Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,810 Year: 3,067/9,624 Month: 912/1,588 Week: 95/223 Day: 6/17 Hour: 2/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   more evidence for shared ancestry (NOT similarity)
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 16 of 34 (18920)
10-02-2002 9:16 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by Itzpapalotl
10-02-2002 7:33 AM


Itzpapalotl
Not neccesarily. I agree with the data but although your conclusions are logical they are not the only ones possible.
If phenotypically similar bacteria for example share the same environment now that does not mean they always did. Due to potentially different past historiues they will have differnt gene loss histories.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Itzpapalotl, posted 10-02-2002 7:33 AM Itzpapalotl has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by Itzpapalotl, posted 10-03-2002 5:28 AM Tranquility Base has replied

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 17 of 34 (18921)
10-02-2002 9:20 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by derwood
10-02-2002 9:36 AM


SLPx
You're the one starting a thread trying to prove 'not just similar' (in the thread title). So you tell us what is 'not just similar' about the work.
Of course the results are approximately monophyletic but you know as well as I do that that is an approximation and that whenever something is non-monophyletic it is lableled convergent or horizontally transferred.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by derwood, posted 10-02-2002 9:36 AM derwood has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by derwood, posted 10-03-2002 10:45 AM Tranquility Base has replied

  
peter borger
Member (Idle past 7665 days)
Posts: 965
From: australia
Joined: 07-05-2002


Message 18 of 34 (18925)
10-02-2002 9:38 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by Itzpapalotl
10-02-2002 7:33 AM


Dear Itz,
I've just mailed to SLPx about ad hoc explanations. Here you demonstrate another one: Convergent evolution. It is nothing but a word. Read what Spetner has to say about convergent evolution. It made me think.
best wishes
Peter
[This message has been edited by peter borger, 10-02-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Itzpapalotl, posted 10-02-2002 7:33 AM Itzpapalotl has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by derwood, posted 10-03-2002 10:44 AM peter borger has replied

  
Itzpapalotl
Inactive Member


Message 19 of 34 (18967)
10-03-2002 5:28 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by Tranquility Base
10-02-2002 9:16 PM


Tranquility Base,
Of course my scenario is not the only possible one but i would maintain that it is the more likely one. Is there any evidence or experiment you can think of that could distinguish between the two theories?.
Peter borger,
The reason i mentioned these bacteria was that it was suggested phenotypically similar organisms in the same environment would have similar genomes due to design and these bacteria are an example where this is not true. Regardless of how the difference arose it raises doubts about the crationist argument that genetically similar organisms are designed to be similar because they live in similar environments. Convergent evolution is hardly an ad hoc explanation as it has been known about for a long time and is well studied. Of course mentioning ad hoc explanations means you don't have to commment on the actual evidence.
What do you make of TB's:
"If phenotypically similar bacteria for example share the same environment now that does not mean they always did. Due to potentially different past historiues they will have differnt gene loss histories."
is that not an ad hoc explanation or don't the same rules apply? (this is not intended to be a criticism of TB's theory which must be considered on its merits rather that if it's ad hoc or not).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Tranquility Base, posted 10-02-2002 9:16 PM Tranquility Base has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by Tranquility Base, posted 10-03-2002 9:51 PM Itzpapalotl has not replied
 Message 25 by peter borger, posted 10-04-2002 1:26 AM Itzpapalotl has replied

  
derwood
Member (Idle past 1875 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 20 of 34 (18985)
10-03-2002 10:44 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by peter borger
10-02-2002 9:38 PM


quote:
Originally posted by peter borger:
Dear Itz,
I've just mailed to SLPx about ad hoc explanations. Here you demonstrate another one: Convergent evolution. It is nothing but a word. Read what Spetner has to say about convergent evolution. It made me think.
best wishes
Peter
[This message has been edited by peter borger, 10-02-2002]

Why should anyone care what a creationist has to write about evolution?
And NREH seems to be about the MOST ad hoc 'explanation' - rather, creationist 'interpretation' - I have ever seen.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by peter borger, posted 10-02-2002 9:38 PM peter borger has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by peter borger, posted 10-03-2002 10:08 PM derwood has replied

  
derwood
Member (Idle past 1875 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 21 of 34 (18987)
10-03-2002 10:45 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by Tranquility Base
10-02-2002 9:20 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
SLPx
You're the one starting a thread trying to prove 'not just similar' (in the thread title). So you tell us what is 'not just similar' about the work.
Of course the results are approximately monophyletic but you know as well as I do that that is an approximation and that whenever something is non-monophyletic it is lableled convergent or horizontally transferred.

It is?
Examples?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Tranquility Base, posted 10-02-2002 9:20 PM Tranquility Base has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by Tranquility Base, posted 10-03-2002 9:54 PM derwood has replied

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 22 of 34 (19030)
10-03-2002 9:51 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by Itzpapalotl
10-03-2002 5:28 AM


Itz
I think my previous post suggested already that I agree with you that the bacteria convergently evolved for that niche. The key point is that I believe they convergently evolved due to allelic mutation and loss of genes rather than gain. They had differnt starting points but ended up the same phenotypically. Due to their different genotypes I bet if you put them in non-wild type environments then you would find differential phenotypic characteristics.
The really crucial point is that I doubt that any genes with novel biochemical functions evolved during this process. From the comparison of Bacillus genomes it is clear that evoltuionists ascibe novel gene families to differnetial loss rather than gain at least in that example.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Itzpapalotl, posted 10-03-2002 5:28 AM Itzpapalotl has not replied

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 23 of 34 (19031)
10-03-2002 9:54 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by derwood
10-03-2002 10:45 AM


SLPx
You aren't aware of the hundreds of quotes from cladistic people about 'choosing your characters carefully' to avoid convergent features so as to get better trees? Do I really have to post these?
And in the genome comparisons non-monophyletic but clearly homologous genes are always suggested to be horizontally transferred whether there is evidence or not. Note that I do not critize this procedure (it is highly logical) but I do point out that it is an assumption that need not be true if God created the genomes.
PS - and what's the 'more than similarity'?
[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 10-03-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by derwood, posted 10-03-2002 10:45 AM derwood has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by derwood, posted 10-04-2002 10:48 AM Tranquility Base has not replied

  
peter borger
Member (Idle past 7665 days)
Posts: 965
From: australia
Joined: 07-05-2002


Message 24 of 34 (19032)
10-03-2002 10:08 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by derwood
10-03-2002 10:44 AM


Dear SLPx,
You say:
Why should anyone care what a creationist has to write about evolution?
I say:
You aren't interested in the mathematics of evolutionary principles. Why not?
You say:
And NREH seems to be about the MOST ad hoc 'explanation' - rather, creationist 'interpretation' - I have ever seen.
I say:
Actually NREH is Darwin revisited. What I object to is the nihilism of NDT, therefore I will bring it down.
Best wishes,
Peter
[This message has been edited by peter borger, 10-03-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by derwood, posted 10-03-2002 10:44 AM derwood has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by derwood, posted 10-04-2002 10:54 AM peter borger has replied

  
peter borger
Member (Idle past 7665 days)
Posts: 965
From: australia
Joined: 07-05-2002


Message 25 of 34 (19046)
10-04-2002 1:26 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by Itzpapalotl
10-03-2002 5:28 AM


dear Itz,
You write:
The reason i mentioned these bacteria was that it was suggested phenotypically similar organisms in the same environment would have similar genomes due to design and these bacteria are an example where this is not true. Regardless of how the difference arose it raises doubts about the crationist argument that genetically similar organisms are designed to be similar because they live in similar environments. Convergent evolution is hardly an ad hoc explanation as it has been known about for a long time and is well studied. Of course mentioning ad hoc explanations means you don't have to commment on the actual evidence.
I say:
I can only conceive convergent evolution when the mutation are introduced non-randomly. Otherwise the odds are against it. Read Spetner, he did the maths on convergent evolution. Why? Since evolutionists never ever did any calculations on the odds of convergence.
What do you make of TB's:
"If phenotypically similar bacteria for example share the same environment now that does not mean they always did. Due to potentially different past historiues they will have differnt gene loss histories."
is that not an ad hoc explanation or don't the same rules apply? (this is not intended to be a criticism of TB's theory which must be considered on its merits rather that if it's ad hoc or not).
I say:
Maybe I could agree with it. At least, it nicely fits the '(non-)random mutation in a multipurpose genome hypothesis'.
Here is one to think:
Maybe they LOST the genes that specified the proteins that induced the initial generearrangements/non-random mutations. (Hard to falsify, isn't it. Sounds familiar?)
best wishes,
Peter

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Itzpapalotl, posted 10-03-2002 5:28 AM Itzpapalotl has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by Itzpapalotl, posted 10-05-2002 6:17 PM peter borger has not replied

  
derwood
Member (Idle past 1875 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 26 of 34 (19064)
10-04-2002 10:48 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by Tranquility Base
10-03-2002 9:54 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
SLPx
You aren't aware of the hundreds of quotes from cladistic people about 'choosing your characters carefully' to avoid convergent features so as to get better trees? Do I really have to post these?
Yes. Please post the 'hundreds' of such quotes. What do YOU mean by 'better' trees? And why do you suppose this would be the case?
quote:
And in the genome comparisons non-monophyletic but clearly homologous genes are always suggested to be horizontally transferred whether there is evidence or not. Note that I do not critize this procedure (it is highly logical) but I do point out that it is an assumption that need not be true if God created the genomes.
Please produce 'quotes' that such is done in in analyses of multicellular eukaryotes, wherein such 'transfers' are not the result of viral insertion.
quote:
PS - and what's the 'more than similarity'?
The history. Simple similarity - genetic distance - can only tell us so much. An analysis of the inferred history - as is done in phylogenetic analyses - tells us much more.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Tranquility Base, posted 10-03-2002 9:54 PM Tranquility Base has not replied

  
derwood
Member (Idle past 1875 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 27 of 34 (19065)
10-04-2002 10:54 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by peter borger
10-03-2002 10:08 PM


quote:
Originally posted by peter borger:
Dear SLPx,
You say:
Why should anyone care what a creationist has to write about evolution?
I say:
You aren't interested in the mathematics of evolutionary principles. Why not?
Beause as presented by wacky creationists, it is just smoke in mirrors and largely irrelevant. see Dembski and ReMine, for example.
quote:
You say:
And NREH seems to be about the MOST ad hoc 'explanation' - rather, creationist 'interpretation' - I have ever seen.
I say:
Actually NREH is Darwin revisited. What I object to is the nihilism of NDT, therefore I will bring it down.
Sure you will, superstar....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by peter borger, posted 10-03-2002 10:08 PM peter borger has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by peter borger, posted 10-08-2002 1:21 AM derwood has not replied

  
Itzpapalotl
Inactive Member


Message 28 of 34 (19131)
10-05-2002 6:17 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by peter borger
10-04-2002 1:26 AM


You say: "I can only conceive convergent evolution when the mutation are introduced non-randomly. Otherwise the odds are against it. Read Spetner, he did the maths on convergent evolution. Why? Since evolutionists never ever did any calculations on the odds of convergence."
i say: look at the program called converge/CAPE available from: http://mep.bio.psu.edu/phanalysis.html
"CAPE is designed to test convergent and parallel evolution at the amino acid sequence level. It computes the probabilities that the observed convergent and parallel substitutions are attributable to random chance."
The author Jianzhi Zhang has published/co authored several interesting papers on molecular evolution jou might want to look at.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by peter borger, posted 10-04-2002 1:26 AM peter borger has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by derwood, posted 10-07-2002 10:10 AM Itzpapalotl has not replied

  
derwood
Member (Idle past 1875 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 29 of 34 (19213)
10-07-2002 10:10 AM
Reply to: Message 28 by Itzpapalotl
10-05-2002 6:17 PM


The thing about 'chances'....
It is totally logical and mathematically valid to 'prove' that Peter Borge does not exist, were we to rest our 'beliefs' on math alone.
It is also possible to 'prove' that it is statistically impossible to have been dealt 52 cards in the order in which they sit in front of you.
No wonder creationists like numbers. They can 'prove' this and that without really proving a thing...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Itzpapalotl, posted 10-05-2002 6:17 PM Itzpapalotl has not replied

  
peter borger
Member (Idle past 7665 days)
Posts: 965
From: australia
Joined: 07-05-2002


Message 30 of 34 (19282)
10-08-2002 1:21 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by derwood
10-04-2002 10:54 AM


Dear Dr Page,
Your responses:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by peter borger:
Dear SLPx,
You say:
Why should anyone care what a creationist has to write about evolution?
I say:
You aren't interested in the mathematics of evolutionary principles. Why not?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Beause as presented by wacky creationists, it is just smoke in mirrors and largely irrelevant. see Dembski and ReMine, for example.
My Response:
If creationists' maths is irrelevant, please show me the relevant maths.
Best wishes,
Peter

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by derwood, posted 10-04-2002 10:54 AM derwood has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by mark24, posted 10-08-2002 5:35 AM peter borger 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