Evolution is a Fact #1 - Protein Functional Redundancy

by cofty 291 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • cofty

    Hooby - The DNA evidence for common ancestry is the same sort of evidence used used prove paternity and familial relationships.

    If you read the OP again more carefully you will serve that it contains irrefutable evidence that all living things evolved from a common ancestor. If we then look at this multiple other molecules as well and examine their amino acid sequence and drill down into their nucleotide sequence the proof becomes astonishingly powerful.

    I hope you refuse to do jury duty on the grounds that genetic evidence conflicts with your religious beliefs.

  • hooberus

    You made a claim about "evolutionary history" in the OP. I asked a question specifically about this.

    I believe my specific point is correct regarding how evolutionists create hypothetical trees.

  • cofty

    I think I understand your question. You think there is a danger of circular reasoning and confirm bias.

    I am typing slowly on my phone at the moment. I will answer your question later when I get home.

  • WhatshallIcallmyself

    If evolutionary theory were constructed only on similarities and differences of extant organisms then Hooberus would be correct in pointing out that this isn't enough.

    I Goggled "different lines of evidence for evolution" to see what would come up and quite a lot of interesting things did come up.

    It is always important to take in to account all the evidence that points to evolution because focusing on just 1 line and then making an assumption about a conclusion based on far more lines of evidence will lead to misunderstandings.

  • cofty

    Hooby - Ever since Darwin presented his evidence for evolution by natural selection taxonomists have been trying to work out the exact relationships between species.

    The most obvious source of information is physical similarities like analogous structures. Later new fields of research such as biogeography added to the picture. Atavistic and vestigial features provide more useful information. Paleontology has continued to supply an abundance of evidence confirming and refining the picture. Studying the geographic distribution of fossils and their appearance in time provides strong evidence for how modern species evolved. Aquatic mammals are a fantastic example where a whole series of fossils found in Pakistan traces the history of whales back to land mammals.

    When it became possible to study DNA it presented a massive source of new knowledge. Either it was going to confirm that the "tree of life" was correct or provide irrefutable proof that that there was no historical relationship between species.

    It turns out that even if not a single fossil had ever been discovered genetic evidence proves evolution to be correct. DNA confirmed the relationships between species in most cases and resulted in refinements to the tree in others. There are so many different types of evidence and a few of them are covered in this series. The OP of this thread considers just one of them "Protein functional redundancy".

    Please don't think that all scientists do is look for similarities between DNA sequences. That would not be proof of anything. Imagine you are a teacher who suspects your students have been copying from each other in assignments. Just because lots of your students state that the Normal Conquest happened in 1066 is not proof of cheating but there are limitless ways of being wrong about the Battle of Hastings. If 12 of your students all say it happened in 1376 you would have evidence for plagiarism. If you could find dozens of similar common errors you could build up a "family tree" of copying errors. If you studied hundreds of big and small common mistakes you could work out who wrote the original assignment and who copied who, adding new mistakes.

    DNA evidence is something like that. The proof is of the same sort that is used to establish paternity and convict violent murderers and rapist.

  • hooberus

    From the O.P.

    In fact the entire tree of life can be reconstructed by comparing the amino acid sequences of this one protein. And yet any of these proteins can be switched and will work perfectly well.

    Trees not only have ends, but also have trunks and branches. Trunks and branches are sequentially intermediate portions of trees.

    Cytochrome C does not form a “tree.” None of the extant Cytochrome sequences are sequentially ancestral to any others (they can’t be placed into trunk and branches).

    All of the trunk and branches that evolutionists propose for Cytochrome C are hypothetical, based on the assumption of common ancestry.

  • cofty

    It took you 10 months to come up with that!

    I literally have not got a clue what you mean and I suspect you don't either.

    None of the extant Cytochrome sequences are sequentially ancestral to any others - Hooby

    Nobody said otherwise

    Do you even understand the significance of the information in the OP regarding protein functional redundancy? I answered your 'objection' here and yet you don't even acknowledge a single word of my reply.

  • hooberus
    I literally have not got a clue what you mean and I suspect you don't either.

    So you can’t understand the point that I was making in the 3 paragraphs?

    I don’t think it’s that difficult.

  • cofty

    I answered your point in some detail.

    1 - You raise an 'objection' based on a misunderstanding of the topic

    2 - I explain clearly and illustrate

    3 - Tem months later you ignore my comments and repeat your 'objection' in even more confused terms

    4 - Rinse and repeat

    Index Evolution is a Fact Parts 1 - 40

  • slimboyfat

    To me an interesting thing about evolution is that it indicates there is probably a God. Because if it wasn’t for God how we would understand the mechanism of our own understanding? Genesis says we are made in God’s image. It seems to fit the reality the more we understand.

Share this