Germ line mutations and recombination happen as a result of reproduction. Your point seems incoherent.
My wife happened to look at my screen today, while I was reading this topic.
She wondered how there could possibly be such a discussion topic. Creationism is insane.
2 Likes
Until I looked at the chromosome data I would have agreed with her that a topic like this would go nowhere. The gene data suggests that separate creation of deer may be a reality.
Most creationists would not touch this topic as it may contradict an historical flood.
Show your wife that white-tailed deer have a gene arrangement closer to humans than musk deer and see if this data causes her to think differently.
I did mention to her that this was about differences in chromosome numbers. She responded that even humans have chromosome abnormalities.
1 Like
They do not. They happen during processes that may lead up to reproduction, but they are by no means the result of reproduction. You are in no position to judge incoherence. Of course no evolution happens without reproduction, but that doesn’t make evolution a reproductive process. Painting your house won’t happen without a pain factory making the paint, but that doesn’t mean a paint factory is a mechanism that paints your house.
You have to explain how it does that.
You are misreading the diagram, or perhaps you just don’t know what you mean by “gene arrangement”. Now in fact white-tailed deer uniquely share 93 genes with musk deer but only 43 with humans, while musk deer uniquely share 61 genes with humans. By this measure, musk deer are a bit closer to humans than are white-tailed deer, but the two deer are closer to each other than they are to humans. None of this means much, but none of it means what you claim either. The phylogenetic tree doesn’t help you.
It’s not about chromosome numbers, or at least that’s not what Bill is talking about right now. This is about gene gains and losses.
1 Like
It’s hard to keep up with what Bill is talking about.
1 Like
Bill isn’t even sure, and he can’t remember from moment to moment anyway.
2 Likes
Let me take a wild guess–she’s not even a biologist and it was painfully obvious to her?
4 Likes
Yes, exactly right.
1 Like
Common descent is a claim about the mechanism of reproduction. It’s a claim about animals being reproductively related. It’s not a claim about mere similarities and differences.
Different gene arrangements is strong evidence for separate ancestry. We have little evidence that new functional genes are generated in existing populations
Shared human w tailed deer 14936. 619…43. 124=15722
Shared w tailed deer w musk deer. 14936. 124. 195. 93=15348
Uniquely shared is less but why do you think this is the relevant metric?
If it’s painfully obvious you are forgetting about waiting time to fixation in populations. You are also missing the degree of differences in deer is more than a few mutations. You are also not telling her about the different gene arrangements as John explained.
This theory is build on simple reason. Chromosome mutations happen therefor chromosome mutation can explain the differences between deer species. When you try to back up this simple reason with the test of a population genetics model the simple reason hits a road block.
Part of what you say is true and part is gibberish. Not sure how I can untangle it in order to respond.
That’s just repeating your claim. It does nothing to say why.
Of course we do. There are, for example, humans with an extra photoreceptor gene who can see more colors than other people.
The problem is that your original claim was ambiguous. “Closer to humans than musk deer” could mean "closer to humans than they are to musk deer, which would be an interesting and bizarre claim, or it could mean “closer to humans than musk deer are”, which is a trivial claim. It’s apparently the latter you intend, because that’s what the data show, but that would be surprising and injurious to common descent only if you demanded a very strict and accurate gene loss clock. In reality all it means is that musk deer have had a lot of gene losses, and the tree in that figure actually shows this.
Let’s see the math on that. Other people, including me, have presented models, which you usually ignore but occasionally just reject out of hand. How many differences would be too many? Why?
What road block? I gave you a model for human-chimp differences. You ignored it. Try applying it to deer.
1 Like
Well, sure, change doesn’t happen instantly. It can involve long periods of time. But that doesn’t show that it doesn’t happen.
Perhaps your reasoning hits a road block. I’m not seeing any problem.
1 Like
I’m not seeing any reasoning.
2 Likes
I think it would be simpler to explain to her that Musk Deer aren’t true deer and are more closely related to cattle and other Bovidae than they are to true Deer:
Musk deer can refer to any one, or all seven, of the species that make up Moschus, the only extant genus of the family Moschidae.[1] Despite being commonly called deer, they are not true deer belonging to the family Cervidae, but rather their family is closely related to Bovidae, the group that contains antelopes, bovines, sheep, and goats. The musk deer family differs from cervids, or true deer, by lacking antlers and preorbital glands also, possessing only a single pair of teats, a gallbladder,[2] a caudal gland, a pair of canine tusks and—of particular economic importance to humans—a musk gland. – [Wikipedia]
On that basis, the heavily summarised data looks far less surprising.
If you wanted to dive deeper into similarities and differences, I would suspect you’d need less summarised, more detailed, data, that allowed you to see which specific genes were gained and/or lost, what they actually do, and allowed you to see if they have homologous chromosomes in other species.
All your repeated posting of gene venn diagrams do is show nested hierarchies of differences, and thus “descent with modification”. And you are surprised that nobody is ever impressed.
1 Like
Yet the population genetic models show in many cases the time predicted by the theory is not enough to accommodate the changes. If your standard is someone needs to prove it did not happen then there is no real theory.
Yet White tailed deer appear more related by gene arrangement to cattle then Musk deer.
Wt tailed deer cattle 14936…195…267…619…=16017
Musk deer cattle 14936…195…154…62…=15347
Your claim of gene gain and loss is assuming the pattern is due to a reproductive relationship between deer despite the evidence showing you another more likely explanation of separate origins between these species. This model bypasses having to explain these dramatic changes.
Originally I asked this question:
So far this question has not been answered.
It has been answered repeatedly. There is no obligation to answer it to your satisfaction.
1 Like
Hi Ron
Where do you think this was answered?
About 500 posts ago, I suspect.
2 Likes
And most of the posts from others since then.
But since @colewd has demonstrated that he cannot even define what a “nested hierarchy” is, what hope is there that he would understand the answers?
3 Likes
You have no model of separate origins and for that reason no way of calculating it’s likelihood. So you can make no comparative evaluation based on likelihoods.
“Bypasses having to explain” is to say it does not explain the data. But that’s a choice you are doing in your own head. You are the one deciding that the solution you like the most is under no obligation to explain the data.
We don’t agree with you that one side of two competing models can just be declared to have no obligation to explain the data. In so far as there is data to be explained, and there is, both models must explain them. All else held equal, if one model can’t, this model is a worse model than the other one that does explain the data.
Now, ironically, your insistence that your “model” bypasses having to explain the data is correct, since you have no actual model that says the data should be any particular way. So you want to reject an explanation for the data with no explanation for the data. And you think, apparently in an assault on the very concept of an inference to the best explanation, that this is an advantage.
It’s a literal appeal to ignorance. Gaps reasoning distilled to it’s very quintessence.
Then you have no argument other than “it has not been shown to my personal satisfaction.” That you are unconvinced is of no dialectical (we already know you aren’t), much less scientific value.
Yet you persist in claiming the data is incompatible with common descent because you think the numbers don’t add up. You never show that the numbers don’t add up. You just claim they don’t, but have no idea of how to show this.
2 Likes