How conserved are the immunoglobulin genes at the amino acid level in mammals? I would assume they evolve really fast compared to anything else.
They can from either a star or a nested hierarchy depending on your working assumptions. The pattern is made by humans. In the case of the paper you cited a single starting point is assumed. The null was where divergence did not change and that is an unrealistic common design model.
You do not know at this point that they converge on a single ancestor. The single ancestor is inferred however it could as easily be multiple starting points of the same sequence and the data would not differentiate that;
The extreme level of preservation should make you conducer if the sequence is the product of evolutionary processes.
Where did these highly preserved proteins come from? The sequences live in almost infinite mathematical space(infinite possible arrangements) yet they get stuck in a very narrow band of amino acid arrangements. How is the diversity of proteins produced given this observation?
I don’t even understand this word salad. What are you even trying to say?
As I understand it, these genes are highly conserved because they are under purifying selection. Gene duplication can create copies of genes that are not constrained by selection, and so can produce new proteins. Genes can also be formed de novo when a mutation in non-coding DNA creates a start codon, causing an entirely new gene to be transcribed. The genes can also change if there is directed selection rather than merely purifying selection.
But this is very off topic from our main discussion, I think you’re just changing the subject again because you have no idea what to say about ancestral convergence and star phylogenies.
You’re right, it could be that it was specially created to look like evolution is true, by a real dirty trickster of a god.
2 Likes
A trickster God that was simply reusing parts like most all designers to do for efficiency. 
Annnd he’s forgotten our entire discussion for the last 50 comments again. Back to square one. Nope, we’re not talking about similarities in extant sequences, but in ancestral sequences, forming a nested hierarchy. So it wouldn’t be God using similar sequences in similar animals, but God using similar sequences which subsequently diverged to create different sequences. And if there were multiple origin points with identical starting genes, then we would expect a star phylogeny, which we don’t see. So wouldn’t you know it, multiple origin points are ruled out!
2 Likes
You have not taken a real critical view of the paper you cited. Word salad is simply because your mind is living in the evolutionary paradigm as before whey it was living in the young earth paradigm,
Not to mention, why would an omnipotent and omniscient God need to reuse parts? Who are you to know the mind of God? How do you know that a designer like God wouldn’t use evolution to produce the vast diversity of life on earth?
That’s actually ruled out by the evidence, unfortunately. So only a trickster trying to make it look exactly like evolution fits.
2 Likes
Now that I agree with. As a young-earth creationist I probably would have thought that what you said was a good argument against evolution, since I barely knew anything about actual genetics. But now I can distinguish the actual science from your word salad.
1 Like
I don’t for know this. What we don’t have is a mechanism that can account for what we are observing. My claim is simply that multiple origin events cannot be dismissed at this point of discovery.
I was on design teams for industrial plants all my career. None of the projects looked like descent with modification. Pretty much every piece of technology out there is a web, not a tree.
2 Likes
False.
The pattern is objective and mathematical. It is not an artifact.
Not at all. Unlike you, I’ve worked a lot with this protein.
They didn’t come from actin. Actin is involved in a huge number of functions.
Why are there so many human variants of MYH7, Bill?
2 Likes
Who was it that guessed that Bill didn’t know what a star phylogeny is? That person wins the internet.
4 Likes
Is it really a ‘guess’ at this point?
3 Likes
If you were involved in design teams for software and complex systems you would see this more clearly.
If you were involved in design teams for software and complex systems you would see this more clearly.
See, I repeated what you said, because you’re wrong and don’t know it.
2 Likes
You know this how?
I developed the CONTROL software, and what I see is that you do not know what you are talking about here. Do you really think refineries are not complex?
But let’s not appeal to authority. Look at a car. The technology you drive is full of crossed over features. Parts are routinely taken intact and applied across branches. That is not a tree, that is a web. You are trying to obfuscate something which is beyond plain, and turn something simple into something complex Descent with modification means that baby critters closely resemble their parents, due to the constraints of reproduction, and branches are independent of each other. Not so technology. The next model year for technology has no such restrictions. The reason licensing and patent lawyers exist is because technology is a web.
5 Likes
Hi Ron
Then you certainly understand design. What language did you write in? What computer cpu?
I do think software is the closest type of design to biological design as it is information based and the working systems like you were designing are controlled by the programs you wrote. How familiar are you with the cellular transcription translation mechanism? Do you see how closely it resembles translating ascii code to bits and back to ascii? This system contributed to convincing @sygarte of Devine design.
Here is a presentation Sy a scientist who you may know from his posts several years ago. The discussion about self replication and transcription/translation starts about 16 minutes in.
BTW: Are you aware there are startups building mass storage systems using DNA?
No, he would not, because what you claim to see obviously doesn’t exist, as you’ve repeatedly failed to explain or illustrate it.
If it’s so clear, why can’t you do this, Bill?
None of that has anything to do with your failure to understand the concept of a nested hierarchy, though, does it?
Why are you trying to change the subject?
1 Like