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

[mark kennedy]

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.

I'm not incredulous, I'm saying that the genomic divergence has to represent enormous changes in the respective genomes possible only by mutations. This gets even more difficult when you stop to think that our supposed ancestors were little more then chimpanzees 2 mya. The line leading up to the hominid line for a million years has only one specimen, Paranthapous, notice the gorilla-like sagittal crest down the middle of the skull

This means that we have a transitional between chimpanzees and gorillas leading up to the Hominid line but nothing leading up to the hominid line.

 

[AnotherAtheist]

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 don't think it is an error. There is more than one way to calculate the similarity. Neither is in error, neither is the correct way.

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.

You presume that there's one correct way to calculate the difference. Also, 98% similarity and 96% similarity are actually the same similarity measured in different ways. It's like saying that a village is 10 miles away of 16 kilometres away. The numbers are different, but the distance is the same. The same applies to the difference between the human and chimpanzee genome.

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.

It's true that it's fascinating, particularly (for me at least) the way that the genetic analysis can tell us about the nature of the common ancestor. (From other sources, much more similar to chimps than to humans.)

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.

A random deletion of 3 million base pairs all at once would most likely be devastating. But, gradual changes in genomes over time filtered through survival of the fittest make this possible. One, to me, fascinating thing is that species that live in close symbiosis tend to lose genetic information over time, as they don't both need to have genes for everything.

Everyone living will have mutations. Most of these mutations will be neutral. Some will be mildly bad, and some will be beneficial. Going through generations, changes build up. There is nothing that makes this impossible. It's survival of the fittest and the resulting filtering of significantly deleterious mutations that allows it.

 

[mark kennedy]

I don't think it is an error. There is more than one way to calculate the similarity. Neither is in error, neither is the correct way.

The divergence is measured in base pairs not events. That is obvious.

You presume that there's one correct way to calculate the difference. Also, 98% similarity and 96% similarity are actually the same similarity measured in different ways. It's like saying that a village is 10 miles away of 16 kilometres away. The numbers are different, but the distance is the same. The same applies to the difference between the human and chimpanzee genome.

No, the indels represent 90 million base pairs, the only way you get 98% is if you ignore the indels.

It's true that it's fascinating, particularly (for me at least) the way that the genetic analysis can tell us about the nature of the common ancestor. (From other sources, much more similar to chimps than to humans.)

We have no clue what their genomic make up might have been but the fossil record makes it clear, they were much closer to chimpanzees right up until 2 mya.

A random deletion of 3 million base pairs all at once would most likely be devastating. But, gradual changes in genomes over time filtered through survival of the fittest make this possible. One, to me, fascinating thing is that species that live in close symbiosis tend to lose genetic information over time, as they don't both need to have genes for everything.

Except a deletion like that never happens, even gradually over time.

Everyone living will have mutations. Most of these mutations will be neutral. Some will be mildly bad, and some will be beneficial. Going through generations, changes build up. There is nothing that makes this impossible. It's survival of the fittest and the resulting filtering of significantly deleterious mutations that allows it.

Those mutations are not cumulative, the genome is constantly repairing itself. With billions of humans on the planet we have never speciated and with the cumulative mutations we diverge by less then 1%.

 

[Speedwell]

With billions of humans on the planet we have never speciated and with the cumulative mutations we diverge by less then 1%.

What selection pressure are we subject to which might bring about speciation?

 

[xianghua]

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.

again: the same with a car and a truck. both are very similar inside and outside. but again: it doesnt prove any common descent.

 

[xianghua]

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.

its just a relationships tree. base on the level of similarity among those vehicles. exactly like with living creatures. and again; even if those vehicles were able to reproduce it will not prove evolution.

 

[pitabread]

its just a relationships tree. base on the level of similarity among those vehicles.

What similarity? Again, what are the specific criteria you are using to construct the tree?

Show your work.

 

[xianghua]

What similarity? Again, what are the specific criteria you are using to construct the tree?

Show your work.

a general similarity of those vehicles. a normal car suppose to be more similar to a commercial vehicle then to a truck. do you agree?

 

[Speedwell]

a general similarity of those vehicles. a normal car suppose to be more similar to a commercial vehicle then to a truck. will you agree?

But "commercial vehicle" as a category includes both some cars and some trucks, but not all cars and trucks.

 

[pitabread]

a general similarity of those vehicles. a normal car suppose to be more similar to a commercial vehicle then to a truck. do you agree?

No I don't agree. I need to first explain in detail your comparisons and how this chart was constructed.

You claim they are based on "general similarity". Similarity of what? Again, what specific criteria are you using for your comparison?

I don't even know how you are defining "car", "truck" and "commercial vehicle" in this instance.

Again, show your work. So far you've shown nothing.

 

[xianghua]

But "commercial vehicle" as a category includes both some cars and some trucks, but not all cars and trucks.

i talking about the medium size commercial vehicle (like most commercial vehicles). like this one:

(image from Commercial)

 

[pitabread]

i talking about the medium size commercial vehicle (like most commercial vehicles).

That's a van.

 

[xianghua]

No I don't agree. I need to first explain in detail your comparisons and how this chart was constructed.

You claim they are based on "general similarity". Similarity of what? Again, what specific criteria are you using for your comparison?

I don't even know how you are defining "car", "truck" and "commercial vehicle" in this instance.

Again, show your work. So far you've shown nothing.

for instance: the wheel size of a regular car is more similar to a commercial car (a van if you wish) then to a truck. its also true for their storage cabin and engine power and many other traits. so in general a car is more similar to a commercial car then to a truck.

(image from Commercial Car Insurance | Girard Insurance)

 

[pitabread]

the wheel size of a regular car is more similar to a commercial car (a van if you wish) then to a truck.

What does "wheel size" mean? Are you measuring the rim? The tires? What exactly?

And what *are* the measurements? What is your sample selection and corresponding measurements?

Still not seeing any work from you on this.

its also true for their storage cabin and engine power and many other traits.

Show the work then. Show me the "traits" of these vehicles and the corresponding measurements you are using.

 

[AnotherAtheist]

The divergence is measured in base pairs not events. That is obvious.

First, it doesn't mean anything if you measure by a different method. You get a different number, but the organisms are still exactly as related to each other as they are by the different number calculated by a different method. Hence, I don't know what your point is here. It's as in my previous post: a distance is a distance whether it is measured in miles or kilometres.

That Creationists are so keen to measure genetic similarities by methods that produce low numbers is curious. Could you explain why you wish to do so?

No, the indels represent 90 million base pairs, the only way you get 98% is if you ignore the indels.

Which, from a check of the scientific literature (though not a huge one) appears to be the standard way of measuring genetic similarity. Not just for humans and chimps. I don't know the reasoning behind this, but most likely have a greater inclination to presume that 'science' will have a good reason to do this than you do.

What is your reasoning for preferring to count the indels, when it appears that 'science' doesn't?

We have no clue what their genomic make up might have been but the fossil record makes it clear, they were much closer to chimpanzees right up until 2 mya.

Given that we know the similarities and differences of the two genomes, we have far more than just a 'clue' about the genomic makeup of the common ancestor.

Except a deletion like that never happens, even gradually over time.

Mitochondrial DNA is tiny, about 16,000 base pairs. Various pathogens and symbionts also have tiny genomes of well under one million base pairs. Given the reasonable assumption (and scientific consensus) that these evolved from free-living organisms (remember common descent of all life), clearly very many base pairs have been lost. Not necessarily all at once (as I described in my post.)

Those mutations are not cumulative, the genome is constantly repairing itself. With billions of humans on the planet we have never speciated and with the cumulative mutations we diverge by less then 1%.

DNA repair is only 99% accurate. That appears to be a high number, but genetic change due to mutation takes this into account. And with a lot of time, the remaining 1% adds up. Please read the descriptions of how molecular clocks are interpreted.

As for the speciation, that depends on what you mean by 'we'. Humanity, in terms of genus Homo, has speciated. The evolutionary tree for genus Homo already has a number of species and more are being found. E.g. Homo floresiensis.

If you mean Homo sapiens, then no, we haven't speciated in terms of a completed process. However, before modern transport increased the mixing of people from different locations, there were small modifications to local populations in order to better fit local conditions. Skin colour, ability to thrive in low oxygen high altitude environments, etc. This hasn't reached the level of subspecies even, but then there is no expectation that any living species should have speciated unless conditions are suitable (different populations with different survival pressures) and sufficient time has passed. There are claims that there were extinct subspecies of Homo sapiens, such as Homo sapiens rhodesiensis or Homo sapiens idaltu, but these are of arguable status and I personally consider the science far from settled.

 

[AnotherAtheist]

again: the same with a car and a truck. both are very similar inside and outside. but again: it doesnt prove any common descent.

What is this obsession with cars and trucks, when this thread is discussing naturalistic evolution?

 

[xianghua]

What does "wheel size" mean? Are you measuring the rim? The tires? What exactly?

And what *are* the measurements? What is your sample selection and corresponding measurements?

Still not seeing any work from you on this.



Show the work then. Show me the "traits" of these vehicles and the corresponding measurements you are using.

ok. see their mirror for isntance: the car has a small mirror compare to the truck one. the van has a transitional mirror. the same for the size of the vehicle itself. again: the car is small compare to the truck and the van is a transitional between them.

 

[pitabread]

ok. see their mirror for isntance

I'm not asking for a "for instance". I'm asking for all your measurements of these respective vehicles and how this tree was derived.

Give me the details. For example, you were previously talking about wheel sizes. List the measurements. I want the precise details of the characteristics used to come up with that tree.

I mean, you *do* have these details don't you? You didn't just make up this tree off the top of your head did you?

 

[xianghua]

I'm not asking for a "for instance". I'm asking for all your measurements of these respective vehicles and how this tree was derived.

Give me the details. For example, you were previously talking about wheel sizes. List the measurements. I want the precise details of the characteristics used to come up with that tree.

I mean, you *do* have these details don't you? You didn't just make up this tree off the top of your head did you?

so you dont think that a car is more similar to a van then to a truck in many traits? i dont think that anyone ever check the entire parts of a truck compare with a car or a van. but we can clearly see that a car is more similar to a van then to a truck. although here is something close (table 1):

Walking Whales, Nested Hierarchies, and Chimeras: Do They Exist?

 

[mark kennedy]

First, it doesn't mean anything if you measure by a different method. You get a different number, but the organisms are still exactly as related to each other as they are by the different number calculated by a different method. Hence, I don't know what your point is here. It's as in my previous post: a distance is a distance whether it is measured in miles or kilometres.

That Creationists are so keen to measure genetic similarities by methods that produce low numbers is curious. Could you explain why you wish to do so?

This isn't about a different method of measurement, that's nonsense. This is about how many base pairs diverge and you obviously can't see that, or just plain won't.

Which, from a check of the scientific literature (though not a huge one) appears to be the standard way of measuring genetic similarity. Not just for humans and chimps. I don't know the reasoning behind this, but most likely have a greater inclination to presume that 'science' will have a good reason to do this than you do.

It's always in base pairs because that is what the genome is made of, there are no alternative measurements.

What is your reasoning for preferring to count the indels, when it appears that 'science' doesn't?

Nonsense, all the scientific literature measures in base pairs. What Darwinians want to do is to ignore the 90 million base pairs which are supposed to be the result of indels. Now you want to pretend to be siding with science which betrays a complete lack of understand of genomics and science.

Given that we know the similarities and differences of the two genomes, we have far more than just a 'clue' about the genomic makeup of the common ancestor.

No actually we don't.

Mitochondrial DNA is tiny, about 16,000 base pairs. Various pathogens and symbionts also have tiny genomes of well under one million base pairs. Given the reasonable assumption (and scientific consensus) that these evolved from free-living organisms (remember common descent of all life), clearly very many base pairs have been lost. Not necessarily all at once (as I described in my post.)

Yea so...

DNA repair is only 99% accurate. That appears to be a high number, but genetic change due to mutation takes this into account. And with a lot of time, the remaining 1% adds up. Please read the descriptions of how molecular clocks are interpreted.

Molecular clocks are notoriously unreliable and mutations are not cumulative. With billions of people on this planet no two diverge by more the 1/10th of 1%.

As for the speciation, that depends on what you mean by 'we'. Humanity, in terms of genus Homo, has speciated. The evolutionary tree for genus Homo already has a number of species and more are being found. E.g. Homo floresiensis.

There is only one species of humans, unlike chimpanzees and gorillas. Homo is a genus, there is never been a speciation event in human history. You have a tough time seeing the obvious.

If you mean Homo sapiens, then no, we haven't speciated in terms of a completed process. However, before modern transport increased the mixing of people from different locations, there were small modifications to local populations in order to better fit local conditions. Skin colour, ability to thrive in low oxygen high altitude environments, etc. This hasn't reached the level of subspecies even, but then there is no expectation that any living species should have speciated unless conditions are suitable (different populations with different survival pressures) and sufficient time has passed. There are claims that there were extinct subspecies of Homo sapiens, such as Homo sapiens rhodesiensis or Homo sapiens idaltu, but these are of arguable status and I personally consider the science far from settled.

I'd say the ten thousand genome project is decisive. You have a nerve to condescend to creationists when the most basic scientific principles elude you.