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

Cytochrome C - The Illusion Exposed

Recommended Posts

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. 

 

I think that our knowledge about the function of cells is very small to say that the differences in Cytocrome C is not necessary to each specie.

 

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.

 

Your reasoning is no sense.Designer is not limited by probabilities, only random events are.

 

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 I posted has the intention to explain bats evolution.It´s very clear.

 

  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.

 

Of course it is.They are trying to explain bat´s evolution.

 

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.

 

No, it´s because mouse has the same genes regulating finger´s size.If dog had it they would have used dog.

 

 

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.

17291[/snapback]

So, Why didnt you put it ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that our knowledge about the function of cells is very small to say that the differences in Cytocrome C is not necessary to each specie.

 

Our understanding of cytochrome c is quite robust actually. The cytochrome c in every animal is the same shape, does the same thing, and reacts the same way.

 

http://www.bio.mtu.edu/campbell/401lec10p1.html

First, we find that all cytochrome c proteins from eukaryotic organisms have the same 3-D shape and they all bind heme-Fe in the same way and are found in mitochondria. However, while there are about 100 AAs in all these cytochrome c proteins, only about 30 of the AAs are exactly the same in all of them.

 

 

Cytochrome c between very different species is interchangeable. Here's a link to an abstract of a study where rat cytochrome c was put into yeast.

 

http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0027-8424...TOR-enlargePage

 

"Therefore, the rat polypeptide, when expressed at normal physiological levels, is recognized by the yeast machinery involved in the multiple steps required for the processing and transport of an active cytochrome c as well as its functional interaction with the respiratory apparatus"

 

It would be an interesting research project for creationists if they could find a reason for cytochrome c to be different in different species. Right now there is no reason except random divergence from a common ancestor.

 

 

Your reasoning is no sense.Designer is not limited by probabilities, only random events are.

 

You aren't understanding the problem. We know a designer didn't use the same sequence in each animal even though he could have. That means a designer must have wanted different sequences in different species. There are for all practical purposes a nearly infinite number of sequences that will work. Since the designer selected different sequences from a extremely large range of options we can use probability to determine if the selections were related to one another.

 

Think of it this way. I ask you to select 4 numbers from a range of 1-100000 and you give me 1,1,2,3. No one would believe that the any of the selections were made without thinking of the other selections. Each of your selections was either copied or used as a basis for an additional selection.

 

Similarly, with such a wide range of cytochrome c sequences available to chose from, when we see selections that are identical or only have a couple of differences we can be certain that the sequences were copied or built off of each other.

 

Not only that but when we plot out the differences in the sequences we get pretty good matches of prior expectations of evolutionary relationshihps. Such as the correct identification of a large difference between bats and mice (look at the spreadsheet to see the high number of differences compared to most of the other mammals).

 

The study I posted has the intention to explain bats evolution.It´s very clear.

 

They wanted to see if a single regulatory region can affect limb length, which is related to bat evolution. So they copied that region into another animal to see if that animal exhibited different limb length. The experiment worked, they confirmed that a single regulatory region could have significant morphological impact.

 

We copy human genes into mice all the time, that doesn't mean mice and humans are more closely related than other animals.

 

No, it´s because mouse has the same genes regulating finger´s size.If dog had it they would have used dog.

 

Where are you getting the idea that the experiment wouldn't work similarly with a dog?

Why on earth would they use a more expensive, harder to work with animal when a easier, cheaper alternative is available?

 

It sounds like you think they had to use a close ancestor to a bat for the experiment to work, but nothing in that article implies any such thing.

 

 

It's getting kind of repetitive trying to show you bats aren't related to mice so I'm going to try a different approach.

 

Here's 5 different sources saying mice aren't related to bats

 

http://www.batsnorthwest.org/basic_bat_FAQs.html

http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/mammal/eutheria/chiroptera.html

http://www.batsgauteng.org.za/BatPhobia.htm

http://science.howstuffworks.com/bat1.htm

http://rainforest.montclair.edu/pwebrf/rai...mmals/bats.html

 

Please come up with one, just 1, source that says "bats are related to mice","bats have a close ancestor to mice" or any variation of those words. I don't want you to post a study that you think sort of implies that bats are related to mice, I am asking for a source that says point blank "bats and mice are related" at any level closer than they are both mammals. If you can't find one either admit you are wrong about mice and bats being related or I'm going to have to conclude that you are simply unwilling to accept evidence that contradicts your opinions.

 

So, Why didnt you put it ?

17298[/snapback]

I posted the spreadsheet and explained how to read it. If you read my original post on this topic I explained that I was only writing statements for the lowest number for each animal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest shpongle

I realize the discussion in this thread is about 9 months old, but since it was pinned I figured it's fair game.

 

Anyway, the challenge the OP presented piqued my interest, and since no one had actually done a phylogenetic reconstruction, I figured it was worth trying.

 

So I did. First a pre-amble with a couple caveats:

 

1) I had to transcribe things by hand, since the original data in the OP was an image file. I expediated the process by transcribing one sequence then trying to carryover differences. Also, it's not clear in the OP, but the bird sequences differ more than is highlighted, so I had to go back and double check those to make sure I had the differences correct. Otherwise, the tree would have been very odd. That said, there still could be some transcription errors. Human error and all that.

 

2) I tried to do some statistical weighting for individual sites based on relative divergences and similarities in the OP. This was all ball-park stuff based on a cursory examination of the highlighted differences, so again, judgement and error is going to be introduced. I could probably do more rigorous analysis, but for this purpose I don't see the point.

 

3) The method I used was a distance matrix method and least squares to build the tree. There are various methods, both for distances and tree construction, which can give slightly different results. This is why real phylogenetic reconstruction tends to take a lot more work (usually building multiple trees, doing tree comparison, etc). I just did one for simplicity.

 

4) I initially labelled everything with "Animal 1, Animal 2, etc", but it made it really hard to cross reference, so I went back and labelled everything properly.

 

5) I included tomato sequence to have an outlier. I chose something very distinct based on the given sequences, and since they were all animals, I figured a plant was a safe bet. This was to avoid weird tree reconstruction that could have resulted in using a different outlier. I suppose the rattle snake sequence would have worked too, but I went for a safer bet by using a plant.

 

6) Software used was PHYLIP, free phylogenetic reconstruction software anyone can download and use. Anyone wants the raw text file data I used, PM me.

 

'nuff said, here's the tree:

 

Posted Image

 

Discussion: This is more or less ballpark for what I expected based on an examination of the sequences in the OP. There are some oddities, like murids (mouse and rats) located where they are. Hippos are placed a bit odd too, but the closest nodes are so close sequence-wise that it's pretty ballpark. This is something where relative weighting can also play a big role in determining nesting. Kangaroos are also odd, but again, given the data and assumptions, I'm not surprised there are oddities.

 

Bottom line, I think it's a decent tree with oddities to be expected given the limited data set and base assumptions going in. Obviously tree refinement would require better overall analysis and probably more than a singular dataset (especially for sequences that are very closely related).

 

Unfortunately for the OP, this tree does not confirm their premise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted Image

 

So let me get this right, the grey whale is more closely related to the camel than it is to the elephant seal?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest shpongle

So let me get this right, the grey whale is more closely related to the camel than it is to the elephant seal?

21111[/snapback]

Actually yes (and this is even based on more comprehensive phylogenetic studies).

 

Whales are part of the Cetartiodactyla clade along with other species like pigs, camels, sheep, deer, etc.

 

Elephants seals are part of the order Carnivora and actually most closely related to dogs in this list (and based on other phylogenetic studies).

 

That said, I wouldn't read too much into this particular phylogenetic tree, however, since there is so much sequence similarity in Cytochrome-C for many of the animals in the list (particularly for those in the Cetartiodactyla clade), that resolving precise phylogenetic relationships is problematic. A better approach would be to use a more comprehensive data set with multiple sequence alignments.

 

My approach was very basic here and just to illustrate that yes, you can build a reasonable if imprecise phylogenetic tree from the data given in the OP.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually yes (and this is even based on more comprehensive phylogenetic studies).

 

Whales are part of the Cetartiodactyla clade along with other species like pigs, camels, sheep, deer, etc.

 

Elephants seals are part of the order Carnivora and actually most closely related to dogs in this list (and based on other phylogenetic studies).

 

That said, I wouldn't read too much into this particular phylogenetic tree, however, since there is so much sequence similarity in Cytochrome-C for many of the animals in the list (particularly for those in the Cetartiodactyla clade), that resolving precise phylogenetic relationships is problematic.  A better approach would be to use a more comprehensive data set with multiple sequence alignments.

 

My approach was very basic here and just to illustrate that yes, you can build a reasonable if imprecise phylogenetic tree from the data given in the OP.

21116[/snapback]

You have got to be kidding me. Everything you said about similarities, based on diet and other commonalities are just that. However, the things that you say are the same are mocked by the wild mechanical differences between these animals.

 

When someone concludes that camels and whales have a common ancestor they truly are religious about their beliefs.

 

Okay, let’s stick a pin in the genetics for one moment. What would the common ancestor of the whale and camel look like?

 

Hey I found it...

 

Posted Image

 

It's the Great, Great, Great, Great, Great, Great, Great, Great, Great, Grandpa of the Camel and Whale!

 

It's the Whalecamel Bacteria from Mars.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest shpongle

You have got to be kidding me. Everything you said about similarities, based on diet and other commonalities are just that. However, the things that you say are the same are mocked by the wild mechanical differences between these animals.

I'm not kidding you. And yes, they have some gross mechanical differences, but the underlying anatomy shows a lot of similarity. There's more in common between whales and other mammals than, say, whales and fish. Which is not what you would expect if these organisms were engineered seperately.

 

Same with development and same with genetics. It all converges on the same pattern of evolutionary ancestry. Why is that?

 

When someone concludes that camels and whales have a common ancestor they truly are religious about their beliefs.

Nope. It's all about the data.

 

Okay, let’s stick a pin in the genetics for one moment. What would the common ancestor of the whale and camel look like?

Probably something along these lines:

 

Posted Image

 

It's the Great, Great, Great, Great, Great, Great, Great, Great, Great, Grandpa of the Camel and Whale!

 

It's the Whalecamel Bacteria from Mars

I know you're just kidding around, but in all seriousness, if whales were as genetically divergence from bacteria as other species, then I would expect them to be equally distant from snakes, tomatos, birds, humans, hippos, seals, etc.

 

But of course, the actual evidence does not support this idea at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Probably something along these lines:

 

Posted Image

 

21134[/snapback]

Shpongle, I do admire your zeal but you're investing a lot of faith into a data set and a certain conclusion that doesn't have the convincing power that you want it to.

 

I know at this point you would advise me to get deeper into the technical end but I don't see how I would find this compelling at all. You are straining at this with great intensity. Let's just say your way was the right way to draw conclusions from the data. The moment you turn around and look at the other road blocks that God stuck in front of you, this data interpretation looks really week, friend.

 

You told me that you had tried to get opinions from YEC groups in the past. Have you tried the Discovery institute?

 

http://www.discovery.org/

 

I’m sure you’re familiar with them. I wonder what they have to say about your conclusions. They aren’t a YEC group but that would actually make their response interesting to analyze. Let us know what you find if you decide to pursue it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest shpongle

Just curious. I notice when you quoted me you didn't include the phrase I wrote just prior to, "But of course, the actual evidence does not support this idea at all.". Was that deliberate? Just wondering...

 

Shpongle, I do admire your zeal but you're investing a lot of faith into a data set and a certain conclusion that doesn't have the convincing power that you want it to.

 

I know at this point you would advise me to get deeper into the technical end but I don't see how I would find this compelling at all. You are straining at this with great intensity. Let's just say your way was the right way to draw conclusions from the data. The moment you turn around and look at the other road blocks that God stuck in front of you, this data interpretation looks really week, friend.

I think phylogenetics is incredibly compelling, especially when you understand the sheer number of possibilities in phylogenetic tree reconstruction. In the case of the OP, we're looking at 30 different species. That means there are about 8,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 possible trees (that's 8 followed by 36 zeros). Yet, the resulting tree based on phylogenetic analysis is remarkable convergent with what we'd expect if those species (or more specifically Cytochrome C genes) evolved via common ancestors.

 

And this is true whether you construct trees based on different genetic sequences, morphological characteristics between different species, fossil characteristics. They all show remarkable convergence despite the sheer possible number of variations. And as I said before, a designer would not be constrained in this way.

 

The only possible explanations are: a) Modern life forms share common ancestry with each other. b ) Modern life formed were created to look like they share common ancestry with each other.

 

Either way, life just looks like it evolved.

 

You told me that you had tried to get opinions from YEC groups in the past. Have you tried the Discovery institute?

 

http://www.discovery.org/

 

I’m sure you’re familiar with them. I wonder what they have to say about your conclusions. They aren’t a YEC group but that would actually make their response interesting to analyze. Let us know what you find if you decide to pursue it.

21153[/snapback]

I haven't emailed the DI about this, but mainly because I don't expect them to disagree with any of it. While views of DI members can be sometimes difficult to figure out with respect to evolution, I know people like Behe, Meyer, and Denton have in the past indicated they accept evolutionary common descent. They just disagree with the mechanisms.

 

I was mainly curious as to how people who explicity deny evolutionary common descent (like AiG and ICR) would react. I was disappointed they were (and still are) completely silent on the issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just curious.  I notice when you quoted me you didn't include the phrase I wrote just prior to, "But of course, the actual evidence does not support this idea at all.".  Was that deliberate?  Just wondering...

That was a goof on my part. I didn't want the quote underneath included. Maybe a mod will fix that for us.

 

I think phylogenetics is incredibly compelling, especially when you understand the sheer number of possibilities in phylogenetic tree reconstruction.  In the case of the OP, we're looking at 30 different species.  That means there are about 8,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 possible trees (that's 8 followed by 36 zeros).  Yet, the resulting tree based on phylogenetic analysis is remarkable convergent with what we'd expect if those species (or more specifically Cytochrome C genes) evolved via common ancestors.

Chance has an important role for evolution but not for Creation. I think the data that Fred Williams shared is a perfect example of how these trees are mostly fairytales (I especially like how that little slithery branch of bacteria sneaks up behind the tree):

 

Posted Image

 

And this is true whether you construct trees based on different genetic sequences, morphological characteristics between different species, fossil characteristics.  They all show remarkable convergence despite the sheer possible number of variations.  And as I said before, a designer would not be constrained in this way.

Well, a designer not constrained, is a non-starter and what the designer has done is obvious. You’re staring at His magnificence every time you do the work.

 

The only possible explanations are:  a) Modern life forms share common ancestry with each other.

Let me fix that: Modern life forms share a common Designer with each other.

 

b ) Modern life formed were created to look like they share common ancestry with each other.

When you compare genes and are compelled that camels and whales are closely related, you have some blinders on. This argument is the same as, if God wanted us to believe the earth was young why do our interpretations of our selected evidence show an old earth?

 

Either way, life just looks like it evolved.

I think knives, forks, and spoons look like they're evolved:

 

Q6I6dEhKSPA

 

Why would silverware manufacturers be so deceptive in the manufacturing of their goods?

 

If you haven’t done so, watch the whole H*vind verses Rainbow debate. It’s really good because at the end Rainbow has the humility to start asking for advice. Rainbow’s background is biology so this debate is right up your alley:

 

H*vind vs Rainbow

 

I haven't emailed the DI about this, but mainly because I don't expect them to disagree with any of it.  While views of DI members can be sometimes difficult to figure out with respect to evolution, I know people like Behe, Meyer, and Denton have in the past indicated they accept evolutionary common descent.  They just disagree with the mechanisms.

This is why their response would be interesting.

 

I was mainly curious as to how people who explicity deny evolutionary common descent (like AiG and ICR) would react.  I was disappointed they were (and still are) completely silent on the issue.

21160[/snapback]

I think the picture above shows how YECs generally view these trees. This whole thread answers the questions of how we view the gene sequencing and the fairytales derived from it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest shpongle

That was a goof on my part. I didn't want the quote underneath included. Maybe a mod will fix that for us.

Oh okay. That's fine, I just hoped you weren't trying to make it sound like I was contradicting myself.

 

Chance has an important role for evolution but not for Creation. I think the data that Fred Williams shared is a perfect example of how these trees are mostly fairytales (I especially like how that little slithery branch of bacteria sneaks up behind the tree):

What data? I'm not sure where you are getting this idea from. I mean, yes, he drew the word "Fairytale" on a chart. But I'd be a lot more impressed if he could demonstrate some sort of gross violation of common descent. That would be remarkable.

 

Well, a designer not constrained, is a non-starter and what the designer has done is obvious. You’re staring at His magnificence every time you do the work.

Unfortunately saying "what the designer has done is obvious" doesn't give one a path for scientific inquiry into what the designer did.

 

We can come up with things we might expect to find if a designer created life individually (like genetic chimeras), but we don't find any of those. So no, it's not so obvious.

 

Let me fix that: Modern life forms share a common Designer with each other.

So? Demonstrate it. Nested hierarchies in phylogenetic analysis point to common descent not common design. Completely random phylogenies and genetic chimeras would point to common design. But the latter doesn't happen. Why is that?

 

When you compare genes and are compelled that camels and whales are closely related, you have some blinders on. This argument is the same as, if God wanted us to believe the earth was young why do our interpretations of our selected evidence show an old earth?

Because the Earth looks old. Heck, even Kurt Wise admits this (and he's a YEC!).

 

I think the picture above shows how YECs generally view these trees. This whole thread answers the questions of how we view the gene sequencing and the fairytales derived from it.

21171[/snapback]

Oh I know YECs dismiss common ancestry, but the problem for you guys is you have yet to find anything that would be a demonstrable violation of common descent. Genetic chimeras would be a HUGE violation of common descent. I mean, if you found a whale with gills and the resulting genetic structure to produce them that was extremely similar to say, a shark, then that would turn evolution on its ear. But no one finds things like that in nature.

 

Just out of curiosity, why do you think whales have lungs and have to breath air? Why would a designer not give them gills like fish have?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What data?  I'm not sure where you are getting this idea from.  I mean, yes, he drew the word "Fairytale" on a chart.  But I'd be a lot more impressed if he could demonstrate some sort of gross violation of common descent.  That would be remarkable.

21178[/snapback]

I want to ask you...What data?

 

Evolutionists draw the branches that are just pulled out of thin air (marked “fairytale” in above chart). Tell me how the bacteria branch is demonstrated through the scientific method or operational science. You are the one excited about applied science. Well, apply it and stop pretending that evolutionists have accomplished something that they haven’t.

 

I'd be a lot more impressed if he could demonstrate some sort of gross violation of common descent.

This is a classic example of shifting the burden of proof. Have you ever studied the Oort Cloud? The Oort Cloud is supposed to be a shell of comets 50,000au away from us. When Christians demand evidence for its existence, evolutionists will say; "You can’t prove it’s not there…" (Do you know what embarrassing problem the Oort cloud is supposed to cover up?) I’ll start a new thread if this is a topic of interest.

 

If I told you that falling trees don’t make any noise when people or testing devices aren’t present, how would you prove me wrong?

 

Because the Earth looks old. Heck, even Kurt Wise admits this (and he's a YEC!).

I'll even admit it looks old but we have proof that the appearence of age can happen rapidly. Look up Surtsey Iceland:

 

Posted Image

 

Again this is off topic, so I'll be glad to start another thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest shpongle

I want to ask you...What data?

 

Evolutionists draw the branches that are just pulled out of thin air (marked “fairytale†in above chart). Tell me how the bacteria branch is demonstrated through the scientific method or operational science. You are the one excited about applied science. Well, apply it and stop pretending that evolutionists have accomplished something that they haven’t.

The branches are not "pulled out of thin air". Saying so is grossly misunderstanding how phylogenetic trees are constructed.

 

Phylogenetic trees are constructed based on algorithmic methods (and there are quite a number of them which I won't go into here) which analyze an underlying dataset to create hierarchical trees of relationships based on the dataset.

 

You can construct phylogenetic trees based on almost anything. For example, you could if you wanted to use it on human designed things like cars or washing machines or books. All you need is an input dataset. In the case of biology, scientists use datasets typically derived from morphologies or genetics.

 

If fact, I think it would be incredibly interesting to create phylogenies based on things like cars to see if you could get any sort of convergence at all, or if the results would be more or less random depending on the dataset used.

 

This is a classic example of shifting the burden of proof.

Of course it's shifting the burden of proof. If you guys are going to claim design, you guys have to demonstrate it. Simply saying "evolution can't have happened" does not demonstrate design.

 

Have you ever studied the Oort Cloud? The Oort Cloud is supposed to be a shell of comets 50,000au away from us. When Christians demand evidence for its existence, evolutionists will say that we can’t be proven it’s not there… (Do you know what embarrassing problem the Oort cloud is supposed to cover up?) I’ll start a new thread if this is a topic of interest.

I'm not extremely familiar with the Oort Cloud, but my understanding is that its existence is inferred based on the composition and trajectories of comets, as opposed to being directly observed.

 

But this is all off topic. We are talking about inferring biological design in organisms.

 

Again this is off topic, so I'll be glad to start another thread.

21182[/snapback]

Indeed. I'm not really a huge fan of astronomy or geology so if it's all right with you, I'm going to stick with biology as the topic of discussion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So?  Demonstrate it.

http://www.evolutionfairytale.com/forum/in...?showtopic=1882

 

http://www.evolutionfairytale.com/forum/in...topic=1878&st=0

 

Are you having trouble seeing the trees because of the forest? ;)

 

What is the logical cause of intellegent information and order? :blink:

 

Before you say; "Well where does God come from?"

 

Watch this:

 

Qsymb6UxWM0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Phylogenetic trees are constructed based on algorithmic methods (and there are quite a number of them which I won't go into here) which analyze an underlying dataset to create hierarchical trees of relationships based on the dataset.

Smoke screen

 

I'm not extremely familiar with the Oort Cloud, but my understanding is that its existence is inferred based on the composition and trajectories of comets, as opposed to being directly observed.

Smoke screen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest shpongle

But again, none of that (at least from what I can recall in the threads) is a positive demonstration of design. You simply asked "how did X evolve" and when not presented answers to your satisfication, declared victory for design.

 

Imagine if you were in a contest with someone else. You were asked a question but your answer wasn't satisfactory. As a result victory was declared for the other person by default. Do you think that's a fair contest?

 

You can't merely assume design as a defult. You need to have some sort of positive demonstrable criteria to conclude design. From what I've seen of the ID movement, they are working on this problem but they have yet to come up with any empirical verification of their criteria thus far (unless there's been something new published within the last couple years I'm unaware of).

 

What is the logical cause of intellegent information and order?  :blink:

Define "intellegent information". And quantify it with respect to biological forms. Ditto with "order".

 

Smoke screen

You claimed branches on phylogenetic trees were "pulled out of thin air". I responded they are derived via algorthimic methods based on datasets. Where is the smokescreen? I mean, you can read all about this yourself if you don't believe me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Indeed.  I'm not really a huge fan of astronomy or geology so if it's all right with you, I'm going to stick with biology as the topic of discussion.

21185[/snapback]

We don't have to discuss these other issues but still consider looking into them. All the evidence for an old earth and biological evolution are a package deal. They need each other to even begin to look plausible.

 

If you find a sunken ship and want to discover some information about when it was sank, what can you do? Well, say you're lucky enough to pull out a chest of coins. Which coins give you the proper limiting date for when it sank? the young ones or the old ones?

 

All the speculations about the dating of an old earth are trumped by methods that establish young ages. Before I get called on a derail, I’ll stop. :blink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Define "intellegent information".  And quantify it with respect to biological forms.  Ditto with "order".

example - intellegent information - as found in the DNA code for all living organisms

 

example - order - the laws by which we can succesfully do the scientific method

 

 

You claimed branches on phylogenetic trees were "pulled out of thin air".  I responded they are derived via algorthimic methods based on datasets.  Where is the smokescreen?  I mean, you can read all about this yourself if you don't believe me.

21189[/snapback]

assumption - evolution

 

work - derive "proof" by fitting to the assumption of evolution

 

result - assumption "proved"

 

You purport to prove what you have assumed. I will gladly admit God as the starting assumption of my view of the world and validate this as a safe assumption. Will you admit that evolution is your starting assumption or would you rather admit that you believe circular reasoning is a-okay? This is not a false dichotomy, it’s you’re only two choices.

 

This is why evolutionists lose debates. They can’t admit their assumptions. Christians that can’t admit their assumptions or don’t understand what that means end up on the same losing end as well. This isn’t a mutually exclusive problem. It’s a philosophical problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest shpongle

example - intellegent information - as found in the DNA code for all living organisms

 

example - order - the laws by which we can succesfully do the scientific method

You're going to need to be much more specific and comphrehensive in your definitions I'm afraid. Especially with respect to "intellegent information". You need to quantify your definitions if you think it's something that you can measure.

 

assumption - evolution

 

work - derive "proof" by fitting to the assumption of evolution

 

result - assumption "proved"

Nope, this is incorrect. While there are phylogenetic methodologies which do rely on evolutionary bases for tree construction (like maximum parsimony), the method I used (least squares) to construct the tree I did previously isn't based on any evolutionary assumptions. It was simply a statistical method based on relative similarities and differences between items in the dataset given (in this case, Cytochrome C protein sequences).

 

This is why I said you can apply phylogenetic tree reconstruction to things besides biology.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It was simply a statistical method based on relative similarities and differences between items in the dataset given (in this case, Cytochrome C protein sequences).

I don't think anybody here would have the slightest problem with the above statement, creationist or evolutionist.

 

It's when the words; "This proves the "tree of life" common decent from a single living organism, aka The Origin of Species..."

 

This would reveal that you either don't understand that the "facts" of evolution that you were taught in school were actually hypothetical speculations or you are willingly ignorant of your assumptions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You need to quantify your definitions if you think it's something that you can measure.

Don't you see how crossed your wires are? You can't quantify Darwinian Evolution and yet you purport that it's been proven.

 

You'll say; yes it has been Quantified:

 

Evolution is the change of living organisms over time through mutations and natural selection.

 

Nobody is disputing that claim.

 

The foul comes in when the extrapolation is made that this proves "The Origin of Species"

 

BTW, I don't approach God through operational science. I assume God as the author of operational science. He deserves our reverence. His power is displayed every time you look into a telescope or peer into a microscope or when you simply take a breath and look out your back window.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest shpongle

Don't you see how crossed your wires are? You can't quantify Darwinian Evolution and yet you purport that it's been proven.

Actually there are evolutionary quantifications. Look up "molecular clocks".

 

The key is that if you are going to try to define something like "information" as some sort of measurement with respect to DNA, you need to quantify it. Failure to do so doesn't really give it any meaning with respect to DNA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually there are evolutionary quantifications.  Look up "molecular clocks".

 

The key is that if you are going to try to define something like "information" as some sort of measurement with respect to DNA, you need to quantify it.  Failure to do so doesn't really give it any meaning with respect to DNA.

21201[/snapback]

Here you go:

 

http://www.evolutionfairytale.com/forum/forum_faq.htm

 

I haven't looked at these specific examples but the general argument for what information is, looks right to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest shpongle

I don't think anybody here would have the slightest problem with the above statement, creationist or evolutionist.

 

It's when the words; "This proves the "tree of life" common decent from a single living organism, aka The Origin of Species..."

 

This would reveal that you either don't understand that the "facts" of evolution that you were taught in school were actually hypothetical speculations or you are willingly ignorant of your assumptions.

21195[/snapback]

Or perhaps you don't understand the underlying meaning behind phylogenetic reconstruction and converging trees.

 

The point is that the tree I constructed falls remarkably in line with expectations about evolutionary history of the various taxa in that list derived from other sources of data. This was the challenge of the OP: come up with a tree without knowing the items beforehand and see what you get. It's not 100% perfect to be sure, but it's pretty darned good.

 

And this is the really the meat of things. Converging phylogenies is powerful evidence for evolution. To be sure, convergence is never going to be 100% perfect as there are limitations with any statistical measure, but you can get things pretty close. (Remember what I said about there being 8,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 possible trees based on the 30 items in the OP?).

 

And if things like what you suggest (about whales and bacteria last sharing an ancestor relative to other mammals), I wouldn't expect to see them clustered where they are on the tree. In fact, they should be a distant outlier along with the tomato and rattlesnake. Yet, based on this but also studied of morphology and fossils, they are more or less right where I'd expect them to be if they evolved from land dwelling mammals.

 

You never did answer my question, btw: why don't whales have gills like fish?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Shpongle,

 

We went over this topic already. Let's let the next batch of onlookers decide what to do with what's been said. ;)

Share this post


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

×

Important Information

Our Terms