Enigmas (Cytochrome C and others)

Morat · Jul 11, 2002

Um, yes. That's in fact true. Yeast do share a more common ancestor with horses than bacteria.

You knew that, right? That yeast is a eukaryote, and a different branch than Eubacteria.

There were three main "roots" to the tree of life. The Eubacteria, the Eukaryotes, and the Archae. The common ancestor of modern yeasts and horses is withing Eukaryote, but the common ancestor of modern yeasts and bacteria is well before that...

Looks like another "third set of teeth" statement. Did you know it was a similiar error in understanding that ultimately changed Denton's mind?

Jerry Smith · Jul 11, 2002

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

It doesn't explain why two yeasts can have cytochrome c more different than a tuna and a dog though...

Jerry Smith · Jul 11, 2002

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.

Were you ever going to come back and admit that there is no DNA sequence or protein which put mankind closer to yeast than that yeast is to another yeast?

npetreley · Jul 11, 2002

Originally posted by Jerry Smith

Were you ever going to come back and admit that there is no DNA sequence or protein which put mankind closer to yeast than that yeast is to another yeast?

It was supposed to be a funny exaggeration of what was in the matrix. If you know for a fact that this is not true, then consider my error admitted. I'll take your word for it.

Jerry Smith · Jul 11, 2002

It was supposed to be a funny exaggeration of what was in the matrix. If you know for a fact that this is not true, then consider my error admitted. I'll take your word for it.

It was actually a misconstruction of what was in the matrix, not an exaggeration of it. If there were anything in the matrix that corresponded to closer similarity betwen an outgroup and ingroup then it would have been exaggeration. But thanks for admitting the error.

LiveFreeOrDie · Jul 11, 2002

It was supposed to be a funny exaggeration

Funny ha ha. Telling lies is a real gas!

Jerry Smith · Jul 11, 2002

Originally posted by Jerry Smith

It was actually a misconstruction of what was in the matrix, not an exaggeration of it. If there were anything in the matrix that corresponded to closer similarity betwen a member of an outgroup than another member of the ingroup then it would have been exaggeration. But thanks for admitting the error.

choccy · Jul 11, 2002

Did you know it was a similiar error in understanding that ultimately changed Denton's mind?

Looks like me and Denton have something in common. Anyway, I'm not really convinced by the creationist explanation yet. I still cannot see how the common designer/common blueprint/common function/common anything-but-descent argument explains how two yeasts can have more different cytochrome c than a dog and a tuna.

Choccy

Morat · Jul 11, 2002

I believe it was Denton, at least. Regardless, he was discussing with a biologist the Cytochrome C data and pointing out that group X was closer to humans than group Y, and how that didn't make sense and disproved evolution.

The biologist gently pointed out that Denton had it wrong. Group X shared a more recent common ancestor with humans than group Y. Denton hadn't checked the fossil record on it, or anything else. He'd gone by "gut instinct".

Nick, here's a question for you: According to the fossil record, which is closer to humans, Turtles or alligators? Which is closer to dinosaurs?

choccy · Jul 11, 2002

Thats pretty much how it happened to me as well. It was during my brash, young days, I had just read Fred Hoyle and was deadset on proving evolution wrong. It was never a religious issue with me though, more anti-establishment. Anyway, I saw a similar table to what Nick linked to at the start of this thread and thought: "Hey, this is exatly what I've been looking for!" I always had this nagging doubt in the back of my head though. How could all the biologists of the world miss something so obvious. As it turns out, they never missed it at all, they were way ahead of me all the time. From my own experience I can't see how anyone can deny evolution based on anything else than purely religious motivation.

Choccy

Morat · Jul 11, 2002

It's weird, really. You see the same sorts of things with perpetual motion proponents.

They're convinced that somehow, someway, they're right, and that all the people that have spent years or decades working with the concepts, who have forgotten more about the subject than these perpetual motion people ever learned, are somehow all missing something so simple and obvious that a guy playing with magnets in his garage can see it, but everyone he explains it to thinks he's wrong.

The lowest tier or YEC's is much the same way. The pop up with "thermodynamics" arguments. As if scientists are so stupid that something that fundamental had passed them by. Why do they think that something obvious to a Joe Blow the Happy Literalist is something the "establishment" has simply not noticed?

Of course, from there, you go into conspiracies.

choccy · Jul 11, 2002

Of course, from there, you go into conspiracies.

LOL! I suppose you're right. I never had the proper motivation to go into conspiracy theories though. It never really meant all that much to me whether evolution was true or not.

Choccy

euphoric · Jul 13, 2002

Originally posted by npetreley

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 

Well, I do feel pangs of guilt about forcing the burden of accuracy upon your weary shoulders, but I'll live with it.  After all, you have several other threads in which you can feel free to continue making arguments against evolution without the onerous commitment to knowledge or understanding of the subject matter.

Originally posted by npetreley
"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."

Well, others have beaten me to the prokaryote-eukaryote explanation, so I won't pile on.  I wonder though, does it give you even the slightest pause when you realize that you don't even understand such a simple distinction.  I would venture that most people who would claim expertise on the subject of evolution could at least understand the very simple answer to your question.  Yet you were apparently completely ignorant of it.  Is it possible that your opposition to evolution is based on something other than a supreme knowledge of the concept?

-brett

Jerry Smith · Jul 13, 2002

I would venture that most people who would claim expertise on the subject of evolution could at least understand the very simple answer to your question. Yet you were apparently completely ignorant of it. Is it possible that your opposition to evolution is based on something other than a supreme knowledge of the concept?

Its just that his specialty field of expertise is polyploidy, not biology.

euphoric · Jul 13, 2002

Originally posted by Jerry Smith

Its just that his specialty field of expertise is polyploidy, not biology.

 

Ah, I see.  Guess I need to take the time to read through all of the threads that deal with that issue.  I wouldn't want to miss a nugget of knowledge from the resident genetics expert.

-brett

gkochanowsky · Jul 13, 2002

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

 

Bite the hand that feeds you why don't you. Get thee to an Amish village, you don't deserve to live in the 21st century!

Starboy

euphoric · Jul 13, 2002

Originally posted by gkochanowsky

Bite the hand that feeds you why don't you. Get thee to an Amish village, you don't deserve to live in the 21st century!

Starboy

I would submit that if you check the rest of LFOD's posts, you will find that he was being facetious when he said that.  Unless you were also being facetious.  In which case I shall wipe the egg from my face.

 

-brett

gkochanowsky · Jul 13, 2002

Originally posted by euphoric

I would submit that if you check the rest of LFOD's posts, you will find that he was being facetious when he said that.  Unless you were also being facetious.  In which case I shall wipe the egg from my face.

 

-brett

 

If that is the case, then I apologize for my hasty rebuke.

Starboy

ardipithecus · Jul 24, 2002

Originally posted by 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

 

The table gives exactly what is expected if Darwinian evolution is true.

For one thing a dog and tuna are more closely related to each other than some yeasts are to each other.  Yeasts are an older group than the vertebrates are.  Indeed the fallacy is much clearer if one rewords Petreley's claim to: x vertebrate is closer to y vertebrate than p yeast is to q yeast.

The bit with the bacteria seems to be Denton's old fallacy has has already been pointed out.

Maybe someday evolution deniers will actually think before writing!

In any event, can anyone even as much as point anything in the table which in anyway contradicts common descent?  The answer is no.

 

 

Enigmas (Cytochrome C and others)

Untitled One

Fish out of water

Fish out of water

pumpkin sailor

Fish out of water

Science Officer

Fish out of water

Active Member

Untitled One

Active Member

Untitled One

Active Member

He hates these cans!!

Fish out of water

He hates these cans!!

New Member

He hates these cans!!

New Member

Active Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency