Creation/Evolution Non-Participant Commentary & InvitationsComment on existent debates, invite or challenge members to debates, and plan your debates here!
View Poll Results: Are you interested in debating the topic?
When the DNA pol moves along a DNA strand and replicates it, it does so with an incredible efficiency, this despite the fact it incorporates 50 bases/second in eukaryotes and 1000 bases/second in prokaryotes. However, ever now and then, 1 in every billion bases, it makes a mistake. Due to the stochiochemistry of the DNA bases, the most likely mistake is a transition, from purine to purine or from pyrimidine to pyrimidine. About half as often, the mistake will be a transversion, exchanging a puring for a pyrimidine. The statistics of these events and nice parametric models for them exist, so it is relatively easy for us to talk about the mutation rate in a genome, by which we imply the point mutation rate.
This issue is clouded by DNA damage and repair, a process which can also introduce point mutations, especialy in the de-amination of methylated cytosine (which is one of the primary drivers of hypervariability of immunoglobulin gene rearrangements, as it turns out)
Indels, which is a contraction of insertion/deletion, are fare more problematic. Firstly, there are a number of mechanisms that can cause them which are independent of replication, such as transposons, and there are factors that are replication dependent, such as repeat-stutter. In either case, the probabilities of these events occurring are hard, if not impossible, to model with any kind of algorithm. In addition, a single indel event can result in the inclusion or occlusion of thousands, even tens of thousands, of base pairs.
So it is that when we talk about divergence rates, we talk about the well modelled nature of point mutation, and do not include other mutational events. This is not to say they are ignored, they simply cannot be included in the parametric model. To lump indels in with point mutations and use that as some mesure of a divergence ratio is entirely inappropriate, for the reasons set out above. Only someone with superficial knowledge of biology who skim reads papers and stops when he gets to a bit he likes would even suggest that it is a good idea. And whilst on the topic of that kind of foolishness, have a nice day mark
That is not what RichardT is talking about, this is what the Nature Web focus said:
What makes us human? We share more than 98% of our DNA and almost all of our genes with our closest living relative, the chimpanzee. Comparing the genetic code of humans and chimps will allow the study of not only our similarities, but also the minute differences that set us apart. The chimpanzee genome
The actual paper said:
we have generated a largely complete catalogue of the genetic differences that have accumulated since the human and chimpanzee species diverged from our common ancestor, constituting approximately thirty-five million single-nucleotide changes, five million insertion/deletion events, and various chromosomal rearrangements...
...On the basis of this analysis, we estimate that the human and chimpanzee genomes each contain 40–45 Mb of species-specific euchromatic sequence, and the indel differences between the genomes thus total ~90 Mb. This difference corresponds to ~3% of both genomes and dwarfs the 1.23% difference resulting from nucleotide substitutions; this confirms and extends several recent studies. Of course, the number of indel events is far fewer than the number of substitution events (~5 million compared with ~35 million, respectively).... (Initial sequence of the chimpanzee genome and comparison with the human genome, Nature Sept 2005)
Type Chimpanzee Genome in your Google search engine and the Web Focus article will be at the top. It says 98% of the DNA is the same but the paper says 96% at best. Obviously they didn't count the indels in the Web Focus article which makes up some 90 million base pairs.
Only two explanations for this, they were mistaken or the lied.
When you break it down it comes to 1 indel and 7 single base changes per year for 5 million years. That comes to 140 single base pairs and 20 indels fixed per 20 year generation in the same time frame. This is a formula for extinction, not evolution. This is the breakdown of the indels since you are such a stickler for details.
“Gärtner, by the results of these transformation experiments, was led to oppose the opinion of those naturalists who dispute the stability of plant species and believe in a continuous evolution of vegetation. He perceives in the complete transformation of one species into another an indubitable proof that species are fixed with limits beyond which they cannot change.” (G. Mendel)
When you break it down it comes to 1 indel and 7 single base changes per year for 5 million years. That comes to 140 single base pairs and 20 indels fixed per 20 year generation in the same time frame. This is a formula for extinction, not evolution.
Of course. Your personal incredulity at these numbers coupled with your completely unsubstantiated conclusion is entirely convincing.
Be careful Mark, don't accidentally take population sizes into account!
Have a nice day
__________________ I hear stories from the chamber / How Christ was born into a manger
And like some ragged stranger / Died upon the cross
And might I say it seems so fitting in its way
He was a carpenter by trade / Or at least that's what I'm told
--Mercy Seat, Nick Cave and the Bad Seeds
Last edited by Fineous_Reese; 16th December 2007 at 05:24 PM.
Reason: language
Of course. Your personal incredulity at these numbers coupled with your completely unsubstantiated conclusion is entirely convincing.
One clutch phrase and an ad hominem, nothing else.
Be careful Mark, don't accidentally take population sizes into account!
Oh sure, like I'm going to add more details for you to completely ignore or dismiss with logical fallacies.
Have a nice day
Have a nice day
Mark
__________________
“Gärtner, by the results of these transformation experiments, was led to oppose the opinion of those naturalists who dispute the stability of plant species and believe in a continuous evolution of vegetation. He perceives in the complete transformation of one species into another an indubitable proof that species are fixed with limits beyond which they cannot change.” (G. Mendel)
Last edited by Fineous_Reese; 16th December 2007 at 05:24 PM.
Reason: fixed quote
It will take some time to sift through those papers. I promise I will get back to you.
__________________ “Because they know not the forces of nature, and in order that they may have comrades in their ignorance, they suffer not that others should search out anything, and would have us believe like rustics and ask no reason...But we ask in all things a reason must be sought.” --William of Conches (c. 1090 – after 1154)
It will take some time to sift through those papers. I promise I will get back to you.
That's fine, by the way. I started a thread on what a Biology Textbook should include. I have tracked down a ton of public domain etexts so copyright infringement is not an issue. If the thread gets some serious attention I'm considering putting something together and trying to get it printed.
Just thought it might peek you curiosity, if you find the time I'd be interested in your thoughts in that thread. Here is the link if you are interested:
“Gärtner, by the results of these transformation experiments, was led to oppose the opinion of those naturalists who dispute the stability of plant species and believe in a continuous evolution of vegetation. He perceives in the complete transformation of one species into another an indubitable proof that species are fixed with limits beyond which they cannot change.” (G. Mendel)
Last edited by mark kennedy; 6th December 2007 at 02:17 PM.
Reason: Forgot the link
The very fact that Humans and chimps (including bonobos) can inter-transfuse their blood is strong evidence of common ancestry. The video makes a very strong statement in favor of common ancestry:
The very fact that Humans and chimps (including bonobos) can inter-transfuse their blood is strong evidence of common ancestry. The video makes a very strong statement in favor of common ancestry:
Enjoy
The Chimp and human comparison he said nothing about notes 35 million base substitutions and 5 million indels totaling 90 million base pairs. That means that there would have to be there would have to be 7 single base substitutions and 1 indel per year for 5 million years, then they would virtually stop. They would have to be fixed, for the most part genome wide. Intelligent Design does not address this and for the life of me I don't know why.
I have an irreducibly complex system for you, try the human brain. On a genetic level there is neither the time nor the means for the human brain to have evolved from that of an ape common ancestor.
Anyone and I do mean anyone, who thinks they can argue otherwise can post their invitation in this forum anytime and expect to hear from me.
__________________
“Gärtner, by the results of these transformation experiments, was led to oppose the opinion of those naturalists who dispute the stability of plant species and believe in a continuous evolution of vegetation. He perceives in the complete transformation of one species into another an indubitable proof that species are fixed with limits beyond which they cannot change.” (G. Mendel)
The Chimp and human comparison he said nothing about notes 35 million base substitutions and 5 million indels totaling 90 million base pairs. That means that there would have to be there would have to be 7 single base substitutions and 1 indel per year for 5 million years, then they would virtually stop.
Once again Mark, your personal incredulity at this rate of change is not a convincing argument. I note you still haven't taken population sizes into account.
I have an irreducibly complex system for you, try the human brain. On a genetic level there is neither the time nor the means for the human brain to have evolved from that of an ape common ancestor.
Based once again on personal incredulity. Its really fast, so godditit.
Anyone and I do mean anyone, who thinks they can argue otherwise can post their invitation in this forum anytime and expect to hear from me.
Argue against your personal incredulity? Is that even possible?
Merry Xmas
__________________ I hear stories from the chamber / How Christ was born into a manger
And like some ragged stranger / Died upon the cross
And might I say it seems so fitting in its way
He was a carpenter by trade / Or at least that's what I'm told
--Mercy Seat, Nick Cave and the Bad Seeds
I have an irreducibly complex system for you, try the human brain. On a genetic level there is neither the time nor the means for the human brain to have evolved from that of an ape common ancestor.
Anyone and I do mean anyone, who thinks they can argue otherwise can post their invitation in this forum anytime and expect to hear from me.
Oh really?
Says who?
You?
Your "make believe postulations"prove nothing.
Prove to me that 3 million years is not enough for our brains to have developed ahead of the other apes!
I challenge you!
The Chimp and human comparison he said nothing about notes 35 million base substitutions and 5 million indels totaling 90 million base pairs. That means that there would have to be there would have to be 7 single base substitutions and 1 indel per year for 5 million years, then they would virtually stop.
Why would they stop?
I have an irreducibly complex system for you, try the human brain. On a genetic level there is neither the time nor the means for the human brain to have evolved from that of an ape common ancestor.
Evidence?
Anyone and I do mean anyone, who thinks they can argue otherwise can post their invitation in this forum anytime and expect to hear from me.
You need to support your own argument before we can rebut it.
__________________ “Because they know not the forces of nature, and in order that they may have comrades in their ignorance, they suffer not that others should search out anything, and would have us believe like rustics and ask no reason...But we ask in all things a reason must be sought.” --William of Conches (c. 1090 – after 1154)
Linear Mode
