more evidence for shared ancestry (NOT similarity)

One will notice that this is yet another example of molecular evidence favoring a shared ancestry of humans and apes. The creationist must concoct ad hoc escape clauses to try to 'explain' this data, as is so often the case.Keep in mind that this says nothing of 'similarity'...*****************************************************************Chromosome Res 2002;10(1):55-61Direct evidence for the Homo-Pan clade.Wimmer R, Kirsch S, Rappold GA, Schempp W.Institute of Human Genetics and Anthropology, University of Freiburg, Germany.For a long time, the evolutionary relationship between human and African apes, the 'trichotomy problem', has been debated with strong differences in opinion and interpretation. Statistical analyses of different molecular DNA data sets have been carried out and have primarily supported a Homo-Pan clade. An alternative way to address this question is by the comparison of evolutionarily relevant chromosomal breakpoints. Here, we made use of a P1-derived artificial chromosome (PAC)/bacterial artificial chromosome (BAC) contig spanning approximately 2.8 Mb on the long arm of the human Y chromosome, to comparatively map individual PAC clones to chromosomes from great apes, gibbons, and two species of Old World monkeys by fluorescence in-situ hybridization. During our search for evolutionary breakpoints on the Y chromosome, it transpired that a transposition of an approximately 100-kb DNA fragment from chromosome 1 onto the Y chromosome must have occurred in a common ancestor of human, chimpanzee and bonobo. Only the Y chromosomes of these three species contain the chromosome-1-derived fragment; it could not be detected on the Y chromosomes of gorillas or the other primates examined. Thus, this shared derived (synapomorphic) trait provides clear evidence for a Homo-Pan clade independent of DNA sequence analysis.

Its a very interesting paper and does provide convincing evidence for a common ancestor for humans and chimpanzees. But its by no means the only non functional shared derived trait we share with the apes these include thousands of pseudogenes and viral sequences as well as large amounts of conserved synteny (genes being in the same order on chromosomes) which decrease according to how distantly animals are thought to be related.this definition of cladistics might help people understand the paper:"Cladistics is a particular method of hypothesizing relationships among organisms. Like other methods, it has its own set of assumptions, procedures, and limitations. Cladistics is now accepted as the best method available for phylogenetic analysis, for it provides an explicit and testable hypothesis of organismal relationships. The basic idea behind cladistics is that members of a group share a common evolutionary history, and are "closely related", more so to members of the same group than to other organisms. These groups are recognized by sharing unique features which were not present in distant ancestors. These shared derived characteristics are called synapomorphies.Note that it is not enough for organisms to share characteristics, in fact two organisms may share a great many characteristics and not be considered members of the same group. For example, consider a jellyfish, starfish, and a human; which two are most closely related? The jellyfish and starfish both live in the water, have radial symmetry, and are invertebrates, so you might suppose that they belong together in a group. This would not reflect evolutionary relationships, however, since the starfish and human are actually more closely related. It is not just the presence of shared characteristics which is important, but the presence of shared derived characteristics. In the example above, all three characteristics are believed to have been present in the common ancestor of all animals, and so are trivial for determining relationships, since all three organisms in question belong to the group "animals". While humans are different from the other two organisms, they differ only in characteristics which arose newly in an ancestor which is not shared with the other two. As you shall see on the next page, chosing the right characters is one of the most important steps in a cladistic analysis."from: Introduction to Cladisticsand"clade -- A monophyletic taxon; a group of organisms which includes the most recent common ancestor of all of its members and all of the descendants of that most recent common ancestor. From the Greek word "klados", meaning branch or twig."from: UCMP Glossary: Phylogenetics

Hi SLPxWhy not similarity?Are you forgetting what our claim is? We believe God created these genomes (that have drifted since). Why shouldn't physiologically simlar organims have simlar genomes and chromosomal arrangement? Your 'must haves' are simply assumptions.God could have created the genomes!

Dear SLPx,Why always look at similarities? Why not look at chromosome 4 and 17. They are distinct in all primates. Besides, similarities may be due to 'non-random (directed) mechanisms'.best wishes
Peter

The examples of human chromsomes 4 and 17 are not very good because although they are different the differences have been well studied and charecterised and the differences are compatible with the current proposed evolutionary relationships of the apes (including humans). Its like saying that humans cannot be related to apes because human chromsome 2 was formed by the fusion of two ape chromosomes and therefore is different to ape chromsomes.There are examples of recurring breakpoints but these have specific features usually large duplicated segments that lead to unequal crossing over. These sequences or any others known to lead to chromsomal rearrangements are as far as i am aware not known to be present in the chromsomal region concerned. Also non random does not mean directed.This paper:
"Keller MP, Seifried BA, Chance PF. Molecular evolution of the CMT1A-REP region: a human- and chimpanzee-specific repeat. Mol Biol Evol. 1999 Aug;16(8):1019-26.PMID: 10474898"is interesting as it gives an example of a shared repeat between humans and chimpanzees only that can lead to genetic disease by enabling the duplication or deletion of the gene the two repeats flank. So the designer put a sequence in humans and chimpanzees the only known function of which is to cause Charcot-Marie-Tooth disease and HNPP. Intersting the gene these sequences flank (peripheral nerve protein-22) is particularly dosage sensitive, so these repeats are in just about the worst palce. The sequence does not cause these problems if present as a single instance as in the rest of the apes.[This message has been edited by Itzpapalotl, 10-01-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
Hi SLPx

​

Why not similarity?

​

Are you forgetting what our claim is? We believe God created these genomes (that have drifted since). Why shouldn't physiologically simlar organims have simlar genomes and chromosomal arrangement? Your 'must haves' are simply assumptions.

​

God could have created the genomes!

---

TB,Now I believe that you are just playing dumb.You should know by now that the 'simple assumptions' are more than that. But you say that they are 'simple assumptions' anyway.You should, certainly by now, that mere similarity is only part of what such studies look at. If you truly believe that mere similarity is the sum total of molecular investigations and that such data equally supports the "Goddidit" scenario, then I have little reason to conclude that you are actually interested in any sort of reasoned debate, and are merely involved to 'witness'.Well I'm sorry, but 'witnessing' doesn't cut it.Simply carrying on about 'similarity' being proof of creation, not evolution, is just dimwitted dogmatic mantra spewing.

quote:

---

Originally posted by peter borger:
Dear SLPx,

​

Why always look at similarities? Why not look at chromosome 4 and 17. They are distinct in all primates. Besides, similarities may be due to 'non-random (directed) mechanisms'.

​

best wishes
Peter

---

Yeah, they may also be due to the Tooth Fairy.The Tooth Fairy hypothesis, interestingly, has as much evidence in its support as does 'non-random mechanisms'.As you still cannot/refuse to understand wha random and non-random mean in the context of the genome, and have displayed a tendency to misrepresent your opponants and their arguments, I see little reaosn to continue replying to your simple-minded repetitive creationist drivel.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
Hi SLPx

​

Why not similarity?

​

Are you forgetting what our claim is? We believe God created these genomes (that have drifted since). Why shouldn't physiologically simlar organims have simlar genomes and chromosomal arrangement? Your 'must haves' are simply assumptions.

​

God could have created the genomes!

---

Using your reasoning, then should not a whale be more genetically similar to a whale shark than to a hippo? What you've said above is dangerously like a testable prediction of creation. Do you think you can pass the test?Joe T

Dear SLPx,You say:
"Yeah, they may also be due to the Tooth Fairy."I say:
Actually, it is you who introduced 'spacealiens' and now the 'toothfary'. Rather unscientifically. It was me who introduced the hypothesis of non-random mutation in a multipurpose genome. Albeit that it opposes your paradigm of evolutionism, it is a scientific hypothesis that can be tested. So, next time you respond please keep it scientifically. And if you think you have a scientific response you can send it directly to my email address: peterborger@hotmail.com
Then you can be sure that you get a response from me.You say:
The Tooth Fairy hypothesis, interestingly, has as much evidence in its support as does 'non-random mechanisms'.I say:
I provided at least 3 examples that cannot be ascribed to a random mechanism, but you refused to even look at it. Let alone discuss it. I call this ignorance, and now you live in denial. Perhaps respond to my examples, and have a look whether you can bring it in accord with your hypothesis of evolutionism. The more you deny, the more commited I get.You say:
As you still cannot/refuse to understand wha random and non-random mean in the context of the genome, and have displayed a tendency to misrepresent your opponants and their arguments, I see little reaosn to continue replying to your simple-minded repetitive creationist drivel.Listen SLPx, I will give you another example of non-random:
"The metastriate ticks 'Rhipicephalus' and 'Boophilus' share a gene rearrangement and an altered structure of tRNA(C), exactly the same association of changes as previously reported for a group of lizards" (in:Lavrov D, et al, Mol Biol Evol 2000, 17(5):813-824.)Now you may claim that it is random rearrangement and selection, I simply claim that it is non-random rearrangement and selection.So proof it!!!!Have a nice day,Peter

Joe TThe problem with your point is that it is based on outward appearence. Physiologically whales are more like hippos than sharks as we all know. They breathe air!

SLPxHold on - all I am asking is what is the 'more than' simple similarity? I can see it with the previous retroviral insert posts but not with the subject matter of this thread. I am not playing dumb. I carefully read your abstract to see where it went beyond similarity - it didn't.

Hi T.B.There are examples of organisms that occupy the same ecological nice are morphologically almost indistinguishable and yet are genetically diverse examples of convergent evolution. The bacterial group Bdellovibrio (originally classified on the basis of morphology and behaviour) are predatory bacteria that all attack similar prey in a similar way are almost identical physiologically and yet are highly diverse genetically with at most 35% genetic homology.Examples of convergent evolution of proteins in which only the funtional domains are similar are numerous and also show the similar appearance/function is not necessarily associated with genetic similarity. Therefore large amounts of similarity can only mean common ancestory if you want a scientific hypothesis or the designer wanted everything to be fairly similar and to look as if it came from a common ancestor but for no real reason if you can only accept divine intervention. Maybe the creator is trying to test our faith by making things look exactly as if evolution had happened .see:
http://lsvl.la.asu.edu/mic494/html/bdellovibrio.htmlandAppl Environ Microbiol 2000 Jun;66(6):2365-71
Prey range characterization, ribotyping, and diversity of soil and rhizosphere
Bdellovibrio spp. isolated on phytopathogenic bacteria.
Jurkevitch E, Minz D, Ramati B, Barel G.
PMID: 10831412

quote:

---

Originally posted by peter borger:
Dear SLPx,

​

You say:
"Yeah, they may also be due to the Tooth Fairy."

​

I say:
Actually, it is you who introduced 'spacealiens' and now the 'toothfary'. Rather unscientifically. It was me who introduced the hypothesis of non-random mutation in a multipurpose genome.

---

I 'introduced' them to demonstrate the childishness and vacuousness of the anti-evolutionary 'hypotheses' that get desparately tossed out by creationist hacks. Should have been fairly obvious. Of course, I have yet to claim evidence for the opposition is really evidence for my position.

quote:

---

Albeit that it opposes your paradigm of evolutionism, it is a scientific hypothesis that can be tested.

---

So test it and stop blabbering on about your 'hypothesis' which consists entirely of your idiotic use of personal definitions and twisting the publications of others to try to claim it props up your creationist fantasy.

quote:

---

So, next time you respond please keep it scientifically. And if you think you have a scientific response you can send it directly to my email address: peterborger@hotmail.com

---

What, no .edu address?When you actually present something scientific, rather than repeated assertions and insistance on the use of unorthodox and unapplicable personal defintions, you let me know.

quote:

---

Then you can be sure that you get a response from me.

---

Oh, jnoy. Well, I - indeed, nobody - has yet received such a thing form you. It will nbe most exciting.

quote:

---

You say:
The Tooth Fairy hypothesis, interestingly, has as much evidence in its support as does 'non-random mechanisms'.

​

I say:
I provided at least 3 examples that cannot be ascribed to a random mechanism, but you refused to even look at it. Let alone discuss it.

---

Here is a discussion. Let us assume for the sake of argument that your 3 examples do, indeed, indicate non-random mutation (I guess you have foirgotten/ignored the fazct that others dealt handily with these, but I guess you require that every board participant address each example lest you will consider it unaddressed).Do those 3 examples really nullify the multitude of other examples that indicatre randomness? Including those that I cited that you claimed supported your position without even reading them?

quote:

---

I call this ignorance, and now you live in denial. Perhaps respond to my examples, and have a look whether you can bring it in accord with your hypothesis of evolutionism. The more you deny, the more commited I get.

---

I agree that you are committed. Hopefully, you will be out soon, and can return to the land of rational thought.It is funny, the way the creationist thinks.
Yes, I do deny that you have 'disproofed' randomeness in evolution. You have engaged in classic creationist innuendo and overconfident bombast then claimed that everyone else is in denial. Fantastic!
I will be calling the Nobel folks soon, as you have made the most amazoing discovey that, damn it all, no other biologist working in this area has!

quote:

---

You say:
As you still cannot/refuse to understand wha random and non-random mean in the context of the genome, and have displayed a tendency to misrepresent your opponants and their arguments, I see little reaosn to continue replying to your simple-minded repetitive creationist drivel.

​

Listen SLPx, I will give you another example of non-random:

---

Listen, "Peter B", why not just defend what you have already posted? Where is your hypothesis? You have said repeatedly that you have posted it, but I can find it nowhere. Perhaps your memory on that issue is as clouded as it was on the citations that I posted - you remember, the ones you claimed were in an 'email' to Fred, but were really to you?

quote:

---

"The metastriate ticks 'Rhipicephalus' and 'Boophilus' share a gene rearrangement and an altered structure of tRNA(C), exactly the same association of changes as previously reported for a group of lizards" (in:Lavrov D, et al, Mol Biol Evol 2000, 17(5):813-824.)

​

Now you may claim that it is random rearrangement and selection, I simply claim that it is non-random rearrangement and selection.

---

Good for you. I guess you must be right, since that is what you claim, and you are the creationist, and creationists are always right.Ever heard the term homoplasy? Probably not. It would be intewresting to see the disparity between the genomes.

quote:

---

So proof it!!!!

---

Bertter yet, since you are the one climing it is non-random and that this disproof evolution, maybe YOU can proof it?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
SLPx

​

Hold on - all I am asking is what is the 'more than' simple similarity? I can see it with the previous retroviral insert posts but not with the subject matter of this thread. I am not playing dumb. I carefully read your abstract to see where it went beyond similarity - it didn't.

---

Do you think 'similarity' is all that is being discussed? Do you think that similarity is the 'meat' of phylogentic analysis?

Dear SLPx,Homoplasy is yet another ad hoc evolutionary explanation. I though you were opposing ad hoc creationists explanation, but you do exactly the same.
The reconsiliation of gene and species trees is another ad hoc explanation. Now we can test it in the genome it demonstrates to be false for the IL-1beta incongruence. I already gave you the references, so look it up.Best wishes,
Peter