From: Subject: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Stephen_E._Jon?= =?iso-8859-1?Q?es_:_Creation/?= =?iso-8859-1?Q?Evolution_Arti?= =?iso-8859-1?Q?cles:_Colin_Pa?= =?iso-8859-1?Q?tterson:_addre?= =?iso-8859-1?Q?ss_at_the_Amer?= =?iso-8859-1?Q?ican_Museum_of?= =?iso-8859-1?Q?_Natural_Histo?= =?iso-8859-1?Q?ry=2C_New_York_C?= =?iso-8859-1?Q?ity=2C_1981?= Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2004 22:34:55 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Location: =?iso-8859-1?Q?http://members?= =?iso-8859-1?Q?.iinet.net.au/?= =?iso-8859-1?Q?~sejones/patta?= =?iso-8859-1?Q?m11.html?= X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.3314.1001 Stephen E. Jones : Creation/Evolution Articles: Colin = Patterson: address at the American Museum of Natural History, New York = City, 1981

Stephen E. Jones

Creation/Evolution Articles

Colin Patterson's address at the American Museum of Natural History, = New=20 York City, 1981, pages 11-14:

[Home = page] [Site map] = [Update = log] [Articles]=

Pages [1-5] [6-10] = [11] [12] [13] [14]

page 11

The other thing we might do is accept Gary Nelson's optimistic view = that=20 every set of data is a glimpse of the truth. We might combine the 3 = cladograms.=20 Try that and let's see what we get. Comes out like this...(works on = board) This=20 is the cladogram we get with nice data. You like it? You don't. So what = do a do?=20 I'll take one more of these....and than I'll drop it. We have no more = reptile=20 sequences but we have plenty of mammal sequences. Let's try mammals, I = think if=20 we were to put mammals with birds and crocodiles in Mayr's diagram again = I still=20 do him no injustice if I assume that the diagram would look like this - = that 3=20 is a mammal; C is a common ancestor, mammals that diverge very far in = one=20 direction, crocodiles a little in the other one and birds like that; B = mammal, C=20 crocodiles and D birds. B is a man, C is a crocodile and D is a chicken = again.=20 If we use the alpha hemoglobin data, this what we get.

BC	7.7%	(man-crocodile)
CD	7.7%	(crocodile-bird)
BD	14.7%	(man-bird)

What's going on? BC should be smaller than CD if the diagram is = roughly=20 right. In fact, they are both the same. BD should be the smallest of = all, the 2=20 are miles apart. Something is wrong.

Well, I don't know what an evolutionist would do with this but I = could guess.=20 When I ask them about evolution the only answer I get from them is, = "Convergence=20 is everywhere." Well, I'm pretty sure they would take this as an example = of=20 convergence and they would read off the diagram: After all, birds and = mammals=20 converge into the endothermic adaptive zone.

This hemoglobin data might have given you another instance of = convergence.=20 Here the BC and CD proportion of the genotype are the same. What am I = talking=20 about? Haven't the faintest idea, not the faintest. I'll ask you what I = mean.=20 Yes. First time I put it up I meant to put it like this but that = wouldn't do=20 because these are both the same distance from C so you have to do it = like this-=20 they converge until the bird now converged until they are identical. But = then=20 the problem is they are each different from the turtle by 7.7%. Those = 7.7%s are=20 entirely different. They have to be apart by 15% whatever you do with = it,=20 convergence won't explain it. There is something funny in there.

So, after all, the question does seem insoluble. There is one more = thing we=20 can do with this. This data does give a diagram. It's not the diagram = that is=20 there (another diagram). The birds and mammals appear together and = crocodiles=20 and lizards so we follow Gary's recommendation and combine the cladogram = and add=20 mammals here. There's the cladogram we get with all this playing around. = Do you=20 like this any better? No, I'm sure you don't. So, what do we do? Well, = luckily I=20 don t have to keep asking you rhetorical questions because I'm talking = about=20 Mayr's example and I know what he did.

You remember Mayr published his original diagram in talking about the = fortunes of genomes in 1974, when there very few samples of the genome = available=20 in the form of proteins or amino or nucleic acid sequences. And the two = examples=20 he offered to conform to his example were birds and crocs and apes. = Well, far=20 from matching his scheme, they all said the same thing that.... genome. = So=20 Mayr's prediction was falsified there.

(Patterson C., "Evolutionism and Creationism," Transcript of Address = at the=20 American Museum of Natural History, New York NY, November 5, 1981, p.11) = [Top of=20 page]

page 12

As I said before, falsification is never absolute and in this case, I = suggested that there 3 possible things that might be false: genome data, = diagram, or the claims about evolution. Well, with man and ape Mayr = still=20 believes in the diagram, and he still believes he knows about evolution = so all=20 he counted on is his data. So he dropped the genome and returned to = morphology=20 and so last week we got Broca's center and the hippocampus question all = over=20 again or its equivalent.

There are two points. to be made there. The first concerns another of = the=20 parallels between evolutionism and creationism. Back in 1974, Mayr = appealed to=20 the genotype as the holder to true knowledge. At that time the genotype = was=20 still very much a mystery. Now that we have samples of a genotype from a = wide=20 variety of organisms it's no longer quite so mysterious, its dropped and = a new=20 mystery is proposed, Broca's center and that long list of unspecified=20 autapomorphies of man. It seems that just like creationists, = evolutionists are=20 liable to appeal to mystery.

The second point is a much more important one and it concerns the = levels at=20 which we can investigate characters in systematics. The traditional = level is=20 morphology, and we're all pretty familiar with morphology. We feel at = home with=20 morphological data and competent to handle it just by its complexities. = We have=20 a good grasp of what homology means at the morphological level and we = have the=20 transformations of ontogeny as a guide in ordering characters into=20 transformation series.

Back in 1978 Gary Nelson suggested, "The concept of evolution is an=20 extrapolation or interpretation of the orderliness or ontogeny." So far = as I=20 know, at the morphological level, that is at all true. As Gary said it's = Von=20 Baer's* law that ontogeny goes from the general to the particular, that = it's=20 behind the transformations we invoke in morphology and behind the = systematic=20 hierarchy being built on those morphological characters.

Of course, all the transformations we invoke are not directly = observed in=20 ontogeny but I think you'll find that every transformation that is = inferred is=20 congruent with Von Baer's* law. So at the morphological level we have a = sound=20 concept of homology and we have ontogeny to help us in ordering = homology.=20 Morphology or in the most general terms, the phenotype, is the highest = level of=20 investigation in systematics.

The next level down is the level of gene products- proteins. Here the = concept=20 of homology becomes very general. In the first place we have the problem = of=20 plurality. Plurality is what the people who play with protein sequences = call the=20 relation between gene products that we think are the results of the = duplication.=20 So plurality is the molecular version of serial homology in morphology. = The=20 difference is that in morphology you can be fairly sure that you've = struck the=20 serial homolog because you have ontogeny in which to observe whether = they really=20 are duplications or something new. But with protein sequences and this = question=20 of plurality and inferred gene duplication, the inferred duplication is = somewhat=20 ... there is no way to investigate them. It does seem to me gene = duplication is=20 often invoked simply to explain away all the data.

When you are comparing two protein sequences as a whole rather than = amino=20 acid by amino acid, homology for a molecular biologist is a purely = statistical=20 concept. You compare the two sequences and if the masses between them = pass=20 certain statistical tests, they're homologous. There was a paper by = Doolittle in=20 Science two weeks ago explaining this concept.

* Note: the original has "Conbear's"

(Patterson C., "Evolutionism and Creationism," Transcript of Address = at the=20 American Museum of Natural History, New York NY, November 5, 1981, p.12) = [Top of=20 page]

page 13

Well, having decided that two sequences of the whole are homologous, = you can=20 then align them and compare them to specify position, and that is to say = amino=20 acid is a homology of a finer level. But here the problem is whether the = amino=20 acid is really the same, the same in .... because of the redundancy of = the=20 genetic code, they are only two amino acids out of the 20, tryptophan = and=20 methiamine, that are coded by a single triplet. All the rest are coded = by two or=20 more. So there are only two amino acids that are always the same in = terms of the=20 triplet that coded them and they are the rarest amino acids. They = account for=20 less than 2% of the average sequence. All the other amino acids coded by = two or=20 more triplets, so that the amino acid level, the protein level, the = gene-product=20 level and that can never be treated or hardly ever be treated as a = homology at=20 the DNA level. You're making a guess.

So at the gene product level, homology becomes a a pretty vague = concept. And=20 also we don't have ontogeny of the gene product level with which to help = us to=20 help us order the homology for the transformation series.

Now, I used to think that because there is no ontogeny in proteins, = yet=20 somehow we seem to need the notion of transformation to order sequences, = that=20 they provided some sort of proof of evolution. And I'm no longer sure = that=20 follows because the homology ..... that we infer and the transformations = that we=20 infer in ordering them are subject to the uncertainty because of the = ambiguity=20 of the genetic code. So the real molecular homology must lie further = down than=20 the level of DNA. Below the level of DNA we know virtually nothing = because there=20 is hardly any comparative data in the form of sequences that can be = aligned and=20 compared.

Last Saturday up in Ann Arbor I was lucky enough to meet Arnold... = and talk=20 to him about the first sets, of the datas - DNA sequences. This is = mitochondria=20 ... DNA of man, chimpanzee, gorilla, orangutan and gibbon. The work was = done by=20 Prager and Wilson and their group. The sequences are each: (works on = board)=20 (mitochondria of DNA) 896 nucleotides, of those 612 are invariant and = the rest=20 variant. This is the most parsimonious tree that the Berkeley people got = out the=20 data.

A =3D man

B =3D chimp

C =3D gorilla

D =3D orang

E =3D gibbon

This their tree. The numbers on here are the evolutionary events, = lineages.=20 This tells us lots of things about evolution. For example, it says = gorilla has=20 evolved fastest and man slowest. It says that the mitochondria of DNA = evolved=20 about times as fast as nuclear DNA. It says that sibling substitutions = are=20 several times as likely as coding substitutions and that being. the = result of=20 every comparison of DNA sequences that has yet been done. OK. That's = what, the=20 evolutionists made of the data.

Will you permit me to show you what a creationist makes of it? We've = got 5=20 taxa, B, C, D, E there, so the first set of characters that we need to = look at=20 are the ones that pick 4 out of every 5. There are ... characters. = That's the=20 same nucleotide in every 4 and a different one in ..... ABCD there are = 53, ABDE=20 there are 21, ACDE 19, ...DE 40. There are 2 strong signals here - 53 = (ABCD) and=20 66 (ABCE) but unfortunately those 2 groups are incongruent. The 2 strong = signals=20 are congruent one with the other so its best to treat these rather than=20 groupings of 4 as

(Patterson C., "Evolutionism and Creationism," Transcript of Address = at the=20 American Museum of Natural History, New York NY, November 5, 1981, p.13) = [Top of=20 page]

page 14

much hazier at those levels and we don't have ontogeny and Von = Baer's* law to=20 guide us. Now I suggested it and commented on the DNA data that the = hierarchy is=20 recognized by massaging the data with evolutionary theory. Put it = through a=20 program based on evolutionary theory and that will ....... get a = hierarchy out.=20 I wonder if the data is hierarchical without massaging of that sort? I = don't=20 know. At the protein sequence level where I have played about a lot, my=20 impression is that it is very strongly hierarchical when you have a few=20 sequences for when you take selected them so that you are just doing 5 = or 6=20 problems but when you take a complete set of data, like the myoglobin = that is=20 now available, my experience is that the hierarchy can be melted away = and this=20 forces it by massaging it with evolutionary theory...

I think I'll stop and go into some quotes. This one is by Darwin the=20 Origin.

"When the views entertained in this volume are generally = admitted,=20 systematists will be able to pursue their labors as at = present.

By "present" Darwin means as in pre-Darwinian times, as in pre- = evolutionary=20 biology. He is saying don't let the theory get in the way of = systematics.

The last quote is from Gillespie again and it concerns Hooker. If you = think=20 about it, Hooker was the only professional systematist amongst the = Darwin=20 coterie. He was also Darwin's oldest confidant in reading all of = Darwin's=20 manuscripts and talking to him solidly since 1840 and yet he remained=20 unconverted to evolution until 1859. Here is Gillespie on the reason = Hooker was=20 not converted.

"Hooker adopted a view that species were immutable and each=20 descended from a single parent. It was not necessarily his belief but = a=20 methodological postulate to make classification possible...Hooker = believed=20 that a taxonomist, who was an evolutionist, must ignore his theory and = proceed=20 as if species were immutable."

In other words, evolution may very well be true but basing one's = systematics=20 on that belief will give bad systematics.

* Note: the original has "Conbear's"

(Patterson C., "Evolutionism and Creationism," Transcript of Address = at the=20 American Museum of Natural History, New York NY, November 5, 1981, p.14) =

[Top of=20 page]

Copyright =A9 1999-2002, by Stephen E. Jones. All rights reserved. = This page=20 and its contents may be used for non-commercial purposes only. If used = on the=20 Internet, a link back to my home page at http://members.iinet.net.au= /~sejones=20 would be appreciated. Created: 2 December, 1999. Updated: 23 January,=20 2002.