Genetic basis for human evolution

[gluadys]

It wasn't for your benefit - it was a jab at me.

That is why I saw it as a backhanded compliment--although I don't think Mark intended it as such.

This is a Christian only forum. It should be assumed by all that we all subscribe to Christian theism. We shouldn't have to convince anybody.

Singling out one person in a group as "acceptable" is a jab, not only at you, but at all TEs (or whatever the group is). Even the person singled out.

 

[mark kennedy]

Now I really don't know how to take that. It is not as if I am unique you know.

It's just that I have known you longer. Don't take it wrong I did not mean it in a negative way. My problem is not with theistic evolution, it never has been.

Right.

That's a start.

No. It just shows you do not understand natural selection. That has been the key missing element in all your presentations.

I know that natural selection only acts on what is allready there. It does not produce changes on a nucleotide sequence level, it only preserves beneficial effects.

So let's try again. A mutation always occurs in a single cell (which may be a cell in a complex body).

I'm with you so far, we both realize that only germline mutations are inheritable as well.

It is a deleterious mutation. It has a deleterious effect on its carrier.

Yes, and natural selection does not like those.

What effect will it have on the species that organism belongs to? Why?

If it is deleterious then it will be harmfull obviously. It kind of depends on what the mutations effects directly. An SNP might do nothing at all but if it has an effect it could result in something like cancer or mental retardation. If there is a mutation then the aminio acids might not be able to translate into a protein like they are supposed to. It could be an enzyme or who knows how many other things that are not properly assembled as a result.

 

[mark kennedy]

Despite his claims to the contrary Mark is being thin skinned because I pointed out his goof in the OP. If he read closer I even said it wasn't that germane and I was being pedantic though I qualified by saying that making such a basic goof exhibited a disturbing inability to read technical info that would lead me to question conclusions drawn by that person.

I was just starting to like you and you go and post this. Ok, How many nucleotides diverge between chimpanzees and humans? Don't guess, there is a reliable scientific resource in the OP. Give that some thought and we can talk about this supposed goof you make so much bluster about.

 

[KerrMetric]

I was just starting to like you and you go and post this. Ok, How many nucleotides diverge between chimpanzees and humans? Don't guess, there is a reliable scientific resource in the OP. Give that some thought and we can talk about this supposed goof you make so much bluster about.

You goof was saying bytes for bases. You know this.

I tell you what - I have to eat dinner (I am starving) then I shall read the OP and post an actual analysis of it ok?

I'll do this without the wifes help since she's out wth friends anyway.

 

[Mallon]

Who would you have me read? Richard Dawkins, Charles Darwin, Ernst Mayr, Richard Leaky?

Try Gould, to start. Or Godfrey & Smith.

 

[mark kennedy]

You goof was saying bytes for bases. You know this.

I tell you what - I have to eat dinner (I am starving) then I shall read the OP and post an actual analysis of it ok?

I'll do this without the wifes help since she's out wth friends anyway.

Enjoy your meal and we can talk about this when you are full. Now, the problem seems to be whether or not Mbs translate into nucleotides. As far as I am concerned the jury is still out. I'm still waiting for the translation of nucleotides to megabytes or whatever sematical point that is to be made from this. The paper says 90 Mb, what does that translate into on a nucleotide sequence level KerrMetric?

 

[mark kennedy]

Try Gould, to start. Or Godfrey & Smith.

I have read Gould, what creationist hasn't. I don't know about the other two but I am sure they are comparable to the evolutionists I have read up till now. I have read enough of these people, I think its time they answered for the misinformation they have spread. The genetic divergance is far greater then any Darwinian predicted. They should have to account for this.

 

[KerrMetric]

OK Mark, I am reading the paper.

Please post a few lines as to your problems with it. I know you have said some things widely scattered but could you list them in a single post.

 

[mark kennedy]

OK Mark, I am reading the paper.

Please post a few lines as to your problems with it. I know you have said some things widely scattered but could you list them in a single post.

My problem is simpy this, there are too many differences to be accounted for by any known genetic mechanism. The paper says explicitily what the divergance is, there are 35 million nucleotides that diverge at an SNP level. Then there are indels that dwarf the SNPs by about a four fold level. I think this takes some very carefull thought to take in.

You are looking at the paper and that is a good thing. What are your thoughts KerrMetric?

 

[KerrMetric]

My problem is simpy this, there are too many differences to be accounted for by any known genetic mechanism. The paper says explicitily what the divergance is, there are 35 million nucleotides that diverge at an SNP level. Then there are indels that dwarf the SNPs by about a four fold level. I think this takes some very carefull thought to take in.

You are looking at the paper and that is a good thing. What are your thoughts KerrMetric?

I'll post a synopsis in reference to your comments later. I am reading this thoroughly not skimming. I have some life science background though I am a physicist by trade and I can always use the wife if needs be. Though mentioning this forum drives her crazy.

 

[mark kennedy]

I'll post a synopsis in reference to your comments later. I am reading this thoroughly not skimming. I have some life science background though I am a physicist by trade and I can always use the wife if needs be. Though mentioning this forum drives her crazy.

It's a difficult paper to get through so take your time. I really am not trying to invoke your wifes displeasure so lets just keep this between ourselves. But seriously, give the paper a look over and tell me what you think. I am just a creationist so it won't hurt you one bit to hazard an opinion.

Seriously, take a look at it and we can talk some more.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[KerrMetric]

It's a difficult paper to get through so take your time. I really am not trying to invoke your wifes displeasure so lets just keep this between ourselves. But seriously, give the paper a look over and tell me what you think. I am just a creationist so it won't hurt you one bit to hazard an opinion.

Seriously, take a look at it and we can talk some more.

Grace and peace,
Mark

If you think I have an abrasive and low opinion of Creatonists you should see her. As a life scientist she gets the brunt of the Creationist polemics more than I do.

Later.

(I will respond, I wont forget)

 

[Deamiter]

Gosh. You guys got on the subject for a few pages, and then started going on about some individual theology!

I'm going to clean this up heavily. I'll also write up a mod hat demanding that this stays at least SOMEWHAT on topic.

 

[mark kennedy]

Gosh. You guys got on the subject for a few pages, and then started going on about some individual theology!

I'm going to clean this up heavily. I'll also write up a mod hat demanding that this stays at least SOMEWHAT on topic.

This is a theology fourm Deamiter, you know that right. Sure we strayed from the main topic but there is a way back. Be a little patient, he is at least reading the paper. We may get back on topic in time, just don't judge us too quick while we try.

Give it some time, I just want to talk about this paper with him. It took all this time to get him to read it. His wife may actually get involved if we blow this, I don't think any of us want that to happen.

Rest assured that for the time being things are pretty civil.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[Deamiter]

This is a theology fourm Deamiter, you know that right. Sure we strayed from the main topic but there is a way back. Be a little patient, he is at least reading the paper. We may get back on topic in time, just don't judge us too quick while we try.

Give it some time, I just want to talk about this paper with him. It took all this time to get him to read it. His wife may actually get involved if we blow this, I don't think any of us want that to happen.

Rest assured that for the time being things are pretty civil.

Grace and peace,
Mark

Yes, this is a theology forum. But it is far off topic in Origins Theology to question another member's acceptance of the Nicene Creed. Further, when he acknowledged that he accepted the Nicene Creed, you felt it necessary to attack him for not questioning it.

I don't care who gets involved, who reads what etc... I DO care that you (and that's a plural you) stop going at each other and stay on topic. This thread is about biology -- particularly genetics and mutations.

That said, here's the promised mod hat:

*** MOD HAT ON ***

You will not continue to discuss other members' Christianity, their adherence to the Nicene Creed, or their views on other groups of Christians. This thread has a lot of promise. Keep it on topic! If you feel the urgent need to directly ascertain somebody else's Christianity do it via PM (or not at all if you want to violate rules by accusing others of not adhering to the Nicene Creed). If you wish to discuss the Christianity of TEs, or the definition of "Darwinism" etc... start a new thread.

*** MOD HAT OFF ***

 

[mark kennedy]

Yes, this is a theology forum. But it is far off topic in Origins Theology to question another member's acceptance of the Nicene Creed. Further, when he acknowledged that he accepted the Nicene Creed, you felt it necessary to attack him for not questioning it.

Maybe I got a little out of bounds but I wanted that assurance. I never once objected to someone questioning my beliefs and like you said, this is a theology forum. I did not mean to be rude or insinutate anything, I apologize if it came off that way.

I don't care who gets involved, who reads what etc... I DO care that you (and that's a plural you) stop going at each other and stay on topic. This thread is about biology -- particularly genetics and mutations.

I wouldn't have it any other way. Ok, here comes the warning:

That said, here's the promised mod hat:

*** MOD HAT ON ***

You will not continue to discuss other members' Christianity, their adherence to the Nicene Creed, or their views on other groups of Christians. This thread has a lot of promise. Keep it on topic! If you feel the urgent need to directly ascertain somebody else's Christianity do it via PM (or not at all if you want to violate rules by accusing others of not adhering to the Nicene Creed). If you wish to discuss the Christianity of TEs, or the definition of "Darwinism" etc... start a new thread.

*** MOD HAT OFF ***

Understood and greatly appreciated. I guess Darwinism is out of bounds in this thread. I seriously hope that means we can now talk about the nucleotide divergance between men and chimpanzees now.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[shernren]

This is simply evil. You guys added 5 pages to this thread while I was sleeping? Timezone difference is evil.

Will re-start interacting with this thread as necessary.

 

[Marshall Janzen]

Actually, I think there was another page or two, but it got seriously edited.

 

[mark kennedy]

After months of discussing this paper it occured to me I had not had the chance to discuss it with TEs, with one notable exception. This is a fascinating research project, I just wanted to give a quick overview of the paper. I do hope you guys will read it.

They compared 13,454 genes and found that 585 of them had a Ka/Ks ratio greater then 1. That means these genes would have been under postive selection, in other words they evolved rapidly. Some of the changes don't seem all of that dramatic, the genes seem highly conserved in most regions. The paper emphasises that the protein coding genes are very simular (29% identical in fact). That sure leaves a lot of changes to account for.

This is the largest comparision of genes ever attempted. Before it was only several dozen tops. Now they have the entire sequence and made 1 to 1 comparisions of functionally important genes. One thing has become clear to me as a result of learning about this research project. This is not as simply as evolutionists have been telling us.

It simply amazes me that evolutionists don't take more interest in it. This project was undertaken by 67 scientists at MIT, Harvard, Washington University in the U.S., and also researchers in Israel, Germany and Spain.

At any rate, I am looking forward to taking another look at this paper. These are the questions that are being asked. What makes us human? What is the genetic basis of human evolution? What genes were changed and what were the molecular mechanisms that fascilated the three fold expansion of the human brain in 2.5 million years?

 

[gluadys]

If it is deleterious then it will be harmfull obviously.

Now, remember I specified that it would be harmful to the individual organism, and I knew you were well versed in the harm it would do to the carrier of the mutation.

But my question was in reference to the species, not the individual.

You seem to assume that a deleterious mutation which harms an individual "will be harmful obviously" to the species of which the individual is one member.

And this is where your understanding of natural selection breaks down.

It is not at all obvious that a whole species is harmed if one member of the species is blind, or has a deformed spine or is sterile.

How does the affliction to the carrier of the deleterious mutation harm the species as a whole?

What is the role of natural selection in regard to this harmful effect on the carrier of the deleterious mutation?