YesYouNeedJesus
New Member
This thread is to discuss the discussion between AronRa and Bob Enyart on Phylogeny. Feel free to start discussing now! I'm looking forward to it.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
YesYouNeedJesus said:This thread is to discuss the discussion between AronRa and Bob Enyart on Phylogeny. Feel free to start discussing now! I'm looking forward to it.
[url=http://www.leagueofreason.co.uk/viewtopic.php?p=130838#p130838 said:AronRa[/url]"]I haven't found any journals which linked the two unrelated studies you've somehow gotten confused here.The Y-Chromosome of chimpanzees is far away from human beings, from men, as the sponge genome is from human beings. Right? In the great barrier reef, they've now sequenced the lowly sponge, and and the headlines in the science journals are that the sponge has 70% similarity with the human genome.
First we'll deal with the genome of the sponge.
On your show, you said "sponges were 70% human"; not 'similar to human', not 'sharing the same type genes as humans', you said they were 70% human. That's not right. We can't even say their genes are human. That would imply that 70% of the genes found in sponges are otherwise unique to our species, when really those genes are common to all animals, including us.
"The new study shows that, while the sponge genome contains most of the gene families found in humans, the number of genes in each family has changed significantly over the past 600 million years. By analyzing which gene families were enriched or depleted in different groups of animals, the authors identified groups of gene functions that are associated with morphological complexity."
ScienceDaily
"This incredibly old ancestor possessed the same core building blocks for multicellular form and function that still sits at the heart of all living animals, including humans. It now appears that the evolution of these genes not only allowed the first animals to colonize the ancient oceans, but underpinned the evolution of the full biodiversity of animals we see today."
-Bernie Degnan, a professor of biology at the University of Queensland, Australia
"According to Degnan, essentially all the genomic innovations that we deem necessary for intricate modern animal life have their origins much further back in time that anyone anticipated, predating the Cambrian explosion by tens if not hundreds of millions of years."
-ScienceDaily
As I said on your show, I was fascinated by the 'Shape of Life' project which further confirmed evolution by finding a common orthologue of all animalia within the genome of Porifera, sponges, the oldest animals on earth. Essentially they are the template that all other animals are made from, so of course a substantial number of their genes would be common among all other animals too. As we are uneshewably animals also, we should expect to share at least basic genetics with them. The same goes Trychoplax placozoans, a karyotype of the earliest and most primitive of all animals, possibly even basal to sponges. Not surprisingly, they share 80% of their genes with us too.
"Trichoplax shares over 80 percent of its genes with humans. We are exited to find that Trichoplax contains shared pathways and defined regulatory sequences that link these most primitive ancestors to higher animal species. The Trichoplax genome will serve as a type of "Rosetta Stone" for understanding the origins of animal-specific pathways."
-Stephen Dellaporta, professor of molecular, cellular and developmental biology at Yale.
"Even though sponges don't have specialized cell types like neurons or muscles, they do have many of the genes that operate in those cell types in humans or fruit flies, though the function of these genes in sponges is still unclear."
-Dr.Mansi Srivastava, Whitehead Institute for Biomedical Research.
"Nearly identical copies of these genes are present in humans and are responsible for determining the structure of major body parts."
-HudsonAlpha Institute for Biotechnology
"That was when the surprise hit, "We found a lot of genes to make a nervous system present in the sponge. We found this mysterious unknown structure in the sponge, and it is clear that evolution was able to take this entire structure, and, with small modifications, direct its use toward a new function. Evolution can take these 'off the shelf' components and put them together in new and interesting ways."
-Prof. Kenneth Kosik M.D., co-director of UCSB's Neuroscience Research Institute
"The authors also identified in the sponge many of the same genes that characterize all other animals: genes involved not only in cell division and growth, but also in programmed cell death; the adhesion of cells to other tissue and to one another, signaling pathways during development, recognition of self and non-self; and genes leading to the formation of different cell types.
Significantly, many of the genes that sponges share with humans may play a role in the development of cancer."
NaturalNews
"Once there is a transition from single cell to multicellular organisms, conflict is set up between the different cells of the multicellular organism. It is in an individual cell's best interest to keep replicating, and this actually is what cancer is -- the uncontrolled replication of cells in the body. So in the history of animals, we can see this link with cancer, because the genes that are involved in the transition to multiple cells during evolution are also known to be linked to cancer."
-Todd Oakley, Prof. Ecology, Evolution, and Marine Biology, U.C. Santa Barbara
Humans and other vertebrates have since developed their own genes not found in invertebrates. So of course sponges have a different number of genes, and they won't operate the same way as they've been adapted to do in higher animals.
You should understand that sharing 70% of a gene set does not mean the same thing as having a 70% identical codon sequence, the way our genome matches that of chimpanzees and other higher animals.The chimpanzee genome is 30% different in the Y chromosome, "¦'horrendously different from the human Y-chromosome. "¦We are 30% different from supposedly our closest living relatives."
"Genes only make up about 3% of our genome. Yes, you read that correctly. The rest of our genome is called non-coding or junk DNA. Despite the fact that there is so much junk, we still share 95-98% of our DNA with a chimp. And 80% with a mouse. This means that we share lots of genes and a ton of junk DNA." "
-geneticist, Carrie Metzinger B.Sc., Bergmann Lab, Stamford University
"Humans and mice (also rats) share several hundred absolutely identical stretches of DNA extending for 200-800 base pairs."
-Dr. John W. Kimball, professor of immunology, Harvard University
"Preliminary sequence comparisons indicate that chimp DNA is 98.7% identical with human DNA. If just the gene sequences encoding proteins are considered, the similarity increases to 99.2%."
-Dr. George B. Johnson, Biology Professor at Washington U. St. Louis, Missouri
So the first mistake you made here was assuming that a 70% similar gene set in sponges equates to a 70% identical codon sequence. Your second mistake was thinking that a 30% difference in the Y-chromosome somehow equates to a 30% difference in the entire genome. You simply deducted your 30% from 100 to conclude that chimpanzees were 70% similar to humans just like you thought sponges were. Wow.
Did you think that men were made entirely of nothing but Y-chromosomes? And that women were made entirely of X-chromosomes? You do understand that men have both of these, right?
Dr. Francis Collins, -director of the human genome project- obviously doesn't know as much about genetics as a creationist talk radio host citing Wikipedia, because Collins said that humans and chimps share 98.4% of their DNA. His international research consortium showed that directly comparable sequence between the two complete genomes is almost 99 percent identical, and that when DNA insertions and deletions are taken into account, humans and chimps still share 96% of their sequence. The first comprehensive comparison of the genetic blueprints of humans and chimpanzees shows our closest living relatives share perfect identity with 96% of our DNA sequence.
Even if we forget all about orthologous genomic sequencing for the moment. Given that there is a wide range of human-chimpanzee nucleotide divergence across the autosomal genome, and very low divergence in the X chromosome, if we say that the X-chromosome matches Collin's estimate, and the Y-chromosome is as you misunderstand it, then given that they count as an inseparable pair, you would not have only a 70% similarity; you would have (98.4 + 70) / 2 = 84.2%.
Of course you're forgetting that the sex-determining chromosomes account for only one pair out of 23, and that your divergent Y-chromosome is now outnumbered 45:1. That already more than accounts for the 'horrendous difference' you want people to think there is, but it gets even worse, because the Y-chromosome is disappearing. It is generally diminished in all mammals, not just humans and chimps. It has been reduced to 1/6 the size of its counterpart and has only 1/12 the number of genes. How much do you think your Y-chromosomal variance matters now?
Did you really not know any of this, -I mean none of it- before you broadcast these embarrassing blunders to thousands of listeners? How often do you do these shows?
Is it not a little unwary of you to wander onto a forum dedicated to reason, make such a bold and outrageous claim, and then ask not to be asked to defend this claim??? You start by saying "the issue of phylogeny will actually be the 'end' of evolution" (what does "the end" mean exactly?) and then go on to gloss over complex areas of research such as phylogenetics. You do not seem to understand what is meant by the term "phylogeny", especially when considering the egregious inexactitude of claiming that phylogeny will inevitably (to paraphrase) "refute evolution".YesYouNeedJesus said:["¦] My own personal view is that the issue of phylogeny will actually be the end of evolution. I think as we learn more about genetics, we will see that everything we thought was related, is actually not. Don't ask me to defend this, I can't! Just a wild prediction ["¦]
YesYouNeedJesus said:And this is one area I know nothing about.
YesYouNeedJesus said:My own personal view is that the issue of phylogeny will actually be the end of evolution.
YesYouNeedJesus said:And this is one area I know nothing about.
YesYouNeedJesus said:Don't ask me to defend this, I can't! Just a wild prediction...
YesYouNeedJesus said:I would love to take a shot at this, but it's way over my head! I know a bit about science, but it's not my specialty. And this is one area I know nothing about. I'm mostly excited about the debate so I can learn more.
[...]
Don't ask me to defend this, I can't! Just a wild prediction...
No, I don't think so. I think it's rather humble of me. I'm not saying I can't be challenged. I'm saying I'm an idiot. BIG difference.Dean said:Is it not a little unwary of you to wander onto a forum dedicated to reason, make such a bold and outrageous claim, and then ask not to be asked to defend this claim???
Maybe I don't understand the meaning of the word. When I said "end," I meant like spontaneous generation, which was believed by every single scientist for over 2,000 years.Dean said:You start by saying "the issue of phylogeny will actually be the 'end' of evolution" (what does "the end" mean exactly?) and then go on to gloss over complex areas of research such as phylogenetics. You do not seem to understand what is meant by the term "phylogeny", especially when considering the egregious inexactitude of claiming that phylogeny will inevitably (to paraphrase) "refute evolution".
I've only started studying science about 6 months ago. So it's safe to say that I don't know anything about anything about science! I'm sure everyone will cry foul, but I've been reading YEC and ID books like crazy. I'm eating them up faster than you can imagine. I now love science more than anything. My favorite topic is as of late is actually logic and reason. (Which happens to be something that I don't think atheists or evolutionists can account for.)Inferno said:After the above two comments as well as the Where does the number 4.5 billion come from? Thread, I must ask: What field of science ARE you knowledgeable about? You stated yourself that you don't know much, if anything, about phylogeny and by extension evolution and you apparently don't know anything about geology, astronomy, physics, chemistry, etc. either. (All related to figuring out the age of the earth, so I have to assume you don't know anything about that.)
So again: What do you know something about and what do you feel comfortable talking about, meaning what are you capable of talking about that would prove Creationism? Also, I'd much recommend the Evolution By Natural Selection Thread that Dan suggested, it's a great place to ask questions related to that subject.
YesYouNeedJesus said:I've only started studying science about 6 months ago. So it's safe to say that I don't know anything about anything about science! I'm sure everyone will cry foul, but I've been reading YEC and ID books like crazy. I'm eating them up faster than you can imagine. I now love science more than anything. My favorite topic is as of late is actually logic and reason. (Which happens to be something that I don't think atheists or evolutionists can account for.)
YesYouNeedJesus said:Maybe I don't understand the meaning of the word. When I said "end," I meant like spontaneous generation, which was believed by every single scientist for over 2,000 years.
YesYouNeedJesus said:I've only started studying science about 6 months ago. So it's safe to say that I don't know anything about anything about science!
YesYouNeedJesus said:I'm sure everyone will cry foul, but I've been reading YEC and ID books like crazy. I'm eating them up faster than you can imagine.
YesYouNeedJesus said:My favorite topic is as of late is actually logic and reason. (Which happens to be something that I don't think atheists or evolutionists can account for.)
YesYouNeedJesus said:Maybe I don't understand the meaning of the word. When I said "end," I meant like spontaneous generation, which was believed by every single scientist for over 2,000 years.Dean said:You start by saying "the issue of phylogeny will actually be the 'end' of evolution" (what does "the end" mean exactly?) and then go on to gloss over complex areas of research such as phylogenetics. You do not seem to understand what is meant by the term "phylogeny", especially when considering the egregious inexactitude of claiming that phylogeny will inevitably (to paraphrase) "refute evolution".
YesYouNeedJesus said:I'm sure everyone will cry foul, but I've been reading YEC and ID books like crazy. I'm eating them up faster than you can imagine.
Then you obviously haven't read the thread that your man is now trying to avoid.YesYouNeedJesus said:My own personal view is that the issue of phylogeny will actually be the end of evolution. I think as we learn more about genetics, we will see that everything we thought was related, is actually not.
Then everything you know is wrong, because you've been lied to your whole life.YesYouNeedJesus said:I've only started studying science about 6 months ago. So it's safe to say that I don't know anything about anything about science! I'm sure everyone will cry foul, but I've been reading YEC and ID books like crazy. I'm eating them up faster than you can imagine.
AronRa said:Then everything you know is wrong, because you've been lied to your whole life.YesYouNeedJesus said:I've only started studying science about 6 months ago. So it's safe to say that I don't know anything about anything about science! I'm sure everyone will cry foul, but I've been reading YEC and ID books like crazy. I'm eating them up faster than you can imagine.
)O( Hytegia )O( said:I think I may have forfeited my BIGGEST FAN Award.
=[