The light of evolution: What would be lost

[sfs]

If you only have two species, you still can't figure out the ancestral sequence. You need a third, more distantly related species, preferably a few species. If a base is conserved by even more distantly related species, then it tells you which genome has the mutation. Using evolution, we have those evolutionary relationships and can figure this stuff out which has practical uses for figuring out the causes of diseases or possible routes of resistance.

That's the case if the two species have a fixed difference at a site, which is also a practical application of common descent. The application I'm talking about, however, is for variants within our species, and for that we need only one other species to make the comparison (although two is better).

 

[crjmurray]

Nonsense .As I suspected and was right you have nothing but nice try. What cholera researchers did (if you actually researched it) that had the most effect was analyze living samples of modern humans and compared them to databases of other infected and non diseased subjects - thats other humans that did not get the disease

http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2013/07/clues-to-cholera-resistance/

Nothing in that demonstrates anything from macroevolution but microevolution. You were clearly not referring to macroevolution as you previously claimed and I had every right to call you out on it. thank you for now confirming your utterly false claim of relying only on macroevolution. I am not even sure you even understand the distinction.

NO doubt you will beg and please that some small role was played by darwinistic science but as the link above proves the breakthrough came in comparing humans to humans on the basis of who got sick and who did not somethng the creationist scientist would do just as well adhering to microevolution

this is CLASSIC kind of fudging and deception your side uses. The data that allows us to best isolate diseases are human samples. this has been borne out over and over and over and over again as many promising research done on other animals (which creationists would still do because of similar design patterns) have gone belly up because they often do NOT work in humans. As expected you have no practical application that would be lost without macroevolution theories.

You're so pleasant.

 

[juvenissun]

Pretty much, yes, except that we already knew that either chimpanzees/bonobos or gorillas were our closest relative before we looked at any DNA.

How do you use the observed differences on the study of other problems? For example, you identified some differences of genome between chimp and human, then what?

 

[Loudmouth]

That's the case if the two species have a fixed difference at a site, which is also a practical application of common descent. The application I'm talking about, however, is for variants within our species, and for that we need only one other species to make the comparison (although two is better).

Quite right. Still, you need the trio of genomes and their evolutionary relationship to get the comparison right which was the main point.

 

[juvenissun]

That's the case if the two species have a fixed difference at a site, which is also a practical application of common descent. The application I'm talking about, however, is for variants within our species, and for that we need only one other species to make the comparison (although two is better).

I see, then you check a whole bunch of genomes at one or a few loci on humans to investigate the nature of the problem. Is that right?
So, the genome of chimp only provide you a locus to focus on. Right?

 

[MikeEnders]

You're so pleasant.

Thanks. lol

 

[sfs]

Nonsense .As I suspected and was right you have nothing but nice try. What cholera researchers did (if you actually researched it) that had the most effect was analyze living samples of modern humans and compared them to databases of other infected and non diseased subjects - thats other humans that did not get the disease

http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2013/07/clues-to-cholera-resistance/

I have a pretty good idea of what the researchers did in this case, since I was one of them. (My earlier use of "we" to describe the researchers was supposed to be a tip-off.) Note this sentence in the abstract: "We identified 305 candidate selected regions using the composite of multiple signals (CMS) method." The first step was, as I said, to identify genomic regions under positive selection. To do so, we used CMS. CMS combines multiple signals of positive selection, and several of those signals depend on knowing which variants are ancestral and which are derived. (This I'm also quite certain of, since I helped develop CMS.) To know that, we rely on the chimpanzee and macaque genomes.

So, would you like to try again?

 

[sfs]

I see, then you check a whole bunch of genomes at one or a few loci on humans to investigate the nature of the problem. Is that right?
So, the genome of chimp only provide you a locus to focus on. Right?

I don't understand the question. For every site in the human genome where there is genetic variation, researchers have looked at the chimpanzee genome (and usually other genomes as well) to determine which was the ancestral base. We use that information.

 

[MikeEnders]

I have a pretty good idea of what the researchers did in this case, since I was one of them. (My earlier use of "we" to describe the researchers was supposed to be a tip-off.)

I don't care who you claim to be on anonymous forum. Thats a fools game. Anyone can say or claim any thing. I've provided the proof of what was the real breakthough and its now undeniable. you can fudge all you want . Besides its pretty evident that no top notch scientist on a week day would be hanging out on Christian forums all day long so don't even try that pretend game like you are any lead scientist.

Note this sentence in the abstract: "We identified 305 candidate selected regions using the composite of multiple signals (CMS) method." The first step was, as I said, to identify genomic regions under positive selection. To do so, we used CMS. CMS combines multiple signals of positive selection, and several of those signals depend on knowing which variants are ancestral and which are derived. (This I'm also quite certain of, since I helped develop CMS.) To know that, we rely on the chimpanzee and macaque genomes.

As I have already stated you will beg and plead for some small role for darwinism but the breakthrough came in comparing HUMANS who got sick and HUMANS that did not get sick even though being exposed. argue against reality all you wish.Like it or not, beg for it or not. That kind of research would still be done by Creationists with or without macro evolution

Would you like another try to deny that? or perhaps you can beg that the article is lying and as an anonymous poster on a forum you can prove it. lol.

 

[Loudmouth]

As I have already stated you will beg and plead for some small role for darwinism but the breakthrough came in comparing HUMANS who got sick and HUMANS that did not get sick even though being exposed.

It also involved comparing human genomes to chimp and macaque genomes using their evolutionary relationships.

 

[justlookinla]

It also involved comparing human genomes to chimp and macaque genomes using their evolutionary relationships.

Common building blocks.

 

[MikeEnders]

It also involved comparing human genomes to chimp and macaque genomes using their evolutionary relationships.

Nope. If you have the date of the people who get sick and the people who don't - care to claim the data is not there that would allow you to come to the same conclusions. Of course not. Once you have that data from the samples then you can compare across the data set with or without "evolutionary" relationships. the claim that that data would somehow vanish without macro evolution is a total fraud.

 

[sfs]

I don't care who you claim to be on anonymous forum.

You should care, since if I'm right then your argument is obviously wrong and you're going to look at little foolish. My name is Stephen F. Schaffner, and I'm an author on that paper; you can write to me at sfs@broadinstitute.org to check. (You can tell from the paper that the Broad Institute is my employer.) Or you can write to the first author (Elinor) and ask her if I'm really her colleague. Be sure to tell her that I'm a liar and don't know anything about genetics, and let us know what she says.

Thats a fools game. Anyone can say or claim any thing. I've provided the proof of what was the real breakthough and its now undeniable. you can fudge all you want . Besides its pretty evident that no top notch scientist on a week day would be hanging out on Christian forums all day long so don't even try that pretend game like you are any lead scientist.

It's easy to check. Show the world that I'm a liar. (As for whether I should be hanging out here ... well, sometimes I like to procrastinate. I'm in between working on malaria and on babesia, and I'm getting up the energy to get into the latter. I'll make up for it tonight.)

ETA: or you could write to the senior author, Pardis. That would be really amusing.

 

[MikeEnders]

Common building blocks.

Theres that too in the Creationist equation. Similar structures tend to break down in the same places. We now know there are hot spots on the genome where certain events happen more often

 

[juvenissun]

I don't understand the question. For every site in the human genome where there is genetic variation, researchers have looked at the chimpanzee genome (and usually other genomes as well) to determine which was the ancestral base. We use that information.

The criteria for the determination is the similarity, the higher the similarity, the better the choice. Right?
May be that is what you called the precision is.

 

[sfs]

The criteria for the determination is the similarity, the higher the similarity, the better the choice. Right?
May be that is what you called the precision is.

The criterion is, the closer the genetic relationship, the better the choice.

 

[sfs]

Nope. If you have the date of the people who get sick and the people who don't - care to claim the data is not there that would allow you to come to the same conclusions. Of course not. Once you have that data from the samples then you can compare across the data set with or without "evolutionary" relationships. the claim that that data would somehow vanish without macro evolution is a total fraud.

Except that we couldn't -- not with this data set. First, positive selection was used to identify candidate regions, and then only those were tested for association with cholera resistance. It was the signals of selection -- detection of which depended on common descent -- that identified the likely biochemical pathways.

 

[crjmurray]

You should care, since if I'm right then your argument is obviously wrong and you're going to look at little foolish. My name is Stephen F. Schaffner, and I'm an author on that paper; you can write to me at sfs@broadinstitute.org to check. (You can tell from the paper that the Broad Institute is my employer.) Or you can write to the first author (Elinor) and ask her if I'm really her colleague. Be sure to tell her that I'm a liar and don't know anything about genetics, and let us know what she says.


It's easy to check. Show the world that I'm a liar. (As for whether I should be hanging out here ... well, sometimes I like to procrastinate. I'm in between working on malaria and on babesia, and I'm getting up the energy to get into the latter. I'll make up for it tonight.)

ETA: or you could write to the senior author, Pardis. That would be really amusing.

I always just assumed sfs stood for Super Fly Scientist.

 

[MikeEnders]

You should care, since if I'm right then your argument is obviously wrong and you're going to look at little foolish. My name is Stephen F. Schaffner, and I'm an author on that paper; you can write to me at sfs@broadinstitute.org to check. (You can tell from the paper that the Broad Institute is my employer.) Or you can write to the first author (Elinor) and ask her if I'm really her colleague. Be sure to tell her that I'm a liar and don't know anything about genetics, and let us know what she says.

Actually i had kids on forums try that before (laughing as they figure they are wasting my time checking). So I'll pass on spending my time like that. I do find it amusing that you are trying to claim that because of your alleged name you can prove a link on Harvard is in error for stating the real breakthrough came through analyzing sick people against those who didn't get sick. I've debate real scientists and proven them wrong so it matters neither here or there to me. I would think it would be even more embarrassing for a real scientist to appeal to authority rather than facts.

so by all means go ahead and deny what it says and was my point. either way sorry claiming authority means nothing to me as any college grad worth his sauce knows appeals to authority are fallacious.

as for saying anyone knew nothing about genetics. Thats a definite lie. I said no such thing. Curious how people handwave when they can't answer your point even those who claim on forums they are scientists....lol.

 

[MikeEnders]

Except that we couldn't -- not with this data set. First, positive selection was used to identify candidate regions, and then only those were tested for association with cholera resistance..

I don't care who you claim to be. After the genome project and several examples of genetic markers for disease being found by comparing sequences from humans to human no one can rationally say that you cannot get at the data by comparison and disease history. Try that nonsense on someone else. It was your job to show that some practical application would be entirely lost if we did not have macroevolution and you have utterly failed.