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:   more evidence for shared ancestry (NOT similarity)
derwood
Member (Idle past 1876 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 1 of 34 (18621)
09-30-2002 3:20 PM


One will notice that this is yet another example of molecular evidence favoring a shared ancestry of humans and apes. The creationist must concoct ad hoc escape clauses to try to 'explain' this data, as is so often the case.
Keep in mind that this says nothing of 'similarity'...
*****************************************************************
Chromosome Res 2002;10(1):55-61
Direct evidence for the Homo-Pan clade.
Wimmer R, Kirsch S, Rappold GA, Schempp W.
Institute of Human Genetics and Anthropology, University of Freiburg, Germany.
For a long time, the evolutionary relationship between human and African apes, the 'trichotomy problem', has been debated with strong differences in opinion and interpretation. Statistical analyses of different molecular DNA data sets have been carried out and have primarily supported a Homo-Pan clade. An alternative way to address this question is by the comparison of evolutionarily relevant chromosomal breakpoints. Here, we made use of a P1-derived artificial chromosome (PAC)/bacterial artificial chromosome (BAC) contig spanning approximately 2.8 Mb on the long arm of the human Y chromosome, to comparatively map individual PAC clones to chromosomes from great apes, gibbons, and two species of Old World monkeys by fluorescence in-situ hybridization. During our search for evolutionary breakpoints on the Y chromosome, it transpired that a transposition of an approximately 100-kb DNA fragment from chromosome 1 onto the Y chromosome must have occurred in a common ancestor of human, chimpanzee and bonobo. Only the Y chromosomes of these three species contain the chromosome-1-derived fragment; it could not be detected on the Y chromosomes of gorillas or the other primates examined. Thus, this shared derived (synapomorphic) trait provides clear evidence for a Homo-Pan clade independent of DNA sequence analysis.

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by Itzpapalotl, posted 09-30-2002 3:55 PM derwood has not replied
 Message 3 by Tranquility Base, posted 09-30-2002 9:29 PM derwood has replied
 Message 4 by peter borger, posted 09-30-2002 9:32 PM derwood has replied

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


Message 6 of 34 (18734)
10-01-2002 1:46 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by Tranquility Base
09-30-2002 9:29 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
Hi SLPx
Why not similarity?
Are you forgetting what our claim is? We believe God created these genomes (that have drifted since). Why shouldn't physiologically simlar organims have simlar genomes and chromosomal arrangement? Your 'must haves' are simply assumptions.
God could have created the genomes!
TB,
Now I believe that you are just playing dumb.
You should know by now that the 'simple assumptions' are more than that. But you say that they are 'simple assumptions' anyway.
You should, certainly by now, that mere similarity is only part of what such studies look at. If you truly believe that mere similarity is the sum total of molecular investigations and that such data equally supports the "Goddidit" scenario, then I have little reason to conclude that you are actually interested in any sort of reasoned debate, and are merely involved to 'witness'.
Well I'm sorry, but 'witnessing' doesn't cut it.
Simply carrying on about 'similarity' being proof of creation, not evolution, is just dimwitted dogmatic mantra spewing.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Tranquility Base, posted 09-30-2002 9:29 PM Tranquility Base has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by Tranquility Base, posted 10-01-2002 11:07 PM derwood has replied

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


Message 7 of 34 (18735)
10-01-2002 1:49 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by peter borger
09-30-2002 9:32 PM


quote:
Originally posted by peter borger:
Dear SLPx,
Why always look at similarities? Why not look at chromosome 4 and 17. They are distinct in all primates. Besides, similarities may be due to 'non-random (directed) mechanisms'.
best wishes
Peter
Yeah, they may also be due to the Tooth Fairy.
The Tooth Fairy hypothesis, interestingly, has as much evidence in its support as does 'non-random mechanisms'.
As you still cannot/refuse to understand wha random and non-random mean in the context of the genome, and have displayed a tendency to misrepresent your opponants and their arguments, I see little reaosn to continue replying to your simple-minded repetitive creationist drivel.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by peter borger, posted 09-30-2002 9:32 PM peter borger has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by peter borger, posted 10-01-2002 8:51 PM derwood has replied

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


Message 13 of 34 (18831)
10-02-2002 9:35 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by peter borger
10-01-2002 8:51 PM


quote:
Originally posted by peter borger:
Dear SLPx,
You say:
"Yeah, they may also be due to the Tooth Fairy."
I say:
Actually, it is you who introduced 'spacealiens' and now the 'toothfary'. Rather unscientifically. It was me who introduced the hypothesis of non-random mutation in a multipurpose genome.
I 'introduced' them to demonstrate the childishness and vacuousness of the anti-evolutionary 'hypotheses' that get desparately tossed out by creationist hacks. Should have been fairly obvious. Of course, I have yet to claim evidence for the opposition is really evidence for my position.
quote:
Albeit that it opposes your paradigm of evolutionism, it is a scientific hypothesis that can be tested.
So test it and stop blabbering on about your 'hypothesis' which consists entirely of your idiotic use of personal definitions and twisting the publications of others to try to claim it props up your creationist fantasy.
quote:
So, next time you respond please keep it scientifically. And if you think you have a scientific response you can send it directly to my email address: peterborger@hotmail.com
What, no .edu address?
When you actually present something scientific, rather than repeated assertions and insistance on the use of unorthodox and unapplicable personal defintions, you let me know.
quote:
Then you can be sure that you get a response from me.
Oh, jnoy. Well, I - indeed, nobody - has yet received such a thing form you. It will nbe most exciting.
quote:
You say:
The Tooth Fairy hypothesis, interestingly, has as much evidence in its support as does 'non-random mechanisms'.
I say:
I provided at least 3 examples that cannot be ascribed to a random mechanism, but you refused to even look at it. Let alone discuss it.
Here is a discussion. Let us assume for the sake of argument that your 3 examples do, indeed, indicate non-random mutation (I guess you have foirgotten/ignored the fazct that others dealt handily with these, but I guess you require that every board participant address each example lest you will consider it unaddressed).
Do those 3 examples really nullify the multitude of other examples that indicatre randomness? Including those that I cited that you claimed supported your position without even reading them?
quote:
I call this ignorance, and now you live in denial. Perhaps respond to my examples, and have a look whether you can bring it in accord with your hypothesis of evolutionism. The more you deny, the more commited I get.
I agree that you are committed. Hopefully, you will be out soon, and can return to the land of rational thought.
It is funny, the way the creationist thinks.
Yes, I do deny that you have 'disproofed' randomeness in evolution. You have engaged in classic creationist innuendo and overconfident bombast then claimed that everyone else is in denial. Fantastic!
I will be calling the Nobel folks soon, as you have made the most amazoing discovey that, damn it all, no other biologist working in this area has!
quote:
You say:
As you still cannot/refuse to understand wha random and non-random mean in the context of the genome, and have displayed a tendency to misrepresent your opponants and their arguments, I see little reaosn to continue replying to your simple-minded repetitive creationist drivel.
Listen SLPx, I will give you another example of non-random:
Listen, "Peter B", why not just defend what you have already posted? Where is your hypothesis? You have said repeatedly that you have posted it, but I can find it nowhere. Perhaps your memory on that issue is as clouded as it was on the citations that I posted - you remember, the ones you claimed were in an 'email' to Fred, but were really to you?
quote:
"The metastriate ticks 'Rhipicephalus' and 'Boophilus' share a gene rearrangement and an altered structure of tRNA(C), exactly the same association of changes as previously reported for a group of lizards" (in:Lavrov D, et al, Mol Biol Evol 2000, 17(5):813-824.)
Now you may claim that it is random rearrangement and selection, I simply claim that it is non-random rearrangement and selection.
Good for you. I guess you must be right, since that is what you claim, and you are the creationist, and creationists are always right.
Ever heard the term homoplasy? Probably not. It would be intewresting to see the disparity between the genomes.
quote:
So proof it!!!!
Bertter yet, since you are the one climing it is non-random and that this disproof evolution, maybe YOU can proof it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by peter borger, posted 10-01-2002 8:51 PM peter borger has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by peter borger, posted 10-02-2002 8:36 PM derwood has not replied

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


Message 14 of 34 (18832)
10-02-2002 9:36 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by Tranquility Base
10-01-2002 11:07 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
SLPx
Hold on - all I am asking is what is the 'more than' simple similarity? I can see it with the previous retroviral insert posts but not with the subject matter of this thread. I am not playing dumb. I carefully read your abstract to see where it went beyond similarity - it didn't.

Do you think 'similarity' is all that is being discussed? Do you think that similarity is the 'meat' of phylogentic analysis?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Tranquility Base, posted 10-01-2002 11:07 PM Tranquility Base has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by Tranquility Base, posted 10-02-2002 9:20 PM derwood has replied

  
derwood
Member (Idle past 1876 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 1876 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

  
derwood
Member (Idle past 1876 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 1876 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

  
derwood
Member (Idle past 1876 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

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


Message 32 of 34 (19325)
10-08-2002 11:52 AM


As far as maths go, here is a quick example.
Cretins like to say that the chances of X occurring are 1 in 100 billion (or whatever), therefore, it could not have happened.
They forget what happens if there were 100 billion trials...

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by peter borger, posted 10-08-2002 8:10 PM derwood has replied

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


Message 34 of 34 (19647)
10-11-2002 2:12 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by peter borger
10-08-2002 8:10 PM


quote:
Originally posted by peter borger:
Dear Dr Page,
Thanks for the example. Could you recommend me some literature on this topic.
Thanks in advance,
Peter

Sure - any statistics book.
You're welcome.
Oh - can you provide some references for the claim that evolutionary bioogists believe that all gene trees and species trees should be congruent, and for the existence of a discipline in science whose sole purpose is to reconcile incongruent trees?
Thanks.
[This message has been edited by SLPx, 10-11-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by peter borger, posted 10-08-2002 8:10 PM 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