Lesson 12/16: Biological Systematics Part 2

[TheWayandWordofLife]

BEFORE SOMEONE MISUNDERSTANDS MY COMMENT I JUST WROTE- BELOW: WHAT I MEAN, BY "FEATURES" WITHIN THE UNIVERSE, THAT CONFLICT WITH THE BIG BANG MODEL, W/O A GUIDING HAND FROM GOD, ARE THINGS LIKE; THE FACT THAT SEVERAL OF OUR PLANETS ROTATE/SPIN IN THE OPPOSITE DIRECTION OF THE REST, SEVERAL OF THEIR ORBITING MOONS DO AS WELL. THESE ARE A FEW "FEATURES" OF THESE PLANETS, AND THEIR MOONS, THAT CONTRADICT THE BIG BANG MODEL. THERE ARE NUMEROUS OTHER FEATURES WITHIN THE UNIVERSE- THAT CLEARLY G

[hugesinker]

@TheWayandWordofLife You've been misinformed about the Cambrian Explosion and Big Bang. The Cambrian explosion occurred over the course of half a billion years when life was very different. Some organisms were already extinct in the Pre-Cambrian period. During the Cambrian, animals only existed in the oceans and none were like those living today-- the fish were jawless and there weren't even bugs yet. Google Opabinia to see an example of these strange animals.

[hugesinker]

@TheWayandWordofLife As for the Big Bang, you've got it confused with the formation of the solar system. Have you been listening to Kent Hovind lectures or something? There are perfectly reasonable explanations for why a planet might spin differently from most of the others. Please try to find the answers before just giving up on our ability to understand reality.

[TheWayandWordofLife]

SOME SCI. FACTS WHICH SUPPORT ID/CREATION MODELS; UNIVERSE BEGAN FROM A SOURCE THAT WAS OUTSIDE OF TIME, SPACE, AND MATTER! OVER 40+ FEATURES WITHIN THE FORMING OF THE UNIVERSE, INCLUDING THE INITIAL "EXPLOSION"- HAD TO BE EXTREMELY PRECISE, SOME OF THEM: TO THE TRILLION,TRILLIONTH/ TRILLIONTH- OR NOTHING WOULD EXIST!!! THERE ARE NUMEROUS FEATURES ABOUT SEVERAL PLANETS, THEIR ORBITING MOONS, STARS, OUR EARTH, MOON, SUN, NOVAS, COMETS, GRAVITATIONAL FORCES, ETC.- THAT ARE CLEARLY IMPOSSIBLE, I

[TheWayandWordofLife]

THE CAMBRIAN EXPLOSION, FOUND IN THE EARLIEST ROCK "STRATA", IS FOUND; SEVERAL MILLIONS OF FOSSILS OF THE EARLIEST LIFEFORMS; MARINE LIFE, AS WELL AS NEARLY ALL OF THE MAJOR PHYLA GROUPS!!! THESE FOSSILS PROVE, THAT LIFE DID NOT BEGIN AS A SLOW, GRADUAL CHANGE, BUT THAT LIFE APPEARED SUDDENLY, WITH FULLY FORMED ANIMALS- BELONGING TO NEARLY EVERY MAJOR PHYLA GROUP!!! THESE FOSSILS DO NOT FIT THE EVOLUTIONAL MODEL- IN FACT, IT'S THE COMPLETE OPPOSITE, OF WHAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN FOUND. BUT S

[rafikgl]

I like your explanations very much . they are very clear . your videos are a must for any body interested in this issue .

I also like your comment of " this does not prove 100% evolution .... " and "there might be an unknown natural phenomenon that ..... " . i choose to believe that in the future they will discover this unknown mechanism . This belief is more logical for me than believing that mutations arranged 3.5 billion letters of the human genome.

[toobsucker]

Clueless to the nth degree this guy is.

"Is It Time to Uproot the Tree of Life?" by Elizabeth Pennisi

New Scientist admitted that the tree of life "lies in tatters, torn to pieces by an onslaught of negative evidence…. [D]ifferent genes told contradictory evolutionary stories."2 Lawton, G. 2009. Why Darwin Was Wrong About the Tree of Life. New Scientist. 2692: 34-39.

"Phylogenetic incongruities [conflicts] can be seen everywhere in the universal tree..."Carl Woese

The list goes on & on

[glovergj]

@toobsucker ...Nice try. If you actually read those article, you will see that the where the tree of life only breaks down at the very tips on a few branches because of things like gene transfer in bacteria, etc... The vast majority of it remains intact. I suggest you read more than the Discovery Institute press releases.

[toobsucker]

@glovergj "Nice try. If you actually read those article, you will see that the where the tree of life only breaks down at the very tips on a few branches"

What part of "can be seen everywhere in the universal tree" do you not understand

[glovergj]

@toobsucker Read the article and not the DI press release. "Everywhere" does not mean all branches, but rather the tips of branches that represent diverse phyla. No self-respecting biologist is abandoning cladistics just because a few parts of the tree are more "bush-like". Give it up.

[toobsucker]

@glovergj

You can also go here watch?v=bq92jTtMYRM

And listen to Craig Venter tell the other atheists at 9:40 the tree of life is a MYTH

[toobsucker]

@glovergj

Not the slightest idea what your talking about

"Trisha Gura, “Bones, Molecules or Both?,” Nature, Vol. 406:230-233 (July 20, 2000)"Evolutionary trees constructed by studying biological molecules often don’t resemble those drawn up from morphology

"A large fraction of single genes produce phylogenies of poor quality,” observing that one study “omitted 35% of single genes from their data matrix. because those genes produced phylogenies at odds with conventional wisdom" Rokas

[glovergj]

@toobsucker Hmm... Interesting. I'm going to take some time and follow up on this. Is your position then that that these incongruities are evidence that evolution is false? Or is your aim to simply correct what you feel is misinformation about the ubiquity of the tree of life?

[toobsucker]

@glovergj "Is your position then that that these incongruities are evidence that evolution is false Or is your aim to simply correct what you feel is misinformation about the ubiquity of the tree of life?"

Evolution, under the proper definition is a fact, and no creationist denies this. What is denied is the evolution of a single cell to all organisms observed . Evolution is observable VIA the selection of INFO already on file. This is an adaptation mechanism with only slight changes made

[glovergj]

@toobsucker What then is the "proper definition"? Is your position that evolution can't add information to the genome? I would tend to agree if you are talking about natural selection only -- many biologists are convinced that there are other not-well-understood natural mechanisms responsible for creating genomic novelty -- but they are material mechanisms. Is your position that new information can only be added via a transcendent mind?

[toobsucker]

@glovergj What then is the "proper definition"? Is your position that evolution can't add information to the genome? "

Quantifiable information, no. The total amount of measurable information is greater than what is added (nylonase) . Genome self organization must have a master blueprint its reading from. I personally believe the conserved parts of the genome will prove to have complete unadulterated instructions for building the species. & it appears RNA maybe a "store house" for selection

[updownleftrightinout]

I look at evolution more personally when trying to explain it. If a family has several children, why doesn't all the boys look alike and all the girls look alike? After all, with the same parents, the genetics should be the same for each boy or girl. We know that families quite often look alike - but not perfectly so. The little differences are much like the little differences that happen between generations in evolution.

Over millions of years the differences are enough to change an animal

[Majoofi]

I'm really enjoying this series.

[aselie]

sir can u plz send me dis background of DNA codes and protein structure in dis format.

[circusOFprecision]

How did the very ancient species acquire new features? Where did the original genetic information come from? I don't understand why the environment takes a back seat to genetic determinism. As well thought out as common descent seems to be, as well as it seems to work, I don't see how it is possible through selective pressures acting on mutations. After all, 99% of all species are extinct. The "mutants" are all dead.

[rafikgl]

why didn't god design each species with a unique gene coding for cytochrome c ?

why would he ? just for show ! or just to disprove a theory that needs nothing more than plain common sense to disprove !

[Omnitrix12]

If so much mutation can occur without change, how the heck did we get so much diversity of form and biochemistry?

[glovergj]

you just answered your own question. think about it.

[Omnitrix12]

Not really. The whole notion of evolution through mutation is that is supposedly does change things. So far, you've presented evidence that it doesn't.

[glovergj]

You don't understand. A gene can tolerate a lot of neutral change -- and neutral changes get passed down without consequence. these neutral changes are how we map the relatedness between species.

[Omnitrix12]

I got that much. What I'm not getting is not how we "know" they are related, but how they developed from a single root. Plus, what abut the different numbers of chromosomes among diverse species which make it impossible for them to reliably interbreed (e.g. lions and tigers almost never produce fertile offspring)? Where are the mutations that DO change something?

[glovergj]

All of the difference in our DNA are the result of mutation. Some are bad and do not get preserved, some are neutral and get passed down without consequence, and very few are beneficial and are favored. For instance, trichromotic vision involved a single mutation to the gene that creates one of the bi-chromatic receptors. By changing just one amino acid, the shape of the protein changed, which enabled it to respond to "red".

[zzRider]

A very thought provoking video.

[glovergj]

that's was my attempt at earning "street cred"...

[therealtony]

works as *well*  ;-)