Swinging from one tree of life to another!

154 posts / 0 new
Last post
valiya s sajjad's picture
Swinging from one tree of life to another!

This topic extends from an earlier discussion held under the thread ‘Virus Disproves Design’. My argument is that the tree of life as projected by evolution has serious problems.

The tree based on homology is incongruent to the tree based on DNA analysis. Now, there is a serious debate going on between evolutionists regarding which of the two trees is the real tree.

More than anything else, this reveals the subjective nature of the tree construction, which is nothing but an elliptical interpretation of facts. Often times, people cling to the tree as if it’s an observed fact, but the way the stories are being retold proves just that… it’s a story.

The DNA based tree further complicates the story, because what kind of a tree you map out depends on which genes you choose. In some cases, 50% of the genes point in one way while the other half points the other way.

If you want to find a brush version of life, you will find that too. Just choose your genes wisely. In this backdrop, what credibility does the leading proof of evolution, the phylogenetic tree, carry any more?

Subscription Note: 

Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.

Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.

chimp3's picture
No matter how you look at it

No matter how you look at it we are related to trees and bushes. Deal with it.

valiya s sajjad's picture
Trees or buses? Decide which

Trees or buses? Decide which one.

chimp3's picture
All of them. We share common

All of them. We share common ancestory with all living things. If studying genomes reveals different links in the relationships of beings then the patterns we draw on paper will look different. Why the fuss about a two dimensional representation of life?

valiya s sajjad's picture
You don't get the point chimp

You don't get the point chimp. If you say evolution occurred in bush fashion, that would destroy the argument of common descent... it would in fact upset the bedrock of evolution

chimp3's picture
Science is busy doing science

Science is busy doing science. Your limpid attempt at an "Ah ha , gotcha" moment does not dissuade from the knowledge gained . There is no scientific evidence against common ancestry. The Genome Pronect has solidified evolutionary theory.

Nyarlathotep's picture
valiya s sajjad - You don't

valiya s sajjad - You don't get the point chimp. If you say evolution occurred in bush fashion, that would destroy the argument of common descent

Not in the slightest. How did you come up with this "gem"?

valiya s sajjad's picture
The Genome Pronect has

The Genome Pronect has solidified evolutionary theory.

That depends on which genes you choose to track.

chimp3's picture
You and I do not choose. You

You and I do not choose. You are not involved in the scientific debate no matter what you post. Good !uck with your attempt to revert human knowledge back to the iron age. You are in good company these days.

valiya s sajjad's picture
That's what I call dogma....

That's what I call dogma.... any criticism is repelled with name-calling and labels. It's not you or I who choose, but scientists themselves say that depending on which genes you choose you end up with different patterns. By your logic, it's the evolutionists who are now taking you back to iron age.

chimp3's picture
I am not a scientist. Whether

I am not a scientist. Whether I choose bush or tree matters not. Reality is what it is. Neither one of us is contributing to the body of scientific knowledge. Sarcasm is a valid tactic on an internet forum.

Nyarlathotep's picture
valiya s sajjad - any

valiya s sajjad - any criticism is repelled with name-calling and labels

Who called you a name in this thread, and what did they call you? Please be explicit.

valiya s sajjad's picture
Nyarl

Nyarl

Not in the slightest. How did you come up with this "gem"?

A bush model at best can account for a common ancestor to small groups of organisms... however, the larger picture would be that of disparate groups without common links between them.

Nyarlathotep's picture
On a graph that resembles a

On a graph that resembles a bush, you can find an approximately continuous path (on the graph) back to a common location on the graph, from anywhere on the graph. The same goes for a graph that resembles a tree. Or in English - You can draw a path back to the root, with your pencil point always resting on a data point; from anywhere on the graph.

Both of these seem consistent with common descent.

CyberLN's picture
Valiya, you said:

Valiya, you said:

"More than anything else, this reveals the subjective nature of the tree construction, which is nothing but an elliptical interpretation of facts. Often times, people cling to the tree as if it’s an observed fact, but the way the stories are being retold proves just that… it’s a story."

If that line of thinking and the entire argument in your OP is valid and appropriate, then I'll apply it to your religion. Since there are so many different religion stories, even inside of one religion, "what credibility does the leading proof...carry anymore?" Multiple stories from multiple people show that it is just as you accuse evolution - subjective.

valiya s sajjad's picture
Hi Cyber LN

Hi Cyber LN

You said: If that line of thinking and the entire argument in your OP is valid and appropriate, then I'll apply it to your religion. Since there are so many different religion stories, even inside of one religion, "what credibility does the leading proof...carry anymore?" Multiple stories from multiple people show that it is just as you accuse evolution - subjective.

Your analogy is sort of right. Religions are like a tree of life with disconnected branches. However, there is a crucial difference between religions and evolution. In evolution, the whole tree has to be proven to be intact for the theory to gain credence. In religions, I have to show how the various branches (religions) have been disconnected from the base to the exclusion of one particular branch (islam). If I can prove that one branch is intact, I am good to go, which is fairly easy. If you ask me how, that’s a whole different debate, which is not quite relevant here.

CyberLN's picture
You said: "In evolution, the

You said: "In evolution, the whole tree has to be proven to be intact for the theory to gain credence."

Wrong. Adjustments are made all the time based on new evidence.

Islam is the only one not disconnected from "the base"? Please describe this base and provide evidence for it.

valiya s sajjad's picture
Hi nyarl

Hi nyarl

you are right.... by bush I meant the creationist 'grass' model (i stand corrected)

mykcob4's picture
@ valiya s sajjad

@ valiya s sajjad
BULLSHIT! We can take any living thing and trace back the DNA to single cells. The map is already played out. So trying to redefine a new tree is just stupid. DNA mapping is FACT, not a hypothesis. Although the tree COULD have gone in different directions, it didn't.

valiya s sajjad's picture
Hi Mykcob4

Hi Mykcob4

You said: “BULLSHIT! We can take any living thing and trace back the DNA to single cells. The map is already played out. So trying to redefine a new tree is just stupid. DNA mapping is FACT, not a hypothesis. Although the tree COULD have gone in different directions, it didn't. “

These dogmatic positions are challenged not by me, but by evolutionists themselves. Here are some examples of their positions regarding the tree of life.

“Molecular phylogenists will have failed to find the 'true tree,' not because their methods are inadequate or because they have chosen the wrong genes, but because the history of life cannot properly be represented as a tree. W. Ford Doolittle "Phylogenetic Classification and the Universal Tree," Science, 284:2124-2128 (June 25, 1999).

"For a long time the holy grail was to build a tree of life ... But today the project lies in tatters, torn to pieces by an onslaught of negative evidence.” Eric Bapteste, in Lawton, "Why Darwin was wrong about the tree of life."

“Phylogenetic incongruities can be seen everywhere in the universal tree, from its root to the major branchings within and among the various taxa to the makeup of the primary groupings themselves. Ref: "The Universal Ancestor," Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, 95:6854-9859 (June, 1998)

T]he mitochondrial cytochrome b gene implied . . . an absurd phylogeny of mammals, regardless of the method of tree construction. Cats and whales fell within primates, grouping with simians (monkeys and apes) and strepsirhines (lemurs, bush-babies and lorises) to the exclusion of tarsiers. Cytochrome b is probably the most commonly sequenced gene in vertebrates, making this surprising result even more disconcerting. By Michael S. Y. Lee, "Molecular Phylogenies Become Functional," Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 14: 177 (1999).

Moreover, Cytochrome C is often put forth as a great evidence for the tree. However, it forms a tree only if you cherry pick the lifeforms that create the pattern you want. But whereas, look how the cytochrome c of bacteria compare with the following creatures: The cytochrome C in bacteria is 64% different from horses and pigeons, 65% different from tuna and silkmoths, 66% different from wheat, and 69% different from yeast. One would expect the cytochrome C of a bacterium to be closer to the cytochrome C of a tuna (fish) than a horse (mammal). Furthermore, the horse should have the same mutations as the tuna, plus a few more. This is not what the molecular data shows.

Greensnake's picture
Hi valiya,

Hi valiya,

"Moreover, Cytochrome C is often put forth as a great evidence for the tree. However, it forms a tree only if you cherry pick the lifeforms that create the pattern you want. But whereas, look how the cytochrome c of bacteria compare with the following creatures: The cytochrome C in bacteria is 64% different from horses and pigeons, 65% different from tuna and silkmoths, 66% different from wheat, and 69% different from yeast. One would expect the cytochrome C of a bacterium to be closer to the cytochrome C of a tuna (fish) than a horse (mammal). Furthermore, the horse should have the same mutations as the tuna, plus a few more. This is not what the molecular data shows." [Aren't you forgetting that silk moths and horses all have the same evolutionary distance from bacteria? You have actually given us evidence FOR the evolutionary tree! Thank you! If you start at any of the branch tips and trace back to the main trunk you go about the same distance, right? Just because a moth is an insect doesn't mean that it hasn't been collecting mutations all these years, and it is the comparative study of mutations that give rise to the evolutionary tree in the case of cytochrome c.]

[Valiya, are you sure you understand what these people are talking about? Cherry-picked quotes (probably from creationist sources you relied upon) in such a subtle subject can easily be misunderstood by lay readers! Not long ago I was looking at a modern construction of the evolutionary tree on the Internet, this from a university site. Therefore, your quotes need to be examined in their full context in order to understand what they are really saying. Are evolutionists saying that the mitochrondrial cytochrome b gene SHOULD accurately depict the evolutionary tree? Not every molecule is suitable for such analysis, but that doesn't mean that evolutionists are simply picking and choosing. The odds of getting anything remotely resembling the evolutionary tree by accident is astronomical.]

[Your third quote seems to imply the existence of the evolutionary tree, only that it has some difficulties. Your second quote has no date. All of them need to be read in their full context since the subject is easily misunderstood and these quotes were probably cherry-picked. Can you give us links to these sources so that we can see the full context?

Alembé's picture
Hi Valiya,

Hi Valiya,
As a retired scientist, I can tell you that when dogma and new data/interpretations are in opposition, then things get interesting and people rejoice. Grants are written and funded, new data come in, new theories advanced, scientists at odds during the conference sessions have a beer together afterwards and continue arguing, life is good.

Greensnake's picture
Alembe:

Alembe:

Could it be that chemistry was your field? ;)

Alembé's picture
Hi Greensnake,

Hi Greensnake,

Well, chemistry was one of the basic sciences that I used extensively while wandering my way through biochem, immunology and immunoparasitology.
(It was the alembic that gave it away, wasn't it?)

chimp3's picture
Where would we be without the

Where would we be without the alembic ( says a fan of cognac ).

Alembé's picture
I am partial to a single malt

I am partial to a single malt scotch now and again, and again.

CyberLN's picture
I'm with you, Alembe! I'm

I'm with you, Alembe! I'm partial to the port and sherry cask single malts.

Alembé's picture
I'm starting to see a

I'm starting to see a unifying factor of atheists and alcoholic beverages.

CyberLN's picture
Well, quality is infectious.

Well, quality is infectious.

Algebe's picture
Glenfiddich. Preferably old

Glenfiddich. Preferably old enough to go to go to university. Maker's Mark also goes down nicely. A chilled Tio Pepe sherry is the perfect appetizer.

chimp3's picture
Remy Martin 1738 .

Remy Martin 1738 .

Pages

Donating = Loving

Heart Icon

Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.

Or make a one-time donation in any amount.