Gpuccio assumes common descent in his analysis. How do think I confirmed common descent in vertebrates?
Good to hear.
Can you show the trees that demonstrate humans and slime molds are not related but that Prp8 is conserved in both lines, and how you derived these? TIA.
4 Likes
Can you show me they are related. This is the burden of universal common descent if you want to support this hypothesis. The problem is it goes way beyond a single gene/protein.
Why, because you cite @gpuccio 's analysis as supporting your claims. Thus you use an analysis that assumes common descent to argue against common descent. You are contradicting yourself by at once both confirming and denying common descent. If you had any notion of valid reasoning, you would have to choose one or the other. Either you can’t claim that the sequence is conserved and reject the evidence you have cited or, in order to claim it’s conserved, must accept common descent of eukaryotes. In either case, you have not made any point relevant to evidence against common descent.
3 Likes
Gpuccio does believe in common descent yet his analysis works fine with separate ancestry based on common design as the genes/ proteins will diverge over time.
The only requirement to use his methods is time of divergence and the same gene/protein either by descent or design.
Why are competing models a problem?
So that’s a no. You can’t show what he asked for.
Clown.
2 Likes
It isn’t, but you don’t have any.
2 Likes
Okay… and this is not incompatible with anything you have said yet. A eukaryote with Prp8 is merely a eukaryote without Prp8, plus a modification that gives it Prp8. This could have happened stepwise or in one fell swoop. Common ancestry says nothing about how new features arise, only that they arise.
Where did you get this idea?
No. Genealogical relationships – which are really all that common ancestry is – do not create diversity. Mutations create diversity; if guided evolution is true, then God also creates diversity. But genealogical relationships by themselves obviously do not. Common ancestry is not a mechanism to explain diversity.
I never “used [a theological argument] in order to make evidence against common ancestry impossible.” You have evidently misunderstood me somewhere.
Sorry, but no. His analysis only works if the taxa being compared are related by common ancestry. Otherwise there’s no conservation, just similarity.
They’re a problem if you assume one model in order to argue against that model. Self-contradiction is a problem.
2 Likes
@colewd, why do you say this? Can you cite any experimental evidence that supports this assertion?
3 Likes
Here is one. Due to requirement for Mg+ to catalyze reaction.
So a designer cannot use the same genes in different animals?
That’s not what @John_Harshman said. I can’t believe you don’t understand this: if humans and slime mold are not related through common ancestry, then the similar genes between the two are not conserved, merely similar. Conservation implies that the two genes evolved from a common ancestor. You are using a calculation that assumes common ancestry and then claiming that it refutes common ancestry.
Then it really does not explain much.
When you have sexual reproduction there is a natural variation to the reproductive process. Genetic recombination is one of the mechanisms.
Maybe not intentionally but you have positioned your argument to be unfalsifiable. If you disagree how would you falsify it.
It explains exactly what it’s intended to explain: the nested hierarchy of life, the nature of the fossil record, various features of development and biogeography, etc. It doesn’t explain what it isn’t intended to explain, which seems the only thing you are willing to discuss. Irrelevance.
1 Like
Precisely. Common ancestry only explains the pattern of similarities and differences, not how those similarities and differences arose. This isn’t a bug, it’s a feature. Those patterns are why common ancestry was accepted in the first place. Edit: as @John_Harshman pointed out above, it also explains the fossil record and biogeography.
Also, I can’t believe that you were just claiming that common ancestry is wrong because it tries to explain too much, and now you are claiming that it is wrong because it doesn’t explain enough. That is ridiculous. It’s obvious that the only reason you think common ancestry is wrong is because of your presuppositions, not because of any evidence one way or the other.
I already explained this several times to you, and you have simply ignored it. In order to falsify common ancestry, you need to show that the phylogenetic data are explained better by separate ancestry than common ancestry. Of course, that’s not going to happen, because common ancestry has already been tested many times using this method, and found to be many orders of magnitude more likely than separate ancestry.
They are conserved in each independent lineage based on the same starting point given a design strategy of shared genes.
Only when God is eliminated from the separate ancestry discussion. With God being involved in creation separate ancestry is probably more parsimonious. We can discuss this later.
Done for the day. Talk tomorrow.
Oh no, not the selective amnesia again! We’re back to the star tree hypothesis that was refuted two weeks ago.
@colewd, are you suggesting that there is no Mg++ in the nucleus
FYI: Nuclear group I introns in self-splicing and beyond | Mobile DNA | Full Text
2 Likes
That is not one. Please stop pretending to understand things you obviously don’t understand.
2 Likes