Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Daggah · 03-10-2002, 03:10 PM

Ground rules:

If you do not respond to this thread and the points therein in a timely fashion (say, within 5 days), you've lost.

If you mention the fossil record at any point in this thread, you've lost.

If you resort to a "God did it" explanation at any point in this thread, you've lost.

Are we clear? Good.

Point: biochemistry provides a significant amount of very compelling evidence for evolution. To illustrate this point, I will demonstrate similiarities in the cytochrome C sequences of different animals. These similiarities are exactly the type of phenomena that we would expect to see if evolution is true.

These cytochrome C sequences are originally from LordValentine's very handy website.

I'm plaigarizing myself here, so I reserve the sole right to punish myself for my plaigarism.

Alright, randman, the thing is that the cytochrome C stuff is basically a prediction that evolution makes that has actually been verified. The reasoning is this: cytochrome C is completely unrelated to physical appearance. If evolution is true, then if you look at one species (Species X) that evolution claims is evolved from another (Species Y), then DNA inherited by X from Y should be remarkably similiar. Consequently, the protein sequences coded for by that DNA will also be remarkably similiar. And if you then compare Species X or Y's DNA to Species Z's DNA, where Species Z is one that is either a very distant relative, then you should see more difference between the species X or Y and species Z. Because the protein sequences are derived from the DNA, then you should also see those differences there, as well. If humans inherited its DNA for its cytochrome C sequence from the same species that chimpanzees did, then the sequences should be similiar. That is the prediction that evolution makes.

When we look at the sequences, then it is quite clear that the prediction here is true. There is no other real reason to expect to see this similiarity, unless it's just a coincidence. If it's a coincidence, then it would be unlikely to see similiar things happen in other organisms. But we do see this type of thing. We see similiarities in junk DNA that evolution also predicts we'll see. We see similiarities in pseudogenes that evolution, again, predicts. These aren't ad hoc explanations. There is little reason to believe that one would find these similiarities so utterly consistently if evolution were not true. And what if, when we found the cytochrome C sequences, we found them to be remarkably different, and lacking the pattern that evolution would predict? Evolutionists would have a lot of explaining to do. But when we did learn about this, that's not what happened. The discoveries being made in molecular biology have all been consistent with evolution so far. Every future discovery is a test of evolutionary theory. And, if the pattern continues, those tests will continue to be passed - with flying colors.

I'm essentially explaining to you how evolution could be falsified here, so pay attention. It may come in handy if evolution is, in fact, not true.

But don't take my word for it. Look for yourself. The sequences I'm going to show you are abbreviated, using <a href="http://www.bio.davidson.edu/Biology/Courses/Molbio/aatable.html" target="_blank">this</a> as a guide. Spaces are there to make it easier to read. You can go <a href="http://home.mmcable.com/harlequin/evol/HovindLie.html" target="_blank">here</a> and <a href="http://home.mmcable.com/harlequin/evol/seq.html" target="_blank">here</a> to see for yourself that I'm not making this up.

This is the cytochrome C sequence for a human:

mgdvekgkki fimkcsqcht vekggkhktg pnlhglfgrk tgqapgysyt aanknkgiiw gedtlmeyle npkkyipgtk mifvgikkke eradliaylk katne

This is the cytochrome C sequence for a chimp:

mgdvekgkki fimkcsqcht vekggkhktg pnlhglfgrk tgqapgysyt aanknkgiiw gedtlmeyle npkkyipgtk mifvgikkke eradliaylk katne

See the similiarity?

It's reasonable to expect that mice and rats are similiarly related. This is the cytochrome C sequence for a mouse:

mgdvekgkki fvqkcaqcht vekggkhktg pnlhglfgrk tgqaagfsyt danknkgitw gedtlmeyle npkkyipgtk mifagikkkg eradliaylk katne

Here is the sequence for a rat:

mgdvekgkki fvqkcaqcht vekggkhktg pnlhglfgrk tgqaagfsyt danknkgitw gedtlmeyle npkkyipgtk mifagikkkg eradliaylk katne

And a guinea pig:

gdvekgkkif vqkcaqchtv ekggkhktgp nlhglfgrkt gqaagfsytd anknkgitwg edtlmeylen pkkyipgtkm ifagikkkge radliaylkk atne

Again, see the similiarities in the sequences?

A rabbit is a mammal as well, but has very little in common with a human or a monkey, and more similiar to a mouse or rat (but not very similiar there, either). According to evolution, we should see more differences with monkeys and humans than we do with rats or mice. Here is the sequence for a rabbit:

gdvekgkkif vqkcaqchtv ekggkhktgp nlhglfgrkt gqavgfsytd anknkgitwg edtlmeylen pkkyipgtkm ifagikkkde radliaylkk atne

For comparison, here is the sequence for corn:

asfseappgn pkagekifkt kcaqchtvek gaghkqgpnl nglfgrqsgt tagysysaan knkavvween tlydyllnpk kyipgtkmvf pglkkpqera dliaylkeat a

Corn, of course, should be completely different from mice, rats, humans, monkeys, rabbits, etc., etc. That's what we see, in fact. However, it should be similiar to sunflowers:

asfaeapagd pttgakifkt kcaqchtvek gaghkqgpnl nglfgrqsgt tagysysaan knmaviween tlydyllnpk kyipgtkmvf pglkkpqera dliaylktst a

Are you beginning to see the pattern here?

The argument that we would expect to see similiar cytochrome C sequences in similiar organisms isn't really very valid. TalkOrigins has a useful point about cytochrome C, with sources:

Quote:

With this in mind, consider again the molecular sequences of cytochrome c. It has been shown that the human cytochrome c protein works just fine in yeast (a unicellular organism) that has had its own native cytochrome c gene deleted, even though yeast cytochrome c differs from human cytochrome c over 40% of the protein (Tanaka et. al 1988a; Tanaka et al. 1988b; Wallace and Tanaka 1994). In fact, the cytochrome c genes from tuna (fish), pigeon (bird), horse (mammal), Drosophila fly (insect), and rat (mammal) all function well in yeast that lack their own native yeast cytochrome c (Clements et al. 1989; Hickey et al. 1991; Koshy et al. 1992; Scarpulla and Nye 1986). Furthermore, extensive genetic analysis of cytochrome c has demonstrated that the majority of the protein sequence is unnecessary for its function in vivo (Hampsey 1986; Hampsey 1988). Only about a third of the 100 amino acids in cytochrome c are necessary to specify its function. Most of the amino acids in cytochrome c are hypervariable (i.e. they can be replaced by a large number of functionally equivalent amino acids) (Dickerson and Timkovich 1975). Importantly, Hubert Yockey has done a careful study in which he calculated that there are a minimum of 2.3 x 1093 possible functional cytochrome c protein sequences, based on these genetic mutational analyses (Hampsey 1986; Hampsey 1988; Yockey 1992, Ch. 6, p. 254). For perspective, the number 1093 is about one billion times larger than the number of atoms in the visible universe. Thus, functional cytochrome c sequences are virtually unlimited in number, and there is no a priori reason for two different species to have the same, or even mildly similar, cytochrome c protein sequences.

<a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section4.html" target="_blank">Source</a>

Point: if evolution is true we would expect to see genetic similiarities between species we believe are related by common ancestry.

We, in fact, do see this. Here is a picture comparing a chromosome in humans to the corresponding chromosomes in a chimpanzee, a gorilla, and an orangutan (the human chromosome is apparently the combined equivalent of two chromosomes in the other three animals compared):

We also see genetic similiarities in the "junk DNA" (non-functional DNA) between organisms we believe are related by common descent. If you have a theory or model that explains this better than evolution does, I'd sure like to hear it. Evolution explains it very easily: changes in non-functional DNA are passed down from creature to creature just as surely as changes in functional DNA are, and these changes are retained when speciation events occur.

So it's time to put your money where your mouth is, randman. I want to see an explanation for all of the above. If evolution isn't true, the stuff I've posted above is rather difficult to explain.

[ March 10, 2002: Message edited by: Daggah ]

Daggah · 03-10-2002, 03:11 PM

Furthermore, Richard Dawkins says:

Quote:

For instance, in one study by a group of New Zealand biologists, 11 animals were classified, not once but five times independently, using five different protein molecules. The 11 animals were sheep, rhesus monkey, horse, kangaroo, rat, rabbit, dog, pig, human, cow, and chimpanzee. The idea was first to work out a tree of relationships among the 11 animals using one protein. Then see whether you get the same tree of relationships using a different protein. Then do the same for a third, fourth, and fifth protein. Theoretically, if evolution were not true for example, it is possible for each of the five proteins to give a completely different tree of 'relationships'.
The five proteins were all available to be looked up in the library, for all 11 animals. For 11 animals, there are 654,729,075 possible trees of relationships to be considered, and the usual short-cut methods had to be employed. For each of the five protein molecules, the computer printed out the most parsimonious tree of relationship. This gives five independent best guesses as to the true tree of relationships among these 11 animals. The neatest result that we could hope for is that all five estimated trees turn out to be identical. The probability of getting this result by sheer luck is very small indeed: the number has 31 noughts after the decimal point. We should not be surprised if we fail to get agreement quite as perfect as this: a certain amount of convergent evolution and coincidence is only to be expected. But we should be worried if there was not a substantial measure of agreement among the different trees. In fact the five trees turned out to be not quite identical, but they are very similiar. All the five molecules agree in placing human, chimp and monkey close to each other, but there is some disagreement over which animal is the next closest to this cluster: haemoglobin B says the dog is; fibrinopeptide B says the rat is; fibrinopeptide A says that a cluster consisting of a rat and rabbit is; haemoglobin A says that a cluster consisting of rat, rabbit, and dog is.
We have a definite common ancestor with the dog, and another definite common ancestor with a rat. These two ancestors really existed, at a particular moment in history. One of them has to be more recent than the other, so either haemoglobin B or fibrinopeptide B must be wrong in its estimate of evolutionary relationships. Such minor discrepancies needn't worry us, as I have said. We expect a certain amount of convergence and coincidence. If we are truly closer to the dog, then this means that we and the rat have converged on one another with respect to our fibrinopeptide B. If we are truly closer to the rat, this means that we and the dog have converged on each other with respect to our haemoglobin B. We can get an idea of which oof these two is the more likely, by looking at yet other molecules. But I shan't pursue the matter: the point has been made.

pp. 274-275 of The Blind Watchmaker

I hope I copied that fairly accurately (I was copying word-for-word from the printed edition), but please excuse any typos or misspellings...

Scrambles · 03-10-2002, 04:15 PM

N-I-C-E!!!

Utnapishtim · 03-10-2002, 05:54 PM

You might want to do something about those links. Good arguement though.

BLoggins02 · 03-10-2002, 06:05 PM

Daggah: <img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" /> <img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" />

You are da MAN!

Ragnarok · 03-10-2002, 06:22 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Daggah:
Ground rules:

Point: biochemistry provides a significant amount of very compelling evidence for evolution. To illustrate this point, I will demonstrate similiarities in the cytochrome C sequences of different animals. These similiarities are exactly the type of phenomena that we would expect to see if evolution is true.

I've long thought that the DNA and biochem evidence for evil-ution was absolutely the strongest stuff out there. It will be intersting to see what specially created rabbits randman pulls out of his hat for this one.

Daggah · 03-10-2002, 07:05 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Utnapishtim:
You might want to do something about those links. Good arguement though.

Thanks for the heads-up. I was copying the code of my message from a vB forum that handles linking a little differently. It's fixed now.

randman · 03-10-2002, 07:14 PM

"When we look at the sequences, then it is quite clear that the prediction here is true. There is no other real reason to expect to see this similiarity,"

Is this really an accurate statement? All of my oil paintings use the same color and substance. Does that mean the only explanation is they evolved one from another?
Once again, similarites are passed off as proof. While it appears this evidence doesn't contradict evolution, it does not prove it either.
If you want to say it is consistent with your model, fine, but I really wouldn't expect living things that were similar to be any other way, regardless of which model one used. It hardly contradicts special creation, or Chein's special creation followed by evolution, or just about any model I can think of.
Where's the beef?

randman · 03-10-2002, 07:16 PM

"We have a definite common ancestor with the dog, and another definite common ancestor with a rat."

OK, this according to you is total fact, right?
You don't think this might be a wee bit speculative?

Daggah · 03-10-2002, 07:23 PM

Again randman, there is no reason whatsoever outside of evolution to expect to see similiarities in non-functional parts of proteins. There's no reason whatsoever outside of evolution to see similiarities in non-functional DNA. If you cannot see the striking similarities in the chromosome pictures, I've provided, it's because you're not willing to. So, again, explain to me, using these vague creation models that none of us evolutionists have EVER seen referenced or described, why we see such similiarities where there's no a priori reason to expect to see them. This isn't a case of similiar DNA doing similiar function - the DNA doesn't do ANYTHING. It's easy to see how these similiarities would come about if evolution is true. Does it not seem odd to you that biochemistry and genetics is FULL of these types of similiarities? The pattern is there for everyone to see. You just have to be willing to drop your propaganda smoke screen and open your eyes.

No, I don't find it speculative. Common descent is as much a fact as anything ever is in science.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-10-2002, 04:15 PM	#3
Scrambles Regular Member Join Date: Nov 2000 Location: Chch, NZ Posts: 234	N-I-C-E!!!

03-10-2002, 05:54 PM	#4
Utnapishtim Regular Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Vancouver, BC Posts: 330	You might want to do something about those links. Good arguement though.

03-10-2002, 06:05 PM	#5
BLoggins02 Regular Member Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: College Station, TX Posts: 254	Daggah: <img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" /> <img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" /> You are da MAN!

03-10-2002, 07:14 PM	#8
randman Regular Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Posts: 333	"When we look at the sequences, then it is quite clear that the prediction here is true. There is no other real reason to expect to see this similiarity," Is this really an accurate statement? All of my oil paintings use the same color and substance. Does that mean the only explanation is they evolved one from another? Once again, similarites are passed off as proof. While it appears this evidence doesn't contradict evolution, it does not prove it either. If you want to say it is consistent with your model, fine, but I really wouldn't expect living things that were similar to be any other way, regardless of which model one used. It hardly contradicts special creation, or Chein's special creation followed by evolution, or just about any model I can think of. Where's the beef?

03-10-2002, 07:16 PM	#9
randman Regular Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Posts: 333	"We have a definite common ancestor with the dog, and another definite common ancestor with a rat." OK, this according to you is total fact, right? You don't think this might be a wee bit speculative?

03-10-2002, 07:23 PM	#10
Daggah Banned Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: Deployed to Kosovo Posts: 4,314	Again randman, there is no reason whatsoever outside of evolution to expect to see similiarities in non-functional parts of proteins. There's no reason whatsoever outside of evolution to see similiarities in non-functional DNA. If you cannot see the striking similarities in the chromosome pictures, I've provided, it's because you're not willing to. So, again, explain to me, using these vague creation models that none of us evolutionists have EVER seen referenced or described, why we see such similiarities where there's no a priori reason to expect to see them. This isn't a case of similiar DNA doing similiar function - the DNA doesn't do ANYTHING. It's easy to see how these similiarities would come about if evolution is true. Does it not seem odd to you that biochemistry and genetics is FULL of these types of similiarities? The pattern is there for everyone to see. You just have to be willing to drop your propaganda smoke screen and open your eyes. No, I don't find it speculative. Common descent is as much a fact as anything ever is in science.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.