Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Allright, forget the fossils
Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 18 of 23 (277709)
01-10-2006 8:47 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by paleolutheran
01-10-2006 3:07 AM


Re: Determining Tree(s) Content
Other problems are which sequence is truly representative?
I'd say that while a study of any one specific gene or genetic marker may be less representative than a full morphological comparison a full scale genomic analysis will probably provided a fuller data set for analysis and be more representative in the end.
If both sides say that the common genetic mechanisms exist because of either common descent or common designer, how can you really predict anything differently in this realm?
Common descent is a much more restrictive hypothesis than a common designer. A common designer, especially one who is not open to study, is not held to any particular mechanisms or methods and we have no idea how he produces or propagates his designs.
On the other hand the mechanisms of common descent are readily available for study in the molecular biology of DNA replication and at higher levels in the study of population genetics.
So on the one hand we have a well studied and readily accessible series of mechanisms and phenomena and on the other a void of hand waving and philosophising.
Clearly if one wants to actually achieve anything in terms of study common descent is the only option that offers anything to work with.
It isn't impossible that mechanisms for 'common design' may be identified, but at the moment all you tend to get is abstruse blethering about quantum mechanics.
TTFN,
WK
This message has been edited by Wounded King, 10-Jan-2006 01:49 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by paleolutheran, posted 01-10-2006 3:07 AM paleolutheran has not replied

  
Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 21 of 23 (278250)
01-11-2006 5:27 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by paleolutheran
01-10-2006 1:29 PM


A full genotypic analysis would take an absurdly long period of time and effort.
At the moment certainly, but as genotyping technology becomes more sophisticated and computing power increases then maybe not. There are already a number of published studies which have full genome comparisons amongst humans, chimps and dogs.
For a large tree of the vertebrates it might take many many years, but then it takes an awfully long time for all of the morphological data to be analysed as well the main advantage there is that a lot of the work has already been done in the past, since the technologies for studying morphology are not as arduous as those for genomic analysis.
If multiple ones were picked to determine the tree the SAME problem occurs.
The same problem will always occur if a limited set of data is used, that is why it is preferable to use multiple sets and determine a 'supertree' from the collected data.
All I meant by my tyrade was that genetics can help but it should not be used independently of morphology and embryology.
This is rarely the case in phylogenetic studies, except perhaps those focused on mitochondrial sequences. My view may be skewewd thoug as I work in developmental biology so very few of the papers I read don't touch on embryology.
evolutionists in areas point to the changing of systems and organisms by chance against all odds.
More like indeterminate odds, the calculations for the odds in these cases are often along the lines of marginalia scrawled on the back of a napkin after a particularly good night out*.
TTFN,
WK
*With a heartfelt nod towards that other, great, DNA.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by paleolutheran, posted 01-10-2006 1:29 PM paleolutheran has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024