Real Science Friday: What technologies needed Darwin or an old earth?

[Stripe]

So neither of us know what you're talking about, then.

I didn't think you'd want to understand. :wave2:

 

[Alate_One]

Did evolution predict this? Do you have a citation for this prediction?

It's implicit in the idea of a tree of common descent. Darwin himself, didn't actually know how genetics works.

What if there were two separate genetic codes? Wouldn’t evolution accommodate this by invoking convergence?

Not necessarily. If you had two very different genetic codes you'd probably be looking at a a two trunked tree rather than a single one. Now, there are organisms (bacteria and mitochondria) with slightly altered genetic codes that appear to be derived from the "universal" one.

The problem with evolution is that it set up to “predict” everything.

No actually it isn't. I guess you didn't watch the video I linked to Bob in one of my posts. There's a lot of things that could disprove evolution, it's just none of them are actually true. If each organism (or small group) had it's own unique genes, that would be devastating to common descent. Or if all of the important and common genes were identical, that too would be devastating for common descent and would point to a single recent origin for all organisms.

Would two genetic codes support, or confuse, the notion of a single designer?

Science cannot actually deal with supernatural ideas, but having each animal or group of animals with it's own genetic code with no obvious relationship would be devastating to common descent.

Did evolution “predict” life would only be carbon-based?

We don't actually know that ALL life is carbon based, but most chemists seem to think that is likely the case.

I agree that magic is fun! Like every claim I have ever seen for evolution, ultimately there is an illusion behind it.

It isn't magic, friend. It's relatively simple comparisons. Would you like to try it yourself?

“Even at smaller evolutionary intervals, many individual genes show tree topologies in fundamental disagreement with the organismal phylogeny." [emphasis added] Genome Evolution at the Genus Level: Comparison of Three Complete Genomes of Hyperthermophilic Archaea - Genome Res. 2001. 11: 981-993

From a paper on Archaea, which are prokaryotic organisms easily capable of horizontal gene transfer. Your point being exactly what? Are you trying to apply this to ALL organsims? :rotfl:

1) These “trees” only show sporadic nodal relationships, most of which fall within the family taxa and therefore offer nothing to separate “evolution” from created kinds. The trunk and major interconnecting branches are all missing.

Where did this tree you posted come from? Your URL links to the "animecritic" domain. It certainly didn't come from the paper you just cited since you have all sorts of animals, none of which are Archaea.

Your other images come from "evolutionfairyrtale.com" which I'm sure is a source of excellent scientific information, not. I may as well use the back of my cereal box.

Your assertions don't have any basis that I can detect, telling me someone you knew on some forum did some test with some data you said was accurate isn't what I would call definitive of anything.

If you'd like to actually do a tree for yourself, here's a simple one.Just count up the differences between each pair and record the data in a table. Observe how each creature clusters with the others.

 

[voltaire]

CytC Phylogenetic trees are supposed to show the relatedness between various taxa. It is not always accurate since it shows kangaroos to be more related to humans than horses are. Evos have explanations for these anomalies, but how can you say darwimism predicts these anomalies with a straight face? It would also seem that for cytC to be a true indicator of relatedness, the cytC gene of a yeast should be able to be placed in the genome of a chimp without any change of function. Has something like that been tried?

 

[voltaire]

Alateone. You said that a single genetic system for all animals is directly implied by the common descent tree of life. Do you realize it is also directly implied by the idea of a single design engineer? You admitted that a 2 trunk tree of life is accomodated by darwinism. If 2, why not ten? And if ten were possible, how can you posSibly say that evolution predicts a single genetic system?

 

[The Barbarian]

CytC Phylogenetic trees are supposed to show the relatedness between various taxa. It is not always accurate since it shows kangaroos to be more related to humans than horses are. Evos have explanations for these anomalies,

So does anyone else who is not completely mathematically illiterate.

but how can you say darwimism predicts these anomalies with a straight face?

Statistics does. Remember, these are random changes, which do indicate common descent, but a lucky mutation (or an unlucky one) can sometimes throw a wrench in the works. Odds are against it at family level. But it can happen, as it did this time.

But remember, it's based on the changes in less than a hundred amino acids. On the other hand, globins with much larger molecules, provide more accurate results. And with that larger sample, we can accurately separate placentals, marsupials and monotremes among mammals.

It would also seem that for cytC to be a true indicator of relatedness, the cytC gene of a yeast should be able to be placed in the genome of a chimp without any change of function. Has something like that been tried?

Far as I know, they all work the same. That's why we have conserved regions that never change. The Krebs cycle is critical to all living things, and it works the same way in all of them. Doesn't have to; there are conceivable alternative ways, but it's such a basic element in living things that it is apparently impossible to tear out and start over.

For details on globin phylogenies, see Francisco Ayala's Molecular Evolution p. 141-159.

 

[The Barbarian]

Alateone. You said that a single genetic system for all animals is directly implied by the common descent tree of life. Do you realize it is also directly implied by the idea of a single design engineer?

The problem is the issue of broken genes. Why would a "designer" deliberately build in a broken gene in primates, broken in precisely the same way?

Either incompetent or deceptive. So that argument isn't going to go very well for a Christian.

You admitted that a 2 trunk tree of life is accomodated by darwinism. If 2, why not ten? And if ten were possible, how can you posSibly say that evolution predicts a single genetic system?

Even a creationist like Linnaeus showed that. If there were more than one trunk then you wouldn't see a nested hierarchy of all living things. You'd see a number of nested hierarchies that could not be fitted together.

But that's not what we see.