|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: more evidence for shared ancestry (NOT similarity) | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Tranquility Base Inactive Member |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Tranquility Base Inactive Member |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
peter borger Member (Idle past 7693 days) Posts: 965 From: australia Joined: |
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 wishesPeter [This message has been edited by peter borger, 10-02-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Itzpapalotl Inactive Member |
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).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
derwood Member (Idle past 1904 days) Posts: 1457 Joined: |
quote: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
derwood Member (Idle past 1904 days) Posts: 1457 Joined: |
quote: It is? Examples?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Tranquility Base Inactive Member |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Tranquility Base Inactive Member |
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]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
peter borger Member (Idle past 7693 days) Posts: 965 From: australia Joined: |
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]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
peter borger Member (Idle past 7693 days) Posts: 965 From: australia Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
derwood Member (Idle past 1904 days) Posts: 1457 Joined: |
quote: 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: Please produce 'quotes' that such is done in in analyses of multicellular eukaryotes, wherein such 'transfers' are not the result of viral insertion.quote: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
derwood Member (Idle past 1904 days) Posts: 1457 Joined: |
quote: Beause as presented by wacky creationists, it is just smoke in mirrors and largely irrelevant. see Dembski and ReMine, for example.quote: Sure you will, superstar....
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Itzpapalotl Inactive Member |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
derwood Member (Idle past 1904 days) Posts: 1457 Joined: |
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...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
peter borger Member (Idle past 7693 days) Posts: 965 From: australia Joined: |
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
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024