|
QuickSearch
|
| |||||||
Chatting now: | Chat room empty | ||||||
DeepaManjusha | |||||||
|
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Discussion of Phylogenetic Methods | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 7421 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2
|
Here is a comparison of human and chimp cytochrome B:
Here is a comparison of human and chimpanzee cytochrome c (somatic)
Human and chimp cytochrome B is 95% conserved. Human and chimp cytochrome C is 100% conserved. We get these numbers by directly comparing the sequences. We say that cytochrome C is more conserved because 100% is greater than 95%. We do not change these values based on phylogenetic data. Any questions?
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 7421 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
But we do produce well supported phylogenies all over the place. I have already cited the cytochrome c example.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7660 From: Manchester, UK Joined: Member Rating: 1.5
|
Seems like an own goal to me. You are saying that in a hypothetical scenario where we know that the current code was copied and modified over successive generations that that we could create a nested hierarchy of sorts. This being the case, we know that this would be an example of common descent. If you want to say that nested hierarchies can be generated through descent with modification I'm fine with that, but it kind of undermines your thesis somewhat.
Yes, that's what science does. To quote Feynman who was discussing science in general, but from a physics background: quote: Assumptions / guesses are vital in science. The entire point is to say 'if the theory is true, then we should see x'. If you don't see x but you see something quite close to x you say 'oh that's interesting' and you try to guess why it's close but not right, modify your theory and try it again on a novel data set. Evolutionary theory is the best guess we have, and it has proven very successful. From paternity to species ancestry, it works. What's your guess?
Actually they do. We deny people liberty, and sometimes life, on the basis of the assumption that fingerprints are left by finger-havers and the assumption that all fingerprints are unique to each finger in existence.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member Posts: 19478 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
There, fixed it. Enjoy by our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆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)
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
vaporwave Member (Idle past 388 days) Posts: 66 Joined: |
Poor analogy. You don't have to assume or infer that the thing actually being observed through a telescope or microscope exists. Evolutionists observe character traits and sequence data and have to make evolutionary assumptions or inferences about them, at times resulting in a great deal of controversy between themselves. Edited by vaporwave, : No reason given.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
vaporwave Member (Idle past 388 days) Posts: 66 Joined: |
Why are you obfuscating? You know very well it is much more than the direct observation. In evolutionary terminology, stating that a genetic sequence is 'conserved' is to make a claim about evolutionary relationships. "Conservation across species indicates that a sequence has been maintained by evolution despite speciation. A highly conserved sequence is one that has remained unchanged far back up the phylogenetic tree, and hence far back in geological time." You don't observe geologic time in a genetic sequence. You observe the sequence and make inferences. And so back to my last point: Conflicting sequences can be accommodated into a preferred evolutionary narrative by simply assuming they were more or less conserved over deep time. This is followed up by the usual circular reasoning whereby the conservation inference is considered self-evident because you *know* evolution is true.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member Posts: 16011 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
Good analogy because you don't have to assume that the telescope exists, which was my point. And in fact, to address your point ... yeah, you kind of do. Some Ptolemaians did in fact object to Galileo's discoveries by proposing that the moons of Jupiter etc were illusions caused by his telescope, that he was not seeing a thing but only an illusion of a thing, and was erroneously assuming that the thing he was observing actually existed. The option of doing this sort of thing always stands open for anyone who wants to deny the significance of the data. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member Posts: 16011 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
Now you're being dishonest again. That is certainly what conservation indicates, just as the article says, but it is not how it is defined or recognized, as you must know because the article says, right at the top: "conserved sequences are similar or identical sequences in nucleic acids (DNA and RNA), proteins, or polysaccharides across species (orthologous sequences) or within different molecules produced by the same organism (paralogous sequences)". You should stop bullshitting us. It doesn't deceive anyone, it just makes you look dishonest.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
vaporwave Member (Idle past 388 days) Posts: 66 Joined: |
And a nested hierarchy is not evidence of evolutionary relationships unless you assume common ancestry.
You can't subjectively measure a bone either. You make subjective inferences about why it looks the way it does.
Oh that is just sad. You can be a bit more sophisticated than this I think.
Why didn't different types of animals evolve?
Not necessarily. If there was a paleontological record of totally different types of animals, then it may have simply produced a different common ancestry narrative by those evolutionists studying them. "Natural selection did it" is a surprisingly malleable explanatory device to wind a story around.
There may be an objective data-set, but finding an animal's position within it is far from objective. (e.g. Evolutionists still can't decide whether or not birds nest in Theropoda. )
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
vaporwave Member (Idle past 388 days) Posts: 66 Joined: |
Oh, I see... so the term isn't recognized as what it typically indicates in the literature? Is that really your argument? You should probably think your comments through a little more instead of just kicking up dust and making noise every time I post.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member Posts: 30149 From: Texas!! Joined: Member Rating: 1.8 |
Maybe you might think about actually presenting something, anything, that might support your position if in fact you actually have a position and are not just kicking up dust and making noise. As it stands we have the fossils. We win. We have the natural causes. We win. We have the designers. We win. And we have the Theory. We win. It really is that simple. Edited by jar, : fix sub-title
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member Posts: 6099 Joined: Member Rating: 2.9
|
The theory of evolution is a theory, rather than an assumption, hypothesis, or guess, because it fits the definition of a theory: it is the single best explanation for a given set of facts, it is not contradicted by any relevant facts, and it has withstood the test of time and made successful predictions. When scientists (not evolutionists*) observe things that fit with the theory of evolution, they would be remarkably poor scientists if they jumped, out of the blue, to some other assumption, hypothesis or guess--as you presumably would have them do. When the theory of evolution explains the facts, why try to bring in creationism? (Answer--belief gets in the way of learning.) * Whenever a poster on one of these websites starts discussing "evolutionists" we know he's a full-blown creationist. We can generally assume 1) a lack of scientific training and rigor, and 2) beliefs are favored over evidence. Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge. Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein In the name of diversity, college student demands to be kept in ignorance of the culture that made diversity a value--StultisTheFool It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1 "Multiculturalism" demands that the US be tolerant of everything except its own past, culture, traditions, and identity.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member Posts: 16011 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
Well, that was gibberish. A red light indicates that you should stop. But it is recognized and defined by its color. A fever indicates an infection. But it is recognized and defined by the patient's temperature. A conserved gene indicates that a sequence has been maintained by evolution, but it is recognized and defined by having similar or identical sequences across species. I shall not speculate on whether this is more of your dishonesty or whether you are genuinely so stupid you need to have this explained to you.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
vaporwave Member (Idle past 388 days) Posts: 66 Joined: |
Depends. I suppose it could but I wouldn't necessarily expect it because those animals have very different underlying anatomy which may promote unique design decisions. Evolution would say, if the genetic organization of the gliding membrane is different between both groups, then it independently evolved in eutheria and marsupialia. On the other hand, if the genetic organization of the gliding membrane is the same or similar in both groups, then those particular gene sequences were inherited from a common mammalian ancestor and driven by natural selection to be recruited for a common function in different species. Evolution would accommodate both observations in this case, just like design.
You mean a more complex explanation than "natural selection did it" ?
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member Posts: 19478 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
Okay, then instead of our talking about creationism or what creators can or cannot seem to do, how about we just talk about alternate explanations -- ie - that in fact no alternate hypothesis or theory provides the detail explanation for the observed objective empirical evidence that evolution theory provides. No alternative hypothesis\theory has made testable predictions that don't falsify them, or they have failed entirely to make testable predictions. Nested hierarchies descendant from a common ancestor (population) are observed: (2) Speciation is the process whereby parent populations are divided into two or more reproductively isolated, independently evolving, daughter populations. The reduction or loss of interbreeding (gene flow, sharing of mutations) between the sub-populations results in different evolutionary responses within the separated sub-populations, each then responds independently to their different ecological challenges and opportunities, and this leads to divergence of hereditary traits between the subpopulations and the frequency of their distributions within the sub-populations. Over generations, these different responses accumulate into differences between the hereditary traits available within each of the daughter populations, and when these differences have reached a critical level, such that interbreeding no longer occurs, then the formation of new species is deemed to have occurred. After this "event" each daughter population evolves independently of the other/s. An additional observable result of speciation is a branching of the genealogical history for the species involved, where two or more offspring species are each independently descended from the same common pool of the ancestor parent species. At this point a clade has been formed, consisting of the common ancestor species and all of their descendants. With multiple speciation events, a pattern is formed that looks like a branching bush or tree: the tree of descent from common ancestor populations. Each branching point is a node for a clade of the parent species at the node point and all their descendants, and with multiple speciation events we see a pattern form of clades branching from parent ancestor species and nesting within larger clades branching from older parent ancestor species. | Where "^" represents a node or common ancestor species of a clade that includes the common ancestor species and all their descendents: "a" and below form a clade that is part of the "c" clade, "b" and below form a clade that is also part of the "c" clade, but "a" is not part of the "b" clade. Speciation, the subsequent divergence of daughter populations, and the formation of nested clades, is an observed, known objective fact, and not an untested hypothesis. The process of speciation with the subsequent formation of a branching genealogy of descent from common ancestor populations (also called "macro-evolution" in biology) is an observed, known objective fact, and not an untested hypothesis. Enjoy by our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆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)
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2018