Challenge for YECs: What are the roles of population and species in evolution?

[AnotherAtheist]

You seem to be surprised by the notion that someone can understand a concept and still reject it. I've met plenty of atheists around here that understand the content of the Bible very well, even better than many Christians, yet reject the whole concept of God. I'm sure that flat Earth proponents grasp the concept of a round object too.

I thought there were more posts in this thread. I'm not surprised by people understanding concepts but not agreeing with them. If that was true, then quality debate would not exist. I'm not sure why you think this of me.

 

[Tom 1]

I'll address your post separately (and follow up others with a single post) as I believe that you have addressed my original challenge as it was proposed more than anyone else. (Though, there are some posts I haven't thought about in detail yet.)

This thread was in response to the worst kind (in my eyes) of Creationist arguments. E.g. 'If we evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?' and suggestions (e.g.) that if someone believed in evolution, then they could throw themselves off a cliff at the Grand Canyon and evolve wings before they reached the bottom. The first implies that an entire species (or kind) evolves into something else. The second implies that an individual is what evolves. There are other bad arguments, such as the one you address where people will claim that an animal (e.g.) will suddenly give birth to another species.

It did seem to me that in looking at the worst kind of arguments here (which is what I found first when looking through these pages for the first time in a long time), that I rarely saw Creationists actually acknowledging that it's populations that evolve, and that it's quite normal (probably the majority of cases) for it being a single population that evolves into a different species, not the whole species. And that it's quite likely that the original species will still exist. Like the brown bear after the speciation event that produced the polar bear.

If some Creationists don't often mention that, it could be because they don't know it, or that they know it but won't admit it. I wanted to look into that.

There are of course different sets of beliefs that can be 'Young Earth Creationist'. E.g. if it is believed that animals speciated after Noah's Ark, but stayed within kinds, then speciation itself does not conflict with that flavour of YEC beliefs. Asking more about your own beliefs would be for another thread - it's hard enough to keep this one on topic.

I'll address someone else's post elsewhere, but it's important to understand the other person's position, in this case theories, for debate to be productive. Even if you don't agree with the other side. And it does seem that many Creationists either actively or passively build their arguments on a misunderstanding of evolution.

(Neutral) questions for information/corrections - I only have some vague notions about evolution and there are some things I'm curious about that your posts either brought up or reminded me of. Apologies for using you as a shortcut to understanding on this but I don't have time to do the research -

1) What is a species - are species couched within a genus, as in Polar Bears and Grizzy bears are both part of the same genus but different species or is it something else?

2) Is there actual evidence, as in something actually observable or proven and not just extrapolated from something else of a member of one genus (or species if my notion above is incorrect) evolving into something that would be defined in biology as something completely different, e.g. a lizard that over a very long period of time became a mammal, or something of that nature?

3) What are the implications of question 2 to the idea of humans and modern monkeys having a common ancestor?

Many thanks,

Tom

 

[AnotherAtheist]

(Neutral) questions for information/corrections - I only have some vague notions about evolution and there are some things I'm curious about that your posts either brought up or reminded me of. Apologies for using you as a shortcut to understanding on this but I don't have time to do the research -

1) What is a species - are species couched within a genus, as in Polar Bears and Grizzy bears are both part of the same genus but different species or is it something else?

That is a very difficult question, and one I would like to address more on this forum. Basically, a species is a group of living things that scientists group into a species. They argue about this a lot, and things get put together as species and split apart again. In the simplest theory, a species if a group of organisms that can interbreed and produce fertile offspring (or otherwise exchange genetic material) within the group, but can't interbreed and produce fertile offspring with any living thing outside the group.

That definition works OK for humans, as it's clear for every living thing on the planet whether it is a human (the species Homo sapiens or not). However, there are lots of cases where it doesn't work at all. E.g. the cichlid fish in Lake Victoria can all breed with each other and produce fertile offspring, which means that you need to be VERY careful if you keep them in aquaria. They are different sizes, shapes, colours, lifestyles, etc. and you can recognise things that look like different species. Basically the scientific community decided that instead of classifying all such things as one species, it made more sense to allow things that can interbreed, but tend not to, to be species. This makes it very difficult in some cases to assign living things to species. Are grizzly bears a different species from brown bears? At present the consensus is that they aren't. Are polar bears a different species from brown bears? At present the consensus is that they aren't.

In reality there is a continuum between unlimited breeding (same species) and inability to breed and produce fertile offspring (definitely not the same species). This is important for evolution as new species are very unlikely to be reproductively isolated from their parent species.

2) Is there actual evidence, as in something actually observable or proven and not just extrapolated from something else of a member of one genus (or species if my notion above is incorrect) evolving into something that would be defined in biology as something completely different, e.g. a lizard that over a very long period of time became a mammal, or something of that nature?

As this takes a lot of time, we don't see it happening in a human lifespan. We see it through transitional fossils, which are fossils of creatures between taxa (not species). E.g. everyone's favourite transitional fossil, Tiktaalik, part way between a fish and an amphibian. There are primitive mammals existing today such as duck-billed platypuses which lay eggs, and are therefore intermediate. To actually look at evolution, you need to look at the mammal like reptiles, such as Dimetrodon. But, they are all extinct, so it's fossils and genetic evidence that shows the relationship between reptiles and mammals.

There are examples of such evolution in progress. E.g. lungfish which have lungs and can breathe air, allowing them to live in oxygen poor water, and mudskippers that have modified pectoral (front) fins that allow them to move on land, after a fashion. (As these are living creatures, you can see their locomotion on wikipedia; i wouldn't quite call it 'walking'). So, the evolution of fish to land creatures is visible, though it's not guaranteed that they will spawn descendent species that will become fully land living as land is already occupied by animals; those niches have been taken. But, you can see transitional forms even today. Some would say that all amphibians are such.

There is also genetic and molecular evidence of common ancestry, which is considerable. If we have evidence that both us and Scots pine trees had a common ancestor (and we can even give a reasonable estimate of a range of time when this ancestor existed), then at some point at least one of lineages must have transited from one group to another. (In reality, both will have.)

3) What are the implications of question 2 to the idea of humans and modern monkeys having a common ancestor?

There is both genetic/molecular evidence of common descent, and fossils that show the origin and evolution (including adaptive radiation) of primates. Combining both morphology, genetics, other molecular techniques tells us that there must have been a common ancestor. DNA evidence shows that this common ancestor would have lived between 25 and 30 million years ago (most likely with 95% confidence, not guaranteed) which tells us when (in strata) to look for evidence of how this division happened. E.g. the fossils of an early ape described here: Oldest Fossils Reveal When Apes & Monkeys First Diverged

So, I'd say that the implications of 2 for humans and modern monkeys is that we know that there must have been a common ancestor, but we know this through indirect evidence. We don't have the fossils of the last common ancestor.

 

[Tom 1]

That is a very difficult question, and one I would like to address more on this forum. Basically, a species is a group of living things that scientists group into a species. They argue about this a lot, and things get put together as species and split apart again. In the simplest theory, a species if a group of organisms that can interbreed and produce fertile offspring (or otherwise exchange genetic material) within the group, but can't interbreed and produce fertile offspring with any living thing outside the group.

That definition works OK for humans, as it's clear for every living thing on the planet whether it is a human (the species Homo sapiens or not). However, there are lots of cases where it doesn't work at all. E.g. the cichlid fish in Lake Victoria can all breed with each other and produce fertile offspring, which means that you need to be VERY careful if you keep them in aquaria. They are different sizes, shapes, colours, lifestyles, etc. and you can recognise things that look like different species. Basically the scientific community decided that instead of classifying all such things as one species, it made more sense to allow things that can interbreed, but tend not to, to be species. This makes it very difficult in some cases to assign living things to species. Are grizzly bears a different species from brown bears? At present the consensus is that they aren't. Are polar bears a different species from brown bears? At present the consensus is that they aren't.

In reality there is a continuum between unlimited breeding (same species) and inability to breed and produce fertile offspring (definitely not the same species). This is important for evolution as new species are very unlikely to be reproductively isolated from their parent species.



As this takes a lot of time, we don't see it happening in a human lifespan. We see it through transitional fossils, which are fossils of creatures between taxa (not species). E.g. everyone's favourite transitional fossil, Tiktaalik, part way between a fish and an amphibian. There are primitive mammals existing today such as duck-billed platypuses which lay eggs, and are therefore intermediate. To actually look at evolution, you need to look at the mammal like reptiles, such as Dimetrodon. But, they are all extinct, so it's fossils and genetic evidence that shows the relationship between reptiles and mammals.

There are examples of such evolution in progress. E.g. lungfish which have lungs and can breathe air, allowing them to live in oxygen poor water, and mudskippers that have modified pectoral (front) fins that allow them to move on land, after a fashion. (As these are living creatures, you can see their locomotion on wikipedia; i wouldn't quite call it 'walking'). So, the evolution of fish to land creatures is visible, though it's not guaranteed that they will spawn descendent species that will become fully land living as land is already occupied by animals; those niches have been taken. But, you can see transitional forms even today. Some would say that all amphibians are such.

There is also genetic and molecular evidence of common ancestry, which is considerable. If we have evidence that both us and Scots pine trees had a common ancestor (and we can even give a reasonable estimate of a range of time when this ancestor existed), then at some point at least one of lineages must show a



There is both genetic/molecular evidence of common descent, and fossils that show the origin and evolution (including adaptive radiation) of primates. Combining both morphology, genetics, other molecular techniques tells us that there must have been a common ancestor. DNA evidence shows that this common ancestor would have lived between 25 and 30 million years ago (most likely with 95% confidence, not guaranteed) which tells us when (in strata) to look for evidence of how this division happened. E.g. the fossils of an early ape described here: Oldest Fossils Reveal When Apes & Monkeys First Diverged

So, I'd say that the implications of 2 for humans and modern monkeys is that we know that there must have been a common ancestor, but we know this through indirect evidence. We don't have the fossils of the last common ancestor.

Thanks, much appreciated

 

[xianghua]

So, I'd say that the implications of 2 for humans and modern monkeys is that we know that there must have been a common ancestor, but we know this through indirect evidence. We don't have the fossils of the last common ancestor.

i dont think so. this is the common similarity argument. apes and human similar=therefore they share a common descent. but its also can means a common designer. if we will find for instance two self replicating cars. will you think they evolved from each other?

 

[xianghua]

2) Is there actual evidence, as in something actually observable or proven and not just extrapolated from something else of a member of one genus (or species if my notion above is incorrect) evolving into something that would be defined in biology as something completely different, e.g. a lizard that over a very long period of time became a mammal, or something of that nature?

no. the suppose evidence is a series of fossils. but we can also arrange vehicles in order. it doesnt prove a common descent even if they w ere able to reproduce like a living thing:

 

[AnotherAtheist]

i dont think so. this is the common similarity argument. apes and human similar=therefore they share a common descent. but its also can means a common designer. if we will find for instance two self replicating cars. will you think they evolved from each other?

Your post is a massive oversimplification of the evidence for common descent. The similarities are not just a surface similarity but a deep similarity of form, function, genetics, molecular biology, supported by fossil evidence. Hence, I think you have inappropriately trivialised the argument, and then attacked the triviality of your paraphrase.

I don't know what the obsession about self-replicating cars is in this forum, and I don't see how it contributes to debate. So, I'm ignoring that part of your post.

 

[pitabread]

Your post is a massive oversimplification of the evidence for common descent. The similarities are not just a surface similarity but a deep similarity of form, function, genetics, molecular biology, supported by fossil evidence. Hence, I think you have inappropriately trivialised the argument, and then attacked the triviality of your paraphrase.

I've noticed this seems to be a common theme on these forums from creationists. There seems to be a gap in understanding that it's not merely about similarities, but specific patterns of similarities (and differences).

 

[pitabread]

but we can also arrange vehicles in order.

You could, but they wouldn't necessarily mean anything. Phylogenetic trees are by definition diagrams depicting relationships of living organisms based on hereditary descent.

As non-living things do not share hereditary descent, such phylogenetic trees would be rather meaningless.

I suppose you could create a hierarchy of designs or something based on artificial design evolution. But whether it would adhere to any specific pattern is unlikely if you changed the criteria.

View attachment 215870

But what does this tree represent? Without context or criteria for the arrangement, it doesn't mean anything. Especially since "commercial vehicle" itself encapsulates other vehicle types and is not defined by a singular type.

 

[mark kennedy]

I'll address your post separately (and follow up others with a single post) as I believe that you have addressed my original challenge as it was proposed more than anyone else. (Though, there are some posts I haven't thought about in detail yet.)

This thread was in response to the worst kind (in my eyes) of Creationist arguments. E.g. 'If we evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?' and suggestions (e.g.) that if someone believed in evolution, then they could throw themselves off a cliff at the Grand Canyon and evolve wings before they reached the bottom. The first implies that an entire species (or kind) evolves into something else. The second implies that an individual is what evolves. There are other bad arguments, such as the one you address where people will claim that an animal (e.g.) will suddenly give birth to another species.

It did seem to me that in looking at the worst kind of arguments here (which is what I found first when looking through these pages for the first time in a long time), that I rarely saw Creationists actually acknowledging that it's populations that evolve, and that it's quite normal (probably the majority of cases) for it being a single population that evolves into a different species, not the whole species. And that it's quite likely that the original species will still exist. Like the brown bear after the speciation event that produced the polar bear.

If some Creationists don't often mention that, it could be because they don't know it, or that they know it but won't admit it. I wanted to look into that.

There are of course different sets of beliefs that can be 'Young Earth Creationist'. E.g. if it is believed that animals speciated after Noah's Ark, but stayed within kinds, then speciation itself does not conflict with that flavour of YEC beliefs. Asking more about your own beliefs would be for another thread - it's hard enough to keep this one on topic.

I'll address someone else's post elsewhere, but it's important to understand the other person's position, in this case theories, for debate to be productive. Even if you don't agree with the other side. And it does seem that many Creationists either actively or passively build their arguments on a misunderstanding of evolution.

I have issues with the Darwinian philosophy of natural history for one reason, the Scriptures are clear, God created life. If you are anyone else is convinced that Darwinian evolution has made it's case conclusively I say go in peace I have no problem with you. I'm just not going to pretend what they are telling me about the actual scientific evidence is true when I know for a fact it's otherwise. This is what I'm talking about, a statement that is corrected and easily refuted with basic math:

The difference between chimpanzees and humans due to single-nucleotide substitutions averages 1.23 percent, of which 1.06 percent or less is due to fixed divergence, and the rest being a result of polymorphism within chimp populations and within human populations. Insertion and deletion (indel) events account for another approximately 3 percent difference between chimp and human sequences, but each indel typically involves multiple nucleotides. The number of genetic changes from indels is a fraction of the number of single-nucleotide substitutions (roughly 5 million compared with roughly 35 million). So describing humans and chimpanzees as 98 to 99 percent identical is entirely appropriate (Chimpanzee Sequencing 2005). (Talk Origins, Claim CB144)
​

The question is what is 1.23% plus 3%, this isn't a trick question, it's not between 1% and 2% it's 4.23%. That's not my opinion, that's not my interpretation, that's exactly what the Initial Sequence of the Chimpanzee Genome paper, that they specifically cite, actually says:

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,

• Single-nucleotide substitutions occur at a mean rate of 1.23%
• we estimate that the human and chimpanzee genomes each contain 40–45 Mb
• 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)
​

That is their cited source material, the comparison is base pairs, NOT NUMBER OF EVENTS. The number of events does not change the percentage, it's explicitly stated in the paper. No Creationist would get away with such an obvious misstatement, accidental, intentional or otherwise.

The question is simple, did Talk Origins get this statement right, yes or no?

There is nothing complicated about this, it's as simple as 3 plus 1.23, there is no way it's between 1 and 2 percent. Not once have I seen an evolutionist honestly admit this statement is obviously in error. If I can't trust someone with the obvious, why would I take them seriously with the obscure?

 

[pitabread]

There is nothing complicated about this, it's as simple as 3 plus 1.23, there is no way it's between 1 and 2 percent. Not once have I seen an evolutionist honestly admit this statement is obviously in error. If I can't trust someone with the obvious, why would I take them seriously with the obscure?

Like a lot of things in science, it comes down to context of the measurement and comparison. Especially given that the context of aligned sequences we are in fact only 1-2% different.

As a thought experiment, consider the concept of copying a written work. Say I took a 2 page essay and copied the first page. On that first page, I changed ever 20th word. This makes the copy of that page 95% identical to the original first page. I don't bother copying the 2nd page at all.

Now if I was to consider the total differences between the two, I could claim that they are over 50% different just by virtue of the missing 2nd page. But if I was to give you that first page and you noticed that it is in fact 95% similar to the original work, you might treat that claim as over 50% different to rather misleading.

 

[mark kennedy]

FIGURE 2. Comparative neuroanatomy of humans and chimpanzees. (Genetics and the making of Homo sapiens. Nature April 2003)

I've noticed this seems to be a common theme on these forums from creationists. There seems to be a gap in understanding that it's not merely about similarities, but specific patterns of similarities (and differences).

If things alike are proof of common ancestry then the inverse logic should be intuitively obvious, differences are evidence against common ancestry.

HAR1F: Vital regulatory gene involved in brain development, 300 million years it has only 2 subsitutions, then 2 million years ago it allows 18, no explanation how. In one of the areas of the human genome that would have had to change the most, Human Accelerated Region (HAR), we find a gene that has changed the least over just under 400 million years HAR1F.

In all the time since it would allow only two substitutions, then, while the DNA around it is being completely overhauled it allows 18 substitutions in a regulatory gene only 118 nucleotides long. The vital function of this gene cannot be overstated:

The most dramatic of these ‘human accelerated regions’, HAR1, is part of a novel RNA gene (HAR1F) that is expressed specifically in Cajal– Retzius neurons in the developing human neocortex from 7 to 19 gestational weeks, a crucial period for cortical neuron specification and migration. HAR1F is co-expressed with reelin, a product of Cajal–Retzius neurons that is of fundamental importance in specifying the six-layer structure of the human cortex. (An RNA gene expressed during cortical development evolved rapidly in humans, Nature 16 August 2006)
​

SRGAP2: One single amino-acid change between human and mouse and no changes among nonhuman primates. accumulated as many as seven amino-acid replacements compared to one synonymous change. 6 known alleles, all resulting in sever neural disorder.
What is the problem with 7 amino acid replacements in a highly conserved brain related gene? The only observed effects of changes in this gene in humans is disease and disorder:

• 15,767 individuals reported by Cooper et al. (2011)] for potential copy-number variation. We identified six large (>1 Mbp) copy-number variants (CNVs), including three deletions of the ancestral 1q32.1 region…
• A ten year old child with a history of seizures, attention deficit disorder, and learning disabilities. An MRI of this patient also indicates several brain malformations, including hypoplasia of the posterior body of the corpus callosum…
• Translocation breaking within intron 6 of SRGAP2A was reported in a five-year-old girl diagnosed with West syndrome and exhibiting epileptic seizures, intellectual disability, cortical atrophy, and a thin corpus callosum. (Human-specific evolution of novel SRGAP2 genes by incomplete segmental duplication Cell May 2012)

60 de novo (brand new) brain related genes with no known molecular mechanism to produce them.

The de novo origin of a new protein-coding gene from non-coding DNA is considered to be a very rare occurrence in genomes. Here we identify 60 new protein-coding genes that originated de novo on the human lineage since divergence from the chimpanzee. The functionality of these genes is supported by both transcriptional and proteomic evidence. RNA– seq data indicate that these genes have their highest expression levels in the cerebral cortex and testes, which might suggest that these genes contribute to phenotypic traits that are unique to humans, such as improved cognitive ability. Our results are inconsistent with the traditional view that the de novo origin of new genes is very rare, thus there should be greater appreciation of the importance of the de novo origination of genes…(De Novo Origin of Human Protein-Coding Genes PLoS 2011)
​

Whatever you think happened one thing is for sure, random mutations are the worst explanation possible. They cannot produce de novo genes and invariably disrupt functional genes. You can forget about gradual accumulation of, 'slow and gradual accumulation of numerous, slight, yet profitable, variations' (Darwin). That would require virtually no cost and extreme benefit with the molecular cause fabricated from vain imagination and suspended by pure faith.

 

[AV1611VET]

I'll address your post singularly as well (will this happen to all of them.)

Thanks for saying 'I don't know.' That allows me to describe and is an honest response. It appears that in some other discussions that some people will act quite differently when the true situation is that they don't know.

I'll say that I don't expect you to accept or believe what I write next. However, I do feel that we should understand each other's positions. So, this is what modern evolution theory says. (And at this crude level, this has been pretty much the same since Darwin.)

Keeping it short, and leaving out some exceptions, evolution is the change in genes of a population of living things over time. Selection pressures selecting from the original genetic variability plus the rare mutations that are beneficial and preserved allows this genetic change, which will be gradual. So, brown bears may get lighter coloured to not stand out against the snow and ice, become better at swimming, etc. Eventually a time will be reached when the new population is different enough so that we will call it a different species. And so we have polar bears.

The consequences of this is that there is no reason why the original species will have disappeared, as brown bears living in comparatively warmer climes will have not experienced the same selection pressures, and hence will not have changed so much.

This whole thing addresses: if we came from monkeys, why are there still monkeys? That's the most extreme form of that argument, but I see more subtle versions of it. It also made me curious in that I see Creationist arguments that depict evolution as applying to a whole species, or to individuals.

Note that there are some cases where a species will only have a single population. E.g. some killifish species are only found in one waterhole in the US. But this is an exception. Also, some forms of speciation through hybridisation do produce a new species quickly. But, I am addressing the 'typical' form of speciation here, not all methods by which it may occur.

Are you expecting a response from me on this?

 

[mark kennedy]

Like a lot of things in science, it comes down to context of the measurement and comparison. Especially given that the context of aligned sequences we are in fact only 1-2% different.

You can't align what isn't there and there are gaps as long as 3 million base pairs. There is only one way this happens in nature, it must be an insertion into one line or a deletion in the other. A mutation on the scale is impossible to reconcile to what we know about Mendelian genetics.

As a thought experiment, consider the concept of copying a written work. Say I took a 2 page essay and copied the first page. On that first page, I changed ever 20th word. This makes the copy of that page 95% identical to the original first page. I don't bother copying the 2nd page at all.

Which is comparable to an amino acid substitution, they come in triplet codons

Molecular Structure of Amino Acids

What would happen if 3 out of 4 words had the spelling changed in your book, because that is what would have had to happen to the respective genomes.

Orthologous proteins in human and chimpanzee are extremely similar, with, 29% being identical and the typical orthologue differing by only two amino acids, one per lineage. (Nature 2005)​

That literally means that almost 3/4 of the protein coding genes have diverged by two amino acids, one per lineage. We are simply not as simular as we have been led to believe.

Now if I was to consider the total differences between the two, I could claim that they are over 50% different just by virtue of the missing 2nd page. But if I was to give you that first page and you noticed that it is in fact 95% similar to the original work, you might treat that claim as over 50% different to rather misleading.

Well that's not what I want to do, just because 71% of the genes diverge by two amino acids doesn't mean they are 71% different. I'm just saying, there has to be a cause and effect and it is universally recognized the only way for these changes to occur is mutations. The effect of mutations on regulatory and protein coding genes is deleterious the vast majority of the time. The odds of this happening by random and the genes emerging with adaptive traits is astronomical, probably incalculable, because there is no basis of reference in genetics.

Believe it or not I was very open to Darwinian evolution for a long time. It would take some doing but I could rearrange some of my theology to accommodate naturalistic causes. Then I encountered comparative genomics and the enormous differences, while seemingly slight as an overall percentage, was far too high. The most important of these are related to vitally important brain related protein coding and regulatory genes.

I'm not saying you have to have all the answers, but if you can understand the questions it's a start.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[pitabread]

If things alike are proof of common ancestry then the inverse logic should be intuitively obvious, differences are evidence against common ancestry.

Not necessarily.

For starters, it's a given that the real world of biology is messy and imprecise. Nobody out there thinks everything works as per a perfectly predictable, constant rate or falls into a precise order with no margins of error.

For example, we already know that rates of mutation can vary dramatically even within a genome, let alone between species. We also know selective pressures, population sizes, etc, can vary wildly and dramatically change the pace of evolution within a population. Thus we expect to find things that aren't constant.

If the best you have to offer is examples where the pace of genomic change has outstripped the average, that doesn't immediately invalidate common ancestry. And if all you really have to fall back on is an argument from incredulity, then that's no real argument at all.

If you really wanted to demonstrate gross violations of common ancestry, then we might expect something like blatant chimeric organisms with mix'd and matched parts. For example, dolphins with fish gills or bats with bird wings. Yet we don't.

 

[pitabread]

Well that's not what I want to do, just because 71% of the genes diverge by two amino acids doesn't mean they are 71% different.

Exactly. So do you agree how two entirely different comparisons can be fundamentally correct just by virtue of that fact they are based on different underlying criteria?

 

[AnotherAtheist]

I have issues with the Darwinian philosophy of natural history for one reason, the Scriptures are clear, God created life. If you are anyone else is convinced that Darwinian evolution has made it's case conclusively I say go in peace I have no problem with you. I'm just not going to pretend what they are telling me about the actual scientific evidence is true when I know for a fact it's otherwise. This is what I'm talking about, a statement that is corrected and easily refuted with basic math:

The difference between chimpanzees and humans due to single-nucleotide substitutions averages 1.23 percent, of which 1.06 percent or less is due to fixed divergence, and the rest being a result of polymorphism within chimp populations and within human populations. Insertion and deletion (indel) events account for another approximately 3 percent difference between chimp and human sequences, but each indel typically involves multiple nucleotides. The number of genetic changes from indels is a fraction of the number of single-nucleotide substitutions (roughly 5 million compared with roughly 35 million). So describing humans and chimpanzees as 98 to 99 percent identical is entirely appropriate (Chimpanzee Sequencing 2005). (Talk Origins, Claim CB144)
​

The question is what is 1.23% plus 3%, this isn't a trick question, it's not between 1% and 2% it's 4.23%. That's not my opinion, that's not my interpretation, that's exactly what the Initial Sequence of the Chimpanzee Genome paper, that they specifically cite, actually says:

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,

• Single-nucleotide substitutions occur at a mean rate of 1.23%
• we estimate that the human and chimpanzee genomes each contain 40–45 Mb
• 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)
​

That is their cited source material, the comparison is base pairs, NOT NUMBER OF EVENTS. The number of events does not change the percentage, it's explicitly stated in the paper. No Creationist would get away with such an obvious misstatement, accidental, intentional or otherwise.

The question is simple, did Talk Origins get this statement right, yes or no?

There is nothing complicated about this, it's as simple as 3 plus 1.23, there is no way it's between 1 and 2 percent. Not once have I seen an evolutionist honestly admit this statement is obviously in error. If I can't trust someone with the obvious, why would I take them seriously with the obscure?

This to me looks like a poorly written paragraph on Talk.Origins. I spent some time trying to work out exactly what that paragraph means, and decided that it was internally inconsistent. However, Talk.Origins is a secondary site, and even one thing is poorly described there, that does not say anything about the science itself.

I had a look to see what the current science says. I found this page from The Smithsonian which I think is useful as it points out that how similar, genetically, humans and chimps are depends on how you measure difference. Genetics | The Smithsonian Institution's Human Origins Program Hence, simply arguing 'it's 98%' versus 'it's 94%' isn't sensible unless you say what you are measuring and how. Not all these methods are equal. E.g. there are a lot of duplication and deletions of whole genes, and movement of genes from one chromosome to another. How should you measure those? Is something that has moved chromosome the same or different? Hence, both what you say and what the Talk.Origins page says (in its conclusion) are compatible with different ways of measuring difference.

This 2005 paper uses the full Chimpanzee genome and a liberal measurement of differences, and comes up with a 4% difference, which is similar to what you quote. Comparing the human and chimpanzee genomes: Searching for needles in a haystack It's also compatible with the Smithsonian page, which suggests that the science has not changed since then.

I understand that Christians may have complete faith in a literal reading of The Bible, and hence may reject anything that conflicts with that. Clearly I don't share that belief, but I'm aware that other people may believe in that way.

 

[AnotherAtheist]

Are you expecting a response from me on this?

I wasn't expecting a response. I'll read and discuss anything you write in response, but there is no expectation on my part that you will do so.

 

[mark kennedy]

This to me looks like a poorly written paragraph on Talk.Origins. I spent some time trying to work out exactly what that paragraph means, and decided that it was internally inconsistent. However, Talk.Origins is a secondary site, and even one thing is poorly described there, that does not say anything about the science itself.

It's actually a pretty common error and the way Talk Origins went about it was obviously bogus. No, this does not reflect on science in any way, shape or form. My point is that the divergence is something Darwinians are scrambling to rationalize.

I had a look to see what the current science says. I found this page from The Smithsonian which I think is useful as it points out that how similar, genetically, humans and chimps are depends on how you measure difference. Genetics | The Smithsonian Institution's Human Origins Program Hence, simply arguing 'it's 98%' versus 'it's 94%' isn't sensible unless you say what you are measuring and how. Not all these methods are equal. E.g. there are a lot of duplication and deletions of whole genes, and movement of genes from one chromosome to another. How should you measure those? Is something that has moved chromosome the same or different? Hence, both what you say and what the Talk.Origins page says (in its conclusion) are compatible with different ways of measuring difference.

Geneticists have come up with a variety of ways of calculating the percentages, which give different impressions about how similar chimpanzees and humans are. The 1.2% chimp-human distinction, for example, involves a measurement of only substitutions in the base building blocks of those genes that chimpanzees and humans share. A comparison of the entire genome, however, indicates that segments of DNA have also been deleted, duplicated over and over, or inserted from one part of the genome into another. When these differences are counted, there is an additional 4 to 5% distinction between the human and chimpanzee genomes. (Genetic Evidence DNA, Smithsonian)
​

They got the percentage right.

This 2005 paper uses the full Chimpanzee genome and a liberal measurement of differences, and comes up with a 4% difference, which is similar to what you quote. Comparing the human and chimpanzee genomes: Searching for needles in a haystack It's also compatible with the Smithsonian page, which suggests that the science has not changed since then.

They actually cite that paper along with five others that had came to the same conclusion. The Chimpanzee genome paper was a whole genome comparison just four years after the initial sequence of the human genome paper. A lot more has been explored with regard to various genes which is fascinating.

I understand that Christians may have complete faith in a literal reading of The Bible, and hence may reject anything that conflicts with that. Clearly I don't share that belief, but I'm aware that other people may believe in that way.

This isn't just about a literal reading of Genesis 1, this gets down to cause and effect. We know what the cause would have to be but the effect of mutations on this scale is impossible to reconcile to what we know about Mendelian genetics. A deletion of 3 million base pairs would be devastating, probably lethal.

 

[mark kennedy]

Exactly. So do you agree how two entirely different comparisons can be fundamentally correct just by virtue of that fact they are based on different underlying criteria?

If you define the criteria clearly, I don't have a problem. When you equivocate the number of base pairs with the number of events, there's a problem.