Christian Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
Desire to be a vessel of honor unto the Lord Jesus Christ?
Join For His Glory for a discussion on how
https://christianforums.net/threads/a-vessel-of-honor.110278/
-
Taking the time to pray? Christ is the answer in times of need
https://christianforums.net/threads/psalm-70-1-save-me-o-god-lord-help-me-now.108509/
-
-
Depending upon the Holy Spirit for all you do?
Read through the following study by Tenchi for more on this topic
https://christianforums.net/threads/without-the-holy-spirit-we-can-do-nothing.109419/
-
-
How are famous preachers sometimes effected by sin?
Join Sola Scriptura for a discussion on the subject
https://christianforums.net/threads/anointed-preaching-teaching.109331/#post-1912042
-
[_ Old Earth _] How well do you actually know The Theory of Evolution?
- Thread starter Doulos Iesou
- Start date
turnorburn
Member
Not quite..
Hebrews 11:3 Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.
God spoke everything into existence
Jesus Christ trumps Augustine's theology
tob
Hebrews 11:3 Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.
God spoke everything into existence
Jesus Christ trumps Augustine's theology
tob
rthom7
Member
Some good answers Barbarian, but often your not teaching me very well...try not presenting new material and answer the questions I have regarding the McGinnis diagram regarding the Ubx protein. I have enough knowledge of this, and you brought the concept to me, not me, so now I want us to thoroughly discuss it, as you say it is evidence of macro-evolution, whereas I think it not evidence at all.
Ubx in each of these organisms is modified, but still Ubx. And since the modifications sort out to show evolutionary lineages predicted by other lines of evidence, we can use this homology to confirm those predictions
OK
Analogous features are those that have the same function, but are not derived from the same things. The bacterial and the eukaryote flagella, for example. Homologous features are those that are derived from the same thing, but may or may not have the same function. Bird and insect wings, are an example,as are the different versions of Ubx.
Your talking off the topic Barbarian...
Again we are talking only about the McGinnis diagram ...OK ?
shrimp MNSYFEQN-GFYGSHP
fruitfly MNSYFEQASGFYG-H
mozzie MNSYFEQ-TGFYG-HP
worm MSSFFEPANMSNTIER
All these DNA sequences of AA are for a Ubx protein, thus they would have a similar function for all organisms, The Ubx shrimp develops a shrimp, the fly Ubx develops a fly, the mozzie Ubx develops a mozzie aand the worm Ubx develops a worm.
Just because the Ubx protein looks the same for all four organisms (the first 10 AA in the sequence) does not mean they have a common origin as evolution assumes. How is that proof ?
Regarding the question of whether or not a point mutation affects Ubx:
Depends. If it changes the shape of an active site, yes.
Good we agree, but how is a similar segment of a protein strand an indication of a theory of origins ? Suppose two Ubx strands were 90% the same, does that mean they must be of the same kind? No, to me a single AA in the wrong place causes massive changes to the Ubx function, and sometimes it does not. SO looking at patterns in Ubx strands is foolishness to make prediction regarding origins.
Can you post the full AA sequence for the mozzie UbX, fruit fly Ubx and Worm Ubx and the Shrimp Ubx, so we can ascertain how similar they really are? Or does the McGinnis diagrams already show this?
View attachment 6005
Are all the AA in the Ubx shown here Barbarian ? If so we can calculate how similar they really are.. The shrimp has 106 AA the same, 106/389 = 30% similar
The fly has 126 AA the same 126/386 = 32% similar.
So I don't find they are similar at all, not even close just looking at patterns.
The point is whether or not a single mutation will change the activity of Ubx. Many of them won't.
I agree.. point mutations won't change a Ubx function, so why use this AA pattern thing as a theory for origins ?
If not, unlikely to cause any change of function. There are numerous homologues of cytochrome C, for example, from bacteria to animals, and it seems to all work the same; essentially interchangeable.
Cytochrome C - your wandering off topic.....
Evidence from examples is important, if you want to understand.
Yes 4 only , shrimp, fly, mozzie and worm...
Yep. The differences are predicted by evolutionary theory.
Ridiculous how does AA sequence in four organism predict origins ?
Go back and look at the entire strand you posted. The phylogeny derived from your evidence (number of differences) shows the two insects to be most closely related,
OK the fly and mozzie have 30% of the Ubx AA sequences the same, how does that show they are the same in origins (I assume each Ubx has about 386 AA in total)
You didn't really answer my questions
Of all Drosophila how many Ubx are similar?
Of all mozzie species how many Ubx are similar?
the insects and the crustacean to be more closely related to each other than any is to the velvet worm. Precisely what evolutonary theory predicts.
Creation theory would predict that too.
Creation theory would predict species in kinds would have very similar Ubx sequences, at least 90% similar.
Evolution theory would predict species in flies to be different because they evolved..at least 50% to 70% similar.
So do you have any numbers for these Ubx in all species of these 4 organisms ?
The shorter the strand, the less you can determine. Hence your lower amount of evidence only shows arthropods alike to the exclusion of velvet worms, while longer strands also distinguish insects from crustaceans.
True.
"Homologous" doesn't necessarily mean "identical." And in this case, they aren't.
Forget about being scientifically accurate in speech. Do you have all species of Ubx for flies, shrimp's and mozzies and worms to compare ? Can science answer this question?
Are you saying fly Ubx are different between species ? How different ?
That would be a concern for Creation model because why would God create a Ubx for fruit flies only to have it change radically....unless of course it is designed to change, after all it is a protein, not a DNA sequence is it ? I mean if a species is to change in a different environ, the HOX genes allows for this change, and hence changes the Ubx protein.
SO I am not sure what to expect because the Bible does not explain Creation on the genetics level.
Many things that science has discovered quickly become claimed to be part of the "creation model", but only after the fact. It would be more convincing you could show us a prediction for Ubx before this was known.
Any science model makes mistakes.... I would predict the Ubx protein for worm and fly to be very different. For shrimp and fly to be very different. And or fly and mozzie to be similar. And each species to be similar within each type.
One of the major frustrations for creationists, is their inability to explain why this should be so only in cases of homology, but not for analogous features.
Can you unpack this statement, I am not following you at all....use simple words....
We are both assuming AA sequence on a protein has any predictive power of origins....?
Precisely what evolutionary theory predicts. Differences, but less with the order than within insecta. And less within insecta than within arthropodia.
How does looking at UBX protein sequences have any predictive power ?
Have you tested this theory?
DO all flies have the same or similar Ubx protein sequences ? for example ?
If the block of patterns were similar you might have something....
If we take each organism and count the number of differences between that organism and the others (as other scientists do, tracing human ancestry) we find that we get a distribution showing that the fly and the mosquito (both insects) are most closely related.
Well said Barbarian, I agree, but both Evolution and Creation origins predict this.
Then the brine shrimp and the insects (all arthropods) are more closely related to each other, than any is to the velvet worm (an onychophoran).
Creation model would not agree, so this is a good test.
View attachment 6006
Here your test 12 blocks of code similar. Shrimp and worm are 66% similar, and shrimp and fly 100% similar.
Does this test your theory? Too early to tell....not enough data
Shalom
Ubx in each of these organisms is modified, but still Ubx. And since the modifications sort out to show evolutionary lineages predicted by other lines of evidence, we can use this homology to confirm those predictions
OK
Analogous features are those that have the same function, but are not derived from the same things. The bacterial and the eukaryote flagella, for example. Homologous features are those that are derived from the same thing, but may or may not have the same function. Bird and insect wings, are an example,as are the different versions of Ubx.
Your talking off the topic Barbarian...
Again we are talking only about the McGinnis diagram ...OK ?
shrimp MNSYFEQN-GFYGSHP
fruitfly MNSYFEQASGFYG-H
mozzie MNSYFEQ-TGFYG-HP
worm MSSFFEPANMSNTIER
All these DNA sequences of AA are for a Ubx protein, thus they would have a similar function for all organisms, The Ubx shrimp develops a shrimp, the fly Ubx develops a fly, the mozzie Ubx develops a mozzie aand the worm Ubx develops a worm.
Just because the Ubx protein looks the same for all four organisms (the first 10 AA in the sequence) does not mean they have a common origin as evolution assumes. How is that proof ?
Regarding the question of whether or not a point mutation affects Ubx:
Depends. If it changes the shape of an active site, yes.
Good we agree, but how is a similar segment of a protein strand an indication of a theory of origins ? Suppose two Ubx strands were 90% the same, does that mean they must be of the same kind? No, to me a single AA in the wrong place causes massive changes to the Ubx function, and sometimes it does not. SO looking at patterns in Ubx strands is foolishness to make prediction regarding origins.
Can you post the full AA sequence for the mozzie UbX, fruit fly Ubx and Worm Ubx and the Shrimp Ubx, so we can ascertain how similar they really are? Or does the McGinnis diagrams already show this?
View attachment 6005
Are all the AA in the Ubx shown here Barbarian ? If so we can calculate how similar they really are.. The shrimp has 106 AA the same, 106/389 = 30% similar
The fly has 126 AA the same 126/386 = 32% similar.
So I don't find they are similar at all, not even close just looking at patterns.
The point is whether or not a single mutation will change the activity of Ubx. Many of them won't.
I agree.. point mutations won't change a Ubx function, so why use this AA pattern thing as a theory for origins ?
If not, unlikely to cause any change of function. There are numerous homologues of cytochrome C, for example, from bacteria to animals, and it seems to all work the same; essentially interchangeable.
Cytochrome C - your wandering off topic.....
Evidence from examples is important, if you want to understand.
Yes 4 only , shrimp, fly, mozzie and worm...
Yep. The differences are predicted by evolutionary theory.
Ridiculous how does AA sequence in four organism predict origins ?
Go back and look at the entire strand you posted. The phylogeny derived from your evidence (number of differences) shows the two insects to be most closely related,
OK the fly and mozzie have 30% of the Ubx AA sequences the same, how does that show they are the same in origins (I assume each Ubx has about 386 AA in total)
You didn't really answer my questions
Of all Drosophila how many Ubx are similar?
Of all mozzie species how many Ubx are similar?
the insects and the crustacean to be more closely related to each other than any is to the velvet worm. Precisely what evolutonary theory predicts.
Creation theory would predict that too.
Creation theory would predict species in kinds would have very similar Ubx sequences, at least 90% similar.
Evolution theory would predict species in flies to be different because they evolved..at least 50% to 70% similar.
So do you have any numbers for these Ubx in all species of these 4 organisms ?
The shorter the strand, the less you can determine. Hence your lower amount of evidence only shows arthropods alike to the exclusion of velvet worms, while longer strands also distinguish insects from crustaceans.
True.
"Homologous" doesn't necessarily mean "identical." And in this case, they aren't.
Forget about being scientifically accurate in speech. Do you have all species of Ubx for flies, shrimp's and mozzies and worms to compare ? Can science answer this question?
Are you saying fly Ubx are different between species ? How different ?
That would be a concern for Creation model because why would God create a Ubx for fruit flies only to have it change radically....unless of course it is designed to change, after all it is a protein, not a DNA sequence is it ? I mean if a species is to change in a different environ, the HOX genes allows for this change, and hence changes the Ubx protein.
SO I am not sure what to expect because the Bible does not explain Creation on the genetics level.
Many things that science has discovered quickly become claimed to be part of the "creation model", but only after the fact. It would be more convincing you could show us a prediction for Ubx before this was known.
Any science model makes mistakes.... I would predict the Ubx protein for worm and fly to be very different. For shrimp and fly to be very different. And or fly and mozzie to be similar. And each species to be similar within each type.
One of the major frustrations for creationists, is their inability to explain why this should be so only in cases of homology, but not for analogous features.
Can you unpack this statement, I am not following you at all....use simple words....
We are both assuming AA sequence on a protein has any predictive power of origins....?
Precisely what evolutionary theory predicts. Differences, but less with the order than within insecta. And less within insecta than within arthropodia.
How does looking at UBX protein sequences have any predictive power ?
Have you tested this theory?
DO all flies have the same or similar Ubx protein sequences ? for example ?
If the block of patterns were similar you might have something....
If we take each organism and count the number of differences between that organism and the others (as other scientists do, tracing human ancestry) we find that we get a distribution showing that the fly and the mosquito (both insects) are most closely related.
Well said Barbarian, I agree, but both Evolution and Creation origins predict this.
Then the brine shrimp and the insects (all arthropods) are more closely related to each other, than any is to the velvet worm (an onychophoran).
Creation model would not agree, so this is a good test.
View attachment 6006
Here your test 12 blocks of code similar. Shrimp and worm are 66% similar, and shrimp and fly 100% similar.
Does this test your theory? Too early to tell....not enough data
Shalom
That doesn't mean he didn't create things with the ability to change. You're making that passage say more than it does.
turnorburn
Member
Malachi 3:6 For I am the LORD, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed.
tob
I don't see how that addresses anything I said.
rthom7
Member
Greetings Free, I agree totally with you....
Can I ask, would one be allowed to start a new thread on "theistic evolution", I notice this term used by some, I am new to this term, never heard of it, and really do not like the term at all. I realize many of us can believe whatever theories of faith we like, and that's OK...but people need to realize those who follow sola scriptoria, theistic evolution is a term that does not exist in Scripture....
There is a Hebrew word in Scripture for genes.
There is a Hebrew word in Scripture for kinds.
Miyn (Strong's 4327 and 4380) is related to words for craftsman, amen, firm, number, unit of measurement, likeness and right.
So "kinds" is something as stable and sure as the word "amen" is in Scripture. It is a tem to classify animals and never changes from one kind to another kind.
I use Jeff Benner ancient Hebrew lexicon as my scholarly authority for reading Hebrew, and His website is here http://www.ancient-hebrew.org/
He is very different to most scholars for several important reasons....He believes Hebrew has parent and child roots for words. That is a theory of faith that sets his scholarship apart from all other scholars of Hebrew.
My authority for Hebrew scripture is the textus receptus, the most common version of Scripture from which the KJV came. I note some theories of faith do not allow certain Hebrew texts to be used, but this version is the most common, and I feel was the one most blessed by GOD.
I do not use the commentaries of men to sway me in understanding, for they are only human, though sometimes they, like us, had the light of God in them, and we are invited to test their theories of faith against Scripture...Luther, Wesley and Spurgeon are good examples of heroes of Scripture who obviously has some blessings from God.
What is the administrator feelings on a thread like "theistic evolution"?
Shalom
Of course you may. We've had many such threads in the past.
Many terms Christians use don't exist in Scripture but that doesn't mean the concepts aren't there or that they are in some way unscriptural.
It's unfortunate you feel that way. Bible translations are only human, too, in that same sense.
Barbarian
Member
Analogous features are those that have the same function, but are not derived from the same things. The bacterial and the eukaryote flagella, for example. Homologous features are those that are derived from the same thing, but may or may not have the same function. Bird and insect wings, are an example,as are the different versions of Ubx.
Then it was probably a mistake for you to bring up homology.
shrimp MNSYFEQN-GFYGSHP
fruitfly MNSYFEQASGFYG-H
mozzie MNSYFEQ-TGFYG-HP
worm MSSFFEPANMSNTIER
As you learned, the differences in Ubx sort out in a way that confirms evolutionary inferences (infererences are from evidence, not assumptions) from other evidence. The differences in the sequence you posted shows fruitflies and mosquitos most closely related, than they to shrimp, with velvet worms most distantly related to them all.
Science doesn't deal in "proof", but likelihoods. This is yet another demonstration of common descent, consistent with evidence from genetics, fossil record, embyrology, and anatomy.
Regarding the question of whether or not a point mutation affects Ubx:
Depends. If it changes the shape of an active site, yes.
They diverge over time, by mutation. We know this is a fact, because we can test it on organisms of known descent.
"Kind" is a religious belief, not a real taxon. We merely compare. So as you learned, the degree of similarity of genes demonstrated the same evolutionary relationships as shown by other evidence.
Told you. This is why we can trace phylogenies by the degree of change. The variable regions of the protein will change at a relatively constant rate, which, as you saw, shows the same phylogenies as several other lines of evidence.
I don't know if that's available without a subscription to a journal. I'll take a look. I'll bet you a chocolate chip cookie that if we find some big molecules to compare between these taxa, the results will be the same. Bet?
The point is whether or not a single mutation will change the activity of Ubx. Many of them won't.
Some will.
Because data from organisms of known descent shows that the degree of difference is a good measure of relatedness.
If not, unlikely to cause any change of function. There are numerous homologues of cytochrome C, for example, from bacteria to animals, and it seems to all work the same; essentially interchangeable.
The differences are predicted by evolutionary theory.
Nope. Demonstrable in organisms of known descent.
As you learned, the differences show the same degrees of relatedness as other sources of evidence.
Go back and look at the entire strand you posted. The phylogeny derived from your evidence (number of differences) shows the two insects to be most closely related,
Because they are more like each other than either is to the other organisms.
the insects and the crustacean to be more closely related to each other than any is to the velvet worm. Precisely what evolutonary theory predicts.
Nope. In fact, creationists used to deny this evidence:
In July 1983, the Public Broadcasting System televised an hour-long program on creationism. One of the scientists interviewed, biochemist Russell Doolittle, discussed the similarities between human proteins and chimpanzee proteins. In many cases, corresponding human and chimpanzee proteins are identical, and, in others, they differ by only a few amino acids. This strongly suggests a common ancestry for humans and apes. Gish was asked to comment. He replied:
"If we look at certain proteins, yes, man then -- it can be assumed that man is more closely related to a chimpanzee than other things. But on the other hand, if you look at certain other proteins, you'll find that man is more closely related to a bullforg than he is to a chimapanzee. If you focus your attention on other proteins, you'll find that man is more closely related to a chicken than he is to a chimpanzee."
Duane Gish of the Institute for Creation Research, denying the fact. (he was completely wrong, of course)
http://www.holysmoke.org/gishlies.htm
The shorter the strand, the less you can determine. Hence your lower amount of evidence only shows arthropods alike to the exclusion of velvet worms, while longer strands also distinguish insects from crustaceans.
"Homologous" doesn't necessarily mean "identical." And in this case, they aren't.
Imprecision in science is useless. Sorry.
Well, hexapoda, using a number of Hox domains:
Nicely fits phylogenies from other sources of evidence.
Each sort is from a slightly different DNA sequence, of course. But you're bumping up against the truth. Life indeed was created to change and adapt to new environments. No magic; He did it all by natural means.
Some things, He left for us to find out. It's why he gave you a mind. It's not a sin to use it.
Regarding the claim of creationist models of Ubx;
Many things that science has discovered quickly become claimed to be part of the "creation model", but only after the fact. It would be more convincing you could show us a prediction for Ubx before this was known.
(nothing)
One of the major frustrations for creationists, is their inability to explain why this should be so only in cases of homology, but not for analogous features.
Sure. As Gish admitted, the creationist model says that distantly-related (by evolutionary terms) organisms should often have more similar molecules than closely-related ones. But that's not the case. Creationists are quite unable to explain why Gish was so wrong.
Precisely what evolutionary theory predicts. Differences, but less with the order than within insecta. And less within insecta than within arthropodia.
Yep. Tested on populations of known descent, it works.
If we take each organism and count the number of differences between that organism and the others (as other scientists do, tracing human ancestry) we find that we get a distribution showing that the fly and the mosquito (both insects) are most closely related.
Then it was probably a mistake for you to bring up homology.
shrimp MNSYFEQN-GFYGSHP
fruitfly MNSYFEQASGFYG-H
mozzie MNSYFEQ-TGFYG-HP
worm MSSFFEPANMSNTIER
As you learned, the differences in Ubx sort out in a way that confirms evolutionary inferences (infererences are from evidence, not assumptions) from other evidence. The differences in the sequence you posted shows fruitflies and mosquitos most closely related, than they to shrimp, with velvet worms most distantly related to them all.
Science doesn't deal in "proof", but likelihoods. This is yet another demonstration of common descent, consistent with evidence from genetics, fossil record, embyrology, and anatomy.
Regarding the question of whether or not a point mutation affects Ubx:
Depends. If it changes the shape of an active site, yes.
They diverge over time, by mutation. We know this is a fact, because we can test it on organisms of known descent.
"Kind" is a religious belief, not a real taxon. We merely compare. So as you learned, the degree of similarity of genes demonstrated the same evolutionary relationships as shown by other evidence.
Told you. This is why we can trace phylogenies by the degree of change. The variable regions of the protein will change at a relatively constant rate, which, as you saw, shows the same phylogenies as several other lines of evidence.
I don't know if that's available without a subscription to a journal. I'll take a look. I'll bet you a chocolate chip cookie that if we find some big molecules to compare between these taxa, the results will be the same. Bet?
The point is whether or not a single mutation will change the activity of Ubx. Many of them won't.
Some will.
Because data from organisms of known descent shows that the degree of difference is a good measure of relatedness.
If not, unlikely to cause any change of function. There are numerous homologues of cytochrome C, for example, from bacteria to animals, and it seems to all work the same; essentially interchangeable.
The differences are predicted by evolutionary theory.
Nope. Demonstrable in organisms of known descent.
As you learned, the differences show the same degrees of relatedness as other sources of evidence.
Go back and look at the entire strand you posted. The phylogeny derived from your evidence (number of differences) shows the two insects to be most closely related,
Because they are more like each other than either is to the other organisms.
the insects and the crustacean to be more closely related to each other than any is to the velvet worm. Precisely what evolutonary theory predicts.
Nope. In fact, creationists used to deny this evidence:
In July 1983, the Public Broadcasting System televised an hour-long program on creationism. One of the scientists interviewed, biochemist Russell Doolittle, discussed the similarities between human proteins and chimpanzee proteins. In many cases, corresponding human and chimpanzee proteins are identical, and, in others, they differ by only a few amino acids. This strongly suggests a common ancestry for humans and apes. Gish was asked to comment. He replied:
"If we look at certain proteins, yes, man then -- it can be assumed that man is more closely related to a chimpanzee than other things. But on the other hand, if you look at certain other proteins, you'll find that man is more closely related to a bullforg than he is to a chimapanzee. If you focus your attention on other proteins, you'll find that man is more closely related to a chicken than he is to a chimpanzee."
Duane Gish of the Institute for Creation Research, denying the fact. (he was completely wrong, of course)
http://www.holysmoke.org/gishlies.htm
The shorter the strand, the less you can determine. Hence your lower amount of evidence only shows arthropods alike to the exclusion of velvet worms, while longer strands also distinguish insects from crustaceans.
"Homologous" doesn't necessarily mean "identical." And in this case, they aren't.
Imprecision in science is useless. Sorry.
Well, hexapoda, using a number of Hox domains:
Nicely fits phylogenies from other sources of evidence.
Each sort is from a slightly different DNA sequence, of course. But you're bumping up against the truth. Life indeed was created to change and adapt to new environments. No magic; He did it all by natural means.
Some things, He left for us to find out. It's why he gave you a mind. It's not a sin to use it.
Regarding the claim of creationist models of Ubx;
Many things that science has discovered quickly become claimed to be part of the "creation model", but only after the fact. It would be more convincing you could show us a prediction for Ubx before this was known.
(nothing)
One of the major frustrations for creationists, is their inability to explain why this should be so only in cases of homology, but not for analogous features.
Sure. As Gish admitted, the creationist model says that distantly-related (by evolutionary terms) organisms should often have more similar molecules than closely-related ones. But that's not the case. Creationists are quite unable to explain why Gish was so wrong.
Precisely what evolutionary theory predicts. Differences, but less with the order than within insecta. And less within insecta than within arthropodia.
Yep. Tested on populations of known descent, it works.
If we take each organism and count the number of differences between that organism and the others (as other scientists do, tracing human ancestry) we find that we get a distribution showing that the fly and the mosquito (both insects) are most closely related.
Well said Barbarian, I agree, but both Evolution and Creation origins predict this.
Nope. Notice Gish denies it.
Then the brine shrimp and the insects (all arthropods) are more closely related to each other, than any is to the velvet worm (an onychophoran).
As you see, Ubx shows that to be the case. But let's see if we can find some other molecules to support the Ubx data:
Here's a phylogeny based on total DNA:
Here's one for cytochrome C:
\
Last edited:
rthom7
Member
Greetings barbarian, thanks for the reply, but if that was the best evidence you could supply regarding macroevolution of species, ie: the McGinnis paper was really poor and pathetic.... And I am able to overlook the matter because the data is really quite lacking and incomplete, so let's move on and have a look at the implications of AA sequence patterns in proteins regarding humans and chimps. You raise the scandal of Gish.
Fair enough, what links do you propose that show AA sequences between the proteins are similar between man and chimps ?
You ask me for predictions? Well man and chimps are different kinds. The macroevolution of one to another is impossible. Such boundaries are defined and clearly distinct in Scripture kinds. So does that mean protein AA sequences would be similar or different? Well all living systems use ATP, DNA and proteins, Man and Humans are mammals, so I would expect their proteins AA sequences to be very similar....if fact all living organisms would be similar....It is the DNA sequence of how to regulate HOX gene development that would cause different kinds to be different.
Not the patterns in the AA sequences of proteins....I think you look for differences between origin models in the wrong place...I would look in the DNA sequences themselves...and all DNA too, not just code for protein...but the non protein codes have an important role as well....How similar is the DNA code in total to human DNA in total ....I would subtract the DNA code that is similar to all living things, and concentrate on the code that makes different organism of various kinds different.
Not species that are different, since both origin models have similar predictions.
So if we subtract the DNA code of say Drosphila from human and chimp, how much DNA code is left that is different between all three organisms? the fly, the chimp and the human, obviously three kinds, and should have VERY different DNA code....
That would be the best test for origins of them all. But I doubt Barbarian if such studies have been done, science has barely even mapped the DNA of organisms...and it is too early to test for any origin's model....
Your Ubx paper were rather poor, and only assumed links based on 4 samples of Ubx protein sequences of those organisms.
I am trying to be fair in the analysis of the paper you present....so far I have not found anything useful to discern either origin model.. I am happy to read other links answering these questions if you have any....
Shalom
Fair enough, what links do you propose that show AA sequences between the proteins are similar between man and chimps ?
You ask me for predictions? Well man and chimps are different kinds. The macroevolution of one to another is impossible. Such boundaries are defined and clearly distinct in Scripture kinds. So does that mean protein AA sequences would be similar or different? Well all living systems use ATP, DNA and proteins, Man and Humans are mammals, so I would expect their proteins AA sequences to be very similar....if fact all living organisms would be similar....It is the DNA sequence of how to regulate HOX gene development that would cause different kinds to be different.
Not the patterns in the AA sequences of proteins....I think you look for differences between origin models in the wrong place...I would look in the DNA sequences themselves...and all DNA too, not just code for protein...but the non protein codes have an important role as well....How similar is the DNA code in total to human DNA in total ....I would subtract the DNA code that is similar to all living things, and concentrate on the code that makes different organism of various kinds different.
Not species that are different, since both origin models have similar predictions.
So if we subtract the DNA code of say Drosphila from human and chimp, how much DNA code is left that is different between all three organisms? the fly, the chimp and the human, obviously three kinds, and should have VERY different DNA code....
That would be the best test for origins of them all. But I doubt Barbarian if such studies have been done, science has barely even mapped the DNA of organisms...and it is too early to test for any origin's model....
Your Ubx paper were rather poor, and only assumed links based on 4 samples of Ubx protein sequences of those organisms.
I am trying to be fair in the analysis of the paper you present....so far I have not found anything useful to discern either origin model.. I am happy to read other links answering these questions if you have any....
Shalom
Barbarian
Member
It nicely demonstrated that one of the key predictions of common descent have been in that case (as in many others) been verified. No point in denial.
As you see, phylogenies from the data in that study confirm the same phylogenies obtained by other evidence. Would you like to see some more?
Sure. Let's take a look...
Humans and chimpanzees have the exact same cytochrome c protein sequence. The "null hypothesis" given above is false. In the absence of common descent, the chance of this occurrence is conservatively less than 10-93 (1 out of 1093). Thus, the high degree of similarity in these proteins is a spectacular corroboration of the theory of common descent. Furthermore, human and chimpanzee cytochrome c proteins differ by ~10 amino acids from all other mammals. The chance of this occurring in the absence of a hereditary mechanism is less than 10-29. The yeast Candida krusei is one of the most distantly related eukaryotic organisms from humans. Candida has 51 amino acid differences from the human sequence. A conservative estimate of this probability is less than 10-25.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section4.html
Gish was merely taking creationism to its logical conclusion. There is no reason, if species were created separately, for them to have closely simliar biological molecules, relative to other organisms.
Phylogeny based on differences in cytochrome C. Notice very much like the phylogenies from fossil record and from anatomy.
Chimps and humans are too evolved in their own directions to become each other. They have a common ancestor.
See above. And we know this works because we can use it on organisms of known descent.
Sure. Here's an interesting study. The diagram on the left is a phylogeny based on DNA sequences for apes and humans. The one on the right is another phylogeny, based on organisms found in the digestive tracts of the same species.
So yet another source of information confirms the fact.
More in common than ways we differ. For example, cytochrome C from your genes works just fine in bacteria.
Notice that it again confirmed the existing phylogenies. So far, no one's found a case that doesn't. And given that some of this data is merely the result of probability, that's powerful evidence. Why not just accept what it says?
rthom7
Member
Greetings Barbarian, that was a brilliant paper you cited...and I read the paper top to bottom making my predictions along the way....(being new to all this stuff)
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section4.html
(C) Thus, similar ubiquitous genes indicate genealogical relationship: It follows that organisms which have similar sequences for ubiquitous proteins are genealogically related. Roughly, the more similar the sequences, the closer the genealogical relationship
I disagree with this assumption. Ubiquitous genes make proteins which function the same for all organisms.
If you look at the AA sequences of these proteins and compare them to other organisms who also have ubiquitous genes, they should be the same...hereditary makes them the same. But how does looking at AA sequences infer origins? It doesn't. Ubiquitous genes should make ubiquitous proteins and all of the AA sequences should be similar. Over time some point mutations may affect some organisms more than others, and if patterns look similar , what you might see if the random mutational affect of mutations over time in that line of organisms....thus some organisms might be affected by mutations in a similar capacity.
Cytochrome c is an essential and ubiquitous protein found in all organisms, including eukaryotes and bacteria (Voet and Voet 1995, p. 24). The mitochondria of cells contain cytochrome c, where it transports electrons in the fundamental metabolic process of oxidative phosphorylation. The oxygen we breathe is used to generate energy in this process (Voet and Voet 1995, pp. 577-582).
Using a ubiquitous gene such as cytochrome c, there is no reason to assume that two different organisms should have the same protein sequence or even similar protein sequences, unless the two organisms are genealogically related.
No. Mitochondria is important to all living systems. I would expect the cytochrome c, to be exactly the same for all organisms.
Even within species, most amino acid mutations are functionally silent. For example, there are at least 250 different amino acid mutations known in human hemoglobin, carried by more than 3% of the world's population, that have no clinical manifestation in either heterozygotic or homozygotic individuals (Bunn and Forget 1986; Voet and Voet 1995, p. 235).
I would expect up to 300 AA changes between species would be normal, due to random mutation changes all organisms put up with in their life cycle, as long as the 3D folding remains stable...
With this in mind, consider again the molecular sequences of cytochrome c. Cytochrome c is absolutely essential for life - organisms that lack it cannot live. It has been shown that the human cytochrome c protein works in yeast (a unicellular organism) that has had its own native cytochrome c gene deleted, even though yeast cytochrome c differs from human cytochrome c over 40% of the protein (Tanaka et. al 1988a; Tanaka et al. 1988b; Wallace and Tanaka 1994).
I do not consider this surprising at all. However 40% is a lot of changes to AA sequences for a vital ubiquitous protein found in ubiquitous genes.
In fact, the cytochrome c genes from tuna (fish), pigeon (bird), horse (mammal), Drosophila fly (insect), and rat (mammal) all function in yeast that lack their own native yeast cytochrome c (Clements et al. 1989; Hickey et al. 1991; Koshy et al. 1992; Scarpulla and Nye 1986).
Yes to be expected, after all this is a vital ubiquitous protein found in ubiquitous genes.
Furthermore, extensive genetic analysis of cytochrome c has demonstrated that the majority of the protein sequence is unnecessary for its function in vivo (Hampsey et al. 1986; Hampsey et al. 1988).
OK so GOD made a huge AA sequences protein molecule to cope with random mutational changes and still function correctly....we call design like this redundancy....its brilliant design, even 40% differences.
Only about a third of the 100 amino acids in cytochrome c are necessary to specify its function. Most of the amino acids in cytochrome c are hypervariable (i.e. they can be replaced by a large number of functionally similar amino acids) (Dickerson and Timkovich 1975).
As one would expect for a vital ubiquitous protein found in ubiquitous genes.
Importantly, Hubert Yockey has done a careful study in which he calculated that there are a minimum of 2.3 x 1093 possible functional cytochrome c protein sequences, based on these genetic mutational analyses (Hampsey et al. 1986; Hampsey et al. 1988; Yockey 1992, Ch. 6, p. 254). For perspective, the number 1093 is about one billion times larger than the number of atoms in the visible universe. Thus, functional cytochrome c sequences are virtually unlimited in number, and there is no a priori reason for two different species to have the same, or even mildly similar, cytochrome c protein sequences.
True except hereditary. And outside shape and environs each organism lives in....exposure to radiation affecting life, shielding of that radiation...where the organism lives....all would affect how the proteins might change over time....but than we are not sure if GOD created all the vital ubiquitous protein found in ubiquitous genes, the same AA sequence to begin with...I would suspect He did.
cont'd
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section4.html
(C) Thus, similar ubiquitous genes indicate genealogical relationship: It follows that organisms which have similar sequences for ubiquitous proteins are genealogically related. Roughly, the more similar the sequences, the closer the genealogical relationship
I disagree with this assumption. Ubiquitous genes make proteins which function the same for all organisms.
If you look at the AA sequences of these proteins and compare them to other organisms who also have ubiquitous genes, they should be the same...hereditary makes them the same. But how does looking at AA sequences infer origins? It doesn't. Ubiquitous genes should make ubiquitous proteins and all of the AA sequences should be similar. Over time some point mutations may affect some organisms more than others, and if patterns look similar , what you might see if the random mutational affect of mutations over time in that line of organisms....thus some organisms might be affected by mutations in a similar capacity.
Cytochrome c is an essential and ubiquitous protein found in all organisms, including eukaryotes and bacteria (Voet and Voet 1995, p. 24). The mitochondria of cells contain cytochrome c, where it transports electrons in the fundamental metabolic process of oxidative phosphorylation. The oxygen we breathe is used to generate energy in this process (Voet and Voet 1995, pp. 577-582).
Using a ubiquitous gene such as cytochrome c, there is no reason to assume that two different organisms should have the same protein sequence or even similar protein sequences, unless the two organisms are genealogically related.
No. Mitochondria is important to all living systems. I would expect the cytochrome c, to be exactly the same for all organisms.
Even within species, most amino acid mutations are functionally silent. For example, there are at least 250 different amino acid mutations known in human hemoglobin, carried by more than 3% of the world's population, that have no clinical manifestation in either heterozygotic or homozygotic individuals (Bunn and Forget 1986; Voet and Voet 1995, p. 235).
I would expect up to 300 AA changes between species would be normal, due to random mutation changes all organisms put up with in their life cycle, as long as the 3D folding remains stable...
With this in mind, consider again the molecular sequences of cytochrome c. Cytochrome c is absolutely essential for life - organisms that lack it cannot live. It has been shown that the human cytochrome c protein works in yeast (a unicellular organism) that has had its own native cytochrome c gene deleted, even though yeast cytochrome c differs from human cytochrome c over 40% of the protein (Tanaka et. al 1988a; Tanaka et al. 1988b; Wallace and Tanaka 1994).
I do not consider this surprising at all. However 40% is a lot of changes to AA sequences for a vital ubiquitous protein found in ubiquitous genes.
In fact, the cytochrome c genes from tuna (fish), pigeon (bird), horse (mammal), Drosophila fly (insect), and rat (mammal) all function in yeast that lack their own native yeast cytochrome c (Clements et al. 1989; Hickey et al. 1991; Koshy et al. 1992; Scarpulla and Nye 1986).
Yes to be expected, after all this is a vital ubiquitous protein found in ubiquitous genes.
Furthermore, extensive genetic analysis of cytochrome c has demonstrated that the majority of the protein sequence is unnecessary for its function in vivo (Hampsey et al. 1986; Hampsey et al. 1988).
OK so GOD made a huge AA sequences protein molecule to cope with random mutational changes and still function correctly....we call design like this redundancy....its brilliant design, even 40% differences.
Only about a third of the 100 amino acids in cytochrome c are necessary to specify its function. Most of the amino acids in cytochrome c are hypervariable (i.e. they can be replaced by a large number of functionally similar amino acids) (Dickerson and Timkovich 1975).
As one would expect for a vital ubiquitous protein found in ubiquitous genes.
Importantly, Hubert Yockey has done a careful study in which he calculated that there are a minimum of 2.3 x 1093 possible functional cytochrome c protein sequences, based on these genetic mutational analyses (Hampsey et al. 1986; Hampsey et al. 1988; Yockey 1992, Ch. 6, p. 254). For perspective, the number 1093 is about one billion times larger than the number of atoms in the visible universe. Thus, functional cytochrome c sequences are virtually unlimited in number, and there is no a priori reason for two different species to have the same, or even mildly similar, cytochrome c protein sequences.
True except hereditary. And outside shape and environs each organism lives in....exposure to radiation affecting life, shielding of that radiation...where the organism lives....all would affect how the proteins might change over time....but than we are not sure if GOD created all the vital ubiquitous protein found in ubiquitous genes, the same AA sequence to begin with...I would suspect He did.
cont'd
rthom7
Member
In terms of a scientific statistical analysis, the "null hypothesis" is that the identity of non-essential amino acids in the cytochrome c proteins from human and chimpanzee should be random with respect to one another.
No. Assumption. Body shape and body environs would expose the cells to radiation differently. One would have to do studies of this....
However, from the theory of common descent and our standard phylogenetic tree we know that humans and chimpanzees are quite closely related. We therefore predict, in spite of the odds, that human and chimpanzee cytochrome c sequences should be much more similar than, say, human and yeast cytochrome c - simply due to inheritance.
Assumption. The difference might be due to radiation exposure...yeast is unprotected....Mammals are protected. I would suspect all mammals to be similar than say yeast cells. Do statistical correlation for all mammals verse yeast, and search species of mammal verses each other for differences.
Humans and chimpanzees have the exact same cytochrome c protein sequence.
No surprising. How do otters and kangaroos rate with humans too ?
Furthermore, human and chimpanzee cytochrome c proteins differ by ~10 amino acids from all other mammals.
Isn't this what I predicted from reading through the article? All mammals would be similar, and they are ....
The yeast Candida krusei is one of the most distantly related eukaryotic organisms from humans. Candida has 51 amino acid differences from the human sequence.
Doesn't candida live in humans and is protected from exposure ?
Why would these two organisms have such similar ubiquitous proteins when the odds are astronomically against it? We know of only one reason for why two organisms would have two similar protein sequences in the absence of functional necessity: heredity. Thus, in such cases we can confidently deduce that the two organisms are genealogically related
Not one mention about body shape environs and likelihood of exposure to radiation....
cont'd ....
No. Assumption. Body shape and body environs would expose the cells to radiation differently. One would have to do studies of this....
However, from the theory of common descent and our standard phylogenetic tree we know that humans and chimpanzees are quite closely related. We therefore predict, in spite of the odds, that human and chimpanzee cytochrome c sequences should be much more similar than, say, human and yeast cytochrome c - simply due to inheritance.
Assumption. The difference might be due to radiation exposure...yeast is unprotected....Mammals are protected. I would suspect all mammals to be similar than say yeast cells. Do statistical correlation for all mammals verse yeast, and search species of mammal verses each other for differences.
Humans and chimpanzees have the exact same cytochrome c protein sequence.
No surprising. How do otters and kangaroos rate with humans too ?
Furthermore, human and chimpanzee cytochrome c proteins differ by ~10 amino acids from all other mammals.
Isn't this what I predicted from reading through the article? All mammals would be similar, and they are ....
The yeast Candida krusei is one of the most distantly related eukaryotic organisms from humans. Candida has 51 amino acid differences from the human sequence.
Doesn't candida live in humans and is protected from exposure ?
Why would these two organisms have such similar ubiquitous proteins when the odds are astronomically against it? We know of only one reason for why two organisms would have two similar protein sequences in the absence of functional necessity: heredity. Thus, in such cases we can confidently deduce that the two organisms are genealogically related
Not one mention about body shape environs and likelihood of exposure to radiation....
cont'd ....
rthom7
Member
Prediction 4.2: DNA coding redundancy
Like protein sequence similarity, the DNA sequence similarity of two ubiquitous genes also implies common ancestry. Of course, comprehensive DNA sequence comparisons of conserved proteins such as cytochrome c also indirectly take into account amino acid sequences, since the DNA sequence specifies the protein sequence. However, with DNA sequences there is an extra level of redundancy. The genetic code itself is informationally redundant; on average there are three different codons (a codon is a triplet of DNA bases) that can specify the exact same amino acid (Voet and Voet 1995, p. 966). Thus, for cytochrome c there are approximately 3104, or over 1046, different DNA sequences (and, hence, 1046 different possible genes) that can specify the exact same protein sequence
This is telling me that DNA can tolerate huge changes to code and still be effective...obviously mutation is not a model of origin, because ID designed a function protein despite 10 power 46 changes to DNA code, the protein still functions normally as designed.
As mentioned above, the cytochrome c proteins in chimps and humans are exactly identical. The clincher is that the two DNA sequences that code for cytochrome c in humans and chimps differ by only four nucleotides (a 1.2% difference), even though there are 1049 different sequences that could code for this protein.
Didn't we just find all mammals have similar protein sequences, so all DNA code would be similar too for all mammals.
The most probable result is that the DNA sequences coding for these proteins should be radically different. This would be a resounding falsification of macroevolution, and it would be very strong evidence that chimpanzees and humans are not closely genealogically related.
What a ridiculous statement, how does a vital ubiquitous protein found in ubiquitous genes predict origins and macroevolution ? It doesn't....
In contrast, pseudogenes have faulty regulatory sequences that prevent the gene from being transcribed into mRNA, or they have internal stop codons that keep the functional protein from being made. In this sense, pseudogenes are molecular examples of vestigial structures.
Sad to read evolution criticizing Intelligent Design....such genes play important functional roles....very important ones too.
Most pseudogenes are largely non-functional. There are several lines of evidence that support this conclusion.
Assumption. Science does not know everything as yet.
If pseudogenes do have a function, they must perform relatively simple functions for which the protein encoded by them was not designed.
Assumption.
Third, if a pseudogene has little or no function, then most mutations in the pseudogene will have only minor functional consequences, and many mutations will not be weeded out by purifying selection.
Assumption
Thus, finding the same pseudogene in the same chromosomal location in two species is strong evidence of common ancestry.
No, such genes have function not yet determined might be common to all species, and these genes could make each organism different. Science simply does not know everything yet.
There are very many examples of redundant pseudogenes shared between primates and humans. One is the ψη-globin gene, a hemoglobin pseudogene. It is shared among the primates only, in the exact chromosomal location, with the same mutations that destroy its function as a protein-coding gene (Goodman et al. 1989).
Interesting. Did they do similar tests for other mammals ? Elephant, kangaroos, possums etc?
Lots of information in the article Barbarian, but nothing about macro-evolution or origins. Do they consider why organism might change due to body change and environs exposure to radiation ? causing damaging mutations or changes to DNA code? Nothing in the study...just a bias to evolution so look for that ... Sorry I find nothing really supporting macroevolution here of origin or of a common ancestor.... However a really good read though. Shalom
Like protein sequence similarity, the DNA sequence similarity of two ubiquitous genes also implies common ancestry. Of course, comprehensive DNA sequence comparisons of conserved proteins such as cytochrome c also indirectly take into account amino acid sequences, since the DNA sequence specifies the protein sequence. However, with DNA sequences there is an extra level of redundancy. The genetic code itself is informationally redundant; on average there are three different codons (a codon is a triplet of DNA bases) that can specify the exact same amino acid (Voet and Voet 1995, p. 966). Thus, for cytochrome c there are approximately 3104, or over 1046, different DNA sequences (and, hence, 1046 different possible genes) that can specify the exact same protein sequence
This is telling me that DNA can tolerate huge changes to code and still be effective...obviously mutation is not a model of origin, because ID designed a function protein despite 10 power 46 changes to DNA code, the protein still functions normally as designed.
As mentioned above, the cytochrome c proteins in chimps and humans are exactly identical. The clincher is that the two DNA sequences that code for cytochrome c in humans and chimps differ by only four nucleotides (a 1.2% difference), even though there are 1049 different sequences that could code for this protein.
Didn't we just find all mammals have similar protein sequences, so all DNA code would be similar too for all mammals.
The most probable result is that the DNA sequences coding for these proteins should be radically different. This would be a resounding falsification of macroevolution, and it would be very strong evidence that chimpanzees and humans are not closely genealogically related.
What a ridiculous statement, how does a vital ubiquitous protein found in ubiquitous genes predict origins and macroevolution ? It doesn't....
In contrast, pseudogenes have faulty regulatory sequences that prevent the gene from being transcribed into mRNA, or they have internal stop codons that keep the functional protein from being made. In this sense, pseudogenes are molecular examples of vestigial structures.
Sad to read evolution criticizing Intelligent Design....such genes play important functional roles....very important ones too.
Most pseudogenes are largely non-functional. There are several lines of evidence that support this conclusion.
Assumption. Science does not know everything as yet.
If pseudogenes do have a function, they must perform relatively simple functions for which the protein encoded by them was not designed.
Assumption.
Third, if a pseudogene has little or no function, then most mutations in the pseudogene will have only minor functional consequences, and many mutations will not be weeded out by purifying selection.
Assumption
Thus, finding the same pseudogene in the same chromosomal location in two species is strong evidence of common ancestry.
No, such genes have function not yet determined might be common to all species, and these genes could make each organism different. Science simply does not know everything yet.
There are very many examples of redundant pseudogenes shared between primates and humans. One is the ψη-globin gene, a hemoglobin pseudogene. It is shared among the primates only, in the exact chromosomal location, with the same mutations that destroy its function as a protein-coding gene (Goodman et al. 1989).
Interesting. Did they do similar tests for other mammals ? Elephant, kangaroos, possums etc?
Lots of information in the article Barbarian, but nothing about macro-evolution or origins. Do they consider why organism might change due to body change and environs exposure to radiation ? causing damaging mutations or changes to DNA code? Nothing in the study...just a bias to evolution so look for that ... Sorry I find nothing really supporting macroevolution here of origin or of a common ancestor.... However a really good read though. Shalom
rthom7
Member
Barbarian if macroevolution were true, would not science go looking or the DNA code that makes man and chimp different ? And both of these DNA code has to be different from say yeast or bacteria? We know about Hox genes, but what makes man and chimp DNA code different ? Study that....that would be a better test for science....
Have a look this video on genetics by Dr Sanford who used to be an atheist and evolutionist ,but is now a Creationist... mutations do not cause DNA code to be more complex thus making the code better at all, mutations cause death and downhill run of information to the DNA code....
If you have a really good video on genetics based evolution, let's see one linked here.... but it must be a genetics evolution video....
Shalom
Have a look this video on genetics by Dr Sanford who used to be an atheist and evolutionist ,but is now a Creationist... mutations do not cause DNA code to be more complex thus making the code better at all, mutations cause death and downhill run of information to the DNA code....
If you have a really good video on genetics based evolution, let's see one linked here.... but it must be a genetics evolution video....
Shalom
Barbarian
Member
(C) Thus, similar ubiquitous genes indicate genealogical relationship: It follows that organisms which have similar sequences for ubiquitous proteins are genealogically related. Roughly, the more similar the sequences, the closer the genealogical relationship
I noticed you deleted the evidence, though, and relabeled it an "assumption." We can show that relationship holds. The differences in ubiquitous genes sort out nicely according to phylogenies obtained by other evidence.
But they aren't. They are different. They are different because random changes in the regions that don't affect activity happen and are retained. Over time, this means that species with a more recent common ancestor should have fewer differences, and that's what we see.
[quote]But how does looking at AA sequences infer origins?[/quote]
Gives you a measure of time since the last common ancestor.
But not identical. You can easily do a simulation to show that this is true. Would you like me to show you how?
Ubiquitous molecules tend to be very precisely fitted and so can't vary in activity. And they don't. The point mutations are never found in the invariant regions because those regions are critical to the activity of the molecule.
Nope. All the different cytochrome c molecules, for example, work the same.
Using a ubiquitous gene such as cytochrome c, there is no reason to assume that two different organisms should have the same protein sequence or even similar protein sequences, unless the two organisms are genealogically related.
Yes, the statement is correct. Since all cytochrome C works the same, there is no reason, other than common descent, that would explain the differences and commonalities.
No. Most living things on Earth lack mitochondria. They are found in eukaryotes, but not in all eukaryotes. Mitochondria are endosymbiotic prokaryotes, with their own bacterial DNA. And they differ in DNA according to phylogenies obtained from other evidence.
But it's not. And the differences sort out according to genetic differences. Which we know indicate common descent, because we can check it with populations of known descent.
Told you that earlier. BTW, this establishes the fact that such differences arise by evolution. Adam and Eve could have had at most only four of those mutations. The rest evolved. But of course hemoglobin is a huge molecule, much larger than cytochrome c, so it's not surprising that most mutations have no effects.
And the distribution of differences in hemoglobin?
Differences in amino acids from human hemoglobin:
Human beta chain 0
Gorilla 1
Gibbon 2
Rhesus monkey 8
Dog 15
Horse, cow 25
Mouse 27
Gray kangaroo 38
Chicken 45
Frog 67
Lamprey 125
Sea slug (a mollusk) 127
Soybean (leghemoglobin) 124
An example of molecular homology.
There are a good number of invariant regions, however. But notice again that the differences map out nicely in a phylogeny that once again, matches phylogenies based on other evidence.
No. Cytochrome c is rather small, less than 100 AA. God made the world so that populations of organisms could change allele frequencies over time to adapt.
[quote[we call design like this redundancy....[/quote]
No, it's called "evolution." Redundancy is where it's all built into one organism. Evolution is when the capacity to change was created in the population.
By now, I think you can see that the evidence is incomprehensible to creationists, who rarely mention such things.
I noticed you deleted the evidence, though, and relabeled it an "assumption." We can show that relationship holds. The differences in ubiquitous genes sort out nicely according to phylogenies obtained by other evidence.
But they aren't. They are different. They are different because random changes in the regions that don't affect activity happen and are retained. Over time, this means that species with a more recent common ancestor should have fewer differences, and that's what we see.
[quote]But how does looking at AA sequences infer origins?[/quote]
Gives you a measure of time since the last common ancestor.
But not identical. You can easily do a simulation to show that this is true. Would you like me to show you how?
Ubiquitous molecules tend to be very precisely fitted and so can't vary in activity. And they don't. The point mutations are never found in the invariant regions because those regions are critical to the activity of the molecule.
Nope. All the different cytochrome c molecules, for example, work the same.
Using a ubiquitous gene such as cytochrome c, there is no reason to assume that two different organisms should have the same protein sequence or even similar protein sequences, unless the two organisms are genealogically related.
Yes, the statement is correct. Since all cytochrome C works the same, there is no reason, other than common descent, that would explain the differences and commonalities.
No. Most living things on Earth lack mitochondria. They are found in eukaryotes, but not in all eukaryotes. Mitochondria are endosymbiotic prokaryotes, with their own bacterial DNA. And they differ in DNA according to phylogenies obtained from other evidence.
But it's not. And the differences sort out according to genetic differences. Which we know indicate common descent, because we can check it with populations of known descent.
Told you that earlier. BTW, this establishes the fact that such differences arise by evolution. Adam and Eve could have had at most only four of those mutations. The rest evolved. But of course hemoglobin is a huge molecule, much larger than cytochrome c, so it's not surprising that most mutations have no effects.
And the distribution of differences in hemoglobin?
Differences in amino acids from human hemoglobin:
Human beta chain 0
Gorilla 1
Gibbon 2
Rhesus monkey 8
Dog 15
Horse, cow 25
Mouse 27
Gray kangaroo 38
Chicken 45
Frog 67
Lamprey 125
Sea slug (a mollusk) 127
Soybean (leghemoglobin) 124
An example of molecular homology.
There are a good number of invariant regions, however. But notice again that the differences map out nicely in a phylogeny that once again, matches phylogenies based on other evidence.
No. Cytochrome c is rather small, less than 100 AA. God made the world so that populations of organisms could change allele frequencies over time to adapt.
[quote[we call design like this redundancy....[/quote]
No, it's called "evolution." Redundancy is where it's all built into one organism. Evolution is when the capacity to change was created in the population.
By now, I think you can see that the evidence is incomprehensible to creationists, who rarely mention such things.
Barbarian
Member
Prediction 4.2: DNA coding redundancy
Like protein sequence similarity, the DNA sequence similarity of two ubiquitous genes also implies common ancestry. Of course, comprehensive DNA sequence comparisons of conserved proteins such as cytochrome c also indirectly take into account amino acid sequences, since the DNA sequence specifies the protein sequence. However, with DNA sequences there is an extra level of redundancy. The genetic code itself is informationally redundant; on average there are three different codons (a codon is a triplet of DNA bases) that can specify the exact same amino acid (Voet and Voet 1995, p. 966). Thus, for cytochrome c there are approximately 3104, or over 1046, different DNA sequences (and, hence, 1046 different possible genes) that can specify the exact same protein sequence
More precisely it, along with natural selection, is the observed mechanism of evolution. This has been shown numerous times.
Here, you're assuming what you proposed to prove.
As mentioned above, the cytochrome c proteins in chimps and humans are exactly identical. The clincher is that the two DNA sequences that code for cytochrome c in humans and chimps differ by only four nucleotides (a 1.2% difference), even though there are 1049 different sequences that could code for this protein.
As you learned, the differences show mammal evolution consistent with other evidence. The DNA map for some primates:
Once again, confirms evolutionary relationships from other evidence.
The most probable result is that the DNA sequences coding for these proteins should be radically different.
Instead, we see similarities showing how closely they are related.
This would be a resounding falsification of macroevolution
Would have been, if for example, chimps were not the closest to humans. But they are. And we know this works, because we can check it on populations of known descent.
It shows the degree of difference by random mutations, according to the most recent common ancestor.
In contrast, pseudogenes have faulty regulatory sequences that prevent the gene from being transcribed into mRNA, or they have internal stop codons that keep the functional protein from being made. In this sense, pseudogenes are molecular examples of vestigial structures.
ID is a religion, according to the people who invented it. Would you like to see that?
Let's test that belief. What is the function of the human gene for vitamin C (GULO gene)
Most pseudogenes are largely non-functional. There are several lines of evidence that support this conclusion.
Conclusion from evidence.
Sorry, the argument "we don't know everything, so we can't know anything" doesn't persuade me.
Third, if a pseudogene has little or no function, then most mutations in the pseudogene will have only minor functional consequences, and many mutations will not be weeded out by purifying selection.
Observation. Non-coding genes accumulate mutations at a higher rate than functional ones.
Notice that everything you mentioned shows the same evolutionary relationships as other evidence. This is why most creationists don't talk about these things.
Like protein sequence similarity, the DNA sequence similarity of two ubiquitous genes also implies common ancestry. Of course, comprehensive DNA sequence comparisons of conserved proteins such as cytochrome c also indirectly take into account amino acid sequences, since the DNA sequence specifies the protein sequence. However, with DNA sequences there is an extra level of redundancy. The genetic code itself is informationally redundant; on average there are three different codons (a codon is a triplet of DNA bases) that can specify the exact same amino acid (Voet and Voet 1995, p. 966). Thus, for cytochrome c there are approximately 3104, or over 1046, different DNA sequences (and, hence, 1046 different possible genes) that can specify the exact same protein sequence
More precisely it, along with natural selection, is the observed mechanism of evolution. This has been shown numerous times.
Here, you're assuming what you proposed to prove.
As mentioned above, the cytochrome c proteins in chimps and humans are exactly identical. The clincher is that the two DNA sequences that code for cytochrome c in humans and chimps differ by only four nucleotides (a 1.2% difference), even though there are 1049 different sequences that could code for this protein.
As you learned, the differences show mammal evolution consistent with other evidence. The DNA map for some primates:
Once again, confirms evolutionary relationships from other evidence.
The most probable result is that the DNA sequences coding for these proteins should be radically different.
Instead, we see similarities showing how closely they are related.
This would be a resounding falsification of macroevolution
Would have been, if for example, chimps were not the closest to humans. But they are. And we know this works, because we can check it on populations of known descent.
It shows the degree of difference by random mutations, according to the most recent common ancestor.
In contrast, pseudogenes have faulty regulatory sequences that prevent the gene from being transcribed into mRNA, or they have internal stop codons that keep the functional protein from being made. In this sense, pseudogenes are molecular examples of vestigial structures.
ID is a religion, according to the people who invented it. Would you like to see that?
Let's test that belief. What is the function of the human gene for vitamin C (GULO gene)
Most pseudogenes are largely non-functional. There are several lines of evidence that support this conclusion.
Conclusion from evidence.
Sorry, the argument "we don't know everything, so we can't know anything" doesn't persuade me.
Third, if a pseudogene has little or no function, then most mutations in the pseudogene will have only minor functional consequences, and many mutations will not be weeded out by purifying selection.
Observation. Non-coding genes accumulate mutations at a higher rate than functional ones.
Notice that everything you mentioned shows the same evolutionary relationships as other evidence. This is why most creationists don't talk about these things.
turnorburn
Member
Well, if you follow the conversation back to see what I was addressing, you'll find out.