|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 66 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,471 Year: 3,728/9,624 Month: 599/974 Week: 212/276 Day: 52/34 Hour: 0/2 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Genetic evidence of Whale evolution | ||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5217 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
quote: WTF has cetacean phylogenies to do with the betterment of mankind? Does 6 day genesis better mankind? Having nothing for the betterment of mankind is UTTERLY IRRELEVANT to the validity of the conclusion.
quote: Common Creator, ID, or abiogenesis is irrelevant to common descent. What is the purpose of this question? Yes, the genomal positions of interspersed elements (transposons) can be repeatedly tested. Phylogenetic analysis doesn’t help find a cure for cancer? Well, there's a nobel prize winging it's way towards you now, mate. Since when was medical value a criteria to make research "valid" in other fields? Does 6 day genesis help us cure cancer? Good grief.
quote: What good does theorising 6 day genesis do? It attempts to draw up a universal phylogeny of all organisms. With which we can better understand the place of human & other organisms place on earth. Most people find that of interest. Even fundamentalist christians.
quote: Go figure what? Your entire post is dedicated to the assumption that there should be some overriding clear benefit for mankind, or the conclusion has no validity. What’s wrong with knowledge for knowledges sake? How has the bible helped in the struggle against cancer, not one bit, by your argument, you may as well use it for toilet paper, for the medical use it’s been. This post was another sour graped evasion, you haven’t addressed any points Larry raised. I can only conclude you have no rebuttal with substance, or you would have made it by now. Mark ------------------Occam's razor is not for shaving with.
|
||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5217 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
quote: Again, why is it relevant that a cetacean expert know the phylogeny of cetaceans in order to do his work? Why would he need to know? It has NO BEARING ON HIS WORK WHATSOEVER. Why would you even ask the question of them? So, what does the work of a cetacean expert have to do with the validity of derived genetic phylogenies for cetaceans? Nothing. Why bring it up? I'll tell you who those phylogenies are relevant to, though, you, & all other YECs. So why not keep your eye on the ball & answer the questions, & stop muddying the water with the irrelevances. You were asked to criticise the analysis. Please do so. Mark ------------------Occam's razor is not for shaving with.
|
||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5217 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
Larry,
I currently have my nose stuck in a book on molecular evolution, with emphasis on phylogenies, & am very interested in the paper (& the primate one). Can you point me in the right direction, so I can obtain a copy ,please. Many Thanks, Mark
|
||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5217 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
quote: Nope, common descent requires reproduction, a function of life. Ergo, for common descent to occur, life must be extant, & therefore has nothing to do with creation/abiogenesis.
quote: Again, whether life was created by God, naturally by abiogenesis, has nothing to do with the conclusion that Whales & Hippos are related by COMMON DESCENT. This is precisely the point of the paper, did you read it?
quote: The paper does tell you how cetaceans & hippos are related, see fig. 7. The paper provides evidence of common descent, & makes no attempt at telling the difference between abiogenesis & special creation, which are irrelevant to common descent. Waving this subject off as having no interest or relevance will do you no good, you have seen fit to post on the subject of evolution many times. I can only conclude you have no rebuttal of substance, since the conclusions have substance (despite what you say), based on data derived from repeatable experiments. Feel free to interpret the results differently, it’s what this thread is about, after all. But please give reasons. Mark ------------------Occam's razor is not for shaving with.
|
||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5217 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
quote: What's so unrealistic about assuming SINE/LINEs at homologous loci in extant taxa are a result of common descent? 1/ SINEs are hereditary.2/ They are transposable elements. 3/ If speciation occurred, those inherited TEs would be extant in both species. It is ENTIRELY reasonable to infer that these very SPECIFIC sequences are a result of common descent. 4/ If not, then what? It seems to me this is a retreat to "if I can't see it with my own eyes, I won't believe it" land. Secondly, although we don't have the DNA of those ancestors, nucleotide sequences can be inferred. Of course, evolution dictates that any protein being coded for, must be functional at all stages of a molecular phylogeny. "In a pioneering study by Jernmann & colleagues the sequences for 13 ancestral RNAses were inferred for artiodactyl mammals (this order includes the pig, camel, deer, sheep, & ox) using parsimony. These hypothetical ancient proteins were then synthesised in a laboratory & their properties compared to present day RNAses. All 13 RNAses had catalytic activity consistent with being functional enzymes." (Molecular Evolution, A phylogenetic Approach. Roderick D.M. Page & Edward C. Holmes Blackwell Science 1998 pp 168-9) If you imagine a common ancestor of artiodactyls 50 million years ago, & picture an evolutionary tree, branching many times, each line ultimately representing the extant artiodactyls we know today. This was the tree inferred. Each branch represents speciation, involving a common ancestor. For nine of these common ancestors, going back 50 million years, the 13 RNAses nucleotide sequences were inferred. Evolutions prediction was born out in spectacular fashion, each of the 13 RNAses were functional enzymes in all nine ancestors. Such reasoned assumptions cannot be so easily cast off, when such predictions are born out, without exception. An assumption can, & in the particular case of the SINEs/LINEs , & molecular phylogenies in general, is, very well supported. Hardly shooting in the dark. JP, I wonder,did you wait until the supernatural aspect of the Koran was verified, before you "bought" it? No, you went for it anyway. I find this selective logic, well, illogical. Surely, you would apply the same rigorous criteria to all things before believing them? Rather than a lesser criterial model to things you WANT to be true, compared to a strict, empirical criteria for something that you don't? Mark ------------------Occam's razor is not for shaving with. [This message has been edited by mark24, 02-22-2002] [This message has been edited by mark24, 02-22-2002]
|
||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5217 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
Bumping to the top, just in case JP makes a reappearance.
Mark ------------------Occam's razor is not for shaving with.
|
||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5217 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
And again......
------------------Occam's razor is not for shaving with.
|
||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5217 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
quote: Firstly, ancient SINE locations ARE affected by mutations. 3-4 fixed mutations per nucleotide site per 10^9 years are expected (Molecular Evolution: A Phylogenetic Approach. RDM Page & EC Holmes. p159). Given the average SINE is 300 bp long this means 3-4 mutations are fixed per 33 1/3 million years, well within the range of the paper in question. It’s a shame it’s not higher, as these fixed mutations are informative in phylogenetic relationships in their own right. So SINEs are a valid source of data going back 50 my + . The creator DIDN’T use similar DNA sequences in different organisms. I think you mean similar sequences in similar organisms, pedantic, but important to make the distinction. Also, your talking genes here, not SINES. There is absolutely no reason a creator would need to make homologous gene sequences between humans & chimps, but not humans & crocodiles, where genes are necessary for both taxa. It is entirely feasible to create a chimp with zero homologous gene sequences if there was a creator. The relationship between those sequences only makes sense with common descent with modification. The gene sequences between taxa correlate less the further they are apart, this need not be true if a recent ID was involved. Regarding accuracy of derived phylogenies. There are several reasons a phylogeny may not produce the correct tree. If the sequences aren’t homologous, sampling error, incomplete data, mismatching method & genetic information, long branch attract, method limiltations etc. Molecular Evolution (referenced above) is full of examples of incorrect phylogenies, & goes on to explain why those phylogenies are incorrect. In fact, if your interested in molecular phylogeny, this book is excellent in that it spends half the time explaining what CAN go wrong. In the vast majority of cases, however, highly concordant trees are derived. This is unexpected if an ID is involved recently. There is no reason a phylogeny derived from gene sequences, pseudogenes, retroviral insertions, nucleotide sequences, amino acid sequences, SINEs, LINEs, etc. should produce phylogenies that match at all, let alone to the high degree that they do. Taking cytochrome c as an example, it is an enzyme used in Krebbs Cycle, & as such is used by ALL life, so why is there such a disparity in nucleotide & amino acid sequences for the molecule? They ALL do exactly the same job. If your argument is that similar organisms have similar gene sequences, then why don’t similar protein function have similar sequences? In some cases the conserved sites number only 10% of the sequence without functionality loss.
quote: 1/ What would remove SINEs from the genome with such regularity that these losses would be fixed? I’m sure it happens, but removing a SINE in an individual is different to then having it removed from a POPULATION. See above for the FIXATION rates of sine mutations. 2/ Random? Yes & no. They aren’t random in the true quantum mechanical sense, but they are random in the sense that they can appear anywhere in the genome, even smack bang in the middle of coding genes, depending on sequences at the insertion site. 3/ Some SINEs have assumed functions as transcription promoters, source of polyadenylation signals, & a source of regulatory elements, but most are functionless self replicators on the genome. The majority, ie the functionless ones aren’t selected for or against, they are neutral. There are even deleterious ones, eg Neurofibromatosis is caused by an Alu element in the NF1 gene 4/ i.e. Godidit
quote: The basic architecture of the organism is due to DNA.
quote: The prediction of evolution that was borne out is that at every stage of the enzymes evolution, it must function. It can’t go away for 1,000 generations while it works out how to perform xyz. Yes we would expect to see non-functional homologous DNA similarities in common ancestors, as I have shown, the rate of point mutation fixation of SINEs is low enough to identify those homologous SINEs in mammals. The AF locus SINE (in the paper) is in an intron, indicating it is functionless. Even if SINEs are functional we would expect to see those same homologous sequences. The functionality that SINEs have aquired can be carried out by other non-SINE sequences, as indeed they are in other taxa, & even other mammals, providing the SINE was transposed AFTER speciation. All that is needed for DNA to replicate efficiently are the enzymes, mRNA, tRNA, ribosomes, supporting structures, etc. ALL are the product of DNA. A sexual organism will receive a payload of these molecules & structures from its parents in the fertilised egg. These structures & molecules are a product of DNA. An asexual organism will get the same as the cell divides, all a product of DNA. So, knowing that these support structures & molecules are necessary (once again, the product of DNA) casts no doubt whatsoever on DNAs transforming abilities. Mark ------------------Occam's razor is not for shaving with.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024