PhantomGaze
Carry on my wayward son.
- Aug 16, 2012
- 412
- 110
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Single
I think Shapiro's natural genetic engineering is some pretty serious business.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Wow - I must have never received the Official Notification that Shapiro Speaks For ALL and that his personal opinions (which seem to be based more on the fact that most scientists do not accept his bizarre extrapolations) are to be Written in Stone.
I think Shapiro's natural genetic engineering is some pretty serious business.
I mentioned the platypus. Someone argued it was a transitional form between mammals and reptiles. Which of course is true imo, but they completely ignored it's avian characteristics as an area of interest.
This says it all. When the "molecular clock" seems to agree with standard phylogeny, then it "works". When the MC disagrees with standard phylogeny then the "species evolved at unequal rates", or some other kind of irregularity occurred.
More of the same non-falsifiable, ad-hoc, save-the-theory-with-rescue-devices nonsense.
Being a biologist, I would expect you to recognize this type of problem.
Wow - I must have never received the Official Notification that Shapiro Speaks For ALL and that his personal opinions (which seem to be based more on the fact that most scientists do not accept his bizarre extrapolations) are to be Written in Stone.
Say, that is super clever. But do you really think that strawman nonsense will convince anyone that you are out of your league?
Maybe you could stop spamming nonsense all over the thread and actually respond to the original content? Or are you just here to stamp your feet?
I mentioned the platypus. Someone argued it was a transitional form between mammals and reptiles. Which of course is true imo, but they completely ignored it's avian characteristics as an area of interest.
Yeah, those were some of the redflags for me, too. And that was just in the abstract. And of course it just looks to creationists like we are handwaving articles away that we don't like...really not our fault that they are incabable of recognizing poor scientific writing when they see it.
It's a shame some of that stuff manages to get a "peer reviewed" tag on it. Unfortunately, its only going to get worse until they crack down on some of these open access journals.
Or its weird poison glands that males have. The animal is so freaky that when people first brought examples of them in for the scientific community, they were thought to be fakes, beaver and duck parts sewn together.
No, we know because we can watch evolution, and sometimes it can occur very quickly, such as with Stickleback fish studies:IThe funny part is that none of you will make any major claims about the molecular clock now. As Split Rock already conceded, sometimes it matches up, sometimes it doesn't because "species do not always evolve at equal rates". How do you know if the rate of evolution is unequal? Because the molecular clock says so. Heads: Evolution. Tails: Evolution.
Really? I guess that's why scientists rarely talk about the molecular clock with the public.The molecular clock is just more circular ad-hoc evo fluff that darwin spokespeople use to confuse the unwitting public.
I notice none of you are commenting on the Schwartz,Maresca article which lists numerous literature references of molecular clock discordance and failed predictions.
Do Molecular Clocks Run at All? A Critique of Molecular Systematics
http://www.pitt.edu/~jhs/articles/Schwartz&Maresca_Mol_clocks.pdf
The funny part is that none of you will make any major claims about the molecular clock now. As Split Rock already conceded, sometimes it matches up, sometimes it doesn't because "species do not always evolve at equal rates". How do you know if the rate of evolution is unequal? Because the molecular clock says so. Heads: Evolution. Tails: Evolution.
The molecular clock is just more circular ad-hoc evo fluff that darwin spokespeople use to confuse the unwitting public.
Yeah, those were some of the redflags for me, too. And that was just in the abstract. And of course it just looks to creationists like we are handwaving articles away that we don't like...really not our fault that they are incabable of recognizing poor scientific writing when they see it.
It's a shame some of that stuff manages to get a "peer reviewed" tag on it. Unfortunately, its only going to get worse until they crack down on some of these open access journals.
I think Shapiro's natural genetic engineering is some pretty serious business.
No need to get upset, it's just one man's opinion. Shapiro is an expert geneticist, an evolutionist, and openly hostile to creationism. Yet he casually points out the religious conviction of many evolutionary theorists. Struck a chord in you, I see.
Honestly, you can cut the religious fervor of most evolutionists with a knife. They absolutely hate to have their origins beliefs questioned. It's just nice to have it confirmed by a hostile witness every now and then.
Maybe you could stop spamming nonsense all over the thread and actually respond to the original content? Or are you just here to stamp your feet?
Can you provide an example of the molecular clock actually being used to infer phylogenies?
Thanks, sport!
Found this on another forum:
The tested methodology:
Science 25 October 1991:
Vol. 254. no. 5031, pp. 554 - 558
Gene trees and the origins of inbred strains of mice
WR Atchley and WM Fitch
Extensive data on genetic divergence among 24 inbred strains of mice provide an opportunity to examine the concordance of gene trees and species trees, especially whether structured subsamples of loci give congruent estimates of phylogenetic relationships. Phylogenetic analyses of 144 separate loci reproduce almost exactly the known genealogical relationships among these 24 strains. Partitioning these loci into structured subsets representing loci coding for proteins, the immune system and endogenous viruses give incongruent phylogenetic results. The gene tree based on protein loci provides an accurate picture of the genealogical relationships among strains; however, gene trees based upon immune and viral data show significant deviations from known genealogical affinities.
======================
Science, Vol 255, Issue 5044, 589-592
Experimental phylogenetics: generation of a known phylogeny
DM Hillis, JJ Bull, ME White, MR Badgett, and IJ Molineux
Department of Zoology, University of Texas, Austin 78712.
Although methods of phylogenetic estimation are used routinely in comparative biology, direct tests of these methods are hampered by the lack of known phylogenies. Here a system based on serial propagation of bacteriophage T7 in the presence of a mutagen was used to create the first completely known phylogeny. Restriction-site maps of the terminal lineages were used to infer the evolutionary history of the experimental lines for comparison to the known history and actual ancestors. The five methods used to reconstruct branching pattern all predicted the correct topology but varied in their predictions of branch lengths; one method also predicts ancestral restriction maps and was found to be greater than 98 percent accurate.
==================================
Science, Vol 264, Issue 5159, 671-677
Application and accuracy of molecular phylogenies
DM Hillis, JP Huelsenbeck, and CW Cunningham
Department of Zoology, University of Texas, Austin 78712.
Molecular investigations of evolutionary history are being used to study subjects as diverse as the epidemiology of acquired immune deficiency syndrome and the origin of life. These studies depend on accurate estimates of phylogeny. The performance of methods of phylogenetic analysis can be assessed by numerical simulation studies and by the experimental evolution of organisms in controlled laboratory situations. Both kinds of assessment indicate that existing methods are effective at estimating phylogenies over a wide range of evolutionary conditions, especially if information about substitution bias is used to provide differential weightings for character transformations.
Application of the tested methodology:
Implications of natural selection in shaping 99.4% nonsynonymous DNA identity between humans and chimpanzees: Enlarging genus Homo
"Here we compare ≈90 kb of coding DNA nucleotide sequence from 97 human genes to their sequenced chimpanzee counterparts and to available sequenced gorilla, orangutan, and Old World monkey counterparts, and, on a more limited basis, to mouse. The nonsynonymous changes (functionally important), like synonymous changes (functionally much less important), show chimpanzees and humans to be most closely related, sharing 99.4% identity at nonsynonymous sites and 98.4% at synonymous sites. "
Mitochondrial Insertions into Primate Nuclear Genomes Suggest the Use of numts as a Tool for Phylogeny
"Moreover, numts identified in gorilla Supercontigs were used to test the humanchimpgorilla trichotomy, yielding a high level of support for the sister relationship of human and chimpanzee."
A Molecular Phylogeny of Living Primates
"Once contentiously debated, the closest human relative of chimpanzee (Pan) within subfamily Homininae (Gorilla, Pan, Homo) is now generally undisputed. The branch forming the Homo andPanlineage apart from Gorilla is relatively short (node 73, 27 steps MP, 0 indels) compared with that of thePan genus (node 72, 91 steps MP, 2 indels) and suggests rapid speciation into the 3 genera occurred early in Homininae evolution. Based on 54 gene regions, Homo-Pan genetic distance range from 6.92 to 7.90×10−3 substitutions/site (P. paniscus and P. troglodytes, respectively), which is less than previous estimates based on large scale sequencing of specific regions such as chromosome 7[50]. "
Catarrhine phylogeny: noncoding DNA evidence for a diphyletic origin of the mangabeys and for a human-chimpanzee clade.
"The Superfamily Hominoidea for apes and humans is reduced to family Hominidae within Superfamily Cercopithecoidea, with all living hominids placed in subfamily Homininae; and (4) chimpanzees and humans are members of a single genus, Homo, with common and bonobo chimpanzees placed in subgenus H. (Pan) and humans placed in subgenus H. (Homo). It may be noted that humans and chimpanzees are more than 98.3% identical in their typical nuclear noncoding DNA and probably more than 99.5% identical in the active coding nucleotide sequences of their functional nuclear genes (Goodman et al., 1989, 1990). In mammals such high genetic correspondence is commonly found between sibling species below the generic level but not between species in different genera."
What are the methods used to assess creationism's claims? Are they testable? have they been tested on knowns?
Nested hierarchies are predictions of evolution which have been confirmed via tested methodologies.
All you are offering is inflammatory assertions coupled with unwarranted condescension produced by the Dunning-Kruger effect, as best I can tell.
No...the funny part is that I never made any major claims about the molecular clock in the first place. In fact, I distinctly said that I don't care if it works or not.
I commented on the particular paper you posted, because it was very obviously substandard. Even if I was arguing for your case, I'd not have used it as evidence, because it was poorly written. I wasn't harping on it because I thought it was WRONG, but because I thought it lacked scientific professionalism.
I'm well aware of the limitations of the molecular clock, and treat results for what they are...inferred, SUPPORTING evidence...that is to say, not direct, infallible, stand-alone evidence.
It's useful in certain studies, to scientists, who know that they are not engraved in stone.
The hypocritical projection is astounding.So, in short, evolutionists can keep making up stories about mystical events that occurred at these imaginary nodes (common ancestors) millions of years ago to explain why traits end up where they do in modern species.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?