Evolution vs. Intelligent Design: Does Homology = Relatedness?

Paternity tests use inherited DNA markers as a way to determine relatedness. So does phylogenetics.

If you want to learn to make your own phylograms:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-zH5x02BYQ
Here's some resources for more info on phylograms.
The Wikipedia article on phylogenetic trees
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phylogenetic_tree

Science and Sensibility does a phylogenetic tree of science blogs
http://science_boy.blogspot.com/2005/10/testing-evolutionary-hypotheses-and_2...

The Tree of Life web project, based on 16S rDNA sequences
http://tolweb.org/accessory/Trees_Based_on_16s_rDNA?acc_id=54

Here's a poster you can order if you love phylogenetics as much as I do.
http://www.tellapallet.com/tree_of_life.htm

A dendrogram is a broad term for the diagrammatic representation of a phylogenetic tree.

A cladogram is a tree formed using cladistic methods. This type of tree only represents a branching pattern, i.e., its branch lengths do not represent time.

A phylogram is a phylogenetic tree that explicitly represents number of character changes through its branch lengths.

An ultrametric tree or chronogram is a phylogenetic tree that explicitly represents evolutionary time through its branch lengths.

Category:

Science & Technology

Tags:

• intelligent
• design
• evolution
• biology
• genetics
• phylogenetics
• homology
• maury
• paternity
• systematics
• taxonomy
• springer
• identigene
• phylograms
• cladistics

[benthemiester]

It was my fault for not being clear. It was late at night when I wrote post. One of the questions is stated wrong. Correction......

Why is the word astonishing used, could it be because this was unexpected or in other words, unpredicted? The chimp question however was written right.

[C0nc0rdance]

@benthemiester

I think some people would predict that because mice and humans have such different adaptations and specialized behaviors/phenotypes, that we would have a lot more novel genes. In truth, though, the genetic difference between mice and humans is largely in the way genes are regulated. It's not that we have a lot of specialized genes, but those genes serve different purposes in the two species. That is a bit surprising.

Like a car and a boat being made from the same parts.

[benthemiester]

How do you explain that according to Waterstone et al, Nature 420, 520 - 562

"an astonishing 99% of mouse genes turn out to have analogues in humans. Not only that, but great tracts of code are syntenic - that means the genes appear in the same order in the two genomes"

Do we even share these 99% percent of homologous genes with chimps?

Why is the word astonishing used? Used could it be because this was unexpected or in other words, predicted?

[C0nc0rdance]

Waterstone, Nature 420.

"86% of orthologous genes have the same number of coding exons and 46% have an identical sequence coding length. 91% of orthologous human-mouse exon pairs have identical exon length. On the other hand only 1% of orthologous introns have identical length. This is very strong evidence for conservation in coding exons and lack of conservation in non-coding introns. This can only be explained by common ancestry and by the action of mutation and selection."

[toobsucker]

C0nc0rdance shows how clueless he is on this topic.

I suggest he starts by reading

"Is It Time to Uproot the Tree of Life?" by Elizabeth Pennisi AND "Early Birds Shake Up Avian Tree of Life" AND, "Why Darwin was wrong about the tree of life," Graham Lawton New Scientist AND, "Phylogenetic Classification and the Universal Tree," W. Ford Doolittle Science, Vol. 284 AND "The Universal Ancestor," Carl Woese NAS

I have PAGES AND PAGES (will deliver upon request) on this topic that wont fit

[C0nc0rdance]

@toobsucker

The first article is about horizontal gene transfer. The second is about moving the split (LCA) between birds and dinosaurs back to the archosaurs. The third and fourth are also horizontal transfer articles. The fifth is a proposal for studies into multiple ("communal") last universal common ancestors.

None of these support creationism or the magical appearance of species. They are refinements of evolutionary models that account for new evidence.

[Genomiques]

Sometimes, when it comes to individual proteins, sequence similarity can be explained by convergent evolution, rather than common ancestry. Based on functional considerations then, researchers expected sequence similarity to be shared among the flagellar proteins FlgBCEFGK.

[juniorMilenko]

how i remembered KPCOFGS: King Phillip Cooked Our F***ing Giant Spiders! i find humour to aid in memorization.

[qabala]

"I want to SHARE with you the JOYS of phylogeny"

LOL!

You almost sounded like an evangelist there!

[Answerquestions1]

homology is a myth, proteins and genes that do not match with evolutionary predictions are found all the time.

when a gene does not match what evolutionists predict, the can ether call it convergent evolution (at a molecular level) or horizontal transfer,

yes I agree homology implies relateness, however there is no homology in living things

[MonotonePeanut]

6:11 It was so pretty I almost shed a tear <3 Catalase

[toobsucker]

@C0nc0rdance "None of these support creationism or the magical appearance of species. They are refinements of evolutionary models that account for new evidence"

I was not attempting to use them as evidence FOR anything. They are evidence AGAINST common decent. Punctuated equilibrium was invented for one reason only, that is to explain the "magical appearance of species" in the fossil record.

And your "refinements" of evolutionary theory are needed when your predictions are FALSIFIED.

[xESOTERlC]

@toobsucker pwned