I don’t understand your point. A gene contradicts the tree if the gene tree is different from the species tree. It doesn’t have to be very different, just different. A gene that supports the tree ((gorilla, chimp), human) contradicts the species tree (gorilla, (chimp, human)). Even if it supports every other node in the accepted tree of life.
I understand that. But in the context of scd’s bad analogy, my point is that there aren’t any genes scd can name that would put gorillas in with, say, amphibians.
1 Like
About 30% of the human genome is more closely related to gorillas than to chimps. Of course, this is an expected outcome of evolution due to incomplete lineage sorting. In fact, we can predict that ILS will have less of an effect as we move down the tree, and this is what we see. If memory serves, about 5% of the human genome is more closely related to orangutans than to chimps, down from 30% for the gorilla genome.
What we don’t see is extreme departures from the expected tree. For example, we don’t see exact copies of jellyfish genes in the human genome, and absence of these genes in other primates. However, this is exactly what we see in GFP mice that have been designed by humans.
3 Likes
Even if design is compatible with a tree and phylogenetic signal it doesnt mean that phylogenetic signal isn’t evidence for common ancestry. Common ancestry predicts such signal. Design does not! God could create everything completely different if he wanted to. A phylogenetic signal is more probable on common ancestry than design and therefore is evidence favoring CA over Design. Compatible with != not evidence against. It’s as simple as that.
Edit: before the nitpickers get onto me for terminology, by design I mean no common ancestry
2 Likes
Is that true? I thought the 30% in question was split between ((gorilla, chimp), human) and ((gorilla, human),chimp).
I think you are right.
The numbers for the orangutan genome are lower than I remembered:
The second paper is interesting in that it makes predictions of how much of the genome should be affected by ILS.
3 Likes
not realy. if they were made by the same designer we actually should expect some similarity. as we see in human designed objects like vehicles. so this not true.
if so how we can falsify evolution? for instance: many says that if we will find a mammal with feathers evolution will be false. do you agree with them or disagree?
there are actually cases of convergent evolution at the molecular level. so this isnt always true.
but again: we find it in nature too.
of curse. but we both agree that this is an exception and not the rule. right?
so if we will find such a case evolution will be wrong?
But we shouldn’t expect any lesser similarity with lobsters than with humans for that reason, should we? After all, gorillas and lobsters were all made by the same designer. Also, “relationship” is not a synonym of “similarity”; phylogenetics isn’t just a count of similarity.
“Falsify” is a naive, Popperian term that doesn’t describe how science actually works. You need to think in a statistical framework, whether frequentist or Bayesian. As I said, one data point doesn’t overrule all the rest.
Well, of course we’re not going to find any such thing. But I disagree with them. That’s one data point again, and it doesn’t overrule the mass of other data.
actually we should. why? because gorila and human morphology have more in common then with say a lobster. so we should find (in most cases) that their genome will be more similar too.
but you actually conclude that these species related because of their similarity. right?
so if we will see a fish evolving into a dog in front of our eyes you will say that too and evolution will be just fine even in such a case?
But not twin nested hierarchies. That’s the relationship, not fuzzy “some similarity.”
No, it’s a rule, while with living things, it would be the exception.
That doesn’t follow. Only those parts of the genome that influence the particular morphological similarities should be similar by that reasoning. Yet all of the genome is more similar, including the bits that function identically in gorilla and lobster, and even the bits that have no functions at all.
That’s a common misconception. No, it’s not similarity. It’s nested hierarchy, i.e. the fit of the data to a particular tree. The two most similar species are not necessarily the two closest relatives.
Sounds like a hallucination to me. What are you on?
why not? since their morphology is similar i see no problem to conclude that their genes can be similar too. for instance: do you agree that its logical to conclude that the genes for human hands will be more similar to the gorila one instead of a mouse one?
as i said above: do you have a specific example?
you said that a scientific theory like evolution cant be falsify by a single counter evidence. right? so by this criteria even if we will see a fish becoming a dog evolution will be just fine.
We’re talking about both parts and vehicles.
Why aren’t you including the parts? Because you know that your analogy is false?
Your photo omits the engine and smaller parts that could be, and often are, identical.
In the case of Audi, it shares a parent company with Scania AB trucks, so I’m very confident that there are many identical parts. That’s not analogous to biology at all.
For the reasons I pointed out and you ignored.
Of what? If you’re talking about similarity not equalling relationship, there’s a simple example in Harshman J., Braun E.L., Braun M.J., Huddleston C.J., Bowie R.C.K., Chojnowski J.L., Hackett S.J., Han K.-L., Kimball R.T., Marks B.D., Miglia K.J., Moore W.S., Reddy S., Sheldon F.H., Steadman D.W., Steppan S.J., Witt C.C., Yuri T. Phylogenomic evidence for multiple losses of flight in ratite birds. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 2008; 105:13462-13467.
It you examine you will note that ostriches are more similar to rheas, emus, etc. than tinamous, and yet tinamous are more closely related to rheas, emus, etc. than ostriches.
Sure, because that would be magic, and clearly unlike now dogs usually happen. One bizarre magic situation doesn’t change all our prior knowledge of puppies, parents, and such. And hey, wouldn’t that transformation be even worse for creationism?
1 Like
again: i refer to the majority and not to the minority. and the majority of parts among cars are more similar to each other then to a truck. otherwise they were called truck in a car shape.
i actually refer to the nested hierarchy that you said we only find it in living thing but not in designed objects.
so if you will see a fish becoming a cat in a single generation it will not be a problem for evolution? is o nothing will be a problem for evolution.
true. so we can falsify creationism but not evolution?
No problem. My reference works for that too.
Why would that be a problem?
You’re hung up on falsification, which is not a valid view of science. Creationism doesn’t fit the data; evolution does. One bizarre magic trick doesn’t effect either of them.