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.
Quoted for truth.Mark, you seem really confused.
Atheism and evolution are two different things. Atheism and common descent are two different things. Atheism and science are two different things.
You keep conflating atheism with all these other things and its getting you nowhere. Maybe if you learned to focus on the right thing, you'd get somewhere.
And P.S.: Evolution, including common descent, is still an applied science. It ain't going away.
I don't now (nor did I previously) have time for a complete response to your posts Mark, but might I say I am glad to see I have goaded you into admitting the truth, that it is all about God, and stop the silly nonsense derived from your complete lack of understanding of biology. Good to see.
And you keep forgetting to say "have a nice day". I'm not getting to you am I?
Have a nice day Mark
It has been estimated that in humans and other mammals, uncorrected errors (= mutations) occur at the rate of about 1 in every 50 million (5 x 10^7) nucleotides added to the chain. (Not bad — I wish that I could type so accurately.) But with 6 x 10^6 base pairs in a human cell, that mean that each new cell contains some 120 new mutations. Frequency of Mutations
Now compare that to genetic differences between chimpanzees and humans:
Sakaki said their analysis found about 68,000 insertions or deletions. "That is almost one insertion/deletion every 470 bases," he said. In addition, a small proportion of genes showed a relatively higher rate of evolution than most other genes. "We haven't known what proportion of the genes shows adaptive evolution. This study shows it to be about 2 to 3%," he said.
You're saying the dark ages (say, 400 to 1400CE) were the best that "Christian" science can do. Wow, convincing argument for the superiority of that approach to investigating the natural world. What was the life expectancy in say, 1000AD compared to 2000AD? Which set of medical science would you rather be the victim, er, patient of?My side has proclaimed the Gospel to pagan emperors in Rome and were tortured and murdered, then Rome fell. For a thousand years Christian theology was queen of the sciences and natural science thrived.
Post hoc ergo propter hoc, to say the least. It's just as valid as saying "When Christianity was still celebrated and embraced here in the States minorities and immigrants were legally discriminated against and even killed with the implicit knowledge of the government. Now that evolution is being taught in school, we're finally embracing the equality that our founders envisioned."When Christianity was still celebrated and embraced here in the States our educational system was as good as anyones. Now the Darwinians want to indoctrinate every child from preschool on into the atheistic/materialistic philosophy and our public schools can't teach anything well.
Overturning, coopting, same difference.Got a newsflash for you, my side has been overturning pagan mythographers for thousands of years.
The modern scientific method is a bit older than that, but you're only off by a factor of 2 or 3. And interestingly enough, the advent of this method corresponds to an increase in life expectancy, standard of living, and knowledge & education of people around the world. Seems that the Christian theocracies that preceded it (and that you wish to return to) weren't so hot after all.Your side just comes along and pretends they have been there all along. You haven't really, maybe 150 years at best.
You meant 6 x 10^9, yes? 6 billion, not 6 million.Really? Here's some basic Biology for you:
It has been estimated that in humans and other mammals, uncorrected errors (= mutations) occur at the rate of about 1 in every 50 million (5 x 10^7) nucleotides added to the chain. (Not bad — I wish that I could type so accurately.) But with 6 x 10^6 base pairs in a human cell
Its both Mark, since one measures the mutation rate for a single cell replication and the other the fixed differences between two species. Once again, you fail to take population into account. But since its close to Xmas, here's a present for you, a fact I am sure you will be able to twist into some fundy anti evolution nonsense. A single nucleotide polymorphism exists in humans at a rate of about 1 change every 1000bp. In other words, the average sequence of one person (to account for the 120 changes per cell) compared to another will differ by 0.1%, or 3 million base pairs.that mean that each new cell contains some 120 new mutations. Frequency of Mutations
Now compare that to genetic differences between chimpanzees and humans:
Sakaki said their analysis found about 68,000 insertions or deletions. "That is almost one insertion/deletion every 470 bases," he said. In addition, a small proportion of genes showed a relatively higher rate of evolution than most other genes. "We haven't known what proportion of the genes shows adaptive evolution. This study shows it to be about 2 to 3%," he said. Chimps are not like humans (28 May 2004)
Whole-chromosome comparison reveals much greater genetic differences than expected
So which is it, 1 in 50 million bases or 1 for every 470?
You too mate, you too. I sincerely hope you get enough loin girding and rhetoric avoidance techniques to actually do this study you keep threatening us with. You aint getting any younger!Have a nice day
Mark
You meant 6 x 10^9, yes? 6 billion, not 6 million.
Its both Mark, since one measures the mutation rate for a single cell replication and the other the fixed differences between two species. Once again, you fail to take population into account. But since its close to Xmas, here's a present for you, a fact I am sure you will be able to twist into some fundy anti evolution nonsense. A single nucleotide polymorphism exists in humans at a rate of about 1 change every 1000bp. In other words, the average sequence of one person (to account for the 120 changes per cell) compared to another will differ by 0.1%, or 3 million base pairs.
How kewl is that? Now you can not only confuse and conflate the 1/50 million for dna pol errors, and the 1 in 470 for human/chimp dfference (or whatever number you like to derive from the 5 million/35 million diferences), but also a 1/1000 per person!
You too mate, you too. I sincerely hope you get enough loin girding and rhetoric avoidance techniques to actually do this study you keep threatening us with. You aint getting any younger!
Really? Here's some basic Biology for you:Single-base substitutions are most apt to occur when DNA is being copied; for eukaryotes that means during S phase of the cell cycle.Now compare that to genetic differences between chimpanzees and humans:
No process is 100% accurate. Even the most highly skilled typist will introduce errors when copying a manuscript. So it is with DNA replication. Like a conscientious typist, the cell does proofread the accuracy of its copy. But, even so, errors slip through.
It has been estimated that in humans and other mammals, uncorrected errors (= mutations) occur at the rate of about 1 in every 50 million (5 x 10^7) nucleotides added to the chain. (Not bad — I wish that I could type so accurately.) But with 6 x 10^6 base pairs in a human cell, that mean that each new cell contains some 120 new mutations. Frequency of MutationsSakaki said their analysis found about 68,000 insertions or deletions. "That is almost one insertion/deletion every 470 bases," he said. In addition, a small proportion of genes showed a relatively higher rate of evolution than most other genes. "We haven't known what proportion of the genes shows adaptive evolution. This study shows it to be about 2 to 3%," he said. Chimps are not like humans (28 May 2004)So which is it, 1 in 50 million bases or 1 for every 470?
Whole-chromosome comparison reveals much greater genetic differences than expected
You too.Have a nice day
Mark
120 mutations per generation * 5 million years / 20 years per generation = 30,000,000 differences between chimps and humans if every single mutation were fixed.
Apparently, 0.2% of mutations were fixed, if the figures you quoted were accurate.
ETA: Shall we add this to the list of errors you're not admitting to, or are you going to be honest about this one?
You do realise that, especially in the autism case, your examples are talking about large-scale duplications and not point mutations? Besides, you are also talking about protein-coding genes, while your pet brain gene is an RNA gene.Now let's talk about what happens when highly conserved genes involved in neural functions change: [...examples...]
I don't want evolution to go away, or common descent. Creationism is radical evolution, I am just looking for the directly observed and demonstrated genetic mechanisms for adaptive evolution. You led me on to one the other day and you guys always do, you just have no clue what I'm actually doing here.
I'm studying two things, genetic mechanisms for adaptive evolution and TOE zealots. I am most interested in the former but if I'm ever going to study this formally I will need to know a lot about the latter and how to avoid their rhetorical traps.
You do realise that, especially in the autism case, your examples are talking about large-scale duplications and not point mutations? Besides, you are also talking about protein-coding genes, while your pet brain gene is an RNA gene.
Please come up with relevant examples.
And again, you have not shown that a mutation in such genes cannot be beneficial.
Counter evidence is often invited but never provided, the obvious reason is that it just does not happen.
Or the most obvious reason given the relatively rarity of beneficial mutations combined with the logistical difficulties in screening for such mutations means they just haven't been found yet.
Please dear, if you argue a point then it is you who must come up with relevant supporting examples. I'm not acting as if that's difficult, I'm acting as if you've not done your job.You act as if that is difficult:
And the mutations you quote are tandem repeat polymorphisms. Of 68 bases. Hardly a point mutation. Might be called a large indel but it's certainly not on the scale of the mutations in the brainy gene you were originally talking about.How about the PDYN gene? Diseases and Mutations in which this Gene is Involved include but are not limited to:
Epilepsy temporal lobe, Hyperalgesia, Epilepsy, Parkinson disease, Absence seizures and Schizophrenia
No, you have given examples of deleterious mutations (most of which were pretty large ones). If you could cite, say, a respectable enough review article or database thing or something that says there are no known beneficial mutations and provides some support other than a few genetic diseases I'd be more inclined not to dismiss your argument.What I have demonstrated repeatedly is the the only known affect of mutations on the development of the human brain is deleterious. Counter evidence is often invited but never provided, the obvious reason is that it just does not happen. What is being demonstrated is what would have had to happen for the human brain to evolve from that of apes.
We know what results from mutations in the gene. Diseases and disorders like; Epilepsy temporal lobe, Hyperalgesia, Epilepsy, Parkinson disease, Absence seizures and Schizophrenia.
Indeed, that's a good point. Challenge for those who aren't too lazy to dig through the literature: anyone has a few brain development-related polymorphisms where one version makes you brainier but the other doesn't make you retarded either? (Preferably the better version should also be the rarer so we can be more certain that it is indeed the novel mutation rather than the 'wild type')Or the most obvious reason given the relatively rarity of beneficial mutations combined with the logistical difficulties in screening for such mutations means they just haven't been found yet.
That does it LM, I'm really done playing with you.
This is what I said:
Let's try this one more time since you choose to be curt and condescending about all of this. When the known divergence goes from 1.33% to 5% doesn't that make the mutation rate well beyond what happens in reality?
Just one more time, what is the difference in human DNA when directly compared to that of the chimpanzee?
Please dear, if you argue a point then it is you who must come up with relevant supporting examples. I'm not acting as if that's difficult, I'm acting as if you've not done your job.
Ok, the infamous P53 sort-of fits. (Though it's still not an RNA gene, as you may have noticed...)
And the mutations you quote are tandem repeat polymorphisms. Of 68 bases. Hardly a point mutation. Might be called a large indel but it's certainly not on the scale of the mutations in the brainy gene you were originally talking about.
Besides, it's still not an RNA gene. (Which is perhaps the lesser of my peeves, but still, if you want to say something about an RNA gene then please support what you say with RNA gene examples if at all possible)
No, you have given examples of deleterious mutations (most of which were pretty large ones). If you could cite, say, a respectable enough review article or database thing or something that says there are no known beneficial mutations and provides some support other than a few genetic diseases I'd be more inclined not to dismiss your argument.
If you could cite, say, a respectable enough review article or database thing or something that says there are no known beneficial mutations
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?