The light of evolution: What would be lost

sfs said:

In this thread, I offered two quite specific uses for common ancestry: determination of the ancestral allele at a variant locus, and determination of the range over which mutation rates remain similar. Both are practical, real-world uses of macroevolution.

Click to expand...

Great . Now if you have not been fabricating facts - Please proceed to show us the practical real world macroevolution use for that besides knowledge of evolution and how it would not have been available for a real world use without darwinism.

Preferably comments more substantive than your accusation of lying turned out to be,

Click to expand...

oh You can hasten to add anything you like but you have yet to show a PRACTICAL use that is predicated on macroevolution that would be lost without darwinism more than just knowledge related to evolution. So get to it and don't run away now. You've already claimed you presented a practical use beyond that so get to it. Is nowhere in your previous posts as you erroneously claim

MikeEnders said:

Great . Now if you have not been lying Please proceed to show us the practical real world macroevolution use for that besides knowledge of evolution and how it would not have been available for a real world use without darwinism.

Click to expand...

Not very Christian to accuse someone of lying without evidence, I wouldn't think.

bhsmte said:

I wouldn't think.

Click to expand...

Thats already been established.

Sfs has not to this point presented a single practical application not related merely to the knowledge of Evolution unless he has no clue about what practical means.

MikeEnders said:

Great . Now if you have not been lying Please proceed to show us the practical real world macroevolution use for that besides knowledge of evolution and how it would not have been available for a real world use without darwinism.

Click to expand...

Sorry, but that doesn't wash. You accused me of lying because I posted videos that depended on microevolution, not macroevolution. Only I didn't post those videos. Your accusation was wrong, regardless of any other issues.

sfs said:

(As it happens, Noble isn't an authority on evolution, so it's not clear why anyone should care about his opinion.)

Click to expand...

you know full well that i do not rest my case entirely on noble.

here, let's see what the lead investigator of NCBI and a microbiologist has to say:
The discovery of pervasive HGT and the overall dynamics of the genetic universe destroys not only the Tree of Life as we knew it but also another central tenet of the Modern Synthesis inherited from Darwin, gradualism. In a world dominated by HGT, gene duplication, gene loss, and such momentous events as endosymbiosis, the idea of evolution being driven primarily by infinitesimal heritable changes in the Darwinian tradition has become untenable.
Equally outdated is the (neo)Darwinian notion of the adaptive nature of evolution: clearly, genomes show very little if any signs of optimal design, and random drift constrained by purifying in all likelihood contributes (much) more to genome evolution than Darwinian selection 16, 17. And, with pan-adaptationism, gone forever is the notion of evolutionary progress that undoubtedly is central to the traditional evolutionary thinking, even if this is not always made explicit.
The summary of the state of affairs on the 150th anniversary of the Origin is somewhat shocking: in the post-genomic era, all major tenets of the Modern Synthesis are, if not outright overturned, replaced by a new and incomparably more complex vision of the key aspects of evolution (Box 1). So, not to mince words, the Modern Synthesis is gone.
-eugene koonin, the origin at 150

SFs Don't try to dance your way out of what you claimed please. You said right here.

The examples I've given of the usefulness of evolution depend entirely on macroevolution.

Click to expand...

IF that was truthful please go ahead and show the practical usefulness that relates strictly to macroevolution as you claimed.

Practical as you claimed not some mere knowledge of evolution that would be lost. Thats the same nonsense as saying we would lose the knowledge of evolution if evolution was taken away

MikeEnders said:

Thats already been established.

Sfs has not to this point presented a single practical application not related merely to the knowledge of Evolution unless he has no clue about what practical means.

Click to expand...

I gave you a practical application, the prediction of protein function from amino acid sequence using the algorithm SIFTER.

whois said:

The discovery of pervasive HGT . . .

Click to expand...

From that same investigator . . .

"The comparative infrequency of HGT in the eukaryote part of the biological world means, however, that in this case the conceptual implications for the TOL might not be as drastic: the evolutionary histories of many eukaryotes appear to produce tree-like patterns (e.g., 27])."
http://www.biologydirect.com/content/6/1/32

Why do you keep ignoring this?

As for the usefulness of the applications of macroevolution . . .

Use 1: determining the ancestral allele. We determine the ancestral allele at a locus by looking at closely related species (e.g. chimpanzee for humans). Knowing which allele is ancestral is very useful for a variety of reasons. For example, we use that information in searching for recent episodes of positive natural selection in the human genome. That, in turn, can tell us about important regions of the genome for various health-related traits. We used this approach to help identify candidate regions responsible for resistance to cholera (or for reduced severity) in this paper. We're currently using similar approaches to look for genetic variants conferring resistance to Lassa fever in West Africa.

Use 2: estimating variation in mutation rates. We also compared humans to closely related species in this paper, using the comparison to show that mutation rates don't stay the same over long stretches of genome. This enabled us to show, for the first time, that recombination in humans occurs primarily in "hotspots". This in turn meant it was possible to search for genetic risk factors for disease without sequencing the whole genome, and ultimately led to a massive program in whole-genome association studies, which have involved hundreds of thousands of patients and hundreds of millions of dollars.

sfs said:

As for the usefulness of the applications of macroevolution . . .

Use 1: determining the ancestral allele. We determine the ancestral allele at a locus by looking at closely related species (e.g. chimpanzee for humans). Knowing which allele is ancestral is very useful for a variety of reasons. For example, we use that information in searching for recent episodes of positive natural selection in the human genome. That, in turn, can tell us about important regions of the genome for various health-related traits. We used this approach to help identify candidate regions responsible for resistance to cholera (or for reduced severity) in this paper. We're currently using similar approaches to look for genetic variants conferring resistance to Lassa fever in West Africa.

Use 2: estimating variation in mutation rates. We also compared humans to closely related species in this paper, using the comparison to show that mutation rates don't stay the same over long stretches of genome. This enabled us to show, for the first time, that recombination in humans occurs primarily in "hotspots". This in turn meant it was possible to search for genetic risk factors for disease without sequencing the whole genome, and ultimately led to a massive program in whole-genome association studies, which have involved hundreds of thousands of patients and hundreds of millions of dollars.

Click to expand...

Would you be able to get these results by comparing dog and human?

MikeEnders said:

Thats already been established.

Sfs has not to this point presented a single practical application not related merely to the knowledge of Evolution unless he has no clue about what practical means.

Click to expand...

What's been established, is not what you think.

juvenissun said:

Would you be able to get these results by comparing dog and human?

Click to expand...

Not with anything like the same accuracy for the first use, and probably not at all for the second. Too many mutations separate us from dog.

whois said:

https://www.quantamagazine.org/20150206-crispr-dna-editor-bacteria/

Click to expand...

In nature, the CRSPR system only exists in a select few bacterial species. It doesn't exist in any eukaryotes. It is also limited to phage resistance in naturally occurring populations. This doesn't overturn the vast majority of evolution that occurs in eukaryotes which occurs through vertical inheritance and Darwinian mechanisms.

sfs said:

Not with anything like the same accuracy for the first use, and probably not at all for the second. Too many mutations separate us from dog.

Click to expand...

So if we compare genomes among different animals, the degree of differences is interpreted as the quantity of mutations happened on each one of them. So, the difference of genome between chimp and human is the smallest. It means chimp and human have the closest relationship.
Is that the idea?

juvenissun said:

So if we compare genomes among different animals, the degree of differences is interpreted as the quantity of mutations happened on each one of them. So, the difference of genome between chimp and human is the smallest. It means chimp and human have the closest relationship.
Is that the idea?

Click to expand...

Pretty much, yes, except that we already knew that either chimpanzees/bonobos or gorillas were our closest relative before we looked at any DNA.

juvenissun said:

So if we compare genomes among different animals, the degree of differences is interpreted as the quantity of mutations happened on each one of them. So, the difference of genome between chimp and human is the smallest. It means chimp and human have the closest relationship.
Is that the idea?

Click to expand...

If you only have two species, you still can't figure out the ancestral sequence. You need a third, more distantly related species, preferably a few species. If a base is conserved by even more distantly related species, then it tells you which genome has the mutation. Using evolution, we have those evolutionary relationships and can figure this stuff out which has practical uses for figuring out the causes of diseases or possible routes of resistance.

By the way, one of the main motivations for sequencing lots of different mammals, at least for a practically minded research institute like the one I work for, is as a way to determine the location of functional elements in noncoding human DNA.

sfs said:

For example, we use that information in searching for recent episodes of positive natural selection in the human genome. That, in turn, can tell us about important regions of the genome for various health-related traits. We used this approach to help identify candidate regions responsible for resistance to cholera (or for reduced severity) in this paper. We're currently using similar approaches to look for genetic variants conferring resistance to Lassa fever in West Africa.

Click to expand...

Nonsense .As I suspected and was right you have nothing but nice try. What cholera researchers did (if you actually researched it) that had the most effect was analyze living samples of modern humans and compared them to databases of other infected and non diseased subjects - thats other humans that were exposed but did not get the disease

http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2013/07/clues-to-cholera-resistance/

Nothing in that demonstrates anything from macroevolution but microevolution. You were clearly not referring to macroevolution only as you previously claimed and I had every right to call you out on it. thank you for now confirming your utterly false claim of relying only on macroevolution. I am not even sure you even understand the distinction.

NO doubt you will beg and plead that some small role was played by darwinistic science but as the link above proves the breakthrough came in comparing humans to humans on the basis of who got sick and who did not something the creationist scientist would do just as well adhering to microevolution. Without macroevolution the critical steps would still be there of analyzing who got sick and who did not

this is CLASSIC kind of fudging and deception your side uses. The data that allows us to best isolate diseases are human samples. this has been borne out over and over and over and over again as many promising research done on other animals (which creationists would still do because of similar design patterns) have gone belly up because they often do NOT work in humans. As expected you have no practical application that would be lost without macroevolution theories.