So, theoretically people in Britain, for instance, should not be able to reproduce with tribes in the lower part of South America. After X number of generations as you say.
Upvote
0
-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
-
CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
Gorilla Genome
- Thread starter mark kennedy
- Start date
So, theoretically people in Britain, for instance, should not be able to reproduce with tribes in the lower part of South America. After X number of generations as you say.
That would only occur if the populations were isolated for a very, very long time. South America and Britain aren't isolated.
Upvote
0
They were, and, for a very long time.
In fact, there are still some tribes of primitive culture that are still isolated. However, I bet they can breed with any other human on this earth.
Upvote
0
Not long enough. Speciation is a process that takes many, MANY generations. A few thousand years isn't much time at all.
Probably, yeah.
Upvote
0
wow, yet again.
mark writes another howler, here:
in post #102, here. http://www.christianforums.com/t7821783-11/
When it's pointed out how wrong he is, he responds with his usual string of trash talk against anyone correcting him, such as in posts 106, 107, 108, etc.
Then, not four days later mark finally hears everyone correcting him, and writes:
(post 77 on this thread http://www.christianforums.com/t7870598-8/)
So no only does mark trash the evolution supporters as well as the creationists on this board, but he even argues against himself.
And after all that, no apology, no admission of error, and more trash talk against anyone nearby.
*sigh*
In Christ -
Papias
mark writes another howler, here:
in post #102, here. http://www.christianforums.com/t7821783-11/
When it's pointed out how wrong he is, he responds with his usual string of trash talk against anyone correcting him, such as in posts 106, 107, 108, etc.
Then, not four days later mark finally hears everyone correcting him, and writes:
(post 77 on this thread http://www.christianforums.com/t7870598-8/)
So no only does mark trash the evolution supporters as well as the creationists on this board, but he even argues against himself.
And after all that, no apology, no admission of error, and more trash talk against anyone nearby.
*sigh*
In Christ -
Papias
Upvote
0
- Mar 16, 2004
- 22,030
- 7,265
- 62
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Calvinist
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Democrat
Seriously Papias, you haven't a clue what is being discussed here, post this, post that, ad infinitum ad naseum and you really don't have a clue. It's the Indels, Darwinians cannot account for them so they pretend they don't exist. That's all this is, I don't owe anyone an apology and I'm not making any kind of a real error. It's just a semantic shuffle, a pedantic correction and the whole thing gets swept under the rug because it easier then the truth. The differences between Chimpanzee and Humans, Gorillas and Humans, cannot be accounted for when you factor in the size of the indels. It's simply unsustainable, especially with regards to the genes involved in the development of the brain.
That wasn't the question, did you go through all of that to make the point that most of the mutations in amino acids are neutral, that was the question Steve? I mean it gets tense sometimes when I bring up indels because so many of these scientific minds want to pretend they don't exist, that way they get to say we are 98% the same in our DNA as Chimpanzees. You the one who doesn't think the mutation rate changes if the divergence is 1.44% or 5%.
That's a long list, transcript errors are not mutations, remember that one?
Is it 98% or 96%? Well it all depends. If scientific professional want to say we are 98% the same it's not a lie, it just all depends. But if I mention indels in association with frameshifts I'm making a grievous error. Meanwhile, no matter how many fundamental mistakes the Darwinian horde makes you never correct them once.
I know why Steve:
We observed a total of 199 differences between the human and chimpanzee sequences:
131 transitions (66%),
52 transversions (26%), and
16 insertion-deletion variants (8%).
Insertion-deletion variants were less than onetenth as common as nucleotide substitutions and consisted of changes of
1 bp (8 mutations),
2 bp (5 mutations),
3 bp (1 mutation), and
4 bp (2 mutations).
Thus, 15/16 of these insertion-deletion variants would have resulted in frameshift mutations in coding regions. Approximately one-fifth of all single nucleotide mutations were transitions at CpG dinucleotides. Estimate of the Mutation Rate per Nucleotide in Humans
131 transitions (66%),
52 transversions (26%), and
16 insertion-deletion variants (8%).
Insertion-deletion variants were less than onetenth as common as nucleotide substitutions and consisted of changes of
1 bp (8 mutations),
2 bp (5 mutations),
3 bp (1 mutation), and
4 bp (2 mutations).
Thus, 15/16 of these insertion-deletion variants would have resulted in frameshift mutations in coding regions. Approximately one-fifth of all single nucleotide mutations were transitions at CpG dinucleotides. Estimate of the Mutation Rate per Nucleotide in Humans
So there is never a time when frameshifts are the most likely result of indels? Even when they are not triplet codons? I guess I'm not going to get clarification about that, or what the beneficial mutations you refereed to, or what you were referring to here:
sfs said:
So I go fishing because that's all the Ivy League elitists leave you to do. I find this pretty standard, straight forward discussion:
Mutations are permanent changes in the DNA.
A. most mutations are neutral; they either make no change in the expression of any gene, or the changes made do not affect the function of any gene product.
B. Of those mutations which do make a difference, most have a negative effect.: 1. If an amino acid is altered in the active site region of a protein, it may decrease or destroy the ability of the protein to perform its function. This kind of mutation often leads to a classic recessive allele--an allele which does not produce a functional gene product. Mutation
A. most mutations are neutral; they either make no change in the expression of any gene, or the changes made do not affect the function of any gene product.
B. Of those mutations which do make a difference, most have a negative effect.: 1. If an amino acid is altered in the active site region of a protein, it may decrease or destroy the ability of the protein to perform its function. This kind of mutation often leads to a classic recessive allele--an allele which does not produce a functional gene product. Mutation
That sounds almost identical to what I said but I'm a creationist so I'm always being corrected, it's the proper thing to do. Guess that's whether I'm right or wrong.
Except for one thing Steve, I know why you are doing this.
Have a nice day
Mark
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Would it be safe to say, then, that this has not ever been observed, but is a theory or best "guess". Not a factual event. Only a hopeful event, and, therefore takes faith?
Upvote
0
We have observed the process of incipient speciation. A good example is the apple maggot fly:
http://sciencecases.lib.buffalo.edu/cs/files/maggot_fly.pdf
At one time, the fly just laid eggs on the fruits of the hawthorne tree. When the apple was introduced to the Americans, they started laying eggs on those as well. The interesting bit is that the trees fruit at different times which means that when the flies hatch you will have two separate breeding populations, the apple and hawthorne populations. This has already produced genetic differences between the populations.
Upvote
0
Why can't we account for them? Indels that cause a loss of funciton will be selected against. That is as Darwinian as it gets.
Are you really unaware of this thing called "negative selection"?
Only 2% of mutations can cause a change in amino acid sequence because only 2% of the genome is translated into proteins.
Upvote
0
If only you could understand that substititions are 10 times more common than indels, and substitutions do not cause frameshift mutations.
Indels do not cause frameshifts in RNA regulator genes. Do you know why?
Again, have you never heard of negative selection?
Upvote
0
Just for fun, I thought I would pick a gene at random and see how it compared between humans and gorillas. I felt toll-like, so I picked the cDNA for the TLR3 gene (don't want to introduce introns just yet ). For the 2.7kb gene, I got 18 substititions and no indels. All this talk about all of these indels, and no indels in that gene. Hmmm . . . .
). For the 2.7kb gene, I got 18 substititions and no indels. All this talk about all of these indels, and no indels in that gene. Hmmm . . . .
Upvote
0
So, you still have maggot flies. They are physically indistinguishable and are only different at the genetic level.
They can still mate between each other....
This seems to be a similar comparison to, say, Caucasian and Negro's, excepting the visible color difference. So, in effect the maggot flyies are even closer than the differnent races of humans are.
Hardly an example of gorilla's and human's. But, nice story bro.
Upvote
0
With humans and chimps, you still have primates. So why do you have a problem with humans and chimps sharing a common ancestor?
That is how speciation starts. You asked for an example, and I gave it to you. As differences in DNA accumulate, so will differences in morphology.
But they don't mate between each other which is all that is needed for speciation.
Do white and black people mate at different times of the year? No, they don't. There is no genetic barrier between the two populations like there is with apple maggot flies.
You asked for an example of speciation in real time. That is exactly what I gave you. Do you really expect 10 million years of evolution to play out in a human's lifetime?
Upvote
0
However, there is no physical difference between your flies. I hope there is a physical difference between you and a chimp.
However, it has never been observed. It is just a speculation, extrapolation, assumption that has never been observed and there is no "evidence" of it actually happening.
I know, we haven't had enough time.
I think they do. According to your link....
There is only a 4 to 6% hybridization rate
between
hawthorn maggot flies
and apple maggot flies
However, for centuries the two groups did not interbreed and look. Still human and can mate with each other.
Exactly. You need 10 million years to try to give an explanation of something that is never "observed".
Therefore, it is not science. It is speculation. There is no evidence.
Upvote
0
Again, you asked for an example of speciation at the very beginning, not 5 million years worth of evolution.
I just gave you the evidence of it happening in real time. That evidence is the genetic divergence of the two populations of apple maggot flies.
I know, we haven't had enough time.
Why isn't it 100%?
Again, you asked for an example of the beginnings of speciation in real time. This is what it looks like.
You asked for an example of speciation in real time over a short period of time. That is what I gave you. If that isn't what you wanted, then you shouldn't have asked for it.
We have the evidence that humans and chimps evolved from a common ancestor. You just refuse to address it.
Upvote
0
Originally Posted by Papias
No real error? Come on, you falsely stated that
As we saw in the posts that follow, you were simply wrong - and then you even stated the opposite on another thread (this one), showing that even you now know that you were wrong. Now you are going back on that too?
You bring out error after error and then suggest that I'm the one who doesn't have a clue? Come one - have you been reading your own posts? Here are just some of your errors:
mark claims that substitutions cause frameshifts, (anyone who understands even the basics of DNA knows that they don't do so).
http://www.christianforums.com/t7821783-13/ Post #124
- same post, mark claims that the mutation that caused the nylonase evolution somehow wasn't a mutation.
http://www.christianforums.com/t7821783-10/ post #100 mark gives a false frequency of indel mutations.
mark fails to understand basic natural selection: http://www.christianforums.com/t7458722-5/ (in post #48), even after this is explained to him in post #55.
http://www.christianforums.com/t7513938-6/ Mark denies that beneficial mutations happen, and is corrected in posts 56-60
mark denies his own posted data that most supporters of evolution in America are Christians (again arguing against himself) http://www.christianforums.com/t7458722-3/
http://www.christianforums.com/t5090795-9/#post34148323 See post #83, mark says a mutation is a "transcription error". again, that's false.
And remember, we had a whole debate because you claimed that the Roman Catholic Church doesn't allow members to believe in evolution - a claim that you yourself admitted was false beforehand!
I didn't even list the times you made other errors.
I guess to top it off you prove my point that you'll respond with trash talk, this time in the post immediately after mine, post #86.
I think that the first step to greater knowledge is admitting one's mistakes and asking for help from those who are experts. In genetics, that's people like LM and Steve (sfs).
In Christ -
Papias
No real error? Come on, you falsely stated that
As we saw in the posts that follow, you were simply wrong - and then you even stated the opposite on another thread (this one), showing that even you now know that you were wrong. Now you are going back on that too?
You bring out error after error and then suggest that I'm the one who doesn't have a clue? Come one - have you been reading your own posts? Here are just some of your errors:
mark claims that substitutions cause frameshifts, (anyone who understands even the basics of DNA knows that they don't do so).
http://www.christianforums.com/t7821783-13/ Post #124
- same post, mark claims that the mutation that caused the nylonase evolution somehow wasn't a mutation.
http://www.christianforums.com/t7821783-10/ post #100 mark gives a false frequency of indel mutations.
mark fails to understand basic natural selection: http://www.christianforums.com/t7458722-5/ (in post #48), even after this is explained to him in post #55.
http://www.christianforums.com/t7513938-6/ Mark denies that beneficial mutations happen, and is corrected in posts 56-60
mark denies his own posted data that most supporters of evolution in America are Christians (again arguing against himself) http://www.christianforums.com/t7458722-3/
http://www.christianforums.com/t5090795-9/#post34148323 See post #83, mark says a mutation is a "transcription error". again, that's false.
And remember, we had a whole debate because you claimed that the Roman Catholic Church doesn't allow members to believe in evolution - a claim that you yourself admitted was false beforehand!
I didn't even list the times you made other errors.
I guess to top it off you prove my point that you'll respond with trash talk, this time in the post immediately after mine, post #86.
I think that the first step to greater knowledge is admitting one's mistakes and asking for help from those who are experts. In genetics, that's people like LM and Steve (sfs).
In Christ -
Papias
Last edited:
Upvote
0
"Given the size of vertebrate genomes (>1 × 10^9 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)."
Constructing primate phylogenies from ancient retrovirus sequences
Humans and chimps share over 200,000 ERV's at the same location in each of our genomes while only differing by a relative handful. This is smoking gun evidence for common ancestry.
Upvote
0
I don't know much about ERV's, so I read a few articles on it. It seems to me that there is still a lot of controversy over this "solid evidence".
As far as I'm concerned, it's not proof of common ancestry. I didn't quote any of the article but the conclusions are below.
"In summary, a very strong case can be made pointing to the view that ERVs were not inserted by retroviruses. They have function, should have been ridden by apoptosis, are different than their ancestral genomes, and it is incredible that the organisms did not die after being infected with so many viral genes. With so many problems, how can evolutionists continue to use ERVs as evidence for evolution?"
I'm not posting the link, you will just label it as biased anyway, just like any source that speaks against the TOE.
I am impressed at how you insert the word "evidence" instead of "proof".
Over and over I am told that science never proves anything. Yet, you can state "smoking gun Evidence" and nobody can, in your mind, argue against that. In all actuality, however, you are saying that it is "proof"......
So, in your words, there is no proof of anything in science so your evidence is not a smoking gun. That would be proof, which is non existant.
As far as I'm concerned, it's not proof of common ancestry. I didn't quote any of the article but the conclusions are below.
"In summary, a very strong case can be made pointing to the view that ERVs were not inserted by retroviruses. They have function, should have been ridden by apoptosis, are different than their ancestral genomes, and it is incredible that the organisms did not die after being infected with so many viral genes. With so many problems, how can evolutionists continue to use ERVs as evidence for evolution?"
I'm not posting the link, you will just label it as biased anyway, just like any source that speaks against the TOE.
I am impressed at how you insert the word "evidence" instead of "proof".
Over and over I am told that science never proves anything. Yet, you can state "smoking gun Evidence" and nobody can, in your mind, argue against that. In all actuality, however, you are saying that it is "proof"......
So, in your words, there is no proof of anything in science so your evidence is not a smoking gun. That would be proof, which is non existant.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
