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.
You really think the creationist lost? And its not a threat, its a promise. Hebrews 9:27.
I know you guys have lost. You lost 150 years ago.
And your "promise" is just a belief. No different from thousands of other beliefs.
__________________ 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
You should know, my general invitation to a formal debate is open to whosoever will. Anytime you think you might be interested just let me know.
And you would present what there that you cannot do here?
When it comes to beneficial effects from mutations on brain related functions they simply don't exist. On the other hand the deleterious effects are evident and obvious:
Beneficial effects from mutations in brain related genes do not exist anywhere in medical science. The deleterious effects are legion and devastating diseases and disorders.
Well, Mr.Genetics, why don't you tell us poor souls what exactly we should look for to identify beneficial mutations related to brain activity?
We know about the 'bad' mutations - genetic linkages can be discerned when we study the disease processes involved. But what should we look for to find beneficial ones?
Would not the effects of beneficial mutation NOT necessarily be obvious?
That means for our ancestors to have evolved it would have required a dramatic adaptive evolution of the size just under 2 mya sandwiched between two long periods of relative stasis. One such gene would have been the HARf regulatory gene involved in the early development of the human neocortex from 7 to 19 gestational weeks. With only two substitutions allowed since the common ancestor of the of 310 mya the divergence between humans and chimpanzees indicates 18 substitutions as early as 2 mya. (Nature, vol. 443, no. 7108, pp. 167-172 September 14, 2006)
Yes, we are all well aware that you simply do not believe it.
Alas, mere disbelief is not an argument at all, much less a convincing argument.
Darwin's null hypothesis for common descent is not unanswerable:
“If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.” (Darwin, On the Origin of Species)
And you think you have demonstrated this with denialism and repeated error-filled assertions?
I understand that you went into this with preconceived conclusions and interpreted papers that you were truly out of your depth in even reading in the first place as supporting your position, and your massive ego and pride prevented you from acknowledging that you were and are wrong about this.
Then I found this:
Table 3. Estimates of mutation rate assuming different divergence times and different ancestral population sizes
4.5 mya, pop.= 10,000 mutation rate is 2.7 x 10^-8
4.5 mya, pop.= 100,000 mutation rate is 1.6 x 10^-8
5.0 mya, pop.= 10,000 mutation rate is 2.5 x 10^-8
5.0 mya, pop.= 10,0000 mutation rate is 1.5 x 10^-8
5.5 mya, pop.= 10,000 mutation rate is 2.3 x 10^-8
5.5 mya, pop.= 10,000 mutation rate is 1.4 x 10^-8
6.0 mya, pop.= 10,000 mutation rate is 2.1 x 10^-8
6.0 mya, pop.= 100,000 mutation rate is 1.3 x 10^-8
Table 4. Estimates of mutation rate for different sites and different classes of mutation
Transition at CpG mutation rate 1.6 x 10^-7
Transversion at CpG mutation rate 4.4 x 10^-8
Transition at non-CpG mutation rate 4.4 x 10^-8
Transversion at non-CpG mutation rate 5.5 x 10^-9
All nucleotide subs mutation rate 2.3 x 10^-8
Length mutations mutation rate 2.3 x 10^-9
All mutations mutation rate 2.5 x 10^-8
Rates calculated on the basis of a divergence time of 5 mya, ancestral population size of 10,000, generation length of 20 yr, and rates
of molecular evolution given in Table 1.
Calculations are based on a generation length of 20 years and average autosomal sequence divergence of 1.33%
So I asked the question, what does this chart look like when it's 5% rather then 1.33%. Mind you, I simply asked the question and twice I have seen it done. I could have done it but no one is going to pay any attention to me. Why don't you do it Prof, plug in 5% and rework the chart.
And you STILL do not see your error despite it being explained to you over and over and over and over, and DESPITE your claim that you understand this.
Either you DON'T understand it, or you do and are just too prideful and reliant upon this theme to allow yourself to acknowledge it.
WHY would the mutation rate be changed if we figure in the 5% raw nucleotide difference?
You claim to undetrstand this, then you go right on making the same illogical, erroneous demands that you've made ever since you came across that paper (and misinterpreted it).
If the autosomal nucleotide SEQUENCE divergence was pegged at 1.33%, then the raw nucleotide divergence - your 5% which counts all nucleotides within indels - is immaterial.
Why, why , why is that so hard to understand?
Remember your antics regarding "mutations" on this very board so many years ago? How you insisted that "mutations" were actually gross morphological anomalies - "monstrosities" as you quoted? And how you insisted that those of us with actual educational backgrounds in science explained that mutations were really alterations in DNA sequence, and you chided us fo rbeing uninformed? And how you eventually relaized that it was really YOU who were wrong and then took to actually copy and pasting online definitions of mutation as if it were US that did not know what they were?
Darwin described giant leaps as monstrocities, it was just a play on words.
Um, not at all:
"One has to wonder how you say that with so little evidence and so much confidence. Do you really believe that mutation (monstrosities) are the key to the origin of species? "
"Do you even know what a mutation is?
You may want to try Darwin's 'Origin of Species', he discusses the role of monstrosities in natural selection at great length."
"Its facinating how you claim that knowledge of 'mutations' was non-existant and yet he staked his whole theory on it... In short, knowledge of mutations was and is non-existant becase these mythic creatures are non-existant."
Nice try at historical revisionism. Your knowledge base has not expaned in the least since then, as far as I can tell.
I'll rebut the rest of this mental gymnastics later...
Panda's Thumb is a propaganda machine, if they are putting anything reliable out it must be by accident.
The data is taken straight out of the primary literature. Running away from the data does not help your position.
Typical of the kind of error that is ignored on here, you have a fundamental misconception of what is going on here. The HAR sequence is based on comparing data bases of sequences:
Several of the HARs encompass genes known to produce proteins important in neurodevelopment. HAR1 is an 118 base pair stretch found on the long arm of chromosome 20 overlapping with part of the RNA genes HAR1F and HAR1R. HAR1F is active in the developing human brain. The HAR1 sequence is found (and conserved) in chickens and chimpanzees but is not present in fish or frogs that have been studied. There are 18 base pair mutations different between humans and chimpanzees, far more than expected by its history of conservation Human accelerated regions
The indels and substitution are really just differences, the fact that they are called mutations is based on the fact that the common ancestry is assumed. These are not mutations, they are just differences and with actual scientists coming on here allowing this kind of fundamental misconception go unaddressed underscores the dishonesty of their arguments.
A rose by any other name . . .
Are you saying that the HARf gene can be caused to be different with no ill effects but a mutation that results in the same change is always detrimental? Is that what you are saying?
__________________ "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
I have tried from time to time to show them that science is not the problem, or even evolution. It's atheistic materialists and their TE minions that are the real threat. Their deep prejudice against the supernatural and any form of fundamentalist Christianity is the poison, we have nothing to fear from the genuine article of science.
More gobblygook? That's all you have?
What supernatural, Mark? Where is the evidence? If you are going to claim that we are ignoring something then present the evidence that we are ignoring. But you won't do that, will you. You will continue to keep whining about an completely contrived censor when in fact there is nothing to censor.
How does one do science using the supernatural? Show us how one constructs cladograms using the supernatural. Show us how algorithms used in phylogenetics is changed by inserting the supernatural. The truth of the matter is that you are mad because we won't take your fantasies seriously. Sorry, but you haven't given us a reason to take it seriously.
I will even give you a starting point. We can start with the following paper. Please show us how one uses the supernatural to analyze ERV placement, LTR divergence, and overall ERV divergence.
Endogenous retrovirus loci provide no less than three sources of phylogenetic signal, which can be used in complementary fashion to obtain much more information than simple distance estimates of homologous sequences. First, the distribution of provirus-containing loci among taxa dates the insertion. Given the size of vertebrate genomes (>1 × 109 bp) and the random nature of retroviral integration (22, 23), multiple integrations (and subsequent fixation) of ERV loci at precisely the same location are highly unlikely (24). Therefore, an ERV locus shared by two or more species is descended from a single integration event and is proof that the species share a common ancestor into whose germ line the original integration took place (14). . . .
Second, as with other sequence-based phylogenetic analyses, mutations in a provirus that have accumulated since the divergence of the species provide an estimate of the genetic distance between the species. . . .
Third, sequence divergence between the LTRs at the ends of a given provirus provides an important and unique source of phylogenetic information. The LTRs are created during reverse transcription to regenerate cis-acting elements required for integration and transcription. Because of the mechanism of reverse transcription, the two LTRs must be identical at the time of integration, even if they differed in the precursor provirus (Fig. (Fig.11A). Over time, they will diverge in sequence because of substitutions, insertions, and deletions acquired during cellular DNA replication.
__________________ "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
You really think the creationist lost? And its not a threat, its a promise. Hebrews 9:27.
To the best of my knowledge a fallible human wrote those words in the same way that a fallible human wrote your words. Should Hebrews 9:27 be considered any more infallible than your words? Should your words be considered any more infallible than those in Hebrews? Or do they both have the same degree of infallibility?
And I would only accept as certain the implied outcome of that judgment if I thought you were God and you wrote those words
Linear Mode
