NESTED HIERARCHIES (REPLY TO DONEXODUS)

Evolutionists claim that genes are organized in a perfect tree pattern however that is not true

These are some links with examples of genes that do not fit the evolutionary tree pattern and can not be explain with common descent.

Sources
If you draw a family tree with the gene perstine, dolphins appear to be more closely related to bats than to whales, when evolution predicts the opposite.
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketscience/2010/01/25/echolocation-in...
This article deals with problems that scientists have in building family trees due to the gene tree discordances.
http://dna.ac/filogeografia/PDFs/coalesc/Degnan&Rosenberg_09_GeneTrees_Sp...
Who is our closer relative, gorillas or chimps? The article suggests that it all depends on what region of the genome is analyzed. In other words, some regions suggest that we are more closely related to gorillas, contradicting the classical family tree.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1055790300907048
Evolutionists invented a new excuse, they claimed horizontal transfer to explain genes that do not fit with the nested highierchy pattern.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2009/jan/21/charles-darwin-evolution-specie...

A few specific examples
These where taken from a creationists source, but feel free to look at the primary sources ( bibliography) if you don´t like creationists sources.
cytochrome-C protein, puts humans and kangaroos as closer relatives than humans and horses, turtles appear closer to man than to some snakes
Hemoglobin puts humans closer to pigs that to lemurs
Insulin, brings man and pig phylogenetically closer together than chimpanzee and man.
And many similar examples
http://www.mythofhomology.com/myth_of_homology_04.htm

Erv
Ervs are not organized in a perfect nested highiechy as expected if evolution where true:
ERV found orthologs in chimps and gorillas but not in humans:
http://medicine.yale.edu/labs/kidd/www/399.pdf
Family CERV-2 was found orthologs in chimps gorillas monkeys etc. but is lacking in the human and orangutan genome,
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16805923

Category:

Education

Tags:

• EVOLUTION
• CREATION
• CREATIONISM
• EVOLUTIONISM
• CREATIONISTS
• EVOLUTIONISTS
• CHALLENGE
• NESTED
• HIERARCHIES
• TREE
• GENES
• Darwin
• Dawkins
• Debate
• Design

[jomen112]

Evolution also predicts convergence and this explains the evolution of Prestin.

"Convergent evolution describes the acquisition of the same biological trait in unrelated lineages." -- Wikipedia

[Answerquestions1]

@jomen112

@hugenex2000

the same story repeats over and over again.

1) evolutionists say that ´´A´´ would falsify evolution

2) creationists show(or prove) ´´A´´

3) evolutionists reply claiming ´´A´´ is not a problem for evolution because....bla bla bla

[hugenex2000]

@Answerquestions1 A clear case of confirmation bias. In order to maintain belief in evolution one must ignore the evidence against it or use loopy logic to try to explain it. Convergent evolution for example. The Human FUBP1 protein is more similar to that in Pigs than Primates yet for some strange reason they say there is a perfect nested hierarchy. I'll run a comparison on Prestin too though. This is the first I have heard of it. Thanks for the video.

Check the sound though, too low I think.

[Answerquestions1]

@hugenex2000

but don´t teach the controversy, they say, don´t tell students about all the evidance against evolution,don´t teach the facts, just teach evolutionary interpretations that are known to be biased and wrong.

[hugenex2000]

Well, of course you can't teach the controversy because when you tell students how to look at the evidence for themselves and that there might be another explanation then they might begin to think for themselves and the theory of evolution will fall quicker than a contestant on the tv show Wipeout.

[Answerquestions1]

@hugenex2000

the same story repeats over and over again.

1) evolutionists say that ´´A´´ would falsify evolution

2) creationists show(or prove) ´´A´´

3) evolutionists reply claiming ´´A´´ is not a problem for evolution because....bla bla bla

[hugenex2000]

@jomen112 So, genes are arranged in a perfect nested hierarchy(NH), except of course when they are not so arranged, in which case they must have converged? Well, if genes did form a perfect NH then there would be No Need to invoke "Convergence" when they don't form a perfect NH. The need to invoke convergence means you already know that genes do NOT form a perfect NH yet you claim that it is evidence for evolution? When it is shown that they don't then it's clear there is No perfect NH.

Busted.

[Answerquestions1]

@jomen112

but you twisted the arguent in to something unfalsifiable. any time we find a gene that can not be explained with common descent you will explaie it convergent evolution.

[jomen112]

So after some digging I found the evidence I was looking for:

"Prestin gene has undergone sequence convergence among unrelated lineages of echolocating bat [...] we find evidence that these changes were driven by natural selection. [..] for sites showing a shift in functional constraint in the echolocating whales correlated significantly with support for convergence"

Liu & Cotton 2010, Convergent sequence evolution between echolocating bats and dolphins

[jomen112]

@Answerquestions1 "if frogs and humans would share say 99% of their genes ... you would say that we share a more recent ansestor with frogs."

This argument is so silly, almost stupid, I dunno what to say. We already have examples of "frogs" that are 99% similar to humans and we call them, surprise, surprise, humans. (All human are 99% similar to each other). You can NOT make a frog 99% similar to a human with out turning the frog to a human - this is basic biochemistry.