Kinds and diversification through microevolution and hybridization

I think that in a sense you are right.Any evidence for common descent is evidence for common
design.Because you accept speciation common design is just one
possibile scenario for common descent. It still has a common
ancestor for each kind, it's just that for you that ancestor
was designed.So what about man and the rest of the primates?

MammuthusI read it and never got back to it . . . OK, here we go . . .1) Defn of kind no use?
Becasue we can't prove the 'kind' concept exists, for now we define it seperately and see if it naturally aligns with some level of Linneanism. If it does, great. If not the Linnean system may be modified (if even mainstrreamers agree) or a parellel system may be developed. The point is inbetween we need to refer to the term 'kind' so that we do not pronounce something proven before it is. The term 'family', or any other Linnean term has no formal definiton genetically, let alone genomically and has not be shown by anyone to unambiguously agree with our/my definition of kind. It may, it may not.You say there are "non-shared alleles even between populations of the same species". What I said was that kinds are distinguished within (ie species in a kind are characterizable) by differnt allele sets. Non-shared genes between closely related species can usually be shown to be due to loss or horizontal gain. I just read some genomics papers on multiple Bascilus (spelling?) species genomes and the proposal was that all distinct protein families are due to either of these mechanisms. Horizonal transfer is fairly easily proven. Genomic loss may be difficult to prove in some instances (eg if pseudo genes have drifted to complete unrecogizability).2) Mutations and macroevolution.
Of course I know you are not proposing we came directly from fish! I'm familiar with biomednet although this is one of the only sites my instituion doesn't have rights to non-free stuff on-line. I'll check out that article although horizontal transfer is not somehting that distinguishes our views. I can accept it as a means of diversification. It does not explain the original origin of any protein familiy. Fascinating that Aradopsis has that much horizontal transfer. I accept that genomes are very plastic.3) BLAST and HOX.
Yes, but you still wont find out where the first HOX came from. It's not as if protein families can be systematically traced to each other.4) Evolution & proof?
Some theories do get 'proven' within reasonable doubt. It is semantics to debate this surely. You think (macro)evoltuion is more proven than I think it is. Multiple lines of eveidence - eg distinctness of protein families - suggest creation of kinds followed by evolution.I am not mixing evoltuion with abiogenesis although it may sound like it. I believe God created genomes at approximately the Linnean family level. But what I am saying is that I wont argue with you that paralog 1 could have come from paralog 2 (even though I don't believe it did typically). But I will argue that the distincness of protein families suggests creaiton of kinds and underlying protein families. I hope that clarifies my position."Where do you draw the line where microevolution stopped and the "poof bang" creation started? Kinds with distinct genomes comprising the thousands of protein families that make up all of the genomes.6) Phenotype/genotype?
Why do you say the stasis in phenotype isn't recorded in geneotype? Just becasue the genotype may look like it is changing to an untrained eye, a trained eye may see that it dicates an unchanged phenotype. A simple case proves the point: a base change does not necessarily change the amino-acid coded for as you know.7) Epigenetics
Yes if there is a lot of imprinting going then there may be more epigenetics than we may think.8) Struc Biol/novel families in molecular evoltuion?
I do understand what you said about phylogentics. But it is also consistent with common design with genotype (mostly ) dictating phenotype. Would God make animals with placentas have genes more similar to snails than to placentals? Of course not.9) Thin air?
I believe God would say to you that your origin is inherently potentially different to snowflake ordering.[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 09-19-2002]

PeterI agree except . . .Genomically I think we are starting to see some problems for 'monophyletic' evoltuion, and not just due to horzontal tranfer. The 'mosaic' nature of genomes, including 'convergent' rehappenings at some point may show that (i) evolution is wrong and (ii) God's blueprints were a bit non-monophyletic. I think we have seen hints of this recently in wing genes in unrelated taxa (birds and flies) being 'too' convergent.Man is certianly most similar to primates. Man is biologically a very special primate from a creationit POV.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
Mammuthus

​

I read it and never got back to it . . . OK, here we go . . .

​

1) Defn of kind no use?
Becasue we can't prove the 'kind' concept exists, for now we define it seperately and see if it naturally aligns with some level of Linneanism. If it does, great. If not the Linnean system may be modified (if even mainstrreamers agree) or a parellel system may be developed. The point is inbetween we need to refer to the term 'kind' so that we do not pronounce something proven before it is. The term 'family', or any other Linnean term has no formal definiton genetically, let alone genomically and has not be shown by anyone to unambiguously agree with our/my definition of kind. It may, it may not.
********************************

​

Perhaps there is not a quantitative genomic definition of a Family or Order but the differences are hardly spurious. Are you then going to call artiodactyls the artiodactyl kinds? or marsupial kinds? What advantage does that provide? Just lumping lots of things together randomly into a kind is not useful . Order, families, genera, species are all defined using morphological, physiological, and now genetic characteristics.
--------------------------

​

You say there are "non-shared alleles even between populations of the same species". What I said was that kinds are distinguished within (ie species in a kind are characterizable) by differnt allele sets. Non-shared genes between closely related species can usually be shown to be due to loss or horizontal gain. I just read some genomics papers on multiple Bascilus (spelling?) species genomes and the proposal was that all distinct protein families are due to either of these mechanisms. Horizonal transfer is fairly easily proven. Genomic loss may be difficult to prove in some instances (eg if pseudo genes have drifted to complete unrecogizability).
-------------------------------------------------

​

How is this different in cases of macroevolution i.e. differences between marsupials and eutherians for example? What works at the species level works at all other levels...there is no reason to suppose a sudden shift in the natural world for which there is no evidence merely to fit it to a religious belief.

​

2) Mutations and macroevolution.
Of course I know you are not proposing we came directly from fish! I'm familiar with biomednet although this is one of the only sites my instituion doesn't have rights to non-free stuff on-line. I'll check out that article although horizontal transfer is not somehting that distinguishes our views. I can accept it as a means of diversification. It does not explain the original origin of any protein familiy. Fascinating that Aradopsis has that much horizontal transfer. I accept that genomes are very plastic.
************************************************

​

Biomednet should be free. I think you just have to provide your email address and make a password and you are automatically in. At least it used to be that way.

​

Horizontal transfer of genes DOES explain the sudden appearance of genes or gene families within a lineage. It is not an exclusive explanation but it is one mechanism. When you say original origin it still sounds like you are mixing in abiogenesis.

​

3) BLAST and HOX.
Yes, but you still wont find out where the first HOX came from. It's not as if protein families can be systematically traced to each other.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

​

That is called phylogenetics...and there is an entire discipline of trying to recreate the original or at least ancestral forms of various proteins and characterizing their functions.

​

4) Evolution & proof?
Some theories do get 'proven' within reasonable doubt. It is semantics to debate this surely. You think (macro)evoltuion is more proven than I think it is. Multiple lines of eveidence - eg distinctness of protein families - suggest creation of kinds followed by evolution.
----------------------------------

​

Scientific principles are not semantics TB. The thoery of gravity is not "proven". I think macroevolution is fully supported by multiple distinct and reproducible areas of research.

​

Please show the multiple lines of evidence for creation.

​

I am not mixing evoltuion with abiogenesis although it may sound like it. I believe God created genomes at approximately the Linnean family level. But what I am saying is that I wont argue with you that paralog 1 could have come from paralog 2 (even though I don't believe it did typically). But I will argue that the distincness of protein families suggests creaiton of kinds and underlying protein families. I hope that clarifies my position.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

​

I understand your position but I am asking whether it is purely based on faith or whether you can provide testable hypothesis and experimental data to support the assertion.
-------------------------

​

"Where do you draw the line where microevolution stopped and the "poof bang" creation started? Kinds with distinct genomes comprising the thousands of protein families that make up all of the genomes.

​

This definition makes no sense I'm afraid. It does not establish a precise defnintion of kind nor the boarders of where you define evolution versus creation...between mouse species and mouse species? Between chimp and human?

​

6) Phenotype/genotype?
Why do you say the stasis in phenotype isn't recorded in geneotype? Just becasue the genotype may look like it is changing to an untrained eye, a trained eye may see that it dicates an unchanged phenotype. A simple case proves the point: a base change does not necessarily change the amino-acid coded for as you know.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

​

I am saying you can have large scale genomic changes including speciation events while maintaining the gross morphology of an organism i.e. sharks...thus large amounts of genotypic change do not automatically imply gross phenotypic change.

​

7) Epigenetics
Yes if there is a lot of imprinting going then there may be more epigenetics than we may think.

​

More and more discovered but it is a relatively new field...and a bizarre one.

​

8) Struc Biol/novel families in molecular evoltuion?
I do understand what you said about phylogentics. But it is also consistent with common design with genotype (mostly ) dictating phenotype. Would God make animals with placentas have genes more similar to snails than to placentals? Of course not.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

​

Why not? What is the evidence for this? Why couldnt an omnipotent being create an organism where genotype and phenotype are fully uncoupled?

​

9) Thin air?
I believe God would say to you that your origin is inherently potentially different to snowflake ordering.

​

I don't believe in god. But regardless, why should the principles of complexity be different for origins of non-biological and biological systems?

​

Let me know if you still can't get into biomednet. If not I will post the article here in this thread.

​

Cheers,
M

​

[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 09-19-2002]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
SLPx

​

The point is that although your molecular phylogeny work very clearly deomnstrates the plausibility of common descent it does not prove it.

---

Can you please tell me what you consider to have been proved scientifically. Havew you proved anything in your field, or know of any concept in your field that has been?

quote:

---

Mol-phylo is completely compatible with creaiton of kinds and diversification via mutations and natural selection. If all you want to do is demonstrate which species are more closely related then what you are doing is fine.

---

You missed the point. As I mentioned, that one alignment alone contains taxa from several different Families.
If the creation postulate is that the "kind" is about the same as the Familt, then there should be some huge discrepency between the different families - something very distinct and obvious. That is not what is seen.So, you don't have a probelm with the demonstraton that humans are quite closely related to other primates?

quote:

---

For some reason you simply do not allow the possibility that God could have sat there and chosen initial seqeunces for each organism.

---

Anything is possible. It is possible that the winged monkeys that live in my colon could have done the same.
Plausability and logic play a role here. Other than saying that your postulate is 'possible', do you know of any way to logically infer that? Scientifically?

quote:

---

The more physiologically similar the more similar the sequences.

---

Oh, my... TB, what will I do with you? That is Ken Ham stuff. That is Karl Crawford stuff.
You are constraining your Universal Creator with such a limited repertoire of abilities, I have to wonder why one would believe Him so great....

quote:

---

Becasue sequences can drift so far without changing function I do not expect to see the kind conept from homolgous sequences. But I do expect to see the kind concept from the complement of genes in the genome.

---

Of course you do....

quote:

---

The true quesitons of what genes originated when can be studied via comparative genomics where we find out what new genes are responsible for what new physiological features. And of course the new genes at each stage of complexity are a complete mystery.

---

Are they really? To whom? Of course, not too lonmg ago, the cell itself was a "complete mystery", bandied about by creationists as being 'proof' of Creation. DNA - same thing. Creeationism has a pretty shopworn track record on such things...

quote:

---

You are locked in a faith trap just as we are. The part of evolution which generates real novelty, that we say never happened naturalistically, is the part you have no evidence for. So you believe it happened.

---

I accept that it happened via inferrence from what we do know. That is not the Faith of the creationist, that is the 'faith' of the realist. Why abandon reason just because we do not have all the answers right this minute? The Faithful, in this debate, have relied upon ignorance as their 'proof' all along. And as we have seen, once one question is answered naturalistically, the creationist just asks another, and another.
It takes no Faith to accept that someday, there will probably be an answer to these questions. It takes a slim knowledge of history.

MammuthusAnatomical differnces are not spurious, sure, but, unless I am mistaken, it is not always clear what to call a genus vs a family. Whether there is also confusion at the order level I am unaware. The genomic kind concept of distinct genome may turn out to be a useful concept (even if only to molecular biologists) and may not perfectly align with a Linnean level. That sentence can not be debated surely?You ask how what I said is differnet ot macroeovltuion? Horizontal transfer is somehting no one would deny. The gene already exists it just moved. That is very differnt from a new enzyme family evolving that bears no resemblance to any other family! I hope yo can see tha tjust becasue you see jumping genes this has almost nothing to do with the original orgin of each gene family. (And I am not implying abiogenesis here - the simplest organims do not (and did not) have anything like all of the protein families and you know that!).2) Mutations and macroevolution.Yes, horizontal transfer of genes DOES explain the sudden appearance of genes or gene families within a lineage. But I am talking about where ethe first member of each family came from - very, very different.3) New protein families
There is not much work on the origin of new protein families because there is very little evidence for this.4) Evolution & proof?
Science isn't semantics but your use of 'good support' vs 'proof' is semantics. I will say any day that gravity theory is proven whether Netwonian or Einsteinian. We are using differnt definitons of words.Creation evidence (note - not proof, just evidence): the distinctness of protein families, distinctness of Linnean families, irreducible complexity of cellular systems (as well as the unlikelihood of abiogenesis)My position? Is based on considering the possibility that we are created. And the evidence is good that we were IMO (see above). Other evidence favours evoltuion.My definiton will work fine when we actaully have the chimp genomes with the proviso of horizontal gain/loss issue. Of course it is of not much practical use right now. The Bacillus genome analysis is an example of within kind study where even the evotutionists writing this 2002 paper chose themselves to accept that all gene family differences were expected to be due to horizontal transfer or loss.6) Phenotype/genotype?
Sure - large amounts of genotype change don't have to lead to large pheotype changes. What I am saying is that if this is predictable from the genotype then it is not epigenitic or a suprise to anyone.8) Restricting God?
Of course God gets 'restricted' by what he has left behind. If he exists and he created life as it is then that is how he did it! The pioint is that I am not eliminating he possibility that God created us as you do. You are the one restricing him. You are saying he couldn't create semi-monophyletically.9) Thin air?
If God doesn't exist then there is no dif between the origins of non-bio and bio. If God does exist then there potentially is a difference. God might have created just like described in the Bible - you can't rule it out!I'll get around to biomednet today. I'm 99.99% sure that it wont give me access to all pdfs. Perhaps you are linking to a free review article.[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 09-19-2002]

SLPxYou asked about 'anything in my field proven'?* Protein folding is dictated by sequence. Chaperones did not change this.
* Certain amino-acids have certain preferences for particular secondary structure
* The ribosome makes proteins from an RNA template
* Phe is more hydrophobic than SerIf you can't use the word 'proof' for any of these things then you are taking relativism to new heights SPLx! It's just like gravity is an inverse square law. That is proven - Einstein didn't change that.You said "If the creation postulate is that the "kind" is about the same as the Family, then there should be some huge discrepency between the different families". But I already explained that due to sequence drift this may not be evident. If there were 5 created amino-acid diffs between man and pig hemolglobin what's the chances that bias is still visible? The phylogentic trend will still be there (as it is) but the distinctness will be washed out. That's why looking at distinct protein families is, depending on what one is trying to achieve, better for both evolutionists and creationists.And, correct, I have no problem with sapiens being very similar to other primates. Anyone can see that at a zoo.You can't compare 'winged monkeys in colons' with the simple possibility that we were created. (Well maybe you can). See above post for evidence of creation. I am not constraining my creator. But if he created he already constrained himself.Yes the mystery of the origin of life could be creation or macroevolution.You 'accept that it [evolution] happened via inferrence from what we do know'. But you ignore the possibility that God created kinds which have since diverged. They are both possible. It's not necessarily a reason or ignorance issue - it could be a common sense and conscience issue too. It does take faith to 'accept that someday, there will probably be an answer to these questions'. Maybe God created and you are wrong.

Hi TB,I will go point by point again. If you get to my response today I can probably go one more round but then I am travelling for the next week and won't get to your post until I am back...but I will try to pick up wherever we leave off.Anatomical differnces are not spurious, sure, but, unless I am mistaken, it is not always clear what to call a genus vs a family. Whether there is also confusion at the order level I am unaware. The genomic kind concept of distinct genome may turn out to be a useful concept (even if only to molecular biologists) and may not perfectly align with a Linnean level. That sentence can not be debated surely?Genus vs family is not so controversial though there are problems placing insectivores. Species level designations are difficult. The closer you get to a speciation event the harder it is to separte out distinct species.You ask how what I said is differnet ot macroeovltuion? Horizontal transfer is somehting no one would deny. The gene already exists it just moved. That is very differnt from a new enzyme family evolving that bears no resemblance to any other family! I hope yo can see tha tjust becasue you see jumping genes this has almost nothing to do with the original orgin of each gene family. (And I am not implying abiogenesis here - the simplest organims do not (and did not) have anything like all of the protein families and you know that!).No, I don't know that simple organisms did not have more complex genomes at one time. Bacteria are "simple" but they to have been evolving and for much longer than multicellular organisms. I have no reason to suppose that they have not gained and lossed genetic information. In addition, in single cell organisms like bacteria, I would never expect then to have hemoglobin as they have no need to transport oxygen. If there is no selective advantage or pressure, there is no reason to expect an organism or group of organisms to develop the novelty. As to the ultimate origins of genes, this is still a part of abiogenesis I'm afraid.2) Mutations and macroevolution.Yes, horizontal transfer of genes DOES explain the sudden appearance of genes or gene families within a lineage. But I am talking about where ethe first member of each family came from - very, very different.It is partially an abiogenesis question. But it can also be studied looking at organisms with rudimentary functions related to a more complex function i.e. bacteria photosensitivty and development of photopigments. It could also be done experimentally by shuffling protein domains (or even DNA or RNA) and selecting for specific functions over multiple rounds until you have an extremely good molecule for the selected purpose. This is combinatorial chemistry which is a major part of biotech and pharmaceuticals where they use evolutionary principles to develop drugs. You can come up with completely novel functions with these systems.3) New protein families
There is not much work on the origin of new protein families because there is very little evidence for this.There is not evidence that the families are new or for there origins?4) Evolution & proof?
Science isn't semantics but your use of 'good support' vs 'proof' is semantics. I will say any day that gravity theory is proven whether Netwonian or Einsteinian. We are using differnt definitons of words.That is not semantics and what you said is patently false. If the theory of gravity is "proven" please state how it works. It is unknown how gravity works...there is a theory that is supportable but it is in no way proven. It could be overturned tomorrow.Creation evidence (note - not proof, just evidence): the distinctness of protein families, distinctness of Linnean families, irreducible complexity of cellular systems (as well as the unlikelihood of abiogenesis)1) irreducible complexity is not evidence...there is no evidence for irreducibilty and complexity is not defined.
2) unlikelihood is not evidence. It is unlikely that I would have stumbled into this website looking for something completely different but that is how I ended up here.
3) How does your problem with abiogenesis have any bearing on evolution?My position? Is based on considering the possibility that we are created. And the evidence is good that we were IMO (see above). Other evidence favours evoltuion.Please supply physical evidence for creation. How do you test such evidence?My definiton will work fine when we actaully have the chimp genomes with the proviso of horizontal gain/loss issue. Of course it is of not much practical use right now. The Bacillus genome analysis is an example of within kind study where even the evotutionists writing this 2002 paper chose themselves to accept that all gene family differences were expected to be due to horizontal transfer or loss.I'm not really sure what you are getting at here. If you find sequences very similar to cyanobacterial gene sequences in a plant what is wrong with horizontal transfer? I am also not clear as to what you are so sure will be supported when the chimp genome is sequenced? Thus far, the larger sequencing efforts from chimp have not yielded controversy surrounding our sharing a common ancestor with Pan troglodytes and Pan paniscus.6) Phenotype/genotype?
Sure - large amounts of genotype change don't have to lead to large pheotype changes. What I am saying is that if this is predictable from the genotype then it is not epigenitic or a suprise to anyone.However, it is often not predictable from the genotype...there are even diseases which exhibit a phenomenon known as phenocopy which is not predictable from the genotype.8) Restricting God?
Of course God gets 'restricted' by what he has left behind. If he exists and he created life as it is then that is how he did it! The pioint is that I am not eliminating he possibility that God created us as you do. You are the one restricing him. You are saying he couldn't create semi-monophyletically.That is a very strange position and would put you in conflict with a large number creationists.
So you are willing to limit your god and concede that he is a truly lousy engineer?9) Thin air?
If God doesn't exist then there is no dif between the origins of non-bio and bio. If God does exist then there potentially is a difference. God might have created just like described in the Bible - you can't rule it out!I am an atheist and see no evidence for god or the supernatural I have no reason to invoke a god at any point and I see it as no conflict for evolution. As to abiogenesis, since I do not have direct empirical evidence or a well formulated theory for abiogenesis I cannot obviously say I know how life began. On the other hand, as I see it, there are many things that seemed to be unanswerable in science even a few decades ago which are now accessible. So I have no reason to believe this will not be the case with the chemistry of life.I'll get around to biomednet today. I'm 99.99% sure that it wont give me access to all pdfs. Perhaps you are linking to a free review article.There are some articles that biomednet will link you to that are not free i.e. when a news item has a link to a Science paper for example. But Trends in Genetics for example should be free via biomednet. I was trying to refer you to a news piece biomednet did on horizontal transfer..that should be free to access.Cheers,
M[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 09-19-2002][/B][/QUOTE]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
SLPx

​

You asked about 'anything in my field proven'?

​

* Protein folding is dictated by sequence. Chaperones did not change this.
* Certain amino-acids have certain preferences for particular secondary structure
* The ribosome makes proteins from an RNA template
* Phe is more hydrophobic than Ser

---

Is it possible to falsify the above statements? If so, then they are not proven.

quote:

---

You said "If the creation postulate is that the "kind" is about the same as the Family, then there should be some huge discrepency between the different families". But I already explained that due to sequence drift this may not be evident.

---

You must be an old, old, old earth creationist then.
Do you not think it odd then, the patterns that are seen? Are you suggesting that drift obscures 'true' differnces while at the same time producing what appear to be pattenrs of descent??
Where are the probability mongers when you need them!

quote:

---

If there were 5 created amino-acid diffs between man and pig hemolglobin what's the chances that bias is still visible? The phylogentic trend will still be there (as it is) but the distinctness will be washed out. That's why looking at distinct protein families is, depending on what one is trying to achieve, better for both evolutionists and creationists.

---

But the real question is Why would there have been 5 aa diffs between the same proteins in the first place? Why woiuld pigs and humans both even need the same proteins? Is the Cosmic Designer so unoriginal and constrained that It could nbot really dazzle us with some innovation?
You are simply favoring this protein family schtick because you think you can find 'evidence' for creation in it. We've been down that road before.

quote:

---

And, correct, I have no problem with sapiens being very similar to other primates. Anyone can see that at a zoo.

---

That is not what I asked. I asked if you accept that Homo and Pan are related via descent, as the evidence indicates.

quote:

---

You can't compare 'winged monkeys in colons' with the simple possibility that we were created. (Well maybe you can).

---

Why not? There is as much evidence for winged colon monkeys as there is for some anthropomorphic superbeing creating humans from the dust of the ground.

quote:

---

See above post for evidence of creation. I am not constraining my creator. But if he created he already constrained himself.

---

Well, isn't that convenient.Creation evidence (note - not proof, just evidence): the distinctness of protein families, distinctness of Linnean families, irreducible complexity of cellular systems (as well as the unlikelihood of abiogenesisHave you considered the fact that evolution can actually explain these things?See, TB, when I read things like this, I see shades of Michael Denton. You know about him, right? He wrote in his first book that cldograms based on amino acid sequences show not descent, but types (kinds - he didn't want to be called a creationist either).
Problem was, it was quite clear that he had his head up his arse when it came to interpreting the cladograms and understanding what goes into their construction. He claimed that the 'gaps' between extant organisms - the distinctness of the Linnaean groups, if you will - were due to creation (he didn't call it that, but that is what he meant).
But, there is a little thing called extinction that he failed to take into account. That and common sense and an understanding of evolution.
A hypersimplified analogy as to why there are 'gaps':I stand in a field with two baseballs. I turn to the east and throw one as far as I can. I turn west and throw the other. They are now maybe a couple hundred yards apart (hey, I can throw, baby!). Yet they originated from the same spot, they just went in other directions...If thats the best you've got, well, I think my materialist dogma is safe for now

quote:

---

Yes the mystery of the origin of life could be creation or macroevolution.

​

You 'accept that it [evolution] happened via inferrence from what we do know'. But you ignore the possibility that God created kinds which have since diverged.

---

NO, I don't. I have contemplated it and found that the evidence does not provide for this.

quote:

---

They are both possible.

---

Yes, as is my monkey scenario. But plausability is not equal among the contestants.

quote:

---

It's not necessarily a reason or ignorance issue - it could be a common sense and conscience issue too. '

---

What does conscience have to do with how one interprets evidence? I have my understanding, of course, but what is yours?

quote:

---

It does take faith to 'accept that someday, there will probably be an answer to these questions'. Maybe God created and you are wrong.

---

Yes, that is a possibility.But is it probable?

SLPxThe falsificaiton of those four things I listed is so fanciful that I would say they were proven 'beyond almost any doubt'.Old Earth creatoinist? Drift has not washed out the basic phylogeny but it may have washed out the finer 'quantization'. I don't even know if we have enough sequences to look for 'quantization'. So instead it is much easier to look at presecne/absence of new genes.Why 5 aas different? NO-one knows, but we can specualte that the environemnt of action of the genes and interaction parteners is different in different genomes (definitely true actually). It is even possible that all hemoglobins were created exactly the same and drifted in a phylogentic pattern due to the phylogeny of the genomic environment (way out theory).Pigs and people have placentas, mammary glands, warm blood etc etc. We are physiologically very similar. Yes God could have done it differntly but if he created he did it semi-monophyletically.I believe we are related to Pan just as pigs are more related to mice than fish - via God's building block genomic blueprints.Evoltuion explains my evidences for design? Not really - those points are the stumbling blocks for evoltuion. You show me a biochemical pathway whose evolution is well understood including the identificaiton of how the early members of the pathway funcitoned before the entire pathway was complete and where the new genes came from. Hard ask, sure. The point which distinguishes your theory and mine - yes.Extinciton explains gaps? I can show you a dozen mainstream paleontology quaotes which clearly state that extinct is as qunatized as extant. Your belief is possible - but the key aspects that differentiate our beliefs are simply hypotheses.You have contemplated our possibility? If you did then you never did very well. If you had you would have said from the start - OK the only thing that distinguishes us is the origin of the distinct kinds and the distinct protein families. You all start out thinking creaitonists don't believe in Darwin, DNA or speciation.If this is God's universe then conscience has a lot to do with it. You bleieve that your conscience is just a emergent property of your neurons. You may be wrong - it may be something given to you to help you judge all manners of things.

MammuthusI'm of on holidays for a week too - I'll respond when I get back. I might bump into you. Wear a big Darwin fish with legs T-shirt and I'll carry around my King James - we might recognize each other. Happy travelling.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
Peter

​

I agree except . . .

​

Genomically I think we are starting to see some problems for 'monophyletic' evoltuion, and not just due to horzontal tranfer. The 'mosaic' nature of genomes, including 'convergent' rehappenings at some point may show that (i) evolution is wrong and (ii) God's blueprints were a bit non-monophyletic. I think we have seen hints of this recently in wing genes in unrelated taxa (birds and flies) being 'too' convergent.

​

Man is certianly most similar to primates. Man is biologically a very special primate from a creationit POV.

---

Sorry, what do you mean by 'mosaic' nature of genomes (I know
what a mosaic is ... just not heard it in relation to genomes
before).As for convergence, and being 'too' convergent I find that an
argument from incredulity again. Just because it seems unlikely
doesn't mean it couldn't happen ... I'd need a little more than
that to see it as a real problem.If a particular protein is beneficial to an organism, and that
protein leads an organism to be capable of producing a particular
kind of phenotypic feature then that could recurr in vastly
different taxa.Not knowing exactly how geno- and phenotypes are related is a
bit of a problem ... but equally with the wing thing, someone mentioned
that the genes were protrusion genes, and that they could be
considered stronger evidence for common descent because they
are evident across all limbed critters.Equally could indicate common design I guess.Is there any evidence, that if it existed, would lead you
to favour common descent in the evolutionary sense, rather
than common design in the creationist sense?

quote:

---

Evoltuion explains my evidences for design? Not really - those points are the stumbling blocks for evoltuion. You show me a biochemical pathway whose evolution is well understood including the identificaiton of how the early members of the pathway funcitoned before the entire pathway was complete and where the new genes came from. Hard ask, sure. The point which distinguishes your theory and mine - yes.

---

JM: What a ploy. You are not asking for scientific discourse. You are playing the old creationist game that states "What you cannot explain, must be due to the fact that your idea is false". It is an excellent debate tactic and works quite well in many cases--especially for those not familiar with it. However, you can expect to be called out on the carpet for such sophomoric shenanigans on this board. This 'point' does nothing to support your creationism and refute evolution, it is simply poor debate tactics on your part.CheersJoe Meert

Agreed.

PeterI agree that finding common genes in all limbed creatures is equally evidence for common descent as for common design. However when birds and winged insects share detailed genotypic molecular features that aren't in non-winged creatures then that is scarry for you and good for us. And I posted a link to a paper on this a while back.The mosaic nature of genomes is the 'cut and pasted' nature of genpomes with things appearing convergently along separate supposed monophyletic lines. The term is used with respect to genomic evolution only recently and I suspect has been carried over from organism level evolution.[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 09-29-2002]