What do creationists think phylogenetic trees represent?

[pitabread]

but evolution theory in general will not falsified and this is the point i made.

First of all, The Theory of Evolution "in general" is a very broad branch of science that covers a lot of ground particularly around population genetics, developmental biology, relationships between species, etc.

So no, finding gross violations of common descent wouldn't necessarily falsify the entire Theory of Evolution. But it would create some weird mysteries with respect to what we know of common ancestry of existing species.

we actually do find such cases. but again: they claiming for gene loss or convergent evolution or lgt. so everything is possible according to evolution.

No, not "everything is possible". I also think you're overplaying (or misunderstanding) what scientists do look for when talking about convergent evolution or loss of genes.

Take "gene loss" for example. Genetic deletions are a real thing and can happen as a result of mutations. But scientists can also examine the genome to determine if a deletion has occurred (particularly by examining the surrounding DNA sequences). If they found, say, a DNA sequence in humans, bonobos and gorillas, but not in chimps, this would imply that that sequence was probably lost in the chimpanzee lineage. And they could test this by looking at the surrounding DNA to see if there is evidence of sequence loss.

For convergent evolution, you need to understand this isn't a term that scientists toss around to explain away oddities in nature. Rather it's a case of trying to understand the underlying evolution pathways to the development of features. There are a number of factors that lead to convergence; everything from similar environmental selective pressures to limitations around viable evolutionary pathways to constraints on basic biochemical reactions.

If we had a case where, say, a human and a garter snake shared large stretches of non-coding DNA sequences, but those sequences weren't present in other species, that would be a true oddity. Or if house cats shared sequences with dolphins, but again no other species, that would also be weird.

If we started finding these types of mismatched DNA throughout genomes in nature with no known mechanism for such occurrences, this would turn common descent on its head. And indeed, this is something a creator could have done if they had wanted to. After all, the common genetic code allows for the swapping of DNA between organisms; humans can already do this via genetic engineering. It seems unlikely a creator of life couldn't have done the same thing especially if they were artificially engineering independent species. But we don't see this in nature. Everything we see points to the origins of species via natural evolutionary pathways.

 

[xianghua]

So no, finding gross violations of common descent wouldn't necessarily falsify the entire Theory of Evolution.

so evolution cant be falsified then. sorry.

If we had a case where, say, a human and a garter snake shared large stretches of non-coding DNA sequences, but those sequences weren't present in other species, that would be a true oddity.

like this one?:

http://phenomena.nationalgeographic.com/2013/01/01/how-a-quarter-of-the-cow-genome-came-from-snakes/

If we started finding these types of mismatched DNA throughout genomes in nature with no known mechanism for such occurrences, this would turn common descent on its head.

see above. we can always claim for any mechanism. known or unknowon.

 

[pitabread]

so evolution cant be falsified then. sorry.

That's not what I wrote.

What I said was that the Theory of Evolution is a broad theory of biology that encompasses many different aspects of evolution. Finding something that runs contrary to a specific piece of the ToE is not going to falsify the entire theory by virtue of the fact the theory is just too broad.

For example, we have directed observed evolutionary change in nature including both the mechanisms by which evolution occurs and even speciation. It's rather hard to falsify those things that we've directly seen it happen.

like this one?:

http://phenomena.nationalgeographic.com/2013/01/01/how-a-quarter-of-the-cow-genome-came-from-snakes/

That's really interesting; while I knew about transposons and DNA insertions from things like viruses, but I hadn't heard about BovB before. Thank you for posting that.

That said, if you read the paper in question (direct link here: Characterization and distribution of retrotransposons and simple sequence repeats in the bovine genome ), it sounds like they have identified plausible mechanisms by which this type of horizontal gene transfer can occur.

The next question seems to be how the germ line cells of the hosts get infected with the new DNA. Sounds like that could make for an interesting line of research.

see above. we can always claim for any mechanism. known or unknowon.

Not really. Again, science is in the business of figuring out how stuff works. So they look for explanations, formulate hypotheses around those explanations, and then test them. That's what science does.

 

[juvenissun]

So what do the creationists here think? What do phylogenetic trees mean to you?

It is a way of classification.

 

[xianghua]

That said, if you read the paper in question (direct link here: Characterization and distribution of retrotransposons and simple sequence repeats in the bovine genome ), it sounds like they have identified plausible mechanisms by which this type of horizontal gene transfer can occur.

so you see now that any finding can explain by evolution without any problem to the theory? so your claim about shared DNA between human and snake (but no other snimal)as evidence against evolution is wrong.

 

[pitabread]

so you see now that any finding can explain by evolution without any problem to the theory? so your claim about shared DNA between human and snake (but no other snimal)as evidence against evolution is wrong.

Go back and reread my prior post on this. I specifically made reference to that it would be odd if we had no mechanism for the genetic transfer. In this case, it sounds like they have a plausible mechanism.

This is the piece that you appear to be missing. When looking at genomes, scientists are trying to figure out how the DNA sequences arose. If it turns out there is a mechanism for lateral transfer, then it can be explained. And that is what science is in the business of doing : explaining what we see.

 

[xianghua]

Go back and reread my prior post on this. I specifically made reference to that it would be odd if we had no mechanism for the genetic transfer. In this case, it sounds like they have a plausible mechanism.

in any case they will claim for "plausible mechanism". so in any case such a finding will not falsified evolution.


actually even this may not be true:

http://phenomena.nationalgeographic.com/2013/01/01/how-a-quarter-of-the-cow-genome-came-from-snakes/

"“It’s a scenario that remains hard to prove, but [Walsh’s] data are as close to a smoking gun as can be in the field,” says Feschotte"

so basuically they dont have any scientific evidence that its possible. its just a belief. not science.

 

[pitabread]

so basuically they dont have any scientific evidence that its possible. its just a belief. not science.

Couple things: First, science doesn't deal in absolute proof. So scientists tend to be cagey about that terminology.

Second, of course they have evidence. That's the whole point of the research and the paper they published. That doesn't mean there isn't additional work to do to determine precisely how this could have happened. But it sounds like it's certainly a possibility, if not probability.

 

[Herman Hedning]

in any case they will claim for "plausible mechanism". so in any case such a finding will not falsified evolution.

actually even this may not be true:

http://phenomena.nationalgeographic.com/2013/01/01/how-a-quarter-of-the-cow-genome-came-from-snakes/

"“It’s a scenario that remains hard to prove, but [Walsh’s] data are as close to a smoking gun as can be in the field,” says Feschotte"

so basuically they dont have any scientific evidence that its possible. its just a belief. not science.

Huh? The "plausible mechanism" is described right before your quote in the paragraphs you conveniently left out.

To the team, the best explanation for these bizarre patterns is that BovB jumped between species, and it must have done so at least 9 times during its history—far more than the one or two jumps that other scientists had envisaged.

How did it manage? Walsh found a huge clue when she discovered BovB in the genomes of two tick species, both of which suck the blood of lizards and snakes. Other related ticks bite mammals too, so it’s possible that by biting their way through the animal kingdom, these bloodsuckers inoculated fresh branches of the tree of life with jumping genes.

Many scientists who work in this field have suggested that parasites, including worms, bugs, and viruses, could act as vehicles for hitchhiking genes. Indeed, in their very first paper on the BovB, Kordis and Gubensek said that ticks might be spreading the gene between animals. “It’s a scenario that remains hard to prove, but [Walsh’s] data are as close to a smoking gun as can be in the field,” says Feschotte.​

How exactly is that explanation not likely?

 

[xianghua]

How exactly is that explanation not likely?

its like claiming that human can get the ability to make a spider web by eating or from a bite of a spider. its need experimental evidence. and they dont have it.

 

[pitabread]

its like claiming that human can get the ability to make a spider web by eating or from a bite of a spider.

No, it's absolutely nothing like claiming that. That analogy isn't even anywhere close.

Out of curiosity, what sort of an understanding of genetics do you have? Have you done any reading on it? Taken any courses on it?

its need experimental evidence. and they dont have it.

They have evidence that points to a cause; the question is then the specific mechanism for germline insertion of the DNA.

We already know this can happen via things like viral insertion. In fact, one of the author's of that paper speculates that a viral infection may be involved in this case, on which the BovB DNA strand effectively 'hitchhikes' as part of infection.

 

[xianghua]

We already know this can happen via things like viral insertion. In fact, one of the author's of that paper speculates that a viral infection may be involved in this case, on which the BovB DNA strand effectively 'hitchhikes' as part of infection.

but they arent talking here about viral infections:

http://phenomena.nationalgeographic.com/2013/01/01/how-a-quarter-of-the-cow-genome-came-from-snakes/

"Many scientists who work in this field have suggested that parasites, including worms, bugs, and viruses, could act as vehicles for hitchhiking genes. Indeed, in their very first paper on the BovB, Kordis and Gubensek said that ticks might be spreading the gene between animals"

so its indeed like geting a spider bite and then get the spider genes for making webs. like spiderman.

 

[pitabread]

but they arent talking here about viral infections:

"Many scientists who work in this field have suggested that parasites, including worms, bugs, and viruses, could act as vehicles for hitchhiking genes. Indeed, in their very first paper on the BovB, Kordis and Gubensek said that ticks might be spreading the gene between animals"

The author in question speculated viral 'hitchhiking' in the comment section of that paper. No, the paper itself doesn't deal directly with that item; it would be a case of further research to identify the mechanism of infection into the germline.

so its indeed like geting a spider bite and then get the spider genes for making webs. like spiderman.

I don't even know how to respond to this any more.

 

[xianghua]

The author in question speculated viral 'hitchhiking' in the comment section of that paper. No, the paper itself doesn't deal directly with that item; it would be a case of further research to identify the mechanism of infection into the germline.

thanks. so they dont know and this is just a belief.

I don't even know how to respond to this any more.

if you agree that genes can move from species to species then its possible that some spider genes can move to the human genome. its very simple.

 

[PsychoSarah]

so evolution cant be falsified then. sorry.

A theory doesn't have to be falsified entirely with just one piece of evidence to be falsifiable. Do you think that the original atomic theory was entirely falsified on the journey to what is the modern atomic theory? No, the basic premise of an atom being the smallest unit of matter still stands (the particles such as protons and electrons are not independently units of matter, since the properties of matter are only present when they are together).

like this one?:

http://phenomena.nationalgeographic.com/2013/01/01/how-a-quarter-of-the-cow-genome-came-from-snakes/

Neat, reminds me of what happens with bacteria a bit. However, you need to stop using National Geographic as a source for scientific information.

see above. we can always claim for any mechanism. known or unknowon.

-_- you can't randomly claim a mechanism that has no basis behind it other than the absence of knowing what is happening. That's one of the most unscientific things a person can do.

 

[Strathos]

Then nuts to cars.

Use a baby buggy.

Anything with rubber tires.

At the atomic (elemental) level, all things are the same ... be they biological or nonbiological.

CHNO in a human is the same as CHNO in my barbecue briquettes or gas tank.

Ditto for lead: the lead in my gas is the same as the lead in my pencil.

If I could ask that ... catholic ... one question, it would be this:

"Just YES or NO, please: did a mutant, Homo, copy-error die on the Cross to effect our salvation?"

Or better yet: "Was God being deceptive when He had a virgin give birth to Jesus?"

Or I could even ask him: "Was God being deceptive when Mary gave birth to a man child?"

(After all, where did He get His Y-chromosome?)

I'm about as tired of hearing how God is "deceptive" because He didn't do things science's way, than you are about hearing objects being compared to biological processes.

Let's say you come home from work one day and find fingerpaints all over the walls. Your four-year-old son's hands are also covered in the exact same paint. The colors, sizes, and fingerprints all match up perfectly. When you accuse him of it, he tells you that he didn't do it - a stranger broke into the house, carefully painted each handprint on the walls to exactly match the size, shape, and pattern of the kid's hands and fingerprints, put paint on the kid's hands, and then left, without leaving a trace. Which story is more likely?

 

[AV1611VET]

Let's say you come home from work one day and find fingerpaints all over the walls. Your four-year-old son's hands are also covered in the exact same paint. The colors, sizes, and fingerprints all match up perfectly. When you accuse him of it, he tells you that he didn't do it - a stranger broke into the house, carefully painted each handprint on the walls to exactly match the size, shape, and pattern of the kid's hands and fingerprints, put paint on the kid's hands, and then left, without leaving a trace. Which story is more likely?

My son did it.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

if you agree that genes can move from species to species then its possible that some spider genes can move to the human genome. its very simple.

For crying out loud...................

Just because there is a known mechanism by which some genes are capable of being transfered horizontally from one organism to another, that doesn't mean that any gene can go from anywhere to anywhere.

Stop emberassing yourself. It's clear that you know little to nothing about evolution and genetics. I'll advice you to go read a book or two, before continuing to argue against things you clearly don't comprehend.

 

[AV1611VET]

I'll advice you to go read a book or two,

Ditto for you too, my friend.

May I suggest John and Romans?

 

[Gene Parmesan]

Let's say you come home from work one day and find fingerpaints all over the walls. Your four-year-old son's hands are also covered in the exact same paint. The colors, sizes, and fingerprints all match up perfectly. When you accuse him of it, he tells you that he didn't do it - a stranger broke into the house, carefully painted each handprint on the walls to exactly match the size, shape, and pattern of the kid's hands and fingerprints, put paint on the kid's hands, and then left, without leaving a trace. Which story is more likely?

Like the claim that, "God did it but only made it look exactly like evolution did it?"