|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 5937 days) Posts: 563 From: Brisbane, Australia Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Twin-Nested Heirarchy | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Doddy Member (Idle past 5937 days) Posts: 563 From: Brisbane, Australia Joined: |
Goddy (my creationist alter-ego) is back!
One of the key evidences presented for common descent is the twin-nested heirarchy. That is, the hierarchies created from both the morphological evidence and the genetic evidence are correlated far more than would be expected by chance. But what they (the evilutionists) don't tell you is that similarities are not evidence of common descent. They can also be indicators of common design. Seeing as the DNA provides the instructions for building the organism, one should not be surprised that the two trees match up fairly well. Just as one would not be surprised that smaller cars would have smaller engines, we should not be surprised that organisms that look like people have genes similar to those of people. Because these criteria used to create the two trees are not independent of one another, a correlation between the two offers no evidence for evolution or common descent. In addition, if common design of phenotypes between kinds is valid, then so is common design between genotypes. While it is true that the genetic code is redundant and there is a lot of plasticity available in the amino acid sequence of proteins (e.g. conservative mutations), it doesn't follow that the genotype should vary more than it does. The designer clearly would have known about mutations, and so if one genome is good (i.e. sequence is arranged in such a way that it minimises information loss via evolution) for the dog kind, a very similar genome would be good for the cat kind too. So, the twin-nested hierarchy doesn't disprove special creation at all, does it?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Doddy Member (Idle past 5937 days) Posts: 563 From: Brisbane, Australia Joined: |
mark24 writes:
Because the metabolism is needed to fuel the organism. So why do metabolic molecules, such as cytochrome c, trees match as well? If the creature is a small, active one (e.g. finch) it will have a metabolism designed for that sort of action. On the other hand, a large, slow creature (e.g. a tortoise) will have different metabolism again, and so will have different metabolic enzymes. Morphology does match with metabolism too. This is what we are up against. There are thousands around the world more being (home-)schooled in the same way. But the internet is far reaching! Teach evolution by joining the Evolution Education Wiki today!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Doddy Member (Idle past 5937 days) Posts: 563 From: Brisbane, Australia Joined: |
Hierarchy from either point of view is strong evidence as evolution would require it, but there's absolutely no reason why the designers* should design within the parameters of evolutionary possibility.
Life is not finely tuned to appear like it evolved. Rather, evolution was adapted to the conditions of life. Its evidences, assumptions and techniques all have been DESIGNED to make life appear like it was designed. It wouldn't matter how life was designed. As long as it was a good design, the evilutionists would still find a way to get the designer out of it. This is what we are up against. There are thousands around the world more being (home-)schooled in the same way. But the internet is far reaching! Teach evolution by joining the Evolution Education Wiki today!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Doddy Member (Idle past 5937 days) Posts: 563 From: Brisbane, Australia Joined: |
crashfrog writes:
Sigh...can you guess what I'm going to say? The correlation in phylogeny between simultaneously-speciating organisms like pocket gophers and their pubic lice prove that molecular phylogeny accurately reconstructs real ancestral relationships regardless of morphological similarity. BUT THEY'RE STILL GOPHERS AND STILL LICE! Of course one could work out a phylogeny using either morphology or molecular data. It might even closely match how the species actually diverged. But, one first has to assume common ancestry before either of the two methods can be used. In that thread you linked me, you say:
quote:But, they are not independant. The two parties are measuring the same thing, but it's not phylogeny. Rather, it's just plain similarity. One has to infer from that similarity, what the phylogeny is. To do this, both groups have to assume the falsehood that similarities indicate common descent rather than common design. Fortunately, most creationists will accept that gophers have a common ancestor, and probably also that lice have a common ancestor. I don't think that the phylogenetic trees are seeing patterns in noise. Rather, I think they are seeing real patterns that do exist, and intepreting them according to their assumptions, therefore coming up the conclusion (which they assumed anyway) that all life is related. This is what we are up against. There are thousands around the world more being (home-)schooled in the same way. But the internet is far reaching! Teach evolution by joining the Evolution Education Wiki today!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Doddy Member (Idle past 5937 days) Posts: 563 From: Brisbane, Australia Joined: |
mark24 writes:
Really? Prove it! And yet a tortoise has more similar sequences to a bird than a small mammal with a high metabolism. This is what we are up against. There are thousands around the world more being (home-)schooled in the same way. But the internet is far reaching! Teach evolution by joining the Evolution Education Wiki today!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Doddy Member (Idle past 5937 days) Posts: 563 From: Brisbane, Australia Joined: |
"Gene" is a twentieth century word. Darwin must've had a good crystal ball to know what the genomes would look like. He must have seen the ERVs coming, as well as all the transitional fossils. Why do you say that? Darwin only came up with the theory...other people have tried to support it too. They are the ones who are finding the other 'evidence' for it.
(Aren't you confusing your two personas a bit in that extract above, Doddy? The first sentence is true. Shouldn't the last word of the last sentence be evolved?)
Whoops...wrote that in a hurry. Sorry. This is what we are up against. There are thousands around the world more being (home-)schooled in the same way. But the internet is far reaching! Teach evolution by joining the Evolution Education Wiki today!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Doddy Member (Idle past 5937 days) Posts: 563 From: Brisbane, Australia Joined: |
You don't have to assume anything to use the methods; neither the DNAEasy kit, nor the PCR, nor the electrophoretic gel, nor the computational analysis methods require that you, personally, hold the assumptions that validate those tools.
The analysis assumes that similarity is evidence of common descent.
I wonder if you read the thread. If you had you would have seen that, indisputably, the convergence in phylogenetic topology can only be explained if the assumption of common ancestry is true.
Yes, I agree. And I've already said that in that instance, I do think the common ancestry assumption is true. But is it always true? This is what we are up against. There are thousands around the world more being (home-)schooled in the same way. But the internet is far reaching! Teach evolution by joining the Evolution Education Wiki today!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Doddy Member (Idle past 5937 days) Posts: 563 From: Brisbane, Australia Joined: |
crashfrog writes:
That validates it in the case of the gophers and their lice, but that does not immediately validate any phylogenetic tree constructed with cladistic techniques.
But it's not an assumption. It's a conclusion validated by the topological phylogenetic convergence of pocket gophers and their pubic lice. crashfrog writes:
Ok...that requires me to accept the existence of DNA that has no effect on morphology. Yes. Generally, because all organisms are inheriting more genetic sequences from their ancestors than they're creating, on their own, through mutation. Specifically, because the gene sequences that are being used to develop these relationships are non-coding sequences that have nothing to do with morphology (they are introns that are spliced out after RNA transscription.) As a creationist, I'm afraid I can't do that. But, because I am trying to be a reasonable one, I'll have to provide a source for that. Fortunately, there is a researcher at my university who specialises in just this issue: John S. Mattick "Non-coding RNAs: the architects of eukaryotic complexity" European Molecular Biology Organization Reports 2(11):986-991, November 15 2001 This is what we are up against. There are thousands around the world more being (home-)schooled in the same way. But the internet is far reaching! Teach evolution by joining the Evolution Education Wiki today!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Doddy Member (Idle past 5937 days) Posts: 563 From: Brisbane, Australia Joined: |
You wouldn't have any basis to say "well, sure, it reads accurately for the 1g, 2g, and 5g certification weights; but how do we know that the weight of this object is actually 1.2g?
Nonsense. Rather, it's like a scale that reads those gram weights accurately, and then you start to use it to weigh beached whales. Microevolution of lice and gophers within a kind is one thing, but that doesn't validate the technique for use on every living creature at once.
crashfrog writes:
There is evidence aplenty. I just used a nice summary article because it was available for free. Besides, science is ever changing. You can't assume that the protein-centric view is right when for the past 5-10 years much evidence is suggesting that it is too limited. Your paper is interesting, but it's just speculation. They don't present any evidence. That an alternate explanation for introns is presented doesn't challenge the consensus view that these sequences are not related to morphology. Even in E.Coli, RNA encoded by non-coding regions (such as the 3' untranslated region) has been shown to have a function in stabilising mRNA (). I may suggest that you pick up a recent textbook on genetics and look up ncRNA/functional RNA or RNA regulation. But, to discuss it in-depth would be out of the realms of this topic, I fear. Edited by Goddy, : url tags This is what we are up against. There are thousands around the world more being (home-)schooled in the same way. But the internet is far reaching! Teach evolution by joining the Evolution Education Wiki today!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Doddy Member (Idle past 5937 days) Posts: 563 From: Brisbane, Australia Joined: |
crashfrog writes:
It's just lice losing information as they evolve within the lice kind, and likewise for the gophers. No macroevolution involved.
Why do you say that? What's your evidence that the pocket gopher species complex is so much simpler than any other species complex assessed with molecular phylogeny? crashfrog writes:
I have no reason to believe you when you continually assert that simply because you can use molecular techniques accurately on some piece of microevolution, that it will automatically work on a broader scale too. But while the assumption of common descent may actually be true for different lice species and different gopher species, you have to make a leap to assume it will be true for all life.
That's exactly what it does, as I've proved. You can continue to assert that it doesn't prove anything, but there's no reason to believe you. crashfrog writes:
I know that (well, at least Doddy knew that)! But the example is still valid because it shows that short sequences of non protein-coding RNA, even in the simple prokaryotes, can regulate morphology. Do you have some reason to think that it won't be the same in the more complex eukaryotes?
Prokaryotes such as E. coli don't have introns in their protein-encoding sequences, as someone who actually knew something about genetics would know, so your example is irrelevant. crashfrog writes:
The idea that they are immediately digested and thus play no functional role is being challenged! At the very least, some introns do persist long enough to either interfere with or stabilise mRNA, thus affecting their translation. We're talking about eukaryotes, which do have introns - regions of DNA that, when transcripted to hnRNA, are spliced out and digested. Since they're neither used a signaling molecules nor translated into proteins, they simply don't persist long enough as RNA to have any effect on morphology. Thus, similarities between intron sequences must reflect shared ancestry (or random chance, of course.) Here is recent review: Rana T " Illuminating the silence: understanding the structure and function of small RNAs" Nature Reviews Molecular Cell Biology 8, 23-36 (January 2007) For God's sake, just go to Google Scholar, PubMed or Web of Science and look up 'miRNA', 'siRNA' or 'RNA interference'! Surely, if I can come up with papers that suggest that introns are actually functional, some professional geneticist would have published a rebuttal to denounce such talk. This is what we are up against. There are thousands around the world more being (home-)schooled in the same way. But the internet is far reaching! Teach evolution by joining the Evolution Education Wiki today!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Doddy Member (Idle past 5937 days) Posts: 563 From: Brisbane, Australia Joined: |
Dr A writes:
But, why couldn't common design also result in such a pattern in the data? It is not the cladograms themselves which are offered as proof of common descent, but rather that the theory predicts the data on which the cladograms are based. This is what we are up against. There are thousands around the world more being (home-)schooled in the same way. But the internet is far reaching! Teach evolution by joining the Evolution Education Wiki today!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Doddy Member (Idle past 5937 days) Posts: 563 From: Brisbane, Australia Joined: |
crashfrog writes: What's your evidence for that? And are you aware that this is a dodge? Clearly, a change within a lice genus is much simpler and more straigthfoward to compare than, say, mice and men.
crashfrog writes:
But how does convergence of a set of results immediately prove all results collected by that method?
I've given you ample reason to believe me - the topological convergence of phylogenies we've been talking about. It settled the issue two pages ago but you don't seem to get that, yet. crashfrog writes:
*Sigh* Perhaps I should be more specific. Instead of citing reviews and opinion pieces (which in and of themselves, contain no evidence) to give you a broad overview, how about a research article: You haven't presented any such evidence, because the papers you're presenting aren't talking about introns. Okamura K, Hagen JW, Duan H, Tyler DM, Lai EC. "The mirtron pathway generates microRNA-class regulatory RNAs in Drosophila." Cell. 130(1):89-100 (2007 Jul 13) This is what we are up against. There are thousands around the world more being (home-)schooled in the same way. But the internet is far reaching! Teach evolution by joining the Evolution Education Wiki today!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Doddy Member (Idle past 5937 days) Posts: 563 From: Brisbane, Australia Joined: |
crashfrog writes:
And, as I said, you can't measure ship tonnage with a scale calibrated with a 100g weight. The same way that calibrating a scale to a known weight confirms its ability to measure other weights, as I explained. You asked why I think that gophers are more simple than any other species complex. I don't think that. I think that other species complexes are probably fairly similar. If the gophers and lice are at 100g, then the other species complexes will be in the range of 20-300g. But to be able to use the same techniques on a much broader scale, say at the level of the family or order, is going beyond what has been calibrated. One can't say that because we can accurately construct a phylogeny for various species of gophers, that we can also construct one for various orders of eutherian mammals. That's extrapolating too far for creationist me. You're going to have to show that it works at the level of tonnage. This is what we are up against. There are thousands around the world more being (home-)schooled in the same way. But the internet is far reaching! Teach evolution by joining the Evolution Education Wiki today!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Doddy Member (Idle past 5937 days) Posts: 563 From: Brisbane, Australia Joined: |
Rrhain writes:
Who says that the designer would always want to use similar designs? We can't know the mind of the designer. Perhaps there is a very good reason for this design, but we might not know it yet. So if there were a designer and if this designer were to use similar designs, why is there a difference between primate and cephalopod eyes? Edited by Goddy, : clarify This is what we are up against. There are thousands around the world more being (home-)schooled in the same way. But the internet is far reaching! Teach evolution by joining the Evolution Education Wiki today!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Doddy Member (Idle past 5937 days) Posts: 563 From: Brisbane, Australia Joined: |
Rrhain writes:
So, you are just assuming that all life evolved from a common ancestor to do some cladistics that allegedly is evidence of exactly what you assumed to begin with.
You can if it's sufficiently sensitive and functional across the expected weight range. Do you have evidence that it isn't? Rrhain writes:
Yep, not even me.
Again with the implication that somehow lice evolved into gophers. Nobody is saying that. Rrhain writes:
Never said that was design. Enough with the strawmen already.
If you follow the morphology of the lice, you find the speciation pattern of the gophers. That's something that's only explainable via evolutionary methods, not design. Rrhain writes:
Never said there wasn't. Just said that you can't use a method that is known to work on the genus level and expect it will work on the order level, say constructing a phylogenetic tree containing mice and men.
There are always species. Rrhain writes:
When you say: Why do you not accept it? If we are correct in our assumption that all life is commonly descended, our cladistic analysis will be correct. Therefore, life was all descended from a common ancestor. And expect me to believe you, I have to disagree. At worst, you are begging the question. At best, you are affirming the consequent. Choose your fallacy. This is what we are up against. There are thousands around the world more being (home-)schooled in the same way. But the internet is far reaching! Teach evolution by joining the Evolution Education Wiki today!
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024