|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 66 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,483 Year: 3,740/9,624 Month: 611/974 Week: 224/276 Day: 64/34 Hour: 1/2 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Can the creationist model explain the data? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10045 Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10045 Joined: Member Rating: 5.3
|
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10045 Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10045 Joined: Member Rating: 5.3
|
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10045 Joined: Member Rating: 5.3
|
Faith writes: Do your victory dance. I'm out of here. Thanks for proving our point.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10045 Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10045 Joined: Member Rating: 5.3
|
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10045 Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10045 Joined: Member Rating: 5.3
|
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10045 Joined: Member Rating: 5.3
|
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10045 Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10045 Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10045 Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10045 Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10045 Joined: Member Rating: 5.3
|
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?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024