Design and the Brain

[Blayz]

As far as genetics the divergence has grown from less then 1% to at least 5%. All tolled we are looking at something like 140 million base pairs in 5 million years. That is an average of 360 base pairs permanently fixed, per generation, for 5 million years.

Umm, lets see...
360 base pairs per generation
140 million base pairs

== 388888.9 generations.

over 5 million years gives a generation time of 128 years per generation.


So what have we learned?
MK's ancestral apes had a generation time of 128 years, compared to the current human value of ~20 years

and

MK's grasp of math is as solid as his grasp of evolution.

Lets try something a tad more realistic. A generation time of 20 years, and recognise that a diference of 140 million between 2 species is 70 million per species.

so a generation time of 20 over 5 million is 1 million generations.

70 million mutations over 1 million generations is 70/generation.

 

[Naraoia]

Evidence is irrelevant to an a priori assumption.

But the neutrality of most mutations isn't an a priori assumption.

I know well enough and a point mutation can. That is completely beside the point.

Weren't you talking about substitutions? Yes, point mutations can cause frameshifts - but substitutions are a specific subset of point mutations that can't. (I keep missing out the f from frameshift... is that Freud at work?)

 

[FishFace]

You haven't yet admitted that you were wrong about your number of 9 essential amino acids,(there are 8)

I actually didn't make the initial claim. But if you do a quick google for "essential amino acids" you will find that opinions differ on exactly how many there are. I see sources claiming 8, 9, and 10 essential ones. I wouldn't know, to be honest; the first source I looked when it first came around said there were 9, as did the original poster.

So, is it alright if I admit that opinion differ, and I was merely citing one of the opinions? Regardless, mark claimed there were 22 (clearly confusing "essential" AAs with the AAs of life.) when he also tries to imply he is an expert of some sort. I make no such claim.

Or are you trying to say that you don't make them? If so then I would never want to rely on your data, ever. Because human error is a huge part of scientific calculation. How many times have you done percent error calculations? If no, why not?

Well, the most recent percentage error calculation I had to do was for my chemistry coursework and the error was 1.27% to 3sf. As an example, the activation enthalpy for the reaction I was considering (The BZ oscillating reaction) I calculated to be 174 ± 2.21 kJ·mol[sup]-1[/sup]

However, my degree isn't in chemistry, it's in maths - and I don't do probability. So I no longer have to deal with percentage errors.

If you can't admit you make mistakes then you are a liar, its as simple as that.

True. So, when mark here repeatedly refuses to admit his mistakes, he is lying, no?

So right here, in this thread, fishface has a decision to make. Either admit that he makes mistakes(like the one I have caught just now) just like all people, and all scientists, or continue to run his hypocritical crusade against MK for no reason other than he wants to derail MK's point and personally defame him.

Could you please point out exactly where I claimed or implied that I am infallible? Nowhere, I hope. On the contrary, I make quite a few mistakes, I don't doubt. I'm not quite sure whether you can count this quarrel over the number of essential amino acids because we haven't defined precisely what we mean by "essential." So going by popular consensus on the definition we might opt for 9, with an error of 11% (haha!) In any event, I'm quite happy to accept that there are arguments for values other than 9.
But I don't think you can call my "crusade" against mark hypocritical. I don't ask him to stop pretending to be an expert on genetics and admit his mistakes, while not doing the same myself.
My aim is not to derail the thread and defame mark - my aim is to get mark to be honest. I can't see why you're defending the guy who, by your own argument is a liar!

Also a triplet codon codes for an amino acid, you can use the terms interchangeable depending upon what context you in. I can refer to a specific triplet as an amino acid because I know that is what it will create.

That's like saying that the letters "C" "A" and "T" are a furry mammal.

Even though the actual mRNA is not itself the amino acid I think that that is beside the point, and really looks more like an evil attempt to stray from the point rather than anything else.

A triplet codon is a sequence of 3 bases in the mRNA, NOT an amino acid. To say otherwise is... wrong.

The absurdity of capitalizing on such a point is reminicent of the French defenders discussing the airspeed velocity of an African swallow in Monty Python's sketch, it is not only beside the point, but it is tremendously rude and insanely irrelevant, it would be hilarious if it were a joke, but the fact that you seem to take yourself seriously, and that you mean to represent the open-minded nature of science delegates it to more of a tragic farce of contemporary internet evolutionists.

No. Mark tries to argue from his own authority, and rarely cites sources. He is also being dishonest by not admitting his mistakes - you must concede that; your argument runs to that conclusion. As I also pointed out, one of the fundamental mistakes mark isn't admitting to (that he claimed there must have been frameshift mutations in an RNA gene) is central to his argument.
So, my posts certainly have not been OT. Yours - well, I'm not so sure.

Here is a more accurate estimation of the number of essential amino acids, there are 8.

The first three google results for "essential amino acids" give the value as 9, 10 and 10, respectively. I am willing to accept that there may be 8, depending on what you regard as "essential."

So I guess fishface will make his admission now,or will he try to explain it away, or just ignore it?

Well, I've certainly not ignored it. I've also certainly made an admission, although I'm not sure it's the one you were hoping for.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

When I was saying substitutions I was not characterizing the nature of the mutations that would have had to occur.

So basically, you were misusing terminology.

Remove the a priori assumption of the single common ancestor and biology would not change.

Read up on phylogenetics and specifically the applications of phylogenetics. In particular, I'd love to see what you have to say about my thread on pharmacophylogenomics.

The common ancestor of chimpanzees and humans does not exist in the fossil record.

So? No common ancestors probably exist in the fossil record. This is by virtue of the fact that fossils represent an incredibly tiny subset of the total life history on Earth, thus the probability of a defacto common ancestral fossil is virtually nil.

But that's missing the point. What the fossil record does show is patterns; specificially, it shows patterns of change in biological forms over time. Heck, even Kurt Wise admits this (read the 2nd paragraph on that page). We can infer that a common ancestor existed, even if we don't have a specific record of it.

It's the same as inferring that you had a great-great-great-great-great grandfather, even if I have no idea who it is.

As far as genetics the divergence has grown from less then 1% to at least 5%. All tolled we are looking at something like 140 million base pairs in 5 million years. That is an average of 360 base pairs permanently fixed, per generation, for 5 million years.

Yeah, but again, that's from counting indels which are a whole different class of mutations compared to point mutations.

Blayz appears to have already addressed the math.

Worldwide humans number in the billions and still only diverge by less then 1% of our DNA. We are the only African primate that has not speciated.

So?

I'm going to take either a Genetics of Molecular Biology class.

A good idea.

Specifically I am opposed to the metaphysics of Darwinism.

You appear to be opposed to a lot of things, primarily methodological naturalism and common ancestry (specifically human/chimp ancestry).

Think about it a second, how many creatures do you think Noah could have had on that Ark?

None.

 

[Naraoia]

So you think that most mutations are involved in evolution? What a bizarre religion you have. Too bad it has nothing to do with reality.

*cough cough* Evolution = change, right? If two populations diverge because they are isolated and fix different neutral mutations up to the point where they are no longer reproductively compatible, they are two species all the same. Which is not to say that selection doesn't have a very important role in evolution (especially in major changes; I don't think any of those could really be neutral), but neither is genetic drift a factor to be ignored, especially in small populations. A new neutral allele has 1/2N (=the initial frequency of the allele) chance to be fixed in a sexually reproducing population, where N is the effective population size (those that actually form a breeding community). That's not that much, but given enough time and enough of these neutral changes, some of them will eventually contribute to divergence.

really? so are chemists disingenious when they predict compounds?

Chemistry at the bonding level, as far as I can tell, is much more predictable than evolution at the molecular level.

If you could even give me an overview it would be nice. What sorts of mutations would you expect in horse evolution? Or maybe you coulod just relate what sorts of changes would be needed to change the bone structure of a foot?

I'm sure that would be homeotic mutations. If only I knew in detail how limb development is regulated, but I only know some very basic things. I think the HoxD cluster is involved in the formation of hands and feet, and Hox genes activate the sonic hedgehog gene, which specifies the anterior-posterior limb axis (hope I remember that well...), that is, tells you which side of the limb bud the thumb goes. And there's a whole lot of other regulatory genes involved, but as I've said I really don't know the details. Will probably learn them soon because I'm getting interested in exactly this sort of thing.

Now, when and where each of these regulatory genes are expressed determines which bones are present, when they start and stop growing etc. So I'm fairly certain it would be mutations in that huge regulatory cascade that change limb bone structure.

That should be easy enough, especially since you believe that evolution is science. I can predict chemical compounds based upon energy levels, shouldn't there be some natural law which allows us to predict which direction evolution proceeds in?
knowing precise detail of how something happens is what science is, and why evolution is not science.

That comparison is utter rubbish. While chemistry is the result of (as far as we now know) stochastic processes, the chemistry level seems to me deterministic enough to be predictable (to some extent). It's a bit similar with evolution. The molecular level where mutations occur isn't very predictable, except maybe on a statistical level, like, say, this particular allele is more likely to be lost than that other one, or this base is more likely to change into that base than into that other one.

However, I think, and mind you, that's just my thought, that evolution at the phenotypic level is somewhat predictable, given that there are selective pressures, these selective pressures won't change in an unpredictable way, and we know these selective pressures. For example, you might be fairly confident that if you keep a bunch of fruit flies in a completely dark environment where they can't and don't need to fly (because, say, all food and mating opportunity is provided them on the walls of their chamber, within easy reach) then sooner or later you will get a population of eyeless and wingless flies (or flies with vestigial eyes and wings).

 

[FishFace]

Hey mark, are you ready to admit your mistakes yet? Especially that you were wrong when you said the 18 mutations in the hARf1 gene would cause frameshift mutations?

 

[MrBoo]

Well, I've certainly not ignored it. I've also certainly made an admission, although I'm not sure it's the one you were hoping for.

Well I do think that you are fairly honest FishFace, as the result of your last post, and your eye for detail, and a lot of people here are honest, but there are a ton of people on this board who absolutely refuse to admit their mistakes, or even to admit that they just dont know. I myself admit to being hesitant to admit when I don't know something, but there is no excuse for not owning up to mistakes, otherwise how can anyone learn?

I actually didn't make the initial claim. But if you do a quick google for "essential amino acids" you will find that opinions differ on exactly how many there are. I see sources claiming 8, 9, and 10 essential ones. I wouldn't know, to be honest; the first source I looked when it first came around said there were 9, as did the original poster.

So, is it alright if I admit that opinion differ, and I was merely citing one of the opinions? Regardless, mark claimed there were 22 (clearly confusing "essential" AAs with the AAs of life.) when he also tries to imply he is an expert of some sort. I make no such claim.

I didnt see him as portraying himself as an expert because I think he is genuinely interested in researching and sharing his hypothesis(about accelerated evolution).

But sure opinions can differ, and they often do, but I would be very hesitant to state my opinion as a fact, especially if it disputed with evidence.

But as a side issue about amino acids, why do you suppose we only use these 20 building blocks?(the other two are not built into proteins). Why didn't life use other chemically similar molecules for its synthesis? Surely evoltuionary theory can tell us why...

Well, the most recent percentage error calculation I had to do was for my chemistry coursework and the error was 1.27% to 3sf. As an example, the activation enthalpy for the reaction I was considering (The BZ oscillating reaction) I calculated to be 174 ± 2.21 kJ·mol-1

However, my degree isn't in chemistry, it's in maths - and I don't do probability. So I no longer have to deal with percentage errors.

Well maybe your lab partner was a bumbling fool and we can blame him for the error? (jk)

math major! ok, well I will have to defer to your analysis if and when I put forth some calculations. Of course, creationists don't mistrust math at all, as a matter of fact we trust it completely as the basic, foundational language of all sciences. So the idea that creationists hate science is stupidity. Most of us love science, we only disagree with macro-evolution(common descent).

@Naraoia

No, they copulating don't.

It took me a second to get what you were saying here, what an interesting way to put things.

*cough cough* Evolution = change, right? If two populations diverge because they are isolated and fix different neutral mutations up to the point where they are no longer reproductively compatible, they are two species all the same. Which is not to say that selection doesn't have a very important role in evolution (especially in major changes; I don't think any of those could really be neutral), but neither is genetic drift a factor to be ignored, especially in small populations.

I don't disagree with any of this and Im sorry but I can't figure out how it relates to my assertion that most mutations are not going to help a species evolve. Maybe I am missing something, if so please remind me, I honestly cannot get the connection.

A new neutral allele has 1/2N (=the initial frequency of the allele) chance to be fixed in a sexually reproducing population, where N is the effective population size (those that actually form a breeding community). That's not that much, but given enough time and enough of these neutral changes, some of them will eventually contribute to divergence.

ok. So N is the initial frequency of an allele? Or N is the population size? You seem to have three factors here, but Im only seeing representation for two of them.

At any rate, from what I have read in population genetics, this seems to be incredibly oversimplified.

But please take the time and explain it to me as I am sure it has merit on its own.

really? so are chemists disingenious when they predict compounds? Chemistry at the bonding level, as far as I can tell, is much more predictable than evolution at the molecular level.

Well evolution at the molecular level is just the same chemicals as any other chemistry, except the reactions and bonding are much, much more complex. So in that sense you are right and I agree, but thats part of the reason that evolutionary theory is so far from being complete.

A good start in that direction would be the ability to create some basic life in the labratory. If we cannot even create the most basic lifeforms, chances are that we really dont know much about whats going on with evolution, and we are speculating more than anything else.

I'm sure that would be homeotic mutations. If only I knew in detail how limb development is regulated, but I only know some very basic things. I think the HoxD cluster is involved in the formation of hands and feet, and Hox genes activate the sonic hedgehog gene, which specifies the anterior-posterior limb axis (hope I remember that well...), that is, tells you which side of the limb bud the thumb goes. And there's a whole lot of other regulatory genes involved, but as I've said I really don't know the details. Will probably learn them soon because I'm getting interested in exactly this sort of thing.

Well Im pretty sure that homeotic mutations are not the answer because of things like symmetry, similarities, and organization of form.

What I mean to say is that body parts have dominant and subordinate ranking as well as various other relationships. Some body parts go together nicely and some are mutually exclusive. So the amount of possible combinations are limited to those which are harmonious with each other. Therefore we can even predict which way body plans could fit together.

‘Control genes like homeotic genes may be the target of mutations that would conceivably change phenotypes, but one must remember that, the more central one makes changes in a complex system, the more severe the peripheral consequences become. … Homeotic changes induced in Drosophila genes have led only to monstrosities, and most experimenters do not expect to see a bee arise from their Drosophila constructs.’ (Mini Review: Schwabe, C., 1994. Theoretical limitations of molecular phylogenetics and the evolution of relaxins. Comp. Biochem. Physiol.107B:167–177).(emphasis added)

From this I reason that change by such dramatic means would cease before it began. Evolution simply cannot occur because change beyond a certain limit would cause harmony among the parts of the periphery to be destroyed, function will fail, and the animal is no longer viable.

Of course this is a general statement, and I freely admit that there is a lot I dont know(even though I hate admitting that), but I only admit it to you because I look forward to what you guys might learn in the future as well to provide the proper repulsion force against my own ideas.

However, I think, and mind you, that's just my thought, that evolution at the phenotypic level is somewhat predictable, given that there are selective pressures, these selective pressures won't change in an unpredictable way, and we know these selective pressures. For example, you might be fairly confident that if you keep a bunch of fruit flies in a completely dark environment where they can't and don't need to fly (because, say, all food and mating opportunity is provided them on the walls of their chamber, within easy reach) then sooner or later you will get a population of eyeless and wingless flies (or flies with vestigial eyes and wings).

I also have my own opinions about the prediction of evolution based upon selective pressures that I would love to discuss another day for sure. Thanks for the reply.

 

[Naraoia]

Of course, creationists don't mistrust math at all, as a matter of fact we trust it completely as the basic, foundational language of all sciences. So the idea that creationists hate science is stupidity. Most of us love science, we only disagree with macro-evolution(common descent).

How does the second sentence follow from the first one?

@Naraoia
It took me a second to get what you were saying here, what an interesting way to put things.

Y'know I must be careful not to invoke Mod's Wrath in this shrine of learning

I don't disagree with any of this and Im sorry but I can't figure out how it relates to my assertion that most mutations are not going to help a species evolve. Maybe I am missing something, if so please remind me, I honestly cannot get the connection.

Neutral mutations + genetic drift contribute to evolution. That was the point. It seemed to me that you (was it you?) were implying that neutral change isn't evolution, but I might have been mistaken.

ok. So N is the initial frequency of an allele? Or N is the population size? You seem to have three factors here, but Im only seeing representation for two of them.

N is the effective population size. If these are diploid individuals then the initial frequency of any new mutation will be 1/2N because the mutant will get it from one of its parents, in whose germ line the mutation originated. Diploid individuals mean the total number of alleles is twice the number of individuals.

At any rate, from what I have read in population genetics, this seems to be incredibly oversimplified.

Maybe, but I've seen it repeated in the papers I had to read for my evolutionary biology essay recently

But please take the time and explain it to me as I am sure it has merit on its own.

I admit I've not worked through the maths of it. If you are interested, the reasoning (big, ugly, mathematical reasoning) is in Kimura's paper HERE (free full text)

Not going through the maths, I can sort of intuitively see (which is, of course, not rigorous understanding ) why, if you have two neutral alleles, only one of which will be fixed in the population, each allele has a chance equal to its frequency of being the winner. I compare it to throwing dice, you can only get one number, and the probability of getting that number is the frequency of that number on the faces of the die.

Note that this assumes random sampling of gametes (i.e. random mating), therefore it is indeed a simplified model of real populations.

Well evolution at the molecular level is just the same chemicals as any other chemistry, except the reactions and bonding are much, much more complex. So in that sense you are right and I agree, but thats part of the reason that evolutionary theory is so far from being complete.

A good start in that direction would be the ability to create some basic life in the labratory. If we cannot even create the most basic lifeforms, chances are that we really dont know much about whats going on with evolution, and we are speculating more than anything else.

Umm, that's abiogenesis, not evolution. I agree that the more we understand the molecular level the better, but you don't necessarily need to know every tiny interaction at the lowest level to have a good understanding of higher levels. You don't need to know the detailed structure and physics of a computer to understand high-level programming, and you don't need to know the detailed interactions at the molecular level to understand higher level phenomena of evolution. After all, Darwin inferred common descent and natural selection without knowing anything about genes.

Well Im pretty sure that homeotic mutations are not the answer because of things like symmetry, similarities, and organization of form.

What I mean to say is that body parts have dominant and subordinate ranking as well as various other relationships. Some body parts go together nicely and some are mutually exclusive. So the amount of possible combinations are limited to those which are harmonious with each other. Therefore we can even predict which way body plans could fit together.

Is this some sort of a scientific view? What would be harmonious parts and what would not? I assume that every organism that has ever been successful to any degree is built of such harmonious parts, right? But within the evolutionary constraints of common descent, you can find an immense variety of body plans, proportions and the like. Take Tanystropheus, take sauropods, take those huge-headed pterosaurs of the Cretaceous...

To sum it up, I don't understand what you mean by harmony.

From this I reason that change by such dramatic means would cease before it began. Evolution simply cannot occur because change beyond a certain limit would cause harmony among the parts of the periphery to be destroyed, function will fail, and the animal is no longer viable.

Again I'm not exactly sure what you mean, but it's true that big changes are more dangerous to fitness than small ones. However, that doesn't automatically make big changes impossible.

Of course this is a general statement, and I freely admit that there is a lot I dont know(even though I hate admitting that), but I only admit it to you because I look forward to what you guys might learn in the future as well to provide the proper repulsion force against my own ideas.

Well, I'm looking forward to learning more about this stuff, because at this point I'm on a kind of "well, this sort of mechanism looks like a good candidate but I don't know exactly how" kind of opinion about large-scale morphological change.

I also have my own opinions about the prediction of evolution based upon selective pressures that I would love to discuss another day for sure.

Please, please! Sounds like a good discussion.

Thanks for the reply.

Always welcome.

 

[FishFace]

Well I do think that you are fairly honest FishFace, as the result of your last post, and your eye for detail, and a lot of people here are honest, but there are a ton of people on this board who absolutely refuse to admit their mistakes, or even to admit that they just dont know.

Thanks. You should call them out on their mistakes, too, by the way. Although perhaps not in such a confrontational way

I didnt see him as portraying himself as an expert because I think he is genuinely interested in researching and sharing his hypothesis(about accelerated evolution).

In my experience, he has made such implications. As you know, he also makes claims about people's knowledge (or lack of it) which obviously need to be taken with a pinch of salt.

But as a side issue about amino acids, why do you suppose we only use these 20 building blocks?(the other two are not built into proteins). Why didn't life use other chemically similar molecules for its synthesis? Surely evoltuionary theory can tell us why...

Why did life use pentose sugars and not hexose as part of its genetic material? Why do we, however, use hexose sugars and not heptose sugars for energy transfer?
These things are pretty much random.

Well maybe your lab partner was a bumbling fool and we can blame him for the error? (jk)

It was actually an individual piece of coursework - it made up part of the final grade. Can't have bumbling partners messing up other people's grades!

math major!

Well, in the UK we don't really have "majors." My degree is Maths and Philosophy.

ok, well I will have to defer to your analysis if and when I put forth some calculations. Of course, creationists don't mistrust math at all, as a matter of fact we trust it completely as the basic, foundational language of all sciences. So the idea that creationists hate science is stupidity. Most of us love science, we only disagree with macro-evolution(common descent).

I'm sceptical. If that is the case, then where is all the creation science being produced by creationists? It only ever gets published in popular books, never in the scientific literature. Why? Because creation science doesn't follow scientific method. It starts with an assumption (your interpretation of the Bible is correct) and tries to find evidence for it, and discredit any other theory.
But the body of evidence is nonexistent. All creationists seem to turn out is the same misquotations, misrepresentations and so on. Why are creationists still incorrectly citing the mammoth to discredit C-14 dating, and things like this?

From this I reason that change by such dramatic means would cease before it began.

It certainly would. Dramatic change doesn't happen - flies don't give birth to bees.

Evolution simply cannot occur because change beyond a certain limit would cause harmony among the parts of the periphery to be destroyed, function will fail, and the animal is no longer viable.

What happens is that parts change gradually and then, once other parts are reliant on them, cannot change much more. You can't change an archway into a tower brick-by-brick without causing it to fall down. But you can go from a pile of bricks to either of those in small steps. (You have to build scaffolding too, but that happens in evolution, too.)

 

[Blayz]

A good start in that direction would be the ability to create some basic life in the labratory. If we cannot even create the most basic lifeforms, chances are that we really dont know much about whats going on with evolution, and we are speculating more than anything else.

If I don't know how a tennis ball is made I can still make prediction on how it will bounce on a particular surface. I don't need to know how something was made to investigate how it reacts/replicates/whatever.

Knowledge of abiogenesis is not a prerequisite for knowledge of evolution.

As for artificial life, it's 5-10 years away. Probably sooner knowing the way Craig Ventner works.

 

[mark kennedy]

So basically, you were misusing terminology.

No, I was talking about 18 substitutions but they are not really substitutions, they are just differences.

Read up on phylogenetics and specifically the applications of phylogenetics. In particular, I'd love to see what you have to say about my thread on pharmacophylogenomics.

I really don't know what this article was supposed to be saying to me as a creationist.

Ok, this is how they are doing it:

Establishing orthology. A common and often successful method for finding orthologues is to identify pairs of genes that constitute each others' highest-scoring BLAST hits between the species in question — in other words, based on straightforward sequence similarity.​

Great, what are these similarities telling us:

The occurrence of similar genes in corresponding positions within regions of conserved SYNTENY between species can add strong evidence for orthology, but still is not absolute proof; for instance, human and mouse major histocompatability complex (MHC) class I genes that are clearly not orthologues nevertheless occupy the same chromosomal framework​

So what's the point? Wait, the have an example:

However, phylogenetic reconstructions across a number of species can add an extra dimension of information, which is revealed by the topology of the tree and comparative histories of related genes. For example, a reconstruction of the CYP2A family of cytochrome P450 enzymes indicates that the rat liver isoform Cyp2a1 has diverged considerably from the human CYP2A6 and mouse Cyp2a4 ... rat enzyme metabolizes the substrate coumarin to an hepatotoxic epoxide, whereas the human and mouse enzymes act on the same substrate by way of a more innocuous hydroxylation​

This comparison is not really saying much to me about the usefulness of common ancestor a priori assumptions to make predictions:

Phylogenetic reconstructions need not be so dramatically divergent to be useful in the prediction of functional shifts. By examining ratios of NON-SYNONYMOUS to SYNONYMOUS nucleotide substitution rates one can estimate the nature and extent of evolutionary selection acting on a gene. Low ratios indicate a negative or purifying selection, typical of a gene whose function has remained stable over evolutionary time, whereas high ratios indicate positive or adaptive selection, quite possibly driven by a functional shift that proves advantageous​

Ok, so if there is a difference then it must have been the result of adaptive selection. I don't know what you are getting out of this but to each his own.

So? No common ancestors probably exist in the fossil record. This is by virtue of the fact that fossils represent an incredibly tiny subset of the total life history on Earth, thus the probability of a defacto common ancestral fossil is virtually nil.

The fossil record is clear on one point of interest, 2 mya our supposed ancestors had brains three times smaller then our own. Then suddenly the most highly conserved genes in our genome undergo a radical overhaul. So it doesn't matter to you that the fossil record is inconclusive and the genetic basis is unknown. Then you recommend I read this paper that comes to a conclusion I could have guessed at:

The suitability of targets is largely assessed through the intuition and experience of biologists and on the basis of membership in classes with proven track records as drug targets, which in turn often relates to such factors as subcellular localization. Beyond this, analyses are mostly ad hoc, and not based on general principles à la Lipinski.​

But that's missing the point. What the fossil record does show is patterns; specificially, it shows patterns of change in biological forms over time. Heck, even Kurt Wise admits this (read the 2nd paragraph on that page). We can infer that a common ancestor existed, even if we don't have a specific record of it.

Agreeing to a common ancestor for humans and apes is virtually unanimous. With no incredulity on my part this would not surprise me a bit given the animosity against opposing viewpoints.

It's the same as inferring that you had a great-great-great-great-great grandfather, even if I have no idea who it is.

It makes more sense to infer that my great...great grandfather was human.

Yeah, but again, that's from counting indels which are a whole different class of mutations compared to point mutations.

The actual details never occurred to me since I rarely get even a passing remark. I have been wondering though about the fact that the two regulatory genes while identical in length diverge by only their sequences.

Eighteen random substitutions and no indels?

You appear to be opposed to a lot of things, primarily methodological naturalism and common ancestry (specifically human/chimp ancestry).

Darwinism is methodological naturalism, Mendelian Genetics is not.

 

[Loudmouth]

No, I was talking about 18 substitutions but they are not really substitutions, they are just differences.

But they are not indels and they do not produce a frame shift for two reasons. First, the mRNA is never translated into protein. Second, the base count is the same.

Ok, so if there is a difference then it must have been the result of adaptive selection. I don't know what you are getting out of this but to each his own.

Adaptive selection is the only observed mechanism that fixes mutations within a population at rates higher than predicted by genetic drift.

The fossil record is clear on one point of interest, 2 mya our supposed ancestors had brains three times smaller then our own.

Do you mean 1/3 the size of modern humans?

Then suddenly the most highly conserved genes in our genome undergo a radical overhaul.

How did you determine that the conserved gene did not accrue mutations before, during, and after the expansion? In fact, you don't even know if this conserved gene is solely responsible for the larger brain, do you?

So it doesn't matter to you that the fossil record is inconclusive and the genetic basis is unknown.

How is the fossil record inconclusive? Why is the genetic basis for a larger brain a problem?

Agreeing to a common ancestor for humans and apes is virtually unanimous. With no incredulity on my part this would not surprise me a bit given the animosity against opposing viewpoints.

If opposing viewpoints had positive evidence to support their claims there wouldn't be animosity.

Darwinism is methodological naturalism, Mendelian Genetics is not.

Darwinism and Mendelian Genetics are both products of methodological naturalism.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

No, I was talking about 18 substitutions but they are not really substitutions, they are just differences.

Exactly, you are misusing terminology.

I really don't know what this article was supposed to be saying to me as a creationist.

In a nutshell, that common descent is being applied in ways to solve real-world problems. And in this case, improving drug discovery techniques in the pharmaceutical industry.

You don't think this is at least kind of important? Especially since you are basically railing against the very basis they are using (i.e. phylogenies based on evolutionary relationships between species).

The fossil record is clear on one point of interest, 2 mya our supposed ancestors had brains three times smaller then our own. Then suddenly the most highly conserved genes in our genome undergo a radical overhaul. So it doesn't matter to you that the fossil record is inconclusive and the genetic basis is unknown.

The fossil record shows a pattern of hominid development going back millions of years. That doesn't matter to you?

Agreeing to a common ancestor for humans and apes is virtually unanimous. With no incredulity on my part this would not surprise me a bit given the animosity against opposing viewpoints.

Because in a scientific context, opposing viewpoints make no sense.

You have a line of hominid fossils that show a pattern of progressive development combined with umpteen genetic markers suggesting common ancestry for primates and all of that is just one giant coincidence?

Really, what is the alternative?

It makes more sense to infer that my great...great grandfather was human.

Going back a handful of generations, sure. Going back a million... probably not so much.

Darwinism is methodological naturalism, Mendelian Genetics is not.

Of course Mendelian genetics relies on methodological naturalism. Unless you think there is something supernatural going on during reproduction... :o

 

[FishFace]

But they are not indels and they do not produce a frame shift for two reasons. First, the mRNA is never translated into protein. Second, the base count is the same.

I think the base count is different - mark didn't mean substitutions, he meant insertions.

 

[FishFace]

No, I was talking about 18 substitutions but they are not really substitutions, they are just differences.

In that case you are misusing terminology. Surely you know, being at least vaguely acquainted with science, that scientific terminology is supposed to be precise and any imprecision should be eliminated if possible. (Hence the Pluto thing.) Abusing terminology makes that precision worthless.

The fossil record is clear on one point of interest, 2 mya our supposed ancestors had brains three times smaller then our own. Then suddenly the most highly conserved genes in our genome undergo a radical overhaul. So it doesn't matter to you that the fossil record is inconclusive and the genetic basis is unknown.

Your argument is tautological - of course the sequences which underwent rapid change in the human lineage underwent rapid change.
Why should they not have changed rapidly? Because they were conserved before? Previous conservation does not logically necessitate future conservation, otherwise nothing would ever change.

As we've pointed out, a change in diet probably also allowed some of the increase in the rate of change.

Agreeing to a common ancestor for humans and apes is virtually unanimous. With no incredulity on my part this would not surprise me a bit given the animosity against opposing viewpoints.

It's virtually unanimous due to the evidence.

 

[Theogonia]

So basically if you give a species enough time, they are bound to become superior. If I leave my car in the snow for years, I do not think it will look like a better car in the spring.

Your car is not a living biological entity.

 

[RealityCheck]

What conditions provided the change at an amino acid sequence level?

Who said it happened because of a sudden external change?

This change may have occurred NUMEROUS times in proto-human offspring, but never provided an advantage to those offspring for survival - that is, nothing ever selected for them to have an advantage over those without it. In fact, it might have been a disadvantage at some time.

It's only when that X external factor changed that the amino acid change provided an advantage - now there's an environment where that change is crucial for survival. Those with it survive and expand, and those without die off rapidly.

That is how evolution and natural selection work.

Don't have a nice day.

 

[mark kennedy]

*sigh* Mr skim read does it again

Here we go again, the science wizard has to turn me into a toad.

For the Nth time Mark, its an RNA GENE. A gene which does not enode for protein. There are no amino acids changes because there is no translation because it's an RNA gene.

For the first and only time, I'll buy that because it's a regulatory gene it does not code for a protein. It might have been an interesting point had you not been so condescending about it.

By the way, RNA is translated into an amino acid sequence and then into a protein. You guys really think that creationists are stupid don't you?

2) Translation: The RNA sequence (mRNA) is converted into amino acid sequence corresponding to a protein.

During the transcription three types of RNA could be produced. All the three RNAs are involved in the translation process. The RNAs are

a) messenger RNA (mRNA)

b) transfer RNA (tRNA)

c) ribosomal RNA (rRNA)​

Mol Bio and Biotech

As to why its an accelerated region, I daresay that is a question the original authors of the paper you constantly cite are looking into.

No, the question of how it came about is never asked. It's an a priori assumption of a common ancestor that is all anyone needs anymore. No tough questions, just easy answers.

I'll tell you what those authors are NOT doing: They are not sitting back and exclaiming goddidit!!!

No, they are sitting around thinking goddidn't do it, anything else is unscientific.

In a few years they will have an answer, so get your goalpost moving machinery ready. You will be needing it.

I don't think so, they don't have an explanation for how the human brain could have evolved from that of an ape. I mean they have no clue as to the genetic basis so they basically lie about the genetic divergence. Then there is this army of scientists and their minions who conflate the actual science involved.

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?

I don't need to move anything, all I really need to do is read the scientific literature. The actual evidence is trying to tell us that we did not evolve from apes because it's impossible. What does the scientific community do about that, they conflate the evidence.

God did do it whether you want to admit it or not.

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. (Romans 1:18-23)
​

You got nothing or you would have came up with something from the paper. Instead you make this silly, pedantic rant and continue to trample the truth under foot.

Have a nice day
Mark

 

[mark kennedy]

Who said it happened because of a sudden external change?

Two million years ago the brain of our ancestors tripled in size. Homo habilis had a chimpanzee size brain, Homo erectus had a human size brain.

Yea, it was all of the sudden.

This change may have occurred NUMEROUS times in proto-human offspring, but never provided an advantage to those offspring for survival - that is, nothing ever selected for them to have an advantage over those without it. In fact, it might have been a disadvantage at some time.

So you assume that 18 substitutions magically created an advantage and *poof* the problem goes away.

It's only when that X external factor changed that the amino acid change provided an advantage - now there's an environment where that change is crucial for survival. Those with it survive and expand, and those without die off rapidly.

OK, but how did they get in there in the first place?

That is how evolution and natural selection work.

Baloney! Natural selection acts on a beneficial/deleterious effect, it is the cause of nothing.

You are assuming the affect without a cause.

Don't have a nice day.

Ok, don't have a nice day, see if I care.

 

[Blayz]

Here we go again, the science wizard has to turn me into a toad.

You did that all on your own.

By the way, RNA is translated into an amino acid sequence and then into a protein. You guys really think that creationists are stupid don't you?

Actually by and large yes, yes I do. Not you however. You I think are intelligent, which is why it is so frustrating watching you turn your intellect off.

Once more, with feeling. Its an RNA gene. It does not code for any amino acids, it doesn't get translated. The RNA folds and has its own enzymatic/metabolic activity purely based on its structure and completely independent of any translational mechanism.

Its an RNA gene. It doesn't code for anything. And by the way, your simplistic view of how translation wors, with its "all three types of RNA", might suit primary school kids, it is woefully inadequate in this discussion. Have a look at ncRNA, siRNA, miRNA, snoRNA some time, assuming you ever actually want to learn anything.

No, the question of how it came about is never asked. It's an a priori assumption of a common ancestor that is all anyone needs anymore. No tough questions, just easy answers.

Of course it is asked, you just want the answers RIGHT NOW. THe work is competely novel and only 1 year old. THis kind of research takes time.

No, they are sitting around thinking goddidn't do it, anything else is unscientific.

They are not sitting anywhere. Unlike you, they are productive members of society and good at their work. They are formulating hypotheses and designing experiments.

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?

No, no it does not.

I don't need to move anything, all I really need to do is read the scientific literature.

Do let me know if you ever do read it, rather than skimming to a sentence you like and stopping.

Have a nice day
Mark

You too