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.
Now we can talk about the particulars if you want to read the paper.
Hey, that's my gif! Get your own!
While I'm once-overing, why not start up a line of discussion?
So the chimpanzee ancestors are in natural history musuems marked Homo XXX.
And the fact that they're more humanlike than chimp-like means nothing? I see.
Not when you look at the cranial capacity.
It's based on my epistemology and genetics refutes Darwinism every single time.
Here is a chart of cranial capacity in fossil hominids over time, from 3.5 mya to present.
http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2006/09/fun_with_homini.html
The only worse thing in dealing with Mark's debate style than his misunderstandings (note where he referred to ERVs as mutations earlier) is his myopia when it comes to looking at the evidence. To wit...
We have no idea how our chimpanzee cousins are doing during this time. We do know that they are getting inundated with ERV germline mutations but that's about it.
If you want to understand the paper, however, you would be well advised to skip Mark's exposition. (If there really is a question about the chimpanzee genome paper, ask me instead -- I'm one of the authors.)If your interested in an exposition of the text let me know, I'll be happy to post or PM one.
If you want to understand the paper, however, you would be well advised to skip Mark's exposition. (If there really is a question about the chimpanzee genome paper, ask me instead -- I'm one of the authors.)
What do you mean only one outcome? Changes in the genes can result in dramatically different outcomes influencing both the size and operation of the brain.By the way, does anyone know what the only known effect of a mutations in a gene involved in neural systems is? The answer should not surprise you but I doubt anyone will admit the difficulties it raises for this common ancestry myth.
I have a question. Is Mark's take on your paper entirely based upon misconceptions? If so, I think I'll take my leave from the thread.If you want to understand the paper, however, you would be well advised to skip Mark's exposition. (If there really is a question about the chimpanzee genome paper, ask me instead -- I'm one of the authors.)
One of the paper's Mark likes so much stated that ERVs are all but extinct in the human lineage. I'm at work right now so don't have the exact paper, but what it meant was that HERVs are all but extinct now and for some time in the past. Mark apparantly thinks this means there aren't any HERVs in the human genome.Um? What? I'm not sure what you're saying here. There are thousands of HERVs in the human genome. HERV-K is a family of ERVs that is present in both human and chimpanzee.
Individual ERVs are not introduced by mutation slowly over time. They are knocked out reverse-transcribed viral RNA that infected a germ cell. This happens in a single generation.
Both are correct. They just measured different things. The 98% figure measured the difference when purely looking at base changes, but did not take into account indels. The 95% figure is including indels.I'm guessing they used different criteria for each figure, but go on.
Great! Now just show that the 95% figure is correct while the 98% one is not, and you've got a case.
UScognito said:The only worse thing in dealing with Mark's debate style than his misunderstandings (note where he referred to ERVs as mutations earlier) is his myopia when it comes to looking at the evidence. To wit...
Mark Kennedy said:So the chimpanzee ancestors are in natural history museums marked Homo XXX.
Cranial capacity isn't the only factor in determining how fossils are classified. As was noted earlier (sorry, I forget who pointed this out) Hominids are bipedal and and the telling characteristic for bipedalism is the location of the Foramen Magnum. All hominid fossils where we have the Foramen Magnum present (even partially) it's location is consistent with bipedalism and thus the fossils cannot be Pan.
It gets even worse for the Creationist claim that some of these fossils are chimps because even Australipithecene fossils like Taung Child have, you guessed it, a Foramen Magnum consistent with bipedalism. The question of which came first big brain or bipedalism was what allowed the Piltdown hoax to be successful. Taung put the nail in the coffin of brain first in the 1920s and every discovery since has been consistent with bipedalism first, then enlarged cranial capacity, then more human (H. sapiens) in appearance over time.
One of Mark's finest examples of myopia when it comes to the fossils though is Turkana boy. Here he trots out his cranial capacity mantra and claims that a 910cc brain is well withing "normal human limits" (it's not) and completely ignores the other facts to assert he was a normal modern human. The other facts are that he was about 12 years old, about 5 1/2 ft. tall, had cranial capacity of 880 cc, which is that of a 3 year old, and had a jaw 3 times more massive than modern humans.
Somehow though his projected adult cranial capacity makes him, in Mark's mind, a "normal" modern human.
Notice the ERVs are mentioned but the point I made concerning them is not addressed. The Chimpanzee genome has 235 lineage specific ERV Class 1 insertions > 1 Mb while the human genome has 5 that are 8 kb.
I often have difficulty understanding what Mark's intended point is, so there is no guarantee that I'm responding to the right thing -- but I'll try anyway. The basic facts that Mark reports are correct: human and chimpanzee genomes differ by a little more than 1% if you count only single-base differences, but by about 5% if you include insertions and deletions (i.e. genetic material that is present in one species but not in the other. There's also a substantial amount of sequence that is inverted between the two species (i.e. it's the same DNA, more or less, but it has been flipped around in one species relative to the other). Mark's point seems to be that these differences are much too large for them to be the result of accumulated random mutations since the two species separated.I have a question. Is Mark's take on your paper entirely based upon misconceptions? If so, I think I'll take my leave from the thread.
Edit: In either case, I'd like to hear your version of things. Given that you presumably don't share Mark's belief that chimps and humans are unrelated, and that you seem to have glimpsed Mark's arguments before, why are his perceived differences between the two species insufficient in casting doubt upon current theory?
Mark's point seems to be that these differences are much too large for them to be the result of accumulated random mutations since the two species separated.
Why exactly Mark thinks that is the case I've never been able to tell.
Why exactly Mark thinks that is the case I've never been able to tell. For single-base differences we have a pretty good estimate of the mutation rate based just on new mutations in humans, and it matches the observed single-base differences between humans and chimps very well (see here for details). So single-base differences are as expected.
The insertion/deletion differences were larger than expected, but the expectation didn't actually have a good basis: there was no good estimate of the insertion/deletion mutation rate prior to the first large-scale chimpanzee sequencing, and no one really knew what to expect. In the last several years (starting in ~2004), it has in fact become clear that large insertions and deletions are much more common in the human population than previously believed. So work within the human population and comparisons of humans with chimpanzees both indicate that insertion/deletion variation is common and sometimes involves large amounts of sequence, meaning there is good qualitative agreement between the two approaches. Detailed quantitative comparisons are not yet possible, since human insertion/deletion variation is still too poorly understood for that.
I once asked him how many base-pair differences were too many for us to have
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?