Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 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:   Can the creationist model explain the data?
Taq
Member
Posts: 9972
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.5


Message 5 of 67 (808094)
05-08-2017 12:49 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by Davidjay
05-08-2017 11:43 AM


Re: Mathematical model presented.. Golden Section
Davidjay writes:
Amazing another new thread, promoted instantly.
I must enter in, and bring in a new concept that evolutionists admit they do not have any models for... its called MATH, its also called Science, and its called Set Theory or Set Law, which is LOGIC itself.
So lets be logical and do the math, and study the math models of the template of life to start with, its called the Golden Section. From there all models of creation apply and have been proven to exist mathematically.
MathematicsMysteries
Otherwise this thread or topic descends into mere semantics, and artists depictions, and science fiction.
IHS
David
TWSAHAPSMINBTHNM
I see that you didn't even try to address the opening post, and are already trying to change the topic.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Davidjay, posted 05-08-2017 11:43 AM Davidjay has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9972
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.5


(1)
Message 7 of 67 (808100)
05-08-2017 12:56 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by Faith
05-08-2017 11:37 AM


Faith writes:
Perhaps CRR can work with it, but it isn't really a test of a model, it's ju7st a way to shut us up in the end, whether you intend that or not. A runaround.
The test is to see if creationists can make predictions about the data and/or explain the data using their model. So far, creationism has not passed that test.
I propose that you tell us how YOUR model works with ANYTHING we can comprehend and then you might get some input from me.
Your silence would be just fine. It only further proves our point that creationists don't have a model that explains the data.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Faith, posted 05-08-2017 11:37 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by Faith, posted 05-08-2017 1:01 PM Taq has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9972
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.5


Message 9 of 67 (808105)
05-08-2017 1:10 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by Faith
05-08-2017 1:01 PM


Faith writes:
But of course. It's a setup, which is obvious anyway.
How is it a setup?
It's a test of absolutely nothing do with the creationist viewpoint.
You are admitting that biology and genetics has nothing to do with the creationist viewpoint.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Faith, posted 05-08-2017 1:01 PM Faith has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9972
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.5


(1)
Message 16 of 67 (808120)
05-08-2017 1:28 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by Faith
05-08-2017 1:25 PM


Faith writes:
I don't think you understand one thing about what creationists are trying to do.
We apparently know what the creationists are not doing, namely they are not producing a scientific model in the field of biology.
It would appear that creationists' efforts are more about theologic purity than about facts and science.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Faith, posted 05-08-2017 1:25 PM Faith has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9972
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.5


(1)
Message 17 of 67 (808121)
05-08-2017 1:29 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by Faith
05-08-2017 1:27 PM


Faith writes:
Do your victory dance. I'm out of here.
Thanks for proving our point.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Faith, posted 05-08-2017 1:27 PM Faith has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9972
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.5


Message 22 of 67 (808141)
05-08-2017 2:39 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by Faith
05-08-2017 1:50 PM


Faith writes:
too bad because I would really like to see how this sort of discussion would go, but this is a set-up whether you mean it to be or not.
How is it a setup?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Faith, posted 05-08-2017 1:50 PM Faith has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9972
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.5


(1)
Message 23 of 67 (808142)
05-08-2017 2:41 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by Faith
05-08-2017 2:02 PM


Faith writes:
Here's my laboratory experiment which I've mentioned before:
Collect a bunch of small creatures, small enough to let multiply in a lab but large enough to do DNA sampling on. Let them multiply, split them into new populations, let them multiply, keep doing this from each new population. Watch what happens to the genetic diversity.
The experiment for this thread is found in the opening post. Please address it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Faith, posted 05-08-2017 2:02 PM Faith has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9972
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.5


Message 26 of 67 (808253)
05-09-2017 12:07 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by Percy
05-09-2017 8:36 AM


Percy writes:
Looking at the data in Message 1, I have no tools (automated or otherwise) for its analysis.
If you want to compare two of the protein sequences then you could use the Blastp alignment tool. You just copy and paste two of the protein sequences into the two boxes and hit the "BLAST" button towards the bottom. This is the result I got:
453 bits(1166) 1e-169 Compositional matrix adjust. 221/227(97%) 226/227(99%) 0/227(0%)

Query  1    MAYPFQLGFQDATSPIMEELSHFHDHTLMIVFLISSLVLYIISLMLTTKLTHTSTMDAQE  60
            MAYPFQLGFQDATSPIMEEL HFHDHTLMIVFLISSLVLYIISLMLTTKLTHTSTMDAQE
Sbjct  1    MAYPFQLGFQDATSPIMEELLHFHDHTLMIVFLISSLVLYIISLMLTTKLTHTSTMDAQE  60

Query  61   VETIWTILPAIILILIALPSLRILYMMDEINNPSLTVKTMGHQWYWSYEYTDYEDLSFDS  120
            VETIWTILPAIILILIALPSLRILYMMDEINNPSLTVKTMGHQWYWSYEYTDYEDL+FDS
Sbjct  61   VETIWTILPAIILILIALPSLRILYMMDEINNPSLTVKTMGHQWYWSYEYTDYEDLNFDS  120

Query  121  YMIPTQELKPGELRLLEVDNRVVLPMEVTIRVLISSEDVLHSWAVPSLGLKTDAIPGRLN  180
            YMIPTQELKPGELRLLEVDNRVVLPME+TIR+LISSEDVLHSWAVPSLGLKTDAIPGRLN
Sbjct  121  YMIPTQELKPGELRLLEVDNRVVLPMEMTIRMLISSEDVLHSWAVPSLGLKTDAIPGRLN  180

Query  181  QTTLMGTRPGLYYGRCSEICGSNHSFMPIVLELVPLSYFEKWSASML  227
            QTTLMGTRPGLYYG+CSEICGSNHSFMPIVLELVPL+YFEKWSASML
Sbjct  181  QTTLMGTRPGLYYGQCSEICGSNHSFMPIVLELVPLTYFEKWSASML  227
The 221/227 (97%) is the identity score, meaning that 221 out of 227 amino acids matched.
If HBD were to include the sequences in FASTA format it would make it easier to dump these sequences in batch into other online tools. He may already have the text file in FASTA format.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Percy, posted 05-09-2017 8:36 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by herebedragons, posted 05-09-2017 2:57 PM Taq has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9972
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.5


(2)
Message 30 of 67 (808285)
05-09-2017 3:46 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by herebedragons
05-09-2017 2:57 PM


Re: Resources
Here is the data in FASTA format:
>A
MAYPFQLGFQDATSPIMEELSHFHDHTLMIVFLISSLVLYIISLMLTTKLTHTSTMDAQEVETIWTILPAIILILIALPSLRILYMMDEINNPSLTVKTM
GHQWYWSYEYTDYEDLSFDSYMIPTQELKPGELRLLEVDNRVVLPMEVTIRVLISSEDVLHSWAVPSLGLKTDAIPGRLNQTTLMGTRPGLYYGRCSEIC
GSNHSFMPIVLELVPLSYFEKWSASML

>B
MAYPFQLGFQDATSPIMEELLHFHDHTLMIVFLISSLVLYIISLMLTTKLTHTSTMDAQEVETIWTILPAIILILIALPSLRILYMMDEINNPSLTVKTM
GHQWYWSYEYTDYEDLNFDSYMIPTQELKPGELRLLEVDNRVVLPMEMTIRMLISSEDVLHSWAVPSLGLKTDAIPGRLNQTTLMGTRPGLYYGQCSEIC
GSNHSFMPIVLELVPLTYFEKWSASML

>C
MAYPLQLGFQDATSPIMEELLHFHDHTLMIVFLISSLVLYIISLMLTTKLTHTSTMDAQEVETIWTILPAIILILIALPSLRILYMMDEINSPSLTVKTM
GHQWYWSYEYTDYEDLNFDSYMIPTQELKPGELRLLEVDNRVVLPMEMTIRMLISSEDVLHSWAVPSLGLKTDAIPGRLNQTTLMGTRPGLYYGQCSEIC
GSNHSFMPIVLELVPLAYFEKWSASML

>D
MAYPFQLGFQDATSPIMEELLHFHDHTLMIVFLISSLVLYIISLMLTTKLTHTSTMDAQEVETIWTILPAIILILIALPSLRILYMMDEINNPSLTVKTM
GHQWYWSYEYTDYEDLSFDSYMIPTQELKPGELRLLEVDNRVVLPMEMTIRMLISSEDVLHSWAVPSLGLKTDAIPGRLNQTTLMGTRPGLYYGQCSEIC
GSNHSFMPIVLELVPLVYFEKWSASML

>E
MAYPFQLGLQDATSPIMEELLHFHDHTLMIVFLISSLVLYIITLMLTTKLTHTSTMDAQEVETVWTILPAIILILIALPSLRILYMMDEINNPSLTVKTM
GHQWYWSYEYTDYEDLNFDSYMIPTQELKPGELRLLEVDNRVVLPMEMTVRMLISSEDVLHSWAVPSLGLKTDAIPGRLNQTTLMAMRPGLYYGQCSEIC
GSNHSFMPIVLEMVPLSYFETWSAVMV

>F
MAYPFQLGLQDATSPIMEELLHFHDHTLMIVFLISSLVLYIISLMLTTKLTHTSTMDAQEVETVWTILPAIILILIALPSLRILYMMDEINNPSLTVKTM
GHQWYWSYEYTDYEDLNFDSYMIPTQELKPGELRLLEVDNRVVLPMEMTIRMLISSEDVLHSWAVPSLGLKTDAIPGRLNQTTLMAMRPGLYYGQCSEIC
GSNHSFMPIVLEMVPLSYFETWSALMV

>G
MAYPFQLGLQDATSPIMEELLHFHDHTLMIVFLISSLVLYIISSMLTTKLTHTSTMDAQEVETVWTILPAIILILIALPSLRILYMMDEINNPSLTVKTM
GHQWYWSYEYTDYEDLNFDSYMIPTQELKPGELRLLEVDNRVILPMEMTVRMLISSEDVLHSWAVPSLGLKTDAIPGRLNQTTLMAMRPGLYYGQCSEIC
GSNHSFMPIVLEMVPLSYFETWSALMV

>H
MAYPFQLGLQDATSPIMEELLHFHDHTLMIVFLISSLVLYIISLMLTTKLTHTSTMDAQEVETVWTILPAIILVLIALPSLRILYMMDEINNPSLTVKTM
GHQWYWSYEYTDYEDLNFDSYMIPTQELKPGELRLLEVDNRVVLPMEMTVRMLISSEDVLHSWAVPSLGLKTDAIPGRLNQTTLMAMRPGLYYGQCSEIC
GSNHSFMPIVLEMVPLSYFETWSALMV

>I
MPYPMQLGFQDATSPIMEELMYFHDHTLMIVFLISSLVLYIIILMLTTKLTHTSTMDAQEVETIWTILPAVILILIALPSLRILYMMDEIYNPYLTVKAM
GHQWYWSYEFTDYENLMFDSYMIPTKDLSPGQLRLLEVDNRIVLPMELPIRMLISSEDVLHAWTMPSLGLKADAIPGRLNQITLTSSRPGVFYGQCSEIC
GSNHSFMPIVLEMASLKYFEKWSSMMQ
You can copy the entire section and then paste it into the window at Kalign if you don't like the idea of downloading random executables on the internet. Kalign has some simple phylogenetic analysis tools as well as simple comparisons between sequences. This is the % identity matrix for comparisons between all sequences:
#
#
#  Percent Identity  Matrix - created by Clustal2.1
#
#

     1: A           100.00   97.36   96.48   97.80   93.39   94.27   92.95   93.39   83.26
     2: B            97.36  100.00   98.68   99.12   95.15   96.04   94.71   95.15   84.14
     3: C            96.48   98.68  100.00   98.24   94.27   95.15   93.83   94.27   83.70
     4: D            97.80   99.12   98.24  100.00   94.71   95.59   94.27   94.71   84.14
     5: E            93.39   95.15   94.27   94.71  100.00   98.68   98.24   98.68   82.82
     6: F            94.27   96.04   95.15   95.59   98.68  100.00   98.68   99.12   83.26
     7: G            92.95   94.71   93.83   94.27   98.24   98.68  100.00   98.68   81.94
     8: H            93.39   95.15   94.27   94.71   98.68   99.12   98.68  100.00   82.38
     9: I            83.26   84.14   83.70   84.14   82.82   83.26   81.94   82.38  100.00

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by herebedragons, posted 05-09-2017 2:57 PM herebedragons has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by herebedragons, posted 05-09-2017 4:07 PM Taq has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9972
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.5


(1)
Message 37 of 67 (811584)
06-09-2017 11:06 AM
Reply to: Message 33 by CRR
06-09-2017 6:13 AM


Re: cytochrome c
CRR writes:
Textbooks often claim common descent is supported using the example of a tree of animals based upon the enzyme cytochrome c which matches the traditional evolutionary tree based upon morphology. However, textbooks rarely mention that the tree based upon a different enzyme, cytochrome b, sharply conflicts with the standard evolutionary tree.
Problem 6: Molecular Biology Has Failed to Yield a Grand “Tree of Life” | Evolution News
That's because cytB is found on the mitochondrial genome and evolves at a higher rate that cytC which is found in somatic DNA. Homoplasies quickly mask the phylogenetic signal due to the higher rate of evolution. CytB phylogenies are only relevant for closely related species.
...when comparing the amino acid sequence of cytochrome C of a bacterium (a prokaryote) with such widely diverse eukaryotes as yeast, wheat, silkmoth, pigeon, and horse, all of these have practically the same percentage difference with the bacterium (64C69%). There is no intermediate cytochrome between prokaryotes and eukaryotes, and no hint that the higher organism such as a horse has diverged more than the lower organism such as the yeast.
The same sort of pattern is observed when comparing cytochrome C of the invertebrate silkmoth with the vertebrates lamprey, carp, turtle, pigeon, and horse. All the vertebrates are equally divergent from the silkmoth (27C30%). Yet again, comparing globins of a lamprey (a primitive cyclostome or jawless fish) with a carp, frog, chicken, kangaroo, and human, they are all about equidistant (73C81%). Cytochrome Cs compared between a carp and a bullfrog, turtle, chicken, rabbit, and horse yield a constant difference of 13C14%. There is no trace of any transitional series of cyclostome fish amphibian reptile mammal or bird.
http://creation.com/...mmon-design-points-to-common-ancestry
What you just pointed to is actually evidence for common ancestry in the form of genetic equidistance. The very fact that you think MODERN species are somehow temporally intermediate between ancestors and OTHER MODERN species shows just how poorly you understand evolution. All lineages continue evolving after a speciation event. One lineage does not stop evolving while another evolves. Modern bacteria are just as evolved as modern humans. The intermediate DNA sequences existed far in the past in organisms that are now long dead.
Genetic equidistance IS EXACTLY WHAT WE SHOULD SEE IF EVOLUTION IS TRUE. You can read more here:
Molecular clock - Wikipedia
Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by CRR, posted 06-09-2017 6:13 AM CRR has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9972
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.5


Message 38 of 67 (811585)
06-09-2017 11:09 AM
Reply to: Message 34 by CRR
06-09-2017 6:17 AM


CRR writes:
Oh FFS give us a decent reference; not a Google search.
So says the person referencing creationist sites that get the basic science wrong.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by CRR, posted 06-09-2017 6:17 AM CRR has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9972
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.5


Message 48 of 67 (811821)
06-12-2017 10:47 AM
Reply to: Message 46 by CRR
06-12-2017 6:16 AM


Re: Fruit Flies
CRR writes:
Drosophila collected from the wild have dark red eyes. That's all you need to know to conclude that "white eye" is a deleterious defect.
This is just an attempt to label all changes as deleterious, no matter what they are. If you were given a time machine and got to see every generation in the human lineage starting with the common ancestor we share with chimps, you would call each and every change "deleterious" and label modern humans as hopelessly damaged.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by CRR, posted 06-12-2017 6:16 AM CRR has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by jar, posted 06-12-2017 10:50 AM Taq has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9972
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.5


Message 52 of 67 (811833)
06-12-2017 1:17 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by CRR
06-12-2017 4:08 AM


Re: Fruit Flies
CRR writes:
Yes there are thousands of studies on fruit flies.
Embryologist Jonathan Wells sums up the research on fruit fly mutations. "There are only 3 possible outcomes: A normal fruit fly, a defective fruit fly, or a dead fruit fly."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w0BdziP3HBs at 6:00
Youtube videos are not valid scientific references. You should know that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by CRR, posted 06-12-2017 4:08 AM CRR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by CRR, posted 06-13-2017 3:39 AM Taq has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9972
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.5


Message 56 of 67 (811928)
06-13-2017 11:56 AM
Reply to: Message 54 by CRR
06-13-2017 3:39 AM


Re: Fruit Flies
CRR writes:
So a quote from an embryologist which you can verify for yourself is not good enough for you? Or will you just reject any reference I give?
I will not reject peer reviewed primary papers. That's the gold standard that all of the biological sciences use.
Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by CRR, posted 06-13-2017 3:39 AM CRR has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9972
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.5


(1)
Message 62 of 67 (812940)
06-21-2017 10:50 AM
Reply to: Message 59 by CRR
06-21-2017 7:34 AM


Re: Fruit Flies
CRR writes:
But the Theory of evolution requires much more. Since it hypothesizes ascent from a microbial ancestor with a minimal genome (which appeared by unspecified magical means) the evidence must show that beneficial mutations that increase the genome can occur in a cumulative manner within the time available.
First . . .
Do you consider the evolution of humans from a common ancestor shared with other apes to be macroevolution. If so . . .
Of the genetic differences between humans and chimps, which of those are you saying that evolution could not produce?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by CRR, posted 06-21-2017 7:34 AM CRR 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