afdave
Posts: 1621
Joined: April 2006
|
Faid said ... | Quote | Dave, we're referring to AiG and all their proclaimed experts, like Woodmorappe, not you. You reply by referring to us.
And AiG does not quote scientific research that supports Genesis (because there isn't any, and they cannot come up with any), so they take existing scientific research and try to twist and distort its data to their liking. They're liars, dave. |
I was not referring to you. What I said was ... | Quote | | That would be like me saying "PT and TO people shouldn't quote researchers like Nikimishi and Inai ... they should do their own research!!" |
My point was that people like Dr. Max on Talk Origins use other people's research (Inai, Nikimishi, etc.) and draw conclusions ... why shouldn't AIG do the same? Obviously they are going to have different conclusions because they hold a different world view. This is not lying. You have not shown me one lie they have told. You have shown me that Dr. Wieland was uninformed about transcription direction being unimportant. And I agreed with you. But you have not shown me that they lie.
| Quote | It's not simply the fact that GLO is 'broken.' It's the exact nature of the 'breaks.' That's what supports evolution & common descent.
You realize that genes are generally a few thousand base pairs long (or longer), right? And you realize that there are many, many, many different genetic changes that can 'break' (inactivate) any given change?
So, if humans and other great apes all have an inactivated GLO gene, and the cause of the inactivation is virtually identical in all of them, that's evidence for evolution via common descent. Not proof. Evidence. |
I do understand all this, yes. I think my understanding is correct that human and ape genes are about 95% (or 97) similar. My assumption would be that the inactivated GLO gene would likewise be approximately 95% (or 97 or whatever it really is) similar also. Is this correct? Or am I to understand that human and ape GLO is 100% IDENTICAL? Can someone confirm this for me?
If the former is true, then to me it is clear that Dr. Max's assertion that this proves common descent is an OK guess, but it doesn't close the case. One could just as easily say that apes and humans are separate designs and the GLO broke independently in each. Why should we think it would not? Apparently it did also break independently in guinea pigs.
And again, the 36% thing to me is a side issue. What I am trying to show is simply that Renier said that Dr. Max said that the broken GLO in humans is exactly 100% the same as in apes. Enter Dr. Max's copyright case. And yes, IF this is the situation we in fact have, then I would agree ... it looks like common descent.
| Quote | | What we can say is that evolution not only provides detailed, mechanistic explanations of the available data, is also accurately and reproducibly predicts new observations. Creationism does neither of those things. That's why evolution is science, and creationism is not. That's why evolution should be taught in science class, and creationism should not. |
Creationism HAS provided many detailed explanations of the available data and has accurately predicted many things, including ubiquitous gaps in the fossil record and the inability to induce "good changes" or "vertical evolution" in fruit flies by "speeding up the evolutionary timescale." It has predicted a certain "fixity of kinds" and "downward evolution" (not "upward") (note we are using MY terminolgy here in which humans are "at the top" of the hierarchy and single celled organisms are at the bottom--this is my convention, of course, but I believe it to be a good convention which in many ways can be a useful organizational tool) which in fact has been observed--i.e. our bodies continue to accumulate more and more harmful mutations and the bacteria are winning, among other things. It hypothesized that coal does not require millions of years to form, but can be formed quite quickly. This has now been shown. It hypothesized that sedimentation such as that seen in the Grand Canyon is not formed gradually over millions of years, but is formed catastrophically. This has now been proven at Mt. Saint Helens where there is a "miniature Grand Canyon which was not there before 1980. Creationism and the idea of the the Curse has the only sensible description of human nature which lines up with what we actually observe. And many other things which we have already begun to get into on my "Creator God Hypothesis" thread.
| Quote | According to common design, the creator would have put broken copies of a gene in each species, copies that reflect the current phylogeny, built with coding genes. Why would he? A broken gene is not part of a design, it's useless.
You said you would readily accept any evidence for common descent. I don't think you are sincere. What kind of proof would convince you? |
Please see above. Can you confirm that the broken GLO gene is 100% identical to the broken ape GLO gene? If so, then I think you have something.
| Quote | | And what are your thoughts on the fact that AIG only referred to the 36% homology between guinea pigs and humans, but forgot to mention the 97% identity between us and chimpanzees? Silly mistake again? |
No. Just irrelevant to their discussion. The whole Inai paper discussion (I think) is intended to show that "Guinea pigs GLO gene broke independently. Why shouldn't apes and humans GLO gene ALSO break independently? They may be trying to say something further than this also when they get into the pro-simian discussion and 36% etc., but I don't really follow that part of their argument. They freely acknowledge elsewhere that there is great similarity in ape and human genes, so it is clear they are not trying to obfuscate. They may think it will come in a bit less--maybe 90%--when more is known, but even if it stays at 95-97, this does no damage to their idea that apes and humans DO NOT share a common ancestor. A house builder builds many houses that look similar--97% similar probably--but this is obviously because of a Common Designer, not Common Descent.
By the way, the 36% 'similarness' number comes from 47 out of 129 substitutions, i.e. 47/129=0.36. I do have the complete Inai article, and they themselves say "A high percentage of the same substitutions in the total substitutions (36%) indicates that there were many hot spots for nucleotide substitution throughout the sequences examined." (Journal of Nutritional Science & Vitaminology, 2003, Vol. 49, Issue 5,p. 316). This does not lead to any profound conclusions for me ... how about you?
I did not see anything in this article which would confirm 100% identicalness of human GLO to ape GLO. Possibly some other article has this?
| Quote | | I keep asking, and you keep not answering: what, in the "common design theory", would have led Nishikimi to expect to find gulo homologs in humans and guinea pigs?" |
To me it is quite conceivable that a Designer designed functional GLO genes in all the distinct "originally created kinds." The fact that Human Designers make similar structures to perform similar function should have led Nishikimi to expect to find homologues in the natural world as well. I don't think the genes have to be identical to be functional. Just as several different codons can code for a particular protein (I think that's correct, right?--help me all you genetics experts). Similarly, in the English language, I can say I'm going to go grocery shopping in a variety of different ways ... "I'm going to go buy some food" and "I'm gonna drop by Safeway and restock our vittles" and "I'm going to go to town and get our pantry restocked" all communicate the same idea but with very different words. There is no reason in my mind to think that the situation in genetics is any different than this.
| Quote | | Apparently the fossil evidence, DNA sequence analysis, chromosome structure, and a coherent theory are not enough. What kind of proof would convince you? |
100% identicalness of the GLO gene between apes and humans would be a good piece of evidence to me. The whale evolution sequences presented to me are very unconvincing. The chromosome thing is the best one I have been given yet, but again, considering the above discussion, why couldn't a Designer have used the '2A and 2B' chromosome info that he used for apes, modified it slightly by fusing it and a few other changes, then inserted this into the human genome? Or vice versa. Maybe He used Human chromosome 2, split it into two and put it into the chimp genome as 2A and 2B. When an artist creates two pieces of artwork, they may be very similar, and the artist may reuse certain pieces of one in creating the other. Certainly software 'artists' do this. I've done this myself many times. Why write a second program entirely from scratch when you can reuse some code snippets and save yourself some time? Again, I am not saying here that I can prove this definitely happened. I am just saying that it is perfectly plausible and exactly what we should expect from a Designer. Some kind of 'upward evolution' (my definition of upward -- humans at the top, one-celled organisms at the bottom) in fruit flies would be impressive. I think these experiments try to 'fast forward' evolution. But all I've ever heard of is dead fruit flies, deformed fruit flies, etc. Never 'advanced' fruit flies with major increased abilities.
Jeannot said ... | Quote | | Anyway, the percentage of identical substitutions between human and chimp is certainly well above 36%. |
I would expect it to be around the same as the general genetic similarity -- 95-97%. This would be consistent with Design Theory.
| Quote | | To check that, we should gather several sequences from rodents, primates (and maybe other mammals), if available, and build a maximum likelihood our parsimony phylogeny. The three sequences alone (rat, guinea pig and human) won't do. |
Agreed. Does anyone have a paper comparing human and chimp GLO, for example? Is it 100% identical? Or 95-97% as I predict.
| Quote | | ...You know, it's a good thing creationists like Dave drop by from time to time and try to "enlighten" us: It helps us refresh things we had forgotten, learn things we didn't know, have constructive debates (such as this) we'd normally not have, and in the end appreciate science even more. |
See ... even ugly, flea-bitten dogs are good for something ... to throw rocks at, kick when your mad, etc. :-)
Faid said ... | Quote | | Did I mention that this is fun? |
Well ... at least I am contributing entertainment value to everyone if nothing else ... think of me a side show at the carnival that you didn't have to pay for!
| Quote | | I wonder why AFDave isn't hear setting you all straight about your convergences and your BLASTs and what have you. |
Oh, I was there alright. I actually read these posts on my Blackberry at church during the boring announcements. I just have never tried posting from my Blackberry.
| Quote | | From what I hear, he's busy posting over at his newfound haven at UD right now. But I'm sure he'll be back... |
Oh yes. I'll be back. I wouldn't call UD a haven. Those guys all agree with me. What fun is that? I just thought I'd better spread the word about that fun quote from TO before someone at TO changes it to sound ... er ... less supportive of Creos.
Oh I know he is. That's irrelevant to me. I posted this in response to a friend that maintains that you shouldn't be quoting Jesus at work. My response was "Well, why not? Warren Buffet does!"
While you are at my blog site, you guys HAVE to try my "Mist, Ghost or Computer Graphics?" link ... but turn your speakers up loud.
| Quote | | When did the split occur Dave? around the time of pharoah? Oh right you don't think there WAS a split. Interestingly, you sparked a conversation between two people who DO know what they are talking about and got some interesting info. |
Of course. I like it when this happens. BTW, I did see your questions and I have good answers, but I'm on a particular train of thought and would like to answer them in my own sequence. Did you read the latest page on my "God Hypo" thread?
--------------
A DILEMMA FOR THE COMMITTED NATURALIST
A Hi-tech alien spaceship lands on earth ... DESIGNED.
A Hi-tech alien rotary motor found in a cell ... NOT DESIGNED.
http://afdave.wordpress.com/....ess.com
|
