Answering any questions on Evolution

[JanetReed]

Actually the newer number is about 130 new mutations per individual an that includes the non protein coding segments… stay up on the new findings please.

No No No… no new information has ever been observed to be added spontaneously by point mutations… that is a fact. Many if not all of these point mutations turn out to be deleterious increasing the genome loading and the calculated (U) value.

So what does this tell you? there is a God or there isn't? which one is it?

 

[Naraoia]

Well, his only determining factor for what is a plant is if they have cell walls. The first cells, of course, weren't that complex and were a simple fatty, permeable lipid chain.

Using his own ill-informed understanding of taxonomy is his "2 Kingdom System" to follow it to its logical conclusion, it still can be said that "animals" (those organisms without cell walls) still came before "plants"(organisms with cell walls).

Oh, true! The irony is delicious.

If cell walls define plants, then what is Thermoplasma, the wall-less archaeon?

 

[Zaius137]

So what does this tell you? there is a God or there isn't? which one is it?

There most certainly is a God… in fact what we see around us has no other explanation. Sciences are the study of God’s creation and he has given us the pleasure of exploring them.

 

[sandwiches]

No No No… no new information has ever been observed to be added spontaneously by point mutations… that is a fact.

If this is a fact, then we must know what we're looking for. So, what would "new information" look like in a genome?

 

[Naraoia]

If this is a fact, then we must know what we're looking for. So, what would "new information" look like in a genome?

The other question is why would it have to be point mutations.

 

[Doveaman]

Hi,

I'm an atheist

Hi,

I'm a creationist.

"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth...Then God said, "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness...And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being." (Gen 1,2).

How is evolution theory consistent with these scriptures? And if it's not, why should I care?

Remember, I'm a creationist.

 

[sfs]

I must apologize Mr. Boyle I did not read in the parenthesis behind your name…

By Alan Boyle(alias sfs) Science editor
msnbc.com

Alan Boyle is the author of a news article, while I said I was an author of "the paper". Papers are not news articles, and news articles are not papers. The paper I am an author of is the one described in the news article. Therefore I understand what is in the scientific paper, which is what's relevant here.

I used the same priori number that the divergence calculation implied except my calculation worked backward from the empirical findings of the human genome as a mutation rate. Again you need a math course and a better understanding of my principle calculation.

From Estimate of the Mutation Rate per Nucleotide in Humans

I have no idea what your paragraph means. The Nachman and Crowell paper estimates the mutation rate, which is as I described it. My use of the rate was also correct mathematically.

You still got the numbers mixed up my mutation rate is from actual empirical findings (u rate). The actual sequence divergence is the (k rate) Estimated at 4%. You are backwards on this. Again I must teach you the math…

The mutation rate is from empirical findings, albeit ones that are out of date. The actual sequence divergence you use is also from empirical findings, but is the wrong thing to use in this calculation, which you would know if you'd understood my previous post. The number you end up calculating means nothing at all.

To repeat yet again: the mutation rate you use is the number of mutations per generation. The divergence number you use is the number of mutated bases that differ between two species. Since a single mutation can change many bases, the two are not measuring the same thing. Humans and chimpanzees differ by ~120 million bases(*), representing ~40 million mutation events in the two lineages. Given the mutation rate, which measures mutation events per generation, the 40 million number is what you need to calculate the number of generations that have elapsed since they shared a common ancestor.

(*) Treating sequence that appears in one but not the other as a percentage difference, which is a stupid thing to do, but let's not go off on that tangent again.

I am having real problems with your understanding of such things. First you say “Yes there is a 4% difference in the genome”, then you say “no there isn’t a 4% difference in the genome”. The evolutionist must draw finer and finer obscuration around the simple reasoning, finer divisions and finer definitions like 24 separate definitions of a species.

No, we just have to know what it is that we're calculating. See above.

By the way did you also write the paper on the 6% variation in genomes between chimps and humans? I see at least four primary authors cited. Please do not claim that…

What paper is that?

 

[sfs]

I don't claim the gift of prophesy but I think I can predict this one.

"Nostradamus" I dub thee.

 

[sfs]

Actually the newer number is about 130 new mutations per individual an that includes the non protein coding segments… stay up on the new findings please.

I should have said 60, not 50. I was referring to the recent studies directly identifying new mutations by sequencing the whole genomes of entire families to great depth. Specifically, one study [Roach, J.C. et al. Science 328, 636–639 (2010)] estimated a total of 67 new mutations in the offspring. (This is probably just point mutations, but I'm not going to bother checking. Increase by ~10% for all mutations if so.) The second study [Conrad, D.F. et al. Nature Genetics 467, 1061–1073 (2011)], looked at two families, one West African and one European, and estimated mutation rates of 59 and 71 mutations, respectively. Other recent studies, looking in and around genes(*), have found slightly higher numbers, but still much lower than 130 mutations per person. Lynch (Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 107, 961–968 (2010)) got an estimate of 78, while Awadalla et al (Am. J. Hum. Genet. 87, 316–324 (2011)) got an estimate of 83.

(*) And therefore probably biased toward higher mutation rates, since actively transcribed regions mutate more.

70 is a more accurate estimate than 50, and either is better than 130.

I'm tempted to employ sarcasm here, about my alleged failure to keep up with the literature, but I think I'll let the opportunity pass.

 

[sandwiches]

Hi,

I'm a creationist.

"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth...Then God said, "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness...And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being." (Gen 1,2).

How is evolution theory consistent with these scriptures?

It isn't.

And if it's not, why should I care?

You don't have to, if you don't care about believing what's real.

Remember, I'm a creationist.

How can we forget?

 

[bjt2024]

Hi,

I'm a creationist.

"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth...Then God said, "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness...And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being." (Gen 1,2).

How is evolution theory consistent with these scriptures? And if it's not, why should I care?

Remember, I'm a creationist.

Hi

Evolution is not consistent with the scriptures of the bible. Evolution is based of rigourous scientific fact and testing. The bible is based of faith and no evidence or testing. I believe that people should care for evidence and truth, and go out into the world with a questioning mind. People should be sceptical and test ideas and concepts put forward by others. I think of this as the basis for science.

I am an atheist but if I was to be confronted with a god who provided evidence of his/her existance ((I'm not sure how he would) and (which one of the hundreds of gods I am not sure would present his/herself)) I would consider my thoughts challenged, and with enough evidence in the favour of a god, I would become a "believer". Technically not a believer because a god proved their existance, I would not believe but know.

 

[bjt2024]

I agree, point mutations are not the only form of important mutation. Small scale deletion and insertion, large scale deletion and insertion. Transposons. Retrovirus DNA insertion.

 

[JanetReed]

So what does this tell you? there is a God or there isn't? which one is it?

There most certainly is a God… in fact what we see around us has no other explanation. Sciences are the study of God’s creation and he has given us the pleasure of exploring them.

So what is the problem? why don't you leave others to believe as they want? why do you feel the need to try and prove that your God exists? you can't prove that your God exists and they can't prove that your God doesn't exist,
why not accept that and leave it at that? agree to disagree.

 

[AV1611VET]

why do you feel the need to try and prove that your God exists?

You mean like I don't?

I'm just the opposite, and I still take flack for it.

So either way, whether we try and prove that God exists, or don't try, we still get ridiculed, don't we?

It's not what we say, it's what we are, isn't it?

 

[JoeyArnold]

Ironically, science has been evolving over the years, inconsistently, right?

 

[AV1611VET]

Ironically, science has been evolving over the years, inconsistently, right?

No -- [mundane] science is pretty consistent.

Wrong yesterday, right today, left tomorrow.

 

[USincognito]

Since I was an author of that paper, this is not exactly news to me.

I must apologize Mr. Boyle I did not read in the parenthesis behind your name…

By Alan Boyle(alias sfs) Science editor
msnbc.com

Arrogant hubris can be so funny.

 

[JoeyArnold]

No -- [mundane] science is pretty consistent.

What are the limitations of mundane science?

 

[AV1611VET]

What are the limitations of mundane science?

Mundane science is myopic.

I use this passage as an example:

2 Kings 6:17 And Elisha prayed, and said, LORD, I pray thee, open his eyes, that he may see. And the LORD opened the eyes of the young man; and he saw: and, behold, the mountain was full of horses and chariots of fire round about Elisha.

To compensate for their myopia, they keep building bigger and better "glasses" (microscopes & telescopes) to feed their prophet Landru,* who then predicts and prophesies for them.

* My collective term for cyberscience.

 

[Mr Strawberry]

Mundane science is myopic.

I use this passage as an example:

2 Kings 6:17 And Elisha prayed, and said, LORD, I pray thee, open his eyes, that he may see. And the LORD opened the eyes of the young man; and he saw: and, behold, the mountain was full of horses and chariots of fire round about Elisha.

To compensate for their myopia, they keep building bigger and better "glasses" (microscopes & telescopes) to feed their prophet Landru,* who then predicts and prophesies for them.

* My collective term for cyberscience.

...thus speaks the blind man.