Talk:Common descent/creationism

Evidence Pro/Con Commmon Descent
Added section for evidence against common descent for NPOV. Added one example of evidence contrary to common descent. Added contrary opinions for NPOV with links. DLH


 * FeloniusMonk

Your deletion of my additions without discussion appears to violate deletion policy; You appear to violate NPOV Neutral point of view by showing only "evidence for" and deleting "evidence against" even with references.

"The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting views. The policy requires that, where there are or have been conflicting views, these should be presented fairly, but not asserted. All significant points of view are presented, not just the most popular one. It should not be asserted that the most popular view or some sort of intermediate view among the different views is the correct one. Readers are left to form their own opinions." "Detailed articles might also contain the mutual evaluations of each viewpoint, but studiously refrain from stating which is better. One can think of unbiased writing as the cold, fair, analytical description of all relevant sides of a debate. When bias towards one particular point of view can be detected the article needs to be fixed."

You appear to be asserting your POV, ignoring bias and deleting objective evidence you don't like. Please explain yourself.

I will allow your deletion and place the edits here for discussion for now. However I consider your deletion close to vandalism (now that I have read that policy :)).

Please consider Please do not bite the newcomers DLH 04:11, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

NPOV with minority viewpoints
Here is the addition for discussion: -- Conversely, Sir Fred Hoyle advocated panspermia (Mathematics of Evolution, 1999)- because the probability of evolution was so remote as to be impossible for life to have arisen on earth. - 	Proponents of both Creation Science and Intelligent Design see commonality in the genetic code as evidence for Common Design. They allow for some common descent by microevolution within major saltational changes in design or species. Similar features are attributed to variations of a common design." - revised DLH 20:07, 7 June 2006 (UTC) When one authority is cited as supporting a viewpoint, it is appropriate to cite another with an alternative viewpoint for NPOV. DLH 04:11, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Since the category "Evidence for Common Descent" is given, it is NPOV to provide a complementary section where others can provide opposing evidence. (Otherwise your are just censoring to protect majority dogma.) DLH 04:11, 7 June 2006 (UTC) Ed. DLH 20:07, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Following are two proposed subsections section on ALU Sequence Evidence: First summarizing the basis for evidence for/against, and the second summarizing evidence against common descent. (Replaces previous my preliminary material that I deleted) DLH 20:07, 7 June 2006 (UTC) --

Favorable ALU Sequence Evidence
""Alu elements are primate-specific members of the short interspersed nucleotide element (SINE) retroposon family – short stretches of DNA present in the genomes of all primates but of unknown function. Approximately 10 percent of the human genome is made of Alu sequences. The abundance of Alu elements within human and primate genomes is the result of a “copy and paste” mechanism, in which RNA polymerase III generates a transcript that is reverse transcribed and put back into the genome. The integration of Alu sequences back into the genome is currently understood as an utter random phenomenon, and hence Alu sequences in the exact same location in primates that do not reproduce together qualify as independent evidence of Darwin’s principle of common ancestry. If this were true, we should not find deviations from “known” evolutionary lines of ancestry. If we would observe only one single Alu element violating Darwin’s principle we have another valid falsification of Darwin’s idea of common descent. In 1999, Dale J. Hedges and coworkers reported the first comparison of Alu retroposons on a chromosome wide scale. They surveyed the human chromosome number 21 for Alu sequences and compared their positions to that found in the equivalent chimpanzee chromosome 22. The investigators found many species-specific copies of Alu sequences – some were found exclusively in humans, while others were solely present in chimpanzees.” Extract from: Peter Borger ‘’General Universal Theory of Biology’‘ (GUToB) (forthcoming) page 109. Compare: Common Descent of humandea.

Contrary ALU insertion sequences
Peter Borger summarizes contrary ALU insertion sequence evidence: “One Alu element, however, designated Alu CS12 was determined to be exclusive to gorilla and chimpanzee genomes and not present in humans. The authors commented that this was implying a relationship contrary to the orthodox phylogeny of ([human-chimp], [Gorilla]) (Hedges DJ et al. Genome Research 1999, 14:1068-75.). Not really something to worry about, however, as it would not really upset common descent. The behavior of another Alu element, designated Alu HS6, was more of a concern. The Alu HS6 was present in human, gorilla and orang-utan but not in chimpanzee. This highly peculiar observation – as it is obviously defying common descent – prompted the investigators to consider the possibility of the specific excision of this Alu element from the chimpanzee’s genome. Hedges et al argue that: "The HS6 insertions in human, gorilla, and orang-utan contained direct repeats that were identical in both sequence and length, strongly indicating identical by descent insertions. Unexpectedly, the chimpanzee locus was a perfect preintegration site, consisting of only one copy of the direct repeat." As the precise excision of an Alu insertion appeared to be a remote possibility, the investigators explored other potential explanations for their observations, which they did not find. Figure 1 of the Hedges paper shows the DNA sequences surrounding the integration site of Alu HS6 in humans, the great apes and Owl-monkey (Aotus trivirgatus). The absence of the Alu HS6 in chimpanzees is sufficient to scientifically falsify the idea of common ancestry."" (Extract from Peter Borger “General Universal Theory of Biology (GUToB) (forthcoming) page 109.)

Hodges’ et al. (1999) evidence contradicts orthodox [http://tolweb.org/tree?group=Hominidae Phylogony of humandea and common descent, where humans and chimpanzees have a common ancestor with gorillas, and all have a common ancestor with orangutangs. -- As these are direct quotes from Borger's book, please do not edit, but add comments/additions. DLH 20:07, 7 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Reading the paper (2004, not 1999, you seem to have made a mistake on your ref) it seems like the authors see it as unusual, but not earth-shatteringly so, and they propose a viable alternative explanation. How is it that one single anomaly is enough to "scientifically falsify the idea of common ancestry"?  The improbability of one anomaly certainly isn't enough to balance out the improbability of all the non-anomalous explanations.  Seems to be a rather silly conclusion to draw.  Guettarda 22:09, 7 June 2006 (UTC)


 * It's probably more likely that this could have been polymorphic in the common ape ancestor, and by the time of human-chimp radiation it hadn't fixed yet. For at least human/chimp and gorilla, the speciation time was not very far apart at all, and there was probably a huge amount of shared polymorphism between the human/chimp ancestor and the gorilla ancestor. Not sure how long ago orang diverged and I'm too lazy to look it up, but I imagine it's probably within the lifetime of a typical shared polymorphism (which is something like a million years on average). Graft 23:32, 7 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Err, so it seems I'm not that lazy, and that orang diverged much longer ago (9-15MYA, which is about 7 MYA before human-chimp divergence), and also that I don't bother reading, since the authors discuss this. I still think a long-lived insertion polymorphism is more likely than their paralogous duplication scenario, though obviously not very likely. Graft 23:56, 7 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Also this suggests precise deletions aren't that rare anyway. Graft 00:06, 8 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Interesting. Maybe Borger will have to re-write his book.  Guettarda 04:50, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

--- Proposed additional section for discussion:

Terminology
See homology (biology), orthology, paralogy." --- DLH 04:11, 7 June 2006 (UTC)