|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 63 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 916,386 Year: 3,643/9,624 Month: 514/974 Week: 127/276 Day: 1/23 Hour: 1/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The YEC's most common error? | |||||||||||||||||||||||
nos482 Inactive Member |
quote: All macro evolution is is enough micro evolutionary changes to add up to a different species. In other words there is no real difference between the two. It seems that most creations can't (won't) get this through their heads.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
TrueCreation Inactive Member |
"All macro evolution is is enough micro evolutionary changes to add up to a different species. In other words there is no real difference between the two. It seems that most creations can't (won't) get this through their heads. "
--I've gotten that through my head, but a good reading of a general Bio text-book would dismiss it from reality in all technicality of your definition. They aren't necessarily changes that add up to a different 'species', but simply a quantitative change indicating a main event in the evolutionary history of life. Your use of 'species' is too specific to be accepted as accurate. See my post #6 for more. --I concur with this differentiation in the realms of both mainstream and young earth studies. ------------------- [This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 09-30-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Tranquility Base Inactive Member |
That's your faith nos482. The fossils and genomes tell a differnet story as stated by the title of that mainstream paper: 'Macroevoltuion is NOT just repeatd rounds of microevolution'.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nos482 Inactive Member |
quote: To be fair maybe we should call Miss Cleo and get the answer since so many people believe in her abilities.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
MartinM Inactive Member |
quote: Thanks for the reference. If I have time (doubtful!), I'll check my Uni library, see if I can dig out a copy of the full article. In the mean time, is this distinction widely accepted in the scientific community, or is it a point of contention?
quote: What IS the difference, on a genetic level? ------------------ [This message has been edited by MartinM, 10-02-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
TrueCreation Inactive Member |
--Martin, what are your thoughts on post #6?
------------------
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5215 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
Hi TC,
quote: quote: I take issue with that definition. Any mutational event is no more micro or macro than any other. Let me explain. The original speciation event that ultimately separated reptiles & mammals was no more "macro" than the events that separated grey & red squirrels. The individual mutations that led to a single mammal jaw bone were no more macro than any other point mutation, it is the collective, accumulated effect, relative to other organisms. Macroevolution is the sum of mutations that lead to larger scale morphological & chemical differences between clades. Mark ------------------Occam's razor is not for shaving with.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Tranquility Base Inactive Member |
MartinM
Good point. It is a contentious point - amongst anatomical sytematists and paleontologists. However, amongst genome researchers and molecular biologists in general it would be a difficult job to disagree with the fact that allelic differences will only get one so far. From the genomes we know that higher taxa are separated by novel protein families which are not allelic variants of other families. It is a nice idea to think that somehow the immune system arrived via allelic mutations but we already know that is not true. OK, so what is the detailed genetic difference? Varying the gene for blood type slightly by a few amino-acids one gets type A, B or O. But if still funcitonal at all - guess what - the biochemical funciton of these genes is the same. This should be no surprise - enzymes are very special amino-acid sequences that do a single, very specific job. Antibodies in everyone perform detection functions.Hemoglobin in everyone performs a transport funciton. Growth factors in everyone perform signalling funcitons. Dehydrogenase in everyone breaks up alcohol. Allelic variants with amino-acid changes only changes the strength of binding or reactivity. But you can't go smoothly from one enzyme class to another. Enzymes mostly have differnt folds and of course have differnt catalytic amino-acids. On the way from one to another the protein would unfold and be inactive for thousands of steps. And besides, for almost all protein families there is no evidence at all that they evolved from other protein families. So there is a huge chasm between allelic differneces (an allele is just a variant of a particular gene within a population) and proteins with differnt biochemical funcitons. And of course, at the higher taxa level, as one goes from genome to genome you end up with multiple entire new pathwys (collections of new protein families that work together to metabolise something or generate development signals). For example, the genome of the puffer fish Fugu just came out (I read the paper on the train last night). 25% of the 30,000 or so human genes have no puffer fish analog. Whilst many of these may turn out to have a disant structural or funcitonal relationship there is no doubt that many human genes represent novel families with new protein folds and functions. So higher taxa are separated by both allelic differences and major new protein family/pathway appearences. I will not argue that the allelic differneces could be due to natural selection. However I will argue that the novel protien families are evidence for distinct creation and represent a qualitative difference to allelic differneces (just as suggested in that mainstream article). [This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 10-02-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Tranquility Base Inactive Member |
Mark
But what your forgetting is that from the genomes we already know that genes of completely new fold, sequence and function have appeared to bring in the major novelties. You can pusy foot around with bones moving around but where did the novel protein families for each anatomical and celluar novelty come from. That is very differnt to allelic mutaitons which maintain the function of the protein. All of your homology stuff concentrates on what is similar bewtween organisms. You ignore the major differneces! You have lost the forest for the trees. Placentas, legs, hearts, eyes, immune systems. All of these invovle novel distinct protein families which bear no resemblance to pre-exising protein families. As pointed out by Behe, molecular biology puts an end to your 'just so' stories.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Andya Primanda Inactive Member |
TB, I am still curious on how you do your taxonomy. Your oft-repeated claim is that created kinds have a rough analogy with Linnaean families (which puts people in the same kind with chimps ). Have you some examples which you can show us? Preferably those organisms which we can objectively assess (maybe plants or insects).
Should go like this: "The plant family A is a different kind from plant family B because there is one gene family found in A which is not found in B" or "The termite family A should be split into three 'kinds' because there is three different protein families within the family." Got some? I am sure you do.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Quetzal Member (Idle past 5892 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
Andya: Good luck. I've asked TB the same question three times now (and Philip, who seems to be betting that TB has an irrefutable argument, once). His response is: we won't know until we have sequenced more genomes. Fine, as far as it goes. However, it seems to me that without any evidence AT ALL for the assertion, it can't be used to argue the creationist side. Maybe I'm being too hard on 'em.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Quetzal:
[B]Andya: Good luck. I've asked TB the same question three times now[/quote] [/b] I, also, have tried to pin TB down on this and to no result. ------------------http://www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Andya Primanda Inactive Member |
This is like my trial to TB, because he offered me a MSc/PhD under him in taxonomical genomics. He talks about having found the yardstick to define kinds by new protein families. If he is credible then I am sure he can answer.
Btw, the full genome of the malaria mosquito is done. This is interesting, because we already have the Drosophila genome, which is not distantly related to the mosquito. Maybe we can find TB's point there. I have my confidence with him. TB, if you can show me that, maybe I will seriously consider your PhD offer!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
derwood Member (Idle past 1896 days) Posts: 1457 Joined: |
quote: Then I suggest that Behe also read up on how gene expression affects development. Oh - can you explain - with support, of course - this statement: "...protein families which bear no resemblance to pre-exising protein families." Beause, frankly, all of those organs you mentioned all possess pretty much the same proteins.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
derwood Member (Idle past 1896 days) Posts: 1457 Joined: |
quote: Good point - Yes, TB, show us that chasm that evolution cannot cross!
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024