What do creationists think phylogenetic trees represent?

[xianghua]

After I finished watching that video (at x2 speed because that guy was a slow talker!) it recommended this video of Ken Miller:

The whole talk is great, but I'd be curious to hear your response to this segment.

he claim nothing actually. the fusion happened in the human lineage, not apes (chimp still have 48 chromosomes). so how this suppose to be evidence for a common descent? i think that even prof miller doesnt believe in his own argument.

 

[xianghua]

b) Why don't we see genetic chimeras in nature? A designer wouldn't be limited by the bounds of reproduction and inheritance. They could conceivably mix 'n match DNA among different species, leading to living species that would in no way fit into a nested hierarchy based on genetic descent. Yet, we don't see such things in nature.

actually we do:

Archaea - Wikipedia

"The evolutionary relationship between archaea and eukaryotes remains unclear. Aside from the similarities in cell structure and function that are discussed below, many genetic trees group the two."

"Complicating factors include claims that the relationship between eukaryotes and the archaeal phylum Crenarchaeota is closer than the relationship between the Euryarchaeota and the phylum Crenarchaeota[73] and the presence of archaea-like genes in certain bacteria, such as Thermotoga maritima, from horizontal gene transfer.[74] The standard hypothesis states that the ancestor of the eukaryotes diverged early from the Archaea,[75][76] and that eukaryotes arose through fusion of an archaean and eubacterium, which became the nucleus and cytoplasm; this explains various genetic similarities but runs into difficulties explaining cell structure.[77] An alternative hypothesis, the eocyte hypothesis, posits that Eukaryota emerged relatively late from the Archaea"

 

[pitabread]

actually we do:

I should clarify that when I am referring to genetic chimera, I'm looking specifically for examples where would not have natural mechanisms for gene swapping. Obviously in the case of horizontal gene transfer amongst single celled organisms that would be a known exception.

I'm looking for examples particularly in higher order Eukaryotes and where there is enough separation to prohibit hybridization and the like.

 

[Gene Parmesan]

he claim nothing actually. the fusion happened in the human lineage, not apes (chimp still have 48 chromosomes). so how this suppose to be evidence for a common descent? i think that even prof miller doesnt believe in his own argument.

First of all, we are apes.

Secondly, it demonstrates the reliability of an evolutionary model. We found we had fewer chromosomes than our close relatives. But if we did share a recent common ancestor, our genetic information should be very similar. So the information must still be there for evolution to be reliable. And of course, there it is.

What does ID have to say about our striking similarity? Common design! But I see plenty of analogous statements about design and vehicle production here on the forums. So I can roll with that for a moment. If it was simply common design we should see a much bigger mish-mash of features to maximize efficiency, much like we see with the result of a single human designer. There should be no need to rely on inherited features. If there is a Designer, and there very well could be, He seems to either have His hands tied or is making a conscious effort to follow some kind of consistent biological restriction. I would contend that this restriction/method that a god seems to have used in this scenario should be called "Evolution."

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

You're not making any sense.

Man's way is not right. It is never good and healing nor truth.
The natural man,
cannot know the simplest things, because
all mankind has been made subject to the prince of darkness - the prince of the power of the air -
all men, to start with,
all men, in the natural mind of the flesh.
The spiritual truth,
reality of the creator YHWH,
the truth of the earth, and life, and all things,
is incomprehensible (does not make sense)
to mankind.

 

[xianghua]

I should clarify that when I am referring to genetic chimera, I'm looking specifically for examples where would not have natural mechanisms for gene swapping. Obviously in the case of horizontal gene transfer amongst single celled organisms that would be a known exception.

I'm looking for examples particularly in higher order Eukaryotes and where there is enough separation to prohibit hybridization and the like.

have you heard about the platypus?:

Top billing for platypus at end of evolution tree : Nature News

and again the magic words of "convergent evolution".

 

[xianghua]

First of all, we are apes.

Secondly, it demonstrates the reliability of an evolutionary model. We found we had fewer chromosomes than our close relatives. But if we did share a recent common ancestor, our genetic information should be very similar. So the information must still be there for evolution to be reliable. And of course, there it is.

id model predict that too. we know that apes and humans shared about 98%. so we can predict that a fusion event happened in the past without any need for evolution model.

What does ID have to say about our striking similarity? Common design! But I see plenty of analogous statements about design and vehicle production here on the forums. So I can roll with that for a moment. If it was simply common design we should see a much bigger mish-mash of features to maximize efficiency, much like we see with the result of a single human designer. There should be no need to rely on inherited features. If there is a Designer, and there very well could be, He seems to either have His hands tied or is making a conscious effort to follow some kind of consistent biological restriction. I would contend that this restriction/method that a god seems to have used in this scenario should be called "Evolution."

there are so many variations in nature that i doesnt get what you means by "either have His hands tied". there are about 8 milion species on earth. so of them are so different from each other that you may not conclude even a common descent even if you believe in a common descent.

 

[pitabread]

have you heard about the platypus?.

How is the platypus an example of a genetic chimera?

Do you understand what I am asking for?

 

[Gene Parmesan]

there are so many variations in nature that i doesnt get what you means by "either have His hands tied". there are about 8 milion species on earth. so of them are so different from each other that you may not conclude even a common descent even if you believe in a common descent.

Your answer is that there are a lot of variations in nature? I have to wonder if I am that poor of a communicator that this is would be a reasonable response. If so, I do apologize.

If anything, the variety of features we see makes the observation of clearly nested hierarchies that much more of a convincing argument for evolution.

 

[xianghua]

If anything, the variety of features we see makes the observation of clearly nested hierarchies that much more of a convincing argument for evolution.

so what kind of example will falsified it?

 

[xianghua]

How is the platypus an example of a genetic chimera?

Do you understand what I am asking for?

from the a rticle:

“The sex chromosomes are absolutely, completely different from all other mammals. We had not expected that,” says Jennifer Graves of the Australian National University in Canberra, who studies sex differentiation and is an author on the paper. Instead, the platypus Xs better match the avian Z sex chromosome. Another chromosome matches the mouse X, Graves and her colleagues report in Genome Research

 

[pitabread]

from the a rticle:

“The sex chromosomes are absolutely, completely different from all other mammals. We had not expected that,” says Jennifer Graves of the Australian National University in Canberra, who studies sex differentiation and is an author on the paper. Instead, the platypus Xs better match the avian Z sex chromosome. Another chromosome matches the mouse X, Graves and her colleagues report in Genome Research

Keep reading:

"This is evidence that placental mammalian sex chromosomes and the sex-determining gene Sry — found on the Y chromosome — evolved after the monotremes diverged from mammals, much later than previously thought. "

Again, you still haven't demonstrated specifically why this would be considered a genetic chimera.

The platypus may be an oddball creature, but you need to present something with respect to its genetic code that makes it a clear violation of common descent. I'm not seeing anything in that article you linked that suggests there is.

 

[Gene Parmesan]

so what kind of example will falsified it?

Same request as pitabread.

 

[xianghua]

Keep reading:

"This is evidence that placental mammalian sex chromosomes and the sex-determining gene Sry — found on the Y chromosome — evolved after the monotremes diverged from mammals, much later than previously thought. "

Again, you still haven't demonstrated specifically why this would be considered a genetic chimera.

maybe this one will be more clear:

"The platypus shares with other mammals four genes associated with the zona pellucida, a gel-like coating that facilitates fertilization of the egg. But it also has two matches for ZPAX genes that had previously been found only in birds, amphibians and fish"-


so basically when we found the same genes from different groups in the same creature- we can claim for convergent evolution or a loss of genes between species.

 

[pitabread]

maybe this one will be more clear:

"The platypus shares with other mammals four genes associated with the zona pellucida, a gel-like coating that facilitates fertilization of the egg. But it also has two matches for ZPAX genes that had previously been found only in birds, amphibians and fish"-


so basically when we found the same genes from different groups in the same creature- we can claim for convergent evolution or a loss of genes between species.

Convergent evolution isn't necessarily the exact same genes though (and certainly not the exact same sequence). Rather it's usually a case of there being multiple paths to the same outcome.

In the case of loss of genes, we know this happens as part of mutation events that can occur. Considering when monotremes are thought to have diverged from the rest of mammals very early in the mammal lineage, such findings are not that unsurprising. It would be more of a surprise if you found, say, similar type of genes in the hominid lineage, but no other mammals. That would be truly weird.

 

[Gene Parmesan]

maybe this one will be more clear:

"The platypus shares with other mammals four genes associated with the zona pellucida, a gel-like coating that facilitates fertilization of the egg. But it also has two matches for ZPAX genes that had previously been found only in birds, amphibians and fish"-


so basically when we found the same genes from different groups in the same creature- we can claim for convergent evolution or a loss of genes between species.

The platypus branched off relatively early. So it's no wonder it shares traits found elsewhere in other critters. It also had the lovely advantage of being geologically isolated from the emergence of competition from placental mammals. No biologist is freaking out about the platypus.

 

[xianghua]

It would be more of a surprise if you found, say, similar type of genes in the hominid lineage, but no other mammals. That would be truly weird.

why? in this case we can claim for lgt or for convergent evolution even in the genetic level.or claim that other species apart from the homind one just evolved faster in those genes. anything is possible according to evolution. you see now why evolution predict nothing?

 

[pitabread]

why?

Because the hominid lineage is a much more recent evolutionary development than the monotreme lineage. Monotremes are thought to have split in their lineage over a 150 million years ago (from other mammals).

Conversely the hominid lineage is thought to have split from other primates less than 10 million years ago.,

You have to pay attention to the divergence of the respective lineages with respect to the characteristics and underlying genetics within those lineages.

in this case we can claim for lgt or for convergent evolution even in the genetic level.or claim that other species apart from the homind one just evolved faster in those genes. anything is possible according to evolution. you see now why evolution predict nothing?

When biologists speak of convergent evolution, it's usually in the context of understanding the underlying evolutionary pathways by which things evolve. The fact is there is more than one way for things to evolve and yield either similar phenotypes or even similar gene function. But this doesn't mean that the underyling DNA will be perfectly replicated across other species.

If we started poking around the human genome and found huge stretches of DNA belonging to say modern reptiles or birds, but that same DNA wasn't present in other mammals, then that would be a huge puzzle from an evolutionary standpoint. This type of thing would either suggest some sort of unknown genetic swapping mechanism or that the evolutionary relationships as we know them are in serious doubt.

It's this sort of thing that a creator could do. They could easily have cleaned up all the genomes of species getting rid of all the pesky genetic atavisms. They could have mixed 'n matched DNA freely with no regard for any sort of hierarchical constraint. Heck, they could have even inserted messages into each creature's DNA as a personal signature.

But they didn't do any of those things. Any way you slice it, life looks like it evolved.

 

[xianghua]

This type of thing would either suggest some sort of unknown genetic swapping mechanism or that the evolutionary relationships as we know them are in serious doubt.

but evolution theory in general will not falsified and this is the point i made.

They could have mixed 'n matched DNA freely with no regard for any sort of hierarchical constraint. Heck, they could have even inserted messages into each creature's DNA as a personal signature.

But they didn't do any of those things. Any way you slice it, life looks like it evolved.

we actually do find such cases. but again: they claiming for gene loss or convergent evolution or lgt. so everything is possible according to evolution.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

It's this sort of thing that a creator could do. They could easily have cleaned up all the genomes of species getting rid of all the pesky genetic atavisms. They could have mixed 'n matched DNA freely with no regard for any sort of hierarchical constraint. Heck, they could have even inserted messages into each creature's DNA as a personal signature.

I'ld even go a step further and not qualify that with "could".
That would be exactly what I would expect a creator to do.

We see it all the time in just about ANY productline created by humans, especially in software.
I'ld say that, if we assume life is created and not evolved, software would be the best analogy, because of its "modular" nature and the idea of genotype (=programming code) being translated into phenotype (=the application; what you actually see on screen).

In my company, we primarily engage in product development (a single software product for an entire industry, which we then sell as-is to companies within that industry), with the occasional custom project (= a piece of software for a single customer).

Now, there are several functions of software that are very generic. For example, to send something to a printer. Or a document management system that stores files on an FTP server or cloud service like dropbox.

We wrote those functions once and included it in our generic framework. Whenever one of our products or custom projects requires such functionality, we simply include that function from our framework. We don't rewrite it from scratch.

And when we have a project that does NOT use a certain function, the code for it isn't included either.

In "intelligently designed" products, not only do I thus fully expect the re-use of "generic" or "shared" functionality... I call it best practice.

As in, if a designer/engineer/creator does NOT engage in such re-use... i'll simply call it bad design and inefficient. And anything but "intelligent".

And I'ld fire the engineer who was so stupid to rewrite from scratch those features wich allready exist and were readily available for use.