by towerwatchman 205 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
The diagram below shows sequence similarity for cytochrome C.
The lengths of the branches in this tree are drawn proportional to the number of differences in the primary sequence.
The tree clearly reveals the three main kingdoms of eukaryotes: fungi, animals, and plants.
Such trees tend to agree closely with those constructed by evolutionary biologists using morphological data, and provide independent evidence of common descent.
To Rainbow troll
Why? By your own admission, cytochrome c does not support the theory of evolution any more than the Bible. Why are other genes and fossils of no importance in testing the theory of evolution while cytochrome c is the deal breaker? Is it because it's the only criteria that slightly favors the creationists?
Why cytochrome c? It is a simple hemoprotein about one hundred amino acids long and found in almost all living things. It is a common denominator than can be used to measure. If evolution is true, and we evolved from a single cell ancestor then the degree of difference the creatures have today should be proportion to the difference in their cytochrome c. But that is not what we find, to even close. My OP does not support evolution but it does support the idea that all living creatures appeared on the earth in the same form as they are now, minus micro evolution within their own kind.
Cytochrome c is a protein with a finite number of nucleotide sequences available to it if it is to remain functioning. The evidence you cited in your original OP only proves that it was able to recombine in similar sequences even in creatures which are evolutionary very distant from each other. Wow, what are the odds huh? Eyes are much more complicated structures than single proteins and yet they appear independently in creatures as distinct as vertebrates and invertebrates.
You are comparing an eye to a hemoprotein. They are different levels of organization. You are comparing apples to oranges.
Compare Rhodospirillum rubrum [bacteria] and Eucaryotic organisms. Percentage of difference.
Horse 64%, Pigeon 64%, Tuna 65%, Silk worm 65%, Wheat 66%, Yeast 69%
Let’s follow your theory to and see if it holds. As the horse, pigeon, tuna, silkworm, wheat, and yeast evolved over millions of years, with an unknown amount of transition life forms, taking multiple paths of along the evolutionary tree ie , flight, terrestrial, water, insect, and plant. Somehow all on its own, with no intelligence to guide it, cytochrome c manage to evolve, maintain form and function, within a 5% variance? We call that a miracle.
To Coded logic.
Thank you for that information. Please notice that at the end of the day all you have is a bird with unique features. It had 100% of the modern features necessary for flight. Plus Pedopenna was already on the scene when Archeopteryx appeared. We can go back and forth arguing Comparative Anatomy and never get anywhere, Comparative Anatomy is too subjective. I rather discuss what is measurable.
To cofty
The amino acid sequence and the nucleotide sequence of cytochrome c beautifully confirms and refines the tree of life. What a strange topic for a creationist to raise. I can only assume it is an attempt to poison the well with one of the best examples of evidence for common ancestry.
Notice nothing scientific in the above text. All opinion.
BTW that is a nice tree. Again any interpretation is subjective, How can measure anything using the tree?
Caedes
Using the standard method of taxonomy we cannot quantify the difference between a horse and a mouse, or know which is closer mouse to cat, or mouse to fish. 1) Whilst I would agree that it is not mathematical, morphological characteristics were used extensively in compiling taxonomic trees (In fact that is precisely the meaning of taxonomy) which have incidently, broadly coincided with more modern phylogenetic trees. A human may ‘look’ more complex than a frog but how much more in quantitative terms cannot be determined by morphology.
Compare Rhodospirillum rubrum [bacteria] and Eucaryotic organisms. Percentage of difference.
Horse 64%, Pigeon 64%, Tuna 65%, Silk worm 65%, Wheat 66%, Yeast 69%
It does not take much pondering to notice that Cytochrome C in each creature did not come close to evolving as the creature did. Do you really thing that it quantifiably a horse can only be 5% different that yeast, or the difference between pigeon and tuna is 1%.
The problem you have is that this is a really good example of evidence of common ancestry. If evolution is true then the existence of cytochrome C in ‘higher forms’ is the result from evolving from a common ancestor.
That statement would be true if the statement was complete. Cytochrome C is a good example of common ancestry, if the proportion of difference between creatures is close to the proportion of difference between the cytochrome C in each.
No sequence or group of can be designated as intermediate with respect to the other group. They are equally isolated from the members of other groups.
The problem you have here is that every creature that we have record of disappearing, disappeared as it appeared on the fossil record. No transitions. What does the evolutionist say. They are all transition species. Following your logic everything is a transitional species.
This is simply not correct, for example humans and chimps share more or less identical DNA sequences coding for cytochrome C.
Let’s talk about chimp to man. Evolutionist say that the difference between man and chimp is 1.5 %. Does not seem much. What we need to find out is how much is much. When we hear that there is a 1 ½ % difference between man and chimp it seems not to be much. But we must take into account what 1 ½% exactly means. If there are three billion base pairs in a human 1 ½% calculates to 45 million base pairs or 15 million codons. It is estimated that it would take 10X10 to 21 power mutations to get five condons to mutate in the right order. One and half percent does not look like much but when analyzed, it becomes overwhelming evidence against man ever evolving from a chimp.
Firstly it is important to object to the use of 'higher forms', from an evolutionary viewpoint we are not a 'higher form'. You also seem to misunderstand hierarchy, there isn't an evolutionary 'hierarchy', there is a taxonomic heirarchy but that goes the wrong way for your point. Presumably because you are viewing evolution with a theistic bias to assume that humans are some sort of pinnacle of evolution.
Seem to be going against ‘evolution by natural selection’, and ‘survival of the fittest.’
No, we are more closely related to fish than lampreys, you have to go much further back along the evolutionary tree to find a common ancestor between us and lampreys than to find one between us and fish. Again you have no source for your figures above.
No I have a source = cytochrome c. You use it in an attempt to prove common ancestry, why can I not use it? What is good for the goose should be good for the gander.
Comparing a carp, we have the following percentage of difference.
Horse 13%, rabbit 13%, chicken 14%, turtle 13% and bullfrog 13%.
7) Again you have no source for this data? Because you are admitting that sequences for cytochrome C vary in your examples and then claiming that they are all equidistant to fish cytochrome C. By what measure are they equidistant if they vary? I suspect that your data is not from a scientific study since it disagrees with every thing I have read on the subject and doesn't appear to be internally consistant.
Where I got the data I am not 100% sure, it was a long time ago, probably 3 presidents ago. Some suggested it was 'Evolution: A theory in crisis' written in 1985 by M.J. Denton. I searched for the book and did not find it, but I am pretty sure it is the book. As to the Denton’s research and results, no one is doubting it.
8) This is because you assume that evolution is a process with a destination and that there is a hierarchy. They are an intermediate species in as much as they have shared features with two major orders and it is not clear which they are more closely related to.
What are these intermediate species to? A better life form? Are we evolving up? Down? Or across? You are the first evolutionist who seems to disagree that over time we are improving.
9) They are intermediate forms found, be honest and admit that you have decided to discount the examples given to fit your biases.
All the supposed intermediate fossils disappeared as they appeared. There is nothing that an evolutionist can point to in order to show the different stages of lizard to bird. It is all speculation with a dash of imagination.
10) You have not disproven evolution, there are lots of different ways to code for Cytochrome C ( a huge number10^93)
Someone actually measured that?
Given the huge number of ways of coding this protein you would expect it to be radically different in different species if we weren't related.
Again it is not radically different. I would expect radical cytochrome c difference between a carp and horse to a carp and a bullfrog. But they are both 13%.
This isn't what we see and you haven't provided any evidence to prove that what you are claiming is true.
The data in the post is real. No one argues the numbers, they all seem to argue the interpretation.
Hahaha, well I suppose I should be happy that you've changed your position from Archeopteryx is "just a bird" all the way to Archeopteryx is "just a bird with unique features". I guess that's progress.
;)
But, if we're being honest, it's NOT just a bird with unique features is it? It's a "bird" with features that are inherently reptilian. It's a "bird" with the exact sort of features we would expect to see during a speciation event in which "birds" were much more like their dinosaur precursors.
Not only that, if you'll recall, you were the one to bring up morphological and anatomical differences. I'm not sure it's really fair to cry foul (or perhaps, in this case, fowl) now that it's "too subjective" a topic since you've decided you don't like where the evidence is leading.
But all that's neither here nor there. To you're broader point, we have a multitude of mechanism for looking at and measuring the difference in species. We can do this in several different ways:
1.) Mitochondrial DNA
2.) X Chromosomes
3.) Endogenous Retrovirus'
4.) Allele Frequencies
These are each independent methods of studying various aspects our DNA to determine hierarchy. For example, evolution predicts that our closest cousins are chimpanzees', followed by guerrillas and then orangutans. And when we look at our mitochondrial DNA (this is what's used in paternity and ancestry tests) we observe the exact same thing.
The same is true when we look at the family lines along the x-chromosome. We find that human's closest cousins are chimpanzees followed by guerrillas and then orangutans.
Next, we can do something very different. We can see what endogenous retrovirus' (ERVs) we share with other animals. According to evolution, we should expect that any ERVs we share with orangutans we'd also share with guerrillas and chimpanzees since orangutans are our most distant ape cousins. And, conversely, we'd expect that there would be some ERVs we'd share with chimpanzees and guerrillas that we don't share with orangutans. Guess what? This is exactly what we observe!
Lastly, we can look at allele frequencies (or, more broadly, genotype frequencies). And the species with which humans have the lowest number of genetic variants is . . . you guessed it, chimpanzees! Wow, what a stunning surprise. Want to wager which species might be next closest? Or next closest after that? Why guerrillas and orangutans of course!
So there we have it, four independent methods of studying DNA that all converge on the exact same hierarchy. But we don't have to stop there. There's a host of other methods we can use too!
5.) Homologous Structures
6.) Vestiges
7.) Atavisms
8.) Phylogenetic Heterogeneity
9.) Allopatric Speciation
. . .
And want to guess the hierarchy at which all these methods also arrive?
This is an important point. There's not just lot's of evidence for evolution. There's lot's of methodologies that all converge on the same answer. In science, having two independent methods reaching a similar conclusion is generally considered rock solid. In biology, evolution doesn't just have two. There at least nine that I know of (and I'd not be surprised if there are even more).
In closing, I'd like to mention I don't think there's anything wrong with your skepticism (a demand for evidence). So long as you stay true to the flip side of that coin as well - keeping an open mind (aka - following that evidence where it leads).
BTW that is a nice tree. Again any interpretation is subjective, How can measure anything using the tree?
Nothing subjective about that diagram. It is mathematically accurate the length of each branch is based on the degree of difference in amino acid sequence.
Anybody who understands basic statistics can see the dishonesty in your OP.
Here is the actual sequences for anybody who wants to compare them. It perfectly illustrates common ancestry.
The sequences are remarkably similar across species, especially at certain positions.
For example, every one has a phenylalanine at position 10, a histidine at 18, a proline at 30 and a methionine at 80. Clearly, evolution selects against any change at these positions.
In addition, numerous sites display a limited number of changes, in most cases allowing only residues with similar properties.
For example, residue 98 can be only leucine, isoleucine, or valine - all lipophilic residues.
Likewise, His18 (shown in the graphic above), which coordinates to the heme iron, is conserved throughout.
The implication is that the strongly conserved residues contribute significantly to the structure and function of the protein.
Other positions contribute very little and are highly variable; evolutionary drift randomizes these residues.
Note that human and chimpanzee sequences are identical, and macaque and spider monkey are very similar to the human/chimpanzee sequence. This implies a common and relatively recent evolutionary divergence...
When we look deeper into the nucleotide sequences then we find an even greater example of evidence for common ancestry. Humans and chimps differ by 4 DNA letters but the very same amino acid sequence. The same pattern is repeated throughout life demonstrating gradual evolution over millions of years.
You keep on using those figures and still haven't actually stated a source for them, if you had any understanding of basic scientific principles you would understand why they are being dismissed.
However you are looking at one protein, and it is being coded by a ubiquitous gene. What that means is that it is coding for a very basic function, one that is common to all life.
Since there are lots of ways of functionally coding for this protein (as I mentioned before) then if life were unrelated then you would expect that there would be a wide variety in how it is coded.
What we actually see is that it is coded in a very similar way and that the small differences reflect how related any two organisms are. The more closely related the the two organisms are then the coding will be increasingly similar.
if the proportion of difference between creatures is close to the proportion of difference between the cytochrome C in each.
It is.
All species are transitional in regards to moving along a particular branch of the evolutionary tree. The first part of your sentence shows that you still have no real understanding of how fossilisation works or how evolution works. I'll sum up the key points, fossilisation is rare, fossilisation of rare species is even rarer. The evolution of species happens to groups of organisms not individuals, for a strong selection mechanism to be happening then lots of that group are dieing and a small number are surviving. So we wouldn't expect to see a lot of fossilisation but we do see it.
Let's assume your figures for the differences between man and chimp are correct for a moment, so what you are saying is that we need a method to sieve out all the useless mutations that are harmful. Let's then look at the title of Darwin's book On the origin of species by means of natural selection. What does the second part of that title tell you about what happens? That's right, the successful genes are naturally 'selected' (by not being in a dead organism) so there you have your method to sieve out the harmful mutations. Then all you need is a population breeding like rabbits and you have evolution.
Seem to be going against ‘evolution by natural selection’, and ‘survival of the fittest.’
No, we are merely fit enough to procreate in this environment in exactly the same way that dinosaurs were fit enough to procreate in theirs and that sea slugs are fit enough to procreate in theirs. You are misunderstanding what Darwin meant.
No I have a source = cytochrome c.
No, the source of your figures would be the source of your information, the book, the study, the dataset. You could be plucking those figures from the air since you have not stated where you got them and I have no way of checking that your facts are correct.
Where I got the data I am not 100% sure,
I doubt your figures and it is up to you to categorically state your source if you don't want people to reject your figures out of hand. Since you cannot state 100% then I would assume that you have the figures wrong. You don't even state what the percentages are actually of.
That is funny because I have never met one that does claim we are 'improving' The example I was referring to were Lamprey. As I have stated already evolution happens along evolutionary branches and all organisms evolve down into species (there is no across by definition and you can't travel back up the evolutionary tree since that would be going back in time).
It is all speculation with a dash of imagination.
No, you are incorrect, modern birds do not show the reptilian features shown in primitive birds like archeopterix and archeopterix shows bird like features not seen in true reptiles. That is not speculation, you can see the fossils for yourself.
there are lots of different ways to code for Cytochrome C ( a huge number10^93)
Someone actually measured that?
Yes, would you like the source of that information?
Again it is not radically different. I would expect radical cytochrome c difference between a carp and horse to a carp and a bullfrog. But they are both 13%.
They aren't radically different because they are related! Your figures are still incorrect!
The data in the post is real. No one argues the numbers, they all seem to argue the interpretation.
I am arguing with your numbers or at least with how you are presenting them. It may be that you have misunderstood them or have got them from a non-scientific source (traditionally this makes up around 100% of creationist 'science' writing in my experience)
