Examples

[whois]

The current standard is being compiled by the HapMap project:
http://hapmap.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/

You can input a gene and look at the alleles they have found for that gene, the percentage of their test populations that have that allele, and so forth. I don't know if this will work, but here is a copied url for a search I did for the human mmp13 gene. Included on the page are the SNPs (single nucleotide polymorphisms) and the frequency of those SNPs in the populations they looked at.

http://hapmap.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/cgi-perl/gbrowse/hapmap28_B36/#search



This seems to be a simple list of some of the more important equations used in population genetics:

http://www.radford.edu/~rsheehy/Gen_flash/ABLE_Workshop/Popgen_Equations.pdf

Here is another reference:

http://www.nyu.edu/projects/fitch/courses/evolution/html/genetic_drift.html

If you have estimates for the mutation rate and effective population sizes you can make predict how much divergence there should be between two species over a certain amount of time.

ah, okay, thanks for the links.
but there seems to be a problem.
these do not model a bacteria becoming a human, or a tree, or a cat.
i'm quite confident that you can model populations, such as a group of humanoids, or a group of canines.
but these aren't phylogenic changes.
i don't think the above equations model the major transitions maynard smith speaks about.
this is what i really want.

 

[Loudmouth]

ah, okay, thanks for the links.
but there seems to be a problem.
these do not model a bacteria becoming a human, or a tree, or a cat.

That isn't what you asked for. You asked for a standard for the human genome.

The equations I gave you for population genetics are the ones we use to model evolution at the molecular level.

i'm quite confident that you can model populations, such as a group of humanoids, or a group of canines.
but these aren't phylogenic changes.
i don't think the above equations model the major transitions maynard smith speaks about.
this is what i really want.

Can you show where Smith demonstrated that the genetic differences between humans and chimps were incapable of explaining the difference in intelligence between the two species?

Added in edit: In reading "The Major Evolutionary Transitions", it appears to me that Smith argues strongly for a genetic component to the evolution of both human intelligence and human language.
http://joelvelasco.net/teaching/167win10/szathmary and maynard smith 95-major evo transitions.pdf

Added in further edit: In interesting quote from an essay written by John Maynard Smith:

"The human mind is another example of a crane. It evolved by natural selection, without need for an intelligent designer. Once evolved, however, it provides a medium in which a new kind of evolution by natural selection can occur, involving a new kind of replicator, the meme."
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/1995/nov/30/genes-memes-minds/

Smith appears to like Dawkins' idea of the meme, which is further supported by this quote:

"The second is the gene’s-eye view of evolution pioneered by G.C. Williams and Richard Dawkins. According to this view, evolution is a necessary consequence of the existence of replicating entities; in biology, those entities are genes, but the principle holds for any kind of replicators. I have thought for some time that Dawkins and Williams have made a more fruitful contribution to philosophy than most philosophers, and I am pleased to see this opinion so generously recognized."

 

[Not_By_Chance]

‘You are to keep My statutes. You shall not breed together two kinds of your cattle; you shall not sow your field with two kinds of seed, nor wear a garment upon you of two kinds of material mixed together.' Lev 19:19

The NIV translates your quoted verses as, "Lev 19:19 "'Keep my decrees. "'Do not mate different kinds of animals. "'Do not plant your field with two kinds of seed. "'Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" This is very different to what you are trying to imply by your quote.

As to the figures you quoted, what do they really mean? Look at these other examples from the same website...

Will you admit that both of your statements are falsehoods, and pledge to stop repeating falsehoods?

The biggest lie of all is the so-called theory of evolution being presented as fact, when it is nothing of the kind. You may believe it if you want to, but that's your choice.

 

[Loudmouth]

The biggest lie of all is the so-called theory of evolution being presented as fact, when it is nothing of the kind. You may believe it if you want to, but that's your choice.

Where is it presented as fact instead of theory?

 

[whois]

The biggest lie of all is the so-called theory of evolution being presented as fact, when it is nothing of the kind. You may believe it if you want to, but that's your choice.

i tend to agree.
there really isn't any hard evidence for it.
no one has demonstrated that a man can come from a pile of atoms.
if we give evolution the head start of a single living cell, it's still the same.

as far as "facts" go, you need to be aware that science isn't some kind rigorous mathematical discipline.
1+1=2 was true 10 billion years ago, and it will be true 10 billion years from now.
this just isn't so with science, what is true today can be the biggest lie you ever heard tomorrow.

 

[Loudmouth]

i tend to agree.
there really isn't any hard evidence for it.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

no one has demonstrated that a man can come from a pile of atoms.

No one is claiming that man did come from a pile of atoms, at least no scientist. It is the creationists who make this claim. Scientists say that man came from an earlier species of primate, not a pile of atoms.

as far as "facts" go, you need to be aware that science isn't some kind rigorous mathematical discipline.

It is.

"The degree to which a given phylogeny displays a unique, well-supported, objective nested hierarchy can be rigorously quantified. Several different statistical tests have been developed for determining whether a phylogeny has a subjective or objective nested hierarchy, or whether a given nested hierarchy could have been generated by a chance process instead of a genealogical process (Swofford 1996, p. 504). These tests measure the degree of "cladistic hierarchical structure" (also known as the "phylogenetic signal") in a phylogeny, and phylogenies based upon true genealogical processes give high values of hierarchical structure, whereas subjective phylogenies that have only apparent hierarchical structure (like a phylogeny of cars, for example) give low values (Archie 1989; Faith and Cranston 1991; Farris 1989; Felsenstein 1985; Hillis 1991; Hillis and Huelsenbeck 1992; Huelsenbeck et al. 2001; Klassen et al. 1991)."
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#nested_hierarchy

this just isn't so with science, what is true today can be the biggest lie you ever heard tomorrow.

Do you know how such statements look when the rest of your post is full of misrepresentations? You have a serious case of psychological projection.