Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 109 (8803 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 11-25-2017 4:31 AM
403 online now:
frako, Meddle, PaulK, Tangle (4 members, 399 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: jaufre
Upcoming Birthdays: Raphael
Post Volume:
Total: 822,969 Year: 27,575/21,208 Month: 1,488/1,714 Week: 331/365 Day: 8/50 Hour: 1/0

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev12
3
45Next
Author Topic:   Can the creationist model explain the data?
herebedragons
Member
Posts: 1413
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009
Member Rating: 2.8


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 yet responded

  
herebedragons
Member
Posts: 1413
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009
Member Rating: 2.8


(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.


  
CRR
Member
Posts: 578
From: Australia
Joined: 10-19-2016


Message 33 of 67 (811538)
06-09-2017 6:13 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by herebedragons
05-07-2017 7:27 PM


cytochrome c
quote:
Textbooks often claim common descent is supported using the example of a tree of animals based upon the enzyme cytochrome c which matches the traditional evolutionary tree based upon morphology. However, textbooks rarely mention that the tree based upon a different enzyme, cytochrome b, sharply conflicts with the standard evolutionary tree.
https://evolutionnews.org/2015/02/problem_6_molec/

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.
http://creation.com/...mmon-design-points-to-common-ancestry



This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by herebedragons, posted 05-07-2017 7:27 PM herebedragons has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by Taq, posted 06-09-2017 11:06 AM CRR has not yet responded
 Message 51 by herebedragons, posted 06-12-2017 1:12 PM CRR has not yet responded

  
CRR
Member
Posts: 578
From: Australia
Joined: 10-19-2016


Message 34 of 67 (811539)
06-09-2017 6:17 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by RAZD
05-08-2017 3:39 PM


See https://www.google.com/search?q=fruit+fly+experiments+dna...

Oh FFS give us a decent reference; not a Google search.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by RAZD, posted 05-08-2017 3:39 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by Tangle, posted 06-09-2017 6:33 AM CRR has responded
 Message 36 by RAZD, posted 06-09-2017 8:03 AM CRR has not yet responded
 Message 38 by Taq, posted 06-09-2017 11:09 AM CRR has not yet responded

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 5166
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 35 of 67 (811542)
06-09-2017 6:33 AM
Reply to: Message 34 by CRR
06-09-2017 6:17 AM


CRR writes:

Oh FFS give us a decent reference; not a Google search.

Pot, let me introduce you to kettle.

CRR writes:

quote:
Textbooks often claim common descent is supported using the example of a tree of animals based upon the enzyme cytochrome c which matches the traditional evolutionary tree based upon morphology. However, textbooks rarely mention that the tree based upon a different enzyme, cytochrome b, sharply conflicts with the standard evolutionary tree.
https://evolutionnews.org/2015/02/problem_6_molec/

quote:
The articles published at Evolution News are copyright by Discovery Institute and/or the respective authors and shouldn’t be republished without permission. For permission to reprint, contact editor@evolutionnews.org.

Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.

"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android

"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by CRR, posted 06-09-2017 6:17 AM CRR has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by CRR, posted 06-09-2017 7:45 PM Tangle has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19234
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 36 of 67 (811553)
06-09-2017 8:03 AM
Reply to: Message 34 by CRR
06-09-2017 6:17 AM


Oh FFS give us a decent reference; not a Google search.

What I said was:

(Faith): Collect a bunch of small creatures, small enough to let multiply in a lab but large enough to do DNA sampling on. Let them multiply, split them into new populations, let them multiply, keep doing this from each new population. Watch what happens to the genetic diversity.

There have been several, mostly with fruit flies (short generations, DNA easily extracted).

See https://www.google.com/search?q=fruit+fly+experiments+dna...

Browse at your leisure, but there have been significant changes to their DNA over the period they have been done

Now I could go down the list and then list every one ... and the difference would be?

The point is that there are hundreds of studies. Curiously they all tend to discredit Faith's thesis about genetic diversity dwindling because they show mutations and new traits.

But here's one:

quote:
Fruit flies in the laboratory

Chromosomal theory of inheritance

After a frustrating and fruitless two-year search for Drosophila with different characteristics, white-eyed flies suddenly appeared among Thomas Morgan’s normal, red-eyed flies. To find out more about these white-eyed flies, Thomas carried out crosses between them and the red-eyed flies. Through these early experiments he found that all of the white-eyed flies being produced were males, there were no white-eyed females at all.

Thomas continued his work looking at a number of different traits in the Drosophila and in 1915 he published his theory Mechanism of Mendelian Heredity, acknowledging that he agreed with Mendel’s concept of dominant and recessive traits. In his work he introduced the concept of genes carrying hereditary information and explained the discovery that certain characteristics were linked to sex. He also revealed that different combinations of traits arise from changes occurring in the chromosomes during reproduction.


A gene mutated causing white eyes, recessive and sex linked, but still it increased diversity.

Here's another:

quote:
Fruit flies diversify their offspring in response to parasite infection

Abstract

The evolution of sexual reproduction is often explained by Red Queen dynamics: Organisms must continually evolve to maintain fitness relative to interacting organisms, such as parasites. Recombination accompanies sexual reproduction and helps diversify an organism’s offspring, so that parasites cannot exploit static host genotypes. Here we show that Drosophila melanogaster plastically increases the production of recombinant offspring after infection. The response is consistent across genetic backgrounds, developmental stages, and parasite types but is not induced after sterile wounding. Furthermore, the response appears to be driven by transmission distortion rather than increased recombination. Our study extends the Red Queen model to include the increased production of recombinant offspring and uncovers a remarkable ability of hosts to actively distort their recombination fraction in rapid response to environmental cues.


Increasing reproductive inaccuracy ("transmission distortion") causing more mutations to increase diversity in response to ecological stress.

Such fun.

Enjoy

Edited by RAZD, : .


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by CRR, posted 06-09-2017 6:17 AM CRR has not yet responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 7263
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.7


(1)
Message 37 of 67 (811584)
06-09-2017 11:06 AM
Reply to: Message 33 by CRR
06-09-2017 6:13 AM


Re: cytochrome c
CRR writes:

Textbooks often claim common descent is supported using the example of a tree of animals based upon the enzyme cytochrome c which matches the traditional evolutionary tree based upon morphology. However, textbooks rarely mention that the tree based upon a different enzyme, cytochrome b, sharply conflicts with the standard evolutionary tree.
https://evolutionnews.org/2015/02/problem_6_molec/

That's because cytB is found on the mitochondrial genome and evolves at a higher rate that cytC which is found in somatic DNA. Homoplasies quickly mask the phylogenetic signal due to the higher rate of evolution. CytB phylogenies are only relevant for closely related species.

...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¨C69%). 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¨C30%). 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¨C81%). Cytochrome C¡¯s compared between a carp and a bullfrog, turtle, chicken, rabbit, and horse yield a constant difference of 13¨C14%. There is no trace of any transitional series of cyclostome ¡ú fish ¡ú amphibian ¡ú reptile ¡ú mammal or bird.
http://creation.com/...mmon-design-points-to-common-ancestry

What you just pointed to is actually evidence for common ancestry in the form of genetic equidistance. The very fact that you think MODERN species are somehow temporally intermediate between ancestors and OTHER MODERN species shows just how poorly you understand evolution. All lineages continue evolving after a speciation event. One lineage does not stop evolving while another evolves. Modern bacteria are just as evolved as modern humans. The intermediate DNA sequences existed far in the past in organisms that are now long dead.

Genetic equidistance IS EXACTLY WHAT WE SHOULD SEE IF EVOLUTION IS TRUE. You can read more here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molecular_clock

Edited by Taq, : No reason given.


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

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 7263
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 38 of 67 (811585)
06-09-2017 11:09 AM
Reply to: Message 34 by CRR
06-09-2017 6:17 AM


CRR writes:

Oh FFS give us a decent reference; not a Google search.

So says the person referencing creationist sites that get the basic science wrong.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by CRR, posted 06-09-2017 6:17 AM CRR has not yet responded

  
CRR
Member
Posts: 578
From: Australia
Joined: 10-19-2016


Message 39 of 67 (811621)
06-09-2017 7:45 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by Tangle
06-09-2017 6:33 AM


Tangle writes:

Pot, let me introduce you to kettle.

Dear Tangled Twit, I gave a quote from and a link to a single relevant article which is fair dealing and not a breach of copyright.
In contrast RAZD gave a link to a Google search.

If you think I have breached copyright feel free to report me to DI.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Tangle, posted 06-09-2017 6:33 AM Tangle has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by RAZD, posted 06-09-2017 10:25 PM CRR has responded
 Message 41 by Tangle, posted 06-10-2017 2:59 AM CRR has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19234
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 40 of 67 (811623)
06-09-2017 10:25 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by CRR
06-09-2017 7:45 PM


When there are a thousand studies that show diversification of fruit flies, a single reference is inadequate to show the number of such studies. This argument that diversity always decreases is so much toast in the real world that the sheer number of such studies is like an avalanche to bury the poser.

That's what you seem to miss in your whining about getting a bing (not google - they track your uses for ad companies) search.

Enjoy


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by CRR, posted 06-09-2017 7:45 PM CRR has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by CRR, posted 06-12-2017 1:05 AM RAZD has acknowledged this reply
 Message 44 by CRR, posted 06-12-2017 4:08 AM RAZD has responded

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 5166
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 2.5


(1)
Message 41 of 67 (811635)
06-10-2017 2:59 AM
Reply to: Message 39 by CRR
06-09-2017 7:45 PM


CRR writes:

I gave a quote from and a link to a single relevant article which is fair dealing and not a breach of copyright.
In contrast RAZD gave a link to a Google search.

You gave us a link to an essay on a discredited creationist web site run by the dicredited Discovery Institute. Their 'work' is not science, is not peer reviewed nor is it published through scientific channels. It's a corrupt organisation.

RAZD gave you a Google results page with numerous reputable sources of information on fruit fly research.

Can you see the difference?


Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.

"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android

"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by CRR, posted 06-09-2017 7:45 PM CRR has not yet responded

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 10088
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.3


(1)
Message 42 of 67 (811652)
06-10-2017 7:43 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by Faith
05-08-2017 1:01 PM


Is there a common methodology?
Faith writes:

It's a setup, which is obvious anyway. Creationist silence gives you victory. How clever.
It's a test of absolutely nothing do with the creationist viewpoint. It should not have been promoted.

Lately, I have been reading the science forums to see if I understand anything that is being discussed.

Your opponents claim that creationism has no model. Can you explain why it is you disagree?

Also...does the creationist model fall under the discipline of the scientific method or is it understood using an alternative verification system?


Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. –RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." –Mark Twain "
~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith
"as long as chance rules, God is an anachronism."~Arthur Koestler

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Faith, posted 05-08-2017 1:01 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
CRR
Member
Posts: 578
From: Australia
Joined: 10-19-2016


Message 43 of 67 (811761)
06-12-2017 1:05 AM
Reply to: Message 40 by RAZD
06-09-2017 10:25 PM


When there are a thousand studies that show diversification of fruit flies, a single reference is inadequate to show the number of such studies. This argument that diversity always decreases is so much toast in the real world that the sheer number of such studies is like an avalanche to bury the poser.

That's what you seem to miss in your whining about getting a bing (not google - they track your uses for ad companies) search.


It was Google. Go back and check you previous post. Not that it matters; a bing or google search is not a valid reference.

N Joi.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by RAZD, posted 06-09-2017 10:25 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
CRR
Member
Posts: 578
From: Australia
Joined: 10-19-2016


Message 44 of 67 (811767)
06-12-2017 4:08 AM
Reply to: Message 40 by RAZD
06-09-2017 10:25 PM


Fruit Flies
Yes there are thousands of studies on fruit flies.
Embryologist Jonathan Wells sums up the research on fruit fly mutations. "There are only 3 possible outcomes: A normal fruit fly, a defective fruit fly, or a dead fruit fly."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w0BdziP3HBs at 6:00
This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by RAZD, posted 06-09-2017 10:25 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by RAZD, posted 06-12-2017 5:57 AM CRR has responded
 Message 52 by Taq, posted 06-12-2017 1:17 PM CRR has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19234
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 45 of 67 (811774)
06-12-2017 5:57 AM
Reply to: Message 44 by CRR
06-12-2017 4:08 AM


Re: Fruit Flies
Yes there are thousands of studies on fruit flies.
Embryologist Jonathan Wells sums up the research on fruit fly mutations. "There are only 3 possible outcomes: A normal fruit fly, a defective fruit fly, or a dead fruit fly."

Then Jonathan Wells lies hyperbolically for christ.

See Message 36 for examples, one from 1915 that shows a mutation causing white eyes arising. Now in Jonathan Wells' view this may be "defective" but the eyes work as well as the red ones.

Enjoy


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by CRR, posted 06-12-2017 4:08 AM CRR has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by CRR, posted 06-12-2017 6:16 AM RAZD has responded

  
Prev12
3
45Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017