Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Discussion of Phylogenetic Methods
vaporwave
Member (Idle past 2644 days)
Posts: 66
Joined: 12-17-2016


Message 136 of 288 (796002)
12-20-2016 6:04 PM
Reply to: Message 132 by Taq
12-20-2016 3:14 PM


Re: The purpose of phylogenetics
Variation in cytB is higher than cytC, making cytC the choice for comparing more distantly related organisms.
So in other words.... cytochrome B isn't something you want to show off when trying to sell evolution to people... so you cherry-pick cytochrome C instead.
Makes sense I guess from a marketing standpoint.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 132 by Taq, posted 12-20-2016 3:14 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 139 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-20-2016 6:25 PM vaporwave has not replied
 Message 143 by jar, posted 12-20-2016 7:02 PM vaporwave has not replied
 Message 144 by NoNukes, posted 12-20-2016 10:05 PM vaporwave has replied
 Message 157 by Taq, posted 12-21-2016 10:36 AM vaporwave has not replied

  
vaporwave
Member (Idle past 2644 days)
Posts: 66
Joined: 12-17-2016


Message 137 of 288 (796003)
12-20-2016 6:08 PM
Reply to: Message 121 by Taq
12-20-2016 11:45 AM


Re: Introduction
Here is a mouse that, for one gene, is more similar to a jellyfish than any other vertebrate:
This mouse carries an exact copy of the jellyfish gene GFP (green fluorescent protein). How did it get there? These mice were DESIGNED by humans. We put the jellyfish gene in the mouse genome. If we can so easily violate a nested hierarchy, why couldn't God? Is God less powerful than humans?
This is a really interesting subject, but don't you find it strange that evolutionists are so quick to wander into teleology when making their case for common ancestry? I thought it was strictly all about the science with you guys?
I seems in every defense of evolution I've heard, within 3 or 4 posts the evolutionists are always making implications about what God would or wouldn't do...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by Taq, posted 12-20-2016 11:45 AM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 140 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-20-2016 6:29 PM vaporwave has not replied
 Message 158 by Taq, posted 12-21-2016 10:38 AM vaporwave has not replied

  
vaporwave
Member (Idle past 2644 days)
Posts: 66
Joined: 12-17-2016


Message 138 of 288 (796004)
12-20-2016 6:20 PM
Reply to: Message 135 by RAZD
12-20-2016 5:17 PM


Re: pro template and con template
So the same "template" was not used for two very similar critters
So the "template" would be inferred as features uniting Marsupials or features uniting Eutherians.
Cladistics actually works just fine without assuming common ancestry.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 135 by RAZD, posted 12-20-2016 5:17 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 141 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-20-2016 6:32 PM vaporwave has not replied
 Message 145 by RAZD, posted 12-20-2016 10:19 PM vaporwave has replied
 Message 159 by Taq, posted 12-21-2016 10:40 AM vaporwave has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 139 of 288 (796005)
12-20-2016 6:25 PM
Reply to: Message 136 by vaporwave
12-20-2016 6:04 PM


Re: The purpose of phylogenetics
So in other words.... cytochrome B isn't something you want to show off when trying to sell evolution to people... so you cherry-pick cytochrome C instead.
Makes sense I guess from a marketing standpoint.
You should probably lie less often.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by vaporwave, posted 12-20-2016 6:04 PM vaporwave has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 140 of 288 (796006)
12-20-2016 6:29 PM
Reply to: Message 137 by vaporwave
12-20-2016 6:08 PM


Re: Introduction
This is a really interesting subject, but don't you find it strange that evolutionists are so quick to wander into teleology when making their case for common ancestry? I thought it was strictly all about the science with you guys?
I seems in every defense of evolution I've heard, within 3 or 4 posts the evolutionists are always making implications about what God would or wouldn't do...
Well, when talking to someone like you it is always amusing to point out what a sack of crap creationism is.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 137 by vaporwave, posted 12-20-2016 6:08 PM vaporwave has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 141 of 288 (796007)
12-20-2016 6:32 PM
Reply to: Message 138 by vaporwave
12-20-2016 6:20 PM


Re: pro template and con template
So the "template" would be inferred as features uniting Marsupials or features uniting Eutherians.
So, uniting evolutionary groups rather than animals with similar anatomy and habits of life. Who'da thought it ... oh, yeah, evolutionists.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 138 by vaporwave, posted 12-20-2016 6:20 PM vaporwave has not replied

  
vaporwave
Member (Idle past 2644 days)
Posts: 66
Joined: 12-17-2016


Message 142 of 288 (796008)
12-20-2016 6:41 PM
Reply to: Message 130 by Taq
12-20-2016 3:02 PM


Re: The purpose of science
The whole point is that there are nearly infinite methods for writing computer code to produce an identical looking web browser.
Potentially, sure.
But I think if an individual coder designed many variations of a web browser in short span of time, then it could pretty easily be interpreted as an evolutionary pattern.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by Taq, posted 12-20-2016 3:02 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 160 by Taq, posted 12-21-2016 10:41 AM vaporwave has replied
 Message 163 by dwise1, posted 12-21-2016 11:31 AM vaporwave has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


(2)
Message 143 of 288 (796009)
12-20-2016 7:02 PM
Reply to: Message 136 by vaporwave
12-20-2016 6:04 PM


You really need to learn how to read or maybe try being honest.
vaporwave writes:
taq writes:
Variation in cytB is higher than cytC, making cytC the choice for comparing more distantly related organisms.
So in other words.... cytochrome B isn't something you want to show off when trying to sell evolution to people... so you cherry-pick cytochrome C instead.
Makes sense I guess from a marketing standpoint.
No, to imply that in other words taq was saying "cytochrome B isn't something you want to show off when trying to sell evolution to people... so you cherry-pick cytochrome C instead." is simply more utter dishonesty from you bujt that is to be expected from Creationists.

My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by vaporwave, posted 12-20-2016 6:04 PM vaporwave has not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 144 of 288 (796014)
12-20-2016 10:05 PM
Reply to: Message 136 by vaporwave
12-20-2016 6:04 PM


Re: The purpose of phylogenetics
So in other words.... cytochrome B isn't something you want to show off when trying to sell evolution to people... so you cherry-pick cytochrome C instead.
A couple of folks have pointed to this statement as a lie, but to be clear, Taq gave a an explanation detailing why and when each of cytochrome B and C would be used, and additionally justified his own choice. But rather than respond, you just act as though no such reasons were given.
An honest approach would have involved either demonstrating why those reasons were incorrect, accepting Taq's response as sincere, or admitting that you were not in position to judge the correctness of his answer. You chose one of the many dishonorable responses possible.
If it were possible to give creationism a bad name, you would perhaps have done so. But not to worry...
Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King
I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. Thomas Jefferson
Seems to me if its clear that certain things that require ancient dates couldn't possibly be true, we are on our way to throwing out all those ancient dates on the basis of the actual evidence. -- Faith

This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by vaporwave, posted 12-20-2016 6:04 PM vaporwave has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 147 by vaporwave, posted 12-21-2016 7:25 AM NoNukes has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(1)
Message 145 of 288 (796015)
12-20-2016 10:19 PM
Reply to: Message 138 by vaporwave
12-20-2016 6:20 PM


Re: pro template and con template
So the same "template" was not used for two very similar critters
So the "template" would be inferred as features uniting Marsupials or features uniting Eutherians.
You mean the features that show hereditary traits from parent to descendant that evolution predicts. Again you put yourself in the bind that your god is mimicking evolution when it isn't necessary, unless that is all he can do. Seems more like like Loki to me.
You didn't answer my question though:
"Did the squirrel become a possum or did the possum become a squirrel?"
I once asked a creationist "How would a dog descendant not be a dog?" and he replied "When it looks like something else." Seems to me that we have that case here, where one looks like the other ... would you agree?
Note that you have gone from having a template that accounts for the small difference between sister species to one that applies to whole classes. That's the kind of thing that happens when an argument falls apart.
Cladistics actually works just fine without assuming common ancestry.
This seems to me to be a very curious argument for a creationist position, where one of the bulwarks of their argument is that all life reproduces after their own kind and are descendant from the original kind -- ie descendant from the original common ancestors.
Cladistics actually works just fine without assuming common ancestry.
Curiously, I'd like to know how that works ... would you care to enlighten me? Is it just random grouping based on whim? What is your paradigm for organizing those groups?
Additionally, I find it just a little awkward to have a "template" that takes care of wombats, kangaroos, koalas, thylacines, etc, ... all without traits of sugar gliders that match the flying squirrels ... to make sugar gliders, and how do all the different traits come about in Metatheria?
... and at the same time one that takes care of giraffes, badgers, elephants, rhinoceros, whales, tigers, wolves, bears, etc, ... all without traits of flying squirrels that match the sugar gliders ... to make flying squirrels, and how do all the different traits come about in Eutheria?
How are all those different Metatheria and Eutheria traits generated from the templates?
... and how do those matching traits between flying squirrel and sugar glider come about?
... how does your 'non-hereditary cladistic system' or your template explain both the different features and similar features for the sugar gliders and the flying squirrels?
Inquiring minds want to know.
Enjoy
Edited by RAZD, : ,

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 138 by vaporwave, posted 12-20-2016 6:20 PM vaporwave has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 149 by vaporwave, posted 12-21-2016 7:56 AM RAZD has replied

  
Genomicus
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 852
Joined: 02-15-2012


Message 146 of 288 (796019)
12-21-2016 3:36 AM
Reply to: Message 105 by vaporwave
12-20-2016 9:08 AM


Re: The purpose of phylogenetics
Hi vaporwave,
Why do primate phylogenies constructed from protein sequences match phylogenies created from synonymous sites? Thx.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by vaporwave, posted 12-20-2016 9:08 AM vaporwave has not replied

  
vaporwave
Member (Idle past 2644 days)
Posts: 66
Joined: 12-17-2016


Message 147 of 288 (796022)
12-21-2016 7:25 AM
Reply to: Message 144 by NoNukes
12-20-2016 10:05 PM


Re: The purpose of phylogenetics
Taq gave a an explanation detailing why and when each of cytochrome B and C would be used, and additionally justified his own choice. But rather than respond, you just act as though no such reasons were given.
I accepted Taq's response. He said cytB has "higher variation" than cytC.
Higher variation = increased deviation from a phylogenetic signal or pattern.
This is essentially an admission that cytochrome B data does not reinforce the preferred evolutionary relationships very well, or at least would not look as convincing when making a case to the public.
This is why evolutionists, when trying to make their case, always focus on cytochrome C instead.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 144 by NoNukes, posted 12-20-2016 10:05 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 148 by jar, posted 12-21-2016 7:47 AM vaporwave has not replied
 Message 150 by NoNukes, posted 12-21-2016 8:00 AM vaporwave has not replied
 Message 151 by RAZD, posted 12-21-2016 8:44 AM vaporwave has not replied
 Message 152 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-21-2016 9:20 AM vaporwave has not replied
 Message 161 by Taq, posted 12-21-2016 10:47 AM vaporwave has not replied
 Message 171 by Modulous, posted 12-21-2016 2:45 PM vaporwave has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 148 of 288 (796023)
12-21-2016 7:47 AM
Reply to: Message 147 by vaporwave
12-21-2016 7:25 AM


Re: The purpose of phylogenetics
vaporwave writes:
This is essentially an admission that cytochrome B data does not reinforce the preferred evolutionary relationships very well, or at least would not look as convincing when making a case to the public.
This is why evolutionists, when trying to make their case, always focus on cytochrome C instead.
No, once again you are simply making shit up.
This is why evolutionists do not use a hammer as the tool to tighten bolts.
When trying to explain basics to those ignorant of a subject it is advisable to use the examples that are easiest for them to understand. Once they understand the basics it is then time to move on to the more complex.
Instead of posting inane and incorrect assertions about what YOU think evolution says or what Scientists say, why not provide some support for your position.
Why in the last 150 years have NO Creationists actually been able to present any evidence or theory that explains what is seen and supports special creation?
Edited by jar, : capitalize no

My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 147 by vaporwave, posted 12-21-2016 7:25 AM vaporwave has not replied

  
vaporwave
Member (Idle past 2644 days)
Posts: 66
Joined: 12-17-2016


Message 149 of 288 (796024)
12-21-2016 7:56 AM
Reply to: Message 145 by RAZD
12-20-2016 10:19 PM


Re: pro template and con template
You mean the features that show hereditary traits from parent to descendant that evolution predicts.
Only if you assume shared traits are the product of common inheritance. The traits themselves don't show you that.
"Did the squirrel become a possum or did the possum become a squirrel?"
Honestly I have no idea what you're talking about.
Note that you have gone from having a template that accounts for the small difference between sister species to one that applies to whole classes.
Are you under the impression that templates can only be used exclusively of each other? You can't use more than one when building something? That would be a bizarre thing to assume from a design perspective.
This seems to me to be a very curious argument for a creationist position, where one of the bulwarks of their argument is that all life reproduces after their own kind and are descendant from the original kind -- ie descendant from the original common ancestors.
I haven't said anything about creationist models, but it sounds like you're suggesting that one cannot group objects by shared traits (cladistics) unless those objects are related via common ancestry. Is that really what you're saying?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 145 by RAZD, posted 12-20-2016 10:19 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 153 by jar, posted 12-21-2016 9:36 AM vaporwave has not replied
 Message 156 by RAZD, posted 12-21-2016 10:29 AM vaporwave has not replied
 Message 162 by Taq, posted 12-21-2016 10:52 AM vaporwave has not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 150 of 288 (796025)
12-21-2016 8:00 AM
Reply to: Message 147 by vaporwave
12-21-2016 7:25 AM


Re: The purpose of phylogenetics
I accepted Taq's response. He said cytB has "higher variation" than cytC.
Do you think the theory of evolution requires the level of variation to be the same in both? Do you understand what somatic and mitochondrial indicate?
Seriously. Get a grip.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King
I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. Thomas Jefferson
Seems to me if its clear that certain things that require ancient dates couldn't possibly be true, we are on our way to throwing out all those ancient dates on the basis of the actual evidence. -- Faith

This message is a reply to:
 Message 147 by vaporwave, posted 12-21-2016 7:25 AM vaporwave 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