Autodidact
Intentionally Blank
What body of research was that again? Could you cite it please? That body of research that disproves ToE?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Creationists: "Kind" = Species; species that evolve.
- Thread starter Skwim
- Start date
What body of research was that again? Could you cite it please? That body of research that disproves ToE?
The_Evelyonian
Old-School Member
The Rohde-Olson-Chang model? Really?
Thought we addressed this in different thread.
Source: http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2049325-post685.htmlThe_Evelyonian said:
evolved yet?
A Young Evolutionist
6-7, I apologize, I'm obsessed with the little parts.
outhouse
Atheistically
This guy is a joke when it comes to science and he is practicing out of his native field.
Doug Rohde's Home Page
outhouse
Atheistically
well homo sapiens go back 200,000 years
Sahelanthropus tchadensis goes back to 6-7 which is the last ancestor in our tree
I believe our relationship with primates meets at 8-9
You point is noted
newhope101
Active Member
Wiki gives a brief summary of some. You can look up the research quoted if you have time. As I said again this was an example of controversy within evolution...and No that right for the millionth time...that does not prove TOE false.
Anyway. I have got what I wanted. PaintedWolf acknowledged there have been many definitions of 'kind'. So creationists are able to define kind. It's just that some do not like the definition, despite your own definitionS of species...What was that I said about acceptance...Oh yeah...Your acceptance is not required. We can go around in circles and you no doubt will ask for questions that I am unable to answer, just like your researchers with Toe. So why waste the rest of the day doing that, not to mention addressing the side winds.
The tree of life today
Current tree of life showing horizontal gene transfers.
The model of a tree is still considered valid for eukaryotic life forms. As of 2010[update], research into the earliest branches of the eukaryote tree has suggested a tree with either four supergroups[8][9] or two supergroups.[10] There does not yet appear to be a consensus; in a review article, Roger and Simpson conclude that "with the current pace of change in our understanding of the eukaryote tree of life, we should proceed with caution."[11]
Biologists now recognize that the prokaryotes, the bacteria and archaea have the ability to transfer genetic information between unrelated organisms through horizontal gene transfer (HGT). Recombination, gene loss, duplication, and gene creation are a few of the processes by which genes can be transferred within and between bacterial and archael species, causing variation that is not due to vertical transfer.[12][13][14] There is emerging evidence of HGT occurring within the prokaryotes at the single and multicell level and the view is now emerging that the tree of life gives an incomplete picture of life's evolution. It was a useful tool in understanding the basic processes of evolution but cannot explain the full complexity of the situation.[13]
Anyway. I have got what I wanted. PaintedWolf acknowledged there have been many definitions of 'kind'. So creationists are able to define kind. It's just that some do not like the definition, despite your own definitionS of species...What was that I said about acceptance...Oh yeah...Your acceptance is not required. We can go around in circles and you no doubt will ask for questions that I am unable to answer, just like your researchers with Toe. So why waste the rest of the day doing that, not to mention addressing the side winds.
The tree of life today
Current tree of life showing horizontal gene transfers.
The model of a tree is still considered valid for eukaryotic life forms. As of 2010[update], research into the earliest branches of the eukaryote tree has suggested a tree with either four supergroups[8][9] or two supergroups.[10] There does not yet appear to be a consensus; in a review article, Roger and Simpson conclude that "with the current pace of change in our understanding of the eukaryote tree of life, we should proceed with caution."[11]
Biologists now recognize that the prokaryotes, the bacteria and archaea have the ability to transfer genetic information between unrelated organisms through horizontal gene transfer (HGT). Recombination, gene loss, duplication, and gene creation are a few of the processes by which genes can be transferred within and between bacterial and archael species, causing variation that is not due to vertical transfer.[12][13][14] There is emerging evidence of HGT occurring within the prokaryotes at the single and multicell level and the view is now emerging that the tree of life gives an incomplete picture of life's evolution. It was a useful tool in understanding the basic processes of evolution but cannot explain the full complexity of the situation.[13]
Autodidact
Intentionally Blank
Not only does it not prove it false, it doesn't imply, or in way serve as evidence that it's false. So what is your point?
I LOVE your definition. I don't think you like it, though, since according to your definition, humans, chimps and gorillas are all the same kind.
Also, you're the only creationist I've encountered who uses that definition, so there is the problem of speaking your own private language.
evolved yet?
A Young Evolutionist
What makes your definition better than Duane Gish's or Schlafly's or any other creationist's definition?
painted wolf
Grey Muzzle
That is an awesome question, and probably deserving of it's own thread!
I tend to think the >2% genetic difference within the populations mtDNA is a good starting point... but right now, I would say that the more of the "working definitions" of species that a particular population fits within, the more likely they are a different "species" than another.
For example, if a population is reproductively isolated, genetically distinct and have a narrow morphological range... then it's a good bet it's a 'species'.
But some localized populations are in the process of becoming distinct from the rest of the broader population, where you get into subspecies. (not yet distinct enough to be considered a true species, but well on the way)
Another problem is political... but I'll leave that alone for now, as it's another major subject deserving it's own thread. :cover:
Another great question, likely deserving of it's own thread. :yes:
The short answer is that someone finally took the time to study them closely.. probably because 8 new species had been described since anyone last really bothered with them.
X. Wang, R. H. Tedford, and B. E. Taylor (With a lot of work by Wang) waded through all of the 26 species and carefully analyzed their morphology and that of several other groups and put together a character matrix. A character matrix is a list of separate features, like the length of a particular part of the skull... The more features you use the better and usually a few dozen are used, but I've seen matrices with more than 100 features!
Each feature is given a numerical description (usually 0-3) which is then run through a computer program that can assess the features for degrees of similarity and calculate probable relationships.
This is run several times (ie a dozen or more, more is better) in a method called "boot-strapping" in order to make sure it's as accurate as possible.
This is basically the same process used with genetics to determine probabilities of relationships... like "who is your daddy".
I totally understand that... But I think it's vital that the issues are given some thought if you are going to have any chance of defending your definition in a debate setting.
Perhaps... but I think the fuzzyness of the family/subfamily deliniation in your definition is a potential weakness.
I hope you don't mind my skipping the wiki stuff to save space.
New finds always leave room for clarification and revision... this is part of why there is always some degree of debate... the less well studied the group is, the greater the room for this kind of debate to happen.
There is also a bit of debate about how many characters are enough for a matrix, how many times do you run it to check it... how recent is the data being used and so on.
Unfortunately, the system (linnaean) wasn't designed with hard and fast rules... so there is still a lot of "catch up" going on trying to get it sorted out. Add to that the ever growing piles of data thanks to genetics and molecular studies and we are literally up to our necks in it.
Unfortunately, fixing the problem isn't exactly the sort of "sexy" science that gets funding (no cures for cancer here)... a lot of the work is being done both "on the cheap" and in an "on again off again" fashion.
Again, this a place where there just hasn't been a lot of recent work... though, I've heard in the grapevine, that a major study is underway to help with that. The full cow genome recently got sequenced, which will give us a good place to start comparing other species.
I know it's not the answer you were hoping for... but that is the state of the research today. A lot of the controversy is the result of the issue being neglected for so long.
True, we don't have all the answers... but a lot of the "controversy" is really over exaggerated. Most of it, is the result of simply not yet having good data to go on.
I absolutely agree that your definition has meaning to you... and it should. :yes:
Indeed it is... I may at some point start a thread on what I know about how taxonomy works and what features unite bovids and other artilodactyls.
wa:do
No it is not hypocrisy. This is the point that has been explained over and over again to you and you have not acknowledge it. Yes you are absolutely right that we demand a better definition of “kind” then we have for species, and there is a logical reason for this. We do not need to define what stops a species from evolving into a new species, because there isn’t anything that stops a species from evolving into a new species. The theory of evolution predicts that there will be no clear impenetrable boarder between species, and the evidence shows that there is no impenetrable boarder between species. You can’t demand that we show you a line that isn’t there. On the other hand in the theory that you are purposing as a creationist (even as a liberal creationist) there is suppose to be a clear impenetrable boarder between “kinds”.
This has been explained to you over and over again, it has been put in big red letters for you. I tried to explain it with a clever (if I say so myself) allegory. But you just ignore it. You haven’t even responded to this point at all.
The theory of evolution does not require a clear definition of species. The fact that there is some difficulty in defining species is evidence in favour of evolution. Creationism on the other hand does require a clear definition of kind, and some explanation of what prevents one kind form evolving into (or from) another kind. The fact that there is no clear definition and no suggestion of what prevents kinds from evolving is what makes creationism invalid.
Your definition of kind must be better than the definition of species because your theory hinges on this definition. The theory of evolution does not hinge on the definition of species.
Last edited:
newhope101
Active Member
PaintedWolf...I think percentages of shared genes is a good consistent method of quantifying similarity between species and kinds.
However there does not appear to be consistency here. I have seen 95-99% offered as the percentage of shared genes between humans and chimps. Some researchers count junk DNA with inactive genes, some do not, some count mitochondrial DNA etc.
Is there any work being done to bring consitency around what genes should be counted and why, and how they are quantified; particularly in light of information regarding horizontal gene transfer?
However there does not appear to be consistency here. I have seen 95-99% offered as the percentage of shared genes between humans and chimps. Some researchers count junk DNA with inactive genes, some do not, some count mitochondrial DNA etc.
Is there any work being done to bring consitency around what genes should be counted and why, and how they are quantified; particularly in light of information regarding horizontal gene transfer?
Last edited:
newhope101
Active Member
Fantom Profane your definition/s of species are OK at describing a species. They fall short of describing the difference between species.
Evolutionists appear to have all the evidence/facts they require to attest Toe is fact not theoretical. There was undeniable, irrefutable evidence of a LUCA also, remember?. You have a plethora of fossils that researchers today are at odds over. This is not just in relation to which homo phase they are in but also being errant in deciding if they are any sort of non human primate at all. Florensisensis was an example, The current tree of life recently posted indicates to me that your research is about as clear as mud.
Untill recently evolution was the result of reshuffling of genes and expression of same. No new genes. This supports Toe.
Now they have found some genes they say are uniquely human. This no doubt will also support Toe.
Below is an except from an article:
Discovery Of Novel Genes Could Unlock Mystery Of What Makes Us Uniquely Human
ScienceDaily (Sep. 2, 2009)
The authors also note that because of the strict set of filters employed, only about 20% of human genes were amenable to analysis. Therefore they estimate there may be approximately 18 human-specific genes that have arisen from non-coding DNA during human evolution
The prevailing wisdom in the field of molecular evolution was that new genes could only evolve from duplicated or rearranged versions of preexisting genes. It seemed highly unlikely that evolutionary processes could produce a functional protein-coding gene from what was once inactive DNA.
The authors also note that because of the strict set of filters employed, only about 20% of human genes were amenable to analysis. Therefore they estimate there may be approximately 18 human-specific genes that have arisen from non-coding DNA during human evolution.
This discovery of novel protein-coding genes in humans is a significant finding, but raises a bigger question: What are the proteins encoded by these genes doing? "They are unlike any other human genes and have the potential to have a profound impact," McLysaght noted. While these genes have not been characterized yet and their functions remain unknown, McLysaght added that it is tempting to speculate that human-specific genes are important for human-specific traits.
Scientists from the Smurfit Institute of Genetics, Trinity College Dublin (Dublin, Ireland) contributed to this study.
Doing any testing that uses only 20% of human genes is not going to give what I call a valid result anyway. I think this type research is a waste of money.
Indeed there has been no evolution just a reshuffle of the genetic code. I wonder if the islanders will evolve gills and evolve into some sort of sea creature as the sea levels rise. This is nonsense. Humans are never going to evolve into anything else. They may get shorter, fatter, morphology may change and adapt but we will always be humans. We will never grow gills or gain the ability to breath underwater should our environment slowly require it now matter how many billions of years humans had to adapt to the change. Our genetic ability to evolve from one kind into another kind is suppressed. Researchers just haven't found the mechanism yet.
Evolutionists appear to have all the evidence/facts they require to attest Toe is fact not theoretical. There was undeniable, irrefutable evidence of a LUCA also, remember?. You have a plethora of fossils that researchers today are at odds over. This is not just in relation to which homo phase they are in but also being errant in deciding if they are any sort of non human primate at all. Florensisensis was an example, The current tree of life recently posted indicates to me that your research is about as clear as mud.
Untill recently evolution was the result of reshuffling of genes and expression of same. No new genes. This supports Toe.
Now they have found some genes they say are uniquely human. This no doubt will also support Toe.
Below is an except from an article:
Discovery Of Novel Genes Could Unlock Mystery Of What Makes Us Uniquely Human
ScienceDaily (Sep. 2, 2009)
The authors also note that because of the strict set of filters employed, only about 20% of human genes were amenable to analysis. Therefore they estimate there may be approximately 18 human-specific genes that have arisen from non-coding DNA during human evolution
The prevailing wisdom in the field of molecular evolution was that new genes could only evolve from duplicated or rearranged versions of preexisting genes. It seemed highly unlikely that evolutionary processes could produce a functional protein-coding gene from what was once inactive DNA.
The authors also note that because of the strict set of filters employed, only about 20% of human genes were amenable to analysis. Therefore they estimate there may be approximately 18 human-specific genes that have arisen from non-coding DNA during human evolution.
This discovery of novel protein-coding genes in humans is a significant finding, but raises a bigger question: What are the proteins encoded by these genes doing? "They are unlike any other human genes and have the potential to have a profound impact," McLysaght noted. While these genes have not been characterized yet and their functions remain unknown, McLysaght added that it is tempting to speculate that human-specific genes are important for human-specific traits.
Scientists from the Smurfit Institute of Genetics, Trinity College Dublin (Dublin, Ireland) contributed to this study.
Doing any testing that uses only 20% of human genes is not going to give what I call a valid result anyway. I think this type research is a waste of money.
Indeed there has been no evolution just a reshuffle of the genetic code. I wonder if the islanders will evolve gills and evolve into some sort of sea creature as the sea levels rise. This is nonsense. Humans are never going to evolve into anything else. They may get shorter, fatter, morphology may change and adapt but we will always be humans. We will never grow gills or gain the ability to breath underwater should our environment slowly require it now matter how many billions of years humans had to adapt to the change. Our genetic ability to evolve from one kind into another kind is suppressed. Researchers just haven't found the mechanism yet.
newhope101
Active Member
Outhouse..can't you collate your responses into one reply. I did quote the source..all you have to do now is google the headline and you'll find the article.
Sticks and stones may break my bones but insults from boofheads will never hurt me.
Indeed I have my opinions, pal, and they are just as important as those from posters with an over developed sense of self importance and entitlement.
I see you've stopped shoving your LUCA line down my throat now that you have finally been educated, yet you have far to go. Retaliation is the hallmark of a frightened animal or disgruntled person. Can't you think of anything intelligent to say now you have been educated, a little?.
Your insults mean squat to me.
Sticks and stones may break my bones but insults from boofheads will never hurt me.
Indeed I have my opinions, pal, and they are just as important as those from posters with an over developed sense of self importance and entitlement.
I see you've stopped shoving your LUCA line down my throat now that you have finally been educated, yet you have far to go. Retaliation is the hallmark of a frightened animal or disgruntled person. Can't you think of anything intelligent to say now you have been educated, a little?.
Your insults mean squat to me.
Last edited:
PolyHedral
Superabacus Mystic
I'm confused. Why are you quoting articles that assume evolution to be true as part of their premise?
evolved yet?
A Young Evolutionist
In this I would suggest researching ring species.