Teaching evolution in the context of science

Tranquility Base writes:

---

My micro/macro differentiation is completely suported by this mainstream paper "Macroevotution is more than repeated rounds of microevolution". Microevoltuion is identified with allelic variation = same fold but with SNP(s):

​

Abstract for Macroevolution is more than repeated rounds of microevolution

---

There's a couple problems with this claim. First, your conclusion seems to be drawn more from the paper's title, which states things in an unequivocal manner perhaps to draw attention, and the abstract, which states:

"Recent developments in comparative developmental biology suggest a need to reconsider the possibility that some macroevolutionary discontinuities may be associated with the origination of evolutionary innovation."

Second, there's nothing in the abstract that endorses equating allelic variation with same fold but with SNP(s).Third, Doug Erwin is aware of various misuses of this particular paper. About one such instance he says, "While the article considers the relationship between micro - and macro- evolution, the Discovery Institute is inaccurate in saying that I am challenging the standard view of evolution. The treatment of macroevolution in that paper is an extension, but by no means a challenge. Further, although more work may be needed to fully understand macroevolutionary events, there is no evidence that requires, or even suggests, a role for so-called ‘intelligent design’. ( National Center for Science Education Article)Other Erwin papers have also become targets for Creationist misuse. About one such case he says, ""Of course not [intelligent design] is a non sequitur, nothing but a fundamentally flawed attempt to promote creationism under a different guise. Nothing in this paper or any of my other work provides the slightest scintilla of support for 'intelligent design'. To argue that it does requires a deliberate and pernicious misreading of the papers."Found another interesting quote from Dr. Erwin, this one about Creationist citations of the scientific literature in the field of comparative developmental biology: Citing a paper from 1994 is decidedly poor scholarship, however, given how fast this field has moved. The rapid advances in comparative developmental biology have rendered much of this pretty outdated. We now have a very well substantiated metazoan phylogeny, at least in general outline, allowing some of the tests suggested at the end of the cited passage. Moreover, comparative developmental studies have only served to emphasize the fundamental unity of bilaterian animals.--Percy

Tranquility Base writes:

---

The gist of the abstract itself is that there is a discontinuity.

---

Just as Doug Erwin points out in the three separate quotes, Creationists are misusing the information in his papers. I believe his words were, "deliberate and pernicious misreading of the papers." And in your case you're not even referencing a paper but only an abstract.

---

Allelic variation in every known case in the moelcualr medicine literature would be due to SNPs or a gross chromosomal rearrangement resulting in a missing or misfolded gene.

---

I won't comment on the accuracy of this statement, but the abstract you're referencing to support it doesn't even use the words "allelic", "variation", "SNP" or "fold".

---

But I look at the genomic data and see distinct creation.

---

Right, and you look at the geologic data and see a global flood. You look at any data and see evidence for your own particular interpretation of the Bible.The problem for you is that not only do specialists in these fields not agree with you, even your fellow Creationists don't agree with you. The inductive reasoning that is so much a part of the scientific interpretation of data is in your case seriously distorted by your religious beliefs. I know you sincerely believe your conclusions *do* follow from the evidence, but if Creationists were truly listening to the evidence with their minds rather than their hearts then there wouldn't be so wide a range of Creationist belief.

---

Your attmepts to a priori pronounce everything we say as silly, naive, pseudo-science or misleading is doomed to utter failure. The devil is in the details but what we have to say is, at least a priori, very sensible.

---

As others have already pointed at many times, you love to dance past the first-order issues and bury them in a mass of second-order detail that makes no sense since you've got the first-order issues wrong. And you've already yourself conceded that what you're doing is not yet science (see your Message 88 in the Non-Marine Sediments thread), but that you hope to one day find sufficient support for your ideas that it may one day qualify as science. So if you're not yet doing science then you're either doing pseudo-science or religion, take your pick.--Percy

​

[This message has been edited by Percipient, 07-04-2002]

Tranquility Base writes:

---

Erwin does use the term allele. Non-homologous genes have completely unique folds about 10% of the time, ie, thousands of genes have their own corresponding fold family. Whether Erwin knows it or not, what he is saying is essentially about protein fold families!

---

Only on the Internet can one get arguments about simple matters of fact. Erwin not only doesn't use the word "allele", he doesn't use any of the other terms you've mentioned either, like "genes", "non-homologous", "folds" and "protein". Or "allelic", "variation" and "SNP" from your previous message. How you see any correspondence between Erwin's abstract and your ideas is beyond me. It would make as much sense to cite the sports page.Why don't you take a step back and ask yourself why you keep seeing correspondences where it appears to everyone else that none exist? Either you're wrong, or you're just capable of making huge leaps of induction that no one else can see, in which case could you please fill in all the missing steps for the rest of us?--Percy

Tranquility Base writes:

---

He says exactly the point I wanted to make. Allelic subsitution is microevolution.

---

Execpt that in Message 24 that I originally replied to you were making a different point, saying, "Microevolution is identified with allelic variation = same fold but with SNP(s)."And I replied that the abstract does not equate allelic variation with "same fold but with SNP(s)." Erwin's abstract is silent in this regard, yet you cite it in support anyway.The more fundamental issue is why you keep seeing supporting evidence in data irrelevant to your point. Either you're seeing correlations not apparent to everyone else, in which case could you please fill in the missing pieces for the rest of us, or you're way out in left field.--Percy

Tranquility Base writes:

---

You just think Erwin is irrelevant because you don't know enough about the structural biology of proteins, Percy. Alleles are fixed folds or unfolded faults!

---

Erwin's abstract is irrelevant because he's completely silent on the matter. I wasn't addressing whether your claims were right or wrong, but simply noting that you find support for your views in places where no one else sees any connection.I haven't yet commented about whether you're right or wrong, but since you keep pressing me as if I had I'll address the issue. I'm pretty sure you're wrong to equate allelic variation with only SNPs, regardless of folding. Take this allelic example from The Science of Genetics, Atherly, Girton, McDonald, 1999, p86:

...more than 350 alleles of the human cystic fibrosis gene have been discovered in the last few years.

I very much doubt that every single one of the 350 alleles is a polymorphism of only a single nucleotide, and whether they are or not for this particular case, there is no requirement or reason that an allele be an SNP (beyond that increasing differences make allelic substitution less likely). They could also be double nucleotide polymorphisms, or triple, or quadruple.The reason SNPs have received so much attention recently is because they are so easy to find, and because they are the most common type of allele, making them the most significant.This is sort of a side point, but I'll address it anyway:

---

Erwin does equate microevoltuion with allelic subsitution as stated by yourself...

---

Since I never questioned or even addressed the point about microevolution being equated with allelic substitution, I obviously never said this, and Erwin's abstract doesn't say this, either. But if you can make as big an error as thinking I said this, then I can certainly understand you thinking that Erwin said this, too.What Erwin does mention in the abstract is a range of evolution "from allelic substitution to large-scale evolutionary patterns." He is silent concerning where in this range he considers the transition from microevolution to higher levels to take place. He might consider allelic substitution to be the only form of microevolution, he might not, he doesn't say either way. He also says nothing about SNPs, protein folds or allelic variation. Since Erwin's abstract doesn't say, you can't cite it as if it had. I can't believe this has to be explained.--Percy

Tranquility Base writes:

---

Cystic fibrosis, as with almost any non-chromosomal disease one can think of is due to one or more SNPs. I never said it had to be one SNP.

---

Oh, okay, I misunderstood you. In that case I have no idea whether you're right or wrong.Look, TB, this started when you said this back in Message 24:

---

My micro/macro differentiation is completely suported by this mainstream paper "Macroevotution is more than repeated rounds of microevolution". Microevoltuion is identified with allelic variation = same fold but with SNP(s):

---

I pointed out that your link was to an abstract that doesn't support this statement, and then you revealed in Message 32 that YOU DON'T EVEN HAVE THE PAPER:

---

I have ordered the Erwin paper...

---

What incredible chutzpa! Citing an abstract that provides no support for your position is completely consistent with much of the other evidence you've offered, and that's why I pointed it out. If when the paper arrives you find it supports you then by all means cite it, but don't cite the abstract. It is silent on the matter.If, as you say, the equivalence between allelic variation and SNP folding is a fundamental tenet of structural biology, then citing a paper exploring the sources of macroevolution is both unnecessary and irrelevant.--Percy

Erwin's paper, which you haven't even read and so can only go by the abstract, is about contributors to macroevolution. Independent of whether you're correct, you cannot cite in support an abstract which makes no comment on the matter. This shouldn't have to be explained.[addition via edit]I should also mention that citing irrelevant evidence is your consistent pattern, and I only raised this issue to make that point. This is so prevalent in your contributions here that it can't possibly be a new pattern for you, it must have been a repeated issue for you while working on your PhD. Your thesis committee must have had a hay day with your references.In the case of your Erwin cite, there is no possible way you can justify using it. It contains neither the terms nor synonyms for the terms necessary to making statements on the topic, such as SNPs, folds and allelic variation. Why are you even citing a paper (whoops, not a paper, an abstract) on the mechanisms behind macroevolution to support statements about allelic substitution and protein folding? There must be tons of papers actually relevant to this topic, why not use one of them?--Percy

​

[This message has been edited by Percipient, 07-08-2002]

Tranquility Base writes:

---

And what exactly do you debate?

---

I haven't been ambiguous. You cited the Erwin abstract in support of a point on which it is silent. This is consistent with your pattern of citing evidence irrelevant to whatever point you happen to be making. I mentioned it only because it provided what appeared to me so clear an example of this pattern that it would be apparent even to you. I guess not, though.

---

My thesis was passed without a single correction.

---

LOL! Yeah, what Joe said.--Percy

Tranquility Base writes:

---

We'll just have to disagree about what Erwin could possibly mean about allelic substituion being discontinuous from large-scale evoltuion in a paper about macro not being just lots of micro!...

---

But there is no disagreement on this point. Erwin just doesn't happen to be commenting on anything to do with allelic variation equating to same fold but with SNP(s), which was your original claim from Message 24. You cited him to support a claim concerning protein folds with SNP(s) when he doesn't even use the terms "protein", "fold" or "SNP".The purpose of a citation is to support your point while obviating the need to repeat the original argument or present the original data. My only purpose was to call attention to your habit of issuing citations irrelevant to your point. Whether you can see it or not, your Erwin abstract citation is a excellent example of precisely this.--Percy