Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
to undergo impossible transformations or be built from the ground up. This doesn't happen in reality, so they are left with diversions.
Ok I'm not the one who is arguing from ignorance and I'm basing everything on what they published. I said it's impossible, because it is, and with no effective cause you can't argue otherwise which is why you are limited to ad hominem remarks and literally, nothing else.You've been making this claim for 10 years now, yet you still have not:
- Given a reason why it's impossible other than your personal incredulity.
- Contracted the authors of that paper to inform them their discovery destroyed human evolution.
but i never said that chimp genome is closer to the chicken one.
I said it's impossible, because it is,
you are limited to ad hominem remarks and literally, nothing else.
i never said that the chimp genome is colser to the chicken then to human.
They know that, it's a distraction from the burden of proof.
The HAR1f regulatory gene is different by two nucleotides as compared between the chimpanzee and chicken representing over 300 million years of natural history. Then two million years ago it takes on 18 substitutions in a highly conserved brain related developmental gene. It is one of a long list of highly conserved genes that would have either had to undergo impossible transformations or be built from the ground up. This doesn't happen in reality, so they are left with diversions.
and yet he wrote:
"some parts in the chimp genome is actually closer to chicken genome then to human."
Mere assertions.
And this has to do with the topic how? Have you bothered to read the posts?
Is this just another attempt to derail the thread? What's next false accusations and name calling?
There are a few chimpanzee ancestors in the fossil record? Show us...(photos of the fossils will do but no artistic contrivances please)....also no ancestor of the gaps arguments if you can avoid them, just show us this actually led to a Chimpanzee....
That's actually an interesting thought and I've tried. Whole genome sequences are not that easy to come by. I've always wanted to see comparisons of arctic wild like, especially bears and wolves. Still no luck and it's been a while since I seriously researched this stuff.
I really don't have that many arguments, mostly my approach is state the facts and draw a few obvious conclusions. For instance Paranthropos is clearly a transitional but outside our line, right where our ancestors should be. The Homo habilis stone age ape man is contrived and the same rationale would never be applied to anthropology.
As far as direct comparisons to the human genome to the chimpanzee genome the idels are massive. Highly conserved brain related genes would have had to accept major overhauls are be built from scratch. The most basic concept behind the inductive approach to science is one of cause and effect relationships. When it comes to brain related genes mutations are a wrong answer, that much I'm 100% sure of.
Phenylketonuria: not caused by a mutation relating to brain growth or function, but rather, cell metabolism. Basically, people with this condition can't properly get a certain protein broken down, so if they don't control their diets, it can lead to brain damage due to the buildup of the protein in brain cells.Some examples of genetic brain disorders include
Leukodystrophies
Phenylketonuria
Tay-Sachs disease
Wilson disease (Medline Plus)
That's not true, you've seen plenty of people with variation in their ability to learn and think critically. We just don't focus on the specific genes responsible because the disease causing ones take priority. Joe next door could have such terrible spatial reasoning that he can hardly tell his right from his left, but Jerry down the way has such good spatial reasoning that he can serve as an effective map for the entire country he lives in. Both of these would be caused by mutations, all variation is mutation.What your argument lacks is an accounting of the cost and benefit of brain related genes because all I've ever seen result from these mutations in brain related genes is disease, disorder and death.
1. The idiotic idea that Humans evolved from the common ancestor of Apes. Since Adam was made the 3rd Day Gen 2:4-7 and Apes on planet Earth appeared on the 5th Day Gen 1:21, do you think 5 is after 3? Of course it is. Your half truth is soundly refuted by God's Holy Word which agrees with every discovery of mankind.
That's not an assumption. That is a conclusion drawn from evidence.
False, since you have confused Humans (descendants of Adam) with the sons of God (prehistoric people). Your conclusion is wrong since it knows nothing of our true beginnings, which happened on another world. 2 Peter 3:7
Humans were made on the 3rd Day Gen 2:7 and EVERY other living creature that moves was NOT made until the 5th Day. Gen 1:21 Your incomplete idea that Humans (His kind) were made AFTER other creatures (Their kind) is totally wrong. Do you have ANY idea of the difference between His and Their kinds? IF not, then you cannot understand Genesis.
Phenylketonuria: not caused by a mutation relating to brain growth or function, but rather, cell metabolism. Basically, people with this condition can't properly get a certain protein broken down, so if they don't control their diets, it can lead to brain damage due to the buildup of the protein in brain cells.
Leukodystrophies: A group of disorders related to the development of the mylin sheaths around the axons of nerve cells. That is, they don't properly develop them, or their bodies begin to break them down. This covers over a dozen exceedingly rare genetic diseases. Most of them are not barriers to reproduction, so their diseases are fairly irrelevant to evolution.
Tay-Sachs disease: Another metabolic disorder, but sadly, this one cannot be controlled via diet restrictions. Inherited recessively, so even when two carriers of the mutation have children, only about 25% of their kids will have the condition. Thus, this does not serve as a barrier to reproduction, and is irrelevant to evolution.
Wilson disease: Another metabolic disease, but this one generally hits the liver more than the brain, and can be controlled through diet restrictions. Not a barrier to reproduction.
-_- seriously, I never stated that detrimental mutations related to brain genes don't exist, but you could have at least looked into these conditions more to realize that 3 out of the 4 things you listed aren't caused by mutations on genes related to brain development. The brain tends to be hit hard by metabolic disorders due to how much energy it uses. And the 1 you did list which is related to brain development directly is actually a collection of many rare disorders that all relate to a specific part of neurons, the most severe of which are recessive genes (meaning the gene itself doesn't prevent reproduction) or hit after a person has already reached reproductive age in the case of the dominant gene ones. So, they aren't a barrier to reproduction, and that's all that matters as far as evolution is concerned.
It doesn't matter how much a mutation messes you up as long as you can reproduce successfully.
That's not true, you've seen plenty of people with variation in their ability to learn and think critically. We just don't focus on the specific genes responsible because the disease causing ones take priority. Joe next door could have such terrible spatial reasoning that he can hardly tell his right from his left, but Jerry down the way has such good spatial reasoning that he can serve as an effective map for the entire country he lives in. Both of these would be caused by mutations, all variation is mutation.
Your problem may be from the result of approaching this as if the first human had no mutations, and every single gene they had was the ideal, but this is not the case in evolution. There is no ideal, no standard of "perfect for the environment" an organism can reach. We are all just making due with the genes we are stuck with, and those who can't end up dying.
My argument here is that mutations are not a viable cause. There is an arctic cod that developed an antifreeze gene, a protein coding gene that was developed at least 4 times. It's composed of simple repeats and is different in at least four populations of arctic cods and exists in none of the warm water cods. On the other hand Polar Bears and Grizzles can still interbreed, that's a pretty strong indicator they have a close common ancestor.Thanks for the reply, but I was really hoping you would address this (my fault for not emphasizing it):
Are you of the opinion that there must be some sort of an ideal molecular-to-morphological ratio?
Also, you claim repeatedly that the amount of substitution accumulation in the gene in question is "impossible" given the previous rate of accumulation. Other than the assertion, I have not seen any explanation as to why (unless I missed it somewhere).
My argument here is that mutations are not a viable cause.
Very few mutations are significant on an evolutionary scale:
Among the mutations that affect a typical gene, different kinds produce different impacts. A very few are at least momentarily adaptive on an evolutionary scale. Many are deleterious. (Rates of Spontaneous Mutations)The point is that mutations in brain related genes cause disease and disorder, not adaptive evolution.
The issue is the adaptive evolution of brain related genes and mutations are the worst cause imaginable.
Your problem is you want to equivocate a genetic mutation with any variation whatsoever. When a population begins to dwindle in numbers because they are hunted to near extinction a bottle neck happens and the gene pool shrinks. When there is a large gene pool there is more possibilities for adaptive traits. Assuming accelerated adaptive evolution following the Flood it only makes sense that there would be much larger gene pools. Over time as adaptive evolution takes hold the gene pools shrinks to maintain adaptive traits. The GULO gene is supposed to produce vitamin C but our GULO gene is broken so we have to get vitamin C from our food.
In order for a brain related gene to adapt on an evolutionary scale it must be changed with beneficial effect and be inheritable, then fixed. The only brain related gene variation you will find resulting in an effect strong enough for selection to act will be disease, disorder and death. That's not a formula for adaptive evolution, it's a formula for extinction.
My argument here is that mutations are not a viable cause.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?