How does that show macroevolution is impossible Bill? Once again you blurt out any excuse to run from scientific evidence.
2 Likes
No it doesnât. The fact that cytochrome c has multiple functions does not âaccount for sequence differences among speciesâ. At all.
2 Likes
Itâs an article not a paper and Iâve read it several times. I note you didnât provide any evidence that âItâs outdated and it does not contain a mechanistic explanationâ. I also note that you didnât pay any attention to the articleâs statement that âCommon Descent Can Be Tested Independently of Mechanistic Theoriesâ.
5 Likes
I am not disagreeing with the idea of common descent as it has certain explanatory powers. The lack of a mechanistic explanation for biological innovation is the issue. This is where design has explanatory power.
The cytochrome c argument which is central to the phylogenetic and genetic tree argument is outdated as it assumes a single function to cytochrome c. Theobald also does not consider design as a possible alternative to his argument. Of course common descent is more explanatory then random but so what. It is a meager test.
Why do you believe this?
It has multiple functions in humans, and it has multiple functions in Chimpanzee, yet it has the exact same sequence. So no, it having multiple functions does not âaccount for sequence differences among speciesâ.
2 Likes
I donât see any lack of a mechanistic explanation except on your side.
How? You donât even have a mechanism or hypothesis.
Why havenât you written this up and submitted it for publication?
4 Likes
No it does not.
4 Likes
(facepalm) If cytochrome c had never been discovered there are still the other hundreds of independent lines of evidence for common descent. All the rest of the evidence in the 29+ Evidences website youâre too afraid to even look at.
Theobald also does not consider design as a possible alternative to his argument.
Thatâs because there is zero positive evidence for any intelligent design of biological life. No Bill, your âa disembodied mind used magic to POOF lifeâ isnât evidence.
2 Likes
Are you denying that substitution mutations, indel mutations, and recombination occur naturally? Can you point to a single difference between the chimp and human genomes that could not be produced by known natural mechanisms?
3 Likes
Yet the cytochrome c b1 subunit is only 38% aligned between mice and bakers yeast.
Uh huh. And�
1 Like
Looking at cycs protein sequences, I get the following two comparisons:
Human-mouse: 90.5% similar
Human-chicken: 81.6% similar
According to intelligent design, what would you expect to see with the percentage similarity between mouse and chicken, and why?
Added in edit:
Here is the alignment for the mouse and yeast proteins:
Query 2 GDVEKGKKIFVQKCAQCHTVEKGGKHKTGPNLHGLFGRKTGQAAGFSYTDANKNKGITWG 61
G +KG +F +C QCHTVEKGG HK GPNLHG+FGR +GQA G+SYTDAN K + W
Sbjct 7 GSAKKGATLFKTRCLQCHTVEKGGPHKVGPNLHGIFGRHSGQAEGYSYTDANIKKNVLWD 66
Query 62 EDTLMEYLENPKKYIPGTKMIFAGIKKKGERADLIAYLKKA 102
E+ + EYL NPKKYIPGTKM F G+KK+ +R DLI YLKKA
Sbjct 67 ENNMSEYLTNPKKYIPGTKMAFGGLKKEKDRNDLITYLKKA 107Can you please tell us which of those differences could not be produced by the known natural mechanisms that cause mutations and the known process of neutral drift and natural selection?
2 Likes
Your problem with the mechanisms and the data is highlighted with mouse and rat cycs. We would expect lots of differences due to several generations per year. The gene has several functions yet the alignment is 100%.
If the gene evolved under total absense of selection, yes.
Does it?
1 Like
And yet mouse and rat are different species, and you said earlier that âCytochrome C is now known to have multiple applications which account for sequence differences among species.â
And yet here it has âmultiple applicationsâ, but between two fast-evolving species âthe alignment is 100%â.
Bill, youâre making stuff up again. Youâre apparently just mindlessly saying whatever random half-thought occurs to you with barely relevant themes.
2 Likes
Please show your math. How many differences would we expect, and why?
Here is the comparison of the coding DNA:
Query 1 ATGGGTGATGTTGAAAAAGGCAAGAAGATTTTTGTTCAGAAGTGTGCCCAGTGCCACACT 60
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||||||||
Sbjct 68 ATGGGTGATGTTGAAAAAGGCAAGAAGATTTTTGTTCAAAAGTGTGCCCAGTGCCACACT 127
Query 61 GTGGAAAAGGGAGGCAAGCATAAGACTGGACCAAATCTCCACGGTCTGTTCGGGCGGAAG 120
|||||||| |||||||||||||||||||||||||| ||||| |||||||| |||||||||
Sbjct 128 GTGGAAAAAGGAGGCAAGCATAAGACTGGACCAAACCTCCATGGTCTGTTTGGGCGGAAG 187
Query 121 ACAGGCCAGGCTGCTGGATTCTCTTACACAGATGCCAACAAGAACAAAGGCATCACCTGG 180
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| |||||||||
Sbjct 188 ACAGGCCAGGCTGCTGGATTCTCTTACACAGATGCCAACAAGAACAAAGGTATCACCTGG 247
Query 181 GGAGAGGATACCCTGATGGAGTATTTGGAGAATCCCAAAAAGTACATCCCTGGAACAAAA 240
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Sbjct 248 GGAGAGGATACCCTGATGGAGTATTTGGAAAATCCCAAAAAGTACATCCCTGGAACAAAA 307
Query 241 ATGATCTTCGCTGGAATTAAGAAGAAGGGAGAAAGGGCAGACCTAATAGCTTATCTTAAA 300
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Sbjct 308 ATGATCTTCGCTGGAATTAAGAAGAAGGGAGAAAGGGCAGACCTAATAGCTTATCTTAAA 367
Query 301 AAGGCTACTAATGAGTAA 318
|||||||||||||| |||
Sbjct 368 AAGGCTACTAATGAATAA 385
In all, there are 8 differences. Why are there 8 differences at the DNA level but no differences at the protein level? How does ID explain this?
4 Likes
Weird, that looks exactly like what youâd expect from selection against nonsynonymous substitution.
Even better, theyâre all (A<->G, C<->T) transitions, the mutations most expected to occur for chemical reasons. Weird. Itâs almost like weâre looking at evidence for common ancestry, and evidence for natural selection.
So weird.
2 Likes
Maybe. Or maybe you are in denial that the data contradicts the theory. Why would the sequence be conserved between rats and mice and not humans and mice? Why is the sequence not conserved between humans and horses? Why are humans and mice closer aligned then humans and horses?
In light of the above evidence, I submit the following: Irony meter stocks just went up.
1 Like