Jump to content


Photo

Cytochrome C - The Illusion Exposed


  • Please log in to reply
90 replies to this topic

#1 Fred Williams

Fred Williams

    Administrator / Forum Owner

  • Admin Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2469 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Broomfield, Colorado
  • Interests:I enjoy going to Broncos games, my son's HS basketball & baseball games, and my daughter's piano & dance recitals. I enjoy playing basketball (when able). I occasionally play keyboards for my church's praise team. I am a Senior Staff Firmware Engineer at Micron, and am co-host of Real Science Radio.
  • Age: 52
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Broomfield, Colorado

Posted 07 February 2008 - 12:05 AM

The claim:

"[Cytochrome-C] is very unique because it paints an obvious picture of common decent. By examining the differences in the genetic code we can examine how different the species are."
Posted Image

This is a classic case of snake oil, a con where they show you only the data they want you to see. Ironically the snake is the one mosaic you will see in the data below, so it shouldn't be hard to figure out which row is the snake.

Below is a bigger picture of the Cyto-C data that the evos who tout this "evidence" don't want you to see. I've hidden the names of the animals, and instead named them Animal 1, Animal 2, etc. I would like to challenge any evolutionist to step to the plate and describe for us which animals are related by common decent. Good luck!

Posted Image

Note that the evolutionist will be forced to back their claims with real analysis, not gimmicks where you get to pick & choose which animals fit a pre-conceived phylogenic paradigm.

If evolution is true, why do evolutionists need to invoke illusions?

Fred

#2 The Debatinator

The Debatinator

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 198 posts
  • Age: 20
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Chicago, Illinois

Posted 07 February 2008 - 09:19 AM

Just a suggestion but I think an effective co-challenge is to make a chart based on evidence in the opposite direction of cytochrome c.

Also, is cytochrome c a definite when classifying dogs as dogs and other kinds as other kinds? Like say one code does not cross over into a different kind. Praying mantises have their own as well as humans and it has never been broken?

#3 Fred Williams

Fred Williams

    Administrator / Forum Owner

  • Admin Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2469 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Broomfield, Colorado
  • Interests:I enjoy going to Broncos games, my son's HS basketball & baseball games, and my daughter's piano & dance recitals. I enjoy playing basketball (when able). I occasionally play keyboards for my church's praise team. I am a Senior Staff Firmware Engineer at Micron, and am co-host of Real Science Radio.
  • Age: 52
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Broomfield, Colorado

Posted 07 February 2008 - 06:51 PM

Just to be clear, the purpose of the chart I posted is to show that evos can't construct a phylogeny of common decent based on Cycto-C if they don’t know the animals ahead of time. In the example provided by the evolutionist (via the website www.nmsr.org), they found examples that fit their pre-conceived view of common decent, and ignored the ones that didn't fit. It is fraudulent, no different than a street corner shell game.

Fred

#4 numbers

numbers

    Troll

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 228 posts
  • Age: 37
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Houston

Posted 07 February 2008 - 07:12 PM

The claim:

"[Cytochrome-C] is very unique because it paints an obvious picture of common decent. By examining the differences in the genetic code we can examine how different the species are."
Posted Image

This is a classic case of snake oil, a con where they show you only the data they want you to see. Ironically the snake is the one mosaic you will see in the data below, so it shouldn't be hard to figure out which row is the snake.

Below is a bigger picture of the Cyto-C data that the evos who tout this "evidence" don't want you to see. I've hidden the names of the animals, and instead named them Animal 1, Animal 2, etc. I would like to challenge any evolutionist to step to the plate and describe for us which animals are related by common decent.  Good luck!

Posted Image

Note that the evolutionist will be forced to back their claims with real analysis, not gimmicks where you get to pick & choose which animals fit a pre-conceived phylogenic paradigm.

If evolution is true, why do evolutionists need to invoke illusions?

Fred

View Post


I plugged the sequences into a spreadsheet and counted up the differences. The results are below. The chart shows the sum of the differences between each sequence, for example, Row 1 Column 2 is the number of differences between Animal 1 and Animal 2

    1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
1  .  1  1  8  19 18 11 10 11 10 11 10 10 9  9  9  10 9  9  9  8  8  16 11 11 11 11 11 9  11
2  1  .  0  7  18 17 10 11 12 11 12 11 11 10 10 10 11 10 10 10 9  9  15 12 12 12 12 12 10 12
3  1  0  .  7  18 17 10 11 12 11 12 11 11 10 10 10 11 10 10 10 9  9  15 12 12 12 12 12 10 12
4  8  7  7  .  21 21 11 14 15 14 13 14 14 13 13 13 14 12 12 12 11 11 20 15 15 15 15 15 13 15
5  19 18 18 21 .  4  14 14 13 13 12 11 11 11 11 11 12 13 13 13 14 14 25 11 11 12 11 11 12 12
6  18 17 17 21 4  .  15 15 14 14 13 12 12 12 12 12 14 14 14 14 15 15 24 12 12 13 12 12 13 14
7  11 10 10 11 14 15 .  8  8  7  7  8  8  6  6  6  7  6  6  6  6  5  21 9  9  7  8  7  7  9
8  10 11 11 14 14 15 8  .  4  3  7  6  6  5  5  5  6  5  5  5  5  5  21 7  7  7  7  7  5  6
9  11 12 12 15 13 14 8  4  .  1  7  6  6  4  4  4  4  4  4  4  6  5  21 8  8  8  8  8  6  7
10 10 11 11 14 13 14 7  3  1  .  6  5  5  3  3  3  4  3  3  3  5  4  21 7  7  7  7  7  5  7
11 11 12 12 13 12 13 7  7  7  6  .  1  1  3  3  3  6  5  5  5  6  6  22 8  8  9  9  9  7  9
12 10 11 11 14 11 12 8  6  6  5  1  .  0  2  2  2  5  4  4  4  5  5  21 7  7  8  8  8  6  8
13 10 11 11 14 11 12 8  6  6  5  1  0  .  2  2  2  5  4  4  4  5  5  21 7  7  8  8  8  6  8
14 9  10 10 13 11 12 6  5  4  3  3  2  2  .  0  0  3  2  2  2  4  3  20 6  6  7  7  7  5  7
15 9  10 10 13 11 12 6  5  4  3  3  2  2  0  .  0  3  2  2  2  4  3  20 6  6  7  7  7  5  7
16 9  10 10 13 11 12 6  5  4  3  3  2  2  0  0  .  3  2  2  2  4  3  20 6  6  7  7  7  5  7
17 10 11 11 14 12 14 7  6  4  4  6  5  5  3  3  3  .  3  3  3  5  4  21 8  8  8  8  8  6  6
18 9  10 10 12 13 14 6  5  4  3  5  4  4  2  2  2  3  .  0  0  2  2  19 7  7  7  7  7  5  7
19 9  10 10 12 13 14 6  5  4  3  5  4  4  2  2  2  3  0  .  0  2  2  19 7  7  7  7  7  5  7
20 9  10 10 12 13 14 6  5  4  3  5  4  4  2  2  2  3  0  0  .  2  2  19 7  7  7  7  7  5  7
21 8  9  9  11 14 15 6  5  6  5  6  5  5  4  4  4  5  2  2  2  .  2  18 6  6  6  6  6  4  6
22 8  9  9  11 14 15 5  5  5  4  6  5  5  3  3  3  4  2  2  2  2  .  19 6  6  6  6  6  4  6
23 16 15 15 20 25 24 21 21 21 21 22 21 21 20 20 20 21 19 19 19 18 19 .  19 19 20 20 20 17 18
24 11 12 12 15 11 12 9  7  8  7  8  7  7  6  6  6  8  7  7  7  6  6  19 .  0  2  2  2  3  4
25 11 12 12 15 11 12 9  7  8  7  8  7  7  6  6  6  8  7  7  7  6  6  19 0  .  2  2  2  3  4
26 11 12 12 15 12 13 7  7  8  7  9  8  8  7  7  7  8  7  7  7  6  6  20 2  2  .  2  2  3  4
27 11 12 12 15 11 12 8  7  8  7  9  8  8  7  7  7  8  7  7  7  6  6  20 2  2  2  .  1  3  4
28 11 12 12 15 11 12 7  7  8  7  9  8  8  7  7  7  8  7  7  7  6  6  20 2  2  2  1  .  3  4
29 9  10 10 13 12 13 7  5  6  5  7  6  6  5  5  5  6  5  5  5  4  4  17 3  3  3  3  3  .  3
30 11 12 12 15 12 14 9  6  7  7  9  8  8  7  7  7  6  7  7  7  6  6  18 4  4  4  4  4  3  .

An. Min Max Std   Avg   Std from Avg.
1    1  19  3.64  10.03  2.48
2    0  18  3.57  10.59  2.96
3    0  18  3.57  10.59  2.96
4    7  21  3.34  13.55  1.96
5    4  25  3.86  13.28  2.4
6    4  24  3.41  14     2.93
7    5  21  3.37  8.55   1.06
8    3  21  4.02  7.66   1.16
9    1  21  4.31  7.66   1.54
10   1  21  4.45  6.86   1.32
11   1  22  4.33  7.76   1.56
12   0  21  4.38  6.93   1.58
13   0  21  4.38  6.93   1.58
14   0  20  4.43  5.9    1.33
15   0  20  4.43  5.9    1.33
16   0  20  4.43  5.9    1.33
17   3  21  4.24  7.21   0.99
18   0  19  4.43  6.14   1.39
19   0  19  4.43  6.14   1.39
20   0  19  4.43  6.14   1.39
21   2  18  3.85  6.45   1.16
22   2  19  4.09  6.24   1.04
23   15 25  2.22  19.69  2.11
24   0  19  4.09  7.48   1.83
25   0  19  4.09  7.48   1.83
26   2  20  4.13  7.79   1.4
27   1  20  4.1   7.72   1.64
28   1  20  4.11  7.69   1.63
29   3  17  3.59  6.48   0.97
30   3  18  3.65  7.97   1.36


An=Animal #
Min=Smallest number of differences
Max=Largest number of differences
Avg=Average number of differences
Std.=Standard deviation of differences
Std from Avg=number of standard deviations the minimum is from the mean                      


Conclusions

All the animals should have common ancestors, the difference is in how recent or distant the common ancestor was. I'm using the Min and Std. from Avg as indicators of how strong the relationship is. As a general rule the lower the Min and the higher the Std from Avg, the closer the common ancestor should be. So 2,3 for example should have a very close common ancestor while 23 should have a very distant ancestor with the rest of the group. Constructing an actual phylogenetic map with this many animals is usually done with specialized software which I don't have so I'm just going to list my results for the closest ancestor of each animal.

1,2,3 share a recent common ancestor
4 has a moderately distant common ancestor to 2,3.
5,6 have a much closer ancestor with each other than the rest of the chart.
7 has a distant common ancestor to the rest of the animals
8 is a little closer to 10 but does not have a very recent common ancestor.
9,10 share a recent common ancestor
11,12,13 share a recent common ancestor
14,15,16 share a recent common ancestor
17 has a moderately distant common ancestor with 14-20
18,19,20 share a recent common ancestor
21,22 have a moderately distant ancestor with 18-22
23 has a very distant common ancestor with the rest of the chart. Based on how different it is from the rest of the animals it might be the only member of it's family or class in the group.
24,25 share a recent common ancestor
26 has a moderately distant ancestor with 24-28
27,28 share a recent common ancestor
29 has a moderately distant ancestor with 24-30
30 has a moderately distant ancestor with 29

This is a relatively crude analysis because it just counts the number of differences and ignores any patterns of nested changes. There are probably a couple wrong conclusions but the general trend of "low min + high std. from avg = closer ancestor" should hold when the names of the animals are filled in.

#5 jamesf

jamesf

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 317 posts
  • Age: 47
  • no affiliation
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • syracuse

Posted 07 February 2008 - 08:33 PM

I plugged the sequences into a spreadsheet and counted up the differences.  The results are below.  The chart shows the sum of the differences between each sequence, for example, Row 1 .....

This is a relatively crude analysis because it just counts the number of differences and ignores any patterns of nested changes.  There are probably a couple wrong conclusions but the general trend of "low min + high std. from avg = closer ancestor" should hold when the names of the animals are filled in.

View Post


Ah, you beat me to it, Numbers. I was trying to download one of the programs that does the nesting - I may try again tomorrow. But looks this is a standard test one does in an undergrad class.

http://intro.bio.umb...dfs/MolPhyl.pdf

Sequence Divergence This compares the sequences and counts the number of differences
between them. The longer since their common ancestor, the more differences expected.
This is the simplest method. You will do this ‘by hand’ to see how it works and then let the
computer do the hard work. This method is best for finding approximately how long it has
been since two species had a common ancestor. It works fairly well for finding out which
creatures are related to which. In studies of cytochrome c from many organisms, it has
been found that (very approximately) one amino acid change occurs every 21 million
years. The rates of change of other proteins are different.
•
Parsimony This is a more sophisticated method that also takes into account the particular
differences between the sequences. It is described in detail in Campbell pages 501-504.
Although it can not tell you how long ago two organisms had a common ancestor, it is
much better at telling which creatures are most closely related to which than the Sequence
Divergence method.
In this lab, you will use both methods to see their strengths and weaknesses. You should
remember that the software generates the most likely tree, but not necessarily the way the
organisms actually evolved.



Not only does a proper algorithm consider nesting, but I understand that the most advanced methods take into account which mutations are entirely neutral (i.e., produce no change in the protein). Is that right? And of course, the more genes one does the better.

http://www.bio.mtu.e...401lec10p1.html

#6 The Debatinator

The Debatinator

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 198 posts
  • Age: 20
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Chicago, Illinois

Posted 07 February 2008 - 09:16 PM

Just to be clear, the purpose of the chart I posted is to show that evos can't construct a phylogeny of common decent based on Cycto-C if they don’t know the animals ahead of time. In the example provided by the evolutionist (via the website www.nmsr.org), they found examples that fit their pre-conceived view of common decent, and ignored the ones that didn't fit. It is fraudulent, no different than a street corner shell game.

Fred

View Post


Does each kind have it's own cytochrome c sequence though? As in dogs having their own and cats having their own and different kinds of birds and fish having their own specific sequence that doesn't vary along with variations.

#7 Fred Williams

Fred Williams

    Administrator / Forum Owner

  • Admin Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2469 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Broomfield, Colorado
  • Interests:I enjoy going to Broncos games, my son's HS basketball & baseball games, and my daughter's piano & dance recitals. I enjoy playing basketball (when able). I occasionally play keyboards for my church's praise team. I am a Senior Staff Firmware Engineer at Micron, and am co-host of Real Science Radio.
  • Age: 52
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Broomfield, Colorado

Posted 08 February 2008 - 10:39 AM

First, thanks for taking the time to take the test.

There are probably a couple wrong conclusions


This comment is worth noting since it is always the case with evolution proponents to invariably leave themselves a "way out", ie they set up their belief system to be un-falsifiable, which of course is unscientific.

There are a several wrong conclusions, enough to demonstrate that Cyto-C is not reliable evidence for common decent of all life, which is what evolution claims.

Let’s take a look. According to your analysis:

1) The elephant seal and dog share a recent ancestor
2) The bat is closer to a dog than the other mammals in the chart
3) Sheeps and pigs share a recent ancestor
4) Gray whales and camels share a recent ancestor

The following is a grade of your analysis, where E = fits current evolution dogma, - = indeterminant, neither denies or supports evolution dogma, N = does not support evolution dogma. I tried to be fair in using an 'E' or 'N' only if it was a clear case.

E 1,2,3 share a recent common ancestor
- 4 has a moderately distant common ancestor to 2,3.
E 5,6 have a much closer ancestor with each other than the rest of the chart.
E 7 has a distant common ancestor to the rest of the animals
- 8 is a little closer to 10 but does not have a very recent common ancestor.
N 9,10 share a recent common ancestor
E 11,12,13 share a recent common ancestor
N 14,15,16 share a recent common ancestor
- 17 has a moderately distant common ancestor with 14-20
N 18,19,20 share a recent common ancestor
- 21,22 have a moderately distant ancestor with 18-22
- 23 has a very distant common ancestor with the rest of the chart.
N 24,25 share a recent common ancestor
- 26 has a moderately distant ancestor with 24-28
E 27,28 share a recent common ancestor
- 29 has a moderately distant ancestor with 24-30
- 30 has a moderately distant ancestor with 29

Final results:
E: 29%
N: 24%
-: 47%


This clearly shows that Cyto-C is not good evidence for common decent of all life. Even the relationships (E) that matched the evo dogma are not evidence. Why? Imagine if a creationist used the same chart to determine which animals fall into a specific kind (baramin). We would have been correct with 4 of the 5 Es being the same kind! We also would have made the same mistake with all 4 Ns! We would have been correct to assume the "-" were all separate kinds, but at this point that's neither here nor there. What this proves is neither side can use Cyto-C as evidence to support their version of "common decent". It also proves that evolutionists touting Cyto-C as evidence for evolution are either wittingly or unwhittingly selling snake oil to their listeners.

One last observation. The mosaic in the chart (#23) was the snake, which differed from mammals as equally as it did to birds. According to evolution we would expect the snake to be closer to birds since evos think birds and reptiles share a more recent common ancestor than birds do with and mammals.

Here's the actual chart:

Posted Image

Fred

#8 Fred Williams

Fred Williams

    Administrator / Forum Owner

  • Admin Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2469 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Broomfield, Colorado
  • Interests:I enjoy going to Broncos games, my son's HS basketball & baseball games, and my daughter's piano & dance recitals. I enjoy playing basketball (when able). I occasionally play keyboards for my church's praise team. I am a Senior Staff Firmware Engineer at Micron, and am co-host of Real Science Radio.
  • Age: 52
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Broomfield, Colorado

Posted 08 February 2008 - 10:49 AM

Does each kind have it's own cytochrome c sequence though?  As in dogs having their own and cats having their own and different kinds of birds and fish having their own specific sequence that doesn't vary along with variations.

View Post


No, not necessarily. Creationists to my knowledge have not widely appealed to Cyto-C in baramin analysis, though I recall Denton in 'Evolution, a Theory in Crisis" used Cyto-C to argue against intermediates since there was equal divergence between bacteria and the higher order of animals.

Fred

#9 numbers

numbers

    Troll

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 228 posts
  • Age: 37
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Houston

Posted 08 February 2008 - 09:31 PM

Here’s the actual chart:

Posted Image

Fred

View Post


Actually the analysis was far more accurate than I thought it would be for just a back-of-the-envelope calculation. I wasn't sure how to categorize the results so I went with a "close,medium,distant" classification for ancestry. Deciding the cut-off point for each category and animal was rather arbitrary so I have no problem if you want to disagree about what counts as recent or distant . The thing that jumps out after seeing the filled in names is that the analysis is correct in identifying the closest relative for just about all the animals in the chart. Something that I find interesting thing is that my "close vs. moderate" categories matched up rather well with "same order vs. same class" especially with the birds.


E 1,2,3 share a recent common ancestor
correctly identifies closest relatives among those on the chart

- 4 has a moderately distant common ancestor to 2,3.
correctly identifies closest relatives among those on the chart

E 5,6 have a much closer ancestor with each other than the rest of the chart.
correctly identifies closest relatives among those on the chart

E 7 has a distant common ancestor to the rest of the animals
too distant to identify closest relative

- 8 is a little closer to 10 but does not have a very recent common ancestor.
correctly said the bat did not have a close common ancestor to the animals on the chart. Bats are members of the Chiroptera order. There are no other members of that order in the chart.

http://en.wikipedia....n_and_evolution
. However, molecular studies have placed them as sister group to Ferungulata—a large grouping including carnivorans, pangolins, odd-toed ungulates, even-toed ungulates, and whales.
Carnivorans = Dogs

N 9,10 share a recent common ancestor
Dog and Seals are both members of the Carnivora Order. There are no other members of the Carnivora order in that list so the identification of seal as closest ancestor to the dog out of the rest of the list was correct.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnivora
Carnivorans apparently evolved in North America out of members of the family Miacidae (miacids) c 42 million years ago

E 11,12,13 share a recent common ancestor
correctly identifies closest relatives among those on the chart

N 14,15,16 share a recent common ancestor
All are members of the Artiodactyla order with a common ancestor around 50 million years ago.

As with many animal groups, even-toed ungulates first appeared during the Early Eocene (about 54 million years ago). In form they were rather like today's chevrotains: small, short-legged creatures that ate leaves and the soft parts of plants. By the Late Eocene (46 million years ago), the three modern suborders had already developed: Suina (the pig group); Tylopoda (the camel group); and Ruminantia (the goat and cattle group)

- 17 has a moderately distant common ancestor with 14-20
All members of the Artiodactyla order.

N 18,19,20 share a recent common ancestor

Whales and camels are both members of the Artiodactyla order. As is the guanaco and hippo. It's correct to say camels and guanaco are related to whales. Hippos,Pigs,cows,sheep are also members of the Artiodactyla order and they also had close similarity to the whale.

- 21,22 have a moderately distant ancestor with 18-22
This one could be marked as wrong with respect to 18,19

- 23 has a very distant common ancestor with the rest of the chart.
see below. This is a correct statement. I correctly predicted that 23 would be a different class of animal from the others in the chart.
"Based on how different it is from the rest of the animals it might be the only member of it's family or class in the group."

N 24,25 share a recent common ancestor
both are in same order Galliformes.

- 26 has a moderately distant ancestor with 24-28
different order, same class

E 27,28 share a recent common ancestor
same order

- 29 has a moderately distant ancestor with 24-30
different order from 24-30, same class

- 30 has a moderately distant ancestor with 29
different order from 29, same class


One last observation. The mosaic in the chart (#23) was the snake, which differed from mammals as equally as it did to birds. According to evolution we would expect the snake to be closer to birds since evos think birds and reptiles share a more recent common ancestor than birds do with and mammals.


Not exactly, the closest common ancestor of birds and reptiles is very close in age (300MYA) to the closest ancestor between mammals and reptiles (315-325MYA). With ancestry that distant, and divergence time that close together, the groups should be roughly equidistant.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diapsid
http://en.wikipedia....ammals#Amniotes

#10 deadlock

deadlock

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1196 posts
  • Age: 43
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Rio de Janeiro

Posted 09 February 2008 - 04:06 AM

Actually the analysis was far more accurate than I thought it would be for just a back-of-the-envelope calculation.  I wasn't sure how to categorize the results so I went with a "close,medium,distant" classification for ancestry.  Deciding the cut-off point for each category and animal was rather arbitrary so I have no problem if you want to disagree about what counts as recent or distant .  The thing that jumps out after seeing the filled in names is that the analysis is correct in identifying the closest relative for just about all the animals in the chart. Something that I find interesting thing is that my "close vs. moderate" categories matched up rather well with "same order vs. same class" especially with the birds.
E 1,2,3 share a recent common ancestor
correctly identifies closest relatives among those on the chart

- 4 has a moderately distant common ancestor to 2,3.
correctly identifies closest relatives among those on the chart

E 5,6 have a much closer ancestor with each other than the rest of the chart.
correctly identifies closest relatives among those on the chart

E 7 has a distant common ancestor to the rest of the animals
too distant to identify closest relative

- 8 is a little closer to 10 but does not have a very recent common ancestor.
correctly said the bat did not have a close common ancestor to the animals on the chart.  Bats are members of the Chiroptera order.  There are no other members of that order in the chart. 

http://en.wikipedia....n_and_evolution
. However, molecular studies have placed them as sister group to Ferungulata—a large grouping including carnivorans, pangolins, odd-toed ungulates, even-toed ungulates, and whales.
Carnivorans = Dogs

N 9,10 share a recent common ancestor
Dog and Seals are both members of the Carnivora Order. There are no other members of the Carnivora order in that list so the identification of seal as closest ancestor to the dog out of the rest of the list was correct.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnivora
Carnivorans apparently evolved in North America out of members of the family Miacidae (miacids) c 42 million years ago

E 11,12,13 share a recent common ancestor
correctly identifies closest relatives among those on the chart

N 14,15,16 share a recent common ancestor
All are members of the Artiodactyla order with a common ancestor around 50 million years ago.

As with many animal groups, even-toed ungulates first appeared during the Early Eocene (about 54 million years ago). In form they were rather like today's chevrotains: small, short-legged creatures that ate leaves and the soft parts of plants. By the Late Eocene (46 million years ago), the three modern suborders had already developed: Suina (the pig group); Tylopoda (the camel group); and Ruminantia (the goat and cattle group)

- 17 has a moderately distant common ancestor with 14-20
All members of the Artiodactyla order.

N 18,19,20 share a recent common ancestor

Whales and camels are both members of the Artiodactyla order.  As is the guanaco and hippo.  It's correct to say camels and guanaco are related to whales. Hippos,Pigs,cows,sheep are also members of the Artiodactyla order and they also had close similarity to the whale.

- 21,22 have a moderately distant ancestor with 18-22
This one could be marked as wrong with respect to 18,19

- 23 has a very distant common ancestor with the rest of the chart.
see below.  This is a correct statement.  I correctly predicted that 23 would be a different class of animal from the others in the chart.
"Based on how different it is from the rest of the animals it might be the only member of it's family or class in the group."

N 24,25 share a recent common ancestor
both are in same order Galliformes.

- 26 has a moderately distant ancestor with 24-28
different order, same class

E 27,28 share a recent common ancestor
same order

- 29 has a moderately distant ancestor with 24-30
different order from 24-30, same class

- 30 has a moderately distant ancestor with 29
different order from 29, same class
Not exactly, the closest common ancestor of birds and reptiles is very close in age (300MYA) to the closest ancestor between mammals and reptiles (315-325MYA).  With ancestry that distant, and divergence time that close together, the groups should be roughly equidistant.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diapsid
http://en.wikipedia....ammals#Amniotes

View Post


Common Numbers, you are trying to turn a defeat into victory.It´s a silly attitude.

#11 Fred Williams

Fred Williams

    Administrator / Forum Owner

  • Admin Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2469 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Broomfield, Colorado
  • Interests:I enjoy going to Broncos games, my son's HS basketball & baseball games, and my daughter's piano & dance recitals. I enjoy playing basketball (when able). I occasionally play keyboards for my church's praise team. I am a Senior Staff Firmware Engineer at Micron, and am co-host of Real Science Radio.
  • Age: 52
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Broomfield, Colorado

Posted 09 February 2008 - 11:42 AM

Common Numbers, you are trying to turn a defeat into victory.It´s a silly attitude.

View Post


It’s not only silly, his response should be an embarrassment to evolutionists since it serves my point that evolution is not science. Evolution is instead a malleable smorgasbord hypothesis that, as ReMine once quiped, adapts to data like fog adapts to the landscape. Of the 5 ‘E’s, every last one of them, using evolutionary taxonomy, is at the family level or lower. Creationists have long said the family level is the most representative of a created kind, so proving a recent ancestral relationship between horses and zebras does nothing for the evolutionist since it encapsulates what creationists believe. The ‘E’s prove nothing! Regarding the ‘N’s and '-'s, after the fact Numbers has redefined “recent” to mean “distant” (translation: ambiguous) ancestor by changing the scope up to the taxonomic level Order. The chart I posted was the landscape, and Numbers provided the fog.

Fred

#12 numbers

numbers

    Troll

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 228 posts
  • Age: 37
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Houston

Posted 09 February 2008 - 06:34 PM

Of the 5 ‘E’s, every last one of them, using evolutionary taxonomy, is at the family level or lower.


Ostriches and Emu's aren't in the same family, you had them listed as an E.

Creationists have long said the family level is the most representative of a created kind, so proving a recent ancestral relationship between horses and zebras does nothing for the evolutionist since it encapsulates what creationists believe.

If family rather than Order is closest to the created kind, that would mean that identifying animals that are linked by Order rather than family should be almost impossible if the animals were created separately. Instead it was quite easy and very accurate, as shown by previous post.

Regarding the ‘N’s and '-'s, after the fact Numbers has redefined “recent” to mean “distant” (translation: ambiguous) ancestor by changing the scope up to the taxonomic level Order.
Fred

View Post


The recent vs distant classifications was arbitrary because without knowing what the animals were there was no non-arbitrary way for me to calibrate the results. If you want to, feel free to ignore it and just look at the identification of the closest relative. I believe the original challenge was to identify which animals are related to each other. I was correct in identifying the closest relation in 25 of 30 cases, and the 5 misses were partial misses. Nowhere was there a completely off the wall miss of which animals were related which would be expected if the different cytochrome c sequences were built from scratch instead of copied from one another. I'm kind of impressed by the dog-seal hit, I was expecting that to be a miss when I went to look it up, but it turns out that those two were in fact the closest relatives to each other.


1. Correctly identified 2,3 as closest relative of those on the chart
2. Correctly identified 3 as closest relative of those on the chart.
3. Correctly identified 2 as closest relative of those on the chart
4. Correctly identified 2,3 as closest relative of those on the chart.
5. Correctly identified 6 as closest relative of those on the chart.
6. Correctly identified 5 as closest relative of those on the chart.
7. Correctly identified as being distant relative to the mammals (check spreadsheet to see the high min)
8. Correctly identified as being distant relative to the mammals (check spreadsheet to see the high min)
9. Correctly identified 10 as being closest relative of those on the chart.
10. Correctly identified 9 as being closest relative of those on the chart.
11. Correctly identified 12,13 as being closest relative of those on the chart.
12. Correctly identified 11,13 as being closest relative of those on the chart.
13. Correctly identified 11,12 as being closest relative of those on the chart.
14. Correctly identified 15,16 as being closest relative of those on the chart.
15. Correctly identified 14,16 as being closest relative of those on the chart.
16. Correctly identified 14,15 as being closest relative of those on the chart.
17. Correctly identified 14,16 as being closest relative of those on the chart.
18. Missed 17, correctly identified 19,20 as being next closest relatives of those on the chart.
19. Missed 17, correctly identified 18,20 as being next closest relatives of those on the chart.
20. Missed 17, correctly identified 18,19 as being next closest relatives of those on the chart.
21. Wrong on 17,18, correctly identified 22 as being closest relative of those on the chart.
22. Wrong on 17,18, correctly identified 22 as being closest relative of those on the chart.
23. Correctly identified as not having a closest relative on the chart. (check spreadsheet to see the similar spread of high mins)
24. Correctly identified 25 as closest relative of those on the chart.
25. Correctly identified 24 as closest relative of those on the chart.
26. Correctly identified 24-30 as closest relatives of those on the chart.
27. Correctly identified 28 as closest relatives of those on the chart.
28. Correctly identified 27 as closest relatives of those on the chart.
29. Correctly identified 24-30 as closest relatives of those on the chart.
30. Correctly identified 24-30 as closest relatives of those on the chart.

#13 deadlock

deadlock

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1196 posts
  • Age: 43
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Rio de Janeiro

Posted 10 February 2008 - 03:30 AM

Ostriches and Emu's aren't in the same family, you had them listed as an E.
If family rather than Order is closest to the created kind, that would mean that identifying animals that are linked by Order rather than family should be almost impossible if the animals were created separately.  Instead it was quite easy and very accurate, as shown by previous post.
The recent vs distant classifications was arbitrary because without knowing what the animals were there was no non-arbitrary way for me to calibrate the results.  If you want to, feel free to ignore it and just look at the identification of the closest relative.  I believe the original challenge was to identify which animals are related to each other.  I was correct in identifying the closest relation in 25 of 30 cases, and the 5 misses were partial misses.  Nowhere was there a completely off the wall miss of which animals were related which would be expected if the different cytochrome c sequences were built from scratch instead of copied from one another.  I'm kind of impressed by the dog-seal hit, I was expecting that to be a miss when I went to look it up, but it turns out that those two were in fact the closest relatives to each other.
1.  Correctly identified 2,3 as closest relative of those on the chart
2.  Correctly identified 3 as closest relative of those on the chart.
3.  Correctly identified 2 as closest relative of those on the chart
4.  Correctly identified 2,3 as closest relative of those on the chart.
5.  Correctly identified 6 as closest relative of those on the chart.
6.  Correctly identified 5 as closest relative of those on the chart.
7.  Correctly identified as being distant relative to the mammals (check spreadsheet to see the high min)
8.  Correctly identified as being distant relative to the mammals (check spreadsheet to see the high min)
9.  Correctly identified 10 as being closest relative of those on the chart.
10. Correctly identified 9 as being closest relative of those on the chart.
11.  Correctly identified 12,13 as being closest relative of those on the chart.
12.  Correctly identified 11,13 as being closest relative of those on the chart.
13.  Correctly identified 11,12 as being closest relative of those on the chart.
14.  Correctly identified 15,16 as being closest relative of those on the chart.
15.  Correctly identified 14,16 as being closest relative of those on the chart.
16.  Correctly identified 14,15 as being closest relative of those on the chart.
17.  Correctly identified 14,16 as being closest relative of those on the chart.
18.  Missed 17, correctly identified 19,20 as being next closest relatives of those on the chart.
19.  Missed 17, correctly identified 18,20 as being next closest relatives of those on the chart.
20.  Missed 17, correctly identified 18,19 as being next closest relatives of those on the chart.
21.  Wrong on 17,18, correctly identified 22 as being closest relative of those on the chart.
22.  Wrong on 17,18, correctly identified 22 as being closest relative of those on the chart.
23.  Correctly identified as not having a closest relative on the chart. (check spreadsheet to see the similar spread of high mins)
24.  Correctly identified 25 as closest relative of those on the chart.
25.  Correctly identified 24 as closest relative of those on the chart.
26.  Correctly identified 24-30 as closest relatives of those on the chart.
27.  Correctly identified 28 as closest relatives of those on the chart.
28.  Correctly identified 27 as closest relatives of those on the chart.
29.  Correctly identified 24-30 as closest relatives of those on the chart.
30.  Correctly identified 24-30 as closest relatives of those on the chart.

View Post


You are changing the meaning of the word "closest" as you want only to fit the data. You said that 9,10 had a recent common ancestor.It´s wrong , they split apart 48 million Years Ago and Bats has nothing to do with Dogs.The oldest known Bat Fossil is 50 million years old and Bats are more related to mouse than Dog, but you didnt notice that.

Turning a Mouse Into a Bat

#14 jamesf

jamesf

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 317 posts
  • Age: 47
  • no affiliation
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • syracuse

Posted 10 February 2008 - 09:36 AM

You are changing the meaning of the word "closest" as you want only to fit the data. You said that 9,10 had a recent common ancestor.It´s wrong , they split apart 48 million Years Ago and Bats has nothing to do with Dogs.The oldest known Bat Fossil is 50 million years old and Bats are more related to mouse than Dog, but you didnt notice that.

Turning a Mouse Into a Bat

View Post


48 million years IS relatively recent when you consider all the animals considered (insects split around 600 million years, reptiles around 300 million years, fish around 400 million years). However, it is important to remember that the nearest neighbors is the secondary story. The primary story is the nesting that can be deduced from the data.

Consider an oversimplified example
Animal 1 has MGDVE
Animal 2 has MGKVQ
Animal 3 has MGDKQ
Animal 4 has KQDVE

In this example, Animals, 2, 3 and 4 all differ from Animal 1 by two Amino Acids. However, when a tree is drawn, it will deduce that Animal 3 and Animal 2 share a common ancestor since they share the same difference in one for one of the AAs. Animal 4 will be on a different part of the tree since it does not share any of the of the amino acid differences.

So when you plug the Cytochrome C data into the program to calculate which animals have common ancestors, you get the chart below. Is it perfect? No. Mutations are random. So when you look at only one gene you get something like 1 amino acid change every 20 million years plus or minus 2 amino acid changes. For such a random process, I would expect lots of mistakes. I suppose creationists will note only what appears to be errors: whales or bats are closer to dogs than some expect. When you get down to a very small number of gene changes, it is going to be a noisy (this is standard statistics). For animals closely related (e.g., all mammals), geneticists would use more genes or at least different genes that have greater differences between mammals.

But I am astonished that you aren't impressed at the kind of tree one can get by looking at just a single gene. Most of these changes are neutral (the gene produces the same protein). Mammals, fish, wheat, reptiles etc are all sorted beautifully.

I would enjoy hearing the creationist account of the neutral mutations found. Does this mean that God chose to make similar 'kinds' using genes that are similar but functionally the same? So God chose to make it look like they evolved from common ancestors, for some unknown reason? - (even when the differences have no function?).

I would also love to learn what the creationists would predict for the genome that started this thread. The best theory is the one that makes the best predictions. So lets put the creationist prediction side by side with the evolutionary prediction and see which one gets the best grade.

http://chemistry.ume...31/Evolve2.html
Posted Image

#15 Fred Williams

Fred Williams

    Administrator / Forum Owner

  • Admin Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2469 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Broomfield, Colorado
  • Interests:I enjoy going to Broncos games, my son's HS basketball & baseball games, and my daughter's piano & dance recitals. I enjoy playing basketball (when able). I occasionally play keyboards for my church's praise team. I am a Senior Staff Firmware Engineer at Micron, and am co-host of Real Science Radio.
  • Age: 52
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Broomfield, Colorado

Posted 11 February 2008 - 09:17 PM

This thread is worthy of being pinned because it shows to any truly objective person the lengths evolutionists will go to skirt real science to support their religious beliefs. Numbers, you blew the test and now you think with a straight face you can claim you hit 25 of 30 cases? Do you think no one noticed you redefined “recent” to “closest” after the fact?

Jamesf: I am astonished that you aren't impressed at the kind of tree one can get by looking at just a single gene


I am astonished (well, not really), that you would cook up a tree with a trunk and major branches with absolutely no basis to do so, and expect the informed listener to fall for this illusion. This is very easy to spot when one has his/her baloney detector on. What you refuse to see is that the nodes on your tree are the same nodes creationists would have deduced by grouping them as kinds (with the one obvious exception regarding humans and chimps, the very reason evos picked&chose Cyto-C to help sell the illusion of common decent between the two). Where your tree turns into pure fantasy is when you construct major branches, then connect them to a trunk to form a tree (neo-Darwinism) as opposed to an orchard (creation). The trunk and major connecting points are purely speculative and completely unscientific. Remove these phony add-ons and turn your tree on its side, and lo and behold it looks an awful lot like the creationist “orchard”!

There is nothing in the Cyto-C sequence, or any other “evidence” for that matter, that allows you to manufacture the trunk of this tree, but there it is anyway because the power of illusion can be effective! That is why it is important for creationists to help people to turn on their baloney detectors to see through such shams.

I would enjoy hearing the creationist account of the neutral mutations found.


This is classic “begging the question”. You assume evolution is true and therefore assume the changes are “mutations”, and are “neutral”. Given the complexity of the genome, such as gene regulation, the fact that most genes work together (epistasis), etc, how could you possibly know the differences are neutral?

Does this mean that God chose to make similar 'kinds' using genes that are similar but functionally the same? So God chose to make it look like they evolved from common ancestors, for some unknown reason? - (even when the differences have no function?).


This is the same old “God planted the fossils to test us” canard, and if you say it loud enough, often enough, and long enough, gullible people will start to fall for it. The one thing that has stood out for me since I started looking into the CvE debate is how God at virtually every turn thwarts a naturalistic explanation. IS CYto-C as naturalistic-thwarting as convergent evolution, mammals in the ocean, chirality? Maybe not, but it does stand as yet another example that doesn't conveniently fit the evolutionist paradigm, as my test in this thread proved.

Fred

#16 jamesf

jamesf

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 317 posts
  • Age: 47
  • no affiliation
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • syracuse

Posted 11 February 2008 - 10:57 PM

I am astonished (well, not really), that you would cook up a tree with a trunk and major branches with absolutely no basis to do so, and expect the informed listener to fall for this illusion.

View Post


Hi Fred,
Seems that I did not do not do a good job at explaining the logic of the computer program that generated the chart. I am happy to help you understand it if you are interested. Yes, there is a bias. The bias is that animals with similar bases are nearby, and if the changes are shared then they are on the same branch. A long line on the chart represents the number of differences. You seem to be suggesting some hidden bias is in the chart. I would be interested in learning what else you think was added since you are suggesting it was dishonest.


What you refuse to see is that the nodes on your tree are the same nodes creationists would have deduced by grouping them as kinds (with the one obvious exception regarding humans and chimps, the very reason evos picked&chose Cyto-C to help sell the illusion of common decent between the two).
Fred

View Post


Really? I did not know this. So biblical kinds show the same kind of nesting that is predicted by Cyto-C similarites? With bird and reptiles on the same branch etc? I would like to learn more about that.
Thanks,
James

#17 numbers

numbers

    Troll

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 228 posts
  • Age: 37
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Houston

Posted 12 February 2008 - 08:10 PM

You are changing the meaning of the word "closest" as you want only to fit the data. You said that 9,10 had a recent common ancestor.It´s wrong , they split apart 48 million Years Ago


What's your cutoff point for recent and why is 48 MYA not recent? What animal on that list do you claim as a more recent ancestor to 9 than 10?

and Bats has nothing to do with Dogs.The oldest known Bat Fossil is 50 million years old and Bats are more related to mouse than Dog, but you didnt notice that.

Turning a Mouse Into a Bat

View Post


What part of that article do you think shows mice are the closest living relative to bats? All it says is that mice have one of the genes that bats do, that is not the same thing as being closer to mice than dogs.

Here's a peer reviewed paper saying that Bats are classified in the same group with dogs, not mice.

http://mbe.oxfordjou...ull/18/4/684/F1
"In order to examine these questions, we analyzed two data sets (both separately and combined), one with 12 protein-coding regions and the other with RNA (combined ribosomal RNAs and tRNAs). The results are congruent, support bat monophyly, and place bats close to the cetferungulates (whales [cetaceans] plus ferungulates [carnivores, ungulates, and perissodactyls])."



All this is kind of beside the point since I specifically said that bats weren't particularly close to any of the animals on the chart, and if you go back and look at the spreadsheet you can see the high spread of differences for the bat vs. all the rest of the animals.

Numbers, you blew the test and now you think with a straight face you can claim you hit 25 of 30 cases? Do you think no one noticed you redefined “recent” to “closest” after the fact?


Since you seem to be focused on absolute time from divergence instead of (the more relevant to the challenge) relative closeness, I reorganized my initial statements into 3 groups and added the rough estimate amount of time since the various species emerged. I couldn't find info on a couple of them. As you can see there's a general breakdown of 5-50 (single 80 value),40-150, and 100-150+. If you have different numbers or want to plug in some of the uncertain ones feel free.

Recent:

1,2,3 share a recent common ancestor 5-25 MYA
N 9,10 share a recent common ancestor ~50MYA
N 18,19,20 share a recent common ancestor ~50 MYA
E 11,12,13 share a recent common ancestor ~50 MYA
N 14,15,16 share a recent common ancestor ~50 MYA
E 5,6 have a much closer ancestor with each other than the rest of the chart. ~35 MYA
N 24,25 share a recent common ancestor. can't find data
E 27,28 share a recent common ancestor ~80 MYA

Moderate:

- 4 has a moderately distant common ancestor to 2,3. ~40 MYA
- 17 has a moderately distant common ancestor with 14-20. ~60MYA
- 21,22 have a moderately distant ancestor with 18-22. ~50 MYA can't find exact numbers
- 26 has a moderately distant ancestor with 24-28. ~70 MYA
- 29 has a moderately distant ancestor with 24-30 65-150 MYA can't find exact numbers
- 30 has a moderately distant ancestor with 29 65-150 MYA can't find exact numbers
- 8 is a little closer to 10 but does not have a very recent common ancestor. >50 MYA can't find exact numbers

Distant:

- 23 has a very distant common ancestor with the rest of the chart. >150 MYA
E 7 has a distant common ancestor to the rest of the animals >100 MYA can't find exact numbers

#18 deadlock

deadlock

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1196 posts
  • Age: 43
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Rio de Janeiro

Posted 13 February 2008 - 03:37 AM

What's your cutoff point for recent and why is 48 MYA not recent?  What animal on that list do you claim as a more recent ancestor to 9 than 10?


If 48 MYA is a recent common ancestor then between Man and Chimp there is what ? Veryyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy recent common ancestor ? :)

What part of that article do you think shows mice are the closest living relative to bats?  All it says is that mice have one of the genes that bats do, that is not the same thing as being closer to mice than dogs.


I didnt say that mice are the closest living relative to bats.I said that according to evolution Bats is closer to mice than dogs.

Here's a peer reviewed paper saying that Bats are classified in the same group with dogs, not mice.

http://mbe.oxfordjou...ull/18/4/684/F1
"In order to examine these questions, we analyzed two data sets (both separately and combined), one with 12 protein-coding regions and the other with RNA (combined ribosomal RNAs and tRNAs). The results are congruent, support bat monophyly, and place bats close to the cetferungulates (whales [cetaceans] plus ferungulates [carnivores, ungulates, and perissodactyls])."


I think you must control your imagination.Nowhere in the article says that bats are closer to dogs than mice.Any way this kind of article is laughable because depending on the part of the genetic code scientists compares they find contradictory results.

All this is kind of beside the point since I specifically said that bats weren't particularly close to any of the animals on the chart, and if you go back and look at the spreadsheet you can see the high spread of differences for the bat vs. all the rest of the animals.
Since you seem to be focused on absolute time from divergence instead of (the more relevant to the challenge) relative closeness, I reorganized my initial statements into 3 groups and added the rough estimate amount of time since the various species emerged.  I couldn't find info on a couple of them.  As you can see there's a general breakdown of 5-50 (single 80 value),40-150, and 100-150+.  If you have different numbers or want to plug in some of the uncertain ones feel free.

Recent:

1,2,3 share a recent common ancestor 5-25 MYA
N 9,10 share a recent common ancestor ~50MYA
N 18,19,20 share a recent common ancestor ~50 MYA
E 11,12,13 share a recent common ancestor ~50 MYA
N 14,15,16 share a recent common ancestor ~50 MYA
E 5,6 have a much closer ancestor with each other than the rest of the chart. ~35 MYA
N 24,25 share a recent common ancestor. can't find data
E 27,28 share a recent common ancestor ~80 MYA

Moderate:

- 4 has a moderately distant common ancestor to 2,3.  ~40 MYA
- 17 has a moderately distant common ancestor with 14-20. ~60MYA
- 21,22 have a moderately distant ancestor with 18-22.  ~50 MYA can't find exact numbers
- 26 has a moderately distant ancestor with 24-28.  ~70 MYA
- 29 has a moderately distant ancestor with 24-30 65-150 MYA can't find exact numbers
- 30 has a moderately distant ancestor with 29  65-150 MYA can't find exact numbers
- 8 is a little closer to 10 but does not have a very recent common ancestor.  >50 MYA  can't find exact numbers

Distant:

- 23 has a very distant common ancestor with the rest of the chart.  >150 MYA
E 7 has a distant common ancestor to the rest of the animals >100 MYA can't find exact numbers

View Post


It´s really laughable. 40 MYA is a moderate distance for 4, 2, 3 but 50 MYA is recent for 9 and 10.80 MYA is recent for 27 and 28 but 50 MYA is not recent for 8 e 10.

What is incredible is that evolution needed only 10 MYA to turn a primate into Homo Sapiens.

#19 numbers

numbers

    Troll

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 228 posts
  • Age: 37
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Houston

Posted 13 February 2008 - 08:21 PM

If 48 MYA is a recent common ancestor then between Man and Chimp there is what ? Veryyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy recent common ancestor ? :)

Yes, if you want to call it that.

I didnt say that mice are the closest living relative to bats.I said that according to evolution Bats is closer to mice than dogs.

I've shown twice on this thread that that's not true. Could you provide a source for your claim.

I think you must control your imagination.Nowhere in the article says that bats are closer to dogs than mice.


Just checked the first link I posted, it went to a diagram associated with the article in question. I don't know if you noticed the link on the bottom saying "return to article" but if you missed reading the actual full article, here's where is says bats are close to the dog group Carnivora. Notice that in listing the closest groups there is no mention of Rodentia, the mouse group.

http://mbe.oxfordjou...t/full/18/4/684

"However, in a phylogenetic analysis of the complete mitochondrial genome of the Jamaican fruit bat (Artibus jamaicensis; Pumo et al. 1998Citation ) it appeared more closely related to cetferungulates, a clade including Cetacea, Artiodactyla, Perissodactyla, and Carnivora. Phylogenetic analysis from the c-myc gene sequences also support this relationship (Miyamoto, Porter, and Goodman 2000)[/I]"

Any way this kind of article is laughable because depending on the part of the genetic code scientists compares they find contradictory results.


Can you provide a source for this claim of finding contradictory results as it relates to mice and bats? I know of no studies that place bats closer to Rodentia than the Carnivora order

It´s really laughable.  40 MYA is a moderate distance for 4, 2, 3  but 50 MYA is recent for 9 and 10.80 MYA is recent for 27 and 28 but 50 MYA is not recent for 8 e 10.

What is incredible is that evolution needed only 10 MYA to turn a primate into Homo Sapiens.


So out of 17 total statements you can only find fault with 2 of them? Without the 40 MY and 80 MY date your objections don't work because the groups end up being very distinct 5-50,50-100,100+.

just fyi, the 8,10 date is ">50" which means "greater than 50".

#20 Fred Williams

Fred Williams

    Administrator / Forum Owner

  • Admin Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2469 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Broomfield, Colorado
  • Interests:I enjoy going to Broncos games, my son's HS basketball & baseball games, and my daughter's piano & dance recitals. I enjoy playing basketball (when able). I occasionally play keyboards for my church's praise team. I am a Senior Staff Firmware Engineer at Micron, and am co-host of Real Science Radio.
  • Age: 52
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Broomfield, Colorado

Posted 13 February 2008 - 08:56 PM

View Post

I am happy to help you understand it if you are interested.


How thoughtful of you.

You seem to be suggesting some hidden bias is in the chart. I would be interested in learning what else you think was added since you are suggesting it was dishonest.


It’s not a hidden bias, it’s a clear bias that is both unscientific, and intellectually dishonest. In no way does Cyto-C allow one to build the trunk and major branches, all of which are inferences only. If you are interested, I will help you understand the difference between speculation and fact. :)

Really? I did not know this. So biblical kinds show the same kind of nesting that is predicted by Cyto-C similarites? With bird and reptiles on the same branch etc? I would like to learn more about that.


I felt I was very clear on this in my response to Numbers. Here are the major points, again:

1) Of the 5 ‘E’s Numbers inferred correctly (the “recent ancestors”), 4 of these could also just as easily been inferred by Creationists to suggest they are of the same kind. Is it a surprise to you that us silly creationists think horses and zebras are of the same kind? Of the 4 ‘N’s where Numbers flunked (but is now equivocating on), we too as creationists would have flunked if we had tried to draw inferences from the sequence.
2) Of the distant differences, should creationists be surprised that wheat and bananas have a much different sequence than humans? Should creationists be surprised with a mosaic sequence such as occurred with the rattlesnake? I rememberd that Denton had written about this so I just grabbed the book and dusted it off. Denton was an evolutionist who saw through the illusion and was being intellectually honest when he wrote regarding Cyto-C "No sequence or group of sequences can be designated as intermediate with respect to other groups. All the sequences of each subclass are equally isolated from the members of the other group. Transitional or intermediate classes are completely absent from the matrix". - Evolution, a Theory in Crisis, pg 280. [emphasis mine]
3) I then concluded that “neither side can use Cyto-C as evidence to support their version of “common decent”.” It would be bad science to do so, since Cyto-C is just one of thousands upon thousands of sequences we can look at. Evolutionists happen to love Cyto-C because it was one of those sequences where chimps and humans come up the same. It helps sell their illusion.

Posted Image




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users