Creation & EvolutionForum for the discussion of this important topic. This forum is open to non-believers. There is a Christians-only forum in the Christians-only section too.
Acceptance? Peer Pressure? Needing to belong? Or even groupthink.
__________________ Ps. 119:105 "Thy word is a lamp unto my feet and a light unto my path."
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Evolutionists can come up with all the wacko ideas they want, but they can't make a monkey out of me! To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Darwin is dead, and Christ is alive. Gotta love natural selection. To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
__________________ Ps. 119:105 "Thy word is a lamp unto my feet and a light unto my path."
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Evolutionists can come up with all the wacko ideas they want, but they can't make a monkey out of me! To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Darwin is dead, and Christ is alive. Gotta love natural selection. To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Clearly, you are in over your head, as your short string of child-like one-liners demonstrates.
I'm sure you feel all special and all, but unless you can discuss or address something of relevance, perhaps you'd be better served in the children's forums?
Perhaps I can try to explainmy point, as it was clearly beyond your capacity to grasp.
Kennedy the creationist could not grasp the concept of context as I explained to him regarding his claim that people who state that humans and chimps are 99% similar int heir DNA are lying (or whatever hsi claim actually is).
I explained that if one is comparing the entire content of the genome, then the similarity is not 99%, but if you are comparing the sequence identity of coding genes, then the similarity is in the 99% range. Kennedy wrote, after I explained that it was a context issue:
At any rate, we'll see what the Professor has to say for himself when he gets here since he apparently wants to defend the statement as 'correct in certain context', whatever that means
So, I provided an analogy of what that means:
Say you are 5'8".
In a crowd of midgets, you are tall.
In a crowd of basketball players, you are short.
Different contexts.
That explanation was apparently too much for you, for you replied:
Still 5'8. Nothing changes about you.
Which is quite irrelevant and is just the usual YEC pedantery employed when they've got nothing of substance to add but feel compelled to write something.
In fact, this YEC actually makes a good point for me - unwittingly, no doubt -
chimps and humans are related via descent regardless of the context of the measurements used to compare them.
I know you have been shown the scatter plots of intracranial volume in the human lineage several times (demonstrating a great deal of gradual, overlapping growth, not some sort of immediate, 'exponential
growth as indicated)
Actually the curve does look exponential, but with a tiny rate of increase over a very long time. Mark is relying on two factors here, the common understanding of exponential, 'a very large amount' as the urban dictionary puts it, instead of only three times larger in three million years, and the incredulity that anything in nature could increase exponentially, when that is one of the most common types of growth in nature. However Mark is not actually talking about cranial volume here, but the cerebral cortex and you need actual brains to study the development of that. Brain volume can be estimated form cranial volume, but not AFAIK cerebral cortex. The nearest we have is taking the chimp brain as equivalent to australopithecines, but that just gives you two data points, chimp and human, to graph the evolution of the human cerebral cortex. And two points does not make an exponential curve.
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
I explained that if one is comparing the entire content of the genome, then the similarity is not 99%, but if you are comparing the sequence identity of coding genes, then the similarity is in the 99% range.
The analogy I always use is a story that is passed down from generation to generation. If this story is printed and hangs around long enough you can begin to ask a couple questions. First, you determine how spelling has changed over time. You do this by comparing the same words from older and younger publications. You can also ask which parts of the story have been removed or inserted over time, such as a side story in the middle of the tale that was added or a detail in the ending was removed. These are equivalent to substitutions (change in spelling) and indels (pieces of the story that were removed or inserted). Understanding both sources of mutation is important when looking at the evolution of a genome.
__________________ "Since YAC [Young-Age Creation] epistemology accepts Biblical claims over physical evidence and human reason, logical or evidential arguments for evolution and/or against YAC are likely to be ineffective in converting most YACists."--Kurt Wise
Let me explain it AGAIN - what is this, the 25th time over the last 5 years? Maybe one of your YEC pals can comprehend this and explain it to you - maybe you will listen to one of your own.
First of all, got it the first time. Most importantly, there is a fundamental difference between in indel of on base pair and a million base pairs and you know it. The pedantic chant is really nothing more then an attempt to get around the fact that the 5 million indels amount to ~90 million base pairs.
~32 Mb of human-specific sequence and ~35 Mb of chimpanzee-specific sequence, contained in 5 million events in each species.
45% of events cover only 1 base pair (bp)
96% are <20 bp and
98.6% are <80 bp)
Now for the part this little mantra of yours does not address, the largest few contain most of the sequence (with the 70,000 indels larger than 80 bp comprising 73% of the affected base pairs)
(Nature, 1 September 2005)
What you seem unwilling or unable to accept is that if these twisted homology arguments are such weighty proof for common ancestry then the inverse logic applies.
Now let me explain to you for the upteen millionth time, when it was 99% the same we are talking about 30 million base pairs, give or take. When the number jumps up to 125 million you are talking about a giant leap in divergence and I really don't care how you rationalize it in you own mind.
If you have an accountant who gets your books wrong by 100 million dollars someone is going to jail but when it's genetics it's ok to be off by that much.
An indel is a one-time event.
Yea, got it the first time.
Regardless of the size of the event. Some indels can be 10s of thousands of bases in length, but it is inserted or deleted all at once.
They do not occur as frequently as point mutations, so they are usually not included in the general mutation rates provided in textbooks, for example.
However, in the paper that you have used as a reference for this for years, indel rates were added to the mix to provide an OVERALL mutation rate.
This rate, correctly, considered indels to be one time events.
But Mark Kennedy, supply clerk, non-geneticist, non-biologist, didn't like that.
I have worked in factories running a wide variety machines from embroidary to multi-million dollar CNC lathes. I have operated equipment from hand jacks to bull dozers. Currently I am a Fueler (92F) for the Army where I am the NCOIC of the fueling operations for this base. I have also been an 88M (transportation spec. 'truck driver') and I was an 88N in Iraq which is more like a dispatcher except I did it at the Division and Core level. I don't really know what you mean by 'supply clerk' but the jobs I have had in factories, warehouses and Army supply points involve spread sheets and PDAs. What that has to this grade school level banter is a mystery to me.
Now getting back to the mutation rate, if I can't you to be honest about the difference between '99% the same in our DNA' and '95% the same' why would I bother with mutation rates? You don't seem to understand, you have thrown whatever persuasive capitol you had with me away with these fallacious, pedantic arguments long ago. I have not taken these debates seriously for years, for that reason.
No sir.
Mark Kennedy INSISTS that ALL nucleotides within an indel mst be added to the mix.
I insist that they be counted as part of the overall divergence, period.
Which is where his usual employment of the 5% difference comes in
Exactly!
For you see, the 5% refers to an accounting of ALL nucleotides, a raw nucleotide difference. Instead of counting indels as 1 (a one-time mutational event), it incorporates the total number of bases in the indel.
But the 5% difference is not a mutation rate issue, it is merely a counting issue.
Say you and a friend are standing side by side. I hand you a bucket with 10 balls in it. I hand your friend two buckets with 5 balls in each. You both have 10 balls, but your friend has 2 bucketxs, while you have 1.
According to your 'logic', we would have to conclude that your friend has twice as many balls as you.
Nonsense, you want me to accept that a bucket with one ball is that same as a bucket with thousands of balls.
Beyond this, maybe you have heard that steven Pinker has his genome sequenced and it was compared to Craig Venter's. Pinker and Venter differ by more than a million bases.
Your take on mutation rates tells us that it is thus impossible for them both to belong to the same species.
Wrong, my take on the mutation rate is that it is impossible to discuss them on here. When someone says that Chimpanzees and Humans are 99% the same in their DNA they are either mistaken or telling a lie.
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 (Nature 2005)
__________________
“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)
What you seem unwilling or unable to accept is that if these twisted homology arguments are such weighty proof for common ancestry then the inverse logic applies.
But. It's. Relative.*
It's never been about pure percentages by themselves. This is why your entire argument is crap, because it's being based on a completely false premise.
* (to other species)
__________________ Creationism has not made a single contribution to agriculture, medicine, conservation, forestry, pathology, or any other applied area of biology. Creationism has yielded no classifications, no biogeographies, no underlying mechanisms, no unifying concepts with which to study organisms or life. - Botanical Society of America's Statement on Evolution
Actually the curve does look exponential, but with a tiny rate of increase over a very long time. Mark is relying on two factors here, the common understanding of exponential, 'a very large amount' as the urban dictionary puts it, instead of only three times larger in three million years, and the incredulity that anything in nature could increase exponentially, when that is one of the most common types of growth in nature. However Mark is not actually talking about cranial volume here, but the cerebral cortex and you need actual brains to study the development of that. Brain volume can be estimated form cranial volume, but not AFAIK cerebral cortex. The nearest we have is taking the chimp brain as equivalent to australopithecines, but that just gives you two data points, chimp and human, to graph the evolution of the human cerebral cortex. And two points does not make an exponential curve.
Ok, there is a human brain compared to a chimpanzee's and there is abundant research out there comparing the two in detail.
A. Afarensis with a cranial capacity of ~430cc lived about 3.5 mya.
A. Africanus with a cranial capacity of ~480cc lived 3.3-2.5 mya.
P. aethiopicus with a cranial capacity of 410cc lived about 2.5 mya.
P. boisei with a cranial capacity of 490-530cc lived between 2.3-1.2 mya.
OH 5 'Zinj" with a cranial capacity of 530cc lived 1.8 mya.
KNM ER 406 with a cranial capacity of 510cc lived 1.7 million years ago.
To get right to the point, every one of our ancestors before Turkana Boy had a chimpanzee size brain. Between 2 mya and 1.5 mya the cranial capacity had to at least double which requires the overhaul of genes like HARf that allowed only 2 substitution in over 300 million years, then suddenly there are 18.
I'm not incredulous, I think the chimpanzee ancestors are getting a free ride as hominids. What is more important is that the genes involved in human brain development do not respond well to mutations. Would you like to see a list of beneficial vs. deleterious effects from mutations in human brain related genes?
__________________
“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)
I explained that if one is comparing the entire content of the genome, then the similarity is not 99%, but if you are comparing the sequence identity of coding genes, then the similarity is in the 99% range.
Give me one good reason that I should trust anything you say?
Along the lineage leading to modern humans we infer the gain of 689 genes and the loss of 86 genes since the split from chimpanzees, including changes likely driven by adaptive natural selection. Our results imply that humans and chimpanzees differ by at least 6% (1,418 of 22,000 genes) in their complement of genes, which stands in stark contrast to the oft-cited 1.5% difference between orthologous nucleotide sequences. This genomic “revolving door” of gene gain and loss represents a large number of genetic differences separating humans from our closest relatives.
The Evolution of Mammalian Gene Families. PLoS ONE. December 20, 2006
Trust me when I tell you these debates only prove to me how desperate evolutionists are to attack creationists. I went through a very long and lonely journey into the heart of Christian theism, doctrine and theology. I was confronted by many different doctrines and teachings but in the end I returned to the Scriptures as the primary source documentation.
Went through something a lot like that with this whole creation/evolution drama the ivory tower academicians are performing for us. No matter how many times they chant their mantras and make their fallacious, rhetorical speeches to their minions, I still go to the primary sources.
I don't know what you think you are accomplishing with this childish antics but you will never get the chance to talk to real creationists. You will never get the opportunity to understand what they believe or why they believe it. You will never see the history of God's work to redeem humanity because you have decided to shackle yourself to your prejudices.
Still talking to me in the third person and early in the thread you have already resorted to ad hominem attacks, abandoning any chance of a substantive exchange. Sad really but it's your choice.
Catch you on the rebound Prof and BTW, drop me a PM next time you start a call out thread with my name on it.
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)
Linear Mode
