|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Is convergent evolution evidence against common descent? | |||||||||||||||||||||||
wj Inactive Member |
Speaking of inconsistent,
randman writes:
If rand wants to make an appeal to the authority of the above site then perhaps, in the cause of thoroughness, s/he should have included a later sentence from the quotation:
Ned, I am not sure what data you are referring to. If you mean the link you provided, I think we can dismiss it as inaccurate, but it actually refuted your prediction. Let's look at it.Here is what I posted from your link. Maybe you did not read it? But there are some anomalies. It indicates, for example, that the primates (humans and monkeys) split off before the split separating the kangaroo, a marsupial, from the other placental mammals. http://users.rcn.com/...ges/T/Taxonomy.html#ProteinSequencesquote:Are we seeing a case of intellectual dishonesty?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1467 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Oh, naturally. And Salt Lake City really is only 300 miles from New York.
Can we get real, now? This message has been edited by crashfrog, 06-07-2005 07:52 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Wounded King Member Posts: 4149 From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA Joined: |
That tree is based upon the nucleotide sequence of Cytochrome c. The original data under discussion was in terms of amino acids in the beta chain of hemoglobin.
So while this supports the argument that different genes may give rise to very different phylogenies it does not support the claim that the hemoglobin data suggests that mice are more closely related to kangaroos. Let us try another little bio-informatics exercise. Here is the genbank protein entry for the Kangaroo hemoglobin beta chain. Then find similar sequences for Human, mouse and a monkey species. To save time I have found those sequences and put them into FASTA format. (edited by adminnosy to insert blanks to stop wide page effect)
>Monkey beta chain VHLTGEEKSAVTTLWGKVNVEEVGGEALGRLLVVYPWTQ RFFESFGDLSSPDAVMNNPKVKAHGKKVLGAFSDGLAHLDNLKGTFAQLSELHCDKLHVDPENFRLLGNVLVCVLAHHFGKEFTPQVQAAY QKVVAGVANALAHKYH >Human beta chain MVHLTPEEKSAVTALWGKVNVDEVGGEALGRLLVVYPWTQ RFFESFGDLSTPDAVMGNPKVKAHGKKVLGAFSDGLAHLDNLKGTFATLSELHCDKLHVDPENFRLLGNVLVCVLAHHFGKEFTPPVQAA YQKVVAGVANALAHKYH >Mouse beta chain MVHLTDAEKAAVSGLWGKVNADEVGGEALGRLLVVYPWTQ RYFDSFGDLSSASAIMGNAKVKAHGKKVITAFNDGLNHLDSLKGTFASLSELHCDKLHVDPENFRLLGNMIVIVLGHHLGKDFTPAAQAA FQKVVAGVAAALAHKYH >Kangaroo beta chain VHLTAEEKNAITSLWGKVAIEQTGGEALGRLLIVYPWTS RFFDHFGDLSNAKAVMANPKVLAHGAKVLVAF GDAIKNLDNLKGTFAKLSELHCDKLHVDPENFKLLGNIIVICLAEHFGKEFTIDTQVAW QKLVAGVANALAHKYH Cut those out and paste them into the ClustalW form at http://align.genome.jp/ , now make sure to remove any gaps at the ends of lines so that the amino acid sequences are all on one line. Now click on the 'Execute Multiple Alignment' button. You now have an alignment of the amno acids, as well as being able to put this data into a tree you can see the scores for the various pairs. Human against Kangaroo gives 73, Human against Mouse gives 80 and Mouse against Kangaroo gives 69. So clearly the mouse is in fact more divergent from the kangaroo than Humans are, and humans and mice are clearly more closely related than Kangaroos are to either, at least based on this data. TTFN, WK This message has been edited by Wounded King, 06-07-2005 09:08 AM This message has been edited by AdminNosy, 06-07-2005 01:36 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
Perhaps you should look at Message 78 which will show you a link to a study that uses genetics to calculate common ancestry. Whilst there are, as always, a few anomolies, the technique managed to calculate other things to an astonishing degree, when compared with what we know from the fossil record.
It puts marsupials waaaay back in time. The rodents, present the aformentioned anomoly, but are still a lot more recent than marsupials, thus mice are closer to us than they are kangaroos. The more genes and protiens that are studied, the less error is likely to creep in. Ooops - Thanks WK, my mistake. It wasn't message 78, it was my reply to message 78, Message 92 I meant. This message has been edited by Modulous, Tue, 07-June-2005 04:35 PM This message has been edited by Modulous, Tue, 07-June-2005 05:29 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Wounded King Member Posts: 4149 From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA Joined: |
Is that the right link? You have referenced an earlier post of Randman's.
TTFN, WK
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
WK, can you plug some of the data in for other marsupials and placentals. Plugging in the kangaroo, a mouse and human is not really that helpful, but plugging in say, a dinnart and a mouse and a human would be more fruitful as far as this discussion?
Or, some other seeming "pairs" of marsupials and placentals. Furthermore, if we knew how to isolate the sequences responsbile for the either the placental or pouch and that area of reproduction, we could then determine if similar DNA sequences evolved to produce the similarities or not. The claim has been made here that the similarities are mere surface similarities, but that is suspect. The evolution of the ear, for example, is that mere surface similarity? It seems in fact there is no limit to the type of similarity, foundational, surface, or otherwise that can be produced by convergent evolution, if that is what occurred here.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
wi, you are the one being totally dishonest here. I made no appeal to authority. This was someone else's link, a link I pointed out containing a widely known fraud, Haeckel's drawings, and though they put a disclaimer in there, they typical to evolutionist tactics, used the fraud.
In general, the presentation and teaching of evolution has been and is today riddled with intellectual dishonesty, imo. For you to insinuate dishonesty on your part is more evidence of the dishonesty in your camp. The truth is it has been presented, over and over again, that all placental mammals are more similar genetically than any seeming "pair" of marsupials or mammals. To date, no one in your camp has shown any data to back up that contention. We've even had someone from your camp here insist that science cannot involve the study of the artificial, not just natural sciences mind you, but all science, and he writes that with a straight face presumably. So get real. I am asking for specific data, and willing to make specific predictions even, and am willing to wait, for a long time, exploring different details while your side has still not even answered the OP, still made erroneous claims about which type of features convergent evolution can evolve, etc,... Get real. You are offerring nothing to this thread.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
The explanation of the results can only be explained by common decent. Wrong. That's a mere unproven assertion. Moreover, you assume "chance" only plays a role in your calculations, ignoring the fact mutations are all random, and hence the starting point for introducing changes in your model is not random, and not random means that chance alone is not the factor. Plus, environmental factors are also similar exerting pressure towards similar forms and functions. Furthermore, you are just wrong on the data. There is heated debate on which sets of mammals are most related. Your suggestion otherwise is false.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 8996 From: Canada Joined: |
The evolution of the ear, for example, is that mere surface similarity? It seems in fact there is no limit to the type of similarity, foundational, surface, or otherwise that can be produced by convergent evolution, if that is what occurred here. You still are a bit hazy on the distinction. The issue is whether or not the feature is subject to selection. Things not subject to selection are not converged things which are may be.
Plugging in the kangaroo, a mouse and human is not really that helpful, but plugging in say, a dinnart and a mouse and a human would be more fruitful as far as this discussion? Could you elaborate on exactly why this is? If all marsupials are more separated from any placental mammal than any placental mammal is from another placental mammal why do you need a specific pair? Exactly, what do you doubt?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminNosy Administrator Posts: 4754 From: Vancouver, BC, Canada Joined: |
I would suggest that you stop throwing around charges of dishonesty. If you can back them up you should do so or retract them.
The (lesser) charge of 'intellectual dishonesty' is, IMO, substantiated by the fact that you specically left out a relevent part of the quote. There is a difference in the two types of carelessness with the facts. Fraud is a stronger term than intellectual dishonesty. You may not understand the latter but your carelessness with the quote is an example of it. Further unsupported claims of dishonesty will result in a suspension.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
WK, shouldn't those making the claim do the legwork?
I have tried and could not find the claims backed up. No one has either. Cytochrome C studies may be helpful, but they are not comprehensive. There should be some aspects of marsupials that are more closely related than any other mammals, but the claim here is that the similar features arising through convergent evolution are just "surface features" and "not foundational" so that the DNA sequencing producing these similarities should not the be the same. It would be best if we could determine which sequences are responsible for which traits, but absent of that, we could compare a marsupial mouse (donnart) and a placental mouse, and other "pairs" and learn something here. According to common descent theories, the donnart and the mouse should not be more similar in their DNA than: With any others of their same group, marsupial or placental. Or, they should not be more similar than they are with any other species from the opposite group that is considered farther away from them on the tree so to speak. In other words, if similarity if form corresponds to more genetical similarity, that disagree with the claims of common descent. So the thyacine and the wolf should not be more closer genetically than the wolf and the kangaroo. That's the sort of comparisions we need to assess the genetics on this, and the genetics have been put forth by the common descent side of this debate, and I'd like to see it backed up. Where's the evidence?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
Plugging in the kangaroo, a mouse and human is not really that helpful, but plugging in say, a dinnart and a mouse and a human would be more fruitful as far as this discussion? Could you elaborate on exactly why this is? Because a kangaroo and a mouse are not a "pair"? Duh? The donnart looks like a mouse.
If all marsupials are more separated from any placental mammal than any placental mammal is from another placental mammal why do you need a specific pair? You haven't shown that. That's the problem here. Moreover, that will still be inexact because you are not addressing the degree to which the data is skewed by the differences. The truth is that common descent theory should show that, 2 pairs, such as a wombat and a woodchuck, a donnart and a mouse, should be no more similar than say, a kangaroo and a woodchuck. If it can be shown that similarities outwardly are the result of similarities in DNA, but not arrived at via common descent, we would have learned something, and we can move on to looking at how to view that discovery. You'd think there would be hundreds of studies showing that, especially since that is the repeated claim of evolutionists, but the fact we cannot easily locate them is telling in itself on how poorly it seems the basic rules of testing the evidence is not very apparent. Even if apparent for some, it's not out there among the folks arguing for evolution. It's not really out there for the public. Once again, we have teaching the conclusion before anyone knows the facts. No one here even seems capable of, for example, of showing the data on this, but that does not stop them from asserting like mindless robots or something that "common descent is the only answer." I mean, get real. Where's the data for you guy's contentions?
Exactly, what do you doubt? I doubt a lot of things from your camp, based on my experience. First, I do doubt that covergent evolution explains the great similarities between marsupial pairs and placental pairs. The downplaying of these similarities as obviously just in surface, in outward appearance, appears totally bogus to me. Their anatomy, excepting the placental/pouch thing are more way too similar, inside, outside, and all the way through. But I don't really have the data on the DNA. So maybe that can be your saving grace, though not really conclusive to the whole theory and raised problems on it's own, but maybe these similarities are not all the way through. Maybe at the DNA level, they are radically different. But determining that may take some analysis. First, it would be best to isolate the areas producing the similarities and test those. Second, it would be good to see if any species are more similar genetically across the placental/marsupial divide, or more similar than predicted. For example, one would not expect greater similarity based on greater similarity in the pairs. In other words, the seeming pairs should be no more similar genetically than with others from then opposite group. The similarities should have no bearing on their genetical similarity. But if there is some correspondence there, then the presumed convergent similarities are similar all the way through.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on the paper I have presented to you three times. It is a genetic study that shows the split of marsupials happened a long time ago. Since it is based on genetic differences I think this shows that placental mammals are more similar genetically than they are to marsupial mammals.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
I would suggest that you stop throwing around charges of dishonesty. If you can back them up you should do so or retract them. That is freaking absurd, especially considering the charges thrown at me here. It looks like since there is no answer or data, presented here, to back up your contentions, you now threaten suspension. As far as backing up dishonesty, I did. Haeckel's drawings used on that site are dishonest. Do you disagree with that?
The (lesser) charge of 'intellectual dishonesty' is, IMO, substantiated by the fact that you specically left out a relevent part of the quote. How is it relevant? First, it not's relevant either way because a kangaroo and a mouse are not a seeming Marsupial and placental pair. Secondly, the reference to other data was just that. The fact the link already claimed it was an anomaly and and clearly wrong should be sufficient to show that they think in their opinion, that the data did not line up. lastly, and we should not waste time on a link that appears shoddy at best, but I genuinely thought the kangaroo reference there referred to the other study. Moreover, you should censure someone for making false claims of intellectual dishonesty, not me. Yea, I do see a level of dishonesty in using Heackel's drawings, in falsely claiming I was dishonest, in continuing to bring up a link that was shoddy by WK's admission and certainly the use of Haeckel's drawings was deceptive, although they put a disclaimer there. So those are some examples backing up the claims of dishonesty in the evolutionist camp. I consider the 21st century use, and defense on this thread no less, of Haeckel's drawings an example of intellectual dishonesty or delusion perhaps since it seemed the defense of the faked drawings was real. Note the real stuff was depicted, which in my opinion are radically different than Haeckel's drawings, but they did not appear that way to the poster. Wonder why? You probably think I am biased, but I see it as a result of ideological indoctrination harming the ability of the one so trained. In this example, the real photos do not show those similarities, but once you are trained to believe they are similar by introducing the concept as an accepted fact, coupled with the use of faked drawings to convince one of that fact, the person that believes that is influenced to view subsequent evidence with that bias in mind. That's not real science, imo, but that's the basic way evolution is taught, imo. It is presented as fact before the one being taught can assess that fact. It often includes faked data, such as Heackel's drawings or depicting Neanderthals as excessively ape-like, overstatements such as microevolution proves macroevolution, etc,...and so the combination of insisting it is true, use of faked drawings, overstatements, etc,...evolutionism is more taught via indoctrination and propaganda than as a real science. That's dishonest, imo. As for me, I am trying to find out what the evidence actually states, and have to wade through often the same mess of overstatements and mis-applied faith, even here, to try to get to the results. I think I have brought up some very legitimate issues here, which have not yet been addressed concerning the data. if you want to ban me for telling it like I see it, then so be it, but I think you'd do better to consider that the charge against me was false, that I have now backed up why I think there is an inherent dishonesty (teaching the conclusion first, reliance on fudged and misleading data when convincing people to believe, and overstatements), and that this thread may shed some fruitful insights for all. This message has been edited by randman, 06-07-2005 02:48 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on the paper I have presented to you three times. It is a genetic study that shows the split of marsupials happened a long time ago. Modulous, I did comment. The paper is interesting but it does do what we are trying to assess, which is whether convergent similarities are reflected in more similarities in DNA. The paper, and many others I have looked at, trying to find the data no one here will produce, to back up their claims, well, they tend to assume common descent occurred, and then assume, for example, that the placental and the marsupial differences emerged from a common ancestor, meaning the different ways of reproduction did not emerge convergently within the marsupials but the other similarities emerged convergently. So the studies are starting with a basic assumption of common descent for that, and trying to then test limited aspects of DNA that they think ought to be useful for a good model for the modular clock to be in use. But they are not testing the assumption. They are testing a secondary issue based on the assumption. Without the assumption, the methodology is suspect. Moreover, there is considerable disagreement, vehement disagreement even, over which study's conclusions are correct since they disagree widely over mammalian evolution. That disagreement and difference in conclusions suggests that perhaps there should be a reapprisal of the basic assumptions going in. I certainly would like to know if the further apart on a theorized evolutionary tree can produce great similarities in features, but ever wider differences genetically. I think examining Marsupial and Placental pairs would be an obvious good approach to verify that basic concept. And if evolutionists have not verified that concept with extensive studies, how can they with a straight face present their genetic data as authoritative? In other words, if you do not even know if genetic similarity corresponds with form or common descent, or both, (probably both), then how you assess the most basic data? If, for example, a similar sequence produces a similar morphological result with similar function, then it can be said that genetic similarity also represents common environmnetal factors as well as common descent. So stating something is similar genetically may not necessarily mean it is related via common descent. What appears to be going on is the assumption of only common descent producing similarities has not been tested, but assumed for these studies. If anyone can show otherwise, I am listening.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024