|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Willowtree's Scientific Evidence against Evolution | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
wj Inactive Member |
In Willowtree's thread Some Evidence against Evolution, Willowtree has offered precious little scientific evidence so far (after the thread has run over more than 300 posts).
Let's ignore the "scientism" and other religious / philosophical arguments and the quote mining. Let's actually discuss the scientific evidence which Willowtree offers refuting evolution without having it lost in the rest of the material in the original thread. I believe that Willowtree has only offered Milton's assertion that certain placental and marsupials species have at least superficial smilarities. Coragyps has effectively refuted this assertion by referencing this link . BTW, I find it amusing that the thylacine is cited as the equivalent of the placental wold when it is commonly referred to as the Tasmanian tiger. This is indicative of the superficiality of resemblences between marsupials and a vaguely reminiscent placental mammal. To date, willowtree does not appear to have rebutted the evidence contradicting his position. I would also like to offer a test of the alternatives of evolution and Miltonism (for want of a better term). Make a comparison of the genomes of kangaroo, Tasmanian tiger and placental wolf. Evolution would predict that the Tasmanian tiger would be genetically more similar to the kangaroo than the placental wolf because marsupials diverged from placental mammals tens of millions of years ago but the common ancestor of the kangaroo and thylacine would be a marsupial and much more recent. Milton would predict that the Tasmanian tiger would genetically more similar to the placental wolf than the kangaroo because of the shared "wolf-like" mutations. Is this a fair test of your understanding of evolution and Miltonism, willowtree? O2U.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Mammuthus Member (Idle past 6506 days) Posts: 3085 From: Munich, Germany Joined: |
If I may add to this wj, here is what is currently understood regarding thylacine genetics,
Nature. 1989 Aug 10;340(6233):465-7. Related Articles, Links DNA phylogeny of the extinct marsupial wolf. Thomas RH, Schaffner W, Wilson AC, Paabo S. Department of Biochemistry, University of California, Berkeley 94720. The phylogenetic affiliation of the extinct marsupial wolf (Thylacinus cynocephalus), which once was widespread in Australia, has been uncertain. On the basis of morphology, some systematists argue that the thylacine was most closely related to an extinct group of South American carnivorous marsupials, the borhyaenids, whereas others consider it to be closer to Australian carnivorous marsupials. Here we use direct sequencing by means of the polymerase chain reaction (PCR) to compare 219 bases of mitochondrial (mt) DNA from museum specimens of the marsupial wolf and representatives of six genera of extant marsupials. In agreement with the results of an antigenic study of albumin, our genetic data suggest that the marsupial wolf was more closely related to other Australian marsupial carnivores than to those of South America. Thus, the marsupial wolf represents an example of convergent morphological evolution to South American carnivorous marsupials as well as to true wolves. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 1992 Oct 22;250(1327):19-27. Related Articles, Links Phylogenetic relationships of the thylacine (Mammalia: Thylacinidae) among dasyuroid marsupials: evidence from cytochrome b DNA sequences. Krajewski C, Driskell AC, Baverstock PR, Braun MJ. Department of Zoology, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale. DNA sequences from the mitochondrial cytochrome b gene were obtained from a museum specimen of the presumed extinct thylacine (Thylacinus cynocephalus) and were compared with homologous sequences from 13 representatives of the Australian marsupial family Dasyuridae. The relationship of the thylacine to dasyurids has been suggested by previous anatomical and molecular studies, but its position within the dasyuroid radiation has not been addressed with genetic data. Phylogenetic analysis of the sequences reported here suggests that the thylacine is a sister group to Dasyuridae and lends support to the hypothesis that Thylacinus represents an ancient Australian marsupial lineage. Relationships with Dasyuridae support the results of other recent molecular studies, particularly in showing the affinities of endemic New Guinean subfamilies with larger Australian clades. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 1997 Jun 22;264(1383):911-7. Related Articles, Links DNA phylogeny of the marsupial wolf resolved. Krajewski C, Buckley L, Westerman M. Department of Zoology, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale 62901-6501, USA. The phylogenetic position of the recently extinct marsupial 'wolf', or thylacine (Thylacinus cynocephalus), has been a source of contention in mammalian systematics for nearly a century. Thylacines were endemic to Australasia, but possessed striking anatomical similarities to Oligo-Miocene borhyaenid marsupials of South America. At issue has been whether these features are indicative of common ancestry or convergent adaptation to carnivory. Recent morphological studies have supported both conclusions. Although current marsupial classifications group thylacines with Australian dasyuromorphians, this putative clade is characterized by mostly primitive morphological features. Attempts to determine thylacine affinities with ancient protein and DNA analyses have supported, but not resolved, a dasyuromorphian placement. We report 1546 bp of mitochondrial DNA sequence (from cytochrome b and 12S rRNA genes) and 841 bp of nuclear protamine gene sequence from the thylacine and representatives of all or most other marsupial orders. Phylogenetic analysis of these sequences shows unambiguously that thylacines are members of Dasyuromorphia, and suggests a late Oligocene or very early Miocene divergence of familial lineages.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
wj Inactive Member |
My large, hairy friend, thanks for the info. However, perhaps unsurprisingly, no conventional scientist appears to have done a comparison of the thylacine and Canis lupus. So willowtree is able to make a prediction using Miltonism without knowing the outcome.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 9004 From: Canada Joined: |
I didn't think that this would be avialable when I suggested that it would be good to check. The eventual comparison will be "interesting" in the context of this thread.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Darwin's Terrier Inactive Member |
However, perhaps unsurprisingly, no conventional scientist appears to have done a comparison of the thylacine and Canis lupus.
No surprise at all, really. Why would anyone bother? The bloody thing had a pouch, like other marsupials, and unlike wolves! It was, by definition, a marsupial, not a placental like true wolves are. Makes you wonder what the designer was up to. I mean, if pouches are so great on a wolf-shaped thing, why did the creator not give them to true wolves? To use a less-good design when a better one is available is not, by any definition, good design. Conversely, if pouches are less good (as I suggest here), why did that design get used in thylacines, when he knew of and used the better one in wolves? And if they are equally good designs, why bother making wolves (or thylacines) at all? Why not simply have wolves (or thylacines)? "God moves in mysterious ways, his creations' minds to darken." DT [This message has been edited by Darwinsterrier, 12-17-2003]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
My guess is that there is more to the Tasmanian Wolf than just a pouch. I bet careful morphological examination has been done (after all, taxonomists would have wanted to classify it long ago), and that the morphological characteristics clearly show that it is much more closely related to marsupials than to placentals. In other words, I suspect that the thylacine resembles wolves as much as *ahem* bats resemble birds, or whales resemble fish.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
wj Inactive Member |
Surely they resemble eachother if Milton says so, eh willowtree?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
John Paul Inactive Member |
Who are you to say what Milton (an evolutionist) would predict? Milton was discussing convergent evolution, that's it. Milton just questions the belief that random mutations could lead to such similarities in geologically isolated organisms- all from one alleged common ancestor, some alleged shrew-like organism.
On page 193 of Milton's book "Shattering the Myths of Darwinism" he has the two skulls side by each. As in the above link they look very similar. If that is all you had to go by good luck figuring out which is which. [This message has been edited by John Paul, 12-17-2003]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 9004 From: Canada Joined: |
On page 193 of Milton's book "Shattering the Myths of Darwinism" he has the two skulls side by each. As in the above link they look very similar. If that is all you had to go by good luck figuring out which is which. Nobody has, that I've noticed, argued that they don't look 'very similar'. This is yet another case of what we have pointed out is called "convergent evolution". However, that is NOT what the quote supplied says:
quote: It is this "almost perfect duplication" that has been shown to be false. The second part of the claim is how unlikely mutations being duplicated is. I agree. However, while it hasn't yet been shown, we predict that the genomes of these so-called "virtually identical" creatures will NOT have the same mutations or even be very similar. We predict that the "wolf" will be closer to a kangaroo than to a timber wolf. I don't have to tell "which is which". What I can do is sort such skulls into two piles, one wolf, one thyacine. They are not so "identical" that even I, very much NOT an expert (a "experienced professional zoologist ") can see the differences. So there are two points being made by the quotes from Milton. One shown to be false. The other which you and WT have continued to ignore. I know that you know the genomes will make a fool out of Milton. [This message has been edited by NosyNed, 12-17-2003]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Cold Foreign Object  Suspended Member (Idle past 3078 days) Posts: 3417 Joined: |
What makes you think that I can be insulted and blackmailed into participating in this new topic ?
The mere placement of my handle in the title is unethical. It is also a disrespectful way of trying to bait me. You must change the topic title. You must do this because if I were to participate it would lend validity to the reasons you gave for creating this new topic. Any honest observer of the previous debate knows the majority of the room was unable (for whatever reason) to argue the philosophical and ideological evidence, this deficiency became a pretext for ignorance denial. Page after page we could not get to first base because nobody would acknowledge the truth that the atheist world view is automatically included in the scientific evidence embraced by neo-Darwinism. Unless this admission is at least assumed I will not debate because the evidence is offered as proof that there is no Creator/Intelligent Designer. This is not a matter of opinion. NOBODY can separate their starting assumptions/bias from the evidence. Besides, the originator of this new topic really doesn't want to debate, because they are still seething about being called out for arbitrarily branding a man with a Ph.D. to be doing what a common drunk does with his wino buddies. Why would I waste my time giving ear to a person like this. If you want to debate then ask me with basic common courtesy.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
John Paul Inactive Member |
The genomes will make a fool out of Milton? Did you read his book? Some how I doubt it. It actually depends on which wolf you are talking about- Milton mentions the european timber wolf. Sure there are differences, very slght, but that isn't the point. Until you read the book you will miss that point.
The duplication is closer than you think. Perhaps chimps & humans are also the result of convergent evolution?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Drahzar Inactive Member |
quote: Maybe they wouldn't acknowledge your "truth" because it's not true? neo-Darwinism says nothing about the origins of life, if you think it does, please show me where.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1498 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Perhaps chimps & humans are also the result of convergent evolution? Why would we converge on the same broken Vitamin-C pseudogene?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 9004 From: Canada Joined: |
The duplication is closer than you think. It is NOT as close as Milton said it is. I can tell the difference.
Perhaps chimps & humans are also the result of convergent evolution? Thank you, thank you, JP. This is exactly the right thing to compare with the wolf thyacine case. Thank you. The wolf and marsupial "wolf" look simlar, NOT identical, due to convergence. If that is true then the genetics will be different. As I said, my prediction is that the thyacine will be closer to a kangaroo than it is to a timber wolf. You have conspicuously avoided commenting on that. If H. Sapians and a chimp are similar as a result of convergent evolution what would be expected for their genomes? They would not be all that similar since, as Milton correctly noted, it is hard to see how independently two different genomes could under go the same mutations. Well, they are very, very similar. Therefore, while convergence is still possible it becomes the less likely reason for the similarities. Again, stop ducking this why don't you, what will the result of a comparison of the marsupial wolf and real wolf genomes be? As for reading his book. So far I'm going on the quotes that your side supplied as supposedly telling evidence for your position. Is there something else you'd like to quote from it that is better? Certainly what you have so far is shot to pieces. The differences maybe in your words "slight", I disagree, they are obvious. They are certainly not "slight" enough to require an expert zoologist to separate the two. The skulls shown are certainly not "virtually identical". However, I suspect that you will never agree to that. I don't have the kind of analytical information that actually can quantify the degree of similarity so we may have to leave that as a matter of opinion. So, let's get back to the genome shall we? I don't know how the two will compare. I don't know if it has been done. Are you willing to stick your neck out and make a prediction?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
wj Inactive Member |
willowtree, the local description for you would be a gutless wonder. I note that you have been very free with your insults on the previous thread but then bleat about "blackmail" and "insult" when you are challenged to confine your discussion to the scientific evidence which supposedly disproves the theory of evolution.
It is becoming obvious that you have nothing to offer as "evidence" except your own distorted views about science, evolution, atheism and philosopy. No, no courtesy. Just put up or shut up.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024