Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 6506 days) Posts: 3085 From: Munich, Germany Joined: 08-09-2002
|
I take issue with "common sense" and evidence for creation. Common sense would indicate there is no responsive greater intelligent being. Rather than common sense a creation hypothesis has to provide a testable hypothesis and then gather evidence to support it. Such a hypotheis is not forthcoming. Saying that the sky is blue because I think God/Puff the Magic Dragon/any given diety painted it that way is relying on fantasy and not science and is in no way a testable hypothesis. Niether is saying I don't understand something so therefore it has to be caused by some mythical diety that I have no evidence for. It betrays the "extreme bias" of the creationists for mythology over science. It is also therefore not surprising that Luis has come to the conclusion that creationism is not particularly compelling. Cheers, Mammuthus
quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
Luis Most of the proof of evoltuion turns out to be for the part of evolution that we agree with. We love Galapogos, mutating viruses, bacteria generating antibiotic resistance, peppered moths - it's all OK with us. Then you guys jump to homology both anatomical and molecular shouting in triumph as if God couldn't create animals that used the same underlying biochemistry or sampled anatomical space completely! Why should created animals that are more similar not have more similar biochemistry! We are simply prepared to tell you the common sense reasons why we beleive in creation and why 99% of scientific findings have an immediate creationist interpretation. Your proclamation that your side has won, when none of you ever even agree 'that's a good point' as I often have for your side, betrays your sides' extreme bias.
|
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 6506 days) Posts: 3085 From: Munich, Germany Joined: 08-09-2002
|
quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
SLPx In kind variation is extremely well understood. We all know exactly how the Galapogos finch beaks changed shapes. I know you know that. Go to Medline and check out the protein sequence variations from finch to finch. It's variation of existing genes. What about brocoli, cabbage, cauliflower and mustard. They all have the same genome - they're all mustard actually! If you select for leaves or stems or flowers you end up with these varities. Not a single evoltuionist suggests that new genes arose during the hundreds of years that agriculturalists bred these varities. It is a mix of hybridization and selection.
Hmmm thats funny...if I look at broccoli, cabbage, cauliflower, and mustard I do not see identical genomes! I see related genomes which are more similar to each other than to a pine tree genome. If I look at elephant DNA it is more similar to human DNA than to that of any species of iguana. Elephants and humans last common ancestor lived about 65 million years ago..hardly microevolution. As to your thoery that hemoglobin came "out of thin air" LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Now you are going to propose the experiments to test this? Perhaps some hot air (creationists have plenty) and throw in a bacteria and voila! A new gene for comedy....Please read a book on evolution TB...your lack of knowledge on this subject is really sad.
|
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 6506 days) Posts: 3085 From: Munich, Germany Joined: 08-09-2002
|
quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
^ Why not just give your scientific reason (that the hints have drifted away) rather than be so shirty John? Given the 'conservation' of much of the genome including introns I would expect the hints to be visible in many cases. Many of your comments are plain rude and illogical. There is nothing wrong with my definition of the 'first' hemoglobin for example. Actually, I have a few serious questions for you TB
1) what is a "kind". Why do you feel you need to make up a spurious definition to replace species and sub-species?
2) Why do you accept microevolution but cannot extrapolate to larger changes over time? Do you also believe that mountains appear spontaneously or take long periods of time to develope?
3) You still never answered my questions about protein families. What evidence do you have that ALL proteins exist as families? Also, do you know what exon shuffling is? I imagine you don't if you think that new genes must come from thin air.
4) Where do introns come from?
5) Do you know how retroelements contribute to micro and macro evolution?
6) As to variation in the Galapagos finches beaks...what was the original state? Did the first finch that diverged just pop into existence or are finches related to other birds? You claim that plants all have the same genome so why do finches have variation?
7) Do you believe that genotype is separate from phenotype. Do yo believe you are genetically identical to your parents and are they genetically identical? You claimed earlier in this thread to "speak the language of a molecular evolutionist" however, you have some fundamental flaws in your knowledge of the field as no molecular evolutionist would talk about genes appearing out of thin air or created kinds. [This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 09-11-2002]
|
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 6506 days) Posts: 3085 From: Munich, Germany Joined: 08-09-2002
|
Hi TB, Thanks for answering my questions...I wish Peter Borger would be as forthcoming as you. It would make debate possible.
quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
Mammuthus Quick answers: 1) A kind is approximately at the family level. Future genome seqeuncing may even back this up in detail in the future as a naturally emerging concept from the data. If a kind is approximately a family...why bother with kinds and stick to appropriate terminology? As Quetzal has asked...do you think sheep and cows are the same kind? What about goats and sheep? What about musk ox, goats, and sheep? Sub-kinds...genera-kinds? My point being, there is already a terminology in existence that clearly demonstrates associations and at what level without resorting to a new completely ambigious term. 2) Micro works on existing genes and maintains their basic funciton. Macro needs new genes. they are quite different. Why do jump from micro to macro so readily? Wrong. Mutations in promoters of EXISTING genes can also lead to macro evolution. In addition there are loss of genes during speciation i.e. humans have lost a gene present in chimps, elephants, etc. Varki A.
Loss of N-glycolylneuraminic acid in humans: Mechanisms, consequences, and implications for hominid evolution.
Am J Phys Anthropol. 2001;Suppl 33:54-69. see also Chou HH, Hayakawa T, Diaz S, Krings M, Indriati E, Leakey M, Paabo S, Satta Y, Takahata N, Varki A.
Inactivation of CMP-N-acetylneuraminic acid hydroxylase occurred prior to brain expansion during human evolution.
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2002 Sep 3;99(18):11736-11741. chimps have the same genes and "protein families" as we do (except the above mentioned example where they have more genes)and yet they develop differently...this is not due to more or less genes but differences in gene expression caused by random mutation and selection in developmental gene control. Experimental data pointing to this can also be found here Enard W, Khaitovich P, Klose J, Zollner S, Heissig F, Giavalisco P, Nieselt-Struwe K, Muchmore E, Varki A, Ravid R, Doxiadis GM, Bontrop RE, Paabo S. Science. 2002 Apr 12;296(5566):340-3.
Intra- and interspecific variation in primate gene expression patterns. 3) That proteins exist in families is well known becasue you can do a BLAST search on any protein in humans and you will get human hits! Sure some families are very small. Exon shiffling is fine with me. You show me how the first hemoglobin arrived this way. I am not sure what you are getting at here TB.....the human genome is sequenced so if I BLAST search with a human sequence I will of course get hits. Please clarify and I will answer this part further 4) For us God created introns. They, and via RNA splicing, are a way of getting more than one protein from a gene. Explain then whether introns came in early or late in history (evolution). Why do some organisms not have introns or few? What is the experimental evidence or testable hypothesis that god created introns? 5) I have no problem with retroviruses or any sort of horizontal transfer. If you insist on calling it macroevoltuion then I believe in macrevoltuion. My point was more in line that you can have random mutations all over the place and not hit a critical gene. Also, that parts of the genome (most actually) is composed of genetic parasites (Alu's, HERVs) so that increase in size does not correlate with increased organismic complexity. We are just more heavily genetically polluted than say fugu for example. 6) The original state of finches was a created pair, or a few sets of pairs, presumably. Microevoltuion and hybridisaiton generated the observed variation. Where did I state that all plants have the same genome? No-one on Earth believes that. What is the evidence that the first finches were created? Do you believe finches are not related to other birds such that they could have descended from an ancestral finch population that made it to the Galapagos? 7) Genotype dictates phenotype ultimately deterministically. My genes are comprised of a mix of my parents' genes. What are you getting at? I was referring to your comment about broccoli, mustard etc being genomically the same. Genotypes do not necessariyl dictate phenotype deterministically...ever hear of genomic imprinting? I try to "speak the language of a molecular evolutionist" but I am actually a strcutural biologist. Some of my work impinges on molecaulr evoltuion, I lecture on molecualr evoltuion but yes, I am not an expert on it. Thank you for being candid about your background. And yes, structural biology will overlap with molecular evolution. However, before you deny macroevolution, don't you think you should become an expert in it? And it is easily possible to talk of 'genes coming out of thin air' whilst believing in microevoltuion. However, it is not science to "believe" that genes pop out of thin air. Cheers, Mammuthus [This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 09-11-2002]
|
™ Version 4.2