|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 63 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 916,386 Year: 3,643/9,624 Month: 514/974 Week: 127/276 Day: 1/23 Hour: 1/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Dr. Schwartz' "MIssing Links" | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
derwood Member (Idle past 1896 days) Posts: 1457 Joined: |
quote: Again, that is not always the case. Local molecular clocks use fossil divergence dates as calibration points. This paper, for example, employs such clocks and its results are quite congruent with dates inferred from fossil data when applicable.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
derwood Member (Idle past 1896 days) Posts: 1457 Joined: |
Percy:
quote: I agree with all of the above. I had meant to critique his paper already linked to here a while ago, and had basically forgotten about it. My interest was piqued as several of my graduate advisor's papers are cited, including one on which I am a co-author and I can guarantee that our results are beyond Schwartz's criticisms.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 304 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Oh, hi Dr Schwartz!
I'm the guy who was emailing you about your views on intermediate forms about a month ago. If you aren't the same person as the Intelligent Design Schwartz, as I suggested in my emails, I apologise for mixing you up, and you can see on this thread where I got the idea from. Re the Darwin quote. You write:
As for criticizing Darwinian emphases on constant and gradual change, while the quote from Darwin indicates that he recognized that there could be stasis, it is obvious from the total corpus of his writing that he believed this to be a minor case. Well, he says in the quote that it is probable that stasis was the rule and change the exception. His writings tend to dwell on the change rather than the stasis, it's true, but surely that's because the change is the interesting bit. I'm rather inclined to P.E. myself, but when I write about evolution I tend to write about stuff changing rather than stuff staying the same. If you looked at the "total corpus of my work", stasis gets very few mentions, but that doesn't refute the fact that I think most of the history of any given lineage consists of stasis. Oh, and welcome to the forums! Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 304 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Giordano Bruno had obviously differennt meaning of "the best minds" from Oxford as you. Yeah, Oxford. Where speaking Latin is compulsory, and they empty their chamber-pots into the streets. Unless for some reason my information is wildly out of date. You do know that Giordano Bruno lived in the sixteenth century, right?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1425 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Local molecular clocks use fossil divergence dates as calibration points. This paper, for example, employs such clocks and its results are quite congruent with dates inferred from fossil data when applicable. While this is a step in the right direction (compared to the molecular adam and eve dates) I still have some problems with it: they use four calibration dates - 63Ma, 45Ma, 25Ma and 14Ma - based on the fossil evidence for last common ancestor (LCA) congruent with the branching of these clades ... and then give us average rates of change for each segment in between while saying that these are the actual rates of change in those groups for those periods. Correct me if I'm wrong, but this appears to be the same kind of error in thinking that I objected to originally
Message 52 My main criticism of molecular clocks is that it cannot differentiate between survival selection and sexual selection. In the case of human evolution there is pretty good evidence for fisherian runaway sexual selection,... Different rates of selection of specific mutations for change versus rates of selection under stasis conditions would mean different rates of change at different times showing up in the DNA development over time. I also notice that this paper focuses on non-coding DNA changes -- not the ones leading to the changes that would result in speciation and selection of novel features. I suspect that if I divide the DNA into coding sections and non-coding sections and assume that a specific mutation can occur in one OR the other that
This would explain the apparent anomaly of slower rates in the non-coding sections when there is selection for longer life or larger brains. At least one other study have shows much higher rates of mutation selection in humans than in chimpanzees (UCR, aug 2004): http://www.newsroom.ucr.edu/cgi-bin/display.cgi?id=875
quote: It seems to me you have to compare the whole genomes and differentiate between coding and non-coding mutations to get a more complete picture of what went on. I expect this to be done and await the results with curiosity. My main point, however, is that the rate of mutation selection changes under different selection conditions, that you cannot assume a steady rate over any period of time without knowing those selection conditions, and thus molecular clocks cannot be used to determine when speciation - or selection of specific features - occurred. Am I wrong? Enjoy. compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click) we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
derwood Member (Idle past 1896 days) Posts: 1457 Joined: |
quote:They ARE the actual amounts of change in the branch between the LCA and the taxon in question. quote:I fail to see the relevance of this. quote:This is irrelevant to the general 'accuracy' of local clock calculations. ZThe goal of such calculations is not to make such differentiations. Your criticisms seem similar to Paul Nelson's criticism of molecular phylogenetics as being a diversion because they do not explain what the mechancim behind the changes is. quote:Yes, that is all clearly stated and finding such changes was not the goal of our research nor is it the goal of molecular phylogenetics in general. quote:And? quote:Well of course, but criticising a paper in which the goal was not to do that for not doing that seems superfluous. quote:Yes. Since local molecular clocks do not rely on any assumptions about mutation rates or rate differentials, a sufficiently large data set will nto suffer from potential short term bursts of mutation and selection or the lack thereof.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1425 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
They ARE the actual amounts of change in the branch between the LCA and the taxon in question. Not to belabor this, but they are the average rates, by definition. You do not know when each individual fixed selected mutation occurred, you don't even know if half occurred in the first half of the time period and half occurred in the second half or whether 90% occurred in the first half and 10% in the second. All you have is (n) mutations occurred in (t) time and the average rate of mutation over time (t) was (n/t). Within that time period (t) the specific rate of change could have varied considerably: you don't know.
I fail to see the relevance of this. They would de facto have different rates of fixing selected mutations.
This is irrelevant to the general 'accuracy' of local clock calculations. ZThe goal of such calculations is not to make such differentiations. Your criticisms seem similar to Paul Nelson's criticism of molecular phylogenetics as being a diversion because they do not explain what the mechancim behind the changes is. Again the rate of fixing selected mutations would be de facto different under punctuated versus stasis conditions.
Well of course, but criticising a paper in which the goal was not to do that for not doing that seems superfluous. You were the one that introduced the paper in answer to my criticism. If it doesn't do that it is not my fault.
Yes. Since local molecular clocks do not rely on any assumptions about mutation rates or rate differentials, a sufficiently large data set will nto suffer from potential short term bursts of mutation and selection or the lack thereof. Nor will it be able to identify short term bursts or conditions under which they may apply. Thus it will be unable to identify when a period could be high rate or low rate. By identifying average rates as uniform rates over long periods it also ignores the fact that different rates occur during different times. One thing I do note from your paper is that the different rates are significantly different even in spite of the averaging of the rates over the time periods involved. To me this is validation that different rates occur regularly during evolution. I would think that the question of rate changes and maximum rates of change would be of high interest. When you look at speciation events, such as Pelycodus(1):
quote: We see a gradual trend to larger size with a branch that reverts to a smaller size at a different (faster) rate of change than the long term trend before it settles into a new long term trend. It is logical for me that the rates of selecting and fixing change away from other daughter species would be higher for one or both than the average rate of selecting and fixing change. This would make understanding the magnitudes of different rates of fixing selected mutations fairly critical to the understanding of speciation and the causes of different rates. Especially if you are doing studies involving multiple speciation events or periods of intense selection pressure. Different rates of selecting and fixing mutations is part of evolution, and understanding those different rates, and the conditions under which they occur, is also part of understanding evolution. Enjoy. Reference:(1) Lindsay, Don, "A Smooth Fossil Transition: Pelycodus, a primate" Don Lindsay Archive on-line, 25 April 1997 accessed 18 Feb 2007 from A Smooth Fossil Transition: Pelycodus compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click) we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Refpunk Member (Idle past 6073 days) Posts: 60 Joined: |
There's a reason that the links are missing; because they're made up in the minds of men.
So I got news for you,the DNA of mice and chicken is closer to human DNA than monkeys. Why do you suppose that is? Since evolutionists have tunnel vision, then can only see one answer; that means that chickens, mice and animals all shared a common ancestor (Even though they don't know what kind of beast that would be). Sorry, since the eyes of evolutionists are closed, then they can't see that the reason for similar DNA in animals and humans is because in order to exist in the world that God created, ALL HUMANS AND ANIMALS HAVE TO HAVE THESE THINGS IN COMMON: 1) A heart2) Lungs 3) A brain 4) A circulatory system 5) A respiratory system 5) A stomach 7) Intestines 8) Four limbs 9) 2 eyes, 2 ears, a nose and a mouth 10) Skin 11) An endocrine system 13) A reproductive system And many, many, many more similarities than differences. And notice that a reproductive system is so that each species can produce themselves. That's what reproduction means. But those whose whol goal is to deny God say; "Duh, I guess the similarities means dat, uh, my ancesotor was a mouse, yeah, uh-huh, uh-huh." And atheists consider themselves reasonable? No wonder God says that he who is wise in his own eyes is a fool, especially since it's impossible for an animal to breed a human descendant. Edited by Refpunk, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
the DNA of mice and chicken is closer to human DNA than monkeys. This is false. -
ALL HUMANS AND ANIMALS HAVE TO HAVE THESE THINGS IN COMMON: This, too, is false. I've done everything the Bible says, even the stuff that contradicts the other stuff! -- Ned Flanders
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
anglagard Member (Idle past 857 days) Posts: 2339 From: Socorro, New Mexico USA Joined: |
Refpunk writes: ALL HUMANS AND ANIMALS HAVE TO HAVE THESE THINGS IN COMMON: ... 8) Four limbs But those whose whol goal is to deny God say; "Duh, I guess the similarities means dat, uh, my ancesotor was a mouse, yeah, uh-huh, uh-huh." And atheists consider themselves reasonable? One must consider the source of this somewhat less-than-brilliant observation to truly fathom its significance. A person who actually says that an octopus is not an animal. Edited by anglagard, : clarification for those few here who may not understand the meaning of irony Edited by anglagard, : replace word Read not to contradict and confute, not to believe and take for granted, not to find talk and discourse, but to weigh and consider - Francis Bacon The more we understand particular things, the more we understand God - Spinoza
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1425 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
ALL HUMANS AND ANIMALS HAVE TO HAVE THESE THINGS IN COMMON: Do humans have to have them twice then? have them twice then? Animal - Wikipedia
quote: The sad thing about your list is that it is so easy to find correct information: any (good) encyclopedia should have this information. One should try to learn first, rather than make such ignorant posts.
But those whose whol goal is to deny God say; "Duh, I guess the similarities means dat, uh, my ancesotor was a mouse, yeah, uh-huh, uh-huh." What about all the christians (to say nothing of people of other faiths) that don't have a problem with evolution and the study of the biological sciences? What do they say? Enjoy. compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click) we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 414 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
But those whose whol goal is to deny God say; "Duh, I guess the similarities means dat, uh, my ancesotor was a mouse, yeah, uh-huh, uh-huh." The first time you say something this stupid could just be another example of your ignorance. However I have told you personally that I believe in God, am a Christian and also fully accept the FACT that evolution happened and that the Theory of Evolution is the best explanation so far of how that happened. In addition, the Clergy Letter Project, currently signed and endorse by almost 11,000 US Christian Clergy is proof that neither a belief in Evolution or support for the TOE or opposition to Biblical Creationism and the Christian Cult of ignorance implies a lack of belief in either God or the Bible. Now that you have been informed of the facts, repeating such comments can only be an example of lying. Finally, this thread is on the specific book mentioned in the Title and OP. Your posts are simply off topic in addition to being filled with factual errors. Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Refpunk Member (Idle past 6073 days) Posts: 60 Joined: |
Then what is an octopus? An insect? Sorry, but an octopus is a sea animal because it's a form of fish. No wonder evolutionists are confused. They not only don't don't know the difference between humans and animals, they don't even know what an animal is!
Edited by Refpunk, : No reason given. Edited by Refpunk, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 304 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Then what is an octopus? An insect? A mollusc.
Sorry, but an octopus is a sea animal because it's a form of fish. Thanks for the giggles, you are most amusing. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 304 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
So I got news for you,the DNA of mice and chicken is closer to human DNA than monkeys. That's not so much "news" as a fatuous lie. Someone's been pulling your leg.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024