Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 79 (8898 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-26-2019 12:18 AM
24 online now:
Dredge, DrJones*, Pressie, ramoss, Tanypteryx (5 members, 19 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 848,645 Year: 3,682/19,786 Month: 677/1,087 Week: 46/221 Day: 0/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
21222324
25
26Next
Author Topic:   Biological classification vs 'Kind'
articulett
Member (Idle past 1452 days)
Posts: 49
Joined: 06-15-2010


Message 361 of 385 (565559)
06-17-2010 9:55 PM


The fact that some humans contain Neanderthal DNA does not mean that humans descended from Neanderthal. It only means that there was some mating going on after the two lineages had split.

Horses and Zebras share a horse-like ancestor and can still produce offspring. (So can donkeys and zebra). But one did not descend from the other. We consider them separate species because their hybrid offspring are generally infertile and they do not mate in the wild.

Dogs, however, did descend from wolves and are considered a subspecies of wolf since they can still mate with and produce viable offspring with wolves. Even though the various breeds of dog look like separate species from each other, they are the same species. There are many species that look identical to other species (especially in plants and insects), but genetics shows that they are, in fact, different species.

"Kind" tends to be a term creationists play fast a loose with in order to make facts fit their predetermined conclusion. I have a Masters in Genetics, and I don't know any scientist that uses that term, nor have I ever heard of the "baramin hypothesis".


Replies to this message:
 Message 362 by ramoss, posted 06-19-2010 2:52 PM articulett has responded

    
ramoss
Member
Posts: 3100
Joined: 08-11-2004
Member Rating: 4.6


Message 362 of 385 (565711)
06-19-2010 2:52 PM
Reply to: Message 361 by articulett
06-17-2010 9:55 PM


How about camels and llamas then? They are separated by continents and millions of years, yet, the hybrids of them are viable.

Nor can they mate on their own, the size differential is too great.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 361 by articulett, posted 06-17-2010 9:55 PM articulett has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 363 by articulett, posted 06-19-2010 4:58 PM ramoss has responded

  
articulett
Member (Idle past 1452 days)
Posts: 49
Joined: 06-15-2010


Message 363 of 385 (565716)
06-19-2010 4:58 PM
Reply to: Message 362 by ramoss
06-19-2010 2:52 PM


quote:
How about camels and llamas then? They are separated by continents and millions of years, yet, the hybrids of them are viable.

Nor can they mate on their own, the size differential is too great.


They are in the process of speciating. What happens when animals specieate is that you tend to get reduced fertility over time until the two can't produce hybrid offspring at all. You can google "Ligers" for a similar story.

I don't know how biblical literalists make sense of the obvious similarities between such animals and their nonspecific word "kind".


This message is a reply to:
 Message 362 by ramoss, posted 06-19-2010 2:52 PM ramoss has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 364 by ramoss, posted 06-20-2010 9:05 PM articulett has responded

    
ramoss
Member
Posts: 3100
Joined: 08-11-2004
Member Rating: 4.6


Message 364 of 385 (565794)
06-20-2010 9:05 PM
Reply to: Message 363 by articulett
06-19-2010 4:58 PM


I was more wondering about the biblical literalists..

I think my favorite hybrid that actually lived is the sheep/goat hydrid.. one species has 54 chromosomes, the other has 60, with the hydrid having 57.

It's alive, it breaths.. it is just sterile.

I am just wondering if it will get put in with the sheep or the goats in judgement day.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 363 by articulett, posted 06-19-2010 4:58 PM articulett has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 365 by articulett, posted 06-21-2010 8:26 AM ramoss has not yet responded

  
articulett
Member (Idle past 1452 days)
Posts: 49
Joined: 06-15-2010


Message 365 of 385 (565814)
06-21-2010 8:26 AM
Reply to: Message 364 by ramoss
06-20-2010 9:05 PM


I'm hoping for goats.

I always wonder how biblical literalists interpret article like discoveries of Frozen Woolly Mammoths or unearthed skeletons of such.

We might asked how are Woolly Mammoths and elephants related? When did they last share a common ancestor? Are elephants descended from Woolly mammoths or a sister species? When did Woolly Mammoths walk the earth? What did they eat? Did humans hunt them? Did Neanderthals? etc.

And we have tools for figuring out these answers. But YEC's don't. They just have to try to fit the facts into their ancient ark story and make up how the ancestors of these animals got from Mount Ararat to all the places they appear to be native to today.

Clearly a creationist must be able to see that goat and sheep are more related than goats and dogs. And the DNA proves this as does the fact that they can create offspring with sheep but not dogs.

How does a biblical literalist explain this. Did god take some sheepish goatish ancestor on board and do super fast evolution to make these two different species or did he just poof out two separate but similar-enough-to-breed species and have them board the ark in pairs? These appear to be separate "kind" to people writing the bible since they have separate names for sheep and goats. And what about Kangaroos and wallabies which they didn't even seem to know about? And how did they get to Australia from Mount Ararat? Why are there no fossils of marsupials in the middle east?

I doubt that bible literalists agree on the answers to these questions.

I suspect you have to kill your curiosity to be a YEC (or be satisfied with farfetched explanations that aren't supported by any evidence.)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 364 by ramoss, posted 06-20-2010 9:05 PM ramoss has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 366 by DrJones*, posted 06-21-2010 1:40 PM articulett has not yet responded
 Message 367 by bluegenes, posted 06-23-2010 4:20 AM articulett has not yet responded

    
DrJones*
Member
Posts: 1806
From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Joined: 08-19-2004
Member Rating: 4.2


Message 366 of 385 (565859)
06-21-2010 1:40 PM
Reply to: Message 365 by articulett
06-21-2010 8:26 AM


I always wonder how biblical literalists interpret article like discoveries of Frozen Woolly Mammoths

Frozen wooly mammoths were obviously flash frozen alive during the flood.


It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds
soon I discovered that this rock thing was true
Jerry Lee Lewis was the devil
Jesus was an architect previous to his career as a prophet
All of a sudden i found myself in love with the world
And so there was only one thing I could do
Was ding a ding dang my dang along ling long - Jesus Built my Hotrod Ministry

Live every week like it's Shark Week! - Tracey Jordan
Just a monkey in a long line of kings. - Matthew Good
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist! - Get Your War On
*not an actual doctor
This message is a reply to:
 Message 365 by articulett, posted 06-21-2010 8:26 AM articulett has not yet responded

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 557 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 367 of 385 (566113)
06-23-2010 4:20 AM
Reply to: Message 365 by articulett
06-21-2010 8:26 AM


Fossil marsupials
articulett writes:

Why are there no fossils of marsupials in the middle east?

There could well be. They could be anywhere.

Oldest marsupial fossil.

Perhaps you meant to say "fossils of kangaroos in the middle east."


This message is a reply to:
 Message 365 by articulett, posted 06-21-2010 8:26 AM articulett has not yet responded

  
BobTHJ
Member (Idle past 3078 days)
Posts: 119
Joined: 06-02-2010


Message 368 of 385 (567152)
06-29-2010 7:32 PM


Replying to all outstanding messages here, sorry for the wait.

Taq in M340:

quote:
The selective pressure was on the previously functional gene which is restored through mutation. You should read up on the SOS mechanism in E. coli. When the bacteria sense DNA damage (usually caused by starvation) the bacteria turn on genes that code for recombinases and error-prone polymerases. This results in a huge upswing in gene duplication and mutations. This is how these genes are kept around.

I guess I'm not understanding how this allows selection to preserve a non-expressed gene over time. Can you explain further? or point me to some reading material?

Taq in M346:

quote:
We do not observe supernatural deities incorporating retroviral sequences into genomes. We do observe retroviruses inserting their genome into the host genome. We do observe that the 5' and 3' LTR's of and inserted retroviral sequence are identical at the time of insertion, but that these sequences have diverged over time in the genomes of the host. We do observe that retroviruses insert randomly among billions of bases meaning that the chances of two insertions occuring at the same base are highly improbably. We observe that the same ERV's (thousands of them) are found at the same base in multiple species. We observe that common ancestry produces a nested hierarchy.

Where did the retro-virus initially come from? Even in a darwinian model it is not unreasonable to suspect that the first retro-viruses were spawned by a mutated section of transposable DNA in a different organism.

quote:
No, SIFTER is based on an evolutionary model that incorporates common ancestry and divergence over time. At least try to be honest about other people's work. SIFTER uses EVOLUTOINARY DISTANCE and EVOLUTIONARY MECHANISMS to predict protein function

Please elaborate on 'EVOLUTIONARY MECHANISMS'. So called 'evolutionary distance' is primarily just a measure of genetic differences between species (part of the ontological model).

Percy in M350:

quote:
There's no point in discussing untested hypotheses. You prefer to believe that one day they'll replace current theory, and who knows, maybe you're right. But it would be perverse to argue that the currently available evidence supports your favored hypotheses, because it does not. It not only doesn't support them, it doesn't even suggest them. It is only the influence of Genesis that suggests them.

Borger's hypothesis (which I've since learned appears to have been put forward - at least in part - much earlier by Todd Wood) does fit the evidence we currently observe - if it does not please demonstrate how.

quote:
One particularly significant difference of Borger's VIGEs from normal evolution is that it is directed. In his view evolution proceeded in a manner directed by prepositioned VIGEs rather than selected for by the environment. This doesn't explain adaptation. If evolution comes from within as directed by VIGEs with no input from the environment, how did adaptation ever occur?

Borger isn't arguing against selection by environment. Directed VIGE transpositions activate dormant psuedogenes causing new phenotypes - and natural selection then chooses the most fit phenotypes for the environment. Borger also hypotheses VIGEs that serve other function (modifying chromosomal configurations to prevent interbreeding and thus force speciation) but this is in addition to the first function, not in place of.

quote:
In other words, it makes sense to you that chimps are related to gorillas genetically, because they both had a common ancestor aboard the ark. And it makes sense to you that chimps and gorillas are related genetically to monkeys because monkeys shared the same common ancestor. But the same types of analysis that reveal this genetic relatedness show that the common ancestor was responsible for more than just monkeys. Rodents, and lizards and fish and insects and ultimately bacteria also share a common ancestor with chimps, gorillas and monkeys.

Again, you are assuming that genetic similarity implies common descent. Common descent is one reasonable explanation - but common design is another.

quote:
The animal kingdom is in pink, we're near the top. Select a lineage on the perimeter and trace inward toward the center, and this will take you through the branch points where lineages come together. Somewhere in these junctions you'd like to draw a line and say that it goes no further, that before that point the lineages possess no commonality and therefore had distinct origins. But there's no hint of this in the genetic analysis. If a designer is responsible for what you think are the original species, he designed in a nested hierarchy

I'm not at all suggesting no commonality. I don't argue against the genetic commonality of all life - I actually find this to be rather solid evidence for common design.

quote:
I think you've been misinformed. There's nothing in evolutionary theory that predicts that bacteria should require a great deal of time to evolve. What evolution predicts is that imperfect reproduction will cause genetic changes to accumulate over time. The shorter the generations the faster genetic changes can accumulate.

Agree. However, for the full traditional darwinian evolutionary process to occur - even in a rapidly reproducing organism - would still require a considerable amount of time. Consider the steps:
1. Gene duplication
2. A mutation event that deactivates the duplicated gene (thus allowing it to freely mutate)
3. A series of mutation events to modify the protein coded by the gene - as well as modifications to the regulatory elements that control expression for that pseudogene.
4. A mutation event that re-activates the new gene for expression.

At a minimum you must admit that the above process does not allow for the rapid evolution we have witnessed in bacterial studies. What has been observed is the activation of pre-existing dormant pseudogenes.

quote:
Using the link you provided, please read your reference and then post a message explaining how transposons support Borger's hypothesis that the VIGE ancestors of these transposons directed the course of evolution, as opposed to selection based upon the environment. It must be true that environmentally influenced selection could not have been a factor because with accelerated evolution the environment could not have been rapidly changing at the same time. Or did ancient historians not only fail to note the rapid changes in the local flora and fauna, but also that one year they were living in a forest, the next in a desert, and the next in a tundra.

Certainly (as stated above) environmental selection would play a major role. The flood event (and resulting continental drift) would cause some rapid environmental change. Species spreading into new areas of the now-unihabited world would also provide rapid exposure to new environments.

Also please understand I'm not suggesting high-orders of evolutionary change. The primary evolutionary change I am advocating for is exactly environmental adaptation. Historians wouldn't witness dinosaurs morphing into birds in a matter of a few generations - they would be able to see some minor variations in doves/pigeons as they speciated and adapted to the various environments they expanded into.

WoundedKing in M354:

quote:
One big problem is that Bob seems to be conflating the 2 different concepts of redundant and non-essential genes. The paper (Winzeler et al., 1990) (you don't need a subscription, but you do need to register with the Science website) discusses the effect of several hundred gene deletions and notes that most of these genes are non-essential, meaning that when they are deleted these genes do not cause a complete loss of viability. Of these non-essential genes 8.5% had more than one homologue in the genome, what we might consider gene redundancy. Of the essential genes, those whose deletion caused a complete loss of viability, only 1% had any homologues in the genome. So we can see that gene redundancy seems overrepresented in non-essential compared to essential genes, which seems to me to run totally counter to BobTHJ's claims.He seems to be trying to represent the research as if all of the non-essential genes should have duplicates to be in accord with current evolutionary theory.

What I was referring to is that the study demonstrates 83% of genes to be non-essential to survival, and of those 60% have no noticeable phenotype. Now, given - phenotypes may exist for some which were not found - for the sake of argument let's assume half of those 60% of non-essential genes would have a phenotype that reduces fitness in the wild (far more than is likely). That still leaves approx. 25% of the expressed genes in Yeast that HAVE NO PHENOTYPE and thus grant no additional fitness.

How does natural selection conserve genes that convey no fitness? The explanation was "those genes are the result of gene duplication", but the study shows this to be the case for less than one in ten.

Granny Magda in M355:

quote:
It is relevant because according to most creationist lists of "kinds" birds and dinosaurs are of different kinds. These fossils - transitional fossils - show that in reality, there are intermediate forms between the two kinds, that they are related. This destroys the idea of kinds, or at the very least, forces the kinds to be so flexible that they are meaningless and so accommodating that it is ever harder to see how humans and chimps can occupy separate kinds.

If conclusive evidence of feathered dinosaurs were shown this would not invalidate kinds. It would fit a new taxon between birds and dinosaurs - likely a separate extinct baramin (or baramins).

quote:
They are not assumptions at all, reasonable or otherwise. An assumption would be something taken as a founding axiom, in the absence of evidence. These findings are based upon careful scrutiny of the evidence; remember, evidence is not biased!

Conclusions based on evidence are assumptive in nature - because we never have full evidence. To use our example the evidence in question is several distinct fossils. We can draw reasonable conclusions from these fossils (and maybe feathered dinosaurs is a reasonable conclusion) but that conclusion requires a certain level of assumption - because there is much that remains uncertain.

quote:
By the way, as Percy has pointed out above, it doesn't matter how we construct our tree of life - genetic, morphological, whatever - we end up with pretty much the same nested hierarchy that Linnaeus observed centuries ago.

This agreement between genetic and morphological systems need not exist in a non-evolutionary world, but it does exist. It is a powerful vindication of Darwin.


As I've stated previously, I agree that the ontology based on genetic and morphological similarity models life with greater than 95% accuracy. This agreement does nothing to vindicate darwin (who made an assumption/conclusion of common ancestry based upon morphological evidence) it merely demonstrates that life shares much similarity.

quote:
Ultimately, it's down to what the evidence is telling us. Evidence is not biased. Follow the evidence and you will always be headed in the right direction. After all if you are right and the world is God's creation, then you will only be revealing the truth of his handiwork. If I am right, the evidence will show this too. I trust that you will be honest and forthright enough to do this.

I agree wholeheartedly - and can state with certainty that my YEC belief is a result of the evidence (at least the evidence I have seen).

quote:
Can't you see how those two comments contradict each other? The baramin must be objective. We agree on that. But if the baramin cannot be falsified, how can it be objective? An unfalsifiable idea can never be objective; it could be true or untrue, we would have no way of knowing. What point is there in having a classification so lax that it could be changed according to whim? What purpose would it serve? Any system of taxonomy must be objective. falsifiability is a big part of that.

I'm not contradicting myself here - let me see if I can explain more fully:

A hypothesis that isn't falsifiable isn't necessarily incorrect. It is however of limited use to objective science until a method of falsification is devised.

Specific baraminological hypothesis are falsifiable. The science as a whole would also be falsified if humans and chimps (or some other primate) were shown to have common ancestry.

Dr. Adequate in M358:

quote:
When creationists find it necessary to put forward arguments that undermine the possibility of us acquiring any knowledge at all, in order to deny our knowledge about evolution in particular, I think they're on the ropes.

This, of course, is not what I said. Thanks to our Creator we do have a tremendous capability to use our senses to acquire knowledge (which in itself is powerful argument against non-intelligent design). We can learn about what we observe. This however does not mean we ever fully understand anything - we only understand that which we have observed about it.

Just to set the record straight: I am not in any way suggesting that a spiritual enemy 'fixed' our observations (Though Granny's new avatar is cute) - evidence is evidence. I am suggesting that a spiritual enemy might influence the conclusions drawn from those observations. This is of course opinion on my part and should in no way be construed to be anything else.

articulett in M359:

quote:
Do you think that the theory of gravity LOOKS true because it stems from an effort to explain god's means of keeping the planets in orbit or "why things fal"l --without invoking god? What about germ theory? Atomic theory? Heliocentrism? The notion that the earth is an oblate spheroid rather than flat? (Remember, scientific theories are the best explanations for the observed facts.)

Scientific theories are the best explanation for the observed facts in the opinion of the one adhering to the theory.

quote:
To a scientist, "kind" is a vague term that allows believers to change the meaning as need be to fit whatever it is they feel saved for believing in. To understand more, we use more specific terms. "Kind" is used by people who want to remain purposefully ignorant of the facts so that they can continue to believe in the story they feel "saved" for "believing in". It's not a term used by those seeking to understand the actual origin of the species.

I falsify this hypothesis.

Percy in M360:

quote:
Oh, is that what "Homo holobaramin" means? Human? I didn't realize you were claiming that YEC scientists had predicted Neanderthals were human. So this would be a great example of the application of baraminology. How did they apply the principles of baraminology (which you have yet to describe, so this would be a great opportunity) to make this prediction?

Two means led to this prediciton. First, neanderthal fossils have been found with evidence of civilized society. Since baraminology dictates that only humans are sentient and capable of this level of societal organization, then neanderthal must be human.

Secondly, baraminological distances were compared between neanderthal and human fossils indicating a close correlation between the two. Sorry, I can't give great detail on this process as I don't clearly understand it yet.

quote:
By the way, the genetic analyses that indicate cross breeding between Neaderthals and humans (the criteria you're using to decide they were human) also indicate that the two lineages split about 500,000 years ago. So you think scientists are 1000 times off on some things but can be trusted on the rest? What criteria are YEC's applying to make these vastly different assessments of reliability of data from these closely related studies?

As mentioned in other posts YEC baraminology predicts much faster 'evolution' (adaptation and speciation) than would be found under a darwinian model. No doubt the 500k year estimate you refer to was based on the darwinian timescale and derived either from radio-isotope dating of fossils or from genetic differences and assumed mutation rates.

quote:
You misunderstood John Woodmorappe's description of the article. The article argued that Home egaster *does* belong in the genus Homo, while other lineages like Homo habilis do not. It wasn't arguing that Homo egaster should be reclassified as Homo sapiens.

Yes...sorry if I wasn't more clear. The homo genus is roughly equivalent to the YEC human holobaramin - ie 100% human 0% ape from a YEC perspective.

articulett in M361:

quote:
The fact that some humans contain Neanderthal DNA does not mean that humans descended from Neanderthal. It only means that there was some mating going on after the two lineages had split.
Horses and Zebras share a horse-like ancestor and can still produce offspring. (So can donkeys and zebra). But one did not descend from the other. We consider them separate species because their hybrid offspring are generally infertile and they do not mate in the wild.

Dogs, however, did descend from wolves and are considered a subspecies of wolf since they can still mate with and produce viable offspring with wolves. Even though the various breeds of dog look like separate species from each other, they are the same species. There are many species that look identical to other species (especially in plants and insects), but genetics shows that they are, in fact, different species.

"Kind" tends to be a term creationists play fast a loose with in order to make facts fit their predetermined conclusion. I have a Masters in Genetics, and I don't know any scientist that uses that term, nor have I ever heard of the "baramin hypothesis".


I wasn't implying neanderthal were human ancestors - an extinct species of the human baramin is more accurate. However, you give some good examples and thus allow me to state the following falsifiable hypothesis (which I've been considering and did not originate with me):

Interbreeding (even under laboratory conditions) can be used as an inclusive test to determine if an organism lies within a certain baramin.

Note that when interbreeding was discussed at the beginning of this thread by those attempting to characterize baraminology it was done so in an exclusive manner: "if two organisms can't interbreed then they are in separate baramins". This does not hold true however due to speciation (organisms that were once able to interbreed may no longer be able to due to chromosomal reconfiguration or phenotopic incompatibility). However, if two organisms CAN interbreed then the baraminologist can reasonably conclude that they ARE in the same baramin. This includes interbreeding under laboratory conditions (up to but not exceeding manual alignment of chromosomes for meosis) and is valid even if offspring do not remain viable until maturity.

This hypothesis can be falsified if a human/chimp interbreeding could be accomplished in the laboratory.

According to this hypothesis (and using your examples) horses and zebras are part of the same baramin. Dogs and wolves also share a baramin. Finally humans and neanderthal's share a baramin.

I'm trying to get as far away from 'fast and loose' here as I can...

articulett in M365:

quote:
How does a biblical literalist explain this. Did god take some sheepish goatish ancestor on board and do super fast evolution to make these two different species or did he just poof out two separate but similar-enough-to-breed species and have them board the ark in pairs? These appear to be separate "kind" to people writing the bible since they have separate names for sheep and goats. And what about Kangaroos and wallabies which they didn't even seem to know about? And how did they get to Australia from Mount Ararat? Why are there no fossils of marsupials in the middle east?

You're not asking any tough questions here... rapid speciation from a sheep/goat common ancestor is certainly possible - and I've demonstrated the means (VIGEs - see the baranome hypothesis I posted about here and on the genetic redundancy thread). A global flood event as hypothesized by YEC would generate the continental drift from pangaea to (almost) present form thus allowing for rapid re-population of the planet and explaining how specific kinds may be found all or only certain continents.


Replies to this message:
 Message 369 by Taq, posted 06-30-2010 12:47 AM BobTHJ has not yet responded
 Message 370 by Wounded King, posted 06-30-2010 4:57 AM BobTHJ has not yet responded
 Message 371 by Peepul, posted 06-30-2010 10:27 AM BobTHJ has not yet responded
 Message 372 by Granny Magda, posted 06-30-2010 1:00 PM BobTHJ has not yet responded
 Message 379 by Coragyps, posted 06-30-2010 10:02 PM BobTHJ has not yet responded

    
Taq
Member
Posts: 7673
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 369 of 385 (567188)
06-30-2010 12:47 AM
Reply to: Message 368 by BobTHJ
06-29-2010 7:32 PM


I guess I'm not understanding how this allows selection to preserve a non-expressed gene over time. Can you explain further? or point me to some reading material?

Because selection is able to restore the function of the gene faster than genetic drift (aka no selection) is able to take the function away. To use a rough analogy, it is a bit like a dog on a leash. The dog slowly starts to wander off, but a well directed tug brings them back to your side in a jiffy. The wandering is analogous to unselected genetic drift while the tug is positive selection.

Where did the retro-virus initially come from? Even in a darwinian model it is not unreasonable to suspect that the first retro-viruses were spawned by a mutated section of transposable DNA in a different organism.

Where viruses came from is still a hotly debated topic. IMHO, the best candidate is an ancient unicellular obligate parasite not too different from the ubiquitous chlamydia species that we see today. In fact, there are lifeforms such as mimiviruses which carry very large genomes (for a virus) that may demonstrate a link between the small genomes of retroviruses and the larger genomes of bacteria. I would suspect that viruses have been around for almost the entire history of life. They are the epitome of selfish DNA.

Borger's hypothesis (which I've since learned appears to have been put forward - at least in part - much earlier by Todd Wood) does fit the evidence we currently observe - if it does not please demonstrate how.

What potential observation would Borger's hypothesis not fit? How does Borger's hypothesis explain LTR divergence? How does it explain overall ERV divergence? To be more specific, why do ERV's that are shared by orangutans and humans at orthologous positions have a higher LTR divergence than orhtologous ERV's shared by just chimps and humans? Why does the overall ERV divergence fit the same pattern? How does Borger's hypothesis explain this? How does Borger explain how a whole family of viruses can be found in chimps and gorillas but not in orangutans and humans, and at the same time why don't we find any of these ERV's at orthologous positions in chimps and gorillas (see this paper)? If you are going to claim that Borger's hypothesis explains the observations then it MUST explain these observations. Common descent with modification (i.e. evolution) DOES explain these observations. In fact, if common ancestry and evolution are true then we SHOULD observe these relationships.

Please elaborate on 'EVOLUTIONARY MECHANISMS'. So called 'evolutionary distance' is primarily just a measure of genetic differences between species (part of the ontological model)

It is also established by the fossil record which the ontological model can not explain.

Borger isn't arguing against selection by environment. Directed VIGE transpositions activate dormant psuedogenes causing new phenotypes - and natural selection then chooses the most fit phenotypes for the environment. Borger also hypotheses VIGEs that serve other function (modifying chromosomal configurations to prevent interbreeding and thus force speciation) but this is in addition to the first function, not in place of.

Can you please show where Borger explains why humans need reverse trascriptase and viral capsid proteins.

Again, you are assuming that genetic similarity implies common descent. Common descent is one reasonable explanation - but common design is another.

Then please list the similarities that the phonograph and light bulb share. Please show how Stephen King's novels fall into a nested hierarchy. Please show how airbags are only found in a single lineage of cars, the lineage of cars that airbags were first observed. Please explain why the similarities you share with your siblings is not due to common descent, but due to magical poofing (I am sure that your parents would be really interested in this one).

The flood event (and resulting continental drift) would cause some rapid environmental change.

So would a major meteor impact 200 years ago, but there is no evidence that either happened.

If conclusive evidence of feathered dinosaurs were shown this would not invalidate kinds.

What would? Anything? If any possible evidence fits with baraminology then how can you claim that the evidence convinced you?

Conclusions based on evidence are assumptive in nature - because we never have full evidence.

So you accept creationism with zero evidence, but you reject evolution because we don't have complete knowledge of everything that has ever happened in the entire universe. Color me surprised.

Finally humans and neanderthal's share a baramin.

How did you establish this?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 368 by BobTHJ, posted 06-29-2010 7:32 PM BobTHJ has not yet responded

  
Wounded King
Member (Idle past 2175 days)
Posts: 4149
From: Edinburgh, Scotland
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 370 of 385 (567214)
06-30-2010 4:57 AM
Reply to: Message 368 by BobTHJ
06-29-2010 7:32 PM


What I was referring to is that the study demonstrates 83% of genes to be non-essential to survival, and of those 60% have no noticeable phenotype. Now, given - phenotypes may exist for some which were not found - for the sake of argument let's assume half of those 60% of non-essential genes would have a phenotype that reduces fitness in the wild (far more than is likely). That still leaves approx. 25% of the expressed genes in Yeast that HAVE NO PHENOTYPE and thus grant no additional fitness.

Well if you wan't to just keep making things up that is fine. But in fact there is no basis for your 25% figure. To say that they 'HAVE NO PHENOTYPE' is simply a baseless assumption, and all caps doesn't make it any less so. All you can actually say is that they don't have any phenotype which produces quantitative growth defects in either rich or minimal medium, since that was the only phenotype that was being assayed.

How does natural selection conserve genes that convey no fitness? The explanation was "those genes are the result of gene duplication", but the study shows this to be the case for less than one in ten.

That isn't the explanation at all, and it certainly isn't what we have been discussing. What the differences in gene duplication between the essential and non-essential genes is used to show is that there are a larger number of duplicates in the non-essential set, making genetic redundancy one possible explanation for the non-essential nature of those particular genes. That has always been the position, that gene duplication produces gentic redundancy making that particular genetic pathway element more robust.

This has nothing to do with conveying 'no fitness', and the study would have no basis to make such a claim. Of course the study doesn't claim this, you do.

It has long been regarded as the case that most unicellular organisms have a much wider metabolic flexibility then metazoa, and yeast is no exception. One screen looked at deletions under a combination of various growth conditions including aerobic and anaerobic as well as using a variety of growth media (Gu et al., 2003). This showed that ... 'there is a significantly higher probability of functional compensation for a duplicate gene than for a singleton, a high correlation between the frequency of compensation and the sequence similarity of two duplicates, and a higher probability of a severe fitness effect when the duplicate copy that is more highly expressed is deleted.' Those results seem to fairly conclusively argue for a role for duplicated genes in genetic redundancy.

TTFN,

WK


This message is a reply to:
 Message 368 by BobTHJ, posted 06-29-2010 7:32 PM BobTHJ has not yet responded

    
Peepul
Member (Idle past 3098 days)
Posts: 206
Joined: 03-13-2009


Message 371 of 385 (567257)
06-30-2010 10:27 AM
Reply to: Message 368 by BobTHJ
06-29-2010 7:32 PM


quote:
As I've stated previously, I agree that the ontology based on genetic and morphological similarity models life with greater than 95% accuracy. This agreement does nothing to vindicate darwin (who made an assumption/conclusion of common ancestry based upon morphological evidence) it merely demonstrates that life shares much similarity.

Hi Bob,

the fact that we get consistent nested hierarchies using different methods demonstrates much more than life sharing similairities.

Life could share similarities without falling naturally into a nested hierarchy. Cars do not fall naturally into a nested hierarchy, for example, because innovations are taken up in many 'lineages' - an analogue of horizontal gene transmission.

As you probably know, when building these nested trees, it's possible to estimate how 'genuine' the tree is - ie how strong is the signal that it really is nested. So the strength of the nestedness can be estimated statistically. The results show that life's trees are significant.

A designer would not be constrained in this way, evolution has to be (assuming that HGT is not significant). This is why it's such strong evidence for evolution.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 368 by BobTHJ, posted 06-29-2010 7:32 PM BobTHJ has not yet responded

    
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2380
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007


(1)
Message 372 of 385 (567273)
06-30-2010 1:00 PM
Reply to: Message 368 by BobTHJ
06-29-2010 7:32 PM


Hi Bob, glad you decided to stick around.

If conclusive evidence of feathered dinosaurs were shown this would not invalidate kinds. It would fit a new taxon between birds and dinosaurs - likely a separate extinct baramin (or baramins).

First, we have conclusive evidence that birds are dinosaurs; dozens of examples of feathered dinosaurs, birds with teeth, and a whole raft of morphological intermediates between birds and maniraptorans. Given this, it is hard to visualise what you might think was conclusive evidence. Care to help me out? What would you consider suitable evidence?

Second, I disagree that the "kinds" model is not falsified by this observation. One of the central planks of baraminology is that the baramins cannot interbreed or mix. Here we have birds and dinosaurs, two groups of animals that no baraminologist would place together, actually evolving from one state to the other. This is the exact opposite of what baramin enthusiasts say is going on.

Also, why would it be a separate baramin? Why not simply incorporate feathered dinosaurs into a dinosaur baramin? Why not include birds in the dinosaur baramin? What objective reasons can you give for claiming feathered dinosaurs belong to their own baramin as opposed to any other? Because if you have none, I am forced to conclude that the term "baramin" is so infinitely flexible that it has no meaning.

Conclusions based on evidence are assumptive in nature - because we never have full evidence. To use our example the evidence in question is several distinct fossils. We can draw reasonable conclusions from these fossils (and maybe feathered dinosaurs is a reasonable conclusion) but that conclusion requires a certain level of assumption - because there is much that remains uncertain.

I think the word you are reaching for is "tentativity". Yes, all scientific conclusions are tentative, but this does not make them assumptions. Tentativity is good practise. You should try applying it to your religious beliefs some day.

Using the principle of tentativity to damn a particular paper is childish and self-defeating. You can complain all you like that Xu et al 's conclusions are tentative, but you show no concern that the practise of baraminology is also tentative - unless you have mistaken the baraminologists for gods.

As I've stated previously, I agree that the ontology based on genetic and morphological similarity models life with greater than 95% accuracy. This agreement does nothing to vindicate darwin (who made an assumption/conclusion of common ancestry based upon morphological evidence) it merely demonstrates that life shares much similarity.

Deluded nonsense. Darwin predicted that life would display nested similarities. And that is exactly what we see. Every time a new species is discovered, whether living or fossilised, it fits into the nested hierarchy predicted by Darwin's theory. That is a vindication of the prediction.

Further, these similarities fit into an evolutionary framework - every single time. There are no exceptions. If the ToE were false, there would be no reason for this pattern to emerge, but it does. Exactly as predicted.

I have no idea what planet you come from where the repeated confirmation of a theory's predictions, based upon millions of observations, does not constitute evidence for that theory.

Your own pet theory, the baramin, predicts absolutely nothing of course and so could never have any supporting evidence, no matter what was observed.

I agree wholeheartedly - and can state with certainty that my YEC belief is a result of the evidence (at least the evidence I have seen).

But your beliefs are often in direct contradiction to easily observed and very clear evidence. Take your comments on the fossil record for instance, where you say in one message;

It follows then that simple marine bottom-dwelling animals (such as trilobytes) would be found in the lowest pre-cambrian/cambrian strata as these would be the first to be buried. Larger and/or more advanced creatures would be buried later as they would be better equipped to survive against the rising waters and would survive longer.

Now that is not what the fossil record shows, It just isn't. There are many bottom dwellers above trilobites in the fossil record. There are complex, free swimming organisms above. There are simple bottom dwelling organisms right through the record, not just near the bottom. The picture you paint here is so astonishingly removed from reality that it bears no resemblance at all.

You cannot possibly have based this view upon the evidence, It's simply too obviously wrong. Instead you based your view on something you read somewhere, probably some creationist lie-site.

The evidence is not biased. Sometimes it is ambiguous, hard to read. Sometimes however it is not. Sometimes the evidence is very clear indeed and the conclusions it gives us are near inescapable. The idea that birds evolved from a reptilian ancestor is one such idea, as is the common ancestry of humans and chimps.

A hypothesis that isn't falsifiable isn't necessarily incorrect. It is however of limited use to objective science until a method of falsification is devised.

Agreed. An unfalsifiable theory might be correct, but it is no use to science.

Specific baraminological hypothesis are falsifiable. The science as a whole would also be falsified if humans and chimps (or some other primate) were shown to have common ancestry.

Interesting that you say that, given that you have already claimed that evidence for bird/dinosaur transition would not falsify the baramin. What is it about humans and chimps that is so special? What would constitute good evidence for human/chimp common ancestry in your view?

Just to set the record straight: I am not in any way suggesting that a spiritual enemy 'fixed' our observations (Though Granny's new avatar is cute) - evidence is evidence. I am suggesting that a spiritual enemy might influence the conclusions drawn from those observations. This is of course opinion on my part and should in no way be construed to be anything else.

So, to be clear, your theory, the one you find so much more convincing than the ToE, requires not one invisible, undetectable supernatural entity, but two? Wow. And you actually have the gall to attack Xu et al for making "assumptions". Stunning.

Mutate and Survive

Edited by Granny Magda, : Removed a question answered elsewhere in Bob's reply.


"A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod
This message is a reply to:
 Message 368 by BobTHJ, posted 06-29-2010 7:32 PM BobTHJ has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 373 by CosmicChimp, posted 06-30-2010 4:42 PM Granny Magda has responded

    
CosmicChimp
Member
Posts: 306
From: Muenchen Bayern Deutschland
Joined: 06-15-2007


Message 373 of 385 (567338)
06-30-2010 4:42 PM
Reply to: Message 372 by Granny Magda
06-30-2010 1:00 PM


Granny you're awesome. But I gotta ask you to elaborate on this part (especially as I am going through some specific review of this point on another site):
... If the ToE were false, there would be no reason for this pattern to emerge, but it does. ...

You are essentially saying, "Ignoring the obvious cause for this pattern, there is no currently known reason for it."

To me nested hierarchy implies imperfect inheritance or incomplete duplication. But how is it to be distinguished from a deity poofing a series of creatures into existence based upon what they say is common design or modular design or whatever else they say it is.

My problem is that I do not see the difference between poofology which produces incomplete duplication, or ToE which does it equally indistinguishably.

The discovery institute evidently did a good job of expressing that "god did it" because I can't find the seems anywhere. Occam's razor is to me the only way I've been able to discern.

Essentially their argument is common design implies common designer, which is itself an explanation for nested hierarchy. There must be a foolproof rebuttal.


My mind keeps trying to copy itself. Try as I might to stop it, almost everything I do seems to be some sort of a crude attempt at making copies. Gawd, what an egomaniac.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 372 by Granny Magda, posted 06-30-2010 1:00 PM Granny Magda has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 374 by Huntard, posted 06-30-2010 4:50 PM CosmicChimp has responded
 Message 375 by crashfrog, posted 06-30-2010 4:52 PM CosmicChimp has responded
 Message 381 by Granny Magda, posted 07-01-2010 5:27 PM CosmicChimp has responded

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 375 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 374 of 385 (567340)
06-30-2010 4:50 PM
Reply to: Message 373 by CosmicChimp
06-30-2010 4:42 PM


CosmicChimp writes:

To me nested hierarchy implies imperfect inheritance or incomplete duplication. But how is it to be distinguished from a deity poofing a series of creatures into existence based upon what they say is common design or modular design or whatever else they say it is.

My problem is that I do not see the difference between poofology which produces incomplete duplication, or ToE which does it equally indistinguishably.

The discovery institute evidently did a good job of expressing that "god did it" because I can't find the seems anywhere. Occam's razor is to me the only way I've been able to discern.

Essentially their argument is common design implies common designer, which is itself an explanation for nested hierarchy. There must be a foolproof rebuttal.


I don't know about foolproof, but I always liked this video by CDK007:

Linky


This message is a reply to:
 Message 373 by CosmicChimp, posted 06-30-2010 4:42 PM CosmicChimp has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 376 by CosmicChimp, posted 06-30-2010 5:53 PM Huntard has not yet responded

    
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 375 of 385 (567341)
06-30-2010 4:52 PM
Reply to: Message 373 by CosmicChimp
06-30-2010 4:42 PM


Last Thursdayism
My problem is that I do not see the difference between poofology which produces incomplete duplication, or ToE which does it equally indistinguishably.

Traditionally we call this philosophical view "Last Thursdayism", since the reducto ad absurdum of your view is that God not only specially created all living organisms in such a way that they bear a (false) appearance of common descent, but that he also created fossils in the ground, the light of distant stars in mid-route to Earth, and indeed your very body and (false) memories, all at approximately 3 o'clock last Thursday.

Truly, there's probably no experiment we can make that can distinguish between a universe actually as old as it appears to be and a universe created last Thursday with an apparent age of 14 billion years. Traditionally the Last Thursdayism view is rejected on grounds that are either largely aesthetic (people just don't like the idea of a God engaged in a colossal deception) or on the basis of an a priori rejection of the existence of God.

The seam in the argument, in other words, is that it's too strong - it proves way more about God than the Discovery Institute is prepared to accept.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 373 by CosmicChimp, posted 06-30-2010 4:42 PM CosmicChimp has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 377 by CosmicChimp, posted 06-30-2010 6:23 PM crashfrog has not yet responded

  
RewPrev1
...
21222324
25
26Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019