Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The YEC's most common error?
nos482
Inactive Member


Message 16 of 42 (18591)
09-30-2002 8:26 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by Tranquility Base
09-30-2002 12:15 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
Without having read all of this thread here is a mainstream distinguishment of micro/macro (micro is 'allelic', macro involves large scale change):
Macroevolution is more than repeated rounds of microevolution.
Erwin DH. Evol Dev 2000 Mar-Apr;2(2):78-84
Macroevolution is more than repeated rounds of microevolution - PubMed
If anyone can't see the differnce bertween allelic changes (eg type A blood and B blood - a handful of aminoacids) vs whether we have or don't have hemoglobin at all then ask me and I'll educate you.
That is micro vs macro.
And if anyone thinks I am being too molecular then I'll educate you on that too (we are made of molecules will be the gist of the answer).
The evolutionists most common error is exemplified by this thread (sorry MartinM): thinking that getting a novel allele is in some sense not differnt from getting a novel enzyme pathway.

All macro evolution is is enough micro evolutionary changes to add up to a different species. In other words there is no real difference between the two. It seems that most creations can't (won't) get this through their heads.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Tranquility Base, posted 09-30-2002 12:15 AM Tranquility Base has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by TrueCreation, posted 09-30-2002 4:59 PM nos482 has not replied
 Message 18 by Tranquility Base, posted 09-30-2002 9:19 PM nos482 has replied

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 17 of 42 (18628)
09-30-2002 4:59 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by nos482
09-30-2002 8:26 AM


"All macro evolution is is enough micro evolutionary changes to add up to a different species. In other words there is no real difference between the two. It seems that most creations can't (won't) get this through their heads. "
--I've gotten that through my head, but a good reading of a general Bio text-book would dismiss it from reality in all technicality of your definition. They aren't necessarily changes that add up to a different 'species', but simply a quantitative change indicating a main event in the evolutionary history of life. Your use of 'species' is too specific to be accepted as accurate. See my post #6 for more.
--I concur with this differentiation in the realms of both mainstream and young earth studies.
-------------------
[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 09-30-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by nos482, posted 09-30-2002 8:26 AM nos482 has not replied

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 18 of 42 (18649)
09-30-2002 9:19 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by nos482
09-30-2002 8:26 AM


That's your faith nos482. The fossils and genomes tell a differnet story as stated by the title of that mainstream paper: 'Macroevoltuion is NOT just repeatd rounds of microevolution'.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by nos482, posted 09-30-2002 8:26 AM nos482 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by nos482, posted 10-01-2002 8:55 AM Tranquility Base has not replied

  
nos482
Inactive Member


Message 19 of 42 (18710)
10-01-2002 8:55 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by Tranquility Base
09-30-2002 9:19 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
That's your faith nos482. The fossils and genomes tell a differnet story as stated by the title of that mainstream paper: 'Macroevoltuion is NOT just repeatd rounds of microevolution'.
To be fair maybe we should call Miss Cleo and get the answer since so many people believe in her abilities.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Tranquility Base, posted 09-30-2002 9:19 PM Tranquility Base has not replied

  
MartinM
Inactive Member


Message 20 of 42 (18851)
10-02-2002 11:32 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by Tranquility Base
09-30-2002 12:15 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:

Macroevolution is more than repeated rounds of microevolution.
Erwin DH. Evol Dev 2000 Mar-Apr;2(2):78-84
Macroevolution is more than repeated rounds of microevolution - PubMed

Thanks for the reference. If I have time (doubtful!), I'll check my Uni library, see if I can dig out a copy of the full article. In the mean time, is this distinction widely accepted in the scientific community, or is it a point of contention?
quote:

If anyone can't see the differnce between allelic changes (eg type A blood and B blood - a handful of aminoacids) vs whether we have or don't have hemoglobin at all then ask me and I'll educate you.

What IS the difference, on a genetic level?
------------------
[This message has been edited by MartinM, 10-02-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Tranquility Base, posted 09-30-2002 12:15 AM Tranquility Base has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by TrueCreation, posted 10-02-2002 5:25 PM MartinM has not replied
 Message 23 by Tranquility Base, posted 10-02-2002 8:48 PM MartinM has not replied

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 21 of 42 (18890)
10-02-2002 5:25 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by MartinM
10-02-2002 11:32 AM


--Martin, what are your thoughts on post #6?
------------------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by MartinM, posted 10-02-2002 11:32 AM MartinM has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by mark24, posted 10-02-2002 7:11 PM TrueCreation has replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 22 of 42 (18909)
10-02-2002 7:11 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by TrueCreation
10-02-2002 5:25 PM


Hi TC,
quote:
Originally posted by TrueCreation:
--Martin, what are your thoughts on post #6?

quote:
Macroevolution is evolution which marks the main events in the evolutionary history of life. The amount of total differentiated evolution may be a good factor in distinguishing what is a 'main event' in an evolving population, however.
I take issue with that definition. Any mutational event is no more micro or macro than any other. Let me explain. The original speciation event that ultimately separated reptiles & mammals was no more "macro" than the events that separated grey & red squirrels. The individual mutations that led to a single mammal jaw bone were no more macro than any other point mutation, it is the collective, accumulated effect, relative to other organisms. Macroevolution is the sum of mutations that lead to larger scale morphological & chemical differences between clades.
Mark
------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by TrueCreation, posted 10-02-2002 5:25 PM TrueCreation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by Tranquility Base, posted 10-02-2002 9:06 PM mark24 has not replied
 Message 31 by TrueCreation, posted 10-03-2002 5:32 PM mark24 has replied

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 23 of 42 (18918)
10-02-2002 8:48 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by MartinM
10-02-2002 11:32 AM


MartinM
Good point. It is a contentious point - amongst anatomical sytematists and paleontologists. However, amongst genome researchers and molecular biologists in general it would be a difficult job to disagree with the fact that allelic differences will only get one so far. From the genomes we know that higher taxa are separated by novel protein families which are not allelic variants of other families. It is a nice idea to think that somehow the immune system arrived via allelic mutations but we already know that is not true.
OK, so what is the detailed genetic difference?
Varying the gene for blood type slightly by a few amino-acids one gets type A, B or O. But if still funcitonal at all - guess what - the biochemical funciton of these genes is the same. This should be no surprise - enzymes are very special amino-acid sequences that do a single, very specific job.
Antibodies in everyone perform detection functions.
Hemoglobin in everyone performs a transport funciton.
Growth factors in everyone perform signalling funcitons.
Dehydrogenase in everyone breaks up alcohol.
Allelic variants with amino-acid changes only changes the strength of binding or reactivity. But you can't go smoothly from one enzyme class to another. Enzymes mostly have differnt folds and of course have differnt catalytic amino-acids. On the way from one to another the protein would unfold and be inactive for thousands of steps. And besides, for almost all protein families there is no evidence at all that they evolved from other protein families.
So there is a huge chasm between allelic differneces (an allele is just a variant of a particular gene within a population) and proteins with differnt biochemical funcitons. And of course, at the higher taxa level, as one goes from genome to genome you end up with multiple entire new pathwys (collections of new protein families that work together to metabolise something or generate development signals).
For example, the genome of the puffer fish Fugu just came out (I read the paper on the train last night). 25% of the 30,000 or so human genes have no puffer fish analog. Whilst many of these may turn out to have a disant structural or funcitonal relationship there is no doubt that many human genes represent novel families with new protein folds and functions.
So higher taxa are separated by both allelic differences and major new protein family/pathway appearences. I will not argue that the allelic differneces could be due to natural selection. However I will argue that the novel protien families are evidence for distinct creation and represent a qualitative difference to allelic differneces (just as suggested in that mainstream article).
[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 10-02-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by MartinM, posted 10-02-2002 11:32 AM MartinM has not replied

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 24 of 42 (18919)
10-02-2002 9:06 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by mark24
10-02-2002 7:11 PM


Mark
But what your forgetting is that from the genomes we already know that genes of completely new fold, sequence and function have appeared to bring in the major novelties.
You can pusy foot around with bones moving around but where did the novel protein families for each anatomical and celluar novelty come from. That is very differnt to allelic mutaitons which maintain the function of the protein.
All of your homology stuff concentrates on what is similar bewtween organisms. You ignore the major differneces! You have lost the forest for the trees. Placentas, legs, hearts, eyes, immune systems. All of these invovle novel distinct protein families which bear no resemblance to pre-exising protein families. As pointed out by Behe, molecular biology puts an end to your 'just so' stories.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by mark24, posted 10-02-2002 7:11 PM mark24 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by Andya Primanda, posted 10-03-2002 4:06 AM Tranquility Base has replied
 Message 29 by derwood, posted 10-03-2002 4:47 PM Tranquility Base has replied

  
Andya Primanda
Inactive Member


Message 25 of 42 (18959)
10-03-2002 4:06 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by Tranquility Base
10-02-2002 9:06 PM


TB, I am still curious on how you do your taxonomy. Your oft-repeated claim is that created kinds have a rough analogy with Linnaean families (which puts people in the same kind with chimps ). Have you some examples which you can show us? Preferably those organisms which we can objectively assess (maybe plants or insects).
Should go like this: "The plant family A is a different kind from plant family B because there is one gene family found in A which is not found in B" or "The termite family A should be split into three 'kinds' because there is three different protein families within the family."
Got some? I am sure you do.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Tranquility Base, posted 10-02-2002 9:06 PM Tranquility Base has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by Quetzal, posted 10-03-2002 5:00 AM Andya Primanda has not replied
 Message 33 by Tranquility Base, posted 10-03-2002 8:55 PM Andya Primanda has not replied

  
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5872 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 26 of 42 (18966)
10-03-2002 5:00 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by Andya Primanda
10-03-2002 4:06 AM


Andya: Good luck. I've asked TB the same question three times now (and Philip, who seems to be betting that TB has an irrefutable argument, once). His response is: we won't know until we have sequenced more genomes. Fine, as far as it goes. However, it seems to me that without any evidence AT ALL for the assertion, it can't be used to argue the creationist side. Maybe I'm being too hard on 'em.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Andya Primanda, posted 10-03-2002 4:06 AM Andya Primanda has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by John, posted 10-03-2002 10:44 AM Quetzal has not replied
 Message 34 by Tranquility Base, posted 10-03-2002 9:02 PM Quetzal has replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 27 of 42 (18986)
10-03-2002 10:44 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by Quetzal
10-03-2002 5:00 AM


[QUOTE]Originally posted by Quetzal:
[B]Andya: Good luck. I've asked TB the same question three times now[/quote]
[/b]
I, also, have tried to pin TB down on this and to no result.
------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Quetzal, posted 10-03-2002 5:00 AM Quetzal has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by Andya Primanda, posted 10-03-2002 11:29 AM John has not replied

  
Andya Primanda
Inactive Member


Message 28 of 42 (18992)
10-03-2002 11:29 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by John
10-03-2002 10:44 AM


This is like my trial to TB, because he offered me a MSc/PhD under him in taxonomical genomics. He talks about having found the yardstick to define kinds by new protein families. If he is credible then I am sure he can answer.
Btw, the full genome of the malaria mosquito is done. This is interesting, because we already have the Drosophila genome, which is not distantly related to the mosquito. Maybe we can find TB's point there. I have my confidence with him.
TB, if you can show me that, maybe I will seriously consider your PhD offer!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by John, posted 10-03-2002 10:44 AM John has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by derwood, posted 10-03-2002 4:49 PM Andya Primanda has not replied

  
derwood
Member (Idle past 1876 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 29 of 42 (19009)
10-03-2002 4:47 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by Tranquility Base
10-02-2002 9:06 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
Mark
But what your forgetting is that from the genomes we already know that genes of completely new fold, sequence and function have appeared to bring in the major novelties.
You can pusy foot around with bones moving around but where did the novel protein families for each anatomical and celluar novelty come from. That is very differnt to allelic mutaitons which maintain the function of the protein.
All of your homology stuff concentrates on what is similar bewtween organisms. You ignore the major differneces! You have lost the forest for the trees. Placentas, legs, hearts, eyes, immune systems. All of these invovle novel distinct protein families which bear no resemblance to pre-exising protein families. As pointed out by Behe, molecular biology puts an end to your 'just so' stories.

Then I suggest that Behe also read up on how gene expression affects development.
Oh - can you explain - with support, of course - this statement:
"...protein families which bear no resemblance to pre-exising protein families."
Beause, frankly, all of those organs you mentioned all possess pretty much the same proteins.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Tranquility Base, posted 10-02-2002 9:06 PM Tranquility Base has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by Tranquility Base, posted 10-03-2002 9:07 PM derwood has replied

  
derwood
Member (Idle past 1876 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 30 of 42 (19010)
10-03-2002 4:49 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by Andya Primanda
10-03-2002 11:29 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Andya Primanda:
This is like my trial to TB, because he offered me a MSc/PhD under him in taxonomical genomics. He talks about having found the yardstick to define kinds by new protein families. If he is credible then I am sure he can answer.
Btw, the full genome of the malaria mosquito is done. This is interesting, because we already have the Drosophila genome, which is not distantly related to the mosquito. Maybe we can find TB's point there. I have my confidence with him.
TB, if you can show me that, maybe I will seriously consider your PhD offer!

Good point -
Yes, TB, show us that chasm that evolution cannot cross!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Andya Primanda, posted 10-03-2002 11:29 AM Andya Primanda has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024