Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   My overall view from this boards.
derwood
Member (Idle past 1876 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 46 of 57 (17282)
09-12-2002 3:34 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by Tranquility Base
09-12-2002 2:40 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
'Kind' could be exactly identical with families. Who knows? We'll see. From our point of view we expect it to be easy to identify ultimately from genomes but it may be obscured by issues of loss vs gain.
Please go to the link that I have provided. It is an alignment of DNA sequences for primates that extends above the level of the Family.
Please tell us what the criteria are that you would use to tell at what point descent stopped - or started, I guess.
Also, please provide some evidence that God created introns.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by Tranquility Base, posted 09-12-2002 2:40 AM Tranquility Base has not replied

derwood
Member (Idle past 1876 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 47 of 57 (17283)
09-12-2002 3:36 PM


The selective responses to posts are intriguing....

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by Tranquility Base, posted 09-12-2002 9:15 PM derwood has replied

Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 48 of 57 (17302)
09-12-2002 9:07 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by Quetzal
09-12-2002 3:49 AM


Quetzal
There are creationists who have been thinking about this - see their barimin stuff. But I prefer the genomics angle and when we've got more genomes we'll have a better idea.
What gene families distinguish? To a large extent I'm saying any gene families will. But if you have two identical genomes apart from one gene family it is certainly possible that the 'new' gene is one that became a pseudo-gene in the other so that should be considered. So I would suggest studying large numbers of genomes and see if there is an abrupt jump where suddenly a whole swag of genes comes in. If this occurs across life we would identify that with kinds. The data does approximately fit this scenario already but we need more genomes to really see.
I do plan (in my own mainstream research) to get into the sorts of questions you have asked (eg cat vs dog families). But, as you know, we only have two mammalian genomes and the other genomes we have are very differnet. But I am interested in catching up on the comaprative genomics of fly vs. mosquito for example.
I agree this needs to go beyond hand waving. But at this point it is without doubt that there are core genomes, there are sub-genomes for each novelty (like the immune system) and these sub-genomes are characterizable by unique protein families. That is undeniable. I have started a new project in this area and I will report here even before I publish, OK!
EDIT: Guys, we need to respect what Moose has told us - I'm starting a 'kinds' thread. SO let's not post here anymore.
[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 09-12-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by Quetzal, posted 09-12-2002 3:49 AM Quetzal has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by Andya Primanda, posted 09-17-2002 6:32 AM Tranquility Base has replied

Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 49 of 57 (17303)
09-12-2002 9:15 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by derwood
09-12-2002 3:36 PM


SLPx
Your post requires actual work to be done! Its not just a chat subject.
For now let me say that we've talked about it before that these pseudo-genes may have unknown purposes or that the mutaitons are in some sense determinsitic due to some DNA motifs etc. For us it may even be God's implementation of the curse at the fall.
I have agreed here before that what you (and others before you) have shown is powerful evidence of common descent. How many times do I have to say it?
Kinds? I do not use these sorts of alignments to distinguish kinds. I would use summaries of presence or absence of protein families. We all know that the sequences of functional genes can easily drift through mutations and yet perform the identical function. It is not like this sort of evoltuion created a new function - it is simply drift and optimization.
It is the presence or absence of protein families that we need to use.
Introns? I have no evidence that God created introns - but they have a purpose - they partition genes for multiple splicing.
EDIT: Guys, we need to respect what Moose has told us - I'm starting a 'kinds' thread. SO let's not post here anymore.
[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 09-12-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by derwood, posted 09-12-2002 3:36 PM derwood has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by derwood, posted 09-16-2002 2:54 PM Tranquility Base has replied

Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 50 of 57 (17304)
09-12-2002 9:20 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by Minnemooseus
09-11-2002 11:59 AM


Guys, we need to respect what Moose has told us - I'm starting a 'kinds' thread. SO let's not post here anymore.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Minnemooseus, posted 09-11-2002 11:59 AM Minnemooseus has not replied

acmhttu001_2006
Inactive Member


Message 51 of 57 (17412)
09-14-2002 2:17 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Luis_H
08-20-2002 2:28 AM


Very well-thought out posts.
"But I think this theory can help us even more. If everybody believed in it, it would certainly change most people's perspective of themselves in this world. I'm sure most would come to the conclusion that I have: We belong to this world, this world does not belong to us like religion would have you belive. Maybe if most people felt like this, we wouldn't have all the environmental problems we have now. The U.S. certainly wouldn't have any problems with the middle east since religion would be irrelevant."
Okay, how could evolution change perspective? It is not designed to do that. I am not sure where you are standing in the paragraph. It is merely speculation off a theory. It is an interesting speculation no doubt. I did like it.
Yes, evolution has completely revolutionized biology. I would hate to think of what biology or modern medicine would be like without the theory of evolution. I shudder at the thought.
Keep posting.
------------------
Anne C. McGuire
Cell and Molecular, Mathematics, Piano and Vocal Performance Majors
Chemistry and Physics minors
Thanks and have a nice day

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Luis_H, posted 08-20-2002 2:28 AM Luis_H has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by Brad McFall, posted 09-17-2002 12:02 PM acmhttu001_2006 has not replied

acmhttu001_2006
Inactive Member


Message 52 of 57 (17413)
09-14-2002 2:23 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by Tranquility Base
08-26-2002 6:49 PM


Okay, do not mix the Magesterium of Science and the Magesterium of Relgion in one Magesteria.
First of all, Science does not deny nor prove the existence of a Creator. To have a creation, you have to have a Creator. Science is merely concerend with the natural world and asking questions and getting answers based off tests. Religion is based off of supernatural questions and the way to arrive at answers. You cannot mix two methods of learning into one method of learning, it does not work.
I am very open minded. And I listen to both sides in this debate, even though I think I have made it clear that I am an evolutionist. You do have great points, and I mention them. But you cannot mix Science and Religion together. I am not saying they are in conflict with eachother, but you cannot mix the methods of learning in both the different fields into one method.
And is it really common sense, to take something completly on faith even though you are questioning about it? ex. creationism [Obviously I am in the Magesterium of Religion now, for the purpose of this question.] To me that is not common sense. To me common sense is seeing evidence. And much of that scientific evidence supports evolution, it can be taken either way sometimes to the easy convience of one side.
------------------
Anne C. McGuire
Cell and Molecular, Mathematics, Piano and Vocal Performance Majors
Chemistry and Physics minors
Thanks and have a nice day

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Tranquility Base, posted 08-26-2002 6:49 PM Tranquility Base has not replied

derwood
Member (Idle past 1876 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 53 of 57 (17543)
09-16-2002 2:54 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by Tranquility Base
09-12-2002 9:15 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
SLPx
Your post requires actual work to be done! Its not just a chat subject.
Not at all.
quote:
For now let me say that we've talked about it before that these pseudo-genes may have unknown purposes or that the mutaitons are in some sense determinsitic due to some DNA motifs etc. For us it may even be God's implementation of the curse at the fall.
There are no pseudogenes at the link.
quote:
I have agreed here before that what you (and others before you) have shown is powerful evidence of common descent. How many times do I have to say it?
18 more times.
quote:
Kinds? I do not use these sorts of alignments to distinguish kinds.
Creation scientists do. But they use arbitrary 'barriers.'
quote:
I would use summaries of presence or absence of protein families. We all know that the sequences of functional genes can easily drift through mutations and yet perform the identical function. It is not like this sort of evoltuion created a new function - it is simply drift and optimization.
Often accompanied by uncanny support for common descent, as you admit...
quote:
It is the presence or absence of protein families that we need to use.
Your personal criterion.
I say that we need to use synapomorphic sequence.
quote:
Introns? I have no evidence that God created introns - but they have a purpose - they partition genes for multiple splicing.
But that is not what you said. You said flat out that God created them
I suggest that you temper such claims in the future with a disclaimer.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Tranquility Base, posted 09-12-2002 9:15 PM Tranquility Base has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by Tranquility Base, posted 09-16-2002 9:18 PM derwood has not replied

Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 54 of 57 (17556)
09-16-2002 9:18 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by derwood
09-16-2002 2:54 PM


SLPx
OK, can you explain what the precise significance of those sequences is again in your opinion (for poor old TB) - and what organisms they came from, and what they code for and . . . ?
Synapomorphic seqeunces? Sure, but let's clearly define what we are trying to achieve. Are we trying to figure out what are the key differences between significantly different taxa? Or what? What are you trying to achieve? I am trying to find out what the key differences are between taxa. To a large extent I see hemoglobin in man and rat as being almost exactly the same thing. I want to see what really new things came up.
EDIT: Hey, this should be discussed in the KINDS thread! Please answer there.
[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 09-16-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by derwood, posted 09-16-2002 2:54 PM derwood has not replied

Andya Primanda
Inactive Member


Message 55 of 57 (17576)
09-17-2002 6:32 AM
Reply to: Message 48 by Tranquility Base
09-12-2002 9:07 PM


[QUOTE]Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
[B]Quetzal
I do plan (in my own mainstream research) to get into the sorts of questions you have asked (eg cat vs dog families). But, as you know, we only have two mammalian genomes and the other genomes we have are very differnet. But I am interested in catching up on the comaprative genomics of fly vs. mosquito for example. [/quote]
TB, you interested in family-level taxonomy? I won't suggest 'fly' though, they're composed of 10+ families? Why not try termites vs cockroaches? Termites are considered evolutionary descendants from cockroaches, and there are two links supporting this: Cryptocercus the wood-feeding social roach & the primitive termite Mastotermes darwiniensis (an Australian native--maybe you had seen one?). This we can test--if you're willing to do the sequencing of course.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Tranquility Base, posted 09-12-2002 9:07 PM Tranquility Base has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by Tranquility Base, posted 09-17-2002 10:26 PM Andya Primanda has not replied

Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5033 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 56 of 57 (17605)
09-17-2002 12:02 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by acmhttu001_2006
09-14-2002 2:17 AM


There is a thread deriavable from some sum of my posts that shows that medicine may be better off if the *cash value$ of evo lutioanry thought were not the theory that is currently being taught but then biology would be improved in such a symptom that even the phenomena would not be plural but common to and once and for all.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by acmhttu001_2006, posted 09-14-2002 2:17 AM acmhttu001_2006 has not replied

Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 57 of 57 (17637)
09-17-2002 10:26 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by Andya Primanda
09-17-2002 6:32 AM


YEs I am interested genomically comparing differnt families. But I will await the genomes so you will have to submit your suggestion to the genome prioritising authorties.
I just found out that I was mistaken - the mosquito genome is not in draft mode yet. That explains why I can't fin the coparative genomics paper! I think it will be out soon. Are fly/mosquito sibling families (ie in same order but different families)?
[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 09-17-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by Andya Primanda, posted 09-17-2002 6:32 AM Andya Primanda has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024