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:   DNA sequence comparisons, a similar designer or heredity?
Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 9 of 26 (289473)
02-22-2006 7:41 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by Faith
02-21-2006 11:14 PM


I always have this uncomfortable feeling about cladistics that it's really some kind of trick or hoax. That is, correct me if I'm wrong, but I understand it to be a scheme that maps traits and finds that they follow the pattern of the taxonomic tree.
You are wrong.
Early taxonomic systems and the original linnean system are rather crude precursor forms of cladistics. Living things were categorised based on apparent similarities.
What cladistics does is to produce a much more formalised and rationalised taxonomic tree based on specific shared traits known as synapomorphies which is a phylogenetic tree rather than merely taxonomic.
Synapomorphies are traits which are common to one or more taxa (taxa is the plural of taxon, a taxon being a specific grouping of organisms) and which are thought, or known, to be inherited from a common ancestor.
A taxonomic tree simply categorises into nested hierarchies, a phylogenetic tree contains inferences about the common ancestry of organisms based on synapomorphic characteristics.
The strength of the evidence that Modulous has been discussing is that independent Genetic traits, such as those involved in basic cellular metabolism, which do not affect the synapomorphic morphological characteristics which have been used to produce traditional cladistic analyses, produce remarkably consistent results when used as the basis for cladistic analysis.
So both the morphological cladistic analysis and the cladistic analysis of genetic sequences produce similar phylogenetic trees despite being as independent a measure as possible.
An argument can of course be made that this is all down to 'common design' but this is an ad hoc argument with purely explanatory and no predictive power.
Someone who believes in common descent would have good cause to predict that genes with no effect on morphology would produce the same patterns through cladistic analysis as would analysis of morphological characteristics or the genes controlling them since they have all been inherited through the same ancestors. What would compell a believer in common design to make such a prediction?
TTFN,
WK
This message has been edited by Wounded King, 22-Feb-2006 12:42 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Faith, posted 02-21-2006 11:14 PM Faith has not replied

  
Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 12 of 26 (289496)
02-22-2006 9:29 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by FliesOnly
02-22-2006 9:23 AM


Re: Independent Measurements.
Too... much.... tortured... analogy...
and now I want a brownie.
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by FliesOnly, posted 02-22-2006 9:23 AM FliesOnly has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by FliesOnly, posted 02-22-2006 9:53 AM Wounded King 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