Does evolution have a chance?

[Edx]

Why the denials from evolutionists that these people existed?

Oh yes, because it was Creationists that discovered those things, wasnt it? "Evolutionists" havent denied anything of the sort, all Creationists have done is twist this information.

Don't you find it interesting that some book written thousands of years ago agrees with the latest science? (The Babylonian redactors were just lucky I guess.)

Except it doesnt agree with science.

 

[h2whoa]

it's quite possible that not a single one of his other genes has an ancestor today.

-ahem- descendant

 

[MartinM]

-ahem- descendant

I'm almost positive that none of his genes have an ancestor today

 

[mark kennedy]

I find it ironic how evolutionists accept a single common ancestory for all life yet are so quick to reject a single common ancestory for humans.

Yes, that is ironic. What really baffles me is that they seem oblivious to the obvious differences between humans and apes.

 

[mark kennedy]

there clearly is in the case of the AIDs mutation


thats because you have no point, because you've never expained why the mutation rates are incapable of explaining this level of divergence - you haven't ever done the calculations

Yes I have done the calculations but you guys just ignore them. For 150 years the consensus in the scientific community has been that human beings descended from some kind of an ape. The most likely canidate would be the chimpanzee since we have more in common with them the any of the other animals. In September Natre magazine printed an article that compared the entire genome of human beings to that of the chimpanzee and described the differences in great detail. What they found was approximately 35 million SNPs and 5 million indels at a single-nucleotide sequence level. Now in order for these differences to occur there would have had to be 6.66 substitutions made anually for 6 million years.

39,999,999 in 6 million years.
6,666,666 in 1 million years.
666,666 in 100,000 years.
66,666 in 10,000 years.
6,666 in 1,000 years.
666 in 100 years.
6.66 per year, fixed genome wide, for 6 million years.

This simply does not happen in nature, see my signiture.

In the Initial Sequence of the Chimpanzee Genome Project they cite 'High Genomic Deleterious Mutation Rates in Hominids', published in Nature in 1999. In this article they proposed that there are 4.2 amino acid altering mutations per diploid per generation which they estimate to be about 20 years. They went on to say that 38% would be eliminated by natural selection leaving 1.6 new deleterious mutations. If you do the math then that is 8 mutations every 100 years and over a period of 6 million years it could only accoutn for 480,000 differences.

By the way, what kind of calculations are you offering here?

all you have, all you've ever had, is your own incredulity - and you expect it to convince others somehow
[/size][/color][/font]

All you do is contradict me, no matter what the subject matter and it is as amusing as it is pedantic.

Have a Nice Day
Mark

By the way, it is odd that no one ever bothered to check my sources and correct my calculations. There is a really good reason for this, they can't.

 

[Valkhorn]

Yes I have done the calculations but you guys just ignore them. For 150 years the consensus in the scientific community has been that human beings descended from some kind of an ape. The most likely canidate would be the chimpanzee since we have more in common with them the any of the other animals.

I don't feel like going over your math, but has it ever occurred to you that apes and humans today had a common ancestor back then that may have become extinct? The fossil evidence shows this (Austrolopithecine, Neadretals, Homo Erectus) so really your entire math becomes flawed since it is built on a faulty premise.

You will have to take into consideration now BRANCHES of evolution and common ancestry, since Evolution is not a single line.

Next?

 

[mark kennedy]

You miss the point. Three times the size (volume) and three times the mass is the SAME density, not three times the density as you demanded:

Let me make this clear for you since you obviously missed the whole point. The human brain is three times bigger then the chimpanzee's. This happened, supposedly, in a two and one half million year time frame. that is simply impossible.

is self-contradictory.

Baloney.

Have a nice day
Mark

 

[mark kennedy]

I don't feel like going over your math, but has it ever occurred to you that apes and humans today had a common ancestor back then that may have become extinct? The fossil evidence shows this (Austrolopithecine, Neadretals, Homo Erectus) so really your entire math becomes flawed since it is built on a faulty premise.

You will have to take into consideration now BRANCHES of evolution and common ancestry, since Evolution is not a single line.

Next?

I built it on the divergance that was directly observed and demonstrated scientific evidence. 40 million nucleotides diverge and the single common ancestor supposedly existed about 6 million years ago, how do you do the math?

Have a nice day
Mark

 

[ebia]

Let me make this clear for you since you obviously missed the whole point. The human brain is three times bigger then the chimpanzee's. This happened, supposedly, in a two and one half million year time frame. that is simply impossible.




Baloney.

Have a nice day
Mark

What don't you get? If something is three times the mass, and three times the volume, then density is the same. You claimed times the mass, three times the volume and three times the density. That is mathematically impossible for anything. If you made a mistake, admit to it. Otherwise your mathematical credentials are looking a bit suspect.

 

[yossarian]

Yes I have done the calculations but you guys just ignore them. For 150 years the consensus in the scientific community has been that human beings descended from some kind of an ape. The most likely canidate would be the chimpanzee since we have more in common with them the any of the other animals.

stunningly wrong
humans and chimpanzees share a common ancestor - like you and your cousin

6.66 per year, fixed genome wide, for 6 million years.

This simply does not happen in nature, see my signiture.

thats the calculation you haven't done - you haven't shown why 6.6 is too large a figure (you also haven't adequately defended the 6.6 figure - as you're assuming all the fixations are happening in only one lineage - which is silly)

also please show in detail the calculations for the 6.6 figure - if it includes indels then it is useless - because indels almost always affect more than one nucelotide per mutation

n the Initial Sequence of the Chimpanzee Genome Project they cite 'High Genomic Deleterious Mutation Rates in Hominids', published in Nature in 1999. In this article they proposed that there are 4.2 amino acid altering mutations per diploid per generation which they estimate to be about 20 years. They went on to say that 38% would be eliminated by natural selection leaving 1.6 new deleterious mutations. If you do the math then that is 8 mutations every 100 years and over a period of 6 million years it could only accoutn for 480,000 differences.

well that figure is
A) wrong (its based on a gene estimate that is too high)
B) irrelevant, because it refers only to amino acid altering substitutions, and the vast majority of the mutations referenced in the previous paper ARE NOT amino acid altering substitutions

All you do is contradict me, no matter what the subject matter and it is as amusing as it is pedantic.

its because you're so wrong, so often
and I would hate to think any lurkers were getting the impression that you actually knew what you were talking about

 

[Tomk80]

Let me make this clear for you since you obviously missed the whole point. The human brain is three times bigger then the chimpanzee's. This happened, supposedly, in a two and one half million year time frame. that is simply impossible.




Baloney.

Have a nice day
Mark

WOOOOOOSH, another point going wide over Mark's head.

Ebia wasn't talking about the possibility of the increase of the brain due to evolution in this statement Mark, and neither was Jet Black in the original one. He was talking about the mathematics of a volume. You can't have a volume increase 3 times in mass, volume and density. That is impossible, for any object of any size (including brains).

 

[mark kennedy]

WOOOOOOSH, another point going wide over Mark's head.

Ebia wasn't talking about the possibility of the increase of the brain due to evolution in this statement Mark, and neither was Jet Black in the original one. He was talking about the mathematics of a volume. You can't have a volume increase 3 times in mass, volume and density. That is impossible, for any object of any size (including brains).

There is not point to this odd rationalization, its baseless argumentation. I did catch one of my own errors, our brain is only about twice as dense. The human brain is would have had to triple in size and weight but the density wouldn't have had to increase as much.

"From cortical volume and cell density, we can calculate the number of cortical neurons (Table 1). It turns out that humans have the largest number of cortical neurons (about 1.2!1010) but are closely followed by large cetaceans and elephants. Although the human cortex is much smaller in surface area than that of these animals, it is twice as thick and has a much higher cell density."​

http://evo.bio.psu.edu/asp/SDG2005/Mark_Roth.pdf

When comparing size, weight and density they measure the brain weight, encephalization quotient and number of cortical neurons in selected mammals (see table one). The human brain averages from 1250 grams to 1450g. The chimpanzee is 430g to 570 grams. The human Encepalization Quotient of humans is 7.4-7.8 while the chimpanzee is 2.2-2.5. The number of cortical neutons in milions for humans is 11,500 compared to the chimpanzees which is 6,200.

Now, in order for us to have evolved from apes would require an exponential growth in size, weight and density. This point is based on credible scientific evidence not spuratic quips and pedantic satire. The human brain is not three times more dense, it is more like twice the density, so what?

Have a nice day
Mark

 

[Deamiter]

On the point of the math, shiouldn't the number be at MOST half of what you've cited? This is because chimpanzees and humans would have evolved in different populations. The mutation rate for either group would be half that of the groups added together.

Which puts it at 3.33 mutations per year.

As was pointed out in the last page, indels VERY RARELY affect only one amino acid. So the paper you cited to give the measured number of mutations per generation cannot be directly compared to the calculation of mutations per year at a single-nucleotide sequence level.

In short, you haven't shown a direct calculation comparing needed single nucleotide mutations vs. measured single nucleotide mutations. Further, your assumption that all the mutations would have to happen in one population when evolution clearly states that it would be in two at MINIMUM makes your calculation of needed mutations off by at LEAST a factor of two.

 

[mark kennedy]

On the point of the math, shiouldn't the number be at MOST half of what you've cited? This is because chimpanzees and humans would have evolved in different populations. The mutation rate for either group would be half that of the groups added together.

Which puts it at 3.33 mutations per year.

That is 6.66 mutations per year in their respective genomes and its unlikely that it is a 50-50 split. In other words the chimpanzee is probably very much like the MRCA while humans have changed dramatically.

As was pointed out in the last page, indels VERY RARELY affect only one amino acid. So the paper you cited to give the measured number of mutations per generation cannot be directly compared to the calculation of mutations per year at a single-nucleotide sequence level.

The amount of divergance was thought to be about 3.5 million bp. What they found when they actually look at this at a nucleotide seqeunce level is that it's more like 35 million SNPs and 5 million indels. Bear in mind this does not take into account differences from chromosomal rearrangements and transcript factors. I am making a point that the level of divergance is far higher then was predicted by the single common ancestor model and there is no way gradualism can account for this level of divergance.

Obviously there is not going to be an inheritable change in the genetic code made every year, that's too fantastic even for the most imaginative fiction. There is only one other alternative, mutations would be anywhere from 300bp to 1,000,000 bps long.

In short, you haven't shown a direct calculation comparing needed single nucleotide mutations vs. measured single nucleotide mutations. Further, your assumption that all the mutations would have to happen in one population when evolution clearly states that it would be in two at MINIMUM makes your calculation of needed mutations off by at LEAST a factor of two.

This was not meant to be a precise calculation, what it points out is the proportion of divergance. Some of the protein coding genes show huge differences that could only have resulted from gross structural alterations. We can assume that the chimpanzee has changed somewhat but not nearly as much as humans have. Some of the protein coding genes diverge by as much as 5% in genes like the FOX2 gene (related to higher cognitive function) being one of the more important ones. The real problem with all of this is what happens when this gene is altered due to a mutation, it causes brain tumors not adaptation.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[ebia]

There is not point to this odd rationalization, its baseless argumentation. I did catch one of my own errors, our brain is only about twice as dense. The human brain is would have had to triple in size and weight but the density wouldn't have had to increase as much.

"From cortical volume and cell density, we can calculate the number of cortical neurons (Table 1). It turns out that humans have the largest number of cortical neurons (about 1.2!1010) but are closely followed by large cetaceans and elephants. Although the human cortex is much smaller in surface area than that of these animals, it is twice as thick and has a much higher cell density."​

http://evo.bio.psu.edu/asp/SDG2005/Mark_Roth.pdf



When comparing size, weight and density they measure the brain weight, encephalization quotient and number of cortical neurons in selected mammals (see table one). The human brain averages from 1250 grams to 1450g. The chimpanzee is 430g to 570 grams. The human Encepalization Quotient of humans is 7.4-7.8 while the chimpanzee is 2.2-2.5. The number of cortical neutons in milions for humans is 11,500 compared to the chimpanzees which is 6,200.

Now, in order for us to have evolved from apes would require an exponential growth in size, weight and density. This point is based on credible scientific evidence not spuratic quips and pedantic satire. The human brain is not three times more dense, it is more like twice the density, so what?

Have a nice day
Mark

Ah. You were not talking about density, but cell density. If the volume triples and the mass triples, the density will not change (density is mass/volume, 3/3 =1). What you didn't tell us at all was that you weren't talking about density at all, but about cell density.

Oh, and I don't see any suggestion of an exponential change, unless there is something else you have omitted. Exponential does not mean very fast.

 

[yossarian]

In other words the chimpanzee is probably very much like the MRCA while humans have changed dramatically.

where is your justification for that assumption?
do you at least admit that the number is less than 6.6 because some of the differences are due to fixations in the chimp lineage?

The amount of divergance was thought to be about 3.5 million bp. What they found when they actually look at this at a nucleotide seqeunce level is that it's more like 35 million SNPs and 5 million indels. Bear in mind this does not take into account differences from chromosomal rearrangements and transcript factors. I am making a point that the level of divergance is far higher then was predicted by the single common ancestor model and there is no way gradualism can account for this level of divergance.

nonsense - can you find where anybody made an estimate of 3.5 million substitutions?

Obviously there is not going to be an inheritable change in the genetic code made every year, that's too fantastic even for the most imaginative fiction. There is only one other alternative, mutations would be anywhere from 300bp to 1,000,000 bps long.

why is that too fantastic mark - what is the current mutation rate per genome - and what is the rate of fixation for such mutations - do the maths

We can assume that the chimpanzee has changed somewhat but not nearly as much as humans have

why?

 

[mark kennedy]

Ah. You were not talking about density, but cell density. If the volume triples and the mass triples, the density will not change (density is mass/volume, 3/3 =1). What you didn't tell us at all was that you weren't talking about density at all, but about cell density.

Oh, and I don't see any suggestion of an exponential change, unless there is something else you have omitted. Exponential does not mean very fast.

I think I see what you are saying now, there are a lot more neurons but the brian isn't really getting more thick. Actually, parts of the brain are virtually identical to the apes but the frontal lobes and cerebellum are highly complex and vastly different. Did you know that the brain cell is one of the few, truely transposable cells in the body? Just for fun, could you name the others?

Have a nice day
Mark

 

[mark kennedy]

where is your justification for that assumption?
do you at least admit that the number is less than 6.6 because some of the differences are due to fixations in the chimp lineage?
[/size][/color][/font]
nonsense - can you find where anybody made an estimate of 3.5 million substitutions?

"The total number of amino acid changes in the human lineage was 147 for 26,199 codons (0.56%). The total number of amino acid changes in the human genome was, thus, estimated to be about 80,000....

...Nucleotide substitution difference between human and chimpanzee was estimated to be 1.23% based on 19-Mb BAC end sequence comparison (Fujiyama et al. 2002). This difference corresponds to 3.7 million bp for the whole genome under the assumption that the human and chimpanzee genomes are both approximately 3 billion nucleotides..."

http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/21/5/936​

why is that too fantastic mark - what is the current mutation rate per genome - and what is the rate of fixation for such mutations - do the maths

why?
[/size][/color][/font]

If I did the math you probably wouldn't even read it. The divergance between any two humans is 1/10 of one percent. The SNPs (about a million have been identified) that are that majority of these differences that have been directly observed result in genetic disorders like cancer and brain tumors. Changes like these do not get selected since they are inheritantly deleterious. We now know how many differences exist between chimpanzees and humans and when you cross reference that with paleontology you know how long they had to accomplish human evolution. The fixation of genetic mutations on the level required is a formula for mass extinction not adaptive evolution.

Have a nice day
Mark

 

[yossarian]

...Nucleotide substitution difference between human and chimpanzee was estimated to be 1.23% based on 19-Mb BAC end sequence comparison (Fujiyama et al. 2002). This difference corresponds to 3.7 million bp for the whole genome under the assumption that the human and chimpanzee genomes are both approximately 3 billion nucleotides..."

well i don't understand their maths at all

.0123 x 3 x 10^9 = 36900000
which is ~37 million, not 3.7 million

I think you've found an error in the paper mark

If I did the math you probably wouldn't even read it.

then you don't have an argument

The SNPs (about a million have been identified) that are that majority of these differences that have been directly observed result in genetic disorders like cancer and brain tumors.

most are neutral

The fixation of genetic mutations on the level required is a formula for mass extinction not adaptive evolution.

thats an assertion that wants evidence or some sort of argument mark - your say-so doesn't hold much weight

 

[mark kennedy]

well i don't understand their maths at all

.0123 x 3 x 10^9 = 36900000
which is ~37 million, not 3.7 million

I think you've found an error in the paper mark

You just kill me, I can't believe how easy you make this. The paper was peer reviewed and if there had been an error I doubt seriously it would have made it to publication. Maybe you would like to inform the authors of their error, I would love to see you try.

then you don't have an argument

The fact is that I have done the math and it's 6.6 per year for 6 million years.

most are neutral

Of course they are neutral, except the ones that cause tumors, cancer and other disease, did you have some kind of a point here.

thats an assertion that wants evidence or some sort of argument mark - your say-so doesn't hold much weight

That particular assertion is based on evidence and you have provided vitually none to support your arguments. It's fun though, poking holes in your baseless rationalizations. Its a little too much like fish in a bucket but there are so few evolutionists with a real interest in the genetic basis of human evolution I take what I can get.

Have a nice day
Mark