Re: [asa] ID question?

Dennis,

I would like to quote from wikipedia (admittedly not a good place to quote
from, but its handy and I dont think its terribly far off the mark)

[quote]
Homology is implied by sequence identity between the DNA sequences of the
pseudogene and parent gene. After
aligning<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sequence_alignment>the two
sequences, the percentage of identical base
pairs <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Base_pair> is computed. A high sequence
identity (usually between 40% and close to 100%) means that it is highly
likely that these two sequences diverged from a common ancestral sequence
(are homologous), and highly unlikely that these two sequences were
independently created (see typewriting
monkeys<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Typewriting_monkeys>
).
[unquote]

OK, so pseudogenes are one more way molecular biologists make a
probabilistic inference that two organisms have a common ancestor. How
does this change the situation of the same inference before pseudogenes were
discovered? I see nothing especially earth shattering that wasn't already
known with functional genes. So I suspect Bernie once again is
overclaiming.

The key factor to keep in mind is the metric that a protein (remember,
coded for by DNA) in two different organisms is sooooooo unlikely to arise
twice due to random chance that the inference of common ancestor is
reasonable. This is a probabilistic argument. Period.

But probabilistic arguments are the basis for Behe's red-ball versus
green-ball billiard game.
I'd like to see Iain Strachan's bayesian analysis of the protein
argument versus the pseudogene
argument versus the red-ball argument. One has to look at the numbers.
What constitutes a rare likelihood anyway? Again, Bernie has jumped to a
conclusion not warranted by his (lack of) demonstration of the numbers.

Let me define some things so I am more clear.

Very very likely, to me, is one part in ten billion parts.

Highly likely, to me, means greater than 1 part in ten to the 35th power
parts. (This is an arbitrary boundary). That means you need one trillion
moles of organisms to get 1 existent feature. If the likelihood is less
than that it isnt high.

Moderate likelihood, to me, is one part in 10 to the 300th power parts.

Unlikely, to me, is one part in ten to the 60,000th power parts.
Cosmological inflation is less likely than this (its that highly fine
tuned).

Highly likely, to the wikipedia author, seems to be one part in 1000
parts. Thus we aren't even communicating. Do you see why I think the
conversation here is all BS (Baloney Saturated)? The analysis is
inadequate. One must think like a chemical engineer.

I do apologize for quoting wikipedia.

On Thu, Oct 15, 2009 at 1:22 PM, Dennis Venema <Dennis.Venema@twu.ca> wrote:

>
>
> TED: I agree with you, Bernie: the genetic evidence, esp that coming out of
> the human genome project, is creating something of a crisis for some in the
> OEC camp. I also agree with your implicit definition of the OEC/TE
> division. Referencing my comments above, I add that for many (most?) ID
> proponents, the genetic evidence is equally capable of producing second
> thoughts. Their way out of this seems to be to keep pushing the
> possibility, however remote, that pseudogenes of the kind you have pointed
> to (vitamin C being a prominent example) really do have functions that will
> someday be discovered. It is not IMO unscientific to take that strategy,
> but it does seem more than a bit ad hoc. Copernicus, for example, realized
> that heliocentrism required the universe to be at least 1000 times bigger in
> radius than previously thought, since stellar parallax could not be detected
> in his day. He took the ad hoc response to the observational problem. Most
> of his contemporaries did the obvious thing: they continued to deny the
> motion of the earth, and thus the absence of visible parallax was to be
> expected. The ID proponents in this case are compared with Copernicus --
> except that we now know Copernicus was right, and we certainly do not know
> that the ID proponents are right. They are betting on future knowledge
> turning out in their favor. By contrast, in their criticisms of Darwinian
> evolution, they are betting on future knowledge *not* turning out in favor
> of Darwinian mechanisms that are presently unknown.
>
> ***
>
>
> A brief comment about pseudogene evidence and parallels to Copernicus:
> Copernicus was investigating a question at the limits of current technology
> and could not draw from other lines of evidence. That is not the case here:
> for pseudogenes, we can see what these sequences do in other organisms (for
> example the vitellogenin locus I discussed in my ASA talk this summer). We
> can also see that the pseudogenes are in the right genomic location in
> different organisms, as common descent would predict (synteny). We can also
> see that they retain amino acid homology even though most are no longer
> transcribed or translated (redundancy). Moreover, we can find pseudogenes
> that strongly suggest adaptation for ways of life the organism no longer
> uses (again, the vitellogenin gene is a good example: this gene is an egg
> yolk component in amniotes, but humans are placentals.)
>
> So, Copernicus had to go the *ad hoc* route for absence of the ability to
> gather more evidence. Those who deny common descent and give *ad hoc*appeals to unknown pseudogene functions do so *in the face of several
> converging lines of evidence* that point to the same conclusion: that humans
> share ancestry with other forms of life. So, while there are similarities
> here, there are also significant differences.
>
> The comparison might be more valid at the time when stellar parallax was
> first measured, providing a second line of evidence for heliocentricity.
>
> my 2 cents.
>
> Dennis
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Thu Oct 15 20:12:59 2009