proving evolution as just a "theory"

[pitabread]

Sounds like evolutionists.

So... how's your common design model coming? Do you have an example to present yet on how to apply common design to comparative genomics analysis in lieu of phylogenetics-based approaches?

 

[pitabread]

Yes Bingo! And yet it was presented as an example to me... why is that?

Because science has moved on in the last 250+ years? Or do you think vaccine research is still performed in the same manner as the 1700's?

 

[pitabread]

And that's the question I was asking. Just how does believing all life has a common ancestor aid the research?

Here ya go:

Pharmacophylogenomics: genes, evolution and drug targets

Phylogenomics, which advocates an evolutionary view of genomic data, has been useful in the prediction of protein function, of significant sequence and structural elements, and of protein interactions and other relationships. Although such information is important in characterizing individual pharmacological targets, evolutionary analyses also indicate new ways to view the overall space of gene products in terms of their suitability for therapeutic intervention.

There's also a detailed presentation available here which goes into specific a workflow for the incorporation of evolutionary data into drug discovery: Discovering Drug Targets for Neglected Diseases Using a Pharmacophylogenomic Cloud Workflow

 

[rjs330]

Common ancestry is a reasonable inference from the observed process of speciation. If speciation occurs repeatedly (and we know that it does) it is reasonable to project the process back to a single original species. Genetic evidence is consistant with this projection, as is the fossil record. None of which rules out a "common designer" behind it all. The problem with proposing "common design" as an alternative to evolution is that even if it is consistant with the genetic evidence, it lacks a mechanism.

Speciation does not occur repeatedly. Things may change and become subspecies but nothing ever changes into something completely different. Beetles are still beetles, spiders are still spiders etc. You may have a lizard that adapts to a new environment and it's skin or digestive system changes, but it's still a lizard. Its a subspecies.

 

[rjs330]

As all living organisms have common genes indicates and supports common ancestry. It is testable prediction made by the theory. It gives no indication of a designer, except to those who already believe that there is a designer.

As research is directed as invalidating theories and conclusions, there is no preconceived presumptive ideas. That is done by creationists/IDers. Trying to prove conclusions is the primary indication of pseudoscience.

Only if you believe in evolution. Evolution belief comes first. Then you assume genomic commonalities show common ancestry. When in fact all it shows is all living things have commonalities, a common design. And you are right. It does not give an indication who the designer might be.

 

[Speedwell]

Speciation does not occur repeatedly. Things may change and become subspecies but nothing ever changes into something completely different. Beetles are still beetles, spiders are still spiders etc. You may have a lizard that adapts to a new environment and it's skin or digestive system changes, but it's still a lizard. Its a subspecies.

"Lizard" is not a species, it's an Order, comprising over 6000 separate species.

But I am having trouble grasping what you mean by "something completely different." All living things share similarities, genetic, cellular, etc. No living creature is completely different from the others. I suppose if we discovered a silicon-based life form on another planet or something like that we could say it was "completely different" from Earth life. What do you mean by it?

 

[Speedwell]

dp

 

[pitabread]

Then you assume genomic commonalities show common ancestry. When in fact all it shows is all living things have commonalities, a common design.

So you keep saying, but when push comes to shove you've demonstrated no ability to differentiate between evolution and "common design".

 

[rjs330]

Common ancestry is a reasonable inference from the observed process of speciation. If speciation occurs repeatedly (and we know that it does) it is reasonable to project the process back to a single original species. Genetic evidence is consistant with this projection, as is the fossil record. None of which rules out a "common designer" behind it all. The problem with proposing "common design" as an alternative to evolution is that even if it is consistant with the genetic evidence, it lacks a mechanism.

I don't understand what you mean by common design lacking a mechanism. Please help.me out here.

 

[rjs330]

So you keep saying, but when push comes to shove you've demonstrated no ability to differentiate between evolution and design.

Don't be silly of course I have. Evolution from a common ancestor is false. That all things were created as separate kinds using a common design is true. See I have differentiated between the two.

Evolution sees genetic commonalities and assumes we all came from a common ancestor without any other evidence to show that actually occurred.

Creationists see the commonalities and understand it's a design that was used to create life here.

 

[pitabread]

Don't be silly of course I have. Evolution from a common ancestor is false. That all things were created as separate kinds using a common design is true. See I have differentiated between the two.

...

Simply saying they are different and actually demonstrating they are different are two different things. You keep doing the former. You've failed in the latter.

For example, check out my prior post re: phylogenetic footprinting. I asked you to demonstrate how your "common design" would be applied in lieu of using phylogenetics (evolution). You basically ignored it thus failing to demonstrate the common design model you keep touting.

 

[Speedwell]

I don't understand what you mean by common design lacking a mechanism. Please help.me out here.

How does it work? How does the "design" get into the creature? Design is just a word; what actually happens? ID people never can tell us, which is why ID is scoffed at.

Now answer my question: What do you mean by "completely different?" You seem to be imagining qualitative differences where there are none.

 

[rjs330]

"Lizard" is not a species, it's an Order, comprising over 6000 separate species.

But I am having trouble grasping what you mean by "something completely different." All living things share similarities, genetic, cellular, etc. No living creature is completely different from the others. I suppose if we discovered a silicon-based life form on another planet or something like that we could say it was "completely different" from Earth life. What do you mean by it?

And there you have it. Common design. You know what I mean by completely different. I've used examples over and over again. We are not spiders. We are not lizards. We are not birds or fish. We are completely different.

We can call a lizard an Order. That's fine. And you can point to all the species of lizards you want to. But they still belong to that order. They do not cross over into insect land or arachnid land or apes or cats or whatever. They remain what they are. And since God designed life we can see he used common building blocks to create it all. Just like we use the same building blocks to create buildings. Buildings in order to stand must have a common design. But that design doesn't mean they are all exactly the same. They just have to have the same engineering building blocks or they would fall down. God used his engineering to create the common design of life and then used that design to create from the start a myriad of kinds. Not one kind, a myriad of kinds. Those kinds may adapt or evolve, if you will to survive a changing environment, but they remain of their kind. They don't become a different "Order."

 

[rjs330]

How does it work? How does the "design" get into the creature? Design is just a word; what actually happens? ID people never can tell us, which is why ID is scoffed at.

Now answer my question: What do you mean by "completely different?" You seem to be imagining qualitative differences where there are none.

I know you have read the Bible. The design was put there by the designer. He chose the design and used it to create all life. He put the building blocks in place so that life would exist and continue to exist until he decided to end it. And look around. No matter what has happened on this planet life goes on. Things adapt and change in order to keep on going.

 

[Speedwell]

And there you have it. Common design. You know what I mean by completely different. I've used examples over and over again. We are not spiders. We are not lizards. We are not birds or fish. We are completely different.

No, we are not. We are made up of similar cells forming similar biologial systems. We ingest and metabolize food, and reproduce and so on. Your layman's terms are just names, just as is the nomenclature of scientific taxonomy. Just names that humans make up to try and classify what is for all practical purposes a continuum of living types.

We can call a lizard an Order. That's fine. And you can point to all the species of lizards you want to. But they still belong to that order. They do not cross over into insect land or arachnid land or apes or cats or whatever. They remain what they are.

I am truly floored. After all this time arguing about evolution you have learned absolutely nothing about it. I don't expect you to agree with it, but you should at least try to learn what the theory actually says.
Any species of lizard belongs to the order Squamata. A species of lizard belonging to the order Squamata will always belong to the order Squamata as will all of its descendants, no matter how they evolve or how little they may come to resemble your superficial idea of a "lizard." No matter how insect-like, or arachnid-like or ape-like or cat-like they become, they will still belong to the order Squamata. Even if they evolved fur, long ears and little fluffy tails and hopped around in meadows they would still belong to the order Squamata. Anything else would set the theory of evolution on its ear.

 

[Speedwell]

I know you have read the Bible. The design was put there by the designer. He chose the design and used it to create all life. He put the building blocks in place so that life would exist and continue to exist until he decided to end it. And look around. No matter what has happened on this planet life goes on. Things adapt and change in order to keep on going.

"The design was put there by the designer." In other words "God did it and we don't know how, but we know it wasn't evolution." So basically, you've got nothing. I think God put the design in the creature through random variation and natural selection. Until something better comes along, that's what I'm sticking with.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Yes Bingo! And yet it was presented as an example to me... why is that?

Um, it was you who presented it as an example - that was the post I responded to. The link you provided was entirely about vaccinations discovered before modern medicine. It said nothing about vaccines discovered after modern medicine. You really need to pay more attention to what you post and not try to blame your mistakes on others

 

[xianghua]

From a design basis, you're still not giving me a reason why they would be more similar than they are now.

are you talking now about common similarity? you said that under the design model we should not expect to find that creatures should be so similar to each other. right? so i showed you that even under the design model we indeed should find them to be very similar.

Under evolution, we know that similarities are likely conserved via natural selection and consequently important.

first: you ignore my calculation about the fly evolution. so here it again: if the majority mutations are indeed neutral think about this: according to evolution fly and mosquito split off about 250 my ago. fly generation is about less then one month. so even if one generation mean only 1 new mutation (i think in reality they get much more) we will need only 10^8 month to change their entire genome. or about less than 10^7 years. so fly and mosquito should be different in about their entire genomes from each other (or at least 75% difference). far from reality as far as im aware about. so maybe (just maybe) the majority of mutations are actually not neutral?

Under design, you don't have the same selective constraint. So your constraint is...?

why not? even if the majority of mutations are indeed neutral then we should expect to find conservation among important genes. since they are so sensitive to changes.

 

[xianghua]

They do find what's left of the gene as explained in the very next sentence, what they don't find is a functioning alx3 gene.

no. they didnt found it at all. they just found that those genes are missing and thats it. they believe that those genes were lost but they cant prove it. as i said: this non hierarchy exist in nature as its exist in toys or vehicles. so the claim about hierarchy in nature is incorrect.

 

[xianghua]

No I said that the less advanced life is often found in the deeper strata layers and the more advanced shows up in the upper layers

im not sure this is what we find: for instance: the first animal in the fossil record is no less complex then modern ones:

Demosponge EST Sequencing Reveals a Complex Genetic Toolkit of the Simplest Metazoans

"Sponges (Porifera) are among the simplest living and the earliest branching metazoans. We show that even the earliest metazoan species already have strikingly complex genomes in terms of gene content and functional repertoire and that the rich gene repertoire existed even before the emergence of true tissues, therefore further emphasizing the importance of gene loss and spatio-temporal changes in regulation of gene expression in shaping the metazoan genomes. Our findings further indicate that sponge and human genes generally show similarity levels higher than expected from their respective positions in metazoan phylogeny"

"Our findings also raise many questions about the roles of numerous genes/proteins in the life of such a simple animal"

this is also true for the first trees:

World's oldest and most complex trees

"
The fossilized remains of a tree that lived 374 million years ago suggest that the earliest trees we know of might also have been the ones with the most complex internal structure in the history of our planet."

“There is no other tree that I know of in the history of the Earth that has ever done anything as complicated as this,"

"This raises a provoking question: why are the very oldest trees the most complicated?”

evolution doesnt predict this.

 

[rjs330]

No, we are not. We are made up of similar cells forming similar biologial systems. We ingest and metabolize food, and reproduce and so on. Your layman's terms are just names, just as is the nomenclature of scientific taxonomy. Just names that humans make up to try and classify what is for all practical purposes a continuum of living types.

I am truly floored. After all this time arguing about evolution you have learned absolutely nothing about it. I don't expect you to agree with it, but you should at least try to learn what the theory actually says.
Any species of lizard belongs to the order Squamata. A species of lizard belonging to the order Squamata will always belong to the order Squamata as will all of its descendants, no matter how they evolve or how little they may come to resemble your superficial idea of a "lizard." No matter how insect-like, or arachnid-like or ape-like or cat-like they become, they will still belong to the order Squamata. Even if they evolved fur, long ears and little fluffy tails and hopped around in meadows they would still belong to the order Squamata. Anything else would set the theory of evolution on its ear.

That us NOT evolution from a common ancestor. That's my point. You prove my point. Lizards will always be lizards. Evolution from a common ancestor says the order if lizards was not always the order if lizards. It is the order of lizards, apes, arachnids etc. The theory is such hogwash. They twist everything to make it sound so reasonable. Yet when you break it down it is obviously wrong according to their own theory.