Mathematically Measuring Evolution.
by towerwatchman 205 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
-
Rainbow_Troll
cytochrome c is a means of measuring the differences across the evolutionary tree. Any other means of measuring the difference is more subjective than anything.
Why? By your own admission, cytochrome c does not support the theory of evolution any more than the Bible. Why are other genes and fossils of no importance in testing the theory of evolution while cytochrome c is the deal breaker? Is it because it's the only criteria that slightly favors the creationists?
if cytochrome c did not mutate then there should be no difference. If mutate slowly over time we should see the pattern, but we don’t.
Cytochrome c is a protein with a finite number of nucleotide sequences available to it if it is to remain functioning. The evidence you cited in your original OP only proves that it was able to recombine in similar sequences even in creatures which are evolutionary very distant from each other. Wow, what are the odds huh? Eyes are much more complicated structures than single proteins and yet they appear independently in creatures as distinct as vertebrates and invertebrates.
As to arguing and troll I notice something rather funny. You and several others here call me a troll who likes to argue.
It wasn't meant as an insult. I'm actually giving you the benefit of a doubt; that you aren't actually serious and are just messing with people because you are bored or wish to sharpen your rhetorical skills.
-
Coded Logic
But what is unique to evolution is the amount of imagination that is used. All you have here is a bird.
-Towerwatchman
No imagination necessary my friend. There are multiple lines of evidence showing that Archeopteryx is more than just a bird:
1.) All modern birds have beaks or bills. The Archeopteryx, however, does not have a beak. Instead, it has a jaw.
2.) The spinal cord in modern birds attaches underneath the skull. In Archeopteryx, the spinal cord attaches to the back of the skull (like all other reptiles).
3.) The thoracic vertebrae in modern birds is always fused. In Archeopteryx, the thoracic vertebrae are free.
4.) Modern birds have a saddle shaped cervical vertebrae. Archeopteryx has a cervical vertebrae with conclave vertical facets (much like Tarbosaurus).
5.) Birds have short articulating ribs. The Archeopteryx, however, has long ribs that do not articulate.
6.) Birds do not have a gastralium. Archeopteryx, like all reptiles, does.
7.) Birds metacarpals (hand bones) are always fused. But the metacarpals of Archeopteryx, like all reptiles, are free and flexible.
8.) Birds have 11 to 23 vertebrae in the sacrum (the vertebrae that run through the pelvis). The Archeopteryx has only six bones in it's Sacrum (the same number as in reptiles).
9.) Birds have an elongated pubis that angles backward. The pubic shafts of Archeopteryx is short and not angled backward.
10.) Birds have a short tail with the vertebrae at the end fused into a pgostyle. The Archeopteryx has a long boney tail with many free vertebrae up to the tip.
There are many other differences too that put the Archeopteryx is more than just a bird.
-
shepherdless
Towerwatchman:
Note nothing i have posted as evidence is supported by the Judeo Christian belief in a supernatural intelligent designer.
Shepherdless:
Most Christians do NOT believe in a "supernatural intelligent designer".
Towerwatchman:That is a sweeping generalization. I can accept some, but not most.
Shepherdless:Towerwatchman, you say you cant accept most Christians do not believe in a "supernatural intelligent designer"...
Towerwatchman:Never said that...
-
towerwatchman
To Shepherdless
My apologies you are correct.
-
shepherdless
Thanks Towerwatchman. Gave you a "thumbs up".
-
cofty
The amino acid sequence and the nucleotide sequence of cytochrome c beautifully confirms and refines the tree of life.
What a strange topic for a creationist to raise. I can only assume it is an attempt to poison the well with one of the best examples of evidence for common ancestry.
-
Caedes
Using the standard method of taxonomy we cannot quantify the difference between a horse and a mouse, or know which is closer mouse to cat, or mouse to fish.
1) Whilst I would agree that it is not mathematical, morphological characteristics were used extensively in compiling taxonomic trees (In fact that is precisely the meaning of taxonomy) which have incidently, broadly coincided with more modern phylogenetic trees.
A human may ‘look’ more complex than a frog but how much more in quantitative terms cannot be determined by morphology.
2) It can if you are looking at the two for more than just a visual comparison, for example someone has already shown on this thread the morphological differences between modern birds and archeopterix, it may have looked like a bird but there are important differences that mark it out as a transitional species.
On the biochemical level the difference between two proteins can be quantified exactly and the results can be used to measure similarity or difference between species. What is needed is a common thread that runs through living things.
Cytochrome c is a small hemeprotein found loosely associated with the inner membrane of the mitochondrion.
3) The problem you have is that this is a really good example of evidence of common ancestry.
No sequence or group of can be designated as intermediate with respect to the other group. They are equally isolated from the members of other groups.
4) This is simply not correct, for example humans and chimps share more or less identical DNA sequences coding for cytochrome C and it is generally true that sequences are similar in more closely related species than in species with similar performance requirements (for example bat cytochrome C is more similar to human than to bird) which is what we would expect if morphological differences where what drove the difference (as you seem to be suggesting)
If evolution is true then the existence of cytochrome C in ‘higher forms’ is the result from evolving from a common ancestor.
5) Firstly it is important to object to the use of 'higher forms', from an evolutionary viewpoint we are not a 'higher form'. You also seem to misunderstand hierarchy, there isn't an evolutionary 'hierarchy', there is a taxonomic heirarchy but that goes the wrong way for your point. Presumably because you are viewing evolution with a theistic bias to assume that humans are some sort of pinnacle of evolution.
Compare Rhodospirillum rubrum [bacteria] and Eucaryotic organisms. Percentage of difference.
Horse 64%, Pigeon 64%, Tuna 65%, Silk worm 65%, Wheat 66%, Yeast 69%
No trace of traditional evolution at the molecular level. Man is as close to a lamprey as a fish.
6) No, we are more closely related to fish than lampreys, you have to go much further back along the evolutionary tree to find a common ancestor between us and lampreys than to find one between us and fish. Again you have no source for your figures above.
Comparing a carp, we have the following percentage of difference.
Horse 13%, rabbit 13%, chicken 14%, turtle 13% and bullfrog 13%.
7) Again you have no source for this data? Because you are admitting that sequences for cytochrome C vary in your examples and then claiming that they are all equidistant to fish cytochrome C. By what measure are they equidistant if they vary? I suspect that your data is not from a scientific study since it disagrees with every thing I have read on the subject and doesn't appear to be internally consistant.
On the evidence of protein sequences the lamprey cannot be classified as primitive with respect to other vertebrates, nor considered and intermediate between higher vertebrates and none vertebrates.
8) This is because you assume that evolution is a process with a destination and that there is a hierarchy. They are an intermediate species in as much as they have shared features with two major orders and it is not clear which they are more closely related to.
If evolution were true, and creatures gradually evolved from one to another, there should be intermediate forms. Intermediate forms should be found in living creatures, in the fossil record, and at the bio chemical level. As to the fossil record none are found.
9) They are intermediate forms found, be honest and admit that you have decided to discount the examples given to fit your biases.
10) You have not disproven evolution, there are lots of different ways to code for Cytochrome C ( a huge number10^93) and it is a fundamental protein so we would expect that heredity would largely account for differences in the coding, i.e. that it would be evidence of the relatedness of different organisms. Given the huge number of ways of coding this protein you would expect it to be radically different in different species if we weren't related. This isn't what we see and you haven't provided any evidence to prove that what you are claiming is true.
-
never a jw
If evolution were true, and creatures gradually evolved from one to another, there should be intermediate forms. Intermediate forms should be found in living creatures, in the fossil record, and at the bio chemical level. As to the fossil record none are found.
You are right, there's no intermediate forms between a donkey and a horse. I wasted my time reading evolution books
