Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
How Religion Drives Science and Why it Matters
Cornelius Hunter
Blog Archive
-
▼
2017
(55)
-
▼
January
(17)
- About Those Placental Regulatory Genes
- Regulatory Genes Are Expressed For But a Few Hours
- How Big is the Closet?
- The Sea Anemone: A Proverbial Precambrian Rabbit
- Repetitive Elements: Evolution Has a Toolkit, And ...
- About That Oparin Prediction …
- Evolutionists Now Have a Simple Proposal For The O...
- Merrilee Salmon Propagates the Warfare Thesis
- The Science Contradicts The Theory
- Graur and Martin Explain Monumental Failure in Mol...
- Tasneem Zehra Husain, The Multiverse, and Plenitude
- “When Facts Fail”: Oh The Irony
- Evolutionist: Evolution Is Happening Faster Than W...
- Desert Mice Fur Changes Color to Match the Terrain
- Orangutan Does What No Chimp Has Ever Done
- A Salamander Two-fer: Non Homologous Development a...
- Field Studies Pay Off: “I was flabbergasted” (By T...
-
▼
January
(17)
Thank you Dr. Hunter for putting this together and making it so plain and simple.
ReplyDeleteThanks, Dr. Hunter for a great video. You present astounding contradictory evidence. A few points that stood out for me:
ReplyDelete- Micro-RNA presents no support for the tree of lie (ha ha, freudian slip, honest.)
- The types of echolocation in bats does not follow the tree. This is evolutionarily insane.
- Organisms (flax) adapt with genetic mutations, but the identical mutation seen to happen in 5 separate lineages. Random, my eye.
Now that you have made the video, I need to determine who to share it with.
Nice presentation. Thank you, much appreciated.
ReplyDeleteI fully agree we Phillymike and bFast. I very simple and clear explanation that I intend to share. I was not aware of the magnitude of the micro RNA problem. Thanks CH.
ReplyDeleteThanks so much for the kind comments everyone. A slightly improved version has been uploaded, so the link address is different.
ReplyDeletehttps://youtu.be/HTIlHEn9hXs
Not surprising at all the creationist doesn't mention the latest results of microRNA research.
ReplyDeleteA critical appraisal of the use of microRNA data in phylogenetics
Thompson et al
PNAS vol. 111 no. 35, September 2, 2014
Significance:
As progress toward a highly resolved tree of life continues, evolutionary relationships that defy resolution continue to be identified. Recently, the presence/absence of microRNA families has emerged as a potentially ideal source of information to resolve these difficult phylogenetic problems, and these data have been used to address several long-standing problems in the metazoan phylogeny. To our knowledge, this study performs the first rigorous statistical assessment of the phylogenetic utility of microRNAs and finds that a high incidence of homoplasy and sampling error renders published phylogenies based on microRNA data highly biased or uncertain. This study casts serious doubt on the central phylogenetic conclusions of several previous analyses of microRNA datasets.
Not the first time a creationist has lied by omission and it surely won't be the last.
where it says: "Remarkably, however, the statistical behavior and phylogenetic utility of microRNA data have not yet been rigorously characterized. Here we explore the behavior and performance of microRNA presence/absence data under a variety of evolutionary models and reexamine datasets from several previous studies. We find that highly heterogeneous rates of microRNA gain and loss, pervasive secondary loss, and ... etc., etc."
ReplyDeleteOh what a beautiful own goal.
Interesting but not surprising you omitted the rest of the abstract.
Delete"We find that highly heterogeneous rates of microRNA gain and loss, pervasive secondary loss, and sampling error collectively render microRNA-based inference of phylogeny difficult. Moreover, our reanalyses fundamentally alter the conclusions for four of the five studies that we reexamined. Our results indicate that the capacity of miRNA data to resolve the tree of life has been overstated, and we urge caution in their application and interpretation. "
See, I knew it wouldn't be the last time a creationist lied by omission.
A very good example of damage control:
Delete"We find that highly heterogeneous rates of microRNA gain and loss, pervasive secondary loss, and sampling error collectively render microRNA-based inference of phylogeny difficult. Moreover, our reanalyses fundamentally alter the conclusions for four of the five studies that we reexamined. Our results indicate that the capacity of miRNA data to resolve the tree of life has been overstated, and we urge caution in their application and interpretation."
Also an example of Troll Posting Rule #13: If they don't believe your delusions, drown them in gobbledygook!
Gilles Gervais
DeleteAlso an example of Troll Posting Rule #13: If they don't believe your delusions, drown them in gobbledygook!
If you don't understand the technical terms in the paper and think they're just "gobbledygook" you have no business offering an ignorance based opinion.
Um, Ghost, GG presented a much richer reading of the paper than you did. The paper is not very supportive of your perspective AT ALL!
DeleteLOL! Sure he did. A rich reading of all words he saw as "gobbledygook". :D
DeleteTimmy, you are so clueless- how does evolutionism explain microRNAs?
DeleteShow your work...
Joke
Deletehow does evolutionism explain microRNAs?
What needs explaining? They're just one more genetic variation that affects morphology which is acted on by natural selection.
What's your IDiot explanation for them Joke?
Their existence and functionality need explaining. Unfortunately blind and mindless processes cannot explain that.
Delete"Oh what a beautiful own goal."
ReplyDeleteSolid confirmation of CH"s micro RNA thesis. Thanks GR
Nice presentation, Cornelius. And this is just the tip of the iceberg of damning evidence against the pathetic joke called Darwinian evolution.
ReplyDeleteI do have one minor problem with your presentation though. You seem to imply that there is no tree of life at all because some of the branches form horizontal connections rather than vertical as it would in a normal tree. I don't think this completely eliminate the tree metaphor, however. A hierarchy is to be expected in any design process that takes place over a long period of time. We observe this in our own intelligent designs. But it's rarely a perfect tree in the Darwinian common descent sense. Multiple inheritance (horizontal transfers) is a frequent occurrence in human intelligent design.
What a wonderful deconstruction of the pseudo theory that is Darwinism, Neo, Revisited, Revamped or what have you!
ReplyDeleteIf evolution is true, I wonder what would make micro rna either so conserved or so completely eliminated as to produce such conflicting phylogenies. Let's not make a straw man out of it. Let's come up with an idea for them.
ReplyDeleteI am curious why you cite the Feduccia and the Ksepka et. al papers as evidence for a disparity between the molecular and morphological data (including fossils. Neither of those papers are about comparisons between differing phylogenies but are comparisons between divergent times as indicated by fossils and molecular clocks.
ReplyDeleteThis is common, and most often due to rooting a tree based on fossils that have been misidentified. But it says nothing about the phylogenies that are generated, not not sure why you claim it does. I assume you read the papers, right? So you should know what they were about.
If I find the time I would like to go into detail about what is wrong with your analysis of the Klassen et.al paper! But I am less than 10 minutes into your video so far.
I am curious why you cite the Feduccia and the Ksepka et. al papers as evidence for a disparity between the molecular and morphological data
DeleteBecause they are.
Neither of those papers are about comparisons between differing phylogenies but are comparisons between divergent times as indicated by fossils and molecular clocks.
These are enormous timing disparities, often greater than a factor of 2. Of course there also are topology disparities as well.
This is common, and most often due to rooting a tree based on fossils that have been misidentified.
Sorry, that dog won't hunt anymore. From Ksepka (which you apparently did not read):
Another potential explanation is identification bias. If palaeontologists fail to properly identify the oldest fossil of a clade, that clade's stratigraphic range will be artificially shortened. This is an unlikely driver of the patterns observed here, because crown fossils are relatively straightforward to identify: ... In sum, biases in the fossil record predict larger gaps between genetic divergences and fossil occurrences for stem divergences than for crown divergences, yet the opposite pattern is observed.
If I find the time I would like to go into detail about what is wrong with your analysis of the Klassen et.al paper!
DeletePerhaps you should allow for the possibility that there actually is a contradiction, rather than looking at the data with a fixed, preconceived conclusion.
Every phylogeny of birds, from whatever source, shows the same basic patterns.
Delete1. Birds are a monophyletic grouping. All birds are more closely related to each other than to any other organisms.
2. Among modern birds, there is a basal split between the ratites (flightless [mainly] birds such as ostriches), and the others (neognathes).
3. Among the neognathes, there is a basal grouping of chickens, geese and related birds (Galliformes). Among the rest of the birds (Neoaves) there a derived grouping of passerines (song birds).
Different methodologies do show some differences in the other details. As would be expected in any scientific endeavour. (I'm always amused by the fact that creationists think changes in biological science mean the collapse of the field ---- but somehow don't think that changes in our ideas in medical sciences somehow discredits the entire medical profession).
This avian basic phylogeny can be seen in the recent paper by Prum et al (Nature 2015).
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v526/n7574/abs/nature15697.html
This paper, like many other recent ones (not just on birds, but also for other organisms like mammals), resolves some of the older issues with apparent conflicts between molecular clock dating and the fossil record, and shows that they are fairly well aligned.
Christine Marie Janis:
DeleteThank you for the comment.
I'm always amused by the fact that creationists think changes in biological science mean the collapse of the field ---- but somehow don't think that changes in our ideas in medical sciences somehow discredits the entire medical profession
It is unfortunate that evolutionists resort to ad hominems and name calling, as well as strawman arguments, right out of the gate.
Every phylogeny of birds, from whatever source, shows the same basic patterns. … This avian basic phylogeny can be seen in the recent paper by Prum et al (Nature 2015).
Well the Moon, Sun, planets, and stars all show the “same basic patterns” in going sideways across the sky. That doesn’t mean they’re revolving about the Earth. The question at hand is how well do the data fit the theory, not whether or not a tree can be computed. Even the Editor explains that the “evolutionary relationships of bird species remain a contentious issue.” That said, I have no doubt that evolutionists can and probably will reach a consensus. But that would be a consensus within their normal science, which takes the theory as a given.
This raises the circular reasoning problem. As we have explained many times, phylogenetics is not a theory-neutral exercise—it is theory-laden. Usually homologous characters are culled, to be used for comparison. So right off the bat the data are filtered and theory-laden. The resulting phylogeny does not represent all the data. And, inevitably, additional pre- and post-filtering is used as well. For example:
“What the evolutionists finally had to do, simply put, was to select the subset of the genes or of the problem that gave the right evolutionary answer. They described those genes as having ‘strong phylogenetic signal.’ And how do we know that these genes have strong phylogenetic signal. Because they give the right answer. This is an example of a classic tendency in science known as confirmation bias.”
http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2013/06/that-yeast-study-is-good-example-of-how.html
Never claim the data support your model when you used your model to filter the data.
Also, even conflicting data that do not fit the tree very well can give a statistically significant result. In other words, a phylogeny can be “well supported” even with significant homoplasy, for example, when the right statistical tests are used. Never conflate statistical significance with meaningful significance for the problem at hand.
Regarding the Prum paper, it used a high-throughput technique which yields a lot of data, but (aside from the usual homology filtering as noted above), it is often highly conserved data. It does nothing to remove the contradictory data (which weren’t used in the analysis). Citing this study as a demonstration that those contradictory data have been resolved is incorrect.
Edit: Last paragraph, "It does nothing to remove" should read "It does nothing to resolve".
DeleteHunter: "Because they are."
DeleteNo, they are not. Both papers are arguing that the dates of divergence differ, not the pattern. I am not sure how you cannot see this.
Hunter: "These are enormous timing disparities, often greater than a factor of 2."
The timing issue is irrelevant to your point. If the molecular data says that Bird taxa A diverged from Bird taxa B 10 million years ago yet the fossil data suggests 5 million years that is a discrepancy in dates. But not a suggestion that Bird taxa A did not give rise to bird taxa B.
Hunter: "Of course there also are topology disparities as well."
So where are the topology disparities in these two papers? Because I reread them and find none.
"Sorry, that dog won't hunt anymore. From Ksepka (which you apparently did not read)"
Wow, went straight for the nasty there, eh? I read this paper the month it was released, as the issue is of interest to me. Again, this paper says nothing about phylogenetic topologies, it is about divergence dates. If I somehow missed where Ksepka et.al discusses disparity in topology, please let me know.
Oh, the own goals.
DeleteWow, went straight for the nasty there, eh?
Ah, no, that would be you, remember? You suggested I had not read the paper, based on zero evidence, and followed that with an old epicycle that the paper *explicitly* admitted does not work anymore. Clearly you were not familiar with the paper after criticizing me for that.
The timing issue is irrelevant to your point.
My point, in case you missed since I only said it about fifty times, is that the scientific evidence contradicts evolution. Sorry, you can’t squirm out of enormous disparities in the data.
If the molecular data says that Bird taxa A diverged from Bird taxa B 10 million years ago yet the fossil data suggests 5 million years that is a discrepancy in dates. But not a suggestion that Bird taxa A did not give rise to bird taxa B.
This is an excellent example of theory protectionism and how evolution is protected from the science and unfalsifiable. Nothing counts. In the face of enormous disparities, we’re told it doesn’t count.
Hunter: "You suggested I had not read the paper, based on zero evidence, and followed that with an old epicycle that the paper *explicitly* admitted does not work anymore."
DeleteI did no such thing. I have zero doubt that you read this paper and understood it completely. I disagree with how you reported it to your audience, but that is a separate issue.
Hunter: "My point, in case you missed since I only said it about fifty times, is that the scientific evidence contradicts evolution. Sorry, you can’t squirm out of enormous disparities in the data."
Then where specifically is that in the Ksepka paper? Where do they discuss the topology discrepancy? Same for the Feduccia paper. Please tell me where that is.
Hunter: "This is an excellent example of theory protectionism and how evolution is protected from the science and unfalsifiable."
No it does not. A crown group taxon appearing in the fossil record prior to any ancestral group certainly falsified common descent (the famous 'rabbit in the Precambrian' as an example). A molecular similarity that was unambiguously similar between disparate taxa would also be a major blow (and yes, I know about the ridiculous prestin claim between cetaceans and bats) to molecular phylogenies. Either of these would make me at least question the ToE, but none exist.
There isn't a scientific ToE, Aaron. If you doubt me then try to find it and link to it. Good luck with that
DeleteJoke: "There isn't a scientific ToE, "
DeleteJoey want a cracker?
Joe G: "There isn't a scientific ToE, Aaron. If you doubt me then try to find it and link to it. Good luck with that"
DeleteI am not even talking about the ToE or ID. I just want to know where in the Feduccia or Ksepka et. al papers the authors discuss a discrepancy between the molecular and fossil/morphological topologies, as Dr. Hunter claims. Maybe you can show it?
Aaron you said:
DeleteEither of these would make me at least question the ToE, but none exist.
My response was to that
Hi wee willie, I see that you are still unable to find the alleged scientific theory of evolution. Perhaps you need the cracker. At least then you would have something
Deleteas Dr. Hunter claims ...
DeleteExcept I didn't say that, and we've already gone over this. Typical troll behavior.
Joke: "Hi wee willie, I see that you are still unable to find the alleged scientific theory of evolution. Perhaps you need the cracker. At least then you would have something."
DeleteThere are some statements that are so stupid that you just shake your head and laugh. Maybe we should ask Cornelius or Nic or BC if they thing that there is a theory of evolution.
"Well the Moon, Sun, planets, and stars all show the “same basic patterns” in going sideways across the sky. That doesn’t mean they’re revolving about the Earth"
ReplyDeleteAnd a thylacine facing the other way doesn't make it a wolf.
Is that it? You make a silly, scientifically incorrect argument, and you have nothing to say about it? Can you at least admit that your claim is false that Prum et. al. "resolves some of the older issues with apparent conflicts between molecular clock dating and the fossil record, and shows that they are fairly well aligned."? Prum et. al. does no such thing.
DeleteDr. Hunter: Regarding your debate last year with Michael Ruse, is there a video or transcript that has both your presentations?
ReplyDeleteI don't have a transcript or full video.
DeleteExcellent presentation. Thank you!
ReplyDelete