Paul-luting the Internet
My journey through modern evolutionary theory, graduate/professional school, and life. In other words a shmorgishborg of borgish morg.
Wednesday, January 11, 2012
Friday, December 2, 2011
Sunday, July 17, 2011
Saturday, June 18, 2011
Government data Series. Part 1:From where do we import our oil?
I've been listening to various political debates and on thing keeps popping up, our dependence on foreign oil. Off the top of your head, how much do you know about oil? How much do we make domestically? How much do we import? If there is such a shortage, do we export any? Which countries do we import our oil from? Probably like most of you reading this, I thought we didn't make much and we imported it from unfriendly countries that happen to be bursting with oil. I was wrong.
In 2010 the top two countries we imported our oil from was Canada and Mexico respectively.
In 2010 the top two countries we imported our oil from was Canada and Mexico respectively.
Saturday, May 7, 2011
Silly Creationists
Today at a garage sale at the school a girl was wearing an "Abortion is Mean" shirt. I like wearing offensive/controversial shirts too, so I didn't think that much of it...until I saw the back. It said something about a Darwinian world, and had a link to a creationist website (I won't say which one because it sucks and my point isn't to increase the number of hits to their website). I went to the website and started reading the familiar arguments.
Here are two particularly misleading and downright funny "evidences of creation" from the website. (I hope you see why they're funny from my explanations.)
#1) Cytochrome C2.
"Cytochrome C. In his 1986 book, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, Michael Denton has presented the most telling criticism of evolutionary trees based on protein sequence data. He analyses the percentage differences between the Cytochrome C molecules of different organisms to show that each group of organisms is equally isolated from any other particular group as shown in the table below:-
Percent amino acid sequence divergence between cytochrome C2 in Rhodospirillum rubrum and various eukaryotic Cytochrome C (taken from The Creation Explanation with permission requested).
If evolution were true, then the further organisms have evolved from bacteria, the greater change there should be in Cytochrome C.
MAMMALS | BIRDS | TELEOSTS |
---|---|---|
Human 65 | Chicken 64 | Tuna 65 |
Monkey 64 | Penguin 64 | Bonito 64 |
Pig 64 | Duck 64 | Carp 64 |
Horse 64 | Pigeon 64 | ELASMOBRANCHS |
Dog 65 | REPTILES | Dogfish 65 |
Whale 65 | Turtle 64 | CYCLOSTOMES |
Rabbit 64 | Rattlesnake 66 | Lamprey 66 |
Kangaroo 66 | AMPHIBIANS | |
Bullfrog 65 |
INSECTS | ANGIOSPERMS | YEASTS |
---|---|---|
Fruit Fly 65 | Mung-bean 66 | Candid Cruse 72 |
Screw-worm 64 Silkworm 65 | Sesame 65 Castor 69 | Debaryomyces kloeckeri 67 |
Tobacco Horn | Sunflower 69 | Baker's yeast 69 |
Worm Moth 64 | Wheat 66 | Neurospora crassa 69 |
"From the data in table above it is evident that the amino acid sequence of the Cytochrome c molecules of all of the species in all of the groups of organisms are equally isolated from that of the bacterium Rhodospirillum rubrum. Thus there is no basis in this data to indicate that any group is intermediate between other groups. All are equally isolated from all other groups. This data supports the biblical record of creation of each "kind" separate from all other "kinds." (taken from The Creation Explanation with permission requested). "
Well, I did some molecular evolution research in my undergrad and the government has an amazing site devoted to molecular biology/genetics. It's called genbank. With this site one can easily reproduce this table with accurate numbers. One part of the website will compare homologous genes in different animals and quantify how different they are as a percent. Here is the chimp cytochrome c2 gene compared to other animals. (In case you aren't familiar with the species names, the first two are mice, then rat, bird, zebrafish, fruit fly, mosquito, worm, yeast, and the last one is a plant.)
Well, I did some molecular evolution research in my undergrad and the government has an amazing site devoted to molecular biology/genetics. It's called genbank. With this site one can easily reproduce this table with accurate numbers. One part of the website will compare homologous genes in different animals and quantify how different they are as a percent. Here is the chimp cytochrome c2 gene compared to other animals. (In case you aren't familiar with the species names, the first two are mice, then rat, bird, zebrafish, fruit fly, mosquito, worm, yeast, and the last one is a plant.)
Pairwise Alignment Scores
Gene | Identity (%) |
Specis | Symbol | Protein | DNA |
P.troglodytes | LOC742456 | ||||||
vs. M.musculus | Cycs | 90.5 | 90.5 | Blast | |||
vs. M.musculus | Gm10053 | 90.5 | 90.5 | Blast | |||
vs. R.norvegicus | LOC690675 | 89.5 | 89.5 | Blast | |||
vs. G.gallus | CYCS | 85.7 | 80.3 | Blast | |||
vs. D.rerio | zgc:86706 | 81.7 | 74.4 | Blast | |||
vs. D.melanogaster | Cyt-c-p | 77.5 | 71.9 | Blast | |||
vs. A.gambiae | AgaP_AGAP009537 | 78.4 | 69.6 | Blast | |||
vs. C.elegans | cyc-2.1 | 56.1 | 59.5 | Blast | |||
vs. C.elegans | cyc-2.2 | 58.2 | 58.8 | Blast | |||
vs. S.cerevisiae | CYC7 | 57.4 | 61.4 | Blast | |||
vs. K.lactis | CYC_KLULA | 56.4 | 59.1 | Blast | |||
vs. K.lactis | KLLA0F16929g | 56.4 | 59.1 | Blast | |||
vs. E.gossypii | AGOS_AFR360W | 55.4 | 60.1 | Blast |
Notice, the percentages continually decrease as we compare animals that are less and less related. This website completely lied!! The conclusions drawn from the data from genbank are what we would expect from using current evolutionary models and more interestingly, the creationist website itself predicts how it would be if evolution were true. Well, it turns out it is. Evolution gets a point for accurately predicting how similar sequence data are, and the creationist website loses a point for not only being wrong, but for disseminating misinformation. Creation website -1 / evolution 1.
(btw, can you guess where humans fit in? I don't know why humans weren't included, they usually are, but the same chimp gene is 99% identical to the human gene).
(btw, can you guess where humans fit in? I don't know why humans weren't included, they usually are, but the same chimp gene is 99% identical to the human gene).
#2) (From site) Hemoglobin.
“Haemoglobin, the molecule that carries oxygen around the body in red blood cells is found in all vertebrates, but also exists in earthworms, starfish, molluscs, in some insects and plants and even in certain bacteria (Blanchard, 2002). However, when scientists examined the haemoglobin of crocodiles, vipers and chicken, they found that crocodiles were more closely related to chickens on the basis of similarity in haemoglobin than to their fellow reptiles (Blanchard, 2002).”
This one is just down right funny and shows how unfamiliar most creationist are with biology in general. Look at a phylogenetic tree which shows how modern biology thinks these animals are related.
Ha. There they are birds and crocodilians are extremely closely related. The fact that bird and crocodilian hemoglobin sequences are similar is exactly what we would expect. Birds and crocodillians are both archosaurs. They are both less related to the squamate "reptiles" you are more familiar with. I'll assume the website (and the book it sites) is just plain ignorant of this fact, and not deliberately lying. Creation website -1 / evolution 2.
This is been most of my experience with creationism. Most of the arguments are silly when examined closely or when one has any familiarity with biology or animals. To be fair, evolution is not a perfect science, we still want to know a whole lot more! But with 250 years of research in evolution, we've come to explain a lot. Creationists are just plain silly. To have private views is one thing, but to distort facts about biology in order to support your faith (for creationism is always associated with faith, always) is just dirty. For shame!
If this was interesting to you, you should read some books about evolution, I'll be reviewing all the evolution books I've read soon. Also notice, I posted about evolution and said nothing bad about faith, religion, god, mormons, or anything like unto it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)