Is there any evidence for evolution?

[AdamSK]

I'm playing with him,

That's rather obvious. I would prefer to have a discussion, but you are clearly limited to "playing."

 

[David_M]

Now that's just 100,000 years, let alone, 5,000,000, let alone 3,800,000,000. And that was only one species!

Two concepts - Predation, Carrying Capacity.

You would need to include those just to begin getting a coherent model.

 

[David_M]

Let me guess, all you have less are snide personal remarks, aka ad hominem attacks. It's called trolling and it derails substantive discussion, on purpose and every single time.

You do realise that this is an ad hominem attack? Exactly what you accuse others of making.

 

[mark kennedy]

That's rather obvious. I would prefer to have a discussion, but you are clearly limited to "playing."

Oh I'm dead serious about your only argument being a fallacious one. I'm playing with you because it's so easy. If you want to have an actual conversation why don't you try lifting your end. Let's start with something fairly simple, what is a mutation? Not what you think, how is it defined scientifically.

I warned you about ad hominem fallacies but you didn't listen. Get off them and we can have a different conversation.

Have a nice day
Mark

 

[mark kennedy]

You do realise that this is an ad hominem attack? Exactly what you accuse others of making.

No, it's an actual fact and it's all too common is these discussions. Evolutionists think all they have to do is correct and criticize creationists and they are being scientific, it's fallacious and absurd. Bad manners do not make for good logic. Inevitably the debates end up being boiled down to one ad hominem attack after another. The posts get shorter because after a while there is nothing left but the fallacious rhetoric.

You have to hold them accountable or there's not way to move forward.

Have a nice day
Mark

 

[Loudmouth]

I make mistakes? DNA is composed of nucleotides it never ceases to amaze me how you don't understand the most basic things.

How does that refute a single thing I said?

 

[Loudmouth]

The initial sequence of the chimpanzee genome and other papers put the divergence between 95 and 96 percent. Counting single base substitutions and indel. The indels are actually a sequence in one genome but absent in the other.

The per nucleotide divergence rate counts a 10 base indel as a single divergence, not 10. What they are measuring is the mutation rate at a single nucleotide, and an indel is one mutation.

The are sometimes over a million base pairs including the largest family of endoretrovirises in the chimpanzee genome.

Already refuted. The study you are citing only looked at 400 ERVs out of a total of 200,000 ERVs.

It would help if you learned the particulars before you started pontificating about them. Lets try something straightforward. Do you know what a mutation is. Not a trick question.

Let's see if you know the particulars. An insertion of 100 bases occurs in a genome. How many mutations is that?

 

[Loudmouth]

No the answer is the initial sequence of the chimpanzee genome. Nature 2005, Look it up dude!!!

In that paper, they state quite clearly that there are 40 million mutations: 35 million substitutions and 5 million indels.

 

[Loudmouth]

1,33 percent for the pseudo gene paper and 1,23 percent in the chimpanzee genome paper plus the additional 3 th 4 percent counting indels. Its interesting to see how the posts keep shrinking and the arguments shrivel up and die.

In the paper you are citing, an indel counts as a single mutation since they are calculating the number of mutations per nucleotide. For 35 million mutations in a 3 billion base haploid genome, that is a 1.2% divergence for substitutions. An additional 5 million indels is an additional 0.2% for a total of 1.4% divergence per nucleotide.

Added in edit:

To further drive this point home, we can look at this paper:

"The rate of small insertions and deletions or “indels” has been reported as approximately 0.20 ×10^−9 per site per generation for insertions and 0.53×10^−9–0.58×10^−9per site per generation for deletions; this corresponds to roughly 6% of the SNV mutation rate[3, 30] (Figure 1)."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3785239/

The SNV rate is the rate of substitutions.

The mutation rate per nucleotide corresponds to the rate at which mutations occur at that nucleotide. A 10 base indel counts as 1 mutation at one nucleotide, not 10. The mutation rate counts the number of mutations, not the number of bases that differ between the genomes. Therefore, the ~5% overall difference in total bases is not the correct number to use for mutation rate.

 

[AdamSK]

How does that refute a single thing I said?

It doesn't.

 

[AdamSK]

Oh I'm dead serious about your only argument being a fallacious one.

And you're dead wrong. But keep going, sparky.

 

[mark kennedy]

And you're dead wrong. But keep going, sparky.

That's what I thought, your going to ignore an invitation to an actual discussion and go right back to fallacious dogma. Just keep saying it in circles enough and maybe even you will believe after a while. I've never seen an evolutionist recover from this kind of a fallacious bog. It means you have nothing left and since you started with it, it mean you never had anything to begin with chief.

Have a nice day
Mark

 

[mark kennedy]

In the paper you are citing, an indel counts as a single mutation since they are calculating the number of mutations per nucleotide. For 35 million mutations in a 3 billion base haploid genome, that is a 1.2% divergence for substitutions. An additional 5 million indels is an additional 0.2% for a total of 1.4% divergence per nucleotide.

Your just dead wrong, you can't get the basics right and you want to play the teacher:

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. (Initial Sequence of the Chimpanzee Genome, Nature 2005)
​

It's not so much that you are so consistently wrong on very basic details but that you probably know it that gets me. I think your just throwing misinformation around hoping some if it will stick. There is just no way you could be this factually erroneous by accident. At least I don't see how, the paper is crystal clear.

To further drive this point home, we can look at this paper:

"The rate of small insertions and deletions or “indels” has been reported as approximately 0.20 ×10^−9 per site per generation for insertions and 0.53×10^−9–0.58×10^−9per site per generation for deletions; this corresponds to roughly 6% of the SNV mutation rate[3, 30] (Figure 1)."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3785239/

The SNV rate is the rate of substitutions.

The mutation rate per nucleotide corresponds to the rate at which mutations occur at that nucleotide. A 10 base indel counts as 1 mutation at one nucleotide, not 10. The mutation rate counts the number of mutations, not the number of bases that differ between the genomes. Therefore, the ~5% overall difference in total bases is not the correct number to use for mutation rate.

That's really what you think? 1.23% plus 3% comes to 4.23% which makes them over all between 95% and 96% the same not counting chromosomal rearrangements. Between 4% and 5% over all difference is exactly to correct number. Now as far as the mutation rate for indels I have only seen that twice and it's much higher then any species could survive so the actual scientists who post here simple won't talk about it. Most evolutionists don't want to admit the indels even exist which is why so often they say that we are 98% the same, it's because they want to pretend the indels don't exist.

Here's how it breaks down:

35 million single base substitutions in 5 million years which is 7 per year or 140 bp per 20 year generation. 5 million insertion/deletions totaling 90 million base pairs which is 1 per year, 14 base pairs long or 20 indels 280 base pairs long per 20 year generation. Now that's permanently fixed genome wide throughout the entire species plus or minus less the one percent. There is a reason this is actually impossible or at least the probability makes is untenable.

Using conservative calculations of the proportion of the genome subject to purifying selection, we estimate that the genomic deleterious mutation rate (U) is at least 3. This high rate is difficult to reconcile with multiplicative fitness effects of individual mutations. (Estimate of the Mutation Rate per Nucleotide in Humans Genetics 2000)
​

Now take this in perspective, the multiplicative effects on fitness are high at 1.33%. Then it jumps to 4.23% and the length of these mutations have tripled from what these researchers are considering:

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 one-tenth 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. (Estimate of the Mutation Rate per Nucleotide in Humans Genetics 2000)
​

The implications for Darwinism here are devastating. What's more the actual functional protein coding and regulatory genes are being characterized more and more. This simple simon, mutation plus selection mantra fails under close scrutiny or even a cursory glance.

Do the math LM or at least do the reading because this is inexcusable. As long as you've been doing this to get such basic facts and figures wrong should be embarrassing you to death. I guess that's the joy of being an evolutionist on CF, you can be wrong every single time and get by with it. Matter of fact I think you do it just to see how much of this nonsense people will buy into.

Have a nice day
Mark

 

[Loudmouth]

Your just dead wrong, you can't get the basics right and you want to play the teacher:

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. (Initial Sequence of the Chimpanzee Genome, Nature 2005)
​

A 10 base indel counts as 1 mutation, not 10. How many times do you I need to repeat this?

"Through comparison with the human genome, 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."
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v437/n7055/full/nature04072.html

There are 40 million mutations total between substitutions and indels. Indels are 1/6th the number of substititions.

That's really what you think? 1.23% plus 3%

There are not 3 times as many indels as substitutions. Again, a 10 base indel counts as 1 mutation, not 10.

Here's how it breaks down:

35 million single base substitutions in 5 million years which is 7 per year or 140 bp per 20 year generation. 5 million insertion/deletions totaling 90 million base pairs which is 1 per year, 14 base pairs long or 20 indels 280 base pairs long per 20 year generation.

That adds up to 40 million mutations.

Now take this in perspective, the multiplicative effects on fitness are high at 1.33%. Then it jumps to 4.23% and the length of these mutations have tripled from what these researchers are considering:

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 one-tenth 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. (Estimate of the Mutation Rate per Nucleotide in Humans Genetics 2000)
​

Your own source shows that I am right. There were 199 total mutations. 16 indels is 8% of those 199 differences. They use the number of indels in the mutation rate, not the total number of bases that are different between the genomes.

Do the math LM or at least do the reading because this is inexcusable.

I have done the reading. I have learned that a 10 base indel is 1 mutation, not 10.

 

[mark kennedy]

A 10 base indel counts as 1 mutation, not 10. How many times do you I need to repeat this?

"Through comparison with the human genome, 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."
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v437/n7055/full/nature04072.html

There are 40 million mutations total between substitutions and indels. Indels are 1/6th the number of substititions.

That's not what you said, what you said was

For 35 million mutations in a 3 billion base haploid genome, that is a 1.2% divergence for substitutions. An additional 5 million indels is an additional 0.2% for a total of 1.4% divergence per nucleotide.

The facts directly contradict your statement:

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. (Initial Sequence of the Chimpanzee Genome, Nature 2005)
​

You forget that this is 90mbps, as usual you have ignored the indels entirely. Never mind the fact that they have to be permanently fixed throughout the entire population, some of these mutations would be over a million base pairs long. The consequences would be disastrous. No you would rather play a semantic shell game pretending the 5 million indel mutation events makes it more palatable. Now on average that would be one per year or 20 per generation, the problem is that the vast majority have to be permanently fixed throughout the population. This doesn't happen in reality, mutations on this scale are unheard of.

There are not 3 times as many indels as substitutions. Again, a 10 base indel counts as 1 mutation, not 10.

No, the divergence triples. When the divergence per nucleotide is 1.33% is high due to the multiplicative effects on fitness it is at least three times more devastating when three times as much DNA is involved. Pretty obvious really, that's why you have to get so exercised avoiding it.

Your own source shows that I am right. There were 199 total mutations. 16 indels is 8% of those 199 differences. They use the number of indels in the mutation rate, not the total number of bases that are different between the genomes.

This is what it says:

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 one-tenth 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. (Estimate of the Mutation Rate per Nucleotide in Humans Genetics 2000)
​

Notice 15/16 insertion-deletions would have resulted in frameshifts. Something you think can't happen because you always assume substitutions with beneficial effects. The longest in this study is 3bp with all but one creating a frameshift. Just can't wrap your mind around deleterious effects can you?

I have done the reading. I have learned that a 10 base indel is 1 mutation, not 10.

Never said they were, put down the club and step away from the strawman.

Have a nice day
Mark

 

[VirOptimus]

That's not what you said, what you said was

Mark, in all seriousness, is there any (theoretical) evidence or research that would make you accept common descent?

 

[Mark Stacy]

Is there any evidence for evolution?

A better question would be,
Is there any evidence for anything other than evolution?

 

[AV1611VET]

Is there any evidence for evolution?

A better question would be,
Is there any evidence for anything other than evolution?

Evolution is nothing more than a game of connect-the-dots.

 

[Mark Stacy]

Evolution is nothing more than a game of connect-the-dots.

Which tells everyone that you know nothing about evolution, ignorance of evolution does not support creationism.

 

[mark kennedy]

Mark, in all seriousness, is there any (theoretical) evidence or research that would make you accept common descent?

Sure, I was close on a number of occasions, the fossils were especially intriguing. It was genetics that finally convinced me and it's very interesting how it's nearly impossible to get a discussion going on fossils and no one wants to talk about indels.

Have a nice day
Mark