PRO

Where Your Ideas can change Minds

Please visit our new forum at

http://www.4forums.com

CON


YouDebate.com Forum
» back to YouDebate.com
Register | Profile | Log In | Lost Password | Active Users | Help | Board Rules | Search | FAQ |
Custom Search
» You are not logged in.   log in | register

  YouDebate.com Forum
   Creationism vs Evolution Debates
     Molecular/Morphological

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
[ Single page for this topic ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

    
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Some creationists on the site are claiming that morphological and molecular data does not match up.  That when compared, they give us confusing, contradictory trees of life.  Once again, this claim is wrong.  
Genetics and morphology are but 2 pieces of evidence used to illustrate relationships between living organisms.  And to think that a young science like genetics should have ALL the answers right now, is ridiculous.  But what we do know is that when compared morphological data and genetic data are congruent 90% of the time.  And many of the discrepencies can be explained.  
Creationists who claim otherwise can't seem to give us examples to examine.  The point is molecules and comparative anatomy does line up and there is no reason it should except for evolution.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 03:15 AM on July 9, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Again, a recent rigorious analysis of fossil data versus molecular data by Jablonski and Finarelli on lineages of 228 mammals and 197 mollusks showed the following result:

They looked at the fits again, but this time focused on geographic range and body size. The result: a "spectacularly robust" match between the fossil and molecular data.

Jablonski interprets the results as good news for evolutionary studies. The work backs up a huge range of analyses among living and fossil animals, from trends in increasing body size in mammal lineages, to the dramatic ups and downs of diversity reported in the fossil record of evolutionary bursts and mass extinctions.

"Our study also points the way toward new partnerships with molecular biology, as we straighten out the mismatches that we did find," he said.


Analysis finds Strong Match between Molecular & Fossil Data in Evolutionary Studies


It makes sense to include geographical and body size into the analysis, as this data would have great bearing on evolutionary pathways.

So instead of denying morphorlogical data, molecular studies actually strongly support conclusions paleontologists have made regarding the fossil record.  

 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 1:38 PM on July 11, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Demon
But what we do know is that when compared morphological data and genetic data are congruent 90% of the time.
They should concede that we're at least 90% right.

The point is molecules and comparative anatomy does line up and there is no reason it should except for evolution.
That or the Devil cheating, Yahweh testing our faith, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster testing our faith.

I wish creationists took a stance once and for all.

orion
It makes sense to include geographical and body size into the analysis, as this data would have great bearing on evolutionary pathways.
Exactly. It's not like we concluded "convergent evolution" just because morphology confused us. We had lots of elements to conclude that the thylacine wasn't a dog, but a marsupial.

Any of us could make the prediction that the thylacine shared more DNA with a kangaroo than with a dog. Easy prediction for us. But how do they think we do it?

Because the argument "Yahweh wanted to make them similar" doesn't work this time.



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 10:22 AM on July 13, 2009 | IP
Fencer27

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from wisp at 10:22 AM on July 13, 2009 :
[color=teal]
Demon
But what we do know is that when compared morphological data and genetic data are congruent 90% of the time.
They should concede that we're at least 90% right.


Even if they did evolution still has to account for the rest. One piece of evidence can put any scientific theory down for the count, evolution is no exception.


-------
"So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets." - Jesus (Matthew 7:12)
 


Posts: 551 | Posted: 12:16 AM on July 14, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I'm not sure i understand you.
I agree with your second sentence, but don't understand how it applies. And i don't know what you mean by the first one.



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 5:40 PM on July 14, 2009 | IP
Fencer27

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

From what we know 90% of the morphological data matches with the TOE, but 10% cannot be explained. Only one example needs to be provided to debunk TOE. TOE is so well established that it is unlikely that any evidence will completely demolish it, but it could revise TOE as it has been done many times in the past.


-------
"So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets." - Jesus (Matthew 7:12)
 


Posts: 551 | Posted: 11:21 PM on July 15, 2009 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Even if they did evolution still has to account for the rest. One piece of evidence can put any scientific theory down for the count, evolution is no exception.

But nothing has been found that falsifies evolution.  This process of comparing genetics with morphology is still in it's infancy.  You're not one of those people who say that if we don't know everything NOW, it's wrong, are you?
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 12:16 AM on July 16, 2009 | IP
Fencer27

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Demon38 at 12:16 AM on July 16, 2009 :
Even if they did evolution still has to account for the rest. One piece of evidence can put any scientific theory down for the count, evolution is no exception.

But nothing has been found that falsifies evolution.


I agree completely.

You're not one of those people who say that if we don't know everything NOW, it's wrong, are you?


NOW that would be childish thinking. But if we don't know everything, then we can't say it is truth.


-------
"So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets." - Jesus (Matthew 7:12)
 


Posts: 551 | Posted: 01:13 AM on July 16, 2009 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

NOW that would be childish thinking. But if we don't know everything, then we can't say it is truth.

Yep, and science never claims it has the "truth".  All theories are open for falsification.  Go where the Data leads....
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 02:06 AM on July 16, 2009 | IP
Fencer27

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

That's all I'm saying. That, and if evolution can't explain the elusive 10%, or if it ends up contradicting evolution we need to revise TOE or come up with a new theory.


-------
"So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets." - Jesus (Matthew 7:12)
 


Posts: 551 | Posted: 02:30 AM on July 16, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Some creationists on the site are claiming that morphological and molecular data does not match up.  That when compared, they give us confusing, contradictory trees of life.  Once again, this claim is wrong.


Scientists once believed that the giant panda and the red panda were closely related to one another because they have very similar anatomies. Both have an extra thumb on their hands, both have a v-shaped jaw, and they have similar teeth and similar skulls. When their DNA was tested however, they were surprised because according to that, the giant panda belongs to the bear family and the red panda is related to racoons. In this instance similarities were misleading and scientists were fooled.

Seals and sea lions are very similar in appearance. Both have front flippers and finned feet. They are so similar it is difficult to tell them apart. Because of their similarities, it was logical to believe that they shared a common ancestor with similar features, namely front flippers and finned feet. Now it is believed however that seals descended from a skunk or otter and sea lions evolved from a dog or bear, meaning they do not share a common ancestor after all.

With these types of contradictions surely similarities cannot be used as proof for evolution in other animals as well. If the similarities in seals and sea lions do not equate to evolution, then one can argue that similarities in other animals cannot be used as proof of evolution. Could somebody who has a quick internet connection please get a photo of a seal and a sea lion and put them next to each other so that we can clearly see how appearances can be misleading.
Thanks.  



-------
Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”
 


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 10:13 AM on July 16, 2009 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Scientists once believed that the giant panda and the red panda were closely related to one another because they have very similar anatomies.

When did they believe this.  What data caused them to change their minds.

In this instance similarities were misleading and scientists were fooled.

That's the way science works, better data comes along and new conclusions are drawn.  
From here:
Panda

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giant_Panda

"For many decades the precise taxonomic classification of the Giant Panda was under debate as both it and the distantly related Red Panda share characteristics of both bears and raccoons. However, molecular studies suggest that the Giant Panda is a true bear and part of the Ursidae family,[21][22] though it differentiated early in history from the main ursine stock. The Giant Panda's closest ursine relative is the Spectacled Bear of South America. Disagreement still remains about whether or not the Red Panda belongs in Ursidae, the raccoon family Procyonidae, or in its own family, Ailuridae. The Giant Panda has been referred to as a living fossil.[23]

The Red Panda and the Giant Panda, although completely different in appearance, share several features. They both live in the same habitat, they both live on a similar bamboo diet, and they both share a unique enlarged bone called the pseudo thumb, which allows them to grip the bamboo shoots they eat."

So we see that the giant panda and the red panda share some charateristics because they live in similar ecological niches, they both eat bamboo.  

Seals and sea lions are very similar in appearance. Both have front flippers and finned feet. They are so similar it is difficult to tell them apart. Because of their similarities, it was logical to believe that they shared a common ancestor with similar features, namely front flippers and finned feet. Now it is believed however that seals descended from a skunk or otter and sea lions evolved from a dog or bear, meaning they do not share a common ancestor after all.

From here:
Seals

"Recent molecular evidence suggests that pinnipeds evolved from a bearlike ancestor about 23 million years ago during the late Oligocene or early Miocene epochs, a transitional period between the warmer Paleogene and cooler Neogene period.[1] The earliest fossil pinniped that has been found is Puijila darwini, of about 23 million years ago. Pujilla had heavy limbs, indicative of upright movement on land, and flattened phalanges, indicating that they were probably webbed, but not yet flippers. The discovery of Pujilla in northern Canada strongly suggests that pinnipeds originated in the Arctic. The reference to Charles Darwin is in honor of his contention made in On the Origin of Species (1859) that"

And from here:
True Seals

"The earliest fossil phocids date from the mid-Miocene, 15 million years ago in the north Atlantic. Until recently, many researchers believed that phocids evolved separately from otariids and odobenids from otter-like animals, such as Potamotherium, which inhabited European fresh-water lakes. Recent evidence strongly suggests a monophyletic origin for all pinnipeds from a single ancestor, possibly Enaliarctos, most closely related to the bears."

Looks like your data is wrong again both sea lions and true seals evolved from a bear like ancestor.

With these types of contradictions surely similarities cannot be used as proof for evolution in other animals as well.

Why not, you were wrong about seals and sea lions and the case of the pandas was particularly hard to figure out but once again, we have to go where the data leads.  Are you claiming that chimps and humans are not related even though comparative anatomy and DNA analysis confirms it?  
And what is your reaction to the fact that morphology and molecular data is confirmed 90% now?  More research and better tools will resolve the seeming inconsistancies that still exist.  That's how science works.  
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 2:07 PM on July 16, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

What?? The giant panda is a bear???

It isn't closely related to the red panda and the raccoon??

Amazing...

Thanks, Lester! I had no clue!

I wish i had more time to find out about it... But i'm going on vacation for a couple of weeks.

I trust molecular data better. It's a better tool than comparative morphology (which has been very useful in the past).

I'm not sure how you're trying to use our ability to learn against us, but thanks for the data.

Fencer
That, and if evolution can't explain the elusive 10%, or if it ends up contradicting evolution we need to revise TOE or come up with a new theory.
We'll deal with that when (if) the time comes. In the meantime, no need to recur to the elusive concept of "truth". We're talking science here.



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 4:56 PM on July 16, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I trust molecular data better


Why, if it too often contradicts what scientists were so sure of; homology - one of the famous proofs of evolution...

It's a better tool than comparative morphology (which has been very useful in the past).


Not really when molecular 'evidence' contradicts it. What will we use next and how much will that contradict everything we've regurgitated before as proof for evolution?

How do we know that these 'relationships' have anything to do with a hypothetical common ancestor? How do we know that it's not a common designer that made sure we could consume the plants and animals for nutrition? It wouldn't make sense if the designer made things we couldn't digest, absorb and utilize the breakdown products in our diet.



-------
Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”
 


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 08:04 AM on July 17, 2009 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Why, if it too often contradicts what scientists were so sure of; homology - one of the famous proofs of evolution...

Yet it doesn't contradict homology.  So there ya go.

How do we know that these 'relationships' have anything to do with a hypothetical common ancestor?

ERVs for one thing.  the only way to acquire them is to share a common ancestor.  Humans and chimps share 7 ERVs, there is no other way they could share the same 7 without inheritting them from a common ancestor.  Once again it's the confluence of several different lines of evidence that makes evolution valid.  What is your explaination for the physicaly similarities we share with chimpanzees, the genetic similarities and 7 ERVs that could only come from both humans and chimps evling from a common ancestor?


 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 4:08 PM on July 17, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Why, if it too often contradicts what scientists were so sure of; homology - one of the famous proofs of evolution...


Yet it doesn't contradict homology.  So there ya go.


Ok, well then lets take a particular example. Whales were believed to have come from a hyena like whale ancestor or a cat-like whale ancestor (depending on who’s telling the story.) because of the structure of the teeth is similar. Now according to DNA, the hippo is the closest genetically to the whale so presumably it is the ancestor. Wisp says he prefers the genetic comparisons to the morphological but if they contradict one another (which they often do) then how do we know what to choose? Hippos are plant eaters,whales are carnivores; the teeth of the hippo are not even remotely similar to whales This is the sort of contradictory lines of evidence that I was speaking of so it doesn’t really help to say it isn’t happening. Let’s rather deal with it and decide what to do.

This is supposed to be one of the best evo lines of evidence, which doesn’t say much for the evidence in favour of evolution.

Once again there is the problem of why the DNA similarities? Common ancestor or common designer? How would we know?

ERVs for one thing.  the only way to acquire them is to share a common ancestor.


So are we sure that this is the only way to share ervs? Does the hyena, the cat or the hippo share any common ervs with the whale? Maybe that could clear the controversy up.    




-------
Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”
 


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 10:22 AM on July 19, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 10:22 AM on July 19, 2009 :


Ok, well then lets take a particular example. Whales were believed to have come from a hyena like whale ancestor or a cat-like whale ancestor (depending on who’s telling the story.) because of the structure of the teeth is similar. Now according to DNA, the hippo is the closest genetically to the whale so presumably it is the ancestor.


Wrong presumption, whale and hippos are descendants of a common ancestor, the hippo is not an ancestor of the whale.

Hippopotamus and whale phylogeny

Jonathan H. Geisler1 & Jessica M. Theodor2
Top of page

Arising from: J. G. M. Thewissen, L. N. Cooper, M. T. Clementz, S. Bajpai & B. N. Tiwari Nature 450, 1190–1194 (2007); Thewissen et al. reply

Thewissen et al. 1 describe new fossils from India that apparently support a phylogeny that places Cetacea (that is, whales, dolphins, porpoises) as the sister group to the extinct family Raoellidae, and Hippopotamidae as more closely related to pigs and peccaries (that is, Suina) than to cetaceans. However, our reanalysis of a modified version of the data set they used2 differs in retaining molecular characters and demonstrates that Hippopotamidae is the closest extant family to Cetacea and that raoellids are the closest extinct group, consistent with previous phylogenetic studies2, 3. This topology supports the view that the aquatic adaptations in hippopotamids and cetaceans are inherited from their common ancestor






-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 1:18 PM on July 19, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 10:22 AM on July 19, 2009 :

Once again there is the problem of why the DNA similarities? Common ancestor or common designer? How would we know?


Well, sure - your mythical 'designer' could be tinkering with DNA to make it exhibit recognizable mutational patterns that contradict what bronze-age nomads wrote down on scrolls thousands of years ago...

Or, the DNA is providing us with real evidence:

Gene trees and the origin of inbred strains of strains

A nice example of the testability of the methodology and its accuracy.  Anything similar for the common designer bluff beyond 'what ifs' and 'how abouts'?


ERVs for one thing.  the only way to acquire them is to share a common ancestor.


So are we sure that this is the only way to share ervs?

Lots of non-closely related animals have ERVs of the same type.  It is their location that is key.  There are literally millions of places that ERVs can insert into a genome.  As creationists always like to play with numbers, what are the odds that any two non-related species might share multiple identiclaly-located ERVs by random chance?





-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 4:49 PM on July 19, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I'd like to hear the answer to that.


-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 3:22 PM on August 19, 2009 | IP
Yehren

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Scientists once believed that the giant panda and the red panda were closely related to one another because they have very similar anatomies. Both have an extra thumb on their hands, both have a v-shaped jaw, and they have similar teeth and similar skulls.


It's not a thumb, actually, it's just an enlarged radial sesamoid bone.   Bears and raccoons have them, albeit not normally as large as in pandas and red pandas.

http://www.athro.com/evo/bearpaws.gif

When their DNA was tested however, they were surprised because according to that, the giant panda belongs to the bear family and the red panda is related to racoons. In this instance similarities were misleading and scientists were fooled.


Sometimes, convergent evolution fools people.  The other example I can think of is vultures.   New world and Old World vultures are not closely related, although the selective pressures happened to make them very similar in appearance.

Seals and sea lions are very similar in appearance. Both have front flippers and finned feet. They are so similar it is difficult to tell them apart. Because of their similarities, it was logical to believe that they shared a common ancestor with similar features, namely front flippers and finned feet. Now it is believed however that seals descended from a skunk or otter and sea lions evolved from a dog or bear, meaning they do not share a common ancestor after all.


Most scientists had them in different groups before DNA analysis was done, because of significant differences in anatomy.   However, it appers that they do indeed have a common ancestor:

Pinniped phylogeny and a new hypothesis for their origin and dispersal
Abstract
The relationships and the zoogeography of the three extant pinniped families, Otariidae (sea lions and fur seals), Odobenidae (one extant species, the walrus), and Phocidae (true seals), have been contentious. Here, we address these topics in a molecular study that includes all extant species of true seals and sea lions, four fur seals and the walrus. Contrary to prevailing morphological views the analyses conclusively showed monophyletic Pinnipedia with a basal split between Otarioidea (Otariidae + Odobenidae) and Phocidae.


You have it backwards.

With these types of contradictions surely similarities cannot be used as proof for evolution in other animals as well.


Well, it turns out that the intermediate predicted by molecular analysis, actually exists:

Puijila, a walking seal.
http://nature.ca/puijila/index_e.cfm

If the similarities in seals and sea lions do not equate to evolution, then one can argue that similarities in other animals cannot be used as proof of evolution. Could somebody who has a quick internet connection please get a photo of a seal and a sea lion and put them next to each other so that we can clearly see how appearances can be misleading.


They look like they have a common ancestor for a good reason.   They did.



(Edited by Yehren 8/19/2009 at 5:44 PM).
 


Posts: 84 | Posted: 5:38 PM on August 19, 2009 | IP
    
[ Single page for this topic ]

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
[ Single page for this topic ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

Topic options: Lock topic | Unlock topic | Make Topic Sticky | Remove Sticky | Delete thread | Move thread | Merge thread

 

© YouDebate.com
Powered by: ScareCrow version 2.12
© 2001 Jonathan Bravata. All rights reserved.