is the idea that all the diversity was "built in" to the original pair. But I don't see that model as being compatible with the data and at this point, it is pretty much unworkable.
Too bad because it IS the model for how heritable changes come about within species. I doubt it's the "data" that is the problem. Rather it's the definition that is the problem.
So I thought it would be good to introduce some real data and allow Faith and CRR to use their preferred models to analyze the data.
Below are the amino acid sequences of the mitochondrial ‘cytochrome c subunit II’ protein for 9 species of animals. These sequences were selected from NCBI Genbank and represent a number of taxonomic groups. The sequences below are translated directly from mRNA and do not include introns. They represent the actual protein sequence that is used to make the cytochrome subunit.
Cytochrome c is a protein complex that is involved in the electron transport chain in the mitochondria and has no direct connection to the morphology of the organism. It is highly conserved across a wide range of taxonomic groups and is commonly used in taxonomic and cladistic studies.
* ** *** *********** ******************** ******************* ****** ** **************** * **** *
********* **** * ******** * ** ********* **** * ********* * ****** ********* ** *** ** *****
************ * *** ** *
The rows represent individual species and are labeled at the beginning of the row with the species name (ie. species ‘A’). The amino acids are identified using single letters and follow through the rows. Because the protein is 227-aa long, the sequences are interleaved and there is only 100 positions listed per row. The same peptide continues in the subsequent set of rows beginning with the same species identifier. So, the first row of the first set is species ‘A’ and the first row of the second set is a continuation of the sequence for species ‘A’ as is the first row of the third set.
The sequences were aligned using Mega6.0 to make it easier to see the differences. The aligned residues are in columns and if there is an asterisk above the column the amino acid is identical in all sequences for that position. So columns without an asterisk have variation at that position.
Some of the sequences above are closely related and it is widely agreed that they represent group(s) that evolved or ‘microevolved’ from a common ancestor. What we need to identify here is what species are closely related and which species have a ‘barrier’ that indicates they could not have evolved from a common ancestor.
Not only should we identify which species are related and which are distantly related or not related, but we should explain why the data we have indicates the conclusion we come to. Why do we observe these patterns?
Once creationists have had the opportunity to respond and explain their theory, I will use evolutionary theory to analyze the data and describe the patterns in the data. There are plenty more sequences available from Genbank and I can retrieve more sequences from the same groups to examine inter-specific variation and from different groups to examine patterns of intra-specific variation.
Biological Evolution, please
Whoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for... I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca
"Nothing is easier than to persuade people who want to be persuaded and already believe." - another Petrarca gem.
Ignorance is a most formidable opponent rivaled only by arrogance; but when the two join forces, one is all but invincible.