Intelligent Reasoning

Promoting, advancing and defending Intelligent Design via data, logic and Intelligent Reasoning and exposing the alleged theory of evolution as the nonsense it is. I also educate evotards about ID and the alleged theory of evolution one tard at a time and sometimes in groups

Wednesday, November 29, 2006

Another reason why NH fails as evidence for Common Descent

Another reason why nested hierarchy fails as evidence for Common Descent is it fails to EXPLAIN the differences observed between alleged sister groups.

Similarities can be explained in a variety of ways. Any "theory" of Common Descent needs to explain the differences. And we can't even do that with Chimps & Humans (explore the differences).

posted by Joe G @ 1:54 PM  

8 Comments:

  • At 7:43 PM, Blogger Smokey said…

    Joe, your post makes no sense.

    The numbers of differences dictate the lengths of branches between any two members of any tree of sequences.

    IOW, the differences are an integral part of any rational discussion of the evidence for common descent.

    BTW, have you bothered to start with a random protein sequence, use BLAST to compare it to the database, and use the new tool that with a click of a mouse, generates a tree based on the ratio of similarities to differences?

    Examining some data might be more illuminating than quote-mining.

     

  • At 8:16 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Smokey:
    Joe, your post makes no sense.

    Probably not to you.

    Smokey:
    The numbers of differences dictate the lengths of branches between any two members of any tree of sequences.

    Even if that were true that does NOT EXPLAIN the differences.

    Smokey:
    IOW, the differences are an integral part of any rational discussion of the evidence for common descent.

    I know that and that is why I question why those differences are never explained.

    Smokey:
    Examining some data might be more illuminating than quote-mining.

    Explaining the differences may be more illuminating than having you attempt to blow smoke up my arse.

     

  • At 3:02 PM, Blogger Smokey said…

    Joe wrote:
    "Probably not to you."

    As I'm a geneticist, that says a lot, doesn't it?

    "Even if that were true that does NOT EXPLAIN the differences."

    The differences are caused by mutation, some of which are selected and some of which aren't.

    There, wasn't that easy?

    "I know that and that is why I question why those differences are never explained."

    Never? What is your evidence for claiming "never," Joe? How many papers describing nested hierarchies have you read?

    "Explaining the differences may be more illuminating than having you attempt to blow smoke up my arse."

    I explained the differences both above and in my initial comment.

     

  • At 3:16 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    I will repeat this here:

    The bottom-line is you can take ALL of your circumstantial nonsense and stick it up your arse until you are prepared to start accounting for the differences observed between alleged "node-sharers" in your imagined tree with bushes...

     

  • At 4:52 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Joe wrote:
    "Probably not to you."

    Smokey:
    As I'm a geneticist, that says a lot, doesn't it?

    Yes, it says quite a bit that you can't even follow along.

    "Even if that were true that does NOT EXPLAIN the differences."

    Smokey:
    The differences are caused by mutation, some of which are selected and some of which aren't.

    I understand the assertion, but what supports that assertion?

    Smokey:
    There, wasn't that easy?

    Bald assertions usually are.

    "I know that and that is why I question why those differences are never explained."

    Smokey:
    Never?

    Never.

    Smokey:
    What is your evidence for claiming "never," Joe?

    Your making it clear my claim is correct.

    Smokey:
    How many papers describing nested hierarchies have you read?

    I wasn't aware I had to keep count.

    "Explaining the differences may be more illuminating than having you attempt to blow smoke up my arse."

    Smokey:
    I explained the differences both above and in my initial comment.

    All evidence to the contrary of course. In both your initial comment and your subsequent entry you have followed your moniker- to a tee.

     

  • At 2:26 PM, Blogger Smokey said…

    Joe wrote:
    "Yes, it says quite a bit that you can't even follow along."

    What am I failing to follow, Joe? Do you realize that a NH is simply a description of actual data?

    Smokey:
    The differences are caused by mutation, some of which are selected and some of which aren't.

    "I understand the assertion, but what supports that assertion?"

    The observation of mutations, and the fact that we can observe NHs that describe differences in sequences that are not subject to selection (i.e., DNA paternity tests). If NH doesn't describe relationships, why aren't ID proponents testifying that DNA testing is meaningless in paternity cases?

    "Never."

    Have you looked, Joe?

    Smokey:
    What is your evidence for claiming "never," Joe?

    "Your making it clear my claim is correct."

    How so?

    Smokey:
    How many papers describing nested hierarchies have you read?

    "I wasn't aware I had to keep count."

    It's easy to count to zero, isn't it?

    "All evidence to the contrary of course."

    What evidence?

    "In both your initial comment and your subsequent entry you have followed your moniker- to a tee."

    In what way, Joe? Why would you use "to a tee" when the actual metaphor is "to a T"? Are you referring to golf?

    See if you can answer a simple question: do you realize that NHs are simply descriptions of the data?

     

  • At 7:44 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Joe wrote:
    "Yes, it says quite a bit that you can't even follow along."

    Smokey:
    What am I failing to follow, Joe?

    That it is the differences that need to be explained.

    Now either you can explain the differences shown in the site provided or you can continue to blow smoke.

    I understand why you will choose to continue to blow smoke.

    And thank you for confirming my point.

     

  • At 2:23 PM, Blogger Smokey said…

    Joe wrote:
    "That it is the differences that need to be explained."

    I have explained them.

    "Now either you can explain the differences shown in the site provided or you can continue to blow smoke."

    Well, just starting off from the site, there are two clear misrepresentations. The first is this one:

    ""Study found only 86.7% genetic similarity when segments of human and chimpanzee DNA (totaling 1,870,955 base pairs) were laid side by side. This study also included indels (insertions/deletions) in addition to substitutions." ref: Tatsuya Anzai st al., "Comparative Sequencing of Human and Chimpanzee MHC Class | Regions Unveils Insertions/Deletions As the Major Path to Genomic Divergence," Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA 100 (2003); 7708-13"

    If you bothered to read the paper misrepresented on the site, you'd see that it was looking at the most polymorphic region of the genome, the MHC. You'd also read this:

    "Interestingly, once the indels are taken into account, the above-observed 98.6% sequence identity drops to only 86.7% (substitution, 1.4%; indels, 11.9%)."

    IOW, the first figure cited simply didn't include indels, while the second one did. There's no discrepancy at all.

    The second misrepresentation is a blatant lie:

    GENETIC MATHEMATICS
    human 100 %
    chimpanzee 86.7 %

    The 86.7% comes from the MHC. If we look at the MHC sequences of different humans, we find that only identical twins are identical. In fact, the variability within species is just as high as within species:

    http://www.genome.org/cgi/content/full/15/9/1250

    See Figures 1 and 2, but if you are graphically challenged, read this:

    "Considering only the human-human comparisons, maximal pairwise divergences range from 2.1% to 9.3%, whereas minimal divergences are everywhere <0.1% (Fig. 2). Human-chimpanzee, human-gorilla, and chimpanzee-gorilla divergences have essentially the same upper limit as the human-human comparisons..."

    "I understand why you will choose to continue to blow smoke."

    I've never blown smoke. I'm trying to explain something to you that you clearly do not understand. The first difference on the site isn't a difference at all.

    "And thank you for confirming my point."

    That you don't understand the concept of NH? You've made that very clear, particularly by citing a Web site that blatantly misrepresents the data instead of the actual data.

    Once again, the differences between sequences are explained by evolutionary distance. What is the ID explanation for these differences?

     

Post a Comment

<< Home