Are humans evolving?

Justatruthseeker · May 3, 2016

Hoghead1 said:
Your understanding of evolution is way, way off here. Also, evolution has been observed in the lab, with bacteria.

You mean in those E coli that after a billion mutations and billions of generations remained E coli? I think you are confused by the hype as to what is actually shown.

Loudmouth · May 3, 2016

Justatruthseeker said:
What biological evolution. Stop ignoring Asian always remains Asian, African always remains African.

Stop ignoring all of the genetic evidence demonstrating shared ancestry between chimps and humans.

Genetic evidence simply proves that foreign genomes are brought in by viruses through lateral gene transfer. It is after all those ERV sites you claim as proof. But you wont accept your own biologists who do study it.

It also proves that these lateral transfers of viral genomes occurred in a common ancestor. That is what our own biologists say:

"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)."
http://www.pnas.org/content/96/18/10254.full

Loudmouth · May 3, 2016

Justatruthseeker said:
You mean in those E coli that after a billion mutations and billions of generations remained E coli? I think you are confused by the hype as to what is actually shown.

A billion mutations? The E. coli genome is only 2 or 3 million bases. Sure you want to go with that? Why don't you quote the actual scientific papers as to the number of mutations that actually occurred instead of making stuff up?

Also, the common ancestor of chimps and humans was a primate, and chimps and humans are still primates. Seems that you support macroevolution.

Loudmouth · May 3, 2016

I figured I would take a look at the Lenski experiment myself and see how many mutations there were.

"Figure 1 shows all mutations identified in the evolved clones through 20,000 generations. The 45 mutations in the 20K clone include 29 single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) and 16 deletions, insertions and other polymorphisms (DIPs). Figure 2 shows that the number of mutational differences between the ancestral and evolved genomes accumulated in a near-linear fashion over this period. Any deviation from linearity was not statistically significant based on randomization tests."
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v461/n7268/full/nature08480.html

After 20,000 generations there were 45 mutations. The genome of the parent strain is 4.6 million base pairs, a little bit bigger than I had thought. It can be found here, for those who are interested:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/CP000819

45 mutations in 4.5 million bases is a difference of just 0.001%. For comparison, humans differ from each other by about 0.1%, if memory serves. Therefore, the parent and descendant strains of E. coli were 100 fold less different than two living humans.

Yet another lesson for those reading. Don't trust anything creationists say. If they say the sky is blue, you would be advised to go outside and check.

FrumiousBandersnatch · May 3, 2016

Justatruthseeker said:
You mean in those E coli that after a billion mutations and billions of generations remained E coli? I think you are confused by the hype as to what is actually shown.

In a relatively simple organism like E coli, a greater proportion of the functional genome will be highly conserved. Interestingly, some sequences are so crucial to all life that they are similar in all creatures; for example, the E coli gene for the 16S ribosomal RNA subcomponent has a 50% overlap with the same gene in humans, despite around 3 billion years of independent evolution since the last common ancestor.

sfs · May 3, 2016

wndwalkr99 said:
I would actually argue that a larger population takes longer to ball then a smaller one. You can use selection pressure to change a genome slightly in a small population over relatively short period time. The same selection pressure would take a much longer time to make the same difference in a larger population.

Well, no, not really. If a mutation confers a 1% advantage, then it will on average increase in frequency by 1% per generation, regardless of the population size. That's assuming either a haploid organism or an additive effect in a diploid,and ignoring some messiness when the allele frequency is very low and very high. If the allele is recessive for the beneficial trait, then it is more likely to be successful in the smaller population. In any case, there will be many more beneficial mutations occurring in a larger population, simply because there are so many more organisms reproducing. Also, larger populations can respond to weaker selective pressure than small populations, where genetic drift is more pronounced.

[serious] · May 3, 2016

Justatruthseeker said:
You mean in those E coli that after a billion mutations and billions of generations remained E coli? I think you are confused by the hype as to what is actually shown.

Loudmouth already covered that you are orders of magnitude off on the genome size and that the nested hierarchy evolution produces does leave things in their "kinds", but your are also orders of magnitude off on the number of generations. At a 20 minute reproduction time, it would take ~40,000 years to get a billion generations.

Rather than making up numbers, you should read about what's actually been done. You might find that your concerns have already been addressed.

Justatruthseeker · May 3, 2016

FrumiousBandersnatch said:
In a relatively simple organism like E coli, a greater proportion of the functional genome will be highly conserved. Interestingly, some sequences are so crucial to all life that they are similar in all creatures; for example, the E coli gene for the 16S ribosomal RNA subcomponent has a 50% overlap with the same gene in humans, despite around 3 billion years of independent evolution since the last common ancestor.

Has nothing to do with common ancestors. it has to do with the fact that everything was created from the same dust, from the exact same protons, neutrons and electrons. Similarity is of course to be expected behind a guiding intelligence who used the same exact protons, neutrons and electrons to make up everything. Not to mention mice, which are supposedly more distant on the tree - have more shared genomes with man than do apes. But this also is to be expected when life is created from the same protons, neutrons and electrons that make up everything.

In a relative simple organism like E coli - it will forever remain E coli because it has no source of genes transferred to it from another infraspecific taxa within the bacterial species. Contrary to their hype that's why those 2 billion year old bacteria they found never evolved - because it is impossible. Only a true believer would say they never evolved because they fit their ecological niche, while wanting everyone to forget the earth was changing drastically over the last 2 billion years and so has their ecological niche. But mentioning that doesn't jive with their made up excuse on the spot, so is best left out of the story.

You haven''t yet shown any evolution, let alone billions of years. All you have ever observed is infraspecific taxa remain the exact same infraspecific taxa until they mate with another infraspecific taxa within the species. You have not once observed anything else. Not in nature - and not in the lab. The rest is just incorrect classifications and ignoring one's own scientific definitions to promote one's personal beliefs. Unless you ignore your own scientific definitions you can't show anything of the sort.

Justatruthseeker · May 3, 2016

[serious] said:
Loudmouth already covered that you are orders of magnitude off on the genome size and that the nested hierarchy evolution produces does leave things in their "kinds", but your are also orders of magnitude off on the number of generations. At a 20 minute reproduction time, it would take ~40,000 years to get a billion generations.

Rather than making up numbers, you should read about what's actually been done. You might find that your concerns have already been addressed.

Loudmouth wont even admit to what is right in front of his eyes, so you will have to excuse me if anything he says is ignored. So are you going to refuse to admit what is right in front of your eyes and the DNA evidence as well to uphold your false beliefs, or just admit to the mistake in classifications when it comes to Darwin's Finches? If you are going to lie to yourself that's fine but tell me now so I will know where you stand when it comes to veracity and science as well.

The E coli experiment says that the E coli went through every possible single point mutation several times. And guess what? They remained E coli. I'm sure Loud just accidentally forgot to mention that tho, when he threw out that 1% to make it sound superficial.

"to have undergone enough spontaneous mutations that every possible single point mutation in the E. coli genome has occurred multiple times."

And you still couldn't get anything but E coli - imagine that. So apparently 1% is enough to mutate every possible single point mutation in the genome several times, but then that they would just end up repeating over and over was a foregone conclusion before the start, which 40+ years of reproductive experiments could of told you would happen before they even started the experiment. What, you need the same results 99 more times before it sinks in? You already got 40+ years of experimental results with actual reproduction, which your E coli experiments simply supported.

http://www.weloennig.de/Loennig-Long-Version-of-Law-of-Recurrent-Variation.pdf

Subduction Zone · May 4, 2016

Justatruthseeker said:
The E coli experiment says that the E coli went through every possible single point mutation several times. And guess what? They remained E coli. I'm sure Loud just accidentally forgot to mention that tho, when he threw out that 1% to make it sound superficial.

Of course they will be E coli. There is no "change of kinds" in evolution. You can follow the mutation of man all the way from our fishy ancestors to now and there is never a "change in kind". You may be insulted when someone calls you ad ape, but that is technically correct since you had an ape ancestor. The common ancestor that you shared with other apes would look like an ape today, it would merely not look like any extent apes.

"to have undergone enough spontaneous mutations that every possible single point mutation in the E. coli genome has occurred multiple times."

Where did you get that quote from? It may be true, since bacteria do reproduce quite often. This only shows that you need to study up some more on the facts that you hate so much.

And you still couldn't get anything but E coli - imagine that. So apparently 1% is enough to mutate every possible single point mutation in the genome several times, but then that they would just end up repeating over and over was a foregone conclusion before the start, which 40+ years of reproductive experiments could of told you would happen before they even started the experiment. What, you need the same results 99 more times before it sinks in? You already got 40+ years of experimental results with actual reproduction, which your E coli experiments simply supported.

http://www.weloennig.de/Loennig-Long-Version-of-Law-of-Recurrent-Variation.pdf

Again, what else did you expect to get? When you don't understand a fact it is not a good time to attack that fact.

DogmaHunter · May 4, 2016

Justatruthseeker said:
What biological evolution. Stop ignoring Asian always remains Asian, African always remains African.

Stop pretending that evolution says otherwise.

Evolution is gradual change overtime.

Not a single biologist expects 2 asian people to produce a non-asian.

In fact, if that were to happen, evolution would be falsified.

pgp_protector · May 4, 2016

All Apples are Fruit but not All Fruits are Apples (Remember this from Elementry ? )
Good. Now follow along

All Humans are Neomura Not all Neomura Are Human
All Humans are Eukaryota Not all Eukaryota Are Human
All Humans are Holozoa Not all Holozoa Are Human
All Humans are Animalia Not all Animalia Are Human
All Humans are Eumetazoa Not all Eumetazoa Are Human
All Humans are Bilateria Not all Bilateria Are Human
All Humans are Chordata Not all Chordata Are Human
All Humans are Vertebrata Not all Vertebrata Are Human
All Humans are Gnathostomata Not all Gnathostomata Are Human
All Humans are Teleostomi Not all Teleostomi Are Human
All Humans are Sarcopterygii Not all Sarcopterygii Are Human
All Humans are Tetrapoda Not all Tetrapoda Are Human
All Humans are Mammalia Not all Mammalia Are Human
All Humans are Theria Not all Theria Are Human
All Humans are Eutheria Not all Eutheria Are Human
All Humans are Boreoeutheria Not all Boreoeutheria Are Human
All Humans are Euarchontoglires Not all Euarchontoglires Are Human
All Humans are Primates Not all Primates Are Human
All Humans are Haplorrhini Not all Haplorrhini Are Human
All Humans are Simiiformes Not all Simiiformes Are Human
All Humans are Catarrhini Not all Catarrhini Are Human
All Humans are Hominoidea Not all Hominoidea Are Human
All Humans are Hominidae Not all Hominidae Are Human
All Humans are Homininae Not all Homininae Are Human
All Humans are Hominini Not all Hominini Are Human
All Humans are Hominina Not all Hominina Are Human
All Humans are H. s. sapiens all H.s. sapiens are you.

Justatruthseeker · May 4, 2016

DogmaHunter said:
Stop pretending that evolution says otherwise.

Evolution is gradual change overtime.

Not a single biologist expects 2 asian people to produce a non-asian.

In fact, if that were to happen, evolution would be falsified.

Then you admit evolution is falsified since they claim 2 Africans created Asians and the rest of humanity. Oh, you forgot about the out of Africa scenario I expect. But I am sure you will now double-talk to avoid what you just admitted as true - the falsification of evolution.

Justatruthseeker · May 4, 2016

pgp_protector said:
All Apples are Fruit but not All Fruits are Apples (Remember this from Elementry ? )
Good. Now follow along

All Humans are Neomura Not all Neomura Are Human
All Humans are Eukaryota Not all Eukaryota Are Human
All Humans are Holozoa Not all Holozoa Are Human
All Humans are Animalia Not all Animalia Are Human
All Humans are Eumetazoa Not all Eumetazoa Are Human
All Humans are Bilateria Not all Bilateria Are Human
All Humans are Chordata Not all Chordata Are Human
All Humans are Vertebrata Not all Vertebrata Are Human
All Humans are Gnathostomata Not all Gnathostomata Are Human
All Humans are Teleostomi Not all Teleostomi Are Human
All Humans are Sarcopterygii Not all Sarcopterygii Are Human
All Humans are Tetrapoda Not all Tetrapoda Are Human
All Humans are Mammalia Not all Mammalia Are Human
All Humans are Theria Not all Theria Are Human
All Humans are Eutheria Not all Eutheria Are Human
All Humans are Boreoeutheria Not all Boreoeutheria Are Human
All Humans are Euarchontoglires Not all Euarchontoglires Are Human
All Humans are Primates Not all Primates Are Human
All Humans are Haplorrhini Not all Haplorrhini Are Human
All Humans are Simiiformes Not all Simiiformes Are Human
All Humans are Catarrhini Not all Catarrhini Are Human
All Humans are Hominoidea Not all Hominoidea Are Human
All Humans are Hominidae Not all Hominidae Are Human
All Humans are Homininae Not all Homininae Are Human
All Humans are Hominini Not all Hominini Are Human
All Humans are Hominina Not all Hominina Are Human
All Humans are H. s. sapiens all H.s. sapiens are you.

Sorry, but I think you lost them at all fruit are not apples. The second you went beyond all apples are fruit you went too deep, beyond the elementary.

pgp_protector · May 4, 2016

Justatruthseeker said:
Sorry, but I think you lost them at all fruit are not apples. The second you went beyond all apples are fruit you went too deep, beyond the elementary.

Well then you should understand that

All Asians are Human, but not All Humans are Asian

And All Terriers are Dogs, but not All Dogs are Terriers
All Chihuahuas are Dogs but not all Dogs are Chihuahuas
2 Chihuahuas will not produce a Terrier
and
2 Terriers will not produce a Chihuahua.
But Chihuahua & Terriers can bread together.

Loudmouth · May 4, 2016

Justatruthseeker said:
Has nothing to do with common ancestors. it has to do with the fact that everything was created from the same dust, from the exact same protons, neutrons and electrons.

Then why does the cytochrome c gene differ by 20% between humans and mice?

Why would being made from the same types of atoms produce a nested hierarchy?

Similarity is of course to be expected behind a guiding intelligence who used the same exact protons, neutrons and electrons to make up everything.

It is more than just similarity. It is a nested hierarchy. Once again, you demonstrate that you don't have the first clue as to how the theory of evolution is supported by evidence.

In a relative simple organism like E coli - it will forever remain E coli because it has no source of genes transferred to it from another infraspecific taxa within the bacterial species.

Why wouldn't mutations in the DNA it already has lead to a divergence between bacterial populations?

Humans and chimps share nearly 100% of the same genes. We differ by just mutations, and we are separate species.

Loudmouth · May 4, 2016

Justatruthseeker said:
Sorry, but I think you lost them at all fruit are not apples.

I don't think we are surprised that you fail to understand the most basic of concepts.

Loudmouth · May 4, 2016

Justatruthseeker said:
Then you admit evolution is falsified since they claim 2 Africans created Asians and the rest of humanity.

Your claims are falsified by the ancestor shared by humans and chimps.

Loudmouth · May 4, 2016

Justatruthseeker said:
Loudmouth wont even admit to what is right in front of his eyes, so you will have to excuse me if anything he says is ignored.

We have 200,000 shared ERVs between humans and chimps right in front of our eyes.

So are you going to refuse to admit what is right in front of your eyes and the DNA evidence as well to uphold your false beliefs, or just admit to the mistake in classifications when it comes to Darwin's Finches? If you are going to lie to yourself that's fine but tell me now so I will know where you stand when it comes to veracity and science as well.

I have asked several times if humans and chimps are separate species. Do you agree or not?

The E coli experiment says that the E coli went through every possible single point mutation several times.

All life on the planet has not gone through every possible combination of DNA bases.

And guess what? They remained E coli. I'm sure Loud just accidentally forgot to mention that tho, when he threw out that 1% to make it sound superficial.

With only 45 mutations in a 4.5 million base genome, why wouldn't they still be E. coli?

"to have undergone enough spontaneous mutations that every possible single point mutation in the E. coli genome has occurred multiple times."

To get something other than E. coli, you need to repeat this process over and over and over until you ACCUMULATE more than 45 mutations. Each of those mutations occurs once in a genome in a single organism. They don't all occur in the same organism.

Justatruthseeker · May 4, 2016

pgp_protector said:
Well then you should understand that

All Asians are Human, but not All Humans are Asian

And All Terriers are Dogs, but not All Dogs are Terriers
All Chihuahuas are Dogs but not all Dogs are Chihuahuas
2 Chihuahuas will not produce a Terrier
and
2 Terriers will not produce a Chihuahua.
But Chihuahua & Terriers can bread together.

Oh I understand that just fine, it is apparently evolutionist's who do not - since they still think Africans produced the entire infraspecific taxa in the human species without mating with another infraspecific taxa in the human species.

I fully admit that Africans will never produce anything but Africans and Asians will never produce anything but Asians unless they mate with another infraspecific taxa within the species. I fully accept Husky will never become anything but Husky, nor Mastiff anything but Mastiff unless they mate with another infraspecific taxa within the species.

But then I also accept that Adam was created genetically perfect with all possible genetic combinations already within his genes - and that they were separated half into Eve. As was all life created male and female from the start - two different infraspecific taxa.

I am not the one asking you to believe anything different....... I am not the one asking you to believe all life came about from one simple celled organism, when even they admit to its impossibility, even if they then try to double-talk their way around it.

Are humans evolving?

Newbie

Contributor

Contributor

Contributor

Well-Known Member

Senior Member

'As we treat the least of our brothers...' RIP GA

Newbie

Newbie

Regular Member

Code Monkey

Noted strange person

Newbie

Newbie

Noted strange person

Contributor

Contributor

Contributor

Contributor

Newbie

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency