Why Evolution is True (3)

[createdtoworship]

gradyll,

Do you understand that this table in no way indicates that humans and cats share more DNA than humans and chimps?

Initial sequence and comparative analysis of the cat genome

That is not a base to base comparison of the genomes. That is more of a testament to the completeness and accuracy of the databases for both the human and chimp genomes.

yeah I adressed this in my last post

 

[dad]

Dude, you were just talking about mythical man/beast chimeras. I'll take evidence of the real world over LaLa Land any day of the week.

You can call reality la la land all you like. Scripture describes some creatures, and they have traits. Obviously you are in deep denial, and are incapable of considering how the DNA sequences have a created origin basis.

Your mystery common ancestor that you have no fossils or DNA for and whom you think parented you and potatoes is a filthy dream only.

 

[dad]

And yet you can't offer us a scrap of evidence showing that such an approach produces useable results.

That depends where you want to use it. One might find some pattern in the gene sequences of the bird and calf, and lion, and man..etc.

Geneticists do use the theory of evolution, and they can demonstrate that it works.

No. They never do in any way actually, beyond the present state. Nothing to do with your claim of being related to a potato! Nothing whatsoever. Any evolving we use is the God created gift we have, that exists as we know it here and now.

The theory of evolution accurately predicts what we see in the field of biology. Creationism does not.

Predicts?? Example?

 

[dad]

Please learn how cladistics and evolution works.

So you use an imagined unproven past state, and imaginary common ancestors to make a tree, rather than the actual tree which is the creator. We get it.

 

[Loudmouth]

I take that back about being corrected, the database has singular gene comparison, not all homologous genes similiar to other species. For instance the resources I had showed what percentage of all homologous genes that were similiar to cats and rats, cats and dogs, cats and humans etc.

Prove that the list is complete, especially given that the cat genome has less than 80% coverage.

Also, a cat and human homolog can be 90% similar while a chimp and human homology can be 99% similar. Being homologous does not mean that they are 100% identical, and the table you reference is an incomplete list.

how would your engine show such results. Because what I was comparing was the 95% approx chimp to human studies that were in question not indicating usage of sequencing of genes, in which it is lowered to 70% in some cases.

The 95% is for the whole genome, including junk DNA and indels. What I was showing you was a comparison of a single gene between many species. It shows just what we expect to see, with near 100% identity between humans and chimps and much less between other species, with the differences increasing with relatedness. Exactly what we would expect to see with evolution, and something you can't explain.

Also, having 70% identity for a small number of genes does not negate the 99% for all genes, nor does it negate the 95% for the whole genome.

This would be lower than say the above Cat and dog comparisions at 81%.

You are comparing apples and oranges. This is no different than saying that a bowling ball weighs less at 7 kg than a feather does at 100 mg because 7 is less than 100.

You would have to prove a human chimp comparison of all homologous genes simulataneously.

That is what I already showed you.

"Overall, human and chimpanzee genes are extremely similar, with the encoded proteins identical in the two species in 29% of cases. The median number of non-synonymous and synonymous substitutions per gene are two and three, respectively."
Initial sequence of the chimpanzee genome and comparison with the human genome : Article : Nature

The median number of mutations per gene is 5. I would estimate the average human gene to be 1,500 to 2,000 base pairs for a processed mRNA. You do the math.

Which even your engine at homolog doesn't do, as far as my knowledge of it is concerned.

Just looking at one example shows how wrong you are.

 

[Loudmouth]

So you use an imagined unproven past state, and imaginary common ancestors to make a tree, rather than the actual tree which is the creator. We get it.

We are showing you the proposed relationships instead of the strawman version you were pushing.

If you are going to argue against evolution, at least learn what the theory states.

 

[Loudmouth]

That depends where you want to use it. One might find some pattern in the gene sequences of the bird and calf, and lion, and man..etc.

We have found a pattern, and it is the nested hierarchy predicted by common ancestry and evolution. That is why the theory is accepted, because it makes accurate and useful predictions.

You can't explain why we see this pattern.

No. They never do in any way actually, beyond the present state. Nothing to do with your claim of being related to a potato! Nothing whatsoever. Any evolving we use is the God created gift we have, that exists as we know it here and now.

Predicts?? Example?

Your head is planted deep in the sand.

 

[createdtoworship]

We have found a pattern, and it is the nested hierarchy predicted by common ancestry and evolution. That is why the theory is accepted, because it makes accurate and useful predictions.

You can't explain why we see this pattern.



Your head is planted deep in the sand.

that all works if your theory were observed prior to the coinage of said terminology. to coin them after the fact and in order to make some resemblance of a science prediction is false.

 

[Loudmouth]

that all works if your theory were observed . . .

Theories are not observed. How many times do we need to go over this?

to coin them after the fact and in order to make some resemblance of a science prediction is false.

Darwin predicted a nested hierarchy from the very start. In his notebooks, you can find the moment that the theory started to click in his brain. Here is what he wrote:

That branching structure is a clade. It formed the foundation for the theory, and it remains the fundamental prediction for the theory.

 

[createdtoworship]

Theories are not observed. How many times do we need to go over this?

semantics does not remove you from the responsibility of observation prior to said theory. Lets falsify this: a theory must be proven to be unobserved prior to theorization. Thats obsurd.

Darwin predicted a nested hierarchy from the very start. In his notebooks, you can find the moment that the theory started to click in his brain. Here is what he wrote:

That branching structure is a clade. It formed the foundation for the theory, and it remains the fundamental prediction for the theory.[/

darwin also said that if we could find an organ that:
"If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."
348 Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species: A Facsimile of the First Edition, Harvard University Press, 1964, p. 189.

the specified complexity was provided in peer review form, in which you refused to aknowledge it's peer review twice in this thread.

let me post it again:

A.C. McIntosh peer review in the International Journal of Design & Nature and Ecodynamics at the Wessex Institute [Vol.4, No.2 (2009) 154-169]
Evidence Of Design In Bird Feathers And Avian Respiration
a summary review of this particular journal is found at evolutionnews.org:
Peer-Reviewed Pro-Intelligent Design Article Endorses Irreducible Complexity - Evolution News & Views

 

[Loudmouth]

semantics does not remove you from the responsibility of observation prior to said theory.

That responsibility was already met.

Literature.org - The Online Literature Library

Darwin's theory of evolution was constructed to explain the observations he had made, and it is all described in "Origin of Species".

darwin also said that if we could find an organ that:
"If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."
348 Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species: A Facsimile of the First Edition, Harvard University Press, 1964, p. 189.

the specified complexity was provided in peer review form, in which you refused to aknowledge it's peer review twice in this thread.

It is peer reviewed, but it does not contain any original research. It contains the same failed claims. Nowhere do they demonstrate that CSI can not be produced by the evolutionary mechanisms described by Darwin.

 

[createdtoworship]

Prove that the list is complete, especially given that the cat genome has less than 80% coverage.

Also, a cat and human homolog can be 90% similar while a chimp and human homology can be 99% similar. Being homologous does not mean that they are 100% identical, and the table you reference is an incomplete list.



The 95% is for the whole genome, including junk DNA and indels. What I was showing you was a comparison of a single gene between many species. It shows just what we expect to see, with near 100% identity between humans and chimps and much less between other species, with the differences increasing with relatedness. Exactly what we would expect to see with evolution, and something you can't explain.

Also, having 70% identity for a small number of genes does not negate the 99% for all genes, nor does it negate the 95% for the whole genome.



You are comparing apples and oranges. This is no different than saying that a bowling ball weighs less at 7 kg than a feather does at 100 mg because 7 is less than 100.



That is what I already showed you.

"Overall, human and chimpanzee genes are extremely similar, with the encoded proteins identical in the two species in 29% of cases. The median number of non-synonymous and synonymous substitutions per gene are two and three, respectively."
Initial sequence of the chimpanzee genome and comparison with the human genome : Article : Nature

The median number of mutations per gene is 5. I would estimate the average human gene to be 1,500 to 2,000 base pairs for a processed mRNA. You do the math.



Just looking at one example shows how wrong you are.

anyway one way you can prove me wrong, is to use a complete list yourself.

namely to use the database you found, and get the percentage rates of similiarity between chimp and human (homologous). And note that homologous doesn't mean the genes are identical. Do this for all homologous genes, and then add the percentages and divide by the number of genes.

Either you are unwilling to,

or are unable to,

do this and thus your argument fails utterly on it's face.

Besides, all the studies you use are incomplete. they don't measure the dissimularities.

in other words the gene sequences are more often then not, dissimiliar.

and your studies 100% all of them, refuse to acknowledge the importance of sequence and disspell them outright.

So your real argument should be,

"why is sequence not important?"

“Let’s use an example from English to illustrate what we mean. Here are two sentences with exactly the same letters:
Charles Darwin was a scientific god.
Charles Darwin was a scientific dog.
While the letters in the two sentences are identical and the order is virtually the same (greater than 90 percent), the slight difference in order yields opposite meanings. In the same way, only a slight difference in the order of the letters (A, T, C, and G) in living things may yield creatures that are far apart on the hypothetical evolutionary tree. For example, while some studies show that the DNA similarity between humans and the most similar ape may be about 90 percent, other studies show the DNA similarity between humans and mice is also about 90 percent.”



above quote and graphic from “I don’t have faith enough to be an Atheist” – by frank turek and norman geisler

 

[Loudmouth]

anyway one way you can prove me wrong, is to use a complete list yourself.

Why is it that we always have to do your homework for you.

It is your claim that the cat genome is closer to humans than chimps are. YOU SUPPORT IT.

namely to use the database you found, and get the percentage rates of similiarity between chimp and human (homologous). And note that homologous doesn't mean the genes are identical. Do this for all homologous genes, and then add the percentages and divide by the number of genes.

That was already done in the chimp genome paper.

"Overall, human and chimpanzee genes are extremely similar, with the encoded proteins identical in the two species in 29% of cases. The median number of non-synonymous and synonymous substitutions per gene are two and three, respectively."
Initial sequence of the chimpanzee genome and comparison with the human genome : Article : Nature

Nearly 1/3 are 100% identical at the amino acid level while the number of total mutations is 5 per gene.

Either you are unwilling to,

or are unable to,

do this and thus your argument fails utterly on it's face.

Says the person who has been utterly incapable of showing that cat sequence is more like human DNA than chimp DNA.

Besides, all the studies you use are incomplete. they don't measure the dissimularities.

"Through comparison with the human genome, we have generated a largely complete catalogue of the genetic differences that have accumulated since the human and chimpanzee species diverged from our common ancestor, constituting approximately thirty-five million single-nucleotide changes, five million insertion/deletion events, and various chromosomal rearrangements."
Initial sequence of the chimpanzee genome and comparison with the human genome : Article : Nature

I have shown you that quote multiple times now.

in other words the gene sequences are more often then not, dissimiliar.

And when they are dissimilar, they are dissimilar by 1% or less, on average, between human and chimp genes.

and your studies 100% all of them, refuse to acknowledge the importance of sequence and disspell them outright.

You couldn't be farther from the truth.

"why is sequence not important?"

My argument is that sequence is very important, and you are ignoring it. You are ignoring the nested hierarchy of both similarities AND DIFFERENCES. You are completely misrepresenting tables from papers, such as table 1 from the cat genome paper. You refuse to acknolwedge the observed differences between the human and chimp genomes, even though I have quoted it several times now.

I can't help it if you ignore reality.

 

[createdtoworship]

It is your claim that the cat genome is closer to humans than chimps are. YOU SUPPORT IT.



That was already done in the chimp genome paper.

"Overall, human and chimpanzee genes are extremely similar, with the encoded proteins identical in the two species in 29% of cases. The median number of non-synonymous and synonymous substitutions per gene are two and three, respectively."
Initial sequence of the chimpanzee genome and comparison with the human genome : Article : Nature

Nearly 1/3 are 100% identical at the amino acid level while the number of total mutations is 5 per gene.



Says the person who has been utterly incapable of showing that cat sequence is more like human DNA than chimp DNA.



"Through comparison with the human genome, we have generated a largely complete catalogue of the genetic differences that have accumulated since the human and chimpanzee species diverged from our common ancestor, constituting approximately thirty-five million single-nucleotide changes, five million insertion/deletion events, and various chromosomal rearrangements."
Initial sequence of the chimpanzee genome and comparison with the human genome : Article : Nature

I have shown you that quote multiple times now.



And when they are dissimilar, they are dissimilar by 1% or less, on average, between human and chimp genes.



You couldn't be farther from the truth.



My argument is that sequence is very important, and you are ignoring it. You are ignoring the nested hierarchy of both similarities AND DIFFERENCES. You are completely misrepresenting tables from papers, such as table 1 from the cat genome paper. You refuse to acknolwedge the observed differences between the human and chimp genomes, even though I have quoted it several times now.

I can't help it if you ignore reality.

nested hierarchy is a pre-biased term that begs the question as it tries to prove the existance of something else. That would be like me saying you reject creation and therefore are false. Well creation implies that it was created by a creator, and in a biblical way most of the time. So yeah you would naturally reject it and the Bible (as an athiest)

Why is it that we always have to do your homework for you.

I didn't think you would want to prove me wrong, and it stands as so.

 

[createdtoworship]

darwins tree of life proven wrong:

Darwin's Tree of Life May Be More Like a Thicket

New Scientist says Darwin was wrong – Pharyngula

 

[Loudmouth]

nested hierarchy is a pre-biased term that begs the question as it tries to prove the existance of something else.

You have presented zero evidence to back this claim. You haven't shown how determing phylogenies is biased, nor how it begs the question.

You also need to explain why evolution would not produce a nested hierarchy. If a nested hierarchy is not what we would expect from evolution, then what would we expect?

That would be like me saying you reject creation and therefore are false. Well creation implies that it was created by a creator, and in a biblical way most of the time. So yeah you would naturally reject it and the Bible (as an athiest)

That isn't even close to the relationship between evolution and nested hierarchies. A nested hierarchy can be determined independently of any claim of common ancestry or evolution. You can determine that cars and automobiles do not fall into an objective nested hierarchy. You can do the same for many, many things that are intelligently designed. However, when those same tests are applied to life, life falls into an objective nested hierarchy.

I didn't think you would want to prove me wrong, and it stands as so.

I don't have to disprove empty claims.

 

[Loudmouth]

darwins tree of life proven wrong:

Darwin's Tree of Life May Be More Like a Thicket

New Scientist says Darwin was wrong – Pharyngula

It has not been proven wrong for the complex life that Darwin worked with and was describing.

 

[createdtoworship]

It has not been proven wrong for the complex life that Darwin worked with and was describing.

but the whole basic premise fails. secondly darwins other premises fail when specified complexity.

 

[Loudmouth]

but the while vasic premise fails.

No, it doesn't. Complex life still falls into the nested hierarchy that Darwin predicted.

secindly darwins other premises fail when specified complexity.

No, they don't. All we have is the unsupported claim that specified complexity can not evolve. Until it is supported, you have no case.

 

[createdtoworship]

No, it doesn't. Complex life still falls into the nested hierarchy that Darwin predicted.



No, they don't. All we have is the unsupported claim that specified complexity can not evolve. Until it is supported, you have no case.

darwin understood that if thete was something that had specified complexity then his theory would fail. and nested heirarchy does not exist. spoon similiar to pots dont imply common decent. they implya common designer.