Talk:Creation biology/Archive 4

Timescale incongruities

I submit that creation biology claims that microevolution happens faster than mainstream biology while macroevolution (which they believe doesn't occur) happens slower than mainstream biology. I think this should be included in the text. Here is my evidence:

However, creationists do disagree on the timescales invovled. Biology doesn't claim that camels and llamas descended from the same ancestor a few thousand years ago. Joshuaschroeder 00:55, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

yes, the timescales are different. Ungtss 02:44, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This should be noted. It is interesting that many creationist arguments are made to the tune of evolution being an impossible explanation for the diversity of life because they claim that there's no way to create it by evolutionary mechanisms in the time that mainstream science claims it did (Morris, Henry M., 1974. Scientific Creationism, Green Forest, AR: Master Books, pp. 59-69). Then we turn around and see the idea that that speciation between llamas and camels occured within the last 6000 years. In other words, creationists simultaneously object to mainstream science being to slow and too fast to explain the diversity of life on Earth. I think this should be addressed in the article. Joshuaschroeder 06:46, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

At this point, UNGTSS decided to change subjects to mutations, but I think this is a good point that needs to be made in the article. Joshuaschroeder 23:28, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Agreed, that's certainly the gist of the YEC CB articles he's citing. Kinds are roughly at the family level, and have (d)evolved very quickly in the last 6000 years, or thereabouts. I think the article should lay out:

• The different timescales CB and EB posit for these radiations

• 4500-6000 years.

• The mechanism CB proposes for this

• rapid genetic drift in a population bottleneck

• EB perspective on same

Ideally without adding CB 'snappy comebacks' extemporaneously before we lay out that basic structure. Alai 23:55, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

here:

• The different timescales CB and EB posit for these radiations

• 4500-6000 years.

• The mechanism CB proposes for this

• rapid genetic drift in an exteme population bottleneck to the tune of 14 of each kind. Ungtss 03:07, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

But by what mechanism? You're simply continuing to throw POV text at us, and alas, at the article. To give you an idea of the difficulty, you're in effect trying to defend (as you're clearly not happy simply to describe) the position that it's impossible for dogs and cats to evolve from a proto-carnivore (but have no difficulty with other 'kinds' at the order level) in 50,000,000 years, but find it easy to imagine all felines (not just lions and tigers, please note) evolving in 5000? Alai 04:10, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

the mechanism, again, is genetic drift in an extreme population bottleneck. inbreeding in a rapidly spreading population will lead to a great deal of homogenizing within the first few generations, through basic mendelian genetics. if i have 5 kids and you have 5 kids, and two of our blue-eyed kids run off together and two of our brown-eyed kids run off together, all of their descendents will be fundamentally different from then on. Same with the species, just on a larger scale. If two a small population of super-ligers have children, and a group of the more "tiger-like" individuals run off together and spread wildly every generation, there's gonna be ENORMOUS genetic drift -- those species are gonna homogenize into only "tiger-genes" within a few generations. that's the idea anyway. if it doesn't work, it doesn't work, but that's CB:). Ungtss 13:38, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

<<you're in effect trying to defend (as you're clearly not happy simply to describe)>>

my goal is to describe effectively -- that involves taking the reader through every step of the process. i'm only defending it here to you guys, so that we can all be on the same page as to what the idea is before we edit it:). Ungtss 13:38, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Actually, the creationist has less than 5000 years. They have to have speciation occur within roughly 1000 years because we have historical records of the different species.

Not to mention they have to explain how the world was repopulated at such a breakneck speed. What I really want to know is how they explain beetle speciation. Joshuaschroeder 06:13, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

How does the KIND barrier apply to this?

Helacyton gartleri shows one example of change that would be hard to call anything other than a change in kind. It is an amoeba-like life form that came from a human (Van Valen and Maoirana 1991; evolved from a carcinoma, it spreads by taking over other laboratory cell cultures). Joshuaschroeder 06:18, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

interesting story ... what are its genetics like? Ungtss 13:41, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[1] check it out for yourself. Joshuaschroeder 20:08, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

from the creationary perspective, it would be defined not as a new kind, but as a distorted, mutated, and largely self-destructive perversion of a human cell. it has no new abilities. in fact, it has only lost abilities that the original kind had -- important things, like Contact inhibition. yes, it's different, and it can reproduce. but i think cancers deserve a category all their own: "diseased cells from created kinds." call it a new kind if you like -- but i daresay it's a pretty sorry instance of "evolution" to brag about. Ungtss 21:15, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Are you claiming that this lifeform is human? And it's not simply a diseased cell, but it is an independent, fully-functional, single cell organism. Or do you dispute that as well? Joshuaschroeder 21:31, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

So is a kind a category? Or is a category a kind? Nothing like throwing in a bit of new terminology. BTW, I believe "counterexample" is the word you're looking for, rather than the rather unorthodox evidenciary description "sorry instance to brag about". If you want an impressive example, wait the 10 millions years or so predicted by EB theory, rather than complaining about them not turning up orders of magnitude faster. Alai 21:34, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

What is more, EB predicts evolution on a generational basis rather than on a strict time-scale basis. Bacterium evolution and complete speciation (even to the point of creation of new higher taxa) is observed because the timescale for a generation is on the order of weeks rather than years. Joshuaschroeder 21:50, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

<<Are you claiming that this lifeform is human?>>

no, i'm claiming it is exactly what it is -- a diseased human cell that has LOST the ability to take part in a complex human organism and can't even stop reproducing when it runs out of space. a new species? certainly. but not a new kind. it's just another mutant -- a broken version of the original. it's a very interesting issue -- i'm glad you found it on talk.origins. would you like a reference to this instance on the page? Ungtss 01:12, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

<<I believe "counterexample" is the word you're looking for, rather than the rather unorthodox evidenciary description "sorry instance to brag about".>>

no sir, i selected by terminology carefully. it's a mutant. a broken human cell. a new kind? no. that's the creationist viewpoint -- new species show up, but they're always BROKEN versions of the original. Ungtss 01:12, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Doesn't seem that way... (Regarding care, that is.) I'll try the same question again: What's its kind? Are you saying it's of kind "human"? Or that it doesn't have a kind at all? Saying "it's a mutant" is an answer to a question that wasn't asked; we're all mutants, even by CN criteria. Alai 03:09, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

<<Bacterium evolution and complete speciation (even to the point of creation of new higher taxa) is observed because the timescale for a generation is on the order of weeks rather than years.>>

reference? Ungtss 01:12, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

PNAS Vol. 96, Issue 13, 7348-7351, June 22, 1999.

Question about kinds

New kinds from 'devolution'

no sir, i selected by terminology carefully. it's a mutant. a broken human cell. a new kind? no. that's the creationist viewpoint -- new species show up, but they're always BROKEN versions of the original.

This means, then, that kinds are completely arbitrary. There is no distinction between a human and an amoeba as long as the amoeba came from a human being.

What's to distinguish this idea of kinds from the fiducial unicellular organism from which all life evolved in mainstream biology? Couldn't we call that an original kind and all the rest of life is a "broken" version of that original? "Broken" in my estimation could easily be applied to all lifeforms that came afterward. After all, the original lifeform had the capacity to evolve into all the creatures we see in the ecosystem while current organisms don't have such a capacity since they are dependent on the ecosystem already established.

I submit that the only difference then between modern biological evolution and creation biology is that creationists posit more "kinds" than biological evolution, creationists believe that evolution happens faster given an environment with a limited number of species after a global flood, and that creationism doesn't have as much evidence to back itself up as EB. Joshuaschroeder 01:58, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

<<Couldn't we call that an original kind and all the rest of life is a "broken" version of that original?>>

you could, if you're willing to call a 2001 Camry a "broken" Model T. the fact is, we are immensely more complex, functional, organized, and impressive than the amoeba, and there's no reason to believe we evolved from a common ancestor. can we develop cancers that can live on their own? yes. but we didn't evolve from them. they devolved from us.

here are the differences:

1) as you noted, there are more than 1 kinds.

2) evolution is a purely negative affair -- things can specialize to a particular environment, but only at the expense of the capacity to adapt to another environment

3) things don't EVER get more complex. Ungtss 02:33, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

the fact is, we are immensely more complex, functional, organized, and impressive than the amoeba, and there's no reason to believe we evolved from a common ancestor.--> not facts at all. "Impressive"? Okay, whatever you say. "Functional"? Nope, human beings couldn't live back then without the ecosystem, "Organized" --> how do you propose to measure this? "Complex"? --> The complexity of the ecosystem (you cannot measure the complexity of an individual independent of its environment) is well-understood, but I don't see any creationist offering an objective measure saying that an ecosystem is more complex than a planetary system without an ecosystem. Furthermore, complexity can evolve, there are plenty of models which allow it. There's nothing that says that something that is less complex cannot become more complex. In fact, complexity arises from symmetry breaking processes which are a fundamental part of physical processes.

things can specialize to a particular environment, but only at the expense of the capacity to adapt to another environment --> universally accepted and non-controversial.

things don't EVER get more complex.--> out and out falsehood. Look at turbulent flow patterns if you don't believe me. Look at the simplicity of the standard model compared to the complexity of chemistry. Joshuaschroeder 02:47, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

can we develop cancers that can live on their own? yes. but we didn't evolve from them. they devolved from us. --> so is it your position that all amoebae/bacteria/protists "devolved" from more complex organisms? Joshuaschroeder 02:47, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

<<"Complex"? --> The complexity of the ecosystem (you cannot measure the complexity of an individual independent of its environment)>>

so is it your position that the human organism exhibits no greater complexity than an amoeba? Ungtss 02:59, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It's my position that you have no consistent measurement of complexity so your assertion towards it in this regard is a moot point. I do not think complexity of an organism can be measured independent of its environment. I may be wrong in this regard, but there's no consensus on the matter in any case. Joshuaschroeder 03:22, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

it's my position that your demand for an "objective measure of complexity" is a red herring intended to avoid the obvious fact that humans are more complex than amoeba by any measure. to support this assertion, i appeal to common sense. Ungtss 03:44, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Unfortunately, an appeal to common sense is not NPOV. You're going to have to do better than that. Creationists argue that life is "too complex" to evolve all the time without bothering to state what life would look like if it had evovled (and was presumably "less complex"). If they cannot characterize their own arguments, how can they claim any legitimacy in making them? Joshuaschroeder 06:12, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

i never claimed to be npov. npov is for articles, not people. i think anybody reading the simple creationist claim that "there is an increase in complexity between amoeba and humans" will see what we mean, and i'm content to leave it at that for now, until biological complexity can be adequately quantified. Ungtss 14:03, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

But a scientific theory, which creation biology claims to be, needs to be falsifiable in all of its claims or explicitly state that its claims are not falsifiable and therefore speculative. There should be mention that complexity claims by creationists are entirely speculative at this point. Joshuaschroeder 14:27, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

it's important to differentiate between between unquantifiable and speculative. i'd agree that it's not quantifiable, but i don't think it's speculative. the complexity is OBVIOUS to creationists, even if we can't boil it down to numbers. yet. Ungtss 15:04, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Things that are "obvious" can still be speculative. You need to have some observation you can point to that confirms your ideas and allows them to be falsified, otherwise they aren't scientific ideas. If you cannot provide a definition of complexity there is no chance that I or anyone else can falsify your claims of complexity. Therefore, it's entirely speculative. Joshuaschroeder 15:42, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

you're free to make that error in reason. i refuse to. i don't think that unquantifiable=speculative. i think that unobservable=speculative. if you can't see the greater complexity of humans relative to amoeba, you're blind. developing a mathematical definition for complexity is a nice goal to strive for. but until somebody comes up with one, i'm content with the obvious facts. Ungtss 04:20, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

You are the one, sir, who has made the error. The fact is that something that is "obvious" should be observably obvious. If you haven't provided a way to observe the fact you contend exists, then there isn't anything "obvious" about it.

so you don't think it's obvious that humans are more complex than amoeba, regardless of any calculations? Ungtss 16:16, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Answer already given above. Thanks for coming around full circle! Joshuaschroeder 03:55, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

if you can't see the greater complexity of humans relative to amoeba, you're blind. --> If you can't tell me what method to characterize the greater complexity, you have an unobservable condition. My question is, what is wrong with Kolmogorov complexity? Do you reject it as a definition? Joshuaschroeder 15:21, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

i think it's a good stab, but by its very nature, insufficient to fully quantify complexity. it deals only in text strings, but cannot begin to address the complexity of all the integrated component parts. Ungtss 16:16, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It deals with more than text strings. It deals with anything that can be programmed. This would include chess, for example. If you could make a program big and complicated enough, it could include anything that you can model. If you don't think life can be modeled then please tell me now. Joshuaschroeder 03:55, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

<<Look at the simplicity of the standard model compared to the complexity of chemistry.>>

what are you talking about? you're talking about theories. i'm talking about lifeforms. yes our ideas get more complex, but LIFE does not get more complex. Ungtss 02:59, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

If you believe that life must follow physical laws then this is an apt comparison to make. If you don't believe that, then that's something that can go into the article. Joshuaschroeder 03:22, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

do you really think it's an apt comparison to say that "because ideas get more complex, it stands to reason that lifeforms get more complex?" Ungtss 03:44, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It's an apt counter to the implication that information can't increase under any circumstances, don't you think? Alai 05:34, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean about "ideas get more complex". Do you think that the physical arrangement of the universe gets more or less complex as time goes on, for example? Joshuaschroeder 06:12, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

brushing the red herrings aside, i think the universe gets LESS complex over time, a la entropy, regardless of how complex our ideas may become. Ungtss 13:46, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Well, then obviously we disagree on one of these terms: entropy or complexity. As a system changed increases in entropy, a system necessarily becomes more complex, not less. This is easy to see. If you were going to write a UTM describing a crystal of zero entropy it would be far shorter than a system that had a very high entropy. The rules for arranging molecules in a crystal that don't move are much shorter to encode than a system that has greater entropy. Unless you're referring to a definition of complexity or entropy I've never heard of. In information theory the following string has less entropy: 10101010101010101010 than this string: 00001011110101001011. The first string is less complex than the second. Joshuaschroeder 14:27, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

that's why you're UTM is an insufficient measure of complexity and order for our purposes. the second sentence of entropy reads: "It is also a measure of the disorder present in a system." you're speaking in strictly numerical terms, which are ultimately meaningless. i'm talking about the organization and order in a system. entropy destroys that order over time. all the "organization" on this planet will be gone in a billion years, unless an outside force comes into to "reorganize" things. that's entropy to me. Ungtss 15:04, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The measure of the disorder present in a system IS the entropy. It's a mathematical definition, not a mamby-pamby concept that people just throw about. If you haven't studied statistical mechanics, that's okay, but don't claim that you have a handle on the true definition of entropy then. In fact, entropy's mathematical definition is the only one recognized by any published author I have ever read. I'd love to see a counterexample. Order and complexity, it turns out, are diametrically opposed. The more ordered something is, the less complex it turns out to be. For example, a crystal at absolute zero is more ordered and less complex than those same atoms as a gas a room temperature. So explain to me one more time how you claim that order decreases (or entropy increases) while complexity increases. Because I'm not seeing it.

well it seems i've been using the wrong terminology -- common sense instead of statistical mechanics. here's my point: i think the human organism is more complex when it is alive than when it is dead, and i think that over time, entropy breaks them apart -- destroys the organization -- turns the beautiful and wonderful complexity of a human being into dust. i think that's how the universe operates. Ungtss 04:20, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

common sense instead of statistical mechanics. --> Is it your contention that common sense is opposed to stastical mechanics? In other words, do creationists reject the statistical mechanical definition of entropy?

no and no, just more silly strawmen (you're good at those!). i said that i wasn't using a statistical mechanics definition. i was speaking as normal people speak, and i still am. Ungtss 16:16, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

There is the thermodynamic and the statistical mechanical definitions of entropy. Both are mathematically equivalent. If you aren't using a statistical mechanical definition of entropy, you are not talkin about entropy in the sense that is talked about in physics. You have invented an alternative definition. You are in conflict with physics. Joshuaschroeder 03:55, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

here's my point: i think the human organism is more complex when it is alive than when it is dead, and i think that over time, entropy breaks them apart -- destroys the organization -- turns the beautiful and wonderful complexity of a human being into dust. i think that's how the universe operates. --> But I've just demonstrated to you that complexity as it is strictly defined and entropy as it is strictly defined both increase. I would argue with your dead human organism being less complex than a live one. How did you determine this to be? Gut instinct? Joshuaschroeder 15:21, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

so you'd look at yourself, and look at a pile of ashes, and say, "it is more complex than i am?" Ungtss 16:16, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

A pile of ashes and a human being are not strictly comparable from an entropic sense. There are energetic processes that have gone on in a human being that are dissipated as random motions and heat and have increased the total entropy of the universe. When the human dies and is converted to ashes, there is more entropy in the universe than when the human was alive. Therefore, the entire universal system is more complex. Joshuaschroeder 03:55, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Complexity and information

We're getting into freeform debate, and away from the specifics of the article. The point is, in what context do we put a statement/belief/hypothesis about complexity, if we can't define what we mean by 'complexity'? If creationists simply say "complexity is that which I point to when I say 'complexity'", the it negates the falsifiablity of anything they say on the subject. Keep in mind this is an article about a self-characterised science. Alai 17:38, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

you're right, there's a need for clarity here (incidentally, thank you both for pointing out areas in which research is desperately needed). the best definition of complexity we've got are already mentioned in the article -- specified complexity and irreducible complexity. specified complexity has been codified into a "law of decreasing genetic information." i'll try and flesh them out a bit. Ungtss 17:48, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Good. (And you're welcome.) I'm not sure you can have a law, or indeed a hypothesis, about something you can't define or measure, but certainly that sounds as if it should be discussed or reported in some form. Alai 20:06, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

<<so is it your position that all amoebae/bacteria/protists "devolved" from more complex organisms? >>

no -- that's another lovely strawman. many single-celled organisms were created separately ... some speciated from MORE complex forms of life ... but NONE evolved from SIMPLER forms of life. Ungtss 02:59, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Not so much a strawman as a question I didn't know how you were going to answer. Joshuaschroeder 15:21, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

By the way, I'd love an answer to this question: how do you measure the complexity of an organism? Joshuaschroeder 03:22, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

it's an interesting question ... i don't know how it can be measured, a little like our earlier discussion of "certainty." but just because you can't measure something doesn't mean it doesn't exist. which is more complex: The Barenstein Bears or War and Peace? Windows 3.1 or Windows XP? An amoeba or an elephant? The answer's obvious, but not quantifiable. Ungtss 03:44, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I submit that the answer is sometimes obvious and sometimes isn't obvious. Kolmogorov complexity states that the Berenstein Bears is probably less complex than War and Peace because the UTM for the latter is probably longer than than the former (though I haven't seen the UTM for either, so I cannot say for certain). However, both of these are texts and so it's easy to take them in isolation. Same goes for the computer program. Now we turn to the amoeba and the elephant. If you were going to write a UTM for either, the code would be immense because both are contextualized. That is the life of the amoeba is dependent on its environment and so it the life of the elephant. Not only would you have to characterize in the UTM the genetic coding, you'd also have to characterize the adaptability, the stability, the characteristic timescales, and many other things. By the time you are done doing that, it'd be very interesting to see if our "gut instincts" were correct and the elephant was indeed more complex than the amoeba. I'm willing to wager, however, that the difference in the UTM for a modern elephant and a modern amoeba would be on the order of less than 1%. Joshuaschroeder 06:12, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Kolmogorov complexity is an interesting stab at the problem, but it doesn't capture all the complexity, because the complexity is not only in the "data" within the dna, but also the means by which the DNA translate into function within the organism -- essentially, kolmogorov would have to write a computer program to write ANOTHER computer program (the dna) to build a MACHINE (the organism). there's a whole other layer of complexity he doesn't even touch. i venture to say that the true complexity of life can't be punched into a calculator. if you're truly willing to say that an elephant is only 1% more complex than an amoeba, i think our discussion ends here. Ungtss 13:46, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Obviously you've never heard about Kolmogorov complexity before. The UTM takes into account all your objections (your apparent stab at "another layer"). If "true complexity cannot be punched into a calculator" then it cannot be measured, therefore this conversation definitely ends here because you are now claiming you cannot provide a measure for true complexity and therefore your contention of complexity cannot be evaluated. Joshuaschroeder 14:27, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

your mistake, my friend, is thinking that things that cannot be definitively quantified cannot validly by stated as scientific fact. i may not be able to count the number of cells in my body, because i don't have the tools, and the number is in a constant state of flux -- but i know that they're there, i know that there are a lot of them, and i know that there are more now than there were when i was a baby. therefore, i am perfectly entitled to say "i have more cells now than i had before" even tho i can't strictly quantify it. same thing with complexity + order. i can't quantify it, but i know it's there. that's my common sense. i'm not ashamed of that. that's why many of you scientists can't see the obvious facts of creation that are right under your nose. you cry, "if i can't quantify it, it doesn't exist!" it takes the "uneducated" to bring you back to the hard facts of common sense. Ungtss 15:04, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Complexity CAN be definitively quantified. At least that's what people who are scientists claim. You are claiming something else. Can you provide a citation to someone that claims similarly to you, that complexity cannot be quantified? And also, we can count the number of cells in a body, there are just precision errors involved. I'm not asking for an exact measurement of complexity, I'm asking for A measurement of complexity. Until you can provide that, you cannot claim that this is a valid scientific argument. Joshuaschroeder 15:42, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

from kolmogorov complexity:

<<The first surprising result is that K(s) cannot be computed: there is no general algorithm which takes a string s as input and produces the number K(s) as output. The proof is a formalization of the amusing Berry paradox: "Let n be the smallest number that cannot be defined in fewer than twenty English words. Well, I just defined it in fewer than twenty English words.">>

how, then, do you intend to quantify this K(s)? Ungtss 04:20, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

If you'll read on, you'll find out that you don't have to quantify the Ks to get a meaningful comparison, for example. Joshuaschroeder 15:21, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

If you want to talk about information -- or even so much as allude to information theory (as it strikes me the current article draft does, and creationists are wont to do), then I'd suggest it's imperative to quantify. (And information theory can answer all of your rhetorical questions.) Here's a couple of measures that spring to mind: number of codons in the genome; number of genes. (I fact I was tacitly assuming that was what you meant.) If you mean something less specific, the language in the article ought to reflect this. Perhaps this is why I'm struggling so much to imagine (or get you to answer) how one can get a tiger, a housecat, and a cheetah all from 'simplifying', or 'worsening' the undescribed proto-felid, within the normal mechanisms of genetics. Alai 05:34, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

We should be able to calculate how much bigger the ProtoF's genome is by simply adding up the genetic variation across the family. Joshuaschroeder 06:12, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

yes, i think a genetic comparison among the family could develop or falsify this theory quite easily. Ungtss 14:03, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Indeed. However, I was hoping Ungtss would be prepared to clarify his hypothesis (or his synopsis of other's) and its possible falsifiability, before I expended too much 'original research' effort in trying to do so. Alai 06:55, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

People, can we keep the threading straight? You're both going into 'backward thread mode' in places here, and it's confusing to read, and confusinger to add to. Ungtss, there's not falsifying your proto-F hypothesis as stated, because you haven't clarified what sort of genetic change is permissible, despite my asking you several times. Alai 23:07, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

well here's how i would do it if i had all the genetic info at my fingertips. i'd go through the genomes of all the felines, and sort the segments into three groups -- those shared by all the felines, those shared by the different species, and those that vary among individuals. i would then check to see if the species-specific segments were on the same spot on the genome, so that they could have been heterozygous. then i would track any mismatches -- spots that COULDN'T just be accounted for my heterozygosity, and see if i'm looking at different "kinds," or if the number of mutations or chromosome rearrangements could have occured within 6000 years. Ungtss 04:20, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I'll let you two thrash out 'complexity', since it's arguably an informal claim (though if it is, better to say so). However, "genetic information" is, to my mind, an easily quantifiable term, so if that doesn't mean in the context of the article what it sounds like it means -- or worse, that it doesn't mean anything at all -- the article really shouldn't talk about it at all (or at best, should be very heavily heavily caveated). Alai 23:07, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)