Adam, Eve and human population genetics, Part 6: common ancestry, nested hierarchies, and parsimony | The BioLogos Forum

dscccc,

“so i show that its very likely…”

I don’t know what you are talking about. You didn’t show anything. You said evolution can’t be studied in experiments, and you reference a paper that describes experiments in evolution of a virus. You claim that parallel amino acid residues means parallel mutation, but if the codon is different, it’s not really parallel. It came about by a different mutation pathway, which in the virus in the experiment was clearly because the selection was always for growth at the same temperature. This is a fundamental misunderstanding, which you simply refuse to give up.

“so all the experiments so far prove creation and not evolution.”

“Proof” is a concept that applies in math and logic, not science. You mean “support” or “demonstrate.” But no experiment can support special creation directly, because you can’t run creation again. And in fact many experiments support evolution, including the ones in the phiX174 paper you referenced. You say experiments can support aspects of astronomy. The same is true for evolution, both in terms of experiments in short term evolution and observations of wild populations. Speciation has been directly observed in plants. Dogs and other domesticated species changed their anatomy and behavior recently in evolutionary terms. The behavioral differences, including not fearing humans and barking were duplicated by artificial selection in foxes over a small number of generations. There have been many papers in the last few years on changes in genomes of domesticated species from their wild ancestors. There is a vast literature out there on evolution in the lab, in domesticated species and in wild species which you can search on PubMed or other sites. When you declare the experiments “prove” creation, you are just echoing the creationist sites. You should go roaming around in the biology literature, or at least Dennis’s material here before coming to such a certain conclusion.

“we still have the same mutations in both cavia and human, so according to this- the rat clock is more speedy”

This has nothing to do with a mutation clock, except that there has been plenty of time for mutations to occur and be fixed in all those genomes. You are assuming that the mutations were in the cavia and human, which is not the simple (parsimonious) interpretation. The thing to do is to look at what other mammalian species the sequence is available for. If they all have the same nucleotide at those positions as cavia and human, that makes it even more likely that that is the ancestral sequence and the mutations happened in the rat.

“maybe. do you have another source?”

The source I have is years of comparing sequences in my own research. You could look up plant genome papers pretty easily, but they won’t tell you what the overall DNA sequence identity level is with mammals. Nobody thinks that plants and mammals have a recent common ancestor, so the question isn’t very interesting. You could look up the banana genome on the web, pick a few segments of a few thousand bp outside of genes and without internal repeats and run them against the human genome on a genome browser. My guess is that nothing will match above about 30% identity (~25% would be random.) The only matches you see would probably be in short repetitive sequences “microsatellites.” There would be matches between conserved RNA or protein coding genes, but for protein coding genes they would easier to detect by comparing protein sequences to translated DNA (one of the options on the search services.)

“first: who is talking about milions?”

I am. That’s what the evidence is. Look at the original human genome paper (it’s free.) There is a section on transposable element insertions with a table that gives the numbers of each type. Only about half a percent of those (a few thousand out of over 3 million) are not shared between the human and chimp genomes. That’s in later papers after the chimp genome was sequenced. And this doesn’t include thousands of retrotransposed gene copies and fragments of mitochondrial DNA inserted in the same locations in the two genomes or many thousands of shared haplotypes (patterns of small mutations in an interval short enough that recombination hasn’t separated them,) small insertions and deletions.

“if all the genomes made by the same designer- then even bilions bases can be in the same sites.”

It’s quite true that you can account for the evidence with miracles. But you can account for any conceivable set of evidence by invoking miracles. So how do you tell? If you prefer to invoke miracles, that’s fine, but then there’s no reason to bother with science at all. No matter what is observed, you have it accounted for. You can just believe what you want and spend your time on something else. But why would God make it all by special creations and make it look as if it happened by common descent?

I suppose your response will be that it doesn’t look like common descent, but 98% of the professional biologists, Christian or not, think that it does. (The other 2%, as far as I can tell, are like you in being committed to special creation.) There is no great conspiracy. After working with them for 35 years, I’d say they really are a pretty bright bunch of people - some of them are amazingly brilliant. They are just curious; they work hard; criticize each other’s work, and they want to find out how the world works.

hi again pgarrison.

you said:

"You said evolution can’t be studied in experiments, and you reference a paper that describes experiments in evolution of a virus. "-

not realy. not any change is evolution. the evolution theory claim that a complex systems like eyes ot flagellum can evolve step wise. there is no even one experiment that can show its possible…

for example: take the lenski experiment: its need only 2 mutations to get citrit digest in oxigen environment. the gene(protein actually) that can digest citrit jump near promoter that can be activated by on(from what i remember). its like to move an abs system from into the car to outside the car. now the car get be more protect to carshs. but it isnt a new complex system like a new gps or dvd to the car.

so again- can you show that a complex system will evolve? do you think for example that a gps can evolve step wise from a cell-phone if we have a self replicat gps with dna?

“You claim that parallel amino acid residues means parallel mutation, but if the codon is different, it’s not really parallel.”-

but its still parallel in the amino acid level. from a rendom prespective- the chance to get the same 10 amino acid is about 20^10. in the dna level the chance is about 4^10. so the chance to get the same amino acid is much lower then dna bases.

i also gave an example of dna level.

" which in the virus in the experiment was clearly because the selection was always for growth at the same temperature. This is a fundamental misunderstanding, which you simply refuse to give up"-

so what? its still convergent…

." “But no experiment can support special creation directly, because you can’t run creation again.”-

not realy. first- the creation model predict that a dog will stay as dog even for bilions of years. but evolution predict that it will be change into another family. so all the experiment so far support creation and not evolution.

secondly -we can prove that the creation model is right. how? let me ask you this: do you think that a self replicat robot with dna is a proof of design or not?

“Speciation has been directly observed in plants. Dogs and other domesticated species changed their anatomy and behavior recently in evolutionary terms.”-

again- dog stay as dog and doesnt evolve any new complex system.

“Only about half a percent of those (a few thousand out of over 3 million) are not shared between the human and chimp genomes. That’s in later papers after the chimp genome was sequenced. And this doesn’t include thousands of retrotransposed gene copies and fragments of mitochondrial DNA inserted in the same locations”

actually retrotransposons(or transposon if its matter) are functional:

“TEs make up a large fraction of the C-value of eukaryotic cells. They are generally considered non-coding DNA,[citation needed] although it has been shown that TEs are important in genome function and evolution.[2] In Oxytricha, which has a unique genetic system, they play a critical role in development”

so again- they may be a result of commondesginer.

" “but 98% the professional biologists, Christian or not, think that it does. (The other 2%, as far as I can tell, are like you in being committed to special creation”-

100% of chemists thought there is no quasicrystal in the past. but they all wrong. its also a logical fallacy:

This topic was automatically closed 7 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.