Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Can the creationist model explain the data?
herebedragons
Member (Idle past 857 days)
Posts: 1517
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009


(2)
Message 1 of 67 (808032)
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
CRR writes:
There is no need to invoke the theory of evolution for common sense predictions.
Faith responded in Message 358
Faith writes:
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.
Faith writes:
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.
Faith writes:
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
Faith writes:
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:
Faith writes:
HBD writes:
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.
* ** *** ***********  ********************  ******************* ****** ** ****************  * **** *
A 	MAYPFQLGFQDATSPIMEELSHFHDHTLMIVFLISSLVLYIISLMLTTKLTHTSTMDAQEVETIWTILPAIILILIALPSLRILYMMDEINNPSLTVKTM
B	MAYPFQLGFQDATSPIMEELLHFHDHTLMIVFLISSLVLYIISLMLTTKLTHTSTMDAQEVETIWTILPAIILILIALPSLRILYMMDEINNPSLTVKTM
C	MAYPLQLGFQDATSPIMEELLHFHDHTLMIVFLISSLVLYIISLMLTTKLTHTSTMDAQEVETIWTILPAIILILIALPSLRILYMMDEINSPSLTVKTM
D	MAYPFQLGFQDATSPIMEELLHFHDHTLMIVFLISSLVLYIISLMLTTKLTHTSTMDAQEVETIWTILPAIILILIALPSLRILYMMDEINNPSLTVKTM
E	MAYPFQLGLQDATSPIMEELLHFHDHTLMIVFLISSLVLYIITLMLTTKLTHTSTMDAQEVETVWTILPAIILILIALPSLRILYMMDEINNPSLTVKTM
F	MAYPFQLGLQDATSPIMEELLHFHDHTLMIVFLISSLVLYIISLMLTTKLTHTSTMDAQEVETVWTILPAIILILIALPSLRILYMMDEINNPSLTVKTM
G	MAYPFQLGLQDATSPIMEELLHFHDHTLMIVFLISSLVLYIISSMLTTKLTHTSTMDAQEVETVWTILPAIILILIALPSLRILYMMDEINNPSLTVKTM
H	MAYPFQLGLQDATSPIMEELLHFHDHTLMIVFLISSLVLYIISLMLTTKLTHTSTMDAQEVETVWTILPAIILVLIALPSLRILYMMDEINNPSLTVKTM
I	MPYPMQLGFQDATSPIMEELMYFHDHTLMIVFLISSLVLYIIILMLTTKLTHTSTMDAQEVETIWTILPAVILILIALPSLRILYMMDEIYNPYLTVKAM

    	********* **** * ********  * ** *********  ****   * ********* *  ****** ********* **   ***  ** *****
A	GHQWYWSYEYTDYEDLSFDSYMIPTQELKPGELRLLEVDNRVVLPMEVTIRVLISSEDVLHSWAVPSLGLKTDAIPGRLNQTTLMGTRPGLYYGRCSEIC
B	GHQWYWSYEYTDYEDLNFDSYMIPTQELKPGELRLLEVDNRVVLPMEMTIRMLISSEDVLHSWAVPSLGLKTDAIPGRLNQTTLMGTRPGLYYGQCSEIC
C	GHQWYWSYEYTDYEDLNFDSYMIPTQELKPGELRLLEVDNRVVLPMEMTIRMLISSEDVLHSWAVPSLGLKTDAIPGRLNQTTLMGTRPGLYYGQCSEIC
D	GHQWYWSYEYTDYEDLSFDSYMIPTQELKPGELRLLEVDNRVVLPMEMTIRMLISSEDVLHSWAVPSLGLKTDAIPGRLNQTTLMGTRPGLYYGQCSEIC
E	GHQWYWSYEYTDYEDLNFDSYMIPTQELKPGELRLLEVDNRVVLPMEMTVRMLISSEDVLHSWAVPSLGLKTDAIPGRLNQTTLMAMRPGLYYGQCSEIC
F	GHQWYWSYEYTDYEDLNFDSYMIPTQELKPGELRLLEVDNRVVLPMEMTIRMLISSEDVLHSWAVPSLGLKTDAIPGRLNQTTLMAMRPGLYYGQCSEIC
G	GHQWYWSYEYTDYEDLNFDSYMIPTQELKPGELRLLEVDNRVILPMEMTVRMLISSEDVLHSWAVPSLGLKTDAIPGRLNQTTLMAMRPGLYYGQCSEIC
H	GHQWYWSYEYTDYEDLNFDSYMIPTQELKPGELRLLEVDNRVVLPMEMTVRMLISSEDVLHSWAVPSLGLKTDAIPGRLNQTTLMAMRPGLYYGQCSEIC
I	GHQWYWSYEFTDYENLMFDSYMIPTKDLSPGQLRLLEVDNRIVLPMELPIRMLISSEDVLHAWTMPSLGLKADAIPGRLNQITLTSSRPGVFYGQCSEIC

    	************   * *** **  *
A    	GSNHSFMPIVLELVPLSYFEKWSASML
B	GSNHSFMPIVLELVPLTYFEKWSASML
C	GSNHSFMPIVLELVPLAYFEKWSASML
D	GSNHSFMPIVLELVPLVYFEKWSASML
E	GSNHSFMPIVLEMVPLSYFETWSAVMV
F	GSNHSFMPIVLEMVPLSYFETWSALMV
G	GSNHSFMPIVLEMVPLSYFETWSALMV
H	GSNHSFMPIVLEMVPLSYFETWSALMV
I	GSNHSFMPIVLEMASLKYFEKWSSMMQ
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
HBD

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.

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Faith, posted 05-08-2017 11:37 AM herebedragons has replied
 Message 33 by CRR, posted 06-09-2017 6:13 AM herebedragons has replied

  
herebedragons
Member (Idle past 857 days)
Posts: 1517
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009


(3)
Message 6 of 67 (808095)
05-08-2017 12:50 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by Davidjay
05-08-2017 11:43 AM


Re: Mathematical model presented.. Golden Section
Amazing another new thread, promoted instantly.
That is because I am capable of drafting a coherent, logical opening post and of then having productive discussions. You are not.
So lets be logical and do the math, and study the math models of the template of life to start with, its called the Golden Section.
Please don't bring your numerology here... you have your own threads for such nonsense.
If you have math that is actually pertinent to this discussion, bring it... but the golden section is totally irrelevant and I am not interested in discussing it or reading about it.
Thanks
HBD

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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Davidjay, posted 05-08-2017 11:43 AM Davidjay has not replied

  
herebedragons
Member (Idle past 857 days)
Posts: 1517
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009


(3)
Message 10 of 67 (808108)
05-08-2017 1:12 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by Faith
05-08-2017 11:37 AM


HBD, I would really like to see you spell out how your work makes use of your model and couldn't make use of mine, or CRRs or any creationist's,
I will... but remember, it is a matter of which explanation works BEST, not just if it can be squeezed to fit.
I am always thinking in broad generalities, not specific details and I stick to the facts and problems that best help explain the creationist point of view.
But its the specific details that should inform the broad generalities, not the other way around. So you have an general idea about how something works, fine. But then you need to examine the specific details and see if they work with your generalities before you can conclude that your generalities are correct.
I'm not familiar with cytochrome.
You don't need to be familiar with cytochrome c in particular, just the mechanisms that cause change. This is stuff that geneticists work with on a regular basis. These principals are foundational to much biological research. This is really basic stuff.
I propose that you tell us how YOUR model works with ANYTHING we can comprehend and then you might get some input from me.
Seriously?
Or, how about just taking ONE "evolutionary principle" and comparing it with ONE "creationist principle" in relation to a SIMPLE problem in biology so I'd have SOME idea what you are talking about.
Ok. How about this: I will use the "evolutionary principle" that genes undergo mutation and these mutations are passed on to subsequent generations and accumulate over generations so that we can compare genes in several species would expect that the most closely related species would have the least amount of accumulated variation between genes and the more distantly related species would have more accumulated variation.
You can use the "creationist principal" that all variation occurs within a species and that variation in morphology is a result of changing allele frequencies and depletion of genetic diversity.
OK. Go.
HBD
Edited by herebedragons, : removed some what snarky response

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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Faith, posted 05-08-2017 11:37 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by Faith, posted 05-08-2017 1:22 PM herebedragons has replied

  
herebedragons
Member (Idle past 857 days)
Posts: 1517
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009


Message 11 of 67 (808113)
05-08-2017 1:21 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by Faith
05-08-2017 1:01 PM


But of course. It's a setup, which is obvious anyway.
How is it a "set up"? Because I know creationists have no clue as to what real data looks like and how scientists deal with real data? I guess in that case, it is a "set up". I know you can't answer this and you will have no answer after I present my analysis either (other than denial). But that's hardly my fault, is it?
Creationist silence gives you victory. How clever.
Not interested in "victory" or your silence. I want you to debate in good faith. If you have no interest in even trying to understand or address this issue, you shouldn't have posted anything at all.
It's a test of absolutely nothing do with the creationist viewpoint.
So your saying that analysis of data has nothing to do with the creationist viewpoint? huh...
HBD

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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Faith, posted 05-08-2017 1:01 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by Faith, posted 05-08-2017 1:25 PM herebedragons has replied

  
herebedragons
Member (Idle past 857 days)
Posts: 1517
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009


Message 14 of 67 (808118)
05-08-2017 1:25 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by Faith
05-08-2017 1:22 PM


What? I just did. See Message 1.

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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Faith, posted 05-08-2017 1:22 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by Faith, posted 05-08-2017 1:27 PM herebedragons has not replied

  
herebedragons
Member (Idle past 857 days)
Posts: 1517
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009


Message 18 of 67 (808122)
05-08-2017 1:30 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by Faith
05-08-2017 1:25 PM


I don't think you understand one thing about what creationists are trying to do.
Uhmm... trying to offer alternative explanations for biological facts that support their premise that evolution is wrong.
You find the approach foreign to your experience and if our different points of view are too different this isn't going to work.
So... not interested in real data. I see...
Thanks anyway.
HBD

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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Faith, posted 05-08-2017 1:25 PM Faith has not replied

  
herebedragons
Member (Idle past 857 days)
Posts: 1517
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009


(1)
Message 19 of 67 (808125)
05-08-2017 1:36 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by Faith
05-08-2017 1:25 PM


What you are calling "analyses of data" comes from your own very different context HBD
You mean scientific training? Ok, sorry about that, I guess.
you are imposing conditions on creationists that are very likely irrelevant to what we are trying to do.
The question is: How do you explain the data? If you can't answer the question then fine, just do this:
Faith writes:
Forget it.
Do your victory dance. I'm out of here.
HBD

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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Faith, posted 05-08-2017 1:25 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by Faith, posted 05-08-2017 1:50 PM herebedragons has not replied
 Message 25 by Percy, posted 05-09-2017 8:36 AM herebedragons has replied

  
herebedragons
Member (Idle past 857 days)
Posts: 1517
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009


(1)
Message 28 of 67 (808272)
05-09-2017 2:22 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by Percy
05-09-2017 8:36 AM


General clarification of my preliminary point
Perhaps it would be better if you presented your analysis, describing the patterns found and the implications.
I plan to do that, but I wanted to make an important point before I presented my analysis. Perhaps I should take this opportunity to make my preliminary point(s) absolutely clear before moving on.
In order to analyze biological data there are 2 major requirements.
1) You must have an appropriate model.
Without a model you would have no context with which to even begin describing a set of data. CRR's point on another thread that biological problems can be solved with common sense and dredge's point that eliminating Darwinian evolution from biology would not make a bit of difference to understanding biological data are absolutely NOT appropriate models. Faith has the closest thing to a model, but if it can't be applied, it is not really useful. If these ARE appropriate models, they should be able to apply them to the data at hand.
2) You must have appropriate tools.
As you can see, even this simple data set is quite difficult to analyze and we are only dealing with 9 taxa and a protein that is only 227-aa in length. I even ordered the list of taxa so the pattern would be fairly obvious. Imagine a data set that consists of 30 taxa and a set of 5 genes that are each 700-800bp in length (~1250 amino acids after translation). The tools to analyze a data set like this were developed by evolutionary biologists based on an evolutionary model. The tools creationists use to analyze data seem to be limited to intuition and looking at things. Not too effective on real data.
The rest of us can try to follow along.
I will try to work through this step by step and will be adding taxa to further expand on not just how to do this type of analysis, but how evolutionary theory explains the patterns we see in genetic data. The hardest part will be getting things into a format that can be easily visualized on a website like this.
It would make no difference whether I was advocating the creationist or scientific position, I would be helpless.<...> I did try eyeballing the data and it seemed that species I is most distant from other species, and perhaps EFGH are more distant from ABCD, but I can't be sure.
Well... you have shown that you are not helpless in your approach this data. You apparently used a model that implies that organisms that are more similar genetically are more closely related. That is the most basic evolutionary principal and of course creationists can say that principal is consistent with their "model" as well. But as we expand this data set, the differences in models will become more and more apparent.
HBD

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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Percy, posted 05-09-2017 8:36 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
herebedragons
Member (Idle past 857 days)
Posts: 1517
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009


Message 29 of 67 (808277)
05-09-2017 2:57 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by Taq
05-09-2017 12:07 PM


Resources
I do have these in FASTA format. I presented it in interleaved format to make it easier to compare the taxa visually. I could also provide accession numbers, which would be easier than dealing with a whole FASTA file. If anyone is interested, let me know.
If anyone is interested in doing this for themselves, the software is available as free downloads.
For alignment and preliminary trees, I like to use Mega6. As I retrieved the url for the download, I saw they have a new version, Mega7, and I will upgrade to that soon.
For analyzing sequences and tree construction, I like PAUP4.0. Current build is 4.0a152. This is a time-expiring version, but it can be renewed after expiring.
I am hoping to use Mesquite for inferring ancestral character states. Current version is 3.20.
Data is available from NCBI database which includes a nucleotide database, protein database and BLAST tools (blast allows searching for similar or homologous sequences).
**Taq linked to the protein blast function at NCBI that allows comparisons.
HBD

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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Taq, posted 05-09-2017 12:07 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by Taq, posted 05-09-2017 3:46 PM herebedragons has replied

  
herebedragons
Member (Idle past 857 days)
Posts: 1517
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009


Message 31 of 67 (808288)
05-09-2017 4:07 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by Taq
05-09-2017 3:46 PM


Re: Resources
Excellent. I really like the percent similarity matrix, I don't really have a good tool to do that; PAUP maybe, but I haven't tried it specifically.
The phylogenetic section doesn't allow you to root the tree, so it produces a weird result. But other than that, it looks like a really good resource. I will bookmark it.
HBD

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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Taq, posted 05-09-2017 3:46 PM Taq has not replied

  
herebedragons
Member (Idle past 857 days)
Posts: 1517
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009


(1)
Message 32 of 67 (810858)
06-02-2017 9:15 AM


BUMP
Just bumping this up so it doesn't fall off the edge of the earth.
My apologies, I haven't meant to abandon this thread, but have experienced some personal issues lately that have taken up all my free time. I have been working on a reply and will post when I can.
HBD

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.

  
herebedragons
Member (Idle past 857 days)
Posts: 1517
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009


(1)
Message 51 of 67 (811832)
06-12-2017 1:12 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by CRR
06-09-2017 6:13 AM


Re: cytochrome c
The first sentence in the EN article you posted is:
quote:
When fossils failed to demonstrate that animals evolved from a common ancestor, evolutionary scientists turned to another type of evidence DNA sequence data to demonstrate a tree of life.
The opening statement is so misleading and dishonest that there really is no need for me to examine the claims of the article further. Why do they do this? Obviously, the target audience wants to believe this statement to be true and so they accept it as true without scrutiny. And of course, you may in fact think the fossil record does not support common ancestry, but this statement makes it sound as if evolutionary scientists agree with that statement and so switched tactics in order to maintain their dogmatic position. Whether their conclusion about the fossil record is right or wrong, evolutionary scientists would maintain that the fossil record DOES support the conclusion of common descent and in fact is the primary reason for the acceptance of common ancestry.
But peruse the article I did and one thing I find conspicuously absent from the article... data! Where is the data? Instead of presenting the data, the author relies on quotes from articles that may not be accessible to the average reader. First off, based on the opening statement, I don't have much confidence in how the author uses quotes. Second, the claims he is making require evidence, not quotes.
Terrible article... written for the faithful.
But anyway...
quote:
.when comparing the amino acid sequence of cytochrome C of a bacterium (a prokaryote) with such widely diverse eukaryotes as yeast, wheat, silkmoth, pigeon, and horse, all of these have practically the same percentage difference with the bacterium (64—69%). There is no intermediate cytochrome between prokaryotes and eukaryotes, and no hint that the ‘higher’ organism such as a horse has diverged more than the ‘lower’ organism such as the yeast.
The same sort of pattern is observed when comparing cytochrome C of the invertebrate silkmoth with the vertebrates lamprey, carp, turtle, pigeon, and horse. All the vertebrates are equally divergent from the silkmoth (27—30%). Yet again, comparing globins of a lamprey (a ‘primitive’ cyclostome or jawless fish) with a carp, frog, chicken, kangaroo, and human, they are all about equidistant (73—81%). Cytochrome C’s compared between a carp and a bullfrog, turtle, chicken, rabbit, and horse yield a constant difference of 13—14%. There is no trace of any transitional series of cyclostome → fish → amphibian → reptile → mammal or bird.
Well, this is the very thing I hope to explore in this thread. What could an "intermediate cytochrome" look like? Would you know one if you saw it? What should we expect cytochrome divergence between "a carp and a bullfrog, turtle, chicken, rabbit, and horse" to be under a common descent hypothesis and/or a independent creation hypothesis? What would a " transitional series of cyclostome → fish → amphibian → reptile → mammal or bird" actually look like?
But we will be working with data, not quote mining.
HBD
** My free time should be clearing up somewhat in the next couple weeks, so I should be getting back to this soon.**

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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by CRR, posted 06-09-2017 6:13 AM CRR has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024