I understand your frustration; you have to put up with a lot of petty sniping on these boards. But a lot of that sniping stems from others being equally frustrated....
Yes, which is not exactly news to me. But I'm one creationist against what, a dozen, hidebound believers in the ToE which makes the contest extremely unbalanced. I suppose I just shouldn't be here at all.
quote: CUZ all cats have sharp claws, with a slight exception for the cheetah I guess, whereas singular characteristics aren't structural IMHO.
All the species in that genus have similar structures. And structures are surely structural - while minor differences are surely superficial.
And I must say that I really really don’t think that you’d accept a small difference between trilobite Families as “structural” rather than “superficial” - even if the differing trait was found in every species in the Family.
Yes, which is not exactly news to me. But I'm one creationist against what, a dozen, hidebound believers in the ToE which makes the contest extremely unbalanced.
Interesting that you see this as a contest. I see quite a few people who have spent their entire careers, sometimes, studying this subject. And their Job-like patience in trying to work with you, to bring you along if only to correct your misuse of words, is impressive to a lay person like me.
In response to their offer of help, you refuse to even study the subject you are opining on. You 'piffle' and poo-poo even the thought of actually, you know, getting some hands on experience. Even someone who professes Christianity knows not everything is as it 'looks' or 'seems'.
I suppose I just shouldn't be here at all.
I really wish you would learn something sometime, but at least I'm getting the benefit of your willful refusal to listen to these folks. Stay or go, your choice.
I think the number of mutations you believe could bring about such a coherent new genome would far sooner destroy the genome than get anything coherent out of it at all.
Then how are humans able to survive with 40 million differences compared to the chimp genome?
I don't think you could ever get a different species from any number of mutations in any given genome because I think the genome defines the basic structure of a species in such a way that it can't ever make anything other than the species it makes.
But you just said that adding the 40 million mutations that separates humans from chimps would make a chimp from the human genome. How do you explain this?
All you can ever get from mutations over long periods of time is either total destruction of the genome and the creature starting with all kinds of diseases and deformities, or in the case of useful mutations, which we know are very rare, all you'd ever get are changes in the superficial characteristics that are defined by given gene sequences, different textures and colors etc, no structural changes except of course different sizes and that sort of change such as we see in cats and dogs.
Again, how are humans able to live with 40 million mutations compared to the chimp genome?
I'm a creationist, I'm objecting to the ToE, capiche? I'm not impressed with the "Job-like" patience of people who believe something I object to so strenuously. Why would you expect me to? Sometimes I do get useful information from my opponents, however.
Your apparent certainty that I need "help" is of course a measure of your faith in the ToE.
You think those forty million differences are mutations, I do not. That much ought to be clear from everything I've said. I think the differences are built in from Creation. Mutations don't do much of any value where they do occur.
We have a disagreement about what I meant. I was only saying that IF you could get a chimp genome from a human genome you'd get a chimp. But I don't think it's possible at all, and mutations certainly couldn't do it.
I'm not impressed with the "Job-like" patience of people who believe something I object to so strenuously. Why would you expect me to?
I never would expect you to, not after our years here together. Why would you think I'd expect that of you? Odd.
No, what I expect of you is to continue blindly believing you know oh-so-much more than your betters here. And cherry picking information to be used in your arsenal of ignorance is straight out of the right-wing media playbook.
However, I'm a creationist and my thoughts are creationist, I reject the ToE. I don't claim to know more than they, but I do claim to be a creationist and I'm trying to think like a creationist and if evos are wrong they are wrong.
You think those forty million differences are mutations, I do not. That much ought to be clear from everything I've said. I think the differences are built in from Creation.
You have already stated that they will have the same effect, so there is no difference between them.
I was only saying that IF you could get a chimp genome from a human genome you'd get a chimp. But I don't think it's possible at all, and mutations certainly couldn't do it.
Show me the differences between the human and chimp genomes that natural processes could not produce, and the reasoning you used to reach that conclusion. For example, this comparison of chimp and human mmp9
I'm happy to hear about regulatory genes that determine what the HOX genes do in a given creature. That makes sense.
... If HOX genes make an arm in one creature but a flipper in another I'm not sure why you'd want to make a big deal out of that.
The "Stan Lee Effect" is strong in this one. You latch onto a "sciencey sounding" word and, without understanding anything about it, use it to make your end product (eg, a comic book) sound "sciencey."
Body structure doesn't vary much from generation to generation ...
Yeah. One thing you overlooked is that that basic body structure controlled by essentially the same HOX genes belong to all tetrapods. That means that your imagined "cat kind" and your imagined "dog kind" have essentially the same HOX genes. As do bears. As do other mammals. As do reptiles. As do amphibians. IOW, as do all tetrapods.
HOX genes are not unique to any single "basic created kind" that you would wish to construct ad hoc, but rather they show that all those "kinds" are related to each other. And they are just one source of evidence.
If you follow the evidence, you will clearly see where it leads. But you are a hidebound creationist whose only possible response is to blind yourself to the evidence, because that's the only way you can possibly support your false creationist position and false assertions.
If you follow the evidence, you will clearly see where it leads. But you are a hidebound creationist whose only possible response is to blind yourself to the evidence, because that's the only way you can support your false creationist position.
Do the name "Michael Denton" ring a bell?* He is/was an MD with a PhD in biochemistry who for some reason felt uncomfortable about evolution and, purportedly inspired by "intelligent design" proponents, wrote an anti-evolution book, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis. That book sparked many conversations which revealed to Denton that he knew a lot less about evolution than he thought he did, yet Wikipedia still reports that he's a senior fellow at the Discovery Institute. Wikipedia also reports:
quote:Since writing the book Denton has changed many of his views on evolution, however he still believes that the existence of life is a matter of design.
Denton's book contains an example of what happens when you follow the evidence, namely that you arrive at the only possible answer. I last posted this a couple years ago in Message 128.
In his book (page 284), Denton tries to attack evolution through patterns in protein comparisons. His problem was that he was using typical creationist "Ladder of Life" reasoning instead of Darwinian branching. I should point out here that most creationists also fall victim to "Ladder of Life" reasoning, which is most definitely false. The comparisons under "Ladder of Life" make no sense, but then when he used a branching model, which is what evolution actually teaches, then all the protein comparisons fell into place. Despite Denton's wishes, the evidence still pointed the right way.
Although I got this from a Creation/Evolution Newsletter article, I did refer directly to my copy of Denton's book to write this. Here's what I wrote:
quote:However, you did make the same mistake as Michael Denton did in misinterpreting the findings. Since proteins continue to change over generational time, we cannot realistically expect comparison of modern proteins to yield the progression of changes from species to species; modern terrestrial vertebrates did NOT descend from modern lampreys, but rather they and modern lampreys descended from a common ancestor. Rather, what we would expect from evolutionary theory would be that the more time that has passed since the two species shared a common ancestor, the greater the differences would be between their proteins and when comparing a member of one such group of species against the members of the second group, we should expect the latter to all have the same degree of difference from the former (unless natural selection had come into play, of course; "molecular clocks" rely on the accumulation of neutral mutations -- see my bullfrog.html file for more on this). Therefore, we would expect to find that humans and apes would be more similar to each other since they shared a more recent common ancestor. We would also expect all felines to be more similar to each other for the same reason. And we would expect the lamprey to be about equally different from terrestrial vertebrates since the terrestrial vertebrates share the same common ancestor with the lamprey just before it split off from that line.
And what does the evidence show? Precisely what we would expect and precisely what would make sense. Your findings are indeed supportive of what evolutionary theory would lead us to expect.
Indeed, when Denton went through this exercise himself, he sought to discredit the standard phylogenetic trees of evolutionary descent by using these degrees of difference to construct Venn diagrams and assigning the various species considered into their place in that diagram according to their degrees of difference. However, it turns out that his Venn diagrams quite naturally produce the very same standard phylogenetic trees of evolutionary descent that Denton had tried to discredit.
Let me explain (something that would be impossible on the phone, since it involves graphical aids).
It seems that Denton made the typical creationist mistake of using "Ladder of Life" thinking (which, BTW, is Lamarckian, not Darwinian) -- i.e. assuming that all modern "primitive" organisms are identical to the earliest copies and that neither they nor their proteins have evolved since that group first appeared in the fossil record. Then he proceeds to compare the proteins of various groups of species looking for a linear progression and complaining when he does not find it.
For example, on page 284 of his book, Denton compares hemoglobin sequences of the lamprey and five other species (carp, frog, chicken, kangaroo, and human) and fails to find the linear progression of [cyclostome --> fish --> amphibian --> reptile --> mammal] that HE expects. The same thing happens when he makes the comparison based on cytochrome c.
But based on the cytochrome c data, he also constructs a Venn diagram which divides the species into classes and subclasses -- a set of nested areas which are not supposed to be a phylogenetic tree. I have copied that diagram here from page 286 (rendered in text graphics -- if your e-mail viewer uses a proportional font, then it will probably garbles this up; change the font to a monospace font, like Courier New):
Very interesting. Both trees fit the evolutionary view to a "T".
Of course, the linear view, the "Ladder of Life," is both wrong and unwarranted. Why should we expect ALL change to stop for the "more primitive" forms? The more correct way to view the data, the way in which biologists actually view it, is as I have told you already and as Denton finally describes it on page 294:
"The only way to explain this [pattern of protein differences] in evolutionary terms is to propose that since all the different lines of a group diverged each particular protein, such as haemoglobin or cytochrome C, has continued to evolve in each of the lines at its own characteristic uniform rate."
Scientists have known that all along. Even Darwin said the same thing, that the longer it has been since two organisms shared a common ancestor, the greater would be the differences between them. Furthermore, this is what we find in "green" fossils, fossil leafs which have not petrified and which still contain their proteins and DNA: while the form (morphology) of the fossil leaves was virtually indistinguishable from modern leaves, their biochemistry was very different and those differences are very orderly and allow scientists to construct phylogenetic trees.
Also on page 294, Denton plots a phylogenetic tree based on cytochrome sequence differences and for which the numbers fit very well. But now that Denton has finally stumbled onto a correct explanation, he spends the rest of the chapter trying to explain it away. For example, he discounts the possibility that the proteins could have continued to change because he cannot think of a mechanism that would direct those changes, even though he does mention, and discount out of hand, the "molecular clock" idea of the accumulation of neutral mutations. My problem is the opposite of Denton's; I cannot think of a mechanism outside of natural selection that would freeze a protein's sequence, which would not happen in the case of neutral mutations (ie, by definition a neutral mutation would not change the expression of that gene, thus giving natural selection nothing with which to distinguish the mutated gene from the unmutated gene).
Of course, presenting that to you, Faith, is casting pearls before swine (a bad habit of mine that my minister tried to warn me about, especially when dealing with religiously bigoted idiots like Boy Scouts of America, Incorporated). But while you will eternally remain willfully ignorant and stupid, there is a chance that lurkers will still learn something.
FOOTNOTE *: I'm almost embarrassed to remember this from my childhood, but I blame Sammy Davis Jr. for bringing it up on Rowan and Martin's Laugh-In with his line, "Do the name Ruby Begonia ring a bell?" I do not remember any thing about her nor her role in the story, but I somehow associated that name with Amos 'n Andy.
The TV show continued to play as I was growing up. I remember being confused about the title, since all the stories were instead about the Kingfish and his dodgy relationship with his wife whose favorite perfume was called, "Manslaugher".