Is it a hoax?

[sfs]

Ive wondered about this for some time. The idea that it isnt similarities in DNA that make up the tree of relatedness, rather it is the differences that make the tree as it is. Could you talk a bit about this?

For determining a tree, what matters is really the pattern of similarities and differences. In particular, DNA that is the same among a group of species but different from the DNA of other species is a signal that those species form a branch of the tree. If you keep seeing the same species grouped together with different shared unique genetic markers, that's excellent evidence that they form a branch.

This plays out with lots of different genetic markers. All higher primates, for example, share large deletions from GULO, a gene needed to make vitamin C. Closely related primates share specific single-base mutations in the gene that aren't seen in other primates. Insertions of a particular endogenous retroviruses are unique events, unlikely ever to recur at the same place in the genome. As a result, they mark the branch of the tree on which they occurred; similarity within the branch indicates relatedness, but only by contrast with all of the other species that lack the insertion.

 

[sfs]

If it is accurate and precise, that's good enough for most people.

He's saying evolution isn't accurate or precise. Unfortunately, he seems unable to say why it isn't, beyond unsubstantiated assertions. (And false statements about renormalization.)

 

[AV1611VET]

You are the resident eccentric; be proud of your distinction.

Titus 2:14 Who gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

He's saying evolution isn't accurate or precise. Unfortunately, he seems unable to say why it isn't, beyond unsubstantiated assertions. (And false statements about renormalization.)

Oops! Yes, you're right, my mistake

Yeah, ask him a simple question and get a whole screed of mainly irrelevant nonsense back. Not sure it's worth the candle...

 

[DogmaHunter]

In what way, may I ask?

You're one those people who, when confronted with the fact that reality doesn't agree with your beliefs, you conclude that reality must be wrong.

Because, for some mysterious reason, you consider your faith-based beliefs as being infallible.

 

[bhsmte]

You're one those people who, when confronted with the fact that reality doesn't agree with your beliefs, you conclude that reality must be wrong.

Because, for some mysterious reason, you consider your faith-based beliefs as being infallible.

The answer to this is quite simple. To some, acknowledging a well evidenced reality that goes against a tightly held faith belief, is simply too painful to acknowledge. Hence, the defense mechanisms we observe to protect these beliefs, at all costs.

 

[xianghua]

The phylogenetic tree and the tree of the fossil succession are so well synchronized, that time and time again, predictions of where fossils exist in the earth, are made by first looking at our DNA.

What is there left to debate? There is only one explanation, biological relatedness through time, aka biological evolution.

are you sure? what if i will show another explanation?

first: some similar creature are actually closer to a different group. for instance: the lungfish is closer to human then to it's coelacanth relative.

There was a false and unjustified statement made in the original post. The person suggested that the phylogenetric tree constructed based on genetics, was not identical to other trees.

it's actually true in many cases:

Evolution: Charles Darwin was wrong about the tree of life

"Charles Darwin's "tree of life", which shows how species are related through evolutionary history, is wrong and needs to be replaced, according to leading scientists."

or...

Phylogeny: Rewriting evolution

This family tree is backed up by reams of genomic and morphological data, and is well accepted by the palaeontological community. Yet, says Peterson, the tree is all wrong.

 

[AV1611VET]

Hence, the defense mechanisms we observe to protect these beliefs, at all costs.

And let me guess -- those defense mechanisms include:

1. faith
2. Dunning-Kruger
3. voluntary ignorance
4. cognitive dissonance resolution
5. various and sundry Boolean standards

 

[sfs]

And let me guess -- those defense mechanisms include:

1. faith
2. Dunning-Kruger
3. voluntary ignorance
4. cognitive dissonance resolution
5. various and sundry Boolean standards

6. posting defensive lists

 

[Subduction Zone]

are you sure? what if i will show another explanation?

first: some similar creature are actually closer to a different group. for instance: the lungfish is closer to human then to it's coelacanth relative.

You are making the error of treating man as not part of the same clade as certain fishes. I am not sure of your coelacanth lungfish claim, but it may be true. I know for sure that lungfish are more closely related to us than they are to sharks. Lungfish are members of the clade of "bony fishes" and so are we. Even if your example is right it not a violation.

it's actually true in many cases:

Evolution: Charles Darwin was wrong about the tree of life

"Charles Darwin's "tree of life", which shows how species are related through evolutionary history, is wrong and needs to be replaced, according to leading scientists."

or...

Phylogeny: Rewriting evolution

This family tree is backed up by reams of genomic and morphological data, and is well accepted by the palaeontological community. Yet, says Peterson, the tree is all wrong.

You need to do more than read just the highlights out of an article. He merely has a different take on the details of the tree. He does not show the tree to be "all wrong" instead by his beliefs he is merely reorganizing some of the twigs and branches of the "tree".

 

[Ygrene Imref]

Dp

 

[Ygrene Imref]

Dp

 

[Ygrene Imref]

It seems I made a mistake responding to even more posts. Good luck to everyone I truly do hope you a find what you are looking for.

 

[AV1611VET]

Good luck to everyone I truly do hope you a find what you are looking for.

For scientists, it's finding a resolution to global warming before the sun goes nova and cremates everyone.

Hurry up and shovel that snow before it melts!

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

It seems I made a mistake responding to even more posts. Good luck to everyone I truly do hope you a find what you are looking for.

Responding isn't a mistake - but the reception your responses get depends on their relevance and clarity.

Good luck to you too

 

[Job 33:6]

For determining a tree, what matters is really the pattern of similarities and differences. In particular, DNA that is the same among a group of species but different from the DNA of other species is a signal that those species form a branch of the tree. If you keep seeing the same species grouped together with different shared unique genetic markers, that's excellent evidence that they form a branch.

This plays out with lots of different genetic markers. All higher primates, for example, share large deletions from GULO, a gene needed to make vitamin C. Closely related primates share specific single-base mutations in the gene that aren't seen in other primates. Insertions of a particular endogenous retroviruses are unique events, unlikely ever to recur at the same place in the genome. As a result, they mark the branch of the tree on which they occurred; similarity within the branch indicates relatedness, but only by contrast with all of the other species that lack the insertion.

How do you know that higher primates share large deletions, or single base mutations, as opposed to them just having similar DNA? Like how do you know the DNA has mutated, as opposed to having DNA that simply is that way?

And regarding ERVs, could ERVs be influenced by anything that might make them target a similar or identical location as one another, in different species?

 

[sfs]

How do you know that higher primates share large deletions, or single base mutations, as opposed to them just having similar DNA?

I hesitated in using "mutations" and "deletions", but didn't want to go into too long an explanation if it wasn't wanted.

We conclude that at least some of the differences represent deletions because we know what a functioning GULO gene looks like, and what primates have got is pieces of a functioning GULO gene. It is reasonable to conclude that parts of a functioning gene were lost.

We conclude that single-base differences are the result of mutations because they look exactly like mutations. That is, mutations that happen very frequently are also frequently seen in genetic differences between species. Mutations that happen less frequently are seen less frequently. Mutations that happen rarely are seen rarely. (Also, biologists concluded well over a century ago, based on non-genetic evidence, that humans and other primates share a common ancestor. But I'm ignoring this background knowledge for the moment.)

 

[mark kennedy]

ERV homology arguments are the worst arguments I've ever seen, I can't believe they keep turning up like a dirty penny. That good old GULO gene is an interesting one, but hardly a smoking gun. When it comes to human evolution the three fold expansion of the human brain from that of apes. There is a genetic basis for that but mutations are simply a wrong answer and anyone who knows comparative genetics and neural disease and disorder knows that.

 

[Loudmouth]

ERV homology arguments are the worst arguments I've ever seen, I can't believe they keep turning up like a dirty penny.

We are using ERV phylogeny arguments, not homology. I can't believe you still don't understand that.

When it comes to human evolution the three fold expansion of the human brain from that of apes. There is a genetic basis for that but mutations are simply a wrong answer and anyone who knows comparative genetics and neural disease and disorder knows that.

Why are mutations the wrong answer?

 

[mark kennedy]

We are using ERV phylogeny arguments, not homology. I can't believe you still don't understand that.

It's an homology argument, I don't believe you still don't understand that.

Why are mutations the wrong answer?

Two reasons, disease and disorder.

Once again the most important adaptive evolutionary event in our line, and no reply. Typical.