Evolution vs Baraminology: the empirical showdown.

Post Reply New Topic

This is going on my back burner for a while; my prof just dumped a bunch of extra work on me for a real-world research project. If anyone else is bored and wants to go grab sequences for our data, here are a bunch of online databases you can dig through:

GenBank www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/genbank
EMBL www.ebi.ac.uk/embl/
DDBJ www.ddbj.nig.ac.jp
AceDB
DDJP DNA
JJPID
MIPS
PHRED
PIR
PROSITE
RDP
TIGR
UNIGENE
PubMed (pubmed.gov)
Entrez
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi
www.nlm.nih.gov/bsd (?)
JSTOR (jstor.com)
www.expasy.org
genecards.org
pathguide.org

Okay, this thread is now necromanced as requested by Orwell.

Reviewing the thread... wow, I'd really forgotten how narrow a baramin is. I was thinking that sticking within class Aves (with the croc as outgroup) would be way too narrow to demonstrate the point, but a baramin is really a pretty small group so it should still work.

I am mentally dead right now (I've been playing chess against small children) but tomorrow I will download some gene sequences. I'll use the ones suggested by iamnotaparakeet and add in crocodile.

We also have to decide what specific genes to look at. This will largely be a function of what I can find in the databases that is common to all the species being studied, but I do intend to take 16s RNA, which is commonly accepted as a good baseline approximation of the true phylogeny. If anyone has a specific gene to suggest, I'd be happy to hear it.

Coolest evolution vs creationist thread ever.

Kudos! Way over my head. I'm just a spectator. But kudos nonetheless.

perhaps I am simply too far outside of my area of expertise, but what do you mean by 'conjunctive gene sequences' or 'disjunctive gene sequences'?

Keet: in order to even attempt this, I have to use genes that are homologous between all the species being studied. I must still not have been clear as to the predictions for evolution vs baraminology.

Based on a comparison of any given gene, I can produce a propsed evolutionary tree. I will do this for multiple genes.

Now, if evolution is correct, then the trees should look similar across genes, although there are known cases where this is not always the case. However, the degree of consistency between the trees should basically be the same regardless of what level of taxonomic organization we're looking at. If baraminology is correct, there is no reason to expect apparent relationships between common genes (that are similar because of common design) to reflect evolutionary relationships, as those relationships simply don't exist. Therefore, if baraminology is correct, I will get more-or-less consistent results when generating phylogenetic trees within a baramin, but I will see a marked decrease in consistency of results as soon as I try to compare the relationships between different baramins. Evolutionary biology predicts I will get similar results whether I am comparing relationships within a family/order or among the whole class.

I think you are still misunderstanding the experiment. I'm not even directly measuring the differences between gene sequences in any two organisms.

Your proposed conjunctive vs disjunctive experiment (if I understood it correctly) would require whole-genome sequences of all the organisms involved and a better understanding of the details of said genomes than anyone has at present.

I'm glad to see this thread being revived.

so conjunctive = homologous?

so basically. its a he said she said game,

im all down to business so i've got to know

I'd need more than a shot to be talking to any of you

anytime the bird is involved, it must be how jesus christ (last name witheld) is somehow the
f-ing god of the universe. am I right?