Message 211 of 288 (796113) 12-22-2016 12:35 PM

Here is a comparison of human and chimp cytochrome B:

355/379(94%)
Query  1    MTPMRKTNPLMKLINHSFIDLPTPSNISAWWNFGSLLGACLILQITTGLFLAMHYSPDAS  60
            MTP RK NPLMKLINHSFIDLPTPSNISAWWNFGSLLGACLILQITTGLFLAMHYSPDAS
Sbjct  1    MTPTRKINPLMKLINHSFIDLPTPSNISAWWNFGSLLGACLILQITTGLFLAMHYSPDAS  60
Query  61   TAFSSIAHITRDVNYGWIIRYLHANGASMFFICLFLHIGRGLYYGSFLYSETWNIGIILL  120
            TAFSSIAHITRDVNYGWIIRYLHANGASMFFICLFLHIGRGLYYGSFLY ETWNIGIILL
Sbjct  61   TAFSSIAHITRDVNYGWIIRYLHANGASMFFICLFLHIGRGLYYGSFLYLETWNIGIILL  120
Query  121  LATMATAFMGYVLPWGQMSFWGATVITNLLSAIPYIGTDLVQWIWGGYSVDSPTLTRFFT  180
            L TMATAFMGYVLPWGQMSFWGATVITNLLSAIPYIGTDLVQW+WGGYSVDSPTLTRFFT
Sbjct  121  LTTMATAFMGYVLPWGQMSFWGATVITNLLSAIPYIGTDLVQWVWGGYSVDSPTLTRFFT  180
Query  181  FHFILPfiiaalatlhllflhETGSNNPLGITSHSDKITFHPYYTIKDAlglllfllslm  240
            FHFILPFII AL TLHLLFLHETGSNNPLGITSHSDKITFHPYYTIKD LGL LFLL LM
Sbjct  181  FHFILPFIITALTTLHLLFLHETGSNNPLGITSHSDKITFHPYYTIKDILGLFLFLLILM  240
Query  241  tltlfsPDLLGDPDNYTLANPLNTPPHIKPEWYFLFAYTILRSVPNKLGGVlalllsili  300
            TLTLFSP LLGDPDNYTLANPLNTPPHIKPEWYFLFAYTILRS+PNKLGGVLALLLSILI
Sbjct  241  TLTLFSPGLLGDPDNYTLANPLNTPPHIKPEWYFLFAYTILRSIPNKLGGVLALLLSILI  300
Query  301  lamipilHMSKQQSMMFRPLSQSlywllaadlliltwiGGQPVSYPFTIIGQVASVLYFT  360
            L  IP+LH SKQQSMMFRPLSQ LYWLLA DLLILTWIGGQPVSYPF  IGQ+ASVLYFT
Sbjct  301  LTAIPVLHTSKQQSMMFRPLSQLLYWLLATDLLILTWIGGQPVSYPFITIGQMASVLYFT  360
Query  361  TILILMPTISLIENKMLKW  379
            TILILMP  SLIENKML+W
Sbjct  361  TILILMPIASLIENKMLEW  379

Here is a comparison of human and chimpanzee cytochrome c (somatic)

105/105(100%)
Query  1    MGDVEKGKKIFIMKCSQCHTVEKGGKHKTGPNLHGLFGRKTGQAPGYSYTAANKNKGIIW  60
            MGDVEKGKKIFIMKCSQCHTVEKGGKHKTGPNLHGLFGRKTGQAPGYSYTAANKNKGIIW
Sbjct  1    MGDVEKGKKIFIMKCSQCHTVEKGGKHKTGPNLHGLFGRKTGQAPGYSYTAANKNKGIIW  60
Query  61   GEDTLMEYLENPKKYIPGTKMIFVGIKKKEERADLIAYLKKATNE  105
            GEDTLMEYLENPKKYIPGTKMIFVGIKKKEERADLIAYLKKATNE
Sbjct  61   GEDTLMEYLENPKKYIPGTKMIFVGIKKKEERADLIAYLKKATNE  105

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?

Message 212 of 288 (796115) 12-22-2016 1:01 PM

Reply to: Message 172 by caffeine 12-21-2016 4:13 PM

But we do produce well supported phylogenies all over the place. I have already cited the cytochrome c example.

Message 213 of 288 (796116) 12-22-2016 2:08 PM

Reply to: Message 176 by vaporwave 12-21-2016 4:43 PM

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:

---

First, we guess it (audience laughter), no, don’t laugh, that’s really true. Then we compute the consequences of the guess, to see what, if this is right, if this law we guess is right, to see what it would imply and then we compare the computation results to nature, or we say compare to experiment or experience, compare it directly with observations to see if it works.

---

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.

Message 214 of 288 (796117) 12-22-2016 3:15 PM

Reply to: Message 208 by Taq 12-22-2016 11:50 AM

There, fixed it.

Enjoy

Message 215 of 288 (796118) 12-22-2016 4:12 PM

Reply to: Message 204 by Dr Adequate 12-22-2016 8:34 AM

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.

Message 216 of 288 (796119) 12-22-2016 4:41 PM

Reply to: Message 207 by Taq 12-22-2016 11:48 AM

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."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conserved_sequence

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.

Message 217 of 288 (796120) 12-22-2016 4:46 PM

Reply to: Message 215 by vaporwave 12-22-2016 4:12 PM

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.

Message 218 of 288 (796121) 12-22-2016 5:06 PM

Reply to: Message 216 by vaporwave 12-22-2016 4:41 PM

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.

Message 219 of 288 (796122) 12-22-2016 5:25 PM

Reply to: Message 208 by Taq 12-22-2016 11:50 AM

And a nested hierarchy is not evidence of evolutionary relationships unless you assume common ancestry.

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. )

Message 220 of 288 (796123) 12-22-2016 5:41 PM

Reply to: Message 218 by Dr Adequate 12-22-2016 5:06 PM

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.

Message 221 of 288 (796124) 12-22-2016 6:33 PM

Reply to: Message 220 by vaporwave 12-22-2016 5:41 PM

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

Message 222 of 288 (796126) 12-22-2016 9:19 PM

Reply to: Message 215 by vaporwave 12-22-2016 4:12 PM

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.

Message 223 of 288 (796128) 12-22-2016 11:12 PM

Reply to: Message 220 by vaporwave 12-22-2016 5:41 PM

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.

Message 224 of 288 (796129) 12-23-2016 7:23 AM

Reply to: Message 205 by RAZD 12-22-2016 9:35 AM

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" ?

Message 225 of 288 (796131) 12-23-2016 8:36 AM

Reply to: Message 26 by vaporwave 12-18-2016 12:12 PM

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.

               |                 
               |                 
               ^ c               
              / \                
             /   \               
            /     ^ b            
         a ^     / \             
          / \   /   \            

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