The science of creationism: where is it?

[juvenissun]

I do not see a problem. Birds and crocodiles have a more recent common ancestor than archosaurs and lepidosaurs. Any genes that lepidosaurs and archosaurs share come from their diapsid ancestor.

BTW, turtles are now classified as diapsids closely allied with the Archosauria.



It is basically not true unless there has been a gene deletion. Large scale gene deletions are usually fatal. Smaller scale deletions can cause certain diseases. Luckily we know enough about it to identify if it has happened.

Unless of circumstances such as the above, I will positively say that any genes that lizards and crocodiles share will also be shared by birds.

The problem is that the rule you played is quite simple. And the generalization of this rule is quite dangerous and is probably not true.

For example, in the above diagram, and playing with your rule, we may suggest that the gene shared between Tarsiers and the "old-world monkeys" will also be shared between the "old-world monkeys" and human. I think gene deletion will not affect this rule.

I do not believe such a simple rule will be valid among all animals. And I guess you can not be sure about it.

 

[juvenissun]

<staff edit>

It is rare for me to do this. But for this one, I want to see the data. (and I bet you can not show it).

Remind you what should the data show:

I highly suspect that there are some DNA shared between croc and lizard, but are not shared by bird. Can you positively say this is not true.

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

The problem is that the rule you played is quite simple. And the generalization of this rule is quite dangerous and is probably not true.

For example, in the above diagram, and playing with your rule, we may suggest that the gene shared between Tarsiers and the "old-world monkeys" will also be shared between the "old-world monkeys" and human. I think gene deletion will not affect this rule.

I do not believe such a simple rule will be valid among all animals. And I guess you can not be sure about it.

Juvi, did you know we share genes with fish and flys?

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

It is rare for me to do this. But for this one, I want to see the data. (and I bet you can not show it).

Remind you what should the data show:

You wouldn't understand data if it bit you in the nose.

 

[BananaSlug]

The problem is that the rule you played is quite simple. And the generalization of this rule is quite dangerous and is probably not true.

Why? If two species share a common ancestor they would both have similar genes. If another species splits from one of those, they share more genes between them than the other.

In other words, two first cousins share more genes between them than with their 4th cousin. They all have the same genes from their common ancestor but they also have genes that make them unique. If the fourth cousin and one of the 1st shared any genes then there is a 100% chance the other 1st cousin would have it too. Crocodiles and birds are the "first cousins" and lizards are the "fourth cousin". There are not any genes that lizards and crocodiles would share that birds wouldn't have.

For example, in the above diagram, and playing with your rule, we may suggest that the gene shared between Tarsiers and the "old-world monkeys" will also be shared between the "old-world monkeys" and human. I think gene deletion will not affect this rule.

True.

I do not believe such a simple rule will be valid among all animals. And I guess you can not be sure about it.

Well I have provided several studies that all show the relationships of crocodiles and birds compared to lizards, all using various methods:

1. A bacterial artificial chromosome library for the Australian
saltwater crocodile (Crocodylus porosus) and its utilization in gene
isolation and genome characterization​

Nucleotide and amino acid sequence alignment of the C. porosus C-mos coding sequence with avian and reptilian C-mos orthologs reveals greater sequence similarity between C. porosus and birds (specifically chicken and zebra finch) than between C. porosus and squamates (green anole).

2. &#946;-Keratins in crocodiles reveal amino acid homology with avian keratins
Near the C-terminal, these &#946;-keratins contain a peptide rich in glycine-X and glycine-X-X, and the distinctive feature of the region is some 12-amino acid repeats, which are similar to the 13-amino acid repeats in chick scale keratin but absent from avian feather keratin. From our phylogenetic analysis, the &#946;-keratins in crocodile have a closer relationship with avian keratins than the other keratins in reptiles.

3. Warm-Blooded Isochore Structure in Nile Crocodile and Turtle

Phylogenetic analysis of the 10 presently sequenced genes from the Nile crocodile strongly supports the Archosauria, which groups birds and crocodilians in a sister group with bootstrap values higher than 85%, except for vdr (59%) and pk (71%).

4. The complete mitochondrial genome of Alligator mississippiensis and the separation between recent archosauria (birds and crocodiles)
Birds and crocodiles represent the only archosaurian survivors of the mass extinction at the Cretaceous/Tertiary boundary. On the basis of mitochondrial protein- coding genes, the Haemothermia hypothesis, which defines birds and mammals as sister groups and thus challenges the traditional view, could be rejected. Maximum-likelihood branch length data of amino acid sequences suggest that the divergence between the avianand crocodilian lineages took place at approximately equal to 254MYA.

5. The mitochondrial genomes of the iguana (Iguana iguana) and the caiman (Caiman crocodylus): implications for amniote phylogeny.
Phylogenetic analyses of 2889 amino-acid sites from 35 mitochondrial genomes supported the bird-crocodile relationship, lending no support to the Haematotherma hypothesis (with birds and mammals representing sister groups).

FIVE different studies using genetic analysis and/or molecular biology that support the crocodile-bird relationship. They have all consistently shown that crocodiles are more closely related to birds than lizards. The point is not that lizards are crocodiles share some genes that birds do not. The point is that every study conducted has the same conclusion- crocodiles' closest relatives are birds.​

So to answer my question. If evolution is not true, why would God make birds and crocodiles so closely related? What explanation is there for this?
Why do you seem to refuse to answer this question?

 

[Naraoia]

If the fourth cousin and one of the 1st shared any genes then there is a 100% chance the other 1st cousin would have it too. Crocodiles and birds are the "first cousins" and lizards are the "fourth cousin". There are not any genes that lizards and crocodiles would share that birds wouldn't have.

To be fair, gene loss is not exactly unheard of... I hate to say it but juvenissun is right.

Which, of course, doesn't change the main point about birds and crocodiles...

 

[BananaSlug]

To be fair, gene loss is not exactly unheard of... I hate to say it but juvenissun is right.

Which is why I did mention gene loss.

Which, of course, doesn't change the main point about birds and crocodiles...

Yes. I doubt he'll ever answer my question although I've gone out of my way to answer his.

 

[juvenissun]

Juvi, did you know we share genes with fish and flys?

Sure. I share gene with many animals.

The analogy is that I share some genes with horse, but I may not share the same genes with chimp. That does not mean I am more related to horse than chimp.

 

[juvenissun]

You wouldn't understand data if it bit you in the nose.

May be. But it is much less likely to happen on me, than on you.

 

[Split Rock]

Sure. I share gene with many animals.

The analogy is that I share some genes with horse, but I may not share the same genes with chimp. That does not mean I am more related to horse than chimp.

You don't get it do you? We share more of our genetic sequence with chimps than with horses, and more with horses than with frogs, etc. There are no genes that I have heard of that exist in humans and horses but not in chimps. There are on the other hands genes that are identical, not just similar, between humans and chimps. I will make a prediction. I don't think that the horse genome has been completely sequenced yet, but I will predict that more genes are identical between humans and chimps than between humans and horses. I will also predict we will find no gene shared by humans and horses but is absent from chimps.

What does creationism predict?

 

[juvenissun]

Why? If two species share a common ancestor they would both have similar genes. If another species splits from one of those, they share more genes between them than the other.

In other words, two first cousins share more genes between them than with their 4th cousin. They all have the same genes from their common ancestor but they also have genes that make them unique. If the fourth cousin and one of the 1st shared any genes then there is a 100% chance the other 1st cousin would have it too. Crocodiles and birds are the "first cousins" and lizards are the "fourth cousin". There are not any genes that lizards and crocodiles would share that birds wouldn't have.



True.



Well I have provided several studies that all show the relationships of crocodiles and birds compared to lizards, all using various methods:

1. A bacterial artificial chromosome library for the Australian
saltwater crocodile (Crocodylus porosus) and its utilization in gene
isolation and genome characterization​

Nucleotide and amino acid sequence alignment of the C. porosus C-mos coding sequence with avian and reptilian C-mos orthologs reveals greater sequence similarity between C. porosus and birds (specifically chicken and zebra finch) than between C. porosus and squamates (green anole).

2. &#946;-Keratins in crocodiles reveal amino acid homology with avian keratins
Near the C-terminal, these &#946;-keratins contain a peptide rich in glycine-X and glycine-X-X, and the distinctive feature of the region is some 12-amino acid repeats, which are similar to the 13-amino acid repeats in chick scale keratin but absent from avian feather keratin. From our phylogenetic analysis, the &#946;-keratins in crocodile have a closer relationship with avian keratins than the other keratins in reptiles.

3. Warm-Blooded Isochore Structure in Nile Crocodile and Turtle

Phylogenetic analysis of the 10 presently sequenced genes from the Nile crocodile strongly supports the Archosauria, which groups birds and crocodilians in a sister group with bootstrap values higher than 85%, except for vdr (59%) and pk (71%).

4. The complete mitochondrial genome of Alligator mississippiensis and the separation between recent archosauria (birds and crocodiles)
Birds and crocodiles represent the only archosaurian survivors of the mass extinction at the Cretaceous/Tertiary boundary. On the basis of mitochondrial protein- coding genes, the Haemothermia hypothesis, which defines birds and mammals as sister groups and thus challenges the traditional view, could be rejected. Maximum-likelihood branch length data of amino acid sequences suggest that the divergence between the avianand crocodilian lineages took place at approximately equal to 254MYA.

5. The mitochondrial genomes of the iguana (Iguana iguana) and the caiman (Caiman crocodylus): implications for amniote phylogeny.
Phylogenetic analyses of 2889 amino-acid sites from 35 mitochondrial genomes supported the bird-crocodile relationship, lending no support to the Haematotherma hypothesis (with birds and mammals representing sister groups).

FIVE different studies using genetic analysis and/or molecular biology that support the crocodile-bird relationship. They have all consistently shown that crocodiles are more closely related to birds than lizards. The point is not that lizards are crocodiles share some genes that birds do not. The point is that every study conducted has the same conclusion- crocodiles' closest relatives are birds.​

So to answer my question. If evolution is not true, why would God make birds and crocodiles so closely related? What explanation is there for this?
Why do you seem to refuse to answer this question?

The content or the abstract of the five quoted studies is not reader friendly. I don't have time to study them. So, you may take it as a good review exercise for yourself. What I can see from browsing them is: Chaos. One paper talked about one thing and there is no structured argument and no summary conclusion. In fact, it is your fault for this situation. If you defend your thesis by simply thrown them out, you will fail. Don't forget that among the panel, there will be at least one person, just like me, don't have much idea on the details.

I don't disagree that croc is more similar to bird, than to lizard. I am simply trying to give you a hard time to consider the unknown factors, so you will know that this interpretation is not as solid as you think. I don't know much about genetics. So I will simply stick with one naive, but unanswered question here: I want to see a study which shows croc and lizard share some genes, that are not shared between croc and bird. If you don't think this situation could exist, then I want to see a proof. If this situation could exist, then croc and lizard could also have a common ancestor which is not related to bird.

As far as the God related question, it should not be much a concern to you. In fact, it is so much easier to answer than the genetic question. I will answer it (if no one else did) when I abandon the argument on the genetic issue.

 

[juvenissun]

You don't get it do you? We share more of our genetic sequence with chimps than with horses, and more with horses than with frogs, etc. There are no genes that I have heard of that exist in humans and horses but not in chimps. There are on the other hands genes that are identical, not just similar, between humans and chimps. I will make a prediction. I don't think that the horse genome has been completely sequenced yet, but I will predict that more genes are identical between humans and chimps than between humans and horses. I will also predict we will find no gene shared by humans and horses but is absent from chimps.

What does creationism predict?

I want to see an article which talk about that.

It is not the problem of more or less shared genes. But is on the share of different genes with different animals. If all you can say is "I believe" or "I predict", then you should also admit the chance of surprise, which could be rather high, according to my prediction.

Besides, to be a good scientist, you should not only depend on data. You can approach the problem by theory. So, even we do not have the gene maps, could you explain the impossibility from a theoretical point of view?

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

That's the beauty of science juvi. You have a hypotheses, now go for it!

 

[Hespera]

juv sez...." don't disagree that croc is more similar to bird, than to lizard. I am simply trying to give you a hard time" Quote////////////////


H sez.... after all that he says he was playing a game. now he admits it. sheesh.

Anyone foolish enough to play again?

As for being a "professor",

we know he isnt, and say it
he knows he isnt, but hasnt said it yet.

that is 3 out of 4

Games up.

 

[Split Rock]

I want to see an article which talk about that.

It is not the problem of more or less shared genes. But is on the share of different genes with different animals. If all you can say is "I believe" or "I predict", then you should also admit the chance of surprise, which could be rather high, according to my prediction.

Besides, to be a good scientist, you should not only depend on data. You can approach the problem by theory. So, even we do not have the gene maps, could you explain the impossibility from a theoretical point of view?

Very simple. Ancestry. We have inherited our genetic sequence from our ancestors. Thus, if say the primates evolved a new gene, it will be shared by us and chimps but not by horses. It is possible that a gene will be lost in chimps and retained in humans and horses, but that will be rare. Even if the gene is inactive, it will still be there. The gene would have to be completely deleted. That could happen, but is very unlikely. Lets say that there are 100 genes shared by humans and chimps and not by horses. Then there is 1 gene we share with horses and not with chimps. That could happen. What would that show, in your opinion?

 

[EnemyPartyII]

[staff edit]
Hespera, I would dearly love to show the correct level of respect to a scientist who claims you should depend on anything other than the data, however the forum rules and language filters do not allow it, nor has VR progressed to the point where you can backhand someone in real time over a standard broad band ISP, so sadly, the appropriate level of respect and deference will remain lacking.

 

[juvenissun]

That's the beauty of science juvi. You have a hypotheses, now go for it!

This is the irony of human. I have a hypothesis. But I need to have someone else to go for it.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

This is the irony of human. I have a hypothesis. But I need to have someone else to go for it.

Why? Wn't you do it yourself?

 

[juvenissun]

Hespera, I would dearly love to show the correct level of respect to a scientist who claims you should depend on anything other than the data, however the forum rules and language filters do not allow it, nor has VR progressed to the point where you can backhand someone in real time over a standard broad band ISP, so sadly, the appropriate level of respect and deference will remain lacking.

Very ignorant. Give you some education:

What happen if there were no data? What you do? Watching TV?

 

[juvenissun]

Why? Wn't you do it yourself?

I have only two hands. And I am working on one.