Enigmas (Cytochrome C and others)

[npetreley]

Interesting charts. Apparently, at least with respect to cytochrome C, a tuna is more closely related to a dog than one yeast is to another yeast, and much more closely related than any yeast is to bacteria.

Okay, everyone, start revising those phylogenic trees.

http://www.enigmas.org/aef/lib/biogen/moldist.shtml

 

[RufusAtticus]

Which phylogenic trees are you talking about?

The false ones that you've constructed in your head, or the ones constructed and tested by actual scientists doing *gasp* actual research?

 

[Jerry Smith]

<gasp!>

The radiation of the yeast genera might have happened before the radiation of the vertebrate classes? Ye gads! That might mean that yeasts were around before vertebrates!

Where's my eraser?!?!

 

[LiveFreeOrDie]

If only every scientist in the world wasn't stupid and/or a liar we might actually see some scientific progress.

&nbsp;

 

[choccy]

I remember someone calling himself gplant posting something similar on the ICR creation/evolution board during the short time it was operational. What he wasn't realising was that not only was he giving strong evidence for common descent, but also showing his own complete and utter missconception of what common descent actually predicts with respect to things like cytochrome c.

A question for the creationists among us:
Since you guys argue that genetical similarities are products of a common designer, and that the genes are similar because they serve the same functions in different organisms, then how come a tuna's cytochrome c is more similar to a dog's than a yeast's is to another yeast's? Wouldn't you expect the exact opposite if the hypothesis of a common designer is true? If not, why not?

Bonus question:
Why do you think that a bacteria is approx. equally distant from a human, monkey, dog, tuna, silk worm, fruit fly and wheat? What do common descent predict about these relationships and why?

If only every scientist in the world wasn't stupid and/or a liar we might actually see some scientific progress.

It boggles the mind, doesn't it? I still cannot phatom how people can think that spending a few minutes looking at the data for something like cytochrome c, they suddenly have falsified 150 years of scientific work? Do they actually believe that no scientist have ever thought about the objections it took themselves less than five minutes to realize, or could it possibly be that the objections are based on a huge missunderstanding of the material in question?

Choccy

 

[npetreley]

Oh, I get it now! The explanation is that yeast has been around for billions of years. So the reason why there are yeasts that are more distantly related to other yeasts is because these two yeasts are separated by more time, generations, and mutations. The reason mankind is closer to yeast than other yeast is because yeast and mankind are separated by less time, fewer generations and fewer mutations.

Or, put another way...

Apply billions of mutations, billions of years and billions of generations to yeast, and what you get is a different yeast.

Apply millions of mutations, millions of years and millions of generations to yeast, and what you get is a human.

Makes sense to me.

 

[Jerry Smith]

The reason mankind is closer to yeast than other yeast is because yeast and mankind are separated by less time, fewer generations and fewer mutations.

Care to give a source for this? If one yeast were closer to human than to another yeast for cytochrome c, that would be strong falsification of evolution. Do you have the amino acid sequence for the cytochrome c of those two yeasts?

Of course there isn't such a bugger, and you will find that out if you bother to go looking for a source for your absurdity, but hey, that's the price of being married to evolution-denial.

 

[choccy]

Still no creationists who wants to answer my questions? Why not? It was one of you guys who brought up cytochrome C in the first place, so it must be supporting creation somehow, right?

Choccy

 

[seebs]

Originally posted by npetreley

Apply billions of mutations, billions of years and billions of generations to yeast, and what you get is a different yeast.

Apply millions of mutations, millions of years and millions of generations to yeast, and what you get is a human.

See? Common descent wasn't so hard once you were willing to approach it with an open mind.

"What you get when..." is often more than one thing, when you're talking about population genetics.

 

[Morat]

Nick's never going to let go of the ladder view of evolution. It's too useful a strawman.

Still, he's got some of the finest 200 year old science around!

 

[seebs]

Originally posted by Morat
Nick's never going to let go of the ladder view of evolution. It's too useful a strawman.

I don't mind being at the top of a ladder, but I do mind being a rung. I see your point, though.

 

[euphoric]

Originally posted by npetreley
The reason mankind is closer to yeast than other yeast is because yeast and mankind are separated by less time, fewer generations and fewer mutations.

I too would like to see a source for this comment. The matrix on the page you linked doesn't include humans, and furthermore shows that all of the yeast listed there were more closely related than any yeast was to a horse, much less a human.

After reading through many of your posts, I'm ready to place you firmly in the "deliberately obtuse" category. I should like to know if I can also safely place you in the "lies in an effort to make a point" category.

-brett

 

[choccy]

Still no answers. I'll ask again:

Genetic similarities between species that are thought to be closely related is often seen as evidence for evolution. The creationist counterclaim is that it's only natural to expect that species who look similar (eg. human and chimps) have similar DNA and thereby dismiss this as evidence for evolution. Now, if that was the case, then wouldn't we have to expect that the cytochrome C sequence for two types of yest to be more similar than e.g. a tuna and a horse? If not, why not? Does the tuna and the horse really look more like each other than two types of yest?

Evolutionary theory explains this appearant contradiction simply and elegantly. What is the creationist explanation for this?

Choccy

 

[Jerry Smith]

Bumping Choccy's challenge. Since Nick has gotten into the business of posing challenges, and has even answered one himself, lets see how far he will go.

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by choccy

Evolutionary theory explains this appearant contradiction simply and elegantly.

It does? What's that simple and elegant explanation? I must have missed it somewhere.

Originally posted by choccy

What is the creationist explanation for this?

I don't know. I've never heard or read any creationist try to explain it. The creationist arguments I've read say that if creatures are similar, then it makes perfect sense that the blueprint for creatures would be similar. No creationist argument I've read claimed that they MUST be similar. I've only read that it makes perfect sense for them to be similar, therefore one does not need common ancestry to explain the similarities.

IMO the only way to come up with some idea of why some things are NOT similar is to either find out if they differ in function, and see if that would call for differences, or consult G~d and ask.

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by euphoric

I too would like to see a source for this comment. The matrix on the page you linked doesn't include humans, and furthermore shows that all of the yeast listed there were more closely related than any yeast was to a horse, much less a human.

After reading through many of your posts, I'm ready to place you firmly in the "deliberately obtuse" category. I should like to know if I can also safely place you in the "lies in an effort to make a point" category.

-brett

First of all, I was being sarcastic. But I can be just as sarastic by using the data from the matrix, so if it makes you feel any better, I'll withdraw the comment and replace it with another sarcastic one that uses only data from the matrix

"I suppose the reason the cytochrome sequence in yeast is more similar to the sequence in a horse than it is to the sequence in bacteria is because yeast and a horse are separated by fewer generations and fewer mutations than bacteria and yeast."

 

[Jerry Smith]

So similarities in DNA reflect a common designer when those similarities are evidence of evolution, but when there are differences in the DNA of similar orgnaisms that aren't explained in terms of a common designer, they just get a shrug?

 

[Jerry Smith]

"I suppose the reason the cytochrome sequence in yeast is more similar to the sequence in a horse than it is to the sequence in bacteria is because yeast and a horse are separated by fewer generations and fewer mutations than bacteria and yeast."

Hint: yeast and horses are both eukaryotic, while bacteria is prokaryotic. That should help.

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by Jerry Smith


Hint: yeast and horses are both eukaryotic, while bacteria is prokaryotic. That should help.

Well, there you go! That explains it from a creationist perspective, too.

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by Jerry Smith
So similarities in DNA reflect a common designer when those similarities are evidence of evolution, but when there are differences in the DNA of similar orgnaisms that aren't explained in terms of a common designer, they just get a shrug?

Yes, as far as I'm concerned. If you want a creationist to come up with a detailed explanation, ask someone who thinks it is contradictory reasoning.