thanks dennis. i also explained why i think that it isnt a prediction but a simple logic (if most of the genome is similar then most of the coding genes will be similar too).
even if it not was the case- evolution will not have any problem. we can always say that the coding genes was under a different selection pressure.
depend in what method you use. if you go by morphological traits then the orang-utan is closer to human then chimp. so even the basic tree is in doubt.
lets see. first- we know that about 15% is closer between human and gorila then chimp, and about 0.5% is closer between orang-utan and human then chimp. so about one in a 7*200 (1400) genes can show us an opossite tree- chimp-orang-gorila-human. so we can get an hierarchy without any commondescent.
Youâve said this countless times in total apparent ignorance of how it is possible to end up with such an extensive pattern of mutations without common descent and without the slightest bit of support. It doesnât interest me right now:
Please stop trying to get out of a simple request that has been repeated multiple times. Answer the question DC. How does special creation predict shared patterns of mutations in pseudogenes among unrelated species? I really want to know.
You have a choice, either say you donât know, or please go ahead and offer your perspective on this (I have already told you why it interests me). There is no third option if you are really responding this request. A sidebar discussion on incomplete lineage sorting that highlights your continuing (and astonishing) avoidance of what has been repeatedly explained to you is not your third option.
Your only other choice is to refuse to answer the question, which is well within your rights, but if this is what you chose, I see no reason why you shouldnât do it directly and honestly instead of trying to change the subject. Answer the question or refuse to do so, but by all means, please just be straightforward. You choose to be on this forum and you choose to discuss these topics; if this is so, you have chosen to deal with the direction that every discussion takes, whether you like what this demands of you or not.
so the creation model predict that shared mutations is the result of convergent creation. and this data support that possibility. we can explain shared mutations without any need from evolution.
You have a wonderful tendency to turn up very interesting papers that and I enjoy scanning through them. I really appreciate this and you have brought some very interesting material to my attention so nicely done! Obviously, none of the authors come to anything like the conclusions that you come to, and this should but doesnât raise red flags in your mind, but be that as it mayâŚ
The negatives:
You once again did not answer the question. I did not ask how common selection pressures may result in a degree of convergent evolution at a molecular level. I asked how patterns of mutations in pseudogenes (therefore not involving common selection pressures) can be similar in unrelated (according to you) species. We are not discussing mutations that result in substituting single amino acids in similar active sites to increase enzymatic activity (for example), or mutations that may result in a shift in protein conformation resulting in changes in allosteric regulation (for another example) which could be the result of convergent evolution due to the constraints of the fitness landscape; we are discussing mutations that apparently scramble the gene, such as insertions, deletions, or inversions that change all subsequent amino acids, stop codons introduced early in the coding region, or upscale mutations that render regulatory regions non-functional (but recognizable). This is the whole point of discussing patterns of mutations in pseudogenes; such stochastic mutations are not even plausibly driven by common selection pressures.
You did indeed provide a plausible mechanism for something (ironically, the mechanism you provided was, wait for it: natural selection!!), but not for what we are talking about. This type of explanation just doesnât make sense for pseudogene mutations. Very interesting papers and thanks for the information, but no, Iâm still waiting for a plausible YEC mechanism that explains these patterns, patterns that are astronomically unlikely on the grounds of chance alone. Once again, common descent explains them in the simplest way possible. What is the YEC mechanism? It has taken a long time and a lot of effort to even get you to try to present a mechanism and unfortunately it is not applicable to what we are discussing. Should I keep trying or will it take another 10 posts to get a straight answer?
ok. first- its also happaned in pseudogenes. again- if about 15% of the genome is closer between gorila and human then chimp- its also include pseodogenes. so one in every 7 pseudogenes we will find mutations that shared between gorila and human but not chimp.
No DC, Iâm sorry but we are not switching over to a pointless discussion about your refusal to even think about incomplete lineage sorting (lest it begins to make sense to you, leading to all sorts of tragic consequences;-). I have already said this quite clearly and I am not sure why I am forced to repeat it. Please stop trying to change the subject (again) and please donât bring up ILS anymore as I am not interested in being the next person to try to explain it to you (the others did it better than I could anyway).
Back to the request: Please explain how YEC predicts a similar pattern of mutations in pseudogenes, where convergent selection pressures are not applicable. If, on the other hand, you have evidence that a pseudogene like Vitellogenin is undergoing convergent selection pressures between species, somehow leading to a similar pattern of mutations that would scramble any possible resulting protein (that this sequence doesnât produce anymore anyway), then please, present it. The papers you have linked to do not present anything of the sort. If you are not able to do this, then I will begin counting I guess (hey, it works with the kids); this is the first evasion. I canât even rise to the level of saying ânice tryâ, since what youâve offered seems to be a stock reply that has been repeated and answered multiple times. Care to try again? Second try (we restarted the counter):
one mechanism is âhot spotsâ. in some regions in the genome the mutation rate is much higher. and because of this fact some bases change faster then other. the reslut can be shared mutations without a commondescent.
Nice! That wasnât an evasion at all! But of course; no. Hot spots are regions that undergo higher rates of mutation, not individual bases that somehow mutate in exactly the same way for different species. This simply has nothing to do with the pattern we see. At best you would end up with increased scrambling in these regions (and in different ways for different species), not the exact same sequence. This doesnât even start to explain what we see. Thanks for trying to offer a possible mechanism. Please try again.
Hi DC, based on the mechanisms you have suggested, this would not be the predicted outcome of the YEC position. Convergent selection pressures are certainly at work in the genome and as your interesting articles pointed out, the adaptive landscape is narrower than once thought, but no, this most certainly does not lead to a prediction of the outcome we are discussing. I have already given the reasons for this and you have not presented counter-evidence or counter-arguments (which Iâm open to if you have them). These articles are just not saying what you need them to say: there is no plausible selection pressure that leads to convergent deterioration of a recognizable sequence according to a specific pattern of mutations.
Itâs a bit like your other suggestion, it may sound plausible for some people because it at least sounds like a response of some kind, but when you think about it for any length of time, it becomes extremely obvious that the pattern we are discussing is just not one of the predicted outcomes (although this stuff is certainly interesting, whatever is or isnât a part of the predicted outcome).
I think this is why Argon originally asked you to walk us through the logic of your position, telling us how known mechanisms lead to the patterns we see in a special creation framework. We have done this from the common descent perspective, and you have spent most of your time (and apparently unconvincingly) trying to peck holes in this. What we havenât seen from you (ever, as far as I know) is a step by step explanation of how your own hypothesis works and how it leads to these patterns. This is the only thing I would like to know right now⌠I realize you donât like to write too much, but even a good reference that successfully accomplishes this might work (although I think it would be better if you would summarize it to give us a sense of whether or not it is worth pursuing).
Iâm sorry; these last two just arenât the mechanisms you were hoping for⌠can we conclude that there is no known mechanism from the YEC point of view, or would you like to look at anything else?
Please be careful with wording here DC, as you are mixing things up a bit. First, we are not discussing my prediction, we our discussing yours and you need to explain what pattern your model anticipates and why (you seem to be getting back to avoiding this). If your model predicts, for example, the pattern of mutations in one of the pseudogenes discussed on this site, it is not enough to say that it does, I am asking why.
Second, you are vaguely discussing âthe same basesâ, and I see no reason why we wouldnât see some of the same base substitutions along a long stretch of DNA based on chance alone. This would be the case where there is no reason to suspect convergent selection pressures in that sequence, which would tend to be the case for pseudogenes. That said, you would not expect an extensive pattern of identical changes (again, very statistically unlikely, which is why we are discussing such a pattern in the first place). Anyway, note that convergent selection pressures would act to constrain the type of amino acid, not the exact base sequence itself, so we would not expect an identical DNA sequence (where we are dealing with a possible insertion in a pseudogene that you might want to see as a convergence) even with this pressure.
This, by the way, was a not so subtle effort to avoid answering the question (second evasion) by discussing my prediction. Which I didnât make. Please return to what we are discussing. Do you have another suggestion or not?
hey. but you claimed that its extremely unlikely to explain hot spots in pseudogene. so you are actually do make a prediction. your prediction is that if the creation model is right- then we will not find shared mutations between pseudogenes.
so again- can we find such cases or not according to your argument?
DC, you are not only trying to change the subject (the third time you have evaded the question), but you are trying to do it by inventing a contradiction where there is none. I told you that âhot spotsâ would not predict a statistically unlikely pattern of mutations (which is what was under discussions), not that it wouldnât result in the statistically likelihood of the odd mutation independently occurring between species. Do you see the difference? Common descent has led to an extremely unlikely pattern of mutations (from a YEC perspective), while special creation predicts that through chance, combined with the sheer number of mutations that occur over time and in so much DNA, some of the same bases will change in the same way, but only to a very limited degree and not resulting in a statistically unlikely pattern of shared mutations. More changes may occur in a hot spot, but not more changes to a common sequence. I donât really think that this explanation should have been necessary.
DC, that was your third evasion, are you really going back to ducking the request, or are you willing to offer any other mechanisms? I appreciated that you at least tried to provide something with the first two efforts, but I need to repeat, we are discussing what YEC predicts, not what I predict and certainly not âmy argumentâ.
Again, just to clarify my motivation here: even with your little evasion habit (that I find difficult to push through), I think you are really good at finding interesting papers (creationist and non-creationist), and I figure that if anyone can turn up some obscure creationist hypothesis that proposes a mechanism for predicting the outcome we are seeing, it will be you. If you tell me you canât see anything else, that will be fine, and I will just thank you for the effort you put into it.
thanks. so you are actually admit that we may find some bases that shared in pseudogenes under the creation model. you just now say that its a rare event. the question is how much rare. do you have any specific example to show me why its so unlikely to get those shared mutations under the creation model? how many mutations in a specific pseudogene its too much for the creation model? 2? 3? 10? if you cant show this- then you cant claim its impossible under the creation model.
you are asking Bren to compare how well the data on the vitellogenin pseudogene fit two different models - evolutionary vs. YEC. The problem is this:
It is your responsibility to advance a YEC model that would predict the number of shared mutations across a specific taxonomic classification.
Everyone on this thread has been asking you to advance a model, and you have not yet done so. Yet you are asking Bren to discuss the predictions of the model you have not defined.
This is just so bizarre. But have a good day, anyway, dcs.
Just to keep our records up to date, this is the fourth time you have avoided the request (for this round). Please try again if you are aware of some other mechanism leads YEC to predict a recognizable pattern of mutations in pseudogenes (any pattern that is extremely unlikely by chance alone)? As I said, I think your first two efforts were quite interesting, so thank you.
Your above question is: âBut, hey, just a minute, thatâs not fair: how do I recognize the difference between a directly inherited shared pattern and what you would get between two species from chance alone (sometimes known as: ânot a patternâ)â. I will take this rather astounding concern at face value. Obviously, if you actually do not have the ability to recognize patterns (a fundamental skill shared by all life-forms to one degree or another), then I canât understand how you manage to survive, let alone type these responses! If the concern is not that you would never recognize a pattern if you saw one, but that this is not a rigorous approach, then please rest assured that there are mathematically rigorous ways to detect patterns â frequently used in detecting plagiarism or in fingerprint recognition for example (talk to Chris, he has been generous enough to show a willingness to help direct you with this). And please also rest assured that that you donât need the slightest bit of math to recognize the clear pattern of mutations between close species like chimps and humans, you just need to have basic human pattern recognition abilities.
Perhaps you are confusing this with a case where the species are distant and even the shared mutations have undergone further mutations, effectively masking the common pattern? As I said, you can consult a statistician for how they determine when the supposed pattern is a false positive and how they determine the cutoff (if you are really curious), but this simply doesnât apply to the types of patterns we are discussing and it strikes me as a very bizarre concern if it is sincerely entertained.
Please, please donât do another comment on this topic, you know exactly what to do if you have developed a sudden and inexplicable fear that it is impossible to recognize the difference between shared patterns and randomness; the resources have already been suggested to you. If there is nothing else, instead of going for a fifth evasion, you just have to say, âIâm not sure what it is, but I am convinced that there must be creationist sources out there that can explain how this is predicted with our modelâ, it would be enough. You could even plagiarize this last sentence; promise that I wonât mind even if I do manage to detect it!