|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: more evidence for shared ancestry (NOT similarity) | |||||||||||||||||||||
derwood Member (Idle past 1876 days) Posts: 1457 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
derwood Member (Idle past 1876 days) Posts: 1457 Joined: |
quote: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
derwood Member (Idle past 1876 days) Posts: 1457 Joined: |
quote: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
derwood Member (Idle past 1876 days) Posts: 1457 Joined: |
quote: 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: 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: 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: Oh, jnoy. Well, I - indeed, nobody - has yet received such a thing form you. It will nbe most exciting.quote: 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 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: 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: 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: Bertter yet, since you are the one climing it is non-random and that this disproof evolution, maybe YOU can proof it?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
derwood Member (Idle past 1876 days) Posts: 1457 Joined: |
quote: Do you think 'similarity' is all that is being discussed? Do you think that similarity is the 'meat' of phylogentic analysis?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
derwood Member (Idle past 1876 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 1876 days) Posts: 1457 Joined: |
quote: It is? Examples?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
derwood Member (Idle past 1876 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 1876 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....
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
derwood Member (Idle past 1876 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...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
derwood Member (Idle past 1876 days) Posts: 1457 Joined: |
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...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
derwood Member (Idle past 1876 days) Posts: 1457 Joined: |
quote: 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]
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024