Gene Number Changes Between Humans and Chimps

[Hespera]

MK sez....
......... To agree with such a blatant error is to abandon all intellectual integrity. Now you can either correct the error in the statement in the OP and the one in Scientific American or you can stop with the pretense of my errors conflating the actual evidence. My experience with evolutionists has been that you will do neither.QVOTE///////////////////////////////////////////////


Hespera sez.....

So often we we see people projecting their own errors onto others!

We have MK here making (up) his statement that "Everytime and (sic) ape skull is dug up it is immediately celebrated as a human ancestor"

The fact that this is readily demonstrated to be false, on several levels, doesnt make a bit of difference. He didnt change it, wont change it, and wont admit that it is false.

Integrity, intellectual or otherwise?

 

[Naraoia]

He said the transcript errors are not mutations, if they are uncorrected then they are.

What do transcription errors have to do with mutations? I think I might have missed something??

Not exactly but you are close, my issue is how they occurred 2 million years ago, not over 2 million years. The thing is that the HAR1 gene did not change in 300 million years except for two substitutions, then suddenly there were 18.

Yes, and a very similar thing happened to OdsH in Drosophila. You could at least add it to your inventory now that it's been mentioned to you about a million times. Don't you see how it strengthens your argument?

(Or is accelerated evolution in conserved sequences only interesting when it happens in humans? )

 

[sfs]

He said the transcript errors are not mutations, if they are uncorrected then they are. In fact they are called transcript mutations sometimes and that was the point he could not refute or concede.

I missed this before.

Transcription errors are never corrected. Some people have called errors in transcripts (caused either by misreading during transcription or by later aberrant transcript editing) "transcript mutations", but they have nothing to do with the kind of mutations you talking about, which are heritable changes to DNA. Transcript errors (whether you call them mutations or not) do not affect the DNA, and are not inherited.

 

[mark kennedy]

I missed this before.

Transcription errors are never corrected. Some people have called errors in transcripts (caused either by misreading during transcription or by later aberrant transcript editing) "transcript mutations", but they have nothing to do with the kind of mutations you talking about, which are heritable changes to DNA. Transcript errors (whether you call them mutations or not) do not affect the DNA, and are not inherited.

The first thing a cell does before it starts to divide is it makes a copy of it's DNA. When this 'transcription' has errors it is weeded out in the cell cycle check points, and this is pretty basic stuff. Transcript errors have to be corrected or it's a mutation.

I never brought up inherited mutations and I don't really know why you did. An uncorrected transcript error is a mutation, plain and simple. You and your cohorts argued venomously to the contrary for no real reason only to be proven wrong. Now you are....I don't know....continuing this bizarre tangent but it's ok with me. I know why you do it.

 

[Split Rock]

The first thing a cell does before it starts to divide is it makes a copy of it's DNA. When this 'transcription' has errors it is weeded out in the cell cycle check points, and this is pretty basic stuff. Transcript errors have to be corrected or it's a mutation.

I never brought up inherited mutations and I don't really know why you did. An uncorrected transcript error is a mutation, plain and simple. You and your cohorts argued venomously to the contrary for no real reason only to be proven wrong. Now you are....I don't know....continuing this bizarre tangent but it's ok with me. I know why you do it.

Transcription uses a DNA template to produce mRNA. You are now refering to DNA Replication, not Transcription. Look it up, if you do not beleive us.

So you know why we corrrect your many mistakes, do you? Is it because correcting your mistakes constitutes yet another form of "ad hominen" attack?

Maybe you can explain one more time, why it is that human and chimp genomes are so similar rather than harp about 2% differences vs. 3 or 4% differences.

 

[Hespera]

split... so why do you bother to correct his mistakes? He already demonstrated that he cant / wont admit any error on his part, with that simple bit about the ape skulls.

It is as obvious as if he said 2 plus 2 is 5; it is wrong, but he will never admit it.

Why bother to go on to something complex like transcription when he has shown he will never concede on the simple obvious things?

 

[Split Rock]

split... so why do you bother to correct his mistakes? He already demonstrated that he cant / wont admit any error on his part, with that simple bit about the ape skulls.

It is as obvious as if he said 2 plus 2 is 5; it is wrong, but he will never admit it.

Why bother to go on to something complex like transcription when he has shown he will never concede on the simple obvious things?

I don't respond as often as I used to... but this is such a huge mistake, it requires correction. Let's see if MK will conceed a mistake this one time.

 

[sfs]

The first thing a cell does before it starts to divide is it makes a copy of it's DNA. When this 'transcription' has errors

You're still making the same error. DNA copying is not transcription. You really should stop digging.

 

[Hespera]

the more posts back and forth the more he can go elsewhere and say he argued a team of evolutionists for X pages and came away the winner.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

DNA Replication versus Transcription (complete with pretty pictures and videos!)

 

[Hespera]

Split... how does one make an internet bet? What odds would it take to make it worthwhile to bet that he would concede? Hundred to one?

 

[mark kennedy]

Transcription uses a DNA template to produce mRNA. You are now refering to DNA Replication, not Transcription. Look it up, if you do not beleive us.

What actually started this was a passing mention of transcription errors in a list of mutations. They go on for five pages with, absolutely no relevance to the actual topic, insisting transcription errors had nothing to do with it. My point was simply that an uncorrected transcript error was a mutation.

The point being made is contrived and all you are doing is joining in. My guess is your remarks are based on nothing more then a passing glance at a Wikipedia article.

So you know why we corrrect your many mistakes, do you? Is it because correcting your mistakes constitutes yet another form of "ad hominen" attack?

That is exactly what it is, you twist what I say to attack me personally. Creationists are not allowed any credibility and if they make a single point the conversation must be derailed using ad hominem (you miss spelled that by the way) fallacies. You have written these remarks so fast you didn't even bother to correct the spelling errors and it's that easy for evolutionists on here. All they have to do is shovel insults and ad hominem attacks and they have instant credibility, mostly because, the scientists who frequent this board have no intellectual integrity.

Maybe you can explain one more time, why it is that human and chimp genomes are so similar rather than harp about 2% differences vs. 3 or 4% differences.

Maybe you would like to explain why scientists lie about what the actual divergence is. I keep running into this in comparative genomics when it has been known for years that the divergence is much higher then the Darwinian propaganda has been saying.

What I love about genetics is that they can't hide the actual facts. With the fossil record they were able to hide the Piltdown fraud for nearly half a century, only to find that it wasn't even a cleaver hoax. Same thing with Homo habilis, these contrived tools they keep pointing to are not recognized by archeologists.

They lie to us and I get really tired of making the long trip through the data only to find the facts have been distorted. The only reason they can't fail is because of a willingness to exchange the truth of God for a lie.

Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. (Romans 1:25)​

This whole issue comes down to one simple fact, God is creator. With that simple assertion I find myself at odds with all of western science and academia that suppresses the truth and vilifies any belief in God as Creator and this contrived point is one example among thousands of getting the facts wrong.

Was the statement in Scientific American right or wrong?

If it's right then prove it and if it's wrong then why did none of these error correcting evolutionists confront the obvious error of the OP?

 

[mark kennedy]

Split... how does one make an internet bet? What odds would it take to make it worthwhile to bet that he would concede? Hundred to one?

What are the odds that the error correcting evolutionists will never admit the error of the OP and the statement made in Scientific American? About 3 billion to 1 I'll wager. You post constantly and while you don't make a single point based on actual scientific evidence your ad hominem attacks are unrelenting. Your encouraged by the fact that nothing you say is ever going to be an indictment on your credibility because all you have to do is insult creationists and you have instant credibility. The truth is your one of the minions and they relish your fallacious arguments because they don't want creationists to know that the evidence is on their side.

 

[Naraoia]

The first thing a cell does before it starts to divide is it makes a copy of it's DNA. When this 'transcription' has errors it is weeded out in the cell cycle check points, and this is pretty basic stuff. Transcript errors have to be corrected or it's a mutation.

Wow, that is a remarkable immunity to correction. Your quality check points aren't functioning very well, are they?

Once more, transcription is the synthesis of RNA from a DNA template. Copying DNA into DNA is called DNA replication. Yes, replication errors can make mutations, but transcription is still a different thing.

What actually started this was a passing mention of transcription errors in a list of mutations. They go on for five pages with, absolutely no relevance to the actual topic, insisting transcription errors had nothing to do with it. My point was simply that an uncorrected transcript error was a mutation.

Which it is not. And AFAIK, transcript errors are all uncorrected. RNA polymerases don't proofread, and incorrect transcripts either pass unnoticed or are destroyed.

I'd need to re-read some stuff to be sure, though.

The point being made is contrived and all you are doing is joining in. My guess is your remarks are based on nothing more then a passing glance at a Wikipedia article.

If memory serves, you are wrong about Split Rock by a few degrees

That is exactly what it is, you twist what I say to attack me personally.

How is pointing out that you mix up basic concepts of molecular biology a personal attack? Even if it weren't true, it only questioned your relevant knowledge.

Creationists are not allowed any credibility and if they make a single point the conversation must be derailed using ad hominem (you miss spelled that by the way) fallacies.

That's so ironic on more than one level.

With the fossil record they were able to hide the Piltdown fraud for nearly half a century, only to find that it wasn't even a cleaver hoax. Same thing with Homo habilis, these contrived tools they keep pointing to are not recognized by archeologists.

What contrived tools, now?

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Maybe you would like to explain why scientists lie about what the actual divergence is. I keep running into this in comparative genomics when it has been known for years that the divergence is much higher then the Darwinian propaganda has been saying.

Again with the accusations.

Let's assume for a second that this is all deliberate. That it is part of some sort of conspirary to hide the truth from the public.

Why?

Seriously, why?

Is Joe Public going to pick up a paper one day and read that we're only ~96% similar instead of 99% and say, "Oh snap! we're more different than I thought! My entire faith in evolution has just crumbled before my eyes!"

Really mark, the way you paint scientists I get the feeling you view them as Saturday morning cartoon villains.

But I'll challenge you again. If you're so hung up over this SciAm article, email the author and ask her why she said 99%.

 

[mark kennedy]

Again with the accusations.

Let's assume for a second that this is all deliberate. That it is part of some sort of conspirary to hide the truth from the public.

Why?

Seriously, why?

It's an attack of religion, leading Darwinians have be crystal clear that they are hostile to religion at large:

Skeptic: You also took a bit of flak for likening religion (I think specifically Catholicism) to a virus? Is that still your position?

Dawkins: Yes. I come to it through the analogy to computer viruses. We have two kinds of viruses that have a lot in common--namely real biological viruses and computer viruses. In both cases they are parasitic self-replicating codes which exploit the existence of machinery that was set up to copy and obey that kind of code. So I then ask the question, "What if there were a third kind of milieu in which a different kind of self-replicating code could become an effective parasite?" Human brains with their powerful communication systems seem to be a likely candidate. Then I ask, "What would it feel like if you were the victim of a mind virus?" Well, you would feel within yourself this deep conviction that seems to come from nowhere. It doesn't result from any evidence, but you have a total conviction that you know what's true about the world and the cosmos and life. You just know it and you're even prepared to kill people who disagree with you. You go around proselytizing and persuading other people to accept your view. The more you write down the features that such a mind virus would have, the more it starts to look like religion. I do think that the Roman Catholic religion is a disease of the mind which has a particular epidemiology similar to that of a virus.

Skeptic: But couldn't the Pope (or Evangelical Protestants for that matter), reply, "Look, we just have a terrific meme. It's winning what you would describe as a Darwinian battle and you're angry because you just don't like it."

Dawkins: Religion is a terrific meme. That's right. But that doesn't make it true and I care about what's true. Smallpox virus is a terrific virus. It does its job magnificently well. That doesn't mean that it's a good thing. It doesn't mean that I don't want to see it stamped out. Darwin's dangerous disciple​

Is Joe Public going to pick up a paper one day and read that we're only ~96% similar instead of 99% and say, "Oh snap! we're more different than I thought! My entire faith in evolution has just crumbled before my eyes!"

No, you will never give it another thought. You won't read the paper in Nature, you will just browse the Web Focus statement that we are 98% chimpanzee and leave it at that. While you guys are correcting me you might try correcting the OP and the statement in Scientific American since they are both wrong.

Really mark, the way you paint scientists I get the feeling you view them as Saturday morning cartoon villains.

They lie to us, just like our politicians lie to us about weapons of mass destruction. LBJ lied to us about the Token Bay incident and evolutionists lie to us about how much we are like chimpanzees.

But I'll challenge you again. If you're so hung up over this SciAm article, email the author and ask her why she said 99%.

She would just ignore it like the science editor for Time ignored my correction of the article that said the same thing. That's the thing about TOE, you can lie and get away with it because people prefer the lie.

 

[mark kennedy]

Wow, that is a remarkable immunity to correction. Your quality check points aren't functioning very well, are they?

You want to make so much bluster about my error, why don't you correct the one in the OP or the statement in Scientific American? Is there something wrong with your check points?

Once more, transcription is the synthesis of RNA from a DNA template. Copying DNA into DNA is called DNA replication. Yes, replication errors can make mutations, but transcription is still a different thing.

If the error is not corrected it's a mutation. A mutation is a failure of DNA repair pure and simple.

Which it is not. And AFAIK, transcript errors are all uncorrected. RNA polymerases don't proofread, and incorrect transcripts either pass unnoticed or are destroyed.

I'd need to re-read some stuff to be sure, though.

Not a bad semantic point but I think when you ignore the error of the OP with it's glaring misstatement only to harp on semantics with me it reveals this is nothing more then another ad hominem attack.

If memory serves, you are wrong about Split Rock by a few degrees

Um...well...I was wrong about Jet Black as well...oops.

How is pointing out that you mix up basic concepts of molecular biology a personal attack? Even if it weren't true, it only questioned your relevant knowledge.

If you are going to correct errors then correct the blatant error and then I'll be more receptive to the semantic one.

That's so ironic on more than one level.

No it's not, it's selective correction. Was the statement that we are 99% the same in our DNA right or wrong? If it was wrong then why are you not correcting that?

What contrived tools, now?

Don't worry about it, the thread is being derailed regardless of the tangents. Mostly because the scientists who haunt these boards want it derailed so it doesn't matter what we discuss, it's getting off topic no matter what else happens.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

It's an attack of religion, leading Darwinians have be crystal clear that they are hostile to religion at large:

And we're back to the conspiracy theory...

Y'know, I typed out two completely different replies but ended up deleting them both. I just have no idea how to respond anymore to someone who actually thinks the way you do. You might as well believe in the moon landing conspiracy or that 9/11 is a government plot. It's all completely ridiculous to me.

 

[Naraoia]

You want to make so much bluster about my error, why don't you correct the one in the OP or the statement in Scientific American? Is there something wrong with your check points?

Because whether it's right depends on context. Point to the post in this thread where I said that 99%, or 98%, or any number is the correct one without qualifications.

If the error is not corrected it's a mutation. A mutation is a failure of DNA repair pure and simple.

Yeah, and DNA repair doesn't often come into transcription. Pure and simple.

Not a bad semantic point but I think when you ignore the error of the OP with it's glaring misstatement only to harp on semantics with me it reveals this is nothing more then another ad hominem attack.

We didn't ignore "the error of the OP", if memory serves. We repeatedly told you that its status as an error depends on the context.

If you are going to correct errors then correct the blatant error and then I'll be more receptive to the semantic one.

This is not a semantic quibble. You are here acting like you're qualified to talk about genetics/genomics, and then you show a blatant misunderstanding of very basic concepts. It just doesn't give your argument a lot of weight.

No it's not, it's selective correction. Was the statement that we are 99% the same in our DNA right or wrong?

Depends on what you mean by DNA. I thought we've been there a few times.

If it was wrong then why are you not correcting that?

I distinctly recall myself saying that if you look at differences other than substitutions in homologous regions, including gene losses/gains and other indels, the difference can indeed be bigger than 1-2%. What more do you expect? To denounce those numbers completely? That would be as gross an oversimplification as saying they are always correct.

By the way, of all the science folks on this board, I'm surprised that you accuse me of not correcting friendly arguments. I think the others will testify that I do indeed point out errors on both sides.

In fact, IIRC, I pointed out my own error in underestimating generation times in one of your human evolution threads.

Don't worry about it, the thread is being derailed regardless of the tangents.

I'm sorry, not letting that one slip. What tools are you talking about? If you don't answer, I'll have to assume that your evidence doesn't exist.

Mostly because the scientists who haunt these boards want it derailed so it doesn't matter what we discuss, it's getting off topic no matter what else happens.

The scientists who haunt these boards. How poetic.

I'm afraid it's a universal feature of discussions to wander from the original topic. Especially when, as in this discussion, the original topic has been beaten to death multiple times. But if you have something new to say about it, by all means, do.

 

[SLP]

And we're back to the conspiracy theory...

Y'know, I typed out two completely different replies but ended up deleting them both. I just have no idea how to respond anymore to someone who actually thinks the way you do. You might as well believe in the moon landing conspiracy or that 9/11 is a government plot. It's all completely ridiculous to me.

It is weird with some of these folks. You can explain and explain and explain until you are blue in the face, and they just keep repeating the same things over and over as if no explanation had ever even been attempted.

It truly is maddening. It may evenbe on purpose, I think. You frustrate people sufficiently and they will 'act out' - then the Christianist can say 'Look! the evil atheist is unhinged!"