Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,818 Year: 3,075/9,624 Month: 920/1,588 Week: 103/223 Day: 1/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Teaching evolution in the context of science
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 46 of 76 (12995)
07-07-2002 11:06 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by Percy
07-07-2002 10:51 PM


Percy
Cystic fibrosis, as with almost any non-chromosomal disease one can think of is due to one or moreSNPS. I never said it had to be one SNP.
http://www.aruplab.com/guides/clt/tests/clt_a169.htm
quote:
The most common mutation is a deletion of phenylalanine at position 508 of the CFTR protein (F508del). This accounts for about 70% of CF alleles in European Caucasians and about 50% of individuals with CF have two copies of this gene mutation.
The reason I and every strutural/molecular biologist knows this is the bread and butter of genetics is that genes are not fairy floss - they code for folded proteins. Your hemoglobin is the same fold as mine. When it ghoes wrong it is either the same fold with the wrong surface or unfolded (and perhaps forms fibrils).
Allelic variation will be an SNP issue 99% of the time.
Erwin talked about a discontinuity between allelic and large-scale!
It is extremely clear from the abstract that he would associate microevoltuion with allelic subsitituion. He points out the discontinuity betwen allelic and large-scale and the paper is about the micro/macro difference! How else do you propose he support his the thesis stated in the title! I'll post segments from the paper to prove this but you are imagining that somehow the title will not be bourne out in the body of the article!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Percy, posted 07-07-2002 10:51 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by Percy, posted 07-07-2002 11:51 PM Tranquility Base has replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 47 of 76 (12999)
07-07-2002 11:41 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by Tranquility Base
07-07-2002 10:31 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
Are you aware that European artificial selection over about 200 years on the wild mustard led to cabbage, brocolli and cauliflower? That is the power/allelic variation within existing genes in the genomes.
In particular, no; but no argument.
quote:
OK, our genomic stock could have been the horse family inlcuding donkeys, perhaps including the zebra. 2 or 3, maybe 1 big/small cat families etc.
Really, I wanted something a bit more precise. This is too loose to be useful, the way I see it.
[QUOTE][b]Cellular novelties? Origin of life issue of course invovles all systems. After that: Multicellularity. Respiratory proteins. Immune system proteins. Plant unique metabolic. Animal unique metabolic. Etc.[/QUOTE]
[/b]
Again, not very precise. Abiogenesis does NOT involve all systems, as has been addressed on this forum before. There are organism that skirt the boundary between multicellular/single cell organism. Someone else can take the proteins and metabolic issues, or perhaps I will later.
quote:
The genomes document non-stop cellular nmovelty. A mammalian cell is very different to a prokaryotic cell.
... but the change didn't happen in one jump, or are you arguing that it did?
------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by Tranquility Base, posted 07-07-2002 10:31 PM Tranquility Base has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by Tranquility Base, posted 07-07-2002 11:49 PM John has replied

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 48 of 76 (13001)
07-07-2002 11:49 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by John
07-07-2002 11:41 PM


John
More precise? Creationist biologists recently stated that they expect the kinds to approximate the family level. When we've got more genomes we'll be able to say more.
Are you doubting that there are thousands of cellular systems with associated novel gene families?
I believe God separately created mammalian genomes.
[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 07-07-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by John, posted 07-07-2002 11:41 PM John has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by John, posted 07-08-2002 12:03 AM Tranquility Base has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22393
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 49 of 76 (13002)
07-07-2002 11:51 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by Tranquility Base
07-07-2002 11:06 PM


Tranquility Base writes:

Cystic fibrosis, as with almost any non-chromosomal disease one can think of is due to one or more SNPs. I never said it had to be one SNP.
Oh, okay, I misunderstood you. In that case I have no idea whether you're right or wrong.
Look, TB, this started when you said this back in Message 24:

My micro/macro differentiation is completely suported by this mainstream paper "Macroevotution is more than repeated rounds of microevolution". Microevoltuion is identified with allelic variation = same fold but with SNP(s):
I pointed out that your link was to an abstract that doesn't support this statement, and then you revealed in Message 32 that YOU DON'T EVEN HAVE THE PAPER:

I have ordered the Erwin paper...
What incredible chutzpa! Citing an abstract that provides no support for your position is completely consistent with much of the other evidence you've offered, and that's why I pointed it out. If when the paper arrives you find it supports you then by all means cite it, but don't cite the abstract. It is silent on the matter.
If, as you say, the equivalence between allelic variation and SNP folding is a fundamental tenet of structural biology, then citing a paper exploring the sources of macroevolution is both unnecessary and irrelevant.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Tranquility Base, posted 07-07-2002 11:06 PM Tranquility Base has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by Tranquility Base, posted 07-08-2002 12:16 AM Percy has replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 50 of 76 (13008)
07-08-2002 12:03 AM
Reply to: Message 48 by Tranquility Base
07-07-2002 11:49 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
More precise? Creationist biologists recently stated that they expect the kinds to approximate the family level. When we've got more genomes we'll be able to say more.
That puts us in with chimps, gorillas, and orangutans; as well as a string of extinct creatures. This is ok by me, but....
quote:
Are you doubting that there are thousands of cellular systems with associated novel gene families?
Just doubting that you can make a case for your faith using these gene families/novelties/system. So far you haven't.
Take care.
------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Tranquility Base, posted 07-07-2002 11:49 PM Tranquility Base has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by Tranquility Base, posted 07-08-2002 12:10 AM John has replied

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 51 of 76 (13010)
07-08-2002 12:10 AM
Reply to: Message 50 by John
07-08-2002 12:03 AM


John
I think you need to check out your systematics - I am 99.99% sure we are not in the same (Linnean) family as chimps et al! I could do a Wilberforce but will refrain.
You are confusing the chimp/human conection with a higher level of classification than family.
Well, my point is that novel systems frequently use novel gene families with no hint as to where they came from.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by John, posted 07-08-2002 12:03 AM John has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by John, posted 07-08-2002 12:14 AM Tranquility Base has replied
 Message 56 by Andya Primanda, posted 07-08-2002 4:02 AM Tranquility Base has replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 52 of 76 (13011)
07-08-2002 12:14 AM
Reply to: Message 51 by Tranquility Base
07-08-2002 12:10 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
John
I think you need to check out your systematics - I am 99.99% sure we are not in the same (Linnean) family as chimps et al!

Nope. I looked it up.
Hominidae
------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Tranquility Base, posted 07-08-2002 12:10 AM Tranquility Base has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by Tranquility Base, posted 07-08-2002 12:22 AM John has replied

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 53 of 76 (13012)
07-08-2002 12:16 AM
Reply to: Message 49 by Percy
07-07-2002 11:51 PM


Percy
Erwin shows that micro/macro is distinct via allelic/non-allelic. Standard struc biol tells us that this means existing/new gene family. You are wrong about me jumping to conclusions. I simply translated Erwin into the language of struc biol.
Erwin is actaully stating the dead obvious.
[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 07-07-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Percy, posted 07-07-2002 11:51 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by Percy, posted 07-08-2002 7:37 AM Tranquility Base has replied

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 54 of 76 (13013)
07-08-2002 12:22 AM
Reply to: Message 52 by John
07-08-2002 12:14 AM


John
OK - you're right!
As mentioned by the web site this is a 'recent' change in classificaiton. I wonder how recent. I have looked this up before and that's why I was so 'sure'.
This is obviously one reason why creaitonists say the families approximate the kinds! The second reason is that everyone agrees that the classifcation scheme is not entirely objective. Once the genomes are in the system will tidy up I expect (although the issue of loss vs gain will always haunt both sides).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by John, posted 07-08-2002 12:14 AM John has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by John, posted 07-08-2002 12:27 AM Tranquility Base has not replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 55 of 76 (13014)
07-08-2002 12:27 AM
Reply to: Message 54 by Tranquility Base
07-08-2002 12:22 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
As mentioned by the web site this is a 'recent' change in classificaiton. I wonder how recent. I have looked this up before and that's why I was so 'sure'.

The page I cited implies that the change was within the past ten years or so.
------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by Tranquility Base, posted 07-08-2002 12:22 AM Tranquility Base has not replied

  
Andya Primanda
Inactive Member


Message 56 of 76 (13025)
07-08-2002 4:02 AM
Reply to: Message 51 by Tranquility Base
07-08-2002 12:10 AM


Say, isn't that too exclusive of us? There are families of creatures with members that differ more than us to bonobos. Take Bovidae. By using your 'kind' concept we are forced to accept that cattle, sheep, goats, yak, gazelles and bison shared a common ancestor. Then how do creationists refuse to include chimps and bonobos into the 'human kind'? Are you trying to be inconsistent?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Tranquility Base, posted 07-08-2002 12:10 AM Tranquility Base has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by Tranquility Base, posted 07-08-2002 9:00 PM Andya Primanda has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22393
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 57 of 76 (13036)
07-08-2002 7:37 AM
Reply to: Message 53 by Tranquility Base
07-08-2002 12:16 AM


Erwin's paper, which you haven't even read and so can only go by the abstract, is about contributors to macroevolution. Independent of whether you're correct, you cannot cite in support an abstract which makes no comment on the matter. This shouldn't have to be explained.
[addition via edit]
I should also mention that citing irrelevant evidence is your consistent pattern, and I only raised this issue to make that point. This is so prevalent in your contributions here that it can't possibly be a new pattern for you, it must have been a repeated issue for you while working on your PhD. Your thesis committee must have had a hay day with your references.
In the case of your Erwin cite, there is no possible way you can justify using it. It contains neither the terms nor synonyms for the terms necessary to making statements on the topic, such as SNPs, folds and allelic variation. Why are you even citing a paper (whoops, not a paper, an abstract) on the mechanisms behind macroevolution to support statements about allelic substitution and protein folding? There must be tons of papers actually relevant to this topic, why not use one of them?
--Percy
[This message has been edited by Percipient, 07-08-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by Tranquility Base, posted 07-08-2002 12:16 AM Tranquility Base has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by Tranquility Base, posted 07-08-2002 9:03 PM Percy has replied

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 58 of 76 (13097)
07-08-2002 9:00 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by Andya Primanda
07-08-2002 4:02 AM


Andya
I'll sit it out until the genomes come in around 2005.
Are you serious that sheep and bison are in the same family? I again doubt this but will not make a statement of 99.99% this time!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by Andya Primanda, posted 07-08-2002 4:02 AM Andya Primanda has not replied

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 59 of 76 (13098)
07-08-2002 9:03 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by Percy
07-08-2002 7:37 AM


Percy
Why don't you tell us in what way Erwin's abstract supports the title?
And what exactly do you debate? Do you disagree that alleles of a particular gene have the same fold? That's the whole point of the hunman genome and SNPs. We can all be largely descibed by the same human genome + a list of our personal SNPs. Otherwise the concept of The human genome would be silly.
BTW - My thesis was passed without a single correction. Every scientists reads and interprets hundreds of abstracts a month. That is a fact. I have to tell my graduate students that frequently. You must read hundreds of abstracts and dozens of papers a month.
[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 07-08-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by Percy, posted 07-08-2002 7:37 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by Joe Meert, posted 07-08-2002 9:33 PM Tranquility Base has replied
 Message 61 by Percy, posted 07-08-2002 9:50 PM Tranquility Base has replied

  
Joe Meert
Member (Idle past 5680 days)
Posts: 913
From: Gainesville
Joined: 03-02-2002


Message 60 of 76 (13100)
07-08-2002 9:33 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by Tranquility Base
07-08-2002 9:03 PM


quote:
BTW - My thesis was passed without a single correction.
JM: Well, that speaks poorly of your thesis committee that they would not take the time to read it carefully. Having served on both ends of the process I find this claim patently absurd.
Then again, Hovind claims the same thing.
Cheers
Joe Meert
[This message has been edited by Joe Meert, 07-08-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by Tranquility Base, posted 07-08-2002 9:03 PM Tranquility Base has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by Tranquility Base, posted 07-08-2002 9:57 PM Joe Meert has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024