|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: My overall view from this boards. | |||||||||||||||||||
derwood Member (Idle past 1876 days) Posts: 1457 Joined: |
quote: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
derwood Member (Idle past 1876 days) Posts: 1457 Joined: |
The selective responses to posts are intriguing....
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Tranquility Base Inactive Member |
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]
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Tranquility Base Inactive Member |
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]
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Tranquility Base Inactive Member |
Guys, we need to respect what Moose has told us - I'm starting a 'kinds' thread. SO let's not post here anymore.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
acmhttu001_2006 Inactive Member |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||
acmhttu001_2006 Inactive Member |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||
derwood Member (Idle past 1876 days) Posts: 1457 Joined: |
quote: Not at all. quote: There are no pseudogenes at the link. quote: 18 more times.quote: Creation scientists do. But they use arbitrary 'barriers.'quote: Often accompanied by uncanny support for common descent, as you admit...quote: Your personal criterion. I say that we need to use synapomorphic sequence.quote: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Tranquility Base Inactive Member |
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]
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Andya Primanda Inactive Member |
[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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Brad McFall Member (Idle past 5033 days) Posts: 3428 From: Ithaca,NY, USA Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Tranquility Base Inactive Member |
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]
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024