Gorilla Genome

[lifepsyop]

Yes, you did. You accused scientists of using a "rescue device" which implies that they are inventing mechanisms to save their hypothesis.

Good news, Loudmouth. You don't need to worry about what may or may not be implied because I presented by argument in clear detail here:
http://www.christianforums.com/t7870598-12/#post67276976

Afraid to quote what I'm actually arguing?

Maybe you should go play in another thread that is more down to your level where you don't have to worry about following a discussion.

 

[Loudmouth]

Again, we're talking about the entire placental mammal group.. from humans to armadillos.... And you're calling that a "small number" of branches? Relative to what?

And this is where your argument breaks down. It isn't the whole tree.

Until you fix this part of the argument, it goes nowhere.

 

[lifepsyop]

And this is where your argument breaks down. It isn't the whole tree.

No need to be cryptic. Please elaborate. Present an argument.

 

[Loudmouth]

No need to be cryptic. Please elaborate. Present an argument.

Does the tree have armadillos being the closest relatives of humans?

Added in edit:

Just to reiterate what sfs wrote earlier:

"Only if the inconsistencies occur only between a small number of branches -- as in the actual case you presented. If the organisms didn't fall into an overall tree pattern, you could not accommodate the data with ILS. That's what you got wrong before, and repeating your error doesn't improve it."

In the example you are using, you have only shown inconsistencies in three nodes out of the thousands in the mammal group, and they are very deep nodes at that. You haven't shown that the "entire placental mammal group" is in disarray. Just 3 nodes. That's it. For example, where in that study do they produce a phylogeny for primates?

 

[lifepsyop]

Does the tree have armadillos being the closest relatives of humans?

Questions like these tell me that you don't understand what is being discussed.

Do you understand that this is not a comment on overall genetic similarity but on the pattern of "homoplasy-free" genetic markers?

Do you understand why evolutionary systematists add significant weight to these types of traits when inferring common descent relationships?

 

[Loudmouth]

Questions like these tell me that you don't understand what is being discussed.

Do you understand that this is not a comment on overall genetic similarity but on the pattern of "homoplasy-free" genetic markers?

Do you understand why evolutionary systematists add significant weight to these types of traits when inferring common descent relationships?

Do you understand what sfs posted earlier?

"Only if the inconsistencies occur only between a small number of branches -- as in the actual case you presented. If the organisms didn't fall into an overall tree pattern, you could not accommodate the data with ILS. That's what you got wrong before, and repeating your error doesn't improve it."

You are claiming that the entire placental mammalian group is out of whack, yet you are only pointing to a handful of nodes out of thousands. Do you understand why this is wrong?

 

[lifepsyop]

Does the tree have armadillos being the closest relatives of humans?

Added in edit:

Just to reiterate what sfs wrote earlier:

"Only if the inconsistencies occur only between a small number of branches -- as in the actual case you presented. If the organisms didn't fall into an overall tree pattern, you could not accommodate the data with ILS. That's what you got wrong before, and repeating your error doesn't improve it."

Why didn't you address my response to what sfs wrote? Why have I been chasing you down for the last page trying to get you to actually respond to what I wrote?

In the example you are using, you have only shown inconsistencies in three nodes out of the thousands in the mammal group,

Do you understand that the nodes are only inferred (imaginary data points) and the data actually is drawn from all those thousands of mammals?

The "3 nodes" represents the whole placental mammal group. The research was based off earlier work on placental mammal phylogeny, here's an abstract to one of the main references:

"The precise hierarchy of ancient divergence events that led to the present assemblage of modern placental mammals has been an area of controversy among morphologists, palaeontologists and molecular evolutionists. Here we address the potential weaknesses of limited character and taxon sampling in a comprehensive molecular phylogenetic analysis of 64 species sampled across all extant orders of placental mammals. We examined sequence variation in 18 homologous gene segments (including nearly 10,000 base pairs) that were selected for maximal phylogenetic informativeness in resolving the hierarchy of early mammalian divergence. Phylogenetic analyses identify four primary superordinal clades: (I) Afrotheria(elephants, manatees, hyraxes, tenrecs, aardvark and elephant shrews); (II) Xenarthra (sloths, anteaters and armadillos); (III) Glires (rodents and lagomorphs), as a sister taxon to primates, flying lemurs and tree shrews; and (IV) the remaining orders of placental mammals (cetaceans, artiodactyls, perissodactyls, carnivores, pangolins, bats and core insectivores). Our results provide new insight into the pattern of the early placental mammal radiation."

Molecular phylogenetics and the origins of placental mammals. - PubMed - NCBI

and they are very deep nodes at that. You haven't shown that the "entire placental mammal group" is in disarray. Just 3 nodes. That's it.

I explained this in my response to sfs which you chose to avoid.

since common ancestor nodes are only inferred, they can be pushed back as deep as needed to resolve the discordance. this is the crux of the entire issue. scrambled genetic markers can easily be pushed back to some imaginary ancestral node.

in this case the researchers could not infer a node pattern even by pushing the split back to the supposed root of all placental mammals, all models contradicted each other as depicted in the figure...
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2675975/bin/868fig4.gif
so they pushed it back to the imagined root and threw incomplete lineage sorting at it as an explanation.

nearly any data discordance among placental mammals (or within any other major animal groups) could be rescued the same way and accommodated into Evolution theory.

For example, where in that study do they produce a phylogeny for primates?

Primates are represented by the Boreotheria group

 

[Loudmouth]

Why didn't you address my response to what sfs wrote?

Because it makes the same mistakes over and over and over. You keep pretending as if there are only 3 nodes in the mammal clade.

Do you understand that the nodes are only inferred (imaginary data points) and the data actually is drawn from all those thousands of mammals?

And yet you only focus on 3 nodes.

The "3 nodes" represents the whole placental mammal group.

And you still get it wrong.

 

[lifepsyop]

Because it makes the same mistakes over and over and over. You keep pretending as if there are only 3 nodes in the mammal clade.

What are you talking about? The "3 Nodes" model is based entirely off of prior phylogenetics studies of supposed placental mammal divergences.

Honestly I think you are just making stuff up in the hopes that it looks like you're offering counter-points, because your responses make no sense at all.

And yet you only focus on 3 nodes.

And you still get it wrong.

Uh huh. You just can't explain what or how.

 

[Loudmouth]

What are you talking about? The "3 Nodes" model is based entirely off of prior phylogenetics studies of supposed placental mammal divergences.

Honestly I think you are just making stuff up in the hopes that it looks like you're offering counter-points, because your responses make no sense at all.



Uh huh. You just can't explain what or how.

Again, you are focusing on just 3 nodes out of thousands.

Just to reiterate what sfs wrote earlier:

"Only if the inconsistencies occur only between a small number of branches -- as in the actual case you presented. If the organisms didn't fall into an overall tree pattern, you could not accommodate the data with ILS. That's what you got wrong before, and repeating your error doesn't improve it."

 

[lifepsyop]

Again, you are focusing on just 3 nodes out of thousands.

Just to reiterate what sfs wrote earlier:

"Only if the inconsistencies occur only between a small number of branches -- as in the actual case you presented. If the organisms didn't fall into an overall tree pattern, you could not accommodate the data with ILS. That's what you got wrong before, and repeating your error doesn't improve it."

And I responded to sfs 3 pages ago:

Yet I have shown the very character traits used by evolutionists to construct such a tree pattern can be in major conflict and still be accommodated. That was the whole point of my argument, so your counter-reasoning here is circular.

To reiterate - I have shown that major inconsistencies can be "resolved" by proposing lineage sorting events occurring back at the time of supposed ancestral divergences of the groups showing said inconsistencies.

Perhaps you would like to elaborate on sfs's argument with examples of what kind of "inconsistencies" you're talking about . I haven't gotten a reply back from him yet.

 

[Loudmouth]

And I responded to sfs 3 pages ago:

Yet I have shown the very character traits used by evolutionists to construct such a tree pattern can be in major conflict and still be accommodated. That was the whole point of my argument, so your counter-reasoning here is circular.

As sfs has tried to tell you, we would expect IFS and other factors to create conflict on a limited number of branches, such as the 3 out of thousands that you have pointed to.

We can family trees as a metaphor. Let's say that we get the relationships between siblings and first cousins exactly right. However, we have one grandparent wrong when we look at second cousins. Does this make the correct tree for the closer relationships null and void? No, it doesn't.

 

[lifepsyop]

As sfs has tried to tell you, we would expect IFS and other factors to create conflict on a limited number of branches, such as the 3 out of thousands that you have pointed to.

Your position makes no sense.

For some bizarre reason you say you only expect ILS to operate on a limited number of nodes.

Tell me, what is this mystical barrier you have in mind that is preventing incomplete lineage sorting from occurring at any number of other nodes in the placental mammal tree, confounding it similarly to how it has confounded the three major placental clades?

I can't wait to hear this one... Evolutionists frequently get themselves into this type of situation where they say "we wouldn't expect that..." and then they can't explain why... this is because Evolution theory lacks any such predictive structure as I have been demonstrating.

 

[Loudmouth]

Your position makes no sense.

For some bizarre reason you say you only expect ILS to operate on a limited number of nodes.

Obviouisly not, since this entire thread is discussing ILS seen in the ape lineages. At one time, the species that formed the base of the placental mammal tree were just as closely related as gorillas, chimps, and humans.

At the same time, no genetic data based on a limited number of markers shows that armadillos are more closely related to humans than chimps are. Why do you think that is?

 

[lifepsyop]

Obviouisly not, since this entire thread is discussing ILS seen in the ape lineages. At one time, the species that formed the base of the placental mammal tree were just as closely related as gorillas, chimps, and humans.

and the embarrassing thing for evolutionists is that primate genetic patterns could be in total disarray and still accommodated by evolution. In fact, Evolution predicts this scenario just at least just as likely as a clear-cut phylogeny. Which is why it is a generally useless theory in terms of testing universal common descent.

At the same time, no genetic data based on a limited number of markers shows that armadillos are more closely related to humans than chimps are. Why do you think that is?

Wow... Sadly, grasping at these types of straws is the most Evolutionists really have to offer....You may as well ask why humans are more genetically similar to armadillos than barnacles... obviously because the former has more similar body plan.

Now, again, here's the funny part. If humans were more genetically similar to Armadillos (or members of the Xenartha order in general), it would be proposed that those similarities were produced by incomplete lineage sorting events found in the common ancestor of Armadillos and Primates.

These traits could then be said to be highly conserved in the primate lineages leading to humans, while non-conserved and rapidly lost in other primate lineages. (thus producing the discordant pattern) A whole evolutionary fable would then be written around this discovery... 'perhaps this unique distinction explains the evolution of human intelligence'... yadda, yadda.

Doesn't that sound stupid? Yes, and Evolution theory, being the lump of jello that it is, could still make such data fit into the theory.

 

[Loudmouth]

and the embarrassing thing for evolutionists is that primate genetic patterns could be in total disarray and still accommodated by evolution.

They are not in total disarray. Can you show how humans have multiple genetic markers that are more similar to baboons than chimps?

Wow... Sadly, grasping at these types of straws is the most Evolutionists really have to offer....You may as well ask why humans are more genetically similar to armadillos than barnacles... obviously because the former has more similar body plan.

That simply doesn't work. Talkorigins has a good analogy:

As a close analogy, consider computer programs. Netscape works essentially the same on a Macintosh, an IBM, or a Unix machine, but the binary code for each program is quite different. Computer programs that perform the same functions can be written in most any computer language—Basic, Fortran, C, C++, Java, Pascal, etc. and identical programs can be compiled into binary code many different ways. Furthermore, even using the same computer language, there are many different ways to write any specific computer program, even using the same algorithms and subroutines. In the end, there is no reason to suspect that similar computer programs are written with similar code, based solely on the function of the program. This is the reason why software companies keep their source code secret, but they don't care that competitors can use their programs—it is essentially impossible to deduce the program code from the function and operation of the software. The same conclusion applies to biological organisms, for very similar reasons.
29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Part 1​

There is simply no reason why you would need such large amounts of molecular similarity to produce similar morphology, much less similar transposons.

Now, again, here's the funny part. If humans were more genetically similar to Armadillos (or members of the Xenartha order in general),

But they aren't. That is the point being made. You can pretend that the evidence isn't what it is, but scientists deal with the real evidence, not the evidence you make up.

 

[lifepsyop]

They are not in total disarray. Can you show how humans have multiple genetic markers that are more similar to baboons than chimps?

You still don't get it, do you? It doesn't matter whether they do or don't. Evolution would accommodate either scenario. So why on earth are you claiming one scenario as some kind of vindication? It's because you don't know what you're talking about.

That simply doesn't work. Talkorigins has a good analogy:

As a close analogy, consider computer programs. Netscape works essentially the same on a Macintosh, an IBM, or a Unix machine, but the binary code for each program is quite different. Computer programs that perform the same functions can be written in most any computer language—Basic, Fortran, C, C++, Java, Pascal, etc. and identical programs can be compiled into binary code many different ways. Furthermore, even using the same computer language, there are many different ways to write any specific computer program, even using the same algorithms and subroutines. In the end, there is no reason to suspect that similar computer programs are written with similar code, based solely on the function of the program. This is the reason why software companies keep their source code secret, but they don't care that competitors can use their programs—it is essentially impossible to deduce the program code from the function and operation of the software. The same conclusion applies to biological organisms, for very similar reasons.
29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Part 1​

There is simply no reason why you would need such large amounts of molecular similarity to produce similar morphology, much less similar transposons.

Ah, another disciple of Theobald, and TalkOrigins, your online bible.

If you or Theobald had thought about your argument for five minutes you would realize your error.

Yes the functions of computer programs can potentially be written many different ways. But what happens when the same software engineer writes similar program variations? Answer? The code will almost always look very similar.

It's really that simple, but of course neither you nor Theobald will ever be able to accept it. All your arguments hinge on twisted reasoning.

But they aren't. That is the point being made. You can pretend that the evidence isn't what it is, but scientists deal with the real evidence, not the evidence you make up.

See above: You simply don't understand that Evolution theory equally predicts the scenarios you claim would refute Evolution. You made that glaringly obvious with your baboon/chimp comment.

 

[PsychoSarah]

You still don't get it, do you? It doesn't matter whether they do or don't. Evolution would accommodate either scenario. So why on earth are you claiming one scenario as some kind of vindication? It's because you don't know what you're talking about.




Ah, another disciple of Theobald, and TalkOrigins, your online bible.

If you or Theobald had thought about your argument for five minutes you would realize your error.

Yes the functions of computer programs can potentially be written many different ways. But what happens when the same software engineer writes similar program variations? Answer? The code will almost always look very similar.

It's really that simple, but of course neither you nor Theobald will ever be able to accept it. All your arguments hinge on twisted reasoning.




See above: You simply don't understand that Evolution theory equally predicts the scenarios you claim would refute Evolution. You made that glaringly obvious with your baboon/chimp comment.

It matters a lot. Evolution would NOT be able to handle certain genetic inconsistencies and similarities. Baboons were a bad choice, since those seem like I suppose plausible close relatives to humans anyways. But fossil evidence still would contradict humans being more closely related to baboons than chimpanzees, regardless as to the genetic similarity. Genetics and the fossil record have to MATCH, and no amount of data collection is going to change what either source is capable of depicting. For example, if genetics suggested rabbits were our closest modern ancestor, that wouldn't change the fossils that have been underground for millions of years which contradict that information. Likewise, no fossil discovery is going to change the genes of modern animals to match up with it.

Evolution predicts that genetics and the fossil record will match. Humans and baboons being more closely related than humans and chimpanzees DOES NOT MATCH THE FOSSIL RECORD.

 

[lifepsyop]

Genetics and the fossil record have to MATCH, and no amount of data collection is going to change what either source is capable of depicting.

You're wrong. Inconsistencies with the fossil record can be blamed on nature.


The concept of a "temporal paradox" is based on the following facts. The consensus view is that birds evolved from dinosaurs, but the most bird-like dinosaurs, including almost all of the feathered dinosaurs and those believed to be most closely related to birds are known mostly from the Cretaceous, by which time birds had already evolved and diversified. If bird-like dinosaurs are the ancestors of birds they should, then, be older than birds, but Archaeopteryx is 155 million years old, while the very bird-like Deinonychus is 35 million years younger. This idea is sometimes summarized as "you can't be your own grandmother"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temporal_paradox_(paleontology)


When looking back at extinct organisms, there are some groups of organisms (or lineages) that have gaps in their fossil records. These organisms or species may be closely related to one another, but there are no traces in the fossil records or sediment beds that might shed some light on their origins.

Ghost lineage - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


These two explanatory devices refute your notion of the supposed rigidity of the fossil record as a golden standard to measure against phylogeny.

I could bring up other examples, like evidence of advanced tetrapod traits that have been discovered tens of millions of years before the time evolutionists previously believed primitive tetrapods evolved.

An evolutionary narrative is an amorphous fog that settles around the data.

 

[PsychoSarah]

You're wrong. Inconsistencies with the fossil record can be blamed on nature.


The concept of a "temporal paradox" is based on the following facts. The consensus view is that birds evolved from dinosaurs, but the most bird-like dinosaurs, including almost all of the feathered dinosaurs and those believed to be most closely related to birds are known mostly from the Cretaceous, by which time birds had already evolved and diversified. If bird-like dinosaurs are the ancestors of birds they should, then, be older than birds, but Archaeopteryx is 155 million years old, while the very bird-like Deinonychus is 35 million years younger. This idea is sometimes summarized as "you can't be your own grandmother"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temporal_paradox_(paleontology)


When looking back at extinct organisms, there are some groups of organisms (or lineages) that have gaps in their fossil records. These organisms or species may be closely related to one another, but there are no traces in the fossil records or sediment beds that might shed some light on their origins.

Ghost lineage - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


These two explanatory devices refute your notion of the supposed rigidity of the fossil record as a golden standard to measure against phylogeny.

I could bring up other examples, like evidence of advanced tetrapod traits that have been discovered tens of millions of years before the time evolutionists previously believed primitive tetrapods evolved.

An evolutionary narrative is an amorphous fog that settles around the data.

-_- I said genetics have to match the fossil record. I never said that either thing followed our EXPECTATIONS. We used to think Neanderthals were a human ancestor, but a lucky find of well-preserved remains with intact DNA threw that out the window; at most, there might have been some interbreeding between our species and Neanderthals long ago.

But genes do not change at an even pace, so timing can be off. Besides, what if those bird-like dinosaurs shared an ancestor with the birds, like chimpanzees and humans, rather than being the ancestor? Or, those ancient birds died out, and those were the ancestors of modern birds? Obviously no meeting our expectations does not equate to evolution being wrong, because if it did, the theory would have been thrown out ages ago.