Gorilla Genome

[Loudmouth]

Correct. But it's not an argument attempting to disprove common descent, as evolutionists will be quick to strawman.

The argument is that Evolution theory has such a large degree of plasticity that a 30% conflict with molecular predictions is no problem at all.

Incomplete lineage sorting is predicted by population genetics.

One is left wondering, with these types of extreme "lineage sorting" issues, why evolutionists would even expect robust phylogenetic evidence in their favor as is often the bluff.

Extreme?

The only extreme view is that ILS should not happen. As it is, we can predict that as we move to species that are more distantly related that we will see less and less ILS, and that is exactly what we see.

 

[lifepsyop]

Incomplete lineage sorting is predicted by population genetics.

I never said it wasn't.

Extreme?

The only extreme view is that ILS should not happen.

Nobody is arguing that ILS should not happen.

As it is, we can predict that as we move to species that are more distantly related that we will see less and less ILS, and that is exactly what we see.

Genetic markers are in total conflict within the placental mammal tree - animal groups supposedly separated by around 100 million years. This isn't distant enough for you?

With this in mind, the ridiculous thing is that evolutionists will continue to spread the nonsense that if Primate ERVs were scrambled up that it would somehow be a strike against Evolution theory... (even though the primate group is far less distantly "related" than placental mammal group.)

 

[Loudmouth]

I never said it wasn't.




Nobody is arguing that ILS should not happen.

Then why would ILS refute evolution if ILS is expected from evolutionary mechanisms?

Genetic markers are in total conflict within the placental mammal tree - animal groups supposedly separated by around 100 million years. This isn't distant enough for you?

How many genetic markers? What are they?

With this in mind, the ridiculous thing is that evolutionists will continue to spread the nonsense that if Primate ERVs were scrambled up that it would somehow be a strike against Evolution theory... (even though the primate group is far less distantly "related" than placental mammal group.)

What we are saying is that there should be a phylogenetic signal above the noise, and there is.

 

[lifepsyop]

Then why would ILS refute evolution if ILS is expected from evolutionary mechanisms?

Please follow the discussion. I never said ILS refutes anything.

How many genetic markers? What are they?

"One and a half centuries after Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace outlined our current understanding of evolution, a new scientific era is dawning that enables direct observations of genetic variation. However, pure sequence-based molecular attempts to resolve the basal origin of placental mammals have so far resulted only in apparently conflicting hypotheses. By contrast, in the mammalian genomes where they were highly active, the insertion of retroelements and their comparative insertion patterns constitute a neutral, virtually homoplasy-free archive of evolutionary histories. The “presence” of a retroelement at an orthologous genomic position in two species indicates their common ancestry in contrast to its “absence” in more distant species. To resolve the placental origin controversy we extracted ∼2 million potentially phylogenetically informative, retroposon-containing loci from representatives of the major placental mammalian lineages and found highly significant evidence challenging all current single hypotheses of their basal origin..."

Mosaic retroposon insertion patterns in placental mammals

What we are saying is that there should be a phylogenetic signal above the noise, and there is.

The quality of signal Evolution theory "predicts" is so open-ended and undefined as to be practically worthless in terms of testing if common descent is true or not.

With the above research in mind, (if you grasp it) what does evolution theory really predict? Are you aware of just how much "noise" your model can sustain? A lot.

 

[Loudmouth]

"One and a half centuries after Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace outlined our current understanding of evolution, a new scientific era is dawning that enables direct observations of genetic variation. However, pure sequence-based molecular attempts to resolve the basal origin of placental mammals have so far resulted only in apparently conflicting hypotheses. By contrast, in the mammalian genomes where they were highly active, the insertion of retroelements and their comparative insertion patterns constitute a neutral, virtually homoplasy-free archive of evolutionary histories. The “presence” of a retroelement at an orthologous genomic position in two species indicates their common ancestry in contrast to its “absence” in more distant species. To resolve the placental origin controversy we extracted ∼2 million potentially phylogenetically informative, retroposon-containing loci from representatives of the major placental mammalian lineages and found highly significant evidence challenging all current single hypotheses of their basal origin..."

Mosaic retroposon insertion patterns in placental mammals

How many retroelements did they use, and what percentage of the genome do they comprise?

The quality of signal Evolution theory "predicts" is so open-ended and undefined as to be practically worthless in terms of testing if common descent is true or not.

Given your inability to understand the references you have cited, I think we can safely ignore your opinion.

 

[Loudmouth]

What is this mountain of evidence you speak of?

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent

 

[lifepsyop]

How many retroelements did they use, and what percentage of the genome do they comprise?

They used all homoplasy-free markers, so it isn't a signal-to-noise ratio.

"The 22 phylogenetically informative markers providing significant support for a trifurcation at the basal node of placental mammals...

...We believe that the most parsimonious interpretation of the current data is that the ancestral placental populations were characterized by severe ancestral subdivisions and rejoinings, leading to a complex mosaic of phylogenetic relationships in recent species..."

That last statement is a catch-all that could be used to rescue all sorts of major discordant data patterns.

Evolution theory is a fog always settling over the data.

 

[Loudmouth]

They used all homoplasy-free markers, so it isn't a signal-to-noise ratio.

"The 22 phylogenetically informative markers providing significant support for a trifurcation at the basal node of placental mammals...

...We believe that the most parsimonious interpretation of the current data is that the ancestral placental populations were characterized by severe ancestral subdivisions and rejoinings, leading to a complex mosaic of phylogenetic relationships in recent species..."

That last statement is a catch-all that could be used to rescue all sorts of major discordant data patterns.

Evolution theory is a fog always settling over the data.

22 markers? That's it?

 

[lifepsyop]

22 markers? That's it?

Do you know what homoplasy-free means?

 

[Loudmouth]

Do you know what homoplasy-free means?

Do you know what 22 means?

Also . . .

"Virtually homoplasy-free implies that this marker system is, as any other marker system, not insensitive to the effects of ancestral hybridization and incomplete lineage sorting combined with short splitting times. Because of the clear character polarity (presence of an element as the derived state) and the low probability of orthologous exact parallel insertions or deletions, the retroposon presence/absence marker system is exceptionally effective for detecting the ancestral exchange of genetic material among lineages and the lineage sorting effects that are difficult to pinpoint by the statistical evaluation of heterogeneous sequence data (Hallström and Janke 2008). "

 

[lifepsyop]

Do you know what 22 means?

It's a number. Got an argument yet?

Also . . .

"Virtually homoplasy-free implies that this marker system is, as any other marker system, not insensitive to the effects of ancestral hybridization and incomplete lineage sorting combined with short splitting times. Because of the clear character polarity (presence of an element as the derived state) and the low probability of orthologous exact parallel insertions or deletions, the retroposon presence/absence marker system is exceptionally effective for detecting the ancestral exchange of genetic material among lineages and the lineage sorting effects that are difficult to pinpoint by the statistical evaluation of heterogeneous sequence data (Hallström and Janke 2008). "

Are you dense? I've been saying that the whole time. Incomplete lineage sorting is the rescue device.

 

[Loudmouth]

It's a number. Got an argument yet?

Got a genome yet? You focus on 22 markers in ignore the other 99.999% of the genome?




Are you dense? I've been saying that the whole time. Incomplete lineage sorting is the rescue device.[/QUOTE]

ILS is a real thing, not something invented to rescue anything.

 

[lifepsyop]

Got a genome yet? You focus on 22 markers in ignore the other 99.999% of the genome?

I didn't. Churakov et al. did. So apparently you're now disputing the literature, and you still have no argument.

Why not go back and read the last couple of pages of the thread so you can participate.

 

[Loudmouth]

So apparently you're now disputing the literature, and you still have no argument.

I don't dispute the literature which clearly states that mammals evolved from a common ancestor.

 

[lifepsyop]

I don't dispute the literature which clearly states that mammals evolved from a common ancestor.

It's almost charming how oblivious you are to the arguments under discussion.

 

[Loudmouth]

It's almost charming how oblivious you are to the arguments under discussion.

Do you disagree with 99.9% of biologists that humans share a common ancestor with other species?

 

[lifepsyop]

Do you disagree with 99.9% of biologists that humans share a common ancestor with other species?

There is no such statistic except in your imagination.. but no, I do not subscribe to the belief in universal common ancestry held by the majority of academics.

Tell you what Loudmouth, if you want to continue the discussion feel free to respond to my specific arguments I directed towards sfs here:
http://www.christianforums.com/t7870598-12/#post67276976

You've done nothing but dodge and deflect so far.. (I'm giving you benefit of the doubt here assuming you're just playing dumb)

I have absolutely no interest in going off on any other tangents with you.
Address my arguments or stop wasting my time, please.

 

[Loudmouth]

There is no such statistic except in your imagination.. but no, I do not subscribe to the belief in universal common ancestry held by the majority of academics.

So you disagree with the peer reivewed papers.

Tell you what Loudmouth, if you want to continue the discussion feel free to respond to my specific arguments I directed towards sfs here:
http://www.christianforums.com/t7870598-12/#post67276976

I already have. ILS and cross breeding are real mechanisms, so why can't they be used as explanations?

 

[lifepsyop]

I already have. ILS and cross breeding are real mechanisms, so why can't they be used as explanations?

Never said they couldn't be. Stop with the strawman and address my actual arguments. Quote me and ask questions if you're confused about something.

 

[Loudmouth]

Never said they couldn't be.

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