Jump to content
Evolution Fairytale Forum
Sign in to follow this  
Fred Williams

Cytochrome C - The Illusion Exposed

Recommended Posts

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

17191[/snapback]

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

17204[/snapback]

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.edu/111-112/OLLM/112s...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.edu/campbell/401lec10p1.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

17203[/snapback]

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

17207[/snapback]

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here’s the actual chart:

 

Posted Image

 

Fred

17209[/snapback]

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.org/wiki/Chiroptera#Cl...n_and_evolution

. However, molecular studies have placed them as sister group to Ferungulataâ€â€Âa 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.org/wiki/Evolution_of_mammals#Amniotes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.org/wiki/Chiroptera#Cl...n_and_evolution

. However, molecular studies have placed them as sister group to Ferungulataâ€â€Âa 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.org/wiki/Evolution_of_mammals#Amniotes

17212[/snapback]

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

17213[/snapback]

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

17214[/snapback]

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

17216[/snapback]

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

17218[/snapback]

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.umeche.maine.edu/CHY431/Evolve2.html

Posted Image

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

17241[/snapback]

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

17241[/snapback]

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

17218[/snapback]

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.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/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

17253[/snapback]

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/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".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

17247[/snapback]

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How thoughtful of you.

 

17263[/snapback]

I think kindness and logic is usually the best way to start when two people disagree. Too many people that disagree start with some degree of ridicule and that creates unnecessary hostility. So if I can help, I am happy to do so.

 

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.

17263[/snapback]

I would argue that this both represents a misunderstanding of the computer program that generated the chart as well as a misunderstanding of how science works. Most all of science is based on inference. Today, from the wobble and the intensity variations of stars we are inferring that there are planets going around those stars and inferring the size of those planets. Most all of chemistry and modern physics is based on inference. It is the heart of science. As long as you state your assumptions and work logically, you can be both scientific and honest in your conclusions.

The logic that generated the computer code is extremely simple, and as you said the biases and assumptions are clear. Of course, one's interpretation of these results depends on whether you accept the assumptions, but the assumptions are quite clear and the logic quite open and honest. I am sorry if this upsets you. Your responses to this computer program lead me to believe that you do not understand the logic that generated the chart. However, it is important to remember that it is this chart that makes the findings of Cyto-C exciting to scientists, not the similarities it produces to similar "kinds".

 

I felt I was very clear on this in my response to Numbers.

17263[/snapback]

I was addressing the comment you made to me, not to Numbers. In your second response, you colored all the nodes of the computer program in green and called it "dishonest" and a "fairytale". But you had referred to those same nodes and said:

"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"

 

The nodes on this tree that are exciting to scientists are, for example, those that show reptiles and birds on a related branch. Or the one that shows that the lamprey have a separate branch from the other fish. There is part of a whole field called 'cladistics' that had previously created trees like this based on the similarities of basic features. The fact this tree with quite similar branches could be produced with such simple assumptions and logic helped settle arguments in evolutionary biology. The notion that it also provides evidence for common decent is really quite secondary. The fact that chimps and humans are similar here is also rather uninteresting to the scientists, since virtually no evolutionary biologist doubted that.

 

 

Here are the major points, again:

 

1) Of the 5 ‘E’s Numbers inferred correctly (the “recent ancestorsâ€ÂÂ), 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.

 

17263[/snapback]

Cyto-C is not a good choice when comparing animals that are "closely related" It can have an error rate of something like plus or minus 40 million years. Cyto-C is used because virtually all of life has this gene. It is so fundamental that every form of life can be placed on the chart and a simple program can deduce the nodes. I find it remarkable that with such simple logic and simple assumptions, a tree like this can be constructed from a single gene. And I am impressed that the tree that this program produces is so similar to the ancestral tree created through cladistics.

 

If you wants more precision, you will need to go to other genes. For example, below is a link to a chart drawn for the dog genome. Each tree uses a gene that has different resolutions. You are welcome to question the assumptions of any such chart. Such questioning is good science. However, the assumptions can be deduced from the paper and all this work is considered top rate science by the scientific community.

 

Here is a link to the paper it comes from

http://www.genome.org/cgi/content/full/15/12/1706#FIG1

 

Afraid the picture is too big when I post it, so here is a link to the dog genome chart I mention

http://www.genome.org/content/vol15/issue1...e/1706fig1.jpeg

 

 

 

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]

 

17263[/snapback]

I am sure you are aware how Denton is considered in field of genetics and evolutionary biology. There are plenty of critiques elsewhere so I won't repeat them. However, I do not understand the part you put in bold. It is the logic of the program that 'infers' where the nodes are, based on the number of amino acids that are aligned. Are you expecting them to put in the Cyto-C code for an archaeopteryx? Or an animal from the Cambrian?

 

 

3) I then concluded that “neither side can use Cyto-C as evidence to support their version of “common decentâ€ÂÂ.†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.

 

17263[/snapback]

I personally haven't seen any scientific papers that use Cyto-C to compare humans and chimps. It is too crude for that. Cyto-C was chosen because virtually all life has this gene. There are hundreds of genes that are identical in humans and chimps, but that isn't the point of Cyto-C.

 

What I did like is that you marked in green all the most interesting parts of the chart. This is where the computer program shines. You are quite right. It is important that full trees like this be drawn using a wide range of different genes. And indeed they are (like the canine example above). However, it is amazing (to me) that it is even possible to get this tree with just a single gene (although a very important gene).

 

I thought your monkey was cute, but not sure how it addressed the logic of our discussion.

Posted Image

17263[/snapback]

I look forward to your response,'

James

 

p.s. I do appreciate that you allow both sides to state their argument on this site.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am sure you are aware how Denton is considered in field of genetics and evolutionary biology. There are plenty of critiques elsewhere so I won't repeat them.

This ad homenim against Denton is against forum rules (see 7th bullet). We argue the evidence presented, not who the messenger is or what his credentials are, unless it is found to be absolutely critical to the argument.

 

However, I do not understand the part you put in bold.

The point I’m trying to make is that there is no basis for the underlying root system and major connecting branches. Perhaps I should have emphasized the penultimate sentence - "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".

 

What I did like is that you marked in green all the most interesting parts of the chart. This is where the computer program shines. You are quite right. It is important that full trees like this be drawn using a wide range of different genes. And indeed they are (like the canine example above). However, it is amazing (to me) that it is even possible to get this tree with just a single gene (although a very important gene).

And like I said, such a tree is pure fantasy, nothing more. Using the same Cyto-C data we get the creationist “orchard”:

 

http://www.nmsr.org/phylo3.jpg

 

Fred

 

(FYI, I've pinned this topic)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

 

It´s interesting to notice that in the link I posted there is no mention of carnivora too.So, Who is right ? Nobody is right, It´s true to say that depending on the part of the genome one analyzes one gets different relatioships.That´s what is expected if living beings were created instead of evolved.Because , common traits are distributed according to design needs not according to common ancestor.

 

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

 

I already provided the link but I´ll do it again.

 

Scientists at MD Anderson Cancer Center have created mice with long, slender, bat-like fingers in place of their short, stubby little paws.

Researchers created the “mouat†by simply replacing a small section of DNA from the mouse version to the bat version. This section is responsible for regulating the levels of a single protein in the developing limbâ€â€Âwith the protein at elevated bat levels, the mouse’s fingers grew long and slender.

 

It means that mouse and bats have the same genes regulating the fingers size.They are so similar that they replaced the DNA code of the regulating gene of the mouse with the DNA code of the bat´s gene and it worked.

 

Reference

 

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.

 

What make one living being closer to another ? You are giving more importance to one study than the other only because it supports your point of view.Why dont they pick those 12 coding regions of the bat´s genome and replace them in the dog´s genome and see if it works ?

 

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.

 

You showed a study that Bats have some relationship with Carnivores, cetaceans, so why didnt you say that bats are related to graywhales like they are to dogs ? It´s simple, because the cytocrome C does not show that relationship.As I said, depending on the part of the genome you compare you get different relationships.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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".

17261[/snapback]

Please, dont make me laugh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because , common traits are distributed according to design needs not according to common ancestor.

 

That demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of the whole problem with differing cytochrome c for a creationist perspective. There is no functional difference between the cytochrome c of any animal on earth. They all fold into the same shape and react the same way and perform the same function. There are not multiple design needs which means a designer does not need multiple versions of cytochrome c.

 

Since there are somewhere around 10^90 different sequences that will make a functional cytrochrome c protein, even if a designer wanted to use different sequences for the same need the probability is essentially zero that a designer would independently arrive at the same sequence twice. That means that if there are identical sequences in different species at least one of those identical sequences was copied from the other (a.k.a common descent). There is no distinct design need that would require chimps and humans but not other animals to have the same cytochrome c sequence.

 

Since there's no need for them to be the same, and theres only a 1 in 1000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 chance of a designer choosing the same sequence without copying, the only explanation for them being the same is that one was copied from the other.

 

 

Scientists at MD Anderson Cancer Center have created mice with long, slender, bat-like fingers in place of their short, stubby little paws.

Researchers created the “mouat†by simply replacing a small section of DNA from the mouse version to the bat version. This section is responsible for regulating the levels of a single protein in the developing limbâ€â€Âwith the protein at elevated bat levels, the mouse’s fingers grew long and slender.

 

It means that mouse and bats have the same genes regulating the fingers size.They are so similar that they replaced the DNA code of the regulating gene of the mouse with the DNA code of the bat´s gene and it worked.

 

Reference

What make one living being closer to another ? You are giving more importance to one study than the other only because it supports your point of view.

 

 

In a discussion about genetic closeness I'm giving weight to studies intended to investigate genetic closeness over studies intended to investigate protein regulation, not sure why you think that's a bad thing. The study you posted wasn't intended to deal with mice being closer or further away from bats than other animals so it has absolutely no relevance to this discussion.

 

 

Why dont they pick those 12 coding regions of the bat´s genome and replace them in the dog´s genome and see  if it works ?

 

 

I don't know anything about the decisions made for that study but mice are usually cheaper and easier to experiment on than other animals.

 

You showed a study that Bats have some relationship with Carnivores, cetaceans, so why didnt you say that bats are related to graywhales like they are to dogs ? It´s simple, because the cytocrome C does not show that relationship.As I said, depending on the part of the genome you compare you get different relationships.

17284[/snapback]

Take a look at the spreadsheet I posted back at the beginning and look at the entry for bats, the whale was one of the lower numbers of differences. If a tree was built based on that spreadsheet, whales would indeed be grouped near bats.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

×

Important Information

Our Terms